• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Soviet ("Muscovite") vs. Nazi posters - amazing 100% similarity!

soylentgreen said:
A totalitarian command economy is not a part of communist philosophy. It is however an interpretation by such people as lenin. But he was not interested in communism, he was interested in control and dictatorship by an elite group. Which is not communism.

Your argument could also be made for capitalism. In fact your own american history demonstrates such a lack of freedom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_Party_leaders
Click to expand...

There's nothing "totalitarian" nor "command" about a capitalist economy.


It is neither ideology that is the cause of such suppression of freedom. It is people who are in power and afraid of loosing it that is the cause.
Click to expand...

The suppression of such freedom is inevitable, for reasons I already stated. Dissent is fatal to both socialism and communism.

In any case, the best you're saying is that "communism isn't the problem, communists are." No reason the same such argument can't be applied to any criticism, small or gross, you want to levy at "capitalism."
 
Casca XV said:
Hitler chose his victims by Race and Religion, Stalin chose his victims be Political Ideology and economic class. That is the only difference between the two and the only difference between todays American Left and the microscopic number of Neo-Nazis they claim to hate.
Click to expand...

its a typical commie myth. as far as i know Hitler targeted only one nation (religion) not sure about Gypsies . Koba have targeted 6 NATIONS AT LEAST including Jews in 40-50th

 
Harshaw said:
There's nothing "totalitarian" nor "command" about a capitalist economy.




The suppression of such freedom is inevitable, for reasons I already stated. Dissent is fatal to both socialism and communism.

In any case, the best you're saying is that "communism isn't the problem, communists are." No reason the same such argument can't be applied to any criticism, small or gross, you want to levy at "capitalism."
Click to expand...

Your kidding. Your own american government is nothing more than a puppet government in the control of an elite oligarchy. Just because you chains a re made of gold does not make them any less chains.

The suppression of freedom comes whenever those in power feel threatened no matter which ideology they are.

Nor did i say any such thing. I fail to see where you even got the idea.
 
soylentgreen said:
Your kidding. Your own american government is nothing more than a puppet government in the control of an elite oligarchy. Just because you chains a re made of gold does not make them any less chains.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, the CT forum is elsewhere.

The suppression of freedom comes whenever those in power feel threatened no matter which ideology they are.
Click to expand...

And those who run a totalitarian command economy are far more likely to feel threatened.

Nor did i say any such thing. I fail to see where you even got the idea.
Click to expand...

Of course you did:

soylentgreen said:
A totalitarian command economy is not a part of communist philosophy. It is however an interpretation by such people as lenin. But he was not interested in communism, he was interested in control and dictatorship by an elite group. Which is not communism.
Click to expand...
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Actually, that's not true. Anarchy is survival of the fittest. Libertarianism is the concept that a democracy has to be limited, and the markets free and open.
Click to expand...

Oh please, it's anarchy for rich people.
You SAY that "a democracy has to be limited"...it already IS limited because democracy HAS to be limited, and buffered.
The only way democracy can ever actually work is when it functions on a limited basis INSIDE the framework of a republic.
There are no pure democracies and there never have been in the modern era, not in the last 600 years. Not on a national level.
So, democracy has always BEEN limited in the modern era.
What libertarians are REALLY saying, based on the actions of their heroes anyway, is that democracy should be waterboarded to where it is on life support, and the markets should not only be free and open, but darwinian to the point of death if need be.

You can say anything you like, people say stuff all day long. Look at the actions of your heroes, like Kochs, for instance.
They like limiting democracy by PURCHASING their OWN government. That's why groups like ALEC are able to manufacture gavel ready legislation, have some flunkie run it over to a state legislature, and have it voted on almost without opposition of any kind, day in, and day out.

My other favorite libertarian trope is Norquist's quip about "drowning government in the bathtub".
Well, mission accomplished.

AnarchyforRichPeeps.jpg
 
DarkWizard12 said:
The part where it says "you have a right to someone else's wealth". That's a all-around bad idea that inevitably ends up with an authoritarian ruler to enforce such philosophy. That's why communism is a ****ty idea in practice, and a ****ty idea on paper.
Click to expand...


Communism (or socialism if you prefer) doesn't say this.

Communism emphasizes the collective.

It's a perfectly rational philosophy. From everyone according to their abilities, to everyone according to their needs.

The capitalist philosophy is "Greed is good".

Socialism is a good idea that sadly just doesn't work because people are corrupt and selfish.
 
Harshaw said:
As I said earlier, the CT forum is elsewhere.



And those who run a totalitarian command economy are far more likely to feel threatened.



Of course you did:
Click to expand...

It may be elsewhere but that does not change what is said.

And communism has nothing to do with that kind of governemnt. You can look to leninism but that is not communism. That is a dictatorship.

You confuse russia and leninism with communism. That country was a dictatorship not a communist ideology.
 
soylentgreen said:
It may be elsewhere but that does not change what is said.

And communism has nothing to do with that kind of governemnt. You can look to leninism but that is not communism. That is a dictatorship.

You confuse russia and leninism with communism. That country was a dictatorship not a communist ideology.
Click to expand...

Yeah. The same thing -- the suppression of civil liberties -- has happened everywhere "communism" has been tried. Not just Lenin. Not just Stalin. Not just Russia. Everywhere.
 
Harshaw said:
Yeah. The same thing -- the suppression of civil liberties -- has happened everywhere "communism" has been tried. Not just Lenin. Not just Stalin. Not just Russia. Everywhere.
Click to expand...

Because socialism doesn't work.

The only way it can be made to work is the exertion of political power


And as Mao said, political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
 
Rich2018 said:
Because socialism doesn't work.

The only way it can be made to work is the exertion of political power


And as Mao said, political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. Something soylentgreen needs to understand.
 
Harshaw said:
Yeah. The same thing -- the suppression of civil liberties -- has happened everywhere "communism" has been tried. Not just Lenin. Not just Stalin. Not just Russia. Everywhere.
Click to expand...

Communism has never been tried. Not one country has ever tried to achieve it. Plenty of countries have been outright dictatorships and used the title communist. But calling yourself a communist country while not practicing anything even remotely communist does not make a communist country.
 
soylentgreen said:
Communism has never been tried. Not one country has ever tried to achieve it. Plenty of countries have been outright dictatorships and used the title communist. But calling yourself a communist country while not practicing anything even remotely communist does not make a communist country.
Click to expand...

You did NOT just trot out that tired old canard.

DGTjfgaUwAQVCy3.jpg
 
Harshaw said:
Well, yes. Something soylentgreen needs to understand.
Click to expand...

No, what you to need to understand is that mao was referring to revolution. You know the same crap americans keep guns and masterbate about but do nothing about.

Like marx, mao was faced with a situation where only violence would prevail against an entrenched authority. Where as in todays world workers can gain political power through less violent form of the vote.
 
soylentgreen said:
No, what you to need to understand is that mao was referring to revolution...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I want to argue against you but with regard to Mao's comment about political power.

It's just as relevant in the USA as revolutionary China.


If you refuse to comply with a law....and refuse to recognize the authority of your government (local/state/federal) or their political power...

Eventually someone will point the barrel of a gun at you.
 
Rich2018 said:
I'm not sure I want to argue against you but with regard to Mao's comment about political power.

It's just as relevant in the USA as revolutionary China.


If you refuse to comply with a law....and refuse to recognize the authority of your government (local/state/federal) or their political power...

Eventually someone will point the barrel of a gun at you.
Click to expand...

Must be a lot of political arguments in american schools then.

They are not quite the same because western countries that are socialist such as the standard examples of sweden, new zealand etc have stable governments that do swing to the left or the right by vote rather than by revolution. Where as in mao's, marx's and lenin they faced an authority that would not give up power except through violence. There only way to success was with a gun.

America is different too. There it is not because of political difference that you may face a gun but instead because americans have a weird notion about guns being a solution to politics. After all ask any pro gun person on this debate site and their two favorite reasons for having a gun is to kill any they think is a criminal or waiting for the revolution.
 
Casca XV said:
The Limited Power Govt Constitutional Republic created by the US Founding Fathers.

Although not perfect (nothing created by humans ever will be) the decentralized limited power government makes a Holocaust or Gulag situation impossible.

If the Left ever succeeds in making the CHANGE they want Holocausts and Gulags will not only be possible but maybe inevitable.
Click to expand...

Is this the same republic that has interred japanese citizens during WW2, overthrown foreign democratic regimes, tortured prisoners, and denied black people civil rights and dignity up until the 1960s?
 
Harshaw said:
Yeah. The same thing -- the suppression of civil liberties -- has happened everywhere "communism" has been tried. Not just Lenin. Not just Stalin. Not just Russia. Everywhere.
Click to expand...

It depends. Nepal is governed by the Nepal Communist party; it is a democracy, the death penalty has been abolished, and the possibility of legalising gay marriage is being looked into. Whether Nepal is 'trying communism' is up for debate, but it is governed by a communist party.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Oh please, it's anarchy for rich people.
You SAY that "a democracy has to be limited"...it already IS limited because democracy HAS to be limited, and buffered.
The only way democracy can ever actually work is when it functions on a limited basis INSIDE the framework of a republic.
There are no pure democracies and there never have been in the modern era, not in the last 600 years. Not on a national level.
So, democracy has always BEEN limited in the modern era.
What libertarians are REALLY saying, based on the actions of their heroes anyway, is that democracy should be waterboarded to where it is on life support, and the markets should not only be free and open, but darwinian to the point of death if need be.

You can say anything you like, people say stuff all day long. Look at the actions of your heroes, like Kochs, for instance.
They like limiting democracy by PURCHASING their OWN government. That's why groups like ALEC are able to manufacture gavel ready legislation, have some flunkie run it over to a state legislature, and have it voted on almost without opposition of any kind, day in, and day out.

My other favorite libertarian trope is Norquist's quip about "drowning government in the bathtub".
Well, mission accomplished.

View attachment 67244914
Click to expand...

The greek city states were not "limited" democracies. In fact, ever since then, the discussion has been about how to limit democracy so that its worst tendencies don't come to fruition.
 
soylentgreen said:
In the same sense that a government can tax in order to maintain badly needed infrastructure. Or do you mean that the capitalist has the right to exploit the worker of his labour?

Nor does communism say any such thing. That really is a biased interpretation you have there. What it does say is that a person has the right to own the means of his production. Whether that be the capitalist owner of a business or a collective of workers receiving the profits of their labour.

Your interpretation is what i expect in this thread. You along with others will come up with really stupid ways of doing communism and then insist that it has to be done that way. I really doubt you can show where communist ideology states such an objective as you have said . I really doubt that you could come up with an intelligent way of doing what you have said.

In other words all you and others will do is create dumb ways of doing communism and then pat yourself on the back for showing how dumb communism is.
Click to expand...
The communists did that themselves, they didn't need me to prove them ridiculous. I'm not a communist, and i don't have any interest in communism. As soon as russia had the ability to, they rejected it and fled communism like the plague.
 
soylentgreen said:
...western countries that are socialist such as the standard examples of sweden, new zealand etc have stable governments that do swing to the left or the right by vote rather than by revolution. Where as in mao's, marx's and lenin they faced an authority that would not give up power except through violence. There only way to success was with a gun....
Click to expand...

A couple of points, no way can you call New Zealand or Sweden "socialist" in the same way that Mao's China was.

Sweden doesn't bend economic reality and enjoys broad popular support because it only takes it's brand of "socialism" so far. ie: as far as the economy can support it.

China is still not politically mature. It is still a dictatorship. Whereas Sweden's government know they will not be the government after the next election follow political dogma that harms people's lives


...America is different too. There it is not because of political difference that you may face a gun but instead because americans have a weird notion about guns being a solution to politics. After all ask any pro gun person on this debate site and their two favorite reasons for having a gun is to kill any they think is a criminal or waiting for the revolution.
Click to expand...


Yes American gun owners will say anything to keep hold of their guns...

They will say that if they lost their guns, criminals would invade their homes within a week and kill them...or that a Marxist-Leninist revolution would spring up

They know the truth, they want their guns the same way they want their V8 engined trucks. It's an extension of their flag and their penis.


However in Sweden and the USA political power ultimately rest inside the barrel of a gun.


In China political power is more likely going to be used.
 
Casca XV said:
Hitler chose his victims by Race and Religion, Stalin chose his victims be Political Ideology and economic class. That is the only difference between the two...
Click to expand...
Then again, when it comes to killing the Comunists and Soviet Socialists far out shined National Socialists--
killers.png

--which may have been because the National Socialists insisted that they were neither Communist nor capitalist, that they were the "third way" half way between the two:
 
DarkWizard12 said:
The communists did that themselves, they didn't need me to prove them ridiculous. I'm not a communist, and i don't have any interest in communism. As soon as russia had the ability to, they rejected it and fled communism like the plague.
Click to expand...

Yes, you have well demonstrated that you have no interest in communism. To the point where you do not even understand it. Russia never was communist. It was a dictatorship. Apart from calling itself communist it dod not one thing that is communist. Just because someone takes on a label does not mean they are that thing.
 
Rich2018 said:
A couple of points, no way can you call New Zealand or Sweden "socialist" in the same way that Mao's China was.

Sweden doesn't bend economic reality and enjoys broad popular support because it only takes it's brand of "socialism" so far. ie: as far as the economy can support it.

China is still not politically mature. It is still a dictatorship. Whereas Sweden's government know they will not be the government after the next election follow political dogma that harms people's lives





Yes American gun owners will say anything to keep hold of their guns...

They will say that if they lost their guns, criminals would invade their homes within a week and kill them...or that a Marxist-Leninist revolution would spring up

They know the truth, they want their guns the same way they want their V8 engined trucks. It's an extension of their flag and their penis.


However in Sweden and the USA political power ultimately rest inside the barrel of a gun.


In China political power is more likely going to be used.
Click to expand...

Agreed that china is not socialist in the same way as nz or sweden. Both those countries are democracies where as china is a single state rule.

Nor is anyone arguing that socialism should be likes chinas or as a single state rule. Which is a leninist version of political power. Which is a different ideology from communism which is more about economics and not politics.

And no, the ability to usurp political power only rests with the use of a gun. But then you need to make the argument that a revolution is necessary. And in countries like sweden or nz that would be an uphill battle. Where as in america not a day goes by without some american masterbating over the idea of revolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom