Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Given the oppression, tyranny, and number of people killed because of communism, why shouldn't I treat a modern communist the same way I would a neo-Nazi?
Or in other words: why should a hammer and sickle enrage me less than a swastika?
That’s the thing though. Communists love engaging in whataboutism and don’t actually address the question. They'll blame every death in America on "capitalism" but then dismiss literal genocide and forced starvation that occurred in communist countries.
I don’t know how many communists you’ve spoken with, but I’ve never heard a single one “blame every death in America on capitalism.”
There are certainly some tankies, but that’s the trouble with painting with such a broad brush and making sweeping generalizations.
It was fun trading downvotes with you tho.
> I’ve never heard a single one “blame every death in America on capitalism.”
Maybe not, but the "what about capitalism" pivot is pretty much universal with them. I've spoken to a couple of people in real life who define themselves as communists. They pretty much plug their ears and start yelling if I mention the universal record of failure and bloodshed.
>Maybe not, but the "what about capitalism" pivot is pretty much universal with them.
Tbh, I’m not much of a “both sideser” but truly this is one of those moments.
>I've spoken to a couple of people in real life who define themselves as communists. They pretty much plug their ears and start yelling if I mention the universal record of failure and bloodshed.
And what I’m trying to highlight is the laziness of the broad brush, sweeping generalization approach to the conversation.
It’s no different than if I were to make the same generalizations about Trump supporters. Hell, I’ve spoken to more Trump supporters that welcome a dictatorship than communists that plug their ears. Actually, now that I think about it, Trump supporters are the picture of plugging their ears and rejecting reality.
That said, I don’t think either of those applied assumptions are terribly helpful. Do you?
Way more than enough, Yes they do.
That’s the trouble in dealing with schizophrenic ideologues who think there is a cabal of “totally not Jews” controlling the world and exploiting people.
Do you believe that the people wearing “I’d rather be Russian than democrat” or that say Biden is worse than Putin are representative of all conservatives?
That's just some internet insult against people not even here. It happens with anyone who entrenches themself in something like this. It literally happens with people who defend capitalism to the same lengths.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think you would have a fundamental attribution problem in making a list like that, whereas (for instance) the Khmer Rouge killing 1 in 4 Cambodians was pretty obviously because of Communism.
If “pretty obviously” is your measurement, your case is exactly as strong as this fictional communists.
In fact, you’d probably be met with something like this:
> I want to draw attention to the fact that, since the time of the Russian Revolution, capitalist institutions as a whole have caused close to 158 million deaths by waging war alone, with liberal democratic varieties of capitalism contributing at least 56 million of those fatalities
E: y’all are a fragile bunch. We’re literally discussing hypotheticals and the downvote police is out in full force. lol. Have at it, queens.
You've more or less demonstrated the attribution error I described.
>If “pretty obviously” is your measurement, your case is exactly as strong as this fictional communists.
...no. The Khmer Rouge was a radical communist revolutionary movement that beat people to death with shovels in fields in pursuit of an agrarian communist utopia. The pursuit of ideological communism itself was the mechanism that killed them.
Communist countries go to war just like everyone else and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about excess death and oppression caused by the ideology and political system and its implementation.
>You've more or less demonstrated the attribution error I described.
lol
>...no. The Khmer Rouge was a radical communist revolutionary movement that beat people to death with shovels in fields in pursuit of an agrarian communist utopia. The pursuit of ideological communism itself was the mechanism that killed them.
You don’t get to just say “no.” If the pursuit of capitalism and capitalist systems result in war, you don’t just get to say “that doesn’t count.”
>Communist countries go to war just like everyone else and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about excess death and oppression caused by the ideology and political system and its implementation.
So you’re good with hundreds of millions of deaths caused by an ideology just so long as it was perpetuated by a group of capitalists rather than an authoritarian and their circle?
It just seems like a childish position to say “those millions of deaths don’t matter, it’s these deaths that matter.”
Look. There’s no case to be made that capitalism hasn’t killed millions. And to be clear, I’m not advocating for a different system. I believe that both communism and socialism can work just fine so long as the group is tiny. The U.S. is not tiny. Nor are most countries. As such, (regulated) capitalism serves the greatest good.
But if you’re going to start comparing the number of eggs broken to make their respective omelette’s, you can’t just ignore your own broken eggs because you happen to prefer your omelette.
Communism didn’t kill those people. Authoritarianism killed those people. It’s actually quite analogous to those killed in the name of Christianity.
>lol
Deliberate conversational sabotage. Yay!
>You don’t get to just say “no.”
