Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahhhhh yes.....the tired old argument that the Khemer Rouge, Mao's China, USSR, and North Korea "aren't real Communism!".

We just need a few hundred million more deaths to try out the communist experiment until we get it right.

Womp, womp.

People die everyday under capitalism. How many more millions need to die before it too is considered a failed system?

How many died of covid for profits? How many die in preventable workplace accidents for profits? How many die because they cant afford healthcare or their insurance denies them treatment? How many people starve and die on the streets of exposure because we treat housing and food as an avenue for profit rather than a human right? How many deaths of despair happen everyday due to the weight of living in a cycle of poverty required to sustain the capitalist system? Miss me with the bullpuckey.

Everyone dies.

Today globally people have more wealth and longer lives than ever before.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fascism is a total failure when it comes to killing millions of people. At best, the fascist tally is perhaps 15 million.

Compare that to socialism/communism’s total of 100 million.


Fascists are pikers when it comes to filling mass graves.

Oh please. That is so intellectually dishonest. You’re comparing 100 years of communist regimes to a dozen years of Nazi rule. Under the Nazis, 15 million were murdered (and that’s not even counting the 71 million civilian and military deaths directly caused by the Axis powers during WWII). How many more would have been killed if the Nazis had stayed in power for 100 years?

Fascism killed 55 Million people via WWII alone.

If you insist on being stupid about it, large countries are will the most people. Russia, China, India, their common flaw that leads to mass death is not their government, but just having a lot more people than other places.

Anonymous wrote:Let me preface this by saying that I am not a supporter of either ideology and I think that the proof is in history that both are dangerous.

If you look at both fascist governments and communist governments in history, both have committed genocides. Most notably, communists perpetrated the Cambodian Genocide (7.1 million), the USSR’s various genocides (debated, but 5-10 million, potentially up to 20 million over the course of the USSR). The fascist example of Nazi Germany is the most famous (11 million). Both killed a ton of people.

Yet growing up in the 90’s and 2000’s, it was ok to wear a hammer and scythe t shirt. DC has a Marx Cafe, but can you imagine a fascist themed bar? Reddit has a r/communism community with 260k members for communism enthusiasts, yet no fascist related communities.

Clearly one is more taboo than the other.

Why?

Is one clearly more taboo? 98% of Americans would say both are not at all what we want. (are you confusing socialism with communism?)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The violence. And, in theory, communism helps everyone.

Everything works “in theory.” That’s the purpose of having a theory. To explain how it works.

Yeah. Not defending it. Just answered OP’s question.

Anonymous wrote:Marxism is every bit as vile, odious, and extreme as Nazism.

Marxism is a theory of economics and history (he read Hegel). If anyone has ever read Das Kapital his thesis boils down to the idea that goods receive their value from the labor it takes to produce them, so if profit results, it is by definition theft from the people whose labor went into them (this could include the work of engineering/industrial design, procurement, etc).

But he also observed the conditions of laborers in England--a Dickensian existence. He described the children working their (short) lives away, getting no education contrasted with "Mr. Moneybags." And in fact a lot of the capital used to develop industry in England was LITERALLY theft of the value of labor--from the slave trade prior to abolishing the slave trade, then indentured Indians (I mean, slavery and colonization gave them a pretty dam big base to work with).

Of course, history and economics turn out to be more complicated, that's all. But clearly English capitalism was, for millions of people, a brutal system itself. There isn't anything inherently evil in Marxism. I have also read about people in former communist countries who really did regret changes, because things had worked ok for them under previous regimes.

Fascism is, I think, inherently more evil, precisely because of the degree to which ultranationalism (and racism) is part of its core. It also arose out of resentment and a sense of humiliation (Italy and Germany clearly). It's natural allies at the outside are the groups with the greatest financial power (who tend to be conservative and want to keep what they have) and its opponents (socialists, trade unionists, etc) tend to lack that power.

Anonymous wrote:The violence. And, in theory, communism helps everyone.

Everything works “in theory.” That’s the purpose of having a theory. To explain how it works.

Anonymous wrote:Marxism is every bit as vile, odious, and extreme as Nazism.

I have a degree in Political Science and the only time I’ve ever heard about Marxism is in POL 201 and right wing trash blogs. If ever a Boogeyman didn’t exist, it’s this one.

The violence. And, in theory, communism helps everyone.

Anonymous wrote:Fascism is a total failure when it comes to killing millions of people. At best, the fascist tally is perhaps 15 million.

Compare that to socialism/communism’s total of 100 million.


Fascists are pikers when it comes to filling mass graves.

Oh please. That is so intellectually dishonest. You’re comparing 100 years of communist regimes to a dozen years of Nazi rule. Under the Nazis, 15 million were murdered (and that’s not even counting the 71 million civilian and military deaths directly caused by the Axis powers during WWII). How many more would have been killed if the Nazis had stayed in power for 100 years?

Fascism is a total failure when it comes to killing millions of people. At best, the fascist tally is perhaps 15 million.

Compare that to socialism/communism’s total of 100 million.


Fascists are pikers when it comes to filling mass graves.

Marxism is every bit as vile, odious, and extreme as Nazism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason planned economic systems with collectivism as the fundamental matrix (what simpletons refer to as “communism”) hasn’t been 100% successful is that frankly, the right people haven’t been in charge.

