Split Thread What is Communism

[Ziggurat]

This is the dumbest argument yet, and I don't think you actually believe it, i.e. that since I call myself something, then you are going to believe it.

Why wouldn't I? You're the only qualified authority on your beliefs, and being a communist is just a statement of beliefs. Plus, I've seen no contradictory information.

It is not as if members of the MAGA cult usually accept whatever people call themselves as reason enough to believe that they are what they claim to be. I would never believe somebody to be what they call themselves merely because they call themselves something.

If you tell me you're a Yankees fan, why wouldn't I believe you? If I tell you that I'm a Lakers fan, why wouldn't you believe me?

For instance, I have noticed that people calling themselves compassionate conservatives are hardly ever compassionate.

Do you think they don't believe themselves to be compassionate?

See, you're not making an equivalent comparison. I don't think you need to actually do anything to be a communist. But your objection to "compassionate conservatives" isn't actually based on their beliefs about themselves, is it? It's based on your evaluation of their actions. I'm not claiming you've done anything. For example, I'm not going to call you a revolutionary just because you (hypothetically) call yourself one, because that does require action. But communist? No action needed.

And to seal the deal, note that you're only objecting to the "compassionate" part. You don't dispute that they're conservative. Calling yourself a communist is equivalent to calling yourself conservative, NOT to calling yourself compassionate.

I actually am a communist

I believe you. Again, why wouldn't I? And why on earth do you object to me believing you?

Anyway, it's a stupid debate to have in this particular thread

It's not a debate at all, because we both agree: you're a communist.

Split from Assassination of United Healthcare CEO

Posted By: jimbob

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I didn't say he was. I'm not attributing anything to communism because of dann. Communism's penchant for political violence and murder is established on its own. I'm merely noting that dann's tolerance for it comports with what we already know about communism independently.

Nope. Communism is "a political and economic ideology whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered on common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products in society based on need." - Nothing in there about a 'penchant' for political violence and murder.

Sure, all of human history is drenched in blood. But if you can't recognize that communism in particular is especially prone to mass deaths, then you don't know your history.

Once again, communism itself isn't 'prone' to anything.

Most of the deaths attributed to 'communism' in China under Mao were caused by famine. There's no doubt that Mao's mismanagement of the economy played a large part in that. But famines were a common occurrence before then too. An estimated 15-55 million died under Mao. In the 1906-1907 famine 20-25 million died. In 1851-1873 10–30 million died. Yet nobody's accusing Monarchy of being 'especially prone to mass deaths'.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

It's not a debate at all, because we both agree: you're a communist.

The word sure, but not what it means.

When an American - especially a conservative American - says the word 'communist' it's probably being used as a pejorative. Combine that with assertions that communism has a 'penchant for political violence and murder' and 'is especially prone to mass deaths' and there's little doubt. I think we can all agree that such poisoning of the well is not appropriate here.

 

[Ziggurat]

The word sure, but not what it means.

When an American - especially a conservative American - says the word 'communist' it's probably being used as a pejorative. Combine that with assertions that communism has a 'penchant for political violence and murder' and 'is especially prone to mass deaths' and there's little doubt. I think we can all agree that such poisoning of the well is not appropriate here.

It's entirely appropriate when dann's objection to murder isn't that it's morally wrong but that it's tactically ineffective.

 

[Ziggurat]

Most of the deaths attributed to 'communism' in China under Mao were caused by famine. There's no doubt that Mao's mismanagement of the economy played a large part in that. But famines were a common occurrence before then too. An estimated 15-55 million died under Mao. In the 1906-1907 famine 20-25 million died. In 1851-1873 10–30 million died. Yet nobody's accusing Monarchy of being 'especially prone to mass deaths'.

The Chinese famine of 1906 was caused by severe flooding. China has historically been subject to such flooding caused famines. But the 1950s famine was not caused by famine, but by Mao and his disastrous communist policies. Nor was that the only communist caused famine or other mass casualty event.

Communism does in fact have a very well established record of mass death and violence. You might as well be arguing for National Socialism being peaceful.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The Chinese famine of 1906 was caused by severe flooding. China has historically been subject to such flooding caused famines. But the 1950s famine was not caused by famine, but by Mao and his disastrous communist policies. Nor was that the only communist caused famine or other mass casualty event.

You didn't follow my link, or didn't read what was there. The reasons stated for the deaths in 1959-61 were "Great Leap Forward, Floods, Droughts, Typhoons, Insect Invasion".

But even if they were all attributed to the Great Leap Forward, it still doesn't mean communism itself was responsible. In fact communism significantly improved Chinese life. Before 1959 the average life expectancy was 45 years. There was a big dip in 1961, but it quickly bounced back to over 50 and by 1980 had climbed to 64. After that it gradually increased to 78 in 2020. For reference US life expectancy in 2020 was 77, dipping down to 76 in 2021 (I blame Capitalism for the 1 million Americans who died unnecessarilly around that time).

No famines have occurred in China since 1961, a peroid of 65 years - and none are likely in the future. Before then they were a regular occurrance. The evidence shows that communism has been good for China.

 

[Ziggurat]

You didn't follow my link, or didn't read what was there. The reasons stated for the deaths in 1959-61 were "Great Leap Forward, Floods, Droughts, Typhoons, Insect Invasion".

It was almost entirely Mao, weather is an excuse. And BTW, the insect invasion was because of Mao too.

But even if they were all attributed to the Great Leap Forward, it still doesn't mean communism itself was responsible.

You aren't very good at pattern recognition, are you?

In fact communism significantly improved Chinese life.

No, it did not. Communism held China back. Compare it to Taiwan. Those gains are not attributable to the communist party, but to the general material improvement of most of the world during the 20th century because of technical advancement. That came to China LATE because of the communists.

The evidence shows that communism has been good for China.

It shows nothing of the sort.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You haven't been paying attention.

you are calling violence against migrants war?

 

[Darat]

It was almost entirely Mao, weather is an excuse. And BTW, the insect invasion was because of Mao too.

You aren't very good at pattern recognition, are you?

No, it did not. Communism held China back. Compare it to Taiwan. Those gains are not attributable to the communist party, but to the general material improvement of most of the world during the 20th century because of technical advancement. That came to China LATE because of the communists.

It shows nothing of the sort.

You seem to have bought into the state propaganda of the Chinese dictators, like the USSR China never had communism, they had ruthless dictators utilising the power of the state to gain and keep power. Neither country was ever in any way shape or form communist, they were dictatorships. And China remains a dictatorship and when the USSR devolved back into being Russia it had a brief period of democracy and then went back to being a dictatorship.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Communism is a stateless, classless, and moneyless society. In other words, not what they have or had in the USSR, China, and so on.

 

[Ziggurat]

You seem to have bought into the state propaganda of the Chinese dictators, like the USSR China never had communism,

No true communism. Nobody ever did it right. Next time will be different.

That's bull ◊◊◊◊.

they had ruthless dictators utilising the power of the state to gain and keep power.

That is what all communists actually do in practice when able to. China isn't a one-off.

 

[Steve]

No true communism. Nobody ever did it right. Next time will be different.

That's bull ◊◊◊◊.

That is what all communists actually do in practice when able to. China isn't a one-off.

What is bull ◊◊◊◊ is the peculiarly American right wing idea, since the McCarthy era, of what communism is. There seems to be no antidote to the koolade.

If you changed all your rants to arguments against dictatorships you would probably find a fair amount of agreement.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

No true communism. Nobody ever did it right. Next time will be different.

That's bull ◊◊◊◊.

That is what all communists actually do in practice when able to. China isn't a one-off.

As do all dictatorships the US is supporting to fight communism.
You have no honest argument to connect State violence to communism specifically

 

[Ziggurat]

As do all dictatorships the US is supporting to fight communism.
You have no honest argument to connect State violence to communism specifically

Over 150 million dead at the hands of their own communist governments, and you think there's nothing to connect that to communism specifically?

It ain't just a river in Egypt.

 

[Ziggurat]

What is bull ◊◊◊◊ is the peculiarly American right wing idea, since the McCarthy era, of what communism is. There seems to be no antidote to the koolade.

If you changed all your rants to arguments against dictatorships you would probably find a fair amount of agreement.

I agree, everything I said applies to dictatorships too. But "Dictatorship" and "Communism" are highly overlapping sets, they are not mutually exclusive categories. So that doesn't really absolve communism.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

No true communism. Nobody ever did it right. Next time will be different.

That's bull ◊◊◊◊.

Nope. Words have meaning. China, Cuba, and Viet Nam aren't communist more than the 'Democratic' republics of North Korea and the Congo are in fact democratic.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nope. Words have meaning. China, Cuba, and Viet Nam aren't communist more than the 'Democratic' republics of North Korea and the Congo are in fact democratic.

Communism is what communists do. The pretense that it is otherwise is rank apologism.

 

[dann]

Why wouldn't I? You're the only qualified authority on your beliefs, and being a communist is just a statement of beliefs. Plus, I've seen no contradictory information.
If you tell me you're a Yankees fan, why wouldn't I believe you? If I tell you that I'm a Lakers fan, why wouldn't you believe me?
Do you think they don't believe themselves to be compassionate?
See, you're not making an equivalent comparison. I don't think you need to actually do anything to be a communist. But your objection to "compassionate conservatives" isn't actually based on their beliefs about themselves, is it? It's based on your evaluation of their actions. I'm not claiming you've done anything. For example, I'm not going to call you a revolutionary just because you (hypothetically) call yourself one, because that does require action. But communist? No action needed.
And to seal the deal, note that you're only objecting to the "compassionate" part. You don't dispute that they're conservative. Calling yourself a communist is equivalent to calling yourself conservative, NOT to calling yourself compassionate.
I believe you. Again, why wouldn't I? And why on earth do you object to me believing you?
It's not a debate at all, because we both agree: you're a communist.

What a self-contradictory Gish gallop.
This is how to deal with the notoriously violent communists!

Kyle Rittenhouse on X, May 6, 2026
The communists couldn't take me out and i'll be damned if I let a brown recluse take me out.

Kyle Rittenhouse on X, May 6, 2026
The spider, like the commies, also thought it was a good idea to come after me while I was armed.
He did not survive.

PZMyers on bsky, May 7, 2026
May the murderous freak suffer a thousand more spider bites. May the invisible communists crawl out from under his bed and pummel him with pig's bladders. What a pathetic little man.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Over 150 million dead at the hands of their own communist governments, and you think there's nothing to connect that to communism specifically?

It ain't just a river in Egypt.

how many dead American Natives at the hands of the US colonists ?
How many dead at the hands of the Conquistadors?
Do you want to claim that King Leopold II was a Communist?

Give it up - it's trivial to find examples of mass violence that have nothing to do with Communism.
You are just desperate to make a connection.

 

[Ziggurat]

how many dead American Natives at the hands of the US colonists ?
How many dead at the hands of the Conquistadors?
Do you want to claim that King Leopold II was a Communist?

Most of the deaths of Native Americans was due to smallpox. That was essentially inevitable once contact was made, it wasn't some deliberate decision. And the fact that communism is bad doesn't mean nothing else is bad, nor does other things being bad somehow excuse communism. That's just stupid.

You are just desperate to make a connection.

You are desperate to deny a connection. But it still exists.