06 Mar 2012, 17:46
Whoever taught this person how to use a computer needs a slap....
18 Mar 2012, 04:09
Two of the most annoying anti-communists arguments are: "Countries where communism ever worked? None", and "All the communist countries are poor?". The answer is easy for both. To the first, you just need to ask: Was Russia a more developed country in the 10's under the tsardom than in the 20's or specially the 30's under communism? Was Russia better in the 90's under capitalism than in the 80's under communism? It wasn't in both cases so you have to assume that communism worked. It transformed Russia from a backward country to a world superpower. The same applies for every single communist country. I haven't found yet a single country which got worst after a communist experience.
Regarding the fact that all communist countries countries are poor we must ask again: Ethiopia, Burundi, Somalia or Nigeria aren't capitalist countries? Yes. What problems did the capitalism solve in those countries? None. Were Cuba, Russia or China rich countries before the communism arrived? No.
I don't understand why some people don't think a little about it before making those dumb remarks.
18 Mar 2012, 13:33
Russia following the October Revolution of 1917 was economically backwards and in a state of ruin. Disease and starvation was common, while civil war was raging across the nation. Furthermore, first the Germans and later the Entente invaded the nation in a failed bid to crush the first successful communist revolution in world history.
Post-civil war, Russia was in even worse shape after four years of never ending conflict. It wasn't until the capitalistic N.E.P. got enacted that the world began to trade with Russia again, which was a big defeat for socialism on a variety of levels.
Such societies are ripe for dictators like Stalin to take power in. France of 1799(Napoleon's rise to power) was a similar, although less tragic story.
Socialism was almost impossible to properly build under such conditions, not counting the numerous mistakes made by the Russian communists on account of the fact they were creating a new society from the bottom up.
being the "original sin" meant that every other communist revolution would follow the same blueprint, that of an authoritarian nation with strict central planning and its own secret police force.
All of it however, from the KGB to the Gulags, were forged more or less in 1918, when the revolution in Russia was about to collapse from within.
It can't all be blamed on a ideology and written off as "evil," as if we intelligently consider the circumstances surrounding the rise of communism, the Russian communists should never have had a real fighting chance! At the cost of winning, they lost the prospect for a better society, a world without capitalism.
Furthermore, It isn't a matter of whether or not socialism is achievable in ten, twenty, or fifty years, but of when and how we will achieve it NOW!
The planet is dying-democracy is dying, etc. Look no further then the suppression of occupy wall street or the opening up of the ozone layer.
Will we stand for such oppression, or diligently work to end it peacefully through mass political action?
"Anti-Communists" be danged! The majority of the populace has been duped into believing a set pattern of lies concerning communism and socialism.
Calling oneself and anti-communist is just the new fashion of our times. I could be called an anti-communist in present-day society simply by saying I hate communism! see how easy it is to be an anti-communist, but to be a communist one must face constant oppression and also be ready to defuse a constant barrage of arguments against their ideology?
25 Mar 2012, 11:56
Most socialist countries were not poor. And we were 1000x more sucessful than the Third World, which means we were more sucessful than 80 percent of world's countries.
25 Mar 2012, 23:54
JAM I definitely know they weren't in the millions, I was just pointing out that Stalin's rule is grossly exaggerated and is one of the many ridiculous arguments used against Communism as a whole. When I mentioned the figure of 20 million I was saying that is the most commonly used exaggeration of the "death count."
But it looks like you and I both know those figures are untrue, as well as the majority of people here.
Last edited by Man In Grey
on 26 Mar 2012, 00:08, edited 1 time in total.
26 Mar 2012, 20:47
You could buy American jeans legally in socialist Czechoslovakia in foreign currency Tuzex shops. The Czechoslovak made jeans (yes there was such a thing, although admitably, lower quality) were much cheaper through.
29 Mar 2012, 20:00
hahaha, well its definitely Solidarity amongst different races under the thought of internationalism, yes. But not some sort of systematic, forced integreation. If anything that's what capitalism does now, such as Richard Nixon's affirmative action and then having racial quotas at jobs. That has absolutely nothing to do with communism and it wouldn't even be an issue in the first place because no one would be so behind that they can't get a job or go to college.
And no I'm not against affirmative action nor am I against making sure that people are getting the same opportunities I'm simply pointing out how ridiculous it is to have to resort to such measures because of capitalism.
Last edited by Man In Grey
on 29 Mar 2012, 20:05, edited 2 times in total.
29 Mar 2012, 20:05
According to Juche (Kimilsungism), race-mixing is bad and harmful.
30 Mar 2012, 06:06
"It goes against human nature"
30 Mar 2012, 10:59
I really dislike when people reduce the idea of capitalism to a single producer and a single consumer/a single seller and a single buyer.
"So you would stop me from selling some jam I made from the fruits I grew in my garden? TYRANNY! NON SERVII COMMUNISMAM!" Maybe they don't put in my bastard Latin, but still, this argument reduces a whole complex, interwoven web of economic decisions and actions into restricting some neckbeard from making this theoretical jam, which he would never fragging do anyway, and selling it to his friend, of which he has fragging none!
It ignores the thousands of processes and business cycles that actual led to him being able to actually get the glass jars or whatever ingredients he had to buy, oh, and the fruit bushes, as I guess neckbeards don't know horticultural technique, and really simply reduces all economic activity to a very restrictive category of what I can do, the mystical I that has likely never really existed. By this token, the neckbeard also assumes that capitalism is a system that is fully allowing himself to get rich and is granting him the power to do whatever he wants, a wholly liberating and individualist system. He wouldn't be complaining about not being able to sell jam to his imaginary customers if he was allowed to be actually given a living wage and so on.
This argument is the most annoying of them all, I reckon, as it shows a total lack of understanding of how the saviour of Capitalist society actually works. All the "Communism works well on paper, but..." arguments are simply rebuked with such a riposte as "Capitalism works well on paper, but..."
30 Mar 2012, 19:16
The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice.
Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with. The socialist societies were far better than any capitalist societies. First ever society where citizens were given merit.