1. #2301
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    is not authoritarian
    if your problem is with authority you should be an anarchist. otherwise still a strawman.

  2. #2302
    Quote Originally Posted by uuuhname View Post
    same strawman argument....
    It's not a strawman, because those are real examples. It's the fundamental flaw in communism, both in its inability to deal with outliers, and its implementation.

    Communism only works, until someone decides to be a selfish or violent asshole.

  3. #2303
    Quote Originally Posted by uuuhname View Post
    if your problem is with authority you should be an anarchist. otherwise still a strawman.
    Do you any exemple of successful anarchist country then ? Or can you only rely on strawmen in a discussion ?

  4. #2304
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Those history books only cover basically a single sub-branch of communism, one that's a strong rejection of Marxist principles. Stalin is the archetype, and from there, we get Maoism and Castroism and all the rest, springing from that origin point. And not even Lenin was anywhere close to what Stalin was; Lenin spoke strongly near the end against authoritarianism and centralizing power into the hands of someone like Stalin. As in, he named Stalin, directly, in that accusation.

    These autocratic regimes are not the expression of the whole body of communist theory. They are not the only way communism can be implemented. Pretending otherwise is McCarthy level propagandizing. As is pretending that the choices are "capitalism" or "Stalinist communism", when there's a wide range of other economic systems beyond those two.
    Therein lies the problem, an inability to properly implement what communism actually is... because humans are utter trash.

    Communism sounds great on paper, but communists don't want what was written, they want to be in charge... or they want to watch the world fucking burn.

  5. #2305
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    It's not a strawman, because those are real examples. It's the fundamental flaw in communism, both in its inability to deal with outliers, and its implementation.

    Communism only works, until someone decides to be a selfish or violent asshole.
    real examples that don't address the point the other person is making, hence it's a strawman. this isn't hard logic to follow.

  6. #2306
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Those history books only cover basically a single sub-branch of communism, one that's a strong rejection of Marxist principles. Stalin is the archetype, and from there, we get Maoism and Castroism and all the rest, springing from that origin point. And not even Lenin was anywhere close to what Stalin was; Lenin spoke strongly near the end against authoritarianism and centralizing power into the hands of someone like Stalin. As in, he named Stalin, directly, in that accusation.

    These autocratic regimes are not the expression of the whole body of communist theory. They are not the only way communism can be implemented. Pretending otherwise is McCarthy level propagandizing. As is pretending that the choices are "capitalism" or "Stalinist communism", when there's a wide range of other economic systems beyond those two.

    And it's not like capitalism was not responsible for comparable horrors, either. If you want to delve down into the "which is worse" fight, it's a long and drawn-out argument about how awful and abusive both systems have historically been. Hand-waving the abuses of one system to laud another is how you get propaganda, not history.
    Theory is good, reality is better. If all communist regimes ended up more or less like those that existed, maybe that because the other "branches" of communism do not work in reality.

  7. #2307
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Therein lies the problem, an inability to properly implement what communism actually is... because humans are utter trash.

    Communism sounds great on paper, but communists don't want what was written, they want to be in charge... or they want to watch the world fucking burn.
    Same goes for capitalism.

    Go read Wealth of Nations sometime. In modern terms, what Adam Smith was on about is a hell of a lot closer to democratic socialism than to modern capitalism.


  8. #2308
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Do you any exemple of successful anarchist country then ? Or can you only rely on strawmen in a discussion ?
    I don't because I'm not making the point that anarchist governments work loooool.

  9. #2309
    Quote Originally Posted by uuuhname View Post
    real examples that don't address the point the other person is making, hence it's a strawman. this isn't hard logic to follow.
    Nah, I'm good.

    "Here's real-life examples of why you are wrong."

    "STRAWMAN!!!"

    In the end, the only experiences we have with communism, are through the lens of violent socialists who will do just about anything to hold onto power.

  10. #2310
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Theory is good, reality is better. If all communist regimes ended up more or less like those that existed, maybe that because the other "branches" of communism do not work in reality.
    None of them emerged in a vacuum. All communist regimes emerged either by adopting Stalin's model explicitly (Mao and Castro, in particular), or by being aided along by one of those extant powers (North Korea, Vietnam).

