would iraq be better off after a communist revolution took over?

[phk]

would iraq be better off after a communist revolution took over?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

would be a hell of a lot better than those nasty Shiites.

[Jake]

I can't think of one place that has ever been.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I can't think of one place that has ever been.

Portugal

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No. Did wonders for Afghanistan didn't it?

[minionofmidas]

They didn't have a communist revolution, they had a communist-sympathizing coup.

Anyways, Cuba's hardly welloff, but in many important ways no worse than under Batista - and that they're not better off is probably mostly the US' fault.

As to the poll question: No.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

They didn't have a communist revolution, they had a communist-sympathizing coup.

In practice it's exactly the same thing. Come to think of it most communist "revolutions" were actually coups. Especially the one in Russia.

[minionofmidas]

They didn't have a communist revolution, they had a communist-sympathizing coup.

In practice it's exactly the same thing. Come to think of it most communist "revolutions" were actually coups. Especially the one in Russia.

Most "communist" revolutions, you mean.
Now the one in Russia was very much a revolution - but the taking of power in Moscow and St Pete by the Bolsheviks was of course a coup - one that happened somewhere in the middle of the revolution.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Most "communist" revolutions, you mean.

Most "communist" "revolutions" then

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More or less, yes that'll do.

[John Dibble]

Hell no, you crazy?

[opebo]

Yes, of course.  Communism is always much better than theocracy.

[minionofmidas]

Hell no, you crazy?

Yes, of course.

Sorry ope, but this one made me chuckle.

[John Dibble]

Yes, of course.  Communism is always much better than theocracy.

Tell that to the people of North Korea - at least in theocracies there's less starvation. Both are horrible, but theocracy at least allows for a viable economic system in some cases.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes, of course.  Communism is always much better than theocracy.

Tell that to the people of North Korea - at least in theocracies there's less starvation. Both are horrible, but theocracy at least allows for a viable economic system in some cases.

Would you rather live in Yugoslavia under Tito, or under the Taliban?

[John Dibble]

Yes, of course.  Communism is always much better than theocracy.

Tell that to the people of North Korea - at least in theocracies there's less starvation. Both are horrible, but theocracy at least allows for a viable economic system in some cases.

Would you rather live in Yugoslavia under Tito, or under the Taliban?

Honestly I don't know enough about the conditions under either to make a judgement. I know that the Taliban, for instance, were oppressive in pretty much the same social sense as most communist nations - say or do anything contrary to the party line, and your ass is dead. However I do not know the economic conditions there. As far as Tito's Yugoslavia, I don't know much at all about the conditions economically or socially. Now, if you asked if I would rather live in Castro's Cuba or under the Taliban, I'd probably say Cuba - there's enough food there to prevent mass starvation because the climate is sufficient to produce enough(and Afghanistan doesn't have a great climate for food production as far as I know), though certainly they'd eat better under capitalism. And, to finish this off, of course there are varying degrees of oppression under both systems from country to country - certain theocracies are better than certain communist countries, and visa versa. I just have a view that, in general, the conditions under communism are worse(especially when it's had time to fester).

What I do know, however, is that communism has a high tendency to lead to food shortages - especially in the cities(people in rural areas can forage even if their crops are taken by the government, which is the case in North Korea right now).

Now, here's a counter question for you - would you rather live in Taliban Afghanistan, or Kim Jong-Il's North Korea?

[phk]

Yes, of course.  Communism is always much better than theocracy.

Tell that to the people of North Korea - at least in theocracies there's less starvation. Both are horrible, but theocracy at least allows for a viable economic system in some cases.

Not necessarilly, most theocracies use religous-primitive economics, which are even worse than completely regulated economies, as the anti-technology aspect part comes in.

As for economic conditions in Afghanistan, lets just say that most Afghanis find Pakistan to be a first world country after they cross the border.

[John Dibble]

Yes, of course.  Communism is always much better than theocracy.

Tell that to the people of North Korea - at least in theocracies there's less starvation. Both are horrible, but theocracy at least allows for a viable economic system in some cases.

Not necessarilly, most theocracies use religous-primitive economics, which are even worse than completely regulated economies, as the anti-technology aspect part comes in.

As for economic conditions in Afghanistan, lets just say that most Afghanis find Pakistan to be a first world country after they cross the border.

Note I said 'in some cases', and note my other response to the question posed by this. I fully realize a theocracy can impose a horrid economic system as well as social, it simply does not always have to - it depends on the particular theocracy. Communism on the other hand always imposes a broken economic system, because that's what communist governments are based on.

As I said, I don't know how bad the conditions were in Afghanistan under the Taliban, but I think this pretty much sums up the conditions of communist North Korea: http://www.nkfreedom.org/NKFactSheet.html