The greatest human tragedy of all time

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Im talking more along the lines of social truths. Expecting everyone to act rational and let go of the ignorance will never happen because one mans rationality IS another mans ignorance . You debated Mouz about female circumcision you believed your position to be true you posted links backing your truth. Then Mouz posted links proving you wrong if he had never shown up that would've been taken by everyone who views this thread as true and be seen as a cornerstone of the war against ignorance. Am I saying there are no wrongs in the world? No. What I am saying is that we have to respect what we believe is ignorant because many times they view us same way.

I think therefore I am.

---

Quote:

---

Im talking more along the lines of social truths.

---

To what are you referring? Religious, philosophical, or cultural differences? Socially-constructed truths?

These are opinions, albeit held by the masses. One's opinion can accept truth, but cannot dictate it. The same is true for the masses. While a million people can hold an opinion and vote that a minority does not deserve basic human rights, that does not make it so. That could make it societal law, but law and truth are not equal. That is why societal opinions change over time, old traditions die out, and laws get overturned.

Socially constructed truths are not truths at all, in my opinion. They are merely common assumptions.

Quote:

---

Expecting everyone to act rational and let go of the ignorance will never happen because one mans rationality IS another mans ignorance

---

You are correct that expecting everyone to behave rationally is too optimistic, however, a person's opinion does not dictate truth. If one persons' rationality is derived from scientific, observable, quantifiable, definable truth, and another person's rationality is derived from rumor or superstition or utter fabrication, one is more likely to be credible than the other.

I agree that one person may hold something to be rational truth and yet remain ignorant, but it is not so simple to just say that everyone has an opinion and none are more valid than the others.

Science is based on the idea that evidenciary support, observable, testable results, and predictability are good models for forming rational theories. It is better to construct one's argument based in logic and reason and observation than simply opine about a thing and declare one's opinion to be as valid as everyone else's.

Were that the case, there would be no such thing as laws, or science, or mathematics, or facts. Or knowledge in general, for that matter. Everything would be an opinion. There would be no societal progress whatsoever if everyone simply believed that everything is irrational opinion, and there are no greater truths.

Quote:

---

You debated Mouz about female circumcision you believed your position to be true you posted links backing your truth. Then Mouz posted links proving you wrong if he had never shown up that would've been taken by everyone who views this thread as true and be seen as a cornerstone of the war against ignorance.

---

And through the exchange of information, my own ignorance about the subject was reversed, and for the betterment of everyone involved in the conversation, the truth was revealed. Through the fires of debate and public exchange, bad ideas and falsehoods are destroyed and better ideas and more verifiable data is gained.

This is an example of the very thing I advocate. I don't see my ignorance about a bit of knowledge to be an irreparable failure or a weakness in my ideology, unless I stubbornly chose to remain ignorant and refused to concede. That would be hypocritical.

One of the reasons I don't just sit down and publish a book of my opinions is because my opinions are constantly changing and being updated to reflect the facts, as I combat my own ignorance. Posting here publicly gives me safeguards against my own weaknesses, because I am tapping into the knowledge of others.

The combined might of the knowledge of all of us, together, can defeat most forms of ignorance. Rather than disproving my point, this exchange further reinforces the assumption that what I am doing is rational and correct, and that the system is working. Eventually someone would have corrected that error, and that is why I subscribe to the theory that sitting down and shutting up never got anyone anywhere. Free exchange of ideas and knowledge helps reverse ignorance, while not entirely eliminating it.

If your point was, the advocate for the elimination of ignorance is both ignorant and fighting a hopeless battle, then you are correct.

However, I am acting to combat mine and others' ignorance, and that is not a hopeless battle. We're making progress right here, right now. And coming close to our ideal is the goal, even if the ideal is unattainable. Therefore the war may never be over, but it can be won.

Quote:

---

Am I saying there are no wrongs in the world? No. What I am saying is that we have to respect what we believe is ignorant because many times they view us same way.

---

I respect people, but I do not respect ideas. Ideas prove their worth by being tested against what is real, and against other ideas. The ones which fail get thrown away. But an idea is not worthy of respect unless it becomes proven fact.

For example, the idea that Jews are an inferior sub-human race might be an "idea", but that does not deem it worthy of respect in my view. I do not automatically give respect to ideas. Ignorance in and of itself is not worthy of respect. People, in spite of their ignorance, are worth far more than ideas, and should have their human rights and dignity respected.

I may choose to be polite to those who hold an ideology I staunchly oppose, but my ideas will be at odds with theirs and the ideas will "fight to the death" until the strongest one wins. At the same time, I will respect my opponent for the oppurtunity to grow and learn.

So, in summary, I disagree that we have to respect bad ideas. We just should respect one another.

Quote:

---

I think therefore I am

---

And as long as we all keep thinking, we all shall be. And we all shall be better, too.

.
This is becoming more and more Backroomish. :yes:
.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Masamune

An excellent reply, thank you. You "speak" forcefully. I cannot see you, cannot observe your body language as you speak, can't hear your tone or inflections, and have not "observed" you here over time. I find it inherently difficult to trust people who present themselves with such force and emphasis, who obviously have an agenda, under such circumstances. The smarter they seem, the more distrustful I tend to be--an unfortunate habit I've developed living in this time and space. I am not one to easily accept such presentations as fact, or even credible, until I alleviate that mistrust. Answering my questions as you did, and particularly, in the manner that you did, increases my ability to hear you and accept what you have to say, or at least seriously consider it. I need to assure myself of your sincerity, and the nature of your agenda. Kudos. :bow:

---

Not a problem, and thank you as well.

Skepticism is one of the most admirable qualities a person can have, in my view. I have little respect for someone who blindly agrees with everything I say, even if I think I am correct, for they have shown that they did not critically consider my assumptions.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

It was the manner in which you wrote, more that the statements themselves, that made you seem a bit self-righteous to me. You state emphatically that neither wisdom nor righteousness come from within. This is contrary to what some believe--some whom I have come to view as wise. It seems that you are saying these people are self-righteous and practicing a form of ignorance. My limited understanding of sufism and zen suggest that enlightenment is indeed to be discovered "within," not through cognitive observation and critical analysis of the outside world. In fact, cognition inhibits its attainment, hence why meditation and the "stilling" of one's mind is central to their disciplines.

A definition of "self-righteous" I found online: Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic.

Moralistic: Marked by a narrow-minded morality.

This is what I meant when I wrote you sounded a bit self-righteous. This is the first time I've heard it suggested that the self-righteous believe their righteousness "flows from within." It seemed as if you were discrediting the beliefs of those who believe as the sufis and zen practitioners do. You seemed emphatically sure of your own correctness. You are of the school that believes the answers lie without, which is fine--they may indeed. But when you emphatically state that those who believe the answers lie within are self-righteous and ignorant ....

---

I do not know much about zen, and I apologize if the reading of my post led you to believe I am emphatically sure that I am correct and zen is not.

I personally have found no use for zen, but if it creates harmony and wisdom for others, then it has value for them. I do not believe practical wisdom can be obtained by emptying the mind of thoughts and not considering their value. In order to invent, for example, one needs to think, and that requires the kind of critical thought and consideration that cannot be found in meditation or zen.

Perhaps meditation allows one to relax, and then when one returns to the practical side of their mind, they are refreshed. But wisdom and knowledge are not obtained by not thinking, in my opinion. I repeat, I am no expert on zen, and maybe there is more to it.

I have to go eat now, and unfortunately I cannot give your post the more thorough examination it deserves right this moment. But I will return to contribute more soon.

:medievalcheers:

@Mouza: I do believe it is getting off topic, and a thread dedicated to this discussion would be useful.

If you want I can split it up and send this discussion to the backroom?


CBR

For our little side discussion, Askthepizzaguy and I can continue via private message if he wishes. I will never set virtual foot in the Backroom again.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Masamune

I will never set virtual foot in the Backroom again.

---

I don't remember how many times I made and broke that promise. :laugh4: Not that you are me...
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mangudai

Family Values


Family values have incited far more violence than religion. Think of all the wars of succession, all the revenge killings, etc.

It is not sufficient to abolish that opiate of the masses called religion. To create a better society we must abolish the institution of family. Children should address all proletarians as brother and sister, and have greater loyalty to the state than to their own parents. This is inevitable, the march of history is on our side comrades.

:inquisitive:
(for the sarcastically impaired, this is a joke)

---

Awww :( I was bobbing my head excitedly :cry:

I feel that arguing in favor of a flaw which humanity inherently is(aka, self-righteousness) a rather impractical answer to this question. If we as humans have a virtue or vice which is near universally uncontrollable, than I cannot call it a "tragedy" so much as a fact. Tragedy revolves around the idea that there should be a far more honest, appealing opportunity cost. In the case of a natural human vice, we should instead proclaim the few who conquer it, rather than lamenting the 99% who fail at it.

So, for me, I would say it is, in fact, not an event so much as a person.

I would say it is Pope Leo I, otherwise known as Pope Leo the Great. He is famous for having "peaceably coerced" Attila the Hun from attacking Rome. I am not going to debate what actual means he used to do so.

However, in a time of political upheaval, he showed the strength and courage to "turn back" the scourge of God, and so, singlehandedly placing the Papacy in a position to fill the power void that was soon to overtake much of western Europe. This would eventually lead to the loss of innumerable people to the wars and "evangelization" that would take place in the name of God. Religion taking centerpiece in World politics was disastrous, not only causing the loss of life, but the loss of the way of Christ in so many more.

Religion intermingling with politics doesn't just affect policy; its power corrupts religion, twisting and distorting it for its own gains.

Organized religion.

.
Organized unreligion :end:
.

i think the african slave trade was the greatest tragedy...is it true that more people died on those slave ships from either starvation or disease (and also because some of the ships sank) than in the holocaust??? I remember hearing that somewhere...

Oh, and i looked at that link about the Female Genital Mutilation~:eek: and i noticed that the type 1 (clitorodotomy) doesnt seem that inhumane at all... in fact, it seemed to be the exact parallel to male circumcision, and seems that it would infact be quite hygenic...because it is not the same as the horrible inhumane REMOVAL of the clitoris which is otherwise frikkin sickening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

.
Organized unreligion :end:
.

---

Yes, damn that Atheist lobby!

The (perversion of the) state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

i think the african slave trade was the greatest tragedy...is it true that more people died on those slave ships from either starvation or disease (and also because some of the ships sank) than in the holocaust??? I remember hearing that somewhere...
.

---

Do you know how the Africans got there in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Do you know how the Africans got there in the first place?

---

Where? In Africa?

I think he means the ships.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

Oh, and i looked at that link about the Female Genital Mutilation~:eek: and i noticed that the type 1 (clitorodotomy) doesnt seem that inhumane at all... in fact, it seemed to be the exact parallel to male circumcision, and seems that it would infact be quite hygenic...because it is not the same as the horrible inhumane REMOVAL of the clitoris which is otherwise frikkin sickening.

---

In my opinion,

1. The practice is barbaric, done by religious elders, not doctors, does not involve pain medication, and is totally unnecessary.

2. Hygiene is possible without removing body parts.

3. The practice is done on underage, unconsenting children against their will, for the purpose of removing sexual desire.

4. It's a horrible, traumatic event that is worse than rape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

i think the african slave trade was the greatest tragedy...is it true that more people died on those slave ships from either starvation or disease (and also because some of the ships sank) than in the holocaust??? I remember hearing that somewhere...

---

I wouldn't doubt it. However, I wouldn't necessarily count it as the Greatest human tragedy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conqueror

I think he means the ships.

---

I think he means the ships, yes, but I miss his point... Does the fact that slaves were caught during internal african wars mean that's no more an human tragedy? Thinking that way, US civil war was not a tragedy either, since it was americans killing americans, no?

Well, probably SFTS's sunday Bourbon makes him feel like whipped when one talks about whites harming blacks. A thing that definitely never happened.

Back on the topic: slave trade's numbers are very hard to figure, since the slaves often originated from deep Africa. Coastal kingdoms, knowing they could make much profit from slaves, became specialised in raiding their more continental neighbours. So you have: people dead from the wars themselves, people dying during the trip to the seashore, those dying in the transit camps and those who died during the ocean's crossing. Only a small ratio survived long enough to be sold on the New World's markets. And that lasted four centuries.

Well if you think that what makes a tragedy tragic is the fact it was unecessary, then that makes the question a lot tougher (or easier?) to answer.

For example WWI was necessary. Not because we had to have mass murder through modern warfare, but because it would take humanity into a new age, the end colonialism and into the age of ideological extremism (making serious generalisations but you know what I mean). Which was in turn necessary to get where we are to day. Perhaps necessary is the wrong word, maybe inevitable, but even still would that not rule WWI out as a tragedy?

Same for WWII, it was inevitable fascism and Nazism would have their go at glory, to an extent also the USSR and its version of communism.

Maybe the only real tragedies are relatively minor things, on a global scale. Things like an old woman stepping in front of a bus, or maybe on a larger scale an epidemic such as the Black Death.

Or was the Black Death even inevitable? Trade routes between Europe and India through the middle-east were always going to mean exposure to new diseases and the more widespread coverage of those diseases across the planet.

Maybe even the death of 90% of the native Mexican population was inevitable. Mostly it was caused by disease, out of the Conquistadores control. Could it have been avioded (since Colombus didn't know it would happen at the time)? Is it then a tragedy?

:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristuskhan

I think he means the ships, yes, but I miss his point... Does the fact that slaves were caught during internal african wars mean that's no more an human tragedy? Thinking that way, US civil war was not a tragedy either, since it was americans killing americans, no?

Well, probably SFTS's sunday Bourbon makes him feel like whipped when one talks about whites harming blacks. A thing that definitely never happened.

Back on the topic: slave trade's numbers are very hard to figure, since the slaves often originated from deep Africa. Coastal kingdoms, knowing they could make much profit from slaves, became specialised in raiding their more continental neighbours. So you have: people dead from the wars themselves, people dying during the trip to the seashore, those dying in the transit camps and those who died during the ocean's crossing. Only a small ratio survived long enough to be sold on the New World's markets. And that lasted four centuries.

---

Every race at one point or another has had slaves or been enslaved.

Is it the greatest human tragedy? no far from it. The history of race and ethnic relations in America is much more deep and complex than many people make it out to be. Did blacks get the shaft? Hell yes nobody here is denying that but to sit here and say whites=evil is stupid because there really wasn't a white identity like there is today. One could make the case that an irish factory worker was on the same standing as a black slave except he had it worse because his religion was looked down upon to while religion was one thing blacks were allowed to have. The civil war in America only became about abolition when it became politically prudent to do so and if had been for Eli Whitney slavery would've ended 60 years earlier. The cotton gin saved an unprofitable business. Not to mention that .5% of the population owned more than 90% of slave. This idea that every man had slaves and ran them into the ground is not only laughable but I am stunned at the absolute ignorance that abounds here in a place where I thought people, before spouting off on a topic would do there research on a topic and put it within context of the time and its place in history. To much to ask I guess

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Did blacks get the shaft? Hell yes nobody here is denying that but to sit here and say whites=evil is stupid because there really wasn't a white identity like there is today.

---

Are you paranoïd or do you really want someone to say that white=evil? As far as I read this thread, none did yet. And has someone stated that every white american had slaves? I don't think so...

New european emigrants until US Independance often had to sell themselves as slaves, I read somewhere. Darn' whites, enslaving whites. Worse than blacks enslaving blacks. Because they were white, and white=evil, everyone knows that.

Edit: joking, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristuskhan

Are you paranoïd or do you really want someone to say that white=evil? As far as I read this thread, none did yet.

---

I meant in the connotation of the slave trade. Its funny you mention servants as they really are what sparked how the Americans felt about race. Early on there were many blacks indians and poor whites than rich whites so the rich had to find a way to get the other whites over to there side and propagating a racial higher-achy was one way to do it. Zinn gives a very good explanation of it.

The rise of the Communists and Nazis are the greatest tragedies of all.

As I always like to say: Life Sucks, Then You Die.

There has never been a Communist state. I'm just going to throw it out there...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

There has never been a Communist state. I'm just going to throw it out there...

---

Very true. Also I'm glad to see I'm not the only one in the world who's suspicious of family values. They just seem to become almost cultish with the rhetoric conservatives give on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

There has never been a Communist state. I'm just going to throw it out there...

---

and as long as we are around there wont be one:smash:

Communism, Capitalism, Imperialism, Liberalism and Neoliberalism are the greatest human tragedies.

Caius, I challenge you to a debate on those points.

The gauntlet has been thrown down. Accept my challenge!

(friendly and respectful, of course. For fun!) :bow:

Sure. How this will be?

I believe since it's not appropriate to host the debate here, I would ask that we take this to the appropriate subforum.

Is the frontroom okay for something like this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Is the frontroom okay for something like this?

---

Every single one of those is political, so probably not.

backroom then? How do I set up a debate in the backroom?

Dont I need permission just to get in>?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

backroom then? How do I set up a debate in the backroom?

Dont I need permission just to get in>?

---

Join the Backroom in groups in your UserCP. LEts start it here, then we ask the mods to move it to the apropiate Subfora.

Request sent. Shouldn't be too long before I can join.

One of the tests for knowing when a child has reached a mental age capable of moral thought is to ask them whether it's worse to break a large glass by accident or a small one on purpose. The idea being 'greatest' in this sense should not refer to the magnitude of the tragedy itself, but the intent of the guilty parties.

Therfore, I select the genocide in Rwanda. There have been worse tragedies before, and there will be much, much worse after. And there have been instances, such as the Shoah, where the people of the day knowingly allowed the horrors to progress. But at least with the Shoah, you could argue that the USA didn't exactly know what it could do to make the Nazis stop.

In Rwanda, we knew exactly what needed to be done, and could have done it at any time. The only reason the genoicde transpired was because black Africans weren't considered worthy enough to die for, so we let it unfold.

Of all the tragedies that has befallen man, this one I believe is the worst. Not greed, not fear. Apathy stayed our hands. :shame:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...27#post2027527

I have invited Caius to debate. Let's have some fun, my friend! :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

There has never been a Communist state. I'm just going to throw it out there...

---

That's because there can't be a communist state in the first place. The term is an oxymoron.

World War I. For a lot of reasons, including the birth of the Soviet Union, causing the rise of fascism and national socialism and more generally, WWII wich was in many ways a follow-up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

.

Indeed, the current regime of the "nation state" of Turkey is a direct continuation of the Ittihad-Terakki dictatorship and not of the empire, which had all but nominally gone down in 1908 when they had first taken over the rule.

Your point is moot. :bow:
.

---

Didn't know that. My knowledge of Turkish history is, I admit, pretty poor, and mostly comming from biased sources.

Quote:

---

Organized unreligion

---

Is there such a thing as organized unreligion ? If you're talking about communism or socialism, or any other late 19th c. political/ideological movement that tried to get rid of religion (such as the French separation between the State and the Church), they're either
- not organized unreligion (communism and socialism weren't specifically thought as tool to fight religion, even though they fought religion in order to achieve their aim)
- not necessarily 'bad' (I'm glad the French governement decided to put and end to reactionary biggots' influence and plots in 1905).

I perfectly see where you're coming from, since religion-bashing is quite a trend nowadays, but even then, I have a hard time seeing what is organized unreligion.

The election of George W. Bush:dizzy2::help:

I’m somewhat surprised that no one has mentioned this, “the Patriarchy society”.
I seriously believe things would be a lot less violent if every leader in the world was a woman. Now not every woman is a saint, but in general things wouldn’t result in conflict so easily I believe.

(I’m not a woman)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Europe

I’m somewhat surprised that no one has mentioned this, “the Patriarchy society”.
I seriously believe things would be a lot less violent if every leader in the world was a woman. Now not every woman is a saint, but in general things wouldn’t result in conflict so easily I believe.

---

If you're playing on stereotypes, then there would also be many more spies, assassinations, targeted strikes, and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Europe

I’m somewhat surprised that no one has mentioned this, “the Patriarchy society”.
I seriously believe things would be a lot less violent if every leader in the world was a woman. Now not every woman is a saint, but in general things wouldn’t result in conflict so easily I believe.

(I’m not a woman)

---

Women in general may be less agressive then men, but I doubt the same applies for government leaders. Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi....

I actually believe that gender is less relevant than the state of maturity, open-mindedness, wisdom, self-awareness, and experience of a person when choosing a leader.

Neither men nor women have an inherent advantage in such areas.

In light of Fenring and pizzaguys response, I guess I was wrong :shame:(should have thought about it more) . I was thinking more along the lines of Benazir Bhutto, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf and Aung San Su Kyi, basically women in the third world.


(Thatcher is a women?:laugh4:)

Well, as the intention of the OP appears IMO to have been asking for an event or series of events rather than a universal concept I will throw out a couple of ideas. Otherwise we could eventually come to the conclusion that the greatest tragedy is that dinosaurs became extinct or that we evolved with opposable thumbs, or even that we evolved at all.

So, my ideas:

1. Various events throughout the 5th century BC that led to the failure of Athens as a democratic state. I say this not because I believe democracy is an intrinsically better form of government, but because at that time there was a rennaissance in art, philosophy/science and literature that was not equalled in one place at one time for over a millenium.
2. Similarly I would include the first collapse of the Mayan civilization. Possibly brought about by environmental reasons? who knows. Again, that civilization had the potential to deliver a lot of benefit to the himan race through developing their scientific and spiritual knowledge, and might even have expanded to dominate the continent - and then who knows how history would have occurred?
3. Hannibal losing the second Punic war. Not because the Carthaginians were "better" people, but more because IMO the Roman Empire was eventually responsible for destroying more cultures and possibilties than any other.
4. The crusades, notably the council of clermont that iniated the whole thing. A climate of hatred between the two powerful religions has existed more or less ever since and several genuinely multicultural societies were irrevocably changed as a consequence.

I dont believe the two "world wars" qualify as despite the massive loss of life, as a percentage of the population there have been far greater "tragedies" for example caused by european colonization or the Black Death. Moreover the WW have demonstrated the dangers of ideological extremism, something that the world appears to have learnt from. Whatever its faults, few would deny, I think, that the idea of the UN (a child of WWII) is a noble one.

Future tragedies, well the most obvious one would be that despite all the warnings and vast knowledge we have accumulated that we as a race continue to mistreat our planet, and failing to learn the lessons of the early Mayan civilization, we are doomed to repeat their tragedy and destroy ourselves.

I would say that if you want an event then it would have to be WW2, the holocaust and associated tragedies.

If you want a concept I would have to say intolerance.

What causes war? Intolerance. Racism? Intolerance. Terrorism? Intolerance. Religious genocide and warfare? Intolerance.

If human beings could just learn to put up with each other and damn well work together then a hell of a lot of problems would disappear. And then we could band together and solve the rest of them (like disease, famine, poverty and global climate change)

The stupidity of the Human race, and the lack of back bone in policticans to do the right thing, instead of the vote grabing good thing.

For this will be the death of us all.

Sincerely

fenir

When people decided they wanted to explain their existence.... and invented religion :pirate2:

Well, there have been many great tragedies throughout the ages. The early pre-science religion was a tragedy, but only understandable, as man has always wished to understand the world he lives in, and this is good. What is a tragedy is that even after man reached a stage where he could understand the world he lives in without illogical superstition and myths he has hang on to these.

The Romans conquest of Greece following 146 BC can also possibly be viewed as one of the greatest disasters in mankinds history. Many well respected historians and scientists seriously believe that the Greeks were one the verge of achieving a industrial revolution of sorts, and indeed in most regards they were technically as advanced as Europe was in the 15-17 century.
Had Greece remained free for another hundred years or more, then perhaps that great revolution that has so immensely improved the well being of every sort of man and woman could have been achieved 1500 years earlier.
Truly this must be viewed as a great tragedy.

The rise of Hitler was also an immense tragedy, not only because of the obvious, the millions that died and millions more that suffered as a direct result of his actions, but because of many more complex reasons. Hitlers rise pretty much forced the western world to accept Stalin as the ruler of Russia in order to defeat Hitler, and cemented beyond any doubt Stalins control over the Russian people, allowing not only Gulag but setting the stage for 40 more years of unnecessary oppression of all the people of the USSR and many other nations around the world, and directly stoping democracy from spreading to many corners of the globe.

World War II and all its aftermaths. The Holocaust killed 6 million Jews. All of Europe and Asia lied in ruins. The aftermaths act like a chain reaction and are even worse. We invented the nuclear bomb, which actually saved lives in WWII since it spared an American attack on Japan, which would've killed more Japs and Americans, but after the war, ignited the Cold War with Russia. And the cold war brought about the development WMDs at an alarming rate. With it, came the ICBM missiles, which means nowhere on the planet is safe from nukes. And if you think the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts were devastating, thanks to the COld war, U.S. and Russia invented nukes gazillions of times more powerful than Hiroshima. And with the nuke development, it is inevitable that smaller nations would acquire and might use them at will, such as close calls between India and Pakistan. US and russia are internation law abiding nations, so they never use the nukes. But after the collapse of the USSR, russia is in chaos which means terrorists and rogue nations can more easily access those russian nukes and rogue people lie kim jong il and bin laden can use them at will, if they ever get a hand on them.

Also is the development of biowepons. Terrorists can now might accesss them and destroy the world
Armageddon is coming. Humanity can escape one close call of doom (Cuban Missile Crisis) but it will not escape all of them.

When I started reading this topic, I knew someone who eventually call upon communism.

I'd just like to point out that, communism as the idea leads to equality of all and thus how can it be a tragedy, what people think of is where you have dictatorships under the name of communism such as Stalin who despite economically being left wing, he was so far right, he was worse than Hitler with his Gulags... the soviet union was socialist anyway at that stage. Other examples... china and korea where they are one party states... if they weren't one party states, they wouldn't be totalitarian/dicatatorships as let's face, when did Hilter have an election after he got rid of the weimar republic? The idea of communism is perfect, when taken into practice, one mistake and it goes off the road...

But I deem the greatest tragedy, America and the American revolution.

Would we be in a war right now if the americans weren't so arrogant? for "the defender of capitalism and freedom" they seem to have so many bugs... Kennedy was working towards detente with the soviet union (which did last for a while) and he was shot... by an american none the less (not to slip off into conspiracies). Then we have the gulf war in the early 1990s which if finished and done with then, would not have led to the current iraq war. They led the way for the invention of the atomic bomb killing scores in hiroshima and nagasaki which were really pointless seeing as how japan had practically lost the war but used more to "scare" the soviets. Their arrogance led the way for the KKK with WASPs and immigration, and to touch on a conspiracy here,. 1973, a report was published saying that if africa become industralised, it would be competition against america. the year later, AIDS was discovered...

for a supposedly free country, they have a lot of secrets...:2cents:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The New Che Guevara

I'd just like to point out that, communism as the idea leads to equality of all and thus how can it be a tragedy, what people think of is where you have dictatorships under the name of communism such as Stalin who despite economically being left wing, he was so far right, he was worse than Hitler with his Gulags

---

In this respect, you are mistaken. Stalin was on the far left just as Hitler was on the far right. Just because someone is authoritarian does not mean they are on the far right. I would go further, but doubtless someone else will take up the point. Meanwhile, have some literature about your namesake.

Oh boy….

Quote:

---

When I started reading this topic, I knew someone who eventually call upon communism.

I'd just like to point out that, communism as the idea leads to equality of all and thus how can it be a tragedy, what people think of is where you have dictatorships under the name of communism such as Stalin who despite economically being left wing, he was so far right, he was worse than Hitler with his Gulags... the soviet union was socialist anyway at that stage. Other examples... china and korea where they are one party states... if they weren't one party states, they wouldn't be totalitarian/dicatatorships as let's face, when did Hilter have an election after he got rid of the weimar republic? The idea of communism is perfect, when taken into practice, one mistake and it goes off the road...

---

Every time communism has been attempted – and it’s been attempted in many, many countries, both in the Soviet style and others – you end up with an economically stagnant nation ruled by a corrupt military dictatorship. At best, said dictatorship is fairly benevolent and only tortures and kills political opponents (Cuba); at worst, they torture and kill a fair chunk of the entire population (USSR). And we can’t forget the incredibly incompetent communist-inspired “land reforms” that killed millions by themselves (China). Sorry bud, but that is communism. Every ideology has a pie-in-the-sky ideal of itself, but practically applied, communism is disastrous. Even taking away the millions who died at the direct hands of communist governments, you’re still left with an internal management system that nukes GDP and leaves millions dead from gross neglect... err collectivization.

Quote:

---

But I deem the greatest tragedy, America and the American revolution.

Would we be in a war right now if the americans weren't so arrogant? for "the defender of capitalism and freedom" they seem to have so many bugs... Kennedy was working towards detente with the soviet union (which did last for a while) and he was shot... by an american none the less (not to slip off into conspiracies). Then we have the gulf war in the early 1990s which if finished and done with then, would not have led to the current iraq war. They led the way for the invention of the atomic bomb killing scores in hiroshima and nagasaki which were really pointless seeing as how japan had practically lost the war but used more to "scare" the soviets. Their arrogance led the way for the KKK with WASPs and immigration, and to touch on a conspiracy here,. 1973, a report was published saying that if africa become industralised, it would be competition against america. the year later, AIDS was discovered...

for a supposedly free country, they have a lot of secrets...

---

Wow.

I think it’s generally accepted that America is certainly not a perfect country. As with any nation that ascends to such a level of power, it has abused it and in many cases acted in it’s own best interests at the expense of others.

But the greatest human tragedy of all time? Really?

And your rationale for your conclusion is a mish mash between general arrogance, Kennedy being shot, the Gulf War, nuclear weapons, and the KKK? Oh, and what I can only assume is a vague accusation of creating and distributing the AIDS virus to keep Africa from competing economically?

Does America act in its own best interest? Yep, every nation does. Has it screwed around in the affairs of tin-pot dictatorships around the world, at best to keep itself and the free world safe from dangerous ideologies and the ideologues that follow them, or at worst just to make some easy money? Definitely.

But if your nation is free, representative, and peaceful – you’ve never had anything to fear from the US. In fact, you’ve got yourself a powerful ally. That’s a lot more than can be said of other nations that have attained similar power, especially communist ones.

There are far, far, worse things that have happened to world than the United States. In fact, one could make a much stronger argument that the existence of the nation has had a net benefit to humanity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The New Che Guevara

But I deem the greatest tragedy, America and the American revolution.

Would we be in a war right now if the americans weren't so arrogant? for "the defender of capitalism and freedom" they seem to have so many bugs... Kennedy was working towards detente with the soviet union (which did last for a while) and he was shot... by an american none the less (not to slip off into conspiracies). Then we have the gulf war in the early 1990s which if finished and done with then, would not have led to the current iraq war. They led the way for the invention of the atomic bomb killing scores in hiroshima and nagasaki which were really pointless seeing as how japan had practically lost the war but used more to "scare" the soviets. Their arrogance led the way for the KKK with WASPs and immigration, and to touch on a conspiracy here,. 1973, a report was published saying that if africa become industralised, it would be competition against america. the year later, AIDS was discovered...

for a supposedly free country, they have a lot of secrets...:2cents:

---

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Don't hate what you ain't

I could go on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Oh boy….
Every time communism has been attempted – and it’s been attempted in many, many countries, both in the Soviet style and others – you end up with an economically stagnant nation ruled by a corrupt military dictatorship. At best, said dictatorship is fairly benevolent and only tortures and kills political opponents (Cuba); at worst, they torture and kill a fair chunk of the entire population (USSR). And we can’t forget the incredibly incompetent communist-inspired “land reforms” that killed millions by themselves (China). Sorry bud, but that is communism. Every ideology has a pie-in-the-sky ideal of itself, but practically applied, communism is disastrous. Even taking away the millions who died at the direct hands of communist governments, you’re still left with an internal management system that nukes GDP and leaves millions dead from gross neglect... err collectivization.

---

Just where do you get information like this?

Yugoslavia, for example, during communism enjoyed unprecedented GDP growth for several decades. It was among the poorest countries before communism and in the top half during communism. Even USSR had a decent GDP growth from '45 onwards.

It doesn't look too great when you compare it with the West, but that wouldn't be really fair, now would it? Compare it with what they used to be. Compare communist regime with non-communist regime from the same country. How many km of roads and railroads were built? Ports, airports, hospitals, schools, universities... Compare literacy rates before and after, infant mortality rates, average life length, percentage of people with university degrees, number of people working in agriculture... Actually, choose a criteria and compare, before and after...

In most countries, communism actually brought an increase in human rights and civil liberties. Do you think that civil liberties were abundant in China before communism? Or in Russia or Yugoslavia, not to mention really backwater places like Turkmenistan or Kazakhstan? In those places, communism was a blessing, for the first time people had the chance to go to school and to see an actual doctor when they're ill. Women enjoyed some rights for the first time in history, they were encouraged to get jobs, to go to school, get an education... Villages and small towns got electricity for the first time, plumbing, radio whatever. H

Communism created middle class in many of those countries, the same middle class that is basis of democracy, that later asked "what about our rights". It simply didn't exist before communism in many instances.


I'm not a communist, never have been. I was born in communism but grew up in a different system. On the other hand, I can not ignore many good things it brought. Of course, no one can turn a blind eye to the many atrocities committed by various communist dictators, but to try to sum up communism as only that show either a great lack of knowledge or an irrational hate...

Apparently, The New Che Guevara wants to live in a world full of lies and collective poverty, privated from freedom. That is communism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The New Che Guevara

But I deem the greatest tragedy, America and the American revolution.

Would we be in a war right now if the americans weren't so arrogant? for "the defender of capitalism and freedom" they seem to have so many bugs... Kennedy was working towards detente with the soviet union (which did last for a while) and he was shot... by an american none the less (not to slip off into conspiracies). Then we have the gulf war in the early 1990s which if finished and done with then, would not have led to the current iraq war. They led the way for the invention of the atomic bomb killing scores in hiroshima and nagasaki which were really pointless seeing as how japan had practically lost the war but used more to "scare" the soviets. Their arrogance led the way for the KKK with WASPs and immigration, and to touch on a conspiracy here,. 1973, a report was published saying that if africa become industralised, it would be competition against america. the year later, AIDS was discovered...

for a supposedly free country, they have a lot of secrets...:2cents:

---

I would advise you to re-evaluate your current position.

1) Bear in mind that what America broke away from was a monarchist empire. A government which only has to respond to a fraction of the people under its rule. Though America took far too long to get to universal suffrage, the path was laid in the creation of the Republic. Would the world have been better off with the British Empire ruling all?

2) America perceived communism to be a threat to its own interests. People tend to perceive an ideology as a threat when that ideology proclaims a great desire to overthrow them. Revolutionary Communism seems to be an inherently combative ideology. The odd thing about picking fights is that they tend to result in, well, fights.

3) Regarding Kennedy. One must realize that it was, in fact, Kennedy who first began United States operations in Vietnam. Further, the Cuban missile conflict was essentially a staring contest, except that if the wrong person blinked at the wrong time, the world would end. Fortunately, rational thought prevailed.

4) Regarding atomic weapons. I agree that dropping the second atomic weapon was likely completely unnecessary. However, I wish to point out a fact of history for you. Starting with the colonization of the New World, Europeans continued to claim more and more of the world. When Europe started to divide further as differences in religious affiliation, then nationalism, then economic and social philosophy began to make themselves pronounced. The 30 Years War. 7 Years War. The War of Spanish Succession. The Napoleonic Wars. The Franco-Prussian War. WWI. WWII. My point? Over the span of 300 years, Europe massacred itself over and over in senseless wars. How many do you think died in these wars?

The fact remains that since the atomic weapon was introduced, there has not been direct conflict between major powers, be they Europe, Russia, or the United States. True, proxy war has instead taken its place, and undoubtedly there has been suffering caused by it. But I believe that the atomic weapon has, as a whole, reduced human suffering by awakening the World to the realities of the course of history if things didn't change.

And since, of course, the topic is the "greatest" human tragedy- is a single, excessive atomic detonation "worse" than the holocaust? Worst than the Hutu-Tutsi genocide? Worse than the Gulags? Worse than the torture and cruelty inflicted by the Imperial Japanese? I urge you to think clearly and without prejudice on the matter? I believe you are allowing your apparent anti-capitalist ideology to predispose yourself to assign blame to America, rather than seeking the truth behind matters.

5) Regarding AIDS... If indeed such a report existed(I have honestly never heard of it), the simple fact of the matter is that creating a biological weapon out of this air, on demand, takes much longer than a year. Additionally, it is not as though it can be proven that AIDS existed prior to 1973. Identifying a virus who's only impact is rotting the immune system would have been nearly impossible. Remember, AIDS does not kill people directly. Doctors who would have been treating AIDS victims would have thought it simply a bad case of influenza or yellow fever or other such disease. Lastly, of course, correlation does not equal causation. Again, your anti-capitalist ideology seems to be predisposing you to blaming America instead of looking directly at prove-able facts.

6) Regarding the KKK and WASPS. Yes, unfortunately America's past is laced with racism. America has faults. Unfortunately, the early American economy relied upon labor-intensive operations such as cotton farming. The economic reality of this made slavery a very real and economic method of harvesting cotton, rice, and other goods. Of course, humanity is quite faulty and unfortunately this devolved into institutionalized racism, surviving far longer than it should have. Race relations are, in my view, America's greatest historical shame, whether it was the slaughter and subjugation of Native Americans, slavery and Jim Crow laws, or the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. Unfortunately, however, this sort of ethnic subjugation seems to happen all too common in diverse, non homogenous societies. Not that I attempt to justify it- I only say that they are all equally abominable.

I would like to point out that Stalin is no more representative of Communism than Hitler is of capitalism, and also consider the sheer number of capitalist society's over the years and thier time in exsistence and then look at how long it took before a decent system of governance came into being along side it, infact if we were to ignore the greeks, you could go back a few hundred years and claim that capitalism always leads to authoritarianism and you would have countless examples to fall back on, far more than with communism, so maybe this teaches us that things aren't set in stone, capitalism went hand in hand with authoritarianism for countless years and managed to come out attached to democracys in the end, so that must mean the examples with ¨communist¨ states are meaningless as capitalism managed to become democratic.

Also as sam points out it wasn't exactly tried in what were developed states to begin with...

Quote:

---

used more to "scare" the soviets.

---

Does "Joe 1" mean something to you? If you don't, Joe 1 was the first atomic bomb created by USSR cientists, err, I forgot that Commies spies stole that information from the US... Also, why on Earth would you like to put a lot of missiles in Cuba, aiming at the US? Is not that phsychological war, scaring US inhabitants? Or course if that happened in the USSR the inhabitants would know nothing, the Party would cover it all.

Quote:

---

But I deem the greatest tragedy, America

---

Nazism and Facism were tragedies. America can be a war machine, but what if the USSR was that war machine? What if you fought a war in a country, win and leave the country?

I can't think a nation without thinkers. Making people stupid makes a stupid country. That also happened in the USSR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Just where do you get information like this?

---

Books.

Quote:

---

It doesn't look too great when you compare it with the West, but that wouldn't be really fair, now would it?

---

Yes, it would. Why wouldn't it? Capitalism and its functions - including regulations - were well known long before communism ever came into being. Therefore, it is not as if communist nations had no other choice.

The cold war provided us with some very clear examples of the stark contrasts. East and West Germany. North and South Korea. Japan and China. Russia and the US. Even if we handicap Russia & China for their war damages, their collective GDPs never reached more than a fraction of America’s… until Russia fell and China moved towards the market.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...52-2005gdp.gif

Now it is wonderful that communism... err Russia & China... managed to turn some crapholes into slightly less crappy... holes, but when the money ran out they obviously could not stand on their own. If you're trying to argue that it is anything more than a failed economic system, my friends history and economy theory need to have a word with you. :yes:

Quote:

---

Compare it with what they used to be. Compare communist regime with non-communist regime from the same country. How many km of roads and railroads were built? Ports, airports, hospitals, schools, universities... Compare literacy rates before and after, infant mortality rates, average life length, percentage of people with university degrees, number of people working in agriculture... Actually, choose a criteria and compare, before and after...

In most countries, communism actually brought an increase in human rights and civil liberties. Do you think that civil liberties were abundant in China before communism? Or in Russia or Yugoslavia, not to mention really backwater places like Turkmenistan or Kazakhstan? In those places, communism was a blessing, for the first time people had the chance to go to school and to see an actual doctor when they're ill. Women enjoyed some rights for the first time in history, they were encouraged to get jobs, to go to school, get an education... Villages and small towns got electricity for the first time, plumbing, radio whatever. H

Communism created middle class in many of those countries, the same middle class that is basis of democracy, that later asked "what about our rights". It simply didn't exist before communism in many instances.

---

That would be great if it all wasn't so hollow.

Human rights? Civil liberties? Only to a point... and that point was, of course, whatever the government felt it was on any given day.

Infrastructure? Hostpitals? Literacy rates? All wonderful, and all dependent on being propped up by two failing states. When Russia collapsed, what happened to all that great stuff? I believe all 15 Soviet Republics unburdened themselves of communism ASAP.

Quote:

---

I'm not a communist, never have been. I was born in communism but grew up in a different system. On the other hand, I can not ignore many good things it brought. Of course, no one can turn a blind eye to the many atrocities committed by various communist dictators, but to try to sum up communism as only that show either a great lack of knowledge or an irrational hate...

---

It’s basically like this.

You've got a poor guy with a mule. Capitalism offers him a brand new - and sizzling btw - Audi R8. Communism offers him an 80's era Kia Krap. Add to that that the Kia's engine doesn't function correctly and will eventually fall apart. Oh, and in addition, if our poor guy brings his Kia to the dealership to complain about it, the salesman will drag him out back and shoot him in the head.

Infrastructure? Hostpitals? Literacy rates? All wonderful, and all dependent on being propped up by two failing states. When Russia collapsed, what happened to all that great stuff?

Well Literacy rates in Cuba continue thier high standards to this day, also considering thier financial situation they have a pretty good medical system, to the point where a capitalist south american country used thier experienced medical staff to benefit its own country. All this is paticular impressive when you consider that thanks to american policy they are all but cut off from trade..

East and West Germany.

I wonder how foriegn investment vary's here... did russia have its own marshall plan for eastern europe ?

Russia and the US.

