The debate "Should the Communist Control Act of 1954 be scrapped since it's an infringement of amendment 1" was started by
April 22, 2017, 8:16 pm.
10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 2 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
thereal posted 3 arguments, Nemiroff posted 8 arguments to the agreers part.
thereal, Nemiroff, SalonY and 7 visitors agree.
2 visitors disagree.
it never has a chance. it becomes a dictatorship.
Communism has never worked, as well as socialism.
are you saying there is no anti capitalist or pro communist propaganda or information on the internet? lmao.
also giving everyone access to the internet is also equal....
"a pro people government doesn't limit internet and information to their people. that's another sign the "communist" nation is a fraud." do you know what communism even is? its based on the foundation of total equality (im surprised you liberals dont jack off to it to be fair). therefore if internet is allowed, some people would be able to afford it and others wouldnt. as a result, there would be an inequality in society. not only that, but also the internet was created by and is filled with capitalist propaganda which goes blatantly against communism so why would they allow it? and no, its got nothing to do with capitalism being "better" than communism, its because of the fact that if lots of people tell you the same thing enough times, eventually you will start to believe it. for example nemiroff, if lots of people tell you that youre clever and they do it frequently, eventually you will start to believe it. it doesnt mean its true. in the same way, if lots of people from capitalist societies (who are biased) tell you that capitalism is better, eventually they will stsrt to believe it but it doesnt mean its true.
I've always stated I prefer capitalism with slow sprinkle of communist ideas on top. the basis will be stable, and improvements will be incremental and as needed.
I definitely do not support fast radical change, which is why I believe Hillary would have been a better leader than sanders... although sanders would have won the election and still be better than what we have now.
true but incorporating an unpolished idea isn't wise either.
banning their views will not achieve that.
no. I think we need to find a way where it could work.
democracy did not work for thousands of years since the Greeks invented it. should we have banned it because it was idealistic and never have revisited it?
every free democracy has assimilated communist ideas into their systems. I never said we should have communism, but we shouldn't ignore some of their more realistic aspects and cherry pick the parts that can work.
besides that, what happened to freedom of speech?
that's the problem though. they don't work yet. I am interested in their ideas but every time it tries to go into effect it becomes a dictatorship. if we could stop that then we might get something going.
Cuba improved when communists took over... and then stopped. now they are a land lost in the past with outdated everything.
a pro people government doesn't limit internet and information to their people. that's another sign the "communist" nation is a fraud.
Cuba's the only communist nation where you have a good medical system and education system.
Some people call it the only place where communism worked partially.
ideals are always great. but can ideals survive humans and reality?
the issue isn't is it good, but will it function and survive without corruption.
to be honest, ideal communism is much better than evil capitalism.
oppression is not a mandatory element of fascism, but neither is it contradictory of it. the citizens can be slave labor endlessly working to empower the state in extreme fascism, and they can be expected to throw their lives away in it's defense regardless of individual desires.
however oppression of citizens is completely contradictory to the core principles of communism. can fascism take care of their citizens in a humane way? certainly! but not necessarily. communism must, or it is no longer communism.
communism can fail economically or militarily, and the people will suffer along with their representatives, but they will not be oppressed by their own and still be communist.
1. Its called the Syrian Arab Republic, not "Democratic Republic of Syria".
2. Assad won with 88.7% in the last election and most Syrians support him in polls.
3. "if the people are suffering from oppressive laws that limit their basic rights, thats fascism not communism" as expected you dont know any more about fascism than you do about anything else in general.
cant you get anything right? why dont you know anything?
Just because a nation calls itself communist doesn't make it so. unless you believe the Democratic republic of Syria was actually a democracy that Kept relecting assad with 97% approval.
please name a single no good communist country that actually follows communist principles instead of fascism. here's a clue, if the people are suffering from oppressive laws that limit their basic rights... that's fascism, not communism.
do you choose to completely ignore the heavily socialist European nations which have a higher standard of living, higher social mobility, and higher level of reported citizen happiness than America can even dream off?
get off that McCarty kool-aid. propaganda isn't very nutritious.
communism has never done the world any good. until the idea is refined enough we definitely shouldn't adopt it.
Basically the law states that communism is banned in the US and any persons expressing communist views are prohibitted from positions in government, elected or otherwise.