The double standard between Capitalist genocide and Communist genocide

so will you give us some choice quotes from that please.....

 

Hmmm... what the hey. Without further adieu, here we go:


Warning this could tldr for some people.

Chapter one:

Chapter two:

Chapter 3:

Chapter 4:

 

Couple things.

1. Your posts tend to reek of stupidity so I find myself gravitated towards them, in order to destroy them.

2. Why are college and healthcare rights? You get an allotment (a salary) in life and you have to choose what to do with it. If you want to go to college, allot some of that $ to go to college. If you want healthcare, allot money to insurance. It should be your choice what you do with your money, the freedom to choose how we spend our money is the greatest freedom we have. Remember, if someone gets a "free" college education, someone else is paying for that education. Why should someone get allotments taken away from them and given to someone else?

3. I think it's time for someone to get to Mcdonalds and serve some hamburgers. I'm sure you'll be back on later though after your shift is out

 

it's not a double standard, it's day and night


..and the potato famine was largely due to the property/market restrictions that the crown put on Ireland

http://listverse.com/2013/04/10/10-terrible-famines-in-history/

 

The whole class idea socialists talk about is a myth so that destroys the argument of relationship between classes.

Socialism has no such history of allowing peoples best work but quite the opposite proving that wrong.

Education also gets worse under socialism

 

When 1% of the world owns as much money as the poorest 2.5 Billion people, I have absolutely no quarrels equally that out, its not like we are taking a college education from a rich person, no we are taking chunk of their money and helping poor people, a most noble cause . I personally am not asking for anything, financially I am doing ok, but I never turn a blind eye to the billions of people who are not due solely to the fact the 1% is openly exploiting them. Basically under Socialism the laborers receive the majority of the benefit from THEIR labor, instead of the insanely rich dude at the top who isnt even working hes just hiring advisors and workers to do the work for him taking the majority of the benefits. Capitalism is openly about selfishness and inequality, and Socialism is about selflessness and equality, clearly Socialism is the much more noble cause. Socialism is the democracy of economics, Capitalism is the anarchy of economics.

 

Yep, the owner class is a huge tax on everybody. A tax that we no longer want to pay.

 

The vain exercise to correlate statist aggression from tyrants to nations trying to defend themselves from aggressors, calling both 'genocide' is absurd.

 

College - for the long term benefit of the nation.

- - - Updated - - -

So how come the Russians were the first into space then?

 

You mean Vietnam do you, where the country was trying to defend itself against the dictators Nixon and Johnson.........

 

They weren't they shot one man into space as a passneger in a capsule. Learn a few more details.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually Vietnam invited the US to fight against the communists who were the aggressors, and Nixon Johnson were not dictators.

 

Kind of like me saying 'I invited my neigbours in to rape my room-mate' , guess that's all right then

 

That is still being first to space, if it was so easy America would have done that first. Now today its America who uses Russias space station which they are kicking us out of in about 5 years if im not mistaken.

So if a few Communist Poles in Poland asked the Soviet Union to help them fight against the Capitalists in their country than Russia would be justified in going in there and carpet bombing the capitalists the way we carpet bombed the communists at the request of fellow capitalists? Of course not, because you hold to double standards and you're a huge hypocrite.

 

Free healthcare - Also for the long term benefit of the nation

 

Ah, the liberal utopia, free everything. Eventually it sinks the economy but what the heck, FREE!

 

Notice how they have a space station today AFTER getting rid of communism. It was not a discussion of Russia or America being better but about the failure of communism which is proven fact.

You answered the question you asked and then called names.

Just like before your insight into what people think is pretty poor. No one was discussing justification for things like carpet bombing ( which we did not do in Vietnam )

The fact is it is not an invasion if the poles ASK the RUssians to come into their country to fight the Germans who are invading Poland.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither benefits the nation and Health care is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to increase control and tyranny. Of course there is nothing free so you need to anser at who'se expense.

 

Nice strawman

 

Yes, free healthcare/college is "tyranny", and child labor laws "hurt" children, Ahh I love the right wing.