Well that seems like a fair comparison, don't forget that industry across europe was destroyed on a massive scale whereas american industry was relatively unaffected, this is one of the reasons it did so well after 1945, another reason is american industry was much quicker to convert back to producing consumer goods whereas capitalist and communist european countries were much slower to convert thier industry back... im not sure why....

If you're trying to argue that it is anything more than a failed economic system, my friends history and economy theory need to have a word with you.

History shows capitalism failing many times until more modern times... thankfully there weren't people around then who said look at all these examples from the past the system obviously doesn't work... whereas infact what the system needed was perfecting over the years...

You've got a poor guy with a mule. Capitalism offers him a brand new - and sizzling btw - Audi R8. Communism offers him an 80's era Kia Krap. Add to that that the Kia's engine doesn't function correctly and will eventually fall apart.

What you have there cannot be described as a poor guy... hell im a poor guy wheres capitalism with my sizzling audi r8!

No offense PJ, but your irrational hatred of communism doesn't really help you there.

Had the US been as plundered as USSR during WW2, I doubt capitalist states would have enjoyed such a growth between 1945 and the 70's. No Marshall plan, no investement from the US in Europe and Japan.


Add to that the fact that capitalism as an economic system failed quite a lot of times. It failed in the 30's, which is one of the main reason behind WW2, the rise of fascism and the spread of communism, and it's probably about to fail right now. It also failed numerous times in the 19th century, even though the outcomes were not nearly as bad because the world economy wasn't as global as it is now.
The very thing you forget is that socialism and communism were thought as an answer to capitalism's failures. Were they correct answers ? The history clearly shown that no, communism is not a possible alternative to capitalism. Does that make capitalism perfect, or great ? In no way it does. It is just the only somewhat effective system we have right now, but it's a bad one, by all standards.

Yet, saying that

Quote:

---

Capitalism offers him a brand new - and sizzling btw - Audi R8

---

is a complete fallacy. Capitalism has created a huge amount of poverty in the world, sometimes worse than what happened in communist countries. Not only in the so-called third-world, but also in the western world, where relative poverty is becoming more and more of a problem.
I'm pretty sure I'd be better off living in Cuba than in failed African state in which every power is in the hands of a few western companies pillaging the country with the agreement of a corrupted ruling class.

As for the former SSR accepting capitalism as soon as they had a chance : yeah, so what ? Apart from a few of them (the 3 Baltic states, thanks to US and EU help, and Kazakhstan, thanks to its oil), they're all failed states, with little civil liberties and human rights. The former center of USSR, Russia, is not really what I'd call a heaven on earth, and despite all the crap we're repeatedly being told by liberal economists, I can't see China becoming a democracy anytime soon because they embraced capitalism.

That's why many people in these countries, Russia included, claim that they had better lives under communism.

man that was fast...:help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Infrastructure? Hostpitals? Literacy rates? All wonderful, and all dependent on being propped up by two failing states. When Russia collapsed, what happened to all that great stuff?

Well Literacy rates in Cuba continue thier high standards to this day, also considering thier financial situation they have a pretty good medical system, to the point where a capitalist south american country used thier experienced medical staff to benefit its own country. All this is paticular impressive when you consider that thanks to american policy they are all but cut off from trade..

---

Ah Cuba! The great example of a communist state that hasn’t been run into the ground! Well, not really. Cuba is more like China than most communist apologists would like to admit.

Just like all the other communist nations in the Russian sphere, Cuba's economy collapsed after the USSR failed. So what did old Fidel do to prop up his communist social system at home? He went out into the world and played in the market. (Remember, Cuba is only barred from trading with the US) When that didn't quite work, he - too - had to break down and implement capitalist elements into the economy.

Via Wiki:

Quote:

---

The Cuban economy is still recovering from a decline in gross domestic product of at least 35 percent between 1989 and 1993 due to the loss of 80 percent of its trading partners and Soviet subsidies. This era was referred to as the "Special Period in Peacetime" later shortened to "Special Period". The government has undertaken several reforms in recent years to stem excess liquidity, increase labour incentives, and alleviate serious shortages of food, consumer goods, and services. To alleviate the economic crisis, the government introduced a few market-oriented reforms including opening to tourism, allowing foreign investment, legalizing the U.S. dollar (although later partially reverted so that the US dollar is no longer accepted in businesses, it remains legal for Cubans to hold the currency), and authorizing self-employment for some 150 occupations. These measures resulted in modest economic growth. The liberalized agricultural markets introduced in October 1994, at which state and private farmers sell above-quota production at free market prices, have broadened legal consumption alternatives and reduced black market prices.

Government efforts to lower subsidies to unprofitable enterprises and to shrink the money supply caused the semi-official exchange rate for the Cuban peso to move from a peak of 120 to the dollar in the summer of 1994 to 21 to the dollar by yearend 1999. Living conditions in 1999 remained well below the 1989 level. New taxes introduced in 1996 have helped drive down the number of self-employed workers from 208,000 in January 1996.

Havana announced in 1995 that GDP declined by 35% during 1989-93, the result of lost Soviet aid and domestic inefficiencies. The drop in GDP apparently halted in 1994, when Cuba reported 0.7% growth, followed by increases of 2.5% in 1995 and 7.8% in 1996. Growth slowed again in 1997 and 1998 to 2.5% and 1.2% respectively. One of the key reasons given was the failure to notice that sugar production had become dramatically uneconomic. Reflecting on the Special period Cuban president Fidel Castro later admitted that many mistakes had been made, “The country had many economists and it is not my intention to criticize them, but I would like to ask why we hadn’t discovered earlier that maintaining our levels of sugar production would be impossible. The Soviet Union had collapsed, oil was costing $40 a barrel, sugar prices were at basement levels, so why did we not rationalize the industry.’’[4]’’

Due to the continued growth of tourism, growth began in 1999 with a 6.2% increase in GDP[citation needed]. Growth in recent years has picked up significantly, with a growth in GDP of 11.8% in 2005 according to official Cuban information[citation needed]. In 2007 the Cuban economy grew by 7.5 %, below the expected 10 %, but higher than the Latin American average rate of growth. Accordingly, the cumulative growth in GDP since 2004 stood at 42.5 %

---

Quote:

---

East and West Germany.

I wonder how foriegn investment vary's here... did russia have its own marshall plan for eastern europe ?

---

Russia invested huge amounts of money and resources in its satellites. Well, investing is a poor description. More like sending lump sums of cash and supplies just to keep the communist governments propped up on life support. More importantly, Russia was forced to keep "investing" in its satellites just to keep them functioning, whereas America's allies developed fully functioning economies.

Quote:

---

Russia and the US.

Well that seems like a fair comparison, don't forget that industry across europe was destroyed on a massive scale whereas american industry was relatively unaffected, this is one of the reasons it did so well after 1945, another reason is american industry was much quicker to convert back to producing consumer goods whereas capitalist and communist european countries were much slower to convert thier industry back... im not sure why....

---

As I said, no one would expect Russian GDP to match America's in 1955, but at some point if both systems were equally viable, you would expect growth, at least in terms of %, to be somewhat equal. That never happened. In fact, Russia watched even West Germany's free market economy soar beyond their own.

Quote:

---

If you're trying to argue that it is anything more than a failed economic system, my friends history and economy theory need to have a word with you.

History shows capitalism failing many times until more modern times... thankfully there weren't people around then who said look at all these examples from the past the system obviously doesn't work... whereas infact what the system needed was perfecting over the years...

---

The balance of the free market and regulations was already well understood by the time of Lenin. Fairness, monopolies, etc…

Communism has always been about appealing to the vast poor and undereducated masses jealous of the wealthy - be they royalty or successful capitalists.

And as can be expected when you hand the lower classes the keys to the castle - chaos ensues, incompetence reigns supreme, and the bullies of the world rise to the top at the expense of the intelligent.

Stalin couldn’t run a successful corporation, Mao couldn’t manage a successful farm – but they were both good at manipulation, deceit, and death. And some of the first people they killed off were those smart enough to run things like… the economy.

Quote:

---

You've got a poor guy with a mule. Capitalism offers him a brand new - and sizzling btw - Audi R8. Communism offers him an 80's era Kia Krap. Add to that that the Kia's engine doesn't function correctly and will eventually fall apart.

What you have there cannot be described as a poor guy... hell im a poor guy wheres capitalism with my sizzling audi r8!

---

Work hard, save, and it could be yours. In a communist system… eh… not so much. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

No offense PJ, but your irrational hatred of communism doesn't really help you there.

---

This is the monastery. As such, I don't allow my irrational hatreds to come into play. :beam:

Quote:

---

Had the US been as plundered as USSR during WW2, I doubt capitalist states would have enjoyed such a growth between 1945 and the 70's. No Marshall plan, no investement from the US in Europe and Japan.

