Communism. Good or bad. What do you really know about Communism?

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Enrico32

Interesting, esp. given that Bonaparte actually tried to reclaim Haiti, and failed again only because of the English. And there were provisions that the French won't be suppressed in Louisiana.
I always wonder about this colonial thing in general.
How valuable the colonies actually were?
Did the crowns of UK, France, and esp. Spain actually become poorer when losing colonies? I read the seceding rebels were obliged to repay large loans to kings, but how this was enforced?

Western countries have never really lost their colonies.
They put corrupted puppets on the top of the government of the past colonies and still savagely exploit the natural resources at the expense of local people.

If USA had no real colonies on the paper, they have decided to exploit South and Central America. (Monroe's doctrine and Roosevelt's corollary)
Everytime that Latino American countries have decided to improve the social life in their countries in sharing their wealth and voting a left President, immediatly USA have fomented coups and helped extreme-right dictators to take the power.

Since a few time, now USA put more and more their feet on African continent to exploit Africa, because American people need a lot of resources.
That could become soon a problem for European countries and China.

[Mal Hombre]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Winston Churchill's quote on Stalin:



Churchill first praised Mussolini and then Stalin.
Sir Winston Churchill ... the English hero.

"If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."
Winston S. Churchill

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Winston Churchill's quote on Stalin:



Churchill first praised Mussolini and then Stalin.
Sir Winston Churchill ... the English hero.

Let's see September 1942
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_1942

The German's were engaged fighting the Russians, only a dickwad of the lowest intelligence would insult the leader of a large power who were fighting a common evil enemy.

Of course Uncle Joe continued his killings long after the war.

Here's Churchill in 1945
In April, 1945, as the victorious Western and Russian Forces were joining hands in victory, I wrote to Stalin: “Do not, I beg you, my friend Stalin, underrate the divergencies which are opening up. There is not much comfort in looking into a future where you and the countries you dominate, plus the Communist Parties in many other States, are all drawn up on one side, and those who rally to the English-speaking nations and their associates or Dominions are on the other. It is quite obvious that their quarrel would tear the world to pieces and that all of us leading men on either side who had anything to do with that, would be shamed before history. Even embarking on a long period of suspicions, of abuse and counterabuse, and of opposing policies, would be a disaster hampering the great developments of world prosperity for the masses which are attainable only by our trinity.”

Taking one speech in isolation at a time when the world was being torn asunder is a pretty pisspoor way of arguing history

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by Wendigo

Of course Uncle Joe continued his killings long after the war.

Off topic and irrelevant

Sorry Mate, came close to removing that post
We all know Stalin wasn't a real communist

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

We all know Stalin wasn't a real communist

Ah... You finally have learned the truth thanks to this topic.

Just look at this picture.

Stalin having fun with the Devil.

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Ah... You finally have learned the truth thanks to this topic.

Sarcasm is the highest form of humour

You know, it occurred to me you're not exactly anti capitalist, I think you're just anti United States and that then flows onto capitalism

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Ah... You finally have learned the truth thanks to this topic.

Just look at this picture.

Stalin having fun with the Devil.

За здоровье!

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

Sarcasm is the highest form of humour

You know, it occurred to me you're not exactly anti capitalist, I think you're just anti United States and that then flows onto capitalism

Just let me point you one among hundred of problems that there is with money.

Just look two human groups that initially get the same amount of money...
At the end of the game, one group will have all the money when the other will have nothing.

That's what happens today. Richs get richer, because they buy all the resources and poor are poorer, because they have to pay to use the resources owned by the richs.

That's not more complicated than that.

Did I blame Bill Gates to be that rich ? No. But there are massive problems with this system. Don't you agree?

That's what has pointed Marx.

Capitalism makes rich, richer and poor, poorer.
Not all the bourgeois are bad people.
Capitalism wastes natural resources.
Capitalism is not democratic (watch video of Chomsky)
Capitalism makes workers slaves of salary.

Joseph Schumpeter who was an heterodox economist, said that according to him, Marx was wrong on one point: Capitalism can change.
Schumpeter loved Capitalism (Marx admired it too on several points)
But at the end of his study, Schumpeter said: "Capitalism will collapse too, because of social problems."

On the other hand, for Schumpeter as for Marx, the success of capitalism inevitably leads to the concentration of capital, that is to say to the creation of large enterprises, managed by heads of companies, simple administrators and belonging to rentiers -capitalists, true business owners. For Schumpeter, this concentration leads to the advent of a general feeling of hostility against capitalism.

If a doctor expects his patient to die, that does not mean he wants it.

Joseph Schumpeter

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Some colonies were quite valuable. Spain extracted huge amounts of silver from the fallen Aztec Empire, then mostly pissed it away fighting wars in Europe. They lost their silver mines when Mexico became independent. Spain is much poorer today than it might otherwise be because of bad decisions made by its kings of old.

Valuable things like cotton and tobacco flowed to England from the States. In practice, even after we achieved independence, these goods were still flowing to England, it was just that the king could no longer impose unjust taxes on the former colonies for the privilege of doing business with the British Empire.

Couldn't the kings of old run on fiat money (without silver) like today?

And regarding the planters (incl. US). Where were they educated in the art of plantation? Biographies yield they all attended church, law, army schools - none the agrarian or economics. How could it be that properties were separate from their outright professions? Is this absentee system any good?

[haroldeye]

The king could no longer impose unjust taxes on the former colonies for the privilege of doing business with the British Empire.

I think you'll find that the unjust taxes were for defending the Colonies from the Indians (though no longer the French) and that the cause of the Boston Tea Party was a lowering of Tea Duty which mean't the New England smuggling community were losing money.