The central point! You just cut to the Chase!

Yeah but who says they're controlling anyting there is a propensity and an ideal that everyone could come up with an idea to obtain wealth that's how the 1% got to where they are at.

@Drew69 when the top .001 percent manage to buy virtually everything that manages society, that's control. They own our western governments via bought politicians, giving them the power to control legislature for their benefit, public relation firms along with various NGO's and think tanks, who design 80% of the manufactured information our MSCM feeds the public to manage our perception. This has all enabled them to own our justice systems and election process.

They run a ponzi scheme market system which when it collapses is fed off our backs. You consider that as a just means to obtain and keep their fake wealth? They made their wealth from exploitation of the working class which continues to grow. Recently exacerbated the past 2 decades by a failing capitalist system and especially this virus totally unwarranted, while the middle class continues to decline.

The only type of people who could like the direction the westernize nations are going are fascist. Capitalism has ran its course once again and staring at another cycle of fascism. Which the only way out is our compliance to it or world war.

This is control

Russia is a capitalist oligarchy, it hasn't been socialist since the 1980s.

it was NOT an oligarchy. that implies ONE FAMILY RULING.

it was/is PLUTOCRACY.

and it was NEVER capitalist. it was TOTALITARIAN. nor was it EVER communist or socialist.

but dolts will be dolts and call it whatever the fuck.

Disputing a point Drew made about anarchy above. I'm no historian or economist; just a person who ponders things. Over the years, I've developed my own thoughts on how a society could function better. It turned out to be very close to a system that has already been tried, called anarcho-syndicalism, or "cooperatism." I like this latter term, because it's more descriptive. I recently read some literature on it and liked most of what I gleaned (though don't claim to understand it all). It had a short successful run in Spain, before it was violently quashed by the dictator Franco. The system is used successfully in various industries throughout the world today, but is not in widespread use in any one country as a system of governance that I'm aware of. I don't know if it could work on such a large scale, but would like to see some experiments to see if it might work in small scale governance, with the aim to one day replace current systems of governance. My understanding of it is that it's closer to true democracy than anything else currently in use. In the US, we have a mixed system, with some democracy, where the citizens vote directly for some things, and indirectly for others. It's the latter that I have most issue with. If you elect a representative, who then decides for you, that is not democracy. Decisions made are often not in the best interests of the people being governed. And courageous efforts to put our best interests into place can be overturned by the next batch of elected representatives. That's why I think we need to eventually nix the representative government, and put the vast amount of power into the hands of the people.

While true democracy is not perfect, I believe it would prevent much of the corruption that happens within conventional style governments. The problem I see with the most systems is that there is always a danger of them becoming a tyranny of the majority or the minority. You don't want a plutocracy of the wealthiest individuals calling the shots for everybody else. You also don't want every individual subject to mob rule. A government, if any, should be primarily used to protect the individual and the masses from each other. I don't personally want to see a uniform society where no one can have more or different than another. I'm an individualist & believe in private property rights. However, I think fair and equitable allocation of resource & opportunity is key. Capitalism can't do that; it favors those with existing wealth and those who obtain wealth by oppressing others. It a system that rewards selfishness & greed above all else. I want a system that rewards cooperation, equality, and generosity. In my own version of Cooperatism, people would have more equal opportunities than they do now.

Equality of opportunity does not, however, make equality of outcome. Some people are smarter, luckier, and more driven than others. But those that benefit more from a system should put more back in. So, taxation should be at a level that doesn't deprive one of the efforts of their labor, but acknowledges that no man is an island, and they don't get where they are all by themselves. i want a system that raises all boats, not just those of the elite. One that helps each person have as much opportunity to do well as another. An individual's wealth should not so far exceed everyone else's that he has undue power over other people's lives. I don't want to remove the motivation to succeed. But I want to remove the motivation to climb over others to gain personal wealth & power. I like the idea that no one person within an organization can make x amount more than the lowest paid employee. I'm not sure who decides what that X is, maybe all the people within the organization.

I've read that there is a monetary threshold for happiness. That once you make x amount of money, you cannot expect to be more happy or satisfied if you make more. Perhaps that could be a factor in determining a base for how much a top performer can earn for any given endeavor. I'm not saying he/she can't make more than that, but any extra gains that a business makes must be allocated fairly. So, for instance, people can gain more shares in a company based upon their efforts & their perceived value to the other shareholders (which a majority of which should be the actual workers). I also like the idea of companies having to buy into co-op insurance of sorts. So that if one greedy bastard offs with the money or drives the company under for his own greed, there is a way of securing the livelihoods of the other workers. And the monies not spent in a given year could be used for loans to new companies trying to get off the ground. I think it was in Italy that they give people the option of taking unemployment insurance or of using the funds they would have collected, as seed money to start a Co-op. I don't know what it's like there, but unemployment here is pathetic. It's barely enough to live off, especially if you weren't making enough to begin with.

A living wage is an important baseline to establish. But I think progressives sometimes get ahead of themselves (pun intended). If you immediately jack up the minimum wage, many companies who are already stretched thin, will break. That's not good for the workers or the economy on the whole. I think it needs to be gradual, and maybe can be helped along by taxing the wealthiest at a higher rate to help deliver a decent pay to the lowest paid workers. I'm not sure why people have such a hard time with this notion of taxing the rich. I think maybe it's because when we raise taxes in this country, the middle class usually ends up with most of the burden, while the uber wealthy get off scot-free thanks to tax loopholes. That needs to be fixed, and under a true democracy, I think it would be.

One aspect of socialism that seems fair to me is that natural resources should not be owned by individuals. But they can be rented to individuals at a standard rate for use in any given venture. I'm not sure how to make property in general more equitable. I live in so-Cal where the housing is crazy expensive & owning a property is just a pipe dream for me. Maybe if land wasn't owned, but rather rented, to individuals by the public at large, we could have more reasonable costs of living. Like, if a dude wants to pay more to live on prime property overlooking the beach, I'm down with that. But instead of all the money for the use of the land going into private hands, maybe it should go into a collective. I don't know. All I know is what we have now is not working well for the majority of people just trying to scrape together a living.

Those are just some of my ideas for a system that might work better than what we have now. If it happens to fall under the umbrella of anarchism or communism, so be it. Those words are often used as scare tactics, and are often misunderstood by the general public. Whatever you call it, I want we the people to have more power over what happens to us, not because we're one of the lucky few that gets a leg up over all the rest. I'd like us to have what I call a soft revolution. History is full of idealistic people overthrowing bad governments, & ending up with something much worse. I don't want to make those mistakes again. Our system works much better for some than for others. It's riddled with political mistakes and corruption. I believe we can do better. I believe humans have the ingenuity not only to send rockets into space, but also to solve everyday social problems. I don't believe in just accepting the status quo. I say we plant the seeds of a better system, nurture it, see how well it grows, and if it thrives, then everybody will want to share in it. What say you?
.

interesting idea i like it

i like tge idea only problem with politicians today is that you don't know where their allegiance lies they say one thing and change their opinion on another I don't trust Bernie Sanders anybody that's got his wealth from capitalism and wants to change it to socialism there's an underlying agenda with him he also gets angry very fast so a my opinion he'd be more of a chance of dictatorship and changing our constitutional rights to fit his narrative.

@Drew69 Are you serious, or are you putting up straw man arguments?
Bernie wrote a book and it sold so well, I’ve heard, that it made him wealthy. If you don’t like his wealth coming from capitalism, should he have inherited it?
Of course we don’t know where politicians’ allegiance lies. If they win election, people will offer them money for how they’ll vote on laws.

Yeah but you're making excuses for communist rule the excuse is that you're blaming Western countries for a how they act that's like saying all cops are bad and they're all racist which is falsehood in itself there's here to serve and protect their paid for by our tax dollars to keep the order because there's always a little disorder and crime that can't be stopped there's always idiots that like the steel there's always idiots that like to rape there's always idiots I like to do bad things so you have to have Law and Order that's why Anarchy cannot work and never has word it's a failed bastard idea

Damn voice recognition

It was collective control over the land that would be defended from intruders. You are correct about no individual ownership.

@Krish55 Collective control for a limited period of time, then they moved on.

@Alienbeing Yes. Collective sharing of the land.

@Krish55 For a limited period of time. Actually they were nomadic.

@Krish55 No cue what you are referencing.

Vatican decree Admiralty 1450 has defined all empires except Muslim Hindi & Buddhist ....the banksters of Europe have decimated most continents and are closing in upon the melting of polar ice ..... not voting enables this crime ongoing and the only sane vote is www.howiehawkins.us peace through Green jobs

Look at the history in more depth. You're commenting on one type that developed in a specific situation. Some of your comments are inaccurate. You do know that the USSR was the first to send a man in space...?

@Krish55 Gagarin was number 15 launched. The 14 fighter pilots before him all died. Do you know their names? Isn't it interesting that all the specific situations resulted in disaster?

@zesty Do you know the names of 15 Africans and African American slaves who died in order to create the wealth in the society that we all enjoy? Do you know the names of 15 native Americans at subject to genocide? Do you know the names of 15 Mexicans who died in the US wars of conquest? Do you know the names of 15 Filipinos who died in US genocide around 1900? Do you know the names of 15 Vietnamese who similarly died? Do you know the names of 15 Iraqis who died out of the over one million who died since our invasion in 2003? Etc., Etc.,..
Capitalism has created far more deaths and suffering than all the various types of socialism ever have!

@Krish55 You are comparing apples and oranges. Of course, there were wars and victims. The cosmonauts I mentioned were sacrificed by their own society. As far as number of deaths created by socialism - Soviet Union - 80 millions, China - 180 millions, North Korea - 45 millions, Cuba - 2.

@zesty Those numbers are ridiculous! 2 million in Cuba? How so?

@zesty And if you make the similarly ridiculous claim that the cosmonauts were sacrificed, then the same is true of those who died in US space missions!

@Krish55 No. The communist leaders sent 14 men up knowing that the probability of staying alive was extremely low. ALso, they never mentioned the unsuccessful, tragic launches. The US space missions were widely publicized and unfortunate accidents happened. An absolutely different ballgame! Comparing the US space missions to the Soviet ones is equivalent to comparing gold to excrement.

@Krish55 I never said that there was no technological development in Russia. Also, Gagarin was not the first in space. Just the first who returned alive. The commies forced the jaled scientists to perform and stole almost all technological secrets from the US.

@zesty The US got it from that Nazi Germany.

@zesty If the Soviet missions were excrement, then the US space missions were inspired by shit! After all, it was the successful Soviet human orbit that caused the US to compete

@Krish55 So did the Russians, of course.

@Krish55 No. Simple in Russia, as in any socialist country, the human life had and has zero value. So, they risked much more, killing a bunch of people. Free countries, as the US, couldn't and wouldn't follow this kind of reckless, inhuman approach. Well, the system generates the approach.

Since the natural mode of humanity has been co-operation, for the majority of history. One has to wonder at the degree of indoctrination you personally have suffered to denigrate socialism as uneducated, naive and childish.
I suggest you educate yourself with a little anthropology.

@zesty Hysterical nonsense from the country that has more prison inmates than any country on earth, with more police killings, random murders, people with no health care despite being the richest country - you have the cheek to talk about life being worthless!!

@chazwin Thank you for the suggestion. Lol
One doesn't need a background in anthropology to see the terrible suffering from the socialist nightmare. Just see the history of the 20th century. One must be crazy to suggest continuing the socialist experiment.

@zesty You mean like Scandinavia? The nightmare is capitalism which exports all its suffering to the counties that it exploits and the plant it is quickly destroying.
I'll wager you've not got a fucking idea what socialism is.

@chazwin There are no socialist countries in Scandinavia. Scandinavian countries are capitalist ones with high level of social services.

@chazwin The US is a free country. Your little island became a slave to PC and the Muslims.

@zesty You are ignorant,as I suspected. Run along now

@zesty please refer to the comment i made some moments ago. You owe more than your blinkered mind realises to socialism , from public schools to roads, police and fire services. Ignorant savage

@chazwin You are a primitive, uneducated little prick! Learn the difference between social and socialist, idiot!

@zesty You are a Trump-bot. My level of education is way over yours. Please refer to my previous comments.

@chazwin Funny! What is your area of expertise? Being rude to people with a different viewpoint?

@Krish55 And the Russia was drown in poverty and unequality before the 1917 evolution.

@NR92 Yes. And it became, naturally, much worst under socialism. everything is better then socialism.

@zesty Nope, after revolution, the USSR which was very undeveloped country under the rule of feudalism became the super power and the biggest industrial country in short time.
I think you are still stuck in the cold war as prof Richald Wolff said in his video.

@NR92 The Soviet Union superpower status is quite questionable. It was more like a paper tiger. It was NEVER the largest industrial country.
The Soviets caused incredible suffering to the world in general and to their own people in particular.
Using inhuman methods they built up a highly inefficient military industry. However they could never build a halfway decent coffeemaker or hair dryer.
The Soviet system was a despicable, terrible experiment.
As far as I'm stuck - do not criticise ME, criticise MY POINT OF VIEW! Don't you fucking try to degrade me because I'm a woman!

@zesty First of all, I invite you to calm down because it will be harmful for your health and it will cost lots of money and then you will have to travel to Canada to get cheaper medication.

They were forced to start industerialization mostly in military as it was under the direct attack of Capitalists and Imperialists from the first day they took power and then during the cold war by Fascists, they had very poor and backward army inherited from Czar Kingdom whom were defeated in first world war.

