Communism, along with its twin sister fascism, are the two engines of human misery and slaughter throughout the 20th century. And actually, communism has a higher body count.
A tribute is necessary to the victims of communism - glad to see it.
[/quote]
I disagree. Fascism and communism aren’t even closely related. Comparing body counts is especially classy. Keep it up.
“Oh, I’m sorry your group isn’t worthy of a tribute because you only lost 10 million lives instead of the requisite 12 million.”
BTW, it wasn’t communism that killed them it was the authoritarian governments whom forced communism on them. Economic philosophy is not capable of killing anyone–just like guns don’t kill people.
I disagree. Fascism and communism aren’t even closely related. Comparing body counts is especially classy. Keep it up.[/quote]
They are essentially one and the same - and body counts matter, especially when one is romanticized and the other condemned.
The twin evils are built of the same ideology - allegiance to the state and force to ensure compliance and obedience. There isn’t a whit’s difference - both were nationalistic and uncompromising. Both slaughtered anyone who wouldn’t kneel in submission.
What does that even mean? When did I make a distinction that memorials had bright lines for casualties?
Communism isn’t purely an economic philosophy, but you have shown your limits in this area before, there is little reason to be surprised.
Communism has to be enforced via authoritarianism because under the theory, the “people with power” won’t give it up peacefully, and humans have to be trained to appreciate the wonders of communism by their Enlightened betters.
Don’t be an apologist for communism - you will lose every time.
BTW, it wasn’t communism that killed them it was the authoritarian governments whom forced communism on them. Economic philosophy is not capable of killing anyone–just like guns don’t kill people.[/quote]
Either you’re completely out to lunch – which is not unlikely given your continuing support of communism – or you didn’t notice that you had your sentence backward. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt given 20th century history and fix it for you.
“BTW, it was communism that killed them. It was the authoritarian governments who are the 100% historically inevitable result of this idealogy that murdered them.”
In case anyone missed it, the system was a disaster because it concentrated the management of all the resources in the hands of a few people, who in turn murdered 70+ million people in cold blood.
The government had all the resources, all the fruits of everyone’s labor, and therefore the functionaries running the government had all the power. It didn’t work, it was disastrously misguided, and killed more people in a single century than any other cause besides smallpox.
I disagree. Fascism and communism aren’t even closely related.
[/quote]
Sure they are.
Both are left wing collecivist ideologies, communism rules trough a party, fascism through a strong man at the top.
It was the left with it`s desire to blurr the lines between national and internaional socialism that began to call people fascist that never claimed to be fascist themselves.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Communism has to be enforced via authoritarianism because under the theory, the “people with power” won’t give it up peacefully, and humans have to be trained to appreciate the wonders of communism by their Enlightened betters.
[/quote]
People who live in a “commune” would disagree with you. You know, Mennonites, Amish, some groups of Mormons…that is communism that works. Prove me wrong.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
Do you think any other nation would ever build a tribute to those lost on 9/11? The original WTC bombing? The AF barracks in Saudi Arabia? The naval ship in Yemen?
Marine barracks in Lebanon? Train bombing in Spain? The bombings in the UK? I didn’t think so. Your such a fucking tool it’s not even worth it! You are nothing but a terrorist sympathizer. [/quote]
Thing is, my lost friend, that no current government is responsible for the WTC, Madrid, or London. It would be a different story if those atrocities were commited with the blessings of Arab leaders. Your government, on the other hand, engages in state-sponsored terrorism.
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
The government had all the resources, all the fruits of everyone’s labor, and therefore the functionaries running the government had all the power.[/quote]
See above. An inanimate object is incabable of killing on its own. Prove me wrong.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Communism has to be enforced via authoritarianism because under the theory, the “people with power” won’t give it up peacefully [/quote]
Why did you put the people in power in quotation marks? I’m really curious.
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
In case anyone missed it, the system was a disaster because it concentrated the management of all the resources in the hands of a few people [/quote]
That statement applies to the current system just as much. It’s just that the few are corporations.
I disagree. Fascism and communism aren’t even closely related.
Sure they are.
Both are left wing collecivist ideologies, communism rules trough a party, fascism through a strong man at the top.
It was the left with it`s desire to blurr the lines between national and internaional socialism that began to call people fascist that never claimed to be fascist themselves.
