All Communists are dead-beats

[KoihimeNakamura]

.. Did you just choose to skip over his discussion of root causes?

 

[Brian-M]

John Lennon was a Communist?

Imagine no possessions. I wonder if you can?
No need for greed or hunger... a brotherhood of man.
Imagine all the people sharing all the world.

It's almost as though he has tried to convince us to keep calling him Parky.

A conspiracy, perhaps?

A conspiracy of one?

Although I would like to know if there's an actual term for this. It's like a strawman, but that takes the current argument, changes it so that it's easily defeated and then defeats it. This doesn't look at the argument at all, just offers a new argument suggesting that if you can't defeat it, then anything else you say isn't valid.

This is known variously as "raising the bar", "moving the goalposts" or "argument by demanding impossible perfection". (link)

 

[Virus]

.. Did you just choose to skip over his discussion of root causes?

No I read it loud and clear. America made the communists slaughter half a million people.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

ok, I'll start.

Communists believe the collective good outweighs any concepts of individual success or prosperity.

Eh, sort of.

they believe in the nationalization and seizure of all privately and corporately owned industries, especially natural resources and major employers.

Nope.

they believe in the right of ALL people to a home and a job.

Home yes, job not really.

they believe in the seizure of all private and corporate farms. these lands should be used communally to provide for the needs of all.

Farms and Industry yes. The means of production should belong to the people.

Lenin and others till today, believe in the breaking down of all national, cultural, and language borders. They are pure internationalists, and find ethnic independence movements to be chauvinist and counter to the greater good of all mankind.

Is this a bad thing?

 

[Virus]

Setting aside for now the question of who actually is responsible for those deaths, or even analyzing the numbers, lets just take a look at when.

We started sending military advisers to help the blameless French against those dirty commies as far back as 1950. How many Vietnamese had been killed by the commies by then?

What are you trying to pull? At least 50,000 people were killed during the "lands reforms" of the 50's. Fail.

 

[quadraginta]

So we made them force people into re-education camps?

You are really intent on changing the subject, aren't you?

You responded to a post where I made the assertion that the bogeyman of "communism" was a bogus domestic political justification for the U.S. involving itself in Vietnam in the first place. You did this by citing death tolls of unknown provenance which resulted from the cumulative effects of the course of that war.

The reeducation camps I believe you are referring to were also a result of that war.

I'm quite willing to entertain discussion of the results of the Vietnam war, and what part U.S. involvement in the war may or may not have played in the course of that war or its aftermath, but you need to decide for yourself if you are disagreeing with my statement about the onset of U.S. participation and the justifications used at the time for that, or are instead introducing as a new topic the subject of the results of U.S. involvement and the responsibility incurred by its actions there.

 

[WildCat]

We started sending military advisers to help the blameless French against those dirty commies as far back as 1950.

1955 actually.

 

[quadraginta]

What are you trying to pull? At least 50,000 people were killed during the "lands reforms" of the 50's. Fail.

Sources?

I'm assuming that by "during" you mean "as a result of", and are referring strictly to actions by the DRV government. I come up with this number,

In the north, the Viet Minh ruled as the DRV and engaged in a drastic land reform program in which an estimated eight thousand perceived "class enemies" were executed.[66]

... and the interesting aftermath.

In 1956 the Communist Party leaders of Hanoi admitted to "excesses" in implementing this program and restored a large amount of the land to the original owners.[67]

Meanwhile, over on the other end of the playground.

Diem instituted a policy of death penalty against any activity deemed communist in August 1956.[77] Opponents were labeled Viet Cong ("Vietnamese communist") by the regime to degrade their nationalist credentials. As a measure of the level of political repression, about 12,000 suspected opponents of Diem were killed in the years 1955–1957 ...

Unlike the evil commies the error of this policy of enlightened democracy was, of course, quickly rectified.

... and by the end of 1958 an estimated 40,000 political prisoners had been jailed.[78]

So there appears to be some room for disagreement concerning your "At least 50,000 people" allegation. That is, if it is the DRV you are restricting your criticism to.

We can probably play this game as long as you want, but just as a piece of friendly advice, body counts probably aren't the best way to make your case. Even McNamara finally figured that one out, although for entirely different reasons (and it took him long enough to do it.)

 

[Thunder]

What's wrong with that?

please point to where I said it was good or bad.

 

[quadraginta]

We started sending military advisers to help the blameless French against those dirty commies as far back as 1950.

1955 actually.

"Advisers". To the French.

They didn't let their ratty colonial troops use our stuff, but we were there.

