7 ms·

Hold on. I'm not a fan of Communism, but there's a pretty clear difference. The Soviet Union was a particular implementation of Communism which chose killing. K

Hold on. I'm not a fan of Communism, but there's a pretty clear difference. The Soviet Union was a particular implementation of Communism which chose killing. Killing is not an inherent requirement to the ideology. Contemporary proponents of Communism or Socialism usually aren't claiming that the Soviet Union's implementation was good. In Neo-Nazism the ideology itself has the elimination of other races as its goal. The ideology itself is violence. Talk about false equivalence.

kiiujjhhu 9y ago
Sure, how about Chinese communism under Mao? Or how about Vietnamese communism under pol pot, or Cuba, how Venezuelan socialism? The list of communisms evils go on and on yet I still read apologists exposing its supposed virtues regularly.
barry-cotter 9y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communis... The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million.
logicchains 9y ago
>The Soviet Union was a particular implementation of Communism which chose killing. Killing is not an inherent requirement to the ideology. How could communism be implemented without killing people who refused to give up their property, or refused to stop trading with each other?
Clubber 9y ago
Neo-Nazism is not Nazism. That's also a false equivalence. Racial / tribal superiority has been with humanity in one form or another since before we were even human. Neo-Nazism is just a modern interpretation / flavor of that idea. Actual Nazism was far, far more destructive than a bunch of people clamoring about whatever they were clamoring about. When Neo-Nazis are violent, the actual violence shouldn't be tolerated, but to ban thoughts is something completely different. FWIW, I never understood why US citizens would carry a Nazi flag, when they know damn well people in their family were directly affected by it in one way or another.
gscott 9y ago
Most communist countries kill those that disagree with them, for the common good they say. If you fully embrace communist values then you need to rid yourselves of those that don't agree otherwise you are not going to be able to create a perfect society.
- notzorbo3 9y ago
  And in a society adopting capitalism the Bourgeoisie must violently suppress the proletariat otherwise you're not going to be able to create that perfect society.
  - gscott 9y ago
    In the United States most people did not come here already rich and they had to trade among each other to survive. Everywhere communism touches has problems. In Britain check peoples teeth they are a nice color yellow, in Canada you can wait for months for medical care, in Russia you need to bribe the doctor to get medical care, in Venezuela you need to travel to a neighboring country to get food, in Cuba you earn $25 a month, in Mexico no one can own guns except for the drug gangs that rule cities.... All so that people can be equal... equally screwed that is.
    - codedokode 9y ago
      Your information about Russia might be a bit outdated, there are commercial dental clinics and in public hospitals you can pay for priority reception.
      - gscott 9y ago
        It was Ukraine I was thinking of, you are right.
weberc2 9y ago
Doesn't "kill the dissenters" seem to be the flavor of most communist countries? China, N Korea, Cuba, Cambodia, Romania, Vietnam, etc.
- s_kilk 9y ago
  Right, and capitalism is completely bloodless and clean /s
  - weberc2 9y ago
    Here's the comprehensive list of capitalist countries that wiped out 50 million of their own citizens in a couple decades: Glad we cleared that up.
    - etplayer 9y ago
      You're saying that if it takes time for the effects of a capitalist mode of production, which does not cater for those at the bottom of society, which creates wars for profit and plunder then therefore these countries are not guilty? Are you aware of how capitalism came about, through the forceful and violent enclosure of the commons in Western Europe, and the invasions and famines caused by the redirection of supplies and food for where it would be profitable elsewhere (Bengal famine), rents enforced by landlords (Irish Potato famine), etc.? If you are unaware of how capitalism came about, Marx does a good job explaining it through the laws in the country in which he lived, England[0]. [0] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm and https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm
      - weberc2 9y ago
        No, those are not the claims I'm making. In particular, there's nothing particular about capitalism that predisposed itself to wars, even for-profit wars relative to other economic systems (such wars predate history in many places). But even if everything you say is true and capitalism is a sort of slow killer, I would still prefer it to communism, which is efficient only in murdering those it governs.
mnm1 9y ago
Killing is indeed an inherent requirement of communism. That's the only way to gain and hold such authoritarian power and to subjugate the masses as communism does. There has never been a communist regime that did not kill large numbers of people and that's because this is an inherent quality of communism without which it cannot come to or hold power.
- OtterCoder 9y ago
  It's an inherent quality of government. Since WWII, the US has killed somewhere around 20 million people during their various adventures around the globe. The Soviet Union killed an equivalent amount, perhaps up to three times as much, but both are staggering, horrifying numbers.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The Soviet Union was a particular implementation of Communism which chose killing. It was an implementation of (what it called, though there is debate in socialist circles about the validity of the claim) socialism. Communism is the end-state they claimed to wish to achieve, not the thing they implemented, even in theory.
Grue3 9y ago
Why is it then, then when you see an outspoken communist on the Internet they freely use Soviet symbolism like hammer and sickle. I take that as an affirmation of the fact that these people don't really think that Soviet Union was a bad implementation of communism. Like, there exist far-righters who avoid using swastika because they don't want to be associated with Nazi Germany. Why do most communists want to be associated with Soviet Union specifically by adopting its symbolism?
- tnzn 9y ago
  Because the USSR isn't just Stalin killing people with his bare hands.
amatwl 9y ago
Ah yes. The ol' "Communism has never been implemented right" argument... Oh please.

kiiujjhhu 9y ago

Sure, how about Chinese communism under Mao? Or how about Vietnamese communism under pol pot, or Cuba, how Venezuelan socialism? The list of communisms evils go on and on yet I still read apologists exposing its supposed virtues regularly.

barry-cotter 9y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communis... The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million.

logicchains 9y ago

>The Soviet Union was a particular implementation of Communism which chose killing. Killing is not an inherent requirement to the ideology. How could communism be implemented without killing people who refused to give up their property, or refused to stop trading with each other?

Clubber 9y ago

Neo-Nazism is not Nazism. That's also a false equivalence. Racial / tribal superiority has been with humanity in one form or another since before we were even human. Neo-Nazism is just a modern interpretation / flavor of that idea. Actual Nazism was far, far more destructive than a bunch of people clamoring about whatever they were clamoring about. When Neo-Nazis are violent, the actual violence shouldn't be tolerated, but to ban thoughts is something completely different. FWIW, I never understood why US citizens would carry a Nazi flag, when they know damn well people in their family were directly affected by it in one way or another.

gscott 9y ago

Most communist countries kill those that disagree with them, for the common good they say. If you fully embrace communist values then you need to rid yourselves of those that don't agree otherwise you are not going to be able to create a perfect society.

notzorbo3 9y ago
And in a society adopting capitalism the Bourgeoisie must violently suppress the proletariat otherwise you're not going to be able to create that perfect society.
- gscott 9y ago
  In the United States most people did not come here already rich and they had to trade among each other to survive. Everywhere communism touches has problems. In Britain check peoples teeth they are a nice color yellow, in Canada you can wait for months for medical care, in Russia you need to bribe the doctor to get medical care, in Venezuela you need to travel to a neighboring country to get food, in Cuba you earn $25 a month, in Mexico no one can own guns except for the drug gangs that rule cities.... All so that people can be equal... equally screwed that is.
  - codedokode 9y ago
    Your information about Russia might be a bit outdated, there are commercial dental clinics and in public hospitals you can pay for priority reception.
    - gscott 9y ago
      It was Ukraine I was thinking of, you are right.

weberc2 9y ago

Doesn't "kill the dissenters" seem to be the flavor of most communist countries? China, N Korea, Cuba, Cambodia, Romania, Vietnam, etc.

s_kilk 9y ago
Right, and capitalism is completely bloodless and clean /s
- weberc2 9y ago
  Here's the comprehensive list of capitalist countries that wiped out 50 million of their own citizens in a couple decades: Glad we cleared that up.
  - etplayer 9y ago
    You're saying that if it takes time for the effects of a capitalist mode of production, which does not cater for those at the bottom of society, which creates wars for profit and plunder then therefore these countries are not guilty? Are you aware of how capitalism came about, through the forceful and violent enclosure of the commons in Western Europe, and the invasions and famines caused by the redirection of supplies and food for where it would be profitable elsewhere (Bengal famine), rents enforced by landlords (Irish Potato famine), etc.? If you are unaware of how capitalism came about, Marx does a good job explaining it through the laws in the country in which he lived, England[0]. [0] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm and https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm
    - weberc2 9y ago
      No, those are not the claims I'm making. In particular, there's nothing particular about capitalism that predisposed itself to wars, even for-profit wars relative to other economic systems (such wars predate history in many places). But even if everything you say is true and capitalism is a sort of slow killer, I would still prefer it to communism, which is efficient only in murdering those it governs.

mnm1 9y ago

Killing is indeed an inherent requirement of communism. That's the only way to gain and hold such authoritarian power and to subjugate the masses as communism does. There has never been a communist regime that did not kill large numbers of people and that's because this is an inherent quality of communism without which it cannot come to or hold power.

OtterCoder 9y ago
It's an inherent quality of government. Since WWII, the US has killed somewhere around 20 million people during their various adventures around the globe. The Soviet Union killed an equivalent amount, perhaps up to three times as much, but both are staggering, horrifying numbers.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The Soviet Union was a particular implementation of Communism which chose killing. It was an implementation of (what it called, though there is debate in socialist circles about the validity of the claim) socialism. Communism is the end-state they claimed to wish to achieve, not the thing they implemented, even in theory.

Grue3 9y ago

Why is it then, then when you see an outspoken communist on the Internet they freely use Soviet symbolism like hammer and sickle. I take that as an affirmation of the fact that these people don't really think that Soviet Union was a bad implementation of communism. Like, there exist far-righters who avoid using swastika because they don't want to be associated with Nazi Germany. Why do most communists want to be associated with Soviet Union specifically by adopting its symbolism?

tnzn 9y ago
Because the USSR isn't just Stalin killing people with his bare hands.

amatwl 9y ago

Ah yes. The ol' "Communism has never been implemented right" argument... Oh please.