BBC World Documentry

[Deniz Gezmis]

I'm going to keep this short. Basically a BBC journalist travles outside of Moscow, He takes the trans-Siberian train to Siberia. He visits old collective farms in the middle of Siberia, The machines are rotting, The farmers are going hungry. Their arguement is basically in the Soviet Union, they had order, they had enough money, Enough clothes, enough food and an annual holiday. Now what do they have?
Under Capitalism their fields are not full of wheat anymore. Their slaughthouse, their machines, Their home is crumbling. Only 20% of the wealth of is consentrated outside of Moscow, 20% is nothing.

People here use Russia as an example of glorious Capitalism. The BBC journalist interviews a lumberjack that earns 200$ a year. The factory that makes furniture in the village is empty. No orders are coming in. Even in the Soviet Union no one bought the furniture, But the workers still got paid.

"What we need to do is bring back Stalin. Build prision camps, Put them in the Kremlin there. Bring back Stalin, Even for a year. He would sort them out."
- A Russian farmer.

A Russian ferry capitan has Marx and Lenin busts on his boat, He feels abandanoned by Moscow.
The journalist was invited home by someone on the boat, He was informed by the woman that she has no warm water and their water is only one for a few hours a day.

The pipes in Vladivisk that is suposed to bring the water to homes are rusting. There is no money to make them shine, Not even to fix them. For the last four months, Many have had to used a communal tap in the middle of the street,
"Life never used to be like this. I lived through famine and war. We had water. There is no water, But there is no longer war or famine in Russia, either."

It's not Western "democracy" the Russians crave, It's order. In Moscow everything shines, Everything is made of plastic it's a show peice of Capitalism. Yet outside of Moscow the people are living in a festering shithole.

What is everyones opinion on this?

Source of all of this is from the BBC's Moscow correspondent his documentry was running on BBC News 24 a few minutes ago. Please excuse any grammar or spelling areas.

[New Tolerance]

Do they have that documentary online?

Well, I heard that Russians consider a democratic government to be a weak government, they believe that a strong government is one that controls everything. (aka orderly) That's probably why they want to bring back Stalin.

[Deniz Gezmis]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 28 2003, 01:29 AM
Do they have that documentary online?

Well, I heard that Russians consider a democratic government to be a weak government, they believe that a strong government is one that controls everything. (aka orderly) That's probably why they want to bring back Stalin.
I've searched, But i havn't found it online. Sorry.

[Bolshevika]

Actually, they do want democracy, what they have in today's russia is capitalist bureaucracy, or what you consider "democracy". They had democracy under Stalin, but they also had all their needs met. I believe the latter is more important to them.

Now they have bourgeois 'democracy' and none of their needs are met. Social, health-wise, or employment wise. They are just sitting there rotting, especially the elderly and millions of homeless children.

Bring back Stalin!

[Deniz Gezmis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 01:42 AM
Actually, they do want democracy, what they have in today's russia is capitalist bureaucracy, or what you consider "democracy". They had democracy under Stalin, but they also had all their needs met. I believe the latter is more important to them.

Now they have bourgeois 'democracy' and none of their needs are met. Social, health-wise, or employment wise. They are just sitting there rotting, especially the elderly and millions of homeless children.

Bring back Stalin!
By democracy, I meant the current democracy that they apparently have under Capitalism. Could you also supply me with some articles about democracy under Stalin, Please?

[Bolshevika]

http://www.marx2mao.org/Stalin/SC36.html#s3

Soviet constitution

Stalin's war on bureaucracy: http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node81.htm...200000000000000 (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node81.html#SECTION00900200000000000000)

[Looter]

Exploring Russia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3251149.stm)
People in Russia love Stalin. They are right. People in the west hate Stalin, they are ignorant fools.

[Deniz Gezmis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 02:56 AM
http://www.marx2mao.org/Stalin/SC36.html#s3

Soviet constitution

Stalin's war on bureaucracy: http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node81.htm...200000000000000 (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node81.html#SECTION00900200000000000000)
Thank you.

