CIA worked in tandem with Pakistan to create Taliban.

[vomitus]

Well, I preferred to not continue this Internet argument, but the more I thought about the things said above, the more it bothered me. I feel like I'm being a jerk by continuing with this debate. In any case, commies of Apolyton, there is no perfect social or economic model. However, I strongly believe communism to be an inherently bad model.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
When over ten million a year die in the capitalist world because of easily preventable disease and famine, simply because it isn't profitable to save them, capitalism easily beats the killing fields, the Great Leap Forward, and Stalin's collectivization.

Well, if you want to talk about easily preventable disease and famine, then communism has capitalism beat by a mile. Communism creates famines and productivity is weakened so much that easily preventable diseases become more prevelant. Capitalism isn't perfect but communism is far worse in this respect.

Related to this, there's a topic I've heard before related to inaction. Can a nation be blamed for certain kinds of inaction? If the US is rich and wealthy and the people of Nigeria are starving, is it the US's fault for the famine in Nigeria because it doesn't help to stop it? Or at least, it doesn't help enough? If it is indeed the US's fault, doesn't that make it everyone else's fault as well for not doing enough? I'm only using the US and Nigeria as an example; you can attribute this notion of inaction to anything.

What I'm trying to get at, is whose fault is it if an easily preventable disease is not prevented? In what numbers are we talking about? Specifically what countries, and what times are you talking about?

And frankly, I don't think it matters a whit of difference if you are killed because some Communist thug shoots you in the head or because some capitalist steals your land and you starve to death. The end result is the same. You died because of someone else.

I very strongly disagree with that. It does make a difference. A big difference. For one, if you're shot, you're instantly gone with no hope of change. If anyone steals your land, you still have an opportunity for hope. That's a generalization of course. But dying from being shot and by something which you can actually do something about are much different.

And "stealing land" isn't part of capitalism. Communism on the other hand, typically does take land from the owners and gives it to the government (itself). Then they reduce productivity to an abysmal level and create a famine.

For capitalism, let's say some wealthy guy wants to buy land. The owner doesn't want to sell. It is not an inherent part of capitalism for the wealthy guy to then steal the owner's land. That has of course happened in history within capitalist nations, but that's not capitalism. Stealing land (and other properties) has happened in communist nations as well. The Soviets also had a habit of taking machinery from their conquered nations and bringing it to the Soviet Union. Does that make stealing land or other resources a part of communism? Not necessarily, except for the part where the government consolidates land to itself.

[Sandman]

For capitalism, let's say some wealthy guy wants to buy land. The owner doesn't want to sell. It is not an inherent part of capitalism for the wealthy guy to then steal the owner's land. That has of course happened in history within capitalist nations, but that's not capitalism.

You might as well claim that a monarchy with an insane, inbred king incapable of leadership was 'not actually a monarchy' and that inbreeding and insanity are not inherent to monarchism.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Sandman


You might as well claim that a monarchy with an insane, inbred king incapable of leadership was 'not actually a monarchy' and that inbreeding and insanity are not inherent to monarchism.

You might, but that claim would be easily refuted by looking at the definition of monarchy

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Then I guess the U.S. was never capitalist, since African-Americans were excluded from the market by law until the 1960s, and since then, no one can seriously claim the U.S. has had a free market. In other words, your claim that a free market is what defines capitalism is just pure BS. There has never been a free market in capitalism.

But blacks were part of the market before the abolition of slavery -- they were bought and sold as property after all.


Note: I agree with some of what you say Che -- just adding some cold sarcasm.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sandman
A broken car is still a car, Imran.

Is Stalin Communism then?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Saras
You might, but that claim would be easily refuted by looking at the definition of monarchy.

How so? Take absolute monarchy (for simplicity). If the absolute monarch doesn't have absolute power, then it's not actually an absolute monarchy.

Similarly, if capitalism doesn't have free markets, then it's not actually capitalism.

The argument is absurdly self-serving, since it sidesteps all issues of practical implementation in favour of idealistic tubthumping.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Is Stalin Communism then?

Yes. Broken communism. Badly broken.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How so? Take absolute monarchy (for simplicity). If the absolute monarch doesn't have absolute power, then it's not actually an absolute monarchy.

Yes... but we were discussing monarchy, not absolute monarchy .

[Sandman]

You can play the 'define away the problems' game with other forms of monarchy, but the example is clearest with the absolute form.

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by DaShi
UR, like most Chinese citizens, isn't taught about communist China's role in South East Asia, especially concerning Cambodia. However, he, like most Chinse citizens, is taught exaggerated claims of US atrocities there. Chinese history revision has nothing on Japan.

Currently, China is trying to block the Khmer Rouge trial for fear of making its support of the regime known worldwide.

deserves to be quoted

[Dinner]

You know Dashi lives in China, right? When it comes to China I tend to trust what he says since he has a unique perspective as a western ex-pat living there.

[Barnabas]

And he is right, I agree with Dashy

[Saras]

Oh, and if anyone's interested, I went for d).

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The one really dirty one was Nixon and Kissinger plotting against Salvador Allende in Chile. Allende was a new breed of hyper nationalistic socialists in South America who more then a little admired Castro and the USSR. Allende ordered all foreign owned business nationalized without compensation then when the US objected he started talking to the Soviets about building a base in Chile. Nixon was hopping mad and Kissinger kept talking about other Latin American countries following Allende's lead.

The result was Nixon ordered the CIA to find someone, anyone who would over throw Allende. That someone turned out to be Augusto Pinochet who wasn't a very nice man. In fact Pinochet lived by the theory that dead people can't oppose you so he went out to kill everyone whom he or his secet police suspected of being first communists then later socialists. The US didn't really like Pinochet after the coupe because of his blood thirstiness but Pinochet returned the businesses to their original owners and so the US left him alone to do as he pleased. That's really the worst cold war example of winning at all costs thinking.

Yet the body count was surprisingly low, Pinochet left power and the country resumed a democratically elected government, and throughout has had the most stable and healthy economy in South America. Castro has a lot more blood on his hands, has not left power or put into place a democratic government and his economy has been completely in the sh!tter when he hasn't been the recipient of massive communist ally welfare funds.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Prefers is not the same thing as requires. Capitalism prefers the rule of law, but it is willing to do without it if it can get away with it or if it must.

Actually , capitalism is impossible without the rule of law . You need a central agency ( otherwise known as a government ) to make sure that there is no use of force or fraud in the market .