l0l0lpur32

Lol, great arguing technique, perhaps since I'm left wing youd like to compare me to hitler as as well? I'm sorry but Gulags are not an inherent part of communism Why has every communist state, EVER had them in some shape or form then? They havent, you're only looking at a certain type of communist police state and assuming thats what constitutes communism. Most modern marriages are a form of communism, and your unlikely to find a gulag anywhere in sight, most tribal societies are communistic in nature and equally lacking in gulags. If your looking for a reason why no large countries are pure communist its because it requires more technology and wealth than most countries are capable of, you have to have complete mass communication systems to make a true communism work and we are only just getting to the state where we have voting machines and they are still at a primitive and untrusted state. But smaller communisms are visible all around the world in all sorts of place and without a gulag in sight. Difference: marriage is by choice. The main reason why communism is impossible is because it'd require everyone to agree with it (or to be forced to agree with it).

Lol, great arguing technique, perhaps since I'm left wing youd like to compare me to hitler as as well? I'm sorry but Gulags are not an inherent part of communism Why has every communist state, EVER had them in some shape or form then?

OK how about "Because other people are in need of that money"!!! Isn't that a good reason he shouldnt get to keep the money? So you suggest just stealing all that money off them? Progressive taxation is a necessary evil but stealing ALL the money is just too far Lol its not stealing, its just a different way of living, does a wife steal from a husband when she uses the money hes earnt to buy herself food? No of course not, its called sharing. And as for life not being fair, its only not fair if we dont make it fair. I suppose people being put in gulags etc in the USSR was "just a different way of living" then?

OK how about "Because other people are in need of that money"!!! Isn't that a good reason he shouldnt get to keep the money? So you suggest just stealing all that money off them? Progressive taxation is a necessary evil but stealing ALL the money is just too far

Life isn't "fair" and no-one can make it "fair", no matter how much you punish people for being successful

I'm not saying only 1 in 10 are good enough but are you seriously saying every single person who applies is good enough and should all get places?

maths =/= science

Couldn't really follow that due to your sloppy English. But are you trying to say insituting a libertarian society cannot be done in a "strong" (your word choice, so ambiguous) state? Maybe I should've used the word "intrusive" rather than "strong" That info doesn't answer my question. ^^^ Yes. (I agree with assasin that "Libertarian socialism" is a paradox) Agreeing that socialism is a paradox doesn't answer my question lawl. I'll ask it again: Are you trying to say instituting a libertarian society cannot be done in a "intrusive"(strange word choice) state? Yes, because the main point of libertarianism is the government staying out of people's lives.

Couldn't really follow that due to your sloppy English. But are you trying to say insituting a libertarian society cannot be done in a "strong" (your word choice, so ambiguous) state? Maybe I should've used the word "intrusive" rather than "strong" That info doesn't answer my question. ^^^ Yes. (I agree with assasin that "Libertarian socialism" is a paradox)

Couldn't really follow that due to your sloppy English. But are you trying to say insituting a libertarian society cannot be done in a "strong" (your word choice, so ambiguous) state? Maybe I should've used the word "intrusive" rather than "strong"

How the hell is "libertarian socialism" possible? left-wing economics require a strong state to enforce, which is the opposite to libertarianism

Even worse than communism

The Americas were colonised before Marx was even born... I don't know much about the native Americans but if they did have some form of system where the tribes shared out all their resources equally it's nothing to do with communism.

Funniest comment I've read on one of these ridiculous threads

Link me to another "communism thread", and don't spam. And discussion of a type of politics doesn't make anyone here a wanna-be dictator, or even communist at all. :thumbdown: Anyways, at the whole baggers vs. doctors debate- People want to be happy, they want to be content and without bore the most possible. Does becoming a bagger, and bagging for the rest of your life really sound fun to you? In a communistic government money is irrelevant when it comes to careers, its only about interest, enjoyment and servitude. Who do you think would be more respected? Who, generally speaking, would be more content with his or her job? There would be an obvious social hierarchy, but instead of the main variable being earnings, it would most likely be based upon skill, servitude and the impact in which the job has on society more so than in a capitalist economy. Other "communism threads": viewtopic.php?f=10&t=774938&hilit=communism (I haven't bothered to read it all but judging from the posts which I have read, it turned into one) viewtopic.php?f=10&t=773343&hilit=communism (see above) viewtopic.php?f=10&t=771419&p=6275679&hilit=communism#p6275679 (and again) viewtopic.php?f=10&t=770726&hilit=communism (same as above, but specifically about socialism/communism rather than turning into one) I can find more if you'd like Communism benefits no-one except the central planners who run it. Yeah, that really made me lul at the sheer lack of logic. If you were to make a thread about something like....."The vows of marriage", but then I said that there are too many threads about marriage and or vows and linked you to a thread about Gay marriage, The Definition of Love, and the laws regarding marriages. Its pretty idiotic. All the threads I linked to are VERY similar in content to this one.

Link me to another "communism thread", and don't spam. And discussion of a type of politics doesn't make anyone here a wanna-be dictator, or even communist at all. :thumbdown: Anyways, at the whole baggers vs. doctors debate- People want to be happy, they want to be content and without bore the most possible. Does becoming a bagger, and bagging for the rest of your life really sound fun to you? In a communistic government money is irrelevant when it comes to careers, its only about interest, enjoyment and servitude. Who do you think would be more respected? Who, generally speaking, would be more content with his or her job? There would be an obvious social hierarchy, but instead of the main variable being earnings, it would most likely be based upon skill, servitude and the impact in which the job has on society more so than in a capitalist economy. Other "communism threads": viewtopic.php?f=10&t=774938&hilit=communism (I haven't bothered to read it all but judging from the posts which I have read, it turned into one) viewtopic.php?f=10&t=773343&hilit=communism (see above) viewtopic.php?f=10&t=771419&p=6275679&hilit=communism#p6275679 (and again) viewtopic.php?f=10&t=770726&hilit=communism (same as above, but specifically about socialism/communism rather than turning into one) I can find more if you'd like Communism benefits no-one except the central planners who run it.

You mean people like you? I quit RS and got a life 2 years ago, now go back to cutting your pixel trees. If you're literate, then you'd notice that I don't play Nice 1693 hours of runescape in your sig? That's over a year old? NOTICE: All time It means I haven't played any games more than that And I left the client running over night when I couldn't be assed to turn my computer off Stop trying to deny the fact you still play RS.

Why is there a thread about communism every week anyway? I suppose it is funny to watch wannabe tinpot dictators argue with eachother though.

It's fair if there is no greed, which communism assumes. I'd say communism is more "greedy" than capitalism, to be honest.

Rubbish.

No, it doesn't. If America was a socialist or even communist nation, the economy probably wouldn't have crashed, because you wouldn't have been allowed to do the things that caused the economy to crash. (Giving people loans that they can't afford, etc.- If I remember right Bush voted for the deregulation of the financhial market which allowed just that.) The whole argument that all problems in the economy (recessions etc) would come to an end in a command economy is a joke.

oops double post

Communism and any form of freedom cannot exist side-by-side, and no it isn't "good on paper" (although all manifestations of it in the real world, have being worse than how it "is on paper")

He won't get 38 years. He will find it extremely difficult to get a decent job though (and probably impossible to get into University)

I remember reading a while ago that although Islam just took over Roman Catholicism, Christianity as a whole is still larger than Islam.