10 most leftish posters of Poly

[notyoueither]

You seriously want to stand here and argue that the PRC is not, and never has been truely communist?

Well guess what? I don't give a ****. I don't give a **** because Russia and the current PRC is where the dust bin of history has landed the ideology that you seem to want to salvage from the scrap heap.

Nice curve ball by introducing Israel as an argument for communism though. That earns a point.

[Bosh]

You seriously want to stand here and argue that the PRC is not, and never has been truely communist?

I said its not now, I never said never has been. How to classify Mao is a pretty dicey question, but calling the CURRENT PRC government communist is just insane.

you seem to want to salvage from the scrap heap

I'm no Communist, the basic organizational principles of Leninism from Democratic Centralism on down are a recipe for disaster. I'm not argueing in favor of Communism, I'm arueing in favor of the truth.

[notyoueither]

The only real truth is that shown us by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...

I could go on.

That is the truth.

[Agathon]

What is your setting of choice for serious discourse? Do you discuss politics in meatspace?

At varsity, where a modicum of honesty is expected from the participants.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The only real truth is that shown us by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...

I could go on.

That is the truth.

Why do you keep dodging questions
I'm not talking about Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot (pack of evil murderers the lot of 'em). I'm talking about the current government of the PRC, which is not Communist nor is it Leftist in the least and thus people who defend it (such as UR) are not leftist. It seems that this is a fairly simple arguement, why do you have so much difficulty understanding it? Any Communist worth anything would have nothing but disgust for the current government of the PRC.

This is getting almost as surreal as the arguement that because I pointed out (correctly) that Pol Pot did not engage in genocide I must be a defender of Pol Pot's despicable regime....

[Agathon]

'No siree, neither the USSR nor the PRC are, nor ever were communist. You'll have to give us another chance to introduce gulags and cultural revolutions to see what we are REALLY capable of!'

Why don't you try reading some actual Marx instead of mouthing off like an ignorant dweeb? St Leo was wondering why I don't bother with serious political debate – this is why.

Jesus, if Great Britain circa 1850 and the United States circa 1950 or even 2005 can be described correctly as "capitalist" then that leaves a great amount of latitude about what can be correctly described so.

Similarly with the Soviet Union and the PRC – one could reasonably describe both as communist during various periods.

All that shows is that there is quite a divergence among both communists and capitalists about what is to be done in society. Presumably the Trotskyists would not wish to wholeheartedly state that the Soviet Union was a communist society. Presumably Keynesians would have a different view of capitalism than someone like Nozick.

Be still my beating heart. If you are going to spend all your energy on wondering whether the correct name has been applied to a political system, then good luck. You will get precisely nowhere.

Some things about the Soviet Union I found very attractive, other things less so. But that doesn't prevent me in any way from acknowledging that they were a communist society, even though my own conception of communism differs quite radically from what was instituted in the USSR.

Presumably, Libertarians are not beaten around the head with the latest US recession because they acknowledge that the USA is a capitalist country, even though they disagree with the particular form of welfare state capitalism that the US embodies.

You could acknowledge this obvious and pedestrian fact, or you could go on talking yourself to death like you usually do.

[Agathon]

The only real truth is that shown us by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...

Well, if he wasn't sporting a fashionable ice pick, Comrade Trotsky would beg to differ, as would Comrade Guevara.

But then if a group of things are called the same name, that means they must be the same thing in all respects, doesn't it NYE?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Bosh

Why do you keep dodging questions
I'm not talking about Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot (pack of evil murderers the lot of 'em). I'm talking about the current government of the PRC, which is not Communist nor is it Leftist in the least and thus people who defend it (such as UR) are not leftist. It seems that this is a fairly simple arguement, why do you have so much difficulty understanding it? Any Communist worth anything would have nothing but disgust for the current government of the PRC.

This is getting almost as surreal as the arguement that because I pointed out (correctly) that Pol Pot did not engage in genocide I must be a defender of Pol Pot's despicable regime....

Not leftists in the least? Really? Well then why don't you answer the issue of why the peasants do not own their own land?

Any human being would have nothing but disgust for any heretofore known communist regime.

Your wanting to play shell games with what is and is not a communist regime would be very cold comfort to the millions of dead comrades, victims of their own regimes.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon

'No siree, neither the USSR nor the PRC are, nor ever were communist. You'll have to give us another chance to introduce gulags and cultural revolutions to see what we are REALLY capable of!'

Why don't you try reading some actual Marx instead of mouthing off like an ignorant dweeb? St Leo was wondering why I don't bother with serious political debate – this is why.\

Why don't you try reading about the results of Marx in practice before you try 'serious political debate'?

[Bosh]

*sigh*

Why must people get so outraged about few attempts at accuracy? Since when was trying to be accurate supporting communism? Does being outraged about something make it impossible to speak about it acurately?

By any sane definition of communist government, (aside from "a government that calls itself communist") the current government of the PRC falls well outside of it. I very much doubt that you can formulate a definition of communist government that would include the current government of the PRC (aside from "a government that calls itself communist").

[Bosh]

Why don't you try reading about the results of Marx in practice before you try 'serious political debate'?

Yes! For apparently human minds are far far far too fragile to be outraged about something and seriously debate it at the same time!

That said, I have very little idea why so many people are impressed with Marx. His writing is about as engaging as being smacked in the head with a brick and his theories have been nothing by a blight on the historical profession (my own area of expertise, such as it is...).

[Bosh]

Well then why don't you answer the issue of why the peasants do not own their own land?

Hmmm, sorry for the triple post but are you implying that every social system in which the peasants do not own their own land must necessarily be communist. That would be a very strange arguement.

[Agathon]

Why don't you try reading about the results of Marx in practice before you try 'serious political debate'?

You're such a hack. I bet you sit in your armchair congratulating yourself on how much you know compared to those morons in Ottawa. Give me a break. You are nothing more than another red-faced pub politician who's all talk.

What you're effectively arguing is that no form of communism can work because some have not. That's an elementary logical fallacy. Even a child wouldn't accept that argument.

You wonder why you get no respect when you say such bizarre things?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Bosh
*sigh*

Why must people get so outraged about few attempts at accuracy? Since when was trying to be accurate supporting communism? Does being outraged about something make it impossible to speak about it acurately?

By any sane definition of communist government, (aside from "a government that calls itself communist") the current government of the PRC falls well outside of it. I very much doubt that you can formulate a definition of communist government that would include the current government of the PRC (aside from "a government that calls itself communist").

The only point you have made is that the current government of the PRC has strayed from the Little Red Book... a little bit.

They are still the same people, by and large, who thought a cultural revolution was a good thing, and that the protestors of Tiananmen should be supported with AFVs driven over their crushed bodies.

Land is still owned only by the state. Dissent is still crushed. If you are trying to argue that things have changed in a permanent and material way, you have not made the case. All you've said is that they are different, you will have to do better than that.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon

Why don't you try reading about the results of Marx in practice before you try 'serious political debate'?

You're such a hack. I bet you sit in your armchair congratulating yourself on how much you know compared to those morons in Ottawa. Give me a break. You are nothing more than another red-faced pub politician who's all talk.

What you're effectively arguing is that no form of communism can work because some have not. That's an elementary logical fallacy. Even a child wouldn't accept that argument.

You wonder why you get no respect when you say such bizarre things?

No, I am arguing that NONE have worked. There is a difference. Do try to keep up.

And I don't give a damn about your respect.