The “Communism Starves the People” Bullshit

Commenter tulio notes on this post, complaining about Communism:

Seems like there’s always some famine that happens in communist countries that wipes out hundreds of thousands if not millions. Look at China’s great famines. Cambodians had to resort to eating spiders they dug up just to survive. I think these were man-made events. Capitalism has it’s flaws, but Communism is just fucked up to the core. There hasn’t been one example of a communist success.

At least not one that didn’t have to throttle back and incorporate capitalism into their economy, like China. And then that’s not even getting into all the other shit communist governments do like the censorship of the internet, lack of freedom to protest, etc.

I’ll take capitalism any day, warts and all. I just think we need some elements of socialist safeguards and need progressive taxation to try and stop the rich from getting too rich.

I’m no Orthodox Commie by any means, despite what everyone believes. I’m just a socialist. That said, I tend to support most forms of socialism that actually work well (I don’t support fake socialism that doesn’t work, and I don’t support all Communist states). As Communism is a form of socialism, I tend to look favorably on it, but then I also look favorably on European social democracy, since I consider that also a form of socialism.

I support state funding of education, medicine, food, shelter, corrections, telecommunications, military, infrastructure building, public health, libraries, parks and wildlife reserves, R & D, social safety nets, housing, utilities, and maybe even a few industries here or there. I’m basically a Big Government with a capital B type of guy.

That said, I would like to defend the Communist record against one of the worst slanders, that “Communism equals starvation.” Not true, it’s actually capitalism equals starvation.

There were continuous famines in China under capitalism. In 1949, life expectancy was only 32 years in capitalist China. The rural people lived on the edge of starvation and death all the time. Read The Good Earth by Pearl Buck to see what it was like. From 1949-1980, Mao increased life expectancy from 32 to 65. That’s the greatest increase in life expectancy that the world has ever seen.

Furthermore, the Communists built that country up from nothing. Same thing with Russia. Russia was a zero pre-Communism. Communists built that country into a 1st World country. Even now it’s a good place. The press here bitches about Soviet style housing, but it looks decent enough to me. Anyway, compare the East Bloc, the former USSR and China to Latin America, Africa, India, the Philippines or the rest of the capitalist shitholes.

None of those places have the type of horrific slums, cardboard shack shantytowns, or outrageous poverty that you see every day in those capitalist paradises. Imagine if Latin America, the Philippines, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Indonesia, Afghanistan and the rest of the shitholes had followed a Communist model of development. Sure, they would have run into problems and at some point, they may have moved in the direction of Eastern Europe, the former USSR and China. But let us look at housing alone. All of these places would have adequate housing. Now you can complain about Soviet bloc housing, but I’d rather see that in Brazil, Delhi, Manila and Lima than those horrifying slums and favelas. Medical care would be decent in all of those places – they would have good health figures, especially maternal mortality, infant mortality, and life expectancy. They would have enough to eat – malnutrition rates would be low.

The fact that capitalism everywhere seems to produce these horrific, nightmarish slums with no end or cure for them in sight is reason enough for me to feel that it’s a totally failed system.

There have been a few famines in the Communist countries, true, but you must realize that there’s a continuous famine in the capitalist world, mostly in the 3rd world. As I noted, capitalism starves 14 million a year, year in and year out. A couple years of that, and they’ve beaten everyone starved under Communism put together.

There was a famine in the USSR, true, at the beginning of collectivization. There was another in China around the same time. It seems like if they collectivize ag too quickly, ag collapses for a few years before the new system gets going. If they want to collectivize ag, they ought do so slowly.

It’s a big lie that Communism starves people. It’s capitalism that does that. In general, the Communist states like the USSR, the East Bloc, China, etc. have done a fantastic job of feeding the people, especially compared to the disastrous dietary conditions pre-Communism.

True, the diet is not top-notch, but it fills your stomach. There was a famine in the USSR in 1932, but there’s never been another. There was one in 1962 in China, but there’s never been another. Regular deadly famines spread through both places pre-Communism.

In 1980, Cubans had the highest dietary intake in Latin America. Right now, Cuba has the lowest rate of malnutrition in Latin America. It’s really hard to make this “Communism starves the people” argument. It’s generally not true. Communism is generally pretty good about putting adequate food in people’s stomachs.

And capitalism is not! One thing capitalism cannot ever seem to do is to feed its populations adequately. When I die in 30 years, capitalism still will be failing to feed its own populations. If there’s any indictment of capitalism, that’s it. WTF man? You call that a successful system? You can’t even feed your own people, give me a break.

