There are communist parties in europe. They don't kill people. Marx wrote about revolutions of the people, not about systematic elimination of people. As a non-historian I am actually quite puzzled as to why so many communist dictators and brutal regimes turned out to be that way and why they ended up killing so many people. Maybe those interpretations of communism are much more ideological than capitalism. People just kill for capital. But if you kill for ideology you will have to exterminate their children and dogs too. Capitalism seems to substain itself while communism has to be enforced?
Exactly! Capitalism allows the individual to grow and develop at their own pace, according to their desire. Yeah it's a system and if you don't play you starve, but is it any different under Communism? Under Communism there is enforced equality, which is hypocritical, because the party leaders are far more equal than the actual workers who they claim to glorify. And under Communism, if you don't play you are evantually jailed, or worse. In a capitalist society the individual is left alone, for the most part. Communism demands a "group effort" ; when this can't be obtained peacefully they enforce it. That's why Communism is repressive. Let's face it; most of us just want to be left alone, to do our own thing. This is why communism has and will always fail; it denies the individual the right to be a real individual. It is the most insidious of ideologies; it sucks people in with promises of "equality" and "freedom", and then enslaves them once they are indoctrinated and brainwashed, like other systems, or beliefs; all of them want to usurp the power of the individual to do his/her own thing, and to think for themselves. THIS is the enemy. Enforced conformity. Of any kind.
Marx was an an idiot. He may have understood society but he neglected to understand people. Who comprise society.
Well, he isn't a communist. Seems to me he is just a populist with a socialist image. Or a socialist with populist tendencies. Leaders can be quite bad and he doesn't seem to be that bad. It does take some guts to stand up against the US. Not many leaders do it.
No, he uses communist trappings because they make a military dictator look cool. He tried to overthrow Venezuela's democratically elected government in 1992. Yeah he was subsequently "elected", just like Hitler, through fraud and intimidation at the polls. His gangs of "Communist Scouts" are supplanting the police and courts as the legal authority and enforcers. Those who disagree are beaten, have their homes and businesses vandalized, and worse. Get with it; he's that bad. If that's your idea "of not so bad", you should do some reconsidering, because your posts show you to be a person of depth and insight. Try reading more than one newspaer or web page; many people in the world do not have that privelege.
Castro and Mao happened after the Cuban revolution. But you don't have a point. I am not justifying what Guevarra did. I don't have to. It is jus the way it works. The americans killed off the english for independence. And later they killed off each other. So Cuba also had their civil war. Stalin? He was worse than Hitler, but doesn't get the credit. He also defeated Hitler but doesn't get any credit there either. Stalin defeated Hitler, not Churchill and Roosefelt. Churchill couldn't and Roosefelt waited till it was sure Hitler was defeated because they had to defeat the Japanese first. They wanted control over the paficic, and that is what they have today. Then they had to be fast and grap as much Europe as possible so Stalin wouldn't get it. They even tried to annex a large part of France. All self interest.
Get your facts straight ! MAO was a world leader while Castro was womanizing drinking, playing soccer, enjoying college life and appearing as an extra in Hollywood musicals
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004242/. You know, if you're going to discuss this stuff, it's best to have the facts straight . BTW I respect Castro. He is a Cuban patriot, and has given his country real independence, the first Cuban leader to do so. Guevara was a malcontent, who could not fit into society, (aw, he must have had a rotten childhood...poor Che...) and so resolved to destroy it, everywhere. HE did not have the scope to womanize, drink, and appear as an uncredited extra in "Holiday in Mexico", before becoming a Communist icon and hero (wow, what a life!). An interesting pair, the poor boy (Castro) and the rich kid (Che) .
Back to WWII Stalin does get the credit. What have you been reading? And of course each victorious country is going to say that "we won the war !" The British disparage the American contribution, and vice versa. Here's another misconception you have; Roosevelt felt that Germany should be defeated first, and in fact they were; look at a timeline of the war. Yes there was rivalry and suspicion for decades between Japan and the USA. The USA Britain and the Netherlands (govt. in exile in London, still controlling Indonesia) halted sales of petroleum to Japan in 1941, when they would not withdraw their forces from China? What the "Allies" thought they would acheive by this has always been beyond me. It forced Japan to attack "Netherlands India" and the rest of Southeast Asia, to obtain the oil it needed to continue the war. And the USA was once again sucked into international conflict. After WWI we were able to be aloof again. It has not been possible since WWII. I believe that Roosevelt and Churchill knew very well that the Japanese were going to attack the American Navy and the British forces in Malaysia and Burma. On December 6th 1941, the American public did not support going to war. On December 8th, well, it was a different story, which we know. Now, about controlling the Pacific; if that had been the USA's intent, it seems to me that they would have gone to more trouble to insure the satrapy of China and Indonesia, and worked harder to supress Mao and to eliminate Sukarno after the Dutch withdrew from Indonesia, after fighting 3 or 4 years of Vietnam style warfare against the end of WWII. Why? Because President Truman, Roosevelt's successor was at heart an isolationist and was hoping to return the United States to it's pre-war non-aligned position in the world. However Stalin's aggression circumvented this, IMO...
See, even democracies aren't safe. Europe had their worst war ever when they were already democratic nations. It seems that even in democracies leaders can force their people to fight their wars.
Some people think capitalism cannot be stopped through peaceful means.
Of course "democracies" aren't safe! They are the prime targets! The people are busy going about their individual lives, and then SWOOP down come the dive bombers, in come the tanks, and then the people are sorry they cut defese spending, and dismissed the dictator or religious fanatic next door as a "wingnut", a passing fad of those weird neighbors... BTW, why should capitalism be stopped? What would you replace it with? It is not a perfect system. There is no perfect system. What do you suggest?
There is no "democracy". There are republics. The people elect politicians to represent them. They are not the people. It still works better than the alternative, at least from my point of view.
Isn't that what the US has done for years? This often happens. Maybe you can't fight for democracy.
Maybe you can't, and shouldn't, outside of your own country...
Topic: Che Guevara, what a loser