Condemning communism

[Curried Goats]

When you replied to soupnazi, I noticed that you were supporting communism, which reminded me of why I write the opening post, and the question that I asked in it about why we never see lefties condemning communism. I would think that if you truly respected debate format, you would start by addressing the opening post and premise of the thread first, before commencing to defend communism some more.

I have, multiple times now. Still waiting for you to retort.

 

[EvMetro]

I have, multiple times now. Still waiting for you to retort.

Can you summarize from the multiple times that you have responded to my question about why lefties do not condemn communism? From what I can tell, it appears that your answer is that lefties do not condemn it because you guys support it. Is this correct?

 

[Curried Goats]

Can you summarize from the multiple times that you have responded to my question about why lefties do not condemn communism? From what I can tell, it appears that your answer is that lefties do not condemn it because you guys support it. Is this correct?

I don't speak for all lefties I speak for myself. I see nothing inherently wrong with democratically chosen communism or socialism. Why should I?

 

[Soupnazi630]

No it's not. By definition it's a political and economic system of shared ownership of resources. Whether governments actually end up equally sharing those resources and allows their citizens a democratic say in how those resources are shared determines whether they are tyrannical or not just as capitalism as practiced by America's Founders was tyrannical to blacks until it recognized them as individuals deserving of liberty and democracy. And that was just a few short 57 years ago.

Wrong.

By definition it is a political and economic system of ownership of all people as slaves by the slave state.

It is never about sharing resources. It is always b y design and definition tyrannical.

 

[Soupnazi630]

And I replied to Spounazi explaining exactly why he was wrong. That's how debate works. Can you respond to what I said with an intelligent and rational counter argument

You did no such thing You responded in ignroance and with fallacies.\\

I never fail to notice how you can't ever actually make a rational argument and instead rely solely on supposition.

YOu are making no rational arguments of yuour own and you know NOTHING about communism

 

[Soupnazi630]

I don't speak for all lefties I speak for myself. I see nothing inherently wrong with democratically chosen communism or socialism. Why should I?

They are never democratically chasen they are imposed by violence and force ALWAYS

 

[Soupnazi630]

And I replied to Spounazi explaining exactly why he was wrong. That's how debate works. Can you respond to what I said with an intelligent and rational counter argument?

You did NO such thing.

You posted falllacies

 

[Curried Goats]

Wrong.

By definition it is a political and economic system of ownership of all people as slaves by the slave state.

Explain that. What do you think makes a communist government any more inherently a slave state than a capitalist one?

It is never about sharing resources. It is always b y design and definition tyrannical.

In what way would a society, who chose to adopt aspects of communism through democratic means, be tyrannical?

YOu are making no rational arguments of yuour own and you know NOTHING about communism

You are making declarative statements without much supporting argument. If my position is wrong then address my points and explain why as I do yours.

They are never democratically chasen they are imposed by violence and force ALWAYS

So was capitalism. Capitalism was birthed and sustained through the violent and forceful enslavement of Africans and indigenous people.

You did NO such thing.

You posted falllacies

I post facts and arguments. Counter them if you can.

 

[Rigby5]

No they have not.

Communism is a modern political ideology.

Capitalism is a modern economic system which works well.

Nonsense.

Capitalism is just the profit motive, nothing else.
It has no complex origins or defining structure.
Anyone who uses force to take from someone else, is a capitalist, going back to Atilla the Hun.
The fact you can also make a profit from making a good product, is irrelevant.
Even those who made a good product in the past, will become abusive and monopolistic if not prevented.
The profit motive is extremely dangerous because it is based on material greed, and not on any good human, social emotion.
There are not built in checks or balances.

Nor is communism modern.
Ancient humans were hunter/gatherers who pooled the days take.
It had to always be that way for millions of years.
When human ancestors came down from the trees for some reason, their only means of survival was communal group cooperation.
Humans have always been communist.

Capitalism only came much later, after farming was invented, land become valuable, currency was invented, and people worked for currency instead of cooperation.

The only thing that happened around 1800 to emphasis the difference between capitalism and communism, was the industrial revolution.
That put all the cottage industries out of work, and caused those who could afford factories, to become uber wealthy.
It created economic power even more totalitarian than the aristocracy used to have.
That is a huge threat to human freedom and society.
Marx, socialism, unions, anti trust laws, etc., were all necessary in order to prevent the corrupt power the industrial revolution gave the wealthy elite.

Just ask yourself if any family, tribe, or any social organization based on the profit motive?
The answer will always be NO.
So then socialism, communism, or some sort of inherent social emotion will always be the main cohesive element of any social order.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.

