If your country were to become communist...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
If the government fails to provide an economy where skills are rewarded, then they deserve to miss out on the skills they have given to the population, particularly since they have a distinct advantage over other countries.

Why are you making this assumption?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
An integral part of the definition of "demand" is the ability to back up your want with purchasing power. In other words, demand means affording things. Further, no country has "no money". They can afford a certain amount of doctors per number of population through taxation. Obviously this number will be much lower than a country with a strong economy - such that there will be fewer doctors per person than in Spain. That a country with a weak economy has a lower standard of living should come as a shock to no-one though.

And yes, Spain can afford to pay more at the margain to gain an additional doctor, however there comes a point when the cost of an additional doctor outweighs the additional benefit that doctor brings. Morocco, with its weaker economy, can afford less doctors. With less doctors, the marginal benefit of an additional doctor is much greater than that of Spain. While they can't afford as many doctors as Spain, there is a point where the doctor's pay at market rates equals the benefit Morocco receives from the doctors it does hire.

You started talking about demand, and then you go to benefit. Demand requires ability to pay, but benefit does not.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Nicaragua was democratic and communist.

Wrong. The Sandinistas were not "communist". They were left-wingers and socialists but not communist since the basic factor behind an communist economic system, the abolition of private property, never occured.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Wrong. The Sandinistas were not "communist". They were left-wingers and socialists but not communist since the basic factor behind an communist economic system, the abolition of private property, never occured.

That's because they were taking it slow, instead of doing everything at once. If you knew anything about communism, you'd know that Lenin considered the total nationalization of Russian economy a grave error, but one which was forced upon them by necessity because of the civil war. After the crisis was over, he urged a return towards private property to rebuild the economy. In his earlier writings, and also in Marx's, the socialization of the economy is to take place at a gradual rate.

The Sandanisatas were revolutionary socialists. Communism = revolutionary socialism. Thus the Sandanisatas were communists. The Sandanistas were probably the closest thing to real Marxism and real Leninism since Lenin.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
That a country with a weak economy has a lower standard of living should come as a shock to no-one though.

And a country should do absolutely nothing when it loses the ones who can fight epidemics, deadly pregancies, massive illiteracy. It's all nice and dandy if these people go on their merry way, because the country better get used to have "lower standards of living"

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That's because they were taking it slow, instead of doing everything at once. If you knew anything about communism, you'd know that Lenin considered the total nationalization of Russian economy a grave error, but one which was forced upon them by necessity because of the civil war. After the crisis was over, he urged a return towards private property to rebuild the economy. In his earlier writings, and also in Marx's, the socialization of the economy is to take place at a gradual rate.

They took it slow because they began ruling as a coalition between the marxists (Daniel Ortega and pals) and the non-sandinistas (Violeta Chamorro being one of them) and later because of the Contra War, not necessarily because it was part of their master plan.

The Sandanisatas were revolutionary socialists. Communism = revolutionary socialism. Thus the Sandanisatas were communists. The Sandanistas were probably the closest thing to real Marxism and real Leninism since Lenin.

Communism in the economic sense is first and foremost the abolition of private property. Everything else stems from that one fact. All economic systems which do not conform to this are not communist, they are socialist to various degrees. Castro's Cuba is communist. North Korea is communist (and non-revolutionary, so under your argument they aren't commies then I guess). Sandinista Nicaragua was not communist, period.

[chequita guevara]

I'll listen to the theorists of communism before I listen to an anti-communist as to what communism is and how we plan on instituting it, Master Zen. The abolition of private property is not the first thing on the agenda after the overthrow of capitalism.

Cuba is not communist. North Korea is not communist. At best, they are socialist. They are ruled by Communist Parties, but that doesn't make them Communist anymor than Meixco becomes an instutioanlized revolution when from by the PRI and a national action (whatever that would be) when ruled by PAN. Form is not essence.

[Master Zen]

I'll listed to REALITY before I listen to any theories my friend. Because other than that you'll be able to shield your arguments quite easily by saying that even the most hideous and brutal regimes are not actually "communist"

[chequita guevara]

Whatever.

[Master Zen]

And as usually, the commies refuse to argue anything other than the ideals of communism vs the realities of capitalism since that's the only argument they can defend for any decent amount of time.

I'd really like to see you people willingly debate the realities of communism and capitalism so as to avoid any double standards. Or how about the reality of communism vs the ideal of capitalism? Now that would be one-sided!

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Lancer

DrZ, how can a democratic country not be capitalist? Capitalism IS freedom...

You forgot the

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Master Zen
And as usually, the commies refuse to argue anything other than the ideals of communism vs the realities of capitalism since that's the only argument they can defend for any decent amount of time.

I'd really like to see you people willingly debate the realities of communism and capitalism so as to avoid any double standards. Or how about the reality of communism vs the ideal of capitalism? Now that would be one-sided!

Well, we haven´t really seen true communism in action. Only half-assed attempts at best. So you can´t really compare real capitalism with real communism. All you have is the ideals of communism to compare with...

[Master Zen]

So, we haven't really seen true 100% laissez-faire captialism either. Which is why it is foolish to argue ideals and say that a system is better just because its idea is supposedly superior. Reality trounces many ideas and if no true communist state has ever existed maybe, just maybe, it's because such an idea was totally unsuited to reality.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Master Zen
So, we haven't really seen true 100% laissez-faire captialism either.

So the US isn't capitalist?

[Agathon]

And as usually, the commies refuse to argue anything other than the ideals of communism vs the realities of capitalism since that's the only argument they can defend for any decent amount of time.

It's not as if the other side are paragons. They constantly pretend that the third world doesn't exist while lauding the riches of its exploiters.