View Full Version : Communist Spies
Another brick in the wall
08-25-2005, 03:46 PM
McCarthy was a shameless demagogue, but the fact remains that there were communist spies in America and the Soviet Union gathered huge amounts of intelligence during WWII because of the alliance. The Amtorg trading corporation was a Soviet front group that stole huge numbers of diagrams from American corporations. Pretty much everything in the Soviet Union from 1930 to 1950 was copied from American or European technology. McCarthy's failure was that by the time the government was actually doing something about the problem, the damage had already been done. Roosevelt was the first president to grant diplomatic recognition of the Soviet Union. Roosevelt was a good president overall, but he failed to reocgnize the Soviet Union for what is was.
Viole
08-25-2005, 05:35 PM
McCarthy's failure was that he didn't bother with evidence, not that he waited too long. And, you know, if the US didn't spy on their allies, I'd be a bit more concerned about who spied on them. I'd also point out that, until recently, no one recognized the USSR for what it really was; though certainly everyone saw what they wanted to see. Actually, most of them still see what they want to see which, when you think about it, how just about everyone sees just about everything.
I think what I'm trying to say is this: what's your point?
Another brick in the wall
08-25-2005, 05:40 PM
I'm saying that the villification of McCarthy is unjustified because there were communist spies. It wasn't just something he made up to advance his own career. If the government had done a better job of preventing espionage, the Soviets would not have gotten the bomb and the US could have forced concessions from them.
whoneedscience
08-25-2005, 06:21 PM
I'm saying that the villification of McCarthy is unjustified because there were communist spies. It wasn't just something he made up to advance his own career. If the government had done a better job of preventing espionage, the Soviets would not have gotten the bomb and the US could have forced concessions from them.
And just ignore the human rights violations? Sorry, but that argument flies like a brick.
There's simply no value to justifying McCarthy's actions, especially when we face an even more real threat from terrorism. Your argument equates to saying that it would be okay to make unbased claims about people's connection to terrorism and try them publicly.
WITHTEETH
08-25-2005, 06:37 PM
Even Martin Luther King Jr was labeled a communist
Another brick in the wall
08-25-2005, 06:53 PM
I'm saying that the villification of McCarthy is unjustified because there were communist spies. It wasn't just something he made up to advance his own career. If the government had done a better job of preventing espionage, the Soviets would not have gotten the bomb and the US could have forced concessions from them.
And just ignore the human rights violations? Sorry, but that argument flies like a brick.
There's simply no value to justifying McCarthy's actions, especially when we face an even more real threat from terrorism. Your argument equates to saying that it would be okay to make unbased claims about people's connection to terrorism and try them publicly.
They weren't baseless. Soviet spies stole millions of pages of technical documents during the 1930s and 1940s. The first Soviet jet aircraft was powered by a copy of a British engine. The first Soviet long-range bomber was a copy of the American B-29 (which they stole when pilots were forced to land in their country). Human rights violations? Who was wrongfully imprisoned because of McCarthy? Who was wrongfully executed because of McCarthy? Whose civil rights were infringed?
Another brick in the wall
08-25-2005, 06:58 PM
Even Martin Luther King Jr was labeled a communist
This is true and unfortunate. One of the big problems with espionage trials is distinguishing between spies and saboteurs and people who are just expressing an opinion.
Viole
08-25-2005, 07:43 PM
Why, hello, Ann Coulter. My respect for you has just dropped to nonexistent, Brick. McCarthy accused people without evidence, he destroyed lives for nothing. Sure, there were people spying on us for the Kremlin. Randomly accusing people destroying their lives and reputations, was not the way to catch them. This is democracy, and under no circumstances can people be tried without evidence, citizen or no. McCarthy had no evidence, and thus his baseless accusations, dragging people into public spectacle for nothing, were a violation of civil rights, like police searching a house without a warrant.
Now answer me this; who killed themselves because of McCarthy's harassment? Who lost their jobs, their friends, and everything they cared about? And get this--McCarthy's activities did not result in a single conviction. Rather like Bush's anti-terrorism activities--not one conviction. How many people has he disappeared? I certainly don't feel safer.
Advocatus Diaboli
08-25-2005, 07:57 PM
What Viole said.
Another brick in the wall
08-25-2005, 08:09 PM
Why, hello, Ann Coulter. My respect for you has just dropped to nonexistent, Brick. McCarthy accused people without evidence, he destroyed lives for nothing. Sure, there were people spying on us for the Kremlin. Randomly accusing people destroying their lives and reputations, was not the way to catch them. This is democracy, and under no circumstances can people be tried without evidence, citizen or no. McCarthy had no evidence, and thus his baseless accusations, dragging people into public spectacle for nothing, were a violation of civil rights, like police searching a house without a warrant.
Now answer me this; who killed themselves because of McCarthy's harassment? Who lost their jobs, their friends, and everything they cared about? And get this--McCarthy's activities did not result in a single conviction. Rather like Bush's anti-terrorism activities--not one conviction. How many people has he disappeared? I certainly don't feel safer.
Perhaps I should clarify. McCarthy's actions did more harm than good, I concede that. But the threat of Communism was very real and previous administrations did almost nothing about it. Many idealistic people were deceived by KGB agents into assisting one of the most brutal governments of all time. By the 1950s, the political climate had changed, and most Soviet espionage was sharply reduced.
Me? Ann Coulter? There's icy cold liquid hate coursing through her veins.
Another brick in the wall
08-25-2005, 08:10 PM
I haven't gotten this much flak since I compared organ transplants to cannibalism.
Viole
08-25-2005, 09:47 PM
McCarthy's failure was that by the time the government was actually doing something about the problem, the damage had already been done.
[...]
I'm saying that the villification of McCarthy is unjustified because there were communist spies.
[...]
They weren't baseless. [...] Human rights violations? Who was wrongfully imprisoned because of McCarthy? Who was wrongfully executed because of McCarthy? Whose civil rights were infringed?
[...]
McCarthy's actions did more harm than good, I concede that.
That's good. Because I could swear you were just saying he did nothing wrong, except for being too late.
The biggest threat posed by 'communism'(I believe you're talking about the USSR, here, not an economic/governmental philosophy) was totalitarianism, and by supporting someone like McCarthy we prove willing to do that to ourselves. For a brief time, the USSR matched us in power. But in the end, our own arrogant stupidity proved more of a threat to our security.
Do you honestly believe the course of history would have been better if the USSR hadn't a nuclear arsenal to match the United States? I don't, because I don't think anything less than the threat of retaliation could have kept the US from using nukes--and there is no possibility of that being a good thing.
whoneedscience
08-26-2005, 08:13 AM
The biggest threat posed by 'communism'(I believe you're talking about the USSR, here, not an economic/governmental philosophy) was totalitarianism.
Interresting. There seem to be more parallels between communism and terrorism than I realized at first. Would you say the threat from terrorism is really the political influence, or is it the ideology itself? Would anyone here go as far as to say the real threat is from individual governments like North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or even Iraq?
I'm more inclined to believe that the extreme imballance of military power between these individuals and the combination of the US and what's left of her allies, combined with an increased nuclear deterrent creates a somewhat different situation, but then I don't know what that would mean as far as the domino theory and containment.
Any thoughts?
UnknownUser
08-26-2005, 08:31 AM
Perhaps the government themselves cannot wage a war upon us, but it does not keep their citizens from trying...
Communists, Terrorists, Witches, Pagans, Islams, Indians...we have always chosen a group of people to blame because we do not know them...not to say that they haven’t done anything its just that now a great majority of people that fit the stigma of being whatever are being persecuted...
Question. Why when we like the rebels in a country we call them Freedom Fighters, when we don’t like them we call them Terrorists, and when we are neutral we call them Guerillas...
Bighead
08-26-2005, 09:08 AM
Because we are hypocrites. Plain and simple
GodlessHeathen
08-26-2005, 09:17 AM
Perhaps the government themselves cannot wage a war upon us, but it does not keep their citizens from trying...
Communists, Terrorists, Witches, Pagans, Islams, Indians...we have always chosen a group of people to blame because we do not know them...not to say that they haven’t done anything its just that now a great majority of people that fit the stigma of being whatever are being persecuted...
Question. Why when we like the rebels in a country we call them Freedom Fighters, when we don’t like them we call them Terrorists, and when we are neutral we call them Guerillas...
Funny, that. (http://www.piratesandemperors.com/)
Another brick in the wall
08-26-2005, 10:05 AM
That's good. Because I could swear you were just saying he did nothing wrong, except for being too late.
The biggest threat posed by 'communism'(I believe you're talking about the USSR, here, not an economic/governmental philosophy) was totalitarianism, and by supporting someone like McCarthy we prove willing to do that to ourselves. For a brief time, the USSR matched us in power. But in the end, our own arrogant stupidity proved more of a threat to our security.
Do you honestly believe the course of history would have been better if the USSR hadn't a nuclear arsenal to match the United States? I don't, because I don't think anything less than the threat of retaliation could have kept the US from using nukes--and there is no possibility of that being a good thing.
Many people who helped pass nuclear information to the Soviets said that they thought that having two nuclear powers would preserve world peace. I guess there's some truth to that. But the US was the sole nuclear power in the world from 1945 to 1949 and even after the Soviets didn't come close to matching the size our arsenal until the mid-80s. If we wanted to destroy the Soviets with a first strike, we could have done so very easily from at least 1945 to 1955, but we didn't. I'm pretty sure that is Stalin got the bomb first he would have used it without mercy.
Viole
08-26-2005, 05:10 PM
Interresting. There seem to be more parallels between communism and terrorism than I realized at first. Would you say the threat from terrorism is really the political influence, or is it the ideology itself? Would anyone here go as far as to say the real threat is from individual governments like North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or even Iraq?
