Communism-Socialism: The philosophy of whining, bitching, and moaning. - Page 5

MarkCorrigan · 24th November 2010, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

What did Marx say about Communism?

"...the theory of the Communists may be summed up in a signle sentence: Abolition of private propery."

Did Mao, Lenin, Stalin share this idea?

Nope. People in the USSR, China, N.Korea and any other "Socialist" nation you care to mention all had private property. Not a great deal of it because they're almost always dirt poor, but you get the picture.

Also, that's what Communism wanted, but he also stated, repeatedly, that to get to that level, you had to go through a period of Socialism with a really big government. During the period of Socialism before the glorious Communist utopiayou could have as many televisions as you liked because the central pot of everythng hadn't been created yet.

Is it that hard to understand? Marx wanted Communism-No private property, no government-totally unworkable but before that he wanted Socialism-Private property galore but no private ownership of farms and factories-BIG government- also totally unworkable.

Originally Posted by Virus

The fallacy in the "democratic Congo" argument is that such states are exceptions to the rule whereas every single communist government ever was a piece of crap, with no exceptions.

Are you intentionally missing the point or are you stupid?

The whole point of bringing up the DRC is that it isn't democratic at all. It isn't a case of it being an exception to any rule because it's explicitly not what it claims to be just like all the Socialist/Communist states you bring up. We aren't arguing that it's an example of a crap democracy, we're arguing that it's an example of something that isn't by any stretch of any imagination a democracy.

Get it now?

3point14 · 24th November 2010, 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by Virus

The fallacy in the "democratic Congo" argument is that such states are exceptions to the rule whereas every single communist government ever was a piece of crap, with no exceptions.

Dude, if you're going to hate something that much, shouldn't you at least make sure that you know what you're hating.

And the contents of this thread demonstrate quite clearly (and repeatedly) that you don't.

Kudos to Mark for trying to put the E in JREF. I fear you may be flogging a dead horse.

MarkCorrigan · 24th November 2010, 03:54 AM

Originally Posted by 3point14

Dude, if you're going to hate something that much, shouldn't you at least make sure that you know what you're hating.

And the contents of this thread demonstrate quite clearly (and repeatedly) that you don't.

Kudos to Mark for trying to put the E in JREF. I fear you may be flogging a dead horse.

Thanks. It means a lot to have someone understand what I'm saying. I don't care if you disagree with me about just how warped things are, as long as you acknowledge that the basic facts are what they are.

P.s. You're free to nominate any of my posts if you want to

Virus · 24th November 2010, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by UWdude

Almost every communist nation has been borne of war, or has been shut off from the rest of the world. To claim the failure of communism was due to the system is as much a fallacy as to claim the "success" of capitalism was due to the free market system.

Are you saying it's not the communist's fault they killed a hundred million people?

3point14 · 24th November 2010, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by Virus

Are you saying it's not the communist's fault they killed a hundred million people?

Have you read anything that's been written to you? I mean, anything? At all?

Or are you just still running off on this cold war, red peril, commies are bad, commies are evil trip without actually trying to find out what it is you're actually hating?

Senator Joe really got to you, didn't he?

MarkCorrigan · 24th November 2010, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by 3point14

Have you read anything that's been written to you? I mean, anything? At all?

Seriously Virus, it's like you're trying to ignore the responses I and others have made.

UWdude · 24th November 2010, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by Virus

Are you saying it's not the communist's fault they killed a hundred million people?

Yeah. That's exactly what everything I wrote was saying. it's all imperialist capitalism's fault. every single death in the world is due to capitalism. Because capitalism is the theory of every man for himself, so even in communist countries, people were just looking out for themselves, through volume and collective bargaining.

What, not real capitalism you say... well isn't that the definition of capitalism?

Dunga dah bleggedy dip shoo wop diddly yip top oop a day dah!

Virus · 24th November 2010, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Seriously Virus, it's like you're trying to ignore the responses I and others have made.