[Deniz Gezmis]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3234568.stm
That's the article, The visual documentrary contained alot more though.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 01:02 AM
Under Capitalism their fields are not full of wheat anymore. Their slaughthouse, their machines, Their home is crumbling. Only 20% of the wealth of is consentrated outside of Moscow, 20% is nothing.







Hmm... Somoene on this site critized the BBC as having westerng propaganda and capitalist ideas? but now you believe this story? seems when news goes your way you applaud it but if they make a report on poverty in Cuba you would of called it Western propaganda.
I will say i believe this, but its not capitalism's fault it is the corrup gov's fault and the mess left by the USSR.

That 80% of the wealth is in moscow is not capitalism's fault, its the goverments fault.


People here use Russia as an example of glorious Capitalism. The BBC journalist interviews a lumberjack that earns 200$ a year. The factory that makes furniture in the village is empty. No orders are coming in. Even in the Soviet Union no one bought the furniture, But the workers still got paid.
So even under the Soviet Union no one bought the furniture but they would still get money, lol, that is healthy for the economy.
That is the problem with communism you get paid for not producing. What a great system, so i can make drawings, no one buys them and i still get money, that is great, I Think I want to live in a communist country. You see this man got paid for something that was never baught or used, so even though he didtn sell anything he would still get paid, but he never learned or was never taught how to do something else. Now the gov. does not give him money and since he never learned to do something different he does not know what other way he can make money, i feel sorry for him but since he always got paid for doing something no one bought he never bothered to learn something different.

What a coincidence that you put the quotes you like but you do not put this one, "It's the local authority's fault," one man with a bucket cried. "Those officials have stolen all the money that was supposed to be spent on renovating the city's water system." So is it capitalism's fault? no its the corrupt goverment
that was also in the article.

HERE IS ANOTHER QUOTE YOU CONVINIENTLY LEFT OUT: ""There could be a burst of infectious disease" one doctor told us. "It could happen any day."

Medical staff remembered a similar water crisis outside Vladivostok more than 30 years ago. Back then, there were hundreds of cases of typhoid - no one wants a repeat of that.
See this also happened when the USSR was in charge, what is your explination for that?
And what a great ending to this article:
"As I watched them drag their load away towards their apartment block, I couldn't help thinking, Russia can put people into space; it can build some of the world's most sophisticated weapons but in the 21st century, it can't even provide people here with a regular supply of one of their most basic needs - water.

So true, the gov. just needs to pay more attention to the people instead of the space programs.

This is not capitalism's fault, its not like capitalism is being applied their. Im not sure what their economic policies have been like so I cant say what they are. But as you can see it's the corrupt gov's that cause this not capitalism.

[Bolshevika]

Actually in Russia there are almost no social programs, little attention is given to the people, people have the "freedom" to start their own businesses, employ who they want, etc. So in reality, this is true capitalism. The United States is not capitalist in the Adam Smith sense, but capitalist in the Benito Mussolini sense.

Although, there is socialism and security in Russia...for the rich through mafia ties. However, everyone else has capitalism.

The BBC is probably the most unbiased mainstream western network out there. When they do reports on Cuba, they usually have very moderate-positive things to say, and refrain from propaganda words like "dictator" or "murderer" when referring to Fidel Castro. I like the BBC for when I want unbiased news.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 05:15 AM
Actually in Russia there are almost no social programs, little attention is given to the people, people have the "freedom" to start their own businesses, employ who they want, etc. So in reality, this is true capitalism. The United States is not capitalist in the Adam Smith sense, but capitalist in the Benito Mussolini sense.

Although, there is socialism and security in Russia...for the rich through mafia ties. However, everyone else has capitalism.


You talk about the rich? what rich, everyone was left the same after the USSR went down, right ? NO, you know who are the rich today: people that had been in gov 15 years ago and the mafia.
Because their is no rich families to blame now, no rich company owners, because the state owned everything. So obviously the only people that could actually start businesses whee people that are and had been in power because they had alll the money.
This proves that the gov. was not really looking out for the people like they should, they where keeping alot of that money for themselves.

