NationStates

¡Viva la contrarevolución!

Vazdania wrote:

Socialist Czechia wrote:
I do not blame religious people, I blame Church. Or you didn't get it? I won't start burn the Bibles or Qurans, but zealots in funny clothes what reading them to crowds must be stopped.

My distaste of so-called-communists "believing in gods" is another, different topic. More philosophic one.

HA! Let's stop the Politicians then!!! .

You don't like free speech or free thought do you??? I love sitting at the pulpits and listening to people speak about and of the Bible. It is luminous and invigorates my soul. And why should I not be allowed to enjoy myself? Why should I not be allowed to these people speak?

I do like free speech. I respect your right to call me an asshole, i respect your right to tell me that my economy policy looks shitty with valid arguments, but if you will yell god-hates-you irrational bullshits on some girl just because she don't wanna have kids yet, or even threw rocks, I would take my red flag to your most dark place in no time

That's right, free speech shouldn't cover totally everything, like serious believing in fairytales and talking dead guys as way to promote it.

Regnum Dominae wrote:

Vazdania wrote:
It is a censorship of your right to legally contract at a wage you and a corporation deem appropriate.

The Labour Union, The Labourer, and the Corproation can work together. The state has no business putting its nose in the economic affairs of people.

...yeah it does. And it doesn't just have the right to do so, it has the responsibility to do so.

It has neither the right nor the responsibility of putting its nose in the economic affairs of people.

Socialist Czechia wrote:

Vazdania wrote:
HA! Let's stop the Politicians then!!! .

You don't like free speech or free thought do you??? I love sitting at the pulpits and listening to people speak about and of the Bible. It is luminous and invigorates my soul. And why should I not be allowed to enjoy myself? Why should I not be allowed to these people speak?

I do like free speech. I respect your right to call me an asshole, i respect your right to tell me that my economy policy looks shitty with valid arguments, but if you will yell god-hates-you irrational bullshits on some girl just because she don't wanna have kids yet, or even threw rocks, I would take my red flag to your most dark place in no time

That's right, free speech shouldn't cover totally everything, like serious believing in fairytales and talking dead guys as way to promote it.

So people shouldn't be able to believe in fairy tales?

Why do you hate freedom of religion so much? I mean I'm an atheist and I dislike religion, but I don't want to take away their rights.

Pandeeria wrote:

Socialist Czechia wrote:
It's merely absolutely peaceful punishment for their actions in history. For genocides, for war, for victims of inqusition. Just take everything from them what they stole from the People, back to the People.

But of course I would defend them with weapon in hand, if angry mob would try to hang some priest.
We must not act like animals.

They can pray anywhere they want, but State would not support religious nuts by any money, and State would not allow them pray in temples built on bodies of deceived and murdered innocent people. Sometimes literally.

Crazy zealots in the past waged genocides, not the current people. That's rather a nice form of stereotyping, or just plain censoring them.

Though the state cannot fund them.

Not the current people, but current organisation still exist. Like Catholic Church and Pope. Would you tolerate still existing NSDAP and new Fuhrer with their argument, that they are different people?

Vazdania wrote:

Regnum Dominae wrote:...yeah it does. And it doesn't just have the right to do so, it has the responsibility to do so.

It has neither the right nor the responsibility of putting its nose in the economic affairs of people.

Yeah, it does. The state's job is too make it's people's lives better.

Regnum Dominae wrote:Ukraine's economic situation is the exception, not the rule, among post-Soviet states.

[data]

And, if you take a look at the formerly USSR-aligned states of the Eastern Bloc:

[data]

Ukraine's experience is among the worst ones, to be sure, but all post-Soviet states experienced a catastrophic economic collapse in the early-to-mid 1990s. Your numbers, showing that most of them had overall positive growth over the past 25 years, hide the fact that the 1990s were a "lost decade" almost everywhere. Even in the best cases it took most of that decade for them just to get back where they started in 1990.

