Why are Communists so hard to communicate with?

I chat with a few, and when myself and others provide how inflation, economical structure and history work, they just disagree and that's it....Why are they difficult?

Do they lack knowledge in history and economics?
Or are they down a rabbit hole due to social media?
Or it is something else?

Both are true

They hate the system, like emo's, nothing can overturn this, only self-improvement.

The most of us does not accept a compromise. That is why.

Kirjoittanut Guest, 15.08.2019 at 04:56

The most of us does not accept a compromise. That is why.

Kirjoittanut 4nic, 15.08.2019 at 05:38

No

Kirjoittanut Guest, 15.08.2019 at 04:56

The most of us does not accept a compromise. That is why.

What do you mean?

What's worse is when you get a socialist that is totally just a communist in disguise, take a look at our Prime Minister for example; she's loved by the world community because she is a Women but inreality her & her party are draining us by the day with more taxes upon taxes that just make the regular and poor more poor where as the rich stay the same. I hear their next tax is on red meat... fml

Kirjoittanut Full House, 17.08.2019 at 15:43

I do agree, but as capitalism - leaner myself, I don't think capitalism is based on evil. Just so happens that those that "Play their hands right" get more profit.

Your wrong , its humans who are hard to communicate with , no clue why ur making it sound like its just comunists ...

Look at human history all the wars and conflicts generated by ppl not communicating, look at present day how ignorant people are ,unable to accept being in the wrong and actualy having a healthy debate over anything...


Comunism, socialism , capitalism etc etc all suck , on paper their all good but sadly when implemented humans end up corrupting them be it for greed , unable to accept others ideas , religion etc

Kirjoittanut sirivann, 17.08.2019 at 16:16

I know, I just wanted to see what other people think about how "modern day" Communists debate their views. It's not a jab at them.

They are hard to talk to because they are not communists, but idiots. Real communists died with the USSR/WP or mind their own business in China. Same false view applies to nazis. They died in WW2, they are not among us (except few in baltic and croatia, but they are with one leg in grave already).

If real communists existed today, their countries and cities wouldn't be crapholes like London, Portland, San Francisco, but superpowers with space program and elite scientists. And if real nazis still exist, their nations would be military machines with orderly society and elite scientists, not failed state like Ukraine.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 18.08.2019 at 13:10

They are hard to talk to because they are not communists, but idiots. Real communists died with the USSR/WP or mind their own business in China. Same false view applies to nazis. They died in WW2, they are not among us (except few in baltic and croatia, but they are with one leg in grave already).

If real communists existed today, their countries and cities wouldn't be crapholes like London, Portland, San Francisco, but superpowers with space program and elite scientists. And if real nazis still exist, their nations would be military machines with orderly society and elite scientists, not failed state like Ukraine.

this is a proof communism sucks if it cant survive

Kirjoittanut Froyer, 18.08.2019 at 13:25

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 18.08.2019 at 13:10

They are hard to talk to because they are not communists, but idiots. Real communists died with the USSR/WP or mind their own business in China. Same false view applies to nazis. They died in WW2, they are not among us (except few in baltic and croatia, but they are with one leg in grave already).

If real communists existed today, their countries and cities wouldn't be crapholes like London, Portland, San Francisco, but superpowers with space program and elite scientists. And if real nazis still exist, their nations would be military machines with orderly society and elite scientists, not failed state like Ukraine.

this is a proof communism sucks if it cant survive

What do u mean thats proof , the cold war was a global conflict that had basicly all the worlds superpowers united vs URSS and it still held its ground for a good amount of time.....

Everywhere it was tried to be implemented it was met by coups funded and orchestrated by the west lol

Kirjoittanut sirivann, 18.08.2019 at 15:34

Kirjoittanut Froyer, 18.08.2019 at 13:25

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 18.08.2019 at 13:10

They are hard to talk to because they are not communists, but idiots. Real communists died with the USSR/WP or mind their own business in China. Same false view applies to nazis. They died in WW2, they are not among us (except few in baltic and croatia, but they are with one leg in grave already).

If real communists existed today, their countries and cities wouldn't be crapholes like London, Portland, San Francisco, but superpowers with space program and elite scientists. And if real nazis still exist, their nations would be military machines with orderly society and elite scientists, not failed state like Ukraine.

this is a proof communism sucks if it cant survive

What do u mean thats proof , the cold war was a global conflict that had basicly all the worlds superpowers united vs URSS and it still held its ground for a good amount of time.....

Everywhere it was tried to be implemented it was met by coups funded and orchestrated by the west lol

money cant win against a true revolution

Kirjoittanut sirivann, 18.08.2019 at 15:34

Kirjoittanut Froyer, 18.08.2019 at 13:25

this is a proof communism sucks if it cant survive

What do u mean thats proof , the cold war was a global conflict that had basicly all the worlds superpowers united vs URSS and it still held its ground for a good amount of time.....

Everywhere it was tried to be implemented it was met by coups funded and orchestrated by the west lol

Exactly, like Chile had Pinochet

But to be honest, Cold War started as ideological competition from 1950 to 1970, after that it was mere geopolitical competition between two nations. They didnt support their ideas anymore, just accumulate as much resources and allies as possible.

Also, did you notice how countries that went through revolution actually survived longer than countries who implemented Communism from the top? USSR installed Communism in Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, which ended only after 40-45 years, while nations like Cuba, North Korea, China which fought to install Communism, still have it.
I think Vietnam would also collapse if USA didn't invade, but invasion united them, gave them a purpose and that prolonged their life span. Now they switched to free market economy (copying China), which mean weaker economy (to attack) but prolonged life span of the system.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 18.08.2019 at 13:10

If real communists existed today, their countries and cities wouldn't be crapholes like London, Portland, San Francisco, but superpowers with space program and elite scientists.

Bro, I don't know who lied to you saying that cities like London and San Francisco, some of the richest and most prosperous cities in the world due to their pro-business attitudes (London is a global financial center and San Francisco is the epicenter of Silicon Valley, the most prosperous tech center in the world) would be better off with communism.

London's GDP per capita is $65,000, with central London reaching above $150,000 per capita. San Francisco's GDP per capita is $89,000, with central San Francisco, the nerve center of Silicon Valley, reaching above $170,000 per capita. Portland's GDP per capita is $63,000 per capita, with the central business district also going above $100,000 per capita.

Saying that those rich cities would be better off if they destroyed the principles that made them prosperous that made them rich is a truly outrageous lie you were told by communists. I don't how they even managed to say that lie to you without laughing xD.

Communism has failed to work in every country it was tried in. The only reason countries like China, India, and Russia managed to escape the extreme poverty they suffered from was by embracing capitalism. Don't insult the billions of people who suffered under socialist/semi-socialist/communist systems by saying that they benefited under the exact same system that kept them in poverty until they got rid of the system.

Kirjoittanut Player 999, 24.08.2019 at 15:44

Bro, I don't know who lied to you saying that cities like London and San Francisco, some of the richest and most prosperous cities in the world due to their pro-business attitudes (London is a global financial center and San Francisco is the epicenter of Silicon Valley, the most prosperous tech center in the world) would be better off with communism.

London's GDP per capita is $65,000, with central London reaching above $150,000 per capita. San Francisco's GDP per capita is $89,000, with central San Francisco, the nerve center of Silicon Valley, reaching above $170,000 per capita. Portland's GDP per capita is $63,000 per capita, with the central business district also going above $100,000 per capita.

Saying that those rich cities would be better off if they destroyed the principles that made them prosperous that made them rich is a truly outrageous lie you were told by communists. I don't how they even managed to say that lie to you without laughing xD.

Communism has failed to work in every country it was tried in. The only reason countries like China, India, and Russia managed to escape the extreme poverty they suffered from was by embracing capitalism. Don't insult the billions of people who suffered under socialist/semi-socialist/communist systems by saying that they benefited under the exact same system that kept them in poverty until they got rid of the system.

Modern Leftist policies ruined those cities, their economies are still somewhat ok, due to the rich maintaining it (will explain last), but what good economy and money is when your social order and society is destroyed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld6qYJe4pRs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSw79yRnDVs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzVJw1-YrkM

Now the reason why their economies are ok, is because the rich found a perfect balance between revenue and stupidity: the populace is smart and skilled enough to work and be happy with the wage, in return the rich harvest more profit that they are supposed (US taxes are especially low and there is no safety net). Wages are between 1500 and 3000, exactly the same as in 1971 (when it stopped growing), but by now it should've been 5000-10,000, and USA leaving China behind for decades to come.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 24.08.2019 at 17:50

Modern Leftist policies ruined those cities, their economies are still somewhat ok, due to the rich maintaining it (will explain last), but what good economy and money is when your social order and society is destroyed?

Now the reason why their economies are ok, is because the rich found a perfect balance between revenue and stupidity: the populace is smart and skilled enough to work and be happy with the wage, in return the rich harvest more profit that they are supposed (US taxes are especially low and there is no safety net). Wages are between 1500 and 3000, exactly the same as in 1971 (when it stopped growing), but by now it should've been 5000-10,000, and USA leaving China behind for decades to come.

Bro I think you're purposefully trolling with whatever bs you are spouting rn. Those are the most idiotic videos I have seen in my life.

Stick to communism in your Serbia if you want. America is more than happy to let you balkan bois stay in poverty if you want xD. America is doing fine and doesn't need "communism".

Kirjoittanut Player 999, 24.08.2019 at 19:11

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 24.08.2019 at 17:50

You're both wrong.

Andartes:
It was globalization, not industrialization dictated by the state, that has raised billions of people—from every nation—out of extreme poverty. Take, for example, China. Since Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms more than three decades ago, China's annual real GDP has averaged 9.5% and its GDP per capita has rose dramatically. This rapid economic growth was a direct result of Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms as they greatly reduced the government's role in the economy. These reforms included, among other things, the elimination of agricultural subsidies and the liberalization of agricultural markets, which enabled farmers to sell a portion of their crops on the free market; coastal regions and cities were designated as open cities and development zones, which allowed them to experiment with free market reforms; state price controls were gradually eliminated; the Shanghai Stock Exchange was reopened; the list goes on. All of these reforms contributed to China's rapid economic development. These reforms were extended in the early 2000s when Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji began to reduce tariffs and trade barriers; eventually China joined the World Trade Organization, becoming even more integrated into the world economy.

According to the Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) data base, the U.S. GDP per capita has risen steadily since the 1950's, while China's GDP per capita only began to accelerate during the 1980s, the period in which, by no coincidence, China began to adopt a more liberalized economy. This should at least reveal a clear correspondence between prosperity, the overall well-being of a population, and free markets. Eschewing the profit motive and instituting some form of "communism" is by no means a solution to the problems afflicting the United States and its inner-cities. That is to say, there are problems, as Andartes points out.

C_Sharp_Expert:
The surprisingly high GDP per capita of major U.S. metropolitan areas is mostly contingent on the size and scope of the region's welfare system. After close examination of specific metropolitan regions in the United States, specifically the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California area, there is clearly a disparity between reality and the statistics provided by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Private consumption is obviously distorted with the exorbitant influence social programs have. By funding the homeless, who are mostly and predictably addicts and/or afflicted with mental disorders—we have to think about the incentive structure the government is creating. These people are, first of all, not getting the care they need. Funding should go towards mental clinics and rehabilitation centers, not "charitably" into the pockets of the homeless who are thereby incentivized to, essentially, lower the property values of private businesses. The city of San Francisco is nothing to boast about. However, this only reinforces my point that free markets are a necessary condition not only for freedom, but for maximizing the well being of a population.

Also, Andartes, you're mentally disabled and, statistically speaking, probably homeless. You're entirely wrong about wages. You have to consider so much more than one statistic. Inflation adjustments are calculated with several different indices. All indices are considered legitimate by economists. The consumer price index shows that between 1976 and 2006 wages have declined; however, the personal consumption expenditures deflator actually reveals an increase in wages over that same period of time. The gross domestic product deflator shows a wage increase of 18% over that same period of time. You can't reach a firm conclusion about wages with such a significant disparity between these data. Workers receive not only wages, but a bevy of other benefits, too, in the United States. Through employers, workers receive their health insurance, pensions, vacation pay, and, of course, salary. The numbers you give, Andartes, are seriously misleading. Products are cheaper today than they were 50 years ago, there's been an increase entry-level employment with a rapidly increasing population, every homeless person I see walking down the street has a smart phone in his/her hand, and the list goes on.

Fuck your "system" shit, Andartes. The system isn't to blame, you're to blame if you make bad decisions in life. Your communist rhetoric absolves everyone of responsibility, and, in effect, you're really no better than those left-wing loons in the U.S..

Kirjoittanut sirivann, 17.08.2019 at 16:16

Your wrong , its humans who are hard to communicate with , no clue why ur making it sound like its just comunists ...

Look at human history all the wars and conflicts generated by ppl not communicating, look at present day how ignorant people are ,unable to accept being in the wrong and actualy having a healthy debate over anything...


Comunism, socialism , capitalism etc etc all suck , on paper their all good but sadly when implemented humans end up corrupting them be it for greed , unable to accept others ideas , religion etc

Your response is just straight up stupid. People don't wage war due to a "failure of communication". People that push for war know exactly what they are doing and what is going on. The elites will never do something that will hinder their interests.

Diplomacy and Peace as invented by the roman empire and their successor the byzantines, has always been a tool of war. In other words, peace is just a temporal interlude to an inevitable war.

Kirjoittanut sirivann, 18.08.2019 at 15:34

Kirjoittanut Froyer, 18.08.2019 at 13:25

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 18.08.2019 at 13:10

They are hard to talk to because they are not communists, but idiots. Real communists died with the USSR/WP or mind their own business in China. Same false view applies to nazis. They died in WW2, they are not among us (except few in baltic and croatia, but they are with one leg in grave already).

If real communists existed today, their countries and cities wouldn't be crapholes like London, Portland, San Francisco, but superpowers with space program and elite scientists. And if real nazis still exist, their nations would be military machines with orderly society and elite scientists, not failed state like Ukraine.

this is a proof communism sucks if it cant survive

What do u mean thats proof , the cold war was a global conflict that had basicly all the worlds superpowers united vs URSS and it still held its ground for a good amount of time.....

Everywhere it was tried to be implemented it was met by coups funded and orchestrated by the west lol

What drugs are you doing? The USSR had half of the planet under it's wing. The communist sphere of influence was created to be a self supporting isolated ecosystem, russia alone is an agricultural powerhouse with the capacity to feed half of the planet. It was theorized that whatever power held the resources of eurasia was technically unstoppable.

The USA was so afraid of nuclear war that they kept the USSR alive in life support by giving them free shipments of grain so the nukes wouldn't fall into balkanized rogue states. That is how shitty communism is. A fucking superpower with almost unlimited resources collapsed on it's own.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 19.08.2019 at 12:07

Kirjoittanut sirivann, 18.08.2019 at 15:34

Kirjoittanut Froyer, 18.08.2019 at 13:25

this is a proof communism sucks if it cant survive

What do u mean thats proof , the cold war was a global conflict that had basicly all the worlds superpowers united vs URSS and it still held its ground for a good amount of time.....

Everywhere it was tried to be implemented it was met by coups funded and orchestrated by the west lol

Exactly, like Chile had Pinochet

But to be honest, Cold War started as ideological competition from 1950 to 1970, after that it was mere geopolitical competition between two nations. They didnt support their ideas anymore, just accumulate as much resources and allies as possible.

Also, did you notice how countries that went through revolution actually survived longer than countries who implemented Communism from the top? USSR installed Communism in Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, which ended only after 40-45 years, while nations like Cuba, North Korea, China which fought to install Communism, still have it.
I think Vietnam would also collapse if USA didn't invade, but invasion united them, gave them a purpose and that prolonged their life span. Now they switched to free market economy (copying China), which mean weaker economy (to attack) but prolonged life span of the system.

Easy, you can't compare a government who has the backing of a local elite and the military vs a puppet government controlled by a foreign country in which the military doesn't have a stake in.

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 25.08.2019 at 00:01

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 19.08.2019 at 12:07

Kirjoittanut sirivann, 18.08.2019 at 15:34

Kirjoittanut Froyer, 18.08.2019 at 13:25

this is a proof communism sucks if it cant survive

What do u mean thats proof , the cold war was a global conflict that had basicly all the worlds superpowers united vs URSS and it still held its ground for a good amount of time.....

Everywhere it was tried to be implemented it was met by coups funded and orchestrated by the west lol

Exactly, like Chile had Pinochet

But to be honest, Cold War started as ideological competition from 1950 to 1970, after that it was mere geopolitical competition between two nations. They didnt support their ideas anymore, just accumulate as much resources and allies as possible.

Also, did you notice how countries that went through revolution actually survived longer than countries who implemented Communism from the top? USSR installed Communism in Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, which ended only after 40-45 years, while nations like Cuba, North Korea, China which fought to install Communism, still have it.
I think Vietnam would also collapse if USA didn't invade, but invasion united them, gave them a purpose and that prolonged their life span. Now they switched to free market economy (copying China), which mean weaker economy (to attack) but prolonged life span of the system.

Easy, you can't compare a government who has the backing of a local elite and the military vs a puppet government controlled by a foreign country in which the military doesn't have a stake in.

what

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 25.08.2019 at 00:01

Easy, you can't compare a government who has the backing of a local elite and the military vs a puppet government controlled by a foreign country in which the military doesn't have a stake in.

In other words: those who worked for it, still have it. Those who just woke up one day in it, lost it.

