I have often said that the reason the idea of Marxism will never completely die out even after 175 years of complete failure is because there is a never ending supply of ignorant young people that:
1. Don't know the horrific history of Marxism because it was never taught to them.
and
2. Believe that any of the failures that they do happen to know about are because "it wasn't done correctly".
(There isn't a "right way" to do Marxism, socialism other than to not do it.)
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-09-2021).]
Because those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
So, what would happen if we (the US gov) didn't allow organized crime to exploit and defile Cuba? Would there be a reason for an uprising and a dictatorship?
Because those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
So, what would happen if we (the US gov) didn't allow organized crime to exploit and defile Cuba? Would there be a reason for an uprising and a dictatorship?
No.
Hypothetical questions always get hypothetical answers.
What if Fulgencio Batista never existed.....
What if Cuba never had sugar cane....
What if Fidel Castro and Ernesto Guevara never existed...
What if ____________ didn't _____________
Anyone can mentally masturbate all day long with "what if", but dealing with reality and what is seems terribly difficult for some people.
I mentioned before in this thread that I've spent a lot of time in the D.R. but I've also spent a lot of time in many other places all over the Caribbean and S.A., including a few trips to Cuba (legally), and what you quickly learn is that the history down there is a lot more complicated than the vast majority of people in the U.S. imagine or have been taught.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-09-2021).]
Randye, I'm not reading any valuable reference in your posts. You watched some TV in the Dom Rep. Ok. So if I've been to Ybor City does that make me an expert on cigar rolling or Cuban sandwiches? If you can't participate normally, just sit quietly and watch what the intent of the questions are leading to. Greedy Americans and vultures descended on Cuba but got kicked out making the move to communism a possibility that wasn't as likely prior to the decadence. America played a large role in the political shift to communism.
Now look at America. See the 30 trillion dollar debt looming? Isn't capitalism great? That's what we're selling. How well off does that make this empire? Look at our recent election. We resemble a banana republic. Could it be that while someone is blathering about hypothetical questions that the pattern in Cuba resembles America today?
'Cuber', being an island with limited resources, it's gotta trade to subsist. The Americans failed repeatedly to enslave, overthrow or starve the government out. AND THEY'RE STILL THERE DOING WHAT THEY DO. Being a small nation it doesn't take a lot to sustain the population, but could it exist in a Western type world without an influx of funds from outside sources? No. America failed at turning Cuba.
What if America is just going the route of Cuba?
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 10-10-2021).]
Randye, I'm not reading any valuable reference in your posts. You watched some TV in the Dom Rep. Ok. So if I've been to Ybor City does that make me an expert on cigar rolling or Cuban sandwiches? If you can't participate normally, just sit quietly and watch what the intent of the questions are leading to. Greedy Americans and vultures descended on Cuba but got kicked out making the move to communism a possibility that wasn't as likely prior to the decadence. America played a large role in the political shift to communism.
You have literally no idea what you're talking about, as usual.
Cuba "belonged" to the United States from as far back as the early 1900s. We were given control of Cuba after we won the Spanish / American War and signed the Treaty of Paris. We got Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and another country (which I forget), with Cuba as a protectorate. Cuba was a total mess, and we had every bit the authority to intervene. WHILE the United States was managing (and assisting in elections), Cuba became a huge tourist destination, and began to succeed.
There was HEAVY Communist influence from Russia, and while Cuba started to become very successful, the Communists highlighted the disparity between the wealthy and the poor... despite the fact that under prior rule, everyone was JUST poor.
There were multiple revolutions, the first of which turned the country Socialist, in which the United States no longer could really intervene.
That worked for a couple of years as the wealthy were heavily taxed and extorted to provide new construction and benefits to the poor... but after only a couple of years, there was mass unemployment, and the entire country fell into a depression and poverty.
It was at that point that there was yet ANOTHER revolution in which Che Guevarra (a wealthy Aristocrat from Argentina) invaded Cuba with the Castros.
As always, the United States attempts to support whichever side is the least radical, and that turned out to be Castro at the time... but you know how that worked out.
