It’s simple to see, I mean, look at all the people risking everything to leave democracies and flock to the socialist states. I mean, the actual movement of people doesn’t lie, right?
Oh, wait. Communist states deny freedom to leave to many of their citizens. Yet many risk their very lives to get out. While democracies are overwhelmed by immigration from everywhere in the world.
But then, what do Cuban’s, Chinese, Vietnamese and Russian’s know about it, anyway. They probably think because they lived it, they know better than you, what it’s really like. Silly them, clearly you, who only experience it as an ideal, know much better.
Oh yeah, things are really looking up for the glorious workers paradise of the DPRK. Just look at this night time satellite photo of the region. As you can see by the utter darkness of the entire country but Pyongyang they have mastered the ability to need silly things like electricity to create a workers paradise. That and capitalist frivolities like food.
[Pavel Chekov] Is people’s cooperative union with adwancing socialist science of astronomy. North Korean People’s Paradise is leading vay against light pollwution.[/Chekov]
Commissar, you picked the one nation in the Caribbean region with a lower standard of living that Cuba. The ONLY nation in the Caribbean with a lower standard of living. Jamaica, St. Lucia, the Domincan Republic… all higher than Cuba when measured by Gross National Income.
As near as I can tell anyways. The figures I got came from a mixture of IMF and CIA World Factbook, both of which I expect you to handwave away anyways.
So, what makes a nation Communist, to you?
Workers Control the Means of Production?
Strong Unions?
If I recall correctly, both of those are on the benchmarks of “Must have’s” for a Communist nation to call itself Communist.
Neither of which exist in China. In fact, the Government in China regularly breaks strikes using the tried and true capitalist method of “send in troops to club the striking workers until they break”. Or the factory owners will fire them all, knowing that there is an endless stream of hungry people waiting for the chance of a job.
Certainly sounds like a Paradise of the Proletariat to me…
(if I keep coming to this thread, I’m gonna have to dust off my copy of Mao’s little red book and other Com-Lit chestnuts. How… odd.)
He said communist, immediately after saying that they’re not the same thing.
FWIW I had no problem accessing the Dope from Kazakhstan this year. That’s not to say they don’t block other things at the drop of a hat; I discovered after trying to follow links to a few blog postings that blogspot/blogger and livejournal are blocked.
You’re absolutely right; numbers don’t lie. Immigration is a good measure of how people feel about a particular nation and style of government.
So, yes, I see your point. This is why the Chinese are beating down your doors to immigrate to the US. It is also why, say, the Mexicans, who are clearly enjoying the fruits of capitalist county, are in absolutely no way interested in moving to your Empire. Wait a minute… Something seems wrong with your argument, but I just can’t seem to put my finger on it… :rolleyes:
Don’t talk in absolutes; it dumbs the discussion down and discourages intellectual debate. Your statement may be mostly true for Stalinist USSR or present-day North Korea. It is also largely false for the present-day PRC and Vietnam, which allow most people to leave and come back at will, and yet do not seem to be experiencing the negative population growth that you seem to take for granted. And, to pick on Mexico once again, is it really “overwhelmed by immigration?” It’s a democracy, after all… What about all the other poor democracies in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa? Also overwhelmed? I’m afraid reality and your perceptions of it are worlds apart, my friend.
And you have picked the one measure that is arguably irrelevant when it comes to discussing standards of living. Seriously, you think that a high GNI reflects individual happiness? Even assuming that you are correct about the relative GNIs, this has absolutely zero to do with human happiness.
How about life expectancy? That seems a much better standard, one that reflects the quality of the environment, access to medical care, and proper nutrition. You know, things that directly influence happiness?
At 78.3 years, Cuba is pretty much on top of the Caribbean. Oh, and it’s above the Empire in the rankings. Not bad for a small socialist island.
Once we get into definitions, it all becomes subjective very quickly.
Personally, I would say that neither of those factors are required to qualify a nation as socialist (note: socialist, not Communist). I would say that the only “must have” is a philosophical commitment to putting human happiness over profits, workers over corporations, and equality over stratification. I would also require an effort to redistribute social resources and to ensure that basic positive rights are met. Also, I would require some state-owned enterprises.
I do not believe that any nation is or can be “Communist” per se. That is a utopian goal, not a serious aspiration. Socialist nations strive for Communism; they do not achieve it.
Pretty much no self-proclaiming “Socialist” countries that were striving toward communism actually meet this goal. They emphasized profits and stratification in the name of the Communist Party. The only difference between this and Fascism is that the latter also emphasizes the supremacy of corporations.
Indeed numbers don’t lie, my stupid compatriot. Since 1960 the percentage of US residents with Chinese ancestry has increased ten-fold.
Last year there were 1.9 million immigrants from China in the US, second only to Mexico. With Vietnam and Cuba being in the top six. Once again your ignorance shines through.
