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

[Metsfanmax]

Or that the USSR was worse than Tsarist Russia with serfs?

Yes. Please, defend Stalin.

Is this going to be a running theme? Selective editing and a refusal to respond to what I'm saying?

I believe that "Yes," followed by a challenging statement, qualifies as a response to what you were saying.

[BigBallinStalin]

Regrettably Symm only means what he says about Cuba insofar as he can wear a tshirt with Che's picture. He has made it clear he is absolutely opposed to the revolutionary socialist internationalist ethos that is inseperable with the Cuban worldview.

Cuba supports return of the Malvinas to Argentina and Gibraltar to Spain, Symm does not. Cuba backs the Syrian Arab Socialist Baath Party, Symm does not. Cuba supported the liberation of Crimea by Russia. Symm wants NATO war. Cuba has offered safe haven to Irish freedom fighters fleeing British police, which Symm opposes.

These are not incidental differences of opinion. These positions are central to the anti-imperialist fulcrum on which all of Cuba, including domestic policies, turn. The hypocrisy from Symm is astounding.*

* edit - still a Symm fan, just saying he's being hypocritical here

edit x2 - Symm is right when he says the Cuban government at its "worst" is 100X better than the former U.S.-backed Batista regime.

P(Sym's trolling) now equals 90%.


However, to be clear, my null hypothesis is Sym's trolling, but my alternative hypothesis is Sym's not trolling. If we reject the null hypothesis, then:

(a) Sym doesn't know what he's talking about,
(b) we're all wrong, Sym is right, or
(c) Sym will modify his original claims throughout the thread, land some small solid point, and declare himself correct while forgetting about his original and incorrect claims.

[Metsfanmax]

(a) and (c) are not mutually exclusive.

[BigBallinStalin]

(a) and (c) are not mutually exclusive.

I agree. Add insert (a) into (c) as you please.

But, if it's (c), then it could be the case that Symmetry is quasi-trolling by starting with troll-claims and then ending with some sincerely believed but small point--"your wrong because 'i before e except after c.'"

[Metsfanmax]

(a) and (c) are not mutually exclusive.

I agree. Add insert (a) into (c) as you please.

But, if it's (c), then it could be the case that Symmetry is quasi-trolling by starting with troll-claims and then ending with some sincerely believed but small point--"your wrong because 'i before e except after c.'"

That's full on trolling.

[Symmetry]

(a) and (c) are not mutually exclusive.

I will happily modify my points if they're wrong. That's not trolling, it's a debate.

[BigBallinStalin]

(a) and (c) are not mutually exclusive.

I agree. Add insert (a) into (c) as you please.

But, if it's (c), then it could be the case that Symmetry is quasi-trolling by starting with troll-claims and then ending with some sincerely believed but small point--"your wrong because 'i before e except after c.'"

That's full on trolling.

Who's trolling? Him or me?

To be fair, his small claim to fame will most likely be "you can't deny that it rapidly changes societies." Of course, that's a tautological point if it's assuming that some form of Communism already becomes implemented at a large enough scale in place X. In other words, "you can't deny that a change is a change." Duh, Sym. If he wants to provide evidence on the speed of change, then that'll be amusing. He probably can't, so he'd remove "rapidly" and declare himself victor since "a change is a change."

Can we /thread nao?

[Metsfanmax]

(a) and (c) are not mutually exclusive.

I agree. Add insert (a) into (c) as you please.

But, if it's (c), then it could be the case that Symmetry is quasi-trolling by starting with troll-claims and then ending with some sincerely believed but small point--"your wrong because 'i before e except after c.'"

That's full on trolling.

Who's trolling? Him or me?

Both of you, but in this case I meant him.

To be fair, his small claim to fame will most likely be "you can't deny that it rapidly changes societies." Of course, that's a tautological point if it's assuming that some form of Communism already becomes implemented at a large enough scale in place X. In other words, "you can't deny that a change is a change." Duh, Sym. If he wants to provide evidence on the speed of change, then that'll be amusing. He probably can't, so he'd remove "rapidly" and declare himself victor since "a change is a change."

Can we /thread nao?

Yes, I think that is a sufficient description of what is to come. Let's wrap this up and move onto the Troll Forest voting.

[Symmetry]

So, wait, pointing out that Communism is an efficient, but flawed system in some cases is trolling now?

[oVo]

No, all systems of government are flawed. It's the Human Element that basically fucks them up.The United States' form of Democracy is extremely flawed, but historically is one of the more successful applications of the concept. Unfortunately corporate/political greed are impeding the progress and process of American Democracy.

