The answer is a communist party

[Revoltingest]

Apparently that's been the case, largely because capitalists in this world have been unwilling to accept peaceful coexistence.

So capitalist countries can survive a lack of peace,
but communist ones cannot, & therefore must
have the entire world under their thumb?
(This is fun.)
Let's say the world does go commie....
If one capitalist country then forms, communism
will once again be crushed?

Which capitalist country conquered the USSR?

 

[Milton Platt]

That's it. They need a communist party in US.

What else could turn things around for the real people (not the internet trolls)?

Please list the successful Communist countries.

 

[Stevicus]

So capitalist countries can survive a lack of peace,
but communist ones cannot, & therefore must
have the entire world under their thumb?
(This is fun.)
Let's say the world does go commie....
If one capitalist country then forms, communism
will once again be crushed?

Which capitalist country conquered the USSR?

Well, now, you're just being silly.

I'm saying that capitalist countries are led by warmongers. The US participated in an intervention against the Soviet Union right from the start. The US has been hostile towards any communist country, even when they didn't do anything.

Face it: Capitalists are warmongers. Communists believe in peaceful coexistence.

Nobody conquered the USSR. The USSR broke up of its own volition, mainly due to their tireless commitment to peace (which the US never shared).

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, now, you're just being silly.

It's not my fault!
It's where I'm being led.

I'm saying that capitalist countries are led by warmongers. The US participated in an intervention against the Soviet Union right from the start. The US has been hostile towards any communist country, even when they didn't do anything.

Commie countries are war mongers too.
There's nothing inherent in either economic
system which predisposes them to be this way.

Communists believe in peaceful coexistence.

Nobody conquered the USSR. The USSR broke up of its own volition, mainly due to their tireless commitment to peace (which the US never shared).

Tireless commitment to peace.....so that's why they had all those nukes.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Alright, first we have to free the proletariat. In this case, that would probably be the us lowly posters.
Which means that the mods are the bourgeoise.
Let's overthrow the mods!

Seize the means of moderation!!

 

[Stevicus]

Commie countries are war mongers too.
There's nothing inherent in either economic
system which predisposes them to be this way.

They're not warmongers, but they're not pacifists either. They fight wars for defensive purposes. It's the capitalists who are the true warmongers.

Tireless commitment to peace.....so that's why they had all those nukes.

For defensive purposes only. We're the only ones who ever used nukes. Besides, the Soviet Union made a proclamation that they would never do a "first strike," which is something US leaders refused to do. I wonder why.

 

[Revoltingest]

They're not warmongers, but they're not pacifists either. They fight wars for defensive purposes. It's the capitalists who are the true warmongers.

Soviets...defensive wars only...like their invasion of Afghanistan & Czechoslovokia?
That post gives new meaning to "rose colored glasses".

 

[Stevicus]

Soviets...defensive wars only...like their invasion of Afghanistan & Czechoslovokia?
That post gives new meaning to "rose colored glasses".

The fact that they needed a buffer zone was part of a defensive strategy. The West was hostile and threatening towards them. If we had left them alone in peace, none of this would have happened.

 

[Revoltingest]

The fact that they needed a buffer zone was part of a defensive strategy. The West was hostile and threatening towards them. If we had left them alone in peace, none of this would have happened.

Those poor innocent peaceful commies....only
failing because of those war mongering capitalists.
If true, then communism is too fragile to allow them
to come to power.

 

[Notanumber]

Are capitalist governments more likely or less likely to want to control the freedom of speech than communist governments are?

 

[Stevicus]

Those poor innocent peaceful commies....only
failing because of those war mongering capitalists.
If true, then communism is too fragile to allow them
to come to power.

Thank you for conceding that communists hold the moral high ground over capitalists.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thank you for conceding that communists hold the moral high ground over capitalists.

But they're so fragile, naive & innocent that
they're always being conquered by capitalists.
So they're just too weak to exist.

 

[Shad]

.

mainly due to their tireless commitment to peace (which the US never shared).

Hilarious.

 

[Sunstone]

That's it. They need a communist party in US.

What else could turn things around for the real people (not the internet trolls)?

Of the 3,698 forms of communism, which are you referring to? Sean Hannity's?

 

[Wu Wei]

You've never heard of the Mafia?

Yup, and I would not call them capitalist either

 

[Revoltingest]

Yup, and I would not call them capitalist either

Organized crime was rampant in the USSR, but I
wouldn't say that defines socialism/communism.
It can exist under any economic system.

 

[Stevicus]

But they're so fragile, naive & innocent that
they're always being conquered by capitalists.
So they're just too weak to exist.

Yeah, I suppose that's just the way of the world.

 

[Stevicus]

Yup, and I would not call them capitalist either

Why not? After all, the only criteria used by the US government to determine capitalist, free, and democratic is to simply be non-communist. The Mafia was on the side of freedom against Cuba, and of course, folks like the Shah of Iran or Pinochet of Chile were also consider virtuous heroes of the free world.

Using that standard (which has benefited capitalists), it has to be said that any form of government which is not explicitly "communist" must therefore be assumed to be capitalist. It's either one or the other, right? At least according to our own government, which is never wrong.

 

[Kirran]

If commies didn't prevent capitalism, people would quickly gravitate towards it.
Consider the USSR's thriving black market. It's how people survived & even
thrived when the state failed them.
Remember that they came up with the joke....
"They pretend to pay us, & we pretend to work."

Yeah. In some situations, e.g. Fejuve - Wikipedia there are socialist responses to the failing of the state and the market.

Don't tell anyone that I said this.
There's a stereotype of libertarians being opposed to government.

Spoiler: Shhhhhh! Confidential!

Government is useful....national defense, police, courts, national parks, money, environmental regulation...

Depends how you put it together I suppose. I'm not convinced though, of it being necessary.

No mention of the communist/socialist countries I usually think of?
So I checked one, ie, Sri Lanka.
It interested me because a friend lives there half the year.
He's all about capitalism, so I wondered, & found....
Economy of Sri Lanka - Wikipedia
Looks like a mixed economy to me.

Well I don't really care so much what kind of state structure there is. I don't really have any especial sympathy with the communist/socialist regimes.

I wasn't referring to their government-endorsed economies, I was referring to movements which exist within those countries. In reference to Sri Lanka, I was talking about Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement - Wikipedia - a movement run on anarchist lines via the free association and mutual support of local communities.

 

[Revoltingest]

Depends how you put it together I suppose. I'm not convinced though, of it being necessary.

To question the necessity of government is like questioning
the necessity of weather. Both will happen anyway.
So I oppose neither, & seek only the best way to cope.
Instead of anarchy, I prefer minarchy.
But I know that won't happen either.