The Black Book- a Commentary.

[Rojik]

Originally Posted by Emtos

I think that is rather the brand Tom Cruise who make the price.

Call it what you want but it doesn't change the axioms.

So for you leftist are all worthless idiots who can't gain their life ?

Strawman. Anyway I haven't met them all yet.

It was more than 30 years ago. But even at this time there were so many rightist dictatorships as the leftist ones.

I don't want to live under any dictatorships. Once again you seem to think that pointing at another's excesses excuses yours.

Why you link me an article about Duma when I was speaking about Provisional Government ?

Mae Culpa. I had several windows open and must have linked the wrong one. I can't find the one I was going to use but this should do:

Russian historian W.E. Mosse points out, this time period represented “the only time in modern Russian history when the Russian people were able to play a significant part in the shaping of their destinies” [12]. While this quote romanticizes Russian society under the Provisional Government, the quote nonetheless shows that important democratic institutions were prominent in 1917 Russia.

Workers established economic democracy, as employees gained managerial power and direct control over their workplace. Worker self-management became a common practice throughout industrial enterprises [14]. As workers became more militant and gained more economic power, they supported the radical Bolshevik party and lifted the Bolsheviks into power in October, 1917. However, the Bolsheviks envisioned party-led control of the economy. Therefore, worker self-management, the ultimate form of economic democracy, disappeared when the Bolsheviks gained control of Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian...ld_recognition

They don't seem to like the idea of people managing their own affairs, do they? Even the people they say they are there to help.

Jealousy of course. And Lenin exucuted Nicolas II because he exucuted his brother. Bill provides services and jobs to make much money. And I'm opposed to the idea that the money makes the man.

It doesn't - the man makes the money. If it bothers you that much give all yours away or burn it or flush it down the toilet, but leave the rest of ours alone.

[Emtos]

Call it what you want but it doesn't change the axioms.

No, it doesn't changes, but I still don't undestand why pay him so much.

Strawman. Anyway I haven't met them all yet.

I don't see any reason call them like this. Many Communist are or were able to make a good career in a Capitalist society. If they chose Communism it's for a raison.

I don't want to live under any dictatorships. Once again you seem to think that pointing at another's excesses excuses yours.

No, my point is that you cannot accuse the left of something and forgot about right doing exactly the same. But this is more than courant common on those forums.

They don't seem to like the idea of people managing their own affairs, do they? Even the people they say they are there to help.

Like soldiers voting before attacking enemi ? If you look at the political parties of Provisional Government, you will see that many of them were members of left wing parties.

It doesn't - the man makes the money. If it bothers you that much give all yours away or burn it or flush it down the toilet, but leave the rest of ours alone.

You are speaking about individuals. I'm speaking about society. And the interests of society are more important than those of individuals.

[The Exorcist]

Originally Posted by Emtos

Things have the worth that we decided they have. We decided that gold is more expensive than water. But what you will prefer have in the middle of a desert : water or gold ?

Whoa, back up there, who is WE, exactly?
The committee?
Our Dear Leader and his cronies?

I prefer it our way, where the demands of the people determine the price. That way, when it becomes more expensive to make something, more can be charged for it.
As opposed to the lack of production that was the reason for all those lines and empty shelves that characterized all Communist societies, and Venezuela today.

Most of us are not in the desert, BTW.

[Rojik]

Originally Posted by Emtos

No, it doesn't changes, but I still don't undestand why pay him so much.

I don't understand why you care about what another man has in his pocket.

I don't see any reason call them like this. Many Communist are or were able to make a good career in a Capitalist society. If they chose Communism it's for a raison.

I didn't. It was your strawman.

No, my point is that you cannot accuse the left of something and forgot about right doing exactly the same. But this is more than courant common on those forums.

You have read the thread title, yes? It is an examination of the crimes and excesses of Communism. If you want to discuss the failings of the right then start a thread on it. I'll join in and more than likely support many of your points.

Like soldiers voting before attacking enemi ?

They kept that right for about as long as it took the Communists to consolidate their power. How many votes did they get in WW2?

If you look at the political parties of Provisional Government, you will see that many of them were members of left wing parties.

So what? That has nothing to do with the question you posed:

The countries where Communists had taken power were not democratic before. As the Communist was believe to be the best ideology what's the need for elections ?

That was a lie. As I showed you - and then you further proved - democratic process was flourishing in 1917. The Bolsheviks had plenty of opportunity to build on that but they went the other way and built a state that was anti democratic in every sense. Not because they didn't know any better but because that was the way they wanted it. Democracy would mean accountability, and that was never going to work in that system.

You are speaking about individuals. I'm speaking about society. And the interests of society are more important than those of individuals.

Bollocks. Individuals make society not the other way around. We are not ants.

[Emtos]

You have read the thread title, yes? It is an examination of the crimes and excesses of Communism. If you want to discuss the failings of the right then start a thread on it. I'll join in and more than likely support many of your points.

Agree. Our current discussion had nothing to do with the topic.

But I don't will start a thread about crimes of right simply because, count the bodies in the countries where I never been, looks very uninteresting for me.

[stalin]

LONG LIVE COMMUNISM !

[Sgt. Rock]

Long Live Volgograd!

[Destroyer25]

Originally Posted by Emtos

You are speaking about individuals. I'm speaking about society. And the interests of society are more important than those of individuals.

That's your view.

What you fail to understand that individuals make up a society, and if individuals take care of themselves then society will be almost completely free of problems.

It is foolish to live in a society where survival is dependent on cooperation, rather than one where cooperation is of secondary importance. Humans are naturally inclined to take care of themselves rather than others 1st. Why would someone give to charity when they are very poor them self? If they truly wanted to help their community, it would be far more logical for them to save their money, invest it, and make even more money. So that eventually they would be able to give a lot of money to charity rather than just a little.

That's just simple logic.

Thus if we force individuals to take care of themselves, then the number of people that legitimately are in need of help will be miniscule, and society and or the government can take care of them with ease.

[stalin]

Originally Posted by Sgt. Rock

Long Live Volgograd!

LONG LIVE A NEW YORK COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN COMMUNIST PARTY !

[Erkki]

Originally Posted by Destroyer25

That's your view.

What you fail to understand that individuals make up a society, and if individuals take care of themselves then society will be almost completely free of problems.

It is foolish to live in a society where survival is dependent on cooperation, rather than one where cooperation is of secondary importance. Humans are naturally inclined to take care of themselves rather than others 1st. Why would someone give to charity when they are very poor them self? If they truly wanted to help their community, it would be far more logical for them to save their money, invest it, and make even more money. So that eventually they would be able to give a lot of money to charity rather than just a little.

That's just simple logic.

Thus if we force individuals to take care of themselves, then the number of people that legitimately are in need of help will be miniscule, and society and or the government can take care of them with ease.

I think that you might have misunderstood him. I think he meant socialism compared to liberalism= The group is more important then the individual.

Secondly I am not in total agreement with you, in order to invest money and multiply it, people need the knowledge to do so, which isn´t always the case. If it was I believe a Free economy like the US would be far more successful then say a more controlled economy like Sweden's.

Thirdly people do not know how to take care of themselves, many have no self preservation at all. Therefore trying to force them to do so will end in anarchy and disaster.

Societies dependent on cooperation is the Natural way for humans to live if one looks to ancient hunter and gather communities and up to today.

[Destroyer25]

Originally Posted by Erkki

I think that you might have misunderstood him. I think he meant socialism compared to liberalism= The group is more important then the individual.

Secondly I am not in total agreement with you, in order to invest money and multiply it, people need the knowledge to do so, which isn´t always the case. If it was I believe a Free economy like the US would be far more successful then say a more controlled economy like Sweden's.

The US economy is more successful than Sweden's. Sweden might have a nice standard of living for everyone but you pay ridiculous taxes for it, and personal wealth is severely restricted. Your growth rate ain't much too look at either.

Thirdly people do not know how to take care of themselves, many have no self preservation at all. Therefore trying to force them to do so will end in anarchy and disaster.

Societies dependent on cooperation is the Natural way for humans to live if one looks to ancient hunter and gather communities and up to today.

People don't know how to take care of themselves because too many of them live in societies where they don't have to. So let the stupid ones starve, the ones with half a brain will figure out they need to get a job pretty quickly.

[Emtos]

That's your view.

What you fail to understand that individuals make up a society, and if individuals take care of themselves then society will be almost completely free of problems.

The idea of the society is that "Unity makes strength" . If society was created it's because one man cannot doing the same thing than many. Nobody force you to go to a particular school or make a work that you deslikes. Individuals can care of themselves ( in majority of cases ) but as long they live in the society we must make laws and rules for they good. Without this it's called anarchy.

It is foolish to live in a society where survival is dependent on cooperation, rather than one where cooperation is of secondary importance. Humans are naturally inclined to take care of themselves rather than others 1st. Why would someone give to charity when they are very poor them self? If they truly wanted to help their community, it would be far more logical for them to save their money, invest it, and make even more money. So that eventually they would be able to give a lot of money to charity rather than just a little.

That's just simple logic.

Thus if we force individuals to take care of themselves, then the number of people that legitimately are in need of help will be miniscule, and society and or the government can take care of them with ease.

Without cooperation we will simply not exist. Humanity will be destroyed by predators, diseases and famines. All the modern society is based on cooperation : look at Internet or multinational companies. Without cooperation Capitalism will simply not exist.

Concerning charity I don't believe that personal help is the solution.

People don't know how to take care of themselves because too many of them live in societies where they don't have to.

Good idea. We should transfer all Somalians in Canada so they will enjoy the Capitalist society. With your help they are promised to a great future.

So let the stupid ones starve, the ones with half a brain will figure out they need to get a job pretty quickly.

Unlike in Socialism, Capitalism cannot provide jobs for everyone. For make more money, factories were transfered to other countries like China, where you can pay some dollars a hour. Money first, workplaces for our people second.

[Erkki]

Originally Posted by Destroyer25

The US economy is more successful than Sweden's. Sweden might have a nice standard of living for everyone but you pay ridiculous taxes for it, and personal wealth is severely restricted. Your growth rate ain't much too look at either.

What is the problem? Severely restricted?

People don't know how to take care of themselves because too many of them live in societies where they don't have to. So let the stupid ones starve, the ones with half a brain will figure out they need to get a job pretty quickly

The stupid one will probably figure out how to use a baseball bat sooner or later.

[Indpavan]

This forum has high level discussions about WW2 so how did we get simplistic about 1 variable when society is governed by many?

Destroyer25 wrote
The US economy is more successful than Sweden's. Sweden might have a nice standard of living for everyone but you pay ridiculous taxes for it, and personal wealth is severely restricted. Your growth rate ain't much too look at either.

US tax rates for some parts of the population will match Sweden's with all the benefits of those taxes - allow me to explain.

Professional say a successful self employed game designer and company consultant jointly making $200,000+ and living in say Philadelphia.
Tax -
Federal tax rate 33%
State tax 5%+
City tax 7% - 10%
Being self employed adds 7.5% Social Security tax

So the total is over 50% and the Swedes pay about 48% - 50% and get medical coverage for that!

Of course the US couple would take advantage of several deductions home/condominium interest deduction, investment partnerships etc.
But many of these decisions are constrained choice made to reduce taxes spawning whole businesses for such purposes - I don't think such businesses can be called free market, aren't they constraint market?

[Yankee]

That's becasuse certain gropus here in America think if they have comunisum that eveything will be free. No more working the goverment will give them every thing on a silver platter . My Statement to them " Wake up and smell the coffee. "