Commie Q&A

[Koros]

Death taxes are an abomination and need to be eliminated.

I could not agree more. To say that, by the mere act of dying, the State has some sort of right to rape and pillage a person's bank acount is preposturious. Having, in some cases, half of your wealth ripped away from the very people you spent a lifetime building that weath for is indefensible.

 

[NoC_T]

i'm from the US. as far as reading his work, i'm not sure who you mean - but if you mean marx, engels, lenin, those guys, yeah, definitely. although you certainly don't have to be a master of theory with total knowledge of every last book on the subject to be a communist.

Certainly not on this site. Even the basic definitions are subject to creativity. You'll see.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[TurtleDude]

I could not agree more. To say that, by the mere act of dying, the State has some sort of right to rape and pillage a person's bank acount is preposturious. Having, in some cases, half of your wealth ripped away from the very people you spent a lifetime building that weath for is indefensible.

The death tax was created when there was no real income tax on the wealthy and is based on the improper attitude that the government has-as a proper power-the duty to prevent large estates. THe death tax is really nothing more than a class envy based surcharge on those of us who pay the most taxes. Politicians can get away with it because the masses have more votes. If a politician actually enacted a death tax on everyone his head would probably be getting a 30 caliber lobotomy rather quickly from many sources.

I earlier mentioned a case I know of where the last grandparent died and then that grandparent's only son and daughter in law were killed by a suicidal driver. THe family had to pay two death taxes in a few months time=a ten million dollar estate was destroyed. Some of the parasite advocates thought that was ok since the two girls (my contemporaries) had a million or so after watching their parents get crushed to death

 

[Fenton]

Wow !

In this day and age, there are avowed Communist, and in America no less.

To think, there are people out there who think a Government could successfully legislate away a mans innate characteristics.

Like Greed and envy. Or will, and incentive.

That through the business end of a gun, they could impose " equality" and then call then call that progress.

That through a authortarian dictatorship, a perfect " classless" society could be achieved.

I dont get it.

How could you be so wrapped up in a ideological identity that your'e effectively disconnected from reality ?

How could anyone entertain the idea that its a legitimate workable ideology ? Are people that stupid ??

Communism is as destructive of a ideology as its ever been. Nothings changed save for the fact that its been given a new name.

" Progressivism".

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

sure, lemme go ahead and address your questions in order. i appreciate everyone being civil!

that socialist states have had to act in ways that might seem like paranoia has been a response to the sad fact that every socialist revolution has been attacked relentlessly from its inception. the ussr was invaded by the most powerful countries in the world - the uk, usa, germany, japan, and france, as well as several other smaller capitalist countries like poland and finland - precisely as it was being founded and the bolsheviks were fighting a civil war against the white armies. just a few short years after that they were invaded again by nazi germany and its allies, in a war whose devastation would be equivalent to essentially burning down every city east of michigan in the us, a war in which they lost tens of millions of people to nazi aggression. following that there was the threat of nuclear war in addition to the constant covert operations launched by the west against the socialist states - often using former nazis or their collaborators, incidentally. having to maintain military parity and constant vigilance against outside attack has necessitated a lot of strictness internally.

that also somewhat addresses your points 1) and 3). there are very few socialist states currently because they are subject to such attacks! the ones in eastern europe were subject to a sustained and ultimately successful campaign to dismantle them. its worth noting that that same dismantling actually took place against the wishes of a majority of the population. in the ussr for instance, in the last referendum held on weather or not the ussr should continue to exist, over 70% of the population said they wished it would! however boris yeltsin unilaterally dissolved it anyway. in africa, asia, and latin america, the west (in conjunction with local militaries and elites) has consistently overthrown socialist governments. the examples of thomas sankara in burkina faso, amilcar cabral in guinea, salvador allende in chile, and many others shows how violently the west responds to any hint of revolution.

for your point 2), i'm thinking you're referring to the fact that a classically 'marxist' industrial proletariat has not been the primary force in a socialist revolution. guys in flatcaps with hammers marching from the factory to the halls of government sort of deal, right? well, like i said earlier, marx was not a prophet. although towards the end of his life his work began to indicate that revolutions would instead occur on the "periphery" of the capitalist world, rather than at its developed center. so to me, that's not really a huge deal.

and as far as point 4) this just isn't the case. if you compare socialist countries with capitalist countries of similar historical circumstances, the socialist countries quite simply outperform, most especially in areas like education, literacy, life expectancy, employment. for example, no country has more teachers per capita than cuba, and less than one percent of the population is illiterate. life expectancy is currently 79 for cubans compared to 62 for neighboring haiti, a country with a very similar history pre-revolution, and 78 in the usa! infant mortality in cuba is lower than any other latin american country, and is comparable with western europe and the usa. all of those accomplishments have been achieved while cuba has been attacked by foreign governments and expatriate terrorist groups, and for a decade (the 1990s) during which it had essentially no foreign allies or partners!

that also touches on something you mentioned, about GDP. when i'm talking about development, i'm mostly talking about human development, in categories like the ones i just mentioned, as well as employment, housing, etc. although socialist countries have also historically had very high rates of GDP growth as well.

hope that got everything in the comment!

Oh right, GDP per capita and standards of living were all higher in socialist/communist countries :roll:
As for that USSR, it overwhelmingly shows your ignorance. It was GORBACHEV who dissolved it, not Yeltsin, Yeltsin was just the first president. Technically it was under Yeltsin, but you know what I mean. I also need links to believe what you say.
How about Cuba? The Soviet Union during the 1920s? China? The old Eastern Bloc? Yugoslavia post WWII? Are you going to have excuses for every country? Democratic and non-socialist countries have seen far worse crises but they didn't turn into outright repression and dictatorships. Of course, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kims, and all communist dictators had those eeevvviiiill foreign interventions so they had to kill tens of millions of their own citizens.
Again, all you're doing is pointing fingers at the damned capitalists and crying that the people wanted socialism. Well I won't deny that some socialist governments were elected on popular support such as Allende and that foreign intervention was wrong. However such socialism was new-when the said governments became entrenched in power for decades, the people hated them as they hated the governments before them. Look at the Hungarian revolution, look at the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, look at Tienanmen, the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, where the people wanted socialism out. Then could you tell with complete sincerity that foreign intervention had to do with all of them?
As for a proletariat revolution, it is at the core of Marxism. Only the proletariat could realize a true revolution which was Marx's theory, and now you're suddenly saying that it's not an important aspect but you're also saying that you're a standard Marxist-Leninist.
As for those so-called GDP growth, I already explained earlier. What's considered mediocre growth will be shown as incredible growth as it's all relative. Libya was the fastest-growing nation in 2012 only because its economy contracted more than 200% the previous year due to the civil war.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Geewilikers TheDemSocialist, sure a lot of :laughat: Wikipedia links there.

As we always said over in Vietnam while shooting Charley, "There's always someone who didn't get the word."

>"The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him."<

Source -> Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go ahead and check the sources of those articles all are factually sound..
Since you yourself used a Wikipedia article ill just quote it, "The most common praises were:
Factually sound and correct, no glaring inaccuracies
Much useful information, including well selected links, making it possible to "access much information quickly.... In June 2006, Roy Rosenzweig, a professor specializing in American history, published a comparison of the Wikipedia biographies of 25 Americans to the corresponding biographies found on Encarta and American National Biography Online. He wrote that Wikipedia is "surprisingly accurate in reporting names, dates, and events in U.S. history"

 

[APACHERAT]

Go ahead and check the sources of those articles all are factually sound..
Since you yourself used a Wikipedia article ill just quote it, "The most common praises were:
Factually sound and correct, no glaring inaccuracies
Much useful information, including well selected links, making it possible to "access much information quickly.... In June 2006, Roy Rosenzweig, a professor specializing in American history, published a comparison of the Wikipedia biographies of 25 Americans to the corresponding biographies found on Encarta and American National Biography Online. He wrote that Wikipedia is "surprisingly accurate in reporting names, dates, and events in U.S. history"

Please TheDemSocialist, don't hike jack Kobi's thread.

If you want to start a thread on how Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, go ahead. Even Wikipedia in their disclaimer warns everyone be careful, we have a problem that we are trying to fix.

As for the Wiki link I provided, did you notice who these ass holes were deliberately corrupting Wikipedia ? >" Central Intelligence Agency, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Diebold, Inc. and the (conservative led) Australian government being used to make edits to Wikipedia articles, sometimes of an opinionated or questionable nature."<

Again, treat Wikipedia as if it was public restroom. And stay away from the glory holes.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Please TheDemSocialist, don't hike jack Kobi's thread.

I didnt.
It seems to me you did with the jingoistic uber nationalist post did.

If you want to start a thread on how Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, go ahead. Even Wikipedia in their disclaimer warns everyone be careful, we have a problem that we are trying to fix.

You said it was reliable and you told me to visit a WIKI post for proof and i did and it found several studies said it was. It also wasnt the only source i used.

As for the Wiki link I provided, did you notice who these ass holes were deliberately corrupting Wikipedia ? >" Central Intelligence Agency, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Diebold, Inc. and the (conservative led) Australian government being used to make edits to Wikipedia articles, sometimes of an opinionated or questionable nature."<

:yawn:
Again, treat Wikipedia as if it was public restroom. And stay away from the glory holes.[/QUOTE]

 

[APACHERAT]

I didnt.
It seems to me you did with the jingoistic uber nationalist post did.


You said it was reliable and you told me to visit a WIKI post for proof and i did and it found several studies said it was. It also wasnt the only source i used.



:yawn:
Again, treat Wikipedia as if it was public restroom. And stay away from the glory holes.

[/QUOTE]

I never said Wiki was a reliable or credible source. But my link points out that Wikipedia is honest.

I'll go back and check out your Wiki links. But the first thing I always do when using Wiki is first go to the Talk Page Link at the top of each topic and take a look at what was said by those who contributed to the article. Gives me a good idea if the article contributors are libs, conservatives, Valerie Jarrett, biais, have an agenda or know what the #### they are talking about.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

I never said Wiki was a reliable or credible source.

I meant not reliable.

But my link points out that Wikipedia is honest.

Honest means reliable.

I'll go back and check out your Wiki links. But the first thing I always do when using Wiki is first go to the Talk Page Link at the top of each topic and take a look at what was said by those who contributed to the article. Gives me a good idea if the article contributors are libs, conservatives, Valerie Jarrett, biais, have an agenda or know what the #### they are talking about.

Overall its a pretty darn reliable source.

 

[Kobie]

Please TheDemSocialist, don't hike jack Kobi's thread.

It ain't my thread, sparky.

Also, I see you've taken to dropping the "e" from the end of my user handle. Sweet, bro. Sick burn.

 

[APACHERAT]

It ain't my thread, sparky.

Also, I see you've taken to dropping the "e" from the end of my user handle. Sweet, bro. Sick burn.

You have to earn the "e" Kobi. :lol:

My mistake, I won't let it happen again Kobie.

Wasn't Kobie the next city to be nuked if Japan didn't surrender ?

 

[Kobie]

You have to earn the "e" Kobi. :lol:

My mistake, I won't let it happen again Kobie.

Wasn't Kobie the next city to be nuked if Japan didn't surrender ?

That's Kobe. Spelled like Kobe Bryant.

 

[APACHERAT]

I meant not reliable.


Honest means reliable.




Overall its a pretty darn reliable source.

I went to the Wiki "U.S. War Crimes" talk page. Pretty good read. -> Talk:United States war crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

>"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States war crimes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.
Be polite, and welcoming to new users
Assume good faith
Avoid personal attacks
For disputes, seek dispute resolution
Article policies
No original research
Neutral point of view
Verifiability

Archives: 1, 2, 3


Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.



The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
WikiProject United States [hide](Rated Start-class, Mid-importance) United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
United States portal
v · t · e
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Template Usage · Articles Requested! · Become a Member · Project Talk · Unreferenced BLPs · Alerts
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.



WikiProject Military history [hide](Rated Start-Class)
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
[show]Additional information...

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:
0. Referencing and citation: criterion met0. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met0. Structure: criterion met0. Grammar: criterion not met0. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
German military history task force
Japanese military history task force
Southeast Asian military history task force
United States military history task force
Associated task forces (periods and conflicts):
World War II task force




Contents [hide]
1 Air raids on civilian population
2 Post-WW2 sexual offenses in liberated France (and the rest of Europe)
3 Number of deaths, reliability of sources
3.1 Response to counterarguments in lieu of editing the main article
4 Bias
5 Calling crimes by historians

Air raids on civilian population[edit]Citing Nazis who claim US air raids on civilian populations in Germany a war crime, is this a joke? What next, adding a Nazi viewpoint to "balance" the Holocaust article? This nonsense needs to be removed. --Nug (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It is normal when discussing war to mention complaints made by one side, especially when that side was a signatory to the Geneva Convention. We also correctly mention how the claim was adjudicated. TFD (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
It looks okay to me, Nug. One thing I would say, though, is that it is not clear from the article how American the Dresden bombing was. I probably snoozed through the relevant bit of GCSE history, but I thought that was basically a British thing. Formerip (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion came up before.[1] Surprised to see Nug's arguments though. Since R. J. Rummel called the bombings of Japan and Germany war crimes, I would have thought Nug would expect that we treat it as a fact. TFD (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't know why you would be surprised. It is a fact that air raids on civilian populations resulted in mass killings, but whether a mass killing is deemed illegal, and thus criminal, is matter of POV when there is no judicial determination on the matter. It would appear that in this case Rummel's opinion is minority POV elevated to fact by TFD. --Nug (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
See my comments above, "It is not presented in the article as a fact. TFD (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)" WP:WEIGHT "requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Note too the article does not mention Rummel. TFD (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Why would we remove something that is backed by reliable sources based on nothing other than your claim that it is a "joke"? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)..."< and it goes on.

Notice the three pages of archives of reediting that has already taken place.

 

[treebark]

two posts

thanks for stopping by. i was wondering if any of the cold-war era figures i mentioned earlier would be presented! put simply, rummel's numbers are demographically impossible. he alleges 100 million deaths in the ussr when the total population was around 140 million - this would have left the place a howling wasteland when the nazis showed up! he writes that 40 million people died in the labor camp system - this is over twice the number of people who ever entered the system for any length of time! he's basically either making up figures out of thin air or he's using as reliable sources the re-purposed nazi propaganda i mentioned. rummel, conquest, all of the cold-warrior academic types, their work is not taken seriously even by anti-communist scholars anymore since the soviet archives have been available.

however since that sort of thing is still so prevalent in some circles it should be addressed when it comes up. one thing it doesn't take into account is how many people lived because of changes instituted by revolutionary governments. as i've mentioned previously infant mortality rates and life expectancy dramatically improved in the ussr, china, cuba, and other socialist states. when healthcare is made universally available, a high priority in all historical socialist states, dramatic improvements are seen - often in populations who have never even seen a doctor once prior to revolutionary change.

the same sort of thing can be seen in china. in pre-revolutionary china during peacetime, 1935, the death rate per 1,000 people was the same as at the height of the 1960 famine in that country. in terms of preventable death, capitalism in china caused far more misery in peacetime than the socialist state did even at its worst, most difficult period. even judith banister, an anti-communist demographer who advances the theory that the communist government is responsible for many deaths, wrote that the people's republic was a "super-achiever" in terms of structural mortality reduction, with the life expectancy of the average chinese person increasing from 35 in 1949 to 65 at mao's death - that is, for every calendar year that passed, chinese people's life expectancy gained one and a half years.

it might be helpful to compare that sort of improvement to india, a similarly large and largely rural, peasant-based society, which still trails china in life expectancy, literacy, and a number of other development indicators. preventable deaths in india from causes that did not occur in china would amount to many millions - but no one calls nehru and gandhi vicious murderers.

finally, there's also the whole matter of throwing rocks when you live in a glass house. leaving aside how inflated and generally wrong most of the conventional anti-communist wisdom is, the fact remains that the capitalist world has quite a bit of blood on its hands too. a real accounting of the deaths caused by capitalism would probably start with the peasants starved during enclosure in europe to make way for early capitalist accumulation, continue through the genocide of the indigenous inhabitants of north and south america, include the many millions of africans killed during the slave trade, the genocide of the aboriginal population of australia and new zealand, then on to the various crimes committed by the colonial powers during the 19th century, the tens of millions of indians who died due to british policy in that country, the irish who starved as a result of very similar policies, the chinese killed by western soldiers in the opium wars and then the chinese killed by the opium peddled by those same westerners, the millions dead in the belgian congo.. and that's not even getting to the 20th century! then you've got two world wars started by capitalist empires, even more massacres of colonized peoples in africa and asia, the many murdered by capitalist governments in countries from greece to iran to chile to el savador and many more besides, the terrific slaughter of koreans and vietnamese in those respective wars, the hundreds of thousands of iraqis killed by sanctions even before their country was invaded... if gory lists are the yardstick to be used then certainly capitalism has no shortage of massacres. and that's really just "objective" violence, easily observable, not the structural violence of "business as usual", that is the starvation, death by exposure, workplace accidents, and lack of medical care to solve preventable illnesses, all the various miseries which happen every day. there's a very relevant quote from mark twain about the "two reigns of terror" comparing the violence of revolutionary terror to the slow violence of the everyday which might make good reading.

so yeah, i know that's a rather grim list, for which i apologize. seeing as how you were in the marines, you might be interested in another quote as well, one from gen. smedley butler, one of the most decorated marines in history. he said:

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

 

[APACHERAT]

That's Kobe. Spelled like Kobe Bryant.

I Americanized it, I'm on this side of the pond.

 

[APACHERAT]

thanks for stopping by. i was wondering if any of the cold-war era figures i mentioned earlier would be presented! put simply, rummel's numbers are demographically impossible. he alleges 100 million deaths in the ussr when the total population was around 140 million - this would have left the place a howling wasteland when the nazis showed up! he writes that 40 million people died in the labor camp system - this is over twice the number of people who ever entered the system for any length of time! he's basically either making up figures out of thin air or he's using as reliable sources the re-purposed nazi propaganda i mentioned. rummel, conquest, all of the cold-warrior academic types, their work is not taken seriously even by anti-communist scholars anymore since the soviet archives have been available.

however since that sort of thing is still so prevalent in some circles it should be addressed when it comes up. one thing it doesn't take into account is how many people lived because of changes instituted by revolutionary governments. as i've mentioned previously infant mortality rates and life expectancy dramatically improved in the ussr, china, cuba, and other socialist states. when healthcare is made universally available, a high priority in all historical socialist states, dramatic improvements are seen - often in populations who have never even seen a doctor once prior to revolutionary change.

the same sort of thing can be seen in china. in pre-revolutionary china during peacetime, 1935, the death rate per 1,000 people was the same as at the height of the 1960 famine in that country. in terms of preventable death, capitalism in china caused far more misery in peacetime than the socialist state did even at its worst, most difficult period. even judith banister, an anti-communist demographer who advances the theory that the communist government is responsible for many deaths, wrote that the people's republic was a "super-achiever" in terms of structural mortality reduction, with the life expectancy of the average chinese person increasing from 35 in 1949 to 65 at mao's death - that is, for every calendar year that passed, chinese people's life expectancy gained one and a half years.

it might be helpful to compare that sort of improvement to india, a similarly large and largely rural, peasant-based society, which still trails china in life expectancy, literacy, and a number of other development indicators. preventable deaths in india from causes that did not occur in china would amount to many millions - but no one calls nehru and gandhi vicious murderers.

finally, there's also the whole matter of throwing rocks when you live in a glass house. leaving aside how inflated and generally wrong most of the conventional anti-communist wisdom is, the fact remains that the capitalist world has quite a bit of blood on its hands too. a real accounting of the deaths caused by capitalism would probably start with the peasants starved during enclosure in europe to make way for early capitalist accumulation, continue through the genocide of the indigenous inhabitants of north and south america, include the many millions of africans killed during the slave trade, the genocide of the aboriginal population of australia and new zealand, then on to the various crimes committed by the colonial powers during the 19th century, the tens of millions of indians who died due to british policy in that country, the irish who starved as a result of very similar policies, the chinese killed by western soldiers in the opium wars and then the chinese killed by the opium peddled by those same westerners, the millions dead in the belgian congo.. and that's not even getting to the 20th century! then you've got two world wars started by capitalist empires, even more massacres of colonized peoples in africa and asia, the many murdered by capitalist governments in countries from greece to iran to chile to el savador and many more besides, the terrific slaughter of koreans and vietnamese in those respective wars, the hundreds of thousands of iraqis killed by sanctions even before their country was invaded... if gory lists are the yardstick to be used then certainly capitalism has no shortage of massacres. and that's really just "objective" violence, easily observable, not the structural violence of "business as usual", that is the starvation, death by exposure, workplace accidents, and lack of medical care to solve preventable illnesses, all the various miseries which happen every day. there's a very relevant quote from mark twain about the "two reigns of terror" comparing the violence of revolutionary terror to the slow violence of the everyday which might make good reading.

so yeah, i know that's a rather grim list, for which i apologize. seeing as how you were in the marines, you might be interested in another quote as well, one from gen. smedley butler, one of the most decorated marines in history. he said:

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

I think you're confused or trying to include deaths that occured during war. The 100 million are those civilians who were murdered by communist regiems. It doesnt include battle deaths or civilians who were caught in the crossfire during war.

For example only those deaths (murdered) in Vietnam are counted that occured after the fall of Saigon in 1975. It also include the "Boat People" who perished at sea trying to flee the communist in Vietnam.

BTW: We listen to Chesty Puller, not Smedly Butler.

 

[Babba]

i got that, but in terms of.. what? could you be more specific?

Main Entry: social mobility
Part of Speech: n
Definition: the ability of individuals or groups to move within a social hierarchy with changes in income, education, occupation, etc.

Social mobility | Define Social mobility at Dictionary.com

 

[instagramsci]

In other words, lol, you don't want to live anywhere else but America. Yep, got it!

It's not easy to uproot and plant yourself into a country with which you are not familiar. Not to mention the expense and language barriers.

 

[Babba]

It's a wonder people aren't flocking there in droves then. After all, if you are looking to start a new life why not go to the most successful and happy places on earth!

Actually, those countries do have a pretty high rate of immigrants.

 

[Babba]

That has been one of my biggest complaints about a lot of left-wing tax polices. They seem to be designed to punish the successful, ensuring that the children of the successful cannot gain an advantage. I hear, frequently, "your daddy paid for it, you didn't earn it" leveled at some rich person or another. To that, all I can say is "so f***ing what?" That is one of the biggest goals of a lot of people: to provide a better life for their children. Death taxes/Estate taxes do nothing but punish the children for the success of the father (or mother).

Do you see how this might encourage an aristocracy here in the US? So, what the estate taxes does is to help reduce high rates of income inequality. High income inequality adversely effects our economic system and our form of government. Concentration of wealth in the hands of a few means reduced demand in the economy and because of our campaign finance laws it means the wealthy have a louder voice in our government. I'm not suggesting that we leave children of the wealthy destitute, but it is better for society overall that we not allow too much of the wealthy of the nation to concentrate with a few families.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Actually, those countries do have a pretty high rate of immigrants.

Not really. There are only ~750,000 total immigrants in Norway, ~1.3 million total in Sweden, ~140,000 in Finland and ~590,000 in Denmark. These numbers include children born to immigrants while in the host country. That totals a little less than 3 million total foreign born and their children in 4 countries that are supposedly the happiest places on earth to live. If they are such great places to live why do so few people go there?

In 2006 the US accepted more legal immigrants that the rest of the world combined. Now why would they come to this 'craphole' when there are so many wonderful happy nations to choose from?

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

I'm not suggesting that we leave children of the wealthy destitute, but it is better for society overall that we not allow too much of the wealthy of the nation to concentrate with a few families.

We should be trying to create a society that generates as many millionaires as possible.

 

[Babba]

We should be trying to create a society that generates as many millionaires as possible.

Completely and absolutely disagree. That's a completely unrealistic goal, first of all. Second, for the sake of a healthy capitalist economy you need as many people as possible able to purchase lots of stuff. There are currently about 5 million millionaires in the US. There are about 230 million adults in the US currently. What is the likelihood of our economy producing that many millionaires? The goal should be a huge, robust, extremely healthy middle class in order to have a healthy capitalist economy.

 

[Babba]

Not really. There are only ~750,000 total immigrants in Norway, ~1.3 million total in Sweden, ~140,000 in Finland and ~590,000 in Denmark. These numbers include children born to immigrants while in the host country. That totals a little less than 3 million total foreign born and their children in 4 countries that are supposedly the happiest places on earth to live. If they are such great places to live why do so few people go there?

In 2006 the US accepted more legal immigrants that the rest of the world combined. Now why would they come to this 'craphole' when there are so many wonderful happy nations to choose from?

Those are much smaller countries. Their rate of immigration is pretty high for their population.