generic image
Processing...
  • Games
  • Catalog
  • Develop
  • Robux
  • Search in Players
  • Search in Games
  • Search in Catalog
  • Search in Groups
  • Search in Library
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
  • Games
  • Catalog
  • Develop
  • Robux
   
ROBLOX Forum » Club Houses » Global Chat
Home Search
 

Re: "Communism is not love..."

Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
MidmystSalt is not online. MidmystSalt
Joined: 27 Jan 2014
Total Posts: 1427
22 Mar 2014 04:46 PM
"Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy" - Mao Tse-tung

Thoughts on this quote?
Report Abuse
MidmystSalt is not online. MidmystSalt
Joined: 27 Jan 2014
Total Posts: 1427
22 Mar 2014 05:03 PM
bump
Report Abuse
Kipec is not online. Kipec
Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Total Posts: 10272
22 Mar 2014 05:06 PM
Communism was born on a policy of equality for all people, which is impossible it was built on love and compassion for the people but the leaders almost never are responsible with the power and it turns into evil.

Report Abuse
StormAtlas is not online. StormAtlas
Joined: 25 Jul 2011
Total Posts: 11530
22 Mar 2014 05:07 PM
Mao was an idiot.
Report Abuse
Hexley is not online. Hexley
Joined: 07 Sep 2013
Total Posts: 642
22 Mar 2014 05:11 PM
Government is superfluous. All blunt and inefficient. Especially Communism.
Report Abuse
DesiredShark is not online. DesiredShark
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Total Posts: 5123
22 Mar 2014 07:19 PM
"Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy"

Another idiotic quote by an idiotic Communist. If Communism was never love, it would not support a class such as the proletariat. I can understand the second sentence as it did kill lots of "oppressors" or "dismantelers" or "isolationists" in it's "golden" age.
Report Abuse
2013Yay is not online. 2013Yay
Joined: 31 Dec 2012
Total Posts: 5299
23 Mar 2014 06:08 AM
Isn't the hammer a symbol of work?
Report Abuse
re567 is not online. re567
Joined: 01 Nov 2010
Total Posts: 4550
23 Mar 2014 07:45 AM
"Communism is not aggression, but peace."-re567
Report Abuse
Riducule is not online. Riducule
Joined: 18 Jul 2013
Total Posts: 3271
23 Mar 2014 08:23 AM
^

Hahaha, lol. Yes, peace, so much peace, destroying the parliament, causing a civil war which killed many and then sentencing many to death, killing thousands of families and sending them to concentration camps.

so much peace.

you be off fascist -signed the fascist
Report Abuse
diamondmark is not online. diamondmark
Joined: 22 Apr 2011
Total Posts: 1779
23 Mar 2014 09:41 AM
In theory it is peace, and some socialist nations were very peaceful and democratic (like Chile, Sweden and I think Vanuatu. Look up Vanuatu for me :)?). But I'm just wondering, in a large nation such as Russia or China, how could you persuade people to take on incredulously difficult jobs if they got the same as a burger flipper ._.?
Report Abuse
MidmystSalt is not online. MidmystSalt
Joined: 27 Jan 2014
Total Posts: 1427
23 Mar 2014 09:56 AM
>and some socialist nations were very peaceful and democratic (like Chile, Sweden and I think Vanuatu.

First of all, let's define socialism. The definition of socialism is either public or social ownership of the means of production and distribution. I.e., the government or the workers control the economy, not private individuals.

Sweden does not fit the definition of socialism as it is based on private ownership of the MoPaD. 90% of the economy is privately owned, 5% state owned and another 5% cooperatively owned. I would say this makes it a capitalist country. In fact, Sweden ranks 20 on the Index of Economic Freedom by the Heritage Foundation. Yes, it could be higher, but it's still ranks as "mostly free" - a good score.

Even if we define socialism to mean the sort of warm, fuzzy "equality and welfare" stuff that modern social democrats in Europe advocate, even then Sweden doesn't quite meet the definition. Or at least, not as much as it used to.

From the site "reason dot com"

"The [currently in opposition] Social Democrats [who were the architects of Sweden’s 20th century planned welfare state] haven’t only joined the free-market consensus, but seem to attack the current government from the right, pushing for a better business environment. Gone are demands for the restoration of social benefits. Opinion polls have rewarded the Social Democrats for their right turn with sharply improved ratings.

Sweden is still offering good social welfare, but more efficiently and sensibly and increasingly through the private sector. This model of falling taxes and public spending is rapidly proliferating from the north of Europe toward the south, and the northern Europeans have little tolerance for the statist conservatism and fiscal negligence of Southern Europe. Nor do the Swedes understand the fiscal irresponsibility of the U.S., while they still admire American research and innovation.

For a time in the early 1990s Sweden abolished all farm subsidies and had one of the most deregulated agricultural sectors in the world, before unfortunately being forced to re-regulate when entering the European Union’s (EU) Common Agricultural Policy.

In 1996 Sweden deregulated its market for electricity, allowing private competition in distribution. Today, half the nuclear power plants are owned by a German corporation.

Telecommunications, postal services, and public transportation have largely been deregulated, opening up new markets. The state monopolies have been abolished, and the telephone company has been partially privatized.

The introduction of a voucher system has opened up a market in which parents have a high degree of choice over where to send their children to school.

Health care has largely been opened to private alternatives, thanks to the doctors’ and nurses’ labor unions. In fact, one of Stockholm’s largest emergency hospitals, St. Göran’s, is a private company listed on the stock exchange."

---

As for Vanuatu, you'll have to tell me how exactly it's socialist. Even if it is, the existence of a small island nation with less than a million people having a socialist economy pretty much means socialism can only work on a small scale. Is that what you're saying? Assuming Vanuatu is even socialist, that is.

For Chile, I'm not sure if you're referring to the Allende administration or current Chile. For current Chile, it's actually one of the most capitalist nations in Latin America and has been rewarded with a higher standard of living and a better economy - certainly better than Venezuela or Cuba.
Report Abuse
diamondmark is not online. diamondmark
Joined: 22 Apr 2011
Total Posts: 1779
23 Mar 2014 10:16 AM
Sorry, I meant in the past. I'm not talking economics at all, just that they were not agressive or oppressive. Vanuatu's very first president, George Ati Somaku, was a socialist, but like I said I hardly know much (except they refused to cooperate with the USSR etc).

Also, I would like to ask:

1) Do you think Venezualu was better before Chavez?
2) How bad is socialist Venezuala to you?
Report Abuse
diamondmark is not online. diamondmark
Joined: 22 Apr 2011
Total Posts: 1779
23 Mar 2014 10:17 AM
I am not saying that socialism works very well in a lot of sectors at all, just that some nations were peaceful liek re said.
Report Abuse
MidmystSalt is not online. MidmystSalt
Joined: 27 Jan 2014
Total Posts: 1427
23 Mar 2014 10:37 AM
>Sorry, I meant in the past. I'm not talking economics at all, just that they were not agressive or oppressive.

If you're talking about socialism, you're talking about economics. Okay, they're not aggressive. Your point? I already showed you how they're not socialist.

>Vanuatu's very first president, George Ati Somaku, was a socialist, but like I said I hardly know much (except they refused to cooperate with the USSR etc).

I did some digging and found this:

htt
p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mela
nesian_socialism

It seems like they drew a lot from Nyerere's "ujamaa" socialism in Tanzania. Here's an article on that:

"Ujamaa, the Swahili for 'familyhood'. was the social and economic policy developed by Julius Kambarage Nyerere, president of Tanzania from 1964 to 1985. Centered on collective agriculture, under a process called villagization, ujamaa also called for nationalization of banks and industry, and an increased level of self-reliance at both an individual and a national level.

Nyerere set out his policy in the Arusha Declaration of 5 February 1967. The process started slowly and was voluntary, by the end of the 60s there were only 800 or so collective settlements. In the 70s, Nyerere's reign became more oppressive, and the move to collective settlements, or villages, was enforced. By the end of the 70s there were over 2,500 of these 'villages'.

Nyerere's socialist outlook required Tanzania's leaders to reject capitalism and all its trimmings, showing restraint over salary and perks. But it was rejected by a significant fraction of the population. When the main foundation of ujamaa, villagization, failed -- productivity was supposed to be increased through collectivization, instead it fell to less than 50% of what was achieved on independent farms -- towards the end of Nyerere's rule, Tanzania had become one of Africa's poorest countries, dependent on international aid.

Pros of Ujamaa

Created high literacy rate
Halved infant mortality through access to medical facilities and education
Untied Tanzanians across ethnic lines
Left Tanzania untouched by the 'tribal' and political tensions which affected the rest of Africa
Cons of Ujamaa

Transportation networks declined drastically through neglect
Industry and banking was crippled
Left the country dependent on international aid"

Doesn't seem very good. But then again, there's still two separate ideologies. How did melanesian socialism work out?

Also, I would like to ask:

>1) Do you think Venezualu was better before Chavez?

This is a good and valid question and I'll do my best to answer it honestly from what I know.

Some stats from the Guardian on Venezuela before and after Chavismo:

• Unemployment has dropped from 14.5% of the total labour force in 1999 to 7.6% in 2009
• Population has increased from 23,867,000 in 1999 to 29,278,000 in 2011. The annual population growth was 1.5% in 2011 compared with 1.9% in 1999
• GDP per capita has risen from $4,105 to $10,801 in 2011
• As you can see in the graphic chart, Venezuela's inflation has fluctuated since 1999. Inflation now stands at 31.6% compared with 23.6% in 1999
• Venezuela has a complicated history concerning currency exchange rates. Compared with 1999 when the exchange rate was under one bolivar to the US dollar, the latest figures from Reuters place it at 4.3 Bolivars to one dollar
• Poverty has decreased - in 1999, 23.4% of the population were recorded as being in extreme poverty, this fell to 8.5% in 2011 according to official government figures
• Infant mortality is now lower than in 1999 - from a rate of 20 per 1,000 live births then to a rate of 13 per 1,000 live births in 2011
• Violence has been a key concern in Venezuela for some time - figures from the UNODC state that the murder rate has risen since 1999. In 2011 the intentional homicide rate per 100,000 population was 45.1 compared with 25.0 just twelve years earlier
• Oil exports have boomed - Venezuela has one of the top proven oil reserves in the world and in 2011 Opec put the country's net oil export revenues at $60bn. In 1999 it stood at $14.4bn

So crime, inflation, etc have risen. But on the other hand, poverty has been lessoned, and education seems to be improving. So is Chavez that bad? Let's find out by answering your next question.

2) How bad is socialist Venezuala to you?

Not good at all. Very bad, actually. One of the highest inflation rates in the world, something like 56%. Shortages of basic supplies such as toilet paper. Growing authoritarianism, debt, out of control spending, etc. If you'll allow me to post some stuff from various sources:

Daily Beast (I realize it isn't the most objective of sources, so sorry if it's not good enough for your standards.)

"[U]nlike Castro and many other autocrats, Chávez didn’t fear elections; He embraced them. Most opposition leaders will tell you that Venezuelan elections are relatively clean. The problem isn’t Election Day—It’s the other 364 days. Rather than stuffing ballot boxes, Chávez understood that he could tilt the playing field enough to make it nearly impossible to defeat him. Thus, the regime’s electoral wizards engineered gerrymandering schemes that made anything attempted in the American South look like child’s play. Chávez’s campaign coffers were fed by opaque slush funds holding billions in oil revenue. The government’s media dominance drowned out the opposition. Politicians who appeared formidable were simply banned from running for office. And the ruling party became expert in using fear and selective intimidation to tamp down the vote. Chávez took a populist message and married it to an autocratic scheme that allowed him to consolidate power. The net effect over Chávez’s years was a paradoxical one: With each election Venezuela lost more of its democracy."

Also Daily Beast:

So instead, let's talk about the poor, and how well they fared under Chavez. It looks to me as if Chavez's government made substantial improvements in things like primary school completion, progression to secondary education, and so forth. (The World Bank's statistics on Venezuela are surprisingly patchy, so this limits the number of variables I could look at). Poverty rates have fallen. This is all genuinely good news that happened on his watch.

But in the course of these achievements, he severely compromised the engine of Venezuela's future prosperity: its oil fields. And over the long run, the poor cannot thrive if the economy is failing.

But hey, wait a minute . . . shouldn't the country with some of the largest proven oil reserves in the world be doing better
than the regional average?

Oil prices are booming, but Venezuela is not. Why? Because they're pumping less oil than they used to.

A couple of years after he took power, Chavez moved to consolidate his power over PDVSA, the state-owned oil company that used to rival Saudi's Aramco as the best-run in the world. It needed to be. Venezuela's heavy, sulfurous oil is hard to get out of the ground and refine; they had to invest heavily just to keep production flowing.

The power grab was not popular in the oil industry, and ended up being one of the motivations for a 2002 coup attempt. When that failed, a general strike followed, which temporarily shut down the oil industry. After the smoke cleared, PDVSA was a changed entity. It had suffered a sizeable brain drain, since over a third of its workforce was fired by Chavez for dereliction of duty. And it became a slush fund for those beloved social programs. Here's the result:

Venezuela's oil output has fallen by almost a third since Chavez took power. That's why Venezuelan economic growth is pretty underwhelming. Those social programs so beloved of Nation writers came out of investment funds that were previously used to keep oil production high--necessary, as we've discussed, because Venezuela's sludgy crude is hard to get out of the ground. Which gives us a paradox: Venezuela's reserves are growing, but its production is in decline.

Business Week:

"After 14 years in power, Chávez did not leave the nation a stronger democracy or a more prosperous economy. This despite his constant reminders that he had finally empowered the long-excluded poor and the fact that he presided over the longest and most exuberant increase in oil revenue in Venezuela’s history.

Chávez and his supporters claim that during his tenure 15 national elections and referenda took place and that his social programs promoted participation and “direct” or “radical democracy.” Yet, as Scott Mainwaring, a respected U.S. academic has noted, democracy requires “free and fair elections for the executive and legislature, nearly universal adult enfranchisement in the contemporary period, the protection of political rights and civil liberties, and civilian control of the military. The Chávez regime falls far short on the first and third of these defining characteristics of democracy. The electoral playing field is highly skewed, and respect for opposition rights has eroded seriously. The military is much more politicized and more involved in politics than it was before Chávez.”

In fact, President Chávez was a pioneer and one of the most adroit practitioners of a political strategy that became common after the Cold War in many countries that political scientists call competitive authoritarian regimes. These are regimes where leaders gain power through democratic elections and then change the constitution and other laws to weaken checks and balances on the executive, thus ensuring the regime’s continuity and its almost total autonomy while still retaining a patina of democratic legitimacy. It is not accidental that Chávez was the longest-serving head of state in the Americas.

The other paradoxical—and bad—legacy of Hugo Chávez is an economy in shambles. It is paradoxical because his term in office coincided with a boom in commodity prices and the presence of an international financial system flush with cash and willing to lend to countries like Venezuela. In addition, the president was free to adopt any economic policy he chose without any domestic or international constraints or institutional limitations. Yet, at the time of his death, few other countries had the economic distortions that besieged Venezuela.

