A West Point Grad Wrote 'Communism Will Win' in His Cap

[Falsedawn]

You think that the " effectiveness of command economies" can't be disproven ? Hmm let's see we have the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba and Burma to look to. 5 year plan, failure, blame external forces, make new 5 year plan, fail, blame external forces, massive shortages of basic goods, blame external forces, commence show trials of saboteurs, crush the most basic human freedoms, yep they are effective all right. Communism is an unmitigated failure. Its supporters always say it wasn't " true " communism yet talk about so called capitalist countries as if they are examples of true capitalism. There has never been a " true " version of either. In western countries there have always been controls and mixed economies. There are 2 measures which are exceedingly simple, that are worthwhile to consider when discussing communism. The first is that in every country that has attempted a communist system, there has been massive suppression of human freedom, massive indoctrination of its citizens, incredible hardships suffered by the citizens, and an incredible amount of human casualties. In the Soviet Union and China alone there have been approximately 100 million human beings killed by the Government. We discuss numbers like these often without really thinking about the significance. That is a massive extermination of innocent life.
Since the dawn of communism we have seen countless people struggle to escape these systems of oppression. To me that tells the story much more than your assertion of superior intellect or understanding of Marxist theory. The most uneducated people seem to know what you probably never will. That they want to live in a non communist country and will risk their own lives, as well as their children, to try to do so. Perhaps the next time a mother sets sail on a flimsy raft with her baby trying to traverse 90 miles of ocean to reach the USA you could educate her about why she is so wrong and convince her to set sail back to Cuba.

All sizzle, no steak.

You're attempting to use historical circumstances (minus any context at all) to disprove an economic theory, and then waving off the main element of sabotage that caused those historical circumstances in the first place. It's like me using Zimbabwe as an example that capitalism is a failure without paying any attention to their shitty money management skills.

It's a common thread for people who either are unable, or simply have no desire to, understand the theory and are more than happy to mudsling instead of bringing up substantial criticisms. I can think of multiple drawbacks to command economies, but "capitalists hate it and want to destroy it" isn't one of those drawbacks. You could consider it one, but you would be basing it off of emotional recoil instead of any kind of substantial understanding.

I make no assertions of superior intellect, and i'm nowhere close to being worthy of putting forth my own ideas in essay form, but I actually try and understand the things I discuss before I discuss them. If there's any issue here, it's that i'm a neophyte while you're a know-nothing.

So let's try this again, do you have any valid criticisms of command economies, or are you just going to throw out a bunch of emotion and bloviate some more? I'll even throw you a bone, start with the latency involved in the need being identified and the production being started. You do understand that at least, right?

 

[sub_thug]

I'm a firefighter not a history expert so you'll have to forgive my ignorance. I have always thought that we joined WW2 after Japan attacked us to help stop Hitler, Mussolini and their ideology from spreading across Europe?

We joined to curb stomp Japan for attacking us. We thought that we needed allies, and we weren't huge fans of Hitler anyways, so we joined into the European front as well. That's the really short answer.

 

[Islam Imamate]

History is written by the victors, so I get where you are coming from. All leaders and systems do some good and all leaders and systems do some evil. But it's important not to paint things as equivalent without regard to context.

Well I specifically did not equivocate them. And speaking of context, that often gets ignored when evaluating communist revolutions and states. But if Churchill comes up, now we need to talk about context. IMO, he was a POS imperialist who happened to fight a greater evil and that's why he was remembered well.

That, and his victims were poor brown people who, unlike the Jews, were illiterate and thus could not publish their experiences of suffering under British imperialism in any language, much less one accessible to Westerners.

Well, then the argument isn't really about the virtues and flaws of communism then. Democracy and communism are political systems, while capitalism and socialism are economic ones.

Right but when people talk of socialism and communism they contrast it with democratic capitalism and I'm saying that's not entirely accurate. You can democratically institute socialist policies. Authoritarian capitalism has its own potential for horror just as authoritarian communism does but if you add democratic constraints both systems will be responsive to the needs of their constituents and likely reduce the likelihood of those horrors being realized.

We are branching into different territory, as now we are discussing the merits and flaws of a centralized economy. In Northern Europe, a more regulated system (although I don't think it's fair to call it socialism) has worked. But these economies are generally pretty small, the countries are not dependent on exports to make money, and the societies in question haven't had much in the way of economic inequality/large amounts of low-income areas. I don't think that it's a clear template for the US moving forward. I happen to think that we generally have it pretty much right with having a smaller safety net and more room to take chances and innovate.

