Communism...What's so bad about it?

[kuthoer]

Mix of Capitalism and Socialism is superior to the average worker.

Pure Capitalism is as corrupt as Communism.

[Symmetry]

Please point out how Mao's communist China was more efficient than the capitalist system that has followed it (since the start of the 80s).

Are you asking me? I don't think I've claimed that.

Okay, maybe I put words in your mouth there. Let's try: please explain how communism 'worked pretty well in China'.

Fair enough- it brought a country ravaged by colonialism into the modern world. Indeed, made it into an emerging superpower that many find concerning.

I don't think the system is without flaws, not by any means, but it is effective.

[Symmetry]

They had serfdom dude, get your head screwed on.

Through deliberate Soviet policy millions of Soviet citizens were killed. Stalin had a policy of ordering people arrested and killed only for the sake of creating enough terror to make everyone else go along. Yes Tsarist Russia had serfdom up until 1861, but it didin't engage in the downright murderous policies that Stalin or Lenin did.

What's worse being legally tied to the land, or being killed for no reason other than to scare others into obeying?
The Soviet Union was much worse than Tsarist Russia ( at least in terms of freedom). By the time of of the Revolution Serfdom had been ended for about a generation. The Tsars, though they engaged in censorship never used the sort of widespread oppression of Stalinist or even Leninist Russia.

The Tsarist system also killed plenty of people

Here's a sample:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewis ... ian_Empire

I'm really not trying to excuse the excesses of Stalin, but the Communist system did bring Russia into the modern world.

[muy_thaiguy]

They had serfdom dude, get your head screwed on.

Through deliberate Soviet policy millions of Soviet citizens were killed. Stalin had a policy of ordering people arrested and killed only for the sake of creating enough terror to make everyone else go along. Yes Tsarist Russia had serfdom up until 1861, but it didin't engage in the downright murderous policies that Stalin or Lenin did.

What's worse being legally tied to the land, or being killed for no reason other than to scare others into obeying?
The Soviet Union was much worse than Tsarist Russia ( at least in terms of freedom). By the time of of the Revolution Serfdom had been ended for about a generation. The Tsars, though they engaged in censorship never used the sort of widespread oppression of Stalinist or even Leninist Russia.

The Tsarist system also killed plenty of people

Here's a sample:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewis ... ian_Empire

I'm really not trying to excuse the excesses of Stalin, but the Communist system did bring Russia into the modern world.

And then proceeded to execute or send off to the gulags anyone with any hint of influence that may sometime in the future pose as a threat to Stalin's power. Even if they never planned against him or anything of the sort. This included a good majority of the military officers. Which is why Russia still used tactics from WWI, basically charging en masse and headlong against entrenched German positions. Caused massive casualties.

[mrswdk]

Please point out how Mao's communist China was more efficient than the capitalist system that has followed it (since the start of the 80s).

Are you asking me? I don't think I've claimed that.

Okay, maybe I put words in your mouth there. Let's try: please explain how communism 'worked pretty well in China'.

Fair enough- it brought a country ravaged by colonialism into the modern world. Indeed, made it into an emerging superpower that many find concerning.

I don't think the system is without flaws, not by any means, but it is effective.

China's growth has occurred because China ditched socialism and began liberalizing and adopting a capitalist system. China's emergence is taking place despite the handbrake of Mao, not because of him.

I mean, dude, seriously. Are you quoting from a Cultural Revolution propaganda poster or what? Because that's exactly what it sounds like.

[Symmetry]

Please point out how Mao's communist China was more efficient than the capitalist system that has followed it (since the start of the 80s).

Are you asking me? I don't think I've claimed that.

Okay, maybe I put words in your mouth there. Let's try: please explain how communism 'worked pretty well in China'.

Fair enough- it brought a country ravaged by colonialism into the modern world. Indeed, made it into an emerging superpower that many find concerning.

I don't think the system is without flaws, not by any means, but it is effective.

China's growth has occurred because China ditched socialism and began liberalizing and adopting a capitalist system. China's emergence is taking place despite the handbrake of Mao, not because of him.

I mean, dude, seriously. Are you quoting from a Cultural Revolution propaganda poster or what? Because that's exactly what it sounds like.

Not at all, I'm saying that Mao's revolution united China after a long period of oppression. I can't say I agree with much of what he did, but Communism was effective.

[mrswdk]

Did Mao turn China into an emerging superpower, or are you admitting that you made a mistake when you said that?

If we accept at face value your claim that pre-1949 China was under a constant cloud of colonial oppression (and that's a big 'if') and that Mao liberated it, then was it communism that freed China or was it simply an armed rebellion that freed China?

[Symmetry]

Did Mao turn China into an emerging superpower, or are you admitting that you made a mistake when you said that?

If we accept at face value your claim that pre-1949 China was under the constant cloud of colonial oppression and that Mao liberated it, then was it communism that freed China or was it simply an armed rebellion that freed China?

To be honest, I think I was wrong on that, but Communism certainly transformed China. For the better, mostly, with some terrible stuff too.

[mrswdk]

How did communism transform China for the better?

[Symmetry]

How did communism transform China for the better?

What do you think it was like before Communism?

[mrswdk]

Is that an evasion? Try answering my question first.

[Symmetry]

Is that an evasion? Try answering my question first.

It's me being slightly annoyed that you don't answer my points. I'm not into bargaining for a decent conversation.

[mrswdk]

Your only point is that 'communism transformed China for the better', which is very vague. Substantiate your claim and then we can discuss it.

[Symmetry]

Your only point is that 'communism changed China for the better'. This is too vague to engage with and so will need to be clarified if you want me to discuss it with you.

And yet you felt the need to engage. So I ask again, do you think China was better before Communism?

[mrswdk]

I engaged to ask you for a clarification. If you can't be bothered to prove that you have a genuine case to make (i.e. that you are not just making wild statements in order to troll) then make your case now.

[Army of GOD]

I hope you guys realize that the OP was a troll and has been banned

[mrswdk]

I hope you guys realize that the OP was a troll and has been banned

D:

[Symmetry]

I hope you guys realize that the OP was a troll and has been banned

It doesn't bother me

[Metsfanmax]

Not at all, I'm saying that Mao's revolution united China after a long period of oppression. I can't say I agree with much of what he did, but Communism was effective.

Your entire argument is a beautiful example of the correlation vs. causation fallacy. The extent of the reasoning is "China got better in the 20th century, China also became communist in the 20th century, therefore communism is the reason China got better." You have given not a single justification for this argument.

[Symmetry]

Not at all, I'm saying that Mao's revolution united China after a long period of oppression. I can't say I agree with much of what he did, but Communism was effective.

Your entire argument is a beautiful example of the correlation vs. causation fallacy. The extent of the reasoning is "China got better in the 20th century, China also became communist in the 20th century, therefore communism is the reason China got better." You have given not a single justification for this argument.

But that's not my point. I'm arguing that it's an effective system of government, which clearly it is. I don't argue that it's the best, or that it's without flaws.

I'm beginning to think you might have some irrational dislike of me Mets.

[BigBallinStalin]

Not at all, I'm saying that Mao's revolution united China after a long period of oppression. I can't say I agree with much of what he did, but Communism was effective.

Your entire argument is a beautiful example of the correlation vs. causation fallacy. The extent of the reasoning is "China got better in the 20th century, China also became communist in the 20th century, therefore communism is the reason China got better." You have given not a single justification for this argument.

But that's not my point. I'm arguing that it's an effective system of government, which clearly it is. I don't argue that it's the best, or that it's without flaws.

I'm beginning to think you might have some irrational dislike of me Mets.

Explain "effective".

What are your criteria for effectiveness? What is the goal of being effective?

And, how do you know that political system A is more effective than political system B?

[Symmetry]

Not at all, I'm saying that Mao's revolution united China after a long period of oppression. I can't say I agree with much of what he did, but Communism was effective.

Your entire argument is a beautiful example of the correlation vs. causation fallacy. The extent of the reasoning is "China got better in the 20th century, China also became communist in the 20th century, therefore communism is the reason China got better." You have given not a single justification for this argument.

But that's not my point. I'm arguing that it's an effective system of government, which clearly it is. I don't argue that it's the best, or that it's without flaws.

I'm beginning to think you might have some irrational dislike of me Mets.

Explain "effective".

What are your criteria for effectiveness? What is the goal of being effective?

And, how do you know that political system A is more effective than political system B?

I'm not comparing them except to say that Communism is often better than the system that occurred before.

It's often a successful system.

I'm not really understanding the knee-jerk reaction to this.

[Lord Arioch]

Neither cuba, soviet union, an china has communism as marx meant it to be (neither do sweden) communism as marx meant it is, in my view, an utopia... that doesnt mean its not worth striving for ... but it is in it seld an unattainable goal thats the whole point. Today we have capitalism on a global scale ... well it works .. kind of ... dont really know if communism would be better BUT the point is man has to strive to better himself and not grow complacant. And discussing politics is one way!

And if u are lookijng for a really effective way to govern a state i would say fascism is the way to go... worked for rome for like 1000 years, works for china for like 6000 years and so on.... and almost all global coperations of today are... gasp ... fascist in their structure of organisation.

To be clear here fascism has nothing to do with nazism and I hate both! Not because they are wrong but because they oppress people freddom... wait like the non marxist communism:) guess what i think about that

[Metsfanmax]

Not at all, I'm saying that Mao's revolution united China after a long period of oppression. I can't say I agree with much of what he did, but Communism was effective.

Your entire argument is a beautiful example of the correlation vs. causation fallacy. The extent of the reasoning is "China got better in the 20th century, China also became communist in the 20th century, therefore communism is the reason China got better." You have given not a single justification for this argument.

But that's not my point. I'm arguing that it's an effective system of government, which clearly it is. I don't argue that it's the best, or that it's without flaws.

I'm beginning to think you might have some irrational dislike of me Mets.

Explain "effective".

What are your criteria for effectiveness? What is the goal of being effective?

And, how do you know that political system A is more effective than political system B?

I'm not comparing them except to say that Communism is often better than the system that occurred before.

Yes, and to demonstrate this, you would need to actually prove that a communist government makes things better. Simply saying that a country got better in the same time period that it transitioned to communism is not such an argument -- especially in the 20th century, with the rapid rise of industrialism and globalism. So you haven't actually yet demonstrated once that communism is better than the system that occurred before.

I'm beginning to think you might have some irrational dislike of me Mets.

Based on this thread, my dislike would be quite rational.

I'm not really understanding the knee-jerk reaction to this.

What is it about our reaction that makes you think it qualifies as "knee-jerk?" That we disagree with you?

[BigBallinStalin]

Not at all, I'm saying that Mao's revolution united China after a long period of oppression. I can't say I agree with much of what he did, but Communism was effective.

Your entire argument is a beautiful example of the correlation vs. causation fallacy. The extent of the reasoning is "China got better in the 20th century, China also became communist in the 20th century, therefore communism is the reason China got better." You have given not a single justification for this argument.

But that's not my point. I'm arguing that it's an effective system of government, which clearly it is. I don't argue that it's the best, or that it's without flaws.

I'm beginning to think you might have some irrational dislike of me Mets.

Explain "effective".

What are your criteria for effectiveness? What is the goal of being effective?

And, how do you know that political system A is more effective than political system B?

I'm not comparing them except to say that Communism is often better than the system that occurred before.

It's often a successful system.

I'm not really understanding the knee-jerk reaction to this.

lol, what are your criteria for gauging effectiveness? How about the criteria for "better"?