the evil truth about Communist

[WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1]

These fucking idiots that compare liberalism to communism are fucking deluded. You are insulting REAL VICTIMS of communism. Obama has been in power now for over 3 years?

So were are his gulags? Where is the mass-starvation in America?

How dare you compare a centrist US president with the scourge of communism.

And socialism is not parallel to communism. Many countries in Europe have socialist governments and they are open democracies with generally good human rights

[WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1]

To compare the US Democrats with communism is fucking stupid. LBJ was a communist? Thats interesting because last time I checked he was bombing the reds!

The Tea Party/Gun Nut/Bible Belt notions that Obama is somehow a 'communist' indicates spectacular ignorance.

Lets make this clear. REAL COMMUNISM was a plague on humanity. It was Maoist China, Stalinist Russia, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, North Korea, East Germany . MILLIONS died through purges, torture or starvation.

[marzipann777]

The jews are responsable for Opiumwars in China and Communisme; The JEWS. Chineese peoples dont forget this in the future, and Jews controll JewSA and EU... Jews want to crush China and will do if Chineese dont want to understand this.14!88!

[FarLeftRevolution]

Semen stains the mountain tops

[warriorprince1010]

China turned their backs on communism and became wealthy. Capitalism saved China. Communism is merely central power, and central power never works.

[briperez]

@warriorprince1010 Having a central government is not communism.... everyone is not equal because there are the hierarchy of government.... in a real communist society, everyone.... EVERYONE is equal. China is more totalitarian than communist

[warriorprince1010]

@briperez When people talk about socialism or communism they mean the EU or the Soviet Union. Both riddled with poverty and unemployment.

[higgins0421]

@warriorprince1010 unlike America or Africa, were everyone is rich and has a job?

[warriorprince1010]

@higgins0421 Africa is communist also. The USA has less unemployment and higher wages than the EU.

[joshuaissac]

@warriorprince1010 Wrong. There are no Communist countries in Africa. Only a few countries in Africa have ever even come close to being Communist (e.g. Burkina Faso), before being taken over by anti-Communist, Western-backed dictators.

There are only five "Communist" countries in the world: China, Vietnam & Laos are effectively capitalist because of capitalist reforms. Cuba is also slowly transitioning to capitalism. North Korea abandoned Communism in favour of Juche (military state).

[warriorprince1010]

@joshuaissac "China, Vietnam & Laos " all failed under communism. So my point stands that statism creates poverty for the masses.

[joshuaissac]

@warriorprince1010 I don't know about Laos or Vietnam, but China certainly didn't fail under Communism. China's economic growth rate today (10%) is the same as it was 30 years ago, under Communist policy.

Similarly, Communism took a poor feudal state that was Russia, and turned it into the second most powerful country in the world in just a few decades.

[warriorprince1010]

@joshuaissac Oh boy I had no idea people like you still existed. China's economy nevere grew until they turned to free markets and the WTO. Russia was a firts world country that became a second world country under comminism. Life expectancy came down form the 60's onwards as people iin the Soviet Union got poorer and poorer from then on. Switzlerand, a free market capitalist society, seems to be doing just fine.

[joshuaissac]

@warriorprince1010 Russia was never a first world country, by definition. By the 1900s, Russia was lagging behind in the industrial revolution. As for the life expectancy, you are wrong. In 1960s, Russians' life expectancy was higher than that of Americans'. It lowered *slightly* in the '70s because of alcohol abuse, but improved again in the '80s.

It's easy to pick a country that is doing fine and say it's because of free markets. Italy (economically unfree) is also doing fine (2011 HDI).

[warriorprince1010]

@joshuaissac The points we made stand . Russia was a poorer first world nation with industry. To be 3rd world you must have little to no industry or technology. From around the 1960's onwards Soviet Union life expectancy came down year by year, as their failed ideology collapsed. Switzerland, Finland, Norway, USA  on the other hand did fine using free markets to grow their economy.

[joshuaissac]

@warriorprince1010 Russia has never been a first world nation. It wasn't until the end of the 19th century that Russia began to industrialise, which left it no longer a great power, and lagging very far behind the West. When Stalin took power, he aggressively pursued a policy of planned industrialisation which made USSR into a superpower overtaking the British Empire. Between 1940 and 1955, USSR life expectancy rose from 47 to 67. (USA went from 63 to 68.5 in the same time.) It was 69.5 in 1970.

[joshuaissac]

@warriorprince1010 So however much it dropped by, in the '60s, it certainly regained it and more by 1970. The lowest point was in the mid-'80s (down to 67.7) before it climbed back up again.

In the '60s USSR underwent several capitalist reforms (like China today) to the point that Chinese communists of them time regarded them as capitalist traitors (leading to the Sino-Soviet split).

And regardless of what industry it had, Russia, by definition, was a second world nation, even as a superpower.

[warriorprince1010]

@joshuaissac Yes I agree Russia was a second world nation as a super power and a firts world before communism/socialism. Thanks for agreeing. Switzerland is a centrlaist country and has the ebst of state owne schools and private ran businesses.

[joshuaissac]

@warriorprince1010 Russia has never been a first world country. It was an unindustrialised autocracy. I don't know why you think Russia was a "First World" nation. The First World didn't even exist until after World War II.

It was only under Stalin that Russia was industrialised. Before communism/socialism, Russia was a poor, backwards country with negligible industry, NOT a First World nation.

Also, state-run entities (like the Swiss schools you describe) contradict the ideas of capitalism.

[warriorprince1010]

@joshuaiss  You are getting desperate now. Russia was a first world nation in 1920, yes it had industry. Switzerland has a free market, is in the WTO, and has a right for private ownership [capitalism] therefore it is capitlaist. Socilaism, communism is a state run economy, it has nothing to do with schools or healthcare. It is to do with who owns land, farms, copyrights, and plans an economy. The state in Switzerland does not plan an economy, therefore it is capitlaist.

[joshuaissac]

@warriorprince1010 India also has industry. So it is a first world nation too? In 1931 (3 years after Russian industrialisation truly began), Stalin said, "We are 50-100 years behind the..West".

Schools & healthcare are part of the market. A capitalist state should not interfere in the market. That's why Republicans opposed Obamacare--because they oppose socialism.

China also has private ownership, is in the WTO, and copyrights owned by creators. Belarus has a freer market but isn't in WTO.

[warriorprince1010]

@joshuaissac "capitalist state" again a made up term by extreme left wing nut jobs. Soicialism is a state planned economy, there are none of these in the developed world.

[warriorprince1010]

@joshuaissac Belarus..."Most of the Belarusian economy remains state-controlled[92] and has been described as "Soviet-style."[" Quit making things up dude, you have failed.

[joshuaissac]

@warriorprince1010 India has industry. So it is a first world nation too? In 1931 (3 yrs after Russian industrialisation truly began), Stalin said, "We are 50-100 years behind the..West".

Schools & healthcare are part of the market. A capitalist state should not interfere in the market. That's why Republicans opposed Obamacare--because they oppose socialism.

China also has private ownership, is in the WTO, and copyrights owned by creators. Belarus has a freer market but isn't in WTO.

[warriorprince1010]

@joshuaissac India did not have much industry in 1920, although the British did make some advancements. India went backwards after british rule ended and turned to the caste system. Again India accepted free markets and have become richer only because of it. Stalin told lies, his word means nothing.

[joshuaissac]

@warriorprince1010 If you want more examples, why not Hong Kong, the world's freest economy according to the Index of Economic Freedom? j[dot]mp[slash]xdDPgD Doesn't look good. When there are people rich enough to pay, the prices are always high and the poor just can't afford them. Under a more socialist government, they would have been given government housing.

