Discussion Thoughts on Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism? [Megathread]

[Depressed Cat]

One only has to see what communism has done to the Russians. The genocide and shocking war crimes the barbaric Russian invaders are committing in Ukraine cannot be done by those who can be considered as humans. This is what communism does to those humans it infects anywhere in the world.

I have seen it with my own eyes in my country, where the commies have slaughtered tens of thousands in cold blood through the past decades, and my country was never a fully commie country. I shudder to think what would have happened if commie criminals had taken over my country. It would have added several tens of millions to the hundreds of millions slaughtered by commies worldwide.

It's no wonder that many of those in other countries celebrating and cheering on the horrific Russian war crimes and genocide in Ukraine happen to be commies or commie sympathisers. That's what commies are. Commies' thirst for the blood of innocents is beyond words. Commies' sickening celebration on seeing the extreme suffering of humans who have done them no harm is beyond evil!

It's no wonder that communism is known as the Red plague. It's far worse than any plague that has ever afflicted humankind throughout history. The Red plague has killed more humans than any other plague in history. What's worse is that the Red plague goes beyond taking lives in the hundreds of millions. It completely destroys the souls of those it infects, as we can see from all the commies cheering on and celebrating Poo-tin's genocide in Ukraine.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

Yeah, you wouldn't be able to do that. Nor would it matter, because all of the things you would normally need money for, would be free.
They didn't get it by worked harder or smarter than you. Even if you don't work very much, there are people out there who will never have to work a day in their life, ever.

Networking and maintaining that wealth is still a form of work that I can't even handle. They still worked smarter and harder than me because it's still more than nothing.

I dint think you quite understand what socialism is if you think that means having to share your stuff. Everyone gets their own stuff.

I am aware that socialism and communism are different things but I'm mostly only talking about communism, which to my understanding specifically seems to be based on the idea that all wealth and resources are shared equally between every citizen under that system and that includes useless junk that only makes me happy. If socialism doesn't take my stuff then great but even people who support one or the other seem to get the two confused a lot since people also want to use socialism specifically to take away from other people. In any case I'm not actually that concerned about socialism, just communism or at least communist revolutions that will inevitably turn totalitarian if they can even get off the ground.

Nobody wants your stuff. They want their own stuff. Even in a socialist country like the ussr, everybody had their own stuff.

The USSR wasn't communist? Then what country was? If they couldn't even get it off the ground how can anyone else?

They had their own stuff but probably not much. And no I don't really care about any examples proving otherwise. I already know of some people who actually would want my possessions although I guess when I'm dead, they can have them.

In the USA, if you are given disability money and you choose to spend it on cigarettes instead of housing, that is not greed. It's just stupidity.

Same difference, really. Greed, stupidity, evil, corruption, etc. are all traits that many humans and myself don't have the luxury of having any control over especially not ones in the US it seems.

Not sure what this has to do with anything... if a person works their ass off, and they still can't afford to meet all their basic needs and have extra spending money, then that's because the cost of living and inflation, is outpacing pacing worker wages. These are problems with capitalism.

These are problems with capitalism that would only be made worse under communism. Costs of anything skyrocket when money itself loses its value because people are being given the exact same amount for minimal effort. I brought the PS5 up as an example that someone else I know who tends to make the same arguments is still motivated only by greed and not actual positive change or anything like that. California is the most commie US state according to some and yet inflation, cost of living, and high prices are the worst here so as someone who lives here it just seems like to me that going further in this direction would only make things worse but hey, I'd like to be wrong and for California to become the perfect utopia it so demands itself to be.

Unless you're physically or mentally disabled, in a socialist context, you would be required to work. That's specifically to prevent leaches and parasites from taking advantage.

But then you just take away the main appeal of such systems for so many US citizens and especially the many young people embracing these ideologies. They, like myself want to be given all the reward without having to do most of the work and I would wager that these sorts of people outnumber any honest workers left who'd also support an upheaval. I could just be projecting here but like I said it doesn't even have to be that many people for it to already be dead on arrival.

"Your house", you mean your parents house don't you? The money your sister gets doesn't keep you housed. Your parents do. Something tells me they probably work, because disability is not that much money. It could hardly support you and your sister.

Parent. Only my mom works but she makes less money than my sister gets for her disability. This disability money does go directly to the mortgage. California is pretty generous even to scumbags like myself.

If you don't work, aren't yourself on disability, and have no money of your own, then who paid for it?

If you don't work, if your money comes from your parents, or from the government, then you aren't paying them to do anything. Your parents, the government, etc. are. You don't actually pay for anything. And if you weren't able to leach off your parents, or the system, you wouldn't be able to afford any of that.

The money I do have comes from the caregiving I do for my sister which is actually not taxable income meaning I am a leech by virtue of paying zero taxes even though caregiving for my sister basically amounts to sitting on my ass all day just making sure she doesn't get hurt herself. I'm not saying I'm ungrateful for this but I'm just bringing it up as an example of how the government giving money for free allows disgusting people like me to sustain themselves rather than forcing them into poverty or their deaths.

What? That makes no sense. If you don't want it, don't process the paperwork.

Wish it were that simple but they actually kept calling me with unblockable numbers until I was eventually forced to submit a ton of documents about my medical history when all I wanted was to not have to give a damn about any stupid health insurance.

So then let your healthcare lapse, and then don't fill out any more forms. I really doubt that if you had a very painful condition that would kill you slowly that you would just sit there and do nothing. You don't even have the mental fortitude to work a job. If you have an aversion to doing things that are uncomfortable for you, then I'll guess you also have a low threshold for pain.

All of that is just a fancy way of telling me I need to die which I already knew but thanks? I already know I have a low pain threshold but sometimes pain comes no matter which option I choose and the one that seems less painful to me might not seem that way to anyone else. For example, the pain of having to diet or exercise at all severely outweighs the pain from having diabetes for me so I have no choice but to go with the latter by ignoring all forms of treatment.

What's your point?

That health care seems like a weird point to focus on in this discussion about capitalism versus communism or socialism because public health care exists under capitalism as well. If you're talking about changing that for the US, it would be easier (though not by much) to go after the greedy doctors and other medical professionals who only care about money anyway.

I guess since you live at home, and are shielded from the realities of what it is to have to work for a living, that you probably wouldn't understand. When you are overworked, and you still can't afford anything, with nothing to lose, revolution becomes an attractive alternative.

I have worked before and I didn't like it so I became depressed and burnt out to a point where I refuse to do anymore work. This would not change just because capitalism is removed.

Although I would think if I was working my butt off at a full time job that I'd be even less inclined to want to join a violent uprising because that would just increase the risk of losing all I've worked for, which is I guess just another way capitalism gets ya but as I said before I don't really care that it's got me in its claws just so long as video games, movies, and junk food make me happy. All of these could still exist without capitalism but honestly I don't think they would be as good.

Just my opinion though, not something I care enough to look further into. Maybe I'm just weird for feeling like this though. It doesn't matter anyway since as I've repeatedly said, I'm going to dead later this year so if I'm proven wrong in the coming years then so be it. Until then all anyone has is a bunch of fake examples that aren't real communism according to communist supporters.

 

[YourNeighbor]

This is extremely civilized. I still respect you very much, despite our disagreements. *reaches out hand as sign of a peace offering*

If I missed the sarcasm in your first response, my bad.

Short answer to your thread:

Communism has never and can never work on a national scale. Inevitably those in power corrupt the system for their own benefit, and any attempt to impose even a nominally communist government requires large-scale violations of basic human rights. And as a large-scale economic model, communism is extremely inefficient. Hence why nominally communist states like China have abandonded all pretense of communistic economics to pursue development. There are however many wonderful communistic voluntary communities that work quite well on a small scale (think communes and coops).

Unrestrained capitalism fails for similar reasons. Inevitably, those with money will corrupt such a system to further their personal benefit at the expense of the common good, if they are allowed to. Markets do not provide public goods effectively, and fail predictably (think pollution, as just one obvious example). Consider America's steady democratic decline hastened by the lack of real limits on money in elections (e.g. Citizens United) and the corruption of elections to mask the popular will (e.g. gerrymandering, economic hurdles to voting, etc.).

When we look at measures like happiness, public health outcomes, and social mobility (the notion that birth does not entirely predetermine your opportunity for success) our friends with some form of social democracy fare best, like the Swedish commenter above mentions. Individual rights are protected, a measure of free enterprise drives innovation, people have a say in how they are governed, yet capital does not own government and government provides those services that the market can't. No system is perfect, of course.

 

[motel rooms]

I come from Sweden, a social democracy. While we have private property and capital is still the name of the game, very few people go hungry and housing is provided for many (though we still have a sizable homeless population, mostly due to improper mental health care and alcoholism/drug addiction). We have cheap and in some cases even free universal healthcare (even though we spend a much lower percentage of tax on the medical sector than the US), higher education is freely accessible to every citizen, and ubiquitous labor unions with a lot of actual power.

While we are still far from perfect and have a lot of things we need to work hard to change and make better, I still think our system is one of the best in the world. Ideally, we need to nationalize more basic services, such as public transportation and the post office (which was made private a few years back and got really bad really quickly).

The Nordic model of social democracy, a middle way, is clearly the best solution. Wise nations make sure that vulnerable social groups don't fall through the cracks & that inequality doesn't reach grotesque levels. I sincerely hope you guys are able to keep your democratic institutions healthy & to never go to either of the dark sides, but things can go really wrong really fast anywhere in the world.

Btw, this thread's so gonna get locked after a couple of hours of extremely boring bloodshed.

The ussr gave everyone housing, healthcare, tuition free schooling, and a jobs guarantee

Then why the hell did the USSR implode? Because the average Soviet citizen was prosperous & happy with the way their deeply corrupt, economically inefficient country was run? The West didn't destroy the USSR, it collapsed on its own because the Soviets were sick of being poor & fucked with... I hope you read YourNeighbor's post. I'm as disgusted by unrestrained capitalism as you, but why do you feel the need to glorify the Soviet Union? It's so unnecessary & counterproductive... Your country should be learning things from Sweden, not the USSR.

What things did people stand in line for in the USSR? (PHOTOS)

 

[Fragile]

Colombia is not, and has never been a socialist/communist state. Colombia has a well known history of human rights abuse, most of the recent offenses committed by US backed right wing paramilitaries who specifically targeted civilians who were even suspected of harboring Marxist sentiments.

Throughout its history, many of the leading figures of the socialist movement in Colombia have either been persecuted or eventually assassinated. Eviidence of the involvement of members of the Colombian Army and of United States organizations like the Central Intelligence Agency was present in many cases.

Going back to 1928 the United Fruit Company (UFCO) was a multinational company that exported fruit such as bananas and pineapples mainly from Latin American countries to the USA and Europe. UFCO workers on banana plantations in Colombia organized a labor strike in December 1928. The workers demanded that they be given written work contracts, that they be obligated to work no more than eight hours per day and six days per week, and that the company stop the use of "food coupons", or scrip. As a result the USA threatened to invade with the Marine Corps if the Colombian government did not act to protect United Fruit's interests. The ruling Conservative government then sent troops led by to capture the strike leaders, send them to prison at Cartagena, and send additional troops to protect the economic interests of the United Fruit Company. The Colombian Army then opened fire on people who gathered at the main plaza of the city of Ciénaga.

The rising tensions between worker movements and the Conservative party, backed by the US armed forces, resulted in "El Bogotazo" and "La Violencia" which can be directly attributed to the return to power of the Conservative party in 1946. The conflict, which would eventually claim the lives of over 200,000 people, was known as "La Violencia". The majority of the casualties were mostly peasants and laborers.

With the support of the US military, the church and corporations came a new party system that led to the consolidation of socio-economic, military, religious, and political power. Le frente nacional effectively squished any opposition political movements and any type of political or social reforms.

Colombia's military assembled death squads to cleanse the country of Marxist partisans and anyone who sympathized with them. According to Alfredo Vázquez Carrizosa, Colombia's former minister of foreign affairs, this tactic meant the newly equipped and U.S. advised brigades could "exterminate social workers, trade unionists, men and women who are not supportive of the establishment, and who are assumed to be communist extremists."

The Colombian military and their U.S. backers seem, at best, disinterested in disincentivizing the alliance between government forces and the right wing paramilitaries. The United States has for a long time heavily invested in Colombia's military operations, while paramilitary forces committed the largest number of atrocities.

Colombia has been declared a "strategically important country for the United States, because it has 'some of the largest untapped petroleum reserves in the Western Hemisphere'", by the RAND corporation, a think tank used by the US military.

Most recently there was large crackdowns on protestors who were fired in with tear gas and subject to other harsh crackdowns that resulted in thousands injured, and the deaths of 76 people.

