Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This is ridiculous. A drunk idiot stealing your Nazi flag off your lawn is not worth drawing your weapon for. Just irresponsible imho.

This is one of those situations that built up over time. I'm sure all parties involved regret it.

And tbh, if you're flying a goddamn Nazi flag on your lawn, you know what kind of attention you're going to get. You're not doing it for subtlety. I'm also shocked they aren't illegal in the States. In Germany, they'd beat your ass for that.

Would the charges be any different, if the flag was an American flag?

She is stepping into his property.. but yeah he doesn't need to shoot her for it.

Another unnecessary death over something truly ridiculous.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
This is ridiculous. A drunk idiot stealing your Nazi flag off your lawn is not worth drawing your weapon for. Just irresponsible imho.

This is one of those situations that built up over time. I'm sure all parties involved regret it.

And tbh, if you're flying a goddamn Nazi flag on your lawn, you know what kind of attention you're going to get. You're not doing it for subtlety. I'm also shocked they aren't illegal in the States. In Germany, they'd beat your ass for that.


We have a thing in the United States called the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in case you weren't aware. The right to fly any flag you choose on your own damn property would fall under the 1st amendment as it's a form of speech or expression.


People could, legally speaking, fly an ISIS flag if they wanted (although it would arouse government suspicion for sure) or a communist hammer and sickle flag. They could legally even erect a shrine to Satan on their front lawn if they so wished even if they lived right next to a popular Christian church.

I don't like swastikas or nazi flags but people in America have a right to legally display them if they so choose. With that said, when people display disgusting crap like that they should fully expect major backlash in the community where they live.

Not sure whether or not I agree with being able to shoot someone who steals something off your front lawn though. Common sense would suggest that is going overboard. Breaking into someone's house and stealing or trying to steal something is definitely much different than stealing something from someone's front yard.

Both parties decided to play a stupid game and both won a stupid prize.

What kind of country allows Nazi Flags? Germany 1939 - 45 under Hitler and the US 2020 under Trump... people normalising this as "mah first ammendment" and normalising the shooting as "mah right to bear arms", shocking.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
What kind of country allows Nazi Flags? Germany 1939 - 45 under Hitler and the US 2020 under Trump... people normalising this as "mah first ammendment" and normalising the shooting as "mah right to bear arms", shocking.

Your cognitive decline has been almost as rapid as Joe Biden's.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
What kind of country allows Nazi Flags? Germany 1939 - 45 under Hitler and the US 2020 under Trump... people normalising this as "mah first ammendment" and normalising the shooting as "mah right to bear arms", shocking. Should Communist flags be allowed?

Captain America would have removed the Nazi Flag too? What do you mean by "communist flag". Hammer and Sickle, Star of the Revolution, Workers Star?

Equalization between Che Guvara fashion item and Nazi's noted.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Captain America would have removed the Nazi Flag too? What do you mean by "communist flag". Hammer and Sickle, Star of the Revolution, Workers Star?

Equalization between Che Guvara fashion item and Nazi's noted.

Translation: yes those flags should be allowed

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Captain America would have removed the Nazi Flag too? What do you mean by "communist flag". Hammer and Sickle, Star of the Revolution, Workers Star?

Equalization between Che Guvara fashion item and Nazi's noted. The flag that was flown as the dissident proletariat were herded into the gulags, is the one I mean. Yeah: the hammer and sickle.

They love to bring up Captain America, but he'd beat the shit out of Antifa and commies just as quick as he would a nazi.

Originally posted by Scribble
The flag that was flown as the dissident proletariat were herded into the gulags, is the one I mean. Yeah: the hammer and sickle. The one that became an ironic fashion statement as the Soviet union collapsed?

"Punch a Commie!"

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-M5z81qz0vt0/UYdZDbaLIVI/AAAAAAAAKm4/Rs66sXMw3Y4/s1600/Captain+America+couverture+001.jpg

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
The one that became an ironic fashion statement as the Soviet union collapsed? I said the hammer and sickle, the flag that is regularly flown in the modern day by Antifa and other far-left extremist groups.

Answer my question: should communist flags, including the hammer and sickle (a symbol of the most murderous ideology of the 20th century) be allowed to be flown in the US?

Yeah Marvel even had a hero called Hammer and Sickle from Russia in the 80's, they have yet to rehabilitate Master Man or the Red Skull. No guesses why. Russia changed up till and including Gorbachev. Nazi and far right groups only in the sense they learnt how to use social media and pretend to be "liberals".

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Yeah Marvel even had a hero called Hammer and Sickle from Russia in the 80's, they have yet to rehabilitate Master Man or the Red Skull. No guesses why. Russia changed up till and including Gorbachev. Nazi and far right groups only in the sense they learnt how to use social media and pretend to be "liberals". So do you think communist flags, such as the hammer and sickle, should be allowed to be flown in the US?

Originally posted by Scribble
So do you think communist flags, such as the hammer and sickle, should be allowed to be flown in the US? It depends if they are attached to a movement. Wearing Che for fashion with John Lennon glasses certainly doesn't conjure the same image as the "proud boys".

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
It depends if they are attached to a movement. Wearing Che for fashion with John Lennon glasses certainly doesn't conjure the same image as the "proud boys". I'm not talking about Che accessories. I specifically said flags, and the topic of this thread is about a man who flew a Nazi flag, which you said should be illegal. If that flag were a hammer and sickle communist flag instead, should that, like the Nazi flag, be illegal?

Originally posted by Scribble
I'm not talking about Che accessories. I specifically said flags, and the topic of this thread is about a man who flew a Nazi flag, which you said should be illegal. If that flag were a hammer and sickle communist flag instead, should that, like the Nazi flag, be illegal? Che often has the hammer and sickle or star of the revolution with him. You are talking about two different things in the end the CCCP was about perestroika and Gorbachev... it still had that flag when the USSR died a natural death and had embraced capitalism. The Nazi Swastika was only brought down by the end of a military action and only ever has had one meaning since Nazi's adopted it.. False equivalency, one has many meanings, the other just one.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Che often has the hammer and sickle or star of the revolution with him. You are talking about two different things in the end the CCCP was about perestroika and Gorbachev... it still had that flag when the USSR died a natural death and had embraced capitalism. The Nazi Swastika was only brought down by the end of a military action and only ever has had one meaning since Nazi's adopted it.. False equivalency, one has many meanings, the other just one. I'm going to be Paxman here: should a Nazi flag be illegal, but not a communist flag?

Answer the question.

LoL @pooty bringing up Captain America again because he still stupidly thinks that Steve Rogers, if he were actually real, would be on his side lol.

When someone has to bring fictional characters into the conversation that's an obvious sign that they've lost the argument.

I'm surprised pooty and other leftists haven't already claimed that illegal immigration is totally ok simply because Superman (the greatest superhero of all-time, at least imo) is an illegal alien lol.

Originally posted by Scribble
I'm going to be Paxman here: should a Nazi flag be illegal, but not a communist flag?

Answer the question. I have.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I have. No, you haven't. This is a yes or no question, and you have repeatedly failed to answer it.

Should a Nazi flag be illegal, but not a communist flag?

A simple 'yes' or 'no', to clarify your position.

He doesn't have the balls to just come out and simply say "yes, the hammer and sickle is totally ok" even though we all know he actually approves of it. I mean, ffs, he idolizes Karl Marx of all people lol.

So yeah, of course he thinks the communist hammer and sickle is perfectly acceptable.

I want to give him the chance to clarify. If he dodges it again, I have enough to know the answer anyway.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Che often has the hammer and sickle or star of the revolution with him. You are talking about two different things in the end the CCCP was about perestroika and Gorbachev... it still had that flag when the USSR died a natural death and had embraced capitalism. The Nazi Swastika was only brought down by the end of a military action and only ever has had one meaning since Nazi's adopted it.. False equivalency, one has many meanings, the other just one. Originally posted by Scribble
I want to give him the chance to clarify. If he dodges it again, I have enough to know the answer anyway.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
So, no, you don't think the hammer and sickle flag should be illegal? Despite it being used by communists world-wide, and it being flown through far more global atrocities than the Nazis could ever wish to achieve?

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Scribble
So, no, you don't think the hammer and sickle flag should be illegal? Despite it being used by communists world-wide, and it being flown through far more global atrocities than the Nazis could ever wish to achieve?

Fair enough. Already explained your false equivalency.

Not a false equivalency. As flags, both represent violent, authoritarian ideologies that have committed some of the worst atrocities in human history. Communism wins in terms of body count, though.

You may not wish to understand your false equivalency, but a false equivalency it is. One means many things, the other just one.

If the Nazi flag meant loads of other things too, it wouldn't stop its ultimate meaning to be a representation of a violent, authoritarian ideology. Communist symbols may have 'other meanings', but at their core, they reflect a support of communism, the single most murderous ideology in human history.

Originally posted by Scribble
If the Nazi flag meant loads of other things too, it wouldn't stop its ultimate meaning to be a representation of a violent, authoritarian ideology. Communist symbols may have 'other meanings', but at their core, they reflect a support of communism, the single most murderous ideology in human history. No, many are just fashion, like the brand proletariat. The Swatika in the west has just one meaning. In fact the Hammer and Sickle in 90-91 was worn as a celebration of perestroika and eventually the collapse of the CCCP.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
It depends if they are attached to a movement. Wearing Che for fashion with John Lennon glasses certainly doesn't conjure the same image as the "proud boys".

You do know Che hated Blacks and gays right?

Originally posted by Scribble
Not a false equivalency. As flags, both represent violent, authoritarian ideologies that have committed some of the worst atrocities in human history. Communism wins in terms of body count, though.

Yup, communism wins... and it's not even close.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
No, many are just fashion, like the brand proletariat. The Swatika in the west has just one meaning. In fact the Hammer and Sickle in 90-91 was worn as a celebration of perestroika and eventually the collapse of the CCCP. The brand is toxic as it will always hark back to its primary use: to show support for the single most deadly political movement in world history.

And if someone's flying a communist flag in their garden, you can sure as hell bet that it ain't no fashion statement.

Originally posted by Scribble
If the Nazi flag meant loads of other things too, it wouldn't stop its ultimate meaning to be a representation of a violent, authoritarian ideology. Communist symbols may have 'other meanings', but at their core, they reflect a support of communism, the single most murderous ideology in human history.


Pooty is so dumb that he's on record saying that there are "good kinds of communism and bad kinds of comunism" lol.

That's like saying "there are good kinds of shit sandwiches and bad kinds of shit sandwiches" lol.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Pooty is so dumb that he's on record saying that there are "good kinds of communism and bad kinds of comunism" lol.

That's like saying "there are good kinds of shit sandwiches and bad kinds of shit sandwiches" lol. I can't take communist sympathisers seriously. But we should, because it won't make communism any less of a threat.

Originally posted by vansonbee
Would the charges be any different, if the flag was an American flag?

No. Only Texas has the "defend property up to including deadly force." No other state has such a law that I am aware of and I've looked on the internet. Texas is "special."


It could have been a flag of Obama's face. Still would get the same charges in Oklahoma.

Originally posted by Scribble
I can't take communist sympathisers seriously. But we should, because it won't make communism any less of a threat.

Agreed.

Originally posted by vansonbee
Would the charges be any different, if the flag was an American flag?


Bet it would be.


No sympathy for the woman.

Originally posted by Scribble
So do you think communist flags, such as the hammer and sickle, should be allowed to be flown in the US?

Up here in Canada, you can buy USSR/Red Army t-shirts with the hammer and sickle on it at an army surplus store, and no one cares. The only thing that should be verboten anywhere is the swastika.

I guess if I approve of activists taking Confederate flags off of monuments, then I have to say the same for people taking down swastika flags anywhere, even if it's someone's front or backyard.

Originally posted by roughrider
Up here in Canada, you can buy USSR/Red Army t-shirts with the hammer and sickle on it at an army surplus store, and no one cares. The only thing that should be verboten anywhere is the swastika.

I guess if I approve of activists taking Confederate flags off of monuments, then I have to say the same for people taking down swastika flags anywhere, even if it's someone's front or backyard. Agree totally.

Originally posted by roughrider
Up here in Canada, you can buy USSR/Red Army t-shirts with the hammer and sickle on it at an army surplus store, and no one cares. The only thing that should be verboten anywhere is the swastika.

I guess if I approve of activists taking Confederate flags off of monuments, then I have to say the same for people taking down swastika flags anywhere, even if it's someone's front or backyard. Bad take, the hammer and the sickle is the symbol of more death than Nazism and the Confederates combined + millions upon millions more

I hate Oklahoma Nazis.

Originally posted by roughrider
Up here in Canada, you can buy USSR/Red Army t-shirts with the hammer and sickle on it at an army surplus store, and no one cares. The only thing that should be verboten anywhere is the swastika.

I guess if I approve of activists taking Confederate flags off of monuments, then I have to say the same for people taking down swastika flags anywhere, even if it's someone's front or backyard.


Nah, let the Nazi's fly their swastikas.


The only thing I care about is people physically harming other people. Words never hurt anyone.


And no, I don't buy the "incites people to violence" logic. You can't make someone do anything unless that's who they really are. I would never, ever attack someone.. No matter who's telling me different.

Originally posted by Scribble
Bad take, the hammer and the sickle is the symbol of more death than Nazism and the Confederates combined + millions upon millions more

It's not as much about numbers as it's about intent. If Hitler's death numbers are lower, it's because his rule only lasted 12 years. Besides wiping out all Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Jehovah's Witness and others, he would have reduced the entire population of the Soviet Union by half and enslaved the rest, if he had succeeded in conquering the country. As it is, half of the 50 million dead from WW2 were Russians anyway.

The Swastika stands for the supremacy of the Aryan nation above all other 'inferior' races. The hammer and sickle were meant to represent the freedom and equality of the working class to those in power. We can argue about the methods used to make those ideas come into being in places like Russia, China, Cuba and several other countries - was so much brutality and death needed to make the country better - but there's no nation in the world that has clean hands with it's history.

Originally posted by roughrider
It's not as much about numbers as it's about intent. If Hitler's death numbers are lower, it's because his rule only lasted 12 years. Besides wiping out all Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Jehovah's Witness and others, he would have reduced the entire population of the Soviet Union by half and enslaved the rest, if he had succeeded in conquering the country. As it is, half of the 50 million dead from WW2 were Russians anyway.

The Swastika stands for the supremacy of the Aryan nation above all other 'inferior' races. The hammer and sickle were meant to represent the freedom and equality of the working class to those in power. We can argue about the methods used to make those ideas come into being in places like Russia, China, Cuba and several other countries - was so much brutality and death needed to make the country better - but there's no nation in the world that has clean hands with it's history. excellent post, let's add the CCCP is long gone and Nazi's are still here.

LoL@ "it"s not just about the numbers, it's about intentions."

As if Communists have ever actually had benign intentions. Communism is every bit as disgusting as an ideology as Naziism is... and is certainly a hell of a lot more disgusting than the Confederacy was as most of the people who fought for the Confederacy weren't doing it to protect slavery but instead to protect their homes, lands, families, and their states' right to secede from the union (which happened because they were being unfairly overtaxed to death, not because they wanted to protect slavery).


The only reason commie sympathizers use a stupid argument like "it's about the intentions more than the numbers" is because it's the communists who have committed far more atrocities in the name of their disgusting ideology. It's just a convenient out for them because they actually agree, at least in some respects, with the goals of communism but just don't have the balls to own it.

So what are the goals of communism anyway?

Read the Communist manifesto to get a good idea of its overall goals. I'm sure you can do a Google search for it. Some of the things I remember about it that stood out to me were the total abolishment of private property and making individuals completely subservient to the state.

Under Communism, everything an individual has belongs to the government, even the person's life. It does away completely with individualism in favor of collectivist crap. Under communism, the government controls everything and can seize anything and everything anyone owns for the so-called "collective good" with no compensation to the individual who had his or her stuff stolen by the state.

It's an abhorrent ideology, government and economic system. Like I said, read the communist Manifesto to get a better understanding. I believe it's pretty short from what I remember and, iirc, it was written by Karl Marx (someone who pooty/whirly idolizes lol).

Edit: another thing, individuals have no right to privacy under communism either. In fact, individual rights are done away with entirely. The government may allow you to have the illusion that you have certain rights but those can be stripped away at a moment's notice if the government deems it necessary or beneficial to the state.

Communism is basically socialism on steroids.

Thanks. I will try sometime later. Too bored now

You're welcome.

I do think that in the hammer and sickle and the swastika as symbols are qualitatively very different in the west. People that wave a swastika are endorsing anti-semitic, white supremacist fascism, that is more or less the only message that is been sent by this symbol, the hammer and sickle, while not a symbol I would choose, does not mean that the person wearing it is endorsing Stalinism or some other form of monstrous communism. People that wear or use it may endorse less monstrous forms of real existing communism, or even just socialism. It may also be used as a general symbol of solidarity with the working class. Or some sort of vague "**** the status quo" message. Saying that they are equivalent symbols just doesn't hold up to scrutiny, imo, which is also why they get treated very differently in most western jurisdictions.

Oh yeah, I forgot to add: Under Communism, the media is completely controlled by the state as well, if they even allow the media to exist at all.

Although I did say in my earlier post that communist government would control everything so I guess that would cover it lol.

Originally posted by Artol
People that wear or use it may endorse less monstrous forms of real existing communism, or even just socialism. All communism is monstrous. And socialism is, by Marxist definition, a mere stepping stone towards communism.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Oh yeah, I forgot to add: Under Communism, the media is completely controlled by the state as well, if they even allow the media to exist at all.

Although I did say in my earlier post that communist government would control everything so I guess that would cover it lol. Yeah, under authoritarian regimes the media is directly controlled. I'd suggest to you though that under ostensibly free, capitalist systems, the media can still be de-facto under control and parrot the main talking points of the owners.

I think that's something that a lot of Republican and Democratic voters can agree on even, the US media is in large parts terrible and designed to give you a limited understanding of the world that's favorable to establishment interests.

This works through multiple ways, on the one hand the selection of who can become a journalist for these news organizations basically excludes anyone that has views that are not in line with the capital interests of the news organizations. At the same time certain topics get stylized as most relevant, and through fear mongering a feeling of partisan anger can be designed. So people feel like they have to play for their team, and their politics become "trigger the libs" or "resisting the deplorables".

But the topics that are being fought about are more or less relevant to the powerful, ruling they don't give a **** whether abortion is legal, gays can marry, a wall with Mexico is built, that's not relevant to them. But the consensus that they bank on (i.e. neoliberal capitalist policies, imperialist war mongering) generally don't get addressed. It's a more sophisticated form of control, but in essence it allows a similar control of the topics that are important to rules as the authoritarian control of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany or the Chinese Communist Party does.

Originally posted by Scribble
All communism is monstrous. And socialism is, by Marxist definition, a mere stepping stone towards communism.

Well, we can talk about that as well if you'd like, I think you are perhaps making too simplistic a judgement there. But I think it is irrelevant to the point, because what a kid in the France that wears a hammer and sickle symbol is communicating is completely different to what someone waving a Nazi flag its communicating.

Originally posted by Scribble
All communism is monstrous. And socialism is, by Marxist definition, a mere stepping stone towards communism.


Yup. Two of my favorite sayings about socialism and communism are:

"Socialism is merely communism in disguise" and "the ultimate goal of socialism is communism."

Communist sympathizers desperately try to get people to believe that "certain parts of communism are acceptable" because they're too cowardly to just come right out and simply state they love communism.


We shouldn't give communists or even so-called "democratic socialists" an inch because if we do they'll just keep wanting more and more until finally they have exactly what they want: total communism.

Originally posted by Artol
Well, we can talk about that as well if you'd like, I think you are perhaps making too simplistic a judgement there. But I think it is irrelevant to the point, because what a kid in the France that wears a hammer and sickle symbol is communicating is completely different to what someone waving a Nazi flag its communicating.

It's simply the truth and often the truth is very simplistic in nature. Communism sucks... all of it. Period.

Originally posted by Artol
Well, we can talk about that as well if you'd like, I think you are perhaps making too simplistic a judgement there. But I think it is irrelevant to the point, because what a kid in the France that wears a hammer and sickle symbol is communicating is completely different to what someone waving a Nazi flag its communicating. Communism has never worked, it has only ended in disaster, starvation and mass-murder. Anyone wearing a communist symbol is saying that they approve of the many atrocities committed in its name, whether they know that or not. Communism at its very heart is about violent overthrow of society, theft of personal property, and the execution or subjugation of the middle and upper classes. Among many other things.

Sure, Nazi symbols are more obvious in their intent, but that actually makes Nazism much less dangerous than communism. You know where you stand with a Nazi. Communism has become 'chic', making it a much more viable threat in its insidious nature.

Originally posted by Scribble
Communism has never worked, it has only ended in disaster, starvation and mass-murder. Anyone wearing a communist symbol is saying that they approve of the many atrocities committed in its name, whether they know that or not. Communism at its very heart is about violent overthrow of society, theft of personal property, and the execution or subjugation of the middle and upper classes. Among many other things.

Sure, Nazi symbols are more obvious in their intent, but that actually makes Nazism much less dangerous than communism. You know where you stand with a Nazi. Communism has become 'chic', making it a much more viable threat in its insidious nature.


Usually when you tell communists or communist sympathizers that communism has never worked they reply back with "Communism has never truly been tried!" or even "communism has never been done right!" or something along those lines lol.


Communists scream "This time we'll do it right!".

IOW, this time instead of slaughtering hundreds-of-millions of people they'll only slaughter tens-of-millions for their communist utopia lol.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Usually when you tell communists or communist sympathizers that communism has never worked they reply back with "Communism has never truly been tried!" or even "communism has never been done right!" or something along those lines lol.


Communists scream "This time we'll do it right!".

IOW, this time instead of slaughtering hundreds-of-millions of people they'll only slaughter tens-of-millions for their communist utopia lol. Never forget that 45 million people died in China because Mao really hated sparrows.

Originally posted by Scribble
Never forget that 45 million people died in China because Mao really hated sparrows.


Wow.... never knew that about the sparrows. Just knew that tens of millions died from starvation and being killed by the government.


Amazing that killing all those sparrows contributed to so many dying but it makes sense I guess as the article pointed out that without the sparrows the insects thrived and ate all the crops.

Withholding all the grain from the citizens and letting his people starve or forcing them to resort to cannibalism of their own family members was a dick move by Mao.

Then again, he was an atheistic dictator so.... not really surprising, I guess.

Anyway, great article. I wouldn't usually expect a website that calls itself "Tree Hugger" to be so informative and educational lol.

Originally posted by Artol
Well, we can talk about that as well if you'd like, I think you are perhaps making too simplistic a judgement there. But I think it is irrelevant to the point, because what a kid in the France that wears a hammer and sickle symbol is communicating is completely different to what someone waving a Nazi flag its communicating. Yup, it really isn't rocket Science.

Whirly, we already know you're a commie, it's okay.

Originally posted by Scribble
Communism has never worked, it has only ended in disaster, starvation and mass-murder. Anyone wearing a communist symbol is saying that they approve of the many atrocities committed in its name, whether they know that or not. Communism at its very heart is about violent overthrow of society, theft of personal property, and the execution or subjugation of the middle and upper classes. Among many other things.

Sure, Nazi symbols are more obvious in their intent, but that actually makes Nazism much less dangerous than communism. You know where you stand with a Nazi. Communism has become 'chic', making it a much more viable threat in its insidious nature.

Please excuse the delayed reply, I had some appointments. I will try to lay out some of my thoughts on the subject, I know some people are not interested in a nuanced discussion of Marx's philosophy and the history of real world communism, but you seem like you would engage in good faith.

To your point that Marx thought socialism would inevitably lead to Communism, you are correct. However we should look at what Marx actually meant with communism, to him communism was a transition of the economic and political system into a class-less, state-less, money-less society. If we compare that to "real existing communism" we can certainly see that they are not in line with this definition. The Soviet Union was an immensely classist system, with the functionaries of the party being as advantaged as billionaires in capitalist systems, if not more. It was a society that used money for many aspects and the state was immensely powerful. So I do think we need to be careful not to mix Marx's ideas too much with what developed often many decades after his work.

Now to address his idea of what communism is itself. Do we think this is a realistic goal? To me, I have to say, I'm not convinced. It seems very utopian to me, and I can't easily conceive of it working barring some sort of Star Trek like abundance. I'm also not sure whether it is necessarily something we should aspire to, I do think some hierarchies, as long as they can be questioned and changed, are valuable to human organization.

To me Marx did mainly two things, 1) a very poignant critique of the capitalist system, with the emergence of a new dominant class dichotomy and 2) a misguided determinist historical philosophy which has proven so far to have been wrong. And I think we can see that value of the critique in the engagement it caused in many great thinkers of the 20th century, whether that is Max Weber, Talcott Parsons, Pierre Bourdieu, or Lord Dahrendorf.

But back to "real existing communism". I agree that there were immensely monstrous communist regime's and certainly all communist countries were deeply flawed. I generally think that communist countries existed on a spectrum of awfulness however. And I would extend that to capitalist countries as well. All capitalist countries are deeply flawed, the worst ones have done monstrous deeds in their history and they exist on a spectrum (same for hybrid systems as well). Certainly if we judge all the atrocities under Soviet Russia it seems fair to do the same for the Paragon's of Capitalist states, the United States and the United Kingdom. And there have been immense atrocities under those systems from the genocides against the native population, Slavery as an institution, the exploitation of the working classes (well illustrated in The Jungle for the United States and the Road to Wigan Pier for the United Kingdom), the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, the destabilization and sponsorship of terrorism in South America and the Middle East. The monstrosity of these capitalist countries is immensely high as well.

Furthermore Communism and Socialism are certainly not the same in how they are used today. We have social democratic countries like Sweden that call themselves socialist and we have authoritarian countries like China (which I would posit again has an economic system that is best described as state capitalism) that view themselves under the same banner.

I think many people can agree that the excesses of capitalism that we have witnessed particularly in the last 40 years have been deeply inhumane and have brought suffering to untold millions through the destruction of the welfare states, deregulation and the undermining of labour organization and worker's rights. And so it seems understandable to me that people are against these changes that were forced on us only relatively recently. Whether that means that all capitalism would have to be dismantled I am not convinced. I view myself as a traditional Social Democrat, which means that I can see some role of private capital in a well run economic system, but certainly not the hegemonic power it has over the economy and politics now. So as a traditional Social Democrat I also have to recognize that my policies far further left than the what is politically talked about in the West's Overton Window.

It also means to me, and I think that most people that call themselves socialist (barring some that role play as China and Soviet Union apologists, which I find unseemly) agree, that many of the liberal victories that we made in the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism are immensely valuable, and if anything should be extended (i.e. being born poor should not noticeably cut your freedoms compared to a child born to a billionaire, and that the democratization of the political system should be extended to more aspects of life where you are affected, e.g. the workplace or schools)

I hope I was able to make some of my thoughts clear. Please don't feel like you have to respond in kind if you don't have the time.

Good post, I agree 100%. I will always believe in Unions and the welfare state and when I lived in the UK I always paid my taxes and on leaving I fully paid my national insurance. Safety nets are important and people are important.

I still pay a number of property taxes, because I believe in collective responsibility.

An excellent post, Artol. I will try to reply at least properly in part today (I'm currently working on a personal writing project). If not, I'm sure we'll pick the discussion up again at some point in the future. It's a real boon having a poster like you around.

I think we have many political similarities, it's mostly just our perspectives that create the most notable differences between us.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Good post, I agree 100%. I will always believe in Unions and the welfare state and when I lived in the UK I always paid my taxes and on leaving I fully paid my national insurance. Safety nets are important and people are important.

I still pay a number of property taxes, because I believe in collective responsibility. I also agree with all of these things, Whirly.

Originally posted by Artol
Please excuse the delayed reply, I had some appointments. I will try to lay out some of my thoughts on the subject, I know some people are not interested in a nuanced discussion of Marx's philosophy and the history of real world communism, but you seem like you would engage in good faith.

To your point that Marx thought socialism would inevitably lead to Communism, you are correct. However we should look at what Marx actually meant with communism, to him communism was a transition of the economic and political system into a class-less, state-less, money-less society. If we compare that to "real existing communism" we can certainly see that they are not in line with this definition. The Soviet Union was an immensely classist system, with the functionaries of the party being as advantaged as billionaires in capitalist systems, if not more. It was a society that used money for many aspects and the state was immensely powerful. So I do think we need to be careful not to mix Marx's ideas too much with what developed often many decades after his work.

Now to address his idea of what communism is itself. Do we think this is a realistic goal? To me, I have to say, I'm not convinced. It seems very utopian to me, and I can't easily conceive of it working barring some sort of Star Trek like abundance. I'm also not sure whether it is necessarily something we should aspire to, I do think some hierarchies, as long as they can be questioned and changed, are valuable to human organization.

To me Marx did mainly two things, 1) a very poignant critique of the capitalist system, with the emergence of a new dominant class dichotomy and 2) a misguided determinist historical philosophy which has proven so far to have been wrong. And I think we can see that value of the critique in the engagement it caused in many great thinkers of the 20th century, whether that is Max Weber, Talcott Parsons, Pierre Bourdieu, or Lord Dahrendorf.

But back to "real existing communism". I agree that there were immensely monstrous communist regime's and certainly all communist countries were deeply flawed. I generally think that communist countries existed on a spectrum of awfulness however. And I would extend that to capitalist countries as well. All capitalist countries are deeply flawed, the worst ones have done monstrous deeds in their history and they exist on a spectrum (same for hybrid systems as well). Certainly if we judge all the atrocities under Soviet Russia it seems fair to do the same for the Paragon's of Capitalist states, the United States and the United Kingdom. And there have been immense atrocities under those systems from the genocides against the native population, Slavery as an institution, the exploitation of the working classes (well illustrated in The Jungle for the United States and the Road to Wigan Pier for the United Kingdom), the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, the destabilization and sponsorship of terrorism in South America and the Middle East. The monstrosity of these capitalist countries is immensely high as well.

Furthermore Communism and Socialism are certainly not the same in how they are used today. We have social democratic countries like Sweden that call themselves socialist and we have authoritarian countries like China (which I would posit again has an economic system that is best described as state capitalism) that view themselves under the same banner.

I think many people can agree that the excesses of capitalism that we have witnessed particularly in the last 40 years have been deeply inhumane and have brought suffering to untold millions through the destruction of the welfare states, deregulation and the undermining of labour organization and worker's rights. And so it seems understandable to me that people are against these changes that were forced on us only relatively recently. Whether that means that all capitalism would have to be dismantled I am not convinced. I view myself as a traditional Social Democrat, which means that I can see some role of private capital in a well run economic system, but certainly not the hegemonic power it has over the economy and politics now. So as a traditional Social Democrat I also have to recognize that my policies far further left than the what is politically talked about in the West's Overton Window.

It also means to me, and I think that most people that call themselves socialist (barring some that role play as China and Soviet Union apologists, which I find unseemly) agree, that many of the liberal victories that we made in the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism are immensely valuable, and if anything should be extended (i.e. being born poor should not noticeably cut your freedoms compared to a child born to a billionaire, and that the democratization of the political system should be extended to more aspects of life where you are affected, e.g. the workplace or schools)

I hope I was able to make some of my thoughts clear. Please don't feel like you have to respond in kind if you don't have the time.



I don't see any way to untangle the advantages of wealth without the dismantling of capitalism.


Feudal Japan was able to do it because it had a strict caste system backed by a brutal authoritarian power. Merchants could not buy themselves respect under such a system.

In the US and U.K. as they are, you need only accumulate mass wealth, and can easily translate that wealth into real power. Why conquer a country where everything is for sale? Just buy your politicians, buy your legislation, buy your wars.


But here's the rub: Capitalism also generally leads to more favorable conditions for the lower classes. No real bread lines here in the US, even during a pandemic. We still get our bread and circuses too, in the form of Netflix, and have relatively comfortable conditions to enjoy it even if only in a modest apartment or trailer home.

Not to say we don't have major problems. Medical care being one of them. The medical and pharmaceutical companies are bald faced money grubbers, who charge as much as they can get away with to government insurances, private insurances, and individuals. Can't afford that insulin because you're uninsured? Tough shit, sucks to be you.


So the way I see it, no system will stop unbalances of power at the top. You'd need a mentality to simply outright murder any schemers or gamers of a system, and a will and ethical imperative to keep watch for such people, and this will must come from a group with teeth to them, who themselves can not be corrupted. A tall order, if not impossible.

So the main question then, is what flawed system is worse for the general public. Forget regulating the powerful, that can not be done.

Originally posted by cdtm
I don't see any way to untangle the advantages of wealth without the dismantling of capitalism.


Feudal Japan was able to do it because it had a strict caste system backed by a brutal authoritarian power. Merchants could not buy themselves respect under such a system.

In the US and U.K. as they are, you need only accumulate mass wealth, and can easily translate that wealth into real power. Why conquer a country where everything is for sale? Just buy your politicians, buy your legislation, buy your wars.


But here's the rub: Capitalism also generally leads to more favorable conditions for the lower classes. No real bread lines here in the US, even during a pandemic. We still get our bread and circuses too, in the form of Netflix, and have relatively comfortable conditions to enjoy it even if only in a modest apartment or trailer home.

Not to say we don't have major problems. Medical care being one of them. The medical and pharmaceutical companies are bald faced money grubbers, who charge as much as they can get away with to government insurances, private insurances, and individuals. Can't afford that insulin because you're uninsured? Tough shit, sucks to be you.


So the way I see it, no system will stop unbalances of power at the top. You'd need a mentality to simply outright murder any schemers or gamers of a system, and a will and ethical imperative to keep watch for such people, and this will must come from a group with teeth to them, who themselves can not be corrupted. A tall order, if not impossible.

So the main question then, is what flawed system is worse for the general public. Forget regulating the powerful, that can not be done.

I think I have issues with two points a) I believe regulating the powerful can be done, we have seen it done to some degree in the past, and it could be done again, if the political will could be mobilized and b) I think in many ways things have gotten a lot worse for the lower classes in the last few years, there's been a rise of precarious employment and a deep gutting of social problems in most western countries. It's better than it was in the beginnings of capitalism, for sure, but it's gotten worse again, and will likely have another wave of worsening with the current and coming economic crisis (there are breadlines in the United States btw, https://prospect.org/coronavirus/the-return-of-the-breadline/ but I would tend to say breadlines are better than not having any food, which has also happened under capitalism, and is certainly not a problem unique to so-called communist countries. I And that's not to talk about the many people dying from the homeless crisis, opioid crisis and lack of healthcare options. t's alleviated in social democrat or "European socialist" countries, though).

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Yup. Two of my favorite sayings about socialism and communism are:

"Socialism is merely communism in disguise" and "the ultimate goal of socialism is communism."

Communist sympathizers desperately try to get people to believe that "certain parts of communism are acceptable" because they're too cowardly to just come right out and simply state they love communism.


We shouldn't give communists or even so-called "democratic socialists" an inch because if we do they'll just keep wanting more and more until finally they have exactly what they want: total communism. You say that because you are a bit thick or an invented personality trolling, which is more likely.

Originally posted by Artol
I think I have issues with two points a) I believe regulating the powerful can be done, we have seen it done to some degree in the past, and it could be done again, if the political will could be mobilized and b) I think in many ways things have gotten a lot worse for the lower classes in the last few years, there's been a rise of precarious employment and a deep gutting of social problems in most western countries. It's better than it was in the beginnings of capitalism, for sure, but it's gotten worse again, and will likely have another wave of worsening with the current and coming economic crisis (there are breadlines in the United States btw, https://prospect.org/coronavirus/the-return-of-the-breadline/ but I would tend to say breadlines are better than not having any food, which has also happened under capitalism, and is certainly not a problem unique to so-called communist countries. I And that's not to talk about the many people dying from the homeless crisis, opioid crisis and lack of healthcare options. t's alleviated in social democrat or "European socialist" countries, though).


How though?

Our politics are geared towards identity, not class. At least in the US.

The protests certainly won't touch the wealthy class who runs things. What do they care who polices, or care of things like social identity, race, gender.


From their point of view, we're all just disposable labor, easily replaced. Both from the domestic population, and from abroad where people are willing to risk their life for a better future. Migrants, refugees, etc, in endless supply.

Perfect for those who sit on top. No one asking to tear them down, no. Only asking to join their ranks.

Originally posted by cdtm
How though?

Our politics are geared towards identity, not class. At least in the US.

The protests certainly won't touch the wealthy class who runs things. What do they care who polices, or care of things like social identity, race, gender.


From their point of view, we're all just disposable labor, easily replaced. Both from the domestic population, and from abroad where people are willing to risk their life for a better future. Migrants, refugees, etc, in endless supply.

Perfect for those who sit on top. No one asking to tear them down, no. Only asking to join their ranks.

Oh yeah, I completely agree with all of what you said there. I also don't see a very good chance for changes as we've seen them in the 30s or in Europe of the 50s. But if then its only if the lower 90% are able to coalesce into a mass movement that is willing to fight for their rights both electorally, through strikes and potentially as well through civil disobedience. The way politics works in the US it's sadly very difficult to get any sort of movement like that working, and even if you did it's almost impossible to not get it co-opted by corporate interests.

Originally posted by Scribble
If the Nazi flag meant loads of other things too, it wouldn't stop its ultimate meaning to be a representation of a violent, authoritarian ideology. Communist symbols may have 'other meanings', but at their core, they reflect a support of communism, the single most murderous ideology in human history.

Besides religion, you mean.

Originally posted by BackFire
Besides religion, you mean. I get your point, but 'Religion' is too broad to be a single ideology.

Atheistic dictators have killed far more people than all religions have combined.

Backfire said it really well, I'm absorbing that

Backfire gets it, but he is a bright guy!

edit: eh nevermind

Originally posted by dadudemon
It makes evangelicals SUPER buttmad when you tell them Jesus was a Pure Communist (not a communist, but a Pure Communist). I've always wondered where the idea that Jesus was a communist came from.

Originally posted by Scribble
I've always wondered where the idea that Jesus was a communist came from.

Acts 2:44-45 King James Version (KJV)
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.



Acts 4:32-35 King James Version (KJV)
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.



2 Corinthians 9:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.


James 5:1-6 King James Version (KJV)
5 Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.

2 Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten.

3 Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.

4 Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.

5 Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter.

6 Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you.


1 Corinthians 12:26 King James Version (KJV)
26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.




And the often quoted verse about the rich man who lived righteously by the letter of the law but was told to sell all his possessions and give it to the poor:


Matthew 19:21 King James Version (KJV)
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.




Jesus was pro-proletariat, anti-bourgeois. He was definitely anti-violence, pro-passivist, however. So he wasn't a Marxist. Best way to describe Christ's particular brand of Pure Communism is Christian Communism which in many ways stands in direct opposition to Marxism, Leninism, Nazism, etc. whose methods were much more violent to achieve the socialist state.

Originally posted by Scribble
Communism is class-based: if you are of the middle or upper class, you're going to die in the revolution. As has happened literally every time it has ever come about. Where Nazism is about race, communism is about class. A rich commie is going to be put against the wall all the same (and that is exactly what happens).

Many modern white nationalists posit a 'peaceful' variation on Nazism: the idea that races should live separately. They claim to not want to kill anyone, and just want to build a peaceful world built on Nazi ideas of ethnic purity and environmental fascism, where other races are deported, not murdered; some have even posited building a 'black nation' within America and moving the black people there 'peacefully'.


Guess what? I don't buy it. Nor do I buy 'peaceful communism'. Because I've never seen any evidence of it. white nationalism can never be peaceful.

Originally posted by Scribble
Communism is class-based: if you are of the middle or upper class, you're going to die in the revolution. As has happened literally every time it has ever come about. Where Nazism is about race, communism is about class. A rich commie is going to be put against the wall all the same (and that is exactly what happens).

Many modern white nationalists posit a 'peaceful' variation on Nazism: the idea that races should live separately. They claim to not want to kill anyone, and just want to build a peaceful world built on Nazi ideas of ethnic purity and environmental fascism, where other races are deported, not murdered; some have even posited building a 'black nation' within America and moving the black people there 'peacefully'.


Guess what? I don't buy it. Nor do I buy 'peaceful communism'. Because I've never seen any evidence of it.

I'm with you on both political systems you discussed:

Communism and Nazism.

There's no such thing as a peaceful transition for either.



Even the Auth-Lefts who are basically instituting segregation (exactly what the Neo-Nazis and KKK have been trying to get for years...FFS, I can't even believe this shit but its real), now. They really do want silly things like "black only" or "Hispanic only" places.


Absolutely asinine.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
white nationalism can never be peaceful. That's what I said. Neither can communism.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Acts 2:44-45 King James Version (KJV)
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.



Acts 4:32-35 King James Version (KJV)
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.



2 Corinthians 9:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.


James 5:1-6 King James Version (KJV)
5 Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.

2 Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten.

3 Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.

4 Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.

5 Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter.

6 Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you.


1 Corinthians 12:26 King James Version (KJV)
26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.




And the often quoted verse about the rich man who lived righteously by the letter of the law but was told to sell all his possessions and give it to the poor:


Matthew 19:21 King James Version (KJV)
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.




Jesus was pro-proletariat, anti-bourgeois. He was definitely anti-violence, pro-passivist, however. So he wasn't a Marxist. Best way to describe Christ's particular brand of Pure Communism is Christian Communism which in many ways stands in direct opposition to Marxism, Leninism, Nazism, etc. whose methods were much more violent to achieve the socialist state. I can dig Christian Communism. Good-ass post, DDM.

Originally posted by Scribble
Communism is class-based: if you are of the middle or upper class, you're going to die in the revolution. As has happened literally every time it has ever come about. Where Nazism is about race, communism is about class. A rich commie is going to be put against the wall all the same (and that is exactly what happens).

Many modern white nationalists posit a 'peaceful' variation on Nazism: the idea that races should live separately. They claim to not want to kill anyone, and just want to build a peaceful world built on Nazi ideas of ethnic purity and environmental fascism, where other races are deported, not murdered; some have even posited building a 'black nation' within America and moving the black people there 'peacefully'.


Guess what? I don't buy it. Nor do I buy 'peaceful communism'. Because I've never seen any evidence of it.

Good point. I think that communism is bad. And naziism is worse.

Originally posted by BackFire
Good point. I think that communism is bad. And naziism is worse. It's apples and oranges to me, I dislike both for different reasons. Well, some are for the same reasons, but they are different beasts, but just as dangerous overall.


I'm still not sure what my opinions on the original topic are. I've been thinking it over. I think I fall back on my general stance of it being good to know where Nazis and communists are, so if they want to raise a shitty flag, let 'em.

Originally posted by BackFire
Good point. I think that communism is bad. And naziism is worse. me too.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
me too. You seem pretty favourable towards communism most of the time, though. You also seem to like Marx a lot, and identify as a socialist, so I find it hard to believe you actually dislike communism all that much.

Originally posted by Scribble
You seem pretty favourable towards communism most of the time, though. You also seem to like Marx a lot, and identify as a socialist, so I find it hard to believe you actually dislike communism all that much.


Yeah, if you idolize Karl Marx as pooty clearly does then it's obvious you like communism.


And communism is every bit as bad as Nazism which is why I detest both of them.

Originally posted by Scribble
You seem pretty favourable towards communism most of the time, though. You also seem to like Marx a lot, and identify as a socialist, so I find it hard to believe you actually dislike communism all that much.

George Orwell considered himself a socialist while also being extremely critical of how socialism and communism was practiced.

Originally posted by BackFire
George Orwell considered himself a socialist while also being extremely critical of how socialism and communism was practiced. Orwell was many things, though. He was a classic Englishman and endorsed traditional English values. He was also in many ways philosophically an anarchist, believing all government to be evil. He was critical of much of Marx's work, believing a lot of it to be futile attempts at telling the future. His form of socialism is incredibly deep and nuanced, and a form I respect (and identify with, in many ways). I'm actually partial to non-Marxist socialist ideas, and social policies in general. Orwell is probably one of my political heroes.

Whirly hasn't really ever shown any critiques of socialism or communism though, and he likes Marx a lot. I don't see much Orwell in Whirly.

Originally posted by BackFire
George Orwell considered himself a socialist while also being extremely critical of how socialism and communism was practiced. Pretty much my stance too, Animal Farm is a critique of the russian revolution, as you probably know.

Orwell's big failing in Animal Farm is portraying Lenin as a benign, caring leader. Lenin was a monster.

But then, I disagree with any violent revolution. I think history has shown that most of them turn into bloody messes.

Marx praised the French Revolution. Marx was an idiot.

Originally posted by Scribble
Orwell's big failing in Animal Farm is portraying Lenin as a benign, caring leader. Lenin was a monster.

What do you have against one of the greatest musicians of all time?

As a concept, fascism as practiced by Nazi's might be worse, but in practice, communism has been way damaging than any fascist regime. It also comes it's own versions of concentration camps. We had an entire 100 years to see how terrible communism becomes.

Anyone flying the hammer/sickle are idiots. Not entirely sure why it's better than the Nazi flag outside of the emotions they evoke in Western media. Fly the Hammer and Sickle in some parts of Europe. They'll beat the shit out of you.

I think Nazism is a much less dangerous concept than Communism. Communism is much more insidious because it is alluring to kind hearted people via socialism.

Originally posted by BackFire
What do you have against one of the greatest musicians of all time? Comrade McCartney is better, fite me m8

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
As a concept, fascism as practiced by Nazi's might be worse, but in practice, communism has been way damaging than any fascist regime. It also comes it's own versions of concentration camps. We had an entire 100 years to see how terrible communism becomes.

Anyone flying the hammer/sickle are idiots. Not entirely sure why it's better than the Nazi flag outside of the emotions they evoke in Western media. Fly the Hammer and Sickle in some parts of Europe. They'll beat the shit out of you.

I think Nazism is a much less dangerous concept than Communism. Communism is much more insidious because it is alluring to kind hearted people via socialism. Well put.

His Gulag was much less impressive.

Originally posted by BackFire
His Gulag was much less impressive. Yeah, but he has Maxwell's Silver Hammer & Sickle

Originally posted by Scribble
I've always wondered where the idea that Jesus was a communist came from.

He wasn't a communist lol.

Whirly is an authoritative -communistic yappy tree hugging blasphemer. The guy is evil!

I don't think he's actually evil. He's just brainwashed, imo. Hillary Clinton is an example of true, unadulterated evil.

Good lord

Originally posted by Scribble
Communism has never worked, it has only ended in disaster, starvation and mass-murder. Anyone wearing a communist symbol is saying that they approve of the many atrocities committed in its name, whether they know that or not. Communism at its very heart is about violent overthrow of society, theft of personal property, and the execution or subjugation of the middle and upper classes. Among many other things.

Sure, Nazi symbols are more obvious in their intent, but that actually makes Nazism much less dangerous than communism. You know where you stand with a Nazi. Communism has become 'chic', making it a much more viable threat in its insidious nature.

The number of dead Chinese under Chairman Mao was at least twice as many that died under Stalin in Russia, but when Mao passed away in the 1970's there was one important stat no one can argue with - after him, the life expectancy of the average Chinese person had doubled, from the time he took power in 1949. Though China has not wanted to bring back the cult of personality Mao and his wife enjoyed, his accomplishments in the end made the country stronger. We in the west can throw stones all we want, but it's what people in China think of Mao that matters, and his legacy is mixed.

Stalin, after having his legacy denounced following his death, has gotten somewhat rehabilitated in the past decades and among ordinary Russians his reputation has risen to mixed, at best.

I've been to Cuba several times, and the people there love Fidel Castro and are proud of their independence in the face of an overbearing USA, but they would like more from the government and their new president, so it will be fascinating to watch. No one there is calling Communism a mistake.

Vietnam is still Communist and seems happy to be.

But anyone bringing up North Korea - that's not Communism. That's 1984 come to life.