What I hate about Communists

[Ray]

Indeed, how appropriate.

But if we try to find an ideological basis for all mass murder, one wonders what "ideology" motivated American soldiers to commit atrocities on hundreds of thousands of Filipinos in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, or perhaps the wide-scale fire-bombing and use of chemical weapons against Vietnamese civilians. Now, what ideology motivated that? Democracy? Liberty? The pursuit of happiness?

Surely not, I think that mass murder is ingrained in the human conscious. We will use ideology to justify anything that we do, it matters not what the ideology is or what the action is.

As I said earlier that one must understand the environment prevalent in those times and the compulsions that made one do what they did!

I wonder how far it would be a realistic analysis if we template those action of the past with contemporary sensitivities and sensibilities.

 

[civfanatic]

Did you see the Mark Twain 1906 essay on the Moro Rebellion I posted? I am very aware of US military history.

Most Americans don't seem to know their history. I am glad that you do!

As I said earlier that one must understand the environment prevalent in those times and the compulsions that made one do what they did!

I wonder how far it would be a realistic analysis if we template those action of the past with contemporary sensitivities and sensibilities.

It wouldn't be realistic at all, that's why people study history.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Most Americans don't seem to know their history. I am glad that you do!




It wouldn't be realistic at all, that's why people study history.

Comments on the Moro Massacre by Mark Twain

They named a fort in Missouri after Leonard Wood.

 

[Ray]

It wouldn't be realistic at all, that's why people study history.

True.

That is why Akbar is a very secular as per modern interpretation. But was it that he did what he did because he was secular as what is meant by secular these days?

Rezia Sultana was of Seljuq slave ancestry and only woman ruler of both the Sultanate and the Mughal period.

Therefore, why doesn't history revel and eulogise that Islam is a progressive religion where even a Slave can become a ruler and that too a woman?!

It is all a matter of interpretation and of the time.

If you observe the British period of Indian history, it tells a tale that is totally different from what it is said today.

Is it Sepoy Mutiny or is it the First War of Independence? Or was it a Jihad for the Muslims who joined, if one goes by Daryl Rumplestiltskin or whatever is his name, who is a novelist turned self acclaimed historian.

 

[amoy]

I prefer Bieber's version of "Imagine" to Lenon's that reminds "Ideal" sometimes is way ahead of "ground reality", and it must.

Welcome to visit and study the specimen of C'ism in China. while CCP claims to be in the prelude to it, China-styled socialism phase.

Many of u have explored in depth its theoretical aspects - stateless, or classless, or freedom equality, fraternity in the vision. Or how those C'ists fail to live the 'true' C'ism or malpractice vs. 'perfect' preaches.

Abstract theories on proletariat dictatorship apart, here's my take, on a personal note - my parents were from pauper backgrounds, both were able to receive FREE education. My father still recalls he could carry back rice from school as his balance of 'allowance' to support his family. Some may argue people may be de motivated if he's only entitled to an 'equal' meal. IMO the primary aims of the ism in practice is to provide a level playing ground for the majority, that includes access to food, education, medicare, and even employment... as fundamentals. Then we may practically move up the ladder to advanced goals, by whatever -ism, for commoners.

All in all an ideology has to dynamically address different concerns of the time, so as to keep itself relevant to people, in different contexts

 

[Ray]

China is no longer Communists.

They are cosmetic communists!

 

[Raja.pakistani]

The idea has nothing to do with kings and dictators.it was more to do with the basic principal of equality.Equality is the cornerstone.

Absolute equality is impossible to attain

The idea of stalin what you pointed is just one side of the coin , what stalin did was to transform an illliterate poor pesant country raged by war into a super-power. I am not defending his actions but dont look at his actions though a prism only.

But for stalin USSR would have fallen to the nazis and todays world would have been different. Tough times needs tough decisions and that's what stalin did.

LETS LOOK AT SOME COMMON POINTS NOW :- US was a superpower even before WW2

1> Free state medicine for all :- USSR

2> Free state higher education for all :- USSR

3> Free medical insurance for all :- USSR AND GERMANY

4> Female education and equality :- USSR

5> First socialized medicine :- ALMA -ATA :- USSR

The UK and USA were present and superpower even before centuries ago , then why were there discrimination between women, why the poor had less education oppurtunities , why did the poor die without medicine ?

The so called ancient superpowers for ages including spain , france ,uk , usa should have done all these steps before the ussr came into being , why did they fail ? Today when the west speaks about equality then its just a idea borrowed from the ideals of communism , the western democratic society these days based on the idea of liberty and equality borrowed the basic pillar from communist ideals.Before the communist ideas all these talk of equality and liberty were just bookish.

When people talk stalin killed millions in gulags did they mention that he brought so many positives as well , the ideals of lenin and trotsky even today shapes major domestic policies in non socialist countries.

How do you define this in india or subcontinent ? free education , free medicine , women's equality , where did the ideas come form , did the british bring equality for women or did they bring free medicine idea.

So even today major indian social policies reflect policies of communism and socialism and yet we stay in a mode of denial.

I dont know about USA but i dont think there is a discrimination in UK. Peoples have equal opportunies irrespective of their gender, religion and they have got freedom, liberty, equality etc. Its not present in absolute sense but it exist. There is also a working social welfare system in practice. I dont think they took these principles from communism. Even islamic caliphate introduced these basic principles of welfare system for poor, elder,disable peoples members of the society before Karl Marx. Communism have good ideas no doubt but you need force/dictatorship to implement these ideas which is against the principles of communism. The difference between Lenin's form of communism in the Soviet Union and Marx's "Communist Manifesto" is the difference between reality and plans on paper. A plan may look fantastic when it is wirtten down. But in the real world, it may never work. Was Marx so stupid to think his ideas could change human nature? If he did and if those who followed him thought they could, the collapse of the Soviet Union is evidence that they were wrong.

The people were promised equality by Lenin but they remained mainly in the same state they were in before the Revolution. Human nature makes people want to succeed. Communism punishes those who are successful unless communism allows them to be successful. That's why millions starved to death because the successful farmers were removed or killed and the farms were supposedly given to the people who gave the produce to the government without the incentive to produce more and be rewarded. Stalin took seed grain that was to be used for planting and the people starved.The means of production was controlled by the state and not the people. They were just puppets to be controlled. Marx wanted to liberate the people if they followed his ideas. He wanted to abolish God from society. When you do this, you also destroy morality and allow mass murder to be acceptable as long as it is "for the good of the people." Stalin was able to have millions murdered because first he was paranoid and second he thought it was for the good of the Soviet Union. ​

 

[civfanatic]

I dont know about USA but i dont think there is a discrimination in UK.

There is discrimination in every part of the world.

 

[Raja.pakistani]

There is discrimination in every part of the world.

You are right but I was talking about anti discrimination law(equality act 2010) which make it unlawful to discriminate a person because of age, disability, gender, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation etc

 

[LurkerBaba]

He wanted to abolish God from society. When you do this, you also destroy morality and allow mass murder to be acceptable as long as it is "for the good of the people." Stalin was able to have millions murdered because first he was paranoid and second he thought it was for the good of the Soviet Union.

The faithful and pious army of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan sure skipped the morally when it commited the mass murder of 3 million people.

 

[A.V.]

I dont know about USA but i dont think there is a discrimination in UK. Peoples have equal opportunies irrespective of their gender, religion and they have got freedom, liberty, equality etc. Its not present in absolute sense but it exist. There is also a working social welfare system in practice. I dont think they took these principles from communism. Even islamic caliphate introduced these basic principles of welfare system for poor, elder,disable peoples members of the society before Karl Marx

.

Dont tell me that the U.K empire had equality of women during the medieval times or in early 1900 , women were highly discriminated against , and the men of noble birth still holds sway in the U.K . On what principles of equality does the english honourary titles awarded ?

If i am not wrong and just an example : - till today the prize for wimbledon for ladies is way less than mens , even tough other grand slams are more evenly distributed

Communism have good ideas no doubt but you need force/dictatorship to implement these ideas which is against the principles of communism. The difference between Lenin's form of communism in the Soviet Union and Marx's "Communist Manifesto" is the difference between reality and plans on paper. A plan may look fantastic when it is wirtten down. But in the real world, it may never work. Was Marx so stupid to think his ideas could change human nature? If he did and if those who followed him thought they could, the collapse of the Soviet Union is evidence that they were wrong.

All the people not living in eastern europe have their own ideas or the western fed up propaganda for the reason behind collapse of the S.U. and not to mention all of them are so very wrong about the whole thing. The US believes they broke done the S.U , the pakistanis think they were the reason and the rest for the world thinks each of them had a part to play , which is laughable

The people were promised equality by Lenin but they remained mainly in the same state they were in before the Revolution. Human nature makes people want to succeed. Communism punishes those who are successful unless communism allows them to be successful. That's why millions starved to death because the successful farmers were removed or killed and the farms were supposedly given to the people who gave the produce to the government without the incentive to produce more and be rewarded.

Absolutely opposite picture , because the revolution did save the starving millions.

Stalin took seed grain that was to be used for planting and the people starved.

