If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Greek government submits latest contribution to Greek mythology: its 2013 draft budget   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 141
    More: Followup, Greek mythology, Greek government, Greece, wealthiest people  
•       •       •

1989 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Oct 2012 at 9:18 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



141 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-03 12:47:44 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: MechTard: Apocalyptic Inferno: not5am: FarkedOver: ManRay: In other news...citizens not paying their fair share can lead to problems.

But enough about the wealthy of the US, let's get back to the topic at hand: Greece.

it's a cautionary tale of the future of amercia if president obama is reelected.

/not intended to be a factual statement.

Four more years and another $5 or $6 trillion added to the debt. Not even the US can sustain that kind of borrowing for much longer.

Then the Bush tax cuts need to expire. You think Romney is going to do that?

Not to butt in on your conversation, but do you think Obama is going to do that?


Damn, you are right. i was under the impression that he was going to let them expire, but he actually wants to keep most of them - only income tax over $250k would expire, but keep the capital gains where it is at.. Romney wants to make all of them permanent and drop all income taxes by 20% across the board, which sounds... insane, actually, I have no idea how in the hell that is a workable idea, but there ya go.

\we're farked
 
2012-10-03 01:03:06 PM

FarkedOver: ronaprhys: They also killed millions and millions of people just to force their ideology. Whether or not it was true socialism as people like FarkedOver want is irrelevant to that point - they were some of worst mass murderers out there.

[Citation Needed]

The number of deaths attributed to socialism or "communism" are wildly inflated. If we applied the same standard to capitalism you would see an astronomic figure as well.


Search genocide and Soviet Union then shut it. Plain and simple. The Soviet Union killed massive amounts of people to force it's ideology and expand its power.
 
2012-10-03 01:14:02 PM

ronaprhys: Search genocide and Soviet Union then shut it. Plain and simple. The Soviet Union killed massive amounts of people to force it's ideology and expand its power.


Yes there were purges. But when deaths that happen because of famine are attributed to communism you know someone has an ax to grind. So I won't shut it :)
 
2012-10-03 01:15:51 PM

FarkedOver: ronaprhys: Search genocide and Soviet Union then shut it. Plain and simple. The Soviet Union killed massive amounts of people to force it's ideology and expand its power.

Yes there were purges. But when deaths that happen because of famine are attributed to communism you know someone has an ax to grind. So I won't shut it :)


You mean the Soviet government didn't use force to keep peasants in the country experiencing a famine? Unless you're denying the Holodomor.
 
2012-10-03 01:18:36 PM

ronaprhys: FarkedOver: ronaprhys: Search genocide and Soviet Union then shut it. Plain and simple. The Soviet Union killed massive amounts of people to force it's ideology and expand its power.

Yes there were purges. But when deaths that happen because of famine are attributed to communism you know someone has an ax to grind. So I won't shut it :)

You mean the Soviet government didn't use force to keep peasants in the country experiencing a famine? Unless you're denying the Holodomor.


No, I'm asking you to be intellectually honest. How many people have died under capitalism if we apply the same standard? Far more, and the count ticks up with each day.
 
2012-10-03 01:24:57 PM

FarkedOver: ronaprhys: FarkedOver: ronaprhys: Search genocide and Soviet Union then shut it. Plain and simple. The Soviet Union killed massive amounts of people to force it's ideology and expand its power.

Yes there were purges. But when deaths that happen because of famine are attributed to communism you know someone has an ax to grind. So I won't shut it :)

You mean the Soviet government didn't use force to keep peasants in the country experiencing a famine? Unless you're denying the Holodomor.

No, I'm asking you to be intellectually honest. How many people have died under capitalism if we apply the same standard? Far more, and the count ticks up with each day.


That's a different point. The fact is that the Soviet Union has killed millions of people in order to force its ideology and power on those unwilling to accept it. That's the statement I made - no more, no less. Do you agree that this is true?
 
2012-10-03 01:48:38 PM

MechTard: Debeo Summa Credo: MechTard: Apocalyptic Inferno: not5am: FarkedOver: ManRay: In other news...citizens not paying their fair share can lead to problems.

But enough about the wealthy of the US, let's get back to the topic at hand: Greece.

it's a cautionary tale of the future of amercia if president obama is reelected.

/not intended to be a factual statement.

Four more years and another $5 or $6 trillion added to the debt. Not even the US can sustain that kind of borrowing for much longer.

Then the Bush tax cuts need to expire. You think Romney is going to do that?

Not to butt in on your conversation, but do you think Obama is going to do that?

Damn, you are right. i was under the impression that he was going to let them expire, but he actually wants to keep most of them - only income tax over $250k would expire, but keep the capital gains where it is at.. Romney wants to make all of them permanent and drop all income taxes by 20% across the board, which sounds... insane, actually, I have no idea how in the hell that is a workable idea, but there ya go.

\we're farked


Right. Obama's proposal would let only 20% of the bush tax cuts expire. I'm open to some sort of phase out to avoid the immediate fiscal cliff, but think pretty much all the bush and Obama tax cuts should be allowed to expire.
 
2012-10-03 02:34:48 PM

FarkedOver: The number of deaths attributed to socialism or "communism" are wildly inflated.


Thats pretty much what deniers say about the holocaust.

We know that tens of millions of people have been directly murdered on account of having some sort of either physical condition or political/religious status which contrasted with whatever the strongman wanted. Perhaps if you're going to suggest that what we know about the killing fields and gulags is wrong, that you should provide some evidence to the contrary?

No, I'm asking you to be intellectually honest. How many people have died under capitalism if we apply the same standard? Far more, and the count ticks up with each day.

You're one of those people who believes that when a gangbanger kills an old lady during a botched home invasion that it should be seen as a failure of capitalism since the individual was "forced" to do so. The funny thing about capitalism is that it is the only economic system in the world where there is no element of force whatsoever. You're free to take any job you want or buy any product you want. When capitalism becomes destructive is when it gets mixed with cronyism.
 
2012-10-03 02:40:46 PM

o5iiawah: You're one of those people who believes that when a gangbanger kills an old lady during a botched home invasion that it should be seen as a failure of capitalism since the individual was "forced" to do so. The funny thing about capitalism is that it is the only economic system in the world where there is no element of force whatsoever. You're free to take any job you want or buy any product you want. When capitalism becomes destructive is when it gets mixed with cronyism.


How's this for an example:

200 million Indians went hungry in 1995, while the Indian economy was exporting $625 million worth of wheat and $1.3 billion worth of rice that same year.
 
2012-10-03 03:01:00 PM

FarkedOver: o5iiawah: You're one of those people who believes that when a gangbanger kills an old lady during a botched home invasion that it should be seen as a failure of capitalism since the individual was "forced" to do so. The funny thing about capitalism is that it is the only economic system in the world where there is no element of force whatsoever. You're free to take any job you want or buy any product you want. When capitalism becomes destructive is when it gets mixed with cronyism.

How's this for an example:

200 million Indians went hungry in 1995, while the Indian economy was exporting $625 million worth of wheat and $1.3 billion worth of rice that same year.


First off, define "go hungry". 200m Indians didn't starve to death in 1995. I was pretty drunk in the mid 90s but I probably would have heard about a famine that killed 200m people. At least there would have been an album out about it.

Secondly, the numbers you cite would equal about $9.63 per hungry Indian. Would that have been enough to keep them below whatever definition you have of "going hungry"?

Lastly, absent agriculture for profit, you don't know how many Indians would have gone hungry. The very same capitalists who sold $2b worth of food for export might have produced a giant multiple of that for domestic consumption. Production that they wouldn't have undertaken if there was no profit motive.
 
2012-10-03 03:09:19 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: FarkedOver: o5iiawah: You're one of those people who believes that when a gangbanger kills an old lady during a botched home invasion that it should be seen as a failure of capitalism since the individual was "forced" to do so. The funny thing about capitalism is that it is the only economic system in the world where there is no element of force whatsoever. You're free to take any job you want or buy any product you want. When capitalism becomes destructive is when it gets mixed with cronyism.

How's this for an example:

200 million Indians went hungry in 1995, while the Indian economy was exporting $625 million worth of wheat and $1.3 billion worth of rice that same year.

First off, define "go hungry". 200m Indians didn't starve to death in 1995. I was pretty drunk in the mid 90s but I probably would have heard about a famine that killed 200m people. At least there would have been an album out about it.

Secondly, the numbers you cite would equal about $9.63 per hungry Indian. Would that have been enough to keep them below whatever definition you have of "going hungry"?

Lastly, absent agriculture for profit, you don't know how many Indians would have gone hungry. The very same capitalists who sold $2b worth of food for export might have produced a giant multiple of that for domestic consumption. Production that they wouldn't have undertaken if there was no profit motive.


Go hungry doesn't mean starve to death. Capitalism is an inefficient means of providing the wants of mankind. My point being that under capitalism someone is going to be exploited in order for someone to make a buck. It's the nature of the game, I get it. I find that inherently wrong though. As an American, I understand it is hard to see this, as we can pretty much get things dirt cheap (i.e. food, clothing) but the question we never ask ourselves is: "Why?" What makes America so special that we deserve to have all these wonderful things at the expense of millions? Ohhhh thats right, the threat of force.
 
2012-10-03 03:44:18 PM

Marine1: FarkedOver: ronaprhys: Even if Marx and I share certain theories and agree on many things (like gravity, science, math, and so forth), that doesn't mean I support Marxism, socialism, or communism. Simply put, they will not ever work with humans. Our nature disallows that.

Capitalism is the least-worst system out there. It should be coupled with a government that prevents the worst excesses but also provides the lightest reins.

What is it about human nature that you believe makes capitalism the only workable system? You believe that everyone is greedy? Everyone is only ever looking out for their own self interest? Self interest, yes is a human condition. I believe it's workable in a socialist society. Greed is a learned behavior.

Ever tried to take food away from a dog that hasn't been trained?

Better yet, make that a wolf.


Wolves don't kill more than they need to survive. You'd need to train them to do that.
 
2012-10-03 03:51:52 PM

FarkedOver: Capitalism is an inefficient means of providing the wants of mankind.


You have absolutely no idea why or how capitalism works and why it is better than any other system the world has ever created.

First, we should all understand that there is no pure, true, unadulterated capitalism. It has never existed and it never will save for in the fantasies of anarcho-capitalists. The reason why socialism is an inefficient system and always fails is because it makes it incumbent upon a small group of individuals to decide what prices will be, what will be produced, the quantities and who gets what. The economic ecosystem (see what I did there?) of a country cannot be managed by one or several individuals. History has proven this in the forms of famine, shortages, riots, joblessness and outright executions of anyone who think they has a better idea of how to do it.

capitalism is predicated on the aggregate of individuals making economic choices for themselves with the understanding that if 100,000 people are going to want a product and are willing to pay $10 a pop for it, that someone with capital and a profit motive is going to find a way to deliver it. Not only does this enrich the lives of the people who now have the product but it also provides jobs for those who make it. In socialism, the bureaucrat decides that only 50,000 people can have the product, that it should cost $25 or that it is a waste and shouldn't be produced at all. The reason economics is called the dismal science is because at some point, people might not want the product or are willing to pay less for a similar product from a competitor. This may cause temporary unemployment and some would see the resulting joblessness as a failure yet the only alternative is to keep the horse and buggy and typewriter in business at the expense of the automobile and the computer.

Capitalism is by far the most efficient way of delivering what society wants because the aggregate intelligence of any group is almost always smarter and will make better decisions than the smartest member of the group.

I admire your idealism though...Reminds me of when I was 19
 
2012-10-03 04:07:39 PM

o5iiawah: FarkedOver: Capitalism is an inefficient means of providing the wants of mankind.

You have absolutely no idea why or how capitalism works and why it is better than any other system the world has ever created.

First, we should all understand that there is no pure, true, unadulterated capitalism. It has never existed and it never will save for in the fantasies of anarcho-capitalists. The reason why socialism is an inefficient system and always fails is because it makes it incumbent upon a small group of individuals to decide what prices will be, what will be produced, the quantities and who gets what. The economic ecosystem (see what I did there?) of a country cannot be managed by one or several individuals. History has proven this in the forms of famine, shortages, riots, joblessness and outright executions of anyone who think they has a better idea of how to do it.

capitalism is predicated on the aggregate of individuals making economic choices for themselves with the understanding that if 100,000 people are going to want a product and are willing to pay $10 a pop for it, that someone with capital and a profit motive is going to find a way to deliver it. Not only does this enrich the lives of the people who now have the product but it also provides jobs for those who make it. In socialism, the bureaucrat decides that only 50,000 people can have the product, that it should cost $25 or that it is a waste and shouldn't be produced at all. The reason economics is called the dismal science is because at some point, people might not want the product or are willing to pay less for a similar product from a competitor. This may cause temporary unemployment and some would see the resulting joblessness as a failure yet the only alternative is to keep the horse and buggy and typewriter in business at the expense of the automobile and the computer.

Capitalism is by far the most efficient way of delivering what society wants because the aggregate intelligence of any g ...


"Want" was the wrong word to use. It's not the best method of providing humanity it's needs. Capitalism wants nothing to do with you if you can't afford it, and that's even for basic human necessities such as food, water, shelter, health care (yes, health care is a human necessity and a right.) I don't enjoy living in a world where you're only as free as the amount of money you have. That's why I do what I can when I can to implement Marxist choices.
 
2012-10-03 04:20:44 PM

FarkedOver: Go hungry doesn't mean starve to death. Capitalism is an inefficient means of providing the wants of mankind. My point being that under capitalism someone is going to be exploited in order for someone to make a buck. It's the nature of the game, I get it. I find that inherently wrong though. As an American, I understand it is hard to see this, as we can pretty much get things dirt cheap (i.e. food, clothing) but the question we never ask ourselves is: "Why?" What makes America so special that we deserve to have all these wonderful things at the expense of millions? ...


We were specifically talking about deaths, not going hungry - as such, your comparison fails. In the Holodomor, it's estimated that 10 million people died. Died - as in no longer breathing. Why? Not because some % of the crop was sold elsewhere for economic reasons. Not at all - they died because the Soviet Union confiscated the entire wheat crop and all other food resources from the area. They stole it. Plain and simple. These are facts - you can Google this yourself and see the data.

If you want, I can look up more instances of the Soviets mass murdering folks. We've got the Cossacks, where they'd deport huge ethnic groups and send them to the Gulags, etc. Would you like me to start digging into China? Cambodia?
 
2012-10-03 04:25:13 PM

FarkedOver: "Want" was the wrong word to use. It's not the best method of providing humanity it's needs. Capitalism wants nothing to do with you if you can't afford it, and that's even for basic human necessities such as food, water, shelter, health care (yes, health care is a human necessity and a right.) I don't enjoy living in a world where you're only as free as the amount of money you have. That's why I do what I can when I can to implement Marxist choices.


Capitalism has proven, time and time again, that it is the most efficient system to date. The centralized economies have all failed to systematically provide food for their citizens. Lines for basic products were a given in the Soviet Union. Starvation is common in many of the communist or socialist states (Best Korea, China, etc).

Also, firearms are a right. You still have to pay for them. No different than healthcare, food, or any other product. You have to pay for these things. There has to be an exchange for the system to work. Every single system that fails to have an adequate exchange for these goods has failed.
 
2012-10-03 04:29:42 PM

ronaprhys: If you want, I can look up more instances of the Soviets mass murdering folks. We've got the Cossacks, where they'd deport huge ethnic groups and send them to the Gulags, etc. Would you like me to start digging into China? Cambodia?


Go right ahead. I could go tit for tat with you with a capitalist comparison. Who do you think would run out first?
 
2012-10-03 04:30:23 PM

ronaprhys: Also, firearms are a right. You still have to pay for them. No different than healthcare, food, or any other product. You have to pay for these things. There has to be an exchange for the system to work. Every single system that fails to have an adequate exchange for these goods has failed.


It's really easy to say this as an American, isn't it?
 
2012-10-03 04:36:59 PM
Where most of you people get your "Communist Death Toll" numbers from is a book called "The Black Book of Communism".

A good rebuttal. Link

/It's by Chomsky
//You've already decided not too look. Cool.
 
2012-10-03 04:43:01 PM

FarkedOver: ronaprhys: If you want, I can look up more instances of the Soviets mass murdering folks. We've got the Cossacks, where they'd deport huge ethnic groups and send them to the Gulags, etc. Would you like me to start digging into China? Cambodia?

Go right ahead. I could go tit for tat with you with a capitalist comparison. Who do you think would run out first?


Considering the example you provided already, seems that you'd end up losing pretty badly. I've provided established facts to support my case. Do you or do you not agree that the Soviets have committed the mass murders as I've stated. If not, why?
 
2012-10-03 04:47:30 PM

ronaprhys: FarkedOver: ronaprhys: If you want, I can look up more instances of the Soviets mass murdering folks. We've got the Cossacks, where they'd deport huge ethnic groups and send them to the Gulags, etc. Would you like me to start digging into China? Cambodia?

Go right ahead. I could go tit for tat with you with a capitalist comparison. Who do you think would run out first?

Considering the example you provided already, seems that you'd end up losing pretty badly. I've provided established facts to support my case. Do you or do you not agree that the Soviets have committed the mass murders as I've stated. If not, why?


You assume famines were planned mass murders. There is no proof of it. Incompetence? Maybe planned genocide? NO. Your facts don't stand up.

After the soviet revolution were there purges? Yes.

After the french revolution were there purges? Yes.

After and during any revolution are there killings? YES.
 
2012-10-03 04:51:12 PM

FarkedOver: Where most of you people get your "Communist Death Toll" numbers from is a book called "The Black Book of Communism".

A good rebuttal. Link

/It's by Chomsky
//You've already decided not too look. Cool.


No - Holodomor is well documented in all sorts of places. Try again.

And yes, I clicked on the link. I even read it.
 
2012-10-03 04:53:13 PM

FarkedOver: ronaprhys: FarkedOver: ronaprhys: If you want, I can look up more instances of the Soviets mass murdering folks. We've got the Cossacks, where they'd deport huge ethnic groups and send them to the Gulags, etc. Would you like me to start digging into China? Cambodia?

Go right ahead. I could go tit for tat with you with a capitalist comparison. Who do you think would run out first?

Considering the example you provided already, seems that you'd end up losing pretty badly. I've provided established facts to support my case. Do you or do you not agree that the Soviets have committed the mass murders as I've stated. If not, why?

You assume famines were planned mass murders. There is no proof of it. Incompetence? Maybe planned genocide? NO. Your facts don't stand up.

After the soviet revolution were there purges? Yes.

After the french revolution were there purges? Yes.

After and during any revolution are there killings? YES.


That's absolute horseshiat. The Soviet Union seized the entire wheat crop and all other foodstuffs and then used troops to prevent the population from leaving. Those are facts. How can that not be interpreted as anything other than planned mass murder?
 
2012-10-03 04:53:30 PM
I'd love to stay and chat, I'm off to a socialist meeting.

Yours for the Revolution,

FarkedOver

/Truth :)
 
2012-10-03 04:59:01 PM

ronaprhys: FarkedOver: ronaprhys: FarkedOver: ronaprhys: If you want, I can look up more instances of the Soviets mass murdering folks. We've got the Cossacks, where they'd deport huge ethnic groups and send them to the Gulags, etc. Would you like me to start digging into China? Cambodia?

Go right ahead. I could go tit for tat with you with a capitalist comparison. Who do you think would run out first?

Considering the example you provided already, seems that you'd end up losing pretty badly. I've provided established facts to support my case. Do you or do you not agree that the Soviets have committed the mass murders as I've stated. If not, why?

You assume famines were planned mass murders. There is no proof of it. Incompetence? Maybe planned genocide? NO. Your facts don't stand up.

After the soviet revolution were there purges? Yes.

After the french revolution were there purges? Yes.

After and during any revolution are there killings? YES.

That's absolute horseshiat. The Soviet Union seized the entire wheat crop and all other foodstuffs and then used troops to prevent the population from leaving. Those are facts. How can that not be interpreted as anything other than planned mass murder?


before I go

Because it was implemented terribly. Was the goal genocide, or was the goal collectivization?

I am no fan of Stalin or his policies. I'm a Trotsky man myself. But the number of deaths attributed to "communism" aren't as cut and dry as you make them out to be. I'll check back later if you want to continue. Have a good night.
 
2012-10-03 05:30:31 PM

FarkedOver: Was the goal genocide, or was the goal collectivization?