I’m no fan of the Khmer Rogue, but realize that there was already mass starvation going on when they took over. Agriculture had collapsed in the countryside long since. I don’t agree with emptying the cities to the rural areas like they did, but the reason they did that was to try to get the ag system going again. Presently, capitalist Cambodia has a sky high malnutrition rate.

What happened with Communist economics is more a problem with chronic shortages of food and other basics and luxuries, long lines, housing shortages, etc. Also collectivized ag had poor productivity. The centrally planned economy doesn’t work very well because you have to figure out how much everyone is going to consume every year at the start of the year and plan for that. It’s almost impossible to do that, and that leads to economic deformations. Also, labor productivity was often poor.

The best system in a lot of cases seems to be some sort of mixed economy.

68 Comments

Filed under Asia, Cambodia, Capitalism, China, Economics, Left, Maoism, Marxism, NE Asia, North Korea, Regional, SE Asia, Socialism, USSR

68 responses to “The “Communism Starves the People” Bullshit

  1. tulio

    People may starve in some poor capitalist countries, but I don’t think that’s due to capitalism itself. In those cases, you have incompetent/inefficient governments often mixed with a lot of corruption.

    IOW, Communism in Cambodia sucks and Capitalism in Cambodia sucks. Maybe it’s just an inefficient society period independent of its form of government. And like I’d said, you can’t have communism without totalitarianism. Totalitarianism isn’t necessary for capitalism.

    • Boy, you don’t understand economics at all, do you? It *is* because of capitalism, tulio. If you can’t figure that out, I can’t help you. If those countries went Communist, most of the starvation would go away real quick.

      People don’t starve in poor capitalist countries due to corruption. It’s because capitalism places absolutely no value whatsoever on feeding its people. If there’s no money to be made in it, they won’t do it. And in many cases, they don’t pay the people enough money to even buy food. Further, the ag land is almost all owned by huge landowners, and they are usually not using it to grow food for the people. They are using it often to grow stuff for export.

      Capitalist countries place no priority whatsoever in making sure that everyone in the country has a full belly. It’s not a profitable thing. In fact, feeding your population is often a big money-loser. Which is why capitalism fails so miserably at it.

      Capitalism can’t even provide people with shelter either. How hard is to build an apartment building? There’s often no money in it, hence you have these horrific and nightmarish slums.

      Capitalism places no value in clean water, in plumbing, in sewage treatment, in roads, electricity, all sorts of things. There’s usually no money in any of that, so the sewage goes untreated, people lack plumbing and electricity, a decent road, etc.

      It also places no value in giving everyone medical care or offering education to the everyone. Once again, these are money-losers. There’s no money in it, so it doesn’t get done.

      • Wade in MO

        “Boy, you don’t understand economics at all, do you?”

        LOL

        You called Tulio ‘Boy.’

        You must have been channelling your inner southerner.

      • did you really need to call tulio a boy robert??? for the love of christ.

        BAG I know you aren’t laughing… I sic Tim Wise on ya azz real quick.

        *BAG hides in the closet*

        • Look dammit!

          You don’t understand White people. We use the word “boy” in place of the word “man.” Boy oh boy = man oh man.

          “Boy, you have no idea what you’re talking about!” = “Man, you have no idea what you’re talking about!”

          It was in this context that I used the word “boy.” “Boy” is used in this way by Whites to other Whites, and to non-Whites probably, all the time.

          Now, would a White person ever call another White person “boy” as an insult? Probably not. Would a White person call a Black person that? Supposedly, but I have never heard it in my life, but we don’t talk like that here in California.

          I certainly hope I would never call a Black person a “boy” as a racist insult. I’d have to be pretty furious at him, and even then, I’d call him a nigger before I’d call him “boy.” Calling a Black “boy” is so redneck and cracker. Here in California, if there’s one thing we hate, it’s Southern rednecks and crackers.

          Long answer short: I did *not* call tulio a “boy”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF you Blacks are so hypersensitive, I swear.

        • robert I certainly hope I would never call a Black person a “boy” as a racist insult. I’d have to be pretty furious at him, and even then, I’d call him a nigger before I’d call him “boy.” Calling a Black “boy” is so redneck and cracker.

          two things robert.

          so calling a blk man n*gger is somehow better than calling him boy?

          2. what you got against r*dnecks&crackers?
          That sounds very classist of you, you sure you’re a socialist?

        • Wade in MO

          “2. what you got against r*dnecks&crackers?
          That sounds very classist of you, you sure you’re a socialist?”

          Robert doesn’t like these ‘crackers.’ He has written many posts talking about how he’s glad they will be a minority soon. Personally I think it’s a bit hypocritical. He thinks small town inbred mexicans will make better socialists that small town inbred southerners. I don’t, but he’s fixated on it.

        • Bay Area Guy

          Ah, Chic Noir, I knew you would get my Roots allusion!

  2. “The best system in a lot of cases seems to be some sort of mixed economy.”

    Mixed economies is what most developed countries today have. The US is arguably the most capitalist country out there, but even it’s economy is mixed. There is simply no argument there.

    The question becomes how much more capitalist or socialist should a country become? What’s the optimal mix? History has shown that both extremes don’t work that well.

    • I don’t know. I like Belarus though (50% mixed) and I like what Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela. I have serious doubts about Communist economics and central planning myself, but I also hate capitalism.

    • tulio

      I have a Venezuelan buddy that would skewer you on the Chavez accolades. He fled Venezuela and now lives in Chile, a more free market country, and btw the most prosperous in Latin America. And Pinochet had a lot to do with Chile’s prosperity, even though he was a bastard. If it weren’t for him, it would be another 3rd world Latin American country. He turned that country’s economy around.

    • Your friend is just a ruling class punk, that’s all. The upper and upper middle classes of course hate his guts, but they’ve been destroying that country for decades. The upper classes and upper middle classes are the reason why Latin America is just a stinking shithole. They’ve destroyed it, it’s all because of them.

      Economic growth has been fantastic under Chavez.

      I know, just about all the Latin Americans I know hate him, but they’re all reactionaries. We really have to think about the shit that these reactionaries have been supporting all these years. Look at Latin America. The reactionary project of Latin America has been failing since Day One. It’s ruined the whole damn place. Time to try something new.

    • tulio

      I wouldn’t call my friend ruling class by any means. He’d pretty much be middle class by Latin American standards. But no, not the rich class. We would exchange quite a few messages and he’d show me the Chavez propaganda that you don’t really get to see if you aren’t there. I have no doubt that Chavez rules with an iron fist and wants to shut down any dissent. His paranoid ranting about everything wrong in his country being the fault of the U.S. got old quick. Telling Venezuelans that an American invasion is imminent. To us, that’s laughable, we know there’s no way in hell America is sending a troops into Venezuela. But he tells people this crap, and they believe it.

    • tulio

      The reason for poverty in Latin America is the same reason for poverty everywhere. Lack of human capital and corruption. 100 years ago, America looked much like Latin America. We didn’t become the America of today by turning to communism, we did it by investing in education and growing the economy.

      As for Venezuela’s supposed prosperity. It’s nothing more than riding the tide of rising oil. Venezuela would be doing better no matter what if their number one export is oil and it cost 3x as much as it did a decade ago. I don’t give any great accolades to Chavez for it.

    • tulio, you’re a political amateur and you don’t understand economics either. Either study up and quit embarrassing yourself. You sound like Time Fucking Magazine man.

      I’d respect you a lot more if you just said I’m for the rich and the well-off and for the other 70-80%, well, Fuck em! LOL!

      Cuz that’s what flows from your agenda. Instead, you are trying to coach all advocacy of reactionary economics and politics in the name of “prosperity,” “poverty reduction,” “democracy” and other crap. Just like US imperialist propaganda IOW. You’ve been tutored well.

      Actually I think you haven’t lived long enough to figure out how this shitty world really works. Hint: it’s downright evil, ok?

  3. Pingback: The “Chilean Miracle” Lie « Robert Lindsay

  4. James Schipper

    Dear Robert
    I have to take issue with your comment that Russia before WWI was nothing. It was rapidly industrializing and literacy was also rising.
    Regards.James

    • Life expectancy was 32 years. It started grew explosively the whole time the Communists were in power, up until the early 1960’s, when progress stopped. It was a lousy place to be a worker, and life in the rural areas was nightmarish. I would describe the rural areas as semi-feudal.

      It was starting to industrialize though, this is true.

  5. Eman

    “The upper classes and upper middle classes are the reason why Latin America is just a stinking shithole. They’ve destroyed it, it’s all because of them.”