Oh it most defintiely is. I'm not talking just about the welfare state, I'm talking about collective ownership systems like the collectively owned national oil firm in Norway. I believe The Norwegian government also holds shares in many of its privately owned companies and state representatives are present at board meetings and advance long term goals instead of quarter-to-quarter growth, things like reducing environmental impact and sustainable long term growth.

Of course every country has its own peculiarities that need to be considered when talking about any sort of political or economic reform. But the point is these policies have shown potential in democratic countries.

 

[spin]

Wrong. There is not "both sides". This nation was founded on Capitalism and for good reason. Also, on the citizen test it tells you "Capitalism" is our economic system. Communism sound so good, but in practice is inherently evil as fuck. To even consider that as "a side", makes you an enemy of what makes the United States great and we need to quit tolerating assholes that are against our nation. They need to be discharged, fired, and they can leave if they don't like it.

No, you're wrong.

there is both sides that could hold questionable beliefs.

Your point has fuck all to do with mine, you just wanted to disagree for the sake of disagreement

 

[HomerThompson]

Huh? We were allies with literally Stalin back then.

 

[spin]

I think the above case would certainly bring loyalties to question. As an officer of the US Army, you're handling at the very least, secret clearance information, and the stuff only gets more sensitive the way you make it up the officer chain.

Why would the US Army not bear questions of loyalties to a soldier who stands for another ideology (communism) vs (capitalism). Big conflict, either militarily or diplomatic, have sprung because of that very concept. Ie; the Cold War.

..... Think about that........

That goes along with my point.

If it is questionable, then take the appropriate steps.





And if you are military, then act like it and don't be winking at me

 

[HomerThompson]

I'm a firefighter not a history expert so you'll have to forgive my ignorance. I have always thought that we joined WW2 after Japan attacked us to help stop Hitler, Mussolini and their ideology from spreading across Europe?

I never forgive ignorance. Your trolling is boring too.

 

[spin]

Oops

 

[HomerThompson]

Triggered snowflake conservatives, what else is new.

Exhibit A: Islam

 

[spin]

but you are talking about a military officer here, not private joe smuff.

If it brings into question his loyalties, deal with it. If not, don't.

It's not a difficult subject

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I'm a firefighter not a history expert so you'll have to forgive my ignorance. I have always thought that we joined WW2 after Japan attacked us to help stop Hitler, Mussolini and their ideology from spreading across Europe?

No we join d WWII to fight the Japanese because we were attacked by the Japanese and to fight literally Hitler and fascism.

 

[HomerThompson]

No we join d WWII to fight the Japanese because we were attacked by the Japanese and to fight literally Hitler and fascism.

He's going to go the, "Nazi's were really socialists and far left" route. Have fun.

 

[Falsedawn]

I'm saying that conflict is inevitable. And I don't know if it's entirely about crushing labor, as some people just aren't willing to commit to the idea of Communism. You're always going to have people to who don't want to "get in line," and those are the people who are inherently going to push back against Communism. This goes back to John Locke and the rights to life, liberty, and property. You definitely are trading in parts of the latter two in order for Communism to work. By definition, you are surrendering and sacrificing for the betterment of the state, giving up your personal freedoms and property to the collective. And as we've seen, they may be coming for your life. There hasn't been a Communist state (or even one with a completely centrally-planned economy) that hasn't turned on its people, so it's certainly understandable that people wouldn't be signing up to be part of the next experiment. As far as proving Marx right, maybe. But maybe Marxism failed because it wasn't a very good idea.

This seems like a stretch. I just can't imagine a situation where this ideology sweeps the US and stays long enough for people to want to make those kinds of changes. If you had a President Debs (and that's a huge if), implementing socialist ideas would likely require Constitutional Amendments or a new Constitution outright (the Supreme Court was happy to slap down much of FDR's legislation, and his was relatively moderate compared to what a self-described Socialist would be looking to implement, and you can't really argue with me on that point), would create massive changes, and you'd need Congressional approval for all of it. Do we think that would happen? That just seems like a bridge too far.

I think you're correct when you say that conflict is inevitable, but there are degrees to that conflict. Let's be honest, most people aren't basing their antagonistic nature on any substantial criticisms of Marxism (as this thread shows), a great deal of it is propaganda and FUD. We're no longer in red scare mode, it's not irrational to think that socialist ideals could take root in the US absent that scorched earth propaganda approach. Look at why Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the country. People clearly see where it can help them, but are wary of the label for political reasons. It's not a matter of if it can gain inroads, it's a matter of how it can gain inroads, since the economic benefits are tangible to your average joe schmoe.

This is why I focused earlier on "base needs", ideals are nice, but food is better. People already sacrifice liberty for security, otherwise cops wouldn't be kitted out like the discount Marines. Privacy goes out the window when it comes time to post selfies on facebook to all our friends. People aren't so attached to ideals that they won't throw them down a hole when something comes along that can benefit them at a base level. We're cognizant of these things because we're an above average segment of the population, but the key in that is ABOVE average. Average people don't give a shit about Locke or Voltaire, they care about their daily lives. Absent fearmongering, I think you'd be surprised what people are open to.

As for Debs, would we see massive changes? Probably not. But Rome wasn't built in a day. Maybe it takes a socialist president to prime the pump (as Trump would say) and make inroads for labor movements decades before they gained any tangible rewards. Maybe we realize socialism isn't all bad and it doesn't become a scarlet letter. I see far more intangible benefit than tangible, but even that could set up tangible benefits down the road. Fun to think about in any case.

 

[sub_thug]

Well I specifically did not equivocate them. And speaking of context, that often gets ignored when evaluating communist revolutions and states. But if Churchill comes up, now we need to talk about context. IMO, he was a POS imperialist who happened to fight a greater evil and that's why he was remembered well.

That, and his victims were poor brown people who, unlike the Jews, were illiterate and thus could not publish their experiences of suffering under British imperialism in any language, much less one accessible to Westerners.

Right but when people talk of socialism and communism they contrast it with democratic capitalism and I'm saying that's not entirely accurate. You can democratically institute socialist policies. Authoritarian capitalism has its own potential for horror just as authoritarian communism does but if you add democratic constraints both systems will be responsive to the needs of their constituents and likely reduce the likelihood of those horrors being realized.

Oh it most defintiely is. I'm not talking just about the welfare state, I'm talking about collective ownership systems like the collectively owned national oil firm in Norway. I believe The Norwegian government also holds shares in many of its privately owned companies and state representatives are present at board meetings and advance long term goals instead of quarter-to-quarter growth, things like reducing environmental impact and sustainable long term growth.

Of course every country has its own peculiarities that need to be considered when talking about any sort of political or economic reform. But the point is these policies have shown potential in democratic countries.

Churchill was also incredibly popular among his own people. He was a guy who gave up a cushy political life to join the Army and fight in WWI. There were people who viewed him as a Teddy Roosevelt, so things were easier to forget. It's also worth noting that a lot of Europeans weren't exactly fond of any brown people or Jews back then. His treatment towards India and other colonies would be viewed today as abhorrent, much as we view slave-owners as part of an immoral institution. However, today's lens is not the same as yesterday's, so history is more forgiving of someone like Churchill.

I would agree that democratic institutions respond better to people.

Having influence doesn't make it socialism. It's not like the state can set prices, wages, production, and controls all investment capital. Because in the USSR, that's how it worked.

 

[SurferH2O]

No, you're wrong.

there is both sides that could hold questionable beliefs.

Your point has fuck all to do with mine, you just wanted to disagree for the sake of disagreement

You seemed to be going after Capitalism and the Free Markets as was this asshole that is espousing Communism. There is no comparison. One is inherently evil when practiced, the other is the best thing man has figured out to date.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

He's going to go the, "Nazi's were really socialists and far left" route. Have fun.

ohhhh... sad that they think that argument has any real merit. I wonder how they rationalize fighting against socialism after we implemented the New Deal? Or, as @Kafir-kun mentioned, teaming up with Stalin. That's quite the pickle they're in I tell ya.

 

[Ling Ling]

All sizzle, no steak.

You're attempting to use historical circumstances (minus any context at all) to disprove an economic theory, and then waving off the main element of sabotage that caused those historical circumstances in the first place. It's like me using Zimbabwe as an example that capitalism is a failure without paying any attention to their shitty money management skills.

It's a common thread for people who either are unable, or simply have no desire to, understand the theory and are more than happy to mudsling instead of bringing up substantial criticisms. I can think of multiple drawbacks to command economies, but "capitalists hate it and want to destroy it" isn't one of those drawbacks. You could consider it one, but you would be basing it off of emotional recoil instead of any kind of substantial understanding.

I make no assertions of superior intellect, and i'm nowhere close to being worthy of putting forth my own ideas in essay form, but I actually try and understand the things I discuss before I discuss them. If there's any issue here, it's that i'm a neophyte while you're a know-nothing.

So let's try this again, do you have any valid criticisms of command economies, or are you just going to throw out a bunch of emotion and bloviate some more? I'll even throw you a bone, start with the latency involved in the need being identified and the production being started. You do understand that at least, right?

It doesn't matter what valid criticisms of command economies I would offer because you're a Marxist adherent and there is no argument you wouldn't dismiss. Your reply would either be that the Marxist theory wasn't followed properly or that there was sabotage by the capitalists. You've already decided that I'm a " know nothing throwing out a bunch of emotion and bloviating" without having the slightest idea of who I am or what I know. So I'm not going to waste my time discussing these concepts with you. You're a Marxist adherent, I believe in Capitalism. We're not going to convince each other of anything.

 

[spin]

You seemed to be going after Capitalism and the Free Markets as was this asshole that is espousing Communism. There is no comparison. One is inherently evil when practiced, the other is the best thing man has figured out to date.

i was going after nothing.

you made that up in your own mind.

 

[Lord Coke]

Green to Gold program for junior enlisted people. My Rotc programs had a few cadets like that

Triggered snowflake conservatives, what else is new.

Its a little more than that. That guy is now leading a platoon of triggered snowflake conservatives. You think they are listening to his orders any more? There is a reason the UCMJ is there.

 

[sub_thug]

I think you're correct when you say that conflict is inevitable, but there are degrees to that conflict. Let's be honest, most people aren't basing their antagonistic nature on any substantial criticisms of Marxism (as this thread shows), a great deal of it is propaganda and FUD. We're no longer in red scare mode, it's not irrational to think that socialist ideals could take root in the US absent that scorched earth propaganda approach. Look at why Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the country. People clearly see where it can help them, but are wary of the label for political reasons. It's not a matter of if it can gain inroads, it's a matter of how it can gain inroads, since the economic benefits are tangible to your average joe schmoe.

This is why I focused earlier on "base needs", ideals are nice, but food is better. People already sacrifice liberty for security, otherwise cops wouldn't be kitted out like the discount Marines. Privacy goes out the window when it comes time to post selfies on facebook to all our friends. People aren't so attached to ideals that they won't throw them down a hole when something comes along that can benefit them at a base level. We're cognizant of these things because we're an above average segment of the population, but the key in that is ABOVE average. Average people don't give a shit about Locke or Voltaire, they care about their daily lives. Absent fearmongering, I think you'd be surprised what people are open to.

As for Debs, would we see massive changes? Probably not. But Rome wasn't built in a day. Maybe it takes a socialist president to prime the pump (as Trump would say) and make inroads for labor movements decades before they gained any tangible rewards. Maybe we realize socialism isn't all bad and it doesn't become a scarlet letter. I see far more intangible benefit than tangible, but even that could set up tangible benefits down the road. Fun to think about in any case.

Bernie may be the most popular (not sure, as I haven't seen the numbers), but he couldn't come close to beating Hillary who lost to the Donald. So pure polling isn't enough to say that socialism has a snowball's chance in hell here. Maybe years down the road, but I don't think that day is today. I'll be interested to see what happens as the economy changes in the future.

Giving up your privacy is very different than giving up the rights to your own business or your car. Like you said, ideals are nice, but stuff is better. I think the idea of giving that up is a big gamble for the average person. And who knows? We are average people, so maybe the average person cares about things more than they're given credit for.

People are flighty. Donald Trump hasn't been in office for a year, and people are already counting his entire legislative agenda out because he hasn't been able to deliver on any of it yet. You might be laughing, but seriously. I think the people who wanted that wall expected ground to break by February, and the people who wanted the end of the ACA are already tired of waiting. I just can't see people staying on the hook for something new for long enough to give that stuff a chance, should it even warrant one. It's an interesting thing to think about for sure though.