The means of production was controlled by the state and not the people. They were just puppets to be controlled. Marx wanted to liberate the people if they followed his ideas. He wanted to abolish God from society. When you do this, you also destroy morality and allow mass murder to be acceptable as long as it is "for the good of the people." Stalin was able to have millions murdered because first he was paranoid and second he thought it was for the good of the Soviet Union.

Stalins wrongs cannot be judged by merely by the number of murders he did , as i said before amonst all his mistakes he did turn a poor starving , war ravaged country into a world super power​

 

[Ray]

There is a whole lot of discrimination in the UK based on Class.

That apart

The following quote may serve to vividly portray the environment within which political feminism arose in the United Kingdom. This passage is excerpted from a treatise on international commercial law from a section describing conditions under which a person may be considered unable to enter into a commercial contract. Following the discussion of individuals unfit due to "want of understanding" - covering minors as well as "lunatics and drunkards" is a heading covering individuals unable due to "want of free-will": married women.

" By marriage, the personal identity of the woman is lost. Her person is completely sunk in that of her husband, and he acquires an absolute mastery over her person and effects. Hence her complete disability to contract legal obligations; and except in the event of separation by divorce, or other causes, a married woman in the United Kingdom cannot engage in trade."

The campaign for suffrage was closely tied to what many referred to as a sex war between men and women. With the feminist movement, and suffrage in particular, women were rebelling against historical male sexual tyranny and their historical objectification in British society.[9] No longer willing to be defined solely by their biology, women craved to rid British society of the separate sphere ideology [public vs. private], which led to their powerlessness in both spheres [10]. Women devoted themselves to the Cause of acquiring the right to vote on issues of importance to their country, despite direct individual repercussions - societal contempt and ridicule and mistreatment (at time sexually) at the hands of men that sought to contain them. In doing so, the suffragettes simultaneously sought to free themselves of their culturally imposed sexual identity.

Women's suffrage in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Raja.pakistani]

.

Dont tell me that the U.K empire had equality of women during the medieval times or in early 1900 , women were highly discriminated against , and the men of noble birth still holds sway in the U.K . On what principles of equality does the english honourary titles awarded ?

I don't know how you relate inequality between gender with lack of communism? I was agree that equality dont exist in its absolute sense and there's nothing futile about seeking absolute equality and fairness at all. Equality and fairness do not mean "Give me what I have not earned or deserve." People seeking equality usually (I can't say always of course, people are not always rational) do not mean that they want the same car everyone else drives, to do the same job everyone else has-society would grind to a halt with that one. I would say that there are many areas where women are enjoying more rights in case of divorce, abortion , maternity leave and financial support for children in case of divorce etc. The problem is women and men do have equal rights and equal opportunities but whether or not an employer wants a stronger man to fill a job rather than a female cannot change. Ifa contruction manger think that a man can do labour work better than women. You cannot punish him and same is true for employer who prefer women for caring or nursing, or air hostess job etc.

If i am not wrong and just an example : - till today the prize for wimbledon for ladies is way less than mens , even tough other grand slams are more evenly distributed

No, Its been changed and they now pay equal prize .According to BBC Roger Federer, the 2006 men's champion, earned £655,000 while Amelie Mauresmo took home £625,000 for winning the women's title.

The All England Club had previously defended the difference by saying that women had best-of-three-set matches while the men had best-of-five contests.

Source: BBC SPORT | Tennis | Wimbledon pays equal prize money

I think if women have same education, the same experience, and put in the same quality of work as their male counterparts, they absolutely should have the same pay. There is no reason that not having a penis should make them somehow below men, undeserving of basic fairness.

All the people not living in eastern europe have their own ideas or the western fed up propaganda for the reason behind collapse of the S.U. and not to mention all of them are so very wrong about the whole thing. The US believes they broke done the S.U , the pakistanis think they were the reason and the rest for the world thinks each of them had a part to play , which is laughable

Leave what others say and tell me your reasons for collapse of soviet unions

.
Absolutely opposite picture , because the revolution did save the starving millions.
Stalins wrongs cannot be judged by merely by the number of murders he did , as i said before amonst all his mistakes he did turn a poor starving , war ravaged country into a world super power

How he transformed a war ravaged country into a world super power? Stalins ideas caused many deaths. Stalins regime moved to force collectivization of agriculture. This was intended to increase agricultural output from large-scale mechanized farms, to bring the peasantry under more direct political control, and to make tax collection more efficient. Famine affected other parts of the USSR. The death toll from famine in the Soviet Union at this time is estimated at between five and ten million people. The worst crop failure of late tsarist Russia, in 1892, had caused 375,000 to 400,000 deaths. Most modern scholars agree that the famine was caused by the policies of the government of the Soviet Union under Stalin, rather than by natural reasons. It was claimed he killed around 10 million people