Kirjoittanut Tribune Aquila, 24.08.2019 at 22:10

Andartes:
It was globalization, not industrialization dictated by the state, that has raised billions of people—from every nation—out of extreme poverty. Take, for example, China. Since Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms more than three decades ago, China's annual real GDP has averaged 9.5% and its GDP per capita has rose dramatically. This rapid economic growth was a direct result of Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms as they greatly reduced the government's role in the economy. These reforms included, among other things, the elimination of agricultural subsidies and the liberalization of agricultural markets, which enabled farmers to sell a portion of their crops on the free market; coastal regions and cities were designated as open cities and development zones, which allowed them to experiment with free market reforms; state price controls were gradually eliminated; the Shanghai Stock Exchange was reopened; the list goes on. All of these reforms contributed to China's rapid economic development. These reforms were extended in the early 2000s when Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji began to reduce tariffs and trade barriers; eventually China joined the World Trade Organization, becoming even more integrated into the world economy.

According to the Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) data base, the U.S. GDP per capita has risen steadily since the 1950's, while China's GDP per capita only began to accelerate during the 1980s, the period in which, by no coincidence, China began to adopt a more liberalized economy. This should at least reveal a clear correspondence between prosperity, the overall well-being of a population, and free markets. Eschewing the profit motive and instituting some form of "communism" is by no means a solution to the problems afflicting the United States and its inner-cities. That is to say, there are problems, as Andartes points out.

Incorrect, Chinese economy is growing due to industrialisation, not globalisation. Globalisation is helping, but it is not the foundation of Chinese economy. China have enough population to create their own consumer market. The export started later as a result of the best performing industrial output, which happened to also be the most competitive.

Now China is again returning to consumerism, to balance with the export, which destabiilises the whole world except them.

Chinese economy is also heavily guided and regulated by the State, so i don't know which book you read.

Kirjoittanut Tribune Aquila, 24.08.2019 at 22:10

Also, Andartes, you're mentally disabled and, statistically speaking, probably homeless. You're entirely wrong about wages. You have to consider so much more than one statistic. Inflation adjustments are calculated with several different indices. All indices are considered legitimate by economists. The consumer price index shows that between 1976 and 2006 wages have declined; however, the personal consumption expenditures deflator actually reveals an increase in wages over that same period of time. The gross domestic product deflator shows a wage increase of 18% over that same period of time. You can't reach a firm conclusion about wages with such a significant disparity between these data. Workers receive not only wages, but a bevy of other benefits, too, in the United States. Through employers, workers receive their health insurance, pensions, vacation pay, and, of course, salary. The numbers you give, Andartes, are seriously misleading. Products are cheaper today than they were 50 years ago, there's been an increase entry-level employment with a rapidly increasing population, every homeless person I see walking down the street has a smart phone in his/her hand, and the list goes on.

Fuck your "system" shit, Andartes. The system isn't to blame, you're to blame if you make bad decisions in life. Your communist rhetoric absolves everyone of responsibility, and, in effect, you're really no better than those left-wing loons in the U.S..

This kind of posts makes me think whether do we need segregated forums so we don't have to mix with your citizens. You have private healthcare, 1.5 million homeless and 40 million on food stamps and you have the courage to use ad hominem on me? Then again, i can't blame you when i see the situation in your education system and schools.

Once a developed country, USA now have third-world pockets. Which expand. Once a infrastructure-layered nation, now a landfill with occasional gated community.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 25.08.2019 at 13:38

I have no idea what kind of response you just gave me, you didn't mention a thing I said. I was hoping you would just kind of roll into a ball and cry, but instead you are in denial. Your entire schtick is that communism is the way to go, right? USA is more socialist today than it's ever been, and you're bragging about the consequences these socialist reforms have created.

Kirjoittanut Tribune Aquila, 25.08.2019 at 15:41

I have no idea what kind of response you just gave me, you didn't mention a thing I said. I was hoping you would just kind of roll into a ball and cry, but instead you are in denial. Your entire schtick is that communism is the way to go, right? USA is more socialist today than it's ever been, and you're bragging about the consequences these socialist reforms have created.

It's because your IQ is not high enough to understand. Blame your parents for (bad) upringing and 15 years(wasted) of education. Nothing we can help you with.

Kirjoittanut Tribune Aquila, 25.08.2019 at 15:41

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 25.08.2019 at 13:38

I have no idea what kind of response you just gave me, you didn't mention a thing I said. I was hoping you would just kind of roll into a ball and cry, but instead you are in denial. Your entire schtick is that communism is the way to go, right? USA is more socialist today than it's ever been, and you're bragging about the consequences these socialist reforms have created.

He's saying capitalism is shit because your country has problems from homelessness to food stamps and then saying your education system is too shit. Because you did not understand what he said to you.
Then he's saying something about corporations I believe, and then privatisation of land, I think.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 25.08.2019 at 16:21

China is more so a Capitalist Economy Communist Government hybrid...A strange nation indeed.