36
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 36:
Line 36: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
:::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.--[[User:Chewy Suarez|Chewy Suarez]] ([[User talk:Chewy Suarez|talk]]) 12:23, 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.--[[User:Chewy Suarez|Chewy Suarez]] ([[User talk:Chewy Suarez|talk]]) 12:23, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
::::Funny debate here—everybody agrees! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 14:44, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
::::Funny debate here—everybody agrees! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 14:44, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
== ML's response ==
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. <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le86H7Xfjrc</ref> 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[https://www.cato.org/blog/benjamin-constant-eloquent-defender-freedom] in his ''The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns'',[https://web.archive.org/web/20160320234406/http://www.uark.edu/depts/comminfo/cambridge/ancients.html] 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. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk: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.
> 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. <ref>https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obamacare-romneycare_b_1956075</ref> <ref>https://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/11/13/romneycare-vs-obamacare-key-similarities-differences/</ref> <ref>https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/20/romneycare-and-obamacare-can-you-tell-difference/</ref> 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?
> 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?
Again, you are arguing against a strawman. And about the free speech thing, well...
* 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.
* 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.'''
* 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.
* http://en.people.cn/constitution/constitution.html
----
----
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}