Communism...What's so bad about it?

[Lord Arioch]

Well this is fun!

How do u define better is a valid question... GNP growth? Killing analfabetism? Food? and so forth...
U know Stalin actually literated Soviet...

So how do u define better?

[BigBallinStalin]

Well this is fun!

How do u define better is a valid question... GNP growth? Killing analfabetism? Food? and so forth...
U know Stalin actually literated Soviet...

So how do u define better?

I don't think Sym will because he'll force himself to be stuck with a possibly wrong claim.

I've adjusted the probability of Sym trolling from 90% to 98%. We're getting closer to certainty, folks.

[Symmetry]

Well this is fun!

How do u define better is a valid question... GNP growth? Killing analfabetism? Food? and so forth...
U know Stalin actually literated Soviet...

So how do u define better?

I don't think Sym will because he'll force himself to be stuck with a possibly wrong claim.

I've adjusted the probability of Sym trolling from 90% to 98%. We're getting closer to certainty, folks.

Weren't you banned for trolling by asking people if I should die?

[BigBallinStalin]

Well this is fun!

How do u define better is a valid question... GNP growth? Killing analfabetism? Food? and so forth...
U know Stalin actually literated Soviet...

So how do u define better?

I don't think Sym will because he'll force himself to be stuck with a possibly wrong claim.

I've adjusted the probability of Sym trolling from 90% to 98%. We're getting closer to certainty, folks.

Weren't you banned for trolling by asking people if I should die?

haha, you're still trying too hard.

Anyway, we've got a nice thread here detailing your trolling.
(good job in failing to answer the relevant questions).

[oVo]

Aren't there communes which practice Communism?

Probably, but that isn't a country, isn't a dictatorship and is easier to manage with it's limited community.

Please point out how Mao's communist China was more efficient than the capitalist system that has followed it (since the start of the 80s).

It's still an intolerant and corrupt dictatorship, which is not a genuine socialist republic or capitalist venture either.

Pure Capitalism is as corrupt as Communism.

Corruption is a problem with all forms of government.

I don't think the [Chinese] system is without flaws, not by any means, but it is effective.

It's hard to ignore the clout of a country with a billion citizens. They even have a rover currently driving around the moon. Jailing and murdering dissidents remains a paranoid form of dictatorship worried about it's political dominance and maintaining wealth, and is not a representative government for the people it subjugates.

Pop Culture (music, fashion & lifestyle) and mass communication helped nudge both China and the USSR into the modern world.

[Baron Von PWN]

They had serfdom dude, get your head screwed on.

Through deliberate Soviet policy millions of Soviet citizens were killed. Stalin had a policy of ordering people arrested and killed only for the sake of creating enough terror to make everyone else go along. Yes Tsarist Russia had serfdom up until 1861, but it didin't engage in the downright murderous policies that Stalin or Lenin did.

What's worse being legally tied to the land, or being killed for no reason other than to scare others into obeying?
The Soviet Union was much worse than Tsarist Russia ( at least in terms of freedom). By the time of of the Revolution Serfdom had been ended for about a generation. The Tsars, though they engaged in censorship never used the sort of widespread oppression of Stalinist or even Leninist Russia.

The Tsarist system also killed plenty of people

Here's a sample:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_pogroms_in_the_Russian_Empire

I'm really not trying to excuse the excesses of Stalin, but the Communist system did bring Russia into the modern world.

I'm not saying the Soviet Union didn't modernize Russia I'm just saying that the Soviets managed to modernise Russia doesn't make them better than the Tsars. The tsars would have likely accomplished a similar feat.

So far you haven't really made the case for the Soviet Union being better than Tsarist Russia. Other than "They had serfs! err also pogroms!" . Pogroms were not official state policy. They weren't opposed by the state but the State wasn't making them a driving policy. Also Serfdom had been ended for over 50 years under the Tsars.

The terror under Stalin was a key plank of his policy. There were also mass deportations of many ethnic minorities, these deportations often led to death.

[Symmetry]

They had serfdom dude, get your head screwed on.

Through deliberate Soviet policy millions of Soviet citizens were killed. Stalin had a policy of ordering people arrested and killed only for the sake of creating enough terror to make everyone else go along. Yes Tsarist Russia had serfdom up until 1861, but it didin't engage in the downright murderous policies that Stalin or Lenin did.

What's worse being legally tied to the land, or being killed for no reason other than to scare others into obeying?
The Soviet Union was much worse than Tsarist Russia ( at least in terms of freedom). By the time of of the Revolution Serfdom had been ended for about a generation. The Tsars, though they engaged in censorship never used the sort of widespread oppression of Stalinist or even Leninist Russia.

The Tsarist system also killed plenty of people

Here's a sample:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_pogroms_in_the_Russian_Empire

I'm really not trying to excuse the excesses of Stalin, but the Communist system did bring Russia into the modern world.

I'm not saying the Soviet Union didn't modernize Russia I'm just saying that the Soviets managed to modernise Russia doesn't make them better than the Tsars. The tsars would have likely accomplished a similar feat.

