You make me sick [Archive]

PilesOfDeadNazis

26th July 2010, 07:43

Coming from a person who's family fled the horrors of Communism, I must say, you people have no clue what the fuck you are asking for.

Long lines waiting to see a doctor who doesnt give a shit? You idiots seriously think that a doctor is going to put themselves through years of med school to be paid pennies on a dollar?

Why should Joe Blow who is a lazy ass in school and flunks out & is only able to wkr part time at wal-mart get my tax dollars fo fund his healthcare? Is it my fault he's an idiot?

Haven't you ever heard, you reap what you sew?
Bravo. Feel better?

First of all the 'horrors of Communism' you are talking about is most likely post-reform. Second, that last little part talking about Joe Blow sounds an awful lot like Democratic Socialism. One of the planks of Marxism is that everyone has the equal liability to work so it sounds like you really have done your research, despite having looked over the smallest details lie THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. But good try, anyways.

You also seem to have overlooked the fact that there are Anarchists and Left Communists(sorry if those are words you don't know) here too, how do they make you sick? I know, I know, it's all probably the same to you, based on your seemingly incredible lack of understanding of anything Leftist, much less anything regarding revolution.

Nachie

26th July 2010, 07:44

Coming from a person who's family fled the horrors of Communism, I must say, you people have no clue what the fuck you are asking for.

"Best Mod" responded to this adequately.

Long lines waiting to see a doctor who doesnt give a shit? You idiots seriously think that a doctor is going to put themselves through years of med school to be paid pennies on a dollar?
That's why we're getting rid of money.

Why should Joe Blow who is a lazy ass in school and flunks out & is only able to wkr part time at wal-mart get my tax dollars fo fund his healthcare? Is it my fault he's an idiot?
That's why we're getting rid of taxes and government.

Haven't you ever heard, you reap what you sew?
That's why capitalism is falling apart and trying to take all of us down with it.

Conquer or Die

26th July 2010, 07:50

Coming from a person who's family fled the horrors of Communism, I must say, you people have no clue what the fuck you are asking for.

Half my gene pool fled from the horrors of capitalism in Ireland. I think that we're both not so much on the same level as say, the people of the Congo, who are actively experiencing the most malicious form of oppression on the planet. So if we're to start anywhere, let's start there.

Long lines waiting to see a doctor who doesnt give a shit? You idiots seriously think that a doctor is going to put themselves through years of med school to be paid pennies on a dollar?

Yeah quite a few doctors don't give a shit and there's plenty of long lines in America. If you want to fix the country you should just eliminate the care that must be given to all patients who go to an emergency room. There would be a good natural selection process going on, don't you think?

Why should Joe Blow who is a lazy ass in school and flunks out & is only able to wkr part time at wal-mart get my tax dollars fo fund his healthcare? Is it my fault he's an idiot?

It's not your fault he's an idiot. It's not your fault that Wal-Mart doesn't pay him what he's owed. Go ahead and call him an idiot, don't stop him from getting what he is due. That much we can agree on.

Haven't you ever heard, you reap what you sew?

Exactly, abolish all rent posthaste.

bcbm

26th July 2010, 07:53

good to see another wisconsinite making a positive contribution to the board

Mindtoaster

26th July 2010, 07:57

I like that he only talks about long lines to see the doctor as TEH HORRORS OF COMUNISUM which he allegedly fled from

Invincible Summer

26th July 2010, 08:02

Coming from a person who's family fled the horrors of Communism, I must say, you people have no clue what the fuck you are asking for.

My grandparents fled China when Mao was doing his thang, but I'm still here.

Long lines waiting to see a doctor who doesnt give a shit? You idiots seriously think that a doctor is going to put themselves through years of med school to be paid pennies on a dollar?
Uh, what?

Why should Joe Blow who is a lazy ass in school and flunks out & is only able to wkr part time at wal-mart get my tax dollars fo fund his healthcare? Is it my fault he's an idiot?

Ironically, your whole post is riddled with run-ons and grammatical/spelling errors.

Seriously though, there are reasons for why all these things (people doing poorly in school, only being able to get a shitty job, etc), and none of them have to do with socialism.

Your ignorance already shows that you don't even understand what socialism is, talking about tax dollars and wages.

Haven't you ever heard, you reap what you sew?

Haven't you ever heard, don't be a dick?

#FF0000

26th July 2010, 08:07

Let's not overflow this thread with replies until he gets back, folks.

M-26-7

26th July 2010, 08:28

Coming from a person who's family fled the horrors of Communism, I must say, you people have no clue what the fuck you are asking for.

Long lines waiting to see a doctor who doesnt give a shit? You idiots seriously think that a doctor is going to put themselves through years of med school to be paid pennies on a dollar?

Why should Joe Blow who is a lazy ass in school and flunks out & is only able to wkr part time at wal-mart get my tax dollars fo fund his healthcare? Is it my fault he's an idiot?

Haven't you ever heard, you reap what you sew?

Hi there, takenflight. I am interested to hear more about your personal story.

What country did your family flee from?

Why did they flee? What year did they flee? How did they manage to escape?

How old were you when they fled?

What did your father do in the country where you were born? What did he do in the country that your family fled to?

What country did your family flee to?

Were you parents old enough to remember what life was like before Communism? What did they say about the transition period? What was it like?

What country do you live in now? What do you do for a living there?

Finally, how did you find Revleft?

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

Kotze

26th July 2010, 11:38

I hope takenflight comes back, because who else in this madhouse will stand up for the greatness and envy of the world that is the US healthcare system (http://blogs.ngm.com/.a/6a00e0098226918833012876a6070f970c-800wi)? Don't try to fix what isn't broken.

Dean

26th July 2010, 14:21

Bud Struggle

26th July 2010, 14:38

takenflight has taken flight.

Nolan

26th July 2010, 18:40

Ele'ill

26th July 2010, 19:44

Coming from a person who's family fled the horrors of Communism, I must say, you people have no clue what the fuck you are asking for.

Coming from someone that's dedicated the majority of their life to understanding alternative systems of living and who lives under a system- Capitalism- that is not working- let me tell you that a family fleeing from 'communism' was likely not actually fleeing from communism but instead fleeing from a system that had been hijacked and otherwise poisoned by none other than Capitalism.

Long lines waiting to see a doctor who doesnt give a shit?

Sorry but this is pure speculation.

You idiots seriously think that a doctor is going to put themselves through years of med school to be paid pennies on a dollar?

Yes, I do for a couple of different reasons. The first reason being that doctors make a lot of money but it's offset by the amount of debt they owe. I would argue that most doctors get into the field of saving people's lives because they care about people. It was never about the money and if there was ever a system where it would be all about the money it would be Capitalism.

Why should Joe Blow who is a lazy ass in school and flunks out & is only able to wkr part time at wal-mart get my tax dollars fo fund his healthcare? Is it my fault he's an idiot?

Is it your fault that your public roads get torn up by large trucks?

Is it your fault that our corpogovernment wants to wage illegitimate wars? (that they're losing)

Is it your fault that your local pig-precinct wants new toys like 3 new dodge chargers- 50 tazers- assault rifles etc (that they do not need)

The list goes on-

You're already paying for things that other people use to kill- why the fuck wouldn't a sane and informed person instead want to pay for things that heal?

Haven't you ever heard, you reap what you sew?

:laugh:

Die Rote Fahne

26th July 2010, 19:45

Stephen Colbert

26th July 2010, 19:49

Why should Joe Blow who is a lazy ass in school and flunks out & is only able to wkr part time at wal-mart get my tax dollars fo fund his healthcare? Is it my fault he's an idiot?

Joe blow does get tax dollars to fund his healthcare. Talk about abusing the system..

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002791346_walmart07m.html

incogweedo

26th July 2010, 20:11

Coming from a person who's family fled the horrors of Communism, I must say, you people have no clue what the fuck you are asking for.

Long lines waiting to see a doctor who doesnt give a shit? You idiots seriously think that a doctor is going to put themselves through years of med school to be paid pennies on a dollar?

Why should Joe Blow who is a lazy ass in school and flunks out & is only able to wkr part time at wal-mart get my tax dollars fo fund his healthcare? Is it my fault he's an idiot?

Haven't you ever heard, you reap what you sew?

not all of us on here are communist, this is a forum for the far left/revolutionary left. Hence the name.

secondly, assuming your story is real and you're not trolling, there hasn't been a true communist regime. So you chances are you weren't "fleeing" from real communists or even leftists.

tl;dr: Get out if you aren't even going to attempt to understand and learn.

1/10 anyway

Sturzo

28th July 2010, 07:16

He decided to search the internet for something that would make him sick.

Then he decided to tell us how sick we made him.

I always find people's internet mentalities strange.

black magick hustla

28th July 2010, 07:36

i just finished jerking off to some really good porn i just wanted to say that

Invincible Summer

28th July 2010, 07:37

i just finished jerking off to some really good porn i just wanted to say that

Sexist!

Why isn't this closed yet?

#FF0000

28th July 2010, 07:40

Are you telling me how to do my job, Helios+?

This calls for a mod fight.

MOD FIGHT

EDIT: OP's back so I'm gonna get rid of the spam soon.

takenflight

28th July 2010, 07:44

Ok everyone I am back!

First off let me apologize fro coming off so brash & being so short with the post...

Let me tell you a few things about me & my personal & political bacground so you can get a better idea of where I am coming from....

1st Personal & professional info:

-Family is Polish one the one side I was referring to "fleeing communism". Poland has done much better as a free market society...that cannot be denied & family did not like communism.

-I am a health insurance agent. I worked hard to get to where I am & don't believe in "spreading the wealth". If I can put myself through schooling & get my licenses & hustle so can you, don't be jealous of my success, create your own my empowering yourself.

-I'm a punk rocker in the true spirit of punk, I don't believe in conformity, rather in individuality & freedom of expression. We aren't mindless dones, we are people with different desires & different views. I may want 2 potatoes instead of one. I may want to spike my hair.

-How would things get done if everyone was given the same thing? This is why communism failed in Poland. You are not going to tell worker A who works his ass off to keep working his ass off but since we are communist, we can't give you more money that worker B who slacks off & sleeps on the job because that wouldn't be "fair" or "marxist" or "brotherly" enough. It doesn't work.

Politcal views:

*Capitalist

*Moderate (Center-Right)

Here is what I think needs to happen ni the USA & here is what I propose to address each issue:

Things I'd like to improve most in America:

1-Economy/Job creation
2-Military Strategy
3-A REAL soluton to fix the MINOR glitches in Health Care & Health Insurance industry
4-Immigration Reform
5-Government spending allocations
6-Tax System (How to reach the Fair Tax system over time)

How I would achieve these goals:

1-Big Tax cuts for major corporations...in return they provide jobs. Penalities imposed for hiring illegals on businesses. Hire American, we will finally make it affordable to do so. Its all about INCENTIVES!...NOT JOB DESTROYING NEW TAXES!

2-No more getting involved in affairs that don't pose a national security threat. No more "occupations" of countires that do pose a threat...they would be dealth with the same way we dealt with Japan & Kosovo...DROP THE BOMB! We haven't heard a peep since! We did not need to occupy those countries either

3-Instead of compromosing care by overloading the system with patients & hiking premiums up for everyone else to pay for the ininsured, #1 is a good way to start extending coverage...more people back to work=more employer sponsored health benefits to the people who were out of work. Illegal immigrants would not matter, as they would no longer count towards the "uninsured" numbers. We would use the money we save on the war to open "free clinics" to uninsured who would have to qualify based on income...this would only be available to them if they were not able to enroll in state benefit plan or obtain help from a private clinic in their area. My point is we don't need to ruin 85 percent of the populations health insurance to appease the other 15%. There are much more cost effective & intelligent ways of doing this. Tort reform would also drive the costs down considerably & that would be implemented immediately. To prevent "overusage". of free clinics, you could be refused if you did not have a legitimate reason for being there, we don;t need people faking pain to score vikes on our tax dollars.

4-No more immigration until we have effectively balanced the budget, plain & simple. Penalities wuold apply to companies that would be caught hiring illegals

5-Foreign Aid=Done...not until we are out of debt and only if we beleive we will get the money back & it is in the interest of national security.

6-Over tyime, the reigninign in of government spending would make the fair tax system possible because we would not need to bleed our citizens dry to pay for these things anymore...It would take quite a while to achieve since we are so far in debt, but over time we would get there.

this is an invasion

28th July 2010, 08:29

Adi Shankara

28th July 2010, 08:34

Haven't you ever heard, you reap what you sew?

sorry, I never actually did learn to sew...I leave textile arts to those who are good at them :rolleyes:

Kotze

28th July 2010, 09:13

Okay, we just got trolled. The punk thing was a bit too much. But the OP's hyperbole, like any good caricature, really helps you seeing the ugly side of the real thing, here the contradictory nature of right-wing talking points regarding healthcare. Made me think. Any serious reform must attack the bureaucratic overhead takenflight claimed to be a part of.

There are two strongly distinctive aspects of health care. One is that you don’t know when or whether you’ll need care — but if you do, the care can be extremely expensive. The big bucks are in triple coronary bypass surgery, not routine visits to the doctor’s office; and very, very few people can afford to pay major medical costs out of pocket.

This tells you right away that health care can’t be sold like bread. It must be largely paid for by some kind of insurance. And this in turn means that someone other than the patient ends up making decisions about what to buy. Consumer choice is nonsense when it comes to health care. And you can’t just trust insurance companies either — they’re not in business for their health, or yours.

This problem is made worse by the fact that actually paying for your health care is a loss from an insurers’ point of view — they actually refer to it as “medical costs.” This means both that insurers try to deny as many claims as possible, and that they try to avoid covering people who are actually likely to need care. Both of these strategies use a lot of resources, which is why private insurance has much higher administrative costs than single-payer systems. And since there’s a widespread sense that our fellow citizens should get the care we need — not everyone agrees, but most do — this means that private insurance basically spends a lot of money on socially destructive activities.

The second thing about health care is that it’s complicated, and you can’t rely on experience or comparison shopping. (“I hear they’ve got a real deal on stents over at St. Mary’s!”) That’s why doctors are supposed to follow an ethical code, why we expect more from them than from bakers or grocery store owners.There are some aspects of the healthcare system where free-market solutions would help in bringing down costs: The American Medical Association acts like a guild, limiting the supply of physicians to increase their income. So they make way more than their British colleagues, without performing better. One way to put some pressure on AMA could be to cooperate with Canada and other countries when it comes to doing some procedures that are so much more cheaper there than in the USA that it is even worth the travel expenses. Research grants and prizes should finance drug research, instead of using patents, since patents are monopolies.

So you see, you could go on about freedom and markets and markets and freedom and freedom and markets arguing for something completely different than the usual shite that comes with that.

#FF0000

28th July 2010, 09:16

I doubt he's a troll. Keep things civil and on topic please.

RGacky3

28th July 2010, 11:33

I did'nt want to respond to the rest of your post because you ignored everyones responce and your a troll and a waste of time, but this gem you gave us almost made it worth it.

-I'm a punk rocker in the true spirit of punk, I don't believe in conformity, rather in individuality & freedom of expression. We aren't mindless dones, we are people with different desires & different views. I may want 2 potatoes instead of one. I may want to spike my hair.

:D hahahahahhahah.

Obs

28th July 2010, 12:52

People's Republic of Poland

Well there's your problem.

REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL

28th July 2010, 13:17

Why should Joe Blow who is a lazy ass in school and flunks out & is only able to wkr part time at wal-mart get my tax dollars fo fund his healthcare? Is it my fault he's an idiot?

Haven't you ever heard, you reap what you sew?

Damn, I never thought of it like that before.

manic expression

28th July 2010, 13:39

-Family is Polish one the one side I was referring to "fleeing communism". Poland has done much better as a free market society...that cannot be denied & family did not like communism.
What time period are you talking about? In the 80's, Poland was under martial law, so any supposed improvement from that doesn't really mean squat in terms of capitalism vs socialism. And secondly, Poland's living standards have been a mixed bag since the fall:

The years 1990 and 1994 were taken as the period of comparison. For analysis of changes in the value of living conditions, indicators were made using the statistical measures of dispersion, dynamics, and a graphic method. The average standard of living has decreased by 4.5 of one percentage point.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/y5262r52437j7715/

-I am a health insurance agent. I worked hard to get to where I am & don't believe in "spreading the wealth". If I can put myself through schooling & get my licenses & hustle so can you, don't be jealous of my success, create your own my empowering yourself.OK, this explains a lot. Actually, it explains almost everything. You are aware that the health insurance industry in the US revolves around denying people medical care, right? Didn't you get that memo? That's the only way health insurance is profitable in a capitalist society: deny people care and still collect on their payments...more money for you!

Yes, most of us work hard in this world. From the janitor to the CEO, people are busting their asses to get by. The only problem? One group of people's work gets more money, while the people who work the hardest and produce the most get very little (CEOs might work hard but they don't produce anything, and the top capitalists hardly work at all, they hire CEOs to do that for them). Revolution isn't about "spreading the wealth", that's what charities do...revolution is about workers taking control of what belongs to them, it's about workers being successful by empowering themselves, which is your advice exactly.

-I'm a punk rocker in the true spirit of punk, I don't believe in conformity, rather in individuality & freedom of expression. We aren't mindless dones, we are people with different desires & different views. I may want 2 potatoes instead of one. I may want to spike my hair.Socialism allows for more artistic and cultural expression than capitalism. Capitalist workplaces are the very picture of conformity, or at least to the degree that the boss wants to enforce. So this hardly is pro-capitalist. If you're about making money for yourself on the back of other people's work, be a capitalist; if you're really about freedom of expression, be a revolutionary. Simple as that.

-How would things get done if everyone was given the same thing? This is why communism failed in Poland. You are not going to tell worker A who works his ass off to keep working his ass off but since we are communist, we can't give you more money that worker B who slacks off & sleeps on the job because that wouldn't be "fair" or "marxist" or "brotherly" enough. It doesn't work.Everyone isn't given the same thing in socialist societies. That's a lie that the capitalist politicians tell you (this will become a recurring theme when you look at it closely). What actually happens is people are rewarded for actually making stuff, not for owning a factory or business that other people work in.

You should read up on the Stakhnovite movement. That was a clear-cut example of socialism rewarding real hard work (that creates stuff) with higher compensation.

1-Big Tax cuts for major corporations...in return they provide jobs. Penalities imposed for hiring illegals on businesses. Hire American, we will finally make it affordable to do so. Its all about INCENTIVES!...NOT JOB DESTROYING NEW TAXES!I chuckled when I read this. Major corporations and their board members have been getting tax cuts for decades...and yet jobs keep disappearing. Your solution is to do more of the same and hope for something different, which is simply ridiculous.

"Hire American" isn't profitable. It sounds like a good slogan, but it's not in the interests of business owners. Why don't you stop being jealous of their success and empower yourself? :cool:

Oh, and we didn't drop "the bomb" on Kosovo. Not that that would've helped in any way. But it's best we deal with the fundamentals first, you need to crawl before you can walk and all that.

Bud Struggle

28th July 2010, 14:18

What time period are you talking about? In the 80's, Poland was under martial law, so any supposed improvement from that doesn't really mean squat in terms of capitalism vs socialism. And secondly, Poland's living standards have been a mixed bag since the fall:

Let me interject something in here I'm Polish American and I have a good number of relatives that I visit or speak with over there and while to a good extent the Polish disliked Communism--what they disliked even more was the Russian domination of Poland and they almost universally felt that the USSR's Communist intrusion into Poland was just a continuation of the Czarist policies of years past.

Communism during the Cold War was always closely identified with Russian imperialism.

manic expression

28th July 2010, 14:30

Let me interject something in here I'm Polish American and I have a good number of relatives that I visit or speak with over there and while to a good extent the Polish disliked Communism--what they disliked even more was the Russian domination of Poland and they almost universally felt that the USSR's Communist intrusion into Poland was just a continuation of the Czarist policies of years past.

Communism during the Cold War was always closely identified with Russian imperialism.
That was a factor, I think. And that was an unfortunate misconception, because it wasn't really what happened. Sure, I understand the historical implications, but "Russia" first went into Poland to liberate it from Nazi oppression under the direction of a Georgian. Fast forward to the 80's and martial law was declared in order to stop a Soviet invasion (at least that's what was said). So it was hardly about Russia vs Poland. But Walesa loved to play that card nevertheless.

As an aside, what's funny to me is how so many liberal capitalists express shock and horror at the fact that the newly-minted capitalist societies of Eastern Europe have indulged in all manner of bigotry and ethnic hatred. They thought liberal democracy would bring harmony, and yet it's brought the opposite. That's because in almost every case, the arguments against socialism (and for capitalism) were based on chauvinism; and moreover the acts against socialism showed the same. From Azerbaijan's nationalists throwing Armenians out of high-rise buildings to their deaths in 1989 (in their "heroic stand against communism", of course) to Slovakia recently banning spoken Hungarian in public places (in areas that are overwhelmingly Hungarian)...anti-communism was and is synonymous with bigotry. The Polish right-wing's attempt to manipulate distrust of Russia and Russian people is just another example of this.

Replace internationalism with nationalism and what do you expect?

Bud Struggle

28th July 2010, 14:48

As an aside, what's funny to me is how so many liberal capitalists express shock and horror at the fact that the newly-minted capitalist societies of Eastern Europe have indulged in all manner of bigotry and ethnic hatred. They thought liberal democracy would bring harmony, and yet it's brought the opposite. That's because in almost every case, the arguments against socialism (and for capitalism) were based on chauvinism; and moreover the acts against socialism showed the same. From Azerbaijan's nationalists throwing Armenians out of high-rise buildings to their deaths in 1989 (in their "heroic stand against communism", of course) to Slovakia recently banning spoken Hungarian in public places (in areas that are overwhelmingly Hungarian)...anti-communism was and is synonymous with bigotry. The Polish right-wing's attempt to manipulate distrust of Russia and Russian people is just another example of this.

Replace internationalism with nationalism and what do you expect?

OR this is what happens when you give people freedom--they don't always use it in the best way. I think all these ethnic tensions were still there under Communism, they just were forbidden to be expressed.

It will take more than a couple of years to dispel hurdreds of years of distrust and hatred. Abolishing ethnic problems on the surface is fine for a time as it had been under Communism--but true healing is going to take along time.

manic expression

28th July 2010, 14:54

OR this is what happens when you give people freedom--they don't always use it in the best way. I think all these ethnic tensions were still there under Communism, they just were forbidden to be expressed.
Being chained to centuries-old hatred is not "freedom". Don't besmirch the word. And between expecting tolerance and expecting bigotry, I'll take the former. That's all this boils down to, really.

It will take more than a couple of years to dispel hurdreds of years of distrust and hatred. Abolishing ethnic problems on the surface is fine for a time as it had been under Communism--but true healing is going to take along time.
And true healing is going to take a hell of a lot longer because the work of socialism was cut short. Abolishing ethnic problems on the surface is the first step of many, and the socialists did that quite bravely. The capitalists, on the other hand, were falling over themselves to erase all that, and now we have rampant chauvinism all over.

Bud Struggle

28th July 2010, 15:05

Being chained to centuries-old hatred is not "freedom". Don't besmirch the word. And between expecting tolerance and expecting bigotry, I'll take the former. That's all this boils down to, really. I disagree. Being tolerant because you are forced to--isn't exactly toleration. People have to learn to behave on their own accord not just because the government makes you.

And true healing is going to take a hell of a lot longer because the work of socialism was cut short. Abolishing ethnic problems on the surface is the first step of many, and the socialists did that quite bravely. The capitalists, on the other hand, were falling over themselves to erase all that, and now we have rampant chauvinism all over. Capitalists have no particular interest in ethnic fighting. They don't encourage it--but they won't stop it unless it upsets the public order. This all gets us back to the thread on free speech.

Besides the Soviet Union and its allies didn't make anyone less nationalistic--they just imposed a different entity to be nationalistic to and that synthetic nationality fell apart as soon as Communism did.

manic expression

28th July 2010, 15:18

I disagree. Being tolerant because you are forced to--isn't exactly toleration. People have to learn to behave on their own accord not just because the government makes you.
People learn to behave on their own accord within the environment that society creates. Capitalism creates an environment where bigotry is accepted and tolerated; socialism creates an environment where human dignity and solidarity are. Both have compulsion, both have forms of coercion. The only question is which you prefer.

Further, "the government" once made people accept emancipation (a coercion that involved thousands upon thousands of deaths); does that mean it was any less progressive or worthwhile? If you condemn socialist tolerance on the basis that it was partially forced, then you must also condemn emancipation by the exact same logic. I await your answer.

Capitalists have no particular interest in ethnic fighting. They don't encourage it--but they won't stop it unless it upsets the public order. This all gets us back to the thread on free speech.
That's silly. Capitalists have a vested interest in ethnic strife. It distracts people from class conflict, it creates scapegoats. It's no coincidence that in times of capitalist crisis, bigotry skyrockets. Working-class unity scares capitalists more than anything else, and racism has long been used to divide workers. The identification of socialism with foreign influence is a constant in capitalist rhetoric.

Besides the Soviet Union and its allies didn't make anyone less nationalistic--they just imposed a different entity to be nationalistic to and that synthetic nationality fell apart as soon as Communism did.
Wrong. The Soviet Union proposed a new type of patriotism: not based on feelings of superiority or hatred, but an internationalist patriotism. That means that one should be proud of one's nation, but with the understanding that it is interlocked and in kinship with other nations. That helped create harmony throughout Eastern Europe, something capitalism gleefully destroyed in favor of racist violence. It's no surprise that Nazism is out of control in Russia, while it's hardly worth a whisper in Belarus. The amount of ethnic hatred correlates quite comfortably to the influence of the capitalist class.

A.R.Amistad

28th July 2010, 16:08

Officer Takenflight

Long lines waitinghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZYxKR-IdGo

A.R.Amistad

28th July 2010, 16:19

Takenflight

Haven't you ever heard, you reap what you sew?
reminds me of this quote made by some members of the American Socialist Labor Party in the 1870s St. Louis general strike:

some SLP member in the 1870s

All you have to do, gentlemen, for you have the numbers, is to unite on one idea - that workingmen shall rule the country. What man makes, belongs to him, and the workingmen made this country.

Adi Shankara

28th July 2010, 22:39

Let's be honest, Poland isn't exactly a miracle since communism has fallen there; in fact, it's on the uprise again, so they recently had to strengthen the ban on communism there. it's what all good "democracies" do.

Red Commissar

28th July 2010, 22:51

We've been known to cause indigestion.

Kayser_Soso

28th July 2010, 23:20

Coming from a person who's family fled the horrors of Communism, I must say, you people have no clue what the fuck you are asking for.

Long lines waiting to see a doctor who doesnt give a shit? You idiots seriously think that a doctor is going to put themselves through years of med school to be paid pennies on a dollar?

Why should Joe Blow who is a lazy ass in school and flunks out & is only able to wkr part time at wal-mart get my tax dollars fo fund his healthcare? Is it my fault he's an idiot?

Haven't you ever heard, you reap what you sew?

How could anyone from Eastern Europe speak English so colloquially and no so little about Communism other than "long lines"? For one thing, the health care system in Eastern Europe is far worse than it was pre-89/91. But much more importantly, if you REALLY were an escapee from the HORRORS OF COMMUNISM(tm), you would know that doctors in socialist countries did not have to "put themselves" through years of med school- the state took care of that, and even paid them a stipend. It also guaranteed living quarters among other benefits, besides monetary compensation.

So I think it is pretty clear that you are just a typical conservative liar.

lulks

29th July 2010, 00:00

Why should Joe Blow who is a lazy ass in school and flunks out & is only able to wkr part time at wal-mart get my tax dollars fo fund his healthcare? Is it my fault he's an idiot?
If someone really is born with lower intelligence, it's not your fault, but it's not their fault either. People don't control how they are born.

rednordman

29th July 2010, 00:10

Family is Polish one the one side I was referring to "fleeing communism". Poland has done much better as a free market society...that cannot be denied & family did not like communism.Strange thing is, I work with alot of polish and slovakians, and what they decribe about their own countries hardly paints a good picture of capitalism at all 2bh.

For one, things are meant to be about as expensive as they are in the UK (probably more expensive by the examples they have given), but the average wage is really, really low. Unemployment is really high, and as a result crime is really bad as well.

Sure things have probably improved since the fall of communism, but if this is your idea of sucess of the free-market, than you must think that the USA and UK are like heaven on earth (somehow I dont think you do).

I do respect your opinion, but I will ask one thing, and that is why is it seen as some sort of triumph that we live in a world full of hate? The only think that the market has truely been a revelation for is breeding intolerance and impatience. Why do we have to hate each other and constantly be in competition to create a better world? This is all I see in the world as it is now.

Kayser_Soso

29th July 2010, 00:20

Ok everyone I am back!

-Family is Polish one the one side I was referring to "fleeing communism". Poland has done much better as a free market society...that cannot be denied & family did not like communism.

Ok first of all, what your family supposedly experienced means little because it is anecdotal. Second, Poland has not done much better as a free market society, what little "better" there is came mostly from foreign investment. Poland has had the largest unemployment rates in the EU for quite some time, and something like 2.4 million people have left Poland since they joined the EU in 2004, so that is not counting those who left after 1989. Looks like more people are escaping the horrors of capitalism.

Cannot be denied...bullshit. In Poland these days there are teenage girls who will trade sexual favors in shopping mall restrooms for cosmetics, shoes, and clothes. It actually became the subject of a documentary. Didn't see that in the Polish People's Republic.

Steve_j

29th July 2010, 00:24

I call troll but im gonna feed anyway (not even gonna touch the punk part :laugh:)

Family is Polish one the one side I was referring to "fleeing communism". Poland has done much better as a free market society...that cannot be denied & family did not like communism.

Please define "done better" because if you want to come to london i can introduce you to many polish who are "fleeing" capitalist poland.

I am a health insurance agent blah blah

Oh so you sell people basic human rights. Good for you :thumbup1: Would you like a medal?

...........we can't give you more money that worker B who slacks off & sleeps on the job because that wouldn't be "fair" or "marxist" or "brotherly" enough. It doesn't work.

Honest question, have you read any marx?

Politcal views:

*Capitalist
Greedy

*Moderate (Center-Right)
Slightly racist

1-Big Tax cuts for major corporations...in return they provide jobs.

This has got to be a troll, no one in their right mine believes that shit.

Penalities imposed for hiring illegals on businesses. Hire American, we will finally make it affordable to do so.
Unless they are fleeing from the ghastly realities of communism!!! Like your family, then they can come. But if the are fleeing the ghastly realities of capitalist imperialism, well fuck them? Is that what your trying to say?

2-No more getting involved in affairs that don't pose a national security threat. No more "occupations" of countires that do pose a threat...they would be dealth with the same way we dealt with Japan & Kosovo...DROP THE BOMB! We haven't heard a peep since! We did not need to occupy those countries either

Whats your adress? I think i might adopt your way of dealing with things for this one little issue we have here.

3-Instead of compromosing care by overloading the system with patients & hiking premiums up for everyone else to pay for the ininsured.... umm dont you sell health insurance? Dont you think that your invested interest in this matter might just cloud your judgment inregrds to this issue meaning what you want is not trully the best sollution for everyone but the best sollution for your pocket?

4-No more immigration until we have effectively balanced the budget, plain & simple. Penalities wuold apply to companies that would be caught hiring illegals
Whats your issues with "illegals"? Did a forigner do better than you in a job interview or something?

5-Foreign Aid=Done...not until we are out of debt and only if we beleive we will get the money back & it is in the interest of national security.

Looool you will never be out of debt, china owns your mother fucking ass, and your children and their childrens children haaa haaa hahaahahaah!

6-Over tyime, the reigninign in of government spending would make the fair tax system possible because we would not need to bleed our citizens dry to pay for these things anymore...It would take quite a while to achieve since we are so far in debt, but over time we would get there.

How about you just abolish money and get rid of the government.

Problem solved :)

Scary Monster

29th July 2010, 00:54

[QUOTE=takenflight;1814818]2-No more getting involved in affairs that don't pose a national security threat. No more "occupations" of countires that do pose a threat...they would be dealth with the same way we dealt with Japan & Kosovo...DROP THE BOMB! We haven't heard a peep since! We did not need to occupy those countries either.QUOTE]

Wow. Its obvious where your politics come from. I bet in about a month, this guy will turn out to be a fascist/fascist sympathizer like every other new capitalist poster on this board from the past few months.

30th July 2010, 13:58

I love threads like this. All Revlefters temporarily put sectarianism aside and unite in an orgy of bashing trolls and reactionaries.

RedHeadedTitan

30th July 2010, 14:43

"Best Mod" responded to this adequately.

That's why we're getting rid of money.

That's why we're getting rid of taxes and government.

That's why capitalism is falling apart and trying to take all of us down with it.

Who will maintain order in your ''brave new world"? Are you talking about Tribalism? Bartering for goods instead of using money?
I agree the way the markets are set up now, we the people are being screwed...royally. This country is going down and whem we hit bottom look out!

Are you guys prepared to survive off the land? Do you have little communities spread thoughout the country? Do any of you know anything about farming, gardening, hunting or taking care of farm animals? God help you all if you don't!

This is a serious question....:)

RedHeadedTitan

30th July 2010, 15:08

I love threads like this. All Revlefters temporarily put sectarianism aside and unite in an orgy of bashing trolls and reactionaries.

:laugh: I really don't see any serious bashing going on here, just a difference of opinion. ;)

RedHeadedTitan

30th July 2010, 15:09

And nobody wants to answer my questions....odd.
Perhaps you guys are not at all prepared for what is going to happen?
lol

iskrabronstein

30th July 2010, 16:55

No, we simply get tired of answering the same, inane, facile questions every time a capitalist decides they're going to come troll the reds.

Communism is not the abolition of modern productive capacity - it is the abolition of the oppressive social and political forms that produced it, and now currently hold it in restraint.

Perhaps before rolling in and acting like a smug shit, you ought to try understanding what we actually believe. I guarantee you, we've heard your tired arguments enough times to memorize them.

Mindtoaster

30th July 2010, 17:07

And nobody wants to answer my questions....odd.
Perhaps you guys are not at all prepared for what is going to happen?
lol

You waiting only 20 minutes before posting this probably had something to do with it
:bored:

danyboy27

30th July 2010, 17:10

Who will maintain order in your ''brave new world"? Are you talking about Tribalism? Bartering for goods instead of using money?
I agree the way the markets are set up now, we the people are being screwed...royally. This country is going down and whem we hit bottom look out!

Are you guys prepared to survive off the land? Do you have little communities spread thoughout the country? Do any of you know anything about farming, gardening, hunting or taking care of farm animals? God help you all if you don't!

This is a serious question....:)
Democracy is not the sole proprety of capitalism you know, and organised society isnt the sole property of capitalism neither, there is nothing that stop a society who will adopt communism to keep order in society, laws will still be there but established by the people rather than being voted by some politician detached from reality, and citizen can maintain order by organising their own security forces.

communism ultimately is a different way of managing the goods and production, money is replaced with something more stable called labor voucher, and the price of the item are basicly determined by the number of hours spend on building a product and the scarcity of the material used for its construction.

in a world like that, a person who work more, will earn more, has a result he will be able to acquire more luxury good.

the real safegard of the continuity of such a system would be to forbid by laws any private ownership of the mean of production.

that way, someone who effectivelty earn more by participating more actively in society could live a verry confortable life without fucking over their co-worker.

Zapatas Guns

30th July 2010, 18:20

Coming from a person who's family fled the horrors of Communism, I must say, you people have no clue what the fuck you are asking for.

Long lines waiting to see a doctor who doesnt give a shit? You idiots seriously think that a doctor is going to put themselves through years of med school to be paid pennies on a dollar?

Why should Joe Blow who is a lazy ass in school and flunks out & is only able to wkr part time at wal-mart get my tax dollars fo fund his healthcare? Is it my fault he's an idiot?

Haven't you ever heard, you reap what you sew?

At least you will have a doctor that will see you. Many people don't even get that because they are poor.

I guess Joe Blow that flunks school doesn't deserve medical treatment according to you. I suppose if you had your way poor people would just die from easily curable diseases because you want to be selfish.

I hope I do reap what I sow. Just like capitalism and imperialism reaps what it sows. Which is people like me who speak out and fight against it.

#FF0000

30th July 2010, 18:30

gorillafuck

30th July 2010, 18:34

-I'm a punk rocker in the true spirit of punk, I don't believe in conformity, rather in individuality & freedom of expression. We aren't mindless dones, we are people with different desires & different views. I may want 2 potatoes instead of one. I may want to spike my hair.
Punk rock is notoriously anti-capitalist. I just thought I might point that out.

Who will maintain order in your ''brave new world"?
When you put something in quotes you are implying that that person said it.

Dimentio

30th July 2010, 20:11

Ok first of all, what your family supposedly experienced means little because it is anecdotal. Second, Poland has not done much better as a free market society, what little "better" there is came mostly from foreign investment. Poland has had the largest unemployment rates in the EU for quite some time, and something like 2.4 million people have left Poland since they joined the EU in 2004, so that is not counting those who left after 1989. Looks like more people are escaping the horrors of capitalism.

Cannot be denied...bullshit. In Poland these days there are teenage girls who will trade sexual favors in shopping mall restrooms for cosmetics, shoes, and clothes. It actually became the subject of a documentary. Didn't see that in the Polish People's Republic.

In Sweden, there are apparently many teenage girls who trade sexual favours in return for medium beer and cigarettes. :(

Obs

30th July 2010, 20:23

Bud Struggle

30th July 2010, 20:37

In Sweden, there are apparently many teenage girls who trade sexual favours in return for medium beer and cigarettes. :(

I need to move to Europe.

Obs

30th July 2010, 21:36

I need to move to Europe.
Haha, emotionally crippled children are hilarious!

RedHeadedTitan

31st July 2010, 02:13

Uh, no, none of us want to get rid of the trappings of modern civilization and live as hunter gatherers.

Ah...but this country is going to hit rock bottom. That means food shortages, fuel shortages, very few jobs etc....

I'm just wondering if you guys are prepared? :confused: You may have to live as a hunter gatherer against your will. :)

RedHeadedTitan

31st July 2010, 02:15

Oh fuck you're dense.

Oh fuck! You're on to me:rolleyes:

Franz Fanonipants

31st July 2010, 02:52

Oh fuck! You're on to me:rolleyes:

how bout kill you are self

or just go read the learning forum. something.

RedHeadedTitan

31st July 2010, 02:59

how bout kill you are self

or just go read the learning forum. something.

How about you go fuck yourself? :D

BTW is English your first language? If so you are in a world of hurt son when you get out in this big,bad world. lol

#FF0000

31st July 2010, 03:09

How about you go fuck yourself? :D

BTW is English your first language? If so you are in a world of hurt son when you get out in this big,bad world. lol

It's internet troll language. He speaks English just fine.

I'm just wondering if you guys are prepared? You may have to live as a hunter gatherer against your will.

I know a guy who's been stocking up for the apocalypse for the past decade so I think I'll be fine in the Mad Max era.

Unless he thinks I've become one of them

RedHeadedTitan

31st July 2010, 03:14

It's internet troll language. He speaks English just fine.

Sorry...it sounds as though he is not doing well in his Language Arts class.:rolleyes: Perhaps he should just write normally, it he can.

I know a guy who's been stocking up for the apocalypse for the past decade so I think I'll be fine in the Mad Max era.

Unless he thinks I've become one of them

Ah good....:thumbup1:

One of them? Explain please

#FF0000

31st July 2010, 03:15

He's literally insane so I have no idea what one of them means.

RedHeadedTitan

31st July 2010, 03:21

He's literally insane so I have no idea what one of them means.

:laugh: Oh he's one of those.....:rolleyes:

NOT what I'm talking about...

Do you really think that this country can continue on this path?
It's going to crash and burn....there is no saving it. Especially with the current adminstration and their merry band of thieves. Think about it. :)

#FF0000

31st July 2010, 03:30

Oh, yeah, of course not. The world can't continue on this path.

Ele'ill

31st July 2010, 03:52

And nobody wants to answer my questions....odd.

I'm sure other people have answered your questions in this thread- How about my opinion?

Who will maintain order in your ''brave new world"? Are you talking about Tribalism? Bartering for goods instead of using money?

The people will. Members of your community- yourself included- will finally have an opportunity to be important- on a local and global scale.

Tribalism and bartering are fun but I think the population is far too dense for this- and we are far too industrialized- people have talents and highly developed skills that shouldn't go to waste. Imagine workers actually being able to feel their affect on the world around them.

I agree the way the markets are set up now, we the people are being screwed...royally. This country is going down and whem we hit bottom look out!

I'm in favor of a full systemic collapse. The non-selfish part of me is in favor of a full systemic collapse- at the right time.

Are you guys prepared to survive off the land? Do you have little communities spread thoughout the country? Do any of you know anything about farming, gardening, hunting or taking care of farm animals? God help you all if you don't!

This is a serious question....:)

It is a serious question- if you doubt the left's ability to survive and they did survive and flourish I think a part of you would be happy.

This question touches on the most exciting part of collapse and rebirth. That uncertainty and the ability for everyone to make a tangible difference in the world. There would be no ladder to climb and the type of actions that would give the greatest personal reward (in my opinion) would be helping others create. We have so many people on this planet- we only hear what the ruling class has to say- there are so many people who can't read or write whose poetry I want to read. Perhaps that is my purpose on this planet. To read the liberated poetry of the new world. Stories too.

Basically the idea isn't to horde knowledge so others die- some people would do this of course but the majority of people out there that know how to survive with primitive means would teach- each one teach one- I think things would catch on quickly. Soon there would be free-city farm networks and the reintroduction of industry would occur- this time it would be sustainable.

Arguably- I don't think industry has to go anywhere during a collapse or revolution but my above opinion would indicate events during an 'unexpected' or sudden collapse.

Perhaps you guys are not at all prepared for what is going to happen?
lol

We're prepared for that exhilarating first breath of a of free fall.

Ele'ill

31st July 2010, 04:01

How about you go fuck yourself? :D

BTW is English your first language? If so you are in a world of hurt son when you get out in this big,bad world. lol

But I bet she/he has a better grasp on their native language than you have on your own.

Mindtoaster

31st July 2010, 04:42

Especially with the current adminstration and their merry band of thieves. Think about it. :)

Yeah, the last one was so much better

takenflight

31st July 2010, 06:29

At least you will have a doctor that will see you. Many people don't even get that because they are poor.

I guess Joe Blow that flunks school doesn't deserve medical treatment according to you. I suppose if you had your way poor people would just die from easily curable diseases because you want to be selfish.

I hope I do reap what I sow. Just like capitalism and imperialism reaps what it sows. Which is people like me who speak out and fight against it.

I simply have a different solution to healthcare. I'm not selfish at all. In fact I'm very generous. I just don't think the government should dictate terms of charity to me.

Your political stance "libertarian socialist"...seems like an oxymoron btw...

Stephen Colbert

31st July 2010, 06:32

If you look at healthcare, most logical people would say that the administration of health services and procedures should be based on need and not wealth. Anyone who argues the contrary is so profoundly immoral...

31st July 2010, 06:35

Your political stance "libertarian socialist"...seems like an oxymoron btw...
Really? Because I swear the first usage of the term "libertarian" was by an anarcho-communist in 1857. It would almost seem as if the "anarcho"-capitalists/right-"libertarians" have corrupted and misused the term, and not us social anarchists.

#FF0000

31st July 2010, 07:00

Barry Lyndon

31st July 2010, 07:22

I simply have a different solution to healthcare. I'm not selfish at all. In fact I'm very generous. I just don't think the government should dictate terms of charity to me.

Your political stance "libertarian socialist"...seems like an oxymoron btw...

Yeah, you just think that a vast corporate bureaucracy should dictate terms of charity-well, not even that, if they find you have a 'pre-existing condition'.

'Libertarian socialist' seems like an oxymoron to you because you are a moron.

Seriously, where do you idiots come from? Were you all asexually created in Ayn Rand's secret underground lab?

#FF0000

31st July 2010, 08:14

Yeah what a surprise some people don't know all sorts of neat leftist jargon!

Keep it civil you fucking idiots.

IllicitPopsicle

31st July 2010, 08:29

Seriously, where do you idiots come from? Were you all asexually created in Ayn Rand's secret underground lab?

Ever played Bioshock? It could happen. :laugh:

IllicitPopsicle

31st July 2010, 08:42

Also, to OP, being a non-conformist "punk" in the true spirit of punk doesn't mean you can take what you like without regard for other human beings, I.e., "I want two potatoes, instead of one."

I met a few "punks" just like that at a show I played not three weeks ago. Guys who described themselves as anarchists too, just walking all over my lead singer - who coincidentally had set up the show for these guys - demanding shit, acting like macho fuckers, etc. Anyway, I find out that later that night, they went to a friend's house, drugged her, gang raped her and ransacked her house.

Tl;dr: get fucked OP.

#FF0000

31st July 2010, 09:17

Ahahahah what is wrong with you kids what does that have to do with the OP at all.

IllicitPopsicle

31st July 2010, 09:31

-I'm a punk rocker in the true spirit of punk, I don't believe in conformity, rather in individuality & freedom of expression. We aren't mindless dones, we are people with different desires & different views. I may want 2 potatoes instead of one. I may want to spike my hair.

Yay for citing after getting infracted. Yeah, oh well. This is what I was answering.

Kayser_Soso

31st July 2010, 09:42

Non-conformist is such a worthless term anyway. The struggle against "conformism" has done wonders for capitalism. Everyone wants to avoid "conforming", so some company jumps in to sell them something to set themselves apart from everyone else, who in turn are also searching to set themselves apart. It stems from the idea that consumers consume to be like everyone else. In fact the opposite is true, consumption is best driven by people trying to distinguish themselves from others.

Kotze

31st July 2010, 12:51

For those who just can't get enough of takenflight, he also posted here:
http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?&t=1824202

Hey dude, I'm not gonna pass judgement on you and am glad you posted, but to call Obama center anything is far from from the truth...He is the most liberal president in the history of the US and has advocated for the most givernment expansion ever.Did that whet your appetite? There is much more takenflight goodness.

Healthy people shoudln't have to pay for sick people's illnesses... Somebody posted excerpts from the takenflight blog:
No matter who you voted for, you really should educate yourself on what is going on with our current government's "new" policies. We are providing links about what the government is doing with our freedom of speech rights, lies about the health care reform proposals, allowing HIV positive immigrants to come to this country & spread disease, forcing students to stay in school longer & hiding their affiliations with socialistic & communist ideals.
(...)
If a "public healthcare plan" was introduced, it would wind up costing us more than our current system.
(...)
My ancestors came from Poland when they had communism & socialized medicine in the 80's & even though they are not communist anymore, they still have publich health insurance & people ther wait in lines to get seen & usually die before they can get the care they need because the doctors are on strike & underpaid!! Canada has the same problem & they are begging for PRIVATE INSURANCE BECAUSE SOCIALISED MEDICINE DOESN'T WORK!!
(...)
OBAMA IS A SMOOTH TALKING LIAR TRYING TO TRICK YOU INTO ACCEPTING SOCIALISM. LOOK NO FRUTHER THAN HIS CZAR, SOTOMAYOR blahblahblahFor some reason, most other board users were pretty mean to him :<
Ha ha ha ha, have you listened to their song 'Burn It'? The whole music player is just comedy gold. It's like if rich kids were inspired by Anti-Flag's back catalog. BRB, gotta spread some AIDS.

31st July 2010, 13:09

My ancestors came from Poland when they had communism & socialized medicine in the 80's & even though they are not communist anymore, they still have publich health insurance & people ther wait in lines to get seen & usually die before they can get the care they need because the doctors are on strike & underpaid!!
Well if "communist" Poland and capitalist Poland have the same problems for probably the same reasons, doesn't that say something about the economic character of Cold War-era Poland?

Chambered Word

31st July 2010, 13:13

For those who just can't get enough of takenflight, he also posted here:
http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?&t=1824202

Did that whet your appetite? There is much more takenflight goodness.
Somebody posted excerpts from the takenflight blog: For some reason, most other board users were pretty mean to him :< BRB, gotta spread some AIDS.

Hahahah didn't he say he was a health insurance company advisor or something? That's pretty punk. :laugh:

RedHeadedTitan

31st July 2010, 13:58

But I bet she/he has a better grasp on their native language than you have on your own.

I have a very good grasp of my native language....Thank you.
I actually attended school when the three RRR were taught.
Not the crap being taught today....

RedHeadedTitan

31st July 2010, 14:06

I'm sure other people have answered your questions in this thread- How about my opinion?

Great

The people will. Members of your community- yourself included- will finally have an opportunity to be important- on a local and global scale.

We are already important...we are a PLE

Tribalism and bartering are fun but I think the population is far too dense for this- and we are far too industrialized- people have talents and highly developed skills that shouldn't go to waste. Imagine workers actually being able to feel their affect on the world around them.

The majority of those dense people will not survive a month. That's awesome but those same skilled people better learn how to plant a garden and take care of themselves.

I'm in favor of a full systemic collapse. The non-selfish part of me is in favor of a full systemic collapse- at the right time.

Me too and can not wait for it:D

It is a serious question- if you doubt the left's ability to survive and they did survive and flourish I think a part of you would be happy.

This is a serious question...where will you get your food from? If the system collapses, there will be no more grocery stores....:rolleyes: I have a small farm...raising a few head of cattle, sheep and pigs. We have people in our group who know how to butcher. We will survive the collapse.

This question touches on the most exciting part of collapse and rebirth. That uncertainty and the ability for everyone to make a tangible difference in the world. There would be no ladder to climb and the type of actions that would give the greatest personal reward (in my opinion) would be helping others create. We have so many people on this planet- we only hear what the ruling class has to say- there are so many people who can't read or write whose poetry I want to read. Perhaps that is my purpose on this planet. To read the liberated poetry of the new world. Stories too.

Basically the idea isn't to horde knowledge so others die- some people would do this of course but the majority of people out there that know how to survive with primitive means would teach- each one teach one- I think things would catch on quickly. Soon there would be free-city farm networks and the reintroduction of industry would occur- this time it would be sustainable.

Arguably- I don't think industry has to go anywhere during a collapse or revolution but my above opinion would indicate events during an 'unexpected' or sudden collapse.

There are things that you're not taking into account....but I let it go. you will all find out in good time anyway.

We're prepared for that exhilarating first breath of a of free fall.

After a fall comes a crash into reality Sistah. lol

Kayser_Soso

31st July 2010, 19:02

I have a very good grasp of my native language....Thank you.
I actually attended school when the three RRR were taught.
Not the crap being taught today....

Yeah, god forbid school teach anything but reading, writing, and math. I'm curious, when did you go to school?

Taikand

31st July 2010, 22:09

I have a very good grasp of my native language....Thank you.
I actually attended school when the three RRR were taught.
Not the crap being taught today....

Three RRR? That makes nine Rs.
RRRRRRRRR...what's that?
And education is shit here too, it's global.

Ele'ill

1st August 2010, 06:47

We are already important...we are a PLE

What?

The majority of those dense people will not survive a month. That's awesome but those same skilled people better learn how to plant a garden and take care of themselves.

They'll learn in their neighborhood community garden if they want to- and they can get food from their food coop. I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about people helping each other.

