Why Communism Will Always Be Violent

Posted by  $  Harakhti 2 weeks ago to Government
28 comments | Share | Flag

Nobody likes to be robbed and robbery is at the core of communism and socialism.

SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xuorv91vCVo


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  Solver 2 weeks ago
    Unless they can completely redo the nature of all humans their scheme will never work. This is also how they justify their need for power to take over the whole world with their insane contradictory ideologies. In their “feeling” minds, demonstrating that their ideologies can actually work in a small walled off society could never happen because of those other people outside that would still exist, remaining free to speak and make their own choices. So off to the Gulag with them!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 1 week, 5 days ago
      But they do believe they can reprogram human beings. That's what their propaganda machines are for. That's what the gulags are for. They want to play god while simultaneously demanding there is no such thing.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by EdGoldstein 1 week, 5 days ago
        Their reeducation camps are there to kill people. The people who survive are the ones who tell the required lies well enough. Most will change their minds if the grave is the alternative.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  exceller 2 weeks ago
    Stalin was the problem?

    Sure. He was responsible for the death of 10 million people in the name of communism and the "cleaning up " of society from the reactionary elements.

    Those defending communism are unable to come up with one single "leader" who did good to the people of their country. Not one.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 week, 5 days ago
      I'm no defender of Communism, but I would say Yugoslavia's Tito came close to being an effective leader. During his ascendancy he squelched the habitual infighting among Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians, while still allowing the Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim religions to be practiced. He also stiff armed efforts by various Soviet leaders to draw Yugoslavia into East-West spats, and kept relations with his non-communist neighbors civil.

      Where Tito failed was in planning what would happen to continue his doctrine after his passing. Sad to say, but his nearly fifty years of domestic pacification were for naught, and as soon as he died, the Serbs decided that Yugoslavia should become "Greater Serbia," destroying all that Tito had built and spreading slaughter across the land. Only Slovenia (the Balkan Switzerland) stopped the Serbs. The rest of Europe stood by, wringing their hands and whining they needed the U.S. to intervene, and unfortunately we answered the call, getting involved in a squabble we had nothing to do with, and no national interest in.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lucky 1 week, 4 days ago
        Good post. The theory is that communism provides certain benefits/freedoms, this ignores the requirement of forced collective systems for compulsion. That Yugoslavia was able to avoid the worst dictatorial excesses, tho' not all, is, yes agreed, due to the skills and character of Tito.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  exceller 1 week, 5 days ago
        Thanks for bringing up Tito.

        You are a great student of European history.

        Yes, he was a great statesman. The most compelling fact of it was that during his tenure the Soviet led communist block did not miss a day badmouthing him.

        The fact that all collapsed is proof that leadership is a critical factor in any regime and it is a strictly individual talent that is able to practice it.. He was not able to prepare his successor because there was nobody with his abilities who could have stepped into his shoes when he passed.

        Great leaders come by once in every hundred year.

        The rest are miserable little minnows mouthing slogans they barely comprehend.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Lucky 1 week, 4 days ago
          Leadership is where Tito failed. A leader in any area must bring in the right people and develop them. One of the characteristics of dictators is to actively suppress those people.
          The Soviet hostility was nothing to do with any imagined opposition of Tito to communism, it was just putting down competition.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  exceller 1 week, 4 days ago
            In a communist system there is no chance for "bringing in the right people and developing them".

            Lenin, Stalin are good examples how terror became the only method of staying in power. They did not trust their closest allies because betrayal was the name of the game.

            The opposition to Tito from communists (not only Soviets but every satellite country) was not imagined. It was real. Read historic evidences from the time:

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

            Yugoslavia under Tito was a first attempt on socialism. The Soviets dubbed him the "leashed dog" of America for his temerity to stray from the camp.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 week, 4 days ago
              Compare Tito's lack of ability to create a successor with that of the Fascist Spanish dictator, Francisco Franco. Franco was smart enough to recognize that attempts to continue dictatorships always fail, and decided the best way to ensure the peaceful future of Spain was a return to a constitutional monarchy. While Spain still has some elements of a police state (Guardia Civil), it is strong economically and free of violence. Franco was successful.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  exceller 1 week, 4 days ago
                Well, I don't know about that.

                Spain's demonstrated affinity for extreme left wing policies are in display daily, accepting and welcoming Muslim migrants. Plus, Spain is in 100% against nationalist tendencies that are gaining strength against Brussels' attempt to globalize Europe.

                Regarding it being free of violence, the terrorist attacks of recent may have escaped your attention.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 week, 4 days ago
                  Franco gave the Spaniards a wealthy, stable country, and they fell prey to the purveyors of "free stuff." The factor I think he forgot was the mindset of a nation that had lived under tight fascist control might not have the ability to handle the freedoms he wanted to give them.

                  The Basques have been a thorn in Spain's side for a thousand years, and now Catalonia is unhappy with the socialist government, and wants independence. Will Spain survive?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  exceller 1 week, 4 days ago
                    Spain is only one of the countries in Europe that started the slide toward self destruction.

                    Each of these countries have a different reason but the overwhelming influence comes from the communist-leaning elite that Western Europe nourished over time and eventually will be behind the destruction of the continent.

                    Only a handful of sane leaders are putting up resistance who are under constant attack from this contingent.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 1 week, 5 days ago
    I've noticed the people most in favor of socialist/communist systems never envision themselves as the one sitting on the assembly line, digging in the mines, working in the mill, or working the fields. However, they always place themselves in the position of being the decider of who receives what was produced - just like Karl Marx.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  pixelate 1 week, 4 days ago
      Sure enough ... when I discuss politics with some of my software engineering friends, in particular those in the Seattle area -- their form of Socialism is based on the premise that, by virtue of their superior intelligence, enlightenment and compassion, they will be the ones that create the spreadsheets that dictate how resources will be employed, how individuals will be paid, etc . . . I see it as a form of ego-maniacal delusionalism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mccannon01 1 week, 4 days ago
        Of course and "by virtue of their superior intelligence, enlightenment and compassion" making them so important to the collective society they will be first recipients of the loot. The lazy, drunken, ne'er-do-well, moocher Karl Marx designed a system in his own image.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 week, 6 days ago
    When ideas fail to compel alliance force is the means if choice bring about obedience. Contrary to free will communism and socialism require chains for compliance
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 1 week, 5 days ago
    socialism is just a kinder word for communism/fascism...I always use the latter in any discussions with individuals...i.e., communist democrat...etc...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dnr 1 week, 5 days ago
    Of course, many religious groups starting at least in biblical times, organized these "each person according to their needs" types of groups. Coming from a Mormon background, I know that this was attempted by the church. How did it work out? Not well at all for all the reasons the presentation and people have given. So, even with very religious people it just does not work. It would require that we evolved painlessly and had no conflicts. Well we wouldn't have evolved so the supposition seems to be mute.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 week, 5 days ago
    What if there was a society with was openly collectivist that was populated only by people who willinglyagreed to their principles? I guess that was the 20th century motor co. -and it would just collapse
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 1 week, 6 days ago
    Once again, me dino is inspired to point out who is the only fat man in North Korea, who likes to execute (even his own relatives) with anti-aircraft guns.
    I've read that the soldiers of his own army have raided peasant farms for being hungry.
    Communism only works out well for the Orwellian Animal Farm pigs--the elite on top who will kill, torture, imprison and enslave to stay in power.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Robert_B 1 week, 1 day ago
    Among philosophies that have association with eras and regions or epochs, expressed in human behavior and association, communism remains a unique fixture in our political dialogue. Communism was great for a time; most notably for pre-historic, hunter-gatherer societies or even more recently for current practice in existing hunter-gatherer societies. So, I do not claim that communism qua communism is evil.

    Is a child evil when she has no awareness beyond her grasp of her mother's bosom? Of course, we modern citizens agree; absolutely not.

    And so, when modern communism announces himself in his origin under the authorship of Marx, beset with the claim that class antagonisms under communism will disappear, I struggle to comprehend how so. And so, does class go? Does antagonism go? Of course not.

    USSR, contrary to American narrative, was extremely successful in achieving the stated goal of communism. It ended class antagonisms almost without a trace. And so? Class antagonism gives way to political antagonism. Rand described it succinctly: "force and mind are opposites".

    Modern communism, is, of course, a false claim akin to Enron's records or certain unproved crude reserves. Modern communism claims capitalism will disintegrate in a forced or organic way without reference to his own past life as an archaic practice preceding even agriculture. Is it any wonder the Democrats and Republican do not understand each other? The ethical hunter gatherer versus the cash crop farmer; that's all I see.

    It is a unique logical foible to deduce that from technology comes not freedom of individual choice an d action, but rather further control, additional oppression. For what reason is a human being able to convince himself that power on earth can be managed by theft of the product of the mind, force's opposite? This is the real question in my view.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 week, 4 days ago
    Well done. Would be nice to show this in light of China as well, where the negatives are subdued by the media.

    Unfortunately the US and Europe chose to subsidize China in favor of a falsely inflated standard of living (super cheap stuff), rather than sticking to our principles. In doing so, we flushed manufacturing jobs, moved everyone to service and increased standard of living. Now people in the US want more stuff, and no longer want to work hard. This while viewing China as "really not that bad"...

    We have destroyed our own work ethic, our incentive for work ethic.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo