State Communists have been the most murderous democide states on the entire planet. So sorry, it's just not true.

Note: I am an anti-state communist. I am not naive to the utter deplorable state of statist authoritarian communism.

The larger events (Stalin starving the Ukraine, Mao's Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot's killing fields) only get part of the way there, and if it includes myriad smaller-scale deaths by oppression one could make an opposing tally of capitalist deaths (e.g., all deaths resulting from putting profits above costs: industrial accidents, insurance denied procedures too long, etc.)

Still, I agree a bodycount game is foolish. Better to call them out on their blatant dishonesty by equating physical and social infrastructure items with mass-murdering police states.

Which, I believe, was the point of that item on the list, but it's framing does send one down the numbers game route.

Just to clarify.

I understand the distinction you're making, but in terms of American politics I think it's irrelevant. The word "communism" is almost exclusively associated with the governments that claimed it as their guiding principle, all of which were oppressive police states controlled by a small circle or singular strongmen who can and did order mass murder to consolidate and hold power. They bore more resemblance to theocracies or monopolies with the logos switched than to what was envisioned by anyone I've ever talked to who could be characterized as an anti-state communist.

That's what the word is associated with: Stalinism and Maoism. You may consider that unfair, but it's the overwhelming reality when talking to a general audience. Trying to pry what you may see as communism's good name from those is, IMO, a battle on par with prying the simple geometric symbols of the swastika away from its association with the Nazis. You may technically be right, but I simply don't see the value of that fight when the same points can be made in other ways, and in fact that imagery can be used against them by mocking them with it.

The creation analogy is a somewhat distant fit for this subject. Some world-class historical horrors happened under governments that called themselves communist. Even if you believe they were communist in name only and didn't act like they theoretically should have, they branded the word. It's not simply propaganda to associate the word with them. I stand by my analogy that what you're suggesting is on the scale of prying the swastika away from its association with Naziism.

The timescale that you're talking about will be measured in generations, not years. In the meantime, I prefer to slap Republicans around because they can't see the difference between infrastructure and mass murdering police states.

Thanks for posting this.

Why oh why would you post something so silly?

than propaganda. Before you dismiss something as "silly" you might actually want to do some reading on the topics presented.

Some of the "facts" presented are bullshit.

It's not misconceptions about communism. It's poorly written crappy camouflaged criticism of capitalism.
And it's silly.

the last person - which specifically would you like to discuss? He didn't respond of course.

The last person didn't respond, because there is no point. This OP is obvious flame bait, and I am wiggling off the hook. Bye.

Weird how suddenly that's no longer a valid point of argument.

I love Jesse Myerson. He really knows his shit. People should check out his podcast with Alexis Goldstein. It has a lot of good information, especially about banking and finance regulation.

"7. Capitalism fosters individuality.

Instead of allowing all people to follow their entrepreneurial spirit into the endeavors that fulfill them, capitalism applauds the small number of entrepreneurs who capture large portions of mass markets. This requires producing things on a mass scale, which imposes a double-uniformity on society: tons and tons of people all purchase the same products, and tons and tons of people all perform the same labor. Such individuality as flourishes amid this system is often extremely superficial.

Have you seen the suburban residential developments that the housing boom shat out all over this country? Have you seen the grey-paneled cubicles, bathed in fluorescent light, clustered in “office parks” so indistinct as to be disorienting? Have you seen the strip malls and service areas and sitcoms? Our ability to purchase products from competing capitalist firms has not produced an optimally various and interesting society.

As a matter of fact, most of the greatest art under capitalism has always come from people who are oppressed and alienated (see: the blues, jazz, rock & roll, and hip-hop). Then, thanks to capitalism, it is homogenized, marketed, and milked for all its value by the “entrepreneurs” sitting at the top of the heap, stroking their satiated flanks in admiration of themselves for getting everyone beneath them to believe that we are free."

I have found that capitalism encourages specialization and a mindset of only one can be best. Most corporations and businesses only do one thing - sell tires, sell food, sell cupcakes. Even Wal-Mart and K -mart only do one thing - sell cheap products. Think of great middle aged black female actors and everyone in the US looks to Oprah. capitalism always pushes only one as the best. Then everyone in that market tries to win that "best" position. There can't be more than a handful of bests, and in truth, only one is really considered best. It's what advertising tries to do, make you think only one brand name is best. It's how they try to capture large portions of the market.

everything becomes the same.

The Marxist concept of "specialization" has ruined socialism for a century or more. Read my journal. Fucking Marx, not only did he mock individual specialization, but he had convoluted views on Land Rent. J do not think Marx was a socialist in the end.

that has been repudiated by the people who knew it best. Where could you find anyone stupid enough to copy the Soviet Union or Mao's China?

What's been repudiated is the large-scale, top-down, totalitarian command-driven economic model pioneered & fostered by the Soviet Union. OTOH, pure communism has really never been tried. It would require that the people who actually do the work make the decisions as to what work will be done. Capitalists have always been violently reluctant to give up that power, and workers have been trained by those capitalists not to seek that type of responsibility.

so you can't have pure communism.

Nothing is ever "pure" when it comes to economies.

like communism does.

try communist_manifesto at wikipedia.

There really aren't many flaws in Marxist theory. some, of course - all economic theory has flaws, owing to the irrationality of humans - but it's still quite strong.

These posters above saying "Stalin and Mao didn't practice real communism!" are on the right direction but still the wrong neighborhood. It's not that those despots and some others like them did not practice "pure communism," it's that they didn't practice any communism at all. Stalin and Mao were fascists. They utilized communist sloganeering, but any examination reveals that they readily adopted right-wing nationalist militarism, created corporatist states, and sought to "perfect" society by eugenic pruning of those deemed "unfit."

The USSR and China were - are - right-wing regimes that represent the inevitable pinnacle of capitalism - one big boss, in charge of a unified corporation-state that grinds its people for labor at the minimal expense possible for maximized profit, which is then turned into guns and warships. Marx would have shit kittens.

to exactly where the Manifesto took them. There is no pure communism, at least Marx and Engels didn't define it.
Stalin and Mao were exemplary communists.
Capitalism has Darwin, communism had Lysenko.
Capitalism has democracy, communism had dictatorship.
Capitalism has the highest standard of living and lowest poverty ever achieved by any economic system. Communism didn't, it was a failed experiment. From Section II of communist manifesto, per Wikipedia--"short term demands"

It makes the Soviet pogroms and China's Great Leap Forward look like a child's summer picnic. Millions of people died.

it began with the Renaissance.

And please explain how a capitalistic organization like the Hanseatic League could have existed 300 yrs before the Renaissance took place.

You should be careful when you pretend to have special knowledge. You might get caught out by someone who actually does.

Capitalism has existed since people began trading with each other. Communism is forced on people. You should be careful that you don't confuse knowledge with trivia.

and that the capitalist ideology, which you're spewing out of ignorance, is simply the natural order of things. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Do you think the Africans who were kidnapped & shipped like cargo over 10,000 miles and sold into slavery didn't have capitalism forced on them? Or the Scottish people who suffered & died in the name of capitalism during the Highland Clearances? Or the various Native American nations who tried to fight off the European invasion? Capitalism has always expanded it's reach by being forced upon people, exploiting them & then bleeding them dry (sometimes literally). This has always resulted in greater inequality, suffering & death for it's victims. This isn't "trivia", it's history. Capitalist ideologues like you would condemn the world to repeat it.

The plain fact is - which has been pointed out several times in this thread - communism has never really been tried. Therefore, there's no way you can say it has "failed". (The structure of communism actually works quite well, and is used all the time. Ironically, the most successful collective institutions are Western-style corporations. Ownership is divided equally among the shares of the corporation, and strategic decisions are made via a democratic vote. Communism would simply do for labor what corporations have done for capital.)

OTOH, failure is an integral part of capitalist ideology. That's really the only thing capitalism has going for it - the system doesn't break when things go bad. It's just that people need to suffer & die. When that happens, rational people have stepped in to regulate those things which caused the suffering by introducing aspects of socialism and communism into the capitalist system. As a result of these changes you have never experienced the evils of pure capitalism. They can only be understood by studying history.

to propose, then do it. Communism was a nasty joke.

In order to engage in a debate, you need to attempt to address the points your opponent makes. If you don't you're just engaging in a public display of mental masturbation.

Get it, there is no debate, just an attempt to not allow bad propaganda to go unchallenged.

It's like I'm dealing with a fucking 10yr old.... or a Teabagger...

The Marx and Engels variety has been, there is an experiment still going on in N. Korea. Are you expecting success there?

Which just proves what an abject failure it has been because a lot of people have run around for over a century claiming to be communists. You'd think at some point along the way at least one of these half-wits would have stumbled into power and shown what they can do but apparently The Awezomist Thing Evah! can't seem to get their feet off the ground.

Even now the so-called "communists" sit around whining about how unfair the world is rather than actually doing something of substance. Would that these chronic complainers pool their collective resources collectively and start their own grand experiment. No one will force them to shop at national retail outlets. They would be allowed to educate their children as they see fit. They should just shut-up and go for it already.

And those that do are hell holes.

A lot of people have run around for over over 800 years claiming to be capitalists. Once in a while one of these half-wits gets into power wanting to show how Amazing & Wonderful it is, then proceeds to destroy the economy.

Even now the so-called "capitalists" sit around whining about how unfair the world is because it's not capitalist enough, even though the entire world economy is based on capitalism, abet with small but important contributions from socialism & communism to help make it function without crashing.

But, based on your argument - since it's been such a total failure, doesn't that mean we should toss out every idea & concept that originates with capitalist ideology?

Really? Then why do communists keep running around claiming capitalists are so rich and powerful? Meanwhile, the communists can't even find toilet paper to dry their tears but they'll imprison anyone who goes out and buys their own toilet paper for being an economic saboteur.

No country has ever been organized along those lines.

For example, the actual Soviet and Chinese versions violated a key tenet of Marxism by seizing family farms and sole proprietorships, which are the epitome of the workers owning and controlling the means of production.

Screw Capitalism.

Capitalism is like fire, useful only when it's completely controlled. Dangerous if left unattended.

The Soviet Union actually morphed into a totalitarian
state-run capitalism.

Calling the former USSR 'Communist' is like calling Taco Bell crap 'Mexican Food'

Did somebody say that on a blog or something LOL



"Huge Misconceptions!"

That means a whole bunch of people believe right? I've never even heard of anything like that before. It's like a list of strawmen-

saying that the administration supported right-wing dictatorships (in Argentina and South Africa, for example) because they were merely "authoritarian" and would change when free-market economics improved their economies to create a "vibrant middle class," while countries like the Soviet Union were "totalitarian" and would never change without armed intervention. Never mind such details as "free market" economics devastating the Argentine economy and South Africa having one of the world's highest living standards--if only white people were counted.

It's odd that nobody ridiculed her after 1989.

But this wasn't it.

Bryant

Modern economies are all about trades and deals.

Is what is known as 'fictitious capital' according to Marx.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/i.htm

trade deals.

Even if it's just the finance sector you are talking about. If the production stops even banksters can't eat or buy new crap.

So only 1/4 of the economy is production.

but ideas like Venus Project (http://www.thevenusproject.com/) have become much more interesting to me. Whether one favors the owners or workers (or strives for a happy balance) - over production is killing our planet.

How can we stop that? That would be an even more interesting OP.

Thanks for posting xchrom.