Get ready for your first communist neighbor

[user 37518]

I don't know. Do some research in stead of telling me what to do.




As I said, it's a current example.



Cuba. The entire continent of Africa. Venezuela. Brazil. India. I can give you the entire history of many countries ****** up by US intervention. That would need several books, at least and I suspect it wouldn't change your mind anyway, so I'll pass.



There are examples of the opposite. I won't pretend Russia to be a democracy, even if they have elections. But they're not communist anymore either.

It's not a black and white picture. But there's no doubt in my mind that fi, Cuba, was ruined by the US blockade and not by communism.

In one of the Ebola breakouts in Africa, 22 Cuban doctors (with experience in tropical fevers) were in place days after it occurred. The US sent many soldiers, weeks later. One of the cries of doctors in place was that the US army was getting in the way.

Cuba also produced one of the first effective treatments. They had to syphon it via a Canadian pharma company to get it to US production facilities (Cuba can't scale up the way the US can). Cuba made hardly any money from the treatment. The Canadians sold it to US pharma for 20 million, without any means to syphon some of it back to Cuba.



You didn't search very well, did you? I can easily find much, much larger numbers for the inquisition.

300.000 (for the inquisition) on a total population of 5 million isn't that different.
45 million (for Mao) on a total population of 750 million isn't that different either.

Don't throw around some numbers without referencing your scale. Besides, these numbers tend to vary a lot, according to source. Some protestant, anti-islam sites come to numbers in the millions for the inquisition. Of course, that's pure propaganda. Nobody has the exact numbers.

You won't see me defending genocide. Not from one side, nor from the other. I'm not even a communist. But I hate constant lies from propaganda. From every side.

EDIT: Interesting discussion about numbers from the inquisition on StackExchange for those of you interested in numbers:
https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/39443/what-was-the-death-toll-during-the-inquisition

Cuba was not ruined by the blockade, Cuba was ruined because a communist dictator decided to let Russia put missiles pointing the US. I've heard countless testimonies from people in Cuba being imprisoned because they commited an offense, something called like "Anti-revolutionary crimes" which basically means anything from talking bad about the goverment to creating a revolt.

Venezuela would be great? hahaha you are delussional, Besides COVID, Brazil seems to be doing pretty good to me...

About the deaths:

300,000 in 400 years vs 45 million in 4 years, big difference

Its easier to view it as a percentage of course and not as the total number of deaths, 45 million suddenly doesnt sound as much if you say 6% of the popullation, again, you are minimizing genocide.

 

[user 37518]

With the exact same outcome of extreme inequality and rampant corruption.


– Trump dropped more bombs than Bush and Obama. He didn't end any conflicts and continued 7 active wars.

– Trump calls Mexicans "rapists and criminals", a comment which you find understandable and have sympathy for, but you dislike Biden more because he calls you "equals"


Clearly, you're religious.

Read again, I said I find understandable when he said that Mexico is not sending their best, not when he said that they are rapists and criminals, what I dislike about Biden is his hipocrisy.

I am religious, you make it sound like you've discovered the atom.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I may be biased because I won 9 US utility patents over my career in electronics. Tearing down IP protections has been another active campaign of the left. Sometimes I wonder what team they are rooting for... not wealth creation.

Over the last 25 years one billion people world wide have been lifted out of poverty by trade and commerce.

JR

 

[user 37518]

err...no it's not. That's 'just' politics.
I will point out though that it's a 'funny sort' of Communist with an allegiance to the ideas of Marx that declares to be a devout Roman Catholic.

btw - if you insist on commenting on socioeconomic issues then it would be a god idea to learn to spell "bourgeoisie".

It is not just politics, first and second paragraphs of chapter one of the Communist manifesto: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.", "Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes." Communist Manifesto (Chapter 1)

Sounds exactly what I was describing.

Yes, there's a lot of stupid people in the world, which is why there are such things as Communist Catholics.

BTW... the term "bourgeoisie" is a French term not used in my native tongue, I find it very condescending for you to criticize my communication skills, ohh and if you are going to correct my spelling, perhaps you should learn how to spell "good" rather than "god", after all, English is your native tongue isn't it?

 

[cyrano]

Real nazism has never been tried

It's been tried by the best. Germans, Japanese and Italians. Fortunately, they failed. It's still alive, despite all efforts to abolish it.

Unless you mean something else, by "real" nazism. Khmer rouge?