I'm going to continue using the definition that the rest of the world uses, not the one you want me to use.

stokes234 · 24th November 2010, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Virus

Why does communism start and end with Marx? Lenin, Trotsky and Mao are considered legitimate contributors to communist theory.

I would suggest that, when conversing with someone who purports to be a communist, you assume they are referring to marxism, and perhaps ask for clarification if they imply otherwise. Very few people in the west who consider themselves communists or agree with some aspect of communist theory will be referring to Mao or Stalins communism. Lenin, sometimes, and Trotsky is often considered an intellectual successor to Marx. Castro is also often considered a genuine communist, and some sympathy and respect is occasionally shown for Stalins successors, but as a general rule modern communists do not agree with the politics of Mao or Stalin.

Thunder · 24th November 2010, 11:42 AM

seems like some Communists seek to disregard the murders of millions of people by Stalin, Lenin, and Mao, by insisting they weren't actually Communists.

Well, Hitler wasn't really a true anti-Semite, since he let his Jewish family doctor go unharmed by the Nazis and then eventually leave Germany. And he declared several German military officers "of Aryan blood", even though they were Jewish or half-Jews.

See? We really can't blaim anti-Semitism for the Holocaust.

Rufo · 24th November 2010, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Virus

I'm going to continue using the definition that the rest of the world uses, not the one you want me to use.

It's not that simple. MarkCorrigan isn't establishing a new definition, he's just demonstrating that the some popular attempts at a definition are inconsistent, and thus not actual definitions at all.

If one wants to make a proper argument about communism - for or against - I would say inconsistencies in definition and incorrect understanding of which ideas lead to what cripple the discussion.

stokes234 · 24th November 2010, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Thunder

seems like some Communists seek to disregard the murders of millions of people by Stalin, Lenin, and Mao, by insisting they weren't actually Communists.

Well, Hitler wasn't really a true anti-Semite, since he let his Jewish family doctor go unharmed by the Nazis and then eventually leave Germany. And he declared several German military officers "of Aryan blood", even though they were Jewish or half-Jews.

See? We really can't blaim anti-Semitism for the Holocaust.

You can consider stalin and mao communists if you like. My point is simply that modern communists do not ally themselves with mao and stalin, and so you'll get pretty confused if you start assuming people who support nationalisation of services, scrapping of large inheritances etc also support genocide.

You can argue that communism often leads to genocide, because the type of people needed to accept the brutalities required to push through a revolution are unlikely to be benevolent dictators themselves, and I would have some sympathy with that arguement. I would argue that the same applies when showing the oppression, executions and torture that accompanied free market reforms in the southern cone, indonesia, bolivia etc. The important thing to remember is that the vast majority do not advocate those methods, and would usually only support the institution of their policies if they had a guarantee of some kind that the atrocities that accompany their policies wouldn't reoccur.

Kotatsu · 24th November 2010, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Virus

I'm going to continue using the definition that the rest of the world uses, not the one you want me to use.

Safety in numbers doesn't make it more correct.

Originally Posted by Thunder

seems like some Communists seek to disregard the murders of millions of people by Stalin, Lenin, and Mao, by insisting they weren't actually Communists.

Can you give an example of a communist disregarding these deaths? Because as I said above, and in the previous thread you started in order to show the world that you don't know what communism is, I have lots of friends who are or consider themselves to be communists/socialists/anarchists/similar, and not a single one of those would say anything other than that these millions of deaths are deplorable and horrible, and that it is simply awful that these things were done in the name of communism.

(P.S. Thank you, Mark, for your string of incredible posts in this thread!)

Mirrorglass · 24th November 2010, 12:34 PM

This is a fun thread, as well as educational, but I think I should point out something fairly obvious that hasn't really been mentioned. Two things, actually. Firstly: the meaning of words is essentially defined by the people who use them. Secondly: words can have more than one meaning.

Now, the obvious thing is that the word "communism" has at least three distinct meanings:

1) A political philosophy based around the abolition of private property, originally thought up by Marx and builded upon by many others, that Mark has done a swell job explaining,

2) a political system used in several countries, such as the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam et cetera, that bears a passing resemblance to 1), but differs in many important ways; perhaps most importantly, this system is practically always characterized by harsh dictatorship, low standard of living for the poor and atrocities committed by those in power,

and 3) a slur from Cold War propaganda that refers to anyone supporting or related to 2) or 1), and more generally anyone who opposes or criticizes a policy or aspect of the United States of America.

The confusion in this thread stems from equivocating these meanings. Most people who call themselves communists in the west mean number 1), while most people who call others communists mean number 3). Some people are also in the habit of using 2) as proof of 1) being evil, and thus justifying their decision to refer to all advocates of 1) as 3):s. Leaders in countries practicing 2) pretend to be 1) and are rather accurately described by 3).

Sorry, I got a bit carried away there.

jhunter1163 · 24th November 2010, 04:03 PM

Several posts moved to AAH. Please keep your discussion civil and on-topic and refrain from personal attacks.

Posted By:jhunter1163

Mycroft · 26th November 2010, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

How many communists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Two, but they can't be more than two inches tall.

Damien Evans · 26th November 2010, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Virus

Are you saying it's not the communist's fault they killed a hundred million people?

You ate Menzies "Reds under the bed" shtick hook, line and sinker, you do realise that?

Virus · 26th November 2010, 02:48 PM

Jesus never said to go around burning heretics, therefore the Inquisition had nothing to do with Christianity.

The 9/11 hijackers went to a strip club, and strip clubs are forbidden according to the Islamist doctrine, therefore they weren't real Islamists.

Skeptic · 26th November 2010, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by stokes234

Just a quick thought experiment - if I were to take over a country, hold no elections, brutally oppress the population and generally ignore the major principles of democracy, but call my system "Democratic Stokesism", would my country be an example of democracy failing?

Probably not.

When, however, you declare in 1850 that you have a new system -- "Democratic Stokesism" -- which will bring peace and happiness, and yet (by a curious coincidence) every single time anybody tried your system in practice they ended up with a brutally opressive election-less dictatorship, I wouldn't say that those who are opressive and brutal are not "Democratic Stokesists", since experience shows every Democratic Stokesist leader is a brutal dictator.

Skeptic · 26th November 2010, 11:29 PM

The discussion of whether any of those communist hellholes qualify as "real" communism reminds me more and more of the defendants in the Nuremberg trials.

They claimed that they followed Hitler for pure, ideological reasons and his wonderful utopian vision -- a vision of a strong, healthy Germany which found its just place in the world. They were the real, good, Nazis, you see. They all claimed all that other stuff -- the invasions of other countries, the secret police, the corruption, the war, the holocaust, etc., etc. -- was done by fake Nazis, by people who "perverted" Nazism, and thus ruined its good name.

Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, and von Ribbentrop, to name three, in interviews with psychologists and psychiatrists in the Nuremberg jail, all worried very much that the discoveries of the atrocities in the Nuremberg trials would now make Nazism impossible to resurrect, by so unfairly associating it with genocide.

This, time, you see, they were certain the real, pure, good Nazism would be created, and it won't be perverted in the Fourth Reich. Hey, what could possibly go wrong? After all, Nazism is a great theory!

The same psychological defense mechanism is working here, among those who still support communism despite the numerous deaths and unspeakable horror it caused: all of that is not real communism, the atrocities have nothing to do with it, all those bad people perverted and misused communism and smeared communism's good name.

The psychological name for this sort of thing is "denial", and is based on the five-year-old's belief in the magical power of words: that if you refuse to call something "communism", it isn't.

Virus · 27th November 2010, 12:18 AM

Lenin said that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat would be a democratic network of worker's councils, however once the party seized power they ruled by terror and instituted absolute control over all aspects of society. Therefore Lenin wasn't really a Leninist, and was only pretending to be a Leninist. The real Leninism consists of all the things that Lenin never did.

DC · 27th November 2010, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by Virus

Lenin said that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat would be a democratic network of worker's councils, however once the party seized power they ruled by terror and instituted absolute control over all aspects of society. Therefore Lenin wasn't really a Leninist, and was only pretending to be a Leninist. The real Leninism consists of all the things that Lenin never did.

see he didn't even follow his own perverted version of communism.

Thunder · 27th November 2010, 07:15 AM

I heard Marx wasn't a real Communist.

KoihimeNakamura · 27th November 2010, 09:53 AM

Hmm, a lot of people forgetting words have meanings here..

DC · 27th November 2010, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Thunder

I heard Marx wasn't a real Communist.

he was only one in theory.

Tsukasa Buddha · 28th November 2010, 02:43 AM

Originally Posted by Thunder

I heard Marx wasn't a real Communist.

Actually, in real life, he did say he wasn't a Marxist.

Thunder · 28th November 2010, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Actually, in real life, he did say he wasn't a Marxist.

I know. I have the book where he says that.

Its like when someone told me Jesus was a Christian, not a Jew.

24th November 2010, 02:54 AM	#161
MarkCorrigan Winter is Coming Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Middle of nowhere, UK. Posts: 7,099	Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel What did Marx say about Communism? "...the theory of the Communists may be summed up in a signle sentence: Abolition of private propery." Did Mao, Lenin, Stalin share this idea? Nope. People in the USSR, China, N.Korea and any other "Socialist" nation you care to mention all had private property. Not a great deal of it because they're almost always dirt poor, but you get the picture. Also, that's what Communism wanted, but he also stated, repeatedly, that to get to that level, you had to go through a period of Socialism with a really big government. During the period of Socialism before the glorious Communist utopiayou could have as many televisions as you liked because the central pot of everythng hadn't been created yet. Is it that hard to understand? Marx wanted Communism-No private property, no government-totally unworkable but before that he wanted Socialism-Private property galore but no private ownership of farms and factories-BIG government- also totally unworkable. Originally Posted by Virus The fallacy in the "democratic Congo" argument is that such states are exceptions to the rule whereas every single communist government ever was a piece of crap, with no exceptions. Are you intentionally missing the point or are you stupid? The whole point of bringing up the DRC is that it isn't democratic at all. It isn't a case of it being an exception to any rule because it's explicitly not what it claims to be just like all the Socialist/Communist states you bring up. We aren't arguing that it's an example of a crap democracy, we're arguing that it's an example of something that isn't by any stretch of any imagination a democracy. Get it now?
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz "the captain gives the order to osedlání/ he drives the horses to the groin/ There on the lunch/waiting women"

24th November 2010, 03:29 AM	#162
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: London ish Posts: 3,594	Originally Posted by Virus The fallacy in the "democratic Congo" argument is that such states are exceptions to the rule whereas every single communist government ever was a piece of crap, with no exceptions. Dude, if you're going to hate something that much, shouldn't you at least make sure that you know what you're hating. And the contents of this thread demonstrate quite clearly (and repeatedly) that you don't. Kudos to Mark for trying to put the E in JREF. I fear you may be flogging a dead horse.
	__________________ Cull the delusional.

24th November 2010, 03:54 AM	#163
MarkCorrigan Winter is Coming Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Middle of nowhere, UK. Posts: 7,099	Originally Posted by 3point14 Dude, if you're going to hate something that much, shouldn't you at least make sure that you know what you're hating. And the contents of this thread demonstrate quite clearly (and repeatedly) that you don't. Kudos to Mark for trying to put the E in JREF. I fear you may be flogging a dead horse. Thanks. It means a lot to have someone understand what I'm saying. I don't care if you disagree with me about just how warped things are, as long as you acknowledge that the basic facts are what they are. P.s. You're free to nominate any of my posts if you want to
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz "the captain gives the order to osedlání/ he drives the horses to the groin/ There on the lunch/waiting women"

24th November 2010, 05:23 AM	#165
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: London ish Posts: 3,594	Originally Posted by Virus Are you saying it's not the communist's fault they killed a hundred million people? Have you read anything that's been written to you? I mean, anything? At all? Or are you just still running off on this cold war, red peril, commies are bad, commies are evil trip without actually trying to find out what it is you're actually hating? Senator Joe really got to you, didn't he?
	__________________ Cull the delusional.

24th November 2010, 07:12 AM	#166
MarkCorrigan Winter is Coming Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Middle of nowhere, UK. Posts: 7,099	Originally Posted by 3point14 Have you read anything that's been written to you? I mean, anything? At all? Seriously Virus, it's like you're trying to ignore the responses I and others have made.
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz "the captain gives the order to osedlání/ he drives the horses to the groin/ There on the lunch/waiting women"

24th November 2010, 04:56 AM	#164
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,198	Originally Posted by UWdude Almost every communist nation has been borne of war, or has been shut off from the rest of the world. To claim the failure of communism was due to the system is as much a fallacy as to claim the "success" of capitalism was due to the free market system. Are you saying it's not the communist's fault they killed a hundred million people?

24th November 2010, 07:33 AM	#167
UWdude Banned Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 431	Originally Posted by Virus Are you saying it's not the communist's fault they killed a hundred million people? Yeah. That's exactly what everything I wrote was saying. it's all imperialist capitalism's fault. every single death in the world is due to capitalism. Because capitalism is the theory of every man for himself, so even in communist countries, people were just looking out for themselves, through volume and collective bargaining. What, not real capitalism you say... well isn't that the definition of capitalism? Dunga dah bleggedy dip shoo wop diddly yip top oop a day dah!
UWdude Banned Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 431

24th November 2010, 11:34 AM	#168
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,198	Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan Seriously Virus, it's like you're trying to ignore the responses I and others have made. I'm going to continue using the definition that the rest of the world uses, not the one you want me to use.

24th November 2010, 11:40 AM	#169
stokes234 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: UK Posts: 2,295	Originally Posted by Virus Why does communism start and end with Marx? Lenin, Trotsky and Mao are considered legitimate contributors to communist theory. I would suggest that, when conversing with someone who purports to be a communist, you assume they are referring to marxism, and perhaps ask for clarification if they imply otherwise. Very few people in the west who consider themselves communists or agree with some aspect of communist theory will be referring to Mao or Stalins communism. Lenin, sometimes, and Trotsky is often considered an intellectual successor to Marx. Castro is also often considered a genuine communist, and some sympathy and respect is occasionally shown for Stalins successors, but as a general rule modern communists do not agree with the politics of Mao or Stalin.

24th November 2010, 11:42 AM	#170
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	seems like some Communists seek to disregard the murders of millions of people by Stalin, Lenin, and Mao, by insisting they weren't actually Communists. Well, Hitler wasn't really a true anti-Semite, since he let his Jewish family doctor go unharmed by the Nazis and then eventually leave Germany. And he declared several German military officers "of Aryan blood", even though they were Jewish or half-Jews. See? We really can't blaim anti-Semitism for the Holocaust.

24th November 2010, 11:54 AM	#171
Rufo Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,196	Originally Posted by Virus I'm going to continue using the definition that the rest of the world uses, not the one you want me to use. It's not that simple. MarkCorrigan isn't establishing a new definition, he's just demonstrating that the some popular attempts at a definition are inconsistent, and thus not actual definitions at all. If one wants to make a proper argument about communism - for or against - I would say inconsistencies in definition and incorrect understanding of which ideas lead to what cripple the discussion.
Rufo Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,196	__________________ Love is patient, love is kind, says he [Paul] - so is humour too, for it is not offended by that which is ugly and offensive, it seeks out the lost and miserable and shows that they are worth interest - love is not angered, it does not judge - neither does humour - love forgives all - so does humour - love is humble - such is humour too, for humour makes men not consider themselves better than others. - Gustaf Fröding

24th November 2010, 11:58 AM	#172
stokes234 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: UK Posts: 2,295	Originally Posted by Thunder seems like some Communists seek to disregard the murders of millions of people by Stalin, Lenin, and Mao, by insisting they weren't actually Communists. Well, Hitler wasn't really a true anti-Semite, since he let his Jewish family doctor go unharmed by the Nazis and then eventually leave Germany. And he declared several German military officers "of Aryan blood", even though they were Jewish or half-Jews. See? We really can't blaim anti-Semitism for the Holocaust. You can consider stalin and mao communists if you like. My point is simply that modern communists do not ally themselves with mao and stalin, and so you'll get pretty confused if you start assuming people who support nationalisation of services, scrapping of large inheritances etc also support genocide. You can argue that communism often leads to genocide, because the type of people needed to accept the brutalities required to push through a revolution are unlikely to be benevolent dictators themselves, and I would have some sympathy with that arguement. I would argue that the same applies when showing the oppression, executions and torture that accompanied free market reforms in the southern cone, indonesia, bolivia etc. The important thing to remember is that the vast majority do not advocate those methods, and would usually only support the institution of their policies if they had a guarantee of some kind that the atrocities that accompany their policies wouldn't reoccur.

24th November 2010, 11:58 AM	#173
Kotatsu Phthirapterist Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Good Anvil Posts: 2,154	Originally Posted by Virus I'm going to continue using the definition that the rest of the world uses, not the one you want me to use. Safety in numbers doesn't make it more correct. Originally Posted by Thunder seems like some Communists seek to disregard the murders of millions of people by Stalin, Lenin, and Mao, by insisting they weren't actually Communists. Can you give an example of a communist disregarding these deaths? Because as I said above, and in the previous thread you started in order to show the world that you don't know what communism is, I have lots of friends who are or consider themselves to be communists/socialists/anarchists/similar, and not a single one of those would say anything other than that these millions of deaths are deplorable and horrible, and that it is simply awful that these things were done in the name of communism. (P.S. Thank you, Mark, for your string of incredible posts in this thread!)
	__________________ "It is not supposed to be funny or annoying or insightful, because it is neither; nor to convey or express any emotion or wit, because it doesn't; nor to be any kind of art, because it isn't; but merely to be repetitive. It is repetition for the sake of repetition; mindless, relentless, remorseless and -- ultimately -- redundant." K. Krishnamurthi, "The Seven Forms of Repetition", 1972.

24th November 2010, 12:34 PM	#174
Mirrorglass Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Northern Europe Posts: 3,474	This is a fun thread, as well as educational, but I think I should point out something fairly obvious that hasn't really been mentioned. Two things, actually. Firstly: the meaning of words is essentially defined by the people who use them. Secondly: words can have more than one meaning. Now, the obvious thing is that the word "communism" has at least three distinct meanings: 1) A political philosophy based around the abolition of private property, originally thought up by Marx and builded upon by many others, that Mark has done a swell job explaining, 2) a political system used in several countries, such as the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam et cetera, that bears a passing resemblance to 1), but differs in many important ways; perhaps most importantly, this system is practically always characterized by harsh dictatorship, low standard of living for the poor and atrocities committed by those in power, and 3) a slur from Cold War propaganda that refers to anyone supporting or related to 2) or 1), and more generally anyone who opposes or criticizes a policy or aspect of the United States of America. The confusion in this thread stems from equivocating these meanings. Most people who call themselves communists in the west mean number 1), while most people who call others communists mean number 3). Some people are also in the habit of using 2) as proof of 1) being evil, and thus justifying their decision to refer to all advocates of 1) as 3):s. Leaders in countries practicing 2) pretend to be 1) and are rather accurately described by 3). Sorry, I got a bit carried away there.
	__________________ _{When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less. -Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass} Last edited by Mirrorglass; 24th November 2010 at 12:35 PM.

26th November 2010, 02:25 PM	#176
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,103	Originally Posted by commandlinegamer How many communists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Two, but they can't be more than two inches tall.
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

26th November 2010, 02:38 PM	#177
Damien Evans Up The Irons Tagger Join Date: May 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 25,271	Originally Posted by Virus Are you saying it's not the communist's fault they killed a hundred million people? You ate Menzies "Reds under the bed" shtick hook, line and sinker, you do realise that?
	__________________ WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death "Racism is a disease in society. We're all equal. I don't care what their colour is, or religion. Just as long as they're human beings they're my buddies." - Mandawuy Yunupingu, lead singer of Yothu Yindi

26th November 2010, 02:48 PM	#178
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,198	Jesus never said to go around burning heretics, therefore the Inquisition had nothing to do with Christianity. The 9/11 hijackers went to a strip club, and strip clubs are forbidden according to the Islamist doctrine, therefore they weren't real Islamists.

26th November 2010, 10:57 PM	#179
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Originally Posted by stokes234 Just a quick thought experiment - if I were to take over a country, hold no elections, brutally oppress the population and generally ignore the major principles of democracy, but call my system "Democratic Stokesism", would my country be an example of democracy failing? Probably not. When, however, you declare in 1850 that you have a new system -- "Democratic Stokesism" -- which will bring peace and happiness, and yet (by a curious coincidence) every single time anybody tried your system in practice they ended up with a brutally opressive election-less dictatorship, I wouldn't say that those who are opressive and brutal are not "Democratic Stokesists", since experience shows every Democratic Stokesist leader is a brutal dictator.
	Last edited by Skeptic; 26th November 2010 at 11:02 PM.

26th November 2010, 11:29 PM	#180
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	The discussion of whether any of those communist hellholes qualify as "real" communism reminds me more and more of the defendants in the Nuremberg trials. They claimed that they followed Hitler for pure, ideological reasons and his wonderful utopian vision -- a vision of a strong, healthy Germany which found its just place in the world. They were the real, good, Nazis, you see. They all claimed all that other stuff -- the invasions of other countries, the secret police, the corruption, the war, the holocaust, etc., etc. -- was done by fake Nazis, by people who "perverted" Nazism, and thus ruined its good name. Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, and von Ribbentrop, to name three, in interviews with psychologists and psychiatrists in the Nuremberg jail, all worried very much that the discoveries of the atrocities in the Nuremberg trials would now make Nazism impossible to resurrect, by so unfairly associating it with genocide. This, time, you see, they were certain the real, pure, good Nazism would be created, and it won't be perverted in the Fourth Reich. Hey, what could possibly go wrong? After all, Nazism is a great theory! The same psychological defense mechanism is working here, among those who still support communism despite the numerous deaths and unspeakable horror it caused: all of that is not real communism, the atrocities have nothing to do with it, all those bad people perverted and misused communism and smeared communism's good name. The psychological name for this sort of thing is "denial", and is based on the five-year-old's belief in the magical power of words: that if you refuse to call something "communism", it isn't.

27th November 2010, 12:18 AM	#181
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,198	Lenin said that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat would be a democratic network of worker's councils, however once the party seized power they ruled by terror and instituted absolute control over all aspects of society. Therefore Lenin wasn't really a Leninist, and was only pretending to be a Leninist. The real Leninism consists of all the things that Lenin never did.
	Last edited by Virus; 27th November 2010 at 12:19 AM.

27th November 2010, 02:06 AM	#182
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,643	Originally Posted by Virus Lenin said that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat would be a democratic network of worker's councils, however once the party seized power they ruled by terror and instituted absolute control over all aspects of society. Therefore Lenin wasn't really a Leninist, and was only pretending to be a Leninist. The real Leninism consists of all the things that Lenin never did. see he didn't even follow his own perverted version of communism.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

27th November 2010, 07:15 AM	#183
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	I heard Marx wasn't a real Communist.

27th November 2010, 09:53 AM	#184
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,846	Hmm, a lot of people forgetting words have meanings here..
	__________________ Don't mind me.

27th November 2010, 10:20 AM	#185
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,643	Originally Posted by Thunder I heard Marx wasn't a real Communist. he was only one in theory.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

28th November 2010, 02:43 AM	#186
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,883	Originally Posted by Thunder I heard Marx wasn't a real Communist. Actually, in real life, he did say he wasn't a Marxist.
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

28th November 2010, 09:02 AM	#187
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha Actually, in real life, he did say he wasn't a Marxist. I know. I have the book where he says that. Its like when someone told me Jesus was a Christian, not a Jew.