Should nationalist annexation/unification be a legal casus belli?

[Deleted]

No invasion is peaceful. I am talking like how Germany invaded Czechoslovakia to annex German-populated regions.

Anschluss says hi.

[Thalian]

Think of it this way: had there not been capitalism, he would've had nothing to reply to because no one would've had pc or internet to start a thread created on a website that would not have existed because there was no software to do it in a world without capitalism, and you two wouldn't argue about it and therefore not get angry.

Or he could have posted from his computer which was the same as yours, made by a communist company, put together by a communist company, with software created by a communist company, and on a website that made no money because it was no advertising in a communist country. Kinda like China does it, I think?

Next time, go deeper

No advertising? No money? Communism doesn't mean no money. Maybe the fake communism some jerk on here was claiming was the true communism, but not how communism would actually work. Equalization of wealth =/= money-less. People would still have money and make money, just there'd be a maximum and a minimum (as long as you are willing to work).

---------- Post added 2013-06-29 at 05:23 PM ----------

Anschluss says hi.

Austria was already fascist. They wanted to be annexed by their cultural neighbor. I hardly consider that an invasion.

[Reg]

No advertising? No money? Communism doesn't mean no money. Maybe the fake communism some jerk on here was claiming was the true communism, but not how communism would actually work. Equalization of wealth =/= money-less. People would still have money and make money, just there'd be a maximum and a minimum (as long as you are willing to work).

Jerk? Or the one that actually knows what he is talking about? Communism relies on shared commodities, there is no money.

[Bakis]

No advertising? No money? Communism doesn't mean no money. Maybe the fake communism some jerk on here was claiming was the true communism, but not how communism would actually work. Equalization of wealth =/= money-less. People would still have money and make money, just there'd be a maximum and a minimum (as long as you are willing to work).

There is no real communism, we already spent hundreds of million lives trying to find out.
Just saying.

[Thalian]

Jerk? Or the one that actually knows what he is talking about? Communism relies on shared commodities, there is no money.

Just as there is one form of capitalism. Right? There is no divide in capitalist countries! Everyone agrees! ...


2012 US elections.

[Reg]

Just as there is one form of capitalism. Right? There is no divide in capitalist countries! Everyone agrees! ...

Capitalism is an economic system. Communism is both a political and economic system at its core. And the United States isn't a complete capitalist country, we have socialism sprinkled over the system.

Having a divide in a communist country isn't possible. Again, a divide would mean the country isn't Communist. Which again, is why it is impossible. Whatever idea you have in your head is not communism.

[Orly]

Jerk? Or the one that actually knows what he is talking about? Communism relies on shared commodities, there is no money.

More or less but yeah, that was my point Thalian. I can't say I'm an expert in communism, but having heard the stories, apart from the widespread abuse of people and the thrashing of human rights, everything seemed to be better off. In other words, communism does look better on paper, it actually is, but for it to work you'd have to have the right leaders. Those kind of leaders that despite their seat of power they stay on an equal level with the population and don't abuse it to further consolidate their position.

Aka fairy tale. I don't see it happening anytime soon, and no chance in hell rising from capitalism who basically forces people in competition with one another, as if pitting them in a worldwide arenas is something good and productive. Come to think of it, I don't know what's worse: the delusion of equality from communism or the acceptance of pitfighting from capitalism.

[Reg]

More or less but yeah, that was my point Thalian. I can't say I'm an expert in communism, but having heard the stories, apart from the widespread abuse of people and the thrashing of human rights, everything seemed to be better off. In other words, communism does look better on paper, it actually is, but for it to work you'd have to have the right leaders. Those kind of leaders that despite their seat of power they stay on an equal level with the population and doesn't abuse it to further consolidate his position.

Aka fairy tale. I don't see it happening anytime soon, and no chance in hell rising from capitalism who basically forces people in competition with one another, as if pitting them in a worldwide arenas is something good and productive. Come to think of it, I don't know what's worse: the delusion of equality from communism or the acceptance of pitfighting from capitalism.

The way Communism works is supposed to be stages, starting with an authoritarian government to a socialist state and ending with true communism. This requires a leader to create the social order and then dissolve the government to make everyone on equal ground. Do you see any man in the history of the world giving up total power to become one of the masses? But you are correct, it looks pretty good on paper. Ultimately impossible.