As it stands, the United States still has about as much ownership of Cuba as China has of Hong Kong, but no one really recognizes that, and I don't think we really care either. But your insinuation that the United States is to blame for the failures of Cuba are completely absurd. At multiple points in history, we attempted to prevent all-out Communism, but it wasn't to be. Russia was so heavily involved in Cuba due to its strategic location with the United States... and their partnership grew. Russia spent the equivalent to several trillion dollars (in today's money) in South and Central America, trying to destabilize those countries and turn them against the United States. Each time, the United States was forced to support whomever stood the greatest chance against the Communist party. In most cases, that meant we had to support Socialist parties.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: You have literally no idea what you're talking about, as usual. Cuba "belonged" to the United States from as far back as the early 1900s. We were given control of Cuba after we won the Spanish / American War and signed the Treaty of Paris. We got Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and another country (which I forget), with Cuba as a protectorate. Cuba was a total mess, and we had every bit the authority to intervene. WHILE the United States was managing (and assisting in elections), Cuba became a huge tourist destination, and began to succeed.
So what? This has nothing to do with what I posted.
quote
There was HEAVY Communist influence from Russia,
You don't know what you're talking about as usual. The SOVIET UNION. Any dummy knows that the Soviets were communists.
quote
and while Cuba started to become very successful, the Communists highlighted the disparity between the wealthy and the poor... despite the fact that under prior rule, everyone was JUST poor
There were multiple revolutions, the first of which turned the country Socialist, in which the United States no longer could really intervene.
That worked for a couple of years as the wealthy were heavily taxed and extorted to provide new construction and benefits to the poor... but after only a couple of years, there was mass unemployment, and the entire country fell into a depression and poverty.
It was at that point that there was yet ANOTHER revolution in which Che Guevarra (a wealthy Aristocrat from Argentina) invaded Cuba with the Castros.
As always, the United States attempts to support whichever side is the least radical, and that turned out to be Castro at the time... but you know how that worked out.
Nothing you've posted disputes anything I posted. You totally left out the American led organized crime running the politicians and that both were victimizing the poor with scams and degerate sex shows.
Your pollyanna plastering DOES allude to how the population was being left behind by what you paint as successful tourism. Sex tourism was the norm.
quote
As it stands, the United States still has about as much ownership of Cuba as China has of Hong Kong, but no one really recognizes that, and I don't think we really care either. But your insinuation that the United States is to blame for the failures of Cuba are completely absurd.
And you have provided ZERO evidence for a rebuttal. I also said it was organized crime who was a major contributing factor. You are clearly just regurgitating what your family told you to think.
quote
At multiple points in history, we attempted to prevent all-out Communism, but it wasn't to be. Russia was so heavily involved in Cuba due to its strategic location with the United States... and their partnership grew. Russia spent the equivalent to several trillion dollars (in today's money) in South and Central America, trying to destabilize those countries and turn them against the United States. Each time, the United States was forced to support whomever stood the greatest chance against the Communist party. In most cases, that meant we had to support Socialist parties.
You don't even know the diff in Russia and our old ally, the Soviet Union. Talk about Cuba. The US is the leader indestabilzing countries. We do it for other nation's benefit. Not even ours anymore.
You don't even know the diff in Russia and our old ally, the Soviet Union. Talk about Cuba. The US is the leader indestabilzing countries. We do it for other nation's benefit. Not even ours anymore.
If you own a pet, change it's name to CLUE.
Sigh... it seems like every single one of your arguments tends to focus around trying to "win" on vernacular semantics. I grew up in the 1980s... I'm well aware of the USSR/CCCP and the difference between an "empire" and the country of Russia. I'm referring to Russia because it's still the same **** ... and everyone here knows what I'm talking about.
Everything I said completely discounts your nonsense. Randy is wildly more intelligent than you are. If we took a poll, everyone here, including those on the left would flag you as basically a retard.
Sigh... it seems like every single one of your arguments tends to focus around trying to "win" on vernacular semantics. I grew up in the 1980s... I'm well aware of the USSR/CCCP and the difference between an "empire" and the country of Russia. I'm referring to Russia because it's still the same **** ... and everyone here knows what I'm talking about.
Said the guy trying to win an argument he started. To people in your demographic intelligence capacity group you probably make sense. The rest of us know Russia is not at all like the Soviet Union and empire. We know that your blending of not so related tems indicates your low level of understanding.
This is exactly like a newb musician trying to tell a seasoned performer what he knows isnt correct because 'your feelings'.
This is also just like 2 days ago when you didn't know Pepsi started the Pepsi Generation for Boomers.
quote
Everything I said completely discounts your nonsense. Randy is wildly more intelligent than you are. If we took a poll, everyone here, including those on the left would flag you as basically a retard.
And I'm more intelligent than you. So what? Everything you post to me has to center around you and your juvenile insults.
You didn't post 1 item to refute my assertions. In fact you supported it in part by admitting the vast majority were victimized by poverty while the elite prospered under our guidance.
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 10-10-2021).]
Said the guy trying to win an argument he started. To people in your demographic intelligence capacity group you probably make sense. The rest of us know Russia is not at all like the Soviet Union and empire. We know that your blending of not so related tems indicates your low level of understanding.
This is exactly like a newb musician trying to tell a seasoned performer what he knows isnt correct because 'your feelings'.
This is also just like 2 days ago when you didn't know Pepsi started the Pepsi Generation for Boomers.
And I'm more intelligent than you. So what? Everything you post to me has to center around you and your juvenile insults.
You didn't post 1 item to refute my assertions. In fact you supported it in part by admitting the vast majority were victimized by poverty while the elite prospered under our guidance.
So sad... I'm not sure anyone understands what you're trying to say half the time you post. I have to allow myself to realize I can't help you, and accept your posts more for their outlandish entertainment value.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: So sad... I'm not sure anyone understands what you're trying to say half the time you post. I have to allow myself to realize I can't help you, and accept your posts more for their outlandish entertainment value.
Again, you're making this about you. You haven't posted 1 item that refutes a statement about Cuba. You supported my assertion of victimizing the vast number there who were poor while elevating the few.
Again, you're making this about you. You haven't posted 1 item that refutes a statement about Cuba. You supported my assertion of victimizing the vast number there who were poor while elevating the few.
I have literally no idea what you're talking about.
It's almost as if Furgal and Threedog had a child.
I'm sad. At times, I almost think he makes some sense, and then he ends up saying something completely ridiculous... and you totally question his mental state.
Originally posted by randye: I have often said that the reason the idea of Marxism will never completely die out even after 175 years of complete failure is because there is a never ending supply of ignorant young people that:
1. Don't know the horrific history of Marxism because it was never taught to them.
and
2. Believe that any of the failures that they do happen to know about are because "it wasn't done correctly".
Also they are being taught that if its not socialist it must be greed (moral bad thing). That combined with demonizing of successful business people as "rich", and taking that opportunity and money away from poor people.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 10-12-2021).]
Also they are being taught that if its not socialist it must be greed (moral bad thing). That combined with demonizing of successful business people as "rich", and taking that opportunity and money away from poor people.
Yep, socialism, including the Nazi version, appeals to some because it allows them to blame someone else for their failures. Capitalism, on the other hand, encourages people to improve their own lives. This does not appeal to lazy people.
Socialists say, "It's not my fault". Capitalists say, "A rising tide lifts all boats."
Apparently capitalists blame other people too, since you just blamed socialusts for being lazy. NAZIs were just lazy. Yeah, that's how astute you are.
Pretty positive plenty of.capitalists say Where's mine?! or even, Get the money! Ever heard of lobbiests in Wasington DC making donations for favorable legislation and pressure?
Socialists didn't collapse the economy in 2006-2007. Capitalists did. The lenders were lazy so they loaned to people who really didn't qualify. They even had a saying that.they'd be gone (and wealthy) by the time it came down. The capitalist regulating industry was j6st lazy letting Madoff scam his way to billions.
Socialists use those real world examples just like your examples use them.
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 10-12-2021).]
Now look at America. See the 30 trillion dollar debt looming? Isn't capitalism great? That's what we're selling. How well off does that make this empire? Look at our recent election. We resemble a banana republic.
Corruption is an issue in any economic ot governmental system.
Personally I think humans also seem to have a way of dismantling fundamentals that make things work. Family system, Bill of Rights, Constitution, Bible, School/teaching, work ethic. Put them in whichever order you prefer.
As Willie said "Capitalism, on the other hand, encourages people to improve their own lives." The thing is when we reward things like laziness and reward divorce and reward reckless irresponsible spending, it becomes like a mini socialst system, eventually the working responsible folks can no longer support the leeches.
Add to that Manufacturing/etc going overseas, that wasnt a good thing. I'd like to think the Covid mess opened up eyes to that issue, but who knows.
Capitalists say, This isn't real capitalism when it doesnt work. The same things are said by both sides in exactly the same manner. Everything said about the other side is true of the side saying it.
Originally posted by 2.5: My response is no less valid , nor is Willies.
Sometimes it seem your point is just to say everything sucks there is no answer, no good, and nothing works. Care to show that is not your point?
Nor is mine or you would have found fault with what I posted. If I find the same opening in his post that can be reversed with real life examples, doesnt that mean there is a big blind spot in his post?
The percentage of people who can look at both sides of the argument critically is incredibly small, sadly. And I don't fit into the narrative that you have tried to force me into on the past 2 topics we've discussed. If something doesn't jibe in your perspective but you can't find flaw in what is presented then maybe it's your perspective that needs a little introspective?
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 10-12-2021).]
Nor is mine or you would have found fault with what I posted.
My response already showed the fault in what you posted after it, which made me wonder if you read it. I dont keep chasing tails when things are overlooked or ignored, intentionally or not.
quote
Originally posted by sourmash:
I don't fit into the narrative that you have tried to force me into on the past 2 topics we've discussed.
As I clearly said before, in the thread where you apparently thought I was trying to force something on you. I seek to understand. I am willing to bet many people here on PFF do not understand what you stand for. Perhaps you want it that way. But it doesnt accomplish much if so, in my opinion. You are making up an enemy that doesnt exist, a virtual chip on your shoulder. It might make it easier, but it makes your words mean less.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 10-13-2021).]
My response already showed the fault in what you posted after it, which made me wonder if you read it. I dont keep chasing tails when things are overlooked or ignored, intentionally or not.
You are wrong and stating opinion about your own false statement. willie claimed NAZIs are lazy because socialism. Everyone in the world would completely disagree. I stated the obvious. You claimed his statement is valid. So you are saying that a strongman authoritarian government was lazy. How much more erroneous could your position be?
quote
BY ME:
I don't fit into the narrative that you have tried to force me into on the past 2 topics we've discussed.
I don't. People shouldn't try to bend me into what I'm not. That's willie's and blackrams' approach. You have historically been better than that. Just because I'm factually pointing out the flaws of the right and the left and you feel triggered about the right being outed doesnt mean I'm a leftist or a radical anything.
quote
As I clearly said before, in the thread where you apparently thought I was trying to force something on you. I seek to understand. I am willing to bet many people here on PFF do not understand what you stand for. Perhaps you want it that way. But it doesnt accomplish much if so, in my opinion. You are making up an enemy that doesnt exist, a virtual chip on your shoulder. It might make it easier, but it makes your words mean less.
False. Since you haven't disproved a thing I've posted on this topic, and making a statement about issues is the side that I represent, aren't you trying to NOT understand me unless you can pin me to some political machine?
What it appears to me is that you're still fishing for some affiliation from me that you can discount on a personal level instead of discussing the issues.
I've suggested solutions in the last thread and repeatedly on many threads. You can see them if you're trying.
You seem to have a great deal of difficulty with retention and comprehension of information.
quote
Originally posted by sourmash:
willie claimed NAZIs are lazy because socialism. Everyone in the world would completely disagree. I stated the obvious. You claimed his statement is valid. So you are saying that a strongman authoritarian government was lazy. How much more erroneous could your position be?
My observation is again applicable.
quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
Your assertion has absolutely no relation to anything that I actually said. This is a perfect example of why you believe the things that you do.
Someone could say, "The sky is blue", but you would hear, "A cat ate my hippopotamus". Then you would argue that it cannot be true because you are the only one who knows (for an absolute fact) that rhinoceroses have three eyeballs.
This is what I actually said:
quote
[QUOTE]Originally posted by williegoat:
Yep, socialism, including the Nazi version, appeals to some because it allows them to blame someone else for their failures. Capitalism, on the other hand, encourages people to improve their own lives. This does not appeal to lazy people.
Socialists say, "It's not my fault". Capitalists say, "A rising tide lifts all boats."
Make sure you arent arguing with me as if I am someone else here, I dont represent anyone else, I assume you do not either.
quote
Originally posted by sourmash: You are wrong and stating opinion about your own false statement.
What is my false statement?
quote
Originally posted by sourmash:willie claimed NAZIs are lazy because socialism.
No actually you inferred that. Go ahead and ask him if thats what he said. Here is his quote: "Yep, socialism, including the Nazi version, appeals to some because it allows them to blame someone else for their failures. Capitalism, on the other hand, encourages people to improve their own lives. This does not appeal to lazy people." I'll add two questions: who did Hitler blame for their societies Ills, who needed to be "removed"? Now I'm no expert but here is my other question , you probably know this, were all german citizens Nazis? Was there a public that the nazi's tried to influence?
quote
Originally posted by sourmash: People shouldn't try to bend me into what I'm not. That's willie's and blackrams' approach. You have historically been better than that. Just because I'm factually pointing out the flaws of the right and the left and you feel triggered about the right being outed doesnt mean I'm a leftist or a radical anything.
Here's the thing we dont know what you believe, so I wouldnt be shocked it people ask questions in order to learn more. You can claim people are triggered, it equates to name calling though. I havent seen anyone claim you are a " leftist or a radical anything." so I'm not sure why you brought that up.
quote
Originally posted by sourmash: Since you haven't disproved a thing I've posted on this topic, and making a statement about issues is the side that I represent, aren't you trying to NOT understand me unless you can pin me to some political machine?
What it appears to me is that you're still fishing for some affiliation from me that you can discount on a personal level instead of discussing the issues.
I've suggested solutions in the last thread and repeatedly on many threads. You can see them if you're trying.
Like I said I don't know what you believe. Leaving that metaphoric barn door open to interpretation and only making wide swooping claims will allow all the cows to get out and its hard to get them back in, lol. The closest I've come is things adding up to you not liking Isreal, and not liking the US. Next to that sympathetic claims for Nazis. I know there are such things as devils advocates, but when that is all they are they dont accomplish much. Usually the devils advocate is an approach to get to a point.
Sounds like we are misunderstanding each other on top of all the rest. I will say I have not seen anything resembling solutions suggested. Maybe I missed them. (Also I dont read all threads) I dont "pin people to political machines". I treat people as individuals. Though yes typically groups of people thinking like minded do get things done, lol. At the very least I do like to hear what they believe, what they want to see happen, for example, its even nice to know why, or how.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 10-13-2021).]
Your statemwnt is clear; Germans supported the National Socialists because it was the lazy thing to do and Germans in the Weimar were not being turned into victims of a new Sodom. Hyperinflation and starvation is laziness and looking to blame others for making them.starve. They weren't being brutalized by Poles or others. They weren't being bilked for war costs.
You're the guy who called Trump supporters White supremacists exactly like BLM, Antifa and radicals do, and it's most likely so you can virtue signal to save your neck if it comes your time for the radicals to come after you. You'll throw others under the bus instead. You have a typical non-conservative position. Why are you upset if I observe it? Just be you.
Your statemwnt is clear; Germans supported the National Socialists because it was the lazy thing to do and Germans in the Weimar were not being turned into victims of a new Sodom. Hyperinflation and starvation is laziness and looking to blame others for making them.starve. They weren't being brutalized by Poles or others. They weren't being bilked for war costs.
You're the guy who called Trump supporters White supremacists exactly like BLM, Antifa and radicals do, and it's most likely so you can virtue signal to save your neck if it comes your time for the radicals to come after you. You'll throw others under the bus instead. You have a typical non-conservative position. Why are you upset if I observe it? Just be you.
Make sure to quote who you are speaking to, I;m not sure who it is.