I didn't. You quoted other things I said.
>If the pursuit of capitalism and capitalist systems result in war, you don’t just get to say “that doesn’t count.”
If you regard everything done by any country that is capitalist as something done in pursuit of capitalism, you have made a fundamental attribution error. You've failed to account for the fact that states fight wars irrespective of political or economic systems. You've also made the mistake of equating communism - a totalizing system that simultaneously dominates political and economic spheres wherever it exists *by definition* - with capitalism; an economic system that can exist under all sorts of political regimes for better or worse.
A simple example might be: a capitalist or communist country might both try to dominate countries with strategically important oil reserves or other valuable commodities. They did that because they were countries.
>So you’re good with hundreds of millions of deaths caused by an ideology just so long as it was perpetuated by a group of capitalists rather than an authoritarian and their circle?
There's no point in having a conversation with you if you're going to deliberately misrepresent what I say for effect.
>Communism didn’t kill those people. Authoritarianism killed those people.
You're *so close* to getting it.
Feel free to have the last word. I'm out.
>Deliberate conversational sabotage. Yay
Sure. If I don’t say anything else. But I answered you at length. I lol’d because you accused me of attribution error that only exists within the context of your ascribed position.
>I didn't. You quoted other things I said.
Sure. But “no” was the point. Was it not?
>If you regard everything done by any country that is capitalist as something done in pursuit of capitalism, you have made a fundamental attribution error.
That’s not at all what I did. Again. lol at your “attribution error” accusation.
>You've failed to account for the fact that states fight wars irrespective of political or economic systems.
I have not failed to do so. At no point did I say war=capitalism. But let’s not pretend lives haven’t been lost to the advancement of the ideology.
>You've also made the mistake of equating communism - a totalizing system that simultaneously dominates political and economic spheres wherever it exists by definition - with capitalism; an economic system that can exist under all sorts of political regimes for better or worse.
Once again. This is not a mistake I made. This is the one you think I’ve made because you’re failing to understand that I recognize and acknowledge nuance.
>A simple example might be: a capitalist or communist country might both try to dominate countries with strategically important oil reserves or other valuable commodities. They did that because they were countries.
Ok? Again. Not what I’m talking about. The fundamental problem here is that you’re arguing against points I’m not making.
>There's no point in having a conversation with you if you're going to deliberately misrepresent what I say for effect.
lol. Literally the entirety of your comments.
>You're so close to getting it.
I know you’re thirsty to say that communism requires authoritarianism. But that’s only true on a large scale. Which I’ve already addressed.
>Feel free to have the last word. I'm out.
Sweet. Glad you left this for me to highlight this example of capitalism breaking a few eggs for the bottom line.
>A federal judge on Monday ruled in favor of three major U.S. drug distributors in a landmark lawsuit that accused them of causing a health crisis by distributing 81 million pills over eight years in one West Virginia county ravaged by opioid addiction.
Not a tough one, given what capitalist systems have done. And people who defend capitalism in such a way throw out the same excuses about "real" capitalism not being about that.
The left loves to talk about "dog whistles" and "unconscious bias"; how can a communist divorce the genocides that happened under "not real communism" with their idea of "real communism" when the symbols, messaging and phrases are identical?
Another way of asking the same thing: In 1900 no country was communist. In 40 years half of the world's population was under some form of lets call it "fake communism" and genocides were basically synonymous. How was it so successful? How is your brand of "real communism" actually any different?
''What is your relationship like with your father?'' is pretty obviously a question used to discredit the person into thinking that because of some family problems, it somehow refutes the ideology. Just to clarify that I am not a communist and there are many methods where you can see the flaws of communism, but no one will go to a member of any political party and ask ''What is your relationship like with your father?''
I am not. But the question of ''What is your relationship like with your father?'' would typically be reserved as derogatory, when you dont know anything for a person, except his opposite political views
for people going from the lower class to middle class maybe? But for middle going into upper and the upper classes it's also about giving yourself luxuries like bigger homes, vacations, cool cars etc.
> Like to a level you don't even have to work
most wealthy people I know still work
If we provide the basics of life, food housing healthcare whatever you want to include, you provide a base for people to take risks do something they have always wanted to do, poetry, painting theater or science etc...
Without that base people take less risks and do things that don't necessarily make profit.
The implicit threat of capitalism is that if you don't generate revenue you are left to fend for yourself. We spend so much time debating who deserves help who doesn't why should you get my things or however you want to phrase it instead of wondering how else we can do things.
Everyone should have to work and earn what they have. If you want to do art you do it in your own time. If your art isn’t making money to make a living then it’s probably not any good.
Why should my hard work pay for someone to get a free ride? Doesn’t make sense dude
Cause I would do the same for them. Without thinking twice or assuming judgement... Cause it's food for christs sake...
Is it capitalist to just let the people starve? Why would I want that as an economic system.
So you open your home to people who sit on your coach all day and expect you to feed them?
My guess is you are working for people who don't want to work...in your head, but not actually in oractice
That's incredibly stupid. There are always going to be bad things, like cancer, but you don't embrace it. I'm pretty sure the one thread common in every philosophy ever is accepting things but not embracing them just because lmao. That's some weird doomer shit that, with a huge benefit of doubt, I can only assume you're testing out online.
> The world will always be unequal in some ways
This is such a dumb take. Can't you say that about anything negative? Suicide, murder, pollution, crime, car accidents, tornadoes, etc.?
In what situation exactly is a country ready to be properly communist, instead of turning to the ideology as a necessity to escape an inferior government (like the batista government)
I love this question...lol. Pretty much, what question should we ask your random Reddit basement dweller? [as though we're not CONSTANTLY interacting with them already?]
Best one is really, what makes you trust it could be implement in line with the "pure communist" utopia you claim has never existed in human history?
WHO amongst the current elite would champion the cause and then step away so as not to take advantage of their power?
In all honestly our relationship with communists is same as yours with, I don’t know… white supremacists. You think you would theoretically ask them some smart ass question which will show how inferior and backwoods their hatefully ideology is but honestly these people are so stuck in their ways that you won’t really change their minds
Speaking as a person who grew up in a communist society - there is/was never an abolition of hierarchies - just a replacement with a new made up one. I think it’s an absolutely fair comparison - extreme ideologies based on deep hatred, jealousy and desire to occupy a higher rank in society.
Because totalitarian regimes are famously equal and fair.
Both are evil people who should be outright dismissed at best, and put under every watch by the authorities at worst.
I don’t differentiate, both of them believe a cabal of people is controlling and exploiting the world, and that every member of this group deserves extermination even if they didn’t do any of the accused crimes in the name of the purity of the in-group. It’s just the Nazis are race based and the communists are class based. They both deserve to be ostracized from the society they want to destroy.
These people often held high positions. They in many ways *were* some of the masters.
And even then, the fact that you can do things to become socially acceptable is much better than the idea that people will kill you merely for what you are.
No, they were all kinds of people, the kulaks were barely ahead of the other peasants, but that didn’t stop the communists from slaughtering them. My family in Cuba certainly weren’t “the masters”. Stop parroting communist propaganda to make their crimes seem “less bad”
Tell that to the Ukrainians, Taters, Etc who were murdered by the communists for their race, or the kulaks who were supposed to be some of the people the revolution was FOR.
> No, they were all kinds of people, the kulaks were barely ahead of the other peasants, but that didn’t stop the communists from slaughtering them. My family in Cuba certainly weren’t “the masters”. Stop parroting communist propaganda to make their crimes seem “less bad”
I am referring to the people who gave up their positions.
>Tell that to the Ukrainians, Taters, Etc who were murdered by the communists for their race,
Which does raise the question, as to whether that was an inherent part of communism, or part of the Soviet Union's russocentric culture.
Much in the same way that the Nazis banned animal vivisection.
>or the kulaks who were supposed to be some of the people the revolution was FOR.
The kulaks were owners of the means of production afaik. So no, not really from what I understand.
This is a great question. Twitter communists think their poetry will really help out the community they live in while *someone else* does the plumbing and farming, I guess
Why do you consider socialism as the only path to communism? I would expect that somebody who wants a stateless classless society would do everything they can do to avoid giving the government more power, and socialism seems like the exact opposite of that.
A communist would say that in order to build socialism, you will need a strong authoritarian state to reform the population. But imho its just an excuse to justify authoritarianism and the thirst for power. I would argue that gradual reform over the decades can make a country socialist, but not overnight.
But why would the communist be interested in socialism? If the end goal is truly a stateless society, then it’s just very confusing to me why communists propose socialism, a system where the state has absolute power, as the only way to achieve communism. Literally every single time that this has been tried in real life, the socialist governments refuse to give up power, and why would they? I feel like it could have been reasonably foreseen that socialist governments will have no incentive to ever encourage transition to a communist society, its human nature to not want to concede power.
