Epistles from the Apostles
But, but, but ... the Nazis were National SOCIALISTS, you stupid lefty!!!!1!!1!
It's always worth the wait for one of your posts, THR. Keep up the good work.
Thanks Ant - your comments are much appreciated.
Sadly, I've been distracted from blogging by paid employment.
As much as I enjoy reading your comments on other blogs, THR, I prefer posts like this one here.
Any luck with the weaning off? I have ditched TMS but relented and commented at AWH a day or so ago. I have a lot on at present, too, so reckon it might be time to try the wagon again.
If you do the same I'll be there for you, comrade!
I've had a couple of relapses, but at least I've given up the hard stuff (;;; ).
Heh. Aye, I just did the same after catching up on his antics via the Bourbon Boy's blog. Waste of time.
"We should also remember that, at the time of Hitler, informed leftists were bitterly opposed to fascism, on economic and other grounds."
Wrong:
"The political notion of that origin is more shameful than ‘the moderates’ would care to admit. Mussolini came to power by claiming that there was only once choice confronting Italy. Hitler came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Germany. It is a matter of record that in the German election of 1933, the Communist Party was ordered by its leaders to vote for the Nazis – with the explanation that they could later fight the Nazis for power, but first they had to help destroy their common enemy: capitalism and its parliamentary form of government."
If you read my article, you will realise that the similarities between fascism and socialism are numerous.
http://leonbertrand.blogspot.com...hoe-
theory.html
Thanks, Leon! I'll be sure to check it out.
Leon, surely you know by now that you need to do more than merely provide rubbishy quotes by Ayn Rand.
I confront you with the truth, and then you ignore it to continue your own "shameless dissembling".
Isn't that what most people would call hypocrisy?
The 'truth', eh?
I would ask you to consider double-checking your source on this matter, as the facts do not support your side of the story (or Rand's, for that matter).
Furthermore, I read your horseshoe theory post. Whilst I won't have the time for at least a couple of days, I'm quite happy to outline for you the many ways in which this theory is not even remotely close to anything resembling 'truth'.
It is you (among others) pushing the Hitler/fascism = socialism line, so I think it is incumbent upon you to prove the claim. And no, Rand propaganda doesn't count. And Bolt and AWH are not legitimate sources either.
I have used many other sources in my article, particularly lefties themselves.
You seem ashamed of the fact that the Bolshies supported Hitler.
Um, the Bolshies ceased to exist before Hitler was around.
I'll revisit your article when I get the chance. It isn't good, and I suggest you tidy up your flimsy arguments and suspect references at your earliest convenience.
Heh.
I hear from rightists who comment on my blog all the time, that idiocy that Hitler was leftist.
As a socialist in the Trotskyist tradition, let me remind you of something Marx said about true communists, in the "Communist Manifesto." That is going back to basics as can be:
1) Communists are internationalists.
2) Communists speak for the working class as a whole, not just one part.
Under fascism unions include management as members. That is not "left."
There are sections of the left I don't support as nationalists, anarchists, 9/11 conspiracy types, liberals etc. I only speak for the Trotskyist movement.
Be sure to read Trotsky's essay on fascism.
Leon is about as good at doing fair and balanced research as my dog. His idea of "research" is to cherry-pick quotes that support his position and ignore everything else.
You know, I just realised sth.
You Marxists deny so stridently you have anything to do with Hitler, but at the same time you concede that the Nazis supported a socialist economy.
Hasn't anyone told you that Marx sais the base (or structure) was everything.
Look at the base man! Marx can tell you if you are comrades.
You Marxists deny so stridently you have anything to do with Hitler, but at the same time you concede that the Nazis supported a socialist economy.
Nope. Hitler supported a capitalist market economy, with some state intervention. I can think of a few other economies like that, including our own. The fascist economy was explicitly anti-Marxist in practice (just as Keynesian economics was - NB - this is not a 'concession' that Keynes was fascist).
Hasn't anyone told you that Marx sais the base (or structure) was everything.
That's not precisely how Marx put things. As a commenter above noted, Marx was internationalist, focussed on class struggle, etc. In contrast, fascism was rabidly nationalist, glorified and aestheticised militarism, preached cultural or biological supremacy, etc.
Look at the base man! Marx can tell you if you are comrades.
And if he were around today, he might also add that rightist dissemblers like yourselves engage in revisionism for shameless political ends.
The equation Nazis=leftist based on economic grounds is false, since the Nazi economy was not socialist. To the extent that the Nazi regime did intervene in the economy, they share much in common with every developed country I can think of. In any case, unlike Marxism, fascism was not primarily an economic movement or class struggle. To pretend otherwise is symptomatic of either mental retardation or bad faith.
Such basic ignorance. Here's the reality:
The Nazi Party campaigned on a recognisably leftist platform. Here is an excerpt from the 1920 Nazi party manifesto:
"10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.
Therefore we demand:
11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.
13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.
14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.
15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."
The party manifesto does not call for free market capitalism. Calling for nationalization, confiscation of land are things that Socialists or Communists call for. Of course, you can say that Hitler or any votrepreneur (politician) will say anything to gain power. His rhetoric gained him the support of mostly lower income and middle income Germans. Ultimately, its what he did that counts. Action speaks louder than words. So what did Hitler do when he came to power?
Hitler took over control of nearly all means of production like a good Socialist or Communist would. He did not nationalize all assets of production like what Lenin or Mao did. The nominal ownership was left in private hands. But the substance of ownership passed to the state.
This is explained in an article by George Reisman writing for the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Drawing on the writings of the great economist, Ludwig Von Mises, Reisman explained why Nazism is Socialism and why Socialism leads to totalitarianism.
When Hitler took power in Germany, the "owners" of assets of production (eg factories, farms etc) had every major economic decision decided for him by the state. The state (or some central planning bureaucrat) told you how many workers you must employ, how much to pay them, how much to charge for your products and services and how much dividends the owners get. The government a
Leon,
Forgive me my 'ignorance', but none of those things in the manifesto were ever put into practice.
Hitler gained only the bare minimum of support - and even, it mostly came from small business owners and the agricultural sector. It certainly didn't come, by and large, from the proletariat, and still less did it come from the leftist intelligenstisa (who were stuck in Berlin until they fled, or perished for their criticisms of the Nazis).
The nominal ownership was left in private hands. But the substance of ownership passed to the state.
Again, isn't that the same as the US or Australian economy? Freedom for corporate capital, but within limits? Whatever it is, it sure as hell isn't socialism.
Your final line is not the least bit accurate, I might add.
Finally, I've decided your horseshoe theory is too tedious to be worth dwelling upon. Your sources are idiotic (Ayn Rand and andrew Landeryou), and your points entirely disengenuous. For instance, you claim that the far left and right are both defined by contempt for the church, but you have no explanation for the many others who share this contempt (such as Voltaire, or Nietzsche). You insinuate that Chomsky supports brutal dictatorships, without ever being able to give the reader an 'I love Mao/Franco/Pinochet' quote to support this.
In other words, your evidence is flimsy, and has been picked to support an even weaker theory.
iIt is curious that rightists attack the Nazis on economic grounds, given that this was the only area in which they were somewhat 'successful', and considering that it is for war and genocide, not economic tinkering, that we revile them today.
Are you illiterate, nuts or just a plain liar.
Nazi economics was a disaster. Despite all the bluster the standard of living in Nazi Germany 1939 was little changed from 1933.
The economy was a mess. There would be no right wiong economist who would say otherwise.
Leon, surely you know by now that you need to do more than merely provide rubbishy quotes by Ayn Rand.
Yea, right. You would know the difference after that crap you pulled about the economy.
What an idiot you are.
Leon's right by the way.
Ra, don't you have a certain lefty site to try your bullshit?
Economics is not all about right wing shills...
Bullshit?
You illiterate moron, THR.
Economics is not all about right wing shills...
Let me guess economics is about emotion. LOL
Look dickhead, you made stupid comments that free market supporters think the Nazis were successful. I called you up on your illiterate, dumb comment.
Furthermore you made a comment about me at troppo otherwise I wouldn't have known about your propaganda site.
"Hitler gained only the bare minimum of support"
He got democratically elected. That's a lot more support than the Australian Greens will ever have.
If you don't know the difference between National Socialism and Australia's economy, you really don't know much.
My sources are reliable, and when I have quoted them expressing an opinion, it was been a legitimate one.
You just pour vague, slanderous assertions because you disagree. If I was arguing for a left point I wouldn't need to provide any sources, or even to spell correctly or employ a shred of logic.
Are you illiterate, nuts or just a plain liar.
Nazi economics was a disaster. Despite all the bluster the standard of living in Nazi Germany 1939 was little changed from 1933.
The economy was a mess. There would be no right wiong economist who would say otherwise.
What I love is RA famously declaring you to be illiterate then his having a typo later on.
Consistency isn't a big thing for RA.
You just pour vague, slanderous assertions because you disagree.
Nope - you imply that Chomsky, for instance, supports fascism, but you can't supply a single piece of evidence in support of this.
You claim that Nazism is akin to leftism based on the most tenuous economic connection. When it is pointed out to you that there are similar economic systems around the developed world (for instance, Governments in US and Oz do use taxes to pay private firms for goods and services, setting targets along the way) you divert the topic.
For the other bilious types on this blog, the point was never that Hitler was a free market libertarian, but rather, that he maintained capitalism.
