That free education and health care are so wonderful, people risk their lives to flee it.
Yes, in the conservative narrative, that's what they're known for. Unlike radical conservatives and more moderate conservatives where infighting is soon forgotten. (Apropos of "forcing an ideology on a populace.")
This is your usual playbook: You make claims bereft of facts and argumentation, and then it's up to your opponent to do the work. You can either present your argument with receipts or drop the pretense that this is something you know about. I'll waste a little of my time on just one of your examples, and look him up on Wikipedia:
Yes, I am in favor of revolutionary communism, or as Marx and Engels would call it, scientific socialism, but unfortunately you have no idea what it means. (And Engels didn't always live up to the term.)
As if free education and health care is what Cubans (and people in other Latin American countries) are fleeing from.
The main destinations appear to be Costa Rica, Spain, Portugal, Mexico and Panama.
You pretend that "true communism" has never been tried, that real-world communism's failures don't reflect on "true communism", but here you are, defending real-world communism.
Tu quoque doesn't make communism look better.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to show receipts for the claim that Lenin, Mao, et al. were revolutionary communists who instituted murderous regimes in the name of communism.
It's true I have no idea what "scientific socialism" meant to Marx and Engels. But I have a really good idea of what "revolutionary communism" means in the context of what Lenin and Mao tried to do.
Communism was supposed to be the naturally-emerging solution to the class struggle. What actually emerged naturally instead was trade unions. Communism has never emerged naturally from class struggle. It always has to be forced by revolution.
Constantly trying to change the subject away from communism doesn't make communism look any better.
And yet conservatives always pretend that infighting is something that is unique to socialists.
You hardly ever show recepts for ANYTHING. Making uncorroborated claims is what you do, and now you did it again.
And again! So present your "really good idea" and back it up with receipts.
What exactly are you talking about in these general terms? What people do "in the name of" ANYTHING should be carefully scrutinized. You didn't do so in the case of Pol Pot, and now you have already abandoned him!
It was supposed to be what??? Says who? Where? Links, please! You are already contradicting yourself because you justs make up new claims whenever your old claims turn out to be false.
Constantly lying about communism and communists based on nothing but ignorance doesn't make conservatism look any better. It's the good old American Red Scare (Wikipedia)
Of course not. They're fleeing the oppression of communism. The "free" health care doesn't make up for that. And Cuba can't produce their "free" health care without it. Sure, you don't pay for it in cash, you pay for it with freedom.
Funny thing, the USA doesn't threaten people with force to keep people from leaving.
You're right, you said that Cuba was the only place it had been tried.
But you also claimed it wasn't a murderous dictatorship, which it is.
We're so authoritarian, you get rewarded with social status for insulting the president and nobody cares if you leave.
I wouldn't know about that. My view is that vicious infighting is typical of any ideology that's trying to seize power or maintain control. You see it a lot in religion, too.
Just to make sure I understand: You want evidence to support the claims that Lenin instigated a communist revolution, and that the outcome sucked balls. Is that right?
Pol Pot is a good example of "scratch a communist, find a fascist". I'm not abandoning him at all. He's an excellent example of what can happen when you try revolutionary communism. He's a poster child for the policy of keeping revolutionary communism out of the western hemisphere.
For the most part, Latin Americans are fleeing from poverty, i.e. the condition that U.S. imperialism has imposed on the South American continent for more than a century. Cuba could produce free health care without oppression before Trump's exacerbation of the blockade. Without medicine, food and oil, it's impossible. Free healthcare is not something you pay for with freedom – whatever that nonsense is supposed to mean. Ignorant conservative Americans may believe the lie, but those of us who live in countries with free health care don't.
Neither does Cuba. The USA, however, uses force to deport people to places they don't want to go. Some of them are Cubans. Some of them are Venezuelans. Some of them are Haitians. Some of them aren't Salvadorans, and yet they are now imprisoned in El Salvador. American force is an ugly thing.
No, I didn't. This is why I asked you to link to the things you claim I say: "The only place I can think of where it has been and is still being tried is Cuba." There are places I know too little about. For instance, I recently mentioned that I know nothing about Kerala.
No, it isn't. You continue to make unsubstantiated claims and confuse Cuba with the USA:
You are so authoritarian that people get rewarded for their sycophantic adulation of the president until they're no longer useful to him. We have all seen the embarrassing meetings in the White House with grown ups kissing up to him as if he were the school bully. And we all know about the people who are fired for valuing truth and science higher than lying for the administration.
No, you wouldn't know about that because you don't want to know.
I want evidence to support ALL your claims instead of the sweeping generalizations that you excel at, but I don't think you're up to it. It's the conservative mindset at play.
Scratch an extreme nationalist and racist who pretends to be a communist – a little like Trump's pretend opposition to the 'elites', to the 'swamp', to 'cancel culture' and to the 'deep state' before he was elected and was still pretending to be a man of the people. Again one of your sweeping generalisations that you probably don't even believe yourself.
That isn't what the Cuban refugees are saying.
Oh. So they lost their freedom and got nothing in return. Got it. That makes communism sound so much more attractive.
Yes: their home.
Kerala is a district in India with a local parliamentary government, it is not a nation state. As a local government, its powers are intrinsically limited and subservient to the national government of India, which has never been communist.
The USA is so horrible, people risk death at the hands of ICE to get here or stay here.
Did you know that your buddy Che Guevara was racist? And a major homophobe too. Was he only pretending to be a communist?
I didn't make sweeping generalizations. I named four specific revolutionary communists. You took issue with one of them, and ignored the other three under the pretext of me not providing "receipts" for things like Lenin's communist revolution.
Exactly. I'm not at all interested in trying to keep track of whatever opinions you believe other people might have. If possible, I'm even less interested in taking any responsibility for them, let alone account for them.
And probably unachievable as long as Human Beings are involved.
The failure modes are polar opposites, though. Communists enact dictatorships when they gain power. Libertarians never manage to gain power in the first place.