Commutards

Commutards like to say "OH BUT STALIN WASN'T A REAL COMMUNIST LOL". Yeah, ok, he didn't implement communism. Want to know why? Because the communists did fuck all to stop him. Had he been part of the american revolution he would have had no more power than any of the other founding fathers. The founding fathers were not perfect, our revolutionaries owned slaves and were involved in some dubious war crimes, but the libertarians never let anyone even consider becomming absolute tyrant. Far worse, the communists let Stalin enslave everyone, who wasn't a communist party member of course.

Did you just hear what I said? I know the founding fathers were not perfect, owned slaves and committed crime, yet I still have faith in democracy. You see the whole point of democracy is criticism, while you are apologetic and desperately make exuses for the horrors of communism I admit democracy's faults and thus take the first step to actually solving the problems criticised. Please, go ahead, criticise democracy. Just remember, you won't be executed by the government and your criticism of democracy only causes you to participate in it. Essentially the only way to damage democracy apart from physically and completely destroying it is to keep your mouth shut.

"Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time."
Winston Churchill

You will never implement communism, it isn't an original idea, it is not a science, it does not cover anything fundamental in human society, it is just another populist ruse which, conveniently for some, ignores the nature of tyranny. Communists say anyone who doesn't support them but who claims to help the proletariat is a reactionary, I say the world is more complicated than the abstract over simplified marxist view of the world and most opposing political movements are in fact doing more to help the proletariat than communists ever will. I say this "us and them" mentality, this belief in the infallibility of communism wreaks of extremism and is more of an attempt to control people than to help them. I say that it is the communists who are the true reactionaries!

Even if communism is the best form of government that creates a utopia where everyone is happy, if a democracy were to attempt to achieve this they would experience 1000s of problems that marx could have never predicted and the finnished product would be nothing like the utopia he envisaged. This won't happen however, no nation is going to follow the path to communism now, nations like Cuba and North Korea are clearly just tyrannies using the idealism like a cult-religion, they'll never get anywhere until they embrace libertarian principles. Also no, I'm not an ignorant reactionary for not trusting a group of people who tell me a dictatorship of the "proletariat" is going to make the world a better place. I want to eliminate poverty and profiteering as much as any sane person. I'm aware that rich factory owners attempt to pay the lowest wages possible and that playboys who inherit millions from their parents have a better send off than people born to single mothers in the projects. I merely realise that being a ranting naive idiot isn't the best way to solve such problems.

democracy is a way of deciding who is in control, it doesn't have much to do with founding fathers or communism or (classical) liberalism.
but whatever, you're right, communism is an utopian idea, ie. not really possible to do, and if you ask most people if they would liek to do it they'd say no. it was a historical reaction to an ideal-opposite, laissez-faire, neither of them really exist anywhere because both proved to suck, and alot of things, ideas, theories, ideologies, have been made up since then, leaving laissez-faire liberalism and communism as the sort of backwater ideologies, i'd call the people who believe in them the fundies of ideologies. 

and there is quite a distinction betweendemocracy and communism, communism is mainly an idea of a distribution of wealth, which then leads to the removal of a state, thus it would be unnecessary to have anyone running things, thus no need for democracy. democracy is a way of governing like oligarchy, aristocracy and tyranni. it would be possible to have an oligarchic laissex-faire liberal state, thomas more said in utopia that the best state would be one where there was a single supreme ruler, and, well, we sorta disagree with him today, despite whatever ideas we may have on the distribution of wealth.

gag

>>1
>>2
No person can remain a communist after reading this.

>>4
Wait, let me check... nope, I'm still a communist.

Commies suck. I mean Communism FAILED EPIC! More people died because of Communism then they ever did from the Jooz being gassed at Auschwitz and we all know that that was a big event in comparison.  I mean 6 million to what, 40-50 million in communist Russa; HOH YEAH!

>>1
Communists did this and that, oh yeah? It's not like capitalists didn't do this and that too but I don't see anyone whining on them.

Can't say I like democracy either, because I've the most idiot reasons to vote such as "we've had the same government for several years now, it's time for a change". What do you think this is, dinner?!
When a system allowes idiot like that to decide how our country should be run, I don't like that system.

I’m a communist, but I do not wish to implement communism, I just want people to learn of it’s ideas and perhaps live more like them because those ideas are good for people and society. I don’t know what Marx you’ve read but I can’t agree he has an over simplified view of the world, not more than any other human.
You’re just looking at what the so called leaders of communism did in the past. Not even I agree with them. I believe in my own ideals with the basis that every human has an equal value, and when I looked around I saw there was a name for my belief. I call myself a communist but I bet there are others out there who does that too but would disagree with me.

