Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Phryxis said "makes you no better than a well cared for slave"

Have you seen the wage-slave job opportunities available to the smallfolk under other capitalist regimes lately? Hey at least they were well-cared-for slaves. We just pay our rent (barely) and suck it up if we need a doctor. I'd rather be a well-cared-for-slave than a wage-slave who isn't cared for.

What he said was that they can never exceed the position of a well-cared for slave, not that they're always (or even often) in that position.

What he said was that they can never exceed the position of a well-cared for slave, not that they're always (or even often) in that position.

Exactly.

I think it's a mistake to compare the status of an American "wage slave" with a citizen of the Soviet Union or China.

For example, something I came across the other month on Wikipedia:

Magnitogorsk was mentioned in the Blacksmith Institute's 2006 survey of the world's worst polluted cities, placed in the report's unranked list of the 25 most polluted places outside the top ten. Pollutants include lead, sulfur dioxide, heavy metals and other air pollutants. According to the local hospital, only 1% of all children living in the city are in good health. The Blacksmith Institute says that, according to a local newspaper report, "only 28% of infants born in 1992 were healthy, and only 27% had healthy mothers."

While I don't dispute that some Americans have it much harder than others, I don't think the average American can even BEGIN to imagine what it's like to live in a genuine 3rd world situation, or similarly oppressed condition.

It's almost disrespectful to the people who really lived it to pretend that the pain of not being able to save as much as you want, and settling for the 32" LCD TV, is even remotely close to the folks trying to survive in the USSR, China, Cambodia, Cuba, etc.

To be fair to China, their standard of living has improved immeasurably since Mao, and a great deal even between the times I visited there (1993 and 2001). Obviously Russia, being no longer Communist, is a very different situation, with incredible wealth, poverty and corruption.

Phyrxis, would you accept that the free market naturally leads to exploitation?

Phryxis wrote:
Suffice it to say that I think that the current American left is well within the upper left quadrant, as are virtually all the names we associate with great evil, such as Hitler and Stalin, which is something that the American media and educational system seek to downplay as much as possible.

I'd place the entirety of the American political spectrum to the left of center where domestic politics are concerned, and to the right of it when considering international politics. I don't think either end of that continuum is especially libertarian, or authoritarian though.

I also think that the smear on socialism prevents many people from accepting that they advocate socialist policies; in essence there is a desire to hear a sort of rhetoric that appeals to a certain zeitgeist, regardless of whether or not that rhetoric jives with reality. I think the most obvious aspect of this tendency is the mythos of Ronald Reagan regarding toughness and responsibility.

Phryxis wrote:
As I've said, I think the reason is that it destroys the concept of the individual, which results in indivduals being expendable.

I think that, ultimately, any state will be forced to come to terms with expandability of the individual.

dogma wrote:

Phryxis wrote:
Suffice it to say that I think that the current American left is well within the upper left quadrant, as are virtually all the names we associate with great evil, such as Hitler and Stalin, which is something that the American media and educational system seek to downplay as much as possible.

I'd place the entirety of the American political spectrum to the left of center where domestic politics are concerned, and to the right of it when considering international politics. I don't think either end of that continuum is especially libertarian, or authoritarian though.

Really? Some American politicians (certain Republicans in particular) sound like Ultra-nationalists when speaking about their country in relation to others. Also, if enforcing an almost completely foreign form of political system upon middle-east nations isn't authoritarian, then perhaps I'm misunderstanding the word in this particular context.

I fully understand history. I understand the differences and similarities between Stalin and Mao. I understand the role of starvation and mismanagement of agriculture (Mao) vs. that, plus willfull mass murder (Stalin).

I'm not saying that Communism has a "commit genocide" phase built into it. I'm saying that it's an ideology that seems compassionate, but actually teaches contempt for the individual, and without saying "commit genocide" that's the end result in the majority of cases.

If thats what you mean why did you wait until now to say it?

One of the reasons I love Rambo killing Communists is because Communism is LITERALLY that evil. It's the single most destructive concept in human history. People focus on Hitler killing 5 million people. Mao killed 60 million. Stalin killed 30 million. Hitler was a samaritan by comparison. Forget Hitler, if you want to talk about the most evil Germans of all time, look at Marx.

Because you certainly didn't say that here.

I mean, come on... You can say genocide isn't part of Communism, but after ALL major implementations of it result in genocide, you need to start asking "ok, we know Communism ends in genocide. Why is that the case?"

As a quick note though neither collectivist farming nor stalins purges were tantamount to genocide.

gen·o·cide   [jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Unless you consider "traitors" (stalin) and the remains of Changs loyal forces to be ethnic or political groups then no genocide went on. The cultural revolution was poorly targeted and largely reactionary and uncontrolled, it's targets were neither universal nor particularly well disseminated. Mass killings and starvation were certainly hallmarks of eastern marxist revolutions, but those are the hallmarks of nearly all forms of violent revolution. We had one, remember? Communism has far from the resume for genocide that capitalism has.

You spend too much time assuring people that they don't know history.

Then please, clean up your posts so I don't have too.

As I've said, I think the reason is that it destroys the concept of the individual, which results in indivduals being expendable. The only reason Communism sometimes works on a small scale, is that all the participants have a concept of each other as individuals, which they maintain in parallel to the Communist system they live under, and thus preserve themselves from the moral decay that would otherwise inevitably occur.

Sup? Damn those communist killers! If only the light of true capitalism had shined on us earlier!



I wonder where this boats going? I certainly hope it isn't any place communist!

ShumaGorath wrote:

I fully understand history. I understand the differences and similarities between Stalin and Mao. I understand the role of starvation and mismanagement of agriculture (Mao) vs. that, plus willfull mass murder (Stalin).

I'm not saying that Communism has a "commit genocide" phase built into it. I'm saying that it's an ideology that seems compassionate, but actually teaches contempt for the individual, and without saying "commit genocide" that's the end result in the majority of cases.

If thats what you mean why did you wait until now to say it?

One of the reasons I love Rambo killing Communists is because Communism is LITERALLY that evil. It's the single most destructive concept in human history. People focus on Hitler killing 5 million people. Mao killed 60 million. Stalin killed 30 million. Hitler was a samaritan by comparison. Forget Hitler, if you want to talk about the most evil Germans of all time, look at Marx.

Because you certainly didn't say that here.

I mean, come on... You can say genocide isn't part of Communism, but after ALL major implementations of it result in genocide, you need to start asking "ok, we know Communism ends in genocide. Why is that the case?"

As a quick note though neither collectivist farming nor stalins purges were tantamount to genocide.

gen·o·cide   [jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Unless you consider "traitors" (stalin) and the remains of Changs loyal forces to be ethnic or political groups then no genocide went on. The cultural revolution was poorly targeted and largely reactionary and uncontrolled, it's targets were neither universal nor particularly well disseminated. Mass killings and starvation were certainly hallmarks of eastern marxist revolutions, but those are the hallmarks of nearly all forms of violent revolution. We had one, remember? Communism has far from the resume for genocide that capitalism has.

You spend too much time assuring people that they don't know history.

Then please, clean up your posts so I don't have too.

As I've said, I think the reason is that it destroys the concept of the individual, which results in indivduals being expendable. The only reason Communism sometimes works on a small scale, is that all the participants have a concept of each other as individuals, which they maintain in parallel to the Communist system they live under, and thus preserve themselves from the moral decay that would otherwise inevitably occur.

Sup? Damn those communist killers! If only the light of true capitalism had shined on us earlier!

Walk into our local Walmart. Damn sure as hell no genocide or expendability of the Native Americans going on. Walmart does as good as it does because of the Native American populace shopping at ours.

Albatross wrote:
Really? Some American politicians (certain Republicans in particular) sound like Ultra-nationalists when speaking about their country in relation to others.

Sure, but I think those people possess outlying beliefs, or are in the process of grandstanding. Remember, the political structure of any given democracy can classified aesthetically (through rhetoric) or mechanically (through policy). American foreign policy tends to be aggressive, and interventionist which places it to the right on a spectrum regarding proactive foreign policy.

Though, honestly, spectra don't mean a lot when it comes to international politics as they tend to be classified only according to the dominant parallel beliefs of their advocates.

Albatross wrote:
Also, if enforcing an almost completely foreign form of political system upon middle-east nations isn't authoritarian, then perhaps I'm misunderstanding the word in this particular context.

I don't consider authoritarianism to be meaningful in the context of international politics, as nearly all proactive (read: non-isolationist) foreign policy turns on exertion of will in one way or another.

Phyrxis, would you accept that the free market naturally leads to exploitation?

Depends on what you mean by "exploitation," but probably.

One of the properties of a free market is that it strongly tends to exploit people's natural ability. What "exploit" means to you is colored by your view of the free market, but what's interesting is that the word is always applicable.

It might mean "make the best use of," or it might mean "take unfair advantage of.

That said, I'm not arguing that any particular political system is immune to negative experiences. Any system can go bad, and can be abused by bad people.

That said, in a free market system, the key to survival is competitive advantage. That means that the "boss" needs to find the best possible people. He needs to figure out what those people value and figure out how to lure them to work for him. All that requires that he understand these people as individuals, know what sorts of interests and hobbies indicate a good worker, know what sorts of benefits and perks they want, etc. etc.

So, certainly, the "boss" might still abuse his workers, but all along the way he's forced to recognize them as individuals.

Even if the "boss" decides to abuse his workers, even if he builds up a monopoly that makes escape difficult, it's still always possible. All it takes is somebody else with deep pockets to come along, cut in, and offer good jobs to his employees.

By comparison there is NO alternative to the state in Communism. If the state is wrong, there's nowhere else to go. And given that the state is not at all inclined to see you as anything by a cog in their machine, you can rest assured there WILL be a problem.

I'd place the entirety of the American political spectrum to the left of center where domestic politics are concerned, and to the right of it when considering international politics. I don't think either end of that continuum is especially libertarian, or authoritarian though.

Really? Relative to the rest of the first world, I think the US is right/libertarian. As fast as we swing left/authoritarian, and we've been doing it pretty much since 1776, we don't outpace with the rest of the first world. My opinion.

I also think that the smear on socialism prevents many people from accepting that they advocate socialist policies

Absolutely. Public schools. Fire departments. Police. Many, many government programs are socialistic in nature. It's not that we're not comfortable with a certain amount of socialism. And, as you say, I think part of the backlash is due to Europe being "Socialist" and us wanting to not be "lame" like them.

I think that, ultimately, any state will be forced to come to terms with expandability of the individual.

I assume you meant expendability, unless you're referring to the American obesity problem.

I agree, it's very hard not to notice, as the leadership of a nation of 300 million, that one life is absolutely meaningless. At least on one level.

On the other hand, when you rely on the strengths that America (and much of the first world) does, you rely on the sanctity of the individual. Even if one person doesn't really matter, the idea that they do does.

The fact that Communism attempts to crush that idea, and that it does so fairly explicitly, is the reason it is an ideology of evil.

If thats what you mean why did you wait until now to say it?

I thought I had. The comments you quote don't seem contradictory to me. I stand by my assertion that Communism is evil. Just because Marx didn't say "step 2: EVIL" that doesn't mean it's not evil.

As a quick note though neither collectivist farming nor stalins purges were tantamount to genocide.

Absolutely true. I noticed that one of the last times I typed it out, and I gave it a pass since nobody had said anything. It's not genocide. I guess the best term is "mass killing." There's no intent to wipe out a specific race or ethnic group. There's simply an intent to kill large numbers of people either to shift demographics to a more "useful" profile, or to terrorize opposition.

I wonder where this boats going? I certainly hope it isn't any place communist!

A very weak argument. You're resorting to ad hominem attacks against American history as a refutation of my assertion that Communism is evil. I guess I should be glad that you're not resorting to ad hominem attacks directly against me, except that you're doing that too.

The fact is, you're talking about a different time and context. America engaged in imperialism and indeed genocide against the Indians at a time when this was going on all over the world. That doesn't make it right... It just makes it possible for a relatively "moral" society to still do it. Also, the Indians were an "external" threat. A "foreign" enemy. I'm not aware of ANY political system that has had much success in treating external threats with much humanity. Anybody that gets in the way is dehumanized and attacked. That's human nature for all of history.

So I'm not arguing that the American system is all hugs and roses, 24/7/365. I actually didn't say much of anything about the American system. You brought it up because you like to argue, and you know Communism is indefensible, so you decided to sidetrack. But since you did bring it up, I repeat, I'm not saying that the American system is perfect. What I'm saying is that it at least tends to treat SOME people with compassion and respect. Communism treats NOBODY with compassion and respect.

Phryxis wrote:Right, but then if we spent our way out of the recession, would that cost $10 trillion? I'd have to assume it would not.

If you flat defaulted on your debt with China there would be massive ramifications beyond trade with China.

Plus, what's China gonna do? Not sell to us anymore?

No, the two countries need each other. And the US certainly needs its position of pre-eminence and reputation for honest trade. All of which would be lost if they simply refused to pay a debt. Which is why if the US reached a point where debt servicing was not viable they’d negotiate an interest moratorium or reduction in total debt.

And a Mormon. A Democrat Mormon. Figure that one out.

Huh, I didn’t know that. That is weird.

No question. But can you think of a billion people who'd better be generalized? I've been to China more than once. They're a very, very homogeneous bunch when compared to virtually any other nation.

The Han are possibly, but in general non-Western places are. The idea of being markedly individual (and needing to buy the right products to show that to everyone else) is a fairly new, Western thing. Outside of the major cities you get into some pretty diverse ethnic groups.

Also, I'm not really generalizing the whole population so much as their government and leaders of industry. It's not so much that they're all the same person, as they've taken a certain approach.

The US, for example, has a particular mentality and approach to business. That's not to say all Americans agree, but there is a certain way we do things the great majority of the time.

Yeah, that’s fair. There are certainly national characteristics.

They def had a period of technological innovation that was very, very long.

On the other hand, they've always been invaded and subjugated. The Great Wall is a testament to that. Their Dynasties are basically breaking up their history by times they got invaded and taken over. Then you've got the UK coming in and making them slaves in their own country. When you add Communism to that, you've got a real submissive populace.

Yeah, they certainly got invaded a lot. They were very bad at fighting.

The Great Wall wasn’t ever really about defence, mind you. The final project to connect all the pieces that made up the Great Wall It was a big make work project to keep a potentially rebellious population busy. It also did what, ultimately, all walls are really for – it formalised the boundary of China, and made lands that were previously disputed with Mongolia formally Chinese.

