# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Give me your best arguments against communism

## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## Bruno

this is from JBS, so your friend might not be as open to it, but it is an eye-opener 

Overview of America - Public Service - DVD

----------


## Original_Intent

http://www.freelythinking.com/The_Law.pdf

If they can read this and make a cogent argument against it, I would like to see it.

Or you can read it and form your argument based on it.

Or he could be so far gone that he will not make the effort (it's a 2 or 3 hour read, tops, and it's FREE!)

----------


## Captain Shays

Collectivism kills.

----------


## revolutionisnow

Its theft, and the same people that can give you everything can also take everything away.

----------


## mconder

If you can't find the obvious flaws in it, then even you haven't been convinced. The philosophy of communism is the ultimate tool for tyrants to maintain power over the masses by promising to remove the inequities and uncertainties of life...and to be fair, historically it is very good at making everyone equally poor. Meanwhile, the tyrant(s) live in lavishly appointed residences, eat caviar, drive Mercedes,  and watch American movies and porn. You can't find one communist/progressive thinker who lives what they preach. Just look at Al gore. Yet, you can't find a single rich, self-made capitalist who doesn't live their core philosophy.

----------


## Annihilia

Communism necessitates that all men have an equal ownership of other men and resources of the earth. In practice, a person cannot receive consent from every individual on the planet in order to use a common resource, so for the sake of practicality, a select group, let's call it "the government", will oversee this.

This is really all you need to know, because any idiot can see how a single group controlling the means of production is not a classless society.

----------


## awake

You die from shortages of the most basic goods that sustain life. This causes you to attack your fellow man to survive.

----------


## Pericles

"People want to own stuff" - Frank Zappa

----------


## CharlesTX



----------


## Elwar

Ask him if he believes that people seek reward and avoid pain.

If he says no, somehow find his address and go personally kick him in the nuts.

If he says yes, then explain to him that money is a reward for work which is pain.

In a communist society, the expectation is that human nature no longer seeks reward and avoids pain. They expect people to be willing to take more pain for less reward in a way that does not balance out.

The only way that communism can work is by threatening more pain if the person does not comply. So it becomes a society of fearing a pain greater than the pain that they seek to avoid on a daily basis without reward. But when you're taking more pain than you're being rewarded for, you tend to find ways to avoid the pain...whether through shoddy work, finding holes in the system or fleeing.

The only explaination I've seen to sufficiently explain communism is that the true communists believe that socialism creates enough of a transition period where human nature will actually change to the point where humans will not fear pain and will no longer seek reward, at which point communism can finally exist.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## jsu718

Communism works fine if your goal is eliminating poverty. Where it doesn't work so well is in innovation, effort, growth, or really anything beyond just getting by with the bare minimum.

----------


## Annihilia

> Communism works fine if your goal is eliminating poverty. Where it doesn't work so well is in innovation, effort, growth, or really anything beyond just getting by with the bare minimum.


I guess if everyone is equally impoverished, there is no poverty..

----------


## jsu718

> I guess if everyone is equally impoverished, there is no poverty..


I compare it to education. When your standardized test is set up so that 50% of people are always below average (like IQ) it doesn't make sense to complain that too many people are below average. When you define rich as the top 5%, it doesn't make sense to complain that 5% of people are rich and 95% are not.

----------


## awake

Can 10% of the population of a country guess the values, wants and needs for the other 90%?... and supply each and every person with those needs and wants at the exact time they are requested? the answer is No. That is why those who wish control of something support the push for univeralization. If each want and need can be made the same they can just produce those few items... Communism was a lost cause of delusional psychopaths, it just so happens that the idea is quite popular with the current crop of delusional psychopaths.

----------


## Bucjason

Best argument against communism :

Read a history book.

----------


## awake

Tell him to read The Black Book of Communism.

----------


## KAYA

> If you can't find the obvious flaws in it, then even you haven't been convinced. The philosophy of communism is the ultimate tool for tyrants to maintain power over the masses by promising to remove the inequities and uncertainties of life...and to be fair, historically it is very good at making everyone equally poor. Meanwhile, the tyrant(s) live in lavishly appointed residences, eat caviar, drive Mercedes,  and watch American movies and porn. You can't find one communist/progressive thinker who lives what they preach. Just look at Al gore. Yet, you can't find a single rich, self-made capitalist who doesn't live their core philosophy.


This

----------


## LibertyMage

YouTube - A Tribute to Communism

----------


## BillyDkid

> Communism works fine if your goal is eliminating poverty..


Oh, I don't know.  You could ask all those Soviet citizens who routinely had to stand in line for, say, toilet paper and a loaf of bread how well their poverty was being eliminated.

----------


## jsu718

> Oh, I don't know.  You could ask all those Soviet citizens who routinely had to stand in line for, say, toilet paper and a loaf of bread how well their poverty was being eliminated.


That was hardly full on communism. More like militaristic dictatorship under the guise of a communist government.

----------


## MN Patriot

Ask how many socialist/communist dictators he can name. Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Hitler (leader of the National Socialist party), Pol Pot, Kim Il-sung, Kim Jon-Il, Hoxha, the list goes on and on.

Then have him list all the capitalist dictators. Pretty hard to do. Capitalism and free markets thrive on liberty. Socialism/ communism depends of oppression.

----------


## mrsat_98

we have tried it in America and it sucks.

----------


## Imperial

> If you can't find the obvious flaws in it, then even you haven't been convinced. The philosophy of communism is the ultimate tool for tyrants to maintain power over the masses by promising to remove the inequities and uncertainties of life...and to be fair, historically it is very good at making everyone equally poor. Meanwhile, the tyrant(s) live in lavishly appointed residences, eat caviar, drive Mercedes,  and watch American movies and porn. You can't find one communist/progressive thinker who lives what they preach. Just look at Al gore. Yet, you can't find a single rich, self-made capitalist who doesn't live their core philosophy.


That has alot of strawman arguments laced throughout it. You could have a collectivist dictator who lives an austere lifestyle. Al Gore probably doesn't personify every progressive or communist thinker, although the two are DEFINITELY not interchangeable. And there are plenty of capitalists who do not live their "proper" lifestyle... Gail Wynand from _The Fountainhead_ would probably provide a pretty great example of this.

Rather than say liberty is best, it will automatically devolve into life versus value to life. Is it worth living without having autonomy? Maybe. But why not fight to give your life value while you are alive? Having the ability to choose is key.

----------


## slothman

> I'm having an argument with a nitwit on another board.
> I need something beyond the obvious "freedom and liberty is better" argument.
> This person is practically a socialist...how can I get through?


First, don't call him a nitwit.
Second, equating socialism and communism won't help your cause either.

For others:
Calling it theft isn't good; unless he is for anarchy as any gov't of 3e8 people and 3.7e6 square miles requires taxes to continue.
If 10% don't know what the other 90% wants then democracy is not a good gov't form.
People standing in line for food has happened for thousands of years from all different types of gov't and people, not the result of communism/socialism.

What board is this?
Probably a leftist one I assume.

----------


## merrimac

> I'm having an argument with a nitwit on another board.  I need something beyond the obvious "freedom and liberty is better" argument.  This person is practically a socialist...how can  I get through?


First thing I would say is don't waste your time debating these people. But, if you must, I'd ask him if he has read Animal Farm since that pretty much sums up my feelings towards Communism. If he hasn't read it, just recommend it. Though he probably won't read it since Communists are usually stuck in their own world and won't bother reading material that challenges their own views. 

We've lived enough history since Communism has existed as a formal theoretical system to make judgements on it. One thing that needs to be said is that Communists begin all of their revolutions promising utopia and the world for the under-privelleged but, inevitably, every single one of these Communist revolutions end in tyranny where the people have less power and don't even improve their economic situation. I've taken a couple of economic classes at college from a Communist and they seem to brush off this historical observation that Communist countries are bad places to live by saying those Communist Revolutions happened too soon. The analogy my economic teacher used is it's like picking an apple that's not ripe yet. But I've read and thought enough to know that Communism is great on paper but is impossible to achieve.

Technically, I think for most of human history we've lived in small-scale Communist like societies where a tribe or family unit shares all the vegetables or wild-game killed. But that will work only because the people in them have an inherent incentive to share what they produce with the people around them since it will give them status and they can expect to get what others produce and it advances their own genes since they're all family. It could never work for large countries where no such incentives exist.

----------


## Lovecraftian4Paul

I hate debating today's self-described commies. They always try to weasel away by saying that every communist regime hasn't "really" been communist. Basically, anything that doesn't produce rainbows and happiness isn't real communism to them.

It's the effort that matters. Every Marxist revolution, at least in the beginning, was intent on trying their damnedest to produce a socialist and later communist society. Whether they reached Marx's delusional utopia or not is irrelevant. They were trying to do so, and produced nothing but heaps of bodies and tyranny in the process.

----------


## Imperial

> Ask how many socialist/communist dictators he can name. Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Hitler (leader of the National Socialist party), Pol Pot, Kim Il-sung, Kim Jon-Il, Hoxha, the list goes on and on.
> 
> Then have him list all the capitalist dictators. Pretty hard to do. Capitalism and free markets thrive on liberty. Socialism/ communism depends of oppression.


Umm... Chile is the number one example, where the economy was modelled on the Monetarist economic philosophy. Nobody remember Pinochet? Berlusconi in italy seems to be coming pretty close to that today, too.

It is possible to seize military control of a country and implement market reforms. It just is not very compatible to liberty.

----------


## Imperial

> First thing I would say is don't waste your time debating these people. But, if you must, I'd ask him if he has read Animal Farm since that pretty much sums up my feelings towards Communism. If he hasn't read it, just recommend it. Though he probably won't read it since Communists are usually stuck in their own world and won't bother reading material that challenges their own views. 
> 
> We've lived enough history since Communism has existed as a formal theoretical system to make judgements on it. One thing that needs to be said is that Communists begin all of their revolutions promising utopia and the world for the under-privelleged but, inevitably, every single one of these Communist revolutions end in tyranny where the people have less power and don't even improve their economic situation. I've taken a couple of economic classes at college from a Communist and they seem to brush off this historical observation that Communist countries are bad places to live by saying those Communist Revolutions happened too soon. The analogy my economic teacher used is it's like picking an apple that's not ripe yet. But I've read and thought enough to know that Communism is great on paper but is impossible to achieve.
> 
> Technically, I think for most of human history we've lived in small-scale Communist like societies where a tribe or family unit shares all the vegetables or wild-game killed. But that will work only because the people in them have an inherent incentive to share what they produce with the people around them since it will give them status and they can expect to get what others produce and it advances their own genes since they're all family. It could never work for large countries where no such incentives exist.


Wasn't Orwell a communist, just anti-authoritarian?

----------


## Pennsylvania

Communists object to any capitalist or near-capitalist system because they believe it will inherently lead to the exploitation of workers. This was the starting point for Marx: trying to eliminate worker exploitation. Of course, this begs the question: What is exploitation? If the communist actually knows his own philosophy, he will explain that workers are entitled to the products of their own labor, and when he sells his product to the capitalist class (the bourgeoisie), they in turn sell the product for a profit, and, having contributed nothing to the production of the product, is thereby exploiting his position "over" the poor proletarian. There are two problems with this:

1) Inherent in the idea of this relationship is that the value of the product is fixed, i.e. its worth must equate to the labor invested in its production, and the capitalist class is essentially leeching a "part" of that fixed "whole" value. As we know, value is _demonstrably subjective_. That is, whenever exchange takes place, it does so because one party values item X greater than item Y, and the other party values item Y over item X. This subjectivity of value means the worker may in fact sell his product for "less" than the capitalist class may sell it for, but these exchange values are determined _voluntarily_ at all times during this process of sale and resale. As the relationships are voluntary, they are non-exploitative.

2) The second problem with the Marxist analysis is that it argues for the common ownership of the "means of production", which in Marxist philosophy refers to factories, land and other large-scale tools for the creation of goods. Since whatever the worker is using to produce his good most likely falls into this category, the Marxist desires its deprivatization. Yet this is quite an inconsistent position to take. Virtually anything can be employed as a means by which to produce, including your own body, hands, mind (as Rand argued) but also other external small-scale tools. Let's say I produce a hammer out of wood and metal. By the Marxist analysis, this hammer is mine since I produced it, yet the _instant_ I turn that hammer into a means of production, it must now be communized. The very notion is laughably stupid and ridiculously inapplicable to any society.



Of course, the largest problem with any society which wishes to abolish the price mechanism will always be the Calculation Argument. This argument has never been sufficiently refuted, so you might as well throw it in there

----------


## fisharmor

> That was hardly full on communism. More like militaristic dictatorship under the guise of a communist government.


This reminds me of an episode of Black Adder Goes Forth... where the General declares that they are going to rush out of the trenches and charge the Germans, because the fact that they've done it and failed a dozen times means it's the last thing they're going to expect.

Communism is the second half of the South Park episode on Guitar Hero, where he stops concentrating on playing the guitar game and spends all his time on another game chasing a dragon he can't catch... and eventually can't play the guitar game anymore.

Over 25 million dead, and the only new thing they didn't lift from German POWs or the US was the AK-47.  That's the track record to beat... and it'll stand for the rest of time.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

communism is fine, as long as it isn't in America.

----------


## 1000-points-of-fright

> the only new thing they didn't lift from German POWs or the US was the AK-47.  That's the track record to beat... and it'll stand for the rest of time.


And even the AK47 was based on the German Sturmgewehr 44.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> I'm having an argument with a nitwit on another board.  I need something beyond the obvious "freedom and liberty is better" argument.  This person is practically a socialist...how can  I get through?


We tried communism in this country back in Jamestown in 1607.. and the result was almost everybody died of starvation and sickness...

John Smith came in and got rid of the communal system and Jamestown became a success...

Communism is guaranteed mediocrity... but sometimes you need a surplus to get you through lean times. That surplus only comes when people bust their ass, and they're not willing to do that, when they dont reap the rewards from busting their ass.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## purplechoe

central bank - one of the planks of the communist manifesto..

----------


## Ninja Homer

Just look at the 20th century and it's filled with examples of communism (and socialism) not working.

The reason they probably think communism would be better is because they probably think our failing system is capitalism... it's not, it's corporatism.

----------


## speciallyblend

they would grow crappy marijuana!!

----------


## slothman

There are many examples of socialism working.
Though communism hasn't worked well.

Also, most of the pyramids were built with non-slavery.
The workers wanted to help because the Pharoh was a god to them.

----------


## CUnknown

Communism is a totalitarian planned economy.  It never works.

Socialism can exist side-by-side with at least a form of capitalism.  It works just fine.  It just depends on what your goals are.

In Communism, you've got one brand of car, one brand of toothpaste, one brand of everything--it's made by the government.  In Socialism, industry might be regulated to all hell, but at least it's still semi-privately run.  People can own businesses under socialism.

If you want complete economic freedom, you won't be happy under socialism, but under Communism, you'd be in jail, lol.

Socialism probably hurts GDP and hinders industry and maybe even progress of technology, but it does at least attempt to take care of people, so I think it has some positive points.

Communism really is attempting to turn everyone into slaves of the state, so no, I don't think there are any positive aspects about it.  It has never worked throughout history.  The Soviet system collapsed, and China has adopted a much more capitalist system now than they ever had before.  Because they probably don't want to collapse, too.

----------


## MN Patriot

> Umm... Chile is the number one example, where the economy was modelled on the Monetarist economic philosophy. Nobody remember Pinochet? Berlusconi in italy seems to be coming pretty close to that today, too.
> 
> It is possible to seize military control of a country and implement market reforms. It just is not very compatible to liberty.


Agreed.

Pinochet is about the worst dictator that was even remotely capitalist. 1500 people "disappeared" during his rule. Then he retired, something few leftists dictators do. Considering the lack of respect for human rights that communists and central and south American countries have, Chile was lucky to have him. The communist dictator that would have been in his place probably would have killed many more, and Democrats would have supported him, like they support Chavez, Castro, etc.

----------


## szczebrzeszyn

From the viewpoint of an ordinary small-town kid:

Long queues to buy coffee - I remember when we stood for hours as kids. Of course, it wasn't real coffee...But the only "brand" people knew anyway. Coffee-like product (same was with chockolate, which was actually subnamed "a chockolate-like product").

No meat in meat shops (unless you knew the owner - they always had a little something below the desk - for friends or apparatchiks only)

Growing scarcity - many goods started to be rationed - people were given a special "coupons" - you were allowed to buy as much as you had on these coupons (of course you paid by cash). I don't remember all the rationed products, but definitely meat, sugar, rice, soap, cigarettes, alcohol..many others as time went by.

Everyone had a job - but there was not much to buy (low quality goods, scarcity)

Toilet paper stories are true - I remember big trucks coming to our neighbourhood loaded with toilet paper - you could exchange normal paper (stacks of newspapers etc) for toilet paper. It was quite an event, heh..

Of course, let's not forget about issues like citizen-spies (you never knew who was a paid agent - and frankly ANYBODY could be one), commie forces killing people etc.  But that's a whole different store.

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> I'm having an argument with a nitwit on another board.  I need something beyond the obvious "freedom and liberty is better" argument.  This person is practically a socialist...how can  I get through?


Arguing the theory of socialism against capitalism is a fools game.  If communism or socialism has produced great societies there should be something in a history book to give a good example.

----------


## purplechoe

> From the viewpoint of an ordinary small-town kid:
> 
> Long queues to buy coffee - I remember when we stood for hours as kids. Of course, it wasn't real coffee...But the only "brand" people knew anyway. Coffee-like product (same was with chockolate, which was actually subnamed "a chockolate-like product").
> 
> No meat in meat shops (unless you knew the owner - they always had a little something below the desk - for friends or apparatchiks only)
> 
> Growing scarcity - many goods started to be rationed - people were given a special "coupons" - you were allowed to buy as much as you had on these coupons (of course you paid by cash). I don't remember all the rationed products, but definitely meat, sugar, rice, soap, cigarettes, alcohol..many others as time went by.
> 
> Everyone had a job - but there was not much to buy (low quality goods, scarcity)
> ...


I can very much relate to the above because I lived through it. One thing you forgot was gasoline coupons... you only get so much gas per month, meat, etc... I don't remember cigarettes being rationed... if you had American $$$ Dollars there were stores called Pewex (not sure if I got the name right) in which you could buy all the western stuff like coffee, chocolate, alcohol, cigarettes, etc...

I remember the toilet paper, my mother would come home with a huge bag filled with it because the store received a delivery and you never knew when the next delivery would be and if you would be able to get any... (that would apply pretty much to any other commodity products) people would stand in lines with no idea what they were waiting for because stores were receiving deliveries and you just never knew what was coming, could be crap... could be something you can stock up on...   

as a kid I had to have a pictured license to ride a bicycle...

and lets not even talk about healthcare... it might give you nightmares...

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> Communism works fine if your goal is eliminating poverty. Where it doesn't work so well is in innovation, effort, growth, or really anything beyond just getting by with the bare minimum.


I might have missed it, but which communist government eliminated poverty?

----------


## FreeTraveler

If I gave you the best argument against communism, I'd be in trouble.

Just be thankful for the Second Amendment.

----------


## szczebrzeszyn

> I can very much relate to the above because I lived through it.


What city you lived in? (I assume you lived in Poland)

----------


## purplechoe

> What city you lived in? (I assume you lived in Poland)

----------


## slothman

> If communism or socialism has produced great societies there should be something in a history book to give a good example.


China seems "great" to me.
Or at least it is powerful, both economically and militarily.
I don't know your definition of 'great' so I can't respond.
It seems like you would use the "no true Scotsman" falacy to define 'great' so communistic gov'ts never work.

----------


## purplechoe

> China seems "great" to me.
> Or at least it is powerful, both economically and militarily.
> I don't know your definition of 'great' so I can't respond.
> It seems like you would use the "no true Scotsman" falacy to define 'great' so communistic gov'ts never work.


As someone who lived in such a system I would say that you don't know what the hell you're talking about and that you're very, very naive... socialism/ communism is a scam... those who beileved in it were called in Russia or other socialist countries "the useful idiots" by those in power...

----------


## RCA

Send him this link:

YouTube - New Hampshire Liberty Forum - Keynote Speaker: Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio (Part 1)

----------


## mczerone

In a non-communistic society, there is nothing stopping any group from buying a commune and making their own rules of communism amongst themselves.

In a communist society, the best and brightest, the innovative, and the productive are all forced to live for the median members of society - except for the 'planners' - who are the de facto ruling class, who maintain power through self-selection ("Good 'ol boys"), not meritocratic methods.  Beyond these negative factors, there is the calculation problem, that no alogorithm can be fed into a computer to return the "best" configuration of a society's resources - only trial and error (=capitalism and bankruptcy) can determine what arrangements can meet the needs of society in an effective and efficient way.

----------


## szczebrzeszyn

> 


Nice. Back then I lived not far away - near Olsztyn (seen on the map as well).

----------


## jsu718

> I might have missed it, but which communist government eliminated poverty?


Completely eliminated? None. China is pretty close though, although I would hesitate to call it a perfect ideological communist government either... nor do we really have accurate numbers to go on considering how secretive China is about how they do things. The 2005 numbers show about 2/3rds (0.64 times) as many people in poverty as the US but with 4.4 times the population. 2.5% vs 13%. It's also $1 a day to live in China vs $13-30 a day in the US to stay above the poverty line... with some variance due to family sizes, location, etc.

----------


## fisharmor

> Completely eliminated? None. China is pretty close though....


And in the end, we will _never_ know for sure where the "donors" for the Bodies exhibits came from.

Although I have a hunch.

----------


## purplechoe

///

----------


## purplechoe

> Completely eliminated? None. China is pretty close though, although I would hesitate to call it a perfect ideological communist government either... *nor do we really have accurate numbers to go on considering how secretive China is about how they do things*. The 2005 numbers show about 2/3rds (0.64 times) as many people in poverty as the US but with 4.4 times the population. 2.5% vs 13%. It's also $1 a day to live in China vs $13-30 a day in the US to stay above the poverty line... with some variance due to family sizes, location, etc.


you hit the nail on the head - communism is nothing but pure propaganda...

Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press - 1984




> Yuri Bezmenov, a Russian born, KGB trained subverter tells about the influence of the Soviet Union on Western media and describes the stages of communist takeovers. This interview was conducted by G. Edward Griffin in 1984.

----------


## noxagol

Communism simply flies in the face of what people want and against human nature. Instead of making a brand new system that requires forcibly reprogramming human nature, why not have a system that works hand in hand with human nature, a la free-markets. Also, their hatred isn't against free markets but what they believe to be free-markets which is really a lower degree of what they want. It is kind of funny when you really think about it.

----------


## timosman

bump

----------


## AuH20

People are inherently selfish. <end of thread>

----------


## timosman

> People are inherently selfish. <end of thread>


You are such a misanthrope. Reported.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*arguments against communism

*https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q...inst+communism

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> I'm having an argument with a nitwit on another board.  I need something beyond the obvious "freedom and liberty is better" argument.  This person is practically a socialist...how can  I get through?


We tried it here in America in 1607. Everyone practically died.


They switched to capitalism and everyone prospered..


And to throw a bone to your friend, any economic system will work if you have people that are willing to sacrifice and work hard towards its success.. communism worked for the Iroquois pretty well so it depends on whos doing it and why...

----------


## fisharmor

Does anyone else not check the dates on these things and go reading through the thread and then have that thought where you're like "Hey that's a good point, I wish I made it... wait, I DID"?

----------


## presence

> I'm having an argument with a nitwit on another board.  I need something beyond the obvious "freedom and liberty is better" argument.  This person is practically a socialist...how can  I get through?


*
the best argument against "communism" is to agree with it*

it exists and cannot be ignored 

I can die and leave all that I have to 100 stakeholders with equal claim

I can get together with 100 of my friends and come to acquire a huge tract of land, incredible tool, or the pettiest object in egalitarian fashion

_
what I should not be able to do..._ 


is get together with 100 of my friends and _strong arm, tax, or threaten_ a 101st unwilling man to join the scheme.   

and since this is wrong for 100 men to do to mr 101 then it is equally wrong for a million men to do to mr million-and-one.

----------


## willwash

Here's the easiest one:  Everywhere it's ever been tried, ever, has gone to $#@!.

If they come back with "well, the USSR wasn't "really" communism, so that argument is invalid," all you have to say is "the USA is not "really" capitalist either, in fact most of the ills you observe today are the result of the intrusion of government."

----------


## Ronin Truth

Which planks of the Communist Manifesto, have NOT been implemented by the US Federal government?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> We tried it here in America in 1607. Everyone practically died.
> 
> 
> They switched to capitalism and everyone prospered..
> 
> 
> And to throw a bone to your friend, any economic system will work if you have people that are willing to sacrifice and work hard towards its success.. communism worked for the Iroquois pretty well so it depends on whos doing it and why...


I agree with this^ but I've found that the commie counter-argument is something along the lines of "back then they were more egalitarian than scientific. Thus, they lacked the knowledge to make a centrally planned economy work". SMFH.

----------


## Contumacious

> I'm having an argument with a nitwit on another board.  I need something beyond the obvious "freedom and liberty is better" argument.  This person is practically a socialist...how can  I get through?


Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting mans rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of mans right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

----------


## DamianTV

> I'm having an argument with a nitwit on another board.  I need something beyond the obvious "freedom and liberty is better" argument.  This person is practically a socialist...how can  I get through?


May not be able to get thru to these type of people.

Key word is "may".  High degree of probability.  I think if you do plan on putting in the effort, you need to undestand how their minds work.  By challenging the concept of Communism, you are triggering a "Challenge to their World View" in their minds, which results in something very similar to the five stages of Grief: Denial, Anger, Depression, Bargaining, and Acceptance.  They are definitely in Denial.  There are some ways that you "might win", but it involves some very strong manipulations that I question as being ethical, because effectively, it is Brainwashing.  I dont like the idea of Brainwashing in order to win an argument.  But if you are okay with that, then thats up to you.  


* *




SPOILER: Basic Brainwashing

This is HOW you can do it.  Youve already challenged their World View, now since they are in Denial.  Now it is time to change your tactics.  Make them feel some strong emotional responses to your statements.  Intentionally provoke them and push them into Anger.  Once you can reach that level of manipulation, then you can start your next stage which effectively makes the person you are arguing with turn against themselves.  Make them feel a very strong sense of Guilt.  Something like "your support of Communism will cause the deaths of many people".  The statement itself does not matter.  Continue to make statmenets that get them to attack themselves.  If you can get them to express ANY level of acceptance or acknowledgement that their actions will cause any form of harm to any other human, then feed that with positive responses and encouragement.  Every person "can be broken" given enough time and effort.  

What will most likely happen is they will revert back to Denial again and again due to an overwhelming support from other people that "Validate their World View" which makes your job even harder, and they will just end up ignoring you, rendering your attacks ineffective.  For Brainwashing to truly be effective, those people need to feel "cut off" from all of their support systems and be left to stand their own ground.  That is usually the first step, but this is the internet, and its not really possible to actually cut these people off.  Hmm, um, rethinking (and just thinking out loud).  Maybe an actual "cut off from support" doesnt need to be real in terms of isolation, but only to make the person "feel" as if they are cut off.  New strategy.  "You are alone in your support of Totalitarian Communism" to manufacture a sense of isolation, then do everything in your power to get them to challenge their own ideas.  "Could you do something better than Communism that really benefits the people and not rulers?"  Presenting some information in a form of a question is another manipulation by which an attack isnt recognized as an attack.

The arguments for or against any subject are probably just fine on their own.  What is crucial in methods of Brainwashing is the way that those arguments for or against are presented.  IE, asking questions instead of saying you are wrong, cutting off from support groups, reinforcement of ideas you want them to support, etc.  

Edit: I neglected to mention another effective way of making a person feel isolation and cut off is to say "your version of Communism is not the same as someone elses version of Communism.  That misinterpretation is how the abusive systems get into power.  Real Communism is enslavement and exploitation, but is presented to the subjects as equality and fairness.  Make them feel as if their interpretation causes them to stand alone in their definition of the word.  The thing is, the same method can also be applied to Liberty also.  Communism and Freedom are in direct opposition to each other in their application.  Your real target is their mind, not Communism itself.




I think I damn near deserve some -Rep for posting methods of of Brainwashing.  I am not comfortable with the idea myself.  The reason that I went ahead and posted it isnt just about the argument itself, but so that anyone who reads what I put in HIDE tags to better recognize true and intentional brainwashing techniques when someone else tries to do them to you.  You will have a better chance of defending yourself and can decide without external manipulation what type of person you want to be.

Edit: Note - I just noticed this thread is old as $#@!.  Either way, these methods should still be highly effective.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> I agree with this^ but I've found that the commie counter-argument is something along the lines of "back then they were more egalitarian than scientific. Thus, they lacked the knowledge to make a centrally planned economy work". SMFH.


that doesnt hold up under real world examples... Communism works fine for some people... many indigenous tribes and aboriginals.. perhaps it has to do more so with feeling connected to a small tribe or village - like a family... but for whatever is shown to have been a disaster for the white man.

*With a centrally planned economy youre basically arguing that one mind is better than more... but everybody knows multiple minds are better than one... the multiple minds collectively make the marketplace which determines whats best for society IMO.*

----------


## otherone

> Give me your best arguments against communism

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 


Best. Argument. Evarrr.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## idiom

Arguments against communism:

Cambodia
China
Somalia
Russia
Cuba
Zimbabwe
...

Did you want them ordered by lives lost, or by the intensity of the horror?

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

Eek old thread oh well. 

Communism requires you to care deeply about all the other people in your society. 

The smallest government like entity we all experience that is supposed to function in a Communist manner (more or less) is the family unit. Essentially an ideal family should help each other according to their abilities, take what they need, and work for the betterment of the family unit! However, even in the family unit Communism fails at a remarkably high rate, either it ends in divorce, or one individual in the unit fails to contribute or one individual takes excessive resources, or a couple team up and take advantage of another member, or members. 

So, if communism fails at a high rate in the smallest situation, where the individuals profess to "love" each other and some of the members of the family unit are the direct biological offspring of others in the same household. I fail to see how communism could ever work once you push that concept out to involve people you have never met. Seems bizarre. Small communities are the largest extent I could imagine a functioning "true" communist government working and even that will require a large amount of surveillance.

Communism is effectively expecting everyone to care about you as if you are a close relative or friend, and therefore they will honestly contribute to the "collective" well-being, as opposed to the reality to where they don't give a $#@! about Igor 2000 miles away, and really just would prefer to go home and watch tv even if that means Igor might miss a meal because they didn't "Contribute" what they could have that day. 

So Communism will always require a high degree of oversight to make sure everyone is putting forth the effort required for the system to function, seeing they have nothing else really to drive them to contribute, as they won't get rich, they won't be banging hotties, and snorting coke off their ass if they are drowning in the benjamins, the girls won't be buying expensive clothes, or putting a nice pool in the backyard, the only motivation is the "glory of the state" and the "love" of your countrymen 99.99% of which you never met. You are still expected to work like you are inspired, you are supposed to care about your job even though it'll at best only improve your families situation slightly if at all, you will never have a lambo though.

So, there is no working for love as in supporting a family you love, and attempting to provide them a better life, and there is no working out of greed, as you'll never accumulate anything appreciably more than the next guy, sure some jobs will pay more than others I'd assume but not much. 80K versus 50K. Why bother, still can't get a lambo, good hookers cost 5K a night not to mention the coke and little Billy will be getting free University if he wants it, the government provides free healthcare, the state will take care of those mentally ill that don't work,  so why worry about it. You don't control any of that after all.

----------


## DamianTV

*Quick question for everyone.*

The US is no longer a Republic, and most certainly does not function as a Democracy.  Jimmy Carter even called the US an Oligarchy with unlimited political bribery.  We can probably express many traits of many different types of government, while actually being something else.  For example, since we vote on some things, we have some characteristics of Democracy due to voting.  We also express some characteristics of a Republic, but not one that supports the people in any way.  We have Social Security, so we show some characteristics of Socialism.  Fascism is basically described as the merger between Socialism and Corporatism.  Our health care is a key example of Corporations running the govt, we have to pay out the ass for medical care and insurance and still get the short end of the stick because corporate profits are more important than the health of the people.  We also express some forms of Communism.  For me, it is really hard to say conclusively exactly what form of government we have in practice.  I can say we are nearly totally corrupt, but that corruption could be applied to any form of label to any type of government also, so that doesnt help.

*What form of government do you think the US most closely resembles?*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Quick question for everyone.*
> 
> The US is no longer a Republic, and most certainly does not function as a Democracy.  Jimmy Carter even called the US an Oligarchy with unlimited political bribery.  We can probably express many traits of many different types of government, while actually being something else.  For example, since we vote on some things, we have some characteristics of Democracy due to voting.  We also express some characteristics of a Republic, but not one that supports the people in any way.  We have Social Security, so we show some characteristics of Socialism.  Fascism is basically described as the merger between Socialism and Corporatism.  Our health care is a key example of Corporations running the govt, we have to pay out the ass for medical care and insurance and still get the short end of the stick because corporate profits are more important than the health of the people.  We also express some forms of Communism.  For me, it is really hard to say conclusively exactly what form of government we have in practice.  I can say we are nearly totally corrupt, but that corruption could be applied to any form of label to any type of government also, so that doesnt help.
> 
> *What form of government do you think the US most closely resembles?*


fascist republic. Rather like the USSR, except the more "German"-ish flavor of State Socialism, as Mises would call it.

----------


## presence

> *What form of government do you think the US most closely resembles?*


fascist, bureaucratic, plutocratic, warring, marxist police-state kakistocracy?

----------


## navy-vet

> Which planks of the Communist Manifesto, have NOT been implemented by the US Federal government?


Well, you can travel from one State to another without a permit and a shakedown by the commandant. You don't have to apply for permission to change your tires and have them inspected to determine if they are indeed totally worthless. You don't stand in line half a day for moldy bread and rations. You don't have to take the job that they choose for you. You can use this forum. etc etc etc. It could definitely get a lot worse.

----------


## idiom

> *Quick question for everyone.*
> 
> The US is no longer a Republic, and most certainly does not function as a Democracy.  Jimmy Carter even called the US an Oligarchy with unlimited political bribery.  We can probably express many traits of many different types of government, while actually being something else.  For example, since we vote on some things, we have some characteristics of Democracy due to voting.  We also express some characteristics of a Republic, but not one that supports the people in any way.  We have Social Security, so we show some characteristics of Socialism.  Fascism is basically described as the merger between Socialism and Corporatism.  Our health care is a key example of Corporations running the govt, we have to pay out the ass for medical care and insurance and still get the short end of the stick because corporate profits are more important than the health of the people.  We also express some forms of Communism.  For me, it is really hard to say conclusively exactly what form of government we have in practice.  I can say we are nearly totally corrupt, but that corruption could be applied to any form of label to any type of government also, so that doesnt help.
> 
> *What form of government do you think the US most closely resembles?*


Its not even close to democratic.

If anything its completely Orwellian.

The fact y'all sing the national anthem at every event, the pledge of allegiance, the belief that America is the best and greatest country in the world, that it is the only country with 'freedom', that war is just something that is always happening and always will, the tight control over the media...

Except I don't think its a conspiracy, I just think its a cluster$#@! of bad beliefs and being too $#@!ing large.

----------


## idiom

> Well, you can travel from one State to another without a permit and a shakedown by the commandant. You don't have to apply for permission to change your tires and have them inspected to determine if they are indeed totally worthless. You don't stand in line half a day for moldy bread and rations. You don't have to take the job that they choose for you. You can use this forum. etc etc etc. It could definitely get a lot worse.


This, its more a disaster of people not giving a $#@! than anything else.

You can't buy a Tesla, an American made car, in seven states due to protectionism. Its illegal to import sugar. etc etc

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Its not even close to democratic.
> 
> If anything its completely Orwellian.
> 
> The fact y'all sing the national anthem at every event, the pledge of allegiance, the belief that America is the best and greatest country in the world, that it is the only country with 'freedom', that war is just something that is always happening and always will, the tight control over the media...
> 
> Except I don't think its a conspiracy, I just think its a cluster$#@! of bad beliefs and being too $#@!ing large.





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to idiom again.


  grrr... damn rep machine.

----------


## presence

> I don't think its a conspiracy, I just think its a cluster$#@!



lol

----------


## timosman

> fascist, bureaucratic, plutocratic, warring, marxist police-state kakistocracy?


http://amroali.com/2016/05/kakistocr...d-unqualified/

----------


## Suzanimal

> Does anyone else not check the dates on these things and go reading through the thread and then have that thought where you're like "Hey that's a good point, I wish I made it... wait, I DID"?


No

I normally wonder if anyone will notice if I edit, two years later.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Marx was a paid agent of the Rothschilds, and NOT a Marxist.

----------


## pcosmar

> *Quick question for everyone.*
> 
> The US is no longer a Republic, and most certainly does not function as a Democracy.  Jimmy Carter even called the US an Oligarchy with unlimited political bribery.  We can probably express many traits of many different types of government, while actually being something else.  For example, since we vote on some things, we have some characteristics of Democracy due to voting.  We also express some characteristics of a Republic, but not one that supports the people in any way.  We have Social Security, so we show some characteristics of Socialism.  Fascism is basically described as the merger between Socialism and Corporatism.  Our health care is a key example of Corporations running the govt, we have to pay out the ass for medical care and insurance and still get the short end of the stick because corporate profits are more important than the health of the people.  We also express some forms of Communism.  For me, it is really hard to say conclusively exactly what form of government we have in practice.  I can say we are nearly totally corrupt, but that corruption could be applied to any form of label to any type of government also, so that doesnt help.
> 
> *What form of government do you think the US most closely resembles?*


Oligarchy.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *Quick question for everyone.*
> 
> The US is no longer a Republic, and most certainly does not function as a Democracy. Jimmy Carter even called the US an Oligarchy with unlimited political bribery. We can probably express many traits of many different types of government, while actually being something else. For example, since we vote on some things, we have some characteristics of Democracy due to voting. We also express some characteristics of a Republic, but not one that supports the people in any way. We have Social Security, so we show some characteristics of Socialism. Fascism is basically described as the merger between Socialism and Corporatism. Our health care is a key example of Corporations running the govt, we have to pay out the ass for medical care and insurance and still get the short end of the stick because corporate profits are more important than the health of the people. We also express some forms of Communism. For me, it is really hard to say conclusively exactly what form of government we have in practice. I can say we are nearly totally corrupt, but that corruption could be applied to any form of label to any type of government also, so that doesnt help.
> 
> *What form of government do you think the US most closely resembles?*


Kleptocracy?

----------


## Todd

> Kleptocracy?


Oligarchy...

----------


## DamianTV

Kleptomaniacal Oligarchy?

----------


## BV2

> I'm having an argument with a nitwit on another board.  I need something beyond the obvious "freedom and liberty is better" argument.  This person is practically a socialist...how can  I get through?


Ask him how a communist country is administered, ie how are things held in common?  He will say the workers own the means of production.  Ask him, then, if they are free to use those means at their own democratic pleasure?  He should say yes.  Then smash him with history.  ie-So all those peasants that starved to death, they did so of their own volition?  And the slaves in the Gulag, they were volunteers?


He might retort: One failed example of a system doesn't condemn the system, or that such places were/are not actually communist.  This is okay, because my defense of capitalism and liberty involves this argument.  Allowing the other side to bring it up lends it additional credence.  

Alternatively you could just start rattling off Communist dictators and body counts.  Or, draw on the many parallels of communism and national socialism (one hierarchy based on class, the other on race, but otherwise what's the real difference).

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## BV2

> Thanks, but my question was from 2010...that message board no longer exists so I can't respond to this nut job anymore.


LOL, well sorry for that bump.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Kleptomaniacal Oligarchy?


+Rep!   

Plutocratic Kleptomaniacal Oligarchy.

----------


## timosman

90% towards subjecting a country to communism - a central bank

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Ask him what he is personally doing to help his fellow man that he's so concerned about.  Ask him why he is willing to take money from others instead of providing it himself.  If he is providing and he is still concerned, then it's obvious he is not doing enough.

And it you have his email, I will spam the liberal weakling.

----------


## AZJoe

> I hate debating today's self-described commies. They always try to weasel away by saying that every communist regime hasn't "really" been communist.

----------


## PierzStyx

The Ukrainian Famine




The Great Famine in China




The poverty rate in Venezuela is over 82% now. People are crawling through trash to find anything to eat. Soon they will go from edge of starvation to mass famine as in every Socialist country.









That is what Communism looks like.

----------


## Raginfridus

> 


Communism  has achieved all it was designed to achieve: an expression of murder  and theft that's palpable to the masses. Not so different from other  forms of State; for example, in fascism and in communism, risks are  democratized while rewards are centralized within a tyranny. In feudal  times at least, damage to a lord's lands and peasants from foreign  invasion meant he lost too, and even into the high middle ages kings  and lords were expected to, you know, _lead_ their armies or the conscripts would _not_ fight. There was skin in the game.

----------


## timosman

Jordan Peterson Exposes the Postmodernist Agenda - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...dan-B-Peterson

----------


## timosman



----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Give me your best arguments against communism



It's full of communists?

----------


## Anti Globalist

It doesn't work and a lot of people starve to death in the process.

----------


## timosman

Nobody who matters has skin in the game.

----------


## nobody's_hero

Zimbabwe.

----------


## idiom

Communism is hegelian, same as National Socialism.

Communism predicts that that capitalism will collapse because the Jews will end up with all the gold and everyone else will become proletariat.

The proletariat isn't actually a thing, Marx invented it out of whole cloth. Working class people are capitalists too, which is why historically they have been able to accumulate capital and become middle class.

The basis of capitalism is that you own yourself, to give it up you have to give up your bodily autonomy. Tell me how you feel about abortion again?

The law of capital motion M > C > M' is basically incorrect.

A student at university. are they CMC or MCM? What are they even doing if humans are not capital and all labour is indistinguishable?

----------


## H_H

> Communism is hegelian, same as National Socialism.





> Communism predicts that that capitalism will collapse because the Jews will end up with all the gold and everyone else will become proletariat.
> 
> 
> The proletariat isn't actually a thing, Marx invented it out of whole cloth. Working class people are capitalists too, which is why historically they have been able to accumulate capital and become middle class.
> 
> 
> The basis of capitalism is that you own yourself, to give it up you have to give up your bodily autonomy. Tell me how you feel about abortion again?
> 
> 
> ...



Idiom! Good to see you checking in. NZs in the news by the way as the primo bug-out spot de jour for all the Silicon Valley turtlenecks.

----------


## timosman

> NZ’s in the news by the way as the primo bug-out spot de jour for all the Silicon Valley turtlenecks.


This is not something you are supposed to discuss.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Kleptomaniacal Oligarchy?


But you repeat yourself. Like saying ATM machine.

----------


## DamianTV

> But you repeat yourself. Like saying ATM machine.


You mean Automated Teller Machine Machine?  

Yes it is a repeat, but the two different words have different associations.  Repeating hopefully allows the average idiot to make the connection that the two words are one in the same.  Another good way to repeat something is Bank Fraud.  Both are the same exact thing.  Modern Banking IS Fraud.

----------


## idiom

> [FONT="][FONT="][/FONT][/FONT]
> [FONT="]Idiom! Good to see you checking in. NZ’s in the news by the way as the primo bug-out spot de jour for all the Silicon Valley turtlenecks.[/FONT]


We just banned that. Find your own island.

----------


## Original_Intent

The stages:

Stage 1: Communism or other version of socialism is set up in a wealthy capitalist country.
Stage 2: Capital flees the country, but the good times roll for a time determined by the amount of pillaged wealth from the previous economic system.
Stage 3: The good times end, and anybody who could have increased productivity is long gone. Free markets in the form of black or grey markets spring up.
Stage 4: The government becomes tyrannical as they need enough jackboots to a) force people to work and b) protect the elites from the torches and pitchforks.
Stage 5: the citizenry is degraded to the level of serf, and live only to provide luxuries to the elites, and are usually given enough to barely survive. Or not.
Stage 6: Citizens get desperate and either overthrow the government or at least gain concessions and the elites are forced to move to some degree towards free markets.

----------


## H_H

> We just banned that. Find your own island.


 SRS?  Did not know.

----------


## timosman



----------


## idiom

Going to amend my earlier thoughts...

dunno if I am crazy but Marx isn't nearly talking about the same economics as everyone else. As near as I can tell he is happy with capitalism's ability to produce wealth. Right at the beginning of Kapital though he separates wealth from value, although not clearly. His main study seems to be about how the way you spend your 24 hours each day places you in the social hierarchy.

For example an automated factory produces wealth, but no value. It doesn't force negotiations between people about who does what. Value is a social currency, not gold or a price, although it can be arbitraged with gold.

I have not heard many communists talk about this. Marx basically says wealth profits come from innovation, but he dismisses those. He doesn't seem to care at all about a businesses bottom line.


Am I crazy? Am I taking crazy pills?

I mean Schumpeter got creative destruction from Marx, and its a key point.

Anybody here better read on Marx know where I am off?

----------


## AZJoe



----------


## timosman

https://www.dsausa.org/weekly/part-t...-then-and-now/




> But all this means is that those of us who declare ourselves socialists must reaffirm our radicalism, envision a truly revolutionary anti-capitalist future, and understand that today, as in Gilded Age America, the our cause is increasingly that of a *radical democracy struggling to be born.*

----------


## timosman



----------


## H_H

> 


So, Thing X leads to killing Commies?  Lots and lots of dead Commies?

Hmm..... why am I not supposed to support this?  Remind me.

----------


## timosman

> So, Thing X leads to killing Commies?  Lots and lots of dead Commies?
> 
> Hmm..... why am I not supposed to support this?  Remind me.


This happens after all non-commies are dead.

----------


## H_H

In seriousness, no it doesn't.

Not everyone in Russia died when Communism took over.  What did happen?

All of the previous elite were killed first.  _They_ all died.  Well, some escaped to New York.  But it was a bloodbath.  And then, yeah, things went on from there over the decades.

Perhaps we have misunderstood communism and thus missed its potential as a useful tool.  *Everywhere communism has tried, it has worked brilliantly.  It has resulted in the deposement and wholesale slaughter of the country's previous ruling elite.*  That is the purpose of communism. That is why God gave it to us, as a tool.  Communism is not an economic system, it is a tactic.  As an economic system, it would be retarded and obviously unworkable.  But as a tactic of "how can we get rid of all these horrible disgustoids ruling over us?" it seems to work almost miraculously well.  It's never failed.

Now the Russian czars and oligarchs were not that bad, it's quite a shame they were slaughtered, and those rulers who replaced them were a decided step down in quality.  But _our_ rulers today are an unrelentingly malicious, unmitigated horror of freaks with no virtue, no intelligence, no taste, and no excuse to be allowed to continue living.  Whatever rulers replaced them couldn't possibly be worse.  If whipping the people up into a communist revolution would be an effective way of exterminating our rulers, it certainly deserves some consideration.

(I don't actually believe the above.  It's just a fresh and interesting perspective to consider.)

----------


## Swordsmyth

> In seriousness, no it doesn't.
> 
> Not everyone in Russia died when Communism took over.  What did happen?
> 
> All of the previous elite were killed first.  _They_ all died.  Well, some escaped to New York.  But it was a bloodbath.  And then, yeah, things went on from there over the decades.
> 
> Perhaps we have misunderstood communism and thus missed its potential as a useful tool.  *Everywhere communism has tried, it has worked brilliantly.  It has resulted in the deposement and wholesale slaughter of the country's previous ruling elite.*  That is the purpose of communism. That is why God gave it to us, as a tool.  Communism is not an economic system, it is a tactic.  As an economic system, it would be retarded and obviously unworkable.  But as a tactic of "how can we get rid of all these horrible disgustoids ruling over us?" it seems to work almost miraculously well.  It's never failed.
> 
> Now the Russian czars and oligarchs were not that bad, it's quite a shame they were slaughtered, and those rulers who replaced them were a decided step down in quality.  But _our_ rulers today are an unrelentingly malicious, unmitigated horror of freaks with no virtue, no intelligence, no taste, and no excuse to be allowed to continue living.  Whatever rulers replaced them couldn't possibly be worse.  If whipping the people up into a communist revolution would be an effective way of exterminating our rulers, it certainly deserves some consideration.
> ...


It's ALWAYS a step down in quality.

----------


## sparebulb

This guy has an awesome channel.

And a really hot Belarussian girlfriend.

He mostly hangs out in Russia and the former soviet states, but he's in Cuba this week.

----------


## timosman

> It's ALWAYS a step down in quality.


The best part is you have to pretend it isn't. You get whacked if you don't.

----------


## timosman

> In seriousness, no it doesn't.
> 
> Not everyone in Russia died when Communism took over.  What did happen?
> 
> All of the previous elite were killed first.  _They_ all died.  Well, some escaped to New York.  But it was a bloodbath.  And then, yeah, things went on from there over the decades.
> 
> Perhaps we have misunderstood communism and thus missed its potential as a useful tool.  *Everywhere communism has tried, it has worked brilliantly.  It has resulted in the deposement and wholesale slaughter of the country's previous ruling elite.*  That is the purpose of communism. That is why God gave it to us, as a tool.  Communism is not an economic system, it is a tactic.  As an economic system, it would be retarded and obviously unworkable.  But as a tactic of "how can we get rid of all these horrible disgustoids ruling over us?" it seems to work almost miraculously well.  It's never failed.
> 
> Now the Russian czars and oligarchs were not that bad, it's quite a shame they were slaughtered, and those rulers who replaced them were a decided step down in quality.  But _our_ rulers today are an unrelentingly malicious, unmitigated horror of freaks with no virtue, no intelligence, no taste, and no excuse to be allowed to continue living.  Whatever rulers replaced them couldn't possibly be worse.  If whipping the people up into a communist revolution would be an effective way of exterminating our rulers, it certainly deserves some consideration.
> ...


I guess you are thinking about Robespierre and his guillotines. The commies have learned since then the frog needs to be boiled a little bit slower so no mishaps like the ones you are describing anymore.

----------


## H_H

> I guess you are thinking about Robespierre and his guillotines. The commies have learned since then the frog needs to be boiled a little bit slower so no mishaps like the ones you are describing anymore.


No, I was thinking of specifically what I wrote: Communist revolutions.  The French revolution was not Communist, though certainly it did seem to do the trick of killing off the existing elite, too.  Various countries have undergone successful Commie revs.  Coming to mind are:

Russia
China
Cambodia

In each instance, the tactic worked brilliantly: existing ruling class slaughtered.  You can just follow the trail of rotted ruler bodies.  Proof, meet pudding.  Pudding, proof.

Communism works.

----------

