Even if It could work

[A Pict]

Why would we want it to?


From each according to ability to each according to need is how you treat draft animals (work them as hard as possible, and feed them enough to survive). I don't really want to be a slave, even if it did manage to work. Which it can't.

[Bradyman]

By saying this, you show that you have no knowledge whatsoever about communism. All you know is that one quote and the USSR. Please, if you want to have an intelligent conversation read a few articles by Marx and Engels, then come back here.

[Misodoctakleidist]

it sounds to me like he got his "knowledge" of communism from ayn rand's motor company story.

[A Pict]

By saying this, you show that you have no knowledge whatsoever about communism. All you know is that one quote and the USSR. Please, if you want to have an intelligent conversation read a few articles by Marx and Engels, then come back here.

And by saying this you show you have no refutation.

I read marx's Communist Manifesto.

He makes several critical errors.

1. He knows damn well it takes intelligence and incentive to make a industrial society (ie bougerious). But he thinks you can maintain it without them. Which is deadly incorrect.

2. He believes wealth to be a static amount, and doesn't consider innovation.

3. He doesn't realize physical paper money is only a promise, and can't actually change true reality (ie giving out enough money so every farmer can afford a tractor does not mean enough tractors will appear to service the farmers.) In others words, he mixes up causes and effects.



it sounds to me like he got his "knowledge" of communism from ayn rand's motor company story.


Ad hominim. Doesn't refute a word I said.


EDIT:

Made 3rd point slightly more coherent

[synthesis]

We believe in Communism because we believe that a man whose income relies entirely upon the work of others should not be receiving an income that is 728 times as much as those whose work he appropriates.

[Misodoctakleidist]

I read marx's Communist Manifesto.

that doesn't really explain communism, try reading das kapital.


1. He knows damn well it takes intelligence and incentive to make a industrial society (ie bougerious). But he thinks you can maintain it without them. Which is deadly incorrect.

are you saying it's impossible for working class people to be intelligent? If you're really that stuck up then i don't think this debate is even worth continuing.


2. He believes wealth to be a static amount, and doesn't consider innovation.

Could you be more specific instead of spouting out generalised ayn rand quotes.


3. He doesn't physical paper money is only a promise, and can't actually change true reality (ie giving out enough money so every farmer can afford a tractor does not mean enough tractors will appear to service the farmers.) In others words, he mixes up causes and effects.

Am i the only person who thinks this paragraph is competely incoherant

[Ahura Mazda]

it makes sense if you insert the word "realize" in between the second and third word.

[A Pict]

are you saying it's impossible for working class people to be intelligent? If you're really that stuck up then i don't think this debate is even worth continuing.

Well lets see you assert that working is miserable. If you were intelligent you could preform a more cerebrial function, such as engineering, etc. Im saying if the working class is that downtrodden, then indeed no one whose is intelligent would be them.


With my point i was mainly saying he doesn't belive engineers and managers to be necessary for the continuation of a industrial society. Which it obviously does.



Could you be more specific instead of spouting out generalised ayn rand quotes.

He thinks wealth is stolen, not created. Which is incorrect.

[Sensitive]

I read marx's Communist Manifesto.
And now you think that you're an expert? Haha!

[A Pict]

And now you think that you're an expert? Haha!

What does this bring to the debate? if i made any erroneous claims about communism, please argue against them, rather then pointlessly spam.

Also, i might want to add all of you make many erroneous claims about capitialism, even though not a single one of you have touched ANYTHING by Mises, Friedman, Hayek, etc. But then again, i can easily address and crush your points while you have to resort to logical fallacies, so this is not an issue for me.

[Hawker]

Marx pointed the way,now we have to go down the path and make it work,no matter how great the sacrifice.

[Hawker]

Originally posted by A [email protected] 4 2004, 04:10 AM

And now you think that you're an expert? Haha!

What does this bring to the debate? if i made any erroneous claims about communism, please argue against them, rather then pointlessly spam.

Also, i might want to add all of you make many erroneous claims about capitialism, even though not a single one of you have touched ANYTHING by Mises, Friedman, Hayek, etc. But then again, i can easily address and crush your points while you have to resort to logical fallacies, so this is not an issue for me.
Capitalism creates class,and that is what communism tries to abolish.