It has one of the world’s largest fiscal deficits, highest inflation rates, worst misalignment of the exchange rate, fastest-growing debt, and one of the most precipitous drops in productive capacity—including that of the critical oil sector. Moreover, during the Chávez era the nation fell to the bottom of the rankings that measure international competitiveness, ease of doing business, or attractiveness to foreign investors, while rising to the top of the list of the world’s most corrupt countries. The latter is another paradox of a leader whose rise to power rested on the promise to stamp out corruption and crush the oligarchy. The Bolivarian bourgeoisie—the boliburgueses, as Venezuelans call the new oligarchy formed by close allies of the regime’s leaders, their families, and friends—have amassed enormous wealth through corrupt deals with the government. This, too, is part of the unfortunate legacy Chávez has left."
Report Abuse
diamondmark is not online. diamondmark
Joined: 22 Apr 2011
Total Posts: 1779
23 Mar 2014 10:47 AM
If you're talking about socialism, you're talking about economics. Okay, they're not aggressive. Your point? I already showed you how they're not socialist.

Sweden, that is true. Sorry. Meleanesian and Allende's socialism. Some socialist nations are peaceful, that is the only point.

I have not read all of tehse articles, I'm sorry :). Its just that it does not seem so bad. Did you cover ideas such as these?

While Venezuela's gross national per capita income languished below the continent's average before Chavez came to power, it is now $13,120, higher than Brazil or Argentina, and against an average of $8,981. Despite recent economic troubles, the UN revealed that Venezuela enjoyed the region's biggest drop in poverty in 2012.

When Venezuelans protested against the then President Pérez - who U-turned on election pledges to abandon neo-liberalism in 1989 - the full might of the state was unleashed on them in the so-called “Caracazo”, a Tiananmen Square-style massacre in which hundreds of protesters were slaughtered.

The public media is clearly biased, but there is actually an overwhelming private media that opposes him often (like in the 2002 Pinochet style military coup).

Could you maybe summarise the articles like dat :)?
Report Abuse
MidmystSalt is not online. MidmystSalt
Joined: 27 Jan 2014
Total Posts: 1427
23 Mar 2014 11:08 AM
I'll try to summarize the articles, sure.

First article:

Castro doesn't fear elections, and the elections themselves are clean. But before elections, is where the problem is. The administration uses gerrymandering schemes, cronyism, and lobbying to secure elections. The government has a lot of control over the media. Formidable opponents were sometimes banned from running for office. The administration uses fear and intimidation to secure its power.

Second article:

While Chavez made improvements in education and poverty reduction, this is pretty much the only good things Chavez has done. But the growth is only average for the region (Latin America) and it has high inflation. Yet, it has the largest proven oil reserves, shouldn't it be doing better than the regional average? It's because they're pumping less oil than they used to. Chavez heavily regulated and even nationalized the oil industry (it might have already been nationalized, the article wasn't exactly clear) and it suffered a brain drain as a third of its workforce left.

Venezuela's oil output has fallen by almost a third since Chavez took power. That's why Venezuelan economic growth is pretty underwhelming. Those social programs so beloved of Nation writers came out of investment funds that were previously used to keep oil production high--necessary, as we've discussed, because Venezuela's sludgy crude is hard to get out of the ground. Which gives us a paradox: Venezuela's reserves are growing, but its production is in decline.

Business Week:

"Respected US academic Scott Mainwaring defines democracy as having free and fair elections, nearly universal adult suffrage, protection of political and civil rights, and civilian control of the military. Chavismo falls short on the first and third of these characteristics. The electoral field is highly skewed, and the military is very politicized.

Chavez used a tactic called "competitive authoritarian regime" which gained power democratically, and then changed the constitution and other laws to consolidate power.

Venezuela has a terrible economy, with one of the world's largest fiscal deficits, high inflation rates, growing debt and a misaligned exchange rate. Moreover, during the Chávez era the nation fell to the bottom of the rankings that measure international competitiveness, ease of doing business, or attractiveness to foreign investors, while rising to the top of the list of the world’s most corrupt countries. The latter is another paradox of a leader whose rise to power rested on the promise to stamp out corruption and crush the oligarchy.

The Bolivarian bourgeoisie—the boliburgueses, as Venezuelans call the new oligarchy formed by close allies of the regime’s leaders, their families, and friends—have amassed enormous wealth through corrupt deals with the government. This, too, is part of the unfortunate legacy Chávez has left."

Second, the reasons you mentioned were why I was hesitant to say that it was better before Chavez. While crime, debt, inflation have increased and productivity has fallen, it is true that Chavismo helped reduce poverty (at least temporarily, with welfare) and improve education. From what I know, Venezuela before Chavez was also an authoritarian regime, arguably more authoritarian. However, Chavez is also, for the reasons I demonstrated, an authoritarian.

Report Abuse
MidmystSalt is not online. MidmystSalt
Joined: 27 Jan 2014
Total Posts: 1427
23 Mar 2014 11:11 AM
Third, here's a quick tidbit about media censorship in Venezuela under Chavismo:

Wikipedia:

"During the 2014 Venezuelan protests, Coloombian news channel NTN24 was taken off the air by CONATEL (the Venezuelan government agency appointed for the regulation, supervision and control over telecommunications) for "promoting violenc".[11] President Maduro then denounced the AFP for manipulating information about the protests.[12][13] After an opposition Twitter campaign asked participants of the Oscar ceremony to speak out in support of them, for the first time in decades, state television channel VTV did not show The Oscars, where Jared Leto showed solidarity with the opposition "dreamers" when he won his award.[14]"

Report Abuse
MidmystSalt is not online. MidmystSalt
Joined: 27 Jan 2014
Total Posts: 1427
23 Mar 2014 11:12 AM
There is also this article:

htt(ooo)p://o(ooo)nline.wsj.co(ooo)m/news/articles(ooo)/SB1000142405270(ooo)2303775504579397(ooo)430033153284

Remove the (ooo)s.
Report Abuse
diamondmark is not online. diamondmark
Joined: 22 Apr 2011
Total Posts: 1779
24 Mar 2014 01:20 PM
Okay. You mean like Leopoldo López Mendoza? Thats true. I think my second question is more easy to talk about, then. You are most certainly right, but then I just want to ask about this snippet of an article?

Inflation runs at over 50 per cent: but it is a disease the country is long familiar with. Under Chavez's neo-liberal predecessor Rafael Caldera in the 1990s, it topped 100 per cent. And yet this was not presented as a failure of free-market capitalism.

Also, the media.. all of the main newspapers are privately owned, lots of major TV stations are; RCTV, Televen, Venevision. Lots of them are very much against Chavez.
Report Abuse
GoblarkGobral is not online. GoblarkGobral
Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Total Posts: 4324
24 Mar 2014 03:06 PM
Mid, shut up, before I take a hammer, knock you unconcious, and then disembowel you with a sickle.
(BEFORE YOU REPORT ME, THIS WAS A JOKE, AND I WILL NOT DO THE MENTIONED THING)
Report Abuse
DesiredShark is not online. DesiredShark
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Total Posts: 5123
25 Mar 2014 07:54 PM
"like Chile,"

>inb4 saying there was Pinochet
Report Abuse
Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Page 1 of 1
 
 
ROBLOX Forum » Club Houses » Global Chat
   
 
   
  • About Us
  • Jobs
  • Blog
  • Parents
  • Help
  • Terms
  • Privacy

©2017 Roblox Corporation. Roblox, the Roblox logo, Robux, Bloxy, and Powering Imagination are among our registered and unregistered trademarks in the U.S. and other countries.



Progress
Starting Roblox...
Connecting to Players...
R R

Roblox is now loading. Get ready to play!

R R

You're moments away from getting into the game!

Click here for help

Check Remember my choice and click Launch Application in the dialog box above to join games faster in the future!

Gameplay sponsored by:
Loading 0% - Starting game...
Get more with Builders Club! Join Builders Club
Choose Your Avatar
I have an account
generic image