Is my ideology Communist? If not, what is it like? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14806921
SolarCross wrote:You're conflating governance with commerce. Your wiki page is informative it defines a "right wing dictatorship" as a dictatorship which has a "rightist" policy in contrast to leftwing dictatorships. A "rightist" policy is one that is "pro-capitalist". Right so military governors who like capitalists presumably the way any taxman loves taxpayers and shepards love sheep. From this a certain petulant creepy little shit stain thinks this is damning proof that the industrial revolution was a giant mistake and we should all go back to living in mud huts. Laughable.


Oh, you are pretending that they did not enforce capitalism at gunpoint.

As long as we realise that your assertion is not true.

"ask any indigenous" ask me then, I'm indigenous English, the industrial revolution was the great work of my ancestors and I say it was the BEST THING EVER.


I am not discussing the Industrial revolution. Please reread which claim of yours I think is untrue.

Also, do you know what I mean by UNDRIP?
#14806923
SolarCross wrote:"ask any indigenous" ask me then, I'm indigenous English, the industrial revolution was the great work of my ancestors and I say it was the BEST THING EVER.


Oh please, in retrospect many historians argue that the industrial revolution could have started in China
#14806925
Pants-of-dog wrote:Oh, you are pretending that they did not enforce capitalism at gunpoint.

As long as we realise that your assertion is not true.

Governance is always enforced at gunpoint or arrowpoint or stone axe... You think leftwing dictators don't enforce their kooky beliefs at gunpoint?

Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not discussing the Industrial revolution. Please reread which claim of yours I think is untrue.

Merchants, artisans and the practice of commerce has been around since the dawn of civilisation but as I understand it leftists are only mad about capitalists when they used science to greatly increase the efficiency and productivity of their industries as happened in the industrial revolution. Merchants had never been high status people until then; it was only since then people like you came to envy them to the murderous extent that you do.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, do you know what I mean by UNDRIP?

I googled it, so what?


MememyselfandIJK wrote:Oh please, in retrospect many historians argue that the industrial revolution could have started in China


It might also have started in Iran or Arabia but it didn't, so what? Are we supposed to pretend the industrial revolution didn't happen because it didn't happen in China first?
#14806927
SolarCross wrote:Governance is always enforced at gunpoint or arrowpoint or stone axe... You think leftwing dictators don't enforce their kooky beliefs at gunpoint?


Sure, as long as we understand that dictators have enforced capitalism at gunpoint in a dehumanising and destructive way.

Merchants, artisans and the practice of commerce has been around since the dawn of civilisation but as I understand it leftists are only mad about capitalists when they used science to greatly increase the efficiency and productivity of their industries as happened in the industrial revolution. Merchants had never been high status people until then; it was only since then people like you came to envy them to the murderous extent that you do.


This has nothing to do with the discussion we are having. This is just you wanting to talk about my feelings.

I googled it, so what?


That is the context in which I used the word "indigenous". You are not indigenous, and your experience with capitalism is qualitatively different from one of an actual indigenous person.

For example, you have not had your land taken from you by capitalists.
#14806931
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure, as long as we understand that dictators have enforced capitalism at gunpoint in a dehumanising and destructive way.


If you are talking about Pinochet, what he did was a service to his country, it was patriotism.

He was a soldier and the best action a soldier may take is to lend his deadly craft towards the protection of civilisation. The merchants of Chile are the enablers and cultivators of civilisation of his land and they were under attack by the lying agents of a foreign and hostile empire. That he defeated that threat is to his honour.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This has nothing to do with the discussion we are having. This is just you wanting to talk about my feelings.


There is nothing else to argue against that is all you have. You yourself already acknowledged elsewhere that you don't know anything about the leftist theory. You are not trapped in all this nonsense intellectually only emotionally.

Pants-of-dog wrote:That is the context in which I used the word "indigenous". You are not indigenous, and your experience with capitalism is qualitatively different from one of an actual indigenous person.

For example, you have not had your land taken from you by capitalists.


I am an actual indigenous person.

indigenous
ɪnˈdɪdʒɪnəs/
adjective
adjective: indigenous

originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.


"Indigenous" has nothing to do with capitalism it is about living where you are from. You can be indigenous and capitalist or migrant and not-capitalist.

The native* peoples of the americas did not have their land taken by "capitalism" it was taken by the native* peoples of Europe a process that started BEFORE the industrial revolution even started anyway. If history had flowed a slightly different way, they could just as easily have had it taken by the Chinese or Arabs.

*native is somewhat arbitrary given that the origins of humanity is generally regarded as somewhere in East Africa, consequently just about everyone is an ancestral migrant.
#14806933
SolarCross wrote:If you are talking about Pinochet, what he did was a service to his country, it was patriotism.

He was a soldier and the best action a soldier may take is to lend his deadly craft towards the protection of civilisation. The merchants of Chile are the enablers and cultivators of civilisation of his land and they were under attack by the lying agents of a foreign and hostile empire. That he defeated that threat is to his honour.


So you are going to pretend that he was not a ddictstor who killed and/or tortured thousands (including children) because your feelings say he was a good man?

Lol. He was a patriot because he sold out his country to the US?

There is nothing else to argue against that is all you have. You yourself already acknowledged elsewhere that you don't know anything about the leftist theory. You are not trapped in all this nonsense intellectually only emotionally.


Your feelings about my feelings are not an argument.

I am an actual indigenous person.

"Indigenous" has nothing to do with capitalism it is about living where you are from. You can be indigenous and capitalist or migrant and not-capitalist.


Not according to the UNDRIP context.

The native* peoples of the americas did not have their land taken by "capitalism" it was taken by the native* peoples of Europe a process that started BEFORE the industrial revolution even started anyway. If history had flowed a slightly different way, they could just as easily have had it taken by the Chinese or Arabs.

*native is somewhat arbitrary given that the origins of humanity is generally regarded as somewhere in East Africa, consequently just about everyone is an ancestral migrant.


I am not discussing history. I am discussing what is happening to indigenous people right now under capitalism. They are currently dealing with stolen land, and it is the current capitalist governments of NA that are responsible.
#14806947
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you are going to pretend that he was not a ddictstor who killed and/or tortured thousands (including children) because your feelings say he was a good man?

Lol. He was a patriot because he sold out his country to the US?


Oh I am not pretending he was not a dictator or that he didn't authorise the killing of many people. I'm saying that what he did was for the good of the country. More on point I am challenging your lying propaganda where everything "bad" is called capitalism. Stalin kills some people, you blame capitalism, it rains on a bank holiday and you blame capitalism, the Ipod sells out at your local store and Starbucks is closed for a refit and you blame capitalism. Sometimes complaints should be more specific.

Also Pinochet can certainly be a patriot and have good relations with the US. Even if he thought there would be conflicts of interests along the way, the US is powerful militarily and rich economically, consequently a wise ruler would rather the US be an ally than an enemy.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not discussing history. I am discussing what is happening to indigenous people right now under capitalism. They are currently dealing with stolen land, and it is the current capitalist governments of NA that are responsible.

Fine but it is people of european ancestry doing the taking now as then. This is a tribe vs tribe conflict of interests which you are using as propaganda for your kooky cult. If before the Euros showed up an Apache tribe stole the range of a Soiux tribe would that be the fault of "capitalism"?
Last edited by SolarCross on 21 May 2017 18:54, edited 1 time in total.
#14806950
SolarCross wrote:Oh I am not pretending he was not a dictator or that he didn't authorise the killing of many people. I'm saying that what he did was for the good of the country. More on point I am challenging your lying propaganda where everything "bad" is called capitalism. Stalin kills some people, you blame capitalism, it rains on a bank holiday and you blame capitalism, the Ipod sells out at your local store and Starbucks is closed for a refit and you blame capitalism. Sometimes complaints should be more specific.


If it was so good, why did he have to impose it at gunpoint?

If it was for the good of the country, why did he need a foreign power to support him, and why did thus foreign power profit tremendously from this?

And by the way, I never claimed capitalism was responsible for all bad things. I am pointing out that you are objectively incorrect in your claim that capitalism is never destructive or dehumanising.

Fine but it is people of european ancestry doing the taking now as then. This is a tribe vs tribe conflict of interests which you are using as propaganda for your kooky cult. If before the Euros showed up an Apache tribe stole the range of a Soiux tribe would that be the fault of "capitalism"?


Since many indigenous people also have European ancestry and many settlers have indigenous ancestors, it is not about ethnicity.

It is about which nations get to claim land and its resources. Right now, the struggle is between the diverse indigenous nations on one side, and the capitalist governments of NA on the other.
#14806958
Pants-of-dog wrote:If it was so good, why did he have to impose it at gunpoint?
If communism is so good why is it ALWAYS imposed at gunpoint?

He is soldier he doesn't know any other way. Imposing "good" things at gunpoint is what governors do, all the time, it is the only thing they do.
Pants-of-dog wrote:If it was for the good of the country, why did he need a foreign power to support him, and why did thus foreign power profit tremendously from this?

Allende had the USSR, Pinochet had the US. Chile isn't a big powerful country it is safest for a country like that to align with a powerful country. The alignment between the US and Pinochet was mostly sympathy rather than anything material. No US forces participated, am I right? Pinochet was less a collaborater than say the South Korean governors during the Korean War. You are slinging mud for the sake of it. Is the Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II not a "patriot" because the UK has been known to be closely allied with the US for much of the last century till now?
Pants-of-dog wrote:And by the way, I never claimed capitalism was responsible for all bad things. I am pointing out that you are objectively incorrect in your claim that capitalism is never destructive or dehumanising.

If you want you can say anything is destructive and dehumanising..
Try these out?
- Alcohol
- Religion
- Communism
- Horse Riding
- Sports
- Promiscuity
- IT
- Spending too much time indoors
- Watching TV
- Wrestling
- Gang Warfare
- Not sleeping regularly

but for you it is capitalism always and only capitalism.
#14806963
SolarCross wrote:If communism is so good why is it ALWAYS imposed at gunpoint?


Lol. Really? Are we seriously discussing Pinochet and you need to be reminded of Allende?

He is soldier he doesn't know any other way. Imposing "good" things at gunpoint is what governors do, all the time, it is the only thing they do.


So you think soldiers are incapable of serving their country without torturing and killing children, oppressing their own country, opening their markets to foreign control, and embezzling funds.

No, I think soldiers can do their duty without all that, but perhaps I have a better opinion of soldiers.

Allende had the USSR, Pinochet had the US. Chile isn't a big powerful country it is safest for a country like that to align with a powerful country. The alignment between the US and Pinochet was mostly sympathy rather than anything material. No US forces participated, am I right?


Oh, I see. You still have not read the declassified CIA or KGB documents.

Nixon spent millions on anti-democratic forces in Chile. The Soviets spent, if I recall correctly, a few hundred thousand. This is literally an order of magnitude lower.

If you want you can say anything is destructive and dehumanising..
Try these out?
- Alcohol
- Religion
- Communism
- Horse Riding
- Sports
- Promiscuity
- IT
- Spending too much time indoors
- Watching TV
- Wrestling
- Gang Warfare
- Not sleeping regularly

but for you it is capitalism always and only capitalism.


Actually, you are the one who brought up how capitalism is not dehumanising and destructive.
#14806968
Pants-of-dog wrote:Lol. Really? Are we seriously discussing Pinochet and you need to be reminded of Allende?


What of it? He was elected president of Chile not a social club. He used his position to nationalise a whole bunch of industries, isn't that imposing things at "gunpoint"? Governments get away with massive confiscations by means of soldiers and police not hugs and kisses.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you think soldiers are incapable of serving their country without torturing and killing children, oppressing their own country, opening their markets to foreign control, and embezzling funds.

No, I think soldiers can do their duty without all that, but perhaps I have a better opinion of soldiers.

That depends on the circumstances, under the circumstance of Allende wrecking the country from within... yeah maybe. Could he have killed fewer people, been softer and more gentle? Maybe or maybe being too soft and gentle would have resulted in failure. It is hard to say he could just as easily have done things differently and still won but it is clear that what he did do did result in winning. In the end winning is what matters.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Oh, I see. You still have not read the declassified CIA or KGB documents.

Nixon spent millions on anti-democratic forces in Chile. The Soviets spent, if I recall correctly, a few hundred thousand. This is literally an order of magnitude lower.


Fine so the USSR was too broke to properly support their man. The point is being a patriot does not mean going friendless and refusing aid from friends.
#14806971
SolarCross wrote:What of it? He was elected president of Chile not a social club. He used his position to nationalise a whole bunch of industries, isn't that imposing things at "gunpoint"? Governments get away with massive confiscations by means of soldiers and police not hugs and kisses.


Oh, I see. You are conflating the use of force by democracies with oppression by authoritarian governments?

Since we are discussing how capitalism is dehumanising and destructive, this confusion of yours makes no sense. Unless you think that the lawful use of force by democracies is also dehumanising and destructive.

Anyway, your new claim was that communism is always authoritarian. Allende disproves this claim.

That depends on the circumstances, under the circumstance of Allende wrecking the country from within... yeah maybe. Could he have killed fewer people, been softer and more gentle? Maybe or maybe being too soft and gentle would have resulted in failure. It is hard to say he could just as easily have done things differently and still won but it is clear that what he did do did result in winning. In the end winning is what matters.


Okay. You seem to be agreeing that he was an oppressive despot who imposed a destructive and dehumanising capitalism on his country, but it was worth it because he won.

As long as agree that capitalism can be dehumanising and destructive.

Fine so the USSR was too broke to properly support their man. The point is being a patriot does not mean going friendless and refusing aid from friends.


He literally sold his country to foreigners and embezzled funds. Since you believe this is patriotism, perhaps your country could bebefit from patriotism such as this.

No doubt you hope that a foreign government puts some dictator in power in your country, and that said dictator gives sweet deals to these foreign corporations while pocketing millions himself.
#14806981
Pants-of-dog wrote:Oh, I see. You are conflating the use of force by democracies with oppression by authoritarian governments?

Since we are discussing how capitalism is dehumanising and destructive, this confusion of yours makes no sense. Unless you think that the lawful use of force by democracies is also dehumanising and destructive.

Anyway, your new claim was that communism is always authoritarian. Allende disproves this claim.

The "lawful use of force" is a bourgeois / democratic conceit born out of whiggish double think; force is force whatever else is pretended by it. I never made the claim communists never win elections, it is rare but it has happened and Allende was one that did (though it was hardly a landslide). I said communism is always imposed by force; fine so what if Allende won a close election before the guns came out?

Pants-of-dog wrote:He literally sold his country to foreigners and embezzled funds. Since you believe this is patriotism, perhaps your country could bebefit from patriotism such as this.

No doubt you hope that a foreign government puts some dictator in power in your country, and that said dictator gives sweet deals to these foreign corporations while pocketing millions himself.


That's the way you want to present it. My country doesn't need it at the moment, and if it did say by Corbyn being elected, I would hope that the TPTB would take care of business before too much became wrecked. If they made some dollar on the side, then fine by me.
#14806985
SolarCross wrote:The "lawful use of force" is a bourgeois / democratic conceit born out of whiggish double think; force is force whatever else is pretended by it. I never made the claim communists never win elections, it is rare but it has happened and Allende was one that did (though it was hardly a landslide). I said communism is always imposed by force; fine so what if Allende won a close election before the guns came out?


All you are saying here is that you are deliberately ignoring the qualitative differences in use of force.

This, of course, does not contradict the claim that capitalism can be dehumanising and destructive.

That's the way you want to present it. My country doesn't need it at the moment, and if it did say by Corbyn being elected, I would hope that the TPTB would take care of business before too much became wrecked. If they made some dollar on the side, then fine by me.


Sure, you do not want the patriotism that you think others needed.

This, of course, does not contradict the claim that capitalism can be dehumanising and destructive.
#14806988
Pants-of-dog wrote:All you are saying here is that you are deliberately ignoring the qualitative differences in use of force.

This, of course, does not contradict the claim that capitalism can be dehumanising and destructive.


You get mugged, do you think there is a qualitative difference in that mugging if it was carried out by a mob who took a vote beforehand rather than just by a single tough guy?

Pants-of-dog wrote:This, of course, does not contradict the claim that capitalism can be dehumanising and destructive.

Repetition is the most bone headed of brainwashing techniques, just saying.

The question is which is worse capitalism or communism? Gulags or shopping malls...? choices choices...
#14806990
SolarCross wrote:You get mugged, do you think there is a qualitative difference in that mugging if it was carried out by a mob who took a vote beforehand rather than just by a single tough guy?


Are you arguing that all governments are equivalent to being mugged?

If so, then capitalism is also,like being mugged and is therefore dehumanising and destructive. Good, you just disproved your own claim.

Repetition is the most bone headed of brainwashing techniques, just saying.

The question is which is worse capitalism or communism? Gulags or shopping malls...? choices choices...


I will pick the option that is not destructive and dehumanising. Since we have agreed that capitalism can be dehumanising and destructive....
#14806993
Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you arguing that all governments are equivalent to being mugged?

If so, then capitalism is also,like being mugged and is therefore dehumanising and destructive. Good, you just disproved your own claim.


I acknowledged from the beginning that governors govern by force. Capitalism isn't synonymous with governance though. It is mostly what civilians do. That isn't to say that the economic activity of civilians and the power activities of governors are clear seperate things and to a great extent both governors and the governed, princes and merchants, depend on each other for success. Merchants produce wealth but need protection, Princes consume wealth but can provide protection. So the potential for a symbiosis is there, even this symbiosis is the engine of civilisation.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I will pick the option that is not destructive and dehumanising. Since we have agreed that capitalism can be dehumanising and destructive....


If that is the state of your reasoning powers it is a wonder you haven't killed yourself years ago. :lol:
#14806995
SolarCross wrote:I acknowledged from the beginning that governors govern by force. Capitalism isn't synonymous with governance though. It is mostly what civilians do. That isn't to say that the economic activity of civilians and the power activities of governors are clear seperate things and to a great extent both governors and the governed, princes and merchants depend on each other for success. Merchants produce wealth but need protection, Princes consume wealth but can provide protection. So the potential for a symbiosis is there, even this symbiosis is the engine of civilisation.


Sure, and when the government, for example, rounds up and kills trade unionists for organising labour, they are creating a destructive and dehumanising symbiosis.

If that is the state of your reasoning powers it is a wonder you haven't killed yourself years ago. :lol:


Well, the last time we were told we could pick one of the two, we did. And then the capitalists came and killed a whole bunch of us.

So, it is not so much about reasoning powers as it is about direct experience.
#14807003
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure, and when the government, for example, rounds up and kills trade unionists for organising labour, they are creating a destructive and dehumanising symbiosis.

Destructive for the unionists and those that they duped. Princes are protectors they don't do that with hugs and kisses, if you pick a fight don't be surprised to get hurt.

You know the authorities of the USSR frequently used lethal force against workers protesting pay and conditions? But I forget it's okay when commies do it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, the last time we were told we could pick one of the two, we did. And then the capitalists came and killed a whole bunch of us.

So, it is not so much about reasoning powers as it is about direct experience.

You are talking about Chile. The fault in your reasoning is that you assume that because Pinochet and by extention the USA can play hardball and break your teeth that the otherside represented by Allende and the USSR won't play hard ball and break teeth. Well Allende hardly had the chance but the USSR's record is not great.

This isn't a choice between utopia and hell it is a choice more akin to the lesser of two evils.

@Negotiator , Also, as Eisenhower put it, you c[…]

Iranian Situation...

Well, it's great to see you follow his lead, then[…]

John Bolton's attempts to goad Iran have been pre[…]

June 24, Monday Two US gunboats shell Confedera[…]