There are no true communist governments to fail, since they have all been dictatorships. The human element once again negates the idea.

[Symmetry]

No, all systems of government are flawed. It's the Human Element that basically fucks them up.The United States' form of Democracy is extremely flawed, but historically is one of the more successful applications of the concept. Unfortunately corporate/political greed are impeding the progress and process of American Democracy.

There are no true communist governments to fail, since they have all been dictatorships. The human element once again negates the idea.

Thanks Ovo. A nuanced view was kind of getting lost here.

[BigBallinStalin]

No, all systems of government are flawed. It's the Human Element that basically fucks them up.The United States' form of Democracy is extremely flawed, but historically is one of the more successful applications of the concept. Unfortunately corporate/political greed are impeding the progress and process of American Democracy.

There are no true communist governments to fail, since they have all been dictatorships. The human element once again negates the idea.

Aren't there communes which practice Communism?

[Symmetry]

No, all systems of government are flawed. It's the Human Element that basically fucks them up.The United States' form of Democracy is extremely flawed, but historically is one of the more successful applications of the concept. Unfortunately corporate/political greed are impeding the progress and process of American Democracy.

There are no true communist governments to fail, since they have all been dictatorships. The human element once again negates the idea.

Aren't there communes which practice Communism?

Aren't you generally Libertarian? I thought you'd be open to the idea of a diverse range of communist views given how diverse the libertarians are.

I'm not trying to attack you on this though, it just seemed odd.

[ChrisPond]

So, wait, pointing out that Communism is an efficient, but flawed system in some cases is trolling now?

when used on a large scale, communism appears to be a very efficient way of killing one's own citizens, especially those that do not agree with the system.

can we call the system that the US uses a "representative republic" instead of a "democracy" for the sake of being accurate?

[Symmetry]

So, wait, pointing out that Communism is an efficient, but flawed system in some cases is trolling now?

when used on a large scale, communism appears to be a very efficient way of killing one's own citizens, especially those that do not agree with the system.

can we call the system that the US uses a "representative republic" instead of a "democracy" for the sake of being accurate?

Many government systems are effective at killing their own people, and indeed, other people. I'm not sure what your point is. Can you clarify?

[BigBallinStalin]

No, all systems of government are flawed. It's the Human Element that basically fucks them up.The United States' form of Democracy is extremely flawed, but historically is one of the more successful applications of the concept. Unfortunately corporate/political greed are impeding the progress and process of American Democracy.

There are no true communist governments to fail, since they have all been dictatorships. The human element once again negates the idea.

Aren't there communes which practice Communism?

Aren't you generally Libertarian? I thought you'd be open to the idea of a diverse range of communist views given how diverse the libertarians are.

I'm not trying to attack you on this though, it just seemed odd.

You're trying too hard.

[Symmetry]

No, all systems of government are flawed. It's the Human Element that basically fucks them up.The United States' form of Democracy is extremely flawed, but historically is one of the more successful applications of the concept. Unfortunately corporate/political greed are impeding the progress and process of American Democracy.

There are no true communist governments to fail, since they have all been dictatorships. The human element once again negates the idea.

Aren't there communes which practice Communism?

Aren't you generally Libertarian? I thought you'd be open to the idea of a diverse range of communist views given how diverse the libertarians are.

I'm not trying to attack you on this though, it just seemed odd.

You're trying too hard.

I was just interested in your take, sorry.

[BigBallinStalin]

No, all systems of government are flawed. It's the Human Element that basically fucks them up.The United States' form of Democracy is extremely flawed, but historically is one of the more successful applications of the concept. Unfortunately corporate/political greed are impeding the progress and process of American Democracy.

There are no true communist governments to fail, since they have all been dictatorships. The human element once again negates the idea.

Aren't there communes which practice Communism?

Aren't you generally Libertarian? I thought you'd be open to the idea of a diverse range of communist views given how diverse the libertarians are.

I'm not trying to attack you on this though, it just seemed odd.

You're trying too hard.

I was just interested on your take, sorry.

And you're not credible. Thanks for the reminder.

[Symmetry]

I suppose that's a take.

[mrswdk]

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).

[Symmetry]

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).

Are you asking me? I don't think I've claimed that.

[notyou2]

They burn coal more efficiently. By efficiency, I mean more of it.

[muy_thaiguy]

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).

More efficient in killing millions of people.

I win!

But now I feel dirty, like saxi or sym.

[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.

[mrswdk]

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).

Are you asking me? I don't think I've claimed that.

Okay, maybe I put words in your mouth there. Let's try: please explain how communism 'worked pretty well in China'.