The Bloody History of Communism Full

[MaGZ]

Funny, How to Lie was also the first rule of the Nazis,who Clayton Loves....

Communism and Nazism do have a contest going as to which one had the biggest body count, though. Stalin and Mao were certainly in the same league as Hitler when it comes to mass murder.

If you are referring to The Big Lie then you don’t know what you’re talking about. Hitler never advocated or promoted The Big Lie. If you have any doubts, do some research.

 

[MaGZ]

Communism is a somewhat silly utopian economic philosophy. It is not evil. It is naive and does not take into account the most basic of human behaviors or motivations but it is anything but evil.

Those who use the silly utopian dream of communism to build totalitarian dictatorships, they are evil. They also rarely even attempt to follow the most basic ideas of communism after they have gained their power. Nope, it's usually straight up kleptocracy while mouthing the words of communism to justify their actions.

I do not have any particular love of communism, I consider it implausible at best, but it really annoys me when people believe that those totalitarian kleptomaniac dictators are communists. The USA is closer to being a pure democracy than those monsters are to being communists.

Here is a taste of communist evil.
http://miscarea.net/anti-humans.htm

 

[Border Reiver]

If you are referring to The Big Lie then you don’t know what you’re talking about. Hitler never advocated or promoted The Big Lie. If you have any doubts, do some research.

Absolutely right.




That would have been Goebbels - Hitler's henchman.

 

[Craig B]

If you are referring to The Big Lie then you don’t know what you’re talking about. Hitler never advocated or promoted The Big Lie. If you have any doubts, do some research.

Then he believed his own monstrous perversions of reality and took them for the truth? That's perfectly possible.

 

[Mudcat]

BTB, I am totally cool with drones as they are currently used - especially against traitors from the US. They come here for a trial, fine. They don't, drone 'em.

I never got what the big hurrah was about. It's not like they would be any less dead if they were killed by an infantry person, sniper, tank fire, et cetera for the same exact thing.

 

[Ove]

Here is a taste of communist evil.
http://miscarea.net/anti-humans.htm

No that has NOTHING to do with communism but i gather that some people will never understand that. Weak Kitten is absolutely right, TRUE communism is a good philosophy that just wont ever work because it would demand that everybody was perfect human beings and there aint that many of us.

Stalin was a dictator disguised as a communist, so was Mao, Tito, Hoxa and all the other so called communists.

 

[Belz...]

If you are referring to The Big Lie then you don’t know what you’re talking about. Hitler never advocated or promoted The Big Lie. If you have any doubts, do some research.

Saint Hitler, <chorus> aaaaaaaahhhh!

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If you are referring to The Big Lie then you don’t know what you’re talking about. Hitler never advocated or promoted The Big Lie. If you have any doubts, do some research.

His flunkies did, and he didn't object for obvious reasons, so you're weaseling on behalf of Herr Schicklegruber won't fly.

 

[Cayvmann]

Communism is a somewhat silly utopian economic philosophy. It is not evil. It is naive and does not take into account the most basic of human behaviors or motivations but it is anything but evil.

Those who use the silly utopian dream of communism to build totalitarian dictatorships, they are evil. They also rarely even attempt to follow the most basic ideas of communism after they have gained their power. Nope, it's usually straight up kleptocracy while mouthing the words of communism to justify their actions.

I do not have any particular love of communism, I consider it implausible at best, but it really annoys me when people believe that those totalitarian kleptomaniac dictators are communists. The USA is closer to being a pure democracy than those monsters are to being communists.

This is exactly how I feel. If I was a hopeful future dictator, I would label myself in the most benign, or publicly beneficial title there ever was, and then get public support for my takeover. I'd make sure the people would envision a chicken in every pot and clean houses and nice roads. Then I would act however I felt, once I had the power. Labels are BS.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Communism is a somewhat silly utopian economic philosophy. It is not evil. It is naive and does not take into account the most basic of human behaviors or motivations but it is anything but evil.

Those who use the silly utopian dream of communism to build totalitarian dictatorships, they are evil. They also rarely even attempt to follow the most basic ideas of communism after they have gained their power. Nope, it's usually straight up kleptocracy while mouthing the words of communism to justify their actions.

Agreed. My word for it has always been... greed.

Until you can eliminate greed from the human condition, you can never have a small group, given comparative luxuries, put in charge of the distribution of all wealth to the masses, and still willing to step down.

Never happen.

Call it what you will, design it how you want... won't work. Ever.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Agreed. My word for it has always been... greed.

Until you can eliminate greed from the human condition, you can never have a small group, given comparative luxuries, put in charge of the distribution of all wealth to the masses, and still willing to step down.

Never happen.

Call it what you will, design it how you want... won't work. Ever.

I believe the root of greed is actually fear. Fear of losing what one has, fear of not getting what one wants, fear of deprivation.

Of course that doesn't make it much more solvable.

