New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Communism & Oppression

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
You mean due to the trillions spent and millions killed solely in order to sabotage it.
I meant the millions killed by it (communism), and the trillions it (communism) forcibly stole from it's people...under the guise of unity and equality.
 

EatTheRich

President
I meant the millions killed by it (communism), and the trillions it (communism) forcibly stole from it's people...under the guise of unity and equality.
You cannot get the figure of “millions killed” without 1) attributing to communism killings by renegades from communism, opposed as such by the leading communist figures of their time; 2) selectively employing a double standard that chalks up every starvation death in a socialist country to “communism” while remaining mute on the higher rate of starvation in the capitalist world making capitalism possible. Not seizing the fortunes of the exploiting classes means making that high rate of starvation (higher in a typical year worldwide under capitalism than in the worst years in the USSR, China, or N. Korea) permanent.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
You cannot get the figure of “millions killed” without 1) attributing to communism killings by renegades from communism, opposed as such by the leading communist figures of their time; 2) selectively employing a double standard that chalks up every starvation death in a socialist country to “communism” while remaining mute on the higher rate of starvation in the capitalist world making capitalism possible. Not seizing the fortunes of the exploiting classes means making that High rate of starvation (higher in a typical year worldwide under capitalism than in the worst years in the USSR, China, or N. Korea) permanent.
Holodomor.

Study up.
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
Actually existing socialism is not communism. It is, as I said, the first step toward communism. And it retains many of the horrors of capitalism. That said, I’d put its record against capitalism’s record any day.
So communism has already been wiped off the face of the earth?

No, but it's a nice thought. Someday that will be true.
 

EatTheRich

President
So communism has already been wiped off the face of the earth?

No, but it's a nice thought. Someday that will be true.
Primitive communism has not. But that’s not the same as the international system of communism, anarchy, and free love that is being patiently built step by step.
 

EatTheRich

President
Holodomor.

Study up.
Again, 1) by a renegade from communism, Joseph Stalin, whose takeover of the USSR was supported (hence made possible) by every anti-communist political current and resisted to the death by tens of thousands of communists defending the legacy of Lenin; 2) 7 million deaths in a one-time event, versus 12 million annual deaths to make capitalism possible.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Again, 1) by a renegade from communism, Joseph Stalin, whose takeover of the USSR was supported (hence made possible) by every anti-communist political current and resisted to the death by tens of thousands of communists defending the legacy of Lenin; 2) 7 million deaths in a one-time event, versus 12 million annual deaths to make capitalism possible.
Complete bologna. Stalin considered his version of Communism the vanguard of the movement.
 

EatTheRich

President
Complete bologna. Stalin considered his version of Communism the vanguard of the movement.
Fraudulently. And he was only able to take power by purging 80% of the pre-1917 communists from the party and radically revising its program to reject the political line of Marx and Lenin … with the active support of every anticommunist political current in the world, which saw him as the “moderate” (that is, willing to compromise with capital) alternative to the “radical” Lenin and Trotsky.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Fraudulently. And he was only able to take power by purging 80% of the pre-1917 communists from the party and radically revising its program to reject the political line of Marx and Lenin … with the active support of every anticommunist political current in the world, which saw him as the “moderate” (that is, willing to compromise with capital) alternative to the “radical” Lenin and Trotsky.
What moderate? He stood up a pretend 'capital' built on the bodies of the dead, whom he starved to death by the millions to maintain the appearance of this so called revision. He wasn't Lenin lite....he was evil Lenin to the nth degree...
 

EatTheRich

President
What moderate? He stood up a pretend 'capital' built on the bodies of the dead, whom he starved to death by the millions to maintain the appearance of this so called revision. He wasn't Lenin lite....he was evil Lenin to the nth degree...
Mass starvation of the peasantry for the primitive accumulation of capital is a time-honored method borrowed from capitalist praxis (see the Irish famine, Bengal famine, etc.) and has nothing to do with the very different approach of Lenin.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Mass starvation of the peasantry for the primitive accumulation of capital is a time-honored method borrowed from capitalist praxis (see the Irish famine, Bengal famine, etc.) and has nothing to do with the very different approach of Lenin.
Yes, we weren't talking about lennon. We were talking about Stalin. And it wasn't a borrowed modality it was a deliberate infliction
 

EatTheRich

President
Yes, we weren't talking about lennon. We were talking about Stalin. And it wasn't a borrowed modality it was a deliberate infliction
A deliberate infliction in the political style of Cromwell, Ivan the Terrible, Sun Yat-sen, and any of many other capitalist modernizers. Not in the very different political style of Lenin (who differs from Stalin in that he is loyal to communism while Stalin is in Lenin’s own characterization disloyal to it).
 

EatTheRich

President
Sure. You bet.

Flights leaving regularly, why not pack and go?

Unless the quality of life is an issue for you.... :D
Of course, when the amount of wealth created by primitive communism gets to a certain point, the abundance allows for the creation of class society (since it is enough to make a few rich but not yet enough to make everyone rich). It is only the historical detour through class society and the greater productivity created by its antagonisms that paves the way for the eventual reconstruction of communism at a higher level of technological progress.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
A deliberate infliction in the political style of Cromwell, Ivan the Terrible, Sun Yat-sen, and any of many other capitalist modernizers. Not in the very different political style of Lenin (who differs from Stalin in that he is loyal to communism while Stalin is in Lenin’s own characterization disloyal to it).
No.
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
Of course, when the amount of wealth created by primitive communism gets to a certain point, the abundance allows for the creation of class society (since it is enough to make a few rich but not yet enough to make everyone rich). It is only the historical detour through class society and the greater productivity created by its antagonisms that paves the way for the eventual reconstruction of communism at a higher level of technological progress.
Still, communism always fails economically, and always oppresses people, and always relies on an authoritarian military/police state to keep its citizens under the boot.

Always.

Flawed from the beginning. Flawed by design. Flawed by Marx getting it all wrong.

Consider:

Communism is vulgar capitalism; that is, the communist command economy is based on mistaken notions of how capitalism grew by exploiting workers. Command economies not capitalism fulfil Marx's predictions, collapsing because they are unproductive and immoral, basing economic choices on corrupted personal relations. Without competition, decision in command economies are unproductive through negative selection, and immoral, being based on corrupt personal relations. Each and every Marxist and neo-Marxist prediction about capitalism, from commodity fetishism to the alienation of the citizen from the state, comes true under communism. The explanation is straightforward: Marxist assumptions about the state and the economy are far more true for communist than for capitalist countries.

Why Communism Collapses: The Moral and Material Failures of Command Economies are Intertwined* | Journal of Public Policy | Cambridge Core


You make excuses. It's all you got.
 

EatTheRich

President
Still, communism always fails economically, and always oppresses people, and always relies on an authoritarian military/police state to keep its citizens under the boot.

Always.

Flawed from the beginning. Flawed by design. Flawed by Marx getting it all wrong.

Consider:

Communism is vulgar capitalism; that is, the communist command economy is based on mistaken notions of how capitalism grew by exploiting workers. Command economies not capitalism fulfil Marx's predictions, collapsing because they are unproductive and immoral, basing economic choices on corrupted personal relations. Without competition, decision in command economies are unproductive through negative selection, and immoral, being based on corrupt personal relations. Each and every Marxist and neo-Marxist prediction about capitalism, from commodity fetishism to the alienation of the citizen from the state, comes true under communism. The explanation is straightforward: Marxist assumptions about the state and the economy are far more true for communist than for capitalist countries.

Why Communism Collapses: The Moral and Material Failures of Command Economies are Intertwined* | Journal of Public Policy | Cambridge Core


You make excuses. It's all you got.
Did communism fail economically when it made the USSR the first big country with universal access to electricity and allowed them to build the industrial infrastructure that allowed them to defeat the Nazis' mighty war machine almost single-handedly? When it turned backward, starving China into a modern industrial powerhouse? When it eliminated homelessness in East Germany and Cuba?

It should not be surprising that the earliest socialist countries, stamped from the beginning with the vestiges of their capitalist origins, should reproduce some of the most glaring failures of capitalism. Yet is there a single one where the standard of living did not improve due to the introduction of socialism? Meanwhile the vast majority of the capitalist world has gotten worse and worse off as capitalism has developed, no?
 
Top