Should I be killed?

I want to own a huge corporation when I'm older. Should I be killed?

It will depend on your actions in the future.

No killing in my diary

But what if I become a rich capitalist who doesnt want to live under communism?

Surely I would be killed, right Zealot?

In America they dont kill communists, but under communism, welll.....

calinis wrote:

But what if I become a rich capitalist who doesnt want to live under communism?

Surely I would be killed, right Zealot?

As I said depends on your actions.

calinis wrote:

In America they dont kill communists, but under communism, welll.....

They're banned and for long were prosecuted. Authoritarian capitalists are in their right to prosecute communists since its congruent with their political views. And since we communists pose a threat to them is understandable.

calinis wrote:

But what if I become a rich capitalist who doesnt want to live under communism?

Surely I would be killed, right Zealot?

In America they dont kill communists, but under communism, welll.....

Dam good point.
But seriusly the chage that you be a rich dude is not very high, unless your family is rich.Or you win the lottery.

Bytheway you communists believ in freedom of poltical vieuw right?(well i sure do)
So if there's a communist regime can there be a capatlist party ?
Or willt they kick there asses like facists?

Uh last time I checked, there's a communist party in the US....

CoolKidX

Yeah I know, but I'm speaking hypothetically. Still I oppose it, and likely living in post-revolution, I would be killed for expressing my views.

Well there cant be a capitalist party because capitalism is an economic system, but I dont think they would allow dissent.

Actully there many communist party's , dont know there names but always a communist dmeostrration there's a party.

That a party calls itself communist doesn't mean that it actually is communist.

We communists advocate for freedom of expression but not for freedom of commiting sabotage.

Ow i see so if u call your party communst party but your really very VERY liberal, its not communism either.
But seriusly wuts with the truly communism?
U guys say there wasnt truly communism in china, i think you just say that cause communism in China was EPC FAIL!

In capitalist America, all people can equally express their opinion! In any communist state, the party has the only opinion.

Take your pick.

calinis wrote:

In capitalist America, all people can equally express their opinion! In any communist state, the party has the only opinion.

Take your pick.

That's more facism but still little communism.

CoolKidX wrote:

Ow i see so if u call your party communst party but your really very VERY liberal, its not communism either.
But seriusly wuts with the truly communism?
U guys say there wasnt truly communism in china, i think you just say that cause communism in China was EPC FAIL!

CoolKidX would you bother reading at least one of the dozens of threads extensively adressing that topic?

Communism implies nonexistance of market, of money, complete equality, production and distribution, and in more advanced stages democracy. If any of those lacks, there's no communism.

calinis wrote:

In capitalist America, all people can equally express their opinion! In any communist state, the party has the only opinion.

Take your pick.

How monotonous calinis. You can't state how a communist state works when there has not been a single communist state.

In communism anyone can express personal views.

U see u know why evry atempt to communism failed cause its to good to be true, and you guys are like 1..2..3 communism in a country evrything is good, for you maybe (the high dictators) but not the ppl, you call it not truly communisme cause it was a fail and to denied the fail you call it not truly communism, communism is impossible.

I agree with CoolKidX. History has proven that every attempt to create communism has failed on the basis that ignores human nature.

CoolKidX wrote:

U see u know why evry atempt to communism failed cause its to good to be true, and you guys are like 1..2..3 communism in a country evrything is good, for you maybe (the high dictators) but not the ppl, you call it not truly communisme cause it was a fail and to denied the fail you call it not truly communism, communism is impossible.

Tnose systems that claimed to be communist were state capitalisms. Communism implies unexistance of market and money.
Communism impies quality and in more advanced stages it implies democracy.
If any of those is lacking there is no communism.

You can't state that something that hasn't been tried is impossible to be stablished. All attempts were contradictory state capitalisms.

calinis wrote:

I agree with CoolKidX. History has proven that every attempt to create communism has failed on the basis that ignores human nature.

If human nature was against communism, it would be impossible that any human was communist. You're confusing human nature with immaturity or evil.

unexistance of market and money?
How will they pay each other or buy things?
They dont have money, and how ill the govermont make money to build new things if there isnt trade and money?

Communism hasn't been achieved because the paper tiger continues to prey on the left.

CoolKidX wrote:

unexistance of market and money?
How will they pay each other or buy things?
They dont have money, and how ill the govermont make money to build new things if there isnt trade and money?

Money is irrelevant to real economy.

All you need is a distribution system, resources, technical knowledge, workforce and will.

revolution wrote:

Communism hasn't been achieved because the paper tiger continues to prey on the left.

You mean money?
If so let me tell you that if your country dosnt trade it would adfentaly go whitout money, and then no buidling could be made no money for hosptals, u need money in evry nation!

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

unexistance of market and money?
How will they pay each other or buy things?
They dont have money, and how ill the govermont make money to build new things if there isnt trade and money?

Money is irrelevant to real economy.

All you need is a distribution system, resources, technical knowledge, workforce and will.

But if your a real small country or your a country middle in the desert , the gronds are not useable, then you can;t sufive of rescourses , dude you actally say that you just give away goods right?
Its like the egeptaiyn ages.
And if you want a like..Wii but you cant cause they jsut give stuff away, or am i wrong how ill the ppl get there food and needs?

CoolKidX wrote:

You mean money?
If so let me tell you that if your country dosnt trade it would adfentaly go whitout money, and then no buidling could be made no money for hosptals, u need money in evry nation!

You don't need money unless you employ capitalism.

CoolKidX wrote:

But if your a real small country or your a country middle in the desert , the gronds are not useable, then you can;t sufive of rescourses , dude you actally say that you just give away goods right?

No, and it would be quite helpful that you bothered to read this topic in te numerous threads where it has been broadly developed.

I'm speaking about eliminating intrasocietal trade. Of course trade among favoured and disfavoured nations is necesary. It's not giving goods away.

Goods are a right aquirable through work.

CoolKidX wrote:

Its like the egeptaiyn ages.
And if you want a like..Wii but you cant cause they jsut give stuff away, or am i wrong how ill the ppl get there food and needs?

Through distribution of production.

Really, this has been treated in lots of threads and very extensively.

I dont understand a monkey ball from it , ok im not from USA or somethin so what u mean by distribution of production?
And u see you have to make trades.
And give me one of the "thousands" topics were it says maybe i could read there.