Difference between revisions of "Debate: Communism"

Revision as of 16:39, July 16, 2019

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)

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. RobS^{Deep 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? RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:39, 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: [3] People who have sympathies with the Soviet Union have been trying to cover this up for a long time, but I submit these: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] 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. RobS^{Deep 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)