Lefty Rag Salon’s Insane Defense of Communism: Denies Millions Killed By Soviets And Mao Had To Do With Ideology, Claims “Oppressive Communism” Is A “Myth”…

[happyg]

This is about as insane as it gets. Via Salon:

As the commentary around the recent deaths of Nelson Mandela, Amiri Baraka and Pete Seeger made abundantly clear, most of what Americans think they know about capitalism and communism is arrant nonsense. This is not surprising, given our country’s history of Red Scares designed to impress that anti-capitalism is tantamount to treason. In 2014, though, we are too far removed from the Cold War-era threat of thermonuclear annihilation to continue without taking stock of the hype we’ve been made, despite Harry Allen’s famous injunction, to believe. So, here are seven bogus claims people make about communism and capitalism.

1. Only communist economies rely on state violence.

Obviously, no private equity baron worth his weight in leveraged buyouts will ever part willingly with his fortune, and any attempt to achieve economic justice (like taxation) will encounter stiff opposition from the ownership class. But state violence (like taxation) is inherent in every set of property rights a government can conceivably adopt – including those that allowed the aforementioned hypothetical baron to amass said fortune.

In capitalism, competing ownership claims are settled by the state’s willingness to use violence to exclude all but one claimant. If I lay claim to one of David Koch’s mansions, libertarian that he is, he’s going to rely on big government and its guns to set me right. He owns that mansion because the state says he does and threatens to imprison anyone who disagrees. Where there isn’t a state, whoever has the most violent power determines who gets the stuff, be that a warlord, a knight, the mafia or a gang of cowboys in the Wild West. Either by vigilantes or the state, property rights rely on violence. [...]

2. Capitalist economies are based on free exchange.

The mirror-image of the “oppressive communism” myth is the “liberatory capitalism” one. The idea that we’re all going around making free choices all the time in an abundant market where everyone’s needs get met is patently belied by the lived experience of hundreds of millions of people. Most find ourselves constantly stuck between competing pressures and therefore stressed out, exhausted, lonely, and in search of meaning. — as though we’re not in control of our lives.

We aren’t; the market is. If you don’t think so, try and exit “the market.” The origin of capitalism was depriving British peasants of their access to land (seizure of property, you might call it), and therefore their means of subsistence, making them dependent on the market for their survival. Once propertyless, they were forced to flock to the dreck, drink and disease of slum-ridden cities to sell the only thing they had – their capacity to use their brains and muscles to work – or die. Just like them, the vast majority of people today are deprived of access to the resources we need to flourish, though they exist in abundant quantities, so as to force us to work for a boss who is trying to get rich by paying us less and working us harder. [...]

3. Communism killed 110 million* people for resisting dispossession.

*The number cited is as consistent as it is rooted in sound research; i.e., not.

Greg Gutfeld, one of the hosts of Fox News’ “The Five” and a historical scholar of zero renown, recently advanced the position that “only the threat of death can prop up a left-wing dream, because no one in their right mind would volunteer for this crap. Hence, 110 million dead.” In declaring this, Gutfeld and his ilk insult the suffering of the millions of people who died under Stalin, Mao, and other 20th Century Communist dictators. Making up a big-sounding number of people and chalking their deaths up to some abstract “communism” is no way to enact a humanistic commitment to victims of human rights atrocities.

Keep reading…
- See more at: http://weaselzippers.us/170925-lefty-rag-salons-insane-defense-of-communism-denies-millions-killed-by-soviets-and-mao-had-to-do-with-ideology-claims-oppressive-communism-is-a-myth/#sthash.kpxgC8Kg.dpuf

Keep reading…
- See more at: http://weaselzippers.us/170925-lefty-rag-salons-insane-defense-of-communism-denies-millions-killed-by-soviets-and-mao-had-to-do-with-ideology-claims-oppressive-communism-is-a-myth/#sthash.kpxgC8Kg.dpuf

[rb224315]

Wasn't this written by the same tool who wrote the Rolling Stone piece last month, defending Communism?  If this guy loves Communism so much, I'm sure he'd be welcome in China.

[Bigun]

An attempt at complete and total revision of history is the only way I can classify this idiotic article!

[aligncare]

Bozos @ Salon making the case for Communism –

... at a time in history that witnessed the dissolution of one communist state, the Soviet Union, and is witnessing the commandeering of the mechanisms of capitalism by another, China!

So, Masterminds @ Salon. How's Socialism under Obama and Democrats working for us here in the United States so far?

[Relic]

Don't casually dismiss this. America is ready for communism. Unfortunately for us all, Americans require any lessons to be taught first hand.

[rb224315]

Don't casually dismiss this. America is ready for communism. Unfortunately for us all, Americans require any lessons to be taught first hand.

Exactly right.  For all of their blathering about conservatives ignoring science, the left sure can't seem to use it to see what happened in the pretty recent past.  The points this guy made in his article are clearly incorrect and based on falsehoods but that won't stop fools from believing his tripe.

[rangerrebew]

Was this written by Frank Marshall Davis and plagiarized?

[Fishrrman]

[[ Wasn't this written by the same tool who wrote the Rolling Stone piece last month, defending Communism? ]]

It's kind of ironic that Rolling Stone would promote communism as such, but at the same time, won't let you read 40-year-old back issues online without paying for the privilege...

[alicewonders]

[[ Wasn't this written by the same tool who wrote the Rolling Stone piece last month, defending Communism? ]]

It's kind of ironic that Rolling Stone would promote communism as such, but at the same time, won't let you read 40-year-old back issues online without paying for the privilege...

Communism for thee - but not for me (just the little people).