Stupidest argument against Communism

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20 ... _obama.htm
Honestly this is one of the funniest things i have read in a long time
By the way it gets good towards the bottom.

Quote:

Communism is a vehicle created long ago by the International Banking Cartel, intended to bring to fruition a Global Godless Totalitarian Communist Police State. Nazism and Communism are simply two separate legs walking in the same direction—toward world domination, aka, a New World Order. Karl Ritter is considered by most the father of Nazism, just as Karl Marx is considered by most as the father of modern Communism. Both evils are the work of God-hating humanists, Evolutionists and eugenicists. DEVILUTION!

Quote:

Communism is not an ideology; but rather, a secret weapon of THE ILLUMINATI intended to enslaved the human race.

That was painful to read and I just skimmed over it.

"America has once again been given the president it deserves...a Marxist Communist." Classic. Oh, how Christian's crack me up.

Whoever taught this person how to use a computer needs a slap....

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.

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?

Sowjetunion wrote:

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.

What are you trying to say? That the Russia didn't improve under the socialist model? Do you know when the russian economy began to be developed into a full industrialized economy, achieving economic growths that never achieved before? Do you think it was under NEP? No, it was under the "dictator" Josef Stalin rule and socialist policies. NEP was just a transitory solution to relieve the country's economy during an extreme precarious situation.

And why do you think it was a big defeat for socialism? It would have been if the Five Year Plan had failed to bring up Russia to the top of the world's most industrialized and developed economies and the NEP or some other sort of capitalist system would be responsible for that achievement. It was the contrary, NEP was successfully replaced by the Five Year Plan, so i cannot see any defeat for socialism here.

The bolsheviks were certainly not the responsible ones for the outbreak of the civil war and much less for the disastrous participation of Russia in WW I, two events which totally devastated the russian economy at the time. In that order you can't say that the socialism was responsible for the economic chaos of the early 20's. Socialism was responsible for the massive development of the russian economy, that is correct.

I wasn't trying to blame socialism at all-I'm just pointing out historical facts that hampered the ability of socialism to form without "growth pains."

I highly agree that the 5-year plan was a socialist victory, but the N.E.P, although used as a strategic retreat, was a temporary defeat as it prevented for quite some time the development of socialism in an effective manner.

The Russian socialist state forged by the Bolsheviks certainty was mitigated by an unaccountable bureaucracy, and could have been much greater had the whites not fought for "their" lost private properties.

I never blamed the Bolsheviks for either the civil war or WWI. For obvious reasons the national, Russian bourgeoisie started both conflicts.

I hope I cleared a few things up.

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.

That Stalin killed 50 million people during his rule. Can find several "sources" that say 50 million, 60 million, however the most commonly used number is 20 million. Even that's ridiculous. But 60 million??? That's almost half the population of the USSR! How did they survive???

Also comparing the Gulags to concentration camps.

Someone once told me it's "Equal opportunity poverty." Then also the famous line "A janitor makes as much as a doctor." Absolutely not true.

Also had a conversation about the black market, how american jeans were sold and such, and the person I spoke with said "Yes that's because that kind of system is very prone to having a black market" and I'm just thinking..."Oh and capitalism isn't???" Black markets over here are WAY worse in western countries, especially this one, than what it ever was in the Socialist countries, especially USSR. Look at Russia today, it's practically ruled by the mob, having connections to almost all the major businesses. Need I say more?

Man In Grey wrote:

That Stalin killed 50 million people during his rule.

Can find several "sources" that say 50 million, 60 million, however the most commonly used number is 20 million. Even that's ridiculous. But 60 million??? That's almost half the population of the USSR! How did they survive???

Actually, the number is already below 1 million. 681.000 to be more specific...

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.

Man In Grey wrote:

Hmmm, hang on one second here. Before this totally derails the thread and I have a horrible feeling this has the potential to turn into another Stalin argument, just to clarify when I mentioned the alleged millions I was saying that was a gross exaggeration by anti-communists and cold war propagandists, then used by people against communism as a whole (Stalin's crimes specifically). I never said myself that the count was even in the millions, and personally I believe that they weren't. Just clarifying we're both on the same track here.

Yes, i know. I was just mentioning the numbers just to show how ridiculous those allegations are.

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.

"race mixing is communism"

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2009/10/800px-Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg

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.

According to Juche (Kimilsungism), race-mixing is bad and harmful.

Loz wrote:

According to Juche (Kimilsungism), race-mixing is bad and harmful.

Is that so? That doesn't surprise me. Of course they would say that. Juche is only relevant towards Korea's situation, especially now, with Songun. North Koreans and the Korean Communist parties have always been known to be extremely nationalistic. In fact ,I believe that they weren't even recognized as a party initially, by the internationalist community (USSR), so Kim Il Sung and his comrades joined the Chinese Communist Party at one point (before the war).

"It goes against human nature"

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..."

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.