One of the reasons I love Rambo killing Communists is because Communism is LITERALLY that evil. It's the single most destructive concept in human history. People focus on Hitler killing 5 million people. Mao killed 60 million. Stalin killed 30 million. Hitler was a samaritan by comparison. Forget Hitler, if you want to talk about the most evil Germans of all time, look at Marx.

Your figure on Hitler is wrong. Looking just at the victims in the concentration camps you’ve got 9 million. You then seem to attribute a significant portion of the WWII casualties to Stalin (the only way to get over 20 million for Stalin) while ignoring the massive number of casualties caused by Hitler starting WWII.

And if we go by straight bodycount figures then the English come right up the top, as the famine they caused in India killed twenty million, which is equivalent to those caused by Stalin. Meanwhile bodycount maths leave Pol Pot off the list entirely, all of which basically makes bodycount maths a really poor way to understand evil.

At the end of the day, any ideological nut with unlimited power will get a lot of people killed. Ranking them doesn’t mean anything, they’re all going to get loads of people killed.

But tying a direct line from Marx to Stalin is incredibly problematic. Have you read it? It’s basically the world’s first economic history book.

Of course, these days we view "Fascism" as being from the "right" so it's very very scary. Even though the Nazis called themselves socialist.

No, that’s wrong. The National Socialists were originally formed in Bavaria, as a working man’s party opposed to the Socialist party. They took the name as a point of distinction, they were a working man’s party without any of that internationalist, all men are equal stuff, they were about the superiority of the German worker and the superiority of the German state. The name Nazi is a play on the nickname given to their opposition, the Socialists, who were called Sozis. There were Socialists in the party, who took on a strange hybrid of aggressive foreign policy and socialism (while blaming everything on the Jews), but Hitler killed them in the Night of the Long Knives. Hitler reached power with the support of the conservatives of Germany, who saw him as a strong man to oppose the actual Socialists, who were growing rapidly in numbers. The first people Hitler put in camps were the communists.

The Nazis were simply not Socialists, they were directly and overtly opposed to the Socialists. But the truth is, fascism doesn’t fit all that comfortably on a left/right axis of politics, because the axis is defined more or less by economic policy, and fascist economic policy is all over the shop. Spanish, Italian, German, Chilean or whatever other fascist economics you can think of were all very different. Ultimately the fascists don’t care about economics, they care about power. Power for themselves, and power for their country. Whatever economic policy gives them the next quick burst of power will be accepted.

By comparison Communism, while not good, isn't ALL that scary, because it's founded on good ideas of equality and providing for all, right? Right?

It’s a lot more complicated than that. Social policy, helping the poor, providing a more equitable distribution of income is good, it helps individuals and it produces a better society overall. There’s a limit to that, people and nations that go way too far to the left tend to get loads of people killed. Similarly, countries that go way too far to the right tend to get loads of people killed.

Both communism and laissez faire economics aren’t dismissed despite their death tolls, because used sensibly they do a lot of good. On the other hand, fascism never does any good, there is no sensible, moderate amount of fascism. It is a stupid, delusional fantasy on any level.

Yeah, it must be true, Obama has hope and change going for him, he wouldn't be steering us TOWARD the ideology of the most brutal, mass murdering regimes in human history, would he? No...

And to be clear, I'm not saying Obama is a Communist, I'm just saying that the mainstream media suddenly become less fond of their "slippery slope" arguments when it works against their favorite politicians.

That’s pretty crazy rhetoric no matter how you qualify it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guitardian wrote:The one thing that stood out to me lately in this thread was the world war II japanese bailout. If the U.S. hadn't invested an AWFUL LOT of resources to topple the Japanese imperialist occupation of China, they would still be grubby uneducated peasants living in 3rd world (4th world?) conditions under Japanese occupation.

If you hadn't defeated the Japs then they would have been liberated by the Russians who advancing against the Japanese on all fronts by the end of the war. If the war hadn't ended when it did China would have been liberated by the Russians and given a communist government.

Which, umm, they ended up with anyway. Seriously, this idea that the US tried to liberate the Chinese is crazy talk.

If our trade was even, our labor and their labor could do just fine trading back and forth. But we have Unions, while they have communist authority over their people, so they will naturally be able to pump out crappy goods faster than our more regulated labor force, sell them cheaper, ship them wherever, and undersell us.

Not really. The Chinese have cheaper labour, but you have higher skilled labour, a much lower level of risk for investment, and a free enterprise system that encourages innovation and more efficient allocation of resources.

This naturally leads to the Chinese being able to produce low cost plastic crap, while the US builds airplanes. This is how trade works.

The difference in the terms of trade is more to do with Greenspan monetary policy craziness and and the Chinese decision to deliberately undervalue the Yuan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:Really? Relative to the rest of the first world, I think the US is right/libertarian. As fast as we swing left/authoritarian, and we've been doing it pretty much since 1776, we don't outpace with the rest of the first world. My opinion.

