Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Followup, Greek mythology, Greek government, Greece, wealthiest people  
•       •       •

2009 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Oct 2012 at 9:18 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



141 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-10-03 09:19:56 AM  
Poor Greeks are getting bent over and screwed hard
 
2012-10-03 09:20:46 AM  
Austerity works!
 
2012-10-03 09:21:26 AM  
*reads budget*

It's all Greek to me.

/As obligatory as it is awful.
 
2012-10-03 09:23:30 AM  
Heh, like the Greek citizens will do their part by stopping their tax dodging.
 
2012-10-03 09:26:33 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Poor Greeks are getting bent over and screwed hard


www.virginmedia.com

Well, they invented it.
 
2012-10-03 09:32:52 AM  
Beware of Greeks Bearing Bonds. A bit long but explains the reality of the situation in Greece. Greece's economy will change when the mentality of the Greeks changes. Anything else is a waste of time.
 
2012-10-03 09:37:55 AM  
img3.wpdigital.net 

Gates & Buffet give the Greek economy two slurpees down.
 
2012-10-03 09:38:24 AM  

Rufus Lee King: [img.photobucket.com image 435x571]


You know, that REALLY doesn't loook like a good idea to me, what with birds having nails/claws/talons on those things.
 
2012-10-03 09:38:55 AM  
Sounds like another Greek Tragedy has just been completed.
 
2012-10-03 09:53:23 AM  
Mommy, what are the rich doing to the working class of Greece!?

www.talariaenterprises.com
 
2012-10-03 09:59:43 AM  
And the latest Percy Jackson book is out. Coincidence?
 
2012-10-03 10:07:03 AM  
In other news...citizens not paying their fair share can lead to problems.
 
2012-10-03 10:11:09 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-03 10:16:30 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-03 10:18:47 AM  

LordOfThePings: [img3.wpdigital.net image 296x200] 

Gates & Buffet give the Greek economy two slurpees down.


did you have your coffee yet?
 
2012-10-03 10:19:21 AM  

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.


And yet... it is a good possibility
 
2012-10-03 10:21:32 AM  

not5am: it's a cautionary tale of the future of amercia if president obama is reelected.


LISTEN UP PEOPLE! Electing republicans is the only way to get us out of this death spiral!
 
2012-10-03 10:22:11 AM  

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.


So what is your idea of "Fair Share" mr. jealous? 70% of the bill is not enought for you? What about your fair share?
 
2012-10-03 10:23:54 AM  

Joe Blowme: 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.

So what is your idea of "Fair Share" mr. jealous? 70% of the bill is not enought for you? What about your fair share?


Well when the wealth of this nation is predominantly in the hands of the wealthy, ummm yeah they should be forking that money over.
 
2012-10-03 10:27:11 AM  
This year's recession will see the economy shrink around 6.5 percent, the document estimated. Unemployment is predicted to rise to 24.7 percent in 2013 from an average 23.5 percent in 2012.

Ouch.
 
2012-10-03 10:27:25 AM  

FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: 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.

So what is your idea of "Fair Share" mr. jealous? 70% of the bill is not enought for you? What about your fair share?

Well when the wealth of this nation is predominantly in the hands of the wealthy, ummm yeah they should be forking that money over.


What is their fair share? How much of other peoples money do you want to take? Why do you want to punnish success?
 
2012-10-03 10:29:21 AM  

FarkedOver: not5am: it's a cautionary tale of the future of amercia if president obama is reelected.

LISTEN UP PEOPLE! Electing republicans is the only way to get us out of this death spiral!


And back into the same one we were in in 2008!
 
2012-10-03 10:31:08 AM  

Joe Blowme: What is their fair share? How much of other peoples money do you want to take? Why do you want to punnish success?


You're assuming it's their money in the first place. When it comes to the wealthy, do you honestly believe they deserve money merely for taking the risk of putting their money up to start a business? If that's the case, go bankroll a compulsive gambler, after all he's risking his money in order to make it big. I throw my lot in with labor, you know the people who actually create products and wealth. Tax the rich free the workers.
 
2012-10-03 10:35:36 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-03 10:36:53 AM  
Can we just give them to Turkey?
 
2012-10-03 10:37:20 AM  

FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: What is their fair share? How much of other peoples money do you want to take? Why do you want to punnish success?

You're assuming it's their money in the first place. When it comes to the wealthy, do you honestly believe they deserve money merely for taking the risk of putting their money up to start a business? If that's the case, go bankroll a compulsive gambler, after all he's risking his money in order to make it big. I throw my lot in with labor, you know the people who actually create products and wealth. Tax the rich free the workers.



So how much of other peoples money do you want to take so you can keep paying nothing?
 
2012-10-03 10:37:28 AM  
Does anybody really think that this economic system is sustainable?

Seriously, you fail to see the problem with allowing( yes, allowing) the few rich to concentrate society's wealth?
Not theirs. Wealth exists only because of society and their collective production.
Stopping the flow of cash by HOARDING is not a viable strategy. Yes, living in a castle while workers live in squalor is hoarding.

In this life, the lesson is Use what you need, Take no more, Return the rest to your fellows.
 
2012-10-03 10:38:20 AM  

snocone: Does anybody really think that this economic system is sustainable?

Seriously, you fail to see the problem with allowing( yes, allowing) the few rich to concentrate society's wealth?
Not theirs. Wealth exists only because of society and their collective production.
Stopping the flow of cash by HOARDING is not a viable strategy. Yes, living in a castle while workers live in squalor is hoarding.

In this life, the lesson is Use what you need, Take no more, Return the rest to your fellows.


You sound jealous and lazy
 
2012-10-03 10:39:36 AM  

Joe Blowme: So how much of other peoples money do you want to take so you can keep paying nothing?


All of it. No man should have so much.
 
2012-10-03 10:40:45 AM  
WORD

Hard work makes you tired, not rich, and never will.
"Work hard and you will get rich like me" is a con.
 
2012-10-03 10:41:29 AM  

Joe Blowme: snocone: Does anybody really think that this economic system is sustainable?

Seriously, you fail to see the problem with allowing( yes, allowing) the few rich to concentrate society's wealth?
Not theirs. Wealth exists only because of society and their collective production.
Stopping the flow of cash by HOARDING is not a viable strategy. Yes, living in a castle while workers live in squalor is hoarding.

In this life, the lesson is Use what you need, Take no more, Return the rest to your fellows.

You sound jealous and lazy


Read the bio, Turd.
How is that again?
 
2012-10-03 10:41:57 AM  

FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: So how much of other peoples money do you want to take so you can keep paying nothing?

All of it. No man should have so much.


Eventually you will run out of other peoples money then what? You may have to actually work when there is no one left for you to steal from.
 
2012-10-03 10:44:13 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Austerity works!


Well, you can either pay more money in taxes or cut services. They don't want to do the first, so they have to do the second.
 
2012-10-03 10:44:43 AM  

Joe Blowme: FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: So how much of other peoples money do you want to take so you can keep paying nothing?

All of it. No man should have so much.

Eventually you will run out of other peoples money then what? You may have to actually work when there is no one left for you to steal from.


Eventually we won't need money. Try envisioning a world in the distant future where capitalism doesn't exist. No more constant boom and bust cycles, no more exploitation, no more partisanship. Sounds quite nice, no?
 
2012-10-03 10:45:07 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Poor Greeks are getting bent over and screwed hard


Holocaust Agnostic: Austerity works!


FarkedOver: Mommy, what are the rich doing to the working class of Greece!?


Yeah, because Greece was a model of sound fiscal policy and transparent government before those greedy bankers kicked their bond rates up a couple of percent. Austerity may not be the best way to get out of their mess, but it sure as hell didn't cause it. Greece has not only squandered every opportunity to show that it can be serious about getting its house in order, it used the proceeds to dig itself in even deeper. Greece is the Lindsay Lohan of Europe.
 
2012-10-03 10:45:16 AM  

snocone: Joe Blowme: snocone: Does anybody really think that this economic system is sustainable?

Seriously, you fail to see the problem with allowing( yes, allowing) the few rich to concentrate society's wealth?
Not theirs. Wealth exists only because of society and their collective production.
Stopping the flow of cash by HOARDING is not a viable strategy. Yes, living in a castle while workers live in squalor is hoarding.

In this life, the lesson is Use what you need, Take no more, Return the rest to your fellows.

You sound jealous and lazy

Read the bio, Turd.
How is that again?


You sound jealous and lazy.
 
2012-10-03 10:46:00 AM  

FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: So how much of other peoples money do you want to take so you can keep paying nothing?

All of it. No man should have so much.

Eventually you will run out of other peoples money then what? You may have to actually work when there is no one left for you to steal from.

Eventually we won't need money. Try envisioning a world in the distant future where capitalism doesn't exist. No more constant boom and bust cycles, no more exploitation, no more partisanship. Sounds quite nice, no?


So, where do you get this idea?
 
2012-10-03 10:47:33 AM  

Marine1: FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: So how much of other peoples money do you want to take so you can keep paying nothing?

All of it. No man should have so much.

Eventually you will run out of other peoples money then what? You may have to actually work when there is no one left for you to steal from.

Eventually we won't need money. Try envisioning a world in the distant future where capitalism doesn't exist. No more constant boom and bust cycles, no more exploitation, no more partisanship. Sounds quite nice, no?

So, where do you get this idea?


I'm guessing too much time watching Star Trek in moms basement.
 
2012-10-03 10:47:52 AM  

FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: So how much of other peoples money do you want to take so you can keep paying nothing?

All of it. No man should have so much.

Eventually you will run out of other peoples money then what? You may have to actually work when there is no one left for you to steal from.

Eventually we won't need money. Try envisioning a world in the distant future where capitalism doesn't exist. No more constant boom and bust cycles, no more exploitation, no more partisanship. Sounds quite nice, no?


Try envisioning a world where you've managed to change all of human nature so completely that we don't resemble the actual human race?

No.
 
2012-10-03 10:49:12 AM  

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Yeah, because Greece was a model of sound fiscal policy and transparent government before those greedy bankers kicked their bond rates up a couple of percent. Austerity may not be the best way to get out of their mess, but it sure as hell didn't cause it. Greece has not only squandered every opportunity to show that it can be serious about getting its house in order, it used the proceeds to dig itself in even deeper. Greece is the Lindsay Lohan of Europe.


If the people of Greece were serious about getting their house in order they wouldn't have elected the current government. They should have defaulted and went hard left. It would have been tough going at first, sure but people are scared so they voted for the pro-cuts pro-bailouts people. People are still scared, things are still uncertain. Now we are seeing a rise in the Golden Dawn party. Fascism is on the rise in Greece and it's only going to get worse.
 
2012-10-03 10:49:42 AM  

snocone: Does anybody really think that this economic system is sustainable?

Seriously, you fail to see the problem with allowing( yes, allowing) the few rich to concentrate society's wealth?
Not theirs. Wealth exists only because of society and their collective production.
Stopping the flow of cash by HOARDING is not a viable strategy. Yes, living in a castle while workers live in squalor is hoarding.

In this life, the lesson is Use what you need, Take no more, Return the rest to your fellows.


You do realize the rich are not hoarding money, don't you? To hoard it, it'd have to be taken out of circulation entirely. What they're doing is investing it or using it to buy products. Those investments and products may or may not be in the US, but it's not hidden in a mattress. They're using it to get even richer.
 
2012-10-03 10:50:50 AM  

ronaprhys: Try envisioning a world where you've managed to change all of human nature so completely that we don't resemble the actual human race?

No.


I you believe human nature is equivalent to greed. That's nice, but i call that a learned behavior. I say cooperation is more human nature than anything.
 
2012-10-03 10:51:01 AM  

ronaprhys: snocone: Does anybody really think that this economic system is sustainable?

Seriously, you fail to see the problem with allowing( yes, allowing) the few rich to concentrate society's wealth?
Not theirs. Wealth exists only because of society and their collective production.
Stopping the flow of cash by HOARDING is not a viable strategy. Yes, living in a castle while workers live in squalor is hoarding.

In this life, the lesson is Use what you need, Take no more, Return the rest to your fellows.

You do realize the rich are not hoarding money, don't you? To hoard it, it'd have to be taken out of circulation entirely. What they're doing is investing it or using it to buy products. Those investments and products may or may not be in the US, but it's not hidden in a mattress. They're using it to get even richer.


Fool.
That money is in an offshore mattress.
Grow up.
 
2012-10-03 10:52:03 AM  

Marine1: FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: So how much of other peoples money do you want to take so you can keep paying nothing?

All of it. No man should have so much.

Eventually you will run out of other peoples money then what? You may have to actually work when there is no one left for you to steal from.

Eventually we won't need money. Try envisioning a world in the distant future where capitalism doesn't exist. No more constant boom and bust cycles, no more exploitation, no more partisanship. Sounds quite nice, no?

So, where do you get this idea?


HAI GUISE!!
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-03 10:52:45 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-03 10:54:22 AM  
The only money the Rich leave in this country is money they haven't stole yet.

Raid the corporation, you get nothing untill you carve it up, bury it in debt, steal the pension/retirement and fire the workers.
Just ask Romney.
 
2012-10-03 10:55:30 AM  

FarkedOver: ronaprhys: Try envisioning a world where you've managed to change all of human nature so completely that we don't resemble the actual human race?

No.

I you believe human nature is equivalent to greed. That's nice, but i call that a learned behavior. I say cooperation is more human nature than anything.


Then you've failed all of your history classes. Human nature is about getting everything you possibly can for your specific group. That can be a family, a small village, town, country, group, whatever. It is conflict based - winners and losers. Just like nature.
 
2012-10-03 10:56:33 AM  

FarkedOver: Marine1: FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: So how much of other peoples money do you want to take so you can keep paying nothing?

All of it. No man should have so much.

Eventually you will run out of other peoples money then what? You may have to actually work when there is no one left for you to steal from.

Eventually we won't need money. Try envisioning a world in the distant future where capitalism doesn't exist. No more constant boom and bust cycles, no more exploitation, no more partisanship. Sounds quite nice, no?

So, where do you get this idea?

HAI GUISE!!
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 448x314]


Were you being sarcastic in the original post or were you actually proposing we resort to a proven failure of a political-economic system?
 
2012-10-03 10:59:14 AM  

ronaprhys: FarkedOver: ronaprhys: Try envisioning a world where you've managed to change all of human nature so completely that we don't resemble the actual human race?

No.

I you believe human nature is equivalent to greed. That's nice, but i call that a learned behavior. I say cooperation is more human nature than anything.

Then you've failed all of your history classes. Human nature is about getting everything you possibly can for your specific group. That can be a family, a small village, town, country, group, whatever. It is conflict based - winners and losers. Just like nature.


This is the human version of survival.
It is smarter to work together, but that conflicts w/ struggling to survive.
Peeps seem to work it out when they all are on the same agenda. As soon as life gets easy, peeps start on each other.
 
2012-10-03 11:00:09 AM  

Marine1: Were you being sarcastic in the original post or were you actually proposing we resort to a proven failure of a political-economic system?


I am a socialist and propose socialist measures be implemented to better humanity. Then again I don't expect you to understand anything because you are the same person who believes terrorists hate us because of our "freedoms". Most if not all of the ills in this world are because of capitalism.
 
2012-10-03 11:00:14 AM  

Marine1: FarkedOver: Marine1: FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: So how much of other peoples money do you want to take so you can keep paying nothing?

All of it. No man should have so much.

Eventually you will run out of other peoples money then what? You may have to actually work when there is no one left for you to steal from.

Eventually we won't need money. Try envisioning a world in the distant future where capitalism doesn't exist. No more constant boom and bust cycles, no more exploitation, no more partisanship. Sounds quite nice, no?

So, where do you get this idea?

HAI GUISE!!
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 448x314]

Were you being sarcastic in the original post or were you actually proposing we resort to a proven failure of a political-economic system?


Umm, they have all been provn failures.
What ya got new?
 
2012-10-03 11:01:07 AM  

ronaprhys: Then you've failed all of your history classes. Human nature is about getting everything you possibly can for your specific group. That can be a family, a small village, town, country, group, whatever. It is conflict based - winners and losers. Just like nature.


So you believe in conflict theory. Glad you read up on your Marx :)
 
2012-10-03 11:02:26 AM  

snocone: This is the human version of survival.
It is smarter to work together, but that conflicts w/ struggling to survive.
Peeps seem to work it out when they all are on the same agenda. As soon as life gets easy, peeps start on each other.


To be on the same agenda, you need to be on the same team. When in a survival situation they'll all work together until, as you noted, they're out of the survival situation and can afford to be rid of whoever is the least liked. Even then, in a survival situation, they'll abandon dead weight in a heartbeat.

It's all about competition for resources. That can be food, shelter, baubles, comfort items, and whatever else it takes to increase your mating opportunities and survival chances. Biological imperative and all that nonsense.
 
2012-10-03 11:02:58 AM  

FarkedOver: Marine1: Were you being sarcastic in the original post or were you actually proposing we resort to a proven failure of a political-economic system?

I am a socialist and propose socialist measures be implemented to better humanity. Then again I don't expect you to understand anything because you are the same person who believes terrorists hate us because of our "freedoms". Most if not all of the ills in this world are because of capitalism.


Wrong word.
Capitalism is a myth.
A rationale that permits an elete few to rape the many from behind a curtain of moral posturing.
 
2012-10-03 11:05:50 AM  

ronaprhys: snocone: This is the human version of survival.
It is smarter to work together, but that conflicts w/ struggling to survive.
Peeps seem to work it out when they all are on the same agenda. As soon as life gets easy, peeps start on each other.

To be on the same agenda, you need to be on the same team. When in a survival situation they'll all work together until, as you noted, they're out of the survival situation and can afford to be rid of whoever is the least liked. Even then, in a survival situation, they'll abandon dead weight in a heartbeat.

It's all about competition for resources. That can be food, shelter, baubles, comfort items, and whatever else it takes to increase your mating opportunities and survival chances. Biological imperative and all that nonsense.


And humans are so skilled at spotting the smallest distinction for a good game of Us vs They.
Hell, humans even make up distinctions and take them seriously to heart.
Just can't let them sit around finding trouble.
 
2012-10-03 11:06:11 AM  
The thing about capitalism is that it constantly has to re-invent itself or it gets unsustainable. Capitalism has taken many forms over the years: Feudalism, Slavery, Mercantilism, etc. What we have now is no different and it will change. How? I don't know, but I work toward socialism.
 
2012-10-03 11:06:59 AM  

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Poor Greeks are getting bent over and screwed hard

Holocaust Agnostic: Austerity works!

FarkedOver: Mommy, what are the rich doing to the working class of Greece!?

Yeah, because Greece was a model of sound fiscal policy and transparent government before those greedy bankers kicked their bond rates up a couple of percent. Austerity may not be the best way to get out of their mess, but it sure as hell didn't cause it. Greece has not only squandered every opportunity to show that it can be serious about getting its house in order, it used the proceeds to dig itself in even deeper. Greece is the Lindsay Lohan of Europe.


Please don't make me explain the 'Greek' pun in my posting.
 
2012-10-03 11:07:08 AM  

FarkedOver: ronaprhys: Then you've failed all of your history classes. Human nature is about getting everything you possibly can for your specific group. That can be a family, a small village, town, country, group, whatever. It is conflict based - winners and losers. Just like nature.

So you believe in conflict theory. Glad you read up on your Marx :)


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.
 
2012-10-03 11:08:53 AM  

FarkedOver: Marine1: Were you being sarcastic in the original post or were you actually proposing we resort to a proven failure of a political-economic system?

I am a socialist and propose socialist measures be implemented to better humanity. Then again I don't expect you to understand anything because you are the same person who believes terrorists hate us because of our "freedoms". Most if not all of the ills in this world are because of capitalism.


This is what happens when you huff paint.
 
2012-10-03 11:10:27 AM  

FarkedOver: Marine1: Were you being sarcastic in the original post or were you actually proposing we resort to a proven failure of a political-economic system?

I am a socialist and propose socialist measures be implemented to better humanity. Then again I don't expect you to understand anything because you are the same person who believes terrorists hate us because of our "freedoms". Most if not all of the ills in this world are because of capitalism.


If you mean "hold humanity back" by "better humanity", then sure.

Hard-core capitalism isn't a solution, but socialism, at least the kind you propose, isn't a solution either. It's horrifically inefficient and only becomes moreso as a population grows. If you have the state (controlled by the whole populace) controlling all means of production, then everyone gets a say in how that works. That's wonderful, until you start setting up bureaucracy to make decisions as to how things will be done. Pretty soon, you're mired down in a society with almost no real advancement and no real "wealth" to spread around. Things become stagnant and instead of spreading joy, you spread misery. You also have to make the human being into a cog in the larger system, since they are the most valuable means of production. If someone has a change in heart with what he or she wants to do with life (as human beings often do), well, you have to correct them in order to keep the maximum efficiency of your economy up. It doesn't allow for humans to be free, and instead of economic pressure keeping you in one place (a force that can be escaped with a quick head and skillful hands), you have a wall and Kalashnikovs keeping you at your place on the assembly line.

Heavy socialism just doesn't work. If you want to see the effects, compare western Germany to eastern Germany. The people in the western half of the country that were around in 89-90 will never live to see the money they poured into modernizing east Germany pay off. When North Korea collapses, it will be as if you brought a bunch of people from the 1940s into the 21st century with a time machine. Moderation is key in economics, and that's something no one is willing to admit.
 
2012-10-03 11:10:56 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-03 11:12:03 AM  

ronaprhys: FarkedOver: ronaprhys: Then you've failed all of your history classes. Human nature is about getting everything you possibly can for your specific group. That can be a family, a small village, town, country, group, whatever. It is conflict based - winners and losers. Just like nature.

So you believe in conflict theory. Glad you read up on your Marx :)

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.


This man is wise.

/and will also be shouted down
 
2012-10-03 11:13:00 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-03 11:15:19 AM  
The only Socialism that most of you understand is Soviet styled "socialism" or what we call Stalinism. Does it work? No. Why? Stalin threw out all of the teachings of Marx/Lenin and said "Fark it. We only need socialism in one country!" Socialism is intended to be a worldwide movement amongst workers.

Imagine this.... I know it seems a bit crazy..... but hear me out.... Imagine a world were run by the people that make up the majority of the population..... instead of an elite class hell bent on its on perpetual power.... ahhh who am I kidding, the wealthy know what's best for me. I submit to the bossman, I'll do whatever is asked of me.
 
2012-10-03 11:16:19 AM  

Marine1: Ever tried to take food away from a dog that hasn't been trained?

Better yet, make that a wolf.



Ok so we have now established hunger as a need. That's nice. Why do so many people go hungry?
 
2012-10-03 11:17:35 AM  

TappingTheVein: Beware of Greeks Bearing Bonds. A bit long but explains the reality of the situation in Greece. Greece's economy will change when the mentality of the Greeks changes. Anything else is a waste of time.


Linked TFA:As he finishes his story the finance minister stresses that this isn't a simple matter of the government lying about its expenditures. "This wasn't all due to misreporting," he says. "In 2009, tax collection disintegrated, because it was an election year."

"What?"

He smiles.

"The first thing a government does in an election year is to pull the tax collectors off the streets."

"You're kidding."

Now he's laughing at me. I'm clearly naïve.


The Euro is screwed.
 
2012-10-03 11:18:02 AM  

FarkedOver: The thing about capitalism is that it constantly has to re-invent itself or it gets unsustainable. Capitalism has taken many forms over the years: Feudalism, Slavery, Mercantilism, etc. What we have now is no different and it will change. How? I don't know, but I work toward socialism.


UUmm, gee, that sounds just like, oh, yea, it is a Ponzi!

suckers
 
2012-10-03 11:19:50 AM  

FarkedOver: The only Socialism that most of you understand is Soviet styled "socialism" or what we call Stalinism. Does it work? No. Why? Stalin threw out all of the teachings of Marx/Lenin and said "Fark it. We only need socialism in one country!" Socialism is intended to be a worldwide movement amongst workers.

Imagine this.... I know it seems a bit crazy..... but hear me out.... Imagine a world were run by the people that make up the majority of the population..... instead of an elite class hell bent on its on perpetual power.... ahhh who am I kidding, the wealthy know what's best for me. I submit to the bossman, I'll do whatever is asked of me.


Sunshine, Lollypops and Rainbows
 
2012-10-03 11:20:11 AM  

FarkedOver: The only Socialism that most of you understand is Soviet styled "socialism" or what we call Stalinism. Does it work? No. Why? Stalin threw out all of the teachings of Marx/Lenin and said "Fark it. We only need socialism in one country!" Socialism is intended to be a worldwide movement amongst workers.

Imagine this.... I know it seems a bit crazy..... but hear me out.... Imagine a world were run by the people that make up the majority of the population..... instead of an elite class hell bent on its on perpetual power.... ahhh who am I kidding, the wealthy know what's best for me. I submit to the bossman, I'll do whatever is asked of me.


Quit paraphrasing Lennon and maybe you'll get somewhere.

FarkedOver: 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.


Learn to not put words in my mouth. I said it's the least-worst system. A benevolent dictatorship, consitutional monarchy, and other systems could be better for a short period of time but tend to lead to Very Bad Things. I don't and have never proposed unbridled capitalism. See my below responses and actually think about them, conceptually. I make no argument that capitalism doesn't lead to excesses - however, it's also led to the greatest improvements in the standard of living, available conveniences, overall health, etc. Yes, it does need appropriate reigns, but that doesn't negate its beneficial impact.
 
2012-10-03 11:22:17 AM  

FarkedOver: Marine1: Ever tried to take food away from a dog that hasn't been trained?

Better yet, make that a wolf.


Ok so we have now established hunger as a need. That's nice. Why do so many people go hungry?


Once you get away from needs, those will be replaced with wants. Simply put, it's the nature of all complex life to want more. Whether or not we need a specific thing is irrelevant. If some group that is not us wants what we have and won't give us what we want for it, they ain't getting it unless they're willing and able to take it from us by force. Plain and simple. Your worldview completely ignores this.
 
2012-10-03 11:22:48 AM  

Marine1: Holocaust Agnostic: Austerity works!

Well, you can either pay more money in taxes or cut services. They don't want to do the first, so they have to do the second.


Both of those things are terrible terrible ideas in a recession.
 
2012-10-03 11:24:17 AM  

ronaprhys: Learn to not put words in my mouth. I said it's the least-worst system. A benevolent dictatorship, consitutional monarchy, and other systems could be better for a short period of time but tend to lead to Very Bad Things. I don't and have never proposed unbridled capitalism. See my below responses and actually think about them, conceptually. I make no argument that capitalism doesn't lead to excesses - however, it's also led to the greatest improvements in the standard of living, available conveniences, overall health, etc. Yes, it does need appropriate reigns, but that doesn't negate its beneficial impact.


I'm not attempting to put words in your mouth, maybe just trying to get a better understanding of your position, sorry if it seemed that way. But what you espouse doesn't sound that far off from what was written in Das Kapital. Marx is in agreement about capitalism with you. He says its a great way to industrialize and created a standard of living. Marx explicitly notes that there is a need for capitalism. It has it's place. What do we do after capitalism? That's the question. We cannot assume it will always be here, it would be foolish to think that humans will rest on their laurels and say "GOOD ENOUGH!". I don't think you and I are in as much of a disagreement as we might think lol (if that makes sense)
 
2012-10-03 11:24:47 AM  

FarkedOver: The only Socialism that most of you understand is Soviet styled "socialism" or what we call Stalinism. Does it work? No. Why? Stalin threw out all of the teachings of Marx/Lenin and said "Fark it. We only need socialism in one country!" Socialism is intended to be a worldwide movement amongst workers.

Imagine this.... I know it seems a bit crazy..... but hear me out.... Imagine a world were run by the people that make up the majority of the population..... instead of an elite class hell bent on its on perpetual power.... ahhh who am I kidding, the wealthy know what's best for me. I submit to the bossman, I'll do whatever is asked of me.


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.
 
2012-10-03 11:25:25 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Poor Greeks are getting bent over and screwed hard

Holocaust Agnostic: Austerity works!

FarkedOver: Mommy, what are the rich doing to the working class of Greece!?

Yeah, because Greece was a model of sound fiscal policy and transparent government before those greedy bankers kicked their bond rates up a couple of percent. Austerity may not be the best way to get out of their mess, but it sure as hell didn't cause it. Greece has not only squandered every opportunity to show that it can be serious about getting its house in order, it used the proceeds to dig itself in even deeper. Greece is the Lindsay Lohan of Europe.

Please don't make me explain the 'Greek' pun in my posting.


I figured it was both a pun and a lament. I have zero sympathy for Greece and not much more for its apologists. To answer Beatings rhetorical question, Turkey's reaction would be "no take-backs, suckers!" Greece has been a mess ever since independence. Everyone there with half a brain, an ounce of initiative and isn't on the take is looking for a way out or has already found one. They need another Santorini eruption to wipe the place clean and start from scratch.
 
2012-10-03 11:25:39 AM  

LordOfThePings:  

Gates & Buffet give the Greek economy two slurpees down.


Those look like DQ Blizzards to me....
 
2012-10-03 11:26:19 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Marine1: Holocaust Agnostic: Austerity works!

Well, you can either pay more money in taxes or cut services. They don't want to do the first, so they have to do the second.

Both of those things are terrible terrible ideas in a recession.


So we print more money? Maybe just write a bunch of I-Owe-Yous? The money to support these services has to come from somewhere. It doesn't just magically appear.
 
2012-10-03 11:26:23 AM  
Hunger.

Back in the day,,,
Wolves starving were nosing around humans for food. Wolves are poor competitors to humans in a territory. The trait of eating in the presence of humans supported survival, evolved and was encouraged thru selection to favor the trait of association w/ humans. Some time passed and dog was evolved due to a survival behavior.

We do this right, we could domesticate Great Whites. We have already trained them to the association food/human.
Bears would be easy. WAG, 100-200 generations?
 
2012-10-03 11:29:44 AM  

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. :)
 
2012-10-03 11:35:47 AM  

Marine1: Holocaust Agnostic: Marine1: Holocaust Agnostic: Austerity works!

Well, you can either pay more money in taxes or cut services. They don't want to do the first, so they have to do the second.

Both of those things are terrible terrible ideas in a recession.

So we print more money? Maybe just write a bunch of I-Owe-Yous? The money to support these services has to come from somewhere. It doesn't just magically appear.


Print money, yeah. It is the least bad option. Maybe actually even a kinda good option, if handled wisely.

But no, for some reason they share a currency with a bunch of other countries that have totally different cultures, economic interests, levels of development, and governments. Yet another terrible idea.
 
2012-10-03 11:37:35 AM  

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 markets through mediums produced by the open market. You do it through your computer and internet (remember, before private industry came along, the internet was a government research curiosity, and the big evil corporations IBM and Apple produced the first personal computers that became what you're on now), and Engels used the profits his father made from "exploiting the workers" with his cotton company to print the first socialist manifestos with Marx. You all can literally stare the success in the face and disregard its positive impact on the world.
 
2012-10-03 11:39:09 AM  

FarkedOver: I you believe human nature is equivalent to greed. That's nice, but i call that a learned behavior.


Just because you call a horse's tail a leg, doesn't make it one.

/it does, however, make you a horse's arse
 
2012-10-03 11:40:19 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Marine1: Holocaust Agnostic: Marine1: Holocaust Agnostic: Austerity works!

Well, you can either pay more money in taxes or cut services. They don't want to do the first, so they have to do the second.

Both of those things are terrible terrible ideas in a recession.

So we print more money? Maybe just write a bunch of I-Owe-Yous? The money to support these services has to come from somewhere. It doesn't just magically appear.

Print money, yeah. It is the least bad option. Maybe actually even a kinda good option, if handled wisely.

But no, for some reason they share a currency with a bunch of other countries that have totally different cultures, economic interests, levels of development, and governments. Yet another terrible idea.


Agreed, the Euro was a terrible idea.

However, when I say "raise taxes"... well, maybe that was a bad phrasing... I mean, "raise tax revenue". The Greeks went for years with all of these entitlements and programs and the like, and while it's fine that they do that, they didn't pay their taxes to fund all of it. Now, their economy is in the shiatter, so no one can pay the current taxes without encountering hardship. Every once in a while, the bullet has to be bitten, and this is one of those scenarios. They're going to have to pay their debts off before they can get their services back. It's just how economics works.
 
2012-10-03 11:42:23 AM  

FarkedOver: I'm not attempting to put words in your mouth, maybe just trying to get a better understanding of your position, sorry if it seemed that way. But what you espouse doesn't sound that far off from what was written in Das Kapital. Marx is in agreement about capitalism with you. He says its a great way to industrialize and created a standard of living. Marx explicitly notes that there is a need for capitalism. It has it's place. What do we do after capitalism? That's the question. We cannot assume it will always be here, it would be foolish to think that humans will rest on their laurels and say "GOOD ENOUGH!". I don't think you and I are in as much of a disagreement as we might think lol (if that makes sense)


Why is there an after capitalism? Capitalism is an inherently adaptable system. In fact, by it's very nature, it forces adaptation as new products, services, technologies, and combinations of all of those come into the market. What you're assuming is a fundamental shift in human nature due to some nebulous desire, that doesn't exist naturally in humans, to share equally. As a species, no such desire exists. As a species, relationships (outside of the biological imperative) need to be reciprocal to some extent. The faster, smarter, and stronger will naturally work to concentrate that wealth of whatever it is within themselves and their progeny. Simply put, it doesn't matter who that person is - that pattern will manifest itself in very short order. History shows this to be true time and time again.
 
2012-10-03 11:47:01 AM  

ronaprhys: Why is there an after capitalism?


Discussing a world "after capitalism" is like discussing biology "after evolution." It doesn't end and can't be ended, no matter how dearly the pseudo-intellectual charlatans would like to pretend it can and has.
 
2012-10-03 11:49:00 AM  

Tatterdemalian: ronaprhys: Why is there an after capitalism?

Discussing a world "after capitalism" is like discussing biology "after evolution." It doesn't end and can't be ended, no matter how dearly the pseudo-intellectual charlatans would like to pretend it can and has.


Do it brother Tatterdemalian.
 
2012-10-03 11:50:05 AM  

FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: What is their fair share? How much of other peoples money do you want to take? Why do you want to punnish success?

You're assuming it's their money in the first place. When it comes to the wealthy, do you honestly believe they deserve money merely for taking the risk of putting their money up to start a business? If that's the case, go bankroll a compulsive gambler, after all he's risking his money in order to make it big. I throw my lot in with labor, you know the people who actually create products and wealth. Tax the rich free the workers.


DERP!!! You should try that economic model, comrade. See how it works out for you.
 
2012-10-03 11:50:35 AM  

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?
 
2012-10-03 11:50:46 AM  

Marine1: Holocaust Agnostic: Marine1: Holocaust Agnostic: Marine1: Holocaust Agnostic: Austerity works!

Well, you can either pay more money in taxes or cut services. They don't want to do the first, so they have to do the second.

Both of those things are terrible terrible ideas in a recession.

So we print more money? Maybe just write a bunch of I-Owe-Yous? The money to support these services has to come from somewhere. It doesn't just magically appear.

Print money, yeah. It is the least bad option. Maybe actually even a kinda good option, if handled wisely.

But no, for some reason they share a currency with a bunch of other countries that have totally different cultures, economic interests, levels of development, and governments. Yet another terrible idea.

Agreed, the Euro was a terrible idea.

However, when I say "raise taxes"... well, maybe that was a bad phrasing... I mean, "raise tax revenue". The Greeks went for years with all of these entitlements and programs and the like, and while it's fine that they do that, they didn't pay their taxes to fund all of it. Now, their economy is in the shiatter, so no one can pay the current taxes without encountering hardship. Every once in a while, the bullet has to be bitten, and this is one of those scenarios. They're going to have to pay their debts off before they can get their services back. It's just how economics works.


I think we all agree it sucks for the Greeks, but that's part of life. If I personally incur all sorts of debt that I can't pay for, I'm the one on the hook for that debt. I can default on it and suffer the consequences (financial hardship, future inability to get more credit until I've proven I'm once again worthy), tighten my belt to pay it all off (financial hardship), work with my lenders - where I'm at their mercy and goodwill - to pay back said debt over a longer period of time, or some combination of all three. In fact, it'll likely be the last two or all three, by law. The Greeks are in no different situation.

But economically, it does boil down to spend less and get more revenues. That can come from raising taxes themselves or getting businesses to be more successful so more revenue is taxed. The spending less portion could be postponed if the tax revenue could be increased. However, I think at this point Greece's economy is so bad it's going to have to be both.
 
2012-10-03 11:51:52 AM  

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 markets through mediums produced by the open market. You do it through your computer and internet (remember, before private industry came along, the internet was a government research curiosity, and the big evil corporations IBM and Apple produced the first personal computers that became what you're on now), and Engels used the profits his father made from "exploiting the workers" with his cotton company to print the first socialist manifestos with Marx. You all can literally stare the success in the face and disregard its positive impact on the world.


O like it when people spread their dislike for communism outside of Nazi prison camps. Remember, before the crash industrialization programs the Soviet government enforced, the Russian empire was a nation of potato farming peasants. The fash would have overrun them in short order, dooming the world. You can stare success in the face and disregard its positive impact on the world.
 
2012-10-03 11:53:39 AM  

Joe Blowme: FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: What is their fair share? How much of other peoples money do you want to take? Why do you want to punnish success?

You're assuming it's their money in the first place. When it comes to the wealthy, do you honestly believe they deserve money merely for taking the risk of putting their money up to start a business? If that's the case, go bankroll a compulsive gambler, after all he's risking his money in order to make it big. I throw my lot in with labor, you know the people who actually create products and wealth. Tax the rich free the workers.


So how much of other peoples money do you want to take so you can keep paying nothing?


Yeah, if the 35% effective tax I pay is nothing, can I have it back please? The 15% or less that the wealthy pay is the joke. If you look at the debt graph, the Bush tax cuts are by far the largest contributor to it, several times even that of the combined costs of the bailouts and wars.
 
2012-10-03 12:00:38 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: 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 ...


They were a feudal empire that was then brought up to standards by a communist government. That standard that they sought was the standard set by capitalist societies, like the US and UK. In some ways, yeah, they were better than the Romanovs. On the other hand, they still instituted economic slavery over the people of Russia and the other SFSRs.

And let's be honest here: the Nazis weren't stopped by a round of 5-year plans. They were stopped by a brutal winter, their own drug-addled psychopath of a leader, the opening of a second front in the European theater, the hard work of Soviet soldiers, and Stalin's ability to throw as much cannon fodder at the Germans as he wanted. There's a reason more of them died in WWII than anyone else.
 
2012-10-03 12:01:48 PM  

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?
 
2012-10-03 12:05:08 PM  

Marine1: They were a feudal empire that was then brought up to standards by a communist government. That standard that they sought was the standard set by capitalist societies, like the US and UK. In some ways, yeah, they were better than the Romanovs. On the other hand, they still instituted economic slavery over the people of Russia and the other SFSRs.

And let's be honest here: the Nazis weren't stopped by a round of 5-year plans. They were stopped by a brutal winter, their own drug-addled psychopath of a leader, the opening of a second front in the European theater, the hard work of Soviet soldiers, and Stalin's ability to throw as much cannon fodder at the Germans as he wanted. There's a reason more of them died in WWII than anyone else.


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.
 
2012-10-03 12:08:59 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?


He'd be stupid to do so in current economic conditions, I suppose.

Here's what needs to happen:

We need more revenue generation.

We need to spend more on things that are good investments... not experimental programs, not a free ride for everyone, but proven shiat like highways, telecommunications infrastructure, science, and education.

We need to get the Europeans to stop freeloading off of our defense capabilities. Part (but not all) of the reason why the US spends so much is to cover what our NATO allies won't do. They can either pay us to take up their part or they can get used to the idea that their ass cheeks are bare in the winter wind if Russia or the Middle East become any more unstable. Tell them that they are obliged to maintain a certain state of readiness under a treaty that they willingly signed to. This takes a lot of pressure of the US in Afghanistan.

That takes care of quite a few problems.
 
2012-10-03 12:15:05 PM  

Marine1: Holocaust Agnostic: 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 ...

They were a feudal empire that was then brought up to standards by a communist government. That standard that they sought was the standard set by capitalist societies, like the US and UK. In some ways, yeah, they were better than the Romanovs. On the other hand, they still instituted economic slavery over the people of Russia and the other SFSRs.

And let's be honest here: the Nazis weren't stopped by a round of 5-year plans. They were stopped by a brutal winter, their own drug-addled psychopath of a leader, the opening of a second front in the European theater, the hard work of Soviet soldiers, and Stalin's ability to throw as much cannon fodder at the Germans as he wanted. There's a reason more of them died in WWII than anyone else.


Having troopers to spare is hardly helpful if you have no tanks rolling out of the factories. But yes, I agree the situation is substantially more complex then my post implied. That was sort of the point.
 
2012-10-03 12:17:27 PM  

ronaprhys: Marine1: They were a feudal empire that was then brought up to standards by a communist government. That standard that they sought was the standard set by capitalist societies, like the US and UK. In some ways, yeah, they were better than the Romanovs. On the other hand, they still instituted economic slavery over the people of Russia and the other SFSRs.

And let's be honest here: the Nazis weren't stopped by a round of 5-year plans. They were stopped by a brutal winter, their own drug-addled psychopath of a leader, the opening of a second front in the European theater, the hard work of Soviet soldiers, and Stalin's ability to throw as much cannon fodder at the Germans as he wanted. There's a reason more of them died in WWII than anyone else.

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.


Well, see, that's the thing: it was "true" socialism. Marx and Lenin (who was an asshole by most measures) set up a system where everyone gets "their fair share", and another asshole (Stalin) comes in and exploits it, setting up 60 years of misery. It says that human nature can be overcome and falls victim to it.

That's why socialism of the highest order doesn't work: it promises that no one will exploit the system, and then assholes come in and exploit it in a manner that is very, very hard to reverse. Hell, we even see that in Greece. Politicians promised the world to the populace, then cooked the books to stay in the Eurozone and keep their economy from tanking when they couldn't deliver on the level of income that they were earning. They're not assholes on the level of Stalin (very few people are), but they still told a bunch of lies to keep their jobs and keep the plebes happy with bread and circuses.
 
2012-10-03 12:28:10 PM  

FarkedOver: ronaprhys: Try envisioning a world where you've managed to change all of human nature so completely that we don't resemble the actual human race?

No.

I you believe human nature is equivalent to greed. That's nice, but i call that a learned behavior. I say cooperation is more human nature than anything.


Afraid it is human nature - just nature, really. Greed is a hoarding of resources, in our case money, in an effort to better your own position and be more likely to survive to breed. Squirrels do it, dogs do it, pretty much any animal with half a brain does it.

Cooperation is also human nature, humans are social animals, and are more efficient and safer (more likely to survive) in groups. That's why cities exist. But these 2 do not need to be mutually exclusive, though they can be. The human brain is a constant battle between any number of polar opposites, that's why there are so many different types of personality. Much is learned, but that learned behavior is built on top of existing hereditary structures.
 
2012-10-03 12:35:05 PM  

Joe Blowme: So what is your idea of "Fair Share" mr. jealous? 70% of the bill is not enought for you? What about your fair share?


define "fair share". i think "fair share" should be based on size of the income gap between yourself and the national average (for federal taxes). making people that's on federal/state assistance to pay more isn't "fair" at all, it's trying to get blood from stone.
 
2012-10-03 12:45:04 PM  

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


he kind of did, a couple of months ago. he suggested it expire for those making more than $250K/year. republicans spun it as a tax hike on the middle class.

either way, america isn't going to end up like greece anytime soon. in greece, rich AND poor are flat out not paying taxes. there was a nytimes article ealier this year about how a gas station owner in greece chased off a tax collector with a bulwhip and how citizens literally hide when they see a tax collector coming. greece's problems are waaaaay out there.
 
2012-10-03 12:46:03 PM  

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.
 
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 141 of 141 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report