HomerJay wrote:Has anyone worked out what all this chest beating has to do with Malala?

An attempt to use a cheap appeal to emotion to drive an outdated and hopelessly outmatched political philosophy/faux-revolution?

andyx1205 wrote:
Damn, some of you are getting quite pissed off, perhaps it is because your whole worldview is being shattered by my simple citation of facts.

Their bloated balloon of capitalist lies has been pierced by your Trotskyite Sword of Truth, Brother. Keep going.

andyx1205 wrote:Facts are a bitch. Isn't that what Dawkins says to the creationists who deny what is true despite the evidence?

Damn, some of you are getting quite pissed off, perhaps it is because your whole worldview is being shattered by my simple citation of facts. You know, like that creationist that says: but the Bible says this! Similarly, many are mad because the ruling ideas of society do not agree with me! The religion of the current society, the ideas shoved down our throats by the ruling class, is being dismantled by facts! Oh dear!

Jumbo wrote:

It shows the strength of the planned economy, the USSR made historical achievements in industrialization and advancement in a very small timeframe. Just a little off-topic but this is related.

No it shows that a small number multiplied lots of times is often still a small number.

the strategy of Allies was to let the Nazis defeat the USSR

Really? The UK sending equipment to the Russians and being willing to lose so many on the Arctic convoys seems a weird way to go about letting someone be defeated.

The existence of a nationalised planned economy gave the USSR an enormous advantage in the war.

The USSR having vast vast numbers of soldiers and being willing to send them wave after wave against the Germans in inferior equipment to overwhelm the enemy gave the Russians an enormous advantage.

I'll take Churchill's own views and strategy over the propaganda, here's a good read on the subject...citing the actual master-minds of the war, the strategists.

http://www.marxist.com/wwii-anniversary-one210704.htm
http://www.marxist.com/wwii-anniversary-two210704.htm

The USSR was an enemy from the very beginning. Heck some wanted to fight the USSR right away after WW2 but it would be difficult to convince allied soldiers who believed in the myth that the war was against fascism to go invade the USSR.

The vast number of soldiers needed to be supplied with arms and equipment, to keep producing enough of that required the strength of the planned economy, The numbers, as the article notes, speak for themselves.

Lets get this straight.

This is a country that was more backwards than India in 1917. After the October Revolution that cost only NINE deaths, there was the Civil War with over 14 foreign armies invading with the counter-revolutionary and reactionary, fascist, anti-semitic jew killing White Army. This destroyed Russia, lots of people died, whole country nearly destroyed. It was able to bounce back, develop quickly, and by WW2 defeated the Nazis, proceeding to liberate Europe from the Nazis. It was only when the USSR was defeating the Nazis that the Allies intervened more directly, they were waiting for Germany to defeat USSR.

Blackadder wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:Facts are a bitch. Isn't that what Dawkins says to the creationists who deny what is true despite the evidence?

Dawkins is an effete product of the Imperial British ruling classes. He was born in Africa into a family of colonialists and spent his entire life in the privileged arms of English private schools and Oxford University. He is also immensely rich and privileged. I am shocked that a revolutionary as knowledgeable as yourself would hold him up as some kind of example. For shame.

Engels was from the bourgeoisie, Marx was rich, Che Guevara was middle class, Lenin's dad got the title of nobility so Lenin could've chilled as a noble.

Just admit it fellas. The story of brave young Malala getting shot by the brutal Taliban cannot fit your political narrative because she stands for more than simply liberal feminism wanting equal rights for women, that is, the idea that if women had equality everything would be better and there'd be no oppression on Earth. Just face it, you're mad that while you aren't doing shit with your life to create a better world, this young brave girl that has already gone through so much has at a young age said the words:

"I am convinced Socialism is the only answer and I urge all comrades to take this struggle to a victorious conclusion. Only this will free us from the chains of bigotry and exploitation.”

I am proud I stand with her. I am proud I stand amongst many great heroes from Lenin to Trotsky to Che Guevara and beyond. I'm proud that the smartest man of the past century, Albert Einstein, was also a Socialist, who wrote an article called "Why Socialism." I am proud to be in such tradition.

Long live the revolution. Death to capitalism and for a world free from want and need, for a world where everyone has the right to food shelter health-care and an education! For a humane world free from barbarism and exploitation and imperialism!

So it's just a blatant appeal to emotion now?

andyx1205 wrote:

Blackadder wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:Facts are a bitch. Isn't that what Dawkins says to the creationists who deny what is true despite the evidence?

Dawkins is an effete product of the Imperial British ruling classes. He was born in Africa into a family of colonialists and spent his entire life in the privileged arms of English private schools and Oxford University. He is also immensely rich and privileged. I am shocked that a revolutionary as knowledgeable as yourself would hold him up as some kind of example. For shame.

Engels was from the bourgeoisie, Marx was rich, Che Guevara was middle class, Lenin's dad got the title of nobility so Lenin could've chilled as a noble.

All of those relinquished their past and became revolutionaries. Dawkins continues to accumulate wealth and even now is about to publish a book about his early years as a childhood colonial oppressor. No doubt this will add to his riches. I urge you to withdraw your support for him and condemn him as enemy of the people. Any of us can be mistaken. There is no shame in admitting it.

The vast number of soldiers needed to be supplied with arms and equipment, to keep producing enough of that required the strength of the planned economy, The numbers, as the article notes, speak for themselves.

Indeed they did. Its interesting that if this planned economy is so successful that it could not provide enough equipment for the soldiers. The supposedly inferior UK and US systems had to provide them with more tanks planes and other equipment whilst also equipping themselves. The US alone sent about 16 million tons of goods to Russia including 400,000 trucks and cars, 5,000 armored vehicles 7,000 tanks and 11,400 aircraft.

From the article:

In 1943 alone, the USSR produced 130,000 pieces of artillery, 24,000 tanks and self-propelled guns, 29,900 combat aircraft.

What were the US numbers in 43?
53,183 combat aircraft. Tanks 37,198. I have no idea about artillery. Its funny though that the planned economy despite being allegedly so superior seems to churn out less combat aircraft and less tanks and both are inferior generally in quality to those produced by the US.

Its odd that the article tries to make the case that the allies invasion was all about repelling the Red army and thats what made them decide to act rather than putting any significant weight on the fact (which it barely mentions) that Stalin had been pressing for well over a year for the second front to be opened.

Theonly country that didn't have a planned economy in WW2 was Nazi Germany and there war industry was all over the place with stupid competing designs none of which got implemented properly

US,USSR, UK all have industry building what government told it to build

Blackadder wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:

Blackadder wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:Facts are a bitch. Isn't that what Dawkins says to the creationists who deny what is true despite the evidence?

Dawkins is an effete product of the Imperial British ruling classes. He was born in Africa into a family of colonialists and spent his entire life in the privileged arms of English private schools and Oxford University. He is also immensely rich and privileged. I am shocked that a revolutionary as knowledgeable as yourself would hold him up as some kind of example. For shame.

Engels was from the bourgeoisie, Marx was rich, Che Guevara was middle class, Lenin's dad got the title of nobility so Lenin could've chilled as a noble.

All of those relinquished their past and became revolutionaries. Dawkins continues to accumulate wealth and even now is about to publish a book about his early years as a childhood colonial oppressor. No doubt this will add to his riches. I urge you to withdraw your support for him and condemn him as enemy of the people. Any of us can be mistaken. There is no shame in admitting it.

What the fuck are you talking about. Dawkins is not part of the ruling bourgeosie, he's a scientist. I could care less about his background. Stop trolling.

Ratskep, the hang-out of the petty-bourgeois minded.

US,USSR, UK all have industry building what government told it to build

True but in the UK and US you had companies competing with one another to get government contracts even in wartime. Once a contract was won by a given company if they could not output enough sometimes other companies were required to build a given item that one of their competitors had come up with.

I'm not sure the Russian design bureaus worked in quite the same manner. The end product too was often inferior to those produced in the West.

andyx1205 wrote:Ratskep, the hang-out of the petty-bourgeois minded.

EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG!!!!!

Matt8819 wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:Ratskep, the hang-out of the petty-bourgeois minded.

EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG!!!!!

No, everyone who disagrees that capitalism should not be overthrown is not only wrong, they will be proven wrong and be on the wrong side of history, on the side of the oppressors.

andyx1205 wrote:
What the fuck are you talking about. Dawkins is not part of the ruling bourgeosie, he's a scientist. I could care less about his background. Stop trolling.

Margaret Thatcher was a scientist.

Jumbo wrote:

US,USSR, UK all have industry building what government told it to build

True but in the UK and US you had companies competing with one another to get government contracts even in wartime. Once a contract was won by a given company if they could not output enough sometimes other companies were required to build a given item that one of their competitors had come up with.

I'm not sure the Russian design bureaus worked in quite the same manner. The end product too was often inferior to those produced in the West.

Quality didn't really decide WW2 quantity did, the Sherman and T34 were inferior tanks that could easily be mass produced. They were however the right tank for the war effort (if not the crews).

Germany had far too many competing corporations and designers and as with the wonders of free market (especially with low labour costs ie slave labour) they make goods that was of far too high a quality to be made in enough numbers

I agree that quantity over quality did work. The thing is that Russian quantity needed to be topped up by material from the US and UK. For quite a few items we not only made more than the Russians but what we made was often better too. Quantity and Quality is a great combination. In the case of Russia they were able to do so well against Germany not because of some incredible economy but (once armed and that was with outside help) they could send out huge amounts of man power and simply overwhelm the Germans.

Germany had more than a few issue with supply as well as other factors. Once they began losing access to oil fields they were well and truly stuffed whatever their economy was.

Blackadder wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:
What the fuck are you talking about. Dawkins is not part of the ruling bourgeosie, he's a scientist. I could care less about his background. Stop trolling.

Margaret Thatcher was a scientist.

She was a cunt.

If Malala Yousafzai believes in Socialism then good for her, it's her right to believe in any political/social ideology she wants but I don't think it's the answer. Actually no political and social ideology is the answer simply because they all have their ups and downs and each person who believes in any ideology have their own opinion on what are the ups and downs are but mind you people who believe their ideology has no flaws are just as bad as religious believers. Even if the world has a single ideology it won't last long and as history shows us nothing lasts forever, one thing all ideologies have in common is the love hate relationship with democracy, they love it when they get voted into power but hate it when they get voted out so at the end of the day they want to use democracy when they agree with it then want a totalitarian state instead.