I’d agree with you completely over US politics right now. Historically, up until some point in the Cold War the US has been more progressive, more left wing than Europe.

On the other hand, when you rely on the strengths that America (and much of the first world) does, you rely on the sanctity of the individual. Even if one person doesn't really matter, the idea that they do does.

Ultimately, the whole point of civil liberties is the idea that if one life doesn’t matter, then no life matters. The rights of the individual need to be placed

The fact that Communism attempts to crush that idea, and that it does so fairly explicitly, is the reason it is an ideology of evil.

I’d recommend re-reading 1984, but this time read it while realising the thing they never tell you in school – George Orwell was a Socialist. Think about that, here was a guy writing this great book that brilliantly dissects the failings of the Socialist rhetoric and Socialist governments of the time, and ultimately accuses them of desiring nothing but power for themselves. Then compare that with Orwell’s own platform of democratic socialism.

One can have worker’s rights and a more equitable distribution of income without removing democracy or civil liberties.

Absolutely true. I noticed that one of the last times I typed it out, and I gave it a pass since nobody had said anything. It's not genocide. I guess the best term is "mass killing." There's no intent to wipe out a specific race or ethnic group. There's simply an intent to kill large numbers of people either to shift demographics to a more "useful" profile, or to terrorize opposition.

Do Mao’s disastrous agricultural policies get the same consideration?

At the end of the day, any ideological nut with unlimited power will get a lot of people killed. Ranking them doesn’t mean anything, they’re all going to get loads of people killed.

I don't disagree with anything you're staying, really...

Hitler certainly started WWII, and that's probably 50 million dead right there. On the other hand, I'm not sure that WWII wasn't a forgone conclusion with the way WWI was ended. There's a lot less deliberate calculation in the full figure of the casualties, though. The concentration camps map more directly to the work of Stalin and Mao. Deliberate killing for the sake of killing. War is not about killing directly, it just happens that killing is one of the most effective ways to win.

As far as the overall numbers go, I'm basing them off memory of what I've read in the past. The number I heard for Mao's Great Leap Forward is 60 million. For Stalin it was 30 million. It's all greatly debated, but here's a useful doc:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

Note the comments on Stalin. I would fall into the "Why doesn't anyone realize that communism is the absolutely worst thing ever to hit the human race, without exception, even worse than both world wars, the slave trade and bubonic plague all put together?" school.

This doc places the number around 30 million.

For Mao, it places the number around 50 million.

As you said, though, the details are not really relevant, and it's a bit ghoulish and trivalizing to dwell on them. I don't really want to, I just want to establish the point that Comminist regimes (nominally Coomunist at least) are responsible for more death than any other force in human history. If that's something everyone agrees upon, that's good, I'd rather not bandy about numbers, as it is unseemly and disrespectful.

The Nazis were simply not Socialists, they were directly and overtly opposed to the Socialists.

I realize that they weren't true Socialists, that's why I sad "called themselves" instead of "were." That said, I do think they had numerous elements of collectivist mentality.

Both communism and laissez faire economics aren’t dismissed despite their death tolls, because used sensibly they do a lot of good.

I'm not aware of anywhere that Communism has ever benefitted anyone on any scale worth mentioning. On the contrary, it's been a horrible disaster virtually every time.

Compared to laissez faire economics, which certainly has had it's dark spots, it's still no comparison. Laissez faire economics are the basis of the prosperty of the first world, and the current, much more regulated version, is still offering a very good lifestyle.

That’s pretty crazy rhetoric no matter how you qualify it.

My point is that we're taught that Fascism is AWFULBAD and Communism is "beneficial when done right." You appear to espousing that very argument.

But, as I said, I'm aware of no large scale implementation of Communism that wasn't a disaster for the citizenry. By comparison, Hitler's Fascism was initially very, very good for Germans, pulling them out of economic collapse and into profitability. Had he not been a total lunatic, and simply contented himself with, say, France and Poland, he might very well have ushered in a period of great prosperity for his people.

Then compare that with Orwell’s own platform of democratic socialism.

I knew that about Orwell, but I never really understood it re: 1984. I had always rationalized it based on the fact that the left loves to project their failings on others.

And yes, I know right-leaning megachurch pastors do it too.

Do Mao’s disastrous agricultural policies get the same consideration?

Absolutely, that's the "useful" demographics bit. He didn't want to be about agriculture, so he just starved the farmers out. I don't think it was a "disaster" as far as he was concerned, I think he intended it that way.

Phryxis wrote:That said, I do think they had numerous elements of collectivist mentality.

I've always considered nationalism to be necessarily collectivist as it emphasizes the connection individuals have to one another through the nation. Honestly, there's an almost natural marriage between socialism and nationalism that I think gets missed in the modern American dialogue simply because the Republicans have co-opted nationalism, and the Democrats have co-opted socialism. Well, that, and there were these dudes called National Socialists who did a bunch of bad stuff, so no one is going to ever use that union in a rhetorically charged environment.

Phryxis wrote:
I'm not aware of anywhere that Communism has ever benefitted anyone on any scale worth mentioning. On the contrary, it's been a horrible disaster virtually every time.

Well, it seemed to make Mao pretty happy.

Phryxis wrote:
Compared to laissez faire economics, which certainly has had it's dark spots, it's still no comparison. Laissez faire economics are the basis of the prosperty of the first world, and the current, much more regulated version, is still offering a very good lifestyle.

I'd argue that there's a point at which an unregulated economy is detrimental to the standard of living as, given its tendency to produce monopolies and oligarchic corruption, it falls quickly into the same trap as communism. The stereotypical example being England during the industrial revolution.

I see capitalism and socialism as the moderated, and effective, methodological siblings of anarcho-capitalism and communism. Not that anarcho-capitalism has ever been tried officially, but something similar certainly exists in many African nations.

I think its also worth noting that Marx's communism was simply the final stage of governmental evolution. He believed that it was inevitable, and that it would be brought about by a proletarian revolt, but he wasn't a whole lot more specific than that. No doubt he anticipated violence occurring, but its doubtful that Stalin and Mao were what he had in mind.

Phryxis wrote:As far as the overall numbers go, I'm basing them off memory of what I've read in the past. The number I heard for Mao's Great Leap Forward is 60 million. For Stalin it was 30 million. It's all greatly debated, but here's a useful doc:

The thing to remember is that the various bodycount figures are almost always politically motivated. I’ve read figures from academics for Stalin of around 100 million and seen that figure accepted by others. People honestly claiming 100 million, out of a population of about 150 million. Ridiculous.

On the other hand, I’ve spoken to Stalinists who have told me very earnestly that the numbers were wildly exaggerated to discredit the USSR, and that the total figure was not more than 5 million. As if 5 million dead people wouldn’t be enough to discredit a system. Also ridiculous.

This would be a problem if the numbers really mattered. They were all bad, but they were bad for very different reasons. Ultimately the thing to take from it is not the numbers, but the reasons their ideas got loads of people killed.

As you said, though, the details are not really relevant, and it's a bit ghoulish and trivalizing to dwell on them. I don't really want to, I just want to establish the point that Comminist regimes (nominally Coomunist at least) are responsible for more death than any other force in human history. If that's something everyone agrees upon, that's good, I'd rather not bandy about numbers, as it is unseemly and disrespectful.

I don’t really agree, no. Nationalism played a significant role in both world wars, and a lot of other wars besides. But there are elements of nationalism that are acceptable and entirely not deadly. The same is true of everything, really.

I realize that they weren't true Socialists, that's why I sad "called themselves" instead of "were." That said, I do think they had numerous elements of collectivist mentality.

No, they really didn’t, as that would require a coherent policy and the Nazis didn’t really do coherency. They were simultaneously mad keen about the power of the state, but also mad keen about Social Darwinism and the right of the strong to triumph over the weak – ideas which to our understanding of right and left can look to be contradictory. But to the Nazis they were hand in hand, because there was no left or right ideology underpinning their beliefs, there was just a power fantasy. Everything else, even the racism, was highly malleable.

I'm not aware of anywhere that Communism has ever benefitted anyone on any scale worth mentioning. On the contrary, it's been a horrible disaster virtually every time.

Communism is generally considered the extreme end of socialism, as laissez faire is generally considered the extreme end of capitalism. At their extremes they both end up with lots of people dead. In considered, correctly applied amounts they’ve built the world we have today.

Compared to laissez faire economics, which certainly has had it's dark spots, it's still no comparison. Laissez faire economics are the basis of the prosperty of the first world, and the current, much more regulated version, is still offering a very good lifestyle.

Capitalism moderated by social policy is the basis of the modern world.

My point is that we're taught that Fascism is AWFULBAD and Communism is "beneficial when done right." You appear to espousing that very argument.

Yes, I am. Because capitalism is beneficial when done right, when taken to the extreme it’s laissez faire and then you get dead people. In the same way socialism is beneficial when done right, but taken to extreme it’s communism and then you get dead people.

But, as I said, I'm aware of no large scale implementation of Communism that wasn't a disaster for the citizenry. By comparison, Hitler's Fascism was initially very, very good for Germans, pulling them out of economic collapse and into profitability. Had he not been a total lunatic, and simply contented himself with, say, France and Poland, he might very well have ushered in a period of great prosperity for his people.

Much of the groundwork for German recovery was made under the Weimar govt, Hitler came to power at the right time. Nor were they ever profitable, while living standards improved this was based on the back of unsustainable government spending (don’t say, please don’t say it ). Nor is practical to assume the victory over France was based on sensible policy, Hitler’s generals fell into a successful operation, and benefitted from a deeply incompetent French opposition.

