When considering the reality, I’d rather live in a fascist country, though life may equally sucks in both.Eh! Not really equal, but almost equal.At least fascist states don’t seek to destroy religions like Communist states have been trying to do, though they might be allowing only one religion to exist. Over here, I’d also include ���not really fascist” states like Spain under Francisco Franco.Had I lived in Spain during the Spanish Civil War era and have to choose a side to fight for, I’d have joined the Nationalists and fight against the Soviet-backed Republican government.Even though Franco only allowed Roman Catholicism to exist (until he followed the Holy See’s policy to be more tolerant to Protestants), at least I, being a Protestant, could go stealth and attend Catholic churches and even formally become a Catholic!Benito Mussolini never believed in God yet he could pretend as a devout Catholic, fostering good relations with the Holy See.On the other hand, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong are among the biggest Satans in history (in my opinion), and they would wanna forcibly shove their atheist belief into my throat. The government should just fucking leave the people alone and let them think and decide if a god or a divine force exists in the universe.Anyway, I doubt if I would even get to live, whether in a fascist state or a Communist state, since I’m transgender and I might be someone undesirable to the regime…
Communism has worked fine at the level of a monastery or a commune, or similar planned community. But these are voluntary relations. Participants make the conscious decision to participate in that system.But at a larger scale, at the level of a nation, participation is not voluntary. There is no "social contract". So the problem to solve is different, of finding what kinds of systems can work for many people, including ones with differing preferences on how they want to live their lives.That's where the (classical) liberal approach really shines. Let people decide for themselves. So long as you do not initiate violence against another person, you are free to do what you want. If you want to engage in a trade and be a capitalist, you can. If you and your friends want to join a vegan pacifist commune, then go ahead. If you want to join a religious cult and be governed by a theocracy, then you are welcome to it. If you want to buy some land and set up a communist community and share your property in common, then you can do that. The liberal approach encompasses the voluntary practice of every other system. It allows you to voluntarily take on additional constraints on your life, but does not allow you to force these constraints on others. It respects your freedom, but not just yours.This is not just theory. This happens in practice, e.g., with the Amish.That's why liberalism works and communism doesn't. Communism cannot handle dissent.
Yes, and yes. But some qualifications.North Korea more likely proves that communism is impossible in practice, not that it is flawed in theory. The regime did start with good intentions, and until the late 60s or so NK had higher standards of living than the South did. But what really has done the North in is its isolationism; because it has tried to be completely independent from international trade and investment, believing itself racially superior to the rest of the world, it has withered and stagnated. Combined with a repressive fear state which uses nuclear terrorism as a bargaining position, it has few opportunities to make economic alliances. It is a fallacy that NK is Marxist in substance; they couldn't care less about liberating the world's workers from their chains.South Korea is a capitalist state, but it has also received a pretty healthy boost of foreign aid from the US and Japan, whether they will admit it or not, and while SK was never a repressive state like the North, they did until the 80s have some fairly heavy-handed governments which propped up industries and kept out foreign competition. They are increasingly a free market capitalist economy but still retain their quasi-state corporations such as Samsung and LG. SK is also starting to invest heavily in the knowledge economy, something I'd call more post-capitalist.
How do dictatorship countries make money?
1.make ur people as the slaves or sell them as the cheap labors 2.promise everything to them but do nothing 3.kill all the opposites of ur throne, mass murder if needed 4.military as the 1st power, u must have a big amount troopers and nuclear power if needed 5.civilian can working and earning the money as the normal economy, but make sure they must pay u something 6.the way to make fast big money is: a.sell ur people as cheap labours b.sell all the narcotics c.sell the arms to the countries in war d.improve the tourism in ur country 7.make sure u have allies to make u stronger so there is no dominant western countries (as USA co) willing to protest u
COLD WAR!!! help me on my history homework...please...?