@zesty I'm afraid that, as a statement, is demonstrably untrue. But as a demonstration of the type of belief in an absolute that causes so many problems - an excellent example!

@NR92 Don't patronize me boy, you are not qualified!
The Soviet Army was not inherited from the Czar. By the beginning of the Second World War they had a very experienced army, evolved in the civil war. The inefficiency of the Soviet Army was never demonstrated better than in the Afghan was. Even the subhuman Taliban could beat them! Mind-boggling !

@zesty The US equipped and trained the Islamic fanatics with modern weapons. Unlike the US, the Russians were not willing to engage in continued atrocities to win. They withdrew because in the 1980s, they were more humane than the West. And unlike the racist West, they valued the lives of brown-skinned people.

Gotta disagree with S-chip..love kids and grandchildren..but having Anyone with the ability to Track them..is beyond irresponcibility..it's passive Fascism.

Our species is nurturing religion was invented to rape women and brainwash boys into deadly violence against neighboring tribes

This is true now in the US but traditionally not so.

@Krish55 sighs It has always been true.... Anarchy is the ultimate expression of the "rugged individualist" nonsense we have always seen from the far right...Government is seen as evil and wasteful always impinging on the "rights" of the anarchist. No government is welcome unless it is dictatorial in nature catering to their ideals of being allowed to take what they want from those who are weaker. It is government by the bullies for the bullies. Socialism is economic and social cooperation for the good of the whole group not one individual over all...

@Lizard_of_Ahaz Anarchism is part of the larger socialist movement. It has been that way for 200 years in Europe. It is socialist but with more emphasis on individual rights and local democracy. I am not an anarchist by the way but we do have to give it its historical due. Noam Chomsky considers himself an anarchist. Anarchists were also active in the defense of Spain from fascism. The movement has its strengths and weaknesses.

@Krish55 Yeah that is the bullshit line the Mussolini fascists like the Koch family keeps feeding their tools...

@Lizard_of_Ahaz What on earth does that mean? And you misspelled Benito's name...

@Krish55 I was wondering now I know....

i beg to differ VOCIFEROUSLY.

liberterians are just republican "lite" as vile and contemptible as the rest of the GOP.

@lakota_5 Bingo.... Anarchy has no relationship to socialism.... Anarchists are just frustrated fascists who can't gain wealth or power within the system and feel that if there wasn't a system they would be the "natural leaders" (AKA "the master race....).

@Lizard_of_Ahaz That's not how anarchists have been historically. Gandhi was basically an anarchist.

@Krish55 Wrong as usual...

@Lizard_of_Ahaz I'll forgive you...

@Krish55 Gandhi was an anti-colonial Nationalist... Indian beliefs are deeply fascist in the roots via the caste system.... The problem with people like you is you see the worst in yourselves reflected in others and it frightens you. You also see the best in others and mistakenly believe those attributes are yours when the fact is that you abandon humanity for personal gain or to blame your failure on others...

@Lizard_of_Ahaz Uh, where did I talk about mysef?

@Krish55 You don't have too it is obvious from the things you say...

@Lizard_of_Ahaz Congratulations! Like God, you know what's in every human heart…

@Krish55 What an asinine comment.... If anarchist were left wing they would vote Democrat... Same goes for Libertarians. All you guys are is a bunch of non-thinking jerks who use the benefits of society in an effort to undermine it thinking somehow it will turn you from complete losers into kings...

@Lizard_of_Ahaz I am not an Anarchist and I despise Libertarians. Your example was about the US. But Internationally and historically, anarchism was left wing. And that type of Anarchism still exists. That's all I am saying.

i agree

@npadrian
If you’re still here, tell us your point of view on employee ownership of the companies they work for. It’s usually done with ESOPs, employee stock ownership plans so the employees are capitalists. There is on the web a national organization backing employee ownership for info.
For info on a communal life that was conducive to sound mental health, you may have to look at societies before the agricultural revolution. One such source is Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, .... by Ryan and Jetha.

Hopefully naiive

Your response seems to ignore the ability of humans to learn by mental as well as experiential means. We can imagine scenarios and reach conclusions. Teaching and learning complex ideas is what separates we humans from the other simians. So we can, do, and always have, used these abilities to change our societies. We only need to agree to teach youth how to think and reason rather than what to think. When we allow any "ism" to be taught without countering it with another "ism" we set future generations on a path that relies on instinct (emotional response) rather than thoughtful consideration. These types of responses determine what someone will perceive as truth and so create disagreement. We also need to acknowledge that all humans do not have the same or equal ability to learn so any society will need to recognize this and pay special attention to the way we educate to avoid indoctrination of every citizen. In the past, methods of gaining support from enough people to any given agenda was more easily driven by survival "needs", while at this time we have developed enough technology to provide for the needs of everyone, but we still accept the idea that we need a leader or historical "ism" to provide for those needs. We need to recognize that most systems were developed with the idea of protecting the supplies that fulfilled those needs and are no longer useful. We need a new "ism". As Yuval Noah Harari so elegantly demonstrated, humans living in larger communities or societies do need something that they all cooperate for. They need a guiding myth or purpose. I think that a new purpose might just be "survivalism". But that survival must recognize it requires a diverse and healthy ecology and that a system for only or even primarily humans can never succeed.

But, one person's truth is another person's lie. I believe part of the problem is this search for absolutes: Part of this is nature, part is nurture/'social' conditioning. Organised religion has played a major part in the conditioning. It has also accentuated the egocentricity that is one of our species' faults.

I do not agree with you there, all humans are not the same. We don't all strive to destroy everything and everyone here on this earth. I don't and I know many who don't either.

@Jolanta i agree but i talked to a scientist that claimed in order for life to continue another 10,000 years humans have to die because of our propensity to destroy life I'm a pacifist granted I do eat meat at time to time but mostly I'm a vegetarian

@Drew69 Even scientists are always right.

If you think it is plagiarized, track the originals down. That will surely be easy for a genius like you!

@Krish55 ....... no time. but your obvious lack of intergity flashes yellow for those familiar with you wherever you show up ......... which, by the way, is way too often. did you kidnap lindberg's baby?

@holdenc98

Ah, is that part of your White Privilege? To make unsubstantiated charges and then decline to provide proof?

You realize you're behaving like the cop who pulls over a black driver for driving a Mercedes in a white neighborhood?

#Holden Holdin' Horrible Prejudices...

@Krish55 it would be enough for me if others take a critical thouightful look at you. what do you do in the world besides generate this drivel?

@holdenc98 Do you have anything substantive to contribute?

@Krish55 yes, mein fuhrer......... my abiding distaste for low to zero intergrity guitar twangin yahoo anti semites posing as a valid left. gettin any pussy that way? we need a really new left, it won't get here in time, if it could it would focus 100 % on saving the biosphere and decimating humanities numbers at least once. phonies plagerizing dated pamphlets don't have a clue, and twanger types never have any real guts. youre type is in hope's way in many different ways, and youre too stupid to understand, and if you werent too stupid your integrity problem wouldnt allow you to think it. . thats my free contribution to your therapy .... bonus ps--- ive never heard you play or sing, but i know you stink.

@holdenc98 Well it was very entertaining reading that! You're a much better writer than I am - in a certain genre, at least!

apparently, you effectively told that asshole off, so he just silenced you. dat - be - how - he - do . congratulations.

@holdenc98 I see what the level of your discourse is like. No wonder you believe that my discourse is plagiarized...

The West, including the US, supported the Whites and actually invaded on their behalf between 1918 and 1925, for example at Archangel in Russia

@Krish55 Which specific Western Governments invaded?

@Alienbeing The USA was one. Google is your friend for finding the others…

@Krish55 Google will allow me to prove anything I say. How abourt fact?

@Alienbeing You're correct that all sorts of sources will show up. Choose those which have professional validity. I don't think there is any source at all that denies the Western invasions of the young USSR by about ten Western powers. Please name them for us here...

@Krish55 Note, I originally said "Western Governments". I see no invasion of Russia by any Western Govt. I guess you know secrets.

@Alienbeing Not Russia, the early Soviet Union, for example at Archangel. Times: 1918-1925.

@Krish55 Note that at all times I was referring to the Russian Revolution and the Reds and Whites involved therein. It was immediatly after the Russian Revolution that the Reds (Communists) started dictatorial government, and that fact disproves your contention that Communists developed dictatorial and oppressive government. Lenin was not interested in opinion that didn't agree with his.

@Alienbeing The revolution was in 1917. Democracy was exercised through councils called soviets. Then came the Civil War in 1918 in which the monarchists, militarists, and religious forces rebelled against the Soviet government. They rebels were called the Whites, rebelling against the Red government because the people now had power through their councils (soviets). Western governments, including the US, supported these rebels, as early as 1918. Lenin then had to centralise power in order to defeat the rebels and the Western invaders. These invasions, interference, and continued opposition by the West changed the character of the Russian Revolution which had to become dictatorial in order to survive.

@Krish55 Once again, Exactly what western Governments invaded, and when and where?

@Alienbeing OK, from 1918-1925, Wiki:

Numbers of foreign soldiers who were present in the indicated regions of Russia:

1,500 French and British troops originally landed in Arkhangelsk[35]
14,378 British troops in North Russia[36]
1,800 British troops in Siberia[37]
50,000 Romanian troops belonging to the 6th Romanian Corps under General Ioan Istrate, in Bessarabia.[38]:375–376[39]:167–168
23,351 Greeks, who withdrew after three months (part of I Army Corps under Maj. Gen. Konstantinos Nider, comprising 2nd and 13th Infantry Divisions, in the Crimea, and around Odessa and Kherson)[40]
15,000 French also in the Southern Russia Intervention
40,000 British troops in the Caucasus region by January 1919[5]
13,000 Americans (in the Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok regions)[26][27]
11,500 Estonians in northwestern Russia[24]
2,500 Italians in the Arkhangelsk region and Siberia[41]
1,300 Italians in the Murmansk region.[42]
150 Australians (mostly in the Arkhangelsk regions)[43]
950 British troops in Trans-Caspia[4]
70,000+ Japanese soldiers in the Eastern region
4,192 Canadians in Siberia, 600 Canadians in Arkhangelsk[44]

@Krish55 Also from Wiki:

"There was a succession of Soviet secret police agencies over time. The first secret police after the October Revolution, created by Vladimir Lenin's decree on December 20, 1917, was called "Cheka" (ЧК). Officers were referred to as "chekists", a name that is still informally applied to people under the Federal Security Service of Russia, the KGB's successor in Russia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union."

Since 1917 preceeds 1918 it seems Lenin became dictatorial prior to any foreign intervention.

@Alienbeing This was a revolutionary situation, thus the existence of the police. However, democracy was practiced in the councils (soviets).

@Krish55 Duh!. I know it was a revolutionary situation, but that does not negate that Lenin practiced dictatorial politics before any foreign government tries to intervene. That makes your last reply a good try, but really only rationalization.

Russian and later Soviet governments were never tolerated internal criticism.

Socialism can be beneficial, but don't try to say Communist Governments have been kind to their people. In fact some "communist" government were never really communist, such as Pol Pot's insane government.

@Alienbeing Your correct about Pol Pot. That insanity was produced by the genocidal US bombing which prompted a crazed reaction.

@Krish55 What special insight do you have that proves Pol Pot's insanity was a product of U.S. bombing? How was moving populations out of cities into the country related to any bombing?

More to the point, you glossed over the fact that Communist Governments thus far do not tolerate internal criticism.

@Alienbeing Pot Pot didn't do it by himself. His supporters were crazed by the massive US bombing, a collective PTSD.

@Krish55 Now you claim special knowledge of Pot and his supporters. What evidence do you have for those statements? Remember almost all the heavy bobming was over Viet Nam, not Cambodia.

I don't buy the collective PTSD .

@Alienbeing Not true! Look it up yourself. The American reporters were in Vietnam and regularly reported on the atrocities that US bombing wreaked on Vietnamese civilians. In Cambodia however, the bombing was even more indiscriminate because they were fewer reporters there. Nixon's expansion of the war into Cambodia prompted massive demonstrations here in the US.

@Krish55 I am VERY well aware of what happened in Southeast Asia during the Viet Nam war era, particularly during the Nixon administration because I was there. Nixon was a terrible President and should have been sent to prison, but he never ordered bombing of any Cambodian city.

The bombing in Cambodia was to interdict supplies and personnel using "Ho Chi Min trails" and then into Viet Nam. NO Cambodian civilian population area (other than a few small villages) were bombed. Your notion of "collective PTSD" is simply incorrect.

While many socialist ideals are good, be careful not to promote them by demonizing others.

@Alienbeing You are aware that Cambodia even now is a very rural country? So when you bomb the countryside you're bombing where people live? And you are mixing up the stated intention with what actually happened. Kinda like saying that the Nazi death camps were just work camps.

@Krish55 Try not to state the obvious. OF COURSE when bombs are dropped anywhere near humans, people can and probably will die. You either missed the point or try to obscure it. The point is that ALL bombing was directed at supply and personnel lines in to Viet Nam, NOT at more populated areas. Hence your implication that our Cambodia bombings were, in any way, related to Pol Pot's or his followers "collective PTSD" is simply wrong.

Even if 100% of our bombing was directed at populous cities with the intent to kill as many Cambodian civilians as possible; does it make sense to you that Pot & his followers should conclude that a good response would be to murder & displace thousands more Cambodians?

Face it, Pol Pot and his followers were evil people who had no claim to Social or Communist philosophy, they were only psychopaths.

@Alienbeing Yes, they were psychopaths. But it is trauma that turns people into psychopaths. That trauma was the massive destruction and deaths caused by the US bombing. The human reality of the bombing was quite different than the stated PR intention which you are merely propagating.

@Krish55 You are ignoring facts. There was NO "massive" destruction or deaths to Cambodians caused by US bombings. By FAR, most deaths in Cambodia attributable to US bombs and other munitions were Vietnamese, and property distruction was virtually all Vietnamese war supplies, not buildings or residences.

I'm not propagating a thing, and I take exception to the fact that you, who were not there, think you know more that I do. I flew many many sorties over Cambodia. I observed supply line destruction, NO urban or town distruction. See the article below from Yale:

1969
March 18
U.S. bombs Cambodia for the first time
•
U.S. B-52 bombers are diverted from their targets in South Vietnam to attack suspected communist base camps and supply areas in Cambodia for the first time in the war. President Nixon approved the mission–formally designated Operation Breakfast–at a meeting of the National Security Council on March 15. This mission and subsequent B-52 strikes inside Cambodia became known as the “Menu” bombings. A total of 3,630 flights over Cambodia dropped 110,000 tons of bombs during a 14-month period through April 1970. This bombing of Cambodia and all follow up “Menu” operations were kept secret from the American public and the U.S. Congress because Cambodia was ostensibly neutral. To keep the secret, an intricate reporting system was established at the Pentagon to prevent disclosure of the bombing. Although the New York Times broke the story of the secret bombing campaign in May 1969, there was little adverse public reaction.

Check the references in the article and you will see the "menu" was supply trails. not populated areas.

I was in the war, I know all about the trauma it imposes.

Don't get me wrong, I was opposed to our intervention in Viet Nam. We should have never been there, and of course if we weren't there we would not have bombed portions of Cambodia also. My point is nothing, absolutly nothing we did in or to Cambodia caused many Cambodian deaths, nor did it cause any trauma or anything else to Pol Pot and his henchmen. They were just evil.

@Alienbeing There are many German veterans of WWII who would swear that their army didn't engage in the destruction of cities and civilians. Your being an unwilling participant in US crimes against humanity merely makes you a participant with a necessary bias to whitewash war crimes, not a neutral observer.

@Krish55 What German soldiers did or did not say does not even vaguely relate to this discussion. I DARE you to find one piece of evidence proving the US bombed any city in Cambodia.

Your foolish statements only prove you made up your mind inspite of facts. Rant on with your childish nonsense.

@Alienbeing You understand what a comparison is? You understand the term "a party to the conflict?" You undetstand that German soldiers were party to their conflict just like US soldiers later were in their Vietnam conflict. You understand that the perspectives and narratives of such involved parties are inherently biased? As for Cambodia, it was overwhelmingly rural and those were the areas that were carpet bombed, including indiscriminate bombing.

@Krish55 I understand that you want to be ignorant. Nothing you said about Cambodian bombing is correct.

Only supply trails were bombed, and those trails were only used by NVA personnel. It would have served no purpose to bomb any other part of Cambodia.

Continue to wallow in your incorrect statements. I DARE you to prove a thing I said as incorrrect.

Actually, British and American troops sided with the whites.
Google North Russia intervention

@Stephen-B Read the excnage and note the dates under discussion.

The Whites were supported by the armies of more than 10 European countriesm

From Wikipedia:

"The Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War consisted of a series of multi-national military expeditions which began in 1918. They had the stated goals of helping the Czechoslovak Legion, of securing supplies of munitions and armaments in Russian ports, and of re-establishing the Eastern Front. At times between 1918 and 1920 the Czechoslovak Legion controlled the entire Trans-Siberian Railway and several major cities in Siberia.

The goals of these small-scale interventions were partly to stop Germany from exploiting Russian resources, and to defeat the Central Powers, and to a lesser extent, to support some of the allied-forces that had been trapped within Russia after the Bolshevik revolution.[15] Allied troops also landed in Arkhangelsk and in Vladivostok as part of the North Russia Intervention.

Allied efforts were hampered by divided objectives and war-weariness from the overall global conflict. These factors, together with the evacuation of the Czechoslovak Legion in September 1920, compelled the Allied powers to end the North Russia and Siberian interventions in 1920, though the Japanese intervention in Siberia continued until 1922 and the Empire of Japan continued to occupy the northern half of Sakhalin until 1925"

Vietnam, Cuba, Indonesia, Chile, Argentina, Brazil Congo, Angola Mozambique etc, are among the long list of countries where US and some of its allies in Western Europe intervene to prevent or reverse socialist/communist changes.

Do you know anything about the US military nuclear base on the island of Diego Garcia that was unlawfully excised from Mauritius ? Just google Diego Garcia

It never stops.

@Klodzan I not only know of US bases on Diego Garcia, I've been there.

What is your point?

I have many points but I will mention here only a few that may be of interest if you manage somehow to care for the human rights of the former inhabitants of Diego Garcia (falsely described as an uninhabited island by US and UK) and what has happened to them since they ( men, women, children, babies) were dumped one morning on the waterfront of Port Louis some 50 years ago without money, without a home and with hardly any baggage.

1. US foreign policy is not respectful of the principles of international law but is fundamentally based on its military might and its immoral capacity to murder mostly by bombing massive number of people including civilians.

2. Many Americans like to believe their governments are committed to the rule of law and justice for all. The plight of blacks and other minorities demonstrates the opposite. Violence and violations of human rights are a constant dimension in the governance of American society and its interventions overseas. The Black Lives Matter movement is yet again another indicator of how barbaric American civilization has become or how the rags of what remains of American civilisation are soaked in barbarism.

3. UK stole Diego Garcia and has been found guilty of grand larceny. USA is willingly in possession of stolen property.

As for the points not mentioned here, I suggest you read or re-read what Noam Chomsky has to say about the domestic and foreign policies policies of the ruling classes in the US.

I refer you to the following excerpt:

" General Assembly -- Plenary - Seventy-third Session, 83rd & 84th Meetings (AM & PM)
General Assembly Welcomes International Court of Justice Opinion on Chagos Archipelago, Adopts Text Calling for Mauritius’ Complete Decolonization

The General Assembly adopted a resolution today welcoming a 25 February 2019 International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the legal consequences of separating the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, demanding that the United Kingdom unconditionally withdraw its colonial administration from the area within six months.

By a recorded vote of 116 in favour, to 6 against (Australia, Hungary, Israel, Maldives, United Kingdom, United States), with 56 abstentions, the Assembly affirmed that doing so — in accordance with the advisory opinion — would enable Mauritius to complete the decolonization of its territory as soon as possible.

Since the decolonization of Mauritius was not conducted in a manner consistent with the right to self-determination, the Assembly affirmed, the continued administration of the Archipelago constitutes a wrongful act. It urged the United Kingdom to cooperate with Mauritius to facilitate the resettlement of Mauritian nationals, including those of Chagossian origin, in the Chagos Archipelago and to pose no impediment to such efforts.
Introducing the text on behalf of the African States, Cheikh Niang (Senegal) recalled that General Assembly resolution 71/292 requested the Court to pronounce on whether the decolonization of Mauritius was lawfully completed when independence was granted in 1968, and further, on the international legal consequences arising from the United Kingdom’s administration of the Chagos Archipelago.

He said the Court found that the decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed under international law when the country acceded to independence in 1968 and called on the United Kingdom to unconditionally end its occupation of the Archipelago as soon as possible. Citing Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960, and the determination expressed by African Union Heads of State in 2017 to ramp up efforts towards complete decolonization of Mauritius, he said it is now up to the organ to take the Court’s opinion on board. He pressed Member States to choose justice and respect for the rule of law by supporting the text — and to help Africa overcome the traumas of a colonial past."

@Klodzan No wonder I didn't see your point, or points. the subject was military intervention in the Russian Revolution of 1917. I fail to see anything about that in your posts.

If you have a problem with what the US did with or to Diego Garcia or anything other area what you do is start a new post with that as the topic.

Have a nice day.

Try again with something substantive.

@Krish55 Do you censor what you don't agree with?

@Alienbeing Do you know the meaning of the word "substantive?"

@Krish55 Do you know you sound like a snob?

@Alienbeing Only to whiners.

@Krish55 Whiner? What a stupid statement! No one would whine over a snob, rather we basically just ignore them.

@Alienbeing So how come you're not putting that into practice?

@Krish55 Another usual reaction to snobs is to expose them, so exposing you is normal.

@Krish55 Your opinion of "substantive" is only your opinion. You seem to be developing the same dictatorial power you say the Communists only deleloped to deter Western attack.

@Alienbeing In this case, it wasn't your post so you don't know what you are talking about. I actually agreed with the perspective, but the content was disjointed and lacking.

@Krish55 Learn that people can have opinions about "your" post.

Hunter gatherers didn't have any organized religion. You need to read what anthropologists have said about their societies. The geographer Jared Diamond has studied them. Those studies should help dispel your Hollywood stereotypes.