Bolivia nationalizes the gas industry.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Quote[/b] ]Time to wake up and smell the coffee, Spokesperson - south americans are south americans, they are not spaniards... Just like africans aren't portuguese/french/british/whatever former collonial power you'd like to choose...

Your reply is irrelevant. You disagree because you can disagree.

Most south americans are of spanish descent, therefore there's no reason to re-establish Maya, Inca, Aztec and whatever someone here wanted. It's absurd.

Thank you. That is all I needed to read. This tells me you can't even distinguish a spaniard from someone who is of spanish descent, which are two entirely different things. Your ignorance shows once again its obvious face, even regarding this matter. You obviously toss around words whose meaning you don't even know. And for the record, my answer is less irrelevant than your statement - no, wait, correction: ALL YOUR STATEMENTS in this forum. Because I pointed out a mistake and you just said it was irrelevant - congratulations. All the rest of us can now safely consider all your statements being a monumental mistake on your behalf, and therefore absolutely irrelevant.

[MehMan 0]

Quote[/b] ]Your logic is false, how can one be an instructor if he or she is not physically of psychically fit? Being an instructor is more intesive, requires more knowledge and expirence than piloting itself.

That depends on what you fly, how much you fly, and if you fly at all. In a planned economy the state doesn't control all companies in detail. If person X is employed or not is not of interest. It's up to the employers. And they didn't think she was fit to fly.

The employer in this case was the USSR, seeing how all the companies were nationalised.

Quote[/b] ]If person X is employed or not is not of interest.

It is in this case.

Quote[/b] ]You don't believe the 20 opinion polls I posted? Some mother-in-law knows better than the whole Russian people? Why would she be discriminated?

And why focus on possible USSR discrimination when it's clear that discrimination is a problem in all western countries even today. And your discrimination accusation is nothing compared to the race and gender discrimination done at the same time in the US for instance.

Those just say the people regret the collapse of the USSR, it didn't detail about discrimination.

Oh the gender and race discrimination is a problem all over the world, not just the US and ex USSR. If you think the ex USSR was excluded from discrimination, you're quite wrong. However, the situation in the west is and was far better than in the USSR.

Quote[/b] ]No? Then tell me.

I'll use one of your favourite source of information, wikipedia:

Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.

[Dwarden 1124]

Quote[/b] ]

Stalin had enough and performed a huge crack-down. After the purges no such things happened before and the stability of the country increased and remained. That was necessary for defeating the nazis and keeping the liberals at bay.

may i ask You one simple question for simple answer y/n?

so You do support and agree with the purge massmurder Stalin ordered ?

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ]How do you know he was paranoid? Did you read it in the press? That turbulence story is another liberal fairy tale. Stalin ate kids and shot people at random from his balcony.

Socialism is the enemy of many people who want it down out of private interests. Social democrats attempted to murder Lenin, he was shot but survived. The social democrat got arrested by angry workers nearby. Other socialists were shot and murdered by reactionaries. They never got rid of that problem. And when finally Kirov was assassinated in the 30ies, Stalin had enough and performed a huge crack-down. After the purges no such things happened before and the stability of the country increased and remained. That was necessary for defeating the nazis and keeping the liberals at bay.

A man who thinks turbulence on an aircraft is sabotage is paranoid. He hampered his aircraft designers. This is why some projects were kept 'secret' by the aircraft designers. For example in order to test the idea of the delta wing a couple aircraft designers had to disguise it as a trainer aircraft simply because Stalin didn't trust them. Some of those aircraft designers had brilliant ideas and they had to wiat for Stalin's death before they could really bring their ideas to the forefront.

The Purges were not necessary at all. There were no proper trials and hardly any evidence presented. Once the state said you were an enemy that was it for the poor peasant/ethnic minority/party member etc. Stalin wanted to consolodate his power within the party killing any potential opponents. The it was used for social control. Your favourite source even agrees with me.

Quote[/b] ]I wouldn't like it, of course. I don't say that those who are in them like it. They shouldn't. You don't have to put my kind of people in labour camps because we are no threat, yet. But during the world war 2 you did. There were labour camps for leftists and communists in the whole of Europe, including neutral Sweden that you like so much.

News flash. They were "your kind of people" worked to death in there! Most were not political prisoners. People were thrown in there for ridiculous things such as petty theft, un-explained absences from work or taking the mick out of the government.

You are making it sound as if all nations went and created camps specially for Communist/Socialists.They were porbably prisoners forced to do Labour. So you can count criminals in there as well and German/Italian prisoners. But not all Communists/Socialists were arrested. It ain't nice but they were not worked to death. And I have never said anything about Sweden. You are delusional.

Quote[/b] ]Before the napoleonic wars there was no nationalism. Religion and nationalism naturally appeared among a small group of people, but the ones who promoted it and used it as a tool, were the rulers. The church and nation have always been in the hands of the upper class. It makes their rule "legit". God appointed them and thus their troops fight for some god. Same thing with nationalism and racism.

LMFAO.

There was nationalism hundreds of years before the Napoleonic Wars! Just look at Scotland's reaction to the passing of the Union of 1707. 'Empires have fallen in a 100 years while Scotland has always stood strong.' Even when the Union was passed there was no real effort to create a British nationalism. The Scots were always proud to be Scottish and the Scottish identity has remained. This totally blows your theory of nationalism out of the water. I don't identify myelf as British. I just don't want Scotland to leave the Union. Nationalism has existed for hundreds of years.

Quote[/b] ]It's no conspiracy theory. The moderators are not connected with anybody or anything else than society itself. I think I wrote (LOL) a post where I stated that I support the iraqis and hoped that many americans would be shot while on their imperialist crusade for oil and against independence. Then this US mod came in, censored my post, put me on PR and threatened to ban me. Why? Because he is a part of society, he thinks what others tell him to think. He knows no other perspective than the liberal one.

Yes it is a conspiracy theory. Do you have any common sense? Wishing people's death is not going to win you friends anywhere! Ever think that that mod might have family over there? Has had friends die there?

Beggars fcuking beleif Spokes does.

Quote[/b] ]No, the indians just get the share of the proportional power that rightfully belongs to them. That's thanks to the socialist leaders that work with the aim to introduce democracy.

What the hell has that got to do with my comment? There are efforts to get some of their old culture back. Many of them (not me you mong) would like to see their old states back.

[Spokesperson 0]

BUZZARD @ May 09 2008,18:42)]

Quote[/b] ]Time to wake up and smell the coffee, Spokesperson - south americans are south americans, they are not spaniards... Just like africans aren't portuguese/french/british/whatever former collonial power you'd like to choose...

Your reply is irrelevant. You disagree because you can disagree.

Most south americans are of spanish descent, therefore there's no reason to re-establish Maya, Inca, Aztec and whatever someone here wanted. It's absurd.

Thank you. That is all I needed to read. This tells me you can't even distinguish a spaniard from someone who is of spanish descent, which are two entirely different things. Your ignorance shows once again its obvious face, even regarding this matter. You obviously toss around words whose meaning you don't even know. And for the record, my answer is less irrelevant than your statement - no, wait, correction: ALL YOUR STATEMENTS in this forum. Because I pointed out a mistake and you just said it was irrelevant - congratulations. All the rest of us can now safely consider all your statements being a monumental mistake on your behalf, and therefore absolutely irrelevant.

Again you choose to disagree because you can. And you're wrong. It appears you don't know what you're talking about.

Now re-read your post and change "you" to "I".

South american spanish people are classed as spaniards:

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

This has no relevance.

Quote[/b] ]The employer in this case was the USSR, seeing how all the companies were nationalised.

Indirectly yes. But even if a state owns a company it manages itself. You can't blame Bill Gates if X didn't get a job at Microsoft.

Quote[/b] ]However, the situation in the west is and was far better than in the USSR.

No, that's absolutely incorrect. You have no idea what you're talking about. Discrimination by gender and ethnicity ended after the 1917 revolution.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/128134

Quote[/b] ]Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.

