ReeeFallin
The Yankee Candle
IT's the "all right wing is the same" thing that's been going on.
pinochet is the throw commies out of helicopters guy
-
The Sietch will be brought offline for HPG systems maintenance tomorrow (Thursday, 2 May 2024). Please remain calm and do not start any interstellar wars while ComStar is busy. May the Peace of Blake be with you. Precentor Dune
No True ChiCom/Commie Derail Thread
- Thread starter Comrade Sophia
- Start date
pinochet is the throw commies out of helicopters guy
See, this is the problem with Conservatives, they think others actually care which specific Conservative clique they run with.
Sol Zagato
Well-known member
Taxonomy is infinitely divisible. It's practically the definition of a social construct.
The real question is what level of abstraction is useful for what purposes. There are 7 billion people out there, with at least that many individual ideologies between them.
The real question is what level of abstraction is useful for what purposes. There are 7 billion people out there, with at least that many individual ideologies between them.
D
Deleted member
Guest
In some sense you are absolutely correct, but the problem of course is that we can't understand, or classify, the political system in Red China without understanding that it is a series of ad-hoc improvisations by a Marxist-Leninist political party to remain in power over the country it conquered in revolutionary bloodshed. You cannot separate modern China from that past, so it's still appropriate to condemn its evils and ills as the natural fruits of Communism.
Floridaman
Well-known member
To be fair the CCP since Deng Xiaoping is missing one critical element of communism..... people OTHER THAN the party leadership actually manage to have their needs met.
I'm glad to see the massive poverty reductions of modern china that often get attributed to capitalism attributed to communism instead
Duke Nukem
Hail to the king baby
Modern China is more Authoritarian and Capitalist. They're communists in name only IMO.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
Okay, I'll be very blunt:
I say the generalization being used on the 'right-wing" side of this argument is correct because Communists self-identify as possessing common ideological elements, and we on the "right wing" side of the argument have our issues with those common elements. "Is communist, therefor believes X" is self-admitted by very nearly every communist group, and the X is where we take issue. "Is communist, therefor by definition has a belief we disagree with".
The "Right Wing" is defined by a range of beliefs and actions, rather than a specific set. The "Right Wing" includes holdouts from as far back as one cares to mention, twists from any line of reasoning one wishes to dream up, members from every culture in the world, because it's a relative label based on the results of majoritarian political systems forcing ideologies to bloc-up into a diarchy of "Left" and "Right" for basic governance to be accomplished.
Communism is a specific ideological label, with shared precepts as a fundamental part of being Communism due to shared origins. The "right wing" has no such specificity, instead being a description of the overall sphere of human beliefs, based moreso in the historic patterns of cooperation and shared actions rather than any ideological factors one might attempt to isolate.
There is no "heart of the right" you can say you hate. There's no belief you can definitively declare you have issue with that's actually universal to the "right". Because the label of "Right Wing" is a post-facto label. The point of origin of the term was the literal physical seat positions during the French Revolution dividing the Monarchists on the president's right and the Revolutionaries on his left, setting the original meaning as "traditionalist". And yet we have the Nazis, assailers of virtually every aspect of German tradition and who'd taken a number of concepts directly from the Progressives of their day, considered "right wing".
Your mistake here is engaging realm as a serious poster, and not a troll with his panties in a wad.
This is why I do sort of like having a few commies around here, their stupidity and fervor for defending thier failed ideology is endlessly amusing.
D
Deleted member
Guest
/communist
What do you mean Communism has failed, Comrade? Real Communism has never been tried... *release safety catch*.
So cliff notes, Communists are defined by shared ideological vision, that shared portion being both worthy of derision and also worthy of ignoring any differentiation, whereas the right is a range of visions that preclude any collective designation, derision and refusal to believe differentiation is worthwhile, yes?
Pray tell the consistent communist ideological vision that provides such a quality
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
The consistent ability to proclaim pursuit of a better way of life, but instead commit atrocities.
That's the capitalists dear
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
And it's this absolute refusal to learn from history that has communists alternately mocked or hated, depending on how close to power and their next round of butchering millions they are.
ShieldWife
Marchioness
Honestly, I do think that it may be a bit inaccurate to talk about China being a communist country. They have some communist imagery and rhetoric, but they are closer to being fascists than communists.
Which is likely a major reason why China is becoming so economically powerful instead of the citizens having to eat their dogs to survive.
Actually, it’s China, they would do that anyway, but I think y’all know what I mean.
Which is likely a major reason why China is becoming so economically powerful instead of the citizens having to eat their dogs to survive.
Actually, it’s China, they would do that anyway, but I think y’all know what I mean.
This is very ironic at most 10 posts off how "Pinochet has nothing to do with American Conservatism" despite his direct connections to American neoliberal economic doctrine, support from American Conservatives and on the forum that went to bat for him a month after founding
I've seen far more of your folks calling for murder than mine, but I suppose it's the subconsious desire to murder entire political groups rather than the directly stated goals that do it, huh.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
The differentiation is utterly irrelevant you dense fuckwit! Because the reason for the common criticism is SPECIFICALLY the commonalities, the differences are not of importance.