Also, while all that was going on minorities, the handicapped and undesirables were being rounded up into workcamps.

I knew that about Orwell, but I never really understood it re: 1984. I had always rationalized it based on the fact that the left loves to project their failings on others.

It’s a very misunderstood book, as people assume it is a criticism of all socialism. It’s a criticism of non-democratic socialism, the type that came to power in the USSR, China, Cuba and so on. Orwell’s point is that non-democratic socialism is built around the same lust for power that defines fascism is extremely astute.

It’s that distinction that makes it such an insightful book, a commentary on what really went wrong in the USSR.

Absolutely, that's the "useful" demographics bit. He didn't want to be about agriculture, so he just starved the farmers out. I don't think it was a "disaster" as far as he was concerned, I think he intended it that way.

Yeah, I’ve seen that claim before. To be honest I’ve never seen it supported by anymore than anecdotal evidence, and it seemed representative of the fanaticism and callousness of individual party officials. I think the real disaster came from forming ideologically sound policy, and assuming reality would match that.

That’s not to say there wasn’t plenty of ruthlessness going on in Mao’s China. I found out the other day the Chinese troops that were slaughtered en masse in human wave attacks in the Korean war were largely made up of ‘volunteers’ of the old nationalist troops. They were sent into battle in such a callous way because the Chinese officers wanted them dead, using US bullets to get rid of potentially troublesome old rivals.

Ahem! UN bullets.

sebster wrote:

I knew that about Orwell, but I never really understood it re: 1984. I had always rationalized it based on the fact that the left loves to project their failings on others.

It’s a very misunderstood book, as people assume it is a criticism of all socialism. It’s a criticism of non-democratic socialism, the type that came to power in the USSR, China, Cuba and so on. Orwell’s point is that non-democratic socialism is built around the same lust for power that defines fascism is extremely astute.

It’s that distinction that makes it such an insightful book, a commentary on what really went wrong in the USSR.

Though the point has been made before in this thread, I feel it's worth making again. The problem with the implementation of communism isn't communism. The problem is the concentration of power in insane megalomaniacs.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

sebster wrote:

I knew that about Orwell, but I never really understood it re: 1984. I had always rationalized it based on the fact that the left loves to project their failings on others.

It’s a very misunderstood book, as people assume it is a criticism of all socialism. It’s a criticism of non-democratic socialism, the type that came to power in the USSR, China, Cuba and so on. Orwell’s point is that non-democratic socialism is built around the same lust for power that defines fascism is extremely astute.

It’s that distinction that makes it such an insightful book, a commentary on what really went wrong in the USSR.

Though the point has been made before in this thread, I feel it's worth making again. The problem with the implementation of communism isn't communism. The problem is the concentration of power in insane megalomaniacs.

bs. To keep control you have to kill people. A lot of people.
Communism is just like any other dictatorship. one grup controls everyone else. if you don't do what they say they kill you.

Call it communism, fascism, monarchy, whatever. At the end of the day its the same thing.

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

sebster wrote:

I knew that about Orwell, but I never really understood it re: 1984. I had always rationalized it based on the fact that the left loves to project their failings on others.

It’s a very misunderstood book, as people assume it is a criticism of all socialism. It’s a criticism of non-democratic socialism, the type that came to power in the USSR, China, Cuba and so on. Orwell’s point is that non-democratic socialism is built around the same lust for power that defines fascism is extremely astute.

It’s that distinction that makes it such an insightful book, a commentary on what really went wrong in the USSR.

Though the point has been made before in this thread, I feel it's worth making again. The problem with the implementation of communism isn't communism. The problem is the concentration of power in insane megalomaniacs.

bs. To keep control you have to kill people. A lot of people.
Communism is just like any other dictatorship. one grup controls everyone else. if you don't do what they say they kill you.

Call it communism, fascism, monarchy, whatever. At the end of the day its the same thing.

So you don't consider yourself to be under government 'control'? Go take a naked walk down the street and let me know how that works out for you.

Frazzled wrote:bs. To keep control you have to kill people. A lot of people.
Communism is just like any other dictatorship. one grup controls everyone else. if you don't do what they say they kill you.

Call it communism, fascism, monarchy, whatever. At the end of the day its the same thing.

I contend that dictatorships by nature are ruled by insane megalomaniacs.

However, communism is not necessarily a dictatorship.

Frazzled wrote:
bs. To keep control you have to kill people. A lot of people.

Yeah, that's sort of how states form. It would be naive to think otherwise. The difference is that national methodologies involve more death than others, because certain national methodologies are less effective than others.

Frazzled wrote:
Communism is just like any other dictatorship. one grup controls everyone else. if you don't do what they say they kill you.

Tzoo's point was that the dictatorial element of all recorded incidences of communism was, in fact, the problem; as opposed to communism itself.

