Upload
Login or register
Back to the content 'Communism' Leave a comment Refresh Comments (180)
[ 180 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
#177 - mysticpichu
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
I think of but one thing when I hear communism
#185 to #177 - xkronusx
Reply 0
(05/10/2013) [-]
WE WILL BURY THEM!
#173 - PubLandlord
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
Politics is too subjective to properly debate with people
#162 - therealsuperfag
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
people hear "obama" and "democracy" in the same sentence and they are all like

"obama bad"
"obama do tha democracy"
"dat mean democracy bad"


I do good?
#174 to #162 - anon
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
Democracy is a terrible system, and is also not actually implemented in the US.
#153 - gibroner
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
communism in a perfect world where everything works exactly like it's supposed to would be the ideal system however we don't live in that world so communism doesn't work
#128 - douthit
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
Communism bad. Free market anarchy better. Allow for communists to be communists without forcing everybody else to be.
#168 to #128 - blackandwhitegod
Reply -1
(05/09/2013) [-]
>> Free market

>> Anarchy

>> Not even the same thing.
#176 to #168 - douthit
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
Ever heard of anarcho-capitalism? Google it. Anarchy doesn't mean Occupy Wall Street, and free market doesn't mean corporatism.
#117 - tuckthisphit
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
be advised.
#89 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#92 to #89 - toastedspikes
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
I hope you don't think communism means having a totalitarian government, or imma cry hard.
#94 to #92 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#96 to #94 - toastedspikes
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
Oh I'd agree, not system of government is perfect at all. Even anarchist modes of organisation which are used in communism are susceptible to corruption. But my point would be that there's a big difference between having a system which easily allows for a small number of people to seize control, and a system which actively fights against and undermines hierarchal authority.
#115 to #96 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#118 to #115 - toastedspikes
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
Sorry, no, I'm not talking about physical, literal fighting but a system which discourages hierarchy. By that of course I mean anarchism. There's plenty of literature and practical existing systems that can explain it in more detail.

Anyway, anarchist militaries do and have existed (Black Army, Zapatistas, Spanish Civil War, etc.) and comprise of elected officers and commanders which are recallable by their subordinates.
#120 to #118 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#124 to #120 - toastedspikes
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
Anarchism is decentralised democracy, yes. Though it does not imply having a military government. Anarchist systems in the past and present do generally have an armed force, but this is necessary as they are literally islands in a sea of opposing interests. Chiapas, for example, would be a complete failure by now if it hadn't fought a war against the Mexican military. It's a misconception however, that the military is in full control.
#84 - Spikeydeath
Reply -4
(05/09/2013) [-]
Communism is flawed to hell tho
Humans want to be greedy its how it works
if we merged socialism with capitalism it'd be perfect
#93 to #84 - toastedspikes
Reply -1
(05/09/2013) [-]
Actually, science disagrees. People are much more susceptible to altruism than selfishness. We're social creatures. Besides, do you prefer a system which actively encourages greed?
#102 to #93 - Spikeydeath
Reply -2
(05/09/2013) [-]
I have read a lot of studies that a lot of humans want power and thats what ***** socialism
#104 to #102 - toastedspikes
Reply -1
(05/09/2013) [-]
Yes, but every one of these studies allow for an environment which encourages and accepts grabbing power.

I agree that this is what ****** up socialist states, they were much too susceptible to corruption. Different case to communism, though.
#88 to #84 - valeriya
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
But then it wouldn't be socialism, and for what happens when you merge them see China, sure it's an economic power in the making but the ideals of socialism have gone out the window.
#110 to #84 - tomthehippie
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
If you live in any western country, then you already have that.

Socialism is where the government (any form, a republic, a democracy, a constitutional monarchy, a junta, ect) uses public funds (taxes) to provide services to the public.

In other words, roads built with tax money. Public education, fire departments, police forces. These are ALL socialist.
#127 to #110 - toastedspikes
Reply -1
(05/09/2013) [-]
These are elements of socialism but do not define a socialist country.
#132 to #127 - tomthehippie
Reply -1
(05/09/2013) [-]
American (and most western countries) are Socialist Republics (or democracies, depending on the country).