---

How about the 70s and beyond? As I said to Grizz, surely if both systems were equally successful, we could at least see that reflected in % GDP growth at some point. It never happened.

Quote:

---

Add to that the fact that capitalism as an economic system failed quite a lot of times. It failed in the 30's, which is one of the main reason behind WW2, the rise of fascism and the spread of communism, and it's probably about to fail right now. It also failed numerous times in the 19th century, even though the outcomes were not nearly as bad because the world economy wasn't as global as it is now.

---

Recession and even depression do not equate to failure. For an accurate depiction of failure, see the USSR circa '91.

Quote:

---

The very thing you forget is that socialism and communism were thought as an answer to capitalism's failures. Were they correct answers ? The history clearly shown that no, communism is not a possible alternative to capitalism. Does that make capitalism perfect, or great ? In no way it does. It is just the only somewhat effective system we have right now, but it's a bad one, by all standards.

---

I didn't say capitalism was perfect or great. It has been the greatest method of wealth generation the world has yet seen, but your standards may be different than mine. :yes:

Quote:

---

Yet, saying that is a complete fallacy. Capitalism has created a huge amount of poverty in the world, sometimes worse than what happened in communist countries. Not only in the so-called third-world, but also in the western world, where relative poverty is becoming more and more of a problem.

---

Socialist policies have also grown throughout the Western World. It’s something to think about. :book:

Quote:

---

I'm pretty sure I'd be better off living in Cuba than in failed African state in which every power is in the hands of a few western companies pillaging the country with the agreement of a corrupted ruling class.

---

You mean a failed state where the corrupted ruling class manipulates the economy to suit their agenda? Me too! But... what does that have to do with this discussion. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

As for the former SSR accepting capitalism as soon as they had a chance : yeah, so what ? Apart from a few of them (the 3 Baltic states, thanks to US and EU help, and Kazakhstan, thanks to its oil), they're all failed states, with little civil liberties and human rights. The former center of USSR, Russia, is not really what I'd call a heaven on earth, and despite all the crap we're repeatedly being told by liberal economists, I can't see China becoming a democracy anytime soon because they embraced capitalism.

---

As mentioned above, some basic fairness is critical to the capitalist system. Moving from a communist dictator to a nominally capitalist one who still manipulates the market is not exactly a valid comparison. Corruption is rife in such countries, including Russia - whose economy is essentially controlled by a cabal of Putin's cronies. That’s not really free market capitalism. Still, take a look at Russia's GDP since the collapse.

By contrast, look at Poland. True - not nominal - free market liberalization has given them the fastest growing economy in Central Europe.

As for China, I never claimed the free market leads to democracy, only a higher standard of living. How fast is China's middle class growing again? ~;)

Quote:

---

That's why many people in these countries, Russia included, claim that they had better lives under communism.

---

Apart from what I mentioned above, these people were living on borrowed time. Even the extremely modest gains made under communism were not sustainable. Free health care is great I guess, but if the system can't afford it and you.. or your children.. end up worse off than you were before, have you really gained anything at all?

Russia invested huge amounts of money and resources in its satellites. Well, investing is a poor description. More like sending lump sums of cash and supplies just to keep the communist governments propped up on life support

That pretty much makes my point for me, whilst west german money was spent on infrastructure and regrowing the economy, east german money was spent on keeping control with the puppet government....

Ah Cuba! The great example of a communist state that hasn’t been run into the ground! Well, not really. Cuba is more like China than most communist apologists would like to admit.

firstly, not that i want to get into this argument again but there has been no communist states, but anyway lets ignore this little bit of info and just get on with it...

So it is a semi communist country that has literacy rates well above any capitalist countries in its economic state and many of those above it, tbh im not sure how the medical system compares but i bet its a whole lot better than most countries in its economic state..

Just like all the other communist nations in the Russian sphere, Cuba's economy collapsed after the USSR failed.

I imagine that the effects of the US economy collapsing would cause alot of trouble for capitalist societies in the same way...

Remember, Cuba is only barred from trading with the US

Which considering its geographic placement and the size of the US economy is a pretty decisive impact...

The balance of the free market and regulations was already well understood by the time of Lenin. Fairness, monopolies, etc…

You seem to have missed my point, which is, going back a few hundred years and judging capitalism, by the same standards you judge communism, would result in it being declared a failure, which considering modern times is obviously wrong, thus either capitalism is a failure to this day (which we both don't think it is) or the system needed perfecting, and if its the latter who is to say the same is not true of communism ?

Communism has always been about appealing to the vast poor and undereducated masses jealous of the wealthy - be they royalty or successful capitalists.

*insert line about capitalism being about royalty or successful capitalists wanting to take every last resource of the vast poor uneducated masses for themselves here*

And as can be expected when you hand the lower classes the keys to the castle - chaos ensues, incompetence reigns supreme, and the bullies of the world rise to the top at the expense of the intelligent.

yes the damn working class need to kept down, they will bow to thier superior capitalist masters and be grateful for it!

Stalin couldn’t run a successful corporation, Mao couldn’t manage a successful farm

Bush couldn't run a successful oil company...

but they were both good at manipulation, deceit, and death.

Ok i couldn't give bush credit for the first two... he's dabbled in a good bit of death though...

Work hard, save, and it could be yours. In a communist system… eh… not so much.

Well looks like this poor guy's getting shafted by the capitalists... at least the communists were offering me a kia... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Yes, it would. Why wouldn't it? Capitalism and its functions - including regulations - were well known long before communism ever came into being. Therefore, it is not as if communist nations had no other choice.

---

It isn't because eastern Europe was far behind western before communism. Save parts of Russia and very rarely some other relatively small places, East didn't have big cities, middle class, infrastructure, wasn't industrialized etc... Population was dispersed. Prior to WW2, Belgrade for example had several hundreds thousands people. West on the other hand, had all that.

The other reason why they shouldn't be compared is because eastern Europe witnessed much more destruction then western.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

The cold war provided us with some very clear examples of the stark contrasts. East and West Germany. North and South Korea. Japan and China. Russia and the US. Even if we handicap Russia & China for their war damages, their collective GDPs never reached more than a fraction of America’s… until Russia fell and China moved towards the market.

---

True, true, although Japan, West Germany and South Korea had the financial aid of economic superpower, unlike East Germany that had to be rebuilt by USSR, which was almost completely destroyed and had no economy to speak of. My point wasn't that it was comparable but that the GDP of communist countries actually grew, in contrast with your statement that communist regimes nuked GDP. It grew even faster in percentages, but the basis was so much smaller. 3% of 1000 billions is still much more than 10% of 100 billions...

China was in even worse situation. Country has been raped for 150 years by Europeans and Japanese, most of the population illiterate and on the brink of starvation, no infrastructure, no factories, no schools, no hospitals, no nothing that you should find in a 20th century country. It wasn't really logical to expect some enormous economic growth before those basic issues were addressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Human rights? Civil liberties? Only to a point... and that point was, of course, whatever the government felt it was on any given day.

---

True, but in most cases it was still better than previous regimes. There were more civil liberties in communist Yugoslavia than in the monarchist Yugoslavia, and that royal government was oh, so well treated and given refuge in UK as a western ally...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Infrastructure? Hostpitals? Literacy rates? All wonderful, and all dependent on being propped up by two failing states. When Russia collapsed, what happened to all that great stuff? I believe all 15 Soviet Republics unburdened themselves of communism ASAP.

---

True, and most of them are in worse situation now that they were during communism. Most ex-USSR countries, most ex-Yugoslav countries... Serbia needs almost 10% GDP growth per year in the next five years to reach the level it was 1993. To reach the level of 1980's, decades are needed. Yes, I know, there was the war, the sanctions, the bombing in case of Serbia, but Macedonia didn't have any of that and it is even in worse situation....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

You've got a poor guy with a mule. Capitalism offers him a brand new - and sizzling btw - Audi R8. Communism offers him an 80's era Kia Krap. Add to that that the Kia's engine doesn't function correctly and will eventually fall apart. Oh, and in addition, if our poor guy brings his Kia to the dealership to complain about it, the salesman will drag him out back and shoot him in the head.

---

Yeah, it was exactly like that. I applaud your ability to present most complex issues in so simple terms...

i don't believe tradgedy is measured by numbers.

The greatest tradgedy one human can suffer is the death of their child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scurvy

When people decided they wanted to explain their existence.... and invented religion :pirate2:

---

As a Catholic I would say that no man invented my religion, it was a gift from God.

Back on topic, I have recently been thinking about the destruction of the ancient Alexandria and its library.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

As a Catholic I would say that no man invented my religion, it was a gift from God

---

Not to start a religious war, because that's backroom material, for one, and I've no wish to offend you personally, for two, but; The Catholic religion has man's hands all over it. The meaning and character of the church has changed over the centuries, always in reaction to world events, and the bible itself was voted upon from candidate material. There were books placed within, and books left out, and some were altered.

I also don't think this God fellow is wishy-washy about things, and the Catholic church has waffled in it's positions and tone since it's inception, over time. It is at least partially man-made, if not totally. Otherwise the Pope would have nothing to do, and Catholic law and dogma would never change with the times.

If God's word is the basis of the Catholic church, God has no reason to change it. Man, however, does.

Because this may spawn a debate which is inappropriate for this subforum, I wish to make it clear I am not attacking you personally, Bopa, and that I'd be delighted to debate you, if you wanted to, elsewhere. But for now, I'm limiting my objection to a simple comment.

well, I guess I'll add:

I am divided between 3 tragedies:

1-unnatural death (i.e not from old age or related health complications)

2-extremism of any sort: be it religious, moral, political, ideological, etc.

3-when idiots judge others according to their standards, rather than the standards of the time, place, culture and circumstances of who they are judging. this is tied in to #2, and also because, in order to truely understand something, one must look into the mindset and times in which something happened. the EB logo is more than a pretty label-and we were created(/evolved) as tribes and peoples to know one another, not insult and provoke one another.

The break up of the Ottoman Empire following WWI.

It's been described as "the peace to end all peace."

Religion, when you look at it, it's so bloody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coalition

Religion, when you look at it, it's so bloody.

---

then again, so is well...practically everything man has come up with.

actually, the biggest tragedy regarding religion is not that it exists, but that it can lead to a similar situation to this, if one throws out the spirit and goes only for the shell (i.e fundamentalism):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJUx...e=channel_page

note that I am not trying to start a flame war, or backroom material. its just an extreme manifestation of religious fundamentalism/effects, with a humourous twist (note: there is only a voice, a camera, and a sprinkler, to give you an idea).

religion is fine.

Blind, unrelenting faith in anything, ignoring reason and evidence, and acting on it, is intentional ignorance of reality. Faith is destructive.

It is the greatest of human tragedies.

why would extremism and ideologism be that bad?
Humans died before, still die now and will die for as long as we exist.
The greatest tragedy of all time is the evolution to mankind.
Even to itself ; mankind destroys all the rest and even itself.
a last word about ww2 : Its not the one who is right or just that will win the war, but the one who won the war will always be the just one.
meaning : Auschwitz eo , if it even excisted as they say , is seen far more worse than the USSR gulags who inflictid MUCH more casualties (seen in numbers ).

another thing i read : so people understand that america is interfering in the rest of the world , but not that Germany wanted an important port, which was theirs before ww1 btw, back.
And about the jews : Poland at that time was more antisemitic than Germany. So Britain and France started the war cuz Germany attacked a more racist country? What makes them that.

(srr got carried away :embarassed: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDruid

why would extremism and ideologism be that bad?
Humans died before, still die now and will die for as long as we exist.
The greatest tragedy of all time is the evolution to mankind.
Even to itself ; mankind destroys all the rest and even itself.
a last word about ww2 : Its not the one who is right or just that will win the war, but the one who won the war will always be the just one.
meaning : Auschwitz eo , if it even excisted as they say , is seen far more worse than the USSR gulags who inflictid MUCH more casualties (seen in numbers ).

another thing i read : so people understand that america is interfering in the rest of the world , but not that Germany wanted an important port, which was theirs before ww1 btw, back.
And about the jews : Poland at that time was more antisemitic than Germany. So Britain and France started the war cuz Germany attacked a more racist country? What makes them that.

(srr got carried away :embarassed: )

---

1. How do you define extremism? :shrug: if it is extreme, doesn't that make it inherently unbalanced? If something is unbalanced, unfair, intolerant, and extreme, it is unhealthy at best and destructive at worst.

2. Ideologies aren't necessarily bad, but intolerance of opposing ideologies, vis-a-vis violence and persecution, is wrong. I oppose Scientology, but I wouldn't harm or threaten anyone who is a Scientologist. That's part of being tolerant, and that is the only way civilization exists at all; lack of tolerance reverts humanity back to barbarism.

3. Humans die, but death by murder and war is inherently different from a peaceful, natural death. Otherwise you believe murder is not wrong.

4. The greatest tragedy is "the evolution to mankind"? I don't know what you mean. Do you mean evolving into homo sapiens? If that means you believe all human beings are inherently wrong, then you are a misanthrope by definition. What that means is you hate humanity itself. That's quite a charge and I don't toss it around lightly. Can you explain what you mean? Do you find anything redeeming about humanity, and if not, why would bad things that happen to us be a tragedy?

5. Are you suggesting the Nazis, the Fascists, or the Imperialists were better than the progressive democratic societies?

6. You deny that Auschwitz existed as "they" say? By that I mean, the billions of people who believe the holocaust existed and there's more proof that it existed than perhaps any other phenomenon in human history.

7. How would you know which had "much more casualties" unless you admit that the holocaust happened and you believe the evidence and the data which suggests a certain number of people died? What if you were right about the numbers... you'd have to admit that the holocaust happened as "they" say.

8. I didn't know that Poland came up with the idea of mass exterminations and carried them out. I was taught, and shown mountains of evidence, that Hitler and the Nazis were responsible. But if you have evidence that Poland was actually more antisemitic and killed more jewish people, I'd like to see it. Clearly we need to prosecute Poland for war crimes.

I strongly disagree with everything you said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

1. How do you define extremism? :shrug: if it is extreme, doesn't that make it inherently unbalanced? If something is unbalanced, unfair, intolerant, and extreme, it is unhealthy at best and destructive at worst.

2. Ideologies aren't necessarily bad, but intolerance of opposing ideologies, vis-a-vis violence and persecution, is wrong. I oppose Scientology, but I wouldn't harm or threaten anyone who is a Scientologist. That's part of being tolerant, and that is the only way civilization exists at all; lack of tolerance reverts humanity back to barbarism.

3. Humans die, but death by murder and war is inherently different from a peaceful, natural death. Otherwise you believe murder is not wrong.

4. The greatest tragedy is "the evolution to mankind"? I don't know what you mean. Do you mean evolving into homo sapiens? If that means you believe all human beings are inherently wrong, then you are a misanthrope by definition. What that means is you hate humanity itself. That's quite a charge and I don't toss it around lightly. Can you explain what you mean? Do you find anything redeeming about humanity, and if not, why would bad things that happen to us be a tragedy?

5. Are you suggesting the Nazis, the Fascists, or the Imperialists were better than the progressive democratic societies?

6. You deny that Auschwitz existed as "they" say? By that I mean, the billions of people who believe the holocaust existed and there's more proof that it existed than perhaps any other phenomenon in human history.

7. How would you know which had "much more casualties" unless you admit that the holocaust happened and you believe the evidence and the data which suggests a certain number of people died? What if you were right about the numbers... you'd have to admit that the holocaust happened as "they" say.

8. I didn't know that Poland came up with the idea of mass exterminations and carried them out. I was taught, and shown mountains of evidence, that Hitler and the Nazis were responsible. But if you have evidence that Poland was actually more antisemitic and killed more jewish people, I'd like to see it. Clearly we need to prosecute Poland for war crimes.

I strongly disagree with everything you said.

---

finally a discussion with you :)

1. you may be right
2. no response either
3. murder is ok with me in some instances. In belgium recently we had a nutcase starting to kill children : for me one off the greatest 'sins". so dont blindly think i agree with all murderers.
4. Dunno how its called, but thats exactly what i mean. Humanity kills everything, including humans.
its makes sure other species extinct.
5. Yep. Nazism brought alot of Great things to the world , before they burnt half the world down offcourse. Even during the war they found great cures against diseases.
going to point 4 too : Its normal they test new drugs on animals, but testing them on enemies of your nation and people would be wrong?
6. Pretty sure i saw things really getting me to doubt that jews were gassed. I believe Hitler wasnt a liar. Not arguing that they died out of hunger offcourse. But AH said something like if there wasnt enough food, Germans would get the most. which is much more understandable.
7. As said, not discussing if holocaust existed or not. better make a new topic bout that. Just : it is said 6 million jews died in con.kamps. numbers i heard and saw said 10 times that amount of people died in USSR to sortlike things.
8.Not saying that Poland killed more :) they didnt have the chance. Nazism btw is not invented by Hitler btw. So you defend poland whilst agreeing that they probably hated the jews more?

srr was in a hurry :D

grtz