In September 1950, US President Harry Truman sent the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) to Vietnam to assist the French in the First Indochina war. The President claimed they were not sent as combat troops, but to supervise the use of $10 million worth of US military equipment to support the French in their effort to fight the Viet Minh forces. BY 1953, aid increased dramatically to $350 million to replace old military equipment owned by the French. [1]

The French Army however, was reluctant to take U.S. advice, and would not allow the Vietnamese army to be trained to use the new equipment, because it went against French policy. They were supposed to not only defeat enemy forces but to solidify themselves as a colonial power, and they could not do this with a Vietnamese Army. French commanders were so reluctant to accept advice that would weaken their time-honored colonial role that they got in the way of the various attempts by the MAAG to observe where the equipment was being sent and how it was being used. Eventually the French decided to cooperate, but at that point it was too late.[1]

It was '55 when we decided that the French were too ditzy to be worth the trouble and started dealing directly with the South Vietnamese. By that time we were already in it to the tune of around a billion dollars. Back then that was almost "real money" even to Everett Dirksen.

 

[Virus]

Sources?

From the senate committee's report;

Bernard Fall placed the
human cost of. the Agrarian Reform campaign alone.at a mmimum 1f
50,000 exeQuted. and 100,000 imprisoned. Hoang Van Chi, a leadl"W
nationalist whi> held important posts under Ho Chi Minh,placed the
post-Geneva toll at 50~000. This estimate generally coincides with
the estimate of Gerard Tongas, a Frenchman who was originally sympathetic
to Ho Chi Minh, but who was revolted by what he saw in
North Vietnam in the post-Geneva period .and put his observations
into a book captioned "I Lived in the Communist Hell.'"

http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/239/2390710003A.pdf

You think communism was a bogeyman? God God, they killed a hundred million people and had nuclear warheads pointed at you.

 

[Thunder]

Communists were the only boogey-man who who could have annihilited the entire planet with one push of a button.

The Communists finished the job that Hitler started, in most of Eastern Europe. So as far as I am concerned, they all suck.

 

[Kotatsu]

Communists believe the collective good outweighs any concepts of individual success or prosperity.

they believe in the nationalization and seizure of all privately and corporately owned industries, especially natural resources and major employers.

they believe in the right of ALL people to a home and a job.

they believe in the seizure of all private and corporate farms. these lands should be used communally to provide for the needs of all.

Lenin and others till today, believe in the breaking down of all national, cultural, and language borders. They are pure internationalists, and find ethnic independence movements to be chauvinist and counter to the greater good of all mankind.

Well, this is at least fairly accurate, even if details may vary. With small modifications, it could be a good, if imperfect and insufficiently detailed, start. However, could you please explain how you get from:

they believe in the right of ALL people to a home and a job.

to

sorry, but I consider a loser who just wants someone else to give him stuff...to be a deadbeat.

I don't care if you're an angry drug-addicted homeless panhandler, or a Communist demanding free health care, a free job, free housing, free food, etc etc etc.

which, to me, seems to be the transition from "they want everyone to have a job" to "they just want to be given stuff with no effort on their own part".

 

[Kotatsu]

Communists were the only boogey-man who who could have annihilited the entire planet with one push of a button.

Since you use "could" rather than "would", what about the only nation that ever actually used a nuclear bomb? They could also have annihilated the entire planet with one push of a button. Or is the American nuclear launch system operated with a lever?

 

[Thunder]

which, to me, seems to be the transition from "they want everyone to have a job" to "they just want to be given stuff with no effort on their own part".

this is the kinda stuff the Communists I know say.

"too each according to their need"

so basically, the poorer and lazier you are, the more free **** you get. its not your fault...its the fault of evil Capitalism.

there is even video of one saying this.

i would post it, but I don't want some jerk here sending him messages that I am bad-mouthing him.

though...he isn't really much of a friend. more a guy I know from college.

 

[Cavemonster]

this is the kinda stuff the Communists I know say.

"too each according to their need"

so basically, the poorer and lazier you are, the more free **** you get. its not your fault...its the fault of evil Capitalism.

You and Skeptic both seem to have a hard time with the other part of that quote.

From each according to his ability
To each according to his need.

So taken in context, your interpretation makes absolutely no sense.
I could describe capitalism trade as
I give you money, you give me goods and services. Without either half of that, it can be twisted to sound pretty stupid. That's what you just did.

 

[Thunder]

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

my translation?

"the less capable you are, the less we will ask from you. but regardless of how much you contribute, we will give you based on your need."

now, who gets to decide "need"?

do we ALL need a car?

do we all need our own house or apartment?

do we all need alchohol once a week?

forgive me for sounding harsh, but I think folks who contribute little or nothing, should get the BEAR MINIMUM from the govt.

no luxuries. not even rent vouchers. let homeless & poor people live in dormatories.

 

[Kotatsu]

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

my translation?

"the less capable you are, the less we will ask from you. but regardless of how much you contribute, we will give you based on your need."

now, who gets to decide "need"?

do we ALL need a car?

do we all need our own house or apartment?

do we all need alchohol once a week?

forgive me for sounding harsh, but I think folks who contribute little or nothing, should get the BEAR MINIMUM from the govt.

no luxuries. not even rent vouchers. let homeless & poor people live in dormatories.

