Can I really make a difference?

[arielle]

Recently I have been doing TONS AND TONS of research on the usual people, Marx, Lenin, Castro, Che, Raul, Mao, Goodman, etc. And everyday a communist friend says to me "do you actually think that you are ever make a difference. Now I really don't know where I stand in a "political party" I just like my ideas as my ideas, I know which part I would most likely fit in (anarchy/communist maybe) but I'm still not sure. You know, still young and all so I don't want to jump to anything. But I'm seriously starting to wonder how much of a difference I can make as myself. I have tried getting people to understand me but everytime I do they say "why not just leave america then?"

And I just think "...then why didn't Fidel and Che just leave Cuba alone after they failed HORRIBLY (starting out with 81 men and ended with 13)." :\ Iunno anymore. Does anyone know what I can say in response to that? I'm am so out of things to say to these people.

[CCJ]

"Never doubt that a small band of commited people can change the world. Indeed, that is all that ever has"

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 03:44 AM
Recently I have been doing TONS AND TONS of research on the usual people, Marx, Lenin, Castro, Che, Raul, Mao, Goodman, etc. And everyday a communist friend says to me "do you actually think that you are ever make a difference. Now I really don't know where I stand in a "political party" I just like my ideas as my ideas, I know which part I would most likely fit in (anarchy/communist maybe) but I'm still not sure. You know, still young and all so I don't want to jump to anything. But I'm seriously starting to wonder how much of a difference I can make as myself. I have tried getting people to understand me but everytime I do they say "why not just leave america then?"

And I just think "...then why didn't Fidel and Che just leave Cuba alone after they failed HORRIBLY (starting out with 81 men and ended with 13)." :\ Iunno anymore. Does anyone know what I can say in response to that? I'm am so out of things to say to these people.
This little diatribe is likely emotionally inspiring to many leftist gadflies, but to be honest, you won't make a difference. Don't take it persionally, it is just that communism is an antiquated and oppressive idea. Just look at who you study. Mao? Che? Casto? they are among the greatest human rights violators of our time.

You see, to create a communist state of any significance you would have to create an insurgency in Amaerica, and that is all but impossible, as the people are armed, and will not stand for some ticky-tack poukes trying dsome leftist takeover in their nation.

i am sorry, my friend, but you are part of a small, misguided minority who subscribes to an ideal of oppression and murder.

[HateandWar]

i am sorry, my friend, but you are part of a small, misguided minority who subscribes to an ideal of oppression and murder.

Whoa whoa subscribes to the ideal of oppression and murder? You clearly dont know your shit. The ideal itself has nothing to do with oppression and murder. Just because a few leaders have been less than admirable is no reason to bash the belief as a whole. I wont argue with you about Mao cause I think he was fucked up but as to your bit about Che and Castro you clearly didnt look at Cuba's free healthcare and schooling before you answered this. Human rights violator? Of course, because it makes total sense to give the people your oppressing all the education they want to explore new ideologies and ways of thinking. And Che? Yeah I'll concede that he probably killed some enemy prisoners during the revolution but its no different than what Washington and company did during the American Revolution. And dont tell me it didn't happen, the only reason they dont teach that shit in school is that history is written by the winners and God forbid that your idols be tarnished in way shape or form. (I call them "your" idols because I am thankfully Canadian. And I only refer to brainwashed right wingers like you and not Americans everywhere)

Sure Castro did some bad shit in his early years when he was consilidating power but what about your precious founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson? What about him as a human rights violator? The crazy bastard had slaves his entire life and didn't think twice about it. I dont know about you but oppressing a few people like that face to face is just as bad as oppression en masse which I dont think Castro or Che was ever guilty of. But hey thats just my opinion. You believe what you want to but in my eyes your wrong.

[YoUnG192]

no communist marxists or whoever on this board will ever make a difference thats a fact, the left has no balls

[Forward Union]

Don't take it persionally, it is just that communism is an antiquated...

Yet it's much younger than Capitalism


...and oppressive idea.

How is direct democracy oppressive? who's oppressing? there's no ruling class, no bosses.


Just look at who you study. Mao? Che? Casto? they are among the greatest human rights violators of our time.

And none of them were communists.


You see, to create a communist state

You would have to create a paradox, since communism is stateless


but you are part of a small, misguided minority who subscribes to an ideal of oppression and murder.

In what was is murder or oppression an ideal of Communism?? I don't remember murder being a practical mechanism....and oppression is pretty much impossible, the mechanisms don't allow it.

[YoUnG192]

And none of them were communists.


Castro isn't a communist? He says so himself. Every single communist system has failed . So your defense is basically "oh they never were communist" who are you kidding?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 09:30 PM

And none of them were communists.


Castro isn't a communist? He says so himself.



If Castro was a communist, he would abolish himself. He has contradicted what it means to be a communist.


Every single communist system has failed .

All none of them.


So your defense is basically "oh they never were communist" who are you kidding?

Not really a defence. It's just an objective fact, they weren't communists, I think they were Marxists/Lenninists/Socialists. But not communists.

[YoUnG192]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Nov 19 2005, 09:46 PM--> (Additives Free @ Nov 19 2005, 09:46 PM)
[email protected] 19 2005, 09:30 PM

And none of them were communists.


Castro isn't a communist? He says so himself.



If Castro was a communist, he would abolish himself. He has contradicted what it means to be a communist.


Every single communist system has failed .

All none of them.


So your defense is basically "oh they never were communist" who are you kidding?

Not really a defence. It's just an objective fact, they weren't communists, I think they were Marxists/Lenninists/Socialists. But not communists. [/b]
Then answer this because I need to ask some q's. Has there ever been a communist country? If so what country? Also, Marx suggests that it is sort imaginary so how can anyone think communism will work?

[JKP]

Communism has never existed before.

Obviously it's hypothetical.

[FleasTheLemur]

Lemmie just say this new guy: Don't listen to Capitalist Imperialist. He's a bit of a neoliberalist douche bag.

I cannot tell you if you'll succeed, but I can tell you that at the very least, you'll inspire someone else. The failed attempt of previous generations have only inspired us and if we fail, we're only watering the seed Marx planted years ago.

[Goatse]

It might not be you, but single people can change the world. People like Mao, Che and Lenin have influenced the world to change. Perhaps a darker example, but Hitler was only one person, and he managed to inspire millions to fight for his cause. Were they not single people? Did they not make a difference?

[YoUnG192]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 11:34 PM
It might not be you, but single people can change the world. People like Mao, Che and Lenin have influenced the world to change. Perhaps a darker example, but Hitler was only one person, and he managed to inspire millions to fight for his cause. Were they not single people? Did they not make a difference?
Single people? Yeah am sure all the people you mentioned acted alone on every single thing.

[Goatse]

Well obviously Mao didn't overthrow the fascists in China single handedly. People can't change the world that way. But people can change the world by inspiring others.

[Amusing Scrotum]

It might not be you, but single people can change the world. People like Mao, Che and Lenin have influenced the world to change. Perhaps a darker example, but Hitler was only one person, and he managed to inspire millions to fight for his cause. Were they not single people? Did they not make a difference?

:lol:

There is no such thing as the "great man in history" theory, even bourgeois historians now admit that.

Have you read, no better understood anything that Marx wrote about historical materialism? .....actually I just noticed the Trotksy reference in your member title. So it's not that surprising that a Trotskyist would subscribe to the "great man in history" theory. After all, Trotsky himself thought that he was that "great man" who could "shape" history. We all know how that turned out. :o :lol: :lol:

[FleasTheLemur]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 20 2005, 12:23 AM
There is no such thing as the "great man in history" theory, even bourgeois historians now admit that.

Have you read, no better understood anything that Marx wrote about historical materialism? .....actually I just noticed the Trotksy reference in your member title. So it's not that surprising that a Trotskyist would subscribe to the "great man in history" theory. After all, Trotsky himself thought that he was that "great man" who could "shape" history. We all know how that turned out. :o :lol: :lol:

Rosa Luxemburg's last known words, written on the evening of her murder, were about her belief in the masses, and in the inevitability of revolution:

"The leadership has failed. Even so, the leadership can and must be recreated from the masses and out of the masses. The masses are the decisive element, they are the rock on which the final victory of the revolution will be built. The masses were on the heights; they have developed this 'defeat' into one of the historical defeats which are the pride and strength of international socialism. And that is why the future victory will bloom from this 'defeat'.
'Order reigns in Berlin!' You stupid henchmen! Your 'order' is built on sand. Tomorrow the revolution will already 'raise itself with a rattle' and announce with fanfare, to your terror:
I was, I am, I will be!"

[Publius]

"Never doubt that a small band of commited people can change the world. Indeed, that is all that ever has"

Bullshit.

It was a 'small group' of people that 'changed the world' by say, defeating the Nazis? By winning the battle of Hastings? By winning at Salamis?

Bullshit.

'Small groups' have hardly done anything; certainly nothing without the support of many, large groups have done plenty without the help of 'small groups'.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 20 2005, 12:23 AM






There is no such thing as the "great man in history" theory, even bourgeois historians now admit that.[

'No such thing' is harsh, but I would say their benefits are overblown.

Most of them were oppurtunists; any number of people could have done that they did. Few (Though some) were talented.

Alexander the Great of Caesar, for instance, were 'great men' but only because they were great generals.

Most Presidents or national leaders aren't, though.

Not Lenin, not Mao, not Stalin, somewhat Hitler.

None of them really did anything new or amazing, they just were leaders.


Have you read, no better understood anything that Marx wrote about historical materialism? .....actually I just noticed the Trotksy reference in your member title. So it's not that surprising that a Trotskyist would subscribe to the "great man in history" theory. After all, Trotsky himself thought that he was that "great man" who could "shape" history. We all know how that turned out. :o :lol: :lol:

Marx's (Hegel's) historical materialism isn't something I would be caught dead using as a defense for anything, other than insanity.

[Publius]

It might not be you, but single people can change the world. People like Mao, Che and Lenin have influenced the world to change. Perhaps a darker example, but Hitler was only one person, and he managed to inspire millions to fight for his cause. Were they not single people? Did they not make a difference?

Certainly. But the fact that you can so simply rattle off their names and the names of those like them leads me to believe they weren't as 'great' as you'd like to believe.

What was 'great' about Lenin? Why was he 'greater' than Trotsky or any of the other Soviet leaders during the revolution? I mean, he probably was better, certainly smarter, but was he THAT MUCH better? Not really.

Stalin? How awas he 'great'? He was a psychopath. He did nothing 'great' other than be better at killing. Any sociopath could do what he did. He isn't unique, just pitiful.

Mao? What did Mao do that was so impressive? China is and was a shithole under him. Any idiot can turn nothing into nothing, which was what Mao did.

Was Pol Pot also a 'great man'? GW Bush? Where do you draw the line?

As I said, there are decidedly some 'great men', but they are few and far between. They have to have true talent and intellect to be great.

Aristotle or Napolean for instance.

This discussion is quite 'Crime and Punishment' esque, isn't it?

[Amusing Scrotum]

'No such thing' is harsh, but I would say their benefits are overblown.

Most of them were oppurtunists; any number of people could have done that they did. Few (Though some) were talented.

Fair point but I was saying that no one man or small group of men has ever made any lasting change of note.

For instance anybody could kill the President, but this would not change the course of history a great amount.


Alexander the Great of Caesar, for instance, were 'great men' but only because they were great generals.

Yet even he had to rely on an army to be a "great" general.


Most Presidents or national leaders aren't, though.

How about Tony Blair. :lol:


Not Lenin, not Mao, not Stalin, somewhat Hitler.

Hitler was an idealist at best and wasn't incredibly intelligent. The intellectuals within the Nazi Party were the ones who came up with all the theories and the "grunts" carried them out. They would probably been more "efficient" without Hitler.


Marx's (Hegel's) historical materialism isn't something I would be caught dead using as a defense for anything, other than insanity.

Hegel was a German idealist who devised dialectics. Marx then developed dialectal materialism and historical materialism. Though I doubt historical materialism was an "invention" of Marx.

However, regardless of whether you agree with Marx's use of historical materialism or not. At this point in time materialist philosophy is not only the best philosophy, but the one used by any intellectual "worth his salt."

As a matter of interest, what do you propose as a substitute?

[Publius]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 20 2005, 03:42 AM




Fair point but I was saying that no one man or small group of men has ever made any lasting change of note.

For instance anybody could kill the President, but this would not change the course of history a great amount.

Certainly it would.

Who knows much Lee Harvey Oswald affected history?



Yet even he had to rely on an army to be a "great" general.

Semantics.

He fought better 'armies' but won because he was a better general.

He crushed the Persians for instance.




Hitler was an idealist at best and wasn't incredibly intelligent. The intellectuals within the Nazi Party were the ones who came up with all the theories and the "grunts" carried them out. They would probably been more "efficient" without Hitler.

None of that matters.

Hitler was a leader. He had a flair for public speaking.

Those are talents that make you a leader. Intelligence and talent are secondary.




However, regardless of whether you agree with Marx's use of historical materialism or not. At this point in time materialist philosophy is not only the best philosophy, but the one used by any intellectual "worth his salt."

How so?

What makes dialectics so good?

What do they tell you?

How do they make an intellectual better?




As a matter of interest, what do you propose as a substitute?

Why replace them with anything?

I don't have a replacement for astrology; I deem it superflous.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 09:15 PM
no communist marxists or whoever on this board will ever make a difference thats a fact, the left has no balls
Especially you.

The right are just bullies cowards at heart. Take George W. Bush for example. A man too cowardly to fight in Vietnam, even though he supported whole heartedly. A man who invades a weak nation. A man who is too much of a chicken shit to face anyone who disagrees with him. Right wingers are so brave when somebody is doing the fighting for themor they outnumber thier opponents. If I were a chicken shit, I would forget about my beliefs hang out "old glory" and go with the patriotic flow, like all the other chicken shit sheep in the USA.

[our_mutual_friend]

I believe that one single person or a small band of people can change the world. Here many of you are following the beliefs of Karl Marx - he has changed the world for you; he has changed your view on the world. If it werent for him the world would be a different place for you.
You have to have something to believe in - and you all do.
It's like with Jehovah's Witnesses - 'convert' other people and you change their world and yours (although in their case they only become official Jehovah's Witnesses by converting like 20 people so raise your eyebrows at that).

Change people's worlds by doing what you believe in - thats the only way it works!

[Amusing Scrotum]

Certainly it would.

Who knows much Lee Harvey Oswald affected history?

It doesn't seem like history was "altered" that greatly by Lee Harvey Oswald. For example Vietnam was not stopped and I doubt many of the other Kennedy policies were abandoned. The same people remained in the White House and therefore it stands to reason that policy would not have changed much, if it did at all.


Semantics.

He fought better 'armies' but won because he was a better general.

He crushed the Persians for instance.

Or maybe his troops were better?

To be honest I don't know much about Alexander the Great of Caesar, but I really doubt that he was able to shape the course of history that greatly just by his own intelligence. Others would have been involved.


None of that matters.

Hitler was a leader. He had a flair for public speaking.

Those are talents that make you a leader. Intelligence and talent are secondary.

Though the leader on his own is pretty meaningless. Hitler was another cog in the machine and without his "cog" the machine may have operated slightly differently, but those differences would have been mainly cosmetic.


How so?

What makes dialectics so good?

What do they tell you?

How do they make an intellectual better?


I'm not talking about dialectics, I happen to doubt dialectics use as an effective philosophy of science. However historical materialism and materialist philosophy have been the most important tool of any person trying to analyse anything over the last 150 years.

One day a better "philosophy" will probably emerge, but it will likely just be an improvement on materialist philosophy, not a completely new strain of thought.


Why replace them with anything?

I don't have a replacement for astrology; I deem it superflous.

Astrology was very useful until new and better theories were developed. Therefore before astrology could be replaced, there had to be something better to replace it with. The same way before creation could be replaced, someone had to develop evolutionary theory. You can't just throw the best available theory out of the window unless you have something that can replace it.

So what is your substitute for materialist philosophy?


Materialist.

1. Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=materialist)

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 20 2005, 12:23 AM
There is no such thing as the "great man in history" theory, even bourgeois historians now admit that.

Have you read, no better understood anything that Marx wrote about historical materialism? .....actually I just noticed the Trotksy reference in your member title. So it's not that surprising that a Trotskyist would subscribe to the "great man in history" theory. After all, Trotsky himself thought that he was that "great man" who could "shape" history. We all know how that turned out. :o :lol: :lol:
Men make their own history. They are constrained by the material conditions of their times but within those confines they are free to act as they wish. History is no steamroller that rolls on regardless of human actions. Stalin did not "shape" history but you'd be a fool to claim that he had no impact.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Men make their own history. They are constrained by the material conditions of their times but within those confines they are free to act as they wish. History is no steamroller that rolls on regardless of human actions. Stalin did not "shape" history but you'd be a fool to claim that he had no impact.

Very true, but the crucial question is given the period and conditions in Russia during Stalin's reign. Do you think that if there had been no Stalin that Russia would have been that different? ....I think the answer is no.

So Stalin did have an impact, but without Stalin history would still have been almost identical.

[Publius]

It doesn't seem like history was "altered" that greatly by Lee Harvey Oswald. For example Vietnam was not stopped and I doubt many of the other Kennedy policies were abandoned. The same people remained in the White House and therefore it stands to reason that policy would not have changed much, if it did at all.

Who can really say? It's pure speculation.


Or maybe his troops were better?

Better BECAUSE of him.

I'm not extraordinarily knowledgeable on the subject, but I do know a little about it.

For example, the Persians absolutely dominated under their kind Darius, but when he died and his son Xerxes took over as general, they lost to the the Greeks at Salamis.

Would they have won if Darius were their leader? I don't know, who does?

But I would certainly say it would have an effect. Darius was handily winning the Persian wars up to this point.

Imagine, just imagine, how Western society would have developed, or not developed, if the Greeks were under Persian Hegemony.

All of Western history could have been changed if it were Darius not Xerxes in charge of the Persian army, or if Xerxes fought the battle at some place other than Salamis. So many things hinged on the leader of the Persian army. One person.

Yes, they couldn't do it all themselves, but they were the key.

Actually, if you want MANY examples of this sort of thing, read the books What If? and What if? 2 edited by Robert Cowley. They're fascinating. It's where I got this idea from.





To be honest I don't know much about Alexander the Great of Caesar, but I really doubt that he was able to shape the course of history that greatly just by his own intelligence. Others would have been involved.

There's another essay about the Premature Death of Alexander the Great.




Though the leader on his own is pretty meaningless. Hitler was another cog in the machine and without his "cog" the machine may have operated slightly differently, but those differences would have been mainly cosmetic.

Without Hitler, National Socialism as we know it would not have existed.




I'm not talking about dialectics, I happen to doubt dialectics use as an effective philosophy of science. However historical materialism and materialist philosophy have been the most important tool of any person trying to analyse anything over the last 150 years.

My mistake.

Materialism is obvious; I was reffering the dialectal materialism.

[Simotix]

Anyone can make a difference from ideas, however, one person can not just take over and make a huge difference. They will need help, they will need to spark something in peoples minds to want them to help.



Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Nov 18 2005, 03:54 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Nov 18 2005, 03:54 AM)i am sorry, my friend, but you are part of a small, misguided minority who subscribes to an ideal of oppression and murder.[/b]
If by murder you speak of Che, then you speak of the American propoganda that has been sent out to make him seem like a murder when facts showed he killed war criminals. Much like America does.


Every single communist system has failed .

There has not been a communisty system yet.


Has there ever been a communist country?

No.


Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 11:38 PM

[email protected] 19 2005, 11:34 PM
It might not be you, but single people can change the world. People like Mao, Che and Lenin have influenced the world to change. Perhaps a darker example, but Hitler was only one person, and he managed to inspire millions to fight for his cause. Were they not single people? Did they not make a difference?
Single people? Yeah am sure all the people you mentioned acted alone on every single thing.
Single ideas can influence great ideas. Any idea has the power to influence and that is when action can be taken.

[Simotix]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Nov 20 2005, 10:08 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Nov 20 2005, 10:08 PM)
Men make their own history. They are constrained by the material conditions of their times but within those confines they are free to act as they wish. History is no steamroller that rolls on regardless of human actions. Stalin did not "shape" history but you'd be a fool to claim that he had no impact.

Very true, but the crucial question is given the period and conditions in Russia during Stalin's reign. Do you think that if there had been no Stalin that Russia would have been that different? ....I think the answer is no.

So Stalin did have an impact, but without Stalin history would still have been almost identical.[/b]
It is about being the right person at the right time. Not anyone can be the right person at the right time but the person that will rise is the one that has a better following when needed.


