Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Fuck Communism.

profile picture
HowardRoark
Posts: 64 - Karma: 27
Communism doesn't work, and will never work.
Oct 1 2012 1:40AM
9 18
profile picture
roddy116
Posts: 10622 - Karma: 7,396
ahh dude last time i was at china i found these great communist cards, there pretty epic. i have them upstairs in my room somewhere in my collection of strange card decks, if i find them ill post some of them here.
Oct 1 2012 6:56PM
0 0
profile picture
207
Posts: 8969 - Karma: 3,846
Here's where your wrong. China is not capitalist. It is socialist. Or as it's officially referred to in China as: socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics

Even saying their socialist is a step, it's more or less as close to a communist system as one can get without being communist.
Oct 1 2012 7:43PM
0 0
profile picture
yeahno
Posts: 4008 - Karma: 3,414
Click for larger image
Oct 1 2012 7:55PM
0 0
profile picture
Park_Ranger
Posts: 3825 - Karma: 8,634
wrong
Oct 1 2012 8:19PM
0 0
profile picture
klayer_9
Posts: 2037 - Karma: 188
I really think that you should need to have at least 200 post before you can make a thread in NSG. So many shitty troll threads like this pop up and the OP has 7 post. Obviously an alias or a total noob. I don't mind debating the principles of communism vs. capitalism, but threads like FUCK COMMUNSIM are full retard. /rant
Oct 1 2012 8:31PM
0 0
profile picture
gotti
Posts: 4269 - Karma: 4,548
actually he is completely correct. Completely free capitalism does not deal with externalities because there is no incentive for private firms to pay for them. In fact, to make a market economy even a feasible option, the government must do the following:

1) Ensure Property rights (both physical and intellectual)
2) Build Infrastructure (transportation, utilities, communications, ect.)
3) Establish a rule of law (equality before the law, enforcement, and a well publicized law)

and communism alone obviously does not work. Just look at china and the great leap forward. that was a complete disaster of total communism and set china into a huge whole. Now they are beginning to combine and are doing a lot better but are still at about 1/3 the economic state of the US. Also consider russia. It is not a surprise that russia went into space first. It is because the government mandated it while people on the streets starved to death. Russia also has one of the largest black markets in the world and its economy is down the shitter.

/knowledge
Oct 1 2012 8:32PM
0 0
profile picture
little1337
Posts: 8159 - Karma: 45,773
HAHAHAHHAHAHHA
Oct 1 2012 9:11PM
0 0
profile picture
GEORGEzimmerman
Posts: 1473 - Karma: 439
oh my god best OP roast ive seen yet
Oct 2 2012 1:01AM
0 0
profile picture
shuckle
Posts: 590 - Karma: 317
Click for larger image
Oct 2 2012 2:07PM
0 0
profile picture
brosephstalin
Posts: 429 - Karma: 8
saved the world from nazism.
Oct 4 2012 6:41PM
0 0
profile picture
brosephstalin
Posts: 429 - Karma: 8
Click for larger image
Oct 4 2012 6:41PM
0 0
profile picture
shuckle
Posts: 590 - Karma: 317
lolwut
Oct 4 2012 6:47PM
0 0
profile picture
5m0k3we3d
Posts: 309 - Karma: 83
No form of government is sustainable over the long term.
Oct 4 2012 6:50PM
0 0
profile picture
accualyisdolan
Posts: 3295 - Karma: -192
china suck my dick. they make fake ipads fake iphones fake european cars fake everthing

and yeah communism is a joke
Oct 4 2012 6:56PM
0 0
profile picture
brosephstalin
Posts: 429 - Karma: 8
yep the Red Army were the premier freedom fighters in the world. it's a shame they are no longer around.
Oct 4 2012 6:56PM
0 0
profile picture
brosephstalin
Posts: 429 - Karma: 8
china's gonna own your dick soon bro

justsayin.gif
Oct 4 2012 6:58PM
0 0
profile picture
yourthemannowdog
Posts: 4541 - Karma: 313
The industrial revolution is not exclusive to capitalism. Russia industrialized under communism. I do not think that is a good argument for the controversies of capitalism.

What I think most people need to do is rid themselves of this idealistic view of government. I recommend most NSers read The Prince. It is a pragmatic approach to government. If you want to maintain power over long periods of time, government should be amoral. Government requires it's citizens forfeit some of there freedoms. I'm getting off on a bit of a tangent, but my point here is that we look at government irrationally.

I would like to see our government retain it's power for as long a period as possible. The war on drugs, class imbalances, and immoral activities have a big role in maintaining its power. If the populus was treated fairly by the government, if you got what you earned, you would not thank the government for what it has done. Rather you would claim, "Look what I have earned". We can not peacefully coexist like this because what would be the value in taking part in government? Oppression and corruption are a valuable tools in maintaining power.

I know my views are extreme, but I have the best of intentions. If you can propose an argument that acknowledges the problems that I am addressing, I would be delighted!
Oct 4 2012 7:45PM
0 0
profile picture
Bodhisattva_
Posts: 5749 - Karma: 2,009
Oh you mean socialism?

Communism is a political ideology.
Oct 4 2012 7:52PM
0 0
profile picture
roddy116
Posts: 10622 - Karma: 7,396
wat?
im sure your trolling but if your not your the biggest fucking idiot ever.
Oct 4 2012 7:57PM
0 0
profile picture
brosephstalin
Posts: 429 - Karma: 8
im not trolling. the red army was consistently a socially progressive in the Third World. learn your history.
Oct 4 2012 8:59PM
0 0
profile picture
yourthemannowdog
Posts: 4541 - Karma: 313
Your entire statement is a conclusion. Please show us how you arrived at this conclusion?

While you are righting a book I shall investigate the value of your statement. If we were to turn your statement into a question for the purpose of investigation, we would ask; Is there a form of government that is sustainable over the long term?

I would like to tackle the points of ambiguity (ontologically) in the questions first. The most obvious ambiguous point is the word long. What relevance would the term long have? In its given context we would need to know the objective of a government and its relation to time (as long is a factor of time in this given question). We would also need to know the importance of a governments objective with respect to time. We would need to know all that satisfies the word long. Long is a synthetic judgment, meaning that we can not know all that long is, but we can tell when long and when not long is. The is a problem of epistomelgy, and more specifically, language itself. We can safely say though, we do not know long. This is not to be mistaken with subjectivity, as subjectivity is grounded in our world. The idea of long is an external object so we shall not use the term long. I invite 5m0k3we3d to create an imaginary symbol of long and define it for us so we can further investigate the question.

I shall resume as if we had a concept of long. The next word that is foreign to us is sustainable. Again we will find that sustainable is an external object, but we can find context for sustainable for government makes sustainable analytical. We can now define sustainable as capable of being sustained. This is where our understanding of the word sustainable ends. How can we know what 5m0k3we3d means of the word sustainable? The terms of the definition are not grounded in language, thus we can not know of it.

Insofar we are having difficulties with grounding the words that support our question. I do not wish to continue with the analysis of this question. I must ask though, are metaphysical questions worth asking?
Oct 4 2012 10:35PM
0 0
profile picture
tbayskier
Posts: 1136 - Karma: 1,639
tldr
Oct 4 2012 10:40PM
0 0
profile picture
EmperorKuzco
Posts: 6660 - Karma: 254
Socialists unite!
Oct 4 2012 10:41PM
0 0
profile picture
brosephstalin
Posts: 429 - Karma: 8
Good points. I would take it a step further and say that it is not governments we care about, but modes of production. Communism is not a form of "government", it is a mode of production that challenges the dominant logic of capital. The USSR could not progress to an idealized vision of communism because it was under enormous material constraints like being under imperialist attack for most of its existence and having to industrialize in a few years to keep up with the capitalist core.
Oct 4 2012 10:42PM
0 0
profile picture
klayer_9
Posts: 2037 - Karma: 188
brosephstallin serving up some fools with some knowledge.
Oct 4 2012 10:43PM
0 0
profile picture
pomme-de-terre
Posts: 3915 - Karma: 703
fuck the police
Oct 4 2012 10:43PM
0 0
profile picture
klayer_9
Posts: 2037 - Karma: 188
brosephstallin serving up some fools with some knowledge.
Oct 4 2012 10:43PM
0 0
profile picture
roddy116
Posts: 10622 - Karma: 7,396
their tactics were pretty fucked up...
Oct 4 2012 10:45PM
0 0
profile picture
.ZT.
Posts: 5679 - Karma: 2,792
reading that right now, lol
Oct 4 2012 10:46PM
0 0
profile picture
klayer_9
Posts: 2037 - Karma: 188
Yeah the Nazi's tactics were pretty fucked up.
Oct 4 2012 10:49PM
0 0
profile picture
brosephstalin
Posts: 429 - Karma: 8
like what? fighting imperialist aggression? hell, most of the USSR's engagements were in self-defense. they also assisted national liberation movements in the Third World, like Nelson Mandela.
Oct 4 2012 10:50PM
0 0
profile picture
roor
Posts: 946 - Karma: -80
Only because the us was doing the same it's called the domino effect
Oct 4 2012 10:50PM
0 0
profile picture
brosephstalin
Posts: 429 - Karma: 8
thanks for backing me up Kush
Oct 4 2012 10:54PM
0 0
profile picture
roddy116
Posts: 10622 - Karma: 7,396
no im saying they didnt really concern themselves for their lives, they really did just run into the center of a battle and get shot up with lead. im talking strategically not the overall goal.
Oct 4 2012 10:56PM
0 0
profile picture
yourthemannowdog
Posts: 4541 - Karma: 313
I think you are missing the point of the joke. I attacked his simple pointless statement with a rigorous analytical statement. You are making me look stupid.

Did you even read my post?
Oct 4 2012 10:58PM
0 0
profile picture
brosephstalin
Posts: 429 - Karma: 8
oh okay. i misunderstood your original point. yea, unfortunately the red army was not well prepared for the nazi invasion because the officer corp had recently been purged for pro-Germany fascist elements (like Tukhachevsky).
Oct 4 2012 10:59PM
0 0
profile picture
klayer_9
Posts: 2037 - Karma: 188
Click for larger image
Oct 4 2012 11:13PM
0 0
profile picture
brosephstalin
Posts: 429 - Karma: 8
,Click for larger image
Oct 5 2012 5:47PM
0 0
profile picture
vandersteeze
Posts: 2650 - Karma: 1,511
Hahah this is so great

Oct 5 2012 5:50PM
0 0
profile picture
brosephstalin
Posts: 429 - Karma: 8

pretty fucked up imo that greatest socialist country was ruined by weirdo bald head w/pizza stain man and alcoholic liberal/fascist murderer.

Oct 5 2012 6:39PM
0 0
profile picture
yourthemannowdog
Posts: 4541 - Karma: 313
How insightful
Oct 5 2012 10:54PM
0 0
profile picture
klayer_9
Posts: 2037 - Karma: 188
best post in the thread by far.
Oct 6 2012 12:30AM
0 0
profile picture
brosephstalin
Posts: 429 - Karma: 8
just curious r u a trot?
Oct 6 2012 1:16AM
0 0
profile picture
yourthemannowdog
Posts: 4541 - Karma: 313
Yeah a few years ago I was in a marxist phase. I grew up and realized that Karl Marx was completely wrong about everything he said. Kinda like Aristotle
Oct 6 2012 1:43AM
0 0
profile picture
Bodhisattva_
Posts: 5749 - Karma: 2,009
Please explain. Just curious because I have just started really studying Aristotle and Socrates and would love to hear a critical viewpoint of their thoughts by someone with some knowledge.
Oct 6 2012 2:23AM
0 0
profile picture
db21
Posts: 597 - Karma: 61
i'm a firm believer in socialism personally. however people saying that no government/economy will ever fully work are probably correct
Oct 6 2012 11:40AM
0 0
profile picture
yourthemannowdog
Posts: 4541 - Karma: 313
It is hard to explain. He was just wrong about pretty much everything. He claimed that language was taught ostensively, he stated that self realizations was can be acquired by intellect (a priori) alone, he stated that objects were always at rest, the list goes on. Though, he was an extremely influential and powerful thinker. We spent the 1,000 years following his death to analyze everything he said, but it at that point we realized he was wrong. His biggest fault in this was spreading himself too far. He was very well rounded, but failed to be proficient in any one field.

When studying the Athenian triad (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) remember this, Socrates was a pest, Plato was the fan boy, and Aristotle was the fan boy's fan boy. A lot of people don't like to shit on Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle because they are so important. You wouldn't have western philosophy with out them, but that doesn't mean they are indubitable.

You will also find that a lot of Plato's outside of ethics does not hold today. Tread lightly when reading the Republic. Euthphyro, The Apology, Crito, and Phaedo are all amazing books that you should definitely take the time to analyze. I have read all four of those dialogues dozens of times, and I still get something new out of each time I read it.
Oct 6 2012 4:54PM
0 0
profile picture
HowardRoark
Posts: 64 - Karma: 27
I'm not Howard Roark; I envy him.
Oct 7 2012 2:07AM
0 0
profile picture
brosephstalin
Posts: 429 - Karma: 8
socialism isn't a kind of government. it's a mode of production.
Oct 7 2012 2:20AM
0 0
profile picture
5m0k3we3d
Posts: 309 - Karma: 83
it monopolizes the use of force and requires the initiation of force. Socialism is government you fool.
Oct 7 2012 3:16AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)