• Capatalism and Communism. (Which is best?)
    481 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Talkbox;35252869]You dont get it do you, what you describe isn't true communism, there has never been true communism.[/QUOTE] Because true Communism does not work.
[QUOTE=Robbi;35252882]Because true Communism does not work.[/QUOTE] How scientific of you.
[QUOTE=Talkbox;35252905]How scientific of you.[/QUOTE] Okay, can you then enlighten me why your true Communism will work and why it has not risen to power yet if it is so good?
what no i think i mentioned the brutal regimes the US supported during the cold war such as: Ferdinand Marcos, Phillipines, 1965-1986 Jorge Ubico Syngman Rhee, Republic of Korea (South Korea), 1948-1960 Saudi royal family Fulgencio Batista, Republic of Cuba 1952-1959 Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (deposed Mohammad Mossadeq), Iran, 1953-1979 Ngo Dinh Diem, Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), 1955-1963 General Augusto Pinochet (deposed Salvador Allende in a coup), Chile, 1973-1990 General (military) Suharto (deposed Sukarno), Republic of Indonesia, 1975-1995 Saddam Hussein, Republic of Iraq, 1979-1990 General Manuel Noreiga, Republic of Panama, 1983-1989 Francois Duvalier and Jean-Claude Duvalier, Republic of Haiti, 1957-1971; 1971-1986
[QUOTE=thisispain;35252934]what no i think i mentioned the brutal regimes the US supported during the cold war such as: Ferdinand Marcos, Phillipines, 1965-1986 Jorge Ubico Syngman Rhee, Republic of Korea (South Korea), 1948-1960 Saudi royal family Fulgencio Batista, Republic of Cuba 1952-1959 Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (deposed Mohammad Mossadeq), Iran, 1953-1979 Ngo Dinh Diem, Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), 1955-1963 General Augusto Pinochet (deposed Salvador Allende in a coup), Chile, 1973-1990 General (military) Suharto (deposed Sukarno), Republic of Indonesia, 1975-1995 Saddam Hussein, Republic of Iraq, 1979-1990 General Manuel Noreiga, Republic of Panama, 1983-1989 Francois Duvalier and Jean-Claude Duvalier, Republic of Haiti, 1957-1971; 1971-1986[/QUOTE] I cant see how you relate that to Capitalism it self. I relate the genocides of Communism because they were done to those because they didn't support Communism, those people you mentioned there didn't go killing because they were Capitalists and wanted to exterminate non-Capitalists. Except the USA but their main enemy was Communism, not everything else except Capitalism.
[QUOTE=Robbi;35252975]I cant see how you relate that to Capitalism it self. I relate the genocides of Communism because they were done to those because they didn't support Communism, those people you mentioned there didn't go killing because they were Capitalists and wanted to exterminate non-Capitalists. Except the USA but their main enemy was Communism, not everything else except Capitalism.[/QUOTE] And what of the Red Scares of 1919/1920 and the 1950s? Were they not directed against Communists or those who seemed left-leaning?
[QUOTE=Robbi;35252975]I cant see how you relate that to Capitalism it self. I relate the genocides of Communism because they were done to those because they didn't support Communism, those people you mentioned there didn't go killing because they were Capitalists and wanted to exterminate non-Capitalists. Except the USA but their main enemy was Communism, not everything else except Capitalism.[/QUOTE] First and foremost, I directly countered your points in the posts I linked to. Read them. Secondly, Liberia. Nigeria. There, two direct examples of capitalism enacting mass murder, if not genocide. And if you count the deaths of millions of Africans in the mass wage enslavement by western Corporations, then there you go. There's your genocide. And arguably, the semi-genocide of the Philippines was largely due to their religious beliefs, as much as their independence. But let's extend that. Since you're too dense to figure out that Marxist-Leninist states are deformed workers' states that enact mass killings not based on communism, but on the tyranny of the state and suppression of the bourgeoisie and so-called enemies of the revolution, let's apply the same logic to capitalist countries. The imperialism of America and Western Europe is, of course, the natural actions of a capitalist nation. Those deaths must be attributed to capitalism. The death of millions of factory workers across America and Western Europe, including in the Depression, all accountable to capitalism. Every expansionist war done by America and Western Europe- capitalism. South Korean mass murders in Vietnam? Capitalists genociding communists. Mai Lai? Capitlaists killing communists. American war crimes in South Korea? Capitalists killing communists. We didn't genocide communists, we massacre them and support their massacre. Here's the deal. You can't have it both ways. Either the ideology in both cases is responsible for the deaths of the people, or the people are responsible. [editline]22nd March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafan;35254249]And what of the Red Scares of 1919/1920 and the 1950s? Were they not directed against Communists or those who seemed left-leaning?[/QUOTE] Funny story about the Red Scare. When the February Revolution broke out in 1917, Trotsky was in America. He got on a ship to head to Russia, when the Allies decided that communists were no longer allies, and detained him in a POW camp on Newfoundland. He converted the entire camp of German prisoners to communism before he was released at the request of the new government.
-deleted-
[QUOTE=Robbi;35252238]If its so shit, my friend, why don't you point out my false things? Oh wait, they are true. Haha, yes my post is a [I]bit [/I]biased to Capitalism, I agree. But the fact remains that you don't see genocide in a healthy nation with Capitalism but you do see genocide in Communist countries. That point alone is enough in my opinion. Its strange how Communism hasn't been placed in the same category as National Socialism. But yes, capitalism has flaws, but I would rather become unemployed and lose my house and start at the bottom than speak something that the State didn't like and be put away for life. Also the 2.50$ per day thing is not a thing you can blame directly on Capitalism but much rather on the corruption and poor organization of their current governments. Besides, 2.50$ per day is a lot more than nothing per day except a ticket for a meal.[/QUOTE] Why do you assume that having no freedom of speech is an essential part of communism. Literally no serious communist/socialist thinkers even begin to say the actions of the soviet union were anything but morally abhorrent. Objectively speaking, they were an absolute butchery of everything communism ought to stand for. There shouldn't even [I]be[/I] a state to censor us because the state is nothing but a monopoly of violence, a concept any reputable communist knows is one of the most morally repugnant things possible.
[QUOTE=Robbi;35252238]If its so shit, my friend, why don't you point out my false things? Oh wait, they are true.[/quote] If you want to have this discussion that is entirely fine with me, you're just going to have to do better than sourceless one line parroting. I've discussed this dozens of times and your post can be hardly called that, more of a snipe. Until you give me more there's not much to respond to. Yet ironically all the things you pointed out aren't alien to capitalism (do you have any knowledge of history at all?), and regardless the USSR was state capitalist and cannot be called socialist. [editline]23rd March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Robbi;35252975]I cant see how you relate that to Capitalism it self. I relate the genocides of Communism because they were done to those because they didn't support Communism, those people you mentioned there didn't go killing because they were Capitalists and wanted to exterminate non-Capitalists. Except the USA but their main enemy was Communism, not everything else except Capitalism.[/QUOTE] Wow nevermind the history question, you are incredibly ignorant.
[QUOTE=Conscript;35259181]If you want to have this discussion that is entirely fine with me, you're just going to have to do better than sourceless one line parroting. I've discussed this dozens of times and your post can be hardly called that, more of a snipe. Until you give me more there's not much to respond to. Yet ironically all the things you pointed out aren't alien to capitalism (do you have any knowledge of history at all?), a[B]nd regardless the USSR was state capitalist and cannot be called socialist. [/B] [editline]23rd March 2012[/editline] Wow nevermind the history question, you are incredibly ignorant.[/QUOTE] I like how all you said was I don't know anything of history (Ignoring the fact that Capitalism or Communism is more of an economic debate) and nothing that actually disproves my points. Also, your last statement made me laugh. Go study economics and we shall speak again!
[QUOTE=Robbi;35259892]I like how all you said was I don't know anything of history (Ignoring the fact that Capitalism or Communism is more of an economic debate) and nothing that actually disproves my points. Also, your last statement made me laugh. Go study economics and we shall speak again![/QUOTE] I disproved your points. Read my reply you tootyfruity. Because Conscript is absolutely right.
[QUOTE=Robbi;35259892]I like how all you said was I don't know anything of history (Ignoring the fact that Capitalism or Communism is more of an economic debate) and nothing that actually disproves my points. Also, your last statement made me laugh. Go study economics and we shall speak again![/QUOTE] Economics are inseparable to politics, don't be stupid. Politics is managing the affairs of the economy. I already told you I'm not responding to one liners, especially sourceless ones. If you choose to ignore this you're just wasting both of our time. How hypocritical of you to dismiss rather than dispute. It's hilarious you accused me of that at the start of your post and then do it at the end. So how about you actually start fleshing out that knowledge? Id like something substantial to tear apart.
[QUOTE=Robbi;35259892]I like how all you said was I don't know anything of history (Ignoring the fact that Capitalism or Communism is more of an economic debate) and nothing that actually disproves my points. Also, your last statement made me laugh. Go study economics and we shall speak again![/QUOTE] As Conscript has said, as it is you're just acting arrogant and detracting from the debate at hand. Start effort posting or there will be consequences. If you have your stance on it, that's fine, but you have to actually debate it, and talking down to your opponents is not a part of that. So that means no more one liners like this "go look it up/study the subject and talk again", understand?
Okay. I am afraid I cannot see the difference the atrocities of National Socialists and the Soviets and other Communist factions. In fact, more people have been killed under Communist rule than National Socialist one. Source for that: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes[/url] Tells us that ~85 - ~100 million people (Maybe more? Communists love their secrets.) were killed however under National Socialist rule (If you count only the holocaust) you get 11 million people. (Last time I read about it was 6? whut.) My point? Communism is no better than National Socialism and should be treated like National Socialism is treated today. Here's something else that your loving Communists have done: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War#Shelling_of_Mainila[/url] and [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainila[/url] - Attacking its own citizens to create a reason so they can attack another nation (who already fought a civil war about if they should take up communism - [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_War[/url]) and force its ideology upon them, when clearly they did not want it. And then attacking it again - [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Curtain[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall[/url] - Very few nations have to build a wall to keep their citizens in. "Droughts and famines in Russia and the USSR tended to occur on a fairly regular basis, with famine occurring every 10–13 years and droughts every 5–7 years." - [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_USSR[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decossackization[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Germans_in_the_Soviet_Union[/url] But I'm sure its all justified. I'll just stick to my [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism]Anarcho-Capitalism[/url] and be free and happy.
[QUOTE=Robbi;35301914]Okay. "Droughts and famines in Russia and the USSR tended to occur on a fairly regular basis, with famine occurring every 10–13 years and droughts every 5–7 years." - [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_USSR[/url] I am afraid I cannot see the difference the atrocities of National Socialists and the Soviets and other Communist factions. In fact, more people have been killed under Communist rule than National Socialist one. Source for that: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes[/url] Tells us that ~85 - ~100 million people were killed however under National Socialist rule (If you count only the holocaust) you get 11 million people. (Last time I read about it was 6? whut.) My point? Communism is no better than National Socialism and should be treated like National Socialism is treated today. Here's something else that your loving Communists have done: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War#Shelling_of_Mainila[/url] and [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainila[/url] - Attacking its own citizens to create a reason so they can attack another nation (who already fought a civil war if they should take up communism - [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_War[/url]) and force its ideology upon them, when clearly they did not want it. And then attacking it again - [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Curtain[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall[/url] - Very few nations have to build a wall to keep their citizens in. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decossackization[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor[/url] But I'm sure its all justified.[/QUOTE] Dense dense dense. Actually argue communism, NOT Marxism-Leninism, Bolshevism, or Stalinism. Communism. You've shown several times now that you can't distinguish between the Soviet Union and communism. No one here is arguing for the Soviet Union (although some may be arguing for Lenin, but I'm going to say they're wrong, also). What you're arguing, right now, is that a regime that has little to do with actual communism- in fact, was opposed to most communist and socialist groups in Europe- is the entirety of the theory. We all know that the Soviet Union was a terrible state. Some of us actually see no reason why Stalinism shouldn't be considered Revolutionary Fascism. But now if you would actually read my replies, you could see this. [url=http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/63/227.html]Even[/url] [url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1934/bolshevism/index.htm]other[/url] [url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1959/rosalux/7-bolpower.htm]prominent[/url] [url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm]Marxists[/url] at the time of the USSR were opposed to many aspects, if not all aspects, of it. Your inability to distinguish Soviet-style states and communism is why you can't make a decent argument.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];35302007']Dense dense dense. Actually argue communism, NOT Marxism-Leninism, Bolshevism, or Stalinism. Communism. You've shown several times now that you can't distinguish between the Soviet Union and communism. No one here is arguing for the Soviet Union (although some may be arguing for Lenin, but I'm going to say they're wrong, also). What you're arguing, right now, is that a regime that has little to do with actual communism- in fact, was opposed to most communist and socialist groups in Europe- is the entirety of the theory. We all know that the Soviet Union was a terrible state. Some of us actually see no reason why Stalinism shouldn't be considered Revolutionary Fascism. But now if you would actually read my replies, you could see this. [url=http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/63/227.html]Even[/url] [url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1934/bolshevism/index.htm]other[/url] [url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1959/rosalux/7-bolpower.htm]prominent[/url] [url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm]Marxists[/url] at the time of the USSR were opposed to many aspects, if not all aspects, of it. Your inability to distinguish Soviet-style states and communism is why you can't make a decent argument.[/QUOTE] (I added some more goodies, in case you missed them.) Alright, by that reasoning one could say the National Socialist ideology is good (Loving your nation and people, right? Whats so bad about that?) but lets ignore that, shall we? Lets look at capitalism. It has a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market]free market[/url] and it works because people are selfish. Lets say Bob gets told he can work as hard as he can/wants and get to keep all the money to him self, its going to motivate him a lot, right? Why not since its going straight to his pocket and that's a good [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation]motivator[/url] for people who work and is going to not only benefit Bob but also his employer too since he will get a hard working individual with good motivation. That works. We can just look at the advancement in Europe to see that it works. In case my point didn't come across. Working for points = Good motivator = Good Work force = Works. Also, a reward system works. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reward_(psychology)]That is a fact in psychology.[/url] For Communism to work it would require a society of people who are that open minded and motivated to work for the benefits of others. Sure its a great idea but that isn't our [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfishness]nature[/url] since we usually prioritize [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct#Overview]our own survival[/url]. But okay, that might be possible. Another thing for it to work would be a way to ensure that everyone does their part (Ignoring that that would require an authority) which would require a similar system like in Capitalism, a point system, but without the possibility to get more by working more or doing a better job resulting in a unmotivated individual who sees no point in being better than the other guy because they will get the same thing anyways and he will not be able to advance in his personal career resulting in a lot slower progress and advancement of society. I just cant see why you would pick a system where you are doomed to be equal as your neighbour and with no possibility of advancing in your personal career over a system where motivation and reward are important and there is no limit on your success. Can you please explain to me why that is?
Nobody in the whole world with any credibility advocates wage equality and you are attacking a really pathetic strawman if you think that's the contemporary communist view. I'm not really sure where communism and anarchism (plain anarchism, I'm very sceptical of anarcho-capitalism since private property is a source of a lot of irrationality and deeply seated problems) diverge since they both seem to operate around the same principles, but communism definitely isn't trying to say everyone should be equal in all respects (especially wage), and it's an atrocious butchery of the view to contend that is the view.
Oh goodie the old nazism = communism coming from, you guessed it, a ('anarchist') liberal who is neither. Ill humor you when I get home.
[QUOTE=Robbi;35302409](I added some more goodies, in case you missed them.) Alright, by that reasoning one could say the National Socialist ideology is good (Loving your nation and people, right? Whats so bad about that?) but lets ignore that, shall we? Lets look at capitalism. It has a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market]free market[/url] and it works because people are selfish. Lets say Bob gets told he can work as hard as he can/wants and get to keep all the money to him self, its going to motivate him a lot, right? Why not since its going straight to his pocket and that's a good [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation]motivator[/url] for people who work and is going to not only benefit Bob but also his employer too since he will get a hard working individual with good motivation. That works. We can just look at the advancement in Europe to see that it works. In case my point didn't come across. Working for points = Good motivator = Good Work force = Works. Also, a reward system works. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reward_(psychology)]That is a fact in psychology.[/url] For Communism to work it would require a society of people who are that open minded and motivated to work for the benefits of others. Sure its a great idea but that isn't our [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfishness]nature[/url] since we usually prioritize [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct#Overview]our own survival[/url]. But okay, that might be possible. Another thing for it to work would be a way to ensure that everyone does their part (Ignoring that that would require an authority) which would require a similar system like in Capitalism, a point system, but without the possibility to get more by working more or doing a better job resulting in a unmotivated individual who sees no point in being better than the other guy because they will get the same thing anyways and he will not be able to advance in his personal career resulting in a lot slower progress and advancement of society. I just cant see why you would pick a system where you are doomed to be equal as your neighbour and with no possibility of advancing in your personal career over a system where motivation and reward are important and there is no limit on your success. Can you please explain to me why that is?[/QUOTE] Alright, finally some actual arguments. Anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, and many forms of communism include the free market as part of their goals. The free market works, and I agree. But capitalism is unnecessary. I on't agree that we are naturally selfish- in fact, nature kind of shows the opposite, as for most of our development, we were community-centric, not individualist, because of the need of a strong communal bond to survive. Free market is fine- capitalism is not. Capitalism is exploitation of the labor force, and is not the only type of free market. You assume that communism needs the communal or societal generosity of all peoples- this isn't really the case. You also assume that communism would condemn all people to be equal without advancement in society- another blatant falsehood. Even Marx wrote about, at the very basics of communism and Marxist theory, that not all people are equal, and that it would do nothing but crush individuality if we enforced total equality in wage and in society. Communism does not prevent social mobility- ideally, in a pure communist system you could get rich and you could get poor. You just can't exercise authority using that wealth. There is room for social mobility, based on what you give to the system and what you get from it. Again- there can be a free market in pure communism, and it can allow for social and economic mobility. The main difference is that the industry works for the people- the people don't work for the industry. The means of production are owned and operated democratically by the workers who make a living off them. Terry Eagleton makes a strong argument, I think, in his book [I]Why Marx Was Right[/I] (one of the few good arguments in the book, I think), that talks about what Marx meant by equality. And to put it simply- he meant equality in social status and in economic rights (civil rights are another issue, but most Marxists and Leftists are strong supporters of civil rights and liberties, at least for everyone but the exploiters, and even then you have many Leftists arguing for their rights and liberties as well, as much as a communist, anarchist, or socialist system would allow). Communism would provide for rights similar to how the Western World views rights and liberties today- all people should receive equal rights and liberties to act out expression, own personal property, and have basic protections under the law from the state. The main difference is that Marxism also extends those rights and liberties into the economic sphere as well as the social, and that initially at least, many communists believe that the rights of counter-revolutionaries and the bourgeoisie should be limited to prevent a backlash against the revolution by using their influence and authority. To this, I respond using Goldman's argument- that it is not necessary, and it is even contradictory, to limit the rights of the bourgeoise on the principle of creating greater freedom. You seem to think that I choose a system where there is no advancement, no reward (which is wrong- even in a system where there is no incentive of economic gain, you have the incentive of societal wellbeing- your motivation is along the lines of better quality living and low cost of goods)- I don't I choose communism, free-market variety, because it allows for these incentives, without the exploitation and damage of capitalism. [editline]26th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;35302843]Oh goodie the old nazism = communism coming from, you guessed it, a ('anarchist') liberal who is neither. Ill humor you when I get home.[/QUOTE] I'm not even bothering to wait until I get home. I'm writing this in class. Opportunity too good to give up.
[QUOTE=Robbi;35301914]Okay. I am afraid I cannot see the difference the atrocities of National Socialists and the Soviets and other Communist factions. In fact, more people have been killed under Communist rule than National Socialist one.e Source for that: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes[/url] Tells us that ~85 - ~100 million people (Maybe more? Communists love their secrets.) were killed however under National Socialist rule (If you count only the holocaust) you get 11 million people. (Last time I read about it was 6? whut.)[/quote] They can't even be compared, not in scale, aims, or means. The nazis represented the most reactionary and imperialist side of germany that systematically killed 12 million people and at least 25 million soviet civilians alone, and that was over the course of a few years before being defeated. The USSR in the Stalin period executed several hundred thousand and kept a steady gulag population of around 2-3 million from 1928-1953, mostly for crimes that weren't even political. [url=http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/GTY-Penal_System.pdf]Do some reading on actual archival figures.[/url]. You cite wikipedia on a revolutionary political issue, which is an awful idea to begin with. Unsurprisingly, it cites a dishonest cold war historian named Robert Conquest no one with serious academic interest in soviet history bothers with. He himself admitted his obsession with producing a 100 million number, and took from [i]anywhere[/i], including things not even related to communism or out of the ruling state's power, like famines. It's a now useless (thanks to soviet collapse) leftover of the past that was never written as a serious intrigue, just a piece of propaganda many, many people will buy. For american liberals and their state, no invented crime is off the table. [quote]My point? Communism is no better than National Socialism and should be treated like National Socialism is treated today.[/quote] As if your polemic, true or not, will make a difference. Liberals have been complaining about fascists and communists being the same ever since fascists proved their disuse as an anti-communist buffer. Fascists have been likening liberals and communists since they were 'backstabbers', 'anti-national', and on occasion controlled by Jews. It's just three ways of hate and warfare between each other, who cares how many parallels you can draw (because you can do it with all 3) if they're all mutually exclusive. Though liberals, fence-sitters they are, will be forced to choose between the two at the point of crisis eventually, and history reflects this. Some will feel too connected to the working class and the common man to be the kind fierce defender of conservatism and the nation the fascist is, others may. [quote]Here's something else that your loving Communists have done: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War#Shelling_of_Mainila[/url] and [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainila[/url] - Attacking its own citizens to create a reason so they can attack another nation (who already fought a civil war about if they should take up communism - [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_War[/url]) and force its ideology upon them, when clearly they did not want it. And then attacking it again - [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War[/url][/quote] Rofl what does this have to do with communism or communists? How does the continuation war, a part of the fascist invasion, even constitute a shred of a 'communist crime'? Yes, the USSR was distrusting and hostile to its right wing nationalist neighbors. It didn't like having a tiny piece of land between a german sympathizing state and a major city, Leningrad, which proved to be a good idea. Does this have anything to do with working class revolution or even a state claiming to carry out such things? No, not at all. That seems to be a disgustingly common strawman. Communism is not tied to one nation or a state and it never will be. It is a general movement of working class resistance that transcends all boundaries. [quote][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Curtain[/url][/quote] The iron curtain a product of imperialists engaging in the fiercest struggle with the bloc it could without engaging in war. In the past the USSR was devastated by the west's unwillingness to strangle nazism in its infancy and because of that was invaded by germany and its eastern european allies in what became the biggest front in WW2. It's entirely unsurprising the soviet state built a buffer zone, and at the same time resolved nationalist issues within it, when capitalist europe had already demonstrated it would adopt nothing but an aggressive attitude towards the USSR. And yet, it doesn't really have anything to do with communism. It reflects the interest of the state capitalist USSR which was engaged in a struggle with western imperialists, but then we realize that would mean it is yet another inter-imperialist struggle that capitalist history is full of. [quote][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall[/url] - Very few nations have to build a wall to keep their citizens in.[/quote] Very few nations have even been under such an assault from the west, which entailed backhanded things as buying out skilled labor and specialists in the socialist country. It helped starve them of money by making them waste money in public education and the other huge amount of state-funded services on people who would be encouraged to leave the country. But for the record, states throughout history, including capitalist ones, have been very hostile towards encouraged emigration. It, like war, is simply politics through another means, and no state reacts well to hostile politics. But then we have to ask, what do struggles between non-socialist states have to do with working class revolution and control? [quote]"Droughts and famines in Russia and the USSR tended to occur on a fairly regular basis, with famine occurring every 10–13 years and droughts every 5–7 years." - [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_USSR[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921[/url][/quote] The USSR ended the cycle of famines that were commonplace in tsarist Russia, with the only major one that could attributed to the state through its mistakes being the 1933 famine. The 1921 famine was a product of the civil war, its desperate policies, and food sabotage by some peasants. The last major one was in 1945, a product of WW2. I don't even see any valid points here against the USSR, let alone socialism. [quote][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decossackization[/url][/quote] Cossacks were a spearhead of tsarist reaction and had a blood history of suppressing the peasants, and during the civil war they fought the bolsheviks and continued to resist their government. Their suppression was to be expected from a state trying to consolidate modern state capitalism in backwards Russia, which the cossacks insisted on preserving. [quote][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge[/url][/quote] Again, what does this have to do with communism? The stalinist government purged many socialists and the rest of the old bolsheviks long before then and were capitalists themselves. On top of that, the great purge was more about fighting bureaucratic careerism and opportunism that threatened the power of the ruling party's clique. Where is the socialism or product of socialism in this? [quote][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization[/url][/quote] Somehow building modern state capitalism and industry in a mostly peasant country and fighting its subsequent resistors (the wealthy section of the peasantry) doesn't quite strike me as socialism in practice or some 'socialist crime'. I'll grant you Stalin carried our collectivization too fast and too harsh, but how is this tied to a broader concept that is socialism? [quote][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor[/url][/quote] Holodomor is a myth. There was a famine, but it wasn't intentional. It was a product of mismanagement, bad weather and subsequent bad harvest, and some kulak resistance. [quote][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag[/url][/quote] What is this supposed to be against? Prison labor? Let me remind you the US has its own system of prison labor and has one of the biggest prisoner population in the world. On top of that, most gulag sentencings were apolitical didn't go beyond 10 years, what does this have to do with socialism? [quote][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Germans_in_the_Soviet_Union[/url][/quote] I don't see how this is surprising considering the history of the soviet state capitalist economy and its relationship with germans in the anti-fascist period, or how this is a product of socialism or proof the USSR was socialist. [quote]I'll just stick to my [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism]Anarcho-Capitalism[/url] and be free and happy.[/QUOTE] LOL it's not surprising at all you'd pick such a ludicrous ideology that happens to be a contradiction in terms. I'd love neo-feudalism too if I was a hobbesian narcissist.
I have to say that was a rather complete and mostly on target point-by-point response there. Well done.
I wonder if he'll even reply, I don't even know if I want him to. Some people have difficulty breaking with pre-conceptions they're raised with.
By the definition of many people in this thread, communism has never been attempted or enacted in any successful form. The few (tow?) times that may have come close failed because of unrelated problems. We cannot pass judgement on which "system" is "best" because one of them has never been put into action and cannot be judged.
[IMG]http://www.webcam-steamate.com/cookies/42/b/happy.gif[/IMG] Preliminary: it is critical to note that communism and capitalism are not types of states, regimes, or governments. Communism and capitalism describe modes of economic organisation, not political organisation. Answer: communism and capitalism are both economic modes of organisation characterised by different relations of property and normative views. In capitalism, socially-shared property is mostly held privately, interest is used from capital investment to fuel more investment, and social relations in production are mediated by wage-labour, where labourers contract out their time in return for financial compensation. Morally, capitalism (usually) combines with rights-based theories that emphasise freedom and equality of opportunity.
[QUOTE=Conscript;35310972]I wonder if he'll even reply, I don't even know if I want him to. [B]Some people have difficulty breaking with pre-conceptions they're raised with.[/B][/QUOTE] A rather cocky answer, is this allowed in this forum section and the last sentence, heh. But I will reply, when I have the time. Also you calling Finland a nationalist right winged nation made me laugh, please read about them. And please don't assume I am some American fanboy.
Cocky? I never said you were wrong because of it, I just dislike discussing stuff with your kind. I don't know how you can dispute that finland was anything but that, especially considering the circumstances it was formed in and the state of eastern europe at the time. It was quite common among the smaller states that never fell to socialism, and most of them became part of the axis by 41 and particapated in barbarossa.
only reason communism didn't work was that capitalism was his neighboor
[QUOTE=wanksta11;35381147]only reason communism didn't work was that capitalism was his neighboor[/QUOTE] Have you even bothered to read the thread? What evidence are you going to produce to support your assertion? Do you have any examples? Do you know what Communism actually is? Stating it failed because of Capitalism isn't exactly debating.
It's pretty damn true.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.