Get ready for your first communist neighbor

[Banzai]

Truths about history as you do not see it, which is fine. But drumming up a list of U.S. bad actions does make my point; facts we select serve our biases. In addition to your perspective, folks can use google to list the horrors and bloodshed of communism/totalitarianism throughout history as well, should their bias permit it.

I don't think you're capable of acknowledging your own country's crimes. Apparently Yemeni children deserve being bombed by US made F15's because "no-one is innocent". Same goes for Venezuelans who have no more access to medecine. Because they're not "innocent" either.

These things are happening in 2021. Not in 1945.

 

[Banzai]

Reasoning with apologists for communist tyranny is really something I would never expect doing in 2021. USSR did not have to create death squads, they had an entire Red Army army plus Cheka units to do that. They murdered their own people (incl. left opposition like anarchists, Mensheviks...) even with chemical weapons (Tambov Rebellion, 1920-21; one of several such uprisings incl. the famous Kronstadt Rebellion). They simply labeled anyone who opposed them as counter-revolutionaries, and eliminated them in concentration camps or using, well, death squads, shooting thousands and thousands on the streets. Lenin even directly ordered public exemplary executions of peasants (kulaks), right in 1918 (for more, see Mass killings under communist regimes - Wikipedia). They simply continued this practice abroad, when exporting "communism", from the enslavement of Eastern Europe, to political and military campaigns in Asia (North Korea...), and later Africa (either directly or indirectly by supporting Marxist-Leninist terrorists, like the Red Terror in Ethiopia etc.) and Latin America. The military occupation of the Baltics and Poland, Winter War in Finland and so on. Countless dead and enslaved in the name of "communism".

Pre-WW2, still no death squads. These are examples of invasions, government crackdowns, state security forces operating in the open. All things you expect from a totalitarian regime.

US sponsored death squads murdering nuns, priests, journalists, students, and academics, in the 1970's and 80's, is something entirely different.

Mixing welfare with socialism as a political system (defined by structural changes in society incl. social ownership, with profit motive either entirely or partially eliminated) is a popular argumentative bluff: "Now you have welfare, if you want more of the same, you need socialism". E.g. independent labor unions were always one of the first causalties of socialist revolutions leading to state capitalism models like the USSR.

You would have no social safety nets without public programs. All of those programs are collectively owned by the taxpayer. None of them are capitalist.

What you call "mixed" is a democratic capitalism as practiced by most of the West, mixing social welfare, free market economy, and personal freedoms (like the freedom of speech we are practicing here, without fear we will end up before a "revolutionary tribunal"). For example the efforts of Czechoslovakian reformists during 1960s to transform the authoritarian and undemocratic society into a similar model (incl. personal freedoms like freedom of speech; labeled Democtratic Socialism; which would later inevitably collapse into Democratic Capitalism since socially-owned economy on a grand scale can not really co-exist with democracy), ended in 1968 with this: https://kafkadesk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/czech-republic-soviet-invasion-remembrance.jpg

Democracy provides no guarantees a government will care for its people.

Universal healthcare, public schools, public transport, public roads, social housing, state run telecom/radio/tv... are all examples of collective ownership entirely compatible with capitalism. You can find all these in a long list of socially responsible countries with strong socialist cultures and socialist political parties. None of them are totalitarian.

 

[scott2000]

– government controlled or owned healthcare (owned by taxpayer)
– government controlled or owned schools (owned by taxpayer)
– government controlled or owned public transport (owned by taxpayer)
– government controlled or owned public roads (owned by taxpayer)
– government controlled or owned energy sector (owned by taxpayer)

Feels more like paid for than owned sometimes....lol

Come to think of it, could be nice to be able to park in front of the house on the street without getting towed ... They must not know who I am.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Wow. That's the best one yet. Running out of arguments, are we?

What do you mean "we".... That said I do not enjoy arguing without end, or purpose.

JR

 

[carlmart]

Did you ask him about his trip to the US? did he say why he leave?

So because you met a couple of them we are going to ignore the millions of Cubans fleeing Cuba in a Tupperware raft? or the 5 million Venezuelans?

5 million cubans and 5 million venezuelans? Where do you get your information? Has anyone seen any of those?

 

[carlmart]

What are you on about?