[Bolshevika]

I am speaking of Russia today. The rich and the pro-rich governments are to blame for all the suffering, the government pays upper class businessmen to exploit oil, minerals, etc for the Russian markets, completely ignoring its peoples needs. This is capitalism, money and profit come before the people.

These businessmen are foreign. Through these situations they recruit ambitious Russians, and form a new ruling class.

If you disagree that money and profit come before the people in capitalism, you are a revisionist to capitalist theory.

[Deniz Gezmis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 04:59 AM
Hmm... Somoene on this site critized the BBC as having westerng propaganda and capitalist ideas? but now you believe this story? seems when news goes your way you applaud it but if they make a report on poverty in Cuba you would of called it Western propaganda.
I will say i believe this, but its not capitalism's fault it is the corrup gov's fault and the mess left by the USSR.

That 80% of the wealth is in moscow is not capitalism's fault, its the goverments fault.


People here use Russia as an example of glorious Capitalism. The BBC journalist interviews a lumberjack that earns 200$ a year. The factory that makes furniture in the village is empty. No orders are coming in. Even in the Soviet Union no one bought the furniture, But the workers still got paid.
So even under the Soviet Union no one bought the furniture but they would still get money, lol, that is healthy for the economy.
That is the problem with communism you get paid for not producing. What a great system, so i can make drawings, no one buys them and i still get money, that is great, I Think I want to live in a communist country. You see this man got paid for something that was never baught or used, so even though he didtn sell anything he would still get paid, but he never learned or was never taught how to do something else. Now the gov. does not give him money and since he never learned to do something different he does not know what other way he can make money, i feel sorry for him but since he always got paid for doing something no one bought he never bothered to learn something different.

What a coincidence that you put the quotes you like but you do not put this one, "It's the local authority's fault," one man with a bucket cried. "Those officials have stolen all the money that was supposed to be spent on renovating the city's water system." So is it capitalism's fault? no its the corrupt goverment
that was also in the article.

HERE IS ANOTHER QUOTE YOU CONVINIENTLY LEFT OUT: ""There could be a burst of infectious disease" one doctor told us. "It could happen any day."

Medical staff remembered a similar water crisis outside Vladivostok more than 30 years ago. Back then, there were hundreds of cases of typhoid - no one wants a repeat of that.
See this also happened when the USSR was in charge, what is your explination for that?
And what a great ending to this article:
"As I watched them drag their load away towards their apartment block, I couldn't help thinking, Russia can put people into space; it can build some of the world's most sophisticated weapons but in the 21st century, it can't even provide people here with a regular supply of one of their most basic needs - water.

So true, the gov. just needs to pay more attention to the people instead of the space programs.

This is not capitalism's fault, its not like capitalism is being applied their. Im not sure what their economic policies have been like so I cant say what they are. But as you can see it's the corrupt gov's that cause this not capitalism.
I don't care what other peoples opinions are, the BBC practically exposed and continue to expose what the British have done to my country, Now they are exposing what corrupt governments world wide are doing, I appauld them for making that effort. If they made a report on poverty in Cuba, So be it. Everyone knows there is poverty in all countries. Even more so since Cuba is a third world country.

What you mean is, The Soviet system. So what we do is, Give the labourers nothing like they are receiving under Capitalism (or more so not receiving). Therefore they go hungry, You're actually premoting starving people? Where they must make sure not a single vegstable goes to waste, Were they do not have enough clothes, ect.
There cannot be a Communist country, Thanks.

That quote was not in the visial documentrary. And, Atleast the Soviet government fixed the pipes and supplied health care. You should see Vladivostok hospital now.

Actually, The journalist meant under modern day Russia, Since the people in Vladivostok had a water decent watersupply under the USSR it wouldn't make sence for him to say that.

THIS IS NOT CAPITALISM! WTF. We all know your deaf and dumb so you must be blind now.

[cubist]

*stands and appluads death*http://www.sf-fan.de/weltcon/191_standing_ovations.jpg

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 05:15 AM
The BBC is probably the most unbiased mainstream western network out there. When they do reports on Cuba, they usually have very moderate-positive things to say, and refrain from propaganda words like "dictator" or "murderer" when referring to Fidel Castro. I like the BBC for when I want unbiased news.
Much of BBC's reporting on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict isn't not even close to unbiased.



This other arguement we have here is annoying. Stalin was not as well liked as you fools want to pretend he was. He was a dictator, many did not like him and his brutal policies. And yes, Capitalism did make Russia worse, which seems to bother idiots who try to blame it on the Soviet Union. The most basic of facts can easily outline this matter. The Soviet Union was in the Third World before the Soviet Union, and then rose up to the Second World under Soviet administration. Now that it has been under Captialist administration, it has been driven right back into the Third World.

[Bolshevika]

From what I've seen, the BBC is far less bias than CNN, Foxnews, MSNBC, and other mainstream media network. Of course it's not perfectly unbiased, no media source is.


Stalin was not as well liked as you fools want to pretend he was. He was a dictator, many did not like him and his brutal policies.

You are right, Stalin was a dictator, the man you sport in your avatar (Fidel?) is a dictator, George W. Bush is a dictator (although not to the same degree), all people who force the opinion of one group of people over another are dictators.

The system in Stalin's USSR isn't much different from Cuba's, almost identitical in fact.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 04:07 AM

You are right, Stalin was a dictator, the man you sport in your avatar (Fidel?) is a dictator, George W. Bush is a dictator (although not to the same degree), all people who force the opinion of one group of people over another are dictators.

The system in Stalin's USSR isn't much different from Cuba's, almost identitical in fact.
OMG, did i just see somoen admit Castro is a dictator. Finally someone that actually sees the facts.

[LuZhiming]

From what I've seen, the BBC is far less bias than CNN, Foxnews, MSNBC, and other mainstream media network. Of course it's not perfectly unbiased, no media source is.

Let me reword it for you: It's quite biased. But i agree with the above statement.


You are right, Stalin was a dictator, the man you sport in your avatar (Fidel?) is a dictator,

Yes and yes.


George W. Bush is a dictator (although not to the same degree), all people who force the opinion of one group of people over another are dictators.

I wouldn't call George Bush a dictator. He is totally clueless anyway.


The system in Stalin's USSR isn't much different from Cuba's, almost identitical in fact.

Except:

- Cuba's focuses more on health and education and less on industrialization
- Cuba's doesn't overwork the people
- Cuba's isn't based at all on slaughtering the rich
- Cuba's never benefitted from looting

But yes, it is quite similar indeed, minus the brutal part.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 07:04 AM



George W. Bush is a dictator (although not to the same degree), all people who force the opinion of one group of people over another are dictators.

I wouldn't call George Bush a dictator. He is totally clueless anyway.




OMG 2 people admiting Castro is a dictator, that is a first on this board. People that actually see the facts , not that common here. I hope all the castro lovers (death, tetelives) and all the other's that are in love with castro.

As to george Bush, yes and yes.

[Deniz Gezmis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 07:12 AM
OMG 2 people admiting Castro is a dictator, that is a first on this board. People that actually see the facts , not that common here. I hope all the castro lovers (death, tetelives) and all the other's that are in love with castro.

As to george Bush, yes and yes.
Troll.

[cubist]

BORING

[Bolshevika]

- Cuba's focuses more on health and education and less on industrialization
- Cuba's doesn't overwork the people
- Cuba's isn't based at all on slaughtering the rich
- Cuba's never benefitted from looting

Stalin focused on Healthcare and education as much as any other socialist country, which is a lot compared to everyone else (especially in the 1930-50's). Although I agree that industrialization and sacrifice were what made the Soviet Union great. The people had work hours though, so I don't know how they were 'overworked'.

You cannot compare the size of Cuba and the size of the former USSR, so industrialization is much more important in a nation like Russia than in a tiny one like Cuba.

The rich weren't "slaughtered", they resisted to give up their property so they were taken care of. However, they were warned.

And what do you mean by looting?

[LuZhiming]

Stalin focused on Healthcare and education as much as any other socialist country, which is a lot compared to everyone else (especially in the 1930-50's). Although I agree that industrialization and sacrifice were what made the Soviet Union great. The people had work hours though, so I don't know how they were 'overworked'.

Hmm, I wouldn't say in comparison, the Soviets dedicated more or equal to healthcare. Maybe education, I'm not sure on that. But Cuba's healthcare program is excellent, and the things they have done in Africa and surrounding countries, is much more significant than any Soviet contributions. There were large amounts of people dying because of the massive sacrifice to industrialization, regardless of health research or anything else.

And let&#39;s not forget, that even with Stalin&#39;s sucessful policies, Russia did have a massive amount of people homeless and dying on the streets. That was never a problem in Cuba. Sure, Russia has a much greater population than Cuba, but they also have a lot more land, minerals, money, and people to do the work. Russia never had to suffer the sort of international terrorism or economic strangulation that Cuba has either. <_<


You cannot compare the size of Cuba and the size of the former USSR, so industrialization is much more important in a nation like Russia than in a tiny one like Cuba.

That statement is true, but the implications in it aren&#39;t. Are you completely serious to believe that it was necessary, or just, or productive for the people to put that much work into industrialization?


The rich weren&#39;t "slaughtered", they resisted to give up their property so they were taken care of. However, they were warned.

Hmm, I wonder why Cuba never had that problem. It wasn&#39;t because the rich didn&#39;t resist, they did in Cuba, but there was never any sort of mass murder.


And what do you mean by looting?

Stalin was responsible for quite a bit of looting in surrounding countries. Especially in East Germany. After his troops raped and murdered hundreds, maybe thousands of people (Which I think is unfair to blame on him), they looted the country, and brought all sorts of materials back, with Stalin&#39;s full approval, and orders for mechanisms to haul the resources out. Josef Stalin the Imperialist, the oppressor and suppressor, admired by Winston Churchill, Harry Truman, and Saddam Hussein, a looter, torturer, and killer of all financial and literal opposition.

[Bolshevika]

Hmm, I wouldn&#39;t say in comparison, the Soviets dedicated more or equal to healthcare. Maybe education, I&#39;m not sure on that. But Cuba&#39;s healthcare program is excellent, and the things they have done in Africa and surrounding countries, is much more significant than any Soviet contributions. There were large amounts of people dying because of the massive sacrifice to industrialization, regardless of health research or anything else.

Actually, the Soviet Union fed parts of Africa for 30 years and gave poor black, Asian, etc students scholarships to Soviet universities.

Paul Robeson for example, had his children educated in "Stalinist" Russia because American universities gave negroes a hard time.


And let&#39;s not forget, that even with Stalin&#39;s sucessful policies, Russia did have a massive amount of people homeless and dying on the streets. That was never a problem in Cuba. Sure, Russia has a much greater population than Cuba, but they also have a lot more land, minerals, money, and people to do the work. Russia never had to suffer the sort of international terrorism or economic strangulation that Cuba has either.

Um, what? In the USSR there was universal housing, employment, healthcare, education, pension etc all the programs Cuba has.

You cannot compare the economy that Stalin was met with and the economy Fidel was met with either. Stalin had to literally rebuild Russia, from scratch, whilst Fidel had a somewhat advanced (compared to other countries) economy to work with.

Russia did not struggle with economic strangulation because, well, there was nobody to strangle them. They were alone, no one helped build their economy, the Soviets build the economy with their labour.


That statement is true, but the implications in it aren&#39;t. Are you completely serious to believe that it was necessary, or just, or productive for the people to put that much work into industrialization?

Soviet workers under Stalin had more rights than any other countries at the time.

The reason for so much hardship was because socialism doesn&#39;t build itself. In Cuba they had the luck of having the Soviet Union provide them subsidies, a fairly advanced capitalist economy, etc... what did Stalin have?

Compare the hardships of the Soviet Union during the 30&#39;s and 40&#39;s to the hardships of the industrial revolution in America. You can&#39;t compare them. And let me tell you this, the Soviet peoples built socialism in more than half the time the western countries built capitalism.



