Gashole Movie

[johnpr]

West Bengal has been ruled by the CPI(M)-led Left Front for three decades, making it the world's longest-running democratically-elected communist government.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) is the leading party in Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura.

Nicauragua was communist when we trained rebels (the Contra) who were mostly the private guard od the previous highly corrupt totaltarian government (non communist btw), so we had a large role in the downfall of that one.

china is the worlds 4th largest economy, For much of China's population, living standards have seen extremely large improvements, and freedom continues to expand, but political controls remain tight - yes they have had human rights issues but we are far from having never had issues and have always been a capitalist country (slavery anyone)

Laos, a communist country, has had great economic growth, its economy grew at 7.2% in 2006,[2] 35th fastest in the world.

so here we have it, successfull, (or was succesful until we got into it in the case of Nicaragua) communist countries, and not all of them have been totalitarian. no they arent pretending to be americans, but who says that everyone has to live like us, we can start talking about all the problems that capitalism has brought to the world (heavy polution, disregard for others, the trade of humans) if you would like.

so maybe doing your homework instead of trying to use age or your "im older than you" philosophy might help you make factual statements.

[Duffman]

Shawn D,
Well maybe Nazi-Germany was not the best example. It just goes to show that not everything follows a cookie cutter model of government. Collectivism and capitalist are not mutually exclusive and opposition to economic liberalism is the only failure of my example. Partially it means that they were opposed to free trade, but with a nazi twist they were opposed to finance capitalism. Basically they were opposed to excess profits (wow, what was old is new again). Nazis hated communists and fought them every chance they got. During their administration they abolished trade unions. They supported ownership of enterprise and property so they were truly capitalists. I think they were a good example of say one thing and do another. More in the references below.

My apologies on my last comment (hillbillies). It was a sarcastic remark meaning that the Russian people where remarkably well educated under the USSR.

http://www.answers.com/topic/economi...-1?cat=biz-fin
http://www.answers.com/topic/nazism
http://www.answers.com/topic/nazi-germany
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...aziregime.html

[Shawn D.]

Originally Posted by johnpr

West Bengal has been ruled by the CPI(M)-led Left Front for three decades, making it the world's longest-running democratically-elected communist government.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) is the leading party in Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura.

Nicauragua was communist when we trained rebels (the Contra) who were mostly the private guard od the previous highly corrupt totaltarian government (non communist btw), so we had a large role in the downfall of that one.

china is the worlds 4th largest economy, For much of China's population, living standards have seen extremely large improvements, and freedom continues to expand, but political controls remain tight - yes they have had human rights issues but we are far from having never had issues and have always been a capitalist country (slavery anyone)

Laos, a communist country, has had great economic growth, its economy grew at 7.2% in 2006,[2] 35th fastest in the world.

so here we have it, successfull, (or was succesful until we got into it in the case of Nicaragua) communist countries, and not all of them have been totalitarian. no they arent pretending to be americans, but who says that everyone has to live like us, we can start talking about all the problems that capitalism has brought to the world (heavy polution, disregard for others, the trade of humans) if you would like.

so maybe doing your homework instead of trying to use age or your "im older than you" philosophy might help you make factual statements.

I need to do my homework? Bwahahahahahahaaa...

While you were cherry-picking those sentences from Wikipedia, you apparently failed to read the rest of the articles and/or understand the context.

West Bengal, Kerala, and Tripura are Indian states, not a country. West Bengal is only 7.8% of the population of India as a whole, and a communist party having such an electoral record against other parties in a few states doesn't make the country communist. If India were communist (and it is not), the CPI would not be the leading party -- it would be the only party.

In Nicaragua, we didn't cause the downfall of the country. If we hadn't supported the Contras, do you really believe the Sandinistas would have been pressured into having the elections that resulted in Chamorro becoming president?

As for China, look back at what I said earlier. I won't dignify your repeated commentary about how bad we are/were -- it's irrelevant and if you can't make your point without saying something like that, you don't have a very good case.

Laos has a "great" economy? Huh? Did you not even look down the page to see that 80% of Laos' workforce is dedicated to subsistence farming? 7% growth of essentially nothing is 7% more of nothing, progress though it is. The article also says the growth didn't start until economic restrictions were relaxed (i.e. private enterprise, AKA capitalism, was allowed).

Since you brought up pollution, I will refer you to this post of mine earlier in the thread. Are you choosing to ignore my points about ecologically dead rivers, the Aral Sea, rusting hulks of nuclear vessels, and might I add Chernobyl?

Finally, I didn't base my position on age vs. youth, as you assert. I said I based it on my knowledge and that your statements about communism marked you as a twenty-something. Sorry if that truth hits home in an unpleasant way, but I still believe it. Don't be surprised if two generations from now, some twenty-something says "What was the big deal about Islamic terrorism?," and when that happens, I suggest you recall this discussion.