It's very simple, Leon and RA. Here's a multiple choice for you:
Hitler's National Socialists are today universally reviled because:
A. The Nazi Government took over German industry;
B. The Germans invaded other countries and commenced a war that cost millions of lives;
C. The Germans relentlessly persecuted a minority to the point of genocide.
Hint: Few people would pick A.
Question 2:
The right-wing link between Hitler and the modern Left is:
A. The modern left's desire to regulate industry;
B. The modern left's desire to invade other countries and start a war;
C. The modern left's desire to persecute minorities.
Question 3:
Since the only link between the Nazis and the modern left has precisely nothing to do with the reason the Nazis are reviled, the rhetorical device of linking the left to Hitler is
A. Dishonest;
B. Misleading;
C. Cheap;
D. Pathetic.
Question 4:
The modern right believes in
A. Government regulation of business;
B. Invading other countries if they need it;
C. Putting minorities back in their place.
Question 5:
Given the above, and your answer to Questions 1 and 2, were the historical Nazis closer to the modern right or the modern left.
A. Of course they were.
B. I'm a moron, so I will continue to pretend Hitler was a lefty.
Lefty
Of course Hitler was a lefty. I don't know why you find this difficult to understand.
The socialist part of the part name was just a joke you think? He had a cynical sense of humor?
For the other bilious types on this blog, the point was never that Hitler was a free market libertarian, but rather, that he maintained capitalism.
You mean he didn't kill off the capitalists like his dumb bro (stalin)did.
You truly are fucking stupid, THR. Nazi germany did not have a capitalist system the way we know it. In fact they had to send people over to the UK in order to obtain price information as the Nazis were unable to set prices... Youi require a functioning market to allow the price signal to come through.
The Nazi party controlled the enterprises telling them what and how much to produce.
http://
www.historylearningsite.c...man_economy.htm
The socialist part of the part name was just a joke you think? He had a cynical sense of humor?
The Nazis were, above all else, political opportunists. When speaking with workers, Hitler railed against Jewish capital. When courting businessmen, he'd demonise Jewish communists. As has already been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, the Nazis were no more 'socialist' than Kim Il Jong leads a 'democratic' republic.
You mean he didn't kill off the capitalists like his dumb bro (stalin)did.
Actually, lots of small businesses were fucked over by Hitler's policies, but plenty of big ones did especially well, particularly those on the receiving end of armaments deals. There are plenty of analogies between these and the economic policies we see today. Do some research, you snivelling cretin.
I didn't think my point was all that complicated, but RA has missed it entirely.
I shall try again.
RA: IT IS NOT THE NAZIS' ECONOMIC SYSTEM, WHATEVER THAT WAS, THAT IS WHY THE WORLD REVILES THEM. THE THINGS THEY DID THAT THE WORLD REVILES - INVADING OTHER COUNTRIES, STARTING WARS, AND PERSECUTING MINORITIES - ARE ATTRIBUTES COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE RIGHT OF POLITICS, NOT THE LEFT.
Will RA address this point, or will it again sail over his head?
I think RA's analysis of the issue, breaks down like this:
1. Lefties are bad.
2. Nazis were bad.
3. Therefore, the Nazis were lefties.
Since he doesn't seem to mind the broken syllogism, I'm not sure how to help him overcome how stupid his repeated "Hitler was a lefty" claim makes him look.
He's pretty stubborn in his ignorance. I feel sorry for his colleagues.
IT IS NOT THE NAZIS' ECONOMIC SYSTEM, WHATEVER THAT WAS, THAT IS WHY THE WORLD REVILES THEM. THE THINGS THEY DID THAT THE WORLD REVILES - INVADING OTHER COUNTRIES, STARTING WARS, AND PERSECUTING MINORITIES - ARE ATTRIBUTES COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE RIGHT OF POLITICS, NOT THE LEFT.
Why the caps, lefty are you angrified?
The world reviles what they did hey? Just them hey?
Ok lets go through your points and see what the leftist regimes did that was different.
1. Invading other countries.
Ummmm let me see... the estern bloc... Tibet.... to name a few.
2., starting wars?
Isn’t that the same as one. see above.
3. persecuting minorities.
You’re fucking joking aren't you? Ask small landholders and small business owners what happened to them in the Sov and China. Ask religious minorities that didn’t adhere to atheistic communism. Oh that's right you can't because their all fucking dead and not by old age.
THR:
Do some research, you snivelling cretin.
I did, you totalitarian loving jerkoff. Stop excusing the left’s hand in mass sized killing over the past 100 years. And stop pretending that the hard left is all the different to Hitlerism because it isn’t.
I am absolutely amazed that you two jokers are actually defending communism and excusing monsters like Stalin and Mao. It’s amazing
Lefty
explain exactly how a Hayekian right winger can transmogrify into a raving nazi?
