Most Pathetic Anti-Communist Arguments
As a chinese, I can confirm that Mao's "Great Leap Forward" killed more than 45 million. But what most people fail to recognize is the fact that without him, China would be much weaker than it's current state.
It isn't communism itself that killed the people. Take this for example, assume that Ghengis Kahn ran a communist empire. Kahn killed millions of people, but would you blame him or communism for the murders? Exactly, communism didn't make the decision to kill the people, the one leader did. Nowhere does communism state that murdering people is part of the ideology.
Most of numbers (possibly excluding people like Kim Jong-il and Mao Zedong) are often exaggerated by propaganda (do your homework). What system hasn't caused the deaths of many?
What about the atrocities that were made in the name of bourgeois democracy and Capitalism (The British East India Company, Vietnam War, War on Terror, etc.)?
What about the ones that were made in the name of fascism (Holocaust)?
The media does a good job at making everyone recognize the evil communist leaders but not the good ones.
This is getting tedious. Since you keep going off about the same unoriginal arguments you right-wingers give and since actually reading up on Marxist works (instead of relying on Fox News and "The Godless Communism" only) seems to be far beyond your mental capacity, I may as well stop trying to argue with you. I'm not the greatest arguer, but you can discuss Communism on Soviet Empire. The website mostly has Marxists, but some Conservatives and Anarchists come over as well, unless you're afraid of having the life debunked out of you... Also, don't forget to check out Marxists Internet Archive when you do want to actually know what you're fighting against. That is all and have a good day.
Naturally, humans are equals. That's what communism is. Everyone (except for certain criminals) is morally equal to each other human. Communism emphasizes this. Each person, male or female, black or white, is treated as an equal in respect to how much they earn. Capitalism makes certain people (most bourgeois) feel as though they are more important and better than other people. Communism eliminates this problem.
Humans are complex creatures that adapt and act in accordance to their knowledge. Do you really think that hunter-gatherers would just go around and hoard to themselves and exploit others in the same way people under Capitalism would? Anyways, it's best to just not respond and let the idiot go.
Actually it is natural that humans (and others species) learn to co-operate with each other.
If this is true, then why was Yugoslavia a successful country? Josip Tito made communism work in his country, and had other countries done the same as him, The would also have been just as successful. Communism can work if you have the right leader, and no one was quite as effective as Tito.
Note: I know that Yugoslavia fell apart into a war that broke it apart, but that has nothing to do with their communist government. The states hated each other, enough to start up a war to be separate from each other. In fact, some of the hatred may originate from as far back as the 11th century, well before communism even existed.
China is one of the best proofs that Communism works very well in practice. They are number one in the world for their economy, for their progressive economic plans for future energies etc... North-Korea isn't a communist state in a pure sense of communist theory since their leaderships are based on ancient dynasties ( inbreeding of genetacilly relations between families to preserve the desirable characters ). Plus their leaders are seen as gods which is against communists views. As for the Soviet Union ( which doesn't exist anymore! Most people in the USA thinks that Russia is still communist.), Stalin was a corrupted dictactor that didn't care or followed the " real " communist theories. And corrupted dictactors can be seen in different political concepts. If you think that you're so " free " in the USA democracy just look at case of the NFL who refused to stand up for the flag and the national anthem. They're almost seen as traitors of their country. There's no more freedom in ...more
This is basically an attempt to sound "reasonable" and to look like you know what you're talking about. The best way to debunk this is to point out that none of the so-called 'Communist' states even awknowledged themselves as being communist. Instead, they were socialist states trying to reach Communism. Read up on Communist literature.
There's truth in it but just because that it is a fact that every political theory and program are failing in practice. A political structure that works for 100% doesn't exist. Every political structure is failing.
Since when is " having " an religion ( which are all organised ) a must to have good morals and ethics? Atheism have ethics ( if not more ) and good morals too. Communism is against organised religion ( " Religion is the opium of the people " - Marx ) but it doesn't say to do evil just because you don't follow ethic laws and moral laws of religion. Plus, if you don't believe in god it doesn't mean that you can't have spiritual valors. You believe in god = you're good. You don't believe in god = you're bad. We all know that the truth about humanity isn't like that. There are more religious wars ( terrorism included ) and deads in name of a god in history than every other war. In fact religious wars and religious terrorism never stopped. It's still going on! So, don't tell me that because you don't believe in god you're automatically bad.
Seriously? Do we really have to go on this point? This is the worst argument ever. "By the was, he's a Buddhist. "There is no supreme being in Buddhism." is the comment below. This is... very offensive, actually. Just because they don't have a supreme being, doesn't mean this is not a religion. And just because Lenin (or Marx, I don't know who the person is talking about) was not christian, doesn't mean that he is a fraud. Even if he had no religion, that wouldn't mean he is a fraud. Stop thinking that any religion other than yours is wrong or bad.
Not necessarly. Quite a few Marxists are religious. One of the best examples is the 14th Dalai Lama who is a self-identified Marxist and would you really consider him evil?
Typical conservative argument. Actually, a communistic society (in accordance to the Marxist theory) demands that everyone must work for society by doing what they do best. For example, if you thrive as a doctor, you're a doctor and if being a janitor is what you do best, then you're a janitor.
Not true and even if it is was true, so what? Is it a must of life to work like crazy till you die without even enjoy the real things of life?
Socialism is not communism. Marx's theories are not the same as Lenin's theories. They are related but the saying of Lenin " The end justifies the means " isn't a socialist idea that was written by Marx to reach the ideal state. The theory of Marx is more complex but also more reasonable to reach the political program in practice.
While the USSR and other countries were/are ruled by communist parties, none of them even saw themselves as being Communist. Instead, they saw themselves as being Socialist as the Marxist theory states that countries must first become s Socialist before they reach Communism.
Just because USSR sucks doesn't mean Vietnam or China sucks.
Please learn the difference between private property and personal property!
The marxist definition of private property is "the means of production" or any sort of factory, land etc used to generate income. Personal property is just things you own that don't make you money, like a bed. If you have a garden for fun, that's personal property. If you sell the flowers and make a profit, that's private property. See the difference? Communism is against private property, NOT personal property. You can keep "everything you have" as long as you aren't making money from it.
Communism is not against private property because there's no private ownership of capital involved and it's the property of the state or polity who gives you the property. They're against private property as seen in capitalism. Anarchists like Proudhon, Boekanine etc... see private property owned by a socialist or communist state as theft because they're saying that everyone who has ( for example ) helped to build a house have the right also for its property and not only the state or polity. We all know that anarchism and marxism were the cause of many disagreements and fights. Trotski even decided to kill all anarchists when the communist state began to take place. The private property as seen in capitalist states is based on the roman property law which is based on corporate monetary systems. The private property as seen in communism, Marxism, socialism has another meaning and is not based on the roman law and therefor it doesn't take everything you " have ". It gives they own or to ...more
In countries like the USSR, you still had things like a house (many even had vacation homes) and a job, but it wasn't "owned" by them. You could still have personal stuff like toys and paintings.
Good point. I did use those two interchangeably, but you still had that stuff under Socialism as they respected personal property.
I've already mentioned a similar statement earlier, but one thing that has always made me cringe is when people say things like "Stalin killed 20 million of his own people." How the hell do people come up with such large numbers, anyway?
The Most of these deaths must have supposedly come from the "Holodomor" and the gulags, but the number that died in the supposed "genocide" was about 3.9 million Ukranians and the population grew anyway. The Great Purge really happened, but it is heavily exaggerated.
What is this doing here. Donald Trump is a greedy capitalist pig. Neo-liberalism at his worst. And by liberalism I mean the political term and not the pejoratif sense of the word liberal from " free " which democratic-(American) politicians and followers call themselves.
No, he's a capitalist authoritarian whatever he is.
People say this? How does that make any sense?
He's anything but
There is nothing wrong with race mixing. The problem is the different culture mixing and different religious mixing that comes with it. Many so-called alt-left organisations who called themselves socialists, Marxists, communists or anarchists like Antifa are defending immigrants and their rights of liberties of religion and culture. This are in fact no real or true leftists. Communism will never accept foreigners in a communist state to promote their culture and religion since communism is against every organised religion or culture that confronts the values of communism. Why defending the right of an islamic immigrant to practice his religion when religion is not part of the communist polity? Alt-left organisations like Antifa are giving Marxists, communists, anarchists or socialists ideas a wrong notion of what left really is. They should focus on fighting capitalism, poltical right-wing parties and not focusing on rights of immigrants. Immigration and rights of immigrants are two ...more
I'm mainly attracted to people outside my race, how does that make me a communist?
I mostly got it off of a pro-segregation poster.
This is mostly an attempt to discuss Communism in a semi-serious way. This obviously false as people were/are actually paide differently in 'Communist' countries. Also, a communist society would have no currency.
Plain damn arrogance.
While there certainly was a famine in 1932, there is absolutely no evidence that indicates that it was man-made. Many people often compare this to the Holocaust, but there are dozens of witnesses on all sides of the Holocaust as well as camps that tell you that it actually happened while survivors of the famine can only mention that a famine occured. Also, the famine spread to Central Asia so it wasn't in the Ukraine only. Anyways, it is pretty much a way for the west to assimilate movements they find "too extreme" like Communism and Fascism.