49 police officers killed in India

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Drixnak
Just because you are a mentally weak failure does not mean the rest of us should be brought down to your level. Competition is a beautiful thing and that is what capitalism is based on. Communism is famous for its propaganda, and practice has proven which ideology works. You really have nothing to argue here. Communists are the scum of the world, end of story.

Who said there wasn't competition in a communist regime?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Can there be multiparty democracy in a communist country by the understanding you use?

Depends on what you mean by a communist country. If you mean communist country as in state capitalist with a controlled economy then there would not be a real democracy. The only reason I can see to justify this is if the country is at war or threatened by enemies.

Communism is something else. Communism is an ideal that a society can approach where multiparty democracy can exist.

[Geronimo]

Do people still use these terms in the old marxist senses such as a socialist state being a state with nationalized means of production but in which government continues to exist and communist state as one in which government has "melted away" and so multiparty democracy has no place there? Do I need to update my terminology?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Ok, defend your point then if you think that is Maosim.

This is just one of the recent episodes of violence:

The most affected Chattisgarh state has witnessed one of the worst ever massacre on 17 July when armed Naxalites attacked the Errabore Relief Camp in Dantewada district, killing some 30 unarmed civilians and injuring scores. The attackers have abducted more than 45 people in that fateful night. Later, the Naxalites have reportedly released some hostages and killed another six including security personnel. All the six hostages killed later were surrendered Naxalites, according to the police. The Naxals unleashed a flurry of attacks, first on the nearby central reserve police force (CRPF) camp and then raided the relief camp, resorting to indiscriminate arson and abductions. They opened fire on the inmates (tribals) of the relief camp and set over a hundred huts on fire. Thousands of people are staying in government-run relief camps in Dantewada district alone. The fear of Naxalites pushed them to take shelter in these camps. These camps are supposed to get armed protections from the security forces. Surprisingly, Naxalites have dodged the security rings and succeeded in their operation. The failed action on the part of security forces has also been questioned in the media. Even one police official quoted in the media as saying that: "We know that such attacks will happen in the future as well […] as long as Salwa Judum activists are present, these camps will be targeted." The latest offensive made the state Chief Minister Raman Singh and his team of experts and security advisors to draft a new strategy against the Naxalites. The chief minister has rapped the senior security officials over the lax security arrangements at various relief camps, where over half a lakh people have taken shelter.

Stuff like this happens every other week or so.

Now, tell me how the slaughter of innocent people, planting of landmines, and public beheadings have anything to do with land and jobs?

Here's some background on the Maoist menace.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Do people still use these terms in the old marxist senses such as a socialist state being a state with nationalized means of production but in which government continues to exist and communist state as one in which government has "melted away" and so multiparty democracy has no place there? Do I need to update my terminology?

It's wise to just ask people to define terms. People use them differently. There's a lot of different communists/socialists also.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Now, tell me how the slaughter innocent people, planting of landmines, and public beheadings have anything to do with land and jobs?

You tell me how it's not. You are speaking FOR these people when you are obviously quite politically opposed to them. This is nothing but weak propaganda.

[Pekka]

Even Jesus would kill communists. Buddha too.

[Pekka]

And YES, an important distinction has been made in here regarding socialism and communism. You really can't implement communism in a democracy, but you can implement socialism. It can even be succesful. It's all about the economy, if you have good, strong economy, you might be able to have a succesful socialist nation. But, when your economy isn't supportive enough, not dynamic and not competitive, your socialism will be quite poor as well.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
And YES, an important distinction has been made in here regarding socialism and communism. You really can't implement communism in a democracy, but you can implement socialism. It can even be succesful. It's all about the economy, if you have good, strong economy, you might be able to have a succesful socialist nation. But, when your economy isn't supportive enough, not dynamic and not competitive, your socialism will be quite poor as well.

Define your terms. Are you talking about welfare state socialism, corporatism, or some sort of planned economy?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's wise to just ask people to define terms. People use them differently. There's a lot of different communists/socialists also.

sounds like they need to pull their acts together or all of their mass killings, terrorism, and internet forum spam will be for naught

[Pekka]

Kid, welfare state socialism. Planned economy goes to communism in my books, even if it wasn't the definition of it. Planned economy is Satan.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
Kid, welfare state socialism. Planned economy goes to communism in my books, even if it wasn't the definition of it. Planned economy is Satan.

Ok you said you need competition. Why would people compete when they can get welfare. And assuming for a moment that such a system could be competitive, how can you also have high taxes/welfare. The more competitive a system is the less taxes they can pay.

[Pekka]

I was talking about competitive economy. As in, the nation is competitive in the global market place.

I don't see why it couldn't be competitive. Of course it has to give up few sectors, like manufacturing. But there are other sectors where there could be stiff competition, in the global market place.

And what the hell are you talking about anyway? Why would people compete... ? uhhh, are you trying to say, that if people get welfare money, why would they ever work?

a) the welfare isn't enough for a person to have a comfrotable life, it keeps them alive, but it isn't exactly nice. b) You raise the benefits of working, so it makes sense to work and not stay home c) people aren't competing against each other, business is. We live in market driven economies, business competes, not individuals in the same sense.

I'm not promoting that every man should compete against each other. That's like the hardcore version of the rat race. Rather people should be able to decide for themselves at all times in all situations. That's what I consider ideal. Individual freedom.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
I was talking about competitive economy. As in, the nation is competitive in the global market place.

For a nation to be competitive in the marketplace society is going to have to pay for it one way or the other. Wages are going to have to be low for one. Second you are going to have to have a low tax rate for corporations. There are all sorts of advantages that corporations get besides these two. So the tax burden is going to fall on the worker. Usually this comes in a consumption tax or sales tax in these situations so that people can't really get out of it especially if they are poor.

I don't see why it couldn't be competitive. Of course it has to give up few sectors, like manufacturing. But there are other sectors where there could be stiff competition, in the global market place.

The global marketplace is not competitive just because it is big. A competitive environment is simply not suitable, especially in large scale. Do you realized how much corporations spend not to compete? In the old days you just paid to have things made, now there is all kinds of other costs. These costs are added costs to avoid competition. It's the only way they can make profit. As much as corporations have reduced costs they have added other costs. Think about it. Sure profits have gone up, but not that much. If companies were only reducing costs we would have deflation, but they are adding costs. They are paying people to help the corporation avoid competition. This is all restructuring, not helping the economy.

And what the hell are you talking about anyway? Why would people compete... ? uhhh, are you trying to say, that if people get welfare money, why would they ever work?

a) the welfare isn't enough for a person to have a comfrotable life, it keeps them alive, but it isn't exactly nice. b) You raise the benefits of working, so it makes sense to work and not stay home c) people aren't competing against each other, business is. We live in market driven economies, business competes, not individuals in the same sense.

How are you going to raise the benefits of working when you have to tax workers and keep wages low for corporations to be competitive. (I hope you know that for a business 'competitive' means to avoid competion and so make profit)

I'm not promoting that every man should compete against each other. That's like the hardcore version of the rat race. Rather people should be able to decide for themselves at all times in all situations. That's what I consider ideal. Individual freedom.

Ideal sure, not real though.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drixnak
Socialists and communists are the same thing.

Spoken like a truly ignorant person. I suggest taking an intro Poli Sci class so you don't look so foolish.