Ask me about Communism.

[Monte Carlo]

^ The left fear the truth: that the indigent will sit by and wait. Then, given weapons by the Communists (or socialists, whatever Red Fascists are calling themselves these days), they will take your land.

 

A technical-political officer will note the Ayn Rand quote in your sig and recommend re-education, it will be a long train ride followed by a short stay somewhere the regime chooses.

 

I know LotF is an expert troll, a skill I never wish to develop. But would you all sit an ignore any other stripe of totalitarian just because he's good at trolling? I won't.

[Guard Dog]

Nah, it would never happen. I'm well armned and determined. The best they could do is take it over my dead twitching corpse, and as many of theirs as I can get.

 

That's why such a thing will never happen in the US. Take LoF as an example. He is probably not willing to kill me to create a communist state here in the US. He is almost certainly not willing to give his life to create one. On the other hand I am more than willing and very able to kill him to prevent it, and would sacrifice my own life to stop it with a smile on my face.

[Killian Kalthorne]

If communism is so great why do countries like China and North Korea have to force their people to live under communistic rule? I mean why do they have to censor the media from other countries if their system is so great? Why do they have to use mass massacres, such as the Tienanmen Square Massacre, to quell a peaceful protest? If communism and socialism are so wonderful and great why does Hugo Chavez in Venezuela have to use dictatorship style abuse of power just to quell opposition?

 

If communism was so great why does it fear freedom of speech?

[I want teh kotor 3]

Nah, it would never happen. I'm well armned and determined. The best they could do is take it over my dead twitching corpse, and as many of theirs as I can get.

 

That's why such a thing will never happen in the US. Take LoF as an example. He is probably not willing to kill me to create a communist state here in the US. He is almost certainly not willing to give his life to create one. On the other hand I am more than willing and very able to kill him to prevent it, and would sacrifice my own life to stop it with a smile on my face.

 

I love America.

[lord of flies]

I'm curious (and I'm trying to take you seriously here) I own a house and 25 acres of land. Far more than most people do. Most American homes are on .15 - 1 acre lots, or are co-op. Now for all that I have a modest salary (for someone in my profession, Electronic Engineer) and I saved for a long time to buy this place. Now since I obviously have so much more than say a janitor can afford (since I have a college education that I paid for myself) would you consider me rich? Would someone like me exepct to have all they worked for seized by spontaneous revolutionary forces or governmnent?

Probably not. Your possessions are the result of your own labor, and are not used to extract value from others. There is the possibility that you might accidentally be targeted, just as a law-abiding poor black American might.

How can somebody, seriously, actually use the phrase 'Dictatorship' (albeit of the proletariat, whoever they are) then go on to talk about non-coercion?

Because dictatorship in this context doesn't mean what you think it means.

If communism is so great why do countries like China and North Korea have to force their people to live under communistic rule? I mean why do they have to censor the media from other countries if their system is so great? Why do they have to use mass massacres, such as the Tienanmen Square Massacre, to quell a peaceful protest? If communism and socialism are so wonderful and great why does Hugo Chavez in Venezuela have to use dictatorship style abuse of power just to quell opposition?

 

If communism was so great why does it fear freedom of speech?

China isn't communist anymore, the western democracies engage in authoritarianism (e.g. COINTELPRO, police attacking strikers/protestors), and Hugo Chavez is not a dictator.

[Trenitay]

He is almost certainly not willing to give his life to create one. On the other hand I am more than willing and very able to kill him to prevent it, and would sacrifice my own life to stop it with a smile on my face.

 

Being willing to kill someone is not a good thing IMO.

 

And besides that, I'd say the max that you could take with you is 1 or 2. Then the government would "illuminate" your house.

[I want teh kotor 3]

What the hell kind of Q/A thread is this if you don't answer questions?

 

/being difficult

 

 

 

If communism is so great why do countries like China and North Korea have to force their people to live under communistic rule? I mean why do they have to censor the media from other countries if their system is so great? Why do they have to use mass massacres, such as the Tienanmen Square Massacre, to quell a peaceful protest? If communism and socialism are so wonderful and great why does Hugo Chavez in Venezuela have to use dictatorship style abuse of power just to quell opposition?

 

If communism was so great why does it fear freedom of speech?

China isn't communist anymore, the western democracies engage in authoritarianism (e.g. COINTELPRO, police attacking strikers/protestors), and Hugo Chavez is not a dictator.

 

Bull****. Chavez is a dictator in the same way China is Communist, which is to say in everything but name.

[lord of flies]

Bull****. Chavez is a dictator in the same way China is Communist, which is to say in everything but name.

Hmm, except no. China is communist in name but engages in some of the greatest free market crimes the world over. Chavez was democratically elected and continues to be so, without trickery or intimidation.

[Trenitay]

China likes to say they're Communist, but they're really not. Chavez however is a dictator.

[Killian Kalthorne]

China isn't communist anymore, the western democracies engage in authoritarianism (e.g. COINTELPRO, police attacking strikers/protestors), and Hugo Chavez is not a dictator.

 

If it smells like a fish, swims like a fish, and taste like a fish then it is a fish. I see you are afraid to answer my question thusly proving yourself to be nothing more than another empty mouthpiece of BS. Again I ask, why does communism fear freedom of speech?

[I want teh kotor 3]

China isn't communist anymore, the western democracies engage in authoritarianism (e.g. COINTELPRO, police attacking strikers/protestors), and Hugo Chavez is not a dictator.

 

If it smells like a fish, swims like a fish, and taste like a fish then it is a fish. I see you are afraid to answer my question thusly proving yourself to be nothing more than another empty mouthpiece of BS. Again I ask, why does communism fear freedom of speech?

 

Well said.

 

And I ask again my series of questions for the same reason.

[213374U]

2. If as I suspect people will not willingly give up all their private property, how will you transfer it to collective ownership?

Most likely, a combination of spontaneous revolutionary seizures followed by tacit or explicit governmental support, and massive governmental intervention once it is properly established. Of course, not all property will be seized, just that of the rich.

Okay, explain this to me, in detail. Does this mean that the goods will somehow confiscate themselves and walk into huge warehouses on their own while government officials "nod sagely"?

 

 

Bull****. Chavez is a dictator in the same way China is Communist, which is to say in everything but name.

You do realize that this thing you posted makes no sense, right? China is communist in name, but not IN FACT. The chinese are known for their propensity for cheating, and unsurprisingly, they are cheating at communism, too.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Bull****. Chavez is a dictator in the same way China is Communist, which is to say in everything but name.

Hmm, except no. China is communist in name but engages in some of the greatest free market crimes the world over. Chavez was democratically elected and continues to be so, without trickery or intimidation.

 

What kind of democratic leader pushes through an amendment (for lack of a better term) removing term limits? And we'll see what happens when he loses.

2. If as I suspect people will not willingly give up all their private property, how will you transfer it to collective ownership?

Most likely, a combination of spontaneous revolutionary seizures followed by tacit or explicit governmental support, and massive governmental intervention once it is properly established. Of course, not all property will be seized, just that of the rich.

Okay, explain this to me, in detail. Does this mean that the goods will somehow confiscate themselves and walk into huge warehouses on their own while government officials "nod sagely"?

 

 

Bull****. Chavez is a dictator in the same way China is Communist, which is to say in everything but name.

You do realize that this thing you posted makes no sense, right? China is communist in name, but not IN FACT. The chinese are known for their propensity for cheating, and unsurprisingly, they are cheating at communism, too.

 

The Chinese government still owns heavy industry and energy, IIRC. Those are some of any industrialized nation's largest economic sectors, and their continued government rule shows China's essentially Communist nature. While I concede that China isn't purely Communist, I'd say that Communism is still the best label for the political and economic structure.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

What kind of democratic leader pushes through an amendment (for lack of a better term) removing term limits?

 

One who thinks he will/can be elected again.

[I want teh kotor 3]

What kind of democratic leader pushes through an amendment (for lack of a better term) removing term limits?

 

One who thinks he will/can be elected again.

 

Very true. But I think Chavez rigs his elections. Maybe it's just me. I just don't buy one guy getting elected three consecutive times by fairly large margins.

[lord of flies]

Okay, explain this to me, in detail. Does this mean that the goods will somehow confiscate themselves and walk into huge warehouses on their own while government officials "nod sagely"?

No. Rather, workers during the revolution would confiscate factories from their owners (and other, similar actions would presumably take place), and the government would reinforce such actions, doing some of it on their own.

 

Here's a short story with an example (not mine):

 

[I want teh kotor 3]

Why should I be punished either for my success or the failures of others?

[lord of flies]

Why should I be punished either for my success or the failures of others?

This question applies more to capitalism than communism. Why should I (i.e. the bourgeois) take from the successes of others (i.e. the working class)?

 

A state-based social safety net is important, and the fact that you question "why" demonstrates a basic lack of understanding. We are all part of a greater society, which is larger than us, and we are expected to contribute back to the society which contributed to us. Without American (or whichever country you live in) society having produced large social institutions, none of us would be where we are today, and we are expected to pay back some amount of this to less fortunate members of our society, and to ensure those same institutions are around for future generations. No man is an island, no man's successes and failures are wholly his own. Their consequences, and their price, is a burden upon society as a whole. To expect that you should be able to hold onto the entirety of your production while society bears the burden for your efforts is selfish and myopic.

[Purkake]

Because we live in a society and not in our own little worlds?

Edited December 10, 2009 by Purkake

[I want teh kotor 3]

Because we live in a society and not in our own little worlds?

 

So?

[Walsingham]

*Edit snipped*

 

Well, I am obliged to thank you for attempting to address my queries. However you are still struggling to grasp two essential points:

 

1. All the government action you describe still has to be executed. Such execution must be underwritten by force. This is true of all government action, of course, but not all government action results in blood being spilled. However, a lack of violence is only normal where people don't stand to lose very much. Therefore in this case where you are talking about taking a lot from lots of people you are signing up for blood

 

1.1 Talking about grassroots nonviolent action is obvious balls. Nonviolent action won't work, and grassroots violent action is a lynchmob. Look at Zimbabwe.

 

2. Regarding policing the state, once again you are in some fantasy land where local commities are pure and virtuous by simple reason of being small and local. Small local commities are narrow-minded, furiously backbiting, and staffed by mediocrities.

 

I can't help feeling that all your theories prove is that you have absolutely no experience of running any organisations, or managing people.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Walsingham

[Purkake]

Because we live in a society and not in our own little worlds?

 

So?

In a society you are inevitably connected to other people and affected by their successes and failures, you don't live in an isolated bubble.

[lord of flies]

1. All the government action you describe still has to be executed. Such execution must be underwritten by force. This is true of all government action, of course, but not all government action results in blood being spilled. However, a lack of violence is only normal where people don't stand to lose very much. Therefore in this case where you are talking about taking a lot from lots of people you are signing up for blood

C'est la vie.

1.1 Talking about grassroots nonviolent action is obvious balls. Nonviolent action won't work, and grassroots violent action is a lynchmob. Look at Zimbabwe.

Okay, Mr. Smarty Pants, explain what brought down Tsar Nicholas II, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, or for that matter explain how the Singing Revolution and Color revolutions worked. You can go "a bloo bloo, nonviolent action doesn't work," but the fact of the matter is it does. Even the Bolsheviks took power only after the Provisional Government was practically dead from strikes, protests, and peasant collectivization.

2. Regarding policing the state, once again you are in some fantasy land where local commities are pure and virtuous by simple reason of being small and local. Small local commities are narrow-minded, furiously backbiting, and staffed by mediocrities.

I guess Trotsky was a terrible leader, since he attained prominence in the Petrograd Soviet. Oh wait, he was actually an incredibly charismatic and intelligent general. But... but... he was elected by the people! That must mean he's bad!

[Walsingham]

C'est la vie.

 

Unlike you I've actually seen a post-revolutionary mass grave. I've also seen township violence first hand. So f*** your "c'est la vie", right in the ear. You couldn't care less about possible death, and it's not because you're evil. It's because you have no concept of what you are describing.

 

 

Okay, Mr. Smarty Pants, explain what brought down Tsar Nicholas II, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, or for that matter explain how the Singing Revolution and Color revolutions worked. You can go "a bloo bloo, nonviolent action doesn't work," but the fact of the matter is it does. Even the Bolsheviks took power only after the Provisional Government was practically dead from strikes, protests, and peasant collectivization.

 

Hold on, you're actually saying the Bolshevist and Iranian revolutions were bloodless? I don't know whether to laugh or simply fall over.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Walsingham

[Purkake]

C'est la vie.

Ce qui sera.