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.

 p_gray99 wrote:
*sigh*
Apparently now I'm online I'm not allowed to exaggerate. But my point was that far too many people go without while a very small number have far too much, as has been discussed in previous topics.

The real point is that even in grossly "disparate" modern Western economies, the bottom 4 quintiles still have far more than those in these historical communist regimes.

I'd rather be one of the bottom 20% in the USA than "middle class" in North Korea.

In Russia, didn't the starvation start after they converted? As far as I understand it, food wasn't that big an issue prior to the revolution.

 djones520 wrote:
In Russia, didn't the starvation start after they converted? As far as I understand it, food wasn't that big an issue prior to the revolution.

True, but it's still the poorer countries that are far more likely to convert, making it a little unbalanced. And anyway, I don't really think that Stalin's muck-ups were the fault of communism, they were the fault of Stalin.

 p_gray99 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
In Russia, didn't the starvation start after they converted? As far as I understand it, food wasn't that big an issue prior to the revolution.

True, but it's still the poorer countries that are far more likely to convert, making it a little unbalanced. And anyway, I don't really think that Stalin's muck-ups were the fault of communism, they were the fault of Stalin.

IIRC there was a food shortage for a short period prior to the revolution, due to rationing and whatnot for the war effort in WW1. But, I think that it was close enough to not really bear much responsibility for the revolution in itself.

 p_gray99 wrote:

Yup, but that doesn't mean we can't strive for and create a better system, just because previous attempts have failed.
Also, those countries that are likely to become communist are those that are more likely to suffer food shortages because there's nothing like millions of starving laborers to get a rebellion started, so I don't think it's a fair comparison. It's a case of B causing A, as well as (or possibly instead of) B causing A.

Except that most people living in the real world don't really believe that Communism is a "better system", especially because all previous attempts to implement it have failed, often catastrophically and leaving tens of millions of dead in their wake...

And your interpretation on Communist policies not being a direct cause of impoverishment and famine in the lower brackets of a society is highly suspect!

Communism in China was implemented in 1949, the great famine that killed from 20 to 40 million Chinese happened in 1958! Kind of hard to blame that on the Kuomintang...

Communism in the Soviet Union was implemented in 1922, the great famine that again killed millions of Russions happened in 1932. How was this the fault of the Tzar?

The Khmer Rouge ruled Cambodia from 1975 to 1979, their agricultural reform policies killed as much as 1.1 millions people through widespread famine!

I'll take my chances with our imperfect system, thank you very much.

PhantomViper wrote:
Except that most people living in the real world don't really believe that Communism is a "better system", especially because all previous attempts to implement it have failed, often catastrophically and leaving tens of millions of dead in their wake...

And your interpretation on Communist policies not being a direct cause of impoverishment and famine in the lower brackets of a society is highly suspect!

Communism in China was implemented in 1949, the great famine that killed from 20 to 40 million Chinese happened in 1958! Kind of hard to blame that on the Kuomintang...

Communism in the Soviet Union was implemented in 1922, the great famine that again killed millions of Russions happened in 1932. How was this the fault of the Tzar?

The Khmer Rouge ruled Cambodia from 1975 to 1979, their agricultural reform policies killed as much as 1.1 millions people through widespread famine!

I'll take my chances with our imperfect system, thank you very much.

At your points, in the order you put them in:
ORLY? Because I'd say that about 30% of my friends are communists. I know that's an exceptionally high number, but they're all intelligent and well educated, and almost all of them have done history GCSE and got between a B and an A*, yet don't think that past failings mean we won't be able to manage in the future. Now, we're not necessarily correct about this, but neither are "most people living in the real world".
I merely said that it's the less developed and economically powerful countries that experience things such as famines, and it's the less developed and economically powerful countries that convert to capitalism. Might there possibly be a link?
I'm not blaming it on the Kuomintag. Who said I was? I'm merely pointing out a link.
Again, I'm not blaming the Tzar. I've agreed that Stalin's failings were many, and again emphasised that I'm merely pointing out a link. And both those famines might easily have happened if the countries hadn't been communist, anyway.
Yup, they had bad leaders. Anyone can have bad leaders though, it has little to do with whether the country happens to be communist or capitalist.

So basically you're saying that because past attempts have failed, future attempts will definitely fail. I think you forgot the "/sarcasm" at the end of your post though.

 p_gray99 wrote:


So basically you're saying that because past attempts have failed, future attempts will definitely fail. I think you forgot the "/sarcasm" at the end of your post though.

Dude...