 

[calaverasgrande]

this is authoritarianism.
That is not a trait exclusive to Marxism.
There are neoliberal capitalist countries which are authoritarian as well.
Heck, the US has been sliding more into that direction every year since 9/11.

 

[user 37518]

It's been tried by the best. Germans, Japanese and Italians. Fortunately, they failed. It's still alive, despite all efforts to abolish it.

Unless you mean something else, by "real" nazism. Khmer rouge?

No, Khmer Rouge was the product of communist Pol Pot, the communism you love...

 

[cyrano]

I may be biased because I won 9 US utility patents over my career in electronics. Tearing down IP protections has been another active campaign of the left. Sometimes I wonder what team they are rooting for... not wealth creation.

Over the last 25 years one billion people world wide have been lifted out of poverty by trade and commerce.

JR

That's something I can understand easily, John. You should be able to benefit from your work. It doesn't make you biased in any way.

Unfortunately, the patent system is one sick puppy. The main reason is, you don't need to prove your invention works. That has lead to a mountain of, mainly corporate patents that have only one purpose: stopping the competition from developing an idea into a real product. Filing a patent, as you know, is a fairly expensive process. An individual will probably not patent an idea. But a corporation (Apple, fi) usually owns a boatload of patents describing things we can't do. Yet.

Communism isn't against wealth creation. On the contrary. Communism however, is for wealth distribution. And that's where most communist nations failed miserably. The rich were no longer rich. The poor were no longer poor. But all the power was in the hands of the apparatsjiks, as the Russians used to call them.

That's not the fault of communism an sich. It's the fault of the concentration of power in just a few or even one person. Machiavelli applied to real life.

 

[cyrano]

No, Khmer Rouge was the product of communist Pol Pot, the communism you love...

I don't love, or even like, communism. I've stated that several times. Please learn to read.

But I also don't think Marx is the devil in persona. For Russia, it didn't go fatally wrong until Stalin became the concentration of power and (his) paranoia kicked in.

I'll say it again: I am an Anarchist. Now please learn about anarchism before I have to start explaining again it hasn't got anything to do with anarchy or terrorism, or bombs, or...

 

[john12ax7]

True capitalism is killed by monopolies.

In theory, both communism and capitalism have their merits. Until the power adagio kicks in. As in "power corrupts and total power corrupts totally".

If you draw the conclusions from that adagio, you land in anarchism. Keep things small and local to avoid power concentration.

I hope you understand the difference between "anarchy" and "anarchism".

Do you understand anarchism? There are many branches of it, so you should clarify which version you are talking about. A general rejection of the state does not necessitate things being small and local to avoid power concentration.

 

[user 37518]

But I also don't think Marx is the devil in persona. For Russia, it didn't go fatally wrong until Stalin became the concentration of power and (his) paranoia kicked in.

Yes, yes, I've heard it many times before, communism is great, its only those nasty genocide, crazy dictators that didn't 'get it right' or that didn't 'apply it properly', if only they understood it like you do it would have been a wonderful Utopia. However, I wonder, why is it that everyone, aside from that isolated province in India of course, applied it wrong? Why does it always end in totalitarism and murder? Why are genocides and crazy people so attracted to it? wait, wait, you don't have to answer, I think I know what you are going to say, its all the US fault.

Also, why are communists so obsessed about being atheist and prosecuting religious people?

I'll say it again: I am an Anarchist. Now please learn about anarchism before I have to start explaining again it hasn't got anything to do with anarchy or terrorism, or bombs, or...

I suggest you to stop digging before you dig yourself deeper.

 

[Dark1]

Communism isn't against wealth creation. On the contrary. Communism however, is for wealth distribution. And that's where most communist nations failed miserably. The rich were no longer rich. The poor were no longer poor. But all the power was in the hands of the apparatsjiks, as the Russians used to call them.

Surely you are joking. The first step on the way to "communism" is a violent revolution with an intent to steal all the wealth created by creative individuals who were free to do so prior to this "social revolution". Here it was called "nationalization" but it really was a state-sanctioned robbery on a giant scale. And not just large factories, but also small businesses etc. The intent was, and always will be, a concentration of power into the hands of the chosen few, slavery for the rest. The communist nations failed because communism is just another banner under which to usurp power, and not a doctrine that can be implemented on a larger scale. It is just a political sleight of hand.

 

[Dark1]

But I also don't think Marx is the devil in persona. For Russia, it didn't go fatally wrong until Stalin became the concentration of power and (his) paranoia kicked in.

Yes, it was all peaches, like the famine of 1921–22 that killed 5 mil. people in Russia and other unimportant hickups in the revolutionary period.

 

[user 37518]

Yes, it was all peaches, like the famine of 1921–22 that killed 5 mil. people in Russia and other unimportant hickups in the revolutionary period.

I don't think you are entirely right, I believe that figure goes up to 7 million during the Ukraine famine....

@cyrano
I suggest some reading before discussing any further: Manifesto of the Communist Party

 

[Dark1]

I don't think you are entirely right, I believe that figure goes up to 7 million during the Ukraine famine....

The "Holodomor" in Ukraine came later, in 1932-1933 under Stalin. 7–12 mil. perished.

 

[user 37518]

The "Holodomor" in Ukraine came later, in 1932-1933 under Stalin. 7–12 mil. perished.

I am sorry, I stand corrected, it just further adds that it was even worse....

 

[john12ax7]

Communism as a philosophy is not bad, "give what you can, take what you need". If anything it seems a Christian way of living, we each do our part and help each other. In that sense always found it strange Marx was at odds with religion.

Communism or a more communal way of living can be great at the friends and family level.

The real issue becomes in implementing communism at the state level. Wealth redistribution often requires the use of violent force. And then there is no incentive for wealth creation, so everyone's standard of living goes down.

Otoh capitalism does not require violence and force, at the extreme end is anarcho -capitalism, every transaction is voluntary. It's a peculiar thing, but given that people are greedy and selfish, that greed will often lead to innovation in a capitalist system which lifts up the overall standard of living.

In the end things really become a blend of both, and there needs to be a framework to prevent exploitation. But at the extremes of anarcho-capitalism and pure communism, the former is clearly superior since it doesn't rely on aggression.

 

[cyrano]

Do you understand anarchism? There are many branches of it, so you should clarify which version you are talking about. A general rejection of the state does not necessitate things being small and local to avoid power concentration.

There are many different branches, yes, John.

In fact, rejecting unions, groups, clubs... is one of the major fallacies of anarchism. We'll never stand united. Remark, it's not "we'll never stand united, unfortunately". Rather "we'll never stand united, proudly".

The crux of the matter for me is keeping things small. Anti-globalism if you'd like. There's nothing wrong with companies, or leaders, or... Until things get too big.

Another important thing is keeping things local, if at all possible. There's no need to import agricultural products from the other end of the planet if you can grow them locally. Especially if the only motive is profit. There's also no need to grow stuff locally if it's bad for the soil and you can import it.

It's not simple and there's no manual. Another weak point, obviously because some people need a manual to be assured they're right.

The strong point for me is that anarchism doesn't pretend to solve every problem. Solutions can/will be different for every spot on the planet. So there's also no need for me to state which branch I belong to, as I don't believe in labels.

It's about individuals taking up their responsibilities. These responsibilities exist only to the ones near you. As an individual you can't be responsible for acts of war on the other side of the planet, fi. You should care for and help the victims, if they can reach you, but you should never force your solution upon them.

In case of ideologies like capitalism, or communism, or... I believe each one can work for some place at some point in it's development. However, in the end, we should be able to reach a point where there's no discrepancy between these different ideologies.

And it's not for me to make other people's choices in life. As such, one man, one vote is an integral part. Starting from an elected representative for your neighbourhood who will talk to the representatives of other neighbourhoods. Together, they will elect the next level representative and so on. Still a pyramidal structure, but with less obligation and less competition.

I know, I know. Just a dream. As long as nations, and, worse, corporations have tremendous power, people will not be able to realise it. That's why it's still "Ni dieu, ni maitre"...

 

[JohnRoberts]

Capitalism is not an ideology.

JR

 

[cyrano]

I am sorry, I stand corrected, it just further adds that it was even worse....

You really don't understand, do you?

It was under Stalin that things started to go bad. Really bad. Reasons were Stalin's absolute power and his resulting paranoia. I've already stated that.

Millions died of famine in Russia before the revolution too. Not really unusual in Russia, or China for that matter. In fact, these regular famines were part of the revolution's foundation in both countries. If people aren't suffering badly, they're not gonna stand up and fight.

Nothing to do with communism an sich. Communism is/was just another experiment to get away from feudalism. It's strange/funny that China is conquering Africa with capitalism. They probably don't want a revolution there...