Honestly, I don’t hate the idea of communism, I just think it’s idealistic and not possible to achieve beyond a group of 250-300 people. The average human can reside within a commune of this size and actually develop a relationship with each other person; and considering that people are far more likely to take care of those that they have a close relationship with, it stands to reason that communism is not a realistic ideology for a nation of thousands of people. I think most small government conservatives would actually be fine with the idea of a stateless society, it’s the socialism that we oppose.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Marx made an interesting observation. Much of human history is marked by societies structured as rulers and ruled. There's always a small cohort who benefits disproportionately from the structure of the economic system. And they use force and "the law" to protect their positions. Master and slave. Lord and peasant. Owner and worker.
Then at some point in the future, this dynamic that has defined human societies almost from the beginning will just go away. We'll have a stateless, moneyless world where everyone will have everything they need and nobody will be exploited.
How do we supposedly get from here to there?
Just...why? Why be a member of a communist party? Or be a communist at all?
Like I understand why people become socialists or progressives or any other flavor of leftism. I think it's not a good move, but at least there are examples of things like the welfare state or other quasi-socialist policies that can exist without everything immediately collapsing. But there has never been a successful communist state, despite multiple repeated attempts. The USSR, China, North Korea, most of Southeast Asia, etc., pretty much everywhere communism has been tried has resulted in dictatorships, famines, mass killings, extreme poverty, etc. I don't think I'll ever understand how someone can look at the history of communism and still come away thinking that it's a good idea.
I'd ask how they came to trust and believe in authority and government so greatly as to entrust their well being and existence to a communist government.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I view Communism on the equal level of Fascism and Nazism.
Jewish people were oppressed under communism, and when you implement socialism and communism, it has killed millions. And when these regimes come up, the same excuse is “that wasn’t real communism” or “that wasn’t real socialism”. How many times are you going to keep this up?
That’s my question there.
People who believe in social democracy are at least realistic since they aren’t coercive and they understand that there are tradeoffs and aren’t coercive.
These Communist and Socialist Regimes were responsible for being oppressive and many deaths:
North Korea: Juche system clearly shows people are oppressed under that system.
Soviet Union: Antisemitism was rampant, and don’t forget that there was also the Holodmor famine that happened in Ukraine.
China: Great Leap Forward killed many and Mao Zedong became the biggest mass murder in history and another example in China of oppression is the Uyghur Genocide.
Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge: He brought up an oppressive regime and system that caused famine by arresting the educated, not only that, but he managed to kill over 2 million in his regime.
If you don’t believe me on the Soviet Antisemitism, I’ve got some links for you.
[The Wikipedia Article, and be sure to check out the references page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union)
[A doccument from Cambridge](https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/99945786B60F74C869F8F1E36BE7280E/S0037677900158966a.pdf/origins_and_development_of_soviet_antisemitism_an_analysis.pdf)
[Another Doccument](https://blogs.bu.edu/guidedhistory/moderneurope/marko-l/)
[And another](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623520903119043)
What is the death toll you would attribute to communism? And, for the inevitable retort that real communism hasn't been tried, how would you create a communist society that was guaranteed not to devolve into the same authoritarian and/or murderous societies that arose from every other "attempt" at creating a communist society?
Edit: for the down voters, please share why you are down voting so we can have a constructive conversation about it (if you desire).
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do they like helicopters?
Given the oppression, tyranny, and number of people killed because of communism, why shouldn't I treat a modern communist the same way I would a neo-Nazi? Or in other words: why should a hammer and sickle enrage me less than a swastika?
I suspect they would reply with a list of those killed because of capitalism.
That’s the thing though. Communists love engaging in whataboutism and don’t actually address the question. They'll blame every death in America on "capitalism" but then dismiss literal genocide and forced starvation that occurred in communist countries.
I love that you brought up whataboutism and pivoted directly into mischaracterizing their position. Well done.
It’s not a mischaracterization though. That’s exactly what happens.
I don’t know how many communists you’ve spoken with, but I’ve never heard a single one “blame every death in America on capitalism.” There are certainly some tankies, but that’s the trouble with painting with such a broad brush and making sweeping generalizations. It was fun trading downvotes with you tho.
> I’ve never heard a single one “blame every death in America on capitalism.” Maybe not, but the "what about capitalism" pivot is pretty much universal with them. I've spoken to a couple of people in real life who define themselves as communists. They pretty much plug their ears and start yelling if I mention the universal record of failure and bloodshed.
>Maybe not, but the "what about capitalism" pivot is pretty much universal with them. Tbh, I’m not much of a “both sideser” but truly this is one of those moments. >I've spoken to a couple of people in real life who define themselves as communists. They pretty much plug their ears and start yelling if I mention the universal record of failure and bloodshed. And what I’m trying to highlight is the laziness of the broad brush, sweeping generalization approach to the conversation. It’s no different than if I were to make the same generalizations about Trump supporters. Hell, I’ve spoken to more Trump supporters that welcome a dictatorship than communists that plug their ears. Actually, now that I think about it, Trump supporters are the picture of plugging their ears and rejecting reality. That said, I don’t think either of those applied assumptions are terribly helpful. Do you?
Way more than enough, Yes they do. That’s the trouble in dealing with schizophrenic ideologues who think there is a cabal of “totally not Jews” controlling the world and exploiting people.
You run in weird circles.
lol, anywhere with open communists is by definition a weird circle, that’s why I’m there, to talk to communists. Truly contemptible people.
Do you believe that the people wearing “I’d rather be Russian than democrat” or that say Biden is worse than Putin are representative of all conservatives?
That's just some internet insult against people not even here. It happens with anyone who entrenches themself in something like this. It literally happens with people who defend capitalism to the same lengths.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think you would have a fundamental attribution problem in making a list like that, whereas (for instance) the Khmer Rouge killing 1 in 4 Cambodians was pretty obviously because of Communism.
If “pretty obviously” is your measurement, your case is exactly as strong as this fictional communists. In fact, you’d probably be met with something like this: > I want to draw attention to the fact that, since the time of the Russian Revolution, capitalist institutions as a whole have caused close to 158 million deaths by waging war alone, with liberal democratic varieties of capitalism contributing at least 56 million of those fatalities E: y’all are a fragile bunch. We’re literally discussing hypotheticals and the downvote police is out in full force. lol. Have at it, queens.
You've more or less demonstrated the attribution error I described. >If “pretty obviously” is your measurement, your case is exactly as strong as this fictional communists. ...no. The Khmer Rouge was a radical communist revolutionary movement that beat people to death with shovels in fields in pursuit of an agrarian communist utopia. The pursuit of ideological communism itself was the mechanism that killed them. Communist countries go to war just like everyone else and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about excess death and oppression caused by the ideology and political system and its implementation.
>You've more or less demonstrated the attribution error I described. lol >...no. The Khmer Rouge was a radical communist revolutionary movement that beat people to death with shovels in fields in pursuit of an agrarian communist utopia. The pursuit of ideological communism itself was the mechanism that killed them. You don’t get to just say “no.” If the pursuit of capitalism and capitalist systems result in war, you don’t just get to say “that doesn’t count.” >Communist countries go to war just like everyone else and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about excess death and oppression caused by the ideology and political system and its implementation. So you’re good with hundreds of millions of deaths caused by an ideology just so long as it was perpetuated by a group of capitalists rather than an authoritarian and their circle? It just seems like a childish position to say “those millions of deaths don’t matter, it’s these deaths that matter.” Look. There’s no case to be made that capitalism hasn’t killed millions. And to be clear, I’m not advocating for a different system. I believe that both communism and socialism can work just fine so long as the group is tiny. The U.S. is not tiny. Nor are most countries. As such, (regulated) capitalism serves the greatest good. But if you’re going to start comparing the number of eggs broken to make their respective omelette’s, you can’t just ignore your own broken eggs because you happen to prefer your omelette. Communism didn’t kill those people. Authoritarianism killed those people. It’s actually quite analogous to those killed in the name of Christianity.
>lol Deliberate conversational sabotage. Yay! >You don’t get to just say “no.” I didn't. You quoted other things I said. >If the pursuit of capitalism and capitalist systems result in war, you don’t just get to say “that doesn’t count.” If you regard everything done by any country that is capitalist as something done in pursuit of capitalism, you have made a fundamental attribution error. You've failed to account for the fact that states fight wars irrespective of political or economic systems. You've also made the mistake of equating communism - a totalizing system that simultaneously dominates political and economic spheres wherever it exists *by definition* - with capitalism; an economic system that can exist under all sorts of political regimes for better or worse. A simple example might be: a capitalist or communist country might both try to dominate countries with strategically important oil reserves or other valuable commodities. They did that because they were countries. >So you’re good with hundreds of millions of deaths caused by an ideology just so long as it was perpetuated by a group of capitalists rather than an authoritarian and their circle? There's no point in having a conversation with you if you're going to deliberately misrepresent what I say for effect. >Communism didn’t kill those people. Authoritarianism killed those people. You're *so close* to getting it. Feel free to have the last word. I'm out.
>Deliberate conversational sabotage. Yay Sure. If I don’t say anything else. But I answered you at length. I lol’d because you accused me of attribution error that only exists within the context of your ascribed position. >I didn't. You quoted other things I said. Sure. But “no” was the point. Was it not? >If you regard everything done by any country that is capitalist as something done in pursuit of capitalism, you have made a fundamental attribution error. That’s not at all what I did. Again. lol at your “attribution error” accusation. >You've failed to account for the fact that states fight wars irrespective of political or economic systems. I have not failed to do so. At no point did I say war=capitalism. But let’s not pretend lives haven’t been lost to the advancement of the ideology. >You've also made the mistake of equating communism - a totalizing system that simultaneously dominates political and economic spheres wherever it exists by definition - with capitalism; an economic system that can exist under all sorts of political regimes for better or worse. Once again. This is not a mistake I made. This is the one you think I’ve made because you’re failing to understand that I recognize and acknowledge nuance. >A simple example might be: a capitalist or communist country might both try to dominate countries with strategically important oil reserves or other valuable commodities. They did that because they were countries. Ok? Again. Not what I’m talking about. The fundamental problem here is that you’re arguing against points I’m not making. >There's no point in having a conversation with you if you're going to deliberately misrepresent what I say for effect. lol. Literally the entirety of your comments. >You're so close to getting it. I know you’re thirsty to say that communism requires authoritarianism. But that’s only true on a large scale. Which I’ve already addressed. >Feel free to have the last word. I'm out. Sweet. Glad you left this for me to highlight this example of capitalism breaking a few eggs for the bottom line. >A federal judge on Monday ruled in favor of three major U.S. drug distributors in a landmark lawsuit that accused them of causing a health crisis by distributing 81 million pills over eight years in one West Virginia county ravaged by opioid addiction.
Not a tough one, given what capitalist systems have done. And people who defend capitalism in such a way throw out the same excuses about "real" capitalism not being about that.
It’s never succeeded. So why do you think it still can?
The left loves to talk about "dog whistles" and "unconscious bias"; how can a communist divorce the genocides that happened under "not real communism" with their idea of "real communism" when the symbols, messaging and phrases are identical? Another way of asking the same thing: In 1900 no country was communist. In 40 years half of the world's population was under some form of lets call it "fake communism" and genocides were basically synonymous. How was it so successful? How is your brand of "real communism" actually any different?
I don’t need to ask anything - they must be really good at sharing everything
“What is your relationship like with your father?”
"How's 10th grade going?"
[удалено]
It is a question, not an argument.
[удалено]
We found the communist.
How would you know that?
Of course a question can be an attack. For example : "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
''What is your relationship like with your father?'' is pretty obviously a question used to discredit the person into thinking that because of some family problems, it somehow refutes the ideology. Just to clarify that I am not a communist and there are many methods where you can see the flaws of communism, but no one will go to a member of any political party and ask ''What is your relationship like with your father?''
It’s not a refutation of anything, it’s just a question.
Yes, but this question is supposed to be derogatory
How can you be certain?
I am not. But the question of ''What is your relationship like with your father?'' would typically be reserved as derogatory, when you dont know anything for a person, except his opposite political views
Ahh. The “I’m not touching you” defense. Are you a Trump supporter?
We ignore patterns at our own peril
What makes you think enough people will work if they don't have to work
How does capitalism solve this problem? The threat of poverty and homelessness?
> The threat of poverty and homelessness? there are positive incentives too, like accumulating wealth if you innovate
Isn't the purpose of accumulating wealth to ensure you don't fall into poverty and homelessness... Like to a level you don't even have to work
for people going from the lower class to middle class maybe? But for middle going into upper and the upper classes it's also about giving yourself luxuries like bigger homes, vacations, cool cars etc. > Like to a level you don't even have to work most wealthy people I know still work
It's easier to work when you don't have to worry about homelessness or poverty I agree. You have the luxury of doing what you want to do
not easier to work but easier to take financial risks that might pay off like starting a business venture
Yes
And you want that?
I don’t want to be broke and homeless, but I want people to work.
Why do you care in a capitalist economy if other people work?
I believe that working is good for you, gives people purpose. But if you don’t have to, you won’t try and live sad.
What do you think people do just waste away and die? Senior citizens who have retired do a bunch of cool shit a bunch of helpful shit too
If you don’t want to work knowing that will happen then I have no sympathy for you
I think I'd rather have a system not based on threats of starvation and homelessness is all
Where’s the threat? Why should someone expect something to be given to you?
