13 reasons you should throw away your Che Guevara T-shirt

by editor on December 7, 2010

According to the leftist mythology that’s been built up over the last 50 years Che Guevara was a brave, noble soldier who loved freedom and sacrificed his life so that others could achieve it.

Ha! Here are thirteen Che facts that the left never mentions. Thirteen things that, if they were widely known, would contribute to far fewer T-shirt sales.

che poster

Che Guevara, vicious mass murderer and T-shirt icon

  1. Che’s famous motorcycle tour of South American is mostly myth. The motorcycle broke down early in the trek and it was completed with other means of transportation.
  2. Che was nicknamed Chancho (Pig) by his schoolmates because he rarely bathed.
  3. Soon after Batista was overthrown, Guevara had hundreds of Cuban government officials executed. Notice that the phrase “fair trial” was conspicuously absent from the previous sentence.
  4. Che was a brutal murderer. He trained and commanded firing squads that executed thousands of men, women and children deemed enemies by the new Castro regime. He once put a bullet in the head of a fellow guerrilla he suspected of disloyalty.
  5. Che was not a fan of our First Amendment. He opposed freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and protest. Can you say North Korea?
  6. All those college kids wearing their Che T-shirts might be surprised to learn that he supported the repression of rock ‘n roll in Cuba.
  7. Homosexuals did not fare well in Che’s Cuba. He mounted a campaign to have them jailed.
  8. che obama poster

    La Revolución, si! Free elections, no!

  9. See the photo to the right? It was taken in an Obama campaign office in Texas. The volunteer who put the poster on the wall might be surprised to learn that her hero opposed free elections.
  10. Che never won a Nobel Prize for Economics with good reason. Castro put him in charge of the Cuban economy, but his strident communism immediately put it on a downward economic death spiral.
  11. Che fled Cuba in the mid-1960s not to spread Communism throughout the hemisphere, but because he had so totally screwed up his private life. He was a profligate adulterer who deserted two wives, countless mistresses and numerous children.
  12. Che hoped that the Cuban missile crisis would lead to an atomic war. “What we affirm is that we must proceed along the path of liberation,” he said, “even if this costs millions of atomic victims.”
  13. Members of the Che cult claim his last words were, “I know you are here to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man.” However, General Ovando, Chief of the Bolivian Armed Forces, reported that Che died in battle and that his last words were considerably less noble, “I am Che Guevara and I have failed.”
  14. Another version of his final words is even more pathetic. Far from bravely facing a martyr’s death, Che’s captors reported that he begged for his life saying, “Do not shoot! I am Che Guevara and worth more to you alive than dead.”

Ironic, isn’t it, that Che’s last words were as wrong as his entire philosophy of life. As T-shirt vendors around the world have discovered, he has actually been worth far more dead than alive.

340
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
53 Comment threads
287 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
73 Comment authors
daverdelySwansongnoemi.jilloooddballzdrb Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
Notify of
trackback

[…] “To execute a man,” Che once said, “we don’t need proof of his guilt.” In the early days of the Cuban revolution, Che wrote home to his father about shooting a peasant guerrilla: “I’d like to confess, Papa, at that moment I discovered that I really like killing.” Much of the story is very ugly. […]

trackback

[…] “To execute a man,” Che once said, “we don’t need proof of his guilt.” In the early days of the Cuban revolution, Che wrote home to his father about shooting a peasant guerrilla: “I’d like to confess, Papa, at that moment I discovered that I really like killing.” Much of the story is very ugly. […]

CO2Insanity
Admin

“Marx never described what Communism would actually look like, and in fact explicitly refused to do so, believing that it was not he who should build Communism, but the people. That is, it should be up to the people to create Communism in whatever way they thought was best.”

“A careful parsing of Marx’s work reveals that Stalin actually fundamentally misunderstood Marx, anyway.”

Umm…. if Marx never explained it then tell us how Stalin misunderstood it?

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Marx never described Communism in any specific detail, but as I stated in my comment you just quoted, Marx did make it clear that Communism was supposed to be a system of the people leading themselves and controlling their own lives. That’s the exact opposite of a Stalinist-style dictatorship.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

Marx was an idiot, simply put. the Manifesto, as a political work, is a joke predicated on a fantasy that has its roots in Hobbes and Moore. Kapital is a boring mess that serves only to illustrate that Marx knew nothing about the free enterprise system.

This is a guy who lived off of Engels’s father who made a lot of money in the furniture business and yet we are supposed to take this grubby parasite seriously. I don’t think so. Lenin built on this foundation but only to fool the Russians. He was as ruthless as Stalin. Communism is proven not to be able to work because as soon as the minority resists what the majority wants the body count soars.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Actually, most Communists agree that a majority of Marx’s inspiration came from Kant and Hegel. Though I’m not sure what’s wrong Hobbes or Moore. They both seem like perfectly fine philosophers to me, though I admit I haven’t studied either of them in any depth. But regardless, you can’t just throw out names of random philosophers like that and expect me to be horrified at the mention of their names for no good reason. If you don’t like Hobbes and Moore, explain to me what you dislike about them. Otherwise you’re just making a fool out of yourself.

And I agree that Capital can be rather boring at times, and extremely difficult to understand. This is especially true for the first nine chapters, which is where all the abstract theory is packed. But starting in chapter ten, Marx eases up on the abstract theoretical discussion and begins talking about history instead, which makes the narrative much, much easier to follow. So if you’ve got access to a copy of the book, I’d recommend picking it up and just skipping the first nine chapters all together. Start in chapter ten, and read forward from there.

Alternatively, you could also watch the video lectures from David Harvey, a Professor at the University of New York, who does an excellent job of explaining Marx’s Capital in a way that’s much easier for the modern student to understand. You can watch the video lectures here:

http://davidharvey.org/

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

You concede you don’t know anything about Hobbes or Moore; therefore you have not read Utopia or Leviathan but felt compelled to comment anyway, which makes you a pseudo-intellectual phony. One can drive trucks through the holes in your arguments. I’ve been doing it for days.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Yes, I admit that I have read neither Utopia nor Leviathan, though they’ve both been on my reading list for a long time. I just haven’t gotten around to them yet. But regardless, I hardly think reading those two specific books should constitute a prerequisite for being considered an intellectual. I do an enormous amount of reading. I simply haven’t read those two particular books yet. Instead, I’ve been busy pouring most of my reading time into studying the works of Marx, along with a few of his modern successors, such as David Harvey, Slavoj Žižek, Jacques Rancière, and yes, even Che Guevara. I’ve also been reading the works of non-Marxist Socialists like Michael Harrington, Noam Chomsky, Saul Alinsky, and Thomas Piketty. I’ve also read some of Gene Sharp, who isn’t a Socialist, but rather merely a far-left advocate of democracy. I’ve also read self-help books about business, including works by people like Brian Tracy, Robert Kiyosaki, Donald Trump, Russell Simmons, R. Buckminster Fuller, Dale Carnegie, and Napoleon Hill. Not only that, but I’ve also delved into the works of right-wing anti-Socialist propagandists like Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Paul B. Skousen, Stefan Molyneux, and even Ayn Rand. So please, don’t patronize me because I haven’t read Hobbes or Moore. I’ve been reading other things. Honestly, how many of the above authors have YOU read? Any of them? Have you even heard of all of them? What about Marx’s Capital? That’s a book which actually has relevance to the idea of Communism, which is what we’re discussing here. Have you at least read that?

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

The people you claim to read all got their ideas from those who came before them. Marx stole from Moore and Hobbes. They borrowed heavily from Plato’s Republic. Point is, there has always been a subset of people who think they know better than everyone else how best to run other people’s lives. Read Woodrow Wilson and his take on the administrative state. Start with “What is ProgresS”. It should sound familiar to you. Pure fascism so it is right up your alley.

Von Mises and Hazlitt are propagandists? That’s a new one! Tell me what was the propaganda in “Liberalism” or “Economics in One Lesson”?

I’m not patronizing you. I’m calling you out as a pseudo-intellectual who apparently has no actual life experience to draw from just theory as written by the far left. You can’t (haven’t yet) pointed to where any of this theory has worked whereas the free market works where it is allowed to work at both the micro and macro levels. The only times the free market breaks down is when the government steps in to rig the game. See Medicare and Medicaid and the increasing cost of healthcare in relative dollars since 1965. Socialism merely guarantees scarcity, price distortions due to the scarcity, and a thriving black market to offset government induced shortages.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Mises essentially just argues that Liberalism has increased the total amount of wealth in society more than any other system. This is true, and Marx actually agrees with Mises on this point. However, what Mises fails to realize (and what Marx points out, for those who are willing to actually read him) is that Liberalism has also concentrated that wealth into fewer and fewer hands, and causes one class of people to become rich at the expense of another class. Yes, laissez faire Capitalism does vastly increase the total concentration (or amount) of wealth in society. But who does it increase the wealth for, and at whose expense? Mises doesn’t even ask this question, let alone answer it.

As for Hazlitt, his entire argument, in essence, amounts to nothing more than saying, “Think of all the things we could buy if we didn’t have to pay taxes!” Of course Hazlitt’s argument falls apart because he fails to understand the difference between centralized wealth and decentralized wealth, and he also doesn’t take concentration/saturation of wealth into account (saturation of wealth means 100 people with a million dollars have greater purchasing power than 100 people with only a thousand dollars). Basically, he’s just a bad economist.

Now I suppose there is a legitimate argument to be made that these two men don’t *technically* qualify as propagandists under the strict definition of the word because they likely weren’t aware that they were promoting false and incomplete information, but that doesn’t make them any less wrong, or their ideas any less harmful than if they had been spreading lies deliberately.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

Hazlitt never made the argument you claim in anything I’ve read. Why don’t you cite that for us. You’ve not read him and you do not know anything about Austrian economics. Shocker there.

drb
Member
drb

OMG Kick, I can’t believe you let him get away with the one pie, can’t bake more bs theory. It’s time to let Peter Pan go back to Neverland. Only children believe that nonsense.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

Actually, drb, he rewrote his post after I responded. All the Von Mises stuff and some of the Hazlitt misinformation was posted after I responded.

This guy is a bs machine. Once you pin him down on one topic he jumps to another. Classic troll technique, right? I stand by my claim that he is unemployed, envious of people who succeed, and lacks any ambition. In short, he is another one of society’s losers who feel entitled to take from productive people because it isn’t fair that some have more than others.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

@drb: Are you honestly going to advocate the Neo-Classical myth that there’s an unlimited amount of wealth in the world? This is why Neo-Classical economists like Milton Friedman cannot accurately describe what actually happens in the real world. Tell me, if wealth is unlimited, then where does it come from? The laws of physics state that matter can be neither created nor destroyed. There is only a finite and limited amount of matter and resources on this earth. If wealth is unlimited and infinite, then that means it can’t have any relation to actually physically existing matter. And if it has no relation to actual, tangible matter, then the only logical conclusion we can reach is that it isn’t real. And if the wealth isn’t real, then it’s not worth anything, and it will eventually and inevitably collapse on itself.

I don’t know if you’re at all familiar with the teachings of the Mormon church, but they actually have an economic system called the United Order, which is virtually indistinguishable from Communism — and by that I mean actual Communism, not that Stalinist tyranny. Anyway, in the Book of Mormon, there’s a story about a man named Lehi who has a vision about a great and spacious building which floats in the air and has no foundation. The building is filled with rich people who dress in exceptionally fine clothing and have abundant food. Outside the building on the ground is an iron rod which leads to a special tree called the Tree of Life. But on either side of the iron rod there are deep chasms into which a person could fall if they stray from the path. The entire area is shrouded in mists of darkness, and it’s impossible to see for more than a few feet ahead in any direction. Thus, the only way to get to the Tree of Life is to grab onto the iron rod and hold fast to it, following it forward, never letting go. According to the story, the rich people in the great and spacious building — which floats in the air and has no foundation — look down on the people holding onto the iron rod trying and to get to the Tree of Life. The rich people point and laugh at those clinging to the iron rod below, mocking them for refusing to join their party. But eventually, the great and spacious building collapses and crumbles, because it has no foundation, but is built on air, while those who clung to the iron rod are saved.

Now this parable is most likely fictional (I don’t believe in the Book of Mormon myself), but it is nevertheless an excellent analogy for modern Neo-Classical economics. When Milton Friedman and his ilk made the absurd claim that material wealth is unlimited, they essentially reformed Capitalism into the great and spacious building which has no foundation, thus setting the economy on course doomed to destruction.

Here’s an animated version of the story if you’re interested:

Part 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oxov9CULhpM

Part 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5sl4RW9QWQ

Part 3:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRslxDqv2do

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

drb, what he is writing is fantasy BS, written by drug addled brains. It doesn’t surprise me that he believes this shit, because he’s just that dumb.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

@poppajoe49: If you’re talking about the story from The Book of Mormon, I agree that it’s most likely fantasy. I just thought it was a good analogy, even if it is fictional.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

No you retarded jackass, I’m talking about all the commie bullshit propaganda you believe in. But then, I am not surprised you aren’t smart enough to make the connection since you aren’t smart enough to tell theory from reality.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

I’m perfectly capable of telling theory from reality. That’s how I know that Neo-Classical economics (which you probably refer to as Austrian economics) is divorced from reality. The entire theory rests on the irrational belief that wealth is unlimited, when all the laws of physics clearly indicate that such a thing as an unlimited resource is both physically and materially impossible. Thus, Neo-Classical economics has no foundation.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Wealth is unlimited, if given free reign to work without government intervention, such as excessive regulation and oppressive taxation. Value can always increase as demand increases.

CO2Insanity
Admin

This has to be Oblivous with a strap-on.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

Maybe. Once he mentioned the gold standard I thought he might be the troll with the fantasy girl avi. Either way this one is just as full of shit as they were.

PsychoDad
Member

Oh dear GOD what possessed you to throw that image at us?!?!

CO2Insanity
Admin

So try answering the question instead of giving us yet more bullshit.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Which question are you referring to?

CO2Insanity
Admin

I’ve only asked one if you can’t figure that one out then I have to wonder why I bother.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Is this the question you’re referring to?

________________
CO2Insanity: “Umm…. if Marx never explained it then tell us how Stalin misunderstood it?”
________________

I believe I already answered that question above. Here, let me re-post my answer, since you apparently missed it the first time:
________________
Maphesdus: “Marx never described Communism in any specific detail, but as I stated in my comment you just quoted, Marx did make it clear that Communism was supposed to be a system of the people leading themselves and controlling their own lives. That’s the exact opposite of a Stalinist-style dictatorship.”

PsychoDad
Member

Eat a Glock, Commie rat bastard.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

My my, so much anger. You certainly don’t sound like an advocate of peace or love. But then, Capitalists rarely do…

Red Robster
Member
Red Robster

you really have no idea what you’re talking about, moron.

Swansong
Member
Swansong

bravo Maphesdus. A novels worth of logical, informative rebuttals vs varying degrees of “wow I can’t believe how wrong AND stupid you are.” Very glad I stumbled onto this page. A night of insomnia well spent.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Oh goodie, yet another jackass speaks.

noemi.jillo
Member
noemi.jillo

Che still lives because his ideas still live

Red Robster
Member
Red Robster

dammit, that was sposed to be a dt.

you’re an idiot.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

If Che did still live, he would be living in a home for the mentally deficient. Which is where everyone that still idolizes him should also live.

CO2Insanity
Admin

You can also say the same about Stalin, Hitler, Atilla the Hun, Genghis Khan, Tojo, Lenin, Mussolini and a host of other murderous bastards.

flashingscotsman
Member

Whose ideas DO still live, in the minds and hearts of leftists the world over. And, like Che, they’ll be more than happy to kill you if you don’t believe them.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Hitler and Mussolini were both right-wing. Hideki Tojo was a Nationalist, which is a typical right-wing ideology (remember, Japan DID side with Nazi Germany during WWII). Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan are both ancient enough that they can’t be grouped into any sort of modern left/right dichotomy, and trying to do so is irrational.

CO2Insanity
Admin

No you’re irrational or stupid or both. I said they were all murderous bastards which has nothing to do with any ideology or politics or time.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

You tried to say that they were all liberals/leftists, even though there is no evidence to support that claim.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Gee, why are you stupid? Let’s see. Can you read?

If the Nazis were right-wingers, why would we have fought them, since we were considered a right-wing country?

Nazi Germany and the Third Reich are common names for Germany during the period from 1933 to 1945, when its government was controlled by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers’ Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

America is not and was not a right-wing country. There is no such thing as a right-wing country. Never has been, and never will be. To make such a claim would be to suggest that an entire country can have a single, unified ideology. This is simply not possible. Rather, the concepts of right and left refer to generic political stances, both of which are always present in every country. This was just as true for America during WWII as it is today. The reason America decided to fight against Germany was because Germany began to threaten America’s own self-interests.

And Hitler only took on the label of “socialist” as an act of political subterfuge intended to undermine and discredit actual socialist leaders and redirect their followers into the ranks of his own party. Anyone who has actually read both socialist theory and fascist theory can plainly see that they’re exact opposites of each other. Adolf Hitler explicitly stated that National Socialism was an ideology specifically and intentionally designed to eradicate Communism and Marxism. So no, Nazism was not true Socialism. Remember, Hitler was a liar and a master of deception. He fabricated Soviet information leaks which tricked Stalin into executing his own top generals, printed counterfeit currencies of surrounding nations to undermine their economies while boosting German wealth, and many other sly, underhanded tricks. Taking on the label of “Socialism” was simply part of Hitler’s ploy to undermine real Socialism, as well as gain popular support with German Socialists so they would vote for him. He even created his own unique definition of Socialism that was totally different from the actual meaning of the word. Consider the following quote:
_________
“Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term ‘Socialist has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
— Adolf Hitler in the Sunday Express, September 28th, 1930.

Red Robster
Member
Red Robster

don’t ever say that America was never, could never be a right wing country.
I define right wing as standing up for the conservative side of and steadfast beholding toward the laws of God, that is to say Jesus. He is radical. He is Liberal. But He Holy and Righteous first. Murder is NOT permissible. Putting to death the servants of evil IS. so put that in your hookah and smoke it.
ya punky ass uber socialist commie pinko janefondaist. phfphphphfdtttttttttttt
.

edit the first: Also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djV11Xbc914
phfphphphfdtttttttttttt

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Oh, you want to stand up for the laws of God? Okay, that’s wonderful! Here’s some Bible verses that will point you in the right direction. 😉

Matthew 19:16-24
Matthew 25:31-46
Mark 11:15-17
Leviticus 25:35-38
Acts 4:32-35
Acts 2:42-47
James 5:1-4
1 Timothy 6:10
1 John 3:17
Proverbs 6:6-8
Isaiah 55:1-3

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

Hitler and Mussolini were not right wing. Do your damn homework before you write leftist talking points. National Socialism is pure progressivism.

Leftists have been trying to paint Hitler as a right winger because to say otherwise means the left owns every mass murderer of the 20th century. Guess what? It does.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Including every mass shooter/school shooter in the US.

drb
Member
drb

NOW, NOW KICK…He is just repeating what his leftist professor taught him to say…

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

I have done my homework. I’ve read both Das Kapital and Mein Kampf. They are exact opposites. Have you read either one?

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

Apparently you haven’t done your homework. Fascism, Socialism, and Communism are all on the same progressive continuum. Read Hayek’s Road to Serfdom.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

He won’t, it’s not something that will help prove his point.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Hayek actually didn’t understand Socialism, (or Capitalism, for that matter) and believed in the nonsensical idea (originated by Ludwig von Mises) that all forms of government control qualified as socialism, and that all forms of socialism inevitably lead to Stalinism. Unfortunately for Mises and Hayek, neither of those assumptions are actually true.

DEBUNKING HAYEK’S ROAD TO SERFDOM:
http://anti-imperialism.com/2014/09/02/debunking-hayeks-road-to-serfdom-part-3-economic-planning-and-totalitarianism/

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

Ok….you’re going to scour the Internet and find something by someone to support your ass backward claims. Anti-imperialism.com? LMAO. Hey, if you want to be a communist, knock yourself out. I think you have no clue about what you think you know. None. Socialism (not to be confused with social democracies like Western Europe, which is tyranny-lite) in fact does lead to totalitarianism. Look no further than the USSR, Maoist China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, or more recently Venezuela. Look at what Lenin promised or Hitler promised and look at what the respective citizenry got. Other than North Korea and Venezuela, these countries lived through the failed experiment and adopted free market principles, which also increases individual liberty.

Venezuela and North Korea will have their days of reckoning and I guarantee you they both will move toward toward *classical* liberalism.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

When he said Hayek didn’t understand Socialism, he proved one thing, HE doesn’t understand Socialism! When you are dealing with someone that still believes Socialism can work, and looks for excuses why the proof that it is a failure is wrong, you are dealing with brainwashed stupidity of the highest order. It’s like trying to convince a child that candy is bad for them and they can’t go Trick or Treating because of that. All you will get is tantrums.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

China never switched fully to a free market. They sold off a large chunk of productive resources to private firms, yes, but a significant portion of their economy is still directly owned and controlled by the government, even today. They simply switched from the Stalinist model of basing production on government quotas to basing production on supply and demand.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

You are all over the place. Never said China switched fully to a free market system. S&D is an economic law – a basic principle of the free enterprise system. China still has a command economy. It allows private ownership and has some basic property rights. On the progressive continuum, it is more of a fascist economy.

You are incorrect about the Stalinist model. Central planning didn’t originate with the post-Lenin USSR.

China embraced an agricultural worker revolution and the Russians and industrial one.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Supply and demand is certainly an economic law. In that much you are correct. However, there is no reason to believe that it is inherently an attribute of the free market. It could just as easily be part of a system of central planning. Leon Trotsky, Stalin’s biggest rival, actually believed that Communist production should be based on the principles of supply and demand. Unfortunately, Stalin felt threatened by Trotsky, and had him arrested and executed for treason. If things had been the other way around, and it had been Trotsky who came to power instead of Stalin, I believe the path of the Soviet Union would have been completely different. Sad that history turned out the way it did.

Also, China and Russia were both agricultural nations prior to their respective Communist revolutions, and both of them used Communism as a method of achieving rapid industrialization.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

poppajoe49: “When you are dealing with someone that still believes Socialism can work, and looks for excuses why the proof that it is a failure is wrong, you are dealing with brainwashed stupidity of the highest order.”
——————-
The question of whether or not any particular system “works” presupposes a particular goal. Without a specific goal in mind, the question cannot be answered. Does Socialism work? That depends. What is it that you want to accomplish?

When most people say that Socialism doesn’t work, the evidence that they typically point to is the food shortages in the USSR. However, a closer inspection of the Soviet system reveals what the real problem was: Joseph Stalin believed himself to be smarter than everybody else, and wanted total power and control over all Russia. Instead of listening to what the people actually needed, he simply told them what they needed, and ordered the factories to produce commodities based on quotas that were set by either him or his officers. As a result, there was a severe misallocation of resources, and the Soviets had excesses of commodities that they didn’t need, and shortages of commodities that they did need. They weren’t unproductive at all. Rather, they were merely producing the wrong things. This demonstrates the inherent weakness of production based on quotas. Production based on supply and demand avoids this problem entirely. Unfortunately, the person who realized this was Leon Trotsky, who was executed by Joseph Stalin on the grounds of treason.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

The point is, no Socialist model has survived long enough to prove it’s a viable alternative to the Capitalistic model. The Socialistic models always turn toward Capitalism when they realize they can’t support the people on the money confiscated from the Capitalists, because the Capitalists stop producing when there is no incentive to produce. It always goes to the classic question of “What do you do when you run out of other peoples money?”. When you have made the rich poor, they have no more to give, and you end up with a revolution, brought about by desperation. When there is nothing on the shelves, no food, water, toilet paper, etc, the people will revolt. They realize that they can’t survive without the Capitalists to run things. The model of the worker running things never works, because they all want to vote themselves more money and power than everyone else, because they feel their contribution is greater than the other guys. You end up with riots and looting.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

“However, a closer inspection of the Soviet system reveals what the real problem was: Joseph Stalin believed himself to be smarter than everybody else, and wanted total power and control over all Russia.”

Same old argument from every communist. It would have worked except for this or that. In this case you blame Stalin. Do you honestly think that the
USSR could have worked regardless of the ascendency of Stalin? If not him, it would have been someone else. Human nature comes into play every time. It can be on the control side (lust for power and it’s corrupting influence) or the fact that everyday humans are not equal in ability, ambition, desire for autonomy, or intellect. For those reasons, the classless society is a fantasy. Many will never submit to tyranny; hence, the purges. What happened in the USSR from October 1917 onward led to soul crushing despair. Whether it was the destruction of the producing class, the Russian Civil War or, the inevitable rise of totalitarianism. I lived in the USSR in 1983. I’m certain my experience trumps your misguided theory.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

His biggest problem is the entire plan is theory, since it has never been successful.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

@poppajoe49: Your reference to Margaret Thatcher’s (in)famous quote that “The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money,” is actually rather telling of your economic ignorance, as well as Thatcher’s. It’s not POSSIBLE for the economy as a whole to run out of money simply by redistributing it. There are only two ways an economy could ever lose money as a whole: (1) if money started flowing out of the country, or (2) if a few individuals started hording massive amounts of money, thus removing it from circulation. But if the money is kept in circulation, and kept in the country, then it can never run out, no matter how many times it changes hands. Money continues to exist, even after it has been spent. It merely has a new owner. This is the critical point which Margaret Thatcher utterly failed to grasp. Individual people within the system can run out of money, yes, but the system as a whole cannot, except in the two conditions I mentioned above. Thus, wealth redistribution, in and of itself, can never deplete a nation’s total amount of wealth.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

You have just proven that you know even less about economics than my 3 year old grand niece.
I effuse to continue to debate with someone that can’t see the truth for what it is. Dumber than a box of rocks comes to mind when I see your posts.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

Well, in theory a country won’t run out of money but it certainly will render currency worthless when it inflates it to support the likes of our resident communist. What’s the difference?

Thatcher was absolutely correct, because once the welfare state completely plunders the productive class, the wealth is exhausted because no more of it will be created because the incentive to do so vanishes. The state is then forced to inflate, which leads to Weimar or Zimbabwe. Wealth does not equal money.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

That’s because they can keep printing all the money they want, it’s worth less than the paper it’s printed on, but it’s still money. Just like Obama has been doing the last 6 years.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Inflation is caused primarily by quantitative easing, at least under our current system. Wealth redistribution does not cause inflation.

Allow me to illustrate. Suppose we have a room full of 100 people, 99 of whom have no money whatsoever, and 1 of whom has exactly one million dollars. If we take the one million dollars from the one rich man and divide it evenly up between all 100 people, then each person would have ten thousand dollars. In total, there is still exactly one million dollars in the room, it’s just been spread around more.

Inflation is caused when the government tries to pay for welfare WITHOUT engaging in wealth redistribution. Because the rich are unwilling to give up their money, the only other way the government can pay for the expenses of welfare is by either borrowing money from other nations or by engaging in quantitative easing.

Personally, I advocate a return to the gold standard, followed immediately by a massive redistribution of that gold. Tying money into some kind of material commodity is the only way to ensure the corrupt Capitalists won’t be able to use quantitative easing to steal wealth from the poor.

Also, the Federal Reserve is the one printing all the money, not Obama. The President, no matter who he is or what party he belongs to, does not have the ability to stop the Federal Reserve. John F. Kennedy tried to with Executive Order 11110, and look what happened to him…

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

Your example is so wrong and devoid of logic it makes my hair hurt.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Just reading that stupidity, I feel like I need to go away on another vacation just to get back the IQ points I lost.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Since you’re now resorting to insults instead of presenting a counter-argument, I’ll take that as an indication that you are unable to actually refute anything I’ve said. 😉

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Another stupid comment from the Oblivious clone.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

I’ll take that as a “yes.”

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

Real life is the counter to your utopian collective fantasies. I’m simply bored to death. I notice too that your posts are getting longer and longer and they ramble on without any reality-based content. I’ve made all the arguments I care to.

The fact that you admit to barely getting by tells me you are a member of the recipient class (or will be); therefore you’re just a bitter socio-economic loser who can’t stand it that most others do better than you. Quite honestly, I find you and your world view abhorrent.

Come back when a country makes collectivization work and/or people like you can convince others to voluntarily give up what they’ve worked all their lives for to supplement people like you. Finally, come back when you can show me the country that achieves those ends peacefully. Until then, I’m out on this discussion. It will be a while.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

It’s hard for him to get motivated to work harder and become successful when his head has been filled with Socialism fantasy and lies.
e’s just waiting for the time when Obama decides that anyone making less than $200,000 a year deserves food stamps, welfare, section 8, etc, all at the expense of those of us that pay taxes.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

OK, so reading the words of mad men is the best way to know what they stood for? Boy are you stupid! You really believe there is no chance that despots and assholes could write such crap and it is the complete truth, and what they believe? Hitler was a f*cking maniac! As far as Marx, do you really believe he lived the life he wrote about? Have you ever heard the term “Socialism is for the people, not the Socialist”? It means they tell you how to live, while they live like kings! You poor, brainwashed, idiot.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Actually, a vast majority of Marx’s writings are about Capitalism. The rest are about history. He wrote virtually nothing about Socialism. Das Kapital is an analysis and criticism of Capitalism as an economic system. If it had been about Communism, it would have been called Das Commune. The fact that the title is Das Kapital should give you a hint as to what it’s actually about. Even The Communist Manifesto itself is technically a history book (albeit a very short one), and describes the rise of Capitalism rather than providing a blueprint for Communism. Marx never described what Communism would actually look like, and in fact explicitly refused to do so, believing that it was not he who should build Communism, but the people. That is, it should be up to the people to create Communism in whatever way they thought was best. Marx gave the people the economic theories necessary to see how they were being exploited, but their liberation would be in their own hands, and it would be up to them to create a new and just society. The fact that the tyrannical Stalinist model failed to achieve these ideals in no way disproves anything Marx said.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

“Marx never described what Communism would actually look like, and in fact explicitly refused to do so, believing that it was not he who should build Communism, but the people. That is, it should be up to the people to create Communism in whatever way they thought was best.”

Exactly what I was hoping you would say, because your hero Che forced Communism on the people at the muzzle of a gun! He was a horrible tyrant and murderer, and not a true follower of Marx, and you just proved that to yourself!

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Che liberated the people of Cuba from the tyrannical fascist regime of Fulgencio Batista. Overthrowing tyrannical regimes typically requires violent revolution. Marx did say that Communism could potentially be achieved peacefully without any violence, but only in countries that already had democratic systems in place. In countries without democracy, where the people had no voice, violent action was naturally the only route available.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
— John F. Kennedy

CO2Insanity
Admin

Yes because trading one tyrannical regime for another more tyrannical regime always works so well.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

Che helped replace one progressive regime with another.

It doesn’t matter what Marx said could happen because nothing he wrote has ever come to pass. There was never a global workers’ revolution and the Socialism in One Country doctrine of Stalin became policy until after he died.

Marx may have believed that people would vote in a progressive government (socialist or fascist) and in places they did. As soon as the population resisted the policies, people disappeared and you have….wait for it…a totalitarian regime. Exactly what happened in Italy and Germany.

perlcat
Member

…actually, no. “…violent action was naturally the only route available.”

Violence as a *first* resort is a key indicator that there is no moral argument supporting this sort of revolution. Violence as an *only* resort puts an argument in absolute terms, forces a dichotomy. It would be like the school bully saying “give me your lunch money, or I’ll be forced to kill you”. It would also be like the school bully’s victim pulling out a gun, and blowing his fourth-grade adversary away, and claiming that he was forced into it. I believe our justice system would have a lot to say about such a disproportionate response. You’d have to destroy the justice system in order to make it possible.

It’s telling that the argument was put in these terms.

The problem with socialism is that it has to be forced upon the population as a whole. It runs so counter to human nature, that dissent must be eliminated, not tolerated. Capitalism (a stupid term for a description of how humanity perceives value) can tolerate dissent. Socialism cannot even survive if dissent appears. Therefore, I say that socialism is unnatural to humans.

Marx spent a lot of time examining capitalism — however, he never really understood it. How could he? He started with the position of opposing it, created his straw man, and then bravely burned it, proving his ignorance to the entire world. People that listen to the siren song of the fool will be fools themselves.

Socialism is prescriptive. ‘Capitalism’ is descriptive. Socialism ceases to be socialism the moment someone with two loaves of bread hard-won through hours of waiting in a queue sells one to someone else on the black market.

Capitalism will always win in the end, even after the horrendous loss of human life that socialism demands, because we are humans, not insects in a hive.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Actually, the only thing that the history of so-called “actually existing Communism” tells us is that the Stalinist model is fundamentally flawed. A careful parsing of Marx’s work reveals that Stalin actually fundamentally misunderstood Marx, anyway. Marx never said that the government should control the means of production (in fact, he even said that if that ever happened, it would lead to tyranny). What Marx REALLY said was that the means of production should be controlled by the workers. That is, the factories should be owned by the people who work in them, rather than by some outside investors, as is the case under Capitalism. Actual Socialism is about the population collectively acting in its own interest, from the bottom up. Totalitarian control from the top down is the exact opposite of what Socialism was supposed to be, and the exact opposite of what Marx advocated.

The belief that the word “Socialism” can only ever refer to Stalinism is a common misconception. There are several other potential models — such as Trotskyism, for example — that are not at all tyrannical.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Yea, Che did them such a big favor, he overthrew a prosperous country and brought the people poverty and desolation. What a great life to aspire to.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

Are pericat said, the socialist model regardless of flavor cannot work because it flies in the face of human nature. It removes incentive, which forces the state to exert force to compel the citizenry to go along with the central authority. Your theory is trumped by reality. Trotskyism? Hilarious.

Do you think Venezuela became a basket case the day Hugo Chavez became president? It takes a few years to ruin a country when a socialist takes over but it is inevitable.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Sidekick: “Are pericat said, the socialist model regardless of flavor cannot work because it flies in the face of human nature. It removes incentive, which forces the state to exert force to compel the citizenry to go along with the central authority.”
—————–
If you’re referring to the profit motive, that actually only applies when we’re dealing with physical or manual labor. Mental or intellectual labor operates independently of the profit motive. Here’s a short video that explains why:

Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

The entire premise of the video is based on the assumption that enough money is already paid to a “high-cognitive” worker so that it is taken off the table as a need or consideration. That conclusion is presented at the 5:00 minute mark. That’s a huge IF.

The rest of the video is the argument for purpose driven work BUT notice that it is only achievable once the money question is removed. The argument for his theory unravels completely because in the real world income is the reason why most of us work and if it isn’t it is because that monetary need is filled elsewhere.

This supports my argument as to why socialism always fails. It tries to achieve economic objectives by getting the citizenry to work for the greater good but since we KNOW socialism is the management of scarcity, the basic monetary and material needs are not met and never will be; therefore, the is no reason or incentive to bother performing at more than “just good enough” to stay out of the gulag. This is why Venezuela imports oil and Cuba lacks modern conveniences (except for the ruling class, of course).

Anyway, you are not going to convince anyone here that progressive ideology leads to a better economic or political outcome than classical liberalism but feel free to keep trying.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

If financial income is the only reason you’re working, then you’re going to live a sad, pitiful life. True happiness comes from finding joy in the work itself, or doing the work for a good cause. That’s the point that Daniel H. Pink was trying to make. He’s got another video here if you need additional clarification on his argument:

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation?language=en

As for Cuba, Havana recently released a statement estimating the total cost of the 54 year embargo (which was placed on it by the U.S.) at $1.1 trillion. So I’d have to say that Cuba’s economic problems are actually the fault of the U.S. government. It’s not logical to blame Cuba for not becoming wealthy on its own when the richest nation in the world is actively trying to keep Cuba down. You’d be poor too if the U.S. government blocked you from trading.

http://rt.com/business/186528-cuba-embargo-economic-damage/

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

I think you need to reread what I wrote before you try to put words in my mouth. I can only assume you don’t work or if you do you are incapable of being self-supporting and you are projecting. Your straw men are tedious. As for Cuba, let’s assume Havana is accurate and the US embargo created that lost economic opportunity figure. So what? Every other country is free to do business in Cuba so the alleged shortfall created by the embargo is likely made up with other trade partners. The inefficiencies of command economies are why Cuba is a basket case and even they have implemented limited free market principles after R. Castro admitted their system was a failure.

As an aside, I have two questions. Have you ever lived in a communist country? Have you any life experience at all? Every post from you is theory and pseudo-intellectual drivel. Not one sentence you’ve written is grounded in any practical or historical framework. Not one.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

I think it’s hilarious that you would try to claim that none of my posts have any grounding in a historical framework immediately after I made a post about Cuba’s economic problems being primarily a result of the U.S. embargo. That’s history, is it not?

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

I think it’s even more hilarious that you link Russian Times as a source for an unsubstantiated claim made by a communist regime (and they never make stuff up or use propaganda) and try to brand it as history.

Blaming the US for their failed economy when the rest of the world can and does trade with them is laughable. Typical leftist, it is always someone else’s fault.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

“Actual Socialism is about the population collectively acting in its own interest, from the bottom up.”

What happens when the population cannot agree?

A careful parsing of your words leads me to conclude that you haven’t separated classroom theory from actual history.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

The people decide matters through a democratic system. They won’t always agree, true, but a democratic system typically ensures that the majority gets what they want.

“Democracy is indispensable to socialism.”
— Vladimir Lenin

“In effect, according to Lenin, socialism and democracy are indivisible. By gaining democratic freedoms the working masses come to power.”
— Mikhail Gorbachev

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

Democracy is three lions and a gazelle deciding what’s for dinner, which is why we don’t have one.

History has shown once the minority is exposed they are eliminated in totalitarian systems.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

You’re sure buying into that anti-democracy nonsense the U.S. media has been spewing out since the early 90s. Democracy is actually a good thing, but those in power want to keep you powerless, so they brainwash you with propaganda about how democracy is supposedly bad. But it’s not, and you’ve fallen for their lies.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

You really need to research republicanism. The tyranny of the majority was foremost in mind when the Founders established our system. Please refrain from accusing anyone of being brainwashed. You are so hopelessly clueless about what you think you know it makes the reader dumber for having read your posts.

You are deflecting from the point of your initial posts. You’ve tried very hard to defend communism and socialism. You’ve blamed Stalin for “doing it wrong” and you’ve made every effort to say it could work – it can’t. So how many millions more must die before people like you give up on the Big Lie?

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

I’m aware that the Founding Fathers had suspicions of pure democracy, and I agree that there do need to be safeguards against the tyranny of the majority, but that doesn’t mean democracy isn’t good. It just means we have to establish a Bill of Rights that the majority is not allowed to violate. If we say that the government should do whatever the majority wants, except in cases where the majority wants to violate the basic human rights of a minority, then there’s no problem.

Red Robster
Member
Red Robster

certain minorities lost their basic rights when they chose to become a part of a minority, ergo if prosecuted and/or persecuted they’ve brought the trouble down on their own Godless heads.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

You’re losing me because you are contradicting yourself. Don’t twist my posts to suggest that I’m saying democracy isn’t good. Direct democracy isn’t. But a constitutional representative republic with a respect for the rule of law is good and it is a form of democracy- just not direct democracy. You cannot be a communist/socialist and advocate for maximum individual liberty and the right to self determination. The two are mutually exclusive. Case in point as a response to your last sentence is that the communists, socialists, and fascists since 1917 fatally violated the human rights of about 150 million people.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

@Red Robster: What!? Excuse me, but are you honestly trying to say that African Americans chose to be bought and sold as slaves? Ethnic minorities didn’t choose to be minorities. Women didn’t choose to be women. Gay people didn’t choose to be gay. These people were all born that way. They didn’t choose it. And if you’re talking about people who become minorities in matters of opinion, then are you saying that people who hold the wrong opinions should have their basic human rights stripped away from them? Are you sure you’re an advocate of freedom? Because it certainly doesn’t sound like it…

@Sidekick: Actually, Communism/Socialism is the ONLY social, economic, and political system which allows for the maximum liberty of society as a whole. Capitalism just allows the rich to enslave the poor — it’s the liberty of a few at the expense of the many. And while you may be correct that many of the people who paraded around in the name of Communism and Socialism were tyrants and hypocrites who did absolutely horrible things to people, what you need to realize is that none of the governments they established ever actually followed the basic key principle of Communism: equality of material wealth. Without equal wealth, there can be no equal rights. The Communist nations all failed to put that key principle into practice, and that is why they became despotic. They didn’t practice what they preached. The Capitalist nations, by contrast, rejected the principle of equal material wealth outright, and didn’t practice it either, so they became despotic as well. The only difference is they weren’t being hypocritical about it.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

Communists like you are naive useful idiots who refuse to learn from history. Since the system had been imposed on entire nations with devastating results in 1917, there is no practical basis for you to assert that socialism or communism provides individual liberty. For Pete’s sake they are collective societies by definition.

Imposing equal wealth requires someone to take by force the possessions (earned through labor) from one and give it to another. History has shown that leads to wholesale slaughter.

Equal rights? Bull! The state must hsve extraordinary rights in order to make everyone else equal. The state can never whither away can it? Not if everyone is going to be kept equal(ly miserable).

The free market system is predicated on a voluntary contract where one sells his labor to the highest bidder. His worth in a free labor market is determined by the value of his skills as determined by that market. The government in the system you advocate ensures that there is no labor market but that system will demand everyone work at a rate it deems acceptable. – that is slavery by definition. As I said, people like you are useful idiots because you confuse a unicorn and fairy dust lie with harsh and brutal reality. Seriously, maybe when you finish college and have to be sell-supporting you will see just how misguided you are.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Whether or not the state will ever whither away depends on which definition of the word “state” you’re using. If you’re simply using the term as a synonym for government (which is how it’s most commonly used), then I agree, the state will never whither away in that sense. I believe some kind of government will always be necessary. However, many people (including some Classical Liberals, I might add) define the word “state” as a hierarchical government which exerts totalitarian authority over the people, while an egalitarian government which represents the people is not called a state. If the “withering away of the state” simply means that the government will transition from a vertical hierarchical form to a horizontal egalitarian form, then that actually seems entirely plausible.

As for imposing equal wealth, it’s not possible to become wealthy without stealing the labor of other people. I actually agree with you that people should be able to keep the product of their own labor. I simply disagree with you in regards to who it is that’s actually doing the producing. In every single company, the product is always produced by the labor of the employees. People frequently talk about how business owners and CEOs are supposedly producers and “job creators,” but that’s actually a lie. The real producers are the employees, not the CEOs. Therefore, it is the employees who should keep a vast majority of the wealth that any company produces. Every man who has ever become rich has done so by glutting himself on the surplus value (i.e. the profit) which is produced by the labor of his workers or employees. Therefore, every fortune is inherently built on theft, without exception. Thus, when the state takes material wealth from the rich and gives it to the poor, the state is merely returning stolen property to its rightful owners.

And the so called “free market” allows you to “voluntarily” sell yourself to whichever master you choose. Of course it’s not really voluntary because if you don’t sell yourself to *someone* you’ll starve to death. That certainly doesn’t sound like real freedom to me. In fact, it sounds like feudalism…

In actuality, there are two kinds of freedom: first, there is political freedom, which means freedom from government, laws, and authority. And second, there is economic freedom, which means freedom from poverty and starvation. These two kinds of freedom actually stand directly opposed to each other. You can have one or the other, but you cannot have both. Personally, I think the second is the nobler of the two types of freedom. After all, if we abolish the government and the law, then we become a lawless nation ruled by whatever men happen to be strongest and most bloodthirsty. And as John Adams so famously said, “We are a nation of laws, not men.”

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

“As for imposing equal wealth, it’s not possible to become wealthy without stealing the labor of other people.”

You must have no experience in the real world to write something that stupid. Seriously. Unless you are talking about literal slavery, which is illegal in most places that is a grossly specious statement.

“Therefore, every forture is inherently built on theft, without exception. Thus, when the state takes material wealth from the rich and gives it to the poor, the state is merely returning stolen property to its rightful owners.”

You erected your straw man in the previous paragraph and knock it down here. Do you have any idea how stupid you sound AGAIN? Do you have any idea how much wealth men like Ford, Gates, Buffett, Bezos etc. have created for others? Of course you don’t because you don’t live in the real world.

“And the so called “free market” allows you to “
“voluntarily” sell yourself to whichever master you choose. Of course its not really voluntary because if you don’t sell yourself to *someone* you’ll starve to death.”

So in your utopian world, if you choose not to work you’ll receive subsistence. Really? From whom? The state? Where does it those resources? The poor sap who does bother to get up and work? How long will that guy tolerate that arrangement? What if he too refuses to work to support you?

“That certainly doesn’t sound like real freedom to me. In actuality, there are two kinds of freedom: first, there is political freedom, which means freedom from government and laws, and second, there is economic freedom, which means freedom from poverty and starvation. These two kinds of freedom actually stand directly opposed to each other. You can have one or the other, but you cannot have both. Personally, I think the second is the more important of the two types of freedom.”

More pseudo-intellectual drivel. Political freedom is not freedom from laws. No one argues that it is. Since the state cannot create wealth to support the parasitic class (like you), economic freedom only applies to the very top who can withstand the confiscation of a portion of their property and the recipients of that stolen wealth. The vast middle is squeezed ever more to pay for the parasitic class. As a result, they have less of what they work for and to people like you, they are the greedy ones because they have the nerve to want to keep more of what they earn. It is people who think like you who are greedy. You covet what you are incapable of providing for yourself and you wrap that avarice and envy up in the lie of being a true believing communist. After reading this last post of yours, I believe you are simply lazy and lack skills to succeed in a free market system. Your “way” gets you off the hook. You get to blame the man and believe there is a system that will give you you what you want with no effort on your part. Good luck with that.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Oh, and one more point: REAL freedom of contract would require prospective employees/workers to have the ability to decline a contract of employment without any negative consequences whatsoever, whether financial, social, political, or otherwise. Using the threat of poverty and starvation to force a person into a contract is hardly better than slavery.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

That is more bs that provides more evidence that you are a parasite. I still maintain that you are not self-supporting. You seem to lack the ability or ambition to be anything but the ward of the state or your parents.

In our system people move up and down the economic spectrum all the time. We have employment at will. People are free to work or not to work. There are consequences to not working. Only someone like you would ever argue that people should be supported by others if they desire not to work.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

“The vast middle is squeezed ever more to pay for the parasitic class.”
____
Not necessarily. That’s only the case if the government is willing to give the rich special exemptions from taxation (which it does, under our current system). What I advocate is squeezing is the rich, not the middle class. The reason this doesn’t happen in our current system is because the rich are the ones who write the laws, so naturally they’re not going to squeeze themselves.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

You truly have no idea what you’re talking about. No one was ever lifted out of poverty by making other people poor.

Do you have anything reality-based to offer? Anything? Personal experience you can draw on? Because I think you’ve exhausted the classroom material and other theoretical crap.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

which definition of the word “state” you’re using

Kick, I think you’re debating with Bill Clinton! He just used the “Depends on what your definition of “IS” is”!

He’s even dumber than I thought!
Anyone that can makes the arguments he has, and actually believe he has a valid point, tells me that he may be in a mental institution.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

@Sidekick: Who said anything about making people poor? Communism, if followed correctly, would make everyone middle-class. No one would be either rich or poor.

@poppajoe49: You obviously have never read very deeply into any philosophy if you’re arguing against the fact that words have multiple definitions. Either that or you’re just refusing to use basic logic. Pretty much every word in every language has multiple meanings which change depending on context and usage. Not only that, but it’s very common for philosophers to construct their own custom definitions of words. Hegel had his own unique definition of the word “idea,” Kant had his own definition of the word “aesthetic,” Ayn Rand had her own definition of the word “altruism,” etc. In anarchist philosophy, the word “state” has a unique definition which is different from the common, everyday usage. In layman’s terms, the words “state” and “government” are typically synonymous with each other. But in the terminology of anarchist philosophy, they are not the same at all. In anarchist philosophy, the word “state” refers not to government in general, but to a particular type of government. Specifically, a government which is organized as a top-down vertical hierarchy of authoritarian rule, domination, and oppression.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

Are you kidding me? If everyone is the same in your scenario how is there a middle class?

I’ll ask again, do you even have a job? Have you ever filed a tax return? Do you have a bank account?

No way you’re for real not after the garbage you’ve posted this past week.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

The answer to all three of those questions is “yes.” Yes, I have a job. Yes, I have a bank account. And yes, I even pay taxes. And no, I’m not currently on any kind of welfare. I make enough to get by, but only just barely.

And yes, you are technically correct that if the income gap was leveled out — the rich brought down and the poor lifted up — and the middle-class became the only class, it really wouldn’t make sense to call it the “middle” class anymore. I merely used the term middle-class to clarify that I don’t want to bring everyone down into poverty, which is what you accused me of advocating. If I had known you were going to get all finicky about whether or not it would be logical to use the term middle-class to describe a society of economic equals (which is a purely irrelevant grammatical argument, anyway), I would have expounded upon my statement further to say that the term really wouldn’t apply anymore at that point. So I agree with you in that sense. I just don’t think those kind of trivial grammatical minutiae are at all important. What matters is not the word, but the idea behind the word.

You said above that you used to live in the USSR in 1983, so I can understand why you’re emotional about this, and I can definitely sympathize with that. You’ve had a personal experience living under a tyrannical regime, and you’re afraid of it happening again. But what you need to understand is that the Soviet Union was never truly Communist. Pretty much all the historians who are actually worth anything all agree that the Soviet Union was a system of State-Capitalism. That is, the Soviets in Russia were doing the exact same things that the Capitalists in America were doing: operating for-profit enterprises through which they enriched themselves off the labor of the poor and the working class. The only difference really is that the Soviets were doing it through the government, while the Americans were doing it through private corporations. But it’s essentially the same thing, either way, and neither one is what Karl Marx actually advocated. In fact, Karl Marx even specifically said that if the state or government were to take over the means of production, it would lead to one of the worst kinds of tyranny imaginable. What he actually advocated was the means of production being controlled by the people, by the workers themselves. That is, the people who work in the factory should own the factory. The Soviets did not do this.

The Soviets had an expansive welfare system, sure, but they never actually engaged in complete and genuine wealth redistribution, nor did they give the workers any control or ownership over the means of production. Instead, they placed the people under a top-down authoritarian hierarchy, just like the Capitalists did. They still had rich people and poor people, which demonstrates that the Soviet government officials were not really practicing what they preached.

If Stalin preached equality but practiced inequality, then preaching inequality will only lead you towards what Stalin actually practiced by a more direct route. If Jack the Ripper says that murder is evil, but then goes out and commits murder anyway, would it be logical to say that murder is actually good, because Jack the Ripper condemned it? Obviously not, because Jack the Ripper is being a hypocrite in this circumstance, and isn’t practicing what he preached. It is unwise to attack the values expressed by a hypocrite. Rather, you should exalt the values, and condemn the hypocrite for not living up to them.

If you want to get away from tyrannical governments, then you must advocate the values which are the opposite of what those governments actually practice, not the values which are the opposite of what they preach. Every tyrant and dictator dresses up his speech in glorified moral values, and only a complete fool would attack those moral values simply because the tyrant expressed them. A wise man recognizes that the moral values themselves are are just and good, and it is merely the tyrant who is evil, because he does not live up to his own standards. The Soviet Union practiced a system of horrific inequality. Therefore, to get away from that kind of horror, we must advocate perfect equality, and then we must actually practice it.

ThatOtherGuy
Member
ThatOtherGuy

Che Lives!

At least his thread does.

This one seemed to really bring out the crazies??

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Che needs to die, along with this thread.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

#1 This argument is stupid. Is the author of the article seriously trying to claim that Che’s tour of South America is a myth simply because the motorcycle wasn’t used for the entire journey? Does the fact that Che used other methods of transportation mean the entire journey didn’t actually happen? Come on now, use some logic. Che traveled around South America. Whether he used a motorcycle or not is irrelevant.

#2 This may have been true of Che when he was a child, but as an adult, Che actually bathed regularly, and was even obsessed with it. Criticizing Che because he didn’t like taking baths when he was a kid is dumb. All it proves is that he was an ordinary child.

#3 Batista’s regime was a tyrannical, despotic, and fascist dictatorship. Executing the government officials in such a regime would be like executing Nazis. They deserved to be executed.

#4 This is simply untrue. The only people who Che ever executed were enemy soldiers and traitors within his own army. Women, children, and civilian men were not executed.

#5 This one is possibly true, though it would need to be verified by a source.

#6 There is no evidence or proof of this.

#7 Che never mounted any such campaign. While it is true that the gay community was persecuted in Cuba, that persecution had nothing to do with Che or Castro’s regime, but rather was a result of general homophobia in the culture. Tell me, how well were gay people treated in the United States during the same time period? Not much better…

#8 There is no evidence to support the claim that Che opposed free elections. A source is needed.

#9 This is probably true, though the same could be said about most American politicians. After all, economics is an incredibly complicated and difficult subject.

#10 Where is the proof of this claim? Cite a source.

#11 What is the source for this quote? Also, if you’re going to criticize Che for endorsing the use of nuclear warheads, then logically you should also criticize the United States for dropping nuclear warheads on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Che only talked about using nuclear warheads. The United States actually did it. Which is worse?

#12 The claim that Che died in battle is false propaganda spread around by the Bolivian government because they didn’t want the world to know the truth: that they had captured Che and then executed him in prison without a trial. They shot his arms and legs first to make it look like he had died in battle.

#13 How is that pathetic? Seems like a logical statement to me.

Not so silent
Member
Not so silent

Che is dead…other than that no one cares about him…other than the shitheads who make money selling his T-shirts and keeping the fairy tail alive….

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

And the ones that keep defending him on this page.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Everyone likes to pay homage the heroes of the past. Abraham Lincoln is dead, too, yet people still remember and honor him.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Take your Che worship somewhere they will appreciate it, like the Communist websites. He is no hero, and to compare him to Lincoln is an insult to Lincoln. Che is a piece of shit and will always be remembered as such by anyone with a brain.

Not so silent
Member
Not so silent

Lincoln freed the slaves, Che made slaves of people under communist rule..Pay homage to Che? I would rather use his T-shirt for target practice at the range….

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Preferably a Che loving commie bitch will be wearing it!

Not so silent
Member
Not so silent

Double OO buckshot at close range….aim for the face…on the t-shirt…

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

A .22 in non lethal areas, as many times as it takes for him to pass out from pain, then wake him up to finish him off.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

While the pseudo-Communist government of Cuba is certainly nowhere near as free as the government of the United States or other democratic nations, it was a huge improvement over the fascist government of Batista. So yes, technically Che did free the people of Cuba.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Yea, because there was no money in Cuba when Batista was there, and now it’s a tourism mecca, and the people are rolling in cash!
Sheesh. 🙄

CO2Insanity
Admin

I like all those modern cars they have in the people’s paradise.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Parts are no problem when your manufacturing hasn’t been updated since 1956.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Economic prosperity and freedom are two different things. And Cuba’s stunted economy likely has more to do with the embargo placed on them by the United States than it does with the policies of Castro.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

You can not have economic freedom without personal liberty. Blaming a centrally planned economy’s failures on one country’s embargo is simply stupid since the rest of the world openly trades with Cuba. Canadians, for example, spend enormous amounts of money on tourism each year in Cuba.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Yea, it’s Bush’s fault! LOL
You can have all the trade you want, but if the government takes control of all the money, it never has a chance to do anything useful.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Cuba has a mixed economy, not a centrally planned one. The United States has government involvement in production as well.

Making all production controlled exclusively by the government is obviously a very bad idea. But at the same time, saying the government should stay out of production entirely is rather silly. Some of the strongest American companies are ones with government backing. Can anyone say NASA?

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

LOL!! You definitely said that to the wrong person!!

CO2Insanity
Admin

What mixed economy? I guess sugar and tourism are mixed in your world?

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

NASA is a company? Yeah, ok. When does the fall semester start? Not soon enough apparently.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

He must have taken the summer mini-mester on advanced communist brainwashing.

Not so silent
Member
Not so silent

If you like your Cuba, you can keep your Cuba..In fact maybe you should move their since it is a paradise…..Or there is always North Korea, China, or perhaps Iran…You want government control and them running every aspect of your life, have at it…AS they sang in Gilligan’s Island, No Lights, No Phone, No Motorcars, not a single luxury…If communism…is what you want, by all means move… Those of us that haven’t drank the kool aid will stay behind and suffer with our flawed system….Das Vidanya Comrade.

perlcat
Member

FYI:

it’s “Do svidanya, tovarisch”.

drb
Member
drb

🙂 and you would definately know…How’s the Mrs. Perlcat?

perlcat
Member

She’s doing well. I’m hanging in there. Hopefully I will get more free time real soon so I can spend it productively at IHTM.

Not so silent
Member
Not so silent

Which is why I don’t speak Russian or want to live there….I speak Russian about as well as our resident troll speaks English….:)

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

I speak Russian about as well as our resident troll speaks English

I speak Russian about as well as our resident troll speaks common sense.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

I’ve never been to Cuba, so I couldn’t tell you whether it’s a paradise or not. Though I can say that the argument that the U.S. has more freedom than Cuba is a dubious claim at best. If we’re talking about North Korea, then yes, obviously the U.S. has more freedom than North Korea. North Korea is a hell hole. No one wants to live there. But Cuba I’m not so sure about. Cuba’s level of freedom seems to be about on-par with the U.S., and in some specific areas, probably slightly better, since they don’t have all the oppressive drug laws we have here.

ooddballz
Member
ooddballz

Umm, yeah.
Say that to my Cuban friends, who spent 3 days on an inner-tube and lost a family member trying to get to America.

Oh, and hope you have a great dental plan.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

You mean like the freedom to leave the country any time they want? Yea, Cuba is the world leader in freedom!

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

You think you’re free to leave America whenever you want?

7 Reasons You’re Not Free To Leave:
http://libertarianmoney.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/7-reasons-youre-not-free-to-leave/

CO2Insanity
Admin

You are really confused. Are you communist, libertarian or an anarchist?

Your site is another train wreck, too.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

I’ve never seen a bigger load of crap than that commie propaganda!

CO2Insanity
Admin

Cuba can get stuff from anyplace on the planet save the US. Blaming the US embargo for their communist failure is braindead.

perlcat
Member

It’s like saying “How dare you make me suffer minor inconveniences for my principles.” Except that commies don’t have principles — just a hankering for oppression.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

Capitalism can be a tool for oppression as well. Colonial and imperialistic domination of third-world countries can hardly be called “freedom.”

There’s a documentary called “The End of Poverty” which I think you ought to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pktOXJr1vOQ

CO2Insanity
Admin

Way to go! No way to win your argument so you do the typical libtard thing and change the subject.

CO2Insanity
Admin

Oh, and if capitalism is so bad tell us all why the illegal aliens coming up en masse from Central America aren’t all going to the people’s paradise of Cuba? Hmmm?

perlcat
Member

All that “income inequality” BS is a smokescreen from a lot of ultra-wealthy leftists who don’t want you to realize that the real oppression comes from power and those who think that the ones in power will somehow, counter to every. single. time. in the past will somehow either share it with them or bring them into that club.

Go ahead, “ax” Leon Trotsky how that worked.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

BWAHAHAHA!! Cinedigm? A bunch of losers that distribute movies that have absolutely zero potential to be seen anywhere but on Youtube!!

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

tell us all why the illegal aliens coming up en masse from Central America aren’t all going to the people’s paradise of Cuba?

It might tip over.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

The influx of Latin Americans to the United States is a direct result of American involvement in Latin America. When their countries are overrun with militants, the people don’t emigrate, they flee. Here’s another documentary you should also watch, called “Harvest of Empire.”

http://vimeo.com/48145023

CO2Insanity
Admin

Nice try. Now try something that happened in the 21st century, not the 20th or the 19th.

Quote from the site: From the wars for territorial expansion that gave the U.S. control of Puerto Rico, Cuba and more than half of Mexico, to the covert operations that imposed oppressive military regimes in the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador, HARVEST OF EMPIRE unveils a moving human story that is largely unknown to the great majority of citizens in the U.S.

Yeah, it’s unknown because it’s communist propaganda (AKA Bullshit) for stooges like you who are incapable of original thought.

Nowadays they’re overrun with gangs screwing up llves, not militants.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

We’re only 14 years into the 21st century. To assume that the causes of our current crises do not have roots in the 20th century is incredibly foolish. The actions of our government decades ago can and do have long-term repercussions, which are being felt today. Not everything is immediate.

CO2Insanity
Admin

You guys all go to the same brainwashing school?

It’s always someone else’s fault, not the lefties.

You blame the problems in Latin America on things the US supposedly did decades ago.

If this was all caused by the actions of our government I’d think that none of these people would want to come here.

If the leftist and communist in Central America are so great then why are there such huge problems and why are people literally (in come cases) dying to come to the evil US that caused all their problems?

Answer? Because they have leftist morons running their countries who, if they’re so smart, should have long ago changed things for the better, but they didn’t and they never will. The people know that and they also know there’s no hope with these retards running the place.

Again, if communism is so great why aren’t they all headed to Cuba, or the peoples paradise of Venezuela? Why not go to China or North Korea? Or Myanmar?

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Maphesdus, the point he was making is that the “documentary” you referenced was about stuff that happened over 60 years ago.

Maphesdus
Member
Maphesdus

I’m aware that it happened 60 years ago. The point that *I* was making, which you apparently missed, was that events that happened 60 years ago can still have a lasting impact on the situation today.

As for why people immigrate to the U.S. when the U.S. is responsible for destroying their own countries, it’s actually very simple. The U.S. government typically doesn’t attack people within its own borders. It only attacks people outside of its borders. As a nation, the United States tends to externalize its violence. Therefore, the only way to escape the violence of the U.S. is to flee INTO the U.S. It’s a bit paradoxical, but it makes perfect sense when you actually understand how imperialism works.

IRAN.lover
Member
IRAN.lover

So you don’t want me to go…(read my last comment)

IRAN.lover
Member
IRAN.lover

I know you love me guys….;-) if you want me to go like thid..like this up

IRAN.lover
Member
IRAN.lover

By the way im gonna send some letters to “ban ki moon”(the treator) and bashar asad then i will go to soviet onion to end the cold war i’ve named my self “THE MESSENGER OF PEACE”

Not so silent
Member
Not so silent

Not just nuts but fucking nuts…..apparently they have computers in mental health facilities…..

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

I think I need to drop some acid to understand what this idiot is saying.

Not so silent
Member
Not so silent

He is some North Korean butt boy holding his tiny little penis in one hand and a mouse in the other….

IRAN.lover
Member
IRAN.lover

I tell you before im a show man at north korea..and im not a turk and my english is awadome..sometimes i was going to become foreign minister of the republic of north kore recently i’ve send some letter(not the bomb!!) to barak obama,james cameron,elizabet quuen,edward snowden,wiki leaks guy,and miley ciruc

IRAN.lover
Member
IRAN.lover

you mean beacon??!

Not so silent
Member
Not so silent

Yer Engrish no good long time..Let me guess your job before internet troll was dear leader’s jizz receptacle?

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

He’s a 3 input tool.

IRAN.lover
Member
IRAN.lover

His haircut is awasome…it’s new fashion in north korea…he is very kind and naughty..but he doesn’t like homosexuasl actualy he will kill’em…i will be very proud if you come to to our country…specialy if you are a homosexual

StrinaM
Member

Go eat bacon!

IRAN.lover
Member
IRAN.lover

My english is awesome…im a showman at northe korea…people love me laugh at me and if they don’t im gonna kidnap their family and rape them..if you are homosexual im gonna get and you gonna su*k what you like…and im not a TURK(did yo mean turk by turd?)

Not so silent
Member
Not so silent

No turd as in shit.which is what you deserve……Go back to masturbating with your picture of dear leader and his faggy haircut…

IRAN.lover
Member
IRAN.lover

you ya*k*e donkey monkey peace(piece) of je*k homosexual gay…..forget about it…let us be FRIEND…when would yo let me fu*k you?? you let me fu** you and i will let yo su** my co*k…it’s what you want right?? a homosexual want a disk(:d) to s*c* on right?? allright and for you, i have six bag(not six pack) i know you you’ll love it but sometimes it gonna hurts cause i fu*k as* bad,very bad…and i know fo*(or maybe f*g)s can’t wait for me to fusk’em…allright allright

flashingscotsman
Member

Turd.

StrinaM
Member

WTF! International trolling?!?!? I guess IHTM has made the big time! Too bad he/she/it can’t type English in any way that can be understood, other than to say f*ck.

Not so silent
Member
Not so silent

Whatever it is, it is a first class retard…or 7 years old….But if it is from the religion of peace, it is a perfect example of tolerance and stupidity all rolled into one smelly package…Just ignore it, it will go the way of the Hindenburg…..

IRAN.lover
Member
IRAN.lover

My wife is doing good,how is your gay friend??!does he have pain in ass?? Your dick most be have a little shit and pee in front of it,right?? And don’t gorget to wash your mounth after licking your friend ass! Say hello to your husband(gay friend )

Not so silent
Member
Not so silent

Look our 12 year old, developmentally disabled goat rider is back…Your really insane aren’t you..if you believe half of the shit your saying, you need better meds. Or else your just some libturd troll trying to stir up shit..goodbye, your a waste of space and time…

flashingscotsman
Member

Wow. He’s a bright one, isn’t he?

Red Robster
Member
Red Robster

comment image

IRAN.lover
Member
IRAN.lover

Yeah yeah i know you are all homosexual and you eat shit of your gay friend and swallo it …yeah im not homosexual,and that’s why you dislike me because i don’t want to eat your shit,thourogh you want to kiss my di*k(disc) and suck it so hard…cheguevera was a homosexual too,CHE WAS HOMOSEXUAL THATS TRUE.

Not so silent
Member
Not so silent

Hows the wife? She still out in the pasture grazing? How does she graze wearing a bag? Your sure seem to be hung up on homosexuals..I bet you have a secret desire to be one since the goat just ain’t doing it for ya…..

P.S…Heres a website I thought you might enjoy
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/

IRAN.lover
Member
IRAN.lover

There is only one reason that you should hate che guevara ,he was homosexual

IRAN.lover
Member
IRAN.lover

I don’t accept him as hero,but agree with him in case of us and special with his job with homosexuals,homosexuality is an illnes an us get it out of illnest list because of political…

flashingscotsman
Member

Wow, it’s been a while since I dropped a turd.

MASHA26
Member
MASHA26

So due to your lack of knowledge, I’ve decided to enlighten you with some facts about the honorary Che Guevara. Just to be cute I’ll give you 13 rebuttals to all of the false you’ve thrown on his name.

1. Che Guevara’s motorcycle transportation throughout Latin America, did break down but he did not have a luxuries ride throughout all of the continent. Instead, he hitch hiked and back packed to each destination, getting to know all the people around him. In Guatemala, he saw the injustices brought amongst the poor by the United State’s business interests, mainly the United Fruit Company. A complete exploitation of an entire people for “bananas”, more like the United States gold. Everything was dominated by a money hungry government. Che brought about change for the people.

2. Che was nicknamed “Chancho”, translated as pig in Spanish, as a young boy. I don’t know but I think that many young males go through that at an adolescent age. That’s typical in most societies but I don’t know, that may just be me… HA.

3. Many traitors against the revolution were execute in effort to preserve the new goverment that would lead Cuba towards equality economic prosperity throughout the country. Castro, Che and the 26th Movement had massive support throughout Cuba because they promised a better life. Although if you look closely at the United States history, you’ll find how the CIA took out all existing opponents….. Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, Che Guevara.

4. I am not opposed to reiterate to you how much Che did for his surrounding community. He never abused his power as a part of the head of the Cuban goverment. In fact, he was strict in the notion that his family would never receive special treatment for those status. On his free days, he would go and work in the field with the farmers of the sugar cane in Cuba, he would not allow his wife to ride in the privileged car, she had to take the bus like the citizens of the community. He was a very noble, honest and true man.

5. Che spent his life working FOR THE PEOPLE. In America, there is no such thing as freedom of press. You eat what the goverment is feeding you. The people Che was fighting for HAD NO VOICE during United States occupation.

6. The suppression of Rock’N’Roll..mhmmm? A style of music born in the United States. The enemy of the revolution. The same people oppressing the poor, killing off an entire race in their own country with the use of the KKK and an unconstitutional constitution…’ll let that sit with you.

7. I’m not even going to acknowledge that with any of my words.

8. Che Guevara did not oppose free elections, he opposed the symbol head of that form of goverment. The United States. The myth of fraternity and freedom. A country that built his way up on the backs of pother nations and peoples. Indigenous Indians and Africans throughout the diaspora, including Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and on its own soil, the United States.

9. Castro did put Che in charge of the economy although United States bitterly placed a trade embargo against Cuba, as a result of loosing their property when Castro nationalized the country so it could benefit the country and its people instead of the United States.

10. Che Guevara lived for the revolution. He was a man of heart, morals and fierce compassion. He did re-marry, just like many people have in society. He has 5 children from two marriages. His time with his family, he was a devoted father but his dedication to the revolution is what drove him around the world to bring about change.

11. “Let me say, at the risk of seeming ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love.” – Ernesto “Che” Guevara

12. “I know you are here to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man, not my ideas!” Those were the last words of Che Guevara until he was executed, by orders of the CIA and Bolivian goverment, after being captured along his flee of 11 months out of Bolivia. His killer was a young Bolivian soldier and entered the room, fired, first hitting Che’s arm..He fell to the ground and bit his hand to avoid screaming out until finally, he fired nine more bullets to his body.

13. Che Guevara was a man of extreme pride and dignity. When commanding Bolivian officer told Che of his soon to come assassination. His reply was “Good, I should not have been caught alive anyways.” and also, after his attempt in the Congo he refused to stop until his revolution was carried out the end.

Before you comment on something, you don’t truly know about do not post things like this. Feeding right into the propaganda fed to you, look deeper into it and find the facts about what you deem as moral and just.

“After graduation, due to special circumstances and perhaps also to my character, I began to travel throughout America, and I became acquainted with all of it. Except for Haiti and Santo Domingo, I have visited, to some extent, all the other Latin American countries. Because of the circumstances in which I traveled, first as a student and later as a doctor, I came into close contact with poverty, hunger and disease; with the inability to treat a child because of lack of money; with the stupefaction provoked by the continual hunger and punishment, to the point that a father can accept the loss of a son as an unimportant accident, as occurs often in the downtrodden classes of our American homeland. And I began to realize at that time that there were things that were almost as important to me as becoming famous for making a significant contribution to medical science: I wanted to help those people.”
– Ernesto Che Guevara

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

1. So his story as written is still a lie.
2. So you are trying to refute something that you admit you have no info for.
3. So, instead of holding fair trials and jailing the opposition, he executed them. BTW, there is no proof except in your mind and whatever leftist literature you have read, that the CIA executed any of those you mentioned.
4. You say “He was a very noble, honest and true man.” But what you wrote doesn’t in any way address the fact that he executed innocent men, women, and children.
5. In America, we definitely have freedom of the press, as evidenced by the fact that even opposition press members aren’t dragged into the street and executed as they are in Latin American countries, and as was done by Che.
6. What kind of drugs are you on? The US Government has worked hard to prosecute the KKK and similar organizations for their crimes. Killing off an entire race? Have you noticed who our president is? You’re a fucking idiot!
7. So, you can’t refute that, and want us to think it is ridiculous by refusing to comment. Dumbass.
8. So, you admit he opposed free elections, which many freedom fighters in Latin America fight and die for.
9. So, you expect the US to happily accept the theft of their property by the Cuban government? Tell me more about how it benefitted the people of Cuba. They live in abject poverty.
10. Maybe he should have stayed home and fixed his screwups and supported his children!
11. WTF does that have to do with his willingness to allow millions of his people die from nuclear war?
12. So, you know better than the person that was there when he was killed? Grow up and learn something beyond the communist propoganda you are fed.
13. Again, you know better than the person that was there when he was killed? I am tired of your commie bullshit and idolatry of a scumbag, murdering coward.
Don’t bother quoting that asshole here, we will just make sure it is shown for the bullshit and lies that it is.

MASHA26
Member
MASHA26

The CIA keeps all it’s information confidential but if you look at the facts and a trend through history, all opposition of the United States was taken out mysteriously. Speak to men of the ex-CIA who can admit to the orders brought out. And also, there are accounts of his excited telling exactly of his orders & explaining exactly what happened when he was massacred. Second, I’m on no type of drugs. You are seriously disturbed if you think Anerica has done anything to stop the KKK. The KKK was composed of the officials in legislature and the goverment, policemen, firemen, all white men. You can not say they couldn’t stop the KKK when there were more than several cases when black men were unjustly killed, it’s even still in today’s society with Georger Zimmerman’s slaughter of Trayvonne Martin & being acquitted. AMERICA DOES NOT DO ANYTHING FOR THE UPLIFT OF AFRICAN AMERICAN PEOPLE. Yes, my president is black but he can’t make the shit happen that he needs to because of the Republican Senate putting holds on everything. It’s not theft of property while oly the rich are getting richer while the poor continues to get poorer. And the reason for Cubas current economic position is because instead of humbly bowing out, the US placed a trade embargo on Cuba that is still in tact in 2013. Tell me how a new country is supposed to prosper for itself while they have no one to trade and have commerce with. And I know what I know because of the story of his murderer. He was not shot in combat & died of his wounds, he was massacred in a barn. People knew of his existence in the community and they knew of the order commanded for him to be dead. RESEARCH AND MAYBE YOU CAN FIGURE THIS OUT YOURSELF!!

PsychoDad
Member

Woo baby, lay off the crack.

Well, there’s wayyyyy too much crazy in there to cope with completely, so I’ll limit myself to this:

“the reason for Cubas current economic position is because instead of humbly bowing out, the US placed a trade embargo on Cuba that is still in tact in 2013. Tell me how a new country is supposed to prosper for itself while they have no one to trade and have commerce with.”

First, 10 points off for illiteracy. Rule 1, if you want to be taken at all seriously, you need to put thoughts together.

Second: Cuba has the entire rest of the world to trade with. Isn’t that enough?

Third: I’ve also seen the Cuban embargo attacked as only hurting all Cubans. If that’s true, wasn’t the worldwide embargo on South Africa just as evil?

Well, thanks for playing, better luck next time, and remember, it means something when the words you are writing have that funny squiggly underlining.

OK, who’s tag teaming with me here? You’re up!

perlcat
Member

The hell of it is, you don’t have to troll these dumbasses.

Like I told my kid about US communists: By definition they are morons. Who else but a weapons-grade moron could stand in the middle of unmatched prosperity, opportunity, and freedom, and say “Nope. Nothing here for me. I want to bring on a political system whose only ‘achievement’ is that it can kill more than anyone and anything else.”

Who else but a weapons grade moron would take the most murderous of all these at their word, and then pretend they are smart by using the bumper sticker mantra: “question everything” on the people that *don’t* have a long track record of murdering their political opponents? Apparently, wholesale slaughter is just hunky-dory, and doesn’t need questioning. Like all morons on the left, in their view, “freedom of speech” only applies to their own mouth-diarrhea.

You realize, masha/pudd’n head, that in this country, your idiocy is tolerated. However, what I just wrote here would be my death sentence in Che’s Cuba. Any inkling why that might be? What’s to fear in an idea? Apparently, in Che’s view, everything. If that alone doesn’t make you think, then you are incapable of coherent thought, and *that* makes you fair game for ridicule.

C’mon, this is earthworm logic: “Bright light — move away”. In this case, it’s “In Che’s Cuba, they killed you if you had a different opinion. In the US, they don’t.”

You had no need to go wandering into a forum where people have opinions you don’t like. You did this on your own. The problem is, you are incapable of applying actual logic. Every single rant you make only solidifies people’s poor opinion of you. You are an idiot. If you were in power, you’d be a dangerous idiot. The fact that morons like you vote is appalling, and the sole reason why we have your fellow moron in the oval office.

Like your “hero”, you think that the answer to other people’s freedom is to repress it, because you alone know “what’s good for us”. Then you have use the old disinformation bit: “Republicans are bad because they want to inflict their opinion of what’s good for you on you in re: birth control.”

Like all idiots on the left, whatever you accuse others of is your current plan.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

I’ll take this one.
So, how do you explain the bloody cuts on Zimmerman’s head, you think he did that to himself?
Perlcat, I love that term, “Weapons Grade Moron”! I’ll be stealing that in the future.

DefHarryMelon
Member
DefHarryMelon

Little ernesto was a punk ass murderer, a coward who specialized in killing captives who were tied up and defenseless in order to feel less like the pussy he was. He deserved to be kicked to death by 4th grade schoolgirls. Many morons such as yourself come here to ‘teach’ us a few things about your pussyboy hero. Fuck you very much, but you know nothing but lies.comment image.html

And he screamed like a little pussy, offering to give up his comrades in order to save his own life, willing to turn coat because he didn’t like the idea of being served cold justice that the Bolivians had for his worthless sack of shit.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

He really was a worthless cont.

danybhoy
Member
danybhoy

Is your spellcheck working?

valdezangie
Member
valdezangie

For one thing “Chancho” does not mean Pig in Spanish. “Cochino”

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

OK, actually, both are acceptable uses.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cochino
Spanish
Noun[edit]
cochino m (plural cochinos)
1.pig, hog
2.pervert

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chancho
Noun[edit]
chancho m (plural chanchos, feminine chancha)
1.(Latin America) pig

Perhaps it’s just a difference of dialect,as with many words, when you move away from the homeland, such as Spain, to another country that uses the same/similar language, many pronunciations are changed somewhat, but mean the same thing. As you can see from what I copied, Cochino specifically refers to Spanish, while Chancho refers to Latin America. Same basic language, different dialects.

Not so silent
Member
Not so silent

It appears the Little Che fan club finally found IHTM and they are upset because someone said nasty things about their hero…..Put his picture on rolls of toilet paper..Che earned that….

UShouldCry
Member
UShouldCry

Where to begin. I’ll just tackle one claim for now. #10 is a great one to start with. So he didn’t leave Cuba to spread communism? Then why was he captured and executed (without trial) in Bolivia where he was fighting to spread communism? I would put a reference but it is laughable to do so since the lack of logic in him going to fight in guerrilla warfare in another country and die there (a FACT agreed to by anyone who knows an iota about him) because he “screwed up his private life” makes it absolutely pointless.
Also, PLEASE down-vote this if you don’t “like it” (read as “agree with it”) so that conflicting opinions to your fairy tale are hidden… Censorship? Effing’ brilliant and absolutely flexing the free press muscle in this Utopia of enlightened websites… Che would be proud?

flashingscotsman
Member

How can it be censorship if I just read your post, even though there are now enough downvotes to “hide” it? Do you even understand the meaning of the word censorship?

UShouldCry
Member
UShouldCry

Hmm… it’s a type of cake right? Alright y’all take care now, buhbye!

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Someone lock that damned thing and get ID before letting in anyone new.

flashingscotsman
Member

Wow. What a snappy comeback. Some kind of cake. Hey, idiot! If something is censored, I can’t see it, somebody has disallowed viewing. Here, all I did was click a button, and there was your stupidity on display. The button is even labeled, so morons such as yourself can click on it.

BellaKat
Member
BellaKat

“What are “they” doing in Iraq? Building schools, saving children who are dumped on the dumpsters, building churches, creating infrastructure trying to get those people to take some responsibility for their lives. ” this is the stupidest shit i’ve ever heard. Taking responsibility? You have no fucking idea what its like to live in iraq. all through the night you can hear people dying. You wake up to hear your neighbor got fucking shot in the head, you fear for your life. They’ve never done anything remotely close to the bullshit you just said. they came here to kill, to steal or oil. Stop eating up the bullshit your precious government feeds you, you inane piece of shit.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

Whose bullshit are you eating, you ‘inane piece of shit’?

It’s really easy to post without actually saying anything.

You should learn to debate rather than being a shrill asshole. You might learn something and others might take you more seriously.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Not to mention that the people doing the killing in Iraq are Al-Qaeda and Iranians. The US has pulled out their troops already. BTW, once again, we are getting LESS oil from Iraq than we did before 9-11. We have more oil here than they have in Iraq.

flashingscotsman
Member

Our only roadblock to energy self sufficiency is environmentalist wackos, and the politicians that pander to them.

KimmyQueen
Member

B*tch you didn’t hear it, you read it. Right there you FAIL.

Also b*tch I know a whole of a lot more of what the US is doing in Iraq than you. Your people dump female babies in dumpsters and soldiers rescue them and US workers find them homes here in the US. If you neighbor got shot is probably because he was a terrorist scumbag. You disgust me stupid b*tch but i am not surprised. You like living in filth and no matter what we do over there, you people will always live in filth. You fail to moderate a murderous religion that finds women and girls to be less than sh*t, you fail to do anything to change your lives for the better. You live in filth and love it, someone comes along and spends their money and time and sacrifices their people to help out and you people do nothing for your own development. If it wasn’t for the most innocent among you, I would say to just let you people just kill one another and destroy one another and be done with the lot of you.

jacksman
Member
jacksman

Who can take a crap. right their in the street. wipe it on their dress to keep it off of their feet. The taliban. The taliban can. “candyman”

perlcat
Member

D’OH!!!

Buzz Killington
Member
Buzz Killington

I’m sorry, but are you seriously trying to justify his life for wrongdoings you perceive are going on in Iraq?

Oh, and this is my favorite line of yours, “They came here to steal our oil.” The United States of America has NEVER and STILL DOESN’T receive ANY oil from the country of Iraq. If this was a war on oil, where are all of the US oil mines at? Why have we never seen one? Where are the oil mines in Afghanistan? Why are we supplying the military and police in Afghanistan with fuel for their bases and outposts? The US has had to cease gasoline supply to dozens and dozens of Afghani National Police bases because they were stealing all of it to sell in the markets for more drugs and little boys.

But hey, don’t let facts get in your way. I’ll wait for you to list the location of ONE United States owned oil mine in either the countries of Iraq or Afghanistan.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Other than you saying oil mine instead of oil well, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
I have 2 nephews that have served in Afghanistan, and you are telling total truth about the gas deal.

jakematlock
Member
jakematlock

you call Che a murder? what about the Americans? what are they doing on Iraq? what are they doing in Afghanistan? they kill women children men and for what? for oil

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick

False moral equivalencies? That’s all you have? Go away and bring some facts before you come in here again. Moron.

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Kick, he’ll just be another hit and run libtard.
Likely a college student with no clue beyond what his lame-ass professors brainwashed him with.

kikayamasmotto
Member
poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Good link, thanks.

KimmyQueen
Member

What is the purpose of your life?

Che was a murderer, racist b*tch. Read his own words and talk to the families of his victims.

So I am guess you are either a liberal b*tch or a foreigner liberal b*tch. What about Americans? We are not talking about Americans here. We are talking about Che fool. What are “they” doing in Iraq? Building schools, saving children who are dumped on the dumpsters, building churches, creating infrastructure trying to get those people to take some responsibility for their lives. Afghanistan the same thing. “They” are not killing women and children for the pleasure of it. You are a fool. Afghanistan has oil? Please.

Oh and TURD!!!!

poppajoe49
Guest
poppajoe49

Go get ’em Kimmy!

trackback

[…] the path of liberation even if this costs millions of atomic victims.”  Extras: Citações, Razões para o negar. Classificar isto:Share this:FacebookTwitterLinkedInGostar disto:GostoBe the first to like […]