Debate: Communism

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a debate page solely to discuss communism, at the insistence of the individual calling himself "MarxistLeninist".

  • Rules:
The debate will be civil.
Individuals debating will not be blocked from doing so.
IP addresses will be blocked if they are determined to be proxies.
Enver Hoxxa is not authorized as part of the discussion. Karajou (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2019 (EDT)

Debate starts here

Since the original user's history has been entirely wiped out, what exactly were they asking to be debated? Was it yet another Marxism vs Capitalism debate? Was it a debate about something specific on one or more pages? Was it the superiority of his wiki vs ours?
As to communism and moreso communists themselves, the debate is not usually worth having. They can't even be honest about communism's existence wherever it has existed - both pre or post Marx. Bring up Venezuela? That wasn't real communism. USSR? That was just a dictatorship, not communism. They will scream bloody murder that communism has never been tried even though it has been tried dozens, if not hundreds of times. I am all up for a debate but when you have a co-debater who keeps clearing facts off of the table in order to cheat in the debate and give themselves a tactical advantage, debate becomes impossible courtesy of the cheater. Debates require facts, especially the inconvenient ones.
As Benjamin Constant explains[1] in his The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns,[2] the "liberty" of the ancients consists of a collective "liberty", that is, government granted rights. One of the biggest flaws of any of these "isms" from Europe is that they all believe that government is the pinnacle of existence. Communists like to play that their ideas are some of the newest on the planet, when in reality all Marx did was re-package the flaws of the ancients into a new box with new wrapping paper. Reagan was correct when he said: "This idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man." That's because the basis of Communism is not the individualist Liberty of the Moderns, communism is based on the collectivist "liberty" of the ancients. Progressingamerica (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
The original user's arguments are here: [3] His comments are the unsigned ones (he never signed anything). Shobson20 (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
I think Medieval Christians deserve the credit, not the "Moderns":
"Christian doctrine fomented the transformation of political ideas and practices to the gradual evolution of a constitutionalism of medieval provenance. As the eminent Carlyle brothers abundantly documented in their monumental History of Political Theory in the West, this Christian tradition of law and government maintained that the immediate source of political authority is the community; that law and authority are both purposively ordained to the advantage of the governed conceived as justice and commonweal; that the contractual relation between ruler and ruled is reciprocally binding and its conditions mutually inviolable; and that the supremacy of law rests juridically, as Hincmar of Rheims [806 A.D.–882 A.D.] pointed out, upon the consent of the governed."[1]
VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 11:15, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
Look, if the argument is "the USSR wasn't communism," and then post up a bunch of quotes from the Book of Acts, we're just spinning our wheels. It's no different than forcing Christians to defend a bunch of atrocities from the Crusades. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:20, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
While Marxists quote Acts (beginning with Engels), "they held everything in common," fulfilling Jesus's command to "love one another, by this everyone will know ye are my disciples," loving one another cannot by done by an edict from the Politburo or an Obamacare mandate. Why does this have to be debated? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:39, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
I think this sums it up: [4] Shobson20 (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
Yes, exactly ("My kingdom is not of this world"). Let me go one step further: while Marxists decry theocracy, they seem to advocate atheocracy. We are implored to ignore Jesus' divine command to "love one another," than out of the other corner of their mouth they see some divine wisdom in "holding everything in common." The plain facts are, Jesus did not command his disciples to divest themselves of capital. Yes, he told sinners to do so ("eye of the needle" quote, "give up everything to poor" to young rich man who was not a disciple). The passages quoted about early Christians in the book of Acts were not (1) mandated by God, and were (2) frankly, naive and stupid. And they paid a dear price. Jesus in fact preached against prodigality in numerous places; the early Christians following mistook prodigality for "loving one another." The Apostle's themselves said "it is not right that we leave the preaching of the Gospel to serve tables." RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:02, 16 July 2019 (EDT)

My question is pretty simple for this ML guy, should he return: What makes you think that an ideology that has to control 80% or more of an individual's existence a good thing, up to and including stuffing someone into a gulag for not toeing the commie party line? Karajou (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2019 (EDT)

ML is in serious denial that that even happened. For example, he is very much in denial of Holodomor, and cites that infamous Canadian Communist Douglas Tottle, who's book he referred to was discredited soon after it came out, as noted on this very website here: [5] People who have sympathies with the Soviet Union have been trying to cover this up for a long time, but I submit these: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] I concur with Progressingamerica's comment earlier of "They can't even be honest about communism's existence wherever it has existed" and denials and attempted coverups of Holodomor have been attempted since it originally happened. Shobson20 (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
Since ML cited Tottle's book, I will submit "Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine" by Anne Applebaum. Shobson20 (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
Anne Applebaum, a once respected writer on the Soviet system (rare among living Americans), burnt off a few calories of credibility as a Russia collusion hoaxer. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:26, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
Germany prior to reunification 1990: In the east even highly qualified professionals like doctors had to wait years to be able to buy the antiquated Trabant whilst in the west low skilled workers bought MK2 VW Golfs in their millions. Even if you strip communism to just economics it is obvious what a disaster it was.--Chewy Suarez (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
Funny debate here—everybody agrees! VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 14:44, 16 July 2019 (EDT)

User: MarxistLeninist's response (Also known as ML)

Note: I have gone to bed, I will respond to your responses tomorrow.


Here we go.

> They can't even be honest about communism's existence wherever it has existed - both pre or post Marx. Bring up Venezuela? That wasn't real communism. USSR? That was just a dictatorship, not communism. They will scream bloody murder that communism has never been tried even though it has been tried dozens, if not hundreds of times. I am all up for a debate but when you have a co-debater who keeps clearing facts off of the table in order to cheat in the debate and give themselves a tactical advantage, debate becomes impossible courtesy of the cheater. Debates require facts, especially the inconvenient ones.

Venezeula is not socialist. 70-80 percent of their economy is privately-owned. [2] The argument that the USSR was not socialist generally comes from anarchists, who think that the state must be instantly abolished upon the ousting of the previous capitalist regime, trotskyites, who think that Stalin betrayed the revolution, and that Trotsky was the one who was fit to lead the USSR, and LeftComs, who are generally derided by other socialists as being "arm-chair socialists". Also, I will assume that by "Communism", you are refering to "socialism", as Communism is a theoretical form of society which has never existed. I consider the USSR to be Socialist, and pretty much all non-Trotskyist MLs consider the USSR to have been Socialist.

> As Benjamin Constant explains[14] in his The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns,[15] the "liberty" of the ancients consists of a collective "liberty", that is, government granted rights. One of the biggest flaws of any of these "isms" from Europe is that they all believe that government is the pinnacle of existence. Communists like to play that their ideas are some of the newest on the planet, when in reality all Marx did was re-package the flaws of the ancients into a new box with new wrapping paper. Reagan was correct when he said: "This idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man." That's because the basis of Communism is not the individualist Liberty of the Moderns, communism is based on the collectivist "liberty" of the ancients. Progressingamerica (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2019 (EDT)

Communism is not a system in which the State owns/controls everything. That is Cold-War era propaganda. Communism cannot have full-State control, because Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Marx did not believe that the government should be supreme. Leftists believe in the principles of democracy, and in making sure that all people have a voice. You cannot argue against a strawman.

You only state what it's supposed to be in theory, but your opponents are describing what it actually has been in practice. Shobson20 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2019 (EDT)

> While Marxists quote Acts (beginning with Engels), "they held everything in common," fulfilling Jesus's command to "love one another, by this everyone will know ye are my disciples," loving one another cannot by done by an edict from the Politburo or an Obamacare mandate. Why does this have to be debated?

OBAMA WAS NOT A SOCIALIST. He was a corporate neoliberal! Obamacare was similar to the system introduced by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. [3] [4] [5] Also, if Obama was a Socialist, why didn't he pass a univeral healthcare bill while the Democrats has a majority in the House and the Senate? Why didn't he do anything to place the means of production under the control of the workers? Why did he allow the backing of pro-American groups in Libya? Why did he support gun control?

Nice try. But we are not talking about Obama. We are talking about government mandated contracts. Coercion. Stick to the issue. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:19, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
Enacting "government-mandated" contracts is not socialism. Reducing the power of the bourgeosie, placing the means of production under worker-ownership, and abolishing the capitalist system is socialism. Also, you still did not address my point.
Let's zero in on this momentarily. (a) Obamacare was the creation of Democrat members of Congress, not one man. (b) The focus is the mandates, both employer and individual. (c) And the coercive nature of those mandates, "Shared responsibility payment". (d) As Jonathan Gruber stated, the Congressional Budget Office could not score the shared responsibility payment as a tax. "If it's a tax, the bill fails."

(e) Q. What is a tax?

A. A tax is revenue to support the government.

Q. What is the shared responsibility payment?

A. The shared responsibility payment was a transfer of wealth from one group of citizens to other people (even non-citizens).

Q. Who are these other people?

A. People who qualify based on legislation.

Q. I thought all people are equal under the law; why should some people be penalized to pay for other people's healthcare?

A. Communism.

Q. What happened to equal justice under the law? Isn't that the job of government?

A.hamanahamanahamana. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:38, 16 July 2019 (EDT)

How is universal healthcare, let alone, OBAMACARE, "penalizing" people? Also, NOT EVERYTHING YOU DISAGREE WITH IS COMMUNISM. Romneycare also had an individual mandate, yet the GOP supported it. But as soon as the Democrats dared modify it slightly, and try to pass it, suddenly it's "communism".
Get real. Do we have to go into the injustices of communism? Is paying 250% for healthcare so that 150% over and above the care for your own family is transferred to others, is that justice? Only a dangerous sociopath would answer in the affirmative. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:04, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
You act like Democrats were helpless against Republican encroachment for just wanting to make minor alterations, but tellingly neither you nor your sources tell us what ObamaCare actually did.
You quoted three (3) sources about RomneyCare being similar to ObamaCare. But why would anyone believe the one you picked which was PolitiFact for what it said about Obamacare, the organization who committed a notorious journalistic scandal about that very issue?
These are the people who called those who said the Affordable Care Act would require some people to give up their doctor the "falsehood of the year" [In 2010, and it was phrased as "a government takeover of healthcare." Eventually four million people lost their healthcare plan.] or whatever the grand prize was. The next year [Actually it was three years later, in 2013, but Obama had been claiming it since 2009] they were forced to admit Obama's promise that you could keep your doctor was itself the "falsehood of the year". [Again, it was phrased as "you can keep your healthcare."] You couldn't have picked a worse source if you'd tried!
It's also telling that none of your sources mentioned among their careful detail that Massachusetts was MORE socialized BEFORE RomneyCare:
"It’s not as if we had a beautifully functioning free market in healthcare until Gov. Romney came along and wrecked it by requiring that Massachusetts residents purchase their own health insurance. In 2007, when RomneyCare became law, the federal government alone was already picking up the tab for 45.4% of all healthcare expenditures in the country.
Until ObamaCare, mandatory private health insurance -- as Romney pushed -- was considered the free market alternative to the Democrats’ piecemeal socialization of the entire medical industry." — Ann Coulter
It was only when socialist true-believer Obama decided competitive services were wrong on principle that the trend toward competition to cut fraud and waste, as the practice of competition already existed in nearly every other industry, was halted and reversed with no discussion about reforming possible bad consequences.
And the 1,000+ page bill hid the fact that main wealth transfer was from massive upper-middle-class premium-increases being given to pay for low-income insurance which had massive new government-mandated (required) services, including requirements to insure those with pre-existing conditions at normal premium rates, even for people who had let their insurance lapse.
Republicans had been starting to allow the government to cover gaps in medical care like prescription drugs coverage to cover the expensive new drugs that were starting to appear on the market for Medicare recipients, but that wasn't good enough for socialist Obama. As too typically, your expressions of shocked protest to the contrary, he wanted the whole enchilada and caused a debacle for one-seventh of the economy. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 01:11, 17 July 2019 (EDT)

> My question is pretty simple for this ML guy, should he return: What makes you think that an ideology that has to control 80% or more of an individual's existence is a good thing, up to and including stuffing someone into a gulag for not toeing the commie party line?

Again, you are arguing against a strawman. And about the free speech thing, well...

That's a copout statement expected from someone who refuses either to answer the question or refuses to face reality. That unfortunately, is the system and ideology YOU SUPPORT. And sign your name with four "~". Karajou (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2019 (EDT)
  • Article 34. All citizens of the People's Republic of China who have reached the age of 18 have the right to vote and stand for election, regardless of nationality, race, sex, occupation, family background, religious belief, education, property status, or length of residence, except persons deprived of political rights according to law.
[16] Shobson20 (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2019 (EDT)

> Hong Kong Free Press

I am very suspicious of this source, the CIA has created front organisations to smear other countries that are opposed to the U.S, such as Radio Free Europe, and Radio Free Asia. [6] RFE has also targeted propaganda at American citizens through social media ads. [7]

The Wikipedia article you cited about OEV says nothing about HKFP. But Wikipedia does say this about Tiananmen square: [17] Shobson20 (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
This is what Wikipedia has to say about HKFP [18]. It describes it as a "a free, non-profit online newspaper based in Hong Kong. It was founded by independent journalists in response to concerns over declining press freedom in the territory; to provide an alternative to the dominant English language news source, China's Alibaba-controlled South China Morning Post; and to provide quicker English coverage of local news." with no reference to OEV. Shobson20 (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
  • Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
[19] Shobson20 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2019 (EDT)

> citing the U.S government, which has a good reason to smear China, because China is considered a "bad-guy"

  • Article 36. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.
[20] Shobson20 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
Obviously, despite this being written down, none of it is being put into actual practice. Look up "Great firewall of China" sometime.

Shobson20 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2019 (EDT)

I believe the Great Firewall is justified, on the basis that there is an active effort by an imperialist power (The United States) to destabilize China and cause regime change. [8]
Well in that case, you're definitely NOT pro-free speech. Free speech means all speech, even if it is "propaganda." Besides, you keep citing shills for Socialism, like Liberation News, so I could just as easily dismiss your sources as "propaganda." Shobson20 (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
You changed your words, you originally said "I believe the Great Firewall is justified, due to the amount of propaganda that exists on the Internet" and that's what I was responding to, don't change the words of a comment I'm responding to, just make another comment admitting you made a poor choice of words. Shobson20 (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
Destabilizing a country has a very large potential to cause harm to the citizens of that country. For example, how many people have died in Afghanistan, because the U.S funded extremist groups in the name of "fighing the commies"? If you count the War in Afghanistan as being caused by American destabilization efforts, then the destabilization of Afghanistan has lead to 31,000 civilian deaths. [9] And in a country like China, with over a billion people, that could cause millions of deaths, if say, a civil war broke out. It would also end China's economic rise, putting millions in poverty.
Improving the wording a statement does not discredit an argument.
But altering the original comment does mislead people as to what I'm responding to, since I was responding to the comment as originally worded, you should have added a clarification instead of altering the original comment. Also, you need to start signing your posts with four tildes (~). Shobson20 (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
And I could dismiss your sources with the same argument. Then, this would't get anywhere. And I think it is perfectly reasonable to censor something, if it is intentionally being used by an imperialist power to destablize your own country.
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." -Louis Brandeis You're the one who started this Argumentum ad Hominem.
Also, it's hypocritical for you to complain about being banned for "offering another view" then turn around and argue that there are reasons to suppress free speech just because you don't like the motive behind it. Shobson20 (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
The fact he's defending the totalitarian PRC tells us enough. Communism rejects the concept of natural law -- that rights ultimately come from God, not humans or their governments and, thus, that government cannot change or take away rights and freedoms. That's why communist countries usually (if not always) severely restrict free speech, religious freedom, and the right to self-defense, among other individual freedoms. Instead of reading Marx (who called for the abolition of religion and the family), I recommend you read the Bible first, and Locke second. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2019 (EDT)



I have a few questions: Why is Hoxha not "authorized as part of the discussion", what do you think of the Amazon strikes [10], and what do you think about the recent calls for unionization at Walmart? [11] [12]

If you wanna defend Hoxxa, feel free. for brevity's sake, an historical discussion of the failures of communism, there will be no end. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:19, 16 July 2019 (EDT)




https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/c2b7ma/china_megathread_everything_a_leftist_must_know/

https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/cc41yz/dprk_megathread_part_1/

https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/cc42bl/dprk_megathread_part_2/

https://www.liberationnews.org/a-socialist-orientation-the-collapse-of-the-trump-russia-hoax-and-the-need-for-an-independent-movement/

https://www.liberationnews.org/medicare-for-all-means-radical-change-not-just-reforms/

https://www.liberationnews.org/eco-socialism-conference-to-be-held-in-albuquerque-for-the-earth-to-live-capitalism-must-end/

https://www.liberationnews.org/tiananmen-the-massacre-that-wasnt/

https://www.liberationnews.org/pedophile-billionaire-jeffrey-epsteins-crimes-covered-up-to-protect-the-ultra-rich/