Victims of Communism

[Stevicus]

You're confusing 2 different uses of the term "communist".
One is about an economic system. Another is a political
label for some authoritarian regimes (which might or
might not have communism). The Red Scare crowd
used the political label without regard to economics.
Even today, it's popular on the fervent right side of the
aisle to call Democrats "communists".

We're talking about anti-communists. Now you're trying to differentiate within that set, almost like a "no true Scotsman" argument. The same crowd thought Arbenz and Allende were communists, and they justified the overthrow of Mossadegh for largely the same reason.

 

[Revoltingest]

We're talking about anti-communists. Now you're trying to differentiate within that set, almost like a "no true Scotsman" argument.

No-True-Scotsman is a different thing.
One should recognize when a word is used in different ways.
What matters is the meaning intended by the usage.
I notice that you refer to the Red Scare term "godless
communists", which shows it's about non-communist
evils like atheism. (Communism isn't about religion.)

 

[Stevicus]

You're confusing me with someone else.
Godless is good....nay, it's great!

Okay.

I don't really have much criticism for communism
because that economic system is without real
world examples. (Criticism is based upon
extrapolating from socialist systems.)

I criticize socialism for what actually happens in
socialist countries, ie, those with government
owning the means of production. The best
results under socialism are simply always worse
than the best under capitalism.

Yes, you've made this argument in the past, although my contention would be that you never appeared willing to look at the issue fairly or objectively with an unbiased viewpoint, uncolored by anti-communist Red Scare propaganda.

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay.



Yes, you've made this argument in the past, although my contention would be that you never appeared willing to look at the issue fairly or objectively with an unbiased viewpoint....

You think that about anyone who disagrees with you.

...uncolored by anti-communist Red Scare propaganda.

I've never agreed with those people, nor
have I used their reasoning.
But you must say that because lacking a
cogent evidenced based argument for
socialism, you resort to the ad hominem.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It makes one wonder what the U.S. government was truly afraid of back when they were spouting off "domino theories" and creating a bogus casus belli to justify the escalation of the Vietnam War.

Vietnam was very different back then, and the Soviet Union did have a project to increase the global presence of communism. I agree that the Vietnam War was an atrocity and that the US' escalation thereof was avoidable, though.

 

[Stevicus]

No-True-Scotsman is a different thing.
One should recognize when a word is used in different ways.
What matters is the meaning intended by the usage.
I notice that you refer to the Red Scare term "godless
communists", which shows it's about non-communist
evils like atheism. (Communism isn't about religion.)

I use the term "godless communists" because it was part and parcel of the anti-communist propaganda machine that has dominated US political thought and popular culture for nearly a century. Whenever any Americans echo this line of thinking, it seems reasonable enough to infer on the possible source of their virulent anti-communist attitudes, especially if I see someone repeating the same anti-communist talking points which were already stale in the 1970s.

 

[Revoltingest]

I use the term "godless communists" because it was part and parcel of the anti-communist propaganda machine that has dominated US political thought and popular culture for nearly a century.

Exactly.
I'm old enuf to vividly remember the political use
of "communist" because I was draft lottery# 34
when the draft & war were still raging.
Specifically, I lamented the thugs in office sending
an atheist to fight godless commies on the other
side of the globe.

Whenever any Americans echo this line of thinking....

You hear an echo that isn't there.
You cannot simply dismiss all criticism of socialism
as being naught but old Red Scare propaganda.
Open your mind.

 

[Stevicus]

You think that about anyone who disagrees with you.

No, not about anyone who disagrees with me. It's just that when I say something as obvious as "2+2=4" and someone decides to argue with me and tells me that I'm "wrongo pongo," then I start to wonder. If someone thinks that I'm wrong, fine. Just show me where, in specific, clear, unambiguous terms, and then I won't think that way about someone who disagrees with me.

I've never agreed with those people, nor
have I used their reasoning.
But you must say that because lacking a
cogent evidenced based argument for
socialism, you resort to the ad hominem.

In this context, what I would argue is that the pretext for the Vietnam War (and indeed, the entire Cold War) was totally bogus. The demonization of communism and the Soviet Union was all just a put on. If we had approached them honestly, objectively, and fairly from the outset, we could have avoided a great deal of geopolitical tension, Cold War, as well as the internal curtailments of civil liberties justified by Cold War paranoia.

The other side of this is that, due to this demonization of the USSR, anyone who has tried to argue for certain policy changes within a liberal democratic capitalist system can often get branded and demonized as a "socialist" or "communist" because of the toxicity in the political culture generated by anti-communists. For example, all one has to do is bring up an innocuous proposal like price/rent controls, and suddenly, the discussion immediately shifts to the Holodomor, Gulags, Stalin's purges, etc. - all as a way of deflecting and distracting from the original proposal. Do you think I don't notice this tactic and see it for what it is?

 

[Revoltingest]

No, not about anyone who disagrees with me. It's just that when I say something as obvious as "2+2=4"....

Your claims are never that clear.
Stating what an opinion or a non sequitur
does not an argument make.

In this context, what I would argue is that the pretext for the Vietnam War (and indeed, the entire Cold War) was totally bogus.

I simply disagree with the war.
The argument against Russian & Chinese
conquest in the region wasn't "bogus".
But it was indeed riddled with religiosity
& paranoia, leading to the wrong (IMO)
approach to the problem.

For example, all one has to do is bring up an innocuous proposal like price/rent controls, and suddenly, the discussion immediately shifts to the Holodomor, Gulags, Stalin's purges, etc.

This sounds like an irrelevant hyperbolic invention.
But let's consider it....
Have any actual posts to quote?

 

[Estro Felino]

Oh you commies....such simplistic rationalization
to demonize us running dogs of capitalism.

The problems you cite aren't due to capitalism
simply because some occur in some capitalist
countries.
Societies, be they capitalist, socialist, or communist
decide how to use the fruits of their economy.
Is it for miltary embiggenment, conquest, or
social services? The choice varies independently
of the system. Examples....
N Korea (socialist) favors military over social services.
So its populace is underfed, & riddled with parasites.
Norway (capitalist) favors the reverse. So its people
are happy & well fed, but it has no nukes.

The problem is the banking system.
Those financial and banking dynasties need to give seigniorage (aka monetary sovereignty) back to the American people.
They have stolen that from the American people.

So yes...the first cause of inequality is that those people own something which is not legitimately theirs.
And I know and God knows that that's the only plain Truth.

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem is the banking system.

That would be the Jews, right?

 

[Little Dragon]

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10455752.2021.1875603

Spoiler: Language

View attachment 83226

All in the name of profit and enterprise.
The free market, is indifferent to human suffering.

 

[Nicholas]

The VOC site has a large supply of anti-communist pro-freedom evidence & testimony:

Research | Victims of Communism

Some of the many books on the subject:

Books | Victims of Communism

 

[Stevicus]

Vietnam was very different back then, and the Soviet Union did have a project to increase the global presence of communism. I agree that the Vietnam War was an atrocity and that the US' escalation thereof was avoidable, though.

I agree that the Soviet Union was trying to increase the global presence of communism, although they also found that revolutionaries in some countries weren't willing to submit or trade one colonial master for another. They may have embraced the ideology of communism, but it wouldn't necessarily follow that they would become puppets or clones of the Soviet Union, which was the primary US justification for the war in the first place.

The Domino Theory was propagated as a way of making the public believe that if they didn't send troops to Vietnam and defeat the communists, communism would then spread to other countries in the region. It seemed plausible to US policymakers and many Americans at the time, though it clearly did not pan out as expected.

Setting aside the ideological disagreements and looking at it solely as a geopolitical rivalry between powerful empires, then what it appears to be is that the former colonial empires (to include the U.S. and its hegemony over the Western Hemisphere) had produced generations of resentment and anger from the populations around the world they exploited and abused. One of the logical consequences of that, along with the strains the World Wars placed upon the European colonial powers, there was growing dissension and a great deal of political turmoil in many countries, which gave the Russians an opportunity.

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that, for a lot of countries in the world who were exploited and mistreated by Western colonialism and imperialism, it wouldn't have taken much to stoke any resentments or anger against the West. They had plenty of reasons on their own, without the help of alleged Soviet-backed communist agitators to stir them up. That was something that a lot of Americans either couldn't or wouldn't understand. They were somehow led to believe that the only reason anyone would adopt an anti-Western attitude must certainly be due to communist agitation. It's nothing that we, as the West, could have done, so it must be those pro-Soviet agitators stirring things up.

 

[Estro Felino]

That would be the Jews, right?

As far as I know...there are so many bankers who are Christians, Buddhists, atheists...
so this meme about Jews is really annoying, sir.

 

[Stevicus]

Your claims are never that clear.
Stating what an opinion or a non sequitur
does not an argument make.

