Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
Policy Update - Rules changes incoming for AI content - Read Here
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Not a damn chance, tankie.
There’s nothing to discuss) This young marxist most likely, watched up propaganda on YouTube, watched communist videos (we have a lot of channels on a communist YouTube in Russia who propagate leftist ideas into fragile minds) But when people grow up, they leave this sect.
There is experience of the 20th century, everything, the plane did not take off, it crashed, and they say that it was not the right plane and we want to try again.
Yes, in the material of Marx’s books, communism is impossible in a in a single country, a proletarian revolution should break out all over the planet.
Tankie Dashie - “Pol Pot has never claimed, that he was a real communist. So as his regime.”
Regarding Pol Pot, he will not be able to justify that he is not a communist, because he pursued a purely communist policy, until the annihilation of families, private property and the state, and the liquidation of commodity-money relations.
Using the example of Pol Pot, it is factorogical with links to specific examples that he can never prove that he was not a Marxist. Lol, it’s just some kind of agulistic riffraff, accusations like “he is euro-lovin ’oh yes this is not real communism !!”
But substantively in facts, he will never have enough arguments to prove that he was not a Marxist.
Because Pol Pot he was a radical Marxist, he consistently introduced precisely Marxist ideas into practice.
The problem here is that you are making a distinction without a tangible difference and it seems to be flying right over your head. Saying “Real communism hasn’t been tried” is like saying “a person flying by jumping off a roof with an umbrella hasn’t actually been tried” because “gravitic interference is why he fell and broke his neck, that wasn’t real flying”, just because it may be strictly speaking “possible” in some unrealistic and outlandish fashion does not mean it will ever actually happen.
Communism as defined by Marx will never exist, it will always turn into “state capitalism” because that is what is necessary for a communist state to persist just like how fascism will always require imperialism to exist, the reality of human nature ensures that this will never change.
Wind blows, rain falls and communist regimes will always turn into oppressive authoritarian shit holes because if they didn’t they would cease to exist.
If you’d like to discuss the nuances of this I’d be happy to but tbh this comment section is already nuts, I don’t want to antagonize anyone in here anymore than has already been done.
Edit: I’d also just like to point out that I am not actually disagreeing with you, I just wanted to point out the issue with tolerating this sort of fallacy in rational conversation.
Edited because: Clarification
“It wasn’t communism, it was state capitalism!”
Classic.
Yes, and I am ready to defend this position, because for some reason many people mistakenly think that there was socialism.
Most likely not a psychopath, but a person of a very young age. As a rule, usually at a young age they usually sympathize with left ideas, when a person gets older, right ideas are already close to him.Most communists do not have morality, they are ready to repress their own people, the main thing is to achieve the goal. Moreover, all these new young communists, they never lived in the USSR, did not live in the 30s.
Well, an attempt to justify the great terror of the USSR that was directed against the Russians, against their own people, is like trying to justify the Third Reich and the extermination of the Jews, well … there was a time like this, comrade Hitler did not know anything, enemies got into the SS. Comrade Stalin did not know anything, enemies made their way into the party.
The same thing happened here, in the USSR there was a struggle against classes of people, in the third Reich there was a struggle against a race of people.
As they say, just let the communist speak out, and he will break himself. usually they contradict their own words and logic.
“It wasn’t communism, it was state capitalism!”
Classic.
@Atlas_66
That’s a whole lot of words to say that real communism has never and will never exist because it is incompatible with reality.
I commend you for your bravery in trying to explain it to him but the fact is that guy wants communism no matter what and he would probably be willing to hurt or kill as many people as it took for him to get it, that is to say all of them, so the simple fact is that he is just a danger to society, there is nothing complicated about it. There is very little difference between him and all of the other psychopathic Marxists that exist in this world, he is the exact type of person who would have drank the koolaid in Jonestown back in 1978 for reasons that he can’t even explain.
I can explain, it is because he is mentally ill, no sane person advocates genocide as a means to an end, it is inexcusable.
“Becides, all I said was historical facts and communism theory, which you did not even try to dispute.”
“communism theory”
The problem is that this is just a beckoning fantasy that does not at all agree with anything that could somehow be tested in practice. That is, with modern communist agitators, they have rhetoric like some Christian preachers like I right now will draw you such a blessed picture of paradise that everything will be wonderful and that you all believe in my god. Well, yes, but all these allegations, they must be based on something, as they say “Practice criteria of truth” It’s not enough just to say that such a communist society will provide you all and that’s how this society will work IN THEORY. This is NOT enough because you are not proving anything) this is not an argument just to promise people good conditions, politicians do it in general, populists who say “elect me to the post and I will increase salaries by 10 times”
“Yes, communism is an escape. Those, who don’t want to work well will get paid less. Those who work better than others will be paid more.”
Well, it turns out that in a socialist society different people will receive different salaries. It turns out that in a socialist society there will be property stratification, there will be rich and there will be poor.
The question arises, what kind of forces within society will have to prevent the transition of property stratification into social one.
What do we get?) Nobody needs a tough repressive apparatus that would impede the transition of an essential stratification into a social one. That is, it turns out that this repressive apparatus will act contrary to the interests of the most effective subjects of economic relations. It turns out that you will have to carry out some kind of redistribution of profits from rich to poor, again and again. Or some alternative vision of the situation?) Very interesting))
For it is very similar to how to ask a question about the factors of material incentives for labor, but they answer me - Well, the salary, as it were) Those who work better will receive more money, those who work less will receive less money.
But, in fact, this principle works well under capitalism.
Because the more efficient subjects of the capitalist economy, they make big profits in their hands, and the less efficient they have less money.
We have a situation in which there are different actors with different abilities and different contributions to a certain common treasury of the public domain, that is, if we evaluate their work adequately, reward them adequately, their contributions to public affairs are adequate to their work, it turns out that we have to pay someone higher, someone lower salary, someone will be richer, someone poorer - This is called property stratification, that is, it turns out that we consider socialism in this way, then under socialism there will be both rich and poor.
Yes, but this is not socialism, this is capitalism. Someone works more, someone less, someone richer, someone poorer, large and small salaries. Such a society is called capitalist. It turns out that the right socialism is capitalism) We socialize the means of production, we do not have private ownership of the means of production, but at the same time we still have the poor and poor))
Because we evaluate the work of workers adequately to their contribution. That is, socialists are NOT against property stratification within society, naturally, on the basis of such a small digression into the bowels of this beautiful socialist theory, we can conclude that they are not against property stratification. Under socialism there will be both rich and poor.
p.s. Sorry for the grammatical errors, English is not my native language, I am from Russia.
Ooh, debate me!
Good. Because I have the same opinion about you.
Becides, all I said was historical facts and communism theory, which you did not even try to dispute.
I recommend you to read some books or at least history textbook. Sometimes it helps.
Good luck
Dude, there is just so much that is factually and morally incorrect with pretty much everything you just said, I’m going to stop engaging with you because I don’t enjoy arguing with a deranged communist, you have no logical or morale consistency whatsoever, to me you sound like you are very much mentally ill, I suggest you seek assistance with this but you wont get it from me.
I am going to drop this conversation because it is ruining my ability to enjoy this cartoon horse website.
May God have mercy on your genocide excusing soul.
And socialist countries has free medicine and education, which gives every child and opportunity to become whatever he/she wants.
Private ownership of the means of production does NOT mean, that I’m gonna steal your money, your house and your toothbrush. Don’t mix up personal property and private one. The private property is that one, which exploit other people to make you rich. That what I was talking about.
if you don’t get money from other people’s underpaid work, then no evil commie is gonna touch you.
And please.. I’m not interesting, how you gonna piss on something.
Edited
But he did not ordered to murder innocent citizens according to race and nationality just because he didn’t like them
Ok then, how about Cambodia, does that fit the ticket for you?
Yes, there were political represions, but it was a very hard period for country.
Spoken like a true psychopath.
I can’t even begin to express my disgust for a person who just made excuses for the murder of millions of people.
What in the hell wouldn’t you do to get your “communist utopia”, I want a number, how many people would you be willing to murder?
How many people work in terrible conditions for a meager salary with no choice and social guaranties?
And you think communism is an escape from this?
How many children are basically enslaved now by working on some plantations?
Zero, child labor is illegal, except in some god awful communist shithole countries where they don’t have any moral and treat people like insects.
so everyone could get paid as much as he deserved
YOU do not deserve ANYTHING that you did not earn, your inability to cope with this fact is no one’s problem but your own.
that commies just want to kill every rich person
OK then, I have money, you say i should give it to you, I tell you to take a hike, what now?
Keep in mind that I would happily burn everything I own and piss on the ashes before I would give it to some communist scumbag.
You cool with that?
Well I don’t think, that I should texplain anything to the person, who think that Stalin was as bad as Hitler.
I’ve never claimed, that Stalin was a very good person. But he did not ordered to murder innocent citizens according to race and nationality just because he didn’t like them. Yes, there were political represions, but it was a very hard period for country. I bet you don’t even know about situation in Russia caused by WW1 and Civil war.
But USSR became second best economic in the world.
Those “peaceful democrats” (who refused to end the war) made everything even worse after February revolution. So October revolution was a logical consequence.
And now lots of people blame Stalin for a autocratic regime during the WWII. Well, USSR wasn’t lucky to be located very far from Nazi Germany, so he could join the war a year before it’s ending.
And now speaking of morality. The theme of conversation was relevance of Marxism novadays. And comparing today with the period of clearly imperialism and facism in Europe is kinda strange. And when you call Marxists immoral, how do you call capitalists? How many people work in terrible conditions for a meager salary with no choice and social guaranties? How many people die because of it? How many children are basically enslaved now by working on some plantations? Well, I’m sure you don’t care, because it’s very far from you in some Africa and Asia. And not only there.
The only ones, who want to rebuild this structure, are communists, so everyone could get paid as much as he deserved.
But nah, everyone think, that commies just want to kill every rich person, just like Joker from the movie.
Edited
How does this sound to you?
Who cares about Nazi archives, which were disclosed after Hitler’s death? 600000 executed and 4 millions prisoners since 1924.. not very interesting numbers.
Now consider where you stand morally given the modified statement above, then try and explain to us why anyone should listen to anything you have to say.
Lol, I did not deny repressions. Yes, lots of them were unjustified. But it doesn’t give anyone permission to falsify historical facts. There was a Cold War after all. Or you think, that propaganda was only at socialist countries?
Becides, if you tell about millions of executed citizens, give me some documental proof.
There are lots of reasons to hate Soviet Union and other socialist regimes. But it doesn’t mean, that we should believe in some myths, which were made during the Cold War.
Don’t bother throwing history at them, from what I’ve seen(and I’ve seen a lot) a lot of modern communists completely dismiss and history that says anything negative about communism/communist regimes as “capitalist propaganda”. the irony is so thick it’s collapsed into a singularity
Yes, very funny fairytale from Wikipedia about millions of executed people. Who cares about NKVD archives, which were disclosed after Stalin’s death? 600000 executed and 4 millions prisoners since 1924.. not very interesting numbers. British and American journalists might know better about it.
For you to know the idea of dekulakisation was redistribution of property of peasants and normalize relations between the city and the countryside, because there was a chaos after WW1 and Civil war.
My apologises, if my previous reply was too rude.
Yes, most of US citizens have an opportunity to become rich. But the only way to make one country rich is to make another poor.
Edited
PS: My retirement savings are invested in the economy, and thus in the same corporations that employ me. Every American with a dollar and a brain can be a capitalist by investing it in a retirement plan like a Roth 401(k). It’s not 1848.
Edited
“Why should I care, how much people have, when I have more, than enough?”
After these words I have no doubt, that dekulakization was a right thing.
You should give at least a iota because your financial condition became possible just because capitalists exploitate other people instead of you. Its the basis scheme of capitalism since the beginning of the previous century.
Nobody said, that communists want equal economic for everyone. They want equal opportunities and equitable distribution of resources.
Good point, if the poor did have access to all basic necessities along with enough extra for some creature comforts then there wouldn’t be any real issue. Of course you’d have to upgrade the living conditions of the poor first, and that’s just a huge web of sub-problems
I get what you mean.
Again, I’m technically “low-income”. I feel very well off. I have a computer, bed, roof, luxuries like sushi sometimes or even a massage, and still enough to save some for retirement. Why should I give a single iota of a damn how much richer people have, when I already have more than enough?
Edited
That is a great big steamin’ hot take right there, buddy.