Communism

Why do people in the U.S. think communism is so horrible?

because everything communsim stands for is everything the US of A, does not.


NOW GO BACK TO WORKING 12 HOURS A DAY OF HARD LABOUR FOR NOTHING!

>>1
I'm in the former soviet union and I think collectivism, planned economy and dictatorship of the masses is horrible. if you think otherwise, you're an ignorant liberty-hating wingnut.

>>1
Because it is associated with totalitarianism. They may not be totally aware of why communism always leads to tyranny, but they are correct. There is no way to implement a communist economic system and keep democracy at the same time.

>>4

I agree with both parts of this statement; that Americans neither understand why it is a bad thing and that they are correct about it.

>>5
your english fails

because people who say they support communism don't really support it.

We hate communism because we hate the idea of being poor.

Because it has been illegal. Other countries where it has not has enjoyed multi party democracy and freedom of speech and a lower level of repression of counter establishment views. It does not matter what you think of communism, the fact that the US hasn't got a real (as in relatively big and respected) socialist party is a democratic failure that is the effect of government oppression. So enjoy your tyranny.

In before "STALIN WASN'T A REAL COMMUNIST".

Stalin might not have actually been a communist, but he certainly wanted his followers to be because communism has no safeguards against tyranny, exactly what he wanted.

>>9
Maybe if you addressed criticism of socialism and made the appropriate changes instead of calling them ni**ers they would vote for you.

>>4

so true, to have a true communist way of life, everyone has to agree on it, and the only way to acheive that is through use of force which leads to totalitarianism.

>>11
Illegal! Political repression! Can you dig it? Look up COINTELPRO or some other acronym of totalitarianism.

Because communism goes against the American Dream of work hard to get through the system. To have a house, a car, and a wife who stays home and matches the kitchen appliances.
In communism everyone is "poor", everyone works "less",nobody has a car.And everyone works and everyone is equal(women work also).

>>14
Well, the goal of communism is actually that people dont work more than they need to. In communism work is seen as something dangerous and alienating. The american illusion is that everybody can be free if they just work hard enough. I think ive seen that somewhere else...

>>13
How is criticising socialism political repression? You people are fucking crazy, no wonder you fuck up everything you take control of.

>>16
COINTELPRO did i little bit more than "criticizing socialism". You are fucking stupid, no wonder you apprehend the written word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro

>>4
Correct.

Plus, in communism, there is a lack of understanding of the way the human mind works. Communism's goal is "no one works more than they need to." What actually happens is, no one works more than they aboslutely have to to keep profiting from the system. And because 90% of the population thinks this way, the only way to keep a comunistic state running, is through dictatorship. Not only is the idea of communism tied to totalitarianism, it's inherent in its implementation. That's why communism doesn't work.

Americans hate it because they hated the USSR.

>>18
So if its so stupid and its so bad, why do you fear it so much you are ready to use totalitarian and tyrannical methods (eg COINTELPRO) to suppress it? Surely, if communism is dictatorship then capitalism must be democracy? So how can a democracy be undemocratic? Or is it so that your strawman description of communism is only made to hide the fact that capitalistic systems also have totalitarian and tyrannical tendencies and to ascribe such a broad term to a whole ideology or mode of production is an exercise in stupidity at best?  

Comunisms goal is to have everyone do what they are best at for the good of the people as a whole.  It is a sytem based on the needs of the many and not the desires of individuals.  In an ideal communism people do everything they can and recieve everything they need.  This naturally clashes with the selfish American mindset that revolves around luxury and ease of living.

Surely, if communism is dictatorship then capitalism must be democracy?
only if you are a poorly educated wingnut willing to lump different things together at your convenience

>>19
>>20
same person.

>>19
"So if its so stupid and its so bad, why do you fear it so much you are ready to use totalitarian and tyrannical methods (eg COINTELPRO) to suppress it?"

We fear communism because it causes sufferring and wish to suppress it for the same reason.

>>19
>"why do you fear it so much you are ready to use totalitarian and tyrannical methods to suppress it?"

First of all, you're arguing in the second person. That is to say, "I" don't fear communism.

Not even Americans, or the US Government (from what limited experience I have with it), fears communism enough to resort to such methods of eradication. The ends would not justify the means.

>"Surely, if communism is dictatorship then capitalism must be democracy?"

Wrong - this was never implied. Even if it had been, all one would need to do is look at the most basic emperical evidence to refute it, so what would have been the point?

>"So how can a democracy be undemocratic?"

What the fuck are you talking about? I suppose an answer to your question here wouls be through corruption. However, the question itself makes no since in that context.

>"Or is it so that your strawman description of communism..."

The comment to which you are referring is not a description of communism, nor is it in the least bit fallacious.

>"...capitalistic systems also have totalitarian and tyrannical tendencies..."

Some do, but it's never inherent in the ideology, contrast that with communism.

>"to ascribe such a broad term to a whole ideology or mode of production is an exercise in stupidity at best"

No, it's the exact opposite; because they linked via the nature of humanity itself.

