here is a sample of the ranting of a Stalinist.

He uses a lot of the same key phrases that you use.

Where do you differ from him philosophically? The end? The means?

The means and the end. Bob thinks that he can reform capitalism through revolution. He thinks that he can cut deals with the running dogs al la China and Cuba. These are Stalinist deformed workers states.

All rather poisonous, IMO -- but to which flavor do you subscribe?

Killion 20 or 30 million is so much better than Russian, where they only killed 15 or 20.

Of course, Cambodian is good if you are taking percent of population. I mean who can beat killing 25% of your own population. And I love the twist of killing people who wear glasses because they might be literate. Kind of like Dick the Butcher in Hank 6th, going along with killing clerks and hanging an ink bottle around their neck.

Of course, Cuba has a long run, and they can attack Honduras for not being democratic.

So many flavors.

All of those states that you mentioned have the same structure. They are Stalinist deformed worker's states except for the Asians which are Maoist.

sounds exactly like where odrama has us headed...

Marxist/Leninist.

BO is no communist. BO is good at mediating capitalist power struggles via government intervention. That's all.

Yes, those states have that structure.

And what other flavors of communism are there that work so much better?

Oh, yeah. I forgot my ATF commie state. Pie-In-The-Sky, does not exists except in the head of dreamers.

And one more good communisist flavor. The PETA Special, Animal Farm.

Capitalist power struggles???  Give me a break!!!  All OB knows is socialism is the direction he wants to go!  Govenment in control of everything!  Government doesn't belong in business!  Especially the greedy members of our house and senate!!!  They just believe in sticking their hands out and getting "campaign contributions".

They actually believe their job is to "bring home money" to their states...

BO is a capitalist's lackey. US politicians work for the capitalists, grasshopper. If the capitalist's sense that there is a profit to be had in introducing socialism to some aspects of the US labor markets then the politicians will implement socialism for them. Think 501 3 c.

... about the millions killed by Lenin? Where did he go wrong?

Phil you should know better. There is absolutely no chance that the
UCC can be adapted to work with communism is there?  Unless the US working class gets a lot more desperate for social justice there won't be any communism in the US any time soon. BTW believing in Pie-In-The-Sky is the same as believing that there is a god and there is no god.

In wars people die. People have some choices  about war. These are hide,flee,fight or surrender. Think about it john, what is the best way to survive a war? How do you think those millions died John? You and your slimy ilk love to take censuses of the dead and attribute the deaths to whatever opposing political point of view is convenient for you. The implication is , if you don't embrace whatever slimy political position that John is pushing, then you are responsible for millions of deaths. Well John that trick might work with the capitalist loving liberals that post here so try it with them.
To me dead is dead, move on.

You completely avoided the question.  

I had commented that all the flavors of communism seemed to be bad.  You replied that the ones I mentioned were all one brand.  I asked what other brands were there.

You replied completely avoiding the question.  Then switched the topic to religion.  The fact that there may or may not be a God is not relevant to the abject failure of every brand of communism.  

It would be as if someone said, "Communism is a failure." and you responded that the Edsel was also a failure.  Yeah. That may or may not be, but it doesn't change the fact that communism is such a failure.

In any event, I will repeat the question: What flavors of communism haven't been a failure?

Finally, I don't even know what your second sentence means.  It is the type of nonesence that communists spout.

The millions of Ukrainians who died, did not die in a war; unless you count deaths people suffer at the hands of their own communist government as a "war."

COmmunism is always at war with the people it purports to love.

The millions killed by communists were not only killed in wars.  Rather, communists managed to kill more of their own citizens in peace time than many nations kill in war.

Cambodia was not at war, and they killed more people than the U.S. did in the last three wars.

The famine in the Ukraine was not a "war."

In war, as you note, people can hide, flee, fight, or surrender.  In communism, if you surrender you are killed.

Yes, we do take a census of the dead and attribute them to communism.  That is because communism killed them.

To what should we attribute the tens of millions dead in China?  Maybe we can attribute them to rock music or mini-skirts.  Nope. They are attributable to communism.

Of course, only a communist could sluff it off as "dead is dead."  What about the daughter of some who was killed and no longer has her daddy?  What about the mother of a boy who was killed and no longer has her son? A wife? A husband?

Dead is dead. True. Communism has two types of victims.  Those it kills and the families of those that it killed.

But to you dead is dead, and the feelings of the living are ashes as well.

Communism loves humanity. It hates people.

The opiate of the non-religious.

Saw your comment on the Ukraine after I posted my rant.  I am glad other people know about that horrific episode, and didn't mean to steal your thunder.  

It is astounding how a philosophy that is supposed to be geared to the betterment of people constantly leads the death and misery.

But it is like "Nightmare on Elm Street" or those other slasher movies, where the bad guy just keeps popping up again to kill more.  The only difference is in each sequel in Communism, people still think the slasher can be the good guy.

And we should not forget that the proper name for Nazism is National SOCIALISM and for communism is International SOCIALISM.

Tens upon tens of millions of dead -- at the hands of their own government.

And commies keep coming back and saying "We'll do better this time, we promise!  Just let us disarm you and you'll be safe."

about a communist form of government nor were the people killed in the countries you mentioned killed because they lived in a country run by semi-communist governments. Rather, they were killed bc the individuals in power abused that power to the extent that they persecuted, imprisoned, and killed opponents.

      That is like saying that democracy is the cause of the killing of blacks the deep south from the 1800s to early 1960s. It is not the form of government that kills people but the individuals who abuse their power.

       No communism is bad not bc it kills people but because it simply does not work except possibly in very poor countries where the system is administered by enlightened humanitarian leaders. And since that has never happened, it is fair to say communism has never worked.

You say "it simply does not work" except in situations that never exist.  Got that right.

Of course, no one can justify killing blacks in the South (or North).  However, the numbers are astoundingly different. At most there were a couple hundred people lynched in any one year in the south, and most years it was far fewer than that.  My guess is that many years it may have been a dozen or so, if that many.

Communism killed thousands a day, every day, for months and months, and that is probably an understatement.  

Furthermore, the lynchings were never part of American "philsophy" or policy.  They were an aberation.  They were never official policy.  At the most, a number of jurisdictions turned a blind eye.

The mass murders and starvations and Gulags and the rest of the evils of communism were offical policy.

Finally, there have been numerous democratic societies that never had lynchings.  Mass murder is common to many (if not most) communist societies.  Mass denial of human rights (as we understand them) is common to all communist societies.  Cuba has such free elections. Let's see how long Chavez remains in power.

says anything about killing enemies of the state or denying himan rights. In fact both constitutions provided greater economic rights for the people than many Western constitutions  including the rights to work, rest and leisure, health protection, care in old age and sickness, housing, education, and cultural benefits.

     The slave camps, the Gulag, the secret police killings were all decisions of the individual policy makers who said that those imprisoned were "enemies of the state" and these drastic measures were necessary "to make the country safe."

If these decisions were inconsistent with the Constitution well - are you going to argue with Stalin?


     H'mm, does that sound at all familiar to you? You are not going to blame democracy I hope just bc a couple of bad actors told us that we need to kill all "terrorist"s or else throw them in prison to make the country safe.

Why do you always imply things I never hinted at?

I never said the USSR constitution authorized mass murder or Gulags or anything else.  Sure they provide a lot of rights. They provide the right to housing, and the housing in the USSR for the middle class was worse than ghettos in the US.

They provide the right to work. And the factories in the USSR made the sweat shops of the Robber Barons look like a day at the beach.

Their vacation places for workers sucked. I saw them. Pathetic.

Krushchev could not believe that factory workers in the U.S. had cars.  That is how bad it was there. All his KGB and he didn't believe the parking lots at U.S. factories.  They couldn't even imagine how good the workers here had it BECAUSE COMMUNISM WAS SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE THE MATERIAL LIFE FOR THEM. THAT IS WHY THEY DIDN'T STRESS FREE SPEECH AND OUR "FREEDOMS."

It is not just that the USSR did the mass murder, and killings. So did the next communist state, China, but with twice the number of dead. What a coincidence.

Then the next communist state did the same thing. Then the next one. Wow, isn't that amazing.

Of course no Communist constitution ever provided for president for life, but Bingo! what pops up in Cuba? and then it goes to his brother.
what a coincidence.

Of course no constitution in Commie land ever provided for family to inherit power. Tell that to Raul. Tell that to the latest in N. Korea.  

Wow, here's a shocker. Bashir is Syria, a Soviet client state. Bingo. You guessed it.

In the meantime, let's list the democracies that had lynching and the number of dead.
1) A small number (comparitvely) in the South.  

2) can't think of any else.

You keep going back to Gitmo et al.

Okay. Let's compare:  How many innocent - really innocent in Gitmo.  I will give you half, which is way more. Now you got 100 or so.

Now how many innocent in the USSR.  7 million?  15 million?  I don't know.
Try China 20 million?

Let's see: Democracy counting gitmo and lynching maybe 1000 over 100 years.  Communism 100 million over 80 years.

And add up the other democratic countries.

Do you not see some vague pattern.

Of course the left justifies mass murder with "they have health care in China." (Not you, but that is how it is excused.)

      Sounds to me like we are in agreement- it is not the governmental system that causes the death but the bad actors who abuse power in the system. You consistently and accurately identify the bad actors as the problem rather than the government.

    I took you to task only bc you said "communism caused the deaths" which did imply that something in that government system was a causal agent. Hence I reminded you about the constitutions - of course you did not say the constitutions caused the deaths but that was the logical construct from what you did say.

    As to the numbers, of course, I agree you cannot begin to compare the human rights abuses under bad actor communist systems (they were not all bad, Phil -remember Gorby) with what 2 amateurs like Bush and Chaney did.

      But I again find it breathtaking that you think 50% of Gitmo detainees are innocent - I don't think I would have gone that high.

May I quote you that in my next Gitmo thread?

Define failure for me. As I said before Stalinism and Maoism are still communist ideologies. They just aren't my brand. Unless you are willing to define failure in the context of  communism  what is the point of this discussion? BTW the "pie in the sky" belief brought
the there is no god response.

Actually that is part of Stalinism. Stalin's policy was to jail or execute traitors and their families and friends. Stalin felt that many Ukrainians were nazi sympathizers.

Now that is truly amazing.

The same can be said about virtually every travesty and atrocity brought about by "religion" over the past two thousand years.

Actually more people die from disease, hunger and bad weather than from war. But I think there is a gray area between political and religious killing. Modern communism might have killed 100m people but the rest of the killing belongs to religion and forms of capitalism.

deaths tolls of innocents. Like I said , my heart is hard when it comes to why people die. Eventually we all die.

You take the position of a political weasel. Why are you whining about dead Europeans?  You capitalists lay the blame for death caused by you at the feet of others.

buried beneath the innuendo.

You can quote me if you want to dishonestly distort what I was saying.

We don't know exactly how many in Gitmo are innocent.  I needed a number, so I chose half.  But I added. "I will give you half, which is way more."  

In other words, not knowing the number, but needing one for discussion, I conceded a number for argument, which I expressly stated was more than the real number.  (Did you really not understand, or were you playing gotcha?)

And you distort what I say a second time. We are not in agreement that types of governements don't cause mass murder, but only bad actors.

I said it was not the consitution of Russia. I never said it was the constitution. However, in mocking the theory that it was coincidence that every communist country ends up in mass murder and atrocities, I think it is clear that I meant the communists governments, regardless of the consitution.

