Your thoughts on communism?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

You live a pretty sad life and you are wrong,

I agree my life may be 'sad'-I agree with that myself. But I doubt their is a 'wrong' in a debate such as this.

Your life is meaningless without the existence of a set of customs people built over the years, we can all agree that that is sad.

As for being wrong, there is the fact that you are objectively wrong in every respect, unsourced and with little to no understanding of what Communism is, only that it is like the modern Jacobins.

[Good Mind]

Actually, communists are opposed to wage labour. They advocate alternative incentives, and propose alternative means of exchange.

"They"?
Are you also a communist, Conscentia?

Cooperative I think.

[Socialist Tera]

But I don't think getting rid of tradition is bad.
Should be done if its in way of progress.

You must see that COmmunism removed tradition violently!

You honestly think the Communists were the violent ones? Why did America support coups disposing of socialist governments throughout the world in place of Capitalist dictatorships? Why did the capitalists support the Taliban and apartheid South Africa?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista

[United British Union]

1. Strip the Upper-Class of our Estates, Money and such.

Can you please stop pretending to be an aristocrat? It's not at all convincing - especially given that you just seem to be calling absolutely everyone "sir" all the time - and it's making you look rather silly.

If you had any manners, SIR, then you would too.
Even people in the slums have manners.

[The Scientific States]

Bullshit.

Not to mention, there has never been a communist nation before. Your arguments against communism are so silly, you're basing them off of falsehoods.

It feels weird arguing against those who are opposed to communism, given that I'm also opposed to communism, for reasons other than "communism fails"

I would like for you to explain then.

For one, I do sympathize with communists, and am not entirely opposed to it.

First of all, not everyone wants communism, a revolution that most are opposed to creates a unstable country. Now, I understand that Marxists can be elected, such was the case in Chile with Allende.

Secondly, I do believe that our global economy normally does fine with capitalism, I see no reason to completely scrap a entire system that works fairly well, to create a new one that would severely damage the economy. I do believe in "If it isn't broke, we don't need to fix it."

Lastly, I'm not all for the idea of "total equality", I believe in equal opportunity where everyone has the chance to be successful, where people can rise or fall based on how hard they try. This creates innovation. People always have new ideas, people always want to create new things for the world. To do this people often create businesses, companies and the like to create new things that we all enjoy. Not only does this give us a higher standard of living. but it creates economic growth. It gives us a higher standard of living because we have the ability to buy things that benefit our lives, and people have the ability to create new things that can help others.

Capitalism has it's flaws, but I believe it's the best system we have. Unregulated capitalism is a horrible idea, and we certainly need extensive welfare and social programs to give people the equality of opportunity I talked about, but that's for another thread.

[United British Union]

I agree my life may be 'sad'-I agree with that myself. But I doubt their is a 'wrong' in a debate such as this.

Your life is meaningless without the existence of a set of customs people built over the years, we can all agree that that is sad.

As for being wrong, there is the fact that you are objectively wrong in every respect, unsourced and with little to no understanding of what Communism is, only that it is like the modern Jacobins.

When one calls one's life sad it is one thing, but, if you carry on the insult, then it is too much. Please, this is not the topic at hand.
And I do have an understanding of what Communism is, sir.

[Shinpitekina]

You live a pretty sad life and you are wrong,

I agree my life may be 'sad'-I agree with that myself. But I doubt their is a 'wrong' in a debate such as this.

It is not at all morally wrong, yet basing ones own life on a logical fallacy makes one question its stability.

[Luveria]

Kinda dumb, very outdated, and the edgy teenage philosophy of future Democrats. Kinda cute.

+10
would date

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Can you please stop pretending to be an aristocrat? It's not at all convincing - especially given that you just seem to be calling absolutely everyone "sir" all the time - and it's making you look rather silly.

If you had any manners, SIR, then you would too.
Even people in the slums have manners.

An aristocrat would not refer to everyone as Sir, because the word itself implies that a person of lower stature speaks to someone on a higher rung on the ladder.

[Shinpitekina]

Your life is meaningless without the existence of a set of customs people built over the years, we can all agree that that is sad.

As for being wrong, there is the fact that you are objectively wrong in every respect, unsourced and with little to no understanding of what Communism is, only that it is like the modern Jacobins.

When one calls one's life sad it is one thing, but, if you carry on the insult, then it is too much. Please, this is not the topic at hand.
And I do have an understanding of what Communism is, sir.

You don't, as it has manifested itself on you ranting about state ownership when asked about communism.

[Meritocratic States]

Looks great in paper, not very good in practice.

The Cold War has proven that.

[Luveria]

Can you please stop pretending to be an aristocrat? It's not at all convincing - especially given that you just seem to be calling absolutely everyone "sir" all the time - and it's making you look rather silly.

If you had any manners, SIR, then you would too.
Even people in the slums have manners.

You really seem to get off on pretending to be an 1800s aristocrat. There are roleplay forums for that. General isn't it.

[Socialist Tera]

Can you please stop pretending to be an aristocrat? It's not at all convincing - especially given that you just seem to be calling absolutely everyone "sir" all the time - and it's making you look rather silly.

If you had any manners, SIR, then you would too.
Even people in the slums have manners.

I actually agree with you on the subject of manners, even though I am a communist.

[Luveria]

If you had any manners, SIR, then you would too.
Even people in the slums have manners.

An aristocrat would not refer to everyone as Sir, because the word itself implies that a person of lower stature speaks to someone on a higher rung on the ladder.

An aristocrat wouldn't be posting on the NationStates forum saying 'LOOK AT ME, EVERYONE! I'M AN ARISTOCRAT!"

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Your life is meaningless without the existence of a set of customs people built over the years, we can all agree that that is sad.

As for being wrong, there is the fact that you are objectively wrong in every respect, unsourced and with little to no understanding of what Communism is, only that it is like the modern Jacobins.

When one calls one's life sad it is one thing, but, if you carry on the insult, then it is too much. Please, this is not the topic at hand.
And I do have an understanding of what Communism is, sir.

It is not so much an insult as an observation.

As for your understanding of Communism, you seem to have this fuzzy picture of it as 'Damn Jacobins out to get me and my priviledges'.

[United British Union]

If you had any manners, SIR, then you would too.
Even people in the slums have manners.

An aristocrat would not refer to everyone as Sir, because the word itself implies that a person of lower stature speaks to someone on a higher rung on the ladder.

I am not going to refer to myself as such. Although calling somebody sir is something you are educated on in the Nursery-it is simple manners.

[Nightvale Community]

I mean I looks pretty appealing to make everyone equal, and as long as it is not so totalitarian and interfeers in the publics' freedoms,(such as CHINA), then it can look like a good idea. I however also realize that then the govt. does not have any competiton for jobs and the all around productivity fails. After all why work when you don't have to. The only successful nation that is communist right now is China. And they have to restrict rights and freedoms to keep it that way. Although look at that market, it is doing pretty well. The all around lawlessness about hacking, and plagerizing others ideas is really high, most of their innovations have been stolen from other brilliant thinkers because they have no respect for the sanctity of putting in the effort to come up with an invention.

[New Aerios]

Can you please stop pretending to be an aristocrat? It's not at all convincing - especially given that you just seem to be calling absolutely everyone "sir" all the time - and it's making you look rather silly.

If you had any manners, SIR, then you would too.
Even people in the slums have manners.

Really? Do they go round saying "Good day, sirs, one is..."? No. Manners are not the same as a forced and ridiculous dialect.

[United British Union]

An aristocrat would not refer to everyone as Sir, because the word itself implies that a person of lower stature speaks to someone on a higher rung on the ladder.

An aristocrat wouldn't be posting on the NationStates forum saying 'LOOK AT ME, EVERYONE! I'M AN ARISTOCRAT!"

Look at the posts. I have not said that in any way. All I have spoken is 'we', 'us' and such.

[Duvniask]

Looks great in paper, not very good in practice.

The Cold War has proven that.

This and its variants has been used so many times in this thread, it hurts.

Please explain a little further than this.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Looks great in paper, not very good in practice.

The Cold War has proven that.

Proved what exactly?

Capitalism looks great in paper, but not very good in practice.

The fact that Capitalism goes through periodic crisis and that the state always has to intervene to save them from imploding upon themselves is proof of that.

[The Scientific States]

Your life is meaningless without the existence of a set of customs people built over the years, we can all agree that that is sad.

As for being wrong, there is the fact that you are objectively wrong in every respect, unsourced and with little to no understanding of what Communism is, only that it is like the modern Jacobins.

When one calls one's life sad it is one thing, but, if you carry on the insult, then it is too much. Please, this is not the topic at hand.
And I do have an understanding of what Communism is, sir.

No, you don't. Your understanding of it sounds like McCarthy's understanding of it.

[United British Union]

If you had any manners, SIR, then you would too.
Even people in the slums have manners.

Really? Do they go round saying "Good day, sirs, one is..."? No. Manners are not the same as a forced and ridiculous dialect.

Evidently you are a poorly educated fellow that has no idea how people live. I forced myself not to say something I would regret.

[Luveria]

I agree my life may be 'sad'-I agree with that myself. But I doubt their is a 'wrong' in a debate such as this.

Your life is meaningless without the existence of a set of customs people built over the years, we can all agree that that is sad.

As for being wrong, there is the fact that you are objectively wrong in every respect, unsourced and with little to no understanding of what Communism is, only that it is like the modern Jacobins.

What can I say, to some people their sole reason for existence is to call everyone "sir" or "lady".

Without tradition, many people (myself included,) would have no need for existence.

Nevermind how there's no such tradition to call absolutely everyone "sir" or "lady".

An aristocrat wouldn't be posting on the NationStates forum saying 'LOOK AT ME, EVERYONE! I'M AN ARISTOCRAT!"

Look at the posts. I have not said that in any way. All I have spoken is 'we', 'us' and such.

Uhuh, right. You are a thorn in the side of people actually descended from nobility who don't boast about it at every opportunity while acting as if they are from the 1800s.

[The Scientific States]

Looks great in paper, not very good in practice.

The Cold War has proven that.

Proved what exactly?

Capitalism looks great in paper, but not very good in practice.

The fact that Capitalism goes through periodic crisis and that the state always has to intervene to save them from imploding upon themselves is proof of that.

It still does fine. That's one flaw of capitalism, it has a few problems, but take a look at the Western World. The entire developed world is capitalist, so it appears that capitalism is doing fine.