Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As of 2011, academic consensus has not been achieved on causes of large scale killings by states, including by states governed by communists...
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.
These governments called themselves communist, in reality they weren't, they were authoritative regime. Every thing came from a centralized power, nothing communist or even socialist about them.
Stalin wasn't a Communist. He was a Socialist, much like Hitler and the Nazis (Marxists), and the US left-wing.
“Can we succeed and secure the definitive victory of Socialism in one country without the combined efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries? Most certainly not. The efforts of a single country are enough to overthrow the bourgeoisie: this is what the history of our revolution proves. But for the definite triumph of Socialism, the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country alone are not enough, particularly of an essentially rural country like Russia; the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are needed. So the victorious revolution in one country has for its essential task to develop and support the revolution in others. So it ought not to be considered as of independent value, but as an auxiliary, a means of hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries.” Stalin, Theory and Practice of Leninism, issued by the C.P.G.B., 1925
And, yes, according to Democide scholars, leftists' regimes murdered 100+ million of their own countrymen in the 20th Century, alone.
Stupid question. I'm getting rich at their expense. They were already rich and not hurting me one iota.
Those people buy houses, boats, planes, new buildings, ect. A lot of people are making a ton of money off their riches.
This is true, however you should consider the rate at which the 0.1%s accumulated wealth as compared to the rest of us. They have received and are receiving much more wealth at an ever increasing rate than the rest of us.
And well-done with the titling of this thread. It's going to draw all sort of people who will be eager to dump on those at the bottom of the economic ladder, not expecting it to be the opposite.
Those people are lazy freeloaders too. Generally speaking you get people who've learned how to game the system at both extreme ends of the socioeconomic scale, while the people in the vast middle section get to bear the consequences of this.
And capitalism murders millions every day because of hunger problems
Then why not tax everyone in the US to feed the starving in the rest of the world? How much do you think every US resident should pay for that? Why don't we just have global standard of living arbitrage, and no one in the US lives any better a lifestyle than the poorest inhabitant of the most poor 3rd world country?
As of 2011, academic consensus has not been achieved on causes of large scale killings by states, including by states governed by communists...
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.
These governments called themselves communist, in reality they weren't, they were authoritative regime. Every thing came from a centralized power, nothing communist or even socialist about them.
I wonder if people even think for a minute before responding.
Socialism doesn't mean taking taxes from the rich and given it to the poor. This is a lie spread by rich people and ignorant people easily accept it. Socialism means eliminating wage labor so people sell the product of their work not their time. This way the money will not flow to the rich people, but stay in the hand of the people who create services and products. In other way, the wealth would be distributed more evenly among society and not decided by how much money you have.
Human being are social by nature. Look at how a family develops. Children are raised with love and barely anything is asked from them. Couples cooperate with their work and money. Extended family help each other.
The reason this cannot be done at a society level is because of tribal and national ideas are strongly past down from generation to generation and the majority of people WON'T look past it.
Are you seriously attempting to have an intelligent debate with those individuals using descriptors they've been indoctrinated with to describe "socialism", applying more relevantly to at least one hundred years of U.S. development than any other country......seriously?
Being stupid can be fixed if those who are, want to be. I fear however, you're pizzing upwind. I substituted a more appropriate word in your last senny.
Stalin wasn't a Communist. He was a Socialist, much like Hitler and the Nazis (Marxists), and the US left-wing.
“Can we succeed and secure the definitive victory of Socialism in one country without the combined efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries? Most certainly not. The efforts of a single country are enough to overthrow the bourgeoisie: this is what the history of our revolution proves. But for the definite triumph of Socialism, the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country alone are not enough, particularly of an essentially rural country like Russia; the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are needed. So the victorious revolution in one country has for its essential task to develop and support the revolution in others. So it ought not to be considered as of independent value, but as an auxiliary, a means of hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries.” Stalin, Theory and Practice of Leninism, issued by the C.P.G.B., 1925
And, yes, according to Democide scholars, leftists' regimes murdered 100+ million of their own countrymen in the 20th Century, alone.
I'm pretty sure Hitler would roll over in his grave if he knew people were accusing him of being a Marxist 70 years later.
As a person who used to live in a communist/socialist country, I can assure you if you dare to say they were not socialism, you would be promptly executed. If you are lucky, your family might be spared.
You just proved my point. The fact that they say they are socialist doesn't make it so. It just mean they are authoritarian as your example shows.
The problem is people can't go beyond words. If stalin says his government is socialist, it just means it is a lie. People can't see something as simple as this. I just explained what socialism means, that has never happened in the history of nations, except in the Catalonia revolution for a little while, but they were in the middle of a civil war.
This is true, however you should consider the rate at which the 0.1%s accumulated wealth as compared to the rest of us. They have received and are receiving much more wealth at an ever increasing rate than the rest of us.
Funny, that. It's exactly how compound interest works
If you're having a problem understanding that, think a mortgage amortization table, in reverse. In a mortgage, the interest is front-loaded as that's when you owe the most money. In savings/investments, it's exactly the opposite... The more equity you have invested, the greater the amount of the return on the investment.
It's basic math, which I realize is very difficult for many to understand. The lesson, there? Do NOT live beyond your means, and save and invest early and often.
Then why not tax everyone in the US to feed the starving in the rest of the world? How much do you think every US resident should pay for that? Why don't we just have global standard of living arbitrage, and no one in the US lives any better a lifestyle than the poorest inhabitant of the most poor 3rd world country?
You don't have to feed them, just put a clamp on your MIC running your chit-show and getting you militarily or clandestinely involved in every corner of the planet.
Your post ignores the reality of at least some of those countries that your interpretation of "socialist" apply to, having a better QOL then yourselves.
You're confusing Uncle Sammy with Santa Clause. The two are diametrically opposite in manner and governing imperatives.
Are you seriously attempting to have an intelligent debate with those individuals using descriptors they've been indoctrinated with to describe "socialism", applying more relevantly to at least one hundred years of U.S. development than any other country......seriously?
Being stupid can be fixed if those who are, want to be. I fear however, you're pizzing upwind. I substituted a more appropriate word in your last senny.
I know most people are too stupid even listen what I am saying, but if there is one person that understands what I have said, the time wasted here is worth it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
