Is Communism the worst? Or national socialistsm is the worst?

Poll

Which one is the worst political party?

Communists
73 (49.3%)
national socialists
75 (50.7%)

Total Members Voted: 148

Author Topic: Is Communism the worst? Or national socialistsm is the worst?  (Read 16747 times)

alright you can't blame mao's stupidity on communism

How so? In terms of being a general he was brilliant.

the authoritarian control of communist dictatorship allowed his negligence to kill far more people i.e. the order to kill all the sparrows that resulted in massive crop failure.
qin shi huang killed much more people (in a ratio) than mao ever did out of complete negligence for the past and future. the dude ruled for such a little time but affected china for millennia
How so? In terms of being a general he was brilliant.
you've got to be confusing him with someone else

that's not true; Stalin was standing on the shoulders of Lenin.
forget


qin shi huang killed much more people (in a ratio) than mao ever did out of complete negligence for the past and future. the dude ruled for such a little time but affected china for millennia
qin shi huang also was drinking lead-contaminated water and mercury in an attempt to live forever; he isn't really a great equivalency because he was actually insane, not just evil like Mao

qin shi huang also was drinking lead-contaminated water and mercury in an attempt to live forever; he isn't really a great equivalency because he was actually insane, not just evil like Mao
look at what mao said and did and tell me he isn't psychotic
mao's a forgetin moron. you can live in a perfect capitalist society today and have dipstuffs elected and harm society in its cores and the fact that it's capitalist has hardly anything to do with it. if you're conservative, look at obama, if you're liberal look at Annoying Orange

look at what mao said and did and tell me he isn't psychotic
We don't have any psychological evaluations so we can't be sure about Mao.

But drinking lead and mercury daily for decades 100% will give you brain damage, and it killed Qin Shi Huang eventually.

In reference to leadership. I see no moral distinction between negligently creating famine and genocide. The end result of both is the same.
There is a moral distinction in terms of relevant intent. One is careless and doesn't intend to kill civilians while the other is careful and deliberately plans the deaths of civilians. The end result is different. For example people living in communist countries can sometimes still grow their own food and survive, if they have land. My economics professor last semester grew up in rural communist poland, and his family beat the food quotas by growing their own food. Under a genocidal dictatorship they wouldn't have had a chance.

Dictatorship in any country has usually proven to be a disaster. For example Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Riddler, Stalin, Castro and even today's Mugabe (even though he was just over thrown), any form of dictatorship doesn't work just look at Syria and Iraq also

Dictatorship in any country has usually proven to be a disaster. For example Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Riddler, Stalin, Castro and even today's Mugabe (even though he was just over thrown), any form of dictatorship doesn't work just look at Syria and Iraq also

this is why i think threads like this are dumb. the op could be reworked into 'which pile of dogstuff smells worse?' and people would still argue about it

There is a moral distinction in terms of relevant intent. One is careless and doesn't intend to kill civilians while the other is careful and deliberately plans the deaths of civilians. The end result is different. For example people living in communist countries can sometimes still grow their own food and survive, if they have land. My economics professor last semester grew up in rural communist poland, and his family beat the food quotas by growing their own food. Under a genocidal dictatorship they wouldn't have had a chance.
and under communism, if they were caught growing and withholding food for themselves without the knowledge of the state, they'd get gulag'd

What's the difference in the end between an extermination camp and a labor camp where the intention is that the inmates will die of exposure/malnutrition/exhaustion? The intention of both is the same, the implementation is just different.

"Deliberate extermination and unjust capital punishment are the same thing" - basically Cappytaino

this is why i think threads like this are dumb. the op could be reworked into 'which pile of dogstuff smells worse?' and people would still argue about it
great amazing 100% valuable awesome necessary insight!

great amazing 100% valuable awesome necessary insight!

you too

"Deliberate extermination and unjust capital punishment are the same thing" - basically Cappytaino
The intention of both concentration camps and gulags was that political enemies/ "undesirable" people sent there would die there. What point are you trying to make?