The expense will be on the rich who exploited the poor, pretty simple concept of equality.

 

Oh, really?
https://www.google.com/search?q=car...5Nqqd8gHA3oCoCQ&ved=0CB4QsAQ&biw=1920&bih=992

 

There is no such thing as free health care or college. Your comparison to child labor laws is apples and oranages also known as a false equivelance. LOok the term up for better comprehension of why it makes people look foolish.

Pretty sure the expense will not just be on the rich.

The poor were voluntarily expoited by the rich which is not a bad thing. You simply take the the voluntary nature of exploitation away by forcing these ideas on people. They then get exploited by force.

Nothing equal about your idea nor is it based on equality. It is based on hatred of the wealthy or rich which is as disgusting and silly as hatred of the poor.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes really.

 

Voluntary? You must not realize voluntary is not always how you think it is. For example, say hypothetically there is an Irishmen who is starving to death and he will be dead in a couple days but an Englishmen comes to him and says if he becomes a slave for America he will ship him there for free, the Irishmen has the choice of either starve to death or become a slave, that is a voluntary choice but either choice he makes he will be in a horrible position and the English and Americans can easily say "He became a slave voluntarily, thats his fault" in no way shape or form does it mean the Irishmen WANTED to became a slave despite the fact he "voluntarily" chose to be one, the exact same goes for the poor, they have the choices of work for a huge corporations and be exploited or starve to death along with your kids, its not much of a choice and to call it "voluntary" is simply propaganda.

If the Soviet Union conquered America and they gave you the choice to be shot in the head or become a slave they could justify shooting you in the head by saying "He chose to be shot in the head, it was his voluntary decision therefore we are not bad people he made the choice on his own we gave him freedom to choose"

So the video and pictures of us carpet bombing the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of Vietnam are all photoshopped eh?

 

No it is not propoganda at all. Your hypothetical scenario is once again a false equivelance. No one is in danger of starving to death if they refuse to work for a corporation ( which usually pays well anyhow ). It simplymeans you work for someone ELSE in some other fashio or even try your own luck at self employment. EIther way the choice is yours and voluntary.

Under communism there is no choice you are simply forced to work for the benefit of another whether you like it or not and the product of your labor is not yours to keep but someone elses to distribute as they see fit which is also slavery.

The point is that everyone exploits someone and something and everyone is exploited in some fashion. Somehow we allowed the deadbeat addict monster Marx to twist exploitation into a dirty word which always has a negative context. Under capitalism that exploitation is done by volitional choice which means you can choose who exploits your labor for the best possible return to your self. Under communism the choice is taken from you and any return belongs to other.

Communism = From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs = slavery.

They were photos of planes dropping bombs which is a subtle difference

 

I just stumbled upon a great article that explains this more clear than I was about to lol, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...z-No-One-Starved-to-Death-in-Great-Depression
Keep in mind, you just said people dont starve to death under capitalism essentially (of course forgetting the fact we have socialist programs in place to prevent this, such as food stamps) so lets see Fox News make the same argument as you but get destroyed.

"Fox Business host John Stossel on Thursday declared that government programs should be cut based on the false assertion that “no one” died of starvation in the Great Depression before the modern “welfare state.” [...]
“And when people are needy you want them [to get] help,” Stossel agreed. “But think about the [Great] Depression. That was before there was any welfare state at all. How many people starved? No one.”

“Right, good point,” Doocy agreed.

Really John? No one starved to death during the Great Depression? That's not how a lot of people remember those years.

In the Pennsylvania coal fields, three or four families crowded together in one-room shacks and lived on wild weeds. In Arkansas, families were found inhabiting caves. In Oakland, California, whole families lived in sewer pipes.
President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.

We will never know how many people died as a result of starvation or illness related to malnutrition during the years of the Great Depression because there were no official Federal Government statistics for that era. [Deleted reference to Russian researcher] However, there is enough anecdotal evidence that people did starve during the Great Depression, and that contrary to what Mr. Stossel asserts now, and President Hoover asserted then, people did in fact die from lack of adequate food intake, otherwise known as death by starvation. We certainly have a photographic record of people who look very thin and malnourished as evidence that starvation was a reality for many people during the Depression:

We also know that food riots broke out in many states. Well fed people, or even adequately fed people do not riot over food. Hungry, starving people on the other hand do:

Feb. 1931
"Food riots" begin to break out in parts of the U.S. In Minneapolis, several hundred men and women smashed the windows of a grocery market and made off with fruit, canned goods, bacon, and ham. One of the store's owners pulled out a gun to stop the looters, but was leapt upon and had his arm broken. The "riot" was brought under control by 100 policemen. Seven people were arrested.

And another food riot incident, this time in Oklahoma:

From the New York Times, January 31, 1931.
Food Rioters Raid Oklahoma City Store; 500 Dispersed by the Police With Tear Gas

OKLAHOMA CITY. Jan. 20 (AP)-A crowd of men and women, shouting that they were hungry and jobless, raided a grocery store near the City Hall today. Twenty-six of the men were arrested. Scores loitered near the city jail following the arrests, but kept well out of range of fire hoses made ready for use in case of another disturbance.

The police tonight broke up a second meeting of about one hundred unemployed men and arrested Francis Owens, alleged head of the "Oklahoma City Unemployed Council," who was accused of instigating the raid.

People starved Mr. Stossel. They went hungry. Some of them, we don't know how many, died, either from the direct effects of starvation or from malnutrition and illnesses related to their lowered resistance to disease caused by, yes, starvation. And guess what? More people would be dying today if we didn't have social welfare programs such as SNAP (i.e., food stamps) to prevent poor people, and the unemployed from going without food. Yet you want to eliminate these programs. In fact you stated that you wanted to eliminate the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Education, among others.

You cut whole departments,” the Fox Business host explained. “Why do we have a Commerce Department? Commerce just happens! Agriculture, farmers do that! You don’t need bureaucrats.”
He added that the Department of Education was also unnecessary.

“Isn’t that part of what the government does in a lot of people minds?” Fox News host Steve Doocy asked. “They need to help people rather than let people help themselves?”

Guess what you left off your list? The entire Department of Defense. Well hell's bells, why do we need a wasteful military establishment when we have an armed militia available? Using your logic, our military forces are completely unnecessary, because individuals can take care of that themselves when it comes to national defense. Just like social welfare programs are unnecessary. Please let me know, from your libertarian perspective, why the largest Department in the Federal Government and the one whose elimination, or even significant down-sizing, would solve most of our debt issues going forward is left off your list. I'm dying to find out why you failed to mention it, though you have no problem with killing off social welfare programs that millions of your fellow citizens depend upon.

UPDATE: Further evidence of the effects of starvation among the poor in the United States during the Great Depression era and the years leading up to it (i.e., before the development of our current socialist hellhole welfare state) can be found at the Link (h/t to mollyd from the comments."

 

No I did not say that at all you are quite deliberately twisting what I said.

What I said was that no one is in danger of starving to death if they refuse to work for a corporation.

Your example I was responding to is that the choice is work for a corporation or starve.

There has always been some level of starvation every where on Earth ( at it's worst in communist nations of course ). Naturally during a great economic depression such problems will increase and no one said otherwise. There have been some estimates about how many starved to death during the depression. One scholarly work estimated 130. For all we know in a nation of 300 million 130 people may starve to death every decade. Tragic but not nearly the same as millions being deliberately starved under Lening and Stalin because they would not bow to communism but defied Marx's prediction that it was inevitible.

A human has to eat to survive and eating requires some form of effort.

At issue what sort of effort you put forth and how you go about it. Choosing how you will work and for or with who to maximize profit and eat better is a far more humane and effective system than simply trying to say everyone who works will feed everyone else.

BTw food stamps were not a great depression program they were created in the sixties.

No one was starving in the immediate years before the implementation of food stamps. In other words they did nothing to stop or prevent starvation.

 

The French fascists in their govt begged the Nazis to come in and take over their country, rape their women and kill their Jews, guess that makes it ok then..........

- - - Updated - - -

Tell that to the people in countries that have socialised medicine, most will disagree with you.