Communism. Good or bad. What do you really know about Communism?

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

If you'll have any problems with your government, come to Switzerland, you will be welcome.

You couldn't pay me to leave here There's no amount of cash or any other non monetary incentive I'd want to leave Australia.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Do you really think that a farmer who votes left... is unable to produce food ?
When a farmer who votes right will manage better with his soil ?

A farmer whose farm is collectivized starves. See, farmers _never_ vote for that. They do vote for land reform, but that's not what Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or other good communists deliver.

They put all agricultural land into collectives, and then the peasants starve, when it turns out "Industrial armies of agriculture" is a notion of Marx, who knew nothing at all about farming, didn't actually know how to make work.

As for Venezuela, they haven't had substantial farming in a long time, because oil was far more lucrative. They bought food from other countries, while their oil company pumped oil and paid the bills.

And then Chavez and Maduro wrecked the oil company, and there was no more money to buy food. More of the greatest hits of collectivism.

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Chineses probably are among the most clever people on this planet.
They surely understood that they were not enough technologically developped to enter in a real Communism.

Not at all, Mao and his Marxist buddies watched the nation starve to "build communism". Here's collectivism in action for you

Originally Posted by Communal Dining and the Chinese Famine of 1958–1961

[The local Party secretary] issued an order to collect members’ food, vegetables, and firewood for the communal dining halls. In many places, members’ woks were also collectivized. . . .
. . . A task team was set up to search members’ food stocks. Some households were raided more than four times. The task team first searched mainly for grain, later took other things they could find.

"collectivize" people's food and cooking utensils and -- hey presto, communism in action-- the people starve.

Who'd have thought it? There's Marx's "Industrial Armies of Agriculture" for you . . .

And Mao and his crowd really believed that it would work, and brutally persecuted -- indeed had killed-- people like Peng Dehuai who told him that the people were starving.

Originally Posted by xyzde69

I've got about 20 colossal books to read about the Swiss labor movement in the XIX and XXth century.
Switzerland is surely not Marxist,

. . .and that would be why Switzerland is rich and fat, instead of poor and starving.

My suggestion: read one less of those :"colossal books" on the "Swiss Labor Movement" and just one about the experience of collectivization and famine. Your reading list is an echo chamber.

[diamelsx]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

You couldn't pay me to leave here There's no amount of cash or any other non monetary incentive I'd want to leave Australia.

And you call yourself a capitalist? we're going to have to check your papers saying some crazy shit like that.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Not at all, Mao and his Marxist buddies watched the nation starve to "build communism".

I was not speaking of Mao, but of the post era after his death. The Deng Xiaoping's era.

By the way there is a little story about American political bourgeoisie hypocrisy on the human rights question.

At one of the meetings with President Jimmy Carter, both leaders brought along briefing books to guide their discussions. President Carter eventually got to the section that dealt with human rights and began his standard lecture, stressing that China had to learn to respect human rights. Among the specific human rights that concerned the President was the right
of Chinese nationals to emigrate. Like most Communist countries, China made it extremely
difficult for its citizens to leave — presumably because, as a matter of ideology, no workers would
ever want to leave a so-called worker’s paradise.

“Mr. Vice-Premier,” the President said, “the Jackson-Vanik amendment prohibits our granting most
-favored-nation status to centrally-managed economies, unless they provide freedom of departure for their own nationals.”

Deng Xiaoping turned to his briefing book, leaned back in his chair, smiled, and asked, “Well, Mr. President, how many Chinese nationals do you want? Ten million? Twenty million? Thirty million?”

Not surprisingly, that exchange marked the end of Jimmy Carter’s brief campaign to grant Chinese citizens the right to leave their country.

(Harvard.edu)

That's very well exposed by Marx, how the human rights is a cosmetic hypocrisy written by the elites to defend their own rights more than the rights of the exploited classes.

[scoundrel]

Venezuela has (had) a population of well over 32 million people. But according to the BBC today, this is changing. At least 7%, which is a long way north of 2 million people have moved out to neighbouring countries. New migrants are leaving the country every day, many thousands daily. This is happening because Venezuela literally cannot feed her own people - not to mention the many who are dying from easily treatable diseases due to the lack of drugs. This is the outcome of Venezuela's governmental failure, nothing else. It is not due to American sanctions or foreign intervention but due to economic mismanagement.

The last time I heard of anything like this in peacetime was the 1840s Irish Potato Famine. That is what is now happening in Venezuela: a famine. A famine in a country with more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia; how did that happen? It happened because Venezuela runs on a command economy. If politicians were any good at running things, they would not be in politics, but Venezuela's oil industry is owned and run by the politicians, with production volumes shrinking every month so that Venezuela is not benefiting from the recovery in the world oil price. People are leaving in numbers akin to the exodus from Africa and the Middle East. This is truly a victory of socialism.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Venezuela has [...] This is truly a victory of socialism.

Do you really think that a farmer who votes left... is unable to produce food ?
When a farmer who votes right will manage better with his soil ?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

I was not speaking of Mao, but of the post era after his death. The Deng Xiaoping's era..

Deng was, as Mao said, a "capitalist roader"

A pity that millions of people were shot or starved to death before the capitalist roaders won.

And they only won because Mao died with no heir. Mao had tried to find a good communist to succeed him, but they were all too weak to hold power.

In the end he chose Hua Guafeng, who had good radical credentials, but after Mao's death Hua quickly sided with Deng, and then was pushed aside entirely. (The Army was the reason-- they'd had enough of "revolution" -- they knew exactly how rotten the Cultural Revolution had been, its Marshal Ye Jianying who really put and to Mao's rotten experiment).

A billion Chinese live better today because China turned its back on Marx.

The thing about Marxists is that they can always get comfortable with mass starvation in the service of the cause.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Deng was, as Mao said, a "capitalist roader"

[...]

The thing about Marxists is that they can always get comfortable with mass starvation in the service of the cause.

I know that, I read wikipedia too.

But please stop your ridiculous comedy. You absolutely don't care about million of people who starved.

You are able who defend Bush Jr who recently acted awfully against Middle Eastern population or Prescott Bush grandfather who financed Nazism that caused the death of million Jews.
You absolutely don't get any problems about this.
You defend African children exploitation and are not disturbed to know they die in coltan mines.

Honestly that's very surprising.

Could you describe how you can be an absolute non-Marxist socio-democrat ?
That's would be very interesting.

Who are your Socio-democrat references (as thinkers) ?

Honestly I prefer the hatred of Estreeter, even if I find it in total contradiction admiring Springsteen, that he should hate too.

But you are not clear at all. It's like a nervous crisis. Like if your family starved because of Stalin himself. In that case I could understand your unhappiness.
But your theories still are discussed by historians today, because they still have a political impact.
US plutocracy is afraid to see egalitarian societies coming back.
That's evident.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

I know that, I read wikipedia too.

But please stop your ridiculous comedy. You absolutely don't care about million of people who starved..

Yes, I do. This thread is called "what do you really know about communism"

What I "really know about communism"

is that:

A) Marx knew nothing about agriculture. He speaks in an offhand way about "industrial armies of agriculture"

B) People who try to implement these cause the deaths of tens of millions of people.

C) Café Marxists have no interest in learning just how disastrous their daydreams are when people try to make them real

If you want to talk about some other political issues, I'm happy to do that. I support social democracy, land reform and rule of law. That's why the people of Costa Rica have a much better life than the people of Guatemala, for example.

But none of that is "about Communism".

Marx was a very astute political economist of 19th century industrial Europe. He can be read as an historian, and offers a very useful addition to Machiavelli, adding a kind of economic realism to the study of nations and public life.

He offers no useful roadmap to anyone for a better society, just a lot of excuses for mass murder and starvation.

So if you want to talk about America's wars in the Middle East, that's a conversation. But its not "about" communism, any more than China's occupation of Tibet is "about" Communism.

[Roubignol]

Sadly you tell non-sensical arguments.

Do you remember how fat was Lech Walesa ?

Famine has nothing to do with Socialism or Communism.
It has something to do with weather, pests or incompetence... but not with collectivism.

We have farmers working collectively in Europe. They are very competent and we don't starve.

Socialism or Communism have NOTHING, absolutely nothing to do with famine.

I'm surprised that you are unable to admit that several Socialist countries never faced any famines in Europe, but you repeat again and again WRONG assertions.

I'd be the first too agree to your arguments if they were correct.