Don't greentext, we're not on some low tier image board.
Standard low level understanding of basic history from a McCarthyist. The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848, a time where the British still enslaved orphans and forced them into horrific workhouses owned by the Bourgeois for free labour and where the American Bourgeois class still enslaved and massively abused black Americans and Africans. Marx spent most of his adult life in London where he got to observe the horrific treatment of the poor, the disabled, the elderly and children first hand. There were very few organisations that cared for anyone but the rich and there was absolutely no one in Parliament willing to work to a non violent solution (it would be over 60 years before Kier Hardie would be elected, giving Britain her first Socialist MP)
Of course, you're not interested in factual or contextual analysis of the works of Marx, that'd involve thinking outside of what you've been told.
This is equally true of Capitalism, of course, the dissidents we're killing are brown people overseas but we're still killing them for not "sharing our values". Cuba, unlike the West, has direct democracy when it comes to policy. Every citizen gets a vote. Of course, Cuba's story is another that you'd be very happy to remove context from. See Cuba already had a brutal, US backed, capitalist dictator in Batista. The people overthrew him, Castro sought to mend US-Cuba relations and have a peaceful existence between the two but Eisenhower refused to meet with him and instead America put a crippling embargo on Cuba. They also tried to assassinate a head of state to a country they had no right to be in over 600 times. Given the constant threat to his life, the lack of international trade opportunity, the CIA backed Batista loyalists and the need to appear strong to the Russians as to not be swallowed up by them it is really no surprise that Castro had to rule through strength.
Despite all this, the monthly utility bill for a family in Cuba is less than $5, their annual income tripled, every citizen has access to health care, free at the point of use, they're the first country on record to completely eradicate mother to infant transmission of HIV, Homelessness does not exist in Cuba anymore and not a single person is illiterate. Capitalism hasn't achieved a single one of these and has, more often than not, caused the problem in the first place.
The Amish are, essentially, a communist society. Communism will work only after a transitional period (at least 50 years I should think) of progressive Socialism in the West. The only reason people are so selfish and corrupt is their reliance on the evils of capitalism.
Are you somewhat forgetful or? I've openly supported violence against the oppressors. The bourgeois who profit off of the broken backs of the working class deserve to be stripped of their assets, and if they resist, they can be met with the same violence they have doled out time and again via Police, Military and Austerity measures.
That's funny, because when BadSheep listed the overall deaths under Communist leaderships worldwide you didn't feel the need to highlight to him that the most populous country in the world was on that list. Either way, I'll play your pedantic game. The famine of 1783-1784 saw 11 Million dead. In South India alone. Incredible though how that was your only retort, that you felt no need to address the fact the British used incredibly similar methods to Stalin.
There it is, that dirty, nasty revisionism. Reducing Ireland's famine that wiped out 25% of their population to a simple "blight". People like you are the real evil, who blame some boogeyman whilst defending a real monster.
How can you say apples and oranges to the famines but then bring up this? Not believing someone is not the same as doing your own research, sending your own people to investigate, compiling several reports form different sources and reaching a conclusion. You're getting really desperate here.
Because Stalin was an idiot. Also the quotas wouldn't of been so hard to meet if the Kulaks didn't burn the bleeding fields
again, if the Kulaks didn't burn the fields and hoard the grain then there would of been more grain than was taken.
What foreign aid was this? The British and French concluded there was no man made famine. Germany certainly could not help in 33 and America was in the pits of the great depression (another marvel of capitalism) so what foreign aid are you talking about? Be specific.
He wanted to punish the Kulaks, which he did, by throwing them in the Gulags. The famine was not a punishment and Stalin himself commented about how awful the famine was when discussing the state of the Union with Churchill during the second world war.
More pedantic nonsense from someone acting like a petulant child. 1984 was a book about ultra nationalism, not Communism. Animal Farm was about Communism. It might help if you had actually read either of Orwell's (himself a socialist) big works.
Standard low level understanding of basic history from a McCarthyist. The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848, a time where the British still enslaved orphans and forced them into horrific workhouses owned by the Bourgeois for free labour and where the American Bourgeois class still enslaved and massively abused black Americans and Africans. Marx spent most of his adult life in London where he got to observe the horrific treatment of the poor, the disabled, the elderly and children first hand. There were very few organisations that cared for anyone but the rich and there was absolutely no one in Parliament willing to work to a non violent solution (it would be over 60 years before Kier Hardie would be elected, giving Britain her first Socialist MP)
Of course, you're not interested in factual or contextual analysis of the works of Marx, that'd involve thinking outside of what you've been told.
This is equally true of Capitalism, of course, the dissidents we're killing are brown people overseas but we're still killing them for not "sharing our values". Cuba, unlike the West, has direct democracy when it comes to policy. Every citizen gets a vote. Of course, Cuba's story is another that you'd be very happy to remove context from. See Cuba already had a brutal, US backed, capitalist dictator in Batista. The people overthrew him, Castro sought to mend US-Cuba relations and have a peaceful existence between the two but Eisenhower refused to meet with him and instead America put a crippling embargo on Cuba. They also tried to assassinate a head of state to a country they had no right to be in over 600 times. Given the constant threat to his life, the lack of international trade opportunity, the CIA backed Batista loyalists and the need to appear strong to the Russians as to not be swallowed up by them it is really no surprise that Castro had to rule through strength.
Despite all this, the monthly utility bill for a family in Cuba is less than $5, their annual income tripled, every citizen has access to health care, free at the point of use, they're the first country on record to completely eradicate mother to infant transmission of HIV, Homelessness does not exist in Cuba anymore and not a single person is illiterate. Capitalism hasn't achieved a single one of these and has, more often than not, caused the problem in the first place.
The Amish are, essentially, a communist society. Communism will work only after a transitional period (at least 50 years I should think) of progressive Socialism in the West. The only reason people are so selfish and corrupt is their reliance on the evils of capitalism.
Are you somewhat forgetful or? I've openly supported violence against the oppressors. The bourgeois who profit off of the broken backs of the working class deserve to be stripped of their assets, and if they resist, they can be met with the same violence they have doled out time and again via Police, Military and Austerity measures.
That's funny, because when BadSheep listed the overall deaths under Communist leaderships worldwide you didn't feel the need to highlight to him that the most populous country in the world was on that list. Either way, I'll play your pedantic game. The famine of 1783-1784 saw 11 Million dead. In South India alone. Incredible though how that was your only retort, that you felt no need to address the fact the British used incredibly similar methods to Stalin.
There it is, that dirty, nasty revisionism. Reducing Ireland's famine that wiped out 25% of their population to a simple "blight". People like you are the real evil, who blame some boogeyman whilst defending a real monster.
How can you say apples and oranges to the famines but then bring up this? Not believing someone is not the same as doing your own research, sending your own people to investigate, compiling several reports form different sources and reaching a conclusion. You're getting really desperate here.
Because Stalin was an idiot. Also the quotas wouldn't of been so hard to meet if the Kulaks didn't burn the bleeding fields
again, if the Kulaks didn't burn the fields and hoard the grain then there would of been more grain than was taken.
What foreign aid was this? The British and French concluded there was no man made famine. Germany certainly could not help in 33 and America was in the pits of the great depression (another marvel of capitalism) so what foreign aid are you talking about? Be specific.
He wanted to punish the Kulaks, which he did, by throwing them in the Gulags. The famine was not a punishment and Stalin himself commented about how awful the famine was when discussing the state of the Union with Churchill during the second world war.
More pedantic nonsense from someone acting like a petulant child. 1984 was a book about ultra nationalism, not Communism. Animal Farm was about Communism. It might help if you had actually read either of Orwell's (himself a socialist) big works.
