Good point actually! :D You only believe in communism while you're drunk(see those completely pissed workers), once you sober up and think about it with a clear head, you'll understand it will never work.
If communism/socialism is such an awful, inherently flawed economic system (as we in the West have constantly been told that it is), why has the United States spent billions of dollars over the decades on efforts to undermine socialist governments & societies around the world?
Also, why has the U.S. supported & placed into power so many fascists & dictators over the past 90 years?
"why has the United States spent billions of dollars over the decades on efforts to undermine socialist governments & societies around the world?"
I could ask the very same question about Soviet Union/China/Cuba/North Korea, the answer would be quite simple - IDEOLOGICAL fight. I'm not saying that capitalism is flawless, it sure as hell isn't.
By the way, the ideological fight was actually started by communist/soviet countries by prohibiting travel to "corrupt" western countries.
@PlatoTacitus "I could ask the very same question about Soviet Union/China/Cuba/North Korea"
You could, but it's an invalid question, since each of these countries has never and never had any program rivaling that of the US's anti-communist policy.
It was the United States -- along with Britain and France -- which invaded the Soviet Union in 1918, not the Soviet Union invading a western nation. Your attempt at some sort of equivalence falls flat on the face of history.
@PlatoTacitus The US, Britain and France invaded the Soviet Union in 1918. There have been many books written about it. A young Winston Churchill said the invasion was meant to "strangle the Bolshevik baby in its cradle."
Read Churchill's 'The World Crisis: The Aftermath' (London 1929) and Volume IV of Churchill's 'The Second World War: The Hinge of Fate' (London 1951). A short treatment of the episode can be found in the intro to William Blum's 'Killing Hope' (Common Courage Press 2004).
Yes, I know about the Allied intervention in Russia during Russian Civil War. Intervention is NOT an invasion.
Invasion force is for occupying a foreign country, intervention force(expeditionary force) is for carrying out certain military objectives in foreign country and then pulling out. I know that politicans nowadays are trying to blur the line between intervention and invasion, but for military people they are still very different things.
@PlatoTacitus "Allied intervention in Russia during Russian Civil War. Intervention is NOT an invasion."
Excuse me: You can play all of the word games you want: The US/France/UK invaded Russia -- a soveriegn nation -- specifically to stop a political ideology from assuming power. Winston Churchill was pretty plain about the intent.
The US has intervened in foreign countries numerous times since, both militarily and via its CIA. The US has also supported numerous fascist dictators.
Only a complete idiot would paint the world black and white and call one country completely good and another one utterly evil. Do You really want to be that person? There was a CIVIL WAR and Allies at that time did not recognize soviets as legitimate rulers of Russia as they came to power via revolution.
So they acted to help their ally(Czarist forces or "whites"), which in turn would have helped western allies to defeat Germany by keeping on the pressure via the Eastern Front. ->cont.
@PlatoTacitus "Only a complete idiot would paint the world black and white and call one country completely good and another one utterly evil."
Is that what I did? You're reading too much into my comments.
"the primary objective of that campaign was to secure the Allied material resources"
Again: The facts belie such an interpretation. WInston Churchill's statements about it expose your lie. Further, it was a part of the US's general anti-red campaign of the time.
If I were Chruchill I would have told the exact same thing to the PUBLIC:-) How to get the public support for your operation - lie about it's main objective.
It's interesting that You couldn't read between the lines of what Chruchill said. Damaging the bolsheviks was nice-to-have side effect of the expedition. If the Western Allies were really there to destroy bolsheviks, then there wouldn't have been any Soviet Union. End.
I'm beginning to think that You have no military background...
"specifically to stop a political ideology from assuming power."
No, the primary objective of that campaign was to secure the Allied material resources(sent from west) and keep them from falling to Soviet or German hands.
Secondary objectives: The rescue of Czechoslovak Legion -> extra man/firepower to fight the germans.
Fighting off the bolsheviks so that Russian(not Soviet!) Army can keep the Eastern Front open.