I'm counting 1,2 3 4 5 6 and holding my breath...7 8 9
1. Invading other countries...
Who, even on what you call the 'hard left', takes China as their inspiration? Or Stalin?
I am absolutely amazed that you two jokers are actually defending communism and excusing monsters like Stalin and Mao. It’s amazing
No. What's amazing is that you and I nominally share a language, and yet you still manage to attribute this sort imbecility to me.
Nobody said Hitler was 'Hayekian', but for what it's worth, there are plenty of Russian who were better off under Brezhnev or Gorby (note - I don't include Stalin in this list) than under your Friedman-loving pals Yeltsin and Putin, under whom poverty, crime and homelessness have all increased, life expectancy has dropped...
Incidentally, RA, can you name a single government that has been led by 'Hayekian' right-wingers, or anything vaguely similar?
Do you think RA will ever grasp that the left despises China for being an authoritarian, militarist dictatorship?
And that if the best he can do to link lefties with Hitler is to link China with Hitler then he's missed the boat entirely?
I'll try again.
THE MODERN LEFT - WITH WHOM YOU ARE ARGUING - DETEST MILITARISM. THAT MEANS WE DETEST CHINA'S INVASION OF TIBET, WHICH IS WHY THE GREENS WERE THE ONLY PARTY TO PROTEST WHEN THE CHINESE LEADER ADDRESSED THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT RECENTLY.
IN TERMS OF INVADING OTHER COUNTRIES - WHICH OF OUR TWO POLITICAL SIDES (THE AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATIVES VS THE AUSTRALIAN LEFTIES) HAVE RECENTLY SUPPORTED THE INVASION OF ANOTHER COUNTRY?
I'll give you a hint, RA. It wasn't us.
Incidentally, RA, can you name a single government that has been led by 'Hayekian' right-wingers, or anything vaguely similar?
Gee the curely question.... I was afraid of that. LOL.
The reagan administration, Thatcher, Hawke government, first Blair term.
A couple of eatern bloc governments.
Several US state governments.
IN TERMS OF INVADING OTHER COUNTRIES - WHICH OF OUR TWO POLITICAL SIDES (THE AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATIVES VS THE AUSTRALIAN LEFTIES) HAVE RECENTLY SUPPORTED THE INVASION OF ANOTHER COUNTRY?
I'll give you a hint, RA. It wasn't us.
The US Dems supported the invasion, the closely aligned UK's New Labor supported it. Our left didn't due to poltical expediency.
But let me ask you, lefty. If you were so against the invasion did you also therefore support the re-instatement of Saddam and the Ba'ath party now?
THR would as this disgusting ghoul thinks life in the old sov was much better.
Notice he prefers to live here though.
THR here's a deal I'll pay your airfare to go live in NK for a year and you prove you have done so.
. Do you think RA will ever grasp that the left despises China for being an authoritarian, militarist dictatorship?
And that if the best he can do to link lefties with Hitler is to link China with Hitler then he's missed the boat entirely?
No. The Western left was supportive of Hitler until he turned against Stalin: their old master told them to begin criticizing Hitler. So I would trust the left's response to China at present.
The only reason a few on the left don't like China anymore is that it has turned to private property rights. Life was so much more romantic under Mao for those leftists who could observe things for the comfort of the west. LOL. That is scumbags like THR who thinks life in the old sov was better than now. THR of course would only want that life for others.
Lefty:
You seem quite reasonable at times. You agree with THR that life was better under the repressive state of the old Sov.
Oh and by the way. I’m still waiting for answer of whether you think Saddam should have been reinstated.
If you were so against the invasion did you also therefore support the re-instatement of Saddam and the Ba'ath party now?
You clown, if you have a shred of intellectual honesty, you will realise that there were always more than 2 options on the table with respect to Iraq. It was never a case of a choice between Saddam-loving and 'shock and awe'.
I never said a word of praise of NK. How about a counter-offer - why don't you go live in right-wing, market friendly Colombia for a while.
No. The Western left was supportive of Hitler until he turned against Stalin: their old master told them to begin criticizing Hitler. So I would trust the left's response to China at present.
Really? Not Trotsky, Adorno, Benjamin, Orwell (who had plenty of leftist sympathies), not the Brits who marched against Mosley, and not plenty of others.
That is scumbags like THR who thinks life in the old sov was better than now. THR of course would only want that life for others.
Do you want a serious, honest discussion about life in the USSR? Nobody is denying that there was repression, or that Stalin was a brutal tyrant. But if the discourse is to go beyond a mere 'Communism's bad, m'kay', we should acknowledge a few facts:
1. By and large, the Soviet regime was better than its predecessor.
2. The regime was beset by multiple misfortunes exogenous to the regime itself (i.e. crop failure, invasion by multiple parties, etc.)
3. The regime took an impoverished, largely peasant society, and gave it rapid industrialisation, universal education, and some basic welfare state-type safety nets.
4. Many, if not most Russians would have fared better under Brezhnez of Gorby, as I said above. Post-USSR Russia has much more poverty, crime, unemployment, homelessness, etc. Life expectancy, especially for males, has dropped to near-Third World levels.
5. The 'freedom' you so cherish (i.e. economic shock therapy in the name of 'reform') itself required massive repressive measures to implement. Or have you forgotten that Yeltsin ordered troops to fire on his own Parliament?
6. Capitalist Russia is just as repressive as before, but with none of the safety nets of the USSR. Putin and co are autocrats, ex-KGB guys control the wealth, and the government mollycoddles a nascent fascist movement which disciplines the ethnics, gays, and leftist dissenters.
So yes, let's acknowledge that USSR's faults, but lets also acknowledge that it managed some basic achievements, and not think, as you apparently do, RA, that Russia is now some utopian capitalist bastion of freedom.
You despicable commie fucking tool: millions of people were repressed beyond even what we think is possible yet to can suggest that life in that hellhole was better than life in Russia now? Fuck off.
Really? Not Trotsky, Adorno, Benjamin, Orwell (who had plenty of leftist sympathies), not the Brits who marched against Mosley, and not plenty of others.
Trotsky fled because Stalin was out to kill the little bastard. Trotsky was no better than the rest. As I said the western left were all for Hitler until they got their marching order from Moscow. Wheeling out 2 names doesn’t changes things.
Do you want a serious, honest discussion about life in the USSR? Nobody is denying that there was repression, or that Stalin was a brutal tyrant. But if the discourse is to go beyond a mere 'Communism's bad, m'kay', we should acknowledge a few facts:<
LOL
Shorter THR: I’m not denying commies are repressive bastards, but I would prefer if Russians went backwards.
1. By and large, the Soviet regime was better than its predecessor.
2. The regime was beset by multiple misfortunes exogenous to the regime itself (i.e. crop failure, invasion by multiple parties, etc.)
Ah yes, it was the mozzies that caused starvation and long bread lines for 75 years. By 1960 West Germany- a war-ravaged state- had basically reversed and turned itself into the European economic miracle, you fucking stupid prick. Meanwhile your heroes in Russia were telling people that the next 5-year plan would solve all their economic ills. You fucking idiot.
3. The regime took an impoverished, largely peasant society, and gave it rapid industrialisation, universal education, and some basic welfare state-type safety nets.
I was wondering how long it would take before you wheeled out the kids and free med care. LOL. There was no free med care unless you bought on the black market, you raving dickhead. Think about it. They had bread lines and now you’re propagandizing that free med was better. Fuck off.
4. Many, if not most Russians would have fared better under Brezhnez of Gorby, as I said above. Post-USSR Russia has much more poverty, crime, unemployment, homelessness, etc. Life expectancy, especially for males, has dropped to near-Third World levels.
Part of the problem is drinking abuse you fool. Stop that and they’ll live longer lives.
6. Capitalist Russia is just as repressive as before, but with none of the safety nets of the USSR. Putin and co are autocrats, ex-KGB guys control the wealth, and the government mollycoddles a nascent fascist movement which disciplines the ethnics, gays, and leftist dissenters.
Did I say Russia is a paragon of virtue?
So yes, let's acknowledge that USSR's faults, but lets also acknowledge that it managed some basic achievements, and not think, as you apparently do, RA, that Russia is now some utopian capitalist bastion of freedom.
So yes, let's acknowledge that USSR's faults, but lets also acknowledge that it managed some basic achievements, and not think, as you apparently do, RA, that Russia is now some utopian capitalist bastion of freedom.
I don’t. You do, you commie arsewipe. I never suggested anything of the sort.
f you were so against the invasion did you also therefore support the re-instatement of Saddam and the Ba'ath party now?
You clown, if you have a shred of intellectual honesty, you will realise that there were always more than 2 options on the table with respect to Iraq. It was never a case of a choice between Saddam-loving and 'shock and awe'.
Look, you dickhead, if you think the invasion was illegal then you have to by default support the reinstatement of the previous regime. You can twist and turn in your commie coffin as much as you like but that silver dagger of intellectual honesty is firmly implanted in the black dead heart of yours.
You despicable commie fucking tool: millions of people were repressed beyond even what we think is possible yet to can suggest that life in that hellhole was better than life in Russia now?
Yes, millions of people were repressed, and yes, it is still possible to suggest that life then was better than now. WTF do you know about Russia or Russians anyway?
Shorter THR: I’m not denying commies are repressive bastards, but I would prefer if Russians went backwards
Russia's already going backwards, as I explained above, and precisely as a consequence of our beloved Hayekian policies, you mental defective.
Look, you dickhead, if you think the invasion was illegal then you have to by default support the reinstatement of the previous regime. You can twist and turn in your commie coffin as much as you like but that silver dagger of intellectual honesty is firmly implanted in the black dead heart of yours.
You inbred degenerate, RA. I suppose that if you were trying to assist a woman out of a violent relationship, your solution would be to bomb her house. Fucking moron.
The 'illegality' of the invasion is irrelevant. Fact is, you don't liberate an oppressed people by bombing the b'jesus out of them by way of a shock and awe campaign.
I support the people of Iraq liberating themselves, not a faux-liberation orchestrated by the US and its lickspittle lackeys. Where were the likes of you in 1993, when the Shi'ites approached Stormin' Norman for assistance with an uprising, and were rejected? Where were you when the US drafted self-serving oil laws on behalf of the Iraqis? I could go on, but I suspect you lack any shred of good faith to engage with these issues.
Yes, millions of people were repressed, and yes, it is still possible to suggest that life then was better than now. WTF do you know about Russia or Russians anyway?
More than you, Stalin wannabe.
Russia's already going backwards, as I explained above, and precisely as a consequence of our beloved Hayekian policies, you mental defective.
Really. Not by any economic stats it is, you illiterate dope.
You inbred degenerate, RA. I suppose that if you were trying to assist a woman out of a violent relationship, your solution would be to bomb her house. Fucking moron.
What the fuck? I’m not inbred you are: quite possibly generationally so. Was your grandfather your dad and your mother your sister?
I support the people of Iraq liberating themselves, not a faux-liberation orchestrated by the US and its lickspittle lackeys.
Yea, right? Like Hungary? You commie whore.
Not by any economic stats it is, you illiterate dope.
Double check your stats. Some folk in Moscow are doing very well - the rest are desperately poor, for the most part, and without any safety nets.
And what's Hungary got to do with it? I've got no hesitation to condemn the way the Soviets crushed the uprising, and occupied Eastern Europe. Why does the brutal foreign policies of the US get a free pass with you?
Double check your stats. Some folk in Moscow are doing very well - the rest are desperately poor, for the most part, and without any safety nets.
Ok, prove it, you commie rat. Let’s use the world bank stats and see where we’re at. Prove it or shut the fuck up.
And what's Hungary got to do with it? I've got no hesitation to condemn the way the Soviets crushed the uprising, and occupied Eastern Europe.
It wasn’t until; it was shoved down your commie gob.
Why does the brutal foreign policies of the US get a free pass with you?
We/re not talking about the US you degenerate commie dickhead. We’re talking about how fucking great it was living under commies. You know, that’s what you support.
You really multi generational product if incest, aren't you.
The soviet union had fucking bread lines and you're tring to peddle the idea that they had a great medical system. How long has that bee being swirling around your head you ignorant commie moron.
We’re talking about how fucking great it was living under commies. You know, that’s what you support.
I never said it was great, I said that for many, it was better than things are now (excepting the period of Stalinist terror).
You've conveniently ignored the fact that Yeltsin and Putin have had to implement their own repression in order to achieve your glorious neolib wet dream. I guess sending democracy down the toilet doesn't matter as long as investors get to enjoy the 'freedom' of a few tax breaks, sputum for brains.
RA, do you think I'm a lefty?
Do you honestly think, given everything I've said on the subject, that I object to the regime in China because it apparently (you say) recognises private property rights?
That all my (and the Greens', for example) outrage at their brutal suppression of dissidents is just a smokescreen? Seriously? You would seriously argue that to me?
Here, you can begin to educate yourself about Russian economic 'reform', you stockbroker's catamite:
http://www.demokratizatsiya.org/...04%
20bivens.pdf
Whatever the growth statistics, wage arrears remain enormous for teachers,
doctors, soldiers, and other public sector workers, while the state has failed dismally
at tax collection. Delayed salaries force improvisation: the average Russian
now grows a whopping 38 percent of all the food he eats, according to Argumenty
i Fakty.171 While the masses tend their gardens, twelve to fifteen corporations control
more than 50 percent of the economy, according to Uneximbank’s Potanin.172
And while no one can deny the emergence of a middle class, mostly in St. Petersburg
and Moscow, the small business sector remains stunted by confiscatory tax
policies and lack of legal protection. Small business constitutes 7 percent of GDP,
according to the government, while in Western countries it accounts for at least 40 percent.
And here's more:
PRIOR TO THE DISSOLUTION of the Soviet Union in
1991, that country’s economic and social system
worked in a practical sense — meaning most
people had a place to live and food to eat. Although
standards of living were below those in the West, particularly in
housing, daily life was predictable. The Soviet leadership was
legitimately able to say that their form of socialism had succeeded
in virtually eliminating the kind of poverty that existed in
Czarist Russia.
