Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:39 pm
Oh, I know that. I'm just saying that Stalinism is so bad that it manages to make Capitalism look decent. You're talking to an Anarcho-Communist/Democratic Socialist friend
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Antiliberalbis wrote:That can't be done one day,
which is why you need extreme control of government to fade all of that out.
Slalin tried that and he failed because the ideology he loved so much was not in line with human nature and the power he gained ultimately led to him killing 20 million people.
If any ideology leads to killing people whether it is nazism or communism, then it is not worthy of any real debate for the "perfect" society.
Communism had it's chance and proved itself to be an inherent evil.
Anyone who thinks otherwise probably failed every history class they took.
Harrgar wrote:Zaras wrote:
Because Soviet Russia was run by the kind of totalitarian absolute morons at economics who make Reagan look like J.K. Galbraith.
Oh, I know that. I'm just saying that Stalinism is so bad that it manages to make Capitalism look decent. You're talking to an Anarcho-Communist/Democratic Socialist friend
Antiliberalbis wrote:I know you didn't, which is why I quoted him specifically. Back to your last post, though. I already know the fundamentals of communism. There is no money, state, or class, and everyone is happy.
That can't be done one day, which is why you need extreme control of government to fade all of that out.
Stalin tried that and he failed because the ideology he loved so much was not in line with human nature and the power he gained ultimately led to him killing 20 million people.
If any ideology leads to killing people whether it is nazism or communism, then it is not worthy of any real debate for the "perfect" society.
I'll entertain liberals and socialism in debates because they actually have sound principles that could work.
Communism had its chance and proved itself to be an inherent evil.
Anyone who thinks otherwise probably failed every history class they took.
So socialism is now the stepping stone to communism? Glad liberals are at least not trying to bs around that any more.Zaras wrote:Antiliberalbis wrote:That can't be done one day,
Yes, which is why socialism exists.which is why you need extreme control of government to fade all of that out.
Wrong. Socialism is about dismantling the state.Slalin tried that and he failed because the ideology he loved so much was not in line with human nature and the power he gained ultimately led to him killing 20 million people.
No, Stalin was not communist. He was a paranoid, power-hungry mass murdering dictator. He never did anything, ANYTHING to try and move the USSR towards evolving into a communist society. Hell, he backstabbed the Catalonians during the Civil War, who actually WERE communists! He had no principles except LOLMASSMURDER.If any ideology leads to killing people whether it is nazism or communism, then it is not worthy of any real debate for the "perfect" society.
Except communism DIDN'T lead to people being killed! Stalin was not communist!Communism had it's chance and proved itself to be an inherent evil.
Wrong. The only examples of communist societies are as follows:
* 1871, Paris Commune
* 1918, Free Territory, Ukraine
* 1936, anarchist Catalonia
* 1956, Hungarian Revolution
None of those were evil, and all of them were crushed by outside forces.
Other. Examples. Are. Not. Acceptable.
Paris, Ukraine, Catalonia, Hungary. That's it. The Soviets, etc. weren't communist. Just those four.Anyone who thinks otherwise probably failed every history class they took.
That's hilarious coming from somebody who can't tell the difference between communism and stalinism.
Bobbyland420 wrote:However, attempts to implement communism often result in stalinist type systems.
which is why you need extreme control of government to fade all of that out.
Communism had it's chance and proved itself to be an inherent evil.
Wrong. The only examples of communist societies are as follows:
* 1871, Paris Commune
* 1918, Free Territory, Ukraine
* 1936, anarchist Catalonia
* 1956, Hungarian Revolution
None of those were evil, and all of them were crushed by outside forces.
Other. Examples. Are. Not. Acceptable.
Paris, Ukraine, Catalonia, Hungary. That's it. The Soviets, etc. weren't communist. Just those four.
Bobbyland420 wrote:However, attempts to implement communism often result in stalinist type systems.
East Klent wrote:Communism is great in theory, but it just has not and will not work in practicality.
East Klent wrote:Communism is great in theory, but it just has not and will not work in practicality.
Bobbyland420 wrote:However, attempts to implement communism often result in stalinist type systems.
Antiliberalbis wrote:So socialism is now the stepping stone to communism?
Glad liberals are at least not trying to bs around that any more.
New England and The Maritimes wrote:Sorta. First subordinating it, then allowing it to wither as it becomes unnecessary.
I'm not sure on that list. I think 1919 Hungary was somewhere in that region.
East Klent wrote:Yes, for a while. That's my point. Mixed systems and Capitalism have been relatively more successful on a much more permanent basis than Communism.