Pol Pot was Marxist like Hitler was Capitalist

[Taverner]

Your thoughts?

[Starry Messenger]

1. Hitler was a capitalist.

Pol pot was no Marxist. Both were bugfuck.

[Taverner]

10. They were both, but at the same time they were both an aberration eom

[Starry Messenger]

14. Pol was some kind of agrarian socialist.

He must have read the cliff notes version of Marx. Wiki says the particular party he belonged to abandoned Marxism. I've read other versions of his story that say that CIA funding was involved.

Hitler was no aberration of capitalism. He was its most perfect expression.

[blindpig]

37. Yep

And it took real communists, the Vietnamese, to put an end to his bullshit, despite support from Washington and Peking.

[BOG PERSON]

2. pol pot

probably knew as much about marxism as you do!

[madinmaryland]

27. Paul Pot???

:P

[YellowRubberDuckie]

3. Hitler was as Fascist as they come.

Doesn't Fascist = Capitalist on crack?

[BOG PERSON]

6. according to frantz fanon

fascism is what happens when european countries colonize each other instead of colonizing asian/african/latin american places.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

13. Well, that's not what Mussolini said....

:shrug:

[blindpig]

35. And colonislism is an aspect of capitalism. n/t

[Confusious]

4. So you're saying he was?

Hitler was funded by, and pandered to, the industrialists.

The most of reason he invaded Russia was communism.

There was also the Jewish bolshevism thing, and lebensraum.

[Taverner]

7. He who?

Hitler a capitalist? Hell yeah.

Pol Pot a Marxist? Well - he was a Maoist. Marxism is a criticism of capitalism. It is an EXCELLENT criticism of capitalism. Maoism is the future's section of Marx, but only one, and with a zeal like that of religion. Forcing the people into the countryside with Lysenkoist policy is a death sentence.

Popular control of the means of production is not.

[Confusious]

16. I really don't see any difference in Marx or Mao.

You can say there's difference, but if I have to really dig into it, there's not really much of a difference.

Kinda like saying Japanese Buddhism is different from Chinese Buddhism. Really, they're the same thing.

[Taverner]

17. Then you haven't really studied Buddhism. Or Marxism.

[Confusious]

18. No I haven't. Why study a failed system like Marxism?

It's for pimply faced leftists like libertarianism is for pimply faced rightists. Both looking for easy solutions to a complicated world.

Eventually people grow up and gain some understanding of people, and see why both won't work. Most, but not all.

As for buddhism, maybe you can enlighten me on the differences between the two? no looking it up on Wikipedia.

Oh, Shinto is not the Buddhism I was talking about.

[Taverner]

19. Marxism is a Critical look at Capitalism. It is not a "failed system"

[Confusious]

22. Eh, no

In Marxist theory, communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely associated individuals.

[Confusious]

23. Actually, now that I think about it

It goes against my usual grain to say something "Why study a failed system?" They should always be studied, so the failures won't be repeated.

Again, only pimply faced teenagers actually think it will work.

[white_wolf]

20. Why should we do your research for you?

If you are too ignorant and close minded to study things yourself, you shouldn't expect other people to do the research for you. However,one difference is that in China Buddhism is mixed with Taoism and Confucianism, where as Taoism isn't followed in Japan. As for comparing Marx to Mao that shows just how ignorant you are. Go read a few books. I can recommend some on both Marxism and Buddhism as both have influenced me over time.

[Confusious]

21. Boy that's a wonderful answer.

Do you always tell people to go F themselves if they ask for a little info? How nice.

[white_wolf]

26. No, only when people make it clear that they aren't interested in learning.

When you say stuff like Mao is no different than Marx it shows how ignorant you are. Tell me where Marx advocated for "the bloc of four classes?"

[Confusious]

28. Marx is no different then Marx

You said it yourself.

I really haven't had much interest in reading Marx just because, while he has a critique of capitalism, I can see pretty good with my own eyes what is wrong with capitalism.

His solution and ideas where capitalism leads to falls flat on it's face though. More likely we'll find ourselves in a feudal system then a communist one.

His understanding of human motivations is also, from what I know, extremely limited and wishful thinking.

As much as you would like to disavow Mao because he puts a black mark on communism, it's still communism and Marx. You can add all sorts of things to a car. Doesn't make it a flute. It's still a car.

And it's still defined as such.

Nothing pisses me off more then people playing little word games.

[white_wolf]

29. Nothing pisses me off more than willful ignorance.

Come back when you've actually read up on Marxism. Until, then there is no point in talking to someone who is willfully as ignorant as you are.

[Confusious]

30. I guess I have to know everything about everything

So I won't be so "willfully ignorant"

Learning about something that has really been a failure everywhere it was tried really doesn't top my priority list.

Next on my failures list to read about is "the Edsel." maybe I'll get to marx someday. Maybe not.

[white_wolf]

31. No, you don't have to know everything, but if you haven't studided something you shouldn't make

comments about it. Without studying Marxism and Maoism you aren't in a position to make any comments on whether or not there are differences or not. I don't know anything about quantum physics and thus I don't make comments about it.

[Confusious]

32. Marx isn't quantum physics

And even with a limited understanding, one can tell if it's full of shit or not. I don't have a degree in quantum physics, but I can tell deepak chopra is full of shit.

I don't have to know all about medical science to know that the faith healers are scamming people.

[Confusious]

24. Actually, now that I think about it

It goes against my usual grain to say something "Why study a failed system?" They should always be studied, so the failures won't be repeated.

Again, only pimply faced teenagers actually think it will work.

[baldguy]

38. When did Marxism fail?

As far as I know, it's never been tried.

[Confusious]

39. It's never the idiology, it's always the implementation

Russia, the eastern block, china, Vietnam, etc, etc, etc...

[baldguy]

40. If you think any of those countries practiced Marxism, that proves you know nothing about it.

All you're doing is regurgitating everything you've been taught from Western capitalist propaganda over the last 70 yrs about Marxism, socialism and communism - which is all just a big stinking pile of bullshit. You should disregard it & re-educate yourself.

[Confusious]

41. It's never the idiology, it's always the implementation.....

It just wasn't PURE enough, it didn't go FAR enough, it was NEVER REALLY practiced there.....

:eyes:

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. These things get complicated.

To channel H. Simpson:"Stupid COMPLICATIONS!!!"

[FarLeftFist]

8. Hitler WAS A capitalist. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of producti

[Taverner]

9. Exactly eom

[FarLeftFist]

12. One of those capitalists was Bush's grandfather Prescott Bush.

[Taverner]

15. Exactly eom

[leftstreet]

11. I agree, legalize pot n/t

[madinmaryland]

25. Doesn't this belong in the lounge, Stalin?

:wtf:

[Monk06]

33. Pol Pot was a Year Zero Maoist who took the Cultural Revolution and turned it into genocide.

[joshcryer]

34. Yeah, they both had adherents who, after realizing their despotism, quietly backed off the rhetoric.

Though the supporters or at least defenders or apologists for Pol Pot don't get as much shit as those who supported Hitler. Granted, Hitler did kill or result in the deaths of almost 100 times as many people (if he can be considered responsible for all of the deaths of WWII, dunno if that counts). But as far as I'm concerned, once you kill a few hundred thousand of your own people, then, well, yeah. Just write your ass off.

[cali]

36. huh?

my thoughts are that is a very shallow, silly op.