I'm more inclined to believe that the extreme imballance of military power between these individuals and the combination of the US and what's left of her allies, combined with an increased nuclear deterrent creates a somewhat different situation, but then I don't know what that would mean as far as the domino theory and containment.
Any thoughts?
A few. First off, there's no such thing as a 'rogue state'. There are simply governments that don't cooperate with the US; their means of getting and holding power is irrelevant. Witness Robertson's suggestion of assassinating Chavez.
Second, there are no governments in the world today who would directly attack the US. We simply have too much military power.
So terrorists are the larger threat; but they're not a real threat to the US. They can't destroy our economy, overthrow our government, or defeat out military. They don't have the power for the first or the last, or the popularity for the middle. What they can do is convince us to allow the government to lock people up without evidence, threaten them, and torture them--I submit that Brick's tentative McCarthy apologetics are the first step down that road, but as a country we've already gone further.
I doubt, however, that the collapse of American democracy is the goal of any terrorist. It's more likely they want an end to American militarism and support for oppressive middle eastern dictators, but the collapse of American democracy is the logical result of our refusal to admit any reason for terrorism other than the official Washington line of 'hating out way of life.'
Many people who helped pass nuclear information to the Soviets said that they thought that having two nuclear powers would preserve world peace. I guess there's some truth to that. But the US was the sole nuclear power in the world from 1945 to 1949 and even after the Soviets didn't come close to matching the size our arsenal until the mid-80s. If we wanted to destroy the Soviets with a first strike, we could have done so very easily from at least 1945 to 1955, but we didn't. I'm pretty sure that is Stalin got the bomb first he would have used it without mercy.
And I agree with them. Concentration of power is always a bad thing; and complain about the USSR as much as you like, but they never once used a nuclear weapon in war. I can't say for certain, but it's quite possible the US would have used nukes on several occasions without the counterbalance of Russian warheads. We might simply have felt free to use more conventional force, and perhaps would have invaded Russia itself. Why didn't we do so early on? Well, we'd just finished a war, and after dropping two nukes on Japan to 'save American lives', Truman could not have justified an assault on Russia.
As for Stalin using the bomb without mercy--I doubt it. They're expensive, for one, and they have the effect of turning people against you. He could have lied to the Russians--but not the rest of the world. No more pretense about the USSR being noble or good.
Another brick in the wall
08-28-2005, 07:36 AM
So terrorists are the larger threat; but they're not a real threat to the US. They can't destroy our economy, overthrow our government, or defeat out military. They don't have the power for the first or the last, or the popularity for the middle. What they can do is convince us to allow the government to lock people up without evidence, threaten them, and torture them--I submit that Brick's tentative McCarthy apologetics are the first step down that road, but as a country we've already gone further.
I am not worried in the slightest about terrorism. I'm more likely to be killed by a falling coconut than by a terrorist. The government is basically using terrorism as an excuse to increase its power. This happens all the time. The crisis can be real or fabricated, but the inevitable result is a decrease in liberty. The situation in Guantanamo is ridiculous. Either they're POWs or criminals. If they're POWs, obey the Geneva Convention; if they're criminals, give them a fair trial. Pick one!
I never should have said anything about McCarthy. My intention was to expose the almost total misunderstanding of communism.
I doubt, however, that the collapse of American democracy is the goal of any terrorist. It's more likely they want an end to American militarism and support for oppressive middle eastern dictators, but the collapse of American democracy is the logical result of our refusal to admit any reason for terrorism other than the official Washington line of 'hating out way of life.'
The US has done a lot of bad things in the Middle East, but the people who live there share the responsibility for their governments. Iran overthrew its western-backed leader and immediately installed another dictatorship. The US can't be responsible for the poor human rights records in the Middle East, especially in places like Saudi Arabia where human rights abuses are condoned by the religious authorities and the general population. The best strategy is non-interference. If they want to torture themselves with goofy Islamic governments, by all means we should let them. No more sanctions. They don't work and are often counterproductive. Note the difference between isolationism are non-interference: isolationism says we should have minimal relations with other countries; non-interference says we shouldn't try to exert control over the government of another country.
As for Stalin using the bomb without mercy--I doubt it. They're expensive, for one, and they have the effect of turning people against you. He could have lied to the Russians--but not the rest of the world. No more pretense about the USSR being noble or good.
Stalin had no qualms about wasting human life, so I certainly don't think he would have been concerned about a few billion rubles. Stalin's regime killed millions of people there was virtually no protest from the international community. Or Stalin could have simply pulled a Hitler and promised not to attack anyone and then do it anyway. The US wasn't worried about international condemnation when it used the bomb, so I don't see why the Soviets would have been.
Viole
08-28-2005, 11:35 AM
I am not worried in the slightest about terrorism. I'm more likely to be killed by a falling coconut than by a terrorist. The government is basically using terrorism as an excuse to increase its power. This happens all the time. The crisis can be real or fabricated, but the inevitable result is a decrease in liberty. The situation in Guantanamo is ridiculous. Either they're POWs or criminals. If they're POWs, obey the Geneva Convention; if they're criminals, give them a fair trial. Pick one!
I never should have said anything about McCarthy. My intention was to expose the almost total misunderstanding of communism.
No, you most certainly shouldn't have. It was actually pretty stupid of you, but we all do stupid things, and I'll let it go, since your above quote is rational enough, and entirely un-Coulterlike. Except, you seem incapable of differentiating between the ideal of communism and the Soviet Union. Communism is a utopian vision; I don't particularly care if you agree with it, just so long as you recognize the two aren't the same.
The US has done a lot of bad things in the Middle East, but the people who live there share the responsibility for their governments. Iran overthrew its western-backed leader and immediately installed another dictatorship. The US can't be responsible for the poor human rights records in the Middle East, especially in places like Saudi Arabia where human rights abuses are condoned by the religious authorities and the general population. The best strategy is non-interference. If they want to torture themselves with goofy Islamic governments, by all means we should let them. No more sanctions. They don't work and are often counterproductive. Note the difference between isolationism are non-interference: isolationism says we should have minimal relations with other countries; non-interference says we shouldn't try to exert control over the government of another country.
Sure. And you missed the point. Which is, why are terrorists from the Middle East attacking Western targets. I doubt anyone capable of independent thought thinks they're 'doing it because they hate our freedom.' It's been proved before that American support isn't perfect protection of brutal dictators, but that doesn't really matter. It's the existence of the support that matters.
Stalin had no qualms about wasting human life, so I certainly don't think he would have been concerned about a few billion rubles. Stalin's regime killed millions of people there was virtually no protest from the international community. Or Stalin could have simply pulled a Hitler and promised not to attack anyone and then do it anyway. The US wasn't worried about international condemnation when it used the bomb, so I don't see why the Soviets would have been.
At the time the US dropped their nukes on Japan, Europe was just beginning to recover from a devastating war, and the US was still fighting one. We tried to cover up the effects, and it seems we lied about the need to use them at all, but we still had no reason to expect condemnation.
Stalin could probably have used a nuke on Japan without condemnation. Germany is a little more doubtful, due to racial issues. We didn't know a great deal about radiation, at the time, but we knew they made a big explosion; if the USSR, or the US, or any other nation had used a nuke in peace-time, they'd have been condemned.
You said yourself, the 'Soviets didn't come close to matching the size our arsenal until the mid-80s.' Why not? They couldn't afford them. At the time of its collapse, the Soviet Union spent eighty percent of its budget on military expenditures. And they still couldn't match the US.
Another brick in the wall
08-28-2005, 01:10 PM
No, you most certainly shouldn't have. It was actually pretty stupid of you, but we all do stupid things, and I'll let it go, since your above quote is rational enough, and entirely un-Coulterlike. Except, you seem incapable of differentiating between the ideal of communism and the Soviet Union. Communism is a utopian vision; I don't particularly care if you agree with it, just so long as you recognize the two aren't the same.
This is where we part ways. I don't see a difference between the two. The only way to implement the ideal of communism on a national scale is with strong-arm government tactics. The ideal of communism is people working on collectivized farms with the government in charge of everything. That doesn't sound very utopian to me.
Sure. And you missed the point. Which is, why are terrorists from the Middle East attacking Western targets. I doubt anyone capable of independent thought thinks they're 'doing it because they hate our freedom.' It's been proved before that American support isn't perfect protection of brutal dictators, but that doesn't really matter. It's the existence of the support that matters.
There are also terrorists who are motivated by religious fervor and racism. It's our support of Israel that really infuriates them.
Viole
08-28-2005, 04:32 PM
This is where we part ways. I don't see a difference between the two. The only way to implement the ideal of communism on a national scale is with strong-arm government tactics. The ideal of communism is people working on collectivized farms with the government in charge of everything. That doesn't sound very utopian to me.
Taking time to educate oneself might help. By now I realize I can't expect that of Americans, not even ones such as yourself, that aren't entirely blinded by either Christians or Republicans(Or, to be fair, Democrats, though I can't imagine anyone being blinded by them at present). Actually, I'm getting rather sick of typing this out. I should just write something out and paste it when necessary.
I think I'll just point out that a communist country does not have a state. It is very clear in Marxist literature that the state fades away--I'd also point out that a dictatorship cannot be a proletariat government, which is counter to the principals of socialism. Which leaves two favored names for USSR-type governments; Stalinist Bureaucracies, and State-Capitalism. I think Fascism fits them fairly well. Furthermore, the USSR never claimed to be communist. It claimed to be socialist.
There are also terrorists who are motivated by religious fervor and racism. It's our support of Israel that really infuriates them.
As it should. Britain had no rights to the land Israel was founded on, and there were no moral or ethical necessities mandating support for a 'jewish nation'. Israel is in violation of more international agreements than the rest of the world put together. So I can't blame Muslims for being outraged over our support for Israel. I doubt, however, that most Muslims would care if it were not for our brand of America-first politics. We helped Saddam topple a democratic government in Iraq. We reinstalled the Shah in Iran, which led to Islamic Revolution. Not to mention the campaign in Afghanistan, where we funded and armed what would eventually become the Taliban. Did the people of the region really have that much choice? Or did we decide, leaving them to sweep up the pieces?
Another brick in the wall
08-29-2005, 10:56 AM
The fact that communism/socialism/Marxism whatever is supposed to result in a golden age for humanity is irrelevant. In practice, it often fails. This is basically the "no-true-Scotsman" argument.
You might argue that quasi-Socialist countries like Denmark are free and have high standards of living, but this due to past prosperity from capitalism and an established democratic tradition. If socialism is tried in country that lacks free markets or has little/no experience with democracy, the result is dictatorship.
Socialism doesn't preclude a prosperous, democratic society (Scandanavian countries do quite well) but it can't bring it about on its own.
As for your second point, fundamentalists on both sides are to blame for the crisis in Israel. I know the Jews have suffered so much, but why couldn't they have gone somewhere else? It's a big planet. But no, they must live on that land because the Torah says so. An the Arabs want the whole thing because they were there longer and Jerusalem contains the 17th holiest site in Islam and blah, blah, blah.
It would be nice if the US tried a little harder to cooperate with the world, but when you're a super-power, you don't need to cooperate.
Viole
08-30-2005, 01:16 PM
The fact that communism/socialism/Marxism whatever is supposed to result in a golden age for humanity is irrelevant. In practice, it often fails. This is basically the "no-true-Scotsman" argument.
I've been waiting rather a long time for someone to make this argument. So I've had quite a bit of time to consider my response. Of course, saying that no true libertarian wants the government interfering in their personal life is also an example of the 'no-true-Scotsman' argument. It is, nevertheless, true.
Once again; Marx defined Communism as the goal of socialism, in which there would be no government. Furthermore, since the rather ill-chosen phrase 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is to indicate a worker-led regime which enforces its rules on the bourgeois, rather than the 'dictatorship of the bourgeois', which works the other way around. A true dictatorship is lead, of course, by a ruling class, not the working class; which means it does not fit Marx's definition of a socialist state. Since I don't think you'll deny the USSR was a dictatorship, they are certainly not Marxist; though there are other socialist theories out there.
The No-True-Scotsman argument applies to arbitrary claims; no true libertarians eat toast, or no true communist drinks wine. It does not apply to claims based on fact--and Marx's theories are there for anyone to read. Just as any Christian must believe that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and any libertarian must be against excessive government.
You might argue that quasi-Socialist countries like Denmark are free and have high standards of living, but this due to past prosperity from capitalism and an established democratic tradition. If socialism is tried in country that lacks free markets or has little/no experience with democracy, the result is dictatorship.
Socialism doesn't preclude a prosperous, democratic society (Scandanavian countries do quite well) but it can't bring it about on its own.
I don't know much about Denmark, or Scandinavia, but I suspect you're oversimplifying. I'd also point out that a country with no experience in democracy is likely to end up with a dictatorship, and a country with no experience in capitalism is likely to end up under corporatism.
As for your second point, fundamentalists on both sides are to blame for the crisis in Israel. I know the Jews have suffered so much, but why couldn't they have gone somewhere else? It's a big planet. But no, they must live on that land because the Torah says so. An the Arabs want the whole thing because they were there longer and Jerusalem contains the 17th holiest site in Islam and blah, blah, blah.
Yes, it is largely a religious dispute. And the Arabs and Jews have been fighting so long they can't remember why they started, anymore. I think we agree, the best solution is for the US to stop funding Israel, and stop selling them weapons.
It would be nice if the US tried a little harder to cooperate with the world, but when you're a super-power, you don't need to cooperate.
The US won't remain a superpower forever. World history should tell us that, at least.
Another brick in the wall
08-30-2005, 05:53 PM
Ill-chosen? What's stopping the worker-led regime into becoming the new ruling class? You're playing word games.
Here are some Marx quotes for you:
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.
I am not a Marxist.
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/karl_marx/4.html
Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth - the soil and the labourer.
Revolutions are the locomotives of history.
Democracy is the road to socialism.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/k/karl_marx.html
And of course, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Of course people use their abilities to meet their needs. What else would they do?
So there you have it. Private property is evil, capitalism destroys wealth, democracy is the path to socialism, revolutions are the necessary for change, and Karl Marx is not a Marxist.
I must be an idiot for questioning such a rational ideology!
The NTS argument is perfectly applicable. "Obviously", socialists who advocate stupid things aren't really socialists. Makes perfect sense!
Another brick in the wall
08-30-2005, 05:58 PM
Found some more:
The democratic concept of man is false, because it is Christian. The democratic concept holds that . . . each man is a sovereign being. This is the illusion, dream, and postulate of Christianity.
http://www.zaadz.com/quotes/authors/karl_marx?page=2
The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.
http://www.quotationspage.com/search.php3?Author=Karl+Marx&file=other
Yep, Karl Marx was a big fan of democracy.
Viole
08-31-2005, 12:03 AM
Word games? Well, yes. That seems to be politics for you. And you want quotes?
We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.(Marx, p. 20, Communist Manifesto)
Hmm... that sounds rather fair and democratic.
One must be a blind fool or a conscious deceiver of the masses not to see, or to conceal, this fundamental fact; at the most critical period of their history, at the moment of their struggle for existence, the bourgeois States of Europe, Asia and America defended themselves not by means of democracy and parliamentarism, but by openly passing over to the methods of dictatorship.[...]
[T]o the question, ‘What is dictatorship?’ the Communists should answer: ‘Open your eyes, and you will see before you[...] bourgeois dictatorship.’(Dictatorship of the Proletariat)
Not Marx, I know, but important toward understanding the difference between what you call democracy, and what Marx does.
This dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished(The Russian Revolution)
Hold on, is Rosa suggesting that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat isn't an actual dictatorship? Amazing!
The dictatorship of the proletariat suppresses, not ‘equality,’ ‘liberty,’ and ‘democracy,’ but only the bourgeois dictatorship, which in 1914-18 showed itself to be the most bloody, most tyrannical, most pitiless, cynical and hypocritical of all forms of power that ever existed.(Dictatorship of the Proletariat)
Do you know, I'm getting the really odd feeling that these people wouldn't agree that we're living in a democracy? But we get to vote once every four years! Two, on the really unimportant people! And it isn't as if most people vote for the candidate they hate the least, is it?
As for your 'I am not a Marxist' quote, I suggest you read this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm):
Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist struggles, Marx made his famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, “ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” (“what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist”).
Hey, Marx just used the 'No-True-Scotsman' argument! Shall I use Marx's language? Stalin might have been a Marxist, but he did not, and does not, represent Marxism, which is an economic and philosophical world view based on the works of Karl Marx.
And this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm#16) for the one about democracy being the road to socialism(Engels; but I can't seem to figure out where Marx wrote such a thing):
Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?
It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.
Do I really need to point out that you're quote mining? Context is everything. Even(though I'm loathe to admit it) in the bible. I hate to sound condescending or arrogant, but you don't know anything about Marxism. You sound like a theist denouncing atheists because 'the bible says they're fools sent by Satan'.
Another brick in the wall
09-01-2005, 07:52 AM
Alright, who represents Marxism? Khmer Rouge? Amish? Where are the workers' paradises? Can you cite a single successful example of a Marxist government?
And what's with abolishing private property? That's the stupidest idea ever. If you owned a farm and the government confiscated your entire harvest at the end of the season, you would have no incentive to grow more than you could hide, unless the government threatened to shoot you if you didn't grow a certain amount.
If Marxism is the path to prosperity, why is it that capitalist countries have the highest GDPs and standards of living?
If Marxism is the path to democracy, why do almost all Marxist revolutions end in dictatorship? Are there any examples of a democratic transistion to Marxism?
And why does Marxism rail against the bourgeoisie? They are the educated people: Doctors, lawyers, engineers, entrepreneurs, professors, etc. Get rid of them, and your society will fall apart.
Bottom line, Marxism is a utopian ideology that has more in common with religion than you might admit.
Viole
09-01-2005, 09:42 AM
Alright, who represents Marxism? Khmer Rouge? Amish? Where are the workers' paradises? Can you cite a single successful example of a Marxist government?
You paying any attention at all? Marx represents Marxism. Everyone else applies to that standard. As Marx was pointing out when he said, 'If they are Marxists, then I am not a Marxist.' Marxism is a word with a meaning. I personally think Objectivists are mainly arrogant, deluded kids, who've somehow indoctrinated themselves in the Randist religion. I still wouldn't call an advocate of social programs an Objectivist.
And what's with abolishing private property? That's the stupidest idea ever. If you owned a farm and the government confiscated your entire harvest at the end of the season, you would have no incentive to grow more than you could hide, unless the government threatened to shoot you if you didn't grow a certain amount.
A misunderstanding. You own what you produce. You do not own the land. You can keep your harvest--much good it will do you--if you wish, but if you wish to survive you will share it. Then, the rest of society will cooperate with you.
If Marxism is the path to prosperity, why is it that capitalist countries have the highest GDPs and standards of living?
Well, I guess that depends on how you define GDP. Of course, you could also read something, and you'd know that Marx never considered communism a path to anything. He claimed communist revolution would happen after capitalism ceased to be useful--which would, I suspect, be when expansion is no longer possible. Do you really think you can have unlimited expansion on limited resources?
If Marxism is the path to democracy, why do almost all Marxist revolutions end in dictatorship? Are there any examples of a democratic transistion to Marxism?
Because, I pointed out earlier, dictatorship often leads to dictatorship, if the people, or the leaders, don't force democracy. Still, I could point to what might have been successful revolutions, if not for the interference of the US; the Sandinistas, perhaps, or Allende in Chile.
And why does Marxism rail against the bourgeoisie? They are the educated people: Doctors, lawyers, engineers, entrepreneurs, professors, etc. Get rid of them, and your society will fall apart.
You're so far from the truth it's scary. The bourgeoisie are the big business owners, the industrialists, and the capitalists(in the old sense). Small business owners are petty bourgeoisie. Anyone who works for someone else is proletariat. You'll find that Cuba has one of the best health care systems outside the industrialized world.
Entrepreneurs, I'll admit.
Bottom line, Marxism is a utopian ideology that has more in common with religion than you might admit.
I'd say the same about any utopian theory, including libertarianism and Objectivism. I have no faith in any of them. However, I am willing to try and make them work. Well, not objectivism, but libertarianism or communism.
Another brick in the wall
09-01-2005, 11:48 AM
When did I say I was an Objectivist? I'm not.
If Karl Marx wrote the Communist Mannifesto, and advocated the abolition of private property, how is Marxism not responsible for the famines in the Soviet Union during collectivization?
A misunderstanding. You own what you produce. You do not own the land. You can keep your harvest--much good it will do you--if you wish, but if you wish to survive you will share it. Then, the rest of society will cooperate with you.
Wait, I thought I wasn't allowed to have private property. I can own the surplus, but not the land? Where do you think crops come from? The last part sounds kind of ominous. What if they don't have anything I want to trade for? There's no point in trading if there isn't mutual benefit.
Well, I guess that depends on how you define GDP. Of course, you could also read something, and you'd know that Marx never considered communism a path to anything. He claimed communist revolution would happen after capitalism ceased to be useful--which would, I suspect, be when expansion is no longer possible. Do you really think you can have unlimited expansion on limited resources?
What!? He wrote the Communist Mannifesto! He's the father of Communism. I always find it interesting that the same people who denounce Stalin think Lenin wasn't so bad and that Karl Marx was basically good, despite the fact that each was merely continuing the policies of the previous.
Capitalism doesn't need to expand forever in order to survive. Ever heard of the business cycle? The economy oscillates. The Great Depression wasn't the death of capitalism, it was just an unusually large fluctuation. Of course I don't believe in unlimited expansion, but that does rule out capitalism.
Because, I pointed out earlier, dictatorship often leads to dictatorship, if the people, or the leaders, don't force democracy. Still, I could point to what might have been successful revolutions, if not for the interference of the US; the Sandinistas, perhaps, or Allende in Chile.
And Mossadeq in Iran. The US had no business supporting a bastard like Somoza, but better a pro-US dictator than a pro-Soviet dictator. Of course, if the US had screwed over so many Latin American countries, maybe they wouldn't have embraced Communism with such gusto. There's a difference between Imperialism and Libertarianism: Imperialism is Libertarianism minus the live-and-let-live philosophy. Libertarians believe in capitalism but not forcing other people into trading. the libertarian asserts that the only purpose of government is to prevent people from harming each other. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't work because without an organization to protect rights and property, capitalism becomes impossible. Law of the Jungle would take over and the most vicious people would be in charge.
You're so far from the truth it's scary. The bourgeoisie are the big business owners, the industrialists, and the capitalists(in the old sense). Small business owners are petty bourgeoisie. Anyone who works for someone else is proletariat. You'll find that Cuba has one of the best health care systems outside the industrialized world.
In practice, Communist leaders generally jail anyone who might be a threat to the new system. Intellectuals are generally the first against the wall.
Viole, people in Cuba are building rafts out of wood and old tires to get away. The same guy has been in charge since 1959. Have you ever been treated in a Cuban hospital? Would you seriously choose a Cuban hospital over an American one? Just because healthcare is "free" in Cuba doesn't mean it's the best.
My biggest problem with (economic) left-wing ideologies is that they negate the value of the individual. It's fatalism. No matter how hard you try, you'll never be rich, so you should just do what the government tells you. It reduces the individual to a mere component of the state. There are interesting parallels between religion and communism. In religion, your life has meaning only with respect to god, and in communism, your life only has meaning with respect for the state. Why should I be content to be just another part of the system? You might say that when I join a company I become part of a system, but it's a lot easier to change jobs than governments. Plus, I can quit my job and start my own company. Starting my own country is a little harder. There's more uncertainty under libertarianism, but a world of possiblities unfolds.
I'll take the red pill. :)
Viole
09-01-2005, 12:21 PM
Well, I hope you don't mind, but I've had about enough of your remarkable ability to ignore everything I say. I don't know where Americans got their remarkable talent for never understanding their opposition, but you're quite excellent at it.
Philboid Studge
09-01-2005, 12:28 PM
I must say this is an enjoyable read. Thank you both.
Brick, I don't want to tell you what to do, but I think you need to distinguish between communism and Communism.
Edit: Viole, please don't sully all Americans with such a broad stroke!
Another brick in the wall
09-01-2005, 12:49 PM
Well, I hope you don't mind, but I've had about enough of your remarkable ability to ignore everything I say. I don't know where Americans got their remarkable talent for never understanding their opposition, but you're quite excellent at it.
There's a reason why my name is Brick. I understand the opposition. If you want to agree to disagree, I guess that's the end of it.
I understand the difference between communism and Communism, but the problem is the people who want the former are trying to impose the latter on others. If you go to communist websites, they don't talk about a local community, they want worldwide revolution. If you want to live on a commune go ahead, but don't drag me into it.
The fundamental difference between libertarianism and other ideologies is that libertarianism does not seek to curtail either your economic freedom or your personal freedom.
Viole
09-01-2005, 01:03 PM
Oh, come on, Brick. I've never once mistaken Objectivism for Libertarianism or libertarianism. Do not try and pretend you know what you talking about with Marxism.
Philboid; Thanks. But don't worry. I always give people the benefit of the doubt, as to their intelligence. I just seem to be disappointed all the time.
Another brick in the wall
09-01-2005, 01:43 PM
Who are you? CPUSA President? I can't believe you actually cited Cuba as an example of a Marxist success. I'm not pretending. Unlike you, I know the consequences of Marxism. If you want to go toe-to-toe with me in history, I'm game.
First, some definitions:
Marx·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (märkszm)
n.
The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society.
so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
com·mu·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm)
n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
taken from www. dictionary.com
Note the term Marxist-Leninist. Lenin's policies were directly derived from Marx's ideas.
Let's look at sample of all the groups and individuals that have called themselves Communist, Socialist, or Marxist:
Stalin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
Mao http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism
Baader-Meinhof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baader-Meinhof
Shining Path http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shining_Path
Khmer-Rouge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
Kim Il Sung http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Il_Sung
Nicolae Ceausescu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceausescu
Fidel Castro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro
Red Guards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards_%28China%29
What about Lenin? Surely it was his successors that perverted his noble ideals. Right?
"According to the claims of the Black Book of Communism (Using the Julian calendar): The October revolution was on October 25. The Communists started closing down independent newspaper and radio stations the day after (p. 54). On November 13, an order was sent out that all who were suspected being an "enemy of the people" should be imprisoned (p. 55). Starting in January 1918, war prisoners were being tortured and killed on a large scale (p. 60-61). Starting in May, food was being "requisitioned" from the peasants (p. 66). Also in May, several working-class demonstrations were bloodily suppressed (p. 68). There were around 110 peasants uprisings in July and August (p. 67). In June 1918, the Cheka already had 12,000 members (p. 68). On the 9 and 10 of August, Lenin sent out telegrams ordering mass executions, deportations, and concentration camps. (p. 72-73). Trotsky also supported starting concentration camps (p. 63).
After the assassination attempt on Lenin and the succesful assassination of Cheka leader Moisei Uritsky on the same day, Lenin and the other Bolshevik leaders decided to respond with overwhelming force, both as retribution and as a deterrent for any similar future attempts. This led to the particularly intensive period of oppression called the Red Terror.
In May 1919, there were 16,000 people in labor camp based on the old Tsarist katorga labor camps, in September 1921 there were more than 70,000 (p. 80). There were large scale rapes of "bourgeoisie women" documented in 1920 (p. 105). In total, 50,000-200,000 summary executions of "class enemies" occurred during Lenin regime.
All sides in the Russian Civil Wars of 1918-20 - the Bolsheviks, the Whites, the Anarchists, the seceding nationalities - provisioned themselves by the ancient method of "living off the land": they seized food from those who grew it, gave it to their armies and supporters, and denied it to their enemies. The Bolshevik efficiency at this is confirmed by their recently uncovered records; it is probably one cause of their victory. The American Relief Association, which Herbert Hoover had formed to help the starvation of WWI, offered assistance to Lenin in 1919, on condition that they have full say over the Russian railway network and hand out food impartially to all; Lenin refused this as interference in Russian internal affairs.
This led peasants to drastically reduce their crop production. In retaliation, Lenin ordered the seizure of the food peasants had grown for their own subsistence and their seed grain. The Cheka and the army began by shooting hostages, and ended by waging a second full-scale civil war against the peasantry. The food requisitioning are documented on p. 97 and p 120-121. The war on the peasantry, including the use of poison gas, death camps, and deportations are documented on p. 92-97 and p. 116-118. In 1920 Lenin ordered increased emphasis on the food requisitioning from the peasantry, at the same time that the Cheka gave detailed reports about the large scale famine (p. 121).
These practices and the accumulated disruptions of six and a half years of war produced a true famine in the early spring of 1921: a hunger so severe that it was doubtful that seed-grain would sown and not eaten. This was one of the causes of the New Economic Policy of 1921; it also helped produce an opening to the West. Lenin allowed relief organizations to bring aid, this time, but later had most of the Russian members organizing the aid liquidated. The famine continued through 1922; the A.R.A fed ten million people, and presumably was what kept most of them alive. The Bolsheviks permitted the relief agencies to continue distributing free food in 1923, while they sold grain abroad. The net effect, since grain is fungible, was that they received money for nothing from capitalist philanthropy. When this was discovered, foreign relief organizations suspended aid. Lenin's first heart attack was in the fall of 1922; and the extent of his responsibility for the grain sales is therefore unclear, but he would certainly have been pleased.