Which communist/socialist country sent death squads into foreign countries to kill Capitalists?
Which communist/socialist country carried out close to 100 "regime change" operations to remove democratically elected leaders and install puppet dictators?
Which communist/socialist country has imposed 60 years of crushing economic sanctions and blockades on a country that posed no economic, military, or political threat?
Which communist/socialist country indiscriminately targeted the US civilian population with actions and policies designed specifically to starve them into submission?
Which communist/socialist country has at any time in history bombed, invaded, and killed civilians on 4 different continents ?!

No-one targets civilians like the US government does, or on anywhere near the worldwide scale.

Completely agreed on every point you make. But that is not something TV journalists or even journals talk about.

The question also is: are US citizens ready to accept things as a FACTS that can be easily proved, not as an OPINION?

 

[scott2000]

5 million cubans and 5 million venezuelans? Where do you get your information? Has anyone seen any of those?

Seen many Venezuelans here .. Great people.... Every single one I've talked with would rather be back home...Sad..

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/esp...0210309-5euahfaecbfojikqh4e44vpboq-story.html
“More than 4 million Venezuelans have emigrated from a country completely destroyed by a dictatorship, communism, an incredible totalitarianism that has destroyed everything with the economic sector, with the health sector,“ Márquez said

 

[calaverasgrande]

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.

Anarcho Capitalism is a red herring. It's like saying cat-dog or up-down.
That whole trend was just a ruse to rebrand plain old American style libertarianism.
Anarchism is socialist, same as communism, however, unlike communism, it is also anti-authoritarian.

As far as why Anarchists or Communists are against religion, you have to look at the historical precedence. You often see arrangements between state and church hierarchies to maintain hegemony over lower classes. Whether we are talking about peasants in Europe or indigenous people in colonized countries.
Most countries have moved to greater secularism since the 1800's when many of the foundational texts of anarchism and communism were authored.

Communism often seems to fail in the transition from insurgency to governing. There is a lot of high talk about transitioning to 'full communism', 'workers paradise' and so on. However it seems that every communist revolution eventually invokes external threats and implements authoritarianism. Which only increases in severity over time.
Personally I think this has a lot to do with inherent elitism of marxism. The whole concept of an "elite cadre" who lead the poor deluded proletariat to revolution prefigures an elite cadre which maintains hegemony over proletariat "for their own good".
In which case you still have an upper class and a lower class. You still have workers and those who live off the sweat of the workers.

I have to disagree that 'capitalism does not require violence and force".
It very much thrives on violence and force. The Americans forcing Japan to open it's markets. The British forcing China to open it's markets. The Dutch East India company, British East India Company etc.
The multiple wars, insurgencies and destabilizations in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and the Americas in order to seize, preserve or deny access to resources.

 

[user 37518]

5 million cubans and 5 million venezuelans? Where do you get your information? Has anyone seen any of those?

If you read correctly, you will notice that I never said 5 million cubans and 5 million venezuelans, I said millions of cubans and 5 million venezuelans. I made a google search, some say 4 million venezuelans other 5 million.

 

[user 37518]

Fella, it was you who brought up the Mexico City policy, Biden, and his religious credentials...

Since you don't understand "But you want the Church to disown political leaders":

The Church disowning political leaders is a good thing. It's what you/me/we want to see in a functioning democracy. Pissed off Church means Biden is doing a good job and not letting his religion dictate policy. He's not pandering to the Church for votes and money, and causing the preventable deaths of thousands of women.

Then I said no-one gets to decide whether Biden is or isn't religious, except him. Because religion is personal and private. He doesn't need the Church's or your validation. If he believes in a God, then he's religious. The end.

And yep, all US presidents are war criminals. Rome Statute spells it out very clearly. Has nothing to do with my political persuasion or personal opinions.

Again, if you want to talk about the other topics, I suggest we do it privately

 

[boji]

I don't think you're capable of acknowledging your own country's crimes

No, it's that this is a electronic forum I want to see thrive, mainly. Of lesser importance is that I no longer receive a sense of purpose by telling people how/what to think. In fact I see now it tends to make me feel worse afterwards. I prefer to find things in common with people so that each are, however small, invested in seeing the other's future realized.

 

[Newmarket]

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?

In 'reverse order'
- it's a key term in discussion referencing the ideas of Marx/Engels so discussion around those ideas is better articulated by getting it right and it's clearly not a big effort to do so. But that's up to you. Good / God is clearly a keyboard related typo. It's not about criticism of personal communication skills. Obviously most (?) people on internet forums 'read through' differences to 'correct' linguistic constructions etc. similarly to when dealing with overseas / foreign customers / suppliers etc.

- Quoting one extract from the Communist Manifesto does show that it embodies the essential characteristics of the whole idea. It's really just a basic analysis articulated in the rather 'wordy' language of the time. It's also instructive to acknowledge that political and economic theories develop with time (and circumstances).

- But back to your actual situation in Mexico. As has already been pointed out (not by me) It seems pretty clear that you have just taken a load of ideas that you don't like and decided to label them as "Communist" when they are simply not definable in that way. Essentially you are conflating Populism with Communism. This detracts from the credibility of your criticism of these actions and policies.
As an easy example - the payment of $100 whilst taking economic measures that may be to the detriment of recipients of those payments. This is an example of the fairly classic practice of performative actions to show solidarity with 'the poor' in order to harvest their support whilst acting against their interests overall. Particularly where there is a wide disparity between economic and educational levels. It's not restricted to any particular political ideology.

One last view on this - I am from the political 'left'. I can assure you that there is no significant view that Mexico is making advances for any sort of 'left' politics.

Loose ends - I am not ignorant of crime/drug problems in Mexico (for info - not that you claimed I was). From international trade relations - when your service tech' turns up and half the customer's capital equipment has been sold off to raise a ransom for the boss who has been kidnapped you know it's not going well !
English (the English version) is indeed my first language. Although depending who you ask it might not be considered my native language. (Mmmm...reading that through it sounds like a riddel (oops - spelling ) although it wasn't intended. I'll leave it there as a homage to Batman (TV version).

Meanwhile I do hope things work out okay in Mexico. It doesn't sound great however you label it.

 

[user 37518]

In 'reverse order'
- it's a key term in discussion referencing the ideas of Marx/Engels so discussion around those ideas is better articulated by getting it right and it's clearly not a big effort to do so. But that's up to you. Good / God is clearly a keyboard related typo. It's not about criticism of personal communication skills. Obviously most (?) people on internet forums 'read through' differences to 'correct' linguistic constructions etc. similarly to when dealing with overseas / foreign customers / suppliers etc.

- Quoting one extract from the Communist Manifesto does show that it embodies the essential characteristics of the whole idea. It's really just a basic analysis articulated in the rather 'wordy' language of the time. It's also instructive to acknowledge that political and economic theories develop with time (and circumstances).

- But back to your actual situation in Mexico. As has already been pointed out (not by me) It seems pretty clear that you have just taken a load of ideas that you don't like and decided to label them as "Communist" when they are simply not definable in that way. Essentially you are conflating Populism with Communism. This detracts from the credibility of your criticism of these actions and policies.
As an easy example - the payment of $100 whilst taking economic measures that may be to the detriment of recipients of those payments. This is an example of the fairly classic practice of performative actions to show solidarity with 'the poor' in order to harvest their support whilst acting against their interests overall. Particularly where there is a wide disparity between economic and educational levels. It's not restricted to any particular political ideology.

One last view on this - I am from the political 'left'. I can assure you that there is no significant view that Mexico is making advances for any sort of 'left' politics.

Loose ends - I am not ignorant of crime/drug problems in Mexico (for info - not that you claimed I was). From international trade relations - when your service tech' turns up and half the customer's capital equipment has been sold off to raise a ransom for the boss who has been kidnapped you know it's not going well !
English (the English version) is indeed my first language. Although depending who you ask it might not be considered my native language. (Mmmm...reading that through it sounds like a riddel (oops - spelling ) although it wasn't intended. I'll leave it there as a homage to Batman (TV version).

Meanwhile I do hope things work out okay in Mexico. It doesn't sound great however you label it.

I am amazed that you and many more let everything in my list slide for the "$100 monthly payment", like everything else doesn't matter if he is giving $100 USD to the poor.

I am not quoting just an extract of the manifesto, I am quoting the very first paragraphs, the very core of communism.

Its great that you are from the political left and have some "inside info" that Mexico is not making advances on left politics, its such a relief for me to have someone like you representing the global left association letting me know how things are doing in my own country.

Finally, its obvious you made a keyboard error, my point is that if you are going to be condescending and act all smart about my spelling, at least make sure you spell yourself correctly, otherwise you end up making a fool out of yourself. Its also common decency, if I notice that a foreigner is trying to speak my language, I try to understand, aknowledge his effort and above all I try not to act like a smartass and correct him on minute things, it is also the ultimate straw man argument, attacking someone's point of view by pointing out his lack of spelling proficiency.

 

[Newmarket]

I am amazed that you and many more let everything in my list slide for the "$100 monthly payment", like everything else doesn't matter if he is giving $100 USD to the poor.

I am not quoting just an extract of the manifesto, I am quoting the very first paragraphs, the very core of communism.

Its great that you are from the political left and have some "inside info" that Mexico is not making advances on left politics, its such a relief for me to have someone like you representing the global left association letting me know how things are doing in my own country.

Finally, its obvious you made a keyboard error, my point is that if you are going to be condescending and act all smart about my spelling, at least make sure you spell yourself correctly, otherwise you end up making a fool out of yourself. Its also common decency, if I notice that a foreigner is trying to speak my language, I try to understand, aknowledge his effort and above all I try not to act like a smartass and correct him on minute things, it is also the ultimate straw man argument, attacking someone's point of view by pointing out his lack of spelling proficiency.

Completely missing the (or at least my point) about the "$100". I wasn't saying it was great (or not). Simply that describing it as explicitly "Communist" is simply incorrect.
And, as it happens, I can't tell from your posts if English (UK or US) is your first language or not. It seems very proficient tbh.

 

[user 37518]

Completely missing the (or at least my point) about the "$100". I wasn't saying it was great (or not). Simply that describing it as explicitly "Communist" is simply incorrect.
And, as it happens, I can't tell from your posts if English (UK or US) is your first language or not. It seems very proficient tbh.

I'll agree it may not fill all the communist check boxes, it may not be the same old communism from the USSR or Cuba, the common things I see are that it is extremely nationalist, it comes from the left, popullist, totalitarian, splits the popullation into two categories: the oppresed people and the upper class oppressors or corrupt, the president is seen as a messianic figure, the goverment wants the state to own as much as they can of what is now the private industry, the millitary is in charge of the police, borders, roads, infrastructure, ports, and now they even want civilian airports and air traffic controllers to be all military, the press is constantly being attacked if they do not agree with the president, and so on.... They want to return to the 60's or 70's mexican authoritative almost dictatorship goverments and industry, which is why there is so much interest on investing in oil refineries and dirty energy sources like coal, hydrocarbons and so on....

The president constatly steals phrases from Hugo Chavez, there are some videos comparing them and its a carbon copy.

The president is religious which is contrary to traditional communism, some things might be more fascist, some more communist and even some like Juche, I'll agree its not 100% textbook communism, just as most rock music is not 100% traditional rock, but lets say that overall if I had to describe it somehow, I would use the word communist or some type of derivativation from Marxism.

In any case, communist, fascist, popullist, or whatver, the fact is that whenever a totalitarian latin american president starts talking **** about the US and telling them to mind their own business when they start to step in, it never ends well. I am not defending the US, I am just saying that there is a pattern when this sort of things happen throughout history, and it always end badly, even more if that country is your neighbor and #1 trade partner.

Russia has assured the president that they will always be on his side (by 'we' I believe means Russia and China), perhaps the president feels like a though guy because he has friends to back him up, I love Russia, not so much China (I mean the goverment not the people or the country) but it doesn't seem smart to me to get your neighbor and major trade partner pissed in favor of some countries at the other side of the world.... "don't bite the hand that feeds you" seems appropriate here....

 

[Banzai]

No, it's that this is a electronic forum I want to see thrive, mainly. Of lesser importance is that I no longer receive a sense of purpose by telling people how/what to think. In fact I see now it tends to make me feel worse afterwards. I prefer to find things in common with people so that each are, however small, invested in seeing the other's future realized.

I don't see it. Your posts are as opinionated and snide as anyone else's.

 

[Banzai]

I'll agree it may not fill all the communist check boxes, it may not be the same old communism from the USSR or Cuba, the common things I see are that it is extremely nationalist, it comes from the left, popullist, totalitarian, splits the popullation into two categories: the oppresed people and the upper class oppressors or corrupt, the president is seen as a messianic figure, the goverment wants the state to own as much as they can of what is now the private industry, the millitary is in charge of the police, borders, roads, infrastructure, ports, and now they even want civilian airports and air traffic controllers to be all military, the press is constantly being attacked if they do not agree with the president, and so on.... They want to return to the 60's or 70's mexican authoritative almost dictatorship goverments and industry, which is why there is so much interest on investing in oil refineries and dirty energy sources like coal, hydrocarbons and so on....

You just described the Trump admnistration, who was also a populist. Only difference he was from the right.

The president constatly steals phrases from Hugo Chavez, there are some videos comparing them and its a carbon copy.

Chavez too, was a populist...

 

[janos.hardi]

Growing up in an ex-communist country I have only my experiences and what I've read about the system from different sources. I can tell you noone wants to go back in time, not even, or especially not, the politicians of today. Communism (or the Marxist political theory) per se has no real political chance today, only as a criticism of capitalism and colonialism. As a critical theory it is already considered common knowledge for economists and sociologists (and many other sciences), and it is a valuable one. The popular "communist" theory became an ideological tool in the toolbox one can pick and choose (and mix in) when they need a message to manipulate people to do or not to do something. You can mix nationalism with the left and the right. Christian conservative ideology with anti immigration and brutal oppression of women or as it happened back then with communism.

One thing I wanted to mention about the socialist era is that for a great many people it was a step forward in terms of standards of living. I personally consider that a positive change even tho It might have been achievable in other ways.

 

[Dark1]

Pre-WW2, still no death squads. These are examples of invasions, government crackdowns, state security forces operating in the open. All things you expect from a totalitarian regime.

US sponsored death squads murdering nuns, priests, journalists, students, and academics, in the 1970's and 80's, is something entirely different.

I wish I had more time to detail it all down without replying in kind and not resorting to wordplay answers like "Pre-WW2, yes death squads.". So, a few sad pre-WW2 examples, all involving "death squads", most during the Lenin's reign:

Execution of the tzar family incl. children and servants in 1918 by a death squad without any trial, as ordered directly by Lenin.

The Red Terror in 1917-1922 with at least 100,000-200,000 dead, a lot of them executed by Cheka death squads etc.

Creation of the Hungarian Soviet Republic as orchestrated by Lenin, and the terror groups (= death squads) like “Lenin Boys” executing “counter-revolutionaries” without trial.

Tambov Rebellion during 1920–1921 with approx. 15,000 shot in the aftermath of the uprising, without trials, by death squads.

Lenin’s now famous 1918 telegrams to publicly execute (no trials, so death squads) Mensheviks, peasants and others in Nizhny Novgorod and peasants in Penza and other such terror tactics.

Red Army raids on (not only) anarchists in Ukraine 1918-1920 incl. mass executions (by death squads).

Kronstadt rebellion in 1921 (lead by socialists calling for “free elections to soviets and an end to food requisitioning”) with most rebels either mass executed by death squads or sent to concentration camps afterwards.

St. Nedelya church terror attack in 1925 Bulgaria as directed by Soviet military intelligence officers with approx. 200 dead.

NKVD murders during Spanish Civil War (incl. A. Nin, M. Rein, and J. Robles, all socialists opposing the Soviets), NKVD-orchestrated mass executions of soldiers, civilians and priests during the Siege of Madrid (see Paracuellos massacres) with purposeful downing of the Red Cross aircraft by Soviet pilots to prevent the RC envoy delivering a report of the massacre. Death squads.

The famines in 1921-22 (not only natural causes but food requisitioning, export of grain abroad) and 1932-1933 in Ukraine (direct result of collectivization policies, some even say purposeful genocide by Stalin) etc. with millions dead. One can go on and on.

You would have no social safety nets without public programs. All of those programs are collectively owned by the taxpayer. None of them are capitalist.

Democracy provides no guarantees a government will care for its people.

Universal healthcare, public schools, public transport, public roads, social housing, state run telecom/radio/tv... are all examples of collective ownership entirely compatible with capitalism. You can find all these in a long list of socially responsible countries with strong socialist cultures and socialist political parties. None of them are totalitarian.

Again, you are mixing social welfare (a normal part of modern democtratic capitalist states, welfare states) with socialism which (mostly) strives for "collective ownership of the means of production", i.e. large-scale collectivization. Even ancient Rome had public roads. And even fixed prices on food for the poor (a populist move, later even surpassed by the free grain policy of Claudius, much later this also inlcuded salt, oil and meat). Together with slave labor and excessive taxation one of the factors that contributed to the fall of Rome. Social security on a large scale was implemented by Imperial Germany under Bismarck's (definitely a right-wing politician) government in 1889. Social welfare is provided from tax revenues, with state ownership of roads, schools etc. I won't react on your comment re:democracy, the benefits are obvious. Capitalism is not in opposition to sustainable social welfare.

 

[user 37518]

Schooled!