[Orly]

The way Communism works is supposed to be stages, starting with an authoritarian government to a socialist state and ending with true communism. This requires a leader to create the social order and then dissolve the government to make everyone on equal ground. Do you see any man in the history of the world giving up total power to become one of the masses? But you are correct, it looks pretty good on paper. Ultimately impossible.

I'd say we start building up these kinds of men. Oh wait, too bad capitalism is in our way. Better luck on the Moon or on Mars, I guess

[Calzaeth]

I voted yes but only partially. Countries that share the same language (or a slight variation) and culture and border each other should peacefully merge. Examples? Germany and Austria, Belgium and Netherlands, Some Baltic countries, etc. In my mind, I think europe should look something like this:

http://imgur.com/lUMFuTN

Please be aware that my knowledge of different cultures in Europe, especially eastern cultures is not the greatest, take it with a pinch of salt.

edit: Netherlands + Belgium + Lux can just be called Dutch.

Just to nitpick on the language-based reasons for your map: Icelandic and Finnish are pretty damn far from Norwegian/Swedish/Danish. As a norwegian, when I hear Icelandic there is this part of my brain that TRIES to understand it, because it has a familiar sound, but it's seriously just gibberish to me. Swedish and Danish, on the other hand, are nice and understandable (on the whole).

[LilSaihah]

The US could claim the Moon.

I really wish I could change my vote from 'no' after reading this.

[Reg]

I'd say we start building up these kinds of men. Oh wait, too bad capitalism is in our way. Better luck on the Moon or on Mars, I guess

Human nature is in our way. Hell, even Mother Theresa has been shown to squander millions of dollars in donations on glorifying peoples' suffering instead of relieving it.

[Zechs-cenarius]

I'd say we start building up these kinds of men. Oh wait, too bad capitalism is in our way. Better luck on the Moon or on Mars, I guess

capitalism is in our way? no no no....disgusting human nature is. Capitalism does not dictate people like Kim Jong Un to eat well while his people suffer.

[Grimbold21]

well that was fast.

[Kraenen]

So you would have just as much as you would under a communist system then. Nothing.


It is not inherently totalitarian, but that is what it inevitably leads to. There is no other way to maintain a truly communistic system long term without totalitarianism.

Actually capitalism and laissez faire only lead to monopoly, dictatorship, and amorality. So you're still better off in communism.

[Deleted]

Thalian these people are just like you being almost religiously bound to their own political agenda, just like that greasy hair douche earlier in this thread claiming russia and belarus have evil commie governments without any source other than their national television and invalid russophobic hate websites. Don't bother.

[DEATHETERNAL]

Actually capitalism and laissez faire only lead to monopoly, dictatorship, and amorality. So you're still better off in communism.

Governmental communism leads to all those (monopoly of everything by the government, dictatorship by the government, and amorality by the government) with starvation and enslavement on top of it. That alone puts capitalism and laissez faire still above communism (even further when the prosperity resulting from capitalism as opposed to communism is accounted for), and I would additionally disagree that capitalism and laissez faire leads to dictatorship.

[Kraenen]

Governmental communism leads to all those (monopoly of everything by the government, dictatorship by the government, and amorality by the government) with starvation and enslavement on top of it. That alone puts capitalism and laissez faire still above communism, and I would additionally disagree that capitalism and laissez faire leads to dictatorship.

All these things and more are still a symptom of capitalism because corporations simply replace the government. They are not representations of people, they are small, but powerful, aristocracies. And it's only worse because there is no accountability, no control, no choice, no responsibility (except to themselves of course). In communism these would be gone, there would be no class system of the rich establishment to oppress those less fortunate.

[Bakis]

All these things and more are still a symptom of capitalism because corporations simply replace the government. They are not representations of people, they are small, but powerful, aristocracies. And it's only worse because there is no accountability, no control, no choice, no responsibility (except to themselves of course). In communism these would be gone, there would be no class system of the rich establishment to oppress those less fortunate.

US maybe where coporations and their lobby machine play an extreme part, certainly not in my market economy country.

[Orly]

Human nature is in our way. Hell, even Mother Theresa has been shown to squander millions of dollars in donations on glorifying peoples' suffering instead of relieving it.

I have no idea who this Mother Theresa is, but if it's human nature what we are talking about, then why are some of us capable of good and marvelous things? Are they more than human (since they act against what you call human nature) or are they just another face of what human nature really is? That's the kind of face that we need to grow people into.