Do you find Communistic symbols offensive?

[SG854]

On the flip side, free enterprise is not the best for the consumer because monopolies form without regulation and then quality and decision are eliminated from the process as consolidation and elimination drive out alternatives. Even with the meager anti-monopoly laws we have in the states presently, several companies have figured out the trick of forming alliances, where major decisions regarding quality of service and pricing are agreed upon between competitors. Airline travel, supermarket stock, broadband and cell phone service, only handfuls of companies exist at the top of the markets and whenever one bumps up cost or cuts corners, just about everyone else in the competitive chain does too.

The lawsuit against many CRT makers is an example of this.

CRT makers like Hitachi, Samsung, LG, Panasonic, Toshiba, Philips all banded together to price fix CRT's from 1995-2007 about 12 years. Charging customers more then what they should cost. They had secret meetings called glass meetings. And they all agreed to restrict supply to artificially raise prices.


There was a lawsuit that just settled with a payout to consumers but it took about over 15 years of fighting. And the payout is around about $50. $50 for over 15 years of fighting is not even worth it.

According to the lawsuit, conspirators split the glass meetings into three tiers: “top meetings” for high-level company executives, “management meetings” for mid-level managers, and “working-level meetings” for lower-level sales and marketing employees.

https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-re...ks-way-consumers-over-crt-price-fixing-scheme



Free Market providing natural checks and balances to prevent this from happening and keep prices low my ass.

 

[0x3000027E]

It depends on how you measure success.

In the case of economics: size of the middle class, quality of life, opportunity to generate wealth are good measures of success

It's been great at getting poor people to work in terrible conditions making goods that they could never afford while polluting the planet.

I feel as if we have been over this before? Private industry and private investors are the ones fueling the current advancements in alternative energy. Unless you believe government diplomats are solving the problem?

but thinking any system is perfect

Don't see anywhere that I mention a "perfect" system. Of course that would be silly.

 

[0x3000027E]

because monopolies form without regulation

You have it backwards: Often regulation is the cause of monopolies/trusts. This is precisely why companies lobby congress.

The lawsuit against many CRT makers is an example of this.

CRT makers like Hitachi, Samsung, LG, Panasonic, Toshiba, Philips all banded together to price fix CRT's from 1995-2007 about 12 years. Charging customers more then what they should cost. They had secret meetings called glass meetings. And they all agreed to restrict supply to artificially raise prices.


There was a lawsuit that just settled with a payout to consumers but it took about over 15 years of fighting. And the payout is around about $50. $50 for over 15 years of fighting is not even worth it.





https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-re...ks-way-consumers-over-crt-price-fixing-scheme



Free Market providing natural checks and balances to prevent this from happening and keep pric

The lawsuit against many CRT makers is an example of this.

CRT makers like Hitachi, Samsung, LG, Panasonic, Toshiba, Philips all banded together to price fix CRT's from 1995-2007 about 12 years. Charging customers more then what they should cost. They had secret meetings called glass meetings. And they all agreed to restrict supply to artificially raise prices.


There was a lawsuit that just settled with a payout to consumers but it took about over 15 years of fighting. And the payout is around about $50. $50 for over 15 years of fighting is not even worth it.





https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-re...ks-way-consumers-over-crt-price-fixing-scheme



Free Market providing natural checks and balances to prevent this from happening and keep prices low my ass.

We always get a few of these "Hey look, the government performed their obligatory role in protecting the consumer" references in these discussions. While nice to see, I wish it was more common. (Unfortunately, consumer protection is *not* the reason politicians spend millions of dollars campaigning).

We always get a few of these "Hey look, the government performed their obligatory role in protecting the consumer" references in these discussions. While nice to see, I wish it was more common. (Unfortunately, consumer protection is *not* the reason politicians spend millions of dollars campaigning for office).

 

[Foxi4]

You have it backwards: Often regulation is the cause of monopolies/trusts. This is precisely why companies lobby congress.

We always get a few of these "Hey look, the government performed their obligatory role in protecting the consumer" references in these discussions. While nice to see, I wish it was more common. (Unfortunately, consumer protection is *not* the reason politicians spend millions of dollars campaigning for office).

It is almost impossible to form a monopoly without government assistance since anybody can step in and compete in the same space. The ISP market in America is a prime example of this - ISP’s were paid big dollar to “expand” Internet and Cellular infrastructure in an industry sector that has 90%+ profit margin. Not only that, the country was effectively divided into zones in which each of the big players operates primarily. They didn’t need to meet in secret and fix prices - the FCC did it for them, and imposed further regulation that effectively prevents smaller players from cornering the market in any meaningful way. That’s all besides the point though since monopolies aren’t inherently negative - a company can become a monopoly simply by providing a service so good that it can’t be competed with. It’s the government that prevents that from happening, not the players. Communism bravely faces this problem by generating it in the first place through establishing a state-sponsored monopoly on goods and services. Anybody foolish enough to support that hasn’t been at the DMV in recent years. Not surprising considering the fact that communists usually have a poor grasp of how money works and are poor as a result, so they don’t drive. :V

 

[SG854]

You have it backwards: Often regulation is the cause of monopolies/trusts. This is precisely why companies lobby congress.

We always get a few of these "Hey look, the government performed their obligatory role in protecting the consumer" references in these discussions. While nice to see, I wish it was more common. (Unfortunately, consumer protection is *not* the reason politicians spend millions of dollars campaigning for office).

My comment wasn't about the government protecting us because I don't expect them too. Just the the free market isn't flawless.

Too many times many companies ban together to artificial raise prices. And they see benefit in this overall. It requires all companies to participate. So there are times where companies don't keep their promises and short hand their rivals. But sometimes they successfully do it. In the CRT case they did it for 12 years. That's a long time.

Normally how it's suppose to go Free Market competition is what drives prices down and prevents prices from artificially being raised by companies screwing you over. Companies trying to out compete each other to offer better value either by innovation or by selling the same product but cheaper by refining efficient production process.

But this isn't always the case as shown in the CRT example I gave. Companies conspire. And can ban together and many times have done so to screw over the customer. Too many times in fact as @Dakitten pointed out.

 

[Dakitten]

It is almost impossible to form a monopoly without government assistance since anybody can step in and compete in the same space. The ISP market in America is a prime example of this - ISP’s were paid big dollar to “expand” Internet and Cellular infrastructure in an industry sector that has 90%+ profit margin. Not only that, the country was effectively divided into zones in which each of the big players operates primarily. They didn’t need to meet in secret and fix prices - the FCC did it for them, and imposed further regulation that effectively prevents smaller players from cornering the market in any meaningful way. That’s all besides the point though since monopolies aren’t inherently negative - a company can become a monopoly simply by providing a service so good that it can’t be competed with. It’s the government that prevents that from happening, not the players. Communism bravely faces this problem by generating it in the first place through establishing a state-sponsored monopoly on goods and services. Anybody foolish enough to support that hasn’t been at the DMV in recent years. Not surprising considering the fact that communists usually have a poor grasp of how money works and are poor as a result, so they don’t drive. :V

Ooh hey, Foxy with the flames! Very cute! Love the point too, since in many US markets we can obviously choose from several high quality ISPs, like Comcast and... oh, or Charter and... oh wait, wait no, even South Park has made this joke. Thank goodness the FCC hasn't been run by individuals who have ties to major communication companies and thus might have conflicts of interest! ¬.¬

Monopolies also don't tend to exist because a product is JUST SO DANG GOOD! They usually tend to exist because supply chains get bought up, marketplaces get flooded with only one product, and when some small competition is introduced somewhere that can exist independent of resource procurement, they can still get overwhelmed by the power of ADVERTISEMENTS which totally don't exist to overhype products so people buy things they don't need. In other words... those who have the most money going in tend to win, and then everything floats up to the top and stays there.

I'm always a bit sad when people are so anti-communist for no good reason, they can't even look objectively at reality...
Oh, but your jab at the DMV is good quality stuff, you should do showbiz!

You have it backwards: Often regulation is the cause of monopolies/trusts. This is precisely why companies lobby congress.

We always get a few of these "Hey look, the government performed their obligatory role in protecting the consumer" references in these discussions. While nice to see, I wish it was more common. (Unfortunately, consumer protection is *not* the reason politicians spend millions of dollars campaigning for office).

Uh, no, I really don't. Regulation is built to prevent monopolies, companies lobby congress so that they can adjust or supersede the rules for their own benefit, otherwise they wouldn't need to even bother. For an example, the very post you replied to was about how the government was coaxed into a worthless settlement for the people who were taken advantage of. This isn't because of there being too many regulations, its because all the big companies had their way and our representatives were sympathetic to their money making. Were the regulations greater and enforced better, the outcome would have been far worse for the companies and better for the consumers.

Lastly, since Foxy put forward some silly lame video, I'll put one up too for the lulz~

 

[SG854]

Ooh hey, Foxy with the flames! Very cute! Love the point too, since in many US markets we can obviously choose from several high quality ISPs, like Comcast and... oh, or Charter and... oh wait, wait no, even South Park has made this joke. Thank goodness the FCC hasn't been run by individuals who have ties to major communication companies and thus might have conflicts of interest! ¬.¬

Monopolies also don't tend to exist because a product is JUST SO DANG GOOD! They usually tend to exist because supply chains get bought up, marketplaces get flooded with only one product, and when some small competition is introduced somewhere that can exist independent of resource procurement, they can still get overwhelmed by the power of ADVERTISEMENTS which totally don't exist to overhype products so people buy things they don't need. In other words... those who have the most money going in tend to win, and then everything floats up to the top and stays there.

I'm always a bit sad when people are so anti-communist for no good reason, they can't even look objectively at reality...
Oh, but your jab at the DMV is good quality stuff, you should do showbiz!




Uh, no, I really don't. Regulation is built to prevent monopolies, companies lobby congress so that they can adjust or supersede the rules for their own benefit, otherwise they wouldn't need to even bother. For an example, the very post you replied to was about how the government was coaxed into a worthless settlement for the people who were taken advantage of. This isn't because of there being too many regulations, its because all the big companies had their way and our representatives were sympathetic to their money making. Were the regulations greater and enforced better, the outcome would have been far worse for the companies and better for the consumers.

Lastly, since Foxy put forward some silly lame video, I'll put one up too for the lulz~

There is laws in place for illegal conspiracy. Just like laws against killing but you can't 100% prevent either. There is little the gov can do at that front.

But my comment was more for how the Free Market doesn't always prevent artificially raised prices and being overcharged. Many times where the free market failed at preventing this. The belief is that the free market will lead to better innovation, better prices and more efficient production of products because of the competition in place and companies trying to outperform each other to be the dominant seller and to take all the money for themselves.

But what about the times when companies choose not to compete against each other and join together to conspire against consumer. Because the overall benefit of artificial raised prices will benefit them in the long run and a win win for all companies involved.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm always a bit sad when people are so anti-communist for no good reason, they can't even look objectively at reality...

No good reason at all.

None whatsoever.

I don’t know what the big deal is.

I always wonder what it’s like to not acknowledge the direct and inevitable consequences of the policies you support. This time it’ll work, surely.

 

[SyphenFreht]

If your point is to equate communism with tragedy and horror, you would be wise to understand that communism in itself is nothing more than a badly abused economic system. We could literally spend all day here posting examples of American atrocities and attribute it to capitalism, but I'm sure that wouldn't be fair, would it? I mean, one prime example along your method of thinking would be the Triangle Waist company going up in flames and killing all those women because the owners of the company locked the doors and ignored numerous warning signs and safety violations in an attempt to keep the workers there to make them more money.

While communism in itself is inherently flawed, blame should be put on the people controlling the idea of it, just as the companies that abuse capitalism should also be held accountable. China has seen an economic boom in recent years because, economically speaking, it has embraced capitalist ideals alongside a base economy. America would be in a similar position if it started giving out those monthly paychecks as had been proposed every few years, similar to what we have with stimulus checks now, except everytime US citizens get free money the standard of living costs go up to match it so corporations can retain their bottom dollar.

I find the symbols only mean something if you give them meaning. The swastika, for example, I know and understand, but am generally not bothered by it because I'm not a victim, nor do I have anyone close to me that's been a victim. However, that doesn't mean I'm unsympathetic to those who are bothered by that and similar symbols

 

[Foxi4]

If your point is to equate communism with tragedy and horror, you would be wise to understand that communism in itself is nothing more than a badly abused economic system. We could literally spend all day here posting examples of American atrocities and attribute it to capitalism, but I'm sure that wouldn't be fair, would it? I mean, one prime example along your method of thinking would be the Triangle Waist company going up in flames and killing all those women because the owners of the company locked the doors and ignored numerous warning signs and safety violations in an attempt to keep the workers there to make them more money.

While communism in itself is inherently flawed, blame should be put on the people controlling the idea of it, just as the companies that abuse capitalism should also be held accountable. China has seen an economic boom in recent years because, economically speaking, it has embraced capitalist ideals alongside a base economy. America would be in a similar position if it started giving out those monthly paychecks as had been proposed every few years, similar to what we have with stimulus checks now, except everytime US citizens get free money the standard of living costs go up to match it so corporations can retain their bottom dollar.

I find the symbols only mean something if you give them meaning. The swastika, for example, I know and understand, but am generally not bothered by it because I'm not a victim, nor do I have anyone close to me that's been a victim. However, that doesn't mean I'm unsympathetic to those who are bothered by that and similar symbols

My country and its people have been under this “badly abused economic system” for 42 years, I can equate it to whatever I want. People are just people, they wake up every morning, they eat and they sleep all the same. They do the same things when they’re hurt, or when the state takes away their loved ones, or when they hunger, or when they’re forcibly resettled, or coerced, or spied on by their own neighbours, or when they can’t make ends meet. One thing always leads to another, and the consequences of this particular system of governance, as well as the economic setup, are well-known because they were the same wherever and whenever they were tried. Push anyone hard enough and they’ll all do the same thing - anything it takes to survive, including collaborating with people in charge of a “badly abused economic system”. First there are lofty ideas, then there’s resistance, resistance is met with force, then there’s shortages and finally the inevitable collapse, unless you take the China route and introduce a splash of free market into the bitter concoction. It’s always the same, and it will always be the same, it’s just a question of how quickly it deteriorates into chaos.

 

[SyphenFreht]

My country and its people have been under this “badly abused economic system” for 42 years, I can equate it to whatever I want. People are just people, they wake up every morning, they eat and they sleep all the same. They do the same things when they’re hurt, or when the state takes away their loved ones, or when they hunger, or when they’re forcibly resettled, or coerced, or spied on by their own neighbours, or when they can’t make ends meet. One thing always leads to another, and the consequences of this particular system of governance, as well as the economic setup, are well-known because they were the same wherever and whenever they were tried. Push anyone hard enough and they’ll all do the same thing - anything it takes to survive, including collaborating with people in charge of a “badly abused economic system”. First there are lofty ideas, then there’s resistance, resistance is met with force, then there’s shortages and finally the inevitable collapse, unless you take the China route and introduce a splash of free market into the bitter concoction. It’s always the same, and it will always be the same, it’s just a question of how quickly it deteriorates into chaos.

While it sounds absolutely horrid, and I sympathetize with you greatly, you can't blame the tool when it's clearly being abused by those who handle it, especially when you praise capitalism despite its glaring flaws. No economic system is perfect, but no economic system can get better without an equally progressive political system alongside it. The idea behind communism could be extremely beneficial if it hadn't become synonymous with dictatorships, monarchies, so on and so forth, just as capitalism would be a lot better if it wasn't formed alongside a traditionalist political system that's evolved into something closer to that of an oligarchy.

I guess my point is, blame should be put on the proper authority, not uselessly put onto a system that isn't going to get anything done

 

[smf]

In the case of economics: size of the middle class, quality of life, opportunity to generate wealth are good measures of success

That seems to be a poor measure of success, because you're going to end up with an inherently unfair system. Like capitalism

All you've got is down to luck.

 

[Foxi4]

While it sounds absolutely horrid, and I sympathetize with you greatly, you can't blame the tool when it's clearly being abused by those who handle it, especially when you praise capitalism despite its glaring flaws. No economic system is perfect, but no economic system can get better without an equally progressive political system alongside it. The idea behind communism could be extremely beneficial if it hadn't become synonymous with dictatorships, monarchies, so on and so forth, just as capitalism would be a lot better if it wasn't formed alongside a traditionalist political system that's evolved into something closer to that of an oligarchy.

I guess my point is, blame should be put on the proper authority, not uselessly put onto a system that isn't going to get anything done

You seem to miss the point. In this case it is the tool, and the method of how it operates, that affects the operator. The system itself is built on top of humanity’s worst vices, it rewards compliance and incentivises things you wouldn’t normally do to your fellow man, thus creating a feedback loop. In the specific case we are talking about, it wasn’t the Kremlin that came down from on high to persecute Poles, it was us. As Sophia Nałkowska says in her book “Medallions”, “people prepared this fate for other people” (excellent book about concentration camps by the way, highly recommended and an integral part of the Polish canon). The system wasn’t “abused”, it worked precisely as intended - it eliminated dissidents. That’s what it was always meant to do. In similar fashion, the people of Germany didn’t wake up one day and thought “we hate the Jews now”, these things are gradual, and they are a consequence of the set of rules laid out in the system one finds themselves in. Nobody’s “responsible” for that, per se - human nature makes it so. If you make everyone equal by cutting the tall at the hamstrings, you don’t end up with equality, you end up with a bunch of blood on the floor. Nazis and communists are two different fruits off the same poisonous, totalitarian tree - they just hate others for different reasons, either based on race or based on class. They dress their hate up a little differently, but ultimately they’re just a bundle of character flaws and insecurity - I pay them no mind.

 

[Xzi]

Nazis and communists are two different fruits off the same poisonous, totalitarian tree - they just hate others for different reasons, either based on race or based on class. They dress their hate up a little differently, but ultimately they’re just a bundle of character flaws and insecurity - I pay them no mind.

Nazism is an inherently hateful and exclusionary ideology. There's nothing like that inherent to communism. It's just that some individuals are less inclined to give up wealth and power once it's in their hands than others. Capitalism has this exact same problem, with far too many of the rich unwilling to do even their most basic civic duty by paying taxes. The only way to fix this in any given economic system is heavy regulation and/or severe criminal penalties for those who act solely out of greed and narcissism. Else totaltarianism and authoritarianism become inevitable as the rich and powerful continue to manipulate our laws and justice system to their favor.

 

[Hanafuda]

Symbols? No.

People? Aw yeah.

 

[The Real Jdbye]

Not really. Communism is not a bad idea at its core. It's just the way countries do it that doesn't work. Because it can't work, not until we make robots to do all the work for us.
I blame the countries, not communism itself.
But one thing is for sure. Capitalism doesn't work either. The rich only get richer, they have far more wealth than they could ever find a use for while others are struggling to get by. Redistributing the wealth would be a good idea. So communism has some good ideas.
The way I see it, the rich are essentially taking wealth away from the world, locked away never to be used, making the world poorer as a result.

 

[Viri]

I get more offended when some Commies act like Stalin did nothing wrong. He was a mass murdering psychopathy.

 

[Deleted member 569431]

You seem to miss the point. In this case it is the tool, and the method of how it operates, that affects the operator. The system itself is built on top of humanity’s worst vices, it rewards compliance and incentivises things you wouldn’t normally do to your fellow man, thus creating a feedback loop. In the specific case we are talking about, it wasn’t the Kremlin that came down from on high to persecute Poles, it was us. As Sophia Nałkowska says in her book “Medallions”, “people prepared this fate for other people” (excellent book about concentration camps by the way, highly recommended and an integral part of the Polish canon). The system wasn’t “abused”, it worked precisely as intended - it eliminated dissidents. That’s what it was always meant to do. In similar fashion, the people of Germany didn’t wake up one day and thought “we hate the Jews now”, these things are gradual, and they are a consequence of the set of rules laid out in the system one finds themselves in. Nobody’s “responsible” for that, per se - human nature makes it so. If you make everyone equal by cutting the tall at the hamstrings, you don’t end up with equality, you end up with a bunch of blood on the floor. Nazis and communists are two different fruits off the same poisonous, totalitarian tree - they just hate others for different reasons, either based on race or based on class. They dress their hate up a little differently, but ultimately they’re just a bundle of character flaws and insecurity - I pay them no mind.

My last answer from the Nazi thread. Im waiting on the account to be deleted but while Im waiting, Ill leave it here too:
*********************************************************************************************
In terms of atrocities etc the major difference between the Nazis and every other thing before it is that theirs was the first (and so far only) act of genocide carried out for PURELY ideological reasons: to kill every Jewish person. Thats why the imagery is much more offensive then anything else. Theres ones with higher body counts etc but thats why theirs is the most disgusting of all. Every single act of genocide before it might have had some element of ideology but also other factors came into it (economics, nationalism etc). That was the case in Bosnia for example, Rwanda was concerned about property IIRC. In terms of Stalin, mass industrialization to compete with the West as well as sustaining his regime (with the Gulag system, they would round up random people off the street if they were running short of workers). I dont think Stalin had very much to do with ideology, it was more like a gangster regime. Communism and Sovietisation were just labels. With Hitler and the Nazi's though, all other considerations were secondary to that aim of murdering every Jew in Europe and beyond. There was a case in Greece on the island of Kos if I remember where they were rounding up the Jewish communities there and it turned out they missed on elderly man who had been away on another island. They turned the whole load of boats around to get this one person who would have been dead soon anyway. Eichmann was still running the trains as the Eastern Front was collapsing etc.
*********************************************************************************************
If you take one thing from the two threads its this: There is absolutely no equivalence between the Nazi regime and its crimes with anything else before it be it Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Bosnia, the Belgian Congo or anything today or has ever been committed before. All of those things are horrific but the Holocaust was so far beyond them. Attempts to equate it with anything else diminishes and leaves the door open to ultimately deny the unprecedented nature of the Holocaust. Not saying at all thats what you are intending, but thats why that comparison started to be made in relatively recent times by certain US commentators. Holocaust diminishment is a form of denial and that argument is the slippery slope to it. For your own sake, stop doing it. Debating the merits or otherwise between Capitalism, Communism or any other? Work away.

 

[0x3000027E]

That seems to be a poor measure of success, because you're going to end up with an inherently unfair system. Like capitalism

All you've got is down to luck.

I have more respect for you then this poor reference you have provided. Please don't use lazy, low-effort approach with our discussions, thank you.

 

[Foxi4]

My last answer from the Nazi thread. Im waiting on the account to be deleted but while Im waiting, Ill leave it here too:
*********************************************************************************************
In terms of atrocities etc the major difference between the Nazis and every other thing before it is that theirs was the first (and so far only) act of genocide carried out for PURELY ideological reasons: to kill every Jewish person. Thats why the imagery is much more offensive then anything else. Theres ones with higher body counts etc but thats why theirs is the most disgusting of all. Every single act of genocide before it might have had some element of ideology but also other factors came into it (economics, nationalism etc). That was the case in Bosnia for example, Rwanda was concerned about property IIRC. In terms of Stalin, mass industrialization to compete with the West as well as sustaining his regime (with the Gulag system, they would round up random people off the street if they were running short of workers). I dont think Stalin had very much to do with ideology, it was more like a gangster regime. Communism and Sovietisation were just labels. With Hitler and the Nazi's though, all other considerations were secondary to that aim of murdering every Jew in Europe and beyond. There was a case in Greece on the island of Kos if I remember where they were rounding up the Jewish communities there and it turned out they missed on elderly man who had been away on another island. They turned the whole load of boats around to get this one person who would have been dead soon anyway. Eichmann was still running the trains as the Eastern Front was collapsing etc.
*********************************************************************************************
If you take one thing from the two threads its this: There is absolutely no equivalence between the Nazi regime and its crimes with anything else before it be it Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Bosnia, the Belgian Congo or anything today or has ever been committed before. All of those things are horrific but the Holocaust was so far beyond them. Attempts to equate it with anything else diminishes and leaves the door open to ultimately deny the unprecedented nature of the Holocaust. Not saying at all thats what you are intending, but thats why that comparison started to be made in relatively recent times by certain US commentators. Holocaust diminishment is a form of denial and that argument is the slippery slope to it. For your own sake, stop doing it. Debating the merits or otherwise between Capitalism, Communism or any other? Work away.

Acknowledging what the followers of one system did on ideological grounds in no way diminishes or denies the atrocities committed by the followers of another regime, that’s completely illogical. If anything, you’re the one guilty of denialism - denialism of all the crimes against humanity associated with communism. I used to live about an hour or two away from a concentration camp, I won’t be taking lessons on decorum from someone who doesn’t. To most westerners these are just things that happened in the past and they’ve read about them in a book - my family lived through them, and the evidence of those events are still standing. With some care they will be standing forever, so that we all remember them. I can look at two awful regimes and state that they’re both awful without any issues, if you can’t hold both of those ideas in your head simultaneously then that’s a “you” problem. We could sit here all day talking about all the instances of systemic extermination of people at the behest of communist regimes, on a variety of grounds, from ethnic to political - Katyn massacre, The Killing Fields, Holodomor, the list never ends. Hey, did you know that during the Cambodian genocide the Khmer Rouge used to swing babies against a tree to smash their heads in? They called it “the killing tree”, apparently that was the most cost-efficient way of killing them.



There’s almost 20,000 mass graves in Cambodia alone, containing the remains of over a million people who were systemically exterminated. Don’t tell me what I can or cannot say about that.

Nazism is an inherently hateful and exclusionary ideology. There's nothing like that inherent to communism. It's just that some individuals are less inclined to give up wealth and power once it's in their hands than others. Capitalism has this exact same problem, with far too many of the rich unwilling to do even their most basic civic duty by paying taxes. The only way to fix this in any given economic system is heavy regulation and/or severe criminal penalties for those who act solely out of greed and narcissism. Else totaltarianism and authoritarianism become inevitable as the rich and powerful continue to manipulate our laws and justice system to their favor.

Oh please, one of the slogans is “eat the rich”, and communists take that very literally. It’s just jealousy and envy - the have-nots taking out their anger and frustration against those who do have some wealth, regardless of whether it’s earned or not. Pretending that it’s the victim’s fault because they didn’t willingly give away their belongings to the first bully knocking on their door is asinine - “collectivisation” is just another way of saying “robbery”. It’s even better when you send that formerly “rich” person off to the gulag - no similarities there.