I dont know. since the internet we all have access to worlwide information, information that we couldnt get or know before the rise of the internet. I search for the truth, and i think that i found something. It can be false, or truth, but i continue to search. What i try to tell is, that i dont believe all things that are told to me, since i was born. Some things are not told to the people, and i want the truth, and only the truth.
I'm not a communist, I was not born in USSR, but when I look these soldiers, I feel proud. This video is taken 1 month after ww2 was over, do you people ever realize what these people have gone through? How much they suffered? Obviously Stalin was no angel, but how would a world look today if Hitler won? Even germans tried to kill Adolf, but they couldn't. If Stalin wouldn't sacrifice milions of soviet lives to win, there would be no cold war or Cuba crisis, because there would be no USA either!
@fuzinho1 Haha well maybe but the Nazi's were tough but between the USA and Canada I don't think they could take North America maybe South America but still they would need allot more allies
stupid russians! they need to have a germanic ideology for their land and didn´t understood such komplex theory of karl marx not at all. so they made a bloody butcher reimeout of this innocent philosophical system of marx.
the russin pride til today is a slaughter-clown named stalin. this is what russia is still proud of. russia is proud of eliminated by your own scumfucks
Germans are not racists.The German state persecutes German people in the same way as foreigners.Torture and murder are seen as normal tools of the state because Germans get accustomed to this since beeing young children.So no German would ever complain.In no other country torture and murder by the state is accepted.Consequently foreigners being persecuted in Germany are complaining.This gives the completely false picture of Germans being racist.They are not.They are only NAZIs.See my homepage.
It took a Soviet Union with the brutal kind of leadership to take on Nazi Germany. Any other system could not have withstood the fury that was thrown at them. Politics aside, the fear of being shot if they ran was the exclusive domain of the Soviets, also willing to absorb 20 million deaths was a price no other country was willing to pay. Like it or not, Russia defeating Germany is the main reason why the rest of us are not speaking German today. The world owes them a huge debt.
It took a Soviet Union with the brutal kind of leadership to take on Nazi Germany. Any other system could not have withstood the fury that was thrown at them. Politics aside, the fear of being shot if they ran was the exclusive domain of the Soviets, also willing to absorb 20 million deaths was a price no other country was willing to pay. Like it or not, Russia defeating Germany is the main reason why the rest of us are not speaking German today.
I have nothing against Zhukov, Rokossovsky and soldiers and officers.... but seriously, if I had a chance and means to go back in time and do what I want Stalin and all the suits of the USSR leadership would be killed.... I'm Latvian and I've given myself a promise to always protect democracy.... and yeah, for me it's black and white, no matter economic situation etc. democracy is always better than tyranny...
I wish Americans would stop using Stalin as an excuse to hate the USSR... Lenin was a great man and even he didn't like Stalin. It drives me crazy how many of you still fall for that American cold war bullshit propaganda.
FUCK the soviet leaders who led their people run into batte knowing they were going to die, BUT thank you millions of soldiers that have fallen and rescued europe!
@MidasRK Don't blame the Soviet leaders, blame Stalin he's responsible of these leades you accuse having their militarya and party positions they had during the war. "Stalin gav a great army to stupid officers."
@MidasRK forgive the interruption, but on the eastern front Axis KIA and captured were 12 million. Soviet KIA and captured were also 12 million. in terms of killed and captured, the ratio was 1:1, but in terms of killed only the ratio would be 1:1.4 Axis to Soviet respectively. This does not include the 4 million Soviet POWS who were killed in the Nazi camps. Besides that, according to the personal diaries of the Soviet leaders at that time, they were doing their best. This is not an opinion =D
Nazis from the other hand, was propangadists, so the people, followed them by their will, in contrast to USSR, were whoever was doing a step back, was exacuted... To me the difference between Soviet Communism and National Socialism, is that Nazis are killers of Democracy with guns and knifes, and the communists are killers of democracy with flowers and a bunch of sweets, soaked with poison...
@athousandsuns123 And Capitalism is a very slow, subtle death of freedom. Rich men that slowly drain the life out of any society rights and hopes to line their pockets. They march soldiers off to war under the pretense of protecting democracy and freedom, when in reality they go to line their pockets with blood money and to ensure that no other tyrants can rise to power to challenge them. They allow thousands of people to die every day rather than help them, because it isn't profitable.
@athousandsuns123 True Communism would be perfect. Then again, so would true Capitalism. But we're stuck with corrupt versions of both, so I guess we'll never find a good balance.
@June28July Any human is capable of good or evil. Not every communist is evil. Similarly, not every capitalist is evil. But the important, powerful ones (i.e the ones that run the world) are at worst, evil, at best, corrupt bastards who don't care about humanity. Unless there's a profit to be made.
@June28July The type of slavery where the big corporations decide what we eat. What we wear. Where we live. Where we work. What we're supposed to think. We work in their factories. We work in their businesses. They chose how much our food costs. They chose how much anything costs. In the US, 9 out of 10 politicians are either major shareholders in a large corporation, CEO's or former CEO's.
They do? Holy smokes, you're right! I mean McDonald's is forcing me to go to their restaurant and eat their food at gun-point! There's a knock at my door: it's 'Dickies' agents forcing me to wear their clothing! Gasp! And there's Ford demanding that I live near their factories so that I can work: seriously, couldn't they move their factories near me? I know I'm not the only one who works for them but seriously, how dare they not move their factories near me! Now I've to move! Argh!
@June28July If you would know anything about communism other than the American propaganda which you were indoctrinated with since birth, you would know that the Soviet Union was not Communist. It was Stalinist, essentially fascism with a communist mask. True communism, as written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is much different. Also, when I say the chose what you eat, did I say force? No. They chose what goes into your food. How much it costs. Stuff like that.
@June28July If you buy ANYTHING, the big corporations made it. They're buying up any smaller company to add to their wealth. You buy bread? Any bread, it's theirs. Grown from their grains, harvested by their machines, ground and cooked in their factories, sold in their stores. Milk. Juice. Meat. Vegetables. Alcohol. Clothing. Anything, and it's theirs in some way. So no, you have no choice but to buy from them.
@June28July Because it means that they control you. If they want to make bread 100$ a loaf, what's to stop them? Nothing. If they have a monopoly, you have no choice. If they want to withhold any food staple, they can. If they want to put any additives, they can. They might not, but it's the fact that they can. Say they put an addictive substance into milk. What's to stop them? Nothing. The fact that they essentially control our lives is kinda concerning.
I would never ever buy bread at $100. My freedom of choice and the choice of others IS what's stopping them. If they could, don't you think they would've done it by now?
Placing an addictive substance into milk would summon a torrent of protest from customers, especially customers with babies and other milk companies would advertise their milk brand as 'addiction-free'. The company that puts such chemicals into their milk would see their sales plummet HENCE why they've not done so.
@June28July I think it's more because they don't have a monopoly on food yet. Once they do, they'll be able to, and we'll be helpless. Unless we find a way to go without food. Because protests rarely achieve anything. Thousands of rallies and protests every year, and very little changes.
But monopolies are illegal and the number of food companies are great.
Thousands of rallies and protests per year? First of all, who's counting and secondly, not all protests and rallies are aimed at the same thing or share the same goal.
@June28July Actually, if you look it up, not only are certain monopolies legal in the states, there are several documented cases of monopolies exploiting the system. And I mentioned protests because you said that the people would riot, were addictive substances put in their foods, and I agreed with you, protests are useless. I mean, why would the rich care about people protesting as they sit in their marble halls, counting their blood money?
Okay, please list the food companies that currently hold monopolies.
I didn't say riot, I said protest and I never said that protests were useless.
Why would the rich care? Because the businesses they run rely on customer compliance and customers have the power to demonstrate dissatisfaction with their dollars.
Lastly, please avoid caricatures in your argument: only use them when referring to a specific person.
@June28July Of course the rich don't care. Capitalism has killed more people than Hitler, Stalin and both World Wars rolled into one. If that's not caring about the less wealthy, I don't know what is.
And if only that were true, that the customers had any power. What are we going to do? Not buy food? Not buy clothing? We rely on the rich businesses for everything: food, clothing, houses, jobs. They've got us by the balls.
@June28July Currently for food? None. I was referring to monopolies in general. Due to several recent lawsuits (i.e Microsoft's lawsuit in 2004) Also, if you had properly read my posts, you would seen that I said that the worst that could happen was a food monopoly occurring as the big food companies slowly buy up others.
How many people capitalism has killed? Very easy: Calculate first people who die of starvation a day (approx: 25,000) + Malnutrition (16,000) Already, 14 million per year.
@June28July So, just for starvation and malnutrition alone, 14 million a year, that's 700 million people over 50 years. And Capitalism has been around longer. Hell, It's killed more people that Religion! Hell of an accomplishment. And they all could have been saved if we actually had "freedom and equality" like the American propaganda lies about all the time. Imagine the real number, if we counted everything/ More than Stalin, Hitler, religion, world wars, maybe all wars. They're good at it.
So any death from starvation is immediately a result of Capitalism? You do realize that deaths from starvation also occur in Communist countries and today, most deaths from starvation occur in countries that barely have a functioning government. Did you simply count the number of dead from starvation and malnutrition without considering specific environmental circumstances? You know: drought, war, crop disease, poverty etc.?
Seems to me, you're the one interested in propaganda.
@June28July If Capitalists truly did adhere to their lies, they could easily feed, clothe, educate and give a home to everyone on the planet. Their apathy causes millions of deaths a year.
Also, what Communist countries? Soviet Union= Stalinist, China= Stalinist, Cuba and North Korea are pretty Fascist. There has never been an actual communism. And it's a good thing I only counted starvation and malnutrition, or else Capitalism would have billions of deaths on their greedy hands.
@June28July Actually, my last post was in every way a response to your last post. Don't know how you can't see that.
Communism, in my opinion, is a system in which everyone is equal. Unlike Capitalism, which encourages competition, Communism is about setting aside our differences and working towards the improvement of humanity as a whole. Working as one. Where everyone is paid equally, fed equally, clothed equally, etc. Capitalism would have you believe this is impossible. Mere propaganda.
No, my point was that starvation is more complex than simply looking at the economic system a person lives under. You responded by attacking Capitalists and their 'lies' as if all Capitalists were represented by some spokesperson.
Paid equally? I can agree with being fed and clothed equally but everyone paid equally? So being a doctor or engineer, two professions which require years of study, should be paid as much as a phone operator or security guard? If so then you eliminate a significant amount of the incentive to become a doctor or engineer. Who would strive to become a doctor or engineer if it paid as much as another much easier profession? You'd lower society's supply of doctors and engineers this way.
@June28July Paying people different amounts only creates societal classes, inequality and poverty. Although money isn't the root of all evil (humans are) it definitely doesn't help. Better yet, we could try to find a way to eliminate money all together. We don't need it, after all.
For now, each country should focus on feeding, clothing, housing and educating everyone. Maybe not other countries, but in their own. Instead of making false promises, just do it. A step towards actual freedom.
Why eliminate money if it isn't the root of all evil? If you get rid of money, the role it plays in an economy would then be fulfilled by hard goods. It wouldn't solve problems, it would only make commerce much more difficult.
Feeding, clothing, housing, educating everyone... Easier said than done.
@June28July The only reason we don't get rid of money is pure greed. We got along fine without it, every species gets along just fine without it. I bet we could whip up quite a few alternatives, but human nature bars the way of progress.
Yes, feeding, clothing, housing, educating everyone wouldn't be easy. But it could be done. Only there's no money it equality and freedom, so it won't happen, which I find discouraging. Instead of making the new Ipod or Ford 2012, how about feeding everyone?
Okay, please suggest an alternative to money as a value-holder otherwise people will have to go back to bartering. How many eggs for a pair of shoes?
But the production of an iPod or Ford vehicle in no way detracts from food production. Food production can be maximized regardless of what is happening inside a factory.
@June28July That's the problem. We're trapped in this mentality of currency, regardless of it's form. I don't think we'll ever get out of it. Bartering, money, it all inevitably leads to the stagnation we find ourselves in.
It does detract from food production, and more. You're honestly telling me we couldn't put the billions of dollars going into useless products (i.e beauty products, electronics...) to better use? How about the US settling it's multi- TRILLION dollar debt? Building homes?
So then please suggest a solution. How do we meet our daily needs without bartering/money?
The problem with the food industry is NOT production, it's distribution. Enough food is produced to feed an incredible amount of people. Putting billions into food production doesn't solve the distribution problem.
@June28July Simple answer. How we survived before money. Or, we receive a ration of food, clothing and other essentials. But we won't because we've become too lazy and have such an obnoxious sense of entitlement.
Then fine, DISTRIBUTE it better. BUT IT WON'T HAPPEN. Our society accepts a couple of million deaths per year if it means that a few rich men get fatter paychecks.
Point is, Capitalism is slowly poisoning us, killing us. We suffer so that a few can live in luxury.
@June28July I don't mean rationing as in "there is a shortage" I mean a ration as in "everyone receives a certain amount."
Improved distribution won't happen because there's no profit to be made in feeding, clothing and housing everyone. Unless they can pay, which over 2 billion people (UN statistics) cannot. That kind of suffering. Billions made to live in abject poverty so that a hundred or so can live in luxury.
That is not equality. Nor freedom. That is slavery.
It's the same thing. In shortage conditions, "everyone receives a certain amount."
Actually, there IS a profit to be made in feeding, clothing, and housing people. The problem is that people in poverty can't afford it. This is often due to a lack of economic development.
Billions MADE to live in poverty so that a hundred can live in luxury? Are you saying if it weren't for those billions living in poverty, the hundred you're referring to could NOT live in luxury?
@June28July No, I'm saying that those billions could easily be given three healthy meals a day, clothed, given decent housing and jobs. "But," think the Capitalists, "Why do that when we can make the next Ipod? And how does helping people in, say, Africa, line my pockets? Equality and freedom? Where's the profit in that?" After all, we're just another worker on the assembly line to them.
This is getting tiresome. Maintain your illusions of equality and freedom if you want. I'll be in reality.
Providing food, clothing, housing etc. to billions is anything BUT easy especially since many of those in need live in areas where there's war, a scarcity of natural resources, and oppressive or collapsed governments.
BTW, it's not the job of say, Steve Jobs to worry about helping people in Africa: American government agencies actually do this and more in various places in Africa for example:
@June28July More Capitalist propaganda. We could have it done in less than a year if put our minds to it, but again, equality isn't profitable, so it won't happen. Sure, they'll talk a good talk, they'll donate some pocket change and a few little tidbits (compared to what we could be doing), but in the end, they save a few hundred while hundreds of thousands die every day. But that doesn't trouble them at all. After all, they're rich, why should they care about a couple billion people?
@June28July I refer to Capitalists in general, but specifically, owners of large corporations such as those of the food industry, or oil companies. During an investigation for a documentary on the food industry, it was discovered that 9 out of ten politicians in the US (including US Senators of Governors) were one of the following: Major shareholders in a large corporation, CEOs of a large corporation, or former CEOs. So when I refer to business and politics, it's the same thing in the US.
Yeah, the job of food companies and oil companies isn't charity, it's profit. They aim to profit to stay in business and pay their workers. You criticize them for not giving towards people in need but that's not their job. However, they do pay taxes which can be used in government-organized humanitarian aid and other such efforts.
@June28July I believe it's "Food, Inc." but I'm not quite sure.
And EXACTLY. Humanity believes in profit over human life. That's the problem: "Who cares if millions die when there's profit to made!" should be their motto.
NO, it's NOT humanity who believes in profit over humans, just some members of humanity. However, simply because someone aims to make a profit does NOT automatically mean they don't care about people. You're working off of generalizations.
@June28July Obviously not EVERYONE believes in profit over life. The problem is the PEOPLE IN POWER do. I still can't believe people are okay with over 17 million easily preventable deaths a year in the name of profit.
As to the documentary, It might be Food Inc, I can't seem to find any other documentary on the food industry. Winner by default, I guess.
People are NOT okay with 17 million deaths from hunger per year and no, they're not always as a result of profit. Believe me, the overwhelming majority of the world finds such deaths as tragic. The real problem is not Capitalism/Communism, it's apathy. In developed nations, it's very easy to turn a blind-eye to such things since they aren't occurring in our front yards. They're occurring across seas and oceans in war-torn regions. People are more worried about the economy and such.
@June28July As I've been saying for a while now, I don't know if it's Food Inc. I don't think so, because I saw that one just recently, and the documentary I'm thinking about I watched before I moved this year.
@June28July Indeed it does. But is it really hard to believe? Every single society for the past 5000 years has had the rich and powerful running the country. What, you thought it changed over night? I doubt you're that naive.
Isn't it a paradox for the weak and powerless to be in power? If the weak and powerless were in power, would they really be weak and powerless anymore?
@June28July I think we both I mean that the majority (middle and lower class) be in power, rather than rich man after rich man. Although, to their credit, there are now rich women in power. I find it would make sense that 90% of the population have the power, rather than 10%. Because let's be honest: the rich care for the needs of the rich. Which explains all the corporate tax cuts, even during recessions.
What do you mean by 'having power'? Are you referring to monetary or political power?
As for corporate tax cuts, you should be specific about who favors these. For example, in general, Republicans favor tax cuts which confirms your 'rich caring for rich' behavior but at the same time, a majority of Republicans also opposed bailing out the rich corporations they were supposedly allied with. This is why I dislike generalizations: if you're going to critique, be specific. Use names.
@June28July Having power is always both. Ever seen a poor politician?
