Why? They are and were capitalist. They were class societies based on the brutal exploitation of working people; they were imperialist countries who invaded and de-stabilised their nightbours; in the case of the USSR (and China), they were nuclear-armed militaristic dictatorships; and in the case of the USSR they were the head of an armed bloc that prepared for WWIII. In other words, apart from the severity of the brutality they extended to their populations, the same as the rest of the world.
Now, for the purposes of this argument, if you want to call that "communism" then you can do so, but, for the purposes of this argument, I'm calling you a unicorn. You're not, but so what? We're playing a game where we just make up new meanings for words, aren't we?
And the reason it isn't controversial is that you've already defined the frames of reference as "capitalism v capitalism", while pretending that you're talking about communism, which you aren't. Maybe that's how unicorns argue. Maybe that's why unicorn arguments never get on the news (because, in the end, "A or A?" isn't much of a debate).
You seem to either be amused at my blunder or angry at my stupidity in this post (its hard to tell without a voice inflection) but at the time I intended for a discussion of govornments like cuba and the USSR vs govornments like the US, I really didnt know that much about it, and what little I did know has been pretty much proved to be non-fact by reading this thread since then. I didnt really know that they were fairly simaler, and as it was stated that what I thaught was comunism was not comunism, I came under the belief that a discusable definition of comunism was to be a bit dificult to pin down without an example, so I tried to asign a name to somthing, that if it wasent what I had been taught to call it had no name to my knowlage, so that it could be discused in this thread.
I think that I beleived that the USSR and cuba were what I now know based on this thread is called socialism, and I now know that even that is not true.
I now have a verry basic understanding of what actual comunism is now, based your description of it in your posts on this thread.
useing your unicorn analogy, I didnt know what my name was, but I was under the impression that unicorm ment somthing simaler to what I now know to b e Col. Schafer, so I decided to call myself a unicorm for lack of somthing better.
You seem to be verry passonet about comunism, and I'm sorry if I offended you by calling the USSR comunist.
The reason I didnt think it was as controvercial as I thaught it would be origonaly, was that the debate was a bit slow up to the point where I made the post, and had in fact wandered a bit off topic with the coment on tyranys. The discussion that has gone on since has develeoped a much more heated debate, and I now know that it is just as controvercial if not more so than I expected.
I would like to say that this thread has gone far beyond my ability to debate the topic, so I'm going to pull out, as I dont really have anything to add to the discusion at this time. I know that its kind of lame of me as the thread starter, but I dont want to waste anyones time with my un-informed opinions.
Finaly I apologise for my probably horible spelling as the MS word program on the computer I'm curently useing has no spell check for some reason.