Because the differences have nothing to do with what we disagree with Communism about.
Because, again, what we disagree with Communism about is what makes it Communism in the first place.
Here's a "right wing" example of such a group of ideologies: Ethnonationalism. There's a lot of difference in the details, how to run the resultant states, the whole of what beliefs should be upheld, but being an ethnonationalist by definition means believing in the usage of state power in the interests of a specific ethnic group.
As such, criticisms resting on this notion, criticisms of the concept of using state power for a particular ethnicity, fundamentally don't care what religion is pushed or how the state runs or any of the differentiation between strains of ethnonationalism, because the criticism is about the common factor that defines what ethnonationalist means.
So, my lack of "working memory" and shitty attention span makes it really damn hard for me to answer this question clearly, compounded by my inability to articulate my views because of needing to puzzle over wording.
The core issue, to what I can describe, is the notion of economics-by-collective. That ideological "seed" is expressed in a wide variety of ways, but ultimately falls prey to indecision, demagoguery and/or incompetence. There's ways to solve particular issues, but with the economy decided by "collective", you always have some form of that issue somewhere along the line.
Mind, that's not to say there isn't such issues with Capitalism. In Communism, things inevitably tend toward dissolution, with particular economic units becoming less capable and/or smaller over time. In Capitalism, the problems are the opposite. With hard currency and habitual investment, the natural tendency is for economic units to continually concentrate, enlarge and otherwise occupy a larger share of capability until you eventually run out of spare resources to monopolize.
The solution Capitalism has come across is the "Perennial Gale of Creative Destruction", having deliberate instability and inefficiency to destroy the ill-suited large economic units to clear the way for new economic units to access the same share of resources. And generally, the great disasters of Capitalism are from this being forestalled for too long.
---
There were a great many causes to the Great Depression, but they all come down to too many resources being locked down. Farms overgrew food to the point that crop prices fell below the cost of growing a new crop, while simultaneously the ludicrous bulk of hard currency was funneled into speculation, and industry ramped up to the point there wasn't enough buyers available to move product. The large economic units occupied such a vast share that everything broke together.
And the funny thing is, many of the big economies of the world have worse wealth disparity than we did then, with more resources locked down this way. But things are still stable right now, because there's quite a lot more resources in circulation than before. It's still stable because the economy isn't zero-sum. What matters isn't proportion, it's the bottom absolute. It only matters that 90% of the wealth is held by 1% of the population if the remaining 10% isn't enough for the other 99% of people to live comfortable, healthy lives.
And right now, in this particular moment of history? Capitalism is almost managing to pull it off, and a sizable chunk of the failure to have global comfort is that the ultra-wealthy populations, on the scale of somewhere approaching a third of the global population, are so spectacularly wealthy that they can fail to comprehend they're placing economic freedom above access to food and clean water.
Security of food and water is such a distant issue to them that they put a higher emphasis on avoiding predatory corporations than avoiding dying of starvation and disease. That is what the GMO "debate" is. Supposedly-low-quality food at supposedly-ridiculous prices or simply not enough of it at all.
(again, shitty working memory and attention span. Everything below the --- is the result of flat-out rambling about how Capitalism's got the best track record to date)
Other Conservatives do. We are well aware that the raving left do not.
Maybe theirs a lesson with Pinochet, the former leader of Chile was couped for a reason. He was gathering a private army, the supreme court of the country complained about the Allende regimes unconstitutional actions. The legislator wrote him a note asking him to knock it off. He proceded to tell them to basically go fuck themselves. At this point the legislators of chile had seen this kind of senerio happen before and judged that Allende was positioning himself to purge them and install another socialist/communist regieme.
The coup happened soon after, and in the aftermath of the coup Pinochet installed himself as dictator. Was he cruel? Sure lots of dictators are, but heres the strange thing. Pincochete did an election and stepped down.
That is odd, most dictators don't do that, most don't allow a peaceful transference of power, the man had a lot of sins under his belt but he let go of power and chilian democracy was restored with out any violence.
Now I'm going to be honest with you, I think I know why you hate the man why your so pissed off.
Because of one simple fact, he did to communists what comunists do to every one else.
Theres a lesson in Pincochete and its one that should scare you and its this, that polite society? Those social norms and insistutions you hold in such distain? They protect you, and maybe you should respect them.
Cool, well there's Communists who are market focused, and non-communists who are economic collectivists so your categorization here is dumb as shit.
More people die of food and water insecurity today under global capitalism every decade than the black book said died under communism in 80 years.
If that statement defines someone as "Raving", seeing as I lifted it directly off Bacle that makes an interesting comment on this place
If Allende did what Pinochet did you would be bitching to me about the evils of communism. But he didn't. He didn't arm the people despite being told too, he didn't move to class dictatorship, and he was murdered for it.
Here's a flat fuck off from me, don't pretend like liberal rules aren't something you throw off when capitalism and liberalism is threatened in the post about how it was legitimate to torture and rape people because capitalism and liberalism were threatened