by AFL
CATEGORIES

 Military  
 Current events  
 Religion 
 Technology 
 Countries 
 Politics 
 Society 
 Other 



Website intro. Please login or register (it's very fast and free).



#1 Re: Politics - Room 1 » Stalinism v Trotskyism » 2014-10-03 19:32:46

irishgenius
Replies: 18

@Archduke2 

When i mean more localized, that's for Higher Phase Communism, when Siberia has developed alot. And it will be handled by the local Regional Soviet via tax funds

#2 Re: Politics - Room 1 » Socialism vs Capitalism » 2014-10-03 19:25:56

irishgenius
Replies: 386

@Archduke 
                       
The Soviet Union between 1917-75 grew by 1300%, while the American economy of 300% and the British 75% of the same period. This was inspite of civil war, some famines, a World War and the parasitic Bureaucracy. It was estimated that if the Bureaucracy were gotten rid of, then the process would have speeded up by ten times!. So I think the cake can get way bigger with a true workers planned economy. I will write another post on the Bureaucracy, as it will a long one. The Germans paid for his transport to Russia, not while he was in Russia. And Lenin was a true revolutionary, but i will deal with that in the Bureaucracy post. and When I said "sell it to", I meant the oil crisis and soviet products

#3 Re: Politics - Room 1 » Socialism vs Capitalism » 2014-10-03 19:10:32

irishgenius
Replies: 386

@Archduke 
                       
I'm talking about before that, when the hunter gatherer society existed

#4 Re: Politics - Room 1 » Stalinism v Trotskyism » 2014-08-24 23:39:24

irishgenius
Replies: 18

@Archduke 
                       
more localized, more democratic. Welfare will be localized.

#5 Re: Politics - Room 1 » Socialism vs Capitalism » 2014-08-24 23:30:05

irishgenius
Replies: 386

@Archduke 
                       
Exactly. It had enough guys to sell it to. (And bourgeois Democracy isn't freedom)

#6 Re: Politics - Room 1 » Socialism vs Capitalism » 2014-08-24 23:24:23

irishgenius
Replies: 386

@Archduke 
                       
It's not Full communism, Hence the word Primative

#7 Re: Politics - Room 1 » Stalinism v Trotskyism » 2014-08-17 13:26:15

irishgenius
Replies: 18

@Archduke 

no. the ChicagoER guy.

#8 Re: Politics - Room 1 » Socialism vs Capitalism » 2014-08-17 13:25:08

irishgenius
Replies: 386

@Archduke 
                       
But the fall of the USSR was more down to the system of government itself, although events do play a major role. Yes I believe economic Factors were at play, but this did not signal the end of The USSR. It could have lasted without oil profits if need be, being a very inward economy. But there it is, Profits. The Bureaucracy wanted to make profits, they were turning capitalist. In today's Russia the Bureaucracy are now the oligarchs. They dissolved the USSR because they wanted more money. And this is the underlining cause of its fall.

#9 Re: Politics - Room 1 » Socialism vs Capitalism » 2014-08-17 13:07:21

irishgenius
Replies: 386

@Archduke 
                       
The class system was not inevitable. If you look at before the formation of States or their ilk, Society was what we call a primitive communist society. Classes didn't exist then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism
And what I meant by "It has happened in the past" is that people got used to the new system (Slave economy to feudalism, feudalism to capitalism etc.)

#10 Re: Politics - Room 1 » Stalinism v Trotskyism » 2014-08-15 21:21:12

irishgenius
Replies: 18

@Archduke 

We Should invite the Maoist. Should be fun.......

#11 Re: Politics - Room 1 » Socialism vs Capitalism » 2014-08-15 21:18:29

irishgenius
Replies: 386

@Archduke 

Russia fell for many reasons. It was systematic. All Stalinist countries will inevitably Return to capitalism. The Bureaucracy will want more and more of the wealth the working class produce. As I said, you see this happening in China. To answer your point on the Currency wars, that it was the nail in the coffin rather than the cause. For example, you could say that WW1 was caused by The assassination of Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand. But it wasn't. That may have been the lit match, but the floor was full of oil. Europe would have went to war for another issue, because of the imperialist ambitions of the two camps (they pre-existed the War). It was systemic of later stage capitalism, a war of resources, territories, Influence.

#12 Re: Politics - Room 1 » Socialism vs Capitalism » 2014-08-15 20:46:46

irishgenius
Replies: 386

@ChicagoER 

Maoism is Stalinism!. Maoism is just peasant led and "critical" of the bureaucracy. That's the only difference

#13 Re: Politics - Room 1 » Greatest Dictator » 2014-08-15 20:36:59

irishgenius
Replies: 25

@ChicagoER 

No Freedom of speech, expression, Religion. Is that true freedom?. And what of the millions of Chinese working class in poverty because of the rotten, proto-capitalist state?. And the build up of the Chinese military is to engage in imperialism, which will never benefit the working class.

#14 Re: Politics - Room 1 » Greatest Dictator » 2014-08-15 20:28:34

irishgenius
Replies: 25

@Archduke 
                       
Every major country in Europe went to War with France because of the threat it posed to the old order. He had no other choice but to preemptively invade.

#15 Re: Politics - Room 1 » Socialism vs Capitalism » 2014-08-15 20:24:34

irishgenius
Replies: 386

@Archduke 
                       
It only the minority of people who on top of the system, and capitalism is not human nature. Same was said about The Slave economy, about Feudalism. People are only think "selfish" because we live in a selfish system where you need to be selfish to get to the top. If we replace it with a better system (Socialism) and wait a generation or two, people will change. It has happened in the past.

#16 Re: Military - Room 1 » Greatest armies in history » 2014-08-14 21:34:47

irishgenius
Replies: 97

@irishgenius 

http://www.roman-empire.net/diverse/battles.html
forgot to post list

#17 Re: Military - Room 1 » Greatest armies in history » 2014-08-14 21:32:13

irishgenius
Replies: 97

@Archduke 

Obviously you use your strength's to you advantage. The Greeks used their strength's against the Scythians as any good commander would do. Obviously the Greek Companion Cavalry would have lost against the Scythian horse archer, but the cavalry is the only thing the Scythians have and when you examine armies, you need to examine all-round strength of the army rather than focus to much on one strength.

#18 Re: Military - Room 1 » Greatest armies in history » 2014-08-14 21:26:38

irishgenius
Replies: 97

@Archduke 

List of Roman battles. Look at battles at its height 27BC-250AD. Ignore civil wars (Romans had a lot of 'em)

#19 Re: Military - Room 1 » Greatest armies in history » 2014-08-14 21:22:23

irishgenius
Replies: 97

@Archduke 

Lets not jump ahead of time to 1500's. Lets examine the Roman Army shall we?. Roman Army: Latin citizens (legionaries) probably the most well trained and disciplined soldiers existing at the time. These soldiers were instilled with religious morale, Withe the Eagle Standards and fear through beatings, Decimation etc. Roman Legionaries have successfully beaten armies many times their size (Battle of Argentoratum (Strasbourg), in 357AD, and many more examples) because of their superior training. The Romans would also have Sarmatian cataphract Cavalry (assimilated into the Roman world and army when the entered the Empire looking for shelter), Scythian Horse archers (Same story as the Sarmatians), Germanic and Celtic (Picts, Irish) and Semi-Celtic (Britian, Guals [well known for superior horses]) warriors, Middle Eastern Troops, Mostly Armenian with one or two Persian troops, who have superior Archers, and North African troops (Sabaean) who have really good light infantry.and compare this massive swath of all round strength with the Chinese Han army. An army of semi-professional conscripts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_dynasty#Military

#20 Re: Politics - Room 1 » Greatest Dictator » 2014-08-14 20:49:43

irishgenius
Replies: 25

@ChicagoER 

OOOOOOOOOOOOO?. So Mao was a good man?. He Freed the people from capitalism and established a better society, right?. Wrong!. All He did was replace one Ruling class for another. He oppressed, rather than freed the Working class. His Industrialization plans were failures. It is true that the working class were better off under the Stalinist Dictatorship than under capitalism in terms of living standards, But that was only the tip of the iceberg of what they could have got, because there still existed a Ruling class, the Bureaucracy, that still took the majority of the wealth that the working class produced. And Lack of true freedom speaks for itself.

Board footer

Created by AFL, powered by FluxBB
© 2011 theworlddebating.com