nobody starves due to laziness

POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Monday, July 18, 2016 04:02
VIEWED: 17366
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

THGRRI

Monday, June 27, 2016 8:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So, I think the next order of business is to go through the remaining list of countries suffering from hunger and starvation and see which ones are capitalist. Though I can point out right now that communist-ideology Russia, China (world's most populous nation), Cuba, Vietnam and Venezuela are all absent from the list; while capitalist-ideology India (world's second most populous nation) is on it ie, the citizens of India are suffering from 'serious' hunger and starvation.

Play with yourself for a while 1kiki. At the moment I can't stomach you.

1KIKI

Monday, June 27, 2016 8:24 AM

So, I think the next order of business is to go through the remaining list of countries suffering from hunger and starvation and see which ones are capitalist. Though I can point out right now that communist-ideology Russia, China (world's most populous nation), Cuba, Vietnam and Venezuela are all absent from the list; while capitalist-ideology India (world's second most populous nation) is on it ie, the citizens of India are suffering from 'serious' hunger and starvation.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

THGRRI

Monday, June 27, 2016 9:42 AM

THGRRI

Monday, June 27, 2016 9:51 AM

What does Russia give in foreign aid, $629,598,497. As a matter of fact Russia receives about 70 million in aid from the United States each year. So I ask you again 1kiki, what system economical generates the most resources?

Capitalism, communism, whatever

1KIKI

Monday, June 27, 2016 10:05 AM

https://www.quora.com/Which-countries-are-capitalist-socialist-and-com
munist-in-2015
Is NK a communist/ socialist country? "North Korea is a debatable case, as all references to socialist/communism were dropped from its constitution in 1972 and all references to Marxism-Leninism were dropped in 1992."
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/command-economy.asp?layout=infini&
amp;v=5C&orig=1&adtest=5C
China, Cuba, North Korea and the former Soviet Union are examples of countries that have command economies.
Iran, Cuba, China and North Korea have command economies.
https://www.reference.com/government-politics/examples-command-economi
es-f91986e3759b8664?qo=contentSimilarQuestions
China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos and Vietnam are the only five remaining communist nations in the world.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_economy
Countries with command economies include Burma, Cuba, Iran, Liberia, and North Korea. Formerly, the Soviet Union and China were command economies, and are now mixed economies where the government still has a major influence.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/US-Economy-Theory/a/Command-Economy.htm
Here are examples of the most commonly-referenced countries with command economies.
Belarus, China, Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Russia

There are many opinions about which countries have command (also called planned) economies versus capitalist (or market) economies. (Remember, this is about economies, not governments.) Looking over the various lists it's clear you can have a command economy without it necessarily being a communist/ socialist one. (For example, one list said that Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other gulf nations were command economies.) On these lists, Venezuela doesn't show up thought it probably should.
My best summary to date is that China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, Venezuela, and perhaps Russia, are at the same time command AND communist economies. Together they account for roughly 1/5 of the global population - of course China is the biggest contributor.
There are 196 officially recognized countries in the world today. Subtracting out the 5 or 6 command/ communist economies leaves roughly 190 capitalist economies, that account for the remaining 4/5 of the global population. Out of those countries, 52, or 27%, have a severe or serious problem with malnutrition and starvation. Doing some really rough statistics*, it's very unlikely that the only command/ communist economies escape malnutrition and starvation by random chance.

Therefore, the presence malnutrition and starvation is linked to capitalist economies; while the absence of malnutrition and starvation is linked to command/ communist economies. (It would be really interesting if some statistician could do a formal analysis of this since I haven't seen this kind of approach before. But I'm not about to, after all, I'm just trying to get a rough idea for my own information, and not write a doctoral thesis.)

The next step might be to look for common mechanisms in each type of economy that accounts for this division. GLOBALLY, there's still enough food production to feed everyone (though that will change). So on a broad scale, malnutrition and starvation comes down to distribution. There's enough food for everybody, but not everyone gets food. I'll need to think about if I want to look at malnutrition and starvation globally since countries are all linked in a global food market, or consider food supply and distribution for each country individually.

Countries with SEVERE (GHI between 50 and 35) hunger situation Rank Country 2014

1 Central African Republic 46.9
2 Chad 46.4
3 Zambia 41.1
4 Timor-Leste 40.7
5 Sierra Leone 38.9
6 Haiti 37.3
7 Madagascar 36.3
8 Afghanistan 35.4

Countries with serious (GHI between 34.9 and 20) hunger situation Rank Country 2014
9 Niger 34.5
10 Yemen 34.2
11 Pakistan 33.9
12 Ethiopia 33.9
13 Djibouti 33.2
14 Nigeria 32.8
15 Angola 32.6
16 Mozambique 32.5
17

SECOND

Monday, June 27, 2016 6:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

There are 196 officially recognized countries in the world today. Subtracting out the 5 or 6 command/ communist economies leaves roughly 190 capitalist economies, that account for the remaining 4/5 of the global population. Out of those countries, 52, or 27%, have a severe or serious problem with malnutrition and starvation. Doing some really rough statistics*, it's very unlikely that the only command/ communist economies escape malnutrition and starvation by random chance.

Therefore, the presence malnutrition and starvation is linked to capitalist economies; while the absence of malnutrition and starvation is linked to command/ communist economies. (It would be really interesting if some statistician could do a formal analysis of this since I haven't seen this kind of approach before. But I'm not about to, after all, I'm just trying to get a rough idea for my own information, and not write a doctoral thesis.)

The next step might be to look for common mechanisms in each type of economy that accounts for this division. GLOBALLY, there's still enough food production to feed everyone (though that will change). So on a broad scale, malnutrition and starvation comes down to distribution. There's enough food for everybody, but not everyone gets food. I'll need to think about if I want to look at malnutrition and starvation globally since countries are all linked in a global food market, or consider food supply and distribution for each country individually.

You are finally getting to a very sharp point. Capitalism does not solve strangers’ problems for free. Capitalism has no commitment to the Brotherhood of All Mankind. With capitalism, there is no We Are All In This Together. Capitalism is not generous to people who can’t pay.

There will be charitable contributions from the Capitalists, but they won’t be doing whatever it takes to solve hunger unless there is money to be made. Next for me is a quick bait-and-switch from food distribution to GNP. How much money would the Capitalists have to pour into Haiti to bring it up to Denmark standards? The answer is $630 billion per year.

$630 billion every year.

$630 billion indefinitely, until Haitians adjust and start contributing to their own new prosperity.

How did I calculate that? Take the population of Haiti, divide by the pop of Denmark, multiply by the GNP of Denmark minus GNP of Haiti to get a number that is as large as the USA Defense budget of $637 billion.

If would be much cheaper to just to move everyone in Haiti to Denmark. But do you know how Europeans feel about immigration?

Haiti GDP at market prices (current US$)
$8.713 billion 2014
Population 10.71 million 2015
http://data.worldbank.org/country/haiti

Denmark GDP at market prices (current US$)
$342.4 billion 2014
Population 5.660 million 2015
http://data.worldbank.org/country/denmark

THGRRI

Monday, June 27, 2016 8:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

There are 196 officially recognized countries in the world today. Subtracting out the 5 or 6 command/ communist economies leaves roughly 190 capitalist economies, that account for the remaining 4/5 of the global population. Out of those countries, 52, or 27%, have a severe or serious problem with malnutrition and starvation. Doing some really rough statistics*, it's very unlikely that the only command/ communist economies escape malnutrition and starvation by random chance.

Therefore, the presence malnutrition and starvation is linked to capitalist economies; while the absence of malnutrition and starvation is linked to command/ communist economies. (It would be really interesting if some statistician could do a formal analysis of this since I haven't seen this kind of approach before. But I'm not about to, after all, I'm just trying to get a rough idea for my own information, and not write a doctoral thesis.)

The next step might be to look for common mechanisms in each type of economy that accounts for this division. GLOBALLY, there's still enough food production to feed everyone (though that will change). So on a broad scale, malnutrition and starvation comes down to distribution. There's enough food for everybody, but not everyone gets food. I'll need to think about if I want to look at malnutrition and starvation globally since countries are all linked in a global food market, or consider food supply and distribution for each country individually.
You are finally getting to a very sharp point. Capitalism does not solve strangers’ problems for free. Capitalism has no commitment to the Brotherhood of All Mankind. With capitalism, there is no We Are All In This Together. Capitalism is not generous to people who can’t pay.

There will be charitable contributions from the Capitalists, but they won’t be doing whatever it takes to solve hunger unless there is money to be made. Next for me is a quick bait-and-switch from food distribution to GNP. How much money would the Capitalists have to pour into Haiti to bring it up to Denmark standards? The answer is $630 billion per year.

$630 billion every year.

$630 billion indefinitely, until Haitians adjust and start contributing to their own new prosperity.

How did I calculate that? Take the population of Haiti, divide by the pop of Denmark, multiply by the GNP of Denmark minus GNP of Haiti to get a number that is as large as the USA Defense budget of $637 billion.

If would be much cheaper to just to move everyone in Haiti to Denmark. But do you know how Europeans feel about immigration?

Haiti GDP at market prices (current US$)
$8.713 billion 2014
Population 10.71 million 2015
http://data.worldbank.org/country/haiti

Denmark GDP at market prices (current US$)
$342.4 billion 2014
Population 5.660 million 2015
http://data.worldbank.org/country/denmark

Yes SECOND correct and that has to do with fair distribution. Something I have said from the beginning. My other point was to suggest to 1kiki and SIG they should stop promoting systems that don't provide the most resources and instead focus on finding ways to distribute resources in a more equitable fashion. Like global unions.

The fact of the matter is that we all need to do with less. The planet cannot sustain the constant over consumption of its limited resources. But that's for another thread.

SECOND

Monday, June 27, 2016 9:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

Yes SECOND correct and that has to do with fair distribution. Something I have said from the beginning. My other point was to suggest to 1kiki and SIG they should stop promoting systems that don't provide the most resources and instead focus on finding ways to distribute resources in a more equitable fashion. Like global unions.

The fact of the matter is that we all need to do with less. The planet cannot sustain the constant over consumption of its limited resources. But that's for another thread.

I think you made many excellent points, but there will not be "global unions" without "major wars", in my opinion. There will be the strongest possible opposition against "ways to distribute resources in a more equitable fashion". I could be wrong. The only way to tell is to run a scientific experiment. Start with one small town and have the mayor give the poorest people preferential treatment. Keep running the experiment with bigger towns and larger preferences to see what happens. Eventually the experiment will involve counties, then states, then nations, then the world.

THGRRI

Monday, June 27, 2016 9:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

Yes SECOND correct and that has to do with fair distribution. Something I have said from the beginning. My other point was to suggest to 1kiki and SIG they should stop promoting systems that don't provide the most resources and instead focus on finding ways to distribute resources in a more equitable fashion. Like global unions.

The fact of the matter is that we all need to do with less. The planet cannot sustain the constant over consumption of its limited resources. But that's for another thread.
I think you made many excellent points, but there will not be "global unions" without "major wars", in my opinion. There will be the strongest possible opposition against "ways to distribute resources in a more equitable fashion". I could be wrong. The only way to tell is to run a scientific experiment. Start with one small town and have the mayor give the poorest people preferential treatment. Keep running the experiment with bigger towns and larger preferences to see what happens. Eventually the experiment will involve counties, then states, then nations, then the world.

No I don't think so. I think all we need is for employees to have the right to bargain. I think all countries have to be onboard. No communism but a universal rule of law.

SECOND

Monday, June 27, 2016 10:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

No I don't think so. I think all we need is for employees to have the right to bargain. I think all countries have to be onboard. No communism but a universal rule of law.

All aboard, all countries! I'd like to be the train conductor who calls that out just before the train engineer of the "Universal Rule of Law" starts the locomotive. I think nations would only get on that train if you were pointing a gun at them, ready to pull the trigger. You might have to shoot some of the smaller nations in order to convince the larger ones that you mean what you say.

To give an example: there are two countries sharing the Island of Hispaniola. Both have about the same population, but one is 7 times richer than the other. Without being continuously forced, how likely is it that these countries would share food, laws and money? Extremely unlikely I think.

Dominican Republic GDP at market prices (current US$)
$64.14 billion 2014
Population 10.53 million 2015
www.worldbank.org/en/country/dominicanrepublic

Haiti GDP at market prices (current US$)
$8.713 billion 2014
Population 10.71 million 2015
www.worldbank.org/en/country/haiti

Guns, books, or doctors? Conflict and public spending in Haiti : lessons from cross-country evidence
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2016/05/26396742/guns-books-
or-doctors-conflict-public-spending-haiti-lessons-cross-country-evidence
Abstract

Haiti's economic development has been held back by a history of civil conflict and violence. With donor assistance declining from its exceptional levels following the 2010 earthquake, and concessional financing growing scarce, Haiti must learn to live with tighter budget constraints. At the same time, the United Nations forces that have provided security in the past decade are scaling down. Against this backdrop, this paper explores the conditions under which public spending can minimize violent conflict, and draws possible lessons for Haiti. Drawing on an empirical analysis of 148 countries over the period 1960-2009, simulations for Haiti suggest that increases in military spending would be associated with a higher risk of conflict, an observation in line with Haiti's own history. Greater welfare expenditure (education, health, and social assistance), by contrast, would be associated with lower risk of conflict.

THGRRI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 4:29 AM

THGRRI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 4:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

No I don't think so. I think all we need is for employees to have the right to bargain. I think all countries have to be onboard. No communism but a universal rule of law.
All aboard, all countries! I'd like to be the train conductor who calls that out just before the train engineer of the "Universal Rule of Law" starts the locomotive. I think nations would only get on that train if you were pointing a gun at them, ready to pull the trigger. You might have to shoot some of the smaller nations in order to convince the larger ones that you mean what you say.

To give an example: there are two countries sharing the Island of Hispaniola. Both have about the same population, but one is 7 times richer than the other. Without being continuously forced, how likely is it that these countries would share food, laws and money? Extremely unlikely I think.

Dominican Republic GDP at market prices (current US$)
$64.14 billion 2014
Population 10.53 million 2015
www.worldbank.org/en/country/dominicanrepublic

Haiti GDP at market prices (current US$)
$8.713 billion 2014
Population 10.71 million 2015
www.worldbank.org/en/country/haiti

Guns, books, or doctors? Conflict and public spending in Haiti : lessons from cross-country evidence
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2016/05/26396742/guns-books-
or-doctors-conflict-public-spending-haiti-lessons-cross-country-evidence
Abstract

Haiti's economic development has been held back by a history of civil conflict and violence. With donor assistance declining from its exceptional levels following the 2010 earthquake, and concessional financing growing scarce, Haiti must learn to live with tighter budget constraints. At the same time, the United Nations forces that have provided security in the past decade are scaling down. Against this backdrop, this paper explores the conditions under which public spending can minimize violent conflict, and draws possible lessons for Haiti. Drawing on an empirical analysis of 148 countries over the period 1960-2009, simulations for Haiti suggest that increases in military spending would be associated with a higher risk of conflict, an observation in line with Haiti's own history. Greater welfare expenditure (education, health, and social assistance), by contrast, would be associated with lower risk of conflict.

It's called globalization. It's a good idea and it was working to an extent. The problem was our leaders were stupid and let the greedy win out. Companies chose slave labor over fair wages. We needed smart trade instead of free trade so we could move more slowly and create less victims. That is what the Brexit vote was about. That's why Donald Trump has had such success.

1KIKI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 4:42 AM

"My other point was to suggest to 1kiki and SIG they should stop promoting systems that don't provide the most resources and instead focus on finding ways to distribute resources in a more equitable fashion."

"... and instead focus on finding ways to distribute resources in a more equitable fashion ..." You mean ways like capitalism - that underfeeds and starves 27% of the countries that practice it? Or ways like communism - that feed everyone?

Those are my choices in the real world.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

THGRRI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 6:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"My other point was to suggest to 1kiki and SIG they should stop promoting systems that don't provide the most resources and instead focus on finding ways to distribute resources in a more equitable fashion."

"... and instead focus on finding ways to distribute resources in a more equitable fashion ..." You mean ways like capitalism - that underfeeds and starves 27% of the countries that practice it? Or ways like communism - that feed everyone?

Those are my choices in the real world.

Love you pointing out to all again that you prefer communism (Russia) over America. It's really admirable how you deny being Russian and yet always come down as supporting it philosophies.

So, how are things going for you comrade? Still disappointed you can't go home?

1KIKI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 7:57 AM

Did you happen to notice that China is the largest communist economy on the planet, representing 1/5 of the entirety of humanity?

Are you Russian? Is that why you can't stop posting about Russia? And, let me point out - you forgot to mention your very special someone.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

1KIKI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:05 AM

interestingly enough, the residents of DR were spared the fate of being another Haiti

by a dictator who forbade cutting down the forests.

Quote:
Originally posted by second:

To give an example: there are two countries sharing the Island of Hispaniola. Both have about the same population, but one is 7 times richer than the other. Without being continuously forced, how likely is it that these countries would share food, laws and money? Extremely unlikely I think.

Dominican Republic GDP at market prices (current US$)
$64.14 billion 2014
Population 10.53 million 2015
www.worldbank.org/en/country/dominicanrepublic

Haiti GDP at market prices (current US$)
$8.713 billion 2014
Population 10.71 million 2015
www.worldbank.org/en/country/haiti

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

THGRRI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Did you happen to notice that China is the largest communist economy on the planet, representing 1/5 of the entirety of humanity?

Are you Russian? Is that why you can't stop posting about Russia? And, let me point out - you forgot to mention your very special someone.

Here we go again. I have already been through this with you. China was a failing country until it started allowing private ownership of companies. And if it wasn't for free trade instead of smart trade. Two thirds of American manufacturing jobs would not have left this country to go there. Right now because of their business practices, there debts, and continued bailing out of failing business, they are going to experience what Japan experienced when it was going under. Or should I say they saw no growth for two decades.

1KIKI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:13 AM

"The only way to tell is to run a scientific experiment. Start with one small town and have the mayor give the poorest people preferential treatment."

Your imagination fails you. Start with a small, like-minded community or country, where people are brought up as part of a society of mutuality. Iceland might work. Have them decide their course as a society, meeting their ethics and directed towards goals they themselves aspire to; aimed at the common good and a society of humanity. See where it goes.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

1KIKI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:17 AM

China was a failing country for millennia, with a long and storied history of repeated mass starvation by the millions, while the ruling elite lived in luxury. Until ... communism came along and gave everyone 20 more years of precious life through the simple act of making sure everyone was fed.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

1KIKI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:24 AM

THIS is what death from starvation looks like:

THGRRI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
China was a failing country for millennia, with a long and storied history of repeated mass starvation by the millions, while the ruling elite lived in luxury. Until ... communism came along and gave everyone 20 more years of precious life through the simple act of making sure everyone was fed.

]

You'll never understand the satisfaction I get from you knowing what I want is slowly and in some cases swiftly encroaching on what you want. I.E. the Soviet Union is now only Russia and its satellite countries cannot make friends with the west fast enough to suit them. As you said. For twenty years China was a communist state. What you want. Well now comrade troll it is slowly becoming what I want. Right now the people of china have seen great advancements due to trade and slave labor jobs that have created somewhat of a middleclass. That will not last because the people will want more. They have 900 million people who still have nothing.

I would add as companies start to use encrypted passwords instead of the shit they use now, the Chinese will no longer be able to use stolen technology to advance themselves. They will be stuck having to create new products themselves. Something they appear not to have a knack for.

1KIKI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:52 AM

Then you are for people starving to death. You'll accept anything, anything! even 7.7 MILLION people starving to death in capitalist economies every year, rather than disturb your ideology.

Your measure of capitalist 'success' - 27% of countries with with severe or serious malnutrition AND STARVATION - is insane.

You are insane.

THIS is what death from starvation looks like:

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

THGRRI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:58 AM

You know it does not surprise me or anyone else here in the least, that you and SIG suggest to the rest of us that only you understand world issues and the pain and suffering of others. Well comrade troll, that gets undercut by the fact that the two of you constantly support the countries that inflict the most atrocities on its people while dening them their given rights as human beings.

1KIKI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:12 AM

You find starvation acceptable. As long as no one touches profits.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

THGRRI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
You find starvation acceptable. As long as no one touches profits.

You're such an ass. You don't have the critical thinking skills to separate what I say and why I say it from your concept of poverty. It's why you're a moron who would rather live where you have no rights and are ruled instead of having a say.

Technology stands a better chance of ending poverty but I see none of that in your posting. Only Western countries bad. That's all it is with you. Western countries bad. Where are the links to TED TALKS where they speak about the different ways they are trying to end poverty? Where, all we hear from you and SIG is Western society bad. You don't want to discuss ending poverty.

Were are the links to people who are coming up with innovative ideas. Where's that discussion? Nope, you just what to bash the West. Where is your criticism of Russia and China for not doing enough? You can post terrible pictures, but you are incapable of creating a discussion that deals with the issue. If you want to help solve poverty stop supporting governments that don't respect the rule of law.

What a clown you are.

http://www.ted.com/talks/gary_haugen_the_hidden_reason_for_poverty_the
_world_needs_to_address_now

http://www.ted.com/talks/bono_the_good_news_on_poverty_yes_there_s_goo
d_news

http://www.ted.com/talks/andrew_youn_3_reasons_why_we_can_win_the_figh
t_against_poverty

1KIKI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:55 AM

"Technology stands a better chance of ending poverty but I see none of that in your posting."

First of all MY METRIC IS MALNUTRITION AND STARVATION - not poverty. Maybe you can figure out what that means. But since I've repeated it more than once, I'm not holding out any hope you'll suddenly find a brain.

Then you failed to grasp the importance of the fact that THERE IS ENOUGH FOOD ON THE PLANET TO FEED EVERYBODY.

Should I repeat that? THERE IS ENOUGH FOOD ON THE PLANET TO FEED EVERYBODY. There IS no technological 'fix' needed to improve the food supply. The problem is distribution, or, if I may quote myself because you didn't grasp it the first time "There's enough food for everybody, but not everyone gets food." The problem is - shall I say this again? DISTRIBUTION.

And as a DISTRIBUTION system, capitalism sucks. Because food doesn't get to people UNLESS THEY CAN AFFORD TO PAY A PRICE THAT CREATES A PROFIT. And if they can't, and they don't have access to their own food supply, they don't get enough to eat. They even starve to death. 750 MILLION PEOPLE ARE MALNOURISHED EVERY YEAR IN CAPITALIST ECONOMIES. 7.7 MILLION PEOPLE STARVE TO DEATH EVERY YEAR IN CAPITALIST ECONOMIES. Despite the fact that there's enough food not only to keep everyone alive, but also guarantee they'll be well-nourished and healthy.

THIS is what death from starvation looks like:

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

THGRRI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:09 AM

Too bad 1kiki. Your mind is locked in hate and you have a need to always point the finger at others. If you are to be saved you must look inward.

Good luck with that.

1KIKI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:23 AM

I look outward and this is what I see:

THIS is what death from starvation looks like:

You seem to think starvation is painless and peaceful. But when your body is dying, you're reduced to a creature that ignores nakedness, ignores the burning sun, ignores biting flies, ignores the sloughing skin, ignores the dried diarrhea crusted on your butt, ignores the dirt and filth you eat from the ground to hold death off by another 5 calories ... ignores everything to expend that small amount of energy left on finding food ... until you become too weak to do even that.

THIS is what death from starvation is.

Not some abstract theory about poverty but immediate starvation that needs immediate food. Food which there is IN PLENTY. But you are less important than profit, which makes you expendable.

nobody starves due to laziness

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:31 AM

Quote:
I look outward and this is what I see:

THIS is what death from starvation looks like:

You seem to think starvation is painless and peaceful. But when your body is dying, you're reduced to a creature that ignores nakedness, ignores the burning sun, ignores biting flies, ignores the sloughing skin, ignores the dried diarrhea crusted on your butt, ignores the dirt and filth you eat from the ground to hold death off by another 5 calories ... ignores everything to expend that small amount of energy left on finding food ... until you become too weak to do even that.

THIS is what death from starvation is.

Not some abstract theory about poverty but immediate starvation that needs immediate food. Food which there is IN PLENTY. But you are less important than profit, which makes you expendable.

Indeed.
And that fact that THUGR would imagine that bringing this up is some sort of exercise in "manipulation" ... I guess he doesn't want to be "manipulated" into confronting consequences. He's so filled with hate, he can't be bothered to notice how painfully children are dying, and that he might even be advocating it.

--------------
I'll tell you what I DON'T like about Trump: I think that he has never confronted either the international banking cartel, nor the CIA-State Dept multi-headed hydra, nor the military-industrial complex. The last person to confront them was JFK (BTW, ALL immigration was illegal under JFK) and look what happened to him.

SECOND

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 4:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

It's called globalization. It's a good idea and it was working to an extent. The problem was our leaders were stupid and let the greedy win out. Companies chose slave labor over fair wages. We needed smart trade instead of free trade so we could move more slowly and create less victims. That is what the Brexit vote was about. That's why Donald Trump has had such success.

Had remain won the referendum, the EU would have become hostage to British sabotage. Future British prime ministers would veto any fundamental change, correctly arguing that their people had voted only for the current set-up of the EU. Britain would continue to demand ever more opt-outs and concessions – playing to the fantasy that membership is a British favor to the rest of Europe. The British press and Europhobe politicians would go on portraying the EU in the most lurid, mendacious and derisory terms. The problem with Britain was not that it was critical of the EU. The problem was bad faith and delusional thinking.

Bad faith and delusional thinking is Trump's way. His entire business model is built on bad faith: intentional deceit of others and self-deception. His government would be the same. Check Trump's failed Baja condo resort --
www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-baja-snap-story.html

THGRRI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 7:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

It's called globalization. It's a good idea and it was working to an extent. The problem was our leaders were stupid and let the greedy win out. Companies chose slave labor over fair wages. We needed smart trade instead of free trade so we could move more slowly and create less victims. That is what the Brexit vote was about. That's why Donald Trump has had such success.
Had remain won the referendum, the EU would have become hostage to British sabotage. Future British prime ministers would veto any fundamental change, correctly arguing that their people had voted only for the current set-up of the EU. Britain would continue to demand ever more opt-outs and concessions – playing to the fantasy that membership is a British favor to the rest of Europe. The British press and Europhobe politicians would go on portraying the EU in the most lurid, mendacious and derisory terms. The problem with Britain was not that it was critical of the EU. The problem was bad faith and delusional thinking.

Bad faith and delusional thinking is Trump's way. His entire business model is built on bad faith: intentional deceit of others and self-deception. His government would be the same. Check Trump's failed Baja condo resort --
www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-baja-snap-story.html

Wow that's a harsh critique second. It's hard to give up ones sovereignty. Britain felt it was subject to a lot of bad decisions made by unelected officials from Brussels.

The EU was created to help France and Germany get together in peace. They had I think 3 wars in 70 years. The only way I think it would work is with all countries giving up their identity, borders and autonomy. Not going to happen. When we add global warming to the mix, all the migration it is starting to cause which will only get worse, we will see Britain's leaving is just the beginning.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:00 PM

Quote:
It's called globalization. It's a good idea and it was working to an extent. The problem was our leaders were stupid and let the greedy win out. Companies chose slave labor over fair wages. We needed smart trade instead of free trade so we could move more slowly and create less victims. That is what the Brexit vote was about. That's why Donald Trump has had such success.- THUGR

Had remain won the referendum, the EU would have become hostage to British sabotage. Future British prime ministers would veto any fundamental change, correctly arguing that their people had voted only for the current set-up of the EU. Britain would continue to demand ever more opt-outs and concessions – playing to the fantasy that membership is a British favor to the rest of Europe. The British press and Europhobe politicians would go on portraying the EU in the most lurid, mendacious and derisory terms. The problem with Britain was not that it was critical of the EU. The problem was bad faith and delusional thinking.

On whose part? The Eurocrats?

Quote:
Bad faith and delusional thinking is Trump's way. His entire business model is built on bad faith: intentional deceit of others and self-deception. His government would be the same. Check Trump's failed Baja condo resort --
www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-baja-snap-story.html]

Wow that's a harsh critique second. It's hard to give up ones sovereignty. Britain felt it was subject to a lot of bad decisions made by unelected officials from Brussels.

The EU was created to help France and Germany get together in peace. They had I think 3 wars in 70 years. The only way I think it would work is with all countries giving up their identity, borders and autonomy. Not going to happen. When we add global warming to the mix, all the migration it is starting to cause which will only get worse, we will see Britain's leaving is just the beginning.-THUGR

- I'm going to move this to the Brext thread if you don't mind. It doesn't belong here.

COPIED TO http://www.fireflyfans.net/mreply.aspx?q=y&mid=1012876

--------------
I'll tell you what I DON'T like about Trump: I think that he has never confronted either the international banking cartel, nor the CIA-State Dept multi-headed hydra, nor the military-industrial complex. The last person to confront them was JFK (BTW, ALL immigration was illegal under JFK) and look what happened to him.

THGRRI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:40 PM

THGRRI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:
It's called globalization. It's a good idea and it was working to an extent. The problem was our leaders were stupid and let the greedy win out. Companies chose slave labor over fair wages. We needed smart trade instead of free trade so we could move more slowly and create less victims. That is what the Brexit vote was about. That's why Donald Trump has had such success.- THUGR

Had remain won the referendum, the EU would have become hostage to British sabotage. Future British prime ministers would veto any fundamental change, correctly arguing that their people had voted only for the current set-up of the EU. Britain would continue to demand ever more opt-outs and concessions – playing to the fantasy that membership is a British favor to the rest of Europe. The British press and Europhobe politicians would go on portraying the EU in the most lurid, mendacious and derisory terms. The problem with Britain was not that it was critical of the EU. The problem was bad faith and delusional thinking.
On whose part? The Eurocrats?

Quote:
Bad faith and delusional thinking is Trump's way. His entire business model is built on bad faith: intentional deceit of others and self-deception. His government would be the same. Check Trump's failed Baja condo resort --
www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-baja-snap-story.html]

Wow that's a harsh critique second. It's hard to give up ones sovereignty. Britain felt it was subject to a lot of bad decisions made by unelected officials from Brussels.

The EU was created to help France and Germany get together in peace. They had I think 3 wars in 70 years. The only way I think it would work is with all countries giving up their identity, borders and autonomy. Not going to happen. When we add global warming to the mix, all the migration it is starting to cause which will only get worse, we will see Britain's leaving is just the beginning.-THUGR
- I'm going to move this to the Brext thread if you don't mind. It doesn't belong here.

COPIED TO http://www.fireflyfans.net/mreply.aspx?q=y&mid=1012876

Yeah OK this is nothing but a fucking mess. You quote me and another here as though it is all me. Again it has to be pointed out to you that your bullshit posting is ad hoc ( formed, arranged, or done for a particular purpose only ). The purpose is to deceive. It's just another lie by you. Why, because once again you just can't make the case as to why you are right and not wrong.

Add to that your cut and pasted bushtit of subjective nonsense because you can't formulate your own thoughts and there you have it. More SIG CRAP.

THGRRI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:45 PM

THGRRI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:49 PM

THGRRI

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
You find starvation acceptable. As long as no one touches profits.

You're such an ass. You don't have the critical thinking skills to separate what I say and why I say it from your concept of poverty. It's why you're a moron who would rather live where you have no rights and are ruled instead of having a say.

Technology stands a better chance of ending poverty but I see none of that in your posting. Only Western countries bad. That's all it is with you. Western countries bad. Where are the links to TED TALKS where they speak about the different ways they are trying to end poverty? Where, all we hear from you and SIG is Western society bad. You don't want to discuss ending poverty.

Were are the links to people who are coming up with innovative ideas. Where's that discussion? Nope, you just what to bash the West. Where is your criticism of Russia and China for not doing enough? You can post terrible pictures, but you are incapable of creating a discussion that deals with the issue. If you want to help solve poverty stop supporting governments that don't respect the rule of law.

What a clown you are.

You can't have a simple discussion with either of those 2 harpies. It has been proven time and time again. I wonder what Kiki's solution for Hunger would be? Just to whine about it on a forum of less than 20 members? Does she even donate to a food bank? How over weight is she? Does she even come close to practicing what she preaches?

And what about the rest of the world? If capitalism is so much worse than communism (the stupidest argument ever - the "tastes great, less filling" discussion for the pretentious) at feeding people, why are they so shameful and tight and reluctant when it comes to giving? Yanno, actually doing something for others? Props to Australia.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charitable-giving
-country#data

China 147, Russian Federation 138 - have a look, it's embarrassing how many poorer nations give more.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/cpid/42

It appears to me SIG and 1KIKI suffer from a narcissistic personality disorder. Their narcissism displays itself in their posts as an extreme self-interest and promotion of others. Yet we witness an accompanying undertone actually showing a lack of concern for the needs of others.

In their posts they project a sense of entitlement. Unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment or automatic compliance with their expectations. In other words, you the reader of our posts should accept the truth and wisdom in what we post. You should never challenge what we say or why we say it. They express arrogance and haughty behaviors i.e. the terrible pictures, otherwise known as relative privation. They use statements like always and never which are declarations not observations. They mix lies with truth and large cut and pasted articles because being perceived as brilliant and right is their desired outcome, not the subject at hand.

People who suffer from personality disorders often feel a sense of unresolved anger and a heightened or exaggerated perception that they have been wronged; sound familiar? They display a need to be validated because they feel invalidated, neglected and abused. As we both can attest too G, that describes these two perfectly. Their kind of posting is a passive-aggressive approach to giving Western society a verbal put-down, while maintaining a façade of reasonableness or friendliness. They exhibit distinct patterns of unwarranted or exaggerated criticism directed towards Western society, while the East Russia, gets a free pass. Any sustained or chronic pattern of unwarranted behavior by one towards another such as this is a common narcissistic trait.

1KIKI

Wednesday, June 29, 2016 10:08 AM

"Their narcissism displays itself in their posts as an extreme self-interest and promotion of others."

I hope you realize that a narcissist is ALL about ME!! ALL ME!!! EVERY DAY!! ALL DAY!! ALL THE TIME!!!

And 'promotion of others' is 180 degrees and lightspeed away from narcissism.

That sentence was so ludicrous, I stopped reading right there.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

1KIKI

Wednesday, June 29, 2016 10:27 AM

I see THETHREESTOOGES are unmoved by the phenomenal suffering of 7.7 MILLION people STARVING TO DEATH every year, and 750 MILLION people malnourished EVERY YEAR.

Nope, apparently it's too ignorable to even take a pause for it, no matter how briefly, and acknowledge and consider it.

And, what do I intend to PERSONALLY do about starvation? PERSONALLY, there's very little I can do in the face of 7.7 MILLION people STARVING TO DEATH every year in capitalist economies.

It's a well-oiled relentless capitalist Holocaust, where the only thing more remarkable than how ignored it is, is the fact that our perfect little bots assume that it's the best result delivered by our capitalist heaven. Some people, apparently, are so unworthy that even heaven is powerless to reach them. So they must deserve to be in hell. Just like the Jews.

Anyway, I intend to continue on in my attempt to understand how it is that so many people starve when there's plenty of food for everyone. Because the results don't come from magic, or even generic logical scenarios. There are very specific mechanisms repeatedly at work, and very specific counter mechanisms not at work, that result in mass death by starvation, and widespread malnutrition in capitalism.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

SECOND

Wednesday, June 29, 2016 5:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Anyway, I intend to continue on in my attempt to understand how it is that so many people starve when there's plenty of food for everyone. Because the results don't come from magic, or even generic logical scenarios. There are very specific mechanisms repeatedly at work, and very specific counter mechanisms not at work, that result in mass death by starvation, and widespread malnutrition in capitalism.

How many scientists does it take to debunk the myth that we need more food to feed the world? In the past decade, hundreds of scientists and experts have made it clear: Feeding the world is not about increasing how many bushels of grain we can grow, it’s about dirt, democracy, and our diets.

A new report from Friends of the Earth, Farming for the Future, compiles the data and details how we can create a food system that feeds all people, now and into the future.
www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Bite/2016/0621/To-feed-the-world-do-we-
really-need-to-grow-more-food

Continuing:
Scientists estimate that farmers already produce enough food to feed 10 billion people — far more than the current population of roughly 7.3 billion. Still, at least 800 million go hungry every day and many more are undernourished. Why? Because hunger is not caused by a scarcity in food, it’s caused by a scarcity in democracy and unequal access to land, water, credit, and fair markets.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 29, 2016 7:23 PM

Quote:
"Their narcissism displays itself in their posts as an extreme self-interest and promotion of others."- THUGR

I hope you realize that a narcissist is ALL about ME!! ALL ME!!! EVERY DAY!! ALL DAY!! ALL THE TIME!!! And 'promotion of others' is 180 degrees and lightspeed away from narcissism. That sentence was so ludicrous, I stopped reading right there.- KIKI

I just had to repeat this, lest it get lost too quickly.

Quote:
Anyway, I intend to continue on in my attempt to understand how it is that so many people starve when there's plenty of food for everyone. Because the results don't come from magic, or even generic logical scenarios. There are very specific mechanisms repeatedly at work, and very specific counter mechanisms not at work, that result in mass death by starvation, and widespread malnutrition in capitalism.

FWIW I think there are two mechanisms at work ... the first is the relentless concentration of wealth promoted by capitalism, and the second is that SHARING of wealth (a little bit) with corrupt local and national leaders who are willing to use force to keep their share of the pie.

Ultimately, its about the use of both force and propaganda to promote a power structure which does not serve the people.

--------------
I'll tell you what I DON'T like about Trump: I think that he has never confronted either the international banking cartel, nor the CIA-State Dept multi-headed hydra, nor the military-industrial complex. The last person to confront them was JFK (BTW, ALL immigration was illegal under JFK) and look what happened to him.

SECOND

Wednesday, June 29, 2016 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

FWIW I think there are two mechanisms at work ... the first is the relentless concentration of wealth promoted by capitalism, and the second is that SHARING of wealth (a little bit) with corrupt local and national leaders who are willing to use force to keep their share of the pie.

Ultimately, its about the use of both force and propaganda to promote a power structure which does not serve the people.

I think the "two mechanisms at work" you identified are not the only ones. For example:

www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Bite/2016/0621/Will-a-peanut-giveaway-h
elp-or-hurt-Haitians

Will a peanut giveaway help or hurt Haitians?