Oh, really. It's just that that liberty includes the freedom to oppress, while it excludes the freedom from being oppressed.  I haven't stated otherwise anywhere.

Quote[/b] ]You do support and agree with the purge massmurder Stalin ordered ?

Which massmurder? I support putting people in labour camps where about 1% spent more than 10 years. And where 99% of the prisoners survived under normal conditions (ie we don't count ww2).

Quote[/b] ]A man who thinks turbulence on an aircraft is sabotage is paranoid. He hampered his aircraft designers. This is why some projects were kept 'secret' by the aircraft designers. For example in order to test the idea of the delta wing a couple aircraft designers had to disguise it as a trainer aircraft simply because Stalin didn't trust them. Some of those aircraft designers had brilliant ideas and they had to wiat for Stalin's death before they could really bring their ideas to the forefront.

And who says that? Hitler? Yeltsin? As I said that kind of stories are fairy tales. There are no sources.

Quote[/b] ]News flash. They were "your kind of people" worked to death in there! Most were not political prisoners. People were thrown in there for ridiculous things such as petty theft, un-explained absences from work or taking the mick out of the government.

You are making it sound as if all nations went and created camps specially for Communist/Socialists.They were porbably prisoners forced to do Labour. So you can count criminals in there as well and German/Italian prisoners. But not all Communists/Socialists were arrested. It ain't nice but they were not worked to death. And I have never said anything about Sweden. You are delusional.

Who says that? Your school-book? Thatcher?

I think you praised the scandinavian model in some other thread. But that doesn't matter. Here is a list of swedish concentration camps anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....#Sweden

Made especially for communists and other leftists. That's what normal "neutral" countries were up to.

The prisoners in Gulag were not worked to death either. I still prefer camps for the enemies of the working class rather than camps for the working class itself. You don't however. And that's the funny thing about you. You think and act exactly against your own interests. I don't. Then I must be the one who is brainwashed?

Quote[/b] ]There was nationalism hundreds of years before the Napoleonic Wars! Just look at Scotland's reaction to the passing of the Union of 1707. 'Empires have fallen in a 100 years while Scotland has always stood strong.' Even when the Union was passed there was no real effort to create a British nationalism. The Scots were always proud to be Scottish and the Scottish identity has remained. This totally blows your theory of nationalism out of the water. I don't identify myelf as British. I just don't want Scotland to leave the Union. Nationalism has existed for hundreds of years.

That isn't nationalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#Origins

Quote[/b] ]Yes it is a conspiracy theory. Do you have any common sense? Wishing people's death is not going to win you friends anywhere! Ever think that that mod might have family over there? Has had friends die there?

It is? So religion is a conspiracy theory too? I don't intend to befriend people who shoot those who fight against oppression. I don't care if the mod has family or friends over there. Why should I? They kill innocents, fight an illegal war, serve the upper class, deny countries their sovereignty, steal oppress and destroy. Analogously: Why should I care for some grandpa who died fighting for nazism? I would piss on his grave.

[echo1 0]

Quote[/b] ]A man who thinks turbulence on an aircraft is sabotage is paranoid. He hampered his aircraft designers. This is why some projects were kept 'secret' by the aircraft designers. For example in order to test the idea of the delta wing a couple aircraft designers had to disguise it as a trainer aircraft simply because Stalin didn't trust them. Some of those aircraft designers had brilliant ideas and they had to wiat for Stalin's death before they could really bring their ideas to the forefront.

And who says that? Hitler? Yeltsin? As I said that kind of stories are fairy tales. There are no sources.

Claiming that everything that contradicts you is propaganda and made up is an extraordinarily poor argument technique... How come so many people from Russia have spoken about the horrors of Stalin's regime? More importantly, do you have any proof that everyone is lying about what he did?

[MehMan 0]

Quote[/b] ]The employer in this case was the USSR, seeing how all the companies were nationalised.

Indirectly yes. But even if a state owns a company it manages itself. You can't blame Bill Gates if X didn't get a job at Microsoft.

Yes, but the company is managed in the end by the USSR, the head of the company is state controlled, being nationalized the state has control.

Quote[/b] ]Oh, really. It's just that that liberty includes the freedom to oppress, while it excludes the freedom from being oppressed.  I haven't stated otherwise anywhere.

Where does it state that? You are the only one who states that. It doesn't mention any freedom to oppress, it states individual freedom, which logically means the oposite, freedom from being oppressed. It doesn't actually mention anything about oppression, it doesn't add or exclude anything about oppression, you are the one who is doing that.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Claiming that everything that contradicts you is propaganda and made up is an extraordinarily poor argument technique... How come so many people from Russia have spoken about the horrors of Stalin's regime? More importantly, do you have any proof that everyone is lying about what he did?

If he claims something, it's up to him to present sources. Not me. I can say that Stalin ate children too.

50% of the Russian people think that Stalin was positive. 40% want a new Stalin. New statues of Stalin have been erected. And this after 40 years of antistalinism in the USSR.

Quote[/b] ]Yes, but the company is managed in the end by the USSR, the head of the company is state controlled, being nationalized the state has control.

So Bill Gates is to blame if someone didn't get employed at Microsoft?

Quote[/b] ]Where does it state that? You are the only one who states that. It doesn't mention any freedom to oppress, it states individual freedom, which logically means the oposite, freedom from being oppressed. It doesn't actually mention anything about oppression, it doesn't add or exclude anything about oppression, you are the one who is doing that.

Liberalism leads to oppression as it supports private property and the market economy. Capitalism is the foundation of liberalism. Capitalism means oppression for those who don't own the means of production. Owners decide what is to be produced, where when and in which amounts. Money measures the amount of freedom you have. If you have none, you have no freedom. Or do you think that a homeless or unemployed person is free? Is it free to sleep outside a cold snowy night? Are they free to voice their opinions in the press, that's owned by the owning-class? Are they free to win elections when opposing corporate interests like sponsorship and lobbyism? Private ownership of the means of production implies exploitation of the workforce as they produce surplus value (~profits). They don't earn the full value of their work. The owners earn money on other people's work by owning, not working. Or do you think that money magically appears when you earn money from your china stocks? Someone worked for you. Do you think that person wants to give you the fruits of his labour or keep it himself?

When workers get tired of this, the police is there to crush the strike or riot and return everything to a status quo. Where the oppressed are oppressed and the oppressors oppress. The workers aren't free from oppression, but the owners are free to oppress in this society. They are the ones who have the economic power. This is where socialism enters the picture and removes the freedom to oppress while it adds the freedom from oppression.

[echo1 0]

Quote[/b] ]Claiming that everything that contradicts you is propaganda and made up is an extraordinarily poor argument technique... How come so many people from Russia have spoken about the horrors of Stalin's regime? More importantly, do you have any proof that everyone is lying about what he did?

If he claims something, it's up to him to present sources. Not me. I can say that Stalin ate children too.

50% of the Russian people think that Stalin was positive. 40% want a new Stalin. New statues of Stalin have been erected. And this after 40 years of antistalinism in the USSR.

As I said, there are plenty of sources out there about the atrocities commited by Stalin and those under his direct command. If someone makes a post claiming the Nazis did evil things, who is going to say they are lying and demand proof? Its generally accepted that the proof is out there. I dont see why Stalin or Mao should be treated differently in this regard.

And I dont see why an increase in the popularity of Stalin means that he was a good leader, or that his leadership policies should be adopted far and wide. I think it would be more indicative of the problems that Russian society faces at the moment, as times of socioeconomic decline tend to increase the support for extremist rulers - Hitler once again being the example.

[MehMan 0]

Liberalism leads to oppression as it supports private property and the market economy. Capitalism is the foundation of liberalism. Capitalism means oppression for those who don't own the means of production. Owners decide what is to be produced, where when and in which amounts. Money measures the amount of freedom you have. If you have none, you have no freedom. Or do you think that a homeless or unemployed person is free? Is it free to sleep outside a cold snowy night? Are they free to voice their opinions in the press, that's owned by the owning-class? Are they free to win elections when opposing corporate interests like sponsorship and lobbyism? Private ownership of the means of production implies exploitation of the workforce as they produce surplus value (~profits). They don't earn the full value of their work. The owners earn money on other people's work by owning, not working. Or do you think that money magically appears when you earn money from your china stocks? Someone worked for you. Do you think that person wants to give you the fruits of his labour or keep it himself?

When workers get tired of this, the police is there to crush the strike or riot and return everything to a status quo. Where the oppressed are oppressed and the oppressors oppress. The workers aren't free from oppression, but the owners are free to oppress in this society. They are the ones who have the economic power. This is where socialism enters the picture and removes the freedom to oppress while it adds the freedom from oppression.

Read and understand.

Quote[/b] ]Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.

individual liberty

But lets pretend.

Quote[/b] ]Liberalism leads to oppression as it supports private property and the market economy. Capitalism is the foundation of liberalism. Capitalism means oppression for those who don't own the means of production. Owners decide what is to be produced, where when and in which amounts.

Ah, private property, the big baddie. Suddenly it's bad to own stuff. Market economy, oh so bad, too bad that according to your favoured source of information, it doesn't actually exist anywhere. Pure market economy. Because it doesn't, because the goverment still has a lot of say and controls the minimum wage, bonuses and tons other stuff. Owners dictate what needs to be made, what, how and when, because they follow supply and demand! How bad it is to give something where it's needed!

Quote[/b] ]Money measures the amount of freedom you have. If you have none, you have no freedom. Or do you think that a homeless or unemployed person is free? Is it free to sleep outside a cold snowy night? Are they free to voice their opinions in the press, that's owned by the owning-class? Are they free to win elections when opposing corporate interests like sponsorship and lobbyism?

They have freedom, they are free to say what they want even more than us, they have less to lose.

Are they free to voice their opinions in the press, that's owned by the owning-class?

Yes. I see it happen. And they even have their own newspaper that's rather well known. And you can bet it's not made and paid for by them but by the evil owning-class.

Are they free to win elections when opposing corporate interests like sponsorship and lobbyism?

They are free to win elections. Do they win them is another thing.

Quote[/b] ]Private ownership of the means of production implies exploitation of the workforce as they produce surplus value (~profits). They don't earn the full value of their work. The owners earn money on other people's work by owning, not working. Or do you think that money magically appears when you earn money from your china stocks? Someone worked for you. Do you think that person wants to give you the fruits of his labour or keep it himself?

Yes and they got paid for that work. Underpaid, in China yes, but China is one of your countries, communist(no, you're going to accept this if I have to accept your liberal).

Quote[/b] ]When workers get tired of this, the police is there to crush the strike or riot and return everything to a status quo. Where the oppressed are oppressed and the oppressors oppress. The workers aren't free from oppression, but the owners are free to oppress in this society. They are the ones who have the economic power.

Not really. Which riots were these? I'd love to see them happen, here, in the western world. We had protests 9 months ago, about 5% of the nation protested, actively, because of the rapid inflation. There was no massacre you dream of, there was no status quo, they demanded a pay rise and they got a pay rise. Problem solved. The worker doesn't care much about your class strugle or what you're dreaming about, but he cares about getting paid enough.

Quote[/b] ]This is where socialism enters the picture and removes the freedom to oppress while it adds the freedom from oppression.

Only to end up oppressing more than before.

Quote[/b] ]As I said, there are plenty of sources out there about the atrocities commited by Stalin and those under his direct command. If someone makes a post claiming the Nazis did evil things, who is going to say they are lying and demand proof? Its generally accepted that the proof is out there. I dont see why Stalin or Mao should be treated differently in this regard.

And I dont see why an increase in the popularity of Stalin means that he was a good leader, or that his leadership policies should be adopted far and wide. I think it would be more indicative of the problems that Russian society faces at the moment, as times of socioeconomic decline tend to increase the support for extremist rulers - Hitler once again being the example.

Indeed, instead of us having to prove to you what is common sense by now, you should instead prove to us that he wasn't a paranoid schizophrenic who killed in massive numbers because the bogey man in his head said so.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]As I said, there are plenty of sources out there about the atrocities commited by Stalin and those under his direct command. If someone makes a post claiming the Nazis did evil things, who is going to say they are lying and demand proof? Its generally accepted that the proof is out there. I dont see why Stalin or Mao should be treated differently in this regard.

And I dont see why an increase in the popularity of Stalin means that he was a good leader, or that his leadership policies should be adopted far and wide. I think it would be more indicative of the problems that Russian society faces at the moment, as times of socioeconomic decline tend to increase the support for extremist rulers - Hitler once again being the example.

I don't deny that, but you don't specify anything concrete. I think Stalin played a positive role in history, but I don't see a need for similar policies today. Still 40% think a new Stalin is needed. Economic decline is not what's happening in Russia right now. But it's a fact of capitalism. And if capitalism fails "extremism" can take society forward. The USSR wasn't affected by the Great Depression for instance. In my opinion capitalism is extremism.

Quote[/b] ]individual liberty

You have to understand that one man's liberty is another man's slavery. Either the slaves or slave-owners are free. Both can't be free at the same time. Same thing goes for wage-slaves and owners. There is no universal personal liberty in a capitalist system and as long as there are classes there will be none. If one person is unfree somewhere freedom is lost everywhere.

So the question you have to ask yourself is freedom -for whom-?

Quote[/b] ]Ah, private property, the big baddie. Suddenly it's bad to own stuff. Market economy, oh so bad, too bad that according to your favoured source of information, it doesn't actually exist anywhere. Pure market economy. Because it doesn't, because the goverment still has a lot of say and controls the minimum wage, bonuses and tons other stuff. Owners dictate what needs to be made, what, how and when, because they follow supply and demand! How bad it is to give something where it's needed!

Don't be stupid. Capitalism requires a market economy. So where you see capitalism, you see market that's considered free. And if people are to have decent standards of living you have to have a certain amount of regulations.

"How bad is it to give something where it's needed?". Yeah, how bad can it be. Kings and other dictators should be respected and liked because they do everything to avoid uprisings, including giving things to charity, building hospitals and so on. Supply/Demand. This isn't the question. The issue is why they are supposed to dictate anything at all. In a democracy people have to decide. Private ownership undermines democracy. The people itself knows what it needs. It wouldn't build luxury apartments when there's a lack of standard ones, they would make sure all had food and not export it because the prices are better somewhere else for instance. If you look at Cuba, there's no homelessness, there's no unemployment, education and healthcare is 100% free, there's no starvation like in many other parts of South America. Why? Because Cuba has economic democracy.

Quote[/b] ]They have freedom, they are free to say what they want even more than us, they have less to lose.

Are they free to voice their opinions in the press, that's owned by the owning-class?

Yes. I see it happen. And they even have their own newspaper that's rather well known. And you can bet it's not made and paid for by them but by the evil owning-class.

You show a great deal of respect for those who are worse off than you. Get real. Do you really think that a homeless person is more free than others to voice their opinions or are you just arguing because you "know" communism is "wrong", which is the reason why you can't admit I'm right.

Antiliberal articles and perspectives don't show up in the commercial press. There's just one line, and it's liberal.

And you know, communists have newspapers too. But they aren't backed by the capital which makes it impossible for them to compete with liberal newspapers that are supported by wealthy owners. If you look at Ralph Nader he can't even get his message across, because he has no funding. He is anti-corporate. And thus he has no chance to win any elections. But keep calling that democracy.

Quote[/b] ]Yes and they got paid for that work. Underpaid, in China yes, but China is one of your countries, communist(no, you're going to accept this if I have to accept your liberal).

That's how capitalism works everywhere. For the owners, the stock-holders, to earn any money the workers have to produce more than what they get back. So they are effectively staying at the machines 10% of the day to pay their own wages and other costs and then the rest 90% they slave for the share holders. People like you. Without surplus-value production there would be no profits. In a socialist society there are no share holders and no surplus-value production. And yes, China is a capitalist country ruled by the communist party and the capital. Normally it is no country I support.

