5 ms·

You troll, then insinuate I troll. Classic trick to blame others for what you do yourself -- someone browsing will just see two people calling each others names

by berntb 13y ago

You troll, then insinuate I troll. Classic trick to blame others for what you do yourself -- someone browsing will just see two people calling each others names. You wrote this weird garbage: >>Communism isn't worse than anything no matter how bad. That is typical left wing dishonesty, motivated with some Western country (usually USA) being dependent on and cooperating with an unpleasant dictator that is opressive and/or did mass murders. If you have some other way of explaining that (drugs?), please do. >>You've also skillfully defeated arguments I have not made (e.g. blaming millions of deaths or lack of democracy in communist countries on the US). See previous paragraphs. You also wrote this: >> It's hard to determine how bad some of the less nasty communist regimes such as Cuba and Vietnam would have been without massive economic sanctions from the US. I can only read that as: "These enslaving juntas would have implemented human rights if it weren't for USA". Stupid. Also see the debate history: You changed the subject from war to realpoilitik complaints (which all countries do and lie about). It was stupid of me to comment on that and asking for examples post Cold War (which you didn't acknowledge you lack). Then you got weird (see above). But ok, you might just lack a clue and not be a troll.

berntb 13y ago
OK, can anyone explain why I am down voted for noting this is stupid and/or trolling? We are talking about a theory about societies that has repeatedly resulted in slavery and many millions dead. >>Communism isn't worse than anything no matter how bad. And similar claims. (This was off the front page before the votes, so it might be some idealists sending emails and asking for votes.)
vidarh 13y ago
With respect to his statement of communism, I believe you misread what he wrote, and so you are down-voted because others interpretation does not match yours. Read it as "communism is not automatically worse that any other possibility you can think of". E.g. compare Cuba under Castro with Germany under Hitler. The latter was obviously worse, simply because Castro did not initiate any genocides. That does not mean Castro is good, just that his stated ideology does not automatically place his regime in the "worst" category - there have been too many really nasty regimes for that. This is assuming and accepting a right wing interpretation of "communism" to begin with. > I can only read that as: "These enslaving juntas would have implemented human rights if it weren't for USA". Stupid. Then your imagination is rather poor. There are many reasons to think that overall suffering in these countries would have been less, even if the political restrictions might have remained the same. But even that is too simplistic. Castro went to the US first, including a "PR tour" where he was unable to get a visit with anyone senior in the White House. He was rebuffed over the issue of nationalisation that affected US interests, and first then did he walk into the open arms of the Soviets. It took a further several years before his party added "Socialist" to his name, and officially started adopting Soviet terminology. Similarly, Ho-Chi-Mihn was a nationalist first, who looked to the US as a model for Vietnamese independence, and who appealed to Woodrow Wilson for support for Vietnamese independence. It was first when this failed that Ho was radicalised further, but even then he largely held on to a nationalist outlook for a long time, while turning to socialist groups for support. Despite his radicalisation, which eventually lead to becoming one of the founder of the French communist party, and an official of the Comintern, during World War II he was supported by the US OSS in fighting the Vichy French and Japanese occupation forces. But after the war, US support again disappeared when France attempted to re-occupy the country, and he saw no other alternative but to expand warfare and eventually fight those he originally hoped would be the guarantors of a free, independent Vietnam,. This is a common thread with many of the revolutionary groups over the last century, who have first turned to the US or other democratic countries for support, found that they as groups are "inconvenient" because the dictatorships they oppose or opposed were often considered safer partners, and who have then instead turned elsewhere. You even see it with the ANC in South Africa, which had an extremely tight relationship with the SACP (South African Communist Party) that deepened as Cuba provided assistance as well as intervened militarily in the South African puppet states of Angola and Namibia. ANC received support from that camp for decades while the West still provided extensive support and/or trade to the Apartheid regime. It would not have taken much for SA to have ended up taking a similar turn to Cuba or Vietnam. A vast number of these regimes would either have looked very different, or even been open to extensive concessions to the West if "our" governments had been at all concerned with supporting democracy movements rather than propping up convenient trading partners or regimes they saw as strategic partners against the Soviets or Chinese.
- berntb 13y ago
  I think I understand the reaction. Thank you. (I might have seen too many extremist idealists and jumped to conclusions.) I didn't say that communism is uniquely evil. They seem like traditional dictatorships with idealistic window dressing. As king is an old name for military dictator, it is hardly coincidence that relatives of the Cuban/North Korean "dear leaders" rule the places. Point is, they are generally among the worst regimes the last century. It is wrong to mix dictators with the realpolitik of getting support from dictators, when they are needed. I don't approve of everything people do whom I buy lunch from. This has also become a much smaller problem after the Cold War. Your points about Cuba and North Vietnam checking for support in other places is interesting. Most every rebel group do that, of course. Still, any time since 1991 Cuba could have started opening up -- with enthusiastic support, at least from West Europe.