Yeah, but it's not like you're going to have the exact same circumstances as the russian revolution ever again, are you?

 p_gray99 wrote:
Yeah, but it's not like you're going to have the exact same circumstances as the russian revolution ever again, are you?

It would be awesome if communism could chalk up one, just one success though...
It would also be awesome if communism could chalk up one cumminst state that didn't rely on repression to maintain its power, usually resulting in the death of thousands/millions.

 Frazzled wrote:

It would also be awesome if communism could chalk up one cumminst state that didn't rely on repression to maintain its power, usually resulting in the death of thousands/millions.

It would be awesome if any state could do that.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

It would also be awesome if communism could chalk up one cumminst state that didn't rely on repression to maintain its power, usually resulting in the death of thousands/millions.

It would be awesome if any state could do that.

I'm interested to hear your justification that the US Government maintains it's power through repression.

 djones520 wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

It would also be awesome if communism could chalk up one cumminst state that didn't rely on repression to maintain its power, usually resulting in the death of thousands/millions.

It would be awesome if any state could do that.

I'm interested to hear your justification that the US Government maintains it's power through repression.

Civil War?

Trail of Tears?

 djones520 wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

It would also be awesome if communism could chalk up one cumminst state that didn't rely on repression to maintain its power, usually resulting in the death of thousands/millions.

It would be awesome if any state could do that.

I'm interested to hear your justification that the US Government maintains it's power through repression.

When I see my taxes, I sure feel oppressed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

It would also be awesome if communism could chalk up one cumminst state that didn't rely on repression to maintain its power, usually resulting in the death of thousands/millions.

It would be awesome if any state could do that.

I'm interested to hear your justification that the US Government maintains it's power through repression.

Civil War?

Trail of Tears?

The Civil War is the closest argument that you could make, though the effect of freeing millions of people would kind of nullify that. The Trail of Tears isn't even close, since there was no threat to the base of power of the government, nor any powers gained by the action. The Constituion, and the basis of power for our government, wasn't changed in any way by it.

Additionally the Cherokee weren't US citizens at the time. Sad but true.

Oklahoma is a prime example of screwing over citizens all over the country, giving them one last place, and then taking that away from them too. The treatment of native american citizens is a good indicator of how a democratic republic can be repressive of it's people.

And say what you want about the end result of the civil war, pretending that the actions taken by both sides during the war is not representative of a repressive government is somewhat silly.

Throw in the internment of the Japanese citizens during WW2 as well if you want to.

Our country has some soiled spots when it comes to freedom and liberty and whatnot.

 p_gray99 wrote:
At your points, in the order you put them in:
ORLY? Because I'd say that about 30% of my friends are communists. I know that's an exceptionally high number, but they're all intelligent and well educated, and almost all of them have done history GCSE and got between a B and an A*, yet don't think that past failings mean we won't be able to manage in the future. Now, we're not necessarily correct about this, but neither are "most people living in the real world".

I know that Communist math is different from real math, but even with your disproportionately high sample, 70% is still considered "most people".

Now all that we need is for you to say that the capitalist bourgeoisie has brainwashed those 69% and that they don't know any better!

 p_gray99 wrote:

I merely said that it's the less developed and economically powerful countries that experience things such as famines, and it's the less developed and economically powerful countries that convert to capitalism. Might there possibly be a link?

Yes, but that conversion was supposed to make the people's lives better, not worse!

 p_gray99 wrote:

I'm not blaming it on the Kuomintag. Who said I was? I'm merely pointing out a link.
Again, I'm not blaming the Tzar. I've agreed that Stalin's failings were many, and again emphasised that I'm merely pointing out a link. And both those famines might easily have happened if the countries hadn't been communist, anyway.
Yup, they had bad leaders. Anyone can have bad leaders though, it has little to do with whether the country happens to be communist or capitalist.

Yes, but a bad leader in a capitalist democracy = country economy goes to the toilet and the level of living decreases a bit and the leader is run out of power.

Bad leader in a communist country = a very large part of the population dies from purges and starvation.

At least in the impoverished countries that turned to nationalism you still had the purges but you didn't have the mass starvation... /this sentence really is sarcasm btw

 p_gray99 wrote:

So basically you're saying that because past attempts have failed, future attempts will definitely fail. I think you forgot the "/sarcasm" at the end of your post though.

Its not that past attempts have failed, its that ALL past attempts have failed! In the 80's as much as a third of the world governments where communist. Not a SINGLE ONE was a success! Not ONE!

Like whembly said: trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

 d-usa wrote:
Oklahoma is a prime example of screwing over citizens all over the country, giving them one last place, and then taking that away from them too. The treatment of native american citizens is a good indicator of how a democratic republic can be repressive of it's people.

And say what you want about the end result of the civil war, pretending that the actions taken by both sides during the war is not representative of a repressive government is somewhat silly.

Throw in the internment of the Japanese citizens during WW2 as well if you want to.

Our country has some soiled spots when it comes to freedom and liberty and whatnot.

There is no denying that our government has used repression as a tool in it's history.

But as a tool to maintain, or grow it's power, your failing at providing examples. That's because the basis of power for our government is truly in the hands of the people. Unlike Communism.

The North could have just let the South split. Let them be their own country and free the slaves in the north.

But they used repression to maintain power over the whole US, and passed many repressive laws to be able to keep that power.

The repression of the Native Americans was also influenced by the desire to maintain and grow power by increasing the land and resources available.

 d-usa wrote:

The repression of the Native Americans was also influenced by the desire to maintain and grow power by increasing the land and resources available.

Native Americans were only granted US citizenship in 1924, right?

So its not exactly the same thing since they weren't US population at the time.

 d-usa wrote:
The North could have just let the South split. Let them be their own country and free the slaves in the north.

But they used repression to maintain power over the whole US, and passed many repressive laws to be able to keep that power.

The repression of the Native Americans was also influenced by the desire to maintain and grow power by increasing the land and resources available.

Enforcing a contract is not repression. When the states joined the union, they did so for good. It's been found repeatedly that secession is not a legal option for a state to take. The southern states also declared war on the northern states when they attempted to illegally take land that they legally sold to the United States Government (Ft. Sumter), by attacking a US military installation.

And your still falling flat on your face with this argument, when you have to take into account that the whole thing was over slavery, and the ending of such. The "War of Northern Agression" (I use the name facetiously) was about freedom, and fighting those who wanted to continue oppresion.

And again, show me what powers the Indian Wars granted the US Government, what changes occured in the US Constitution that gave them more? That document is what provides the power to the government. Not land, not resources, but that document.

 djones520 wrote:

I'm interested to hear your justification that the US Government maintains it's power through repression.

Well, it came into existence in 1783 by way of violence, repressing all the people that weren't fans of the revolution, and it continues to repress people by force of law.

This isn't a bad thing. All states have to do it, but we shouldn't pretend that we don't have bodies buried in the foundations; no matter how exceptional we think we are.

 d-usa wrote:
Oklahoma is a prime example of screwing over citizens all over the country, giving them one last place, and then taking that away from them too. The treatment of native american citizens is a good indicator of how a democratic republic can be repressive of it's people.

Hate to tell it to you, but historically native americans weren't US citizens. Wrong, mostly, but has nothing to do with a democracy oppressing its citizens to maintian power. If you view driving the Cherokee out as a means by which democracy maintained power then your definitions are again, unique to yourself.

And say what you want about the end result of the civil war, pretending that the actions taken by both sides during the war is not representative of a repressive government is somewhat silly.

That doesn't even pass the lucidity test. What part of Billy Yank freeing the slaves are you not getting here? In fact thats anti oppression. Its one fo the most reighteous conflicts...well ever.

Throw in the internment of the Japanese citizens during WW2 as well if you want to.

Bad but that was the worst war in human history. Pardon the hell out of FDR.

Our country has some soiled spots when it comes to freedom and liberty and whatnot.

Yep. Then making the claim that is in any way similar to any communist country is, again, not lucid.

Democracy is the best of the worst options to humanity at this point.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

I'm interested to hear your justification that the US Government maintains it's power through repression.

Well, it came into existence in 1783 by way of violence, repressing all the people that weren't fans of the revolution, and it continues to repress people by force of law.

This isn't a bad thing. All states have to do it, but we shouldn't pretend that we don't have bodies buried in the foundations; no matter how exceptional we think we are.

We're exceptional because the bodies give the foundations some flexibility when the ground settles... oh... too soon?

PhantomViper wrote:

 p_gray99 wrote:
At your points, in the order you put them in:
ORLY? Because I'd say that about 30% of my friends are communists. I know that's an exceptionally high number, but they're all intelligent and well educated, and almost all of them have done history GCSE and got between a B and an A*, yet don't think that past failings mean we won't be able to manage in the future. Now, we're not necessarily correct about this, but neither are "most people living in the real world".

I know that Communist math is different from real math, but even with your disproportionately high sample, 70% is still considered "most people".

I never said that most people thought communism was good. I was simply saying that it isn't as vast a majority as you'd think that are capitalist.

Now all that we need is for you to say that the capitalist bourgeoisie has brainwashed those 69% and that they don't know any better!

How do you know that? You're meant to be brainwashed to think differently!

 p_gray99 wrote:

I merely said that it's the less developed and economically powerful countries that experience things such as famines, and it's the less developed and economically powerful countries that convert to capitalism. Might there possibly be a link?

Yes, but that conversion was supposed to make the people's lives better, not worse!

Yup, communism so far has failed. No argument. Doesn't mean it's not feasible in the future though.

 p_gray99 wrote:

I'm not blaming it on the Kuomintag. Who said I was? I'm merely pointing out a link.
Again, I'm not blaming the Tzar. I've agreed that Stalin's failings were many, and again emphasised that I'm merely pointing out a link. And both those famines might easily have happened if the countries hadn't been communist, anyway.
Yup, they had bad leaders. Anyone can have bad leaders though, it has little to do with whether the country happens to be communist or capitalist.

Yes, but a bad leader in a capitalist democracy = country economy goes to the toilet and the level of living decreases a bit and the leader is run out of power.

Bad leader in a communist country = a very large part of the population dies from purges and starvation.

At least in the impoverished countries that turned to nationalism you still had the purges but you didn't have the mass starvation... /this sentence really is sarcasm btw

I think that's more of a difference between democracy and dictatorship than capitalism and communism, though I take your point. But equally, a capitalist country doing well = only 10% starving, while a communist country doing well = 0% starving. /exageration, BTW.

 p_gray99 wrote:
So basically you're saying that because past attempts have failed, future attempts will definitely fail. I think you forgot the "/sarcasm" at the end of your post though.

Its not that past attempts have failed, its that ALL past attempts have failed! In the 80's as much as a third of the world governments where communist. Not a SINGLE ONE was a success! Not ONE!

Like whembly said: trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

Yeah, fine. Communism can't work yet, as I've made clear in the past few pages of the thread. Not until we find some way of having incorruptible leaders, which IMHO is most likely going to mean computers in charge of us. All the previous ones have failed because of corrupt leaders (or 'Murica deciding they don't like democracy in this case, so they're going to invade).

 p_gray99 wrote:
Yeah, fine. Communism can't work yet, as I've made clear in the past few pages of the thread. Not until we find some way of having incorruptible leaders, which IMHO is most likely going to mean computers in charge of us. All the previous ones have failed because of corrupt leaders (or 'Murica deciding they don't like democracy in this case, so they're going to invade).

There's also the major problem that is the "Human condition", as in, we all want stuff... and with communism, everyone has the same stuff, which basically eliminates all economy

The technological singularity is really the only hope for communism.

I would have thought the human singular as a society would have been good for the non dictatorship form of communism to happen.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 p_gray99 wrote:
Yeah, fine. Communism can't work yet, as I've made clear in the past few pages of the thread. Not until we find some way of having incorruptible leaders, which IMHO is most likely going to mean computers in charge of us. All the previous ones have failed because of corrupt leaders (or 'Murica deciding they don't like democracy in this case, so they're going to invade).

There's also the major problem that is the "Human condition", as in, we all want stuff... and with communism, everyone has the same stuff, which basically eliminates all economy

IDK... as strange as it may sound to us, attitudes as strong as this have changed in the past. Slavery used to be fine, Black people were worth less than White people and Women were worthless while the death sentence was fine for stealing a loaf of bread 3 times in a row. I don't think it'd be as big a change as we currently think for people to lose interest in material wealth.

 p_gray99 wrote:
I think that's more of a difference between democracy and dictatorship than capitalism and communism, though I take your point. But equally, a capitalist country doing well = only 10% starving, while a communist country doing well = 0% starving. /exageration, BTW.

Gonna have to call a big ol' BS on this one. People simply do not 'starve' to death in developed Western nations. We have even had to change the terminology of those lacking food over time, to terms that identify 'those with the wrong kind of food' or 'those who feel hungry', and the latter has even evolved further into 'those who worry about feeling hungry'.

'Food Desert' and 'Food Insecurity' (which is actually a subjective term, based on the individual's perception of their food situation) have replaced words like 'famine' and 'starvation'. Even the word 'malnourished' is now more reflective of people who simply eat the wrong types of food and bad habits in food procurement and food preparation than it is a lack of food.

You would have to struggle to find even .1% of the US population that is starving, and even that tiny percentage is not due to systemic (i.e. government) enforcement like what caused actual starvation under the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Completely objective measures like percentage of income paid for food over time and food export statistics (S. Africa is very interesting in this respect) simply obliterate your miscellaneous statistic.

I know it's in vogue to bash on the US and the industrialized West in general but your perception of people "starving" is so ludicrously wrong that it doesn't deserve a free pass.