Zone1 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the only true and living Church today

[Red Front]

LOL you are an idiot. Communism doesn't work and has failed everywhere it was tried. The leaders of the supposed Communist regimes have openly MURDERED Millions of people.

Respond to the points that I made or STFU. You're just spewing capitalist cold war rhetoric.

 

[Ivan88]

The resulting proposition is Lord Esau Rules and if you don't like it, Adios.

LOL Communism doesn't work and has failed everywhere it was tried. The leaders of the supposed Communist regimes have openly MURDERED Millions of people.

Yes and USA helped cause it all and the LDS Church didn't say a thing against it all including the fire bombing, mass murders of millions of Germans of all ages and sex in order to save Stalin's murderous control of Aryan Christian Israel Russia.

 

[Ivan88]

Major General Smedley Butler on the Grand Fraud of America's Fraudulent, Habitual & Perpetual Wars
Take Note that the LDS Church officials always keeps silent about them.
America has the best form of Communism, we call it Capitalism.

 

[Cougarbear]

There’s no such thing as a living god or church. You might feel strongly about that but it doesn’t make it true.

To my knowledge not one person has ever interacted with any god and I’ll bet you are no different. Faith does not equate to fact.

Non-empirical evidence does not mean something is true or not true. Faith doesn't rely on you and what you think. I can witness that I know God lives and the Holy Ghost is real as it has descended upon me more than once, including before I was a believer in Jesus Christ. I had a "Paul" experience. So, you cannot tell me about truth because you haven't the faith to ask for the truth.

 

[Cougarbear]

You're just spouting a bunch of ignorant gobbledygook. First of all, in communism, you can own personal property, you just can't own private property. You obviously don't know the difference between the two. Private property is that which one can use to exploit others, hence housing isn't necessarily "private property", unless you own it to rent it out as a landlord. Most people under capitalism don't own residential property, they rent it or hold a mortgage from a bank, to whom they owe money.

In socialism you have a human right to housing, hence every member of society is housed.

Capitalism under colonialism and now multi-national, corporate imperialism has murdered hundreds of millions of people around the world and has subjugated them under the heel of profit-pursuing, Western big-money capitalists. The British empire in the late 19th century forced China to get hooked on heroin in order to ensure its wealthy ruling class made a profit. British capitalists using state power imposed sanctions on India, prohibiting it from manufacturing its own salt, making it dependent upon Britain for it, among other vital commodities.

​

Cronyism, imperialism, and war are endemic to capitalism. When we have a small minority of people in society owning the means of production (the facilities, machinery, equipment..etc) and employing people for a wage to produce goods and services for employers to profit, that creates an irresistible incentive for that small wealthy minority and owner class to take control of the state and undermine democracy and freedom.

Unregulated, "laissez faire" capitalism always leads to state-protected monopolies, plutocracy, and the gross exploitation of both workers and consumers. Those who think capitalism is primarily defined by markets are wrong. Markets existed thousands of years before capitalism. Socialism according to Karl Marx, allows markets in the consumer goods sector of the economy before material conditions exist to establish a communist economy and society. Socialism is the process that leads to communism, creating the material conditions that allow it to exist and flourish.

According to Marx, communism is a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. It highly depends on very modern technology and the complete lack of scarcity. When the consumer can easily produce what he or she consumes without the assistance of anyone else, including a government or a private, for-profit company, then that person is truly free.

Capitalism is simply a mode of production that will in the not-too-distant future, become completely obsolete and replaced with a socialized and democratic form of production, where the facilities, machinery, and equipment of production are owned collectively, by the people. We all own the technology together and organize production for the purpose of meeting our needs not for selling what is produced in a marketplace for a profit. Advanced, 21st century technology:

Automated Systems, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Self-Driving Vehicles, Nanotech..etc

Nanofactory Animation

Advanced 21st-Century Technology will inevitably necessitate the adoption of a mode of production that is not dependent upon profits or wage labor. The system of production that will replace capitalism, is socialism and eventually communism. Systems of production not based on wage labor or the pursuit of profits through the sell of goods in markets.

NO WAGE LABOR = NO PAYING CONSUMERS = NO MARKETS = NO CAPITALISM/CAPITALISTS = SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM = ALL CONSUMERS HAVE CONTROL OVER THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

View attachment 710970

NASA - Space Colonization (1975)

NASA video produced in 1975 in conjunction with publication of Space Settlements: A Design Study. The complete study is here:http://www.nss.org/settlement/na...

www.youtube.com

Socialism/communism is the future.


​

Sorry you went to all this work and blather. You actually helped prove may point. What Marx wrote and what communism from that point on did are too very different things. In a perfect world where pride and thirst for money and power don't exist, his plan can work. But, we don't live in that world. Communism has never eliminated poverty. In fact, it has caused most people to live in poverty and never get out of their poverty to live comfortably. In very recent times, Venezuela is a perfect example of what happens when the people want your utopian society. The leaders become that which you hate with their extreme wealth and power while the vast population ends up homeless, penniless and eating their dogs and cats. Where are they escaping to? The United States of America, where capitalism still exists. Yes, it's not perfect, but people get to seek for a better life attempting to own their private and personal property (which really are the same. The aren't different). So, just take Venezuela and see where their huge oil wealth has taken them with their communist state. And, compare that with the U.S. Even those in poverty have a TV, refrigerator, microwave and oven with beds in their homes. They even have food and health resources through the government and private religious organizations. Every attempt at communism since Marx has failed with tens of millions of people killed by their governments to try and fix their economic problems. And, it still didn't work. China moved towards capitalism with markets to get out of the severe poverty and it worked. Now, they are moving back to the communism and it's hurting them. There is no utopia in our world without a truly perfect and righteous person ruling the world. And, that person is Jesus Christ.