    I repeat; you're ignoring history, to push propaganda.


  11. #2311
    Quote Originally Posted by uuuhname View Post
    I don't because I'm not making the point that anarchist governments work loooool.
    Why did you talk about anarchy then ?

  12. #2312
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Why did you talk about anarchy then ?
    Because your issues with "communism" have nothing to do with the actual communist economics, but entirely the authoritarian nature of the government in which it's set.

    If your issues are with authoritarianism, anarchism is the other side.


  13. #2313
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Same goes for capitalism.

    Go read Wealth of Nations sometime. In modern terms, what Adam Smith was on about is a hell of a lot closer to democratic socialism than to modern capitalism.
    Pure capitalism does have its failings. But, unlike socialism, it promotes productivity. Unlike communism, it allows for more liberty.

    In the end, people are shitty and selfish. I'd rather those people not be in charge of my life.

    - - - Updated - - -

  14. #2314
    Herald of the Titans Vorkreist's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Twitch chat
    Posts
    2,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Those history books only cover basically a single sub-branch of communism, one that's a strong rejection of Marxist principles. Stalin is the archetype, and from there, we get Maoism and Castroism and all the rest, springing from that origin point. And not even Lenin was anywhere close to what Stalin was; Lenin spoke strongly near the end against authoritarianism and centralizing power into the hands of someone like Stalin. As in, he named Stalin, directly, in that accusation.

    These autocratic regimes are not the expression of the whole body of communist theory. They are not the only way communism can be implemented. Pretending otherwise is McCarthy level propagandizing. As is pretending that the choices are "capitalism" or "Stalinist communism", when there's a wide range of other economic systems beyond those two.

    And it's not like capitalism was not responsible for comparable horrors, either. If you want to delve down into the "which is worse" fight, it's a long and drawn-out argument about how awful and abusive both systems have historically been. Hand-waving the abuses of one system to laud another is how you get propaganda, not history.

    Back to the same dead meme. "It hasn't been tried yet".

  15. #2315
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Because your issues with "communism" have nothing to do with the actual communist economics, but entirely the authoritarian nature of the government in which it's set.

    If your issues are with authoritarianism, anarchism is the other side.
    In a purely communistic state, how do you deal with people who refuse to work, or be productive?

  16. #2316
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post

    In the end, the only experiences we have with communism, are through the lens of violent socialists who will do just about anything to hold onto power.
    the exact same can be said for literally every democratic country that has ever exited lol. US/Latin American relations, helloooooooo.

  17. #2317
    Quote Originally Posted by uuuhname View Post
    the exact same can be said for literally every democratic country that has ever exited lol. US/Latin American relations, helloooooooo.
    Welcome to libertarianism.

    Well, this is awkward for you.

  18. #2318
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    None of them emerged in a vacuum. All communist regimes emerged either by adopting Stalin's model explicitly (Mao and Castro, in particular), or by being aided along by one of those extant powers (North Korea, Vietnam).

    I repeat; you're ignoring history, to push propaganda.
    You are the one ignoring it. I am citing "real world" exemples which failed. But whatever, talking to a brick wall is more productive.

  19. #2319
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Pure capitalism does have its failings. But, unlike socialism, it promotes productivity.
    You have absolutely zero basis for the latter, and a cursory examination of the last century of human history completely debunks it.

    The Soviet Union saw more-rapid productivity increases than any Western capitalist nation, in its heyday, for decades. Modern China is repeating that as we speak, growing more rapidly than any capitalist nation.

    Unlike communism, it allows for more liberty.
    You're talking about authoritarian governments, not communist economics, here. That's deflection. You can't seem to attack communism on its merits (and, indeed, directly misrepresented them above), so you attack authoritarianism and staple communism's face to it.

    In the end, people are shitty and selfish. I'd rather those people not be in charge of my life.
    So you . . . prefer the economic system which explicitly puts the selfish assholes in charge of the entire economic system and garnering all the wealth produced by that system?

    That's literally capitalist theory.


  20. #2320
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Why did you talk about anarchy then ?
    I said if you have a problem with authoritarian governments then you should be an anarchist. every government that exists is itself "an authority".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •