In Russia, Communist nation fails YOU!
Well, was the Soviet Union a Communist entity, as I defined it earlier?
The PRC?
No true North Korean wants to flee North Korea.
Nope - the Soviet Union was a Marxist-Leninist socialist state. Incidentally, the definition you offered was that of Marxist-Leninist socialist states, not of Communist states.
Communist states are an abstraction - a utopian end-state that socialist states strive for with no expectation of getting there. This does not make the journey futile; one must keep in mind that it’s the path, rather than the destination, that matters as far as nations are concerned.
This is the same phenomenon we see among capitalists, many of whom voice a longing for true laissez faire capitalism. At the same time, pretty much all of them realize that this utopian capitalist state with zero governmental involvement in economic matters is an idle and unrealistic dream.
Ultimately, it makes no more sense to call a socialist nation Communist then it does to call a capitalist nation laissez faire. Neither of the latter two has ever existed, nor is likely to exist in a world that involves human beings.
Odd… Marxist-Leninist socialist state does seem to be the working definition for mainstream communism…
Right. So the thriving Imperial black market in illicit narcotics is also “a flouting of Rule of Law, in addition to being an indicator of the failed economic policies?” Fascinating. So, an economic model fails whenever someone buys something illegally? Good luck finding an economic policy that satisfies your outrageous standards, then.
A stereotype does not an argument make. What causes you to assume that party members are above the law in all socialist (not Communist) nations? Would it surprise you to learn that the glorious PRC has recently been conducting a major anti-corruption campaign? Quite a few party members seem to have bet on your “above the law” assumption when deciding to engage in criminal activity. The firing squads must have come as quite a rude awakening to them. So much for your black-and-white theory.
As I have said numerous times now, socialism and capitalism are part of the same spectrum, with most nations falling somewhere between the two ends. In that sense, all nations on the spectrum are a “hybrid.” The Empire, though capitalist-leaning, adopts some socialist ideas (Social Security, labor laws, food stamps, Medicare, etc.). This does not make it socialist, any more than private enterprise makes PRC capitalist.
You completely missed the point of my fill-in-the-blanks exercise. The point is that you’ve trying to base a theory on warped examples. At the end of the day, all you’re really saying is, “socialism is bad because socialists X, Y, and Z failed. Only X failed? Then Y and Z aren’t socialists, so I still win!”
The weakness of your reasoning is not in the theory per se, but in the examples you try to use. Classifying nations in order to fit them into holes that suit your own worldview is lazy and erroneous. Your theory must match the existing facts. You can’t simply mischaracterize the facts in order to preserve the theory.
You’re now proving my point for me; when I filled in your format’s blanks with other examples to prove an opposite conclusion, you immediately attacked the examples, just as you should have. As I admitted right away, these examples are simply not good enough to prove the point; some are weak, others purposefully misrepresented. It is a commentary on the method that you’re trying to use here. It simply doesn’t work - you need to come up with a stronger proof.
According to whom? I’m guessing you’re referring to the following throwaway statement from your link:
“In the other three communist states existing today—Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam—the ruling Parties hold Marxism–Leninism as their official ideology, although they give it different interpretations in terms of practical policy.”
But what makes these three states “Communist?” Simply concluding that they are is not enough. Let’s follow the hyperlink in that sentence:
“A communist state is a sovereign state with a form of government characterized by single-party rule or dominant-party rule of a communist party and a professed allegiance to a communist ideology as the guiding principle of the state.”
Aha! A Communist state is one that has a Communist Party or uses Communist ideology. How beautifully circular… But what does the party name have to do with characterizing the nation? If the Greens take over in the US, will that officially make you a “green nation,” whatever that is? Seems like a ridiculous definition to me.
The article itself seems to be confused about its definitions. Look on the first map to the right at Communist state - Wikipedia :
“A map showing the current (2010) states with communist/socialist governments. They are China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, and North Korea.”
So now some of them became “socialist” rather than “Communist?” Since Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam were identified as “communist” in the previous link, are we to assume that North Korea and China are “socialists?” So Vietnam is Communist, but North Korea is not?
I’ll spare you further headaches: none of them is Communist. They’re all socialists. You’re welcome.
Not exactly. Did you miss the first sentence on that page?
I didn’t have to hunt through the page to find anything. But since you’re not ignoring me, will you comment on Belarus? Specifically why the UN Commission on Human Rights report paints a completely opposite picture of the country you claim to visit regularily?
That you advocate this in any form to me illustrates the difference between a democratic government versus one from the “People’s Republic Of X”. Eliminating dissent at the barrel of a gun will never work.
The names of these countries are super-ironic, too. The “People’s Republic Of China” or “Democratic People’s Republic Of Korea”…when both countries are anything but about the people. The people are a resource to be exploited in favor of a strong military. What a bunch of shit.
Commissar, I honestly can’t believe you defend such brutal regimes. And by “brutal regimes”, I mean a government that actively “disappears” or otherwise kills its OWN people, not a country that initiated a war many people don’t agree with.
Surely your sharp mind can grasp the difference.
I find it ironic you’re so sensitive about the right name, socialist not communist, etc.
All the while maintaining that the republic is an empire, you should consider comedy as a career!
It will be fun to see what happens to the communist paradise that is Belarus, when their capitalist Russian neigbors get sick of them. Of course, this report is from the BBC, one of the least trustworthy news agencies in the word - who, even as we speak, are using their weather agency to put forward the US’s agenda in an attempt to pretend that their other news divisions are not chaging the names of countries who the US doesn’t like to the names that British people used to call them, so I’m sure Commisar will ignore it (although I don’t actually read his posts anymore, 
- it’s funner that way).
BY the way, Belarus is apparently such a remarkable shit hole that these women are willing to marry complete strangers to get the fuck out of there _ can’t say I blame them.
The millions upon millions of deaths caused by communist states upon their own citizens are not abstractions.
They most certainly are to the OP; it’s abundantly clear from his posts to this thread that, you know, you’ve got to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
There’s the thing: this mook would happily see you, me and up to millions of other people die violently because we don’t happen to meet his standard for political orientation. If that’s not a fanatic, I don’t know what is.
He is a fanatic, and delusional. Also, doesn’t understand that difference between economic system and political system, but that’s ok.
Once again twisting my words. Yes, there is an illegal black market in the US for drugs and narcotics. There is a black market for illegal goods in just about any country on the planet, including China.
However, a thriving black market in normal every day trade goods that are NOT illegal, just impossible to find in the normal state run markets is in indicator of failures in the economic system. ex: food and toiletries and electronics in the Soviet Union, banned books and information in China
As for saying that the Soviet Union was Socialist, and not Communist… I think the Communist Party of the Soviet Union would disagree with you.
But then, changing definitions seems to be a specialty of yours.
Ah, so actual communist states do not and cannot ever exist, which allows you to dismiss the negative actions of any state in history, no matter how close they are to your ideal communist system, as the actions of a non-communist state. How incredibly convenient for you. No need to deal with messy reality, and things that have just actually happened. Nope, just keep preaching about this glorious hypothetical and imaginary state of being. Hurrah!
Smeghead: So communism is a Scotsman. Who knew?!
They were just protecting those poor souls from Western propaganda, haven’t you heard anything commissar has said?
Do you think Commissar feels his parents should have been killed? They moved to the US looking for jobs, clearly they fell prey to insidious Western propaganda that the state would not provide for them.
Hey, maybe it’s open mike night at Giggle’s in the Gulag?
It’s spelled Happy Fun Camp.