A Study About Communist Atrocities [Archive]

Capitalist Lawyer

19th August 2004, 19:12

Not that it much matters to what my title actually says... but according to you guys we've never actually had a communist nation exist on this planet. We've had plenty of socialist nations that were trying to GET to communism, but never made it past the socialism stepping stone which resulted in milllions upon millions of deaths. And don't give me that whole capitalism has killed millions argument too. Just because capitalists have killed millions (atleast according to you) doesn't make the socialists any better.

HOW MANY DID
COMMUNIST REGIMES MURDER?

With the passing of communism into history as an ideological alternative to democracy it is time to do some accounting of its human costs.

Few would deny any longer that communism--Marxism-Leninism and its variants--meant in practice bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal gulags and forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and show trials, and genocide. It is also widely known that as a result millions of innocent people have been murdered in cold blood. Yet there has been virtually no concentrated statistical work on what this total might be.

For about eight years I have been sifting through thousands of sources trying to determine the extent of democide (genocide and mass murder) in this century. As a result of that effort** I am able to give some conservative figures on what is an unrivaled communist hecatomb, and to compare this to overall world totals.

Of course, eventhough systematically determined and calculated, all these figures and their graph are only rough approximations. Even were we to have total access to all communist archives we still would not be able to calculate precisely how many the communists murdered. Consider that even in spite of the archival statistics and detailed reports of survivors, the best experts still disagree by over 40 percent on the total number of Jews killed by the Nazis. We cannot expect near this accuracy for the victims of communism. We can, however, get a probable order of magnitude and a relative approximation of these deaths within a most likely range. And that is what the figures in Table 1 are meant to be. Their apparent precision is only due to the total for most communist governments being the summation of dozens of subtotals (as of forced labor deaths each year) and calculations (as in extrapolating scholarly estimates of executions or massacres).

With this understood, the Soviet Union appears the greatest megamurderer of all, apparently killing near 61,000,000 people. Stalin himself is responsible for almost 43,000,000 of these. Most of the deaths, perhaps around 39,000,000 are due to lethal forced labor in gulag and transit thereto. Communist China up to 1987, but mainly from 1949 through the cultural revolution, which alone may have seen over 1,000,000 murdered, is the second worst megamurderer. Then there are the lesser megamurderers, such as North Korea and Tito's Yugoslavia.

Obviously the population that is available to kill will make a big difference in the total democide, and thus the annual percentage rate of democide is revealing. By far, the most deadly of all communist countries and, indeed, in this century by far, has been Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot and his crew likely killed some 2,000,000 Cambodians from April 1975 through December 1978 out of a population of around 7,000,000. This is an annual rate of over 8 percent of the population murdered, or odds of an average Cambodian surviving Pol Pot's rule of slightly over just over 2 to 1.

In sum the communists probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987. Of course, the world total itself it shocking. It is several times the 38,000,000 battle-dead that have been killed in all this century's international and domestic wars. Yet the probable number of murders by the Soviet Union alone--one communist country-- well surpasses this cost of war. And those murders of communist China almost equal it.

Link (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM)

Exploited Class

19th August 2004, 19:27

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2004, 12:12 PM
Not that it much matters to what my title actually says... but according to you guys we've never actually had a communist nation exist on this planet. We've had plenty of socialist nations that were trying to GET to communism, but never made it past the socialism stepping stone which resulted in milllions upon millions of deaths. And don't give me that whole capitalism has killed millions argument too. Just because capitalists have killed millions (atleast according to you) doesn't make the socialists any better.

Well I enjoyed how you removed any attack on capitalism by protecting it safely with the quote.

And don't give me that whole capitalism has killed millions argument too.
Yet one would need to anaylize both in order to get an idea of what the definition of autrocity is. One would have to suggest you did this because you know exactly how bad capitalism is in killing people. Also, capitalism can not stand on its own when using deaths resulting from, attacks.

So what am I suppose to do with these "facts and figures" of death tolls if I can not attack Capitalism for doing the exact samething? Just accept it and say, "Oh he is right communism is evil it kills and capitalism must be better because I can't disclose all the killing it has also done?"

Or are you trying to sucker people into protecting the death tolls?

"Well I love communism and since he took away the option of showing the same results with capitalism, I had better try and defend killing."

And you don't even ask anything in the post, so really all you did was copy and paste some text from another website and then said, "Read it, don't attack capitalism for doing the same." Where is one left to go with that?

Good job on copy and paste and protecting capitalism, because somebody needs to protect it, since it most certainly can't do so on its own.

Exploited Class

19th August 2004, 19:42

Really this post comes down to this.

There are two families in a town, the Petersons and the Smiths.

John Smith kills everybody in his family but his son.
Tom Peterson kills everybody in his family but his son.

Now for some reason you like John Smith and dislike Tom Peterson for some reason and have decided to make a post on it.

"Tom Peterson killed everybody in his family but his son, how horrible is this? Don't talk about John Smith however, this is all about how horrible Tom Peterson is."

Of course for some reason the American mindset works this way, everything including things it is own nation is guilty of, is wrong but whitewashes its own crimes.

We had a civil war, but now that is over nobody else should it is wrong. Now let's look at the numbers of deaths of other country's civil wars but not our own.

We comitted genocide against people who had no standing army and were not united, but now nobody else can.

We are the only people that can use nuclear weapons on another nation, nobody else can.

We can have people die working for idealogy in factories and poor work conditions but nobody else can now, unless it is in American sweatshops across seas.

We can have massive poverty, poor healthcare for the poor, homeless, starving and malnutrition within our own borders but other countries we will attack for it.

Yes so it does favor you to attack the autrocities of other idealogies and nations while making a condition, but don't attack our country or idealogies.

Sweep the mess under the rug and then go to your neighbor's house and point out all their messes. :rolleyes:

Vinny Rafarino

19th August 2004, 20:02

never made it past the socialism stepping stone which resulted in milllions upon millions of deaths.

Lie.

Marxism-Leninism and its variants--meant in practice bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal gulags and forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and show trials, and genocide

"bloody terrorism"

Is American terrorism somehow less "bloody"?

"deadly purges"

Yes, subversive elements were purged from the party.

"Lethal Gulags" (Otherwise known as "prisons" now that the yanquis are "friends" again with Russia)

Are American Gulags any less "lethal"?

"and forced labor"

Much like the "chain gangs" still practised in the USA?

"fatal deportations"

This does not even make sense.

"man-made famines"

Lie.

" extrajudicial executions and show trials"

Lie.

"t is also widely known that as a result millions of innocent people have been murdered in cold blood"

Lie.

Consider that even in spite of the archival statistics and detailed reports of survivors, the best experts still disagree by over 40 percent on the total number of Jews killed by the Nazis

Looks like we have another "the holocaust really was not as bad as those pesky jews make it out to be" character. I really should stop here, but I will expose a couple more lies before I move on to reality.

With this understood, the Soviet Union appears the greatest megamurderer of all, apparently killing near 61,000,000 people. Stalin himself is responsible for almost 43,000,000 of these. Most of the deaths, perhaps around 39,000,000 are due to lethal forced labor in gulag and transit thereto

Lie.

Communist China up to 1987, but mainly from 1949 through the cultural revolution, which alone may have seen over 1,000,000 murdered,

Lie.

Obviously the population that is available to kill will make a big difference in the total democide, and thus the annual percentage rate of democide is revealing. By far, the most deadly of all communist countries and, indeed, in this century by far, has been Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot and his crew likely killed some 2,000,000 Cambodians from April 1975 through December 1978 out of a population of around 7,000,000. This is an annual rate of over 8 percent of the population murdered, or odds of an average Cambodian surviving Pol Pot's rule of slightly over just over 2 to 1

Pol Pot was neither a communist nor a socialist.

In sum the communists probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987

Lie.

It's nice to see that this cat "approximates" even more "murders" by communists than the Neo Nazis; their "educated guess" is only 10 million. :lol:

YKTMX

19th August 2004, 20:08

. We've had plenty of socialist nations that were trying to GET to communism, but never made it past the socialism stepping stone which resulted in milllions upon millions of death

Socialism has never existed either.

ideological alternative to democracy

:rolleyes:

Yet there has been virtually no concentrated statistical work on what this total might be.

On the contrary, we never read anything but.

And don't give me that whole capitalism has killed millions argument too

LOL, ok I won't.

fernando

19th August 2004, 20:18

Obviously the population that is available to kill will make a big difference in the total democide, and thus the annual percentage rate of democide is revealing. By far, the most deadly of all communist countries and, indeed, in this century by far, has been Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot and his crew likely killed some 2,000,000 Cambodians from April 1975 through December 1978 out of a population of around 7,000,000. This is an annual rate of over 8 percent of the population murdered, or odds of an average Cambodian surviving Pol Pot's rule of slightly over just over 2 to 1.

Hmm...if I remember correctly the US supported Pol Pot:
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/hermansept97.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_Third.../US_PolPot.html (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_PolPot.html)
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr...larion0498.html (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/polpotmontclarion0498.html)

Morpheus

19th August 2004, 21:00

Capitalist Lawyer, do you intend to response to my response to you about US imperialism at http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...pic=28165&st=20 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=28165&st=20) or do you concede that the US is imperialist?

Also, if all these atrocities discredit "communism" (Marxist-Leninism) don't all the atrocities committed by capitalists also discredit capitalism? Marxist-leninism is a counter-revolutionary anti-proletarian ideology that enslaves workers and peasants to an exploitative state bureaucracy, real communists (libertarian communists/anarcho-communists/council communists) oppose it. This isn't mere talk - there were many communist uprisings against Leninist tyranny. Famous ones include Kronstadt 1921 and Hungary 1956.

YKTMX

19th August 2004, 21:06

The anarchist is just as stupid as the capitalist.

New Tolerance

19th August 2004, 22:16

Pointing out that "communist" regimes murdered millions is highly irrelevent to anything. Most of us do not support these regimes anyways.

LuZhiming

20th August 2004, 01:03

This topic should be ignored. Anyone who thinks the above mentioned states are at all attempts to create Communism doesn't know enough about those states to comment on them. But a few things should be cleared up nonetheless:

Pol Pot did not kill 2 million people. He did not kill 1 million people. I doubt he killed a half a million people. Pol Pot couldn't kill 1 million Cambodians if he wanted to. There is not a single scholarly study on the atrocities of the Pol Pot regime that would create a figure anywhere near 1 million. I mean that literally. This isn't something particularly dissenting either, the CIA actually puts the figure of people killed by Pol Pot at 50,000-100,000.

Citing the figure of 1,000,000 for deaths in "Communist" China, the country with the largest population in the world under Mao is kind of strange, the amount of people literally murdered by Suharto in his 1965 Western supported coup may have killed 1,000,000 people, and the figures go way up if you count Aceh, West Papua, and East Timor, not to mention the unknown number of deaths Suharto is responsible for during the rest of his reign.

This article selectively points out how relivant population %'s are, however it's worth mentioning that if one wants to use such standards, the United State's murderous bombings and foreign-backed invasions of Cambodia and Laos, or its backing the atrocities in East Timor, are most certainly the worst atrocities since Hitler's Germany

If you're going to say Stalin killed over 400,000,000 million people, not to mention China, that's fine with me, however we have to stop being liars and realize that if this standard were to be applied, the deaths caused by Capitalists in Africa and Latin America are far worse than anything attributed to the Soviet Union, let us remember that the Soviet Union had one of the largest populations in the world. It's absurd to cite superficial figures of the amount of people who died in wars around the world, we have no clue how many people have died in most parts of the world as a result of Western atrocities, because we don't study out atrocities.

Furthermore, a lot of these examples are misleading, some of them are the result of U.S. intervention. That is certainly the case for Cambodia under Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge has a lot to thank the CIA for, the genocidal bombing of Cambodia and the overthrow of Norodom Sihanouk made the Khmer Rouge successful. Not to forget the general chaos that was ravaging Cambodia long before Pol Pot came to power made massacres predictable. But don't ask that nasty 'why' question.

By the way, the figures given for Nazi Germany and Japanese Imperialists are far too low, if we are going to apply the same standards as we do for "Communist" monsters. Hitler had to have been responsible for the deaths of at least 30,000,000 Russians, not to speak of other places. The Japanese by the same standards killed a lot more than 6,000,000 people, 2,000,000 people died in the peasent society of Vietnam alone from famines. The Japanese even exterminated about 60,000 people in tiny East Timor.

Guest1

20th August 2004, 01:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 05:06 PM
The anarchist is just as stupid as the capitalist.
What the fuck are you on? :huh:

Individual

20th August 2004, 01:40

The Scientific Research Project of Turkey UFO Reports
Alien Encounter (http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/ufoturk4.htm)

S.K., a nursing mother aged 30 who lives in Amaysa, Turkey was breast-feeding her 5 months old baby on July 23 when she claims to have experienced a brief but traumatic alien encounter in her apartment.

According to a Project Pulsar report, issued today by TUVPOs Erol Erkmen, the incident apparently involved an extraterrestrial creature with huge 'jet black eyes' that slanted upwards in its oval-shaped, bald head.

At the time, this witness was alone in a room with her child on the top floor of a four-floored building. The evening was hot when the creature made its two-second appearance in front of a balcony door and curtains, at around 23:30hrs.

Due to her panic and the very brief time-span involved, the woman could not recall any additional characteristics, other than to describe the creature as having a bonelike structure.

She quickly called her husband and related her experience but the couple decided against sharing the story with others so as to avoid any ridicule.

They reported to TUVPO that many people in the vicinity had witnessed a fireball-like UFO that same night which appeared again and again.

all-too-human

20th August 2004, 07:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 09:06 PM
The anarchist is just as stupid as the capitalist.
:lol: beautiful.

Capitalist Lawyer

20th August 2004, 16:13

Socialism has never existed either.

The US is currently under a socialist system here in this country right now.

The workers run the political system since they clearly outnumber the owners and can therefore out vote them.

The workers also are in control of the economy in that it is they that set prices. If they don't wish to purchase an item at a given price, they don't buy it... and when enough workers do the same, the price comes down to a level at which workers feel there's enough value in the price to justify the purchase.

And comrade RF, you're going to have to do better than the word 'lie' to counteract this college professor's research.

Vinny Rafarino

20th August 2004, 16:32

And comrade RF, you're going to have to do better than the word 'lie' to counteract this college professor's research.

I don't "have" to do anything. I will continue to expose your lies whenever you post them; if you are concerned about it, then I suggest you post something other than fiction from now on.

In addition, if you think being a college professor" somehow gives you more cedibility then you must have NEVER gone to college.

fernando

20th August 2004, 18:05

The workers run the political system since they clearly outnumber the owners and can therefore out vote them.

And vote for who? Two presidents who are both part of the same class as the owners...

Capitalist Imperial

20th August 2004, 18:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 06:05 PM
And vote for who? Two presidents who are both part of the same class as the owners...
It is a common myth that the US political system is limited to two parties.

Exploited Class

20th August 2004, 19:54

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 20 2004, 09:13 AM

The US is currently under a socialist system here in this country right now.

It is called a mix economy, ask any real economist and not Joseph Ferrah or Rush Limbaugh. Postal System/Military/Social Security/Welfare and Unemployment Insurance does not make for a socialist system through out a whole country.

I guess if one considers the Stock Market, IBM, Ford, KPMG and Nabisco socialist enitities then yes America is a socialist system.

The workers run the political system since they clearly outnumber the owners and can therefore out vote them.

hehehe I know, that is why the mechanic down the street, working out of his house garage is running for President this year. Workers don't vote on anything but represenatives and they do not pick who represents them. They only get the choose the ones set before them to vote on.

The workers also are in control of the economy in that it is they that set prices.
Nice fallicy of supply and demand, saddly workers do not get to do much on the supply side. Supply side is dictated by the owners and they utlimately chose how much to supply. Look at the price of sugar, huge demand but low price, why? Deliberate saturation of the market.

If they don't wish to purchase an item at a given price, they don't buy it... and when enough workers do the same, the price comes down to a level at which workers feel there's enough value in the price to justify the purchase.

If that were true we'd see no commercials on TV or any where for that matter. If we did, they would just a product on TV and they would give statistics about how well it is built. There would be no SUV driving through the mountains, people making out, or woman wrestling in fountains. It isn't about what the people want, it is about what people can afford. People need houses, you can raise the level of a house or a car to an insane level, so insane that it might require a person to pay between 5 to 30 years to afford. Which is funny that you might have to pay 30 years to own something, life sentences in jail start around 25 years.

all-too-human

20th August 2004, 20:58

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 20 2004, 06:25 PM
It is a common myth that the US political system is limited to two parties.
The U.S. political system is not limited to two parties, but effectively consists of only two parties.

Morpheus

21st August 2004, 03:37

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 20 2004, 04:13 PM
The workers run the political system since they clearly outnumber the owners and can therefore out vote them.
If the workers vote the wrong way the owners will withdraw their investments, causing the economy to crash. Then that party will lose the next election. Usually what happens is the elected representatives abandon the policies that cause the owners to withdraw their investments & adopt policies more favorable to the capitalist class, so that they will not be creamed in the next election. Plus the state bureaucracy can effectively undercut the policies of elected representatives. The CIA has overthrown lots of governments without the knowledge of congress, sometimes even without the knowledge of the President, and could easily do so domestically if the wrong people got elected. In addition, there are added layers of control including the two-party system, the tendency of the police & FBI to suppress any radical leftist party that gets large numbers of votes (the suppression of the Socialist Party USA is a well known example), media bias against radical left candidates, the fact that rich people can more easily win elections since they have more money for advertisements and things of that nature, the "revolving door" between government service & corporate executives, bribery of candidates ("campaign financing") and the dependancy of candidates on the rich for money to run their campaigns.

The workers also are in control of the economy in that it is they that set prices. If they don't wish to purchase an item at a given price, they don't buy it... and when enough workers do the same, the price comes down to a level at which workers feel there's enough value in the price to justify the purchase.

An unsubstantiated assertion. Just because you claim the economy works this way does not mean it actually works this way. You have presented no evidence to support your claim. The American economy is dominated by corporations, corporations seek profit first and foremost. There is more profit in orienting production towards the wealthy because they have more money to buy things. You don't see products geared towards homeless people. The more money a group has the more influence it has over the economy. Since the richest 1% of Americans has much more wealth than the poorest 90% of Americans, this means the American economy is defact dominated by a small percentage of the population.

Misodoctakleidist

21st August 2004, 10:36

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 20 2004, 04:13 PM
The US is currently under a socialist system here in this country right now.
So shouldn't you be condemning their atrocities?

Pale Rider

21st August 2004, 19:52

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 19 2004, 08:02 PM
lie...lie....lie....lie...lie...lie...

proof....proof...proof....proof....proof....proof? ??

Vinny Rafarino

22nd August 2004, 00:25

Originally posted by Pale [email protected] 21 2004, 07:52 PM

proof....proof...proof....proof....proof....proof? ??
We're going to play that game now eh son?

Fine; where is the proof....proof...proof....proof....proof....proof of this individual's claims?

Good luck Clem.

Pale Rider

22nd August 2004, 11:29

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 22 2004, 12:25 AM
We're going to play that game now eh son?

Fine; where is the proof....proof...proof....proof....proof....proof of this individual's claims?

Good luck Clem.
I didn't call him a liar without presenting a shred of evidence to the contrary...unless you can demonstrate that he is a liar we must accept that he his telling the truth...

so start demonstrating......Klem

By the way...it probably isn't appropriate for you to call me son...in all likelyhood, I was doing LRRP's in Tay Ninh before you were even born...and if you are my age, and still klinging to kommunism, then "world klass loser" comes to mind and son still isn't appropriate.

fernando

22nd August 2004, 11:43

Let him first prove that he is telling the truth. I mean he just tells a bunch of things without proof and then we should accept that as the truth? <_<

Pale Rider

22nd August 2004, 12:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 11:43 AM
Let him first prove that he is telling the truth. I mean he just tells a bunch of things without proof and then we should accept that as the truth? <_<
You guys seem not to have the first clue regarding debate...Let me explain it to you...

1. I say something that I believe to be true...

2. You either (a) agree or (b) dissagree with me...

2a. You reinforce my statement with one of your own

2b. You demonstrate that I am incorrect by rebutting my statement and supplying supporting information that makes it clear that I am wrong and you are right.

3. I rebutt your statement by supplying information that is counter to the information that you gave, or I admit defeat and submit to your point.

Lie...lie...lie...lie...is both childish and pointless and to defend such an argument drags you down to that level as well...

fernando

22nd August 2004, 12:59

I did not post "lie lie lie" The thing is if you want to post something, you have to say where you got the information from, you have to prove it, not just say: "he did this and that" without any good and objective evidence.

But ok...this sort of thing doesnt seem to go for you I guess

Pale Rider

22nd August 2004, 16:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 12:59 PM
I did not post "lie lie lie" The thing is if you want to post something, you have to say where you got the information from, you have to prove it, not just say: "he did this and that" without any good and objective evidence.

But ok...this sort of thing doesnt seem to go for you I guess
Take a short cruise around this board and look at some of the tripe that communists post..with absolutely no supporting evidence...look at the main board...severe lack of supporting evidence in most cases...notice that when people on the right take up argument, they do so by using example, or links to information that may or may not prove their point. I took the time to review comrade's posts...and the vast majority amount to nothing more than "lie lie lie"...he rarely, if ever, actually takes on a point, and when he does, his abysmal lack of knowledge becomes painfully apparent.

I didn't say that you posted lie..lie...lie...but you did defend it which puts you at about the same level as comrade...

In case you are unclear as to what constitutes actual debate rather than mindless hooting and name calling, here is a decent place to start.

http://library.trinity.wa.edu.au/subjects/...rama/debate.htm (http://library.trinity.wa.edu.au/subjects/english/drama/debate.htm)

Bu the way, if you dispute the content of the original post...tell me, how many deaths do you think "communist" governments are responsible for?...or do you dodge the issue entirely by saying that there haven't been any real communists?

Vinny Rafarino

22nd August 2004, 17:07

I didn't call him a liar without presenting a shred of evidence to the contrary

Wrong.

Until you, or anyone, can back their claims up with empirical evidence (opinion is not empirical evidence) there is no need to "counter" their rhetoric.

Do I require "proof" to show that Santa Claus does not exist? Of course not jack, fiction is never intended to be takes seriously.

By the way...it probably isn't appropriate for you to call me son...in all likelyhood, I was doing LRRP's in Tay Ninh before you were even born...and if you are my age, and still klinging to kommunism, then "world klass loser" comes to mind and son still isn't appropriate.

I will take that into account son.

You guys seem not to have the first clue regarding debate...Let me explain it to you...

1. I say something that I believe to be true...

2. You either (a) agree or (b) dissagree with me...

2a. You reinforce my statement with one of your own

2b. You demonstrate that I am incorrect by rebutting my statement and supplying supporting information that makes it clear that I am wrong and you are right.

3. I rebutt your statement by supplying information that is counter to the information that you gave, or I admit defeat and submit to your point.

You're confused boy.

When claims so outrageous and fictional are made, all that needs to be done is point your finger and laugh.

Occasionally we will feel a bit sorry for you but not very often.

If you want a "real" debate, bring up a "real" issue.

Take a short cruise around this board and look at some of the tripe that communists post..with absolutely no supporting evidence

Most communists don't bother debating with individuals such as yourself as you are not intellectually capable of understanding the material; to think you may actually "get it" is an exercise in futility.

It equates with discussing Socratic philosophy with a class of pre-school children; good for a quick laugh but in the end, too boring to bother.

You are nothing more than comic relief to us.

New Tolerance

22nd August 2004, 17:16

You guys seem not to have the first clue regarding debate...Let me explain it to you...

1. I say something that I believe to be true...

2. You either (a) agree or (b) dissagree with me...

2a. You reinforce my statement with one of your own

2b. You demonstrate that I am incorrect by rebutting my statement and supplying supporting information that makes it clear that I am wrong and you are right.

3. I rebutt your statement by supplying information that is counter to the information that you gave, or I admit defeat and submit to your point.

Lie...lie...lie...lie...is both childish and pointless and to defend such an argument drags you down to that level as well...

If this is what debate is, then debating is one of the most unscientific way of presuading people around.

Here's something from the Objectivist (capitalists mind you) website: (read the part that talks about god and agnosticism, you who brings up the arguement must be the first to give supporting evidence, or else your thesis is nothing but an arbitary statement)

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ideas/phi...=phil-meta-epis (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ideas/philosophy-browse.asp?Cat=phil-meta-epis)

gaf

22nd August 2004, 18:02

Originally posted by New [email protected] 22 2004, 05:16 PM

If this is what debate is, then debating is one of the most unscientific way of presuading people around.

you're right this is going nowhere
a lot of finger work for bullshit
and debating is not persuading merely provocating, getting everybody to think about it
no need long discution for it!
by the way we're going to squatt something in holland where people from all bords(cappies stalinist anarchists even fascites...etc) can participate.Are you ready..........to follow

Pale Rider

22nd August 2004, 20:06

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 22 2004, 05:07 PM

Until you, or anyone, can back their claims up with empirical evidence (opinion is not empirical evidence) there is no need to "counter" their rhetoric.

Ok nancy, I'll play.

never made it past the socialism stepping stone which resulted in milllions upon millions of deaths.

Lie.

Tell me then which socialist nation has made it to communism?...or are you denying that countries who called themselves socialist, or communist have been responsible for the deaths of millions?

Marxism-Leninism and its variants--meant in practice bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal gulags and forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and show trials, and genocide

"bloody terrorism"

Is American terrorism somehow less "bloody"?

That is known as a dodge nancy, …you seem to admit that Marxism – Leninism and its variants are indeed bloody…and the American government has not killed millions of its own people…

"deadly purges"

Yes, subversive elements were purged from the party.

Funny one nancy…subversive elements = anyone who doesn’t agree…yep…you are really on the ball. Isn't this a fun game?

"Lethal Gulags" (Otherwise known as "prisons" now that the yanquis are "friends" again with Russia)
Are American Gulags any less "lethal"?

"and forced labor"

Much like the "chain gangs" still practised in the USA?

You dodge again nancy…first off a gulag is a forced labor prison for political dissidents…tell me, which political dissidents in the US are imprisoned simply for their beliefs…and where are they sent to work?...and what kind of work do they do?...

and the members of chain gangs are paying their debt to society for crimes that they committed against other citizens…there isn’t a single one who is there simply because he voiced his political opinion…seems that you have to resort to lies because the truth just doesn't favor you.

"fatal deportations"

This does not even make sense.

Which one of the words are you unable to comprehend nancy? It is a simple concept…I realize that you aren’t the sharpest knife in the drawer, and I will take that into account as I try to explain in more simple terms…Can you imagine a place and a time in which one could deport…oh, lets say a Jew…to a place in which one could be pretty sure that he would be arrested and, in all likelihood, killed upon his arrival? Do you get the picture?

"man-made famines"

Lie.

You really don’t know much, do you nancy? Stalin himself, told Churchill that he had liquidated 10 million peasants in the Ukraine alone…6 millon of these were starved…you know, man made famine. How, you might ask, (since you obviously don’t know) All seed stocks, grain, silage, and farm animals were confiscated from Ukraine's farms. KGB archives, and work being done by Russian historians today is suggesting that the number is going to be closer to 7 million starved. He starved them because it was too expensive to shoot them.

" extrajudicial executions and show trials"

Lie.

Geez nancy, you really don’t know much do you…Do you realize that if you look up “show trial” in the damned encyclopedia, you will find that the term was coined to describe the trials during the great purge of the soviet union in the 1930’s. The first was called the trial of the sixteen…it went from August 16 to August 24, 1936…the primary defendants were Gregory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev. That trial was followed by the trial of Radek and Piatakov (also known as the Trial of the Seventeen)…then there was the trial of the Red Army Generals, then there was The trial of the Twenty One…

There is so much documentation regarding these trials that to respond “lie” is to expose how little you do know..perhaps you are a dissatisfied little high school girl who fancies herself a communist after reading some Russian literature in an effort to rebel against her bank president dad...does that describe you nancy?

"It is also widely known that as a result millions of innocent people have been murdered in cold blood"

Lie.

Again nancy, your answer simply highlights how ignorant you actually are. Stalin's own admission to the "liquidation" of the peasants in the Ukraine is an adequate example of cold blooded murder, but if they aren’t enough, lets not forget the Chechens, the Ingush, the Crimean Tatars, the Tajiks, the Bashkir, and the Kazaks.

With this understood, the Soviet Union appears the greatest megamurderer of all, apparently killing near 61,000,000 people. Stalin himself is responsible for almost 43,000,000 of these. Most of the deaths, perhaps around 39,000,000 are due to lethal forced labor in gulag and transit thereto

Lie.

So tell me nancy, since you disagree with the numbers as stated, how many do you suggest that the soviet murdered? Three?...four?...maybe ten? Tell me.. The thing of it is, nancy, that now that the old KGB records are being released, and the soviet is extinct, the numbers are coming out...and they can't be denied...people aren't being killed there anymore for exposing what happened...

Communist China up to 1987, but mainly from 1949 through the cultural revolution, which alone may have seen over 1,000,000 murdered,

Lie.

Again with the one word answer…and again you demonstrate your ignorance beyond a shadow of a doubt…I suppose technically he isn't correct as he states that only 1 million were killed...lets take a look at how many Chinese have really been killed on the failed route to communism…

During the guerilla period from 1923 to 1949 historians place the death toll at about three and a half million, then there was the period of totalitarianization from 1949 to 1953..that was a tough time, about eight and a half million were killed in those years…then there were the years of collectivation…a party that lasted from 1954 till 1958…about seven and a half million dead…after this, there was retrenchment…that lasted from 1959 till 1963 and over 10 and a half million were killed…lets not forget the cultural revolution from 1964 to 1975…seven and a half million more dead…then comes liberalization from 1976 to 1978…liberalization was a walk in the park…only eight hundred and fifty thousand dead…
Tell me nancy, which of these numbers do you disagree with?...and what would you put the death toll at?

Pol Pot was neither a communist nor a socialist.

So he was a Stalinist…but that is like saying that a thumb nail isn’t a fingernail because your thumb isn’t a finger…the fact is, nancy, that he was just one more deviation of socialism/communism...just one more example that it just isn't going to work.....ever...

In sum the communists probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987

Lie.

Lie...in what way nancy...the incredible numbers of deaths that the soviet, and the chinese, and the cambodians, et. al. are pretty well documented..Are you suggesting that they didn't happen, or are you just disputing the numbers?

Vinny Rafarino

22nd August 2004, 20:35

or are you denying that countries who called themselves socialist, or communist have been responsible for the deaths of millions?

Of course I am! It's simply nonsense.

That is known as a dodge nancy, …you seem to admit that Marxism – Leninism and its variants are indeed bloody

You must be confused as to what transpires during a revolution.

first off a gulag is a forced labor prison for political dissidents

Yanqui nonsense. In the Soviet Union they were called prisons.

which political dissidents in the US are imprisoned simply for their beliefs

:lol:
What planet are you from?

and the members of chain gangs are paying their debt to society for crimes that they committed against other citizens

So you now admit that to critisise the USSR for "forced labour" is hypocritical then?

Which one of the words are you unable to comprehend nancy?

No one understands nonsensical rhetoric, that's why it is used. Get it yet?

talin himself, told Churchill that he had liquidated 10 million peasants in the Ukraine alone…6 millon of these were starved

Lie.

. He starved them because it was too expensive to shoot them

Lie.

Do you realize that if you look up “show trial” in the damned encyclopedia, you will find that the term was coined to describe the trials during the great purge of the soviet union in the 1930’

I know what it means and I know who "coined it".

That does not mean it ever happened, the British lawyer Pitt debunked that propaganda decades ago.

There is so much documentation regarding these trials that to respond “lie” is to expose how little you do know

Lie.

So tell me nancy, since you disagree with the numbers as stated, how many do you suggest that the soviet murdered?

Approximatly 700,000 of the former ruling elite were executed for their crimes against the people.

The thing of it is, nancy, that now that the old KGB records are being released, and the soviet is extinct, the numbers are coming out

Those "numbers" have been out for a long time and only add evidence to less than a million deaths of counter revolutionaries.

Tell me nancy, which of these numbers do you disagree with?...and what would you put the death toll at?

All of them Mr. Hearst. :lol:

I already gave you the accurate "death toll".

So he was a Stalinist

Nope.

He was a loon.

are pretty well documented

I'm sure they are; by western "historians" no less. :lol:

Now, let's move into reality for a moment boy,

I noticed you using the name "Nancy" as a degogatory term used to insinuate that I am a female.

Do you feel that being female is to somehow be "less important" than male? You must as you have used the term as an insult.

Be careful how you answer bubba.

New Tolerance

22nd August 2004, 20:42

We do not all support the Soviet Union (me included), but there are a few things I would like to point out:

Tell me then which socialist nation has made it to communism?...or are you denying that countries who called themselves socialist, or communist have been responsible for the deaths of millions?

In my opinion there are none so far, but that doesn't mean that one day something will happen. At one point in human history, monarchists were arguing that democracy will never make it.

That is known as a dodge nancy, …you seem to admit that Marxism – Leninism and its variants are indeed bloody…and the American government has not killed millions of its own people…

Not necassarily terrorism against its own people (that's debatable) but against other nations. In just one bombing campaign in Indo-China 600,000 civilians were killed. (and how many of these bombing campaigns has there been?)

You really don’t know much, do you nancy? Stalin himself, told Churchill that he had liquidated 10 million peasants in the Ukraine alone…6 millon of these were starved…you know, man made famine. How, you might ask, (since you obviously don’t know) All seed stocks, grain, silage, and farm animals were confiscated from Ukraine's farms. KGB archives, and work being done by Russian historians today is suggesting that the number is going to be closer to 7 million starved. He starved them because it was too expensive to shoot them.

And Churchill defended Stalin before his Cabinet and called him a "great man"... or was that Truman? (Churchill did defend Stalin before his Cabinet though)

So he was a Stalinist…but that is like saying that a thumb nail isn’t a fingernail because your thumb isn’t a finger…the fact is, nancy, that he was just one more deviation of socialism/communism...just one more example that it just isn't going to work.....ever...

By telling you that Pol Pot was not a communist simply means that he does not support Pol Pot.

Vinny Rafarino

22nd August 2004, 20:47

By telling you that Pol Pot was not a communist simply means that he does not support Pol Pot

No it doesn't; it means that Pol Pot was not a communist.

gaf

22nd August 2004, 21:27

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 22 2004, 08:47 PM

No it doesn't; it means that Pol Pot was not a communist.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Invader Zim

22nd August 2004, 21:33

If you want to believe Rummel, I suggest that you look at other political scientists figures first. Rummel is on the hugley inflated side of the figures.

Invader Zim

22nd August 2004, 21:37

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 20 2004, 05:13 PM

The US is currently under a socialist system here in this country right now.

The workers run the political system since they clearly outnumber the owners and can therefore out vote them.

The workers also are in control of the economy in that it is they that set prices. If they don't wish to purchase an item at a given price, they don't buy it... and when enough workers do the same, the price comes down to a level at which workers feel there's enough value in the price to justify the purchase.

And comrade RF, you're going to have to do better than the word 'lie' to counteract this college professor's research.

The US is currently under a socialist system here in this country right now.

What the hell have you been smoking?

If the US is in a socialist system please explain to me why an asset gap exists?

gaf

22nd August 2004, 21:57

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2004, 07:12 PM
Not that it much matters to what my title actually says... but according to you guys we've never actually had a communist nation exist on this planet. We've had plenty of socialist nations that were trying to GET to communism, but never made it past the socialism stepping stone which resulted in milllions upon millions of deaths. And don't give me that whole capitalism has killed millions argument too. Just because capitalists have killed millions (atleast according to you) doesn't make the socialists any better.

we see here the perfect absurdity. communisme can not go on without killing because capitalism can not go on without killing and vice versa fachisme did/do the same we are so intelligent that we can't see this .we just are stupid and this topic prove it
no need discution just bomb.sarc.

New Tolerance

22nd August 2004, 22:06

No it doesn't; it means that Pol Pot was not a communist.

Yes, but they don't seems to be able to take that as an answer, so you might as well as try telling them this a different way.

gaf

22nd August 2004, 22:12

who are they?

fernando

22nd August 2004, 22:34

Hmm...if I remember correctly the US supported Pol Pot:
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/hermansept97.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_Third.../US_PolPot.html (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_PolPot.html)
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr...larion0498.html (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/polpotmontclarion0498.html)

These links show that the US supported Pol Pot.

http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/khmerrouge.html
The link above show that Pol Pot was not a communist

Pale Rider

23rd August 2004, 00:24

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 22 2004, 08:35 PM

Now, let's move into reality for a moment boy,

I noticed you using the name "Nancy" as a degogatory term used to insinuate that I am a female.

Do you feel that being female is to somehow be "less important" than male? You must as you have used the term as an insult.

Be careful how you answer bubba.
Since you seem to think (think...what a laugh) that I would rather be called some name other than that which I chose for myself, It seemed appropriate to assign you a new name as well...nancy...

note: lowercase "nancy" as opposed to "Nancy"

You like to call me son and boy despite the fact that I am in all likelyhood at least a couple of decades older than you and unless you weigh more than 300 pounds, I can bench press your dumb ass...so the simple reason that I decided to call you nancy is that I just don't like you..there is a goober like you on every board...post after post of inane, trivial, meaningless pap that you believe shows your intellectual superiority...newsflash...they don't....I reviewed your stupid posts and got a good handle on your stupid attitude and chose a name to call you that I was quite sure that you would not like....It would seem that I chose well...eh nancy?

"careful how you answer bubba..."

ha ha...it is to laugh...a threat? big deal...ban me? exactly what I would expect from you...tantamount to burning books that you don't agree with...go ahead...add a little fascism to your communism...they mix just fine.

By the way...your pitiful rebuttal didn't dissappoint me a bit...I didn't expect anything meaningful from you and you delivered in spades...if I were a communist, I would request that the ownership boot you off the board just for dragging down the agregate IQ's of the rest of the communists in the forum.

Vinny Rafarino

23rd August 2004, 03:46

Originally posted by New [email protected] 22 2004, 10:06 PM

Yes, but they don't seems to be able to take that as an answer, so you might as well as try telling them this a different way.
You can tell them a thousand ways and they still will not get it.

Therefore why bother?

I have found that the chances of capitalists such as this one suddenly "seeing the light" are nil. So subsequently all they are good for is a laugh.

It's like watching 30 midget clowns cram into a mini.

You like to call me son and boy despite the fact that I am in all likelyhood at least a couple of decades older than you and unless you weigh more than 300 pounds, I can bench press your dumb ass

:lol: delusions of grandeur...

It seemed appropriate to assign you a new name as well...nancy...

note: lowercase "nancy" as opposed to "Nancy"

You're confused. If you assign me a new "name" and the word name is a proper noun (in the way you used it) it would therefore mean the female name Nancy.

Logic is not your forte son.

reviewed your stupid posts and got a good handle on your stupid attitude and chose a name to call you that I was quite sure that you would not like....It would seem that I chose well...eh nancy

Let me guess, you think it's "stupid"? :lol:

ha ha...it is to laugh...a threat?

Do you think it's a threat my little fissa? Who do you think you are, Carmine Galante?

He didn't fair so well rompipalle.

if I were a communist, I would request that the ownership boot you off the board just for dragging down the agregate IQ's of the rest of the communists in the forum.

Old.

Try something new boy.

Pale Rider

23rd August 2004, 09:47

right on the button nancy...I could have written your impotent responses down on a piece of paper before I ever submitted the post...predictable nancy...very predictable...

Let me guess, you think it's "stupid"?

like you "think" the fact that stalin had show trials, and murdered millions is a lie?...no... I know that you are stupid because you "think" history is a lie when it reflects badly on your chosen "philosophy" (tounge firmly in cheek as I type "philosophy") The lawyer Pitt...Bwhahhhahhhahhahhahha!!! Rich nancy, very rich..

and you should thank New Tolerance for his kind support of you...like a family member who "explains" the actions of a demented uncle with an embarassed laugh..

Guest1

23rd August 2004, 10:04

Pale Rider, I suggest you and every Capitalist here remember that you are not here "by right". You are here conditionally, only because we have decided to cage you rather than throw you out completely. So if you want to stay, though I can't imagine why, you'll deflate your fucking ego and stick to the debate.

Stop fucking whining, cause we don't have to listen. What's that? RAF was mean to you? Too bad little boy.

I'll explain an unfair fact of life to you: RAF is a mod, because he has the trust of the CC and malte. You are restricted, because well, we hate what you stand for. Now, you could be a "respectable" (:lol:) person, and maybe there'll be an uneasy coexistance on the forums between us and you. Or you could be a total asshole, in which case you'll suddenly wonder why we would get on your case, by giving you warning points or banning you for example, an not RAF's or any other leftist's case. At which point I'd refer you back to: we ain't fair, we will treat leftists better than trash, cause we trust them.

I'm sure however, that RAF would love to continue this little rapport you two have going here :) I just thought, for your own good, you should know why.

Pale Rider

23rd August 2004, 16:05

Che...I knew from the beginning that I have no "right" to be here...rights don't exist under communism..and as such, I will have lost little if I am banned.

And suggesting that I stick to debate is laughable when put in the context of nancy's spew...it is good to note that you understand the principles of a "show trial" though...perhaps you can explain them to nancy.

The fact that he has the trust of the cc and malte says much...I suppose like much of what has passed for communist adminsistration out in the world, the leaders here are uncomfortable with the idea of having anyone working for them who they perceive as an intellectual equal...and thus employ thugs who don't have the intellectual wattage to do much thinking....

If you ban me then you ban me...as I said, I don't have much invested here...but if you think that I will bow to an obvious intellectual inferior because he has some sort of control over the board, and thus my virtual existence here, you are quite mistaken...I suppose that in the great purge of the soviet, I would have been one of the murdered simply because I would not bow...stalin killed those whom he could not defeat in the arena of ideas...you guys simply ban them...don't you see why communism will never work...it is your mentality...you are quite unable to defend your philosophy in any real world sense, so you have to "deal with" everyone who sees through the illusions that you build...

Just in case you didn't know...after my first contact with comrade, in my 3rd post on the board actually, I apologized, quite humbly, to comrade for coming across so hard..he responded with insult....emphasizing yet another fatal flaw in communism...if you have power over them...screw em...

As I said...it is good that you know how show trials work..explain the concept to nancy..

Louis Pio

23rd August 2004, 16:11

Ohh do stop the whinning, it's sad to look at.

gaf

23rd August 2004, 16:23

Originally posted by Pale [email protected] 23 2004, 04:05 PM
Che...I knew from the beginning that I have no "right" to be here...rights don't exist under communism..and as such, I will have lost little if I am banned.

And suggesting that I stick to debate is laughable when put in the context of nancy's spew...it is good to note that you understand the principles of a "show trial" though...perhaps you can explain them to nancy.

The fact that he has the trust of the cc and malte says much...I suppose like much of what has passed for communist adminsistration out in the world, the leaders here are uncomfortable with the idea of having anyone working for them who they perceive as an intellectual equal...and thus employ thugs who don't have the intellectual wattage to do much thinking....

If you ban me then you ban me...as I said, I don't have much invested here...but if you think that I will bow to an obvious intellectual inferior because he has some sort of control over the board, and thus my virtual existence here, you are quite mistaken...I suppose that in the great purge of the soviet, I would have been one of the murdered simply because I would not bow...stalin killed those whom he could not defeat in the arena of ideas...you guys simply ban them...don't you see why communism will never work...it is your mentality...you are quite unable to defend your philosophy in any real world sense, so you have to "deal with" everyone who sees through the illusions that you build...

Just in case you didn't know...after my first contact with comrade, in my 3rd post on the board actually, I apologized, quite humbly, to comrade for coming across so hard..he responded with insult....emphasizing yet another fatal flaw in communism...if you have power over them...screw em...

As I said...it is good that you know how show trials work..explain the concept to nancy..
you can say what you want but he is sharp . but i suppose he is not the only one?
and believe me i like che and marijeanne

Capitalist Lawyer

23rd August 2004, 16:47

hehehe I know, that is why the mechanic down the street, working out of his house garage is running for President this year. Workers don't vote on anything but represenatives and they do not pick who represents them. They only get the choose the ones set before them to vote on.

So ignoring FACTS is apparently a genetic issue with you. Well the FACTS are that the workers outnumber the owners, and can vote in who they wish. All that money spent on campaigns is spent for exactly ONE reason... to influence the individuals vote.That makes that vote worth quite a bit, and it is the individual that holds that worth.

But you go ahead and continue to ignore that simple fact, since it shatters your argument.

Nice fallicy of supply and demand.

Consumers in control of prices is not a fallacy. If they don't feel a product is worth the purchase price... they don't purchase it and the product fails. Laserdisk players didn't exactly compete against DVD players did they, yet they were VERY comparable products. The consumer didn't want the $800 LD players and $60 movies, but they did shell out for $250 DVD players and $20 movies. Which product won and at what price is now history, and it was the consumers that dictated which came out of it.

Look at the price of sugar, huge demand but low price, why?

And yet more expensive than it should be. Hmmmmmm....

If that were true we'd see no commercials on TV or any where for that matter.

Commercials don't force anyone to buy a product. Therefore your marketing argument fall flat on its face. The consumer is still in control of what they buy and at what price.

People need houses, you can raise the level of a house or a car to an insane level, so insane that it might require a person to pay between 5 to 30 years to afford.

There's a reason that housing prices are five times in Chicago what they are in my area of Indiana, and guess who makes that happen? The consumers, duh!

Furthermore, marketing and corporations have absolutely nothing to do with it. It's ALL the consumers' control.

Guest1

23rd August 2004, 16:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 12:23 PM
you can say what you want but he is sharp . but i suppose he is not the only one?
and believe me i like che and marijeanne
Thanks gaf :D

As for pale rider, I already addressed your point on our treatment of you:

we ain't fair, we will treat leftists better than trash, cause we trust them.
As for the rest of your post, shutup. Like I said, to us all you Capitalists are supporters of a system that is no less than slavery. So we are taking an extremely unusual and sometimes frustrating stance by allowing any of you here. You could never understand any of this of course, cause you're perfectly content with wage-slavery.

However, the point is, we owe you no respect. You will be given a mediocre existance in a small little cage if you work for it, but don't get used to it.

You will be harrassed, made fun of and ideologically attacked at every turn here, so you'd better learn to grow a thick skin. No matter what though, understand that there is a double standard here and we will be more strict with you and other cappies than any leftist. That's it, we make no pretense of treating you the same. We don't pretend to be something we are not.

As for Communism and freedom, you don't have the freedom to impose slavery. "But I'm not imposing anything on anyone!", well this isn't a country, this is a message board. So the closest thing you can do to imposing slavery, is taking positions advocating it and trying to convince people of those ideas. The closest thing we can do to eliminating slavery on a website like this is not to give it a platform on our website, with the thousands of members we have.

So don't whine. We didn't take your freedom away.

And just so you know, I'm an Anarcho-Communist. So I laugh at your implications of tyranny. You call RAF a nancy, then treat the policies of one message board on the internet with the same theoretical implications as the Communist Manifesto :lol:

Vinny Rafarino

23rd August 2004, 17:24

The lawyer Pitt...Bwhahhhahhhahhahhahha!!! Rich nancy, very rich..

Actually, I made a typo, his name was Pritt.

Are you not familiar with D. N. Pritt? The British lawyer that witnessed the so called "show trials" first hand?

Obviously not as you are ignorant of actual history.

You have yet to explain why you feel that women are inferior to men. Don't be ascaird son.

but if you think that I will bow to an obvious intellectual inferior because he has some sort of control over the board

:lol:

gaf

23rd August 2004, 18:19

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 23 2004, 04:47 PM
There's a reason that housing prices are five times in Chicago what they are in my area of Indiana, and guess who makes that happen? The consumers, duh!

Furthermore, marketing and corporations have absolutely nothing to do with it. It's ALL the consumers' control.

i'm sure system give them a lot of choice
say you want to build an house what do you need?
say you want to make your own energy what do you need?
i say build.squatt .live autonome away from laws whose only need corporation and monopole or vice versa(if you don't understand make a quote)
i can remember and old nativeamerican (crow i think) saying

.... and when you only will have monney to eat.then you will understand. that monney can not be eaten

Pale Rider

23rd August 2004, 21:30

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 23 2004, 04:53 PM
...so you'd better learn to grow a thick skin
That works both ways...just know that I look at you and your hypothetical philosophies with the same sort of amusement that I view children playing pretend...Imagine...grown people playing virtual make believe among themselves on the internet, because every time your hypothetical philosophy has been tried in the real world...it has failed on an epic scale...

Capitalist Lawyer

24th August 2004, 14:56

QUOTE
hehehe I know, that is why the mechanic down the street, working out of his house garage is running for President this year. Workers don't vote on anything but represenatives and they do not pick who represents them. They only get the choose the ones set before them to vote on.

So ignoring FACTS is apparently a genetic issue with you. Well the FACTS are that the workers outnumber the owners, and can vote in who they wish. All that money spent on campaigns is spent for exactly ONE reason... to influence the individuals vote.That makes that vote worth quite a bit, and it is the individual that holds that worth.

But you go ahead and continue to ignore that simple fact, since it shatters your argument.

QUOTE
Nice fallicy of supply and demand.

Consumers in control of prices is not a fallacy. If they don't feel a product is worth the purchase price... they don't purchase it and the product fails. Laserdisk players didn't exactly compete against DVD players did they, yet they were VERY comparable products. The consumer didn't want the $800 LD players and $60 movies, but they did shell out for $250 DVD players and $20 movies. Which product won and at what price is now history, and it was the consumers that dictated which came out of it.

QUOTE
Look at the price of sugar, huge demand but low price, why?

And yet more expensive than it should be. Hmmmmmm....

QUOTE
If that were true we'd see no commercials on TV or any where for that matter.

Commercials don't force anyone to buy a product. Therefore your marketing argument fall flat on its face. The consumer is still in control of what they buy and at what price.

QUOTE

People need houses, you can raise the level of a house or a car to an insane level, so insane that it might require a person to pay between 5 to 30 years to afford.

There's a reason that housing prices are five times in Chicago what they are in my area of Indiana, and guess who makes that happen? The consumers, duh!

Furthermore, marketing and corporations have absolutely nothing to do with it. It's ALL the consumers' control.

Nobody wants to respond?

New Tolerance

24th August 2004, 15:16

Who were you replying to in the your own quote that you quoted?

(nevermind, I find it)

New Tolerance

24th August 2004, 16:05

Nobody wants to respond?

I went back and read what this was all about. Let's look at this:

- you claim that the US is socialist.
- you also claim that socialist countries has killed millions.

> so are you saying that the US has also killed millions? (since its socialist)

> or do you say that there are socialist countries that doesn't kill anyone? (since the US is socialist) which means socialism is not so bad

> or do you repeal your own statement that the US is socialist?

Important:I found something else interesting while looking at this... The US is socialist?! Wait a minute, the US is the most powerful country on the planet! With an economy and military that far surpasses any other single country! OMG!!! The US is Socialist and SOCIALISM WORKS!! and it works very well, it turned the US into a superpower!

LONG LIVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! - Our new beacon of socialism that will liberate the world. (I seriously call for our other communist comrades to support the US from now on - the US IS a SOCIALIST COUNTRY) :lol: :lol: (yeh - happy; the fire of hope still shines over humanity)

If he is proven correct that the US is socialist, then I am serious about this.

DaCuBaN

24th August 2004, 19:54

Nobody wants to respond?

OK :)

So ignoring FACTS is apparently a genetic issue with you. Well the FACTS are that the workers outnumber the owners, and can vote in who they wish. All that money spent on campaigns is spent for exactly ONE reason... to influence the individuals vote.That makes that vote worth quite a bit, and it is the individual that holds that worth.

But you go ahead and continue to ignore that simple fact, since it shatters your argument.

Come now, there is a very limited scope as to who to vote for. In the UK for example, it's always been a two horse race. Same in the US

It's a matter of people misunderstanding the policies of who they are voting for. Or perhaps they are being lied to... I'll let you make the call.

Consumers in control of prices is not a fallacy. If they don't feel a product is worth the purchase price... they don't purchase it and the product fails. Laserdisk players didn't exactly compete against DVD players did they, yet they were VERY comparable products. The consumer didn't want the $800 LD players and $60 movies, but they did shell out for $250 DVD players and $20 movies. Which product won and at what price is now history, and it was the consumers that dictated which came out of it.

Yet look at Betamax and VHS. The former had cheaper players and videos, had a longer playtime than VHS and a smaller tape size.

I wonder why it failed?

And yet [sugar is] more expensive than it should be. Hmmmmmm....

:lol: Yes, but then we don't live under capitalism either. I think it's safe to say that the reason we're all posting on sites such as this is because we agree: The current system stinks.

Commercials don't force anyone to buy a product. Therefore your marketing argument fall flat on its face. The consumer is still in control of what they buy and at what price.

Not in a mixed economy they aren't. Besides, it's not about marketing 'forcing' people to buy products, it's about underhand tactics being used. In reality, short of generating revenue from companies that have too much money to companies that don't have enough, what exactly does advertising do? It's purpose is to try and make you buy one product over another: You even see them 'bashing' each other's products.

There's a reason that housing prices are five times in Chicago what they are in my area of Indiana, and guess who makes that happen? The consumers, duh!

Furthermore, marketing and corporations have absolutely nothing to do with it. It's ALL the consumers' control.

Indeed - it's the consumer culture that creates this problem, but should we attack the symptoms or the disease? I for one would choose the latter.