Most heinous British war crime?

[dandydan]

Stalinism.

Communism is simply an economic theory competing with capitalism. The particular danger Churchill feared was Stalinism (and later Maoism). It was a well-founded fear of massive industrial nations being led by a cult of personality. At least in the favorable view. The unfavorable view would point out that communism competes with capitalism, and capitalists don't like that. And capitalists are really good at protecting their way of life.

How many flavours of communism do you feel there is? And how many have worked?

 

[dandydan]

Played centre-mid for cameroon in 1990 world cup?




Alright, Michael Gove.

Have a read of Somme by Ian hart.

 

[dandydan]

Also when googling "Somme" a slip of the finger to the right when beginning typing brings up interesting results. I might be a while replying.

 

[RaleighBlue]

How many flavours of communism do you feel there is? And how many have worked?

Immaterial. Communism is a philosophy of economics. It is not a government or governing philosophy. That said, communism is a system of economics in which the means of production is run by the proletariat, not strongmen or individuals. It is HIGHLY unlikely communism could ever work or even be attempted in it's pure form beyond a group of about 150 individuals, as it would require immense trust and personal relationships.

No major industrial nation has implemented pure communism. They all implement heavily modified forms (much like most nations implement highly modified forms of capitalism, as pure capitalism would very quickly lead to revolution once a nation passed a certain point in its economic development).

Churchill, McCarthy, and the rest used Communism as shorthand for the Soviet Union, which was Stalinist at that time.

 

[terry nodder]

Raleighblue owning the onions out of this thread, very refreshign to see.

 

[Jamo Martinez]

Bloody Sunday wasnt a war crime, it was merely self defence.

I agree that it wasn't a war crime. It was just a crime.

 

[larbert toffee]

Stalinism.

Communism is simply an economic theory competing with capitalism. The particular danger Churchill feared was Stalinism (and later Maoism). It was a well-founded fear of massive industrial nations being led by a cult of personality. At least in the favorable view. The unfavorable view would point out that communism competes with capitalism, and capitalists don't like that. And capitalists are really good at protecting their way of life.

 

[dandydan]

Immaterial. Communism is a philosophy of economics. It is not a government or governing philosophy. That said, communism is a system of economics in which the means of production is run by the proletariat, not strongmen or individuals. It is HIGHLY unlikely communism could ever work or even be attempted in it's pure form beyond a group of about 150 individuals, as it would require immense trust and personal relationships.

No major industrial nation has implemented pure communism. They all implement heavily modified forms (much like most nations implement highly modified forms of capitalism, as pure capitalism would very quickly lead to revolution once a nation passed a certain point in its economic development).

Churchill, McCarthy, and the rest used Communism as shorthand for the Soviet Union, which was Stalinist at that time.

Good post. Can't argue with that.

 

[chrismpw]

Anyone mentioned Blair's weapons of mass destruction yet?

 

[rascal]

Anyone mentioned Blair's weapons of mass destruction yet?

Or the behaviour of some soldiers in the aftermath...

 

[TheBlueGibbon]

The concentration camps used in the Mau-Mau war in Kenya were as horrific as those used in the Boer War.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/aug/18/uncovering-truth-british-empire-caroline-elkins-mau-mau

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

The UK was not at war with Eire, nor any declarations of war with any other party. Northern Ireland paramilitary groups were fighting each other and the Uk had to deploy troops to assist the Royal Ulster Constabulary in an attempt to keep the peace between the rival factions. They did so by openly putting their lives at risk against terrorists who hid in the shadows and set off bombs. Over 1000 RUC and British Army personnel were murdered by these terrorists......

Yeah, Britain never treated the Irish like the enemy.

No defo not.

What was Bloody Sunday again?

 

[dandydan]

Yeah, Britain never treated the Irish like the enemy.

No defo not.

What was Bloody Sunday again?

Poor marksmanship.

 

[Tubey]

Immaterial. Communism is a philosophy of economics. It is not a government or governing philosophy. That said, communism is a system of economics in which the means of production is run by the proletariat, not strongmen or individuals. It is HIGHLY unlikely communism could ever work or even be attempted in it's pure form beyond a group of about 150 individuals, as it would require immense trust and personal relationships.

No major industrial nation has implemented pure communism. They all implement heavily modified forms (much like most nations implement highly modified forms of capitalism, as pure capitalism would very quickly lead to revolution once a nation passed a certain point in its economic development).

Churchill, McCarthy, and the rest used Communism as shorthand for the Soviet Union, which was Stalinist at that time.

This is spot on, but I'd add the caveat that it's actually impossible to implement pure Communism to a whole state, so to all extents and purposes the states who borrow Communist philosophy but adapt it to their own ends are effectively the only form of Communism you'll ever see on the geopolitical stage.

 

[RaleighBlue]

This is spot on, but I'd add the caveat that it's actually impossible to implement pure Communism to a whole state, so to all extents and purposes the states who borrow Communist philosophy but adapt it to their own ends are effectively the only form of Communism you'll ever see on the geopolitical stage.

I agree. Hence my statement about 150 people. Go over that number and actual personal relationships all but disappear within the network. Without those personal social networks it is very unlikely for people to subvert their natural desires entirely to the collective without some sort of huge carrot at the end of stick, whether that carrot be the afterlife, the divinity of a king, fear of retribution from a strongman, or potential monetary gain.

Communism simply requires people to work for society in a way that we're not presently wired to do. The theoretical tribes we've created and deemed nations simply don't bind us quite strongly enough for pure communism to be anything more than a though experiment.