This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Deary me!
Could you stoop even lower...ahem!
First wee lesson,this is SHOUTING!glad we've cleared that up for you.
Do you always resort to making things up to win an arguement? oh look !
Yes you do.
Yes and it came from you not i.
Lets get back to the malvinas eh Cecil?
Deary me!
Could you stoop even lower...ahem!
First wee lesson,this is SHOUTING!glad we've cleared that up for you.
> You're saying that everyone who tried to escape from East Germany was a Nazi and deserved to be shot.
Do you always resort to making things up to win an arguement? oh look !
Yes you do.
> Gudrun-- that is a fantastically offensive remark.
Yes and it came from you not i.
Lets get back to the malvinas eh Cecil?
In reply to Gudrun and Bruce: There is no such thing or place or person as Malvinas.
In reply to Gudrun: grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat on - 21:48 Tue
In reply to Gudrun:
That is what happened last night
I take it your mud slinging with Tim last night means you include yourself in your comment?
He brought up other unrelated subjects and BTW i certainly didn't read the same books regarding Mother Russia than you.
In reply to Gudrun:
> It just turned into a playground scene with a bunch of kids ruining a debate.Then you coming in and saying thats it i won i won hahaha it's quite sad. Won what?
The fact that your bunch of kids can ruin a debate? yeah you won that but nothing else. That is what happened last night
I take it your mud slinging with Tim last night means you include yourself in your comment?
He brought up other unrelated subjects and BTW i certainly didn't read the same books regarding Mother Russia than you.
In reply to Gudrun:
Ah, the "he started it" excuse. This doesn't excuse your behaviour though.
> (In reply to Gudrun) grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat on - 21:48 Tue
> In reply to Gudrun:
> In reply to Gudrun:
>
> I take it your mud slinging with Tim last night means you include yourself in your comment?
>
> He brought up other unrelated subjects and BTW i certainly didn't read the same books regarding Mother Russia than you.
> I take it your mud slinging with Tim last night means you include yourself in your comment?
>
> He brought up other unrelated subjects and BTW i certainly didn't read the same books regarding Mother Russia than you.
Ah, the "he started it" excuse. This doesn't excuse your behaviour though.
In reply to mypyrex:
Unless you're Argentinian... https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=Malvinas&psj=1&bav=on.2,...
Unless you're Argentinian... https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=Malvinas&psj=1&bav=on.2,...
In reply to Gudrun: no_more_scotch_eggs on - 21:46 Tue
In reply to Tim Chappell:
yes, it was nasty.
shona, would you like to withdraw that remark? it was pretty offensive, and this has been largely a good natured debate, that comment was out of place here,
best wishes
gregor
hahaha!I must be getting to you when you have to make up more nonsense like that Gregor,perhaps you could stick to the Malvinas?
But this is a recurring theme in the colonialists v the anti-imperialist Malvinas debate.
Lets completely tar someone and make out as if they are a really terrible person or completely ignorant,liar old fashioned(now that's ironic)Tyrannt(again ironic)and this will be enough to cover the fact that we are ruling an Island at the other end of the world.Grabbed when we were doing despicable and catastrophic damage to millions ofinnocent peoples all over the world.This Island relic of a violent,racist,barbaric and oppressive empire should be given back to Argentina.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
yes, it was nasty.
shona, would you like to withdraw that remark? it was pretty offensive, and this has been largely a good natured debate, that comment was out of place here,
best wishes
gregor
hahaha!I must be getting to you when you have to make up more nonsense like that Gregor,perhaps you could stick to the Malvinas?
But this is a recurring theme in the colonialists v the anti-imperialist Malvinas debate.
Lets completely tar someone and make out as if they are a really terrible person or completely ignorant,liar old fashioned(now that's ironic)Tyrannt(again ironic)and this will be enough to cover the fact that we are ruling an Island at the other end of the world.Grabbed when we were doing despicable and catastrophic damage to millions ofinnocent peoples all over the world.This Island relic of a violent,racist,barbaric and oppressive empire should be given back to Argentina.
In reply to Gudrun:
My child.
My advisors have brought this thread to my attention, and in the interests of preserving peace and harmony across the world, could you please stop banging on about the f*cking Malvinas?
Apart from a few old farts who used to be in the Death Squads, I and my fellow Argentines couldn't give a penguins fart for that miserable windswept collection of rocks.
Peace be with you.
Francis x
My child.
My advisors have brought this thread to my attention, and in the interests of preserving peace and harmony across the world, could you please stop banging on about the f*cking Malvinas?
Apart from a few old farts who used to be in the Death Squads, I and my fellow Argentines couldn't give a penguins fart for that miserable windswept collection of rocks.
Peace be with you.
Francis x
In reply to His Holiness Pope Francis:
Thank-you Your Holiness.
Perhaps you could threaten Gudrun with ex-communication !
> (In reply to Gudrun)
>
> My child.
>
> My advisors have brought this thread to my attention, and in the interests of preserving peace and harmony across the world, could you please stop banging on about the f*cking Malvinas?
>
> Apart from a few old farts who used to be in the Death Squads, I and my fellow Argentines couldn't give a penguins fart for that miserable windswept collection of rocks.
>
> Peace be with you.
>
> Francis x
>
> My child.
>
> My advisors have brought this thread to my attention, and in the interests of preserving peace and harmony across the world, could you please stop banging on about the f*cking Malvinas?
>
> Apart from a few old farts who used to be in the Death Squads, I and my fellow Argentines couldn't give a penguins fart for that miserable windswept collection of rocks.
>
> Peace be with you.
>
> Francis x
Thank-you Your Holiness.
Perhaps you could threaten Gudrun with ex-communication !
In reply to His Holiness Pope Francis:
A Britian now telling the world the Argentines don't want the Malvinas! That's a new one to add to list.
A Britian now telling the world the Argentines don't want the Malvinas! That's a new one to add to list.
In reply to His Holiness Pope Francis:
Hi Popey old bean,
Could you copy your message to Bruce Hooker. He hangs out in France I believe.
(Do you still eat Fray Bentos?)
> (In reply to Gudrun)
>
> My child.
>
> My advisors have brought this thread to my attention, and in the interests of preserving peace and harmony across the world, could you please stop banging on about the f*cking Malvinas?
>
> Apart from a few old farts who used to be in the Death Squads, I and my fellow Argentines couldn't give a penguins fart for that miserable windswept collection of rocks.
>
> Peace be with you.
>
> Francis x
>
> My child.
>
> My advisors have brought this thread to my attention, and in the interests of preserving peace and harmony across the world, could you please stop banging on about the f*cking Malvinas?
>
> Apart from a few old farts who used to be in the Death Squads, I and my fellow Argentines couldn't give a penguins fart for that miserable windswept collection of rocks.
>
> Peace be with you.
>
> Francis x
Hi Popey old bean,
Could you copy your message to Bruce Hooker. He hangs out in France I believe.
(Do you still eat Fray Bentos?)
In reply to Gudrun: the level of maturity of response is key. You claim the thread was an immature tit for tat. Did you have to lower yourself to insults too?
In reply to Gudrun: Shurely shome mishtake my dear, a brit is called a Briton.
In reply to Gudrun:
One more time. This was my question:
So if E Germany was such a great country, why were people keen enough to leave it that they had to build a wall across Berlin and shoot their own citizens?
This was your answer:
in case you didn't know it was a fascist country who had just tried to
This isn’t entirely coherent. But what I think it means is: “The people who were trying to escape were Nazis who deserved to be shot.”
If that is what you’re saying, it is a despicable lie which you should withdraw at once. If you're saying that then you most certainly ARE a liar, or a terrible person, or completely ignorant, or all three.
Do you want to tell me that these words mean something else? If so what?
One more time. This was my question:
So if E Germany was such a great country, why were people keen enough to leave it that they had to build a wall across Berlin and shoot their own citizens?
This was your answer:
in case you didn't know it was a fascist country who had just tried to
> exterminate by genocide the Slavic peoples of Russia was it 27 million murdered by this country.so they were now the conquered,a country that tried to liquidate the Slavs were now under their occupation,a country of fascists steeped in fascism,not hard to see why they wanted away is it ?!
This isn’t entirely coherent. But what I think it means is: “The people who were trying to escape were Nazis who deserved to be shot.”
If that is what you’re saying, it is a despicable lie which you should withdraw at once. If you're saying that then you most certainly ARE a liar, or a terrible person, or completely ignorant, or all three.
Do you want to tell me that these words mean something else? If so what?
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Some East Germans wanted to leave the GDR for many different reasons,i would naturally assume that anyone who knows anything about the Berlin wall knows this.
Many people when talking about the reasons the wall was built forget the important parts that i mentioned,it was a fascist country who tried to destroy the people who were now occupying it.A country steeped in Nazi ideology who would naturally be more affiliated to the West.
I never said they were Nazis but that they were indoctrinated in anti-Bolshevism so would be more likely to want to leave.We all know that the majority went for more money,family in W.Germany etc.
And when i said "A country of fascists" that doesn't mean evryone obviously! My gran was a good German who hated the nazis and ran away to Cz to escape them.So why on earth would you think i'd say they were all nazi's that tried to escape.
I have German blood in me..so that's a bloody insult.
Some East Germans wanted to leave the GDR for many different reasons,i would naturally assume that anyone who knows anything about the Berlin wall knows this.
Many people when talking about the reasons the wall was built forget the important parts that i mentioned,it was a fascist country who tried to destroy the people who were now occupying it.A country steeped in Nazi ideology who would naturally be more affiliated to the West.
I never said they were Nazis but that they were indoctrinated in anti-Bolshevism so would be more likely to want to leave.We all know that the majority went for more money,family in W.Germany etc.
And when i said "A country of fascists" that doesn't mean evryone obviously! My gran was a good German who hated the nazis and ran away to Cz to escape them.So why on earth would you think i'd say they were all nazi's that tried to escape.
I have German blood in me..so that's a bloody insult.
In reply to mypyrex:
The official name of the islands is Falkland islands/Malvinas.
What about the Isle of Wight? The French call it L'Ile de Wight, does that make it cease to exist?
> (In reply to Gudrun and Bruce) There is no such thing or place or person as Malvinas.
The official name of the islands is Falkland islands/Malvinas.
What about the Isle of Wight? The French call it L'Ile de Wight, does that make it cease to exist?
In reply to Gudrun:
All right, I accept from that that you didn't mean what you appeared to be saying.
But you should be a bit more careful what you appear to say, that's for sure.
All right, I accept from that that you didn't mean what you appeared to be saying.
But you should be a bit more careful what you appear to say, that's for sure.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
if it does, then could they come up with a french name for Keighley and see if it works on there too...?
gregor
> (In reply to mypyrex)
> [...]
>
>
> What about the Isle of Wight? The French call it L'Ile de Wight, does that make it cease to exist?
> [...]
>
>
> What about the Isle of Wight? The French call it L'Ile de Wight, does that make it cease to exist?
if it does, then could they come up with a french name for Keighley and see if it works on there too...?
gregor
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Don't you alright me little man and don't you EVER try and tell me what to do Liberal boy !!
And i hope your liberal sensibilities are just as disgusted with the murderer of Mexicans that your "land of the free" conduct at their "wall" shooting Mexicans going both ways and spraying kids with bullets.
http://wsws.org/en/articles/2012/10/texa-o27.html
I'm off to work now when i get back i'll destroy the nonsense you and that grumpygoat one say about life in the Eastern bloc.Normally i'd say good morning to someone but the likes of you ....NEVER !
> (In reply to Gudrun)
>
>
> All right, I accept from that that you didn't mean what you appeared to be saying.
>
> But you should be a bit more careful what you appear to say, that's for sure.
>
>
> All right, I accept from that that you didn't mean what you appeared to be saying.
>
> But you should be a bit more careful what you appear to say, that's for sure.
Don't you alright me little man and don't you EVER try and tell me what to do Liberal boy !!
And i hope your liberal sensibilities are just as disgusted with the murderer of Mexicans that your "land of the free" conduct at their "wall" shooting Mexicans going both ways and spraying kids with bullets.
http://wsws.org/en/articles/2012/10/texa-o27.html
I'm off to work now when i get back i'll destroy the nonsense you and that grumpygoat one say about life in the Eastern bloc.Normally i'd say good morning to someone but the likes of you ....NEVER !
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Well, as far as I can see that is a fairly straightforward translation.
> (In reply to mypyrex)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> What about the Isle of Wight? The French call it L'Ile de Wight, does that make it cease to exist?
Well, as far as I can see that is a fairly straightforward translation.
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
> [...]
>
> Don't you alright me little man and don't you EVER try and tell me what to do Liberal boy !!
My, we are touchy this morning! > [...]
>
> Don't you alright me little man and don't you EVER try and tell me what to do Liberal boy !!
In reply to Gudrun:
I look forward to seeing what I actually said about the Eastern bloc that you will destroy. I've only questioned your statement about the USSR having tried to fight against imperialism, racism, elitism, inequality and exploitation?
I asked for what books support this evidence - you have replied to quote "i certainly didn't read the same books regarding Mother Russia than you". Rather than identify the books, you have taken the stance that whatever books you have read they will not be the ones I will have (without even knowing what my history is nor how well read I am).
So come on, what did I say about the Eastern bloc?
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
> I'm off to work now when i get back i'll destroy the nonsense you and that grumpygoat one say about life in the Eastern bloc.Normally i'd say good morning to someone but the likes of you ....NEVER !
I look forward to seeing what I actually said about the Eastern bloc that you will destroy. I've only questioned your statement about the USSR having tried to fight against imperialism, racism, elitism, inequality and exploitation?
I asked for what books support this evidence - you have replied to quote "i certainly didn't read the same books regarding Mother Russia than you". Rather than identify the books, you have taken the stance that whatever books you have read they will not be the ones I will have (without even knowing what my history is nor how well read I am).
So come on, what did I say about the Eastern bloc?
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat: I would ignore her. I think she's a rather pathetic tree hugging bolshevik bully. Best left in her own little cloud cuckoo land.
In reply to mypyrex: Hello mypyrex, you are probably right that I should ignore her.
Instead, how are you on this damn fine morning? Are you well and looking forward to the summer? Any nice trips planned?
Instead, how are you on this damn fine morning? Are you well and looking forward to the summer? Any nice trips planned?
In reply to Gudrun: im not sure if this thread is meant to be about Malvinas. but excuse me in my ignorance, why is Britain making such a fuss about them? a few windswept bits of rock on the other side of the planet? I know its beautiful but that's not the reason and the fact that the people want to remain british? well, since when did Britain care what people want?
In reply to heidi123: its not britain thats making the fuss, rather the argentine government!!
In reply to skarabrae: but why do we want them?
In reply to heidi123:
We don't. The falkland islanders are the people that want the islands, they need our protection to keep them as Argentina will conquer them if we don't prevent them.
We don't. The falkland islanders are the people that want the islands, they need our protection to keep them as Argentina will conquer them if we don't prevent them.
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat: There was an episode of Thinking Allowed recently where he interviewed a prof. from Leeds, Ian Law who has written a book called: "Red Racisms – Racism in Communist and Post-Communist Contexts". It was an interesting show: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qwglp
In reply to thomasadixon: we aren't normally very good at protecting people though. remembering year before last in Libya we were the last country to get its people out
In reply to heidi123: the falklanders dont want out , they want to stay, but if we (britain) leaves, the big nasty argies will come n stomp all over them again!!
as has been said dozens of times before on other threads, it would make more sense for the islands/isl;anders to have closer ties with argentina, but ever since the 1960`s the stance of the argentine government has been somewhat aggressive/antogonistc/belligerent towards the islanders, which has resulted in the feelings of the islanders being what it is (& you cant blame them)
argentina has pretty much shot itself in the foot with this stance & i guess they know this, which is probably why they carry on using it!
its a shame really, as just under a 1000 people died during the 1982 conflict!!
i believe prior to the argentine invasion, britain was quite keen for the islands to have greater ties with argentina, but argentina, broke away from this & started the current line.
who knows, they may have getting what they wanted otherwise, we`ll never know now.
davey.
as has been said dozens of times before on other threads, it would make more sense for the islands/isl;anders to have closer ties with argentina, but ever since the 1960`s the stance of the argentine government has been somewhat aggressive/antogonistc/belligerent towards the islanders, which has resulted in the feelings of the islanders being what it is (& you cant blame them)
argentina has pretty much shot itself in the foot with this stance & i guess they know this, which is probably why they carry on using it!
its a shame really, as just under a 1000 people died during the 1982 conflict!!
i believe prior to the argentine invasion, britain was quite keen for the islands to have greater ties with argentina, but argentina, broke away from this & started the current line.
who knows, they may have getting what they wanted otherwise, we`ll never know now.
davey.
In reply to TobyA:
I did see the book come up when it was released last year. Not had an opportunity to read it yet. I'm sure Gudrun will refute any evidence in the book as western political bias though.
> (In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat) There was an episode of Thinking Allowed recently where he interviewed a prof. from Leeds, Ian Law who has written a book called: "Red Racisms – Racism in Communist and Post-Communist Contexts". It was an interesting show: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qwglp
I did see the book come up when it was released last year. Not had an opportunity to read it yet. I'm sure Gudrun will refute any evidence in the book as western political bias though.
In reply to Gudrun:
There really is no need for all this hatred, you know.
Oh, and where did you get the idea that I'm a USA-worshipper?
You have an image in your head and you're determined to fit me to it, no matter what the counter-evidence. What a waste of time. Grow up a bit, learn to listen to other people, and stop being so puerile and offensive.
> (
>
> I'm off to work now when i get back i'll destroy the nonsense you and that grumpygoat one say about life in the Eastern bloc.Normally i'd say good morning to someone but the likes of you ....NEVER !
>
> I'm off to work now when i get back i'll destroy the nonsense you and that grumpygoat one say about life in the Eastern bloc.Normally i'd say good morning to someone but the likes of you ....NEVER !
There really is no need for all this hatred, you know.
Oh, and where did you get the idea that I'm a USA-worshipper?
You have an image in your head and you're determined to fit me to it, no matter what the counter-evidence. What a waste of time. Grow up a bit, learn to listen to other people, and stop being so puerile and offensive.
In reply to mypyrex:
Just as Malvinas is a straightforward translation of the original name given by the original French settlers - les Malouines - simply because the two ships set out from St Malo and many of the sailors came from there. For the French they are still always referred to as Malouines, on the TV, Wikipedia and so on but, as far as I am aware this has never affected the reality of their existence... What about Mount Everest? That's not the local name either but it's still there, as Mallory remarked.
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Well, as far as I can see that is a fairly straightforward translation.
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Well, as far as I can see that is a fairly straightforward translation.
Just as Malvinas is a straightforward translation of the original name given by the original French settlers - les Malouines - simply because the two ships set out from St Malo and many of the sailors came from there. For the French they are still always referred to as Malouines, on the TV, Wikipedia and so on but, as far as I am aware this has never affected the reality of their existence... What about Mount Everest? That's not the local name either but it's still there, as Mallory remarked.
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
Don't you remember? If not reread your posts, you don't have to use the same tactics as the others to waste her time, you don't want people to take you for a cad now, do you?
> So come on, what did I say about the Eastern bloc?
Don't you remember? If not reread your posts, you don't have to use the same tactics as the others to waste her time, you don't want people to take you for a cad now, do you?
In reply to skarabrae:
Have you read any of the islander web sites? They are not exactly chummy or aiming at a compromise either!
Just two years before the war Thatcher was on the point of signing the islands over to Argentina, starting with joint sovereignty based on recognition of Argentina's claim then taking a long lease on the islands, a bit like Hong Kong I suppose. I think you'll find it was the British who changed their minds but I'd prefer you to look it up as if I tell you this I will then be asked to prove it!
> but ever since the 1960`s the stance of the argentine government has been somewhat aggressive/antogonistc/belligerent towards the islanders
Have you read any of the islander web sites? They are not exactly chummy or aiming at a compromise either!
> i believe prior to the argentine invasion, britain was quite keen for the islands to have greater ties with argentina, but argentina, broke away from this & started the current line.
Just two years before the war Thatcher was on the point of signing the islands over to Argentina, starting with joint sovereignty based on recognition of Argentina's claim then taking a long lease on the islands, a bit like Hong Kong I suppose. I think you'll find it was the British who changed their minds but I'd prefer you to look it up as if I tell you this I will then be asked to prove it!
In reply to Tim Chappell:
From you that's quite something... what are we now... "relics of the age of Stalin"? and that was not your worst.
> stop being so puerile and offensive.
From you that's quite something... what are we now... "relics of the age of Stalin"? and that was not your worst.
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Just two years before the war Thatcher was on the point of signing the islands over to Argentina, starting with joint sovereignty based on recognition of Argentina's claim then taking a long lease on the islands, a bit like Hong Kong I suppose. I think you'll find it was the British who changed their minds but I'd prefer you to look it up as if I tell you this I will then be asked to prove it!
i dont doubt you bruce, all im saying without going into depth & starting all this over again (as, lets face it, we`ar all pretty bored with it now)
is that the current state of affair is never going to solve anything, if argentina wants the islands (in my opinion, they`re welcome to them) then they need to change tact, restore relations, (all parties, if this means talks, then yes, islanders also.)
just my two penneth worth (& not an insult in sught )
i dont doubt you bruce, all im saying without going into depth & starting all this over again (as, lets face it, we`ar all pretty bored with it now)
is that the current state of affair is never going to solve anything, if argentina wants the islands (in my opinion, they`re welcome to them) then they need to change tact, restore relations, (all parties, if this means talks, then yes, islanders also.)
just my two penneth worth (& not an insult in sught )
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
i wonder why? Could it be the attempted economic blockade and other actions, not to mention the minor matter of the invasion.
Do you ever think about what you write?
yes heaven forbid you actually have to support your claims (by the way telling other people to look it up wont stop you being called upon to support your claims).
I think you will find the British government was indifferent and happy to get rid of the islands (contrary to your dribble about last of the empire and so on) but it was the islanders who werent convinced.
As such the negotiations came to a standstill since the British government would only act with the islanders consent.
> Have you read any of the islander web sites? They are not exactly chummy or aiming at a compromise either!
i wonder why? Could it be the attempted economic blockade and other actions, not to mention the minor matter of the invasion.
Do you ever think about what you write?
> I think you'll find it was the British who changed their minds but I'd prefer you to look it up as if I tell you this I will then be asked to prove it!
yes heaven forbid you actually have to support your claims (by the way telling other people to look it up wont stop you being called upon to support your claims).
I think you will find the British government was indifferent and happy to get rid of the islands (contrary to your dribble about last of the empire and so on) but it was the islanders who werent convinced.
As such the negotiations came to a standstill since the British government would only act with the islanders consent.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
But you *are* a relic of the age of Stalin. This is not (as you like to say) an insult; it's a factual observation.
> (
But you *are* a relic of the age of Stalin. This is not (as you like to say) an insult; it's a factual observation.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Dear Bruce,
I have followed your instruction to re-read my posts and have been through every single one I made on the original thread to every individual and there is not one post that attacks the Eastern bloc.
I have explained my interest in knowing where the evidence relating to the USSR and Gudrun's claim comes from but that is it.
Please identify where your spurious claim relates or just admit you are wrong.
I've made the effort to find your claim in my posts. Now you make the effort to back up your accusation.
> (In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat)
>
> [...]
>
> Don't you remember? If not reread your posts, you don't have to use the same tactics as the others to waste her time, you don't want people to take you for a cad now, do you?
>
> [...]
>
> Don't you remember? If not reread your posts, you don't have to use the same tactics as the others to waste her time, you don't want people to take you for a cad now, do you?
Dear Bruce,
I have followed your instruction to re-read my posts and have been through every single one I made on the original thread to every individual and there is not one post that attacks the Eastern bloc.
I have explained my interest in knowing where the evidence relating to the USSR and Gudrun's claim comes from but that is it.
Please identify where your spurious claim relates or just admit you are wrong.
I've made the effort to find your claim in my posts. Now you make the effort to back up your accusation.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Contrary to your blinkered views which are focused by the anti-Communist Western media who are run by the rich.Hundreds of millions of people lived very happy lives relaxing in the knowledge that they were safe from the capitalist specters of homelessness,unemployment,recessions,debt,exploitation and crime.Crime figures in the former Soviet countries were non existant compared to the nightmare we have in the West.There was no drug abuse and ghettoization on class lines since there was equality of the classes.where tradespeople,cleaners and professionals lived in the same housing schemes.The differences in pay were also no where near as massive as we have in the West.which leads to a more balanced society where everyone sees themselves as more equal because there is no class antagonisms like we have in the West,where the upper and middle classes dominate the upper echelons of society.A more egalitarian distribution of wealth makes for a healthier society and everyone knew any profits would go back into the 'Social pot' and not into the pockets of some rich elites.
People were free from the existential worries of being unemployed,being kicked out their house,terrified how they will pay for medical treatment and the effects and worry of high crime levels.This is an amazing achievement in itself,just think to be able not to have to worry about losing the roof over your head,or your income as well as having safe streets to walk,with comparitively no drugs,no need for women to prostitute themselves to put bread on the table and no organised crime.What about debt people in the West are mired in debt our society runs on it but over there the society mattered more than personal profit,loans from the government were *interest* free.The emphasis was placed on society as a whole and not individualism which focused on co-operation,mutual help and solidarity.
People were encouraged to behave for the good of society rather than your own simple advancement or wealth,people felt and were a part of a system that was not exploiting them but was for them,people felt a sense of belonging as there society was more cohesive.
They were workers states in more than name as workers were held in the highest regard since they were built around the works of Marx and Engels who stated the socialist states would be states free from exploitation and oppression.
In the Soviet sphere(USSR & E.Bloc)equal pay for women was put in place as soon as Communism was implemented.In the GDR 88% of all adult women had a job and 1/3 of all women were in technical professions.50% of all law and Medicine jobs were held by women,in industry 41% of jobs were held by women.Only 6% had no qualifications at all compared to 24% in W.Ger.
All health care was free as was all education up to any level you were capable of achieving.
GDR was ranked 10th in the world of idustrialized nations and Czechoslovakia was higher,in fact CZ had at the time of the hand over to that traitor Havel a huge surplus of £47 billion in the cz bank,so they were *completely* debt free,compare that to the West!
The Czechoslovak Communist party was the biggest political party in Europe with over 2 million members and in 1989 75% of the population opposed any privatizations of their industries and 89% opposed any changes to the farming co-ops.
These countries had absolutely huge manufacturing industries of their own that would be destroyed after the 1989 tragedy.their countries would experience a new phenomenon something called unemployment as well as,homelessness,massive increases in the crime rate and organised crime as well as prostitution and all the other capitalist horrors.
Now.
Do you think i as an 11 and a half hour a day wee prole who works like F everyday for the british manufacturing industry would rather have that or some capitalist...its ok...now it's F'd...it's ok ...now it's F'd society?
That is extremely violent,alienates and isolates people from their society,ghettoizes the poor/underclass,homelessness hanging over everyone,junkies everywhere, abuse,neglect which increase when support systems and people are marginalized.Worships a thing called money over people and whose government/the rich and system must be at constant war all over the world,murdering millions and will also destroy any other system even in the smallest of countries if they want to help their people by being socialist.
To me Communism *is* freedom.
And i can only dream about how amazing it would have been to live in such a wonderful society free of your capitalist horrors.I know many people who lived in Communist Czechoslovakia as well as having a couple of relatives who were in the GDR as well and good few other pals.I am not naturally baised there were countries that couldn't do as well as the USSR,Cz,GDR and Hungry and changes were required in these countries,so i'm not hiding from any negative aspects in some other countries,but we in the West have been bombarded with stock images to portray the Soviet systems as terrible which is a propaganda tool of the people who gain the most from our capitalist system.The same reason they will murder and remove any and every socialist leader they can.
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> There really is no need for all this hatred, you know.
That's what you think! > There really is no need for all this hatred, you know.
> Oh, and where did you get the idea that I'm a USA-worshipper?
Just the british racist empire then?> You have an image in your head and you're determined to fit me to it, no matter what the counter-evidence. What a waste of time. Grow up a bit, learn to listen to other people, and stop being so puerile and offensive.
i am only offensive to people who offend me and you to me are very offensive indeed.I listen to people who have something worthwhile to say so obviously that does not include you.But i am a very friendly and good natured person who doesn't bear grudges,so if you drop the nasty and childish behaviour then you will see this.Contrary to your blinkered views which are focused by the anti-Communist Western media who are run by the rich.Hundreds of millions of people lived very happy lives relaxing in the knowledge that they were safe from the capitalist specters of homelessness,unemployment,recessions,debt,exploitation and crime.Crime figures in the former Soviet countries were non existant compared to the nightmare we have in the West.There was no drug abuse and ghettoization on class lines since there was equality of the classes.where tradespeople,cleaners and professionals lived in the same housing schemes.The differences in pay were also no where near as massive as we have in the West.which leads to a more balanced society where everyone sees themselves as more equal because there is no class antagonisms like we have in the West,where the upper and middle classes dominate the upper echelons of society.A more egalitarian distribution of wealth makes for a healthier society and everyone knew any profits would go back into the 'Social pot' and not into the pockets of some rich elites.
People were free from the existential worries of being unemployed,being kicked out their house,terrified how they will pay for medical treatment and the effects and worry of high crime levels.This is an amazing achievement in itself,just think to be able not to have to worry about losing the roof over your head,or your income as well as having safe streets to walk,with comparitively no drugs,no need for women to prostitute themselves to put bread on the table and no organised crime.What about debt people in the West are mired in debt our society runs on it but over there the society mattered more than personal profit,loans from the government were *interest* free.The emphasis was placed on society as a whole and not individualism which focused on co-operation,mutual help and solidarity.
People were encouraged to behave for the good of society rather than your own simple advancement or wealth,people felt and were a part of a system that was not exploiting them but was for them,people felt a sense of belonging as there society was more cohesive.
They were workers states in more than name as workers were held in the highest regard since they were built around the works of Marx and Engels who stated the socialist states would be states free from exploitation and oppression.
In the Soviet sphere(USSR & E.Bloc)equal pay for women was put in place as soon as Communism was implemented.In the GDR 88% of all adult women had a job and 1/3 of all women were in technical professions.50% of all law and Medicine jobs were held by women,in industry 41% of jobs were held by women.Only 6% had no qualifications at all compared to 24% in W.Ger.
All health care was free as was all education up to any level you were capable of achieving.
GDR was ranked 10th in the world of idustrialized nations and Czechoslovakia was higher,in fact CZ had at the time of the hand over to that traitor Havel a huge surplus of £47 billion in the cz bank,so they were *completely* debt free,compare that to the West!
The Czechoslovak Communist party was the biggest political party in Europe with over 2 million members and in 1989 75% of the population opposed any privatizations of their industries and 89% opposed any changes to the farming co-ops.
These countries had absolutely huge manufacturing industries of their own that would be destroyed after the 1989 tragedy.their countries would experience a new phenomenon something called unemployment as well as,homelessness,massive increases in the crime rate and organised crime as well as prostitution and all the other capitalist horrors.
Now.
Do you think i as an 11 and a half hour a day wee prole who works like F everyday for the british manufacturing industry would rather have that or some capitalist...its ok...now it's F'd...it's ok ...now it's F'd society?
That is extremely violent,alienates and isolates people from their society,ghettoizes the poor/underclass,homelessness hanging over everyone,junkies everywhere, abuse,neglect which increase when support systems and people are marginalized.Worships a thing called money over people and whose government/the rich and system must be at constant war all over the world,murdering millions and will also destroy any other system even in the smallest of countries if they want to help their people by being socialist.
To me Communism *is* freedom.
And i can only dream about how amazing it would have been to live in such a wonderful society free of your capitalist horrors.I know many people who lived in Communist Czechoslovakia as well as having a couple of relatives who were in the GDR as well and good few other pals.I am not naturally baised there were countries that couldn't do as well as the USSR,Cz,GDR and Hungry and changes were required in these countries,so i'm not hiding from any negative aspects in some other countries,but we in the West have been bombarded with stock images to portray the Soviet systems as terrible which is a propaganda tool of the people who gain the most from our capitalist system.The same reason they will murder and remove any and every socialist leader they can.
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
Yes it was the USSR not the Eastern Bloc,although i mean't to say the USSR and the Eastern Bloc,what do you want to know or dispute and we can get things started?
Yes it was the USSR not the Eastern Bloc,although i mean't to say the USSR and the Eastern Bloc,what do you want to know or dispute and we can get things started?
In reply to mypyrex:
Oh well! and pleased to meet you as well i'm sure.
I have seen your name about a few times but i have never replied to you until now.
Since you are so friendly and pleasant in future i will now endeavour to reply to you in kind.
> (In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat) I would ignore her. I think she's a rather pathetic tree hugging bolshevik bully. Best left in her own little cloud cuckoo land.
Oh well! and pleased to meet you as well i'm sure.
I have seen your name about a few times but i have never replied to you until now.
Since you are so friendly and pleasant in future i will now endeavour to reply to you in kind.
In reply to Gudrun: As an "11 and a half hour a day wee prole who works like F everyday for the british manufacturing industry" how do you feel about supporting a system you despise, shona?
In reply to TobyA:
So actual Communist countries does not cover the USSR or Eastern Bloc OK that's fine just like we know of these societies.
By "Communist" he is meaning Tibet and some strange "Emerging" new racism in Cuba ,whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
> (In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat) There was an episode of Thinking Allowed recently where he interviewed a prof. from Leeds, Ian Law who has written a book called: "Red Racisms – Racism in Communist and Post-Communist Contexts". It was an interesting show: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qwglp
So actual Communist countries does not cover the USSR or Eastern Bloc OK that's fine just like we know of these societies.
By "Communist" he is meaning Tibet and some strange "Emerging" new racism in Cuba ,whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
Dear Gudrun,
Thank you for going to the trouble, after your long working day, of writing all that out to answer my very brief, very telegraphic, and very dismissive anti-communist remarks. You're very committed to your views and I respect that. I don't agree with your views, but I admire your commitment. Thank you.
I do still think, as a matter of running debates with people who disagree with you as completely as I do, that you shouldn't reach so quickly for the vocabulary of anger, and that you shouldn't be so easily convinced that we all think the same. Even in that last post you call me a racist and an imperialist. Please believe this: I'm neither. If you're this serious about engaging with different views, why not engage with real different views, not fantasy ones?
I actually agree with you about the instabilities of capitalism being a very bad thing. But I don't agree that there's any reason at all to think that communism was any better.
And my biggest objection of all to communism is that it always, in practice, involves police states, state terrorism, the subjugation and murder of the individual--officially in pursuit of an ever receding horizon called "the ideal state", in practice in pursuit of the private vendettas and personal agendas of gangsters in police suits. What you say above goes no way at all to allay my fears on that.
You say you've relatives who lived in the old eastern bloc. I only went there once before the Wall came down. I passed through Bulgaria on my way home from Istanbul to England in 1985--and it really was a police state. The police--disgusting, dirty, arrogant slobs--sloped around Sofia doing exactly what the hell they liked to whoever they liked. Ordinary people cowered when they saw the police coming. They actually cringed. It was like a really bad boarding school that's been taken over by the bullies. It was horrible.
Because I'm English and cocky, and because they made me so angry, I challenged them. I walked along behind the policemen who were patrolling the railway station, mimicking their walk and whistling Rule Britannia. I was bloody lucky not to get arrested. But I made the ordinary people laugh, and I hope I showed them what I wanted to show them: that resistance was *not* futile. (Yes, I know. Easy for me. Much harder for them. But give me a break, I was 20.)
Anyway, I've never forgotten that. And I think that experience is one of the main things that have made me detest totalitarianism in all its forms, including communism.
So we don't agree. But, hey, it's not the end of the world. And it doesn't mean either of us is wicked, stupid, or blind...
TC
Thank you for going to the trouble, after your long working day, of writing all that out to answer my very brief, very telegraphic, and very dismissive anti-communist remarks. You're very committed to your views and I respect that. I don't agree with your views, but I admire your commitment. Thank you.
I do still think, as a matter of running debates with people who disagree with you as completely as I do, that you shouldn't reach so quickly for the vocabulary of anger, and that you shouldn't be so easily convinced that we all think the same. Even in that last post you call me a racist and an imperialist. Please believe this: I'm neither. If you're this serious about engaging with different views, why not engage with real different views, not fantasy ones?
I actually agree with you about the instabilities of capitalism being a very bad thing. But I don't agree that there's any reason at all to think that communism was any better.
And my biggest objection of all to communism is that it always, in practice, involves police states, state terrorism, the subjugation and murder of the individual--officially in pursuit of an ever receding horizon called "the ideal state", in practice in pursuit of the private vendettas and personal agendas of gangsters in police suits. What you say above goes no way at all to allay my fears on that.
You say you've relatives who lived in the old eastern bloc. I only went there once before the Wall came down. I passed through Bulgaria on my way home from Istanbul to England in 1985--and it really was a police state. The police--disgusting, dirty, arrogant slobs--sloped around Sofia doing exactly what the hell they liked to whoever they liked. Ordinary people cowered when they saw the police coming. They actually cringed. It was like a really bad boarding school that's been taken over by the bullies. It was horrible.
Because I'm English and cocky, and because they made me so angry, I challenged them. I walked along behind the policemen who were patrolling the railway station, mimicking their walk and whistling Rule Britannia. I was bloody lucky not to get arrested. But I made the ordinary people laugh, and I hope I showed them what I wanted to show them: that resistance was *not* futile. (Yes, I know. Easy for me. Much harder for them. But give me a break, I was 20.)
Anyway, I've never forgotten that. And I think that experience is one of the main things that have made me detest totalitarianism in all its forms, including communism.
So we don't agree. But, hey, it's not the end of the world. And it doesn't mean either of us is wicked, stupid, or blind...
TC
In reply to Sir Chasm:
what can you do Chas?
I've gotta eat in fact i'm very very fortunate to have a job i suppose...and a house,and a car so yeah i'm very happy,but i have a very frantic and physical job that leaves you knackered at the end of a shift. :/
I don't despise this system(hmmm no your right i do) as such i just see the other as being much more humane,progressive,caring,equal,sociable,peaceful,safe and i'm getting tired now and ready for another 11 1/2 hour nose to the grinding wheel again tmoz.
night night.
what can you do Chas?
I've gotta eat in fact i'm very very fortunate to have a job i suppose...and a house,and a car so yeah i'm very happy,but i have a very frantic and physical job that leaves you knackered at the end of a shift. :/
I don't despise this system(hmmm no your right i do) as such i just see the other as being much more humane,progressive,caring,equal,sociable,peaceful,safe and i'm getting tired now and ready for another 11 1/2 hour nose to the grinding wheel again tmoz.
night night.
In reply to Gudrun:
If you fancy living in the GDR utopia, read Anna Funders book,Stasiland.
It was so good, anyone trying to escape was machine gunned by border guards, and the bodies were left sometimes as a warning to other miscreants.
You would be unique, someone trying to break 'into' a totalitarian shithole!
If you fancy living in the GDR utopia, read Anna Funders book,Stasiland.
It was so good, anyone trying to escape was machine gunned by border guards, and the bodies were left sometimes as a warning to other miscreants.
You would be unique, someone trying to break 'into' a totalitarian shithole!
In reply to Tim Chappell:
i have a few points to take you up on but i'll get back to you tommorow i'm too tired the noo.
i have a few points to take you up on but i'll get back to you tommorow i'm too tired the noo.
In reply to Gudrun: What can you do? Well, if you weren't entirely hypocritical you could join a commune or move to a communist country or work in the voluntary sector or almost anything except line your pockets at other people's expense and whine about how lovely the ussr used to be until people like you destroyed it.
In reply to dek:
There was no shithole Dek if you got that from this book you describe then it is garbage.
We all know about killing people running to the West,there are many reasons for this and it is a crime.
Incidentely my man has a pal who worked for the UN patrolling an area seperating Israeli and Palestinian areas.Israelis used to shoot at palestinians on a frequent basis and hit their target on many occasions,he seen it and couldn't believe it.
Did yu see my link to the US border guards murdering Mexicans at their "wall".
It doesn't make the shootings at the Berlin wall right and nothing will.
but as i said it was a fantastic society if you stayed around and contributed toward it.
There was no shithole Dek if you got that from this book you describe then it is garbage.
We all know about killing people running to the West,there are many reasons for this and it is a crime.
Incidentely my man has a pal who worked for the UN patrolling an area seperating Israeli and Palestinian areas.Israelis used to shoot at palestinians on a frequent basis and hit their target on many occasions,he seen it and couldn't believe it.
Did yu see my link to the US border guards murdering Mexicans at their "wall".
It doesn't make the shootings at the Berlin wall right and nothing will.
but as i said it was a fantastic society if you stayed around and contributed toward it.
In reply to Gudrun:
Like I say: my basic problem with E Germany was that it was a police state. There was no individual freedom there. And as far as I'm concerned--get this, I'm going to put it in capitals because it really matters to me, sorry for shouting--
THE WHOLE POINT OF THE STATE IS TO PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE INDIVIDUAL'S FREEDOM
and if it doesn't do that then there's no point to it.
That's all.
I'm trying to be less one-liner in my responses, Gudrun. But here's the basic issue. Not that I expect you to answer right now. You say you want to go to bed--so go if you want!
Like I say: my basic problem with E Germany was that it was a police state. There was no individual freedom there. And as far as I'm concerned--get this, I'm going to put it in capitals because it really matters to me, sorry for shouting--
THE WHOLE POINT OF THE STATE IS TO PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE INDIVIDUAL'S FREEDOM
and if it doesn't do that then there's no point to it.
That's all.
I'm trying to be less one-liner in my responses, Gudrun. But here's the basic issue. Not that I expect you to answer right now. You say you want to go to bed--so go if you want!
In reply to Gudrun:
Somehow your lack of spaces between words just adds to the completely mental nature of your screed, but let's leave all that aside, and I'd just point to these bits:
Oddly, a couple of year ago I was wandering around Vyborg with a mate who had grown up there. He pointed out the apartment he had lived in for most of his childhood with his mum and dad. It was the classic Soviet collective apartment at the time, so you shared the kitchen, bathroom etc. with whoever else got placed there. My friend remembered a young single woman who lived there and how his dad had tried to persuade her not to go down to the docks at night to prostitute herself. But she had a drink and drug problem so, I guess, didn't have much choice. Anyway, that was the Soviet Union in the 1980s as my Russian friend saw it. Perhaps he has just made it all up though to blacken the name of Brezhnev or something.
BTW, have you ever been to Russia?
Somehow your lack of spaces between words just adds to the completely mental nature of your screed, but let's leave all that aside, and I'd just point to these bits:
> where tradespeople,cleaners and professionals lived in the same housing schemes.
> There was no drug abuse
> no need for women to prostitute themselves
Oddly, a couple of year ago I was wandering around Vyborg with a mate who had grown up there. He pointed out the apartment he had lived in for most of his childhood with his mum and dad. It was the classic Soviet collective apartment at the time, so you shared the kitchen, bathroom etc. with whoever else got placed there. My friend remembered a young single woman who lived there and how his dad had tried to persuade her not to go down to the docks at night to prostitute herself. But she had a drink and drug problem so, I guess, didn't have much choice. Anyway, that was the Soviet Union in the 1980s as my Russian friend saw it. Perhaps he has just made it all up though to blacken the name of Brezhnev or something.
BTW, have you ever been to Russia?
In reply to Gudrun:
No Doll, I got it from speaking to former 'inmates' of the GDR. The ex informers still hang out their windows watching who's going about, force of habit. One spy for every six of the population. Life was grey, dull, fearfull in the towns and cities. The only good thing I found was the beer!
No Doll, I got it from speaking to former 'inmates' of the GDR. The ex informers still hang out their windows watching who's going about, force of habit. One spy for every six of the population. Life was grey, dull, fearfull in the towns and cities. The only good thing I found was the beer!
In reply to Tim Chappell:
No, it is an insult. No communist or socialist would take the term "Stalinist" as anything but an insult. Even when I was a member of a communist party we had long rejected Stalinism and denounced the methods used at that time in the USSR - he executed most of the authors whose books introduced us to communism. The age of Stalin collapsed when he did but before then many communist parties outside the USSR were moving onto different position, and even before WW2 the French Communist Part (PCF) the one I joined had defied Stalin by supporting the "democratic road to socialism" as in the Front Populaire.
I realise you are probably not that familiar with the history of left wing movements, often different outside the UK for various reasons. In France and Italy the working class party was the Communist Party, Labour Parties didn't exist as in Britain. I joined in the 70s when the PCF had over 20% of the vote - maximum 25% and a million stamp paying members, by far the largest political party in France, left or right - the Socialists were still recovering from the fiasco of their attitude during the colonial wars.
Now the Socialist Party has grown and the PCF has shrunk but I was in it in the years leading to the election of Mitterand in 1981, in the Common Program of the Left - the first left government for many years. The party I was in was very active, very democratic - you spent hours every month in meetings debating policy, voting, studying politics, but above all in militancy - posters, tracts, door to door, helping avoid evictions, Trade Union activity etc. It was a very rewarding period within a group of people who were really the nicest, most tolerant and interesting I had met in France. They enabled me to get over the problems of integration as a foreigner and when I had problems helped me without hesitation.
Clearly you have not lived such an experience so cannot really understand. I left in the early 80s, on both political differences and because I had children so couldn't spend the time required - I don't like doing things by halves. Political militancy is for the young and single, and anyway like many we came to realise that Mitterand had only paid lip service to the program we had believed in.
On the other hand I still believe in many of the essential aspects of communism - freedom for all, not just the rich, a fair deal for all people, why should those doing the hardest jobs get the worst deal? Equality, both between genders and peoples, internationalism and a hatred of flag waving jingoism and, of course imperialism, which is basically the application of the same capitalist inequality on a world wide basis... Oh, I nearly forgot, materialism, religion is still the opiate of the people.
So when you call me a Stalinist, or a relic of that age, it is really to silly for words, it simply passes aside of reality, my reality and the reality of the political movements that have made the world what it is, but have also, alas, failed to achieve what they set out to do originally... for the moment anyway.
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> But you *are* a relic of the age of Stalin. This is not (as you like to say) an insult; it's a factual observation.
> [...]
>
> But you *are* a relic of the age of Stalin. This is not (as you like to say) an insult; it's a factual observation.
No, it is an insult. No communist or socialist would take the term "Stalinist" as anything but an insult. Even when I was a member of a communist party we had long rejected Stalinism and denounced the methods used at that time in the USSR - he executed most of the authors whose books introduced us to communism. The age of Stalin collapsed when he did but before then many communist parties outside the USSR were moving onto different position, and even before WW2 the French Communist Part (PCF) the one I joined had defied Stalin by supporting the "democratic road to socialism" as in the Front Populaire.
I realise you are probably not that familiar with the history of left wing movements, often different outside the UK for various reasons. In France and Italy the working class party was the Communist Party, Labour Parties didn't exist as in Britain. I joined in the 70s when the PCF had over 20% of the vote - maximum 25% and a million stamp paying members, by far the largest political party in France, left or right - the Socialists were still recovering from the fiasco of their attitude during the colonial wars.
Now the Socialist Party has grown and the PCF has shrunk but I was in it in the years leading to the election of Mitterand in 1981, in the Common Program of the Left - the first left government for many years. The party I was in was very active, very democratic - you spent hours every month in meetings debating policy, voting, studying politics, but above all in militancy - posters, tracts, door to door, helping avoid evictions, Trade Union activity etc. It was a very rewarding period within a group of people who were really the nicest, most tolerant and interesting I had met in France. They enabled me to get over the problems of integration as a foreigner and when I had problems helped me without hesitation.
Clearly you have not lived such an experience so cannot really understand. I left in the early 80s, on both political differences and because I had children so couldn't spend the time required - I don't like doing things by halves. Political militancy is for the young and single, and anyway like many we came to realise that Mitterand had only paid lip service to the program we had believed in.
On the other hand I still believe in many of the essential aspects of communism - freedom for all, not just the rich, a fair deal for all people, why should those doing the hardest jobs get the worst deal? Equality, both between genders and peoples, internationalism and a hatred of flag waving jingoism and, of course imperialism, which is basically the application of the same capitalist inequality on a world wide basis... Oh, I nearly forgot, materialism, religion is still the opiate of the people.
So when you call me a Stalinist, or a relic of that age, it is really to silly for words, it simply passes aside of reality, my reality and the reality of the political movements that have made the world what it is, but have also, alas, failed to achieve what they set out to do originally... for the moment anyway.
In reply to dek:
And the lies. The huge, obvious, shameless, endless lies.
Yes, all states lie. But some states lie a hell of a lot more than others.
Democratic states lie a bit, sometimes a lot, never not at all.
But totalitarian states lie compulsively, helplessly, habitually, continually, shamelessly, enormously, about everything. Orwell's 1984 is one classic text here. Goebbels' doctrine of the big lie is another.
Truth is a precious thing, as precious in its way as freedom is. And I just find liars contemptible.
And the lies. The huge, obvious, shameless, endless lies.
Yes, all states lie. But some states lie a hell of a lot more than others.
Democratic states lie a bit, sometimes a lot, never not at all.
But totalitarian states lie compulsively, helplessly, habitually, continually, shamelessly, enormously, about everything. Orwell's 1984 is one classic text here. Goebbels' doctrine of the big lie is another.
Truth is a precious thing, as precious in its way as freedom is. And I just find liars contemptible.
In reply to Gudrun:
In the GDR you might have been less likely to lose your job for commercial reasons, but it was perfectly possible to lose your job for political reasons. Some things might have been more secure, but the threat of the Stasi loomed everywhere. One in every 6.5 people was working in some way for the Stasi at it's height, and family members, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters would inform on each other, often after being threatened with losing their jobs, having their children's education affected etc. I have a couple of good friends from the former GDR, and they both say the same thing - they had a great childhood, but almost entirely due to the bravery of their parents protecting them from the cruelty and dangers of the system. Their families were deeply affected by Stasi activities and infiltration.
A couple of months ago I visited Mödlareuth, a village on the old East-West border that still has parts of the border intact. It's a very peculiar place. To see such a militarised border is pretty strange, but then it struck me; most borders are built in fear, to keep people *out*, but this one was build entirely to keep people *in*. The state did all it could to stop people leaving by threats and by force. Get caught in the act of crossing - you could be shot, manage to get out, and you can expect your family and anyone you've left behind to suffer. People knew this, and yet they still tried to leave. Why on earth would they do this, if things were so rosy inside?
In the GDR you might have been less likely to lose your job for commercial reasons, but it was perfectly possible to lose your job for political reasons. Some things might have been more secure, but the threat of the Stasi loomed everywhere. One in every 6.5 people was working in some way for the Stasi at it's height, and family members, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters would inform on each other, often after being threatened with losing their jobs, having their children's education affected etc. I have a couple of good friends from the former GDR, and they both say the same thing - they had a great childhood, but almost entirely due to the bravery of their parents protecting them from the cruelty and dangers of the system. Their families were deeply affected by Stasi activities and infiltration.
A couple of months ago I visited Mödlareuth, a village on the old East-West border that still has parts of the border intact. It's a very peculiar place. To see such a militarised border is pretty strange, but then it struck me; most borders are built in fear, to keep people *out*, but this one was build entirely to keep people *in*. The state did all it could to stop people leaving by threats and by force. Get caught in the act of crossing - you could be shot, manage to get out, and you can expect your family and anyone you've left behind to suffer. People knew this, and yet they still tried to leave. Why on earth would they do this, if things were so rosy inside?
In reply to Gudrun:
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.
> To me Communism *is* freedom.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I think we're doing well on both of those in Europe today, certainly better than anyone else has ever done.
> ... freedom for all, not just the rich, a fair deal for all people ...
I think we're doing well on both of those in Europe today, certainly better than anyone else has ever done.
In reply to Gudrun:
Originally it was to understand the evidence of your claim but now I'm more interested in knowing, to quote you, what "nonsense [...] that grumpygoat one say about life in the Eastern bloc".
What nonsense did I say about either the USSR or Eastern Bloc?
(N.B. and for anyone reading my post, I'd like to clarify that questioning isn't that same as "saying")
> (In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat)
>
> Yes it was the USSR not the Eastern Bloc,although i mean't to say the USSR and the Eastern Bloc,what do you want to know or dispute and we can get things started?
>
> Yes it was the USSR not the Eastern Bloc,although i mean't to say the USSR and the Eastern Bloc,what do you want to know or dispute and we can get things started?
Originally it was to understand the evidence of your claim but now I'm more interested in knowing, to quote you, what "nonsense [...] that grumpygoat one say about life in the Eastern bloc".
What nonsense did I say about either the USSR or Eastern Bloc?
(N.B. and for anyone reading my post, I'd like to clarify that questioning isn't that same as "saying")
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Try telling that to the people queueing at the soup kitchens now being rolled out right across the UK.Freedom to starve?
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> [...]
>
> I think we're doing well on both of those in Europe today, certainly better than anyone else has ever done.
>
> [...]
>
> I think we're doing well on both of those in Europe today, certainly better than anyone else has ever done.
Try telling that to the people queueing at the soup kitchens now being rolled out right across the UK.Freedom to starve?
In reply to ruckman:
Are you suggesting that everyone in the USSR and former Eastern Block countries had enough to eat?
Still, I like the fact that you can voice a dissenting opinion against the current government, even against the current political system. Or course, in the GDR, that wouldn't have been allowed.
Are you suggesting that everyone in the USSR and former Eastern Block countries had enough to eat?
Still, I like the fact that you can voice a dissenting opinion against the current government, even against the current political system. Or course, in the GDR, that wouldn't have been allowed.
In reply to Green Porridge:
Well,not really a great fan of either of those regimes.Leaving aside the debate about media ownership and the power of the press as a tool for manipulating public opinion, here in Britain you say what you want and do what you are told. Furthermore, when the rich and powerful start trumpeting on about 'freedom',they usually mean their own freedom to impose their own ideas on other people. Or their own 'economic' freedom to exploit other people.
> (In reply to ruckman)
>
> Are you suggesting that everyone in the USSR and former Eastern Block countries had enough to eat?
>
> Still, I like the fact that you can voice a dissenting opinion against the current government, even against the current political system. Or course, in the GDR, that wouldn't have been allowed.
>
> Are you suggesting that everyone in the USSR and former Eastern Block countries had enough to eat?
>
> Still, I like the fact that you can voice a dissenting opinion against the current government, even against the current political system. Or course, in the GDR, that wouldn't have been allowed.
Well,not really a great fan of either of those regimes.Leaving aside the debate about media ownership and the power of the press as a tool for manipulating public opinion, here in Britain you say what you want and do what you are told. Furthermore, when the rich and powerful start trumpeting on about 'freedom',they usually mean their own freedom to impose their own ideas on other people. Or their own 'economic' freedom to exploit other people.
In reply to ruckman:
Tosh. Of all the societies in the world's history, Britain today is among the least "do as you are told". We have more freedom of individual action than almost anywhere, anytime.
No they don't. And "freedom" does not mean "the right to be given things by other people".
> ... here in Britain you say what you want and do what you are told.
Tosh. Of all the societies in the world's history, Britain today is among the least "do as you are told". We have more freedom of individual action than almost anywhere, anytime.
> Furthermore, when the rich and powerful start trumpeting on about 'freedom',they usually mean
> their own freedom to impose their own ideas on other people.
> their own freedom to impose their own ideas on other people.
No they don't. And "freedom" does not mean "the right to be given things by other people".
In reply to ruckman:
I agree with that, there was an tv interview with one of the banker during the height of the bankers bonus' controvorsey, and whilst I can't recall the verbatum quote, the gist was at how dare we estion what he does, get back to watching our soaps,and leave them to get on with doing exactly what they want when they want.
> (In reply to Epic Ebdon)
> [...]
>
> ....... Furthermore, when the rich and powerful start trumpeting on about 'freedom',they usually mean their own freedom to impose their own ideas on other people. Or their own 'economic' freedom to exploit other people.
> [...]
>
> ....... Furthermore, when the rich and powerful start trumpeting on about 'freedom',they usually mean their own freedom to impose their own ideas on other people. Or their own 'economic' freedom to exploit other people.
I agree with that, there was an tv interview with one of the banker during the height of the bankers bonus' controvorsey, and whilst I can't recall the verbatum quote, the gist was at how dare we estion what he does, get back to watching our soaps,and leave them to get on with doing exactly what they want when they want.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
It might, depends on what is being given and who you ask. If you haven't you should read Berlin's "Two Concepts of Liberty". www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/walton/Berlin2Concepts.pdf
> And "freedom" does not mean "the right to be given things by other people".
It might, depends on what is being given and who you ask. If you haven't you should read Berlin's "Two Concepts of Liberty". www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/walton/Berlin2Concepts.pdf
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Except that inequalities are increasing year after year, unemployment is reaching all time highs and economic growth is not growth but negative.
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> [...]
>
> I think we're doing well on both of those in Europe today, certainly better than anyone else has ever done.
>
> [...]
>
> I think we're doing well on both of those in Europe today, certainly better than anyone else has ever done.
Except that inequalities are increasing year after year, unemployment is reaching all time highs and economic growth is not growth but negative.
In reply to ruckman:
"trumpeting on" about freedom?
In political philosophy, or at any rate in my political philosophy, freedom is not an optional extra or a bourgeois luxury to be contemptuously brushed aside as you do there. Freedom is what it's all about. Like I said above: if the state does not increase the freedom of individuals, then there is no point to it.
As a social-contract theorist might put it: individuals in the state of nature have no reason to leave the SoN to join the state unless doing so increases their freedom.
A better response for a socialist is to argue, as Gudrun was showing signs of doing above, that socialism is the best way of realising individual freedom, especially for those at the bottom of the pile. If you said that--with "socialism" = "a moderate welfare state"--I'd actually agree.
"trumpeting on" about freedom?
In political philosophy, or at any rate in my political philosophy, freedom is not an optional extra or a bourgeois luxury to be contemptuously brushed aside as you do there. Freedom is what it's all about. Like I said above: if the state does not increase the freedom of individuals, then there is no point to it.
As a social-contract theorist might put it: individuals in the state of nature have no reason to leave the SoN to join the state unless doing so increases their freedom.
A better response for a socialist is to argue, as Gudrun was showing signs of doing above, that socialism is the best way of realising individual freedom, especially for those at the bottom of the pile. If you said that--with "socialism" = "a moderate welfare state"--I'd actually agree.
In reply to Tim Chappell: agree 100%
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Except that this distinction between "state of nature" and "state" is not very sensible, considering that there will never have been a time when humans did not have social structures.
> As a social-contract theorist might put it: individuals in the state of nature have no reason to
> leave the SoN to join the state unless doing so increases their freedom.
> leave the SoN to join the state unless doing so increases their freedom.
Except that this distinction between "state of nature" and "state" is not very sensible, considering that there will never have been a time when humans did not have social structures.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I agree that both in ontogeny and in phylogeny, social psychology preexists individual psychology. It doesn't follow that state of nature theory can't be a useful heuristic. And that's all I'm using it for, really.
I agree that both in ontogeny and in phylogeny, social psychology preexists individual psychology. It doesn't follow that state of nature theory can't be a useful heuristic. And that's all I'm using it for, really.
In reply to Tim Chappell: either you typed that last post on an iphone in gloves, or I need to buy a dictionary.
I suspect it's the latter
I suspect it's the latter
In reply to Bjartur í Sumarhús:
Rough paraphrase (taking longer to type, which is why I went for the compact version):
Both in the history of the human species and in the development of individual humans, the social mind comes first, not the individual mind. Social-contract theory apparently reverses this ordering, which makes SCT literally false. But that doesn't mean SCT is completely useless.
Rough paraphrase (taking longer to type, which is why I went for the compact version):
Both in the history of the human species and in the development of individual humans, the social mind comes first, not the individual mind. Social-contract theory apparently reverses this ordering, which makes SCT literally false. But that doesn't mean SCT is completely useless.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Surely it can only be a useful heuristic if we can imagine what it would be like? What would you envisage "state of nature" humanity to be like?
The only conception of it I could come up with is tribal life, along with the social structures and power structures that human tribes always had. The difference from that to today's states is mostly one of scale.
The amount of "freedom" an individual human had in such a tribe probably varied greatly across place and time, and likely depended on personalities of individual "alpha males", which is why I doubt the value of "State of Nature" as a comparison heuristic.
> It doesn't follow that state of nature theory can't be a useful heuristic.
Surely it can only be a useful heuristic if we can imagine what it would be like? What would you envisage "state of nature" humanity to be like?
The only conception of it I could come up with is tribal life, along with the social structures and power structures that human tribes always had. The difference from that to today's states is mostly one of scale.
The amount of "freedom" an individual human had in such a tribe probably varied greatly across place and time, and likely depended on personalities of individual "alpha males", which is why I doubt the value of "State of Nature" as a comparison heuristic.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I don't myself have any conception of the State of Nature; I'm not a SoN theorist. Rawls, Nozick, Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, Hume and Marx all have rich and interesting conceptions of the SoN. Their theories are fruitful and powerful. So their theories are examples which demonstrate that being a SoN theorist has heuristic value. That's all.
I don't myself have any conception of the State of Nature; I'm not a SoN theorist. Rawls, Nozick, Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, Hume and Marx all have rich and interesting conceptions of the SoN. Their theories are fruitful and powerful. So their theories are examples which demonstrate that being a SoN theorist has heuristic value. That's all.
In reply to TobyA:
I think we've discussed the various meanings of "freedom" before.
I maintain that "political freedom" is the absence of other people telling you what to do. Thus, for example, a lone person stranded on a desert island has perfect political freedom, even if he is starving to death.
Of course political freedom is not the only desirable attribute, it is just one of them (as the desert-island example clearly demonstrates). A welfare state improves human well-being but at a cost of some loss of political freedom. Most of us consider that this trade off is overall beneficial.
IMO meanings of "freedom" that amount to "the right to be provided for by others" are misuses of the term.
> It might, depends on what is being given and who you ask.
I think we've discussed the various meanings of "freedom" before.
I maintain that "political freedom" is the absence of other people telling you what to do. Thus, for example, a lone person stranded on a desert island has perfect political freedom, even if he is starving to death.
Of course political freedom is not the only desirable attribute, it is just one of them (as the desert-island example clearly demonstrates). A welfare state improves human well-being but at a cost of some loss of political freedom. Most of us consider that this trade off is overall beneficial.
IMO meanings of "freedom" that amount to "the right to be provided for by others" are misuses of the term.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Well, everyone has the right to be provided for by others. Otherwise family life would involve no rights. And there would be no duty of compassion.
Is this a point about *freedom*? I think it is, myself. No one is born a self-determining individual. We *become* self-determining individuals, because others (our families, our teachers, our peers...) help us to. Freedom is an achievement that rests upon the prior right, that we all have, to be provided for by others.
That's partly what I mean by saying (as I didn't quite, but will now) that the social preexists the individual.
>
> IMO meanings of "freedom" that amount to "the right to be provided for by others" are misuses of the term.
> IMO meanings of "freedom" that amount to "the right to be provided for by others" are misuses of the term.
Well, everyone has the right to be provided for by others. Otherwise family life would involve no rights. And there would be no duty of compassion.
Is this a point about *freedom*? I think it is, myself. No one is born a self-determining individual. We *become* self-determining individuals, because others (our families, our teachers, our peers...) help us to. Freedom is an achievement that rests upon the prior right, that we all have, to be provided for by others.
That's partly what I mean by saying (as I didn't quite, but will now) that the social preexists the individual.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
PS And in any civilised society, part of this being-provided-for-by-others comes from the society itself, and from the state.
PS And in any civilised society, part of this being-provided-for-by-others comes from the society itself, and from the state.
In reply to Coel Hellier: currently hiding from proof reading a phd thesis on "the limits of liberal multiculturalism", so this rather close to what I should be doing! Anyway, it strikes me that within modern liberal states most of us are 'freer' than anyone is in a 'tribal' society (crappy term but you know what I mean). We are closer to the state of nature here than there - meaning of course there is nothing 'natural' about it.
I was reading a quirky piece the other week arguing that the Swedish welfare state is actually an expression of an extreme individualism within Swedish culture. It make some sense though, the individual in a strong welfare states has 'outsourced' her responsibilities and claims from the familial/community level to an abstract and distant third party - "the state".
I suspect that only in less developed societies so damaged by war that familial responsibilities begin to break do you get other, anarchic states of nature. Somalia perhaps? Although even there there has always been a clan dimension to the politics.
I was reading a quirky piece the other week arguing that the Swedish welfare state is actually an expression of an extreme individualism within Swedish culture. It make some sense though, the individual in a strong welfare states has 'outsourced' her responsibilities and claims from the familial/community level to an abstract and distant third party - "the state".
I suspect that only in less developed societies so damaged by war that familial responsibilities begin to break do you get other, anarchic states of nature. Somalia perhaps? Although even there there has always been a clan dimension to the politics.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Well fine, but other opinions are available.
> IMO meanings of "freedom" that amount to "the right to be provided for by others" are misuses of the term.
Well fine, but other opinions are available.
In reply to TobyA:
Agreed, but IMO other words should be used for these others meanings, since the point of words is to be useful by making distinctions between different meanings.
If there are two main, and fundamentally different, meanings of the same word then discourse is hampered.
> Well fine, but other opinions are available.
Agreed, but IMO other words should be used for these others meanings, since the point of words is to be useful by making distinctions between different meanings.
If there are two main, and fundamentally different, meanings of the same word then discourse is hampered.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Well, "bank" means at least 6 different things, but that doesn't hamper discourse provided we distinguish them.
Have a look at Berlin's 2 Concepts of Liberty. He does some careful distinguishing there.
Well, "bank" means at least 6 different things, but that doesn't hamper discourse provided we distinguish them.
Have a look at Berlin's 2 Concepts of Liberty. He does some careful distinguishing there.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
But there the different meanings are in very different contexts, so the intended meaning is usually clear.
If we talk about freedom, and trading off different societal goods against freedom, then it helps if everyone is clear what we mean by the terms.
> Well, "bank" means at least 6 different things, but that doesn't hamper discourse provided we distinguish them.
But there the different meanings are in very different contexts, so the intended meaning is usually clear.
If we talk about freedom, and trading off different societal goods against freedom, then it helps if everyone is clear what we mean by the terms.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Sure. I'm a philosopher, so I'm hardly going to disagree with a request for clarity of meaning. Though clarity is only one ideal; intuitiveness is another. If we decreed that we were going to use "freedom" to mean "police state", that would be pretty clear, but hardly intuitive.
Sure. I'm a philosopher, so I'm hardly going to disagree with a request for clarity of meaning. Though clarity is only one ideal; intuitiveness is another. If we decreed that we were going to use "freedom" to mean "police state", that would be pretty clear, but hardly intuitive.
In reply to Tim Chappell/ Coel: Do you think freedom exists?
In reply to dek:
I read that book a few years back, very interesting. Especially the unified Germany's decision not to destroy the former GDR Police files. Of course at the fall of the wall east German officials tried their hardest to shred and burn all record of their police state activities but such was the vast and comprehensive record keeping they barely scratched the surface. People could apply to view their own file and more often or not found out that a brother, best mate, wife or work colleague had been spying on them and reporting back to the authorities.
I remember the tragic story of the teenager who was a very good swimmer who was being trained to represent the GDR at the olympics, unfortunately she met and fell in love with a man with whom the authorities thought was an unsuitable companion. His crime was that his father had once owned a few shops and thus deemed 'tainted' with capitalist ideals. She refused to finish her relationship and as a consequence she mysteriously lost her job as a hotel receptionist, of course being unemployed was illegal so she ended up being arrested and put in prison. Happy utopian state.
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> If you fancy living in the GDR utopia, read Anna Funders book,Stasiland.
> It was so good, anyone trying to escape was machine gunned by border guards, and the bodies were left sometimes as a warning to other miscreants.
> You would be unique, someone trying to break 'into' a totalitarian shithole!
> If you fancy living in the GDR utopia, read Anna Funders book,Stasiland.
> It was so good, anyone trying to escape was machine gunned by border guards, and the bodies were left sometimes as a warning to other miscreants.
> You would be unique, someone trying to break 'into' a totalitarian shithole!
I read that book a few years back, very interesting. Especially the unified Germany's decision not to destroy the former GDR Police files. Of course at the fall of the wall east German officials tried their hardest to shred and burn all record of their police state activities but such was the vast and comprehensive record keeping they barely scratched the surface. People could apply to view their own file and more often or not found out that a brother, best mate, wife or work colleague had been spying on them and reporting back to the authorities.
I remember the tragic story of the teenager who was a very good swimmer who was being trained to represent the GDR at the olympics, unfortunately she met and fell in love with a man with whom the authorities thought was an unsuitable companion. His crime was that his father had once owned a few shops and thus deemed 'tainted' with capitalist ideals. She refused to finish her relationship and as a consequence she mysteriously lost her job as a hotel receptionist, of course being unemployed was illegal so she ended up being arrested and put in prison. Happy utopian state.
In reply to MG:
I'm not sure what you're asking. Does perfect freedom exist? No. Are there different degrees to which individuals can choose their own actions and lives in different societies? Yes. Thus "freedom" exists in the sense that it describes one attribute of society.
> Do you think freedom exists?
I'm not sure what you're asking. Does perfect freedom exist? No. Are there different degrees to which individuals can choose their own actions and lives in different societies? Yes. Thus "freedom" exists in the sense that it describes one attribute of society.
In reply to Coel Hellier: I possibly wasn't being entirely serious!
In reply to Coel Hellier:
This thread has taken a much awaited turn for the better, which probably explains the conspicuous absence of Gudrun !
This thread has taken a much awaited turn for the better, which probably explains the conspicuous absence of Gudrun !
In reply to MG:
If that means "Are there places in the world where there is political freedom?", then yes. The UK for instance.
Notice that "Is there political freedom in country X?" is one question, "How much political freedom is there in country X?" is another. If you ask me "Is there political freedom in Saudi Arabia?" I'll say No. But if you ask me "How much political freedom is there in Saudi?" I'll say "A bit, but not nearly enough".
> (In reply to Tim Chappell/ Coel) Do you think freedom exists?
If that means "Are there places in the world where there is political freedom?", then yes. The UK for instance.
Notice that "Is there political freedom in country X?" is one question, "How much political freedom is there in country X?" is another. If you ask me "Is there political freedom in Saudi Arabia?" I'll say No. But if you ask me "How much political freedom is there in Saudi?" I'll say "A bit, but not nearly enough".
In reply to Pyreneenemec:
Easy on her. She works long shifts, I gather. And though she has spent too much time being insulting, she's also been very scrupulous and dedicated in trying to take questions and objections seriously. Good for her. (Not that she persuades me one iota.)
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> This thread has taken a much awaited turn for the better, which probably explains the conspicuous absence of Gudrun !
>
> This thread has taken a much awaited turn for the better, which probably explains the conspicuous absence of Gudrun !
Easy on her. She works long shifts, I gather. And though she has spent too much time being insulting, she's also been very scrupulous and dedicated in trying to take questions and objections seriously. Good for her. (Not that she persuades me one iota.)
In reply to Tim Chappell:
And also...
If you ask me "Is there political freedom in the UK?" I'll say Yes. But if you ask me "How much political freedom is there in the UK?" I'll say "Quite a lot, but not enough".
>
And also...
If you ask me "Is there political freedom in the UK?" I'll say Yes. But if you ask me "How much political freedom is there in the UK?" I'll say "Quite a lot, but not enough".
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Well, at the moment I'm not working at all, however, this does not mean that I inundate UKC with my inane rantings !
> (In reply to Pyreneenemec)
> [...]
>
>
> Easy on her. She works long shifts, I gather. And though she has spent too much time being insulting, she's also been very scrupulous and dedicated in trying to take questions and objections seriously. Good for her. (Not that she persuades me one iota.)
> [...]
>
>
> Easy on her. She works long shifts, I gather. And though she has spent too much time being insulting, she's also been very scrupulous and dedicated in trying to take questions and objections seriously. Good for her. (Not that she persuades me one iota.)
Well, at the moment I'm not working at all, however, this does not mean that I inundate UKC with my inane rantings !
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Where do you see a lack?
> But if you ask me "How much political freedom is there in the UK?" I'll say "Quite a lot, but not enough".
Where do you see a lack?
In reply to Coel Hellier:
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/index.php
[Disclaimer: just because I broadly agree with them doesn't mean I accept every single thing they say.]
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/index.php
[Disclaimer: just because I broadly agree with them doesn't mean I accept every single thing they say.]
Liberty are on the cyclists' side too:
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/2012/police-target-cyclists-dur...
What's not to like?
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/2012/police-target-cyclists-dur...
What's not to like?
In reply to Tim Chappell
IMO the concept: "People who are getting housing paid for by the taxpayer, and who are separated, should get to have a taxpayer-funded spare room because if they don't they can't so easily have their children to stay which thus violates their rights" is an abuse of the ideas of "right to family life" and "political freedom".
IMO the concept: "People who are getting housing paid for by the taxpayer, and who are separated, should get to have a taxpayer-funded spare room because if they don't they can't so easily have their children to stay which thus violates their rights" is an abuse of the ideas of "right to family life" and "political freedom".
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Suppose I agree with that. (I don't think I do, but suppose.) Does it follow that the state should intervene to redress this abuse?
It does not. The state should intervene only where it can improve things by intervening. The currently proposed state intervention on this issue is too crude and simple-minded to improve anything. It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The only way to check who is motivated in the way that you condemn, and who is motivated in other and quite possibly perfectly worthy ways, is to do a huge amount of surveillance and interference. Which is bad.
See other thread.
Suppose I agree with that. (I don't think I do, but suppose.) Does it follow that the state should intervene to redress this abuse?
It does not. The state should intervene only where it can improve things by intervening. The currently proposed state intervention on this issue is too crude and simple-minded to improve anything. It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The only way to check who is motivated in the way that you condemn, and who is motivated in other and quite possibly perfectly worthy ways, is to do a huge amount of surveillance and interference. Which is bad.
See other thread.
PS There is also, let's face it, an interesting question about why Mr Cameron's government picks the targets it does. Why is it always "benefit cheats", i.e. villains at the lower end of the class scale? What about the corporations and individuals paying less than 1% tax, at the other end (Mr Cameron's own end) of the class scale?
If there is an abnegation of responsibility in both cases--which costs the country more? And who of the two might we reasonably expect to be more responsible?
If there is an abnegation of responsibility in both cases--which costs the country more? And who of the two might we reasonably expect to be more responsible?
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Re the Budget a week ago:
"A number of measures designed to clamp down on Jimmy Carr-style exotic employment arrangements, such as dressing up taxable earnings as loans, have been announced as part of a £4.6bn government crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion.
The measures are part of what the chancellor claimed was "one of the largest ever packages of tax avoidance and evasion measures presented at a budget ..."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/mar/20/budget-2013-tax-avoidance-ev...
> Why is it always "benefit cheats", i.e. villains at the lower end of the class scale? What about the
> corporations and individuals paying less than 1% tax, at the other end (Mr Cameron's own end) of the class scale?
> corporations and individuals paying less than 1% tax, at the other end (Mr Cameron's own end) of the class scale?
Re the Budget a week ago:
"A number of measures designed to clamp down on Jimmy Carr-style exotic employment arrangements, such as dressing up taxable earnings as loans, have been announced as part of a £4.6bn government crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion.
The measures are part of what the chancellor claimed was "one of the largest ever packages of tax avoidance and evasion measures presented at a budget ..."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/mar/20/budget-2013-tax-avoidance-ev...
In reply to Gudrun:
Do any of you actually *do* any work whatsoever ?
What on earth do you people do that you can actually call work .....UKC ?
I work 11 1/2 hour shifts with only a break to get something to eat.
Am i paying the wages of you poncey pontificating wasters to bandy about some waste of time philosophical pish that matters to no one ???
Do any of you actually *do* any work whatsoever ?
What on earth do you people do that you can actually call work .....UKC ?
I work 11 1/2 hour shifts with only a break to get something to eat.
Am i paying the wages of you poncey pontificating wasters to bandy about some waste of time philosophical pish that matters to no one ???
In reply to TobyA:
ah so i show how your last post was a complete red herring and waste of space so now you wheel out another.
If your story was true do you want to compare that with the hell of capitalist civilization for women ?
Come on now don't be a shrinking liberal !
> Oddly, a couple of year ago I was wandering around Vyborg
> BTW, have you ever been to Russia?
ah so i show how your last post was a complete red herring and waste of space so now you wheel out another.
If your story was true do you want to compare that with the hell of capitalist civilization for women ?
Come on now don't be a shrinking liberal !
In reply to dek:
Sad little Dek and his Isreali paradise where it's ok to murder Palestinian kids...Sleep well.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cold-war-espionage-10-000-east-...
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> No Doll, I got it from speaking to former 'inmates' of the GDR. The ex informers still hang out their windows watching who's going about, force of habit. One spy for every six of the population. Life was grey, dull, fearfull in the towns and cities. The only good thing I found was the beer!
> No Doll, I got it from speaking to former 'inmates' of the GDR. The ex informers still hang out their windows watching who's going about, force of habit. One spy for every six of the population. Life was grey, dull, fearfull in the towns and cities. The only good thing I found was the beer!
Sad little Dek and his Isreali paradise where it's ok to murder Palestinian kids...Sleep well.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cold-war-espionage-10-000-east-...
In reply to Tim Chappell:
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The freedom not to live in a system that will throw,you out in the street,make you i'll from existensial worries like feeding your family,roof over your head,Unemployment,Crime,Recessions,inequality and war.Which promotes unity for the many over the few,trading in the security of the few for the security of us all !!!!!
> THE WHOLE POINT OF THE STATE IS TO PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE INDIVIDUAL'S FREEDOM
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The freedom not to live in a system that will throw,you out in the street,make you i'll from existensial worries like feeding your family,roof over your head,Unemployment,Crime,Recessions,inequality and war.Which promotes unity for the many over the few,trading in the security of the few for the security of us all !!!!!
In reply to Gudrun:
We're absolutely on the same page here, Gudrun.
Now, can we agree (a) that the GDR was a police state and (b) that police states are an intolerable evil?
PS No, I never do any work at all. Sorry about that and everything
We're absolutely on the same page here, Gudrun.
Now, can we agree (a) that the GDR was a police state and (b) that police states are an intolerable evil?
PS No, I never do any work at all. Sorry about that and everything
In reply to Gudrun:
The state is also the mechanism by which the dominant class maintains its dominance over other classes. So until the final classless society is reached and the state as a tool of class domination has "withered away" the state has a double role, oppressive and also protective?
The state is also the mechanism by which the dominant class maintains its dominance over other classes. So until the final classless society is reached and the state as a tool of class domination has "withered away" the state has a double role, oppressive and also protective?
In reply to Gudrun:
I lived in communist Czechoslovakia and I am happy it's over. We suffer the consequences of destroyed enviroment and disrupted society still. Communism is as violent and hateful ideology Nasizm and very similar in conclusion
>
> To me Communism *is* freedom.
>
> And i can only dream about how amazing it would have been to live in such a wonderful society free of your capitalist horrors.I know many people who lived in Communist Czechoslovakia
> To me Communism *is* freedom.
>
> And i can only dream about how amazing it would have been to live in such a wonderful society free of your capitalist horrors.I know many people who lived in Communist Czechoslovakia
I lived in communist Czechoslovakia and I am happy it's over. We suffer the consequences of destroyed enviroment and disrupted society still. Communism is as violent and hateful ideology Nasizm and very similar in conclusion
In reply to pavelk:
Watch out, Gudrun! First hand evidence from Pavel here...
Talking of first-hand evidence, I myself have met Greek scholars in Prague in 2009 and 2011, from Charles University, who were close friends of Vaclav Havel, went to the same prison, etc.
They too seemed curiously unenthusiastic about the workers' paradise that they escaped from in 1990.
Watch out, Gudrun! First hand evidence from Pavel here...
Talking of first-hand evidence, I myself have met Greek scholars in Prague in 2009 and 2011, from Charles University, who were close friends of Vaclav Havel, went to the same prison, etc.
They too seemed curiously unenthusiastic about the workers' paradise that they escaped from in 1990.
In reply to Gudrun: what was a red herring?
And who said anything about comparing with "the hell of capitalist civilization for women"?
You said no women were forced to prostitute themselves in the USSR. This is of course completely ridiculous and I don't for a minute you could possibly be so naive to believe it, but I was just telling you about my friend who actually lived there, sharing his home with a prostitute.
Do you really honestly believe there were no prostitutes in the USSR?!
You didn't actually answer the other question either - have you ever visited Russia or indeed any former part of the USSR?
And who said anything about comparing with "the hell of capitalist civilization for women"?
You said no women were forced to prostitute themselves in the USSR. This is of course completely ridiculous and I don't for a minute you could possibly be so naive to believe it, but I was just telling you about my friend who actually lived there, sharing his home with a prostitute.
Do you really honestly believe there were no prostitutes in the USSR?!
You didn't actually answer the other question either - have you ever visited Russia or indeed any former part of the USSR?
In reply to Gudrun:
Achtung Baby!
UKCs very own Colonel Rosa Kleb is back!
> (In reply to dek)
> Sad little Dek and his Isreali paradise where it's ok to murder Palestinian kids...Sleep well.
>
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cold-war-espionage-10-000-east-...
>
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cold-war-espionage-10-000-east-...
Achtung Baby!
UKCs very own Colonel Rosa Kleb is back!
In reply to dek:
Just for the record, though: it's not OK to murder Palestinian kids.
In fact, it's not OK to murder any kids.
Come to that, it's not OK to murder.
Just for the record, though: it's not OK to murder Palestinian kids.
In fact, it's not OK to murder any kids.
Come to that, it's not OK to murder.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Do they?
Do they really? or is that what the rich in the capitalist countries who own the media and dominate academia as we have seen on this very thread want us t think?
AND IS THAT WHY THEY HAVE ACTUALLY OR ATTEMPTED TO MASSACRE,TORTURE AND REMOVE EVERY SINGLE SOCIALIST LEADER OR PEOPLE THAT HAVE STOOD UP TO THEM FOR THE PEOPLE AND NOT THE RICH?
COMMUNISM IS THE PEOPLE,IS THE MASSES ,WORKING TOGETHER AGAINST THE FEW AGAINST THE OPPRESSORS AND FASCISTS !
Did your Bush fascist lie about WMD what about Blair and *all* the rest?
So the warmongering capitalists who keep people and nations poor to keep them rich don't tell lies??
Are you living in la la land ?
what's it like? Having your head in the sand?
Your a social democrat eh?
People... i'll use the word pejoratively since it woz your mob that started the 1st WW which led to the 2nd and 100 million dead.
Big success for your mob there cos they were mainly poor folk that were slaughtered, so more riches for the wee liberal SD's,of course in the end that's all that matters eh ,just like these days.
> But totalitarian states lie compulsively, helplessly, habitually,
Do they?
Do they really? or is that what the rich in the capitalist countries who own the media and dominate academia as we have seen on this very thread want us t think?
AND IS THAT WHY THEY HAVE ACTUALLY OR ATTEMPTED TO MASSACRE,TORTURE AND REMOVE EVERY SINGLE SOCIALIST LEADER OR PEOPLE THAT HAVE STOOD UP TO THEM FOR THE PEOPLE AND NOT THE RICH?
COMMUNISM IS THE PEOPLE,IS THE MASSES ,WORKING TOGETHER AGAINST THE FEW AGAINST THE OPPRESSORS AND FASCISTS !
> Truth is a precious thing, as precious in its way as freedom is. And I just find liars contemptible.
Did your Bush fascist lie about WMD what about Blair and *all* the rest?
So the warmongering capitalists who keep people and nations poor to keep them rich don't tell lies??
Are you living in la la land ?
what's it like? Having your head in the sand?
Your a social democrat eh?
People... i'll use the word pejoratively since it woz your mob that started the 1st WW which led to the 2nd and 100 million dead.
Big success for your mob there cos they were mainly poor folk that were slaughtered, so more riches for the wee liberal SD's,of course in the end that's all that matters eh ,just like these days.
In reply to Gudrun:
COMMUNISM IS THE PEOPLE,IS THE MASSES ,WORKING TOGETHER AGAINST THE FEW AGAINST THE OPPRESSORS AND FASCISTS !
How did the gulag archipelago fit in?
COMMUNISM IS THE PEOPLE,IS THE MASSES ,WORKING TOGETHER AGAINST THE FEW AGAINST THE OPPRESSORS AND FASCISTS !
How did the gulag archipelago fit in?
In reply to Gudrun:
Not *my* Bush fascist, Gudrun. I wouldn't have him on a stick, thank you very much.
Touch of the Bruce if-they-disagree-with-me-they're-all-the-same mentality there, I think.
I am not the going-on-marches kind (course not; I'm a liberal) but you have hit on the one issue that I actually did get angry enough to go on marches about: the Iraq war.
And yes, Bush lied like a totalitarian about it. So did Blair. They lied like Brezhnev. They lied *almost* like Kim Il Sung. That was one of the main things that made me so angry.
But you know what? Because Britain and the US are free societies, *everyone could see at once* that they were lying.
In Russia, it could have taken 20 years.
Not *my* Bush fascist, Gudrun. I wouldn't have him on a stick, thank you very much.
Touch of the Bruce if-they-disagree-with-me-they're-all-the-same mentality there, I think.
I am not the going-on-marches kind (course not; I'm a liberal) but you have hit on the one issue that I actually did get angry enough to go on marches about: the Iraq war.
And yes, Bush lied like a totalitarian about it. So did Blair. They lied like Brezhnev. They lied *almost* like Kim Il Sung. That was one of the main things that made me so angry.
But you know what? Because Britain and the US are free societies, *everyone could see at once* that they were lying.
In Russia, it could have taken 20 years.
In reply to Gudrun:
Under capitalism, man exploits man.
Under communism, it's precisely the opposite.
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> I have wrecked Pauli's argument before Tim and i will do it
>
> I have wrecked Pauli's argument before Tim and i will do it
Under capitalism, man exploits man.
Under communism, it's precisely the opposite.
In reply to Gudrun:
Big success for your mob there cos they were mainly poor folk that were slaughtered, so more riches for the wee liberal SD's,of course in the end that's all that matters eh ,just like these days.
Gudrun... some of the things you say are good thinking. Some of them, less so. This bit here ^ is really not good. Don't do it like that, you've shown that you don't need to...
Big success for your mob there cos they were mainly poor folk that were slaughtered, so more riches for the wee liberal SD's,of course in the end that's all that matters eh ,just like these days.
Gudrun... some of the things you say are good thinking. Some of them, less so. This bit here ^ is really not good. Don't do it like that, you've shown that you don't need to...
In reply to TobyA:
Was there a red light district in the Soviet states ?
No !
Were women kept from having to lose all dignity because that is what it's about you know?Were women free to work, free from the unemployment and recessions of capitalist/rich over poor societies.Free to feed their kids without subjecting temselves to the abhorrent and disgusting prostitution that is a mainstay of capitalist filth?
There was relatively NO prostitution in the Soviet countries and if you think there was you are an out and out liar.
Was there a red light district in the Soviet states ?
No !
Were women kept from having to lose all dignity because that is what it's about you know?Were women free to work, free from the unemployment and recessions of capitalist/rich over poor societies.Free to feed their kids without subjecting temselves to the abhorrent and disgusting prostitution that is a mainstay of capitalist filth?
There was relatively NO prostitution in the Soviet countries and if you think there was you are an out and out liar.
In reply to Gudrun:
"relatively no"?
Eh?
Was there or wasn't there?
Oh, and of course, your evidence please
"relatively no"?
Eh?
Was there or wasn't there?
Oh, and of course, your evidence please
In reply to Gudrun:
Sometimes I find your naivety touchingly refreshing
> (In reply to TobyA)
>
> Was there a red light district in the Soviet states ?
>
> No !
>
> Were women kept from having to lose all dignity because that is what it's about you know?Were women free to work, free from the unemployment and recessions of capitalist/rich over poor societies.Free to feed their kids without subjecting temselves to the abhorrent and disgusting prostitution that is a mainstay of capitalist filth?
>
> There was relatively NO prostitution in the Soviet countries and if you think there was you are an out and out liar.
>
> Was there a red light district in the Soviet states ?
>
> No !
>
> Were women kept from having to lose all dignity because that is what it's about you know?Were women free to work, free from the unemployment and recessions of capitalist/rich over poor societies.Free to feed their kids without subjecting temselves to the abhorrent and disgusting prostitution that is a mainstay of capitalist filth?
>
> There was relatively NO prostitution in the Soviet countries and if you think there was you are an out and out liar.
Sometimes I find your naivety touchingly refreshing
In reply to Oceanrower:
She's long overdue, a visit to a re-education establishment?!
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> [...]
>
> Sometimes I find your naivety touchingly refreshing
> [...]
>
> Sometimes I find your naivety touchingly refreshing
She's long overdue, a visit to a re-education establishment?!
In reply to off-duty:
Bourgeoisie and fascist exploiters mainly but Uncle Joe as that rascist and genocidal war criminal Churchill liked to call him did kill many fellow communistas as well as the original Blosheviks.
How did your fascist concentration camps go and your trans-Atlantis slave trade Offy?
Ps. Are you still finding it difficult to empathize with anyone who speaks a foreign langauge(al la cuddley Hugo Chavez) or is that a part of the UK police job description?
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> COMMUNISM IS THE PEOPLE,IS THE MASSES ,WORKING TOGETHER AGAINST THE FEW AGAINST THE OPPRESSORS AND FASCISTS !
>
>
> How did the gulag archipelago fit in?
> COMMUNISM IS THE PEOPLE,IS THE MASSES ,WORKING TOGETHER AGAINST THE FEW AGAINST THE OPPRESSORS AND FASCISTS !
>
>
> How did the gulag archipelago fit in?
Bourgeoisie and fascist exploiters mainly but Uncle Joe as that rascist and genocidal war criminal Churchill liked to call him did kill many fellow communistas as well as the original Blosheviks.
How did your fascist concentration camps go and your trans-Atlantis slave trade Offy?
Ps. Are you still finding it difficult to empathize with anyone who speaks a foreign langauge(al la cuddley Hugo Chavez) or is that a part of the UK police job description?
In reply to Gudrun:
Let's just hold back a minute. You're doing that bad-as-each-other thing now.
I'm not buying it. Yes, the slave trade was bad, but (a) we abolished in 1812 and (b) no, sorry, the lamentable fact that it happened at all does NOT mean that our society is as bad as Stalin's or Hitler's.
Let's just hold back a minute. You're doing that bad-as-each-other thing now.
I'm not buying it. Yes, the slave trade was bad, but (a) we abolished in 1812 and (b) no, sorry, the lamentable fact that it happened at all does NOT mean that our society is as bad as Stalin's or Hitler's.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
F off SD warmonger !
It is a well known fact... look it up... get a brain.
Fascist boy!
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> "relatively no"?
>
> Eh?
>
> Was there or wasn't there?
>
> Oh, and of course, your evidence please
> "relatively no"?
>
> Eh?
>
> Was there or wasn't there?
>
> Oh, and of course, your evidence please
F off SD warmonger !
It is a well known fact... look it up... get a brain.
Fascist boy!
In reply to Gudrun:
I'm not rich, Gudrun-- I thought we'd settled this?
> (In reply to Gudrun)
>
> So now i'm out numbered by little rich ponces.That's UKC for you.
>
> So now i'm out numbered by little rich ponces.That's UKC for you.
I'm not rich, Gudrun-- I thought we'd settled this?
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Oceanrower)
>
> I rather like Gudrun, actually. When she's not shouting at me
Reminds me of wotsits face, Saddams propaganda minister, "No Americans in Iraq". . >
> I rather like Gudrun, actually. When she's not shouting at me
In reply to Gudrun:
War monger????
I've just told you I was anti- the Iraq war. You are listening aren't you?
Or are you saying that WW1 is my personal responsibility because I'm a liberal?
If so, may I recommend a lie down with a cold compress on your eyes?
War monger????
I've just told you I was anti- the Iraq war. You are listening aren't you?
Or are you saying that WW1 is my personal responsibility because I'm a liberal?
If so, may I recommend a lie down with a cold compress on your eyes?
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Oh right !!!
We abolished it after we had become the richest nation in the world because of it so that makes it ok then EH ?
For an African slave ?
How?
Remember the first to die in your fascist Germany were the Socialist internationalists who oppossed your war!
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> I'm not buying it. Yes, the slave trade was bad, but (a) we abolished in 1812 and
Oh right !!!
We abolished it after we had become the richest nation in the world because of it so that makes it ok then EH ?
> (b) no, sorry, the lamentable fact that it happened at all does NOT mean that our society is as bad as Stalin's or Hitler's.
For an African slave ?
How?
Remember the first to die in your fascist Germany were the Socialist internationalists who oppossed your war!
In reply to Gudrun:
Interesting point of view.
> (In reply to Gudrun)
>
> So now i'm out numbered by little rich ponces.That's UKC for you.
>
> So now i'm out numbered by little rich ponces.That's UKC for you.
Interesting point of view.
In reply to Oceanrower:
What do you now about anything at all ?
Stick to your wee boat kid and leave the real stuff for people who know what they are talking about.
What do you now about anything at all ?
Stick to your wee boat kid and leave the real stuff for people who know what they are talking about.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
I don't give a flying F what you like kid.
> (In reply to Oceanrower)
>
> I rather like Gudrun, actually. When she's not shouting at me
>
> I rather like Gudrun, actually. When she's not shouting at me
I don't give a flying F what you like kid.
In reply to Gudrun:
I didn't realise Solzhenitsyn was a fascist.
They were terrible. I am glad that we don't do it in the 21st century.
As I am sure you are well aware my difficulty was in appreciating your empathy with someone who didn't speak English - since you clearly don't speak Spanish.
I certainly find it harder to empathise with someone with whom I don't share a common language, whose country I have never visited and whose society I have never lived in. I can certainly acknowledge the progress he made though.
Luckily though the level of empathy required in my job involves dealing with victims of crime with practical help and assistance - regardless of their backgrounds or countries of origin, rather than starting threads on the the interweb lamenting their passing.
Not sure what relevance that has - unless it's your way of pointing out you have never lived in a communist or socialist country either?
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> Bourgeoisie and fascist exploiters mainly but Uncle Joe as that rascist and genocidal war criminal Churchill liked to call him did kill many fellow communistas as well as the original Blosheviks.
>
> [...]
>
> Bourgeoisie and fascist exploiters mainly but Uncle Joe as that rascist and genocidal war criminal Churchill liked to call him did kill many fellow communistas as well as the original Blosheviks.
>
I didn't realise Solzhenitsyn was a fascist.
> How did your fascist concentration camps go and your trans-Atlantis slave trade Offy?
>
>
They were terrible. I am glad that we don't do it in the 21st century.
> Ps. Are you still finding it difficult to empathize with anyone who speaks a foreign langauge(al la cuddley Hugo Chavez) or is that a part of the UK police job description?
As I am sure you are well aware my difficulty was in appreciating your empathy with someone who didn't speak English - since you clearly don't speak Spanish.
I certainly find it harder to empathise with someone with whom I don't share a common language, whose country I have never visited and whose society I have never lived in. I can certainly acknowledge the progress he made though.
Luckily though the level of empathy required in my job involves dealing with victims of crime with practical help and assistance - regardless of their backgrounds or countries of origin, rather than starting threads on the the interweb lamenting their passing.
Not sure what relevance that has - unless it's your way of pointing out you have never lived in a communist or socialist country either?
In reply to Green Porridge:
Read the F'in thread FFS before you print this nonsense
See this-
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cold-war-espionage-10-000-east-...
I to had family in the GDR and they said it was the happiest time of their lives.
And you couldn't lose your job unless you were guilty of gross misconduct or crimes against the people and even then you would be given another job.Jees friggin western propaganda pish !!
Read the F'in thread FFS before you print this nonsense
See this-
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cold-war-espionage-10-000-east-...
I to had family in the GDR and they said it was the happiest time of their lives.
And you couldn't lose your job unless you were guilty of gross misconduct or crimes against the people and even then you would be given another job.Jees friggin western propaganda pish !!
In reply to Oceanrower:
She's just been chucked out of the Gestapo.....for cruelty.
> (In reply to Gudrun) Someone's in a bad mood tonight.
>
> Wonder what the next name change will be.
>
> Wonder what the next name change will be.
She's just been chucked out of the Gestapo.....for cruelty.
In reply to off-duty:
Neither did i ..is he ..or did i say he was?...he was a friggin liar though.
Well no one has dne it yet inthe 21st Cen but give capitalism time ...
Good for you! viva la Revolution ... eh ?
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> I didn't realise Solzhenitsyn was a fascist.
Neither did i ..is he ..or did i say he was?...he was a friggin liar though.
> They were terrible. I am glad that we don't do it in the 21st century.
Well no one has dne it yet inthe 21st Cen but give capitalism time ...
> As I am sure you are well aware my difficulty was in appreciating your empathy with someone who didn't speak English - since you clearly don't speak Spanish.
> I certainly find it harder to empathise with someone with whom I don't share a common language, whose country I have never visited and whose society I have never lived in. I can certainly acknowledge the progress he made though.
> Luckily though the level of empathy required in my job involves dealing with victims of crime with practical help and assistance - regardless of their backgrounds or countries of origin, rather than starting threads on the the interweb lamenting their passing.
>
> Not sure what relevance that has - unless it's your way of pointing out you have never lived in a communist or socialist country either?
> I certainly find it harder to empathise with someone with whom I don't share a common language, whose country I have never visited and whose society I have never lived in. I can certainly acknowledge the progress he made though.
> Luckily though the level of empathy required in my job involves dealing with victims of crime with practical help and assistance - regardless of their backgrounds or countries of origin, rather than starting threads on the the interweb lamenting their passing.
>
> Not sure what relevance that has - unless it's your way of pointing out you have never lived in a communist or socialist country either?
Good for you! viva la Revolution ... eh ?
In reply to Gudrun:
I'm getting tired of this.
1) > We abolished it after we had become the richest nation in the world because of it so that makes it ok then EH ?
No. Nothing makes it OK. I said as much, above.
2) > For an African slave ?
Slavery was a terrible thing that our society did. Nonetheless, our society is not as bad as Stalin's or Hitler's. That's what I said. That's what I meant.
3. > Remember the first to die in your fascist Germany were the Socialist internationalists who oppossed your war!
(a) Not *my* fascist Germany. Nazism is an ideology I would die to help destroy. I've said so before and I mean it. You're being pointlessly insulting.
(b) Not *my* war. I didn't start the First World War. Nor the Second. Honest. It wisnae me, miss.
(c) Not really. Hitler killed all sorts of people, all along. Communists and socialists (i.e. ones who weren't *National* Socialists) among them. But Jews, gypsies, freemasons, Catholics, gays, the disabled, Nazi dissenters, and the catastrophically unlucky as well.
Now, how about my questions above: was the GDR a police state, in your view? And don't you think a police state is a very, very bad thing?
I'm getting tired of this.
1) > We abolished it after we had become the richest nation in the world because of it so that makes it ok then EH ?
No. Nothing makes it OK. I said as much, above.
2) > For an African slave ?
>
> How?
> How?
Slavery was a terrible thing that our society did. Nonetheless, our society is not as bad as Stalin's or Hitler's. That's what I said. That's what I meant.
3. > Remember the first to die in your fascist Germany were the Socialist internationalists who oppossed your war!
(a) Not *my* fascist Germany. Nazism is an ideology I would die to help destroy. I've said so before and I mean it. You're being pointlessly insulting.
(b) Not *my* war. I didn't start the First World War. Nor the Second. Honest. It wisnae me, miss.
(c) Not really. Hitler killed all sorts of people, all along. Communists and socialists (i.e. ones who weren't *National* Socialists) among them. But Jews, gypsies, freemasons, Catholics, gays, the disabled, Nazi dissenters, and the catastrophically unlucky as well.
Now, how about my questions above: was the GDR a police state, in your view? And don't you think a police state is a very, very bad thing?
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Lets just take the UK for a start eh?
4 million in poverty.
30 million financially insecure.
2.1 million people in work are in poverty.
11 million feel socially excluded.
28% of parents skimp on feeding themselves to feed their kids.
2.5 million in live in homes with severe damp.
If that is better than anyone has every done then you have clearly never heard of the achievements of the workers states of Eastern Europe and Mother Russia.
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> I think we're doing well on both of those in Europe today, certainly better than anyone else has ever done.
Lets just take the UK for a start eh?
4 million in poverty.
30 million financially insecure.
2.1 million people in work are in poverty.
11 million feel socially excluded.
28% of parents skimp on feeding themselves to feed their kids.
2.5 million in live in homes with severe damp.
If that is better than anyone has every done then you have clearly never heard of the achievements of the workers states of Eastern Europe and Mother Russia.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
So because you say our society was better than Stalinism or Hitlers that makes it right???
NO!
our society didn't do what Stalin did to the bourgeoisie or the scum did to the entire working class and socialist movement in Germany..no.. we did it abroad.
to 10's of millions of Indians who we starved to death as well as chinese...have you read "late victorain holocausts"?
We made Stalin look like a boy scout!
Hitler,our rich landed aristocracy you know like the ones in power just know that want to arm some religious psychopaths in Syria? supported him to the hilt.
Our rascist and fascist nation that Hitler so admired and wanted so much to copy.
> Slavery was a terrible thing that our society did. Nonetheless, our society is not as bad as Stalin's or Hitler's. That's what I said. That's what I meant.
So because you say our society was better than Stalinism or Hitlers that makes it right???
NO!
our society didn't do what Stalin did to the bourgeoisie or the scum did to the entire working class and socialist movement in Germany..no.. we did it abroad.
to 10's of millions of Indians who we starved to death as well as chinese...have you read "late victorain holocausts"?
We made Stalin look like a boy scout!
Hitler,our rich landed aristocracy you know like the ones in power just know that want to arm some religious psychopaths in Syria? supported him to the hilt.
Our rascist and fascist nation that Hitler so admired and wanted so much to copy.
In reply to Gudrun:
Not quite sure what your point is here.
I don't at all agree that Victorian England was worse that Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany; I think that's obvious rubbish.
But that wasn't my point. I wasn't comparing the USSR or Nazi Germany with our society in the past. I was comparing them with our society now.
So tell me: do you really think that our society now is no better than Nazi Germany?
Really?
And while you're at it perhaps you could answer my questions about the GDR, and about the badness of police states.
Not quite sure what your point is here.
I don't at all agree that Victorian England was worse that Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany; I think that's obvious rubbish.
But that wasn't my point. I wasn't comparing the USSR or Nazi Germany with our society in the past. I was comparing them with our society now.
So tell me: do you really think that our society now is no better than Nazi Germany?
Really?
And while you're at it perhaps you could answer my questions about the GDR, and about the badness of police states.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
I'll bet you Fin are !
Showin up for what you are but want to conceal or perhaps you have spent so much time looking for faults in other people that you forgot to look at yourself or perhaps it is to save you looking at yourself.I don't know and i don't care but i won't have any SD criticize my Marxist/Leninism..no f way!
I am no efin liberal i am an authoritarian and if its Communist Marxist/Leninism as in Czechoslovakia.then its aaaaaall good !!
> I'm getting tired of this.
I'll bet you Fin are !
Showin up for what you are but want to conceal or perhaps you have spent so much time looking for faults in other people that you forgot to look at yourself or perhaps it is to save you looking at yourself.I don't know and i don't care but i won't have any SD criticize my Marxist/Leninism..no f way!
I am no efin liberal i am an authoritarian and if its Communist Marxist/Leninism as in Czechoslovakia.then its aaaaaall good !!
In reply to Tim Chappell:
are you sayng that Stalin's crimes compare to the crimes of victorian UK ?
If you are you don't know what you are talking about.
> I don't at all agree that Victorian England was worse that Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany; I think that's obvious rubbish.
are you sayng that Stalin's crimes compare to the crimes of victorian UK ?
If you are you don't know what you are talking about.
In reply to Gudrun:
Yes, I am. I thought we were actually communicating for a bit there, but you've reverted to macho shouting. I think this is a pity.
I wonder if your proud announcement that you're an authoritarian means that you *approve* of police states. I hope not. But if it does, then I wonder why you think a communist police state is any better than a Nazi police state. I dare say rubber truncheons feel the same in either.
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> [...]
>
> I'll bet you Fin are !
>
> [...]
>
> I'll bet you Fin are !
Yes, I am. I thought we were actually communicating for a bit there, but you've reverted to macho shouting. I think this is a pity.
I wonder if your proud announcement that you're an authoritarian means that you *approve* of police states. I hope not. But if it does, then I wonder why you think a communist police state is any better than a Nazi police state. I dare say rubber truncheons feel the same in either.
In reply to Gudrun:
I do know what I'm talking about. I've spent 30 years reading and thinking about modern history and political philosophy. The fact that I've reached conclusions different from yours is no evidence that I've reasoned badly.
Intelligent, thoughtful people do differ sometimes, you know. That's one reason why democracy and freedom of speech are so important.
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> [...]
>
> are you sayng that Stalin's crimes compare to the crimes of victorian UK ?
>
> If you are you don't know what you are talking about.
>
> [...]
>
> are you sayng that Stalin's crimes compare to the crimes of victorian UK ?
>
> If you are you don't know what you are talking about.
I do know what I'm talking about. I've spent 30 years reading and thinking about modern history and political philosophy. The fact that I've reached conclusions different from yours is no evidence that I've reasoned badly.
Intelligent, thoughtful people do differ sometimes, you know. That's one reason why democracy and freedom of speech are so important.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Your whole picture of the E.Bloc is painted by some polis in Bulgaria that to you seemed to frighten the locals and you as the imperialist brit abroad would "rebel"(laugh)by whistling some disgusting empire fascist anthem.
My cousin has a home in Spain and Scotland,he has many good Spaniard pals,a couple of them have told him how much they enjoyed when Rangers fans battered F out of the fascist Spanish police in the 70's.Because they had murdered 10's of thousands of their comerades.
If you had went to Spain and seen actual murderous police would you have become a Communista?
No...posh boy...fascsimo is ok...the enemy is the people.
Your whole picture of the E.Bloc is painted by some polis in Bulgaria that to you seemed to frighten the locals and you as the imperialist brit abroad would "rebel"(laugh)by whistling some disgusting empire fascist anthem.
My cousin has a home in Spain and Scotland,he has many good Spaniard pals,a couple of them have told him how much they enjoyed when Rangers fans battered F out of the fascist Spanish police in the 70's.Because they had murdered 10's of thousands of their comerades.
If you had went to Spain and seen actual murderous police would you have become a Communista?
No...posh boy...fascsimo is ok...the enemy is the people.
> If you had went to Spain and seen actual murderous police would you have become a Communista?
No, because fascism and communism are not the only alternatives. Murderous fascist police in Spain would have had the same effect on me as bullying communist police in Bulgaria: they would have made me determined to oppose police states.
Do you oppose police states? If you do, you haven't said so.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
or a British colony where they murder and starve the population to death whilst bleeding them dry and working them to death.
Remember Hitler based his Reich on your fascist british empire steeped in rascism.
I don't care how many years you have studied whatever ....i know i am right as HH Dalai Lama said -
"I am a Marxist"
> (In reply to Gudrun
> I wonder if your proud announcement that you're an authoritarian means that you *approve* of police states. I hope not. But if it does, then I wonder why you think a communist police state is any better than a Nazi police state. I dare say rubber truncheons feel the same in either.
> I wonder if your proud announcement that you're an authoritarian means that you *approve* of police states. I hope not. But if it does, then I wonder why you think a communist police state is any better than a Nazi police state. I dare say rubber truncheons feel the same in either.
or a British colony where they murder and starve the population to death whilst bleeding them dry and working them to death.
Remember Hitler based his Reich on your fascist british empire steeped in rascism.
I don't care how many years you have studied whatever ....i know i am right as HH Dalai Lama said -
"I am a Marxist"
In reply to Tim Chappell:
police state !
I told you what i stand for ..the people,the poor and if supporting them means a police state then too f.in right i support a police state.
Man i remember when the police used to come round our cooncil scheme way back when i was wee,they'd fly round the backs and grab one of the young guys and kick the shit out of them in front of all of us.
Posh boys like you never seen what happened in your own country to the poor and working class.To you it was all f.in sweet and rosy .
police state !
I told you what i stand for ..the people,the poor and if supporting them means a police state then too f.in right i support a police state.
Man i remember when the police used to come round our cooncil scheme way back when i was wee,they'd fly round the backs and grab one of the young guys and kick the shit out of them in front of all of us.
Posh boys like you never seen what happened in your own country to the poor and working class.To you it was all f.in sweet and rosy .
In reply to Gudrun:
I'm fairly confident that whilst the Dalai Lama professed Marxist leanings he definitely doesn't share your views about the necessity for a police state.
Does that make hm wrong, or you?
I'm fairly confident that whilst the Dalai Lama professed Marxist leanings he definitely doesn't share your views about the necessity for a police state.
Does that make hm wrong, or you?
In reply to Green Porridge:
Yes, are you suggesting they starved?
EH?
The brainwashing by the opulent has worked a treat on gullible simple minds like yours .
any dissent from socialismo would be a crime against the people.Do you have a problem with that rich boy?
> (In reply to ruckman)
>
> Are you suggesting that everyone in the USSR and former Eastern Block countries had enough to eat?
>
> Are you suggesting that everyone in the USSR and former Eastern Block countries had enough to eat?
Yes, are you suggesting they starved?
EH?
The brainwashing by the opulent has worked a treat on gullible simple minds like yours .
> Still, I like the fact that you can voice a dissenting opinion against the current government, even against the current political system. Or course, in the GDR, that wouldn't have been allowed.
any dissent from socialismo would be a crime against the people.Do you have a problem with that rich boy?
In reply to Gudrun:
Well, if that means that a discussion like this would result in everyone apart from you and Bruce ending up in a gulag, I expect there might be a couple of objections to it.
> (In reply to Epic Ebdon)
> [...]
>
>
> any dissent from socialismo would be a crime against the people.Do you have a problem with that rich boy?
> [...]
>
>
> any dissent from socialismo would be a crime against the people.Do you have a problem with that rich boy?
Well, if that means that a discussion like this would result in everyone apart from you and Bruce ending up in a gulag, I expect there might be a couple of objections to it.
In reply to off-duty:
On UKC ha!
Surprise surprise!
Home of some of the most far right,backward and reactionary opinions that i have seen in the 21st century.
On UKC ha!
Surprise surprise!
Home of some of the most far right,backward and reactionary opinions that i have seen in the 21st century.
In reply to Cú Chullain:
Total lies!
In the GDR 90% of all assets were owned by the people(VEBs)
In 1985 2.8% of of net national income came from private enterprises-electrical installation companies,plumbers,carpenters,butchers,bakers,farmers,craftspeople,wholesalers,retailers and gardeners.As well as artsts and writers etc.
in 1985 there were 176,800 private entrepeneurs in the GDR.
So how the F does your lying book come to the conclusion that -
Or was this at the very begining of the GDR ?
You know when the Russians took reparations for the millions murdered by the imperialists?
> I read that book a few years back, very interesting. Especially the unified Germany's decision not to destroy the former GDR Police files.
> I remember the tragic story of the teenager who was a very good swimmer
> His crime was that his father had once owned a few shops and thus deemed 'tainted' with capitalist ideals. She refused to finish her relationship and as a consequence she mysteriously lost her job as a hotel receptionist, of course being unemployed was illegal so she ended up being arrested and put in prison. Happy utopian state.
> I remember the tragic story of the teenager who was a very good swimmer
> His crime was that his father had once owned a few shops and thus deemed 'tainted' with capitalist ideals. She refused to finish her relationship and as a consequence she mysteriously lost her job as a hotel receptionist, of course being unemployed was illegal so she ended up being arrested and put in prison. Happy utopian state.
Total lies!
In the GDR 90% of all assets were owned by the people(VEBs)
In 1985 2.8% of of net national income came from private enterprises-electrical installation companies,plumbers,carpenters,butchers,bakers,farmers,craftspeople,wholesalers,retailers and gardeners.As well as artsts and writers etc.
in 1985 there were 176,800 private entrepeneurs in the GDR.
So how the F does your lying book come to the conclusion that -
> His crime was that his father had once owned a few shops and thus deemed 'tainted' with capitalist ideals. She refused to finish her relationship
Or was this at the very begining of the GDR ?
You know when the Russians took reparations for the millions murdered by the imperialists?
In reply to Pyreneenemec:
No .... that will be the fact that i am a worker who works 11 1/2 hour shifts.
Something that you probably won't even be able to begin to comprehend,but don't worry about it.
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> This thread has taken a much awaited turn for the better, which probably explains the conspicuous absence of Gudrun !
>
> This thread has taken a much awaited turn for the better, which probably explains the conspicuous absence of Gudrun !
No .... that will be the fact that i am a worker who works 11 1/2 hour shifts.
Something that you probably won't even be able to begin to comprehend,but don't worry about it.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Fully agree Bruce!
and
Las Malvinas son Argentinas !
> (In reply to Gudrun)
>
> The state is also the mechanism by which the dominant class maintains its dominance over other classes. So until the final classless society is reached and the state as a tool of class domination has "withered away" the state has a double role, oppressive and also protective?
>
> The state is also the mechanism by which the dominant class maintains its dominance over other classes. So until the final classless society is reached and the state as a tool of class domination has "withered away" the state has a double role, oppressive and also protective?
Fully agree Bruce!
and
Las Malvinas son Argentinas !
In reply to Gudrun:
The GDR Stasi, kept samples of your pubes in glass jars at HQ. Made it easy for those f*ck off big Doberman polis dugs to find you!
The GDR Stasi, kept samples of your pubes in glass jars at HQ. Made it easy for those f*ck off big Doberman polis dugs to find you!
In reply to dek:
no...that is actually funny Dek.
stick to humour though and then you won't be caught out,
you are quite funny but stop drinking the mad dog 20/20 ...eh?
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> The GDR Stasi, kept samples of your pubes in glass jars at HQ. Made it easy for those f*ck off big Doberman polis dugs to find you!
> The GDR Stasi, kept samples of your pubes in glass jars at HQ. Made it easy for those f*ck off big Doberman polis dugs to find you!
no...that is actually funny Dek.
stick to humour though and then you won't be caught out,
you are quite funny but stop drinking the mad dog 20/20 ...eh?
In reply to Gudrun:
That doesn't make any sense, you can't "relatively" turn a light on or off.
I can understand why you might want defend the idea of communism but that doesn't mean you have ignore or deny the realities of life in the Soviet Union. Here's an 1986 article about Soviet authorities deciding they need to clamp down on prostitution: http://articles.philly.com/1986-11-22/news/26093000_1_prostitutes-madams-ol... Of course there was prostitution in the USSR, where isn't there?
I also read this slightly silly Pravda article on prostitution for the KGB http://english.pravda.ru/news/society/sex/08-07-2002/45946-0/
The status of women more generally in the USSR was complex and contradictory and there has been lots of historical work done on it since.
> There was relatively NO prostitution in the Soviet countries
That doesn't make any sense, you can't "relatively" turn a light on or off.
I can understand why you might want defend the idea of communism but that doesn't mean you have ignore or deny the realities of life in the Soviet Union. Here's an 1986 article about Soviet authorities deciding they need to clamp down on prostitution: http://articles.philly.com/1986-11-22/news/26093000_1_prostitutes-madams-ol... Of course there was prostitution in the USSR, where isn't there?
I also read this slightly silly Pravda article on prostitution for the KGB http://english.pravda.ru/news/society/sex/08-07-2002/45946-0/
The status of women more generally in the USSR was complex and contradictory and there has been lots of historical work done on it since.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Mostly right, but Hitler did not kill Catholics for being Catholics (though he did kill political opponents who happened to be Catholic). The idea that Hitler killed Catholics for being Catholics is a myth put about by Catholics who are trying to disassociate themselves from Hitler's regime.
About a third of Germany was Catholic then, and Catholics were abundant among the Nazi party, among the SS, and among the Germany military. Indeed, among SS guards at Auschwitz, the most common religious affiliation (as recorded in SS records) was "Catholic".
> Not really. Hitler killed all sorts of people, all along. Communists and socialists (i.e. ones who
> weren't *National* Socialists) among them. But Jews, gypsies, freemasons, Catholics, gays, the
> disabled, Nazi dissenters, and the catastrophically unlucky as well.
> weren't *National* Socialists) among them. But Jews, gypsies, freemasons, Catholics, gays, the
> disabled, Nazi dissenters, and the catastrophically unlucky as well.
Mostly right, but Hitler did not kill Catholics for being Catholics (though he did kill political opponents who happened to be Catholic). The idea that Hitler killed Catholics for being Catholics is a myth put about by Catholics who are trying to disassociate themselves from Hitler's regime.
About a third of Germany was Catholic then, and Catholics were abundant among the Nazi party, among the SS, and among the Germany military. Indeed, among SS guards at Auschwitz, the most common religious affiliation (as recorded in SS records) was "Catholic".
In reply to Gudrun:
>> I think we're doing well on both of those in Europe today, certainly better than anyone else has ever done.
But the problem with *relative* measures such as "poverty" as we currently define it is that it tells you little about the actual circumstances in "poverty". All it says is that household income is below 60% of median, it doesn't tell you what that means in absolute terms.
60% of current UK median income is very well off compared to typical conditions in much of the rest of the world. UK "poverty" levels are a degree of wealth well above medians in the third world; such people, in world terms, are rich.
It's also the case that the current UK "poverty" level would make you better off than most workers were in the USSR. So, I'm sticking to my claim that overall today's Europe is doing pretty well and certainly better than anyone else has ever done.
That land where the entire population was in poverty, owing to the entire economy being dysfunctional, except of course for a few of the Party elite who used their position to their advantage?
Citation?
>> I think we're doing well on both of those in Europe today, certainly better than anyone else has ever done.
> Lets just take the UK for a start eh? 4 million in poverty.
But the problem with *relative* measures such as "poverty" as we currently define it is that it tells you little about the actual circumstances in "poverty". All it says is that household income is below 60% of median, it doesn't tell you what that means in absolute terms.
60% of current UK median income is very well off compared to typical conditions in much of the rest of the world. UK "poverty" levels are a degree of wealth well above medians in the third world; such people, in world terms, are rich.
It's also the case that the current UK "poverty" level would make you better off than most workers were in the USSR. So, I'm sticking to my claim that overall today's Europe is doing pretty well and certainly better than anyone else has ever done.
> If that is better than anyone has every done then you have clearly never heard of the achievements
> of the workers states of Eastern Europe and Mother Russia.
> of the workers states of Eastern Europe and Mother Russia.
That land where the entire population was in poverty, owing to the entire economy being dysfunctional, except of course for a few of the Party elite who used their position to their advantage?
> 28% of parents skimp on feeding themselves to feed their kids.
Citation?
In reply to Gudrun:
You are Deirdre Spart and I claim my £5!!
> Contrary to your blinkered views which are focused by the anti-Communist Western media who are run by the rich.Hundreds of millions of people lived very happy lives relaxing in the knowledge that they were safe from the capitalist specters of homelessness,unemployment,recessions,debt,exploitation and crime
You are Deirdre Spart and I claim my £5!!
In reply to Gudrun:
Oh dear. There's not much point in continuing this. But a couple of quick comments:
a) on your fascist british empire steeped in rascism.
Once again, not my British empire. And not fascist, either. At most times and at most places it wasn't democratic. But that doesn't make it fascist. If you're going to use that word so much, you might as well use it with some precision, for right wing totalitarian states like Franco's Spain and Galtieri's Argentina. As opposed to left wing totalitarian states like the GDR. Do remind me what the difference is.
And while I'm at it: since the word 'racism' is clearly so important to your discourse, why not learn to spell it?
b) i know i am right
You obviously do think you know you're right. But here's the thing. So do lots of other people, including me. So a remark like this cancels through. It gets us nowhere.
And: from your point of view, is this exercise about *you* making *yourself* feel ideologically righteous? Or is it about persuasion? Do you want to actually convince anyone, or are you happy just shouting bargain-basement agitprop slogans that we've all heard before from a safe distance?
It seems to be the latter. I've tried (hard) to engage you in a proper discussion rather than a rant-fest, and for a little while it looked like we were discussing... but you've reverted to the monotonous Dave Spart stuff, decided I'm your Ideological Enemy or something, and simply closed your mind down. That's a shame.
You say above that you don't mind having a police state if that's the price of achieving perfect communism. If you can say that, then I don't think you get it at all. A police state is not a *means* to any other political settlement. It's like having the Mafia running things. It's a gangster state, full of grubby, corrupt criminals serving their own ends and oppressing everybody else. It's not a means to communism. It's a self-perpetuating racket. Police states don't magically transmute into workers' paradises with one flick of the Marxist wand. They stick around until some TRUE revolutionary, like Lech Walensa or Vaclav Havel or Andrei Solzhenitsyn or indeed Mikhail Gorbachev, finds a way to undermine them. Let's hope that happens to the world's few remaining communist states-- N Korea, Cuba, and China, sort of-- as soon as possible.
Happy Easter...
Oh dear. There's not much point in continuing this. But a couple of quick comments:
a) on your fascist british empire steeped in rascism.
Once again, not my British empire. And not fascist, either. At most times and at most places it wasn't democratic. But that doesn't make it fascist. If you're going to use that word so much, you might as well use it with some precision, for right wing totalitarian states like Franco's Spain and Galtieri's Argentina. As opposed to left wing totalitarian states like the GDR. Do remind me what the difference is.
And while I'm at it: since the word 'racism' is clearly so important to your discourse, why not learn to spell it?
b) i know i am right
You obviously do think you know you're right. But here's the thing. So do lots of other people, including me. So a remark like this cancels through. It gets us nowhere.
And: from your point of view, is this exercise about *you* making *yourself* feel ideologically righteous? Or is it about persuasion? Do you want to actually convince anyone, or are you happy just shouting bargain-basement agitprop slogans that we've all heard before from a safe distance?
It seems to be the latter. I've tried (hard) to engage you in a proper discussion rather than a rant-fest, and for a little while it looked like we were discussing... but you've reverted to the monotonous Dave Spart stuff, decided I'm your Ideological Enemy or something, and simply closed your mind down. That's a shame.
You say above that you don't mind having a police state if that's the price of achieving perfect communism. If you can say that, then I don't think you get it at all. A police state is not a *means* to any other political settlement. It's like having the Mafia running things. It's a gangster state, full of grubby, corrupt criminals serving their own ends and oppressing everybody else. It's not a means to communism. It's a self-perpetuating racket. Police states don't magically transmute into workers' paradises with one flick of the Marxist wand. They stick around until some TRUE revolutionary, like Lech Walensa or Vaclav Havel or Andrei Solzhenitsyn or indeed Mikhail Gorbachev, finds a way to undermine them. Let's hope that happens to the world's few remaining communist states-- N Korea, Cuba, and China, sort of-- as soon as possible.
Happy Easter...
>>You say above that you don't mind having a police state if that's the price of achieving perfect communism. If you can say that, then I don't think you get it at all. A police state is not a *means* to any other political settlement. It's like having the Mafia running things. It's a gangster state, full of grubby, corrupt criminals serving their own ends and oppressing everybody else. It's not a means to communism. It's a self-perpetuating racket.
PS Notice that this ^ has the corollary that when you defend police states like the GDR, what you're actually doing is acting as an apologist for the gangsters in the Stasi, the KGB, and the rest of the criminal cliques that typically control communist countries.
As I might say if I put things in your high-coloured way: How does it feel being a stooge for organised crime and murder?
However, since you've already pretty well presented yourself as an apologist for the Stasi, perhaps I don't need to bother.
PS Notice that this ^ has the corollary that when you defend police states like the GDR, what you're actually doing is acting as an apologist for the gangsters in the Stasi, the KGB, and the rest of the criminal cliques that typically control communist countries.
As I might say if I put things in your high-coloured way: How does it feel being a stooge for organised crime and murder?
However, since you've already pretty well presented yourself as an apologist for the Stasi, perhaps I don't need to bother.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
And that's what we have in the so called free west, but it's worse that the mafia as the criminal cartels up at the top appear to be all respectable, whilst the money laundering, weapons dealing, black budget criminally continues above the law, quite literary the untouchables, whilst we get a daily news feed of actors playing their parts in politics to keep us confused.
Indeed big up to the big J man.
> (In reply to Gudrun)
>
> It's like having the Mafia running things. It's a gangster state, full of grubby, corrupt criminals serving their own ends and oppressing everybody else.
>>
> It's like having the Mafia running things. It's a gangster state, full of grubby, corrupt criminals serving their own ends and oppressing everybody else.
And that's what we have in the so called free west, but it's worse that the mafia as the criminal cartels up at the top appear to be all respectable, whilst the money laundering, weapons dealing, black budget criminally continues above the law, quite literary the untouchables, whilst we get a daily news feed of actors playing their parts in politics to keep us confused.
> Happy Easter...
Indeed big up to the big J man.
In reply to johnj:
The usual we're-just-as-bad-as-them nonsense. No we're *not*.
Back to the Berlin Wall: if the West really was no better than the East, why all the fugitives?
And back to the war: if we're no better than Hitler/ Stalin, then why was WW2 worth winning?
The usual we're-just-as-bad-as-them nonsense. No we're *not*.
Back to the Berlin Wall: if the West really was no better than the East, why all the fugitives?
And back to the war: if we're no better than Hitler/ Stalin, then why was WW2 worth winning?
In reply to johnj:
Not that I agree with you - but an interesting comparison would be to try a similar sort of regime criticism in one of the many socialist police states we are being compared to.
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
> [...]
>
> And that's what we have in the so called free west, but it's worse that the mafia as the criminal cartels up at the top appear to be all respectable, whilst the money laundering, weapons dealing, black budget criminally continues above the law, quite literary the untouchables, whilst we get a daily news feed of actors playing their parts in politics to keep us confused.
>
> [...]
>
> And that's what we have in the so called free west, but it's worse that the mafia as the criminal cartels up at the top appear to be all respectable, whilst the money laundering, weapons dealing, black budget criminally continues above the law, quite literary the untouchables, whilst we get a daily news feed of actors playing their parts in politics to keep us confused.
>
Not that I agree with you - but an interesting comparison would be to try a similar sort of regime criticism in one of the many socialist police states we are being compared to.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
And this is how they keep us fighting, it's not us and them, it's just one big family on earth all trying our best to get on with life, the common man doesn't want war, it's the folk who develop the weapons systems. Hitler would have just been another right wing nut job, but somebody bombed him and us up to take Europe back to the stone age!
Give peas a chance eh!
> (In reply to johnj)
>
>
> The usual we're-just-as-bad-as-them nonsense. No we're *not*.
>
> Back to the Berlin Wall: if the West really was no better than the East, why all the fugitives?
>
> And back to the war: if we're no better than Hitler/ Stalin, then why was WW2 worth winning?
>
>
> The usual we're-just-as-bad-as-them nonsense. No we're *not*.
>
> Back to the Berlin Wall: if the West really was no better than the East, why all the fugitives?
>
> And back to the war: if we're no better than Hitler/ Stalin, then why was WW2 worth winning?
And this is how they keep us fighting, it's not us and them, it's just one big family on earth all trying our best to get on with life, the common man doesn't want war, it's the folk who develop the weapons systems. Hitler would have just been another right wing nut job, but somebody bombed him and us up to take Europe back to the stone age!
Give peas a chance eh!
In reply to johnj:
When was Europe bombed back to the Stone Age? I'm confused.
> Hitler would have just been another right wing nut job, but somebody bombed him and us up to take Europe back to the stone age!
When was Europe bombed back to the Stone Age? I'm confused.
In reply to johnj:
Hitler would have just been another right wing nut job, but somebody bombed him and us up to take Europe back to the stone age!
Never mind historically accurate, is that even grammatical? I certainly can't make sense of it, I'm afraid.
How to get started with people who (apparently) don't even agree that it was worthwhile defeating Hitler?
Hitler would have just been another right wing nut job, but somebody bombed him and us up to take Europe back to the stone age!
Never mind historically accurate, is that even grammatical? I certainly can't make sense of it, I'm afraid.
How to get started with people who (apparently) don't even agree that it was worthwhile defeating Hitler?
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Please excuse the flowering language on your oh so serious thread.
I mean how could Hitler have won, he was goin' sail across the pond and do a big beach landing at Camp Lejeune for some shock and awe.... really!
Meanwhile the Manhattan Project was going on under classification so we could fry lots of innocents.....
war pigs!
> (In reply to johnj)
>
> Hitler would have just been another right wing nut job, but somebody bombed him and us up to take Europe back to the stone age!
>
>
> Never mind historically accurate, is that even grammatical? I certainly can't make sense of it, I'm afraid.
>
> How to get started with people who (apparently) don't even agree that it was worthwhile defeating Hitler?
>
> Hitler would have just been another right wing nut job, but somebody bombed him and us up to take Europe back to the stone age!
>
>
> Never mind historically accurate, is that even grammatical? I certainly can't make sense of it, I'm afraid.
>
> How to get started with people who (apparently) don't even agree that it was worthwhile defeating Hitler?
Please excuse the flowering language on your oh so serious thread.
I mean how could Hitler have won, he was goin' sail across the pond and do a big beach landing at Camp Lejeune for some shock and awe.... really!
Meanwhile the Manhattan Project was going on under classification so we could fry lots of innocents.....
war pigs!
In reply to Tim Chappell:
This has always puzzled me, I heard it for the first time in France, now people seem to be saying it in Britain: how can someone being crucified and tortured for two or three days to death be anything to be happy about? It reminds me of Joachim Kahl's remark in "The Misery of Christianity" - "(Christianity)... is nothing but the sum total of sadomasochistic glorification of pain". Off subject, I agree but no more than nearly all of this thread.
Coming back to the main sub-subject though, on the situation of women in the Soviet block, those of you scoffing at the achievements there in this domain are wrong, women did occupy a far more equal position in society than in the West. There were very many women judges for example and women occupied jobs at many levels which are still male reserves in Western countries today. One of the changes when E Germany was joined to the West was that overnight many women lost their jobs. I remember distinctly a documentary about shipbuilding yards where many crane drivers were women, the enormous gantries that span the ship births could just as well be driven by women as men, but not in the eyes of the new owners after "unification"... the women were fired.
I don't think you do yourself much credit in demonising totally the communist experiment of Russia and it's consequences: you should at least bear in mind the horror of Czarist Russia which pushed the Russian people to rebel - no one takes such risks and accepts such sacrifice without a good reason. Nor ignore the avoidable political situation following the revolution - which put an end to WW1 on the Eastern front over night but then war was reignited by the War of Intervention when Britain, France and others attacked the newly born Soviet Union, on the sides of the old corrupt dictatorial regime, and imposed more years of fighting and misery on a people who were already on their knees. It was this that created the ground for Stalinism and authoritarian attitudes to grow in, as was the intention of course. If the world powers had helped Russia to recover, provided aid instead of bombs, who can be sure that the revolution would have taken the turn it did?
Coming to your caricature of the Eastern block, doubtless learnt from birth like all of us in Western countries, given that the Cold War is over, capitalism has "triumphed", for the moment and for a most likely while to go, wouldn't it be more intelligent to look at the achievements of the social and economic experience, to analyse objectively the why, and wherefores to see if there is nothing positive to be learnt? The battle is over, capitalism is no longer at risk from the USSR, what is there to lose from cutting the propaganda and looking at it all more coolly?
Or is the fear of a political philosophy which challenges the privileges that still dominate our lives, behind the scenes but still there, really so strong that the crude propaganda must go on? Do the 2 or 3% who own whatever percentage it is today - 80, 90, whatever, of the wealth still have reason to fear the "masses"?
> Happy Easter...
This has always puzzled me, I heard it for the first time in France, now people seem to be saying it in Britain: how can someone being crucified and tortured for two or three days to death be anything to be happy about? It reminds me of Joachim Kahl's remark in "The Misery of Christianity" - "(Christianity)... is nothing but the sum total of sadomasochistic glorification of pain". Off subject, I agree but no more than nearly all of this thread.
Coming back to the main sub-subject though, on the situation of women in the Soviet block, those of you scoffing at the achievements there in this domain are wrong, women did occupy a far more equal position in society than in the West. There were very many women judges for example and women occupied jobs at many levels which are still male reserves in Western countries today. One of the changes when E Germany was joined to the West was that overnight many women lost their jobs. I remember distinctly a documentary about shipbuilding yards where many crane drivers were women, the enormous gantries that span the ship births could just as well be driven by women as men, but not in the eyes of the new owners after "unification"... the women were fired.
I don't think you do yourself much credit in demonising totally the communist experiment of Russia and it's consequences: you should at least bear in mind the horror of Czarist Russia which pushed the Russian people to rebel - no one takes such risks and accepts such sacrifice without a good reason. Nor ignore the avoidable political situation following the revolution - which put an end to WW1 on the Eastern front over night but then war was reignited by the War of Intervention when Britain, France and others attacked the newly born Soviet Union, on the sides of the old corrupt dictatorial regime, and imposed more years of fighting and misery on a people who were already on their knees. It was this that created the ground for Stalinism and authoritarian attitudes to grow in, as was the intention of course. If the world powers had helped Russia to recover, provided aid instead of bombs, who can be sure that the revolution would have taken the turn it did?
Coming to your caricature of the Eastern block, doubtless learnt from birth like all of us in Western countries, given that the Cold War is over, capitalism has "triumphed", for the moment and for a most likely while to go, wouldn't it be more intelligent to look at the achievements of the social and economic experience, to analyse objectively the why, and wherefores to see if there is nothing positive to be learnt? The battle is over, capitalism is no longer at risk from the USSR, what is there to lose from cutting the propaganda and looking at it all more coolly?
Or is the fear of a political philosophy which challenges the privileges that still dominate our lives, behind the scenes but still there, really so strong that the crude propaganda must go on? Do the 2 or 3% who own whatever percentage it is today - 80, 90, whatever, of the wealth still have reason to fear the "masses"?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Hello Bruce,
1) "Happy Easter" is about the resurrection, not the death.
2) Women most certainly were more equal in the GDR. I mean, look at those shot-putters.
3) Not my thread. Gudrun's.
4) Not demonising. Trying to look objectively at, as you indeed recommend.
5) The rhetorical questions in your last paragraph suggest that you think I'm against equality. I'm not. On the contrary, as I've said, the foundation stone of my political philosophy is that the point of the state is to achieve freedom for its citizens. And that means equal freedom. Liberte', e'galite', fraternite' is a motto I'm perfectly happy with: to talk about liberty as an ideal IS to talk about equality before the law as an ideal, and both are empty achievements unless the society is genuinely social--is characterised by love, in fact.
Hello Bruce,
1) "Happy Easter" is about the resurrection, not the death.
2) Women most certainly were more equal in the GDR. I mean, look at those shot-putters.
3) Not my thread. Gudrun's.
4) Not demonising. Trying to look objectively at, as you indeed recommend.
5) The rhetorical questions in your last paragraph suggest that you think I'm against equality. I'm not. On the contrary, as I've said, the foundation stone of my political philosophy is that the point of the state is to achieve freedom for its citizens. And that means equal freedom. Liberte', e'galite', fraternite' is a motto I'm perfectly happy with: to talk about liberty as an ideal IS to talk about equality before the law as an ideal, and both are empty achievements unless the society is genuinely social--is characterised by love, in fact.
In reply to Bruce:
PS For me, the hero of the French revolution was Mirabeau, and the tragedy of the Fr. rev. was his untimely death.
PS For me, the hero of the French revolution was Mirabeau, and the tragedy of the Fr. rev. was his untimely death.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
I haven't been smoking anything, just playing with words really, whilst reading the same entrenched views that you always read on here, always debate to say this is better than that therfore its justified to distroy that.
It's like when the bbc shows some sweatshop, and you see it and it's a whole lot better than a lot of places many of us have worked, it's not us screwing the Chinese, it's the Chinese screwing the Chinese.
When you look at the whole materalistic system it just appears so complex that there are no answers, and we live we die shit happens, thats it one chance, and any talk of anything outside this is laughed at because we can't observe it...
then we go back to the same out shit, our systems better than their system, lets nuke them, before they get a chance to build some weapons to defend them selves.
I agree with a lot that this lass on here has to say, probably she's wrong about an awful lot, but at least she see's through the propaganda
I don't know if i'll get to see any real form of peace movements in my lifetime, but that doesn't stop me believing it will happen, and become part of that change.
As I said before happy easter y'all
till then X
I haven't been smoking anything, just playing with words really, whilst reading the same entrenched views that you always read on here, always debate to say this is better than that therfore its justified to distroy that.
It's like when the bbc shows some sweatshop, and you see it and it's a whole lot better than a lot of places many of us have worked, it's not us screwing the Chinese, it's the Chinese screwing the Chinese.
When you look at the whole materalistic system it just appears so complex that there are no answers, and we live we die shit happens, thats it one chance, and any talk of anything outside this is laughed at because we can't observe it...
then we go back to the same out shit, our systems better than their system, lets nuke them, before they get a chance to build some weapons to defend them selves.
I agree with a lot that this lass on here has to say, probably she's wrong about an awful lot, but at least she see's through the propaganda
I don't know if i'll get to see any real form of peace movements in my lifetime, but that doesn't stop me believing it will happen, and become part of that change.
As I said before happy easter y'all
till then X
In reply to Bruce Hooker)
the foundation stone of my political philosophy is that the point of the state is to achieve freedom for its citizens. And that means equal freedom. Liberte', e'galite', fraternite' is a motto I'm perfectly happy with: to talk about liberty as an ideal IS to talk about equality before the law as an ideal, and both are empty achievements unless the society is genuinely social--is characterised by love, in fact.
Spelling that out a little more: you could say that the central aim in political philosophy is to strike the right balance between the individual and the community. Each of us is made to be him/herself, as individual as possible; each of us also depends from the beginning upon others. Indeed, as I said earlier, no one could become an individual in the first place without the care and support of the other people around her.
I don't believe that state socialism, or any form of totalitarianism, gets this balance right. But I don't believe that Thatcher/ Milton Friedman/ Robert Nozick-style callous, hard-nosed individualism gets the balance right either.
This is why I'm a liberal.
the foundation stone of my political philosophy is that the point of the state is to achieve freedom for its citizens. And that means equal freedom. Liberte', e'galite', fraternite' is a motto I'm perfectly happy with: to talk about liberty as an ideal IS to talk about equality before the law as an ideal, and both are empty achievements unless the society is genuinely social--is characterised by love, in fact.
Spelling that out a little more: you could say that the central aim in political philosophy is to strike the right balance between the individual and the community. Each of us is made to be him/herself, as individual as possible; each of us also depends from the beginning upon others. Indeed, as I said earlier, no one could become an individual in the first place without the care and support of the other people around her.
I don't believe that state socialism, or any form of totalitarianism, gets this balance right. But I don't believe that Thatcher/ Milton Friedman/ Robert Nozick-style callous, hard-nosed individualism gets the balance right either.
This is why I'm a liberal.
In reply to johnj:
There's propaganda on both sides. Any sensible reading of history takes account of this. Unfortunately, Gudrun seems to think that everything that emanated from East Germany and the Soviet Union was untainted and unbiased, and everything from the West was highly partial whose sole aim was to discredit the East.
As with most things, the truth lies somewhere between the two.
> I agree with a lot that this lass on here has to say, probably she's wrong about an awful lot, but at least she see's through the propaganda
There's propaganda on both sides. Any sensible reading of history takes account of this. Unfortunately, Gudrun seems to think that everything that emanated from East Germany and the Soviet Union was untainted and unbiased, and everything from the West was highly partial whose sole aim was to discredit the East.
As with most things, the truth lies somewhere between the two.
In reply to tony:
Yes I agree.
> (In reply to johnj)
> [...]
>
> There's propaganda on both sides. Any sensible reading of history takes account of this. Unfortunately, Gudrun seems to think that everything that emanated from East Germany and the Soviet Union was untainted and unbiased, and everything from the West was highly partial whose sole aim was to discredit the East.
>
> As with most things, the truth lies somewhere between the two.
> [...]
>
> There's propaganda on both sides. Any sensible reading of history takes account of this. Unfortunately, Gudrun seems to think that everything that emanated from East Germany and the Soviet Union was untainted and unbiased, and everything from the West was highly partial whose sole aim was to discredit the East.
>
> As with most things, the truth lies somewhere between the two.
Yes I agree.
In reply to Gudrun:
You are a prototype of something we call "useful idiot", enthusiastic, ful of ideals and blind. When the revolution is finished people like You are first to be hanged (I don't wish You anything like that as well as I don't wish your revolution to anybody)
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> On UKC ha!
