Gufberg (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

"Libertarians are the worst brand of rightist. Their idea of freedom is the market. A market for freedom means that only those who can afford it are truly free. Libertarians are the new ultra-right hidden in the alluring prose of democracy. But it is a democracy few can afford. It is the libertarian camp that wants all of our public assets destroyed, they are the radical privatizers who carry on the Neocon mantra while denying it. Those who believe govt doesnt work have no reason to be in it."

Gufberg (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

Haha, so Britain was bombed?.. Are you claiming Britain was more bombed than germany?. Germany had been much more bombed than any of Britain, West Germany had all of the western world to back it up economically. East germany only had the Soviet Union, and yet east germany managed to have a population richer than Britain.

return135 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

Instead of me lecturing you on the multiple reasons why it fails, just read work written by the famous austrian economist Ludwig von Mises. He should be able to convince you.

DrewAWeeks (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

I stated it clearly enough that even you could follow. Industry created the boom, and horrible things took place at the time to allow this. After that there wasn't anything communist theology gained in any sort of satisfactory way to support your claims of it being this success story against capitalist countries.Also you now compare Britain (which was absolutely decimated by WWII bombings by Nazis'and had massive war debt to be paid off). I'm a little bored by your cherry picking facts.

Gufberg (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

So first you critizise Stalin for being a mass murderer, and then you critizise Khruschev for not being as effective as Stalin.. Great.By the way i never said that you weren't allowed to know these things in the west, my point is they don't write it in the history books they give our children. But yet the fact remains, Soviet Economy was gaining on the american untill the 1970's. (in 1970 the average east german was actually richer than the average british, this is undenieable fact look itup

Gufberg (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

Trying to end a discussion like this proves nothing but your lack of real arguments. Show me these records. And the Soviet Union was trying to achieve communism, they didn't have it. It was a socialistic society, just like Cuba is at the moment. You know what reall fails? capitalists who've too blind to open their mind to other things, than what their society tells them. Don't you get why the communist movement is rising all over the world?. Because it is needed.

DrewAWeeks (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

I did read that in the history I studied in year 12 in my books (Australia). I think that is pretty poor if you weren't allowed to know these things. However, there was no special wealth created from this system during this time. It is only the wealth generated from slavery that came from Stalin and then the destalinisation period didn't have anywhere near the production of somewhere like American instrustrialisation.

Gufberg (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

Ouh, but heres what they don't tell in the history books our children are indoctrinated with: When Khruschev came to power, just after Stalin he began a 'de-stalinisation' of the country. He purged it of Stalin, and moved him away from the Lenin mousaleum. He released thousands og Kulaks, and let people write books critisizing communism. Here started work on the infrastructure, largely done by young idealistic communists, eager to help their country.(and this is the factual version actually)

DrewAWeeks (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

It's only hard to say because you won't believe the figures in the records because it faults your beliefs.Anyway you can't give an example of any system of communism more effective than this and it failed.

Gufberg (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

You've just made the most common mistake when trying to prove communism wrong. You've started talking about Stalin. I don't recall myself ever saying anything good about Stalin, so i don't really get why you talk about him.By the way the number of deaths caused by Stalin is something historians have a hard time agreeing on. It could be a few hundred thousand, it could even only be 70.000. But it could also be millions. Its hard to say.