the Trio that defeated the communism

[Deleted]

Wait our planet is in debt? What planet do we owe money? This scares the shit outa me.

Mars,apparently.

[Zoranon]

Which is not communism.

And, if we're talking about communism in real life, it's not dead. So this thread needs to make up its mind.

You are not making any sense. Communism is an ideology which envisions the state stealing all private property, installing the dictatorship of the proletariat and then magically ascending to classless society.

All in all a bullshit. Marxs economy is laughable and the horrific things all attempts to bring it into real life are inevitable. Anyone who is a communist today is either evil or stupid - there have been dozens of countries accepting Marxs tenets and all of them have ended up as hell-holes.

[Zelk]

I'll be sure to trust your judgement.

- - - Updated - - -




They are counting the people that starved under state communism.
..Wonder how high that number is under capitalism and people like pinochet.

Stalin and Pol Pot are representative of communism but Pinochet and Saddam Hussein are not representative of capitalism!!!

[Elim Garak]

No true Scotsman it is then. I wonder what would you say if someone started a Nazi parted claiming that nazism deserved another chance and that Hitler was not a real nazi.

I would say that's apples and oranges. nazi's did exactly as nazi's do. Communism was never implemented. Not even close. Not even socialism.

nazi's were like - let's kill all the jews and gays and slavs. And they began killing jews, gays and slavs, and they would've continued to do so if they weren't stopped.

Communism startups were like - let's build a better future, a communistic society. And then started to prepare for it by transitioning to socialism (a necessary step before communism can even begin to form). But then some douche came to power and said fuck that, YOLO!

Educate yourself, so you would never make such silly comparison.

[Felya]

No true Scotsman it is then. I wonder what would you say if someone started a Nazi parted claiming that nazism deserved another chance and that Hitler was not a real nazi.

Do you mean fascism? Regardless, you just nailed the issue with your assertions. Hitlers actions are defined in fascism. Niether Stalin or Mao were at all following communism. Which is really easy to tell because the proletariat never gained power. The change was who represented power, not it going to the people. Do you honestly think that either Holomodor or Siberian purge would happen if Trotski wasn't ousted by Stalin or Lenin didn't get shot?

[Vorkreist]

Which is not communism as an ideology. That's why their ideologies have their own names. Mao and Stalin killed hundreds of thousands of people, because their tainted versions of communism were ruthless and savage.

Please go back to school. You seem to have skipped history and focused on marxist fanfictions.

[gusty jack]

You are not making any sense. Communism is an ideology which envisions the state stealing all private property, installing the dictatorship of the proletariat and then magically ascending to classless society.

All in all a bullshit. Marxs economy is laughable and the horrific things all attempts to bring it into real life are inevitable. Anyone who is a communist today is either evil or stupid - there have been dozens of countries accepting Marxs tenets and all of them have ended up as hell-holes.

Communism as an ideology has literally never existed. You can call it a bullshit all you like, and I don't disagree that its a pipe dream, but the fact is that you can't say it killed people because it has never actually been put into effect.

Every single time anyone has tried to put it into place they have corrupted its tenets for their own gain, and produced oppressive governments. That is why we have distinct names for those ideological offshoots of communism.

[Felya]

Please go back to school. You seem to have skipped history and focused on marxist fanfictions.

Went to school in both USSR and the US. Now, when exactly did proletariat gain power under Mao or Stalin? I missed it in both...

[gusty jack]

Please go back to school. You seem to have skipped history and focused on marxist fanfictions.

Show me where actual communism has ever existed, and I'll gladly go back to school. Pipe dreams don't kill thousands, corrupt governments do.

You're making yourself look more and more foolish with every post.

[NED funded]

ok?

Your point?

My point is that using South America as an example of how bad is capitalism (pinochet) is ignoring the historical context of South America.

[BannedForViews]

And now the planet sits on a bazillion dollars debt because of capitalism.Thanks!

Funny joke bro! First though, you have to prove it's because of capitalism (you can't) and then you have to prove that some how an alternative would have been better (you also can't). It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad, that so many peons have been brainwashed to believe that freedom is somehow bad for you, and that other people can and will take care of your lives better than you yourself will.

[JohnBrown1917]

You are not making any sense. Communism is an ideology which envisions the state stealing all private property, installing the dictatorship of the proletariat and then magically ascending to classless society.

.

Communism is stateless.

[Zelk]

I'm guessing you weren't very fond of history in school.

Actually so fond of it I have 2 A-Levels at Grade A in History and Ancient History.

[Felya]

Funny joke bro! First though, you have to prove it's because of capitalism (you can't) and then you have to prove that some how an alternative would have been better (you also can't). It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad, that so many peons have been brainwashed to believe that freedom is somehow bad for you, and that other people can and will take care of your lives better than you yourself will.

That's sad? How about those who equate capatalism with freedom? How sad is that lot? Don't take Maddona lyrics as gospel... Even if you are a material girl...

[gusty jack]

Communism is like a lightsaber.

In theory it's a beautiful, well crafted instrument that perfectly serves its purpose.

In reality its a 4 year old kid waving around a flashlight while making whooshing noises.

You can't call a flashlight a lightsaber, even if that's what inspired it.

[JohnBrown1917]

My point is that using South America as an example of how bad is capitalism (pinochet) is ignoring the historical context of South America.

I used Pinochet as an example of a capitalistic dictator. How is that ignoring any history?

[Shibito]

And now the planet sits on a bazillion dollars debt because of capitalism.Thanks!

Still better than communism that killed a bazillion people.

[Yvaelle]

No true Scotsman it is then. I wonder what would you say if someone started a Nazi parted claiming that nazism deserved another chance and that Hitler was not a real nazi.

This is confusing because 'Nazi' is not an economic system. The Nazi's were the members of a Fascist political party, which relied on a mixed economy (of capitalism and socialism, like every developed country in the world today uses). Communism, by contrast, is an economic system.

The more accurate version of your analogy would be if someone said, "Capitalism/Socialism deserves a second chance, Hitler was not the only capitalist!"
Which, I suspect, sounds a bit sillier to you now.

Look, the reality is this. Communism isn't the boogeyman you were told it was during the Red Scare / McCarthyism, it's an idea about how to alternately distribute property. Just because Stalin/Mao claimed to be in favor of communism (while in practice flaunting their superior power/wealth/authority), does not mean they faithfully interpreted the idea into practice - in the exact same way that just because Nazi Germany used a mixed economy of socialism and capitalism - does not mean that Hitler's Germany is the only possible interpretation of socialism/capitalism.

Communism has never been scaled up successfully from where it works (small groups - like Jewish Kibbutz, tribes, small villages, households, military's, etc) to a national scale - without a strongman seizing the reins of distribution to benefit themselves and abuse the vulnerable transition. The closest we ever came to a national-sized communism, was Lenin's Russia - and it looked very promising - right up until Stalin took over and everything went to shit.

Can it work at a larger scale, or is it inherently flawed? Nobody can really know, but there are a lot of strong opinions in both directions.

One thing is for sure though - equating an interpretation of an idea, with either the negative propaganda against it, or a singular (poor) intepretation of that idea by a strongman with a different/conflicting agenda - is no way to conduct political science.

[Zoranon]

I would say that's apples and oranges. nazi's did exactly as nazi's do. Communism was never implemented. Not even close. Not even socialism.

nazi's were like - let's kill all the jews and gays and slavs. And they began killing jews, gays and slavs, and they would've continued to do so if they weren't stopped.

Communism startups were like - let's build a better future, a communistic society. And then started to prepare for it by transitioning to socialism (a necessary step before communism can even begin to form). But then some douche came to power and said fuck that, YOLO!

Educate yourself, so you would never make such silly comparison.

Your renditions of no true Scotsman are amusing. But they don't change the facts, you should do what you recommend to others and educate yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you mean fascism? Regardless, you just nailed the issue with your assertions. Hitlers actions are defined in fascism. Niether Stalin or Mao were at all following communism. Which is really easy to tell because the proletariat never gained power. The change was who represented power, not it going to the people. Do you honestly think that either Holomodor or Siberian purge would happen if Trotski wasn't ousted by Stalin or Lenin didn't get shot?

Yes they were. They were appliying the demented Marxian dogma to real world.

Trorski was almost as bad as Stalin and Lenin was just as bad. Their actions during the civil war are proof enough.

- - - Updated - - -

This is confusing because 'Nazi' is not an economic system. The Nazi's were the members of a Fascist political party, which relied on a mixed economy (of capitalism and socialism, like every developed country in the world today uses). Communism, by contrast, is an economic system.

The more accurate version of your analogy would be if someone said, "Capitalism/Socialism deserves a second chance, Hitler was not the only capitalist!"
Which, I suspect, sounds a bit sillier to you now.

Look, the reality is this. Communism isn't the boogeyman you were told it was during the Red Scare / McCarthyism, it's an idea about how to alternately distribute property. Just because Stalin/Mao claimed to be in favor of communism (while in practice flaunting their superior power/wealth/authority), does not mean they faithfully interpreted the idea into practice - in the exact same way that just because Nazi Germany used a mixed economy of socialism and capitalism - does not mean that Hitler's Germany is the only possible interpretation of socialism/capitalism.

Communism has never been scaled up successfully from where it works (small groups - like Jewish Kibbutz, tribes, small villages, households, military's, etc) to a national scale - without a strongman seizing the reins of distribution to benefit themselves and abuse the vulnerable transition. The closest we ever came to a national-sized communism, was Lenin's Russia - and it looked very promising - right up until Stalin took over and everything went to shit.

Can it work at a larger scale, or is it inherently flawed? Nobody can really know, but there are a lot of strong opinions in both directions.

One thing is for sure though - equating an interpretation of an idea, with either the negative propaganda against it, or a singular (poor) intepretation of that idea by a strongman with a different/conflicting agenda - is no way to conduct political science.

Simple fact for all your words is that every country in which the leaders implemented Marxes ideas became a hellhole. Why? Because Marxian economics completely ignore the human nature. They will never work. It will always end the same way. As I already said anyone who is a communist is either really stupid or an evil sadist.

PS: Red Scare? Reading my location is hard I suppose...

[gusty jack]

[snip]
PS: Red Scare? Reading my location is hard I suppose...

If anything your location gives us reasonable cause for your inability to look at this objectively.

Mao and Stalin were so obviously not interested in actual communism (ex: extravagant spending on themselves and their close circle of officials) that its foolish to try to argue otherwise.

Stalin, for example, had pretty much no communist practices:

- Intentionally made the State stronger in a bid to hoard power.
- Harshly silenced any opposition to his agenda.
- Clung to the personal power of his station, and built up those around him.
- Used State funds and muscle to acquire vast personal wealth.
- Actively oppressed a large portion of the working class.
- Actively supported inter-class conflict and violence.

Stalin's version of the dictatorship of the proletariat was literally a dictatorship over the proletariat for fuck's sake.