The point of my "rant" is that all of the abovementioned actions, the intervention in general, must looked at the context of First World War otherwise Your interpetations and conclusions will be VERY wrong.
Now about the CIA claims: CIA is a rather toothless organization when compared to the NKVD(KGB) and GRU. I would again place NKVD/KGB and GRU higher on my list as they were just so much more vicious and bloody organizations.
But I will not defend CIA, they're not worth it :-)
@PlatoTacitus "CIA is a rather toothless organization when compared to the NKVD(KGB) and GRU."
Don't tell that to the Miami Cubans who've worked with CIA attacking Cuba for the past 50 years ... or the Nicaraguans who suffered under the Contra invasion ... or the Guatemalans who sufferred from the CIA-trained & funded death squads who slaughtered 100s of 1000s of illiterate peasants ... or the Iranians who for 25 years sufferred under the CIA-trained Savak. Shall I continue?
I never said CIA is innocent as a baby, I said they were toothless compared to examples that I gave.
Historians are claiming the number of Soviet oppression victims close to 30 million(later estimates give 17-20 million). Pretty much all of that is considered a direct work by Cheka-NKVD-KGB(same organisation basically). And that's just direct victims, if I were to count in indirect deaths(like You did) - You get the picture... So yes, CIA is toothless compared to Cheka-NKVD-KGB.
"And tell me: Is it better to have been killed by KGB or to have been killed by the CIA?"
All I said was that Soviet oppressive organs have killed millions of people so that CIA is rather toothless organisation compared to Cheka-NKVD-KGB. The numbers speak for themselves.
I have NEVER claimed that one was better(absurd!) than the other, I just stated the fact that they're both awful but KGB(and its predeccessors) are worse in my opinion because they have killed more than CIA.
"This is propaganda that's been spread since 1917."
Unlike You, I come from a former soviet republic(born and raised there) and I know what I'm talking about.
If anything, it seems that KGB&predecessors have done its job pretty well, their disinformation campaigns are well known among intelligence/counter-intelligence organisations. They've got atleast one firm believer - You.
Let me know when You are ready to return to reality.
Coming back to invasion-topic. Soviet Union on the other hand has invaded and occupied several western countries, take Poland 1939 for instance or take Finland 1939(Winter War)
Historical facts prove that most of times it's Soviet Union who is in the role of the agressor.
I don't the point in arguing about it anymore - the evidence about true agressor in history of Europe is quite clear.
@PlatoTacitus Both Polnd and Finland were attempts to come to terms with Germany's agression, not to further Russian agreession. Russia has a centuries-long history of being invaded by Germany, Sweden, etc. The post-war occupation of Poland, Czecheslovakia, Hungary, etc, was the result of the Russians pushing the invading German armies back to Germany through these countries. Russia retained control of them as a buffer against further invasion.
Some REAL HISTORICAL FACTS: Poland was invaded and occupied by SU to further its agenda - deal with Germany. Ever heard of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact? Especially the secret protocols that dealt with spheres of influence in central and eastern Europe.
Now to Winter War - Soviet objective was to conquer all Finland. Soviets wanted to restore the Tsarist Russia borders - so this war was purely imperialistic in its intentions. I can't think of any justification to that war.
@PlatoTacitus "Soviet objective was to conquer all Finland"
Finland was given its independence by the SU. I am not an admirer of Stalin.
Further, America's Imperialism began with 1898's Spanish-American War: control of the Philppines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico. Before that, the usurpation of Hawaii.
About 1918 invasion:
"(The Bolsheviks) sought to make the ignorant & incapable mass of humanity dominant in the earth." ~ Robert Lansing, U.S. Secretary of State 1915-20
Finns could have just as easily declared independence(as the Baltic countries did) on their own. Lenin and bolsheviks had already calculated that they would lose some border territories due to their military weakness. BUT Lenin was also quite sure, that once given independence, the new states would make socialist revolution, establish socialist goverments and then join SU.
In his(Lenin) mind, Finland's independence was only temporary.
