They live in a capitalist state with a capitalist government. We will be having the same discussions when bridges start collapsing because our capitalist overlords decided to spend their resources on tax breaks instead of infrastructure.

so every failure of the public Sector, instead of giving you more objective reasons to reduce the scope of the public sector, is warped into a critique if capitalism?

Communist logic: look, the public sector is making this big mistake in a capitalistic country. Certainly that's proof we should give it all productive capital to manage!

Capitalism shares the blame for systemic problems in the largest Capitalist system in the world? Yes.

You equate the horrors of Marx and Stalin on Communism, how is it different?

I made a post asking why communist threads aren't banned while nazis' are (and I wrote that I agree Nazi threads should be banned), given that communism has been at least as bad as nazism for humanity.

If you can separe the philosophy from the actual regime, why not for nazism? Because it's false that you can.

And anyway your comrade in this thread uses the urss flag, so he doesn't want to separe the philosophy from the regime.

To sequester all productive capital from their private owners, and keep it that way for the long term, brutality is constantly required toward every single citizen, all the time. So no it's not a bug. That's why every communist country is or has been totalitarian.

While not all racists country are totalitarian. Usa pre civil rights , South Africa during apartheid.

A democratic country with racists element has a problem, but is still strictly better than a totalitarian country

Is einbert okay? I understand Trump will be in his way to throw some paper towels.

Blame Hollywood, Communism was the bad guy until it collapsed and then they were our friends.

Nazis had Hogan's Heroes and then what? Skin head ****tards espousing white nationalism.

Your modern day Nazi friends are *******s, with messages of hate and fear, that's why they get closed. Your modern day communists aren't.

I don't have Nazi friends and I like that Nazi threads get closed.

Not sure what part of that you don't understand.

The intellectual left always had a penchant for communism ever before Berlin wall fell, especially in Europe. So it's not about Hollywood I think.

The problem here is the constant lying and double standard applied to communism. Because you need to lie a lot not do admit it was one of the worst ideas ever created by humanity

You want to know why one symbol is ok and one isn't. I'm telling you. You don't like the answer, you like your own answer. You're mad no one likes your answer as much as you do. If you knew the answer before you asked the question then why ask the question? Actually, I don't care. This is a dumb discussion more often than not aimed at getting Nazi threads allowed instead of getting communist threads closed.

this


To be a nazi means to have a political philosophy seeking the subjugation of "lesser races" and to use the most brutal means available to accomplish said subjugation because, being lesser, those races are not worthy of humanitarian concern.

To be a communist means to have an economic philosophy seeking the control of capital/production by the general public.


The fact that various historical regimes called themselves "communist" and then did despicable **** does not implicate the fundamental tenets of communism itself.


The communist fundamental tenets are arguably idiotic, but the nazi fundamental tenets are intolerable.

If someone put on a Joseph Stalin avatar, you'd have a better argument.

so let me understand: you say communist discussion should be allowed because the philosophy can be separated from the regimes, then you justify the use of the flag of one of those regimes?

OP has the flag of the country Stalin led for 30 years as avatar.

Yes. I'm an onion.

the fundamental tenets of communism require constant use of violence towards anyone who disagrees. Can you deny that? Or do you want to deny that sequestering all property is violence?

This thread appears to be going just great.

1. no he doesn't

2. that symbol, as its current use/purpose, both predated Stalin and survived him

Not only can I deny that, I have, and so have at least three other people itt.

Maintaining property arrangements can require violence, but it is not a necessary aspect of property. Ethnic cleansing, otoh...

this²

Private owners under modern capitalist regimes are typically self-sequestered from productive capital. I might own stock in CSX, but I can't go drive the locomotives, or play on the tracks for that matter. This is called absentee ownership, which is one of the cornerstones of capitalism.

Notice that absentee ownership is universally ubiquitous among both capitalistic regimes and Communistic regimes. Remember, under real world Communism, as practiced in the former USSR/etc, the economic system employed was "State Capitalism".