    No, Latin America sucks because the vast majority of the people there are the products of race-mixing and miscegenation. Race trumps class. Mass race-mixing leads to the death of nations, cultures, empires.

  6. Pingback: The “Hugo Chavez is a Dictator” Lie « Robert Lindsay

  7. Wayne

    Despite all the bullshit propaganda put out by people like Jung Chang, by the slew of books on the Cultural Revolution, Maos last dancer, Wild Swans’ falling petals, driven snow or whatever etc (Westerners think by reading these books they understand everything they need to know about China), it is clear to the Chinese people (I am one of them), that without communism China would be an utter basketcase now – somewhere along the lines of Somalia and the Congo.

    Chairman Mao, is perhaps the greatest humanitarian in history, and proportionately speaking his revolution one of the most humane in history.

    During the initial years of liberation, yes there were many executions – but many of these were of bandits, KMT remnants who had terroized local populations, and landlords who had been extreme abusers of the people. In most cases the harsh actions taken were supported by the majority of the people, and can also be understood in light of the insecurity of a newly established regime, and the extent in which the entire capitalist world order, enraged at the fact that their exploitation of the Chinese people had been put to an abrupt end by the the CCP (in 1949 the British warship Amethyst, arrogantly cruising the Yangtze was asked by PLA commanders to depart forthwith – they refused and were shelled), hated our newly established PRC. After all they had just 30 years before, invaded Russia in order to strangle the first Socialist country in history.

    But anyone who has read Mao’s selected works will note a person who killed only reluctantly, and advised against rash killings.

    The worst period under Mao of course was the Great Leap Forward – with some claiming excess deaths of 30 or 40 million. These figures are spurious, vastly exaggerated, but this is not the place to go into manipulation of statistics. The fact is Mao inherited a China in which as Mr Lindsay has pointed had a life expectancy in the early 30s. How many ‘excess’ deaths does that represent?

    The GLF was a disaster, but it has been pointed out, that if one compares China with India, it is in fact India’s so called ‘democratic’ system, which has resulted in far more ‘excess’ deaths than China over the first 30 years of independence of these two broadly comparable Asian countries.

    Mao basically doubled China’s life expectancy, destroyed domestic and foreign oppression of the Chinese people, and united a previously fragmented country completely without hope, and placed her on the path to greatness.

    And China today, despite her many faults, is far far ahead of India in literacy, life expectancy, childhood welfare, child nutrition, etc. One could then say that it is the so-called Western model of democracy that murders people, because many more Indians die everyday from preventable effects of poverty than Chinese do.

    If one looks at Iraq now, Afghanistan now, Somalia now, most know the incredible difficulty that these three places will eventually have unity, and solid functioning governance. Yet Mao (even considering the excesses of the Cultural Revolution) gave this to China – a country many times larger than any of the aforementioned places.

    My wife was born in a extremely poor village in Guangdong province in 1966 (the year of the GPCR). However she had 10 years of compulsory education (is completely literate and numerate), was innoculated against infectious diseases (she still has her innoculation booklet), had free, albeit rudimentary healthcare, and had, in spite of rationing and absolutely no luxuries as known in the West, a happy childhood. Her father and mother retired at 55 on a full pension. Imagine this in a country which only 17 years before she was born had an average life expectancy of 34!

    The humanitarian achievements of the Chinese communists is unprecedented and unparallaled in all of human history.

    • “without communism China would be an utter basketcase now – somewhere along the lines of Somalia and the Congo.”

      Why would you say that? Why couldn’t China develop in the same as South Korea or Japan did? Those countries have demonstrated that an East Asian economy does not need communism to prosper.

      Also, the reason why China is prospering is because the country has opened its borders to trade, something that wasn’t present when Mao was ruling. It is likely that China’s economy wouldn’t have gone anywhere under Mao’s communist ideology.

      The China we have today does not uphold communism in the pure definition of the word. If communism was good, then why the need for the shift? Believe it or not, the country’s current ideology is similar to the ideology present when both Korea and Japan were in the early phases of rebuilding their economies. That is, an economy characterized by trade and democratic dictatorship (in a sense). With an economy in shambles, there is no time for personal freedoms — that comes later when the economy is healthier. Every ounce of energy and time should spent building industry. Suffer now, enjoy later — that should be the mantra of all improvised societies. And if you look at the history of most, if not all, developed countries, all of them went through this phase one way or the other.