Estimates on the deaths from this famine are between 3 and 10 million. For comparison, the worst crop failure of late tsarist Russia, in 1892, caused 375,000 to 400,000 deaths [6][7][8]. Of course, that was in a time of peace and order; there had not been war throughout Russia before."
This is just hilarious:
"Lenin's brain study
Lenin's brain was removed before his body was embalmed. The Soviet government commissioned the well-known German neuroscientist Oskar Vogt to study Lenin's brain and to locate the precise location of the brain cells that are responsible for genius. The Institute of Brain was created in Moscow for this purpose. Vogt published a paper on the brain in 1929 where he reported that some pyramidal neurons in the third layer of Lenin's cerebral cortex were very large. However the conclusion of its relevance to genius was contested. Vogt's work was considered unsatisfactory by the Soviets. Further research was continued by the Soviet team, but the work on Lenin's brain was no longer advertised.
Contemporary anatomists no longer believe that morphology alone can determine the functioning of the brain."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin
In summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Book_of_Communism
Philboid Studge
09-01-2005, 01:55 PM
I can't believe you actually cited Cuba as an example of a Marxist success.
Dude, read what Viole wrote re Cuba.
You'll find that Cuba has one of the best health care systems outside the industrialized world.
Emphasis mine. Can you refute this?
Another brick in the wall
09-01-2005, 02:06 PM
What do I need to refute? The best Communist healthcare system isn't as good as the worst Capitalist one?
"The major exception to this general pattern of improvement has been in those countries worst hit by AIDS, principally in Sub-Saharan Africa, which have seen significant falls in life expectancy due to the disease in recent years. European socialist countries (such as the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary) were characterized by decreasing life expectancy and increasing mortality (especially among adult men) in the late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Another exception is Russia and other former USSR republics after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Life expectancy of men dropped to 59.9 years (below the official retirement age), of women to 72.43 years (1999)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
Philboid Studge
09-01-2005, 02:20 PM
Well, she's right about one thing: you seem to willfully ignore what she's saying. When did she 'cite Cuba as an example of a Marxist success'?
I'm not sure the point of your wiki reference. Life expectancy? Shall we compare infant mortality rates? To prove what -- that there are 40 or so countries that do better than the US? (Including Cuba, BTW)
Another brick in the wall
09-01-2005, 02:54 PM
Viole said Cuba has one of the best healthcare systems outside the industrialized world. Cuba is socialist. Hence, I took this to mean that this was a socialist success story.
Let's compare the infant mortality rate for the world's 4 most populous countries:
China: 24.18 deaths/1,000 live births
India: 56.29 deaths/1,000 live births
US: 6.84 deaths/1,000 live births
Indonesia: 35.6 deaths/1,000 live births
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
Impressed?
*edited because I mixed statistics from two sources by mistake*
Another brick in the wall
09-01-2005, 03:32 PM
I can't believe you actually cited Cuba as an example of a Marxist success.
Dude, read what Viole wrote re Cuba.
You'll find that Cuba has one of the best health care systems outside the industrialized world.
Emphasis mine. Can you refute this?
Cuba has a suprisingly good healthcare system, but overall, it's a terrible place to live.
TheSnake
09-02-2005, 11:27 AM
Impressed?
I don't see the relevance of size. Population density might be a factor, but USA isn't very densly populated is it?
Without doing more research I can't say what factors attribute to Infant Mortality Rates, but it does seem that USA doesn't compare favourably to other industrialised countries. If I'd have to wager a guess, I'd attribute it to weak public healthcare system.
Another brick in the wall
09-02-2005, 11:42 AM
The US is a lot bigger (population and geography) than most industrialized nations. That's why I thought it was more accurate to compare the figures according to population size. In most European countries, the majority of people live in cities, so getting to a hospital isn't a problem.
Here are some more relevant statistics:
Definition: Public funding of health care expenditure, in US $ PPP per capita. Data for 2000.
Amount
1. Iceland $2,202 per capita
2. Germany $2,063 per capita
3. United States $2,051 per capita
4. Denmark $1,986 per capita
5. Norway $1,877 per capita
6. Canada $1,826 per capita
7. Switzerland $1,793 per capita
8. France $1,785 per capita
9. Belgium $1,616 per capita
10. Australia $1,600 per capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_hea_car_fun_pub_per_cap&int=-1
Country Description
Definition: Public and private funding of health care expenditure, in US $ PPP per capita. Data for 2000.
Amount
1. United States $4,631 per capita
2. Switzerland $3,222 per capita
3. Germany $2,748 per capita
4. Iceland $2,608 per capita
5. Canada $2,535 per capita
6. Denmark $2,420 per capita
7. France $2,349 per capita
8. Belgium $2,268 per capita
9. Norway $2,268 per capita
10. Netherlands $2,246 per capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_hea_car_fun_tot_per_cap&int=-1
TheSnake
09-02-2005, 11:55 AM
The US is a lot bigger (population and geography) than most industrialized nations. That's why I thought it was more accurate to compare the figures according to population size. In most European countries, the majority of people live in cities, so getting to a hospital isn't a problem.
Don't majority of people live in cities in USA too?
Like I said, I don't think size matters much, but population density likely makes a difference.
[Stats]
Wouldn't that mean that the healthcare system in USA is rather inefficient? Or that people there are less healthier overall? Or that healthcare in USA is just more expensive?
calpurnpiso
09-02-2005, 12:19 PM
Who are you? CPUSA President? I can't believe you actually cited Cuba as an example of a Marxist success. I'm not pretending. Unlike you, I know the consequences of Marxism. If you want to go toe-to-toe with me in history, I'm game.
First, some definitions:
Marx·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (märkszm)
n.
The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society.
so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
com·mu·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm)
n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
taken from www. dictionary.com
Note the term Marxist-Leninist. Lenin's policies were directly derived from Marx's ideas.
Let's look at sample of all the groups and individuals that have called themselves Communist, Socialist, or Marxist:
Stalin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
Mao http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism
Baader-Meinhof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baader-Meinhof
Shining Path http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shining_Path
Khmer-Rouge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
Kim Il Sung http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Il_Sung
Nicolae Ceausescu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceausescu
Fidel Castro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro
Red Guards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards_%28China%29
What about Lenin? Surely it was his successors that perverted his noble ideals. Right?
"According to the claims of the Black Book of Communism (Using the Julian calendar): The October revolution was on October 25. The Communists started closing down independent newspaper and radio stations the day after (p. 54). On November 13, an order was sent out that all who were suspected being an "enemy of the people" should be imprisoned (p. 55). Starting in January 1918, war prisoners were being tortured and killed on a large scale (p. 60-61). Starting in May, food was being "requisitioned" from the peasants (p. 66). Also in May, several working-class demonstrations were bloodily suppressed (p. 68). There were around 110 peasants uprisings in July and August (p. 67). In June 1918, the Cheka already had 12,000 members (p. 68). On the 9 and 10 of August, Lenin sent out telegrams ordering mass executions, deportations, and concentration camps. (p. 72-73). Trotsky also supported starting concentration camps (p. 63).
After the assassination attempt on Lenin and the succesful assassination of Cheka leader Moisei Uritsky on the same day, Lenin and the other Bolshevik leaders decided to respond with overwhelming force, both as retribution and as a deterrent for any similar future attempts. This led to the particularly intensive period of oppression called the Red Terror.
In May 1919, there were 16,000 people in labor camp based on the old Tsarist katorga labor camps, in September 1921 there were more than 70,000 (p. 80). There were large scale rapes of "bourgeoisie women" documented in 1920 (p. 105). In total, 50,000-200,000 summary executions of "class enemies" occurred during Lenin regime.
All sides in the Russian Civil Wars of 1918-20 - the Bolsheviks, the Whites, the Anarchists, the seceding nationalities - provisioned themselves by the ancient method of "living off the land": they seized food from those who grew it, gave it to their armies and supporters, and denied it to their enemies. The Bolshevik efficiency at this is confirmed by their recently uncovered records; it is probably one cause of their victory. The American Relief Association, which Herbert Hoover had formed to help the starvation of WWI, offered assistance to Lenin in 1919, on condition that they have full say over the Russian railway network and hand out food impartially to all; Lenin refused this as interference in Russian internal affairs.
This led peasants to drastically reduce their crop production. In retaliation, Lenin ordered the seizure of the food peasants had grown for their own subsistence and their seed grain. The Cheka and the army began by shooting hostages, and ended by waging a second full-scale civil war against the peasantry. The food requisitioning are documented on p. 97 and p 120-121. The war on the peasantry, including the use of poison gas, death camps, and deportations are documented on p. 92-97 and p. 116-118. In 1920 Lenin ordered increased emphasis on the food requisitioning from the peasantry, at the same time that the Cheka gave detailed reports about the large scale famine (p. 121).
These practices and the accumulated disruptions of six and a half years of war produced a true famine in the early spring of 1921: a hunger so severe that it was doubtful that seed-grain would sown and not eaten. This was one of the causes of the New Economic Policy of 1921; it also helped produce an opening to the West. Lenin allowed relief organizations to bring aid, this time, but later had most of the Russian members organizing the aid liquidated. The famine continued through 1922; the A.R.A fed ten million people, and presumably was what kept most of them alive. The Bolsheviks permitted the relief agencies to continue distributing free food in 1923, while they sold grain abroad. The net effect, since grain is fungible, was that they received money for nothing from capitalist philanthropy. When this was discovered, foreign relief organizations suspended aid. Lenin's first heart attack was in the fall of 1922; and the extent of his responsibility for the grain sales is therefore unclear, but he would certainly have been pleased.
Estimates on the deaths from this famine are between 3 and 10 million. For comparison, the worst crop failure of late tsarist Russia, in 1892, caused 375,000 to 400,000 deaths [6][7][8]. Of course, that was in a time of peace and order; there had not been war throughout Russia before."
This is just hilarious:
"Lenin's brain study
Lenin's brain was removed before his body was embalmed. The Soviet government commissioned the well-known German neuroscientist Oskar Vogt to study Lenin's brain and to locate the precise location of the brain cells that are responsible for genius. The Institute of Brain was created in Moscow for this purpose. Vogt published a paper on the brain in 1929 where he reported that some pyramidal neurons in the third layer of Lenin's cerebral cortex were very large. However the conclusion of its relevance to genius was contested. Vogt's work was considered unsatisfactory by the Soviets. Further research was continued by the Soviet team, but the work on Lenin's brain was no longer advertised.
Contemporary anatomists no longer believe that morphology alone can determine the functioning of the brain."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin
In summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Book_of_Communism
Gratias tibi ago (thanks) for the informative post..:)
Another brick in the wall
09-02-2005, 12:41 PM
Don't majority of people live in cities in USA too?
Like I said, I don't think size matters much, but population density likely makes a difference.
Yes, but:
Percentage living in urban areas
7. Belgium 97%
15. Iceland 93% (which has only one major city, by the way)
27. United Kingdom 89%
30. Germany 88%
34. New Zealand 86%
37. Denmark 85%
40. Sweden 83%
42. Canada 80%
43. United States 80%
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_per_liv_in_urb_are&int=-1
Wouldn't that mean that the healthcare system in USA is rather inefficient? Or that people there are less healthier overall? Or that healthcare in USA is just more expensive?
The last one, definitely.
As for the rest:
Death from cancer
1. Netherlands 433 deaths per 100000 people
2. Italy 418 deaths per 100000 people
3. Hungary 411 deaths per 100000 people
4. Luxembourg 409.7 deaths per 100000 people
5. Slovakia 405.3 deaths per 100000 people
6. Ireland 357.6 deaths per 100000 people
7. Czech Republic 335.4 deaths per 100000 people
8. New Zealand 327.3 deaths per 100000 people
9. United States 321.9 deaths per 100000 people
10. Australia 298.9 deaths per 100000 people
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_dea_fro_can&int=-1
Daily smokers
Definition: Data on tobacco consumption - this is a percentage of the total population who smoke at least one cigaratte a day.(Data for 2002).
Amount
1. Japan 30.9%
2. Belgium 29%
3. Norway 29%
4. France 28.6%
5. Denmark 28%
6. Mexico 26.4%
7. Luxembourg 26%
8. Switzerland 25.3%
9. New Zealand 25%
10. Czech Republic 24.1%
11. Finland 23.4%
12. Iceland 21.6%
13. United States 18.4%
14. Canada 18%
15. Sweden 17.8%
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_dai_smo&int=-1
This is embarassing:
Teenage pregnancy
1. United States 494,357 births
2. Poland 30,413 births
3. Germany 29,000 births
4. Canada 19,920 births
5. France 17,985 births
6. Japan 17,501 births
7. Australia 11,849 births
8. Spain 11,264 births
9. Italy 11,153 births
10. Hungary 9,175 births
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_tee_pre&int=-1
Age of women at first childbirth
1. New Zealand 29.9 years old
2. United Kingdom 29.1 years old
3. Switzerland 28.7 years old
4. Netherlands 28.6 years old
5. Luxembourg 28.4 years old
6. Sweden 27.9 years old
7. Ireland 27.8 years old
8. Finland 27.4 years old
9. Norway 26.9 years old
10. Portugal 26.4 years old
11. Austria 26.3 years old
12. Iceland 25.5 years old
13. Hungary 25.1 years old
14. Czech Republic 24.9 years old
15. United States 24.9 years old
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_age_of_wom_at_fir_chi&int=-1
So, it's a mix of good and bad, but overall, it's pretty good.
*edited because I misinterpreted a statistic*
Another brick in the wall
09-04-2005, 11:40 AM
Here you go, Castro-lovers:
Mariel boatlift
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Mariel Boat Lift)
Cuban refugees arriving in crowded boats during the Mariel Boatlift crisis.The Mariel Boatlift was a mass exodus of refugees who departed for the United States from Cuba's Mariel Harbour between April 15 and October 31, 1980. Fidel Castro eventually closed the harbour to all refuge-seeking Cubans. Due to ocean currents and its close proximity, the refugees' vessels headed to Florida and the majority landed in Miami. The immigrants were detained upon arrival and crowded conditions in South Florida immigration processing centers forced U.S. government agencies to swiftly move the "Marielitos" to other centers in Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, and Fort Chaffee, Arkansas.
During this period, approximately 125,000 Cubans arrived at the United States' shores in about 1,700 boats creating large waves of people that overwhelmed the U.S. Coast Guard. Many of the vessels were barely seaworthy and a total of 27 migrants died, including 14 on an overloaded boat which capsized on May 17, 1980.
Upon arrival, many Cubans were placed in refugee camps, while others were confined to federal prisons to undergo expulsion hearings. Some of the refugees were later discovered to be violent felons released from Cuban prisons. However, most of the refugees were very poor and merely sought a better life for themseleves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_Boat_Lift
And who could forget these assholes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia
Another brick in the wall
09-04-2005, 01:18 PM
Communist Atrocities Scapbook
http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/_243016_skulls300.jpg
Keep those skulls clean!- Cambodia, 1975
http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/312886829.jpg
Communists are always interested in an open dialogue with dissenters- Beijing, 1989
http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/hungary.jpg
Soviet tanks enter Hungary to protect it from Yankee imperialism- Budapest, 1956
http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/vietnam_retreat.jpg
Vietnamese desperately trying to escape paradise, Saigon, 1975
http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/coup_1991.jpg
What is it with these guys and tanks? Moscow, 1991
http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/Prague1968.jpg
They were told they would be welcomed as liberators- Prague, 1968
Another brick in the wall
09-04-2005, 01:22 PM
A great site: http://www.elevenoclock.com/primer/
ghoulslime
09-04-2005, 01:29 PM
Oh, come on, Brick. I've never once mistaken Objectivism for Libertarianism or libertarianism. Do not try and pretend you know what you talking about with Marxism.
Philboid; Thanks. But don't worry. I always give people the benefit of the doubt, as to their intelligence. I just seem to be disappointed all the time.
Viole, you seem to have an unjustifiably-high opinion of your own powers of perception. Shrewish shrieking is a poor substitute for laying out the points of your position. But, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, as to your intelligence.
:D
Another brick in the wall
09-04-2005, 01:34 PM
http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/show_pic.jpg
http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/53_show_pic.jpg
Philboid Studge
09-07-2005, 10:01 AM
The 'Stuff Happens' Presidency
By Harold Meyerson -- Washington Post
Wednesday, September 7, 2005; A25
We're not number one. We're not even close.
By which measures, precisely, do we lead the world? Caring for our
countrymen? You jest. A first-class physical infrastructure? Tell that to
New Orleans. Throwing so much money at the rich that we've got nothing left
over to promote the general welfare? Now you're talking.
The problem goes beyond the fact that we can't count on our government to be
there for us in catastrophes. It's that a can't-do spirit, a shouldn't-do
spirit, guides the men who run the nation. Consider the congressional
testimony of Joe Allbaugh, George W. Bush's 2000 campaign manager, who
assumed the top position at FEMA in 2001. He characterized the organization
as "an oversized entitlement program," and counseled states and cities to
rely instead on "faith-based organizations . . . like the Salvation Army and
the Mennonite Disaster Service."
Is it any surprise, then, that the administration's response to the
devastation in New Orleans is of a piece with its response to the sacking of
Baghdad once our troops arrived? "Stuff happens" was the way Don Rumsfeld
described the destruction of Baghdad's hospitals, universities and museums
while American soldiers stood around. Now stuff has happened in New Orleans,
too, even as FEMA was turning away offers of assistance. This is the
stuff-happens administration. And it's willing, apparently, to sacrifice any
claim America may have to national greatness rather than inconvenience the
rich by taxing them to build a more secure nation.
As a matter of social policy, the catastrophic lack of response in New
Orleans is exceptional only in its scale and immediacy. When it comes to
caring for our fellow countrymen, we all know that America has never ranked
very high. We are, of course, the only democracy in the developed world that
doesn't offer health care to its citizens as a matter of right. We rank 34th
among nations in infant mortality rates, behind such rival superpowers as
Cyprus, Andorra and Brunei.
But these are chronic conditions, and even many of us who argue for
universal health coverage have grown inured to that distinctly American
indifference to the common good, to our radical lack of solidarity with our
fellow citizens. Besides, the poor generally have the decency to die
discreetly, and discretely -- not conspicuously, not in droves. Come rain or
come shine, we leave millions of beleaguered Americans to fend for
themselves on a daily basis. It's just a lot more noticeable in a horrific
rain, and when the ordinary lack of access to medical care is augmented by
an extraordinary lack of access to emergency services.
Even if we'll never win the national-greatness sweepstakes for solidarity,
though, we've long been the model of the world in matters infrastructural,
in roads, bridges and dams and the like. But the America in which Eisenhower
the Good decreed the construction of the interstate highway system now seems
a far-off land in which even conservatives believed in public expenditures
for the public good. The radical-capitalist conservatives of the past
quarter-century not only haven't supported the public expenditures, they
don't even believe there is such a thing as the public good. Let the Dutch
build their dikes through some socialistic scheme of taxing and spending;
that isn't the American way. Here, the business of government is to let the
private sector create wealth -- even if that wealth doesn't circulate where
it's most needed. So George W. Bush threw trillions of dollars in tax cuts
to the wealthiest Americans, and what did they do with it? Did the Walton
family up in Bentonville raise the levees in New Orleans? Did the Bass
family over in Texas write a tax-deductible check to the Mennonites for the
billions of dollars they would need to rescue the elderly from inundated
nursing homes?
Even now, with bedraggled rescuers pulling decomposed bodies from the muck
of New Orleans, Bill Frist, the moral cretin who runs the U.S. Senate,
wanted its first order of business this week to be the permanent repeal of
the estate tax, until the public outcry persuaded him to change course. The
Republicans profess belief in trickle-down, but what they've given us is the
Flood.
The world looks on in stunned amazement, unable to understand how a once
great nation has grown so indifferent not just to its poor and its blacks
but even to the most rudimentary self-preservation. Some of it is
institutional racism, but the primary culprit is the economic libertarianism
that the president still espouses whenever he sells his Social Security
snake oil. It's that libertarianism, more than anything else, that has
transformed a great city into an immense morgue.
But, hey -- stuff happens.
[Don't worry, Brick. 'Charities' will take care of everything.]
Another brick in the wall
09-07-2005, 04:38 PM
Standard of living in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human Development Index the United States is always in the top ten, though generally ranked lower than the Scandinavian countries, Canada, Australia, and Japan; Canada and Norway have alternately held the top spot for some time.
The United States measures better in certain quality of life categories than others. Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material possessions. The number of televisions, vehicles, and other such products per person are considerably higher than in any other country. For instance the United States has some 754 televisions for every thousand people, no other major state is even above 700, with Japan being closest at 680/1000.
The United States also consistently has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, usually only beaten by Japan; however, the measures used to establish such a rate are controversial and may not always be comparable among countries.
While the United States' mean wealth is the highest of any major country and its median income is near the highest in the world, there may be a relatively unequal income distribution. Much of the extra money in the United States is the result of a much wealthier top section of the population. The United States also has more people below the defined poverty line than 26 other countries; however, the measures used to establish a poverty line are controversial and may not always be comparable among countries. The wealthiest ten percent of Americans are 15 times richer than the bottom ten percent. In Japan, for instance, the ratio is only 4.2:1. Some regard this imbalance as a product of the United States' long policy of having a more free market economy, while other countries are more ready to sacrifice net wealth in favor of equality.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States"
Not related to topic at hand, but I think it's informative:
http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/deficit.gif
Another brick in the wall
09-07-2005, 05:05 PM
"We are, of course, the only democracy in the developed world that
doesn't offer health care to its citizens as a matter of right. We rank 34th
among nations in infant mortality rates, behind such rival superpowers as
Cyprus, Andorra and Brunei."
The US population is much bigger than any of those countries.
Useful links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
Highlights:
Medicaid pays for nearly 60 percent of all nursing home residents and about 37 percent of all births in the United States.
It is estimated that 42.9 million Americans will be enrolled [in Medicaid] in 2004 with 19.7 million being children.
Medicare provides health care coverage for 41 million Americans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process
Medicare:$294 billion
Social Security:$516 billion
Education:$92 billion
Defense: $423 billion
Grand Total: $2.3 trillion
For comparison:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_bud_exp&int=-1
TomPain
09-14-2005, 12:54 AM
Viole said Cuba has one of the best healthcare systems outside the industrialized world. Cuba is socialist. Hence, I took this to mean that this was a socialist success story.
Let's compare the infant mortality rate for the world's 4 most populous countries:
China: 24.18 deaths/1,000 live births
India: 56.29 deaths/1,000 live births
US: 6.84 deaths/1,000 live births
Indonesia: 35.6 deaths/1,000 live births
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
Impressed?
Not at all.
Social Health care:
Canada: 4.82 deaths/1,000 live births
Cuba: 6.33 deaths/1,000 live births
Anti-Social controllers:
US: 6.84 deaths/1,000 live births
Islands Occupied by USA:
Guam: 7.15 deaths/1,000 live births
Northern Marianas: 7.25 deaths/1,000 live births
Puerto Rico: 8.37 deaths/1,000 live births
American Samoa: 9.48 deaths/1,000 live births
Source: CIA World Factbook, March 2005
Real History of Euro-Terrorism [Spanish/English 'americans'] against the common people and their resistance and resiliance:
When Christopher Columbus landed in Cuba on October 24, 1492 he described it as the "fairest island human eyes have yet beheld." However, the Spanish had not come for the scenery. When gold was discovered soon afterwards King Ferdinand of Spain sent an army to take control of the island. Led by Chief Hatuey the local Indians put up a brave struggle but the Cubans were soon defeated by the superior weapons of the Spanish.
Twenty-five years later, the population of over 1,000,000 Indians had been reduced to only 2,000. Many were murdered, others died of starvation or disease, committed suicide or had died from the consequences of being forced to work long hours in the gold-mines.
The Spanish replaced the Indians with slaves from Africa. When the gold mines were exhausted the Spanish used slaves to produce cash crops, especially sugar and tobacco. There were several slave revolts in Cuba but they were defeated by the descendants of the original Spanish settlers who became known as Creoles.
The Creoles were forced to sell their produce for low prices to Spain. They objected to this system and became involved in a war to obtain their independence. By 1898 the Cubans were on the verge of defeating the Spanish when troops from the United States arrived to quell the revolt.
The United States had originally tried to buy the island from Spain in 1853 for $130 million. After putting down the
Cuban revolt, the United States was in a position to force Cuba to sell their sugar and tobacco to them instead of to Spain. As the Spanish had done previously, the United States forced the Cubans to sell raw materials for low prices. They also made sure that Cuba bought their manufactured goods, and by 1914 an estimated 74 per cent of all imports came from the United States. Much of Cuban industry was now owned by United States companies including the railways, telephones and tobacco plantations, as was two-thirds of all arable land. The United States also took control of Guantanamo Bay. As well as providing an important base for the US Navy, Guantanamo also had two airstrips and a Marine Garrison.
The Cubans were also forced to sign what became known as the Platt Agreement. This agreement gave the United States the right to send troops to the island if they disagreed with the way that the country was being run. This meant that no Cuban government could be elected unless they were willing to implement policies favourable to the United States. In return for their cooperation, government ministers in Cuba received payments from United States businessmen. Elections in Cuba were usually rigged and the victors were rarely popular with the Cuban people.
Just ninety miles off the Florida coast, Cuba became a holiday island for rich Americans. It was a place where they could enjoy pleasures that were illegal in many states in North America. These included drinking, gambling and prostitution. Large profits could be made from these activities and it was not long before they were under the control of the Mafia.
In 1947 Fidel Castro joined the Cuban People's Party. He was attracted to this new party's campaign against corruption, injustice, poverty, unemployment and low wages. The Cuban People's Party accused government ministers of taking bribes and running the country for the benefit of the large United States corporations that had factories and offices in Cuba.
In 1952 Castro became a candidate for Congress for the Cuban People's Party. He was a superb public speaker and soon built up a strong following amongst the young members of the party. The Cuban People's Party was expected to win the election but during the campaign. General Fulgencio Batista, with the support of the armed forces, took control of the country.
Castro came to the conclusion that revolution was the only way that the Cuban People's Party would gain power. In 1953, Castro, with an armed group of 123 men and women, attacked the Moncada army barracks. The plan to overthrow Batista ended in disaster and although only eight were killed in the fighting, another eighty were murdered by the army after they were captured. Castro was lucky that the lieutenant who arrested him ignored orders to have him executed and instead delivered him to the nearest civilian prison.
Castro also came close to death in prison. Captain Pelletier was instructed to put poison in Castro's food. The man refused and instead revealed his orders to the Cuban people. Pelletier was court-martialed but, concerned about world opinion, Batista decided not to have Castro killed.
Fidel Castro was put on trial charged with organising an armed uprising. He used this opportunity to make a speech about the problems of Cuba and how they could be solved. His speech later became a book entitled History Will Absolve Me. Castro was found guilty and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. The trial and the publication of the book made Castro famous in Cuba. His attempted revolution had considerable support in the country. After all, the party he represented would probably have won the election in 1952 had it been allowed to take place. Following considerable pressure from the Cuban population, Batista decided to release Castro after he had served only two years of his sentence. Batista also promised elections but when it became clear that they would not take place, Castro left for Mexico where he began to plan another attempt to overthrow the Cuban government.
After building up a stock of guns and ammunition, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and eighty other rebels arrived in Cuba in 1956. This group became known as the July 26 Movement (the date that Castro had attacked the Moncada barracks). Their plan was to set up their base in the Sierra Maestra mountains. On the way to the mountains they were attacked by government troops. By the time they reached the Sierra Maestra there were only sixteen men left with twelve weapons between them. For the next few months Castro's guerrilla army raided isolated army garrisons and were gradually able to build-up their stock of weapons.
When Castro's guerrillas took control of territory they redistributed the land amongst the peasants. In return, the peasants helped the guerrillas against Batista's soldiers. In some cases the peasants also joined Castro's army, as did students from the cities and occasionally Catholic priests.
In an effort to find out information about Castro's army people were pulled in for questioning. Many innocent people were tortured. Suspects, including children, were publicly executed and then left hanging in the streets for several days as a warning to others who were considering joining Castro. The behaviour of Batista's forces increased support for the guerrillas. In 1958 forty-five organizations signed an open letter supporting the July 26 Movement. National bodies representing lawyers, architects, dentists, accountants and social workers were amongst those who signed. Castro, who had originally relied on the support of the poor, was now gaining the backing of the influential middle classes.
Fulgencio Batista responded to this by sending more troops to the Sierra Maestra. He now had 10,000 men hunting for Castro and his 300-strong army. Although outnumbered, Castro's guerrillas were able to inflict defeat after defeat on the government's troops. In the summer of 1958 over a thousand of Batista's soldiers were killed or wounded and many more were captured. Unlike Batista's soldiers, Castro's troops had developed a reputation for behaving well towards prisoners. This encouraged Batista's troops to surrender to Castro when things went badly in battle. Complete military units began to join the guerrillas.