Under both flavors of capitalism, the USA style, and the State Capitalism used by the USSR, the following were true: working folk worked for wages using machines (or other productive capital) they did not own or control. Also, working folk paid rent on homes they did not own or control. And working folk paid interest on loans from institutions they did not own or control. This is called (economic) "Alienation".

What you got wrong is that only State Capitalism, but loltastically implying not USA style capitalism, require "keep it that way for the long term, brutality is constantly required toward every single citizen, all the time". The correct answer is both, and all, flavors of capitalism need this constant application of brutality.

Consider three scenarios: (a) you work for a government owned enterprise, rent government housing, and pay interest to a government owned bank. (b) you work for a enterprise privately owned by some dude or incorporation of dudes, you rent from some dude, you pay interest to a bank incorporated by some dudes, or (c) you work for a enterprise owned by a blind trust, all you know about that blind trust is that it *might* be government owned, and it *might* be owned by some dude. Ditto with rent and interest.

In all three cases above, to "keep it that way for the long term, brutality is constantly required toward every single citizen, all the time". Without this constant brutality, active or threatened, working folk would just simply occupy their own workplaces, tell the landlord to pound sand, and run the repo man out of the 'hood with pitchforks.

in order for all capital to be public, you first have to sequester it all. But that's not the end of it. You must impose a constant ban to the production of private capital. That's the violent long term ongoing part.

You are not only maintaining property arrangements. You are banning in perpetuity the accumulation of private capital. Which by the way means savings.

Then there are many other "details", like the impossibility of having a free press. Because if all presses are public they aren't free. So how do you allow dissent in that model? You don't. And that's really really violent and brutal

If the value of private property is not socially constructed, you dont need to use violence in the way you describe.

The only way you are going to have use violence in the way you describe is if you ascribe private property some kind of inherent essence outside of social relations.

Lol if you do.

I'm definitely not a communist, but good lord @ "denying people savings accounts is just as bad as gassing minorities", which is almost exactly what you're arguing here...

I am really hesistant to straw man you, especially being the victim of it myself on this board, but you are saying that communism=fascism in terms of appropriateness, and that the common term is "violence", and that the violence of communism is "denying people savings accounts and independent newspapers".

Nazism succeeded and millions died,
Communism failed and millions died.

That said glorifying the USSR is super dumb and utterly counter productive. Even if you're correct (you're not) it's a lost battle. Stalin et al loom to big in the mind to squeeze anything else in. You can make clear and obvious cases for nationalising a lot of industries (anything where network effects make up the bulk of the 'value generated' for instance) without needing the C word.

And the endorsement of terror & calling for thousands drowning in their own blood don't forget that part.


Pure apologia for Communism right there. You gonna start focusing on Marxist Leninist Stalinist Maoist trees while not seeing the Communist forest?


So a "Bloody war of extermination" is tolerable? Bourgeois drowning in their own blood is also tolerable?
All the Communist regimes inflicted misery on their populaces, regardless of intentions & philosophy. Which is completely disregarded. Communist China today has a despicable human rights record. Which shows that in practice it's utterly consistent right up until the 21st century. Which is also completely disregarded. As is the anti Semitism in the Soviet Union. Brutality is very much a feature of Communism in practice again regardless of intention as talk is cheap and ideologies are judged by history & history has not looked kind at all on Communist regimes due to the whole genocide/mass murder thing.

Again pure apologia & sheer myopia.

Put another way - something is "my property" only insofar as others (especially the state) act in accordance with a set of entitlements attached to that thing.

You can pay someone $1,000,000 for the Washington Monument and then tell people you don't want them to photograph it.

If everybody accepts that the power plant is public/shared, the guy saying "but it's mine because I bought it" will be just as frustrated.

That's just it, no one is glorifying the USSR. You don't have neo-Ruskis out destroying churches and destroying the means of production. Educated people know what baggage the USSR has and aren't trying to revive it. The same can't be said of Nazis. It's just a more concise version of "why do alt-right supporters get banned and lefties don't?"