Please Explain This [Archive]

Richard Nixon

2nd July 2009, 17:28

Pogue

2nd July 2009, 17:31

Why has there been various counter-revolutionary revolutions in the last generations. If leftism all good and all why did people in Eastern Europe revolt against it and establish American-like democracies. Same in Soviet Union too and elsewhere. So why?

Because the buerecratic state capitalism of the USSR et al did not fulfill their needs, so they rose up in opposition to a regime which denied them freedom and prosperity in their lives. The lack of a solid libertarian socialist revolutionary movement, also mixed with the general confusion created when the regime which is oppressing you call itself socialist led to a situation where the people simply wanted what they believed to be the goal for human society - liberal democracy, which was essentially more appealing than authoritarian rule. Of course, alot of them are now realising all forms of capitalism are rubbish and thus revolutionary potential builds up.

I wouldn't say these were coutner-revolutions at all, I'd say they were popular movements for major liberal reform, as they were not coutnering any revolution, that had already been done by the beurecracies.

Demogorgon

2nd July 2009, 17:53

Well they weren't socialist in the first place, merely dictatorships, and people wanted rid of them.

Mind you, not a single one implemented American style constitutions. Each and every one of them rejected an American style system and looked to Western Europe instead, which says something about how desirable the American political system is seen to be.

Anarkiwi

2nd July 2009, 18:18

Same as the above,
the ussr was an imperialist power in eastern europe and within its own borders.

Dont we just get sick of dim wits who read or watch yankee propaganda and think that thats communisim
i for one am a communist because i belive in the ideals of marx and engels
not the ideals of the ussr.

Dude who started the thread read some marx instead of watching fox specials on north korea.

JimmyJazz

2nd July 2009, 20:01

Richard Nixon

2nd July 2009, 21:33

Please Explain This:

Why have there been various anti-capitalist revolutions and near-revolutions in the last century?. If capitalism is all good and all, why did workers in various countries and tons of major cities revolt against it and establish, or try to establish, Paris Commune-like social democracies? And why do workers everywhere join unions, which is a slightly more subdued but equally necessary revolt against free market capitalism? So why?

Unionism and social democracy is very different from total capitalism or total communism. I for one am a strong supporter of labour unions. Union members and social democrats believe in moderation of both capitalism and socialism. You on the other hand seem to believe that social democracy are merely "concessions".

Chapter 24

3rd July 2009, 02:20

Unionism and social democracy is very different from total capitalism or total communism. I for one am a strong supporter of labour unions. Union members and social democrats believe in moderation of both capitalism and socialism. You on the other hand seem to believe that social democracy are merely "concessions".

That's basically what social democracy gives, concessions. They are not a product of full workers control, which is what seperates it from socialism - which is, in fact, worker's control of the means of production. Modern-day social democratic parties that eventually detatched from their socialist traditions participate in bourgeois elections on the basis of parliamentary power, whereas socialist organizations do not. Social democrats do not speak for the total emancipation of the working class, rather give it scraps off the table.

RGacky3

3rd July 2009, 13:33

Bud Struggle

3rd July 2009, 19:48

I don't believe there has ever been an internal counter revolution inside a libertarian socialist community.

They do tend to fall apart though if they aren't conquored.

Kwisatz Haderach

3rd July 2009, 21:00

Why has there been various counter-revolutionary revolutions in the last generations. If leftism all good and all why did people in Eastern Europe revolt against it and establish American-like democracies. Same in Soviet Union too and elsewhere. So why?
What revolutions? Popular uprisings or movements in favour of capitalism existed only in a minority of the former East Bloc countries: Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic states, and Georgia. That's it. All the other countries either had no uprising at all (and the government simply decided to change things of its own accord), or had uprisings directed against a specific leader and not against the system itself.

Furthermore, even in the places that had pro-capitalist uprisings and movements, public opinion was usually still hostile to capitalism and the old economic system would have been preserved had the people been able to vote on that question in a referendum. The only countries where the majority was probably pro-capitalist were Poland and the Baltic states.

Demogorgon

3rd July 2009, 22:51

What revolutions? Popular uprisings or movements in favour of capitalism existed only in a minority of the former East Bloc countries: Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic states, and Georgia. That's it. All the other countries either had no uprising at all (and the government simply decided to change things of its own accord), or had uprisings directed against a specific leader and not against the system itself.

Furthermore, even in the places that had pro-capitalist uprisings and movements, public opinion was usually still hostile to capitalism and the old economic system would have been preserved had the people been able to vote on that question in a referendum. The only countries where the majority was probably pro-capitalist were Poland and the Baltic states.
That is a very good point. It would be silly to say that people in the Eastern block countries were happy with what they had. I am sure if you were to ask, do you want a more democratic government, more freedom to travel, more flexible organisation, more serious attempts to deal with corruption and so on you would have gotten yes to all of those. If on the other hand you were to ask if they wanted a political system based on a twisted version of West Germany with plenty more corruption, an economic policy based on Pinochet's Chile, Western carpet baggers making off with as much of the national wealth as possible, dramatically falling wages, food shortages, and so on, I am less sure you would have gotten an affirmative answer.

Richard Nixon

4th July 2009, 00:38

Anarkiwi

4th July 2009, 00:45

yeah some people there also say they be better off under socialisim
wich is not soviet imperialisim

Kwisatz Haderach

4th July 2009, 01:59

If that's true why is it in say the Czech Republic or Hungary people say "I'm better off now then in 1985." and the standards of living have risen dramatically (outside of Russia and other former Soviet republics)?
Most people in the Czech Republic and Hungary are indeed better off today than they were in 1985. That, however, is hardly a surprise. 24 years have passed since 1985. If you take any random 24 year period in any country after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, it is almost certain that people were better off at the end of the 24 years than at their beginning. For example, people in Czechoslovakia and Hungary were better off in 1989 than in 1965, they were better off in 1979 than in 1955, and so on.

The question is, are they better off today in the real 2009 than they might have been in an alternate 2009 where the Soviet system was still in place?

Obviously, there is no way to know for sure, but there is good reason to believe the answer is no.

First of all, all Eastern European countries experienced a catastrophic collapse of living standards - and of all economic indicators - in the early 1990s.
In 1988, Czech GDP per capita was $16,645 (inflation-adjusted in present day dollars). In 1994 it was $14,617.
In 1988, Hungarian GDP per capita was $13,399. In 1994 it was $10,821.

Today, both countries have recovered, but the total economic growth of the Czech Republic between 1988 and 2008 was 37% (remember, this is over 20 years, that's why the percent is so high), while over the previous 20 years (1968-1988), Czech economic growth was 43%. In Hungary, growth from 1988 to 2008 was 34%, while growth from 1968 to 1988 was 42%.

Both of these countries have grown quickly over the second decade of capitalism, true, but this is offset by the economic collapse of the first decade of capitalism, and the net result is slower growth than they had under the Soviet system. And today they are hit hard by the global recession, so the future is uncertain.

And these are two of the best performing countries of the former Eastern Bloc...

While all of that happened, the Gini index for both countries skyrocketed, meaning that the gap between rich and poor grew dramatically. As a result, while the Czechs and Hungarians are, on average, a little bit poorer than they might have been today under the Soviet system, the lowest earners among them are far poorer. They are probably actually worse off than they were in 1985, let alone compared to where they might be today had the Soviet system continued.

The introduction of capitalism had social costs and no economic benefits. And that was in the Czech Republic and Hungary, two countries that came reasonably close to breaking even in the economic field. In most other countries, capitalism was not only a social disaster, but an economic one as well.

Dust Bunnies

10th July 2009, 04:30

Have you ever done something stupid you regretted majorly later (like get that tattoo when you were drunk)? That's what happened to the USSR/Eastern Europe. Karl Marx's "Das Kapital" is a best seller in Eastern Germany these days. I've talked to a couple Russians, all of them hate Yeltsin. I've talked to nuns from Poland, they talk about how economically Poland was better under Soviet control. Many elderly people are fond of Stalin. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (despite being revisionist) is the second biggest. A TV station (in 2008 I think) was having a contest of the best Russian, Stalin was on it despite being Georgian. Stalin almost won if it wasn't for the station begging people to not vote for Stalin.

Richard Nixon

12th July 2009, 02:56

danyboy27

12th July 2009, 03:07

Kwisatz Haderach

12th July 2009, 03:16

Well Stalin was a sadistic fuck who killed more people then Hitler.
That depends. The highest credible death toll than can be pinned on Stalin is 20 million. The lowest is around one million. Part of the difference comes from different ways of counting (some of the higher estimates use a complex scientific method known as "making stuff up"), and part of it comes from different standards on what kind of acts you wish to count as "getting killed by the government." Basically, the higher estimates count everyone who died of unnatural causes in the USSR as a victim of the government (under the logic that all these deaths could have been prevented but weren't - I wonder how many people capitalism killed by those standards), and the lower estimates only count people who were actively executed (as opposed to, for example, being allowed to die when they could have been helped).

With Hitler, the absolute lowest death toll that he can be held responsible for is 12 million (victims of the Holocaust alone, including Jews, Roma people, communists, homosexuals, and others). The highest is 50 million - the total number of people who died in World War 2. This time, the difference comes from the question of whether you want to count war dead as victims of the person who started the war. All sorts of intermediate positions are possible: For example, you may wish to count civilian dead but not military dead, or you may wish to count Allied dead but not Axis dead.

With Stalin at 1-20 million and Hitler at 12-50 million, there is some overlap, so, if you pick the right estimates, you could get a higher number for Stalin than for Hitler. But the only way to do that is if you let Hitler get away without taking blame for the vast majority of war dead in WW2. That's dishonest. And in any case, look at those margins of error: They are insanely huge in both cases.

Also you said old people, who were raised on communist propaganda and obedience and love of Stalin.
As opposed to young people, who were raised on capitalist propaganda and obedience and love of the free market?

The "people are brainwashed" argument goes both ways.

cappiej

12th July 2009, 03:19

is it necessary to continue this neverending stalin vs capitalism thread?

i am not a fan of stalin , i hate the fucker but damn nixon, dont put more gasoline into the fire.

no matter how much time this discussion will last opinions on both side will remain the same.

please stop it, all of you :D

I think everyone's missing the point, the point is people on both sides, Communist and neo-nazi, are supporting somebody they acknowledge took millions, or at least a million, lives.

Whose more evil is besides the point really.

Richard Nixon

12th July 2009, 03:28

[QUOTE=Kwisatz Haderach;1489048]That depends. The highest credible death toll than can be pinned on Stalin is 20 million. The lowest is around one million. Part of the difference comes from different ways of counting (some of the higher estimates use a complex scientific method known as "making stuff up"), and part of it comes from different standards on what kind of acts you wish to count as "getting killed by the government." Basically, the higher estimates count everyone who died of unnatural causes in the USSR as a victim of the government (under the logic that all these deaths could have been prevented but weren't - I wonder how many people capitalism killed by those standards), and the lower estimates only count people who were actively executed (as opposed to, for example, being allowed to die when they could have been helped).

With Hitler, the absolute lowest death toll that he can be held responsible for is 12 million (victims of the Holocaust alone, including Jews, Roma people, communists, homosexuals, and others). The highest is 50 million - the total number of people who died in World War 2. This time, the difference comes from the question of whether you want to count war dead as victims of the person who started the war. All sorts of intermediate positions are possible: For example, you may wish to count civilian dead but not military dead, or you may wish to count Allied dead but not Axis dead.

With Stalin at 1-20 million and Hitler at 12-50 million, there is some overlap, so, if you pick the right estimates, you could get a higher number for Stalin than for Hitler. But the only way to do that is if you let Hitler get away without taking blame for the vast majority of war dead in WW2. That's dishonest. And in any case, look at those margins of error: They are insanely huge in both cases.

At any rate you must admit he was a sadistic fuck and an evil man.

Dust Bunnies

12th July 2009, 03:51

[QUOTE]

At any rate you must admit he was a sadistic fuck and an evil man.

Was he the sharpest tool in the shed? No. But did he try his best and did a good job? Yes. I'd take Stalin any day over George W. Bush. Stalin took a shit hole of farms and made it into an industrial power in a decade or so that took on countries that had decades to work on their industries.

On the other hand, Capitalist countries such as the United States are not so clean:

List of American Imperialism:
Overthrow attempts of Leaders, both democratic and not:
1893 – Hawaii (Liliuokalani; monarchist): success (OF)
1912 – China (Piyu; monarchist): success (OF)
1918 – Panama (Arias; center-right): success (SE)
1919 – Hungary (Kun; communist): success (CO)
1920 – USSR (Lenin; communist): failure (OF)
1924 – Honduras (Carias; nationalist): success (SE)
1945 – Japan (Higashikuni; rightist): success (OF)
1946 – Thailand (Pridi; conservative): success (CO)
1946 – Argentina (Peron; military/centrist): failure (SE)
1947 – France (*; communist): success (SE)
1947 – Philippines (*; center-left): success (SE)
1947 – Romania (Gheorghiu-Dej; stalinist): failure (CO)
1948 – Italy (*, communist): success (SE)
1948 – Colombia (Gaitan; populist/leftist): success (SE)
1948 – Peru (Bustamante; left/centrist): success (CO)
1949 – Syria (Kuwatli; neutralist/Pan-Arabist): success (CO)
1949 – China (Mao; communist): failure (CO)
1950 – Albania (Hoxha; communist): failure (CO)
1951 – Bolivia (Paz; center/neutralist): success (CO)
1951 – DPRK (Kim; stalinist): failure (OF)
1951 – Poland (Cyrankiewicz; stalinist): failure (CO)
1951 – Thailand (Phibun; conservative): success (CO)
1952 – Egypt (Farouk; monarchist): success (CO)
1952 – Cuba (Prio; reform/populist): success (CO)
1952 – Lebanon (*; left/populist): success: (SE)
1953 – British Guyana (*; left/populist): success (CO)
1953 – Iran (Mossadegh; liberal nationalist): success (CO)
1953 – Costa Rica (Figueres; reform liberal): failure (CO)
1953 – Philippines (*; center-left): success (SE)
1954 – Guatemala (Arbenz; liberal nationalist): success (OF)
1955 – Costa Rica (Figueres; reform liberal): failure (CO)
1955 – India (Nehru; neutralist/socialist): failure (CO)
1955 – Argentina (Peron; military/centrist): success (CO)
1955 – China (Zhou; communist): failure (CO)
1955 – Vietnam (Ho; communist): success (SE)
1956 – Hungary (Hegedus; communist): success (CO)
1957 – Egypt (Nasser; military/nationalist): failure (CO)
1957 – Haiti (Sylvain; left/populist): success (CO)
1957 – Syria (Kuwatli; neutralist/Pan-Arabist): failure (CO)
1958 – Japan (*; left-center): success (SE)
1958 – Chile (*; leftists): success (SE)
1958 – Iraq (Feisal; monarchist): success (CO)
1958 – Laos (Phouma; nationalist): success (CO)
1958 – Sudan (Sovereignty Council; nationalist): success (CO)
1958 – Lebanon (*; leftist): success (SE)
1958 – Syria (Kuwatli; neutralist/Pan-Arabist): failure (CO)
1958 – Indonesia (Sukarno; militarist/neutralist): failure (SE)
1959 – Laos (Phouma; nationalist): success (CO)
1959 – Nepal (*; left-centrist): success (SE)
1959 – Cambodia (Sihanouk; moderate/neutralist): failure (CO)
1960 – Ecuador (Ponce; left/populist): success (CO)
1960 – Laos (Phouma; nationalist): success (CO)
1960 – Iraq (Qassem; rightist /militarist): failure (CO)
1960 – S. Korea (Syngman; rightist): success (CO)
1960 – Turkey (Menderes; liberal): success (CO)
Air Attacks:
Japan (1943-45): conventional; incendiary; nuclear
China (1945-49): conventional; biological
Korea (1950-53): conventional; biological; chemical; incendiary
China (1951-52): conventional; biological; chemical
Guatemala (1954): conventional
Indonesia (1958): conventional
Cuba (1959-61): conventional; (biochemical attacks in other years)
Guatemala (1960): conventional
Murders America and it's government are responsible for:
Native Americans (1776-2002): 4M
West Africans (1776-1865): 4M
Philippines (1898-1904): 600K
Germany (1945): 200K
Japan (1945): 900K
China (1945-60): 200K
Greece (1947-49): 100K
Korea (1951-53): 2M
List of Dictators installed by US:
Batista, Fulgencio (Cuba: 1940-44/1952-1959)
Ben-Gurion, David (Israel: 1948-1953)
Betancourt Bello, Rumulo (Venezuela: 1959-)
Diem, Ngo Dinh (S. Vietnam: 1955-)
Feisal, King (Iraq: 1939-1958)
Franco, Francisco (Spain: 1937-)
Hussein, King (Jordan: 1952-)
Martinez, Maximiliano (El Salvador: 1931-1944)
Mussolini, Benito (Italy: 1922-1939)
Odria, Manuel (Peru: 1948-1956)
Aid to groups opposing popular movements:
1776-1865 – United States (numerous slave rebellions): success (OF)
1782-1787 – United States (Wyoming Valley): success (OF)
1786-1787 – United States (Shay’s Rebellion): success (OF)
1790-1795 – United States (Ohio Valley tribes): success (OF)
1794-1794 – United States (Whiskey Rebellion): success (OF)
1798-1800 – United States (Alien & Sedition trials): success (CO)
1799-1799 – United States (Fries’ Rebellion): success (OF)
1805-1806 – United States (Boston union “conspiracy”): success (CO)
1806-1807 – United States (Burr’s Insurrection): success (OF)
1810-1821 – Spanish Florida (Africans, Natives, etc): success (OF)
1811-1811 – United States (Tecumseh’s Confederacy): success (OF)
1813-1814 – United States (Creeks): success (OF)
1822-1822 – United States (Vesey’s Rebellion): success (CO)
1823-1824 – United States (Arikara): success (OF)
1826-1827 – United States (Philadelphia union “conspiracy”): success (CO)
1827-1827 – United States (Fever River & Winnebago): success (OF)
1831-1831 – United States (Turner’s rebellion): success (OF)
1831-1831 – United States (Sac & Fox): success (OF)
1832-1832 – United States (Black Hawks): success (OF)
1833-1834 – Argentina (rebellion): success (OF)
1835-1835 – United States (Murrel’s Uprising): success (CO)
1835-1836 – Peru (rebellion): success (OF)
1835-1842 – United States (Seminoles): success (OF)
1836-1837 – United States (Sabine, Osage): success (OF)
1836-1844 – Mexico (anti-Texans, Natives, etc): success (OF)
1837-1838 – United States (massive strikes): success (OF)
1838-1839 – United States (Mormons): success (OF)
1842-1842 – United States (Dorr’s Rebellion): success (OF)
1847-1855 – United States (Cayuse): success (OF)
1850-1851 – United States (Mariposa tribes): success (OF)
1851-1859 – United States (Washington tribes): success (OF)
1852-1853 – Argentina (rebellion in Buenos Aires): success (OF
1854-1856 – China (rebellion): success (OF)
1855-1856 – United States (Sioux): success (OF)
1855-1858 – United States (Seminoles): success (OF)
1855-1858 – Nicaragua (Walker’s invasion): success (OF)
1855-1860 – United States (“Bleeding Kansas”): success (OF)
1857-1857 – United States (Cheyenne): success (OF)
1857-1858 – United States (Mormons): success (OF)
1858-1858 – Uruguay (rebellion in Montevideo): success (OF)
1858-1859 – United States (Comanche): success (OF)
1859-1859 – United States (Brownists at Harper’s Ferry): success (OF)
1860-1860 – Angola (rebellion in Kissembo): success (OF)
1860-1861 – Colombia (rebellion): success (OF)
1861-1865 – United States (confederate rebellion): success (OF)
1861-1865 – United States (Navajo): success (OF)
1861-1886 – United States (Apache): success (OF)
1862-1864 – United States (Sioux): success (OF)
1863-1863 – United States (draft riots): success (OF)
1863-1864 – United States (massive strikes): success (OF)
1864-1864 – United States (Sand Hill Massacre): success (OF)
1865-1865 – Panama (rebellion): success (OF)
1865-1867 – United States (Sioux): success (OF)
1867-1867 – Formosa (rebellion): success (OF)
1867-1875 – United States (Comanche): success (OF)
1868-1868 – Japan (rebellion): success (OF)]
1868-1868 – United States (Washita/South Plains tribes): success (OF)
1868-1868 – Uruguay (rebellion): success (OF)
1871-1871 – Korea (rebellion): success (OF)
1872-1873 – United States (Modocs): success (OF)
1874-1875 – United States (Red River War): success (OF)
1874-1874 – United States (Kiowa): success (OF)
1876-1877 – United States (Sioux/Cheyenne): success (OF)
1877-1877 – United States (St Louis general strike, others): success (OF)
1877-1877 – United States (Nez Perce): success (OF)
1878-1878 – United States (Idaho tribes): success (OF)
1878-1879 – United States (Cheyenne): success (OF)
1879-1880 – United States (Ute): success (OF)
1885-1885 – United States (New York textile strikes): failure (OF)
1886-1886 – United States (massive strikes, Haymarket): success (OF)
1888-1888 – Korea (rebellion): success (OF)
1888-1893 – Hawaii (rebellion contra Dole): success (OF)
1888-1889 – Samoa (rebellion): success (OF)
1890-1891 – United States (Pine Ridge, Wounded Knee): success (OF)
1891-1891 – Haiti (Navassa uprising): success (OF)
1891-1892 – Chile (rebellion): success (OF)
1892-1892 – United States (Idaho miners): success (OF)
1893-1894 – United States (massive strikes): success (OF)
1894-1894 – Nicaragua (Bluefields unrest): success (OF)
1894-1894 – United States (Chicago rail/Pullman strikes): success (OF)
1894-1895 – Brazil (rebellion): success (OF)
1894-1896 – Korea (post Sino-Japanese war rebellion): success (OF)
1896-1899 – Nicaragua (rebellions): success (OF)
1898-1900 – United States (Chippewa at Leech Lake): success (OF)
1898-1902 – Philippines (nationalist resistance): success (OF)
1899-1899 – Samoa (Mataafa): success (OF)
1899-1901 – United States (Idaho miners): success (OF)
1900-1941 – China (Boxers, communists, etc): success (OF)
1901-1901 – United States (Creek uprising): success (OF)
1901-1901 – United States (Steel strikes): failure (OF)
1901-1902 – Colombia (rebellions): success (OF)
1901-1913 – Philippines (Moslem Moro rebellion): success (OF)
1903-1903 – Honduras (rebellion): success (OF)
1903-1904 – Dominican Republic (rebellion): success (OF)
1904-1909 – United States (Kentucky tobacco farmers): success (OF)
1906-1909 – Cuba (rebellion): success (OF)
1907-1911 – Honduras (leftists, Bonilla): success (OF)
1909-1911 – United States (NY/Triangle textile strikes): failure (OF)
1911-1912 – China (rebellions): success (OF)
1912-1925 – Nicaragua (leftists): success (OF)
1913-1919 – Mexico (various rebellions, Villa): failure (OF)
1914-1914 – United States (Ludlow Massacre): success (OF)
1914-1924 – Dominican Republic (various factions): success (OF)
1915-1934 – Haiti (Sam, etc): success (OF)
1916-1917 – United States (Arizona miners strike): success (OF)
1917-1918 – United States (IWW): success (CO)
1917-1919 – United States (Espionage Act trials): success (CO)
1917-1922 – Cuba (rebellions): success (OF)
1918-1920 – Panama (strikes, election protests, etc): success (OF)
1919-1919 – Honduras (rebellion): success (OF)
1919-1920 – United States (Palmer Raids): success (CO)
1919-1920 – Costa Rica (Tinoco, etc): success (CO)
1919-1920 – United States (Great Steel Strike, others): success (OF)
1920-1921 – United States (West Virginian miners): success (OF)
1920-1928 – United States (prison rebellions): success (OF)
1920-1920 – Guatemala (Unionists): success (OF)
1922-1922 – Turkey (Nationalists): success (OF)
1922-1923 – United States (massive strikes): success (OF)
1924-1925 – Honduras (rebellions): success (OF)
1925-1925 – Panama (general strike): success (OF)
1926-1933 – Nicaragua (Sandino, others): success (OF)
1931-1932 – El Salvador (Marti): success (OF)
1932-1932 – United States (DC Bonus Strikers): success (OF)
1933-1933 – Cuba (rebellion): success (OF)
1935-1935 – Philippines (Sakdal Uprising): success (OF)
1938-1957 – United States (leftists: HUAC, McCarthyism): success (CO)
1943-1946 – United States (unprecedented strikes): success (OF)
1944-1951 – Greece (EAM/ELAS/KKE): success (CO)
1945-1949 – China (maoism): failure (OF)
1945-1954 – Vietnam (Viet Minh): failure (CO)
1946-1947 – S. Korea (mass resistance to US military rule): success (OF)
1947-1950 – Turkey (TKP): success (CO)
1948-1948 – S. Korea (democratic resistance): success (OF)
1948-1954 – Philippines (Huks): success (CO)
1950-1951 – United States (Puerto Rican independence): success (OF)
1950-1953 – United States (many prison rebellions): success (OF)
1952-1975 – Japan (general anti-US protests): success (OF)
1952-1957 – Japan (protestors in Okinawa): success (OF)
1953-1963 – Syria (ASRP/Baathists): failure (CO)
1954-1962 – Algeria (FLN): failure (CO)
1956-1971 – United States (Cointelpro-CPUSA): success (CO)
1956-1975 – South Vietnam (NLF): failure (OF)
1957-1959 – Lebanon (leftists): success (OF)
1957-1958 – Jordan (leftists/anti-monarchists): success (OF)
1959-1960 – Haiti (rebels contra Duvalier): success (OF)
US proxy wars:
1950s: Poland; Ukraine; Russia, China; Thailand; Burma
US Foreign policy:
Monroe Doctrine – western hemisphere = US property; non-whites = untermenschen
McKinley Doctrine – Open Door Policy i.e., China, Pacific = potentially, possibly, most likely US property; non-whites = untermenschen
Roosevelt Corollary – western hemisphere = US property, and we mean it this time! non-whites = untermenschen
Taft Doctrine – Dollar Diplomacy i.e., western hemisphere = US property, and we mean economically, politically, and all other ways; the Middle East = potentially, possibly, most likely, US property
Wilson Doctrine – 14 Points internationalism (i.e., great powers should respect each other; to hell with the rest); western hemisphere = US property, and we really mean it this time! non-whites = untermenschen
Roosevelt Doctrine – “Good Neighbor Policy!” i.e., western hemisphere = US property, and we really really really fucking mean it.
Truman Doctrine – aid to fascists in Greece, Turkey, the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, western Europe, Eastern Europe, North Africa, etc. i.e., what Kennan called “Containment.”
Eisenhower Doctrine – the Middle East = US property; non-whites = untermenschen; massive retaliation

Kwisatz Haderach

12th July 2009, 04:03

At any rate you must admit he was a sadistic fuck and an evil man.
Oh yes, I don't think there can be any question about that. Stalin also did many good things - industrializing the USSR, achieving spectacular economic growth, greatly improving education and health care, winning WW2 - but I think it's fair to say he did these things solely for his personal glory. And he was a sadistic fuck, not to mention insanely paranoid.

I support the memory of the USSR. I think its positive side greatly outweighed its negative side, even under Stalin. But I don't think Stalin personally deserves to take credit for this.

Also, just because Stalin was evil, that doesn't mean it's ok to say anything you want about him. He did not eat babies, and by any reasonable standards he did not kill more people than Hitler. I'm saying this for the sake of history, not for Stalin's sake. If someone claimed that Hitler killed more people than malaria, I would correct them too. (malaria killed far more people than Hitler, and in fact it probably killed more people than any other single cause, ever)

And finally, it's good to remember that any leader of any kind who ever engaged in warfare is responsible for at least a handful of innocent deaths. As Dust Bunnies pointed out above, the US government can be blamed for a long list of atrocities and murders. While it is true that no single US leader killed more people than Stalin, the number of innocent people killed by the US over its entire history is likely to be higher than the number of innocent people killed by the USSR over its entire history (at least as long as you use the same standards of what counts as "killing" in both cases - so if you count unintentional famine deaths in the USSR, you must also count all deaths by government inaction in the US).

If you take cappiej's view and say that numbers don't matter and any killing of innocents is enough to make you evil, then you'd be hard pressed to find any non-evil society or powerful person in human history.

Richard Nixon

12th July 2009, 04:18

Oh yes, I don't think there can be any question about that. Stalin also did many good things - industrializing the USSR, achieving spectacular economic growth, greatly improving education and health care, winning WW2 - but I think it's fair to say he did these things solely for his personal glory. And he was a sadistic fuck, not to mention insanely paranoid.

I support the memory of the USSR. I think its positive side greatly outweighed its negative side, even under Stalin. But I don't think Stalin personally deserves to take credit for this.

Also, just because Stalin was evil, that doesn't mean it's ok to say anything you want about him. He did not eat babies, and by any reasonable standards he did not kill more people than Hitler. I'm saying this for the sake of history, not for Stalin's sake. If someone claimed that Hitler killed more people than malaria, I would correct them too. (malaria killed far more people than Hitler, and in fact it probably killed more people than any other single cause, ever)

And finally, it's good to remember that any leader of any kind who ever engaged in warfare is responsible for at least a handful of innocent deaths. As Dust Bunnies pointed out above, the US government can be blamed for a long list of atrocities and murders. While it is true that no single US leader killed more people than Stalin, the number of innocent people killed by the US over its entire history is likely to be higher than the number of innocent people killed by the USSR over its entire history (at least as long as you use the same standards of what counts as "killing" in both cases - so if you count unintentional famine deaths in the USSR, you must also count all deaths by government inaction in the US).

The Soviet Union has existed from 1917 to 1991 but the United States has existed since 1776 so obviously more people would be dead due to it's irresponsiblitly and so on.

Richard Nixon

12th July 2009, 04:23

[QUOTE=Richard Nixon;1489061]

Was he the sharpest tool in the shed? No. But did he try his best and did a good job? Yes. I'd take Stalin any day over George W. Bush. Stalin took a shit hole of farms and made it into an industrial power in a decade or so that took on countries that had decades to work on their industries.

On the other hand, Capitalist countries such as the United States are not so clean:

List of American Imperialism:
Overthrow attempts of Leaders, both democratic and not:
1893 – Hawaii (Liliuokalani; monarchist): success (OF)
1912 – China (Piyu; monarchist): success (OF)
1918 – Panama (Arias; center-right): success (SE)
1919 – Hungary (Kun; communist): success (CO)
1920 – USSR (Lenin; communist): failure (OF)
1924 – Honduras (Carias; nationalist): success (SE)
1945 – Japan (Higashikuni; rightist): success (OF)
1946 – Thailand (Pridi; conservative): success (CO)
1946 – Argentina (Peron; military/centrist): failure (SE)
1947 – France (*; communist): success (SE)
1947 – Philippines (*; center-left): success (SE)
1947 – Romania (Gheorghiu-Dej; stalinist): failure (CO)
1948 – Italy (*, communist): success (SE)
1948 – Colombia (Gaitan; populist/leftist): success (SE)
1948 – Peru (Bustamante; left/centrist): success (CO)
1949 – Syria (Kuwatli; neutralist/Pan-Arabist): success (CO)
1949 – China (Mao; communist): failure (CO)
1950 – Albania (Hoxha; communist): failure (CO)
1951 – Bolivia (Paz; center/neutralist): success (CO)
1951 – DPRK (Kim; stalinist): failure (OF)
1951 – Poland (Cyrankiewicz; stalinist): failure (CO)
1951 – Thailand (Phibun; conservative): success (CO)
1952 – Egypt (Farouk; monarchist): success (CO)
1952 – Cuba (Prio; reform/populist): success (CO)
1952 – Lebanon (*; left/populist): success: (SE)
1953 – British Guyana (*; left/populist): success (CO)
1953 – Iran (Mossadegh; liberal nationalist): success (CO)
1953 – Costa Rica (Figueres; reform liberal): failure (CO)
1953 – Philippines (*; center-left): success (SE)
1954 – Guatemala (Arbenz; liberal nationalist): success (OF)
1955 – Costa Rica (Figueres; reform liberal): failure (CO)
1955 – India (Nehru; neutralist/socialist): failure (CO)
1955 – Argentina (Peron; military/centrist): success (CO)
1955 – China (Zhou; communist): failure (CO)
1955 – Vietnam (Ho; communist): success (SE)
1956 – Hungary (Hegedus; communist): success (CO)
1957 – Egypt (Nasser; military/nationalist): failure (CO)
1957 – Haiti (Sylvain; left/populist): success (CO)
1957 – Syria (Kuwatli; neutralist/Pan-Arabist): failure (CO)
1958 – Japan (*; left-center): success (SE)
1958 – Chile (*; leftists): success (SE)
1958 – Iraq (Feisal; monarchist): success (CO)
1958 – Laos (Phouma; nationalist): success (CO)
1958 – Sudan (Sovereignty Council; nationalist): success (CO)
1958 – Lebanon (*; leftist): success (SE)
1958 – Syria (Kuwatli; neutralist/Pan-Arabist): failure (CO)
1958 – Indonesia (Sukarno; militarist/neutralist): failure (SE)
1959 – Laos (Phouma; nationalist): success (CO)
1959 – Nepal (*; left-centrist): success (SE)
1959 – Cambodia (Sihanouk; moderate/neutralist): failure (CO)
1960 – Ecuador (Ponce; left/populist): success (CO)
1960 – Laos (Phouma; nationalist): success (CO)
1960 – Iraq (Qassem; rightist /militarist): failure (CO)
1960 – S. Korea (Syngman; rightist): success (CO)
1960 – Turkey (Menderes; liberal): success (CO)
Air Attacks:
Japan (1943-45): conventional; incendiary; nuclear
China (1945-49): conventional; biological
Korea (1950-53): conventional; biological; chemical; incendiary
China (1951-52): conventional; biological; chemical
Guatemala (1954): conventional
Indonesia (1958): conventional
Cuba (1959-61): conventional; (biochemical attacks in other years)
Guatemala (1960): conventional
Murders America and it's government are responsible for:
Native Americans (1776-2002): 4M
West Africans (1776-1865): 4M
Philippines (1898-1904): 600K
Germany (1945): 200K
Japan (1945): 900K
China (1945-60): 200K
Greece (1947-49): 100K
Korea (1951-53): 2M
List of Dictators installed by US:
Batista, Fulgencio (Cuba: 1940-44/1952-1959)
Ben-Gurion, David (Israel: 1948-1953)
Betancourt Bello, Rumulo (Venezuela: 1959-)
Diem, Ngo Dinh (S. Vietnam: 1955-)
Feisal, King (Iraq: 1939-1958)
Franco, Francisco (Spain: 1937-)
Hussein, King (Jordan: 1952-)
Martinez, Maximiliano (El Salvador: 1931-1944)
Mussolini, Benito (Italy: 1922-1939)
Odria, Manuel (Peru: 1948-1956)
Aid to groups opposing popular movements:
1776-1865 – United States (numerous slave rebellions): success (OF)
1782-1787 – United States (Wyoming Valley): success (OF)
1786-1787 – United States (Shay’s Rebellion): success (OF)
1790-1795 – United States (Ohio Valley tribes): success (OF)
1794-1794 – United States (Whiskey Rebellion): success (OF)
1798-1800 – United States (Alien & Sedition trials): success (CO)
1799-1799 – United States (Fries’ Rebellion): success (OF)
1805-1806 – United States (Boston union “conspiracy”): success (CO)
1806-1807 – United States (Burr’s Insurrection): success (OF)
1810-1821 – Spanish Florida (Africans, Natives, etc): success (OF)
1811-1811 – United States (Tecumseh’s Confederacy): success (OF)
1813-1814 – United States (Creeks): success (OF)
1822-1822 – United States (Vesey’s Rebellion): success (CO)
1823-1824 – United States (Arikara): success (OF)
1826-1827 – United States (Philadelphia union “conspiracy”): success (CO)
1827-1827 – United States (Fever River & Winnebago): success (OF)
1831-1831 – United States (Turner’s rebellion): success (OF)
1831-1831 – United States (Sac & Fox): success (OF)
1832-1832 – United States (Black Hawks): success (OF)
1833-1834 – Argentina (rebellion): success (OF)
1835-1835 – United States (Murrel’s Uprising): success (CO)
1835-1836 – Peru (rebellion): success (OF)
1835-1842 – United States (Seminoles): success (OF)
1836-1837 – United States (Sabine, Osage): success (OF)
1836-1844 – Mexico (anti-Texans, Natives, etc): success (OF)
1837-1838 – United States (massive strikes): success (OF)
1838-1839 – United States (Mormons): success (OF)
1842-1842 – United States (Dorr’s Rebellion): success (OF)
1847-1855 – United States (Cayuse): success (OF)
1850-1851 – United States (Mariposa tribes): success (OF)
1851-1859 – United States (Washington tribes): success (OF)
1852-1853 – Argentina (rebellion in Buenos Aires): success (OF
1854-1856 – China (rebellion): success (OF)
1855-1856 – United States (Sioux): success (OF)
1855-1858 – United States (Seminoles): success (OF)
1855-1858 – Nicaragua (Walker’s invasion): success (OF)
1855-1860 – United States (“Bleeding Kansas”): success (OF)
1857-1857 – United States (Cheyenne): success (OF)
1857-1858 – United States (Mormons): success (OF)
1858-1858 – Uruguay (rebellion in Montevideo): success (OF)
1858-1859 – United States (Comanche): success (OF)
1859-1859 – United States (Brownists at Harper’s Ferry): success (OF)
1860-1860 – Angola (rebellion in Kissembo): success (OF)
1860-1861 – Colombia (rebellion): success (OF)
1861-1865 – United States (confederate rebellion): success (OF)
1861-1865 – United States (Navajo): success (OF)
1861-1886 – United States (Apache): success (OF)
1862-1864 – United States (Sioux): success (OF)
1863-1863 – United States (draft riots): success (OF)
1863-1864 – United States (massive strikes): success (OF)
1864-1864 – United States (Sand Hill Massacre): success (OF)
1865-1865 – Panama (rebellion): success (OF)
1865-1867 – United States (Sioux): success (OF)
1867-1867 – Formosa (rebellion): success (OF)
1867-1875 – United States (Comanche): success (OF)
1868-1868 – Japan (rebellion): success (OF)]
1868-1868 – United States (Washita/South Plains tribes): success (OF)
1868-1868 – Uruguay (rebellion): success (OF)
1871-1871 – Korea (rebellion): success (OF)
1872-1873 – United States (Modocs): success (OF)
1874-1875 – United States (Red River War): success (OF)
1874-1874 – United States (Kiowa): success (OF)
1876-1877 – United States (Sioux/Cheyenne): success (OF)
1877-1877 – United States (St Louis general strike, others): success (OF)
1877-1877 – United States (Nez Perce): success (OF)
1878-1878 – United States (Idaho tribes): success (OF)
1878-1879 – United States (Cheyenne): success (OF)
1879-1880 – United States (Ute): success (OF)
1885-1885 – United States (New York textile strikes): failure (OF)
1886-1886 – United States (massive strikes, Haymarket): success (OF)
1888-1888 – Korea (rebellion): success (OF)
1888-1893 – Hawaii (rebellion contra Dole): success (OF)
1888-1889 – Samoa (rebellion): success (OF)
1890-1891 – United States (Pine Ridge, Wounded Knee): success (OF)
1891-1891 – Haiti (Navassa uprising): success (OF)
1891-1892 – Chile (rebellion): success (OF)
1892-1892 – United States (Idaho miners): success (OF)
1893-1894 – United States (massive strikes): success (OF)
1894-1894 – Nicaragua (Bluefields unrest): success (OF)
1894-1894 – United States (Chicago rail/Pullman strikes): success (OF)
1894-1895 – Brazil (rebellion): success (OF)
1894-1896 – Korea (post Sino-Japanese war rebellion): success (OF)
1896-1899 – Nicaragua (rebellions): success (OF)
1898-1900 – United States (Chippewa at Leech Lake): success (OF)
1898-1902 – Philippines (nationalist resistance): success (OF)
1899-1899 – Samoa (Mataafa): success (OF)
1899-1901 – United States (Idaho miners): success (OF)
1900-1941 – China (Boxers, communists, etc): success (OF)
1901-1901 – United States (Creek uprising): success (OF)
1901-1901 – United States (Steel strikes): failure (OF)
1901-1902 – Colombia (rebellions): success (OF)
1901-1913 – Philippines (Moslem Moro rebellion): success (OF)
1903-1903 – Honduras (rebellion): success (OF)
1903-1904 – Dominican Republic (rebellion): success (OF)
1904-1909 – United States (Kentucky tobacco farmers): success (OF)
1906-1909 – Cuba (rebellion): success (OF)
1907-1911 – Honduras (leftists, Bonilla): success (OF)
1909-1911 – United States (NY/Triangle textile strikes): failure (OF)
1911-1912 – China (rebellions): success (OF)
1912-1925 – Nicaragua (leftists): success (OF)
1913-1919 – Mexico (various rebellions, Villa): failure (OF)
1914-1914 – United States (Ludlow Massacre): success (OF)
1914-1924 – Dominican Republic (various factions): success (OF)
1915-1934 – Haiti (Sam, etc): success (OF)
1916-1917 – United States (Arizona miners strike): success (OF)
1917-1918 – United States (IWW): success (CO)
1917-1919 – United States (Espionage Act trials): success (CO)
1917-1922 – Cuba (rebellions): success (OF)
1918-1920 – Panama (strikes, election protests, etc): success (OF)
1919-1919 – Honduras (rebellion): success (OF)
1919-1920 – United States (Palmer Raids): success (CO)
1919-1920 – Costa Rica (Tinoco, etc): success (CO)
1919-1920 – United States (Great Steel Strike, others): success (OF)
1920-1921 – United States (West Virginian miners): success (OF)
1920-1928 – United States (prison rebellions): success (OF)
1920-1920 – Guatemala (Unionists): success (OF)
1922-1922 – Turkey (Nationalists): success (OF)
1922-1923 – United States (massive strikes): success (OF)
1924-1925 – Honduras (rebellions): success (OF)
1925-1925 – Panama (general strike): success (OF)
1926-1933 – Nicaragua (Sandino, others): success (OF)
1931-1932 – El Salvador (Marti): success (OF)
1932-1932 – United States (DC Bonus Strikers): success (OF)
1933-1933 – Cuba (rebellion): success (OF)
1935-1935 – Philippines (Sakdal Uprising): success (OF)
1938-1957 – United States (leftists: HUAC, McCarthyism): success (CO)
1943-1946 – United States (unprecedented strikes): success (OF)
1944-1951 – Greece (EAM/ELAS/KKE): success (CO)
1945-1949 – China (maoism): failure (OF)
1945-1954 – Vietnam (Viet Minh): failure (CO)
1946-1947 – S. Korea (mass resistance to US military rule): success (OF)
1947-1950 – Turkey (TKP): success (CO)
1948-1948 – S. Korea (democratic resistance): success (OF)
1948-1954 – Philippines (Huks): success (CO)
1950-1951 – United States (Puerto Rican independence): success (OF)
1950-1953 – United States (many prison rebellions): success (OF)
1952-1975 – Japan (general anti-US protests): success (OF)
1952-1957 – Japan (protestors in Okinawa): success (OF)
1953-1963 – Syria (ASRP/Baathists): failure (CO)
1954-1962 – Algeria (FLN): failure (CO)
1956-1971 – United States (Cointelpro-CPUSA): success (CO)
1956-1975 – South Vietnam (NLF): failure (OF)
1957-1959 – Lebanon (leftists): success (OF)
1957-1958 – Jordan (leftists/anti-monarchists): success (OF)
1959-1960 – Haiti (rebels contra Duvalier): success (OF)
US proxy wars:
1950s: Poland; Ukraine; Russia, China; Thailand; Burma
US Foreign policy:
Monroe Doctrine – western hemisphere = US property; non-whites = untermenschen
McKinley Doctrine – Open Door Policy i.e., China, Pacific = potentially, possibly, most likely US property; non-whites = untermenschen
Roosevelt Corollary – western hemisphere = US property, and we mean it this time! non-whites = untermenschen
Taft Doctrine – Dollar Diplomacy i.e., western hemisphere = US property, and we mean economically, politically, and all other ways; the Middle East = potentially, possibly, most likely, US property
Wilson Doctrine – 14 Points internationalism (i.e., great powers should respect each other; to hell with the rest); western hemisphere = US property, and we really mean it this time! non-whites = untermenschen
Roosevelt Doctrine – “Good Neighbor Policy!” i.e., western hemisphere = US property, and we really really really fucking mean it.
Truman Doctrine – aid to fascists in Greece, Turkey, the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, western Europe, Eastern Europe, North Africa, etc. i.e., what Kennan called “Containment.”
Eisenhower Doctrine – the Middle East = US property; non-whites = untermenschen; massive retaliation

Very hypocritical in my opinion. For instance when the US has attempted to overthrow dictators (ie such as in the Korean War) it's considered imperialism but when the US supports a dictator it's considered imperialism. Also David Ben Gurion is not a dictator in any meaningful sense while King Hussein is popular and a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalists. Finally we certainly did not support Mussolini or Franco-thousands of Americans fought against Franco in the International Brigades. Syangman was driven out by a popular rebellion not a US coup.

Kwisatz Haderach

12th July 2009, 04:32

You really shouldn't have quoted DB's entire post - it's huge.

But with regards to imperialism, I think his point is that any US intervention for the purpose of deciding another country's ruler counts as imperialism, regardless of what kind of ruler we're talking about. And yes, democracy is better than dictatorship in principle, but I can think of some dictators who were better than some elected leaders.

The Soviet Union has existed from 1917 to 1991 but the United States has existed since 1776 so obviously more people would be dead due to it's irresponsiblitly and so on.
Yes, I thought of that, which is why I said that the US probably killed more people than the USSR. It had a lot more time to do so. If we're talking about people killed per unit of time, then I don't know.

But, although numbers do matter, we both have to admit that no one chooses which country to support and which to oppose based on who killed less people. The reality is that we each like certain types of societies more than others. There is no such thing as a politically impartial judgment of history.

Jack

12th July 2009, 04:46

[QUOTE=Dust Bunnies;1489083]

Very hypocritical in my opinion. For instance when the US has attempted to overthrow dictators (ie such as in the Korean War) it's considered imperialism but when the US supports a dictator it's considered imperialism. Also David Ben Gurion is not a dictator in any meaningful sense while King Hussein is popular and a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalists. Finally we certainly did not support Mussolini or Franco-thousands of Americans fought against Franco in the International Brigades. Syangman was driven out by a popular rebellion not a US coup.

Americans doing things =/= America doing something. Bringing up the International Brigades is a bad idea considering they were set up by the COMINTERN mostly. Those are all allegations agains the US government, not it's people. Obviously we're not going to blame Emma Goldman for repression against the IWW just because she was American.

Brother No. 1

12th July 2009, 08:51

For instance when the US has attempted to overthrow dictators (ie such as in the Korean War)

So an intervention in awar to save their "allies", aka ROK was a puppet to America, from the "Communist cancer" of the DPRK means to you wanting to overthrow a "dictator" and set up a Bougorsie "Democratic" goverment? The US wanted to kick out the DPRK to have their dominace in Korea a whole.

And I'm sure that massacuring civilains was also their plan.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/kor-n17.shtml

ROKA's massacuring police.

http://www.fas.org/news/skorea/1999/e19991006another.htm

Other massacures

http://www.iacenter.org/Koreafiles/ktc-park.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/07/world/korean-war-massacre-by-south-reported.html

http://revcom.us/a/136/korea_massacres-en.html

http://www.korea-is-one.org/spip.php?article3108

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2008-12-06_D94TJ7800

it's considered imperialism but when the US supports a dictator it's considered imperialism.

The US is spreading its interests by using these dictators and trading with them, as they did with Hitler in the 30s, and will trade with any Capitlaist nation and do anything to keep domiance.

Rosa Provokateur

12th July 2009, 12:37

. If leftism all good

Here's your first mistake; Leftism is shit, it's not radical and it's counter-revolutionary.

The Left's fetish with organization is it's greatest stumbling block to ever doing anything good; it seeks to organize not only society but people, creating a new morality, building new work ethic. More and more constant bull shit that people dont need.

We need to break with the Left, maybe even break the Left. It's killing us and anarchists gotta fight it.

Dust Bunnies

12th July 2009, 13:59

Here's your first mistake; Leftism is shit, it's not radical and it's counter-revolutionary.

LOL WUT. Leftism isn't shit, it is radical, and it is revolutionary. We are trying to smash a system that is quite simply, shit.

Dictionary.com's definitions of revolutionaries seem to fit/help leftism: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/revolutionary

rev⋅o⋅lu⋅tion⋅ar⋅y

/ˌrɛvhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəˈluhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngʃəˌnɛrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngi/ http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary1.classic.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled Pronunciation [rev-uh-loo-shuh-ner-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural -ar⋅ies. –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, characterized by, or of the nature of a revolution, or a sudden, complete, or marked change: a revolutionary junta. 2. radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.: a revolutionary discovery. 3. (initial capital letterhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) of or pertaining to the American Revolution or to the period contemporaneous with it in U.S. history: Revolutionary heroes; Revolutionary weapons. 4. revolving. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=revolving&db=luna)
–noun 5. a revolutionist.

Origin:
1765–75; revolution (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=revolution&db=luna) + -ary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=-ary&db=luna) http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png

The Left's fetish with organization is it's greatest stumbling block to ever doing anything good; it seeks to organize not only society but people, creating a new morality, building new work ethic. More and more constant bull shit that people dont need.So allowing all people in the world to eat a meal and have shelter is bull shit? Having a great work ethic is shit? If you have kids don't teach them to share because then that's Communistic and bull shit. :rolleyes:

We need to break with the Left, maybe even break the Left. It's killing us and anarchists gotta fight it.
Anarcho Cappies needs to be broken. Go live in Somalia and tell me how great AnarchoCapitalism is then. :rolleyes: AnarchoCapitalist societies will last for a very short time if they ever come to exist. Instead of Warlords who are easily put down by violence, Corporations will pop up, be even more powerful, and end up being the new government.

danyboy27

12th July 2009, 14:40

Dust Bunnies

12th July 2009, 14:44

seriously, i dont know what the fuss is all about.

stalin for his country and self interest and his own person killed a lot of innocent, resulting in good and bad things.

us presidents and politician did exactly the same. stalin achievements crumbled in 1991 and the us achievenents crumble constantly.

both did horribles things and good one for a more selfish primary objective.

Why? Because every death Stalin had, whether it was a good death or an accidental, "oops he wasn't a Capitalist agent" death, was a death that went towards aiding the proletariat of the Soviet Union. Sadly his achievements began to crumble in 1956 starting with the Secret Speech.

Jack

12th July 2009, 14:56

Here's your first mistake; Leftism is shit, it's not radical and it's counter-revolutionary.

The Left's fetish with organization is it's greatest stumbling block to ever doing anything good; it seeks to organize not only society but people, creating a new morality, building new work ethic. More and more constant bull shit that people dont need.

We need to break with the Left, maybe even break the Left. It's killing us and anarchists gotta fight it.

Could you like, leave now?

danyboy27

12th July 2009, 15:07

Why? Because every death Stalin had, whether it was a good death or an accidental, "oops he wasn't a Capitalist agent" death, was a death that went towards aiding the proletariat of the Soviet Union. Sadly his achievements began to crumble in 1956 starting with the Secret Speech.

that all nice but how do you know that all the coups and conspiracy organized by the west havnt only done bad things?

when the west organize a coup in a certain countries it have its bad side and good side. Voluntary or not, a certain modernisation kick in verry often, usually that what make the whole situation explode in te face of the west.

i cant really say it happen all the time, that all the coups being good things, and i wonder how much time it would take to fill the good things vs bad things basket.

since the west have a charged sheet it would take a awful lot of time.

to me, its a little bit like when the russia forced the people living in kazackstan to stop being nomad, it was oroginally an horrible and killied a lot of people thing but today kazackstan is the main electricity supplier of the region so..

Dust Bunnies

12th July 2009, 15:10

that all nice but how do you know that all the coups and conspiracy organized by the west havnt only done bad things?

when the west organize a coup in a certain countries it have its bad side and good side. Voluntary or not, a certain modernisation kick in verry often, usually that what make the whole situation explode in te face of the west.

i cant really say it happen all the time, that all the coups being good things, and i wonder how much time it would take to fill the good things vs bad things basket.

since the west have a charged sheet it would take a awful lot of time.

to me, its a little bit like when the russia forced the people living in kazackstan to stop being nomad, it was oroginally an horrible and killied a lot of people thing but today kazackstan is the main electricity supplier of the region so..

Because these western coups open the door to exploitation, something all leftists agree on.

danyboy27

12th July 2009, 15:12

Because these western coups open the door to exploitation, something all leftists agree on.

that one of the bad things, and next thng you know there is an uprising of the newly western educated youth in the street.

Dust Bunnies

12th July 2009, 15:13

that one of the bad things, and next thng you know there is an uprising of the newly western educated youth in the street.

Western educated youth? The children in Vietnam making the shoes I'm wearing are educated? Capitalism is a pyramid, you have the top (US and friends) and it goes down from there.

Pogue

12th July 2009, 15:16

danyboy27

12th July 2009, 15:42

Western educated youth? The children in Vietnam making the shoes I'm wearing are educated? Capitalism is a pyramid, you have the top (US and friends) and it goes down from there.

hey i didnt mentionned vietnam, you did!
iraq, lybia iran and egypt puppet governement where all originally toppled by educated people, people who benefited from western help.

did i mentionned that every interventionist move the west does inevitably back fire against them a day or another?

when you play with people lives, it always backfire somehow, no matter if your homeboy is stalin or nixon.

Dust Bunnies

12th July 2009, 16:45

iraq,

Oil based economy

lybia

Oil based Economy

iran

Oil and Agriculture economy, also, when was Iran puppeted for a long time?

egypt

Oil, tourism, agriculture and media.

Seems like your examples didn't take much knowledge or investment, they just have oil and when they have oil the west jumps after them and controls them.

Richard Nixon

12th July 2009, 20:11

[QUOTE=Polish Soviet;1489201]So an intervention in awar to save their "allies", aka ROK was a puppet to America, from the "Communist cancer" of the DPRK means to you wanting to overthrow a "dictator" and set up a Bougorsie "Democratic" goverment? The US wanted to kick out the DPRK to have their dominace in Korea a whole.

And I'm sure that massacuring civilains was also their plan.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/kor-n17.shtml

ROKA's massacuring police.

http://www.fas.org/news/skorea/1999/e19991006another.htm

Other massacures

http://www.iacenter.org/Koreafiles/ktc-park.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/07/world/korean-war-massacre-by-south-reported.html

http://revcom.us/a/136/korea_massacres-en.html

http://www.korea-is-one.org/spip.php?article3108

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2008-12-06_D94TJ7800

North Korea was a puppet of the Soviets back then and nowadays the Chinese so your point? Also the majority of South Koreans supported their government so the North Korean invasion was unjust aggression. Also some examples of North Korean war crimes:

http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/POWs-In-Korean-War/POWs-In-Korean-War_1.html

The US is spreading its interests by using these dictators and trading with them, as they did with Hitler in the 30s, and will trade with any Capitlaist nation and do anything to keep domiance.

Then why do you criticize the US when we refuse to trade with certain dictators such as Castro. Is it not you want to list every foreign policy move the US has ever made and call it a case of imperialism?

Dust Bunnies

12th July 2009, 20:19

[QUOTE]

North Korea was a puppet of the Soviets back then and nowadays the Chinese so your point? Also the majority of South Koreans supported their government so the North Korean invasion was unjust aggression. Also some examples of North Korean war crimes:

http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/POWs-In-Korean-War/POWs-In-Korean-War_1.html

Some US warcrimes: http://www.counterpunch.org/stephens05132005.html (1975-2005). North Koreans didn't support their government? So that's why they still supported them even in the worst days of being shoved into the mountains? Also South Korea is a puppet of the US, always has, always will and North Korea wasn't really a puppet. If I remember correctly they didn't rely on the Soviets for aid.

Then why do you criticize the US when we refuse to trade with certain dictators such as Castro. Is it not you want to list every foreign policy move the US has ever made and call it a case of imperialism?

No I'm the guy who lists stuff. :P

:rolleyes:
Why do we criticize? Because of the Caribbean nations, Cuba is the best of them and unlike their neighbors, not dictatorial and poor.

Richard Nixon

12th July 2009, 20:22

[QUOTE=Richard Nixon;1489602]

Some US warcrimes: http://www.counterpunch.org/stephens05132005.html (1975-2005). North Koreans didn't support their government? So that's why they still supported them even in the worst days of being shoved into the mountains? Also South Korea is a puppet of the US, always has, always will and North Korea wasn't really a puppet. If I remember correctly they didn't rely on the Soviets for aid.

However only the Chinese saved them from total collapse in the Korean War just as much as the South Koreans were dependent on the US for their own survivial.

Dust Bunnies

12th July 2009, 20:52

[QUOTE=Dust Bunnies;1489612]

However only the Chinese saved them from total collapse in the Korean War just as much as the South Koreans were dependent on the US for their own survivial.

Just because you call a nation in once doesn't mean you're their puppet. We called in the French during the Revolutionary War so I guess we're France's puppet? Is there a bunch of Chinese military bases in the DPRK?

danyboy27

12th July 2009, 20:56

is it really that necessary?

has i said earlier its obvious that you will NEVER be able to change the opinion of your main opponent.

you both have a full bag of what the other side did wrong, what about giving up the bags and looking for common idea to develops and idea to share instead of that useless and futile argumentation on who was the most evil?

doing that is more likely to change things, neverending argumentation on who the worst motherfucker wont.

look, both of you support unions, both of you support free healthcare and social services, both of you are tired of stupid monopoly of big fat cat corporation, for differents reason of course but the fact is, you have common idea, developing the bad ones wont change jack shit.

Dust Bunnies

12th July 2009, 21:15

Brother No. 1

12th July 2009, 21:23

Then why do you criticize the US when we refuse to trade with certain dictators such as Castro.

Last time I remembered the US did an embargo on Cuba that made life very horrible.
Now before the Revolution the US "liberated" Cuba from Spain and made it a puppet with horrible life/politics. Also I dont know any Marxist the US traded with.

danyboy27

12th July 2009, 21:34

damn, at least i tried, but look like that whole stalin vs the west debate will remain forever.

Dust Bunnies

12th July 2009, 21:35

damn, at least i tried, but look like that whole stalin vs the west debate will remain forever.

Well what do you expect from a board filled with leftists including people who like the Soviet Union?

danyboy27

12th July 2009, 23:13

Well what do you expect from a board filled with leftists including people who like the Soviet Union?

i dunno, not being in the OI all day and actually talking to leftist who share their point of view instead of going on a neverending thread against some hardcore capitalist who wil never change their mind about something they think they are right?

this is revleft right? 9 980 leftist and about 20 people in the OI, 20 people most people dont care about, but for some random reason some people develop a passion at making hardcore cappies pissed on futile subjects

Kwisatz Haderach

12th July 2009, 23:25

Why? Because every death Stalin had, whether it was a good death or an accidental, "oops he wasn't a Capitalist agent" death, was a death that went towards aiding the proletariat of the Soviet Union.
Um, no. How could a completely pointless death possibly aid the proletariat of the Soviet Union? Sure, if you kill someone who really was a capitalist agent, then yes, you've helped the proletariat. But if you kill someone who wasn't a capitalist agent, then you've just killed an innocent person for no good reason at all. How is that helping anyone?

And there can be no doubt that Stalin killed huge numbers of people who were not capitalist agents and posed no danger to the Soviet Union. At best, that is criminal carelessness. Don't tell me there was no better way to tell apart the guilty from the innocent. Unintentionally assigning guilt to hundreds of thousands of innocent people would be a feat of colossal stupidity.

Rosa Provokateur

14th July 2009, 05:53

2. radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.: a revolutionary discovery.

So allowing all people in the world to eat a meal and have shelter is bull shit? Having a great work ethic is shit? If you have kids don't teach them to share because then that's Communistic and bull shit. :rolleyes:

AnarchoCapitalist societies will last for a very short time if they ever come to exist. Instead of Warlords who are easily put down by violence, Corporations will pop up, be even more powerful, and end up being the new government.

There's nothing innovative about the Left. Just the constant re-packaging of Marx, Proudhon, and Bakunin with Lenin sometimes thrown in for extra flavor (or lack of).

No, thinking that the Left can do that is what's bullshit. After the failures of Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, and Cuba you'd think Leftists would catch on and see a pattern. Guess not.

Well suppose I dont wanna work? When Communists take over they always draw up these grand plans on building new stuff and expect everybody to go lock-step working on it. Why should people sacrifice for such nationalism when it usually never benefits them personally?

Teach your kids to share, by all means. Dont teach them to sacrifice for some abstract like nation, race, or class; revolution for the individual's sake, everything else is secondary.

Who ever said anything about society? I have no interest in society, I want freedom for me, my friends, and those around me... nothing abstract like society or class.

Rosa Provokateur

14th July 2009, 05:56

[QUOTE=Richard Nixon;1489617] Is there a bunch of Chinese military bases in the DPRK?

No, too many North Koreans would run to them for sanctuary

danyboy27

14th July 2009, 21:10

[QUOTE=Dust Bunnies;1489644]

No, too many North Koreans would run to them for sanctuary

ROFL good one