The united states has spent more than 10 billion dollars supporting the corrupt Colombian military, their far-right paramilitary allies in their war against Marxists.

These people were targeted for what they believed in, they were not even allowed to exist. Is it any wonder they organized to fight back? It was a civil war, and the government already showed they were going to fight dirty. The socialists were fighting for their very right to exist. In the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, people still didn't have their basic economic, political, and social needs met.

By far the most of atrocities have been carried out by right wing forces, and the conservative backed Colombian Army, along with support from the US armed forces and the CIA. The USA's war on drugs has cemented a state-apparatus there that is efficient in violence and repression.

Counter-narcotics strategy is not really against drugs, it's not about the elimination of cocaine or international trafficking. It's for territorial control, for the control of Indigenous, campesino, and Black communities. More than 50 percent of the nation's land is owned by the top 1 percent of the population. Indigenous and Afro-Colombian populations—as is the case for almost all of the Americas—are overwhelmingly impacted by this distribution: Poverty, unemployment, and lack of access to basic resources falls disproportionately on these communities. So far little land redistribution has occurred. These dire circumstances are what continue to divide the country.

Lmao, imagine being as pathetic as to try to school me on my own country, and of course, with extremely biased, misleading and obviously manipulated information. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about and it shows with the way you immediately choose to believe one side in a conflict that is not black or white.

But, by all means, feel free to keep embarrassing yourself. It's highly entertaining to watch a commie making a fool out of themselves in such a way. Never gets old to see how the mask slips away from that pretend empathy to reveal the arrogance of a red nazi, every single time.

 

[Red Scare]

Lmao, imagine being as pathetic as to try to school me on my own country, and of course, with extremely biased, misleading and obviously manipulated information. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about and it shows with the way you immediately choose to believe one side in a conflict that is not black or white.

But, by all means, feel free to keep embarrassing yourself. It's highly entertaining to watch a commie making a fool out of themselves in such a way. Never gets old to see how the mask slips away from that pretend empathy to reveal the arrogance of a red nazi, every single time.

Exactly what did I write that isn't a fact? The banana massacre, the right wing paramilitaries. The involvement of US armed forces.

Where's the lie? And if it isn't so black or white, then why are you being so clearly biased?

If all you have to dish out are insults, you're clearly not capable of any sort of debate or discussion. You're also a hypocrite. Your bias could not be clearer.

 

[DeutscheKartoffel]

imagine be able to influence your own country for reform
is that why people talk about politics so much?

well why is my country so shit?
it's china. authoritarian, communist.
Fucking dogs.

concentration camp and tank run into people.

 

[Red Scare]

the average Soviet citizen was prosperous & happy with the way their deeply corrupt, economically inefficient country was run?

According to a recent pew research poll: 75% of Russians Say Soviet Era Was 'Greatest Time' in Country's History. When asked to name the things they associate with the Soviet era, respondents pointed to "future stability and confidence" and said they associated it with "a good life in the country."

Russian respondents said "the state took care of ordinary people" when asked to name the defining characteristics of Soviet rule. Russian respondents described late 1970s-early 1980s Soviet rule as "close to people" when offered a list of choices. When asked to characterize Russia's current leadership, half called it "criminal and corrupt" and "distant from the people and alien."

The absence of ethnic conflicts as well as economic growth and lack of unemployment were the second and third-most common responses. Constantly improving living conditions and advancements in science and culture placed fourth and fifth in Russians' ranking of Soviet life.

Russians tend to view the Soviet era in a mostly positive light, and their personal memories of that time are of social stability, confidence in the future and a good life. The Soviet era is seen as a time of high living standards, and as a time of justice. Today's capitalism is viewed as unfair: the injustice is in distribution, access to goods and infrastructure. And this feeling is growing stronger.

More than 6-in-10 Russians consider it a "great misfortune that the Soviet Union no longer exists." Just 22% in Russia say ordinary people have benefited from the changes since 1991, while a majority say life is worse than it was under communism. Russians are convinced that the economic situation was better under communism. And in Bulgaria, and Ukraine, more than half believe the economic situation is worse today than it was under communism.

Majorities in all the former Soviet orbit countries surveyed say politicians and business people have benefited the most since the fall of communism. And in all cases, more people say political and business leaders have prospered than say changes have benefited ordinary people.