You approach the topic as if during a collapse people will be teleported thousands of miles away from anyone else into a forest or desert.

This is a serious question...where will you get your food from?

Cannibalism. :lol:

Meaning the consumption of canned goods- Right?

In the event of a sudden unexpected collapse-

I'd probably get my food from the same sources I do now. People's backyard gardens. There's also plenty of small game.

People over-eat as it is- we don't need three huge meals a day.

If the system collapses, there will be no more grocery stores....

Grocery stores don't make vegetables.

I have a small farm...raising a few head of cattle, sheep and pigs. We have people in our group who know how to butcher. We will survive the collapse.

I know how to field dress a opossum.

There are things that you're not taking into account....but I let it go. you will all find out in good time anyway.

You're lying. You don't have a clue what I'm 'not taking into account'- why else would you sign up for an internet forum and then refuse to talk about topics you've started.

After a fall comes a crash into reality Sistah. lol

A reality I've already lived and millions of other people have already lived.

Weezer

1st August 2010, 08:40

I'm up for some song and dance.

Anybody wanna join me?

Chambered Word

1st August 2010, 09:25

^Fuck yeah man.

Bud Struggle

1st August 2010, 12:47

Well if "communist" Poland and capitalist Poland have the same problems for probably the same reasons, doesn't that say something about the economic character of Cold War-era Poland?

That a good point. I think it's pretty obvious that the GDP of Capitalist Poland is roughly similar to the GDP of Communist Poland. The standard of living in Poland will always be the same as long as production remains the same no matter who is in charge.

The big difference between Poland today and Iron Curtain Poland is that that are no longer a vassil state of the Soviet Union/Russia. And that is a BIG DEAL to Poland.

1st August 2010, 13:26

Bud Struggle

1st August 2010, 14:19

But it will change if there is no upper class in charge ;)

That's the thing--nothing will change for the poor if we get rid of the rich.

Ireland-lover

1st August 2010, 14:40

Coming from a person who's family fled the horrors of Communism, I must say, you people have no clue what the fuck you are asking for.

Long lines waiting to see a doctor who doesnt give a shit? You idiots seriously think that a doctor is going to put themselves through years of med school to be paid pennies on a dollar?

Why should Joe Blow who is a lazy ass in school and flunks out & is only able to wkr part time at wal-mart get my tax dollars fo fund his healthcare? Is it my fault he's an idiot?

Haven't you ever heard, you reap what you sew?

So to your eyes, the uninsured man who need chemotherapy to save him from an agonizing death, is just a lazy moocher who should have worked harder in school? Better he dies than the moneyed class are forced to part with their unearned, inherited wealth? Jesus, and we make you sick? What a disgusting attitude.

Libertarians have a little analogy that they use against proponents of nationalized healthcare: "would you put a gun to my head and force me to pay for your healthcare". Usually my answer is a quick "yes", but in your case, I would probably take the money then shoot you anyway, for being a worthless, self-centred son of a *****.

Obs

1st August 2010, 14:49

Bud Struggle

1st August 2010, 14:50

So to your eyes, the uninsured man who need chemotherapy to save him from an agonizing death, is just a lazy moocher who should have worked harder in school? Better he dies than the moneyed class are forced to part with their unearned, inherited wealth? Jesus, and we make you sick? What a disgusting attitude. Well, in the USA at least--these uninsured people are taken care of in local hospitals which are then reinbursed by the government. So as a practical matter it probably be a better idea to have national health insurance that would catch the illness earlier and save the patient some pain and suffering and save the taxpayer some money. National health insurance is the most realistic way to go. Here in America we have both people that inherit money and those that earn their own--so it's a mixed bag. (I'm guessing you are in Ireland--which does have a bit more of the landed class.)

Libertarians have a little analogy that they use against proponents of nationalized healthcare: "would you put a gun to my head and force me to pay for your healthcare". Usually my answer is a quick "yes", but in your case, I would probably take the money then shoot you anyway, for being a worthless, self-centred son of a *****.

Well, Libertarians have a point. In a fair world everyone should pay their own way. But as things stand the people with money are going to pay got healthcare for those that are poor--so it's best to make it as painless as possible.

Bud Struggle

1st August 2010, 14:52

Yeah, I mean, it's not like they're a vassal state of the EU/US empire now. :rolleyes:

But they haven't been occupied on and off for a thousand years by the EU/US. Maybe they will grow to hate them in time--but not yet.

Obs

1st August 2010, 15:11

But they haven't been occupied on and off for a thousand years by the EU/US. Maybe they will grow to hate them in time--but not yet.
They have been occupied on and off for a thousand years by Germany, one of the dominant members of the EU.

Kayser_Soso

1st August 2010, 15:17

That a good point. I think it's pretty obvious that the GDP of Capitalist Poland is roughly similar to the GDP of Communist Poland. The standard of living in Poland will always be the same as long as production remains the same no matter who is in charge.

The big difference between Poland today and Iron Curtain Poland is that that are no longer a vassil state of the Soviet Union/Russia. And that is a BIG DEAL to Poland.

Production hasn't remained the same, it went way down after state industries were sold off for far less than they were worth, and often shut down. That is why Poland has had such a big unemployment problem.

And they are indeed a vassal of the EU. Poland has been given a free pass that few smaller nations have ever been given. Because the myth of poor Poland was essential to the myth of selfless Britain's crusade for freedom in WWII, the reality of interwar Poland has been largely ignored by historians. Reading many books on the subject, it often seems as if these authors, if they ever read anything on the Polish-Soviet war, always skipped to the last chapter, never bothering to find out how it began. Poland made its bed, trying to regain its former empire at the expense of its neighbors, invading Ukraine and Belarus, playing with the Nazis and taking a part of Czechoslovakia, and propagating its imperialist theory of Miedzomorze and "Prometheism."

Ireland-lover

1st August 2010, 15:50

Well, in the USA at least--these uninsured people are taken care of in local hospitals which are then reinbursed by the government. So as a practical matter it probably be a better idea to have national health insurance that would catch the illness earlier and save the patient some pain and suffering and save the taxpayer some money. National health insurance is the most realistic way to go. Here in America we have both people that inherit money and those that earn their own--so it's a mixed bag. (I'm guessing you are in Ireland--which does have a bit more of the landed class.)

I don't agree with that. 99.9% of wealth is clearly inherited. I don't mean inherited in the direct sense - a father just pouring money into his son's bank account. Very few millionaires have been created that way, I know. One inherits an enormous amount of wealth simply by being born in the west. I always wanted to ask one of these self-made millionaires if they really believe that they would have carved out the same fortune if they'd been born to a Chinese rice farmer, rather than a lawyer or a banker.

So location is important. If a child is born to rich parents, he will go to better schools. Even if he goes to a state school it will invariably be one of the better state schools because it will be in a wealthy area. If a man wants to give his son money, and is intelligent enough to think his way out of your standard paper bag, he won't just the hand money out in liquid - he'll invest it. So he'll send the child to better schools, make sure he's learning from an early age etc. There was a study done sometime around the last election that showed that children from rich families and children from poor families are separated by about 10 IQ points before they've even started school. And intelligence is generally quite valuable on the labour market. Rich people don't make their children wealthy, they make their children a source of wealth on the market. Which in turn makes them wealthy.

Kayser_Soso

1st August 2010, 16:06

I don't agree with that. 99.9% of wealth is clearly inherited. I don't mean inherited in the direct sense - a father just pouring money into his son's bank account. Very few millionaires have been created that way, I know. One inherits an enormous amount of wealth simply by being born in the west. I always wanted to ask one of these self-made millionaires if they really believe that they would have carved out the same fortune if they'd been born to a Chinese rice farmer, rather than a lawyer or a banker.

So location is important. If a child is born to rich parents, he will go to better schools. Even if he goes to a state school it will invariably be one of the better state schools because it will be in a wealthy area. If a man wants to give his son money, and is intelligent enough to think his way out of your standard paper bag, he won't just the hand money out in liquid - he'll invest it. So he'll send the child to better schools, make sure he's learning from an early age etc. There was a study done sometime around the last election that showed that children from rich families and children from poor families are separated by about 10 IQ points before they've even started school. And intelligence is generally quite valuable on the labour market. Rich people don't make their children wealthy, they make their children a source of wealth on the market. Which in turn makes them wealthy.

On one hand I have to disagree with the idea that IQ = intelligence, though I have heard this statistic quoted before and don't doubt it. Otherwise this whole post is a good point- people inherit wealth in many ways. One way is that many professional jobs today require connections, and particularly internships. Now what kind of people are able to take some time off from university and work for free or almost nothing for an extended period of time? HINT: The children of wealthy people. Naturally having connections also ensures a better chance of getting the internship in the first place.

Bud Struggle

1st August 2010, 18:17

I don't agree with that. 99.9% of wealth is clearly inherited. I don't mean inherited in the direct sense - a father just pouring money into his son's bank account. Very few millionaires have been created that way, I know. One inherits an enormous amount of wealth simply by being born in the west. I always wanted to ask one of these self-made millionaires if they really believe that they would have carved out the same fortune if they'd been born to a Chinese rice farmer, rather than a lawyer or a banker.

So location is important. If a child is born to rich parents, he will go to better schools. Even if he goes to a state school it will invariably be one of the better state schools because it will be in a wealthy area. If a man wants to give his son money, and is intelligent enough to think his way out of your standard paper bag, he won't just the hand money out in liquid - he'll invest it. So he'll send the child to better schools, make sure he's learning from an early age etc. There was a study done sometime around the last election that showed that children from rich families and children from poor families are separated by about 10 IQ points before they've even started school. And intelligence is generally quite valuable on the labour market. Rich people don't make their children wealthy, they make their children a source of wealth on the market. Which in turn makes them wealthy.

I completely agree with you. My father came to America from an impoverished background in Poland--got a job in a factory and worked there all his life and made enough money for me and my siblings to go to college. I did my part and now have money to give my kids the best of everything.

The key to it all was America.

Bud Struggle

1st August 2010, 18:20

They have been occupied on and off for a thousand years by Germany, one of the dominant members of the EU.

And for the most part they don't like Germany either. But the Germans arn't Slavs so there isn't that sibling rivalry.

Obs

1st August 2010, 20:30

And for the most part they don't like Germany either. But the Germans arn't Slavs so there isn't that sibling rivalry.
Yeah, centuries of complicated ethnic tension, war, and death can be summed up as "sibling rivalry". I think most of your posts are fairly good, but here you just come off sounding like a dumbass.

Bud Struggle

1st August 2010, 22:44

Yeah, centuries of complicated ethnic tension, war, and death can be summed up as "sibling rivalry". I think most of your posts are fairly good, but here you just come off sounding like a dumbass.

Sorry to disappoint. In order it doesn't happen again I'm putting my "ignore" list. I suggest you do the same for me. :)

RedHeadedTitan

2nd August 2010, 04:35

Yeah, god forbid school teach anything but reading, writing, and math. I'm curious, when did you go to school?

I forgot science....
Yes, kids need to learn the basics...
Yet this day and age they graduate from high school and can not read, hell they can't even count change back to a customer at McDonalds:rolleyes:
Most have NO idea where Poland is and can not tell you the capital of
California. ;)
Yes....THE BASICS NEED TO BE TAUGHT.
I have two teenagers and could not believe the crap they were being taught. And what they were NOT being taught.

I graduated from high school in 1980...
I had the benefit of a very good public education.

We had four years of math,four years of english,four years of science, four years of history and four years of PE. We had one elective to choose.
School back then was school, not some damn indoctrination center.

I feel privilaged to have had that education.

#FF0000

2nd August 2010, 05:56

Please tell us what students are being "Indoctrinated" with in schools now and what they're teaching instead of "the basics".

Because to be honest you're right about some public schools. Just not in the way you think.

takenflight

2nd August 2010, 06:58

So to your eyes, the uninsured man who need chemotherapy to save him from an agonizing death, is just a lazy moocher who should have worked harder in school? Better he dies than the moneyed class are forced to part with their unearned, inherited wealth? Jesus, and we make you sick? What a disgusting attitude.

Libertarians have a little analogy that they use against proponents of nationalized healthcare: "would you put a gun to my head and force me to pay for your healthcare". Usually my answer is a quick "yes", but in your case, I would probably take the money then shoot you anyway, for being a worthless, self-centred son of a *****.

Did I say Joe Blow needed chemo?

No I didn't..So stop putting words in my mouth...

I have a solution for the minority that don't have AND need AND want healthcare coverage...Its called Free Clinics, which can be funded through cuts in government spending on the "occupation" of Afghanistan, immigration control & foreig aid. Obama's failed "stimulus" & bailout money could have been better spent on opening these types of clincs...

Besides, states already have programs for the uninsured...this is about government control, Obama doesnt care about anyones "healthcare"

2nd August 2010, 07:05

That's the thing--nothing will change for the poor if we get rid of the rich.
Huh? I was saying things would change if we destroyed class-based society...

2nd August 2010, 07:08

Did I say Joe Blow needed chemo?
Please stop calling this hypothetical man "Joe Blow". It makes me giggle.

#FF0000

2nd August 2010, 07:08

Did I say Joe Blow needed chemo?

No I didn't..So stop putting words in my mouth...

I have a solution for the minority that don't have AND need AND want healthcare coverage...Its called Free Clinics, which can be funded through cuts in government spending on the "occupation" of Afghanistan, immigration control & foreig aid. Obama's failed "stimulus" & bailout money could have been better spent on opening these types of clincs...

Besides, states already have programs for the uninsured...this is about government control, Obama doesnt care about anyones "healthcare"

Why make the distinction? Why can't we just have a universal healthcare system with the money used to fund our bloated military?

Kayser_Soso

2nd August 2010, 11:22

I forgot science....
Yes, kids need to learn the basics...

I've been out of the country for quite some time so perhaps you can tell me when they stopped teaching these subjects in school.

I graduated from high school in 1980...
I had the benefit of a very good public edu

We had four years of math,four years of english,four years of science, four years of history and four years of PE. We had one elective to choose.
School back then was school, not some damn indoctrination center.

I feel privilaged to have had that education.

We had the same thing in the late 90s, when I was in high school. It can't have changed that much. I could easily ask many people who went to school much earlier what the capital of Poland is, and they wouldn't know. My own mother actually thought that America fought against Germany and the Soviet Union in WWII, and her 1960's schools were supposed to be so much better, as the right wing pundits tell us every day.

Kayser_Soso

2nd August 2010, 11:24

Dimentio

2nd August 2010, 11:35

And the sun will still rise on.

Dimentio

2nd August 2010, 11:38

I completely agree with you. My father came to America from an impoverished background in Poland--got a job in a factory and worked there all his life and made enough money for me and my siblings to go to college. I did my part and now have money to give my kids the best of everything.

The key to it all was America.

I think people in Sweden, Canada, Japan, Italy, France and some other twenty first world nations have the same opportunities. The only thing exceptional to America is really the mystification of that entire process.

This is making me think of the sketch in the Young Ones when Neil tries to explain to Rik the magnificence of gardening. It ends up when Rik is killing Neil with his spade.

Kotze

2nd August 2010, 12:04

BTW is English your first language? If so you are in a world of hurt...Have you heard about the spelling nazi's curse? Ah, here it comes:
I feel privilaged to have had that education. Now I have the curse :-/

@takenflight: I have a problem with your sales tax proposal. You know, when an actual economist talks about the fairness of a taxation scheme, he usually refers to 1. "natural rights" or 2. utility.

By "natural rights" I mean the view that people own what they produce. There are taxes that aren't in conflict with that philosophy: land value taxation and pollution taxes.
The utilitarian view takes into account diminishing marginal utility. That is, people have basic needs, they have wants, there are things that are mildly interesting to them. As they get richer, they can consume more stuff, so they get happier, but they proceed to buy things that are less and less important to them. So, as a pretty good rule of thumb, you make people the happiest if you give them all the same income, at least in the short run.

Of course, in the long run you should also take incentives into account, which makes the taxes mentioned under the first point also attractive for a utilitarian. The effect that people are willing to work more for more money only functions properly within a narrow band. At the bottom, you can have the effect that paying even less results in people working longer just so they can get by and at the peak you can have the effect that paying more results in an irreplaceable programming whiz going into retirement at 30. So, considering all that jazz, an example for a utilitarian idea is Vickrey's proposal for progressive income taxes with lifetime averaging.

No matter how you slice it, the idea with the big sales tax is dumb.
A REAL soluton to fix the MINOR glitches in Health Care & Health Insurance industry You now, you posted your 6-point plan after I had posted a link to a neat graphic. I post the link here again, in case you missed it. Americans need a "moderate" to "fix" the "minor glitches" (http://blogs.ngm.com/.a/6a00e0098226918833012876a6070f970c-800wi) in their healthcare system about as much as the slaves needed a "moderate" to "fix" the "minor glitches" in slavery. Fuck that shit.

manic expression

2nd August 2010, 12:57

But they haven't been occupied on and off for a thousand years by the EU/US. Maybe they will grow to hate them in time--but not yet.

And for the most part they don't like Germany either. But the Germans arn't Slavs so there isn't that sibling rivalry.
So first you say the EU hasn't had anything to do with occupying Poland. Then you concede that the leading member of the EU has done so, but that they aren't Slavic so it doesn't count. Why are you changing your argument?

The only rational explanation for this obvious contradiction, though, is that the Polish right-wing demonizes Russian people for their own political purposes. When Germany invades Poland and murders millions in the worst genocide in human history, it's not a big deal because they're not Slavic; when a multi-national country led by a Georgian liberates Poland from that very murderous occupation, it's Russian oppression. Funny logic.

Here's a question: is throwing bananas at African soccer players another "sibling rivalry"?

http://allafrica.com/stories/200903020734.html

Bud Struggle

2nd August 2010, 13:36

So first you say the EU hasn't had anything to do with occupying Poland. Then you concede that the leading member of the EU has done so, but that they aren't Slavic so it doesn't count. Why are you changing your argument?

The only rational explanation for this obvious contradiction, though, is that the Polish right-wing demonizes Russian people for their own political purposes. When Germany invades Poland and murders millions in the worst genocide in human history, it's not a big deal because they're not Slavic; when a multi-national country led by a Georgian liberates Poland from that very murderous occupation, it's Russian oppression. Funny logic.

Well I wasn't actually paying much attention to the question. It was a general exchange of one liners. First of all the EU has not nor never has sent in tanks or threaten to send in tanks into Poland. Not so much with the SU. Secondly, Poland or lets say the Polish people generally have put the Soviets in the same league as the Nazi Germans as invaders and occupiers. Thirdly it is completely far fetched to believe that the Polish ever thought the USSR as "liberators". For the most part--and there are always exceptions--the SU occupation of Poland was as if the Nazis were never defeated and occupying Poland until the '89.

The fact that Germany is part of the EU isn't that big of a deal because they now have a non aggressive government toward Poland. For that matter of late the relations between Russia and Poland have begun to thaw and communications between those two countries are looking more favorable--especially now that Russia admitted it was responsible for the Katyn Massacre and even more because of the very kind Russian response to the death of the Polish president who died as he was going to a service for the Katyn victims.

The point is that Poland was anti-Russia and anti-Germany when those countries posed a threat or was an invader--now that both countries are benign normalized relations can begin. It may take a while for the general populace to get on board for the healing--but it has begun.

manic expression

2nd August 2010, 13:58

Bud Struggle

2nd August 2010, 14:14

Germany is the leading state of the EU. That's essentially undeniable for many reasons. And yet the Polish right-wing raised no issues of German influence when EU membership was being contemplated. Why is it that Russian being taught in school is "domination", while the present proliferation of English is never questioned? There is no problem with Germany because it is part of the EU--not the entire EU--as well as being benign. I think healing has been going on with al least West Germany since WWII ended. As far as learning English goes--they are learning it for the same reason we use it here on RevLeft--they want to be able to communicate with the rest of the world. English is as close to a universal language as the world has to offer at the present time.

The Polish right-wing (not the Polish people) tries to equivocate the USSR and Nazism because it's politically bankrupt and self-serving. There is no comparison. None. Who ran Auschwitz? Who liberated it? Case closed. It is a disgrace to even vaguely suggest that Soviet influence in Poland was equal to Nazism's. It spits in the face of Nazism's victims and the millions of Soviet and Polish citizens who fought to defeat fascism. Further, it is paramount to Holocaust denial. Then almost the entire country of Poland is "Right-Wing." Of course the Nazis were bad people--now one is saying that it is just that imperialism is imperialism no matter who does it. Everything would have been all right with the SU if they went home after the War, but instead they iinstalled a puppet government and ran Poland by proxy. It proved to be unpopular with the Polish people.

The Soviet Union wasn't in Poland in the 80's. The tanks on the streets were Polish tanks, ostensibly deployed in order to defend from Soviet influence. This is another part of my point, the very opposite of "Russian" influence is automatically used as proof of "Russian domination". As I said the "threat" of Soviet tanks. And it is not like the SU didn't have a track record of invading countries that it controled if political events turned in ways not to its liking. I believe if anyone else was in charge of the SU but Gorbachev the tanks would have rolled. Wouldn't you agree?

You say healing has begun, is that what you call the row over the missile shield? Where Poland was essentially cutting out Russia from inter-European defenses? As I said the thaw has begun not finished. The shield won't be built. Besides Russia is a big boy and is fully able to take care of itself. Are you saying that the USA should include Russia in the shield?

manic expression

2nd August 2010, 14:33

There is no problem with Germany because it is part of the EU--not the entire EU--as well as being benign. I think healing has been going on with al least West Germany since WWII ended.
Without Germany, the EU wouldn't exist. Simple as. It's the economic powerhouse of the EU by a country mile, and its influence reflects this in no small part.

The healing didn't happen with West Germany. Both the SPD and CDU were clamoring for the redrawing of boundaries to the 1937 lines (read: taking big chunks of Poland and the Baltic and making it part of Germany again).

Then almost the entire country of Poland is "Right-Wing." Of course the Nazis were bad people--now one is saying that it is just that imperialism is imperialism no matter who does it. Everything would have been all right with the SU if they went home after the War, but instead they iinstalled a puppet government and ran Poland by proxy. It proved to unpopular with the Polish people.
It's not as unanimous as you'd like it to be. In this 2001 poll, 49% of Poles said martial law in 1981 was justifiable:

http://www.tns-global.pl/archive-report/id/1133

The Polish state's monopoly on rhetoric does not mean the populace agrees with it. Poland recently banned the hammer and sickle, and comrades on this forum living in Poland reported that most people thought it was a ridiculous measure, even though you'll find that the Polish government was resounding in its praise of the law. It just goes to show that the "official history" is not what the people think.

Anyway, the USSR wasn't imperialist. It contributed to the rebuilding of the country (Warsaw's first skyscraper was funded entirely by the USSR, for example). And again, what you're saying is paramount to Holocaust denial. Saying that the USSR was as bad as the Nazis, when the latter ran the concentration camps and the ghettos while the former ended them, is wrong and an insult to the victims of fascism.

Who ran Auschwitz? Who liberated it? Case closed.

As I said the "threat" of Soviet tanks. And it is not like the SU didn't have a track record of invading countries that it controled if political events turned in ways not to its liking. I believe if anyone else was in charge of the SU but Gorbachev the tanks would have rolled. Wouldn't you agree?
The Soviet Union was bound by the Warsaw Pact (coincidentally enough) to intervene when the governments of socialist Europe were undermined. It would have been violating its legal agreements had it done otherwise. In every case this was done, it was an act of solidarity and partnership, not one of domination.

Gorbachev sometimes used force to fight counterrevolution, but only because he was an indecisive twit. Case in point, when the Azerbaijani nationalists were murdering Baku's Armenians in 1989, he twiddled his thumbs...by the time he was finally persuaded to stop the madness, most of the damage had already been done. Had he been decisive, the atrocities could have been stopped. That's what happens when counterrevolution is allowed to succeed.

As I said the thaw has begun not finished. The shield won't be built. Besides Russia is a big boy and is fully able to take care of itself. Are you saying that the USA should include Russia in the shield?
I'm saying that anti-Russian rhetoric was revitalized when it was convenient. I actually doubt the shield was ever going to be built in the first place, but it's beside the point. The same goes for the conflict in South Ossetia: Russia was attacked by Georgia, and yet everyone was pointing to a new "Russian Empire". The fact that US arms were behind Georgia's initial assault was ignored.

Kayser_Soso

2nd August 2010, 16:31

While I cannot support Soviet tanks in Poland(do not forget that Gorbachev also used the power of the Soviet Union to impose privatization and destabilization of the Warsaw Pact as well), the ideology of the current Polish state is wacky.

For example, a former hero of the Spanish Civil War and officer in the Polish People's Army was prosecuted for subjugating the sovereignty of Poland. To date, nobody has been prosecuted or indicted for selling out Poland's sovereignty to the EU. Moreover, look how they obsess over Katyn far more than the slaughter of 2 million Poles, men, women, and children by the Germans. Add the Polish Jewry(who really should be considered Polish) to the mix and it's 5 to 6 million dead Polish citizens. But Germany and the EU provides a way for Poles to emigrate, so that they won't get upset and overthrow their bankrupt, worthless state.

Also I am no supporter of the current Russian state, but in Ukrainian news I am getting damn sick of Yanukovich constantly being accused of being subservient to Moscow. All the time Yuschenko was trying to force NATO/EU membership on Ukraine, it was opposed by a majority of the people, yet nobody ever accused him of being subservient to the West, because after all, NATO are the good guys, no matter what countries they bomb or how many people they kill. The thing is that these double standards are so glaring that it actually generates support for the Putin regime.

maskerade

2nd August 2010, 18:25

Why is it that reactionaries and right-wingers NEVER bother to even read a little bit about what we're talking about?

It's just astounding...

RedHeadedTitan

2nd August 2010, 22:36

Why is it that reactionaries and right-wingers NEVER bother to even read a little bit about what we're talking about?

It's just astounding...

We 'Right Wingers' understand what you are talking about. We just don't agree. :rolleyes:

Communism is a dead end...a complete deadend for humanity.

What you kids should be focusing on is finding employment, developing a good work ethic and understand that nothing in life is free. It takes hard work and determination to succeed. ;)

This generation is nothing but a bunch of snot nosed whiney cry babies.
And yes, I blame your parents for giving you too much too soon. You want everything handed to you and you refuse to work for it. It will be a cold day in hell when you guys take from me and mine because you are too freakin lazy to think for yourself and work hard.

"I want so therefore I will take" :rolleyes:
The communist motto

Ya'll can fuck off!

manic expression

2nd August 2010, 22:51

We 'Right Wingers' understand what you are talking about. We just don't agree. :rolleyes:
Oh, really? That's refreshing. Then come, discuss with us the issues of the Soviet Union, of socialist Europe. It's a lot more useful than saying stuff like...

Communism is a dead end...a complete deadend for humanity....That. So why not make a useful comment? There are interesting discussions afoot, you're welcome to add to them, if you can.

What you kids should be focusing on is finding employment, developing a good work ethic and understand that nothing in life is free. It takes hard work and determination to succeed. ;)

This generation is nothing but a bunch of snot nosed whiney cry babies.
And yes, I blame your parents for giving you too much too soon. You want everything handed to you and you refuse to work for it. It will be a cold day in hell when you guys take from me and mine because you are too freakin lazy to think for yourself and work hard.

"I want so therefore I will take" :rolleyes:
The communist motto

Ya'll can fuck off!Nope, nothing is free in this world, that's why communism is the answer.

You see, when you really look at it, communists are fighters. Our movement has overcome the most terrifying obstacles in human history. Literally. Nazism? We beat that. You're welcome. So next time you want to call us lazy, just remember that you have no idea what you're talking about. Oh, and when you head to hell, make sure you bring a coat.

Skooma Addict

2nd August 2010, 23:01

To be perfectly honest I would be willing to bet money that communists generally have more "real world" work experience than libertarians.

Bud Struggle

2nd August 2010, 23:55

Without Germany, the EU wouldn't exist. Simple as. It's the economic powerhouse of the EU by a country mile, and its influence reflects this in no small part. The Germany of today isn't the Germany of the Nazis--can we agree with that? The SU of 1944 was the SAME SU of 1980. See the problem?

The healing didn't happen with West Germany. Both the SPD and CDU were clamoring for the redrawing of boundaries to the 1937 lines (read: taking big chunks of Poland and the Baltic and making it part of Germany again). Nonsense talk by the SPD--and I'm sure the land stolen by the SU in the east would be returned toPoland?

It's not as unanimous as you'd like it to be. In this 2001 poll, 49% of Poles said martial law in 1981 was justifiable:

http://www.tns-global.pl/archive-report/id/1133 We'd ALL like to get back to the 1980s.

The Polish state's monopoly on rhetoric does not mean the populace agrees with it. Poland recently banned the hammer and sickle, and comrades on this forum living in Poland reported that most people thought it was a ridiculous measure, even though you'll find that the Polish government was resounding in its praise of the law. It just goes to show that the "official history" is not what the people think. ANY restriction of free speech is wrong--the H&C as well as the Swastica. Political speech should NEVER be limited.

Anyway, the USSR wasn't imperialist. It contributed to the rebuilding of the country (Warsaw's first skyscraper was funded entirely by the USSR, for example). And again, what you're saying is paramount to Holocaust denial. Saying that the USSR was as bad as the Nazis, when the latter ran the concentration camps and the ghettos while the former ended them, is wrong and an insult to the victims of fascism.

Who ran Auschwitz? Who liberated it? Case closed. Let me clear up the Holocaust denial thing--it HAPPENED it was bad 6 million Jews died and 6 million Poles died (there abouts.) I'd also say that the same number of Poles died by the hands of the Soviets when they invaded.

The Soviet Union was bound by the Warsaw Pact (coincidentally enough) to intervene when the governments of socialist Europe were undermined. It would have been violating its legal agreements had it done otherwise. In every case this was done, it was an act of solidarity and partnership, not one of domination. So if the countries bound by NATO have any problem--you would have no problem with the USA sending in troops? I don't think so. No it was Imperialsim and THAT'S what the Poles dislike. The Communism was secondary.

Gorbachev sometimes used force to fight counterrevolution, but only because he was an indecisive twit. Case in point, when the Azerbaijani nationalists were murdering Baku's Armenians in 1989, he twiddled his thumbs...by the time he was finally persuaded to stop the madness, most of the damage had already been done. Had he been decisive, the atrocities could have been stopped. That's what happens when counterrevolution is allowed to succeed. For every Revolution--there will be a Counter Revolution. Always. You had better keep alive Trotsky's idea of permanent revolution--because there ALWAYS woll be permanent counter revolution. I promise.

I'm saying that anti-Russian rhetoric was revitalized when it was convenient. I actually doubt the shield was ever going to be built in the first place, but it's beside the point. The same goes for the conflict in South Ossetia: Russia was attacked by Georgia, and yet everyone was pointing to a new "Russian Empire". The fact that US arms were behind Georgia's initial assault was ignored. That was just Great Power gaming. They all play it.

Bud Struggle

3rd August 2010, 00:01

While I cannot support Soviet tanks in Poland(do not forget that Gorbachev also used the power of the Soviet Union to impose privatization and destabilization of the Warsaw Pact as well), the ideology of the current Polish state is wacky. They are POLISH--vastly nationalistic and slightly democratic. You can say the same for the Russians.

Also I am no supporter of the current Russian state, but in Ukrainian news I am getting damn sick of Yanukovich constantly being accused of being subservient to Moscow. All the time Yuschenko was trying to force NATO/EU membership on Ukraine, it was opposed by a majority of the people, yet nobody ever accused him of being subservient to the West, because after all, NATO are the good guys, no matter what countries they bomb or how many people they kill. The thing is that these double standards are so glaring that it actually generates support for the Putin regime. But that's the way nationalistic politics should work. These are free countries not some vassil states of the Soviet imperial power. Good for them.

#FF0000

3rd August 2010, 00:39

We 'Right Wingers' understand what you are talking about. We just don't agree. :rolleyes:

Communism is a dead end...a complete deadend for humanity.

What you kids should be focusing on is finding employment, developing a good work ethic and understand that nothing in life is free. It takes hard work and determination to succeed. ;)

This generation is nothing but a bunch of snot nosed whiney cry babies.
And yes, I blame your parents for giving you too much too soon. You want everything handed to you and you refuse to work for it. It will be a cold day in hell when you guys take from me and mine because you are too freakin lazy to think for yourself and work hard.

"I want so therefore I will take" :rolleyes:
The communist motto

Ya'll can fuck off!

Yeah you have no idea what we're talking about.

And it's hilarious you're telling people like me about hard work and determination!

manic expression

3rd August 2010, 00:49

The Germany of today isn't the Germany of the Nazis--can we agree with that? The SU of 1944 was the SAME SU of 1980. See the problem?
Not so fast. The ranks of the West German police, military, business sector and state were filled with "ex"-Nazis. The richest man in Germany in the 70's? Former officer in the SS. The present German state is a very conscious successor of Nazism, both in law and in practice.

Nonsense talk by the SPD--and I'm sure the land stolen by the SU in the east would be returned toPoland?Yes, utter nonsense, and one fully endorsed by the German capitalists of the post-war period. So the only Germans really reaching out with a true olive branch were to be found in the DDR and SEP (in addition to the politically advanced workers of West Germany).

What land was "stolen" by the Soviet Union? Brest Oblast? Don't be silly.

We'd ALL like to get back to the 1980s.What do you mean "we"?

ANY restriction of free speech is wrong--the H&C as well as the Swastica. Political speech should NEVER be limited.And when it comes to the hammer and sickle, most Poles agree with you...in direct disagreement with the Polish state. That's the point. The Polish people are not to be confused with the Polish right-wing, especially when it comes to Russia-bashing and bankrupt anti-communist chauvinism.

Let me clear up the Holocaust denial thing--it HAPPENED it was bad 6 million Jews died and 6 million Poles died (there abouts.) I'd also say that the same number of Poles died by the hands of the Soviets when they invaded.Well, you'd be wrong, because it's not even close. And it's not just that "it happened", it's that the Nazi regime did "it" in a calculated genocide, the worst we've ever seen in the history of mankind. Equivocating the two is ill-informed, incorrect and insulting (it is, again, tantamount to Holocaust denial). The freedom of Poland from fascism is the legacy of millions of Soviet martyrs, who died in common cause with Polish patriots.

So if the countries bound by NATO have any problem--you would have no problem with the USA sending in troops? I don't think so. No it was Imperialsim and THAT'S what the Poles dislike. The Communism was secondary.The imperialists do what they feel is necessary to pursue their interests, just as workers do what they feel is necessary to pursue theirs. As such, NATO would and has sent troops to occupy Europe in order to protect private profit of the capitalist class, whereas the Warsaw Pact did so to protect the gains of the masses.

And the Soviet Union never engaged in imperialism. As I said, the USSR was instrumental in the rebuilding of Poland's cities, villages and farms; this followed the liberation of the concentration camps (along with all of Poland), of course. That's why the Polish people don't all buy into the bankrupt chauvinism of the Polish right-wing.

For every Revolution--there will be a Counter Revolution. Always. You had better keep alive Trotsky's idea of permanent revolution--because there ALWAYS woll be permanent counter revolution. I promise.What is firstly needed is a steady hand in defense of socialism and the revolution. That's what Gorbachev didn't have (understatement of the thread), and we can see the fruits of counterrevolution in the cold-blooded murder of Baku's Armenians, among other atrocities.

Your promises aside, though, when we analyze the specific dynamics of counterrevolution we can point to discernible patterns, patterns that can be anticipated and erased.

You might as well "promise" that there will always be a monarchical counterrevolution against the French Republic. Such promises would have held weight in the 19th Century, but not after history passed them by. The same is true here.

That was just Great Power gaming. They all play it.For our purposes, the episode illustrates the double-standard of the right-wing when it comes to Russia and Russian people. American arms and backing of a dictator? That's just fine. Russian response to Georgian attacks on peacekeepers and civilian populations? Well, it's, it's, it's Stalin...I mean Catherine the Great! It's because when you get down to it, the vast majority of arguments put out by imperialists are lies.

Bud Struggle

3rd August 2010, 00:54

What you kids should be focusing on is finding employment, developing a good work ethic and understand that nothing in life is free. It takes hard work and determination to succeed. ;) True.

This generation is nothing but a bunch of snot nosed whiney cry babies. Well, not really. They are like any generation--but following the "ME" generation--might not be that easy.

And yes, I blame your parents for giving you too much too soon. You want everything handed to you and you refuse to work for it. It's a bit more complicated than that. Things I think are more ossified than when I was an up and commer--but I could very well be wrong.

It will be a cold
day in hell when you guys take from me and mine because you are too freakin lazy to think for yourself and work hard. Not quite fair.

"I want so therefore I will take" :rolleyes:
The communist motto Believe it or not there's a bit more depth to it than that.

Ya'll can fuck off!There's the problem. You can tell them to "fuck off" alright--but FIRST UNDERSTAND what you are telling them to fuck off about. Take a while to understand what Communism has to say--it's not a bad philosophy, personally I just don't think it could work--but when you understand the ideas themselves--they are pretty good. Pie in the sky--but good.

And all that Stalin/Mao stuff--that's just an embarassment to them (for the most part. :rolleyes:) Don't pay it any mind.

Bud Struggle

3rd August 2010, 02:04

Not so fast. The ranks of the West German police, military, business sector and state were filled with "ex"-Nazis. The richest man in Germany in the 70's? Former officer in the SS. The present German state is a very conscious successor of Nazism, both in law and in practice. Same with East Germany--the Stazi were a direct decendant of the Gestapo. They were Germans after all--but to call the Germany of today anything similar to the Nazis of the past is rediculous.

Yes, utter nonsense, and one fully endorsed by the German capitalists of the post-war period. So the only Germans really reaching out with a true olive branch were to be found in the DDR and SEP (in addition to the politically advanced workers of West Germany). No one takes such threats seriously.

What land was "stolen" by the Soviet Union? Brest Oblast? Don't be silly.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Map_of_Poland_%281945%29.png

Don't be silly--of course. Same to the Germans.

And when it comes to the hammer and sickle, most Poles agree with you...in direct disagreement with the Polish state. That's the point. The Polish people are not to be confused with the Polish right-wing, especially when it comes to Russia-bashing and bankrupt anti-communist chauvinism. AND SAME GOES FOR THE SWASTICA. All political speech should be free.

Well, you'd be wrong, because it's not even close. And it's not just that "it happened", it's that the Nazi regime did "it" in a calculated genocide, the worst we've ever seen in the history of mankind. Equivocating the two is ill-informed, incorrect and insulting (it is, again, tantamount to Holocaust denial). The freedom of Poland from fascism is the legacy of millions of Soviet martyrs, who died in common cause with Polish patriots. Agreed that the Nazi killing were calculated and the Soviet killing weren't. But dead is dead. Poland was freed from Nazi imperalism to be enslaved by Soviet imperialism.

The imperialists do what they feel is necessary to pursue their interests, just as workers do what they feel is necessary to pursue theirs. As such, NATO would and has sent troops to occupy Europe in order to protect private profit of the capitalist class, whereas the Warsaw Pact did so to protect the gains of the masses. Here's where your argument really falls apart. The Soviet Union was not a worker's state. It was state Capitalism. Nothing more.

And the Soviet Union never engaged in imperialism. As I said, the USSR was instrumental in the rebuilding of Poland's cities, villages and farms; this followed the liberation of the concentration camps (along with all of Poland), of course. That's why the Polish people don't all buy into the bankrupt chauvinism of the Polish right-wing.[/quote] They are what they are--a little left a little right. The Polish state is in the best condition it has ever been in politically.

What is firstly needed is a steady hand in defense of socialism and the revolution. That's what Gorbachev didn't have (understatement of the thread), and we can see the fruits of counterrevolution in the cold-blooded murder of Baku's Armenians, among other atrocities. OK.

Your promises aside, though, when we analyze the specific dynamics of counterrevolution we can point to discernible patterns, patterns that can be anticipated and erased. But that's not freedom.

You might as well "promise" that there will always be a monarchical counterrevolution against the French Republic. Such promises would have held weight in the 19th Century, but not after history passed them by. The same is true here. At the present time it seem like Communism has gone way of the ancien regime not Capitalism. ;)

For our purposes, the episode illustrates the double-standard of the right-wing when it comes to Russia and Russian people. American arms and backing of a dictator? That's just fine. Russian response to Georgian attacks on peacekeepers and civilian populations? Well, it's, it's, it's Stalin...I mean Catherine the Great! It's because when you get down to it, the vast majority of arguments put out by imperialists are lies. I agree--but that's just the Great Game it has nothing to do with real politics.

My real issue with Communism isn't the promise of an egalitarian and free world of the future. That actually looks pretty good. If indeed THAT Revolution happens you can be assured my my and a lot of other people's participation. But to harken back to the past of the Soviet Union and Maoist China really amkes enemies of a lot of people that could be your friends. They were bad places run by bad men, whatever their pretended political disposition they are better off left in the dustbin of history.

Victory

3rd August 2010, 02:50

Coming from a person who's family fled the horrors of Communism, I must say, you people have no clue what the fuck you are asking for.

Long lines waiting to see a doctor who doesnt give a shit? You idiots seriously think that a doctor is going to put themselves through years of med school to be paid pennies on a dollar?

Why should Joe Blow who is a lazy ass in school and flunks out & is only able to wkr part time at wal-mart get my tax dollars fo fund his healthcare? Is it my fault he's an idiot?

Haven't you ever heard, you reap what you sew?

Your allegations have already been proven incorrect.
Cuba, a place where doctors are paid very little, according to the UN has the highest doctor-to-population ratio in the world. Meaning your argument has already been proven void.

You seem to have based your entire views on what your family has said about "Communism". There millions from Russia that prefered the Soviet Union to what it is now, which is why the Communist Party of Russia is the second largest party, with most of it's members being those who lived during the Soviet Union.

manic expression

3rd August 2010, 02:56

Same with East Germany--the Stazi were a direct decendant of the Gestapo. They were Germans after all--but to call the Germany of today anything similar to the Nazis of the past is rediculous.
Wrong. The DDR and the Stasi spent a great deal of their time rounding up former Nazis and their supporters. Denazification in the East was far more aggressive, far more thorough and far more successful (probably because it was actually genuine). Nazi criminals were given sanctuary and cushy jobs in the West, and one of them ended up as the richest man in the country. So no, it's not the same. Not one bit.

No one takes such threats seriously.
It wasn't a threat, it was official West German policy.

Don't be silly--of course. Same to the Germans.
Your map proves my point. Vilnius is an easy one: it's Lithuanian through-and-through, has been for centuries. Poland had no right to it in the first place, and the Polish occupation forced the Lithuanian capital temporarily to Kaunas when it should have been Vilnius the whole time. Lviv was definitely a crossroads, but it was arguably Ukrainian as much as it was Polish or German or Jewish, it's commonly referred to as the birthplace of Ukrainian nationalism. Plus, Polish mistreatment of non-Poles there cannot be ignored. Both Brest and Hrodna (notice how we're both using the Belarusian name) are Belarusian, Belarusians (both Orthodox and Catholic) formed the majority of the population.

So unless you want to say that the Lithuanians of Vilnius (the historical capital of Lithuania), the Belarusians of Brest and Hrodna (who populated the regions) and the Ukrainians and non-Poles of Lviv (where the identity of Ukraine arguably began as we know it) should have just accepted Polish dominance to make the Polish right-wing feel better...there is no point to be made here.

AND SAME GOES FOR THE SWASTICA. All political speech should be free.
But we're talking about the hammer and sickle.

Agreed that the Nazi killing were calculated and the Soviet killing weren't. But dead is dead. Poland was freed from Nazi imperalism to be enslaved by Soviet imperialism.
So you're no longer trying to make that absurd assertion that the Soviet Union was responsible for the same amount of lives as Nazism. That's good, because it was an insane argument.

As for your new argument, the Soviet Union was working with Polish patriots to free Poland. Most anti-Soviet Poles were a spent force after the Warsaw Uprising IIRC, and so they were done in by the Wehrmacht, the Red Army had nothing to do with it. "But dead is dead" is, at its core, a pacifist argument, one that neglects the progress that came from the multi-national effort led by the Soviet Union in partnership with Polish patriots.

Here's where your argument really falls apart. The Soviet Union was not a worker's state. It was state Capitalism. Nothing more.
There was no exploitation of labor.

They are what they are--a little left a little right. The Polish state is in the best condition it has ever been in politically.
They are, though, not in agreement with the Polish state's grandstanding. And being in good condition does not legitimize a government.

But that's not freedom.
It most certainly is. When we erase the root causes of social conflict, we liberate humanity entirely.

At the present time it seem like Communism has gone way of the ancien regime not Capitalism. ;)
The ancien regime, let's not forget, ruled France once more. So has capitalism in former socialist Europe.

I agree--but that's just the Great Game it has nothing to do with real politics.
Well, it's all politics, but the dishonesty must be exposed if we are to move forward.

My real issue with Communism isn't the promise of an egalitarian and free world of the future. That actually looks pretty good. If indeed THAT Revolution happens you can be assured my my and a lot of other people's participation. But to harken back to the past of the Soviet Union and Maoist China really amkes enemies of a lot of people that could be your friends. They were bad places run by bad men, whatever their pretended political disposition they are better off left in the dustbin of history.
This is another discussion, but all I'm going to say is that a.) sticking to your guns (and integrity) and not bending to misconceptions is a better way to make allies, and b.) this is about setting the record straight. We owe it to the next generation to do that much.

Bud Struggle

3rd August 2010, 03:31

Wrong. The DDR and the Stasi spent a great deal of their time rounding up former Nazis and their supporters. Denazification in the East was far more aggressive, far more thorough and far more successful (probably because it was actually genuine). Nazi criminals were given sanctuary and cushy jobs in the West, and one of them ended up as the richest man in the country. So no, it's not the same. Not one bit. The Stazi were are rutless and brutal as the Gestapo. They were a secret police force that spied on the citizens of East Germany and put a pall of fear and distrust ev everyone living there.

It wasn't a threat, it was official West German policy. It was never taken seriously by anyone but a few right wingers.

Your map proves my point. Vilnius is an easy one: it's Lithuanian through-and-through, has been for centuries. Poland had no right to it in the first place, and the Polish occupation forced the Lithuanian capital temporarily to Kaunas when it should have been Vilnius the whole time. Lviv was definitely a crossroads, but it was arguably Ukrainian as much as it was Polish or German or Jewish, it's commonly referred to as the birthplace of Ukrainian nationalism. Plus, Polish mistreatment of non-Poles there cannot be ignored. Both Brest and Hrodna (notice how we're both using the Belarusian name) are Belarusian, Belarusians (both Orthodox and Catholic) formed the majority of the population. True Vilnius was Lithuanian but for the most part the rest of that area was populated by Poles. The Soviets evacuated the Poles from that entire area and made up the pseudo country of Belarus. (It is not as if it ever existed before.) The Soviets actually took just about all of the land that they agreed to take when they signed their pact with Hitler. Just about all of that land could be placed within the traitional boarders of Poland.

So unless you want to say that the Lithuanians of Vilnius (the historical capital of Lithuania), the Belarusians of Brest and Hrodna (who populated the regions) and the Ukrainians and non-Poles of Lviv (where the identity of Ukraine arguably began as we know it) should have just accepted Polish dominance to make the Polish right-wing feel better...there is no point to be made here. At the time of the Soviet conquest the majority of people in that regon were Poles. The Soviet as I said moved them out.

But we're talking about the hammer and sickle. we're talking about both. So you have no problem with the swastika?

So you're no longer trying to make that absurd assertion that the Soviet Union was responsible for the same amount of lives as Nazism. That's good, because it was an insane argument. We'll actually never know how many lives were taken by the Soviets. But I would assume it was at least a million. The Soviets did their best to cover up their crimes. Again--the Poles in general are quite bitter about it.

As for your new argument, the Soviet Union was working with Polish patriots to free Poland. Most anti-Soviet Poles were a spent force after the Warsaw Uprising IIRC, and so they were done in by the Wehrmacht, the Red Army had nothing to do with it. "But dead is dead" is, at its core, a pacifist argument, one that neglects the progress that came from the multi-national effort led by the Soviet Union in partnership with Polish patriots. While Polish patisans fought with the Soviets--they were quite eager for the Soviets to leave Poland--which they didn't do until 1989. They were an occuping imperialistic force.

There was no exploitation of labor. It was a non democratic totalitarian regime that rightly fell of its own accord. The Soviet Union was a failed state.

They are, though, not in agreement with the Polish state's grandstanding. And being in good condition does not legitimize a government. It is what it is. And as far as Communist Poland goes--it really wasn't much of a worker state if the workers had to form a UNION at fight it. How often do you see that?

It most certainly is. When we erase the root causes of social conflict, we liberate humanity entirely. I think we may disagree on how a future Communist state would look. (Not that I think there actually be one.)

The ancien regime, let's not forget, ruled France once more. So has capitalism in former socialist Europe. Both Capitalism and Communism will in the end be replaced by some sort of Social Democracy.

Well, it's all politics, but the dishonesty must be exposed if we are to move forward. Unfortunately for the Soviet Union--the victors write the history books.

This is another discussion, but all I'm going to say is that a.) sticking to your guns (and integrity) and not bending to misconceptions is a better way to make allies, and b.) this is about setting the record straight. We owe it to the next generation to do that much. It is another discussion.

Ele'ill

3rd August 2010, 03:52

We 'Right Wingers' understand what you are talking about. We just don't agree. :rolleyes:

The arguments you present against communism are not based on facts.

Communism is a dead end...a complete deadend for humanity.

In what way? Give your top three reasons.

What you kids should be focusing on is finding employment, developing a good work ethic and understand that nothing in life is free. It takes hard work and determination to succeed. ;)

Oregon is the top unemployed state in the country- there simply are not enough jobs for the amount of people looking.

Work ethic isn't something anybody can prove over the internet- Capitalist work ethic equates to making the world worse. Big win there :rolleyes:

There are agitators, organizers and activists that live with rats in order to make the world a more equal and hospitable environment for people to live in and their understanding of 'nothing is free' shows in their work ethic that would put any CEO or small business owner to shame- by default- period.

This generation is nothing but a bunch of snot nosed whiney cry babies.
And yes, I blame your parents for giving you too much too soon. You want everything handed to you and you refuse to work for it.

Your inexperience with so much as a soup kitchen shows in this post that you are in fact the 'new to life' youngster. You come across as extremely babyish.

It will be a cold day in hell when you guys take from me and mine because you are too freakin lazy to think for yourself and work hard.

No, with that attitude it would likely be a bullet.

Ya'll can fuck off!

That's it?

Quite possibly the weakest presentation of arguments I've seen on this forum. :laugh:

Kayser_Soso

3rd August 2010, 09:17

Bud your posts here are hilarious and your ham-fisted attempts to debate history are equally amusing. The parts you claim that Soviet Union "annexed" were in fact previously annexed by Poland in a war they started in 1919. The areas they took were Ukrainian and Belorussian, not Polish. Not only did the USSR return Polish majority areas of Western Belarus and Galicia to Poland(as your map shows), but they also gave them East Prussia.

I have to know, when you found that map, didn't you ever wonder why Poland had one border in 1918(Curzon line, the land they were given), and then by 1939 Poland's Eastern border had expanded considerably?

manic expression

3rd August 2010, 12:03

The Stazi were are rutless and brutal as the Gestapo. They were a secret police force that spied on the citizens of East Germany and put a pall of fear and distrust ev everyone living there.
Again, this is insulting and tantamount to Holocaust denial. The Stasi were surely brutal, but they were brutal to "ex"-Nazis and their cronies, criminals of the highest order, as well as pro-imperialists who wished to return all of Germany to the clutches of fascism. The Stasi, however overzealous they may have been, were needed because of the Gestapo.

What you're doing would be like saying Reconstruction was the same as the Confederacy...because they were both armed! No, one was for slavery, one was for emancipation. They were both brutal, but that's unfortunately how it goes in this world.

It was never taken seriously by anyone but a few right wingers.
The SPD and CDU, the two major parties of West Germany, aren't "a few right wingers" (well, maybe they are, in a manner of speaking, but regardless it was the central border policy of the West German state).

True Vilnius was Lithuanian but for the most part the rest of that area was populated by Poles. The Soviets evacuated the Poles from that entire area and made up the pseudo country of Belarus. (It is not as if it ever existed before.) The Soviets actually took just about all of the land that they agreed to take when they signed their pact with Hitler. Just about all of that land could be placed within the traitional boarders of Poland.

At the time of the Soviet conquest the majority of people in that regon were Poles. The Soviet as I said moved them out.
Nope. Brest was majority Belarusian, as was Hrodna. Poles were a significant minority (and still are). Poles formed a (bare) majority in the city of Lviv, but taking the region into account Ukrainians were the overwhelming majority. The Poles weren't moved out by the Soviets, though, the chaos of WWII made it a fait accompli.

And what Kayser_Soso said basically covers it.

we're talking about both. So you have no problem with the swastika?
Don't change the subject.

We'll actually never know how many lives were taken by the Soviets. But I would assume it was at least a million. The Soviets did their best to cover up their crimes. Again--the Poles in general are quite bitter about it.
You have no support for anything you just said.

While Polish patisans fought with the Soviets--they were quite eager for the Soviets to leave Poland--which they didn't do until 1989. They were an occuping imperialistic force.
The most important Polish partisan group in the country after the Warsaw Uprising, IIRC, was the Union of Polish Patriots, which was pro-Soviet. So of course the partnership between Polish patriots and Soviet liberators only increased at that point.

And the Soviets weren't in Poland in 1989. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. The USSR was not in Poland in the 80's.

It was a non democratic totalitarian regime that rightly fell of its own accord. The Soviet Union was a failed state.
So there was no exploitation of labor after all. Good. But anyway, yours is a simplistic analysis, and it's basically wrong. The Soviet Union had its problems, sure, but we can tie much of its "failure" to Gorbachev and the idiocy he displayed as a leader. Someone who's stabbed in the back isn't considered a "failed person".

It is what it is. And as far as Communist Poland goes--it really wasn't much of a worker state if the workers had to form a UNION at fight it. How often do you see that?
Reactionaries masquerading as pro-worker is something that's generally to be expected. It's as typical and disgustingly false as fascists pretending to fight for the "little guy". The "strikes" in Venezuela in 2002 (which were actually lock-outs initiated by the wealthiest men in the country) are a good example of this. The answer is to organize the masses against these counterrevolutionary agents, to isolate them. If the sabotage continues, then the worker state must respond in kind.

Like I said, these are patterns we can analyze and anticipate, and eventually erase. Your comment here essentially proves my point.

I think we may disagree on how a future Communist state would look. (Not that I think there actually be one.)
I don't pretend to know what communism will look like, to try to paint a picture of it would be idealistic and utopian. But we do know that we can erase social conflict if we erase class. That's the point.

Both Capitalism and Communism will in the end be replaced by some sort of Social Democracy.
Social Democracy has already been replaced on two fronts: the left of Social Democracy has been replaced with communism, which actually has the guts to fight for what's right instead of working with fascists (Freikorps) and the like; and on the right it's been replaced by unabashed neoliberalism. Every Social Democratic party in Europe has become as capitalist as possible in the past few decades, which only further vindicates Lenin's judgment of them as "bourgeois agents within the workers' movement".

Unfortunately for the Soviet Union--the victors write the history books.
True, but they can be rewritten by new victors.

It is another discussion.
One that will be interesting if/when we have it. :thumbup1:

Sam_b

3rd August 2010, 13:33

This has gone on for eight pages?

Someone in OI is WRONG guys, we need to gang up on them

-Strelok

3rd August 2010, 14:23

Kayser_Soso

3rd August 2010, 15:15

Goddamn! I just notice that Bud actually tried to claim that the areas of "Poland" annexed in 1939 were majority Polish.

Bud Struggle

3rd August 2010, 17:57

Again, this is insulting and tantamount to Holocaust denial. The Stasi were surely brutal, but they were brutal to "ex"-Nazis and their cronies, criminals of the highest order, as well as pro-imperialists who wished to return all of Germany to the clutches of fascism. The Stasi, however overzealous they may have been, were needed because of the Gestapo. There were brutal to EVERYONE that wasn't in the Communist party.

The SPD and CDU, the two major parties of West Germany, aren't "a few right wingers" (well, maybe they are, in a manner of speaking, but regardless it was the central border policy of the West German state). Momentarily. And then wiser heads prevailed. I don't think anyone took it as more than glitch that happened when Germany reunified. Certainly Poland never took it seriously.

Nope. Brest was majority Belarusian, as was Hrodna. Poles were a significant minority (and still are). Poles formed a (bare) majority in the city of Lviv, but taking the region into account Ukrainians were the overwhelming majority. The Poles weren't moved out by the Soviets, though, the chaos of WWII made it a fait accompli. Well there were a majority of Ukrainians in the area that is now part of Ukrainia--but to be fair what law says that should have belonged to the Soviet Union? Who should the SU have gobbled up any ethnic group that wasn't Russian? What went for Poland should surely go for the Russians. Don't forget Poland was an ALLIE in WWII--its origional borders hould have been restored intact.

Don't change the subject. :D

The most important Polish partisan group in the country after the Warsaw Uprising, IIRC, was the Union of Polish Patriots, which was pro-Soviet. So of course the partnership between Polish patriots and Soviet liberators only increased at that point. they were pro Soviet as long as they were fighting the Germans--but once the germans were vanquished the Soviets should have left instead of setting up a puppet government. And the PROOF that it was a puttet government (as all the other Iron Curtain countries were) is that when the SU fell--ALL of the Soviet client states fell also.

And the Soviets weren't in Poland in 1989. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. The USSR was not in Poland in the 80's. I can agree to that point a bit--the Soviets had begun to seriously lose control of its vassel states by the 80s and that is why Solidarity was able to form and that is why Poland was able to reform itself.

So there was no exploitation of labor after all. Good. But anyway, yours is a simplistic analysis, and it's basically wrong. The Soviet Union had its problems, sure, but we can tie much of its "failure" to Gorbachev and the idiocy he displayed as a leader. Someone who's stabbed in the back isn't considered a "failed person". First, it just shows how undemocratic the SU was. If ONE MAN could undeermine the entire Communist structure--that's a dictatorship. Secondly, nobody cared that it fell. There were no riots in the street protesting the fall of Communism. No people's retakingover of government. Some generals protested and that was about it. I was in Moscow right after they burned the Russian parlement--and the people in the street could have cared less about the Communists or the new people that weretaking over (it wasn't very sure what was going on) all they wanted to do is buy their food in the bread lines. It's not that they hated Communism. No one cared.

Reactionaries masquerading as pro-worker is something that's generally to be expected. It's as typical and disgustingly false as fascists pretending to fight for the "little guy". The "strikes" in Venezuela in 2002 (which were actually lock-outs initiated by the wealthiest men in the country) are a good example of this. The answer is to organize the masses against these counterrevolutionary agents, to isolate them. If the sabotage continues, then the worker state must respond in kind. Solidarity have the backing of the Polish people in general--to make them out to be some sort of renegade group is wrong.

I don't pretend to know what communism will look like, to try to paint a picture of it would be idealistic and utopian. But we do know that we can erase social conflict if we erase class. That's the point. With the stazi or the KGB? I think you are a bit to authoritarian for most tastes.

Social Democracy has already been replaced on two fronts: the left of Social Democracy has been replaced with communism, which actually has the guts to fight for what's right instead of working with fascists (Freikorps) and the like; and on the right it's been replaced by unabashed neoliberalism. Every Social Democratic party in Europe has become as capitalist as possible in the past few decades, which only further vindicates Lenin's judgment of them as "bourgeois agents within the workers' movement". I know--I still think it will be the rational alternative for the Left and Right if they are ever to agree on anything. There's never going to be a complete Capitalist takeover--and there won't be a complete Communist takeover--both systems have come and gone. All that's left is something in the middle.

Bud Struggle

3rd August 2010, 18:01

Goddamn! I just notice that Bud actually tried to claim that the areas of "Poland" annexed in 1939 were majority Polish.

There were a large number of Polish--But it was part of Poland. What gave the SU the right to annex those lands and peoples--with a larger number of Poles than Russians?

As I said the SU just gobbled up countries and peoples whithout reguard to their wishes for self determination. Thankfully with the fall of the Iron Curtain these people can decide their fates for themselves.

This has gone on for eight pages?

Someone in OI is WRONG guys, we need to gang up on them

:p:p:p

Kayser_Soso

3rd August 2010, 18:20

There were a large number of Polish--But it was part of Poland. What gave the SU the right to annex those lands and peoples--with a larger number of Poles than Russians?

The level of ignorance on display here from a person who claimed to have lived and traveled throughout Eastern Europe is stunning.

Let's try this again- In 1919, Poland wasn't satisfied with the land they had been granted, and launched a war against Belarus and the newly independent Ukraine. They overthrew the non-Bolshevik republics in those areas. They got all the way to Kiev before being pushed back to Warsaw. Because the Bolsheviks had bigger problems to deal with, they signed over Galicia, Volyn, and Western Belarus to the Pole sat the treaty of Riga in 1922. What the "Russian" population of those regions were at the time is irrelevant- the populations were not majority Polish, and in some cases there was not even a sizable Polish population at all. I might also add that they knicked a piece of Lithuania as well.

This was not the last time Poland seized land that wasn't theirs either. Working closely with Germany, the Poles denied the USSR transit rights to aid Czechoslovakia and thus ensured that collective security between the UK, France, and USSR, would fail- and in reward for this treachery they were allowed to take a small part of Czechoslovakia which had virtually no Polish population.

You, clearly never heard of any of those regions, nor the treaty of Riga until this post, and any attempt forthwith to convince me otherwise is going to fail spectacularly.

As I said the SU just gobbled up countries and peoples whithout reguard to their wishes for self determination. Thankfully with the fall of the Iron Curtain these people can decide their fates for themselves.

:p:p:p

Wrong, yet again. The original Soviet Union was based on the agreement of the victorious forces within the constituent regions which would later become the republics. Mongolia was the second socialist nation, yet it opted not to join the Soviet Union. The revolution stalled in Finland as well, thus Finland did not join. The USSR did not take over Finland or influence its politics in any way after they had defeated them in 1944. Nor did the Soviet Union do anything about the British soldiers who drove out the victorious Communists in Greece in the same year. Conversely, the US promised independence to Indochina during WWII, and then promptly went back on its word and assisted the French in regaining their colony(the British pulled the same trick).

Bud Struggle

3rd August 2010, 18:49

The level of ignorance on display here from a person who claimed to have lived and traveled throughout Eastern Europe is stunning.

Let's try this again- In 1919, Poland wasn't satisfied with the land they had been granted, and launched a war against Belarus and the newly independent Ukraine. They overthrew the non-Bolshevik republics in those areas. They got all the way to Kiev before being pushed back to Warsaw. Because the Bolsheviks had bigger problems to deal with, they signed over Galicia, Volyn, and Western Belarus to the Pole sat the treaty of Riga in 1922. What the "Russian" population of those regions were at the time is irrelevant- the populations were not majority Polish, and in some cases there was not even a sizable Polish population at all. I might also add that they knicked a piece of Lithuania as well. I never said this didn't happen--It just is not relevent. The borders of a country are the borders of a country. Especially if they are fighting on the same side on a war.

This was not the last time Poland seized land that wasn't theirs either. Working closely with Germany, the Poles denied the USSR transit rights to aid Czechoslovakia and thus ensured that collective security between the UK, France, and USSR, would fail- and in reward for this treachery they were allowed to take a small part of Czechoslovakia which had virtually no Polish population. I'm not disagreeing that there were local intrigues--but what does that matter? It was the SU that was gobbleing up everything in sight. They took over the Baltic states and the Ukraine. Do you actually believe the Baltic states wanted to join ther SU?

You, clearly never heard of any of those regions, nor the treaty of Riga until this post, and any attempt forthwith to convince me otherwise is going to fail spectacularly. You make out like any of this is pertinent to the discussion. But thanks for the history lesson.

Wrong, yet again. The original Soviet Union was based on the agreement of the victorious forces within the constituent regions which would later become the republics. Mongolia was the second socialist nation, yet it opted not to join the Soviet Union. The revolution stalled in Finland as well, thus Finland did not join. The USSR did not take over Finland or influence its politics in any way after they had defeated them in 1944. A complete fiction--I'm not saying it didn't happen, but none of these countries WANTED to join the USSR. Look how quickly they fled after the SU was broken up. And the SU waged a war of CONQUEST with Finalnd--it wasn't a polite invitation to join.

Nor did the Soviet Union do anything about the British soldiers who drove out the victorious Communists in Greece in the same year. Conversely, the US promised independence to Indochina during WWII, and then promptly went back on its word and assisted the French in regaining their colony(the British pulled the same trick). I agree that France should have granted freedom to Indochina--but you seem to think that the SU is somehow BETTER than the US or Western Europe.

The USSR was an imperial power--no different than Britain and certainly worse than the USA which never took over any territory after WWII (Well Micronesia fow a while.)

Kayser_Soso

3rd August 2010, 18:59

I never said this didn't happen--It just is not relevent. The borders of a country are the borders of a country. Especially if they are fighting on the same side on a war.

Actually it is relevant. And if "borders are borders", why did Poland decide to attack and invade its neighbors?

I'm not disagreeing that there were local intreagues--but what does that matter? It was the SU that was gobbleing up everything in sight. the took over the Baltic states and the Ukraine.

Ukraine joined the USSR because the majority of people left with fighting ability happened to be Bolsheviks or on their side. There were two other Ukrainian governments, one destroyed by your buddies the Poles when they invaded in 1919, and the other defeated by the Bolsheviks. A typhus outbreak in the region also helped devastate the Ukrainian white armies.

You make out like any of this is pertainent to the discussion. But thanks for the history lesson.

It is, because you accuse the USSR of something without known the facts, and also ignore this kind of action when it is taken by governments other than the USSR.

A complete fiction--I'm not saying it didn't happen, but none of these countries WANTED to join the USSR. Look how quickly they fled after the SU was broken up.

Nope, not a fiction, a fact. Your attempt to justify it by "look how quickly" they left begs the question- how many people actually wanted the Soviet Union to break up in the first place(referendums on this topic were ignored, it was the will of various leaders, not the people), and furthermore that is irrelevant because the sentiments of people change over 70 years anyway.

And the SU waged a war of CONQUEST with Finalnd--it wasn't a polite invitation to join.

Again, pathetic attempt. If you refer to the Winter war, the USSR actually offered Finland more land than that which it wanted to lease. In 1944, the USSR got them back for invading alongside Germany, yet never demanded that they join the USSR nor did they try to foment revolution in Finland.

I agree that France should have granted freedom to Indochina--but you eem to think that the SU is somehow BETTER than the US or Western Europe.

It is, because the legacy of Western imperialism was far older, far bloodier, and even continues to this day. For the record, I am against Soviet social-imperialism from the 1950s onward, so I would just as readily condemn the invasion of Czechoslovakia as I would the coup in say, Iran.

The URRS was an imperial power--no different than Britain and certainly worse than the USA which never took over any territory after WWII (Well Micronesia fow a while.)

Incorrect. The USSR did not practice imperialism(you have no idea what this is) until after it had been a superpower for quite some time, particularly in the Brezhnev era onwards(it also used its superpower status to enforce privatization and anti-socialist policies on Warsaw pact states under Gorbachev). The US ruled many countries via neo-colonialism, it does not matter if they actually occupied them or not. And besides this is incorrect, the US took over Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bud Struggle

3rd August 2010, 19:14

Actually it is relevant. And if "borders are borders", why did Poland decide to attack and invade its neighbors? They could fight any war they wanted--I never said they weren't "imperial" in their own way. But the Societ Union had no right to take land away from a ally and annex it to itself. The point here isn't Poland squable with it's neighbors--it's the SU's imperialistic land grabs from its "friends."

Ukraine joined the USSR because the majority of people left with fighting ability happened to be Bolsheviks or on their side. There were two other Ukrainian governments, one destroyed by your buddies the Poles when they invaded in 1919, and the other defeated by the Bolsheviks. A typhus outbreak in the region also helped devastate the Ukrainian white armies. Do you really believe that the majority of Ukrainians wanted to be part of the SU instead of a free and independant country? Really?

It is, because you accuse the USSR of something without known the facts, and also ignore this kind of action when it is taken by governments other than the USSR. No I don't. I never said that other governments weren't imperialistic--I just said that the USSR was down in the gutter with the rest.

Nope, not a fiction, a fact. Your attempt to justify it by "look how quickly" they left begs the question- how many people actually wanted the Soviet Union to break up in the first place(referendums on this topic were ignored, it was the will of various leaders, not the people), and furthermore that is irrelevant because the sentiments of people change over 70 years anyway. Two points you made: the "republics" in the USSR were run by dictators and that even if the SU was good in the beginning it was quite a thing to run away from towards the end. I agree with them both.

Again, pathetic attempt. If you refer to the Winter war, the USSR actually offered Finland more land than that which it wanted to lease. In 1944, the USSR got them back for invading alongside Germany, yet never demanded that they join the USSR nor did they try to foment revolution in Finland. Then why wage that war?

It is, because the legacy of Western imperialism was far older, far bloodier, and even continues to this day. For the record, I am against Soviet social-imperialism from the 1950s onward, so I would just as readily condemn the invasion of Czechoslovakia as I would the coup in say, Iran. OK.

Incorrect. The USSR did not practice imperialism(you have no idea what this is) until after it had been a superpower for quite some time, particularly in the Brezhnev era onwards(it also used its superpower status to enforce privatization and anti-socialist policies on Warsaw pact states under Gorbachev). The US ruled many countries via neo-colonialism, it does not matter if they actually occupied them or not. And besides this is incorrect, the US took over Iraq and Afghanistan. The SU/Russia was ALWAYS a Superpower. Any country that could muster a million man army is a superpower.

And point taken on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

3rd August 2010, 19:36

The SU/Russia was ALWAYS a Superpower. Any country that could muster a million man army is a superpower.
.

Is Iran a superpower?

Bud Struggle

3rd August 2010, 20:01

Is Iran a superpower?

A regional power.

Kayser_Soso

3rd August 2010, 20:10

They could fight any war they wanted--I never said they weren't "imperial" in their own way. But the Societ Union had no right to take land away from a ally and annex it to itself. The point here isn't Poland squable with it's neighbors--it's the SU's imperialistic land grabs from its "friends."

You are really confused here. Let's try to clear this up:

1918- Poland gains independence, Bolsheviks support this at least morally.
1919- Not satisfied with the land they have been given, and believing that they should recover their empire which had been lost since the late 17th century when it was at its peak, the Polish nationalists invade Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania.
1922- Because the Bolsheviks have bigger problems, they negotiate an overly generous treaty with Poland and allow Belarus and Ukraine to be divided.
1939- To prevent the Germans from taking all of Poland and thus gaining a foothold far closer to the vital centers of the USSR, the Red Army invades Galicia, Volyn, and Western Belarus(in some places already invaded by German troops).
1944- London Polish government in exile idiotically demands that the USSR return the non-Polish lands seized in 1939. The USSR instead offers East Prussia to Poland, and offers to hand over any areas of Western Belarus and Ukraine with majority Polish populations to Poland, which accounts for certain differences on the map you posted between the 1945 boundary and the 1918 Curzon line. It was the Curzon Line, established in 1918, which the USSR considered appropriate.

Do you really believe that the majority of Ukrainians wanted to be part of the SU instead of a free and independant country? Really?

Do you have anything suggesting otherwise? What we do know is that more Ukrainians fought for the Bolsheviks than against them, and with more passion and tenacity.

No I don't. I never said that other governments weren't imperialistic--I just said that the USSR was down in the gutter with the rest.

Except it isn't. Look at Uzbekistan or any other number of Central Asian republics. Under the Russian empire, by definition imperialist, these areas wallowed in poverty and backwardness. Under the Soviet Union, capital was invested in these areas not simply to make a profit for a minority back in Moscow, as it would be in an imperialist system, but to actually benefit the people living in those territories.

Two points you made: the "republics" in the USSR were run by dictators and that even if the SU was good in the beginning it was quite a thing to run away from towards the end. I agree with them both.

All states are a dictatorship of one kind or another. Do you think Ukraine today is not a dictatorship? Do you think that it is truly independent? Every four or so years, people vote for a new dictator, and the policies are roughly the same- whatever benefits business, goes.

Then why wage that war?

In 1939, Finland was encouraged by the West and the Axis powers to refuse any Russian offer. Then they mobilized their army and cut off negotiations. In 1941, Finland aided the German invasion of the USSR.

The SU/Russia was ALWAYS a Superpower. Any country that could muster a million man army is a superpower.

By that logic North Korea has been a superpower for quite some time. The size of a military has little to do with whether a nation is a superpower or not. It also must be able to project that force, along with its will in general.

Bud Struggle

3rd August 2010, 20:29

You are really confused here. Let's try to clear this up:

1918- Poland gains independence, Bolsheviks support this at least morally.
1919- Not satisfied with the land they have been given, and believing that they should recover their empire which had been lost since the late 17th century when it was at its peak, the Polish nationalists invade Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania.
1922- Because the Bolsheviks have bigger problems, they negotiate an overly generous treaty with Poland and allow Belarus and Ukraine to be divided.
1939- To prevent the Germans from taking all of Poland and thus gaining a foothold far closer to the vital centers of the USSR, the Red Army invades Galicia, Volyn, and Western Belarus(in some places already invaded by German troops).
1944- London Polish government in exile idiotically demands that the USSR return the non-Polish lands seized in 1939. The USSR instead offers East Prussia to Poland, and offers to hand over any areas of Western Belarus and Ukraine with majority Polish populations to Poland, which accounts for certain differences on the map you posted between the 1945 boundary and the 1918 Curzon line. It was the Curzon Line, established in 1918, which the USSR considered appropriate.

"...which the USSR considered appropriate." Charming. And that's not Superpower politics?

Do you have anything suggesting otherwise? What we do know is that more Ukrainians fought for the Bolsheviks than against them, and with more passion and tenacity. Against the Nazis--I agree. They were hoping to be free after the war not as slaves of Stalin. And a number of Ukrainians saw Stalin as a greater threat than Hitler. So they fought WITH the Germans.

Except it isn't. Look at Uzbekistan or any other number of Central Asian republics. Under the Russian empire, by definition imperialist, these areas wallowed in poverty and backwardness. Under the Soviet Union, capital was invested in these areas not simply to make a profit for a minority back in Moscow, as it would be in an imperialist system, but to actually benefit the people living in those territories. They were backward under the USSR they are backward now. How did the USSR help them? Take any American state--the standard of living is all similar. No contest.

All states are a dictatorship of one kind or another. Spin.

Do you think Ukraine today is not a dictatorship? Do you think that it is truly independent? Every four or so years, people vote for a new dictator, and the policies are roughly the same- whatever benefits business, goes. The legacy of the totalitarian SU lives on.

In 1939, Finland was encouraged by the West and the Axis powers to refuse any Russian offer. Then they mobilized their army and cut off negotiations. In 1941, Finland aided the German invasion of the USSR. They saw Stalin as worse than Hitler. (Can you blame them?) Six of one half dozen of another from their point of view.

By that logic North Korea has been a superpower for quite some time. In the day when such things mattered. It may still matter when China is concerned. Today firepower matters more.

The size of a military has little to do with whether a nation is a superpower or not. It also must be able to project that force, along with its will in general. True. For today, not in 1945.

Dimentio

3rd August 2010, 20:45

In fact, Kaczynski did raise a few points against Germany as he wanted to double the amount of MEP's claiming that the population which Poland would have had hadn't it been for WW2 should be represented as well...

Bud Struggle

3rd August 2010, 20:55

manic expression

3rd August 2010, 22:09

There were brutal to EVERYONE that wasn't in the Communist party.
Of course they weren't. This is unsupported.

Momentarily. And then wiser heads prevailed. I don't think anyone took it as more than glitch that happened when Germany reunified. Certainly Poland never took it seriously.
Momentarily, as in from the late 40's to the 70's at least?

Well there were a majority of Ukrainians in the area that is now part of Ukrainia--but to be fair what law says that should have belonged to the Soviet Union? Who should the SU have gobbled up any ethnic group that wasn't Russian? What went for Poland should surely go for the Russians. Don't forget Poland was an ALLIE in WWII--its origional borders hould have been restored intact.
The law of self-determination. To put a majority Ukrainian region in the hands of a country that had very previously run a campaign against Ukrainian culture and language would have violated every feasible definition of self-determination. Plus, it just wouldn't make sense. It's Ukrainian, so it should be in under the auspices of a Ukrainian state. Anything else would be a crime against the rights of the populace there.

That Poland was an ally is tangential to its illegitimate annexations of Lithuania, Ukraine and Belarus. Were those three nations not also allies? The UK was an ally but it eventually gave up many of its colonies around the world in the aftermath of WWII...as it should have.

they were pro Soviet as long as they were fighting the Germans--but once the germans were vanquished the Soviets should have left instead of setting up a puppet government. And the PROOF that it was a puttet government (as all the other Iron Curtain countries were) is that when the SU fell--ALL of the Soviet client states fell also.
Nope, the Union of Polish Patriots was a pro-Soviet partisan group. They supported the Polish-Soviet partnership even outside of the cause against fascism. That's because they recognized the progressive role the Soviet Union was playing, as well as the reasonable, equitable way in which Poland was being treated by the USSR. The Soviets did leave, after enfranchising the Polish workers and making a commitment to defending those same gains made by the masses in the face of imperialism. This is what any genuine progressive would have done, and that's why the Polish patriots supported the USSR.

I can agree to that point a bit--the Soviets had begun to seriously lose control of its vassel states by the 80s and that is why Solidarity was able to form and that is why Poland was able to reform itself.
They weren't vassal states if they were acting on their own accord. Martial law, again, was declared in 1981 because the Polish state didn't want other Warsaw Pact countries stepping in.

First, it just shows how undemocratic the SU was. If ONE MAN could undeermine the entire Communist structure--that's a dictatorship. Secondly, nobody cared that it fell. There were no riots in the street protesting the fall of Communism. No people's retakingover of government. Some generals protested and that was about it. I was in Moscow right after they burned the Russian parlement--and the people in the street could have cared less about the Communists or the new people that weretaking over (it wasn't very sure what was going on) all they wanted to do is buy their food in the bread lines. It's not that they hated Communism. No one cared.
I concede the Soviet Union had problems and shortcomings. But it doesn't change the basic mathematics of a progressive state. Further, democracy is very easily corrupted by the wrongdoings of small groups, and that's what Gorbachev represented: an anti-worker clique that was too stupid to realize what it was doing.

There were riots, actually:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoqvSch9Q1g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcd4EFRKSy8&feature=related

But regardless, I don't deny that there was disillusionment. That was a result of Gorbachev hamstringing the party and disallowing communists to tell people the truth of what was happening. The ideological confusion of those days is palpable even now, and the thing that sticks out most is how within that argument, there were very few voices for socialism...it was between Gorbachev's buffoonery and Yeltsin's lunacy. Without a clear voice for the defense of socialism, it was a circus, and the valiant efforts of relatively un-ideological military leaders wasn't enough to counter this.

But looking back, most people who lived in European socialism have quite the positive opinion of it. A majority of DDR citizens polled recently said they would want socialism back. So apparently, that disillusionment is being washed away by capitalism.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,634122-2,00.html

History absolves us.

Solidarity have the backing of the Polish people in general--to make them out to be some sort of renegade group is wrong.
They were most certainly renegades. Only by lying to the public and manipulating emotions every which way (they said one thing to Catholics and another to socialists, they said one thing to workers and another to would-be capitalists) were they able to gain support.

Walesa is pretty commonly known as a charlatan (at best). His antics in office after the fall vindicate every word I've said about the bankruptcy of anti-communism, and not even the most anti-communist, anti-Russian right-winger can deny how pathetic Walesa has exposed himself to be.

With the stazi or the KGB? I think you are a bit to authoritarian for most tastes.
With neither. Such measures are only needed while class still exists. After that, no conflict will arise in this manner.

As for me being authoritarian, I support the most democratic country on the planet (Cuba) against the slander of a government that is the picture of plutocracy (USA). I'm authoritarian when it comes to dealing with capitalist liars, yes, but I'm as democratic as anyone when it comes to the voice of the workers.

I know--I still think it will be the rational alternative for the Left and Right if they are ever to agree on anything. There's never going to be a complete Capitalist takeover--and there won't be a complete Communist takeover--both systems have come and gone. All that's left is something in the middle.
Capitalism is moving to the right so fast it doesn't even know where the center is. Capitalist politicians, from Europe to the US to India, are rapidly making any semblance of compromise impossible. Just as we always knew. No middle ground in war.

IllicitPopsicle

3rd August 2010, 22:46

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

IcarusAngel

3rd August 2010, 23:10

lol.

Bud Struggle

3rd August 2010, 23:25

lol.

That ain't me. I actually have a job. :D

Bud Struggle

3rd August 2010, 23:45

Of course they weren't. This is unsupported. Yea, the Stazi were sweet.

Momentarily, as in from the late 40's to the 70's at least? Till it actually MATTERED?

The law of self-determination. To put a majority Ukrainian region in the hands of a country that had very previously run a campaign against Ukrainian culture and language would have violated every feasible definition of self-determination. Plus, it just wouldn't make sense. It's Ukrainian, so it should be in under the auspices of a Ukrainian state. Anything else would be a crime against the rights of the populace there. And the Soviets denyed the Ukranians their state. So the Soviets were criminals? No problems from me.

That Poland was an ally is tangential to its illegitimate annexations of Lithuania, Ukraine and Belarus. Were those three nations not also allies? The UK was an ally but it eventually gave up many of its colonies around the world in the aftermath of WWII...as it should have. Don't pretend that the Baltic states didn't hate the USSR. They did.

Nope, the Union of Polish Patriots was a pro-Soviet partisan group. They supported the Polish-Soviet partnership even outside of the cause against fascism. That's because they recognized the progressive role the Soviet Union was playing, as well as the reasonable, equitable way in which Poland was being treated by the USSR. The Soviets did leave, after enfranchising the Polish workers and making a commitment to defending those same gains made by the masses in the face of imperialism. This is what any genuine progressive would have done, and that's why the Polish patriots supported the USSR. The Polish are were and will be wildly Catholic. That faith beyond everything else has been their past and will be their forseeable future. For you to pretend otherwise is a sham.

They weren't vassal states if they were acting on their own accord. Martial law, again, was declared in 1981 because the Polish state didn't want other Warsaw Pact countries stepping in. And all this hate--from the Poles, the Hungarians the Czechs--against the Soviets. See the problem?

I concede the Soviet Union had problems and shortcomings. But it doesn't change the basic mathematics of a progressive state. Further, democracy is very easily corrupted by the wrongdoings of small groups, and that's what Gorbachev represented: an anti-worker clique that was too stupid to realize what it was doing. Bit of a rant here.

There were riots, actually:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoqvSch9Q1g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcd4EFRKSy8&feature=related

There were more people at my (small town) 4th of july parade.

But regardless, I don't deny that there was disillusionment. That was a result of Gorbachev hamstringing the party and disallowing communists to tell people the truth of what was happening. The ideological confusion of those days is palpable even now, and the thing that sticks out most is how within that argument, there were very few voices for socialism...it was between Gorbachev's buffoonery and Yeltsin's lunacy. Without a clear voice for the defense of socialism, it was a circus, and the valiant efforts of relatively un-ideological military leaders wasn't enough to counter this. "A clear voice for the defense of Socialism" I would think after 80 years--it could speak for itself. And this--unideological military leaders--geez.

But looking back, most people who lived in European socialism have quite the positive opinion of it. A majority of DDR citizens polled recently said they would want socialism back. So apparently, that disillusionment is being washed away by capitalism. I bet you could find a who lot of people in Europe saying nice things about Fascism, too. They say it now--isn't Fascism a big problem in Europe today?

They were most certainly renegades. Only by lying to the public and manipulating emotions every which way (they said one thing to Catholics and another to socialists, they said one thing to workers and another to would-be capitalists) were they able to gain support. Rant here.

Walesa is pretty commonly known as a charlatan (at best). His antics in office after the fall vindicate every word I've said about the bankruptcy of anti-communism, and not even the most anti-communist, anti-Russian right-winger can deny how pathetic Walesa has exposed himself to be. Much the same.

With neither. Such measures are only needed while class still exists. After that, no conflict will arise in this manner.Class will always exist. I willalways be better than you, you will always be prettier than me. I will be smarter, you will be more talented. Class is in our blood.

As for me being authoritarian, I support the most democratic country on the planet (Cuba) against the slander of a government that is the picture of plutocracy (USA). I'm authoritarian when it comes to dealing with capitalist liars, yes, but I'm as democratic as anyone when it comes to the voice of the workers. We need to dissect you--again--another thread. :) ;)

Capitalism is moving to the right so fast it doesn't even know where the center is. Capitalist politicians, from Europe to the US to India, are rapidly making any semblance of compromise impossible. Just as we always knew. No middle ground in war.

Lets just say Feudalism (think all those dynasties of Egypt) took over 10,000 years. So far Capitalsim's been around, 150--maybe 200 years. We have 9.800 years to go before we are replaced.

We have time. ;)

Bud Struggle

4th August 2010, 00:01

This has gone on for eight pages?

Someone in OI is WRONG guys, we need to gang up on them

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CZ6DtE8Ne9g/SvrmwmO8dCI/AAAAAAAAA1I/vArTI5MXWMg/s400/Kruschev+shoe.jpg

We Capitalist will bury you!

:D

manic expression

4th August 2010, 00:11

Yea, the Stazi were sweet.
I would say "necessary".

Till it actually MATTERED?
It always mattered.

And the Soviets denyed the Ukranians their state. So the Soviets were criminals? No problems from me.
Nope. The Ukrainian nation had self-determination and recognition as a distinct nationality in the Ukrainian SSR.

Don't pretend that the Baltic states didn't hate the USSR. They did.
Most who held such resentment were manipulated by racists who blamed Russian people for everything under the sun. The ethnic strife seen in the Baltic today is more proof that anti-communism is synonymous with bigotry and chauvinism.

The Polish are were and will be wildly Catholic. That faith beyond everything else has been their past and will be their forseeable future. For you to pretend otherwise is a sham.
Neither of us can tell the future...Sweden used to be the vanguard of Protestantism, now you'd be hard-pressed to find a believing Christian in Stockholm. Anyway, Catholicism is fine, but Solidarity manipulating the emotions and beliefs of Catholics is not. It's very clear: Solidarity talked out of both sides of their mouths, they were bankrupt and lacked any moral center. Walesa's abject failure as an office-holder only drives this home.

And all this hate--from the Poles, the Hungarians the Czechs--against the Soviets. See the problem?
Not really. The Poles, Hungarians, Czechs and others were working together to build a better Europe. And considering what they were up against, they succeeded. That's called internationalism. Unfortunately a lot of that progress has been rolled back, but we can unfurl it once more.

Bit of a rant here.
Doesn't change the fact that it's true.

There were more people at my (small town) 4th of july parade.
Going up against riot cops on the side of an illegal coup that had no qualms in shelling the parliament house...isn't exactly as festive as a July 4th parade, thus explaining that disparity.

"A clear voice for the defense of Socialism" I would think after 80 years--it could speak for itself. And this--unideological military leaders--geez.
It could have spoken for itself, had the party been allowed to. Instead, its leadership waffled and hamstrung its members who wanted to defend socialism.

I bet you could find a who lot of people in Europe saying nice things about Fascism, too. They say it now--isn't Fascism a big problem in Europe today?
First, just about none of those people lived under fascism, so it's not an equal comparison (I've seen the NPD demos, they're not well-attended by people of that age group). Those fascists aren't saying that a society they lived in two decades ago is better than the one they have today (like the majority of East Germans), they're just being racist twits. Second, rising fascism in Europe is the legacy of Walesa, Gorbachev, Yeltsin and their legion of reactionary fools. That's on their hands.

Rant here.
Still true.

Much the same.
And still true.

Class will always exist. I willalways be better than you, you will always be prettier than me. I will be smarter, you will be more talented. Class is in our blood.
But that's not what class is about. Plenty of capitalists are unattractive, unintelligent people. It's their ownership that makes them what they are, not their personal virtues.

Lets just say Feudalism (think all those dynasties of Egypt) took over 10,000 years. So far Capitalsim's been around, 150--maybe 200 years. We have 9.800 years to go before we are replaced.

We have time. ;)
Yes, we do have time...and we must learn from our ancestors on how to make a new world: they did it through revolution.

Bud Struggle

4th August 2010, 00:43

^^^With all due respect Comrade--I think we've both said our peace. I concede all points. I think we disagree on how history will look at the Soviet Union--but no matter. I'd look forward to discussing with you your views on the furure of Communism.

With this post I withdraw for the conversation.

Good posts on your part.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/MercutioTomK/tumblr_l69qikd6h51qzlnx8o1_500.jpg

[edit] That would be Kayser in Back. What he's doing to your rear end--I have no idea. :D

Kayser_Soso

4th August 2010, 05:20

And the Soviets denyed the Ukranians their state. So the Soviets were criminals? No problems from me.

Incorrect, the Ukrainian Bolsheviks created the Ukrainian SSR, prior to this it was just a territory of the Russian empire. The borders and existence of the Ukrainian SSR served as the basis for "independent" Ukraine today. The legality of separation was based on the Soviet constitution.

The Polish are were and will be wildly Catholic. That faith beyond everything else has been their past and will be their forseeable future. For you to pretend otherwise is a sham.

Actually many Poles would have to disagree. Besides, at one time they were "wildly" pagan.

And all this hate--from the Poles, the Hungarians the Czechs--against the Soviets. See the problem?

Because they are opportunistic and gullible. Then again Khruschev did his part in messing things up as well.

I bet you could find a who lot of people in Europe saying nice things about Fascism, too. They say it now--isn't Fascism a big problem in Europe today?

Fascism glorified conquering and even exterminating people. Socialist nations did not exterminate people.

Class will always exist. I willalways be better than you, you will always be prettier than me. I will be smarter, you will be more talented. Class is in our blood.

None of these have anything to do with class.

Lets just say Feudalism (think all those dynasties of Egypt) took over 10,000 years. So far Capitalsim's been around, 150--maybe 200 years. We have 9.800 years to go before we are replaced.

We have time. ;)

Feudalism was around less than slave-master society and primitive communism. There is no reason why each mode of production would be alloted an equal time period.

Bud Struggle

4th August 2010, 14:27

Incorrect, the Ukrainian Bolsheviks created the Ukrainian SSR, prior to this it was just a territory of the Russian empire. The borders and existence of the Ukrainian SSR served as the basis for "independent" Ukraine today. The legality of separation was based on the Soviet constitution. The boarders of the Ukraine have faded back and forth throughout history depending on it's relations with Poland and Russia. The Ukrainian Bolshevicks were only one of a number of groups that established an independent Ukraine--but it was the Bolsheviks that sold the Ukraine back into slavery to the Soviet Union after they took control.

Actually many Poles would have to disagree. Besides, at one time they were "wildly" pagan. John Paul II was vastly instrumental in the recognition of Solidarity and the Poles gaining independance from the Soviet Union.

Because they are opportunistic and gullible. Then again Khruschev did his part in messing things up as well. You don't think all of the Soviet Union's troubles began with Stalin?

Fascism glorified conquering and even exterminating people. Socialist nations did not exterminate people. The Ukranians would be glad to have that information passed along to them.

None of these have anything to do with class. Differences in talents and intellect and ambition lead to differences in class. Even the Societ Union had classes--the Proletarians and the Breaucratic class with their dachas and their Chaikas.

Feudalism was around less than slave-master society and primitive communism. There is no reason why each mode of production would be alloted an equal time period. No reason it shouldn't.

Kayser_Soso

4th August 2010, 14:43

The boarders of the Ukraine have faded back and forth throughout history depending on it's relations with Poland and Russia.

The "borders" shifted because there was no state or republic known as "Ukraine". Identifying oneself as Ukrainian didn't really come about until around 1654.

The Ukrainian Bolshevicks were only one of a number of groups that established an independent Ukraine--

Those other groups failed, as they also failed to achieve the popularity necessary to secure themselves. On of those "independent" states was established by the German military by the way.

but it was the Bolsheviks that sold the Ukraine back into slavery to the Soviet Union after they took control.

That "slavery" as you call it industrialized Ukraine, eventually doubled the life-span, eliminated illiteracy, saved the population from extermination at the hands of the Nazis, and increased the population significantly.

Face it, you simply can't imagine that a majority of people would actually fight to the death for a socialist revolution. This begs the question- if they were always unpopular, why did socialists succeed anywhere?

John Paul II was vastly instrumental in the recognition of Solidarity and the Poles gaining independance from the Soviet Union.

So? The Catholic church has also been instrumental in molesting children, covering it up, ethnic cleansing, genocide, and ongoing poverty due to their backward rules on birth control. All this in the name of a Jewish zombie who was his own invisible father, who sacrificed himself to save you from his own wrath.

Say what you want about Stalin, Lenin, or Marx- At least ALL of them EXISTED at some time.

You don't think all of the Soviet Union's troubles began with Stalin?

It is not about what I think, it's about what the evidence shows.

The Ukranians would be glad to have that information passed along to them.

There was never any attempt to exterminate Ukrainians on the part of the Soviet government. Period. And please don't act as though we are on equal grounds to comment on the history of Ukraine and it's people today. I just got BACK from Kyiv yesterday, I can understand Ukrainian, I'm half Ukrainian by descent, and I've got a book on my coffee table filled with scans of recently released Soviet archival documents from the time of the 1931-32 famine, detailing the government's response to the famine. It is called Голод в СССР 1930-34.

Differences in talents and intellect and ambition lead to differences in class. Even the Societ Union had classes--the Proletarians and the Breaucratic class with their dachas and their Chaikas.

First of all, many ordinary workers had dachas as well, and some have them to this day. Where they did not have dachas, they had paid vacations in special resorts all along the Black Sea coast. My wife's parents and grandparents regularly visited such places.

More importantly, talent has little to nothing to do with class. Class is one's relation to the means of production. The insanely rich people who run Russia today are a collection of colossal dumbasses, yet they have all the power. It has nothing to do with intelligence.

Bud Struggle

4th August 2010, 15:14

The "borders" shifted because there was no state or republic known as "Ukraine". Identifying oneself as Ukrainian didn't really come about until around 1654. That's fine. No one was contesting that.

Those other groups failed, as they also failed to achieve the popularity necessary to secure themselves. On of those "independent" states was established by the German military by the way. Popularity? :D

That "slavery" as you call it industrialized Ukraine, eventually doubled the life-span, eliminated illiteracy, saved the population from extermination at the hands of the Nazis, and increased the population significantly. All of that could have been easily done with a lot less suffering with Capitalism. Western Europe is much more successful than Eastern Europe at such things.

Face it, you simply can't imagine that a majority of people would actually fight to the death for a socialist revolution. This begs the question- if they were always unpopular, why did socialists succeed anywhere? Complicated question. I believe there are a lot of people that want Socialism and they will get it little by little through reform. I think the days of Revoloution are over. But with reform comes compromise so while in the end there will be some sort of Socialism I also believe there is a place for some sort of Capitalism in the system.

As for why Socialism succeeded--they succeeded for the same reason Revolutions sometimes succeed that put dictators both right wing and left wing in power. A few radicals take things over and put their beliefs and power struggles into operation.

As to why it failed? Revolutions--especially those that are undemocratic tend to become ossified and rigid and are unable to change and move with the times and the changing will of the people they rule. America changed a lot from WWII to the lare 80s--the Soviet Union almost not at all. The same old Pary bosses ran the show for 80 years. Do you think that it is by accident that both Cuba and North Korea are producing dynasties of rulers? They fail for the very reason Manic mentioned above--they find the problem that is changing society and obliterate it instead of moving with it.

So? The Catholic church has also been instrumental in molesting children, covering it up, ethnic cleansing, genocide, and ongoing poverty due to their backward rules on birth control. All this in the name of a Jewish zombie who was his own invisible father, who sacrificed himself to save you from his own wrath. You have your issues here, obviously. I'm just stating that facts about how the Church influenced politics in Poland.

Say what you want about Stalin, Lenin, or Marx- At least ALL of them EXISTED at some time. That's true--they did exist.

It is not about what I think, it's about what the evidence shows.

There was never any attempt to exterminate Ukrainians on the part of the Soviet government. Period. And please don't act as though we are on equal grounds to comment on the history of Ukraine and it's people today. I just got BACK from Kyiv yesterday, I can understand Ukrainian, I'm half Ukrainian by descent, and I've got a book on my coffee table filled with scans of recently released Soviet archival documents from the time of the 1931-32 famine, detailing the government's response to the famine. It is called Голод в СССР 1930-34. I remember when the Russians/Soviets said the same thing about Katyn. As far as you having an understanding on how things are going in the Ukraine or Russia--I don't know you personally so I can't say exactly, but I talk to plenty of Communists here in America and If your understanding of things over there is anything like their understanding of how things are over here...........;)

First of all, many ordinary workers had dachas as well, and some have them to this day. Where they did not have dachas, they had paid vacations in special resorts all along the Black Sea coast. My wife's parents and grandparents regularly visited such places. I was pointing out that there were basically two classes in the SU. Which there were.

More importantly, talent has little to nothing to do with class. Class is one's relation to the means of production. The insanely rich people who run Russia today are a collection of colossal dumbasses, yet they have all the power. It has nothing to do with intelligence. I'm not saying that all Capitalists are smart--I think a good mucber are, though. But some people have a talent for making money--just like some people have a talent for playing the piano.

Konstantine

4th August 2010, 18:43

The OP does realize that "communism" in the Soviet Union wasn't Communism at all, but Stalinism and later capitalism?

#FF0000

4th August 2010, 19:02

The OP does realize that "communism" in the Soviet Union wasn't Communism at all, but Stalinism and later capitalism?

That assumes that Marxism-Leninism is separate from socialism, which isn't true.

Konstantine

4th August 2010, 19:17

That assumes that Marxism-Leninism is separate from socialism, which isn't true.

It WAS communism, per se, but it didn't follow the BELIEFS of communism. Stalinism was more Totalitarian Beauracratic than anything else.

#FF0000

4th August 2010, 19:24

It WAS communism, per se, but it didn't follow the BELIEFS of communism. Stalinism was more Totalitarian Beauracratic than anything else.

You're wrong about this no matter what because your analysis is so shitty, even if I see where you're coming from.

Kayser_Soso

4th August 2010, 20:11

It WAS communism, per se, but it didn't follow the BELIEFS of communism. Stalinism was more Totalitarian Beauracratic than anything else.

Totalitarian bureaucratism? Not such animal exists. But way to display your knowledge of Fisher-Price's My First Trotskyite Primer.

Kayser_Soso

4th August 2010, 20:19

That's fine. No one was contesting that.

Popularity? :D

This is not an answer.

All of that could have been easily done with a lot less suffering with Capitalism. Western Europe is much more successful than Eastern Europe at such things.

Unfounded assumption. The industrialization of Britain and its empire, of the French empire, of the US, etc. was far bloodier than the Soviet Union and took much longer.

Western Europe has a very different history than Eastern Europe. For one thing they did not have to worry about invasions from the Steppe after the Christianization of the Magyars. These nations were often more developed whereas many nations we know today in Eastern Europe were either never nations before or were only independent for short periods of time.

Complicated question. I believe there are a lot of people that want Socialism and they will get it little by little through reform. I think the days of Revoloution are over.

History disagrees.

But with reform comes compromise so while in the end there will be some sort of Socialism I also believe there is a place for some sort of Capitalism in the system.

This is precisely what destroy the USSR and the socialist bloc.

As to why it failed? Revolutions--especially those that are undemocratic tend to become ossified and rigid and are unable to change and move with the times and the changing will of the people they rule.

Who voted for the American revolution to happen? Nobody.

America changed a lot from WWII to the lare 80s--the Soviet Union almost not at all. The same old Pary bosses ran the show for 80 years.

Nonsense, the internal policies of the Soviet Union, even the constitution itself, changed several times and quite radically so in 70 years.

Do you think that it is by accident that both Cuba and North Korea are producing dynasties of rulers? They fail for the very reason Manic mentioned above--they find the problem that is changing society and obliterate it instead of moving with it.

North Korea is not socialist. Cuba's problems have a lot more to do with the blockade, which begs the question- if socialism is such a failure, why did the capitalist nations of the world spend so much time and money invading, subverting, and sabotaging socialist nations since 1917? Moreover, I think Raul Castro is probably quite popular in Cuba, and it doesn't surprise me that he would be elected because he was after all, one of the last surviving members of the original revolutionary leadership. Che died, Castro's out of action, Cinfuegos died,etc.

You have your issues here, obviously. I'm just stating that facts about how the Church influenced politics in Poland.

Yes- negatively.

I remember when the Russians/Soviets said the same thing about Katyn.

The burden of proof is on the claimant. The Soviet archives have been open for 20 years or so. To date, nobody has found so much as a scrap of paper to suggest that the Soviet government intended to exterminate any ethnic group, much less Ukrainians.

As far as you having an understanding on how things are going in the Ukraine or Russia--I don't know you personally so I can't say exactly, but I talk to plenty of Communists here in America and If your understanding of things over there is anything like their understanding of how things are over here...........;)

I'm the best of both worlds- born and raised in America, been living in Russia.

I was pointing out that there were basically two classes in the SU. Which there were.

There were classes, but these developed out of control after Stalin. Under Stalin, these people were often kept in check.

Bud Struggle

4th August 2010, 23:08

Unfounded assumption. The industrialization of Britain and its empire, of the French empire, of the US, etc. was far bloodier than the Soviet Union and took much longer.

Western Europe has a very different history than Eastern Europe. For one thing they did not have to worry about invasions from the Steppe after the Christianization of the Magyars. These nations were often more developed whereas many nations we know today in Eastern Europe were either never nations before or were only independent for short periods of time. Here's something more of a flat playing frield then: West Germany progressed my more rapidly than the East form the same starting point to the assumption of the East into the West (and not the other way around.) East Germany in the same amount of time was no were close to West Germany.

History disagrees Where are you seeing Communist revolutions in First World countries these days? No, the standard Communist revolution almost always sees an old king leaving the throne (a la Nepal). Modern Democracies don't have Revolutions

This is precisely what destroy the USSR and the socialist bloc. :thumbup1:

Who voted for the American revolution to happen? Nobody. And they overthrew a king.

Nonsense, the internal policies of the Soviet Union, even the constitution itself, changed several times and quite radically so in 70 years. How did it change? Did people get Democracy? Did they finaly start up the Soviets? Nothing of substance changed--or if it did change--it just got worse for the people.

North Korea is not socialist. They started out that way.

Cuba's problems have a lot more to do with the blockade, which begs the question- if socialism is such a failure, why did the capitalist nations of the world spend so much time and money invading, subverting, and sabotaging socialist nations since 1917? Moreover, I think Raul Castro is probably quite popular in Cuba, and it doesn't surprise me that he would be elected because he was after all, one of the last surviving members of the original revolutionary leadership. Che died, Castro's out of action, Cinfuegos died,etc. Still--you might think Communist countries might OCCASIONALLY have an election and change leadership--if only to keep up appearences.

Yes- negatively. I very much disagree there.

The burden of proof is on the claimant. The Soviet archives have been open for 20 years or so. To date, nobody has found so much as a scrap of paper to suggest that the Soviet government intended to exterminate any ethnic group, much less Ukrainians. The Ukrainians I speak to seem to think the Societs did it. If the Soviets didn't--they seem to have a rather large public relations problem in that area.

I'm the best of both worlds- born and raised in America, been living in Russia. Good for you. I must say that I am a big fan of those brilliant Russian businessmen that made billions after the fall of the SU. It shows you what a little hard work and some ggood old fasioned hard work can get you.

There were classes, but these developed out of control after Stalin. Under Stalin, these people were often kept in check. I tend to think you are right on this point.

Kayser_Soso

5th August 2010, 14:36

Here's something more of a flat playing frield then: West Germany progressed my more rapidly than the East form the same starting point to the assumption of the East into the West (and not the other way around.) East Germany in the same amount of time was no were close to West Germany.

They didn't start from the same level. West Germany contained the industrial heart of Germany, areas such as the Ruhr. East Germany consisted of the mostly agricultural area, and some of their best industry was in Dresden(up in smoke). The US dumped a lot of money into West Germany, whereas the Soviet Union carted off what little was left of East Germany industry as reparations(in retrospect a bad idea). So they were not exactly comparable.

Where are you seeing Communist revolutions in First World countries these days? No, the standard Communist revolution almost always sees an old king leaving the throne (a la Nepal). Modern Democracies don't have Revolutions

This is a lot like when conservatives said things like "we haven't had another terrorist attack since we invaded Iraq". We are not on a set timeline here, so ten years down the road a revolution can easily upset that prediction.

How did it change? Did people get Democracy? Did they finaly start up the Soviets? Nothing of substance changed--or if it did change--it just got worse for the people.

First of all Democracy is not a zero sum game. Like "freedom", there is no such thing as democracy in the abstract. The accurate thing to say is that with the Russian revolution, the people gained some democratic rights, in some cases even moreso than people in Western nations. On the other hand, other freedoms or rights they did not have, or they had them on paper only. Obviously the solution is a revolution which would combine the unique rights people had under socialism with those they have under a progressive liberal democracy.

As for the claim that life got worse for the people- this is simply laughable. One need only to look at statistics of illiteracy, lifespan, infant mortality, and a number of other factors.

Still--you might think Communist countries might OCCASIONALLY have an election and change leadership--if only to keep up appearences.

I think you have no idea how these countries were run. In the case of the USSR, people voted in elections for the Supreme Soviet and all those down the chain. Candidates could be from the party or not affiliated with any party. It was done by secret ballot. The problem was that this electoral body, in many ways more democratic than that of the US(because candidates, including judges as well, could be recalled at any time), was not the main driver of Soviet policy. The Central Committee of the CPSU retained more power and this was elected by the Congresses, open to party members.

The Ukrainians I speak to seem to think the Societs did it. If the Soviets didn't--they seem to have a rather large public relations problem in that area.

Wow, people who fled the Soviet Union don't like it- big suprise. Too bad a majority of Ukrainians IN Ukraine have repeatedly admitted they had it better under corrupt, revisionist socialism.

Good for you. I must say that I am a big fan of those brilliant Russian businessmen that made billions after the fall of the SU. It shows you what a little hard work and some ggood old fasioned hard work can get you.

Yeah, under socialism they were evil bureaucrats, but as soon as they are raping their nations and plunging millions into poverty, despair, war, and literally slavery, they are hard working geniuses.

tracher999

5th August 2010, 15:06

We 'Right Wingers' understand what you are talking about. We just don't agree. :rolleyes:

Communism is a dead end...a complete deadend for humanity.

What you kids should be focusing on is finding employment, developing a good work ethic and understand that nothing in life is free. It takes hard work and determination to succeed. ;)

This generation is nothing but a bunch of snot nosed whiney cry babies.
And yes, I blame your parents for giving you too much too soon. You want everything handed to you and you refuse to work for it. It will be a cold day in hell when you guys take from me and mine because you are too freakin lazy to think for yourself and work hard.

"I want so therefore I will take" :rolleyes:
The communist motto

Ya'll can fuck off!

wtf are you talking about stop spreading that bulshit here please

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgrLclMeabA

fuck off

#FF0000

5th August 2010, 17:58

wtf are you talking about stop spreading that bulshit here please

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgrLclMeabA

fuck off

Infraction for flaming.

Off topic for a second - The guy in your video there should be a motivational speaker or something.

Queercommie Girl

5th August 2010, 22:38

That assumes that Marxism-Leninism is separate from socialism, which isn't true.

Stalinism is a distortion of Marxism-Leninism.

Why did the USSR collapse in the end? Where did the bureaucratic capitalists come from?

Without proletarian democracy there is no socialism.

Bud Struggle

5th August 2010, 23:13

They didn't start from the same level. West Germany contained the industrial heart of Germany, areas such as the Ruhr. East Germany consisted of the mostly agricultural area, and some of their best industry was in Dresden(up in smoke). The US dumped a lot of money into West Germany, whereas the Soviet Union carted off what little was left of East Germany industry as reparations(in retrospect a bad idea). So they were not exactly comparable. Yea, poor Communists always starting a day late and a dollar short. :( But you had the correct answer--the Soviets carted off whatever was left of East german industry. The Americans on the other hand built up West German business. It definiely would have been better for East Germany to have fallen into American hands.

This is a lot like when conservatives said things like "we haven't had another terrorist attack since we invaded Iraq". We are not on a set timeline here, so ten years down the road a revolution can easily upset that prediction. I think the information age is going to even everything out and cause less and less armed conflict. You can already see the only areas of this world that have any sort of actual fighting are the more backward places. And themain cause of conflict isn't politics or economics--it's religion and ethnic tensions.

First of all Democracy is not a zero sum game. Like "freedom", there is no such thing as democracy in the abstract. The accurate thing to say is that with the Russian revolution, the people gained some democratic rights, in some cases even moreso than people in Western nations. On the other hand, other freedoms or rights they did not have, or they had them on paper only. Obviously the solution is a revolution which would combine the unique rights people had under socialism with those they have under a progressive liberal democracy. I agree with most of that in theory. But the USSR gained and then quickly lost most of it's democracy under the Bolsheviks. They could have done better. And by the time the post Stalinist leaders came about the country was solidly totalitarian.

As for the claim that life got worse for the people- this is simply laughable. One need only to look at statistics of illiteracy, lifespan, infant mortality, and a number of other factors. I'm not saying the Tsars were any good, the Bolsheviks were better--but a representative democracy would have been even better than them. Unfortunately Russia has had a long history of strong central leadership and Putin is just the latest in that line.

I think you have no idea how these countries were run. In the case of the USSR, people voted in elections for the Supreme Soviet and all those down the chain. Candidates could be from the party or not affiliated with any party. It was done by secret ballot. The problem was that this electoral body, in many ways more democratic than that of the US(because candidates, including judges as well, could be recalled at any time), was not the main driver of Soviet policy. The Central Committee of the CPSU retained more power and this was elected by the Congresses, open to party members. I know how it was run--but you aren't pretending that there was free ond open elections where issues and people ideas were discussed are you? they certainly never had feedoms of speech and assembly and religion as you have in the USA.

Wow, people who fled the Soviet Union don't like it- big suprise. Too bad a majority of Ukrainians IN Ukraine have repeatedly admitted they had it better under corrupt, revisionist socialism. How do you know that? Someone took a poll? If the Ukrainians want Socialism back they would get it back. They aren't even comming close--actually they are much closer to Fascism (not that that will ever come about either.) Seriously, the "retro" belief system in the Ukraine tha hold the most sway is: Ukrainan Orthodox.

Yeah, under socialism they were evil bureaucrats, but as soon as they are raping their nations and plunging millions into poverty, despair, war, and literally slavery, they are hard working geniuses. I was teasing a bit, but these are the same people. Maybe not literally--but he people that would have become bureaucrats became millionaires under the new reime. I'm not actually a big fan of Russian or Ukrainian "Capitalism."

Oh, and really great User Name.

RGacky3

6th August 2010, 15:14

You can already see the only areas of this world that have any sort of actual fighting are the more backward places. And themain cause of conflict isn't politics or economics--it's religion and ethnic tensions.

Thats not at all the case, before America and England started messing around in the middle east, a lot of those tensions wern't there, or they were kept at bay. the "backwardness" of a place does'nt make violence, its imperialism and oppression, violence begets violence.

But have you ever been to Los Angeles? theres violence out there too, its not much in "backward" places.

but a representative democracy would have been even better than them.

your right and actual democracy would be better than that.

If the Ukrainians want Socialism back they would get it back.

You can't just get socialism back, you have to restructure society, its not that easy. But I doubt they want the stalinist stuff back, hell, if you look in the late 1980s, the anti-soviet movement in the USSR, it was'nt for free markets or capitalism, it was for democracy and real socialism, a lot of the workers wanted to actually run their own factories rather than have beaurocrats run them, but after the USSR fell they did'nt get that.

#FF0000

6th August 2010, 16:06

I think the information age is going to even everything out and cause less and less armed conflict. You can already see the only areas of this world that have any sort of actual fighting are the more backward places. And themain cause of conflict isn't politics or economics--it's religion and ethnic tensions.

Religious and ethnic tensions definitely exist and contribute, but a struggle for resources is always, always, always a huge factor, even indirectly. Take the Middle East, for instance, which was split up into a bunch of countries by the British, who knowingly put tons of opposing tribes together to try to keep the region unstable. Even the war in Darfur had a foundation in water politics.

How do you know that? Someone took a poll? If the Ukrainians want Socialism back they would get it back. They aren't even comming close--actually they are much closer to Fascism (not that that will ever come about either.) Seriously, the "retro" belief system in the Ukraine tha hold the most sway is: Ukrainan Orthodox.

It's sort of common knowledge that people who lived in countries that were once socialist look back fondly to the socialist past. I don't know if it's true for the Ukraine specifically but it's true for people in Russia and East Germany/Berlin, and a lot of other countries.

Oh, and really great User Name.[/QUOTE]

Bud Struggle

6th August 2010, 16:13

Thats not at all the case, before America and England started messing around in the middle east, a lot of those tensions wern't there, or they were kept at bay. the "backwardness" of a place does'nt make violence, its imperialism and oppression, violence begets violence. The middle wast was kept calm but repression and totalitarianism. Saudi Arabia is calm--but it's a dictator state. Iraq was clam when it was a dictator state. Iran is a dictatorship. Etc.

But have you ever been to Los Angeles? theres violence out there too, its not much in "backward" places. Largely it is a lack of education and infrastructure. NYC is the same way.

your right and actual democracy would be better than that. If you can actually get it.

You can't just get socialism back, you have to restructure society, its not that easy. But I doubt they want the stalinist stuff back, hell, if you look in the late 1980s, the anti-soviet movement in the USSR, it was'nt for free markets or capitalism, it was for democracy and real socialism, a lot of the workers wanted to actually run their own factories rather than have beaurocrats run them, but after the USSR fell they did'nt get that. And that's were Soso is off track. I think if you present a reasonable Socialism or Communism people would jump for it because the Capitalism in the Ukraine and Russia is very 19thcenturyesque, but nobody in their right mind wants Stalinisn back. The only people that want that are the National Bolsheviks--Russia's own home grown Nazis.

Bud Struggle

6th August 2010, 16:22

Religious and ethnic tensions definitely exist and contribute, but a struggle for resources is always, always, always a huge factor, even indirectly. Take the Middle East, for instance, which was split up into a bunch of countries by the British, who knowingly put tons of opposing tribes together to try to keep the region unstable. Even the war in Darfur had a foundation in water politics. True about the English/French land divisions--but was the Middle East better when it was all the one huge corrupt Ottoman Empire that came befor them? and as far as resources go--the Middle East has plenty--and it is oil. It is the ony reason those countries aren't back in the Stone age. The entire Middle east has the GNP of Finland without oil. What they need is to get off their butts and start up some sort of production and manufacturing to make the economy grow.

It's sort of common knowledge that people who lived in countries that were once socialist look back fondly to the socialist past. I don't know if it's true for the Ukraine specifically but it's true for people in Russia and East Germany/Berlin, and a lot of other countries.Those Were the Days
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm0iQz24Aac

The video says it all.

Oh, and really great User Name. Thank you. I think I nailed the "common man" thing down pretty well with it. :D

Kayser_Soso

6th August 2010, 16:48

RED DAVE

6th August 2010, 16:58

What they need is to get off their butts and start up some sort of production and manufacturing to make the economy grow.Yeah, like the Euros did in North and South America. They can start out by slaughtering and/or enslaving a few million people.

those Were the DaysIndeed: When the only good Indian was a dead one, and the only good n___r wore chains.

RED DAVE

Bud Struggle

6th August 2010, 22:10

Unfortunately I'm going to be offline for a while so I will say this- Bud, your arguments fail, hard. There is no such thing as "totalitarianism"(this is a buzz-word seized upon by liberals and all those who want to equate Nazism and Fascism with Communism), nor is there such a thing as "Stalinism."

OK and there's no such thing as Capitalism and there's no such thing as Imperialism. Just honest guys making an honest dollar. :D And I do equate the Stalinesque variety of Communism with Fascism--at least in their power arangment, Not of course in economics.

But while I'm gone, you can take this time to present your alternatives to the actions of Stalin and the Bolsheviks. For example, what should they have done differently after an invasion by 14 countries from 1917? What should they have done to feed the growing urban population? What should they have done to repel the largest land invasion in history by a power intent on exterminating virtually everyone from Arkhangelsk to Astrakhan? Their military strategy was fine. It was their political program that failed and as you said--failed hard. And that is why the Soviet Union and all its work and pomps like the Tsars and their ilk in the dustbin of history.

Hopefully we can remake Communism into something better and a bit more terror free in the future--if it ever gets another chance.

Bud Struggle

6th August 2010, 22:14

Yeah, like the Euros did in North and South America. They can start out by slaughtering and/or enslaving a few million people. Post Communist China would be a better example. ;)

Indeed: When the only good Indian was a dead one, and the only good n___r wore chains.

If you watched the video it was the Red Army Chorus singing--"Those Were the Days." :D

LeftSideDown

7th August 2010, 10:55

I know a troll when I see one.

Dimentio

7th August 2010, 11:14

Bud Struggle

7th August 2010, 12:18

I'm staunchly anti-authoritarian, but I don't think a representative democracy would have led to a higher standard of life for the Russian population. It would most likely have been like India, plagued by endemic corruption and by huge disparities in wealth - a little like modern Russia,

I think for example that if India had had a dictatorship in 1947-1977 say, they could have wiped out the landlords and ultimately the Indian peasantry would have been somewhat better off.

That is a good point. But in general dictators are more efficient than dmocrocracies. Hitler did a lot more for Germany (in the beginning at least) than the Weimer Republic. The problem is that dictatorships decay in most cases into brutal authoritarianism. One of the better things about monarchy is that there were traditions to uphold in most cases that someone protected the populace. Now so with modern dictators.

Brother No. 1

7th August 2010, 15:05

OK and there's no such thing as Capitalism and there's no such thing as Imperialism. Just honest guys making an honest dollar.

Yes yes, and I'm sure those 'honest guys' surely are using this 'honest' money to make more invasions and make peoples lives worse. Gee, where's the honest money to stop the afghan children prostituion?

Hitler did a lot more for Germany

Take into mind that Britian, France and your great America helped Germany to build its war machine, giving the goverment thousands of loans on marks to build up heavy industry, and it was in the 1930s that the United Kingdom allowed Germany to build their own navy. Or Do you truely believe this all came up because hitler wished it to god and god said 'okay, sure thing :D'?

And I do equate the Stalinesque variety of Communism with Fascism--at least in their power arangment,

Yes because..somehow Fascism can equate to 'Stalinism' though really the only way you can find this grabage is found within Robert Conquest who ironically takes his own information from Nazis and Ukranian Fascists to begin with?

And that is why the Soviet Union and all its work and pomps like the Tsars and their ilk in the dustbin of history.

Er...No. The Fall of the Soviet Union could be attributed to the geological economical scale or because with Gorbachev these reforms did more harm to the union then good and with it falling the opportunists (Yelstin) took the advantage of the situation and became its 'liberators' but then only 3 years later the people revolted agaisnt him only to be put down by the new russian military.

Bud Struggle

7th August 2010, 15:24

Yes yes, and I'm sure those 'honest guys' surely are using this 'honest' money to make more invasions and make peoples lives worse. Gee, where's the honest money to stop the afghan children prostituion? It was scarcasm. :rolleyes:

Take into mind that Britian, France and your great America helped Germany to build its war machine, giving the goverment thousands of loans on marks to build up heavy industry, and it was in the 1930s that the United Kingdom allowed Germany to build their own navy. Or Do you truely believe this all came up because hitler wished it to god and god said 'okay, sure thing :D'? No but he was instrumental in putting together the deals. Look I'm no fan of Hitler--I was just pointing out that dictators have enormous powers of changing a country around in a short amout of time--it takes democracies a lot longer.

Yes because..somehow Fascism can equate to 'Stalinism' though really the only way you can find this grabage is found within Robert Conquest who ironically takes his own information from Nazis and Ukranian Fascists to begin with? Both the Fascists and the Stalinists were mid 20th century Totalitarian societies. Watching modern Communists making excuses for Stalin is like watching Skin Heads rally around the wonders of Hitler.

Though of course Stalinism was a perversion of Communism and Hitlerism was just a perversion.

Er...No. The Fall of the Soviet Union could be attributed to the geological economical scale or because with Gorbachev these reforms did more harm to the union then good and with it falling the opportunists (Yelstin) took the advantage of the situation and became its 'liberators' but then only 3 years later the people revolted agaisnt him only to be put down by the new russian military.

"Geological?"

RED DAVE

7th August 2010, 15:45

THitler did a lot more for Germany (in the beginning at least) than the Weimer Republic.When I see stupid shit like this, I know I'm dealing with an asshole. The German Communists, socialists, Jews, gays, etc., have a different perspective. Or weren't they Germans?

RED DAVE

mykittyhasaboner

7th August 2010, 15:46

Anyone who uses the term "totalitarianism" needs to get a fucking clue.

Brother No. 1

7th August 2010, 16:01

Both the Fascists and the Stalinists were mid 20th century Totalitarian societies.

oh boy, the 1960s History lesson. Maybe you should now give the lecture about how you somehow know stalin killed 60 million?

Watching modern Communists making excuses for Stalin is like watching Skin Heads rally around the wonders of Hitler.

But don't we watch you all day make excuses for America, the bourgeoisie? All that is necessary to make you a complete asshole is to go like Glenn Beck, saying that the Arizona law SB1030 isnt about 'race' but just a 'nice law'. To support the White goverment officals of AmeriKKKa. But in any case, what excuses exactly?

Though of course Stalinism was a perversion of Communism

Though of course this oppion is perversion of logic and actually looking into the Stalin era of the CCCP. As if you literally just looked at a history book, went to the Cold war and said 'oh gee this MUST be true if it comes out of this book which doesnt at all lie even though it condones the genocide of Native Americans that was made by our white general president Jackson.'

No but he was instrumental in putting together the deals.
As was the prime ministers, big corporate bussniess, Banks, etc. So what about them?

Look I'm no fan of Hitler

Can you not be an America fan too?

I was just pointing out that dictators have enormous powers of changing a country around in a short amout of time--it takes democracies a lot longer.

This reminds me of when 2 douches decided to put up a video for a school project and when they went along the lines of "Lenin became a dictator to get things done' this statement and that video were one in the same. So lets see how long did it take for the USSR to supposedly kill people and for the United states to do the same? Hmm...nearly 2 decades for the Soviet Union. For America? Sometimes only 2 years or maybe 5. Depends on who they killed. So wait...democracy does it slower then dictatorships...huh. Guess by your 'analysis' as shitty as it is can actually prove America can kill faster then the USSR did. But then thats because Gulag time periods were short so you could see them go into and out of the gulag very fast.

Kayser_Soso

7th August 2010, 16:02

OK and there's no such thing as Capitalism and there's no such thing as Imperialism. Just honest guys making an honest dollar. :D And I do equate the Stalinesque variety of Communism with Fascism--at least in their power arangment, Not of course in economics.

Wholly incorrect. This is the equivalent of writing "the world is flat" or something to that effect.

Their military strategy was fine. It was their political program that failed and as you said--failed hard. And that is why the Soviet Union and all its work and pomps like the Tsars and their ilk in the dustbin of history.

Unfortunately we are not talking about one program. The problem is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but it hasn't dawned on you.

Hopefully we can remake Communism into something better and a bit more terror free in the future--if it ever gets another chance.

Yawwwwwn.

Bud Struggle

7th August 2010, 16:16

Wholly incorrect. This is the equivalent of writing "the world is flat" or something to that effect. I was being sarcastic. I was following your lead that there is no such thing as Stalinism and Totalitarianism.

Unfortunately we are not talking about one program. The problem is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but it hasn't dawned on you. Well, Soviet Communism failed. It failed in the SU and it failed in all of the SU's puppet states in Central Europe. Communism is failing in China. It has failed in North Korea. Vietnam has Kenturcky Fried Chicken restaurants, (Raul) Castro is privatizing more and more in Cuba--how is that for a bunch of programs that have failed? Even Nepal, Communism's big hit over the last decade, is questionable. If these were cornflakes you were selling it would be time to "reimage" the brand.

Yawwwwwn. I do like to end on a happy note. :D

Bud Struggle

7th August 2010, 16:24

oh boy, the 1960s History lesson. Maybe you should now give the lecture about how you somehow know stalin killed 60 million? He did his fair share o' killin'. I don't think it was in the 60 million range.

But don't we watch you all day make excuses for America, the bourgeoisie? All that is necessary to make you a complete asshole is to go like Glenn Beck, saying that the Arizona law SB1030 isnt about 'race' but just a 'nice law'. To support the White goverment officals of AmeriKKKa. But in any case, what excuses exactly? I don't think this really merits an answer.

Though of course this oppion is perversion of logic and actually looking into the Stalin era of the CCCP. As if you literally just looked at a history book, went to the Cold war and said 'oh gee this MUST be true if it comes out of this book which doesnt at all lie even though it condones the genocide of Native Americans that was made by our white general president Jackson.' Well I HOPE Stalinism was a perversion of Communism--if it wasn't guys like me are going to take over after the Revolution and then see where you are.

As was the prime ministers, big corporate bussniess, Banks, etc. So what about them? Well no. Prime ministers are subject to a representative democratic process. CEOs are subject to boards of directors and stockholders. the closest thing to dictators in Democratic Capitalist society are private corporations.

Can you not be an America fan too? I am an admitted fan of America.

This reminds me of when 2 douches decided to put up a video for a school project and when they went along the lines of "Lenin became a dictator to get things done' this statement and that video were one in the same. So lets see how long did it take for the USSR to supposedly kill people and for the United states to do the same? Hmm...nearly 2 decades for the Soviet Union. For America? Sometimes only 2 years or maybe 5. Depends on who they killed. So wait...democracy does it slower then dictatorships...huh. Guess by your 'analysis' as shitty as it is can actually prove America can kill faster then the USSR did. But then thats because Gulag time periods were short so you could see them go into and out of the gulag very fast.

Interesting story. :)

Bud Struggle

7th August 2010, 16:28

Anyone who uses the term "totalitarianism" needs to get a fucking clue.

Why is that? I take it to mean a repressive society controled by a dictator wnere the population is further manipulated by an ideology furthering the dictator's cause.

Here's the definition from the Britannica:

Form of government that subordinates all aspects of its citizens' lives to the authority of the state, with a single charismatic leader as the ultimate authority. The term was coined in the early 1920s by Benito Mussolini, but totalitarianism has existed throughout history throughout the world (e.g., Qin dynasty (http://www.revleft.com/topic/qin-dynasty) China). It is distinguished from dictatorship (http://www.revleft.com/topic/dictatorship) and authoritarianism (http://www.revleft.com/topic/authoritarianism) by its supplanting of all political institutions and all old legal and social traditions with new ones to meet the state's needs, which are usually highly focused. Large-scale, organized violence may be legitimized. The police operate without the constraint of laws and regulations. Where pursuit of the state's goal is the only ideological foundation for such a government, achievement of the goal can never be acknowledged. Hannah Arendt (http://www.revleft.com/topic/hannah-arendt)'s Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) is the standard work on the subject.

Dimentio

7th August 2010, 16:56

That is a good point. But in general dictators are more efficient than dmocrocracies. Hitler did a lot more for Germany (in the beginning at least) than the Weimer Republic. The problem is that dictatorships decay in most cases into brutal authoritarianism. One of the better things about monarchy is that there were traditions to uphold in most cases that someone protected the populace. Now so with modern dictators.

You are entirely correct there. I do never condone dictatorships as a solution, but in some cases it is necessary to create the authority which could be able to initiate change, especially in agrarian countries plagued by a large discrepancy in terms of the access to arable land (India and Brazil are the prime examples I could think of). It is very hard for a diverse majority to win a battle against a unified and very homogenous minority, since wide majorities have dispersing interests and visions and even engagement into the question, while minorities in general are more unified in the protection of the status quo.

Some monarchs have played "revolutionary" roles in the transition from late feudalism. I'm thinking of Louis XI of France, Gustavus Wasa of Sweden and Henry VIII of England.

Kayser_Soso

7th August 2010, 17:54

I was being sarcastic. I was following your lead that there is no such thing as Stalinism and Totalitarianism.

Yes except I was correct and you were wrong.

Well, Soviet Communism failed. It failed in the SU and it failed in all of the SU's puppet states in Central Europe. Communism is failing in China. It has failed in North Korea. Vietnam has Kenturcky Fried Chicken restaurants, (Raul) Castro is privatizing more and more in Cuba--how is that for a bunch of programs that have failed? Even Nepal, Communism's big hit over the last decade, is questionable. If these were cornflakes you were selling it would be time to "reimage" the brand.

And capitalism fails as well, what is your point? The fact that something sustains itself over time does not entail "success" feudalism lasted quite a long time.

Brother No. 1

7th August 2010, 18:34

Here's the definition from the Britannica:

Thats nice and all but this word itself came from the Cold War most likely early 1950s. So, then, it is now used to describe 'most goverments' in history for if not then everyone would catch on that this little buzzword was created solely for the purpose to discredit the Soviet Union though they have created other ways to do so. Letting in Ukranian Fascists of the OUN who murdered jews and poles inside western ukraine to appease the Nazis and gain their autonomy to further fight the 'soviet menance'.

Bud Struggle

7th August 2010, 19:01

Yes except I was correct and you were wrong. Well you got me there! :D

And capitalism fails as well, what is your point? The fact that something sustains itself over time does not entail "success" feudalism lasted quite a long time. Actually what Capitalism does REALLY well is morph. It changes to adapt to its enviornment. The Capitalism of the 1890s is nothing like the Capitalism of the 1950s which is nothing like the capitalism of today. And the Capitlsism of Singapore is different from that of Russia which is different from that of the USA. In a lot of ways it has become (as St. Paul says) "all things to all people."

Bud Struggle

7th August 2010, 19:06

Thats nice and all but this word itself came from the Cold War most likely early 1950s. So, then, it is now used to describe 'most goverments' in history for if not then everyone would catch on that this little buzzword was created solely for the purpose to discredit the Soviet Union though they have created other ways to do so.

Well, thank you. Now I finally why you and KS were so insistent on the idea that there is no such thing as Totalitarianism. I really didn't understand where you were comming from. So you feel it is a "propaganda" word of the 20th century--meaning nothing in itself but only a code word for evil Soviets.

Got it. :thumbup1:

Brother No. 1

7th August 2010, 19:06

And the Capitlsism of Singapore is different from that of Russia which is different from that of the US
You mean how you're comparing 2 3rd world capitalism which one is terrible and the other is actually killing the society, its language, etc and that of a 1st world nation which is dying on itself. Or is it just mere chanc that the unemployment rate will become about over 20% soon?

Brother No. 1

7th August 2010, 19:12

So you feel it is a "propaganda" word of the 20th century

It was. It was a word to 'connect' Communism with Fascism/Nazism to help people 'understand' they were fighting a foe just as bad if not 'worse' but then theres thousands of movies that try to describe that.

Kayser_Soso

8th August 2010, 08:26

Well you got me there! :D

Actually what Capitalism does REALLY well is morph. It changes to adapt to its enviornment. The Capitalism of the 1890s is nothing like the Capitalism of the 1950s which is nothing like the capitalism of today. And the Capitlsism of Singapore is different from that of Russia which is different from that of the USA. In a lot of ways it has become (as St. Paul says) "all things to all people."

Nonetheless, most of the world is capitalist. Most of the world is poor. Thus capitalism has failed.

9th August 2010, 04:51

In a lot of ways it has become (as St. Paul says) "all things to all people."
The homeless, the poor and the refugees would all like a word with you...
http://growabrain.typepad.com/growabrain/homeless.jpg
http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/indian_poor.jpg
http://eventingnation.com/home/international_security_image_6-_refugee_camp.jpg
And of course, so would the workers who don't get paid enough to afford what they and their families need to survive and scrape a decent living:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/03/19/article-1163113-03FD1CB9000005DC-847_468x306.jpg

GX.

9th August 2010, 04:59

Thanks, OP. I do what I can.

Bud Struggle

9th August 2010, 12:32

Nonetheless, most of the world is capitalist. Most of the world is poor. Thus capitalism has failed.

Kind of says it all:

http://dinarspeculation.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/china-GDP.gif

RGacky3

9th August 2010, 12:40

No it does'nt. Considering the GDP has nothing to do with poverty rates.

9th August 2010, 12:49

Kind of says it all:

http://dinarspeculation.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/china-GDP.gif
Capitalist logic: if the billionaires are in the money, then so am I :thumbup1:

Sadly, that doesn't actually happen.

Point to your GDP charts all you want, but they prove jack shit.

Bud Struggle

9th August 2010, 12:54

Capitalist logic: if the billionaires are in the money, then so am I :thumbup1:

Sadly, that doesn't actually happen.

Point to your GDP charts all you want, but they prove jack shit.

So do you think China was better off during the Cultrual revolution?

Kiev Communard

9th August 2010, 12:55

#FF0000

9th August 2010, 13:01

So do you think China was better off during the Cultrual revolution?

I think it's pretty pathetic that your metric of success is "are some people marginally better off than back their industry was powered by cattle"

Bud Struggle

9th August 2010, 13:04

But what about the environmental degradation or the problem of increased energy consumption? Or high costs of health care and education - which has risen, ironically, due to the "fiscal decentralization" the Western government are so keen on championing?

If you are talking about China--the large population just scrounging for food was already distroying China enviornment. And now in China, as opposed to the past, people are actually getting education and healthcare (well some are--China is still pretty backwards for at least a billion of its one billion three hundred million people.)

Vladimir Innit Lenin

9th August 2010, 13:04

So do you think China was better off during the Cultrual revolution?

That's not an answer to his question.

The question is not whether the cultural revolution, a cultural and social program, is better than State-Dictatorship Capitalist China (an economic and political program, but never mind the fact that you can't really compare the two, eh?), but whether Dengist China has solved the problems associated with Maoism - namely generally low living standards (although largely improved from pre-Maoist China), political repression and the obvious geo-political problems of having centralised control of a country of so many people and such a wide area.

The fact is that the majority of Chinese are still poor, despite a huge amoutn of wealth being created, there is still a huge amount of political repression. The only difference now is that there are a handful of extremely rich people and there is a fuck load of cheap labour working in awful factory conditions, which is something that, as much as you like to deny, was protected under the Socialist system that existed pre-Deng Xiaoping.

Bud Struggle

9th August 2010, 13:05

I think it's pretty pathetic that your metric of success is "are some people marginally better off than back their industry was powered by cattle"

But their industry would still would be powered by cattle if they didn't put through their market reforms.

9th August 2010, 13:13

So do you think China was better off during the Cultrual revolution?
No, but GDP is hardly an accurate measure of the economic status of ordinary folk. A country can have gigantic exports, etc., but how do the bosses' total profits equate to the wages and living conditions of the workers?

#FF0000

9th August 2010, 13:24

But their industry would still would be powered by cattle if they didn't put through their market reforms.

That's great but if modern China is a picture of success under capitalism then what's the point of even saying a word in its defense.

RGacky3

9th August 2010, 13:24

So do you think China was better off during the Cultrual revolution?

No, but first of all, the GDP growth has nothing to do with the market reforms, it has more to do with neo-liberalism worldwide, which is also the cause of terrible poverty in places like India and China where the GDP goes up.

But their industry would still would be powered by cattle if they didn't put through their market reforms.

How so?

I'm not arguing that Maoism is better, but talking about China as proving that capitalism helps everyone is rediculous, if that capital in china was democratized, then everyone would be better.

Kayser_Soso

9th August 2010, 13:44

But their industry would still would be powered by cattle if they didn't put through their market reforms.

Not true, the industrialization of China took place under "socialists"- ergo whatever success the market reforms had, it was based on a socialist or quasi-socialist foundation. More importantly, the wealth of consumer goods contributing to the standard of living in the US and other Western countries is in large part due to the contribution of China, so even "your" success is partially based on a "socialist" revolution.

Your graph still means nothing.

Most of the world is capitalist, most of the world is poor, ergo capitalism has failed. Perhaps more importantly, the "success" of a few is necessarily based on the misery of the many. It can be no other way under capitalism- there must be a gross inequality of nations.

Bud Struggle

9th August 2010, 19:10

No, but GDP is hardly an accurate measure of the economic status of ordinary folk. A country can have gigantic exports, etc., but how do the bosses' total profits equate to the wages and living conditions of the workers?

True that CAN be the case, but it seems it won't be the case in China. Wages are going up--considerably.

SHANGHAI — The cost of doing business in China (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/china/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) is going up.

Coastal factories are increasing hourly payments to workers. Local governments are raising minimum wage standards. And if China allows its currency, the renminbi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/currency/yuan/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), to appreciate against the United States dollar later this year, as many economists are predicting, the relative cost of manufacturing in China will almost certainly rise.

The salaries of factory workers in China are still low compared to those in the United States and Europe: the hourly wage in southern China is only about 75 cents an hour. But economists say wage increases here will eventually ripple through the global economy, driving up the prices of goods as diverse as T-shirts, sneakers, computer servers and smartphones.

“For a long time, China has been the anchor of global disinflation,” said Dong Tao, an economist at Credit Suisse (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/credit_suisse_group/index.html?inline=nyt-org), referring to how the two-decade-long shift to manufacturing in China helped many global companies lower costs and prices. “But this may be the beginning of the end of an era.”

The shift was illustrated Sunday, when Foxconn Technology, one of the world’s largest contract electronics manufacturers and the maker of well-known products that include Apple (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/apple_computer_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org) iPhones and Dell computer parts, said that it was planning to double the salaries of many of its 800,000 workers in China, beginning in October. The new monthly average would be 2,000 renminbi — about $300, at current exchange rates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/business/global/08wages.html

Bud Struggle

9th August 2010, 19:22

No, but first of all, the GDP growth has nothing to do with the market reforms, it has more to do with neo-liberalism worldwide, which is also the cause of terrible poverty in places like India and China where the GDP goes up.[quote]

This is new. It takes a bit of time for the workers to achieve better wages--but they will. See my post above. Maybe some unions would be in order now.

[quote]I'm not arguing that Maoism is better, but talking about China as proving that capitalism helps everyone is rediculous, if that capital in china was democratized, then everyone would be better. Idon't think that's going to happen--but some form of unionization might be possible.

Bud Struggle

9th August 2010, 19:24

Not true, the industrialization of China took place under "socialists"- ergo whatever success the market reforms had, it was based on a socialist or quasi-socialist foundation. More importantly, the wealth of consumer goods contributing to the standard of living in the US and other Western countries is in large part due to the contribution of China, so even "your" success is partially based on a "socialist" revolution.

Your graph still means nothing. You can't be serious.

Most of the world is capitalist, most of the world is poor, ergo capitalism has failed. Perhaps more importantly, the "success" of a few is necessarily based on the misery of the many. It can be no other way under capitalism- there must be a gross inequality of nations. Things take time. Who would have thought a country brought don so low by the Cultrual Revolution would do so well so soon? It's a fabuluous comeback.

Kayser_Soso

9th August 2010, 19:46

You can't be serious.

Yes I am serious- most of the world lives in poverty, most of the world is capitalist. Capitalism failed. Why are you still posting?

Things take time. Who would have thought a country brought don so low by the Cultrual Revolution would do so well so soon? It's a fabuluous comeback.

History is not your strong point.

Stephen Colbert

9th August 2010, 19:54

What you kids should be focusing on is finding employment, developing a good work ethic and understand that nothing in life is free. It takes hard work and determination to succeed. ;)

Wait, I thought you said you weren't indoctrinated in your schooling?

This generation is nothing but a bunch of snot nosed whiney cry babies.
And yes, I blame your parents for giving you too much too soon. You want everything handed to you and you refuse to work for it. It will be a cold day in hell when you guys take from me and mine because you are too freakin lazy to think for yourself and work hard.

"I want so therefore I will take" :rolleyes:
The communist motto

Ya'll can fuck off!

I know right. Anytime the government tries to provide public services for the working poor its an evil big government communist conspiracy, but when the government allows for offshoring labor, union busting, protectionism for fledgling multi-nationals, subsidies for large housing industry, massive unrealistic military spending that is larger than the next dozen or so 1st world countries, big oil lobbying, and literally sucking the cock of the establishment, its the Republic™.

RGacky3

9th August 2010, 19:55

This is new. It takes a bit of time for the workers to achieve better wages--but they will. See my post above. Maybe some unions would be in order now.

The corrolation is'nt there unless there is major industrial action, thats the ONLY time it happened in Europe and the States, the only time the workers got anything better when the economy got up is when they fought hard.

You can't be serious.

Actually he's somewhat right, the Communist government essencially allowed outside investment while maintaining overall control, the industrialization started under the Statist system, but it took off once they stopped internalizing everything and started taking part in the international market, but thats not a win for capitalism over socialism, thats a win for taking part in international markets (on your terms) over internalizing all production. There was never real socialism in china.

Brother No. 1

9th August 2010, 20:09

-Family is Polish one the one side I was referring to "fleeing communism". Poland has done much better as a free market society...that cannot be denied & family did not like communism.

Just to add on this shit of a post, Poland has not done better under 'free market society'. The "Worker Union' that took control from the PZPR turned out to be xenophobic,racist, very nationalistic then making it a crime to even 'wear a communist symbol'. But then lets mention its economy, how was it done? In Graphs I've seen the early years were as bad as most others but now its decaying as all the rest of Eastern Europe. Tell me, how do you know Poland is doing so much better when you seem to say 'the horrors of communism' when the reconstruction of Poland entirely was done under Boleslaw Bierut.

Bud Struggle

9th August 2010, 20:16

The corrolation is'nt there unless there is major industrial action, thats the ONLY time it happened in Europe and the States, the only time the workers got anything better when the economy got up is when they fought hard. then that is what they need to do. Listen: I'm all for unions if they aren't just a branch of the company they work for and if they don't suffocate the company and hamstring their business. I think they have done good things in the past, maybe even doing some good things now.

Actually he's somewhat right, the Communist government essencially allowed outside investment while maintaining overall control, the industrialization started under the Statist system, but it took off once they stopped internalizing everything and started taking part in the international market, but thats not a win for capitalism over socialism, thats a win for taking part in international markets (on your terms) over internalizing all production. Yea, but I peg when the Communist government start allowing foreign investment as the beginning of Capitalism in China. That is the thing that began to liberalize Chinese markets. Capitalism like Communism only works properly when it is international.

There was never real socialism in china. That's a point you'll have to take up with KS. But whatever you call it what was going on over there before Capitalism started to make inroads was pure hell.

Blackscare

9th August 2010, 20:35

It's great to read a thread that is a page or two long, forget about it for a week or more, come back when it's on page 12 and see that it's mutated into a totally different beast. Revleft is amazing sometimes.

RGacky3

9th August 2010, 21:04

: I'm all for unions if they aren't just a branch of the company they work for and if they don't suffocate the company and hamstring their business. I think they have done good things in the past, maybe even doing some good things now.

Suffocate the company and hamstring their buisiness??? Really??? If by Hanstring their buisiness you mean make them have less of a profit (so they get whats theirs), or make the CEO get less of a Bonus. The idea of Unions Hamstringing the buisiness is like saying democracy is hamstringing the country because then the leaders can't screw over people, thats actually the same thing that parts of the ruling class does say :P.

What the Unions need to do is to wage all out class warfare, because thats what the Capitalists are going to do TO the workers no matter what, because they are buisinesmen, thats what they do.

As I said in my last blog, its always Capitalists who tell unions to "be reasonable" but when CEOs take what they can, and when corporations maximize profits by any means nessesary, hey "Its buisiness, deal with it."

I say no, fight Capitalists as hard as they fight.

Yea, but I peg when the Communist government start allowing foreign investment as the beginning of Capitalism in China. That is the thing that began to liberalize Chinese markets. Capitalism like Communism only works properly when it is international.

Well, your right, but that was mainly because of Capitalization, internally China is still state controlled. I.e. Because they allowed other corporations to profit from their totalitarian statist system.

But i kind of disagree that both need to be internationally, its just they will be on whatever scale with the same effect. Capitalism on a small scale will make a class system on a small scale, socialism (genuine socialism not totalitarianism) on a small scale will create a democratic system on a small scale, you might have some problems with capitalization and resources but they will do what their intention is.

But whatever you call it what was going on over there before Capitalism started to make inroads was pure hell.

Yeah I agree, but for most people its still pure hell, but honestly I'd rather have a liberal capitalist social-democracy, than a Maoist hellhole.

RGacky3

9th August 2010, 21:09

Bud Struggle

9th August 2010, 21:57

Suffocate the company and hamstring their buisiness??? Really??? If by Hanstring their buisiness you mean make them have less of a profit (so they get whats theirs), or make the CEO get less of a Bonus. The idea of Unions Hamstringing the buisiness is like saying democracy is hamstringing the country because then the leaders can't screw over people, thats actually the same thing that parts of the ruling class does say :P.

What the Unions need to do is to wage all out class warfare, because thats what the Capitalists are going to do TO the workers no matter what, because they are buisinesmen, thats what they do.

As I said in my last blog, its always Capitalists who tell unions to "be reasonable" but when CEOs take what they can, and when corporations maximize profits by any means nessesary, hey "Its buisiness, deal with it."

I say no, fight Capitalists as hard as they fight. Well that's quintessential Brother Gacky! :D And where can I find these blogs of your? :)

Well, your right, but that was mainly because of Capitalization, internally China is still state controlled. I.e. Because they allowed other corporations to profit from their totalitarian statist system.

But i kind of disagree that both need to be internationally, its just they will be on whatever scale with the same effect. Capitalism on a small scale will make a class system on a small scale, socialism (genuine socialism not totalitarianism) on a small scale will create a democratic system on a small scale, you might have some problems with capitalization and resources but they will do what their intention is. Yea, alright even though Capitalism desn't NEED to be external--its natural progression drives it that way. From the Silk Road to China, Inc.

Yeah I agree, but for most people its still pure hell, but honestly I'd rather have a liberal capitalist social-democracy, than a Maoist hellhole. One of those rare times we agree. :D

Ele'ill

9th August 2010, 22:03

If you are talking about China--the large population just scrounging for food was already distroying China enviornment. And now in China, as opposed to the past, people are actually getting education and healthcare (well some are--China is still pretty backwards for at least a billion of its one billion three hundred million people.)

Rapid industrialization in an attempt to copy the Capitalist West is what caused pollution and ecological degradation- not people 'scrounging for food'.

Bud Struggle

9th August 2010, 22:16

Rapid industrialization in an attempt to copy the Capitalist West is what caused pollution and ecological degradation- not people 'scrounging for food'.

Rapid industrialization was the crowning achievement of the Soviet Union. Go figure.

And there's 1,300,000,000 people in China a country a little bigger than the US. Feeding them is a bigger problem than ecology.

Dimentio

9th August 2010, 22:25

Rapid industrialization was the crowning achievement of the Soviet Union. Go figure.

And there's 1,300,000,000 people in China a country a little bigger than the US. Feeding them is a bigger problem than ecology.

Not really, ecology isn't just some nice thing outside the window.

It is the reason why people could be fed in the first place.

Kayser_Soso

10th August 2010, 03:43

progressive_lefty

10th August 2010, 03:48

Kayser_Soso

10th August 2010, 07:00

takenflight (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=29968) - is one perspective, and he/she is entitled to his or hers opinion. But just imagine if everyone that had experienced capitalism or socialism had posted on here, what would the dominant opinion be?

It depends on personal experience, and for that reason we can only get so much value from anecdotal claims. For example, a worker from Indonesia would have a very different opinion of capitalism than some middle-class mallrat in suburban America, who benefits from the super-exploitation of the former.

This is something that Mr. Struggle just isn't getting. Capitalism fails because without that kind of exploitation of the majority of the world, all the benefits he speaks of, benefits which accrue only to a minority, would not be possible.

Indonesia serves as a good example as it was an early example of neo-liberal experimentation, beginning as usual, with a military coup backed from the outside, followed by some of the worst bloodshed in post WWII history. The wealth of consumer goods and benefits Bud banters about in the US and Western nations is a result of this bloodshed and violence. Now let us imagine that somehow, as all capitalists and capitalist apologists assure us, that Indonesia might one day have the same level of "freedom"(embodied in ENFORCED constitutional rights) as the US. This would be a disaster for world capital. If unions were protected by law, if elections weren't corrupt or heavily influenced from the outside, if corruption and death squads were entirely non-existent in various product-producing countries, the people would eventually get good wages, decent benefits, and some kind of a working social welfare system. It would be a disaster for the US and importing countries.

So they don't allow this to happen- they use sanctions, blockades, rigged or stacked elections, military coups, fake NGOs, and even military invasions to prevent people from having the same level of freedom that western nations enjoy, lest the people gain the right to struggle against their exploitation. The wealth of the leading nations depends on the suffering of billions, one way or the other.

It is not like the means to create stable democratic states, the methods to eliminate corruption, or the technology to feed and house people don't exist. They are all there- but those who rule simply do not want to employ them. There is no profit to be made in employing them, and there is far more in the way of profit to be lost. Take the corruption in Russia for example. It is a concern of investors only insofar as they lose money paying bribes and putting up with bureaucracy. Many large corporations see such profit in certain Russian industries that they invest nonetheless, thus helping to put more money and power into the pockets of the oligarchs and the oppressive Russian regime as well.

mykittyhasaboner

10th August 2010, 14:16

Basically every Bud Struggle response ever:

1. A priori statement totally contradicted by basic historical fact.

2. Ad hoc explanation to weasel around counter-argument by those who know what they are talking about, usually supported by some random youtube video or chart, or whatever.

OH YEAH? I JUST USED GOOGLE AND FOUND SOMETHING ON THE INTERNET THAT SAYS THAT ISN'T TRUE!!!

You forget how he "agrees" with people just to evade having to respond to something that challenges his perspective.

---

It depends on personal experience, and for that reason we can only get so much value from anecdotal claims. For example, a worker from Indonesia would have a very different opinion of capitalism than some middle-class mallrat in suburban America, who benefits from the super-exploitation of the former.

But dude, there's nothing stopping them from moving to the US and being successful like I did, in Capitalism you can go anywhere in the world. Besides, Indonesia isn't so bad, it's the largest and one of the fastest growing economies of South Asia. So you see Capitalism isn't exactly restricting the freedom to do business or anything like Communists would do.

A worker from Indonesia who also experienced COmmunism would undoubtably tell you that working for shitty wages is better than the Communists being in power. Things take time. It will be a little while before workers in Indonesia will be able to enjoy the benefits of a healthy Social-Democratic Capitalism if they work hard enough. We cant hope to acheive some rapid industrialization that ends up doing more harm than good like in the Soviet Union or Maois China.

This is something that Mr. Struggle just isn't getting. Capitalism fails because without that kind of exploitation of the majority of the world, all the benefits he speaks of, benefits which accrue only to a minority, would not be possible. Well I realize the treatment of workers in poorer parts of the world aren't the greatest, but I don't think that it would be worse than living in a Totalitarian hell hole with some butcher dictator. Becuase everyone deserves the benefits of Capitalism, without that bad stuff. That's something you don't get. I would be down for everyone getting a fair share if we could turn Communism into something new, but when all you've got is people talking about STalin and Mao, the best we can hope for is some kind of Social-Democracy.

Indonesia serves as a good example as it was an early example of neo-liberal experimentation, beginning as usual, with a military coup backed from the outside, followed by some of the worst bloodshed in post WWII history. The wealth of consumer goods and benefits Bud banters about in the US and Western nations is a result of this bloodshed and violence. Now let us imagine that somehow, as all capitalists and capitalist apologists assure us, that Indonesia might one day have the same level of "freedom"(embodied in ENFORCED constitutional rights) as the US. This would be a disaster for world capital. If unions were protected by law, if elections weren't corrupt or heavily influenced from the outside, if corruption and death squads were entirely non-existent in various product-producing countries, the people would eventually get good wages, decent benefits, and some kind of a working social welfare system. It would be a disaster for the US and importing countries.

So they don't allow this to happen- they use sanctions, blockades, rigged or stacked elections, military coups, fake NGOs, and even military invasions to prevent people from having the same level of freedom that western nations enjoy, lest the people gain the right to struggle against their exploitation. The wealth of the leading nations depends on the suffering of billions, one way or the other.

It is not like the means to create stable democratic states, the methods to eliminate corruption, or the technology to feed and house people don't exist. They are all there- but those who rule simply do not want to employ them. There is no profit to be made in employing them, and there is far more in the way of profit to be lost.(Conveniently skip all of this stuff).

Take the corruption in Russia for example. It is a concern of investors only insofar as they lose money paying bribes and putting up with bureaucracy. Many large corporations see such profit in certain Russian industries that they invest nonetheless, thus helping to put more money and power into the pockets of the oligarchs and the oppressive Russian regime as well.If anything all of the corruption in Russia originated in the old days of the Soviet Union. All of the Soviet rulers became rich capitalists, and the people were happy to see the Iron Curtain fall down. They did a good job. Nowadays things might not be so great in Russia but at least someone is making money off of it.