Collectivization, or else what? Your idea works until someone decides to step out of line with the crazy notion that their life should be served in their own interest and not in the undying servitude of others. How can you have a free society when people are conscripted to provide for one another? Simple game theory and the tragedy of the commons are proof that if given the chance to loaf or work and get the same prize, people will loaf. There's no incentive to work as long as you get what your neighbor gets. Eventually everyone stops working and the system collapses. The government then has to force people to work (AKA slavery)

You're living in a world where there are only two choices: Central planning or anarchy. A mix of capitalism and a restrained state has proven to be the system by which people are happiest and most prosperous. The state guards the citizens and protects their property since the state holds the monopoly of force. People are then free to exchange in commerce with each other absent of force.

Because it was implemented terribly.

I am somewhat skeptical of a system which requires the point of a gun to be implemented successfully.
 
2012-10-03 06:16:07 PM

FarkedOver: before I go

Because it was implemented terribly. Was the goal genocide, or was the goal collectivization?

I am no fan of Stalin or his policies. I'm a Trotsky man myself. But the number of deaths attributed to "communism" aren't as cut and dry as you make them out to be. I'll check back later if you want to continue. Have a good night.


That's not an acceptable answer. Again: they took all of the food. Not most, all. Then they forced the people to stay in an area with no food at gunpoint. That's not "implemented terribly". That requires planning ahead of time with a very specific goal.

Secondly, I'm not talking about some nebulous "deaths attributed to communism", I'm talking about the Holodomor. It's one example, and potentially the worst Soviet example, of mass murder/genocide.

From what I can see, you're not denying that ~10 million people died due to this. It does seem that you're saying, "oh yeah, but capitalism is worse, man, because it's worse. This is more of a mistake because someone didn't do it right, but capitalism is definitely wrong and they always do it on purpose". And that is pure, unadulterated, bullshiat. If you believe that, simply put, you aren't worth debating because you're willing to commit such absolute intellectual dishonesty to further your points that one cannot have a reasonable discussion with you.
 
2012-10-03 07:25:18 PM

Marine1: FarkedOver: Marine1: So you get the state to control the means of production? The "capital" that makes the workers able to produce things, right?

Tiny problem, and it's a big one: human beings are capital. They are the ultimate means of production. Imagine you live in a socialist society. You work at the widget factory as a part of the assembly line that produces whatzits. Your niece is getting married, and you want to go on vacation to see her exchange her vows with her beloved.

Well, jeeze, I don't know. You see, that doesn't work towards the best outcome for society. You can go see your niece get married, sure, but then we suddenly have a shift in the supply curve because the labor force for your product is reduced by your absence. Furthermore, you're forcing everyone else on said production line to work harder to make up for your lost effort, but since everyone's wage is fixed at a certain point (wouldn't want inequality now, would we?), we can't raise the price of the whatzit to pay for their wages and the additional resources needed to help the workers be more productive while you're gone. We're not getting anywhere near our production-possibility frontier if you're gone. Multiply this times a few million workers and you have a real problem. Obviously, if you aren't giving according to your ability (it's not necessary that you go to the wedding, so you're able to give more), then we can't give to each according to his need.

The solution? No wedding, no break when *you* want it, and if you do leave, prepare for dire consequences.

I like reading people's ideas of socialism when they have never read Marx, Engles, Lenin or Trotsky. :)

That's not an idea of socialism, it's a reality. That's literally why the Iron Curtain was put up. People who tried to escape were shot, and if they were captured, tried for treason on the grounds that they had neglected their duty to produce for the state.

And furthermore, I like when people spread their dislike for open mark ...


You aren't actually saying Russia was really a socialist country are you? You might want to read up on the new economic policy of 1921, that's well before the iron curtain if you weren't aware.
 
2012-10-04 09:28:51 AM

ronaprhys: FarkedOver: before I go

Because it was implemented terribly. Was the goal genocide, or was the goal collectivization?

I am no fan of Stalin or his policies. I'm a Trotsky man myself. But the number of deaths attributed to "communism" aren't as cut and dry as you make them out to be. I'll check back later if you want to continue. Have a good night.

That's not an acceptable answer. Again: they took all of the food. Not most, all. Then they forced the people to stay in an area with no food at gunpoint. That's not "implemented terribly". That requires planning ahead of time with a very specific goal.

Secondly, I'm not talking about some nebulous "deaths attributed to communism", I'm talking about the Holodomor. It's one example, and potentially the worst Soviet example, of mass murder/genocide.

From what I can see, you're not denying that ~10 million people died due to this. It does seem that you're saying, "oh yeah, but capitalism is worse, man, because it's worse. This is more of a mistake because someone didn't do it right, but capitalism is definitely wrong and they always do it on purpose". And that is pure, unadulterated, bullshiat. If you believe that, simply put, you aren't worth debating because you're willing to commit such absolute intellectual dishonesty to further your points that one cannot have a reasonable discussion with you.


Sorry for the late response. But your perception of what happened is not the only one. It's great you take a pro-western stance, but there are multiple reasons for the deaths in Ukraine. Stalin was a bad man, sure but there were so many mitigating factors. Good article below.

Link
 
2012-10-04 09:49:24 AM
I didn't see anything in that article that disputes the military forces used to keep people in or the seizing of food. Nothing at all. It points out that it was a bad year and that Stalin might not have hated the Ukranians. How does that address my points - I called it mass murder/genocide. I'm not here to debate which of the two it might've been, but you've provided nothing that would call the number of dead nor Stalin's role in the process into doubt.
 
2012-10-04 10:08:08 AM

ronaprhys: I didn't see anything in that article that disputes the military forces used to keep people in or the seizing of food. Nothing at all. It points out that it was a bad year and that Stalin might not have hated the Ukranians. How does that address my points - I called it mass murder/genocide. I'm not here to debate which of the two it might've been, but you've provided nothing that would call the number of dead nor Stalin's role in the process into doubt.


You answered the question yourself. It was not genocide. Unfortunate? Yes. The famine wasn't limited to only Ukraine, it was also taking part in Russia. Further mitigating the circumstances were the kulaks who were slaughtering their own animals and destroying their own crops.

Further, the USSR at this time was still in the process of building up its industry. How much food was lost because of inadequate transportation and/or processing?

How many crops were ruined because of lack of rain or because of over saturation. (Damn you USSR and your weather machine!)

In the process of collectivization the purpose is not to keep people from food. The purpose is getting rid of wealthy land owners (kulaks, i.e. the bourgeoisie & petit bourgeoisie).

The reason so many things went wrong (from a Marxist standpoint) is that Russia wasn't a capitalist economy and that the Russian revolution came about too early. Germany or France were always the places mentioned that should have had a revolution first. Like I said earlier, capitalism has it's place and a capitalist economy is great way to industrialize. Russia never had that. They had to hit the ground running and lay out plans for mass industrialization on a wide scale and teach an uneducated populace how to actually operate the means of production. Genocide it was not, it's a pro-western/Ukrainian government anti-communist propaganda from a bygone era.
 
2012-10-04 10:55:36 AM

FarkedOver: You answered the question yourself. It was not genocide. Unfortunate? Yes. The famine wasn't limited to only Ukraine, it was also taking part in Russia. Further mitigating the circumstances were the kulaks who were slaughtering their own animals and destroying their own crops.

Further, the USSR at this time was still in the process of building up its industry. How much food was lost because of inadequate transportation and/or processing?

How many crops were ruined because of lack of rain or because of over saturation. (Damn you USSR and your weather machine!)

In the process of collectivization the purpose is not to keep people from food. The purpose is getting rid of wealthy land owners (kulaks, i.e. the bourgeoisie & petit bourgeoisie).

The reason so many things went wrong (from a Marxist standpoint) is that Russia wasn't a capitalist economy and that the Russian revolution came about too early. Germany or France were always the places mentioned that should have had a revolution first. Like I said earlier, capitalism has it's place and a capitalist economy is great way to industrialize. Russia never had that. They had to hit the ground running and lay out plans for mass industrialization on a wide scale and teach an uneducated populace how to actually operate the means of production. Genocide it was not, it's a pro-western/Ukrainian government anti-communist propaganda from a bygone era.


You're calling the mass murder of 10 million people, via famine enforced by stealing their crops and using the military to keep them in an area with no food, unfortunate?

Seriously?
 
2012-10-04 11:03:10 AM

ronaprhys: You're calling the mass murder of 10 million people, via famine enforced by stealing their crops and using the military to keep them in an area with no food, unfortunate?

Seriously?


You're calling it mass murder despite the fact of all the other facts in the case? Seriously?

We can go around in circles all friggin day. Agree to disagree. Your position is not the only position. Sorry.
 
2012-10-04 11:10:01 AM

FarkedOver: ronaprhys: You're calling the mass murder of 10 million people, via famine enforced by stealing their crops and using the military to keep them in an area with no food, unfortunate?

Seriously?

You're calling it mass murder despite the fact of all the other facts in the case? Seriously?

We can go around in circles all friggin day. Agree to disagree. Your position is not the only position. Sorry.


Horseshiat. You have provided absolutely nothing to dispute that the Soviets seized all of the wheat crops and other foods. Nothing at all. You have provided absolutely nothing to dispute that the Soviets used their military to forcibly keep the peasants in that area in spite of the fact that they already stole their food. Nothing. Until you can pony up a link that demonstrates that, you've got nothing. And no, pointing out that some of the peasants might've killed off animals to prevent them from being seized doesn't prove your point. Those animals would've been forcibly removed by their military anyway - so the point stands. Nothing you've provided shows any of these facts to be in question.

This isn't going round and round. This is you defending mass murder and calling it "unfortunate".
 
2012-10-04 11:24:45 AM

ronaprhys: Horseshiat. You have provided absolutely nothing to dispute that the Soviets seized all of the wheat crops and other foods. Nothing at all. You have provided absolutely nothing to dispute that the Soviets used their military to forcibly keep the peasants in that area in spite of the fact that they already stole their food. Nothing. Until you can pony up a link that demonstrates that, you've got nothing. And no, pointing out that some of the peasants might've killed off animals to prevent them from being seized doesn't prove your point. Those animals would've been forcibly removed by their military anyway - so the point stands. Nothing you've provided shows any of these facts to be in question.

This isn't going round and round. This is you defending mass murder and calling it "unfortunate".


They seized the land and food for collectivization purposes, not to deliberately withhold food! That's collectivization! Like I said earlier. They had no massive industry infrastructure in which to harvest and keep the grain from spoiling. It's an unfortunate tragedy.

You gloss over, those strong free market kulaks who said "Fine you can have my grain and livestock after I destroy them all! If I can't have it no one can!"

You gloss over the weather implications. Ol' Stalin made sure it didn't rain, right?

What you do is CHOOSE to believe is that it was collectivization and the seizure of the land, grains and livestock alone is what caused this massive "genocide". You CHOOSE to believe that Stalin wanted the Ukrainians dead at all costs, even though I've show evidence to the contrary (i.e. the article stating how he was in the process of industrializing Ukraine as it was second only to Russia in production). Also amazingly in 1934, there was a huge harvest, and that's not just because the Red Army "MURDERED" all those Ukrainians.

There are just so many other circumstances that you don't want to look at for whatever reason. I've admitted that the Soviet government is at fault for ineptitude and for being idiots. I'm not saying what happened wasn't a tragedy. But all you can do is put a neat little bow on it and say "Communism did it!" is disingenuous.
 
2012-10-04 01:06:09 PM

Russky: Marine1: FarkedOver: Marine1: So you get the state to control the means of production? The "capital" that makes the workers able to produce things, right?

Tiny problem, and it's a big one: human beings are capital. They are the ultimate means of production. Imagine you live in a socialist society. You work at the widget factory as a part of the assembly line that produces whatzits. Your niece is getting married, and you want to go on vacation to see her exchange her vows with her beloved.

Well, jeeze, I don't know. You see, that doesn't work towards the best outcome for society. You can go see your niece get married, sure, but then we suddenly have a shift in the supply curve because the labor force for your product is reduced by your absence. Furthermore, you're forcing everyone else on said production line to work harder to make up for your lost effort, but since everyone's wage is fixed at a certain point (wouldn't want inequality now, would we?), we can't raise the price of the whatzit to pay for their wages and the additional resources needed to help the workers be more productive while you're gone. We're not getting anywhere near our production-possibility frontier if you're gone. Multiply this times a few million workers and you have a real problem. Obviously, if you aren't giving according to your ability (it's not necessary that you go to the wedding, so you're able to give more), then we can't give to each according to his need.

The solution? No wedding, no break when *you* want it, and if you do leave, prepare for dire consequences.

I like reading people's ideas of socialism when they have never read Marx, Engles, Lenin or Trotsky. :)

That's not an idea of socialism, it's a reality. That's literally why the Iron Curtain was put up. People who tried to escape were shot, and if they were captured, tried for treason on the grounds that they had neglected their duty to produce for the state.

And furthermore, I like when people spread their dislike for ...


Uh... no? Where'd you get that?
 
2012-10-04 03:28:31 PM

FarkedOver: ronaprhys: Horseshiat. You have provided absolutely nothing to dispute that the Soviets seized all of the wheat crops and other foods. Nothing at all. You have provided absolutely nothing to dispute that the Soviets used their military to forcibly keep the peasants in that area in spite of the fact that they already stole their food. Nothing. Until you can pony up a link that demonstrates that, you've got nothing. And no, pointing out that some of the peasants might've killed off animals to prevent them from being seized doesn't prove your point. Those animals would've been forcibly removed by their military anyway - so the point stands. Nothing you've provided shows any of these facts to be in question.

This isn't going round and round. This is you defending mass murder and calling it "unfortunate".

They seized the land and food for collectivization purposes, not to deliberately withhold food! That's collectivization! Like I said earlier. They had no massive industry infrastructure in which to harvest and keep the grain from spoiling. It's an unfortunate tragedy.

You gloss over, those strong free market kulaks who said "Fine you can have my grain and livestock after I destroy them all! If I can't have it no one can!"

You gloss over the weather implications. Ol' Stalin made sure it didn't rain, right?

What you do is CHOOSE to believe is that it was collectivization and the seizure of the land, grains and livestock alone is what caused this massive "genocide". You CHOOSE to believe that Stalin wanted the Ukrainians dead at all costs, even though I've show evidence to the contrary (i.e. the article stating how he was in the process of industrializing Ukraine as it was second only to Russia in production). Also amazingly in 1934, there was a huge harvest, and that's not just because the Red Army "MURDERED" all those Ukrainians.

There are just so many other circumstances that you don't want to look at for whatever reason. I've admitted that the Soviet govern ...


I do not gloss over anything. Stalin had his troops take all of the food away from them and gave them no food. None. Then forced them to stay where there was no food. They then starved. Any livestock or crops not destroyed by the peasants were going to be taken - this is not in dispute. No one is arguing that. How is that anything other than mass murder? The weather and other natural circumstances are irrelevant. Had Stalin left them enough food to make it through the winter, or some reasonable portion of their crops, that would be different. He didn't. He took it all. Then used his military to prevent them from leaving and going to where there was food.

Mass murder. And you're defending it by calling it collectivization. No one argues that he was trying to collectivize the production - what is being pointed out is that he methodology was to grab the land by starving the kulaks to death.
 
2012-10-04 04:57:53 PM

ronaprhys: Mass murder. And you're defending it by calling it collectivization. No one argues that he was trying to collectivize the production - what is being pointed out is that he methodology was to grab the land by starving the kulaks to death.


Were the kulaks being "liquidated as a class" by Stalin? Yes. He said as much. Did the kulaks make up the entirety of whatever wild number of people you would like to insert of who died during the the famine. No. Yes they seized food, they seized land. Was the intention to starve the entire population? You say yes. I say no. You can call it whatever you like, but given all the factors given all the geopolitical circumstances of the region in that time it is just not as clear cut as you state it to be. I am in no way dismissing that Stalin was a tyrant, but as I've stated, you cannot lay the entire blame on the soviet government. You say you don't gloss over facts but yet all you do is say "They took it all, etc". Why did they withhold food? The CROPS WERE FAILING THERE WAS NOTHING TO GIVE! It was not a planned massacre, it was not a mass murder it was a famine, a famine made worse by bad implementation of economic philosophy.

You see, I take all the evidence, you take one piece of the puzzle and stomp your feet and you think that makes you right and your ok with that. Sorry, I'm not. I look into the big picture. Go ahead and scream on and on about one piece of the entire famine but that doesn't make you right. It really doesn't, as much as you would like it to, to fit your cold war mentality.
 
2012-10-04 05:18:28 PM

FarkedOver: ronaprhys: Mass murder. And you're defending it by calling it collectivization. No one argues that he was trying to collectivize the production - what is being pointed out is that he methodology was to grab the land by starving the kulaks to death.

Were the kulaks being "liquidated as a class" by Stalin? Yes. He said as much. Did the kulaks make up the entirety of whatever wild number of people you would like to insert of who died during the the famine. No. Yes they seized food, they seized land. Was the intention to starve the entire population? You say yes. I say no. You can call it whatever you like, but given all the factors given all the geopolitical circumstances of the region in that time it is just not as clear cut as you state it to be. I am in no way dismissing that Stalin was a tyrant, but as I've stated, you cannot lay the entire blame on the soviet government. You say you don't gloss over facts but yet all you do is say "They took it all, etc". Why did they withhold food? The CROPS WERE FAILING THERE WAS NOTHING TO GIVE! It was not a planned massacre, it was not a mass murder it was a famine, a famine made worse by bad implementation of economic philosophy.

You see, I take all the evidence, you take one piece of the puzzle and stomp your feet and you think that makes you right and your ok with that. Sorry, I'm not. I look into the big picture. Go ahead and scream on and on about one piece of the entire famine but that doesn't make you right. It really doesn't, as much as you would like it to, to fit your cold war mentality.


Bullshiat you take all the evidence. When they seized all the crops - regardless of the level of food production - they doomed the populace to starve to death. They made a decision to kill all of those people using starvation as their tool. It was a conscious decision made by the rulers to remove all of the food. It's too bad for you even the Russians admit that this was a mass murder of the populace.
 
2012-10-04 07:55:26 PM

FarkedOver: ronaprhys: Mass murder. And you're defending it by calling it collectivization. No one argues that he was trying to collectivize the production - what is being pointed out is that he methodology was to grab the land by starving the kulaks to death.

Were the kulaks being "liquidated as a class" by Stalin? Yes. He said as much. Did the kulaks make up the entirety of whatever wild number of people you would like to insert of who died during the the famine. No. Yes they seized food, they seized land. Was the intention to starve the entire population? You say yes. I say no. You can call it whatever you like, but given all the factors given all the geopolitical circumstances of the region in that time it is just not as clear cut as you state it to be. I am in no way dismissing that Stalin was a tyrant, but as I've stated, you cannot lay the entire blame on the soviet government. You say you don't gloss over facts but yet all you do is say "They took it all, etc". Why did they withhold food? The CROPS WERE FAILING THERE WAS NOTHING TO GIVE! It was not a planned massacre, it was not a mass murder it was a famine, a famine made worse by bad implementation of economic philosophy.

You see, I take all the evidence, you take one piece of the puzzle and stomp your feet and you think that makes you right and your ok with that. Sorry, I'm not. I look into the big picture. Go ahead and scream on and on about one piece of the entire famine but that doesn't make you right. It really doesn't, as much as you would like it to, to fit your cold war mentality.


I've seen my fair share of wildly moronic arguments in my day but this has to be #1.
 
2012-10-05 12:54:45 AM

o5iiawah: FarkedOver: ronaprhys: Mass murder. And you're defending it by calling it collectivization. No one argues that he was trying to collectivize the production - what is being pointed out is that he methodology was to grab the land by starving the kulaks to death.

Were the kulaks being "liquidated as a class" by Stalin? Yes. He said as much. Did the kulaks make up the entirety of whatever wild number of people you would like to insert of who died during the the famine. No. Yes they seized food, they seized land. Was the intention to starve the entire population? You say yes. I say no. You can call it whatever you like, but given all the factors given all the geopolitical circumstances of the region in that time it is just not as clear cut as you state it to be. I am in no way dismissing that Stalin was a tyrant, but as I've stated, you cannot lay the entire blame on the soviet government. You say you don't gloss over facts but yet all you do is say "They took it all, etc". Why did they withhold food? The CROPS WERE FAILING THERE WAS NOTHING TO GIVE! It was not a planned massacre, it was not a mass murder it was a famine, a famine made worse by bad implementation of economic philosophy.

You see, I take all the evidence, you take one piece of the puzzle and stomp your feet and you think that makes you right and your ok with that. Sorry, I'm not. I look into the big picture. Go ahead and scream on and on about one piece of the entire famine but that doesn't make you right. It really doesn't, as much as you would like it to, to fit your cold war mentality.

I've seen my fair share of wildly moronic arguments in my day but this has to be #1.


I do believe he is typing because he could not speak with his tongue stuck in his cheek.
But, this is Fark
 
Displayed 41 of 141 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report