Is Deliberately Starving Millions of the Populace to death A Good Thing

ukcarper

Sapphire wrote: »

No – you would have had a lot of things that are much worse.

In reality yes but in theory no

ninky_2

has there ever been an example of a genuinely communist country? where wealth is equally held and private property does not exist? can such a thing exist?

i think that is where the argument comes that "it's good in theory".

would anyone actually argue that a society where everyone has enough and no more than each other would be a bad thing? the only thing they would argue about is whether this is actually acheivable. (cue lots of comments about human nature etc).

baileysbattlebus

Kohoutek wrote: »

What example is there of a communist country where the 'revolutionaries' have not turned into a clique, creating oligarchical rule?

I can't think of a single one. For example, in revolutionary Russia, one of the first acts of the Bolsheviks was to destroy the independence of the 'soviets' (a more radical version of trade union) and start centralising all power to the Bolshevik party apparatus.

I was going to post that the 3 countries mentioned were oligarchies, government by a small elite.

About as far removed from communism as it possible to get.

There are no communist countries - just countries governed by a communist party - 2 different animals.

jonewer

ninky wrote: »

are you suggesting the labour party is communist? imo they are more capitalist than communist.

is thinking that we need state intervention to protect to weakest member of society communist?

is having an nhs communist?

or state education?

The labour party are neither capitalist not communist. They are self-serving opportunists. Just like the Tories and the other party, whatever they are called, cant remember.

Having an nhs or universal education are not neccesarily communist. Neither are these ideas "left" or "right" in any recognisable sense of the words. In fact, the way we define the political spectrum is entirely archaic.

Instead of left and right, we should have statist and liberterian. Those who favour greater state intervention against those who favour less state intervention.

Personally, some of my philosophies are statist (I believe we should have an NHS, state education, nationalised trains, water, gas and leccy), but some are quite liberterian (I believe in personal responsibility, low taxation and rewarding success)

jonewer

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

There are no communist countries - just countries governed by a communist party - 2 different animals.

No true Scotsman eh?

Fire_Fox

I am named after a female relative of Karl Marx; had I been a boy I would have been Leon (Trotsky). Since I don't like my given name or the alternative, I probably should vote that "communism is a bad idea driven by well meaning individual."

samhuzz

Masomnia wrote: »

Has any communist government ever been voted in? Genuine question, because I can't think of any. How many of them have free and fair elections in which the population are asked 'do you want a communist system?', it just doesn't happen.

Communism is always forced on people and strips them of their freedom and right to pursue whatever goals they choose.

I remember reading somewhere that in Bulgaria they actually voted to keep the old Communist system, don't know if it's right or not.

Kohoutek

There are plenty of examples of countries where the population backed Communist or near-Communist rule, even through elections (e.g. Chile), but in virtually all cases, they were overthrown by right wing forces, usually sponsored by western countries, particularly the United States through the CIA.

Virtually every country in South and Central America went through that process, and even some in Europe (e.g. Greece in the 1940s).

baileysbattlebus

jonewer wrote: »

No true Scotsman eh?

Hang on - I'm thinking about thinking.

Masomnia

ninky wrote: »

has there ever been an example of a genuinely communist country? where wealth is equally held and private property does not exist? can such a thing exist?

i think that is where the argument comes that "it's good in theory".

would anyone actually argue that a society where everyone has enough and no more than each other would be a bad thing? the only thing they would argue about is whether this is actually acheivable. (cue lots of comments about human nature etc).

Yes, if I work harder than my neighbour, and develop skills that he doesn't have, why shouldn't I be paid more?