My Geography teacher... [Archive]

View Full Version : My Geography teacher...

Nox

19th October 2011, 10:14

Veovis

19th October 2011, 10:29

ComradeMan

19th October 2011, 10:36

danyboy27

19th October 2011, 17:27

one of my teacher i had durning my technical formation was from polish descent. he was leftist but hated anything remotely linked to the USSR.

tir1944

19th October 2011, 17:30

How about you speak with Czechs living in Plzen,Č. Budjejovice or Brno instead?
Plus your teacher has probably never been to CZSL.,Russia or China before 1990...
So yeah,she's full of shit.

Kornilios Sunshine

19th October 2011, 17:37

ComradeMan

19th October 2011, 19:50

Because they don't know shit about communism and how many great things has it contributed to the global society.They also think communism is vagrancy.These people are very reactionary.Avoid debating with them.

Sorry but that's the biggest load of pre-conceived bullshit. How do you know that this person wasn't alive and a witness to the Prague Spring or had family/friends that were involved? How do you know what this person thinks? Like my Polish friend, a lot of these people actually grew up under a form of "communism".... unlike many here (;))... so find out the facts before you make generalisations.

DarkPast

19th October 2011, 20:34

“Ceausescu had many negative points, but in his time my parents had a job.”
-Ionica Dumitru, 22, IT student, Bucharest (2009.)

Rafiq

19th October 2011, 20:47

Perhaps because:

20th century Communism was pretty bad?

ComradeMan

19th October 2011, 21:00

“Ceausescu had many negative points, but in his time my parents had a job.”
-Ionica Dumitru, 22, IT student, Bucharest (2009.)

So that person really knows what life was like under Ceaucescu :rolleyes:.
2009-22 = 1987, Ceaucescu died in 1989.

Franz Fanonipants

19th October 2011, 21:03

My teacher is Czech but she was born here in the UK.

Despite all the ridiculous self-hating leftist bullshit in this thread, this is basically your answer.

tir1944

19th October 2011, 21:03

So that person really knows what life was like under Ceaucescu
He clarly said "my parents had a job".
But maybe his parents lied to him,i don't know.

Also:
Eight four per cent of Romanians do not support the execution of communist leader Nicolae Ceausescu and forty-one per cent say they would vote for him as president if elections were held now.

http://anonym.to/?http://www.romaniantimes.at/news/General_News/2010-07-27/9864/_Romanians_would_vote_Ceausescu_for_president_agai n

Franz Fanonipants

19th October 2011, 21:07

idk comrade going to bat for Ceaucescu is kind of hard.

Tim Cornelis

19th October 2011, 21:14

I have never seen any evidence that the Soviet Union called itself communist. They called themselves socialist, but not communist. It was the West that branded them communist as far as I know.

Tim Cornelis

19th October 2011, 21:17

He clarly said "my parents had a job".
But maybe his parents lied to him,i don't know.

Also:
Eight four per cent of Romanians do not support the execution of communist leader Nicolae Ceausescu and forty-one per cent say they would vote for him as president if elections were held now.

http://anonym.to/?http://www.romaniantimes.at/news/General_News/2010-07-27/9864/_Romanians_would_vote_Ceausescu_for_president_agai n

Go to South Africa and ask an older unemployed black person (especially those in Townships) and ask them about apartheid. I guarantee you a fair amount of them will tell you "apartheid was bad, but at least we had jobs".

Exhibit A:
j4f0INWfws0

Those emotivist nostalgic feelings count for nothing.

ComradeMan

19th October 2011, 21:21

I have never seen any evidence that the Soviet Union called itself communist. They called themselves socialist, but not communist. It was the West that branded them communist as far as I know.

Yeah, but there's a problem that the ruling party, the only party, happened to be the... Communist Party of the Soviet Union Коммунистическая партия Советского Союза :hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle::hammers ickle::hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle::h ammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersic kle::hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle::ham mersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickl e::hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle::hamme rsickle::hammersickle:

He clarly said "my parents had a job".
But maybe his parents lied to him,i don't know.

I wonder if they worked with all the AIDS orphans abandoned by Ceaucescu's regime.

Seriously, I've heard plenty of older Italians come out with stuff about Mussolini to the effect of "at least the streets were safe" and so on... unless of course the Black Shirts didn't like you that is.... ;)

tir1944

19th October 2011, 21:53

How about some proof? Polls?
How many Black S.Africans want the Apartheid back?

I wonder if they worked with all the AIDS orphans abandoned by Ceaucescu's regime.No,and they have probably never heared of them.I've never heard of this either.Source?
And i never knew AIDS was a problem in any socialist country...

Seriously, I've heard plenty of older Italians come out with stuff about Mussolini to the effect of "at least the streets were safe" and so on... unless of course the Black Shirts didn't like you that is....What's the percentage of Italians who want fascism back? I seriously doubt that it's anything near 84%...

Yeah, but there's a problem that the ruling party, the only party, happened to be the...Why are you trolling?
The party of course called itself communist because it was a communist party after all,but it never claimed that the USSR was "communist".

That said,i despise Ceausescu,he was a piss-poor communist,however the Romanians probably know better ...

DarkPast

19th October 2011, 22:00

So that person really knows what life was like under Ceaucescu :rolleyes:.
2009-22 = 1987, Ceaucescu died in 1989.

Aside from what tir1994 wrote, my point was more like that life in Eastern Europe sucks just as much today as it did in the old "communist" times. And for that matter, as much as it did in pre-"communist" times. I have a problem with people who lay the blame for East Europe's socioeconomic woes on "communism". Note what's happening in Greece - an "East European" country that wasn't in the east bloc.

I live in an ex-"communist" country. Here's a bit of statistical data on the "freedom" capitalism brought us (note the former "communist" countries):

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20110709_WOC139.gif

Political freedom (such as it is) doesn't mean shit if you don't have a source of income... :rolleyes:

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not saying what the east bloc had was anything like communism, but the whole "evil empire/stasiland" rhetoric really gets on my nerves.

ComradeMan

19th October 2011, 22:34

No,and they have probably never heared of them.I've never heard of this either.Source?
And i never knew AIDS was a problem in any socialist country...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_orphans

What's the percentage of Italians who want fascism back? I seriously doubt that it's anything near 84%...

It would be illegal.

Why are you trolling?
The party of course called itself communist because it was a communist party after all,but it never claimed that the USSR was "communist".

Trolling? You are seriously going to claim that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union never thought that the Soviet Union was communist in any sense of the word because they used Socialist and not communist? I can't think of one "communist" country that uses/used the word "communist" in the name of the country- just like most capitalist countries aren't the "Capitalist Rebublic of........." either.

tir1944

19th October 2011, 23:23

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_orphans (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_orphans)
It is clear than the number of orphans more than doubled from '90-2000.

It would be illegal.
It would be illegal to organize a poll on that?
I doubt it.Italy is known for its tolerance of fascism:there are several neo-fascist parties there.Hell,you can buy Mussolini wine or even Il Duce's bust on pretty much every gas station!

You are seriously going to claim that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union never thought that the Soviet Union was communist in any sense of the word because they used Socialist and not communist?
No,the SKP(b)/KPSS never claimed that USSR had reached communism,that it was a "communsit country"(*oximoron warning*).
These are facts.

RedGrunt

19th October 2011, 23:34

ComradeMan

20th October 2011, 09:30

It is clear than the number of orphans more than doubled from '90-2000.

Sure, but when Ceaucescu fell I remember there was a whole campaign about helping the Romanian AIDS orphans who had been abandoned in appalling "orphanages" and so on...

It would be illegal to organize a poll on that?
I doubt it.Italy is known for its tolerance of fascism:there are several neo-fascist parties there.Hell,you can buy Mussolini wine or even Il Duce's bust on pretty much every gas station!

Don't get me started!!!

The Italian National Fascist Party (PNF) is illegal. If you started a party and called it anything "fascist" officially you would be prosecuted. It's against the constitution of the Italian Republic, I also draw your attention to the following two laws: The Apologia del Fascismo Law of 1952 (Scelba) also bans reforming the fascist party and exalting, making propaganda, using the principles, actions or methods of fascism etc. and the Mancino Law of 1993 bans slogans/gestures/actions connected to Nazi/Fascist ideology. The only thing that is not "officially illegal" is holocaust denial, unless of course it fell into the categories above too. None of those so-called "neo-fascist" parties actually declare themselves officially to be fascist, they have to be very careful, even their names are carefully chosen. So if I stood in a piazza and did the Roman salute shouting "Viva il Duce!" I could be arrested and prosecuted under law. As for the memorabilia and so on, I think they get round the problem by saying it's a historical souvenir or something.

Getting back to your question- any kind of poll advocating a return to fascism as a political solution, depending on wording, could very easily be illegal and unconstitutional in Italy.

The CPSU Chairman

20th October 2011, 12:36

My teacher is Czech but she was born here in the UK.

Naturally. I notice that whenever I talk to an Eastern European about their countries' Socialist pasts, the ones who froth at the mouth over it are always the ones who never even actually lived there (or who did live there but were maybe 5 years old at the oldest in 1989). When I talk to older East Europeans who DID live in these countries, they have a much more balanced view of it. Generally the things they say to me boil down to "yeah, things were worse in some ways but were mostly better than now".

This is just my personal experience, of course, and i'm not saying things were flawless there or anything.

hatzel

20th October 2011, 13:38

Naturally. I notice that whenever I talk to an Eastern European about their countries' Socialist pasts, the ones who froth at the mouth over it are always the ones who never even actually lived there (or who did live there but were maybe 5 years old at the oldest in 1989)

I consider this a generalisation. People from a country like the Czech Republic are far more likely to condemn the earlier regime than a Russian is, for example, probably because the Czech Republic is doing pretty well at the moment, whilst Russia is doing pretty crap. Oh, and because since the crushing of the Prague Spring, Czechoslovakians had this strange idea that they were living under some puppet government. No idea why. The same can be said of people in the Baltic countries, who maintain to this day that their socialist regimes were, in fact, little but a Russian military occupation of their countries. They're not exactly clamouring for its return.

Bud Struggle

20th October 2011, 14:38

How about you speak with Czechs living in Plzen,Č. Budjejovice or Brno instead?
Plus your teacher has probably never been to CZSL.,Russia or China before 1990...
So yeah,she's full of shit.

I've been to the USSR and Poland (I'm Polish American) and it wasn't all that good there. It was poor (though suprisingly Poland had a lot more goods than the USSR) and there was a good deal of political oppression.

durhamleft

20th October 2011, 14:54

Bud Struggle

20th October 2011, 15:46

manic expression

20th October 2011, 16:14

How about some proof? Polls?
How many Black S.Africans want the Apartheid back?

What's the percentage of Italians who want fascism back? I seriously doubt that it's anything near 84%...

Tick-tock...tick-tock...

Anyone have some actual polls to back up their anti-communist nonsense? Anyone? Bueller?

manic expression

20th October 2011, 16:17

Why you people always want to romanticize hell holes loke the USSR and 1970 China, I have no idea. For all its problems the USA is and was a lot better place to live.

Now, Russia isn't all that good today either and China certainly has its problems, but the quality of life here in the USA is a thousand times better than it ever was over in those countries.
A thousand times better? Is that why Soviet living standards actually outpaced those of the US during some years of the 1950's? Is that why US rates of homelessness were always higher than Soviet ones? Is that why medical care was available without charge to everyone in the USSR while in the US they couldn't even establish a public option? Hmmm, it sucks when statistics disagree with you.

Sure, but when Ceaucescu fell I remember there was a whole campaign about helping the Romanian AIDS orphans who had been abandoned in appalling "orphanages" and so on...
Wow, talk about falling for propaganda. You just admitted that the number of abandoned children significantly rose after the government fell, and yet you think it doesn't matter because you heard some capitalist media noise about some campaign. Genius.

RGacky3

20th October 2011, 16:19

Now, Russia isn't all that good today either and China certainly has its problems, but the quality of life here in the USA is a thousand times better than it ever was over in those countries.

A: What maniac expression said.
B: Your ignoring all historical context.

tir1944

20th October 2011, 18:15

I've been to the USSR and Poland (I'm Polish American) and it wasn't all that good there. It was poor (though suprisingly Poland had a lot more goods than the USSR) and there was a good deal of political oppression. When exactly (which year i mean) did you go?
Can you elaborate a bit more on your impressions of Poland and the USSR?

The Italian National Fascist Party (PNF) is illegal.Lol.Ever heard of Alessandra Mussollini (yep,ol' Duce's grand-daughter) and the parties she affiliated with? Neo-fascism through and through.
Also lol at Italy and law.
It's like a fucking wild west there.The Mafia basically controls a significant part of the country.Not to mention the curruption which is worse than in some Balkan countries...
Also,their PRIME MINISTER got away with fucking an under-age prostitute.
So much for law in Italy.
Again,neo-fascism is very much alive there.Go and see for yourself.

Pretty obvious isn't it. The people who lived in the Soviet Union were gifted with the joys of grinding poverty, famine, complete political oppression, sexism, homophobia and racism. Eat shit and GTFO.

Also what previous two posters said.:thumbup1: +1

Revolution starts with U

20th October 2011, 18:26

Its not about romanticizing past countries. Its about having some historical and reasonable perspective. Its about listening to people say "USSR was a hellhole for everyone involved" when that obviously wasn't the case.

1984 is a great book and all. But its not a historical analysis.

Bud Struggle

20th October 2011, 18:53

A thousand times better? Is that why Soviet living standards actually outpaced those of the US during some years of the 1950's? Is that why US rates of homelessness were always higher than Soviet ones? Is that why medical care was available without charge to everyone in the USSR while in the US they couldn't even establish a public option? Hmmm, it sucks when statistics disagree with you.

Then show me the stats!

The Soviet living standard was never near that of the USA. And yes for the bottom 1 or 2% the homeless rates were better in the USSR but for the general population that lived under a repressive government--one that had to build walls to keep its people in, one that had supermarkets without food and long lines to buy the essentials of life.

As far as healthcare goes. They wanted it for free--in the USA we buy our own. It's foolish to say that the USSR was more Socialist than the USA--it was.

I for one don't want anyone telling me what insurance I should have. I buy my own.

Bud Struggle

20th October 2011, 18:57

When exactly (which year i mean) did you go?
Can you elaborate a bit more on your impressions of Poland and the USSR?

'86 and '90. I'm going again next month.

The Poles were richer and less "repressed" than the Soviets. The Catholic Church was always much more influential in the daily lives of the Poles than the Communist government.

The KGB was very influtetial in the SU. I was on a bus onetime riding througk Moscow and when we passed by the KGB building EVERYBODY on the bus turned their head in the opposite direction so as not to look at the building.

tir1944

20th October 2011, 19:07

'86 and '90.Kind of what i expected really.
'86 USSR was pretty fucked up,but it turned into a HELL in the late 80s/early 90s.
Also nice time to visit Poland,during the Martial law,lines for everything etc...:)

I was on a bus onetime riding througk Moscow and when we passed by the KGB building EVERYBODY on the bus turned their head in the opposite direction so as not to look at the building.
*Obligatory 1984 quote/reference time*

Revolution starts with U

20th October 2011, 19:11

Then show me the stats!

The Soviet living standard was never near that of the USA. And yes for the bottom 1 or 2% the homeless rates were better in the USSR but for the general population that lived under a repressive government--one that had to build walls to keep its people in, one that had supermarkets without food and long lines to buy the essentials of life.

I was going to thank your post for this Bud. But...

As far as healthcare goes. They wanted it for free--in the USA we buy our own. It's foolish to say that the USSR was more Socialist than the USA--it was.

I for one don't want anyone telling me what insurance I should have. I buy my own.
All I want is some eyeglasses, a few checkups (might have heart problems. dont know cuz i cant afford a doctor) and maybe a pill to help quit smoking. But I cannot, at this time, afford it. By the time I can... it might be too late.

Bud Struggle

20th October 2011, 20:02

Kind of what i expected really.
'86 USSR was pretty fucked up,but it turned into a HELL in the late 80s/early 90s.
Also nice time to visit Poland,during the Martial law,lines for everything etc...:)

*Obligatory 1984 quote/reference time*

When were you there 1932? :D

Bud Struggle

20th October 2011, 20:06

All I want is some eyeglasses, a few checkups (might have heart problems. dont know cuz i cant afford a doctor) and maybe a pill to help quit smoking. But I cannot, at this time, afford it. By the time I can... it might be too late.

But that's just not the system we have here in the United States. You want a system from another country in another time. The American Nazis wished they were living in Nazi Germany, Gack didn't like it here he moved to where he likes it better.

America is the place most people want it to be--everybody's not 100% happy, but we all have to put up with each other.

Revolution starts with U

20th October 2011, 20:09

But that's just not the system we have here in the United States. You want a system from another country in another time. The American Nazis wished they were living in Nazi Germany, Gack didn't like it here he moved to where he likes it better.

America is the place most people want it to be--everybody's not 100% happy, but we all have to put up with each other.

And things can and will change. Do you think the Republicans will reppeal healthcare? Listen to them on the talk shows, none of them even mention it. They are going to try to do it better.

Rafiq

20th October 2011, 20:17

Let's be fair here. The ANC still receives 65% of the vote in South Africa.

Rafiq

20th October 2011, 20:18

Ya, the Soviets didn't claim they achieved communism. They saw socialism as the transitory process between capitalism and communism due to Lenin defining the terms socialism and communism as different phases. They claimed to be socialist, yea.

It doesn't matter.

The Soviet Union will always be remembered as communist.

For propaganda purposes, it is best to refer yourself as a different type of communist, or a 21st century communist, etc.

Rafiq

20th October 2011, 20:22

Pretty obvious isn't it. The people who lived in the Soviet Union were gifted with the joys of grinding poverty, famine, complete political oppression, sexism, homophobia and racism.

"Workers of the world, unite!"

And this is a result of trying to build Socialism in one country.

Something Engels and Marx said was doomed to failure and destruction from start.

Rafiq

20th October 2011, 20:23

Rafiq

20th October 2011, 20:24

Rafiq

20th October 2011, 20:26

[QUOTE=Bud Struggle;2268941
I for one don't want anyone telling me what insurance I should have. I buy my own.[/QUOTE]

Mhm and how many people can afford to buy whatever insurance they want?

Bud Struggle

21st October 2011, 00:00

Mhm and how many people can afford to buy whatever insurance they want?

And that's the problem. We all don't agree. And to be honest, I'm torn on this one. I like the idea of people that need healthcare getting it. I don't like the idea of people sticking their nose into my life and telling me what I have o buy.

If it came to a national vote--I probably vote for healthcare. But I'd be grumbling.

Bud Struggle

21st October 2011, 00:13

And things can and will change. Do you think the Republicans will reppeal healthcare? Listen to them on the talk shows, none of them even mention it. They are going to try to do it better.

I'll tell you what's going to happen. The Tea Partiers will go along with anyone the Republicans nominate for President. Romney isn't one of them--but he'll do because they are gearing up to take hold of the senate and even more of the House.

If they control the legislature and have a Republican for President--they will do whatever they want.

And further--healthcare is being destroyed in the courts.

RGacky3

21st October 2011, 08:06

I don't like the idea of people sticking their nose into my life and telling me what I have o buy.

Well it does'nt matter because when they end up in the hospital your paying anyway.

manic expression

21st October 2011, 13:54

I talked to a man who lived in the Soviet Union.

He only had one pair of pants.
Until a few weeks ago, I had two. Great point.

Anyway, I talked to a few people who lived in the Soviet Union (a few I conversed with: one who was an engineer and who actually left to emigrate to the US, another who has lived in Estonia his whole life and was selling old Soviet coins to get by when I met him, another from Russia who was quite young but still remembers being part of the Pioneers...Vsigda gotov!), they each said life has gotten harder since the fall. One said alcoholism has destroyed entire communities, one said there's simply no work when there used to be, another said society no longer provides for anyone but for the few.

Most everyone I met in Belarus is quite sure that life in Russia has fallen apart, and they're glad to have the remaining progressive policies. They know what they're talking about, too, they see Russia regularly.

Sooooo yeah...that's my way of saying you can't boil down almost 7 decades of Soviet history to someone having a certain number of pants. And you know what? The guy who had one pair of pants? I blame the imperialists. Prove me wrong.

Bud Struggle

21st October 2011, 14:36

We have the resources, and it is idiotic to allow someone to die in the street because they had to choose between feeding their family and feeding a corrupt insurance company that wouldn't actually give them any care anyway.

You have any hard data on the nuber of people that have died because they had to choose between feeding their families and feedin corrupt insurance companies that wouldn't give them any care anyway?

An aside: there are way too many bleeding heart Liberals and not nearly enough actual Communists here on RevLeft. :cool:

RedGrunt

22nd October 2011, 03:39

It doesn't matter.

The Soviet Union will always be remembered as communist.

For propaganda purposes, it is best to refer yourself as a different type of communist, or a 21st century communist, etc.

It will be remembered as communist by those whom are ignorant.. yes. I agree it's rather pointless to explain to most people irl in western and capitalist nations due to the threshold of propaganda and lack of specific knowledge regarding marxism, communism, etc and the revolutionary left in general.. but I did think that this was a leftist forum for learning about and discussing revolutionary left topics.

My bad though.

Judicator

22nd October 2011, 06:08

Political freedom (such as it is) doesn't mean shit if you don't have a source of income... :rolleyes:

The OWSers are perfect examples of where political freedom matters for individuals of low income. Many of them are young and unemployed, which gives them plenty of time to exercise their political freedom.

If anything having a job makes you less likely to exercise political freedom...since you have more to lose by skipping work to go protest.

Revolution starts with U

22nd October 2011, 08:19

Can you not be a bleeding heart communist Bud?

ComradeMan

22nd October 2011, 09:06

I think you guys are missing one point about these Occupy XYZ movements around the world. Both sides are thinking in terms of class using old style paradigms and forgetting there is another demographic factor involved- it's inter-generational as well. In my opinion it's more about a generation/age factor than it is about a class factor as such. I don't think we can say that today anti-capitalism = "traditional" working class consciousness 100%.

M42-AEK

22nd October 2011, 09:19

my friend is from poland, and his opinion on the matter regarding why many people there view communism negatively is because communism (socialism) in poland was ussr brand communism, not something really rising out of the people of poland themselves

Bud Struggle

22nd October 2011, 12:44

Can you not be a bleeding heart communist Bud?

No such thing. Well a Commies can be "bleeding hearts" but they have to do it on their own time.

The problem is that bleeding heart liberals won't get you a revolution. Communism will. If you guys can't hold that straight on RevLeft--how are you going to teach it to the world?

Robert

22nd October 2011, 13:43

Is that why Soviet living standards actually outpaced those of the US during some years of the 1950's? Is that why US rates of homelessness were always higher than Soviet ones? Is that why medical care was available without charge to everyone in the USSR while in the US they couldn't even establish a public option? Hmmm, it sucks when statistics disagree with you.

Didn't see too many stats there, but I'm guessing that the rate of change in the USSR probably did outpace the USA in the 50's since the Germans destroyed so much of the USSR during the 40's.

If ordinary people were getting better access to quality healthcare in the USSR in the 50's than were Americans in the 50's, which I question, well, good on the Russkies.

Throw in a comparison of repression by the NKVD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD) versus the FBI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation) and we'll get a quality-of-life conversation going.

God Bless America. :)

manic expression

22nd October 2011, 14:03

Didn't see too many stats there, but I'm guessing that the rate of change in the USSR probably did outpace the USA in the 50's since the Germans destroyed so much of the USSR during the 40's.

If ordinary people were getting better access to quality healthcare in the USSR in the 50's than were Americans in the 50's, which I question, well, good on the Russkies.

Throw in a comparison of repression by the NKVD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD) versus the FBI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation) and we'll get a quality-of-life conversation going.

God Bless America. :)
Not rate of change, life expectancy. Don't believe me? That's alright, here you go (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/yeltsin-healthier-than-the-average-russian-1365525.html):

By the late 1950s it was actually higher than the US, at 69.

And yes, Soviet citizens had access to quality healthcare, no questions asked. Not good on the "Russkies", but good on all the nations of the USSR. That's the difference between communists and capitalists: communists promote human dignity among all nations, capitalists engage in myopic and uncivilized chauvinism...which helps to explain the massive rise in racism, xenophobia and nationalistic violence since the fall of European socialism. I suppose your definition of "freedom" is defenseless Armenians being thrown to their deaths from high-rises by racist lunatics.

Thug Lessons

22nd October 2011, 14:08

I talked to a man who lived in the Soviet Union.

He only had one pair of pants.
How many pairs of pants would you say the average Soviet citizen owned, Rafiq?

Bud Struggle

22nd October 2011, 14:22

How many pairs of pants would you say the average Soviet citizen owned, Rafiq?

A better question would be--do you think any average Soviet citizen ever got to read 1984?

Robert

22nd October 2011, 14:28

I suppose your definition of "freedom" is defenseless Armenians being thrown to their deaths from high-rises by racist lunatics. __________________

Yes, that's the very definition of I always use.

manic expression

22nd October 2011, 14:54

A better question would be--do you think any average Soviet citizen ever got to read 1984?
The average Soviet citizen was much too busy reading good literature.

Yes, that's the very definition of I always use.
And your response is the definition of avoiding one's own point.

Robert

22nd October 2011, 15:27

Originally Posted by Robert
Yes, that's the very definition of I always use. And your response is the definition of avoiding one's own point. __________________Armenians thrown from high rises by racists?

Allllrighty, then.

manic expression

22nd October 2011, 15:38

Armenians thrown from high rises by racists?

Allllrighty, then.
During a whole week the city was “easily and with no worries” getting rid of the Armenian presence – killing the old and women, looting their houses, throwing people off of balconies of the higher floors.

This (http://www.armenianow.com/commentary/analysis/26977/january_massacre_baku) is what capitalism results in...hatred, racism and the most inhumane violence stemming from both.

Robert

22nd October 2011, 15:48

Violence is violence.

It happens everywhere at all times under every kind of political regime.

Reasonable people will agree that as much violence has happened under what normal people call "communism" as has happened under any other system, if not more.

Rafiq

22nd October 2011, 15:57

Sooooo yeah...that's my way of saying you can't boil down almost 7 decades of Soviet history to someone having a certain number of pants. And you know what? The guy who had one pair of pants? I blame the imperialists. Prove me wrong.

he had one pair of pants for 7 years.

What a shit argument, too. You are the one asserting it was the Imperialists, therefore it's your job to prove why that was.

Rafiq

22nd October 2011, 15:58

How many pairs of pants would you say the average Soviet citizen owned, Rafiq?

Probably no more than 2

Bud Struggle

22nd October 2011, 16:09

During a whole week the city was “easily and with no worries” getting rid of the Armenian presence – killing the old and women, looting their houses, throwing people off of balconies of the higher floors.

This (http://www.armenianow.com/commentary/analysis/26977/january_massacre_baku) is what capitalism results in...hatred, racism and the most inhumane violence stemming from both.

What in the world does any of that have to do with capital markets? That's just old feudal arguments that have stewed under the surfact for certuries comming to light.

Valdemar

22nd October 2011, 16:15

Ok, so I just got back from a Geography lesson at college. My teacher is Czech but she was born here in the UK.

We were talking about the Russian and Chinese demographic changes in modern history, and all she spoke about was how bad the soviet union/china was and how bad communism was.

Why is it that so many Central/Eastern Europeans have such a negative view of communism?

There are few explenations,
but first, there are not so mcuh Eastern Europeans who view Communism as negative. I admit, there are a lot of them, but not so much.

First it has to do with fall of Soviet Union, Nationalits and Neo-Liberals won and like we all know, victor writes history.
In my country-city, most of Communist books were put away and new books came (one of them Black Book of Communism, all new and shiny, there is whole sea of them in library), Media started to un-digg or to start making stories how many people communism killed and etc. Campagin was hars and severe, documentaries, tv-shows, movies etc.
Imagine what it does to people who do not have time to reaserch, they take it as default true.
So there you go, thats the anwser.

About your teacher:
She is Cz, but she was born in UK. If she was born in UK, then their parrents leaved Cz and moved to UK. She it seems hates Communism.
Why? Why did they left? Was life difficult? or her parents run away as political emigrants? Were they rich people from whom Communist Party took property and their castles? Mansions?

manic expression

22nd October 2011, 16:40

he had one pair of pants for 7 years.
And I assume he got another pair of pants after that point, yes?

What a shit argument, too. You are the one asserting it was the Imperialists, therefore it's your job to prove why that was.The countries producing the most pants were usually shut off to Soviet trade. India and Vietnam are two exceptions, but Vietnam had its own problems until the early 80's.

What in the world does any of that have to do with capital markets? That's just old feudal arguments that have stewed under the surfact for certuries comming to light.
That's the old capitalist lie...blame it on some "old feudal" mentality instead of on the immediate cause (it reminds me of "I might be wrong here, but I believe that the Diversity is an old, old wooden ship that was used in the Civil War era" :lol:). Capitalism was that immediate cause, and the fact that capitalist ideologies were behaving as we would expect feudal mentalities to do is proof enough of the backwardness and inhumanity of capitalism.

Even still, you cannot really blame this on feudalism...widespread nationalist antagonism is a product of the capitalist age more often than not, and the trends of the 19th Century which led directly to WWI are enough to prove this. There, the feudal rivalry between England and France was made irrelevant in its entirety and replaced by very modern forms of hatred, and millions were sent to the slaughterhouse for it.

It's all quite simple, capitalist markets promote competition, ruthless competition between individuals and firms...and also nations. Why are you surprised when people take the capitalist refrain of "competition is good, serve yourself at the expense of others!" and apply it to relations between nations? Why are you surprised when the fall of European socialism resulted in genocidal acts from Baku to Sarajevo? Capitalism is doing what it always has and always will: divide workers against themselves, spread hatred for ethnicity and nationality to distract the masses from their true enemy.

Look here, capitalists, look at the pogroms of Baku, because your system will always lead back to this tragic bout of insanity one way or another.

Thirsty Crow

22nd October 2011, 16:49

I have never seen any evidence that the Soviet Union called itself communist. They called themselves socialist, but not communist. It was the West that branded them communist as far as I know.
It's a good ol' practice of anti-communists to mistake the so called "communist regime" with a communist society. In other words, for them communism depends on the political structure and the official state ideology. That's why "communism failed bro" and other similar arguments are predominant in circulation.

A better question would be--do you think any average Soviet citizen ever got to read 1984?
I would be more interested to know whether your average Soviet citizen ever got to read, I dunno, the works of Trotsky, the European communist left, and other Marxist political criticisms of the Soviet regime - both in its political and economic domains.

After all, 1984 is dystopian fiction (note, not anti-utopian) representing an extrapolation of the perceived defficiencies in the author's present and mediated in a specifical way by the medium of fiction.

Bud Struggle

22nd October 2011, 17:15

That's the old capitalist lie...blame it on some "old feudal" mentality instead of on the immediate cause (it reminds me of "I might be wrong here, but I believe that the Diversity is an old, old wooden ship that was used in the Civil War era" :lol:). Capitalism was that immediate cause, and the fact that capitalist ideologies were behaving as we would expect feudal mentalities to do is proof enough of the backwardness and inhumanity of capitalism.

Even still, you cannot really blame this on feudalism...widespread nationalist antagonism is a product of the capitalist age more often than not, and the trends of the 19th Century which led directly to WWI are enough to prove this. There, the feudal rivalry between England and France was made irrelevant in its entirety and replaced by very modern forms of hatred, and millions were sent to the slaughterhouse for it.

It's all quite simple, capitalist markets promote competition, ruthless competition between individuals and firms...and also nations. Why are you surprised when people take the capitalist refrain of "competition is good, serve yourself at the expense of others!" and apply it to relations between nations? Why are you surprised when the fall of European socialism resulted in genocidal acts from Baku to Sarajevo? Capitalism is doing what it always has and always will: divide workers against themselves, spread hatred for ethnicity and nationality to distract the masses from their true enemy.

Look here, capitalists, look at the pogroms of Baku, because your system will always lead back to this tragic bout of insanity one way or another.

I see your point: Capitalism is at fault because Capitalism is always at fault.

The reason there were genocidal acts from Baku to Sarajevo is simple--people had freedom. And sometimes people use freedom wisely and sometimes they don't. People always behave well when there is a gun pointing at their head like under the Communist regimes.

This has nothing to do with economics--people were fighting over grievances that were 500 years old. Sometimes people have to work hard to figure out how to live together.

Robert

22nd October 2011, 17:23

Capitalism is at fault because Capitalism is always at fault.

And is to blame for everything that is bad.

Once you start with those two axioms, the revolutionary prerogative becomes irresistible.

Bud Struggle

22nd October 2011, 17:24

I would be more interested to know whether your average Soviet citizen ever got to read, I dunno, the works of Trotsky, the European communist left, and other Marxist political criticisms of the Soviet regime - both in its political and economic domains.

After all, 1984 is dystopian fiction (note, not anti-utopian) representing an extrapolation of the perceived defficiencies in the author's present and mediated in a specifical way by the medium of fiction.

That's a good point. And the works if Keynes and of Tocqueville and of Hobbes and Lock. The problem with the SU is that is had censorship and they hadn't a real clue about what thoughts were out there in the real world. A country or ecomonic system that denies people the right to explore all thoughts and all beliefs is indeed evil.

For that reason alone if was good that the SU failed.

tir1944

22nd October 2011, 17:31

Thirsty Crow

22nd October 2011, 17:37

If they wanted,they could have acquired these works,smuggled them from E.Germany or Yugoslavia for example.
However most didn't care about that.Trotsky was (and still is) seen as an enemy of Russia.
And Soviet magazines regularly posted criticisms of for example Eurcommunist parties and their writings etc...
Can you point me to any research on contemporary public opinion that would show that Russians today think of Trotsky as an "enemy of Russia"?

manic expression

22nd October 2011, 17:47

I see your point: Capitalism is at fault because Capitalism is always at fault.
Obviously you're not paying attention. Was capitalism at fault for the rivalry of France and England? No, and I pointed that out (instead of your blanket "lol feudalism lol"). Was capitalism at fault for spreading nationalist hatred and sending millions to be slaughtered in WWI? Yes. Too bad you're too blind to see it, which is why your precious market will create more WWI's until the day it's destroyed.

The reason there were genocidal acts from Baku to Sarajevo is simple--people had freedom. And sometimes people use freedom wisely and sometimes they don't. People always behave well when there is a gun pointing at their head like under the Communist regimes.Yes, "freedom" means being able to murder your neighbors because they speak another language. :rolleyes: You're just an armband away from Nazism.

A word to the clueless: racism isn't "freedom", it's the very opposite of freedom, as those under its sway are chained to the basest ignorance. Communists seek a world free from these ills, where people are free to live their lives without being terrorized by mindless hatred. That is freedom, and socialism provides that.

And you're one to talk of having a gun to one's head. Tell that to Yugoslavians who very suddenly had guns pointed to their heads by racist lunatics, funded and backed by your capitalist class. Once again, we see that capitalists are the most habitual hypocrites in the world today.

This has nothing to do with economics--people were fighting over grievances that were 500 years old. Sometimes people have to work hard to figure out how to live together.:laugh: Nonsense. Sure, it had nothing to do with economics...the fact that capitalism's ascendancy in Europe happened in conjunction with those genocidal acts was purely a coincidence. Pay no attention to the fact that decades of peace under socialism were tragically interrupted as soon as capitalist forces came into the picture. :lol:

If you look at the history of what went down, you'll see that it was a very modern invention. People in Yugoslavia were suddenly told by capitalist voices that long-time friends were now their enemies. It was a fabricated hatred, and fabricated by whom? By the capitalists.

Your own reasoning...that Yugoslavians are somehow incapable of living together peacefully (even though they did it for decades under socialism), exposes the bigotry of the capitalist mindset.

And is to blame for everything that is bad.
Aw, poor capitalism, blamed for what it's wrought upon the world. :crying:

Contributing to that definition with every post, Monsieur Robert.

Bud Struggle

22nd October 2011, 18:16

Obviously you're not paying attention. Was capitalism at fault for the rivalry of France and England? No, and I pointed that out (instead of your blanket "lol feudalism lol"). Was capitalism at fault for spreading nationalist hatred and sending millions to be slaughtered in WWI? Yes. Too bad you're too blind to see it, which is why your precious market will create more WWI's until the day it's destroyed.In a very similar way that millions were slaughtered in Cambodia because if Communist ideology--where of course Communism was at fault.

Yes, "freedom" means being able to murder your neighbors because they speak another language. :rolleyes: You're just an armband away from Nazism. Nope. Freedom means being aboue to restrain yourself instead of being restrained by government--that's the difference between Capitalost decocracies and Communism--people are oblidged behave themselves rather than be made to behave as in the Societ Union.

A word to the clueless: racism isn't "freedom", it's the very opposite of freedom, as those under its sway are chained to the basest ignorance. Communists seek a world free from these ills, where people are free to live their lives without being terrorized by mindless hatred. That is freedom, and socialism provides that. Woah! We (almost) all want that Comrade, really. You are doing some preaching there. :D

And you're one to talk of having a gun to one's head. Tell that to Yugoslavians who very suddenly had guns pointed to their heads by racist lunatics, funded and backed by your capitalist class. Once again, we see that capitalists are the most habitual hypocrites in the world today. Tito was a dictator. He MADE people behave the way he wanted. People certainly held onto the same hatreds all throughout his dictatorial reign but his dictatorship died with him--and that let loose all of the ancient hatreds.

Nonsense. Sure, it had nothing to do with economics...the fact that capitalism's ascendancy in Europe happened in conjunction with those genocidal acts was purely a coincidence. Pay no attention to the fact that decades of peace under socialism were tragically interrupted as soon as capitalist forces came into the picture. :lol: It had to do with freedom. You must admit it was the first time the people of Eastern Europe were free in a long time. And those fight in the Balkins were the same ones that were going long before the Austro Hungarian Empire.

If you look at the history of what went down, you'll see that it was a very modern invention. People in Yugoslavia were suddenly told by capitalist voices that long-time friends were now their enemies. It was a fabricated hatred, and fabricated by whom? By the capitalists. What nonsense. Those arguments were going on for a thousand years--maybe longer. You thing it was Chas Bank that went in there and started those fights?

Your own reasoning...that Yugoslavians are somehow incapable of living together peacefully (even though they did it for decades under socialism), exposes the bigotry of the capitalist mindset. No it's the people have to come to term with who they are and who there neighbors are and forget their old fights. Under Communism the people of Yougoslavia were children and were looked after. Now they have to grow up and take care of themselves. It is difficult growing up. RevLeft is an entire forum about people having a difficult time making that transition.

manic expression

22nd October 2011, 18:46

In a very similar way that millions were slaughtered in Cambodia because if Communist ideology--where of course Communism was at fault.
Pol Pot wasn't a communist. Sorry, better luck next time.

Nope. Freedom means being aboue to restrain yourself instead of being restrained by government--that's the difference between Capitalost decocracies and Communism--people are oblidged behave themselves rather than be made to behave as in the Societ Union.Another old capitalist lie. To the capitalist, "behaving oneself" means promoting racism and supporting murderers. To everyone with a brain, "behaving oneself" means people living their lives as they please, free from bigotry and full of human dignity.

And of course, everyone knows that capitalist states don't leave it to individuals to "restrain themselves". Only a court jester of the bourgeoisie would so foolishly say otherwise. For proof, we need only look to Bud Struggles favorite governments in Eastern Europe...take, for instance, Slovakia, where using Hungarian in public is illegal (http://www.economist.com/node/14140437?story_id=14140437). Yes, here's a real taste of capitalist "freedom", where people aren't "restrained" by governments! :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Keep it coming, this is starting to become an encyclopedia of capitalist lies.

Woah! We (almost) all want that Comrade, really. You are doing some preaching there. :DSome want it but are either unwilling or unable to target the obstacles which impede us from that very goal. Those who want it and are ready and willing to do what's necessary to get there are called communists.

Tito was a dictator. He MADE people behave the way he wanted. People certainly held onto the same hatreds all throughout his dictatorial reign but his dictatorship died with him--and that let loose all of the ancient hatreds.Capitalist logic. Tito was a dictator...and Tudman was a democrat! :lol: It's funny because it makes no sense.

It makes, in fact, as little sense as the idea that Tito was sitting at some supercomputer, making Bosnians become friends with Serbs and Croats and visa versa and so on and so forth.

Neither makes any sense because they're lies that have nothing to do with reality. Only a capitalist would refuse to believe that a Bosnian and a Serb could ever become genuine friends willingly. It's that old capitalist bigotry I alluded to before: capitalists want to think the worst of anyone who's different.

Lastly, it was no "ancient hatred", as I've already stated. Yugoslavians were told one morning that they were supposed to hate people they'd lived with and shared memories with since they could walk...and they were told that by bankrolled bigoted capitalists.

It had to do with freedom. You must admit it was the first time the people of Eastern Europe were free in a long time. And those fight in the Balkins were the same ones that were going long before the Austro Hungarian Empire.Wrong, the only way it had to do with freedom is that when capitalism came to town, suddenly there wasn't any. In socialism, all the peoples of Yugoslavia lived together as friends...not forced to be friends by omnipotent Tito (or whatever other silly image you have flickering in your overactive imagination), but as genuine friends and neighbors. All that went to hell thanks to capitalism's inundation of Yugoslavia.

You're still trying to convince yourself it was just a coincidence that ethnic violence broke out as capitalism replaced socialism? It would be almost cute, if it wasn't myopic lunacy.

Only the most cynical of right-wingers could claim that genocide signaled the coming of freedom. And yet here you are, telling us that ethnic cleansing is "freedom". Of course, now we have proof of how capitalism leads to fascism...it's basically the same ideology.

What nonsense. Those arguments were going on for a thousand years--maybe longer. You thing it was Chas Bank that went in there and started those fights?Where do you think Tudman got his funding? From capitalists abroad. He started sucking up to German capitalists (and doing his best Ustaze impression...of course you'll have to google that to figure out what it means because you know nothing about this) and he and his cronies were very much supported by capitalist forces. The World Bank's entry into Yugoslavia, in fact, is the beginning point for the tragedy that would unfold.

So yes, it was capitalist forces, it wasn't people suddenly thinking about medieval-era rivalries and hating each other. If you actually believe that that's what it was, you're absolutely clueless.

No it's the people have to come to term with who they are and who there neighbors are and forget their old fights. Under Communism the people of Yougoslavia were children and were looked after. Now they have to grow up and take care of themselves. It is difficult growing up. RevLeft is an entire forum about people having a difficult time making that transition.No, it's you showing how bigoted you are by claiming that Yugoslavians somehow aren't genetically fit to live together in peace.

Under socialism, Yugoslavians were able to live as they were, and relate to their neighbors as human beings, not through the insane lens of nationalist hatred. Under capitalism, Yugoslavians are FORCED to look across this or that boundary at people who used to be their friends. No longer are they free to live their lives as neighbors, they must now live lives poisoned by an imported hatred. It has nothing to do with "growing up", Yugoslavians were very much adults when they beat the Nazis and freed their country. They were adults and friends...now they're slaves, and forced to hate each other.

Your wanna-be Nazi positions are as pathetic as your inability to understand history.

And don't say a word about "growing up". You can't even read a book about the topics you're talking about, kid, so you're the least adult among us. And learn how to spell Yugoslavia, you kindergarten flunky. :lol:

Funny how you can't come up with an argument except for "lol bosnian children being murdered is freedom my vision of the world is as mature as a cereal box i cant spell yugoslavia lol".

tir1944

22nd October 2011, 18:51

Can you point me to any research on contemporary public opinion that would show that Russians today think of Trotsky as an "enemy of Russia"?
I can't,that's what i got from discussions on certain forums and conv. with comm. activists who live there...
But fact is:there are almost no Trotskites in Russia.

Bud Struggle

22nd October 2011, 19:59

Pol Pot wasn't a communist. Sorry, better luck next time. He was a Communist. You can just pick and choose willy nilly who you want to be a Communist and who you don't.

Another old capitalist lie. To the capitalist, "behaving oneself" means promoting racism and supporting murderers. To everyone with a brain, "behaving oneself" means people living their lives as they please, free from bigotry and full of human dignity. No Communism means servitude of the body and servitude of the mind. It means following the will of the masses without a thought of your own. Capitalism means freedom of thought and belief. Freedom to do whatever suits you. (Just thought I'd give you a aste of your own sort of rhetoric. :) )

And of course, everyone knows that capitalist states don't leave it to individuals to "restrain themselves". Only a court jester of the bourgeoisie would so foolishly say otherwise. For proof, we need only look to Bud Struggles favorite governments in Eastern Europe...take, for instance, Slovakia, where using Hungarian in public is illegal (http://www.economist.com/node/14140437?story_id=14140437). Yes, here's a real taste of capitalist "freedom", where people aren't "restrained" by governments! :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Everyone knows that the only way that Communist government can make people conform is to build walls and then roll in the tanks now and again. I'm sure you are missing the smell of desel fuel and gunpower right now. To get away from your style of speech: yea, freedom isn't tidy. People have to learn to act responsibly. It's pretty obvious that the people of Yugoslavia were kept from fully developing themselves as peole for so long they were ill prepaired to deal with real freedom.

Some want it but are either unwilling or unable to target the obstacles which impede us from that very goal. Those who want it and are ready and willing to do what's necessary to get there are called communists. Some people want to live in freedom and person dignity with rights as well as responsibilities, ready to fight for what they have and what they earned by the swet of their brow and limited only by their own imagenation. Those people are called Capitalists. ;)

Capitalist logic. Tito was a dictator...and Tudman was a democrat! :lol: It's funny because it makes no sense. Even though Tudman was elected (twice I think--that's more than Tito) he was a dictator.

It makes, in fact, as little sense as the idea that Tito was sitting at some supercomputer, making Bosnians become friends with Serbs and Croats and visa versa and so on and so forth. No he was sitting in front of an army and a scret police force.

Neither makes any sense because they're lies that have nothing to do with reality. Only a capitalist would refuse to believe that a Bosnian and a Serb could ever become genuine friends willingly. It's that old capitalist bigotry I alluded to before: capitalists want to think the worst of anyone who's different. I neither believe nor disbelieve anything. People do what they choose to do. (Why am I always the materialist arguing with the idealist in there arguments?) It is always the Communists that need secret police forces, Checkas and KGBs and the like that believe the worst about people.

Lastly, it was no "ancient hatred", as I've already stated. Yugoslavians were told one morning that they were supposed to hate people they'd lived with and shared memories with since they could walk...and they were told that by bankrolled bigoted capitalists. There have been was in the Blakins for 500 years. Prolems in the Balkins was the starting cause of WWI. The problems there aren't economic--they are all rather third world, the problems are ethnic and religious. fall apart?

Wrong, the only way it had to do with freedom is that when capitalism came to town, suddenly there wasn't any. In socialism, all the peoples of Yugoslavia lived together as friends...not forced to be friends by omnipotent Tito (or whatever other silly image you have flickering in your overactive imagination), but as genuine friends and neighbors. All that went to hell thanks to capitalism's inundation of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia wan't invaded. If fell apart all by itself after Tito died. He was a strongman that held the country together by force. People there were more than happy to leave the union he set up. If it was so wonderful why did it

You're still trying to convince yourself it was just a coincidence that ethnic violence broke out as capitalism replaced socialism? It would be almost cute, if it wasn't myopic lunacy.

Only the most cynical of right-wingers could claim that genocide signaled the coming of freedom. And yet here you are, telling us that ethnic cleansing is "freedom". Of course, now we have proof of how capitalism leads to fascism...it's basically the same ideology.Hmmm. In North Korea Communism led to Fascism--I guess they are the same ideology, too.

Where do you think Tudman got his funding? From capitalists abroad. He started sucking up to German capitalists (and doing his best Ustaze impression...of course you'll have to google that to figure out what it means because you know nothing about this) and he and his cronies were very much supported by capitalist forces. The World Bank's entry into Yugoslavia, in fact, is the beginning point for the tragedy that would unfold. He borrowed money. Big deal. I could borrow money to buy a car and then turn around and but a gun with it. People have PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to do the right thing. It's certainly difficult for you to understand but authoritarian governments are all happy and smiley because that responsibility is taken away from the people. Bad books? Don't let the people read them. Bad movies? Shut down the movie house. Teachers teaching unorthodox stuff? Gone. Maybe you want to live like that. But not me.

So yes, it was capitalist forces, it wasn't people suddenly thinking about medieval-era rivalries and hating each other. If you actually believe that that's what it was, you're absolutely clueless. You think there never was a war in the Balkins before 1990?

No, it's you showing how bigoted you are by claiming that Yugoslavians somehow aren't genetically fit to live together in peace. I must have missed the part where I say "genetically". I said they chose to behave on ethnic and eligious guidelines--that Tito never erased.

Under socialism, Yugoslavians were able to live as they were, and relate to their neighbors as human beings, not through the insane lens of nationalist hatred. Under capitalism, Yugoslavians are FORCED to look across this or that boundary at people who used to be their friends. No longer are they free to live their lives as neighbors, they must now live lives poisoned by an imported hatred. It has nothing to do with "growing up", Yugoslavians were very much adults when they beat the Nazis and freed their country. They were adults and friends...now they're slaves, and forced to hate each other. They aren't forced to do anything. They do what they choose. People make their own decisions. Where the profit for Capitalists in Serbs hateing Croats? None. Things are going to stay the way they are until those people start to think for themselves. But that going to be hard after having so many years of Tito thinking for them.

Your wanna-be Nazi positions are as pathetic as your inability to understand history. Sweet.

And don't say a word about "growing up". You can't even read a book about the topics you're talking about, kid, so you're the least adult among us. And learn how to spell Yugoslavia, you kindergarten flunky. :lol:
Funny how you can't come up with an argument except for "lol bosnian children being murdered is freedom my vision of the world is as mature as a cereal box i cant spell yugoslavia lol".[/quote] Yea so I made a typo. :rolleyes:

#FF0000

22nd October 2011, 22:08

He was a Communist. You can just pick and choose willy nilly who you want to be a Communist and who you don't.

he literally said he was not a communist, tho

and yeah you can because communism isn't an ideology lol

ComradeMan

22nd October 2011, 22:12

he literally said he was not a communist, tho

and yeah you can because communism isn't an ideology lol

Well, one person we know at RevLeft seems to think he was a communist though..... :confused:

tir1944

22nd October 2011, 22:15

He started sucking up to German capitalists (and doing his best Ustaze impression...of course you'll have to google that to figure out what it means because you know nothing about this)You should be more careful next time before you tell someone to google for something in such a way.
I don't know what "Ustaze" is however there was a movement called Ustashe.
Also somehow i don't think Germans would have been very impressed by Tudman "doing his best Ustashe impressions"...

#FF0000

22nd October 2011, 22:18

Well, one person we know at RevLeft seems to think he was a communist though..... :confused:

Okay.

Frankly I think it's dumb to try and tie folks like pol pot in with us just because of use of the word "communism".

All of us here are Revleft want the destruction of capitalism, the abolition of the wage system, and to do away with social structures that pit humans against humans and put one over another.

What does Pol Pot have to do with that?

tir1944

22nd October 2011, 22:19

Even though Tudman was elected (twice I think--that's more than Tito) he was a dictator.
Yes,i'd say a "quasi-dictator".
Let's not forget Hitler too was elected.

No he was sitting in front of an army and a scret police force.
Nope there was much more to it.

There have been was in the Blakins for 500 years. Prolems in the Balkins was the starting cause of WWI. The problems there aren't economic--they are all rather third world, the problems are ethnic and religious. fall apart?
First of all it's not Blakins or Balkins,it's the Balkans.
Second,the "Problems" were and are indeed primarily economic.
Third,the Balkans is not the Third World.

In North Korea Communism led to Fascism--I guess they are the same ideology, too.
Not this shit again...

Bud Struggle

22nd October 2011, 22:20

he literally said he was not a communist, tho

and yeah you can because communism isn't an ideology lol

It was proven quite well by milk ON THESE VERY FORUMS that Pol Pot was a Communist. Pol Pot was just misunderstood. And of course Communism is an ideology--it REALLY never existed anywhere besides people's minds, so what else could it be?

ComradeMan

22nd October 2011, 22:20

You should be more careful next time before you tell someone to google for something in such a way.
I don't know what "Ustaze" is however there was a movement called Ustashe.
Also somehow i don't think Germans would have been very impressed by Tudman "doing his best Ustashe impressions"...

Ustashe/Ustaše, an extreme rightwing Croatian group that fought with the Nazis in WWII .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usta%C5%A1e#Modern_usage_of_term_.22Usta.C5.A1a.22

#FF0000

22nd October 2011, 22:23

It was proven quite well by milk ON THESE VERY FORUMS that Pol Pot was a Communist. Pol Pot was just misunderstood

He literally said himself "yeah bro I couldn't understand a word of marx"

tir1944

22nd October 2011, 22:25

Ustashe/Ustaše, an extreme rightwing Croatian group that fought with the Nazis in WWII .
Yes i know who they were.
However there's no such thing as "Ustaze".
And the guy who wrote it in such a way called this other guy out for not being informed about the Balkans...:rolleyes:

ComradeMan

22nd October 2011, 22:25

He literally said himself "yeah bro I couldn't understand a word of marx"

And where did he say that? And since when was he from West Philly?
:lol:

Bud Struggle

22nd October 2011, 22:27

Yes,i'd say a "quasi-dictator".
Let's not forget Hitler too was elected. Fine.

Nope there was much more to it. I'll agree to that.

First of all it's not Blakins or Balkins,it's the Balkans.
Second,the "Problems" were and are indeed primarily economic.
Third,the Balkans is not the Third World.First. I'm having a lot of typos today, I have the flu and I'm typing in bed. Sorry about that.

Second: Communist claim that EVERYTHING is economic. Same old stuff.

Third: OK, I'll meet you half way, Second World.

Not this shit again...What the hell, I was called a Nazi a couple of times by Manic--'bout time I lobed one back. :)

#FF0000

22nd October 2011, 22:31

And where did he say that? And since when was he from West Philly?
:lol:

It is hella hard to find sources for this quote suddenly (which was everywhere a few years ago)

Here, though. (http://books.google.com/books?id=XW24koscGMkC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=the+big+thick+works+of+Marx...+I+didn%27t+reall y+understand+them+at+all&source=bl&ots=_tp31RdBse&sig=6YllBC4nBUsh_88gPHukRamCs20&hl=en&ei=sTWjTsfiC6nm0QHmvdiZBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the%20big%20thick%20works%20of%20Marx...%20I%20d idn%27t%20really%20understand%20them%20at%20all&f=false)

Bud Struggle

22nd October 2011, 22:31

He literally said himself "yeah bro I couldn't understand a word of marx"

Well what's so strange about that? No one can really understand a word of Marx--that why Communism so far has been such a clusterfuck. :D

(You stepped into that one FF :D)

tir1944

22nd October 2011, 22:31

Second: Communist claim that EVERYTHING is economic. No we don't.However we claim that "economics" is very important when it comes to just about everything and that the material should be in the focus of attention so to speak.

Third: OK, I'll meet you half way, Second World.Maybe...Slovenia isn't though.

What the hell, I was called a Nazi a couple of times by Manic--'bout time I lobed one back. :)
DPRK isn't fascist.Currently there's NO fascist states in the world.

#FF0000

22nd October 2011, 22:32

Well what's so strange about that? No one can really understand a word of Marx--that why Communism so far has been such a clusterfuck. :D

(You stepped into that one FF :D)

welp.

but no seriously I think Marx is relatively easy to understand.

Or was, I guess.

Os Cangaceiros

22nd October 2011, 22:41

Lastly, it was no "ancient hatred", as I've already stated. Yugoslavians were told one morning that they were supposed to hate people they'd lived with and shared memories with since they could walk...and they were told that by bankrolled bigoted capitalists.

I once read a couple books on Yugoslavia (and that makes me an expert!), and I think you're dramatically simplifying things here.

For one, if all of a sudden intellectuals and government officials started telling me that I needed to pick up a gun and shoot my best friend down the street because we're "blood enemies" or something, I probably wouldn't do it. The Hutus didn't attack other Rwandans because they just heard about it on the radio and thought, "huh, I never thought about it like that..." There was a lot of ethnic tension in Yugoslavia well before the early 90's, but Tito managed to suppress it and keep his thumb on the nationalists. People like Dobrica Cosic still existed though, and they ascended to power once Tito was gone.

ComradeMan

22nd October 2011, 22:44

It is hella hard to find sources for this quote suddenly (which was everywhere a few years ago)

Here, though. (http://books.google.com/books?id=XW24koscGMkC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=the+big+thick+works+of+Marx...+I+didn%27t+reall y+understand+them+at+all&source=bl&ots=_tp31RdBse&sig=6YllBC4nBUsh_88gPHukRamCs20&hl=en&ei=sTWjTsfiC6nm0QHmvdiZBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the%20big%20thick%20works%20of%20Marx...%20I%20d idn%27t%20really%20understand%20them%20at%20all&f=false)

Can't find the quote.... :confused:

The quotes from him and about him are very conflicting at times- however the little matter of his being involved with the Cambodian communist party and earlier French connections is problematic. Ironically when I argued against his being communist I was "shouted down" by certain quarters... no prize for guessing..... :rolleyes:

#FF0000

22nd October 2011, 22:48

Can't find the quote.... :confused:

The quotes from him and about him are very conflicting at times- however the little matter of his being involved with the Cambodian communist party and earlier French connections is problematic. Ironically when I argued against his being communist I was "shouted down" by certain quarters... no prize for guessing..... :rolleyes:

It should be highlighted. He said "The big thick works of Marx ... I never really understood them at all".

tir1944

22nd October 2011, 22:48

Tito's Yugoslavia was basically constantly on the verge of collapse.Republics fought each other all the time,there were intrigues and cliques everywhere and so on...
No wonder,considering the counterrevolutionary politics of "Titoism".

manic expression

23rd October 2011, 00:22

He was a Communist. You can just pick and choose willy nilly who you want to be a Communist and who you don't.
Why was he a communist? Because you said so?

No Communism means servitude of the body and servitude of the mind. It means following the will of the masses without a thought of your own. Capitalism means freedom of thought and belief. Freedom to do whatever suits you. (Just thought I'd give you a aste of your own sort of rhetoric. :) )Leave the comic book nonsense aside, communism means, in the immediate sense, that the masses take control over their own communities, over their own workplaces. The masses, of course, is made up of individuals and nothing but...individual contributions make the revolution and without them, the revolution is nothing. Therefore, communism is about the empowerment of the individual, free from the shadow of capitalism, free from exploitation and profit motives and debts.

You see, you can try to copy my rhetoric but it doesn't matter much if you still don't make any sense.

Everyone knows that the only way that Communist government can make people conform is to build walls and then roll in the tanks now and again. I'm sure you are missing the smell of desel fuel and gunpower right now. To get away from your style of speech: yea, freedom isn't tidy. People have to learn to act responsibly. It's pretty obvious that the people of Yugoslavia were kept from fully developing themselves as peole for so long they were ill prepaired to deal with real freedom.The wall you're referring to would have never been built had the imperialists not engaged in sabotage efforts against socialism. The tanks you're referring to would have never been necessary had the imperialists not thrown their support and promises behind the right-wing rebel mobs.

But most importantly, your arguments are beyond silly when your precious capitalist governments are presently murdering millions around the world, from Afghanistan to Libya and beyond. Wake up and smell the gunpowder, because it's coming from the guns of capitalism.

Lastly, the people of Yugoslavia were not kept from fully developing themselves. Why do you say that? Because you can only "fully develop yourself" when you're massacring Bosnian civilians? Is that it? What clueless garbage.

And since you can't seem to address the simplest of examples...let's hear it, defend the proscription of Hungarian in public in Slovakia. I want to hear you defend your capitalist "freedom".

Some people want to live in freedom and person dignity with rights as well as responsibilities, ready to fight for what they have and what they earned by the swet of their brow and limited only by their own imagenation. Those people are called Capitalists.Wrong, capitalists make money off of the sweat of other people's brows. Their "person dignity with rights" (as you so eloquently put it) boils down to rights only for the rich...freedom that you have to afford. That's capitalism, and it's not freedom, it's exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few.

Your support for the racist lunatics of Yugoslavia confirms this.

Even though Tudman was elected (twice I think--that's more than Tito) he was a dictator.But wait, you said that the massacres in Yugoslavia were the result of "freedom". I'll give you some time to figure out what you actually believe, it seems like you've never hammered that out.

No he was sitting in front of an army and a scret police force.Ah, and it's good to know that capitalists know of no such things. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

By the way, is it your contention that the army and "secret police force" were forcing people to befriend their neighbors? If not, then you have no point, as usual.

I neither believe nor disbelieve anything. People do what they choose to do. (Why am I always the materialist arguing with the idealist in there arguments?) It is always the Communists that need secret police forces, Checkas and KGBs and the like that believe the worst about people.Stay on topic, child. Are you saying that Yugoslavians weren't actually friends with each other across national lines during socialism or not? I already dealt with your oblivious trash on "secret police forces" (you know, the kind that capitalists have), so you can skip that part and answer the question.

There have been was in the Blakins for 500 years. Prolems in the Balkins was the starting cause of WWI. The problems there aren't economic--they are all rather third world, the problems are ethnic and religious. fall apart?Hahahaha...the cause of WWI was not that people in the Balkans didn't get along. It had a little something to do with secret treaties between imperialist states in their competition to carve up the world. You're mistaking the spark for the barrel of gunpowder. In other words, you couldn't be more off-target.

Now for the "they aren't economic lol" argument...no, they are certainly economic because the conflicts of human civilization stem one way or another from economics. The rivalry between France and England arguably starting in the 11th Century? Economic...each kingdom was trying to get more under its dominion to have more land and more peasants working that land and more castles from which to defend that land. The Crusades? Had a great deal to do with the economics of medieval society, which gave birth to a knightly class intertwined with the church.

You're the one trying to tell us that all human conflict is just feudal squabbles adjusted for inflation. Sorry, but you're just making cheap apologies for your racist buddies.

Yugoslavia wan't invaded. If fell apart all by itself after Tito died. He was a strongman that held the country together by force. People there were more than happy to leave the union he set up. If it was so wonderful why did it Yes, go on.... Oh, you're finished? Well then allow me to retort.

Yugoslavia was invaded...first by the World Bank, then by NATO. Check the facts.

As for Tito, Yugoslavians disagree with you entirely. They're quite supportive of Tito. In Serbia, for instance, this is true to the tune of 81% (http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/for-simon-poll-serbians-unsure-who-runs-their-country). This is all borne out by the people I met when I went to 3 of those countries...the only person who didn't like Tito was (wait for it) a businessman! How ironic, and how perfect an illustration that you don't know what you're talking about.

So yeah, you can drop the whole "omg yougoslavians didnt like tito omgz0rs". It's just another in a long line of lies you believe about the world.

Hmmm. In North Korea Communism led to Fascism--I guess they are the same ideology, too.Except it didn't. Nice try, kid.

He borrowed money. Big deal. I could borrow money to buy a car and then turn around and but a gun with it. People have PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to do the right thing. It's certainly difficult for you to understand but authoritarian governments are all happy and smiley because that responsibility is taken away from the people. Bad books? Don't let the people read them. Bad movies? Shut down the movie house. Teachers teaching unorthodox stuff? Gone. Maybe you want to live like that. But not me.:laugh: What silly, sad stuff. It wasn't that Tudman borrowed money, it was that he got bankrolled by capitalists and used that influence to spread hatred and murder. You seem to want to absolve him of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY by blaming his actions on "feudal stuff" instead of what it actually was: capitalism doing what it always has and always will.

You think there never was a war in the Balkins before 1990?Of course there was, but the last one in Yugoslavia was compliments of Nazi Germany. I'm sure this is the standard you aspire to. :lol:

I must have missed the part where I say "genetically". I said they chose to behave on ethnic and eligious guidelines--that Tito never erased.Yes, you missed the part where you insinuated that Yugoslavians are somehow incapable of living together without killing one another. Maybe you should pay more attention to what you write.

They aren't forced to do anything. They do what they choose. People make their own decisions. Where the profit for Capitalists in Serbs hateing Croats? None. Things are going to stay the way they are until those people start to think for themselves. But that going to be hard after having so many years of Tito thinking for them.Wait, did you just claim that Tudman never forced anyone to do anything? Is that really your argument? Go read a book.

Sweet.Yeah, sweet when you're making excuses for fascists. Real sweet.

Yea so I made a typo. :rolleyes:
And tried to say that people who disagree with you are "children". Funny how that works out.

manic expression

23rd October 2011, 00:25

Yes i know who they were.
However there's no such thing as "Ustaze".
And the guy who wrote it in such a way called this other guy out for not being informed about the Balkans...:rolleyes:
Look at your keyboard. There you go.

Bud Struggle

23rd October 2011, 01:01

Why was he a communist? Because you said so? Well obviously by a strict definition there never were any communists and there probably never will be. But by common consensus, Pol Pot was a Communist.

Leave the comic book nonsense aside, communism means, in the immediate sense, that the masses take control over their own communities, over their own workplaces. The masses, of course, is made up of individuals and nothing but...individual contributions make the revolution and without them, the revolution is nothing. Therefore, communism is about the empowerment of the individual, free from the shadow of capitalism, free from exploitation and profit motives and debts. Then why do they always have sensorship and walls and gulags and the such? Why have almost all the Communist countries been torn down? No one was ever empowered under Soviet style Communism.

You see, you can try to copy my rhetoric but it doesn't matter much if you still don't make any sense. My rhetoric made as much sense as yours. You see my point? :D

The wall you're referring to would have never been built had the imperialists not engaged in sabotage efforts against socialism. The tanks you're referring to would have never been necessary had the imperialists not thrown their support and promises behind the right-wing rebel mobs. The bad Capitalists MADE the Communist build the wall to keep their people prisoners! :D

But most importantly, your arguments are beyond silly when your precious capitalist governments are presently murdering millions around the world, from Afghanistan to Libya and beyond. Wake up and smell the gunpowder, because it's coming from the guns of capitalism. They certainly helped the people of Libya. As for Afghanistan--the Soviets were in there, too. And they'll wind that one down soon.

Lastly, the people of Yugoslavia were not kept from fully developing themselves. Why do you say that? Because you can only "fully develop yourself" when you're massacring Bosnian civilians? Is that it? What clueless garbage. They were under an authoritarian dictatorship. You can't be free when you are looking over your sholder every five seconds.

And since you can't seem to address the simplest of examples...let's hear it, defend the proscription of Hungarian in public in Slovakia. I want to hear you defend your capitalist "freedom". Yes it's a stupid rule. But in the Soviet Union (I don't specifically know about Yugoslavia) they smashed the people's churches and imprisoned them for their beliefs--much worse than some stupid rule.

Wrong, capitalists make money off of the sweat of other people's brows. Their "person dignity with rights" (as you so eloquently put it) boils down to rights only for the rich...freedom that you have to afford. That's capitalism, and it's not freedom, it's exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few. Capitalists empower people to become rich themselves. There is nothing wrong with hard work and if the people in the Communist countries believed in Communism that much they would have worked hard to see it was still around, don't you think?

Your support for the racist lunatics of Yugoslavia confirms this. They were there all along.

But wait, you said that the massacres in Yugoslavia were the result of "freedom". I'll give you some time to figure out what you actually believe, it seems like you've never hammered that out. They decided to elect Tudman--a couple of times. Unfortunately Tudman was doing the will of the people.

By the way, is it your contention that the army and "secret police force" were forcing people to befriend their neighbors? If not, then you have no point, as usual. My point is that any ethnic violence would have been dealt with by the government swiftly and painfully. The people of Yugoslavia were afraid.

Hahahaha...the cause of WWI was not that people in the Balkans didn't get along. It had a little something to do with secret treaties between imperialist states in their competition to carve up the world. You're mistaking the spark for the barrel of gunpowder. In other words, you couldn't be more off-target. It was an immediate cause. And the people of the Balkins have in in conflict for 500 years. As someone else said a little Capitalism doesn't make people kill their neighbors that they have been living next door to for 40 years. There was more going on than that.

You're the one trying to tell us that all human conflict is just feudal squabbles adjusted for inflation. Sorry, but you're just making cheap apologies for your racist buddies. Nope. I'm saying there are a lot of reasons for human conflict. Economics is one factor--butthere are plenty others. And who exaqctly are my racist buddies?

Yugoslavia was invaded...first by the World Bank, then by NATO. Check the facts. They freed Yugoslavia from tyrany.

As for Tito, Yugoslavians disagree with you entirely. They're quite supportive of Tito. In Serbia, for instance, this is true to the tune of 81% (http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/for-simon-poll-serbians-unsure-who-runs-their-country). This is all borne out by the people I met when I went to 3 of those countries...the only person who didn't like Tito was (wait for it) a businessman! How ironic, and how perfect an illustration that you don't know what you're talking about. I'm sure everyboey likes him now that he's dead. I'm sure you can find a lot of Germans that still remember Hitler fondly. Hell--people in Russia even say nice things about Tsar Nicholas II. They want to make him a SIANT in the Russian Orthodox Church. Good for them.

So yeah, you can drop the whole "omg yougoslavians didnt like tito omgz0rs". It's just another in a long line of lies you believe about the world. Well he's gone and everything he did is gone with him. You are just going to have to deal with that fact. Sorry. :(

:laugh: What silly, sad stuff. It wasn't that Tudman borrowed money, it was that he got bankrolled by capitalists and used that influence to spread hatred and murder. You seem to want to absolve him of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY by blaming his actions on "feudal stuff" instead of what it actually was: capitalism doing what it always has and always will. Let me get this straight: the World Bank gave Tudman a pile of money to influence his country to murder everyone in sight? And worse--THEY DID!

Of course there was, but the last one in Yugoslavia was compliments of Nazi Germany. I'm sure this is the standard you aspire to. :lol: Many MANY Yougoslavians were staunch supporters of Hitler. You can't deny that.

Yes, you missed the part where you insinuated that Yugoslavians are somehow incapable of living together without killing one another. Maybe you should pay more attention to what you write. They can do whatever they want. They just choose to live the way they do.
It ain't nobody's fault but their own.

Ocean Seal

23rd October 2011, 01:23

Almost all of the people that I have met currently living in their formerly "communist" countries actually think that life was better under their socialist/state-capitalist regimes than what they have now. Almost all immigrants to the first world have negative views of socialism.

tir1944

23rd October 2011, 02:37

Look at your keyboard. There you go.
I'm lookign at it but i don't get your point?:confused:

Unfortunately Tudman was doing the will of the people.
No he wasn't.

And the people of the Balkins have in in conflict for 500 years.
No.

They freed Yugoslavia from tyrany.
Yes,sure.Please say that you're just trolling?

I'm sure you can find a lot of Germans that still remember Hitler fondly.
Yes but,for the start,try doing a Nazi salute in Berlin and see what happens.
Anyway,how about some sources for this nonsense claim?

Hell--people in Russia even say nice things about Tsar Nicholas II. They want to make him a SIANT in the Russian Orthodox Church. Good for them.
Some do.And he was made a saint by the Orth. Church some time ago,however that wasn't a decision made democratically by the people.

Well he's gone and everything he did is gone with him.
Jesus Christ...:rolleyes:

Many MANY Yougoslavians were staunch supporters of Hitler. You can't deny that.
Yes i can.Because that's bullshit.

They just choose to live the way they do.
Nope.

milk

23rd October 2011, 07:10

It should be highlighted. He said "The big thick works of Marx ... I never really understood them at all".

