[mrbeast]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Make no mistake. All of these countries are very much Communist. They are simply using part of the way that the US does business to compete against the US economically. However, if China tells you that you are going to be a Basketball player, you by god are going to be a basketball player and you will not fail. Talk to some of the executives that screwed up with our toys recently - they were executed - those that didn't commit suicide that is.

All is better now! Toys are safe! We execute CEO! All is better now! Toys are safe!

Funny!

Communism that promotes the private ownership of business, encourages people to become rich on the profits and allows foreign businesses to invest and make money? Communism is based around the notion that the means of production and benefits there of should lie in the hands of those who produce ie the proleteriat. Chinese communism differs slightly from this cassical marxist interpretation with its emphasis on the peasantry. But foreign shareholders and investors are the complete antipathy of this. China has come to the conclusion (and probably correctly) that private enterprise is the best way of guarenteeing economic growth as a command economy is not responsive enough to economic markets and trends etc (the USSR found out about this the hard way). Thats not to say that there isn't government investment in Chinese capitalism, there is, in large amounts too, but thats not something unusual in a capitalist economy.

I'm not arguing as an advocate of China by any measure. The Chinese government likes to still keep a very firm control of chinese society and there are numerous human rights abuses. No doubt Chinese basketball players have little choice in their future career. Get found guilty of corruption and its not a spell in prison but a firing squad that mght greet you.

Even his opposition says and fears that he will completely suceed. They may not be 100% yet, but at least 80% to 90% already there. Go look at their last elections. SHould show you a thing or two and point out how. Concentrate on his opposition. They spell it out clearly.

Well Chavez's opposition would say that wouldn't they. Chavez is still in power because hes popular. Infact hes more populist 'tub-thumper' than communist; the guy has his own TV chat show!

Oh yes he is! But we may have more to worry about with the EU being the new Soviet Union than anything - http://www.free-europe.org/blog/?itemid=17 - that is the opinion of some of your fellow EU brothers!

Well let me educate you then - http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html

Interesting lecture huh? Now you are aware of its orgins when you were once not aware.

Subman, you can post links to as many right-wing blogs, forums and websites as you like. But they are proof of nothing except the internet is full of political blogs forums and websites. I could pobably post links to a bunch of left-wing sites which would say the total opposite.

Putin is in the process of creating a very statist government and political system in Russia. This involves the strengthening of government control over some sectors. He is attempting to improve Russia's standing as a world power hence all the naval muscle flexing and provocative bomber flights, the internet attacks, the diplomatic spats with the UK and the use of energy resources to gain leverage over countries it regards as being in its sphere of influence.

But I've seen no evidence of a socialist state in creation at all. Authoritarian? Yes. Communist? No.

What part of the ideas are the same exactly that you don't understand? Doesn't matter what year it is.

Wise men know to look to the past to get an idea of the future. Those that fail in this end up sailing without a rudder.

Subman your 1963 list of communist aims is not a difinative list its based on someones opinion of the aims of communism; their slant. Its heavily coloured by 1960s Cold War paranoia, is written from one point of view and one only. Some of its suggestions are ridiculous.

You are correct that it is wise to study the past but the only lessons that can be drawn from the past are general. Not specific. Looking at a list of Germany's aims from 1941 will tell you nothing of her aims in 2008. That is why digging out a list of perceived communist aims from 1963 informs us only of the anti-communist climate in the US during the 1960's.

I think I have proven whos intellect is crude here, over and over it is yours. This is simply because I think that you are unaware or ignorant of the facts. Ones you have the facts, then you will be able to make a real opinion. Wake up and look around you for once. It is not pretty what is happening. I don't want to sit here and argue your views - read the net. Read up what is a Marxists policy and ideas and you might be a little shocked.

Subman, just because you say it is so does not neccesarily make it so. Others have pointed this out before.

Your 'facts' come from biased and slanted sources that have their own agenda to push. Maybe it you who should open your mind and put things in perspective, for example communism taking over the world........not very likely.

Now you are being laughable with a direct attack. Please refrain. Thx!

Oh I'm sorry I wont call you a 17th century puritan again,

I promise.