Collectivism is THE ideal economic model. There is nothing more egalitarian than collective ownership of the means of production and no need for private property. This isn’t subject to debate.

But the right people haven’t been in charge. That is a failing of the people, not of collectivism.

No, it's fully subject to debate and you don't know what the F you're talking about.

Central planning of economies is the death knell. Communism and collectivism have never been successful anywhere they have been tried.

Command economies can't be properly planned because there is never enough data to properly distribute goods and services efficiently. It's impossible.

That leads to shortages, resources that go unused, unintended consequences, and demand destruction at a much faster rate than any westernized economy.

BTW, we haven't had Capitalism in the U.S. for one hundred years.

There's is nothing more efficient than the hidden hand of market economics.

'The pretend to pay us and we pretend to work." - Soviet Political Joke

I love how you tell PP that he doesn't know what the F he is talking about and then proceed to spew a bunch of utter nonsense not supported by any historical account.

I was the PP who wrote the post praising collectivism and planned economies and eliminating private property in favor of state ownership of everything, and “the only reason it hasn’t worked so far is the right people haven’t been in charge”.

I’m a troll. I was just putting the stupidest cliches I know of about communism down in one post, just to see if some idiot would agree with me - and of course someone did.

I need to dumb down my game for y’all. It’s pointless to be sarcastic when people start agreeing with you.

Well, the idiot is you.

I've lived the communist experience with a leader in charge who was, yes, a dictator but a benevolent one. Things worked for a very long time and people still look back fondly on the years that he was in charge.

You think WAY too highly of yourself, the self-proclaimed troll.

Then why did you come here? Why didn’t you opt to stay in your worker’s paradise where you can laugh and look down on us poor unfortunates who haven’t seen the benefits of a benevolent communist dictator, as you describe this person.

Why did you come here? Why do you stay? Why aren’t you going back?

There has to be some reason.

Such a typical, ignorant, American thing to say. One, no one was laughing at you. Why are you so fragile and insecure? We are discussing communism and how it might have been implemented around the world. I simply listed things that worked well for over 50 years for several million people. If you can’t learn anything from experiences of people commenting why are you here? To yell into the internet abyss?

I left because after Tito died the economy went to shit and people who tried to fill the void left by him made the country fall apart. I lived through full on war for 4 years and lost everything.

I’m sure you’ll come back with something super insightful again. 😂😂

So you steadfastly maintain the US sucks, but you came here and aren’t leaving.

That’s the takeaway.

Well, that's your takeaway, which is wrong and not based on anything I said. Again, so typical that whenever anyone dares to say a positive word about another country (even one that doesn't exist anymore), an American feels so utterly threatened and offended.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason planned economic systems with collectivism as the fundamental matrix (what simpletons refer to as “communism”) hasn’t been 100% successful is that frankly, the right people haven’t been in charge.

Collectivism is THE ideal economic model. There is nothing more egalitarian than collective ownership of the means of production and no need for private property. This isn’t subject to debate.

But the right people haven’t been in charge. That is a failing of the people, not of collectivism.

No, it's fully subject to debate and you don't know what the F you're talking about.

Central planning of economies is the death knell. Communism and collectivism have never been successful anywhere they have been tried.

Command economies can't be properly planned because there is never enough data to properly distribute goods and services efficiently. It's impossible.

That leads to shortages, resources that go unused, unintended consequences, and demand destruction at a much faster rate than any westernized economy.

BTW, we haven't had Capitalism in the U.S. for one hundred years.

There's is nothing more efficient than the hidden hand of market economics.

'The pretend to pay us and we pretend to work." - Soviet Political Joke

I love how you tell PP that he doesn't know what the F he is talking about and then proceed to spew a bunch of utter nonsense not supported by any historical account.

I was the PP who wrote the post praising collectivism and planned economies and eliminating private property in favor of state ownership of everything, and “the only reason it hasn’t worked so far is the right people haven’t been in charge”.

I’m a troll. I was just putting the stupidest cliches I know of about communism down in one post, just to see if some idiot would agree with me - and of course someone did.

I need to dumb down my game for y’all. It’s pointless to be sarcastic when people start agreeing with you.

Well, the idiot is you.

I've lived the communist experience with a leader in charge who was, yes, a dictator but a benevolent one. Things worked for a very long time and people still look back fondly on the years that he was in charge.

You think WAY too highly of yourself, the self-proclaimed troll.

Then why did you come here? Why didn’t you opt to stay in your worker’s paradise where you can laugh and look down on us poor unfortunates who haven’t seen the benefits of a benevolent communist dictator, as you describe this person.

Why did you come here? Why do you stay? Why aren’t you going back?

There has to be some reason.

Such a typical, ignorant, American thing to say. One, no one was laughing at you. Why are you so fragile and insecure? We are discussing communism and how it might have been implemented around the world. I simply listed things that worked well for over 50 years for several million people. If you can’t learn anything from experiences of people commenting why are you here? To yell into the internet abyss?

I left because after Tito died the economy went to shit and people who tried to fill the void left by him made the country fall apart. I lived through full on war for 4 years and lost everything.

I’m sure you’ll come back with something super insightful again. 😂😂

So you steadfastly maintain the US sucks, but you came here and aren’t leaving.

That’s the takeaway.