The West didn't destroy the USSR, it collapsed on its own because the Soviets were sick of being poor & fucked with...

So sick of it, they organized a coup to try and stop Gorbachev from implementing his planned economic reforms.

Alexander N. Yakovlev, known in Russia as "the architect of perestroika ," was actually working with the CIA. He was singlehandedly responsible for the planned economic reforms. He had a long relationship working with the west.

Anyway, the coup failed. And as a result there was a mass sell off of public infrastructure, and industry to private parties, who became the oligarchs that then ruined the country in short order. It's hard to argue living standards in Russia are better today then they were during the soviet era when housing was free, and jobs were guaranteed.

why do you feel the need to glorify the Soviet Union? It's so unnecessary & counterproductive... Your country should be learning things from Sweden, not the USSR.

We don't lose anything by rejecting anti communist propaganda designed to make the entirety of the left look like either wannabe "dictators" or people too naive to realize they are bringing about "dictatorship."

Especially when it's at best a mischaracterization or at worse outright falsification.

Arguments against the USSR are not arguments for left communism, they are arguments against the revolutionary transformation of society. There's a reason the CIA spent money supporting anti Soviet, anti authoritarian leftists during the Cold War

What things did people stand in line for in the USSR? (PHOTOS)

Oh yeah, just look at all these Soviet citizens waiting in bread lines:

No wait, actually, those are all Americans. Whoops my bad.

Anyway, here is a CIA report showing Soviets ate better than Americans at the time.

 

[motel rooms]

According to a recent pew research poll: 75% of Russians Say Soviet Era Was 'Greatest Time' in Country's History.

Yeah, yeah, the Soviet Union was a paradise where everyone had caviar for breakfast each morning (especially the Estonians, Latvians & Lithuanians, whose countries were occupied by Stalin, partially ethnically cleansed & colonized by Russians). The USSR didn't implode because corruption was ubiquitous & the economy totally collapsed in the late 80s; this enchanted land of milk & honey, this mighty fortress of Truth & Progress was destroyed by a bunch of CIA agents like some helpless Third World country...

Dream your dreams, believe what you need to believe... I think it's silly & counterproductive to keep banging on about the Soviet Union in 2022, but maybe I'm wrong & the speeches you & your comrades so enjoy giving will inspire someone to start a successful revolution...

 

[Fragile]

Exactly what did I write that isn't a fact? The banana massacre, the right wing paramilitaries. The involvement of US armed forces.

Where's the lie? And if it isn't so black or white, then why are you being so clearly biased?

If all you have to dish out are insults, you're clearly not capable of any sort of debate or discussion. You're also a hypocrite. Your bias could not be clearer.

First let me ask, do you unironically think that this is worth discussing? on the internet?

We are both biased, there's no information that will change the other's mind regardless of how certain it is to us. But my bias comes from my experience of commies pulling horrible war crimes against the people I loved, no shit I'm going to insult a pathetic person who tried to dehumanize them.

It's also, as I said, highly entertaining to engage in these "peak intellectual" discussions, where one side brings nothing but propaganda and expects to win the argument because all my information is effectively the wrong religion to them. Get over yourself, there's no discussion to be had with such a bad faith actor.

 

[motel rooms]

First let me ask, do you unironically think that this is worth discussing? on the internet?

We are both biased, there's no information that will change the other's mind regardless of how certain it is to us. But my bias comes from my experience of commies pulling horrible war crimes against the people I loved, no shit I'm going to insult a pathetic person who tried to dehumanize them.

It's also, as I said, highly entertaining to engage in these "peak intellectual" discussions, where one side brings nothing but propaganda and expects to win the argument because all my information is effectively the wrong religion to them. Get over yourself, there's no discussion to be had with such a bad faith actor.

How dare you end this on such a civilized note?!
@Heavenly Pup, do something ffs!

 

[Dysgenic Pup]

How dare you end this on such a civilized note?!
@Heavenly Pup, do something ffs!

I got you...

^ Explain this Commies!

^ my idol.

 

[Enigmatic Sailor]

Hyper-capitalism is the way and future, my brothers and sisters.

 

[Dysgenic Pup]

Hyper-capitalism is the way and future, my brothers and sisters.

Finally, some common sense.

 

[Fragile]

How dare you end this on such a civilized note?!
@Heavenly Pup, do something ffs!

Civilized? on a commie vs normal person discussion?

 

[Chinaski]

Cba reading this thread as l can predict what each and every one of you will have to say on the matter but jsyk socialism is good imo, more people should do it.

 

[Insomniac]

This is not a political or economical issue. It's a patriotic one in my eyes. Those who are for capitalism prefere a certain country as first world power and those who are for communism prefer other ones as first world power.

I'm starting to lean more towards communism simply because it seems to really piss off the capitalists and their incredibly empty narrative of "communism bad". as if capitalism was better. I know the kill count of communism but I still think capitalism has as much blood on its hands if not more.

 

[Red Scare]

So basically in translation, you're calling me a disingenuous, low-life, revolting, vulgar, worthless, nasty, impolite, arrogant, thoughtless, inconsiderate, belligerent, callous, cowardly, self-centered, vain, silly, cruel, nasty, foolish, patronizing, careless, pompous, little maggot?

Love you, buddy. Don't ever change.

I know the kill count of communism but I still think capitalism has as much blood on its hands if not more.

Oh, it's definitely more.

Even by the worst estimates, capitalism kills as much people as communism is believed to have killed by its critics every ten years.

Yeah, yeah, the Soviet Union was a paradise where everyone had caviar for breakfast each morning (especially the Estonians, Latvians & Lithuanians, whose countries were occupied by Stalin, partially ethnically cleansed & colonized by Russians). The USSR didn't implode because corruption was ubiquitous & the economy totally collapsed in the late 80s; this enchanted land of milk & honey, this mighty fortress of Truth & Progress was destroyed by a bunch of CIA agents like some helpless Third World country...

Dream your dreams, believe what you need to believe... I think it's silly & counterproductive to keep banging on about the Soviet Union in 2022, but maybe I'm wrong & the speeches you & your comrades so enjoy giving will inspire someone to start a successful revolution...

This is an excerpt from a CIA document from late 1953 or early 1954. It is a CIA analysis of the transition of power in the USSR after the death of Joseph Stalin. As you can see from the document, the CIA did not believe in the "theory" of totalitarianism they were propagating. The CIA, also analysed that Stalin's power was not absolute but rather a collective direction and further says that the idea of "dictator" is a bit of an exaggeration.

Those countries were not "ethnically cleansed". There were people who opposed socialism, bourgeois capitalists mostly, who resisted the change to socialism, those were most of the casualties. There wasn't any ethnic cleansing, and you can't provide any evidence that the ussr engaged in a program of ethnic cleansing or genocide.

The people in those countries invariably benefitted from socialism. Public housing, healthcare, universities, utilities like water and power, were all free, and publicly owned just as they were in mainland Russia.

The economy collapsed everywhere in the 80s. It was a global recession.

You can't tell me women in Afghanistan had it better after the ussr was driven out by US backed terrorist groups. Women went from being able to wear whatever they wanted, and attending free universities, to being forced to cover up.

We are both biased, there's no information that will change the other's mind regardless of how certain it is to us. But my bias comes from my experience of commies pulling horrible war crimes against the people I loved, no shit I'm going to insult a pathetic person who tried to dehumanize them.

It's also, as I said, highly entertaining to engage in these "peak intellectual" discussions, where one side brings nothing but propaganda and expects to win the argument because all my information is effectively the wrong religion to them. Get over yourself, there's no discussion to be had with such a bad faith actor.

I will never say that my mind can't be changed.

I also notice you don't say anything about the right wing paramilitaries that were funded and provided weaponry by the USA, which caused several thousands of deaths. You can thank the people who died at that banana massacre for United fruit co, that you have a 8 hour work day. That was a constitutional amendment that came as a direct result of those demonstrations. Pity those people have to be gunned down by the Colombian army, acting in the United fruit co.'s interest.

So it sounds like you admit that you bring nothing but propaganda to the discussion?

imagine be able to influence your own country for reform
is that why people talk about politics so much?

well why is my country so shit?
it's china. authoritarian, communist.
Fucking dogs.

concentration camp and tank run into people.

China is not a communist country, they aren't nationalizing the infrastructure, or banning private property, or expropriating the wealth of the many billionaires there. It's hardly classless and egalitarian. Do you also think it is a democratic republic because it's in the name?

