No True ChiCom/Commie Derail Thread

[Big Steve]

With the whole Pinochet thing... it is possible to see Allende as having justified a coup through openly defying the judiciary and legislature in trying to force his policies on the country while still considering Pinochet himself to have betrayed the same constitution he claimed to be defending by holding onto power as he did and assembling DINA to become another set of torturing scumbags.

I just finished my bingo sheet, thank you very much for your service, truly braver than the troops.

While I suppose you do get tired of being reminded of all those failures of Communism, being dismissive of those failures existence doesn't exactly make you seem like someone I can discuss the matter with rationally. I know the whole "multiple types of Communism", but given the problems in trying to implement it, I think you can understand a lot of people are going to be skeptical.

Is capitalism perfect? Nope. That doesn't mean Communism must be pursued, or even that it's the only alternative. You have to convince people otherwise.

But you're not really here to convince, are you? You're here to bemuse yourself because you think you're flustering people with your presence.

As for the OP, China's probably more on the nationalist authoritarian side than communist these days. Certainly there's some state socialism, but the Chinese don't want to repeat the Cultural Revolution I think? The whole "Dengist" philosophy seems to me to be "above all else, the economy must function, or we risk losing power".

 

[Realm]

Has China moved in the direction to become more fully communist or has it been moderating it's socialism with increasing amounts of capitalism and business? It has certainly been the latter.

So we can blame all the crimes of China you all lay at the feet of communism instead on capitalism? Or was that just another long way of saying that communism is bad stuff capitalism good stuff

 

[Big Steve]

Now I'm going to be honest with you, I think I know why you hate the man why your so pissed off.

Because of one simple fact, he did to communists what comunists do to every one else.

Theres a lesson in Pincochete and its one that should scare you and its this, that polite society? Those social norms and insistutions you hold in such distain? They protect you, and maybe you should respect them.

While Realm hasn't impressed me, it's still possible for people, even Communists or other leftists, to hate Pinochet because he was a murdering tyrant of a bastard, not some "He did to us what we do to others!" thing.

Also, I'm not very impressed by the "Oh, he stood down after losing an election" argument, since he did so at a time when the Cold War was ending and the US was far less likely to tolerate him deciding to annul the results. I also would like to re-consult sources like A Nation of Enemies to remember the circumstances of that election, and how much the outcome was "Pinochet expects re-election, is shocked to lose, has to step down because he's lost all legitimacy in the country".

 

[TriforcedLink]

The main problem with communism is that it works on the assumption that humans work like hive mind insects.

Turns out hairless apes don't work like that. Go figure.

 

[Deleted member 88]

More than that-communism and the ideologies it is based on fundamentally deny a human nature at all.

Human beings are malleable clay that are shaped by environmental and social processes.

Conservatives don’t just believe human nature exists, but that is distinctly definable. Namely that human beings are innately selfish and interested primarily in what benefits them.

Communism assumes fundamentally that if you change the economic structure-people’s fundamental impulses will change. They will work not for themselves but for the greater community. They will sacrifice not for their children but to ensure quotas are met.

Communism thus runs into problems because human beings nature’s don’t change. Even if the external system does.

Capitalism for all its callousness and cruelties-aligns most accurately with how human beings truly are. And thus best makes use of their labor and psychological will.

In short capitalism works because the external system aligns with people’s internal nature. And not doesn’t run against it.

 

[Scottty]

So world-wide, poverty is draining away like someone pulled the plug out of the bathtub?
That's good to know.

Except in Africa of course. Not really surprised. 🙁

 

[SergeantBrother]

So we can blame all the crimes of China you all lay at the feet of communism instead on capitalism? Or was that just another long way of saying that communism is bad stuff capitalism good stuff

I haven't said anything of the sort. I never said that the bad aspects of China are because of communism and the good is because of capitalism. You said that lots of poverty related deaths happen because of global capitalism, I replied that poverty has been decreasing around the world, to which you replied that it's just because of China, and I replied that China has been becoming more capitalistic over time.

I also don't see China as some sort of monstrous Fu Manchu mustache twirling villains. They do bad things, but there is a lot of good that could be said about China as well and bad things that could be said about the USA and other Western capitalist leaning nations. When we talk about misdeeds that modern China engages in, many of them aren't necessarily a result of communism specifically but authoritarianism more generally, which is a necessary part of communism but not exclusive to it. They even engage in nasty practices that are driven by profit for their semi-private corporations. Are those misdeeds caused by communism or capitalism? That is hard to say, which is why fascism might be a more accurate description of modern China than communism or capitalism.

When we look at China's issues in the middle of the 20th century, then a lot more of their problems can be laid at the feet of Mao's more doctrinaire communism. Not only huge numbers of deaths from starvation, but the greatest large scale persecution in human history with tens of millions sent to work camps, 10's of millions starved, historic relics destroyed, art and music suppressed, and so on. Then as China became less dedicated to communism, they became both less oppressive and more economically prosperous. So I think that a good argument could be made that communism, to the degree that it was and has been practiced in China, made conditions worse and that capitalism, to the degree to which is was and has been practiced in China, has made conditions better.

Which actions of a communist or capitalist nation can be attributed to communist or capitalism respectively? That is hard to say, but we can look at general trends and see that capitalist leaning nations tend to have greater economic prosperity and more individual freedoms, while communist leaning nations tend to be worse in both regards.

China's increased prosperity can been linked to the rejection of pure communism and its adoption of elements of capitalism. It's hard to argue against that.

Let's look at Africa - the region of the world where poverty seems to stubbornly remain as it disappears elsewhere. What kind of economic polices have been pursued in Africa? Well, that is a complex question because Africa is a big place with diverse economic issues, but I think that we could point to a number of African nations which have pursued Marxist or leftist polices - such as redistributing land, massive spending, and identity warfare/scapegoating and the results have been ruinous. Zimbabwe, Uganda, and South Africa are some examples of this and it's just as hard to argue that their policies haven't increased poverty in their nations and likely reduced human rights as well.

I wont say that communism is bad and that capitalism is good, but perhaps that communism is usually bad and capitalism is usually better.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Good God Emperor, are the Commies actually bringing up Pinochet of all people as an example of "evulz capitalism?" Well that's a death blow to them, as Pinochet was a paper tiger compared to even the best of the Socialist Regimes. Chile's Generalissimo had about three thousand murdered on his orders and exiled, imprisoned or tortured another hundred thousand or so (hah, speaking of that, ain't it interesting? The bastard actually gave political dissidents the chance to leave. You don't get that in Communist States where they build walls to keep people in!). Castro and Tito meanwhile killed tens of thousands at the very least, with some estimates of those murdered by Yugoslav repression reaching half a million.

Pinochet was a ruthless dictator, but he wasn't a utopian who believed paradise was just one more execution away. He was one of C.S Lewis's "Robber Barons" more than anything else, which makes him a vastly preferable alternative to any Communist Regime.

 

[Cherico]

Good God Emperor, are the Commies actually bringing up Pinochet of all people as an example of "evulz capitalism?" Well that's a death blow to them, as Pinochet was a paper tiger compared to even the best of the Socialist Regimes. Chile's Generalissimo had about three thousand murdered on his orders and exiled, imprisoned or tortured another hundred thousand or so (hah, speaking of that, ain't it interesting? The bastard actually gave political dissidents the chance to leave. You don't get that in Communist States where they build walls to keep people in!). Castro and Tito meanwhile killed tens of thousands at the very least, with some estimates of those murdered by Yugoslav repression reaching half a million.

Pinochet was a ruthless dictator, but he wasn't a utopian who believed paradise was just one more execution away. He was one of C.S Lewis's "Robber Barons" more than anything else, which makes him a vastly preferable alternative to any Communist Regime.

Like I said they hate and dispise him because he did to communists what they do to every one else.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Like I said they hate and dispise him because he did to communists what they do to every one else.

Not even that! By comparison he was quite frankly merciful. He exiled a lot of them instead of killing them.

 

[SergeantBrother]

Not even that! By comparison he was quite frankly merciful. He exiled a lot of them instead of killing them.

There is one terrible feature that quite a few communist countries share that other oppressive nations often do not - communist countries won't let their citizens escape. Capitalist nations often have a problem with too many people wanting to enter them, communist nations have a problem with too many people trying to leave.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

There is one terrible feature that quite a few communist countries share that other oppressive nations often do not - communist countries won't let their citizens escape. Capitalist nations often have a problem with too many people wanting to enter them, communist nations have a problem with too many people trying to leave.

(Cough cough, Berlin Wall.)

Communism is just the best, isn't it?

 

[TriforcedLink]

There is one terrible feature that quite a few communist countries share that other oppressive nations often do not - communist countries won't let their citizens escape. Capitalist nations often have a problem with too many people wanting to enter them, communist nations have a problem with too many people trying to leave.