Here is a graph for all post-Soviet states, with the GDP for 1990 normalized as 1.0. The year when the respective line crosses above "1.0" is the year when the country in question got back to where it was in 1990. As you can see, even the best performer (Latvia, shown as "Letonia" here, since this graph comes from a Moldovan source) only recovered it's pre-collapse GDP in 1999.



Why is this important in an argument about communism? Because it shows that even MODEST growth under the Soviet system would have probably resulted in better living standards than most of those countries have today, since it would have avoided the "lost decade" of the 1990s. Relatively low, steady growth over 25 years would have been better than what most of those countries actually got under capitalism (a ten-year Depression, followed by a recovery for some and stagnation for others).

This thread is indicative of the problem with communism. Everyone is ignoring the most useful form: Juche communism.

Pandeeria wrote:

Vazdania wrote:
It is a censorship of your right to legally contract at a wage you and a corporation deem appropriate.

The Labour Union, The Labourer, and the Corproation can work together. The state has no business putting its nose in the economic affairs of people.

That's economic oppression. Not oppression nor violation of freedom of expression, petition, public assembly, or speech.

If the labour union fails, or the business just says tough shit and doesn't allow you in without lowered pay and standard, if hurts said worker.

It is not going to be that everything always favors the worker, that is a fact. But you can bet your socks that it is more beneficial and better for the labourer than a system by which the state intervenes and creates a minimum wage.

Vazdania wrote:

Regnum Dominae wrote:...yeah it does. And it doesn't just have the right to do so, it has the responsibility to do so.

It has neither the right nor the responsibility of putting its nose in the economic affairs of people.

But moral affairs yes? Double standard much?

Hakio wrote:Even, if you're not a communist (like myself) I think many people would favor certain kinds and theories over others. What is your ideal form of communism that you most identify with? Also what would you identify your personal political philosophy as?
(If you wish for me to add an option just ask.)

The best type of communism is the kind that doesn't exist at all.

GraySoap wrote:This thread is indicative of the problem with communism. Everyone is ignoring the most useful form: Juche communism.

wat

Socialist Czechia wrote:

Pandeeria wrote:
Crazy zealots in the past waged genocides, not the current people. That's rather a nice form of stereotyping, or just plain censoring them.

Though the state cannot fund them.

Not the current people, but current organisation still exist. Like Catholic Church and Pope. Would you tolerate still existing NSDAP and new Fuhrer with their argument, that they are different people?

Yeah, but the organization is the religion. Why should we violate our religious rights?

Pandeeria wrote:

Vazdania wrote:It has neither the right nor the responsibility of putting its nose in the economic affairs of people.

Yeah, it does. The state's job is too make it's people's lives better.

Nonsense. The function of the state is to ensure that life, liberty, an property are protected.

Hutterite colonies, the Amish (Even though they're semi capitalist though the money they make belongs to the whole community).

As one person said in the beginning of the forum, "The voluntary communist communities within a capitalist state."

Kelinfort wrote:

Vazdania wrote:It has neither the right nor the responsibility of putting its nose in the economic affairs of people.

But moral affairs yes? Double standard much?

Not so much really either. It is difficult to regulate morality and very rarely should be attempted or done.

Islamic Commune wrote:Hutterite colonies, the Amish (Even though they're semi capitalist though the money they make belongs to the whole community).

As one person said in the beginning of the forum, "The voluntary communist communities within a capitalist state."

I always had a hard-on for the Amana communal colonies, but seeing as they transitioned into a for-profit corporations they probably aren't communist.

Vazdania wrote:

Pandeeria wrote:
That's economic oppression. Not oppression nor violation of freedom of expression, petition, public assembly, or speech.

If the labour union fails, or the business just says tough shit and doesn't allow you in without lowered pay and standard, if hurts said worker.

It is not going to be that everything always favors the worker, that is a fact. But you can bet your socks that it is more beneficial and better for the labourer than a system by which the state intervenes and creates a minimum wage.

You know throughout history, I'm really sure with the slavery and child workers, to any wage at all, that the labour unions helped the people. That's obviously why the state must have stepped in and outlaw those things, because the unions were doing such a good job.

Even in modern times, if we removed regulations and allowed for complete negotiations like that, many like in the fast food industry would be screwed. I mean, it's hard to find a job right now. Businesses could use that and force workers into checkpoint, into compliance with lower standards.

Or the businesses could turn into a Monopoly and just collectively screw over workers for extra profit and lower standards.

GraySoap wrote:This thread is indicative of the problem with communism. Everyone is ignoring the most useful form: Juche communism.

lol que

Pandeeria wrote:

Socialist Czechia wrote:
I do like free speech. I respect your right to call me an asshole, i respect your right to tell me that my economy policy looks shitty with valid arguments, but if you will yell god-hates-you irrational bullshits on some girl just because she don't wanna have kids yet, or even threw rocks, I would take my red flag to your most dark place in no time

That's right, free speech shouldn't cover totally everything, like serious believing in fairytales and talking dead guys as way to promote it.

So people shouldn't be able to believe in fairy tales?

Why do you hate freedom of religion so much? I mean I'm an atheist and I dislike religion, but I don't want to take away their rights.

You didn't read everything there, didn't you?

There is difference between organisation and people. I dont blame catholics, I blame catholic church. Destruction of Church isnt destruction of religion.
That's why Allies destroyed NSDAP instead destroying whole German nation, even despite fact, that after war, majority would vote for Donitz.

You can believe in My Little Pony, but if you will criticise and condemn publicly other people, that they don't live like Ponies, by holy Pony laws, you crossed the line.

Socialist Czechia wrote:

Vazdania wrote:
HA! Let's stop the Politicians then!!! .

You don't like free speech or free thought do you??? I love sitting at the pulpits and listening to people speak about and of the Bible. It is luminous and invigorates my soul. And why should I not be allowed to enjoy myself? Why should I not be allowed to these people speak?

I do like free speech. I respect your right to call me an asshole, i respect your right to tell me that my economy policy looks shitty with valid arguments, but if you will yell god-hates-you irrational bullshits on some girl just because she don't wanna have kids yet, or even threw rocks, I would take my red flag to your most dark place in no time

That's right, free speech shouldn't cover totally everything, like serious believing in fairytales and talking dead guys as way to promote it.

Why should religious belief not be allowed? That's completely ridiculous.

Vazdania wrote:

Kelinfort wrote:But moral affairs yes? Double standard much?

Not so much really either. It is difficult to regulate morality and very rarely should be attempted or done.

So I suppose you support same sex marriage? And perhaps limited drug usage?

Vazdania wrote:

Pandeeria wrote:Yeah, it does. The state's job is too make it's people's lives better.

Nonsense. The function of the state is to ensure that life, liberty, an property are protected.

No, it tasks the government with the welfare of the people.

Socialist Czechia wrote:

Pandeeria wrote:So people shouldn't be able to believe in fairy tales?

Why do you hate freedom of religion so much? I mean I'm an atheist and I dislike religion, but I don't want to take away their rights.

You didn't read everything there, didn't you?

There is difference between organisation and people. I dont blame catholics, I blame catholic church. Destruction of Church isnt destruction of religion.
That's why Allies destroyed NSDAP instead destroying whole German nation, even despite fact, that after war, majority would vote for Donitz.

You can believe in My Little Pony, but if you will criticise and condemn publicly other people, that they don't live like Ponies, by holy Pony laws, you crossed the line.

So you want to punish people that publicly criticize heretics? So you're anti-religious freedom and anti-freedom of speech?

Destruction of the church hurts the religions and violates people's religion. Just regulated and tax the church if it's making a profit. That's it.

Socialist Czechia wrote:Not the current people, but current organisation still exist. Like Catholic Church and Pope. Would you tolerate still existing NSDAP and new Fuhrer with their argument, that they are different people?

If the NSDAP had existed for 2000 years and had a multitude of different people in it, with a multitude of political views, including far-left, far-right and everything in between, and if they had done many good things in their history in addition to the many bad things... then yes, OF COURSE I would tolerate them.

And I wish people stopped trying to compare everything they hate with the Nazis. Even among genocidal organizations, the Nazis were in many ways unusual, and they are the exception, not the rule.