For the communist example, I think this collectivist Chinese village would do very well: j[dot]mp[slash]AvRk77

[warriorprince1010]

@joshuaissac "more socialist". No idea what that means. Switzerland has mainly privatly owned homes and no one is homeless. Hong Kong does not have enough land and prices are high because it is capitaltist and people keep moving there. The exact opposite of what you just said. If Hong Kong was state owned no one would want to live there. Because Hong Kong is a free market area lots of people wanted to live there.

[joshuaissac]

@warriorprince1010 Sorry, 'Belarus' was an error on my part. I'd meant to change it to 'Ethiopia' before posting, a WTO non-member freer than China (Heritage IEF 2011). State intervention in the economy (eg. state schools) is socialist.

Funnily enough, all land in Hong Kong is state-owned, and rented out. It's the houses that are privately owned. People can't just move to Hong Kong. They need to be rich investors or highly skilled workers. All the poor people are natives, victims of capitalism.

[joshuaissac]

@warriorprince1010 India is not a free market. It's socialist. Less so than China, but still socialist. Freer and poorer than China.

In 1938, British India was the fourth most industrialised nation in the world by output (I&FT 1945, Table 3, LON). Industry isn't the only thing that defines the first world.

The caste system weakened since the British left. Britain saw the caste system as equivalent to the British class system. They did not stop it.

BBC on Tsarist 'industry' : bbc[d]in/zi0Gpr

[warriorprince1010]

@joshuaissac The class system in the UK and India is evil although the India caste system is worse. Socialism means no rights for personal freedom. Private ownership or freedom of speech. So India is a mixed economy but there is some private ownership so it is not a North Korean sopcialists society. As we have shown centralist societies like Switzerland work best. Great education, no welfare dependancy, free markets and low taxation.

[joshuaissac]

@warriorprince1010 My point is that the British only encouraged the caste system in India.

Socialism means collective ownership of companies by the public. It has nothing to do with personal freedom or free speech. Please do not mix up different political ideas: freedom of speech, capitalism and democracy are *not* mutually dependent.

India is socialist and people still have freedom. India's constitution says that India is a "sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic".

[warriorprince1010]

@joshuaissac The British did not encourage or go against the caste system. They were for new technology and advancening health and education. The poverty in Inida is 100% down to the caste system, it is a disaster. Centralism like Switzerland dmeands good government, great eductaion and low taxes. Expectancy to work and only temporary welfare.

[joshuaissac]

@warriorprince1010 The British East India Company encouraged it while they ruled India because it fitted very well with their own class system.

While the 5000 year-old caste system is divisive and racist, it is not the root of poverty. Poverty in India is due to it being ruled for 300 years by Europeans, whose interests were to make their own countries richer. Before the British took over, India had the largest economy in the world (as it had for almost 2000 years).

[warriorprince1010]

@joshuaissac The British did not encourage or go against the Caste system, it was there because India's ruling class wanted it. If India was so rich they would have taken over the UK. Poorer countries have never governed richer countries I am afraid. Your history is romantic but not true. India was a basic society with no technology, famines were common and it was ruled by Muslims who slaughtered Sikhs and Hindus who did not become Muslims.

[joshuaissac]

@warriorprince1010 It doesn't work that way. India had the biggest economy until the 1800s (followed by Qing China and Western Europe). The reason India could not invade England is that India's naval technology was not advanced. Besides, there was no incentive to invading England.

England just had better tactics--e.g. divide & conquer, promising money to local kings for helping fight wars, etc. You should read Angus Madison's 'The world economy' which has stats on economies of the past.

[warriorprince1010]

@joshuaissac India did not have better technology, thanks for agreeing with me. Today India has a bigger economy than Switzerland, yet less technology and more povetry. You try to fake stats and it has not worked so far. The size of an economy means nothing, it is the freedoms and wealth of each person. In all cases India was always behind the UK at that time.

[joshuaissac]

@warriorprince1010 I gave you details of my sources, yet you accuse me of faking stats (without providing any proof for your own claims).

Naval technology doesn't mean all technology. Economy size determines government spending power (by taxation). UK was only ahead of India in naval technology and military strategy. That's what mattered in conquest/war then.

Switzerland is the 11th most developed country (HDI), and the 5th freest economy. Norway is the most developed but only the 40th freest.

[warriorprince1010]

@joshuaissac The UK had better life expectancy and naval power came from better technology in all areas. More industry, healthcare, science. Switzerland is the economy I use as a centralist as a good example. It is in the top 6 freest economies.

[warriorprince1010]

China turned their back son communism and became wealthy. Capitalism saved China.

[avoiceforothers]

@warriorprince1010 Not true... they are just adapting their approach.

[warriorprince1010]

@avoiceforothers Adapting their approach is also known as changing their whole direction.

[Sasuk3xxx]

What is the outcome of the red revolution? Who went from a 3rd world country to let the most powerful nation in the world borrowed trillions of dollars.

[snazzyXcore]

p.s. @therealist... the u.n. estimates 64,000,000 killed by mao's regime, but the real number hovers more near 84,000,000... I definitely don't support genocide, one-child policy, nor tyranny.... I'm really confused as to who wrote that comment with my screenname...

[snazzyXcore]

what the fuck!?!? I didn't write that!!!! 1) I do not support mao in any way, shape or form 2) I don't write like that and 3) I was in the hospital when that was posted... I've never even watched this video!!! wtf???

[snazzyXcore]

you want to talk about tradition? then talk about tradition of slavery in China dynasty after dynasty. Long live Mao who helped people to liberate themselves from Japan and feudal blood sucking landlords who worked people literally to death! that's the truth not the capitalist propaganda you're trying to feed us.

[therealist1057]

@snazzyXcore Are you kidding me? Mao is responsible for more than 49,000,000 deaths! You are ignoring history. You really do not know what you are talking about.

[ThunderSooner2835]

@snazzyXcore Then Mao worked them to death himself.

[iownage4youi]

Deamn,what a big bullshit that i hear and read here.

[KASP1]

Oh my god..this is greatest shit I ever saw. Congratulation.

[TheFrostheim]

Once again, as you see, you're so interfiled that democrats, are communist. I say that George.W.Bush was part communist, he nationalized banks. Which was a good move, but the wrong idea was, he didn't know A.I.G would defile him, democrats are no where near communism, or socialism, democrats have the wrong viewpoint, most of them believe in democracy, well, as us socialists, and communist don't. A far right group, was a socialist sort of government, Nazi Germany, nationalist socialist country.

[DCfreak87]

Communism = Epic Fail!! the soviet union would be good without communism and killing their own men!

[Frances3654]

DenisRusia do you believe what your saying?!

Communism is the enemy of liberty!!!!

btw democracy doesent mean the same thing as liberty!!!1

[DenisRusia]

Every amercian that blame communism has to know, if not URSS ther would never appear such a usual for nowadays stuff like 8 hours labour day and many others. Think this!

The communism is the enemy of pornography, drugs and violence, you should be idiot to think all this shit means liberty

[somestranger12]

@DenisRusia pornography is a good thing asshole

[Eljonas1]

Communism is a good way, but is not the way of the ExUrss, simple, and by the way the capitalism is too The Enemy of Democracy. Both ways are simply wrong.

[GeneralBerger]

Communism is the enemy of democracy. Communism will bring about the death of justice, freedom, and liberty.

[GeneralBerger]

Communism is the enemy of democracy. Communism will bring about the death of freedom and justice.

[DiamondSutraPress]

Yes this video is right!! But, it does not mention the fact that communism was orquestrated by the Illuminati who truely wants it that way.

[nowhearthis2]

What do you mean, "Zero comments?" This is a comment, isn't it?