And I don't need specifics: when the rich give each other tax cuts, it's for everyone that makes more than X amount of money. Usually several hundred thousand dollars per year. I'm not going to name everyone who gets those tax cuts, I only have so many characters per post.
@June28July Okay, here's one: the Bush tax cuts. How about my personal favorite, trickle-down economics, where capitalists actually made people believe that giving the rich more money would make the country richer. How about any Republican President in history who gave his rich buddies tax cuts. Need I continue? The rich care for themselves first and other classes after. They are EVIL. They make Stalin and Hitler look like rational, level-headed people. They view the world as their piggy-bank.
Bush tax cuts didn't just benefit the rich. They benefited various income brackets, not just the rich.
Reaganomics (tde) wasn't a policy of 'giving money to the rich', as you put it. It was the lowering of taxes not only on the rich but other income brackets as well.
And there you go again with generalizations... Comparing "the rich", which includes various people of various qualities, to Stalin and Hitler, two specific people. Are you fucking serious? Or are you just trolling?
@June28July I am serious. Through inaction, Capitalism allows, as I stated in a previous post, 14 million people to die from starvation and malnutrition alone every year. That's 140 million people in 10 years. Hitler killed around 60 million, Stalin around 30 million. And all those deaths are so easily preventable, but Capitalists would rather let them die than give up their profit. So yes, Capitalism is worse than Hitler and Stalin. At least they were honest about their evil.
But you'd have to first establish that these Capitalists you speak of are both fully aware and conscious of starvation death rates and in a position to save all those millions who die a year.
Hitler and Stalin were fully aware of deaths they were imposing on populations. This is why they were evil: the KNOWLEDGE that they were committing evil. A food company that produces food may or may not be aware of starvation on the other side of the world and in an even less capacity to help.
@June28July Are you being serious? Are you saying that people don't know about starvation? EVERYONE knows about starvation. The UN brings it up enough times, I see commercials on TV for World Vision or some other charity that's trying to raise money for starving children or something similar. And if we can spend BILLIONS of dollars making the new Iphone or l'Oreal face cream, we can feed our people. Capitalists just don't want to. Because they're greedy, evil people who only care about profit.
People know about it but they don't think about it 24/7 and they're not always in a position to help.
It's not Apple's/l'Oreal's job to feed people, their job is to maximize profit and keep their workers employed. They pay taxes and those taxes go towards humanitarian efforts, efforts best organized by government organizations.
And guess who's donating to those charities: evil greedy Capitalists who work towards making profits. Your generalizations make you sound like a child.
You keep proving my point: Capitalism has indoctrinated us to believe in profit over helping people.
For the last time: I'm not going to name every single Capitalist with every single post. I only have so many characters per post. So no, it's not childish, it's practical. You keep saying "generalizations" instead of addressing my points.
And yes, they donate: crumbs. Little crumbs compared to what they hoard for themselves.
@June28July I know full well that no matter what I say, you'll say it's a bad idea. Even if it were flawless. But let's roll with it...
Better idea: instead of just a few companies, all major companies donate? For starters, how about every large company (i.e Exxon, Microsoft, Google...) each donate one million dollars. This would be put into a fund which would then be handled by the UN (not a government, Republicans would have a heart attack) which could then be distributed to needy countries.
@June28July Actually, I think a tax would be a better idea. Let's start by making everyone pay the same percentage of taxes. Enough of those with more paying less (in percentage) This fund will be used to ensure that every man, woman and child has three meals a day, a roof over their head, appropriate clothing, a job and an education. Once we have satisfied the needs humanity, then we can move on to wants.
But tell me, is this such a bad idea? Equality? Basic needs satisfied? Common decency?
Everyone paying the same percentage in taxes? Are you for this?
No, equality isn't a bad idea: as a matter of fact, it's the ideal. However, have you calculated the costs of providing those in need in the world with 3 meals a day, a roof, clothing, a job and an education? I'd really like to see your math work on this. Keep in mind, we're talking about 100s of millions of people.
@June28July So we can't afford to see to everyone's needs, but we can afford to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on luxury products? On corporate bailouts? On corporate tax-cuts? Is that your argument?
No, I asked you for the math because I wanted to know if it was feasible. Please don't put words in my posts.
I assume when you say 'luxuries', you are referring to items that can be classified as 'wants' rather than 'needs'. You can scoff at the hundreds of billions of dollars a year spent on luxury products but these expenditures occur in industries that employ people. If these expenditures didn't occur, some people who work in these industries would lose their jobs.
@June28July I have a better idea: you show me the math that proves it isn't feasible. To save you time, there is none. No one has ever even attempted to put "equality" into practice.
And I never actually said that we should remove luxuries altogether. I believe we should prioritize. I'm pretty sure "Food, clothing and housing" should come before "Neutrogena anti-aging cream" and similar useless items.
I'm sorry, my previous post wasn't clear enough: I was referring to your idea of having companies donate 1 million dollars. I asked you how many companies and how often they would be involved but you didn't answer that question.
But the production of 'food, clothing, and housing' is not related in any way to the production of 'anti-aging cream'. So there is no need to prioritize in this case. Like I've said before, there is a need for better distribution, not production.
@June28July But then I changed my idea to a tax, because it makes a lot more sense than a million dollars, since certain companies don't make that much surplus profit.
And regardless of whether we need better distribution or production, the fact is IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN because our society believes in profit over equality.
But fine: let's forget about starving people in other countries: How about here? There are starving/homeless/jobless people here in North America. And we ignore them.
So this tax: how big a tax is necessary to provide food, housing, clothing etc. for all the people in need in the world?
But both equality and profit can coexist. You don't have to choose between the two. As for society's beliefs: please don't generalize them.
No, I don't want to forget about the starving in other countries: this is why I pay my taxes. My taxes fund aid programs both inland and overseas and if my profits are high, the taxes I pay will be high also.
@June28July Look, don't ask me how big the tax needs to be, I'm not an economist. I'll leave it up to people with math skills to determine how much is needed.
I generalize because people are dying easily preventable deaths in every single country, so clearly it's a worldwide lack of concern.
And I meant that we should focus on poverty here in North America before going worldwide, not ignore them altogether.
Well then please hire an economist and mathematician and get back to us with this tax issue.
But there are also many people who are saved by food aid. You condemn society for preventable deaths but you don't praise society for deaths prevented.
@June28July I'm not going to hire an economist. You said make suggestions. I made a suggestion. Whether or not it's possible, as long as there is Capitalism, there will never be true equality. Nor would such a tax ever be passed, since Wall Street and Washington are joined at the hip.
Fine then: Good job, people! We save thousands of people a year! Now, how about we get off our laurels and save the tens of millions that are dying?
Thousands saved a year: when did you go about counting the number of people saved? Keep in mind that those saved include people who benefited from private charities, homeless shelters, food drives, social programs that aid those in poverty with food stamps and medical care for children. Aid that's sent overseas and even homeless people who get donations from passing pedestrians are ensured a breakfast by peoples' charity. How about a source for the thousands?
@June28July You're right: I don't know how many, I was throwing out a number. But I do know this: a single person dying from such easily preventable deaths is unacceptable. But it's not a few people, it's in the tens of millions. A person starves to death in Africa while an American whines because McDonald's didn't put enough fries on his tray. You can't call that equality.
I don't believe anyone ever called the McD's customer-starving African scenario equality. If there was such a person, I'd like to slap them across the face. Also, the fact that the death of one person is easily preventable doesn't mean that the death of millions annually is easily preventable. You run into certain complexities when you go from helping one person get fed for one day to feeding millions for one day, not to mention for a long period of time.
@June28July You ask what true equality is? Simple: where we all have the same rights and privileges. In reality, not in theory. A business gets a bailout while middle-class people lose everything? Inequality. A rich CEO who embezzles billions get three months jail, while a homeless man with no criminal record steals a hundred dollars, and then returns it out of guilt gets 10 years? Inequality. When large corporations can affect politics due to their financing of election campaigns? Inequality.
I have a question: could you link me to the article reporting on this homeless man? I'd like to read it.
As for your other examples, for the sake of brevity, which would you like to discuss? Businesses getting bailouts or corporations influencing elections?
@June28July It's not that the businesses got bailouts that's bad, that's a good thing since they employ millions of people, it's the fact that they used millions of dollars from the bailouts to provide bonuses for their CEO's and other rich people.
I don't disagree with you that such things are BS: however, I believe some of these companies are bound by contract to pay these amounts so unless they want to get sued, they have little choice but to pay their CEOs. However, have you a specific in mind so that we don't have to speak in generalities?
As for the Roy Brown story: I've Googled it but never found the story printed or reported in a reputable publication or news agency. Could you name an organization that reported on it?
@June28July That case is just one of many reasons why people are becoming more and more frustrated with the "Corporatocracy", as the Occupy Wall Street people put it.
@June28July My mistake, it was Paul Allen I found on Reuters. But, I've found the article several sites , and people are protesting to the Louisiana Governor about the case. Also, if you use Vinelink (a site made by the National Victim Notification Network) you can see Roy Brown is in a Louisiana prison. I don't doubt he exists, and even if he doesn't, the fact that Paul Allen got only 3 years for a multi-billion dollar theft is outrageous.
It's outrageous but the severity of a sentence does not have to reflect the quantity stolen. I've found the website that reported Roy Brown's case (look up Roy Brown, ktbs dot com) and according to it, Brown committed an act of a violent nature which Allen did not. Brown pretended to be wielding a gun in his robbery which is a violent act and I believe that had more bearing in his sentencing. Crimes like fraud carry lighter sentences since they aren't violent. I'm no lawyer though...
@June28July But Allen still stole several billion dollars and got off with a slap on the wrist, while a man with no criminal record steals 100$ and gets 15 years? Doesn't matter if he pretended to wield a gun, it's a clear case of classism. If anyone but a rich person had stolen the 3 billion, they'd be in jail for decades.
It does matter whether the crime was violent or not: I don't believe judges ignore this when considering a sentence but again, I'm no expert in law and there are other factors like the state a crime occurs in and the judge's own opinion regarding punishment.
'If anyone but a rich person had stolen the 3 billion, they'd be in jail for decades'
How do you know this? Has there ever been a case where a poor person stole billions and got decades in jail: if so, provide name please.
@June28July I didn't say a poor person, I said "anyone but a wealthy person." Such as Middle-class, Lower-class and poor. I'll start looking for such a case, I have little doubt I'll find one.
But it still doesn't make sense that a 100$ theft earns you 15 years and 3 billion earns you 3, no matter which way you look at it. Doesn't matter how Allen did it, the fact remains he was let off easy.
So you didn't know before making your post? Why would you claim something without knowing if it's a true claim or not?
A VIOLENT theft earns you 15 years. The VIOLENT part is the part you seem to forget. Roy Brown pretended to wield a gun which automatically makes his crime violent.
@June28July Then explain to me why some people go to jail for less than 15 years and they used an actual gun in a robbery. Or they actually attacked someone.
Because there are multiple variables that go into a case. The state in which the crime occurred, the judge presiding over the case, the history of the perpetrator etc. If you'd really like to know why a person was sentenced the way they were then it's best to directly contact the judge him or herself who presided over the court case.
And keep in mind, I'm no lawyer or expert in law...
@June28July If you would know anything about communism other than the American propaganda which you were indoctrinated with since birth, you would know that the Soviet Union was not Communist. It was Stalinist, essentially fascism with a communist mask. True communism, as written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is much different. Also, when I say the chose what you eat, did I say force? No. They chose what goes into your food. How much it costs. Stuff like that.
@June28July If you would know anything about communism other than the American propaganda which you were indoctrinated with since birth, you would know that the Soviet Union was not Communist. It was Stalinist, essentially fascism with a communist mask. True communism, as written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is much different. Also, when I say the choose what you eat, did I say force? No. They choose what goes into your food. How much it costs. Stuff like that.
@Draevan13 And you probably think its Human nature to work together. Communism never works because it's not in our blood, we will always have separate "clans" on our planet because our species wants nothing but competitive power
@arc175 Once upon a time our nature was to simply eat, sleep and screw. Then we evolved. You honestly want to keep living in this slavery forever? You don't want mankind to unite as one to solve our problems, not to make them worse for the profit of a few rich people? You don't want us to fight poverty, homelessness, hunger and malnutrition? If so, I weep for mankind's future. I hope not everyone thinks like you, or mankind is doomed to blow up one day.
@arc175 And i wouldn't mind your opinion, but you are basing your views on Communism on a political system that has almost nothing to do with real Communism. It's like basing your views on Germans based on Nazis. Or Arabs based on Al-Qaida.
nazi germany was about the same thing as soviet russia... A man was the idol of the people. There was no freedom. Stalin executed whoever disliked him.he killed 27 million people in the Gulags and from his collective policy. Hitler on the other hand, at the beggining, was not killing his political enemies. He enclosed them to concetration camps with good conditions in the beginning. But after the loss of moscow, something changed. he started killing masses of people.
Too bad it was a rainy day, but nothing can stop the Red Army.
OtadzbinaiKrv 1 week ago
Уникальные кадры !!!
vlad4579z 1 week ago
I dont know. since the internet we all have access to worlwide information, information that we couldnt get or know before the rise of the internet. I search for the truth, and i think that i found something. It can be false, or truth, but i continue to search. What i try to tell is, that i dont believe all things that are told to me, since i was born. Some things are not told to the people, and i want the truth, and only the truth.
RichardCyberPunk 3 weeks ago
If they don't had a Western Allied to support the war,they want to show who won the war alone ..
This show would never have happened if don't had a Western Allies..
Guilherme1498 3 weeks ago
at :39 and on, is he telling us whats on the menu for this day?> I did hear spaghetti in there..
asspunchquarterpound 1 month ago
I'm not a communist, I was not born in USSR, but when I look these soldiers, I feel proud. This video is taken 1 month after ww2 was over, do you people ever realize what these people have gone through? How much they suffered? Obviously Stalin was no angel, but how would a world look today if Hitler won? Even germans tried to kill Adolf, but they couldn't. If Stalin wouldn't sacrifice milions of soviet lives to win, there would be no cold war or Cuba crisis, because there would be no USA either!
fuzinho1 1 month ago 10
Comment removed
hungdirect 1 month ago
@fuzinho1 Haha well maybe but the Nazi's were tough but between the USA and Canada I don't think they could take North America maybe South America but still they would need allot more allies
PlatnumWarrior 1 month ago
@fuzinho1 Stalin and Hitler were allies until the attacks of Germany against the USSR
spspbr 3 weeks ago
@spspbr and?
LenCommu 2 weeks ago
@spspbr
They had only a non-aggression pact. There was no peace. Stalin knew also Hitler will cheat, but he thought it would happen later.
ColdHeartedMan86 2 weeks ago
HOW THE MIGHTY HAS FALL IN AFGHANISTAN ..LOL
RaVaanMeraNaam 1 month ago
@RaVaanMeraNaam How the retarded cannot comment properly.
lolnostanku 1 month ago
@RaVaanMeraNaam Just like the US fell in Vietnam... LOL.
Draevan13 1 month ago
@Draevan13 Hahaha Yeh and Usa Gonna B Defeated Like Russia In Afghanistan Tooo!!! LoL
RaVaanMeraNaam 1 month ago
@RaVaanMeraNaam you still belive in this american propaganda? lol, you watch Rambo too much
trupoed11 3 weeks ago
85 people who disliked this are defeated Nazis!
initvesa 1 month ago 19
Amazing video
Entresolsticios 1 month ago
SLAVA STALIN!
siliconplay5 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
stupid russians! they need to have a germanic ideology for their land and didn´t understood such komplex theory of karl marx not at all. so they made a bloody butcher reimeout of this innocent philosophical system of marx.
the russin pride til today is a slaughter-clown named stalin. this is what russia is still proud of. russia is proud of eliminated by your own scumfucks
PrussianNights 2 months ago
Thank you,winners! From Slovakia.
pepe242sr 3 months ago
@LaFinaYoungGun Yup.
starscream372 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Germans are not racists.The German state persecutes German people in the same way as foreigners.Torture and murder are seen as normal tools of the state because Germans get accustomed to this since beeing young children.So no German would ever complain.In no other country torture and murder by the state is accepted.Consequently foreigners being persecuted in Germany are complaining.This gives the completely false picture of Germans being racist.They are not.They are only NAZIs.See my homepage.
wwwtotalitaerde 4 months ago
It took a Soviet Union with the brutal kind of leadership to take on Nazi Germany. Any other system could not have withstood the fury that was thrown at them. Politics aside, the fear of being shot if they ran was the exclusive domain of the Soviets, also willing to absorb 20 million deaths was a price no other country was willing to pay. Like it or not, Russia defeating Germany is the main reason why the rest of us are not speaking German today. The world owes them a huge debt.
wseabuck 4 months ago
It took a Soviet Union with the brutal kind of leadership to take on Nazi Germany. Any other system could not have withstood the fury that was thrown at them. Politics aside, the fear of being shot if they ran was the exclusive domain of the Soviets, also willing to absorb 20 million deaths was a price no other country was willing to pay. Like it or not, Russia defeating Germany is the main reason why the rest of us are not speaking German today.
wseabuck 4 months ago
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
this video is for socialist only!!!
so id you are a capitalist, we don't need you!!
get out of here!!!!
sergeikozin47 4 months ago
I have nothing against Zhukov, Rokossovsky and soldiers and officers.... but seriously, if I had a chance and means to go back in time and do what I want Stalin and all the suits of the USSR leadership would be killed.... I'm Latvian and I've given myself a promise to always protect democracy.... and yeah, for me it's black and white, no matter economic situation etc. democracy is always better than tyranny...
lkrnpk 4 months ago
Thank you USSR for fuking the Nazis in the ass real hard.
vincevince801 4 months ago
Deus existe. A União Soviética não existe.
daltonagre 5 months ago
I wish Americans would stop using Stalin as an excuse to hate the USSR... Lenin was a great man and even he didn't like Stalin. It drives me crazy how many of you still fall for that American cold war bullshit propaganda.
rawwwrryy 5 months ago
If SOVIET don't beat Nazi ,the Europe will invaded by Hitler
a23091399824 5 months ago
FUCK the soviet leaders who led their people run into batte knowing they were going to die, BUT thank you millions of soldiers that have fallen and rescued europe!
MidasRK 5 months ago 5
@MidasRK Don't blame the Soviet leaders, blame Stalin he's responsible of these leades you accuse having their militarya and party positions they had during the war. "Stalin gav a great army to stupid officers."
9999RuneScape999 5 months ago
@MidasRK forgive the interruption, but on the eastern front Axis KIA and captured were 12 million. Soviet KIA and captured were also 12 million. in terms of killed and captured, the ratio was 1:1, but in terms of killed only the ratio would be 1:1.4 Axis to Soviet respectively. This does not include the 4 million Soviet POWS who were killed in the Nazi camps. Besides that, according to the personal diaries of the Soviet leaders at that time, they were doing their best. This is not an opinion =D
sovietkotek 5 months ago
@MidasRK Neither of them Usa, germany, soviet were concerned about their soildiers...
pioneerz450 4 months ago
which is why i never like Stalin
the thing is
it only in the early day of the war when people do suicidal human wave attack
after 42, thing go back again
tinmaptd 4 months ago
which is why i never like Stalin
the thing is
it only in the early day of the war when people do suicidal human wave attack
after 42, thing go back again
tinmaptd 4 months ago
All of Europe loves Russia.... Except Germany.. Gee I wonder why lmao
BTheWo1f 5 months ago
@BTheWo1f
What's wrong with you, dude?
OppidumEuropa 5 months ago
Yes, The USSR may be gone. But the people have not!
Long live the proletarian revolution!
USteenSports 5 months ago 3
hard to believe that they are all death now. i think less than ten are still alive.. well, that's how life goes by..........shadow and dust.
cholipasio 5 months ago
Thank you Russia , love from France
Hadrien06100 5 months ago 3
If it weren't for USSR you'd be living under fascist dictatorship.
Not that fascism is different than capitalism -after all it's exactly the same economic system.
Cry your hearts out the Soviets will overcome!
touaregk 6 months ago
@touaregk Yes, instead only half of Europe had to live under dictatorship.
Kaarlo 5 months ago
@Kaarlo
democracy equals not capitalism. Capitalism IS the most horrible dictatorship.
And then..half the Europe (greece, Spain, Portugal, Turkey) was in fact under fascist military dictatorship for most of the 20th century.
Say what you will. You're a stranger to this video anyway
touaregk 5 months ago
God exists; Soviet Union doesn't exists...
daltonagre 6 months ago
Nazis from the other hand, was propangadists, so the people, followed them by their will, in contrast to USSR, were whoever was doing a step back, was exacuted... To me the difference between Soviet Communism and National Socialism, is that Nazis are killers of Democracy with guns and knifes, and the communists are killers of democracy with flowers and a bunch of sweets, soaked with poison...
athousandsuns123 6 months ago
@athousandsuns123 And Capitalism is a very slow, subtle death of freedom. Rich men that slowly drain the life out of any society rights and hopes to line their pockets. They march soldiers off to war under the pretense of protecting democracy and freedom, when in reality they go to line their pockets with blood money and to ensure that no other tyrants can rise to power to challenge them. They allow thousands of people to die every day rather than help them, because it isn't profitable.
Draevan13 6 months ago 30
@Draevan13 my point is that, both dictatorships are a bad way of governing. capitalism should be destroyed, but not with nazism or communism
athousandsuns123 6 months ago
@athousandsuns123 True Communism would be perfect. Then again, so would true Capitalism. But we're stuck with corrupt versions of both, so I guess we'll never find a good balance.
Draevan13 6 months ago
@Draevan13
Yeah because Communist leaders in no way are capable of doing the exact same thing.
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. All I know is that the current system doesn't work, and must go.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
Not talking about will or won't. Talking about capability.
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July Any human is capable of good or evil. Not every communist is evil. Similarly, not every capitalist is evil. But the important, powerful ones (i.e the ones that run the world) are at worst, evil, at best, corrupt bastards who don't care about humanity. Unless there's a profit to be made.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
Or a power to be gained. Power sways both Communist/Capitalist leaders not because they're Capitalist or Communist but because they're human.
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July Indeed. But just because Communism could be worse doesn't mean we should keep wallowing in this slavery.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
What slavery exactly?
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July The type of slavery where the big corporations decide what we eat. What we wear. Where we live. Where we work. What we're supposed to think. We work in their factories. We work in their businesses. They chose how much our food costs. They chose how much anything costs. In the US, 9 out of 10 politicians are either major shareholders in a large corporation, CEO's or former CEO's.
That type of slavery.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
They do? Holy smokes, you're right! I mean McDonald's is forcing me to go to their restaurant and eat their food at gun-point! There's a knock at my door: it's 'Dickies' agents forcing me to wear their clothing! Gasp! And there's Ford demanding that I live near their factories so that I can work: seriously, couldn't they move their factories near me? I know I'm not the only one who works for them but seriously, how dare they not move their factories near me! Now I've to move! Argh!
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July If you would know anything about communism other than the American propaganda which you were indoctrinated with since birth, you would know that the Soviet Union was not Communist. It was Stalinist, essentially fascism with a communist mask. True communism, as written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is much different. Also, when I say the chose what you eat, did I say force? No. They chose what goes into your food. How much it costs. Stuff like that.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
Yeah and I choose whether to buy it or not.
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July If you buy ANYTHING, the big corporations made it. They're buying up any smaller company to add to their wealth. You buy bread? Any bread, it's theirs. Grown from their grains, harvested by their machines, ground and cooked in their factories, sold in their stores. Milk. Juice. Meat. Vegetables. Alcohol. Clothing. Anything, and it's theirs in some way. So no, you have no choice but to buy from them.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
This is bad how?
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July Because it means that they control you. If they want to make bread 100$ a loaf, what's to stop them? Nothing. If they have a monopoly, you have no choice. If they want to withhold any food staple, they can. If they want to put any additives, they can. They might not, but it's the fact that they can. Say they put an addictive substance into milk. What's to stop them? Nothing. The fact that they essentially control our lives is kinda concerning.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
I would never ever buy bread at $100. My freedom of choice and the choice of others IS what's stopping them. If they could, don't you think they would've done it by now?
Placing an addictive substance into milk would summon a torrent of protest from customers, especially customers with babies and other milk companies would advertise their milk brand as 'addiction-free'. The company that puts such chemicals into their milk would see their sales plummet HENCE why they've not done so.
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July I think it's more because they don't have a monopoly on food yet. Once they do, they'll be able to, and we'll be helpless. Unless we find a way to go without food. Because protests rarely achieve anything. Thousands of rallies and protests every year, and very little changes.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
But monopolies are illegal and the number of food companies are great.
Thousands of rallies and protests per year? First of all, who's counting and secondly, not all protests and rallies are aimed at the same thing or share the same goal.
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July Actually, if you look it up, not only are certain monopolies legal in the states, there are several documented cases of monopolies exploiting the system. And I mentioned protests because you said that the people would riot, were addictive substances put in their foods, and I agreed with you, protests are useless. I mean, why would the rich care about people protesting as they sit in their marble halls, counting their blood money?
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
Okay, please list the food companies that currently hold monopolies.
I didn't say riot, I said protest and I never said that protests were useless.
Why would the rich care? Because the businesses they run rely on customer compliance and customers have the power to demonstrate dissatisfaction with their dollars.
Lastly, please avoid caricatures in your argument: only use them when referring to a specific person.
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July Of course the rich don't care. Capitalism has killed more people than Hitler, Stalin and both World Wars rolled into one. If that's not caring about the less wealthy, I don't know what is.
And if only that were true, that the customers had any power. What are we going to do? Not buy food? Not buy clothing? We rely on the rich businesses for everything: food, clothing, houses, jobs. They've got us by the balls.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
And now you're just rambling. You say Capitalism killed etc. How did you go about counting and comparing the number of dead?
Now, I'm going to ask you again since you ignored it in my previous post: please list the food companies that currently hold monopolies.
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July Currently for food? None. I was referring to monopolies in general. Due to several recent lawsuits (i.e Microsoft's lawsuit in 2004) Also, if you had properly read my posts, you would seen that I said that the worst that could happen was a food monopoly occurring as the big food companies slowly buy up others.
How many people capitalism has killed? Very easy: Calculate first people who die of starvation a day (approx: 25,000) + Malnutrition (16,000) Already, 14 million per year.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
Microsoft, okay: that's one and it was taken to court as required by law meaning monopolistic practices don't go unchallenged. Any others?
Do you have the current count of food companies in operation today and the rate at which they are being bought up today?
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July So, just for starvation and malnutrition alone, 14 million a year, that's 700 million people over 50 years. And Capitalism has been around longer. Hell, It's killed more people that Religion! Hell of an accomplishment. And they all could have been saved if we actually had "freedom and equality" like the American propaganda lies about all the time. Imagine the real number, if we counted everything/ More than Stalin, Hitler, religion, world wars, maybe all wars. They're good at it.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
So any death from starvation is immediately a result of Capitalism? You do realize that deaths from starvation also occur in Communist countries and today, most deaths from starvation occur in countries that barely have a functioning government. Did you simply count the number of dead from starvation and malnutrition without considering specific environmental circumstances? You know: drought, war, crop disease, poverty etc.?
Seems to me, you're the one interested in propaganda.
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July If Capitalists truly did adhere to their lies, they could easily feed, clothe, educate and give a home to everyone on the planet. Their apathy causes millions of deaths a year.
Also, what Communist countries? Soviet Union= Stalinist, China= Stalinist, Cuba and North Korea are pretty Fascist. There has never been an actual communism. And it's a good thing I only counted starvation and malnutrition, or else Capitalism would have billions of deaths on their greedy hands.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
You're rambling again and not responding to my actual post. At least the first part of your post was.
Okay, please define 'Communism'.
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July Actually, my last post was in every way a response to your last post. Don't know how you can't see that.
Communism, in my opinion, is a system in which everyone is equal. Unlike Capitalism, which encourages competition, Communism is about setting aside our differences and working towards the improvement of humanity as a whole. Working as one. Where everyone is paid equally, fed equally, clothed equally, etc. Capitalism would have you believe this is impossible. Mere propaganda.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
No, my point was that starvation is more complex than simply looking at the economic system a person lives under. You responded by attacking Capitalists and their 'lies' as if all Capitalists were represented by some spokesperson.
June28July 4 months ago
@Draevan13
Paid equally? I can agree with being fed and clothed equally but everyone paid equally? So being a doctor or engineer, two professions which require years of study, should be paid as much as a phone operator or security guard? If so then you eliminate a significant amount of the incentive to become a doctor or engineer. Who would strive to become a doctor or engineer if it paid as much as another much easier profession? You'd lower society's supply of doctors and engineers this way.
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July Paying people different amounts only creates societal classes, inequality and poverty. Although money isn't the root of all evil (humans are) it definitely doesn't help. Better yet, we could try to find a way to eliminate money all together. We don't need it, after all.
For now, each country should focus on feeding, clothing, housing and educating everyone. Maybe not other countries, but in their own. Instead of making false promises, just do it. A step towards actual freedom.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
Why eliminate money if it isn't the root of all evil? If you get rid of money, the role it plays in an economy would then be fulfilled by hard goods. It wouldn't solve problems, it would only make commerce much more difficult.
Feeding, clothing, housing, educating everyone... Easier said than done.
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July The only reason we don't get rid of money is pure greed. We got along fine without it, every species gets along just fine without it. I bet we could whip up quite a few alternatives, but human nature bars the way of progress.
Yes, feeding, clothing, housing, educating everyone wouldn't be easy. But it could be done. Only there's no money it equality and freedom, so it won't happen, which I find discouraging. Instead of making the new Ipod or Ford 2012, how about feeding everyone?
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
Okay, please suggest an alternative to money as a value-holder otherwise people will have to go back to bartering. How many eggs for a pair of shoes?
But the production of an iPod or Ford vehicle in no way detracts from food production. Food production can be maximized regardless of what is happening inside a factory.
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July That's the problem. We're trapped in this mentality of currency, regardless of it's form. I don't think we'll ever get out of it. Bartering, money, it all inevitably leads to the stagnation we find ourselves in.
It does detract from food production, and more. You're honestly telling me we couldn't put the billions of dollars going into useless products (i.e beauty products, electronics...) to better use? How about the US settling it's multi- TRILLION dollar debt? Building homes?
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
So then please suggest a solution. How do we meet our daily needs without bartering/money?
The problem with the food industry is NOT production, it's distribution. Enough food is produced to feed an incredible amount of people. Putting billions into food production doesn't solve the distribution problem.
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July Simple answer. How we survived before money. Or, we receive a ration of food, clothing and other essentials. But we won't because we've become too lazy and have such an obnoxious sense of entitlement.
Then fine, DISTRIBUTE it better. BUT IT WON'T HAPPEN. Our society accepts a couple of million deaths per year if it means that a few rich men get fatter paychecks.
Point is, Capitalism is slowly poisoning us, killing us. We suffer so that a few can live in luxury.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
But there's no need to ration when there's so much. Rationing is for when there are shortages.
Why won't improved distribution happen?
You need to be more specific in your rhetoric. We suffer so that a few can live in luxury? What are you referring to exactly?
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July I don't mean rationing as in "there is a shortage" I mean a ration as in "everyone receives a certain amount."
Improved distribution won't happen because there's no profit to be made in feeding, clothing and housing everyone. Unless they can pay, which over 2 billion people (UN statistics) cannot. That kind of suffering. Billions made to live in abject poverty so that a hundred or so can live in luxury.
That is not equality. Nor freedom. That is slavery.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
It's the same thing. In shortage conditions, "everyone receives a certain amount."
Actually, there IS a profit to be made in feeding, clothing, and housing people. The problem is that people in poverty can't afford it. This is often due to a lack of economic development.
Billions MADE to live in poverty so that a hundred can live in luxury? Are you saying if it weren't for those billions living in poverty, the hundred you're referring to could NOT live in luxury?
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July No, I'm saying that those billions could easily be given three healthy meals a day, clothed, given decent housing and jobs. "But," think the Capitalists, "Why do that when we can make the next Ipod? And how does helping people in, say, Africa, line my pockets? Equality and freedom? Where's the profit in that?" After all, we're just another worker on the assembly line to them.
This is getting tiresome. Maintain your illusions of equality and freedom if you want. I'll be in reality.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
Providing food, clothing, housing etc. to billions is anything BUT easy especially since many of those in need live in areas where there's war, a scarcity of natural resources, and oppressive or collapsed governments.
BTW, it's not the job of say, Steve Jobs to worry about helping people in Africa: American government agencies actually do this and more in various places in Africa for example:
usaid(dot)gov/stories/archiveafr(dot)html
That's right, a pro-Capitalist government.
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July More Capitalist propaganda. We could have it done in less than a year if put our minds to it, but again, equality isn't profitable, so it won't happen. Sure, they'll talk a good talk, they'll donate some pocket change and a few little tidbits (compared to what we could be doing), but in the end, they save a few hundred while hundreds of thousands die every day. But that doesn't trouble them at all. After all, they're rich, why should they care about a couple billion people?
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
Who are 'they' you keep referring to exactly? Could you please use their names?
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July I refer to Capitalists in general, but specifically, owners of large corporations such as those of the food industry, or oil companies. During an investigation for a documentary on the food industry, it was discovered that 9 out of ten politicians in the US (including US Senators of Governors) were one of the following: Major shareholders in a large corporation, CEOs of a large corporation, or former CEOs. So when I refer to business and politics, it's the same thing in the US.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
Yeah, the job of food companies and oil companies isn't charity, it's profit. They aim to profit to stay in business and pay their workers. You criticize them for not giving towards people in need but that's not their job. However, they do pay taxes which can be used in government-organized humanitarian aid and other such efforts.
What documentary are you referring to?
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July I believe it's "Food, Inc." but I'm not quite sure.
And EXACTLY. Humanity believes in profit over human life. That's the problem: "Who cares if millions die when there's profit to made!" should be their motto.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
Is this movie where you got the 9/10 statistic?
NO, it's NOT humanity who believes in profit over humans, just some members of humanity. However, simply because someone aims to make a profit does NOT automatically mean they don't care about people. You're working off of generalizations.
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July Obviously not EVERYONE believes in profit over life. The problem is the PEOPLE IN POWER do. I still can't believe people are okay with over 17 million easily preventable deaths a year in the name of profit.
As to the documentary, It might be Food Inc, I can't seem to find any other documentary on the food industry. Winner by default, I guess.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
People are NOT okay with 17 million deaths from hunger per year and no, they're not always as a result of profit. Believe me, the overwhelming majority of the world finds such deaths as tragic. The real problem is not Capitalism/Communism, it's apathy. In developed nations, it's very easy to turn a blind-eye to such things since they aren't occurring in our front yards. They're occurring across seas and oceans in war-torn regions. People are more worried about the economy and such.
June28July 4 months ago
@Draevan13
As for the documentary, time-stamp please?
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July I know it's recent, they mentioned Obama as the President at one point, and I saw it around 2 years ago, so between 2008 and 2009.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
What hour, minute, second into the documentary.
June28July 4 months ago
@Draevan13
What hour, minute, second into the documentary.
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July As I've been saying for a while now, I don't know if it's Food Inc. I don't think so, because I saw that one just recently, and the documentary I'm thinking about I watched before I moved this year.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
So then your "9/10ths" claim from previous remains without a citation.
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July Indeed it does. But is it really hard to believe? Every single society for the past 5000 years has had the rich and powerful running the country. What, you thought it changed over night? I doubt you're that naive.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
Isn't it a paradox for the weak and powerless to be in power? If the weak and powerless were in power, would they really be weak and powerless anymore?
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July I think we both I mean that the majority (middle and lower class) be in power, rather than rich man after rich man. Although, to their credit, there are now rich women in power. I find it would make sense that 90% of the population have the power, rather than 10%. Because let's be honest: the rich care for the needs of the rich. Which explains all the corporate tax cuts, even during recessions.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
What do you mean by 'having power'? Are you referring to monetary or political power?
As for corporate tax cuts, you should be specific about who favors these. For example, in general, Republicans favor tax cuts which confirms your 'rich caring for rich' behavior but at the same time, a majority of Republicans also opposed bailing out the rich corporations they were supposedly allied with. This is why I dislike generalizations: if you're going to critique, be specific. Use names.
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July Having power is always both. Ever seen a poor politician?
And I don't need specifics: when the rich give each other tax cuts, it's for everyone that makes more than X amount of money. Usually several hundred thousand dollars per year. I'm not going to name everyone who gets those tax cuts, I only have so many characters per post.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
No, I can't tell a politician's income simply by looking at them. Sorry.
You don't have to name everyone: just give a legislator's name and the proposal they had put forth at one point.
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July Okay, here's one: the Bush tax cuts. How about my personal favorite, trickle-down economics, where capitalists actually made people believe that giving the rich more money would make the country richer. How about any Republican President in history who gave his rich buddies tax cuts. Need I continue? The rich care for themselves first and other classes after. They are EVIL. They make Stalin and Hitler look like rational, level-headed people. They view the world as their piggy-bank.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13
Bush tax cuts didn't just benefit the rich. They benefited various income brackets, not just the rich.
Reaganomics (tde) wasn't a policy of 'giving money to the rich', as you put it. It was the lowering of taxes not only on the rich but other income brackets as well.
And there you go again with generalizations... Comparing "the rich", which includes various people of various qualities, to Stalin and Hitler, two specific people. Are you fucking serious? Or are you just trolling?
June28July 4 months ago
@June28July I am serious. Through inaction, Capitalism allows, as I stated in a previous post, 14 million people to die from starvation and malnutrition alone every year. That's 140 million people in 10 years. Hitler killed around 60 million, Stalin around 30 million. And all those deaths are so easily preventable, but Capitalists would rather let them die than give up their profit. So yes, Capitalism is worse than Hitler and Stalin. At least they were honest about their evil.
Draevan13 3 months ago
@Draevan13
But you'd have to first establish that these Capitalists you speak of are both fully aware and conscious of starvation death rates and in a position to save all those millions who die a year.
Hitler and Stalin were fully aware of deaths they were imposing on populations. This is why they were evil: the KNOWLEDGE that they were committing evil. A food company that produces food may or may not be aware of starvation on the other side of the world and in an even less capacity to help.
June28July 3 months ago
@June28July Are you being serious? Are you saying that people don't know about starvation? EVERYONE knows about starvation. The UN brings it up enough times, I see commercials on TV for World Vision or some other charity that's trying to raise money for starving children or something similar. And if we can spend BILLIONS of dollars making the new Iphone or l'Oreal face cream, we can feed our people. Capitalists just don't want to. Because they're greedy, evil people who only care about profit.
Draevan13 3 months ago
@Draevan13
People know about it but they don't think about it 24/7 and they're not always in a position to help.
It's not Apple's/l'Oreal's job to feed people, their job is to maximize profit and keep their workers employed. They pay taxes and those taxes go towards humanitarian efforts, efforts best organized by government organizations.
And guess who's donating to those charities: evil greedy Capitalists who work towards making profits. Your generalizations make you sound like a child.
June28July 3 months ago
@June28July
You keep proving my point: Capitalism has indoctrinated us to believe in profit over helping people.
For the last time: I'm not going to name every single Capitalist with every single post. I only have so many characters per post. So no, it's not childish, it's practical. You keep saying "generalizations" instead of addressing my points.
And yes, they donate: crumbs. Little crumbs compared to what they hoard for themselves.
Draevan13 3 months ago
@Draevan13
So then answer me this: what should Apple and L'Oreal do to help?
June28July 3 months ago
@June28July I know full well that no matter what I say, you'll say it's a bad idea. Even if it were flawless. But let's roll with it...
Better idea: instead of just a few companies, all major companies donate? For starters, how about every large company (i.e Exxon, Microsoft, Google...) each donate one million dollars. This would be put into a fund which would then be handled by the UN (not a government, Republicans would have a heart attack) which could then be distributed to needy countries.
Draevan13 3 months ago
@Draevan13
How many companies would be involved in this and how often would they be involved?
June28July 3 months ago
@June28July Actually, I think a tax would be a better idea. Let's start by making everyone pay the same percentage of taxes. Enough of those with more paying less (in percentage) This fund will be used to ensure that every man, woman and child has three meals a day, a roof over their head, appropriate clothing, a job and an education. Once we have satisfied the needs humanity, then we can move on to wants.
But tell me, is this such a bad idea? Equality? Basic needs satisfied? Common decency?
Draevan13 3 months ago
@Draevan13
Everyone paying the same percentage in taxes? Are you for this?
No, equality isn't a bad idea: as a matter of fact, it's the ideal. However, have you calculated the costs of providing those in need in the world with 3 meals a day, a roof, clothing, a job and an education? I'd really like to see your math work on this. Keep in mind, we're talking about 100s of millions of people.
June28July 3 months ago
Comment removed
Draevan13 3 months ago
@June28July So we can't afford to see to everyone's needs, but we can afford to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on luxury products? On corporate bailouts? On corporate tax-cuts? Is that your argument?
Draevan13 3 months ago
@Draevan13
No, I asked you for the math because I wanted to know if it was feasible. Please don't put words in my posts.
I assume when you say 'luxuries', you are referring to items that can be classified as 'wants' rather than 'needs'. You can scoff at the hundreds of billions of dollars a year spent on luxury products but these expenditures occur in industries that employ people. If these expenditures didn't occur, some people who work in these industries would lose their jobs.
June28July 3 months ago
@June28July I have a better idea: you show me the math that proves it isn't feasible. To save you time, there is none. No one has ever even attempted to put "equality" into practice.
And I never actually said that we should remove luxuries altogether. I believe we should prioritize. I'm pretty sure "Food, clothing and housing" should come before "Neutrogena anti-aging cream" and similar useless items.
Draevan13 3 months ago
@Draevan13
I'm sorry, my previous post wasn't clear enough: I was referring to your idea of having companies donate 1 million dollars. I asked you how many companies and how often they would be involved but you didn't answer that question.
But the production of 'food, clothing, and housing' is not related in any way to the production of 'anti-aging cream'. So there is no need to prioritize in this case. Like I've said before, there is a need for better distribution, not production.
June28July 3 months ago
@June28July But then I changed my idea to a tax, because it makes a lot more sense than a million dollars, since certain companies don't make that much surplus profit.
And regardless of whether we need better distribution or production, the fact is IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN because our society believes in profit over equality.
But fine: let's forget about starving people in other countries: How about here? There are starving/homeless/jobless people here in North America. And we ignore them.
Draevan13 3 months ago
@Draevan13
So this tax: how big a tax is necessary to provide food, housing, clothing etc. for all the people in need in the world?
But both equality and profit can coexist. You don't have to choose between the two. As for society's beliefs: please don't generalize them.
No, I don't want to forget about the starving in other countries: this is why I pay my taxes. My taxes fund aid programs both inland and overseas and if my profits are high, the taxes I pay will be high also.
June28July 3 months ago
@June28July Look, don't ask me how big the tax needs to be, I'm not an economist. I'll leave it up to people with math skills to determine how much is needed.
I generalize because people are dying easily preventable deaths in every single country, so clearly it's a worldwide lack of concern.
And I meant that we should focus on poverty here in North America before going worldwide, not ignore them altogether.
Draevan13 3 months ago
@Draevan13
Well then please hire an economist and mathematician and get back to us with this tax issue.
But there are also many people who are saved by food aid. You condemn society for preventable deaths but you don't praise society for deaths prevented.
June28July 3 months ago
@June28July I'm not going to hire an economist. You said make suggestions. I made a suggestion. Whether or not it's possible, as long as there is Capitalism, there will never be true equality. Nor would such a tax ever be passed, since Wall Street and Washington are joined at the hip.
Fine then: Good job, people! We save thousands of people a year! Now, how about we get off our laurels and save the tens of millions that are dying?
Draevan13 3 months ago
@Draevan13
Define 'true equality'.
Thousands saved a year: when did you go about counting the number of people saved? Keep in mind that those saved include people who benefited from private charities, homeless shelters, food drives, social programs that aid those in poverty with food stamps and medical care for children. Aid that's sent overseas and even homeless people who get donations from passing pedestrians are ensured a breakfast by peoples' charity. How about a source for the thousands?
June28July 3 months ago
@June28July You're right: I don't know how many, I was throwing out a number. But I do know this: a single person dying from such easily preventable deaths is unacceptable. But it's not a few people, it's in the tens of millions. A person starves to death in Africa while an American whines because McDonald's didn't put enough fries on his tray. You can't call that equality.
Draevan13 3 months ago
@Draevan13
I don't believe anyone ever called the McD's customer-starving African scenario equality. If there was such a person, I'd like to slap them across the face. Also, the fact that the death of one person is easily preventable doesn't mean that the death of millions annually is easily preventable. You run into certain complexities when you go from helping one person get fed for one day to feeding millions for one day, not to mention for a long period of time.
June28July 3 months ago
@June28July You ask what true equality is? Simple: where we all have the same rights and privileges. In reality, not in theory. A business gets a bailout while middle-class people lose everything? Inequality. A rich CEO who embezzles billions get three months jail, while a homeless man with no criminal record steals a hundred dollars, and then returns it out of guilt gets 10 years? Inequality. When large corporations can affect politics due to their financing of election campaigns? Inequality.
Draevan13 3 months ago
@Draevan13
I have a question: could you link me to the article reporting on this homeless man? I'd like to read it.
As for your other examples, for the sake of brevity, which would you like to discuss? Businesses getting bailouts or corporations influencing elections?
June28July 3 months ago
Comment removed
Draevan13 3 months ago
@June28July It's not that the businesses got bailouts that's bad, that's a good thing since they employ millions of people, it's the fact that they used millions of dollars from the bailouts to provide bonuses for their CEO's and other rich people.
Draevan13 3 months ago
@Draevan13
I don't disagree with you that such things are BS: however, I believe some of these companies are bound by contract to pay these amounts so unless they want to get sued, they have little choice but to pay their CEOs. However, have you a specific in mind so that we don't have to speak in generalities?
As for the Roy Brown story: I've Googled it but never found the story printed or reported in a reputable publication or news agency. Could you name an organization that reported on it?
June28July 3 months ago
@Draevan13
A specific case that is...
June28July 3 months ago
@June28July Which one? The homeless guy or the corporate bailouts?
Draevan13 3 months ago
@Draevan13
Homeless guy.
June28July 3 months ago
@June28July That case is just one of many reasons why people are becoming more and more frustrated with the "Corporatocracy", as the Occupy Wall Street people put it.
Draevan13 3 months ago
@Draevan13
Have you ever gone into looking up whether the story about the homeless man was reported on or published in a reputable newspaper?
June28July 3 months ago
@June28July I found it on Reuters. Haven't looked up the CEO, though.
Draevan13 3 months ago
@Draevan13
I'm searching up "Roy Brown" on Reuters's website and I've found nothing.
June28July 3 months ago
@June28July My mistake, it was Paul Allen I found on Reuters. But, I've found the article several sites , and people are protesting to the Louisiana Governor about the case. Also, if you use Vinelink (a site made by the National Victim Notification Network) you can see Roy Brown is in a Louisiana prison. I don't doubt he exists, and even if he doesn't, the fact that Paul Allen got only 3 years for a multi-billion dollar theft is outrageous.
Draevan13 3 months ago
@Draevan13
It's outrageous but the severity of a sentence does not have to reflect the quantity stolen. I've found the website that reported Roy Brown's case (look up Roy Brown, ktbs dot com) and according to it, Brown committed an act of a violent nature which Allen did not. Brown pretended to be wielding a gun in his robbery which is a violent act and I believe that had more bearing in his sentencing. Crimes like fraud carry lighter sentences since they aren't violent. I'm no lawyer though...
June28July 3 months ago
@June28July But Allen still stole several billion dollars and got off with a slap on the wrist, while a man with no criminal record steals 100$ and gets 15 years? Doesn't matter if he pretended to wield a gun, it's a clear case of classism. If anyone but a rich person had stolen the 3 billion, they'd be in jail for decades.
Draevan13 2 months ago
@Draevan13
It does matter whether the crime was violent or not: I don't believe judges ignore this when considering a sentence but again, I'm no expert in law and there are other factors like the state a crime occurs in and the judge's own opinion regarding punishment.
'If anyone but a rich person had stolen the 3 billion, they'd be in jail for decades'
How do you know this? Has there ever been a case where a poor person stole billions and got decades in jail: if so, provide name please.
June28July 2 months ago
@June28July I didn't say a poor person, I said "anyone but a wealthy person." Such as Middle-class, Lower-class and poor. I'll start looking for such a case, I have little doubt I'll find one.
But it still doesn't make sense that a 100$ theft earns you 15 years and 3 billion earns you 3, no matter which way you look at it. Doesn't matter how Allen did it, the fact remains he was let off easy.
Draevan13 2 months ago
@Draevan13
So you didn't know before making your post? Why would you claim something without knowing if it's a true claim or not?
A VIOLENT theft earns you 15 years. The VIOLENT part is the part you seem to forget. Roy Brown pretended to wield a gun which automatically makes his crime violent.
June28July 2 months ago
@June28July Then explain to me why some people go to jail for less than 15 years and they used an actual gun in a robbery. Or they actually attacked someone.
Draevan13 2 months ago
@Draevan13
Because there are multiple variables that go into a case. The state in which the crime occurred, the judge presiding over the case, the history of the perpetrator etc. If you'd really like to know why a person was sentenced the way they were then it's best to directly contact the judge him or herself who presided over the court case.
And keep in mind, I'm no lawyer or expert in law...
June28July 2 months ago
@June28July Now that I think about it, it may have been racism... It is Louisiana, after all...
Draevan13 2 months ago
@Draevan13
May have or may have not. Have you gone about finding out if it was in fact racism? If so, how?
June28July 2 months ago
@June28July Youtube won't let me post the links, so google -Roy Brown homeless 100$- and -Paul R Allen Sentenced- for the stories.
Draevan13 3 months ago
@June28July If you would know anything about communism other than the American propaganda which you were indoctrinated with since birth, you would know that the Soviet Union was not Communist. It was Stalinist, essentially fascism with a communist mask. True communism, as written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is much different. Also, when I say the chose what you eat, did I say force? No. They chose what goes into your food. How much it costs. Stuff like that.
Draevan13 4 months ago
Comment removed
Draevan13 4 months ago
@June28July If you would know anything about communism other than the American propaganda which you were indoctrinated with since birth, you would know that the Soviet Union was not Communist. It was Stalinist, essentially fascism with a communist mask. True communism, as written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is much different. Also, when I say the choose what you eat, did I say force? No. They choose what goes into your food. How much it costs. Stuff like that.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13 And you probably think its Human nature to work together. Communism never works because it's not in our blood, we will always have separate "clans" on our planet because our species wants nothing but competitive power
arc175 4 months ago
@arc175 Once upon a time our nature was to simply eat, sleep and screw. Then we evolved. You honestly want to keep living in this slavery forever? You don't want mankind to unite as one to solve our problems, not to make them worse for the profit of a few rich people? You don't want us to fight poverty, homelessness, hunger and malnutrition? If so, I weep for mankind's future. I hope not everyone thinks like you, or mankind is doomed to blow up one day.
Draevan13 4 months ago
@Draevan13 I'm not saying I'm against Communism/Socialism, it's just that I firmly do not believe and had already lost hope for humanity
arc175 4 months ago
@arc175 And i wouldn't mind your opinion, but you are basing your views on Communism on a political system that has almost nothing to do with real Communism. It's like basing your views on Germans based on Nazis. Or Arabs based on Al-Qaida.
Draevan13 4 months ago
Comment removed
Draevan13 4 months ago
nazi germany was about the same thing as soviet russia... A man was the idol of the people. There was no freedom. Stalin executed whoever disliked him.he killed 27 million people in the Gulags and from his collective policy. Hitler on the other hand, at the beggining, was not killing his political enemies. He enclosed them to concetration camps with good conditions in the beginning. But after the loss of moscow, something changed. he started killing masses of people.
athousandsuns123 6 months ago