[A Pict]

Marx pointed the way,now we have to go down the path and make it work,no matter how great the sacrifice


And isn't this just the essense of communism (or collectivism in general). Always sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice. Give up, give up, give up. Happiness is a sin when others are unhappy. TOIL. Those who think pleasure, the bodys response to proper mainatance, is a sin and pain, the bodies resopnse to mistreatement, a virtue, walk the path towards death. Those who worship these concepts are worshipers of death indeed.





Capitalism creates class,and that is what communism tries to abolish.


Uh, look at capitaliastic countries and look at communistic/statist countries and look at "class" fluidity-- surpirse surprise!

There are castes in communism-the leaders, the followers, the priviledged workers, the eviscerated men of the mind (until they can escape).

The only things is they are held togther by force, while in capitalism they are held loosely (if at all) togther by merit.

[Hawker]

And isn't this just the essense of communism (or collectivism in general). Always sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice. Give up, give up, give up. Happiness is a sin when others are unhappy. TOIL. Those who think pleasure, the bodys response to proper mainatance, is a sin and pain, the bodies resopnse to mistreatement, a virtue, walk the path towards death. Those who worship these concepts are worshipers of death indeed.

We all make sacrifices in life,that's the whole cycle,when you walk don't you use energy,when you hunt for food don't you kill an animal,etc,etc. We all make choices in life that we don't like,but still we have to make them,it's called living.


Uh, look at capitaliastic countries and look at communistic/statist countries and look at "class" fluidity-- surpirse surprise!

There are castes in communism-the leaders, the followers, the priviledged workers, the eviscerated men of the mind (until they can escape).

The only things is they are held togther by force, while in capitalism they are held loosely (if at all) togther by merit.

True,but then again there has never been any real communist country,and communism is an idea and can be changed to fit a condition.

[synthesis]

What does this bring to the debate? if i made any erroneous claims about communism, please argue against them, rather then pointlessly spam.

This might help you. It's a post I made awhile back that might be easier to understand.

Apparently you have a deeply ingrained lack of knowledge about Marxism. You seem to think that a Marxist revolution entails a small party overtaking the state.

Here's a little primer on Marxism. Marx postulated that as capitalist-industrial technology grew (i.e., that technology which smooths the process of production and makes things more efficient) then the bourgeoisie would have less and less need for workers and therefore would downsize as necessary. Unemployment then creates a labor surplus which the bourgeoisie uses as a justification for reducing wages and worsening conditions.

Eventually, as the technology has grown so efficient, then the wages are so low, the conditions are so bad, and the unemployment is so high that the proletariat has no other option for survival but to revolt. The government following the revolution is called Socialism - the dictatorship of the proletariat, just as Capitalism is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and Feudalism is the dictatorship of the aristocracy. It is a class dictatorship necessary to eliminate traces of bourgeois resistance.

Using the dialectical method of analysis, Marx looked beyond the form of the state (purporting to repress natural human instincts, that old capitalist scapegoat) and found its function - not human repression, necessarily, but that of class suppression. The proletariat utilizes the state to suppress the bourgeoisie. Once there is only the proletariat, the working class, there is no need for the state and it will vanish. Communism takes advantage of the extremely efficient (almost entirely automated) technology and puts it to public use rather than private use.

With all basic needs provided for, humanity is free to pursue anything they want. The pressure of a life as an artist disappears; an artist can now create truly excellent art as opposed to creating that art which enables him to survive off his earnings. Same with scientists and inventors; since the material incentive (i.e. the material necessity) is gone, the scientist is free to develop medicines that benefit the community rather than produce capital for the scientist, as the inventor is free to develop technology that benefits the community rather than produce capital for the inventor. Medicines and technology are inherently beneficial except when restricted to a private sector.

There are problems with the Marxist prediction, of course. In addition to more efficient technology, the bourgeoisie moves jobs overseas to turn a greater profit. The job flight creates nationalistic rather than socialistic tendencies among the workers, and nationalism is inherently opposed to socialism in that socialism is international.

But all in all, it makes sense to me. More so than a dictum which paradoxically champions both the free market and government deregulation. As if a free market could exist in a society where there are no government regulations on monopolies.


Also, i might want to add all of you make many erroneous claims about capitialism, even though not a single one of you have touched ANYTHING by Mises, Friedman, Hayek, etc.

Shush. I, for one, have read plenty of Mises. I'm sure many other intelligent people here have, as well.


But then again, i can easily address and crush your points while you have to resort to logical fallacies, so this is not an issue for me.

So tell me - do you use your right hand, or your left?

[Pete]

Well lets see you assert that working is miserable. If you were intelligent you could preform a more cerebrial function, such as engineering, etc. Im saying if the working class is that downtrodden, then indeed no one whose is intelligent would be them.

Working isn't miserable. Doing the hard physical labour is more statisfying, to me atleast, than planning it out, though that is also enjoyable to an extent. Cleaning toilets isn't that bad, it requires over half a brain to do it properly if you want to make sure you kill the germs while keeping the chemicals balanced properly. Also it takes mental effort to do such jobs continualy. I've also pushed brooms, stocked shelves, been a librarian (in all but name that is), taught music, shoveled gravel, repaired roads, ect. All of this, and yet I still have an education.

Intelligence alone means little. You have to beable to do the work aswell, to know how long it takes to properly clean 7 toilets and the corresponding urinals and sinks to be able to properly plan and supply yourself for the job. Sure that means getting your hands dirty, but it also means using your brain. Pushing brooms is mindless, but the pusher hardly needs to keep half a mind on the job and often their mind is extremely active. Its either that or get bored to tears.

Intelligence is not confined to class. Class is independant of logic, it exists based on the social conditions one was born into or thrust into based on events that happened before that person was born, or were that person, often times, has little control. An intelligent son or daughter of a single parent who works two jobs to makes ends meet will be severly disadvantaged against the mediocre son of a rich family (single or not) who gets everything supplied through wealth. The class difference is evident, and that is what we seek to destroy. Shatter, if you will.

The working class is down trodden by people how have arrogance, such as the arrogance your posts give off, where they feel superior and thus make themselves superior. I had a teacher once who asked us to look around ourselves. We were in a highlevel english class. Perhaps one out of the 25 were from a low class family. I wonder why? I know others from low income who are not stupid, but don't have the same chances, are forced into working to help support their family by social constraints and realities. It is not their fault, but that of the greater system.

That is why I want to smash, shatter, destroy, elimanate, liquafy, whatever you want to use as your verb it.

-Pete

[A Pict]

Uh I refered to the points you made in your post. I have, indeed, read some of Marx. I was a bit of socialist myself until I saw what selfless labour truly looked like.



Using the dialectical method of analysis, Marx looked beyond the form of the state (purporting to repress natural human instincts, that old capitalist scapegoat) and found its function - not human repression, necessarily, but that of class suppression. The proletariat utilizes the state to suppress the bourgeoisie. Once there is only the proletariat, the working class, there is no need for the state and it will vanish. Communism takes advantage of the extremely efficient (almost entirely automated) technology and puts it to public use rather than private use


yeah. look at my Problem with marx-- Point 1.




then the bourgeoisie would have less and less need for workers and therefore would downsize as necessary. Unemployment then creates a labor surplus which the bourgeoisie uses as a justification for reducing wages and worsening conditions.


So there is a labour surplus and a huge market for goods, as well as incredibly powerful technology. You do realize there isn't a set number of bougrises in existance correct? Why couldn't there be more owners of technology? So really what would happen is the bougreious (i intend to spell that silly word different everytime) would increase. Your revolt would never come. The only thing holding us back from a utopia of privacy is government intervention.

So even though in a purely capitalistic society, this would never occur, for shit and giggles, lets examine some of hte purpoted "benefits" of this.



opposed to creating that art which enables him to survive off his earnings.

You mean art that SOMEONE (hell ANYONE) likes enough to value? So he would be free to make art that NO ONE likes? Yippee!


medicines that benefit the community rather than produce capital


Don't medicines that benefit the community provide capital, as the community values them....

Look at research being done by the state (for teh community) and research being done in the private sector (for virtutious profit$$). Hell it was taking the state like twice the time with several times the money to research the human genome--- a private company did it at a fraction with less time.


Ditto on the inventor




As if a free market could exist in a society where there are no government regulations on monopolies.

A monopoly cannot exist in a freemarket, as a business has to compete against the possiblity of a competitor. Only with FORCE backing them can they exploit.

Look at history. Numerous men have tried to corner markets-- all have failed, most ruined.




So tell me - do you use your right hand, or your left?


?

[synthesis]

You do realize there isn't a set number of bougrises in existance correct?

Yes, the number grows smaller and the wealth becomes more concentrated when corporations are allowed to bankrupt each other.


Why couldn't there be more owners of technology?

Why would this be in the interest of the economic elite? If governments did not regulate corporations, the corporation would be the most totalitarian institution in existence. What the elite wants, the elite gets, and if the elite doesn't want the wealth to be decentralized, the wealth does not get decentralized.


The only thing holding us back from a utopia of privacy is government intervention.

So you believe in utopia?


You mean art that SOMEONE (hell ANYONE) likes enough to value? So he would be free to make art that NO ONE likes? Yippee!

You can't tell whether or not anyone is going to value a piece of art until after it's made. So how is a writer, born into a life of poverty, ever going to find the time and money to write his or her brilliant novel if he or she is working two jobs just to pay for food and shelter?


Don't medicines that benefit the community provide capital, as the community values them....

No. For example, don't you think that in the event that a corporate researcher discovered a cure for cancer or AIDS, the corporation would prevent this cure from being released because it would be far more profitable to keep the afflicted on a program of medication?

So for the cure to be a viable option, market-wise, the corporation would have to charge as much for the cure as it would cost to medicate an individual for the rest of his or her life. Now how many people are going to be able to afford this, in a medically privatized economy?


A monopoly cannot exist in a freemarket, as a business has to compete against the possiblity of a competitor.

In the free market - the man at the top has the power to bankrupt and/or merge with his opposition.

Do you deny this?


Look at history. Numerous men have tried to corner markets-- all have failed, most ruined.

Yeah, usually because of government regulation. You mean to tell me Microsoft wouldn't have obtained a monopoly - in the suppression of their opposition - had the government not intervened?


?

Somehow, I figured you wouldn't get it ;)

[A Pict]

Yes, the number grows smaller and the wealth becomes more concentrated when corporations are allowed to bankrupt each other.

Really? Why is the middle class bigger then it has ever been (long term)? And where are these growing hordes of the unemployed?


Why would this be in the interest of the economic elite? If governments did not regulate corporations, the corporation would be the most totalitarian institution in existence. What the elite wants, the elite gets, and if the elite doesn't want the wealth to be decentralized, the wealth does not get decentralized


Wealth is not static. That is your assumption. It is not "centralized". It is created. More of the "elite" allows greater specialization and more wealth for everyone in the market. Even if it didn't, those who ride tigers get eaten. Its in the corporations best interest for thehir to be proper property rights, or else they will be next on your altar of altruism.



So you believe in utopia?

Indeed I do, but it is a far different one from the disgusting version you propogate. It can be achieveable-any day. Remove all government intevention *Except Force and Fraud* and there you have it.



You can't tell whether or not anyone is going to value a piece of art until after it's made. So how is a writer, born into a life of poverty, ever going to find the time and money to write his or her brilliant novel if he or she is working two jobs just to pay for food and shelter?

J.K Rowling. :)

Also the average worker makes quite a bit more then you like to believe. Not that you have any fucking clue as to how much your precious proletriate make.

also i like to add


You can't tell whether or not anyone is going to value a piece of art until after it's made. -bullshit. Its your risk, not mine. Don't hold a gun to my head and make me pay for some crack-pot to throw elephant shit on a canvas.




No. For example, don't you think that in the event that a corporate researcher discovered a cure for cancer or AIDS, the corporation would prevent this cure from being released because it would be far more profitable to keep the afflicted on a program of medication?

So for the cure to be a viable option, market-wise, the corporation would have to charge as much for the cure as it would cost to medicate an individual for the rest of his or her life. Now how many people are going to be able to afford this, in a medically privatized economy?

You are assumign there is just one corporation. If corporation x and y both have low term treatements, but y discovers a insta cure, they will release it to cut into the market share of x. They can reinvest (this concept is also foreign to communists who want progress to stagnate--err! production for consumption) this and concreate their advantage.


In the free market - the man at the top has the power to bankrupt and/or merge with his opposition.

Do you deny this


Yep, how does he have this power (assuming that Courts and Police still exist).



Yeah, usually because of government regulation. You mean to tell me Microsoft wouldn't have obtained a monopoly - in the suppression of their opposition - had the government not intervened?


Yep. Define monopoly as well. Even if they had 99% of the market share, they would not mistreat their customers or else it would drop. So even if they have all teh market, they still have to compete against the possiblity of competition.

But hey, government intervention did create the big 4 of railroads! Strangely enough, then capitalism got blamed for it!

[synthesis]

Why is the middle class bigger then it has ever been (long term)?

What does this have to do with anything? The middle class is not bourgeois.


And where are these growing hordes of the unemployed?

http://www.democrats.org/news/200209240004.html


Wealth is not static. That is your assumption. It is not "centralized". It is created.

Wealth can be created, but the means of producing it will remain centralized.


Its in the corporations best interest for theher to be proper property rights

It was in the best interests of slave-holders to insure the rights of their property. "Property rights" are the rights of the rich to enlist the government in securing the appropriation of the labor of their employees.


J.K Rowling.

Interesting example you used. She's from Britain, which is hardly socialist, but socialized to a much greater degree than America.


Also the average worker makes quite a bit more then you like to believe. Not that you have any fucking clue as to how much your precious proletriate make.

Simply incredible.

Some relatively random facts for you.

Twenty percent of American children live in poverty; in the Netherlands that figure is 3 percent.

The minimum wage today is lower, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than in 1979.

Bill Gates' wealth equals the combined wealth of the poorest 120 million Americans, or 45 percent of our population.

Percentage of Americans without pensions: 53

Number of people without health care: 43 million

Dollar ratio of CEO pay to that of minimum-wage workers: 728:1

People filing for unemployment: 390,000

Number of people who go hungry every day:31 million (including 12 million children)

People spending more than half their income for housing: 5.4 million


Its your risk, not mine. Don't hold a gun to my head and make me pay for some crack-pot to throw elephant shit on a canvas.

It has little to do with seizing money from you than it has to do seizing the means of producing large amounts of wealth from the top sector of the economic elite.


If corporation x and y both have low term treatements, but y discovers a insta cure, they will release it to cut into the market share of x. They can reinvest (this concept is also foreign to communists who want progress to stagnate--err! production for consumption) this and concreate their advantage

What if they form a conglomerate and monopolize the formula?


Yep, how does he have this power (assuming that Courts and Police still exist).

How does he have the power? You can bankrupt other corporations by outcompeting them - or you can form a conglomerate with them to form one massive monopolizing machine.

It is not in the best interests of corporations to compete. They will always choose to rest on their laurels. In a capitalist economy, government regulation is the only way to ensure competition.


Define monopoly as well.

Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service. That is the dictionary definition.


Even if they had 99% of the market share, they would not mistreat their customers or else it would drop.

But what is the incentive to treat customers well when they have no other option?


So even if they have all teh market, they still have to compete against the possiblity of competition.

You're back-pedaling. I thought monopolies were wholly undesirable. Here you're trying to justify them. :blink:


But hey, government intervention did create the big 4 of railroads! Strangely enough, then capitalism got blamed for it!

Puzzling.

[RevolucioN NoW]

Why has there been such an influx of libertarian/anarcho capitalists in recent weeks?

dont they have there own discussion boards?


And where are these growing hordes of the unemployed?

employment is defined by the government as anyone with even short term casual employment, even though they may not earn enough to survive. I know people with multiple university degrees forced ot work 3-4 jobs just to sustain themselves, i wouldnt call that fair.


Remove all government intevention *Except Force and Fraud* and there you have it.

And how exactly would you remove only certain aspects of the state institution seeing as they rely on each other for support :blink:


Also the average worker makes quite a bit more then you like to believe. Not that you have any fucking clue as to how much your precious proletriate make.

Really, this is the same "precious proletriate" forced to work 3-4 jobs and over 70 hours a week just to live? We happen to know very well how much the proletariate makes, as we are all "members" of this very inexclusive "club"


Yep, how does he have this power (assuming that Courts and Police still exist).

The capitalist can buy up other businesses in his field, or simply use his productive capacity to drive others out of business, thus making any attempt at competition futile (microsoft is a good example). What would stop businesses from becoming monopolies in your free market "utopia"?

[Hoppe]

It was in the best interests of slave-holders to insure the rights of their property. "Property rights" are the rights of the rich to enlist the government in securing the appropriation of the labor of their employees.

I never hear you guys on slavery in the middle-east, which still exist, or Africa, especially in Muslim countries. Afraid to be called racist? Your definition of property rights is extremely flawed and of course biased.


in the Netherlands that figure is 3 percent

Is much higher here than 3 percent. The per capita income in the US is the highest everywhere.


What if they form a conglomerate and monopolize the formula?

How are they going to do that without a government? In a fully free market you should agree will all your competitors which is hardly possible.


How does he have the power? You can bankrupt other corporations by outcompeting them - or you can form a conglomerate with them to form one massive monopolizing machine.

The first doesn't really matter, the second is simply not possible



It is not in the best interests of corporations to compete. They will always choose to rest on their laurels. In a capitalist economy, government regulation is the only way to ensure competition.

The first correct thing you say. Yet in a free market they will have to compete against other clever greedy entrepreneurs. The last thing again is silly, market institutions will regulate it, not government. You seem to know too little about the workings of a market.


Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service. That is the dictionary definition.

I've highlighted the important words. Who grants them these exclusive control?

[synthesis]

I never hear you guys on slavery in the middle-east, which still exist, or Africa, especially in Muslim countries.

Probably because that is not the issue at hand in most conversations. Have you tried searching the Politics forum or the History forum for these things?

I would be surprised if you could not find anything here about slavery in the Middle East, considering Israel has a rather extensive market in it.


Is much higher here than 3 percent. The per capita income in the US is the highest everywhere

Yep. Those are the statistics.


How are they going to do that without a government? In a fully free market you should agree will all your competitors which is hardly possible.

Because of their market power. They can afford to reduce the price of their products drastically but temporarily whereas fledgling competitors cannot.

I apologize but I do not understand your second sentence. What do you mean by 'agree'?


Yet in a free market they will have to compete against other clever greedy entrepreneurs.

In America (and much of the world, now) there is a corporation called Wal-Mart. They set up massive shops in small towns and drive all the competition out of business with low prices.

And with every venture that succeeds, they can afford to make a new venture. Wal-Mart is like a kudzu, a parasitic weed, and the general assimilation of small American towns has resulted in a term called Wal-Martization.

And this is in a government that supposedly protects against 'market-power monopolies.'

[Vinny Rafarino]

I read marx's Communist Manifesto.

He makes several critical errors.



Well golly gee....I had no idea about that!! I will turn to capitalism at once! All these years as a communist...If only this kid on the internet had DISPROVEN marxism sooner, I could have had that Porsche!

[John Galt]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 11 2004, 10:23 PM

I read marx's Communist Manifesto.

He makes several critical errors.



Well golly gee....I had no idea about that!! I will turn to capitalism at once! All these years as a communist...If only this kid on the internet had DISPROVEN marxism sooner, I could have had that Porsche!
And I thought we shouldnt dismiss the ideas of people because of their age?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Sure...If that's what YOU want to do...I would much prefer to do whatever the hell I want. Especially if it means I get the break YOUR balls.


Get over it.

[A Pict]

Well golly gee....I had no idea about that!! I will turn to capitalism at once! All these years as a communist...If only this kid on the internet had DISPROVEN marxism sooner, I could have had that Porsche!

Well, then i do tell the errors he makes, which are still stand uncontested.


Unless you mean since you have held your beliefs for a long time, they become automatically correct?



Sure...If that's what YOU want to do...I would much prefer to do whatever the hell I want. Especially if it means I get the break YOUR balls.


Get over it


I have no clue what you just said.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 06:00 AM

Uh, look at capitaliastic countries and look at communistic/statist countries and look at "class" fluidity-- surpirse surprise!

There are castes in communism-the leaders, the followers, the priviledged workers, the eviscerated men of the mind (until they can escape).

The only things is they are held togther by force, while in capitalism they are held loosely (if at all) togther by merit.

True,but then again there has never been any real communist country,and communism is an idea and can be changed to fit a condition.
This is amazing.
A communist actually admitting that socialist (communist) nations like cuba, north korea, like the USSR. Do oppress their people, and force them to live under that system without giving its people the chance to leave.