Dissecting John Stossel's Anti-Communist Lies

[Red Front]

Development was impeded, however, by the rigid economic system,

No kidding. Miss your quota, your entire family is killed.

and the economy severely affected by a loss of trading partners after the collapse of East European Communism.

When your crappy commie products are only bought by other commie shitholes.....LOL!

By 2002, South Korea had a GDP or $505 billion while North Korea’s was only $15 billion.

Geez, the capitalist economy is over 30 times larger than the commie economy.
You're really convincing me of the superiority of communism. Marx really nailed it.

We love technology, even if it replaces human labor and drudgery.

Commie drudgery, it's not a bug, it's a feature!

I loved your nuclear technology at Chernobyl. Containment structures are so bourgeoisie.

I'm not trying to convince you. I know you're not engaging in this dialogue with any goodwill or with a genuine interest in the subject. There is no argument that I could ever present, no matter how reasonable, that you will accept due to your rancourous, defensive attitude.

Elaborate upon your capitalist based solution for the elimination of human wage-labor with advanced automation technology. Go ahead, isn't capitalism superior to communism in every way? Provide your solution. Educate us.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm not trying to convince you. I know you're not engaging in this dialogue with any goodwill or with a genuine interest in the subject. There is no argument that I could ever present, no matter how reasonable, that you will accept due to your rancourous, defensive attitude.

Elaborate upon your capitalist based solution on the elimination of human wage-labor with advanced automation technology. Go ahead, isn't capitalism superior to communism in every way? Provide your solution. Educate us.

I'm not trying to convince you.

Thank goodness, because your evidence is for shit.

Go ahead, isn't capitalism superior to communism in every way?

In every way, based on all the commie shithole failures over the last 100+ years.

 

[Red Front]

I'm not trying to convince you.

Thank goodness, because your evidence is for shit.

Go ahead, isn't capitalism superior to communism in every way?

In every way, based on all the commie shithole failures over the last 100+ years.

Your claim about communism is false. Now since capitalism is so superior and you're so smart and capable, educate us on how capitalism will remain functional, when it significantly and eventually completely replaces human wage labor with advanced 21st-century automation technology. Go ahead, enlighten us.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your claim about communism is false. Now since capitalism is so superior and you're so smart and capable, educate us on how capitalism will remain functional, when it significantly and eventually completely replaces human wage labor with advanced 21st-century automation technology. Go ahead, enlighten us.

Your claim about communism is false.

Which one? That it failed everywhere? That it killed a hundred million in the last century?
That East Germany's and North Korea's economies sucked compared to West Germany's and South Korea's?

 

[Red Front]

Your claim about communism is false.

Which one? That it failed everywhere? That it killed a hundred million in the last century?
That East Germany's and North Korea's economies sucked compared to West Germany's and South Korea's?

All of your claims are misleading as well as the premise behind them. For the sake of others, I will explain why for the 586th time. You fail in assuming that if an economic system or mode of production is the successor of another earlier system, it must replace its predecessor immediately or within a certain arbitrary period of time (set by you of course). That's your first mistake. Asserting that since attempts to establish communism in the past at a national scale have ultimately failed, such attempts WILL ALWAYS FAIL. That might be your wish, fantasy, or dream, but it's an illogical fallacy.

Your other error is in assuming that the reason that the USSR and other communist countries have failed economically, is only due to an endemic trait or flaw in communism. Well, that's not necessarily the case. You conveniently ignore and refuse to acknowledge the fact that those who are in power (i.e. namely the capitalists) as a result of an older economic and social order aren't going to allow a new system to be established if it poses a threat to their authority and control over resources. This socioeconomic class of elites we call "capitalists", will fight tooth and nail to stop the paying-consumer and general populace from having collective ownership over the means of production (i.e. the machinery, facilities/factories, raw materials, mining equipment, vehicles. etc), at a national, societal scale.

This capitalist "tooth and nail" struggle consists of communist countries being bombed, invaded, sanctioned, sabotaged, demonized. etc. You conveniently and disengeniously fail to factor that in to the equation pretending that the only reason that communists have failed in the past to establish a sustainable communist economy at a national scale is due to some inherent flaw in communism. Well no, not necessarily.

You pretend that the USSR failed, only because communism doesn't work. That's like throwing someone in the boxing ring with one hand tied behind his back and an eye patch covering one of his eyes, then you saying "see he can't fight". He sucks at boxing, see how he lost? Well maybe he doesn't really suck at boxing, perhaps you suck for tying one of his hands behind his back and blinding him in one eye. If you're in a position of immense power as the United States was and still is, then there's a lot you can do to undermine a smaller, developing nation's effort to successfully socialize and democratize its economy (i.e. adopt a socialist economy) and society.

The USSR and practically every country that identifies itself as having a Marxist socialist or communist economy will be targeted by the US capitalist empire and its crony allies around the world. That's the nature of the beast. For those of you who are reading this "friendly exchange of ideas" and would like to learn more about what really occurred in the USSR, watch the videos I'm going to embed below and read the informative PDF books I will attach to this post.

Another mistake that you're making is in assuming that capitalism and its original mercantile class, replaced chattel slavery and feudalism overnight. It didn't, it actually took centuries for the merchant classes to become the wealthy and powerful industrialists of the 1800s. They replaced the former royal aristocracy and nobles, with their capitalist-run, constitutional republicanism and plutocracy. Capitalist, entrepreneurial mercantilism began in the 1500s, with fleets of ships sailing to the new world and Asia, manned with employees (sailors, mercenaries). That's what led to the English civil war with Oliver Cromwell, establishing the British parliament. In other words, capitalism and its close relative, Republicanism, took centuries to replace slavery and feudalism, the kings and queens.

The process of replacing the older monarchal systems with all of its aristocratic lords and nobles, with a new and better constitutional-based Republican, capitalist-run plutocracy, granting people more freedoms and rights, took centuries.

So why do you expect or demand communism defeat and replace capitalism in one decisive victory and swoop of the sword, to prove its validity? Really? No mistakes, no defeats, no falling down and getting back up, no process of learning from one's mistakes in order to improve future outcomes, no no no. If communism is going to be the successor of capitalism it has to do it PERFECTLY ASAP, RIGHT NOW! Every rational mind asks:

"WHY?" ​

Marx wrote that material conditions determine if socialism and later communism can be effectively established. The merchants didn't become powerful industrialists until technology allowed them to industrialize. Communism likewise will not successfully establish itself in a world of capitalist powers, that will move the earth and heaven to stop it until technology (material conditions) permits it to exist and flourish. Until it becomes obvious, self-evident, and necessary due to material conditions, communism at a national scale, will not exist.

Now I ask you again. What is your capitalist solution to the widely recognized and forecasted soon-to-be crisis, of employers replacing their employees with advanced 21st-century automation technology? How will capitalists capitalize on their products, when a significant % or even all of their products and services are being produced, stored, and delivered by robots, artificial intelligence, automated systems, self-driving autonomous vehicles, and super-computers? etc

Do you have at least a general idea of how capitalism can solve that "problem"? Because this so-called "problem" of technology making production incredibly efficient and automated, is for us communists, the birth of communism. It's the death of capitalism and the birth of a new era of communism. You know that, that's why you refuse to answer the question. You're dumbfounded, bewildered.

For the genuine truth seekers:

​

Some PDF books you can read:

Livro-28-DOUGLAS-TOTTLE-â-FOME-FRAUDE-E-FASCISMO (1).pdf

drive.google.com

Stalin Waiting for ... the Truth (Grover Furr) (z-lib.org).pdf

drive.google.com

Khrushchev Lied (Grover Furr) (z-lib.org).pdf

drive.google.com

 

[surada]

Libya was socialist and had the highest standard of living in Africa. Syria and Iraq, both Baath Party-run Socialist countries, used to be, before being plunged into civil war by Western, hegemonic powers, two of the most developed nations in the middle east. You can do the research yourself. Wherever socialism is allowed to function without being sabotaged by capitalist powers like the United States and its vassals/allies, it flourishes. Does well. In Latin America, we see the same thing. Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Chile, whenever socialism is allowed to function without being embargoed and overrun by American-funded rebels or invaded, or bombed by the US, that country does well.

I lived in Libya. Gaddafi took credit for the work of King Idris and threw out their constitution. It was socialist in name only.

 

[Red Front]

I lived in Libya. Gaddafi took credit for the work of King Idris and threw out their constitution. It was socialist in name only.

It was socialist in practice as well, who are you trying to fool? I lived in both Libya and Egypt for several years as an American ex-pat. I'm well familiar with the Arab world and Israel as well. Qadafi was no angel, but he did provide Libyans with social programs and resources. More so than Mubarak in Egypt. When I lived in Egypt my friends would always tell me "you need to visit Libya, it's beautiful, and you're going to love it". I went to visit and I stayed for almost a year before returning to Egypt.

 

[surada]

It was socialist in practice as well, who are you trying to fool? I lived in both Libya and Egypt for several years as an American ex-pat. I'm well familiar with the Arab world and Israel as well. Qadafi was no angel, but he did provide Libyans with social programs and resources. More so than Mubarak in Egypt. When I lived in Egypt my friends would always tell me "you need to visit Libya, it's beautiful, and you're going to love it". I went to visit and I stayed for almost a year before returning to Egypt.

Libya had a tiny population. All the oil money went to the Gaddafi family.

After he hired Abdullah Tariki who hated Americans he nationalized the oil business prematurely and nearly destroyed the business.

Remember the Green Book? Wasn't socialism.. it was the Third Way.

 

[westwall]

The Middle East, North Africa and Europe. None of them are shit holes or socialist.

Not any longer. At least the European ones. The others are still hovering.

Of course there was a revolution necessary to get rid of the European ones too.

Never forget that.

 

[westwall]

Nimrod do you know who initially pushed for NAFTA and the WTO? I know you don‘t because it was your beloved Republicans. The CIA cuck sucker Poppy Bush started it. He was a fucking globalist. Was he a socialist too?

You partisan idiots of the duopoly are the ones destroying the nation, but are too dumb to know it.

Yeah, I know, dumbfuck. I can't stand the entire bush family you clod.

The amount you don't know ow is pretty amazing.

 

[Red Front]

Libya had a tiny population. All the oil money went to the Gaddafi family.

After he hired Abdullah Tariki who hated Americans he nationalized the oil business prematurely and nearly destroyed the business.

Remember the Green Book? Wasn't socialism.. it was the Third Way.

Nothing more than slander. That's all the defenders of capitalism have. Lies. When I was in Libya, people expressed to me that they were very content with their housing, educational opportunities, and healthcare. So you have your own personal vendetta or issues against Gaddafi but I met many Libyans who were happy. That's my personal experience. You can say that Gaddafi wasn't a Marxist, but he was a socialist. Socialism doesn't necessarily equate to Marxism.

 

[westwall]

Nothing more than slander. That's all the defenders of capitalism have. Lies. When I was in Libya, people expressed to me that they were very content with their housing, educational opportunities, and healthcare. So you have your own personal vendetta or issues against Gaddafi but I met many Libyans that were happy. That's my personal experience. You can say that Gaddafi wasn't a Marxist, but he was a socialist. Socialism doesn't equate to Marxism.

All you defenders of communism have is denial. Yes, socialism has murdered over 100 million people over the last 100 years.

But hey, maybe if you just kill another 100 million, maybe it will work then.

 

[surada]

Not any longer. At least the European ones. The others are still hovering.

Of course there was a revolution necessary to get rid of the European ones too.

Never forget that.

Lol

 

[Red Front]

Libyan economy pre-2011:

Health in Libya - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

 

[surada]

Libyan economy pre-2011:

Health in Libya - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 725138
Read about Libya before 2011, don't be fooled.​

Gaddafi built hospitals without doctors, equipment or emergency services.

 

[gipper]

Yeah, I know, dumbfuck. I can't stand the entire bush family you clod.

The amount you don't know ow is pretty amazing.

You prove with this post you don’t know what fuck you’re talking about.

You are a typical dumb con who thinks everything bad is SOCIALISM.

SHUT OFF THE TV AND LEARN SOMETHING. YOU’RE MUCH TOO OLD TO BE THIS UNINFORMED.

 

[Red Front]

Gaddafi built hospitals without doctors, equipment or emergency services.

Yet every one had healthcare and the UN considered it to have one of the best healthcare systems in the Arab world.

 

[westwall]

You prove with this post you don’t know what fuck you’re talking about.

You are a typical dumb con who thinks everything bad is SOCIALISM.

SHUT OFF THE TV AND LEARN SOMETHING. YOU’RE MUCH TOO OLD TO BE THIS UNINFORMED.

No, I don't you flaming baboon.

I have always said that the best countries have a healthy mix of capitalist, AND socialist policies.

You are typical of the socialist baboons. You are ignorant, and you lie.

 

[westwall]

Yet every one had healthcare and the UN considered it to have one of the best healthcare systems in the Arab world.

No, they had the ability to see a doctor. There just weren't any.

Just like Britain's NHS. You will eventually get your ambulance to take you to the ER.

You just might have to wait 96 hours for it to get to you.

 

[gipper]

No, I don't you flaming baboon.

I have always said that the best countries have a healthy mix of capitalist, AND socialist policies.

You are typical of the socialist baboons. You are ignorant, and you lie.

Yet you think Rs are socialists. Lol.