1. what? The Korean war is considered the Forgotten War... That question is worded badly... 2. If it did belong to anyone, it would be under Japanese occupation when Japan was expanding and acquiring territory during the conflict. I'm not sure though. 3. Kim Il Sung wanted to Unite the two koreas under communist rule. The UN or really the US was enforcing its containment policy and shipped soldiers over to the South to pravent the spread of communism. 4. Some time in June in 1950 I think 5. Never heard of it, unless its referring to the Korean War, then it is also refereed to as the Forgotten War. 6. DMZ and 38th parallel are the same thing. Its the fortified boarder of the two Koreas 7. See 6. 8. MacArthur was irrational in pushing past the boarder when the details only 'allowed' UN intervention to assist South Korea and not to destroy or kill off the North It, like the dropping of atom bombs on Japan and the Kasmire Wars, allowed the US to 'show off' its arsenal to the the Soviet Union. Sort of like a scare tactic, the US wanted to subliminally present the capacity and abilities that the US had. One of the few 'successful' enforcements of the containment policy. The UN is sort of like the League of Nations, the only difference is that the UN can enforce their decisions where as the League of Nations had no proper way to back up what they decided. I could be wrong on any of these, so have fun and do the best you can
Easy… The US would be very poor. Period.By poor I don’t mean driving a 90’s corolla and living in the projects, nope… by poor I mean having no car at all, doing what you don’t want to, being drunk almost all the time with no motivation whatsoever.Communism is not a post-capitalism system as some may say… it is a pre-humanity system where the state owns everything including your life.Imagine you don’t have to compete because you will receive the same compensation as the very lazy neighbor… so you don’t have to invent nor succeed to barely survive. You’ll be poor wether you work hard or not.Communism accepts no criticism, will not evolve, only if you are a real life looser and only dream about drugs and alcohol, you’ll find anything in a communist country.I come from a country devastated by commujistical thinking… rotten to the core… and that is a fact, not a stupid dream of equality…Facts is the worst enemy of communists… they will NEVER prove they are a total drunken failure written by one of the worst drug addict in history, Karl Marx and some of his rotten friends.Communism is responsible for killing more people than Religions, WWI, WWII combined, even Karl Marx enjoyed the death of two of his four children living in filth, alcohol and drugs instead of looking for ways to provide welfare to his family… And that useless drunk had every single tool available to work his way out of his misery but nooooo… He was lazy as hell, he preferred to write nonsense feeling like a drunken Nostradamus.Today, after more than a century of complete failures and death, hunger, anger and despair, people still thinks communism is something that could work someday.Why communism is always applied by totalitarian and extremely corrupt governments? Because there is no way in hell anybody with more than 2 cubic centimeters of brain that will embrace such stupidity voluntary. Unless of course, you are a drunken dreamer.. willing to kill your family in filth while writing manifestos about something very stupid like… communism.Sorry for the rant but… I have lived that Stupidity and have lost everything I had after working like a donkey for 25 years… and I’m only 44 and migrated at 41… do the math how young I was when I started, and this my friend, is a fact, I’m not even a drinker, let alone a drunken dreamer and, he country I come from, was a capitalist country so… there you are, real time living person coming out of that nightmare.
Why some are bashing communism? Did you live in communist countries?
Socialism/communism in theory sounds very nice, and for the poorest in the soviet block it was OK in practice, too --- for a while. Once the wealth which had been stored up had been spent, the system collapsed. The problem was that nobody had an incentive to replace the massive wealth that the system was depleting, so the ship finally ran aground. It is like a large family which inherits the family money and decides not to work any more. If they spend faster than their investments or other income will support, sooner or later their system will collapse. Then, they will have to start over. So, it is very nice in theory, and it can be very nice for some in practice for a while, but it is not a system which aligns well with human nature, such as it is. Unfortunate, but true. If you, yourself, count the number of people who need support, then count the number in your situation, and divide, you will find that your income would not go very far to support the number of people you would need to support. If you really believed in communism/socialism you would give away your money until you only had as much as those you are worried about. But, of course, you would have to continue working as you are. That is the problem! That is why the system collapsed!