They adopted communism.
Stalin wasno capitalist state or otherwise.

Since Stalin was out for personal power and wealth, not cooperative sharing, then he was a capitalist.
He was not politically motivated.
His past history was that of a bank robber.
He joined the Bolsheviks only because they protected him from the police, and he realized he could get power from them.
There was nothing remotely communist about Stalin.
He was almost identical to any monarch, and was a state capitalist.
All dictators always are state capitalists.
The difference from modern capitalists being that they do not allow competition, and make a total monopoly, using the military power of the state.
That is ultra capitalist.

 

[Rigby5]

Dead wrong.

Government can only force peoplke which no one wants.

Private enteerprise works with voluntary cooperation.

Wrong.

Government is supposed to be where people organize together to do more than individual could do alone.
Like to build bridges, schools, defend against invasion,
It is never supposed to be based on force, and is only based on force when the profit motive causes corruption by a wealthy elite minority.

Private enterprise is always greed based so will always cheat, steal, or force, is allowed.
The only times private enterprise does not cheat, steal, or force, is when it is prevented from doing do by communal laws and joint force.

For example, the violent and evil deeds of the Pinkerton Security guards during the 1800s is notorious.
It was not until Teddy Roosevelt that anti trust laws were finally passed to tone down the horrendous crimes of the capitalist trusts.

 

[Rigby5]

I was raised in Miami and had a lot of Cuban friends. The knew1st hand about communism and they shared their stories. I was raised with the motto of "the only god commie is a dead commie", Nothing has changed to make me change my mind. If anything my resolve has only gotten stronger as commies are trying to change my country

No they did not know first hand about communism.
There was nothing remotely communist about Cuba.
And the Cubans who stole the entire Cuba treasury and came to the US, were the oppressive, wealthy, elite, criminals.
They are the ones who ran the casinos, forced slave labor, etc.
Cuba just switched criminals, but made no real change.

 

[Rigby5]

A few years living in a communist country would cure most democrats of their stupid, ignorant attitude regarding this.

Where would you find a communist country?
There have never been any, because capitalist have never allowed one to exist.
About the closest one could come would be a religious society like the Amish, with their communal barn raisings.

But tell me a single primitive hunter/gatherer tribe that is not communist?
You can't because there has never been one.
Left alone, all humans are naturally and inherently communist.

 

[EvMetro]

I don't speak for all lefties I speak for myself. I see nothing inherently wrong with democratically chosen communism or socialism. Why should I?

Thanks. It's really nice to finally see a lefty just come out and admit that the reason why lefties won't condemn communism is because they have no problem with it. Your answer is probably the first honest answer to the question.

 

[Unkotare]

Explain that. What do you think makes a communist government any more inherently a slave state than a capitalist one?
...

Spend some years living in each kind and you'll understand.

 

[Rigby5]

Illusions about what life under communism is really like, and the asinine refrain of "next time it will work!"

Stalinism has ZERO similarity to communism.
I have doubts if communism can be expanded to large scale, but clearly the USSR and Mao's China was the exact opposite of communism.
Communism has to be where the smallest scale, the local communities, have the most power.
It can never be strongly centralized.
And it has to always be totally democratic.

 

[Rigby5]

I would bet you that the vast majority of immigrants who have escaped Communist countries and come to the US stay as far away from the Democratic Party as possible. A cursory glance at both party platforms is enough for any sensible person to realize which one leads towards more government control.

The people ARE the government, so what you say makes no sense.
If the people are NOT the government, like in the USSR or China, that is capitalism, not communism.

 

[Rigby5]

Thanks. It's really nice to finally see a lefty just come out and admit that the reason why lefties won't condemn communism is because they have no problem with it. Your answer is probably the first honest answer to the question.

All humans are inherently socialist and communist.
Those who are against socialism and communism either do not know what those words mean, or want to return us to slavery of capitalism monarchs and dictators.

 

[Rigby5]

Spend some years living in each kind and you'll understand.

The US, Germany, etc. deliberately supported Stalin and other capitalists during the Bolshevik revolution, to ensure communism would never exist as a government.
Capitalists are frightened by the obvious truth of communism, and do not allow it.
Stalin was never a communist, was a state capitalists who got his training, wealth, and power by robbing banks.
So where could one spend any time living under communism?
Communism has never been allowed on any scale larger than like the Amish community.

 

[EvMetro]

All humans are inherently socialist and communist.
Those who are against socialism and communism either do not know what those words mean, or want to return us to slavery of capitalism monarchs and dictators.

Are you saying that you don't condemn communism because you endorse communism?