You're viewing part of a thread.
The point is that it's the US intervention is causing them to "not work", not on their merits themselves. If I firebombed every red house in the neighborhood and they got rebuilt at being blue, we wouldn't say red houses are naturally prone to combust and fail, right?
But they are working. They're poor, standards are low, as are rights and freedoms, but they do work. You can become a citizen and experience communism exactly as it was described.
What is the intervention of Laos and Vietnam at the moment? I couldn't find anything. The closest I could find is a defence deal, and that's about it.
You don't level a country's infrastructure and have it be globally competitive overnight. I beg you to include a crumb of materialist analysis into the equation.
I never said they needed to be globally competitive. If possible, I think every nation should transition to being self-serving, renewable, and entirely self-sufficient with their resources.
Communist nations can exist unconnected to the rest of the world's trade. Look at North Korea and Cuba as examples. Not particularly nice places to live. Both nations have very little international trade, but they still exist.
My primary point is that all of these nations are functioning communist states; although poor when compared to the rest of the world, they are still functioning. You can still get citizenship and live out your communist desires to the fullest extent of their laws. You will hate it, but you can live it.
See, that's my problem with tankies. They're all fabulously rich. I know this since I'm in their circles and have talked to many on a personal level--yet--None of these rich kiddies actually give a shit about advancing communsim. They can give all of their vast riches and higher education to these communist states, give them that mighty dollar, that western brain, but they don't, they just refuse. Instead, they prefer to live out their days aimlessly fantasising about how nice it would be to see everything fall apart (who doesn't?) instead of putting boots to the ground and getting shit done. Most of the time they even go against their own ideals, like supporting the proxy wars of arab oil barons or hypercapitalistic Russia. For their arguments over materialism, there sure is a lack of it.
I beg you to include some comprehension when replying--evidently lacking as you blissfully ignore my mentions of these nations' modern trade and supply, pity.
It's pretty clear from your comments that you consider communists and tankies to be one and the same, and don't really know much about communism in general. These tired arguments have been done to death, there's no point litigating this stuff with someone who comes at this with with proud ignorance of the subject matter. Until you grasp at least the contradiction inherent in the phrase "communist nation", you're just wasting people's time.
Great rebuttal dude! You sure showed me!
"nuhuh"
Well, it was coherent and with a very direct and answerable question for a response which is a pretty good basis for a rebuttal.
But he did misquote you by referencing the inherent contradiction of 'communist nation' instead of 'communist state' as you appear to have written, so there's that.
If your argument is semantics, then your argument is weak
Regardless, this is pretty off-topic now. Do you have something to say about the genocide denialism in the post?
It's not worth my time to continue with this thread after this, you're obviously a deeply unserious person, but I'll spend a little time sifting through the scattershot arguments and deal with them...
I never said they needed to be globally competitive. If possible, I think every nation should transition to being self-serving, renewable, and entirely self-sufficient with their resources.
Because every nation has every resource and information they could possibly need to run a modern society. A rare earth mineral mine in every country is what I always say! /s
Beyond that detail, your first paragraph is effectively:
The second is just you giving anecdotal accounts of people you absolutely know and they're certainly rich (sure).
Have you considered that your theoretical person that holds this belief...
- Probably does not know the native language.
- Will leave behind people they love and care about to move away.
- Would be very costly to upend their life.
- Would live somewhere less well off based on (see above).
- Would rather attempt to influence their country to be better or more equitable (in their opinion).
- Assumes they can even become a citizen to begin with.
The problems are systemic, not based on individual failings. Even if these people were 100% real, I do not care.
Most of the time they even go against their own ideals, like supporting the proxy wars of arab oil barons or hypercapitalistic Russia. For their arguments over materialism, there sure is a lack of it.
This is the most disingenuous strawman framing you could possibly concoct of someone's position.
deeply unserious? all along? What a waste of time, I thought we were having a nice chat but if you want to resort to being deeply unserious, then sure.
I will be deeply unserious in return, don't get mad, it's deeply unserious, no serious business here. This is all very unserious, a very big unserious. no seriousness here, no sir.
Once you're ready to be deeply serious, tell me and I'll unban you and restore your belittling comments and insults, and then we'll have a nice serious discussion where we can talk about ideas. Hopefully come to conclusions and mutual understanding of one another's experiences and opinions, like serious people. Or you can carry on being deeply unserious. It's up to you.