5 ms·

| the fact that Che Guevara was an homophobic and racist | schizophrenic slaughterer... You're making an assumption that: 1) I am a supporter of Communism an

by pyre 14y ago

| the fact that Che Guevara was an homophobic and racist | schizophrenic slaughterer... You're making an assumption that: 1) I am a supporter of Communism and 2) I'm a supporter of Che Guevara. I'm not really seeing where you're getting this idea from. You're also seemingly making an argument that communism is bad because Che Guevara is bad. | Communism, no matter its form, only leads to slavery | and poverty. Care to expand on this for us with some analysis? References to articles / papers by others would be acceptable too. | And people in small villages in China are still not | exactly living on very high standards so - Did these villages have a high standard of living prior to Mao's revolution? If not, do you view the failure of communism as a failure to raise their standards above the previously low levels? If so, then what do you feel are the causes (related to communism) for their drop in standards? - India is full of examples of abject poverty. Do you view India as a failure too?

ameen 14y ago
> India is full of examples of abject poverty. Do you view India as a failure too? India's poverty exists because of the massive corruption & inefficiency in various levels of the government. For eg: Tons of grains rot in government storages. Not many in the public service are held accountable. The Government theoretically allots for those below the Poverty line, but they never get the aid they're supposed to get. India is far from a failure. Because Information/Education is not limited nor restricted.
- pm90 14y ago
  restricted or not, as long as there are still 1.5 million kids < 5 years of age dying every year, its still a failure[0]. Sure, things may be getting better, but you have to acknowledge the present for what it is. http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/India-tops-global-list-on-child-mortality-UN/Article1-928876.aspx http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/India-tops...
shadowmint 14y ago
> Do you view India as a failure too? You realise this is a platitude, right? I hear this all the time, but in virtually all situations its irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Historically, communist countries have had terrible standards of living; this is extremely well documented; some (actually, just china as far as I know) have stepped away from an entirely government controlled economy to a government directed economy, and that seems to be working out for them pretty well. Being a democracy doesn't mean you'll have a great economy and a high standard of living. There are plenty of examples of that not working as well. ...but we've got a few more examples of that working out, than we do of communist regimes working out, historically. You think perhaps there might be a bit of causation there? Certainly, and importantly, this is totally irrelevant to India.
- Confusion 14y ago
  Historically, communist countries have [..] never existed. The USSR, China, Cuba, North-Korea: none of those countries is, or has ever been, communist. If they called themselves communist, it was to legitimize themselves.
  - gknoy 14y ago
    In what ways are they not-ever communist? This sounds a lot like a no-true-Scotsman claim, but I'm genuinely curious.
    - pyre 14y ago
      Marxism and Leninism disagree on what communism is. The major difference being the existence of a ruling party. Also, if i call myself "Chinese," (I am not of Chinese descent) can I defend my claim by invoking the no-true-scotsman fallacy?
- Volpe 14y ago
  > Certainly, and importantly, this is totally irrelevant to India. India is a huge (by population) with a similar start point to china also a huge (by population) country, they have some similarities in their culture, but a large defining difference is their way of government, and there reactions to "The West". It isn't totally irrelevant, and meaningful comparisons can be made, but they must be considered. > Historically, communist countries have had terrible standards of living; this is extremely well documented You mean "Historically (Except China)"... That's like excluding the US when talking about Democracy. > ...but we've got a few more examples of that working out, than we do of communist regimes working out Actually I think you'll find the poorest nations are mostly democratic (of some form). [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage...

by pyre 14y ago

ameen 14y ago

> India is full of examples of abject poverty. Do you view India as a failure too? India's poverty exists because of the massive corruption & inefficiency in various levels of the government. For eg: Tons of grains rot in government storages. Not many in the public service are held accountable. The Government theoretically allots for those below the Poverty line, but they never get the aid they're supposed to get. India is far from a failure. Because Information/Education is not limited nor restricted.

pm90 14y ago
restricted or not, as long as there are still 1.5 million kids < 5 years of age dying every year, its still a failure[0]. Sure, things may be getting better, but you have to acknowledge the present for what it is. http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/India-tops-global-list-on-child-mortality-UN/Article1-928876.aspx http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/India-tops...

shadowmint 14y ago

> Do you view India as a failure too? You realise this is a platitude, right? I hear this all the time, but in virtually all situations its irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Historically, communist countries have had terrible standards of living; this is extremely well documented; some (actually, just china as far as I know) have stepped away from an entirely government controlled economy to a government directed economy, and that seems to be working out for them pretty well. Being a democracy doesn't mean you'll have a great economy and a high standard of living. There are plenty of examples of that not working as well. ...but we've got a few more examples of that working out, than we do of communist regimes working out, historically. You think perhaps there might be a bit of causation there? Certainly, and importantly, this is totally irrelevant to India.

Confusion 14y ago
Historically, communist countries have [..] never existed. The USSR, China, Cuba, North-Korea: none of those countries is, or has ever been, communist. If they called themselves communist, it was to legitimize themselves.
- gknoy 14y ago
  In what ways are they not-ever communist? This sounds a lot like a no-true-Scotsman claim, but I'm genuinely curious.
  - pyre 14y ago
    Marxism and Leninism disagree on what communism is. The major difference being the existence of a ruling party. Also, if i call myself "Chinese," (I am not of Chinese descent) can I defend my claim by invoking the no-true-scotsman fallacy?
Volpe 14y ago
> Certainly, and importantly, this is totally irrelevant to India. India is a huge (by population) with a similar start point to china also a huge (by population) country, they have some similarities in their culture, but a large defining difference is their way of government, and there reactions to "The West". It isn't totally irrelevant, and meaningful comparisons can be made, but they must be considered. > Historically, communist countries have had terrible standards of living; this is extremely well documented You mean "Historically (Except China)"... That's like excluding the US when talking about Democracy. > ...but we've got a few more examples of that working out, than we do of communist regimes working out Actually I think you'll find the poorest nations are mostly democratic (of some form). [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage...