Forum:Nonviolence, non-coercion, non-destruction vs COMMUNIST REVOLUTION NOW!!!!!

< Index | Politics discussion

From our discussion on WikiLeaks, UncleHo writes, "I don't need my own plan, as Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh wrote perfectly good ones. Why mess with perfection? All the leaked documents and marches in the world will never get anything done. Never have. No social movement has created significant change without at the very least, the credible threat of violence, if not an outright armed insurgency.UncleHo (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)"

Ho Chi tie me to tree with gun fo three month! I have to eat roach I find and... ~ Wong (in karate attire) (talk)

Wong please, allow me. Let's pretend that before the following gentlemen commited any civil disobedience, they requested the advice of those Sinospherian cawmyanists. If you wouldn't mind to summon their spirits now, what would they have told the following people to do differently:

• WikiLeaks or OpenLeaks
• Daniel Ellsberg
• John Stockwell
• Noam Chomsky (who has praised one of Ho Chi Minh's successors, incidently)
• Ghandi

~ Lumenos (talk) 00:31, 18 sDecember 2010 (UTC)

• WikiLeaks or OpenLeaks They're doing what they set out to do, which is leak the information given to them. What people chose to do upon finding out this information (Read: Nothing) is not their fault. While some attempts to organize people could be made, it's understandable that Wikileaks council wants to keep a low profile.
• Daniel Ellsberg See the above.
• John Stockwell I have respect for John Stockwell. I would have more if he used his training to hold some of the people responsible for the CIA's crimes accountable.
• Noam Chomsky (who has praised one of Ho Chi Minh's successors, incidently) I wish Chomsky would shut up already. I have no idea why I am supposed to think that a multi-millionaire who has spent his entire life living in wealth unimaginable to the vast majority of all people who have ever lived is some sort of leftist hero. No one put a gun to his head and told him to teach the elite of the elite at what is quite possibly the single most prestigious (And therefore oppressive) university in the world. If he actually gave a shit about what he preached, he'd be teaching poor kids in an inner city school, at least.
• Ghandi Ahh yes, another of the West's great "leftist" heroes. Let me tell you the truth about Gandhi. First, you must understand that the Indian freedom struggle existed long before he joined. We can really trace the postwar movement back to 1857, when a huge revolution almost kicked the British out of India (Before they slaughtered several million people, razed Delhi to the ground and broke the backs of Muslim leaders.) Although the British won, they left the embers behind, which continually smoldered until they were fanned not by Gandhi, but by Indian Socialists. They had been organizing, educating and agitating before Gandhi joined. At first, he was simply upset because the British wouldn't allow him an officer commission in South Africa (Yes, the great pacifist hero only became such after being denied the chance to wage a colonial war on other people. Let that sink in for a while) and was a fairly minor part of the movement for some time. Then, after the war, the British were at an impasse. They lacked the strength to fight the Indians, but they didn't want to actually give up their power over the country. Enter Gandhi. Gandhi is a classic "our guy" which is the moderate who will give the people the illusion of change without actually changing anything but the face of the oppressor. Martin Luther King was an unwilling "our guy" (Once he realized he was being played, he was murdered) and was used to keep the scary Malcolm X from gaining too much traction. I digress, however. Gandhi played right into the hands of the British. He marched around, drumming up publicity and spreading his own racist rethoric loosely disguised as some sort of pseudo-holy preaching. He was the perfect stooge, even going so far as to sell out people like Baghat Singh and others who didn't agree with his approach. In the end, he was killed, as "our guy" always is when he ceases to be useful, and lo and behold, nothing changed until the better Gandhi came to power. If I had a time machine and one bullet, I would use it on Gandhi before anyone else. The damage that man did to subsequent freedom struggles with his bullshit is immeasurable.UncleHo (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If he actually gave a shit about what he preached, he'd be teaching poor kids in an inner city school, at least. Yes, clearly people who are committed to the communist cause do not do nasty reactionary things such as enlisting as a jackbooted thug in a murder squad. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Witness how LX, the ultra-capitalist judges a poor kid for wanting a 10k sign up bonus, which would be far more than he ever had in his life. Amazing! Maybe if people like him would just shut the fuck up, poor Latinos wouldn't have to turn to murder for money.UncleHo (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"Maybe if people like him would just shut the fuck up, poor Latinos wouldn't have to turn to murder for money." I'm sorry, but that is the most bullshit statement I have ever seen. The fact is that Communism has a wonderful history of not working and, in fact, working conrary to Marx's intent. Marx's intent was for the people to rise up and have power. However, in situations and place's like Castro's Cuba (granted, Batista was no better), people have no power or wealth and, instead, all the power that should be for the people is conrolled by an oppressive dictator. Thus you have economic strife and poverty, which, ironically, is what communism purports to be a solution to. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 16:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahh yes, as compared to the glorious American republic, where the vast majority of all people have no wealth, with everything being concentrated in the hands of a few. This means that all the power that should be for "the people" is controlled by a small group of oligarchs. Thus you have economic strife and poverty, which, ironically, is what capitalism purports to be a solution to.UncleHo (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That parallel does not stick; unlike communism, which had those claims attached to it from the start, capitalism is not an organized ideology and cannot purport to be a solution to anything. There are of course have the politicians who go all millennial and make those claims, but that was something they learned from the Reds. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In your own words, nobody held a gun to your head and made you enlist. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad you're back, LX. I need a hardline conservative cracker to show how right I am. Without your crazy ramblings, I look stupid!UncleHo (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I totally disagree on Chomsky. The elite is exactly the one that has the power to change things. If he was teaching in a "poor kids school" he would be lost like any other good willing inner school teacher. On the other hand, if someone is able to attend said "most prestigious" university, then it means that he either has the ability to do well, or comes from a well connected rich family. Which brings us to option 3 for changing the world after bloody revolution or meaningless pacifism... Sen (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No, if someone can go to MIT it pretty much just means they come from a well connected, rich family. Chomsky is a member of the ruling class teaching the brats of the ruling class, and yet I'm supposed to think he's some sort of proletarian superhero. Fuck that. I'm glad he's going to die soon so I won't have to hear his bourgeois bullshit anymore.UncleHo (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Bin Laden comes from a well-connected rich family, but you don't seem to mind, in his case. Is this because you think violence is the only way to change anything? I think certain Islamists, like certain religious Zionists, use trusty old myths to brainwash desperate warriors. After all, who cares how much misery/death you cause in this world, if what really matters is the everlasting afterlife? In contrast, Chomsky is a teacher of teachers. "Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar from 1980 to 1992. He is also the eighth most cited source of all time, and is considered the "most cited living author"."[1]

You seem to be more concerned with who (you claim) he is teaching, rather than what he is teaching. One reason I listen to Chomsky is he avoids making unsupported sweeping generalizations. For example, in Manufacturing Consent, he claimed that the US media put far more emphasis on atrocities done by their enemies compared with their allies. This is a difficult thing to measure, however he had his people cut out all the newspaper articles on the enemies and allies, and lay them out on the floor. When he makes a generalization, he will usually follow this up with an example. Can you do that? Do you have one example of "bourgeois bullshit" statement that Chomsky has made? ~ Lumenos (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, now THERE's a non sequitur. I was saying bin Laden is much harder to catch than some hacker because of his incredible wealth and extensive, international network of armed, violent groups. I cannot fathom how this relates to Noam Chomsky. As far as Chomsky is concerned, my issue is that he says one thing and does another. Talk is cheap, anyone can rant about the evils of Capitalism and American imperialism, yet when that same person supports what they preach against, it's just meaningless tripe. Chomsky is only cited and venerated because he is a good hero for the spineless American "left." He can be used to drop devastating zingers against their political opponents, but he doesn't involve them or even ask them to be involved in anything more strenuous than blogging on their new slave made Ipad.UncleHo (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the term you used for Bin Laden was fabulously wealthy. Is Bin Laden a hypocrite? Guy who says what wonderful rewards there will be for those who mix their guts with the enemy, while he gets cozy with a wife or two in his comfy little cave?

Does anarcho-syndicalism or libertarian socialism, forbid the selling or copyrighting of books? Has Chomsky or his publisher ever sued or threatened someone for unauthorized distribution? Has he said the profiting from one's own production is wrong? I don't know, but I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I listen to Chomsky because he seems to know interesting things. If it turns out he is a hypocrite, this doesn't really change that fact. If you know of a better orator I will try them.

I looked into Ho Chi Minh. Didn't find much but apparently Vietnam is doing quite well at "capitalism" these days, "According to a forecast in December 2005 by Goldman-Sachs, Vietnamese economy will become the 17th largest economy in the world in 2025, with nominal GDP of $ 436 billion and GDP per capita of 4,357 USD.[51] According to the forecast by the PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2008, Vietnam may be fastest growing of emerging economies by 2025 with a potential growth rate of almost 10% per annum in real dollar terms that could push it up to around 70% of the size of the UK economy by 2050.[52]" Isn't that horrible? ~ Lumenos (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

GDP is meaningless, GDP per capita is what matters. Vietnam is 85 Million people while the UK is 62 Million. 2050 is also a terrible date. First off, even if you were born now, you'd be 40 years old by then, aka, most people living today in Vietnam won't even see that. Second its so far into the future you cant extrapolate anything, definitely not some kind of self-fulfilling linear economy. For comparison, 2050 is the usual date projects like commercial fusion power (ITER) or powering Europe with solar towers in Sahara (DESERTEC) pretend that they will be completed. Land on Mars according to NASA, when every house will have a house 3D printer and share stuff through torrents according to REPRAP or when the singularity will happen according to Ray Kurzweil. Aka, its a convenient far away date, no one has any idea about what will actually happen and to have a 70% of the current UK economy by then sounds pretty pathetic. Sen (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

[Edit break (The masterplan)]

bin Laden is a huge hypocrite, yes. He cares about little but personal power. You should go read the RW article on him, which was mostly written by me. As far as Chomsky is concerned, I don't know why you have such a high opinion of him. This is a man who constantly namedrops Marx and claims to be at least some sort of Socialist, yet he works for a fee-based "educational" system which keeps the poor uneducated and keeps him a millionaire. Are you even a leftist? Do you even know what leftism entails? Your dickriding reached such a level you said he was a great orator, which I've never heard even his staunchest supporters claim before. Malcolm X was a great orator. Chomsky would lose a 9th grade speech competition.

Also, it's cute how you blame Ho Chi Minh for things that happened 4 decades after his death.UncleHo (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Eearum you make too many nonsequiters to point out. I guess Vietnam's socialist-oriented market economony was not as good as an earlier system? Why? Wasn't Stalin less tollerate of dissent, as you seem to think was Mihn's shortcomming? Was Ho Chi Mihn better than Stalin? What is the most "libertarian"/utilitarian economic system? Is economics something Chomsky should teach inner city folk, or is it something he knows nothing about? Was Jamie Escalante doing it right?

Am I leftist? I don't know what that entails (in your mind). Alot of my "leftishness" comes from listening to Chom... that guy who doesn't give away "education". (Apparently he is not a "leftist" enough (sic)?) For example, in addition to corporate welfare he is critical of the ways the nanny state protects monopolies and oligopolies when this isn't in the public interest. I think he said that state universities fund research which is then handed over to private parties (in the form of patents?) who use it for profit. (I don't quite understand the mechanism.) That is interesting to those who believe in free market libertarianism/liberalism. I don't think it is always a good idea to try to condense complex subjects to words like "left". In your reply to Gooniepunk you make it sound like the US is capitalist. Chomsky points out many ways in which it is more like a "corporatacracy" (my word not his). But now me and Chomsky give you poor latino free education, so you don't have to let The Man frame your arguments, like this is about communism vs capitalism. "Communisism" doesn't mean the same thing to a proponent as it does to a opponent. These sorts of words reak of "economic identity politics".

Here is another thing that got me thinking. Some US legislator decided who to sell all of Iraq's industries (besides oil and some banks) to, and for what prices. In real "capitalism", the rightful owners are restored their properties by some mechanism. We just need to figure out who the rightful owners are. I say, the rightful owners are those who use the land/resources efficiently for utilitarian interests (so long as we can agree, that is what I am doing). Am I a leftist? ~ Lumenos (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you just shoot words out of a shotgun, or do you actually try? Like I said before, I don't give a shit about what Chomsky SAYS. My issue is what he DOES, which is far removed from what he says. In fact, I don't give a shit about what anyone says. Actions are what matters. It is pretty funny seeing how you said Vietnam is "pretty good at Capitalism", then you backpedal and say they aren't. Did you learn fence riding from Chomsky?UncleHo (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It pains me to inform you that the Wiki here is all talk and no action. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Try what? Do WHAT? I admit it, I know close to nothing about Vietnam or economics. I thought you knew something, thus I was asking. What's the plan, Sarge?!?!?! Tet Offensive at 5 o'clock Wednesday? Or you want me to be an offline teacher of some poor folk? Teach what? Something with political implications or something I can't screw up like computers or math? You attempt to put fence where I am sitting based on some vague theory that some mysterious "action" is better than thinking and communicating (with those with Internet access or students at expensive schools). You want to know my plan? Mostly just trying to learn and persuade people through the Internet. I'm sorta into converting waste into food, which may have applications in the Third World. I hardly would think this would be anything close to what Chomsky is doing. I can't really prove that he influences people but this would seem likely. If you have a better idea, first think to yourself, "Is this something I want to discuss publicly or do I need to talk to people from OpenLeaks or some sort of 'armed' resistance?" If you want to discuss it publicly, please tell us what it is. ~ Lumenos (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Tet offensive? Not yet. I was thinking we could start with something more along the lines of the Battle of the Bogside. Also, why are you linking to the secure Wikipedia and asking me for more detailed information on my plans?UncleHo (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me for being a little slow on the draw, but how do the Troubles in Ulster come into this? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The Battle of the Bogside was a real protest. It wasn't some rich kids trying tweeting about their badass new fair trade keffiyeh. Elementary school students were donning gas masks and throwing molotov cocktails at their oppressors. That is what we need. Real protests. Real resistance. Not some bullshit bourgeois "BU$H IS A MONKEY" sign waving bullshit. Also it's cute how you still call Ireland Ulster. If I had any doubts before (I didn't, by the way), I know which side you're on. UncleHo (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I used "Ulster" to refer to Ulster, which is comprised of nine counties, rather than Ireland, which is instead comprised of 32 counties; a distinction that I would have assumed you could make, given that the Battle of the Bogside was the first "real protest" that popped into your head (did none of the "three Ms" you refer to below manage to be involved with one?) ListenerX^TalkerX 06:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, I think Wikipedia is the closest thing to successful anarchy to yet exist and that the https connection was more private (but maybe not if the browser uses the same digital certificate all the time and one is trying to remain anonymous from WP).... eeaarrum enough about that, it is time for ACTION!!!! Your plan sounds kinda dangerous. We got to recruit some people, right? How 'bout I just work on fliers and you can hand them out? I know! I will secretly sneak the truthful propaganda into Wikipedia and RationalWiki! Then you can follow up with the emails saying !!!TAKE ACTION NOW!!! Let's see, I need to know which oppressed people should be our first priority. Palestinians? Iraqis? What do we want the US gov to do in Iraq? Leave? Or protect the oppressed people from other oppressors? This isn't going to be complicated is it? I need simple instructions !!NOW!! so I can take action !!!!NOW!!!! ~ Lumenos (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

So you link me the bypass the government firewall version of Wikipedia and then ask me for detailed plans. Do you think I was born yesterday, kiddo?UncleHo (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Gov firewall? You mean the Carnivore/Omnivore system or Room 641A? Secure Wikipedia actually transmits a lot of data through insecure channels according to me web browsers. It might keep one's logon password out of gov hands, but I don't know. A logon password might be used to conduct identity theft. Public correspondence would seem to be less vulnerable to identity theft.

Actually Sarge, I think you are a pretty cool guy who doesn't afraid of anything. The part of the plan I was hoping for was the part where you tell us who the good guys and bad guys are, and what exactly they should be doing differently. Not some historical example, but one that relates to something we could be doing today. Perhaps that becomes a important detail, after you have made an appeal to vigilante justice? For me it is not a big secret what I think should be changed although I am far from certain as to how the world should be run.

Just as an example, I'm skeptical that the fed is acting in national interest to protect the intellectual property of monopolies (Microsoft) or many oligopolies. But how exactly to create incentive for people to develop intellectual property, is a bit of a dilemma for me, thus I appreciate feedback from "the enemy" and others. WP is a place where I could collaborate with the "enemy" to try to solve this dilemma.

I tend to view the "enemy" as well-intentioned and I seek to reach a consensus with them on establishing what are the facts we should be acting on. For example, is it true that working for intelligence aggencies is a good way to get rich quick? You thought so but you were injured and it could have been worse. Perhaps it pays well because saner people don't want to do it. Is it true that most Americans or most wealthy American's benefit from harming innocents abroad? You seem to think so, whereas I do not see how anyone benefits except the one's profiting from the toys of war.

You seem to view everything as class warfare and that anything that is bad for the enemy is good for us and vice versa. If Chomsky makes money, he is robbing the poor. If Ghandi preaches non-violence. he is preventing revolution. You seem to have good intentions, but I've yet to see you present any realistic solutions to any questions that effect what we should be doing NOW. ~ Lumenos (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually have a very simple personal plan called "become filthy rich, do good". I do think that filthy rich is a much better position to run a revolution than dirt poor. (Hell, just look at drug lords and the amount of hit squads they can control in relative impunity) As much as I am an idealist and revolutionary and everything then, I think that realistically rationalists etc have no better course of action than hitting the dirt and working the system until they can control it. And when you have some control, not only you have individual freedom but you can also effect change. Of course that assumes that you can defeat said system which is largely designed in not allowing people to do that, but hey, that's just tactics. Sen (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Well Chomsky claims Bolivia is among the most democratic societies and it is "dirt poor". How did that happen? I don't see that very much money is necessary to "[work] the system until [we] can control it". Time spent acquiring excess riches is time not spent working the system.

Drug lords can employ hit squads, so long as someone puts the drug market in the hands of criminals. The more mainstream rackets/businesses "employ" hit squads also. Or is it that the hit squads extort the drug dealers and tax payers because there is no one left to protect you when they are such good "protectors"? Drug terrorism is the result of enabling criminals to control the drug market by attempting to make it illegal in a non-totalitarian society. Take control of the market by legalizing/regulating it, and potential "drug terrorists" won't build up wealth.

I don't deny that money is power, it is just that people can pay far more than necessary to hire others to do things they could do themselves. Many donated to Palin's campaign, who spent $150.000 on hair, makeup, and wardrobe for her family. I might suggest she could work on her debate skills by going someplace where everyone is not glowing with love for her exterior. Preaching to the choir, in a sense, but what do we need money for, beyond survival and things like Net access? If we have a really liberating idea, we will be able to persuade others and enact changes from the interpersonal to the global level. ~ Lumenos (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How much clearer do I have to make it? If you want "realistic solutions" go read the 3 M's. Malcom X, Mao and Minh. You'll get realistic solutions in a lot better terms than some vicodin addled lineman could put them. Also, kid, you really need to stop acting so suspicious. I know enough to suspect you're just a bit odd, but someone with less knowledge is going to think you're a fed.

Also, sen, people who try to work the system end up becoming part of the system. All your ideals will do is change the face of the oppressor.UncleHo (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if they think I "work for" the fed, they won't tell me some "secret" then blame me if it gets into the wrong hands. How do I know who is reading my email, listening in on my phone conversations, or perhaps there could be a "microphone" or camera that is difficult to detect? It seems possible to make spy tools in ways that they would be inside walls, wood, etc, or in an electronic device where only an expert would even know what they are looking at. I'm for mostly OPEN government. It shouldn't lend itself to secrecy, unless by elected officials who truly represent all the people who their policies effect.

If we aren't talking about secrets, someone might "think" you are working for the fed, by, you know, working as an electrician for the fed. I'm not trying to be all up in yo bisness (do you know more about me, than I do you?) Assuming you are just working for the fed, why wouldn't you move to a country where your tax and labor can benefit a state that you find more agreeable? They don't block RatWiki in China yet, do they? So you could still be me uncle Ho. I know we off the map now, but that's just how it appears from a "fregan" POV.

Thank you for attempting to summon the spirits of the Sinospherian cawmyanists. I'm a bit disappointed that all they had to tell us was, "Buy my books, not Chomksy's." ~ Lumenos (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Lumenos, I think you will find that the "Vicodin-addled lineman" professes something closer to the orthodox Maoist position and thinks that conditions in China got worse post-1976. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(I must first apologize. I had thought that I read somewhere that UH was working for the military as an "electrician" but I looked back and he didn't say where he worked and said that joining the Army was a mistake... maybe he pays income tax but anyway...)

Surely, living in China must be more respectable than riding this greasy gravy train. Maybe UncleHo is an "electrician" in Bolivia and I'm in for [a] good biatchslapp'n.

Ideology is well and fine, if it's tested. Thing with Chomsky is that he is still alive and so can keep us informed of on what they are up to today. Regardless of one's ideology one may disagree with the "oppressors" for any number of reasons and may rally support with truthful "propaganda". ~ Lumenos (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

He said his current work involves stringing cables for a new air force base, if I remember correctly. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Eeearumm... ahhah so I was right all along. (After sleeping I realized that linemen, meant power lineman, which I didn't want to say after looking it up because I didn't want to be a "suspicious spy". "Lineman" in fact is not some kewl machismo term like "pasty", possibly having something to do with Chomsky being a fake "front liner" or overweight stockiness resembling a football linemen. You guys should really try Lumenosity. The Man's piss is much like his farts, CARCINOGENIC!!! You could have all the delusions of grandeur and other such hallucinations with only sleep deprivation and lumenism.) ~ Lumenos (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, LX, I don't really consider myself a Maoist. I don't do hero worship, and I realize Maoism had serious faults. What they got right was organizing a revolution. Their plan is nearly foolproof. All you need is dirt poor workers and a well entrenched, paranoid ruling class. You have a small revolutionary vanguard who launches attacks against the state, which causes them to crack down. These crack downs revolutionize the proletariat and lead to an increase in new recruits for the revolutionary cause. The cycle continues until the people are so pissed off that critical mass is reached, and the authority of the state evaporates. You can see this plan being used to great effect in Nepal, most recently.UncleHo (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh. But THEN what? I want to work on developing the system we should set up AFTER that "happens". Wouldn't it be good to be prepared for winning? I would also like to explore the possibility that one could go to the place that is most like their ideal, and support it, and try to work through a democratic process there, rather than trying to "overthrow" a government (which I'm sure you will have no problem doing being that the US is so much like China and Vietnam). Perhaps this is why the gains made by these revolutions are slowly eroding away; no one really knew how to setup and run a sustainable alternative? ~ Lumenos (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

More like the revolutionaries were acting according to the ravings of Karl Marx rather than any reality-based measures, and they effected more losses than gains. Mao, for example, instituted equality for women but then, via massive economic blunders, saw to it that millions of them starved to death in the period that followed. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky claims Stalin brought a third world country up to a second world in (what was it?) one generation. ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

To which I can only reply that Prof. Chomsky should try to learn the meaning of those terms. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think 2nd world means communist, thus it is truthism (IIRC). Is your point that communist countries do not enjoy a higher standard of living than 3rd world? ~ Lumenos (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I meant that the terms Second World (communist) and Third World (non-aligned in the Cold War) did not apply during most of Stalin's reign. Under Soviet communism the health-care system worked, but nearly everything else was half-broken. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the source:

Well aside from the semantics, he said that in terms of "economic growth" Stalinism was reasonably sucessful. He is actually making an argument against judging capitalism by sucessful economic growth. He says the same thing about the American slave system, and that economic growth was what made Hitler probably the most popular leader in German history (in the beginning). Do you disaggree that Stalinism lead to economic growth or that it set a model for modernization in a single generation? ~ Lumenos (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Much of the Soviet economic gains was smoke and mirrors; Orwell sent this up in Animal Farm in the form of Squealer's lists of figures. In particular, the collectivization of farming turned breadbasket countries into barely subsistent ones (one of the causes of the many famines that hit the Soviet Union in Stalin's time). Individual Soviet citizens felt this particularly hard, as the early Five-Year Plans emphasized heavy industry over such effete bourgeois luxuries as food, clothes and shoes.

This is worth mentioning in the communist case in particular because it runs contrary to their stated goals, or at least contrary to the slogans they spieled to keep the proles pepped up with enthusiasm.

From what Prof. Chomsky was saying, I gather that he made that speech circa 1999, when the Russian economy hit a low point and when it was marginally possible to make it appear, to the uninformed observer, as though a command economy would out-perform a market economy. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

[Major Big Change, Ghandi]

No change is major if somebody doesn't get killed. --85.76.130.107 (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I always thought that Gandhi's thing worked because of the tiny, irrelevant, insignificant, detail that World War II was going on. It's kinda hard to co crack down on unarmed civilians in a fascistic nationalist colonial war, when you are getting bombed by Germans. Just saying. Sen (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was the large scale mutinies carried out by the Indian soldiers which even brought the British to the table in the first place. Not only did they lose His Royal Majesty's most fertile pillaging grounds, but they also showed the British that an armed response to a new uprising would not be successful. This left the British scrambling for new options, and Gandhi was the right stooge in the right place at the right time.UncleHo (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That was near the end of the resistance. How do you know that Ghandi and his followers did not influence the mutinies? Don't you think seeing a lot of Indians being beaten for peaceful civil disobedience helps to demonstrate that the British Empire was not concerned with the welfare of Indians and thus did not have the right to rule them? ~ Lumenos (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the murder of millions of Indians by the British demonstrated that far more than a few beatings. Also the mutineers were more Subhas Bose's thing, and he absolutely despised Gandhi.UncleHo (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps he choose that time and was able to be successful because Gandhi set the stage? ~ Lumenos (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky

I made new thread, as I prefer to do when we wander from the topic. Forum:Noam Chomsky: anointed one or miserly tool of The Man? ~ Lumenos (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This wiki is surely a strange place, at its best. Or weirdest. Kumquat west (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)