• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Soviet ("Muscovite") vs. Nazi posters - amazing 100% similarity! (1 Viewer)

Litwin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2017
Messages
33,607
Reaction score
5,193
Location
GDL/Sweden
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
so as we all know that commies have killed much more people ( i am not talking even about enslavement peasants , in which commies are absolute champions ) than Nazis,

so why is it still Ok in the western world to be a commie, even today ?



Capture-e1444638415934.jpg
 
The only reason the Nazis didn't kill more than communists is because it was one government which lasted 11 years, compared to numerous governments which lasted half a century or longer.

The Nazis killed a lot, lot more per year of power. Numbers games is stupid anyway.
 
The only reason the Nazis didn't kill more than communists is because it was one government which lasted 11 years, compared to numerous governments which lasted half a century or longer.

The Nazis killed a lot, lot more per year of power. Numbers games is stupid anyway.

How about we just don't go with ideologies that kill people :)
 
Sure. Name one.
Well, I've never heard of anyone die on the receiving end of Libertarianism, although it may be different for european libertarianism, since concepts change depending on if they're over there, or here.
 
How about we just don't go with ideologies that kill people :)

Sigh! Facepalm!

Ok. Show me where in communist ideology it says that electing a psycopathic paranoid murderer to run a country and slaughter thousands is such a good idea that nothing could possibly go wrong.

This is really one of those threads where a bunch of americans get to demonstrate just how completely ignorant of communism they are and brainwashed they are into hating the word that they do not understand.
 
Sigh! Facepalm!

Ok. Show me where in communist ideology it says that electing a psycopathic paranoid murderer to run a country and slaughter thousands is such a good idea that nothing could possibly go wrong.

This is really one of those threads where a bunch of americans get to demonstrate just how completely ignorant of communism they are and brainwashed they are into hating the word that they do not understand.

Well, how about you educate us all on the virtues of communism then.
 
Well, how about you educate us all on the virtues of communism then.

Well, one of them would be that there is no ideology of killing millions. All there is is a bunch of americans here who are still living in the cold war of the 1950's.
 
Well, I've never heard of anyone die on the receiving end of Libertarianism, although it may be different for european libertarianism, since concepts change depending on if they're over there, or here.

Well there's never been a libertarian government, but as it is a survival of the fittest philosophy, plenty of poor people would undo die from lack of medical access.
 
Capitalists killed 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis under President GW Bush. Why would anyone want to be Capitalist?
 
Capitalists killed 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis under President GW Bush. Why would anyone want to be Capitalist?

Oh spare us. Not even terrorists would think of US soldiers as capitalists in black suits and top hats. They claim to fight imperialism, which is something that existed long before there was ever capitalism.
 
Well there's never been a libertarian government, but as it is a survival of the fittest philosophy, plenty of poor people would undo die from lack of medical access.

Actually, that's not true. Anarchy is survival of the fittest. Libertarianism is the concept that a democracy has to be limited, and the markets free and open.
 
Sigh! Facepalm!

Ok. Show me where in communist ideology it says that electing a psycopathic paranoid murderer to run a country and slaughter thousands is such a good idea that nothing could possibly go wrong.

This is really one of those threads where a bunch of americans get to demonstrate just how completely ignorant of communism they are and brainwashed they are into hating the word that they do not understand.

The part where it says "you have a right to someone else's wealth". That's a all-around bad idea that inevitably ends up with an authoritarian ruler to enforce such philosophy. That's why communism is a ****ty idea in practice, and a ****ty idea on paper.
 
Capitalists killed 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis under President GW Bush. Why would anyone want to be Capitalist?

The CT forum is elsewhere.
 
Sigh! Facepalm!

Ok. Show me where in communist ideology it says that electing a psycopathic paranoid murderer to run a country and slaughter thousands is such a good idea that nothing could possibly go wrong.

This is really one of those threads where a bunch of americans get to demonstrate just how completely ignorant of communism they are and brainwashed they are into hating the word that they do not understand.

It's an inevitable outcome of a totalitarian command economy. All must go according to plan, and if that means people die, it's a small sacrifice for the Greater Good(TM).

Also, in order for it to have a prayer of working, everyone must be on board. Which means there can be no dissent, because dissent breeds more dissent, and it all collapses. So, if that means civil rights like freedom of speech and freedom of the press are abolished, it's a small sacrifice for the Greater Good(TM).
 
so as we all know that commies have killed much more people ( i am not talking even about enslavement peasants , in which commies are absolute champions ) than Nazis,

so why is it still Ok in the western world to be a commie, even today ?

It's very simple: Some people want free stuff. Much of western society has degraded to where they accept anything in exchange for "free" money.
 
The only reason the Nazis didn't kill more than communists is because it was one government which lasted 11 years, compared to numerous governments which lasted half a century or longer.

The Nazis killed a lot, lot more per year of power. Numbers games is stupid anyway.

I may be wrong, but I think the main idea is that the two disciplines are pretty much the same in the real world.

Trying to establish which is better and which is worse is about the same as arguing the desirability of having cow poop or pig poop on your shoe in a closed car.

One might be a personal preference, but either will diminish the overall happiness for those in the car with you.
 
Well, how about you educate us all on the virtues of communism then.

Once big bonus for Communism is that it produces desperate, morally soulless attractive young women that will spread their legs in exchange for the smallest comfort. I know of guys in Cuba (not me) that successfully traded a six pack of bath soap and a pack of toilet paper for sex.
 
Sure. Name one.

The Limited Power Govt Constitutional Republic created by the US Founding Fathers.

Although not perfect (nothing created by humans ever will be) the decentralized limited power government makes a Holocaust or Gulag situation impossible.

If the Left ever succeeds in making the CHANGE they want Holocausts and Gulags will not only be possible but maybe inevitable.
 
Sigh! Facepalm!

Ok. Show me where in communist ideology it says that electing a psycopathic paranoid murderer to run a country and slaughter thousands is such a good idea that nothing could possibly go wrong.

This is really one of those threads where a bunch of americans get to demonstrate just how completely ignorant of communism they are and brainwashed they are into hating the word that they do not understand.

In real world economies, Communism and Socialism type arrangements require government domination to exist. Totalitarianism to defeat self interest is the norm.

In real world economies, well regulated free trade requires loose regulation to exist. Self interest to defeat totalitarianism is the norm.

Since self interest is something that needn't be legislated, the momentum of the system based on it is self perpetuating.

Self interest is like gravity. It's always there. Always working. Always predictable. Always dependable.

In the sense of societal economic dynamics, Communism and Socialism are like trying to make water flow uphill. That's why they don't work.

You can overcome gravity and self interest, but not easily and not perpetually. Eventually, gravity ALWAYS wins. So will self interest.
 
so as we all know that commies have killed much more people ( i am not talking even about enslavement peasants , in which commies are absolute champions ) than Nazis,

so why is it still Ok in the western world to be a commie, even today ?



Capture-e1444638415934.jpg


Hitler chose his victims by Race and Religion, Stalin chose his victims be Political Ideology and economic class. That is the only difference between the two and the only difference between todays American Left and the microscopic number of Neo-Nazis they claim to hate.
 
Well there's never been a libertarian government, but as it is a survival of the fittest philosophy, plenty of poor people would undo die from lack of medical access.

By definition, is it possible to have a Libertarian Government?

Sounds like an oxymoron.
 
The part where it says "you have a right to someone else's wealth". That's a all-around bad idea that inevitably ends up with an authoritarian ruler to enforce such philosophy. That's why communism is a ****ty idea in practice, and a ****ty idea on paper.

In the same sense that a government can tax in order to maintain badly needed infrastructure. Or do you mean that the capitalist has the right to exploit the worker of his labour?

Nor does communism say any such thing. That really is a biased interpretation you have there. What it does say is that a person has the right to own the means of his production. Whether that be the capitalist owner of a business or a collective of workers receiving the profits of their labour.

Your interpretation is what i expect in this thread. You along with others will come up with really stupid ways of doing communism and then insist that it has to be done that way. I really doubt you can show where communist ideology states such an objective as you have said . I really doubt that you could come up with an intelligent way of doing what you have said.

In other words all you and others will do is create dumb ways of doing communism and then pat yourself on the back for showing how dumb communism is.
 
It's an inevitable outcome of a totalitarian command economy. All must go according to plan, and if that means people die, it's a small sacrifice for the Greater Good(TM).

Also, in order for it to have a prayer of working, everyone must be on board. Which means there can be no dissent, because dissent breeds more dissent, and it all collapses. So, if that means civil rights like freedom of speech and freedom of the press are abolished, it's a small sacrifice for the Greater Good(TM).

A totalitarian command economy is not a part of communist philosophy. It is however an interpretation by such people as lenin. But he was not interested in communism, he was interested in control and dictatorship by an elite group. Which is not communism.

Your argument could also be made for capitalism. In fact your own american history demonstrates such a lack of freedom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_Party_leaders

The US federal government conducted a series of prosecutions from 1949 to 1958 in which leaders of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) were accused of violating the Smith Act, a statute which imposed penalties on those who advocated violent overthrow of the government. The prosecution argued that the CPUSA's policies promoted violent revolution; the defendants countered that they advocated a peaceful transition to socialism, and that the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and of association protected their membership of a political party. The trials led to the US Supreme Court decisions Dennis v. United States (1951) and Yates v. United States (1957).

It is neither ideology that is the cause of such suppression of freedom. It is people who are in power and afraid of loosing it that is the cause.
 
In real world economies, Communism and Socialism type arrangements require government domination to exist. Totalitarianism to defeat self interest is the norm.

In real world economies, well regulated free trade requires loose regulation to exist. Self interest to defeat totalitarianism is the norm.

Since self interest is something that needn't be legislated, the momentum of the system based on it is self perpetuating.

Self interest is like gravity. It's always there. Always working. Always predictable. Always dependable.

In the sense of societal economic dynamics, Communism and Socialism are like trying to make water flow uphill. That's why they don't work.

You can overcome gravity and self interest, but not easily and not perpetually. Eventually, gravity ALWAYS wins. So will self interest.

You have a selfish only interested in himself idiot for a president. Self interest gets you that.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom