Death Count from Socialist leaders in the 20th Century

[QUOTE=LJJ]No, don't put this back on me buckwheat. You aren't getting away with that.

"Socialists, the people with the same ideologies as those guys responsible for all that government murder, are taking the moral high ground these days". That's what YOU said. Yet you don't know of any. That's no specific question, that's asking about the core reasoning behind you opinion. YOU say the socialists are taking the high ground. Where the f[COLOR="Black"]uck[/COLOR] are they? You have no idea, there is simply nothing there. Empty. Just like everything else you post.

So there you have it: the Insidehoops village idiot strikes again. Congratulations on reinforcing the very low opinion everybody here already had of you.[/QUOTE]

Why are you acting so rude? If you don't agree with me that's one thing, but to say I'm an idiot, and to infer I'm trying to "get away" with something? When I'm wrong, I have no problem admitting it. If I say something I later regret, I take it back and explain my reasoning. In this case, I feel no reason to take back what I said. I stand by it.

I see much of the Democrat party as constantly taking some socialist moral high ground. I'd add Barack Obama himself, and most Democrat pundits I see on television. Bill Maher is a great example.

And as a FORMER DEMOCRAT MYSELF..I'd add myself to that list several years ago.

Since I'm constantly debating a pro-capitalism position, I'd say I have a little bit of knowledge of how my opponents respond. Frankly, I've been in hundreds of debates, and I've felt the other side taking the moral high ground again and again. Debating a pro-free market position leads to just as many moral arguments as it does economic ones. In my experience I've seen it multiple times, so who are you to say I'm lying? I'm talking about a general movement I see within left-wing politics towards seeing government-charity as being morally superior to free markets. Anyone who pays attention can see this happening.

How many Democrats have said there should be some cap on the amount of profits you're allowed to make? Don't act like it doesn't happen, because I know it does. I went to college surrounded by Democrats and I had those conversations. Democrats have become disgusted by rich people and by greed, and they see themselves as morally superior in many ways to Republicans/anyone they think of as supporting the free market.

And in my opinion, the Democratic party is a few years away from being the socialist democrats party, at the current pace.

[QUOTE=joe]The moral high ground I'm referring to doesn't belong to one person- it's many people. When I say government shouldn't intervene with health care, I apparently "just don't care about the suffering poor people!" When I say public schools shouldn't exist, "I think only the rich should be educated." Say foreign aid props up dictators, I don't care about 3rd world suffering.

The moral high ground is taken by the socialist argument in all of these cases. It's become righteous to support government charity, to the point that arguing for free markets has become stained. Supporters of capitalism are "blind ideologues." Supporters of government charity are "compassionate lovers of humanity." That's what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE]
Your way of looking at things is way too black-and-white. You are essentially saying that, since I'm for public schools, I am a socialist. If I think we should institute universal health care, I'm a socialist.

I'm not a socialist... I just happen to live in a country which has always been a blend of ideologies and I think there are certain aspects of our society which should see government involvement.

If people are in favor of a public police force that doesn't only protect the people who purchase their services directly, am I a socialist? If I believe we should have a group of people paid for with tax dollars who will respond to fires regardless of whose house is burning, am I a socialist?

We live in a country which has a balance of public systems paid for by taxes and private enterprises which, if run correctly, can see enormous profits. The things in our society which we do not think should be made for-profit become social programs. The discussion revolves around which of those programs should be public, not whether or not all programs should be public like in a truly socialist country.

I mean, surely you are not in favor of privatizing fire and police departments, right? Does that make you a socialist? No, it makes you a realist. Too many people obsessed with labels in this country.

We've never been purely capitalistic and we'll never be purely socialist. We've always been and will continue to be a combination society which tries to balance the good points of each and cancel out the negatives of each. It will likely never be perfect, but that won't stop us from trying.

Lastly, for you to assert [I]capitalists [/I]are the ones who are being vilified and [I]socialists [/I]always get the moral high ground... In [I]our [/I]culture? Being called a socialist is akin to being named a child molester in our current political climate. The word is thrown around so freely as a means to scare the ill-informed it would be funny if it wasn't having such a crushing impact on the actual productive political dialogue in America.

How in the world could anyone say people in favor of more capitalism are discriminated against in America? :oldlol:

[QUOTE=joe]I see much of the Democrat party as constantly taking some socialist moral high ground. I'd add Barack Obama himself, and most Democrat pundits I see on television. Bill Maher is a great example. [/QUOTE]

Great. Finally you can answer the damn question and give an example.

This was your original post:

[QUOTE=joe]stunning. it's sad that socialists (= Obama, like you just explained) are allowed to take the moral high ground these days, while capitalism has such a bad name. Capitalism allowed millions more humans to occupy this Earth, millions of people to have cars and food and such. While socialism (or whatever you want to call it) is the greatest tool of government murder we have seen (=Stalin, Mao). But hippies (supposed peace makers) wear shirts with socialist dictators on it at anti-capitalist rallies. wtf[/QUOTE]


With the information you have just given us, we understand the contextual meaning of your original post is this:

[QUOTE=joe]stunning. it's sad that socialists like Obama are allowed to take the moral high ground these days. His socialist peers such Stalin an Mao were the greatest tool of government murder we have seen. [/QUOTE]

That is utterly hilarious. Obama has the same ideology as Stalin and Mao now? :roll: :roll: :roll:

This thread is kind of hilarious.

Mao was good for China?

Socialism is the same thing as Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Red Capitalism?

Obama is mentioned in this thread?

Being a socialist is cool? Being a capitalist is bad? (Where the f[I]u[/I]ck do you live?)

It's like all the check marks have been ticked.

[QUOTE=LJJ]Great. Finally you can answer the damn question and give an example.

This was your original post:




With the information you have just given us, we understand the contextual meaning of your original post is this:


That is utterly hilarious. Obama has the same ideology as Stalin and Mao now? :roll: :roll: :roll:[/QUOTE]

Obama acting like his socialist ideas are morally superior does not make him equal to Mao, at all. That's not the contextual meaning to my original post, that's you twisting words around.

Yes, I think Obama and many on the left hold socialist ideals. They are infatuated with wealth redistribution. Welfare, foreign aid, higher progressive tax rates, some even want a cap on how much income an individual should be allowed to earn. They want college nationalized, health care nationalized. And in many cases, I find their reasoning to be based on a moral high ground position. "We want to help the poor, you capitalism guys only care about the rich. Greedy materialist pig!"

Does that mean I think they're all as bad as Mao? No.

And taking into account the IQ of the person I'm talking to, let me pre-emptively say- not ALL Democrats/leftists support those things. Some support some but not others. But in general, these views seem more common now than they were in the past, in American politics. And considering the track record of socialist governments, I find it ironic that the moral superiorists reside in the redistribution corner.

[QUOTE=joe]Ob[B]ama acting like his socialist ideas[/B] are morally superior does not make him equal to Mao, at all. That's not the contextual meaning to my original post, that's you twisting words around.

Yes, I think O[B]bama and many on the left hold socialist ideals[/B]. They are infatuated with wealth redistribution. Welfare, foreign aid, higher progressive tax rates, some even [B]want a cap on how much income an individual should be allowed to earn[/B]. They want college nationalized, [B]health care nationalized[/B]. And in many cases, I find their reasoning to be based on a moral high ground position. "We want to help the poor, you capitalism guys only care about the rich. Greedy materialist pig!"

Does that mean I think they're all as bad as Mao? No.

And taking into account the IQ of the person I'm talking to, let me pre-emptively say- not ALL Democrats/leftists support those things. Some support some but not others. But in general, these views seem more common now than they were in the past, in American politics. And considering the track record of socialist governments, I find it ironic that the moral superiorists reside in the redistribution corner.[/QUOTE]

If Obama is a socialist he is the worst socialist in history.

Besides the CEOs of companies that took government bailouts, who has Obama wanted to place a salary cap on?

Obamacare is largely the same healthcare system that Mitt Romney passed, which was based on the healthcare proposal developed by the Heritage Foundation. It is not at all similar to nationalization. Basically people now have to buy insurance from the big insurance corporations, or pay a penalty. It eliminates free riders, its actually quite a conservative proposal. I seriously dont understand conservative opposition to Obamacare.

"Wealth redistribution" is such a dirty term (mostly because of it's use as a shameless partisan talking point). Call it an investment. The poor and the middle class are the drivers of our consumer-driven economy. Empowering them - financially, educationally, and socially - causes the economy as a whole to grow and flourish, and that's better for everyone. Consolidating power in an increasingly small and entrenched class of elites, perpetuating the growing wealth gap, and further reinforcing or tolerating barriers to social mobility are all symptoms of a sick economy and harbingers of destructive instability.

The "free market" is not some infallible gift from on-high, and the federal government is not some restorative cure-all balm. The most effective path is probably what we've been doing all along, using a blend of the best ideologies at our disposal, not being afraid to innovate and perpetually holding ourselves to a higher standard.

RedBlackAttack.. haven't seen you on here in a while.

[QUOTE]
How in the world could anyone say people in favor of more capitalism are discriminated against in America? :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Comments like this prove that you're not following things closely enough. The left doesn't support capitalism, they support a mixed economy. Republicans largely don't understand capitalism, though they claim to support it. Republicans have long accepted things like huge military budgets, central banking, bailouts, huge entitlement programs, regulatory agencies, on and on and on and on down the list. These are not indicative of free markets, they are indicative of government markets. The amount of people who supported either completely free markets or "minarchist" markets is tiny compared to the rest of the political spectrum.

*minarchist would be, a government that does the very bare minimum. enforce contracts, maintain the legal system, etc.

The big problem is that people don't understand capitalism in America anymore. Its definition has been twisted, and the line between government and market has been blurred beyond recognition. Go to a libertarian forum and ask the members if they think most Americans support free market capitalism.

You have to see the world through my eyes. How often do we hear how the government has to "create jobs?" Or that we need our politicians to "try and fix the economy rather than worry about immigration" or something? Phrases like that have become so common in American politics, that most people probably don't even notice it. But for a true supporter of a free market, you notice it every single time, because it sounds so idiotic and frustrating. And those same politicians who vow to "fix the economy" claim they support capitalism. It's a joke.

[QUOTE]
We've never been purely capitalistic and we'll never be purely socialist. We've always been and will continue to be a combination society which tries to balance the good points of each and cancel out the negatives of each. It will likely never be perfect, but that won't stop us from trying.
[/QUOTE]

You're right, but we used to be much more capitalist. The trend is towards a mixed, socialized, or fascist economy. The government always played a role in the economy, but since the 1930's especially, their role has increased.


Maybe socialism is considered a dirty word in America, while capitalism is considered a "nice word." But in action, the political spectrum continues to move to the left on economic issues. Our republican candidate for President wrote the blueprint for socialized medicine.. that's a pretty damning example of what I'm talking about.

[QUOTE=Nick Young]Mao Zedong:49-78 million
Jozef Stalin: 23 million
Pol Pot: 1.7 million
Kim Il Sung: 1.6 million
Ho Chi Minh: 200,000
Fidel Castro and Che Guevera: 50,000


A kid in my uni was wearing a Che beret and a Mao Zedong shirt. Got into a huge argument with him by telling him wearing a Mao shirt was worse than wearing a Hitler shirt, he denied all of the deaths Mao is responsible for saying it is lies and CIA propaganda, which is basically the same thing as denying the holocaust. Turned out he was just an ignorant dumbass who didn't understand what he was talking about. But still it's pretty disgusting, a man kills 70 million of his own people and there are idiots out there who prop him up as a hero they look up to.[/QUOTE]

Wow, you took your online douchebaggery and started to use it in real life situations.

[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]If Obama is a socialist he is the worst socialist in history.

Besides the CEOs of companies that took government bailouts, who has Obama wanted to place a salary cap on?

Obamacare is largely the same healthcare system that Mitt Romney passed, which was based on the healthcare proposal developed by the Heritage Foundation. It is not at all similar to nationalization. Basically people now have to buy insurance from the big insurance corporations, or pay a penalty. It eliminates free riders, its actually quite a conservative proposal. I seriously dont understand conservative opposition to Obamacare.[/QUOTE]

MavsSuperFan, love your posts, but this here is an example of people not understanding capitalism. I say that, because you called Obamacare a quite conservative proposal. I'm assuming by "conservative proposal," you mean it vibes with a free market mindset. Sorry if I am wrong about what you mean.

Government forcing people to buy insurance from a big insurance company is as far removed from free market capitalism as you can get. Being able to spend your money how you choose is a huge cog of capitalism, right next to the right to earn money for yourself and own property. It is not capitalism if you are being forced to buy something by government mandate.

It seems people confuse "private sector" with capitalism. Just because something happens in the private sector, does not make it free market based. We have many private banks, but all of them are backed up by a government central bank. While our banks are "private," they are not operating under a free market. It is a government market, filled with government distortions that have nothing to do with capitalism.

A truly free market in health care would mean government didn't do jack. No regulation, no licensing on doctors, no medicare, no medicaid, no government insurance of any kind. Looking at the word we live in objectively, we can all see that's not the case. Which is why I think it's funny when people claim rising health care costs is some natural by-product of our greedy capitalist world. If we actually had a greedy capitalist world in health care, prices would be way lower and we wouldn't be having these problems.

