International Politics Thread

[Baff1 0]

Has anyone seen this? I'm confused now, what was this "war of independence" about anyway?

South Ossetia has been seeking re-unification with Russia ever since it was dissolved into Georgia.

It's independance was only ever going to be the first step.

I find it funny that Russia has previously voted on the UN Security Council to affirm that the region belongs to Georgia.

Now that they stand to gain more politically, they are reversing their position.

This is nothing more than Russia taking internationally recognized, sovereign territory from Georgia by force.

Russia has previously had a problem setting a precedent for seperatist states.

It has seperatist troubles of it's own in Chechenya.

They had gone to great lengths to oppose any recognition of seperatism as internatiionally acceptable, including circumstances such as Georgia where to do so would have served their own purpose.

Recognising them now is going to provoke further violence in Chechenya along the way.

Events has conspired to force Russia to do this against it's preference.

No one cares what's "internationally recognised".

No one except the losers who think that it is their position in life to be the ones controlling the world...... but aren't.

Internationally recognised by your enemies isn't something you should pander to.

Had any of those internationals who recognise it done anything to diffuse the situation in Georgia rather than all go out of their way to inflame it, Russia might have been a little bit more sympathetic to their intrests in the region.

Or then again, they might not. It's not like they owe anyone any favours.

There isn't room for two superpowers in the region. Let alone 3. 2 of them have to back the F off or start WW3.

It's good to see that the EU has failed to be the super power many of it's leaders are dreaming of it becoming, and it's good to see someone stand up to the U.S. and draw a line in the sand.

Who gives a monkeys what the "international community says"? Why would some random foreigners opinion be relevant to the situation?

[Second 0]

Quote[/b] ]you fancy to belong into ruling class of this your dream society.

Who doesn't? I'm of the opinion that the working class should be the ruling class.

That should be in the interests of all who aren't part of the current ruling class.

Quote[/b] ]And your dream it's just dream, nothing more. Socialism and by that communism has failed, they had their high point in world just like fasicsm. All there is left are extremist political groups which leaders motives aren't any different from other politics. And few True Believers. And some small countries. Not much. You can just miss back into past, while i and rest of the gang keep our eyes and minds focues in democratic-capitalistic-market economic-liberal future  

Communism has never existed, by definition. Socialism grows all over the world. Just in the last few years important parts of South America announced the beginning of a socialism for the 21st century. In Nepal the maoists turned their country into a republic after ten years of civil war, then they won the elections and introduced a liberal democracy. In Cyprus and Moldova socialists (you would call them communists) recently won the elections and now rule the countries. In europe, especially in the east the anti-capitalists gain ground at a rapid speed. Things are far from over and they never will as long as there is capitalism. Marxism is the science about society and its ties to economy and history. There are solid facts, observations, theory that supports the socialist view of the world.

And like i told you, there haven't been society where elitist ruling class would not be. Socialism reguired elitist ruling class and as human is what it is, elitist ruling class will remain and your idea of communism fades away and gets twisted by elite. Working class then lives happily in their pastures, eats hay, while ruling class takes care of them and rules them.

Good to see that socialsm is going good However most doesnt' support your communistic view of revolt and things. Most have given up whole idea of reaching for socialism (like my country's social-democrats). Mostly it has nothing to do with goal to reach communism and world's revolution (aka marxism). At most they try to change their sociaty gently by melting into capitalistic structures to work as counter weight. Nothing bad with that, as it's healthy to have things in balance.

So: You won't have World's Revolution. Time for it has passed, if there ever was change for it in the first place.

[scubaman3D 0]

Internationally recognised by your enemies isn't something you should pander to.

Russia voted on several occasions in the UN to recognize SO as part of Georgia.

Also, if anybody was going to diffuse the situation, it should have been the Russian "peacekeepers". They did nothing.

Once again, for those of us who are a bit more dense than others.

What Russia is doing is called political opportunism.

[Second 0]

Also, if anybody was going to diffuse the situation, it should have been the Russian "peacekeepers". They did nothing.

Why? What do you know about their orders, possibilities to do their job well (manpower and mission)? What so you know about reality of peacekeeping in general?

[-Snafu- 78]

Quote[/b] ]Those nations that are now supposedly socialists are parts of the world that nobody cares greatly about. Most you have listed have much lower standards than nations like Canada, US, Germany etc.

Of course. They were the backyards of western society. Exploited for hundreds of years by the west, now that time is up. No more slavery and oppression that made westerners able to buy products at dirt prices. Capitalism breaks at its weakest link.

Weaker nations have always been exploited by the dominant nations. I don't see it changing any time soon.

Quote[/b] ]Both are wrong, but encarta is more correct here. Wikipedia contradicts itself when it writes about other people's contribution to it. The claim about political practice is nonsense. Marxism is free from opinions, it's no ideology. That's what socialism is for. Scientific socialism is based on marxism.

Only you would say that an encyclopaedia is wrong.

Quote[/b] ]It seems you'll have to read "Das Kapital" and not wikipedia to understand this. This page will give you some links to the "source" of the wikipedia articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital

Quote[/b] ]Das Kapital (IPA: [das kapiˈtaːl]) (Capital, in the English translation) is an extensive treatise on political economy written in German by Karl Marx and edited in part by Friedrich Engels. The book is a critical analysis of capitalism and its practical economic application and also, in part, a critique of other related theories. Its first volume was published in 1867.

I do not see it being stated as a science there at all.

Quote[/b] ]Marxism meets all the requirements of a science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Scientific method is a way of research and does not validate what is and is not a science. Science is the study of the physical, natural world (gravity, sound, light, human body etc.) and its manifestations.

[Baff1 0]

Internationally recognised by your enemies isn't something you should pander to.

Russia voted on several occasions in the UN to recognize SO as part of Georgia.

Also, if anybody was going to diffuse the situation, it should have been the Russian "peacekeepers". They did nothing.

Once again, for those of us who are a bit more dense than others.

What Russia is doing is called political opportunism.

Are you so sure they did nothing.

Were U.S. peacekeepers doing nothing in Iraq, or were they just failing to keep control over a powder keg?

There is a difference between doing nothing and achieving a 100% success rate in preventing all crime at all times.

To just assume that Russians were doing nothing, strikes me as narrow minded.

To say they weren't doing enough seems obvious.

To imply that it is necessarily possible to do enough however shows little faith in mankinds ability to commit crimes without the knowledge of the state.

Why didn't the French peacekeepers prevent the Lebanonese kidnapping Israeli's?  

(Why didn't they prevent Israeli's from bombing Lebanese?)

Why didn't the American's prevent the suicide bombings of Shia's in Baghdad.

Do you think they were political opportunists too?

Is the AU in Darfur, also supporting the genocide because it is failing to stop it? Or are they in fact the only ones bothering to try?

The Russians were doing nothing?  

They were doing a lot more than anybody else in the world.

Credit where credit is due.

Your country was "doing nothing". My country was "doing nothing".

The Russians had an active military deployment, diplomatic initiatives and fought to prevent the last outbreak of war at the expense of Russian lives.

It might not have been enough, but it was a damned sight more than anyone else was willing to do.

I have no doubt there is political opportunity to be gained here. There is in all wars.

But to simply dismiss Russia's good intentions and obvious humanity just because it is politically in-opportune to your faction is by far the more negative approach.

There are two sides to political opportunity.

I think that it is entirely reasonable to argue that the whole thing has been inflamed by western political opportunity.

Without NATO's or the EU "opportunistic" expansions into the region, Russia's motives would have then been as politically pure as the first time they intervened to stop the outbreak of fighting in 1991.

The opportunism wasn't Russias.

They deployed when NATO wasn't trying to usurp Gerorgia too. When the same thing happened in 1991, they turned up in force.

The west did nothing that time too.

The political opportunism has been the wests. Russia has behaved no differently to how she did last time.

I think the Russians have been responding to the opportunism of others. I think this is the first time they have regained the initiative for 20 years.

Their opportunities start now.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]And like i told you, there haven't been society where elitist ruling class would not be. Socialism reguired elitist ruling class and as human is what it is, elitist ruling class will remain and your idea of communism fades away and gets twisted by elite. Working class then lives happily in their pastures, eats hay, while ruling class takes care of them and rules them.

Good to see that socialsm is going good However most doesnt' support your communistic view of revolt and things. Most have given up whole idea of reaching for socialism (like my country's social-democrats). Mostly it has nothing to do with goal to reach communism and world's revolution (aka marxism). At most they try to change their sociaty gently by melting into capitalistic structures to work as counter weight. Nothing bad with that, as it's healthy to have things in balance.

So: You won't have World's Revolution. Time for it has passed, if there ever was change for it in the first place.

Just because the USSR was dissolved from above and the counter-revolution won it doesn't mean that socialism is impossible. It's like saying just because the Paris commune was defeated the USSR couldn't be created. History will repeat itself until society changes. Sooner or later it will.

There are many countries who have had socialism for decades and still have it like Cuba. They are doing great progress there and the island is far better off than the rest of the comparable countries in the region.

Social democrats aren't socialists usually. They are mostly social liberals. The Russian revolution changed more things in ten days than what the social democrats of many countries did in 100 years.

Marxism isn't the world revolution.

Quote[/b] ]Weaker nations have always been exploited by the dominant nations. I don't see it changing any time soon.

The weak nations are weak just because they are exploited.

Quote[/b] ]I do not see it being stated as a science there at all.

Das Kapital is a book, not a science. In Das Kapital, you have large parts of marxism covered. You can read there for yourself and decide if what's covered is a science or not.

Theories and their analysis make up the foundations of science.

Quote[/b] ]Scientific method is a way of research and does not validate what is and is not a science. Science is the study of the physical, natural world (gravity, sound, light, human body etc.) and its manifestations.

You forget social sciences, art, linguistics, sociology, criminology, economics and that kind of things. They are all sciences too.

Even the sociology of religion is a science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_Religion#Karl_Marx

Quote[/b] ]Karl Marx

Despite his later influence, Karl Marx did not view his work as an ethical or ideological response to nineteenth-century capitalism (as most later commentators have). His efforts were, in his mind, based solely on what can be called applied science. Marx saw himself as doing morally-neutral sociology and economic theory for the sake of human development. As Christiano states, "Marx did not believe in science for science’s sake…he believed that he was also advancing a theory that would…be a useful tool…[in] effecting a revolutionary upheaval of the capitalist system in favor of socialism." (124) As such, the crux of his arguments was that humans are best guided by reason. Religion, Marx held, was a significant hindrance to reason, inherently masking the truth and misguiding followers. As we will later see, Marx viewed social alienation as the heart of social inequality. The antithesis to this alienation is freedom. Thus, to propagate freedom means to present individuals with the truth and give them a choice to accept or deny it. In this, "Marx never suggested that religion ought to be prohibited." (Christiano 126)

Central to Marx's theories was the oppressive economic situation in which he dwelt. With the rise of European industrialism, Marx and his colleague Friedrich Engels witnessed and responded to the growth of what he called "surplus value." Marx’s view of capitalism saw rich capitalists getting richer and their workers getting poorer (the gap, the exploitation, was the "surplus value"). Not only were workers getting exploited, but in the process they were being further detached from the products they helped create. By simply selling their work for wages, "workers simultaneously lose connection with the object of labor and become objects themselves. Workers are devalued to the level of a commodity – a thing…" (Ibid 125) From this objectification comes alienation. The common worker is told he or she is a replaceable tool, alienated to the point of extreme discontent. Here, in Marx’s eyes, religion enters.

That's a short/simplified explanation to marxist analysis of religion.

If you want to know what marxism is about you have to learn it yourself. Start here:

http://www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm

[scubaman3D 0]

Also, if anybody was going to diffuse the situation, it should have been the Russian "peacekeepers". They did nothing.

Why? What do you know about their orders, possibilities to do their job well (manpower and mission)? What so you know about reality of peacekeeping in general?

Ok, I will grant you there there is a slight possibility that Russia's peackeeping force in the country intended to stop the escalation but were simply unable to do so. If this was the ONLY thing we had to look at, I might accept this as a possibility.

I have already stated several times why I think Russia's stated goals were a front to their real intention to expand their influence over the CIS countries and to make a statement to the west - political motives.

I'm not going over this again.

@Baf1

All the more reason why Russia should be stopped this time.

NATO and the EU are expanding towards Russia because the people in those sovereign countries want to become members. Nobody is forcing them.

Who are you to question them? You are not a citizen of those countries. You cannot vote there. Only Russia threatens them, not the US or NATO.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Theory might be great for some people but the real life/ human nature reveals the difficulties that come with it. Go visit Venezuela, Cuba and other "comparable" countries and look behind tourist places. Ask people there and those who are going to leave their home country about the real life.

Mr. Cheney’s first meetings in Baku were with representatives of two international oil companies: William Schrader of BP Azerbaijan and Robert Satmalchi of Chevron. The Bush administration plans to announce a $1 billion package of aid to help rebuild Georgia. Honi soit qui mal y pense - Evil to him who evil thinks.  

[Balschoiw 0]

Reminds me of a holiday trip to Cuba with a friend. My first impression of the glorious socialist system was that everyone was damn keen on US dollars, the second impression at the hotel was that cubans are only that slim to fit into cramped spaces beneath stairways to be sold by the receptionist to the tourists.

Seriously, Cuba is not heaven on earth for the people who have to live there. In fact they have to spend big chunks of their daytime organizing things, getting food and have a hard time keeping their life running. Without tourism the island would be dead already. That´s a fact.Liberal capitalists sponsor the people of cuba by spending their holidays there.

Too bad spokesperson has never been to the places he´s talking so positively about, else he´d have to be extremely brainwashed to keep on writing such nonsense.

Still...he´s just an internet wannabe socialist/communist whatever. Maybe in one or two years he´ll swing his fashion to another focus and will try to talk everybody into eating horsepoop. Wouldn´t make much difference to what he does right now anyway.

Cheerio !

Edit:

Quote[/b] ]Were U.S. peacekeepers doing nothing in Iraq

Seriously Baff1, the US certainly haven´t been peacekeepers. Peace-enforcers after their own aggression maybe, but certainly not peacekeepers. That´s a huge difference on the ground.

[Panda-PL- 0]

Quote[/b] ]Were U.S. peacekeepers doing nothing in Iraq

Seriously Baff1, the US certainly haven´t been peacekeepers. Peace-enforcers after their own aggression maybe, but certainly not peacekeepers. That´s a huge difference on the ground.

Peacekeeping mission can take place after two parties that are at war do have a ceasefire. So far in Iraq the conflict is not bipolar and among the numerous parties involved majority doesn't want to negotiate.

You first need a ceasefire to start a peacekeeping mission to force sides to respect the ceasefire.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Theory might be great for some people but the real life/ human nature reveals the difficulties that come with it. Go visit Venezuela, Cuba and other "comparable" countries and look behind tourist places. Ask people there and those who are going to leave their home country about the real life.

A good theory matches the events of "real life". Physics, chemistry and marxism does that.

You have an ignorant position. Cuba is a third world country. Of course they are poor and of course it won't look like it does at home. But Cuba is a lot better off than the rest of the comparable countries.

Quote[/b] ]Reminds me of a holiday trip to Cuba with a friend. My first impression of the glorious socialist system was that everyone was damn keen on US dollars, the second impression at the hotel was that cubans are only that slim to fit into cramped spaces beneath stairways to be sold by the receptionist to the tourists.

Seriously, Cuba is not heaven on earth for the people who have to live there. In fact they have to spend big chunks of their daytime organizing things, getting food and have a hard time keeping their life running. Without tourism the island would be dead already. That´s a fact.Liberal capitalists sponsor the people of cuba by spending their holidays there.

Too bad spokesperson has never been to the places he´s talking so positively about, else he´d have to be extremely brainwashed to keep on writing such nonsense.

Still...he´s just an internet wannabe socialist/communist whatever. Maybe in one or two years he´ll swing his fashion to another focus and will try to talk everybody into eating horsepoop. Wouldn´t make much difference to what he does right now anyway.

Cheerio !

You went there in the "special period" after the comecon dissolution when Cuba lost all its trade partners in a short period of time. If your country lost all its trade there would be a crisis (if there isn't one already) in the same manner. Dollars aren't used on Cuba anymore. They have surpassed their 1989 standards with a two-digit growth the last few years. Sure, tourism is important. It is to any country, especially those under blockade and with few natural resources.

A capitalist is a person who owns means of production, not some guy who lives in a capitalist society or has liberal opinions.

[Baff1 0]

@Baf1

All the more reason why Russia should be stopped this time.

NATO and the EU are expanding towards Russia because the people in those sovereign countries want to become members. Nobody is forcing them.

Who are you to question them?  You are not a citizen of those countries. You cannot vote there. Only Russia threatens them, not the US or NATO.

Actually the Georgian government was attempting to force them to join without their consent.

They all did vote. They voted for independence from Georgia.

Twice.

Who are you to question them?

You can't have it both ways, either a government must be ruled by the consent of it's people or it's OK to force your will upon an unwilling people militarily.

Russia does nothing to Georgia, Georgia isn't trying to do to Ossetia.

NATO threatens me. Not "them". Me.  

And Russia.

By threatening Russia, NATO threatens me, and the world. Same goes for the U.S.

Who am I to question them? I am an EU and NATO member.

Just because they vote to join NATO or the EU, does not mean that NATO and the EU should agree to them joining.

They have no "vote" I recognise*.

You don't get any vote in whether or not my country should risk it's destruction for yours. Whatever were you thinking?

And any ally of mine that is provoking fights I'm not likely to survive, is falsely named.

Just because a load of idiots vote for me to start WW3 with them, doesn't mean I should do so.

Who am I to question them?

Who are they to place me and my family in danger?

(*)For that matter, neither do I.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]Were U.S. peacekeepers doing nothing in Iraq

Seriously Baff1, the US certainly haven´t been peacekeepers. Peace-enforcers after their own aggression maybe, but certainly not peacekeepers. That´s a huge difference on the ground.

There are any number of examples of the U.S. acting as peacekeepers in Iraq.

Plenty of agreed upon ceasefires for them to enforce too.

Sunni / Shia violence for example didn't start after the U.S. led invasion. Neither did Kurdish violence.

It's been going on for decades. Long before Saddam showed up. Long before the U.S. intervened.

It will be there long after they leave too.

The U.S. have simply replaced the Iraqi army (the one they destroyed) in that role in many places around the country.

[scubaman3D 0]

Actually the Georgian government was attempting to force them to join without their consent.

Your argument doesn't make sense. I'm talking about the expansion of NATO and the EU into the east, via CIS countries.

You're stuck on SO. Try again.

Also, just because NATO won't just lay down and play dead to Russia's aggression, doesn't make NATO responsible for your upcoming WWIII.

I mean, even China isn't backing Russia on this. Nobody is. Well, nobody important.

[MehMan 0]

Spokesperson I do have a question regarding private property in communism and socialism, how it's handeled?

[Baff1 0]

Actually the Georgian government was attempting to force them to join without their consent.

Your argument doesn't make sense. I'm talking about the expansion of NATO and the EU into the east, via CIS countries.

You're stuck on SO.  Try again.

Also, just because NATO won't just lay down and play dead to Russia's aggression, doesn't make NATO responsible for your upcoming WWIII.

I mean, even China isn't backing Russia on this. Nobody is. Well, nobody important.

What about my argument doesn't make sense?

Please elaborate if you wish me to address something further.

Russia has not been in anyway aggressive towards NATO at all. Quite the opposite.

Why should Russia lay down and play dead for NATO expansion?

For the last 15 years they had to because they were weak. Now they don't.

NATO just did lie down and play dead. This isn't the last time it's going to do so in the coming months either.

It's been trying to expand into area's it doesn't belong and Russia's just stopped appeasing it.

The only serious danger of WW3 is if countries like America that have spent the last 60 years indoctrinating their people into the evils of communism in preparation for a war that never came, call a vote on it.

In which case the so called "freedom zombie" generation is going to demand action where common sense dictates that none is adviseable.

I'm not sure why you think Russia would need anyones backing.

Other than Russia, there isn't anybody "important" in the region at all. The U.S. thought it was, up until last month, lol.

But they certainly are forging closer allegiences as a result. The oil that was previously destined for sale on the European markets is now being diverted to China. Russia has almost finished building an alternative pipeline to ensure it's energy market security.

They hold all the cards matey. Only a mug would consider antagonising them at this point.

[Panda-PL- 0]

What about my argument doesn't make sense?

Because you are comparing the independent post-soviet states to a separatist province that doesn't even have abbility to exist separately, it's too small.

First thing they'll do will be joining Russian Federation, staying independent would be an economical suicide.

It's as if Poles in Doublin decided they want independence, formed militias, were supressed but then polish army would take half of UK territory, blow up bridges and ports and set up peacekeeping operation.

Other than impossible those actions would be illegal aswell. even if majority of Doublin wanted to join Poland.

[scubaman3D 0]

Russia has not been in anyway aggressive towards NATO at all.

It is Russia, not NATO, that is threatening to target the CIS countries, like Poland, with nuclear warheads.

Its Russia that is protesting their entrance into NATO and the EU.

Its Russia that has repeatedly threatened its satellite neighbors with sanctions military action if they join western government organizations.

Seems you're fighting an uphill battle.

[-Snafu- 78]

Quote[/b] ]Weaker nations have always been exploited by the dominant nations. I don't see it changing any time soon.

The weak nations are weak just because they are exploited.

Tad simplistic explanation no? More like smaller and/or weaker nations do not have the capacity to stand up to more powerful ones etc.

Quote[/b] ]Das Kapital is a book, not a science.

I never said it was a science. That would be like saying Marxism is a science!

Quote[/b] ]Theories and their analysis make up the foundations of science.

As said before science is the study of the natural, physical world. Thus Marxism is not a science. You are the only one to argue that it is.

Quote[/b] ]You forget social sciences, art, linguistics, sociology, criminology, economics and that kind of things. They are all sciences too.

Changing the subject. Classic Spokesperson.

Social sciences are whole thing on their own. The study of society and people in society whereas Science is the study of the natural world. Marxism would fall under the umbrella of the social sciences. I stated this a number of times but you ignored and continued to call Marxism a science. Last time I checked it isn't the study of the natural world. Art is probably out of place in the social sciences. However as the above were never part of the debate they are irrelevant. If you are wrong state that you are or ignore that specific issue instead of bringing up new arguments.

Gotta go. Won't be here for the next week or so!

[echo1 0]

@ Sep. 03 2008,21:10)]It's as if Poles in Doublin decided they want independence, formed militias, were supressed but then polish army would take half of UK territory, blow up bridges and ports and set up peacekeeping operation.

Other than impossible those actions would be illegal aswell. even if majority of Doublin wanted to join Poland.

Dublin is in Ireland mate, not the UK. (I would know, I live there) Unless of course there is a place in England called Doublin where there are a lot of Poles, in which case, my most humble apologies.

[Spokesperson 0]

Spokesperson I do have a question regarding private property in communism and socialism, how it's handeled?

Private property has to be defined.

In socialism and communism people will naturally be able to own things like their own TV, computer, toothbrush and so on.

There are many different kinds of socialism (based on marxism), it's a bit complicated. I support them all, but some might be better/worse depending on the general situation. All countries are different and socialism has to be adapted to local and global conditions.

The most "extreme" form is when you have a planned economy. Which means that all means of production are owned by either the citizens or those who work there. The idea is that workers democratically decide things in their factories, hospitals, universities or companies, or that all citizens do that (not all questions naturally, but production priorities etc). There are many working examples of this.

Some versions of socialism allow you to run your own business if you're the only one who's employed (Cuba for instance), while others let you own smaller business (Yugoslavia).

In communism all people own the means of production.

[Second 0]

Ok, I will grant you there there is a slight possibility that Russia's peackeeping force in the country intended to stop the escalation but were simply unable to do so. If this was the ONLY thing we had to look at, I might accept this as a possibility.  

I have already stated several times why I think Russia's stated goals were a front to their real intention to expand their influence over the CIS countries and to make a statement to the west - political motives.  

I'm not going over this again.

Good. As that what reality in peacekeeping usually is.

About rest what you write is clear. This has already gone on for years, this NATO vs Russia issue. It's just funny to see such panical reactions now, when it seems that NATO is unable to challenge Russia. For years Russia has faced same problem with expanding NATO. I don't wonder they reacted (or acted, whatever fits readers vision) so powerfully.

[Panda-PL- 0]

In communism all people own the means of production.

Not really. The country owns them in practice.

On personal property: I wouldn't be so sure about computers and TVs. You might have to give up your cellphone aswell.

In pure practice:

- Take your constitution

- find "personal property" and replace with "personal belongings".

In other words:

Personal property protection would certainly include everyday usage small objecs (tothpaste, shoes, towels, necklace etc.). The term is however understood in such a way it will certainly not contain for example your car.

This is how it actually looked like in People's Republic of Poland.

While the country never reached out to take away your car, it easilly could since ythe constitution in that form would not be a barrier. People were stripped of their houses/land with decretes, so why not cars?

Not to mention you needed the country to agree to the purchase of a car (or other reglamented goods: meat etc.) in the first place.

There were documents that would allow you to purchase things.

This is another way of restraining your property - you have cash but you cannot spend it how you like it, you need to ask permission from the state.

BTW: do you plan to get an iPhone? ;P

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Not really. The country owns them in practice.

No. No. No.

You learn things through media and schools that aren't correct, at all.

When there's communism there can be no nations and no state. That's part of the definition. Communism has never existed. You confuse it with socialism. Those are two completely different societies.

Quote[/b] ]On personal property: I wouldn't be so sure about computers and TVs. You might have to give up your cellphone aswell.

Not at all. Private property such as a TV in a socialist country is private. But if you own means of productions those will be taken from you and transferred to the people.

Quote[/b] ]While the country never reached out to take away your car, it easilly could since ythe constitution in that form would not be a barrier. People were stripped of their houses/land with decretes, so why not cars?

Why not cars? Because cars aren't means of production. Land is. It's a natural resource. And yes, if you earn money off people who live in your 5-story house just because they live there, it's exploitation. The ownership of the apartments is thus transferred to the who live there.

Quote[/b] ]Not to mention you needed the country to agree to the purchase of a car (or other reglamented goods: meat etc.) in the first place.

Some goods that weren't in excess were rationed. That ensured that all people could get meat or a car, and not just a few. Trade between east and west was limited.

Rationing is common in many countries.