Politics Rise of Marxism/Communism.

[Ramen]

I mean, name one properly communist country that has brought its population any degree of prosperity. Even modern day examples have failed either because their policies fail or because of comical levels of corruption...

I'm not defending either side, but yes there have been times where socialist countries have achieved prosperity for a certain time.

 

[kkck]

I'm not defending either side, but yes there have been times where socialist countries have achieved prosperity for a certain time.

ok but... which ones? When? And you are very clearly defending a side...

 

[Ramen]

ok but... which ones? When? And you are very clearly defending a side...

No I'm not.

USSR during the 50's and early 60's.
Cuba after the revolution.

Those are two off the top.

 

[kkck]

No I'm not.

USSR during the 50's and early 60's.
Cuba after the revolution.

Those are two off the top.

Those places only generated a pile of misery on which to just pile on more misery... I won't deny the historic circumstances that led to their revolutions but neither is an example with positive results. The revolutions did not solve any of the issues that led to them, they simply destroyed what little prosperity there was and replaced it with misery for everyone. And decades later, all cuba has to show for it is a high literacy and doctors which rather than treat cubans spend their time doing proselytism for their fundamentally corrupt government and economic model.

 

[Ramen]

Those places only generated a pile of misery on which to just pile on more misery... I won't deny the historic circumstances that led to their revolutions but neither is an example with positive results. The revolutions did not solve any of the issues that led to them, they simply destroyed what little prosperity there was and replaced it with misery for everyone. And decades later, all cuba has to show for it is a high literacy and doctors which rather than treat cubans spend their time doing proselytism for their fundamentally corrupt government and economic model.

What prosperity was there during Tsar-Russia? The USSR at one point was one of the best economies in the world.

 

[Xeroxed]

The only time USSR had an economy that was in anyway comparable to the the united states was during the great depression in the 30's. And it was mostly a combination of america having 25% unemployment + corruption + mafias and the USSR using slave labor. They could get a lot industry products built by not caring whatsoever if their workers/slaves suffered.

The problems for USSR came later as their idea of planing everything from the top worked somewhat when there was little technology. But the more tech the longer dependency chains you need. And the longer chains the harder it is to plan out. Never mind that organizations like the USSR had no mechanism to root out corruption in its higher echelons, so the older it got the more corrupt it got.

Tsar Russia was one of the most retarded ruling systems that existed in the "civilized" world at the time. Was it better than USSR? Probably by a bit when compared at the similar times with similar tech. But a democratic system would have blown both of them out of the water.

 

[shionoro]

It is a bad idea to tie humanist policies to the words communism or marxism.

It is pretty clear that the system we have now leads to problems that cannot be easily patched out and that we need some fundamental rethinking that goes against some of the core beliefs of capitalism.
However, the answers are probably modern solutions, not just reading old texts.

The modern socialist movement has far more to offer than Marx and the UDSSR. But it gets bogged down by definition wars.
The northern model is a good example.

Talk to people about the norther model and they will tell you 'oh yes the northern model is fine, but this is not socialism but capitalism'.
Fair enough. When you try introducing the policies this model is built in in america, you still get accused of being an insane socialist.

What we need is a progressivist, humanist change of paradigms. Rethink our current system under the lense of what the perils of our modern society are and how to solve it without any system being sacred.

The problem here is that oftentimes, we have trouble understanding that we might need fundamental change and some incremental and limited change inside capitalism is not going to solve a problem.

For example, people just go 'well there will always be crime' in a self defeatist way. They do not dare to think about more modern solutions than just locking people up. When you shun out a lot of possible solutions just because they are hard to achieve, then you will never get anywhere.

 

[Vis]

I’m for equality on all fronts regardless of race, religion, sexuality, gender, gender identity and all that jazz. I believe that we all owe it to those different to us to educate ourselves about issues we will never truly understand. I will never understand the wage gap between two people who do the same job with the same qualifications and experience (usually predominant with recent grads). And I will never understand views against equality and why some people are white supremacists. I also tend to be baffled by the stupidity of some tone deaf movements out there as seen with ALM, Straight Pride and Men’s Rights. And what I hate the most is some people use their religion to justify all the hate they have towards other people.

There are certain right-wing/right leaning ideologies I can understand but still disagree with including being pro-life and abolition of privatised healthcare infrastructure.

I think there’s a good reason why major cities are more likely to lean left and that’s because of the diversity that they are exposed to. Extreme conservatism seems to be somewhat in correlation to ignorance.

 

[kkck]

I mean, if you live in a city you simply depend more on public services. In a city you are unlikely to own an apartment, you likely rent... In which case it's a landlord or whatever that ultimately takes care of the place. You are less likely to own a car and instead very likely use public transportation. You are likely to have however many neighbors you don't know and rely on rules set by the building or local government to coexist. Rather than if you own a plot of land where you do almost whatever you want. And of course there is also the diversity and whatnot.

 

[Sanity Check]

what I hate the most is some people use their religion to justify all the hate they have towards other people.

I think there’s a good reason why major cities are more likely to lean left and that’s because of the diversity that they are exposed to. Extreme conservatism seems to be somewhat in correlation to ignorance.

When the right wing founding fathers were in power, they were tolerant and tried to grant religious freedom to all in america.

When left wing dictators like Stalin and Mao took power, they murdered more than 100,000 religious people to force atheism on everyone.

I prefer the right wing method of doing things.

But like they say -- different strokes for different folks.

...

Also if you're discussing hatred. I've never seen or experienced so much hate as that which comes from the left.

In america they hate the military, they hate the police. They seem to hate pretty much everyone.

 

[Ramen]

When the right wing founding fathers were in power, they were tolerant and tried to grant religious freedom to all.

You mean white men?

Because women and coloured folk definitely weren't lol.

When left wing dictators like Stalin and Mao took power, they murdered more than 100,000 religious people to force atheism on everyone.

Lenin literally gave Muslims in the USSR religious freedom. Right wing dictators like the Romanovs suppressed them lol.

I prefer the right wing version of myself.

You don't even know history lmao.

 

[Sanity Check]

You mean white men?

Because women and coloured folk definitely weren't lol.

The only americans who owned slaves were rich and wealthy plantation owners.

Slavery in the USA: simply another case of the rich exploiting the poor for $$ profit.

Race had little or nothing to do with it.

Lenin literally gave Muslims in the USSR religious freedom. Right wing dictators like the Romanovs suppressed them lol.

Lenin pandered.

The way the left is pandering now.

History shows what those promises are worth to those who care enough to know it.

 

[Ramen]

The only americans who owned slaves were rich and wealthy plantation owners.

Slavery in the USA: simply another case of the rich exploiting the poor for $$ profit.

Race had little to do with it.

Which were the only people who were guaranteed any type of freedom.

Lenin pandered.

How did the founder of the USSR pander? Please enlighten me.

The way the left is pandering now.

Bruh

History shows what those promises are worth to those who care enough to know it.

Again, you demonstrated clearly you didn't know history.

 

[Sanity Check]

Which were the only people who were guaranteed any type of freedom.

Untrue.

Slavery and the expansive market and ideology surrounding it didn't become common in the USA until after rich plantation owners funded and mandated it.

How did the founder of the USSR pander? Please enlighten me.

Promised religious freedom = pandering.

Stalin showed the reality of what those promises were worth.

Promises of socialism to working class are always empty promises and pointless pandering.

For identical reasons behind the chinese communist party being called the "workers party".

 

[Ramen]

Untrue.

Slavery and the expansive market and ideology surrounding it didn't become common in the USA until after rich plantation owners funded and mandated it.

So you're saying everyone had religious freedom? You can't have religious freedom when the founder of the US owns you lol.

Promised religious freedom = pandering.

How is that pandering?

Stalin showed the reality of what those promises were worth.

Lenin =/= Stalin

Promises of socialism to working class are always empty promises and pointless pandering.

Shall I name the many times these promises came through?

For identical reasons behind the chinese communist party being called the "workers party".

Socialism revolved around the worker......how is that bad?

 

[M3J]

Don't bother arguing with Sanity Check, his posts have shown he's either a troll or knows nothing about history or has any idea about anything.

 

[Sanity Check]

Lenin =/= Stalin



Shall I name the many times these promises came through?



Socialism revolved around the worker......how is that bad?

#To be fair, Lenin died before anyone could see whether his promises amounted to more than empty pandering. All we have to go on is Stalin's example. BUT considering cuba, russia and china followed near to identical gameplans it might be safe to say nothing would have changed had Lenin lived longer.

#Name all the times communists followed through on their promises.

#If socialism revolved around the worker why has russia (and others) strongly rejected it post Stalin.

Don't bother arguing with Sanity Check, his posts have shown he's either a troll or knows nothing about history or has any idea about anything.

Thanks for being our resident pro cancel culture guy.

But can you do something other than pointless name calling.

Imagine if I called everyone with a different opinion a troll and said they know nothing. Simply for them having a different opinion from my own.

If diversity is important then should not a diversity of ideas and concepts also be important?

 

[Ramen]

#To be fair, Lenin died before anyone could see whether his promises amounted to more than empty pandering. All we have to go on is Stalin's example. BUT considering cuba, russia and china followed near to identical gameplans it might be safe to say nothing would have changed had Lenin lived longer.

Cuba is not similar to Stalin at all.

#Name all the times communists followed through on their promises.

Burkina Faso, China, and the USSR under Lenin.

#If socialism revolved around the worker why has russia (and others) strongly rejected it post Stalin.

This is statistically not true. People want to go back in time.

Thanks for being our resident pro cancel culture guy.

How is that pro-cancel culture? He just called you an idiot (which you are) and said it isn't worth discussing with you.

 

[Sanity Check]

Cuba is not similar to Stalin at all.

How were they different. They were far more alike then they were not.

Burkina Faso, China, and the USSR under Lenin.

There's nothing that says russia would have gone differently under Lenin than it did under Stalin.

This is statistically not true. People want to go back in time.

Millions of russians died during the great famine under Stalin. The state owned and controlled all of the land and would not give russians permission to grow food. Socialism and state ownership and control over everything is a horrible precedent. So much so its shocking anyone would support it.

How is that pro-cancel culture? He just called you an idiot (which you are) and said it isn't worth discussing with you.

It is important to learn and be informed to support the right things in politics.

What is interesting is the tendency of leftists to talk about how they "support" diversity.

Then you realize by the way they treat those with different perspectives and beliefs -- they are very xenophobic and have a deep hatred for anything different from themselves.

I wouldn't call someone an idiot because they had different ideas or different skin color from my own. But apparently in the left wing that is not only acceptable but a way of life.

 

[Ramen]

But apparently in the left wing that is not only acceptable but a way of life.

Oh you right wingers and your ignorance. Such funny things.