Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PatriotSaint]

Every time we've ever had an attempt at a communist country, it's been hijacked by totalitarian fucks. Take Lenin for example- He saw a chance to seize power for himself, and he took it. It's because whenever you have a communist revolution, the revolutionaries in question insist on setting up a dictatorship, thinking that they know best, even though they totally don't. It's called the "Vangaurd" - The idea that dictatorship by a bunch of revolutionaries will somehow end well. I really wish that just once, we could have an actual Democratic communist country.

Again, communism in practice is always different in theory.

It fails and always will fail because instead of at least trying to accommodating human nature, it tries to change it, while denying it exists in the first place. Which is why people like Castro, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, the Kimmies still exist and always will exist. It is also why both it's policies and methods always fail.

Which is why every time someone takes another go, more people in a Motherland through executions and imprisonment than warfare.

[Angle]

Every time we've ever had an attempt at a communist country, it's been hijacked by totalitarian fucks. Take Lenin for example- He saw a chance to seize power for himself, and he took it. It's because whenever you have a communist revolution, the revolutionaries in question insist on setting up a dictatorship, thinking that they know best, even though they totally don't. It's called the "Vangaurd" - The idea that dictatorship by a bunch of revolutionaries will somehow end well. I really wish that just once, we could have an actual Democratic communist country.

Again, communism in practice is always different in theory.

It fails and always will fail because instead of at least trying to accommodating human nature, it tries to change it, while denying it exists in the first place. Which is why people like Castro, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, the Kimmies still exist and always will exist. It is also why both it's policies and methods always fail.

Which is why every time someone takes another go, more people in a Motherland through executions and imprisonment than warfare.

Bullshit! It fails because some totalitarian fuck hijacks it for their own ends, and everyone else just stands by and lets it happen. A Democratic communism is a thing we've never seen before, and would be no more likely to end up like that than any other democratic government.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I should note that North Korea no longer claims to be communist, nor do the Kims after Kim-Il Sung. They're more of a racial monarchy than a communist state.

[PatriotSaint]

Every time we've ever had an attempt at a communist country, it's been hijacked by totalitarian fucks. Take Lenin for example- He saw a chance to seize power for himself, and he took it. It's because whenever you have a communist revolution, the revolutionaries in question insist on setting up a dictatorship, thinking that they know best, even though they totally don't. It's called the "Vangaurd" - The idea that dictatorship by a bunch of revolutionaries will somehow end well. I really wish that just once, we could have an actual Democratic communist country.

Again, communism in practice is always different in theory.

It fails and always will fail because instead of at least trying to accommodating human nature, it tries to change it, while denying it exists in the first place. Which is why people like Castro, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, the Kimmies still exist and always will exist. It is also why both it's policies and methods always fail.

Which is why every time someone takes another go, more people in a Motherland through executions and imprisonment than warfare.

Bullshit! It fails because some totalitarian fuck hijacks it for their own ends, and everyone else just stands by and lets it happen. A Democratic communism is a thing we've never seen before, and would be no more likely to end up like that than any other democratic government.

Except for the ones that did end up like that, right? Like capitalism? Which at least is stable? It doesn't crumble when you try to make some pig iron, it doesn't blow up when there's the prospect of a space program.

Again, instead of trying to live with human nature, it tries as hard as it can to look away from it's eyes. It decides to forget that ambition is human.

It's why it's so easy for not just the leader, but the party, the Communist Parties, to take control, which has always happened, and since human nature isn't about to change unless we turn into robots, or a hivemind, will always, unfalteringly, happen.

[Owlbread]

It's not closely related at all.

Right and Left are relative terms when we are speaking of individual nations, because what defines the right and the left is the difference between what is and what could be. As this varies between nations, so must the right and left. While one could possibly be speaking of the global right and left, this is so hard to measure that it might as well be opinion. If you take every place on Earth into consideration, you could easily say that the USA is far-left and Europe has gone off the left end entirely into crazyland.

I'm sorry I don't agree with you, that's just not it at all. Just because what is right and left in a particular country varies doesn't mean that politics and all political thought must vary from country to country. Other ideas still exist even if they aren't popular in a particular state. I would also like a bit more clarification on your last statement that the USA could be considered far left and Europe has gone into crazyland. Develop that a bit more.

[PatriotSaint]

I should note that North Korea no longer claims to be communist, nor do the Kims after Kim-Il Sung. They're more of a racial monarchy than a communist state.

Now they call themselves and are called socialist Juche.

Not really an improvement.

[10ebbor10]

Capitalism isn't that great either.

But note, we have never had anything remotely similar to the communistical ideals, as described by Marx, in existence. Ever. The features most commonly associated with communism aren't even part of it. The communistical ideal doesn't call for a state led economy, it doesn't require an authoritian state, and it doesn't need a single party system.

Hell, you could go with an implementation where there isn't even a government.

[scriver]

"In response to PatriotSaint, the countries that have followed Communist state-ideologies have never actually reached that golden state of Communism that all Communist parties sought. Instead they were always stuck in the Socialist stage of development."
-Owlbread


Hmm... well, nobody ever has.

They do keep trying though, and it keeps ending up in lots of executions and prison camps.

It's like the very definition of insanity.

Well, maybe. But then again so would keeping capitalism up be after how we've seen it fail over and over again and cause untold amounts of suffering all over the world.

In response to PatriotSaint, the countries that have followed Communist state-ideologies have never actually reached that golden state of Communism that all Communist parties sought. Instead they were always stuck in the Socialist stage of development.

Add to that that the communist party elite quite quickly became more interested in upholding their own power than pursuing the "communist golden state". They pretty much formed a new kind of violently authoritarian nobility (or at least aristocracy), which was exactly what the people had originally revolted against.

Now. If you want successful socialist states, look at western Europe instead.

Preedit: wow. Talk about ninja'd.

[PatriotSaint]

Capitalism isn't that great either.

But note, we have never had anything remotely similar to the communistical ideals, as described by Marx, in existence. Ever. The features most commonly associated with communism aren't even part of it. The communistical ideal doesn't call for a state led economy, it doesn't require an authoritian state, and it doesn't need a single party system.

Hell, you could go with an implementation where there isn't even a government.

About capitalism, it's not the perfect system, but it doesn't result in millions of people being executed and/or put into camps for being political dissidents. I think if a system does do that, you should probably dump it.

About the "features", those have appeared in every, single, instance, of attempted communism. Every single one. The same story every time. Hardly ever a discrepancy, give or take a few million deaths.

I can assure you, the very next time someone tries it on for looks, lots of people are going to die. Prematurely, of course.

[Angle]

Also, you keep going on about "Human nature". I hate to break it to you, but things are a lot more complicated than that. Take ambition, for example - In our modern society, it is encouraged, but things haven't always been that way. In most feudal societies, for example, ambition was heavily discouraged for most of the population, and as a result, they displayed very little of it. Now, I happen to actually think ambition is a good thing, and would encourage it, depending on what it is and so long as no lines are crossed.

About capitalism, it's not the perfect system, but it doesn't result in millions of people being executed and/or put into camps for being political dissidents. I think if a system does do that, you should probably dump it.

About the "features", those have appeared in every, single, instance, of attempted communism. Every single one. The same story every time. Hardly ever a discrepancy, give or take a few million deaths.

I can assure you, the very next time someone tries it on for looks, lots of people are going to die. Prematurely, of course.

That's not communism! That's totalitarianism, which bears no more relation to communism than it does to any other government system. Take the bloody natzi's, for example - explicitly anti-communist, yet they end up much the same way. Common thread - totalitarianism.

[GlyphGryph]

Yeah, the problem with communism is that the people responsible made the mistake of trusting the common man. But it turns out the common man only wants equality when he's worse off, and once they aren't the thing they most want is security for their power and comfort and they'll screw everyone else over to get it.

Basically, communists never figured out how to do quality control and make good decisions in regards to the pursuit of communism, and got their asses kicked and handed to them by totalitarian dictators subverting their ideology pretty much every single time.

Communism in it's more idealized forms has serious problems that it's supporters like to ignore, but it's detractors ignore those problems as well. The problems are similar to the problems of MinAnarchy - it's a system remarkably lacking in stability, and very easily becomes something else far less pleasant. It's easily subverted and inherently unstable.

Well, okay, MOST governments are, but marxist utopias are especially so since there's very few people who benefit a whole lot from stability and quite a few more who benefit from upsetting.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Like capitalism? Which at least is stable?

Yes, capitalism is so stable.

It doesn't crumble when you try to make some pig iron, it doesn't blow up when there's the prospect of a space program.

It was a Space Race, not a Space The USA Was Destined To Win. The USSR was actually ahead of the USA for most of the Space Race. We very much surged ahead from them near the end to land on the moon.

Again, instead of trying to live with human nature, it tries as hard as it can to look away from it's eyes. It decides to forget that ambition is human.

It's why it's so easy for not just the leader, but the party, the Communist Parties, to take control, which has always happened, and since human nature isn't about to change unless we turn into robots, or a hivemind, will always, unfalteringly, happen.

Talking about vague "human nature" in regards to this is not productive to discussion. It says nothing. Ambition can work with a communal system. Hell, for humanity to exist in greater order it has to. One only has two things:

A. Ambitiously helping the group that you are in helps you. (Even capitalism recognizes this, can you say corporation?)

B. Humanity as a whole is a group, and has been getting more so ever since the Neolithic Revolution.

I should note that North Korea no longer claims to be communist, nor do the Kims after Kim-Il Sung. They're more of a racial monarchy than a communist state.

Now they call themselves and are called socialist Juche.

Not really an improvement.

Still not communism.

Juche is more survivalism than anything else. Kind of necessary when most of the world is aligned against you, and your only allies are your allies because they hate the same people you hate.

[Nadaka]

capitalism has millions of people being executed or put into camps because they are the underclass who don't have the economic power to negotiate a living wage.

[PatriotSaint]

Also, you keep going on about "Human nature". I hate to break it to you, but things are a lot more complicated than that. Take ambition, for example - In our modern society, it is encouraged, but things haven't always been that way. In most feudal societies, for example, ambition was heavily discouraged for most of the population, and as a result, they displayed very little of it. Now, I happen to actually think ambition is a good thing, and would encourage it, depending on what it is and so long as no lines are crossed.

About capitalism, it's not the perfect system, but it doesn't result in millions of people being executed and/or put into camps for being political dissidents. I think if a system does do that, you should probably dump it.

About the "features", those have appeared in every, single, instance, of attempted communism. Every single one. The same story every time. Hardly ever a discrepancy, give or take a few million deaths.

I can assure you, the very next time someone tries it on for looks, lots of people are going to die. Prematurely, of course.

That's not communism! That's totalitarianism, which bears no more relation to communism than it does to any other government system. Take the bloody natzi's, for example - explicitly anti-communist, yet they end up much the same way. Common thread - totalitarianism.

1. Feudal nations weren't capitalist... Nor were they communist. Also, we are talking about today and tomorrow.

Ambition is human nature, and Communism in practice is a prime example of when it (human nature) is ignored an not accepted and accomodated.

2. I might as well say Robin Hood stole from the king and he was a man, and a thief stole from the peasants and was a women. They were both thieves. Common thread - thieves

[Strife26]

capitalism has millions of people being executed or put into camps because they are the underclass who don't have the economic power to negotiate a living wage.

Yeah, but so did Communism.





Everyone! The World sucks! But if people didn't suck so much it might not suck!


Yay!