I have to run off, so just a quick note. This particular quote is a bit tricky, but does in no way imply what you believe it implies. Like I said in an earlier post, my favorite iteration of this same sentiment is "The products of labour should be distributed according to the principle of solidarity" (Reclus, but I can't remember at the moment when he said it). It gets rid of the word "need", which is an unfortunate choice, as it has unsuitable connotations.

Basically, where you go wrong is to assume that this quote encourages people to extract the maximum benefit out of the system while inputting the bare minimum. This is not the sentiment of the quote, nor the way a typical communist would see it. There are metres upon metres written on how to avoid this very issue within a socialist or communist or anarchist society, and that sort of behaviour is something which communist thinkers often unfortunately imagine will not exist in the perfect society.

 

[quadraginta]

From the senate committee's report;

http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/239/2390710003A.pdf

The report you've unearthed as a citation was crafted with the particular and singular goal in mind of justifying U.S. participation in Vietnam solely on the basis of the threat of "global communism". It is not a scholarly report. It is an apologia whose purpose was a desperate political defense of what at the time was rapidly being exposed as an untenable position. It is no coincidence that (as do you) it neglects, or rather avoids any mention of any circumstances which might reflect poorly on either the French or the South Vietnamese.

It is interesting that the quote you chose singled out Bernard Fall, whose 1963 book was excerpted in a carefully selected fashion in that 1972 report. There are reasons that the opinions of Bernard Fall were limited to a few short, very specific criticisms.

Fall was a partisan for the French with an abiding hatred of the communists in Europe. His general opinion of "Communism" was not any better, but his pragmatism was disturbing to U.S. political sensibilities, as was his honesty. His public opinions concerning the best way for the U.S. to deal with Vietnam resulted in his being put under investigation by the FBI in 1964, only a year after that book was published. By the time of his tragic death (in Vietnam) three years later, and five years before the report you cite, his opinions on the U.S. conduct of the war were becoming quite an irritant to the very same people who later compiled that report.

Early on he suggested that containment and communication, with a goal of eventual reconciliation was the wisest approach to dealing with North Vietnam. This included normalized trade relations with the North as part of a program to wean them away from the more repellent aspects of "Communism". His criticisms of the behavior of the South were not a great deal more flattering than his condemnations of the North. He even went as far as to suggest that certain aspects of the sociological rationales behind communism as a an ideology lent themselves well to the distributed local bureaucracy which had typified Vietnam before the French colonial invasion. Please note that this was not a defense of "Communism" on his part, but more of that irritating honesty and pragmatism.

No wonder the FBI was keeping an eye on him.

If the U.S. had actually listened to what he had to say and acted accordingly, instead of cherry-picking the paragraphs they liked and ignoring all the inconvenient parts then the history of Vietnam would be very different. Almost certainly far less bloody.

To commit my very own "No true Scotsman" fallacy, no sane and knowledgeable observer of that part of the world ever believed that a military solution in Vietnam would be successful. Even some of the insane ones made some rather pointed comments about the futility of land wars in southeast Asia.

You think communism was a bogeyman? God God, they killed a hundred million people and had nuclear warheads pointed at you.

Can you manage an honest discussion? I said,

Not that I have a problem with that, since I have always believed that the "communist threat" represented by Vietnam was nothing more than McCarthyist hysteria rhetoric, lacking any substance and intended solely to drum up domestic political support for an otherwise indefensible war.

You are suggesting that "the "communist threat" represented by Vietnam" is a perfect synonym for "communism". Since you obviously haven't been paying attention, it is the very subject of the term "communism" and its meaning which are under discussion. Maybe you'd like to provide your definition. While you're at it go ahead and specify who "they" are, so we can learn a little bit more about your new body count.

The word "communism" had been in use as a political bogeyman in the U.S. long before the Vietnam war, or even WWII. The post-WWII acceleration of this was one of the more abiding disgraces of the 20th Century in this country. Some remnants of that shameful episode still exist to this day, as is apparent by the ease with which even the term "socialism" can be used ( or maybe I should say "misused") as a pejorative by certain parties.

 

[RobRoy]

This is known variously as "raising the bar", "moving the goalposts" or "argument by demanding impossible perfection". (link)

Thank you. I believe the last one appears the most appropriate in this case, but I can see how the other two might also apply.

Communists were the only boogey-man who who could have annihilited the entire planet with one push of a button.

The Communists finished the job that Hitler started, in most of Eastern Europe. So as far as I am concerned, they all suck.

This just gets better and better!

forgive me for sounding harsh, but I think folks who contribute little or nothing, should get the BEAR MINIMUM from the govt.

no luxuries. not even rent vouchers. let homeless & poor people live in dormatories.

Well, that would be nicer than where the homeless live now.