Incentives under communism?

[Sarin]

No, that was you talking about Lenin actually. Here, if that helps.

But sure. "bad faith", whatever helps you.

I have mentioned the bodycount as a reason.

You were the one to start comparison.

9 million people per year die of malnutrition so contempotary global capitalism takes around 7 years to exceed the numbers people in this thread are making up and blaming on Mao

Funny thing there. Communist ruled countries had, and still have, higher rates of malnutrition deaths than capitalist ones. But we weren't comparing those. Communism kills its own at much higher rate than capitalism.

 

[Farm Boy]

The usual one. In practice, the only differences between your typical fascism and Lenin's one party state is the ideological bait it uses to control the population, and extent of state's direct control of the industry, which is very variable issue in fascism anyway.

He was telling the truth that he wanted to establish a fascist state, even though he did not call it that. He lied in saying it's merely an intermediate stage in establishing communism. There's no realistic way to transition, as the inherent top-down control, unchecked corruption, fostering cult of personality, law and media control create a more stable fascist dictatorship.

I love the state crushing free thought and communication being called "counterrevolutionary."...but applied to those it's crushing.

 

[Senethro]

Do capitalist ruled nations make their own clothes and grow their own coffee? Where are these things imported from? Are those places also "capitalist ruled"?

Where should the boundaries be drawn.

 

[Gorbles]

I have mentioned the bodycount as a reason.

Mentioning it as a reason it mentioning it as a comparison, silly. That's what comparisons are. Justifications, through and through.

Would you have mentioned it as a reason if you didn't think you were going to "win"? Of course not. That's why you raised it.

But like I said, you're defending capitalism. I understand. The problem is, you don't want to accept this understanding because in order for your moral game to work, capitalism must be defended. Meanwhile, I don't have an egg in either race. You won't see me defending Soviet Russia or Mao's China in the slightest. Nor the UK, nor the US, nor whatever imperialist often-capitalist power is imposing itself on the global map.

The difference being? I am consistent in doing so, unlike your selective reasoning. But again, I get why. Capitalism must be better, because your entire argument revolves around defined numbers rather than any real critical analysis. Like I said, maybe you're just bad at it. The evidence continues to stack up!

I'm not often this high-horse-y about it, but in less than a page we've had people trying to make Nazi Germany sound like a comparatively good option, and you going off about Lenin but trying to find ways to make what the British did halfway palatable. Nah.

 

[Crezth]

Funny thing there. Communist ruled countries had, and still have, higher rates of malnutrition deaths than capitalist ones. But we weren't comparing those. Communism kills its own at much higher rate than capitalism.

Dude we are not even a page out from talking about the famines in British India what the hell are you doing

 

[Lexicus]

Cuba’s success in child health: what can one learn? - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Here's an interesting one, regarding communist countries having higher rates of malnutrition.

Severe malnutrition in children was declared absent in Cuba by UNICEF over a decade ago and malnutrition is not considered a major problem in Cuba.12 This is despite the problems caused by the economic blockade of Cuba by the USA. Inequalities between regions in Cuba are less than compared with other countries.

More broadly:

The Cuban government recognises health as a priority. This is of major importance and is recognised as such by groups, such as UNICEF.14 It is unfortunate that many other governments do not show the same priority to health, and to child health in particular. Investment in people through health, education and social services has unfortunately resulted in less money being available for other services, such as roads, transport and housing. Cuba has shown that despite limited resources a country can achieve excellent child health if the government and citizens are committed to making health and children a priority. Cuba is an example of what is possible.

I do recognize that's only one data point of course. But as an example of what can be done even under the dead hand of political authoritarianism this is quite striking.

 

[Lexicus]

Anyone here obesity say they would pick Pol Pots regime to live under vs Hitlers? How about North Korea or Nazi Germany? Anyone honestly say they would make that choice?

How bad do you have to be to make living under the Nazis an improvement? If you're Jewish pass on the Nazis anyone else might have to think it over.

Just quoting this one for posterity. "Centrists" stop themselves from defending Nazis for five seconds challenge failed

 

[Zardnaar]

Just quoting this one for posterity. "Centrists" stop themselves from defending Nazis for five seconds challenge failed

Direct question then. Gorbles was good enough to answer the same.

Would you live under Pol Pots regime or Hitlers pick 1?

This is not a ringing endorsement of Nazism more a point of how bad do you have to be to make Hitler look like the sane option.

 

[Farm Boy]

Just quoting this one for posterity. "Centrists" stop themselves from defending Nazis for five seconds challenge failed

Calling that a defense of nazis was a flat lie and you know it was.

 

[Lexicus]

Direct question then. Gobbles eas good enough to answer the same.

Would you live under Pol Pots regime or Hitlers pick 1?

This is not a ringing endorsement of Nazism more a point of how bad do you have to be to make Hitler look like the sane option.

Hitler looks like the "sane option" to you because you're a fascist sympathizer. For me the question is not some kind of gotcha with an obvious answer, but simply a question of which reason I'd prefer to be murdered for.

In any case, what is this question supposed to prove, exactly?

 

[Ajidica]

Pol pot, because I'd rather be killed for wearing glasses than for trade unioj activity

Hmmmmmm.

 

[Lexicus]

Calling that a defense of nazis was a flat lie and you know it was.

You can think that if you want I guess?

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, the other option is you don't realize that putting communists on the same level as Hitler is a suggestion that behavior has been learned of what they do when they come to town. And the level of kinetics they ought be met with. "Punch a "Nazi,"" was it?

I suppose there is that.

But the soft, gentle womb of 21st century America suffers fools, in this way, at this moment.

 

[Lexicus]

The other option is that I hate the Nazis a lot more than you and Zardnaar do, which, is my point. Another point I make is that to equate the crimes of Stalin and Hitler requires either making up a lot of crimes to blame on Stalin or denying the reality of the Holocaust, one or the other. Or both I guess.

 

[Crezth]

In any case, what is this question supposed to prove, exactly?

They're proving that Germany had more money than Cambodia and was therefore a more comfortable place to be. Ergo better. Lots of capitalist evil gets excused that way, really. And it's a no brainer. You'd rather live in Germany than Pol Pot's Cambodia for a million reasons, and one of those reasons was that the only country in the world that bothered to do anything about the Cambodian genocide anyway was Communist Vietnam which invaded Cambodia explicitly to stop the Khmer Rouge. An invasion, by the way, that was denounced by both China and the U.S., with China punitively invading Vietnam and the U.S. slapping sanctions on them and blocking IMF loans. Meanwhile, Pol Pot had been America's man in Cambodia, a fact that they worked diligently to cover up ever since the unveiling of the death camps by Vietnamese forces in 1979.

Everyone so freaking willing and happy to talk about Pol Pot and Cambodia, but nobody talking about the actual history. It might muddy the waters a little bit if we had to know that it was a socialist country that ended a genocide that nobody else - socialist or capitalist - even wanted to admit was really happening.

 

[Gorbles]

Calling that a defense of nazis was a flat lie and you know it was.

Like I already said to Zardnaar, dead is dead. Comparisons like that are defenses, because they justify one over the other. Not one compared to sainthood. One to each other.

But that's the whole point, yeah? The lesser evil, that death of a thousand cuts. Nothing can ever get better because we're as good as can be, and conveniently our major ideological enemy is The Worst Enemy In History Of All Time, so we don't even need our thinking caps for it.

What an imagination.

 

[Lexicus]

And the level of kinetics they ought be met with. "Punch a "Nazi,"" was it?

I also want to highlight this because, practically speaking, what does it mean? We should have gone to war with Stalin at the same time as we went to war with Hitler? That'd be meeting them with the same "level of kinetics", surely?

 

[Remorseless1]

Let's be real: capitalism sucks, but works better than systems tried in the past. Democracy sucks as well, and again is better than systems tried in the past. There quite a few "communist" countries right now, but they're basically proto-capitalists, China being the biggest example.

The issue with existing communist states is civil rights, actually the absence of civil rights. Yes, the US is far from perfect, but if I type "eff Biden, double eff the Constitution!" I'm not worried about the FBI breaking down my door and dragging me to prison.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Rest of the world doesn't hold a candle to that

Oh, buddy, yes it does.

 

[Sarin]

Mentioning it as a reason it mentioning it as a comparison, silly. That's what comparisons are. Justifications, through and through.

Would you have mentioned it as a reason if you didn't think you were going to "win"? Of course not. That's why you raised it.

But like I said, you're defending capitalism. I understand. The problem is, you don't want to accept this understanding because in order for your moral game to work, capitalism must be defended. Meanwhile, I don't have an egg in either race. You won't see me defending Soviet Russia or Mao's China in the slightest. Nor the UK, nor the US, nor whatever imperialist often-capitalist power is imposing itself on the global map.

The difference being? I am consistent in doing so, unlike your selective reasoning. But again, I get why. Capitalism must be better, because your entire argument revolves around defined numbers rather than any real critical analysis. Like I said, maybe you're just bad at it. The evidence continues to stack up!

I'm not often this high-horse-y about it, but in less than a page we've had people trying to make Nazi Germany sound like a comparatively good option, and you going off about Lenin but trying to find ways to make what the British did halfway palatable. Nah. None of it is.

No, you really do not understand. You don't appear to want to.

You're here defending the system that spawned Lenin's Soviet Union, Mao's China and others. Completely missing the point that the system inherently degenerates into such results. And you're not consistent. You just keep crying that you have and everyone disagreeing you is not. Yet you fail to address the glaring gaps and issues, crying about "lack of imagination".

You know what? I'm done with you. You're not even arguing against me, but against your imagination. I have never endorsed or defended what British Empire did. And you totally ignore that imperialism and colonialism, which were the causes of British rule with all it brought, are neither intrinsic nor exclusive to capitalism. Even self-proclaimed socialistic, anti-imperialistic countries have engaged in them, they have existed far longer than any coherent notion of capitalism, and there are successful capitalistic countries that have not engaged in them.
However, the corruption, oppression and mismanagement that killed so many people ARE intrinsic aspects of any attempted socialism or communism based on Marx. Because basic tenet of Marxism is to mark people who do not comply with the ideology as mortal enemies and empower the followers to do whatever is necessary to remove them. That is how fascism starts, with an ideological dangle and marked enemies.

But that's the whole point, yeah? The lesser evil, that death of a thousand cuts. Nothing can ever get better because we're as good as can be, and conveniently our major ideological enemy is The Worst Enemy In History Of All Time, so we don't even need our thinking caps for it.

What an imagination.

Again. Nobody in this thread wrote that what is now is the best. We just disagree that what you imagine is better, or even achievable or coherent. But you just can't imagine that people disagree with you for that reason. What an imagination.