Hands

"Everyone I don't like is a McCarthyist!"

Anyways, this isn't a "lack of understanding for basic history", we can all agree that Laissez-Faire Capitalism and enslavement is terrible. However, that does not excuse the fact that Marx created an ideology inherently against the proletariat you want to defend (as last time I checked, anarchy never goes well) and to even create this utopian anarchy requires a dictatorship that will never fall because it will be given to the hands of those same corrupt individuals that you would call bourgeoisie. Instead of actually trying to negotiate with reasonable debate, your ideology calls for the violent overthrow of anyone who you label bourgeoisie. Funny thing is the most successful attempts to fix these problems all happened to be peaceful (MLK, Gandhi, etc).

Secondly, this is not true under Capitalism because Capitalism is merely an economic theory. Communism encircle economic theory and political theory, and most of the time, we're at war because those "dissidents" either provoked us into war or because we're petty imperialists wanting to oil because we can't use our own oil for some reason.

And yes, I know what Batista is, but last time I checked, you must be deluded to think Cuba is anywhere close to anything outside of a pure dictatorship. We backed Batista because the Truman Doctrine said to back anyone who is not Communist (which isn't capitalism at work but idiocy) and sadly the states felt a non-Communist dictatorship was the best thing.

In regards to HIV, Capitalism is again not the problem here. They simply eradicated it, we have to many people with it screwing around. Not a problem. Also, that same health care system can happen under a capitalist system (see Social Democracy) and illiteracy is not 100% eradicated because we still have people alive from the time where African Americans were discriminated against and could not receive a decent education (which is not capitalism, it had to do with the bullshit racialist ideals of the time).

The Amish are not communist because they haven't either installed anarchy (if they even manage to get that far) or installed a one-party totalitarian system. Just because they raise a barn together doesn't make them communist. Also, no Communist state has ever gotten to the anarchist Utopia because every single one became a bloodthirsty dictatorship (and some of them even look like Fascism on paper; look at Juche).

Also, considering you're openly defending anarcho-Communists, all of those oppressors are essentially dissidents, especially since you even suggested once that the definition of alt-Right to you is centre-Right,

Also, that isn't revisionism at all. I'm calling it a potato blight because the famine was caused by a water mold that infected potatoes. Therefore, it is technically a blight that cause the famine, in which the terminology is still correct.

What I'm saying here is that you're giving your trust in the same governments that denied the Holocaust until after the war was over (they wouldn't believe Pilecki's reports of what was happening in Auschwitz). The same happened here.

Just because Stalin is an idiot does not absolve him from his crimes. He still forcibly starved a rebelling part of his country. While yes, the Kulaks did burn the crops, he still increased the quotas even during the drought and the loss of crops.

Also, the foreign aid was in response to the general famine at that time period. The Holodomor is a specific part of this famine; just because they don't find it "man-made" doesn't stop them from giving the USSR foreign aid to alleviate the situation. The actual thing does not mention any specific country, however this website takes it from the UN Convention on the Prevention of Genocide of 1948.

Actually, 1984 wasn't specifically talking about ultra-nationalism but the threat of oligarchy and dictatorships of the future (secret police, police state, punishment of dissidents, cult of personality around the leader, etc). Besides, it's not like there have been forms of ultra-nationalist Communism either (again, see Juche and whatever the hell the Khmer Rouge were trying to create). Hell, even the USSR had some forms of nationalism (not on the levels of ultranationalism) in regards to the country.

Don't greentext, we're not on some low tier image board.


Standard low level understanding of basic history from a McCarthyist. The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848, a time where the British still enslaved orphans and forced them into horrific workhouses owned by the Bourgeois for free labour and where the American Bourgeois class still enslaved and massively abused black Americans and Africans. Marx spent most of his adult life in London where he got to observe the horrific treatment of the poor, the disabled, the elderly and children first hand. There were very few organisations that cared for anyone but the rich and there was absolutely no one in Parliament willing to work to a non violent solution (it would be over 60 years before Kier Hardie would be elected, giving Britain her first Socialist MP)

Of course, you're not interested in factual or contextual analysis of the works of Marx, that'd involve thinking outside of what you've been told.


This is equally true of Capitalism, of course, the dissidents we're killing are brown people overseas but we're still killing them for not "sharing our values". Cuba, unlike the West, has direct democracy when it comes to policy. Every citizen gets a vote. Of course, Cuba's story is another that you'd be very happy to remove context from. See Cuba already had a brutal, US backed, capitalist dictator in Batista. The people overthrew him, Castro sought to mend US-Cuba relations and have a peaceful existence between the two but Eisenhower refused to meet with him and instead America put a crippling embargo on Cuba. They also tried to assassinate a head of state to a country they had no right to be in over 600 times. Given the constant threat to his life, the lack of international trade opportunity, the CIA backed Batista loyalists and the need to appear strong to the Russians as to not be swallowed up by them it is really no surprise that Castro had to rule through strength.

Despite all this, the monthly utility bill for a family in Cuba is less than $5, their annual income tripled, every citizen has access to health care, free at the point of use, they're the first country on record to completely eradicate mother to infant transmission of HIV, Homelessness does not exist in Cuba anymore and not a single person is illiterate. Capitalism hasn't achieved a single one of these and has, more often than not, caused the problem in the first place.


The Amish are, essentially, a communist society. Communism will work only after a transitional period (at least 50 years I should think) of progressive Socialism in the West. The only reason people are so selfish and corrupt is their reliance on the evils of capitalism.


Are you somewhat forgetful or? I've openly supported violence against the oppressors. The bourgeois who profit off of the broken backs of the working class deserve to be stripped of their assets, and if they resist, they can be met with the same violence they have doled out time and again via Police, Military and Austerity measures.


That's funny, because when BadSheep listed the overall deaths under Communist leaderships worldwide you didn't feel the need to highlight to him that the most populous country in the world was on that list. Either way, I'll play your pedantic game. The famine of 1783-1784 saw 11 Million dead. In South India alone. Incredible though how that was your only retort, that you felt no need to address the fact the British used incredibly similar methods to Stalin.


There it is, that dirty, nasty revisionism. Reducing Ireland's famine that wiped out 25% of their population to a simple "blight". People like you are the real evil, who blame some boogeyman whilst defending a real monster.


How can you say apples and oranges to the famines but then bring up this? Not believing someone is not the same as doing your own research, sending your own people to investigate, compiling several reports form different sources and reaching a conclusion. You're getting really desperate here.


Because Stalin was an idiot. Also the quotas wouldn't of been so hard to meet if the Kulaks didn't burn the bleeding fields


again, if the Kulaks didn't burn the fields and hoard the grain then there would of been more grain than was taken.


What foreign aid was this? The British and French concluded there was no man made famine. Germany certainly could not help in 33 and America was in the pits of the great depression (another marvel of capitalism) so what foreign aid are you talking about? Be specific.


He wanted to punish the Kulaks, which he did, by throwing them in the Gulags. The famine was not a punishment and Stalin himself commented about how awful the famine was when discussing the state of the Union with Churchill during the second world war.


More pedantic nonsense from someone acting like a petulant child. 1984 was a book about ultra nationalism, not Communism. Animal Farm was about Communism. It might help if you had actually read either of Orwell's (himself a socialist) big works.

>Communism not evil.
>The actual fucking document that created the ideology calls for the violent overthrow of anyone labeled "bourgeoisie".
>Every single manifestation of Communism that has ever existed and will exist in the future has lead to a despotic dictatorship in which thousands of dissidents are killed because they're sympathetic to the bourgeoisie.
>Communism will never work if humans are involved due to rampant corruption.

Golly gee batman, it's totally not violent, amirite?
'The violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.'

Or how about this statement?
"You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible."

Even the founding father of Communism said most revolutions must be violent. Then he said we should have a dictatorship of the proletariat, and luck what we fucking get.

Also, you're comparing multiple famines in the second most population-dense place in the world. You can't compare the damage of the two. If I compare Mao's great famine to the potato blight in Ireland and say Mao's famine is worse, it's because more people lived there. It's comparing apples to oranges; the USSR never had any population density similar to China nor would Ukraine, at that time, ever had that density.

Also, you're trusting the same countries that did not believe the fucking Holocaust's damage when Witold Pilecki told them what the hell the Nazis were doing in Auschwitz during the war.

And again, if this famine was not man-made, why would the Soviet government give quotas that Ukraine would not be able to follow, having the government take all the grain they produce, and letting them starve to death? Why did he PURPOSELY ignore foreign aid that would potentially prevent such a tragedy? Even at the very end of the day, he even denied the right to leave Ukraine during the Holodomor. How about the fact that he wanted to punish Ukraine for being the most rebellious state in the USSR? Obviously this is all a coincidence, clearly the gods of Marxism would never want to destroy individualism and actually give you what 1984 warns about, right?

The entire Soviet famine was man-made due to collectivization. Kulaks were branded as class enemies and brutal enforcement of grain was forced upon them, in which the Soviets drastically increased quotas in 1932-33, leading to most people being unable to meet quotas. Stalin had put in place many laws specifically targeting Ukraine.

Stalin also ignored any political aid despite people being starved and even said that these people should taught a lesson through famine.
https://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/center-study-genocide-conflict-resolution-and-human-rights/ukrainian-famine

To not call it man-made is delusional; while drought had some play in this, Stalin was deliberately trying to punish Ukraine for trying to go against the government.

Actually, the Holodomor is classified as a genocide in twenty-five countries including Canada and Australia. This was a man-made famine that was created by Stalin's collectivization of farmland in which the collectivization is entirely intentional.

Firstly, the Holodomor is recognized as a crime against humanity to the EU. Secondly, Ukraine put up the biggest fight against collectivization, and if he didn't try to root them out, collectivization could not go full stop. It was one of the only major states rebelling against Soviet leadership. So why would Stalin and the fact that he had the intention to quell the rebellion of rural Ukrainian could potentially lend it as a genocide.

Yeah, how about no. The Holodomor is no myth and anyone who believes that is in the same league as Holocaust deniers and the Armenian genocide deniers.

Certainly, I was thinking the same actually.

Time will tell! Thanks for participating in the discussion and bringing up a lot of good points either way, I do like more thoughtful topics and I'm glad that a few people were really getting into it - I'd like more of this kind of discussion in VG in the future.

It seems that you still don't see my point, nevermind anyway. Thanks for that knowledge.

Moderator-member hybrid, exact same thing. Why? Basically, if you mod any part of this forum, you'll get a bolded blue username. But since the forum seems to address the mods of PC's Discord Server, you'll still get called a mod, technically, minus the username thing, blue, italic, unlike other moderators' username, so a hybrid. You see my point?

So, you're a moderator-member hybrid now? Wow. The last time I saw that, I can't seem to get my Hands on it.

Provided the disc will want to work, I could start playing Peace Walker tomorrow actually

Would Ground Zeroes or Phantom Pain be worth playing too after that or....?

That, and just some much info to process. Game just decides to drop a ton of fucking bombs from the Shagohod fight till the very end

So I just finished Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater

....holy shit

that username colour is so pretty how did you get your Hands on it

$30 US each to attend each prerelease. That's about what a booster box would run me if I went to all 4. But I also still need to book hotels for both anime conventions as well as possibly booking a flight for the Texas convention, and I need to do those soon.

Kinda. Just realized I can't responsibly attend 4 pre-releases since I've got plans to attend a pair of anime conventions (one local to me in Minnesota - Anime Detour, and then A-Kon in Texas) later in the year.

Congrats

'Grats, yo.

thanks :DD