Incidentally, I find it interesting that so many posters are willing to use modern North Korea as an attack on socialism in general, yet are doing their best to dodge any discussion of modern Haiti.
So here is my challenge to you capitalist apologists: if you believe that a political-economic philosophy should be able to account for under-performing outliers, what is your explanation of Haiti? Why is this little corner of capitalism such a dump? Frankly, it’s making North Korea look downright awesome. What gives?
That’s a nice little dance around the point, but I’m afraid I must call you out on it. The poster I was replying to claimed that all socialist nations lose people to capitalist democracies. Inversely, all capitalist democracies are “overwhelmed” with immigrants seeking to get in on the action.
And yet, here we have people from a capitalist democracy streaming into another capitalist democracy. Instead, according to the poster, both Mexico and the US should be getting slammed with Chinese and Vietnamese immigrants. Try as you might, there’s just no way to salvage that ridiculously erroneous analysis.
Oh, and your statement adds an additional misrepresentation into the mix. According to your own link, there are more Indian than Chinese immigrants per year to the Empire. China has a bigger population, so the per capita difference is even greater. Oh, and the Philippines produce almost as many immigrants - from a country several times less populated than either China or India. Your attempt at misdirection (by looking at ancestry rather than actual annual immigration) is just silly. Embedded map from your own link:
Well, I don’t happen to believe that a political-economic philosophy necessarily should be able to account for under-performing outliers. Whew, that was a close one.
What is your explanation for the United States; oh, I’m sorry, THE EMPIRE, not being like Haiti?
Personally, I would put Mexico, like Haiti, more in line as a Kleptocracy then a particularly capitalist system, but then, I tend to deal with real life and not pie-in-the-sky fantasies.
Inversely my ass, you’re making shit up, you liar.
So? That in no way invalidates his claim. Try to find some data of people leaving a capitalist country to flock to a communist one.
The US is getting slammed by millions from those countries.
Are you stupid or lying? Or both? 1.9 million Chinese is more than 1.6 million Indians. In 2006 it was ~87k Chinese to ~61k Indians. Christ, at least the folks I know who grew up under communism are decent at math, what’s your excuse?
Again with the stupidity. The chart midway down shows where these people were born. 1.9 million Chinese. That is 1.9 million people born in China, second only to a much, much closer neighbor.
Since you seem to be functionally illiterate, there’s not much I can do to help you out here. If you don’t believe that this is what the poster said, all I can do is offer his express words:
“While democracies are overwhelmed by immigration from everywhere in the world.” - elbows
I’m almost sure that your next reply will accuse me of hacking these boards to make it seem like he said that. :rolleyes: Grow up, my friend; hysterical insults do not an argument make.
Go back to the link (don’t you read what you post, either?):
Scroll down to the table labeled “Origin,” which sets forth averaged immigration rates by the top 10 source nations.
Mexico: 175,900
India: 59,300
China: 50,900
You seem to prefer to ignore averages and go with an arbitrary specific year instead, apparently simply because you find that it fits your silly argument better. That’s both sloppy statistics and sloppy thinking. You can do better than that, my friend.
Go back to the map from your own link:
Per capita, China sends far fewer immigrants the Empire’s way than does India, the Philippines, Brazil, Australia, and most of Africa, South-East Asia, and the Middle East. Oh, and notice all those Canadians fleeing their capitalist democracy, as well.
Instead, you keep parroting an absolute number of Chinese-born persons in the US, which would be far more impressive if not for the fact that, you know, it’s kind of the most populous nation in the world.
If you’re having difficulty understanding this, imagine the following hypothetical. We start with an empty nation X. Next, let’s assume that 1% of all Chinese and 100% of all Liechtensteiners immigrate to X. The Chinese population of X will now outnumber that of the Liechtensteiners in X by several hundred to one. Would you then argue that the Chinese are far more interested in immigrating to X than are Liechtensteiners? Despite the 1% versus 100% immigration rate?
Seriously, I love your insistence on being right when your own evidence contradicts you. That’s the spirit! A fanatic never gives up, facts be damned!
You know, I figured you would do that. Your approach seems to be to settle on a theory, see which facts contradict that theory, and then toss those facts out.
Here’s what you have argued so far:
(1) Socialist nations are poor and capitalist nations are rich. The end.
(2) What’s that? China and Vietnam are rich? Then they’re not socialist. Case closed.
(3) What? Mexico is poor? Then it’s not capitalist. Case closed, dammit!
Yeah, I’m not a fan of your methodology. I prefer to look for theories that fit the facts, rather than to reject inconvenient facts so that an erroneous theory can be maintained.
Find me the word “all” in that statement, fucknugget.
Well, I didn’t think it appropriate to include years when China wasn’t a communism, but whatever. Even if they are third or fifth or tenth it still shows that people are leaving your Utopian communism in droves. Not the other way around.