Russian citizens now live in different times. The country’s
transformation to a more open economic system has created,
temporarily at least, a large, new group of people in
poverty.
http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98p...bs/
cenbr985.pdf
And here's some World Bank figures, you ignorant swine:
The great majority of Russian families are teetering on the edge of poverty. The World Bank has calculated that an average decrease in income of 10 percent would produce a 50 percent rise in the poverty rate.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/200.../russ-
m11.shtml
Yea I do lefty. I think you're legit. I think you are genuinely concerned with human rights. I also think you need to freshen up on he economics side as I really do think you would end up as a libertarian. You simply don’t realize it yet.
You would end up with most the outcomes you prefer without the statism if you thought about these issues a little more. However i don't think many members of your party ascribe to your views.
You’re not a hard leftist. I would categorize you as a liberal in the American sense.
Believe it or not most libertairans think liek you do on human rights issues. there's no space between you and most libertarians on thse issues.
THR
the standard of living has risen for nearly all russians since the fall of the wall. they don't have to line up for food, you moronic fool. It's not an ideal system so i don't know whay you're presenting it as though i support it. All I think is that it's better than before, you dolt.
But why are you presenting the Putin regime as some exempler of Hayekian virture you idiot. It's bascially a fascist regime now. Funny that. It's so easy to move from communism to fascism.
Lefty
One other thing.
Do I think you're lefty?
No. I think you're basically a very confused libertarian who's trying very very hard to be a lefty. One of these days you'll stop deluding yourself.
the standard of living has risen for nearly all russians since the fall of the wall. they don't have to line up for food, you moronic fool.
I've just shown you that the above is not the case. I gave you three links, and I can find more.
If you're going to make sweeping statements about nations, and about history, you could at least do us all the courtesy of not using cold war propaganda or Ann Coulter as you're source.
And clearly, the 'reforms' implemented in Russia were not popular, and hundreds of civilians were killed in response to widespread protests. So spare us your libertarian bullshit, as your ideology has plenty of blood on its hands.
And clearly, the 'reforms' implemented in Russia were not popular, and hundreds of civilians were killed in response to widespread protests. So spare us your libertarian bullshit, as your ideology has plenty of blood on its hands.
You can't even understand the fucking links you have offered, you dickhead.
My ideology has blood on its hands? You degenerate commie filth, the regimes you are supporting killed off 200 millions souls and you have the hide to suggest classic liberals./ libertarians have blood on their hands?
You delusional, filthy lying commie bastard.
Here, you lying sack of shit. Stop wasting my my having to copy and paste figures to prove you wrong as there are better things to do.
Russia ended 2007 with its ninth straight year of growth, averaging 7% annually since the financial crisis of 1998. Although high oil prices and a relatively cheap ruble initially drove this growth, since 2003 consumer demand and, more recently, investment have played a significant role. Over the last six years, fixed capital investments have averaged real gains greater than 10% per year and personal incomes have achieved real gains more than 12% per year. During this time, poverty has declined steadily and the middle class has continued to expand. Russia has also improved its international financial position since the 1998 financial crisis. The federal budget has run surpluses since 2001 and ended 2007 with a surplus of about 3% of GDP. Over the past several years, Russia has used its stabilization fund based on oil taxes to prepay all Soviet-era sovereign debt to Paris Club creditors and the IMF. Foreign debt is approximately one-third of GDP. The state component of foreign debt has declined, but commercial debt to foreigners has risen strongly. Oil export earnings have allowed Russia to increase its foreign reserves from $12 billion in 1999 to some $470 billion at yearend 2007, the third largest reserves in the world. During PUTIN's first administration, a number of important reforms were implemented in the areas of tax, banking, labor, and land codes. These achievements have raised business and investor confidence in Russia's economic prospects, with foreign direct investment rising from $14.6 billion in 2005 to approximately $45 billion in 2007. In 2007, Russia's GDP grew 7.6%, led by non-tradable services and goods for the domestic market, as opposed to oil or mineral extraction and exports. Rising inflation returned in the second half of 2007, driven largely by unsterilized capital inflows and by rising food costs, and approached 12% by year-end. In 2006, Russia signed a bilateral market access agreement with the US as a prelude to possible WTO entry, and its companies are involved in global merger and acquisition activity in the oil and gas, metals, and telecom sectors. Despite Russia's recent success, serious problems persist. Oil, natural gas, metals, and timber account for more than 80% of exports and 30% of
Oil, natural gas, metals, and timber account for more than 80% of exports and 30% of government revenues, leaving the country vulnerable to swings in world commodity prices. Russia's manufacturing base is dilapidated and must be replaced or modernized if the country is to achieve broad-based economic growth. The banking system, while increasing consumer lending and growing at a high rate, is still small relative to the banking sectors of Russia's emerging market peers. Political uncertainties associated with this year's power transition, corruption, and lack of trust in institutions continue to dampen domestic and foreign investor sentiment. President PUTIN has granted more influence to forces within his government that desire to reassert state control over the economy. Russia has made little progress in building the rule of law, the bedrock of a modern market economy. The government has promised additional legislative amendments to make its intellectual property protection WTO-consistent, but enforcement remains problematic.
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$2.076 trillion (2007 est.)
GDP (official exchange rate):
$1.286 trillion (2007 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
8.1% (2007 est.)
GDP - per capita (PPP):
$14,600 (2007 est.)
You ctually are tyring to have people believe per cap was $14,600 under the commies?
You really are a delusional commie sack of lying shit aren't you, THR.
Oh and by the way. Hitler was a socialist. He's all yours, dickhead. LOL.
Oh and russia would be a rich country, possibly one of the wealthiest if it gone commie for 75 years and then had Putin in power.
Almost none of what you cite has anything whatsover to do with poverty other than one line, and that line is refuted by the other sources I gave you.
You degenerate commie filth, the regimes you are supporting killed off 200 millions souls and you have the hide to suggest classic liberals./ libertarians have blood on their hands?
You're as stupid as you are dishonest, you ignorant pig-fucker. You're just making numbers up.
As for having blood on your hands -
It's 'classic liberals' this week is it? Well look at Yeltsin's Russia, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia for starters. Perhaps have a closer look at Reagen's foreign policy while you're at.
Almost none of what you cite has anything whatsover to do with poverty other than one line, and that line is refuted by the other sources I gave you.
Poverty. What’s poor is that brainstem of yours that acts as a central nervous system, that’s what’s poor.
You're as stupid as you are dishonest, you ignorant pig-fucker. You're just making numbers up
Lol. No I’m not you delusional commie areswipe. You just don’t like the numbers.
As for having blood on your hands -
It's 'classic liberals' this week is it? Well look at Yeltsin's Russia, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia for starters.
Fuck you really are stupid, aren’t you? These are supposed to be examples of Jeffersonian liberals? You’d have to be a Latrobe graduate, if indeed you ever did graduate..
Perhaps have a closer look at Reagen's foreign policy while you're at
Great wasn’t it. He cleaned you fuckers without firing a shot.
-----------
Now tell us about the bad weather in the old sov that lasted 75 years and caused them to almost starve to death. LOL
You're so stupid you give other commies a bad name THR.
You don't seem to understand that if some ex-KGB guys export vast amounts of nickel or whatever, it doesn't necessarily translate into any benefits for the millions of other Russians.
If you had the slightest bit of honesty, you might wish to acknowledge that neoliberal economic policies have been implemented in some places by gunpoint.
You’d have to be a Latrobe graduate, if indeed you ever did graduate..
I'm not sure what's with your obsession with other people's educational history, but your logic is akin to that of someone who's major was in interpretive dance.
Great wasn’t it. He cleaned you fuckers without firing a shot.
Nope. Plenty of US citizens were screwed by Reaganomics. Not to mention niceties such as Iran-Contra, you half-wit hyena.
From fascism the bourgeoisie demands a thorough job; once it has resorted to methods of civil war, it insists on having peace for a period of years. And the fascist agency, by utilizing the petty bourgeoisie as a battering ram, by overwhelming all obstacles in its path, does a thorough job. After fascism is victorious, finance capital directly and immediately gathers into its hands, as in a vise of steel, all the organs and institutions of sovereignty, the executive administrative, and educational powers of the state: the entire state apparatus together with the army, the municipalities, the universities, the schools, the press, the trade unions, and the co-operatives. When a state turns fascist, it does not mean only that the forms and methods of government are changed in accordance the patterns set by Mussolini -- the changes in this sphere ultimately play a minor role -- but it means first of all for the most part that the workers' organizations are annihilated; that the proletariat is reduced to an amorphous state; and that a system of administration is created which penetrates deeply into the masses and which serves to frustrate the independent crystallization of the proletariat. Therein precisely is the gist of fascism....
This swill was written by a complete moron. Let me guess who it was? I don't as I know. It was Trotsky.
What a lying moron he was.
this has degenerated into a highlight abusive post. I really don't understand why you have to insult each other in such strong terms merely because you disagree with each other.
Whilst Russia is far from perfect, I think it is incredulous to assert that that things are worse now than under the Stalin years. The millions of people killed by Stalin and the complete absence of any political rights (including voting), would make Stalinist Russia far, far worse.
I explicitly said that Russia was not worse off than under the Stalin years. Please re-read what I wrote - I made this point perfectly clear.
And yes, this post has become abusive. I take responsibility for my part in it. I suspect RA thinks he's at a certain libertarian blog where this sort of thing is quite typical.
Commenting by HaloScan
