Most evil person in history?

[Disva]

Or, i guess, Jesus.

 

[RandomNameRandom]

Well it appears that most likely you don't understand what happened in the Soviet Union because when the state was under a dictatorship of the proletariat situation was when Lenin had most influence in the newly liberated country, further more if the dictatorship of the proletariat is a transitional phrase, why is it that you never care to mention what the next phase entails, rather you decide to go off on a rant about Marx being a greedy monster that has no basis in really anything that we modern people know of the man. Furthermore you refer to the bourgeois as "producers" when in fact they were never the people who created anything are just people who tell others to work and reap the benefits. If everyone works for the good of the society this class is completely unnecessary, and this sadly is where Marxism falls apart, the problem with pure communism is that human beings are inherently greedy even the most selfless person in the world could succumb to their own petty desires and why the system fails, not because its designed to help jealous greedy people because its designed with the assumption that people can put their greediness aside for the good of the community.

While communism does fall apart because it fails to account for human greed, it also fails because of the second phase of the transition from capitalism to communism. SOcialism, or the "middle stage", is actually what Soviet Russia had turned to directly after Lenin's death. Lenin's New Economic Plan (NEP), which allowed for a certain level of privatization amongst the peasantry, was swiftly dismantled after his death because, at one level, it was too much like the capitalist society Lenin had overthrown (though he actually only succeeded in wresting Russia out of feudalism).


The bourgeoisie might not be perceived as producers, but that is in fact what they are. They provide the means of production through which the laborers can then turn their labor into capital. For this they are compensated, though at a rate which Marx felt was unfair i comparison to their contribution (hence his formula of "from each....to each...).

Yes the bourgeois "provide" the means of production through ownership of it, but this is completely unnecessary if the workers themselves own the means of production so the workers can reap the full benefits of their labors rather than what small compensation the factory owner provides. As for socialism being the middle stage didn't Marx actually put communism as the road to a perfect socialist society? Also Lenin's NEP actually rendered the country more like modern socialism such as in countries like Finland, where there is private property and limited private business but all essential things are still provided by the state. It seems odd to me that you seem to take Lenin's achievement of destroying feudalism in Russia so lightly but that's a different topic.

No as communism is the ultimate goal, but you can only get to it by first experiencing socialism. In communism there is no state, so the state cant own the means of production (the definition of socialism).

About the NEP: isnt that pretty much what I said? What does "limited privatization" mean to you that I didnt articulate in my post?

And as for why I so casually dismiss Lenin's overthrow of feudalism: because he replaced one autocratic totalitarian regime with another, but at least the Czar didnt intentionally starve his subjects to death to get them to comply with his edicts (as Stalin did during the Ukrainian genocide.)

What I said about the NEP was that it was more akin to modern socialism than to the old capitalist system.
It wasn't Lenin's intention to turn the country into a totalitarian regime Lenin actually did want a country founded on Karl Marx's ideals, it wasn't his fault that after his depressingly early death that Stalin took power to turn the country into the hell that it became in fact Lenin tried to stop Stalin and asked in I believe it was his will but it may have been a different official document from him that requested that Stalin never be in a position of power.

 

[Travis Higuet]

Well it appears that most likely you don't understand what happened in the Soviet Union because when the state was under a dictatorship of the proletariat situation was when Lenin had most influence in the newly liberated country, further more if the dictatorship of the proletariat is a transitional phrase, why is it that you never care to mention what the next phase entails, rather you decide to go off on a rant about Marx being a greedy monster that has no basis in really anything that we modern people know of the man. Furthermore you refer to the bourgeois as "producers" when in fact they were never the people who created anything are just people who tell others to work and reap the benefits. If everyone works for the good of the society this class is completely unnecessary, and this sadly is where Marxism falls apart, the problem with pure communism is that human beings are inherently greedy even the most selfless person in the world could succumb to their own petty desires and why the system fails, not because its designed to help jealous greedy people because its designed with the assumption that people can put their greediness aside for the good of the community.

While communism does fall apart because it fails to account for human greed, it also fails because of the second phase of the transition from capitalism to communism. SOcialism, or the "middle stage", is actually what Soviet Russia had turned to directly after Lenin's death. Lenin's New Economic Plan (NEP), which allowed for a certain level of privatization amongst the peasantry, was swiftly dismantled after his death because, at one level, it was too much like the capitalist society Lenin had overthrown (though he actually only succeeded in wresting Russia out of feudalism).


The bourgeoisie might not be perceived as producers, but that is in fact what they are. They provide the means of production through which the laborers can then turn their labor into capital. For this they are compensated, though at a rate which Marx felt was unfair i comparison to their contribution (hence his formula of "from each....to each...).

Yes the bourgeois "provide" the means of production through ownership of it, but this is completely unnecessary if the workers themselves own the means of production so the workers can reap the full benefits of their labors rather than what small compensation the factory owner provides. As for socialism being the middle stage didn't Marx actually put communism as the road to a perfect socialist society? Also Lenin's NEP actually rendered the country more like modern socialism such as in countries like Finland, where there is private property and limited private business but all essential things are still provided by the state. It seems odd to me that you seem to take Lenin's achievement of destroying feudalism in Russia so lightly but that's a different topic.

You neglect the fact that without the owner, the factory wouldn't be there in the first place. The workers you talk of could have gotten together, pooled their resources, and opened up a factory in which they were all co-owners, and yet they did not. If not for the hated capitalist, there would be no factory, and there would be no jobs. Your hatred of wealth success and power is borne of a ignorance of how those things are created. You speak of equitable distribution of resources as if those resources fell from the sky. What we have is what we've created for ourselves. If you dislike the terms of your employment, you are free in a free market system to "sell" your labor elsewhere. If you think you know how to run a factory, or any other business for that matter better than the people who are running them now, then do it. Get in the market and compete. Nobody is stopping you. I just don't understand where this philosophy of entitlement comes from. What makes you think you have any right at all to what another has shed his blood and sweat for? If labor union owned factories are in all ways superior, then the free market would reflect that. Their overhead would be lower, the quality of their products greater, and the price to consumers more affordable. Unfortunately for the true believers of the left, those things are almost never true. And when they are, congratulations, you've just successfully competed in a free market. What makes you think your state regulated economic equality will be more "fair"? In a capitalist system, wealth and power can be earned by anyone. When wealth and power are controlled by the state, it's all about who you know. Only "party" members, and friends of those in power have access to wealth and power. Your argument that these are abuses of communism is tired, and irrelevant. If they are abuses, then they are inevitable abuses. I defy you to identify for me a communist revolution in all of human history where these so called abuses have been absent. Those with power in communist systems NEVER live the same as those without it. People like you get all starry eyed talking about the great communist utopia that's just around the corner, if only we give it another chance. If only smart people with no hidden agenda can oversee the next communist revolution, it will work out. This time it will be different. It won't be. Communism sounds fair, and ends in mass graves, because it tries to make humans into something they are not. Humans are not ants, and they never will be, thus communism will always fail, hopefully before the mass graves part. Capitalism sounds unfair (to people like you) but in reality, it gives everybody the chance to make the best of their situation. Nobody is guaranteed success in every endeavor, but nothing stops you from trying again. Not everybody has to be an owner in capitalism. Employers need employees. The left's problem with capitalism isn't that it's not fair, but rather that it is. Capitalism is even forgiving in its fairness. Fail once, and you'll get another chance. Fail at that, and you can have another. Nobody is stopping you. The left will never admit that of course, because the left doesn't understand fairness despite their endless use of the word to flog their political opponents. Fairness is when you get what you have earned. You reap both the benefits, and the consequences of the choices that YOU make. It is unfair to expect those who made good choices in their lives, and worked hard, to drag the dead weight of those who expect others to feed clothe and shelter them in the name of fairness. You think I am against charity? You would be wrong. I give, because I can, and because I like to help people. When the product of my labor is confiscated, there is no charity as nothing was given. When I give, it must be because I choose to do so. When I give because I must, then it is not generosity or altruism that motivates me, but rather the preservation of myself. Whether the thief is a knife wielding punk on a street corner, or a representative of the IRS makes no difference. Another point of clarification, I am not against taxes collected pursuant to the execution of the 18 enumerated powers of Congress as laid out in the constitution. But when money is collected to buy the votes of the entitlement class, then it is not a tax, because no such tax is authorized by our constitution. It is theft.

 

[Travis Higuet]

Whoever made the Bible. That book got alot of people killed.

Probably not as many as communism.

Ugh if you're wanting to start a thread about communism please refer to the one that already exists.
But in short: The actual ideals of communism didn't cause any of those deaths, it was the power-hungry assholes who distorted and corrupted the ideals of communism that caused those deaths.

The ideals of communism ALWAYS lead down the same road. They go against human nature, thus humans resist. When they do, the strongman arises in the name of "the people". It's really amazing how many millions of people have been killed by socialist leaders in the name of "the people". More amazing still is socialism's disciples just carry on, preaching the glory of toiling tirelessly with no hope of improving your life.

 

[infohippie]

Dick Cheney? Karl Rove?
...Julie Bishop?
Yeah, I think I'm gonna go with Julie Bishop. Or possibly Eric Abetz.

 

[Travis Higuet]

Pol Pot. He killed 2,000,000 people of his country. That isn't as much as Hitler, Stalin or Mao, but keep in mind that was 20% OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

Yay communism!

Argh, once again these people never followed true communist ideals, and Pol Pot was literally insane he didn't understand that what he did was wrong, he believed he was doing the right thing to his dying breath.

This is what runs through the minds of all communist leaders. They ALL think they are doing the right thing. They ALL believe that if they can just change people's thinking, that things will improve, and they ALL in the end resort to brutality, because asking nicely for every single person in a country to be enslaved to every single other person just never quite seems to have the desired effect.

 

[Crazedc00k]

I certainly hope that you didn't intend to use the term "Jew" as an OFFENSIVE one.

 

[GamingGoddessV]

I'm surprised no one has said Rebecca Black yet. Or Justin Beiber.

 

[spielberg11]

Still Kyle Sandilands, the biggest fat jerk in the Australian entertainment industry. Just look him up and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Xskills]

Karl Marx. That broke self hating Jew has been responsible for the starvation, murder, and forced imprisonment of over 100 million people over the course of the last century.

It wasn't the fault of Marx, that his ideas had been distorted and abused by power-hungry assholes. If you must blame someone blame Stalin, it was he who first began to "modify" the ideals of communism in the Soviet Union causing the horrible wreck that it was. Just because the Soviet Union claimed to be Marxist does not mean that it was, if Mr. Marx had been alive to see what had become of his philosophy he would have been horrified.

Other a$$holes that distorted a relatively benign piece of psychobable include: Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Ceaucescu, Deng Xiaoping, Brezhnev, Castro, Kim Jung Il, and Chavez, who is more of douchebag because he's late to a party that ended before he got there. The problem with a most evil list is that there's too many good answers: serial killers, sex offenders, zealots, religion founders, swindlers, purposeless gadflies, dictators, enslavers of fellow humans...

 

[RandomNameRandom]

Well it appears that most likely you don't understand what happened in the Soviet Union because when the state was under a dictatorship of the proletariat situation was when Lenin had most influence in the newly liberated country, further more if the dictatorship of the proletariat is a transitional phrase, why is it that you never care to mention what the next phase entails, rather you decide to go off on a rant about Marx being a greedy monster that has no basis in really anything that we modern people know of the man. Furthermore you refer to the bourgeois as "producers" when in fact they were never the people who created anything are just people who tell others to work and reap the benefits. If everyone works for the good of the society this class is completely unnecessary, and this sadly is where Marxism falls apart, the problem with pure communism is that human beings are inherently greedy even the most selfless person in the world could succumb to their own petty desires and why the system fails, not because its designed to help jealous greedy people because its designed with the assumption that people can put their greediness aside for the good of the community.

While communism does fall apart because it fails to account for human greed, it also fails because of the second phase of the transition from capitalism to communism. SOcialism, or the "middle stage", is actually what Soviet Russia had turned to directly after Lenin's death. Lenin's New Economic Plan (NEP), which allowed for a certain level of privatization amongst the peasantry, was swiftly dismantled after his death because, at one level, it was too much like the capitalist society Lenin had overthrown (though he actually only succeeded in wresting Russia out of feudalism).


The bourgeoisie might not be perceived as producers, but that is in fact what they are. They provide the means of production through which the laborers can then turn their labor into capital. For this they are compensated, though at a rate which Marx felt was unfair i comparison to their contribution (hence his formula of "from each....to each...).

Yes the bourgeois "provide" the means of production through ownership of it, but this is completely unnecessary if the workers themselves own the means of production so the workers can reap the full benefits of their labors rather than what small compensation the factory owner provides. As for socialism being the middle stage didn't Marx actually put communism as the road to a perfect socialist society? Also Lenin's NEP actually rendered the country more like modern socialism such as in countries like Finland, where there is private property and limited private business but all essential things are still provided by the state. It seems odd to me that you seem to take Lenin's achievement of destroying feudalism in Russia so lightly but that's a different topic.

You neglect the fact that without the owner, the factory wouldn't be there in the first place. The workers you talk of could have gotten together, pooled their resources, and opened up a factory in which they were all co-owners, and yet they did not. If not for the hated capitalist, there would be no factory, and there would be no jobs. Your hatred of wealth success and power is borne of a ignorance of how those things are created. You speak of equitable distribution of resources as if those resources fell from the sky. What we have is what we've created for ourselves. If you dislike the terms of your employment, you are free in a free market system to "sell" your labor elsewhere. If you think you know how to run a factory, or any other business for that matter better than the people who are running them now, then do it. Get in the market and compete. Nobody is stopping you. I just don't understand where this philosophy of entitlement comes from. What makes you think you have any right at all to what another has shed his blood and sweat for? If labor union owned factories are in all ways superior, then the free market would reflect that. Their overhead would be lower, the quality of their products greater, and the price to consumers more affordable. Unfortunately for the true believers of the left, those things are almost never true. And when they are, congratulations, you've just successfully competed in a free market. What makes you think your state regulated economic equality will be more "fair"? There is no precedent for what the left imagines is possible. It goes against all human nature. To toil tirelessly with no thought of bettering your situation. Ants do that, not humans. The left's problem with capitalism isn't that it's not fair, but rather that it is. They will never admit that of course, because the left doesn't understand fairness despite their endless use of the word to flog their political opponents. Fairness is when you get what you have earned. You suffer both the benefits, and the consequences of the choices that YOU make. It is unfair to expect those who made good choices in their lives, and worked hard, to drag the dead weight of those who expect others to feed clothe and shelter them in the name of fairness. You think I am against charity? You would be wrong. I give, because I can, and because I like to help people. When the product of my labor is confiscated, there is no charity as nothing was given. When I give, it must be because I choose to do so. When I give because I must, then it is not generosity or altruism that motivates me, but rather the preservation of myself. Whether the thief is a knife wielding punk on a street corner, or a representative of the IRS makes no difference. Another point of clarification, I am not against taxes collected pursuant to the execution of the 18 enumerated powers of Congress as laid out in the constitution. But when money is collected to buy the votes of the entitlement class, then it is not a tax, because no such tax is authorized by our constitution. It is theft.

Those are actually very interesting points that are brought up here, but to me this entire statement seems like a quote that you've copy/pasted without credit.
>"You speak of equitable distribution of resources as if those resources fell from the sky."

I haven't spoken at all of resources let alone spoke of them as easy and limitless to come by

>"Your hatred of wealth success and power is borne of a ignorance of how those things are created."

I have no hatred of success and haven't really mentioned the success of the bourgeois as the real issue of society.

>"What we have is what we've created for ourselves."
>>"When the product of my labor is confiscated, there is no charity as nothing was given."

This is an interesting bit because actually the way this is said seems more like a complaint against the factory owner because the owners of the factories create nothing, while the product that the worker has slaved to create is not his but is sold for the profit of the owner of the factory.

>"I just don't understand where this philosophy of entitlement comes from. What makes you think you have any right at all to what another has shed his blood and sweat for?"
>>"When I give because I must, then it is not generosity or altruism that motivates me, but rather the preservation of myself."
>>>"It is unfair to expect those who made good choices in their lives, and worked hard, to drag the dead weight of those who expect others to feed clothe and shelter them in the name of fairness."

Its not giving away your things but rather sharing the products of everyone's labors with everyone, if you were in an assembly line and you out the last piece on every car or whatever it is your building is every car yours? No rather the output of that assembly should be shared with all workers there. Or you share the products with of your labors with others knowing that they will share theirs with you, its not charity but rather the sharing of what each specialist does with each other so that everyone can benefit.

Well there you go that's what I can do to rebut the points from that speech.

 

[RandomNameRandom]

Pol Pot. He killed 2,000,000 people of his country. That isn't as much as Hitler, Stalin or Mao, but keep in mind that was 20% OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

Yay communism!

Argh, once again these people never followed true communist ideals, and Pol Pot was literally insane he didn't understand that what he did was wrong, he believed he was doing the right thing to his dying breath.

This is what runs through the minds of all communist leaders. They ALL think they are doing the right thing. They ALL believe that if they can just change people's thinking, that things will improve, and they ALL in the end resort to brutality, because asking nicely for every single person in a country to be enslaved to every single other person just never quite seems to have the desired effect.

Not necessarily because the majority of these supposedly "communist" leaders willingly warped and corrupted the foundations of the ideology for their own personal benefit. Do you really think that Stalin wanted things to improve? Of course not he was far too to self centered and thick to try to improved the lives of his citizens, he already had the perfect life why care about others, sort of a similar mindset that capitalist business leaders have.

 

[Arsen]

Elizabeth Bathory. The Hungarian, blood countess herself. Murder, rape, and tortue of several young peasant girls. Used several torture devices, bathed in their blood, and had around fifty corpses buried beneath her cellar.

No one said anything until they FINALLY killed a girl of high nobility, which couldn't be swept under the rug at that point.

 

[RandomNameRandom]

Whoever made the Bible. That book got alot of people killed.

Probably not as many as communism.

Ugh if you're wanting to start a thread about communism please refer to the one that already exists.
But in short: The actual ideals of communism didn't cause any of those deaths, it was the power-hungry assholes who distorted and corrupted the ideals of communism that caused those deaths.

The ideals of communism ALWAYS lead down the same road. They go against human nature, thus humans resist. When they do, the strongman arises in the name of "the people". It's really amazing how many millions of people have been killed by socialist leaders in the name of "the people". More amazing still is socialism's disciples just carry on, preaching the glory of toiling tirelessly with no hope of improving your life.

That is true communism is impossible, as noble as the ideals are communism cant happen because by nature people only care about themselves and possibly the person they intend to mate with and even that is a maybe.
Although this strongman thing is kinda of an odd idea, Lenin motivated people through his eloquent words that gave people hope. Not through an imposing nature. Also you can't really argue against revolutionary leaders acting for the name of the people, democracy in america started in the name of the people, and even the horrible politicians today claim their decisions are "for the people"

 

[Warlord211]

My vote goes to Mao Ze Dong. That guy killed more people than Hitler and Stalin.

 

[RandomNameRandom]

Oh wow caught up in the debates it appears I've forgotten to even cast a vote, my vote goes to Stalin he really deserves his spot as what appears to probably be the 2nd most hated leader in history, being socialist (I'm not actually communist because I understand that it's impossible) I have extra problems with him because he gives socialism a bad name.
If any of you people know about George Orwell here's one of his actions that's somewhat related to this:
When George Orwell saw the Soviet Union, rather than giving up on socialism, he recognized that Stalin's Russa was not Socialist and gave up on the Soviet Union. (Yes Orwell was socialist)

 

[hiks89]

I would have to say Shiro Ishii, Commander of unit 731 which was human research lab during WWII, That shits pretty fucked up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

i dont feel as bad for being on the team that nuked those bastards

 

[doctorsilly]

Michael Atkinson.

 

[Rule Britannia]

On a serious note.... probably Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin EDIT -->>> Walt Disney (which relates to the rest of this post)
On a less serious note... Kanye West for introducing the world to shitty music ¬.¬ as well as other "musicians" of modern pop culture. Yes I'm (we're) looking at you Family Channel ¬.¬