3 ms·

Both should be banned, or neither should be banned

by wyattblue 1y ago

peter-m80 1y ago
[flagged]
- xigoi 1y ago
  Please read something about the history of communism in Czechia.
  - baal80spam 1y ago
    Or anywhere, for that matter.
    - spwa4 1y ago
      Communism just turns an entire country into a single company that is the police as well and therefore that company doesn't even have a choice: it must use violence against its workers, just for public order. And, by definition, a lot of people can do better for themselves under communism and must be prevented from doing so ... That's the source of one criticism of communism: that communism effectively replaces money with violence. And what always goes wrong is that some psychopath realizes that a single central decision point that enforces it's decisions through violence ... yummy. People in Eastern Germany lived this, involuntarily: difference between fascism and communism ... there is no practical difference. Central undemocratic all-encompassing decision making enforced through violence is oppression, and of course, you cannot have democratic socialism. In theory it's obvious, and in practice, Israel tried that and they voted to end socialism as soon as it was realistic, even though a LOT of institutions in Israel are still communist, they are far less capitalist than China is.
      - CrackerNews 1y ago
        The state exists in the first place because it has a monopoly on violence. Doesn't matter whether it is democratic republic, fascist, or Marxist-Leninist. For MLs, violence is wielded on behalf of a state capitalism that constitutes itself of local governments based on local workplaces. Money historically is a substitute for a form of violence through blood debts. The USSR believed money could be replaced with restricted labor vouchers to get rid of profit incentives and better direct economic flow more efficiently. However, this central planning approach failed to integrate itself in the rapidly growing pace of global trade, leading the Soviet bloc to be outpaced by the first world. The example of democratic socialism or Israel has a nuance because state capitalism by nature cannot extract profits and surplus value as well as private enterprises, but they must exist alongside them and compete instead of existing in a wholly separate economy like the Soviet bloc did.
        spwa4 1y ago
        > The state exists in the first place because it has a monopoly on violence. Bullshit. There have been many states that didn't. The violence capitalist states use does not compare to the violence collectivist states use (let's not pretend this has ended). Capitalist states have always respected the right of anyone to just walk away. Now maybe that option sucked, but it was there as a release valve. You can just refuse. Communists never did. Communists hunted tents in forests of people attempting to be self-sufficient. Hunted. That's the correct therm. Communists want and need 100% control of every aspect of life. Where you live. Where you sleep. Where you work. What you read. What you see, and especially what you don't see. And so on and so forth. > leading the Soviet bloc to be outpaced by the first world. Is this how a communist states that they did things like letting 5 million people slowly starve to death because they "resisted collectivist policy"? Because that's what communists did when people refused: genocide. That's the sort of violence communism requires, according to communist states. And this is FAR from the worst communists did. > ... I've often wondered. Communist policy is directly responsible for the Russian state, for the Chinese state, for the Iranian state, for the Venezuelan state. These states are all hellholes that are attacking us. And there is nothing communists love more than blaming everyone else for the consequences of everything, and demanding restitution. Can we therefore not demand that communists and communist parties in the west, who after all are responsible: they participated in and supported the creation of these communist countries, provide the work, people and resources required to defend against the aggression of these states. After all, they are responsible for it.
- somedude895 1y ago
  Both are totalitarian ideologies which always have and continue to require the persecution of dissidents.
- ETH_start 1y ago
  It's authoritarianism in the name of egalitarian ideals.
- jizzypants 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - owebmaster 1y ago
    Why not visit Ecuador? The most violent country in South America. They will even accept your dollars.
- _mlbt 1y ago
  > Because an ideology to empower workers is the same as a fascist and racist regime Communism has never achieved that, and given the numerous examples of its horrific failures over the 20th century, it is not reasonable to expect that it ever will. I implore everyone to study the history of the Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and Cambodia. Communism is at least as evil as fascism.
- general1726 1y ago
  Empowering them by working them to death in uranium mines without PPE. Yes that was an actual form of punishment in Czechoslovakia in 1950s right after communist putsch.
- rabid-zubat 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 1y ago
    Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 1y ago
  No ideological flamewar please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Both should be banned, or neither should be banned

peter-m80 1y ago

[flagged]

xigoi 1y ago
Please read something about the history of communism in Czechia.
- baal80spam 1y ago
  Or anywhere, for that matter.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    Communism just turns an entire country into a single company that is the police as well and therefore that company doesn't even have a choice: it must use violence against its workers, just for public order. And, by definition, a lot of people can do better for themselves under communism and must be prevented from doing so ... That's the source of one criticism of communism: that communism effectively replaces money with violence. And what always goes wrong is that some psychopath realizes that a single central decision point that enforces it's decisions through violence ... yummy. People in Eastern Germany lived this, involuntarily: difference between fascism and communism ... there is no practical difference. Central undemocratic all-encompassing decision making enforced through violence is oppression, and of course, you cannot have democratic socialism. In theory it's obvious, and in practice, Israel tried that and they voted to end socialism as soon as it was realistic, even though a LOT of institutions in Israel are still communist, they are far less capitalist than China is.
    - CrackerNews 1y ago
      The state exists in the first place because it has a monopoly on violence. Doesn't matter whether it is democratic republic, fascist, or Marxist-Leninist. For MLs, violence is wielded on behalf of a state capitalism that constitutes itself of local governments based on local workplaces. Money historically is a substitute for a form of violence through blood debts. The USSR believed money could be replaced with restricted labor vouchers to get rid of profit incentives and better direct economic flow more efficiently. However, this central planning approach failed to integrate itself in the rapidly growing pace of global trade, leading the Soviet bloc to be outpaced by the first world. The example of democratic socialism or Israel has a nuance because state capitalism by nature cannot extract profits and surplus value as well as private enterprises, but they must exist alongside them and compete instead of existing in a wholly separate economy like the Soviet bloc did.
      - spwa4 1y ago
        > The state exists in the first place because it has a monopoly on violence. Bullshit. There have been many states that didn't. The violence capitalist states use does not compare to the violence collectivist states use (let's not pretend this has ended). Capitalist states have always respected the right of anyone to just walk away. Now maybe that option sucked, but it was there as a release valve. You can just refuse. Communists never did. Communists hunted tents in forests of people attempting to be self-sufficient. Hunted. That's the correct therm. Communists want and need 100% control of every aspect of life. Where you live. Where you sleep. Where you work. What you read. What you see, and especially what you don't see. And so on and so forth. > leading the Soviet bloc to be outpaced by the first world. Is this how a communist states that they did things like letting 5 million people slowly starve to death because they "resisted collectivist policy"? Because that's what communists did when people refused: genocide. That's the sort of violence communism requires, according to communist states. And this is FAR from the worst communists did. > ... I've often wondered. Communist policy is directly responsible for the Russian state, for the Chinese state, for the Iranian state, for the Venezuelan state. These states are all hellholes that are attacking us. And there is nothing communists love more than blaming everyone else for the consequences of everything, and demanding restitution. Can we therefore not demand that communists and communist parties in the west, who after all are responsible: they participated in and supported the creation of these communist countries, provide the work, people and resources required to defend against the aggression of these states. After all, they are responsible for it.
somedude895 1y ago
Both are totalitarian ideologies which always have and continue to require the persecution of dissidents.
ETH_start 1y ago
It's authoritarianism in the name of egalitarian ideals.
jizzypants 1y ago
[flagged]
- owebmaster 1y ago
  Why not visit Ecuador? The most violent country in South America. They will even accept your dollars.
_mlbt 1y ago
> Because an ideology to empower workers is the same as a fascist and racist regime Communism has never achieved that, and given the numerous examples of its horrific failures over the 20th century, it is not reasonable to expect that it ever will. I implore everyone to study the history of the Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and Cambodia. Communism is at least as evil as fascism.
general1726 1y ago
Empowering them by working them to death in uranium mines without PPE. Yes that was an actual form of punishment in Czechoslovakia in 1950s right after communist putsch.
rabid-zubat 1y ago
[flagged]
- dang 1y ago
  Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 1y ago
No ideological flamewar please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html