Quote[/b] ]Not really. Which riots were these? I'd love to see them happen, here, in the western world. We had protests 9 months ago, about 5% of the nation protested, actively, because of the rapid inflation. There was no massacre you dream of, there was no status quo, they demanded a pay rise and they got a pay rise. Problem solved. The worker doesn't care much about your class strugle or what you're dreaming about, but he cares about getting paid enough.

Massacre? Who's talking about massacres? Extreme violence is only used when the whole system is threatened.

But if you're interested you can see one here:

And yes, a massacre followed when the liberals stormed the parliament with tanks. Burned it and killed up to 2000 people, among them elected MPs. Same thing happened in Chile many years earlier. And the same thing happened in Venezuela 2002, and happens right now in Bolivia. In marxist theory it's called reaction. A natural law of any society based on classes.

There are riots everywhere throughout the world. Strikes and revolts are common too. One such riot turned into a revolution in Nepal. In South America people had enough too. They are the weakest link of capitalism. They have no computer games to hide themselves in, for them politics is a balance between life and death.

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ]

South american spanish people are classed as spaniards:

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

This has no relevance.

Let us have a look at some facts:

Despite the onslaught of the Spanish and to a lesser extent the Portuguese the cultures and languages of these people still survive today. Just because these nations do not have their autonomy does not mean that they don't exist. Many survive captive within the Spanish settler states. In the Andes, 12 million still speak the language of the Inca's: the murder of Atawallpa in 1533 and the violence of today's Shining Path are parts of the same story. Central America has 6 million speakers of Maya and if Guatemala really had majority rule it would be a Maya Republic.

It is quite clear why a large number of these people want their nations back.

Source: Stolen Continents by Ronald Wright

[Sennacherib 0]

this topic is about Bolivia, not for USSR or ww2 or bullshit like capitalism vs communism.

i think that the life of the bolivian people is more important than the past.

why do you continue to reply to spokesperson? this is a waste of time. you should discuss about serious things not about his illusions or his ignorance.

Quote[/b] ]Central America has 6 million speakers of Maya and if Guatemala really had majority rule it would be a Maya Republic.

yes, even Mexico have always a lot of native people (aztecs, toltecs, zapotecs, Mixtecs and so on; and even a maya population in Chiapas)

As I said their history is really complex. their dreams for the future are: to be regarded as fully fledged human and recover what the history their stole:

- land

- culture

- language

- life

- esperance.

they try to create their own way to govern a country. yes they have made mistakes, but all People on earth have made mistakes..

I bet that in the future, all the guerillas in south-america will stop their activities, because the future will be the future of the natives. And the marxist-leninist groups are a relic of the past, which no longer has its place in a civilized world with open mind (same thing for the Maoist groups like the "shining past" in Peru)

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]I bet that in the future, all the guerillas in south-america will stop their activities, because the future will be the future of the natives. And the marxist-leninist groups are a relic of the past, which no longer has its place in a civilized world with open mind (same thing for the Maoist groups like the "shining past" in Peru

The south american left including guerillas are growing in size. It will continue like that until capitalism is beaten. The civilized world is not capitalist. People thought like you when the USSR was dissolved, but since more countries have turned red. Marxists-leninists win elections and grow everywhere, in Asia and in the EU even.

And don't even mention the word ignorance if you're ignorant yourself. All maoists are marxist-leninists.

[Sennacherib 0]

Quote[/b] ]All maoists are marxist-leninists

false

all communists are marxist-leninist (stalinist in fact).

but in fact, Mao-zedong has created his own maxism-leninism (marxism-leninism-maoism)

lol a guy who is in love with this shit, should know that.

[Spokesperson 0]

Who are you? You don't even know what marxism is.

Not all communists are marxist-leninists, but many are. There is no such thing as stalinism.

There are trotskyists (Bolshevik-Leninists), there are luxemburgists and many more. Accept the fact that you are wrong.

All maoists are marxist-leninists. All leninists are marxists. That's the point in writing marxism-leninism-maoism basically .

[ralphwiggum 6]

ok, this now officially ends upbeing really off topic. closing.