Originally Posted by Duffman

Shawn D,
Well maybe Nazi-Germany was not the best example. It just goes to show that not everything follows a cookie cutter model of government. Collectivism and capitalist are not mutually exclusive and opposition to economic liberalism is the only failure of my example. Partially it means that they were opposed to free trade, but with a nazi twist they were opposed to finance capitalism. Basically they were opposed to excess profits (wow, what was old is new again). Nazis hated communists and fought them every chance they got. During their administration they abolished trade unions. They supported ownership of enterprise and property so they were truly capitalists. I think they were a good example of say one thing and do another. More in the references below.

My apologies on my last comment (hillbillies). It was a sarcastic remark meaning that the Russian people where remarkably well educated under the USSR.

http://www.answers.com/topic/economi...-1?cat=biz-fin
http://www.answers.com/topic/nazism
http://www.answers.com/topic/nazi-germany
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...aziregime.html

I mostly agree with your statements above, but if you follow down in the answers.com links you provided (which, BTW, are clones of Wikipedia), you'll note that the Nazis imposed state ownership of corporations, which I wouldn't call being "true capitalists."

No problem with the hillbillies remark -- I just didn't understand what your point was. They were indeed very well educated in science, Russian literature (the anti-Czarist literature of great Russian authors, that is), and the "benefits" of the Soviet State, but they certainly were ill-educated about the outside world.

[johnpr]

Originally Posted by Shawn D.

West Bengal, Kerala, and Tripura are Indian states, not a country. West Bengal is only 7.8% of the population of India as a whole, and a communist party having such an electoral record against other parties in a few states doesn't make the country communist. If India were communist (and it is not), the CPI would not be the leading party -- it would be the only party.

im aware of them being states, you stated that communist regimes have always been totalitarian, although these states are not a country, it is an example of communism and democracy in the same system, and i doubt that it would be the only party, neither of us can say for sure because we havent seen that large of a communist democracy but we still cant discount what is happening.

Originally Posted by Shawn D.

In Nicaragua, we didn't cause the downfall of the country. If we hadn't supported the Contras, do you really believe the Sandinistas would have been pressured into having the elections that resulted in Chamorro becoming president?

After the 1972 earthquake and Somoza's brazen corruption, mishandling of relief, and refusal to rebuild Managua, the ranks of the Sandinistas were flooded with young disaffected Nicaraguans who no longer had anything to lose. These economic problems propelled the Sandinistas in their struggle against Somoza by leading many middle- and upper-class Nicaraguans to see the Sandinistas as the only hope for removing the brutal Somoza regime

The Sandinistas, supported by much of the populace, elements of the Catholic Church, and regional and international governments, took power in July of 1979

Upon assuming office in 1981, U.S. President Ronald Reagan condemned the FSLN for joining with Cuba in supporting Marxist revolutionary movements in other Latin American countries such as El Salvador. His administration authorized the CIA to begin financing, arming and training rebels, some of whom were the remnants of Somoza's National Guard, as anti-Sandinista guerrillas.

The U.S. also sought to place economic pressure on the Sandinistas, and the Reagan administration imposed a full trade embargo

U.S. support for this Nicaraguan insurgency continued in spite of the fact that impartial observers from international groupings such as the European Union, religious groups sent to monitor the election, and observers from democratic nations such as Canada and the Republic of Ireland concluded that the Nicaraguan general elections of 1984 were completely free and fair. The Reagan administration disputed these results however, despite the fact that the government of the United States never had any observers in Nicaragua at the time.

After the U.S. Congress prohibited federal funding of the Contras in 1983, the Reagan administration continued to back the Contras by covertly selling arms to Iran and channeling the proceeds to the Contras

Multi-party democratic elections were held in 1990, which saw the defeat of the Sandinistas by a coalition of anti-Sandinista (from the left and right of the political spectrum) parties led by Violeta Chamorro, the widow of Pedro Joaquín Chamorro. The defeat shocked the Sandinistas as numerous pre-election polls had indicated a sure Sandinista victory and their pre-election rallies had attracted crowds of several hundred thousand people. The unexpected result was subject to a great deal of analysis and comment, and was attributed by commentators such as Noam Chomsky and S. Brian Willson to the U.S./Contra threats to continue the war if the Sandinistas retained power and the general war-weariness of the Nicaraguan population.


so like i said, the US caused the downfall of a government which A. had elections, B. was desired by the people, all because president reagen didnt like theire ties with cuba.

Originally Posted by Shawn D.

As for China, look back at what I said earlier. I won't dignify your repeated commentary about how bad we are/were -- it's irrelevant and if you can't make your point without saying something like that, you don't have a very good case.

my point came before commenting on human rights, the human rights part was pointing out my awareness that they have had issues with human rights but we are far from saying that we have been any better

Originally Posted by johnpr

china is the worlds 4th largest economy, For much of China's population, living standards have seen extremely large improvements, and freedom continues to expand, but political controls remain tight

Originally Posted by Shawn D.

I
Laos has a "great" economy? Huh? Did you not even look down the page to see that 80% of Laos' workforce is dedicated to subsistence farming? 7% growth of essentially nothing is 7% more of nothing, progress though it is. The article also says the growth didn't start until economic restrictions were relaxed (i.e. private enterprise, AKA capitalism, was allowed).

re-read what i said, i didnt say the economy is great, i said they are having great economic growth. im sure you know the difference.

Originally Posted by Shawn D.

I
Since you brought up pollution, I will refer you to this post of mine earlier in the thread. Are you choosing to ignore my points about ecologically dead rivers, the Aral Sea, rusting hulks of nuclear vessels, and might I add Chernobyl?

how about clearcutting rainforests, strip mining, black lung, pollution litterally ruining the lives of fish, wildlife, cows and humans at akwesesne and other locations in the US http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-industry.htm . all of this was done trying to get more money.

Originally Posted by Shawn D.

I
Don't be surprised if two generations from now, some twenty-something says "What was the big deal about Islamic terrorism?," and when that happens, I suggest you recall this discussion.

my first point will be that it isn't islamic terrorism, not all muslims are bad, infact the terrorists represent only a small percent of the population and sadly we are to blame for the way we are viewed by them, we have done some very bad things to the muslim people especially in our prison camps. but i do understand what you are saying, and i respect your stance on the matter, it's kind of refreshing hearing someone talk about communism and actually know the downfalls. I wont claim that it is a perfect system, my only real point is that some people like it and that it is not all bad, many of the bad things that have happened under communism have happened under capitalism as well, its all human nature and greed.

-john

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by Shawn D.

I I mostly agree with your statements above, but if you follow down in the answers.com links you provided (which, BTW, are clones of Wikipedia), you'll note that the Nazis imposed state ownership of corporations, which I wouldn't call being "true capitalists."

They were not democratic capitalists but fascist capitalists. This is from
http://www.answers.com/topic/nazi-germany

Most industry was not nationalized; however, industry was closely regulated with quotas and requirements to use domestic resources.[citation needed] These regulations were set by administrative committees composed of government and business officials. Competition was limited as major companies were organized into cartels through these administrative committees. Selective nationalization was used against businesses that failed to agree to these arrangements.[citation needed] The banks, which had been nationalized by the Weimar Republic, were returned to their owners and each administrative committee had a bank as member to finance the schemes.

End Quote
Remember they were gearing up for war and if you didnt do what they wanted, they got rid of you, they were fascists after all. The way they conducted their economy was very much along the lines of their philosophy of national socialism, which to them meant putting the nation's needs first, not to be confused with a modern definition of socialism.

[Shawn D.]

Originally Posted by johnpr

my first point will be that it isn't islamic terrorism, not all muslims are bad, infact the terrorists represent only a small percent of the population and sadly we are to blame for the way we are viewed by them, we have done some very bad things to the muslim people especially in our prison camps. but i do understand what you are saying, and i respect your stance on the matter, it's kind of refreshing hearing someone talk about communism and actually know the downfalls. I wont claim that it is a perfect system, my only real point is that some people like it and that it is not all bad, many of the bad things that have happened under communism have happened under capitalism as well, its all human nature and greed.

Where the heck did I say "all Muslims are bad"? I didn't say it, didn't imply it, and don't think it, so don't place that on me and make me appear xenophobic. However, as Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed , general manager of Al-Arabiya Television said: "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims." Hence my use of the term Islamic terrorism. Anyhow, my point, which I think you do get, is that serious issues of our day will seem trivial to subsequent generations if we succeed in overcoming them. Hence, someone thinking communism is/was no big deal and opine that the cold war wasn't necessary marks them as of a certain age.

I have to ask: do you really need to add America-hating to every point you make? Seriously, that's very frustrating, and I'm not even a "love America or leave it" type of person.

Originally Posted by Duffman

The way they conducted their economy was very much along the lines of their philosophy of national socialism, which to them meant putting the nation's needs first, not to be confused with a modern definition of socialism.

Excellent point!

[johnpr]

Originally Posted by Shawn D.

Where the heck did I say "all Muslims are bad"? I didn't say it, didn't imply it, and don't think it, so don't place that on me and make me appear xenophobic.

sorry i didnt intend to imply that you think muslims are bad, i assumed that you do not, i have never liked the term "islamic terrorism" because it has been used to make people think that it somehow involves all muslims. remember when 9/11 happened and people instantly became prejudice towards muslims? i do.

Originally Posted by Shawn D.

I have to ask: do you really need to add America-hating to every point you make? Seriously, that's very frustrating, and I'm not even a "love America or leave it" type of person.

im sorry if it comes off as America-Hating, I love this country and fought for it when I was in the army. but part of loving something without being blind is knowing that everything that we have blamed other countries or systems for has happened here at one point or another and and no matter where the issues have happened its all because people are greedy and only interested in improving either ones self or a select few, and we are all guilty of that.

[Shawn D.]

OK, John, I think we're on the same page now!

Thanks for your service, BTW. I'm ex-USAF myself.

[johnpr]

im happy we got that all straightened out, thank you for your service also, without the airforce i wouldnt have been able to jump (i was airborne, i do miss it...) anyhow, like you said, this conversation was a verry good example of how history is viewed by future generations.

[johnpr]

to tie our experience with the actual topic of the thread i often wonder how future generations are going to look at the "oil / energy crisis" and how terrible we all will look in theire eyes (like slavery looks to us)
-john