Was Gene Roddenberry a Marxist/Socialist? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15035754
Julian658 wrote:OK, fine, whatever. :knife: :knife:


So you will answer my questions as to when it is all right for capitalism to kill people?

Why do you justify the 100 million murdered by the commies in the 20th century?


I did not attempt to justify it ever.
#15035777
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you will answer my questions as to when it is all right for capitalism to kill people?

Capitalism does not kill people. People kill people. You need to provide some citation as to how capitalism kills people.



I did not attempt to justify it ever.

OK, why do you think the commies saw a need to kill so many? It was not the communism that killed people. The killing was done by communists. Why?

BTW, are you able to have a dialogue that is at least one paragraph?
Or are you writing one liners because you have nothing to say?
#15035778
Julian658 wrote:Capitalism does not kill people. People kill people. You need to provide some citation as to how capitalism kills people.
:eek: Oh. Well then, Communism does not kill people. People kill people. Well that certainly is a good catch-all argument. I guess we can stop discussing it, then?


:lol:
#15035789
Godstud wrote::eek: Oh. Well then, Communism does not kill people. People kill people. Well that certainly is a good catch-all argument. I guess we can stop discussing it, then?


:lol:

Defender of PODism.
What do you think of the 100 million that died in the 20th century because of communism. Can you help POD? He has run out of words.
#15035805
Julian658 wrote:Capitalism does not kill people. People kill people. You need to provide some citation as to how capitalism kills people.


Let us do this one question at a time:

Is it good or bad when people die of illnesses or injuries that are amenable to medical treatment simply because they could not afford said treatment?

If you need citation, Harvard did a famous study in 2009 that estimated about 45 000 deaths a year in the USA alone were due to lack of being able to afford health care.

OK, why do you think the commies saw a need to kill so many? It was not the communism that killed people. The killing was done by communists. Why?


That would depend on what deaths you are discussing. Please provide citation. Thanks.

BTW, are you able to have a dialogue that is at least one paragraph?


Yes, I am.

Or are you writing one liners because you have nothing to say?


This post has at least six lines.

:)
#15035811
Julian658 wrote:Defender of PODism.
I am merely pointing out the colossal flaw in your ridiculous reasoning.

Julian658 wrote:What do you think of the 100 million that died in the 20th century because of communism.
Tragic, but most were not killed by an ideology, but they were they killed by people. That seems to be the argument you made for Capitalism. They weren't killed by Capitalism, but by people. Your "argument" is as valid for Capitalism as it is for Communism.

Interestingly enough, someone has already addressed this...

If Communism Killed Millions, How Many Did Capitalism Kill?
Let’s start in an obvious place. 13 million slaves were sold to the “New World” — America, North and South. In the United States, by 1860, just 400,000 North American slaves had become 4 million new ones, born into slavery. That’s 17 million people, and we’ve barely begun — and it’s incomplete, because there are no statistics on how many people were born into slavery after their parents sold in South and Central America. Still, let’s leave that aside for now, because 17 million’s plenty to begin with.

Fast forward a century. A world war erupted — thanks, in large part, as historians agree, to a global depression. But what caused the Great Depression? Capitalism — the speculative frenzy and inequality of the rip-roaring 1920s. Capitalism poured the fuel of fascism all over the world, in nations like Germany and Italy, who were heavily indebted by that point, and it only took a handful of demagogues to set the world alight. How many people died in World War II? 25 million — just soldiers. 50 million — including civilians. 80 million — including famine, war crimes, and disease. We’re getting into some spectacular numbers, aren’t we? Let’s take the middle one, just for conservatism’s sake. We’re already at about 70 million.

After the great war, immediately, came a new one. The Cold War. But the Cold War wasn’t just the intrigue of spies, as we think of it today. It was real and lethal war — war by America, for a single purpose — to preserve and expand the frontiers of capitalism. No capitalism, no Cold War. Let’s start, then, with the Viet Nam war. How many died? Another 2.5 million, roughly. Before that, though we don’t discuss it much today, was the Chinese civil war, in which America and Soviet Russia fought by proxy. How many died? About 8 million. Just those two hard wars of the Cold War — and there were many more — add another ten million to our tally, making it 80 million.

In between World War II and the Cold War though, lies a period of history many of us have forgotten. The end of colonial empire. This, too, was capitalism — empires were built to obtain cheap labour and raw materials for mercantile capitalism. It wasn’t the kind of globalized, “free-market” capitalism we practice today — but it was very much self-interested, profit-maximizing, shareholder-capitalized companies engaged in commerce, just under different rules about who could trade what, where, how, and when.

How many people died in the course of colonial mercantile empire? We’ll never know — it’s astronomical. How big? In the Congo alone, 10 million died as a legacy of King Leopold of Belgium’s brutal rule. In India, conservatively, a million people died, as the nation fractured when colonialism ended — and a noted Indian parliamentarian has estimated 35 million died under colonial rule, through famines alone. And yet in many places, those wounds haven’t healed. Congo, still exploited for its natural resources by, wait for it, capitalism — rubber, diamonds, metals, some of which are probably in your smartphone — had another war, in the 21st century, which killed 5 million.

Where’s our number now? In that last round, we added another 50 million people, to 70 million. So now we’re at 120 million. And that’s still conservative — because there are many, many wars, proxy wars, colonial empires, and massacres that we haven’t counted. That exercise would take something like a volume of books. But we have more than enough to reach a simple conclusion.

If communism killed 100 million, capitalism easily killed as many — if not more. When we say blindly that “communism kills!”, it’s all to easy to think that capitalism is something like a religion — pure and pious, with no blood on its hands. But its hands are just as flawed and imperfect as any others. But the point isn’t point scoring. It’s to think well — which is to think critically — about these systems.

https://eand.co/if-communism-killed-mil ... 24ab1c0df7
#15035849
@Godstud
By the way we are framing this as communism vs capitalism then anyone who is not a communist is a capitalist.

But this makes capitalism vast and as old as history if not older but in comparison communism is a very narrow clique which was a flash in the pan fad back in the 19th and 20th century. So what proportion of people are capitalist or communist? The ratio has to be 1000:1 at least.

So look at it this way: less than 1 mill of commies murdered for ideological reasons 100 million people (a few of whom were also commies).

But 8 billion capitalists killed less than 100 million for ideological reasons (most of whom are also "capitalists").

The ratios are what matters.
#15035879
Godstud wrote:I am merely pointing out the colossal flaw in your ridiculous reasoning.

Tragic, but most were not killed by an ideology, but they were they killed by people. That seems to be the argument you made for Capitalism. They weren't killed by Capitalism, but by people. Your "argument" is as valid for Capitalism as it is for Communism.

Interestingly enough, someone has already addressed this...



Solar Cross makes excellent points that I want to emphasize. Communists killed in the name of communism and they murdered 100 million people in a very small time window in the 20th century. To compare that number to world conflicts over a much longer period of time makes no sense. Slavery should not be in the picture since that preceded capitalism, In fact slavery evolved into feudalism.

What really matters is the fervor of POD and Godstud to defend communism. By the way that blog was written by a commie (obviously).
#15035880
Julian658 wrote:What really matters is the fervor of POD and Godstud to defend communism.
That is a completely dishonest appraisal on your part. I was merely pointing out the flaw in your argument.

Slavery was part of Capitalism, whether you like it, or not.

If you're going to insult people whenever someone corrects your bullshit, piss off back to 4chan.
#15035896
Godstud’s article starts in 1860.

Capitalism arose in Amsterdam and London during the late 1700s.

That is what is being compared.

Julian658 wrote:Communists killed in the name of communism and they murdered 100 million people in a very small time window in the 20th century.


Please provide evidence for this claim.

I can think of at least one oppressive capitalist government that killed people in the name of capitalism. I have no problem putting my evidence up against your evidence.

To compare that number to world conflicts over a much longer period of time makes no sense. Slavery should not be in the picture since that preceded capitalism, In fact slavery evolved into feudalism.


No. Slavery existed until well after capitalism came about.

What really matters is the fervor of POD and Godstud to defend communism. By the way that blog was written by a commie (obviously).


No, that does not matter.
#15035899
Godstud wrote:That is a completely dishonest appraisal on your part. I was merely pointing out the flaw in your argument.

Slavery was part of Capitalism, whether you like it, or not.

If you're going to insult people whenever someone corrects your bullshit, piss off back to 4chan.


Where is the dishonest appraisal? I am confused.
Don't be so sensitive, this is just a discussion board.
You tend to become very vituperative when things don't go your way. Try to use that energy to make your point in a more effective manner.

According to Marx slavery precedes capitalism.

capitalism noun
cap·​i·​tal·​ism | \ ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm , ˈkap-tə-\
Definition of capitalism
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

slavery noun
slav·​ery | \ ˈslā-v(ə-)rē \
Definition of slavery
1a : the practice of slaveholding
b : the state of a person who is a chattel of another
2 : submission to a dominating influence
#15035901
Pants-of-dog wrote:Godstud’s article starts in 1860.

Capitalism arose in Amsterdam and London during the late 1700s.

That is what is being compared.



Please provide evidence for this claim.

I can think of at least one oppressive capitalist government that killed people in the name of capitalism. I have no problem putting my evidence up against your evidence.



No. Slavery existed until well after capitalism came about.



No, that does not matter.

If you have to ask for a citation regarding the murders of communists then you have ZERO knowledge of basic history. I cannot help you. Use google and read for yourself.

Slavery is not capitalism.
#15035913
You just did a bait and switch.

You went from claiming that they killed people in the name of communism to claiming they simply killed people.

These are two different claims. I agree with the latter. I am asking for evidence of the former.
#15035915
Godstud wrote:Slavery was part of Capitalism, whether you like it, or not.

Slavery was ubiquitous in communism. What else is a gulag but a slave labour camp? Even today the entire population of the DPRK are functionally slaves.

In "capitalism" slaverly is uncommon, sometimes it is prohibited entirely, and even when allowed tends only to apply to convicted criminals, defaulting debtors or prisoners of war. Generally only a very small percentage of the population.

Communism is mandatory slavery for everyone except the topmost top brass of the communist party.
#15035916
SolarCross wrote:Slavery was ubiquitous in communism. What else is a gulag but a slave labour camp? Even today the entire population of the DPRK are functionally slaves.

In "capitalism" slaverly is uncommon, sometimes it is prohibited entirely, and even when allowed tends only to apply to convicted criminals, defaulting debtors or prisoners of war. Generally only a very small percentage of the population.

Communism is mandatory slavery for everyone except the topmost top brass of the communist party.


No, this is incorrect.
#15035925
A lot of things pre-date capitalism, but slavery in colonies wasn't an accidental or inessential result if we take note of the colony economic theorist, E.G. Wakefield noting how without the established infrastructure and population, a capitalist mode of production was infeasible.
See 'Plans of Immigration', in E.G. Wakefield's Letter from Sydney.
Marxmade note of his own discovery of how colonies required more forceful means than the coercion established from primitive accumulation.
Political economy confuses on principle two very different kinds of private property, of which one rests on the producers’ own labour, the other on the employment of the labour of others. It forgets that the latter not only is the direct antithesis of the former, but absolutely grows on its tomb only. In Western Europe, the home of Political Economy, the process of primitive accumulation is more of less accomplished. Here the capitalist regime has either directly conquered the whole domain of national production, or, where economic conditions are less developed, it, at least, indirectly controls those strata of society which, though belonging to the antiquated mode of production, continue to exist side by side with it in gradual decay. To this ready-made world of capital, the political economist applies the notions of law and of property inherited from a pre-capitalistic world with all the more anxious zeal and all the greater unction, the more loudly the facts cry out in the face of his ideology.
It is otherwise in the colonies. There the capitalist regime everywhere comes into collision with the resistance of the producer, who, as owner of his own conditions of labour, employs that labour to enrich himself, instead of the capitalist. The contradiction of these two diametrically opposed economic systems, manifests itself here practically in a struggle between them. Where the capitalist has at his back the power of the mother-country, he tries to clear out of his way by force the modes of production and appropriation based on the independent labour of the producer.
The same interest, which compels the sycophant of capital, the political economist, in the mother-country, to proclaim the theoretical identity of the capitalist mode of production with its contrary, that same interest compels him in the colonies to make a clean breast of it, and to proclaim aloud the antagonism of the two modes of production. To this end, he proves how the development of the social productive power of labour, co-operation, division of labour, use of machinery on a large scale, &c., are impossible without the expropriation of the labourers, and the corresponding transformation of their means of production into capital. In the interest of the so-called national wealth, he seeks for artificial means to ensure the poverty of the people. Here his apologetic armor crumbles off, bit by bit, like rotten touchwood.
It is the great merit of E.G. Wakefield to have discovered, not anything new about the Colonies [2], but to have discovered in the Colonies the truth as to the conditions of capitalist production in the mother country. As the system of protection at its origin [3] attempted to manufacture capitalists artificially in the mother-country, so Wakefield’s colonisation theory, which England tried for a time to enforce by Acts of Parliament, attempted to effect the manufacture of wage-workers in the Colonies. This he calls “systematic colonisation.”

First of all, Wakefield discovered that in the Colonies, property in money, means of subsistence, machines, and other means of production, does not as yet stamp a man as a capitalist if there be wanting the correlative — the wage-worker, the other man who is compelled to sell himself of his own free will. He discovered that capital is not a thing, but a social relation between persons, established by the instrumentality of things. [4] Mr. Peel, he moans, took with him from England to Swan River, West Australia, means of subsistence and of production to the amount of £50,000. Mr. Peel had the foresight to bring with him, besides, 300 persons of the working class, men, women, and children. Once arrived at his destination, “Mr. Peel was left without a servant to make his bed or fetch him water from the river.” [5] Unhappy Mr. Peel who provided for everything except the export of English modes of production to Swan River!

For the understanding of the following discoveries of Wakefield, two preliminary remarks: We know that the means of production and subsistence, while they remain the property of the immediate producer, are not capital. They become capital only under circumstances in which they serve at the same time as means of exploitation and subjection of the labourer. But this capitalist soul of theirs is so intimately wedded, in the head of the political economist, to their material substance, that he christens them capital under all circumstances, even when they are its exact opposite.

But once further developed slavery did become redundent and such was felt by the masses who lived in parts of the country where such production was already essential obsolete.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/articles/humanism-science.htm
This is precisely how Frederick Engels depicted the relationship between “scientific accuracy” and “the moral self-consciousness of the mass.” He remarked that science could not rely upon arguments derived from morality nor base its propositions on arguments derived from “moral sentiment.”

“Marx, therefore, never based his communist demands upon this. ... But what formally may be economically incorrect, may all the same be correct from the point of view of world history. If the moral consciousness of the mass declares an economic fact to be unjust, as it has done in the case of slavery or serf labour, that is a proof that the fact itself has been outlived, that other economic facts have made their appearance, owing to which the former has become unbearable and untenable. Therefore, a very true economic content may be concealed behind the formal economic incorrectness."(Engels, 1885 Preface to The Poverty of Philosophy)

The “moral sentiment of the mass” turns out to be correct in its stance against “strict science” which has not yet succeeded in getting to the heart of the matter precisely because the masses are truly caught in the vice of the contradiction between two categories of stubborn facts. In other words, the “moral sentiment” - humanistically-oriented consciousness - expresses in the given instance the presence of a real problem which must be resolved both theoretically and practically, the existence of an actual social contradiction, an outlet from which must be sought in a scientific manner.


Although this game of body counts won't amount to much other than morbid fascination.
In part, because such violence and death is abstracted entirely from the conditions in which they occurred and thus given significance.
Made so abstract is like family conflict scales that measure every incidence of violence as if all kinds of violence are considered morally equal by all persons.
I could speak of death tolls in a war but leave implied whose deaths were the 'bad' deaths and the others were a necessary sacrifice of the conflict.

To which every ruling class readily spills the blood of it's people.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1915/11/conscrpt.htm
Indeed that lesson has been all too tardily learned by the people and their leaders. One great source of the strength of the ruling class has ever been their willingness to kill in defence of their power and privileges. Let their power be once attacked either by foreign foes, or domestic revolutionists, and at once we see the rulers prepared to kill, and kill, and kill. The readiness of the ruling class to order killing, the small value the ruling class has ever set upon human life, is in marked contrast to the reluctance of all revolutionists to shed blood.

The French Reign of Terror is spoken of with horror and execration by the people who talk in joyful praise about the mad adventure of the Dardanelles. And yet in any one day of battle at the Dardanelles there were more lives lost than in all the nine months of the Reign of Terror.

Should the day ever come when revolutionary leaders are prepared to sacrifice the lives of those under them as recklessly as the ruling class do in every war, there will not be a throne or despotic government left in the world. Our rulers reign by virtue of their readiness to destroy human life in order to reign; their reign will end on the day their discontented subjects care as little for the destruction of human life as they do.


But in discussing the morality of violence requires an assessment of means and ends, where a violent means can and does often become justifiable even to the moast pacifist buddhist, one often frames violence as a necesasry means of self-defense in an erupting conflict.
But violence should attempt to be avoided, but its avoidance shouldn't be a metaphysical principle either, the issue is the balance of means and ends as appropriate to the circumstance.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/articles/humanism-science.htm
The real and very difficult problem, calling for a clear theoretical solution lies elsewhere. Is it admissible to interpret the formula: “that which serves the victory of communism is moral” to mean that in the name of this great cause “all is permitted,” that there are and can be no restrictions of a moral nature imposed here? Or might it be argued that even here not all is “permitted"?

Is there in general a limit beyond which a deviation, forced by extreme circumstances, from the abstract general norms of humaneness in the name of and for the sake of the triumph of a concretely and historically understood humanism is transformed into - in full agreement with the laws of the dialectic - a crime against the very goal for the sake of which the act was undertaken? To speak more to the point, can this fatal limit be determined, for it always exists somewhere or the other? In actuality this border forms the great divide between the authentic communism of Marx, Engels and Lenin and those “left” doctrines which interpret Marxist moral formula as indicating that “all is permitted.” It is one matter to understand that violence and murder are inevitable actions summoned by the extreme circumstances accompanying the deadly battle of the classes, actions to which the revolutionary must resort, recognizing fully their inhumanity. It is quite another matter, to look upon these activities as the optimal, the safest and even the only methods of establishing “happiness” on Earth. Both Marx and Lenin morally approved violence only in the most extreme circumstances, and then, only on the minimal scale, that which is absolutely necessary.

Lenin wrote that Communists are opposed to violence against people in general and they resort to coercion only when it is imposed upon them by authentic admirers of violence. The only justification for violence is as a means of opposing violence, as violence against the violent, but not as a means of influencing the will of the majority of the working people.

Therefore Communists are never the initiators of actions such as war or the “export of revolution” at the point of the bayonet. Lenin always categorically and consistently opposed “left” ideas of this type. In his understanding the scientific spirit of communism is always inseparably connected with the principle of humaneness in the direct sense of the word.

This also forms the principal difference between Lenin and those doctrinaires who allow themselves the pleasure of cynically counting up the number of human lives “worth” paying for the victory of world communism. ... As a rule such calculations in today’s world are the occupation of people characterized by primitivity both in terms of theory and in their moral profile. ‘


And when we look at the forced labour of the USSR, and the brutality, we should perhaps be attempting to look at it's relation to industrialization which is brutal at every point in time. Russia being such a backwater and underdeveloped nation, and the push to develop the country's infrastructure.
And they sought to industrialize at an extreme pace.
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/heroesvillains/g4/cs1/
The race to industrialise was spurred on by the fear that capitalist countries would try to destroy communism in the USSR. At the First Conference of Workers in 1931, Stalin delivered a passionate speech, commanding workers to play a crucial role in industrialisation.
He said: "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make up this gap in ten years. Either we do it or they will crush us."

History can seem one of necessity, events only happening as they did, but this isn't the case, but we can certainly make intelligible some things when we examine the conditions rather than a pithy, this is bad and thus by implicit necessity so is this.
But this would require elaboration on ideas about how man makes his history in inherited circumstances.

But this is in part why I don't think one can really effectively negate the appeal of either, as the history of both is necessarily bloodied with revolutions, rapid development of production, even throw in for the USSR emerging from civil war to a world war which became a war for their very existence against the German war machine. Where can even see the rhetoric shift from that of socialist appeals to nationalist ones as the nature of the war was hardly one of aspiration for the future society but to even have a Russian society not slaughtered.