>
> Surprise surprise!
>
> Home of some of the most far right,backward and reactionary opinions that i have seen in the 21st century.
>
> On UKC ha!
>
> Surprise surprise!
>
> Home of some of the most far right,backward and reactionary opinions that i have seen in the 21st century.
You are a prototype of something we call "useful idiot", enthusiastic, ful of ideals and blind. When the revolution is finished people like You are first to be hanged (I don't wish You anything like that as well as I don't wish your revolution to anybody)
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Absolutely agree, people need to have little to lose to take such risks. But I would ask you to bear that in mind when considering Syria today, or even those who stood against the tanks outside the television tower in Vilnius in Jan. 1991 or in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
> you should at least bear in mind the horror of Czarist Russia which pushed the Russian people to rebel - no one takes such risks and accepts such sacrifice without a good reason
Absolutely agree, people need to have little to lose to take such risks. But I would ask you to bear that in mind when considering Syria today, or even those who stood against the tanks outside the television tower in Vilnius in Jan. 1991 or in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
>> Hitler did not kill Catholics for being Catholics
Well for every other category on your list, he killed people for being in that category. Thus "Catholic" was rather odd in that list.
>> Hitler did not kill Catholics for being Catholics
> I didn't say he did.
Well for every other category on your list, he killed people for being in that category. Thus "Catholic" was rather odd in that list.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Easter is all about the coming of spring, new life, eggs hatching, baby animals, the re-birth of life after the travails of winter (which, in Northern Europe before the days of central heating and supermarkets were severe).
So, yes, happy Easter, there is plenty to be happy about at Easter .. sun, warmth and the promise of lots of good weather for cragging.
(By the way, ignore those johnny-come-latelys who tried to re-brand the pagan Easter festival and now think Easter that Easter is all about them.)
> "Happy Easter" ... now people seem to be saying it in Britain: how can someone being crucified and
> tortured for two or three days to death be anything to be happy about?
> tortured for two or three days to death be anything to be happy about?
Easter is all about the coming of spring, new life, eggs hatching, baby animals, the re-birth of life after the travails of winter (which, in Northern Europe before the days of central heating and supermarkets were severe).
So, yes, happy Easter, there is plenty to be happy about at Easter .. sun, warmth and the promise of lots of good weather for cragging.
(By the way, ignore those johnny-come-latelys who tried to re-brand the pagan Easter festival and now think Easter that Easter is all about them.)
In reply to Gudrun:
Yep, the Hungarians loved their Kremlin backed communist imperial overlords and way of life so much they tried, and very nearly succeeded in throwing them out in 1956. Of course the russians had no intention of letting one of their colonies leave the socialist camp so responded as tyrants have done for years, with brutal force. I guess 2,500 slaughtered Hungarians is a fair price to keep the communist 'freedom' dream alive.
> And i can only dream about how amazing it would have been to live in such a wonderful society free of your capitalist horrors.I know many people who lived in Communist Czechoslovakia as well as having a couple of relatives who were in the GDR as well and good few other pals.I am not naturally baised there were countries that couldn't do as well as the USSR,Cz,GDR and Hungry
Yep, the Hungarians loved their Kremlin backed communist imperial overlords and way of life so much they tried, and very nearly succeeded in throwing them out in 1956. Of course the russians had no intention of letting one of their colonies leave the socialist camp so responded as tyrants have done for years, with brutal force. I guess 2,500 slaughtered Hungarians is a fair price to keep the communist 'freedom' dream alive.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long years
Stole many a man's soul and faith
And I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
I stuck around St. Petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain
I rode a tank
Held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
Ah, what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game,
Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long years
Stole many a man's soul and faith
And I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
I stuck around St. Petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain
I rode a tank
Held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
Ah, what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game,
In reply to pavelk:
So do you think the Russian people were wrong to get rid of the Tsarist dictatorship that they'd suffered under for so long?
> I don't wish your revolution to anybody)
So do you think the Russian people were wrong to get rid of the Tsarist dictatorship that they'd suffered under for so long?
In reply to Bruce Hooker: With hindsight? I would say yes. It was an utter disaster for them. Still is.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Ah, a straw man appears.......
> (In reply to pavelk)
>
> [...]
>
> So do you think the Russian people were wrong to get rid of the Tsarist dictatorship that they'd suffered under for so long?
>
> [...]
>
> So do you think the Russian people were wrong to get rid of the Tsarist dictatorship that they'd suffered under for so long?
Ah, a straw man appears.......
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
"The Russian people"?
In a situation of turmoil, a small gang of extremists mounted a putsch against Kerensky's government. To everyone's surprise, it succeeded. And then the repression began.
Lenin and his little group of terrorists getting lucky does not count as the will of the Russian people!
The contrast with the French revolution is, I think, instructive.
If you want to know my main source for info on the second revolution of 1917, it's the biography of Lenin by the communist Robert Conquest.
"The Russian people"?
In a situation of turmoil, a small gang of extremists mounted a putsch against Kerensky's government. To everyone's surprise, it succeeded. And then the repression began.
Lenin and his little group of terrorists getting lucky does not count as the will of the Russian people!
The contrast with the French revolution is, I think, instructive.
If you want to know my main source for info on the second revolution of 1917, it's the biography of Lenin by the communist Robert Conquest.
PS Notice how quietly Bruce has just conflated those two revolutions. The Bolshevik revolution was not against the Tsar at all (though they did murder him, and his family, along with all the other people they murdered).
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
No htey didn't. So-called revolution was coup d'etat and beginning of bloody civil war. At the end there was new dictatorship even worse than previous. Russia people suffered under either way
> (In reply to pavelk)
>
> [...]
>
> So do you think the Russian people were wrong to get rid of the Tsarist dictatorship that they'd suffered under for so long?
>
> [...]
>
> So do you think the Russian people were wrong to get rid of the Tsarist dictatorship that they'd suffered under for so long?
No htey didn't. So-called revolution was coup d'etat and beginning of bloody civil war. At the end there was new dictatorship even worse than previous. Russia people suffered under either way
In reply to TobyA:
But do you think the situations were the same? The Russian revolution came from within the country, no one was helping them from outside. Russia was at war but as part of a conservative alliance of other monarchies, who showed their views of the revolution by invading the country to try to reinstate the Tsarist dictatorship... The whole world was against the Russian revolutionaries.
Now compare that with the examples you give... not the same situation, is it? There is individual courage but also the "courage" provided from outside. The Syrian rebels had all the "free" world on their side, they were trained and encouraged over many years before the moment came to switch into action. Now those who are fighting, car bombing people in the streets, executing pro-government Syrians, or those accused of this and all the rest are helped, armed and paid from outside.
The other two incidents don't really compare to the Russian revolution either - individual courage is not the same as the gigantic mass movement that overthrew not just one autocratic, backward regime but changed the world in many ways, apart from any other things without the Soviet Revolution would the Chinese revolution have taken place and would all the other colonised peoples have been able to throw off their masters?
Before it went down the USSR changed the world outside it's borders, maybe more than within since the reaction brought down the socialist regime itself. Your examples are not on the same scale at all.
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> But I would ask you to bear that in mind when considering Syria today, or even those who stood against the tanks outside the television tower in Vilnius in Jan. 1991 or in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
>
> But I would ask you to bear that in mind when considering Syria today, or even those who stood against the tanks outside the television tower in Vilnius in Jan. 1991 or in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
But do you think the situations were the same? The Russian revolution came from within the country, no one was helping them from outside. Russia was at war but as part of a conservative alliance of other monarchies, who showed their views of the revolution by invading the country to try to reinstate the Tsarist dictatorship... The whole world was against the Russian revolutionaries.
Now compare that with the examples you give... not the same situation, is it? There is individual courage but also the "courage" provided from outside. The Syrian rebels had all the "free" world on their side, they were trained and encouraged over many years before the moment came to switch into action. Now those who are fighting, car bombing people in the streets, executing pro-government Syrians, or those accused of this and all the rest are helped, armed and paid from outside.
The other two incidents don't really compare to the Russian revolution either - individual courage is not the same as the gigantic mass movement that overthrew not just one autocratic, backward regime but changed the world in many ways, apart from any other things without the Soviet Revolution would the Chinese revolution have taken place and would all the other colonised peoples have been able to throw off their masters?
Before it went down the USSR changed the world outside it's borders, maybe more than within since the reaction brought down the socialist regime itself. Your examples are not on the same scale at all.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
But was the Spring festival called Easter?
I was obliged to go to church when I was at school, not by my parents who were not religious but at boarding school so I frequented vicars and churchgoers for many years, not to mention the excruciating boredom of the service itself, but I never heard anyone say "Happy Easter". This was about 50 years ago so I was wondering if this Happy Easter stuff is not something new?
Are they trying to build Easter up into a commercial affair like Christmas? Either that or an attempt at making Easter more sexy and gay... another effort to revive religion. It was only a time to eat loads of chocolate when I was a kid.
But was the Spring festival called Easter?
I was obliged to go to church when I was at school, not by my parents who were not religious but at boarding school so I frequented vicars and churchgoers for many years, not to mention the excruciating boredom of the service itself, but I never heard anyone say "Happy Easter". This was about 50 years ago so I was wondering if this Happy Easter stuff is not something new?
Are they trying to build Easter up into a commercial affair like Christmas? Either that or an attempt at making Easter more sexy and gay... another effort to revive religion. It was only a time to eat loads of chocolate when I was a kid.
In reply to Cú Chullain:
How many Libyans died to bring "freedom" to them? Or Greeks after WW2, or Vietnamese, or Algerians, or at present in Syria? It wasn't only the USSR that brought, or is bringing, freedom on the end of a bayonet.
> I guess 2,500 slaughtered Hungarians is a fair price to keep the communist 'freedom' dream alive.
How many Libyans died to bring "freedom" to them? Or Greeks after WW2, or Vietnamese, or Algerians, or at present in Syria? It wasn't only the USSR that brought, or is bringing, freedom on the end of a bayonet.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Mass killing of own citizens, political trials, calculated famine, secret pact with Nazis, nuclear vaste in Arctic Ocean, violent imperialism. That's the way the USSR changed the world
>
> Before it went down the USSR changed the world outside it's borders, maybe more than within since the reaction brought down the socialist regime itself.
> Before it went down the USSR changed the world outside it's borders, maybe more than within since the reaction brought down the socialist regime itself.
Mass killing of own citizens, political trials, calculated famine, secret pact with Nazis, nuclear vaste in Arctic Ocean, violent imperialism. That's the way the USSR changed the world
In reply to MG:
Maybe you should read a little about life in Russia under the Tsars? It wasn't all princesses on sleighs as depicted by many Russian authors. For the mass of the people it was the Middle Ages.
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) With hindsight? I would say yes. It was an utter disaster for them. Still is.
Maybe you should read a little about life in Russia under the Tsars? It wasn't all princesses on sleighs as depicted by many Russian authors. For the mass of the people it was the Middle Ages.
In reply to Postmanpat:
No straw man, he appeared to regret the Russian Revolution. The "man from the Telegraph" back on cue.
No straw man, he appeared to regret the Russian Revolution. The "man from the Telegraph" back on cue.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I believe Easter was traditionally a bigger celebration than Christmas because everyone is born but only Christ died and was resurrected.
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> This was about 50 years ago so I was wondering if this Happy Easter stuff is not something new?
>
>
No, people have been saying "happy Easter" for as long as I can remember which is the best part of fifty years. I alway wondered why it was "merry Christmas" but "happy Easter". You just didn't notice.>
> This was about 50 years ago so I was wondering if this Happy Easter stuff is not something new?
>
>
I believe Easter was traditionally a bigger celebration than Christmas because everyone is born but only Christ died and was resurrected.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Where did he mention the Russian revolution or did you just infer this?
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> No straw man, he appeared to regret the Russian Revolution.
>>
> No straw man, he appeared to regret the Russian Revolution.
Where did he mention the Russian revolution or did you just infer this?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
According to Bede, writing in the 8th C, yes it was. "Easter" was derived from the word for the month in which the spring festival occurred (equivalent to April,) which was Eosturmonaþ in Old Germanic English, which was derived from the pagan goddess Eostre.
> But was the Spring festival called Easter?
According to Bede, writing in the 8th C, yes it was. "Easter" was derived from the word for the month in which the spring festival occurred (equivalent to April,) which was Eosturmonaþ in Old Germanic English, which was derived from the pagan goddess Eostre.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
There are numerous works on the Russian revolution, perhaps you should read one?
The actual mechanism of the French revolution wasn't that different except the people involved were not driven by the same theories, it was anti-aristocrat and anti-clerical but most of the revolutionaries were not aiming at a "workers state" they were representatives of the middle classes - it was a bourgeois revolution. The Russian revolution aimed to go straight from feudalism to a workers' state.
Lenin didn't "get lucky", the old regime was weakened by the world war, and it's own archaism. The returning soldiers provided the troops, Lenin provided the impetus, but he was far from alone. It's funny you call Lenin a "terrorist", what do you call all the b*stards who started WW1 which killed 40 million or more? Saints?
There are numerous works on the Russian revolution, perhaps you should read one?
The actual mechanism of the French revolution wasn't that different except the people involved were not driven by the same theories, it was anti-aristocrat and anti-clerical but most of the revolutionaries were not aiming at a "workers state" they were representatives of the middle classes - it was a bourgeois revolution. The Russian revolution aimed to go straight from feudalism to a workers' state.
Lenin didn't "get lucky", the old regime was weakened by the world war, and it's own archaism. The returning soldiers provided the troops, Lenin provided the impetus, but he was far from alone. It's funny you call Lenin a "terrorist", what do you call all the b*stards who started WW1 which killed 40 million or more? Saints?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
There are numerous works on both Russian revolutions, perhaps you should learn to tell them apart?
There are numerous works on both Russian revolutions, perhaps you should learn to tell them apart?
In reply to Tim Chappell:
There were at least three; two in 1917 and one in 1905. Did you forget about the 1905 one?
> There are numerous works on both Russian revolutions, perhaps you should learn to tell them apart?
There were at least three; two in 1917 and one in 1905. Did you forget about the 1905 one?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
You keep saying this, but that doesn't mean it isn't utter bollocks. The people who first protested in Daraa had no "training" or support, they were just pissed off at being treated crappily by their government and had seen fellow Arabs around the mid-East/North Africa protest and succeed. If you actually read up on it you would perhaps be aware of the economic drivers to the revolution that marginalised the rural masses in Syria.
The peaceful revolutionary movements in the Baltics of course change the world because they showed the hollowness of the Soviet Empire, and soon led to it crumbling away. It's funny that you are such an anti-imperialist normally, but you support an empire that stretched from Tashkent to Tallinn.
BTW, how many of the Bolshevik leaders had found shelter in exile before the revolution?
> There is individual courage but also the "courage" provided from outside. The Syrian rebels had all the "free" world on their side, they were trained and encouraged over many years
You keep saying this, but that doesn't mean it isn't utter bollocks. The people who first protested in Daraa had no "training" or support, they were just pissed off at being treated crappily by their government and had seen fellow Arabs around the mid-East/North Africa protest and succeed. If you actually read up on it you would perhaps be aware of the economic drivers to the revolution that marginalised the rural masses in Syria.
The peaceful revolutionary movements in the Baltics of course change the world because they showed the hollowness of the Soviet Empire, and soon led to it crumbling away. It's funny that you are such an anti-imperialist normally, but you support an empire that stretched from Tashkent to Tallinn.
BTW, how many of the Bolshevik leaders had found shelter in exile before the revolution?
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
I know, but we were talking about 1917.
Quick sidebar on this standard-issue line that we're getting from Bruce and Gudrun, that the world wars were "capitalism's fault" and therefore that "capitalism is just as bad for killing people as communism" and therefore that communism is defensible.
First, that's two non sequiturs in a row, marked by the "therefores".
Secondly, that people die in wars is bad, but quite a different thing from people dying in the death-camps of totalitarianism.
Thirdly, neither WW1 nor WW2 was "capitalism's fault".
Not in the strict sense of capitalism: neither was caused by markets, neither was a trade war.
Not in the loose sense of capitalism either. WW1 was caused by the Kaiser's aggression; the Kaiser was a sort of out-of-time feudal absoluist, not a capitalist. And WW2 was caused by Hitler's aggression: and Hitler was, by his own account, a socialist, by most other people's, a fascist, in any case a totalitarian.
The world wars were caused by totalitarianism, not by capitalism.
Also, who was keenest in Britain and France to get WW2 started? The communists, that's who. And on that score, good for them.
So "the world wars were caused by capitalism" is, to put it bluntly, bollocks.
I know, but we were talking about 1917.
Quick sidebar on this standard-issue line that we're getting from Bruce and Gudrun, that the world wars were "capitalism's fault" and therefore that "capitalism is just as bad for killing people as communism" and therefore that communism is defensible.
First, that's two non sequiturs in a row, marked by the "therefores".
Secondly, that people die in wars is bad, but quite a different thing from people dying in the death-camps of totalitarianism.
Thirdly, neither WW1 nor WW2 was "capitalism's fault".
Not in the strict sense of capitalism: neither was caused by markets, neither was a trade war.
Not in the loose sense of capitalism either. WW1 was caused by the Kaiser's aggression; the Kaiser was a sort of out-of-time feudal absoluist, not a capitalist. And WW2 was caused by Hitler's aggression: and Hitler was, by his own account, a socialist, by most other people's, a fascist, in any case a totalitarian.
The world wars were caused by totalitarianism, not by capitalism.
Also, who was keenest in Britain and France to get WW2 started? The communists, that's who. And on that score, good for them.
So "the world wars were caused by capitalism" is, to put it bluntly, bollocks.
In reply to pavelk:
Look at a globe dating back to before ww2, most of it is covered in pink, for the British empire and green for the French. Other European countries have their colours on most of the rest, now look at a modern globe.. see the difference?
As fro secret pacts with Hitler, never heard of "peace in our time"... It's true that Britain, France and the other colonial powers preferred killing foreigners to their own, they need them in the factories and down the mines.... famines in India weren't bad either.
Look at a globe dating back to before ww2, most of it is covered in pink, for the British empire and green for the French. Other European countries have their colours on most of the rest, now look at a modern globe.. see the difference?
As fro secret pacts with Hitler, never heard of "peace in our time"... It's true that Britain, France and the other colonial powers preferred killing foreigners to their own, they need them in the factories and down the mines.... famines in India weren't bad either.
In reply to the man from the Telegraph:
Why not ask him what revolution he meant? He referred to Gudrun's revolution and there's no doubt which one she meant.
Why not ask him what revolution he meant? He referred to Gudrun's revolution and there's no doubt which one she meant.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I can't speak for Pavel, but certainly I regret the Bolshevik revolution, though not perhaps the March revolution.
Bruce: read my lips. There were TWO revolutions in 1917. The first one replaced the Tsar's tyranny with a sort-of democratic government headed by Kerensky. The second one replaced Kerensky with a new tyranny.
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> No straw man, he appeared to regret the Russian Revolution.
>
> No straw man, he appeared to regret the Russian Revolution.
I can't speak for Pavel, but certainly I regret the Bolshevik revolution, though not perhaps the March revolution.
Bruce: read my lips. There were TWO revolutions in 1917. The first one replaced the Tsar's tyranny with a sort-of democratic government headed by Kerensky. The second one replaced Kerensky with a new tyranny.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Well I've learnt one thing on this thread anyway!
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> According to Bede, etc.
Well I've learnt one thing on this thread anyway!
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
More of the we're-no-better Big Lie.
1) Yes, appeasement was shameful, but we stopped appeasing before Stalin did.
2) Appeasement was shameful, but agreeing with Hitler on the partition of Poland is a totally different order of wickedness. How many people did *that* decision kill?
>
> As fro secret pacts with Hitler, never heard of "peace in our time"...
> As fro secret pacts with Hitler, never heard of "peace in our time"...
More of the we're-no-better Big Lie.
1) Yes, appeasement was shameful, but we stopped appeasing before Stalin did.
2) Appeasement was shameful, but agreeing with Hitler on the partition of Poland is a totally different order of wickedness. How many people did *that* decision kill?
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
There was the unsuccessful revolution in 1905 but when people refer to The Russian Revolution they generally mean the October 1917 one, which brought the Bolsheviks to power. Whatever, it was a long period of fighting, outside intervention, and civil war which involved millions of people all over the Russian empire, by no means just a terrorist putsch as Tim seems to want it.
The details can be read easily so I don't see the point in getting too into the details. The result was the destruction of the Tsarist regime, the aristocracy and the power of the church and the creation of the USSR on a totally different basis... it may have retained some of the old methods but the original aims were quite different. Beyond that opinions differ.
There was the unsuccessful revolution in 1905 but when people refer to The Russian Revolution they generally mean the October 1917 one, which brought the Bolsheviks to power. Whatever, it was a long period of fighting, outside intervention, and civil war which involved millions of people all over the Russian empire, by no means just a terrorist putsch as Tim seems to want it.
The details can be read easily so I don't see the point in getting too into the details. The result was the destruction of the Tsarist regime, the aristocracy and the power of the church and the creation of the USSR on a totally different basis... it may have retained some of the old methods but the original aims were quite different. Beyond that opinions differ.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Much more than 22 000 murdered by NKVD at Katyn...
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> . How many people did *that* decision kill?
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> . How many people did *that* decision kill?
Much more than 22 000 murdered by NKVD at Katyn...
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>> it may have retained some of the old methods
Oh nicely put. But actually I think you underestimate the Bolsheviks. They deliberately starved whole countries within the Soviet Union. The Tsar never managed that.
Do tell me, incidentally: do you think shooting the Tsar and his family was a good thing for that grubby little gangster Lenin to do?
>> it may have retained some of the old methods
Oh nicely put. But actually I think you underestimate the Bolsheviks. They deliberately starved whole countries within the Soviet Union. The Tsar never managed that.
Do tell me, incidentally: do you think shooting the Tsar and his family was a good thing for that grubby little gangster Lenin to do?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
That's why Orlando Figes, for example, covers the entire period (including the 1905 Revolution right through to the civil war) in one work - A People's Tragedy. Definitely worth reading if you haven't already done so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_Tragedy
> There was the unsuccessful revolution in 1905 but when people refer to The Russian Revolution they generally mean the October 1917 one, which brought the Bolsheviks to power. Whatever, it was a long period of fighting, outside intervention, and civil war which involved millions of people all over the Russian empire,
That's why Orlando Figes, for example, covers the entire period (including the 1905 Revolution right through to the civil war) in one work - A People's Tragedy. Definitely worth reading if you haven't already done so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_Tragedy
In reply to TobyA:
I think it does mean it isn't bollocks, you think it doesn't, both are opinions. You choose to take the naïve but "official" view, as in Libya.
I have, and what I've read is why I believe what I've written, the "work" of various US based "pro democracy" NGOs is well documented. What you've read says the opposite, we'll have to leave it there, as for Libya - who the snipers were neither you nor I can prove... The NATO "MO" is there to be seen for any who want to see it all the same.
Lenin was in Switzerland, shipped back through Germany to Russia in a sealed railway carriage by the Bosch for "humanitarian" reasons no doubt, and others were forced to leave Russia because of police repression... What point are you trying to make?
> that doesn't mean it isn't utter bollocks
I think it does mean it isn't bollocks, you think it doesn't, both are opinions. You choose to take the naïve but "official" view, as in Libya.
> If you actually read up on it
I have, and what I've read is why I believe what I've written, the "work" of various US based "pro democracy" NGOs is well documented. What you've read says the opposite, we'll have to leave it there, as for Libya - who the snipers were neither you nor I can prove... The NATO "MO" is there to be seen for any who want to see it all the same.
> BTW, how many of the Bolshevik leaders had found shelter in exile before the revolution?
Lenin was in Switzerland, shipped back through Germany to Russia in a sealed railway carriage by the Bosch for "humanitarian" reasons no doubt, and others were forced to leave Russia because of police repression... What point are you trying to make?
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Who invented "concentration camps"?
As for the World wars, you clearly need to read a few more books! WW1 was a war between empires, driven by economic interests. Germany's economic power was not matched by it's colonial power, access to markets etc. France was keen on getting Alsace Lorraine back, lost in the 1870 Franco Prussian war. For information the Kaiser did not run the show alone, it was more complicated than that... So there can be no doubt that forces involved in WW1 were all capitalist ones and the motives mostly economic, plus the French grudge. Few historians put the blame entirely on Germany, even German ones hesitate, wavering from times of self accusation to periods of accusing the others.
What is certain is that it wasn't started by communism - no communist countries existed at the time.
As for WW2, it is really just "round 2" of WW1. The Versailles treaty solved none of the basic problems that had caused WW2, and the excessive and unrealistic reparations payments imposed by France gave Hitler all the help he needed. With the active support of German industrialists industry was soon producing steel, arms, all the Reich needed (a well as being highly profitable) and WW2 was produced once more out of the economic pressures. German desire for lebensraum was just another answer to it's need for colonies before WW1, with the added advantage of providing mass slave (Slav) labour, justified by the handy (for employers) Nazi ideas about under races.
So when it came, once more it was a capitalist war, both as a direct consequence to WW1 and for the German capital's economic needs... with the added motivation, which pleased the Masters of Industry even more, of being an anti-communist war - Hitler's two principle objectives right from the beginning was the destruction of the Jewish people and the Soviet Union - both Slavs and communists.
Last point, of all peoples, those who suffered the most in WW2, 20 million dead, bore the brunt of the fighting and who actually turned the German Army round, were the Soviet people, not just Russians, all of the Soviet republics fought the Nazis, and died so that people like you have the freedom today to insult their memory.
> but quite a different thing from people dying in the death-camps of totalitarianism.
Who invented "concentration camps"?
As for the World wars, you clearly need to read a few more books! WW1 was a war between empires, driven by economic interests. Germany's economic power was not matched by it's colonial power, access to markets etc. France was keen on getting Alsace Lorraine back, lost in the 1870 Franco Prussian war. For information the Kaiser did not run the show alone, it was more complicated than that... So there can be no doubt that forces involved in WW1 were all capitalist ones and the motives mostly economic, plus the French grudge. Few historians put the blame entirely on Germany, even German ones hesitate, wavering from times of self accusation to periods of accusing the others.
What is certain is that it wasn't started by communism - no communist countries existed at the time.
As for WW2, it is really just "round 2" of WW1. The Versailles treaty solved none of the basic problems that had caused WW2, and the excessive and unrealistic reparations payments imposed by France gave Hitler all the help he needed. With the active support of German industrialists industry was soon producing steel, arms, all the Reich needed (a well as being highly profitable) and WW2 was produced once more out of the economic pressures. German desire for lebensraum was just another answer to it's need for colonies before WW1, with the added advantage of providing mass slave (Slav) labour, justified by the handy (for employers) Nazi ideas about under races.
So when it came, once more it was a capitalist war, both as a direct consequence to WW1 and for the German capital's economic needs... with the added motivation, which pleased the Masters of Industry even more, of being an anti-communist war - Hitler's two principle objectives right from the beginning was the destruction of the Jewish people and the Soviet Union - both Slavs and communists.
Last point, of all peoples, those who suffered the most in WW2, 20 million dead, bore the brunt of the fighting and who actually turned the German Army round, were the Soviet people, not just Russians, all of the Soviet republics fought the Nazis, and died so that people like you have the freedom today to insult their memory.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
How many people did appeasement kill? It came before the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, could WW2 have been avoided?
If you widened your choice of authors a little you might find one who helped you see how the USSR saw Europe, for example you seem to forget that for them Europeans had attacked them twice already that century, in WW1 and then in the War of Intervention.
Anyway, I'm off to bed.
> 2) Appeasement was shameful, but agreeing with Hitler on the partition of Poland is a totally different order of wickedness. How many people did *that* decision kill?
How many people did appeasement kill? It came before the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, could WW2 have been avoided?
If you widened your choice of authors a little you might find one who helped you see how the USSR saw Europe, for example you seem to forget that for them Europeans had attacked them twice already that century, in WW1 and then in the War of Intervention.
Anyway, I'm off to bed.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Nonsense, Bruce.
1. Concentration camps: Oh dear, more of the we're-as-bad-as-them Big Lie. As you must know if you know any history, it is glib, disingenuous and inaccurate to compare the shameful neglect of Boer prisoners in British "concentration camps" in 1898-1902 with the deliberate murder of Jewish and other prisoners in Nazi concentration camps in 1932-1945. What you are repeating there is Nazi propaganda. You should be ashamed of yourself.
2. Trade wars: A classic trade war would be the Opium Wars in China in the 1840s. WW1 was nothing like that. It was not a fight for markets. It was a fight for political supremacy. But it only happened because of a failure of diplomacy: the struggle for supremacy had been going on peacefully (on the whole) for decades. WW1 happened basically because the Kaiser had sacked Bismarck and decided to run the state himself. Bismarck's policy was an increase in Germany's power and status *without* (major) war, and very good at it he was too. The Kaiser's policy was sabre-rattling, naval races, diplomatic incidents. He was an irresponsible, self-aggrandising idiot. With a responsible and diplomatically competent ruler in charge of Germany, there would have been no WW1. Certainly nobody wanted it except the Kaiser.
3. WW2 was not a trade war either. Nor was it "round 2" of WW1; there didn't *have* to be a second war, and there very probably wouldn't have been if e.g. the Weimar Republic had survived, or if someone else had come to power.
4. Fighting Hitler was indeed the most heroic thing that the USSR ever did. But notice this, it wouldn't have happened if Stalin had got what he wanted from the Ribbentrop/ Molotov pact.
5. Nor, since you mention freedom, did the fantastic and genuinely national effort of the Russians in the Patriotic War of 1941-45 win *them* any freedom.
Nonsense, Bruce.
1. Concentration camps: Oh dear, more of the we're-as-bad-as-them Big Lie. As you must know if you know any history, it is glib, disingenuous and inaccurate to compare the shameful neglect of Boer prisoners in British "concentration camps" in 1898-1902 with the deliberate murder of Jewish and other prisoners in Nazi concentration camps in 1932-1945. What you are repeating there is Nazi propaganda. You should be ashamed of yourself.
2. Trade wars: A classic trade war would be the Opium Wars in China in the 1840s. WW1 was nothing like that. It was not a fight for markets. It was a fight for political supremacy. But it only happened because of a failure of diplomacy: the struggle for supremacy had been going on peacefully (on the whole) for decades. WW1 happened basically because the Kaiser had sacked Bismarck and decided to run the state himself. Bismarck's policy was an increase in Germany's power and status *without* (major) war, and very good at it he was too. The Kaiser's policy was sabre-rattling, naval races, diplomatic incidents. He was an irresponsible, self-aggrandising idiot. With a responsible and diplomatically competent ruler in charge of Germany, there would have been no WW1. Certainly nobody wanted it except the Kaiser.
3. WW2 was not a trade war either. Nor was it "round 2" of WW1; there didn't *have* to be a second war, and there very probably wouldn't have been if e.g. the Weimar Republic had survived, or if someone else had come to power.
4. Fighting Hitler was indeed the most heroic thing that the USSR ever did. But notice this, it wouldn't have happened if Stalin had got what he wanted from the Ribbentrop/ Molotov pact.
5. Nor, since you mention freedom, did the fantastic and genuinely national effort of the Russians in the Patriotic War of 1941-45 win *them* any freedom.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
It won you the freedom to insult them though!
As for the rest, you can fly in the face of history if you like, after all you also believe in a bloke with a big beard in the sky who rules us all.
> Nor, since you mention freedom, did the fantastic and genuinely national effort of the Russians in the Patriotic War of 1941-45 win *them* any freedom.
It won you the freedom to insult them though!
As for the rest, you can fly in the face of history if you like, after all you also believe in a bloke with a big beard in the sky who rules us all.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I haven't insulted them. I'm very much on their side. They were lions led, not by donkeys, but by poisonous snakes.
To insult their memory it is only necessary to bow down and worship the state and system which, for example, shot the majority of Red Army officers in the two or three years before WW2. And who's doing that? Not me, you are.
Do you think murdering the Tsar and his family was a good idea?
I haven't insulted them. I'm very much on their side. They were lions led, not by donkeys, but by poisonous snakes.
To insult their memory it is only necessary to bow down and worship the state and system which, for example, shot the majority of Red Army officers in the two or three years before WW2. And who's doing that? Not me, you are.
Do you think murdering the Tsar and his family was a good idea?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Well it would depend on your definition of concentration camp. Only a halfwit would conflate the British Boar war and the Nazi variants.
However assuming you mean the Boar war variant, the colonial Spanish had a policy of reconcentratión in Cuba.
I suspect there were cases far before that as well but thats enough to disprove your claim.
I love how you state things as fact. Even if we treat those claims as true dont you think you should caveat them as "covert aims". Since after all Hitler did ally initially with Stalin to carve up Poland between themselves.
yes it should be remembered. As should how many were killed by their own side.
> Who invented "concentration camps"?
Well it would depend on your definition of concentration camp. Only a halfwit would conflate the British Boar war and the Nazi variants.
However assuming you mean the Boar war variant, the colonial Spanish had a policy of reconcentratión in Cuba.
I suspect there were cases far before that as well but thats enough to disprove your claim.
> Hitler's two principle objectives right from the beginning was the destruction of the Jewish people and the Soviet Union - both Slavs and communists.
I love how you state things as fact. Even if we treat those claims as true dont you think you should caveat them as "covert aims". Since after all Hitler did ally initially with Stalin to carve up Poland between themselves.
> Last point, of all peoples, those who suffered the most in WW2, 20 million dead, bore the brunt of the fighting and who actually turned the German Army round, were the Soviet people, not just Russians, all of the Soviet republics fought the Nazis, and died so that people like you have the freedom today to insult their memory.
yes it should be remembered. As should how many were killed by their own side.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Wikipedia suggests the following reference - Konopczynski, Wiadyslaw. (1991) Konfederacja barska, t. II, pp. 733–734. as the earliest recording.
Wiki says The Polish historian Wiadyslaw Konopczynski has suggested the first concentration camps were created in Poland in the 18th century, during the Bar Confederation rebellion, when the Russian Empire established three concentration camps for Polish rebel captives awaiting deportation to Siberia.
The earliest of these camps may have been those set up in the United States for Cherokee and other Native Americans in the 1830s; however, the term originated in the reconcentrados (reconcentration camps) set up by the Spanish military in Cuba during the Ten Years' War (1868–1878) and by the United States during the Philippine–American War (1899–1902).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment
Acedemia.edu suggests "There has been a surprisingly high degree of agreement amongst social theorists and historians as to when and where the practice and discourse of the concentration camp arose. Almost universally, it has been identified as emerging either in the policies of the Spanish government in response to the revolt in its Cuban colony from 1894, or in British policies in the South African War of 1899-1902, or both.
http://tinyurl.com/bwk9lga
So some academics say the Spanish, some say Russians, some say the US and some say the British.
Very confusing. If based on dates (ie Wiadyslaw Konopczynski's suggestion) then one would assume it was the Russians.
Is that the answer Tim is meant to give you?
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> [...]
>
> Who invented "concentration camps"?
>
> [...]
>
> Who invented "concentration camps"?
Wikipedia suggests the following reference - Konopczynski, Wiadyslaw. (1991) Konfederacja barska, t. II, pp. 733–734. as the earliest recording.
Wiki says The Polish historian Wiadyslaw Konopczynski has suggested the first concentration camps were created in Poland in the 18th century, during the Bar Confederation rebellion, when the Russian Empire established three concentration camps for Polish rebel captives awaiting deportation to Siberia.
The earliest of these camps may have been those set up in the United States for Cherokee and other Native Americans in the 1830s; however, the term originated in the reconcentrados (reconcentration camps) set up by the Spanish military in Cuba during the Ten Years' War (1868–1878) and by the United States during the Philippine–American War (1899–1902).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment
Acedemia.edu suggests "There has been a surprisingly high degree of agreement amongst social theorists and historians as to when and where the practice and discourse of the concentration camp arose. Almost universally, it has been identified as emerging either in the policies of the Spanish government in response to the revolt in its Cuban colony from 1894, or in British policies in the South African War of 1899-1902, or both.
http://tinyurl.com/bwk9lga
So some academics say the Spanish, some say Russians, some say the US and some say the British.
Very confusing. If based on dates (ie Wiadyslaw Konopczynski's suggestion) then one would assume it was the Russians.
Is that the answer Tim is meant to give you?
In reply to Tim Chappell:
It is the unfortunate consequence of insisting that you have the right to rule by hereditary principal, as in Britain and France, and probably elsewhere this leads to those who want to finish with the system executing the monarch and often his descendants in order to get rid of possible rallying points.
If the Tsar had stood down with good grace and ordered the Whites to stop fighting for him as soon as his position was untenable it might not have happened. Like for many aristocratic rulers such common sense was beyond their imagination, so they paid the price for their obstinacy and their cruelty, as well as that of their ancestors.
They weren't the only ones who died at the time though, at the hands of the Whites, their capitalist allies from Britain, France and elsewhere as well as the Red Army. You shed tears for some Russians more than others apparently, even though they were largely responsible for bloodshed that left millions of quite innocent ordinary Russians dead.
> Do you think murdering the Tsar and his family was a good idea?
It is the unfortunate consequence of insisting that you have the right to rule by hereditary principal, as in Britain and France, and probably elsewhere this leads to those who want to finish with the system executing the monarch and often his descendants in order to get rid of possible rallying points.
If the Tsar had stood down with good grace and ordered the Whites to stop fighting for him as soon as his position was untenable it might not have happened. Like for many aristocratic rulers such common sense was beyond their imagination, so they paid the price for their obstinacy and their cruelty, as well as that of their ancestors.
They weren't the only ones who died at the time though, at the hands of the Whites, their capitalist allies from Britain, France and elsewhere as well as the Red Army. You shed tears for some Russians more than others apparently, even though they were largely responsible for bloodshed that left millions of quite innocent ordinary Russians dead.
In reply to dissonance:
No, I don't, he was quite open about this from the beginning.
> dont you think you should caveat them as "covert aims".
No, I don't, he was quite open about this from the beginning.
In reply to dissonance:
Them wild boars are pretty scary!
Concerning the concentration camps in the Boer was, here's a quote: the author first mentions why they used of what he calls "concentration camps" then continues:
"Nothing, not even the incapacity of the military authorities when charged with the novel and distasteful task of herding large bodies of civilians into captivity, could justify the conditions in the camps themselves. By February 1902 more than twenty thousand of the prisoners, or nearly one in every six, had died, mostly of disease. At first the authorities denied that anything was wrong..."
Now who was the prejudiced commy sympathiser who wrote these words, and others explaining that it was all civilians, men, women and children who were rounded up? None other than that pinko scoundrel, Winston Spencer Churchill! In his very readable "A History of English Speaking Peoples", Volume 4, page 296.
Happily these days we have you and others to correct such outrageous calumnies against the glorious British Empire by villains like him.
> you mean the Boar war variant...
Them wild boars are pretty scary!
Concerning the concentration camps in the Boer was, here's a quote: the author first mentions why they used of what he calls "concentration camps" then continues:
"Nothing, not even the incapacity of the military authorities when charged with the novel and distasteful task of herding large bodies of civilians into captivity, could justify the conditions in the camps themselves. By February 1902 more than twenty thousand of the prisoners, or nearly one in every six, had died, mostly of disease. At first the authorities denied that anything was wrong..."
Now who was the prejudiced commy sympathiser who wrote these words, and others explaining that it was all civilians, men, women and children who were rounded up? None other than that pinko scoundrel, Winston Spencer Churchill! In his very readable "A History of English Speaking Peoples", Volume 4, page 296.
Happily these days we have you and others to correct such outrageous calumnies against the glorious British Empire by villains like him.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Hopefully "President" Assad the second will listen to your sage advice here.
> It is the unfortunate consequence of insisting that you have the right to rule by hereditary principal, as in Britain and France, and probably elsewhere this leads to those who want to finish with the system executing the monarch and often his descendants in order to get rid of possible rallying points.
Hopefully "President" Assad the second will listen to your sage advice here.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I'm not sure that anyone is defending the use of concentration camps (apart perhaps from Gudrun who sees them as a necessary step to achieve her socialist utopia
I think everyone agrees they were extremely unpleasant. The discussion appears to have centred on who made them first.
I, for one, am happy enough to accept that the British might have used them in the Boer war- though I am not convinced that these camps were for the same reasons of mass extermination as the Nazi death camps.
I don't see it as in any way commendable, but neither do I see our (mis)-use as in any way justifying subsequent use by other countries.
I'm not sure that anyone is defending the use of concentration camps (apart perhaps from Gudrun who sees them as a necessary step to achieve her socialist utopia
I think everyone agrees they were extremely unpleasant. The discussion appears to have centred on who made them first.
I, for one, am happy enough to accept that the British might have used them in the Boer war- though I am not convinced that these camps were for the same reasons of mass extermination as the Nazi death camps.
I don't see it as in any way commendable, but neither do I see our (mis)-use as in any way justifying subsequent use by other countries.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
well spotted, I made a spelling mistake and I apologise for it. Now lets see how you do.
Lets guess what is going to happen. Will Bruce admit he is wrong or will he be his normal whack a mole and pop up with another claim.
oh what a surprise he pops up with a new claim. Lets take your original statement shall we? Which clearly was trying to state Britain invented concentration camps.
This was disproved so rather than admit you are wrong you then go on to lie and try state I and others are defenders of the British empire rather than having a minor interest in accuracy.
The thing is there is lots of interesting questions around the British Empire and how it relates to modern history, personally I find that a large part of it was initially private business raises some interesting questions around modern corporations and their relationship to States but unfortunately with the likes of you it will never get beyond namecalling.
I really do have to wonder whether you are actually capable of discussing anything honestly and whether it is honest delusion or active dishonesty.
> Them wild boars are pretty scary!
well spotted, I made a spelling mistake and I apologise for it. Now lets see how you do.
Lets guess what is going to happen. Will Bruce admit he is wrong or will he be his normal whack a mole and pop up with another claim.
> Happily these days we have you and others to correct such outrageous calumnies against the glorious British Empire by villains like him.
oh what a surprise he pops up with a new claim. Lets take your original statement shall we? Which clearly was trying to state Britain invented concentration camps.
This was disproved so rather than admit you are wrong you then go on to lie and try state I and others are defenders of the British empire rather than having a minor interest in accuracy.
The thing is there is lots of interesting questions around the British Empire and how it relates to modern history, personally I find that a large part of it was initially private business raises some interesting questions around modern corporations and their relationship to States but unfortunately with the likes of you it will never get beyond namecalling.
I really do have to wonder whether you are actually capable of discussing anything honestly and whether it is honest delusion or active dishonesty.
In reply to TobyA:
Again not really comparable as he was elected.
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> Hopefully "President" Assad the second will listen to your sage advice here.
> Hopefully "President" Assad the second will listen to your sage advice here.
Again not really comparable as he was elected.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
All you describe above are uprisings against loathed regimes, not sure how the might of the USSR crushing a popular revolution against a hated oppressive puppet government can be viewed in the same light.
Anyway, the point I was making further up the thread was that Hungary was given as an example of a 'happy' functioning communist state, this is clearly bollocks. Time after time after time during the 20th century, we saw some "socialist revolutionary" quoting from Das Kapital depose some capitalist kleptocrat , and promise to run the country " for the people".
Time after time after time, we saw said country immediately degenerate into a impoverished autocratic shithole. When, at last, it collapsed (leaving behind economic ruination, a destroyed environment and a traumatised - and often much reduced - population), the left immediately rush out and claim that, of course, the shithole wasn't true socialism, and next time, honest guv, given the chance , socialists will build heaven on earth...
> (In reply to Cú Chullain)
>
> [...]
>
> How many Libyans died to bring "freedom" to them? Or Greeks after WW2, or Vietnamese, or Algerians, or at present in Syria? It wasn't only the USSR that brought, or is bringing, freedom on the end of a bayonet.
>
> [...]
>
> How many Libyans died to bring "freedom" to them? Or Greeks after WW2, or Vietnamese, or Algerians, or at present in Syria? It wasn't only the USSR that brought, or is bringing, freedom on the end of a bayonet.
All you describe above are uprisings against loathed regimes, not sure how the might of the USSR crushing a popular revolution against a hated oppressive puppet government can be viewed in the same light.
Anyway, the point I was making further up the thread was that Hungary was given as an example of a 'happy' functioning communist state, this is clearly bollocks. Time after time after time during the 20th century, we saw some "socialist revolutionary" quoting from Das Kapital depose some capitalist kleptocrat , and promise to run the country " for the people".
Time after time after time, we saw said country immediately degenerate into a impoverished autocratic shithole. When, at last, it collapsed (leaving behind economic ruination, a destroyed environment and a traumatised - and often much reduced - population), the left immediately rush out and claim that, of course, the shithole wasn't true socialism, and next time, honest guv, given the chance , socialists will build heaven on earth...
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
remind me again who the other candidates were?
> Again not really comparable as he was elected.
remind me again who the other candidates were?
In reply to dissonance:
I thought it was a simple question? If you jump to the conclusion that the answer expected was Britain then you must have a reason for this... It wouldn't be that it was something commonly said by any chance, would it?
Apparently Churchill considered it was "novel", but what would he know?
In reality the idea of grouping together both combatant and non-combatants in order to control a form of armed opposition that used guerrilla tactics is probably as old as human conflict and when it can be called "concentration" in camps is fairly difficult to define - the word guerrilla can be traced to it's origins - as the word hints it was in Spain during the Peninsula War with Napoleon, but the use of the term "concentration" and the tactic were clearly used in a very determined, ruthless and internationally criticized attempt to finish with the Boers.
It consisted of systematically fencing off enormous tracts of land where the Boers used highly mobile tactics to avoid pitched battles and lining these barriers with blockhouses, while at the same time "concentrating" the civilian population, hoping to catch combatants in the same net as the latter were not in uniform.
Churchill describes it in detail, and also that however much it tarnished Britain's image and was contested by some courageous people in Britain itself, such as Miss Emily Hobhouse, it did finally end the war as the Boers "sued for peace".
PS.
I wonder if you are in the slightest way interested in discussing any subject at all, you seem mostly interested in looking for "errors" in posts in order to denounce the posters, often niggling away far more on pedantic details or the definitions of words than actually even examining the issues... Are you a Jesuit like the new pope? Or is it some kind of mild personality glitch?
> Lets take your original statement shall we? Which clearly was trying to state Britain invented concentration camps.
I thought it was a simple question? If you jump to the conclusion that the answer expected was Britain then you must have a reason for this... It wouldn't be that it was something commonly said by any chance, would it?
Apparently Churchill considered it was "novel", but what would he know?
In reality the idea of grouping together both combatant and non-combatants in order to control a form of armed opposition that used guerrilla tactics is probably as old as human conflict and when it can be called "concentration" in camps is fairly difficult to define - the word guerrilla can be traced to it's origins - as the word hints it was in Spain during the Peninsula War with Napoleon, but the use of the term "concentration" and the tactic were clearly used in a very determined, ruthless and internationally criticized attempt to finish with the Boers.
It consisted of systematically fencing off enormous tracts of land where the Boers used highly mobile tactics to avoid pitched battles and lining these barriers with blockhouses, while at the same time "concentrating" the civilian population, hoping to catch combatants in the same net as the latter were not in uniform.
Churchill describes it in detail, and also that however much it tarnished Britain's image and was contested by some courageous people in Britain itself, such as Miss Emily Hobhouse, it did finally end the war as the Boers "sued for peace".
PS.
> I really do have to wonder whether you are actually capable of discussing anything honestly and whether it is honest delusion or active dishonesty.
I wonder if you are in the slightest way interested in discussing any subject at all, you seem mostly interested in looking for "errors" in posts in order to denounce the posters, often niggling away far more on pedantic details or the definitions of words than actually even examining the issues... Are you a Jesuit like the new pope? Or is it some kind of mild personality glitch?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
correct it is, but it is wrong. I prefer to deal with facts than public opinion.
Clearly not enough on that subject.
Bruce, you are saying this like it something new.
Your arrogance when it comes to this sort of thing is amazing. You are consistently proven to be clueless with regards to history and yet continue to try and lecture people without once admitting to error. Instead you just ignore it, throw up a new strawman and then wait a while before trotting out the same lie again. I use lie specifically since once can be a mistake but continually repeating can only be a lie.
Not with you. You have shown you are incapable of doing so. As such I just find it amusing pointing out all your errors, plus it is reasonable practice for discussions with people.
> I thought it was a simple question? If you jump to the conclusion that the answer expected was Britain then you must have a reason for this... It wouldn't be that it was something commonly said by any chance, would it?
correct it is, but it is wrong. I prefer to deal with facts than public opinion.
> Apparently Churchill considered it was "novel", but what would he know?
Clearly not enough on that subject.
> Churchill describes it in detail, and also that however much it tarnished Britain's image and was contested by some courageous people in Britain itself, such as Miss Emily Hobhouse, it did finally end the war as the Boers "sued for peace".
Bruce, you are saying this like it something new.
Your arrogance when it comes to this sort of thing is amazing. You are consistently proven to be clueless with regards to history and yet continue to try and lecture people without once admitting to error. Instead you just ignore it, throw up a new strawman and then wait a while before trotting out the same lie again. I use lie specifically since once can be a mistake but continually repeating can only be a lie.
> I wonder if you are in the slightest way interested in discussing any subject at all
Not with you. You have shown you are incapable of doing so. As such I just find it amusing pointing out all your errors, plus it is reasonable practice for discussions with people.
In reply to Bruce Hooker: ' by villains like him...' Interesting. Interesting that the villain is the one who is criticising the calumnies that you seem to assign to him (completely wrongly - it was Kitchener IIRC who was responsible for the concentraion camps.)
I'm conflicted a bit by Churchill myself but on balance I think his role in WWII probably eclipses Uncle Joe's qualitatively. If Churchill hadn't assumed power, would the Soviet Union have survived? No frigging way - Halifax would have conceded, the whole might of the 3rd Reich would have been turned on the USSR and whimpering Uncle Joe, who took to his bed when Barbarossa began ('Lenin gave us this and we've f*cked it') - would have collapsed. If Uncle Joe hadn't been in power, could the state of the Soviet Union in 1940 possibly have been any worse? A Red Army with no experienced officers or soldiers, a demoralised population who were stuck between the rock of Nazi wickedness and the hard place of Sovier wickedness.
Your squalid one sided view of history does you no credit.
I'm conflicted a bit by Churchill myself but on balance I think his role in WWII probably eclipses Uncle Joe's qualitatively. If Churchill hadn't assumed power, would the Soviet Union have survived? No frigging way - Halifax would have conceded, the whole might of the 3rd Reich would have been turned on the USSR and whimpering Uncle Joe, who took to his bed when Barbarossa began ('Lenin gave us this and we've f*cked it') - would have collapsed. If Uncle Joe hadn't been in power, could the state of the Soviet Union in 1940 possibly have been any worse? A Red Army with no experienced officers or soldiers, a demoralised population who were stuck between the rock of Nazi wickedness and the hard place of Sovier wickedness.
Your squalid one sided view of history does you no credit.
In reply to Bruce Hooker: By who? His dad?
In reply to Cú Chullain:
Not really, in Greece the resistance had nearly liberated the country but because they were communists the British went in with their bayonets to bring the "right sort of freedom", Mountbatten did the same to the Vietnamese, arming Japanese POW to fight the Viet Minh, our allies until freedom came along. The Yanks brought them more freedom when they had kicked out the French freedom bringers... They had a triple helping of freedom those Vietnamese and still didn't appreciate it, ungrateful barstewards. They are doing fine now without outside Western "help".
Libya and Syria were doing OK too until freedom came along, now both countries are in ruins, tens of thousands are dead. In Libya they've had their dose of freedom, which has unfortunately seeped away to Mali and places like that, Syria is till getting their freedom, an overdose some would say.
A few more still getting freedom by drip feed are Iraq, but bayonets are now replaced with freedom loving sectarians disputes and there's Afghanistan... still plenty of bayonets there, in fact they should be the freest country in the world, thy were helped by British bayonets in the 19th and 20th century several times and are still being freed today, they even got some freedom from their brothers in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and from the Russians. In fact there's so much freedom sloshing around the world the UN seems hardly needed.
> All you describe above are uprisings against loathed regimes
Not really, in Greece the resistance had nearly liberated the country but because they were communists the British went in with their bayonets to bring the "right sort of freedom", Mountbatten did the same to the Vietnamese, arming Japanese POW to fight the Viet Minh, our allies until freedom came along. The Yanks brought them more freedom when they had kicked out the French freedom bringers... They had a triple helping of freedom those Vietnamese and still didn't appreciate it, ungrateful barstewards. They are doing fine now without outside Western "help".
Libya and Syria were doing OK too until freedom came along, now both countries are in ruins, tens of thousands are dead. In Libya they've had their dose of freedom, which has unfortunately seeped away to Mali and places like that, Syria is till getting their freedom, an overdose some would say.
A few more still getting freedom by drip feed are Iraq, but bayonets are now replaced with freedom loving sectarians disputes and there's Afghanistan... still plenty of bayonets there, in fact they should be the freest country in the world, thy were helped by British bayonets in the 19th and 20th century several times and are still being freed today, they even got some freedom from their brothers in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and from the Russians. In fact there's so much freedom sloshing around the world the UN seems hardly needed.
In reply to dissonance:
I don't mind being as clueless on history as Winston Churchill, I am more modest than you.
Reading your post after post of pettiness I think I'm a little less screwed up too... Just saying someone is wrong and ignoring anything pointing the other way doesn't really prove much.
I don't mind being as clueless on history as Winston Churchill, I am more modest than you.
Reading your post after post of pettiness I think I'm a little less screwed up too... Just saying someone is wrong and ignoring anything pointing the other way doesn't really prove much.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Your lack of reading skills does you little, I was quoting Churchill as something of an authority on the subject, apart from anything else he was in S Africa... the villain remark was ironical... A bit thick tonight as well as your usual irritable self?
Churchill is an example which shows that nothing is static, disgraced by Gallipoli then coming back to save the world a couple of decades later, and in between the two launching a vindictive war on the Russian people who had just overthrown their tyrant and playing a role in Stalin's rise in the process... all in one lifetime, with another life before and another after. Not a human that can be put in a little box with a label on it as you and many other try to do all the time.
> Your squalid one sided view of history does you no credit.
Your lack of reading skills does you little, I was quoting Churchill as something of an authority on the subject, apart from anything else he was in S Africa... the villain remark was ironical... A bit thick tonight as well as your usual irritable self?
Churchill is an example which shows that nothing is static, disgraced by Gallipoli then coming back to save the world a couple of decades later, and in between the two launching a vindictive war on the Russian people who had just overthrown their tyrant and playing a role in Stalin's rise in the process... all in one lifetime, with another life before and another after. Not a human that can be put in a little box with a label on it as you and many other try to do all the time.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
To (possibly) quote Churchill you are someone with much to be modest about.
I and others have pointed out and provided evidence that the claim about the British being the first to introduce concentration camps is wrong.
So yes with regards to that subject Churchill was wrong. It doesnt matter if what he said panders to your prejudices, the facts dont support it.
You sprout drivel, get shown to be wrong and then come back to it once you think it has been forgotten. You have been called out on this time and time again and yet you still try it.
The few bits you do get right tend to lack all context. Now shall I give another long list of where you get things wrong for you to ignore?
> I don't mind being as clueless on history as Winston Churchill, I am more modest than you.
To (possibly) quote Churchill you are someone with much to be modest about.
I and others have pointed out and provided evidence that the claim about the British being the first to introduce concentration camps is wrong.
So yes with regards to that subject Churchill was wrong. It doesnt matter if what he said panders to your prejudices, the facts dont support it.
> Reading your post after post of pettiness I think I'm a little less screwed up too... Just saying someone is wrong and ignoring anything pointing the other way doesn't really prove much.
You sprout drivel, get shown to be wrong and then come back to it once you think it has been forgotten. You have been called out on this time and time again and yet you still try it.
The few bits you do get right tend to lack all context. Now shall I give another long list of where you get things wrong for you to ignore?
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Citation please (for this nonsense)
[PDF]
The Impoverishment of the UK - Poverty and Social Exclusion
www.poverty.ac.uk/.../The_Impoverishment_of_the_UK_PSE_UK_f...
> It's also the case that the current UK "poverty" level would make you better off than most workers were in the USSR. So, I'm sticking to my claim that overall today's Europe is doing pretty well and certainly better than anyone else has ever done.
Citation please (for this nonsense)
> citation
[PDF]
The Impoverishment of the UK - Poverty and Social Exclusion
www.poverty.ac.uk/.../The_Impoverishment_of_the_UK_PSE_UK_f...
In reply to Tim Chappell:
I do hope this is not some doppleganger then -
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/HISconquest.htm
Did you not know he was a member of staff for the Anti-Communist propaganda unit of British intelligence called the IRD ?
Conquest's work is a joke !Hee hee!
I'm back!!!!!!!!
Hello!
Oh dear !
I thought it was "Pauli the wrong" who said this but on rereading it is your knowledgeable self. Now that is a surprise!
In 1917 when Tzarism fell workers and peasants did what they had previously in 1905.They formed Soviets,revolutionary committees and other types of self-government.The provisional government was mainly of professionals and the propertied but the Petrograd Soviet was of the lower classes.the Prov.Gov. continued the war against Germany and found workers and peasants as unwilling to them as they were to the ancien regime.The massive gap between the proffesional and propertied classes and the mass of the population was far to big and the soldiers began electing committees to disobey officers orders.this led to the collapse of disipline in the army and the Prov.Gov. lost the countryside when the peasants siezed landlords properties.
The urban workforce demanded the right to supervise management and massive amounts of strikes broke out in Sept.The message of class struggle and overthrow of the bourgeoisie was sweeping threw the population,the soldiers committee resolved-
"Comerades!It is time to wake up!...It is time to shake off the spell of the
bourgeoisie;it is time to discard it like an oozing scab,so that it doesn't do any more damage to the revolution....The people can rely only on itself and must not extend a comeradely hand to the hated enemy.it is time to shake off these 'saviours of the revolution',who have stuck to the body of the country like leeches."
The Bolsheviks won majorities in the Moscow and Petrograd soviets,in the constituent assembly elections of 1917 they had a majority of the workers votes,42% of the soldiers votes and 10.9 million out of 48.4 million votes.The victors of the election were the Socialist Revolutionaries(SRs) who shared practically the same program as the Bolsheviks.
So yes it was a Bolshevik coup but within a mass radical Socialist revolutionary movement of the people.
Now.
Western Capitalist propagandists in their countless lies in their countless revisionest books and articles about the October revolution seem to conveniently forget these facts or perhaps they are just stupid...nah! That would be stupid!
> If you want to know my main source for info on the second revolution of 1917, it's the biography of Lenin by the communist Robert Conquest.
I do hope this is not some doppleganger then -
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/HISconquest.htm
Did you not know he was a member of staff for the Anti-Communist propaganda unit of British intelligence called the IRD ?
Conquest's work is a joke !Hee hee!
I'm back!!!!!!!!
Hello!
> in reply to Bruce Hooker:
> "The Russian people"?
> In a situation of turmoil, a small gang of extremists mounted a putsch against Kerensky's government. To everyone's surprise, it succeeded. And then the repression began.
> Lenin and his little group of terrorists getting lucky does not count as the will of the Russian people!
Oh dear !
I thought it was "Pauli the wrong" who said this but on rereading it is your knowledgeable self. Now that is a surprise!
In 1917 when Tzarism fell workers and peasants did what they had previously in 1905.They formed Soviets,revolutionary committees and other types of self-government.The provisional government was mainly of professionals and the propertied but the Petrograd Soviet was of the lower classes.the Prov.Gov. continued the war against Germany and found workers and peasants as unwilling to them as they were to the ancien regime.The massive gap between the proffesional and propertied classes and the mass of the population was far to big and the soldiers began electing committees to disobey officers orders.this led to the collapse of disipline in the army and the Prov.Gov. lost the countryside when the peasants siezed landlords properties.
The urban workforce demanded the right to supervise management and massive amounts of strikes broke out in Sept.The message of class struggle and overthrow of the bourgeoisie was sweeping threw the population,the soldiers committee resolved-
"Comerades!It is time to wake up!...It is time to shake off the spell of the
bourgeoisie;it is time to discard it like an oozing scab,so that it doesn't do any more damage to the revolution....The people can rely only on itself and must not extend a comeradely hand to the hated enemy.it is time to shake off these 'saviours of the revolution',who have stuck to the body of the country like leeches."
The Bolsheviks won majorities in the Moscow and Petrograd soviets,in the constituent assembly elections of 1917 they had a majority of the workers votes,42% of the soldiers votes and 10.9 million out of 48.4 million votes.The victors of the election were the Socialist Revolutionaries(SRs) who shared practically the same program as the Bolsheviks.
So yes it was a Bolshevik coup but within a mass radical Socialist revolutionary movement of the people.
Now.
Western Capitalist propagandists in their countless lies in their countless revisionest books and articles about the October revolution seem to conveniently forget these facts or perhaps they are just stupid...nah! That would be stupid!
In reply to TobyA:
That "hollowness" was a direct result of the traitor Gorbachev and his liberal clique in the Central Committee and as with any empire,imperial over reach and yes it will happen to the US empire to.
> The peaceful revolutionary movements in the Baltics of course change the world because they showed the hollowness of the Soviet Empire,
That "hollowness" was a direct result of the traitor Gorbachev and his liberal clique in the Central Committee and as with any empire,imperial over reach and yes it will happen to the US empire to.
In reply to TobyA:
That doesn't make any sense, you can't "relatively" turn a light on or off.
so by your twisted logic this statement-Britain currently experiences relatively no terrorist attacks.
Doesn't make any sense.
No lights need to be involved.
Do you want to compare these few cases you show with the scale and magnitude of Western prostitution?
> There was relatively NO prostitution in the Soviet countries
That doesn't make any sense, you can't "relatively" turn a light on or off.
so by your twisted logic this statement-Britain currently experiences relatively no terrorist attacks.
Doesn't make any sense.
No lights need to be involved.
Do you want to compare these few cases you show with the scale and magnitude of Western prostitution?
In reply to TobyA:
If you mean who elected Assad, it was a plebiscite and he got about 97% of the vote twice. Lately the constitution has changed and a multiparty election elected an assembly which, apparently, is supposed to designate a presidential candidate but the civil war seems to have prevented this.
Whatever, you are red-herringing me again, the point was why overturning hereditary regimes led logically to regicide and often to the killing of any potential heirs, it was not about whether Assad was a legitimate president, which is another debate, but what is clear is that the regime is not a divine right style hereditary monarchy, something which is rare in Islamic countries.
The standard method is for a "prince", in the general sense, to seize power with enough popular support to maintain himself, usually involving the death or flight of the precedent. He then rules on the basis of this popularity and his "wise" acts until his power wears thin, conflicts build up and another prince sees his chance to take over. When dynasties existed I don't think they were as automatic, the heir being the oldest son, as in European monarchies.
In slightly different form this is how Syria has been run since the Baathists started, and in other Islamic countries it seems to be the method, often the coup d'état comes from a standing army of late but the mechanism is the same - Gadhafi, Nasser, Sadat etc. all seem to be more or less in this tradition.
So not the same as the Russian royal family.
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) By who? His dad?
If you mean who elected Assad, it was a plebiscite and he got about 97% of the vote twice. Lately the constitution has changed and a multiparty election elected an assembly which, apparently, is supposed to designate a presidential candidate but the civil war seems to have prevented this.
Whatever, you are red-herringing me again, the point was why overturning hereditary regimes led logically to regicide and often to the killing of any potential heirs, it was not about whether Assad was a legitimate president, which is another debate, but what is clear is that the regime is not a divine right style hereditary monarchy, something which is rare in Islamic countries.
The standard method is for a "prince", in the general sense, to seize power with enough popular support to maintain himself, usually involving the death or flight of the precedent. He then rules on the basis of this popularity and his "wise" acts until his power wears thin, conflicts build up and another prince sees his chance to take over. When dynasties existed I don't think they were as automatic, the heir being the oldest son, as in European monarchies.
In slightly different form this is how Syria has been run since the Baathists started, and in other Islamic countries it seems to be the method, often the coup d'état comes from a standing army of late but the mechanism is the same - Gadhafi, Nasser, Sadat etc. all seem to be more or less in this tradition.
So not the same as the Russian royal family.
In reply to dissonance:
Did I claim that? Besides even some of your sources say this, according to your admission. Are you really incapable of seeing what is meant by concentration camp is vague, deciding who set up the first is vague too?
Your main reference from Wikipedia says:
"The English term "concentration camp" was used more widely during the Second Boer War (1899–1902), when the British operated such camps in South Africa for interning Boers. They built a total of 45 tented camps built for Boer internees and 64 for black Africans. Of the 28,000 Boer men captured as prisoners of war, the British sent 25,630 overseas. The vast majority of Boers remaining in the local camps were women and children."
Which according to your own text is one of the first uses of such camps to "concentrate" an enemy population into controllable areas - the Polish example doesn't quite fit the bill. So in fact when you say you have "proved" that Churchill, and myself, are wrong you are being very economical with the truth.
Again the tone of your posts is getting nigh on hysterical, I really think you should seek counselling.
> the claim about the British being the first to introduce concentration camps is wrong.
Did I claim that? Besides even some of your sources say this, according to your admission. Are you really incapable of seeing what is meant by concentration camp is vague, deciding who set up the first is vague too?
Your main reference from Wikipedia says:
"The English term "concentration camp" was used more widely during the Second Boer War (1899–1902), when the British operated such camps in South Africa for interning Boers. They built a total of 45 tented camps built for Boer internees and 64 for black Africans. Of the 28,000 Boer men captured as prisoners of war, the British sent 25,630 overseas. The vast majority of Boers remaining in the local camps were women and children."
Which according to your own text is one of the first uses of such camps to "concentrate" an enemy population into controllable areas - the Polish example doesn't quite fit the bill. So in fact when you say you have "proved" that Churchill, and myself, are wrong you are being very economical with the truth.
Again the tone of your posts is getting nigh on hysterical, I really think you should seek counselling.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Communism is fundamentally based on class struggle and not of national imperial revivalism.
The great African-American leader w.E.B. DuBois said in 1947-
"there was no Nazi atrocity-concentration camps,wholesale maiming and murder,defilement of women or ghastly blasphemy of childhood which Christian civilisation or Europe had not long been practising against colonial folk in all parts of the world in the name of and for the defence of a superior race born to rule the world."
In 1955 Aime Cesaire wrote (Christian Bourgeois)-
"What he cannot forgive Hitler for is not the crime in itself,the crime against man,it is not the humiliation of man as such,it is the crime against the white man,the humiliation of the white man,and the fact he applied to Europe colonialist procedures which until then had been reserved exclusively for the Arabs of Algeria,the'coolies' of India and the 'niggers' of Africa."
when Hitler wanted to show the SS how to rule an inferior race he showed them -'Lives of a Bengal Lancer'.
Hitler said -" What India was for England Russia will be for us".
Churchill was put down by one of his ministers during WW2 for having a -
"Hitler like attitude toward Indians"
Churchill called them a "Foul race" who were "protected by their mere pullulation from the doom that is their due"
Jomo Kenyatta who is the father of Kenyan independance compared -"the British fascist colonialists treatment of Africans to that of the jews by the Nazis"
In the 18th century alone their were 119 recorded wars in the cause of the British empire and 72 in Victoria's reign.
The constant state of war was necessary to expand this colonial empire, maintain it's grip and protect it's occupied territories from it's indigenous populations as well as other imperial rivals.Britain's domination of such a vast amount of these conquered peoples and their resources would force competing imperialists to look elsewhere.Stimulating a process that would eventually lead to world war.
The British lancet in 1865 printed that the natives in British colonies had to be-
"constantly kept down with a rod of iron or slowly exterminated"
An ex Black and Tan soldier working as a policeman in palestine in the 1930's stated that-
"Running over an Arab is the same as a dog in England except we do not record it"
In India before the end of the world war against fascism a British officer boasted of having "Jolly fun" as he "Shot down 24 niggers himself" during a nationalist demonstration.
Sir Huggins,PM of Rhodesia said in the 30s-
"It is time for the people in England to realise that the white man in Africa will never accept the African as an equal"
Whilst we took the food from Ireland and the population was reduced by 1/2 by starvation some limited charitable relief was organised but The Times would question this by fearing it would impede Ireland's moral progress.
Just as Hitler envisaged Lebenstraum in the East we had iniciated this process all over the world many years before.
Colonel James Neil who executed 6,000 Indians himself at Allahabad after the suppression of the INM also burned Sepoys alive.
Lord Palmerston demanded that Delhi be erased from the earth completely just like Hitler toward Leningrad.
10s of thousands of Indians murdered while protesting for democracy.
Cambridge historian and expert Victor Purcell called British Gen.Templer's regime in Malaya "Quasi-fascist.
Kenya is a new thread in itself !
Bomber 'Harris' recommended dropping "a 250lb or 500 lb bomb in every village that speaks out of turn" in Palestine.
In S.A. Kitchener's army obliterated 30,000 farms hundreds of villages as well as crops and livestock and put 160,000 women and children in concentration camps where 28,000 died,most of them children.
After the 1857 uprising indian political prisoners were tortured by british army doctors in the -
"New imperial gulag set up on the hot and impossibly humid Andaman Islands
William Dalrymple.
The aboriginals of Tasmania were wiped out completely.
the Aboriginals of Australia were almost wiped out.
There are more but the comparisons between the Nazis and the Uk imperialists in their racism to the point of genocide,suppression of democracy and forced rule,the barbaric treatment of pop,concentration camps,gulags,disregard for international law and ethnic cleansing speaks for itself.
I suppose so if you want to completely destroy your own country ...then yes you are right!
> As opposed to left wing totalitarian states like the GDR. Do remind me what the difference is.
Communism is fundamentally based on class struggle and not of national imperial revivalism.
> Once again, not my British empire. And not fascist, either. At most times and at most places it wasn't democratic. But that doesn't make it fascist.
The great African-American leader w.E.B. DuBois said in 1947-
"there was no Nazi atrocity-concentration camps,wholesale maiming and murder,defilement of women or ghastly blasphemy of childhood which Christian civilisation or Europe had not long been practising against colonial folk in all parts of the world in the name of and for the defence of a superior race born to rule the world."
In 1955 Aime Cesaire wrote (Christian Bourgeois)-
"What he cannot forgive Hitler for is not the crime in itself,the crime against man,it is not the humiliation of man as such,it is the crime against the white man,the humiliation of the white man,and the fact he applied to Europe colonialist procedures which until then had been reserved exclusively for the Arabs of Algeria,the'coolies' of India and the 'niggers' of Africa."
when Hitler wanted to show the SS how to rule an inferior race he showed them -'Lives of a Bengal Lancer'.
Hitler said -" What India was for England Russia will be for us".
Churchill was put down by one of his ministers during WW2 for having a -
"Hitler like attitude toward Indians"
Churchill called them a "Foul race" who were "protected by their mere pullulation from the doom that is their due"
Jomo Kenyatta who is the father of Kenyan independance compared -"the British fascist colonialists treatment of Africans to that of the jews by the Nazis"
In the 18th century alone their were 119 recorded wars in the cause of the British empire and 72 in Victoria's reign.
The constant state of war was necessary to expand this colonial empire, maintain it's grip and protect it's occupied territories from it's indigenous populations as well as other imperial rivals.Britain's domination of such a vast amount of these conquered peoples and their resources would force competing imperialists to look elsewhere.Stimulating a process that would eventually lead to world war.
The British lancet in 1865 printed that the natives in British colonies had to be-
"constantly kept down with a rod of iron or slowly exterminated"
An ex Black and Tan soldier working as a policeman in palestine in the 1930's stated that-
"Running over an Arab is the same as a dog in England except we do not record it"
In India before the end of the world war against fascism a British officer boasted of having "Jolly fun" as he "Shot down 24 niggers himself" during a nationalist demonstration.
Sir Huggins,PM of Rhodesia said in the 30s-
"It is time for the people in England to realise that the white man in Africa will never accept the African as an equal"
Whilst we took the food from Ireland and the population was reduced by 1/2 by starvation some limited charitable relief was organised but The Times would question this by fearing it would impede Ireland's moral progress.
Just as Hitler envisaged Lebenstraum in the East we had iniciated this process all over the world many years before.
Colonel James Neil who executed 6,000 Indians himself at Allahabad after the suppression of the INM also burned Sepoys alive.
Lord Palmerston demanded that Delhi be erased from the earth completely just like Hitler toward Leningrad.
10s of thousands of Indians murdered while protesting for democracy.
Cambridge historian and expert Victor Purcell called British Gen.Templer's regime in Malaya "Quasi-fascist.
Kenya is a new thread in itself !
Bomber 'Harris' recommended dropping "a 250lb or 500 lb bomb in every village that speaks out of turn" in Palestine.
In S.A. Kitchener's army obliterated 30,000 farms hundreds of villages as well as crops and livestock and put 160,000 women and children in concentration camps where 28,000 died,most of them children.
After the 1857 uprising indian political prisoners were tortured by british army doctors in the -
"New imperial gulag set up on the hot and impossibly humid Andaman Islands
William Dalrymple.
The aboriginals of Tasmania were wiped out completely.
the Aboriginals of Australia were almost wiped out.
There are more but the comparisons between the Nazis and the Uk imperialists in their racism to the point of genocide,suppression of democracy and forced rule,the barbaric treatment of pop,concentration camps,gulags,disregard for international law and ethnic cleansing speaks for itself.
> Vaclav Havel and Mikhail Gorbachev were TRUE revolutionaries
I suppose so if you want to completely destroy your own country ...then yes you are right!
In reply to dissonance:
Are they not true ?
Are you really that ignorant of this period and if so perhaps you should just stick to what you know ..whatever that is!
> I love how you state things as fact. Even if we treat those claims as true dont you think you should caveat them as "covert aims". Since after all Hitler did ally initially with Stalin to carve up Poland between themselves.
Are they not true ?
Are you really that ignorant of this period and if so perhaps you should just stick to what you know ..whatever that is!
In reply to Gudrun:
I'm not surprised about Robert Conquest... I couldn't be bothered to look him up myself but often on ukc people take some weird and one sided book on a subject, especially on anything related to communism or socialism and quote it as absolute truth. A while ago they were all slavering over China on the basis of a book by a hideous pair of hacks - Jung Chang and Jon Halliday but this thick tome is atrocious too, not only badly written and full of self contradicting in places it presents accusations as fact, distorts things so much and is so full of hatred as to be nearly unreadable. One of the few books I gave up on half way though. Here the ukc anti reds under the beds fanatics were praising it to the heavens.
I'm not surprised about Robert Conquest... I couldn't be bothered to look him up myself but often on ukc people take some weird and one sided book on a subject, especially on anything related to communism or socialism and quote it as absolute truth. A while ago they were all slavering over China on the basis of a book by a hideous pair of hacks - Jung Chang and Jon Halliday but this thick tome is atrocious too, not only badly written and full of self contradicting in places it presents accusations as fact, distorts things so much and is so full of hatred as to be nearly unreadable. One of the few books I gave up on half way though. Here the ukc anti reds under the beds fanatics were praising it to the heavens.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Yes and freeing their countries from European imperialist parasitism
> Gadhafi, Nasser,
Yes and freeing their countries from European imperialist parasitism
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
The bookshelves are full of this garbage Bruce and as for the Chinese starvations and Stalin starvations,isn't it funny how it is always down to the politics.
But.
When we implemented forced capitalism into India with the resulting deaths of up to 30 million it is nothing to do with the political system but other local problems....
YEAH we stole their food,used our railways to ship it all out and then sent our troops back on the return journey to murder and put down the starving protesters.
No wonder they started trying to sabotage the rails.
The bookshelves are full of this garbage Bruce and as for the Chinese starvations and Stalin starvations,isn't it funny how it is always down to the politics.
But.
When we implemented forced capitalism into India with the resulting deaths of up to 30 million it is nothing to do with the political system but other local problems....
YEAH we stole their food,used our railways to ship it all out and then sent our troops back on the return journey to murder and put down the starving protesters.
No wonder they started trying to sabotage the rails.
In reply to Gudrun: How can you live in such a country? Ah, by being a hypocrite (and a liar).
In reply to Gudrun:
And isn't it funny how the indians experienced massive famines every generation during the british rule but "NOT ONE" since independance from the imperialists who kept their country dying and in the dirt.?
> When we implemented forced capitalism into India with the resulting deaths of up to 30 million it is nothing to do with the political system but other local problems....
> YEAH we stole their food,used our railways to ship it all out and then sent our troops back on the return journey to murder and put down the starving protesters.
> No wonder they started trying to sabotage the rails.
And isn't it funny how the indians experienced massive famines every generation during the british rule but "NOT ONE" since independance from the imperialists who kept their country dying and in the dirt.?
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I am no liar Chas but i love the mountains,islands,coastline and wildness of Scotland,my country,one of my grandads was a big polis from the isle of Eigg and his bride from Oban,so i don't know but perhaps thats why i love the North and the islands of the West,but it's also the people.If there was still a Communist Bloc and indeeependance was offered who knows....
If there was still a Communist Russia and Eastern Bloc i'd like to think i'd be bashin on that Berlin wall to let me in but at the same time i know how homesick i get for my "Ain" country and people.
Al Gore tried to say that all people of the West were fighting determinedly against Communism during the cold war as if it were something they thought about.Which shows how out of touch that idiot was/is with reality!
The western working class traditionally look after themselves and the ruling mob have kept us from social revolution for centuries by bleeding countries all over the world dry.
> (In reply to Gudrun) How can you live in such a country? Ah, by being a hypocrite (and a liar).
I am no liar Chas but i love the mountains,islands,coastline and wildness of Scotland,my country,one of my grandads was a big polis from the isle of Eigg and his bride from Oban,so i don't know but perhaps thats why i love the North and the islands of the West,but it's also the people.If there was still a Communist Bloc and indeeependance was offered who knows....
If there was still a Communist Russia and Eastern Bloc i'd like to think i'd be bashin on that Berlin wall to let me in but at the same time i know how homesick i get for my "Ain" country and people.
Al Gore tried to say that all people of the West were fighting determinedly against Communism during the cold war as if it were something they thought about.Which shows how out of touch that idiot was/is with reality!
The western working class traditionally look after themselves and the ruling mob have kept us from social revolution for centuries by bleeding countries all over the world dry.
In reply to Gudrun:
This is why Communism is proven and morally right,it is the process of *human* evolution that was almost destroyed by the violent,greedy,selfish animals who are in charge
But as i said, it will *NEVER* die, as long as there is the destruction of society which is capitalism.
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
> [...]
> That's what you think!
> [...]
> Just the british racist empire then?
> [...]
> i am only offensive to people who offend me and you to me are very offensive indeed.I listen to people who have something worthwhile to say so obviously that does not include you.But i am a very friendly and good natured person who doesn't bear grudges,so if you drop the nasty and childish behaviour then you will see this.
>
> Contrary to your blinkered views which are focused by the anti-Communist Western media who are run by the rich.Hundreds of millions of people lived very happy lives relaxing in the knowledge that they were safe from the capitalist specters of homelessness,unemployment,recessions,debt,exploitation and crime.Crime figures in the former Soviet countries were non existant compared to the nightmare we have in the West.There was no drug abuse and ghettoization on class lines since there was equality of the classes.where tradespeople,cleaners and professionals lived in the same housing schemes.The differences in pay were also no where near as massive as we have in the West.which leads to a more balanced society where everyone sees themselves as more equal because there is no class antagonisms like we have in the West,where the upper and middle classes dominate the upper echelons of society.A more egalitarian distribution of wealth makes for a healthier society and everyone knew any profits would go back into the 'Social pot' and not into the pockets of some rich elites.
> People were free from the existential worries of being unemployed,being kicked out their house,terrified how they will pay for medical treatment and the effects and worry of high crime levels.This is an amazing achievement in itself,just think to be able not to have to worry about losing the roof over your head,or your income as well as having safe streets to walk,with comparitively no drugs,no need for women to prostitute themselves to put bread on the table and no organised crime.What about debt people in the West are mired in debt our society runs on it but over there the society mattered more than personal profit,loans from the government were *interest* free.The emphasis was placed on society as a whole and not individualism which focused on co-operation,mutual help and solidarity.
> People were encouraged to behave for the good of society rather than your own simple advancement or wealth,people felt and were a part of a system that was not exploiting them but was for them,people felt a sense of belonging as there society was more cohesive.
> They were workers states in more than name as workers were held in the highest regard since they were built around the works of Marx and Engels who stated the socialist states would be states free from exploitation and oppression.
> In the Soviet sphere(USSR & E.Bloc)equal pay for women was put in place as soon as Communism was implemented.In the GDR 88% of all adult women had a job and 1/3 of all women were in technical professions.50% of all law and Medicine jobs were held by women,in industry 41% of jobs were held by women.Only 6% had no qualifications at all compared to 24% in W.Ger.
>
> All health care was free as was all education up to any level you were capable of achieving.
>
> GDR was ranked 10th in the world of idustrialized nations and Czechoslovakia was higher,in fact CZ had at the time of the hand over to that traitor Havel a huge surplus of £47 billion in the cz bank,so they were *completely* debt free,compare that to the West!
> The Czechoslovak Communist party was the biggest political party in Europe with over 2 million members and in 1989 75% of the population opposed any privatizations of their industries and 89% opposed any changes to the farming co-ops.
> These countries had absolutely huge manufacturing industries of their own that would be destroyed after the 1989 tragedy.their countries would experience a new phenomenon something called unemployment as well as,homelessness,massive increases in the crime rate and organised crime as well as prostitution and all the other capitalist horrors.
>
> Now.
>
> Do you think i as an 11 and a half hour a day wee prole who works like F everyday for the british manufacturing industry would rather have that or some capitalist...its ok...now it's F'd...it's ok ...now it's F'd society?
> That is extremely violent,alienates and isolates people from their society,ghettoizes the poor/underclass,homelessness hanging over everyone,junkies everywhere, abuse,neglect which increase when support systems and people are marginalized.Worships a thing called money over people and whose government/the rich and system must be at constant war all over the world,murdering millions and will also destroy any other system even in the smallest of countries if they want to help their people by being socialist.
>
> To me Communism *is* freedom.
>
> And i can only dream about how amazing it would have been to live in such a wonderful society free of your capitalist horrors.I know many people who lived in Communist Czechoslovakia as well as having a couple of relatives who were in the GDR as well and good few other pals.I am not naturally baised there were countries that couldn't do as well as the USSR,Cz,GDR and Hungry and changes were required in these countries,so i'm not hiding from any negative aspects in some other countries,but we in the West have been bombarded with stock images to portray the Soviet systems as terrible which is a propaganda tool of the people who gain the most from our capitalist system.The same reason they will murder and remove any and every socialist leader they can.
> [...]
> That's what you think!
> [...]
> Just the british racist empire then?
> [...]
> i am only offensive to people who offend me and you to me are very offensive indeed.I listen to people who have something worthwhile to say so obviously that does not include you.But i am a very friendly and good natured person who doesn't bear grudges,so if you drop the nasty and childish behaviour then you will see this.
>
> Contrary to your blinkered views which are focused by the anti-Communist Western media who are run by the rich.Hundreds of millions of people lived very happy lives relaxing in the knowledge that they were safe from the capitalist specters of homelessness,unemployment,recessions,debt,exploitation and crime.Crime figures in the former Soviet countries were non existant compared to the nightmare we have in the West.There was no drug abuse and ghettoization on class lines since there was equality of the classes.where tradespeople,cleaners and professionals lived in the same housing schemes.The differences in pay were also no where near as massive as we have in the West.which leads to a more balanced society where everyone sees themselves as more equal because there is no class antagonisms like we have in the West,where the upper and middle classes dominate the upper echelons of society.A more egalitarian distribution of wealth makes for a healthier society and everyone knew any profits would go back into the 'Social pot' and not into the pockets of some rich elites.
> People were free from the existential worries of being unemployed,being kicked out their house,terrified how they will pay for medical treatment and the effects and worry of high crime levels.This is an amazing achievement in itself,just think to be able not to have to worry about losing the roof over your head,or your income as well as having safe streets to walk,with comparitively no drugs,no need for women to prostitute themselves to put bread on the table and no organised crime.What about debt people in the West are mired in debt our society runs on it but over there the society mattered more than personal profit,loans from the government were *interest* free.The emphasis was placed on society as a whole and not individualism which focused on co-operation,mutual help and solidarity.
> People were encouraged to behave for the good of society rather than your own simple advancement or wealth,people felt and were a part of a system that was not exploiting them but was for them,people felt a sense of belonging as there society was more cohesive.
> They were workers states in more than name as workers were held in the highest regard since they were built around the works of Marx and Engels who stated the socialist states would be states free from exploitation and oppression.
> In the Soviet sphere(USSR & E.Bloc)equal pay for women was put in place as soon as Communism was implemented.In the GDR 88% of all adult women had a job and 1/3 of all women were in technical professions.50% of all law and Medicine jobs were held by women,in industry 41% of jobs were held by women.Only 6% had no qualifications at all compared to 24% in W.Ger.
>
> All health care was free as was all education up to any level you were capable of achieving.
>
> GDR was ranked 10th in the world of idustrialized nations and Czechoslovakia was higher,in fact CZ had at the time of the hand over to that traitor Havel a huge surplus of £47 billion in the cz bank,so they were *completely* debt free,compare that to the West!
> The Czechoslovak Communist party was the biggest political party in Europe with over 2 million members and in 1989 75% of the population opposed any privatizations of their industries and 89% opposed any changes to the farming co-ops.
> These countries had absolutely huge manufacturing industries of their own that would be destroyed after the 1989 tragedy.their countries would experience a new phenomenon something called unemployment as well as,homelessness,massive increases in the crime rate and organised crime as well as prostitution and all the other capitalist horrors.
>
> Now.
>
> Do you think i as an 11 and a half hour a day wee prole who works like F everyday for the british manufacturing industry would rather have that or some capitalist...its ok...now it's F'd...it's ok ...now it's F'd society?
> That is extremely violent,alienates and isolates people from their society,ghettoizes the poor/underclass,homelessness hanging over everyone,junkies everywhere, abuse,neglect which increase when support systems and people are marginalized.Worships a thing called money over people and whose government/the rich and system must be at constant war all over the world,murdering millions and will also destroy any other system even in the smallest of countries if they want to help their people by being socialist.
>
> To me Communism *is* freedom.
>
> And i can only dream about how amazing it would have been to live in such a wonderful society free of your capitalist horrors.I know many people who lived in Communist Czechoslovakia as well as having a couple of relatives who were in the GDR as well and good few other pals.I am not naturally baised there were countries that couldn't do as well as the USSR,Cz,GDR and Hungry and changes were required in these countries,so i'm not hiding from any negative aspects in some other countries,but we in the West have been bombarded with stock images to portray the Soviet systems as terrible which is a propaganda tool of the people who gain the most from our capitalist system.The same reason they will murder and remove any and every socialist leader they can.
This is why Communism is proven and morally right,it is the process of *human* evolution that was almost destroyed by the violent,greedy,selfish animals who are in charge
But as i said, it will *NEVER* die, as long as there is the destruction of society which is capitalism.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Listen to this wise council Pissonance,it could be a turning point for you and perhaps you can show your face instead of hiding it.
> Again the tone of your posts is getting nigh on hysterical, I really think you should seek counselling.
Listen to this wise council Pissonance,it could be a turning point for you and perhaps you can show your face instead of hiding it.
In reply to Gudrun: Calm Shona (aka ShonaM, aka GudrunEnsslin, aka gobbyscottishlass, aka whatever), calm.
Or have you got a new name lined up and ready to go?
Or have you got a new name lined up and ready to go?
In reply to Gudrun:
In the mid 980s the averge UK income was about £13k so the "poverty level" ,as currently defined, was about.£8k.
The average income in the USSR was about 2,400 rubles or just over £1900 per annum.
So the average income in the USSR was about a quarter of the level defined as poverty in the UK. Obviously that all needs to be adjusted for costs of living (eg.rents were much lower in the USSR) and purchasing power parity. But given the estimates in the quote above (which seem to be based on an absolute definition of poverty rather the the relative definition used in the UK) there us plenty of evidence to support Coel's claim.
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> [...]
>
> Citation please (for this nonsense)
>
Lack of official statistics made it difficult to determine the number of Soviet citizens living in poverty. Until Gorbachev assumed power in 1985, Soviet officials claimed that poverty could not exist in their country, although they did admit to the problem of "underprovisioning" (maloobespechennost'). In the late 1980s, however, Soviet economists acknowledged that 20 percent of the population lived under the poverty threshold, which was estimated at 254 rubles a month for an urban family of four. Mervyn Matthews, a British expert on Soviet poverty, estimated that 40 percent of blue- collar workers and their dependents lived below the poverty threshold. Matthews calculated that in 1979 the poverty threshold was 95 percent of the average income of a family of four that had two parents working outside the home. Similar figures for the late 1980s were unavailable in the West. Many pensioners likewise appear to fall under the official poverty level. The 56.8 million pensioners in 1986 received an average of only 38 percent of the average wage, while pensioners from collective farms averaged only 25 percent (see Welfare , ch. >
> [...]
>
> Citation please (for this nonsense)
>
In the mid 980s the averge UK income was about £13k so the "poverty level" ,as currently defined, was about.£8k.
The average income in the USSR was about 2,400 rubles or just over £1900 per annum.
So the average income in the USSR was about a quarter of the level defined as poverty in the UK. Obviously that all needs to be adjusted for costs of living (eg.rents were much lower in the USSR) and purchasing power parity. But given the estimates in the quote above (which seem to be based on an absolute definition of poverty rather the the relative definition used in the UK) there us plenty of evidence to support Coel's claim.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
it seems to be your implication. Are you saying its not.
excellent, you are now looking at sources. Although, ermmm, which of those sources was mine? Or are you getting confused between posters.
I love the way you backtrack and then insult. Lets take your statement
"Who invented "concentration camps"?"
Now can you hand on heart say you werent using that rhetorically to try and claim it was the British? Bearing in mind you will then need to explain why you havent corrected that perception earlier?
Strange how now you want an indepth discussion about the meaning?
Lie.
there goes another irony meter. Now if you manage to read my actual comment you will see it refers specifically to the reconcentrados. Which were prior to the Boer war.
So lets go back to your original statement.
"Who invented "concentration camps"?"
Even for the Boer war variant, eg putting noncombatants into horrendous conditions to try and deny support to rebels, the answer is not the British.
Ah as always Bruce goes for the insults.
> Did I claim that?
it seems to be your implication. Are you saying its not.
> Besides even some of your sources say this, according to your admission.
excellent, you are now looking at sources. Although, ermmm, which of those sources was mine? Or are you getting confused between posters.
> Are you really incapable of seeing what is meant by concentration camp is vague, deciding who set up the first is vague too?
I love the way you backtrack and then insult. Lets take your statement
"Who invented "concentration camps"?"
Now can you hand on heart say you werent using that rhetorically to try and claim it was the British? Bearing in mind you will then need to explain why you havent corrected that perception earlier?
Strange how now you want an indepth discussion about the meaning?
> Which according to your own text
Lie.
> So in fact when you say you have "proved" that Churchill, and myself, are wrong you are being very economical with the truth.
there goes another irony meter. Now if you manage to read my actual comment you will see it refers specifically to the reconcentrados. Which were prior to the Boer war.
So lets go back to your original statement.
"Who invented "concentration camps"?"
Even for the Boer war variant, eg putting noncombatants into horrendous conditions to try and deny support to rebels, the answer is not the British.
> Again the tone of your posts is getting nigh on hysterical, I really think you should seek counselling.
Ah as always Bruce goes for the insults.
In reply to Gudrun:
i could just change my name.
> Listen to this wise council Pissonance,it could be a turning point for you and perhaps you can show your face instead of hiding it.
i could just change my name.
In reply to dissonance:
Not an insult, serious advice, you and Rob seem seriously weird, spending so much of your life stalking and niggling on a forum, page after page of delirious prose, but rarely participating positively in a debate. This can't be a healthy way to live.
> > Again the tone of your posts is getting nigh on hysterical, I really think you should seek counselling.
> Ah as always Bruce goes for the insults.
Not an insult, serious advice, you and Rob seem seriously weird, spending so much of your life stalking and niggling on a forum, page after page of delirious prose, but rarely participating positively in a debate. This can't be a healthy way to live.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
You make a good point by suggesting it is to herd enemy populations to differentiate between internment of smaller groups and concentration of larger groups and that will impinge on the Polish example.
The second link I posted concludes "This paper has sought to show that the invention of the concentration camp involved both new military practices and new political discourses. The concentration camp arose as the response of new, professionalised military cultures to the challenge of guerilla warfare. The instrumental logic of violence led to the coercive and callous reorganisation of civilians on a mass scale, as a means of containing and controlling subject populations. Thus military establishments were able to add the practice of the concentration camp to their repertoire".
The main highlight, for me, is the sentence "The instrumental logic of violence led to [..]".
This conclusion, from presumably expert academics, recognises concentration camps before the "reorganisation of civilians on a mass scale". This then supports the Polish and Spanish examples as being true concentration camps in my opinion.
> (In reply to dissonance)
> Which according to your own text is one of the first uses of such camps to "concentrate" an enemy population into controllable areas - the Polish example doesn't quite fit the bill. So in fact when you say you have "proved" that Churchill, and myself, are wrong you are being very economical with the truth.
You make a good point by suggesting it is to herd enemy populations to differentiate between internment of smaller groups and concentration of larger groups and that will impinge on the Polish example.
The second link I posted concludes "This paper has sought to show that the invention of the concentration camp involved both new military practices and new political discourses. The concentration camp arose as the response of new, professionalised military cultures to the challenge of guerilla warfare. The instrumental logic of violence led to the coercive and callous reorganisation of civilians on a mass scale, as a means of containing and controlling subject populations. Thus military establishments were able to add the practice of the concentration camp to their repertoire".
The main highlight, for me, is the sentence "The instrumental logic of violence led to [..]".
This conclusion, from presumably expert academics, recognises concentration camps before the "reorganisation of civilians on a mass scale". This then supports the Polish and Spanish examples as being true concentration camps in my opinion.
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Hi Bruce,
I've managed to find on the Polish wiki from Konopczynski that over 14 thousand Confederate rebels were forcibly conscripted into the Russian army. The Russians then established a temporary camp for Confederate prisoners of the Warsaw Prague and Polonny in Ukraine (presumably those not prepared to join the army), where they were transported in stages to Kiev , Smolensk , Eagle , Tula , the Sermons and Tobolsk.
That last bit suggests there must have been a large number of people being transported.
The term "concentration camp" as common word use does seem to come from the Boer era though.
What I seem to read shows different names for the same thing. Reservations in the US (1870's), the Spainish reconcentrados (1896), US 'camps' during the civil war (1860's), US Filipino reconcentrados (1899), British concentration camps (~1900's) as well as others.
Must point out - the US seemed to like this approach going by the evidence on the t'internet!
I've managed to find on the Polish wiki from Konopczynski that over 14 thousand Confederate rebels were forcibly conscripted into the Russian army. The Russians then established a temporary camp for Confederate prisoners of the Warsaw Prague and Polonny in Ukraine (presumably those not prepared to join the army), where they were transported in stages to Kiev , Smolensk , Eagle , Tula , the Sermons and Tobolsk.
That last bit suggests there must have been a large number of people being transported.
The term "concentration camp" as common word use does seem to come from the Boer era though.
What I seem to read shows different names for the same thing. Reservations in the US (1870's), the Spainish reconcentrados (1896), US 'camps' during the civil war (1860's), US Filipino reconcentrados (1899), British concentration camps (~1900's) as well as others.
Must point out - the US seemed to like this approach going by the evidence on the t'internet!
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
When the Romans moved entire populations from one part of their empire to another as punishment they doubtless grouped them together before moving them on too but from there to say they invented concentration camps, even if true in a way, doesn't get us anywhere. For the English language the term seems to have been used for the first time during the Boer War, which is why the British are often attributed the doubtful compliment of having "invented" the system.
Whatever, it's obvious that the way the Germans used concentration camps in WW2, as a grouping point prior to extermination in gas chambers is unique - the British camps were not intended to for this purpose, although they did have the same atrocious conditions which lead to about 1/6 of the prisoners to dies - 20 000 out of 120 000 - and there were also a mixture of men, women and children.
My initial post on the subject was in reaction to Tim's:
So I think the historical fact that Britain had been a innovator in this field, "totalitarianism" did not invent it is quite valid. In fact Hitler didn't invent a great deal, he copied old ideas but brought them together and modernised them using industrial techniques into a level of horror that was original in a revolting way. Even the genocide of the Jews was inspired, or at least excused by, the genocide of the Armenians by the Turks - when questioned as to the risk of international reaction to such a genocide he replied "Who remembers the Armenian genocide today?"
Not pleasant thoughts on a sunny Sunday morning, but part of our collective history. None of us alive today are responsible but we could at least learn from it.
When the Romans moved entire populations from one part of their empire to another as punishment they doubtless grouped them together before moving them on too but from there to say they invented concentration camps, even if true in a way, doesn't get us anywhere. For the English language the term seems to have been used for the first time during the Boer War, which is why the British are often attributed the doubtful compliment of having "invented" the system.
Whatever, it's obvious that the way the Germans used concentration camps in WW2, as a grouping point prior to extermination in gas chambers is unique - the British camps were not intended to for this purpose, although they did have the same atrocious conditions which lead to about 1/6 of the prisoners to dies - 20 000 out of 120 000 - and there were also a mixture of men, women and children.
My initial post on the subject was in reaction to Tim's:
> > but quite a different thing from people dying in the death-camps of totalitarianism.
So I think the historical fact that Britain had been a innovator in this field, "totalitarianism" did not invent it is quite valid. In fact Hitler didn't invent a great deal, he copied old ideas but brought them together and modernised them using industrial techniques into a level of horror that was original in a revolting way. Even the genocide of the Jews was inspired, or at least excused by, the genocide of the Armenians by the Turks - when questioned as to the risk of international reaction to such a genocide he replied "Who remembers the Armenian genocide today?"
Not pleasant thoughts on a sunny Sunday morning, but part of our collective history. None of us alive today are responsible but we could at least learn from it.
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
Thank you for that at least! The truth in all this is that many nations committed horrendous acts over the years and the most important ones clearly had scope to commit more than small weak ones, which is why many argue that for countries small is beautiful.
In the case of Britain, having not been on the losing side for so long we have never been forced to examine our misdeeds as Germany has had to do, for example. I don't think doing it is a sign of self hate as many suggest, it's just part of assuming our history, as we expect of Germany.
I'm still waiting for a monument to the "Unknown Native" to be erected on the Embankment in memory of all who died in the name of Empire, but it seems that we are moving further away from such an act of collective atonement than nearer.
> The term "concentration camp" as common word use does seem to come from the Boer era though.
Thank you for that at least! The truth in all this is that many nations committed horrendous acts over the years and the most important ones clearly had scope to commit more than small weak ones, which is why many argue that for countries small is beautiful.
In the case of Britain, having not been on the losing side for so long we have never been forced to examine our misdeeds as Germany has had to do, for example. I don't think doing it is a sign of self hate as many suggest, it's just part of assuming our history, as we expect of Germany.
I'm still waiting for a monument to the "Unknown Native" to be erected on the Embankment in memory of all who died in the name of Empire, but it seems that we are moving further away from such an act of collective atonement than nearer.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
and you contribute positively? Shall we review the last couple of threads and see various peoples opinion of your contributions? There is no point discussing a subject based on false facts. You seem determined to do so and then get upset when called on it.
Once more we see you lying or, at best, deliberately distorting with regards to the concentration camps. The Reconcentrado were prior to the Boer war and that was apparently inspired by some of the civil war tactics.
Now stop claiming "historical facts" when they arent. You arent living in the Soviet union so you cant conveniently rewrite history.
> Not an insult, serious advice, you and Rob seem seriously weird, spending so much of your life stalking and niggling on a forum, page after page of delirious prose, but rarely participating positively in a debate.
and you contribute positively? Shall we review the last couple of threads and see various peoples opinion of your contributions? There is no point discussing a subject based on false facts. You seem determined to do so and then get upset when called on it.
Once more we see you lying or, at best, deliberately distorting with regards to the concentration camps. The Reconcentrado were prior to the Boer war and that was apparently inspired by some of the civil war tactics.
Now stop claiming "historical facts" when they arent. You arent living in the Soviet union so you cant conveniently rewrite history.
In reply to dissonance: I don't bother reading bruce's posts anyomore. cant be a healthy way to live? yeah, that's what I think about him
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Crikey Bruce, get Shona to agree with you on that and I really will be impressed
> (In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat)
>
> [...]
>
> Thank you for that at least! The truth in all this is that many nations committed horrendous acts over the years...
>
> [...]
>
> Thank you for that at least! The truth in all this is that many nations committed horrendous acts over the years...
Crikey Bruce, get Shona to agree with you on that and I really will be impressed
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Not an insult, serious advice, you and Rob seem seriously weird, spending so much of your life stalking and niggling on a forum, page after page of delirious prose, but rarely participating positively in a debate. This can't be a healthy way to live.
Top 40 Posters: -
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/info/top40.html
Not an insult, serious advice, you and Rob seem seriously weird, spending so much of your life stalking and niggling on a forum, page after page of delirious prose, but rarely participating positively in a debate. This can't be a healthy way to live.
Top 40 Posters: -
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/info/top40.html
In reply to MJ: I did wonder if someone would notice
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Bruce, the thing is then when debating against each other these two, and most of the others on this thread are perfectly capably of positive sensible and enlightening discussion even when holding opposing views. Perhaps you just should ask yourself why people don't do that with you. It is not, as I suspect you think, that you hold unusual or different views. It is because of the way that you argue them.
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
>
> Not an insult, serious advice, you and Rob seem seriously weird, spending so much of your life stalking and niggling on a forum, page after page of delirious prose, but rarely participating positively in a debate. This can't be a healthy way to live.
>
>
> Not an insult, serious advice, you and Rob seem seriously weird, spending so much of your life stalking and niggling on a forum, page after page of delirious prose, but rarely participating positively in a debate. This can't be a healthy way to live.
Bruce, the thing is then when debating against each other these two, and most of the others on this thread are perfectly capably of positive sensible and enlightening discussion even when holding opposing views. Perhaps you just should ask yourself why people don't do that with you. It is not, as I suspect you think, that you hold unusual or different views. It is because of the way that you argue them.
In reply to off-duty:
I don't think she would disagree, and may have said so, but best let her reply. The problem is when people claim that one country, or group of countries, are the overwhelmingly worse culprits and gloss over the past crimes of their own side. In 100 years people will look at the communist experiment with more open minds and more objectively, but as I'm getting on and quite aware of my own immortality I would prefer to do it now
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
>
> Crikey Bruce, get Shona to agree with you on that and I really will be impressed
> [...]
>
>
> Crikey Bruce, get Shona to agree with you on that and I really will be impressed
I don't think she would disagree, and may have said so, but best let her reply. The problem is when people claim that one country, or group of countries, are the overwhelmingly worse culprits and gloss over the past crimes of their own side. In 100 years people will look at the communist experiment with more open minds and more objectively, but as I'm getting on and quite aware of my own immortality I would prefer to do it now
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I think the problem arises when people go back several centuries into the past to pick at issues in the development of the West and blame all those problems on a political system, whilst being prepared to overlook the gross human rights abuses that occured in the immediate history of soviet bloc countries which are a direct consequence of those countries political systems.
To be specific - shouts of imperialist slavery in response to criticism of gulag labour camps.
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> I don't think she would disagree, and may have said so, but best let her reply. The problem is when people claim that one country, or group of countries, are the overwhelmingly worse culprits and gloss over the past crimes of their own side. In 100 years people will look at the communist experiment with more open minds and more objectively, but as I'm getting on and quite aware of my own immortality I would prefer to do it now
> [...]
>
> I don't think she would disagree, and may have said so, but best let her reply. The problem is when people claim that one country, or group of countries, are the overwhelmingly worse culprits and gloss over the past crimes of their own side. In 100 years people will look at the communist experiment with more open minds and more objectively, but as I'm getting on and quite aware of my own immortality I would prefer to do it now
I think the problem arises when people go back several centuries into the past to pick at issues in the development of the West and blame all those problems on a political system, whilst being prepared to overlook the gross human rights abuses that occured in the immediate history of soviet bloc countries which are a direct consequence of those countries political systems.
To be specific - shouts of imperialist slavery in response to criticism of gulag labour camps.
In reply to MJ:
Yes, I know which is why I tried to avoid the Malvinas threads. But once in by simple mathematics when in a minority against an active majority you inevitably have to post a lot. When I don't reply I get a volley of posts demanding swift reply, and calling me all sorts of names, the result is far too many posts from me, and it's the same when Gudrun tries to reply to all her admirers. Ideally I should try to group all the replies in one mass reply very 8 hours or so but this would be difficult to follow. I tried simply referring people to previous identical threads but this just makes the hyenas bray even louder about how they have "proved me wrong".
I would refute the idea that I niggle, I don't spend time digging for errors or pedantically playing with words, like dissonance, for example nor do I stalk posters, like Rob. I agree that the effort involved in keeping up with the threads and the demands for replies is not healthy, so what should I do, stop posting and let the pro-US or pro-Empire lobbies rule ukc with their lies? Maybe.
Yes, I know which is why I tried to avoid the Malvinas threads. But once in by simple mathematics when in a minority against an active majority you inevitably have to post a lot. When I don't reply I get a volley of posts demanding swift reply, and calling me all sorts of names, the result is far too many posts from me, and it's the same when Gudrun tries to reply to all her admirers. Ideally I should try to group all the replies in one mass reply very 8 hours or so but this would be difficult to follow. I tried simply referring people to previous identical threads but this just makes the hyenas bray even louder about how they have "proved me wrong".
I would refute the idea that I niggle, I don't spend time digging for errors or pedantically playing with words, like dissonance, for example nor do I stalk posters, like Rob. I agree that the effort involved in keeping up with the threads and the demands for replies is not healthy, so what should I do, stop posting and let the pro-US or pro-Empire lobbies rule ukc with their lies? Maybe.
In reply to off-duty:
WW2 is not that old, nor the Indo-Chinese and Algerian wars, nor the Indonesian massacre of a million so called communists, to give just a few examples... Today looking at Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. I can't agree on this point - it's here and it's now.
WW2 is not that old, nor the Indo-Chinese and Algerian wars, nor the Indonesian massacre of a million so called communists, to give just a few examples... Today looking at Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. I can't agree on this point - it's here and it's now.
In reply to Postmanpat: at 12.50. exactly
In reply to dissonance:
Is that anywhere near the complete and utter whitewash over the fascism and millions of genocidal deaths in the name of the British empire?
Never mind the 10s of millions murdered by all the other European empires.
Err no that will be your Robert Conquest's,five volume-Oxford history of the British empire,The Wall Street Journal,Niall Ferguson,Andrew Roberts,Lawrence James,Paul Johnson,Orlando Figes,Angelo codevilla,Blair,Clinton,Stephen Gray that'll do for now.
> You arent living in the Soviet union so you cant conveniently rewrite history.
Is that anywhere near the complete and utter whitewash over the fascism and millions of genocidal deaths in the name of the British empire?
Never mind the 10s of millions murdered by all the other European empires.
Err no that will be your Robert Conquest's,five volume-Oxford history of the British empire,The Wall Street Journal,Niall Ferguson,Andrew Roberts,Lawrence James,Paul Johnson,Orlando Figes,Angelo codevilla,Blair,Clinton,Stephen Gray that'll do for now.
In reply to Postmanpat:
are you suggesting that Bruce isn't?
Complete bollocks!
you are being totally disingenuous here,would you like me to go and find all the schoolboy and childish attacks on Bruce that you make? It won't be hard because it's practically all you ever do.
PS. I'm off out for the moment to play tennis in the sunshine but i'll get back t your comparison of relative poverty in the USSR and the UK later on.
remembering that the USSR is not the country that has been at war robbing every country under the sun for the past 100 years unlike the UK and their levels of national debt(USSR alone) were nothing compared to the UK's.
30 billion for the USSR in 1987.
200 billion for the UK in 1988.
> Bruce, the thing is
> these two, and most of the others on this thread are perfectly capably positive sensible and enlightening discussion even when holding opposing views.
> these two, and most of the others on this thread are perfectly capably positive sensible and enlightening discussion even when holding opposing views.
are you suggesting that Bruce isn't?
> Perhaps you just should ask yourself why people don't do that with you. It is not, as I suspect you think, that you hold unusual or different views. It is because of the way that you argue them.
Complete bollocks!
you are being totally disingenuous here,would you like me to go and find all the schoolboy and childish attacks on Bruce that you make? It won't be hard because it's practically all you ever do.
PS. I'm off out for the moment to play tennis in the sunshine but i'll get back t your comparison of relative poverty in the USSR and the UK later on.
remembering that the USSR is not the country that has been at war robbing every country under the sun for the past 100 years unlike the UK and their levels of national debt(USSR alone) were nothing compared to the UK's.
30 billion for the USSR in 1987.
200 billion for the UK in 1988.
In reply to heidi123:
this is just a wee humble message to you from one of your many fans Heidi123
it is no exaggeration to say that I wait with bated breath for your contributions on the political debates within the UKC forums Heidi123. Each and every instance in which you take the immense time and trouble to imbue your vast knowledge and shrewd talent in debating skills,leaves me with a feeling as though i have just been taught a veritable masterclass by a genius and political heavyweight.
Where would the UKC political debates be without your incredible and worthwhile insights Heidi123 i dare to even contemplate this as it would be too much of a tragedy.
Please ! please ! Keep up you tireless inspiring and impressive work heidi123.
> (In reply to dissonance) I don't bother reading bruce's posts anyomore. cant be a healthy way to live? yeah, that's what I think about him
> at 12.50. exactly
> so its not true? pity
> he denigrated himself
> totally agree with your last sentance, but venezuela was a better country before chavez
> some mebbe are but some really couldnt care less
this is just a wee humble message to you from one of your many fans Heidi123
it is no exaggeration to say that I wait with bated breath for your contributions on the political debates within the UKC forums Heidi123. Each and every instance in which you take the immense time and trouble to imbue your vast knowledge and shrewd talent in debating skills,leaves me with a feeling as though i have just been taught a veritable masterclass by a genius and political heavyweight.
Where would the UKC political debates be without your incredible and worthwhile insights Heidi123 i dare to even contemplate this as it would be too much of a tragedy.
Please ! please ! Keep up you tireless inspiring and impressive work heidi123.
In reply to Gudrun:
He seems, for starters, not to be able to comprehend the most simple points. I am still not clear whether this is genuine incomprehension or some sort of tactic but either way having to repeat and clarify in numerous ways the same thing, or being provoked into defending things one never said and don't even believe etc etc just became frustrating and pointless. Others have highlighted the endless distortions, diversions,strawmen, insults etc.
It's a shame because the issues under discussion are interesting issues.
I still find it occasionally entertaining and certainly intriguing as to why he does this and from time to time succumb to the temptation of calling him out or having a pop which is obviously silly and childish. And your right, in his case it is pretty much all I ever do, for the reasons I have just summarised.
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
>
>
> Complete bollocks!
>
> you are being totally disingenuous here,would you like me to go and find all the schoolboy and childish attacks on Bruce that you make? It won't be hard because it's practically all you ever do.
>
I fully acknowledge, as have some others, that I have pretty much given up attempting to have a sensible debate with Bruce. I tried for several years but decided it was impossible. > Complete bollocks!
>
> you are being totally disingenuous here,would you like me to go and find all the schoolboy and childish attacks on Bruce that you make? It won't be hard because it's practically all you ever do.
>
He seems, for starters, not to be able to comprehend the most simple points. I am still not clear whether this is genuine incomprehension or some sort of tactic but either way having to repeat and clarify in numerous ways the same thing, or being provoked into defending things one never said and don't even believe etc etc just became frustrating and pointless. Others have highlighted the endless distortions, diversions,strawmen, insults etc.
It's a shame because the issues under discussion are interesting issues.
I still find it occasionally entertaining and certainly intriguing as to why he does this and from time to time succumb to the temptation of calling him out or having a pop which is obviously silly and childish. And your right, in his case it is pretty much all I ever do, for the reasons I have just summarised.
In reply to Cú Chullain:
Entertain me, how is this so?
Come on then, big words,big accusations now can we see your working?
That is if you have any,other than empty misguided deceits.
> Anyway, the point I was making further up the thread was that Hungary was given as an example of a 'happy' functioning communist state, this is clearly bollocks
Entertain me, how is this so?
> Time after time after time during the 20th century, we saw
> leaving behind economic ruination, a destroyed environment and a traumatised - and often much reduced - population
> leaving behind economic ruination, a destroyed environment and a traumatised - and often much reduced - population
Come on then, big words,big accusations now can we see your working?
That is if you have any,other than empty misguided deceits.
In reply to Gudrun: and I wait with bated breath for your contributions. they make me laugh so much!!
In reply to Postmanpat:
That is just a complete insult and nothing more,please !this does your argument no favours whatsoever.
Now you as well as our Bruce are among the trusted political heavyweights on the UKC political front although as "the Guvnor" you are more on the financial side,and as such you would get more respect if you could be a little less partisan in your views against Bruce.
Now you and your "mob"....you know fine well what i mean!
Present blatant lies,straw armies,unsubstanciated statements,childish attacks,defamation,half -truths,hiding unpalatable truths,falsifications and horible name calling and insults that dwarf anything Bruce says by a country mile.(not as much as i get though!)
So it's like bunch of hypocritical verbal abusers and liars slagging off someone who defends himself.
Now i'm off to play tennis !!!
New balls please !
> He seems, for starters, not to be able to comprehend the most simple points.
That is just a complete insult and nothing more,please !this does your argument no favours whatsoever.
> I am still not clear whether this is genuine incomprehension or some sort of tactic but either way having to repeat and clarify in numerous ways the same thing, or being provoked into defending things one never said and don't even believe etc etc just became frustrating and pointless. Others have highlighted the endless distortions, diversions,strawmen, insults etc.
It's a shame because the issues under discussion are interesting issues.Now you as well as our Bruce are among the trusted political heavyweights on the UKC political front although as "the Guvnor" you are more on the financial side,and as such you would get more respect if you could be a little less partisan in your views against Bruce.
Now you and your "mob"....you know fine well what i mean!
Present blatant lies,straw armies,unsubstanciated statements,childish attacks,defamation,half -truths,hiding unpalatable truths,falsifications and horible name calling and insults that dwarf anything Bruce says by a country mile.(not as much as i get though!)
So it's like bunch of hypocritical verbal abusers and liars slagging off someone who defends himself.
Now i'm off to play tennis !!!
New balls please !
In reply to heidi123:
laughing hyserically at your own inability to post anything other than inane half-a-line comments that would make a 8 year old cringe.
wait sorry ....are you 8 years old?
if so i suggest you get some extra schooling because your input is of an extremely poor and dismal standard,i don't think i've seen worse in all my time on UKC.
> (In reply to Gudrun) and I wait with bated breath for your contributions. they make me laugh so much!!
laughing hyserically at your own inability to post anything other than inane half-a-line comments that would make a 8 year old cringe.
wait sorry ....are you 8 years old?
if so i suggest you get some extra schooling because your input is of an extremely poor and dismal standard,i don't think i've seen worse in all my time on UKC.
In reply to Gudrun:
This is just boring.
Climbing is much more interesting. So is skiing. And hillwalking. And cycling.
Come to think of it, political debate is more interesting than this too.
I'm out of here.
This is just boring.
Climbing is much more interesting. So is skiing. And hillwalking. And cycling.
Come to think of it, political debate is more interesting than this too.
I'm out of here.
In reply to Gudrun:
If I said "Wayne Rooney seems to a lesser tha footballer hat Lionel Messi" I guess the former would feel insulted if he cared at all. tht would not stop it being true.
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
>
> [...]
>
> That is just a complete insult and nothing more,please !this does your argument no favours whatsoever.
>
It's simply a reflection of what I find to be the case. Since most other posters usually understand what I am trying to say even if thy disagree I can only conclude that the problem lies with Bruce rather than me. >
>
> [...]
>
> That is just a complete insult and nothing more,please !this does your argument no favours whatsoever.
>
If I said "Wayne Rooney seems to a lesser tha footballer hat Lionel Messi" I guess the former would feel insulted if he cared at all. tht would not stop it being true.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Your problem is not in understanding, you don't try to do that because you are a convinced conservative of the Daily Telegraph type more than the Daily Mail, which is a compliment, and so you just feel unwilling to move outside the way you see the world... You make no attempt to argue because you consider it is beneath you on anything but fringe issues of no importance. As on ukc the majority of posters, especially the more active ones, are on a similar, but not totally identical, wave length you mutually reinforce each other and come out of feeling convinced how right you all are, in both senses of the world.
Having said this, I can't help thinking that a spell abroad might make you realise that Home Counties values are no longer, if they ever were, the be all and end all of life on Earth. Not that they are greatly different in most of Europe, on average these days as the conservative free market values are dominant, but within these values there are enough minor differences to make you ask a few questions about some of your unquestioned certainties.
I know I'm pissing in the wind though, you won't read this anymore than anything else that doesn't fit in. If, however, you have already spent frequent long periods in other countries, soaking up the culture and enjoy a multi-faceted spirit that need no broadening then please ignore my unjustified remarks, they are wasted as there really is no hope.
Your problem is not in understanding, you don't try to do that because you are a convinced conservative of the Daily Telegraph type more than the Daily Mail, which is a compliment, and so you just feel unwilling to move outside the way you see the world... You make no attempt to argue because you consider it is beneath you on anything but fringe issues of no importance. As on ukc the majority of posters, especially the more active ones, are on a similar, but not totally identical, wave length you mutually reinforce each other and come out of feeling convinced how right you all are, in both senses of the world.
Having said this, I can't help thinking that a spell abroad might make you realise that Home Counties values are no longer, if they ever were, the be all and end all of life on Earth. Not that they are greatly different in most of Europe, on average these days as the conservative free market values are dominant, but within these values there are enough minor differences to make you ask a few questions about some of your unquestioned certainties.
I know I'm pissing in the wind though, you won't read this anymore than anything else that doesn't fit in. If, however, you have already spent frequent long periods in other countries, soaking up the culture and enjoy a multi-faceted spirit that need no broadening then please ignore my unjustified remarks, they are wasted as there really is no hope.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
It is about your refusal or failure to engage objectively with the points made to you. People who pick you up on this are not nitpicking or being pedantic. They are making a desperate attempt to get you to focus on the facts and arguments being made not just try and score what you seem to think are points.I think I believe that you genuinely don't realise you do it but so be it. I have various theories, as it seems do others, about why you are like this but whatever the explanation, it just makes discussion pointless.
ki o tsukete
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> Your problem is not in understanding,
>
As usual you've missed the point being being made; which is NOT that I or anybody else cannot engage with a different viewpoint. The different viewpoint is interesting. It is your MODE OF ARGUMENT.>
> Your problem is not in understanding,
>
> Having said this, I can't help thinking that a spell abroad might make you realise that Home Counties values are no longer,
>
For the umpteenth time: I've lived half my adult life on the other side of the word (Asia, mainly Japan-which is a lot more different to the Home Counties than suburban Paris) and worked with people from God knows how many different countries. That this has passed you by after over ten years arguing with me reflects how you don't take anything on board but just trot out the same old remarks regardless of anything imparted to you.>
> I know I'm pissing in the wind though, you won't read this anymore than anything else that doesn't fit in.
>
Again,it is not about whether we have different viewpoints. I'm happy with that. I lived in a country for years which appeared to think the Chinese had provoked a Japanese invasion, that it was randomly attacked by the US for no reason, and had been a benign influence on its empire. >
It is about your refusal or failure to engage objectively with the points made to you. People who pick you up on this are not nitpicking or being pedantic. They are making a desperate attempt to get you to focus on the facts and arguments being made not just try and score what you seem to think are points.I think I believe that you genuinely don't realise you do it but so be it. I have various theories, as it seems do others, about why you are like this but whatever the explanation, it just makes discussion pointless.
ki o tsukete
In reply to off-duty:
You are making up wee stories again!
I have never overlooked the crimes of Stalin Offy,i have been over this loads of times as you well know,he murdered my the extremely intelligent Marxist theoretician Trotsky,as well as many many more.or Mao for that matter with his idiotic great leap forward.
Now going back 40 years from the starvation of 3 million in 1930s ukraine to the starvation of 10s of millions of Indians in the 1880-1890s is too much for you?
Why?
We had gulags in Kenya and a fascist state murdering at least 100,000 in the late 40s,we bombed Iraqi's with chemical weapons in the 1920's murdering 100,000.We had a fascist state in Malaya up to the 60s.We were murdering 10s of thousands of peaceful Indian protesters in the 40s and before.Lord Lugard was exterminating Nigerians in 1926.We bombed Jenin in Palestine to bits in 1938.
In 1900 lord Kitchener was ethnically cleansing S.A. and using concentration camps that would kill 28,000 women and children.
In Aden we were committing war crimes.Ethnic cleansing by Labour gov. in 1973 of Diego Garcia.
3 million Indians starved to death in 1943 Bengal famine as we took their food.500,000-1 million mostly Iraqi kids murdered by Anglo-american sanctions in the 1990.
That's not "several centuries" ago Offy.
Anyhow my reply was to show that the UK was very much a fascist country.
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> I think the problem arises when people go back several centuries into the past to pick at issues in the development of the West and blame all those problems on a political system, whilst being prepared to overlook the gross human rights abuses that occured in the immediate history of soviet bloc countries which are a direct consequence of those countries political systems.
You are making up wee stories again!
I have never overlooked the crimes of Stalin Offy,i have been over this loads of times as you well know,he murdered my the extremely intelligent Marxist theoretician Trotsky,as well as many many more.or Mao for that matter with his idiotic great leap forward.
Now going back 40 years from the starvation of 3 million in 1930s ukraine to the starvation of 10s of millions of Indians in the 1880-1890s is too much for you?
Why?
> To be specific - shouts of imperialist slavery in response to criticism of gulag labour camps.
We had gulags in Kenya and a fascist state murdering at least 100,000 in the late 40s,we bombed Iraqi's with chemical weapons in the 1920's murdering 100,000.We had a fascist state in Malaya up to the 60s.We were murdering 10s of thousands of peaceful Indian protesters in the 40s and before.Lord Lugard was exterminating Nigerians in 1926.We bombed Jenin in Palestine to bits in 1938.
In 1900 lord Kitchener was ethnically cleansing S.A. and using concentration camps that would kill 28,000 women and children.
In Aden we were committing war crimes.Ethnic cleansing by Labour gov. in 1973 of Diego Garcia.
3 million Indians starved to death in 1943 Bengal famine as we took their food.500,000-1 million mostly Iraqi kids murdered by Anglo-american sanctions in the 1990.
That's not "several centuries" ago Offy.
Anyhow my reply was to show that the UK was very much a fascist country.
In reply to Gudrun: Er... I think you are a bit free and easy with your zeros to be honest, (though honest is not a word that I would apply in this context.)
I'd be very interested to see the sources for some of your claims, e.g. 'We were murdering 10s of thousands of peaceful Indian protesters in the 40s' - no we weren't. When we killed 300+ at Amritsar - a terrible episode, to be sure - Dyer was ignominiously recalled to the UK and received none of the trappings that a soldier of his experience could have expected. 'We had gulags in Kenya and a fascist state murdering at least 100,000 in the late 40s' No we didn't. '500,000-1 million mostly Iraqi kids murdered by Anglo-american sanctions in the 1990.' No there weren't, there was much suffering to be sure but when we tried to provide aid and medicine the efforts were cynically and cold bloodedly subverted by Hussein - but you can ask Bruce about that, he was all in favour of attacking Iraq, though I don't think he's ever giving a coherent (hah!) reason why.
There are books about this stuff you know, I can point you at some if you like, surely you've got better sources than the Dave Spart/Tooting Popular Front social worker that Bruce was quoting earlier?
I'd be very interested to see the sources for some of your claims, e.g. 'We were murdering 10s of thousands of peaceful Indian protesters in the 40s' - no we weren't. When we killed 300+ at Amritsar - a terrible episode, to be sure - Dyer was ignominiously recalled to the UK and received none of the trappings that a soldier of his experience could have expected. 'We had gulags in Kenya and a fascist state murdering at least 100,000 in the late 40s' No we didn't. '500,000-1 million mostly Iraqi kids murdered by Anglo-american sanctions in the 1990.' No there weren't, there was much suffering to be sure but when we tried to provide aid and medicine the efforts were cynically and cold bloodedly subverted by Hussein - but you can ask Bruce about that, he was all in favour of attacking Iraq, though I don't think he's ever giving a coherent (hah!) reason why.
There are books about this stuff you know, I can point you at some if you like, surely you've got better sources than the Dave Spart/Tooting Popular Front social worker that Bruce was quoting earlier?
In reply to Gudrun: And yet you live here and toil for your capitalist overlords, you lying hypocrite, shona.
In reply to heidi123:
I'm ex Royal Engineers - my best mate and someone else I knew gave their lives to kick the invaders off.
That's how much the British care about people.
I'm ex Royal Engineers - my best mate and someone else I knew gave their lives to kick the invaders off.
That's how much the British care about people.
In reply to Gudrun:
Yep I guess it might have been. Good job it isn't a present day socialist "utopia".
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> Anyhow my reply was to show that the UK was very much a fascist country.
> Anyhow my reply was to show that the UK was very much a fascist country.
Yep I guess it might have been. Good job it isn't a present day socialist "utopia".
In reply to Gudrun: im out too. boring and pathetic.
In reply to Postmanpat:
As you have pointed out it is a pointless exercise trying to compare the relative poverty in Britain in say 1989 and the USSR in 1989 for many different reasons.
Not least of all the fact that the need for money in the USSR was practically
unnecessary since *everything* was so massively subsidized.
Many things were provided for in the USSR for free or peanuts,like food,petrol,heating and electricity and public transport.As well as cinema,swimming and sports events cost pennies.Recruitment and membership of *all* sporting activities was completely free as well as membership of the pioneers(kids socialist scout equivalent)
In Russia only 3.2% were deemed on low income and this was where half the 290 million lived.Whereas in the poorest Soviets of turkmenistan,uzbekestan,Kyrgyzstan made up for the vast majority of those in low incomes.Uzbekistan had by far the largest region on low income 27%,this does not take into account the differences in household size,incomes from private plots and mountain Uzbek shepards as Lubin points out (Lubin 1984: p. 198-199) also had access to extra earnings from private sales of meat And their consumption patterns differed from those in urban centers. It is a rare Uzbek, who"dreams of trips to Paris, or even to Eastern Europe..., rarely would he or she wish to buy washing machines, or Soviet household amenities". Uzbek shepherds, Lubin argues, were very poor only by Western standards and " [w]ithin the framework of indigenous lifestyle, quite the opposite could well be the case".
So yes they got less but the cost of living could not be compared to say 20% of Brits being in poverty in 1989.
Our standard of living was much greater with much fewer subsidies
We also had a pop of 57 million and the USSR had 280 million ,we had homelessness,massive crime levels,ghettoization of the poor as well as our imperial wars and robbery to support us....not to mention our phenomenal levels of personal and national debt.
As you have pointed out it is a pointless exercise trying to compare the relative poverty in Britain in say 1989 and the USSR in 1989 for many different reasons.
Not least of all the fact that the need for money in the USSR was practically
unnecessary since *everything* was so massively subsidized.
Many things were provided for in the USSR for free or peanuts,like food,petrol,heating and electricity and public transport.As well as cinema,swimming and sports events cost pennies.Recruitment and membership of *all* sporting activities was completely free as well as membership of the pioneers(kids socialist scout equivalent)
In Russia only 3.2% were deemed on low income and this was where half the 290 million lived.Whereas in the poorest Soviets of turkmenistan,uzbekestan,Kyrgyzstan made up for the vast majority of those in low incomes.Uzbekistan had by far the largest region on low income 27%,this does not take into account the differences in household size,incomes from private plots and mountain Uzbek shepards as Lubin points out (Lubin 1984: p. 198-199) also had access to extra earnings from private sales of meat And their consumption patterns differed from those in urban centers. It is a rare Uzbek, who"dreams of trips to Paris, or even to Eastern Europe..., rarely would he or she wish to buy washing machines, or Soviet household amenities". Uzbek shepherds, Lubin argues, were very poor only by Western standards and " [w]ithin the framework of indigenous lifestyle, quite the opposite could well be the case".
So yes they got less but the cost of living could not be compared to say 20% of Brits being in poverty in 1989.
Our standard of living was much greater with much fewer subsidies
We also had a pop of 57 million and the USSR had 280 million ,we had homelessness,massive crime levels,ghettoization of the poor as well as our imperial wars and robbery to support us....not to mention our phenomenal levels of personal and national debt.
In reply to heidi123:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo!
We are gona miss you badly!
> (In reply to Gudrun) im out too. boring and pathetic.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo!
We are gona miss you badly!
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Maria Misra Lecturer in Modern History at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Keble College.specialising in the politics, culture, and economics of nineteenth- and twentieth-century imperialism and colonialism.
From her book -Vishnu's Crowded Temple, India since the Great Rebellion.
Yes we did ! see Caroline Elkins, professor of history at Harvard University.
From her book- Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq
Nations of the world as well as UNICEF and the UN envoy to Iraq were putting pressure at the UN to lift the sanctions since 5,000 kids were dying every month from treatable diseases but we wouldn't let the medicine in.The UK blocked these protests at the UN so that the sanctions would continue even though we knew they were murdering kids and toddlers.
70 US Congressmen would later call it-
"Infantacide masquerading as policy"
That digusting monster Madeline Allbright would famously say when asked if the deaths of 500,000 kids was a price worth paying-
"we think the price is worth it."
or is this still not true Rob do we need to ask her?
Perhaps you could drop the insults from the discussion they don't help your arguement one bit,oh and i'd be glad to read the books you recommend,what are they?
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> I'd be very interested to see the sources for some of your claims, e.g. 'We were murdering 10s of thousands of peaceful Indian protesters in the 40s' - no we weren't
Maria Misra Lecturer in Modern History at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Keble College.specialising in the politics, culture, and economics of nineteenth- and twentieth-century imperialism and colonialism.
From her book -Vishnu's Crowded Temple, India since the Great Rebellion.
> 'We had gulags in Kenya and a fascist state murdering at least 100,000 in the late 40s' No we didn't.
Yes we did ! see Caroline Elkins, professor of history at Harvard University.
From her book- Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya
> 500,000-1 million mostly Iraqi kids murdered by Anglo-american sanctions in the 1990.' No there weren't, there was much suffering to be sure but when we tried to provide aid and medicine the efforts were cynically and cold bloodedly subverted by Hussein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq
Nations of the world as well as UNICEF and the UN envoy to Iraq were putting pressure at the UN to lift the sanctions since 5,000 kids were dying every month from treatable diseases but we wouldn't let the medicine in.The UK blocked these protests at the UN so that the sanctions would continue even though we knew they were murdering kids and toddlers.
70 US Congressmen would later call it-
"Infantacide masquerading as policy"
That digusting monster Madeline Allbright would famously say when asked if the deaths of 500,000 kids was a price worth paying-
"we think the price is worth it."
or is this still not true Rob do we need to ask her?
> There are books about this stuff you know, I can point you at some if you like, surely you've got better sources than the Dave Spart/Tooting Popular Front social worker that Bruce was quoting earlier?
Perhaps you could drop the insults from the discussion they don't help your arguement one bit,oh and i'd be glad to read the books you recommend,what are they?
In reply to Gudrun: yawn... night night
In reply to Postmanpat:
Well then my last conclusion is the right one, you are a lost cause, doomed to preach tory bollocks for the rest of your life.
As far as not being able to argue with me is concerned that isn't your problem, I agree, you never even try... back to Simple Simon with you, no need to stress the old brain cells.
Well then my last conclusion is the right one, you are a lost cause, doomed to preach tory bollocks for the rest of your life.
As far as not being able to argue with me is concerned that isn't your problem, I agree, you never even try... back to Simple Simon with you, no need to stress the old brain cells.
In reply to off-duty:
you haven't been paying attention to my polemic on the successes of Soviet Communism in Czechoslovakia,GDR,USSR and Hungry then .Especially in the post-capitalist countries that wanted to make it work.
I don't want to get involved in some childish arguement with you offy only serious ones are of interest to me,thanks.
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> Yep I guess it might have been. Good job it isn't a present day socialist "utopia".
you haven't been paying attention to my polemic on the successes of Soviet Communism in Czechoslovakia,GDR,USSR and Hungry then .Especially in the post-capitalist countries that wanted to make it work.
I don't want to get involved in some childish arguement with you offy only serious ones are of interest to me,thanks.
In reply to Postmanpat:
"Our standard of living was much greater with much fewer subsidies"
Sorry that should have read-
"Our *COST* of living was much greater with much fewer subsidies"
"Our standard of living was much greater with much fewer subsidies"
Sorry that should have read-
"Our *COST* of living was much greater with much fewer subsidies"
In reply to Gudrun:
I love these arguments as it is so easy to see things from one side. As I see it everyone (governments that is) do bad stuff and good stuff (with the exception of some of the more corrupt governments in the "fringe" countries that seem to do stuff to further their personal aims rather than their countries, not saying that the "big"countries don't try it but usually there are systems in place to limit such activity)
I love these arguments as it is so easy to see things from one side. As I see it everyone (governments that is) do bad stuff and good stuff (with the exception of some of the more corrupt governments in the "fringe" countries that seem to do stuff to further their personal aims rather than their countries, not saying that the "big"countries don't try it but usually there are systems in place to limit such activity)
In reply to Sir Chasm:
That doesn't make her a hypocrite, it makes her just one of the people living in Britain... What do you expect her to do? Know of any Utopias in this world?
> (In reply to Gudrun) And yet you live here and toil for your capitalist overlords, you lying hypocrite, shona.
That doesn't make her a hypocrite, it makes her just one of the people living in Britain... What do you expect her to do? Know of any Utopias in this world?
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Cuba? North Korea?
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Cuba would be nice but finding a job there is no easier than here.
Coming back on subject, Pope Frankie has just made his Easter speech and no one, not even the official ukc Christians, has picked up on it. He called for peace in the world, standard enough, but put extra emphasis on Syria, calling for negotiations, which puts Obama, Cameron and Hollande in their places.
Meanwhile, in Palestine:
'The patriarch, the most senior Roman Catholic cleric in the Holy Land, also urged the international community to take "concrete and effective decisions to find a balanced and just solution for the Palestinian cause, which lies at the heart of all the Middle East's troubles".'
(BBC)
Another one on Obama's nose... but then how many divisions does the Pope have? As a famous world leader once said.
Cuba would be nice but finding a job there is no easier than here.
Coming back on subject, Pope Frankie has just made his Easter speech and no one, not even the official ukc Christians, has picked up on it. He called for peace in the world, standard enough, but put extra emphasis on Syria, calling for negotiations, which puts Obama, Cameron and Hollande in their places.
Meanwhile, in Palestine:
'The patriarch, the most senior Roman Catholic cleric in the Holy Land, also urged the international community to take "concrete and effective decisions to find a balanced and just solution for the Palestinian cause, which lies at the heart of all the Middle East's troubles".'
(BBC)
Another one on Obama's nose... but then how many divisions does the Pope have? As a famous world leader once said.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Apparently GDR, USSR, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
> [...]
>
> Know of any Utopias in this world?
> [...]
>
> Know of any Utopias in this world?
Apparently GDR, USSR, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.
In reply to butteredfrog:
Perhaps if you read the pros and cons you could come to your own conclusion and perhaps your friend loves the USA and it's MacDonalds,TV dross,dumbed down 1 dimensional society to, who knows!Perhaps she is a goldigga or a million other things.
I wonder how much she likes unemployment,homelessness,paying for medical treatment,foreign wars,debt and massive crime.
personally i couldn't give a toss about money as long as i have the essentials i'm more than happy.
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> Afriend of mine was brought up in the GDR, she said it was "shit".
>
> Afriend of mine was brought up in the GDR, she said it was "shit".
Perhaps if you read the pros and cons you could come to your own conclusion and perhaps your friend loves the USA and it's MacDonalds,TV dross,dumbed down 1 dimensional society to, who knows!Perhaps she is a goldigga or a million other things.
I wonder how much she likes unemployment,homelessness,paying for medical treatment,foreign wars,debt and massive crime.
personally i couldn't give a toss about money as long as i have the essentials i'm more than happy.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
did you see Obama's face the last time he denied some concession toward a Palestinian State?
It was a perfect picture of someone having a massive internal fight with himself and the evil side winning,his body and face betrayed his words,his acting abilities slipped.
did you see Obama's face the last time he denied some concession toward a Palestinian State?
It was a perfect picture of someone having a massive internal fight with himself and the evil side winning,his body and face betrayed his words,his acting abilities slipped.
In reply to Gudrun:
She lives in a cabin in the woods in Sweden now, on a lakeshore, they prefer the simple life!
> (In reply to butteredfrog)
> [...]
>
> Perhaps if you read the pros and cons you could come to your own conclusion and perhaps your friend loves the USA and it's MacDonalds,TV dross,dumbed down 1 dimensional society to, who knows!Perhaps she is a goldigga or a million other things.
> I wonder how much she likes unemployment,homelessness,paying for medical treatment,foreign wars,debt and massive crime.
> personally i couldn't give a toss about money as long as i have the essentials i'm more than happy.
> [...]
>
> Perhaps if you read the pros and cons you could come to your own conclusion and perhaps your friend loves the USA and it's MacDonalds,TV dross,dumbed down 1 dimensional society to, who knows!Perhaps she is a goldigga or a million other things.
> I wonder how much she likes unemployment,homelessness,paying for medical treatment,foreign wars,debt and massive crime.
> personally i couldn't give a toss about money as long as i have the essentials i'm more than happy.
She lives in a cabin in the woods in Sweden now, on a lakeshore, they prefer the simple life!
In reply to butteredfrog:
well Bruce and Gudruns carefully and well supported arguments have convinced me. Long live the USSR and the communist paradise.
well Bruce and Gudruns carefully and well supported arguments have convinced me. Long live the USSR and the communist paradise.
In reply to butteredfrog:
Yeah but she has a huge porfolio of share options tucked under the mattress!
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> She lives in a cabin in the woods in Sweden now, on a lakeshore, they prefer the simple life!
Yeah but she has a huge porfolio of share options tucked under the mattress!
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
Agreed but is it for the good of everyone or of the very few.
To me it is a no-brainer....Capitalist countries that move to a planned economy to support the masses and without being at the mercy of a rich elite and their stock markets to sabotage Socialism will be a huge success.If people believe in themselves.As Alice Walker said-
"The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any."
> As I see it everyone (governments that is) do bad stuff and good stuff
Agreed but is it for the good of everyone or of the very few.
To me it is a no-brainer....Capitalist countries that move to a planned economy to support the masses and without being at the mercy of a rich elite and their stock markets to sabotage Socialism will be a huge success.If people believe in themselves.As Alice Walker said-
"The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any."
In reply to Gudrun:
Comrade Mary Doll.
Did you prefer the Stasi Guillotine method, or the simple headshot way of executing enemies of the state?
Comrade Mary Doll.
Did you prefer the Stasi Guillotine method, or the simple headshot way of executing enemies of the state?
In reply to dek:
not fussed to be honest.
But it's probably better than being burned to death,slowly poisoned with chemical weapons or slowly watching your skin melt before burning to death from napalm or agent orange or .....starvation !
not fussed to be honest.
But it's probably better than being burned to death,slowly poisoned with chemical weapons or slowly watching your skin melt before burning to death from napalm or agent orange or .....starvation !
In reply to Gudrun:
Are you the same person as GudrunEllese..something, or do you just have the same profile pictures and happen to slide into the same Scottishnessnessness?
> (In reply to dek)
>
> not fussed to be honest.
> But it's probably better than being burned to death,slowly poisoned with chemical weapons or slowly watching your skin melt before burning to death from napalm or agent orange or .....starvation !
>
> not fussed to be honest.
> But it's probably better than being burned to death,slowly poisoned with chemical weapons or slowly watching your skin melt before burning to death from napalm or agent orange or .....starvation !
Are you the same person as GudrunEllese..something, or do you just have the same profile pictures and happen to slide into the same Scottishnessnessness?
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...