guys can get both, they just have to eat alot.

the author of the film fails to realize the difference between good and evil. he says China is good because its old. North America is bad because its young. North America and europe are just as bad for areas they've taken by force.

when in reality Oppression is evil, China is oppressing a large group of people, and thats what the world is complaining about. it has nothing to do with how long they lay claim to the land. and calling examples of what other countries have done is childish.

"
On a more serious note, it's plain propaghanda. The creator of this movie openly admits he's Chinese himself, so I thik it's reasonable to question his intentions. His opinion is - by default - tainted. According to Historic theory, this movie is useless, as much as the American Army reporting about their actions in Iraq tongue"

everything is biased; to imply he is any more biased then any other person because of his nationality is ridiculous.

"That's how you interpret it avogadro, while the theory insists on a communist state being the ultimate, fair, efficient government, who symbolises and represents the people more then it governs them."

the theory does not insist on the state being fair or efficient or that it represents people more then it governs. it simply insists that the government is all powerful and distributes wealth equally.

"My idea exactly avogadro. That would be Bakunist Anarchy smile"

but you said communism, not anarchy

"And that last bit there. That doesn't make any sense. I'm not talking about implementing or striving for a communist state. Indeed communism would bring poverty, but it's a nice idea. I think your idea of utopia is screwed up, not mine, as I seem to realise it's nothing more then just that. You seem to be relating it to our world wink"

you said a communist state in its utopian form is the best government possible. its not, its the worst government possible.  communism is a struggle for equality; its a struggle for an impossibility that has no benefits when approaching it.

"Well, bakunist anarchy is indeed very much like communism. The only difference lies in the fact that a bakunist anarchy wouldn't have any form of gouvernment. In this case it's hard to determine wether social pressure can be considered as a form of government (the policing social pressure). Anyhoo, I think in this case ca can consider them "communist"."

social pressure is definitely not a government. a government rules OVER the people, it has authority over the people; while social pressure doesnt.

it isnt communist because there wasnt government. people shared land, but so do people nowadays. without a form of government that ensures the stability of the laws that create equality, it isnt communism.  and clearly there was no stability.

"No need to so negative about leftist ideas BW. And you're right that a Communist state in it's utopian form is the best government possible. But to answer your question, I think oligarchy sounds more like it.."

bs, communist state in its utopian form is the worst form of government possible, capitalism, socialism, and anarchism all have it beat.

in a utopia, there is no need for a government, so having a massive controlling government that is communism, is not ideal. having no government would be ideal.

your perception of utopia is so [] up its sad. you perceive equality as perfection. equality is not perfection, its an illusion. not only is the entire world being an equal class, where everyone is poor is worse then if 50% werent poor, but if everyone was what would fit into a single class nowadays, new classes would be formed to separate people, its impossible to form a classless state because classes aren't finite and they are made to separate people.

"
Archaeology provides proof indeed. With the first settler groups (being in the Levant area and mesopotamia) they have found burial areas with no extraordinary graves. People were burried the same, in the same clothes, with the same attributes, in the same position. Antropology has proved that such a think only happens in groups where everyone's equal. These first settler societies also worked together to keep their farmland in the best condition possible.
Thus they knew equality and owned the farmland (in this case the production) together.
I think it's quite safe to label those societies as "communist" avant la lettre."

sounds more like anarchist

it all depends on your definition of communism, just like it depends on your definition of capitalism whether capitalism has ever existed

"B) No one nation has any right to disarm another nation."

no nation has a right to do anything...

yeah zarf, i mean the government should just make us live as efficiently as possible, they should make large apartment complexes, and force people to live in 1 room apartments, assign marital companions, and hand out fuel i mean food that can be made the most efficiently.

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.  Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from  religion. Capitalism is the  system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom.

http://www.capitalism.org/faq/capitalism.htm

and selur, you should site wiki when you quote it

First, basic production facilities