Totalitarian Soviet Communism as NBC Fashion Statement?

[Erock83]

Barf.



http://www.slate.com/id/2107100/

"The cult of Ernesto Che Guevara is an episode in the moral callousness of our time. Che was a totalitarian. He achieved nothing but disaster. Many of the early leaders of the Cuban Revolution favored a democratic or democratic-socialist direction for the new Cuba. But Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims. To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che's imagination. "


Barf-gag What a great guy.

I don’t see why you have a problem with the camps because Bush is such a huge fan of homosexuals and just paid Halliburton all most $500 for detention camps state side. Moreover I’ve done extensive research on Che and only seen bits and pieces of what you are talking about. However history is a lens that can be hard to see thought. For example
Gandhi – was hugely racist
Dali Lama – is a religious dictator that does not believe in any human right
Mother Teresa – took money from many abusive dictatorships as donations.
One Love

 

[CCGirl]

I don’t see why you have a problem with the camps because Bush is such a huge fan of homosexuals and just paid Halliburton all most $500 for detention camps state side. Moreover I’ve done extensive research on Che and only seen bits and pieces of what you are talking about. However history is a lens that can be hard to see thought. For example
Gandhi – was hugely racist
Dali Lama – is a religious dictator that does not believe in any human right
Mother Teresa – took money from many abusive dictatorships as donations.
One Love

There are/were NO CAMPS.

 

[CCGirl]

So basically, he's saying people like Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II and Jesus Christ were not worthy individuals to be admired, yeah? Oh yeah, he's a great judge of character.

No, he is actually saying that any struggle against injustice is worth standing up for.

Since when were your examples fighting in a guerilla war? In the same conditions? As for admiration, throw Gandhi to the top of the list!!

 

[graysparrow]

Imagine the proper outrage that would explode if he had worn a Nazi swastika . . .

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060417.asp#4

The Soviet Union can't be compared with Nazism.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

No, he is actually saying that any struggle against injustice is worth standing up for.

Since when were your examples fighting in a guerilla war? In the same conditions? As for admiration, throw Gandhi to the top of the list!!

I prefer Jesus. He taught love moreso than Ghandi did. Ghandi actually tried to justify his refusal of Christians and the faith by the actions of others, Christ refused no one.

 

[Erock83]

Barf.



http://www.slate.com/id/2107100/

"The cult of Ernesto Che Guevara is an episode in the moral callousness of our time. Che was a totalitarian. He achieved nothing but disaster. Many of the early leaders of the Cuban Revolution favored a democratic or democratic-socialist direction for the new Cuba. But Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims. To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che's imagination. "


Barf-gag What a great guy.

Yeah after reading the article there is not a shred of documented evidence. Perhaps firing squads existed however this article does not provide any proof it simply states that Che was a bad dude, with out warrant or substation. We have been over this before ballfan it is called evidence, that is something that is fact, provable. This article is just an opinion. There is much more academic research that shows zero evidence of any of these things going on.
One Love

 

[Moros]

The Soviet Union can't be compared with Nazism.

Wrong.

There are/were NO CAMPS.

Heard this one before. Poland, Bosnia, Cambodia.

Like I said, all of you should head over to a formerly communist nation and enjoy the bolshevist residue for yourselves. I hope you'd think twice.

What gets me is middle class Americans sit back and talk about how great Communism is/was. Mostly was.

 

[Erock83]

Wrong.



Heard this one before. Poland, Bosnia, Cambodia.

Like I said, all of you should head over to a formerly communist nation and enjoy the bolshevist residue for yourselves. I hope you'd think twice.

What gets me is middle class Americans sit back and talk about how great Communism is/was. Mostly was.

I’m not saying that what governments did in the name of “communism” was cool, good or anything else positive. However like it has been said before in this tread the world has never seen communism, to judge the system on those that claim it name only is not fair to one the victims of the dictator based (something communism is kind of against) systems or two the system of communism as a whole.
Now if you are to tell me that a system like communism is not workable or solvent, then that is a different argument which can’t nor can be supported by empirical evidence.
One Love

 

[Vylo]

The Soviet Union can't be compared with Nazism.

I have to disagree. The crusades, the inquisition, the action of the Soviet union, the Nazi regime, and the manifest destiny of the United States can all be compared to one another. They are horrible, epidemic injustices that were committed against others. All of them killed huge populations of people. And they all had at their root, religious intolerance. These horrific conflicts showed us just how important it is to try to tolerate one another, lest we destroy one another.

 

[CCGirl]

[/color][/size][/font]

I have to disagree. The crusades, the inquisition, the action of the Soviet union, the Nazi regime, and the manifest destiny of the United States can all be compared to one another. They are horrible, epidemic injustices that were committed against others. All of them killed huge populations of people. And they all had at their root, religious intolerance. These horrific conflicts showed us just how important it is to try to tolerate one another, lest we destroy one another.

Good post!

 

[graysparrow]

Like I said, all of you should head over to a formerly communist nation and enjoy the bolshevist residue for yourselves. I hope you'd think twice.

What gets me is middle class Americans sit back and talk about how great Communism is/was. Mostly was.

Actually I had.

 

[ACougar]

Not really possible since a true communist society there never was, all we've seen so far is power hungry leaders who exploit a dream. I also believe the vast majority who lean toward the left would rather see a German style socialism over anything approaching true communism.

Wrong.



Heard this one before. Poland, Bosnia, Cambodia.

Like I said, all of you should head over to a formerly communist nation and enjoy the bolshevist residue for yourselves. I hope you'd think twice.

What gets me is middle class Americans sit back and talk about how great Communism is/was. Mostly was.

 

[charmtrap]

Soviet/Communist art and iconography is just cool looking. Say what you like about communism, but they make brilliant propaganda.

 

[Erock83]

Soviet/Communist art and iconography is just cool looking. Say what you like about communism, but they make brilliant propaganda.

Can’t argue with that.
One Love

 

[Lifesaver]

"The great lesson of the invincibility of the guerrillas is taking root in the dispossessed masses. The galvanizing of the national spirit, the preparation for harder tasks, for resisting even more violent repressions. Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy.

We must carry the war into every corner the enemy happens to carry it: to his home, to his centers of entertainment; a total war. It is necessary to prevent him from having a moment of peace, a quiet moment outside his barracks or even inside; we must attack him wherever he may be; make him feel like a cornered beast wherever he may move. Then his moral fiber shall begin to decline. He will even become more beastly, but we shall notice how the signs of decadence begin to appear."


Taken from Che Guevara's Message to the Tricontinental (1967)

When we learn more about his life and actions, we realize he was, according to his own definition, a true guerrilla fighter.

 

[Lifesaver]

I would also like to add that there has never been a truly socialist society. There has never been in which the means of production were truly socialized.

This was only attempted once; in the USSR from 1918 to 1921. The mortality was such that Lenin quickly discontinued "true socialism"; at the time he justified it by saying that it was due to the civil war.
Still, no-one ever dared to try it again.

And it is no wonder why. As economist Ludwig Von Mises demonstrated in the 20s, public ownership of the means of production makes all planning absolutely impossible.
Once means of production are public, there is no more market for them. With no market, there will be no prices for means of production. Without prices, it will be impossible to even begin planning and building; for the planners will have absolutely no idea of what is or isn't an efficient use of resources. What will be produced? How much of each? What resources will be used where? Where will factories be built? How many workers will be hired for each? What will the salaries be?
And seeing as each sector is dependent upon what the others use and produce, it is easy to see how impossible economic planning under these circumstances is.

It is a fact: true socialism has never been put to actual consistent use for any society. If it were, that society would quickly cease to exist.

 

[Erock83]

I would also like to add that there has never been a truly socialist society. There has never been in which the means of production were truly socialized.

This was only attempted once; in the USSR from 1918 to 1921. The mortality was such that Lenin quickly discontinued "true socialism"; at the time he justified it by saying that it was due to the civil war.
Still, no-one ever dared to try it again.

And it is no wonder why. As economist Ludwig Von Mises demonstrated in the 20s, public ownership of the means of production makes all planning absolutely impossible.
Once means of production are public, there is no more market for them. With no market, there will be no prices for means of production. Without prices, it will be impossible to even begin planning and building; for the planners will have absolutely no idea of what is or isn't an efficient use of resources. What will be produced? How much of each? What resources will be used where? Where will factories be built? How many workers will be hired for each? What will the salaries be?
And seeing as each sector is dependent upon what the others use and produce, it is easy to see how impossible economic planning under these circumstances is.

It is a fact: true socialism has never been put to actual consistent use for any society. If it were, that society would quickly cease to exist.

Your cite makes a fatal flaw it assumes that the society must have a monetary unit, in socialism there is no need for a monetary unit. The product of the service is by its very natures the monetary unit. When currency is added to the equation then it allows for people, services, and product to be judged and weighed with non-logical standards and thus creates disparity.
One Love

 

[Lifesaver]

Your cite makes a fatal flaw it assumes that the society must have a monetary unit, in socialism there is no need for a monetary unit. The product of the service is by its very natures the monetary unit. When currency is added to the equation then it allows for people, services, and product to be judged and weighed with non-logical standards and thus creates disparity.

It is exactly the absence of money (real money) that makes economic calculation impossible.

It is not so easy to compare the value of a pair of shoes to the value of a litre of milk. Money is the means by which people trade different goods. The only reason why people use money in the first place is because without it trading what they produce for what they want would become much more complicated.

Value is not a thing inherent in objects. You can't dissect a shirt and discover its value. Without prices, economic calculation is impossible.

 

[Erock83]

Value is not a thing inherent in objects.

Exactly why your home boys calculations are not correct.
One Love

 

[Lifesaver]

Exactly why your home boys calculations are not correct.
One Love

Money expresses how much people value different things. The value of something is exactly that: how much it is valued by people. And this is what money prices express.

No-one has to calculate or plan money prices. The actions of people correct errors on the part of the sellers, punishing wrong guesses and rewarding correct predictions.

Well, I didn't quite understand what you meant with this last post.
I just hope you and others have been able to see how "true socialism" is an impossibility, as it causes the collapse of society. And to try it with this knowledge would constitute one of the greatest crimes imaginable.