lord of flies

Yes, and I'm sure Guard Dog has my back on this one. You can keep up military spending constantly no matter how ****ty your economy is going. Indeed, it's very common to do so. See for example, Germany in the late 1930s, and the Soviets during the "Brezhnev stagnation." Your reference to their economy is still irrelevant.

The Taliban's motivations with regards to the American occupation are simple, obvious, and understandable. Their own governmental style and their relationship with terrorism are not the same, and have very little to do with their resistance. Actions like "show corpses of children and say that Americans killed them" have nothing to do with the Taliban's ruling style in 2000. Good.

This sort of answer simply isn't useful. Yeah, obviously it's people doing crimes, no **** Sherlock, but why do they commit crimes? Why are some places (e.g. Afghanistan) hotbeds of disorder, while others (e.g. the United States) have highly submissive populations? You can't just go "hurr, people" because people in different places at different times commit crimes in different ways at different levels. Why did people in Spain burn witches and heretics? Well, because the Church and the crown got huge power during the Reconquista, a long religious war where the existing aristocracy (i.e. the muslim magistrates) were all killed off and had their things stolen. The Inquisition allowed the crown to keep killing off "muslims" and stealing their things, thus keeping the status quo in effect. So why is the Taliban doing this sort of thing? Well, the answer is obvious: they want America out. Their wahhabist bull**** religion has very little to do with this, but Kalthorne is an atheist reactionary it seems, since he blames things that have nothing to do with religion on it.

Actually no. WW2 ended the depression, the New Deal really just extended it in an attempt to prvent it from getting worse. Some interesting (at least I thought so) reading if you ever have the time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forgotten_Man Bad luck today, comrade. I know this isn't true. I mean, this isn't the whole story (e.g. unemployment, while it declined under FDR, did not "go away" until 1942), I'm sure you believe that GDP is the sole arbiter of a nation's economic well-being.

Why are communist dictators afraid of civil rights? Because all leaders are afraid of civil rights.

A statement can be racist and "complimentary" too. Sorting humans into groups on the basis of ethnicity and then ascribing characteristics to them (beyond superficial ones, e.g. skin color) is racism. For example, "asians are all good at math" is a "complimentary" statement, but it is also racist.

Uh, actually, the current government in Russia is a mass-murdering kleptocracy, not the previous one. Just a little FYI. Hmm, okay, here, how many governments do you think lasted seventy years in the 20th century? Germany... nope. France... nope. Japan... nope. Spain... nope. Portugal... nope. Italy... nope. Talking about governments that existed in barbarian land like the British Empire or the Roman Empire is irrelevant, and you should know better. Actually, the coup destabilized the Soviet Union to the point that it could break apart. The reason why it did so wasn't "ever present nationalisms," it's not like people in the "core" of the USSR (e.g. Belarus, Central Asia) really wanted their own states. It was simply that people didn't expect it to fall apart, so they didn't do anything. lol, yeah, massive draft armies rely on good economies. Thanks for the tip. The Soviet Union and Russia maintained huge draft based armies through all of this somehow. You can try to resort to your moon bat logic where a bad economy means a bad military, but it won't work on this guy. Please avoid such massive red herrings, all the words in the world don't disguise them from me. Wrong again.

I dunno, Deng's band sound more like fascists to be quite honest. Though I do have to remind you that the US' civil rights record is hardly stainless, e.g. COINTELPRO. Yes, let's compare figures after serious damage had been done to the Russian economy (through no fault of the Bolsheviks) instead of figures a decade prior. Or, heck, let's recognize the fact that Russia was an agricultural society with a serious development problem and the Soviet state put together a cohesive plan to pull it out of the ground and make it a modern industrial society. Okay, look, I'm going to make this quick:1) The Soviet Union collapsed not because of some problem with its economic or political system, but because of the August Coup. You don't build a economic or political system that survives seven decades by doing it poorly. 2) The Soviet bloc could maintain their military spending more or less indefinitely; that was always how Russia managed its international affairs. lol I love this. It's hilarious when capitalists pretend like capitalism is irrelevant to them, politically or socially. You show me one example, post-1945, where the United States took a hard line against a right-wing authoritarian group taking over from a left-wing democratic one.

Actually, fascism is nothing like communism, and is in many ways its opposite. Since you're leaving, I'll only briefly recommend that you read a bit about the Kronstadt uprising, and remember that the men involved were some of the fiercest communists the world had ever seen. Keep firing off those assumptions about me, maybe one day you'll get one right. Hmm, except investors aren't paid because of the work they do in finding out what's worth investing in or organizing things properly. They're paid for having money. That is the difference. Depends on your definition of "private capital;" I certainly wouldn't use the term to describe it. As to the charge of being "a lazy serial killer:" please, don't strain yourself trying to be as cool as me; it won't work.

"What he does"? Investment is not work. Period. We were discussing the October Revolution, not the Russian Civil War or the USSR. Please don't bring up such red herrings, it makes it look like you're attempting to change the subject and avoid the argument.

Hmm, better off, you say? Well, it's strictly true; GDP per capita was ~$1500 in 1914, against ~$1600 (international 1990 dollars) in 1934. Economic genius, indeed. And such pitiful growth was paid for with copious amounts of blood... not that you care. But it still supports what I said: communism stifles progress. www.cefir.ru/download.php?id=2142 What about compared to, say, 1922 figures, you know, the same figures that a White Russia would have had to deal with? Apologies, tovarishch, but that seems to be incorrect. Russia reached its 1991 GDP level in 2006. Your figures seem to have been sabotaged! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Soviet_Union_GDP.gif Okay, let's see the Russian Federation project forces or serious influence anywhere that it doesn't have a direct land border to. Or let's see it seriously compete with the United States in technical developments. Or how about we see it get the number of people living under the poverty line back to pre-collapse levels. GDP isn't a number you can just hurl at someone and say "look! everything is better now!" It's a meaningless number that represents only the fact that a specific amount of fiat currency is used in that nation's economy. Also, that's GDP, not GDP per capita, and it compares the Soviet Union to the Former Soviet Union. Oops! I'd prefer neither, to be frank. But if I had to choose, I'd probably go with Deng since mad policies such as collectivisation and widespread cultural repression were not among his hobbies. The same can't be said for his predecessor, unfortunately.Deng is a capitalist. I don't know if you knew this, so I thought I'd remind you.

Doesn't sound familiar. War Communism didn't have that, NEP didn't have that, and those were the economic systems of 1918-1928. There was some economic equalization with respect to the peasantry during collectivization, though. Looking through Farm to Factory (the only book on the subject I currently have on hand; see p. 133 in your own copy), it seems like there was certainly economic differentiation between the peasantry and the urban proletariat, such that moving to the cities coincided with an increase in consumption. Of course, I don't have Gosplan statistics on 1930s economic differentiation on hand, but I would be inclined to assume that there was some differentiation between the richest and poorest urban workers, even in the same city.

I can't edit my own posts due to this "moderated" crap, so here's a little quote from Karl Marx, well-known God King of Communist Theory: I seem to remember posting this before, but apparently you just wiped it from your minds...

look, which one of us knows more about the October Revolution? The one who has actually studied the topic, or the one who unironically thinks socialists believe everyone should be equal? The October Revolution took place on November 7, 1917, and involved a small force of Petrograd Bolsheviks affiliated with the Petrograd Soviet invading the Winter Palace against an even more anemic section of supporters of the current regime, who promptly deserted. That was the entirety of the violence in the entire affair, beginning and end. It was certainly a capstone on months of resistance to the government, but the changing of hands was very quick. The Russian Civil War was not, like you seem to think, part of the October Revolution. Here, let me quote Wikipedia, well known bastion of communist ideologues. No, actually, you still don't seem to get it. I feel as if I'm talking to a brick wall here. Did the western social imperialists really do such a number on all you guys? SOCIALISM NEVER PRESCRIBED PERFECT OR TOTAL EQUALITY. THAT HAS NEVER BEEN THE POINT OF SOCIALISM. IT DID NOT EXIST IN THE USSR, IT DID NOT EXIST IN CHINA, AND NO SOCIALIST STATE SERIOUSLY PURSUED IT.

Reminder that the Soviet Union in 1934 was better off than the Russian Empire in 1914, despite having suffered nearly a decade of war and civil war. Reminder that the Soviet Union in 1989 was better off than the Russian Federation in 2009. Yet commerce is sooooo great that it always means better things for the people involved. Economic growth under Mao progressed at a similar rate to under Deng, but I guess you'd prefer the latter since all that growth went to the rich?

I'm not. I'm telling you that the businessman who steals all the profits that rightfully belong to that brilliant scientist should be eliminated from the entire process. But you've chosen to deliberately misinterpret socialism over and over again, in the ridiculous strawman that never applied to any country in the world. Ever. Do you really think that the actual act of storming the Winter Palace was anything more than the tiny capstone on months of work? Do you think that if the Bolsheviks had simply assembled a much, much larger group outside the palace, demanding that the Provisional Government dissolve itself, it would not do so? Or maybe you just think that the RCW is part of the Bolshevik revolution. Do I need to resort to citing color revolutions at you? Hmm, except no. Why does the system I've proposed rely upon constant, state-sponsored violence? Because you say so. Why do I go to coffee shops? Because you say so.

Gluh bluh bluh bodies. Nothing's gonna change for the better with an attitude like that, young man. Hold on, you're actually saying the Bolshevist and Iranian revolutions were bloodless? I don't know whether to laugh or simply fall over. Both of them only took place after huge levels of popular protest. Storming the Winter Castle was done with an anemic force of Bolsheviks against an even more anemic force of supporters of the Provisional Government. Do you think the Iranian revolution wasn't built on huge protests or what? Do you even know what you're talking about?

C'est la vie. Okay, Mr. Smarty Pants, explain what brought down Tsar Nicholas II, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, or for that matter explain how the Singing Revolution and Color revolutions worked. You can go "a bloo bloo, nonviolent action doesn't work," but the fact of the matter is it does. Even the Bolsheviks took power only after the Provisional Government was practically dead from strikes, protests, and peasant collectivization. I guess Trotsky was a terrible leader, since he attained prominence in the Petrograd Soviet. Oh wait, he was actually an incredibly charismatic and intelligent general. But... but... he was elected by the people! That must mean he's bad!

This question applies more to capitalism than communism. Why should I (i.e. the bourgeois) take from the successes of others (i.e. the working class)? A state-based social safety net is important, and the fact that you question "why" demonstrates a basic lack of understanding. We are all part of a greater society, which is larger than us, and we are expected to contribute back to the society which contributed to us. Without American (or whichever country you live in) society having produced large social institutions, none of us would be where we are today, and we are expected to pay back some amount of this to less fortunate members of our society, and to ensure those same institutions are around for future generations. No man is an island, no man's successes and failures are wholly his own. Their consequences, and their price, is a burden upon society as a whole. To expect that you should be able to hold onto the entirety of your production while society bears the burden for your efforts is selfish and myopic.

No. Rather, workers during the revolution would confiscate factories from their owners (and other, similar actions would presumably take place), and the government would reinforce such actions, doing some of it on their own. Here's a short story with an example (not mine):

Hmm, except no. China is communist in name but engages in some of the greatest free market crimes the world over. Chavez was democratically elected and continues to be so, without trickery or intimidation.

Probably not. Your possessions are the result of your own labor, and are not used to extract value from others. There is the possibility that you might accidentally be targeted, just as a law-abiding poor black American might. Because dictatorship in this context doesn't mean what you think it means. China isn't communist anymore, the western democracies engage in authoritarianism (e.g. COINTELPRO, police attacking strikers/protestors), and Hugo Chavez is not a dictator.

No. Most likely, a combination of spontaneous revolutionary seizures followed by tacit or explicit governmental support, and massive governmental intervention once it is properly established. Of course, not all property will be seized, just that of the rich. I live in an industrialized nation, and believe that socialism is most important for one. We already have roads/water/broadband over a broad spectrum. Taxes. I believe I posted a topic on this subject a while back. Basically, that quote is taken out of context and irrelevant to actual socialism. Democratic government elected via grass-roots organizations and nonviolent political action. Only workers will be allowed to be participants (though "worker" will have a broad definition).

Women cover themselves in a show of modesty and a desire to be judged on the basis of their character. Not because "ooga booga their men are all rapists."

Oh. Well obviously it wouldn't, because that's some sort of ridiculous right-wing fiction about what socialism is supposed to be. Rather, socialism is intended to put the needs of the working class above the needs of the rich, i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx never advocated total equality, and the economic theory of socialism is totally based upon labor-skimming. How do you keep a non-proletariat group from taking complete power? Simple: grass-roots democracy, broad-based education initiatives and a democratic system built on keeping non-workers out. It is highly unlikely that I will be the one leading any revolutionary action, so I will never have any secret police. If I did, I would name them COINTELPRO. Forever. Press rights and political rights are key to an open society. The same place the United States prison system is right now. As a firm believer in rehabilitative justice, I cannot dismiss the idea of re-educating criminals to be functional members of society. Forever and a day. No. However, like all members of my society, they would have the ability to purchase and own small-scale goods (i.e. not investments), though very expensive products might fall outside of their means. Zero. I have a strong preference for revolutionary socialism (social democracy has been an utter failure), though I don't view any of its successful forms as entirely ideal. If I was asked to select a currently existing form of socialism, I would go with Leninism. Otherwise, I would go with a grass-roots from-below revolutionary socialism on the basis of nonviolent resistance and popular sovereignty.