Hmm, I wonder why Cuba never had that problem. It wasn&#39;t because the rich didn&#39;t resist, they did in Cuba, but there was never any sort of mass murder.

Actually, after the revolution Fidel and Che went on an execution spree of Batista supporters, former bourgeois landowners.

Cuba&#39;s rich population was extremely small in comparison to say, the Kulaks, so it was easy for all the rich Cuban landowners to flee to the United States. However, the ones that were left behind were not spared.


Stalin was responsible for quite a bit of looting in surrounding countries. Especially in East Germany. After his troops raped and murdered hundreds, maybe thousands of people (Which I think is unfair to blame on him), they looted the country, and brought all sorts of materials back, with Stalin&#39;s full approval, and orders for mechanisms to haul the resources out. Stalin the Imperialist, admired by Winston Churchill, Harry Truman, and Saddam Hussein, a looter, torturer, and killer of all financial and literal opposition.

How is Stalin an imperialist for making East Germany a Soviet republic? They started the war, and Stalin fought back and kept it. This is not imperialism because Stalin did not pre-emptively invade this territory.

And the USSR didn&#39;t really keep the DDR. It had its own independent government, free from Stalin.

I agree it was wrong when the Soviets raped the German women, but you know, in wars soldiers rape women. From all sides. I&#39;m sure American, British, etc soldiers raped their fair share of women, it just isn&#39;t recorded because it is menial in comparison to the other events that plagued World War II

Also saying Churchill and Truman admired Stalin is absolutely ridiculous. I suggest you read what these Anti-communist freedom lovers had to say about Stalin.

[LuZhiming]

Actually, the Soviet Union fed parts of Africa for 30 years and gave poor black, Asian, etc students scholarships to Soviet universities.

Paul Robeson for example, had his children educated in "Stalinist" Russia because American universities gave negroes a hard time.

Yes, he did go to Russia because of the lack of racism. But that was because he had just got back from fascist Germany. He was based in London. And he went to the London School of Oriental Studies before that. Paul Robeson wasn&#39;t poor either, he was an award winning actor.

Stalin didn&#39;t give a damn about Africa. For heavens sake, he tried to form an alliance with Mussolini after he had invaded Ethiopia. I haven&#39;t seen any evidence that Stalin&#39;s supposed help to Africa has been anything like you have made it out to be.


Um, what? In the USSR there was universal housing, employment, healthcare, education, pension etc all the programs Cuba has.

You are wrong. There was never universal housing in Russia.


You cannot compare the economy that Stalin was met with and the economy Fidel was met with either. Stalin had to literally rebuild Russia, from scratch, whilst Fidel had a somewhat advanced (compared to other countries) economy to work with.

Stalin didn&#39;t have to rebuild Russia. It should be noted that a lot of the devastation from World War 2 was his fault, his military judgement, similar to Hitler&#39;s was awful. And again, his rebuilding was done by leading to death of thousands of people. Fidel had a lot less to work with than Russia, and his country had been dominated and been under a protectorate. Virtually overnight his country changed from having a protectorate from the U.S. to being completely isolated from the U.S. That is quite a lot of rebuilding.


Russia did not struggle with economic strangulation because, well, there was nobody to strangle them. They were alone, no one helped build their economy, the Soviets build the economy with their labour.

So did Cuba under Castro. <_< The main reason I wanted to bring that up, is to demonstrate the greatness of Cuba&#39;s health system. It&#39;s pretty much undisputed, that the U.S. embargo against Cuba would lead to a catastrophe in almost any other country, but not in Cuba because of its excellent health system.


Soviet workers under Stalin had more rights than any other countries at the time.

:lol: Soviet workers were just barely better off than U.S. workers in the 20s. And at that time, the U.S. workers had much better rights than Soviet ones.

Damn it, now I have gone and complimented the U.S., that gets annoying. <_<


The reason for so much hardship was because socialism doesn&#39;t build itself. In Cuba they had the luck of having the Soviet Union provide them subsidies, a fairly advanced capitalist economy, etc... what did Stalin have?

I had a feeling you would bring that up. Cuba&#39;s original intention was to be independent, and it had a great health system before it ever allied with the Soviet Union. As everyone knows, Cuba joined with the Soviets for protection from the United States. Most of the aid from the Soviet Union went to the Cuban military (Which initially was practically non existant) and to fund guerillas in some other countries.

I don&#39;t want to change this point too much. Stalin&#39;s policies were overall sucessful, but they were extremely brutal. That&#39;s my conclusion.


Compare the hardships of the Soviet Union during the 30&#39;s and 40&#39;s to the hardships of the industrial revolution in America. You can&#39;t compare them. And let me tell you this, the Soviet peoples built socialism in more than half the time the western countries built capitalism.

Sure, I&#39;ll compare them:

U.S.:

- Strikers were murdered
- People didn&#39;t typically die from simply doing their job
- Had less work than Soviets
- Much less sucessful industrialization
- Minorities and women could not usually get jobs

Russia:

- Virtually no strikers
- People died from just doing their job
- Had more work than the U.S.
- Much more sucessful industrialization
- Minorities and women could get jobs


They&#39;re both quite flawed.

And you are quite right with your last sentence. Arthur Schlesinger wrote about Kennedy policy, and why they hate Castro and his ideas, (Which I have quoted on this board a couple times.), and he mentioned the Soviet connection. The Soviet connection was: "Meanwhile, the Soviet Union hovers in the wings, flourishing…large development loans and presenting itself as the model for…achieving modernisation in a single generation."


Actually, after the revolution Fidel and Che went on an execution spree of Batista supporters, former bourgeois landowners.

Most of the Batista supporters were just Batista supporters. They weren&#39;t large landowners, just loyalists that had to be gotten rid of. But even in that arguement, Che and Fidel didn&#39;t kill every loyalist they came across, but they probably regret not doing it, because those people turned into CIA trained terrorists. Most of the landowners were foreign companies, never did Fidel or Che slaughter any of them. They in fact, wanted to in a way "pay back" the U.S. for the land through supposedly beneficial trade.


Cuba&#39;s rich population was extremely small in comparison to say, the Kulaks, so it was easy for all the rich Cuban landowners to flee to the United States. However, the ones that were left behind were not spared.

You seem to think that rich Cubans fled right when Castro took over. Not true. The execution of Batista supporters was almost right when Castro took over, and the large amount of rich people that fled were because of Castro&#39;s later nationalization of lands.


How is Stalin an imperialist for making East Germany a Soviet republic? They started the war, and Stalin fought back and kept it. This is not imperialism because Stalin did not pre-emptively invade this territory.

You sound like a U.S. propagandist using that kind of arguement. Not only is looting quite a selfish and clearly imperialistic thing to do, but the take over of the country is imperialist, regardless of what the people who used to rule Germany did. :blink: It is childish to use arguements like "He started it&#33;" He was not fighting back by invading it, looting it, and keeping a dominating and tyrannical presence in it. That&#39;s imperialism.


And the USSR didn&#39;t really keep the DDR. It had its own independent government, free from Stalin.

Right, and so did the U.S. installed rulers of Cuba before Castro. :rolleyes:


I agree it was wrong when the Soviets raped the German women, but you know, in wars soldiers rape women. From all sides. I&#39;m sure American, British, etc soldiers raped their fair share of women, it just isn&#39;t recorded because it is menial in comparison to the other events that plagued World War II

Yep, I actually don&#39;t blame Stalin for that incident. (Just the looting and take over) And the U.S. did have a good record in WW2. They have for most of this century. Not to exagerate, in Vietnam, the U.S. soldiers did rape women, and that was well known by the people who sent them there. :angry:


Also saying Churchill and Truman admired Stalin is absolutely ridiculous. I suggest you read what these Anti-communist freedom lovers had to say about Stalin.

:rolleyes: What, the rhetoric after Stalin became a threat to their business interests? That doesn&#39;t change their admiration. Truman constantly brought up his admiration of Stalin, and called him an honest man. Churchill called him a "great" man.