• Capitalism

  • Communism

85% 45 votes
15% 8 votes
  • Because communism only succeeds on theoretical grounds, but as an idea it has no practicality. It is in human nature to be competitive with one another, thus wanting to gain more and with that someone will have to be lesser in something. Furthermore, communism destroys the idea of hard work or achievement, an instinct we try to drill into children from a young age, because it will help them succeed. Communism succeeds only on paper, not on humans.

  • Communism sounds like a good political system in reality, but really is a corrupt form of government. That is why Capitalism is better.

  • Capitalism encourages success by rewarding accomplishments. Communism encourages mediocre work by giving each person, whether a hard-working, life-saving doctor, or a hippie who slacks off and wastes time, the same amount of money. How are you supposed to encourage people to work hard, when every one gets the same reward?

  • Communism has killed many people, much more than Capitalism ever will.

    Posted by: Bop
  • Capitalism leaves people alone to make money for themselves and to progress technology through innovation. Communism makes people like Bernie Sanders, who couch surf until 40 and hail the government as its savior.

  • Communism was never supposed to be put into place, it was supposed to be a natural transition.

  • Communism has killed more people than Black Plague. USSR -- 20 million died from communism China -- 65 million died from communism Vietnam -- 1 million died from communism North Korea -- 2 million died from communism Cambodia -- 2 million died from communism Eastern Europe -- 1 million died from communism Latin America -- 150,000 died from communism Africa -- 1.7 million died from communism Afghanistan -- 1.5 million died from communism Communist movements, parties not in power -- 10,000 died 75 million people died from the black plague. Which is more dangerous?

  • Obvious enough...

  • Why would ANYONE want anything OTHER than capitalism? Especially in a country that was founded on FREEDOM. Communists need to move abroad to N. Korea or China and get more communism.

  • It's just better.

  • This shouldn't even be a debate. Central planning doesn't work. Markets are much better at allocating resources for the needs of society through price signals. Read the economic calculation problem my Mises and Hayek. Governments cant properly respond to changes in demand of society. Also, private property is a right.

  • Communism has proven to be far more beneficial then Capitalism. It achieved more scientific breakthroughs then Capitalism in terms of the Space Race. It has also killed way, way less people then most would believe. Communism is point in fact better for humanity.

  • Communism has not killed very many people as it is not the fault of the ideology that a drought occurred. Capitalism has on other hand killed over 4. 2 billion.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
DavidMGold says2017-05-22T08:13:28.4782863Z
Capitalism is the FREEDOM to buy, sell and trade on a voluntary basis despite the graphic misrepresentation on this poll that amounts to propaganda for the Communist side.
DrCereal says2017-05-22T14:21:24.7913355Z
@David. Because we all know you've never been biased in your polls.
DavidMGold says2017-05-22T18:47:30.1433355Z
DrCereal, I'm more concerned with the truth rather than the misconceived notion of presenting false views in a more equal manner. I don't need the escapism of cartoonish caricatures to depict the millions of victims of stacked up with a crackpot Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, and others standing on the mounds of victims either. More importantly, the last thing a Communist would want to do is invite comparison and contrast without the ability to throw me in a gulag.
DavidMGold says2017-05-24T14:57:29.7744730Z
Knaveslayer99, please...Step into the ring. We can start with your ludicrous assertion that Communism has been even remotely close to paving the way to scientific breakthoughs and I'll be generous enough to give you 5 for everyone 1 you attempt to claim. Then we can move on to your indefensible assertion that Communism has killed "way, way less people" than history has already established. Finally, I hope to tackle the paucity of Communism being more beneficial, especially since you tell us it has been proven!
DrCereal says2017-05-25T15:25:52.3245738Z
David You claim your "concerned with the truth", but nobody who cares about the truth is ever biased in a poll. Actually, I bet a lot of communists would invite scrutiny. (At least legitimate scrutiny not "but equal pay for unequal work!!!111!1 D':".) Most communists (who aren't trash like Stalin, Mao, etc., as you mentioned) want to make it clear to others WHY they're communist. Furthermore, the gulags were established by Stalin to prevent political enemies from overthrowing his dictatorship. I don't think they were established because "he wab evil cammunist D:". (Especially considering he killed other communists as well, such as Trotsky.)
DrCereal says2017-05-25T15:31:25.8837738Z
David, and concerning your original post: Freedom to buy, slave under your employer who does a fraction of the work you do, and live in poverty. YAY CAPITALISM!
Knaveslayer99 says2017-05-26T02:15:21.2382382Z
@DavidMGold A yes a human that has fallen for propaganda you are also your an idiot if you think Communism hasn't shown it's much superior feats in the technology department. For 1 most say America won the space race however it was the USSR that launched the first probe, space shuttle and NASA had to ask for help to get the first Space Station in space. Let's also look at how they sent the first man, women and dog into space oh and the first robot on the moon maybe this new ideology that has risen to being a super power within just 40 or so years of existing has accomplished. As for the amount of deaths caused by Communism well if you looked at actual Russian Documents and Soviet Papers and not the Alt Right attempting to glorify Nazism you'd see that under Stalin only 3 Million of his people were killed and a majority of them were traitors and criminals to the state. Most people passed through the Gulags alive and did not die in them as you would shamefully think. As for proving how it's more beneficial how about free education, healthcare, home, food etc. These we're all provided to people under Communist Governments when they weren't being embargo'd by the USA like the Famine during Stalin's Reign. There is a reason leaders like Stalin, Mao, Castro and Guevara are still idolized today. I may have been inactive on the site for a long time but man it feels so good to enter the ring again. Also thank the Soviet Union your not speaking German or Japanese after all it wasn't the atomic bomb that forced Japan to surrender it was the fear of a Soviet land invasion. If you want to debate this I'll be more then happy to accept a debate by you on the debates tab.
fishhunter61 says2017-05-27T01:29:08.0927980Z
When someone yells at someone else for falling for propaganda, when them themselves have fallen for propaganda.....
DavidMGold says2017-05-29T17:39:32.7086950Z
DrCereal, you're distorting voluntary labor purchased by employers and recasting it as enslavement while advocating a system of slavery with a single state monopoly. Even America's poor have luxuries like cable TV, cellphones and Xbox gaming systems. Come join us back in the real world.
DrCereal says2017-05-29T18:48:25.9386416Z
@DavidMGold "...You're distorting voluntary labor purchased by employers and recasting it as enslavement..." How is it not enslavement if you have no choice? If one does not get a menial job, they will not be able to survive. This doesn't appear that voluntary to me. "...Advocating a system of slavery with a single state monopoly..." Wow. I wasn't aware I advocated such a system. Oh! Wait, that's probably because I don't. I'm a Marxist. I don't believe the existence of a state is necessary. "...Even America's poor have luxuries like cable TV, cellphones and Xbox gaming systems..." You call this "luxury"? In the information age, cell phones are necessary for survival. People fleeing from Syria have cell phones. This issue is x100 more nuanced than how you just described it so I can hardly call it relevant. "...Come join us back in the real world..." I've been here for a while. It's not really my fault that you don't understand my position so you have to result to calling it a fantasy. I implore you: go do some research. PLEASE. Don't pretend like you have. Go and actually do it.
DavidMGold says2017-05-29T20:23:08.8943439Z
Knaveslayer99, you're not only a liar, but an utter fool to attempt the Soviet Union excelled in technological breakthroughs, especially with regards to improving the lives of everyday people. Your misconception starts and ends with a tiny, handful of examples at the onset of the Space Race (and who would imagine that the collapsed USSR won anything?). The first man and woman meaning the first to survive. Two Italian brothers actually picked up the final moments of a female cosmonaut who apparently was incinerated upon reentry into earth's atmosphere. That's in addition to the male cosmonauts that perished and were erased from the history of Soviet space failures. And those poor dogs, launched into space with no plan for return..Animal cruelty anyone? We can still listen to the last words of Vladimir Komarov dying upon reentry of his Soyuz 1, which was launched even though Yuri Gagarin identified over 200 structural problems and we all know 50th year Communist Anniversaries trump the lives of cosmonauts and operational soundness. So your example would be followed by the USA launching the first solar powered satellite, first communications satellite, first weather satellite, first imaging weather satellite, first recovery of an intact satellite, first passive communications satellite, first passive/first active communications satellites, first geosynchronous satellite, first satellite navigation system, and first geostationary satellite. But you can claim Sputnik! This doesn't even cover the continued progress and advancement after achieving these milestones. Then if you insist on regurgitating Soviet Space Propaganda as if you're living in 1960, I can remind you of the first 8-day human spaceflight with Gemini 5, the first 14-day spaceflight with Gemini 7, the first spacecraft docking, the first moon landing with Apollo 11, the first piloted moon landing with Apollo 12, the first 28 day human record with Skylab, and likewise continue with numerous advancements since achieving these milestones. Pioneer 10 was a far greater achievement if you want a comparison. So you settle on claiming the rise of a superpower in 40 years failing to note details like Russia going from the world's largest exporter of grain to spending 1/3 of their gold reserve to import grain failing to achieve any productivity increase to feed an 80 million addition to their population with imports of 65 million tons despite control of the bread basket of Europe. Sadly, a 1989 article in a Soviet weekly by Roy Medvedev is more honest than a kooky Communist ideologue in 2017 attempting to fabricate outright lies to deny the 1 million victims of imprisonment from 1927 to 1929, 9-11 million peasants forced from their lands along with 2-3 million imprisoned/exiled during forced agricultural collectivism in the 1930s, another 6-7 million killed by a punitive famine in 1932-33, one million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad for previously belonging to nobility (or other "bourgeois" distinctions), one million executions during the "great terror" of 1937 along with 4-6 million to the gulag (most did not return!), another 2-3 million sent to camps in 1940 for violating absurd labor laws, 10-12 million among occupied countries following WWII, and another 1 million taken as political prisoners from 1946 to 1953. So dispense with the Walter Duranty impersonation and those who deny the atrocities of the Soviet Union are as evil as those who deny the Holocaust along with Nazi Germany's atrocities. What is shameful and outrageous is that you are engaged in Denialism to add a horrific insult to the millions of victims out of an adolescent infatuation with the ideology of a mass murdering totalitarian government. The ingenious method for dodging the dismal failuresin progress along with the horrific body count is to fall back on the drivel of "free" education, healthcare, homes and food. I've already covered the disastrous agricultural policies relegating the Soviets to importing grain, but apparently spending your gold reserves on basic commodities that you've failed to produce is fine as long as the starving masses can say it was free! Lining up for "free" rations rather than air conditioned supermarkets with 30,000 products is definitely a winning system. State owned stores with empty shelves and appallingly poor quality consumer good that had to be rationed. At the end, Soviets came to acknowledge their homeless problem with 20% living on 75 rubles a month. It doesn't bode well to call healthcare free when you spend as much as the USA while lacking even common medicines and painkillers, where disposable syringes were non-existent so Soviet hospitals boiled them leading to the spread of hepatitis, 14 cents a day allotted for hospital food that employees obviously plundered to begin with, and numerous other details ignored by ideological fairy tales of the wonders of Communism. I'm not amused that your grasp of history is like a warped fan fiction imagining a fake history of a US embargo rather than FDR recognizing the Soviet Union and establishing diplomatic relations as their atrocities, forced famines and collectivist policies were enforced. Totalitarian crackpot dictators and communist executioners like Che Guevara are only worshipped as idols among a small number of left wing extremists, like Castro's bastard son and prime minister of Canada, through a complete blackout or denial of history and blind ideological attachment. I'll be happy to retire you from this site. And no, it was the Atomic bomb that forced the Japanese Emperor to surrender 6 days later and I could remind you of all the enormity of US and British aid to the Soviet Union after the Soviets were betrayed by their Nazi Allies after joining in on the conquests of Eastern Europe. By all means, bring on your debate so I can decisively refute this pernicious ideology and celebrate another Soviet collapse.
DrCereal says2017-05-29T21:49:58.0931439Z
@DavidMGold Reading you fawn over how great you are at debate really highlights the fact that you live in an echo-chamber.
n7 says2017-05-29T22:18:07.6511439Z
Lol davidm your statements are filled with half truths. You buy into the conspiracy of the lost cosmonauts and attack the communists for supposedly engaging in the same type of thinking. You also fail to understand what the space race represents. 50 years ago they were backwards and feudal. Then they reached the level of space, a level to challenge one of the most developed capitalist nations in the world. To think this didnt improve any lives at all is to believe that the Tsar could have launced men into space. If the USSR was so horrible then they should have never been able to make it to space. They should never have been able to enter a space race in the first place. Much of your long paragraph deals with numbers of those executed, sent to camps, etc. You fail to realize these numbers are streached by anti-communists and rely heavily on second and third hand accounts. Conquest and Fascist sympathizing solzhenitsynwere proven wrong when the archives were released. Hell, solzhenitsyn's own wife admitted most of his book was mere "campfire stories". Look at the actual population charts of the USSR from the 1890s to the 1990s, you see a population drop from wwii, yet no other drops in the population even though the same amount of people were supposedly killed. You leave out the fact that these "peasants" who had their land taken were not the mass of the peasantry. They were owers of land who were harshly exploiting the lower class peasanty. Collectivizing ag was hardly forced, the bulk of the population supported it, one reason for food shortages in the 30s was because collectivization was happening too rapidly to actually provide geat and man power. As well as these poor poor rich peasants started attacking these farms and killing the country's animals causing difficulty in harvast. Which is one of the causes of the famine which you blame communists for. You buy into the myth that food shortages were a constant problem. Even though they were only therefor a short time in the 30s when they were building industy. The focused more on industry rather than consumer goods because they had to, however afterwards grain production boosted to the point where they were able to stop the famine from continuing. You can look up a youtube video called my life in the soviet union, she talks about how the fridges and pantaries were always full. Yet you just read what capitalists tell you about the food problems hmmm. I also think you should check out a video on youtube called "Food problems in the soviet union" for more info on the food shortages. Also it's ironic that food shortages in the 80s happened when they allowed more markets into the union. You think socialism would fall when it's at its most socialist right? Instead it collapsed after years of revisionists introducing market reforms and the profit motive. The famine of the 30s was caused by MANY factors. Even anti communist historians admit this. Collectivizing of ag stopped famines from being a natural occurance. It was the last famine the USSR ever had except the one caused by the nazis. Before that famines happened all the time. Housing was a right in the ussr. Much of their housing was destroyed by the nazis and since housing takes up capital, it needed to be secondary. You complain about the average worker making 75 rubles a month, but you fail to understand that you could live quite well on only 30 a month. Since education was free you could easily get an education and a better job. It's funny you reject everything that paints the soviet union in a good light, but you accept everything that puts them in a bad light. Surely there doesn't exist propaganda when it supports capitalist governments. Surely everything they say and fund is factual and correct right?
n7 says2017-05-29T22:23:30.6335439Z
I also like how you reject Walter, an eyewitness who traveled throughout the USSR writing down what he saw as propeganda, but Medvedev who stuck to university campuses much of his life must be a much better source than someone who traveled and witnessed a ton of events firsthand. He can't be right because he liked the soviets.
n7 says2017-05-29T23:51:36.1787439Z
Oh I just say this tidbit "after the Soviets were betrayed by their Nazi Allies"you claim you understand history yet you don't even understand the M-R pact. Stalin had a million troops ready to fight Nazi Germany. The allies refused him forcing him to enter into a nonaggression pact. Something that all other nations did. If you actually read the pact, you'll see the agreement was over the event in a change of the Polish state. They also had similar agreements with other nations that weren't attacked. There is no mention of carving up Poland at all. When the soviets entered former Polish land, it was AFTER the Polish government fled to Romania. By international law, Poland was no longer a state. The Soviets entered to provide a buffer between ther German and Soviet border. If the soviets wanted to divide up Poland, they wouldve entered at the ame time. Churchill agreed the soviets did the right move and actually said it probably the world as a whole by doing this. Everyone at the time understood this, which is why all nations agreed the soviets were neutral in the war. Romania and France had a defense pact with Poland, yet they didn't declare war on the Soviets. The supreme Polish commander Rydz-Smigly ordered his troops to fight the Germans, but NOT the Soviets. Oh and let's just forget about the Munich agreement where the west helped hitler take over Czech hmmm. You just believe anything and everything anti communist dont you?
DavidMGold says2017-05-30T00:18:42.3695439Z
DrCereal, in the real world, employers seek out employees and offer to purchase their labor competing with other employers in terms of wages, benefits, and other compensation just as employees likewise seek out employers. I gather that you lack workplace experience. At any rate, you can't dispute the freedom of the market beyond a childlike fear and resentment of the necessity to work and produce to sustain life. How do you, as a Marxist (well address that shortly), imagine that you'll be exempt under your crackpot economic philosophy from the need to labor because I'm still waiting for Marxists to explain what Karl couldn't in terms of the division of labor imagining that a garbage collector could decide to be a hunter one day, then a doctor the next, or an accountant in the fantasy utopia that's as realistic as Harry Potter. So, as a Marxist, you reject the stage of overthrowing of a capitalist country and replacing it with a "dictatorship of the proletariat," which will eventually see the state wither with a utopian society..While this has been completely falsified in every communist country. As for cellular phones, addressing your useless factoid about Muslim settlers possessing cell phones, it has become a relatively cheap technology thanks to capitalism and the CIA World factbook in 2014 put it at 87 per every 100 people in Syria. It wasn't until 2008 that Communist Cuba decided to even allow what you deem a necessity! The point you neglect to address is that America's poor are better off than the average citizen in a communist country. A nuance is a subtle difference. So claiming it to be 100x more "nuanced" is a horrible misuse of the word. How about attempting a real argument? How about remembering your attempt to relegate every profession in the US to slavery and alleging everyone lives in poverty?!? I can't make you think. In reality you've enslaved yourself to Marxism and appear to be vaguely familiar it. I flirted with it at a very young age and quickly abandoned it after a thorough education (not be confused with leftist indoctrination) and more importantly through critical thinking. For others, it has become a religious belief that cannot be falsified. Finally, I completely understand your point of view and your ideological predilections. Your suggestion that I have a lack of research is baseless.
DavidMGold says2017-05-30T13:59:06.4637502Z
N7, you should do your homework. Roy Medvedev was a Soviet citizen, a Marxist, and dissident historian. His own father was caught up in the terror of 1938, sent off to the gulag and died in 1941. Walter Duranty was considered a serial liar by his contemporaries, a Soviet propagandist and mouthpiece for Joseph Stalin, and his cover-up of the genocide and famine is a well established fact that he acknowledged in private. I will not tolerate crackpot ideologues then or now excusing the mass starvation of millions of people.
DavidMGold says2017-05-30T21:24:14.8337502Z
N7, stop spreading antiquated Soviet propaganda and lies to cover-up the secret protocol of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the Communazi Pact, to divvy up Poland, Finland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. This is a well established fact that even the Soviets finally acknowledged in 1989. The French and British had been engaged in negotiations for months to enlist the Soviets in opposing Nazi Germany and were in complete shock at the FrontPage photo on Pravda of a smiling Stalin looking on as Ribbentrop signed the Pact. The Soviets played a double game and conducted secret negotiations with the Germans since 1936 preferring a deal with Hitler. The Soviet invasion was a direct violation of the 1932 Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact and the Government evacuated the day after the September 17 invasion from the East..Only to be interned by Romania under pressure from both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Polish soldiers had abandoned the defense of the Romanian Bridgehead as a direct result of facing attack on two fronts and retreated into Romania. I will not tolerate these revisionist lies to cover-up the Soviet Union's collaboration with Nazi Germany. You also failed to mention the huge economic agreement signed four days prior to the pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The Communists and the Nazis agreed to partition Poland with the Soviets taking areas east of the Pisa, Narev, Vistula, and San rivers. The Soviets did have a huge army of 450,000 to one million men, but for the purposes of joining the Nazis in invading, conquering and annexing land! The Polish Army still had 650,000 soldiers at the time the Soviets moved in helping their stalled Nazi allies just in time. The Poles also still had control of 140,000 square kilometers despite your pathetic excuse justifying the Communazi conquest of Poland. Rydz-Smigły did want to order the 20,000 strong border guard to resist the Soviet invasion, but was overruled by the Prime Minister. He ordered them to fallback and retreat..Only engaging in self-defense. You act as if this is some sort of welcome mat for the invaders. Polish cities such as Lviv didn't surrender until September 22 when the Nazis transferred seige operations to their Soviet allies. Other Polish cities such as Vilnius and Grodno were taken by the Soviets after battling Polish defenders for day! And did you forget the battle of Wytyczno in your crackpot make believe version of history?!? The Poles ultimately ran out of ammunition and equipment after beating back the Red Army several times, but you'd have us believe it never happened! Joint German-Soviet Military Parades such as the one conducted by German General Heinz Guderian and Soviet Brigadier Semyon Krivoshein are absent from your Soviet fan fiction! Here we find that even after the Soviets themselves ended decades of censorship and lies, Communist groupies on the Internet continue to promote outright falsehoods and continuing twisting history to suit their ideology. FYI: stop lying about international law and pretending the Soviet-Nazi invasions/occupations were anything but illegal and unjust conquests! And the Soviet Union also refused to recognize Poland as a nation prior to their invasion! Let your lie die with Molotov's report: "A short blow by the German army, and subsequently by the Red Army, was enough for nothing to be left of this ugly creature of the Treaty of Versailles." If that's not enough to dampen your appetite for propaganda, there's always the collaboration between Heinrich Himmler and Lavrentiy Beria who were in agreement on Poland and coordination being done through conferences between Gestapo and the NKVD officials. The Soviets had no qualms about handing over 40,000 Polish POWs over to the Nazis. The Communists had no qualms about the Katyn massacre murdering at least 22,000 Polish POWs. Somehow in the derangement of Communist propaganda, Eichmann's collusion with the NKVD to oppress the Poles can be denied and erased just as you ignore Stalin ordering the Communist Parties of Britain & France to oppose war with his ally Hitler and switch to condemnation of the Imperialist British for fomenting war with Germany! The Soviets had committed just as many atrocities executing tens of thousands of Polish POWs including the staff and patients at a military hospital in Grabowiec. 320,000 Poles were marched off to the gulags of Siberia and another 150,000 Poles died under Soviet occupation. As for your appeal to Churchill, the British betrayed Poland's legal government, free elections, and national borders at Tehran, and later at Yalta, despite 250,000 Poles fighting for them literally handing over the homes of these men to the Stalin leading to some committing suicide. Churchill was in fact forced to defend himself against withering criticism for his betrayal before Parliament over a three day period. You rightly pointed out the travesty of Munich while saying nothing of the same regarding Yalta! The British in fact had a secret protocol in their alliance only guaranteeing defense against German aggression. The British and French never really intended to come to the aid of Poland, especially against two aggressors. The Romanians remained neutral because Poland didn't execute their agreement under the false belief that Britain and France were coming to their aid. We can always remember Stalin's order halting the Red Army rather than coming to the aid of Poles during the Warsaw Uprising. Anti-Communist, absolutely! Whatever gave me away?!? Like George Orwell said, you're still a whore.
DrCereal says2017-05-30T23:00:31.7308453Z
@DavidMGold "...In the real world, employers seek out employees and offer to purchase their labor competing with other employers in terms of wages, benefits, and other compensation just as employees likewise seek out employers..." What does this have to do with my point? My point was that we have to work for survival which is technically slavery. As far as I'm concerned, this point is completely irrelevant. "...I gather that you lack workplace experience..." Since this "point" is used to back up your first sentence, it too is irrelevant. "...At any rate, you can't dispute the freedom of the market beyond a childlike fear and resentment of the necessity to work and produce to sustain life..." I'm not afraid of it. I find the notion of anyone having to do menial work to survive in a world where they SHOULDN'T HAVE TO grotesque and stupid. I'm rather enraged by it because our current production would allow for everyone to survive without the need for menial work. But why do we still force people to work to survive? For the profit of the few. For exploitation. For greed. Furthermore, I don't really need to have a second point if my main point remains uncontested, and so far it has been. "...How do you, as a Marxist (well address that shortly), imagine that you'll be exempt under your crackpot economic philosophy from the need to labor because I'm still waiting for Marxists to explain what Karl couldn't in terms of the division of labor imagining that a garbage collector could decide to be a hunter one day, then a doctor the next, or an accountant in the fantasy utopia that's as realistic as Harry Potter..." I'm not completely certain on the details of HOW a communist society would be ran (I'm guiltily admitting I need to do more research. D:), but I do know that a garbage collector wouldn't be allowed to just become a doctor or an accountant without the necessary education. This is nothing more than a silly point spawned from ignorance. "...So, as a Marxist, you reject the stage of overthrowing of a capitalist country and replacing it with a "dictatorship of the proletariat," which will eventually see the state wither with a utopian society..While this has been completely falsified in every communist country..." I "reject the stage"? Hmm? And I don't know what you mean by "falsified". Do you mean that it has failed in the past? If so, what does this have to do with the actual theory of Marx? It demonstrates that the dictatorship of the proletariat is unlikely in certain circumstances, and it doesn't completely debunk Marxism like you seem to think it does. "...As for cellular phones, addressing your useless factoid about Muslim settlers possessing cell phones, it has become a relatively cheap technology thanks to capitalism and the CIA World factbook in 2014 put it at 87 per every 100 people in Syria..." It wasn't a useless factoid. My point was that people fleeing from Syria -- who I'm sure are impoverished -- have cell phones. My point was that they aren't a "luxury" like you foolishly claimed. And what evidence do you have to suggest they are cheaper due to Capitalism? I would assume they're cheaper because of industrialization. Any reasoning for why it must also be a direct effect of Capitalism? Or are you just saying things to cast the illusion that you have a point? "... It wasn't until 2008 that Communist Cuba decided to even allow what you deem a necessity!..." So since "Communist Cuba" did it, it's automatically something embedded within communism itself? This is a fallacy of division. "...The point you neglect to address is that America's poor are better off than the average citizen in a communist country..." The poor are "better off" in the U.S. because the U.S. is a more progressed nation, and this isn't that strong of a point because some capitalist countries are just as poor (if not even poorer) than communist countries. "...A nuance is a subtle difference. So claiming it to be 100x more "nuanced" is a horrible misuse of the word..." It was intended to exaggerate that it's more nuanced than how you described it. And honestly, don't lecture me on my mishaps with language. Your fourth sentence that I responded to was a long run-on sentence. People make mistakes so don't be so pedantic. "How about attempting a real argument?" Ok, since you clearly didn't understand my argument. This issue is much more nuanced than what you let on. Do you have any actual facts that impoverished people can afford what you describe as "luxuries"? Because if you don't, there's not much for me to actually argue, now is there? "...How about remembering your attempt to relegate every profession in the US to slavery and alleging everyone lives in poverty?!?..." If everyone worked and got what they needed: no poverty. (Which is definitely manageable with our current technology and means of production.) People actually did their jobs for the satisfaction of doing something they love or knowing they are benefitting society: labor isn't forced so no slavery. And how is working under communism slavery but isn't under capitalism? "...I can't make you think..." I could have said the same thing, but I didn't because I'm trying to be civil. "... In reality you've enslaved yourself to Marxism and appear to be vaguely familiar it..." How can someone be "enslaved" to an ideology, and what is your point? You're enslaved to Capitalism! It means nothing. And do you have any actual reason for saying that I'm "vaguely" familiar with Marxism? I'll admit I haven't studied it as much as I should have, but I'm definitely familiar with it enough to talk to you about it. "...I flirted with it at a very young age and quickly abandoned it after a thorough education (not be confused with leftist indoctrination) and more importantly through critical thinking. For others, it has become a religious belief that cannot be falsified. Finally, I completely understand your point of view and your ideological predilections..." So this bit is basically just insulting nonsense trying to make it seem Marxism is something only the "indoctrinated left" believes. Not much of an argument. "...Your suggestion that I have a lack of research is baseless." I mean... Sure, but so was yours.
n7 says2017-05-30T23:49:16.1848453Z
David, I know Medvedev was a soviet citizen. I'm saying he stuck to college campuses most of his life while Duranty traveled. You claim others called him a liar, ofc they are going to say that since he wasnt outright anti soviet. That in and of itself isn't evidence that he is lying. Many things he reported on has corroborating evidence to support it. To claim he is lying because he doesnt demonize the soviets is to already assume your conclusion. And no he didnt deny that a famine existed, just that it was intentional. Which nowadays every historian agrees to. Even Robert Conquest admitted this later on in his life. There is simply no evidence to show it was an intentional. But then again, only anti communist propaganda exists right? Capitalists states have no motive whatsoever to spread lies about communism right? Everything they say has to be true hmm
n7 says2017-05-31T06:09:20.2024453Z
Hmm so when it disagrees with you it's automatically a lie and propaganda. It's not like there's any actual motivation to lie about communism? You are committing a Fallacy of Opposition. Just because it doesn't fit with your view of how the world works means it's a crackpot theory thats made up. Where in the secret protocols does it agree to any of this? I've read the M-R pact and it says nothing about actively invading any nation, just an agreement about any changes in the state and the limiting of the spheres of influence. Were any of those other countries actually divvied up? Finland was a co-belligerents of the nazis and it was within the interests of the soviets to have a polish state as a buffer between them and the nazis. This is evident from the diaries of General Franz Halder. Hitler wanted a shrunken Polish state. Here is some exerts from his war diary. "The High Command with the Fuehrer (second half of the day 7 September): Three different ways the situation may develop. 1. The Poles offer to begin negotiations. He [Hitler ] is ready for negotiations [on the following conditions]: [Poland must] break with England and France. A part of Poland will be [preserved and] recognized. [The regions from the] Narev to Warsaw - to Poland. The industrial region - to us. Krakow - to Poland. The northern region of the Beskidow mountains - to us. [The provinces of the Western] Ukraine - independent. " He also writes on sept 12 that "The Russian apparently does not want to come in…. [The Russian] believes it possible that Poland wants [to conclude a] peace [with Germany]." With the government going into exile it made it so there was no way to negotiate peace with the polish gov and therefore making it necessary for the soviets to create a buffer between them and Germany The pact was also signed after Stalin was refused by the Allies to help against the nazis. He knew full well Hitler had an interest in taking Ukraine and his relationship with Japan. Also the economic agreement was signed in august not September. Hitler also had economic and funding deals with numerous capitalists in the west too. The soviet union in 1989 was fully anti Marxist and revisionist. Nearly no communist save extreme trots defend the soviet union after 1956 since it departed its Marxist line. Much of your argument assumes what you are trying to prove. The soviet union could only battle with a POLISH army and break a pact with them if they still existed as a state. If the polish government went into exile, lither would have no one to negotiate peace. You state i lie about international law while providing no evidence of such. You said the government fled after the soviets invaded. This is totally wrong. The polish ambassador to the ussr Grzybowski admitted he had no contact with the government of Poland for days and that he should contact them via Bucharest. This was on the very night of sept 17. This was published in the book katyn, an anti soviet book. Prof Ginsburgs in the American journal of international law stated "For all these various reasons, it may safely be concluded that on this particular point the Soviet argument was successful, and that the "above considerations do not allow for any doubt that there did not exist a state of war between Poland and the U.S.S.R. In September, 1939." In spite of scattered protests to the contrary, the consensus heavily sides with the Soviet view that by September 17, 1939, the Polish Government was in panic and full flight, that it did not exercise any appreciable control over its armed forces or its remaining territory, and that the days of Poland were indeed numbered. De facto, then, one may well accept the view that the Polish Government no longer functioned as an effective state power. In such a case the Soviet claim that Eastern Gallcia was in fact a term nulus may not be unjustified and could he sustained". I love how you totally ignore the fact that France, Britian and Romania didnt declare war on the ussr. Despite the fact that they declared war on Germany BECAUSE they invaded Poland. Rather or not you can look into the minds of the leaders and claim they couldn't aid Poland says nothing about the fact that they saw the ussr as a neutral entity. Article 16 of the league of nations states "Should any Member of the League resort to war in disregard of its covenants under Articles 12, 13 or 15, it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other Members of the League, which hereby undertake immediately to subject it to the severance of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their nationals and the nationals of the covenant-breaking State, and the prevention of all financial, commercial or personal intercourse between the nationals of the covenant-breaking State and the nationals of any other State, whether a Member of the League or not. It shall be the duty of the Council in such case to recommend to the several Governments concerned what effective military, naval or air force the Members of the League shall severally contribute to the armed forces to be used to protect the covenants of the League." but the thing is, the league accept the soviets neutrality in regards to Poland. However when the soviets attack Finland they did no such thing and wanted sanctions placed against them. You fail to understand my reason for bringing up Churchill. I did it to demonstrate that everyone at the time understood the soviets had not invaded Poland. Going on how he "betrayed" everyone at Yalta is totally irrelevant. Another example is FDR on nov 4 stated "…a state of war unhappily exists between Germany and France; Poland; and the United Kingdom, India, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa,…" yet he doesn't mention the USSR. Because NO ONE believed the USSR invaded Poland. Poland ceased to be a state. You bring up examples of Polish troops attacking the USSR. Along with totally ignoring the fact that the commander was ordered not to fire on the soviets, WHY? Because the PM knew Poland ceased to be a state. Things such as the Wytyczno battle was outright aggression of partisans. Since the armies validity follows from a state, no state means the ex army was merely a group of organized men acting on their own. To keep fighting would constitute partisan warfare, which have no rights under law. Can you provide actual primiary source evidence for that Molotov quote? The thing about a so called joint military parade is also totally wrong. Guderian stated it was a farewell parade carried out by the poles because the red army wouldn't allow the Germans to cross into Brest. Krivoshein talked about civilians welcoming them into Brest, but of course you only want to quote them when it fits your narrative. Anna L Strong also corroborates this "Few people who know the racial composition of Eastern Poland doubted that the population had resented the rule of Warsaw and felt “liberated” when the Red Army came…. Even the Polish Government–in–Exile did not venture to declare the Red Army’s march an act of war. " So too does Robert Tucker state "And indeed, the invading Red Army units were welcomed by many Ukrainian, Belorussian, and Jewish inhabitants of this territory where the dominant Poles were an ethnic minority living mainly in the towns and the non-Polish population suffered discrimination. " I suspect you are only getting your information from Timothy Snyder. The whole thing about Katyn originated with literal nazis. The three documents used by the Soviet government in the 90s as evidence of Katyn were long suspected as fakes by historians, Mukhin provides strong evidence for this. Archeological evidence at the Volodymyr-Volyns'kiy excavation found two polish policemen badges of men who were murdered by the Nazis during the second half of 1941. This is solid evidence that the official version of Katyn is false. The Warsaw uprising didn't fail because the soviets didn't provide them aid, even mainstream historians agree with this. The debate is rather or not they couldn't provide aid because they began the attack too earlier or that their supplies were too exhausted. Other than Synder who tries to claim the Soviets did everything wrong. I find it ironic that you call yourself anti communist then quote a literal socialist. Orwell even went to Spain to support and aide the communists fighting there. You are just reading anti communist narratives while ignoring the mass evidence in refuting such narratives.
gramzilla says2017-06-22T01:49:02.3870387Z
The death toll in my native country of Ukraine, due to starvation, poverty, and Gulags created by a communist society, it in the millions. I am sickened when I hear of people endorsing communism without fully understanding the brutality and destruction of my culture that was assisted by communist filth. I don't understand why people demonize Nazis so much (not that I agree or endorse Nazism AT ALL) and are completely A-OK with communists spouting their ignorant rhetoric.
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2017-07-14T20:16:15.6377010Z
If this were a Soviet Russia joke would that mean communism loses to you?

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.