lord of flies

Actually, they do. If I was to personally have been raped and murdered, I would not wish American prison on my killer. I mean, obviously he would need to go to prison, and in this country that means that he would have to go to an American prison, so in that way he would have to go to American prison. But given the choice between sending him to a prison in (for example) Norway or one in the United States, I would unhesitatingly let even the worst criminal in the world have the one in Norway. The point of prison is (supposed to be) to deprive you of your freedom and thus protect others from your anti-social behavior, not to satisfy the crazed bloodlust of children. Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, you assume that all American prisoners are murderers and rapists and rightfully convicted and put in our rape camps, which is pretty ****ing hilarious.

All states are supported by force, implicit or explicit. That is what a state is, that is how a state works, on a fundamental level. I wish it wasn't so, but wishing doesn't make it so.

lol yeah it's just a coincidence that our prison system, in addition to being absolutely horrific for the people within it (lol rape camp), is rapidly approaching high Stalin and has a wildly disproportionate number of blacks.

lol let me just prove extremely fundamental facts about the way the world works on an internet discussion board so that some evasive little **** who is losing an argument. If capitalism is not a world system, why is there such an extensive history of economic imperialism before and after decolonization? Why did the United States overthrow/try to overthrow the governments of Guatemala, Iran, Cambodia, Venezuela, etc? These did not serve a strategic interest (none of these countries were/are actual threats), nor did it counter Soviet influence (none of these countries were Soviet influenced). Except that now that people have experienced both systems, their positive opinions of free market capitalism are worse? Hmm... almost as though I'm right and you're wrong. lol nice evasion tactic, real smooth, almost invisible to the blind. "Are you satisfied," "are you happy" and similar questions have virtually nothing to do with what the situation in the country actually is. You are the one who brought up that question. This is a very dishonest statement.

You don't need to "recognize my source" in order to understand that it is correct. If someone posted a statistic about the Soviet death toll in the Second World War, I wouldn't get all freaked out about it unless it conflicted with what I already know. Of course, nothing I post could conflict with what Too Elite For You knows, since he knows nothing. The ruling elites, maybe? I dunno, why? If you don't understand politics or economics, I don't see why I have to educate you. The application of force to ensure the continuation of free-market capitalism is a consistent fact of capitalism. Capitalism is a world system and cannot be understood as a national system. People think a thing will be better than it is because everybody lies to them. News at eleven. Please, prove that latter claim. Nigeria is the Happiest Place In The World!

You're defending capitalism, yes. Same monster, different head. It's obvious that you don't know anything about what you're talking about, or you wouldn't have found any of the graphs I have posted surprising. It's funny that you like to claim that I'm the one making baseless claims when you never back up anything and ignore every fact I post with reckless abandon. Stop posting.

- Sonoma County to Clay Greene and Harry Scull.

This again? It was intentional. Intentional as in, one of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of collectivisation, a policy they implemented regardless. If the Holodomor was intentional, the far greater massacres of the Indian and Irish famines under British rule were also intentional and much, much greater. How, exactly, is that "intellectually dishonest"? Ah, wait, it's not.

Blah blah blah blah. I meant to put "comparatively" microscopic, but it should have been obvious based on context. Then again, I shouldn't have expected intellectual honesty from the guy who tried to argue that the Holodomor was an intentional genocide. "War is hell."

Agreed. Fortunately, your bourgeois democracy somehow manages to do both. I wonder how? *whistles absent-mindedly*

*indiscriminately murders hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in order to beat the Soviets to Honshu and Seoul* *millions of people starve in own territory for no good reason* *complains about some microscopic Soviet atrocity*

Except that both those dates (1917-1953; 1949-1976) cover less than one half the lifespan of the countries in question?

The Gulags were disbanded pretty soon after 1953.

Examples of mass murder in the Soviet Union after 1953: Examples of mass murder in China after 1976:

Hmm, no, I checked out my copy of Kenez's A History of the Soviet Union from Beginning to End (not a socialist writer, btw), and he says: Deal with it.

Hmm, so they had strong nukes and maintained military bases in allied countries. This obviously means that they were planning to nuke the world? Yeah, no. If you'd care to cite some evidence for your claimed motive, please go ahead and do so. I have already offered up evidence in the form of the "Dead Hand" system. Hmm, no, having strong nuclear weapons doesn't actually nullify my argument at all.

The Soviet nuclear arsenal was part of a policy of rational self defense and can be cleanly contrasted with the United States nuclear arsenal which was designed in a way focused on a first-strike policy. For example, Soviet nuclear bases were well-hidden while US nuclear bases were visible from orbit; the Soviets created the "Dead Hand" system to ensure that leaders would not accidentally make a first strike while the situation was tense, while the US President constantly carries around a button to kill all the Russkies. That's actually very unlikely.

Hmm? Oh, it's Killian "Kill everybody who can't defend themselves" Kalthorne telling me my political views are bad. Quite hilarious.

Watch the Century of Self. Really? Is this actually true, or is this some silly **** you've made up in some desperate attempt insult Marxism?

Oh I'm sorry, some people don't seem to put up their location under their avatar so I can tell which country they're talking about since I haven't memorized it (referring here to the OP). The exact same principles apply to your country, brainiac. Your Labor party stole its campaign from Clinton, who was one of the early "psychological marketing" candidates in our country (after Reagan, of course). Your ruling class is perfectly capable of ignoring the general public in its own class interests too, e.g. the recent scandal regarding you folks torturing your own citizens.

Because the ruling class of the United States does not give a single **** about the broad masses. They have over the past few decades perfected forms of subtly appealing to the people's intrinsic and underlying desires while simultaneously having no need to actually satisfy any real issues. Political campaigns today are run on the same principles as marketing campaigns. They are not giving you a candidate who stands up for the issues you want or care about. They are not giving you a candidate with solid principles and character you can put your faith in. They are here to sell you something very vague, very shiny, and little else. They are here to appeal to your needs both basic (food, shelter, etc) and transcendent (popularity, meaning), while simultaneously satisfying none. Yes, it is all the plebe's fault. If only we had some smart, wise, rich people running this country, everything would be better. Oh wait, they already are. Take a look at the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and tell me the leaders in this country are incapable of ever taking a long view or ignoring public will. Take a look at the bailout. Take a look at how they are cutting down on education. Here's a hint: they can, have, and will continue to indefinitely.

Newsflash, ****head, the Soviet Union didn't plan for all its Ukrainians to die either. Yes. Obama's America.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc... And Soviet industry was only one of many factors. It was a deciding and huge factor, don't try to downplay it. Without the Soviet Union's heavy industry, Europe would be speaking German by now.

Ukrainians were the victims of a deliberate and purposeful genocide. The Irish and Indians, on the other hand, died simply because they were too stupid to survive in a free market. If the inevitable and irrevocable result of collectivization was the Holodomor, then I (and any reasonable, rational person with the aid of 20/20 hindsight) would do it again. Collectivization gave the Soviet Union the newly urbanized manpower it needed to rapidly join the major powers, and Soviet industry was what won WW2. I suppose if you'd prefer to see what the Nazis would do to Eastern Europe, then you could argue that it was a bad thing.

If by "violent revolution" you mean "mass struggle of whatever character" and by "failed economic and sociological system" you mean "economic and sociological system which succeeded wildly and fundamentally, and its successes are demonstrated even moreso by the economic conditions in the former USSR," then yes.