Capitalism vs Communism
- Thread starter Norsemaiden
- Start date
Fenrisúlfr clean up your act as you are borderline troll, if not troll at times.
If you want to be a part of this site, refrain from the personal insults.
If you want to be a part of this site, refrain from the personal insults.
Fenrisúlfr
ὠδÏÏÎºÎ¿Ï Î»ÏκοÏ
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
What the hell are you talking about? What does what we're "allowed" to earn have to do with the money supply? What does the "volume of substancial jobs" (whatever the hell that means) have to do with the money supply? I claimed that the Fed has control of the money supply (which is true and uncontroversial) and expands the money supply, thereby fueling malinvestment. The part you tried to undermine with the above points, namely my claim about the Fed's control of our money, is uncontroversial and is accepted by anybody with an iota of intelligence. It's not even a theoretical claim in this context. The theoretical part, namely the claim that the Fed induces business cycles, was not even touched upon by the points you made. I'm afraid you're a little out of your depth here.
That is true. What controls that is whatever is seen as profitable at any given time. But anyway, I don't see how this point is relevant. The fact still remains that the Fed induces malinvestment.
How does any of this undermine any of the points I made?
Was'nt trying to undermine anything you said. I surely cant and wouldnt try to argue against book learned "economics".
What I do argue against is
You may see your "depression" from the wallstreet, trading and investing side
The majority of Americans see their "depression" from the side of: job loss, savings account loss, nearly froze wages for the past 15 years, and what wage increases there have been were ate up in excess of by health insurance increases, auto insurance increases, extreme increase in monthly gasoline costs, ditto home heating and property taxes being rated on the inflated costs of real estate. Then the effect on first time home buyers during that period I cant even speak for because I was lucky I got in during the early 90's. Had I not and kept renting I would have never been able to get into a home without falling for the credit scam they were running.
This is why I said "half truth", you have your truth and some of the rest of us have our truth. Many of you would have been too young to know of the rapid changes that took place during the 90's. But if you were responsible for bills during that period your jaw would have been on the floor every year as things rapidly went up in jumps of 25-50% and industrys, retirement accounts and jobs were flying out the country by the tens of thousands.
Ditto, should be well enough explained above as well as anything else I have said about globalization and NAFTA. Thinking these job losses and wages kept low has not lended to this countries current problems is very ignore--ant.
Sadly or for the better, depending on the angle of view, few of you remember the 60's when this country was financially stable and mostly self sufficient. We made what we consumed, one reasonable income could support a family, mortages were paid off in 20 years and we had a large middle class of proud hard working population. Better off people were just a few knotches above the rest of the population, not leaps and bounds. I'm not saying it was all sunny, we had Vietnam, racial issues, ect. But NONE of this recent crop of economics bullshit. We had a countrys population that was steadily pressed to compete with foreign labor in a country that had a much higher standard of living. This was a economic game played in the name of "free market" AKA CAPITALISM
I have yet to meet one person regardless their employment statis as white collar or blue collar, in the past 30 years that did not speak of this day coming. We could see the writing on the wall way the fuck back, but no one with the power to do so did a damn thing about it. Nearly all the media, economic advisors and corporate and government leaders, just kept saying dont worry be happy, everythings gonna be all right.
What I do argue against is
You may see your "depression" from the wallstreet, trading and investing side
The majority of Americans see their "depression" from the side of: job loss, savings account loss, nearly froze wages for the past 15 years, and what wage increases there have been were ate up in excess of by health insurance increases, auto insurance increases, extreme increase in monthly gasoline costs, ditto home heating and property taxes being rated on the inflated costs of real estate. Then the effect on first time home buyers during that period I cant even speak for because I was lucky I got in during the early 90's. Had I not and kept renting I would have never been able to get into a home without falling for the credit scam they were running.
This is why I said "half truth", you have your truth and some of the rest of us have our truth. Many of you would have been too young to know of the rapid changes that took place during the 90's. But if you were responsible for bills during that period your jaw would have been on the floor every year as things rapidly went up in jumps of 25-50% and industrys, retirement accounts and jobs were flying out the country by the tens of thousands.
My money supply is the amount of money the population has to spend, invest, squander... whatever. Seems to me this fuels the economy, "what money we are allowed" pertains to my above statement regarding wages being froze or not keeping up anywhere close to the many inflations I mentioned.
Ditto, should be well enough explained above as well as anything else I have said about globalization and NAFTA. Thinking these job losses and wages kept low has not lended to this countries current problems is very ignore--ant.
Sadly or for the better, depending on the angle of view, few of you remember the 60's when this country was financially stable and mostly self sufficient. We made what we consumed, one reasonable income could support a family, mortages were paid off in 20 years and we had a large middle class of proud hard working population. Better off people were just a few knotches above the rest of the population, not leaps and bounds. I'm not saying it was all sunny, we had Vietnam, racial issues, ect. But NONE of this recent crop of economics bullshit. We had a countrys population that was steadily pressed to compete with foreign labor in a country that had a much higher standard of living. This was a economic game played in the name of "free market" AKA CAPITALISM
I have yet to meet one person regardless their employment statis as white collar or blue collar, in the past 30 years that did not speak of this day coming. We could see the writing on the wall way the fuck back, but no one with the power to do so did a damn thing about it. Nearly all the media, economic advisors and corporate and government leaders, just kept saying dont worry be happy, everythings gonna be all right.
BTW- could you give me some examples of what you are calling "malinvestment" so I better understand some of your references. Im not tying the dots together very well
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
razoredge,
This is the last time I'm going to reply to you on this topic because I am getting tired of it. First of all, some of the problems you mention are problems that have been around for years. I don't deny that there are such problems. What I was talking about were what I take to be the primary reasons for the current economic downturn. That doesn't mean that I would deny that other extant problems are contributing to the current pain. Regarding your question about malinvestment, malinvestment is investment that is made as a result of distortions in the market. It is investment that wouldn't have been made in the absence of such distortions. When the bubble bursts, that is, when the recession starts, firms realize that such investments will not be profitable and the projects that the firms have undertaken cannot be completed. This is possible because of the availability of easy money, which the Fed is responsible for. A concrete example of malinvestment that is very relevant to the current situation is the housing market. Because of the availability of easy money created by the Fed, a massive bubble was created in the housing market because that market was perceived to be extremely profitable, so the easy money was allocated to that market. This is not a result of free-market capitalism as such; it is the result of government intervention into the economy. If you want to know more about this particular subject, start with this: http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/a1abc.htm
This is the last time I'm going to reply to you on this topic because I am getting tired of it. First of all, some of the problems you mention are problems that have been around for years. I don't deny that there are such problems. What I was talking about were what I take to be the primary reasons for the current economic downturn. That doesn't mean that I would deny that other extant problems are contributing to the current pain. Regarding your question about malinvestment, malinvestment is investment that is made as a result of distortions in the market. It is investment that wouldn't have been made in the absence of such distortions. When the bubble bursts, that is, when the recession starts, firms realize that such investments will not be profitable and the projects that the firms have undertaken cannot be completed. This is possible because of the availability of easy money, which the Fed is responsible for. A concrete example of malinvestment that is very relevant to the current situation is the housing market. Because of the availability of easy money created by the Fed, a massive bubble was created in the housing market because that market was perceived to be extremely profitable, so the easy money was allocated to that market. This is not a result of free-market capitalism as such; it is the result of government intervention into the economy. If you want to know more about this particular subject, start with this: http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/a1abc.htm
Thanks, I didnt mean to wear you down. I assumed the inflated housing might be what you call malinvestment from the consumer side. You are apparently saying (in this case) the fed reserve wrote a bunch of phony money for mortgage companies to loan to easily suckered consumers in search of a first or newer/better house, who were most likely riding the high waves of the new booming "tec" industry and resultant optimism that was trickling down elsewhere due to such a "boom". AKA "suburban sprawl". I havent heard the term used in awhile but during Reganomics such optimism was called "false economy".
I will point out again that I believed all along this housing boom and resultant infrastructure work was one of the only things that supplied employment for us DMF's (dumb mother fuckers) (those not taken to studying books) (used tongue in cheek as I know many "educated" idiots). Where as previous generations had potential employment in industrial work. Sadly I believed the government felt it had to prop up this housing boom to smoke screen the fallout of lost jobs due to de-industrialization which was really capitalistic globalism. Nothing new to me there, I knew we were playing with a barbed hook.
I appreaciate your recognition of the other contributing issues. You are correct in that they started along time ago (guilt fed post war trade agreements with Japan for example) but should not take lightly that they finally compounded and culminated swiftly into this great big friggin mess.
Which in my evaluation brings us back to Norsemaidens OP which shows concerns of nationalism and socialism (non-perverted) that may have avoided the selling of our heart and soul... bread and butter... whatever you want to call it.
Dont get me wrong, I dont fully support either capitalism or socialism as I feel they are both inherently flawed by the human equation.
Thanks for the talk
I will point out again that I believed all along this housing boom and resultant infrastructure work was one of the only things that supplied employment for us DMF's (dumb mother fuckers) (those not taken to studying books) (used tongue in cheek as I know many "educated" idiots). Where as previous generations had potential employment in industrial work. Sadly I believed the government felt it had to prop up this housing boom to smoke screen the fallout of lost jobs due to de-industrialization which was really capitalistic globalism. Nothing new to me there, I knew we were playing with a barbed hook.
I appreaciate your recognition of the other contributing issues. You are correct in that they started along time ago (guilt fed post war trade agreements with Japan for example) but should not take lightly that they finally compounded and culminated swiftly into this great big friggin mess.
Which in my evaluation brings us back to Norsemaidens OP which shows concerns of nationalism and socialism (non-perverted) that may have avoided the selling of our heart and soul... bread and butter... whatever you want to call it.
Dont get me wrong, I dont fully support either capitalism or socialism as I feel they are both inherently flawed by the human equation.
Thanks for the talk
Dak
mentat
The production immigration was caused by capitalism in that companies saw profit there for the reasons you mentioned, environmental rape and low wages for workers. But it was allowed because of the free trade agreements. The people responsible for signing the free trade agreements want globalism, but not for capitalistic reasons, but for control reasons. Nations must be destroyed to bring everyone under a consolidated global umbrella of control. So America as a superpower had to be weakened. This was accomplished through intentionally self-defeating monetary practices (Thank you Federal Reserve), and legislation designed to destroy our manufacturing base.
This is not the fault of capitalists but the fault of crooked politicians and banksters. The large private bankers are the real problem here, because they control the money supply, and just put it where they want business to go. Corporations just chase the money flow.
You want to be mad at someone, be mad at the David Rockefellers of the world.
This is not the fault of capitalists but the fault of crooked politicians and banksters. The large private bankers are the real problem here, because they control the money supply, and just put it where they want business to go. Corporations just chase the money flow.
You want to be mad at someone, be mad at the David Rockefellers of the world.
I just dont see things as totally one sided as some of you may do. Our corporate leaders, some of them and investors were all grins too. I just wont make the excuses as others do. If you speak against some aspects of foreign trade agreements you are speaking in some aspect in favor of government control, which is an aspect of nationalism and socialism.
Another thing I thought to remember today was we really are not indulging in "free trade" agreements, much more product comes in that what goes out. So that leaves us with more money going out. Regardless whether it came from personal incomes or the fed. reserve, its going out not coming in. Then money does come into our corporations that have "outsourced" for capitalistic reasons. But this does our vast population no good, nor what our reserve needs to produce/stimulate/manipulate... however it works.
Seems quite like an expanding desert does it not ?
Another thing I thought to remember today was we really are not indulging in "free trade" agreements, much more product comes in that what goes out. So that leaves us with more money going out. Regardless whether it came from personal incomes or the fed. reserve, its going out not coming in. Then money does come into our corporations that have "outsourced" for capitalistic reasons. But this does our vast population no good, nor what our reserve needs to produce/stimulate/manipulate... however it works.
Seems quite like an expanding desert does it not ?
Dak
mentat
Nationalism and Socialism are two different things. Government control of products coming in from other countries has nothing to do with regulating businesses producing in their own country.
I know... but
here I believe both apply("in aspects") as well as protectionism
I did not directly address regulation of business production in this country... however when you force your labor field to complete with that of countries of lower standard you ARE regulating business production in your country... without having to admit it.......
SharkBlack
Member
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 38
A rising tide lifts all boats...
Sharkblack, I hope you realize that he is mostly beating up a strawman with that anecdote.
Contrary to popular misconception, most intelligent socialisms are not based on equality of outcome (or 'absolute equality' if there is such a thing) as seen in his test example but on equality of opportunity. He is making the classic mistake of conflating social equality with the term 'identical' that is typical of fear-mongering reactionaries.
Well worded, the post itself was far enough out there I didnt feel it was worth addressing, as it was such an extreme scenerio. Another thing I thought was the conclusion displayed a lack of personal self pride and interest in acheivement excused by "whats in it for me" masking a pout faced lazyness.
Im basing this on the assumption that any given subject that interests a person would drive them to learn more about it. Regardless if it was going to pay off for someone else... which is typically the way of the modern world anyhow.
Hi all,
first, I was pleased to find this thread here at this forum.
I am a person from Slovakia, e.g. post communistic country, and I lived in both systems - communism (in Slovakia and Russia), and capitalism (in Slovakia after the fall of the totality and also I worked in Japan for couple of years).
I would share my personal opinion based on my personal (and thus non-objective) experience.
It is without any doubt that the system in the former Eastern block was totalitarian. However, the life there was not so bad as it might be demonized in the western countries. Yes, people didn't have almost any political freedom, but let me give an example.
1. In communist totality, I had quite limited freedom regarding traveling abroad and expressing my opinions. It could happened that if you had criticized something (mostly with relevance to the political system) the secret police would arrested you or at least you and your family might have problems to study and work. On the other hand, I had very stable social situation, I had a job which I could freely choose and had no worries about losing the job. And - not negligible - you could study for free at hight quality universities! Thus, the state offered you the full education regardless of your social situation (which was quite equal for most of the inhabitants). Yes, there were some differences (e.g., the high state officials were richer), but absolutely nothing to compare with the capitalistic social differences. It is not true that people were generally poor - everybody (who did not make political problems) can afford everything what was needed for normal average life. No exclusive goods, but normal goods were sufficient. If you dream about wealth and might, the system was not for you, but if you are satisfied with normal average things, there was no problem to live in that system.
2. In capitalism, I can travel freely and can express my opinions freely too. However, I cannot have the job which I love, I must do a job which enables me to support my family existencially - since the wages are very different and the job I loved (scientific researcher) is terribly low paid in our country. I conducted research in Japan - however, I do not want to live like a bedouin or nomad, moving every two years on the other side of the planet - this would be the freedom? I have a family, and the children would have very complicated life attending schools in Japan, then in US, afterwards in Canada, then maybe France etc... thanks for such a freedom, no, I apologize, that's not a freedom, that's similar pressure as was in totality, only the communism was a political totality, whilst capitalism is existencial and social totality..
As a summary, I can say based on the real life experience, that in communism I had to shut up and not make political problemns (and express any thought about politics and critize the system), and then I could live freely and with social stability, without any stress about existential problems and devote my time to my hobbies and higher level thoughts. On the other hand, in capitalism I can travel (if I have enough money) and say what I want, but - I have no social freedom, I must worry about future and losing my job and devote almost all of my time to work and to feed my family.
And do not be confused - I have very good job and well-over-average wage and future possibilities (I am a business analyst in an IT industry), my salary is in top 1% of the population. Yes, if I lose my job I would find another one within few weeks (maybe now there is the crisis, so maybe in one or two months), but nevertheless it is always a stress and uncertainty... and I realize very intensively that I am in the top 1% of the jungle, but what about the others? And what about the talented young people whose parents do not have enough money to pay for the school? I know many of such people, and sorry, the Darwin's law (that the best ones would get some scholarship) applies in the real life only in a very limited amount...
Therefore, I think that if someone is not especially keen on expressing his political ideas, communism was definitely better system to live in, because you had more time for high-minded and cultured thoughts whilst in capitalism one must devote too much energy to row materialism and jungle-war for existence...
Sorry for repeating, but
in communism there was political totality, whilst in capitalism there is economical and social totality and it is a primitive jungle like in the middle ages.
Our Mankind IMHO has gotten one step backwards with ending of the communism...
first, I was pleased to find this thread here at this forum.
I am a person from Slovakia, e.g. post communistic country, and I lived in both systems - communism (in Slovakia and Russia), and capitalism (in Slovakia after the fall of the totality and also I worked in Japan for couple of years).
I would share my personal opinion based on my personal (and thus non-objective) experience.
It is without any doubt that the system in the former Eastern block was totalitarian. However, the life there was not so bad as it might be demonized in the western countries. Yes, people didn't have almost any political freedom, but let me give an example.
1. In communist totality, I had quite limited freedom regarding traveling abroad and expressing my opinions. It could happened that if you had criticized something (mostly with relevance to the political system) the secret police would arrested you or at least you and your family might have problems to study and work. On the other hand, I had very stable social situation, I had a job which I could freely choose and had no worries about losing the job. And - not negligible - you could study for free at hight quality universities! Thus, the state offered you the full education regardless of your social situation (which was quite equal for most of the inhabitants). Yes, there were some differences (e.g., the high state officials were richer), but absolutely nothing to compare with the capitalistic social differences. It is not true that people were generally poor - everybody (who did not make political problems) can afford everything what was needed for normal average life. No exclusive goods, but normal goods were sufficient. If you dream about wealth and might, the system was not for you, but if you are satisfied with normal average things, there was no problem to live in that system.
2. In capitalism, I can travel freely and can express my opinions freely too. However, I cannot have the job which I love, I must do a job which enables me to support my family existencially - since the wages are very different and the job I loved (scientific researcher) is terribly low paid in our country. I conducted research in Japan - however, I do not want to live like a bedouin or nomad, moving every two years on the other side of the planet - this would be the freedom? I have a family, and the children would have very complicated life attending schools in Japan, then in US, afterwards in Canada, then maybe France etc... thanks for such a freedom, no, I apologize, that's not a freedom, that's similar pressure as was in totality, only the communism was a political totality, whilst capitalism is existencial and social totality..
As a summary, I can say based on the real life experience, that in communism I had to shut up and not make political problemns (and express any thought about politics and critize the system), and then I could live freely and with social stability, without any stress about existential problems and devote my time to my hobbies and higher level thoughts. On the other hand, in capitalism I can travel (if I have enough money) and say what I want, but - I have no social freedom, I must worry about future and losing my job and devote almost all of my time to work and to feed my family.
And do not be confused - I have very good job and well-over-average wage and future possibilities (I am a business analyst in an IT industry), my salary is in top 1% of the population. Yes, if I lose my job I would find another one within few weeks (maybe now there is the crisis, so maybe in one or two months), but nevertheless it is always a stress and uncertainty... and I realize very intensively that I am in the top 1% of the jungle, but what about the others? And what about the talented young people whose parents do not have enough money to pay for the school? I know many of such people, and sorry, the Darwin's law (that the best ones would get some scholarship) applies in the real life only in a very limited amount...
Therefore, I think that if someone is not especially keen on expressing his political ideas, communism was definitely better system to live in, because you had more time for high-minded and cultured thoughts whilst in capitalism one must devote too much energy to row materialism and jungle-war for existence...
Sorry for repeating, but
in communism there was political totality, whilst in capitalism there is economical and social totality and it is a primitive jungle like in the middle ages.
Our Mankind IMHO has gotten one step backwards with ending of the communism...
Einherjar86
Active Member
This is my inexhaustible question regarding what you said: if the governmental system you lived in was so great, then why do the secret police still arrest those who insist on speaking against authority? You make it seem as though it was not so terrible living in your country; but apparently there are those who criticize the government, and those people are in turn targeted and persecuted by the state. Why is that?
Freedom of expression is a right inherent in every individual. From your description of your country, it sounds as though the government takes very good care of its citizens; I think that's great. However, why do they still feel the need to silence those who speak against them? Why should they worry if they're so perfect? This answer still eludes me, and I cannot bring myself to support such a system.
I put liberty over security.
First - nothing is perfect in the real world, neither the communistic government was.
But to your question - why the state must have persecuted those opposing the system and why such opponents did exist at all?
The anser is quite simple - it is all about average and about statistical differences. There always would be people who do not agree with the current system, from different reasons. Some of them were really the sort of people who cannot withstand the unfreedom, who felt that if they live in such a system without protests they would be like schisofrenics - live one way and thing the other way.
There was also different group - people who wanted to be rich, who felt that in capitalism they would be able to gather more wealth and who disagree with the "average" living standard for all people.
My description is definitely simplfied, however, those two groups of people were the main ones disagreeing with the system and those had problems with the secret police.
Every totality is based on a secret or military power - so did the communism. One must realize that there were also mistakes - for example brutal massacres and assasinations ordered and triggered by ill-minded Stalin and his brutality and paranoia. But during the 70s and 80s the situation calmed down, and there could be reformes which however were not performed well (Gorbatchev was not the right person and he did not managed to transform the system successfully cause he did not realize the real needs and problems and did not proceed systematically but rather tried to apply a shock therapy).
I do not want to say that communism was an ideal system - no, reality was far from that. I only want to sketch that the life is not black and white and that western society might view the communistic block worse than it was.
So - summary to your answer - the secret police must have persecuted citizens who disagree with the system from several reasons which I sketched. However, these citizens were in significant minority. Should there be no shock reforms by Gorbatchev in USSR, which gave an impuls for people to get false idealistic view and expectations from changing to capitalism (which, btw, were not fulfilled), so the system would survive and would ha ve the opportunity to transform more smoothly, maintaining its social stability and simultaneously boost economics as it did couple of times after the WWII successfully.
But this is speculation, and I wanted to write only facts and experience...
I do not want the communism to come back, because there were several reasons why the system was not significantly better than the capitalism (the most important one was the lack of motivation for improvement and efficiency of work - "everything belonged to everybody and thus nobody possesses anything", so why to work efficiently?), I only want to say that it was definitely not so evil empire as the general western public view depicts.
I also do not want anybody to support that system, only not to say "oh god, the communism was so terrific and brutal totality, I am happy that I live in our shining capitalistic freedom". No, freedom is not everything, and totality might not be so cruel and inconvenient to live in...
If you was not interested in politics (how many people are in the western society?) you did not have any problems in the 70s and 80s within the communistic block.
Btw, one question - why the US has the biggest number of imprisoned people in the world! ???
Is that the freedom? In communism, there was very low public criminality, because everybody was afraid of the military and secret police... there were few drugs, becauase the police was suppressing this "western plague".. these are only few examples why it can be also useful to have totalitarian secret police which lowers the basic criminality...
But to your question - why the state must have persecuted those opposing the system and why such opponents did exist at all?
The anser is quite simple - it is all about average and about statistical differences. There always would be people who do not agree with the current system, from different reasons. Some of them were really the sort of people who cannot withstand the unfreedom, who felt that if they live in such a system without protests they would be like schisofrenics - live one way and thing the other way.
There was also different group - people who wanted to be rich, who felt that in capitalism they would be able to gather more wealth and who disagree with the "average" living standard for all people.
My description is definitely simplfied, however, those two groups of people were the main ones disagreeing with the system and those had problems with the secret police.
Every totality is based on a secret or military power - so did the communism. One must realize that there were also mistakes - for example brutal massacres and assasinations ordered and triggered by ill-minded Stalin and his brutality and paranoia. But during the 70s and 80s the situation calmed down, and there could be reformes which however were not performed well (Gorbatchev was not the right person and he did not managed to transform the system successfully cause he did not realize the real needs and problems and did not proceed systematically but rather tried to apply a shock therapy).
I do not want to say that communism was an ideal system - no, reality was far from that. I only want to sketch that the life is not black and white and that western society might view the communistic block worse than it was.
So - summary to your answer - the secret police must have persecuted citizens who disagree with the system from several reasons which I sketched. However, these citizens were in significant minority. Should there be no shock reforms by Gorbatchev in USSR, which gave an impuls for people to get false idealistic view and expectations from changing to capitalism (which, btw, were not fulfilled), so the system would survive and would ha ve the opportunity to transform more smoothly, maintaining its social stability and simultaneously boost economics as it did couple of times after the WWII successfully.
But this is speculation, and I wanted to write only facts and experience...
I do not want the communism to come back, because there were several reasons why the system was not significantly better than the capitalism (the most important one was the lack of motivation for improvement and efficiency of work - "everything belonged to everybody and thus nobody possesses anything", so why to work efficiently?), I only want to say that it was definitely not so evil empire as the general western public view depicts.
I also do not want anybody to support that system, only not to say "oh god, the communism was so terrific and brutal totality, I am happy that I live in our shining capitalistic freedom". No, freedom is not everything, and totality might not be so cruel and inconvenient to live in...
If you was not interested in politics (how many people are in the western society?) you did not have any problems in the 70s and 80s within the communistic block.
Btw, one question - why the US has the biggest number of imprisoned people in the world! ???
Is that the freedom? In communism, there was very low public criminality, because everybody was afraid of the military and secret police... there were few drugs, becauase the police was suppressing this "western plague".. these are only few examples why it can be also useful to have totalitarian secret police which lowers the basic criminality...