So far you haven't really made the case for the Soviet Union being better than Tsarist Russia. Other than "They had serfs! err also pogroms!" . Pogroms were not official state policy. They weren't opposed by the state but the State wasn't making them a driving policy. Also Serfdom had been ended for over 50 years under the Tsars.

The terror under Stalin was a key plank of his policy. There were also mass deportations of many ethnic minorities, these deportations often led to death.

So, if I'm getting you right, you believe that Russia was better under the Tsars?

[Baron Von PWN]

They had serfdom dude, get your head screwed on.

Through deliberate Soviet policy millions of Soviet citizens were killed. Stalin had a policy of ordering people arrested and killed only for the sake of creating enough terror to make everyone else go along. Yes Tsarist Russia had serfdom up until 1861, but it didin't engage in the downright murderous policies that Stalin or Lenin did.

What's worse being legally tied to the land, or being killed for no reason other than to scare others into obeying?
The Soviet Union was much worse than Tsarist Russia ( at least in terms of freedom). By the time of of the Revolution Serfdom had been ended for about a generation. The Tsars, though they engaged in censorship never used the sort of widespread oppression of Stalinist or even Leninist Russia.

The Tsarist system also killed plenty of people

Here's a sample:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_pogroms_in_the_Russian_Empire

I'm really not trying to excuse the excesses of Stalin, but the Communist system did bring Russia into the modern world.

I'm not saying the Soviet Union didn't modernize Russia I'm just saying that the Soviets managed to modernise Russia doesn't make them better than the Tsars. The tsars would have likely accomplished a similar feat.

So far you haven't really made the case for the Soviet Union being better than Tsarist Russia. Other than "They had serfs! err also pogroms!" . Pogroms were not official state policy. They weren't opposed by the state but the State wasn't making them a driving policy. Also Serfdom had been ended for over 50 years under the Tsars.

The terror under Stalin was a key plank of his policy. There were also mass deportations of many ethnic minorities, these deportations often led to death.

So, if I'm getting you right, you believe that Russia was better under the Tsars?

Would Russia have been better off had the empire undergone some reforms instead of Nicholas the dipshit fucking the whole thing to hell? yes, much much better.

people had much more freedom under the Tsarist system then the soviet. The Soviet union was a more effective state, but that doesn't make it better.

[Symmetry]

They had serfdom dude, get your head screwed on.

Through deliberate Soviet policy millions of Soviet citizens were killed. Stalin had a policy of ordering people arrested and killed only for the sake of creating enough terror to make everyone else go along. Yes Tsarist Russia had serfdom up until 1861, but it didin't engage in the downright murderous policies that Stalin or Lenin did.

What's worse being legally tied to the land, or being killed for no reason other than to scare others into obeying?
The Soviet Union was much worse than Tsarist Russia ( at least in terms of freedom). By the time of of the Revolution Serfdom had been ended for about a generation. The Tsars, though they engaged in censorship never used the sort of widespread oppression of Stalinist or even Leninist Russia.

The Tsarist system also killed plenty of people

Here's a sample:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_pogroms_in_the_Russian_Empire

I'm really not trying to excuse the excesses of Stalin, but the Communist system did bring Russia into the modern world.

I'm not saying the Soviet Union didn't modernize Russia I'm just saying that the Soviets managed to modernise Russia doesn't make them better than the Tsars. The tsars would have likely accomplished a similar feat.

So far you haven't really made the case for the Soviet Union being better than Tsarist Russia. Other than "They had serfs! err also pogroms!" . Pogroms were not official state policy. They weren't opposed by the state but the State wasn't making them a driving policy. Also Serfdom had been ended for over 50 years under the Tsars.

The terror under Stalin was a key plank of his policy. There were also mass deportations of many ethnic minorities, these deportations often led to death.

So, if I'm getting you right, you believe that Russia was better under the Tsars?

Would Russia have been better off had the empire undergone some reforms instead of Nicholas the dipshit fucking the whole thing to hell? yes, much much better.

people had much more freedom under the Tsarist system then the soviet. The Soviet union was a more effective state, but that doesn't make it better.

A less effective state is better?

[oVo]

Dictators across history suck the big one. Only their cronies, friends and essential populous benefit. That doesn't mean a dictatorship can't work with the right person running the show, it just hasn't been done.

[Symmetry]

Dictators across history suck the big one. Only their cronies, friends and essential populous benefit. That doesn't mean a dictatorship can't work with the right person running the show, it just hasn't been done.

Plenty of dictatorships have been effective states throughout history.

[BigBallinStalin]

Aren't there communes which practice Communism?

Probably, but that isn't a country, isn't a dictatorship and is easier to manage with it's limited community.

Even though communes aren't countries, they still count as Communism being practiced in a subpolitical area, and many don't revert into a dictatorship (albeit they're still under the thumb of a Board of Planners). However, many have failed. You don't see as many in the US today as you did in the 60s and 70s.

So, true communism fails. Many communes of today largely exist because of the spillover effects from living within a market economy.


It's not really about greed. It's about effects of government planning interfering with 'spontaneous order' (e.g. free markets, in its pure form). A real life example of free markets is you exchanging whatever with someone else; many of these exchanges results in an order. This interaction is affected by varying degrees of government control (from the lesser intervention to greater intervention). Communist government tend to entirely replace almost all open markets, and most liberal democratic governments try to control (thus distort) almost all open markets. Their policies affect those market interactions, thus disturb the order which would otherwise emerge. The greater these policies divert from the path of spontaneous order, the greater the problems will be. So, problems are caused not so much by greed but rather by the degree of intervention from government into people's lives.

[Baron Von PWN]

A less effective state is better?

If your choices are rather ineffective but somewhat benign state, and an effective but malicious and murderous one. Which do you choose as better?

the ineffective state doesn't get much of what it would like to do done, but in the grand scheme of things doesn't interfere too too much. The effective one gets most of its objectives completed, but a good chunk of those objectives includes murder of its own citizens and seizing their property.

again which is better? So far I feel like you are just playing the questions game, as you haven't responded with more than a lazy pogroms link.

[Symmetry]

A less effective state is better?

If your choices are rather ineffective but somewhat benign state, and an effective but malicious and murderous one. Which do you choose as better?

the ineffective state doesn't get much of what it would like to do done, but in the grand scheme of things doesn't interfere too too much. The effective one gets most of its objectives completed, but a good chunk of those objectives includes murder of its own citizens and seizing their property.

again which is better? So far I feel like you are just playing the questions game, as you haven't responded with more than a lazy pogroms link.

Oh those lazy pogroms. What was I thinking? I'll check out your links when I find them.

Joking aside, what makes you conflate Communism so automatically with malice?

[Baron Von PWN]

A less effective state is better?

If your choices are rather ineffective but somewhat benign state, and an effective but malicious and murderous one. Which do you choose as better?

the ineffective state doesn't get much of what it would like to do done, but in the grand scheme of things doesn't interfere too too much. The effective one gets most of its objectives completed, but a good chunk of those objectives includes murder of its own citizens and seizing their property.

again which is better? So far I feel like you are just playing the questions game, as you haven't responded with more than a lazy pogroms link.

Oh those lazy pogroms. What was I thinking? I'll check out your links when I find them.

Joking aside, what makes you conflate Communism so automatically with malice?

I have only been discussing the Soviet Union versus Tsarist Russia, and within that which was better or worse. I have not said anything at all about the political ideology of Communism. I will cease discussion with you now, as I feel it a waste of time. I am sad as I do enjoy a history throw down.

[Symmetry]

A less effective state is better?

If your choices are rather ineffective but somewhat benign state, and an effective but malicious and murderous one. Which do you choose as better?

the ineffective state doesn't get much of what it would like to do done, but in the grand scheme of things doesn't interfere too too much. The effective one gets most of its objectives completed, but a good chunk of those objectives includes murder of its own citizens and seizing their property.

again which is better? So far I feel like you are just playing the questions game, as you haven't responded with more than a lazy pogroms link.

Oh those lazy pogroms. What was I thinking? I'll check out your links when I find them.

Joking aside, what makes you conflate Communism so automatically with malice?

I have only been discussing the Soviet Union versus Tsarist Russia, and within that which was better or worse. I have not said anything at all about the political ideology of Communism. I will cease discussion with you now, as I feel it a waste of time. I am sad as I do enjoy a history throw down.

I'm sorry for your sadness. Mischaracterising the arguments of another person, or indeed a significant proportion of the world's political systems can be annoying.

I'm sorry if I did that.

[BigBallinStalin]

Here lies BVP, another victim of Symmetry's trolling.

BVP was a good comrade, who firmly believed in the Righteousness of Communism. Never mind his comments about the CCCP being worse than Tsarist Russia (those pigs!). He was only saying that to avoid detection.

[Symmetry]

Baron von Owned

[Jmac1026]

This included a good majority of the military officers. Which is why Russia still used tactics from WWI, basically charging en masse and headlong against entrenched German positions. Caused massive casualties.

I just want to point out that this is in fact an urban myth. Yeah, the lack of high ranking officers with military experience hurt the Soviets in WWII, but they weren't using tactics from the first World War. The only time that Russians charged en masse against entrenched German positions would have been WWI.

[mrswdk]

Baron von Owned

You are actually getting your kicks from this thread? What a low benchmark you have.

[Symmetry]

Baron von Owned

You are actually getting your kicks from this thread? What a low benchmark you have.

I can have a lame pun now and then, can't I?

[mrswdk]

Did you come up with any justification for your 'communism made China better' claim while I was sleeping or have you finally given up the pretence?

[Symmetry]

Did you come up with any justification for your 'communism was good for China' claim while I was sleeping or have you finally given up the pretence?

It's a developing world superpower with nuclear weapons, holds a ton of US debt, and it is currently operating a national space programme?

Damn Commies.

[mrswdk]

And it's communist.

Ohnowait.