Why should a hamburger flipper make the same as a highly skilled worker???

[bripat9643]

You're just spouting more communist propaganda. The West was already vastly more wealthy than the rest of the world at the time of the Russian revolution. It remained wealthier than the Soviet Union for as long as it existed.

Yes, it was. Because it had spent most of the 16th through 19th centuries looting the rest of the world.

That's not something to be proud of. And we should be worried that the world's wealth is shifting back to non-white peoples....

Industry is what made Britain wealthy, and it's colonies also became wealthy. Russia conquered about 1/5th of the world and it wallowed in poverty until the end of the 19th Century.

 

[Dragonlady]

Conservative economics beliefs seem to believe that the economic well-being of half of the population should be sacrificed so that 5% can live in luxury. Liberals prefer an economy which respects all of its workers. We think that those who work should at least be able to put a roof over their heads, and eat a healthy diet in return for their labour.

You now have a situation where 47% of the US population doesn't pay taxes and needs some form of social assistance to sustain themselves. You're not living in Pinochet's Chile, but then you still have a social safety net. And liberals aren't being "disappeared". But judging by the posts in this forum, a lot of conservatives here would have no problem with it if they were.

 

[Dragonlady]

You're just spouting more communist propaganda. The West was already vastly more wealthy than the rest of the world at the time of the Russian revolution. It remained wealthier than the Soviet Union for as long as it existed.

Yes, it was. Because it had spent most of the 16th through 19th centuries looting the rest of the world.

That's not something to be proud of. And we should be worried that the world's wealth is shifting back to non-white peoples....

Industry is what made Britain wealthy, and it's colonies also became wealthy. Russia conquered about 1/5th of the world and it wallowed in poverty until the end of the 19th Century.

Colonization made Britain wealthy. It's colonies didn't all become wealthy. India, it's African colonies, and Asian colonies didn't become wealthy. Canada and Australia both did, but both were largely unpopulated with great resources and neither were subjugated the way India and other territories were.

Your grasp of history is almost nonexistent. No wonder you're a conservative.

 

[bripat9643]

You're just spouting more communist propaganda. The West was already vastly more wealthy than the rest of the world at the time of the Russian revolution. It remained wealthier than the Soviet Union for as long as it existed.

Yes, it was. Because it had spent most of the 16th through 19th centuries looting the rest of the world.

That's not something to be proud of. And we should be worried that the world's wealth is shifting back to non-white peoples....

Industry is what made Britain wealthy, and it's colonies also became wealthy. Russia conquered about 1/5th of the world and it wallowed in poverty until the end of the 19th Century.

Colonization made Britain wealthy. It's colonies didn't all become wealthy. India, it's African colonies, and Asian colonies didn't become wealthy. Canada and Australia both did, but both were largely unpopulated with great resources and neither were subjugated the way India and other territories were.

Your grasp of history is almost nonexistent. No wonder you're a conservative.

ROFL! The idea that India and Africa don't have resources is beyond absurd. British colonies were all wealthier after they became colonies than they were before. Virtually every mile of railroad in India was built by the British. The same goes for the railroads in Africa. Are countries better of with railroads or without them?

The industrial revolution is what made Britain wealthy and allowed it to conquer a vast empire, not the other way around.

 

[Ame®icano]

Technically, Marx expected communism to happen in the Industrialized world. Russia and most of the third world countries he expected to get communism imposed by the European powers.

But here was the thing. The main reason why the middle class advanced past the squalor of the early 20th century was that a lot of smart leaders in the West realized that what happened in Russia would happen everywhere else unless they pushed for decent wages and decent working conditions.

So really, the reason why we didn't have a Marxist revolution was because we had a progressive movement by Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and FDR>

What?

Progressives in US were equivalent to communists in Europe. They didn't need a revolution because they were already in power here. And progressives did exactly the same what mensheviks wanted to do in Russia. Btw, Theodore Roosevelt was president before Russian revolution started.

 

[Ame®icano]

Communism never came peacefully, it was always forced on people. In 1964 Chile had communist revolution, right? You can call them socialists, and thats fine... remember, USSR was socialist too.

No, Chile had a democratic election, and they nationalized the mines and other industries- then largely owned by American interests.

Now, to be fair, Allende really did make a mess of the economy. He ignored his own congress, and antagonized the US.

That still is no excuse for the coup against him.

Sure, they had elections and Allende lost every one of them before 1970. While losing elections, they were also marching against democratically elected.

Funny, even after saying that he ruined economy and ignored his own congress you still find no reason for military coup against him. Dude, the coup was a good thing for Chile.

 

[Indofred]

You're just spouting more communist propaganda. The West was already vastly more wealthy than the rest of the world at the time of the Russian revolution. It remained wealthier than the Soviet Union for as long as it existed.

Yes, it was. Because it had spent most of the 16th through 19th centuries looting the rest of the world.

That's not something to be proud of. And we should be worried that the world's wealth is shifting back to non-white peoples....

Industry is what made Britain wealthy, and it's colonies also became wealthy. Russia conquered about 1/5th of the world and it wallowed in poverty until the end of the 19th Century.

That's because the political left are clueless idiots. They further left, the dafter their ideas become.

 

[Indofred]

And left wing governments mass murder their own people. The extreme right also do it, but the left are better at it.

 

[Ame®icano]

Chile was fighting a civil war against foreign communists infiltrators and their supporters. These communists were trying to convert Chile into a Soviet client state. During a civil war, people get killed, you know, as in the American Civil war where Lincoln killed 850,000 Americans. Pinochet's methods were positively benign compared to Abraham Lincoln's.

Are you really profoundly ignorant of what occurred in Chile in the 1970's?

This was a coup against a democratically elected government. Thousands of civilians were executed for being on the wrong side.

First to remind you, he did not win the election by popular vote, he was confirmed by their Congress with help of KGB. For more info, check the Mitrokhin archives.

Funny, its perfectly fine to protest democratically elected government when commies lose, but when they win it's end of story, it must be accepted. It's perfectly that Allende was confiscating private property, redistributing land, nationalizing industry, and do, you know, all those things that commies do. It's not OK if USA intervene, but its perfectly reasonable when USSR does it. At least we know whose side you're on.

 

[bripat9643]

Slavery and child labor existed for thousands of years before capitalism. What capitalism "shifts" to third world countries is good paying jobs where the locals can make far more than they could working for any domestic employer. Dictators have also been around since time immemorial, but a capitalist dictator is 1000 times better than a communist dictator. The people of Cuba were far better off under Batiste than they have been under Castro.

They why did the Cuban people overthrow Batista if they were so well off? Why haven't they overthrown Castro after 55 years?

"The Cuban people" didn't overthrow Batiste. A gang of Soviet supplied mercenaries overthrew him. Gulags, firing squads, and block wardens are the reason Castro hasn't been overthrown. You don't actually believe the majority supports Castro, do you?

 

[Ame®icano]

They why did the Cuban people overthrow Batista if they were so well off?

Not Cuban people, Cuban communists overthrow him the same way he came to power.

Why haven't they overthrown Castro after 55 years?

Dictator Castro was better at his job then dictator Batista.

 

[JoeB131]

Industry is what made Britain wealthy, and it's colonies also became wealthy. Russia conquered about 1/5th of the world and it wallowed in poverty until the end of the 19th Century.

no, the colonies got looted, and when they finally could throw off the British yoke, they did.

 

[JoeB131]

First to remind you, he did not win the election by popular vote, he was confirmed by their Congress with help of KGB. For more info, check the Mitrokhin archives.

Funny, its perfectly fine to protest democratically elected government when commies lose, but when they win it's end of story, it must be accepted. It's perfectly that Allende was confiscating private property, redistributing land, nationalizing industry, and do, you know, all those things that commies do. It's not OK if USA intervene, but its perfectly reasonable when USSR does it. At least we know whose side you're on.

I'm on the side that says you don't stick your nose in other people's business.

Now, while it is true, Allende didn't win a majority, he did win a plurality and tradition was to confirm the guy who got the most votes.

What we did was plain wrong. It was a violation of our principles.

 

[bripat9643]

Chile was fighting a civil war against foreign communists infiltrators and their supporters. These communists were trying to convert Chile into a Soviet client state. During a civil war, people get killed, you know, as in the American Civil war where Lincoln killed 850,000 Americans. Pinochet's methods were positively benign compared to Abraham Lincoln's.

Are you really profoundly ignorant of what occurred in Chile in the 1970's?

This was a coup against a democratically elected government. Thousands of civilians were executed for being on the wrong side.

First to remind you, he did not win the election by popular vote, he was confirmed by their Congress with help of KGB. For more info, check the Mitrokhin archives.

Funny, its perfectly fine to protest democratically elected government when commies lose, but when they win it's end of story, it must be accepted. It's perfectly that Allende was confiscating private property, redistributing land, nationalizing industry, and do, you know, all those things that commies do. It's not OK if USA intervene, but its perfectly reasonable when USSR does it. At least we know whose side you're on.

Allende received 36% of the vote, a bare plurality. Under Chilean law, Congress (who had the final say) were not required to elect Allende President with only a plurality. Nevertheless, Congress had not previously challenged a plurality, and moderate Christian Democratic deputies were not ready to start now. Congress elected Allende on conditions (Oct 1970), the most important of which turned out to be the Army's autonomy

 

[Ame®icano]

Hmmm, no. Under Allende the economy was swirling down the toilet. Under Pinochet it recovered and has been booming ever since. Chile is the wealthiest country in Latin America and it achieved that status under Pinochet. That's why commies like you hate him so much. He proves every claim commies make about capitalism is dead wrong.

You know how it is bripat, according to lefties, we're still fucked up because of Bush economy.

Their excuse is: But Booosh....

I don't hear them saying: But Allendeeeee....

 

[bripat9643]

First to remind you, he did not win the election by popular vote, he was confirmed by their Congress with help of KGB. For more info, check the Mitrokhin archives.

Funny, its perfectly fine to protest democratically elected government when commies lose, but when they win it's end of story, it must be accepted. It's perfectly that Allende was confiscating private property, redistributing land, nationalizing industry, and do, you know, all those things that commies do. It's not OK if USA intervene, but its perfectly reasonable when USSR does it. At least we know whose side you're on.

I'm on the side that says you don't stick your nose in other people's business.

Now, while it is true, Allende didn't win a majority, he did win a plurality and tradition was to confirm the guy who got the most votes.

What we did was plain wrong. It was a violation of our principles.

What is it that you imagine we did?

 

[bripat9643]

Industry is what made Britain wealthy, and it's colonies also became wealthy. Russia conquered about 1/5th of the world and it wallowed in poverty until the end of the 19th Century.

no, the colonies got looted, and when they finally could throw off the British yoke, they did.

Actually, no, the colonies were not "looted." The British built every mile of railroad track that currently exists in India. How is that "looting?"

 

[Ame®icano]

Allende received 36% of the vote, a bare plurality. Under Chilean law, Congress (who had the final say) were not required to elect Allende President with only a plurality. Nevertheless, Congress had not previously challenged a plurality, and moderate Christian Democratic deputies were not ready to start now. Congress elected Allende on conditions (Oct 1970), the most important of which turned out to be the Army's autonomy

And Army's autonomy was important one. If he could control the army, or at least counter them, he would do much worse. I'm wondering what was the purpose of smuggling weapons from Cuba and Russia...

 

[Dragonlady]

Left or right, extreme governments can only survive by murdering those most capable of opposing them. It gets rid of anyone smart enough to lead the opposition and scares the hell out of the rest of the population.

Pinochet's murder of the leftist leaders in the soccer stadium is a case in point: it was done in broad daylight in the capital for good reason.

The "disappearing" of those who criticized the government was also quite public. It was done to frighten people.

Milton Friedman expressed regret that his perfect test case was marred but such "excesses". He failed (or refused) to realize that without such brutality, the general population would never have voted for his economic shock therapy.

Other than the Nazis, extreme right wing governments haven't really had control of countries large enough to murder millions but the Nazis certainly did wonders in Central Europe, decimating Jewish, gypsy and others they deemed "undesirable".

Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, the Shah of Iran, the Somoza Family in Nicaragua, all supported by American governments, were brutally repressive.

The whole reason why Iran hates the U.S. today can be summed up in 4 words; the Shah of Iran.

So far as the U.S. Was concerned, better dead than red was no joke. They supported every right wing tinpot dictator out there as long as he rejected communism.

 

[Ame®icano]

Left or right, extreme governments can only survive by murdering those most capable of opposing them. It gets rid of anyone smart enough to lead the opposition and scares the hell out of the rest of the population.

Pinochet's murder of the leftist leaders in the soccer stadium is a case in point: it was done in broad daylight in the capital for good reason.

The "disappearing" of those who criticized the government was also quite public. It was done to frighten people.

Milton Friedman expressed regret that his perfect test case was marred but such "excesses". He failed (or refused) to realize that without such brutality, the general population would never have voted for his economic shock therapy.

Other than the Nazis, extreme right wing governments haven't really had control of countries large enough to murder millions but the Nazis certainly did wonders in Central Europe, decimating Jewish, gypsy and others they deemed "undesirable".

Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, the Shah of Iran, the Somoza Family in Nicaragua, all supported by American governments, were brutally repressive.

The whole reason why Iran hates the U.S. today can be summed up in 4 words; the Shah of Iran.

So far as the U.S. Was concerned, better dead than red was no joke. They supported every right wing tinpot dictator out there as long as he rejected communism.

Are you aware of what commies did where they were in power? I'm sure you are. But regardless, you're still rooting for reds. No wonder why...