 

[jj]

Clayton does have a point, communism is an unstable, anti-human religion based on a fundamental flaw, the idea that people will continue to work as hard as possible while unrewarded. This idea, in communism, must be taken on faith, which is what makes it a religion.

And like all religions (which include laissez-faire capitalism) it fails. Ironically, laissez-faire capitalism fails on much the same grounds, i.e. the counter-evidential idea that people will work for long term goals when offered the chance for a huge short-term gain that hurts the long term outcome.

 

[Craig B]

Clayton does have a point, communism is an unstable, anti-human religion based on a fundamental flaw, the idea that people will continue to work as hard as possible while unrewarded. This idea, in communism, must be taken on faith, which is what makes it a religion.

While working for inadequate reward is the usual outcome, it is not the idea behind communism. The idea is that there should be a greater reward once the profit motive has been removed, production is organised more rationally, and the full product of labour is received by the workers and not squandered by private owners' greed and profligacy. But indeed it has not worked, because in the absence of markets the only possible organising force is the state, which at once becomes over powerful and degenerates into a tyranny.

 

[sackett]

Let's remember the Hutterites,

who have been called the most successful communists in history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterites

They really are a religion, with all the dreariness and often unsubtle coercion you'd expect from extreme Protestants. Still, they make collectivity work, and they flourish like the green bay tree. Maybe they're the only successful commies in history?

But they aren't a state, or, to put it more simply, you can escape from Hutterism: nobody can chase you and drag you back for reeducation.

I hope I'm right about that; I know little more about them than you'll find in yon Wiki article, and that Montana-N. Dakota-Alberta country can be mighty isolated. Anybody here have any first- or even second-hand knowledge of them?

 

[Chaos]

who have been called the most successful communists in history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterites

They really are a religion, with all the dreariness and often unsubtle coercion you'd expect from extreme Protestants. Still, they make collectivity work, and they flourish like the green bay tree. Maybe they're the only successful commies in history?

But they aren't a state, or, to put it more simply, you can escape from Hutterism: nobody can chase you and drag you back for reeducation.

I hope I'm right about that; I know little more about them than you'll find in yon Wiki article, and that Montana-N. Dakota-Alberta country can be mighty isolated. Anybody here have any first- or even second-hand knowledge of them?

Communism CAN work - but only if all the participants are volunteers dedicated to the idea of making it work, and only for the period over which this remains the case.

Any system - be it communist, capitalist or MyLittlePonyist - which has to force a major part of its participants to continue participating has the seeds of its own failure already sown.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's interesting that so many of the extremist religious cults are "communistic" in nature. (Which is often just a disguise for "the big guy gets the Rolls Royces", but it's the cult members' choice to live in that system.)

 

[Craig B]

It's interesting that so many of the extremist religious cults are "communistic" in nature. (Which is often just a disguise for "the big guy gets the Rolls Royces", but it's the cult members' choice to live in that system.)

Is there anyone in the Hutterites who gets the Rolls Royces? Although they are a collectivity, the Hutterites appear a bit different from a Bhagwan style cult, and very different from Jonestown.

 

[ArmoredDragon]

Sorry, I missed where the left has bent over for fundies and baggers in any of that.....material you left on the floor.

BTB, I am totally cool with drones as they are currently used - especially against traitors from the US. They come here for a trial, fine. They don't, drone 'em.

For what it's worth, you are too deeply entrenched in the us vs them game. It's about delegation, not about rooting for the home team. This is why I don't like the American political system, it's because of people like you who treat it like a football game.

IMO we could solve a lot of problems if we ended the "vote just for the sake of voting" campaigns and stripped the party affiliations from the ballot.

I'm rather shocked at how many self proclaimed conservatives talk about reducing the debt, but don't vote for anybody who actually does that. I'm also rather shocked at how many self proclaimed democrats are actually in favor of the right to bear arms, but don't vote for anybody who believes in the same. They all just pick their side and then vote on that, issues be damned.

I recall a while back, somebody did a study that found that most people would change their views if told that their party supported a particular view, even if it was a complete 180 from their previously held view, and their party of choice didn't actually hold that view.

Don't try to tell me that you aren't like that either, it's pretty blatantly obvious you're a team player, and I don't mean that in a good way.

 

[ArmoredDragon]

I never got what the big hurrah was about. It's not like they would be any less dead if they were killed by an infantry person, sniper, tank fire, et cetera for the same exact thing.

While I am all supportive of drones myself, and I don't have any love lost for those killed, I think they may be more useful alive until their cause is defeated. At which point go ahead and issue the summary execution that they would have otherwise gotten.

 

[Spindrift]

I'm rather shocked at how many self proclaimed conservatives talk about reducing the debt, but don't vote for anybody who actually does that. I'm also rather shocked at how many self proclaimed democrats are actually in favor of the right to bear arms, but don't vote for anybody who believes in the same. They all just pick their side and then vote on that, issues be damned.

Maybe they vote the way they do because they don't make voting decisions based on a single issue?