For all the reds crow about the evils of capitalism and how they could save the proletariat from capitalism if the proletariat just LISTENED to their betters... Well it might just be me but they only seem to care about the working class when they're obedient cogs in their utopia.

Honestly seems like the bourgeois just painted themselves red instead of gaudy gold to me.

 

[Floridaman]

For all the reds crow about the evils of capitalism and how they could save the proletariat from capitalism if the proletariat just LISTENED to their betters... Well it might just be me but they only seem to care about the working class when they're obedient cogs in their utopia.

Honestly seems like the bourgeois just painted themselves red instead of gaudy gold to me.

That is exactly it, we can see this clearly when communism fails, the party elite simply ditch the disguise and show themselves as the oligarchs they really are.

 

[Big Steve]

Good God Emperor, are the Commies actually bringing up Pinochet of all people as an example of "evulz capitalism?" Well that's a death blow to them, as Pinochet was a paper tiger compared to even the best of the Socialist Regimes. Chile's Generalissimo had about three thousand murdered on his orders and exiled, imprisoned or tortured another hundred thousand or so (hah, speaking of that, ain't it interesting? The bastard actually gave political dissidents the chance to leave. You don't get that in Communist States where they build walls to keep people in!). Castro and Tito meanwhile killed tens of thousands at the very least, with some estimates of those murdered by Yugoslav repression reaching half a million.

Pinochet was a ruthless dictator, but he wasn't a utopian who believed paradise was just one more execution away. He was one of C.S Lewis's "Robber Barons" more than anything else, which makes him a vastly preferable alternative to any Communist Regime.

Some might say that's three thousand and a hundred thousand too many.

I mean, I get the argument here, and yeah, he wasn't as bloody. But that wasn't a comfort to the people actually tortured or imprisoned or actually murdered, was it? Especially since I suspect not all of them were communists, but simply declared communist because they tried to organize labor or whatever made them "unacceptable" to the junta. So even the "they're just mad it was done to them instead of them doing it to others" argument isn't going to fit entirely.

 

[Big Steve]

For all the reds crow about the evils of capitalism and how they could save the proletariat from capitalism if the proletariat just LISTENED to their betters... Well it might just be me but they only seem to care about the working class when they're obedient cogs in their utopia.

Honestly seems like the bourgeois just painted themselves red instead of gaudy gold to me.

That is exactly it, we can see this clearly when communism fails, the party elite simply ditch the disguise and show themselves as the oligarchs they really are.

Y'know, I wonder how different the entire socialist movement would be today if Marx hadn't been a, hrm, how to put this... let's go with "authoritarian douchenozzle". If he hadn't been an authoritarian douchenozzle.

 

[Floridaman]

Y'know, I wonder how different the entire socialist movement would be today if Marx hadn't been a, hrm, how to put this... let's go with "authoritarian douchenozzle". If he hadn't been an authoritarian douchenozzle.

Considering it is an ideology based on restructuring all human relations, if he wasn't one, he would not been part of the movement.

 

[Big Steve]

Considering it is an ideology based on restructuring all human relations, if he wasn't one, he would not been part of the movement.

As I recall, most social democratic movements have, uh, less ambitious aspirations?

 

[Floridaman]

As I recall, most social democratic movements have, uh, less ambitious aspirations?

Socialism is defined as collective ownership of the means of production.... thus stealing from individuals to run things on the idea the government or collective whatever term you want to use can run it better. In other words you need to be an authoritarian, otherwise you wouldn't steal from others.

Edit: by stealing I am referring to them "seizing the means of production" if a company is set up as government owned or a collective that is not a problem but when it is nationalized that is theft.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Some might say that's three thousand and a hundred thousand too many.

I mean, I get the argument here, and yeah, he wasn't as bloody. But that wasn't a comfort to the people actually tortured or imprisoned or actually murdered, was it? Especially since I suspect not all of them were communists, but simply declared communist because they tried to organize labor or whatever made them "unacceptable" to the junta. So even the "they're just mad it was done to them instead of them doing it to others" argument isn't going to fit entirely.

And they'd be right. Pinochet was a ruthless dictator and much of what he did was abhorrent.

So god knows what that makes Socialism as Castro, Pinochet's Latin American contemporary, killed approximately tenfold what Chile's Generalissimo managed. Socialism is so fucking horrendous that a military dictator who has dissidents thrown out of helicopters is by far a preferable alternative.

Pinochet is often attributed to the "Right" at its very worst by Commies. I am merely making the point that "our" worst is utterly eclipsed by their "best" thus proving which ideology/political wing is superior.