(07-06-2017 02:50 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 02:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  As always you are clueless to the reality of the people bull

Did I say anything that was incorrect John? And "of the people" give me a damn break... I grew up in a family of nine on the income of an autoworker. My "reality" is just fine, thanks...

Yeah you grew up...but in which decade?

Dolt

(07-06-2017 02:52 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I would argue that they were capital poor. Just because they have significant natural resources, it doesn't mean that they were utilizing them effectively when Nickie II was overthrown.

Miko, this statement:

Quote: it doesn't mean that they were utilizing them effectively when Nickie II was overthrown

Remember the original question though Miko, which makes the assumption that resources can determine if Communism fails or succeeds.

Quote:the countries did not have sufficient capital resources to make it work or did it fail because communism is inherently a bad system for producing capital

Just because you have the resources (and if you have the ability to obtain them), communism will not work in any way, shape or form over time without having some sort of adaptation (again, China will swear they're a Capitalistic-communistic system today. And I'd say they're more Capitalistic than Communistic any more.)

The only good Communist is a dead Communist, and some of them need to be dug up and hanged in public.

(07-06-2017 02:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 02:50 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 02:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  As always you are clueless to the reality of the people bull

Did I say anything that was incorrect John? And "of the people" give me a damn break... I grew up in a family of nine on the income of an autoworker. My "reality" is just fine, thanks...

Yeah you grew up...but in which decade?

Dolt

90's if you must know... And today I am a one income guy supporting a household of 6...

I am responsible for the well being of myself and five other people John, I work my tail off and give up a lot for them. I'm not rich by any measure and my wife and I sit around the table every week trying to figure out how to stretch our dollars.

For you to lecture me, about not "getting it" is the height of hilarity.

(07-06-2017 03:10 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 02:52 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I would argue that they were capital poor. Just because they have significant natural resources, it doesn't mean that they were utilizing them effectively when Nickie II was overthrown.

Miko, this statement:

Quote: it doesn't mean that they were utilizing them effectively when Nickie II was overthrown

Remember the original question though Miko, which makes the assumption that resources can determine if Communism fails or succeeds.

Quote:the countries did not have sufficient capital resources to make it work or did it fail because communism is inherently a bad system for producing capital

Just because you have the resources (and if you have the ability to obtain them), communism will not work in any way, shape or form over time without having some sort of adaptation (again, China will swear they're a Capitalistic-communistic system today. And I'd say they're more Capitalistic than Communistic any more.)

My point is that you really don't know. We have yet to see a communist revolution occur in a nation that had a well established industrial base with a high percentage of factory workers, i.e. a high level of capital to start. While I believe that communism is a bad system to grow/sustain good levels of economic growth (at the risk of conflating communism and socialism), you still don't know for sure if the lack of capital starting out was a problem or not. If the UK would have had the revolution in the early 1900s, we would know the answer to this question. Until then, you really cannot state for sure that it would always fail.

Having said all of that, I believe it is a bad system for governing any country and do would never wish to see this experiment carried out.

(07-06-2017 03:22 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 02:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 02:50 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 02:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  As always you are clueless to the reality of the people bull

Did I say anything that was incorrect John? And "of the people" give me a damn break... I grew up in a family of nine on the income of an autoworker. My "reality" is just fine, thanks...

Yeah you grew up...but in which decade?

Dolt

90's if you must know... And today I am a one income guy supporting a household of 6...

I am responsible for the well being of myself and five other people John, I work my tail off and give up a lot for them. I'm not rich by any measure and my wife and I sit around the table every week trying to figure out how to stretch our dollars.

For you to lecture me, about not "getting it" is the height of hilarity.

What year did you graduate?

(07-06-2017 03:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 03:22 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 02:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 02:50 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 02:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  As always you are clueless to the reality of the people bull

Did I say anything that was incorrect John? And "of the people" give me a damn break... I grew up in a family of nine on the income of an autoworker. My "reality" is just fine, thanks...

Yeah you grew up...but in which decade?

Dolt

90's if you must know... And today I am a one income guy supporting a household of 6...

I am responsible for the well being of myself and five other people John, I work my tail off and give up a lot for them. I'm not rich by any measure and my wife and I sit around the table every week trying to figure out how to stretch our dollars.

For you to lecture me, about not "getting it" is the height of hilarity.

What year did you graduate?

So to be clear, you can't refute anything I said, you basically just made up something saying "you need like three jobs just to live". Finally all you can do is try to pin me down as being "out of touch" because I'm a child of the 90's... K

So what year?

Communism is naive and doesn't work. Even the Chinese have moved away from pure communism and into capitalism. The anti capitalist and anti globalist that spout communist idiocy have lost their grip on reality.

(07-06-2017 03:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  So what year?

Makes no difference to a young-thinks-he-knows-it-all-millennial. No matter what year Bull tells you, you will simply try to use it to justify your belief that "times are different now". You can't refute what he said, you can't make any logical argument for your case so now it's time to attack the source.

(07-06-2017 01:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 01:05 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 12:59 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I think you are half correct. A key reason why the proponents of the "communism has failed everywhere it has been implemented" argument is flawed is because of this specific point.

I think you are wrong in that even if a strong economy such as the USA tried it, we would struggle with hostility from other first world countries as they don't want to see communism succeed and will do anything to undermine the economy of a communist USA. It should also be wise to note that many of the USSR's problems were blatantly self inflicted such as military spending based on capability rather than cost. "I want a sub capable of carrying 35 missiles" verse "I want a sub that costs $500 million how many missiles will that give me" which is why their military spending was so out of whack.

A capitalist system inspires innovation which is why it will always be a superior system to communism. However there are a select few industries that are simply incompatible with capitalism and should be socialist in nature. Plus wealth demographics that has a strong middle class without absolutely massive income gaps on the top 1% is clearly the most beneficial allocation of wealth.

That's why I believe a society that is overwhelmingly capitalist but with socialist elements to it is the most ideal system.

The real question is: Is a system where communism is done correctly superior to a system where capitalism is done incorrectly? Capitalism is by nature always trying to turn itself into an oligarchy. that is why citizens of a capitalist society must be vigilant and constantly on the lookout preventing the wealthy from turning the nation into an oligarchy and to keep the system in check. when oligarchy does take over it very well could end up being a society worse than a communist society. I believe Russians are actually poorer now than they were under the USSR for this very reason.

Lookey here. Johnny can actually compose an intelligent post.

And not one insult. Praise the Lord, he's been saved.

it's rich seeing you fault others for an inability to produce intelligent/non-insulting posts with a post that is nothing but an insult and contributes nothing to the conversation other than trying to piss me off. and you are doing so unprovoked I might add.

just goes to show how obtuse and dense you are. going around blaming others for something you are clearly guilty of doing yourself.

Ah, success.

(07-06-2017 04:03 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 03:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  So what year?

Makes no difference to a young-thinks-he-knows-it-all-millennial. No matter what year Bull tells you, you will simply try to use it to justify your belief that "times are different now". You can't refute what he said, you can't make any logical argument for your case so now it's time to attack the source.

Exactly... FTR it was this side of the millennium when I got my diploma. Depending on who you ask I am either one of the oldest Millennials or one of the youngest Xers

True Communism requires two things....Total control through the use of governmental force and violence and a populace that knows nothing but that paradigm and accepts it as benevolent. Everywhere it has been tried it fails because you simply can not control a populace that well for an extended period of time. Eventually...Freedom wins. Always has...Always will.

The only way I could see Communism working would be some technological leap that made labor unnecessary. Even then I would be skeptical it could be done.

(07-06-2017 01:14 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 11:38 AM)Dragonlair2.0 Wrote:  I have read accidental superpower and am halfway through absent superpower by Peter Zeihan.

Reading his books got me thinking about communism and where communism has been tried.

Most of the major communistic states have been in capital poor nations. (Capital doesn't necessarily mean money) Russia and China are both very capital poor countries.

The question I have is, did communism fail because the countries did not have sufficient capital resources to make it work or did it fail because communism is inherently a bad system for producing capital.

Another way to phrase this question is, if communism was tried is a capital rich country, say the USA, would it work?

One major flaw with this argument... Russia was definitely not capital poor.

Oil and mineral reserves definitely dispute that part of the argument.

Oil and mineral reserves that are mostly in Siberia, where is the winter it's a frozen hellhole and you have to drill through permafrost. During the summer it's a muddy nightmare. The oil may be under the ground but it's so hard to build the infrastructure to support the oil field that it is very capital intensive so the ROI is less than say the Permian basin.

Oil and minerals are one thing but food is another the IS has he largest portion of farmable land. Russia by comparison has a very small portion that is farmable. Most of it is in Ukraine(hence all the hostilities lately) in addition to a smaller relative farm land is transporting that food to population centers. There is only 1 river that can be used to transport food. Trucking food cost over eight times more than barging food. Again reducing the ROI on food stuffs.

This is my thinking and it's worth exactly two cents. I will not support a system where the government overlords get to drive $200,000 dollar car and live in a $600k home and as I understand it also has another home and keeps asking for more taxes.

If communism worked Russia would still be one. China would not have so many skyscrapers and Cuba would not be subjected to driving classic cars. If communism was so great the North Korean people wouldn't be starving either. People who want communism in the US aren't right in the head, it's that simple. Communism is all around them but they close their eyes to the hardship it creates. The poorest person in the US is richer than a high middle class person in any of those countries.

Communism sounds great in theory...It is a verifiable disaster in practice.

(07-06-2017 09:26 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Communism sounds great in theory...It is a verifiable disaster in practice.

Communism is a system that requires subjugation of the self for the betterment of the community. By definition it defines conformity as a virtue. It also assumes the betterment of the self detracts from and thus doesn't enhance the community. Nails get hammered down in a communist society, not elevated. It also requires people to act against their nature. Any system that tries to mold humanity to it's concepts and not its concepts to humanity is doomed to eventual failure. Many more current "isms" should be taking notes on this human phenomenon.