Mikhail and Hodj's Political Thread
- Thread starter Araysar
- Start date
- Status
China and the USSR weren't communist. The real conclusion of your argument is that (actual) communism can't work in small states because otherwise it will be crushed militarily. But of course, whether or not that's true is entirely dependent on factors that are wholly extrinsic to communism as an economic model like, for example, antipathy toward (actual) communism.
Loser Araysar
Log Wizard
- 85,151
- 172,387
Sure. Apple margins are insane, something like 60%.
The only reason the people in China are being exploited is because they can be. You can easily make all those Apple products in America, sell at same price point and still make a decent profit.
I'm not sure why. I don't condone any communist regime, as they weren't communist. It's not correct. They were totalitarian: where a class of people benefited from the communist propaganda fed to millions.
You can't have a class structure in communism. You can't have a group of people benefiting from others. And above all, you need free association of the individual. It hasn't been done.
You can't have a class structure in communism. You can't have a group of people benefiting from others. And above all, you need free association of the individual. It hasn't been done.
Why can they be? Come on, follow it through.
So why isn't that happening?
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
That's simply historical revisionism of the highest order.
We've already been over this, but Mao is one of the most prolific Communist authors in history. Saying they weren't Communist because they didn't fit your narrow, modernized, white washed, sugar coated, disingenuous horseshit made up new fangled definition of the term is a fucking etymylogical fallacy and a special pleading case. Its nonsense and bollocks.
What it really is, though, is ex post facto revisionism. Just because you don't like where the experiment ended up, doesn't mean that they didn't go into the laboratory trying to make real the Marxist idea.
You guys can intellectually justify that horseshit convoluted bullshit logic you've got there, but literally you're the only ones buying it, just like the low level Scientologists are the only ones buying the Xenu story. You gobble up the lies, and then try to pretend the liars fooled everyone else but you after the fact.
I repeat what I said earlier to Mikhail: If what you were saying is true, then literally no call for Socialist revolution can EVER be taken seriously again. The argument defeats its own purpose. For every past revolution used your rhetoric, posed your questions, and gave your solutions, and when it was tried, and failed, you want to claim that what it became wasn't really what you were aiming for, so therefore you can't count it against you.
That is literally asking us to watch you conduct social experiments with the entire national body, while demanding we don't hold you accountable for the results until you get it right.
Its nonsense. Its NOT science. And its disgusting.
Loser Araysar
Log Wizard
- 85,151
- 172,387
That's another aspect of the argument. The real point I am driving at is that its basic foundation, communism is a tribalist mentality. It can't sustain itself for a very long time and it largely aided by the Dunbar's Number principle. And the bigger society it is implemented in, the harder it becomes to manage and organize.
Yeah, Dumar you stupid bastard. Maoism is communism because mao was a communist. And how do we know Mao was a communist? Because Maoism is communism. Duh. That's introductory logic.
. Saying they weren't Communist because they didn't fit your narrow, modernized, white washed, sugar coated, disingenuous horseshit made up new fangled definition of the term is a fucking etymylogical fallacy and a special pleading case. Its nonsense and bollocks.
What it really is, though, is ex post facto revisionism. Just because you don't like where the experiment ended up, doesn't mean that they didn't go into the laboratory trying to make real the Marxist idea.
You guys can intellectually justify that horseshit convoluted bullshit logic you've got there, but literally you're the only ones buying it, just like the low level Scientologists are the only ones buying the Xenu story. You gobble up the lies, and then try to pretend the liars fooled everyone else but you after the fact.
I repeat what I said earlier to Mikhail: If what you were saying is true, then literally no call for Socialist revolution can EVER be taken seriously again. The argument defeats its own purpose. For every past revolution used your rhetoric, posed your questions, and gave your solutions, and when it was tried, and failed, you want to claim that what it became wasn't really what you were aiming for, so therefore you can't count it against you.
That is literally asking us to watch you conduct social experiments with the entire national body, while demanding we don't hold you accountable for the results until you get it right.
Its nonsense. Its NOT science. And its disgusting.[/QUOTE]
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
And claiming that all communist failures aren't really examples of communist failure isn't doing that? That's retarded.
Explain how Lysenkoism leading to 25 million starving dead in Russia and Chine could be rationally described as merely poorly implemented communism.
You can't even SEE the double standard you hold. That's how fucking biased you are.
Its pathetic.
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
Yeah, Dumar you stupid bastard. Maoism is communism because mao was a communist. And how do we know Mao was a communist? Because Maoism is communism. Duh. That's introductory logic.
Loser Araysar
Log Wizard
- 85,151
- 172,387
Oh its because Capitalism isnt implemented in a perfect world and perfect conditions
Socialist policies in America prevent true free market competition and artificially increase costs.
See? I can play this bullshit game too.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Guy can't even be honest about the debate. Mao was a communist because he was one of the most prolific Communist authors the world has ever seen, he ran an entire revolution based on Communist principles, founded and led one of the world's largest Communist Parties for decades.
I mean you literally can't distort the facts in this case more than you're trying to do.
And strawmanning at the same time, because you're pathetic and don't have a real coherent response besides "ITS NOT COMMUNISM BECAUSE THAT HURTS MY FEELINGS!"
He can write all he wanted. He can fantasize about how great his Maoist utopia was. It is not communist as discussed by Marx from 1844 and beyond.
I said in the post above some of the basic requirements of a communist state. And actually and technically, it wouldn't even be a 'state'. It's the absolution of men using men. You can disagree all you like, but that's what it is and what Maoism was not.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
You don't know that. This just bald assertion. The fact of the matter is, for the examples I've given, the societies did better economically than others in the region. It's just asinine to flatly assert that these systems are doomed to failure. You have no evidence for that beyond your willingness to appeal to examples that absolutely don't fit (because they're completely predicated on maintaining capitalist power structures).
- Status