Every ideology would face problems, so what? The idea of communism sounds like an utopia sure, but communism never promises an utopia so complaining about that communism wont lead to an utopia is just dumb.
The rest of your statement is just speculations which could or could not be true but can’t be proven.

>>6
Do you have any idea of how many that died by the capitalist government before the communist one in Russia? Let me just say that it wasn’t a big change for the Russians in that department when the governments switched.

And yet again I'd have to remind you that Communism, the ideology that opposes violence would probably not kill anyone. So the people that did the killings where in my opinion not communists and the ideology that was practiced in Sovjet was an abomination of what I would call communism.

>>5

A poseur communist who doesn't know shit about living in a communist country.

>>9
Never said I did. Do I have to?

>>9
Poseur capitalist who doesn't know shit about working in a capitalist country.

>>7
Capitalism is an economic system, it needs laws to keep it running at a certain level of completeness. Just like communism if you worship an economic system and ignore political reality you will soon discover that no social class is the epitome of moral rightseousness marx makes the proletariat out to be.

Better rule by idiots than rule by psychopathic machiavellian tyrants. Especially if those idiots are libertarian because then they don't force any stupid ideas on you and will most likely shoot anyone who tries even if it doesn't directly affect them.

Fair enough, it is logical to support individual ideas and discuss their merits instead of one huge mass of them altogether. That is one problem with most communists you lack. However you will find that over time democracy only adopts the good ideas and discards the ridiculous ideas. As a result the only true communists left are the the ones that support the silly ideas democracy never adopted. Even if marx was right about how society is geared to please the ruling classes and social engineering is needed to correct it, people will still want to own property, raise their children, worship god and live in homes as opposed to sharing everything in atheist communes and having your kids sent to commune boarding schools. People should have the choice to do this of course.

I made it clear every ideology has problems, just that some have more than others. This is an old idea as evidenced by Churchill's quote. You could say you are a democracy supporter who believes pure communism is a superior economic system, but I guarantee you if you respond to criticism as a democratic-communist you will be converted to at least a social-democrat before the year is out. There is no road from capitalism to communism, the world is much more complicated than that. Economies change constantly, if not due to technological growth, then due to resource depletion, environmental change and even fashion. You heard me, economies are so unpredictable that even personal taste can send it a completely different course. Pure capitalism and communism is much too abstract to be worth anything, it would become obviously pretty quickly that small changes would make an enormous difference and there is also the huge factor of politics which can mean the difference between tyranny and democracy.

Essentially pure capitalism is equal to pure communism. The real issue is whether you want tyranny or democracy. This means you should becomea libertarian now.

>>5
Maybe you didn't read all the way through.

>>11
If you want to know what it is like to work in a capitalist country, send an e-mail to the london school of economics.

Why do people still believe in some bullshit written by an idiot who didn't know shit about economy?
It's nothing more than a failed philosophy or rather 'religion'.
Is it because they actually want to suffer?

>>14
Actually, Marx's ideas were economics, he just viewed economics differently than we do today, and economics, not being a natural science or really empirically testable, is open to interpretation however one wants.

>>15
Um.. You have a pretty warped view of empiricism and rationalism.

Wiithout communist soviet union, no democracy in europe. Its that simple. If the threat of revolutionary violence wouldnt have loomed over the establishment theyd never would have given poor people, negroes or women the right to vote. They would have never had reforms like minimum wage and ban on child labor. Europe would have been like fucking asia.

>>17
You don't need communism to have people power. Communism is in fact detrimental to how people power is wielded since it turns people into ranting extremists who's actions can only lead to tyranny, the polar opposite of people power.

>>17
What the fuck are you talking about?

The Reds took power in Russia in 1917.

All of Central and Western Europe was democratic from 1848 on.

U FAIL IT.  LURK MOAR.

>>19
Well, if we define democracy as that only white males with property are allowed to vote, then yes, central and western Europe  was democratic.

>>Wiithout communist soviet union, no democracy in europe. Its that simple. If the threat of revolutionary violence wouldnt have loomed over the establishment theyd never would have given poor people, negroes

Europe was full of angry niggers in 1920?  What are you, high?

>>21
Gypsies=Euro niggers

>>22
no, thats the French

>>22
no, thats the French

>>20
Well, if we define democracy as that only muscular intelligent highly educated white males with property are allowed to vote, then yes, central and western Europe  was democratic.*

fix'd

>>14
I would believe they want things to be better than they are now.
Because some people have a different impression from communism than others.
I for example am very aware of the doings of Stalin, Mao, Castro and Kim Jong il among others. But I still believe that communism is a better way and can make a better future.
There are examples of capitalist systems that have failed, does that mean that every capitalist system will?

/r/ list of capitalist countries that failed

If the state are forced to enact big expenditures plans to save the economy, capitalism has in a sense failed.
If a state with an almost 100% deregulated market goes bankrupt, and are forced to borrow large sums of money to stay afloat and not revert into chaos, this brought on perhaps by crashes in the international raw material market, then capitalism in a sense has failed.
If there are examples of economies where the mix between private and public sector is highly lopsided towards public (like sweden) yet the economy is strong and stable (like sweden), then that is an example of how something else than capitalism has not failed. Call it what thou willst.  

where's my fucking list?

>>28
if a state is forced to save the economy, the state has failed capitalism.
If a state is purely capitalistic, the market fluctuations are going to have a very great effect on it. This includes the possibility of going bankrupt, but also the possibility of an enormeous growth rate.

>>27 Argentina. The system failed exactly as Karl Marx predicted that the capitalist systems will fail.

A bit strange isn't it? Karl Marx was worried about how the system that runs the country would actually stay intact after a certain period of time, so he "invented a new system" that would take over once capitalism failed.
But then, used by tyrants Karl Marx's system was turned in to an abomination...
It’s too bad that this abomination is what is on peoples minds when someone uses the word “communism”.

Capitalism is a marxist concept and has no bearing on the free market. It is sort of like Marx's strawman argument.

>>30
Well thats why there are no purely capitalist states, because if one goes bankrupt as a nation, thats a fucking disaster! And that disaster would be a fucking failure of capitalism!

>>33
capitalists tend not to go bankrupt

>>34
Reread for great justice plz

>>35
oic, well I think the state could adopt free market principles, it would only improve how it is run. After all the voting system is sort of like a free market to begin with.

>>36
Free market experimentation has been done quite a few times. Why dont you go and read about some of them and then come back and join the discussion. PROTIP: the great depression.

>>37
It was pretty much all about excessive government powers continued after world war 1 and the resulting enormous levels of corruption which warped the free market.

I don't see what your fucking problem is. The free market isn't about exploiting the proletariat. It's about assigning value to things so people can calculate what is best for them and their businesses without taking too much from the economy. It is your god marx's "take what you need" + taking into account that resources are finite.

>>37

If you want free market experimentation think Victorian Britain or post-war United States. Basically think of any time where any society flourished and you will be sure to find strong elements of a free market.

>>39

If you want free market experimentation think Victorian Britain or pre-war United States. Basically think of any time where any society flourished and you will be sure to find strong elements of a free market.

Fix'd

>>38
So what you are saying is that the roaring twenties boom was because of great government spendings warping the market or do you mean that the crash were because of great government spending? And how could great government spending (the new deal) turn the depression around?
And you need to seriously read moar. Try wikipedia, its free and its written in an easy to understand way. Your ignorance is so great that everything you say seems insightful to you while it is embarrassing for me. Stop tormenting me and read please moar.

>>40
Nazi Germany? Post war Sweden? Present day Venezuela? Taiwan? South Korea? Your theory has more holes than your mother.

>>41
So what you are doing is coming up with a ridiculous straw man argument instead of looking at history to see what I mean. Government interference never stopped, it just decreased. You are stuck in the marxist propoganda that government control over the economy = equality. The 20s wasn't roaring, your view of the world is so abstract and over-simplified you have absolutely no right to say I'm ignorant. The 20s saw massive inequality with blacks and immigrants still living in poverty whilst anyone who owned large amounts of property gaining enormous sums of cash. You also had countries severely dependant apon US imports who's growth was completely stifled seeing US production grow far beyond what it was needed with little technological growth. It was a ticking time bomb.

>>42
Wait, are you saying that government interference decreased with the new deal in the thirties? This is new to me, i must be the ignorant retard.
My view is that the roaring twenties had decreasing interference and therefore increasing economic activity but also increasing inequality. When the shit hit the fan (i believe it was through a real estate crash as it so often is) the only way out was large government expenditures to increase consumption. This policy eventually led to the post war boom. Is this correct or false?