He said he couldn't always grasp Marx in the original, but Stalin was easier.

milk

23rd October 2011, 07:20

ComradeMan

23rd October 2011, 08:25

ComradeMan believes he was a primitivist 'psychopath.' Instead of words which offer little in the way of understanding, I believe he was part of a (Vietnamese-dominated) Marxist-Leninist heritage in the region of ex-Indochina, who crudely tried, and failed, to force through change without the classes or conditions for that change. Using formulaic politics, some of which significantly came from his later enemies (the Vietnamese Stalinists).

I don't "believe" anything- I am allowed to make "comment" and express "opinion"- think about the difference if you are not a robot ;)

So, was Pol Pot a communist or not?

"I believe he was part of a (Vietnamese-dominated) Marxist-Leninist heritage"

Seems more like a yes, than a no... :laugh:

milk

23rd October 2011, 08:33

Most scholarship on the subject doesn't point to it, too. Primitivsm.

For those who have a serious interest in this, rather than meaningless word-grubbing to suit uninformed opinions and commentary, then I could recommend this recent study on the Cambodian Communist movement:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cambodia-Communism-Vietnamese-Model-Steve/dp/9744800437

Mitja

23rd October 2011, 08:42

What they knew as communism were simply bureaucratic dictatorships that wrapped themselves up in red flags and called themselves communist.

Case in point: One of the basic definitions of a socialist/communist society is worker ownership and control of the means of production. Was this the case in the USSR, China, or any of the Eastern Bloc countries? Nope.

i aggre with veovis

you should read this book
animal Farm by george orwell realy awesome book explains how communism worked in soviet Russia
Go to your nearby library I'm sure you'll get it there

ComradeMan

23rd October 2011, 09:54

Most scholarship on the subject doesn't point to it, too....

Was Pol Pot a communist in your opinion? Answer the question. It's not hard-

a) yes
b) no
c) I don't know

:rolleyes:

milk

23rd October 2011, 10:01

I've already answered it.

ComradeMan

23rd October 2011, 11:01

I've already answered it.

Hmm.... your "answer" "seems" to indicate a yes, but it's not clear so please, answer it again.

a) Yes
b) No
C) I don't know
;)

milk

23rd October 2011, 11:02

Do you not believe the CPK embarked on primitive capital accumulation in order to fund industrial development?

a) yes
b) no
c) I don't know

ComradeMan

23rd October 2011, 11:04

...

Naughty.... answer the question.... you don't answer questions by asking other questions.....

Come on- it won't kill you to say yes/no/I don't know, will it?:rolleyes:

milk

23rd October 2011, 11:06

I already answered it, and have done many times before.

As for your repeated assertions that they were primitivists, then ...

Do you not believe the CPK embarked on primitive capital accumulation in order to fund industrial development?

a) yes
b) no
c) I don't know

DarkPast

23rd October 2011, 11:11

They were under an authoritarian dictatorship. You can't be free when you are looking over your sholder every five seconds.

I'm not going to defend a one-party system. But the worker's self-management in Yugoslavia did offer workers a much better position that they have now. They also offered a political platform to people who weren't members of the Communist Party.

As for someone looking over your shoulder every five seconds, you really think that isn't the case now? The government, if it wants to, can track all your internet usage, your phone calls, your bank accounts... And see all those surveillance cameras around?

It had to do with freedom. You must admit it was the first time the people of Eastern Europe were free in a long time. And those fight in the Balkins were the same ones that were going long before the Austro Hungarian Empire.
It was an immediate cause. And the people of the Balkins have in in conflict for 500 years. As someone else said a little Capitalism doesn't make people kill their neighbors that they have been living next door to for 40 years. There was more going on than that.I fully agree with Manic Expression - this is a racist position founded on the belief that Balkan peoples are "savages" who need a outside force to keep them from fighting among themselves. This rhetoric was used against Indians, Africans, Native Americans...

Furthermore, what exactly is "freedom" supposed to mean? Freedom to choose who oppresses you in a system rigged to favour the bourgeois?
What the hell does "freedom" mean to someone who can't find a job - or has a job way below their education level? I put up a graph on the first page of this topic...

You don't need chains of iron to enslave someone - making them believe they choose their own destiny works far better.

No it's the people have to come to term with who they are and who there neighbors are and forget their old fights. Under Communism the people of Yougoslavia were children and were looked after. Now they have to grow up and take care of themselves. It is difficult growing up. RevLeft is an entire forum about people having a difficult time making that transition. Again a quasi-racist and very patronizing argument: you're implying the people of Yugoslavia are inherently inferior.

As a member of this group of people, I find it quite offensive.

Now that that's out of the way, let me clear up some misconceptions about Yugoslavia:

Yes it's a stupid rule. But in the Soviet Union (I don't specifically know about Yugoslavia) they smashed the people's churches and imprisoned them for their beliefs--much worse than some stupid rule.The only religious groups who were repressed were those who collaborated with the fascist regimes. My parents went to school in Yugoslavia and there was religious education available to those who wanted it. While Party members were discouraged from being part of a religious community, it was not prohibited.

They decided to elect Tudman--a couple of times. Unfortunately Tudman was doing the will of the people.Tito was actually elected president for life, you know. Now there were certain irregularities in the elections, but you could say the same for George Bush's election, so...

Anyway, he had strong popular support, and was held in high regard by most world leaders (just Google "Tito's funeral"). And not just the leaders - in many third world countries many older people remember him fondly. Regimes may have changed, but the streets named after Tito have remained (there's even a Tito Square in Moscow!).

Many MANY Yugoslavians were staunch supporters of Hitler. You can't deny that.This isn't really true, either. The Axis forces in Yugoslavia were entirely insufficient to deal with the partisans - they needed substantial German and Italian support to hold onto power.

The only considerable pro-fascist force was the Ustaše. And even they filled their ranks mostly with "home guard" regiments that had little motivation to fight the partisans and who started to desert en masse after Italy surrendered.

The Nedić regime in Serbia was also openly pro-Hitler, but was under the direct control of the Germans. Despite this, they never managed to raise more than 10,000 troops. The other pro-axis forces were mostly small groups of militia, such as the so-called White guards in Slovenia and Montenegro.

Oh, and one more thing: I'm not claiming that Yugoslavia was a paradise, or that it was communist (as defined by Marx). I'm just saying that, overall, it was better than what we have now.

ComradeMan

23rd October 2011, 11:14

I already answered it, and have done many times before.

Well then it won't hurt to answer it again here, simply
a) yes
b) no
c) I don't know

As for your repeated assertions that they were primitivists, then ...

Assertion? Comments and opinions expressed in not such a serious manner as opposed to analysis. Learn to differentiate the contexts in which comments are made.

milk

23rd October 2011, 11:16

Do you not believe the CPK embarked on primitive capital accumulation in order to fund industrial development?

a) yes
b) no
c) I don't know

hatzel

23rd October 2011, 11:25

I know I'm late to this party but I'll just try to take us away from all this inane Pol Pot stuff and back to the srs bizness of this thread:

I recently got my fourth pair of trousers! :scared:

milk

23rd October 2011, 11:28

ComradeMan

23rd October 2011, 11:29

...

Answer the question.... as asked.

As for your second point- do you mean Preobrazhensky's primitive socialist accumulation as put in practice in the USSR that was intended to move towards industrialisation? :rolleyes:

milk

23rd October 2011, 11:34

I see .. Your assertions that they were primitivist were not 'serious' now ... Be careful when choosing an answer ... With regard to their Four-Year Plan to Build Soclialism in All Fields, never formerly launched ...

Do you not believe the CPK embarked on primitive capital accumulation in order to fund industrial development?

a) yes
b) no
c) I don't know

manic expression

23rd October 2011, 12:07

Well obviously by a strict definition there never were any communists and there probably never will be. But by common consensus, Pol Pot was a Communist.
Hahahaha you have nothing. Why was Pol Pot a communist? Come on, kid, tell me, I'm all ears.

Then why do they always have sensorship and walls and gulags and the such? Why have almost all the Communist countries been torn down? No one was ever empowered under Soviet style Communism.Gulags were simply a prison system. Your precious capitalism US has more people in prison today than there ever were in the USSR. Walls are walls, they are sometimes needed to foil CIA sabotage, as they did in Berlin...but imperialist aggression was the cause. Censorship wasn't what you think it was...Sakharov, for example, was just told that he wasn't going to have his works published...big deal.

But the individual was entirely empowered under socialism. We've already seen how socialism created peace where capitalism creates war and hatred. That means socialism frees people from those ills to live their lives as they please, unlike your market which enslaves them.

My rhetoric made as much sense as yours. You see my point?Right up until the point where I showed you that you made no sense. That's why you have no point, which is my point.

The bad Capitalists MADE the Communist build the wall to keep their people prisoners!Yeah, too bad the wall was built AROUND WEST BERLIN, not East Berlin. The citizens of the DDR were not prisoners, for West Berlin was the area that was surrounded by the wall.

Too bad you can't bring yourself to look at a map.

They certainly helped the people of Libya. As for Afghanistan--the Soviets were in there, too. And they'll wind that one down soon.Yes, they helped the people of Libya by murdering them and taking control of the country and terrorizing Black Africans. Like I said, you're only missing the armband.

The Soviets were in Afghanistan because their aid was requested by the legal government of that country about a dozen times...they were fighting CIA-backed lunatics, and if you read the history, the CIA was in there months before the first Soviet troops got there (summer 1979, CIA activities began, winter 1979 Soviet troops intervene). Notice that the Taliban were the product of capitalist policy, and once again we see that capitalism means slavery to ignorance and hatred while socialism means freedom and human dignity. So again, you know nothing.

"Wind that one down", you mean put in a puppet government to serve their imperialist interests? I'd like to hear more about your "freedom".

They were under an authoritarian dictatorship. You can't be free when you are looking over your sholder every five seconds.81% of Serbs disagree with you. Thanks for exposing yourself as someone who hates democracy.

Yes it's a stupid rule. But in the Soviet Union (I don't specifically know about Yugoslavia) they smashed the people's churches and imprisoned them for their beliefs--much worse than some stupid rule.Ah, here we see your hypocrisy. When capitalists OUTLAW A LANGUAGE IN PUBLIC, it's a "stupid rule". When communists create a society in which all are free to be who they are without fear of hatred, it's "tyranny". We support what we like and oppose what we dislike, and so it is obvious you enjoy racist policies and dislike peaceful societies.

The churches were mostly empty before that all happened, even now in the "west", churches are being put to different uses because no one goes there anymore. You'll have to show me some examples, too, because Stalin actually supported the Russian Orthodox Church at points.

Capitalists empower people to become rich themselves. There is nothing wrong with hard work and if the people in the Communist countries believed in Communism that much they would have worked hard to see it was still around, don't you think?No, capitalists "empower" people to work for the riches of the capitalist class. That's another way of saying slavery.

There is something wrong with "hard work", and if you disagree I would direct you toward the plantations of antebellum south. Those people did lots of "hard work", do you object? Leave it to the capitalist to glorify "hard work" which leads to the wealth and health of everyone who isn't doing it. :laugh:

They were there all along.They only got the support and ability to murder civilians under capitalism. The choice is clear.

They decided to elect Tudman--a couple of times. Unfortunately Tudman was doing the will of the people.No, he wasn't, and anyone who says he was is a fascist or an idiot, or probably both.

Tudman, like all capitalists, got elected in elections that were rigged by money. Capitalist elections are only open to those with the backing of the rich, and in this case the rich wanted a crazy racist douche to take control of Croatia. It had nothing to do with the will of the people.

My point is that any ethnic violence would have been dealt with by the government swiftly and painfully. The people of Yugoslavia were afraid.Hahahahahahaha it's a bad thing that ethnic violence isn't be permitted?

That's the mark of a civilized society. Get used to it.

It was an immediate cause. And the people of the Balkins have in in conflict for 500 years. As someone else said a little Capitalism doesn't make people kill their neighbors that they have been living next door to for 40 years. There was more going on than that.If it was an immediate cause, why did it take until August for full-out war to break out?

Capitalism does make people kill their neighbors that they've been living next door to for 40 years. That's precisely what happened in Yugoslavia. People of all the nations of the country were friends and neighbors, and then suddenly they were on opposite sides of the most brutal war Europe has seen for decades.

Nope. I'm saying there are a lot of reasons for human conflict. Economics is one factor--butthere are plenty others. And who exaqctly are my racist buddies?Economics is the underlying force. Racism may seem to take on its own course, but it is always, always shadowed by the economics of the thing. Principally, racism (which is an invention of capitalism, having its roots in the aftermath of the abolition of slavery, that is to say the transfer of production from chattle slavery to capitalist wage-slavery) under capitalism serves to divide workers against themselves, distracting them from their true enemy. The capitalist class is always seeking to create these forms of hatred, and so it invents them, fabricates them, shoves them down entire peoples' throats and watches as they rip each other apart.

Divide and rule. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can manage to understand that, and yet you've been flopping around like a fish out of water, unable to comprehend the simplest of political realities.

Tudman is your racist buddy, you've been bending over backwards to defend his reactionary lunacy, you can bet I'll call you out for it.

They freed Yugoslavia from tyrany.No, they enslaved Yugoslavia to capital and ignorance. 81% of Serbs agree with me.

I'm sure everyboey likes him now that he's dead. I'm sure you can find a lot of Germans that still remember Hitler fondly. Hell--people in Russia even say nice things about Tsar Nicholas II. They want to make him a SIANT in the Russian Orthodox Church. Good for them.BS. I'm sitting in Germany right now, and I've come across no one who lived under Hitler and remembers him fondly. Those who do remember a bit remember the days of rubble and agony that he caused, and they're not at all sad to see him go. Stop making sh*t up.

As for Tsar Nicholas II, I can't wait for you to provide some evidence. Oh, wait, you won't, because you're a troll.

Well he's gone and everything he did is gone with him.Against the will of the Yugoslavian people. You're going to have to deal with the fact that capitalism was foisted upon that country against the wishes of the people. You probably won't, though, because you can't accept reality.

Let me get this straight: the World Bank gave Tudman a pile of money to influence his country to murder everyone in sight? And worse--THEY DID!Read up.

There are always a few who will kill for money. As a capitalist you should understand this. Tudman got them together, gave them weapons and set them loose.

Many MANY Yougoslavians were staunch supporters of Hitler. You can't deny that.I don't have to deny anything that you can't prove. Prove it.

They can do whatever they want. They just choose to live the way they do.
It ain't nobody's fault but their own.No, they can't do whatever they want. They can't live as sisters and brothers as they once did because capitalism outlawed it. They can't live their lives free from hatred and oppression because capitalism has created both. They can't look upon their country without seeing the bullet holes and memories of friends and family killed because capitalism did it.

And it ain't nobody's fault but racist, reactionary monsters like the ones you gleefully defend.

ComradeMan

23rd October 2011, 19:43

Why is it so unpleasant having a discussion with some here....? :rolleyes:

Bud Struggle

23rd October 2011, 19:56

A couple of things--there are to many people to respond to everyone properly.

1. Of course Pol Pot was a Communist. Not classical or Marxist, but just as much a Communist as Stalin or Lenin or Mao or for that matter Tito. A better analogy: he's as Communist as much as Barak Obama or Bill Clinton are Capitalists.

2. There were Croatian and Serbian collaborators with the Nazis. Yes they were beaten, Yes the local guards were part of the mix, but the number of people siding with the Germans was not insignifigant.*

3. For all the talk of Yugoslavian Communism, Tito was a dictator. "Elected for life" is a meaningless term. Workers didn't control the means of production. Workers didn't vote on the terms of their employment. Ther were no or limited soviets. Face it, Tito was at best a benevolent dictator.

4. You can't believe all the animosity and hatred in the former Yugoslavia came about because of the World Bank or because of Capitalism. People didn't slaughter each other in Hungary or Poland or the Ukraine when they got freedom. There were deeper underlying reasons and that was ethnic and religious intolerence.

5. If the people in the countries of the former Yugoslavia decide they don't want to fight each other--then they won't. It's untimately their decision. The World Bank or the IMF has asolutely no reason to keep that area poor. Rich countries make people money, poor countries--renege on debts. And they don't like that kind of thing.

*From Wiki:

Bosnia
The 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS (also known as the 1st Croatian or Handschar division), manned by Bosniaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosniaks) and Croats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croats), but commanded by German officers, was created in February 1943. The division participated in anti-guerrilla operations in Yugoslavia.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_Wa r_II#cite_note-Williamson-2) By 1944, most of the division defected to the Yugoslav partisans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_partisans).
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers _during_World_War_II&action=edit&section=32)] Croatia

Main article: Independent State of Croatia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_State_of_Croatia)
Ante Pavelić (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ante_Paveli%C4%87)'s Croatian puppet state was an ally of Nazi Germany. The Croatian extreme nationalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalists), Ustaše (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usta%C5%A1e), killed 700 thousands of Serbs and other victims in the Jasenovac concentration camp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasenovac_concentration_camp).
The 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian), created in February 1943, and the 23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23rd_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Kama), created in January 1944, were manned by Croats and Bosniaks as well as local Germans.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers _during_World_War_II&action=edit&section=33)] Serbia

Serbian collaborationist organizations Serbian State Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_State_Guard), Serbian Volunteer Corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Volunteer_Corps) (party militia of the extreme right-wing Yugoslav National Movement "Zbor" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZBOR) had a few thousand members and helped guard and run concentration camps.

ComradeMan

23rd October 2011, 20:01

...

Why is a "srbosjek" a "srbosjek"? ;)

Bud has actually nailed your asses with this one.

tir1944

23rd October 2011, 22:52

Of course Pol Pot was a Communist.Nope.

There were Croatian and Serbian collaborators with the Nazis. You forgot Volkdeutsche,Hungarian,Slovenian,Romanian,Bulgaria n,Italian,Albanian and Bosniak collaborators.

but the number of people siding with the Germans was not insignifigant.*It wasn't very significant either.As for your "*",are you kidding? Two divisions of some 25-30 k people (a number of them were actually ethnic Germans / forcibly conscripted soldiers) is supposed to be your proof?

There were deeper underlying reasons and that was ethnic and religious intolerence.No,that wasn't the reason,but,how to say,"casus belli".I don't know the English word.

The World Bank or the IMF has asolutely no reason to keep that area poor.Then why is it doing just that?:laugh:
Nonsense...
Jeez...

For all the talk of Yugoslavian Communism, Tito was a dictator.Not really,IMO.Depends on your def. of a "dictator".

Workers didn't control the means of production. Workers didn't vote on the terms of their employment. No.Ever heard of the famous Yugoslav "Worker's self-management"?
Where the hell are you getting this bullshit from?

Why is a "srbosjek" a "srbosjek"?
?

Bud Struggle

24th October 2011, 00:03

Nope. Then I guess neother was Tito--so why all the fuss about another dead dictator? :D

You forgot Volkdeutsche,Hungarian,Slovenian,Romanian,Bulgaria n,Italian,Albanian and Bosniak collaborators. Gee, we weren't taling about them, were we?

It wasn't very significant either.As for your "*",are you kidding? Two divisions of some 25-30 k people (a number of them were actually ethnic Germans / forcibly conscripted soldiers) is supposed to be your proof? Well they killed 700,000 of their own countrymen. I guess in your part of the world that's no big deal--it happens all of the time. But from where I sit (sunny Florida, USA) that kind of thing would cause some talk.

No,that wasn't the reason,but,how to say,"casus belli".I don't know the English word. Then what were the reasons?

Then why is it doing just that?:laugh:
Nonsense...
Jeez... What is their motive for doing that?

Not really,IMO.Depends on your def. of a "dictator" "President for Life" works quite well for the Third World, it will probably do for the Second World as well.

No.Ever heard of the famous Yugoslav "Worker's self-management"?
Where the hell are you getting this bullshit from?

Excellent! I even remember that Cutting Edge of Serbo-Croation Technology car, the famous Yugo! It was marketed in the USA for a while.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VvwAW6tSqJM/S24dcckQcKI/AAAAAAAACZg/_lXzprrp6A8/s400/yugo%5B1%5D.jpg

Sorry. I couldn't help that. But I am laughing WITH you not AT you. :D

tir1944

24th October 2011, 00:10

*Reported for trolling/spamming.

Die Rote Fahne

24th October 2011, 00:30

*Reported for trolling/spamming.
Cool story bro.

Thirsty Crow

24th October 2011, 00:41

Well they killed 700,000 of their own countrymen. I guess in your part of the world that's no big deal--it happens all of the time. But from where I sit (sunny Florida, USA) that kind of thing would cause some talk.

Yeah, I just got from a genocidal picnic that extended into the night, we had so much fun. We barbaric Slavic hordes, oh hell.

Seriously man, what the fuck?

DarkPast

24th October 2011, 02:03

For all the talk of Yugoslavian Communism, Tito was a dictator. "Elected for life" is a meaningless term.

Why? It was the law back then. And mind you, he was first elected for a limited mandate (10 years I think), and elected again for life. The elections were not regular in that the candidates were selected with an ideological bias (and not *all* were communists, btw). Attendance was *not* compulsory, but the vast majority of people still went and voted for Tito. Face it - Tito was elected by a majority of the population.

Workers didn't control the means of production. Workers didn't vote on the terms of their employment. Ther were no or limited soviets. Face it, Tito was at best a benevolent dictator.

I never claimed Yugoslavia was a communist society (keep this in mind as you read the rest of my post). Furthermore, do people in capitalist societies control the means of production or vote on their terms of employment? Is Obama, then, a dictator?

You can't believe all the animosity and hatred in the former Yugoslavia came about because of the World Bank or because of Capitalism. People didn't slaughter each other in Hungary or Poland or the Ukraine when they got freedom. There were deeper underlying reasons and that was ethnic and religious intolerence.

Working class people do not start wars because of ethnic and religious intolerance - they lack the means to do so. They are capable of starting brawls or perhaps a shootout or two. But to start a war you need to be the one in control of the means of production. The war was started by the political elites of the republics, for their own profit. Tuđman, Milošević, Izetbegović and their cronies all engaged in extensive illegal privatization, where they'd sell former state or worker-owned factories for a fraction of their old value to capitalists who would then financially support them. The ethnic and religious hatreds were just excuses used by the political elites to make convenient scapegoats for the frustrations of the working class of each republic. Sadly, when one owns the means of production and thus the mass media, it isn't that hard to do this (ref. War on Terror).

(and yes, a good part of the blame for all this can be squarely laid on the one-party system, since it meant nationalists, capitalists etc. would "fake" communist beliefs in order to get into a position of power)

The reasons for Yugoslavia's fall are economic and macropolitical in nature - Yugoslavia was caught between two power blocks, and survived by walking a fine line between the two.

This worked for a while, but as the Soviets power started to weaken, Yugoslavia had to increasingly rely on the west. It took an IMF loan in 1977 - and it's then that things started to go downhill. There is evidence in the CIA declassified archives that the US under Reagan was purposefully trying to destabilize Yugoslavia via forcing economic "reforms": http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/62/022.html. In 1989 the demanded reforms included a new devalued currency, another wage freeze, and most importantly the elimination of socially-owned, worker-managed companies.

So why is 1977 important? It's the year the aging and increasingly marginalized Tito stepped down from most of his offices (he was more like a figurehead from then on). And what happened in 1989? That's right, the Berlin Wall fell and the Warsaw pact started to crumble. It becomes pretty clear why certain things happened when looked in context.

In short, Yugoslavia collapsed due to her internal economic contradictions (being torn between a semi-self managed socialist-economy and a western-style free market economy), and because of the shift in the macropolitical situation caused by the breaking up of the East Bloc. Putting in down to "ancient hatreds" is bigoted to say the least (I'd call it racist, but whatever).

Also, you once again mentioned "freedom" without specifying what it relates to - the term is meaningless on its own.

5. If the people in the countries of the former Yugoslavia decide they don't want to fight each other--then they won't. It's ultimately their decision.

Just like it's the decision of the American people on where their troops are stationed, make invasions etc, right?

The World Bank or the IMF has absolutely no reason to keep that area poor. Rich countries make people money, poor countries--renege on debts. And they don't like that kind of thing.

The IMF could very well want to deliberately keep certain countries poor to make the supply side of the capitalist economy possible. Besides, it's as much a political organization as an economic one.

*From Wiki:

Bosnia
The 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS (also known as the 1st Croatian or Handschar division), manned by Bosniaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosniaks) and Croats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croats), but commanded by German officers, was created in February 1943. The division participated in anti-guerrilla operations in Yugoslavia.By 1944, most of the division defected to the Yugoslav partisans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_partisans).

That actually proves my point - most of an SS division defected to their direct ideological enemies. Shows how weak their beliefs in the fascist ideology was. The quote about the Serb fascists also proves my point - they numbered less than 10,000 in their peak. The partisans numbered 800,000 at their peak.

Now there was the Chetnik movement. They at first fought the Axis in 1941, then made a truce with them and fought only the partisans, and in 1943 finally directly joined forces with the Axis. But these guys were monarchists, not fascists, and allied with the Axis countries because they considered the partisans a greater threat - and certainly not out of ideological convictions.

Anyway, initial support for the Nazis in Croatia did exist but wasn't all that widespread (some people were happy to have an "independent" country) quickly began to drop once the Ustaše started their massacres (it got so bad that Pavelić got a warning from Himmler that he was being to extreme in his measures, and was causing people to desert to the partisans!) and giving land to Italy (this was seen as treason by most nationalists).

Support for the collaborator regimes plummeted from 1943 onwards.Here's a map showing that large tracts of land were under partisan control in 1943 - note the Axis presence is limited to cities and major traffic arteries: http://www.marxists.org/subject/yugoslavia/images/maps/1943-territories.jpg

The partisans managed to liberate their country with very limited allied support (supplies and weapons were sent by the Brits, and the Soviets helped liberate part of Serbia). This says a lot about the popularity of Tito and his partisans.

Bud Struggle

24th October 2011, 10:54

^^^Excellent post! I'll get back to it later.

ComradeMan

24th October 2011, 10:56

Guys.... while it is true that ethnic tensions are exaggerated and exploited in order to divide and rule, not a new idea by any means, at the same time if there had been no ethnic tensions they could not have been exaggerated and exploited, could they?

tir1944

24th October 2011, 10:59

Name a country where there are no "ethnic tensions".

ComradeMan

24th October 2011, 11:00

Name a country where there are no "ethnic tensions".

San Marino. :D

Bud Struggle

24th October 2011, 11:00

Yeah, I just got from a genocidal picnic that extended into the night, we had so much fun. We barbaric Slavic hordes, oh hell.

Seriously man, what the fuck?

tir seems to think that killing 700,000 Yugoslavs is pretty minor. I certainly don't.

tir1944

24th October 2011, 11:03

tir seems to think that killing 700,000 Yugoslavs is pretty minor.No,and you sir are a troll.

San Marino. That's barely a real country!:laugh:

hatzel

24th October 2011, 11:09

That's barely a real country!:laugh:

Woah woah woah, what chauvinism, this disparaging talk of other countries! :crying:

tir1944

24th October 2011, 11:12

Spare us the trolling...there's no "Sanmarianian" nationality...

ComradeMan

24th October 2011, 11:13

No,and you sir are a troll.

That's barely a real country!:laugh:

How dare you insult the Most Serene Republic of San Marino, the oldest constitutional republic in the world with a higher per capita GDP than many other "real countries"......

Spare us the trolling...there's no "Sanmarianian" nationality...

Yes there is.

tir1944

24th October 2011, 11:16

How dare you insult the Most Serene Republic of San Marino, the oldest constitutional republic in the world with a higher per capita GDP than many other "real countries"......Again,it's a micro state and as such can't serve as an "argument".
You might have brought up Vatican us well,seeing as it's such a harmonious and peaceful country.:rolleyes:

Yes there is. OK then.Source?

ComradeMan

24th October 2011, 11:28

Again,it's a micro state and as such can't serve as an "argument". You might have brought up Vatican us well,seeing as it's such a harmonious and peaceful country.:rolleyes:

The Vatican is not really the same and is not recognised, I believe, as such by the UN.

OK then.Source?

History....:crying: Sanmarinesi have their own embassies, passports and even their own Italic dialect, although Italian is the official language of the state, along with Sanmarinese euros, used alongside the "general" euro. Before there was a Sanmarinese lira too. They might be small, but they are there and they are a state and a nationality to all effects that have existed since a time when some current nationalities had not even emerged.

So how big do you have to be before you are a "real" country?

Bud Struggle

24th October 2011, 11:29

Spare us the trolling...there's no "Sanmarianian" nationality...

Is Kosovo a real country? Or Slovenia? Or Macedonia? Or how about Montenegro? Surely not Montenegro it has less people than Baltimore.

hatzel

24th October 2011, 11:55

So what do you guys think of the Faroe Islands?

Die Rote Fahne

24th October 2011, 12:01

Spare us the trolling...there's no "Sanmarianian" nationality...

You should stop squealing "troll" every chance you get. It's very annoying, especially with your history of trolling.

hatzel

24th October 2011, 12:04

We should ask Nox's geography teacher what's the smallest country that's still big enough to be a 'real country' :)

Nox

24th October 2011, 12:23

We should ask Nox's geography teacher what's the smallest country that's still big enough to be a 'real country' :)

That's an interesting thought.

My definition of a 'real country' is a country that isn't just one giant city (see: San Marino & Vatican City), and it also can't be totally reliant on foreign aid (see: Nauru, Tuvalu, other Pacific Islands)

From that, I'd say that Andorra or some reasonably large Pacific Island is the smallest country in the world.

Nox

24th October 2011, 12:25

Name a country where there are no "ethnic tensions".

Swaziland

hatzel

24th October 2011, 12:59

My definition of a 'real country' is a country that isn't just one giant city (see: San Marino & Vatican City)

Why would San Marino be "one giant city"? It's made up of a number of small towns, and the whole thing about it being somewhat mountainous seems to preclude the possibility of it ever being a city-state...

As far as I'm concerned, any country which has or has had a grand prix is real enough for me. So San Marino is. Even if the track is in Italy :thumbup1:

tir1944

24th October 2011, 14:06

OK,ok.
Whatever.
My point is that the biggest number of countries that exist currently indeed have "ethnic tensions".
Can we get to the topic?

manic expression

24th October 2011, 22:17

1. Of course Pol Pot was a Communist. Not classical or Marxist, but just as much a Communist as Stalin or Lenin or Mao or for that matter Tito. A better analogy: he's as Communist as much as Barak Obama or Bill Clinton are Capitalists.
Barack Obama and Bill Clinton carry out capitalist policies. Pol Pot didn't carry out communist policies.

Communists 1, Bud Struggle 0

2. There were Croatian and Serbian collaborators with the Nazis. Yes they were beaten, Yes the local guards were part of the mix, but the number of people siding with the Germans was not insignifigant.*And? The number of people siding with the Partizans was not insignificant, either...which means that a great number of Yugoslavians participated actively in the building of a peaceful, multinational Yugoslavia. You know, the kind of thing you hate because you side with your boy Tudman.

Communists 2, Bud Struggle aka Team Tudman 0

3. For all the talk of Yugoslavian Communism, Tito was a dictator. "Elected for life" is a meaningless term. Workers didn't control the means of production. Workers didn't vote on the terms of their employment. Ther were no or limited soviets. Face it, Tito was at best a benevolent dictator.81% of Serbs today disagree.

Communists 3, Bud Struggle 0

4. You can't believe all the animosity and hatred in the former Yugoslavia came about because of the World Bank or because of Capitalism. People didn't slaughter each other in Hungary or Poland or the Ukraine when they got freedom. There were deeper underlying reasons and that was ethnic and religious intolerence.Caucuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_War). Baltic (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042700165.html). Hungary (http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=3042). Germany (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/neonazis-in-ostdeutschland-prallvolles-zornkonto-1.892591). Poland (http://www.cracow-life.com/news/news/698-Putin_Condems_anti-Russian_Violence). Ukraine (http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1069278.html).

And that's just a taste. Your capitalist "freedom" is ignorance and inhumanity.

Anyone who believes that capitalism didn't both fabricate and empower the voices of hatred and racism in Europe after the fall is lying to themselves. As I've said before, the entire mindset of capitalism revolves around competition, around screwing over the "other" to serve oneself. Well, it is no surprise when people apply this inhuman logic to national matters. Further, the capitalist class depends on the division and infighting of the working class in order to divide and rule. The bourgeoisie has a vested interest in causing such racist lunacy.

Communists 4, Bud Struggle 0

5. If the people in the countries of the former Yugoslavia decide they don't want to fight each other--then they won't. It's untimately their decision. The World Bank or the IMF has asolutely no reason to keep that area poor. Rich countries make people money, poor countries--renege on debts. And they don't like that kind of thing.We've been over this, you broken record of a Reagan speech. You already admitted that Tudman was a dictator, and yet you say that it's "their decision". Apparently, you can't even make a consistent argument. Tudman had nothing to do with the democratic will of the Yugoslavian people, because as we've seen, the Yugoslavian people prefer Tito over the bourgeois scumbags who ruined the country.

So no, it's not "their decision", it's the decision of your precious parasitic ruling class that feeds on the sweat, blood and tears of the workers. That's the problem, as the history of Yugoslavia and the whole of Europe so graphically explained.

Final score: Communists 5, Bud Struggle 0

Revolution starts with U

24th October 2011, 22:21

It's a shut out! Don't get too cocky tho... remember, one game at a time :lol:

Robert

25th October 2011, 01:35

As I've said before, the entire mindset of capitalism revolves around competition, around screwing over the "other" to serve oneself.
Microsoft competes with Apple. They don't "screw" each other in the process.

Same with Ford versus Chevy, Nissan versus Toyota, Gibson versus Fender, Adidas versus Nike, and Heinz versus Del Monte.

your precious parasitic ruling class that feeds on the sweat, blood and tears of the workers.

Do you guys all attend the same writing workshops or something?

http://www.marxist.com/dont-like-salary-be-blood-donor.htm

http://www.rockawave.com/news/2005-05-20/Columnists/138.html

http://articles.ivpressonline.com/2008-06-10/migrant-camp_24179560

alegab

25th October 2011, 02:08

That's an interesting thought.

My definition of a 'real country' is a country that isn't just one giant city (see: San Marino & Vatican City), and it also can't be totally reliant on foreign aid (see: Nauru, Tuvalu, other Pacific Islands)

From that, I'd say that Andorra or some reasonably large Pacific Island is the smallest country in the world.

And the "giant city" of the Vatican State has a citizenship of 829 + 3000 workers, i guess it beats Tokyo or NYC. The only city state which can be considered to have a huge population is Singapore's 5million

ComradeMan

25th October 2011, 11:50

Pol Pot didn't carry out communist policies.

Not according to some "communists" here. Some here seem to be quite affirmative to just how communist the intentions and policies were- albeit that they went terribly, terribly wrong.

Communists -1- Communists- 0- Bud Struggle- 1- :confused:

And? The number of people siding with the Partizans was not insignificant, either...which means that a great number of Yugoslavians participated actively in the building of a peaceful, multinational Yugoslavia. You know, the kind of thing you hate because you side with your boy Tudman.

Tudman was a Yugolsav Partisan during WWII.

81% of Serbs today disagree.

Puerile fallacious reasoning. A majority opinion does not de facto mean a correct opinion. Do 81% of Serbs disagree that Tito was elected for life? Or do they disagree that workers didn't control the means of employment?

Caucuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_War). Baltic (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042700165.html). Hungary (http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=3042). Germany (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/neonazis-in-ostdeutschland-prallvolles-zornkonto-1.892591). Poland (http://www.cracow-life.com/news/news/698-Putin_Condems_anti-Russian_Violence). Ukraine (http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1069278.html).

Well you've picked an array of different examples that really cannot be compared. Bud spoke about Poland and Hungary- those incidents you are talking about are in the 2000s and are nowhere near comparable to the Yugoslavian wars.

The Caucasus example you give happened under "communism". You also conveniently ignore the pro-Russian chauvanism that was to denominate Soviet politics regarding the autonomous leadership of the various republics that marked the period from Stalin right up to Gorbacev.

Anyone who believes that capitalism didn't both fabricate and empower the voices of hatred and racism in Europe after the fall is lying to themselves.

Apart from the reification, which is an issue, can you provide some sources and evidence to show this. People are fully aware of the divide and rule aspects of power and governance, these existed long before capitalism by the way. ;)

Apparently, you can't even make a consistent argument. Tudman had nothing to do with the democratic will of the Yugoslavian people, because as we've seen, the Yugoslavian people prefer Tito over the bourgeois scumbags who ruined the country.

Stats- I thought you said it was 81% of Serbs, now it's the Yugolsavian people.... :rolleyes:

"Because of its neutrality, Yugoslavia would often be rare among Communist countries to have diplomatic relations with right-wing, anti-Communist governments. For example, Yugoslavia was the only communist country allowed to have an embassy in Alfredo Stroessner's Paraguay.[72] However, one notable exception to Yugoslavia's neutral stance toward anti-communist countries was Chile under Pinochet; Yugoslavia was one of many left-wing countries which severed diplomatic relations with Chile after Salvador Allende was overthrown.[73] Yugoslavia also provided military aid and arms supplies to staunchly anti-Communist regimes such as that of Guatemala under Kjell Eugenio Laugerud García.[74]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Broz_Tito

RGacky3

25th October 2011, 12:08

Not according to some "communists" here. Some here seem to be quite affirmative to just how communist the intentions and policies were- albeit that they went terribly, terribly wrong.

Communists -1- Communists- 0- Bud Struggle- 1- :confused:

If your gonna judge all socialists by the crazies, can we judge all Capitalists by fascists?

ComradeMan

25th October 2011, 12:19

If your gonna judge all socialists by the crazies, can we judge all Capitalists by fascists?

I'm not taking Bud's side in the argument, we probably disagree on most points however that doesn't mean that Manic's arguments aren't fallacious and flawed either.

RGacky3

25th October 2011, 12:36

I'm not taking Bud's side in the argument, we probably disagree on most points however that doesn't mean that Manic's arguments aren't fallacious and flawed either.

... If your not taking Bud's side, then why are you using Bud's strawman bullshit, is the same stuff that you were doing where you say "Isreali's would say," make your own arguments.

DarkPast

25th October 2011, 14:50

^^^Excellent post! I'll get back to it later.

Thanks, glad you appreciate the effort I put into it, even if we disagree on our stances.

tir seems to think that killing 700,000 Yugoslavs is pretty minor. I certainly don't.

Like I said, the reason he and I object to your claims is that they imply that the Yugoslavs are somehow naturally inclined to violence. We leftists reject such claims as them bigoted and idealist (i.e. not based on a materialist analysis).

As an aside, that number of 700,000 killed in one extermination camp is greatly exaggerated. It a long story (I can write more about it if you like, though it doesn't make that much of a difference; a lot of people were massacred - that's what's important here)

Not according to some "communists" here. Some here seem to be quite affirmative to just how communist the intentions and policies were- albeit that they went terribly, terribly wrong.

When I die, my only wish is that Cambodia remain Cambodia and belong to the West. It is over for communism, and I want to stress that.
-Pol Pot in 1997.

Tudman was a Yugoslav Partisan during WWII. This is very much true. However, Tuđman was always rather nationalistic and would later renounce communism (and even allow ustaše sympathizers into his government - even though he personally did not like them at all - he made an ideological concession to them in order to seize power). He remained an admirer of Tito until his death though.

Allow me to just make a digression here:

The partisan movement was not exclusively communist at all - there was a strong element of national liberation and pan-slavism to it - I'd say it was stronger than the communist element, in fact. As such, any non-fascist and non-monarchist could find a place in it. Accordingly, some people liked Tito primarily because he was a communist/socialist, while others admired him as a national liberation hero.

Have a look at the Yugoslav flag.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Flag_of_SFR_Yugoslavia.svg/250px-Flag_of_SFR_Yugoslavia.svg.png

It combines the pan-Slavic tricolour (approved at the pan-Slavic Prague convention in 1848) with the communist red star.

After the Tito-Stalin split the country officially abandoned the pan-Slavic part of its ideology (for obvious political reasons) and replaced it with an attempt to make a Yugoslav nation. And, despite the pressures for more autonomy stemming from the leaderships of the republics, the number of people who declared themselves as Yugoslavs (rather than Serbs, Croats etc.) was growing: from 273,000 in 1970 to 1.2 million in 1980.

Anyway, to get back to Tuđman, I'd say that he, while being an admirer of Tito and certainly not a fascist, was a political opportunist first and foremost. In the end it was not ideals that mattered to him - he was interested power most of all.

Yugoslavia was the only communist countryWiki is wrong - Yugoslavia was never communist. Some communists, such as (Marxist)-Leninists would have considered it socialist i.e. in a transition to communism.

Also remember Tito walked a fine line between two power blocs, and yes, he made deals with his ideological enemies - there was no other way for Yugoslavia then, other than isolation a la modern North Korea. In addition, he was justifiably wary of supporting pro-Soviet or pro-Chinese communist movements. Just more proof that socialism in one country doesn't work.

All that said, such actions cannot merely be ascribed to opportunism. The initiatives for worker's self-management, the policy of "brotherhood and unity", the non-aligned movement, social security, literacy campaigns etc., for all their flaws, were genuinely progressive. With the benefit of hindsight, it's not hard to see why they failed - communism cannot succeed in one county pressed by two power blocs, and ruled over by a single party (which inevitably became corrupt and full of apparatchiks, and was also infiltrated by nationalists and capitalists). In the end, protests against the percieved injustice and bureaucratization of the political elite, as well as economic grievances, were deflected by placing the blame on "others" (usually people of different nationalities).

manic expression

25th October 2011, 18:43

Not according to some "communists" here.
And? Does that mean whatever any "communist" says on an internet board is now definitively communist?

Tudman was a Yugolsav Partisan during WWII.
And? Mussolini was part of the Second International, and? By the way, welcome to the Glenn Beck school of reasoning.

Puerile fallacious reasoning. A majority opinion does not de facto mean a correct opinion.
It does mean that capitalism has promoted policies that the majority of Yugoslavs don't like and would want to see reversed.

But it's nice to see some capitalists on this board finally admit that their precious market is in direct contradiction to democracy. :cool:

Well you've picked an array of different examples that really cannot be compared. Bud spoke about Poland and Hungary- those incidents you are talking about are in the 2000s and are nowhere near comparable to the Yugoslavian wars.
Are they or are they not racial violence and bigotry stemming from the society that capitalism has created in those countries? The obvious answer is that they are.

The Caucasus example you give happened under "communism". You also conveniently ignore the pro-Russian chauvanism that was to denominate Soviet politics
No, it happened as communist governments were falling apart. If you think that's merely a coincidence then you're blind. That "pro-Russian chauvinism" you point out was mostly a matter of say, promoting Russian language in a country like Belarus or Latvia, which isn't at all what we're talking about. I don't agree with it but you're trying to make it something it certainly wasn't.

Apart from the reification, which is an issue, can you provide some sources and evidence to show this.
They've already been posted.

Stats- I thought you said it was 81% of Serbs, now it's the Yugolsavian people....
Eat your words (http://www.ce-review.org/00/19/pozun19.html):

The Slovene daily newspaper Večer conducted a public opinion poll in April 2000, regarding opinions of Tito's rule. Almost half of the respondents, 45.1 percent, responded either "excellent" or "good," and only ten percent responded "poor."

Yeah, they really hate him in Ljubljana! :rolleyes: