Pol Pot?

[cheka]

When I initially began reading about Pol Pot I shrugged him off as a crazed man exploiting marxism. Now, into the 21st century, the world has begun an extreme downward spiral. With resources dwindling left and right, and the world being abused by Capitalist by products, was Pol Pot really that crazy? Something EXTREME is needed if the world keeps heading this way. I'm talking like, extreme. Imperialism will most likely be extremely rampant during this century, with many newly emerging capitalist countries (india, china,) along with the US vying(sp) for resources. Was abandoning cities really that horrible? While his methods may have been vicious, sacrifices need to be made for future generations if we are to keep this planet habitable.

[redstar2000]

Was abandoning cities really that horrible?

Yes.

A return to rural primitivism would result in a massive "die-off" of half the world's population if not more.

In fact, what would probably happen would be a return to savagery...with perhaps less than 100 million surviving humans.

Most of the Cambodian dead probably were not directly murdered by the Khmer Rouge...they died from malnutrition and disease.

That's what happens when you try to go "back to nature".

I do not doubt that Pol Pot was clinically insane by any reasonable standards..."peasant messiahs" are not particularly well known for their rationality.

It is certainly possible that there will be inter-imperialist wars on a major scale in the rest of this century...and that the planetary environment will suffer from them -- particularly if nuclear weapons are employed.

But those are the breaks...we are not going to voluntarily adopt a return to savagery as an "alternative" to those risks.

Oh, a few nutballs might advocate that...from the comfort of their suburban castles. But no one will listen.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Yeah, RS is right, strictly agrarian means of production cannot possibly sustain a population of 6 billion.

Simply because of that, we cannot advocate it.

[praxus]

When I initially began reading about Pol Pot I shrugged him off as a crazed man exploiting marxism. Now, into the 21st century, the world has begun an extreme downward spiral. With resources dwindling left and right,

What resources are you refering to?


and the world being abused by Capitalist by products, was Pol Pot really that crazy? Something EXTREME is needed if the world keeps heading this way. I'm talking like, extreme. Imperialism will most likely be extremely rampant during this century,

Define Imperialism, also please explain why you think Imperialism as such is a negative thing.


with many newly emerging capitalist countries (india, china,) along with the US vying(sp) for resources.

China is a Totalitarian Socialist country and India is a highly mixed economy which are slowly moving to a more "hands off" approach in the area of economy. They are hardly "capitalist countries" as you put it.


Was abandoning cities really that horrible? While his methods may have been vicious, sacrifices need to be made for future generations if we are to keep this planet habitable.

The planet is habitable and there isn't an ounce bit of evidence that man is making it any less so. In fact man has made it significanly more inhabitable through the improvement in technology.

[New Tolerance]

China is a Totalitarian Socialist country and India is a highly mixed economy which are slowly moving to a more "hands off" approach in the area of economy. They are hardly "capitalist countries" as you put it.

How is China still "socialist"?

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 1 2005, 03:14 AM

China is a Totalitarian Socialist country and India is a highly mixed economy which are slowly moving to a more "hands off" approach in the area of economy. They are hardly "capitalist countries" as you put it.

How is China still "socialist"?
He is some kind of objectivist, and as such he lack a correct analyzis. I have argued alot with that kind of people, its utseless. They do not even grab the most obvious things.
He probably even thinks that capitalism is the same thing as neo-liberalism, and less free market - less capitalism. And thats just stupid.

[Professor Moneybags]

I have argued alot with that kind of people, its utseless.


He probably even thinks that capitalism is the same thing as neo-liberalism, and less free market - less capitalism. And thats just stupid.

Tell me, who are these objectivists are who believe that "capitalism is the same thing as neo-liberalism, and less free market" ? I've never met any.

[praxus]

How is China still "socialist"?

The state still owns the vast majority of the means of production, and is totalitarian because they heavily restrict the rights of the citizenry.


capitalism is the same thing as neo-liberalism, and less free market - less capitalism. And that’s just stupid.

I have defined Capitalism as the system of Laissiez Faire, you keep attacking me because you are incapable of a rational argument. You think if you insult me enough it will some how justify your false beliefs.

[New Tolerance]

The state still owns the vast majority of the means of production, and is totalitarian because they heavily restrict the rights of the citizenry.

I don't dispute that it's totalitarian, but I've never read anything that said that the state still owns "the vast majority of the means of production". (But I have been constitently seeing articles saying that the private sector is generating more than 50 percent of the GDP) Can I see your sources?

[praxus]

I don't dispute that it's totalitarian, but I've never read anything that said that the state still owns "the vast majority of the means of production". (But I have been constitently seeing articles saying that the private sector is generating more than 50 percent of the GDP) Can I see your sources?

Just because the private sector generates over 50% of the GDP does not mean that the greater ammount of the "means of production" (property) is in the hands of the private enterprises. Well over half of the employment, is still by state owned and operated "SOE's" and the Government owns huge ammount of land as well.

There are tons of articles, here is one I found right away which mentions the employment...

http://www.pwcglobal.com/extweb/newcolth.n...5256CF6007B9607 (http://www.pwcglobal.com/extweb/newcolth.nsf/docid/3D15C57A6D220BB985256CF6007B9607)

This being said it (china) is becoming less socialist by the day.

[New Tolerance]

Just because the private sector generates over 50% of the GDP does not mean that the greater ammount of the "means of production" (property) is in the hands of the private enterprises. Well over half of the employment, is still by state owned and operated "SOE's" and the Government owns huge ammount of land as well.

There are tons of articles, here is one I found right away which mentions the employment...

http://www.pwcglobal.com/extweb/newcolth.n...5256CF6007B9607

This being said it (china) is becoming less socialist by the day.

I know the fact that just because 50% of the GDP is generated by private it doesn't mean that most of the property is owned privately. (I didn't talk about how many workers were still employed by the state because I didn't have an exact figure for you) I just brought up this point to show that it is unlikely that the state still owns a "vast majority" of the property.

Further more I found this article from Forbes, it's more recent than the one you provided:

http://www.forbes.com/business/2004/11/04/...nseychina6.html (http://www.forbes.com/business/2004/11/04/cx_1104mckinseychina6.html)

It said that 'half' of the 750 million workers are still state employed and the state owns 57 percent of the industrial assets, that's hardly a "vast majority", it's not even 2/3 of the means of production. It's merely a slight majority. On top of that as you mentioned these numbers are decreasing everyday, and given China's terrible statistics record I'd say that if you only considered the employment the state may even be employing a slight 'minority' of the workers today.

Further more, at what point is a country no longer socialist? When it has less than 50% of its means of production owned by the state? Where is the line? I'm asking out of curiosity.

[thegodlesscommie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 02:01 AM

When I initially began reading about Pol Pot I shrugged him off as a crazed man exploiting marxism. Now, into the 21st century, the world has begun an extreme downward spiral. With resources dwindling left and right,

What resources are you refering to?


and the world being abused by Capitalist by products, was Pol Pot really that crazy? Something EXTREME is needed if the world keeps heading this way. I'm talking like, extreme. Imperialism will most likely be extremely rampant during this century,

Define Imperialism, also please explain why you think Imperialism as such is a negative thing.


with many newly emerging capitalist countries (india, china,) along with the US vying(sp) for resources.

China is a Totalitarian Socialist country and India is a highly mixed economy which are slowly moving to a more "hands off" approach in the area of economy. They are hardly "capitalist countries" as you put it.


Was abandoning cities really that horrible? While his methods may have been vicious, sacrifices need to be made for future generations if we are to keep this planet habitable.

The planet is habitable and there isn't an ounce bit of evidence that man is making it any less so. In fact man has made it significanly more inhabitable through the improvement in technology.

The planet is habitable and there isn't an ounce bit of evidence that man is making it any less so. In fact man has made it significanly more inhabitable through the improvement in technology.

WTF?! Don't you realize we are in the middle of a mass extinction?! We are not making the world habitable, we are poisoning it (and ourselves).

[Anarchist Freedom]

So I guess pol pots pointless toturing of civilians was right?!?!? what about his phobia of people with glasses(yes funny but true). What he did is outright wrong pol pot was an outright fucking lunatic. You know torturing someone for no reason then taking them out in the forest and putting them on there knees at the edge of a 40 foot deep hole then batting them in the back of the head to fall down to the ground is real humane right? If you support pol pot then your supporting men like stalin and hitler who killed for no reason.

[Guerrilla22]

It's pretty much impossible to try to defend Pol Pot, so just leave this one alone.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Your probably right.