The White House recognizes Nov 7, "National Day for the Victims of Communism"
90 replies, posted
Tudd do [I]you[/I] sincerely believe Trump did business in Cuba out of his concern for Cubans under communism?
[QUOTE=Kommodore;52873118]Tudd do [I]you[/I] sincerely believe Trump did business in Cuba out of his concern for Cubans under communism?[/QUOTE]
I'd love for an explanation of how this squares away with the renewed sanctions and travel restrictions the US just imposed on Cuba, too.
Especially when Trump was doing deals in Cuba before the embargo fell in 2015.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52872905]Some would say doing business deals with Cuba is a way to counter the communist regime and promote a free-er market.[/QUOTE]
Spending large sums of money in an embargoed country, embargoed for the express purpose of weakening its regime, seems like a funny way to weaken its regime to me. Who do you think you pay $68,000 dollars on a Cuba trip to? "Cuban small business owners"? Most of that money went to the Cuban government, lol.
the communists have killed so much innocent people such as Adolf Hitler, Fulgencio Batista, Benito Mussolini and Nicholas II
[QUOTE=Sinatra;52874096]the communists have killed so much innocent people such as Adolf Hitler, Fulgencio Batista, Benito Mussolini and Nicholas II[/QUOTE]
Is this a shitpost or an actual argument? If the latter, what is your argument? The fact that they deposed several fascist regimes doesn't excuse their subsequent actions, which killed more people than those dictators you listed ever did.
Surely there must be a reason 'true communist states' either haven't happened or they were so shortlived that they're irrelevant
[QUOTE=Tudd;52872900]Regardless of how you feel on Trump in general, it is obvious he is not for communism.
So again, why would anyone feel he is insincere on this specific topic?[/QUOTE]
Literally "Ignore all these other times he was being insincere and consider the fact that this time he might be sincere"
How about no. Trump has said and done outrageous things and lied to an extent previously considered unthinkable for both a candidate and a president. Anyone who doesn't suspect an ulterior motive at this point is deaf, blind, and/or willingly obtuse.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52872905]Some would say doing business deals with Cuba is a way to counter the communist regime and promote a free-er market.
[/QUOTE]
And some people would be wrong. But I guess it's okay when Trump does illegal stuff to fund a Communist regime.
[QUOTE=Harbie;52871247]I am making the distinction. "Actual Marxist Communism" is a violent ideology.
To be clear, I'm neither saying that Western governments have never committed any genocides or acts of violence, nor am I saying that every aspect of communist ideology is bad. Scandinavian-style democratic socialism seems to work out pretty well. But as a whole, yes, Marxism and Communism are violent ideologies that advocate the purging of a significant portion of the population.[/QUOTE]
If you think the corrupt upper class that controls our society is going to be quietly and peacefully protested away, you're gullible and you've completely bought into the system that's the root of most of our problems.
Guess what? The American Revolution involved a violent rebellion and full scale of the people in charge of the American colonies at the time. If King George was located anywhere in the 13 colonies, his head would have rolled. The American colonists didn't stand in their designated protest areas and hold cardboard fucking signs, they got violent and even fought and killed other colonists to achieve their own freedom. That's why the Second Amendment was written, to keep American citizens armed if there's ever another event like that.
I'm tired of this whole "uuuuuu Marxism is a violent ideology" shit. Capitalism was literally implemented in America through a violent revolution.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;52875060]Capitalism was literally implemented in America through a violent revolution.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't make Marxism any less of a violent ideology that fucks a country's economy, freedoms, and quality of life over when implemented. At least America has thrived off of Capitalism, while Communist states have continued to collapse.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52875089]That doesn't make Marxism any less of a violent ideology that fucks a country's economy, freedoms, and quality of life over when implemented. [B]At least America has thrived off of Capitalism[/B], while Communist states have continued to collapse.[/QUOTE]
The general American public certainly isn't thriving off of Capitalism. We're in the middle of a massive jobs crisis, our major industries are gone, most Americans can barely afford or can't afford healthcare or higher education since they live paycheck to paycheck, our "free" market is dominated by conglomerates and massive corporations that drive out small businesses, we have fucking private prisons, our politicians constantly take bribes from the rich, or [I]are[/I] rich, ignoring the vast majority of American citizens, discrimination against others based on race, sex, religions, or anything else is still a major problem, half of our population is full of goddamn idiots, and none of our leaders for the past 240 goddamn years have done a fucking thing to fix it because it's shit like this that lets them feed voters lines of bullshit year after year so they can stay in power. Welcome to America, I hope you like that fact the Capitalism is responsible for the exploitation of your own labor.
[editline]9th November 2017[/editline]
And all of the Cold War "Communist" states collapsed due to:
1. Massive deviations from the ideology towards state capitalism and corruption. Communism is inherently democratic in nature. Countries like the Soviet Union instead opted for dictatorships that did little to achieve Marx's vision of a democratic workers' state. Corrupt party officials tended to live lavish lifestyles and funneled the state's earnings into their own pockets. This is not Communism.
and 2. Massive sanctions that hurt their economies. This is why Cuba has been doing so poorly. While it has more in common with the Soviet model of Marxist-Leninism, it nonetheless has deviated less from Marxist ideology than the USSR ever had, and has just barely managed to implement a working, yet imperfect socialist society. Castro never had a hatred of the United States (he had a bust of Lincoln in his office), but there were sanctions placed against the island nonetheless due to the influence of the mob in American politics (they ran many casinos and resorts there) and the Red Scare. Other countries like China simply aren't Communist at all anymore (using the name out of tradition and image, mostly), and are a major exporter, which gives them leniency compared to a place like Cuba and has allowed them to thrive, albeit using massive worker exploitation for state profit, just like the Soviet Union did.
[editline]9th November 2017[/editline]
I suggest you actually read what Marx has wrote, since Marxist Communism has never been implemented in any nation, and his ideals were simply thrown out the window or bastardized by the Soviet Union and other superpowers to keep people in line.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;52875142]The general American public certainly isn't thriving off of Capitalism. We're in the middle of a massive jobs crisis, our major industries are gone, most Americans can barely afford or can't afford healthcare or higher education since they live paycheck to paycheck, our "free" market is dominated by conglomerates and massive corporations that drive out small businesses, we have fucking private prisons, our politicians constantly take bribes from the rich, or [I]are[/I] rich, ignoring the vast majority of American citizens, discrimination against others based on race, sex, religions, or anything else is still a major problem, half of our population is full of goddamn idiots, and none of our leaders for the past 240 goddamn years have done a fucking thing to fix it because it's shit like this that lets them feed voters lines of bullshit year after year so they can stay in power. Welcome to America, I hope you like that fact the Capitalism is responsible for the exploitation of your own labor.
[editline]9th November 2017[/editline]
And all of the Cold War "Communist" states collapsed due to:
1. Massive deviations from the ideology towards state capitalism and corruption. Communism is inherently democratic in nature. Countries like the Soviet Union instead opted for dictatorships that did little to achieve Marx's vision of a democratic workers' state. Corrupt party officials tended to live lavish lifestyles and funneled the state's earnings into their own pockets. This is not Communism.
and 2. Massive sanctions that hurt their economies. This is why Cuba has been doing so poorly. While it has more in common with the Soviet model of Marxist-Leninism, it nonetheless has deviated less from Marxist ideology than the USSR ever had, and has just barely managed to implement a working, yet imperfect socialist society. Castro never had a hatred of the United States (he had a bust of Lincoln in his office), but there were sanctions placed against the island nonetheless due to the influence of the mob in American politics (they ran many casinos and resorts there) and the Red Scare. Other countries like China simply aren't Communist at all anymore (using the name out of tradition and image, mostly), and are a major exporter, which gives them leniency compared to a place like Cuba and has allowed them to thrive, albeit using massive worker exploitation for state profit, just like the Soviet Union did.
[editline]9th November 2017[/editline]
I suggest you actually read what Marx has wrote, since Marxist Communism has never been implemented in any nation, and his ideals were simply thrown out the window or bastardized by the Soviet Union and other superpowers to keep people in line.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52871073]The "ideal" communism that communists speak of will never happen, it will always lead to what we've already seen happen in every communist regime, and frankly I think the people who plug their ears and go "That's not real communism la la la" whenever the atrocities of communist regimes are brought up are in wilful ignorance of the reality that communism has never worked and can never work.[/quote]
That fact that, in less than 100 years, the vast majority of communist countries have collapsed, whereas over ~250 years America still has yet to collapse in the same kind of way and is still running on the same principles it always has I think showcases how much better capitalism is for people and governments than communism.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52875281]That fact that, in less than 100 years, the vast majority of communist countries have collapsed, whereas over ~250 years America still has yet to collapse in the same kind of way and is still running on the same principles it always has I think showcases how much better capitalism is for people and governments than communism.[/QUOTE]
Did you read anything I just said or are you just too lazy?
Because if you actually think America is running on the same revolutionary principles it was founded on – if it ever ran on them to begin with – you're delusional.
Also never mind the fact that literally none of the Cold War Eastern Bloc or otherwise socialist states ran on actual Communist ideology. That's something that can be proven by, you know, reading the [I]fucking source material for which Communist ideology is based upon[/I]. But most of the people here, and in most of the West as a whole, are too eager to just accept the wide misconceptions about it instead of taking less than an hour to just go over Marxist beliefs on Wikipedia.
[editline]9th November 2017[/editline]
Cold War socialist states were Communist in the same way the Nazi Party was socialist: not at fucking all, it's in name only, but people are still too ignorant to see that.
[QUOTE=eirexe;52872168]Marx was one of the first economists to figure out that capitalism goes from crisis to crisis and is inherently unstable.
Maybe marx's communism isn't going to be [B]the thing[/B], but if you want to give people decent lives in a world under automation, capitalism will have to be eroded away somehow.[/QUOTE]
I don' t think people really appreciate how close we are to a serious problem in regards to automation.
Automation in assembly lines is the obvious one, and it has forced us into a heavily consumer service industry for unskilled labor. This has been safe for years, but we now have things like food delivery being transferred to drones and driverless cars taking over the taxi industry. Even fast food is increasingly automated.
It isn't going to happen tomorrow, but it is coming. There will be holdouts, but not many. At the end of the day, automated services are cheaper. Why would I want to tip a delivery driver when a drone could do the same job faster and for no additional cost? Why would I go to a fast food place with human staff? They are more likely to give me a food borne pathogen and have a high probability of fucking my order up. Basically all unskilled jobs are going to be automated.
Either we die under capitalism or we evolve with the rise of automation.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;52875309]Also never mind the fact that literally none of the Cold War Eastern Bloc or otherwise socialist states ran on actual Communist ideology. That's something that can be proven by, you know, reading the [I]fucking source material for which Communist ideology is based upon[/I]. But most of the people here, and in most of the West as a whole, are too eager to just accept the wide misconceptions about it instead of taking less than an hour to just go over Marxist beliefs on Wikipedia.[/QUOTE]
why do idiots keep running with this insane "it wasn't true communism" idea? the USSR (the most obvious example) was founded by communists following communist ideology (and attempting to adapt it) and throughout much of its history it was effectively the de facto real world physical representation of what communism in real life is. I read the communist works - marx would have likely condoned the Russian Revolution
"not true communism" is complete and utter bullshit. the only reason communists use this stupid excuse is so that they don't have to /own/ their failures and instead blame it on other factors.
if you want to insist on this dumb thing though, then how about being consistent and labelling our current "capitalist" economic system as not actually being true capitalism and that people need to actually read the material and reject "misconceptions" of capitalism
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52876380]why do idiots keep running with this insane "it wasn't true communism" idea? the USSR (the most obvious example) was founded by communists following communist ideology (and attempting to adapt it) and throughout much of its history it was effectively the de facto real world physical representation of what communism in real life is. I read the communist works - marx would have likely condoned the Russian Revolution
"not true communism" is complete and utter bullshit. the only reason communists use this stupid excuse is so that they don't have to /own/ their failures and instead blame it on other factors.
if you want to insist on this dumb thing though, then how about being consistent and labelling our current "capitalist" economic system as not actually being true capitalism and that people need to actually read the material and reject "misconceptions" of capitalism[/QUOTE]
People read about the end result Marx described of a stateless utopia, but ignore that the middle step that Marx envisioned before achieving 'true' communism is authoritarian socialism, exactly what states like the Soviet Union and Maoist China were.
They may not have been 'true' communism, but they absolutely represent the ideology of Marxism put into practice. The fact that authoritarianism doesn't naturally dissolve and leave behind an empowered proletariat as Marx predicted is precisely the failure of Marxism as an ideology, and the historical tendency for those authoritarian regimes to be incredibly, spectacularly brutal and incompetent doesn't do Marx any favors.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52876380]
if you want to insist on this dumb thing though, then how about being consistent and labelling our current "capitalist" economic system as not actually being true capitalism and that people need to actually read the material and reject "misconceptions" of capitalism[/QUOTE]
Capitalism evolved from feudalism and imperialism with no real theoretical basis. "Capitalist theory" came much later. Since the practice was already there, there is no "true capitalism" to have any misconceptions about.
[QUOTE=UnknownDude;52876613]Capitalism evolved from feudalism and imperialism with no real theoretical basis. "Capitalist theory" came much later. Since the practice was already there, there is no "true capitalism" to have any misconceptions about.[/QUOTE]
what the hell do you mean "feudalism" and "imperialism"? these are political concepts, not matters concerned with the basic functioning of human economic life?
feudalism has literally nothing to do with economics at all, it's a term that roughly describes the power relations of nobility in Medieval Europe (plus Japan and other places), while imperialism just describes the process of countries engaging in empire-building (so again nothing to do with capitalism)
capitalism existed in the Roman Empire, Hellenic city states, Song china, Edo Japan, Medieval Italy and a number of other places where the factors of production were primarily controlled by private individuals and institutions rather than the state or landed nobility
how exactly does capitalism evolve from feudalism (especially considering it existed before it)? what the heck are you even talking about?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52876730]what the hell do you mean "feudalism" and "imperialism"? these are political concepts, not matters concerned with the basic functioning of human economic life?
feudalism has literally nothing to do with economics at all, it's a term that roughly describes the power relations of nobility in Medieval Europe (plus Japan and other places), while imperialism just describes the process of countries engaging in empire-building (so again nothing to do with capitalism)
capitalism existed in the Roman Empire, Hellenic city states, Song china, Edo Japan, Medieval Italy and a number of other places where the factors of production were primarily controlled by private individuals and institutions rather than the state or landed nobility
how exactly does capitalism evolve from feudalism (especially considering it existed before it)? what the heck are you even talking about?[/QUOTE]
You're right in that the roots of capitalism go further back. I see feudalism and imperialism as stages of capitalism, which evolved into the modern, late stage capitalism of this era. I don't see how a state, or in the cases of feudalism the nobility, can't qualify as a ruling class who owns the means of production. Individuals, hierarchical institutions, nobility, corporations, states, I hold them in the same regard.
As for imperialism, the motivation for expansion is in almost all cases a matter of resources. Empires expand to accumulate more resources and more labor to handle these resources, and since the emperor is part of the ruling class, they control the means of production. Imperialism is seen as the highest stage of capitalism.
[QUOTE=UnknownDude;52876779]You're right in that the roots of capitalism go further back. I see feudalism and imperialism as stages of capitalism, which evolved into the modern, late stage capitalism of this era. I don't see how a state, or in the cases of feudalism the nobility, can't qualify as a ruling class who owns the means of production. Individuals, hierarchical institutions, nobility, corporations, states, I hold them in the same regard.[/quote]
feudalism is not an economic system (and has nothing to do with capitalism) i explained this already. medieval europe had many different economies and methods of economic organisation over the centuries - including capitalist ones.
you're being disingenuous because the factors of production in medieval europe (mostly land) were pretty heavily distributed between the king, nobles, the church, townspeople, farmers, guilds, etc in varying degrees. no one class owned all of the land nor held undisputed economic power and power was constantly shifting.
[quote]As for imperialism, the motivation for expansion is in almost all cases a matter of resources. Empires expand to accumulate more resources and more labor to handle these resources, and since the emperor is part of the ruling class, they control the means of production. Imperialism is seen as the highest stage of capitalism.[/QUOTE]
no they don't. imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism either. stop misusing terms
only in the more primitive states (such as in early ancient egypt, mesopotamia, minoa, etc) do we see a society where virtually the entire economy is run as a single unit for the benefit of the ruler.
imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism either btw (imperialism is a broader concept and is not cogent on capitalism). communist states, the roman empire, song china, african tribes, the aztecs, even fucking chimpanzees have engaged in empire building.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52876380]why do idiots keep running with this insane "it wasn't true communism" idea? the USSR (the most obvious example) was founded by communists following communist ideology (and attempting to adapt it) and throughout much of its history it was effectively the de facto real world physical representation of what communism in real life is. I read the communist works - marx would have likely condoned the Russian Revolution
"not true communism" is complete and utter bullshit. the only reason communists use this stupid excuse is so that they don't have to /own/ their failures and instead blame it on other factors.
if you want to insist on this dumb thing though, then how about being consistent and labelling our current "capitalist" economic system as not actually being true capitalism and that people need to actually read the material and reject "misconceptions" of capitalism[/QUOTE]
Because it [I]wasn't fucking Communism and it resembled it in no goddamn way.[/I]
Are you [I]dense?[/I] Did you even read about the ideology you're trying to criticize?
The American model of Capitalism at least resembles Capitalism, and it's practiced in a way that meets most of the criteria of a Capitalist society. You have no fucking argument.
[editline]10th November 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=catbarf;52876562]People read about the end result Marx described of a stateless utopia, but ignore that [B]the middle step that Marx envisioned before achieving 'true' communism is authoritarian socialism[/B], exactly what states like the Soviet Union and Maoist China were. [/QUOTE]
That's not true at all and it shows how little you know about Marxism.
Marx envisioned a "dictatorship of the proletariat", which does not mean "dictatorship" in the modern sense. Marx believed in democracy and hated bureaucracy. The USSR was literally the antithesis of his beliefs.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;52876853]Because it [I]wasn't fucking Communism and it resembled it in no goddamn way.[/I]
Are you [I]dense?[/I] Did you even read about the ideology you're trying to criticize?[/quote]
Yes, I read Das Kapital (well not some of the boring bits I skipped those). Have you?
i would say that soviet russia very much took the form of the ideology. btw by ideology do you exclude lenin as well? because lenin literally followed up what he advocated
does only the opinion of Marx count for communist ideology? which authors are canonical?
[quote]That's not true at all and it shows how little you know about Marxism.
Marx envisioned a "dictatorship of the proletariat", which does not mean "dictatorship" in the modern sense. Marx believed in democracy and hated bureaucracy. The USSR was literally the antithesis of his beliefs.[/QUOTE]
marx literally thought that the paris commune was a real life example of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but he later criticised it for not taking strong enough action to dismantle capitalism (by organising conscription, putting decision-making power into the hands of a smaller number of dedicated revolutionaries, acting more harshly on class enemies, etc)
it is for this reason that the marxists and anarchists split in 1872 (because the latter considered Marx an authoritarian whose ideas would eventually led to the creation of an authoritarian government).
lenin read and took in marxs reflections about how to do the paris commune (but better)
guess what happened next
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;52876853]Because it [I]wasn't fucking Communism and it resembled it in no goddamn way.[/I]
Are you [I]dense?[/I] Did you even read about the ideology you're trying to criticize?
The American model of Capitalism at least resembles Capitalism, and it's practiced in a way that meets most of the criteria of a Capitalist society. You have no fucking argument.[/QUOTE]
they cant possibly have abandoned their ideals for practical necessary reasons (they didn't work.) Has to be because they deviated from marx too much tbh.
[QUOTE=mcharest;52870988]Can we have a National Day for the Victims of Crony Capitalism too?[/QUOTE]
You mean capitalism? 'Crony capitalism' is just a cop-out lol
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;52876853]That's not true at all and it shows how little you know about Marxism.
Marx envisioned a "dictatorship of the proletariat", which does not mean "dictatorship" in the modern sense. Marx believed in democracy and hated bureaucracy. The USSR was literally the antithesis of his beliefs.[/QUOTE]
The dictatorship of the proletariat, as Marx [URL="https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm"]explicitly says[/URL] in his 1875 critique of the Gotha Programme, performs the function of managing production, withholding 'economic necessity', and then organizing the allocation of products according to the needs of the individuals. A single entity is responsible for all management of the economy. Ostensibly democratic or not, the dictatorship of the proletariat was the state, and explicitly intended to be an authoritarian state at that.
Lenin only took it a step further in stating the need for the proletariat to resist infiltration and subversion by the bourgeoisie. He didn't corrupt or disavow Marx, he only added an additional function to the state apparatus [I]that already existed under Marxist policy[/I].
Marx considered all forms of government inherently dictatorial, which is why the dictatorship of the proletariat was only meant to be a temporary occurrence while the transitional society laid the groundwork for 'true' communism. In practice, that transition never occurred in the nations that were otherwise following Marxist thought. Strong central authorities enforcing Marxist doctrine isn't contrary to Marx, it's exactly what he stated would be necessary for 'true' communism to exist.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52876993]The dictatorship of the proletariat, as Marx [URL="https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm"]explicitly says[/URL] in his 1875 critique of the Gotha Programme, performs the function of managing production, withholding 'economic necessity', and then organizing the allocation of products according to the needs of the individuals. A single entity is responsible for all management of the economy. Ostensibly democratic or not, the dictatorship of the proletariat was the state, and explicitly intended to be an authoritarian state at that.
Lenin only took it a step further in stating the need for the proletariat to resist infiltration and subversion by the bourgeoisie. He didn't corrupt or disavow Marx, he only added an additional function to the state apparatus [I]that already existed under Marxist policy[/I].
Marx considered all forms of government inherently dictatorial, which is why the dictatorship of the proletariat was only meant to be a temporary occurrence while the transitional society laid the groundwork for 'true' communism. In practice, that transition never occurred in the nations that were otherwise following Marxist thought. Strong central authorities enforcing Marxist doctrine isn't contrary to Marx, it's exactly what he stated would be necessary for 'true' communism to exist.[/QUOTE]
amusingly enough this is more or less exactly what the anarchists predicted would happen (that the transitional state wouldn't be so transitionary)
I didn't know there was a need for people to be more informed on the problems certain communist dictatorships caused
[QUOTE=Crooky14;52877216]I didn't know there was a need for people to be more informed on the problems certain communist dictatorships caused[/QUOTE]
People need to be informed on everything these days as common knowledge stops being so common.
A single party state with farce elections and control maintained by the wealthy and corrupt is not, in any possible fashion, dictatorship of the proletariat.
[QUOTE=GunFox;52877276]A single party state with farce elections and control maintained by the wealthy and corrupt is not, in any possible fashion, dictatorship of the proletariat.[/QUOTE]
Because the dictatorship of the proletariat is a flawed concept, and the idea that you can hand total power to a central body (even a democratic one) and have it remain fair and representative for just long enough to willingly abolish itself is ridiculously unrealistic.
Nobody's saying the Soviet Union is exactly what Marx advocated, but it was the inevitable result of trying to follow Marxist policy in spite of its incompatibility with the real world, and 'but [I]true[/I] communism doesn't have a state' isn't a useful observation when the Soviets never got anywhere [I]close[/I] to that stage before the ideology broke down and was corrupted into something else. It should be telling that every other nation that attempted to practice communism went pretty much the same way.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.