      And that’s the problem with India: although democracy is good, the country hasn’t gotten its priorities right in running the economy. With all the political parties harassing each other and confusing the populous, it’s no wonder few projects can be effectively completed in the long-run. One political party could do wonders, so long as there is little corruption and so long as it works in the best interest of the people. This could take the form of what China has now or what Japan and South Korea had when they were developing.

      I think you’re giving Mao too much credit, Wayne.

    • “That is, an economy characterized by trade and democratic dictatorship (in a sense).”

      I meant Authoritarianism, rather than dictatorship.

  8. Wayne

    The fact that millions died in the GLF (caused also by embargoes, natural disasters, as well as overoptimistic reporting on the part of eager to please cadres), does not mean in any way that Mao is the equivalent of Hitler.

    Only a complete moron without any sense of moral perspective could fail to see the difference between a man who openly hated on other people simply because of their ethnicity, and a man who made mistakes (out of good intentions), but simply because of the scale of the problem he was dealing with, would have massive tragic consequences.

    Nowadays we see similarly see an effort also to rewrite history in Europe – comparing so called ‘Stalinism’ to ‘Hitlerism’ and placing equal blame for WWII on both Stalin and Hitler.

    Just where do people dream up this complete and utter bullshit? And the fact that people suck it up and believe it shows the power of the Western media in manipulating minds – far more successfully than the communists could ever dream of. Now black is white and white is black.

    The same heroic people who saved the whole world rom the plague of fascism, of Nazism – the greatest danger world humane civilizational values have ever faced, are now held to be equally responsible, equally as evil as those they defeated at such tremendous cost.

    Of course the evidence that Communism is the polar opposite of fascism lies in front of our very eyes: in spite of perhaps excesses in the early days of victory, the German people somehow ‘survived’ socialist rule – to the extent that many former East Germans feel that socialism was not that bad after all. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,634122,00.html

    The Red Army did not deport Germans, kill them off and replace them with Slavs (in spite of the savage treatment of the Russians at the hands of the Germans). Instead they set up a Socialist state which by and large served the German people.

    But imagine if the Nazis had won – had defeated the Soviet Union. How many Russians, and other East Europeans, not to mention Jews, would still be around today? What would have been their fate?

    Just based on this single observation, even the most obtuse would realize that the Soviet Union was on the side of the angels compared with the utterly depraved and wicked Nazi ideology.

    And now of course the Soviet Union does not exist, and we see extreme nationalists, extreme racists, neo-nazis running amok in Russia, killing people who were formally considered brothers, simply on the basis of skin color – something completely unknown during the Soviet era.
    And most Russians you may talk to will say they were better of during the days of the Soviet Union, not only perhaps materially but also spiritually.

    • Wayne,

      I completely agree with you that Stalin was an angel compared to Hitler. I’m still mind-boggled at just how many Russians died at the hands of Hitler in WW2. All those beautiful Russian women… *sign*

      But take Hitler out of the picture, and all Stalin appears to be is a power-hungry, paranoid leader. Sure he was all for the Communist cause, but these personal attributes of his definitely killed thousands, if not millions, in the Soviet Union. The man craved power — you can just see it in his face.

    • Wade in MO

      “The Red Army did not deport Germans, kill them off and replace them with Slavs”

      Not true. The most obvious example is east prussia where millions were deported. Also, the russians deported the volga germans to kazahkstan along with the crimean tatars and several caucasian peoples. The soviets also set up a ‘homeland’ for jews in far east russia. Today it is known as the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. They meant it to be an alternative to Israel, too bad it didn’t work. The idea that the soviet union was totally jew friendly is wrong too.

  9. Observer

    That said, I would like to defend the Communist record against one of the worst slanders, that “Communism equals starvation.” Not true, it’s actually capitalism equals starvation.

    And often times, both Capitalism and Communism had the same sordid record.

    It really depended who was running the given society, and at that particular time in history.

    True, the diet is not top-notch, but it fills your stomach. …

    Ah, yeah, however, you could say the same thing for prison inmates :/

  10. Go move to North Korea and see if you starve, moron.

  11. Pingback: North Korean Famine in Context « Robert Lindsay

  12. al

    THE SYSTEM that has been totally ignored by mankind is the only system that has worked. The government established by our creator Jehovah God will put an end to ALL man made governmental systems. Then and ONLY then will we follow a just and rightous set of standards so that greed will never rise again. Debate over!!!!