 

[Red Front]

Sorry you went to all this work and blather. You actually helped prove may point. What Marx wrote and what communism from that point on did are too very different things. In a perfect world where pride and thirst for money and power don't exist, his plan can work. But, we don't live in that world. Communism has never eliminated poverty. In fact, it has caused most people to live in poverty and never get out of their poverty to live comfortably. In very recent times, Venezuela is a perfect example of what happens when the people want your utopian society. The leaders become that which you hate with their extreme wealth and power while the vast population ends up homeless, penniless and eating their dogs and cats. Where are they escaping to? The United States of America, where capitalism still exists. Yes, it's not perfect, but people get to seek for a better life attempting to own their private and personal property (which really are the same. The aren't different). So, just take Venezuela and see where their huge oil wealth has taken them with their communist state. And, compare that with the U.S. Even those in poverty have a TV, refrigerator, microwave and oven with beds in their homes. They even have food and health resources through the government and private religious organizations. Every attempt at communism since Marx has failed with tens of millions of people killed by their governments to try and fix their economic problems. And, it still didn't work. China moved towards capitalism with markets to get out of the severe poverty and it worked. Now, they are moving back to the communism and it's hurting them. There is no utopia in our world without a truly perfect and righteous person ruling the world. And, that person is Jesus Christ.

More ignorant tripe and gobbledygook. You've ignored all of the points I made in my posts to you, which already addressed your claims. You continue pretending capitalism came on the scene immediately, overnight, replacing chattel slavery and feudalism, and that's simply not the case. It took hundreds of years for the mercantile class to defeat the kings and feudal lords (i.e. nobles), replacing monarchies with plutocratic, capitalist-run republics. The merchant class didn't become powerful industrialists until technology (i.e. material conditions) allowed them to do so in the 19th century.

Socialism and eventually communism (a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money), will likewise, in the same way, capitalism replaced its predecessors, replace capitalism when material conditions (i.e. technology) allow that to happen. In the 20th century, we see the first attempts to establish a socialist society, with a centrally planned economy, at a national scale, producing and distributing goods and services without markets. Socialism did phenomenally well despite all of the challenges it faced from the capitalist powers that were constantly trying to destroy it.

In the early 1900s, Russia was an under-industrialized, agrarian society populated mostly by illiterate country peasants. Russian socialists managed, notwithstanding the military invasion of their country, by the United States and 14 other countries in 1918, to develop Russia into an industrial juggernaut rivaling the United States. By the late 1930s, only 20 years after the Oct-1917 revolution, Russian farms were more mechanized than in the United States and Western Europe.
The Soviets eliminated illiteracy and greatly improved public health and people's standard of living.

After all of that development, Soviet Russia was invaded by 4 million German Nazis. The Germans at the time were considered to have the most advanced and capable military in the world. The German war machine with all of its might, invaded the Russian homeland, resulting in the death of 27 million Soviets. Nine million Soviet soldiers died fighting the invaders, and millions more were wounded and maimed. The American death toll in both Europe and Asia was 460,000. We have the advantage of having two vast oceans between us and Europe and Asia. Capitalist-run America wasn't invaded.

Much of Russia's infrastructure was destroyed by the German invasion and it had to essentially rebuild itself from scratch. By the mid-1950s, the Soviet Union was once again a major world power rivaling the US, economically, militarily, technologically..etc. The Soviets were the first in space, not much more than a decade after suffering the catastrophe of WW2. You completely and very conveniently ignore everything I just mentioned above. What do you do with that, sweep it under the rug?

In the 20th century, The Soviet Union and practically every nation on Earth that identified itself as having a socialist, Marxist economy and society was demonized, embargoed, sanctioned, threatened with war, incircled, bombed, invaded, occupied..etc. You very conveniently forget to mention all of that and disingenuously pretend that the reason the world isn't socialist or communist now is that "socialism doesn't work". Bullshit.

That's exactly what the kings and nobles, all of the feudal lords of the 1500s and 1600s were saying about the mercantile class and their aspirations to eliminate the monarchies, replacing them with Republican plutocracies with citizens rather than mere subjects. It took centuries for the capitalists to defeat the kings and nobles and establish their own self-serving worldly order. Sure, plutocratic republics are generally better than absolute monarchies or even kingdoms with parliaments, but not much.

When technology permits, socialism, and communism will become necessary. Is socialism or communism, inevitable? No. We will have a choice in the not-too-distant future, between socializing and democratizing our economy (i.e. the production and distribution of goods and services) and techno-feudalism. A modern form of feudalism, where the wealthy class, the billionaires, and large corporations, own all of the advanced technology (i.e. the patents, licenses, the means to produce, use and benefit from the tech), and the rest of us will be consigned to serfdom and eventually the compost heap.

The more advanced technology becomes the less need there is for wage labor, hence the working-class will become superfluous and of no value to the wealthy class. They won't even need us to buy their products, because they will have the technology to produce everything that they consume without wage labor. Robots don't need a salary.

Just like capitalism began to replace slavery and feudalism, as a means of production, back in the 1800s, with the advent of industrialization, we are now heading toward another "fork" on the road of human production, where we will have a choice. We can choose human progress, where technology continues to advance, for everyone's benefit and WE ALL OWN the technology (i.e. robots, automated systems, artificial intelligence, and self-driving, autonomous vehicles. etc) together, as valued members of our community, our nation OR, we become serfs/compost, under the heel of billionaire techno-lords.

Most people in the future (our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren), aren't going to allow the billionaires, the corporations, to enslave them, much less turn them into compost ("Soilent Green"). We will all own the technology, the means of production, together or no one will own it. We all own it, or no one owns it. Everyone will benefit from the robots, automated systems, nanotech, artificial intelligence..etc. We will organize production, storage, and delivery, for everything that we consume and enjoy without the need for wages, profits, or markets (capitalism). We will produce everything to meet our needs. Everyone's standard of living is going to be dramatically improved thanks to technology.

​

 

[Cougarbear]

More ignorant tripe and gobbledygook. You've ignored all of the points I made in my posts to you, which already addressed your claims. You continue pretending capitalism came on the scene immediately, overnight, replacing chattel slavery and feudalism, and that's simply not the case. It took hundreds of years for the mercantile class to defeat the kings and feudal lords (i.e. nobles), replacing monarchies with plutocratic, capitalist-run republics. The merchant class didn't become powerful industrialists until technology (i.e. material conditions) allowed them to do so in the 19th century.

More ignorant tripe and gobbledygook. From the Washington Post:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...17/11/07/lessons-from-a-century-of-communism/

"Today is the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik seizure of power, which led to the establishment of a communist regime in Russia and eventually in many other nations around the world. It is an appropriate time to remember the vast tide of oppression, tyranny, and mass murder that communist regimes unleashed upon the world. While historians and others have documented numerous communist atrocities, much of the public remains unaware of their enormous scale. It is also a good time to consider what lessons we can learn from this horrendous history.

I. A Record of Mass Murder and Oppression.
Collectively, communist states killed as many as 100 million people, more than all other repressive regimes combined during the same time period. By far the biggest toll arose from communist efforts to collectivize agriculture and eliminate independent property-owning peasants. In China alone, Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward led to a man-made famine in which as many as 45 million people perished – the single biggest episode of mass murder in all of world history. In the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin’s collectivization – which served as a model for similar efforts in China and elsewhere – took some 6 to 10 million lives. Mass famines occurred in many other communist regimes, ranging from North Korea to Ethiopia. In each of these cases, communist rulers were well aware that their policies were causing mass death, and in each they persisted nonetheless, often because they considered the extermination of “Kulak” peasants a feature rather than a bug.


While collectivization was the single biggest killer, communist regimes also engaged in other forms of mass murder on an epic scale. Millions died in slave labor camps, such as the USSR’s Gulag system and its equivalents elsewhere. Many others were killed in more conventional mass executions, such as those of Stalin’s Great Purge, and the “Killing Fields” of Cambodia.
The injustices of communism were not limited to mass murder alone. Even those fortunate enough to survive still were subjected to severe repression, including violations of freedom, of speech, freedom of religion, loss of property rights, and the criminalization of ordinary economic activity. No previous tyranny sought such complete control over nearly every aspect of people’s lives.
Although the communists promised a utopian society in which the working class would enjoy unprecedented prosperity, in reality they engendered massive poverty. Wherever communist and noncommunist states existed in close proximity, it was the communists who used walls and the threat of death to keep their people from fleeing to societies with greater opportunity.


II. Why Communism Failed.
How did an ideology of liberation lead to so much oppression, tyranny and death? Were its failures intrinsic to the communist project, or did they arise from avoidable flaws of particular rulers or nations? Like any great historical development, the failures of communism cannot be reduced to any one single cause. But, by and large, they were indeed inherent.
Two major factors were the most important causes of the atrocities inflicted by communist regimes: perverse incentives and inadequate knowledge. The establishment of the centrally planned economy and society required by socialist ideology necessitated an enormous concentration of power. While communists looked forward to a utopian society in which the state could eventually “wither away,” they believed they first had to establish a state-run economy in order to manage production in the interests of the people. In that respect, they had much in common with other socialists.

To make socialism work, government planners needed to have the authority to direct the production and distribution of virtually all the goods produced by the society. In addition, extensive coercion was necessary to force people to give up their private property, and do the work that the state required. Famine and mass murder was probably the only way the rulers of the USSR, China, and other communist states could compel peasants to give up their land and livestock and accept a new form of serfdom on collective farms – which most were then forbidden to leave without official permission, for fear that they might otherwise seek an easier life elsewhere.
The vast power necessary to establish and maintain the communist system naturally attracted unscrupulous people, including many self-seekers who prioritized their own interests over those of the cause. But it is striking that the biggest communist atrocities were perpetrated not by corrupt party bosses, but by true believers like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Precisely because they were true believers, they were willing to do whatever it might take to make their utopian dreams a reality.
Even as the socialist system created opportunities for vast atrocities by the rulers, it also destroyed production incentives for ordinary people. In the absence of markets (at least legal ones), there was little incentive for workers to either be productive or to focus on making goods that might actually be useful to consumers. Many people tried to do as little work as possible at their official jobs, where possible reserving their real efforts for black market activity. As the old Soviet saying goes, workers had the attitude that “we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay.”

Even when socialist planners genuinely sought to produce prosperity and meet consumer demands, they often lacked the information to do so. As Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek described in a famous article, a market economy conveys vital information to producers and consumers alike through the price system. Market prices enable producers to know the relative value of different goods and services, and determine how much consumers value their products. Under socialist central planning, by contrast, there is no substitute for this vital knowledge. As a result, socialist planners often had no way to know what to produce, by what methods, or in way quantities. This is one of the reasons why communists states routinely suffered from shortages of basic goods, while simultaneously producing large quantities of shoddy products for which there was little demand.