I don't know what you're disagreeing with, given what you've written. I suspect that you don't either, because you probably didn't bother to read.

Frazzled wrote:
Call it communism, fascism, monarchy, whatever. At the end of the day its the same thing.

No, that's wrong. The only form of government in that list which is dictatorial by fiat is fascism, the other two can be, but don't have to be. Note that communist and monarchist states are nominally controlled by either ruling parties, or ruling families. Totalitarianism is not the same thing as a dictatorship.

How do you think the communist state has to form? It needs a dictatorship. That comes from Marx himself. It never evolves beyond the wholesale killing stage. People who believe otherwise are kidding themselves or willfully ignorant.

Frazzled wrote:
bs. To keep control you have to kill people. A lot of people.

..which something generally advocated as a solution for pretty much everything, everyday, on this board.

Go take a naked walk down the street

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO NOT LISTEN ! There are things man is not supposed to do.

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
bs. To keep control you have to kill people. A lot of people.

..which something generally advocated as a solution for pretty much everything, everyday, on this board.

Except of course, they actually do it, and on an industrial scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

I feel this is important at this juncture:

..once again our lack of work ethic lets us down.

One day, we'll get motivated and then.. then they'll rue the day they.. they.. did.. something or over. Oh crikey yes !

I don't think a lack of work ethic is really such a simple scapegoat. When the economy is broken and you bust your ass for a long day to get a job done on time, only to find out that your neighbor did jack gak in an office for 5 x as much money, and his wife makes more than you just for answering telephones and dressing nice... it tends to discourage you from trying hard at your job any more.

Ain't it great how some of the most difficult, labor intensive jobs are the ones that pay the least. Hardest job I ever had was running a fast food kitchen. I am multitasking all the time, getting everything done all at once and keeping track of 20 things at once. My manager was in the back doing paperwork and I had a slowed high school kid running the cash register. Yay minimum wage.

Anyone who works in a cubicle and thinks they are better than that because hey, they got a degree so they earned their spinny chair and bobble heads on computer monitor job should try working a single day in the pit and see what they have to say now about work ethic. Oh yeah... I got minimum wage too and subbed in for someone at least once a week. I still couldn't make rent and have any money left over. So what's the point of a work ethic if, in certain jobs, having a work ethic still leaves you underpaid and unappreciated. Work ethic can go feth itself, either that, or become something valuable to have any more when you look over at your neighbor or landlord and realize you are just busting your ass to live in poverty while they file papers or take phone calls or organize numbers in a nice air conditioned office or hold board meetings where they do jack gak and everything to wreck people's banks and need bailouts that my Burger King working ass pays for out of every paycheck. Now tell me what about why I need a work ethic any more?

I was of the mentality that I'll spit in the damn fries they eat that I can't afford if they want to talk about 'work ethic'. Work ethic is 'I spent 8 hours at the office and had to cut my break short because Jim from accounting wanted to show me his new Lexus'... on the other end... 'hey I'm union, I make $25 bucks an hour to stand around the work site, once in a while I get to use the jackhammer while my 3 buddies stand around me and watch...'

Guitardian wrote:I don't think a lack of work ethic is really such a simple scapegoat.

.well ..what other reason can there be for the denizens of the OT board to not have succesffuly carried out their devious mission and beginning The Harrowing ? Hmm... oh, apparently we're waiting for the FAQ to come out first.

Frazzled wrote:How do you think the communist state has to form? It needs a dictatorship. That comes from Marx himself. It never evolves beyond the wholesale killing stage. People who believe otherwise are kidding themselves or willfully ignorant.

Well, the Soviet Union did once Stalin was dead.

It wasn't a great place to live but it wasn't a land of purges and death camps.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:How do you think the communist state has to form? It needs a dictatorship. That comes from Marx himself. It never evolves beyond the wholesale killing stage. People who believe otherwise are kidding themselves or willfully ignorant.

Well, the Soviet Union did once Stalin was dead.

It wasn't a great place to live but it wasn't a land of purges and death camps.

The Gulag system did not close down until the USSR fell apart. http://gulaghistory.org/nps/onlineexhibit/stalin/

Kilkrazy wrote:Ahem! UN bullets.

Yes. How silly of me, UN bullets.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Though the point has been made before in this thread, I feel it's worth making again. The problem with the implementation of communism isn't communism. The problem is the concentration of power in insane megalomaniacs.

Sure, but then there is a problem with megalomaniacs coming to power in communist countries.

Even then, there are lots of problems with communism aside from the bodycount. Compare the economic growth of the US from 1950 to that of the USSR, free enterprise really does drive innovation and expansion in a way that communism can't match.

Frazzled wrote:How do you think the communist state has to form? It needs a dictatorship. That comes from Marx himself. It never evolves beyond the wholesale killing stage. People who believe otherwise are kidding themselves or willfully ignorant.

I'm guessing you haven't actually read a lot of Marx, no?

I have, actually.