 

[motel rooms]

Civilized? on a commie vs normal person discussion?

Jesus Christ, these US commies are just so fucking ignorant, dull & ineffectual... Defending Stalin in 2022 when Khrushchev denounced him as a fucking paranoid monster at the Communist Party Congress in 1956 & launched de-Stalinization... Who do they think they're gonna win over by doing that? Tens of millions of American voters think that Bernie Sanders is Satan & that Denmark & Sweden are hellholes like Venezuela just because they're social democracies, & these silly fuckers insist on banging on about how great a Soviet butcher was almost a century ago...

 

[YourNeighbor]

Cba reading this thread as l can predict what each and every one of you will have to say on the matter but jsyk socialism is good imo, more people should do it.

It is, but all things in moderation.

Jesus Christ, these US commies are just so fucking ignorant, dull & ineffectual...

In 'Murica's defense I would just point out that our commies are no more fucking ignorant or dull than commies anywhere else.

 

[Chinaski]

Jesus Christ, these US commies are just so fucking ignorant, dull & ineffectual... Defending Stalin in 2022 when Khrushchev denounced him as a fucking paranoid monster at the Communist Party Congress in 1956 & launched de-Stalinization... Who do they think they're gonna win over by doing that? Tens of millions of American voters think that Bernie Sanders is Satan & that Denmark & Sweden are hellholes like Venezuela just because they're social democracies, & these silly fuckers insist on banging on about how great a Soviet butcher was almost a century ago...

As with Corbyn in the UK, the fact that Sanders was denounced as some kind of potential evil had little to do with the odd Stalinist twitter cosplayer and more to do with the ruling classes utilising a servile media to rigorously defend the status quo from mild reform.

 

[odradek]

 

[Fragile]

I will never say that my mind can't be changed.

I also notice you don't say anything about the right wing paramilitaries that were funded and provided weaponry by the USA, which caused several thousands of deaths. You can thank the people who died at that banana massacre for United fruit co, that you have a 8 hour work day. That was a constitutional amendment that came as a direct result of those demonstrations. Pity those people have to be gunned down by the Colombian army, acting in the United fruit co.'s interest.

So it sounds like you admit that you bring nothing but propaganda to the discussion?

Why are you still bringing the banana massacre that happened almost 100 years ago? It has very little to do with the current state of the country and the conflict between terrorist far left guerrillas and government armies/paramilitaries. it will be like discussing current geopolitics based entirely on ww1 while ignoring everything that happened afterwards.

If we were just talking about communists that want better worker rights, then I wouldn't even feel the need to participate in this thread.

And, yes, sherlock commie. You have some sharp instincts by noticing that there are two sides in this horrible war, and both of them are disgusting. But as I said many times, I'm siding with the ones that are not parroting the same rotten ideology that destroyed cuba, venezuela and the soviet union, which were also the main allies of these groups, financing a war of terror that still sullies my country with innocent blood to this very day.

Also, don't pretend that your mind can be changed lmao. You literally use communist symbols to identify yourself. I would put you in the same category as a christian fundamentalist with a picture of jesus christ and a name like "repent sinners", but even those are more likely to wake up from their idiocy.

 

[YourNeighbor]

As with Corbyn in the UK, the fact that Sanders was denounced as some kind of potential evil had little to do with the odd Stalinist twitter cosplayer and more to do with the ruling classes utilising a servile media to rigorously defend the status quo from mild reform.

Not this again, let's not compare the two. Sanders supports maintaining NATO as is, and called for European members to fulfill their defense spending obligations. Corbyn would have disbanded NATO in 1991, and Putin's Russia would have been slaughtering and raping in many more countries than it is now for many years already. Corbyn's basic understanding of international security is driven only by ideology, not pragmatism, which made him extremely dangerous and properly laughed out of any prospect at occupying No. 10.

 

[motel rooms]

In 'Murica's defense I would just point out that our commies are no more fucking ignorant or dull than commies anywhere else.

Probably. I'm pretty sure that there aren't as many Stalinists in the EU though, especially not in ex-communist member states like Poland & the Baltics - those guys are scared shitless of everything Russia-related. They have no illusions about what life under the Soviet jackboot was like, their grandparents & parents have told them their life stories & left them nothing but their dreary tiny apartments...

 

[Chinaski]

Not this again, let's not compare the two. Sanders supports maintaining NATO as is, and called for European members to fulfill their defense spending obligations. Corbyn would have disbanded NATO in 1991, and Putin's Russia would have been slaughtering and raping in many more countries than it is now for many years already. Corbyn's basic understanding of international security is driven only by ideology, not pragmatism, which made him extremely dangerous and properly laughed out of any prospect at occupying No. 10.

Yeah you're right not this again. Corbyn stood on two consecutive manifestos pledging to retain NATO membership and its 2% GDP commitment. I mean, you are literally repeating the drivel I'm referring to in the above post, it's absurd.

 

[YourNeighbor]

Probably. I'm pretty sure that there aren't as many Stalinists in the EU though, especially not in ex-communist member states like Poland & the Baltics - those guys are scared shitless of everything Russia-related. They have no illusions about what life under the Soviet jackboot was like, their grandparents & parents have told them their life stories & left them nothing but their dreary tiny apartments...

Ah, but how fucking ingorant or dull would you have to be a communist in Poland or the Baltics where all that information is so ubiquitous. "Yes, I would love to live in a country where I would have to wait 10 years for my tiny apartment and then another 5 years for a telephone number like my grandparents did."

 

[motel rooms]

Ah, but how fucking ingorant or dull would you have to be a communist in Poland or the Baltics where all that information is so ubiquitous. "Yes, I would love to live in a country where I would have to wait 10 years for my tiny apartment and then another 5 years for a telephone number."

How dare you?! I bet Red Scare's gonna produce a document that incontrovertibly proves Stalin invented high-speed internet & gave access to it to eastern Poland & the Baltics immediately after liberating them in 1940.

 

[YourNeighbor]

Yeah you're right not this again. Corbyn stood on two consecutive manifestos pledging to retain NATO membership and its 2% GDP commitment. I mean, you are literally repeating the drivel I'm referring to in the above post, it's absurd.

FactCheck: Corbyn did call for NATO to disband – but it’s Labour policy to stay in

Official Labour policy is to maintain Britain’s commitment to the NATO alliance and to continue to spend at least 2 per cent of GDP on defence.

www.channel4.com

Corbyn was openly hostile to NATO for many years and on many occasions. Bernie by contrast was supportive of NATO intervening against Slobo. Corbyn only conveniently changed his tune when he became Labour leader and realized Labour would never support a withdrawal from NATO. But had Corbyn had his way earlier...disaster. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

How dare you?! I bet Red Scare's gonna produce a document that incontrovertibly proves Stalin invented high-speed internet & gave access to it to eastern Poland & the Baltics immediately after liberating them in 1940.

Stalin had a clear policy of creating affordable housing by eliminating the occupants of that housing.

Ed. Also, 67% of Russians surveyed agree that Stalin created high-speed internet.

 

[Chinaski]

FactCheck: Corbyn did call for NATO to disband – but it’s Labour policy to stay in

Official Labour policy is to maintain Britain’s commitment to the NATO alliance and to continue to spend at least 2 per cent of GDP on defence.

www.channel4.com

Corbyn was openly hostile to NATO for many years and on many occasions. Bernie by contrast was supportive of NATO intervening against Slobo. Corbyn only conveniently changed his tune when he became Labour leader and realized Labour would never support a withdrawal from NATO. But had Corbyn had his way earlier...disaster. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Stalin had a clear policy of creating affordable housing by eliminating the occupants of that housing.

Yeah l don't get what that link is meant tell me, l mean you're communicating with me as if l have absolutely no idea of Jeremy Corbyn's views or his history, l know (and share) his personal views on NATO and yet his two manifestos made zero mention of withdrawal and were committed to membership. This has little to do with disbanding NATO as you stated above and I'm unsure as to how he can be described as soft towards Putin when he's one of a tiny handful of UK parliamentarians who have been consistently critical of the Putin regime, it certainly wasn't Jeremy Corbyn who received millions in donations from oligarchs and allowed them to buy seats in the House of Lords. I get that you don't like Jeremy Corbyn but this isn't the first time you've used the generic and lazy lib-brained criticisms which are actually pretty flimsy upon inspection and whilst I'm absolutely fine with you stating your preference for the Pragmatic Sensible Moderate Centre it does kind of grate when it's assumed that l need educating about the history of democratic socialism in the UK from the perspective of US liberal punditry.