How do communists want to enforce their ideology?

It may have suffered from poor economy and whatnot but it still wasn't jumpstarted by revolution, that's why I listed it.

The main point I'm trying to make, is that it's reasonable to argue EVERY "Communist" leader used it as an excuse to gain power. Even the well respected Lenin still ended up murdering hundreds on his way to power. It's just inherently going to happen when you try to force an ideology on people.

You can't just blame it on war and famine, when it's usually entirely the leaders' fault. The famines in both Russia and China were caused by their leader's ineptitude. Stalin's 5 Year Plan and Mao's Great Leap Forward are what started the famines in both of those countries, not the uprising and the wars.

Could Communism work now? Maybe. But I still find it doubtful. Marx's ideologies were never perfect to begin with, even if there are nuggets of truth in his works. No one would be willing to try because of the horribly bad reputation Communism has now though. If a country were to declare itself Communist suddenly, it would probably be looked down upon by the entire global community save for China and North Korea. I wouldn't classify Cuba as attempting to call itself Communist anymore ever since Fidel Castro went out of power and his brother took over. His brother Raul actually gave people some freedoms, such as allowing them to have cellphones.
 
Also US didn't go after Pol Pot, and US ally Thailand even supported him. And North Vietnam, socialists/communists that had won the war against US and it's allies, toppled Pol Pot's regime and ended his bloody reign.
 
All ideologies are based on the principle that everyone needs to be on board. And that will never happen without pain and suffering. How many people aren't slaving and dying everyday to uphold capitalistic ideals? This liberal system is completely dependant on others having less, working more and suffering for our supposed "freedom".
 
Dr Fallout said:
The economy was doing well because a) no fucking sanctions! b) American businesses can exploit cheap labor easy.
Click to expand...
How is it exploitation if they are furthering your economy and living standards?

And why would glorious communist countries even need trade with the capitalist pig-dogs if communism is a viable system.

They didn't, the only example is the US, but in comparison to the conflicts in Russia and China it was a clean and polite affair.
Click to expand...

How about we compare filthy capitalist Finland which had a civil war at the same time Russia did with the glorious Soviet Union? Why did the Finns develop so much faster despite being a part of the Russian empire for 200 years and later losing both the Winter and Continuation wars?
What about Best Korea and rotten degenerate South Korea?
 
aenemic said:
All ideologies are based on the principle that everyone needs to be on board. And that will never happen without pain and suffering. How many people aren't slaving and dying everyday to uphold capitalistic ideals? This liberal system is completely dependant on others having less, working more and suffering for our supposed "freedom".
Click to expand...

Of course, the better solution is that everyone is slaving and dying everyday under an all controlling, all powerful state to uphold communist ideals. Even better, if you dare challenge the status quo you and your family can get shot for questioning the party!
 
Illuminati Confirmed! said:
How is it exploitation if they are furthering your economy and living standards?

And why would glorious communist countries even need trade with the capitalist pig-dogs if communism is a viable system.
Click to expand...
It's not improving the worker's living conditions!

Illuminati Confirmed! said:
How about we compare filthy capitalist Finland which had a civil war at the same time Russia did with the glorious Soviet Union? Why did the Finns develop so much faster despite being a part of the Russian empire for 200 years and later losing both the Winter and Continuation wars?
What about Best Korea and rotten degenerate South Korea?
Click to expand...
Actually, the Finns weren't developed, the Soviets had better weaponry and gear. However, the Finns had the advantage in terrain and better leadership. Also, the Fins were fascist not capitalist.
 
Izak said:
I agree with you and all, but I don't think it's fair to lump in Lenin with the rest, he killed people during a civil war, and in an attempt to get out of a useless world war at that.

Yes they did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom_Deal
Click to expand...

That bombing campaign didn't topple Pol Pot. The US did a lot of bombing in that war, not just in Cambodia but in Laos too. More then in the entire WW 2. Those bombs have killed tens of thousands since the end of the war.

Illuminati Confirmed! said:
How about we compare filthy capitalist Finland which had a civil war at the same time Russia did with the glorious Soviet Union? Why did the Finns develop so much faster despite being a part of the Russian empire for 200 years and later losing both the Winter and Continuation wars?
What about Best Korea and rotten degenerate South Korea?
Click to expand...

Well it helped that Finland didn't have to spend most of it's post-WW 2 budget waging a cold war against USA.

Dr Fallout said:
Actually, the Finns weren't developed, the Soviets had better weaponry and gear. However, the Finns had the advantage in terrain and better leadership. Also, the Fins were fascist not capitalist.
Click to expand...

Finland had some far right organisations during and before WW 2 but we were mostly democratic. We weren't very rich back then.
 
Dr Fallout said:
It's not improving the worker's living conditions!
Click to expand...
If getting a job doesn't improve your living conditions, why would you work? And don't say "for survival" because jumping up from "not surviving" to "surviving" is a significant improvement in living condition.

If US companies "exploiting" the Cubans for cheap labor was bad for anyone, it was bad for the Americans who had those jobs until production was moved to Cuba.
 
Illuminati Confirmed! said:
If getting a job doesn't improve your living conditions, why would you work? And don't say "for survival" because jumping up from "not surviving" to "surviving" is a significant improvement in living condition.

If US companies "exploiting" the Cubans for cheap labor was bad for anyone, it was bad for the Americans who had those jobs until production was moved to Cuba.
Click to expand...
That only works if having a job is all good and nothing bad. But... there's always job risks, intense fines (factories in the past have been known to fine talking, whistling, being late (and change the clock to accuse you of being late) and more meaning that you could end up not improving you life and of course, destroying your homes for factories. Yeah, you could be working for the factory that destroyed your parent's home.

Oh of course! MERICA, MERICA, MERICA!!! HELL YEAH!!!

No wonder Donald Trump is so popular.
 
Dr Fallout said:
That only works if having a job is all good and nothing bad. But... there's always job risks, intense fines (factories in the past have been known to fine talking, whistling, being late (and change the clock to accuse you of being late) and more meaning that you could end up not improving you life and of course, destroying your homes for factories. Yeah, you could be working for the factory that destroyed your parent's home.
Click to expand...
No matter how harsh the conditions of a worker, they are obviously better for him than if he doesn't work at all, or else he wouldn't work. Unless he's an idiot, in which case we shouldn't pity him.
 
Illuminati Confirmed! said:
No matter how harsh the conditions of a worker, they are obviously better for him than if he doesn't work at all, or else he wouldn't work. Unless he's an idiot, in which case we shouldn't pity him.
Click to expand...
There's a large difference between better and good. But okay, sure I will respect your judgement because you've obviously worked under their conditions and lived through their problems.
 
Dr Fallout said:
There's a large difference between better and good. But okay, sure I will respect your judgement because you've obviously worked under their conditions and lived through their problems.
Click to expand...
What are you implying, that not having experience in the field somehow nullifies logic?

valcik said:
@IC: Unles they'd put you in uranium mines.
Click to expand...
People who willingly do dangerous things for a living have their own reasons, and they too think that it's an overall profit for them. Or maybe they're as dumb as rocks, in which case there are worse things they could be doing than providing the rest of us with uranium.
 
I can rarely post as the new site setup wrecks hell with my 3DS.


My parents grew up in Maos communism and it absolutely sucked donkey balls. Just look up chinese ration coupons, like people were allowed only a certain amount of meat per month.

Gulags/work camps are needed because SOMEONE had to make shit for near free in order for everyone else to get it dirt cheap/free because of communism.

It is simple folks, you have a pig and cut it up into smaller and smaller portions till millions of your people die in famines like The Great Leap Forward.

Communism has always sucked because it is against the human condition to FORCE altruism. We would all help everyone if we could. But we each have limited resources at our disposal so we selectively choose who we would want to help. This is absolutely why the family unit is so important and most often than not, the poorest happen to come from broken homes because people can make some really stupid fucking decisions like moving out when one cannot afford it, girls having kids with shitbags, drug use, etc.

Every country has faced adversity at some point. To say communism would only work if everyone else pitched in is kind of self-defeating, as people do not like being FORCED to be altruistic, in the first place. All the current western socialist countries work as they came from some sort of capitalistic background that laid the way for socialism to take root. Many of the developing countries that adopted socialism/communism have a shit time doing it because they do not have the underlying infrastructure to make that socialism work. In Brazil and Venezuela, for example, sky high crude prices made socialism possible. Cuba, N. Korea and Vietnam had the backing of the SU. When their big brother stopped providing assistance, everything went to shit. It's silly as those countries put all their eggs in one basket. What happens when the price of crude goes into free-fall?

Also, having a small fucking population helps things enormously.

Sweden, population single digit million.

UK, most populated socialist country in Europe at 90 million.

With a smaller population and different cultural norm, (remember my analogy where Europeans had mass murdered each other for over a thousand years since the fall of Rome), european culture is vastly different compared to that of the U.S.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top