There seems to be the tendency for people to simply do terrible things then ask for forgiveness later.
We can't look at the US as it exists today without understanding the global economy and slave trade where sugar and tobacco were in high demand and the basis for its economic development.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/sugar-slave-trade-slavery.html

I think the point to make is whether one can propose a way of life that advances the overall human condition.
Leftists certainly see capitalism as a progressive development upon feudalism even in spite of the immense suffering it causes. Where many would like to generalize the middle class experience as opposed to the masses.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/miliprog/index.htm
The bourgeoisie makes it its business to promote trusts, drive women and children into the factories, subject them to corruption and suffering, condemn them to extreme poverty. We do not demand such development, we do not support it. We fight it. But how do we fight? We explain that trusts and the employment of women in industry are progressive. We do not want a return to the handicraft system, pre-monopoly capitalism, domestic drudgery for women. Forward through the trusts, etc., and beyond them to socialism!

For leftists, the attempt to establish socialism would be a development, although it is noted and was even predicted without certain conditions that the USSR would fail in it's goal without socialist revolutions through Europe.
http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/Marxism/Marxism%20As%20Science.pdf
the defeat of the working class in the West. In Results and Prospects (1969) he wrote that failing a revolution in the West the Russian revolution would be aborted and would turn inward on itself. He anticipated the broad outlines of what actually happened after 1917. The tragedy of Trotsky's life was that he was destined to be the agent and the victim of his own accurate predictions -the involution of a Russian Revolution that was not followed by revolution in the West, the process he analyzed with great acuity in Revolution Betrayed ([I9361 1972).

And many of the appeals to anti-socialism register little more than cold war rhetoric than analysis.
It doesn't even get to the essential point of why would oppose it, appeals only to the risk of failure whilst diminishing the problems which give life to it as a proposed solution. For this reason such ideas will never simply die away as the same essential conflict exists and as such, the once radical quality of liberalism has destroyed even many of its progressive features to defend itself as its revolutionary tools became a weapon against themselves.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/articles/marxist-leninist.htm
The question for Marx arose in the following form: Is it possible (and if so, precisely how) to resolve the conflicts in the development of private property in the soil of that private property itself? “Peacefully?” This again is not the position of a communist. But it is the position of a theoretician and it retains within itself the possibility of transferring to the communist position.

This position employed a wholly objective, fearless, ruthless and critical analysis of the social situation that was developing in the world of private property, especially in those countries where private initiative bad secured the utmost freedom from any external, legal kind of regulation, namely, in England and France. And so the criticism of communist ideas, so far as Marx considered it a serious-theoretical matter and not a demagogical-idealistic one, became a criticism of the actual conditions of life that gave birth to these ideas and aided their dissemination.
...
Therefore communism was even viewed by the young Marx as an ideological current arising out of private property itself. Thus the criticism of communism finally became a criticism of private property as the foundation of communist ideas.

This plan of critical analysis became central for Marx and served as the basic theme for the Philosophical-Economic Manuscripts. This work led him to the conclusion that those actual-empirical conflicts, in the soil of which sympathy arises for the ideas of communism, were not accidental phenomena, characteristic only of the England and France of that time but inevitable outcomes of private property seen as an international and general principle for the organization of all social life. Marx became convinced in the course of this analysis that the conflicts actually observable in France and England were, in essence, necessary consequences of private property; they were already present implicitly in the very principle of this private, individual kind of property.

If this is not understood, if it is seen the appeal of ideas have little basis in the conflicts and antagonisms in the world itself, then there is no understanding of the problem and why it will continue until self-destruction or resolution.
#15035930
SolarCross wrote:Slavery was ubiquitous in communism. What else is a gulag but a slave labour camp? Even today the entire population of the DPRK are functionally slaves.

In "capitalism" slaverly is uncommon, sometimes it is prohibited entirely, and even when allowed tends only to apply to convicted criminals, defaulting debtors or prisoners of war. Generally only a very small percentage of the population.

Communism is mandatory slavery for everyone except the topmost top brass of the communist party.

Great post!
#15035931
Pants-of-dog wrote:You just did a bait and switch.

You went from claiming that they killed people in the name of communism to claiming they simply killed people.

These are two different claims. I agree with the latter. I am asking for evidence of the former.

Please provide evidence that you are not a BOT.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Opinion polls like the one cited above are a wa[…]

EU-BREXIT

The paradox of politics is rather like the parado[…]

The clue is that free market capitalism in the pa[…]