You're viewing a single thread.
It is bad tho lol
Why?
It always ends up as a dictatorship, because communism puts too much trust and responsibility on the one in power. So much so that, no one history was able to resist being a dictator.
There have been plenty of Capitalist dictatorships to stop Communism. The deal with dictatorial states has less to do with their internal economic policies, and more to do with world superpowers intervening to advance their own interests. You can see this with the Eastern Bloc having strong ties to the U.S.S.R. instead of having their Communist ideas being brought up within their own state, and the Deng being Soviet-influenced. Yugoslavia is a very good example of a Communist state done right, as is Vietnam; the former was deemed false Communism by the U.S.S.R., and the latter was left alone. There's also Cuba, which again, is not under the U.S.S.R. You can also see Capitalist satellite states being given arms support by the United States, which really makes it far less about the nation's own choice to be Capitalist or Communist, and more about their status within the Cold War.
I do agree that Communist economies aren't perfect, but it's not as simple as G.I. Joe.
TL;DR No economic system exists in a vacuum; nations act and are acted upon each other like cogs in a giant machine.
What on Earth are you talking about? Can you give an example? Not a single AES state has been managed by a single person, especially not one who had to "resist temptation."
How do you believe AES states function politically?
What about Stalin who purged rivals and sent out hit men with ice picks to take out his critics? Or Xi Jinping who's been made President for life or whatever recently? Or Fidel Castro who basically led the country from the revolution until he was too old to run it? The DPRK which looks like a monarchy in all but name? No one says dictators run whole countries literally by themselves but they do dictatorial things to make sure people only loyal to them can have power, their word is law without going through other checks or balances by the people, like some popularly elected body or something.
I will admit though that after Stalin, the USSR changed out rulers pretty regularly so that doesn't seem like a dictatorship to me. Same with Cuba now after Castro. Now people just say it because those countries allow only one party I guess.
What about Stalin who purged rivals and sent out hit men with ice picks to take out his critics?
Purging fascists and Capitalists from the party is a good thing. Purging did not necessarily mean executing, it meant forcing out of the Party.
Or Xi Jinping who's been made President for life or whatever recently?
Mind sharing what you mean, "or whatever?" Are you arguing using facts that came to you in a dream?
Or Fidel Castro who basically led the country from the revolution until he was too old to run it?
Does getting re-elected make you a dictator? Lmao.
The DPRK which looks like a monarchy in all but name?
In what way?
No one says dictators run whole countries literally by themselves but they do dictatorial things to make sure people only loyal to them can have power, their word is law without going through other checks or balances by the people, like some popularly elected body or something.
Do you have evidence that there were not popularly elected bodies making all of the decisions, and that leaders of AES states were never contested successfully?
Mind sharing what you mean, "or whatever?" Are you arguing using facts that came to you in a dream?
I guess it was just no term limits? Still, he's got control of all the levers of power and without term limits he can continue to consolidate power over time, gathering favors, loyalty, etc. There's a reason people like term limits and Mexico fought a couple wars over the idea.
In what way?
Power goes from father to son. They have elections but the person in power always wins like 100% of us vote, and I don't even think they have alternative candidates. Someone else above had a link that showed they have a person and you just vote "yes or no" for that person, which isn't very democratic if you don't know the alternative.
Do you have evidence that there were not popularly elected bodies making all of the decisions, and that leaders of AES states were never contested successfully?
I don't, but if you have proof that those things have happened before, I'd be curious to see them.
I guess it was just no term limits? Still, he's got control of all the levers of power and without term limits he can continue to consolidate power over time, gathering favors, loyalty, etc. There's a reason people like term limits and Mexico fought a couple wars over the idea
If people reelect candidates, what purpose does limiting them serve?
Power goes from father to son. They have elections but the person in power always wins like 100% of us vote, and I don't even think they have alternative candidates. Someone else above had a link that showed they have a person and you just vote "yes or no" for that person, which isn't very democratic if you don't know the alternative.
Untrue, generally.
I don't, but if you have proof that those things have happened before, I'd be curious to see them.
Try Reading This Soviet World, or Blackshirts and Reds.
Pol pot has entered the chat
Communist vietnam fought a war against feudalist cambodia under pol pot.
The US-backed fascist that denounced Marxism and was defeated by Communists? Why?
literally not a communist and rejected by almost communist.