quote:
Originally posted by The_Congo:
Strange, your source, wikipedia has the Soviet Union listed in its definition of communism.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state
Before you start doing a victory dance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state#Disputes_o...22Communist_state.22quote:
Some writers argue that the term "Communist state" is a contradiction in terms. These writers treat the term as synonymous with Communism's theoretical goal of stateless communism, a society that is propertyless, classless and stateless [1], where everyone works according to their ability and receive according to their need. Marx and Engels's theory does, however, include a transitional phase known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Communist state claims to be the practical enactment of this dictatorship of the proletariat.
Certain socialists have rejected the idea that historical Communist Party states represented genuine communism, claiming that their governments became corrupt and distorted communist ideals. Trotskyists, for example, were opposed to the Soviet government following Joseph Stalin's consolidation of power, as well as the Communist Party states established by the USSR in Eastern Europe following World War II. Other leftists, such as anarcho-communists, have also opposed historical Communist Party state, similarly arguing that their governments were oppressive and corrupt.
There have been and still exist countries where Communist parties have come to power through democratic elections, and ruled in the context of a multi-party democracy. The East European country of Moldova has been governed since 2001 by an elected Communist party. It does not qualify as a Communist state in the context of this article, because the Communist party exists as one of multiple parties and does not have a monopoly on political power.
Notice that the article goes on to later show that most users of the term "Communist state" are anti-Communists (which hardly makes them objective) and Conservatives. Some Liberals use the term as well, but they tend to be more respective and point out that the term is inaccurate. The article even points out "statless communism" in the first paragraph.
quote:
Don't forget, the United States is also has two armies in two different countries... spending an enormous amount of money on these campaigns... yet, I fail to see rations in this country. Business as usual in the good ol' U.S. of A.
Yes, imperialism, outsourcing and foreign debt borrowing are what is currently keeping the US and other European states afloat. When that crumbles (and it will, that can't last forever, it's only a temporary fix) we may very well fall into another Great Depression. Notice that third and second world capitalist states which are not imperialistic (including the new Russia) are feeling the full effects. Imperialism, foreign debt and defecit spending are pretty much the only things buffering the US population from the full effect of what is going on. And that will only last another 20 years at best, maybe only 8-10 at the rate we are going.
But anyway, yes we don't have ration lines in this country, we simply let people starve. Do you realize how many starving, hungry and malnourished children there are in this country? A positive thing that I can say about the Soviet Union (and believe me, I have positive things to say about both US capitalism and Soviet coordinatorism, but the negative outweighs the positive) is that at least they didn't allow their people to starve, they at least created food lines during times of economic downturn. The US used to do that too during the FDR years. Business only
appears to be usual if you take how US televison portrays the American life. If you take a look at the news, there's a different story going on.
If you let television tell it, most Americans are middle-middle class or upper middle class because that's how they portray American families on sitcoms and TV shows.