When it comes to Obama, I'm not saying he wanted to put a wealth cap on anyone. I've heard that from other people, including myself when I used to be a Democrat. Wasn't putting that one on Obama.

[QUOTE=LJJ]No, don't put this back on me buckwheat. You aren't getting away with that.

"Socialists, the people with the same ideologies as those guys responsible for all that government murder, are taking the moral high ground these days". That's what YOU said. Yet you don't know of any. That's no specific question, that's asking about the core reasoning behind you opinion. YOU say the socialists are taking the high ground. Where the f[COLOR="Black"]uck[/COLOR] are they? You have no idea, there is simply nothing there. Empty. Just like everything else you post.

So there you have it: the Insidehoops village idiot strikes again. Congratulations on reinforcing the very low opinion everybody here already had of you.[/QUOTE]
I'll give some examples:
Mr. Mao Zedong Che Beret Douche:wears the shirt of the biggest mass murderer of the 20th century, claims he's a hero and all of china loves him and all of Zedong's ideas were right and everything that went wrong was because the evil capitalist CIA.

So many Occupy idiots who were selling the Socialist Worker newspaper I interviewed while doing a university project: I went undercover pretending I agreed with these clowns and the more you agree with them the stupider shit they say.

Everyone associated with the Socialist Worker.

Everyone in my university's Socialist Society.

I walked into their meeting a few minutes later after the Mao lover went in, I was planning on trolling in real life, but they were just sitting in a circle all hunched over, about 30 people, talking about starting a revolution in England, made me realize they are all just crazies, so I left.

I've met some intelligent people who claim to be socialists but they are often times extremely hypocritical, and completely lacking in common sense. And when confronted with the ugly side of their heroes they try to deny it or justify it. For example one guys hyping up Lenin, I bring up the Red Terror, he starts yelling about the White terror, dismissing the deathcount, saying the CIA propaganda made it up, then he starts yelling about Bush killing millions to try to get at me, I say I never voted for Bush etc etc

[QUOTE=Ass Dan]Wow, you took your online douchebaggery and started to use it in real life situations.[/QUOTE]
Used it for the forces of good this time, this guy was basically a holocaust denier and semi-retarded, hopefully he'll do some research and burn his Mao shirt.

[QUOTE=joe]Obama acting like his socialist ideas are morally superior does not make him equal to Mao, at all. That's not the contextual meaning to my original post, that's you twisting words around. [/QUOTE]

Me, twisting your words around? Nope.

That is your original post bub. First you are saying socialists are taking the moral high ground, with whom you clearly meant Obama and most of the other Dems. Who are not socialists at all by the way, this is you [U]completely[/U] misunderstanding what socialism means.

And then you pull the post together by saying the socialists were responsible for the great government democides of the 20th century. As if the people you refer to first have anything to do with those guys in any way, even at their most core ideals.

Those are the connections you made. You posted that. It has nothing to do with me misunderstanding your post. I understand exactly who you were referring to in your original post, which is why I reacted the way I did. I gave you a fair chance to save face, but nope. You only fell deeper into the hole.

Now go look up for one second what socialism is. Look up for one second what Mao and Stalin's ideals and policies were and look up for one second how little to do with Obama this has. Note: this is not even me defending Obama. Not a fan of his politics at all, but he is also not to be put anywhere near the likes of Stalin like you do. Educate yourself, or better: let some people with legitimate average intelligence educate you for a while. Because this self-educating thing has clearly took a wrong turn for you. You have no idea what you are reading and hearing most of the time.

[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]Mao was horrible when he died China was a third world shit hole. China's recent rise is due to Deng Xiaoping and the capitalist reforms he initiated, like his special economic zones. The only place where you can argue Mao's greatness was from a military perspective. Outside of wars Mao was an incompetent leader.

Mao was also extremely stubborn and selfish, because of collectivization ideals he initiated programs that he knew were resulting in mass starvations (purely man made, in a country China's size with its established thousands of years worth of agricultural expertise, droughts can't explain wide scale famine) and refused to change his failing policies because of his commitment to what he believed to be socialism and his refusal to admit he was wrong. He denounced and removed anyone that objected and basically left the Chinese government with him and gutless yes men who were too scared to tell Mao the truth.

China is about the size of America, droughts can affect a few provinces, but in a country that size you would just shift surplus production from other areas during normal times. Mao put pressure on the communes he created, these communes boasted of ridiculously high yields, they were taxed at these inflated figures, all objections were crushed and people starved quietly in their communes, while local militia made sure everyone kept silent. Mao knew what was going on, he didn't want to admit his collectivized farming system was causing mass starvation of by some estimates 70 million people.

Mao was also kind of stupid in a lot of ways. He initiated his small steel program where he encouraged local communes to make steel smelters in their neighbourhoods, to produce steel. For some reason Mao thought he could catch up to US steel production like this. The result, whole forests destroyed for firewood to melt metal, low quality steel that was unusable, and worst of all the program took farmers out of the field where they were most needed.

By about 1966 people had finally realized what a fool Mao was, and he lost a lot of power within the government. Capitalist reforms were happening. Mao being selfish held on to absolute power by initiating the Cultural Revolution. Basically destroying a whole generation, and every competent person in the government was removed and replaced by Mao's lackeys. Mao was one of the worst political leaders of the 20th century, he held China back greatly for about 3 and a half decades. At the time of his death China was undeveloped and weak. Mao's only competence was military leadership, specifically guerilla warfare.[/QUOTE]

Great post. You're kicking ass in this thread. However, America is only the size of China when you include Alaska and we don't grow much food in Alaska.

[QUOTE=joe]MavsSuperFan, love your posts, but this here is an example of people not understanding capitalism. I say that, because you called Obamacare a quite conservative proposal. I'm assuming by "conservative proposal," you mean it vibes with a free market mindset. Sorry if I am wrong about what you mean.

Government forcing people to buy insurance from a big insurance company is as far removed from free market capitalism as you can get. Being able to spend your money how you choose is a huge cog of capitalism, right next to the right to earn money for yourself and own property. It is not capitalism if you are being forced to buy something by government mandate.

It seems people confuse "private sector" with capitalism. Just because something happens in the private sector, does not make it free market based. We have many private banks, but all of them are backed up by a government central bank. While our banks are "private," they are not operating under a free market. It is a government market, filled with government distortions that have nothing to do with capitalism.

A truly free market in health care would mean government didn't do jack. No regulation, no licensing on doctors, no medicare, no medicaid, no government insurance of any kind. Looking at the word we live in objectively, we can all see that's not the case. Which is why I think it's funny when people claim rising health care costs is some natural by-product of our greedy capitalist world. If we actually had a greedy capitalist world in health care, prices would be way lower and we wouldn't be having these problems.

When it comes to Obama, I'm not saying he wanted to put a wealth cap on anyone. I've heard that from other people, including myself when I used to be a Democrat. Wasn't putting that one on Obama.[/QUOTE]

First thank you I enjoy your posts too

I just meant that it was conservative in the sense that it promoted personal responsibility. We have never lived in a country where the grievously wounded don't receive treatment. If you show up to an emergency room you will receive treatment, this creates a free rider problem that Obamacare fixes.

Unfortunately I believe the reality of 40-50 million uninsured proves that if government doesn't step in some people wont be able to afford insurance. This number would be much higher if elderly who relied on medicare and the poor who rely on medicaid were included. I just don't think its right to abandon these people. Medicare and medicaid are examples of incorporating social justice into our capitalist economy and are working overall quite nicely imo, at the very least it is preferable to the alternative.

I disagree with you that unregulating the healthcare industry would reduce costs. I think a lot of the cost increases in our healthcare system is due to the profit incentive, collusion/mergers among insurance providers and lobbying of the government. Many countries have significantly lower costs for access to the same level of care, and have much more regulated healthcare industries some even fully nationalized. I believe Japan is a great example of this.

Canada is a country where many American's are willing to ride a bus for hours to go to to buy the same American made drugs for a fraction of the cost. I had previously read an article that attributed the price difference chiefly to the effective lobbying of congress by the drug manufacturers. Canada's parliment negotiated significantly lower prices than congress and further congress has forbid importing Canadian priced drugs by insurance providers.

Its not that I think big pharma is evil, just that they are self interested as are all humans. The seek to maximize profits, which often equates cost cutting, which equals minimizing healthcare provided. When it comes to healthcare government intervention doesn't offend me nearly as much as it would if the government intervened in say the soda industry. My friend's daughter was born with a health condition that makes it unlikely for her to get on an insurance plan if the government didn't intervene. In cases like that the insurance company would have to act totally against their rational self interest to provide care for her.