Holy shit this thread is cancerous.
I will now rant on all of these... "arguments" against communism.
msskypesalot wrote:
I think that people should have their own chances to become something big. Communism basically blocks that.
Well that's actually not true. What about Alexey Pajintov, Leonid Mikhailovich Kharitonov, or Alexander Vasilyevich Alexandrov for example?
Besides, there were many more people who got rewarded greatly for doing something that was revolutionary. What you are saying is that people should become famous when you say "To become something big". They just weren't famous because either the Western Media totally ignored the accomplishment or he didn't get famous in the first place because fame is totally not needed in life unless you are a ego-filled bellend.
Exrobite wrote:
Democracy is the only way. Communism breeds corruption and totalitarianism.
And yet, in democracies, you can bribe the people who count the votes to vote for whatever you want them to, and about the corruption thing, remember in the 2000 US elections where the governor of Florida made a giant boost to George W. Bush because he was his brother?
Also, did you know that the person who had less votes in an election won the actual election 3 times in the US because of the electoral college and Delegates / Super Delegates?
And about the dictatorship thing; no, we aren't "totalitarian" as you imply. We are rather in to dictatorships.
"Why?", you may ask. Well, to bring about a new leader that will be in charge for only 4-8 years is pretty lame, as the leader either doesn't have enough time to bring good changes to the country, or if he starts making good changes, his successor probably will jeopardize his changes and accomplishments.
Of course, the dictator in communism simply makes all the changes and leads the country as any US President would do, but would actually do a lot more since he gets more time to lead. And the successor of the dictator is determined by votes, believe it or not. The Supreme Soviet voted on who should get the next position as dictator, and / or the people in select regions / the entire country voted for the next dictator. Kinda like how the US Senate would vote on who would be the next president if the election was tied.
We don't like North Korea's dictatorship, however. Kim Jong-Un having all the power he can have is abusive, and is not tolerated in actual communism.
Aidan|DaleAGaming wrote:
SCORPIAN GET YO ASS OVER HERE!
I don't really care. I've never looked into these things. I do know one thing. DOWN WITH DICTATORSHIP!
Refer to:
ScorpionOnCommunism wrote:
Of course, the dictator in communism simply makes all the changes and leads the country as any US President would do, but would actually do a lot more since he gets more time to lead. And the successor of the dictator is determined by votes, believe it or not. The Supreme Soviet voted on who should get the next position as dictator, and / or the people in select regions / the entire country voted for the next dictator. Kinda like how the US Senate would vote on who would be the next president if the election was tied.
We don't like North Korea's dictatorship, however. Kim Jong-Un having all the power he can have is abusive, and is not tolerated in actual communism.
Exrobite wrote:
Of course, some of this may be wrong as I am too tired to even care about writing this, I just wrote this because of misconceptions and ignorance.