I see or hear this name at least once a day. People love him and his ideals but in all honesty, wtf did he do? All that he actually accomplished was help influence Fidel's communist views.

Seriously though, why do people love him so much? He was also a terrible military commander....

He fought for something he desired, and got it.

hes a symbol of left wing revolutionary ideals, so a lot of those people would like him.

I know this is a bit off-topic, but what I never get is why it's okay to glorify Marxism and it's icons, but not Nazism and it's leaders.

Che Guevara shirts are everywhere and I hear tons of stupid college kids talking about how great Communism is, I even once saw a teenage boy with a red shirt with the Soviet coat of arms on it while shopping for groceries.

Communism has killed far more people and was in many ways more ruthless than Nazism yet it's perfectly acceptable to be a Communist; whereas being a Nazi is quite frowned upon and nobody wears Adolf Hitler or Rudolf Hess shirts.

^Holocaust screwed it over for everybody.

Communism has killed far more people and was in many ways more ruthless than Nazism yet it's perfectly acceptable to be a Communist.

Firstly, most "marxists" that are cited as killing scores of people are less marxist and more authoritarian.

Secondly, in the slave trade white capitalists killed 99 million Africans, thats double what so-called "marxist leader" Stalin killed.

Thirdly, communists are the original feminists, civil rights leaders, union supporters, etc.

because it is the "rebellious" thing to do. even though half of those morons don't know who Ernesto Guevara was, nor do they know how many people he killed or why he killed those people

because it is the "rebellious" thing to do. even though half of those morons don't know who Ernesto Guevara was

:rolleyes: Ernesto Guevara? Was he related to Che? :rolleyes:

nor do they know how many people he killed or why he killed those people

I've heard others say Che killed people with HIV/AIDS, which is stupid as Guevara died in 1967 and AIDS was first discovered in 1981. I tend to doubt their credibility afterwards.

He is overrated and over-glorified. No doubt about that.

People say he was brutal, yet he was also a great leader and visionary. He was Fidel's right hand man, helped him take over Cuba, etc, etc. He was tough. No denying that or what he did.

Most people don't understand him, or what he did, or what he was involved in. He's just a face on a T-shirt to them.

To be honest, I used to idolize him. Then I did some reading and got a fuller picture of him.

I will applaud him for trekking through the god damn jungle w/ asthma though. +1 for that.

All in all though... his guerrilla ass got owned in the end.

^

Leninist Marxism is naturally brutal.

Lenin basically adopted Marxism and changed it so that it would work.

Lenin created the idea of the "vanguard of the proletariat", a group of professional revolutionaries that would create the revolution for the people, instead of the people themselves rising up to defeat the bourgeois gov't. Lenin thought the people just didn't have the initiative or capital to start a revolution.

Of course, this vanguard eventually had more power than the people, thus defeating communism/Marxism's ideal of economic/political equality of society.

And that is why communism fails. It relies on Leninist Marxism, which is ultimately flawed.

If communism can somehow be adapted and implemented in a way other than Lenin's way, it might work.

But I doubt it.

:rolleyes: Ernesto Guevara? Was he related to Che? :rolleyes:


I prefer to use his real name

He died like a rat, and that's about it.

The shirts have nice colours. However a company is profiting by selling those - ironic-ish.

He died like a rat, and that's about it.

"Shoot you coward you are only going to kill a man." It doesn't get more bad ass than that.

http://www.blackfive.net/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/08/chesoldiers.jpg

^Holocaust screwed it over for everybody.

no jews with controlling interests in media companies

no jews with controlling interests in media companies

If the holocaust never happened, they would have nothing to be pissed about and we could wear Hey Hitla shirts all day.

Why no t-shirts of Fidel Castro though? In Canada, not US

Cuz Che died a hero?

no, cuz che is prettier

Why no t-shirts of Fidel Castro though? In Canada, not US

Cuz Che died a hero?

Hmmm this gives me an idea...

Firstly, most "marxists" that are cited as killing scores of people are less marxist and more authoritarian.

I could just as easily say that Hitler wasn't practicing true National Socialism.

Secondly, in the slave trade white capitalists killed 99 million Africans, thats double what so-called "marxist leader" Stalin killed.

That's completely irrelevant, those people weren't killed by National Socialists.

Thirdly, communists are the original feminists, civil rights leaders, union supporters, etc.

This is also irrelevant and somewhat dubious.

If the holocaust never happened, they would have nothing to be pissed about and we could wear Hey Hitla shirts all day.

Not true at all.

Jews (the Edomites) have hated Europeans (the true Israelites) long before the Holocaust and the whole thing is part of a grandiose scheme to make whites feel guilty, justify the state of Israel, make Jews immune to criticism, and prevent European people from realizing their true identity and effectively organizing a resistance.

Not true at all.

Jews (the Edomites) have hated Europeans (the true Israelites) long before the Holocaust and the whole thing is part of a grandiose scheme to make whites feel guilty, justify the state of Israel, make Jews immune to criticism, and prevent European people from realizing their true identity and effectively organizing a resistance.

Even so, they would have nothing to bitch about from WW2 would they?

Even so, they would have nothing to bitch about from WW2 would they?

Except the things they made up for the aforementioned reasons.

Because teenage angst is pretty damn profitable.

^

Leninist Marxism is naturally brutal.

Lenin basically adopted Marxism and changed it so that it would work.

Lenin created the idea of the "vanguard of the proletariat", a group of professional revolutionaries that would create the revolution for the people, instead of the people themselves rising up to defeat the bourgeois gov't. Lenin thought the people just didn't have the initiative or capital to start a revolution.

Of course, this vanguard eventually had more power than the people, thus defeating communism/Marxism's ideal of economic/political equality of society.


The vanguard of the proletariat is not a group of people who "create" the revolution for the people. That would be Blanquism, a term Lenin rejected. Instead they are a group of professional revolutionaries who lead and teach the proletariat (and who in turn also learn from the proletariat). They are the proletariat's foremost class conscious representatives. Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks knew that the proletariat need leaders in order to help them accomplish the revolution. But they also knew that revolution cannot be made without the willing participation of the masses. If the Bolsheviks had tried to force an insurrection against the will of the people the October Revolution would have failed. The masses would not have supported it.

The degeneration of the October Revolution and the Soviet Union would be a long discussion in itself. The causes of degeneration however can be briefly summed up as being a combination of the economic devastation of both WW1 and the Russian Civil War, the then-low culutral level of Russia and the failure of socialist revolution to materialize in the west. There are those who blame democratic centralism in the Bolshevik party as the sole cause for the degeneration but that just doesn't hold water. If democratic centralism had killed the Bolshevik party, if it had been totalitarian from the outset then nobody would've joined the party to begin with. It would've been stillborn.

The degeneration of the October Revolution and the Soviet Union would be a long discussion in itself. The causes of degeneration however can be briefly summed up as being a combination of the economic devastation of both WW1 and the Russian Civil War, the then-low culutral level of Russia and the failure of socialist revolution to materialize in the west. There are those who blame democratic centralism in the Bolshevik party as the sole cause for the degeneration but that just doesn't hold water. If democratic centralism had killed the Bolshevik party, if it had been totalitarian from the outset then nobody would've joined the party to begin with. It would've been stillborn.

Or maybe their economic system was just incredibly inefficient.

Or maybe their economic system was just incredibly inefficient.
Or maybe you're incredibly ignorant of the fact that the economic state of 1920's Russia was somewhere between semi-feudal and capitalist relations. That they hadn't achieved socialism in the few short years after the revolution and didn't expect to for decades to come.

Or maybe their economic system was just incredibly inefficient.

Bitches don't know bout the 2nd highest GDP in the world.

Bitches don't know bout the 2nd highest GDP in the world.

Great, they had a massive population + massive natural resources. That doesn't mean diddly shit.

The fact that Tsarist Russia was the world's biggest grain exporter while the Soviet Union had to squander its oil reserves to pay for grain and became the world's biggest grain IMPORTER is all that needs to be said. The Soviet Union was a just a big sham propped up by a massive Russian Army and Nukes.

My source: http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25991,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

Great, they had a massive population + massive natural resources. That doesn't mean diddly shit.

The fact that Tsarist Russia was the world's biggest grain exporter while the Soviet Union had to squander its oil reserves to pay for grain and became the world's biggest grain IMPORTER is all that needs to be said. The Soviet Union was a just a big sham propped up by a massive Russian Army and Nukes.

My source: http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25991,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

True story. After the Civil War, when the farmers returned to their land and starting bringing their land back up, those who were the best (hard working, knowing how to manage a farm) and that succeeded, were envied by the poor lazy bastards (who started in pretty much the same conditions after the war). So these successful farmers were deemed "kulaks", all their possessions were taken away, and them and their families were either shot, or sent to a prison camp to die.

So they pretty much had a manual selection of the stupid and lazy people going on. Which continued into the Stalin's regime, when he arrested all the smart people (those who could become more popular than him, and those who were smart enough to see all the bullshit going on around them and couldn't lie about it).

Mind you, Lenin eventually realised that the communist economic system would fail, so he allowed elements of capitalism and entrepreneurship (NEP, New Economy Policy). During those time the production rates went up, and the country's economy was starting to recover. Shortly before Lenin's death, he said that "NEP is the way to go for a long time, it's here to stay". Then some dumbasses that wanted to do good assassinated him, which turned out to be catastrophic, since all it did was bring Stalin to power, compared to whom Lenin was an angel.

The modern-day Russia is still suffering the problems caused by the early Soviet Union days. Lack of honest, fearless and clever human resources that can stand for their ideas and not submit is probably the biggest one.

"Shoot you coward you are only going to kill a man." It doesn't get more bad ass than that.

That's what his supporters claim he said. His opponents claim that he said "Don't shoot! I'm Ernesto Guevara, and I'm worth more to you alive than dead!"

He could just as easily have been killed like a rat. We'll never know.

I know this is a bit off-topic, but what I never get is why it's okay to glorify Marxism and it's icons, but not Nazism and it's leaders.

Che Guevara shirts are everywhere and I hear tons of stupid college kids talking about how great Communism is, I even once saw a teenage boy with a red shirt with the Soviet coat of arms on it while shopping for groceries.

Communism has killed far more people and was in many ways more ruthless than Nazism yet it's perfectly acceptable to be a Communist; whereas being a Nazi is quite frowned upon and nobody wears Adolf Hitler or Rudolf Hess shirts.

The problem is that the Nazi ideology involves happiness for one nation. The Communist ideology involves happiness for all the nations, all the people everywhere.

So no matter how the Nazi ideology is implemented, it will leave a lot of people unhappy. Supposedly, there is an implementation of Communism that leaves everyone happy. Well, in theory. In practice, I'm convinced it doesn't work. The truth is in the middle.

True story. After the Civil War, when the farmers returned to their land and starting bringing their land back up, those who were the best (hard working, knowing how to manage a farm) and that succeeded, were envied by the poor lazy bastards (who started in pretty much the same conditions after the war). So these successful farmers were deemed "kulaks", all their possessions were taken away, and them and their families were either shot, or sent to a prison camp to die.

So they pretty much had a manual selection of the stupid and lazy people going on. Which continued into the Stalin's regime, when he arrested all the smart people (those who could become more popular than him, and those who were smart enough to see all the bullshit going on around them and couldn't lie about it).

Mind you, Lenin eventually realised that the communist economic system would fail, so he allowed elements of capitalism and entrepreneurship (NEP, New Economy Policy). During those time the production rates went up, and the country's economy was starting to recover. Shortly before Lenin's death, he said that "NEP is the way to go for a long time, it's here to stay". Then some dumbasses that wanted to do good assassinated him, which turned out to be catastrophic, since all it did was bring Stalin to power, compared to whom Lenin was an angel.

The modern-day Russia is still suffering the problems caused by the early Soviet Union days. Lack of honest, fearless and clever human resources that can stand for their ideas and not submit is probably the biggest one.The kulaks were upper class speculators, the bourgeoisie of the peasants who exploited the lower peasantry, got them to do all the work and amassed property off their labor. Who were only interested in themselves at the expense of the rest of society. In other words, capitalists.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks didn't realize that "the communist economic system would fail" but did realize that so-called "war communism" could not continue indefinitely. It was used as an emergency measure during the civil war. The low economic level of the country, an inheritence from Tsarism combined with the utter devistation of both WW1 and the civil war, as I've already mentioned, left the economy and most industries in shambles. The Bolsheviks inherited all this and had to basically begin from scratch. It was a miracle and a testament to the strength of the Russian working class (whom you refer to as lazy and stupid people) that the economy had recovered to the pre-1914 level by the mid 20's.

Modern day Russia is an entirely different place than it was a century ago. The problems of low antiquated semi-feudal pre-capitalist property relations and low cultural levels have been overcome. The biggest problems Russia and the rest of the world faces now come from predatory imperialist capitalism.

The kulaks were upper class speculators, the bourgeoisie of the peasants who exploited the lower peasantry, got them to do all the work and amassed property off their labor. Who were only interested in themselves at the expense of the rest of society. In other words, capitalists.

That is quite a one-sided view of the situation. Read some books by the people that actually lived in those times, e.g. Sholohov's "Virgin Soil Upturned".

That is quite a one-sided view of the situation. Read some books by the people that actually lived in those times, e.g. Sholohov's "Virgin Soil Upturned".

And your's isnt? I've never heard such terrible and moronic statements as "Russia had a terrible economy", no matter how you spin it, Russia under Autocratic semi-capitalism was one of the laughing stocks of Europe, Stalin's leadership saw it become a superpower in less than 30 years.

As for the idea that the kulaks, who exploited their fellow peasants and who were directly responsible for starvation of their fellow countrymen due to their abominable stance on grain hoarding, were the "best" members of society, its ridiculous. How did the USSR become so advanced if Stalin "arrested all the smart people" (I actually feel embarrassed typing out your sentences) how did they experience some of the most astronomical levels of growth in economic history whilst finding time to smash Nazi Germany if they were populated by the "lazy".

And your's isnt? I've never heard such terrible and moronic statements as "Russia had a terrible economy", no matter how you spin it, Russia under Autocratic semi-capitalism was one of the laughing stocks of Europe, Stalin's leadership saw it become a superpower in less than 30 years.

As for the idea that the kulaks, who exploited their fellow peasants and who were directly responsible for starvation of their fellow countrymen due to their abominable stance on grain hoarding, were the "best" members of society, its ridiculous. How did the USSR become so advanced if Stalin "arrested all the smart people" (I actually feel embarrassed typing out your sentences) how did they experience some of the most astronomical levels of growth in economic history whilst finding time to smash Nazi Germany if they were populated by the "lazy".

Some Astronomical growth:
In many cases, the immediate effect of collectivization was to reduce output and cut the number of livestock in half. The subsequent recovery of the agricultural production was also impeded by the losses suffered by the Soviet Union during World War II and the severe drought of 1946. However the largest loss of livestock was caused by collectivization for all animals except pigs.[8] The numbers of cows in the USSR fell from 33.2 million in 1928 to 27.8 million in 1941 and to 24.6 million in 1950. The number of pigs fell from 27.7 million in 1928 to 27.5 million in 1941 and then to 22.2 million in 1950. The number of sheep fell from 114.6 million in 1928 to 91.6 million in 1941 and to 93.6 million in 1950. The number of horses fell from 36.1 million in 1928 to 21.0 million in 1941 and to 12.7 million in 1950. Only by the late 1950s did Soviet farm animal stocks begin to approach 1928 levels.[9]

Some more Astronomical Growth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Even more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_%281937%29

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

The Soviet Union was effective at industrializing Russia and making a massive army, which it did at the cost of countless millions of lives. At everything else, it basically sucked and the only reason it lasted as long as it did was because of nukes.

And feel free to post some evidence that Kulaks were capitalist exploiters, because wikipedia seems to think they were more scapegoats for Stalin's failures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization

So what you're saying is that he was right? Awesome.

Deaths - be it of humans or lifestock - do not magically refute economic growth. Poisoning the well doesn't change reality: The reality is Rawk is correct. The economy of the USSR sky-rocketed, specially when it came to the economic indicators like GDP.

Deaths or murders might be a great argument as to why that economic growth wasn't just, moral or "worth it" but it still doesn't change the reality of what he said.

Here's a hint: I know you hate communism, but try not to be a complete fucking moron in the process.

So what you're saying is that he was right? Awesome.

Deaths - be it of humans or lifestock - do not magically refute economic growth. Poisoning the well doesn't change reality: The reality is Rawk is correct. The economy of the USSR sky-rocketed, specially when it came to the economic indicators like GDP.

Deaths or murders might be a great argument as to why that economic growth wasn't just, moral or "worth it" but it still doesn't change the reality of what he said.

Here's a hint: I know you hate communism, but try not to be a complete fucking moron in the process.

Fine, he is right if you want to ignore everything but GDP (and only up until 1970). I think you're ignoring the bigger argument behind these recent posts, that the Soviet system was somehow desirable or long-term effective.

As I said before, the Soviet economy was effective at brute force industrialization, which allowed it to have a massive army, but at everything else it failed. This can be seen from the decline from largest grain exporter under the Tzars to largest grain importer by the 1960s.

Also, even by the measure of GDP, the Soviets still counldn't compete with capitalism when you consider the long term. At 1970 the Soviet Economy was 60% of the US's, from then on it declined until by 1990 it was 20%.

So point conceded, Soviet style communism is great if you don't care about human lives and don't care about the long-term.

So what you're saying is that he was right? Awesome.

Deaths - be it of humans or lifestock - do not magically refute economic growth. Poisoning the well doesn't change reality: The reality is Rawk is correct. The economy of the USSR sky-rocketed, specially when it came to the economic indicators like GDP.

Deaths or murders might be a great argument as to why that economic growth wasn't just, moral or "worth it" but it still doesn't change the reality of what he said.

Here's a hint: I know you hate communism, but try not to be a complete fucking moron in the process.

IBID.

1. You don't get to change the subject when you make yourself look foolish. You specifically said, using sarcasm, "Some Astronomical growth".

I'm talking about your comments as they relate to the growth the USSR did see - whether you want to accept it or not.

2. And no, not "ignoring everything but GDP" The only thing you manage to show - if we accept your posts as true - is grain exports and lifestock. Which are nothing close to "everything but GDP". When you manage to show "everything but GDP" then you can make the claim.

Your whole argument consists of poisoning the well while trying to dismiss your opponents argument by posting some small amount of data.


P.S.

Pro-tip: The USSR was Capitalist for most of it's existence.

Whoops, forgot about this thread, thank you Rust for covering for me while I was gone :)


As I said before, the Soviet economy was effective at brute force industrialization, which allowed it to have a massive army, but at everything else it failed. This can be seen from the decline from largest grain exporter under the Tzars to largest grain importer by the 1960s.

I'm not sure what school of economics you graduated from but shifts from exports to imports in certain areas isn't a bad thing in most people's eyes.
(Childsplay Economics 101: http://dullgeek.blogspot.com/2005/07/income-vs-expenses-and-imports-vs.html )
You haven't proven that their agricultural output was lower than in Tsarist times, I would imagine that cost factor analysis and a large population increase (yes, under the leader who exorted such a huge toll on humanlife :rolleyes:) would have been the reason for an import export change linked to greater demand.



Also, even by the measure of GDP, the Soviets still counldn't compete with capitalism when you consider the long term. At 1970 the Soviet Economy was 60% of the US's, from then on it declined until by 1990 it was 20%.


Weeeee so now its no longer "incredibly inefficient", just not as good as the U.S, (the only country it wasn't as good as in 1970)


So point conceded, Soviet style communism is great if you don't care about human lives and don't care about the long-term.

And capitalism is certainly based on foresight and treats humanlife with the utmost sanctity, it's even more amusing that you're arguing the USSR against the U.S who have a gigantic military budget, capital punishment, have killed millions in imperialistic wars and fail to even provide free healthcare for its citizens(unlike the USSR)

Whoops, forgot about this thread, thank you Rust for covering for me while I was gone :)


I'm not sure what school of economics you graduated from but shifts from exports to imports in certain areas isn't a bad thing in most people's eyes.
(Childsplay Economics 101: http://dullgeek.blogspot.com/2005/07/income-vs-expenses-and-imports-vs.html )
You haven't proven that their agricultural output was lower than in Tsarist times, I would imagine that cost factor analysis and a large population increase (yes, under the leader who exorted such a huge toll on humanlife :rolleyes:) would have been the reason for an import export change linked to greater demand.

If you'd read the article I posted you'd see that the USSR was forced to squander its oil reserves to pay for the grain, and that this ultimately lead to its economic collapse when oil prices fell. This goes for Rust too, since he also seems to be ignoring the grain data/ calling it irrelevant.

Hilariously enough, it turned out that the output of the soviet union's mighty industrialization efforts couldn't compete on the world market.

But I won't force to you to take the time to read the entirety of an article you might find disagreeable. Here are the essential snippets:


Soviet imports had to be paid for in hard currency. Mikhail Gorbachev was quite frank in one of the meetings of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU): "We are buying [the grain] because we cannot survive without it."[3] There were, of course, examples of nations, such as Japan, that also massively imported grain and other agricultural products. Unlike the Soviet Union, however, these nations were able to export products from their machine-building and processing industries.

Why could the Soviet Union not pursue the same policy? Because "socialist industrialization" had resulted in the Soviet industry being unable to sell any processed (value-added) products. Nikolai Ryzhkov, chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, expressed the sentiment clearly at another meeting of the Soviet leadership: "No one will take our machinery production. That is why we are exporting mainly raw materials."[4]



The timeline of the collapse of the Soviet Union can be traced to September 13, 1985. On this date, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the minister of oil of Saudi Arabia, declared that the monarchy had decided to alter its oil policy radically. The Saudis stopped protecting oil prices, and Saudi Arabia quickly regained its share in the world market. During the next six months, oil production in Saudi Arabia increased fourfold, while oil prices collapsed by approximately the same amount in real terms.

As a result, the Soviet Union lost approximately $20 billion per year, money without which the country simply could not survive. The Soviet leadership was confronted with a difficult decision on how to adjust. There were three options--or a combination of three options--available to the Soviet leadership.

First, dissolve the Eastern European empire and effectively stop barter trade in oil and gas with the Socialist bloc countries, and start charging hard currency for the hydrocarbons. This choice, however, involved convincing the Soviet leadership in 1985 to negate completely the results of World War II. In reality, the leader who proposed this idea at the CPSU Central Committee meeting at that time risked losing his position as general secretary.

Second, drastically reduce Soviet food imports by $20 billion, the amount the Soviet Union lost when oil prices collapsed. But in practical terms, this option meant the introduction of food rationing at rates similar to those used during World War II. The Soviet leadership understood the consequences: the Soviet system would not survive for even one month. This idea was never seriously discussed.

Third, implement radical cuts in the military-industrial complex. With this option, however, the Soviet leadership risked serious conflict with regional and industrial elites, since a large number of Soviet cities depended solely on the military-industrial complex. This choice was also never seriously considered.

Unable to realize any of the above solutions, the Soviet leadership decided to adopt a policy of effectively disregarding the problem in hopes that it would somehow wither away. Instead of implementing actual reforms, the Soviet Union started to borrow money from abroad while its international credit rating was still strong. It borrowed heavily from 1985 to 1988, but in 1989 the Soviet economy stalled completely.

The Search for Loans

The money was suddenly gone. The Soviet Union tried to create a consortium of 300 banks to provide a large loan for the Soviet Union in 1989, but was informed that only five of them would participate and, as a result, the loan would be twenty times smaller than needed. The Soviet Union then received a final warning from the Deutsche Bank and from its international partners that the funds would never come from commercial sources. Instead, if the Soviet Union urgently needed the money, it would have to start negotiations directly with Western governments about so-called politically motivated credits.




Weeeee so now its no longer "incredibly inefficient", just not as good as the U.S, (the only country it wasn't as good as in 1970)


Do you understand the difference between per capita gdp and total gdp?


And capitalism is certainly based on foresight and treats humanlife with the utmost sanctity, it's even more amusing that you're arguing the USSR against the U.S who have a gigantic military budget, capital punishment, have killed millions in imperialistic wars and fail to even provide free healthcare for its citizens(unlike the USSR)

Dude, its flat-fuck unbelievable that you're somehow trying to suggest that the USSR respected human life more than the USA, after I posted all my links. Please show how the US starved its own people and exiled all political dissidents to gulags, which is what the USSR did.

If you'd read the article I posted you'd see that the USSR was forced to squander its oil reserves to pay for the grain, and that this ultimately lead to its economic collapse when oil prices fell. This goes for Rust too, since he also seems to be ignoring the grain data/ calling it irrelevant.

I didn't call it "irrelevant". Have you now been forced to taking things straight out of your ass to defend your shitty argument or what?

I said that the fact that the USSR at a point in its history had to buy so much grain does not suddenly mean you have proven your point that the USSR didn't have great economic growth and/or that it was only regarding GDP.

You need a shit load of stuff to substantiate that claim, not just a few tidbits you are rapidly googling to keep your anti-communist campaign alive.

Please show how the US starved its own people and exiled all political dissidents to gulags, which is what the USSR did.

It didn't starve it's own people, your own fucking source correctly shows how Conquest - the historian that is usually quoted on this issue - took back his original position and believes it wasn't deliberate, just bad decision making. Many other historians - your own source quote some of them - agree.

This ignoring all the fraud and exagerations that has taken place in regards with this issue ( Fraud, Famine and Fascism
The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/tottlefraud.pdf) ). I'm pretty sure I've told you this before yet not surprisingly you keep repeating it.

As for the Gulags, this issue too has been exaggerated for quite a long amount of time.

"Mainstream published estimates of the total numbers of “victims of repression” in the late 1930s have ranged from Dmitrii Volkogonov's 3.5 million to Ol'ga Shatunovskaia's nearly 20 million. (See Table 1.) The bases for these assessments are unclear in most cases and seem to have come from guesses, rumors, or extrapolations from isolated local observations. As the table shows, the documentable numbers of victims are much smaller."

-- Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-war Years:A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence. American Historical Review. (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2166597)

Also let's not forget that U.S. sent innocent civilians to interment camps during WW2, had a long period of slavery...

Nor that we're looking at all this information from an American perspective! I'm willing to bet that Russian/USSR historians would be arguing quite the oppossite.


In the end, the whole point about death and atrocities is your sad attempt at poisoning the well. If this was a discussion about which country did the less damage, I sure as fuck didn't see it or read it. I read your comments implying the USSR had no large economic growth and I responded.


P.S. I am again giving you a pretty importance piece of information: The USSR was capitalist for most of its existence. Whenever you speak of Gorbachev, you're just ruining your own argument since the USSR had been embracing capitalism for decades before Gorbachev came into office.

The problem is that the Nazi ideology involves happiness for one nation. The Communist ideology involves happiness for all the nations, all the people everywhere.

So no matter how the Nazi ideology is implemented, it will leave a lot of people unhappy. Supposedly, there is an implementation of Communism that leaves everyone happy. Well, in theory. In practice, I'm convinced it doesn't work. The truth is in the middle.

Nazism means happiness for the nation; Communism means unhappiness for all nations! :mad:

He is the symbol of revolution. Many people desire to revolv(?) to change things that they dislike, or stand up for them selfs, but are simply too pussy to do it, which is why they admire him.

He is the symbol of revolution. Many people desire to revolv(?) to change things that they dislike, or stand up for them selfs, but are simply too pussy to do it, which is why they admire him.

Name one revolution that did good to anyone.

So what you're saying is that he was right? Awesome.

Deaths - be it of humans or lifestock - do not magically refute economic growth. Poisoning the well doesn't change reality: The reality is Rawk is correct. The economy of the USSR sky-rocketed, specially when it came to the economic indicators like GDP.

Deaths or murders might be a great argument as to why that economic growth wasn't just, moral or "worth it" but it still doesn't change the reality of what he said.

Here's a hint: I know you hate communism, but try not to be a complete fucking moron in the process.

If a communist form of economy was so great, then why did the USSR dissolve?

Don't take this in a wrong way, but I only know that communist/socialist economies start to show weaknesses after the population rises over 50.

Name one revolution that did good to anyone.

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

Not the type of revolution you are talking about, but I feel like busting some chops today.

1. Where did I say in this thread that "communist economies are so great"? No where. I said the USSR saw a great amount of economic improvement and that The_Prince hadn't managed to show otherwise.

So why are you asking? Perhaps it's because you're trolling for an argument instead of actually wanting that question answered?

2. "If a Capitalist economy was so great, why did they dissolve in the countries where communists ideologies took over (e.g. pre-USSR, pre-Cuba etc.)?" Could it be because a government/state/economic system dissolving isn't just due to the "economy sucking"?

3. The USSR had ceased being socialist long before it "dissolved".

Name one revolution that did good to anyone.
This statement is very stupid, every revolution did good to someone

Che is estimated mostly because of his abnegation. He believed in a Socialist revolution and started it in the country he believed got most chances of success with out any advantage for himself, and after success in Cuba, when he could remain there or stay safe in other country, he considered he's duty was to spread the revolution in another oppressed country that was (as hes understanding) ready for it, risking hes life and finally getting killed by the CIA.

Im a libertarian which is pretty much the opposite of communism, yet I do admire Che Guevara.

To the OP, here's my summary of Che:

Che was basically a middle class smartie pants that toured South America as a college student and saw that most people were getting pwned by a nasty minority (Motorcycle Diaries). Che eventually met Fidel in Mexico, who got him to sign up to fight Batista in Cuba, who was an American sponsored tyrant/murderer/thief. Che and Fidel went to Cuba and waged one of the most success and pretty much the textbook Guerrilla War (Guerrilla Warfare and Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War). When Fidel, Che, and their Commie buddies won, Che was put in charge of the trials for all of the former Batista goons. A thousands or so were put to death by Che's orders, many probably deserved it, others not -- but it was after all, a war.

So, Che was pretty high up in the Cuban Commie Gov. He was involved in getting those nukes from Russia/Cuban Missile Crisis. He was an extremely hard worker, so much so that he wasnt content just sitting around in the world's newest Commie-land. Instead of taking the easy road out, Che went to the Congo to try to start more Commie revo's throughout Africa, but starting in the Congo. This move failed... the rebels there werent really the commie types and the situation on the ground just didnt work out -- Che had to leave after 7 months (The African Dream). He then went down to Bolivia to do more or less the same thing, but by this time the CIA was on to him (The Bolivian Diary). They helped the Bolivian Army out, and Che was eventually captured, shot repeatedly to make his capture seem more dramatic, and finally executed.

But as to why Che is so damn popular:
1. He was well off, but chose to give up everything for those in need.
2. He was willing to die for what he believed in, even if putting his life at risk did not benefit him personally.
3. He was educated, intelligent, well spoken, and documented most of his adventures.
4. He was involved in two tremendously important events in Cuban-American history -- the Revolution (aka the de-Americanization of Cuba, which was almost our 51st state at one point in time) and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

and finally

5. He was handsome, and this fact was documented in one of the most widely distributed pictures of all time.

I didn't call it "irrelevant". Have you now been forced to taking things straight out of your ass to defend your shitty argument or what?

You accused me of poisoning the well. The means posting information that ultimately isn't relevant in an attempt to discredit any further argument by the other side, correct? If that isn't what it means then I apologize.

I said that the fact that the USSR at a point in its history had to buy so much grain does not suddenly mean you have proven your point that the USSR didn't have great economic growth and/or that it was only regarding GDP.

You need a shit load of stuff to substantiate that claim, not just a few tidbits you are rapidly googling to keep your anti-communist campaign alive.

My 'tidbit' consists of a research paper written by a former Soviet that cites its claims. My 'tidbit' shows that the Soviet economy was unable to produce more grain, that its industrial manufactures couldn't compete on the free market and that it was forced to rely on its oil wealth to sustain itself. For me at least, this shows evidence of deep flaws in the system that override the statistic of GDP.


It didn't starve it's own people, your own fucking source correctly shows how Conquest - the historian that is usually quoted on this issue - took back his original position and believes it wasn't deliberate, just bad decision making. Many other historians - your own source quote some of them - agree.

This ignoring all the fraud and exagerations that has taken place in regards with this issue ( Fraud, Famine and Fascism
The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/tottlefraud.pdf) ). I'm pretty sure I've told you this before yet not surprisingly you keep repeating it.

As for the Gulags, this issue too has been exaggerated for quite a long amount of time.

"Mainstream published estimates of the total numbers of “victims of repression” in the late 1930s have ranged from Dmitrii Volkogonov's 3.5 million to Ol'ga Shatunovskaia's nearly 20 million. (See Table 1.) The bases for these assessments are unclear in most cases and seem to have come from guesses, rumors, or extrapolations from isolated local observations. As the table shows, the documentable numbers of victims are much smaller."

-- Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-war Years:A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence. American Historical Review. (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2166597)

OK, it's debatable. If it wasn't intentional, it was due to the ineptitude of the Soviet system. Gulags, however, are not debatable. They existed and they were horrible. Exaggeration of their horribleness doesn't erase it.


Also let's not forget that U.S. sent innocent civilians to interment camps during WW2, had a long period of slavery...

Internment camps were NOT comparable to gulags in brutality. Internment camps did not have comparable mortality rates to gulags. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Gulag_mortality_rate_1934_1953.PNG)

If you want to take things back to slavery, then I'll go ahead and take things back to serfdom.

Nor that we're looking at all this information from an American perspective! I'm willing to bet that Russian/USSR historians would be arguing quite the oppossite.

Sweet! And I'm sure the Ukrainian people would have a thing or two to say about your denial of the Holodomor.


P.S. I am again giving you a pretty importance piece of information: The USSR was capitalist for most of its existence. Whenever you speak of Gorbachev, you're just ruining your own argument since the USSR had been embracing capitalism for decades before Gorbachev came into office.
Show me. (http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/history/slogan.asp)

The Wiki articles on the Soviet Union talk about market-oriented reforms, but never an 'embrace of capitalism'. In such an environment of free discourse, I'd expect it to show up if the facts are there.

You accused me of poisoning the well. The means posting information that ultimately isn't relevant in an attempt to discredit any further argument by the other side, correct? If that isn't what it means then I apologize.

That's basically what it means, yes. Yet I called your attempt to shift the discussion to how bad the USSR was because of it's gulags, etc. poisoning the well. I did not say that you talking about grain or cattle was poisoning the well, or irrelevant.


I said:

"Deaths - be it of humans or lifestock - do not magically refute economic growth. Poisoning the well doesn't change reality: The reality is Rawk is correct. The economy of the USSR sky-rocketed, specially when it came to the economic indicators like GDP."



So again, you're making shit up and misrepresenting what I said when you say
"If you'd read the article I posted you'd see that the USSR was forced to squander its oil reserves to pay for the grain, and that this ultimately lead to its economic collapse when oil prices fell. This goes for Rust too, since he also seems to be ignoring the grain data/ calling it irrelevant."

I did not call the "grain data" irrelevant.



My 'tidbit' consists of a research paper written by a former Soviet that cites its claims. My 'tidbit' shows that the Soviet economy was unable to produce more grain, that its industrial manufactures couldn't compete on the free market and that it was forced to rely on its oil wealth to sustain itself. For me at least, this shows evidence of deep flaws in the system that override the statistic of GDP

So? The claim itself doesn't refute any economic growth which was the point. It's a "tidbit" in the sense that it's not a deal-breaker when it comes to the economic growth you disputed.

The fact that it's grain production lowered through the years isn't proof that the USSR didn't see a large amount of economic growth.


OK, it's debatable. If it wasn't intentional, it was due to the ineptitude of the Soviet system. Gulags, however, are not debatable. They existed and they were horrible. Exaggeration of their horribleness doesn't erase it.

...

The Guglags were a prison system. I can guarantee you that those within the US prison system would also call it "horrbile". The U.S. prison system also includes executions for example.

...

Internment camps were NOT comparable to gulags in brutality. Internment camps did not have comparable mortality rates to gulags. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Gulag_mortality_rate_1934_1953.PNG)

...

If you want to take things back to slavery, then I'll go ahead and take things back to serfdom.



1. This is completely irrelevant to the original point. This is what your pathetic attempts at poisoning the well gets us, a completely irrelevant discussion about: what's better or worse treatment.

2. The Gulags were the prison system of the U.S. I bet I would find US prisoners that say that the U.S. prison system is "horrible" too.

The US prison system also included capital punishment as the Gulags did.

3. You say that Internment camps didn't weren't as bad, yet you so ironically go on to say "If you want to take things back to slavery, then I'll go ahead and take things back to serfdom." As if serfdom was worse, and as if the Russian Revolution didn't aim to abolish the Tsarist state that came before it, which was perpetuating such a system!

But again, all of this is irrelevant in determining the accuracy of your statement. You can debate it if you want, but I won't indulge you in this regard any longer.



Sweet! And I'm sure the Ukrainian people would have a thing or two to say about your denial of the Holodomor.

Which highlights the subjectivity of the issue... my point exactly! Thank you!


Show me. (http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/history/slogan.asp)

The Wiki articles on the Soviet Union talk about market-oriented reforms, but never an 'embrace of capitalism'. In such an environment of free discourse, I'd expect it to show up if the facts are there.

Like 'the phantom stranger' said before, socialism (let alone communism) didn't magically spring up after the revolution. Establishing an economic system takes time, a lot of time. The beginning years of the revolution cannot accurately be called "Socialist".

As for the later years, those very "market-oriented reforms" are the very thing that shifted the USSR movement towards a communist economy to a capitalist one. One cannot reasonably call a system slowly implementing capitalist policies a "communist" system.

Here's a much more thorough explanation if you're interested:

http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html


---

In the end, the important point is that contrary to your attempts to dispute it, the USSR did in fact see large amount of economic growth. You conceded as much, but instead of doing the intellectually honest thing and leaving it at that, you trot out a comment that had nothing to do with you being so wrong ("So point conceded, Soviet style communism is great if you don't care about human lives and don't care about the long-term."). Pathetic.

That's basically what it means, yes. Yet I called your attempt to shift the discussion to how bad the USSR was because of it's gulags, etc. poisoning the well. I did not say that you talking about grain or cattle was poisoning the well, or irrelevant.


I said:

"Deaths - be it of humans or lifestock - do not magically refute economic growth. Poisoning the well doesn't change reality: The reality is Rawk is correct. The economy of the USSR sky-rocketed, specially when it came to the economic indicators like GDP."



