History leeson

[Intellectual47]

Just a question for socialists. How come almost every socialistic goverment that comes around has a horrible human rights record, a poor economy, an angry populace, a bad armed forces, and little inovation. I would be hard-pressed to name a Socialist country that doesn't have two or more of the facts.

Can you name one?

[Tungsten]

Blah blah state capitalism yadda yadda never been tried blah blah not true socialism yadda yadda paris commune destroyed by capitalists etc.

I expect a monetary reward for saving you the earache and another tedious debate.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 03:21 pm
Just a question for socialists. How come almost every socialistic goverment that comes around has a horrible human rights record, a poor economy, an angry populace, a bad armed forces, and little inovation. I would be hard-pressed to name a Socialist country that doesn't have two or more of the facts.

Can you name one?
All of these so-called "socialist nations" became "socialist" out of third-world, unindustrialized conditions. Hell, Russia was a semi-capitalist feudal monarchy when it went "socialist".

It's like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. It doesn't work with historical materialism.

[manic expression]

You basically answered your own question when you said, "I can't name any countries...", because it seems that you are misinformed.

a.) Capitalist countries are very hostile to socialist governments, and they routinely topple elected governments to further their own aims. Guatemala elects a leftist leader, he is toppled (and 200,000 Mayans die, IIRC) by the US; Chile elects a leftist leader, he falls to a US-backed coup; El Salvador tries to defeat their murderous regime, and the US aids that very murderous regime; Nicaragua has a leftist government, it is practically paralyzed by US meddling; Iran's leftist government was toppled by the US, so was Afghanistan's. They tried to do the same thing in Venezuela. The list goes on and on and on and on.

The point? Just about every time there is a socialist government, capitalists greedily do their best to weaken and destroy it.

b.) Socialist economies do well, but in the case of Cuba, there is a virtual siege on the island. In fact, if the same embargoes were placed on another country like Cuba, people would be dying in the streets; in spite of this, Cuba maintains an amazing level of living for its people (better infant mortality rate than the US, equal/better literacy rate than the US, etc...). Kerala is setting record production levels in India, the collectives in Spain increased production by a startling amount, and the list goes on.

Economies which are under constant barrage from capitalist forces have an incredible burden. That is something you inexplicably ignore.

c.) Cuba, Kerala, Venezuela, Sandinista Nicaragua and other socialist states had acceptable, if not exceptional human rights records. In comparison, the governments which have come with the toppling of socialist governments have been terrible, often blatantly genocidal.

d.) Angry populaces? Cite examples. Cuba? No. Venezuela? No. Kerala? No. Paris Commune? Non. I could go on.

e.) Weak armed forces? Like the ones that defeated the Nazis? What about the armies which drove back the US in Korea, or at the Bay of Pigs?

f.) People the world over have benefitted from advancements made by Cuban doctors. Socialism itself is an innovation, something which contributes to the improvement of the world.

Anything else?

[Intellectual47]

I'm going to refute a few of your points here.

1.blaming all your problems on capitalists is irresponsible. A socialistic goverment should have the strength to address their issues themselves, not blame capitalists.

2. Cuba has a horrible human rights situation. Amnesty international calls it " a climate in which fundamental rights were denied."
In case you've forgotten Communism has killed over 100 million people; a figure I notice missing from these discussions. I'm sure they would agree that communism was great.

3.socialist economies do horribly. India didn't boom until they accepted capitalism. China doesn't count because they are virtually capitalist. I wonder why they're doing so well? Don't even get me started on the Soviet union.

4.The reason there were no revolts was because the goverment would kill them and their entire family. So they had to do something else. Does anyone here remember why the Berlin Wall was built? The Vietnamese boat people? The wet-dry act?

5. most socialistic governments have pitiful armies. The soviets couldn't beat a few afghani's with rifles. The bay of pigs was lost because of lack of air support and low numbers. The Nazi's were beat because of the Soviet's complete disregard for the value of life, something they have shown.

P.S. The US won the Korean war. And how many innovations have we missed out on thanks to Russian killings? Or China's artificial famines? The World will never know.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 04:36 pm
In case you've forgotten Communism has killed over 100 million people; a figure I notice missing from these discussions. I'm sure they would agree that communism was great.
Communism has never existed before in human society.

[manic expression]

1.) No, it's being realistic. Ignoring the endless amount of pressure and aggression that capitalist nations heap upon socialist countries is, in fact, truly irresponsible and misled. You said they should "address THEIR issues", but these are issues which are unjustly forced upon them by hostile external forces. Socialist nations should not be expected to constantly weather invasions, coups, embargoes, sieges and other methods in which capitalists seek to destroy socialism. Anyone who does expect this is fooling themselves and knows nothing about the reality of politics and the effect countries have upon one another. However, in spite of this unjustified aggression, socialism does succeed, which is a testament both to the practical nature of socialism and the malicious nature of capitalism.

2.) Cuba has a good human rights record, you can be sure of that. Amnesty International unfortunately takes the word of Miami exiles for face value, when in fact they are fabricated and exaggerated. Please cite specific cases of human rights abuses, because right now you have no argument.

That figure of 100 million deaths is pure bullsh*t. Famines happen in every system of government, which is what makes up most of that number. Have anything valuable to add?

3.) No, they do very well, you're just misinformed and ignoring the facts. Kerala is outpacing the rest of India NOT ONLY in social standards (male to female ratio, education, equity, etc...) but in purely economic standards as well. I didn't cite China, so I'm not sure why you're refuting something I never said. Furthermore, Venezuela is demonstrating how to use natural resources to benefit the people and not the rich, their economy is doing very well now, with decreasing unemployment and poverty IN SPITE of a capitalist coup and IN SPITE of constant opposition from the aristocracy.

Would you like to tell us how great capitalism has been for Russia and the USSR? There are more homeless kids (on the streets) in Russia (as of 1999) than there were AFTER WWII. People had to grow food in cities just to survive. Yeah, capitalism is SO much better for the USSR. :rolleyes:

4.) That's quite a ridiculous statement and it simply further demonstrates the fact that you know absolutely nothing. Cuba's population supports its government, and anyone who's actually been there can tell you that (they're not afraid to speak their minds); Kerala has consistently voted in the Communist party for the past half a century; Allende was voted in, as was Guatemala's leftist government, as was Iran's (all toppled by the US); the reason the war between south and north Vietnam happened in the first place was because the US and Diem refused to take part in nation-wide elections, since they KNEW the Vietnamese would vote in the communists (straight from the high school US history textbook I read a few years ago).

5.) Um, the US can't beat "a few afghani's with rifles", as you so eloquently put it. The US can't control the road from Baghdad airport to Baghdad (not to mention the rest of the country). The US was beaten by the Vietnamese. The US got beaten back by the Cubans. What, exactly, is your point?

The Americans lost at the Bay of Pigs, period. Excuses change nothing. The Soviets defeated the Nazis because of the determination of the Soviet people, they gave their lives to destroy the fascist invaders. If you are trying, in any way, to belittle the unimaginable sacrifices of those people, that is beyond delusional and that is beyond disrespectful.

If you knew anything about the Korean war, you'd agree with me, because the Chinese drove the Americans back from the Yalu River to the former and present border. The Americans were routed by the Chinese army, that is a fact. Crack open a history book now and again.

You didn't address my points on innovation. Please do so.

[Whitten]

1.blaming all your problems on capitalists is irresponsible. A socialistic goverment should have the strength to address their issues themselves, not blame capitalists.

Its the capitalists who fight against the revolution, all the problems in marxists states, both internal and external, have come from right wing reformists or capitalist powers.


2. Cuba has a horrible human rights situation. Amnesty international calls it " a climate in which fundamental rights were denied."
In case you've forgotten Communism has killed over 100 million people; a figure I notice missing from these discussions. I'm sure they would agree that communism was great.

Cuba has one of the best human rights records in latin america, even by those bourgeois pricks at amnesty internationals' standards. Communism has never killed 100 million people, even by the most exaggerated figures. By any realistic estimates the number of people killed in famines (which would make up the most of which you refer) and gulags and whatever else put together are significantly less than that.


3.socialist economies do horribly. India didn't boom until they accepted capitalism. China doesn't count because they are virtually capitalist. I wonder why they're doing so well? Don't even get me started on the Soviet union.

The Soviet Union improved the economy and standards of its citizens lifes dramaticly from the society that existed before. It rose from a semi-fuedal shit hole to a world superpower. China had similar success in the days of Mao. Even after decades of the bloackade and the collapse of the USSR, the avergae Cuba is still better off now than they were pre-revolution.


4.The reason there were no revolts was because the goverment would kill them and their entire family. So they had to do something else. Does anyone here remember why the Berlin Wall was built? The Vietnamese boat people? The wet-dry act?

Wow, sometimes I forget somepeople actually get so indoctrinated by the american properganda they actually believe shit like this. The Berlin-Wall was built to protect the East German economy from the effects of it interacting with the Capitalist multinationals opperating out of West Berlin. The mass immigrations from vietnam were to be expected with most of their villages having been napalmed.


5. most socialistic governments have pitiful armies. The soviets couldn't beat a few afghani's with rifles. The bay of pigs was lost because of lack of air support and low numbers. The Nazi's were beat because of the Soviet's complete disregard for the value of life, something they have shown.

The US cant beat the Afghani's. They Bay of Pigs was lost because the Cuba army was to well organised to be taken down by the CIA. The Nazi's were beat because of the determination of the Red army and the sacrifice of the Soviet people. Someone had to beat them, as the US clearly werent interested at that point.

[quote[P.S. The US won the Korean war. And how many innovations have we missed out on thanks to Russian killings? Or China's artificial famines? The World will never know.[quote]

China kicked the USA's arse in the Korean War. How many innovations have been lost due to Capitalist profiteering? Or the destruction of over-produced crops in the west? The world will know soon enough.

[Intellectual47]

I'm sorry, do you need a stronger dose of reality, Whitten and Maniac?

1.I'm sure no socialistic nation has ever had a problem that couldn't be twisted as being capitalist in origin. What about Cuba's hurricane that Castro blamed on the US. was that the capitalists? have you two even heard of 1984 (the book)?

2.I'm sorry, Socialism has killed 100 million. You yourself say that no country has ever been communist. And the figure was made by credible sources like, the Soviet archives, the Chinese archives, defectors expeirence, and many others. And those famines, were very artificial. Russia was exporting wheat during the famine of the twenties.

3.The Soviet Union and Maoist China both became superpowers at the expense of their peoples. And Russia didn't stay there for very long. And to have not improved in the last seventy years would be impossible even in Cuba. Like when the went from the rifle to the Ak-47. That's improvement.

I will be back.

[Herman]

1.I'm sure no socialistic nation has ever had a problem that couldn't be twisted as being capitalist in origin. What about Cuba's hurricane that Castro blamed on the US. was that the capitalists? have you two even heard of 1984 (the book)?

1984 is a freakin' joke. What are you trying to prove by citing a FICTIONAL story made by some idiot who believes that because he fought in Spain, he is very knowledgeable about the Spanish civil war?


2.I'm sorry, Socialism has killed 100 million. You yourself say that no country has ever been communist. And the figure was made by credible sources like, the Soviet archives, the Chinese archives, defectors expeirence, and many others. And those famines, were very artificial. Russia was exporting wheat during the famine of the twenties.

Sources? Prove? You don't have any? Then what the hell are you claiming?


3.The Soviet Union and Maoist China both became superpowers at the expense of their peoples. And Russia didn't stay there for very long. And to have not improved in the last seventy years would be impossible even in Cuba. Like when the went from the rifle to the Ak-47. That's improvement.

'From the rifle to the AK-47'... you idiot, the AK-47 IS a rifle.

The Soviet Union stayed as a superpower for around 70 years. That's not very long?

[uber-liberal]

Canada is technically considered a socialist nation, having large industry state-owned. I only see that they fit one of your criteria, and even that's debatable.

[Zero]

Originally posted by uber-[email protected] 01, 2006 06:41 pm
Canada is technically considered a socialist nation, having large industry state-owned. I only see that they fit one of your criteria, and even that's debatable.
:huh:

[theraven]

1984 is a freakin' joke. What are you trying to prove by citing a FICTIONAL story made by some idiot who believes that because he fought in Spain, he is very knowledgeable about the Spanish civil war?

1) Orwell was an excellent political writer whos two most famous books are excelelnt reads

2) what does the spanish civil war have to do with this?

3) of ocurse if one fougth in a war you'd be inclined to think they know a bit about it.



'From the rifle to the AK-47'... you idiot, the AK-47 IS a rifle.


i assume hes refering to the semi auto's to a full auto


The Soviet Union stayed as a superpower for around 70 years. That's not very long?


um try aout 45....

[amanondeathrow]

What about Cuba's hurricane that Castro blamed on the US. was that the capitalists?

Source?

Most likely you're refering to Castro blaming US capitalism for a poor reaction to a hurrican and not the hurrican itself, which would be a ligitament alligation.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 06:11 pm
I'm sorry, do you need a stronger dose of reality, Whitten and Maniac?

1.I'm sure no socialistic nation has ever had a problem that couldn't be twisted as being capitalist in origin. What about Cuba's hurricane that Castro blamed on the US. was that the capitalists? have you two even heard of 1984 (the book)?

2.I'm sorry, Socialism has killed 100 million. You yourself say that no country has ever been communist. And the figure was made by credible sources like, the Soviet archives, the Chinese archives, defectors expeirence, and many others. And those famines, were very artificial. Russia was exporting wheat during the famine of the twenties.

3.The Soviet Union and Maoist China both became superpowers at the expense of their peoples. And Russia didn't stay there for very long. And to have not improved in the last seventy years would be impossible even in Cuba. Like when the went from the rifle to the Ak-47. That's improvement.

I will be back.
Attempts at witty remarks won't help you here.

1.) This isn't about being capitalistic in origin, this is about capitalist countries subjecting socialist countries to unjustified aggression and pressure (economic, political and otherwise). As someone said, provide a link for Castro's claim. What I DO know is that Cuba responds to the threat of hurricanes very well and tries its best to make sure the people are safe. Yes, I read 1984, and I fail to see how a work of fiction supports your argument.

2.) So if someone get drunk and crashes into a light pole and dies, is that socialism's fault because it happened in a socialist country? The same goes for famines, socialism can't make the crops grow, and neither can ANY form of government. The number of people who died under socialism is very controversial, with figures all over the place. 100 million is one of them, but even if you accept this figure, it includes famines, which is a ridiculous thing to include. The famines were largely natural and less artificial ("artificial" being administrative fault, as in unintended). Do you think Russia was going to be a breadbasket after a crippling civil war, a revolution and an invasion? Please, famine was a foregone conclusion at that point, and no amount of any government structure would've made that otherwise.

3.) Maoist China reverted to market socialism, which is capitalist-lite. You alluded to this yourself. The USSR went from a peasant society to a world power in 20 years, quite remarkable in itself. I am aware of the burden placed upon the Soviet people, and I have argued that this was unnecessary in the other forums here (check "Can we justify Stalin", history; I made the argument there). However, it is also true that that same industrialization saved the USSR in WWII, something that is undeniable.

Want to talk about improvement? Look at the USSR when it reverted to capitalism, people had to grow food in the cities wherever they could just to stay alive. The USSR had less homeless kids after WWII than the amount in 1999. Get a clue.

[uber-liberal]

Look at the USSR when it reverted to capitalism, people had to grow food in the cities wherever they could just to stay alive. The USSR had less homeless kids after WWII than the amount in 1999.

That was Soviet communism's fault. No one was tending the fields because they were getting paid anyway, why bother. And they were looking for goods elsewhere , usually abroad, because Soviet Russia SUCKED ASS! No one was delivering the goods because the Rouble was worthless so even if you got paid it was better to get a hand job, at least you could enjoy that. People grew crops because inflation was absolutely apeshit crazy like it was in Germany, 1945, and no one had enough money to buy so much as toilet paper. When a loaf of bread costs 5000 roubles you're in a lot of trouble. Foreign aid and investments saved Russia from total self destruction. That's history.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by uber-[email protected] 01, 2006 06:41 pm
Canada is technically considered a socialist nation, having large industry state-owned. I only see that they fit one of your criteria, and even that's debatable.
But who controls the state (and hence large industry)?

Bourgeois state-controlled industry is still capitalism.

[Intellectual47]

I'm very sorry for responding so lately and I respect your opinions, but most of them are stupid.

1. Maniac, Stalin's famines were extremely artificial due to the fact that his goverment policies invovled taking so much wheat that the peasnts had no seeds to grow them from. he also did nothing to alleviate them and instead made them make more wheat during the famine. And if they couldn't, they were sent to a gulag. My source is "the Black book of communism"

2.My source for the hurricane fact is Against All Hope, the story of a man who spent twenty years in Castro's gulag.

3.what I mean by refrencing 1984 is the idea that a goverment(or system) can keep it's power by blaming everything on a foreign power. Which is exactly what you're doing.

4.My 100 million stat comes from "The Black Book of Communism".

5. Personal attacks will get you no where. The deaths of 100 million people cannot be covered up in this forum. That would severly disrespect their memory.

[uber-liberal]

I'm very sorry for responding so lately and I respect your opinions, but most of them are stupid.

Man, you just made me waste a perfectly good beer by spitting it on my screen. Funny stuff, boss.

[Intellectual47]

So sorry for making you waste a beer.


Can you actually prove my theories wrong?

You might want to use truth this time.

[uber-liberal]

I... didn't try to disprove them. You sure you got the right person, boss?

[Intellectual47]

Sorry, I thought you were insulting me. And my question goes to all here.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by uber-[email protected] 01, 2006 09:25 pm

Look at the USSR when it reverted to capitalism, people had to grow food in the cities wherever they could just to stay alive. The USSR had less homeless kids after WWII than the amount in 1999.

That was Soviet communism's fault. No one was tending the fields because they were getting paid anyway, why bother. And they were looking for goods elsewhere , usually abroad, because Soviet Russia SUCKED ASS! No one was delivering the goods because the Rouble was worthless so even if you got paid it was better to get a hand job, at least you could enjoy that. People grew crops because inflation was absolutely apeshit crazy like it was in Germany, 1945, and no one had enough money to buy so much as toilet paper. When a loaf of bread costs 5000 roubles you're in a lot of trouble. Foreign aid and investments saved Russia from total self destruction. That's history.
No, it is most certainly the fault of capitalism. People starved, and you can thank capitalism for that.

So if the USSR "SUCKED ASS!" (your words), why wasn't everything dandy in 1999? By any logic, capitalism would have improved it. Instead, the age expectancy has fallen consistently since it became capitalist.

[Intellectual47]

Maniac, I applaud you. :) I'm never seen someone so resistant to reality. In case you've forgotten, It was a Russian famine that occured because Russia's government cause it and did nothing to stop it.

And a country doesn't just get hit by a bolt of lightning when it becomes capitalist and everything is perfect :lol: It takes a lot of work and energy to become good and Russia's kinda backsliding now. You can tell because people are being killed.


Regretfully I have to leave for a little while.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 09:45 pm
I'm very sorry for responding so lately and I respect your opinions, but most of them are stupid.

1. Maniac, Stalin's famines were extremely artificial due to the fact that his goverment policies invovled taking so much wheat that the peasnts had no seeds to grow them from. he also did nothing to alleviate them and instead made them make more wheat during the famine. And if they couldn't, they were sent to a gulag. My source is "the Black book of communism"

2.My source for the hurricane fact is Against All Hope, the story of a man who spent twenty years in Castro's gulag.

3.what I mean by refrencing 1984 is the idea that a goverment(or system) can keep it's power by blaming everything on a foreign power. Which is exactly what you're doing.

4.My 100 million stat comes from "The Black Book of Communism".

5. Personal attacks will get you no where. The deaths of 100 million people cannot be covered up in this forum. That would severly disrespect their memory.
1.) Do you even know half the situation in the USSR after the civil war? The entire country was more than crippled. War communism allowed them to weather the storm, but they were in no position to thrive whatsoever. It would have been a miracle if anything less had occurred.

2.) What hurricane was it?

3.) The point is that socialist societies ARE put under tremendous pressure by capitalist countries. If another country invades and/or topples your government, wouldn't you blame something on them? Why do you keep ignoring this? Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile (Allende), Nicaragua, Grenada, Angola, western expeditionary forces in Russia, Iran, Afghanistan, embargoes/Bay of Pigs/more (Cuba), Venezuela (attempted coup against Chavez), destruction of the Paris Commune, etc, etc, etc.... These aren't made up, these things actually happened, and they happened because capitalists didn't want to see socialism succeed. In spite of this, socialism has succeeded.

4.) I know. That book is ridiculously incorrect for the reasons I mentioned.

5.) Personal attacks? You just called our opinions "stupid" in that very post, and you called me "Maniac" not 2 words later. The deaths of 100 million people were not the fault of socialism, they were the fault almost exclusively of famines. Pointing out the fact that the figure is incorrect is disrespecting no one. Deriding the struggles of countless people who fought and gave their lives for equality and a better world, on the other hand, is.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 10:19 pm
Maniac, I applaud you. :) I'm never seen someone so resistant to reality. In case you've forgotten, It was a Russian famine that occured because Russia's government cause it and did nothing to stop it.

And a country doesn't just get hit by a bolt of lightning when it becomes capitalist and everything is perfect :lol: It takes a lot of work and energy to become good and Russia's kinda backsliding now. You can tell because people are being killed.


Regretfully I have to leave for a little while.
Keep telling yourself that. It doesn't change the fact that you're desperately wrong.

The Russian famine cannot be seen in isolation. Look at the years of warfare and difficulties leading up to the event. I never said the Soviet government acted ideally or even well, but to blame it on socialism, even partially, is completely misled and incorrect.

Russia's "kinda backsliding"? A mild way of saying it's terrible. More homeless kids than after WWII, people growing food so they don't starve, nationalist skinheads killing children and regular people on the streets because of their ethnicity (Russian authorities say there are around 30,000-50,000 neo-nazi skinheads in Moscow alone), a major drop in life expectancy (both male and female) since capitalism. It's a little more serious than "kinda backsliding".

There's no rush to reply. I'm probably going to be gone for most of this weekend anyway.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 03:21 pm
Just a question for socialists. How come almost every socialistic goverment that comes around has a horrible human rights record, a poor economy, an angry populace, a bad armed forces, and little inovation. I would be hard-pressed to name a Socialist country that doesn't have two or more of the facts.

Can you name one?
Soviet Union actually had enormous industrial and military might, holding the number 2 position in both these areas until its collapse.

Norway, Sweden and Denmark all exhibit tendencies very close to socialism, with many businesses being publicly owned and a huge portion of the economy being controlled by the government. These nations have the best environmental records, rank the highest in human development and contribute the largest amounts to foreign aid.

[Whitten]

The russian famine was a result of the civil war. Primarily from the Kulaks and remain Whites burning red farms.

[The Feral Underclass]

I will not allow you to come to this forum in an attempt to antagonise it's members. If you have genuine questions or points you wish to addres or discuss, then provide us with that - Not some self-rightous, "know it all", arrogant posts that you clearly think we have never heard before; because my friend you will quickly see that you are way out of your depths - with me especially.

Do not start provocative threads that only have a purpose to annoy. You are a guest on this forum and an unwanted one at that. You are not in a position to start antagonising members who use this board.

Be warned. It will not take allot for you to get on the wrong side of me and I will suspend your account without warning if you carry on with your pointed stupidity.

If you want to understand the beliefs held by members here than present yourself as someone willing to learn.

Thread closed