You fail - if you're going to put fourth an argument at least try to be semi-coherent. Don't spew out a serries of questions and expect them to be taken as literal argument.

>>20
Yes, but that is not what happens. When a communistic state is in power the system degenerates into totalitarianism because of what I'd said earlier ("no one works more than they aboslutely have to to keep profiting from the system"). And then, the only way to keep the state itself afloat is through totalitarianism and/or the establishment of a dictatorship.

>>23

good point.  democratic capitalism doesn't produce any suffering... nor will it ever... it's the perfect system

>>24
"Not even Americans, or the US Government (from what limited experience I have with it), fears communism enough to resort to such methods of eradication. The ends would not justify the means."
Read a book. Or at least read about the COINTELPRO. Then come back. You are obviously delusional about US internal policies. Or wait, did you just say that a secret police infiltrating and assassinating arbitrary political groups is not a totalitarian method? Then read moar about the Stasi and KGB.

"The comment to which you are referring is not a description of communism, nor is it in the least bit fallacious. [...] Some do, but it's never inherent in the ideology, contrast that with communism."
"
The description of communism that it has totalitarianism inherent in its ideology is factually wrong, so it is fallacious. This idea is to my experience put forward by people who knows nothing about communistic ideology but who instead uses a couple of countries as proof. Well, if thats enough for communism to be inherently evul then i guess nazi germany should be enough for representative democracy, no? See the absurdity and the fallaciousness yet?

The rest is just rantings and flamebait, and i guess you fail for needing to resort to it. But dont be put of by political debates, just read moar and come back when your penis has a beard.

>>25
democratic capitalism can't stay capitalist forever.

>>25
No. Communism actually causes sufferring by allowing tyrants to get into power.

Capitalism just fails to prevent some sufferring that is inherant to our existence, whilst advancing technology and producing an efficient economic system which stops most sufferring.

>>28
correct, planned economy just doesn't work. compare Cuba, or Belarus (planned economy) to China (moving closer and closer to capitalism)

>>29
or best of all, NK.

  Right now. since they have no power here, they are content with telling you how stupid you are for not accepting their forward thinking ideas for a better world. If they gain any power they will quickly lose patience with your conservative attitude and schedule you for a long train ride. Those of you being called stupid now will be the first to go.
  The proof of the pudding.

>>26
but is it not inherent in communism to have a dictatorship of the proletariat?

>>32
This dictatorship of the proletariat can mean that the power shall be moved from the upper class to the lower class, that is, we are living in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie at present and in the interim between the end of the revolution and the onset of communism we will live in the dictatorship of the proletariat. Its not a goal in communism, as little as bombing civilians and building secret illegal concentration camps is inherent in capitalism.

>>33
Illogical. You cannot have a dictatorship of the proletariat as dictators are upper class. You would just get a situation like in George Orwell's animal farm where some of the freed proletariats in charge of the revolutionary army start to act like tyrants.

I live in the former soviet union (the country is part of the EU now, though), and hearing uneducated nincompoops fantasizing about colossal economic planning and a monster state makes me shudder, because I've seen that in my lifetime. please educate yourselves and stop regurgitating stupid propaganda

>>34
No, dictators does not have to be upper class, or as we commies define call it, capitalists or part of the bourgeoisie class. And illogical is not the same as improbable. There is nothing illogical with saying that a dictatorship of the proletariat will follow the dictatorship of the upper class. Dont you have any real arguments? And what you say is that revolutions should only be done by the elite because stupid proles will only start to act as totalitarian pricks? It has been some time since ive last read animal farm but that is a moral that eluded me. 

>>35
Im from poland and im still a commie, esp since its now illegal to be a commie there. The soviet union is not an argument against either socialism, radical social change, progressiveness, communism or state controlled health care. Because if it was, then US genocide and slavery and concentration camps and terror bombings of civilians and torture schools and dictator backing etc would be arguments against liberalism and libertarianism. Its either or, you dumb fucks.

>>36
Wrong. If dictators have that kind of power they either abuse it or lose it. It's human nature. Stalin was a communist, he studied marx and lenin and participated in the fight against evil capitalists and he was a real angel wasn't he, because he had the label "communist".

>>37
the soviet union experience is an argument against state planning as a sustainable economic model (regulated competition has proven itself again and again), and it is an argument against collectivism. the rest of your post is just US bashing, and I fail to see how that is relevant, as it's not the only liberal  democracy in the world. troll better.

>>37
and you being from Poland kind of… I know it is prejudiced, but your arguments fit too well with what I would expect from an uneducated addle brained Polish "communist". sorry.

>>35
>>39
>>40
same person (me)

I never consider Stalin as a communist, I thought him more as a National Socialist.

>>42
how convenient… maybe if you had received any education, you would know that the soviet union never was a communist state, just  socialist and totalitarian, and that nazis were socialists too. imagine that.

>>40
pretty fucking sad, considering that Lech Walesa was Polish :-(

>>26

I'm not going to transform this debate into a flame war, nor was that my original intention.

