Capitalism or Communism? Is communism really that horrible?

[Soggy in NOLA]

The 40,000,000+ who died under Stalin would probably say "yes".

 

[Uncensored2008]

So what were those communist principles and where in Marx would we find them?

Instead of asking stupid questions, go to the source.

Manifesto of the Communist Party

And yes, the dictatorship of the proletariat is directly called for.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The 40,000,000+ who died under Stalin would probably say "yes".

Hard to do; people in unmarked, mass graves have little to say..... (Explains a bit the plans of RDean and Shallow...)

 

[MikeK]

The 40,000,000+ who died under Stalin would probably say "yes".

In the interest of foregoing several long paragraphs of explanation, suffice it to say Stalinism was to communism what piss is to Pepsi Cola. You can call it Pepsi but it just isn't the same.

Stalin was a murderous despot. What he imposed on the people of the USSR was totalitarian dictatorship, not communism. The same may be said for Pol Pot.

 

[bripat9643]

The 40,000,000+ who died under Stalin would probably say "yes".

In the interest of foregoing several long paragraphs of explanation, suffice it to say Stalinism was to communism what piss is to Pepsi Cola. You can call it Pepsi but it just isn't the same.

Stalin was a murderous despot. What he imposed on the people of the USSR was totalitarian dictatorship, not communism. The same may be said for Pol Pot.

Communism is totalitarian dictatorship. Freedom is capitalism. When you abolish capitalism, you abolish freedom.

 

[Old Rocks]

Going into this i would like to say that i am more on the capitalist end of the spectrum. Though going into this i am generally capitalist knowing the pros and cons of them both may change your own mind. Even though communism was originally a social thing it has also found itself as a government with one man in control. So lets try and picture it with a U.S or near that style democracy.
In essence capitalism is smaller government and communism is huge government. Now before your western instincts tell you to instantly choose capitalism think of the benefits of huge government control in your life.
In communism ideal/original communism everyone is equal. Though it almost never happens that a nation goes completely on the guidelines of a known social policy. Everyone is equal and therefore have the same things to live on and lean on their whole lives. Everyone once again must be equal in society and as a result you lose the right to earn. So in exchange for a lifetime safety net given by the government you give up the ability to earn your way up the ladder. This is because only one social class exist and that is common working class. So you have nothing to look foward to besides that life forever.
It is up to you to decide whether that is a bad or a good thing for you. As a result of this innovation potential is silenced. So is a lifelong safety net really worth losing earning rights and silencing so much potential for innovation?
Now knowing the main gains and losses of communism lets talk about capitalism.
Essentially capitalism is the exact opposite of communism in its original and purest form. In ideal/original capitalism they're is pretty much no government interference in your life. Of course they still have laws as any other nation but if you follow them you are left alone for all of your life. Capitalism is that sweet freedom you taste, love and learn about. In ideal capitalism you can go out and earn it all. You can dream big and dream about the journey there. You can be a bigshot nobody will ever forget. But with that ability to dream big and earn it all you lose that security you had with communism. And if someone earns too much capital they can decide to make everyone else work for dirt cheap money if they choose. They can dominate or without a law from it a monopoly can occur. And if you fail you have nothing to fall back on unless a generous citizen with decent capital decides to help you up.
So is the freedom of capitalism worth the possibility of ending up with nothing?
In conclusion i would like to share my opinion. I belive the risk involved with capitalism is worth the big dreams and potential unlocked that comes with it. People have bigger things to live for and more fuel to live on. Because "the dream" actually exist. In addition to the fact that the world/nation could innovate so much faster.
I would like for you to build an opinion of your own and for you to give me your feedback and for you to discuss amongst youselves.

Ask the victims of Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, Pol Pot, Castro etc that question...

Yes, communism is really that horrible...

As is unfettered capitalism or state corperatism.

 

[Old Rocks]

But the choice is not between Communism and Captitalism. The choice is about a sane mixture of capitalism and socialism. And before you wingnuts start in on there is no good socialism, are you ready to sell all of our National Parks to the highest bidder?

 

[bripat9643]

Ask the victims of Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, Pol Pot, Castro etc that question...

Yes, communism is really that horrible...

As is unfettered capitalism or state corperatism.

How many people has "unfettered capitalism" killed?

 

[bripat9643]

But the choice is not between Communism and Captitalism. The choice is about a sane mixture of capitalism and socialism. And before you wingnuts start in on there is no good socialism, are you ready to sell all of our National Parks to the highest bidder?

Bullshit. The choice is between capitalism and socialism. all economies are a mixture of the two. Morons of your ilk are always trying to push the mixture in the direction of more socialism. More sensible people want to push it in the other direction. The closer it gets to pure capitalism, the faster the standard of living improves.

it's that simple.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ask the victims of Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, Pol Pot, Castro etc that question...

Yes, communism is really that horrible...

As is unfettered capitalism or state corperatism.

How many people has "unfettered capitalism" killed?

That's the problem. People like Old Rocks see people as an infection to the environment. They support Communism precisely BECAUSE the Communists kill hundreds of millions.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

That the original poster even asked the question provides enough evidence of his/her complete ignorance of history.

 

[bripat9643]

As is unfettered capitalism or state corperatism.

How many people has "unfettered capitalism" killed?

That's the problem. People like Old Rocks see people as an infection to the environment. They support Communism precisely BECAUSE the Communists kill hundreds of millions.

Just watch: Old Rocks will claim that all the people killed during WW II, Korea, Vietnam and the two Iraq wars were killed by capitalism.

 

[Unkotare]

The 40,000,000+ who died under Stalin would probably say "yes".

In the interest of foregoing several long paragraphs of explanation, suffice it to say Stalinism was to communism what piss is to Pepsi Cola. You can call it Pepsi but it just isn't the same.

Stalin was a murderous despot. What he imposed on the people of the USSR was totalitarian dictatorship, not communism. The same may be said for Pol Pot.

You consider communism to be like a sweet softdrink? Wouldn't surprise me, coming from you.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The 40,000,000+ who died under Stalin would probably say "yes".

In the interest of foregoing several long paragraphs of explanation, suffice it to say Stalinism was to communism what piss is to Pepsi Cola. You can call it Pepsi but it just isn't the same.

Stalin was a murderous despot. What he imposed on the people of the USSR was totalitarian dictatorship, not communism. The same may be said for Pol Pot.

You consider communism to be like a sweet softdrink? Wouldn't surprise me, coming from you.

Hes trying to make an argument for communism by saying that pol pot, stalin were the exceptions. However, they were the rule and there werent any exceptions. Communism is totalitarian where the state takes, by force, from the citizens and kills its citizens to further its progression.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The 40,000,000+ who died under Stalin would probably say "yes".

In the interest of foregoing several long paragraphs of explanation, suffice it to say Stalinism was to communism what piss is to Pepsi Cola. You can call it Pepsi but it just isn't the same.

Stalin was a murderous despot. What he imposed on the people of the USSR was totalitarian dictatorship, not communism. The same may be said for Pol Pot.

Communism is totalitarian dictatorship. Freedom is capitalism. When you abolish capitalism, you abolish freedom.

Most of the USMB Libs just said to themselves, "yeah, what's wrong with that?"

 

[Contumacious]

Capitalism or Communism? Is communism really that horrible?

Yo Am, are you posting from Havana, Cuba?

NO?

Then shut the fuck up.

.

 

[Clementine]

Initially, I'm sure some think it's great because they have what they need and don't have to do anything for it. Then, those who are busy keeping the whole system running smoothly by working get tired of carrying the load. Then the money starts running out because government is not, nor will ever be, a creator of wealth. In the end, all suffer equally. Well, except for the dictators, who live like royalty.

Our constitution guarantees equal opportunity. Equal outcome is an impossible goal and the government should never try.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I ask because the classless society was never achieved in any communist experiment to date.

I take it that you've never read Marx. I notice this is common for leftists, to advocate for that which they are utterly ignorant of.

A "classless society" to Communists is like heaven to Christians. Some may believe that it will ultimately be there, but that is not the goal for the here and now. The real face of Christianity is sermons, churches and the clergy. The real face of Communism is a totalitarian system that provides to each according to their need and from each according to their ability.

Communism is the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which has been done twice. Once by VI Lenin in St. Petersburg in 1922-23, and again by Pol Pot in Cambodia.

So without a valid attempt at communism from which to gauge success or failure, people that are in vocal opposition actual oppose some other form of government but not communism.

The talking point you spew is nonsense, we DO have valid attempt by Lenin and Pol Pot. Both were utter disasters that resulted in millions dead - such is the nature of leftism.

Leftism, of which Communism is the most extreme form, is authoritarian by nature, it must be. You seek to suppress the evolutionary drive of people to survive and ensure the survival of their gene pool, i.e. family in favor of a faceless state. Defying millions of years of evolution requires force, which the left uses with deadly results.

I take it you've never read Marx. The words "dictatorship of the proletariat" never appear in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. The dream is for a classless society, which has never been the case and has never been tried. In fact, the whole point of communism is to end oppression by getting rid of classes altogether.

Now you try to argue that the communist experiments by both Lenin and Pol Pot somehow achieved communistic ideals when, clearly, they didn't. They simply formed their respective power bases with the mis-use of the term.

Typical leftist. "Pay attention to our lofty - and incredibly naive - good intentions. Ignore our horrific, heinous results."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Communism had never existed in practice, only in theory.

What we have in the U.S. is a modified capitalism.

Question isn't what we have NOW, which by the way is more and more "modified" and less and less "capitalism"; the question is what are we GOING to have? Where do all of these modifications crowding out capitalism lead?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I take it you've never read Marx. The words "dictatorship of the proletariat" never appear in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. The dream is for a classless society, which has never been the case and has never been tried. In fact, the whole point of communism is to end oppression by getting rid of classes altogether.

Now you try to argue that the communist experiments by both Lenin and Pol Pot somehow achieved communistic ideals when, clearly, they didn't. They simply formed their respective power bases with the mis-use of the term.

You're a moron. Stalin and Pol Pot tried quite hard to achieve the classless society. The harder they tried, the more people died.

Nic seems to think that attempt = success, and therefore lack of success = didn't really try.

He doesn't seem to get that you can make as many sincere, genuine, valid attempts as you like, and it won't mean shit if your goal is completely impossible.