Socialism has nothing to do with Communism. They are separate forms of government.
#134 to #132 - toastedspikes
Reply -1
(05/09/2013) [-]
I know they're separate. Christ, I'm a bloody commie, I should know.

You're even showing, with your own arguments, that most western countries are not socialist.
#138 to #134 - tomthehippie
Reply -1
(05/09/2013) [-]
You have given a definition of Socialism, that is actually the definition of communism.

I have given you the real definition of socialism. By that definition, MOST western nations ARE SOCIALIST.

Seriously, how retarded are you?
#140 to #138 - toastedspikes
Reply -1
(05/09/2013) [-]
Please stop using ad hominems, you're doing nobody a favour including yourself.

Again, socialism is a transitional state between capitalism and communism, and implies an economy which is predominantly either a command economy, nationalised, or communally owned. Capitalism implies an economy is predominantly privately owned. Note that communism implies statelessness, which socialism does not have.
#146 to #140 - tomthehippie
Reply -1
(05/09/2013) [-]
Socialism has nothing to do with Communism. Nothing.

And there has never been an actual Communist state, they have all been Stalinist.

Socialism=/=Communism=/=Stalinist.

Know your facts. Socialism (by definition), as I have stated before, is where the government uses public funds to build public works or provide public services.

There for, any form of government that takes taxes and uses them to build roads, provide public education, fire departments, ect, is socialist.

There are varying degrees of socialism, which CAN lead to the "welfare" state you seem to think ALL socialist states are.

This is false. Socialism can be anything from most governments (public roads, schools, ect) to what you seem to think ALL socialism is; the welfare state.

Seriously, try knowing just what the **** you are talking about. Because right now, you look like Happy Gilmore yelling at his teacher cause your momma said that alligators are mean because blah blah blah, and god forbid anyone doubts what your momma said.
#151 to #146 - toastedspikes
Reply -1
(05/09/2013) [-]
I'm curious to know what you base your analyses on. Because as far as I'm concerned, the definitions as used by the people who actually first coined the term, and developed the theory behind it, pretty much disagree with you. The USSR, along with some Warsaw Pact countries, are the only countries which used Stalinist systems. Other socialist countries had unique facets of ideology such as Maoism, Trotskyism, Titoism and Leninism. Again, we can continue having this semantic argument, but all I'll say is that it's an arbitrary definition versus a definition as defined by the philosophers who coined and developed it.
#70 - archiehicox
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
I feel strangely proud of the lightbulb when it gets it right.   
   
Keep going little buddy, you'll figure it out one day.
I feel strangely proud of the lightbulb when it gets it right.

Keep going little buddy, you'll figure it out one day.
#69 - AreyouSerious
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
#56 - anon
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
And I guess you know about it.
I lived in Yugoslavia and I know how good it was, this ******** EU and capitalist ideas are even worse.
#34 - moootsch
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
Communism is bad..?
#29 - hitlersoneballsack
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
they are just stalin
#27 - anon
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
i believe the idea of taking property from others by force and "redistributing it"is immoral. most of you imagine the multi billionaires as the one losing their property, but communism abolishes all private property.
#85 to #27 - toastedspikes
Reply -1
(05/09/2013) [-]
I hope you know what the difference between private and personal property is. Otherwise GTFO pls.
#20 - soundofwinter
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
MUH! FREEDOMS!
#40 to #20 - techketzer
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
Go back to /pol/.
Just go.
#19 - mrsugoiman **User deleted account**
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
#16 - anon
Reply 0
(05/09/2013) [-]
aint that exactly what happened to the National Socialism too?
#14 - anon
Reply 0
(05/08/2013) [-]
Communisim is bad because it can never work. It relies on the fact that every human is inherently altruistic. But they aren't, people are ******.
#135 - alarmdemon
Reply -1
(05/09/2013) [-]
as a communist i say that people who believe this is due to lack of information and our nations propoganda
#13 - alcis
Reply -2
(05/08/2013) [-]