"Read a book. Or at least read about the COINTELPRO. Then come back. You are obviously delusional about US internal policies."

As I recall this thread was about communism. I never said the US hasn't used totalitarian methods in the past, just that such methods weren't used to to eliminate communism. However, after reading this: http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIa.htm I can see you were correct, because of that incident. And, in my opinion, the ends did not justify the means.

"This idea is to my experience put forward by people who knows nothing about communistic ideology but who instead uses a couple of countries as proof."

Not just a few countries - The former USSR, Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam... nearly everywhere a communistic state is implemented.

Your "example" is flawed because Nazi Germany was only one in many, and even then was not a democracy.

"The rest is just rantings and flamebait, and i guess you fail for needing to resort to it."

No, the rest was not. I suppose some of it could be reguarded as such, but that's no reason to disreguard the arguments outright.

>>43
This discussion is old. But for the last time, the nazis called themself socialist so they could win more votes. Nazi is an abbreviation of nationalist in german (its pronounced NaZionalist, socialists were and are called sozis). This is just one of the many strawmen idiots who have weak arguments use, when somebody says Nazis=Commies, that is an automatic fail.

>>45
Well, one who reads, ill be darned. Ok, COINTELPRO is not a onetime occasion or a deviation from the mean, it was the practice of all western democracies (even sweden had a secret organ blacklisting communist so they couldnt get work). Many of those shadowy orgs have not been dismantled but are instead used to hunt terrorists (=undesirables like political oponents) today. If the countries you listed are indicative of how communism works in practice then why are not these KGB-wannabes that? The outnumber the commies by far!
Nazi Germany was a democracy when Hitler got power, its stopped being a democracy shortly thereafter. But Hitler was spawned in a western enlightened capitalist democracy, theres no way around that.
But my argument stands. If the Soviet union and the rest of the commie states are to be examples of communism in action then the bombing of 100000 civilians in Hiroshima and the genocide on indians are examples of the liberty of capitalism! 

But for the last time, the nazis called themself socialist so they could win more votes.
no, no, no, and no. you have absolutely no grasp of the German history, of the German thinkers in the early 20th century, of the German conjecture at that time, and what you're saying is patently idiotic.

>>46
Germany practically invented Socialism

then the bombing of 100000 civilians in Hiroshima and the genocide on indians are examples of the liberty of capitalism!
thanks for your brilliant contribution in Troll Logic. I hereby welcome you to submit to lower standards of life and forfeit your economic freedom.

Compare North Korea to South Korea, and get back to us.

Of special interest are nighttime pictures of the Korean peninsula from space.  There are bright lights from cities and towns all the way up to the DMZ, and there they stop, all the way up to the Yalu River.

lol yes

This is how the conversation is going. Bear in mind everyone here is anonymous and don't know who writes different messages.

Point A.
Capitalist: Communism is oppressive. People want economic freedom.
Communist: With economic freedom comes power, but rich people have too much power.
Point B.
CapiTROLList: NIGGERS!!!!!11
Communist: Aha! You see capitalists are stupid, stupid capitalists.
Capitalist: I fail to see the merit of your argument sir, why should these liberties be restricted?
CommuTARD: SUCK MY COCK FAG
Capitalist: Indeed. Your lack of intelligence denotes the merits of your argument.
Communism: What are you talking about, stop putting words in my mouth.
Conversation returns to point B and repeats until the thread gets old and someone starts a new thread.

>>47
>>48
Ok, so you twos believe that everything that inspired the National Socialist German Workers' Party is to be considered nazism? Shopenhauer, Wagner and Aesir mythology too? Because agianst such a position i cant argue. I can only say that the NSDAP did not call themselves socialist from the beginning, it was a simple nationalistic fascist sect. I cant find a specific source at the moment but you can stard reading this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_German_Workers_Party
But it is true that a lot of germans were and are socialist, and that it is in this corner of the world where Marx was active. So?

>>49
>>50
Ok, so when you use the Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy thats sound logic argumentation but when i try to prove the fallacy of that claim im a troll? Or is it just hiroshima and indians that are trolling? Ok, fuck them then. If the Soviet union are to be seen as an example of communism in action then the US coup in chile, the crushing of the democracy in Guatemala, the medical experimenting whitout consent on  afroamericans, the drugrunning and armrunning operation with iran etc ad nauseam are capitalism in action. Either or. And specific comparisons between N and S Korea wont fly, especially since S Korea was a brutal (capitalist) dictatorship up till 1988. I say this, all countries that is capitalist has used clandestine political oppression. Is this indicative for capitalism? 

>>52 is made of pure win and gold and kitty farts

Ok, so you twos believe that everything that inspired the National Socialist German Workers' Party is to be considered nazism? Shopenhauer, Wagner and Aesir mythology too?
wtf is this faggot straw-man!
If the Soviet union are to be seen as an example of communism in action
hello, it was just pointed out to you that soviet union was not and did not claim to be a communist state, but instead they were in the transitional stage called socialism. your repetitive trolling with already rebuked arguments will prove nothing.

>>53
you are a commendable troll if you are indeed trolling. on the other hand, if you're being serious, it's actually fatiguing just to think about your mental condition (utter confusion)

>>55
>>56
My point is that its hard to discuss the merits and flaws of communism when people troll with the soviet sux or hitler was a commie too argument. What i have tried to point out is that if these indeed are flaws of communism then whatever malicious act ever done under the flag of capitalism must be flaws of same mode of production. I believe that is absurd and therefore do i believe that the soviet union and nazi germany are weak arguments against communism and socialism. If you have anything to add please do, otherwise gtfo dumbass. 

>>57
how about you yourself gtfo and get an education, and stop making idiotic analogies. the western democracies have made mistakes, but generally they've succeeded to provide liberty and support high standards of living, whereas every planned economy has failed to do that. even the frigging "communist" china has embraced globalisation and capitalism. you are an idiot parroting stupid delusional propaganda.

>>57
hi, before being galvanized by >>58 into ranting about your "points", please familiarize yourself with sophisticated western political thought, and then think about why you are a fucking peon

>>57 My point is that its hard to discuss the merits and flaws of communism

Merits?  oh lol.  What merits, unless you are Stalin or one of his henchmen?

How 'bout discussing the merits of Naziism too?  It was a great system to live under, if you were one of the people with the Party cards and the badges and the guns, AMIRITE?

liberal democracy is the american system, therefore liberal democracy is the only system with any merits

also, soviet communism is the only possible implementation of communism

>>61
>>62
same person

>>63
captain obvious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CIOSkrfRC4&mode=related&search=

>>58
Planned economies succeded in industrilizing agricultural societies faster than thought possible. Both Russia and China is better of than shitpoor african countries that embraced western democratic loans and reforms. Planned economies has also succeded in erasing homelesness, starvation, analfabetism etc. Has any western democracy succeded in this? And why are you debating in thread called communism if you are not prepared to discuss communism? That seems retarded to me.
So, when western democracies fail that is labeled as mistakes while communist countries are failures by nature. Western democracies have been a LOT more imperialistic (intervention, couping, seling arms to insurgents etc) than communist countries which has tended so far to be quite isolationistic (and yes i know about afghanistan and tibet, thats two and to that i say algeria, vietnam, chile and ... afghanistan. and im couting post ww2 for brevity). It is or have been shitty to live in the US if you are a commie, a member of the socialist workers union, any black activist group (yeah, martin luther king included), christian organisations with a to radical antipoverty rethoric,   antiwar student organisation etc. This is called political opression and its staple not mistake. 

>>65
um yeah  except with communism its shitty because marx explicity stated the need to stamp out all opposition to the glorious revolution so any organization that isnt "communist" enough get sent to ze gulag, just ask the anarchist or the menshiviks they sure weren't left enough

>>66

kind of like how america tried to stamp out all communist movements within the united states?

and kind of like how america declaired war on countries that elected communist governments?

edit: declared

Maybe it wasn't so bad in Russia, but even without the starvation, it still wouldn't be worth it to live in China

Tortured to death for practicing a certain religion

Death penalty for fraud

No freedom of speech

No freedom of press

Controlled travel (almost impossible to get out if you're a writer)

Forced abortions

The list goes on

>>67
and kind of like how america declaired war on countries that elected communist governments?

um when was this? and dont say south vietnam cause i dont think the US ever declared war on NV

>>65
When western democracies fail it is because they are democracies, but when communism fails it is because they are not communist enough?

Don't accuse us of double standards, we've never denied that democracy is flawed and doesn't eliminate all corruption and crime everywhere all the time. What it does do is ensure you don't get executed or brutalised for speaking out against the government, which is more than can be said for any communism.

>>70
you're right.  "declared war" was a poor choice of words

>>71
Failure is given by the fact that its a human controlled system. All systems have a probability of failure. I dont think you can claim with statistic certainty that communism fails more than democracy, if you have an objective scale and not something that gives either system an edge.
And people have been brutalised and executed for not agreeing with the government in democracies, it has happen a lot of times.
And one last bit about the nazi=socialism discussion, almost all countries claim that they are democratic and have words like democratic or republic in their names. Since nazism is socialist since it has socialism in its name, does this mean that almost all people in the world are free?

>>72
May I suggest "fucked with"?

>>73
"Failure is given by the fact that its a human controlled system. All systems have a probability of failure."
No ship sherlock, that's what people in this thread have been discussing since it started. If you are going to re-define the obvious, I will redefine my arguments in the same language.

Contrary to your fantasy world, democracy and communism are both human controlled systems and therefore are under the effects of both the evil and stupidity of humans. Niether are perfect (how many times do I have to say this?) yet evil and stupidity decrease in correlation to how democratic a country is, not how communist a country is. This is why...

The humans in charge of democracy are the people and the representatives they vote in all are held together by human rights which give people an easy guide to see how to prevent tyrants from getting into power. The representatives are sometimes corrupt, but regardless democracy reduces corruption considerably by putting it in law and propoganda that citizens are permitted to criticise their representatives.

According to marx a "dictatorship of the proletariat" must first be formed to begin the transit to communism who are supposed to represent the proletariat's communist interests. This never happens. The dictatorship of the proletariat is permitted to ignore or kill critics and it isn't long before the proletariats themselves are labelled spies and ignored/killed. The only way to implement communism would be to form a democracy and then prove to the people that communism is an efficient government through rational debate. This way the right to criticise people in positions of power is never affected during the transition, preventing tyranny which would make the transition go backwards through marx's stages from the capitalist stage back to the despotic stage.

>>74
"Contrary to your fantasy world, democracy and communism are both human controlled systems and therefore are under the effects of both the evil and stupidity of humans. Niether are perfect (how many times do I have to say this?) yet evil and stupidity decrease in correlation to how democratic a country is, not how communist a country is."
So how do you you define how democratic a country is? The scale is subjective, eg i for one would say that a country like Sweden is more democratic than the US since it has an higher election participation level while a market liberal would say vice versa because of the tax levels of sweden. Evil and stupidity seems to be more abound in the US though. I have no idea how a country can be more or less communist, maybe you mean socialist? I have no way od deducing the validity of your claim that stupidity and evil does not decrease with increased levels of communism or socialism.

"The humans in charge of democracy are the people and the representatives they vote in all are held together by human rights which give people an easy guide to see how to prevent tyrants from getting into power. The representatives are sometimes corrupt, but regardless democracy reduces corruption considerably by putting it in law and propoganda that citizens are permitted to criticise their representatives."
I know this is the theory and i feel that totalitarian countries often have high levels of corruption (there are exceptions i believe). Rights and democracy does nothing to curb imperialism, which is the greatest evil this globe has seen. Domestic harmony means nothing if your countrys bombs are being dropped on children. With that i mean that i accept that democracy is a good tool to curb tyranny, but that it does not solve more basic problems. But i never meant to mean that communist societies cant be democratic, i actually believe it is a prerequisite.
Marx wrote i bit more than about the dictatorship of the proletariat. I suggest you read it. 

>>75
IS that your answer to everything? "WAAH THAT'S JUST YOUR OPINION, YOU'RE BEING SUBJECTIVE".

If differences are too small to judge objectively, then you can call it subjective. But there is a pretty big difference between a country with institutional total control over the media and a country with an extensive and free press. The dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to have complete control over everything to suppress evil capitalists, but this just places too much power in the hands of a few humans. No matter how righteous you think a person is, they always suprise you when given power without criticism and personal consequence.

Democracy doesn't prevent imperialism from happenning everywhere all the time, but it does allow people in a country to criticise their leader's foreign policy, which is more than can be said for tyranny. If you are so eager to stop imperialism why do you support a dictatorship? Communism's version of imperialism is naziesque occupation, which is one standard deviation more evil than allying with a tyrant or selling weapons to guerillas.


As for Marx I have a little rule... There are 10000s of books out there and only one life time to put my attention to them, learn something and put that knowledge to good use. Thus whenever I am reading something and come across something profoundly stupid without even a single hint that I should stay with the author and read further to understand the point in it's entirety, I just stop reading. There is no point in wasting my time. If the author cannot recognise legitimate doubts in his reader's mind then he must be an extremist.

Maybe one day I will come across a book by a social democrat which has some rational practical means to make the world a better place who is not afraid of self-criticism unlike every other socialist/communist/anarchist ranting paranoid extremist.

>>76
"But there is a pretty big difference between a country with institutional total control over the media and a country with an extensive and free press."
No, even that is a problem, eg i would say that Sweden has a more free media since it HAS a stateowned television and radio station. Media whitout profit interests are more unbiased media than those with profit interests. I dont mean to say that the soviet union was a democracy and that it is all about how you judge things, im a staunch anti stalinist. What i am saying is that you over simplify if you judge democracy or rather capitalism against soviet style totalitarianism.
As concerning the dictatorship of the proletariat, lets say i agree, that is a stupid idea and post revolution there shall be council communism instead (direct democracy). It is still communism. Does direct democracy place to much power in the hands of to few humans?

"Communism's version of imperialism is naziesque occupation, which is one standard deviation more evil than allying with a tyrant or selling weapons to guerillas."
Have you been to abu ghraib? If that is not naziesque then i dont know what is. And the anti war demonstrations and the critique of the foreign policy did not stop the iraq war from happening, it was the largest and loudest protest this world has ever seen yet it didnt stop anything. There are ignored protestors in communist china also, the point of a democracy is not that one has the freedom to demonstrate but that policy can actually be changed through popular opinion. And a lot of democracies fail hard in this regard.

"As for Marx I have a little rule..."
The well documented difference between the leftist and the rightist intellectual. Leftist intellectuals actually reads the opponents canon, while rightist intellectuals are so few that they hardly exist.

>>77
When you offer such obvious stupidities it negates your entire arguement. (Abu Ghraib, largest demonstration).