  13. Brent

    Capitalism starves the lazy and forces those who refuse to produce to live in shacks.

  14. Tom Dawg

    I fully agree with Brent. If the American standard moves any more toward Socialism, then America will be filled with lazy, system bound, welfare families that WILL not get jobs because it is EASIER not to. I live in a welfare county in the state of Oregon. I see “Help Wanted” signs every where. From what I have witnessed, only about half of the welfare recipients here actually deserve it. The other half are on welfare because that is all they know. Their mothers were on it and “trained” them to thwart the system into giving it to them also. In my opinion I think they should make it harder to get on welfare than get a job. Plus I’m all for placing mandatory drug testing for all welfare recipients. If your on drugs, your off welfare. Bottom line: Don’t want to starve? GET A JOB. If I can do it, anyone can.

  15. Peter Tobin

    This observation makes Glen Beck look like an intellectual giant. For a start it is anecdotal and therefore ‘sui generis’. Nothing can deduced because the signifying cohort is so small (one person). What one is left with is redneck, inhumane prejudice. Those who have the world view of a nematode easily subscribe to this syndrome.
    “From what I have witnessed”, prompts the question, who the fuck are you?
    As for mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, why not include alcohol? which, after all is a drug.Smokers as well, another drug – albeit only psychologically addictive and a crap recourse, in terms of ‘bangs for bucks’. But what the hell, after such an authoritarian prescription, maybe we could move on to the rest of society, whatever their employment status or class?
    Think about it; drug testing, or proven drug use, (cocaine and alcohol) would have precluded the dummy Bush from running for president. (So maybe there is an upside to it.)
    Perhaps I am being unfair and that our fearless Archie Bunker wants to reserve drug use to the employed or the rich?
    Normally I would not bother responding to this sort of cretinism, but for some reason my broadband will not allow outward e mails, so I have resorted to picking on the cerebrally and socially challenged
    From a citizen of relatively civilised country.

    • Tom Dawg

      Wow. How long did it take you and your thesaurus to write that reply? For as many words as there were in your reply, you really didn’t say much. Oh wait there was the whole personal attack on me. The attack on the productive, employed, member of American society. You my friend are not the solution to America’s problems, you are part of them.

  16. Paul Grenville

    What about banning Mr Dawg for rudeness? Mr Tobin, whom I’ve known all of my adult life, is not an American, and is a lifelong producer of surplus value for the bosses. He doesn’t need a thesaurus, unlike Mr Dawg, because he is a highly educated man. Stuff that up your arse, as we say here lol!

  17. Peter Tobin

    First sorry about the use of an Anglo-saxon. If it is against the rules I will take a self-denying ordinance. But I was incensed by the stupidity and inhumanity of Tom Dawg, which appears typical of many american rednecks. The sort of people who ask,
    “If the son a ball of phar, then how come it’s cold on the mountains and hot in the valleys.?”
    For the record, I and trained and worked as a carpenter and joiner in construction for over 40 years.
    However, I went to night school and passed enough exams to get four years at university, taking a history major; also studying languages, (German & French). One of those years was spent at an American college. I got a very good degree, (Upper two-one).
    At that time I supported the Vietnamese people in their struggle against the American fascist invaders.
    Presently, I support the Afghan national resistance, and hope for similar outcome there for Uncle Sam and his British stooges.
    I am from a proud Irish republican family.
    Up the rebels!

    • Tom Dawg

      This is my last post on this subject, in an attempt to get through to this “book-smart” Irishman, with no “Street-smarts”…
      “Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.”

  18. Amen!

    I love it when the sacred cow of Capitalism gets the slaughter it so rightly deserves.

    Reposting your insights on Pink0™

    http://myopsy.blogspot.com/2010/10/communism-starves-people-bullshit.html

  19. so calling a blk man n*gger is somehow better than calling him boy?

    Around here, I think so.

    If you’re mad enough at a Black person, it’s ok to call them a nigger. At least in my book. If you’re mad enough at a person, you can call them whatever, gender, orientation, racial or ethnic slut that applies to them. I don’t think that makes you racist, sexist, homophobic or bigoted at all. It just means you’re mad.

    No one around here would ever call a Black man a “boy.” That reminds of the Jim Crow South.

    We don’t like rednecks and crackers because they are so dumb and racist. If they were just poor and not stupid and racist, no one would care.