So again, you're making shit up and misrepresenting what I said when you say
"If you'd read the article I posted you'd see that the USSR was forced to squander its oil reserves to pay for the grain, and that this ultimately lead to its economic collapse when oil prices fell. This goes for Rust too, since he also seems to be ignoring the grain data/ calling it irrelevant."

I did not call the "grain data" irrelevant.

Ok.



So? The claim itself doesn't refute any economic growth which was the point. It's a "tidbit" in the sense that it's not a deal-breaker when it comes to the economic growth you disputed.

The fact that it's grain production lowered through the years isn't proof that the USSR didn't see a large amount of economic growth.

The article says more about the Soviet economy than just grain production. I believe I've stated this twice.


1. This is completely irrelevant to the original point. This is what your pathetic attempts at poisoning the well gets us, a completely irrelevant discussion about: what's better or worse treatment.

2. The Gulags were the prison system of the U.S. I bet I would find US prisoners that say that the U.S. prison system is "horrible" too.

The US prison system also included capital punishment as the Gulags did.

3. You say that Internment camps didn't weren't as bad, yet you so ironically go on to say "If you want to take things back to slavery, then I'll go ahead and take things back to serfdom." As if serfdom was worse, and as if the Russian Revolution didn't aim to abolish the Tsarist state that came before it, which was perpetuating such a system!

But again, all of this is irrelevant in determining the accuracy of your statement. You can debate it if you want, but I won't indulge you in this regard any longer.

Mmmkay. The only reason these comparisons to the US in terms of brutality got brought up was because of this post:
And capitalism is certainly based on foresight and treats humanlife with the utmost sanctity, it's even more amusing that you're arguing the USSR against the U.S who have a gigantic military budget, capital punishment, have killed millions in imperialistic wars and fail to even provide free healthcare for its citizens(unlike the USSR)


Which highlights the subjectivity of the issue... my point exactly! Thank you!

Subjective to some extent. Subjective to the extent that the statement 'gulags were comparable to japanese internment camps in terms of disrespect for human life' makes any sense at all, hell no.


Like 'the phantom stranger' said before, socialism (let alone communism) didn't magically spring up after the revolution. Establishing an economic system takes time, a lot of time. The beginning years of the revolution cannot accurately be called "Socialist".

As for the later years, those very "market-oriented reforms" are the very thing that shifted the USSR movement towards a communist economy to a capitalist one. One cannot reasonably call a system slowly implementing capitalist policies a "communist" system.

Here's a much more thorough explanation if you're interested:

http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html

Great, so they shifted "towards capitalism". That doesn't equate to "an embrace of capitalism." You really let me down. If you'll notice, I've made sure to evade the retarded semantics arguments you commies always bring up by referring to "Soviet style communism" rather than "communism" so the point is mute anyway.

---

In the end, the important point is that contrary to your attempts to dispute it, the USSR did in fact see large amount of economic growth. You conceded as much, but instead of doing the intellectually honest thing and leaving it at that, you trot out a comment that had nothing to do with you being so wrong ("So point conceded, Soviet style communism is great if you don't care about human lives and don't care about the long-term."). Pathetic.

As I saw it, I was simply making sure the full story got heard. Just as I would point out that the Nazi economy relied on slave labour if someone started bragging about Nazi Germany's economic growth. If you see it a different way and I'm 'pathetic' than fine. I've brought the information that needed to be brought to this thread, so I've accomplished my mission.

The article says more about the Soviet economy than just grain production. I believe I've stated this twice.

Does any of it refute economic growth - which you apparently already conceded to before? Because if not, your point is moot.

Mmmkay. The only reason these comparisons to the US in terms of brutality got brought up was because of this post:

And that only came about because you posted links regarding the so-called Holodomor and the "Great Purges" by saying:

Astronomical Growth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

...

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge


Please don't try to bullshit me. Okay? Thanks.

Subjective to some extent. Subjective to the extent that the statement 'gulags were comparable to japanese internment camps in terms of disrespect for human life' makes any sense at all, hell no.

"Subjective to some extent" is a nice way of saying "Yes, it is subjective but I still want to cling to some objectivity because I don't want to concede the point".

Even then, I didn't claim that they were equivalent, mentioned it as an example of the "bad" things the U.S. has also done.

Whether you think they are equivalent or not is quite frankly completely meaningless to me right now.

Great, so they shifted "towards capitalism". That doesn't equate to "an embrace of capitalism." You really let me down. If you'll notice, I've made sure to evade the retarded semantics arguments you commies always bring up by referring to "Soviet style communism" rather than "communism" so the point is mute anyway.

1. Please spare me the bullshit about "semantics" when you're the one clinging to the phrases "embrace of capitalism" and "Soviet style communism" to dear life. Phrases you conveniently get to play semantics with all day.

2. I made the claim that they were not communist for most of their time (i.e. that they were capitalist), so I get to define what "Communism" I'm referring to, not you.

3. They didn't just "shift towards" capitalism. Try reading the fucking article.



As I saw it, I was simply making sure the full story got heard. Just as I would point out that the Nazi economy relied on slave labour if someone started bragging about Nazi Germany's economic growth. If you see it a different way and I'm 'pathetic' than fine. I've brought the information that needed to be brought to this thread, so I've accomplished my mission.

Except the full story was you engaging in logical fallacies. You think you accomplished the mission? Great! I'm glad we can both agree you did poison the well and that the USSR did see great economic growth.

Alot of people see him as a righteous freedom fighter, But I'm starting to question that.

I was speaking with a cuban man the other day and he was talking about how when Che took the nation, he assembled lists of people to be jailed or killed because they could pose a threat.

I don't know.