Fascism is not an economic principle of sharing resources. It is a governing ideology that ensures only the strong survive. That makes them completely different. A fascists would be like your typical American cosa nostra mobster. They control with force and scare tactics. The economic principles of communism cannot work that way. But they do work if and when people of democratic means can put them in place for themselves.
People who live in a “commune” would disagree with you. You know, Mennonites, Amish, some groups of Mormons…that is communism that works. Prove me wrong.
[/quote]
Don’t try and obfuscate the point. We are discussing communism as a national/international movement.
I don’t have to prove you wrong - we aren’t discussing the same thing.
That said, “communism” in Amish societies works for exactly the reasons I mentioned: harsh, uncompromising principles that wayward members are harshly punished for departing from. Surely you must know the iron rule of family fathers and clergy in Amish societies? It ain’t no democracy.
Why did you put the people in power in quotation marks? I’m really curious.[/quote]
Because communists define “people in power” as anyone who doesn’t believe in the sacred faith of communism, no matter what their beliefs, the enemy of the state.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ChuckyT wrote:
The government had all the resources, all the fruits of everyone’s labor, and therefore the functionaries running the government had all the power.
See above. An inanimate object is incabable of killing on its own. Prove me wrong.
[/quote]
Here’s where you’re on some planet other than the Earth where I come from: The “government” is not an “inanimate object”. It does not run itself, it does not have a mind of its own, it does not exist in some alternate dimension where we merely interact with its well-directed functionaries who just happen to look like human beings.
I know communists and socialists and economic liberals and other lazy asses like to believe this, but that doesn’t make it so.
Governments are composed of HUMAN BEINGS. This is the fundamental fact that makes communism an unworkable system – human nature is what it is. You can’t give the HUMAN BEINGS who run the machinery of government all of everyone’s goods services and resources and expect freedom to last very long.
This is why it is so very strange to hear college professors say things like “Communism was a good idea that just didn’t work out”. Communism was an idea that was fundamentally flawed, which inexplicably failed to foresee the consequence of concentrating all power within the hands of a very few HUMAN BEINGS.
It doesn’t work as an economic or political theory, and history teaches us that its application led to social, political, religious, and humanitarian disaster EVERYWHERE it has been tried.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Communism has to be enforced via authoritarianism because under the theory, the “people with power” won’t give it up peacefully, and humans have to be trained to appreciate the wonders of communism by their Enlightened betters.
People who live in a “commune” would disagree with you. You know, Mennonites, Amish, some groups of Mormons…that is communism that works. Prove me wrong.
[/quote]
Go live in an Amish commune and see how they deal with your personal freedoms.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The economic principles of communism cannot work that way. But they do work if and when people of democratic means can put them in place for themselves.[/quote]
Really? Is there any evidence for this, or are you just saying that despite all the bloody evidence to the contrary, you somehow still believe in these principles?
How are you going to get around the fact that the “economic principles” of communism still require you to send the sweat of your brow to some guy in an office building far away, and hope that he doesn’t abuse his power to share those resources equitably?
[quote]lixy wrote:
ChuckyT wrote:
In case anyone missed it, the system was a disaster because it concentrated the management of all the resources in the hands of a few people
That statement applies to the current system just as much. It’s just that the few are corporations.
[/quote]
You’re flat wrong. There are 25+ million businesses in the USA.
Businesses are very easy to influence and bring down, and very very predicatable. For instance, Ford, which a decade or two ago was itself much larger than most world economies, is on its way out. No revolution, no bullets fired, no purges or pogroms, no camps, no starving of millions of people. Consumers stopped buying Fords.
Go live in an Amish commune and see how they deal with your personal freedoms.[/quote]
Yes, what a stupid example.
With all due respect to the Amish - who keep to themselves - in order for Lifticus’ fantasy to come true, we would have to live in a nation that behaved with the stultifying rigor of Amish society.
You buy into the program or you suffer punishment. Ain’t “communism” grand?
A rational society would have little need of force. The only time it would be necessary was when someone went off the rails and became irrational, or when the society was attacked.
The measure of a society should be: how much force the government has to use to get citizens to cooperate with each other. If we need a Gestapo or NKVD or even an IRS, that means something is wrong.