Lenin's own ideas(also shared by Stalin) on international socialism(proletarian internationalism) and of course Lenin's "The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination"(written 1915, pub. 1927)
@PlatoTacitus OK . . . but ultimately, revolution goes beyond nationalism.
I am still learning about many things. But you will not define me. I will come to my own conclusions in my own time.
The history of capitalism has been one of unchecked imperialism and cultural erasure. Your idea that Russia was/is more imperailistic that the US is laughable. Does Russia today have 700+ military bases around the world as the US now does? The list of US imperialistic acts is faaaar longer.
Again, I'm talking about Soviet Union and You're talking about Russia. Please remember that the country I'm talking about(Soviet Union), ceased to exist in December 26 1991.
If we're comparing US vs Soviet Union on who's more imperialistic - well, US would win now, due to the fact that USA, unlike Soviet Union, still exists! Maybe I should have specified the timeframe, I was thinking 20th century, from the birth of the Soviet Union to collapse of it.
@PlatoTacitus Ya its strange how Russians still to this day really dont see their land grabs in Eastern Europe and elsewhere as "imperialistic" or anything like that. The Russians really do think different from you and I and its scary how dumb/brain-washed they are. Than they call you brain-washed... I once had a Russian tell me... "cold war was stopped because russian leader wanted to stop it coz it would have led to nuclear war"... I would just call bapyou an idiot and move on
@dadecountyhustler305 Ya its strange how Amercians still to this day really dont see their land grabs in Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere in the world as "imperialistic". Its scary how dumb/brain-washed they are. Than they call you brain-washed... Americans say... "US troops are "protecting the world," or "spreading freedom around the world" or "preventing terrorists from coming to the USA".. I would just call you an idiot and move on
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Modern China IS NOT communist! They are run by the Communist Party, but that is just a name. China is a free-market capitalism modeled after the US only with far fewer restrictions.
Furthermore, please don't mix names Russia and Soviet Union, You either use on or the other, but not both in same context as they are very different states.
"Russia retained control of them as a buffer against further invasion."
That doesn't justify the brutalities and millions of lost lives in occupied countries, and it's Soviet Union not Russia! Sounds more like imperialism in action, in fact all that proves that Soviet Union was the most imperialistic state before and after WW2.
actually Karl Marx created the idea of Scientific Socialism IE Marxism. Communism was a purely theoretical issue which he referred to only to inspire debate and to prove a point.
good video
svettypoo 1 year ago
The idea of cumminism isnt bad at all, but i hust wont work if the leaders arent communist
gotenks49 1 year ago
Good point actually! :D You only believe in communism while you're drunk(see those completely pissed workers), once you sober up and think about it with a clear head, you'll understand it will never work.
PlatoTacitus 1 year ago
@PlatoTacitus "[communism] will never work"
If communism/socialism is such an awful, inherently flawed economic system (as we in the West have constantly been told that it is), why has the United States spent billions of dollars over the decades on efforts to undermine socialist governments & societies around the world?
Also, why has the U.S. supported & placed into power so many fascists & dictators over the past 90 years?
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
"why has the United States spent billions of dollars over the decades on efforts to undermine socialist governments & societies around the world?"
I could ask the very same question about Soviet Union/China/Cuba/North Korea, the answer would be quite simple - IDEOLOGICAL fight. I'm not saying that capitalism is flawless, it sure as hell isn't.
By the way, the ideological fight was actually started by communist/soviet countries by prohibiting travel to "corrupt" western countries.
PlatoTacitus 1 year ago
@PlatoTacitus "I could ask the very same question about Soviet Union/China/Cuba/North Korea"
You could, but it's an invalid question, since each of these countries has never and never had any program rivaling that of the US's anti-communist policy.
It was the United States -- along with Britain and France -- which invaded the Soviet Union in 1918, not the Soviet Union invading a western nation. Your attempt at some sort of equivalence falls flat on the face of history.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
Voted you up, because that one sentence made me laugh sooo hard:D.
But seriously. US, Britain and France have NEVER invaded Soviet Union. What on earth are you talking about regarding 1918 - care to elaborate???
I come from a post-soviet republic and history of Soviet Union was taught extensively in our schools.
PlatoTacitus 1 year ago
@PlatoTacitus The US, Britain and France invaded the Soviet Union in 1918. There have been many books written about it. A young Winston Churchill said the invasion was meant to "strangle the Bolshevik baby in its cradle."
Read Churchill's 'The World Crisis: The Aftermath' (London 1929) and Volume IV of Churchill's 'The Second World War: The Hinge of Fate' (London 1951). A short treatment of the episode can be found in the intro to William Blum's 'Killing Hope' (Common Courage Press 2004).
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
Yes, I know about the Allied intervention in Russia during Russian Civil War. Intervention is NOT an invasion.
Invasion force is for occupying a foreign country, intervention force(expeditionary force) is for carrying out certain military objectives in foreign country and then pulling out. I know that politicans nowadays are trying to blur the line between intervention and invasion, but for military people they are still very different things.
PlatoTacitus 1 year ago
@PlatoTacitus "Allied intervention in Russia during Russian Civil War. Intervention is NOT an invasion."
Excuse me: You can play all of the word games you want: The US/France/UK invaded Russia -- a soveriegn nation -- specifically to stop a political ideology from assuming power. Winston Churchill was pretty plain about the intent.
The US has intervened in foreign countries numerous times since, both militarily and via its CIA. The US has also supported numerous fascist dictators.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
Only a complete idiot would paint the world black and white and call one country completely good and another one utterly evil. Do You really want to be that person? There was a CIVIL WAR and Allies at that time did not recognize soviets as legitimate rulers of Russia as they came to power via revolution.
So they acted to help their ally(Czarist forces or "whites"), which in turn would have helped western allies to defeat Germany by keeping on the pressure via the Eastern Front. ->cont.
PlatoTacitus 1 year ago
@PlatoTacitus "Only a complete idiot would paint the world black and white and call one country completely good and another one utterly evil."
Is that what I did? You're reading too much into my comments.
"the primary objective of that campaign was to secure the Allied material resources"
Again: The facts belie such an interpretation. WInston Churchill's statements about it expose your lie. Further, it was a part of the US's general anti-red campaign of the time.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
If I were Chruchill I would have told the exact same thing to the PUBLIC:-) How to get the public support for your operation - lie about it's main objective.
It's interesting that You couldn't read between the lines of what Chruchill said. Damaging the bolsheviks was nice-to-have side effect of the expedition. If the Western Allies were really there to destroy bolsheviks, then there wouldn't have been any Soviet Union. End.
I'm beginning to think that You have no military background...
PlatoTacitus 1 year ago
@bapyou
"specifically to stop a political ideology from assuming power."
No, the primary objective of that campaign was to secure the Allied material resources(sent from west) and keep them from falling to Soviet or German hands.
Secondary objectives: The rescue of Czechoslovak Legion -> extra man/firepower to fight the germans.
Fighting off the bolsheviks so that Russian(not Soviet!) Army can keep the Eastern Front open.
PlatoTacitus 1 year ago
@bapyou
The point of my "rant" is that all of the abovementioned actions, the intervention in general, must looked at the context of First World War otherwise Your interpetations and conclusions will be VERY wrong.
Now about the CIA claims: CIA is a rather toothless organization when compared to the NKVD(KGB) and GRU. I would again place NKVD/KGB and GRU higher on my list as they were just so much more vicious and bloody organizations.
But I will not defend CIA, they're not worth it :-)
PlatoTacitus 1 year ago
@PlatoTacitus "CIA is a rather toothless organization when compared to the NKVD(KGB) and GRU."
Don't tell that to the Miami Cubans who've worked with CIA attacking Cuba for the past 50 years ... or the Nicaraguans who suffered under the Contra invasion ... or the Guatemalans who sufferred from the CIA-trained & funded death squads who slaughtered 100s of 1000s of illiterate peasants ... or the Iranians who for 25 years sufferred under the CIA-trained Savak. Shall I continue?
Toothless?
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
I never said CIA is innocent as a baby, I said they were toothless compared to examples that I gave.
Historians are claiming the number of Soviet oppression victims close to 30 million(later estimates give 17-20 million). Pretty much all of that is considered a direct work by Cheka-NKVD-KGB(same organisation basically). And that's just direct victims, if I were to count in indirect deaths(like You did) - You get the picture... So yes, CIA is toothless compared to Cheka-NKVD-KGB.
PlatoTacitus 1 year ago
@PlatoTacitus " Soviet oppression victims close to 30 million"
This is propaganda that's been spread since 1917.
And tell me: Is it better to have been killed by KGB or to have been killed by the CIA?
Idiot.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
"And tell me: Is it better to have been killed by KGB or to have been killed by the CIA?"
All I said was that Soviet oppressive organs have killed millions of people so that CIA is rather toothless organisation compared to Cheka-NKVD-KGB. The numbers speak for themselves.
I have NEVER claimed that one was better(absurd!) than the other, I just stated the fact that they're both awful but KGB(and its predeccessors) are worse in my opinion because they have killed more than CIA.
PlatoTacitus 1 year ago
@bapyou
"This is propaganda that's been spread since 1917."
Unlike You, I come from a former soviet republic(born and raised there) and I know what I'm talking about.
If anything, it seems that KGB&predecessors have done its job pretty well, their disinformation campaigns are well known among intelligence/counter-intelligence organisations. They've got atleast one firm believer - You.
Let me know when You are ready to return to reality.
PlatoTacitus 1 year ago
@bapyou
I will not defend CIA, they done they're share of shady business and should be held accountable for that. So go ahead.
PlatoTacitus 1 year ago
@bapyou
Coming back to invasion-topic. Soviet Union on the other hand has invaded and occupied several western countries, take Poland 1939 for instance or take Finland 1939(Winter War)
Historical facts prove that most of times it's Soviet Union who is in the role of the agressor.
I don't the point in arguing about it anymore - the evidence about true agressor in history of Europe is quite clear.
PlatoTacitus 1 year ago
@PlatoTacitus Both Polnd and Finland were attempts to come to terms with Germany's agression, not to further Russian agreession. Russia has a centuries-long history of being invaded by Germany, Sweden, etc. The post-war occupation of Poland, Czecheslovakia, Hungary, etc, was the result of the Russians pushing the invading German armies back to Germany through these countries. Russia retained control of them as a buffer against further invasion.
Your history is lacking.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
Some REAL HISTORICAL FACTS: Poland was invaded and occupied by SU to further its agenda - deal with Germany. Ever heard of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact? Especially the secret protocols that dealt with spheres of influence in central and eastern Europe.
Now to Winter War - Soviet objective was to conquer all Finland. Soviets wanted to restore the Tsarist Russia borders - so this war was purely imperialistic in its intentions. I can't think of any justification to that war.
PlatoTacitus 1 year ago
@PlatoTacitus "Soviet objective was to conquer all Finland"
Finland was given its independence by the SU. I am not an admirer of Stalin.
Further, America's Imperialism began with 1898's Spanish-American War: control of the Philppines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico. Before that, the usurpation of Hawaii.
About 1918 invasion:
"(The Bolsheviks) sought to make the ignorant & incapable mass of humanity dominant in the earth." ~ Robert Lansing, U.S. Secretary of State 1915-20
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
"Finland was given its independence by the SU."
Finns could have just as easily declared independence(as the Baltic countries did) on their own. Lenin and bolsheviks had already calculated that they would lose some border territories due to their military weakness. BUT Lenin was also quite sure, that once given independence, the new states would make socialist revolution, establish socialist goverments and then join SU.
In his(Lenin) mind, Finland's independence was only temporary.
PlatoTacitus 1 year ago
@PlatoTacitus
"In his(Lenin) mind, Finland's independence was only temporary."
Source.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
Lenin's own ideas(also shared by Stalin) on international socialism(proletarian internationalism) and of course Lenin's "The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination"(written 1915, pub. 1927)
PlatoTacitus 1 year ago
@PlatoTacitus OK . . . but ultimately, revolution goes beyond nationalism.
I am still learning about many things. But you will not define me. I will come to my own conclusions in my own time.
The history of capitalism has been one of unchecked imperialism and cultural erasure. Your idea that Russia was/is more imperailistic that the US is laughable. Does Russia today have 700+ military bases around the world as the US now does? The list of US imperialistic acts is faaaar longer.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
Again, I'm talking about Soviet Union and You're talking about Russia. Please remember that the country I'm talking about(Soviet Union), ceased to exist in December 26 1991.
If we're comparing US vs Soviet Union on who's more imperialistic - well, US would win now, due to the fact that USA, unlike Soviet Union, still exists! Maybe I should have specified the timeframe, I was thinking 20th century, from the birth of the Soviet Union to collapse of it.
PlatoTacitus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PlatoTacitus "Please remember that the country I'm talking about(Soviet Union), ceased to exist in December 26 1991."
Even given this, the S.U. was never as imperialistic as the U.S. Never.
bapyou 1 year ago
@PlatoTacitus Ya its strange how Russians still to this day really dont see their land grabs in Eastern Europe and elsewhere as "imperialistic" or anything like that. The Russians really do think different from you and I and its scary how dumb/brain-washed they are. Than they call you brain-washed... I once had a Russian tell me... "cold war was stopped because russian leader wanted to stop it coz it would have led to nuclear war"... I would just call bapyou an idiot and move on
dadecountyhustler305 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dadecountyhustler305 Ya its strange how Amercians still to this day really dont see their land grabs in Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere in the world as "imperialistic". Its scary how dumb/brain-washed they are. Than they call you brain-washed... Americans say... "US troops are "protecting the world," or "spreading freedom around the world" or "preventing terrorists from coming to the USA".. I would just call you an idiot and move on
Zhonguoria 10 months ago
@dadecountyhustler305:
And yet, communist china is set to become the worlds largest economy !
It seems that imperialism gets to a certain level of success, and then implodes, for various reasons.
1. its too large to manage efficiently, from acentral point
2. a shortage of ANY neccessary resource, can cause serious damage to the entire empire
3. old enemies will work against you in subtle ways, and new ones are always forming
4. war is neccessary, to gain every inch of land
no more space!
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 8 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Modern China IS NOT communist! They are run by the Communist Party, but that is just a name. China is a free-market capitalism modeled after the US only with far fewer restrictions.
101011001 5 months ago
@101011001:
Oh, i suppose they arent chinses, either ?
They just call themselves chinese, but really are american underneath ?
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 5 months ago
@101011001 its still Communist - Capitalism because the Government owns everything. KILL ALL COMMIES!!!! In the Name of ALLAH!!!
SuburbanShinobi8000 3 months ago
@bapyou
Furthermore, please don't mix names Russia and Soviet Union, You either use on or the other, but not both in same context as they are very different states.
"Russia retained control of them as a buffer against further invasion."
That doesn't justify the brutalities and millions of lost lives in occupied countries, and it's Soviet Union not Russia! Sounds more like imperialism in action, in fact all that proves that Soviet Union was the most imperialistic state before and after WW2.
PlatoTacitus 1 year ago
@bapyou
Good example of intervention: First Gulf War.
Good example of invasion(although it failed): Operation Barbarossa.
I think my point is still valid: Western Allies have never invaded Soviet Union.
PlatoTacitus 1 year ago
nice vid dude
Cdenton95 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this video sucks
branrules101 1 year ago
history sux!
d0ct0rGuitar 2 years ago
AHAHAH What a great opening lmao.
Tougemaster06 2 years ago
Lame, and I might add stupid as well..
Sniper2008009 3 years ago
lOlhahhaha
Pinochet08 3 years ago
actually Karl Marx created the idea of Scientific Socialism IE Marxism. Communism was a purely theoretical issue which he referred to only to inspire debate and to prove a point.
patient0Studios 3 years ago
@patient0Studios
Everything you just said, was without exception, completely wrong.
Fittykent 1 year ago