Why Is Communism Still a Respected Ideology?

StoneByStone said:
Public corporations are owned by the government. That's State Capitalism. Socialism involves Direct Democracy so that everyone can vote on the actions of a corporation.
Click to expand...

public corporations are owned by shareholders, some of which are individuals, some of which are other legal entities, none of which are "the government".
 
AssHatZombie said:
public corporations are owned by shareholders, some of which are individuals, some of which are other legal entities, none of which are "the government".
Click to expand...


By public corporations, I thought you were referring to nationalized companies. If you mean publicly traded companies, that's not Socialism either.
Collective ownership means everyone who works at a company has a say through votes. A company having share-holders is obviously not collective ownership.
 
StoneByStone said:
By public corporations, I thought you were referring to nationalized companies. If you mean publicly traded companies, that's not Socialism either.
Collective ownership means everyone who works at a company has a say through votes. A company having share-holders is obviously not collective ownership.
Click to expand...

I said public corporations are collective ownership. and they are.
 
AssHatZombie said:
non voting shares are still ownership, according to words and corporate law. reality.
Click to expand...

Well that's not collective ownership as defined by Socialism. Socialists believe that if you work at a company, you should have a say in how that company is run through Direct Democracy. If only the share-holders get to take a vote, then that's not Socialism.
 
StoneByStone said:
Well that's not collective ownership as defined by Socialism. Socialists believe that if you work at a company, you should have a say in how that company is run through Direct Democracy. If only the share-holders get to take a vote, then that's not Socialism.
Click to expand...

socialism doesn't define what words mean.

I thought in socialism corporations could operate freely, but there was some taxation and redistribution for social goals. that was presented as the difference between socialism and communism. has that changed?
 
StoneByStone said:
Well we're talking about collective ownership in a Socialist context here.
Socialism involves the workers controlling the means of production, not the share-holders.
Click to expand...

no we're not. im talking about a collection of individuals and other entities who have ownership shares. collective ownership. this is strictly what words mean.
 
Stalin actually made a better Republican than Trump, biggest deportations in history, maximum border security, border walls, criminalized LGBTQ people, outlawed abortion, had a huge secret police force, and put people in Gulags for missing work.
 
Truth Detector said:
Why Is Communism Still a Respected Ideology?

Marx’s first crusade was not against capitalism but against soap. I guess every time he had to take a shower, he was too drunk to do it. Otherwise, he always lived off of other people’s money, he never worked, even when his own children were starving, and he drank enough to deform his liver along with his conscience. Surprise: The first Marxist was a shameless rascal, the type of person who would despise the working class.

Lenin was no different. “He was always the spoilt child of the house, surrounded by women who took him for a genius and supported him financially all his life. He never worked,” says one of the most influential and controversial Spanish journalists of the last half century, Federico Jiménez Losantos, author of A Memoir of Communism, a colossal work published in 2018 and not yet translated into English.

Jiménez Losantos attempts to answer the key question: “One hundred years and one hundred million deaths later, why is Communism still a respected ideology?”

Discus?

https://news.yahoo.com/why-communism-still-respected-ideology-103045173.html
Click to expand...

Capitalism is only slightly better than Communism for wealth, but Capitalism is much worse for Immigration, Multiculturalism, Outsourcing, etc. etc.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Communists have killed WAY more people than fascists. They've put more people in totalitarian slavery and poverty than any other form of government. They've made economic shambles out of nation after nation where they've gotten power. What's not to like about that-- If you're a masochist?
Click to expand...

Capitaliists killed more than the Communists by famine.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Do tell. Can you name the locations and years for us--for our edification...
Click to expand...

60 million died of famine, give or take in India by British Capitalists
1 million died of famine, give or take in Ireland by British Capitalists.
.75 million died of famine, give or take in Germany by the British Blockade on Germany during WW1.
4 million give or take died of famine, give or take in Persia, by British Capitalists during WW1.
2 million give or take died of famine, in Vietnam during WW2, from French & Japanese.
.25 million give or take died of famine, in Yemen by USA / Saudi Capitalists.

That's approx 67 million dead by famine under Capitalism.

Communist famines clearly killed less, the Holodomor, Volga Famine + 1946 - 1947 Soviet famine combined killed about 8 million by famine.
Mao's Great Leap Forward probably killed 25 million by famine.
China's Famine of 1942 - 1943 killed 3 million.
North Korea's Famine killed another 1 million.

So, maybe 35 million killed by famine, by Communists.

ONLY if we go by high end famine figures by Mao's Great Leap Forward, do we get 55 million.

But, even at that it would still be not much different than Capitalist famines!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top