    I haven’t much money myself, but I haven’t much love for poor people either. Most are boring at best, not very smart at all, and a lot of them just act really bad in some way or another. Mostly, we have nothing to discuss and they are dumb and boring as fuck all.

    • Wade in MO

      This is funny. Maybe we all can go tell those “niggers” on the Abagond board how we feel.

      Personally, unless accosted by racial slurs first, I would not pull out the ‘N’ card. While I don;t care about political correctness, I do care about politeness and being considerate (most of the time). I may tell some black jokes but even blacks can laugh at black jokes. Calling people niggers is completely uncouth if it is unprovoked.

      As far a ‘boy’ is concerned, I’ve never heard it used here for talking about any thing else but a young male. If I drove south out of St. Louis for 90 minutes of longer, you might start to hear it used though. No one is really sure where the midwest ends and the south begins in MO.

      • If I was furious enough at a Black man, I would call him a nigger. I haven’t done it in a while though. I did do it once around 15 years ago though. I got in a shouting match with some idiot Black guy and as I was walking away I called him a nigger. MAN did he get pissed! Way more pissed! I don’t regret it, but I’m glad it hasn’t happened since.

        You know that gangbanger half-Mexican half-Black piece of shit who stole my $175 knife after I let him into my house? I would so love to call him a nigger! I haven’t done it yet, and I’m scared to. I’d love to mostly because that’s one thing he REALLY hates to be called.

        Its’ best just not to get furious at Blacks in general. That’s one reason I don’t associate with them a while lot. I don’t want to start hating them or getting into it with them.

        • Wade in MO

          The difference is is that stealing your knife is a provocation. However, I wouldn’t call a guy with a knife a nigger.

          “Its’ best just not to get furious at Blacks in general. That’s one reason I don’t associate with them a while lot”

          Truth. The internet has ruined this for me though. Watching blacks being ignorant in videos and arguing with idiot afrocentrists tend to make angry and annoyed. Not all blacks are like that, but they do seem to have a greater share percentage wise than the rest of the popultion.

        • wade the ignorance in videos is widespread. why I even see asians acting up online. It’s just human beings letting their base instincts out because we’ve lost s that thing called shame.

          and you can find politicans from any race fist fighting in parliment.

        • Wade in MO

          Yeah, I know I shouldn’t single out blacks. It’s just it come somewhat naturally because I went to school with a lot of blacks who where often ignorant. Not all were, not even close to a majority, but enough were. Despite there being a lot of blacks in my school district in north country, we got a lot of deseg bussed kids from north St. Louis. Most of them were ignorant motherfuckers.

          I admit that there are a lot of white people who are total garbage though. If I wasn’t white myself I would probably hate white people. Even though I am white I sometimes feel that way anyway.

        • Bay Area Guy

          The way I see it, the best way to avoid getting pissed at blacks is to avoid/ignore them.

          It’s hard to hate those you don’t have to deal with.

          Otherwise, blacks can indeed be aggravating at times

          @ Wade

          Yes, whites can have annoying tendencies as well, particularly SWPL liberals and Tea Party types.

          Still, I am white, so I’m gonna stick by my people through thick and thin. Hopefully, I might even change my fellow whites for the better!

        • Bay Area Guy

          With regards to nigger, The only time I would call a black person that is if they piss me off on anything race related.

          If they call me an anti-white slur or go all Critical Race Theorist on me, I wouldn’t have a problem with dropping an n bomb.

          Although, I would take Uncle Ruckus’s advice and use new racial slurs.

          “Nigger” has just been soooo overused.

        • Wade in MO

          “Still, I am white, so I’m gonna stick by my people through thick and thin. Hopefully, I might even change my fellow whites for the better!”

          Yes, I understand. Even if I don;t always like them, the reality is that if they get screwed then I get screwed. Also, I don’t hate them all, just weirdo liberal, tea partiers, nordicists, and a few other dickheads. Unfortunatley, these groups make up a large portion of the white populace. I hope that I have a positive effect on them. I don;t believe that so many whites have to be jerk offs. Hopefully we can change things.

        • Bay Area Guy

          Liberals, Tea Partiers, extreme Nordicists/neo-nazis, evangelical “Christian” Zionists, far left wackos, insane feminists, etc.

          Yes, those are groups of whites that I would certainly not miss.

          And unfortunately, you’re right that they comprise a large percentage of white America.

          Still, there are people like you and me out there. If only we could win more whites over to our flock.

    • Marxist Hypocrisy 101

      SHUCKS, BAY AREA GUY, IF ONLY THERE WERE SOME SORT OF “FINAL SOLUTION” YOU COULD CALL BACK ON TO ENSURE THAT ALL THOSE PESKY PEOPLE YOU DISLIKE AS A WHOLE BASED SOLELY ON THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN WERE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO VOTE OR SPEAK OR LIVE.

  20. south korea

    india

    boliva

    ukraian

    nigeria

    maybe democracy isn’t such a good thing for everybody. I think if there are more female politicans, we will see less of this.

    • Wade in MO

      “maybe democracy isn’t such a good thing for everybody.”

      100% agreement here.

      “I think if there are more female politicans, we will see less of this.”

      I doubt that. Hilary Clinton was a huge war hawk leading up to the Iraq invasion. There have been warrior queens and princesses throughout history. Also, women can be bought just like men.

  21. hey robert, my comment went into moderation.

  22. Paul

    Screw the racism, once we see each other on the same plane we can never move onto the next step. If we want to create a world where we are equal we have to put aside skin color and anything else that makes different.

    Nonetheless I agree with you on certain aspects. However neither pure communism and pure capitalism are good. Although ideologically a communist state doesn’t have to be a dictatorship, more than often it is. Regarding capitalist style governments, they often have a facade of being “democratic” but they aren’t because they are controlled by the people that have capital (and by that i mean a lot of money). I agree that a mixed economy with socialist ideals and capitalistic style is overall good. For example Social Democratic ideals aren’t to bad. It comes down to do you want to have a government ruled by 1 effective person that can will get stuff done (a good dictator)? or elect a person every number of years and so, and have a great discrepancy between the people of the country. Unfortunately we are all human, and many times people think of themselves before others. Until we are able to override our selfish true nature, we will never be able to live in a world without poverty, famine, war and everything else that is bad. We as a people must all try to give up on extreme materialism, and be good with one another.

    • Marxist Hypocrisy 101

      What a load of sollipsistic BS.

      The problem isn’t millions of years of human evolution, the problem is people like you who think that all the world’s problems will be solved once everyone is forced at gunpoint to accept the dogmatic socialist delusions of a “good” dictator.

        • Not a Commie

          Wow! You ban people for disagreeing? Such a fragile ego. Clearly your ideology can’t stand on it’s own two feet why would you force others to accept such a naive view of the world. It’s also funny how you violate your own rules talk about living in a bubble.

          No one but the already indoctrinated and moronic will accept such dishonest practices. Oh no! It might seem to similar to those vile capitalist dogs!

          No matter how many emotional appeals you use to try and justify the means communism is still legalized theft at gun point. Capitalism is volunteerism. Capitalism is not perfect but clearly the best system.

          Finally, I’m not a right winger I know you live in a bubble but quite a bit of rational and truly critical thinking people hate liberals, socialists, and communists as well. We also realize their arguments are full of emotional appeals and fallacies your not fooling anyone.

          That’s all you can go back to your circle jerk of a blog now.

        • Actually, you are a rightwinger. With that language, you can’t possibly be anything but.

          In addition to being a rightwinger, you’re also banned.

          HAND!

  23. Marina Calo

    Obviously you haven’t been to cuba to see the poverty and dirt and disastrous life they live in day by day while the castros live the good life. Obviously you didnt visit the poor parts of rusdia where they die drunk with vodka cause they never had heating. Obviously you have never lived under comunism. You live in capitalist country thinking you know it all while have all the comforts to be an idealist…pleaseeee!!!

    • The Soviets heated up most of the country. The death rate skyrocketed after the conversion to capitalism in Russia, so Russian capitalism is killing far more people than Communism did.

      The average Cuban does not live in dirt and poverty and does not have a disastrous life. They have the longest life expectancy in Latin America.

  24. Your Utopian ideals blind you to the logic that no matter how hard you wish, a Ponzi scheme never works in the long run. Sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.

  25. Oh and before you “BAN” me. The lack of freedom of speech due to squashing of dissent of ideas on here is astonishing, as is your propensity to label people with the typical partisan garbage.

    • We socialists have already heard all of your nutty arguments and we have been researching them for years. I have been researching the arguments of the Right for decades and continue to do so. They’re all garbage, and I reject them all, but trust me, I do look into them. We do not need to hear any more of your bullshit. Go take it to your rightwing blogs and preach to the choir over there.

      And yes you are banned.

      HAND!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s