The United States supplied Batista with planes, ships and tanks, but the advantage of using the latest technology such as napalm failed to win them victory against the guerrillas. In March 1958, the United States government, disillusioned with Batista's performance, suggested he held elections. This he did, but the people showed their dissatisfaction with his government by refusing to vote. Over 75 per cent of the voters in the capital Havana boycotted the polls. In some areas, such as Santiago, it was as high as 98 per cent.
Castro was now confident he could beat Batista in a head-on battle. Leaving the Sierra Maestra mountains, Castro's troops began to march on the main towns. After consultations with the United States government, Batista decided to flee Cuba. Senior Generals left behind attempted to set up another military government. Castro's reaction was to call for a general strike. The workers came out on strike and the military were forced to accept the people's desire for change. Castro marched into Havana on January 9,1959, and became Cuba's new leader.
In its first hundred days in office Castro's government passed several new laws. Rents were cut by up to 50 per cent for low wage earners; property owned by Batista and his ministers was confiscated; the telephone company was nationalized and the rates were reduced by 50 per cent; land was redistributed amongst the peasants (including the land owned by the Castro family); separate facilities for blacks and whites (swimming pools, beaches, hotels, cemeteries etc.) were abolished.
Castro had strong views on morality. He considered that alcohol, drugs, gambling, homosexuality and prostitution were major evils. He saw the casinos and night-clubs as sources of temptation and corruption and he passed laws closing them down. Members of the Mafia, who had been heavily involved in running these places, were forced to leave the country.
Castro believed strongly in education. Before the revolution 23.6 per cent of the Cuban population were illiterate. In rural areas over half the population could not read or write and 61 per cent of the children did not go to school. Castro asked young students in the cities to travel to the countryside and teach the people to read and write. Cuba adopted the slogan: "If you don't know, learn. If you know, teach." Eventually free education was made available to all citizens and illiteracy in Cuba became a thing of the past.
The new Cuban government also set about the problem of health care. Before the revolution Cuba had 6,000 doctors. Of these, 64 per cent worked in Havana where most of the rich people lived. When Castro ordered that doctors had to be redistributed throughout the country, over half decided to leave Cuba. To replace them Cuba built three new training schools for doctors.
The death of young children from disease was a major problem in Cuba. Infant mortality was 60 per 1,000 live births in 1959. To help deal with this Cuba introduced a free health-service and started a massive inoculation program. By 1980 infant mortality had fallen to 15 per 1,000. This figure is now the best in the developing world and is in fact better than many areas of the United States.
It has been estimated that in his seven-year reign, Batista's regime had murdered over 20,000 Cubans. Those involved in the murders had not expected to lose power and had kept records, including photographs of the people they had tortured and murdered. Castro established public tribunals to try the people responsible and an estimated 600 people were executed. Although this pleased the relatives of the people murdered by Batista's government, these executions shocked world opinion.
Some of Castro's new laws also upset the United States. Much of the land given to the peasants was owned by corporations in the United States. So also was the telephone company that was nationalized. The United States government responded by telling Castro they would no longer be willing to supply the technology and technicians needed to run Cuba's economy. When this failed to change Castro's policies they reduced their orders for Cuban sugar. ...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWcuba.htm
so... Be nice to the USA, or we will bring democracy to your country. Like we did to Allende in Chile. The Mayan peasants in Guatamala. And will again to that black-indian Chavez in Venezuela. We can do it. It's God's will.. Our Manifest Destiny.
TomPain
09-15-2005, 03:20 PM
Even Martin Luther King Jr was labeled a communist
That's cool. About time someone was a practising christian.
Rhinoqulous
09-15-2005, 04:06 PM
Great post, TomPain. Welcome to our fair forums (and it's nice to see another no good commie here :P)
Rhinoq
Cap'n Awesome
09-16-2005, 10:17 AM
The 'Stuff Happens' Presidency
By Harold Meyerson -- Washington Post
Wednesday, September 7, 2005; A25
We're not number one. We're not even close.
By which measures, precisely, do we lead the world? Caring for our
countrymen? You jest. A first-class physical infrastructure? Tell that to
New Orleans. Throwing so much money at the rich that we've got nothing left
over to promote the general welfare? Now you're talking.
I know thier not your words Phil, but the idea that money in this country is being redistributed to the wealthy is such a bizzare misnomer. In fact compared with most of Europe the rich in this country actually pay a higher (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/tax_con_by_ric_30&int=-1) percentage of tax (3rd most of the first world) and the middle class a much lower (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/tax_con_by_mid_40&int=-1) percentage of tax. (2nd least of the first world) An across the board tax cut gives the rich the largest total amount of tax cut because they pay the most tax, but the percentage is even.
So next time a leftist starts complaining about the rich not paying thier share of tax, or us somehow 'throwing money at the rich'
Hell, with a Republican in office, everytime someone breaks wind the wrong way you can blame him. (Just ask Miata) As I recall, Clinton didn't improve the levees, Carter didn't improve the levees, Lyndon Johnson didn't improve the levees, JFK didn't improve the levees. The democratic governor didn't improve the levees, the mayor of New Orleans didn't improve the levees. But who's fault is it? Bush. It's rediculous, I'm not a huge fan of Bush, but I don't feel the need to cry and point fingers everytime something goes wrong.
Cap'n Awesome
09-16-2005, 10:27 AM
In regards to the critsism of our healthcare system. The fact that the United States is most first world countries in health quality couldn't have anything to do with the obesity in this country now could it? It's not like we've developed a culture that is centered on provide yourself with as much mindless entertainment and as little physical activity as possible or anything.....oh wait. Don't worry, if someone dies an early death because they had too little willpower to stop eating and go for a walk, we can always blame Bush.
StillSurviving
09-16-2005, 11:49 AM
I started running 12 miles a week, and Bush didn't call to let me know I might get blisters.
RedRob
09-16-2005, 12:35 PM
Great post, TomPain. Welcome to our fair forums (and it's nice to see another no good commie here :P)
Rhinoq
Takes a lot of guts to admit that Rhinoq. I prefer Socialist Democrat myself. ;)
StillSurviving
09-16-2005, 12:39 PM
What's to stop socialists from sharing their skills, money, and belongings with one another?
Cap'n Awesome
09-17-2005, 12:03 PM
I started running 12 miles a week, and Bush didn't call to let me know I might get blisters.
The other day I was sitting around, hitting myself in the head with a hammer. Now the Doctor tells me I'm going to have brain damage. Fucking President Bush, why did he have to do this to me?
Another brick in the wall
09-17-2005, 01:22 PM
An interesting article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=362369&in_page_id=1770
WITHTEETH
09-17-2005, 01:48 PM
Great post, TomPain. Welcome to our fair forums (and it's nice to see another no good commie here :P)
Rhinoq
Takes a lot of guts to admit that Rhinoq. I prefer Socialist Democrat myself. ;)
Me too. HERE HERE!:o :)
Another brick in the wall
09-17-2005, 01:52 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality
Infant mortality rate is reported as number of live newborns dying under a year of age per one thousand live births, so that IMRs from different countries can be compared. A good source for the most recent IMR's as well as under 5 mortality rates (U5MR) is the UNICEF publication 'The State of the World's Children' available at http://www.unicef.org/publications/index_18108.html For example, the worst U5MR is 284 in Sierra Leone. (That's 28% of all children born die before they turn 5 years old.) The 29 countries with the highest U5MR are in Africa. The U5MR of the United States is 8/1000, and there are 31 countries with lower U5MRs. Sweden's is the lowest at 3.
Comparing statistics for IMR across countries can be a useful indicator of their level of health and development, but the method for calculating IMR often varies widely between countries based on the way they define a live birth. The World Health Organization defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, muscle movement, or heartbeat. Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality.
Emphasis mine.
WITHTEETH
09-17-2005, 02:08 PM
An interesting article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=362369&in_page_id=1770
Well i read the article. My background is Norwegian, i am a viking. I felt this artical to be typical nationalism.
"My country is better then your country, even though your country has the highest living standard inthe world"
It was an intresting read brick. Thanks, i always enjoy learning more about where my parents came from.
TomPain
09-18-2005, 03:32 PM
What's to stop socialists from sharing their skills, money, and belongings with one another?
in the USA's 'zone of influence': Authoritarian Capitalists, i.e. fascists
Check all the laws that erect artificial barriers to entry to trades and professions.. and check the case law of the supreme court .. almost without exception on the side of authoritarian government and the non-working investor class, and against the interests of freedom and community self-determination.
Another brick in the wall
09-19-2005, 05:45 PM
Yeah, I remember this time when I was helping out in a food drive, these authoritarian capitalists hopped out of a van, beat us up, then sped away.
:rolleyes:
Cap'n Awesome
09-19-2005, 11:20 PM
Yeah, I remember this time when I was helping out in a food drive, these authoritarian capitalists hopped out of a van, beat us up, then sped away.
:rolleyes:
That totally reminded me of this one time I wanted to give my money to the poor, and capitalists came in and forced me to buy a Television, DVD player, cell phone, and other worthless crap I don't need instead. After that I tried to go out and feed the hungry, but those Capitalists forced me to be a lazy asshole who is too stupid to do anything worthwhile with his money anyway.
Seriously though, if you think your taxes are too low, feel free to give as much of your money to charties as you want to. Or better yet, you can cheat on your taxes to give the government more of your money. Don't worry, I'm sure they'll spend it as wisely as possible. Any socialists on this forum care to actually take up that offer?
Another brick in the wall
09-20-2005, 01:37 PM
Libertarian Humor: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39192
Well, actually, it's funny if you have any functioning neurons.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.