It depends on the nature of the argument. If it's more of a discussion than a debate, then it might lead to more detailed explanations as to how and why one comes to the viewpoint they do. I see this more as a disagreement over philosophy, although it does involve some historical discussion as well.

I simply disagree with the war.
The argument against Russian & Chinese
conquest in the region wasn't "bogus".
But it was indeed riddled with religiosity
& paranoia, leading to the wrong (IMO)
approach to the problem.

Conquest? It was the French who were the conquerors of the region in question, and they occupied it and exploited it for over 70 years. Then the Japanese occupied it - at which time Ho Chi Mihn became our ally. It probably could have stayed that way if we favored their independence in 1945, but the French were also our allies, and they wanted to come back and take over again. If our own leaders' lack of foresight and wanton stupidity helped enable Russian and Chinese "conquest" in the region, then to use it as an argument to justify even more myopic stupidity is, in my opinion, "bogus."

This sounds like an irrelevant hyperbolic invention.
But let's consider it....
Have any actual posts to quote?

I wasn't necessarily referring to posts, but I've just observed it as an overall tactic and how it's used when subjects of this nature are discussed. Not just with you.

The main point is that capitalists can't really defend capitalism on its own merits. Instead, there's a lot of deflection, denial, and even whataboutism in constantly comparing it to how bad the Soviet Union might have been nearly a century ago.

Instead of simply coming to terms with the idea that "we have a bad system that needs to be fixed," all we end up hearing is a tirade about how bad (or worse) all the other systems are.

 

[Revoltingest]

As far as I know...there are so many bankers who are Christians, Buddhists, atheists...
so this meme about Jews is really annoying, sir.

Almost as annoying as blaming bankers.
Almost.

 

[Revoltingest]

Conquest? It was the French who were the conquerors of the region in question, and they occupied it and exploited it for over 70 years. Then the Japanese occupied it - at which time Ho Chi Mihn became our ally. It probably could have stayed that way if we favored their independence in 1945, but the French were also our allies, and they wanted to come back and take over again. If our own leaders' lack of foresight and wanton stupidity helped enable Russian and Chinese "conquest" in the region, then to use it as an argument to justify even more myopic stupidity is, in my opinion, "bogus."

Your post initially questioned conquest by Russia & China.
Then you explained why they engaged in it.
Thanx for arguing against yourself.
BTW, despite what you imagine, I opposed SE Asian
(& other) foreign adventurism from the outset.

I wasn't necessarily referring to posts, but I've just observed it as an overall tactic and how it's used when subjects of this nature are discussed. Not just with you.

Are you now (clumsily) trying to walk back
portraying me as a 1950s red baiter?

Well, if you continue to falsely paint me thus,
then should I portray you as a Stalinist, with
all of his paranoid propaganda?
Beware having your own tricks used against you.
(Worry not. I won't copy that modus operandi.)

The main point is that capitalists can't really defend capitalism on its own merits.

I have.
You just ignore the defense, eg, that the best
capitalist examples have prosperity & liberty.
The best socialist examples don't.
And so you trot out the tired accusation of
parroting the Red Scare propaganda so as to
ignore socialism's failures.

Instead, there's a lot of deflection, denial, and even whataboutism in constantly comparing it to how bad the Soviet Union might have been nearly a century ago.

And you offer USSR as an example of
socialism being better than capitalism,
ignoring its oppression & many ills.

Instead of simply coming to terms with the idea that "we have a bad system that needs to be fixed," all we end up hearing is a tirade about how bad (or worse) all the other systems are.

Artful use of the "we end up hearing" is
your substituting some other unnamed
people's claims, instead of addressing my posts.
Smells of straw.

I've offered many "fixes" for our economy, laws,
policing, justice, & environment. You seldom
ever join in on those discussions...even the ones
where I propose increased regulation.
Perhaps if you saw my complaints & solutions,
it would deflate your attempts to ad hominize, eh.

 

[Estro Felino]

Almost as annoying as blaming bankers.
Almost.

They are the victims, indeed.
They are the victims of the economic system.
I am the perpetrator here, since I demand they are content with little. Shame on me.

If they can't have it all...they will start having asphyxia, seizure and convulsions.

Bankers remind me of the Sheriff of Nottingham.

 

[Revoltingest]

They are the victims, indeed.
They are the victims of the economic system.
I am the perpetrator here, since I demand they are content with little. Shame on me.

If they can't have it all...they will start having asphyxia, seizure and convulsions.

They remind me of the Sheriff of Sherwood...

Bankers provide valuable services to me.
You're welcome to boycott banks, & use
only cash for all transactions.