by berntb 13y ago

berntb 13y ago

OK, can anyone explain why I am down voted for noting this is stupid and/or trolling? We are talking about a theory about societies that has repeatedly resulted in slavery and many millions dead. >>Communism isn't worse than anything no matter how bad. And similar claims. (This was off the front page before the votes, so it might be some idealists sending emails and asking for votes.)

vidarh 13y ago

With respect to his statement of communism, I believe you misread what he wrote, and so you are down-voted because others interpretation does not match yours. Read it as "communism is not automatically worse that any other possibility you can think of". E.g. compare Cuba under Castro with Germany under Hitler. The latter was obviously worse, simply because Castro did not initiate any genocides. That does not mean Castro is good, just that his stated ideology does not automatically place his regime in the "worst" category - there have been too many really nasty regimes for that. This is assuming and accepting a right wing interpretation of "communism" to begin with. > I can only read that as: "These enslaving juntas would have implemented human rights if it weren't for USA". Stupid. Then your imagination is rather poor. There are many reasons to think that overall suffering in these countries would have been less, even if the political restrictions might have remained the same. But even that is too simplistic. Castro went to the US first, including a "PR tour" where he was unable to get a visit with anyone senior in the White House. He was rebuffed over the issue of nationalisation that affected US interests, and first then did he walk into the open arms of the Soviets. It took a further several years before his party added "Socialist" to his name, and officially started adopting Soviet terminology. Similarly, Ho-Chi-Mihn was a nationalist first, who looked to the US as a model for Vietnamese independence, and who appealed to Woodrow Wilson for support for Vietnamese independence. It was first when this failed that Ho was radicalised further, but even then he largely held on to a nationalist outlook for a long time, while turning to socialist groups for support. Despite his radicalisation, which eventually lead to becoming one of the founder of the French communist party, and an official of the Comintern, during World War II he was supported by the US OSS in fighting the Vichy French and Japanese occupation forces. But after the war, US support again disappeared when France attempted to re-occupy the country, and he saw no other alternative but to expand warfare and eventually fight those he originally hoped would be the guarantors of a free, independent Vietnam,. This is a common thread with many of the revolutionary groups over the last century, who have first turned to the US or other democratic countries for support, found that they as groups are "inconvenient" because the dictatorships they oppose or opposed were often considered safer partners, and who have then instead turned elsewhere. You even see it with the ANC in South Africa, which had an extremely tight relationship with the SACP (South African Communist Party) that deepened as Cuba provided assistance as well as intervened militarily in the South African puppet states of Angola and Namibia. ANC received support from that camp for decades while the West still provided extensive support and/or trade to the Apartheid regime. It would not have taken much for SA to have ended up taking a similar turn to Cuba or Vietnam. A vast number of these regimes would either have looked very different, or even been open to extensive concessions to the West if "our" governments had been at all concerned with supporting democracy movements rather than propping up convenient trading partners or regimes they saw as strategic partners against the Soviets or Chinese.

berntb 13y ago
I think I understand the reaction. Thank you. (I might have seen too many extremist idealists and jumped to conclusions.) I didn't say that communism is uniquely evil. They seem like traditional dictatorships with idealistic window dressing. As king is an old name for military dictator, it is hardly coincidence that relatives of the Cuban/North Korean "dear leaders" rule the places. Point is, they are generally among the worst regimes the last century. It is wrong to mix dictators with the realpolitik of getting support from dictators, when they are needed. I don't approve of everything people do whom I buy lunch from. This has also become a much smaller problem after the Cold War. Your points about Cuba and North Vietnam checking for support in other places is interesting. Most every rebel group do that, of course. Still, any time since 1991 Cuba could have started opening up -- with enthusiastic support, at least from West Europe.