Armchair [email protected] 20 2005, 08:13 PM

Certainly it would.

Who knows much Lee Harvey Oswald affected history?

It doesn't seem like history was "altered" that greatly by Lee Harvey Oswald. For example Vietnam was not stopped and I doubt many of the other Kennedy policies were abandoned. The same people remained in the White House and therefore it stands to reason that policy would not have changed much, if it did at all.
Quoted for truth.

I mean look at it, even if George Bush gets shot in the head tomorrow it wont make much of a difference. Cheney will take over and we will probably be in a bigger mess then we were yesterday.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Who can really say? It's pure speculation.

There is certainly some evidence that supports the idea that no one man can change the course of history.


For example, the Persians absolutely dominated under their kind Darius, but when he died and his son Xerxes took over as general, they lost to the the Greeks at Salamis.

Would they have won if Darius were their leader? I don't know, who does?

But I would certainly say it would have an effect. Darius was handily winning the Persian wars up to this point.

Well I think decent military historians could give an explanation as to why the Persians lost to the Greeks at Salamis.

Perhaps Xerxes did contribute to the defeat, but it certainly couldn't be said to be all his fault.


Imagine, just imagine, how Western society would have developed, or not developed, if the Greeks were under Persian Hegemony.

We would probably see the exact same thing (modern Capitalism) in the east instead.

However was western development all down to Xerxes incompetence at Salamis? .....of course not.


All of Western history could have been changed if it were Darius not Xerxes in charge of the Persian army, or if Xerxes fought the battle at some place other than Salamis. So many things hinged on the leader of the Persian army. One person.

Yes, they couldn't do it all themselves, but they were the key.

What if the Persian army was already on its "last legs" and winning this particular battle would only have spared them from defeat for a short period of time.

The chances are that even if that individual event in history had had a different outcome, history wouldn't have changed a great deal.


Actually, if you want MANY examples of this sort of thing, read the books What If? and What if? 2 edited by Robert Cowley. They're fascinating. It's where I got this idea from.

Are they on the internet anywhere?


Without Hitler, National Socialism as we know it would not have existed.

Maybe it would have had a different name, a different symbol. However the gradual build of of anti-Semitism in Europe from the 16th century onwards meant that at some point there was going to be a "Holocaust."

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 09:30 PM

And none of them were communists.


Castro isn't a communist? He says so himself. Every single communist system has failed . So your defense is basically "oh they never were communist" who are you kidding?
Exactly, this quote sums it up. Who are you kidding? When every face that has represented communist leadership in the 20th century and today is also the face of oppresion, murder, and corrupt priveledge of the party elite?

You simply and pathetically deny communism's repeated failures by stating that none of the hallmark communist dictators were "really communist".

It's just such a sick sort of fucking denial. It truly borders on the insane.

[Red Leader]

Exactly, this quote sums it up. Who are you kidding? When every face that has represented communist leadership in the 20th century and today is also the face of oppresion, murder, and corrupt priveledge of the party elite?

All the leaders like Che, Castro, Mao, even Stalin for gods sake, actually made thier societies better, it was only until the country was exposed to forigen imperialism that conflicts arrose, and power struggles took place, some worse thatn others.
These leaders however, do repressent the eradication of oppression, murder and privilidged classes. They freed the people from poverty and struggle caused by imperialism and capitalism. In China, peasents were starving year round, however under mao's "currupt dictatorship", millions were givin access to agricultural communes, free health care, and education.

And your argument about how crazy communists are for using the same redundant statements is just plain ignorant. You cannot argue with fact. "every communist system has failed" is not true because there of course never was.

THEY WERE SOCIALIST

No country has ever claimed to be communist. Ever. Yes, the USSR "fell", but as a result of interference from foriegn capitalist countries. Left on its own, these countries would prevail. And for the record, cuba, socialist, hasn't failed.


You simply and pathetically deny communism's repeated failures by stating that none of the hallmark communist dictators were "really communist".

By the way.....is it any more "sick and insane" to constantly give the same lame ass arguments against communism?

"It cant work because it always fails"
"It cant work because it goes against human nature"
"It cant work because I like to own stuff"

In your own words, its almost denial.