First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Does A Nation Have The Right To Be Communist?
7493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / In a world that d...
Offline
Posted 12/31/14
Economically, socialism and communism haven't panned out so well in the past.

Juuuuust saying.
1926 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Surrey, UK
Offline
Posted 1/1/15
Communism & Socialism are two completely different things. Despite being a Constitutional Monarchy there's a lot of socialist elements in the UK in terms of how things are run. I.E, the state provides a lot for the people, for example, the NHS, a large number of benefits for those who cannot work, for those who are diabled and so on.

So technically socialism isn't that bad. And if you're thinking economically, socialism doesn't really affect a half decent economy as long as the economic policies in place are actually managed correctly.
Posted 1/1/15 , edited 1/1/15
Sure, do whatever, I don't care. Let see you try to be communist.
867 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / ihlok
Offline
Posted 1/1/15

tkayt wrote:

In theory each country is supposed to choose their form of government. In reality other countries will do their best to influence how this goes.


unfortunately this sentence is right.
going to war with other nations should be last step, not just a way to get profit from.
selling arms to rebels from other countries or training them is another very bad thing that nations do.
9140 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / Madison, Wi
Offline
Posted 1/1/15
The type of government is always left up to the people. Always. However, if a government has reached a point in which it causes oppression against the very basic rights to being a human, then the world needs to take action.
UN Charter Bill of Human Rights (yes, even the good ole USA has violated that item from time to time.. oops on our part)

the thing is, "oppression of basic human rights" is opinionated.

We forget that the real reason for the Cold War was not the difference between Capitalism vs Communism but who would control what after the victory of World War 2. (That war ended nearly 70 years ago and it still has a major effect on politics today)

The question should not be "Is communism to be allowed" but "How much oppression should we allow before international intervention occurs?"
46359 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / End of Nowhere
Offline
Posted 1/1/15 , edited 1/1/15

brookline wrote:

It appears that the only form of government allowed on Earth is a Democracy. If a nation has a socialist or communist government America sees to it that that nation is shut off from the world until it adopts the form of government that America approves of.

Is this right? Is this fair?

Does a nation have the right to be Socialist or Communist?

Should America stop punishing Socialist and Communist countries?

What do you think?


There are only 4 countries the US really has sanctions on. North Korea, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. I do not count Cuba because that is slowly being dismantled and is a slightly different issue and history.

Of all those countries only Venezuela is a Socialist nation. And the sanctions there mostly have to do with Venezuela's treatment and shooting of protesters. And are a relatively recent thing. For most of the time Venezuela was bashing the US the US choose to do nothing until they started shooting their own citizens. At that point the US clearly decided that they did not want to continue having relations with such a nation. As is any nations prerogative. That the US exercising it's sovereign prerogative to choose who is and is not their friend has more consequences than say Tonga doing the same should not remove that right from the US.

Russia is no longer, officially anyway, a Communistic nation. It is arguably democratic, although a dictatorship is probably closer. The US is not alone in sanctions against Russia. Most of Europe have also imposed the same ones or similar sanctions. When you invade sovereign nations, fund and send your military in to aid rebels, and effectively are responsible for the shooting down of civilian airliners, well there are consequences for those unsocial activities.

Now if Ukraine had invaded Russia first, Russia would have the right to respond, but that is not what happened. Just because a neighboring nation disagrees with you politically does not give a larger nation the right to try to swallow it up. If that were true much of Europe would be at risk of invasion. Not to mention it really would justify Germany's invasion of Europe in World War II. So again, not really applicable. It is not the US saying a country cannot exist. It is much of Europe telling Russia to get back behind it's own borders.

Iran is technically a democracy with a theocratic head of state. They also like to make sweeping statements about nuking the US and how the Holocaust never happened. Like Venezuela the US has chosen not to have friendly relations with such a nation. When you constantly threaten to blow up cities in the US, then there will be responses. Especially after 9/11 the US has to take such threats from nation states at least somewhat seriously.

North Korea is also, technically, a democracy. That is why it is called the DPRK. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea. As for sanctions against North Korea, well, the US is still officially at war with North Korea. What else should be expected? When North Korea chooses to put on it's Big Boy Pants and negotiate fairly and in good faith, I am sure the South Korean government, the US, and the UN would be willing to do the same. But since I cannot name the last agreement the DPRK actually completely followed through on once it got what it wanted, I am sure I am not alone in demanding substantial proof of change before my government acts.

The US has shown constantly that as long as you do not invade your neighbors or kill your own citizens randomly it is willing to live and let live. For years it even put up with random Venezuelan threats and conspiracy theories. Again, Cuba is something of an anomaly here, but that is both historical and changing as well. Showing that, depending on how things go, the US is willing to change as well. Something many other nations are not willing to do.

So I personally find your argument to be rather baseless and without any real evidence or research involved.
4761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/1/15 , edited 1/1/15

brookline wrote:

It appears that the only form of government allowed on Earth is a Democracy.


Democracy is not an economic system, so you could have democratic communism.




Should America stop punishing Socialist and Communist countries?



The U.S. government has programs that are socialist in nature, so socialism shouldn't seem like an entirely foreign concept.
Posted 1/1/15
If you be believe in national sovereignty, then yes.
2346 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46
Offline
Posted 1/1/15

brookline wrote:

It appears that the only form of government allowed on Earth is a Democracy. If a nation has a socialist or communist government America sees to it that that nation is shut off from the world until it adopts the form of government that America approves of.

Is this right? Is this fair?

Does a nation have the right to be Socialist or Communist?

Should America stop punishing Socialist and Communist countries?

What do you think?


This makes even less sense because the USA is a Republic.
16843 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / L'Étoile du Nord,...
Offline
Posted 1/1/15
If a country wants to be Communist, they can try, though it probably won't survive since true Communism is pretty much impossible. Everybody is different, we all have our own wants and needs, and none of us think the same. Above all else, though, Communist countries have always been run by dictatorships. Part of this is because many leaders in recent history have changed parts of Karl Marx's book in order to suit their own beliefs.

As for my fellow Americans, I think we still have a ways to go in concern to the ever-present Red Scare. Socialism and Communism are somewhat different from one another; socialism is the broadest of the spectrum. Certain countries, especially in Scandinavia, have actually perfected socialism.....though there are still some people even in those countries who complain about how their taxes are going to those who they feel don't deserve it.
Anyway, I think socialism has some applications here in the US. Social Security is an example, as well as the more domestic financial assistance programs which vary from state to state, counties within the states, et cetera. The topic of socialized medicine is still tough, though.....but it's actually nothing new; when I was working, the taxations on my paychecks included some health-care program, though I forget the name. Overall, I think the problem with the concept of socialism in America is the fact that everyone thinks it has to be one or the other, that if we're socialist then Capitalism should be abolished, because for some reason there can't be both. This also reminds me of the ever-common issue with how the American economic middle-class is being destroyed, thus widening the gap between the rich and the poor. Part of the justification for this is "to encourage competition", but there's something absurd about having to bust your ass so hard just to live a sufficient life. In fact, based on stuff my mom said to me last year....if it weren't for the middle-class, we wouldn't have survived the Cold War. Personally, though, I think one reason for abolishing the middle-class is because of some Red Scare BS, considering how Karl Marx's manifesto claims that a communist nation exists by way of a strong middle-class.....but that's just me thinking too deep into why the middle-class is being destroyed, based on the possibilities of old Red Scare propaganda.

As for America intervening in communist countries, I don't know. The Cold War is over, so I don't think we need to get as involved as in decades long past. Iraq, though not a communist state, is a country we tried to help, but if it ends up tearing itself apart, we should just let it tear itself apart, because sometimes a population can only embrace ideologies of a former leadership and have trouble accepting something different, even if what's different could be more beneficial. Besides, when we try to help a country, we get damned for it. We're going to be damned if we don't help them, too.
Sadly, foreign policy is actually a language I don't comprehend, because I'm convinced that a lot of it is back-door discussions and politics. There will always be a reason to invade a country, regardless of whether or not it makes sense or is truly beneficial.
5727 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19
Offline
Posted 1/1/15
Of course they might have a right to.

Should they?

Probably not.
4571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 1/1/15
I sense a lot of bias in the OP, and I don't usually respond to people who show obvious bias in their arguments, but I would like to say that first, USA is a democratic republic, so not exactly fully democratic. It also seems to be getting a degree more socialistic itself. A nation should have a right to choose it's own government, but it should be with a clear mind, not clouded by propaganda as most people are (this goes for any country, even America). America even has allies that are socialist to a degree, so not sure what you mean by that.
Rohzek 
15004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 1/1/15 , edited 1/1/15

brookline wrote:

It appears that the only form of government allowed on Earth is a Democracy. If a nation has a socialist or communist government America sees to it that that nation is shut off from the world until it adopts the form of government that America approves of.

Is this right? Is this fair?

Does a nation have the right to be Socialist or Communist?

Should America stop punishing Socialist and Communist countries?

What do you think?


How is democracy even mutually exclusive with socialism or communism? They aren't mutually exclusive. First off, all of these terms you are using are extremely vague and used in a variety of ways. Take for example, many contemporary Marxists of Lenin did not consider Lenin a Marxist/Communist/Socialist. They considered him to be an authoritarian and condemned him as such (a sentiment I tend to sympathize with, myself).

I think before we can even manage to begin to mount an answer to your question, we should lay down in clear detail as to what we even mean by these terms.
5047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/1/15 , edited 1/1/15
Communism is utopistic ideology, there never was and never will be country where communism actually works. It's just dictatorship hidden behind pretty words. My country was occupied for 40 years and it devasted our economy, we were held prisoners in our own country and people were forced to vote for communist party. So yeah, not too fond of it.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 1/1/15 , edited 1/1/15
Personally I think we need to get back to are roots and become the strong republic we used to be. We need to repel the 17th amendment and let the states leadership pick the Senators. Getting the balance of power between the 3 branches of are government is becoming very evident as presidents keep abusing there power. Otherwise we are falling off a cliff and many of you young people will pay a high price for this mistake. ----------As for lead statement on this forum. It needs to be restated I somewhat agree with Rohzek.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.