The Tragedy of American Diplomacy: A Rebuttal

Versus over 100 million victims under communism. The Nazis may have been evil because of their ethnonationalism, but communism killed more people. I am not a proponent of the means justifying the ends in most circumstances, but considering that communism rates objectively as the second most evil ideology in history it is easy to understand why decision-makers at the time felt it necessary to deploy extraordinary measures to depose this unalloyed evil.

In your own country, prison guard forced Christians to eat faeces to renounce their faith!

It wasn’t an easy achievement. The default setting of humanity is abject and unremitting poverty, as witnessed by the fact that for most of human history people lost their teeth by 25 and died for the most part in their thirties. Plus, one of the principal things holding back many developing countries was advice on socialism from Soviet advisors.

Nowhere in Africa was the socialist experiment successful. It was a miserable fiasco in country after country including Angola (under dos Santos), Benin (under Kerekou), Ethiopia (under Mengistu), Ghana (under Nkrumah), Guinea (under Toure), Mali (under Keita), Mozambique (under Chissano), Tanzania (under Nyerere), and Zambia, among others.

In 1961, workers on Ghana state farms barely produce enough to feed themselves let alone the nation. In Tanzania, Ujamaa destroyed the country’s agriculture. Ethiopia’s misguided villagization program did the same. Zimbabwe socialist experiment ended in disaster, transforming the country which used to be called the breadbasket of the region into a net food importer, with millions facing starvation. Over 4 million fled the country into neighboring countries such as Botswana, South Africa and Mozambique. Tragically, South Africa is gearing up to repeat these catastrophic mistakes.

And this is before we consider the disasters in SE Asia: Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

Again, you persist in misreading my statements. I specifically highlighted the desire of former Eastern European countries to join NATO out of fear of an aggressive and resurgent Russia. Georgia was the proof that they were right to fear, and fully justified in joining NATO.

It’s not by accident that countries with the longest history of democratic institutions and capitalism enjoy the highest standards of living objectively. I’m sure you will blame the lump fallacy, and resort to an illusionary finite pot in which somebody has to lose if another wins. But the heterodox economics is exactly what raises people up from default poverty.

Let’s put it in terms you will understand. If Katy and Jane want to have a party and they find that Katy can make seven cupcakes an hour but only one bottle of lemonade, but Jane can make three cupcakes and three bottles of lemonade, capitalism will ultimately allocate Katy to make the cupcakes and Jane to make the lemonade. Socialism doesn’t like the fact that some people are inherently better at doing some things than others, but even if they don’t get round to punishing Katy for being so successful, it assigns labour arbitrarily, except in the rare circumstances it can find gifted people who can bring glory to the state.

This is the rotten timber built into the foundation of Marxism, the removal of living labour from processes, and the subsequent reallocation of said labour is exactly what powers increased productivity, a world of abundance and plenitude. The world prospers when fewer people can do more, it stays brutally oppressive in terms of living standards in the otherwise unassailable nature of poverty when it does not. Granted, capitalism isn’t perfect- it is isn’t always efficient in finding new jobs with dignity for people discarded by the system, and it could do with a more humane system of transitions and safety nets, but Marx and the ideologies which stem from it are wrong because his basic theory of labour was so incorrect.

He imagined a world in which the realisation of communism would lead to unprecedented productivity rises, but didn’t realise his theory of labour was an unsurmountable wall to achieving it. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with worker owner cooperatives, or the idea that workers should have the chance of owning the proceeds of their own labour, but one still needs to have competition in the marketplace, because this is exactly what causes labour to become more productive and innovative its way towards a better future.

The Twentieth Century was a contest between competing ideologies and economic systems. Capitalism may have won politically, but the true testament to its inherent superiority is the fact that people have the opportunity to bemoan their lack of ‘impact’ on the world, in an era where they are amply fed, heated or air conditioned, have running water, access to the greatest source of high quality information in history for free, dental, have more clothes than they know what to do with, and profusion of interesting ways to occupy their ever-increasing leisure time- and the ‘have nots’ of this world are rapidly catching up in a way which was never possible under communism.

The only problem seems to be that a lack of struggle and the absence of existential threat seems to make people miserable- as witnessed by the fact that people in the developing world are generally the most optimistic. Who knew…


Woof, that’s a new low for you. First of all, my statement had nothing to do with communism, you seem to have a fixation on the subject. Second, the number you pulled is a known propaganda fake that increases every year. Third, even if your answer had anything to do with my statement (which it doesn’t), and even if the number was not total fake, your answer would still be pure whataboutism.

“but” negates everything that came before it.

good one, the mental delusions of some sick minded capitalists does not count as “objective”, sorry to break your bubble, but you wont find any objective thinking person who shares such puerile opinions.
You seem to have completely lost the ability to discern between propaganda and reality.

It is indeed nice when someone decides what is evil and what is not, and decides what are the appropriate atrocities to deploy in order to “depose the unalloyed evil”.
The atrocities i mentioned were committed before, during and after the “communist scare”, so your attempt to justify American atrocities fails again.

Such a childish thing to say, even if that was true, it proves what? and what’s the connection with the subject at hand?
Should i reply with an equally idiotic statement about some ugly things that happened or are still happening in your country?
Again your attempts to defend an indefensible position make you steep to new depths.

Blanket statements *yawn.
Even if it was true, which it isn’t, still have to ask you “so what”?
What’s your point? There was/is no famine in capitalist African countries? No economic disasters in capitalist countries? Like…erm…America in the 30s? lol

Quoted the whole thing so it is easy to see that i did not misread your statements, it’s just that your statements are self contradicting as shown above.

Except they had no desire to join NATO, they were coerced to join NATO. As i stated before, joining NATO was not to their advantage, neither strategically nor economically. The US can muscle big powerful countries around, small powerless countries with corrupt puppet governments are no sweat.

Self fulfilled prophecy huh? Georgia was an ex-Soviet republic too.

Of course it’s not by accident, it’s due to their colonial aggressions past and present, duh.

You are trying to say “zero sum principle”. No i’m not going to go there.

Oh boy…“default poverty”…“heterodox economics”…


Oh that’s profound. How many slaves are working on the lemon plantations? How much are the farmers paid for their wheat? How about the sugar cane slaves?
And i like parties, will Katy and Jane be dancing on the table at that party? Will the attendance be free?

Until now you’ve been just childish, but now you resort to lying, bad boy.
Here is what i have learned in my socialist elementary school about the subject:
“From each, according to their possibilities.
To each, according to the quantity, quality and social importance of the work done”
Your phantasies and hallucinations about socialism and communism should not be taken as fact.

There should be some medication for this kind of hallucinations.

Quoted for fallacy.
Do yourself a favor and read Marx, until then do yourself another favor and stop tackling subjects you have no clue about.
Oh and send my regards to Katy and Jane, hope i’m invited to their party.

What you describe is not due to capitalism, it’s due to imperialism, and you should preach your theories to the billion people starving in capitalist systems around the world.
Oh and another friendly reminder: socialist economies ceased to exist over 30 years ago, judging by the ardor you are kicking the dead horse with, it seems you missed that fact.
In any case you can’t use communism to justify western atrocities in general, and especially not those committed in the last 30 years.

Simply not true. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were desperate to join NATO. Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania had all applied in the first round, but been rejected. This doesn’t sound like coercion to me- please provide evidence that these governments didn’t actively lobby NATO to be admitted.

Again, you refuse to acknowledge my clearly stated point- Eastern European countries joined NATO out of a fear of a resurgent Russia at a later date, and those fears proved justified in the event of Russian aggression in Georgian internal matters.

There are a variety of estimates of the total deaths caused by communism. 100 million is not at the high end of spectrum. The main issue is deaths under Mao Zedong. Estimates range from 40 million to 80 million, but over time further evidence has shown that 65 million as close as we will ever come to an accurate estimate. One of the most contentious areas of dispute is deaths during the Cultural Revolution- some estimates place this figure as low as one million, others as high as 8 million.

Capitalism at its worst may be heartless and exploitative, but despite the ‘vile maxim’, the fact that 85% of the world’s population was raised out of the abject poverty which was previously the default setting for over 95% of the global population is proof enough of an ‘invisible hand’. As I’ve said before, I’m open to the argument that capitalism might be a Faustian bargain, but the simple fact is that communism failed to produce the same material abundance for ordinary people that capitalism did- and the simple movement of peoples demonstrates that the proletariat prefers the material abundance. Who are you to make choices to the contrary on their behalf?

Complete crap. Most wealth created in the world has been created since the 1960s. And the experience of countries which have applied most of the schema of Western capitalism and the science which it powers, shows that the wealth came from a set of ideas rather than the lump fallacy of one country taking another’s wealth. This is not to say that their wasn’t theft or exploitation during the colonial period, but those Empires which engaged in reciprocal and productive trade prospered, whilst those which were based purely upon plunder and loot did not. The Spanish Empire collapsed, largely because the influx of gold from the New World didn’t purchase any new production of tradeable goods, whilst the British and Dutch Empires flourished because they understood that trade was superior to asset stripping.

The turning point was women’s clothes. Sugar, coffee, tea and spices all had finite limits to the amount of goods people were willing and able to consume, but there is no limit the number of clothes a woman will want in her wardrobe.

There is a distinction. The lump fallacy is the erroneous belief that there a finite pot of wealth in the world and in order for someone to gain economically, they must necessarily be depriving someone else of their wealth or the value of their labour. It has elements of zero sum to it, but in general capitalism creates more wealth through voluntary exchanges and the heterodox economics and competition of the market.

The is also the main reason why government run economies are so wasteful, inefficient and generally deplete societal wealth rather than increasing it- wealth is increased as the amount of labour allocated to produce a unit of goods is stripped, and reduced if it takes more labour to achieve the same. This may sound ruthless, but it is only reason for our modern cornucopia. Plus, there is a degree of egalitarianism to material progress. If I were a rich man, I could buy myself a telly for $100K, or I could wait five years for the market to supply me something considerably better for $1,000.

Nice to see the indoctrination started early. I, on the other hand, was taught in schools that everything FDR did was fabulous, only to discover years later, through my own independent reading, that although there might have been an element of necessity at the start of the 1930s, FDR’s New Deal only prolonged the Great Depression and was economically all wrong.

It’s basic Adam Smith and the pin factory. Even communist countries were forced to apply the principle to manufacturing begrudgingly, because they realised that without it, they would produce hardly anything. It’s use was incredibly important to the Soviet Union during the ‘Great Patriotic War’.

This is delusion. Starvation has been all but eliminated in the world. That’s the whole point! The only occasions when people now starve is due to the disruptions to logistical supply chains caused by war. Contrary to what you have been led to believe, the world is rapidly becoming a far better place for people, by almost every measure- one only has to look at deaths from war, disease, poverty, starvation, deaths during childbirth, infant mortality or life expectancy. Sure, we have the long-term problem of climate change, but all the evidence recently coming out of the IPCC is that although there are still causes for concern, the nightmare scenarios of RCP 8.5 and SSP 8.5 are looking all but impossible as likely scenarios.

Your beliefs about the current state of the world are demonstrably false in empirical terms. We’ve all but eliminated the types of scene seen on televisions when Freddie Mercury took to the stage at Wembley- although as I’ve stated, there is still the problem of starvation through war. And, before you ask- yes, I am fully aware of America’s deplorable and unjustifiable tacit support of the Saudis war in Yemen, and it is a situation of which I completely disapprove and condemn.

Exactly! Which is one of the reasons why living standards have improved so measurably around the world during those years. Far from fleeing the land as climate refugees (which admittedly does happen) all those people congregating in cities in the developing world are pursuing economic opportunities in businesses and factories, rather than submitting to the subsistence of ‘traditional’ farming.

Granted, all of this has come at the expense of blue collar workers in the West, hollowing out our societies and introducing an unacceptable level of economic scarcity for labour, but this doesn’t detract from the fact that over the last ten or so years (barring the very real poverty caused by the shrinkage of Western consumer markets during the pandemic, plunging upwards of 250 million people back into poverty and deprivation), 8 of 10 of the fastest growing economies in the world in most years have been in Africa- and unlike the arcane GDP manipulations created by Western finance, these gains have been material for ordinary workers on the ground.


I could NEVER be ashamed of having so much fun!

1 Like