You aren't saying that it is not a army of unemployed because it doesn't have a general?
I am not reduced to arguing about numbers, who was it that originally challenged me? It was you, blanco, who's only contribution was to argue about my use of the word 'army'. What did you want me to do? Did you want me to say "Yes, you are right El Blanco, there is not an army of unemployed in the USA. This is obvious, as they don't have uniforms or guns. I am 'high'."
I haven't forgotten the original point. I noted a few times the irelevnce of some posts. Just like every other argument on communism, it gets thrown back to "Communism doesn't work", and people not happy about specific points - ie the USA's unemployment figures. Which are the same size as an army, by the way.
What is the "overwhelming evidence" that contradicts my points? Is it your brilliant "the same people are in charge"? I was willing to go along with this, but it's absurd. Your points contriadict. If it is the same people in charge, why would things get worse or better? You need to read up on the revolution, and find out what was established in those early years. Those who took power in 1917 are in no way the same as those who are running the show today.
Do you think you have me on the run? That I am desperate? You have barely contributed anything, Blanco, and OAOs last argument is that I don't know what capitalism is. I'd ask him, but his answer would contain things like "free market" "lassaiz-faire" "economic freedom" and maybe even "the USA is not really capitalist". You should be reading the original article like you said, and posting a detailed argument.
OAO, show me how Russia was better off under the Tsar. I feel this is still important.
Also, while my points are forgotten one by one, and you skip my many questions and reply with "Do you even know what capitalism is", I still think you can manage to tell me what this means OAO:
Quote:
|
For all you talk about using one country as an example, you sure do focus on the SU.
|