>>77
I don't believe that council communism has anything to do with direct democracy. Council communism is organised into exclusive divisions whilst direct democracy is universal and national.

There are Abu Ghraibs all over China and yet they all get less than 1% of the same press the incidents in Abu Ghraib did. Like I've said 50 times already democracy doesn't prevent all crime and corruption.

I'm not an intellectual, I'm a scientist. Reading the communist manifesto to learn more about socio-economics is like reading the bible to learn more about plate tectonics.

>>79
"I don't believe that council communism has anything to do with direct democracy. Council communism is organised into exclusive divisions whilst direct democracy is universal and national."
Huh? I dont get what you mean, that council communism has NOTHING to do with direct democracy. Universal AND national? Seems oxymoronic to me. All democracy is divisional, i cant vote in american elections and you cant vote in us elections. I cant vote in the parliament or in a board of directors, are these not democratic because they are not universal?

"There are Abu Ghraibs all over China..."
We were talking about imperialism and naziesque occupation. China is a totalitarian state, i dont deny this. But what you seem to say that if the US only had one Auschwitz that would be ok since Nazi Germany had many, and that this Auschwitz would just be a mistake than a systematic procedure. Well, i think this line of reasoning is absurd by obvious reasons.

"I'm not an intellectual, I'm a scientist."
Im a scientist too (physical geography and environmental science). I find communisms materialism sound, its rationality comforting and its humanity strengthening. You should not read the communist manifesto if you want to learn Marxian theory since its just a political pamphlet for a specific time and place (eg it demands the invention of cheap public transportation). Capital or his earlier writings are better if you want to penetrate his theories, which can be quite complex. As an empirical scientist Marx is comparable to Darwin in the sense that it is based on a data collecting period of 12 years, and that should be reason alone for a person interested in the history of ideas and the development of modern science, and he has influenced a lot of different disciplines. Scientists biased by their political ideology is always a sad sight though...   

so what have we learned form this thread, well communism and democracy don't work, nor dose fascism so i guess its back to anarchy

Communism IS horrible.
You must have slept in the history class if you don't know why.
Communists are murderers and they hate freedom.
Their goal is world domination and it has to be achieved by a world revolution which means that everybody who doesn't like this BS has to be murdered.
It just doesn't work if not all mankind give up on being humans.
I don't know about you, but I like my freedom to think and say what I want.
Also they want the dictatorship of the proletariat aka the dictatorship of the dumb.
The working class consists of people who failed at school.
Our society works like this: if you learn much at school and study in an university you get a well paid job but if you fail you get a shitty job.
So all the people who failed at education and know shit about pretty much anything shall rule the world? Yeah, right..
Look at how communism started in Russia, China or any other commie country in the world:
Some asshole told a bunch of farmers a lot of lies about wealth and power and they were like "You're right, I don't want to work! I want to be as rich as the land owner!".
Same goes for the factory workers.
Because they were promised a good life, they did what the commie cocksucker told them and killed their superiors.
Now, if you don't think that this is something bad you gotta be a complete dick.
If those guys weren't illiterate fucks, they would have known that a prestigious economists proved that planned economy doesn't work.
Well, they didn't and so many of them straved to death.
Serves them right, those murderous bastards.
All commies say that there were no real communist countries and those who claimed to be didn't represent real communism but this is BS.
It's like a religion: They ignore science and facts.
Instead of reading lies about capitalism in commie propaganda flyers they rather should read some serious books on economy.

>>82
please tell me this sarcastic

>>80
Note the distinction between direct democracy and representative democracy. Then you should understand my argument. I'm not sure what you mean by

"All democracy is divisional, i cant vote in american elections and you cant vote in us elections."..

Do you mean that we can't vote because we are from different countries?


Auschwitz doesn't compare to the worst even China has to offer let alone Abu Ghraib. At least in Abu Ghraib the people imprisonned were fully grown men who were related to the insurgency. In Auschwitz not even the children were spared. In fact some would find what you have said to be deeply offensive, I don't particularly care because this is 4chan, but you should know better supposedly being a bleeding heart liberal.


I still think my original reason for not paying him any attention is sound. He said

"liberty is the liberty to exploit the proletariat"

as if liberty is somehow harmful which it is now and backed up his malice with several quotes that I have come across. If he said

"liberty prevents the oppression of the proletariat, but does not prevent the exploitation of the proletariat"

I would have read the communist manifesto years ago. He seems obsessed with the idea that liberty is just an trick by evil capitalists when it isn't. It is not. This belief invalidates this man as a "genius", marxism's humanity and marx's rationality.

"Scientists biased by their political ideology is always a sad sight though..."
What political ideology would that be?

Learn about Communism - also known as Church of Faggotry - the american way: With a comic book!

http://www.authentichistory.com/images/1960s/treasure_chest/cover_01.html

>>82
sup McCarthy.

>>82
go back to bed, McCarthy.

>>84
Yes. I meant: "All democracy is divisional, i cant vote in american elections and you cant vote in swedish elections." Sorry, must've been drunk when i wrote that. But i understand now what you mean. In any case, do you you agree that council communism at least in theory is democratic, and that therefore communism is not an opposite of democracy?

"Auschwitz doesn't compare to the worst even China has to offer let alone Abu Ghraib."
I never said it did. What i meant was that you seemed to imply that abu ghraib was not a problem since china had several abu ghraibs and i tried to prove the absurdity of such a claim by st ating that one auschwitz is bad enough, regardless of why it is in existence.
And btw, there at least has been children incarcerated in both abu ghraib and guantanamo and god knows about the rest of the camps.

"I still think my original reason for not paying [Marx] any attention is sound."
He argues for the view of how the liberty as proposed by the liberals of his time was empty of any social changing potential. I haven't read those arguments so i cant say how good they are, but i can at least say that it is founded on more than just hatred towards some ideology. But i can at least agree in principle that any ideology that is liked by the ruling class is something the working class should be highly suspicious about.
And, if Darwin would have thought that white men were inferior to native Americans, would that mean that there were no use in reading "On the Origin of Species"? And should one not read about Jean-Baptiste Lamarcks theories because they have been proven wrong?

"What political ideology would that be?"
Anti-Communism. Popular in the US and among far right wingers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Communism 

>>88
Communism "can" be democratic if you put it under a democratic system, but not everyone believes creating heaven on earth is that simple or even possible and you can't force people to live in orwellian communes where leadership, families and personal property is seen as evil otherwise you'd just end up like the Taliban.

Abu Ghraib doesn't match to Auschwitz. It just doesn't. Stop trying to mix up prisons where violence got out of hand and mass genocide. Also you need proof before you can justify believing in things, I never approved of the crimes committed in Abu Ghraib. No matter how much you blow crimes committed in democracy out of proportion they will never match the crimes committed by communists.

If you can explain to me why in principle the working class should be suspicious of an idea purely because some members of ruling class approve of it (did the ruling class of France circa 1750 approve of liberty?) I will read all of Marx's works cover to cover. If a ruling class person once said "2+2=4", does it mean "2+2=5"? He didn't just criticise liberty, he attacked it.

I would tolerate Darwin's few and inconsequential incorrect ideas in favour of his good ideas, even Lamarck's errors are worthy of analysis to find his flaws in reasonning, however Marx's mistake is of such a magnitude of absurdity that it derails all of his works and makes inquiries into his possible psychological problems more fruitful than examining his reasonning.

“The practical application of the right of liberty is the right of private property… The right of property is, therefore, the right to enjoy one’s fortune and to dispose of it as one will; without regard for other men and independently of society. It is the right of self-interest. This individual liberty, and its application, form the basis of civil society. It leads every man to see in other men, not the realization but rather the limitation of his own liberty.”

Liberty
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.

I don't think it is very likely that Marx mixed up the term "property laws" with the idea of liberty. This mixing of definitions is typical of the propoganda I see which convinces people that dictatorship (of the "proletariat") is good and liberty is evil. What I don't understand is why people like you have been exposed to the fact that communism is just machiavellian populism still see reason to believe in it. I know faith is an admirable quality, but can't you put your faith in a proper religion like Christianity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Communism lists 6 types of anti-communism. Can you be more specific?
1 Conservative and traditionalist anti-communism
2 Fascist anti-communism
3 Nationalist anti-communism
4 Liberal and individualist anti-communism
5 Anarchist anti-communism
6 Socialist anti-communism

I like pineapples.

>>89
"Communism "can" be democratic if you put it under a democratic system, but not everyone believes creating heaven on earth is that simple or even possible and you can't force people to live in orwellian communes where leadership, families and personal property is seen as evil otherwise you'd just end up like the Taliban."
Ok I admit, when communism tries to force itself on others it's just acting like a religion. In fact my superiors hate democracy for this very reason, they just can't win any arguments in rational debate.

"Abu Ghraib doesn't match to Auschwitz. It just doesn't. Stop trying to mix up prisons where violence got out of hand and mass genocide. Also you need proof before you can justify believing in things, I never approved of the crimes committed in Abu Ghraib. No matter how much you blow crimes committed in democracy out of proportion they will never match the crimes committed by communists."
I agree, democracy is certainly better than tyranny. Communism claims it can eliminate all crime and make the world heaven on earth and I keep on comparing this ludicrous idea with the fact that democracy doesn't eliminate all crime all the time like you admitted.

"If you can explain to me why in principle the working class should be suspicious of an idea purely because some members of ruling class approve of it (did the ruling class of France circa 1750 approve of liberty?) I will read all of Marx's works cover to cover. If a ruling class person once said "2+2=4", does it mean "2+2=5"? He didn't just criticise liberty, he attacked it."
I can't. I was attempting to justify ignorance, but even you cannot deny that people aren't always logical, they do deserve blame though.

"I would tolerate Darwin's few and inconsequential incorrect ideas in favour of his good ideas, even Lamarck's errors are worthy of analysis to find his flaws in reasonning, however Marx's mistake is of such a magnitude of absurdity that it derails all of his works and makes inquiries into his possible psychological problems more fruitful than examining his reasonning."
You don't have to read marx if you don't want to. It's 100s of years old and yeah, if he had any ideas they were far and few between and picked up by now. I don't think he came up with anything new.

"I don't think it is very likely that Marx mixed up the term "property laws" with the idea of liberty. This mixing of definitions is typical of the propoganda I see which convinces people that dictatorship (of the "proletariat") is good and liberty is evil. What I don't understand is why people like you have been exposed to the fact that communism is just machiavellian populism still see reason to believe in it. I know faith is an admirable quality, but can't you put your faith in a proper religion like Christianity?"
At first I thought you didn't realise marx was being specific and clearly meant liberty as in property laws, but now I realise the amount of volume he put in to property law pretty much saying the same thing as in that quote it is obvious he was trying to demonise liberty. I see the logical error now. Liberty is just about the elimination of tyranny, if this requires improving equality then you don't need communism to do that. If marx was a genius it was in breaking down democracy in the name of eliminating tyranny.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Communism lists 6 types of anti-communism. Can you be more specific?"
I admit I was demonising anti-communism earlier, I was being an extremist who thinks the world consists of us or them. There is more than one side to this story, not everyone who disagrees with communism is an evil capitalist with a top hat and monocole supping on a cuban cigar whilst dining in opulent splendour. What was I thinking??

I guess in a way I've already admitted to being an extremist, I'm too proud to admit it outright lol. It is rare to find someone who you think is more intelligent than you. Nice talking to you.

Jesus
This thread is made of two idiots.
The first one suffers form mental retardation and the other dude still tries to talk sanity into the communist moron.

(1st time in this thread)
>>92
Agreed. They don't seem to realize that 'communism' as a political system is different from communism as an economic system.

You could very easily, in a political system like in the US, have a system of taxation and welfare to implement a communist economy. Or, you could have what China and other Asian countries have done, and implement fascism with a "Marxist" sticker on it to attract common support.

>>93
I heard, during the cultural revolution, they convinced 100000s of peasants to force tapioca up their ass as a joke.

>>90


Pineapples are fucking awesome. This is Pineapple Thread now guys, fuck communism.

Indeed, fuck communism.

>>95
Can it be a tapioca thread too?

>>97
i thought tapioca was communist?

Like, 100,000,000 People died because of communism!!!!(fact)
Hitler only killed 6 million JEWZ FFS!!!

>>98
Not if it's sold by a capitalist.

>>99
are they in the tapioca?

I pour tapioca pearls into my tea.
Does this make me communist?
It cannot do.
For it makes me weeaboo.

Like, 100,000,000 People died because of communism!!!!</fact>

no.
first up, there haven't been any communist countries to do that killing (they weren't even so socialist either)
Second up, a lot of the deaths in that figure were due to famine.
Third: that number is way too big.

wikit

Communism is NOT good!

>>103
that number is way too low
stalin and mao killed together 150 millions
wikit faggot
communism will die out raising education standards in the world
enjoy your last days of oppression and murder

communism will die out *due to* raising education standards in the world

i also add that i hope you will die for your hatred towards humanity
inhuman doings can go without punishment

falun dafa and communists: both nuts, both need to calm down..... at least the Dalai Lama was tamed by having to flee overseas

hello?
anyone home?

>>103
Is that the 50th time someone has posted "COMMUNIST COUNTRIES WEREN'T COMMUNIST, THERE HAS NEVAR BEAN A TRUE COMMUNISM"?

Spoiler: There has never been a true anything.

Thus political ideologies should be judged by what their extremists do. You'll never hear of a libertarian extremist supporting execution without trial or government control over the free press, thus if a country is ruled by libertarian extremists no tyranny can take over. However you hear shrieks of happiness from communists when tyrants like Chavez are given the power to rule by decree.

Go figure.

>>109
no tyranny but the corporate one.


spoilers: there can be tyrannies no matter what the ideology.

>>110
"There has never been a true anything." directly implies "there can be tyrannies no matter what the ideology.", why did you think I didn't know that? Are you really incapable of thinking beyond the words in that copy of the communist manifesto rammed up your rectum?

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Come on think! Think!! You can do it!

>>111

but you were mxiign things up in your post, first stating how no tyranny would happen under libertarianism, and then how it is happening under communism. Which of course is true since one is theoretical and the other is attempted to be practiced. Then you say i'm a retard for pointing out that it would be possible to have a sort of tyranny under libertarianism? you should just relax a bit, if you don't like people adding to/correcting what you write, maybe you should be a bit more clear and specific.

ps. i'm not a communist. 

>>112
Well your idea of tyranny is someone owning a lot of money so I was putting it into context.

In the first instance I was talking about institutionalised tyranny. Where the govenrmetn controls the press and kills anyone who disagrees with it.

In the second instance I was referring to traces of tyranny as in the fact that not all crime and corruption in a democracy is eliminated.

My post was completely specific, it is just that extremists get so psychotically angry they fill their pants and feel the need to nitpick. Like you.