III. Why the Failure Cannot be Explained Away.
To this day, defenders of socialist central planning argue that communism failed for avoidable contingent reasons, rather than ones intrinsic to the nature of the system. Perhaps the most popular claim of this sort is that a planned economy can work well so long as it is democratic. The Soviet Union and other communist states were all dictatorships. But if they had been democratic, perhaps the leaders would have had stronger incentives to make the system work for the benefit of the people. If they failed to do so, the voters could “throw the bastards out” at the next election.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that a communist state could remain democratic for long, even it started out that way. Democracy requires effective opposition parties. And in order to function, such parties need to be able to put out their message and mobilize voters, which in turn requires extensive resources. In an economic system in which all or nearly all valuable resources are controlled by the state, the incumbent government can easily strangle opposition by denying them access to those resources. Under socialism, the opposition cannot function if they are not allowed to spread their message on state-owned media, or use state-owned property for their rallies and meetings. It is no accident that virtually every communist regime suppressed opposition parties soon after coming to power.
Even if a communist state could somehow remain democratic over the long run, it is hard to see how it could solve the twin problems of knowledge and incentives. Whether democratic or not, a socialist economy would still require enormous concentration of power, and extensive coercion. And democratic socialist planners would run into much the same information problems as their authoritarian counterparts. In addition, in a society where the government controls all or most of the economy, it would be virtually impossible for voters to acquire enough knowledge to monitor the state’s many activities. This would greatly exacerbate the already severe problem of voter ignorance that plagues modern democracy.
Another possible explanation for the failures of communism is that the problem was bad leadership. If only communist regimes were not led by monsters like Stalin or Mao, they might have done better. There is no doubt communist governments had more than their share of cruel and even sociopathic leaders. But it is unlikely that this was the decisive factor in their failure. Very similar results arose in communist regimes with leaders who had a wide range of personalities. In the Soviet Union, it is important to remember that the main institutions of repression (including the Gulags and the secret police) were established not by Stalin, but by Vladimir Lenin, a far more “normal” person. After Lenin’s death, Stalin’s main rival for power – Leon Trotsky – advocated policies that were in some respects even more oppressive than Stalin’s own. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that either the personality of the leader was not the main factor, or – alternatively – communist regimes tended to put horrible people to positions of power. Or perhaps some of both.

It is equally difficult to credit claims that communism failed only because of defects in the culture of the countries that adopted it. It is indeed true that Russia, the first communist nation, had a long history of corruption, authoritarianism, and oppression. But it is also true that the communists engaged in oppression and mass murder on a far greater scale than previous Russian governments. And communism also failed in many other nations with very different cultures. In the cases of Korea, China, and Germany, people with very similar initial cultural backgrounds endured terrible privation under communism, but were much more successful under market economies.
Overall, the atrocities and failures of communism were the natural outcomes of an effort to establish a socialist economy in which all or nearly all production is controlled by the state. If not always completely unavoidable, the resulting oppression was at least highly likely.
Just as the atrocities of Nazism are abject lessons on the dangers of nationalism, racism, and anti-semitism, so the history of communist crimes teaches the dangers of socialism. The history of communism does not prove that any and all forms of government intervention in the economy must be avoided. But it does highlight the dangers of allowing the state to seize control of all or most of the economy, and of eliminating private property. Moreover, the knowledge and incentive problems that arise under socialism also bedevil efforts at large-scale economic planning that fall short of complete government control of production.

Sadly, these lessons remain relevant today, in an era where socialism has again begun to attract adherents in various parts of the world. In Venezuela, the government is seeking to establish a new socialist dictatorship that pursues many of the same policies as the old, including even the use of food shortages to break opposition. Even in some long-established democracies, recent economic and social troubles have increased the popularity of avowed old-style socialists such as Bernie Sanders in the United States and Jeremy Corbyn in Britain. Both Sanders and Corbyn are longtime admirers of brutal communist regimes. Even if they wanted to do so, it is unlikely that Sanders or Corbyn will be able to establish full-blown socialism in their respective countries. But they can potentially do considerable harm nonetheless.
On the other side of the political spectrum, there are disturbing similarities between communism and various newly popular extreme right-wing nationalist movements. Both combine authoritarian tendencies with disdain for liberal values and a desire to extend government control over large parts of the economy.
Today’s dangerous tendencies on both right and left are not yet as menacing as those of a century ago, and need not cause anywhere near as much harm. The better we learn the painful lessons of the history of communism, the more likely that we can avoid any repetition of its horrors."

 

[Here and there]

Non-empirical evidence does not mean something is true or not true.

Call it what you like but there is no evidence of anything and U know that.

Faith doesn't rely on you and what you think.

Why would it? You can have all the faith you want and it means nothing without proof.

I can witness that I know God lives and the Holy Ghost is real as it has descended upon me more than once,

That's a very bold unsubstantiated statement and I know and so do you that it is completely false and supported by nothing but delusions.

including before I was a believer in Jesus Christ. I had a "Paul" experience. So, you cannot tell me about truth because you haven't the faith to ask for the truth.

A Paul experience??
What is that? Something that proves there's a god?
If your happy with your hallucinations etc,. Good for you but I'm evidence based and that is where religions of any persuasion always stop.

 

[Red Front]

More ignorant tripe and gobbledygook. From the Washington Post:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...17/11/07/lessons-from-a-century-of-communism/

"Today is the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik seizure of power, which led to the establishment of a communist regime in Russia and eventually in many other nations around the world. It is an appropriate time to remember the vast tide of oppression, tyranny, and mass murder that communist regimes unleashed upon the world. While historians and others have documented numerous communist atrocities, much of the public remains unaware of their enormous scale. It is also a good time to consider what lessons we can learn from this horrendous history.

I. A Record of Mass Murder and Oppression.
Collectively, communist states killed as many as 100 million people, more than all other repressive regimes combined during the same time period. By far the biggest toll arose from communist efforts to collectivize agriculture and eliminate independent property-owning peasants. In China alone, Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward led to a man-made famine in which as many as 45 million people perished – the single biggest episode of mass murder in all of world history. In the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin’s collectivization – which served as a model for similar efforts in China and elsewhere – took some 6 to 10 million lives. Mass famines occurred in many other communist regimes, ranging from North Korea to Ethiopia. In each of these cases, communist rulers were well aware that their policies were causing mass death, and in each they persisted nonetheless, often because they considered the extermination of “Kulak” peasants a feature rather than a bug.


While collectivization was the single biggest killer, communist regimes also engaged in other forms of mass murder on an epic scale. Millions died in slave labor camps, such as the USSR’s Gulag system and its equivalents elsewhere. Many others were killed in more conventional mass executions, such as those of Stalin’s Great Purge, and the “Killing Fields” of Cambodia.
The injustices of communism were not limited to mass murder alone. Even those fortunate enough to survive still were subjected to severe repression, including violations of freedom, of speech, freedom of religion, loss of property rights, and the criminalization of ordinary economic activity. No previous tyranny sought such complete control over nearly every aspect of people’s lives.
Although the communists promised a utopian society in which the working class would enjoy unprecedented prosperity, in reality they engendered massive poverty. Wherever communist and noncommunist states existed in close proximity, it was the communists who used walls and the threat of death to keep their people from fleeing to societies with greater opportunity.


II. Why Communism Failed.
How did an ideology of liberation lead to so much oppression, tyranny and death? Were its failures intrinsic to the communist project, or did they arise from avoidable flaws of particular rulers or nations? Like any great historical development, the failures of communism cannot be reduced to any one single cause. But, by and large, they were indeed inherent.
Two major factors were the most important causes of the atrocities inflicted by communist regimes: perverse incentives and inadequate knowledge. The establishment of the centrally planned economy and society required by socialist ideology necessitated an enormous concentration of power. While communists looked forward to a utopian society in which the state could eventually “wither away,” they believed they first had to establish a state-run economy in order to manage production in the interests of the people. In that respect, they had much in common with other socialists.

To make socialism work, government planners needed to have the authority to direct the production and distribution of virtually all the goods produced by the society. In addition, extensive coercion was necessary to force people to give up their private property, and do the work that the state required. Famine and mass murder was probably the only way the rulers of the USSR, China, and other communist states could compel peasants to give up their land and livestock and accept a new form of serfdom on collective farms – which most were then forbidden to leave without official permission, for fear that they might otherwise seek an easier life elsewhere.
The vast power necessary to establish and maintain the communist system naturally attracted unscrupulous people, including many self-seekers who prioritized their own interests over those of the cause. But it is striking that the biggest communist atrocities were perpetrated not by corrupt party bosses, but by true believers like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Precisely because they were true believers, they were willing to do whatever it might take to make their utopian dreams a reality.
Even as the socialist system created opportunities for vast atrocities by the rulers, it also destroyed production incentives for ordinary people. In the absence of markets (at least legal ones), there was little incentive for workers to either be productive or to focus on making goods that might actually be useful to consumers. Many people tried to do as little work as possible at their official jobs, where possible reserving their real efforts for black market activity. As the old Soviet saying goes, workers had the attitude that “we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay.”

Even when socialist planners genuinely sought to produce prosperity and meet consumer demands, they often lacked the information to do so. As Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek described in a famous article, a market economy conveys vital information to producers and consumers alike through the price system. Market prices enable producers to know the relative value of different goods and services, and determine how much consumers value their products. Under socialist central planning, by contrast, there is no substitute for this vital knowledge. As a result, socialist planners often had no way to know what to produce, by what methods, or in way quantities. This is one of the reasons why communists states routinely suffered from shortages of basic goods, while simultaneously producing large quantities of shoddy products for which there was little demand.

III. Why the Failure Cannot be Explained Away.
To this day, defenders of socialist central planning argue that communism failed for avoidable contingent reasons, rather than ones intrinsic to the nature of the system. Perhaps the most popular claim of this sort is that a planned economy can work well so long as it is democratic. The Soviet Union and other communist states were all dictatorships. But if they had been democratic, perhaps the leaders would have had stronger incentives to make the system work for the benefit of the people. If they failed to do so, the voters could “throw the bastards out” at the next election.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that a communist state could remain democratic for long, even it started out that way. Democracy requires effective opposition parties. And in order to function, such parties need to be able to put out their message and mobilize voters, which in turn requires extensive resources. In an economic system in which all or nearly all valuable resources are controlled by the state, the incumbent government can easily strangle opposition by denying them access to those resources. Under socialism, the opposition cannot function if they are not allowed to spread their message on state-owned media, or use state-owned property for their rallies and meetings. It is no accident that virtually every communist regime suppressed opposition parties soon after coming to power.
Even if a communist state could somehow remain democratic over the long run, it is hard to see how it could solve the twin problems of knowledge and incentives. Whether democratic or not, a socialist economy would still require enormous concentration of power, and extensive coercion. And democratic socialist planners would run into much the same information problems as their authoritarian counterparts. In addition, in a society where the government controls all or most of the economy, it would be virtually impossible for voters to acquire enough knowledge to monitor the state’s many activities. This would greatly exacerbate the already severe problem of voter ignorance that plagues modern democracy.
Another possible explanation for the failures of communism is that the problem was bad leadership. If only communist regimes were not led by monsters like Stalin or Mao, they might have done better. There is no doubt communist governments had more than their share of cruel and even sociopathic leaders. But it is unlikely that this was the decisive factor in their failure. Very similar results arose in communist regimes with leaders who had a wide range of personalities. In the Soviet Union, it is important to remember that the main institutions of repression (including the Gulags and the secret police) were established not by Stalin, but by Vladimir Lenin, a far more “normal” person. After Lenin’s death, Stalin’s main rival for power – Leon Trotsky – advocated policies that were in some respects even more oppressive than Stalin’s own. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that either the personality of the leader was not the main factor, or – alternatively – communist regimes tended to put horrible people to positions of power. Or perhaps some of both.

It is equally difficult to credit claims that communism failed only because of defects in the culture of the countries that adopted it. It is indeed true that Russia, the first communist nation, had a long history of corruption, authoritarianism, and oppression. But it is also true that the communists engaged in oppression and mass murder on a far greater scale than previous Russian governments. And communism also failed in many other nations with very different cultures. In the cases of Korea, China, and Germany, people with very similar initial cultural backgrounds endured terrible privation under communism, but were much more successful under market economies.
Overall, the atrocities and failures of communism were the natural outcomes of an effort to establish a socialist economy in which all or nearly all production is controlled by the state. If not always completely unavoidable, the resulting oppression was at least highly likely.
Just as the atrocities of Nazism are abject lessons on the dangers of nationalism, racism, and anti-semitism, so the history of communist crimes teaches the dangers of socialism. The history of communism does not prove that any and all forms of government intervention in the economy must be avoided. But it does highlight the dangers of allowing the state to seize control of all or most of the economy, and of eliminating private property. Moreover, the knowledge and incentive problems that arise under socialism also bedevil efforts at large-scale economic planning that fall short of complete government control of production.

Sadly, these lessons remain relevant today, in an era where socialism has again begun to attract adherents in various parts of the world. In Venezuela, the government is seeking to establish a new socialist dictatorship that pursues many of the same policies as the old, including even the use of food shortages to break opposition. Even in some long-established democracies, recent economic and social troubles have increased the popularity of avowed old-style socialists such as Bernie Sanders in the United States and Jeremy Corbyn in Britain. Both Sanders and Corbyn are longtime admirers of brutal communist regimes. Even if they wanted to do so, it is unlikely that Sanders or Corbyn will be able to establish full-blown socialism in their respective countries. But they can potentially do considerable harm nonetheless.
On the other side of the political spectrum, there are disturbing similarities between communism and various newly popular extreme right-wing nationalist movements. Both combine authoritarian tendencies with disdain for liberal values and a desire to extend government control over large parts of the economy.
Today’s dangerous tendencies on both right and left are not yet as menacing as those of a century ago, and need not cause anywhere near as much harm. The better we learn the painful lessons of the history of communism, the more likely that we can avoid any repetition of its horrors."

You conveniently continue to ignore many of the points I make in my posts. You just copied and pasted a bunch of cheap capitalist rhetoric and fabrications against socialism, easily debunked by socialists. Don't you realize that this line of argumentation, that cites supposed death tolls for socialism can very easily be applied to capitalism? Capitalist colonialism and imperialism has killed hundreds of millions of people. Have communist killed millions of people? Yes, it's called war.

Communists killed millions of Germans in WW2 (a war started by capitalists and fascists defending capitalists). Both communists and capitalists have a mountain of dead rotting corpses, under their feet. Yes? What's the point of you pointing that out? Do you actually think you have the moral high ground upon which to stand and point your crooked, feculent finger at communists when it comes to dead bodies? Really? You're naive and deluded, if not extremely dishonest.

Do you know why you rely on these types of emotionally charged arguments to defend capitalism? Because you don't have a rational, reasonable argument in defense of capitalism (you don't want to engage in that type of discourse, hence you resort to ad hominem attacks and mud-slinging). All that the defenders (i.e. apologists) of capitalism and imaginary "free markets" have to offer the American public are campfire horror stories about communism that are at best, gross exaggerations and half-truths, and quite often complete fabrications. Outright Lies.

For those of you who are actually interested in learning the communist perspective and studying our arguments (rather than relying on our enemies to learn about us and what we actually believe), here are a few resources:

Former CIA Agents Admit To Creating False Propaganda Against the USSR and Communism:



Go here to watch more CIA agents admitting to fabricating horror stories vs communism:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmieUFfdwXfKnkugrsuFpBw

In anticipation of the bullshit argument that Hitler was a Marxist socialist, here is a response:



​

The young man presenting the above video has a great channel on socialism, that debunks practically everything capitalists argue against socialism:

https://www.youtube.com/c/SecondThought

Here is Grover Furr, one of the world's top Western scholars on the USSR, who is literate and fluent in Russian and has access to the Soviet archives, debunking much of the rhetoric against the USSR (most Western historians of the USSR don't read Russian nor have access to the Soviet document archives in Moscow):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccmj2Lj5jB0&t=21s

Two very good books (in PDF format) by Grover Furr:

Khrushchev Lied (Grover Furr) (z-lib.org).pdf

drive.google.com

Stalin Waiting for ... the Truth (Grover Furr) (z-lib.org).pdf

drive.google.com

Truth Seekers, don't hesitate to ask me whatever questions you have on socialism or communism here or in PM. Communists have answers, don't solely rely on right-wing capitalists to inform you about Marxism or communism. Always get the other side of the story as well.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You conveniently continue to ignore many of the points I make in my posts. You just copied and pasted a bunch of cheap capitalist rhetoric and fabrications against socialism, easily debunked by socialists. Don't you realize that this line of argumentation, that cites supposed death tolls for socialism can very easily be applied to capitalism? Capitalist colonialism and imperialism has killed hundreds of millions of people. Have communist killed millions of people? Yes, it's called war.

Communists killed millions of Germans in WW2 (a war started by capitalists and fascists defending capitalists). Both communists and capitalists have a mountain of dead rotting corpses, under their feet. Yes? What's the point of you pointing that out? Do you actually think you have the moral high ground upon which to stand and point your crooked, feculent finger at communists when it comes to dead bodies? Really? You're naive and deluded, if not extremely dishonest.

Do you know why you rely on these types of emotionally charged arguments to defend capitalism? Because you don't have a rational, reasonable argument in defense of capitalism (you don't want to engage in that type of discourse, hence you resort to ad hominem attacks and mud-slinging). All that the defenders (i.e. apologists) of capitalism and imaginary "free markets" have to offer the American public are campfire horror stories about communism that are at best, gross exaggerations and half-truths, and quite often complete fabrications. Outright Lies.

For those of you who are actually interested in learning the communist perspective and studying our arguments (rather than relying on our enemies to learn about us and what we actually believe), here are a few resources:

Former CIA Agents Admit To Creating False Propaganda Against the USSR and Communism:



Go here to watch more CIA agents admitting to fabricating horror stories vs communism:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmieUFfdwXfKnkugrsuFpBw

In anticipation of the bullshit argument that Hitler was a Marxist socialist, here is a response:



​

The young man presenting the above video has a great channel on socialism, that debunks practically everything capitalists argue against socialism:

https://www.youtube.com/c/SecondThought

Here is Grover Furr, one of the world's top Western scholars on the USSR, who is literate and fluent in Russian and has access to the Soviet archives, debunking much of the rhetoric against the USSR (most Western historians of the USSR don't read Russian nor have access to the Soviet document archives in Moscow):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccmj2Lj5jB0&t=21s

Two very good books (in PDF format) by Grover Furr:

Khrushchev Lied (Grover Furr) (z-lib.org).pdf

drive.google.com

Stalin Waiting for ... the Truth (Grover Furr) (z-lib.org).pdf

drive.google.com

Truth Seekers, don't hesitate to ask me whatever questions you have on socialism or communism here or in PM. Communists have answers, don't solely rely on right-wing capitalists to inform you about Marxism or communism. Always get the other side of the story as well.

China and the Soviets killed more than the Germans through the years and without even the excuse of a war.

 

[surada]

The resulting proposition is Lord Esau Rules and if you don't like it, Adios.

Yes and USA helped cause it all and the LDS Church didn't say a thing against it all including the fire bombing, mass murders of millions of Germans of all ages and sex in order to save Stalin's murderous control of Aryan Christian Israel Russia.

There was no Israel during WW2.

 

[Red Front]

China and the Soviets killed more than the Germans through the years and without even the excuse of a war.

Sure keep whining, boohoo. Are you and your capitalist buddies innocent little lambs? OOooooo poor little innocent imperialists. Germans murdered millions of innocent people and that's just the Germans. Capitalist imperialism has created a huge mountain of dead bodies. Give these dishonest, delusional arguments a rest.

 

[Cougarbear]

Call it what you like but there is no evidence of anything and U know that.

Why would it? You can have all the faith you want and it means nothing without proof.



That's a very bold unsubstantiated statement and I know and so do you that it is completely false and supported by nothing but delusions.

A Paul experience??
What is that? Something that proves there's a god?
If your happy with your hallucinations etc,. Good for you but I'm evidence based and that is where religions of any persuasion always stop.

The only delusion is your own inability to belief in God. 95% of the world believes in some sort of creator of all things or God. There are 5% that are delusional of truth. I have my proof. You can't take that away from me. But, I can give it to you.

 

[Cougarbear]

You conveniently continue to ignore many of the points I make in my posts. You just copied and pasted a bunch of cheap capitalist rhetoric and fabrications against socialism, easily debunked by socialists. Don't you realize that this line of argumentation, that cites supposed death tolls for socialism can very easily be applied to capitalism? Capitalist colonialism and imperialism has killed hundreds of millions of people. Have communist killed millions of people? Yes, it's called war.

Communists killed millions of Germans in WW2 (a war started by capitalists and fascists defending capitalists). Both communists and capitalists have a mountain of dead rotting corpses, under their feet. Yes? What's the point of you pointing that out? Do you actually think you have the moral high ground upon which to stand and point your crooked, feculent finger at communists when it comes to dead bodies? Really? You're naive and deluded, if not extremely dishonest.

Do you know why you rely on these types of emotionally charged arguments to defend capitalism? Because you don't have a rational, reasonable argument in defense of capitalism (you don't want to engage in that type of discourse, hence you resort to ad hominem attacks and mud-slinging). All that the defenders (i.e. apologists) of capitalism and imaginary "free markets" have to offer the American public are campfire horror stories about communism that are at best, gross exaggerations and half-truths, and quite often complete fabrications. Outright Lies.

For those of you who are actually interested in learning the communist perspective and studying our arguments (rather than relying on our enemies to learn about us and what we actually believe), here are a few resources:

Former CIA Agents Admit To Creating False Propaganda Against the USSR and Communism:



Go here to watch more CIA agents admitting to fabricating horror stories vs communism:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmieUFfdwXfKnkugrsuFpBw

In anticipation of the bullshit argument that Hitler was a Marxist socialist, here is a response:But,



​

The young man presenting the above video has a great channel on socialism, that debunks practically everything capitalists argue against socialism:

https://www.youtube.com/c/SecondThought

Here is Grover Furr, one of the world's top Western scholars on the USSR, who is literate and fluent in Russian and has access to the Soviet archives, debunking much of the rhetoric against the USSR (most Western historians of the USSR don't read Russian nor have access to the Soviet document archives in Moscow):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccmj2Lj5jB0&t=21s

Two very good books (in PDF format) by Grover Furr:

Khrushchev Lied (Grover Furr) (z-lib.org).pdf

drive.google.com

Stalin Waiting for ... the Truth (Grover Furr) (z-lib.org).pdf

drive.google.com

Truth Seekers, don't hesitate to ask me whatever questions you have on socialism or communism here or in PM. Communists have answers, don't solely rely on right-wing capitalists to inform you about Marxism or communism. Always get the other side of the story as well.

That's all you do is copy and paste. I did not ignore what you posted. But, your belief in a peaceful transition to communism and then all is a great utopia is a lie and has been since Marx. You ignore the 100 million killings by communists and still try to make communism wonderful. It's not and never can be because man is incapable of the socialism tenants of Communism. In order for it to work at all, there must be top down forceable means for everyone to comply. It's called tyranny. And, the only ones who end up with enough and too much are the PIGS! Try reading Animal Farm because that is how Communism has always began and existed.

 

[Red Front]

That's all you do is copy and paste. I did not ignore what you posted. But, your belief in a peaceful transition to communism and then all is a great utopia is a lie and has been since Marx. You ignore the 100 million killings by communists and still try to make communism wonderful. It's not and never can be because man is incapable of the socialism tenants of Communism. In order for it to work at all, there must be top down forceable means for everyone to comply. It's called tyranny. And, the only ones who end up with enough and too much are the PIGS! Try reading Animal Farm because that is how Communism has always began and existed.

You keep ignoring all of the points I make and keep repeating the same cheap, bullshit rhetoric. Keep pretending capitalist imperialism doesn't exist and hasn't killed anyone. You're creating strawman arguments because I never proposed any type of utopianism. A modern communist society isn't a utopia, it's just the mode of production that we will have to adopt when technology necessitates it due to the loss of jobs. We will have to choose between living in a techno-fiefdom where the rich own all of the technology and means of production and we (working class people) are consigned to serfdom or in a communist society where we all own the technology and machinery together, collectively, producing everything that we consume to meet our needs.

Capitalism isn't "top-down"? When was the last time your employer held an election? Have you ever been asked to give your vote to elect one of your managers at work? There's no bottom-up in capitalism, it's all top-down you fool. The workplace under capitalism is run as an absolute tyranny and that's where people spend most of their waking hours, at work (an absolute dictatorship). No wonder you know nothing about communism when you're basing your information on "Animal Farm", a polemical, satirical, American cold war novel, written to demonize communism. Yeah, that's a really "good" source of information to learn about Marxism.

 

[Here and there]

The only delusion is your own inability to belief in God.

My inability to not belief is not delusional. It arrived by rational deduction.

95% of the world believes in some sort of creator of all things or God.

I can assure you that is incorrect and was made by you to bolster your position.
I'll say you don't know how many there are.

There are 5% that are delusional of truth.

Delusional of truth??? So with the lack of evidence of a god and the evidence of science, they are delusional??? Do you read what you write?

I have my proof. You can't take that away from me. But, I can give it to you.

I challenge you to supply irrefutable proof a god exists.
Let's not include Bible's and gospels etc because that is not evidence. If your proof is personal as you suggest, I strongly suspect you have none at all but a strong belief and that is still not evidence.

With respect, I am evidence based. I don't wish to simply believe. I want to KNOW.
I'll wait here for your evidence. Cheers my friend.

 

[ninja007]

LDS church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Mormonism Articles

The changing teachings of the Mormon church.What do Mormon's really believe? Polygamy,blacks and the priesthood were dropped by new revelation what's next?

www.letusreason.org

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I challenge you to supply irrefutable proof a god exists.

At your age, you'll have your proof soon enough.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My inability to not belief is not delusional. It arrived by rational deduction.


I can assure you that is incorrect and was made by you to bolster your position.
I'll say you don't know how many there are.


Delusional of truth??? So with the lack of evidence of a god and the evidence of science, they are delusional??? Do you read what you write?

I challenge you to supply irrefutable proof a god exists.
Let's not include Bible's and gospels etc because that is not evidence. If your proof is personal as you suggest, I strongly suspect you have none at all but a strong belief and that is still not evidence.

With respect, I am evidence based. I don't wish to simply believe. I want to KNOW.
I'll wait here for your evidence. Cheers my friend.

faith is required not proof dumbass you are soul less without faith.

 

[Red Front]

faith is required not proof dumbass you are soul less without faith.

Faith should be based on reasonable evidence or else you're just an irrational, mindless automaton. I have some reasonable evidence that everything around me actually exists and isn't a figment of my imagination. Solipsism is for idiots hence I'm not a solipsist (i.e. someone who believes only they exist and everything and everyone else is just a figment or phantom of their imagination). Your faith should be grounded upon rational, reasonable propositions that are based upon, to a certain extent, empirical, observable, testable evidence. To believe otherwise is to be a fool. Are you an idiot? I doubt it, you're just pretending to be one because religion provides you with a certain degree of mental and emotional comfort, reminding you of the good old days when you were a little boy sitting on your papa's lap. You feel that same sense of security and warmth, believing there's a heavenly daddy concerned about you and your needs and wants. Well, there is a God, but unfortunately, He's not your daddy, He's your drill Sgt. Hello?

You're in Bootcamp. This is the place where angels are born, and you're going through the selection process that determines who's going to inherit eternal life in God's kingdom. Only a few good men and women will make the cut, most people won't.