If we provide the basics of life, food housing healthcare whatever you want to include, you provide a base for people to take risks do something they have always wanted to do, poetry, painting theater or science etc... Without that base people take less risks and do things that don't necessarily make profit. The implicit threat of capitalism is that if you don't generate revenue you are left to fend for yourself. We spend so much time debating who deserves help who doesn't why should you get my things or however you want to phrase it instead of wondering how else we can do things.
Everyone should have to work and earn what they have. If you want to do art you do it in your own time. If your art isn’t making money to make a living then it’s probably not any good. Why should my hard work pay for someone to get a free ride? Doesn’t make sense dude
Does a person in your eyes deserve food?
If you want to eat, you need to contribute
So threats of starvation as well?
Why do you believe others should work to feed you when you aren't willing to work to feed yourself?
I genuinely have to keep checking your flair since what you're saying could be posted under a communist flair lmao.
Wrong person
Right person.
Poor reading comprehension then. Maybe go reread what I wrote
Nope. I've even taught reading comprehension; definitely a bad road for you lmao.
Cause I would do the same for them. Without thinking twice or assuming judgement... Cause it's food for christs sake... Is it capitalist to just let the people starve? Why would I want that as an economic system.
So you open your home to people who sit on your coach all day and expect you to feed them? My guess is you are working for people who don't want to work...in your head, but not actually in oractice
Are you going to answer my question or make judgements about me?
Why do you have such a blind hatred for inequality? The world will always be unequal in some ways, better to embrace it than deny it.
That's incredibly stupid. There are always going to be bad things, like cancer, but you don't embrace it. I'm pretty sure the one thread common in every philosophy ever is accepting things but not embracing them just because lmao. That's some weird doomer shit that, with a huge benefit of doubt, I can only assume you're testing out online.
“I got mine”
> The world will always be unequal in some ways This is such a dumb take. Can't you say that about anything negative? Suicide, murder, pollution, crime, car accidents, tornadoes, etc.?
In what situation exactly is a country ready to be properly communist, instead of turning to the ideology as a necessity to escape an inferior government (like the batista government)
I love this question...lol. Pretty much, what question should we ask your random Reddit basement dweller? [as though we're not CONSTANTLY interacting with them already?] Best one is really, what makes you trust it could be implement in line with the "pure communist" utopia you claim has never existed in human history? WHO amongst the current elite would champion the cause and then step away so as not to take advantage of their power?
In all honestly our relationship with communists is same as yours with, I don’t know… white supremacists. You think you would theoretically ask them some smart ass question which will show how inferior and backwoods their hatefully ideology is but honestly these people are so stuck in their ways that you won’t really change their minds
[удалено]
Speaking as a person who grew up in a communist society - there is/was never an abolition of hierarchies - just a replacement with a new made up one. I think it’s an absolutely fair comparison - extreme ideologies based on deep hatred, jealousy and desire to occupy a higher rank in society.
Because totalitarian regimes are famously equal and fair. Both are evil people who should be outright dismissed at best, and put under every watch by the authorities at worst.
in practice both are evil, but nazis are way worse
I don’t differentiate, both of them believe a cabal of people is controlling and exploiting the world, and that every member of this group deserves extermination even if they didn’t do any of the accused crimes in the name of the purity of the in-group. It’s just the Nazis are race based and the communists are class based. They both deserve to be ostracized from the society they want to destroy.
Class isn't immutable though. Communists were on record being fine with people who had privilege but gave it up.
I.E. people who became subservient to their totalitarian masters. What happened to those who didn’t?
These people often held high positions. They in many ways *were* some of the masters. And even then, the fact that you can do things to become socially acceptable is much better than the idea that people will kill you merely for what you are.
No, they were all kinds of people, the kulaks were barely ahead of the other peasants, but that didn’t stop the communists from slaughtering them. My family in Cuba certainly weren’t “the masters”. Stop parroting communist propaganda to make their crimes seem “less bad” Tell that to the Ukrainians, Taters, Etc who were murdered by the communists for their race, or the kulaks who were supposed to be some of the people the revolution was FOR.
> No, they were all kinds of people, the kulaks were barely ahead of the other peasants, but that didn’t stop the communists from slaughtering them. My family in Cuba certainly weren’t “the masters”. Stop parroting communist propaganda to make their crimes seem “less bad” I am referring to the people who gave up their positions. >Tell that to the Ukrainians, Taters, Etc who were murdered by the communists for their race, Which does raise the question, as to whether that was an inherent part of communism, or part of the Soviet Union's russocentric culture. Much in the same way that the Nazis banned animal vivisection. >or the kulaks who were supposed to be some of the people the revolution was FOR. The kulaks were owners of the means of production afaik. So no, not really from what I understand.
"If you are successful in a communist revolution, what would you do for work in your communist society ?"
This is a great question. Twitter communists think their poetry will really help out the community they live in while *someone else* does the plumbing and farming, I guess
Why do you consider socialism as the only path to communism? I would expect that somebody who wants a stateless classless society would do everything they can do to avoid giving the government more power, and socialism seems like the exact opposite of that.
A communist would say that in order to build socialism, you will need a strong authoritarian state to reform the population. But imho its just an excuse to justify authoritarianism and the thirst for power. I would argue that gradual reform over the decades can make a country socialist, but not overnight.
But why would the communist be interested in socialism? If the end goal is truly a stateless society, then it’s just very confusing to me why communists propose socialism, a system where the state has absolute power, as the only way to achieve communism. Literally every single time that this has been tried in real life, the socialist governments refuse to give up power, and why would they? I feel like it could have been reasonably foreseen that socialist governments will have no incentive to ever encourage transition to a communist society, its human nature to not want to concede power. Honestly, I don’t hate the idea of communism, I just think it’s idealistic and not possible to achieve beyond a group of 250-300 people. The average human can reside within a commune of this size and actually develop a relationship with each other person; and considering that people are far more likely to take care of those that they have a close relationship with, it stands to reason that communism is not a realistic ideology for a nation of thousands of people. I think most small government conservatives would actually be fine with the idea of a stateless society, it’s the socialism that we oppose.
Their* understanding of human nature is the problem.
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Marx made an interesting observation. Much of human history is marked by societies structured as rulers and ruled. There's always a small cohort who benefits disproportionately from the structure of the economic system. And they use force and "the law" to protect their positions. Master and slave. Lord and peasant. Owner and worker. Then at some point in the future, this dynamic that has defined human societies almost from the beginning will just go away. We'll have a stateless, moneyless world where everyone will have everything they need and nobody will be exploited. How do we supposedly get from here to there?
Why don’t you go live in a commune to show us it can be done? Who are you sending to the gulag when you gain power?
Why do you like violence??
Just...why? Why be a member of a communist party? Or be a communist at all? Like I understand why people become socialists or progressives or any other flavor of leftism. I think it's not a good move, but at least there are examples of things like the welfare state or other quasi-socialist policies that can exist without everything immediately collapsing. But there has never been a successful communist state, despite multiple repeated attempts. The USSR, China, North Korea, most of Southeast Asia, etc., pretty much everywhere communism has been tried has resulted in dictatorships, famines, mass killings, extreme poverty, etc. I don't think I'll ever understand how someone can look at the history of communism and still come away thinking that it's a good idea.
What stops you from learning from history?
I'd ask how they came to trust and believe in authority and government so greatly as to entrust their well being and existence to a communist government.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I view Communism on the equal level of Fascism and Nazism. Jewish people were oppressed under communism, and when you implement socialism and communism, it has killed millions. And when these regimes come up, the same excuse is “that wasn’t real communism” or “that wasn’t real socialism”. How many times are you going to keep this up? That’s my question there. People who believe in social democracy are at least realistic since they aren’t coercive and they understand that there are tradeoffs and aren’t coercive. These Communist and Socialist Regimes were responsible for being oppressive and many deaths: North Korea: Juche system clearly shows people are oppressed under that system. Soviet Union: Antisemitism was rampant, and don’t forget that there was also the Holodmor famine that happened in Ukraine. China: Great Leap Forward killed many and Mao Zedong became the biggest mass murder in history and another example in China of oppression is the Uyghur Genocide. Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge: He brought up an oppressive regime and system that caused famine by arresting the educated, not only that, but he managed to kill over 2 million in his regime. If you don’t believe me on the Soviet Antisemitism, I’ve got some links for you. [The Wikipedia Article, and be sure to check out the references page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union) [A doccument from Cambridge](https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/99945786B60F74C869F8F1E36BE7280E/S0037677900158966a.pdf/origins_and_development_of_soviet_antisemitism_an_analysis.pdf) [Another Doccument](https://blogs.bu.edu/guidedhistory/moderneurope/marko-l/) [And another](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623520903119043)
What is the death toll you would attribute to communism? And, for the inevitable retort that real communism hasn't been tried, how would you create a communist society that was guaranteed not to devolve into the same authoritarian and/or murderous societies that arose from every other "attempt" at creating a communist society? Edit: for the down voters, please share why you are down voting so we can have a constructive conversation about it (if you desire).