User Controls
Poll: capitalism vs communism
-
communism
- netstat ,
- Lanny ,
- Antifa Member ,
- Japan--Is--Eternal ,
- Jisatsu_Fujoshi1998 ,
- mmQ ,
- Data ,
- Meikai
-
capitalism
- Nile ,
- Ghost ,
- POLECAT ,
- tee hee hee ,
- cigreting ,
- Robert Mugabe ,
- Sophie ,
- Bradley
capitalism vs communism
-
2021-03-15 at 7:53 PM UTC
-
2021-03-15 at 8:24 PM UTC
-
2021-03-15 at 8:25 PM UTC
-
2021-03-15 at 8:45 PM UTC
Originally posted by Kev it didnt have to be, germans have been warmongering cunts for the longest time way before hitler, it wasnt until the allies carved them up and demilitarized them that they finally fucked off, same thing with japan. this isnt two-sided at all, the soviet union would not have invaded europe because they were not an aggressive country.
the only empire with the same bloody track record as germany was england, japan and spain and i agree they shouldve all been pulverized.
The USSR was aggressively expansionist through the Internationale. It wasn't "Russia", however, it was the Bolshevik genocidalist interlopers who actually attempted an armed coup in Weimer Germany for which two German Jedisti Bolsheviks were hanged not to mention their depredations in Spain and post-war France. Stalin was, in fact, preparing a full scale invasion of Europe when Hitler surprise attacked. -
2021-03-15 at 9:04 PM UTC
-
2021-03-15 at 10:26 PM UTC
-
2021-03-16 at 2:41 PM UTC
-
2021-03-16 at 2:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Obviously i take issue with US expansionism as well. But it's an objective fact that more people died under communist regimes than any other ideologically driven system of governance in history.
that is not true, the inflated numbers the cold war propagandists use never add up. during the so called holdomor, the population never dropped in the census. youll find stalins most staunch defenders during that era and most recall it as a time of plenty.
lets remember the west was going thru a devastating great depression during that time where millions starved to death. the USSR was economically thriving at that time.
now do the difficult task of adding up all the deaths from all those puppet regimes the banking cabal installed worldwide, mostly in latin america. then add up all the deaths caused by sanctions, then add up all the people who died from unemployment, lack of health care, insufficient wages and you will get a number that dwarves nazi and soviet crimes, in the hundreds of millions. uncle sam invaded over 250 countries, vast majority of them unprovoked, USSR invaded none.Stalin era and the Afghanistan Conflict era are so far apart in terms of how the USSR operated, i don't think you could compare the two times in any meaningful sort of way.
the reason i brought that up was to highlight just how ridiculous the cold war propaganda really was. during the soviet unions worst period, the propaganda was rather tame, it wasnt until decades later that this red scare bullshit went full throttle. why is that?And you know, if the USSR under Stalin really wasn't an Authoritarian Imperial Expansionist state dressed up as something 'for and by the people' you would think that they wouldn't have fought the Winter War against the Fins, or that after the second World War he would have given up the territories he conquered back to their leaders before the war when marching his armies to Berlin. Instead what he did was install communist puppet regimes and satellite states where their allegiance was to The Kremlin and The Russian Socialist FSR in large part as the presidium of the supreme soviet.
The winter war happened because the fins were collaborating with hitler, letting him use their country as a base to arm themselves to the teeth just miles away from leningrad, a big city. the soviets offered to buy finnish land to push the border further away from the city, the brazen cocksuckers refused. if amsterdam was 30 miles away from the russian border and they started pointing hundreds of artillery and rockets at it, what would the netherlands do?
and why should they have given back conquered territories after those same states just finished murdering 26 million soviet citizens? they deserved to get occupied. invade someone, get punished by losing territory. this is routine. it isnt like they were oppressed, poland and all the baltics had way higher living standards than the rest of the USSR for fucks sake.
what did syria do to uncle sam to get invaded and destroyed? what did iraq? what did yugoslavia? what did vietnam? why didnt your country have the fucking balls to say no to the iraq war like germany and france did?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-03-16 at 2:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by FreeAssange The USSR was aggressively expansionist through the Internationale. It wasn't "Russia", however, it was the Bolshevik genocidalist interlopers who actually attempted an armed coup in Weimer Germany for which two German Jedisti Bolsheviks were hanged not to mention their depredations in Spain and post-war France. Stalin was, in fact, preparing a full scale invasion of Europe when Hitler surprise attacked.
name me a country that was bombed in the name of communism amd i'll name you a dozen that was bombed in the name of spreading democracy.
the US will bomb anybody until they love democracy.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-03-16 at 2:54 PM UTClow level discussion
-
2021-03-16 at 3:13 PM UTC
-
2021-03-16 at 3:47 PM UTC
-
2021-03-16 at 4:25 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny name me a country that was bombed in the name of communism amd i'll name you a dozen that was bombed in the name of spreading democracy.
the US will bomb anybody until they love democracy.
I never said the communists were aggressive. Communism is just a giant head-fake to allow an alien race to divide-and-conquer (class war) and then implements the best way to obey the command in Deuteronomy 20:10-14 to enslave or genocide the world, which is exactly what the Bolsheviks did to the Russians. 66 million Christians, dude. That's Holocaust turned up to 11. And no one knows anything about it even though the genocide never let up from 20 years before Hitler, right through WWII and for years after the Third Reich was no more. Think about that. What obvious truth is screaming in your face to be recognized? As Solzhenitsyn said, the fact that no one knows anything about it proves the world's media is in the hands of the perpetrators.
Read what real demons are.
After you read this, whenever you hear the name "Diary of Anne Frank" you will laugh at the giant fraud of that comic book. When you hear the name of Nobel Prize winner Elie Weisel, you will spit with contempt for the baseness of his lies.
As for US bombs, do you really think we're bombing anyone for democracy? You think the American people voted to invade Iraq? Do you think Americans have a "democracy"? That we the people wield the power in this country? We haven't been in charge of this country in more than a hundred years.
Do you think we white people voted to become a minority in our own country?
Democracy.
Give me a break.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-03-16 at 4:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by FreeAssange I never said the communists were aggressive. Communism is just a giant head-fake to allow an alien race to divide-and-conquer (class war) and then implements the best way to obey the command in Deuteronomy 20:10-14 to enslave or genocide the world, which is exactly what the Bolsheviks did to the Russians. 66 million Christians, dude. That's Holocaust turned up to 11. And no one knows anything about it even though the genocide never let up from 20 years before Hitler, right through WWII and for years after the Third Reich was no more. Think about that. What obvious truth is screaming in your face to be recognized? As Solzhenitsyn said, the fact that no one knows anything about it proves the world's media is in the hands of the perpetrators.
Read what real demons are.
After you read this, whenever you hear the name "Diary of Anne Frank" you will laugh at the giant fraud of that comic book. When you hear the name of Nobel Prize winner Elie Weisel, you will spit with contempt for the baseness of his lies.
As for US bombs, do you really think we're bombing anyone for democracy? You think the American people voted to invade Iraq? Do you think Americans have a "democracy"? That we the people wield the power in this country? We haven't been in charge of this country in more than a hundred years.
Do you think we white people voted to become a minority in our own country?
Democracy.
Give me a break.
bolshevicks are the majority, in russian.
theres nothing more democratic than bolshevism, ie, the tyranny of the majority, unleashed onto the helpless, armless population.
democracy = bolshevickism = mob rule -
2021-03-16 at 4:56 PM UTC
-
2021-03-16 at 7:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny
bolshevicks are the majority, in russian.
theres nothing more democratic than bolshevism, ie, the tyranny of the majority, unleashed onto the helpless, armless population.
democracy = bolshevickism = mob rule
Right, as opposed to the Mensheviks, but they were no more the majority of Russians than Antifa is out there fighting fascists.
The Russians were armed, but the Bolsheviks disarmed them (the peasants, mostly). Then the slaughter began in earnest. -
2021-03-16 at 7:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny be the change you want to see instead of being the see you want to change.
The book is already closed on this discussion for anyone with a brain, the book has been deconstructed and its pages, and the pages of others, have been unbound and removed to be reconstituted into the modern study of economics. The resultant volume can be found in any economics 101 textbook.
I.e. we actually examine and operationalize some axioms of economic behaviour and then see how they relate to one another structurally and form these relationships into interactive models. This is all done to establish the mathematics.
Then we can take some particular economic problem we want to discuss (homelessness, unemployment, inequality, national priorities, whatever) or identify some particular instances, operationalize them to try and map them to economic models to analyse them and see where the actual issue is and how particular changes will affect it to suss out solutions that can be implemented in policy.
This last step that comnects it to the political stage is that each of those changes affect different groups in different ways and someone with the power to propose or implement policy has to make the decision of which one to pick.
Somewhere in that discussion you can start to have an argument about what decision should be made.
That is how educated discussion would ideally go but I'm not proposing we have to hold ourselves to that standard, as I'm not expecting anyone here to be an educated economist. I'm just showing it to you so you understand the type of discussion that one needs to have to actually talk about economics.
Because none of the problems of our world are caused by capitalism nor communism. Adam Smith's basic conditions of a pure capitalist "well functioning free market" have never once been met. Marx's utopia has never been established.
Talking in that dimension won't ever, ever even approach understanding even cases like why the USSR failed or why major portions of western economies are struggling, or anything else.
However we do have a way to analyse such cases: it is called actually studying some economics. -
2021-03-17 at 2:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by Joseph R. Biden Jr, 46th President of the United States of America The book is already closed on this discussion for anyone with a brain, the book has been deconstructed and its pages, and the pages of others, have been unbound and removed to be reconstituted into the modern study of economics. The resultant volume can be found in any economics 101 textbook.
I.e. we actually examine and operationalize some axioms of economic behaviour and then see how they relate to one another structurally and form these relationships into interactive models. This is all done to establish the mathematics.
Then we can take some particular economic problem we want to discuss (homelessness, unemployment, inequality, national priorities, whatever) or identify some particular instances, operationalize them to try and map them to economic models to analyse them and see where the actual issue is and how particular changes will affect it to suss out solutions that can be implemented in policy.
This last step that comnects it to the political stage is that each of those changes affect different groups in different ways and someone with the power to propose or implement policy has to make the decision of which one to pick.
Somewhere in that discussion you can start to have an argument about what decision should be made.
That is how educated discussion would ideally go but I'm not proposing we have to hold ourselves to that standard, as I'm not expecting anyone here to be an educated economist. I'm just showing it to you so you understand the type of discussion that one needs to have to actually talk about economics.
Because none of the problems of our world are caused by capitalism nor communism. Adam Smith's basic conditions of a pure capitalist "well functioning free market" have never once been met. Marx's utopia has never been established.
Talking in that dimension won't ever, ever even approach understanding even cases like why the USSR failed or why major portions of western economies are struggling, or anything else.
However we do have a way to analyse such cases: it is called actually studying some economics.
where did this copy paste came from/ -
2021-03-17 at 2:03 AM UTC
Originally posted by FreeAssange Right, as opposed to the Mensheviks, but they were no more the majority of Russians than Antifa is out there fighting fascists.
The Russians were armed, but the Bolsheviks disarmed them (the peasants, mostly). Then the slaughter began in earnest.
if they were well armed then how can they be disarmed ? -
2021-03-17 at 2:16 AM UTCedited for privacy
