[QUOTE=Rill42;35246094]Communism has never existed ever. Those who call themselves Communist are not a communist. For example, if you look at North Korea their official name is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Are they Democratic? Hell no. The Soviet Union and all these other countries you are arguing about weren't communist either. You can call yourself whatever you want that doesn't make it so. People who use the title communist just use that to get into power promise the people equality, then rule with an iron fist. The basic morals of communism would work and have worked. If you look in Israel the kibbutz have worked fine, and have had the same basic idea.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Robbi;35246297]I just look at history to see which one is better.
Genocide, imprisonment, getting banished from your homeland, getting your home stolen by the state, forced labour in a factory, no income, etc.
Or!
Free market, minimal taxes, no limit on how rich you can get and other lovely goodness!
I think the answer is clear.[/QUOTE]
I've covered this before in these threads:
[url]http://facepunch.com/threads/1158035?p=34919754&viewfull=1#post34919754[/url]
[url]http://facepunch.com/threads/1156058?p=35043257&viewfull=1#post35043257[/url]
[QUOTE=Conscript;35246348]Shitty posts like these should be avoided like the plague.[/QUOTE]
If its so shit, my friend, why don't you point out my false things? Oh wait, they are true.
[QUOTE=Talkbox;35246576]what about 1 billion people starving, half the world living on less than $2.50 a day, wars for profit and much much more.
Marx's theory of Communism is now obsolete, yet so is capitalism. Dont front as if capitalism is the holy grail when it has massive flaws.[/QUOTE]
Haha, yes my post is a [I]bit [/I]biased to Capitalism, I agree. But the fact remains that you don't see genocide in a healthy nation with Capitalism but you do see genocide in Communist countries. That point alone is enough in my opinion. Its strange how Communism hasn't been placed in the same category as National Socialism.
But yes, capitalism has flaws, but I would rather become unemployed and lose my house and start at the bottom than speak something that the State didn't like and be put away for life.
Also the 2.50$ 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.
state censorship isn't related to communism because communism isn't supposed to have a state
christ
[QUOTE=thisispain;35252485]state censorship isn't related to communism because communism isn't supposed to have a state
christ[/QUOTE]
Yet it has always failed to follow that. At least always in any serious case of Communism.
[QUOTE=Robbi;35252568]Yet it has always failed to follow that. At least always in any serious case of Communism.[/QUOTE]
not only is that not true, it's also irrelevant when arguing about communism and capitalism.
capitalist states are just as capable of censoring or chopping off people's heads.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35252602]not only is that not true, it's also irrelevant when arguing about communism and capitalism.
capitalist states are just as capable of censoring or chopping off people's heads.[/QUOTE]
Yes, they are just as capable but they usually don't do it en masse.
Also, give me an example where censorship and other things related to harassment of non-Communists if its so false? A serious case. Not an area that was free for 2 years.
[QUOTE=Robbi;35252626]Yes, they are just as capable but they usually don't do it en masse.[/QUOTE]
sure they do. Haiti is a good example.
not to mention all the horrible states the US supported in the cold war.
[QUOTE=Robbi;35252238]
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.
[/QUOTE]
This is not communism, this is dictatorship with a state, read Marx then come back here.
[QUOTE=Robbi;35252238]
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, [b]2.50$ per day is a lot more than nothing per day except a ticket for a meal. [/b]
[/QUOTE]
Firstly, half the worlds working population earns [b]less[/b] than $2.50 a day on average. In a third world country with huge amounts of inflation, this is fuck all. You have to consider that huge capitalist economies allow corrupt dictators to thrive, as long as they co-operate with the interests of their government and big corporations.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35252698]sure they do. Haiti is a good example.
not to mention all the horrible states the US supported in the cold war.[/QUOTE]
So uh, Scandinavia, Finland, Iceland, Europe are all just irrelevant? Also Europe during 1870-1914 was such a horrible place to live, right?
[QUOTE=Robbi;35252746]So uh, Scandinavia, Finland, Iceland, Europe are all just irrelevant? Also Europe during 1870-1914 was such a horrible place to live, right?[/QUOTE]
i don't understand the prompt... you said that communists states kill you or censor your opinions and i said that it happened in plenty of capitalist states with an example.
and uh, Europe between 1870-1914 being horrible is completely dependent on who you were during that time.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35252783]i don't understand the prompt... you said that communists states kill you or censor your opinions and i said that it happened in plenty of capitalist states with an example.
and uh, Europe between 1870-1914 being horrible[B] is completely dependent on who you were during that time.[/B][/QUOTE]
Uhh.. 2 nations are not plenty, my friend. Besides the USA was damn nice and it would be damn nice if a person like Ron Paul came to power, at least that is what I hope.
And talking about being completely dependent on who you are.. Same goes with Communism, if you aren't a Communist willing to work a lot for nothing then you got sent away! At least in Europe back then you were still free.
[QUOTE=Robbi;35252832]
And talking about being completely dependent on who you are.. Same goes with Communism, if you aren't a Communist willing to work a lot for nothing then you got sent away! At least in Europe back then you were still free.[/QUOTE]
You dont get it do you, what you describe isn't true communism, there has never been true communism.
[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.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.