I think my country was better in communism...

[Knight Gil]

that's useful. 100% literacy and free education, not for the ability to read free thoughts and grow as person but instead to read state controlled propaganda. I've got this feeling that they would be better off illiterate

It's not like it's any different in America, where many kids are forced to pledge allegiance to the American Flag and are taught from that age that it's better dead than red.

I laugh every time I think of cuba because i'm always thinking about all the 50s cars they have to maintain

Does it make a difference if it's 50s cars of 2012 cars as long as they serve their purpose? And you know, the reason they still have 50s cars is because of USA's war on communism and their outdated economic embargo.

And the doctors drive cabs when they are not on their 24 hour shifts to make 10 times more money then as doctors.

And they still have one of the best healthcare systems in the world. That's what matters.

OR, one could say that USA doctors make thousands times more money than Cuba doctors, while having a worse healthcare system (despite USA having better access to medical goods, a problem that is caused, again, in large part because of the embargo). And let's not forget that Cuba is not a first world, developed country, like the USA is supposed to be

[Snowraven]

If culture is based on a community level instead of an individual level then socialism and perhaps communism would need fewer monetary incentives for success. This is something many people fail so understand, because many people approach these systems from their own experience. Being that most all of us have grown into highly individualistic societies, this makes it hard to understand why things like socialism and communism can in fact work.

Of course, I wouldn't call what the Russians had, and what many other countries had, communism. It was a totalitarian dictatorship. The two are entirely incompatible by definition. True/ideal communism would in general be a much better system (ranked by happiness and competition) because social bonds are much stronger than monetary bonds. Essentially the polar opposite of what Ayn Rand might want - a perfect economic system, but accounting for the social human factor instead of ignoring it.

True, what so called communist countries had wasn't truly communism. It wasn't even socialism. It had some things from both, but it was a totalitarian dictatorship.

And yes, I think that culture would be better if it was based on community rather then individualism. Maybe then we wouldn't see countries saying they need nobody else or people with billions laughing from above to people who worked more then them...

How is this different from being a slave to the corporations?

I'm sorry, but you seem to live in the strange assumption that you are free. You're not. You're a consumer and a slave, and your existence serves not yourself, but your boss, and your boss' boss. If you do not abide by the demands of the capitalist hierarchy, you starve. You will have no food. No shelter.

Worse still, more and more of us live in debt, thinking our debt is actually our possession. Mortgages and more. Which turns us into indentured slaves.

Indeed, this is one of the major problems I have with my country today. Multinational corporations come and treat everyone like slaves while the state does little. Then when they feel they no longer benefit from our country, they leave leaving thousands of people without jobs out of the blue. In the meantime the salaries are small and you make debts for banks to live only to be ripped by banks with huge return rates...

but with corporations they are controlled by the consumer by the public if the corporation fails to meet the consumers needs the public needs they switch corporations
there for the corporation is controlled by the public
in communism the government is in control of the public and if the government doesn't meet the peoples needs what recourse does the people have other then over throwing the governement

Yet if a company has monopol you have no choice but to buy from them since everyone uses their product. A good example for this is Microsoft. If I got a computer, or a laptop, or a tablet... I'd need Windows would I not?

To add to this, even for companies that don't hold a monopoly, not buying from them doesn't hurt them so much. EA games. Many people are unhappy with them, so many people stop buying, yet the company is still sky-high, is it not? There's also the matter that these companies make jobs, and sometimes boycotting them leads to you having no job, and them being the most important job offer in the area kind of makes it bad, Wallmart for example.

[Tokru]

My ex had a Russian/Sovjet herritage and she always used to say:
''He who doesn't miss it has no heart, but he who wants it back has no brain.''

Sums it up nicely I think.

Very good summary indeed. A LOT of people from Eastern Germany would agree.

[Reeve]

Yet if a company has monopol you have no choice but to buy from them since everyone uses their product. A good example for this is Microsoft. If I got a computer, or a laptop, or a tablet... I'd need Windows would I not?

Not if you were using Mac OS or Linux. There are alternatives.

[Snowraven]

Why didn't they? because their was no incentive to do so.
the engine of advancement, ingenuity, and innovation is greed

Here I have to fully disagree with you. The engine of advancement is knowledge and making things better for you and the people close to you. Only for a select few is it greed, for most it's what I stated.

(snip)

Thanks for that info, quite a few things I didn't know, nice to learn something new about countries close to mine.

That said, I'm glad you got a better gouvernment, hope it works out for the best for you. I knew of the old one, didn't know it was ousted finally, so was basing my idea on the corrupt one.
Also I knew of the WW2 thing, thought didn't know Tito was a croat. I will look up that state Molosevic tried to make, sounds interesting.

Well to each and their own, I've never liked communism, but I will give it to the socialists(they were not communists, different things etc), they have done a lot of great things for my country at least.

A lot of the basic rights we today take for granted was first thought off and brought forward by socialists and the working class movement and at the same time they met harsh resistance from the Conservatives and right.

They were pioneers of women's right(including the legalization of things like condoms), the right to march and assembly, workers rights, student loans(poor people could forget about higher studies back in the day, limiting social mobility greatly), rules against child labour, the right for ALL children to education, retirement for the elderly, healthcare for all etc etc... the list is very very long.

I'm a liberal myself but people like August Palm should be hailed by everyone in Sweden as a national hero. So yeah, the socialists(and liberals to some extent, they only joined in once the hardest work was done though) are the ones that brought us most of the good things we today take for granted.

Only the ignorant would say socialism has been a negative thing for this country. Without them the poor would still be little more then slaves.

The socialists and the workers took the fight "and won their freedom".

Yes, I agree. Wish Romania would have some socialists and political leaders in general like Sweden :/

Communism goes against basic human nature which is greed, envy, and laziness. communist doctrine label these as bad human traits and they needed to be eradicated from the human mind set for communism to work

But these are actually human virtues they are survival instincts

greed had humans pick more berries then what he actually needed that saved him from going hungry the next day that he couldn't pick berries

Envy made humans build a bigger stronger shelter then his neighbor that saved his from blowing over when i big storm came

Laziness made humans work less to produce the same amount of food so he didn't have to consume as much food

those same virtues is what makes capitalism superior to communism

greed forces a worker to produce more so to get paid more

envy gives a worker a reason to produce more to beable to afford more then what his neighbor has

laziness gives the worker the reason to produce more with less effort

Greed, envy, and laziness are the engines that drive innovation, ingenuity, and advancement

The thing is that they tried to replaced them with different ones, all being also basic nature of humans.

Altruism about others made humans pick more berries to their friend wouldn't starve. Since the friend picked his/her berries too, but some people picked more, the surplus was redistributed, thus everyone had more berries for next day and lived.

Once again, caring about others and a sense of community made the human try to build a better shelter and share it with the neighbour, thus having both of them live and work together.

And last, yes, still laziness but coupled with a sense of community. Laziness gave humans the need to make ways to produce more with less effort for everyone, so that he, in turn, can benefit from this, as should the entire community. So that, in the end, the human can spend more time having fun with the community, with his/her friends and family as they are also freed from their work.

Basic human rights are nit exclusive to socialist ideology Conservatism attest here in America are better champions for basic human rights then the left is
It is the left who wants to tell you what you can and can not eat or drink It is the left who tells you you have to join a union if you want to work It is the left who wants to force you to buy health insurance it is the left who wants to force you not to own a fire arm it is the left who want to tell you what you can drive i can keep going if you want

So you're saying it's the left that tell you some foods can kill you, it is the left who asks you to join a union so you're not exploited by companies, it is the left that force you to have a health insurance so you don't die when you're sick since you lack money, it's the left that wants to keep everyone a bit more safe by not having crazy people own firearms, it's the left that don't let you drive monster trucks on the streets? Then the left sounds good there.

[Guilu]

Well, the problem is that to run a providence-state, you need money. How do you get money ? From taxes. You're already complaining about poverty, do you really think it would be better if the government upped taxes ? Even then they probably wouldn't have the money, so they would need loans at prohibitive rates because nobody knows if you can start a providence-state like that.

[qu1rex]

I understand the point entirely. It's copied and pasted fairly frequently, by people who have no conception of what communism/socialism is, and base everything they know off of what was, in actuality, a totalitarian regime masquerading as a communist government in order to subjugate its populace.

Wow, exactly what the EU's going ahead with.

[Doktor Faustus]

In you live in the West and are under the age of 30, your view on communism will be very skewed.

The West made out that everything that happened under communsim was evil and the people hated it, but the reality is things were not as bad as the endless propaganda made it to be.

At least communism had a gaol, sadly that most nations that adopted it forgot to strive for.

What is the goal of the West?

Make more money, then make some more, yet say the nation is too poor to do anything so they raise taxes?

I would take a utopian communist state anyday over a utopian capitalist one.

[Palmatum]

Communism isn't compatible with human nature.

Besides, we haven't seen TRUE Communism in any country.

I do wish people would stop thinking it's completely and utterly evil though. Same with Socialism. There are elements of Socialism in most of Europe and most Europeans would say those ideals are basic human rights.

[Reeve]

In you live in the West and are under the age of 30, your view on communism will be very skewed.

The West made out that everything that happened under communsim was evil and the people hated it, but the reality is things were not as bad as the endless propaganda made it to be.

At least communism had a gaol, sadly that most nations that adopted it forgot to strive for.

What is the goal of the West?

Make more money, then make some more, yet say the nation is too poor to do anything so they raise taxes?

I would take a utopian communist state anyday over a utopian capitalist one.

I dunno. Most of the Russians I've met and ALL of the Estonians pretty much thought life in the USSR was shitty as all hell.

[semaphore]

Kind of funny to see people say Communism was better - if only you ignore all the terrible conditions resulting from 45 years of Communism.

In you live in the West and are under the age of 30, your view on communism will be very skewed.

If you think Communism worked well, your view IS very skewed.

[Bakis]

I think the OP post is just sad. I did not say wrong it is just sad on so many levels that there are people who believe this and there are plenty.

---------- Post added 2013-01-02 at 06:34 PM ----------

In you live in the West and are under the age of 30, your view on communism will be very skewed.

The West made out that everything that happened under communsim was evil and the people hated it, but the reality is things were not as bad as the endless propaganda made it to be.

At least communism had a gaol, sadly that most nations that adopted it forgot to strive for.

What is the goal of the West?

Make more money, then make some more, yet say the nation is too poor to do anything so they raise taxes?

I would take a utopian communist state anyday over a utopian capitalist one.

Never been one and never will be, in the meantime I guess the price of a few hundred million people dead is a fair price in persuit of this utopian version right?
You mentioned goal as well, there is no goal of ours in the western world to achive an utopian capitalist society, there in lies the big difference.

[Decklan]

Kind of funny to see people say Communism was better - if only you ignore all the terrible conditions resulting from 45 years of Communism.


If you think Communism worked well, your view IS very skewed.

Anyone living in the west really has no business commenting on communism (unless they lived in a communist state before moving) because it has been incredibly demonized in the west. Any political/economic institution is going to have pros and cons, and to say that communism didn't have its advantages is as equal in fallacy as saying it is all good.

I'll say what I say about any political institution, that different ones work for different populations and societies because they are built around certain ideals. Communism actually works incredibly well when implemented in small populations and communities. Why? Because everyone is expected to pull their weight and can be held personally accountable. The farmer supplies crops, the rancher supplies meat, the doctor supplies medical aid, everyone has a role, and one person slacking brings the entire community down. Communism breaks down in larger populations because of corruption at the higher levels of leadership and laziness of individuals at the bottom who feel that their job is not important. In theory it would work in large populations, but never in practice.

[Kasierith]

Kind of funny to see people say Communism was better - if only you ignore all the terrible conditions resulting from 45 years of Communism.

You would be significantly hard pressed to argue that every previous Soviet state is better now than they were under communism; the problems themselves may have changed, but life can be far from ideal. If the states had never established communist governments to begin with, that would likely have prevented a number of the problems that developed, but communism did present certain benefits and securities that are now rather notably absent.

Wow, exactly what the EU's going ahead with.

How exactly is the EU totalitarian?

[Wikiy]

Wow, exactly what the EU's going ahead with.

EU a totalitarian regime? How is it possible if EU is a democratic institution? Oh, wait, yeah, i forgot Europhobes live under the illusion it's not a democratic institution. Seems I'll have to dig up one of my old posts.

The European Parliament, the legislative body of the European Union, is voted for every 5 years by EU citizens. This is the institution in whose election and appointment EU citizens can have the most influence.

The Council of the European Union, another legislative body of the European Union, is composed of national ministers, 1 per every country, so is technically voted for (since people can take into account what their ministers will be doing in the context of the Council of the European Union when voting for them).

The European Council is composed of the heads of state of all EU members, and as such, is technically an institution which is also directly voted for. Its president, currently Rompuy, is appointed by the Council itself.

The European Commission, the executive body of the European Union, is composed of 27 "Commissioners", 1 per every country. The president of the Commission (currently Barosso) is proposed by the European Council and confirmed by the European Parliament. After that, the president of the Commission and the European Council itself appoint 27 Commissioners.

The European Court of Justice is composed of 3 branches, the most important of which is composed of 27 judges, 1 from each member state.

All in all, every single one of these institutions can in essence be traced back to political leaders EU citizens vote for. Not only that, EU citizens can have a direct influence by voting for the EU Parliament. There are no invisible people ruling the EU in Bruxelles, there are just people who have no idea what they're talking about and how the EU works. They should be blaming either their Prime Ministers or generally ministers composing their governments for anything they don't agree with in the context of the EU since those exact people have a huge influence in it.

[Tomatketchup]

EU a totalitarian regime? How is it possible if EU is a democratic institution? Oh, wait, yeah, i forgot Europhobes live under the illusion it's not a democratic institution. Seems I'll have to dig up one of my old posts.

That's fine and all, but you forgot one thing.

IT'S SOCIALIST.

[Bakis]

Also noticeable is that the most ammount of pro-communism opinions seem to usually come from countries that has been doing less well at the transistion from their communist past than for example baltic countries, east germany.

[Reeve]

You would be significantly hard pressed to argue that every previous Soviet state is better now than they were under communism; the problems themselves may have changed, but life can be far from ideal. If the states had never established communist governments to begin with, that would likely have prevented a number of the problems that developed, but communism did present certain benefits and securities that are now rather notably absent.



How exactly is the EU totalitarian?

Not every former soviet state, but I'm sure that Estonia, Latvia, Poland, etc. are all pretty happy to have left the USSR behind.

[Guilu]

Not every former soviet state, but I'm sure that Estonia, Latvia, Poland, etc. are all pretty happy to have left the USSR behind.

Except for the russians in latvia that don't have citizenship anywhere I guess.

---------- Post added 2013-01-02 at 07:04 PM ----------

EU a totalitarian regime? How is it possible if EU is a democratic institution? Oh, wait, yeah, i forgot Europhobes live under the illusion it's not a democratic institution. Seems I'll have to dig up one of my old posts.

Honestly I'm a bit worried that the EU is transforming into a franco-german sphere of influence. I get that these are the two big economies, and historical founders of the union, but the prevalence of the council over the parliament makes me worried that the smaller, less powerful countries are not being heard.

[Wikiy]

Never been one and never will be, in the meantime I guess the price of a few hundred million people dead is a fair price in persuit of this utopian version right?

What does that have to do with communism? In fact, can people please learn to understand what communism actually meant before its meaning was skewed by totalitarian regimes?

You mentioned goal as well, there is no goal of ours in the western world to achive an utopian capitalist society, there in lies the big difference.

He isn't asserting that Western countries do have that goal, only that the ultimate goal of life in some Western countries has become to get as rich as possible and i find it quite disgusting. I'd also add that the US' goal is indeed to create a utopian capitalist society. It's been that for 200 years essentially.

By the way, i find your post quite ironic since it's coming from a Swede, and Sweden is essentially a semi-socialist utopia.

---------- Post added 2013-01-02 at 07:07 PM ----------

That's fine and all, but you forgot one thing.

IT'S SOCIALIST.

Not really, it's semi-socialist and semi-capitalist. What's wrong with that?

---------- Post added 2013-01-02 at 07:08 PM ----------

Also noticeable is that the most ammount of pro-communism opinions seem to usually come from countries that has been doing less well at the transistion from their communist past than for example baltic countries, east germany.

Selective memory at work.

---------- Post added 2013-01-02 at 07:15 PM ----------

Honestly I'm a bit worried that the EU is transforming into a franco-german sphere of influence. I get that these are the two big economies, and historical founders of the union, but the prevalence of the council over the parliament makes me worried that the smaller, less powerful countries are not being heard.

Well, the council is the institution where smaller countries get an equal influence as the larger ones. It's the Parliament where smaller countries get less votes than larger countries.

I'll just give you an example of the fact that smaller countries have enough influence, Slovenia is probably not going to ratify Croatia's accession treaty to the EU (20 other members have ratified it and 6 others have initiated the ratification process, Slovenia hasn't even started it yet) because of a bilateral issue that has absolutely nothing to do with our accession and is about a banking issue concerning the war 20 years ago.

Essentially, a country of 2 million is going to block our accession (the second time, mind you, that's why we're joining so late) even though the countries of the other 502 million people living in EU want Croatia to join. Well, at least their leaders. And guess what, Slovenia doesn't care about the fact that Merkel, Hollande, Barroso and Rumpoy and a bunch of other important EU figures are getting annoyed by the fact that Slovenia is refusing to ratify the treaty. And the EU can do exactly nothing to Slovenia.

Point being, smaller countries can do whatever the hell they want in the EU if they want to.