No, none of the constitutions say, Chapter III, we will kill 4 millinon people."  But, yes, every communist government ends up in atrocities.

It is not logical to assume I meant constitutons when the government did something.  There is a lot governments AND SYSTEMS do that is outside of constitutions.

To be extremely accurate as to my views, I don't know if it is "Government."  I do believe in is endemic to the system of communism. (If you want to quote me that it is not the govt, according to Phil, be honest and add, "But he says it is the system.)

Nope, I don't think it is a coincidence.  I think it is something inherent in the system.

Finally, Gorby inherited the USSR as it was falling apart.  That put limits on how bad he could be.  Of course, on his way up he actively participated and was a member of the Young Mass Murderers Club In Training.

And you put Bush and Cheney in the league of mass murderers of the Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot category that I was discussing. (If not, why bring them up in this context.)

One HUGE difference. Bush may have been wrong.  There may be 40 killed in X bombing in this place and 70 killed in another. (For the simple minded, I am making up numbers for illustration.)  However, he was at war.  

For better or worse, there is collateral damage in war (I SAID "WORSE")  The number of civilians that Bush killed in tiny in comparison to the number of civilians that FDR killed.  I would guess in an hour in Dresden, FDR killed more civilians that Bush killed in four years in Iraq.

And that is comparing Bush to FDR.  Now, let's compare him to Mao.

(I am not attributing every death in Iraq to Bush. If "insurgents" bombed a market, I am not putting that in Bush's column.")

Finally, Bush killed enemies in war. Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, and the ilk killed millions of their own civilians IN PEACE TIME.

Wow. Let's compare Bush v. Mao in that area.  

U.S. civilians murdered by Bush: Is there one. I will concede 5 for argument, although that is only for argument, not a number I accept for other purposes. (Clear enough?)

Chinese civilians murdered by Mao:  oh, 10, 20 30 million? you pick a number.

Okay: let's compare. Max 5 v. 20000000.

Yep. That is why Bush is called "The Evil One."

Okay so I can't talk about what you imply and I can't talk about what you actually say bc your most accurate statements are "assuming arguendo" points.

      Wow, you are really tough on me. But I do feel our therapy sessions are worthwhile. Remember, when we started I couldn't get you to even talk about the moral implications of wrongful imprisonment at all, and far from assuming arguendo that 50% of the detainees were innocent you argued passionately that even those aquitted were probably actually guilty.

I didn't imply that half of Gitmo was innocent.  An arguendo statement means that one is assuming for the sake of argument that a certain fact may exist. However, the person is not conceding, implying, or agreeing that outside of the context of that disccusion the fact is real.  

"E.g. Assuming arguendo the moon is made of green cheese, it is still closer than Pluto." That means, the green cheese issue isn't worth arguing here, but it doesn't change the fact that we are discussing something else.

If that is what you are saying the implication was, you are being intellectually dishonest because I cannot believe that you do not understand the concept of arguendo statements.  You have indicated a knowledge of law, where that is commonly used, and other areas.

I never avoided the implications of wrongful imprisonment.  But let's make up more stuff. If I recall, I was saying that an acquittal is not "innocent," which you know.  I think that wrongful imprisonment is keeping innocent in prison. Therefore, keeping someone in Gitmo who was "acquitted" is not equal to wrongful imprisonment.  

When that person may take out the Bay Bridge during rush hour because of problems of proof unreleasted to guilt, the moral implications of keeping him in Gitmo are different than imprisoning actually innocent people.

Let's make up more stuff someone didn't say.  Later.



-- Modified on 7/16/2009 7:54:52 AM

since you don't seem to agree with me.


What do you think Charlie?

"But the implication was there buried beneath the innuendo."


The defense rests.

Don't ask me what I think of Charlie.  Does Billy Barty of politic dicussion sum it up?

Let's ask a carrot in my refrigerator to mediate.