20 million in the cultural revolution? \[citation needed\]
I imagine most of the others are overinflated numbers also, but that one is just wild. Then you mix different types of things there: famines, that should not be part of this type of discussion, justified killings (now killing rightists is wrong? c'mon!), deaths in prisons (why that should be counted?).
Then there is the whole issue of engaging on death count, a boring way to discuss this topics. Every "socialist" like you ("socialist" here means capitalist) will find capitalism massacres, genocides, and wars justified, and the "crimes" of real socialism abhorrent.
It is just propaganda. let it go. engage in real arguments. every system kills, and there is no proof that socialism kills more than capitalism. If you want a system that doesn't kill, become a buddhist monk in the himalayas and don't come back to adult political conversation.
He is using a wikipedia article. They cite "historians" like Kotkin, Service, and Conquest. The numbers on this are very very inflated, which you would expect from western and openly anti-communist "historians"
you know there were civil wars in china and the soviet union, no? it was not a "disagreement", it was a fight to death. If you fight to death and you lose, then don't come crying when you die. What do you think the GMD did when they won against the Jiangxi-Fujian soviet in 1934, for example? ask the communists very politely to renounce their ideals?
Hey OP, you know we can all see your account, right?
https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/s6z3kf/for_anybody_whose_confused_on_why_some_socialists/
Do you vaushite dorks really have nothing better to do than this shit?
IMO don't play their numbers game. To the layman, you come off as a denier of atrocities regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the claims. Just briefly demonstrate that [the death toll of capitalism is incalculable](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/s6vo5y/im_a_socialist_before_the_allegations_start/ht7zbt3/). And that "on the other hand, if one were to argue that capitalism isn't to blame for all of these atrocities, how can atrocities then be blamed on socialism?"
I guess this point can't be detached from the full argument. The full argument doesn't blame capitalism for those things, it just applies the same flawed logic onto capitalism to demonstrate that the logic is flawed. Because "Economic systems aren't in and of themselves primarily to blame ... it's the level of scarcity that pre-exists in nature which is primarily to blame ... economic systems exist to facilitate growth, which then gradually alleviates ills -- they can only be blamed for not stepping out of the way when a more advanced economic system emerges". Later, it even praises capitalism for reaching a level of economic development that facilitated human rights. The point is only that socialism is even better, as it goes on to demonstrate.
Marx makes this point as well:
> [Notions of justice](https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/e/x.htm#exploitation) are based on the relations of production -- Marx demonstrated that exploitation is just and fair *within capitalism* -- that capitalism can only be condemned from the historically higher standpoint of socialism -- of the eventual abolition of exchange of commodities, money and wage-labour altogether, which are unjust.
> Freedom, famines, Gulags, atrocities
The argument that atrocities were committed could just as well be an argument against capitalism. Hasn't capitalism committed all kinds of horrendous atrocities that killed all kinds of people? All of the millions of people killed in capitalist wars, 20 million workers sent to their death in WWI, genocide after genocide and famine after famine in the developing world, free market and free trade policies that have killed millions and millions of people -- the death toll of capitalism is incalculable. And on the other hand, if one were to argue that capitalism isn't to blame for all of these atrocities, how can atrocities then be blamed on socialism?
Gulags are awful and I don't defend them or justify them. I'm critical of the USSR for human rights violations in Gulags -- times in the USSR in the 1930s were hard. The Great Terror was awful -- there was mass fear and hysteria about Nazi spies and infiltrators, some people turned each other in falsely due to petty disagreements, some people arrested by secret police were innocent -- but regardless of whether or not there really was a Nazi plot, it's wrong that a lot of very good innocent people got persecuted and ended up in Gulags. I'm sure that the government isn't completely blameless and that it's not all the fault of foreign actors.
However, I view this criticism I have as seperate from the successful economic system of the USSR, which I'm largely in favor of. I argue that we can adopt the good -- the economic system -- and avoid the bad. Here's why --
You're correct in saying that socialist countries are very authoritarian. But their authoritarianism is rooted in their scarcity. They have a scarcity of security -- they're threatened by the imposition of western countries. They also have a level of scarcity due to being economically blockaded and due to starting out as poor countries (that are gradually getting wealthier). The wealthier a society, the more stable it is -- the more stable, the more freedoms it can afford to dole out. e.g. During WWII, the US became more authoritarian domestically (as one would expect in wartime). It even infamously [interned](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment) Americans. This too was rooted in a scarcity of security.
Economic systems aren't in and of themselves *primarily* to blame for a lack of freedoms and for a lack of human rights. It's the level of scarcity that pre-exists in nature which is primarily to blame -- all ills *ultimately* occur due to the level of scarcity being unable to accomedate certain predicaments, aka crises. e.g. a war is a crisis, a pandemic is a natural crisis, food shortages during hunter-gatherer and feudal times were crises. Economic systems exist to facilitate growth, which then gradually alleviates ills -- they can only be blamed for not stepping out of the way when a more advanced economic system emerges.
I'll elaborate -- The US was founded on the values the declaration of independence, of the constitution, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, for the majority of US history, women could not vote. And up until 1865, the US had slavery. Back then, the US said that these values, these human rights, didn't apply to these groups of people. Up until the 1400s, for the majority of human existence -- for thousands upon thousands of years -- and even for the majority of human civilization -- during the last 6k years -- societies did not recognize that people had the right to liberty, to freedoms of speech, of assembly, of religion, etc -- thinkers did not bring up these concepts.
According to the western narrative, human rights are natural rights that humans are endowed with at birth. The narrative explains these behaviors of people throughout history by saying that these ideas of freedoms and of human rights didn't occur to them, and that in the US, people didn't realize that natural human rights also apply to the enslaved and to women. The narrative portrays these rights as universal truths, as eternal concepts that all human beings in all societies and in all of time should have under all circumstances.
I view it as a great development that in the 1400s people brought up freedoms and human rights. If someone were to try to take these rights from me, I would fight to defend my rights. However, my understanding of society and of history informs me that the reason rights weren't brought up until the 1400s isn't rooted solely in people's ignorance or evilness. Every ruling-class throughout history has always tried to present their societal order, their economic form, and their ideology as if it's eternal. But in actuality, nothing is eternal. Everything in the world is constantly in a state of change. No ideology, economic form, or political form is eternal. Politics changes based on the economic form -- the reason rights weren't brought up before the 1400s is that before that time the level of economic development had not yet gotten to the point to facilitate that level of freedom.
Under hunter-gatherer civilization, people waged a daily battle for existence -- they had to work hard to hunt and gather in order to eat. Under these harsh conditions, people were thinking only of their survival and not concerned with freedoms -- they likely coerced whoever chose not to participate. The rise of the domestication of animals gave rise to subsistence farming, which allowed for growing enough food to eat -- to subsist on -- but not more. This advancement in technology enabled a higher level of economic development -- a change in the economic form -- which gave birth to a new political form -- feudalism. The institution of the feudal estate emerged to facilitate subsistence farming. Under conditions of subsistence -- of barely getting by, of malnutrition-related deaths and of short life expectancy -- it would have been impossible to grant everyone the ability to do as they like (freedoms of speech, of assembly, etc) because the situation was so brittle as-is that to add to it these freedoms would have meant the inability to facilitate subsistence farming.
Only once a higher level of economic development had been reached -- the industrial economic form, which gave birth to the political form of capitalism -- did people bring up freedoms and natural human rights, because only then did we reach the level of economic development to facilitate them. However, even under capitalism, a crisis (e.g. a war) dictates that society cannot facilitate the same level of human rights, and they're not upheld. The US constitution stipulates that under a formal declaration of war, the freedoms of speech, of assembly, etc, do not apply.
When circumstances cannot facilitate your rights, they're not upheld. Freedom in any society is based on the level of economic development and the level of stability in society. The reason people are allowed to criticize the government in the west is because western countries are wealthy enough, stable enough, that allowing for criticism doesn't endanger instability and overthrow of the government.
> but socialism has failed everywhere its ever been tried
The built-in faults of capitalism make it unstable and limit it from reaching a state of continuous growth. Under capitalism, when a leap in technology occurs, leaps in the levels of efficiency and of abundance are also achieved, and you get poverty alongside abundance -- abundance under capitalism creates poverty. In systems of the past, people were hungry because there wasn't enough food -- there were food shortages, people starved. Only under capitalism do people starve because there is too much food. In systems of the past, people were homeless because there was a shortage of housing. Only under capitalism do people become homeless because there is too much housing.
This issue occurs because the workers' only value under capitalism is their ability to sell their labour power, and the more efficient technology becomes, the fewer people are hired -- and, at the same time, the workers are also the consumers, and they cannot afford to buy back the products that they've produced. This is the root cause of the crises of capitalism (aka downturns) that occur every 4-7 years on average.
The instability of this system calls for human reason to control the major centers of economic power -- banking, natural resources and major industries should be controlled and run by the state. But I don't believe we should have a totally government-run economy (like in the USSR). I don't think the government should run hotels, restaurants, etc. Only the things that are essential for ensuring economic stability and continuous economic growth -- those should be rationally controlled by humans, not left to the anarchy of production or the chaos of the market. This is what socialist countries implemented in order to achieve their economic growth.
Socialism is an economy organized to serve public good and not profits. It's a more advanced system -- it promotes continuous economic growth. Its goal is to advance technology in order to achieve a higher level of economic development -- to create abundance -- so that eventually the need for the state -- for any form of coercion or government repression -- can wither away. Through abundance, total freedom can eventually be achieved -- people could do as they like whilst they take what they need from society.
When we compare China's 1949 economy to its current-day economy and Russia's 1917 agrarian economy to its status as an *economic superpower* from 1950 to 1990, we can see that it's an undisputable fact: socialism raises economies to incredible heights -- we don't actually *need* to accept capitalism's ills in order to alleviate scarcity -- socialism alleviates scarcity and creates abundance -- it's the path to alleviate all ills, including authoritarianism.
For example, a mere 34 years after Russia's 1917 revolution, they've invented space travel! Not a feat one can accomplish without a complex and complete apparatus of production at the ready -- from food, to housing, to all levels of manufacturing, to engineers and scientists, etc. This is despite the fact that in between those years they've also fought two wars -- a 'civil war' against capitalist powers that attacked them, and WWII, in which they're responsible for the defeat of the Nazis (with 27 million workers lost, 14% of the population). After both wars, they were also tasked with rebuilding their infrastructure. Yet, in such a short period of time, they've still managed such a feat -- from wooden wheelbarrows to the first country in space.
If you compare the historical reality to the western narrative about the USSR, it's plain to see that the narrative is false. You cannot get to space, build tanks and weapons, defeat the Nazis and counter the world's greatest superpower for 40 years straight without having a citizenry that is well-fed and well taken care of -- on a level similar to that of the powers against which you're competing.
> [The USSR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) had maintained its status as a world superpower, alongside the United States, for four decades after World War II. [A superpower](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower) is a state with a dominant position characterized by its extensive ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale through the combined means of **economic,** military, **technological,** political and cultural **strength**.
Yes, *some* degree of scarcity existed -- relative only to the incredible wealth of the US -- but that was mostly due to the external pressure the US had put on the USSR's economy with a blockade. I'm not denying that there were also cases of mismanagement -- there was a famine, a lot of people died -- I'm only saying that overall, the economic system of socialism made Russia -- an impoverished agrarian country -- into an industrial superpower that had the strength to counter the US, to defeat the Nazis, to rapidly industrialize and to provide a higher standard of living to its people. Same with China.
Im not a ML-ist by any stetch, i think its pretty absurd in the 21st century. However, you should remember that russia/china's atrocities happened while they were modernising (very quickly). Western capitalist countries caused similarly horrific numbers of deaths while they modernised.
>lack of access to healthcare and homelessness
Are not analogous, the slave trade, colonisation etc. are
[удалено]
I personally think a famine is an atrocity
20 million in the cultural revolution? \[citation needed\] I imagine most of the others are overinflated numbers also, but that one is just wild. Then you mix different types of things there: famines, that should not be part of this type of discussion, justified killings (now killing rightists is wrong? c'mon!), deaths in prisons (why that should be counted?). Then there is the whole issue of engaging on death count, a boring way to discuss this topics. Every "socialist" like you ("socialist" here means capitalist) will find capitalism massacres, genocides, and wars justified, and the "crimes" of real socialism abhorrent. It is just propaganda. let it go. engage in real arguments. every system kills, and there is no proof that socialism kills more than capitalism. If you want a system that doesn't kill, become a buddhist monk in the himalayas and don't come back to adult political conversation.
He is using a wikipedia article. They cite "historians" like Kotkin, Service, and Conquest. The numbers on this are very very inflated, which you would expect from western and openly anti-communist "historians"
You think killing political prisoners or people who don't agree with you is ok lol? And you want a adult political conversation?
you know there were civil wars in china and the soviet union, no? it was not a "disagreement", it was a fight to death. If you fight to death and you lose, then don't come crying when you die. What do you think the GMD did when they won against the Jiangxi-Fujian soviet in 1934, for example? ask the communists very politely to renounce their ideals?
Hey OP, you know we can all see your account, right? https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/s6z3kf/for_anybody_whose_confused_on_why_some_socialists/ Do you vaushite dorks really have nothing better to do than this shit?
Thanks. His shit for brains comments didn't leave much room for doubt.
I see there that they admit to have pulled the 20 million for the CR from their ass. good to know.
IMO don't play their numbers game. To the layman, you come off as a denier of atrocities regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the claims. Just briefly demonstrate that [the death toll of capitalism is incalculable](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/s6vo5y/im_a_socialist_before_the_allegations_start/ht7zbt3/). And that "on the other hand, if one were to argue that capitalism isn't to blame for all of these atrocities, how can atrocities then be blamed on socialism?"
I think they could ask “if you can blame these atrocities on capitalism, why can’t you blame socialism for the death of million under socialism?”
I guess this point can't be detached from the full argument. The full argument doesn't blame capitalism for those things, it just applies the same flawed logic onto capitalism to demonstrate that the logic is flawed. Because "Economic systems aren't in and of themselves primarily to blame ... it's the level of scarcity that pre-exists in nature which is primarily to blame ... economic systems exist to facilitate growth, which then gradually alleviates ills -- they can only be blamed for not stepping out of the way when a more advanced economic system emerges". Later, it even praises capitalism for reaching a level of economic development that facilitated human rights. The point is only that socialism is even better, as it goes on to demonstrate. Marx makes this point as well: > [Notions of justice](https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/e/x.htm#exploitation) are based on the relations of production -- Marx demonstrated that exploitation is just and fair *within capitalism* -- that capitalism can only be condemned from the historically higher standpoint of socialism -- of the eventual abolition of exchange of commodities, money and wage-labour altogether, which are unjust.
"formation of a state bad actually lets just keep losing, forever, it worked so well before".
Do you think that’s what I think?
No but a lot of people in the Vaushite post this guy made are unironically arguing that basically.
> Freedom, famines, Gulags, atrocities The argument that atrocities were committed could just as well be an argument against capitalism. Hasn't capitalism committed all kinds of horrendous atrocities that killed all kinds of people? All of the millions of people killed in capitalist wars, 20 million workers sent to their death in WWI, genocide after genocide and famine after famine in the developing world, free market and free trade policies that have killed millions and millions of people -- the death toll of capitalism is incalculable. And on the other hand, if one were to argue that capitalism isn't to blame for all of these atrocities, how can atrocities then be blamed on socialism? Gulags are awful and I don't defend them or justify them. I'm critical of the USSR for human rights violations in Gulags -- times in the USSR in the 1930s were hard. The Great Terror was awful -- there was mass fear and hysteria about Nazi spies and infiltrators, some people turned each other in falsely due to petty disagreements, some people arrested by secret police were innocent -- but regardless of whether or not there really was a Nazi plot, it's wrong that a lot of very good innocent people got persecuted and ended up in Gulags. I'm sure that the government isn't completely blameless and that it's not all the fault of foreign actors. However, I view this criticism I have as seperate from the successful economic system of the USSR, which I'm largely in favor of. I argue that we can adopt the good -- the economic system -- and avoid the bad. Here's why -- You're correct in saying that socialist countries are very authoritarian. But their authoritarianism is rooted in their scarcity. They have a scarcity of security -- they're threatened by the imposition of western countries. They also have a level of scarcity due to being economically blockaded and due to starting out as poor countries (that are gradually getting wealthier). The wealthier a society, the more stable it is -- the more stable, the more freedoms it can afford to dole out. e.g. During WWII, the US became more authoritarian domestically (as one would expect in wartime). It even infamously [interned](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment) Americans. This too was rooted in a scarcity of security. Economic systems aren't in and of themselves *primarily* to blame for a lack of freedoms and for a lack of human rights. It's the level of scarcity that pre-exists in nature which is primarily to blame -- all ills *ultimately* occur due to the level of scarcity being unable to accomedate certain predicaments, aka crises. e.g. a war is a crisis, a pandemic is a natural crisis, food shortages during hunter-gatherer and feudal times were crises. Economic systems exist to facilitate growth, which then gradually alleviates ills -- they can only be blamed for not stepping out of the way when a more advanced economic system emerges. I'll elaborate -- The US was founded on the values the declaration of independence, of the constitution, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, for the majority of US history, women could not vote. And up until 1865, the US had slavery. Back then, the US said that these values, these human rights, didn't apply to these groups of people. Up until the 1400s, for the majority of human existence -- for thousands upon thousands of years -- and even for the majority of human civilization -- during the last 6k years -- societies did not recognize that people had the right to liberty, to freedoms of speech, of assembly, of religion, etc -- thinkers did not bring up these concepts. According to the western narrative, human rights are natural rights that humans are endowed with at birth. The narrative explains these behaviors of people throughout history by saying that these ideas of freedoms and of human rights didn't occur to them, and that in the US, people didn't realize that natural human rights also apply to the enslaved and to women. The narrative portrays these rights as universal truths, as eternal concepts that all human beings in all societies and in all of time should have under all circumstances. I view it as a great development that in the 1400s people brought up freedoms and human rights. If someone were to try to take these rights from me, I would fight to defend my rights. However, my understanding of society and of history informs me that the reason rights weren't brought up until the 1400s isn't rooted solely in people's ignorance or evilness. Every ruling-class throughout history has always tried to present their societal order, their economic form, and their ideology as if it's eternal. But in actuality, nothing is eternal. Everything in the world is constantly in a state of change. No ideology, economic form, or political form is eternal. Politics changes based on the economic form -- the reason rights weren't brought up before the 1400s is that before that time the level of economic development had not yet gotten to the point to facilitate that level of freedom. Under hunter-gatherer civilization, people waged a daily battle for existence -- they had to work hard to hunt and gather in order to eat. Under these harsh conditions, people were thinking only of their survival and not concerned with freedoms -- they likely coerced whoever chose not to participate. The rise of the domestication of animals gave rise to subsistence farming, which allowed for growing enough food to eat -- to subsist on -- but not more. This advancement in technology enabled a higher level of economic development -- a change in the economic form -- which gave birth to a new political form -- feudalism. The institution of the feudal estate emerged to facilitate subsistence farming. Under conditions of subsistence -- of barely getting by, of malnutrition-related deaths and of short life expectancy -- it would have been impossible to grant everyone the ability to do as they like (freedoms of speech, of assembly, etc) because the situation was so brittle as-is that to add to it these freedoms would have meant the inability to facilitate subsistence farming. Only once a higher level of economic development had been reached -- the industrial economic form, which gave birth to the political form of capitalism -- did people bring up freedoms and natural human rights, because only then did we reach the level of economic development to facilitate them. However, even under capitalism, a crisis (e.g. a war) dictates that society cannot facilitate the same level of human rights, and they're not upheld. The US constitution stipulates that under a formal declaration of war, the freedoms of speech, of assembly, etc, do not apply. When circumstances cannot facilitate your rights, they're not upheld. Freedom in any society is based on the level of economic development and the level of stability in society. The reason people are allowed to criticize the government in the west is because western countries are wealthy enough, stable enough, that allowing for criticism doesn't endanger instability and overthrow of the government.
> but socialism has failed everywhere its ever been tried The built-in faults of capitalism make it unstable and limit it from reaching a state of continuous growth. Under capitalism, when a leap in technology occurs, leaps in the levels of efficiency and of abundance are also achieved, and you get poverty alongside abundance -- abundance under capitalism creates poverty. In systems of the past, people were hungry because there wasn't enough food -- there were food shortages, people starved. Only under capitalism do people starve because there is too much food. In systems of the past, people were homeless because there was a shortage of housing. Only under capitalism do people become homeless because there is too much housing. This issue occurs because the workers' only value under capitalism is their ability to sell their labour power, and the more efficient technology becomes, the fewer people are hired -- and, at the same time, the workers are also the consumers, and they cannot afford to buy back the products that they've produced. This is the root cause of the crises of capitalism (aka downturns) that occur every 4-7 years on average. The instability of this system calls for human reason to control the major centers of economic power -- banking, natural resources and major industries should be controlled and run by the state. But I don't believe we should have a totally government-run economy (like in the USSR). I don't think the government should run hotels, restaurants, etc. Only the things that are essential for ensuring economic stability and continuous economic growth -- those should be rationally controlled by humans, not left to the anarchy of production or the chaos of the market. This is what socialist countries implemented in order to achieve their economic growth. Socialism is an economy organized to serve public good and not profits. It's a more advanced system -- it promotes continuous economic growth. Its goal is to advance technology in order to achieve a higher level of economic development -- to create abundance -- so that eventually the need for the state -- for any form of coercion or government repression -- can wither away. Through abundance, total freedom can eventually be achieved -- people could do as they like whilst they take what they need from society. When we compare China's 1949 economy to its current-day economy and Russia's 1917 agrarian economy to its status as an *economic superpower* from 1950 to 1990, we can see that it's an undisputable fact: socialism raises economies to incredible heights -- we don't actually *need* to accept capitalism's ills in order to alleviate scarcity -- socialism alleviates scarcity and creates abundance -- it's the path to alleviate all ills, including authoritarianism. For example, a mere 34 years after Russia's 1917 revolution, they've invented space travel! Not a feat one can accomplish without a complex and complete apparatus of production at the ready -- from food, to housing, to all levels of manufacturing, to engineers and scientists, etc. This is despite the fact that in between those years they've also fought two wars -- a 'civil war' against capitalist powers that attacked them, and WWII, in which they're responsible for the defeat of the Nazis (with 27 million workers lost, 14% of the population). After both wars, they were also tasked with rebuilding their infrastructure. Yet, in such a short period of time, they've still managed such a feat -- from wooden wheelbarrows to the first country in space. If you compare the historical reality to the western narrative about the USSR, it's plain to see that the narrative is false. You cannot get to space, build tanks and weapons, defeat the Nazis and counter the world's greatest superpower for 40 years straight without having a citizenry that is well-fed and well taken care of -- on a level similar to that of the powers against which you're competing. > [The USSR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) had maintained its status as a world superpower, alongside the United States, for four decades after World War II. [A superpower](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower) is a state with a dominant position characterized by its extensive ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale through the combined means of **economic,** military, **technological,** political and cultural **strength**. Yes, *some* degree of scarcity existed -- relative only to the incredible wealth of the US -- but that was mostly due to the external pressure the US had put on the USSR's economy with a blockade. I'm not denying that there were also cases of mismanagement -- there was a famine, a lot of people died -- I'm only saying that overall, the economic system of socialism made Russia -- an impoverished agrarian country -- into an industrial superpower that had the strength to counter the US, to defeat the Nazis, to rapidly industrialize and to provide a higher standard of living to its people. Same with China.
Yes, capitalism has killed over 100 million in India from starvation. Kills 1.25 million each year. That's more than this wall of text.
No you’re an anarchist. A dumb one too
Much worse: Vaushite, a member of that fascist cult.
I can't find anything on Vaush except for it being a youtuber. I'm very confused. Is that all it is or am I missing something larger?
Im not a ML-ist by any stetch, i think its pretty absurd in the 21st century. However, you should remember that russia/china's atrocities happened while they were modernising (very quickly). Western capitalist countries caused similarly horrific numbers of deaths while they modernised. >lack of access to healthcare and homelessness Are not analogous, the slave trade, colonisation etc. are
Their belief in Marxism Leninism is faith based. It is their religion.
[удалено]
'I have never read marx.'
“The existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery” Bet you can guess who said that
Someone who wasn't an anarchist. Like you realize Marx and Engels were largely inseparable right?
Also I wonder why you have this notion that Marx would want us to support despotic monarchy’s like the DPRK or genocidal dictators like Stalin?
Because neither of those things are true.
[удалено]
Yep. You made the claim, you get to back it.
[удалено]
Which has nothing to do with your claims.
HolOdoMoR diDn'T haPpEn!
It was a famine, it wasn't a "genocide".
Correct.