ALERT: The Anonymous Group - Anarchist Criminals

Trams flow with the traffic as well. Trams have to use the same streets as the cars do.

GDP per hour worked is the measure of the productivity. It's not the same as the productivity rate.

There is plenty of Public Transportation in the big cities. And in urban areas there are just cars. Transportation isn't really a big issue in America.

Yes I see that, but their productivity rate is all the at the bottom. Netherlands is somewhere around the mid range.

I'm pretty sure I can find some kooks who are affiliated with Greecepeace who are just as big anti-human haters as they are.

Their oil probably. I don't know. I don't see how a tiny country which can actually fit inside of a US state can possibly emit more CO2 than an entire country.

They already have electricity. How are they going to use their new found power without industrializing first?

So goes Global Warming also causes lightning, combustion and volcano eruptions? Most wildfires I know happen because of these things. Also a bunch of random things can cause wildfires. Doesn't necessarily have much to do with the weather.

Hurricanes have always formed in warm climate as well as warm water. How does this have anything to do with Global warming?

So? Other scientist have made the same claims as well. Just because Climatology is not his area of expertise means that he has no credibility?

It terms to maintain, no. But consumption it more cost effective to just consume barrels of oil. Oil is still the cheapest resource you have right now.

 

wiki just says the economist backed Thatcher, I assumed they meant backed her vs Labour at the time, it says nothing about the cold war. How many times do I have to tell you there has never been communism, and Russia was anti-communist? The cold war was largely a sham anyway, Truman started it while Stalin was desperately trying to be America's ally and ensure Eastern Europe became capitalist.
As many people under 30 in America support socialism as support capitalism.

To make the bigger decisions at regional and national level.

I did a brief search and I read that he said the minimum wage was bad for the economy so I concluded that he was a retard. It never occurred to me to see what race he was.

good riddance.

Stalin was a bigtime liar, so you have to look at what he did as well as what he said, to get to the truth. He sabotaged revolutions during the rise of fascism and at the end of WW2.

All you have to do is look at the facts.

Take Spain for instance in 1936. There was a revolutionary situation which turned into a civil war against fascism. It had enormous support internationally. 40,000 people from 53 different countries went to Spain to join the war against Franco. George Orwell commented "in reality it was the Communists above all others who prevented revolution in Spain."

He was not the best at analysis, but he got that right. He was there, on the revolutionary side which the Stalinists attacked.

Stalin opposed the revolution because it might lead to revolution against his dictatorship in Russia, and because he didnt want to upset his western allies.

The capitalists didnt want a revolution and so were hoping Franco would win. However Stalinists comntinued to sow their dangerous illusions of an alliance with the 'progressive capitalists' and formed a government with them. Stalin sent a letter to Caballero (Prime Minister) insisting on protection of private property.


"The Stalinists’ arguments were summarised in the beginning of August 1936, in the French communist daily, L’Humanité: "The Central Committee of the Spanish Communist Party asks us for an answer to fantastic and tendentious reports published in certain papers, to inform the public that the people of Spain are not fighting to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, but have only one purpose: the defence of the republican order through respect for property".

An important step for the betrayers of the revolution was to disarm the workers’ militias."

source


Stalin's pact with Hitler was simply out of fear of being invaded. Soviet forces entered Poland two weeks after Germany invaded. Stalin had to invade to keep the non-aggression deal with Hitler. It was a terrible sell-out and very stupid as well, as it opened up a front directly with Germany.

 

So you believe in silly nonsensical immature crap. I already knew that. Because you rewrite history in your twisted and brainwashed "mind" does not make it truth. Rewriting and denying history is a base foundation of communism and socialism and all other repressive governments. You are a true believer in total bullsh!t. Congratulations on a thoroughly wasted life.

 

The Economist is a magazine based in the UK. Of course it will back Thatcher.

The only point I have heard that the Soviet Union was not communist was that there was no democracy. And that they've killed Socialist.

The betrayal I can understand, but I really don't understand what the difference is if you had a Democracy, Republic or Oligarchy.

Truman tried to help save Greece and Turkey from being taken under the Communist control. He probably should have let Greece get taken under Soviet control. They've never had a history of preserving the value of the Drachma. If they weren't in NATO nor the EU their economy probably would have collapse decades ago.

That's because they're all either environmentalist kooks, PETA dummies or entitlement drones.

Babies!

What decisions? Everyone is suppose to be a socialist. You only need one person to make all the decisions.

The minimum wage is bad for the economy. Do you know how many jobs have been priced out of the market because of the minimum wage?

That's because if you knew he was black your Marxist leftist guilt would make you think twice about calling him an idiot.

Stalin was a bigtime liar, so you have to look at what he did as well as what he said, to get to the truth. He sabotaged revolutions during the rise of fascism and at the end of WW2.

All you have to do is look at the facts.

So? There was still no guarantee that there wouldn't have been a revolution.

Hitler was always going to invade Russia anyway. It was his best chance of actually winning WWII and the only thing standing in his way of domination of Europe. Stalin also has secret war plans.

 

It could have backed Labour.

They killed all the socialists
There was no democracy - democracy is the basis for socialism, as a planned economy needs mass participation in decision making.
It was not internationalist (Stalin had a 'theory' called Socialism in One Country- the exact opposite of Marxism, remember what Lenin said?)
It had a privileged elite.
It has a huge state apparatus - Marx talked about the state withering away.
Stalinists tried to STOP all revolutions around the world, and actively intervened AGAINST any revolutions that might end up socialist. This happened in every country that ended up 'communist' - Stalin had wanted them to be CAPITALIST. I can prove that for any country.


It was nothing like socialism

Engels:

"What will be the course of this revolution?

Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution"

"Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No."

Principles of Communism.

No. this is wrong. Stalin did not want Greece under Soviet control, he wanted Greece to be capitalist. What happened was that at the end of WW2 the Communists held 3/4 of the country and the Royalists held 1/4. Stalin was one of the few leaders to recognise the Royalist government! He tried to stop the Greek CP taking over, and had their leader removed, but they werent listening and Truman got tired of Stalin's inability to stop revolutions.

"The betrayal of the Stalinists takes on huge proportions when we consider that the situation was revolutionary and power was within the grasp of the Greek workers. But the Stalinist leaders dreaded workers' power just as much as Churchill. Poulos, Nation correspondent, wrote from Greece:

"The EAM could have seized the power. They had plenty of time to do it between the German withdrawal and the British arrival." Why didn't they? Poulos answers: "The... major reason was Teheran."

The counter-revolutionary conspiracy was no secret — except to the masses."

http://www.marxists.org/subject/greek-civil-war/fourth-international/1945/02/x01.htm

This might make sense to you but it doesn't to me.

You would have different levels of management from a board of directors at the top to shop floor supervisors, but all would be elected. The board would also include consumers/public and government representatives.

No.

Not really.

No guarantee but it succeeded.

Hitler was on a mission to smash 'communism' ie the USSR.

What war plans did Stalin have?

 

I was gravely disappointed when it Labour after Thatcher.

 

There was no chance of the Tories getting back in was there? Everyone supported Labour after Thatcher.

 

Right, that's why John Major held office for seven years.

 

Well, yeah Major just scraped through in 1992 just after Thatcher was deposed by the Poll tax rebellion etc. But New Labour was still just getting off the ground. 5 years later it was a landslide for the new Tory-lite party.

 

truly terrifying

 

Yes but what are you going to use when the roads need construction? People can't use the Tram then as trams have to follow the same line regardless. There is already less flexibility as it is.

Public Transportation is not always reliable. Hence why there are so many cars.

I'm sure there are a few. They're just not as radical as the other kooks. They're smart enough to say what they are feeling in the dark.

If the figures are per capita then it's all the more reason to be suspicions of the figures. Qatar doesn't even use as much fossil fuels.

CO2 pollution is a sham.

They dont have much electricity. You cannot industrialise first and then get electricity. Not unless you want to reproduce the steam and coal age of the English industrial revolution.

Which one?

What does this have to do with Hurricanes and Wildfires?

Wildfires happen the most in areas which are hot and dry. Places like Texas and California. Doesn't have anything to do with Global Warming. Those places are just already hot and dry.

Fine. What about this. It outlines how lowering CO2 emittions will have no effect on the natural climate change.

http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf

Why would you put a price on CO2 emittions? They don't do anything.

 

Not anymore. The real world slapped him back to reality real quick.

 

if they need repair/ construction work you lay on special buses

my tram comes every 6 minutes in rush hour and every 12 minutes at other times. It is very reliable. Public transport needs to be reliable obviously. There is no intrinsic reason why it shouldn't be. Cars are not reliable if you get stuck in a traffic jam.

No, you have a completely wrong picture of the environmental movement. The whole point of it is to keep the planet inhabitable for humans.

I googled this. Their emissions are high because they have a lot of oil refineries and a small population. Forget about Qatar, it is a tiny country, not very significant.

CO2 causes global warming. I dont care if that is classified as pollution or not.

ok, I bored with this. This is not a global warming thread. If you want to get to grips with it, read up on it. I have explained it once and given you some links.

 

Jesus was truly about non-violence. Socialists are anything but non-violent as the only way to make up for their lack of economic calculation is to use force.

 

You and the theory of lack of economic calculation.

You don't understand anything. Ah, and Jesus and his ideals were purely communists and that beliefs influenced a lot for example in the Russian writter Leov Tolstoi.

 

when have socialists used force?

 

I know you hate it because it's the big wrench in your belief that everyone will produce for everyone else exactly what they need and want without any sort of price signals to guide them.

Yes, and if you have read Tolstoi's books on the subject (my copy of the Kingdom of Heaven is Within You is thoroughly marekd up), you would know that a) Tolstoy was almost completely anti-state (or theorized that he should be) and b) that Tolstoi was completely pacifist. Now, you support all sorts of state interventions in the lives of people. Can you explain how the state intervenes without the implicit threat of violence against those who refuse to obey the dictates of the state?

Government is not peaceful. It exists by violence. Socialists and communists are not peaceful because their systems cannot be imposed on those who do not want it without the violence of the state.
Look into the Mennonites, the Amish for example, and see where you can find the coerced socialism among them that you call for. They are capitalists as much as they are communitarians, only putting tradition first because that is their choice.

 

All the time. Socialist use government. Far more frequently than non-socialist might I add. Government = Force.

 

give some examples

 

Tell me, how do you go about taking what a person produces without the implicit threat of violence if he does not obey your demands? Government does not get the means to provide healthcare resources without first taking from those who produce, and the laws that legislators write are not peaceful as if by some magic of transformation that make people want to provide those resources.

 

Well the very idea of a democracy under socialism is force in itself.

Democratic Socialist Party in Canada made it illegal for anyone to pay for their own health insurance in 1946.

Spanish Socialist Workers Party in Spain expropriated a holding company in 1983 which accounted for 2 percent of the GDP in Spain.

United Socialist Party in Venezuela made it illegal to own gold a few years ago.

And the list goes on.

 

I thought you might come out with something more spectacular, Black Book style, rather than these obscure events.

Anyway, the Socialist Workers party in Spain is not socialist, it manages capitalism. The USP in Venezuela is not pursuing socialism by the looks of it, and in 1946 in Canada I dont know what the DSP did but it sounds good!

But capitalist governments do all sorts of stuff by force, from minor stuff as per above to literally killing millions of people and overthrowing democracies. Google Suharto and Iran 1953 for examples.

Yes socialist governments would have to use force. Russia was never socialist, but the Bolsheviks could be called a socialist government in that they genuinely attempted socialism, although they knew that would be impossible if Russia was on it's own.

They had to use force to defend the revolution in the civil war, but it was only because the capitalists started a war.

 

WTF. The PSOE doing what? Ah yeah, Rumasa. Do you know why not? Do you know about that scandal? And later was sold in parts.

It was for the public interest and the dirty things behind that corporation.