Over 60 NGOs disapprove the U.S. Department of Agriculture giving surplus peanuts to food insecure Haitians, claiming the decision will negatively impact peanut farmers in Haiti.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that the agency is shipping surplus American peanuts to help feed 140,000 food insecure schoolchildren in Haiti. According to the U.N. World Food Program (WFP), there are more than 3.6 million food insecure Haitians. The plan, however, is controversial and more than 60 NGOs—including Food First, Grassroots International, and the U.S. Food Sovereignty Alliance—are calling for its cancellation.

Peanut production plays a central role in the Haitian economy and forms a critical foundation of its food sovereignty, according to a letter by aid groups to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack. The country’s long supply chain serves as a key source of income for more than 500,000 people, most of whom are women. According to Oxfam America and Partners in Health, the donation will flood the Haitian market with foreign crops, disrupting the national production chain and devastating the livelihood of Haitian peanut farmers.

Peanut farmers in Haiti have only recently experienced increased success, aided by efforts from a partnership between the Clinton Foundation—which created the Acceso Peanut Enterprise Corporation—a nonprofit called Meds & Food for Kids, and the University of Georgia. For the past four years, the partnership has helped build a secure depot and drying area for peanuts, conducted farmer training on timely fungicide applications and planting techniques, and provided improved seed varieties and testing for aflatoxin—a fungus that often contaminates peanuts. The efforts have proven fruitful: farmers experienced, on average, a 30 percent increase in income since the intervention. Last January, the U.S. government’s Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative praised the efforts to bolster Haitian peanut production.

There is more if you want to keep reading at www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Bite/2016/0621/Will-a-peanut-giveaway-h
elp-or-hurt-Haitians

THGRRI

Wednesday, June 29, 2016 8:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
"Their narcissism displays itself in their posts as an extreme self-interest and promotion of others."- THUGR

I hope you realize that a narcissist is ALL about ME!! ALL ME!!! EVERY DAY!! ALL DAY!! ALL THE TIME!!! And 'promotion of others' is 180 degrees and lightspeed away from narcissism. That sentence was so ludicrous, I stopped reading right there.- KIKI

I just had to repeat this, lest it get lost too quickly.

LOl you do that SIG. It was in a definition of a narcissist I came across and it jumped out at me because it describes the two of you perfectly. It's the mask you wear. Your constant anti-west thread creation fills your need and at the same time your inconsistencies reveal you.

____________________________________________

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 29, 2016 8:24 PM

Quote:
"Their narcissism displays itself in their posts as an extreme self-interest and promotion of others."- THUGR

I hope you realize that a narcissist is ALL about ME!! ALL ME!!! EVERY DAY!! ALL DAY!! ALL THE TIME!!! And 'promotion of others' is 180 degrees and lightspeed away from narcissism. That sentence was so ludicrous, I stopped reading right there.- KIKI

I just had to repeat this, lest it get lost too quickly. -SIGNY

LOl you do that SIG. It was in a definition of a narcissist I came across and it jumped out at me because it describes the two of you perfectly. It's the mask you wear.- THUGR

So ... narcissism = promotion of others? Just want to make sure I know what you're saying.

--------------
I'll tell you what I DON'T like about Trump: I think that he has never confronted either the international banking cartel, nor the CIA-State Dept multi-headed hydra, nor the military-industrial complex. The last person to confront them was JFK (BTW, ALL immigration was illegal under JFK) and look what happened to him.

THGRRI

Wednesday, June 29, 2016 8:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
"Their narcissism displays itself in their posts as an extreme self-interest and promotion of others."- THUGR

I hope you realize that a narcissist is ALL about ME!! ALL ME!!! EVERY DAY!! ALL DAY!! ALL THE TIME!!! And 'promotion of others' is 180 degrees and lightspeed away from narcissism. That sentence was so ludicrous, I stopped reading right there.- KIKI

I just had to repeat this, lest it get lost too quickly. -SIGNY

LOl you do that SIG. It was in a definition of a narcissist I came across and it jumped out at me because it describes the two of you perfectly. It's the mask you wear.- THUGR

So ... narcissism = promotion of others? Just want to make sure I know what you're saying.

Don't try and figure it out SIG. Its over your head.

LOl you do that SIG. It was in a definition of a narcissist I came across and it jumped out at me because it describes the two of you perfectly. It's the mask you wear. Your constant anti-west thread creation fills your need and at the same time your inconsistencies reveal you.

____________________________________________

THGRRI

Wednesday, June 29, 2016 8:37 PM

Rural poverty in Asia

"Poverty in Asia is a massive problem. Reducing poverty for huge numbers of poor people there is crucial to achieving the primary Millennium Development Goal of halving poverty by 2015. More than two thirds of the world’s poor people live in Asia, and nearly half of them are in Southern Asia."

There has been much success there

http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/region/home/tags/asia

____________________________________________

KPO

Friday, July 1, 2016 4:44 AM

Quote:
THIS is what death from starvation looks like:

Do you need those figures again? 7.7 MILLION people STARVE TO DEATH EVERY YEAR .

Interestingly 7 million is about the number who starved to death in a SINGLE famine caused by the Soviets, a fact you refuse to acknowledge:

Quote:
Stalin also imposed the Soviet system of land management known as collectivization. This resulted in the seizure of all privately owned farmlands and livestock, in a country where 80 percent of the people were traditional village farmers. Among those farmers, were a class of people called Kulaks by the Communists. They were formerly wealthy farmers that had owned 24 or more acres, or had employed farm workers. Stalin believed any future insurrection would be led by the Kulaks, thus he proclaimed a policy aimed at "liquidating the Kulaks as a class."

Declared "enemies of the people," the Kulaks were left homeless and without a single possession as everything was taken from them, even their pots and pans. It was also forbidden by law for anyone to aid dispossessed Kulak families. Some researchers estimate that ten million persons were thrown out of their homes, put on railroad box cars and deported to "special settlements" in the wilderness of Siberia during this era, with up to a third of them perishing amid the frigid living conditions. Men and older boys, along with childless women and unmarried girls, also became slave-workers in Soviet-run mines and big industrial projects.

Back in the Ukraine, once-proud village farmers were by now reduced to the level of rural factory workers on large collective farms. Anyone refusing to participate in the compulsory collectivization system was simply denounced as a Kulak and deported.

A propaganda campaign was started utilizing eager young Communist activists who spread out among the country folk attempting to shore up the people's support for the Soviet regime. However, their attempts failed. Despite the propaganda, ongoing coercion and threats, the people continued to resist through acts of rebellion and outright sabotage. They burned their own homes rather than surrender them. They took back their property, tools and farm animals from the collectives, harassed and even assassinated local Soviet authorities. This ultimately put them in direct conflict with the power and authority of Joseph Stalin.

Soviet troops and secret police were rushed in to put down the rebellion. They confronted rowdy farmers by firing warning shots above their heads. In some cases, however, they fired directly at the people. Stalin's secret police (GPU, predecessor of the KGB) also went to work waging a campaign of terror designed to break the people's will. GPU squads systematically attacked and killed uncooperative farmers.

But the resistance continued. The people simply refused to become cogs in the Soviet farm machine and remained stubbornly determined to return to their pre-Soviet farming lifestyle. Some refused to work at all, leaving the wheat and oats to rot in unharvested fields. Once again, they were placing themselves in conflict with Stalin.

In Moscow, Stalin responded to their unyielding defiance by dictating a policy that would deliberately cause mass starvation and result in the deaths of millions.

By mid 1932, nearly 75 percent of the farms in the Ukraine had been forcibly collectivized. On Stalin's orders, mandatory quotas of foodstuffs to be shipped out to the Soviet Union were drastically increased in August, October and again in January 1933, until there was simply no food remaining to feed the people of the Ukraine.

Much of the hugely abundant wheat crop harvested by the Ukrainians that year was dumped on the foreign market to generate cash to aid Stalin's Five Year Plan for the modernization of the Soviet Union and also to help finance his massive military buildup. If the wheat had remained in the Ukraine, it was estimated to have been enough to feed all of the people there for up to two years.

Ukrainian

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

1KIKI

Friday, July 1, 2016 10:19 AM

YOUR SOURCE:

Historian Mark B. Tauger of West Virginia University suggests that the famine was caused by a combination of factors, specifically low harvest due to natural disasters combined with increased demand for food caused by the collectivization, industrialization and urbanization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%9333

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

1KIKI

Friday, July 1, 2016 11:03 AM

https://www.indiafoodbanking.org/hunger

India, with a population of over 1.2 billion, has seen tremendous growth in the past two decades. Gross Domestic Product has increased 4.5 times and per capita consumption has increased 3 times. Similarly, food grain production has increased almost 2 times. However, despite phenomenal industrial and economic growth, while India produces sufficient food to feed its population, it is unable to provide access to food to a large number of people, especially women and children.
State of Hunger in India

Hunger in India is a complex issue. It is widespread and the causes are different across various regions. According to latest FAO estimates in ‘The State of Food Insecurity in the World, 2015” report, 194.6 million people are undernourished in India. By this measure India is home to a quarter of the undernourished population in the world.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

KPO

Saturday, July 2, 2016 12:09 AM

Quote:
YOUR SOURCE:

Actually I gave 2 sources, you cherry picked the one from earlier in the thread (the Wikipedia one) and within that article you cherry picked the views of the one historian most sympathetic to the Soviet Union, and then within his quote you cherry picked the causes of the famine that Stalin was not responsible for (natural disasters/low harvest) while ignoring the ones that he obviously was (like collectivisation).

Bravo, that was a masterclass of burying your head in the sand and preserving your precious communist ideology at all costs! Talk about blinkered vision!

Ok let's put the matter to bed. In case anyone still has doubts that the lengthy historical account above is accurate, here's an excerpt from a statement signed at the United Nations by 25 countries including Russia and Ukraine about the famine:

"In the former Soviet Union millions of men, women and children fell victims to the cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime. The Great Famine of 1932–1933 in Ukraine (Holodomor), took from 7 million to 10 million innocent lives and became a national tragedy for the Ukrainian people."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#In_modern_politics

Voici. Communism causing mass starvation. As if there was ever any question about it.

THGRRI

Saturday, July 2, 2016 4:35 AM

Ah 1kiki, once again you get taken to school due to your inferior intellect. You're to stupid not to argue points that have been documented in one reference source after another. All disputing you and showing you to be a liar. Not incorrect mind you, but because of the way you try and manipulate the facts, a liar.

It's got to be terribly painful for you being a narcissistic troll to constantly be revealed to be a moron.

____________________________________________

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 2, 2016 10:07 AM

Quote:
In case it isn't clear to anyone yet, kiki is only pretending to care about starving people to push what she really cares about - her own communist ideology.

KIKI has been paying attention to starving children for a long time. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60398 but in case it isn't clear to EVERYONE, THUGR is so disinterested in caring about starving people that he can't imagine anyone doing it for pure motives. And he can't even be bothered to pretend that he cares. All he can focus on is trolling and hating.

--------------
I'll tell you what I DON'T like about Trump: I think that he has never confronted either the international banking cartel, nor the CIA-State Dept multi-headed hydra, nor the military-industrial complex. The last person to confront them was JFK (BTW, ALL immigration was illegal under JFK) and look what happened to him.

1KIKI

Saturday, July 2, 2016 1:04 PM

"Actually I gave 2 sources, you cherry picked the one from earlier in the thread (the Wikipedia one) and within that article you cherry picked the views of the one historian most sympathetic to the Soviet Union ..."

Was there bad weather leading to a reduced harvest? That should be easy enough to find out.

And in under a minute I found this: "the USSR experienced an unusual environmental disaster in 1932: extremely wet and humid weather that gave rise to severe plant disease infestations, especially rust. Ukraine had double or triple the normal rainfall in 1932. Both the weather conditions and the rust spread from Eastern Europe, as plant pathologists at the time documented. Soviet plant pathologists in particular estimated that rust and other fungal diseases reduced the potential harvest in 1932 by almost nine million tons, which is the largest documented harvest loss from any single cause in Soviet history."

Regrettably, while humanity has changed the climate, no country has been able to control the weather so as to increase resources,.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

SECOND

Saturday, July 2, 2016 4:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Was there bad weather leading to a reduced harvest?

Intellectuals have ushered the world into a dangerous age of political nihilism
http://qz.com/721914/intellectuals-have-ushered-the-world-into-a-dange
rous-age-of-political-nihilism/

Written by Lisandro Claudio
July 01, 2016

On the surface, it would seem that intellectuals have nothing to do with the rise of global illiberalism. The movements powering Brexit, Donald Trump and Third-World strongmen like Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte all gleefully reject books, history and higher education in favor of railing against common enemies like outsiders and globalization. And you’ll find few Trump supporters among the largely left-wing American professoriate.

Yet intellectuals are accountable for the rise of these movements—albeit indirectly. Professors have offered stringent criticisms of neoliberal society. But they have failed to offer the public viable alternatives. In this way, they have promoted a political nihilism that has set the stage for new movements that reject liberal democratic principles of tolerance and institutional reform.

Intellectuals have a long history of critiquing liberalism, which relies on a “philosophy of individual rights and (relatively) free markets.” Beginning in the 19th century, according to historian Francois Furet, left-wing thinkers began to arrive at a consensus “that modern liberal democracy was threatening society with dissolution because it atomized individuals, made them indifferent to public interest, weakened authority, and encouraged class hatred.”

For most of the 20th century, anti-liberal intellectuals were able to come up with alternatives. Jean-Paul Sartre famously defended the Soviet Union even when it became clear that Joseph Stalin was a mass murderer. French, American, Indian, and Filipino university radicals were hopelessly enamored of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution in the 1970s.

The collapse of Communism changed all this. Some leftist intellectuals began to find hope in small revolutionary guerrillas in the Third World, like Mexico’s Subcomandante Marcos. Others fell back on pure critique.

Academics are now mostly gadflies who rarely offer strategies for political change. Those who do forward alternatives propose ones so vague or divorced from reality that they might as well be proposing nothing. (The Duke University professor of romance studies Michael Hardt, for example, thinks the evils of modern globalization are so pernicious that only worldwide love is the answer.)

Such thinking promotes political hopelessness. It rejects gradual change as cosmetic, while patronizing those who think otherwise. This nihilism easily spreads from the classroom and academic journals to op-ed pages to Zuccotti Park, and eventually to the public at large.

For academic nihilists, the shorthand for the world’s evils is “neoliberalism.” The term is used to refer to a free market ideology that forced globalization on people by reducing the power of governments. The more the term is used, however, the more it becomes a vague designation for all global drudgery.

Democratic politics in the age of neoliberalism, according to Harvard anthropologists Jean and John Comaroff, is “something of a pyramid scheme: the more it is indulged, the more it is required.” They argue that our belief that we can use laws and constitutional processes to defend our rights is a form of “fetishism” that is ultimately “chimerical.”

For the University of Chicago literary theorist Lauren Berlant, the democratic pursuit of happiness amid neoliberalism is nothing but “cruel optimism.” The materialist things that people desire are “actually an obstacle to your flourishing,” she writes.

According to this logic, we are trapped by our own ideologies. It is this logic that allows left-wing thinkers to implicitly side with British nativists in their condemnation of the EU. The radical website Counterpunch, for example, describes the EU as a “neoliberal prison.” It also views li

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 2, 2016 5:04 PM

SECOND, I'm going to copy your post to the ELITES RISE UP AGAINST THE IGNORANT MASSES THREAD, and dispute it there. In the meantime, this response belongs in the TRUMP thread and the ELITES RISE UP AGAINST THE IGNORANT MASSES thread, and I'm going to post it in the ELITES thread, but I want to cite it here, too, in response to your spamming so many threada with anti-Trump messaging.

In Response to Trump, Another Dangerous Movement Appears
Published on Friday, July 01, 2016 by Rolling Stone

Fears of demagoguery are provoking a frightening swing in the other direction

Quote:
The "too much democracy" train rolls on.

Last week's Brexit vote prompted pundits and social media mavens to wonder aloud if allowing dumb people to vote is a good thing.

Now, the cover story in The Atlantic magazine features the most aggressive offering yet in an alarming series of intellectual-class jeremiads against the dangers of democracy.

In "How American Politics Went Insane," Brookings Institute Fellow Jonathan Rauch spends many thousands of words arguing for the reinvigoration of political machines, as a means of keeping the ape-citizen further from power.

He portrays the public as a gang of nihilistic loonies determined to play mailbox baseball with the gears of state.

"Neurotic hatred of the political class is the country's last universally acceptable form of bigotry," he writes, before concluding:

"Our most pressing political problem today is that the country abandoned the establishment, not the other way around."

Rauch's audacious piece, much like Andrew Sullivan's clarion call for a less-democratic future in New York magazine ("Democracies end when they are too democratic"), is not merely a warning about the threat posed to civilization by demagogues like Donald Trump.

It's a sweeping argument against a whole host of democratic initiatives, from increased transparency to reducing money in politics to the phasing out of bagmen and ward-heelers at the local level. These things have all destabilized America, Rauch insists.

More at http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/in-response-to-trump-another
-dangerous-movement-appears-20160630

--------------
I'll tell you what I DON'T like about Trump: I think that he has never confronted either the international banking cartel, nor the CIA-State Dept multi-headed hydra, nor the military-industrial complex. The last person to confront them was JFK (BTW, ALL immigration was illegal under JFK) and look what happened to him.

1KIKI

Saturday, July 2, 2016 10:09 PM

"Professors have offered stringent criticisms of neoliberal society."

Hillary is a neoliberal, which goes along with being a neo-con - just for your information. Because a neoliberal is an economic and political (though not necessarily cultural) colonial.

"But they have failed to offer the public viable alternatives."

Well, look, here I am trying to find alternatives to whatever specific thing or things there are in capitalism that brings death by starvation to millions of people every year and brings malnutrition to hundreds and hundreds of millions of people every year, and our neoliberals here, including you and THETHREESTOOGES, are giving me a ration of shit for even DISCUSSING the ideas. I must be crazy! Stupid! And have some nerve! Or at least be a Russian bot.
I know in the larger world anyone who disputes the goodness of neoliberalism is being disputed and reviled on the one hand, and ignored and dismissed on the other. People like Robert Reich and Bernie Sanders for example. (You know you do.)
In the intellectual world so is Noam Chomsky.
So this whole notion that alternatives aren't being proffered is just a lie. The problem is, you can lead an ass to water, but ...

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

1KIKI

Saturday, July 2, 2016 11:56 PM

"And it doesn't matter what "ism" you prefer."

SOMETIMES, the problem comes down to that there just isn't enough, no matter what you do.

But not in today's world where there is plenty of food to go around. The problem today is DISTRIBUTION. (I wonder if I did a count on that word what the number would be. I know I've repeated that concept quite often. WOW. Almost a dozen times! 'G'STOOGE, WAY TO MISS THE POINT - over, and over, and over, and ... !)

That's why I hold as a good example systems where no one starves while another has too much. So I prefer the 'isms' that don't starve their people to death, or malnourish them so badly they suffer permanent effects as long as there's plenty of food to go around. The 'isms' that meet those criteria are command/ communist economies.

What 'ism' do you prefer, and why?

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

KPO

Thursday, July 7, 2016 1:10 AM

Quote:
And in under a minute I found this:

Lol, you're quoting the same historian as before.

Quote:
Was there bad weather leading to a reduced harvest?

Did Stalin throw millions of farmers off their land in the years leading up to the famine - YES
Did Stalin EXPORT millions of tonnes of grain during the years of the famine - YES
Did Stalin seal the Ukrainian borders so that no food could get in - YES

A bad harvest year in a region that is a massive grain exporter (known for centuries beforehand as the breadbasket of Europe) should not, and did not cause 7-10 million people to starve. Stalin's actions on top of the bad harvest, did.

The UN statement again:

"In the former Soviet Union millions of men, women and children fell victims to the cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime. The Great Famine of 1932–1933 in Ukraine (Holodomor), took from 7 million to 10 million innocent lives and became a national tragedy for the Ukrainian people."

THGRRI

Thursday, July 7, 2016 1:24 AM

Putin’s Grudging Perestroika

Quote:
There is a widespread view in the West that Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine and confrontational policies toward the United States and Europe are an attempt to revitalize aspects of its lost Soviet glory days. But if we look at some of the Kremlin’s domestic policy initiatives, we see a country struggling to become less “Soviet” in its actions and reform its decrepit institutions before it’s too late.

Many of the reforms now underway reflect Moscow’s long-overdue recognition that the Russian state simply cannot afford to maintain costly Soviet-designed structures, such as free higher education for all students or an oversized military based on mass mobilization. Though many of the current changes are forced by dire necessity rather than any grand progressive vision, they are reforms nonetheless. This in itself is a striking development. In general, Russians are ready to tolerate the loss of personal freedom, but they still cherish Soviet social benefits like free health care, and the Kremlin has always been afraid to tamper with them.

But now that President Vladimir Putin’s patriotic propaganda has managed to distract popular attention from dismal political and economic conditions, the reforms, haphazard though they might be, are going forward. The irony is that the leaders who have been trumpeting Soviet grandeur on the world stage are presiding over its retreat at home.

A case in point is health care. Today, a few years into the reforms launched when Mr. Putin returned to the presidency in the spring of 2012, the overall picture remains bleak. Moscow has been giving regional governments incentives to close inefficient, duplicative and deteriorating hospitals and health centers, trim the medical work force and improve efficiency in exchange for more funds for modern equipment, renovation and better pay for health workers.

While many hospitals are being revitalized, the number of closures is too drastic. Rural areas are bearing the brunt of the disruption. More than 17,000 towns and villages once served by small health clinics now have no medical services at all. Between 2005 and 2013, the number of health centers was cut from 8,249 to 2,085, and the number of rural hospitals plunged from 2,631 to 124, according to government reports.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/maxim-trudolyubov-putins-gru
dging-perestroika.html?_r=0

____________________________________________

THGRRI

Thursday, July 7, 2016 1:48 AM

Government Name: Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Constitution: Adopted: 1942; Last amended in 2012. Establishes status as a socialist state and defined as dictatorship of people's democracy. People have civil and political rights but they are superseded by safeguarding political and ideological unit of the people.

Government Type: Communist State under Totalitarian Dictatorship.

For the first time, the United States has sanctioned North Korean leader Kim Jong Un for human rights abuses.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury added Kim, along with 10 other North Korean individuals and five entities, to the U.S. sanctions list today. The young ruler is among 23 total individuals and entities cited for their role in serious human rights violations, hunting down defectors or censorship in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/us-sanctions-north-korea-leader-ki
m-jong-human/story?id=40378256

____________________________________________

1KIKI

Thursday, July 7, 2016 3:16 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union
Ukraine
This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (April 2014)

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

KPO

Friday, July 8, 2016 11:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union
Ukraine
This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (April 2014)

Is this a weak attempt at a strawman? Posting a link to an article no one else has posted before, and then pointing out that there are errors in it?

Are you trying to make it look like you have an answer to my post, when in fact you don't?

#Embarrassing

THGRRI

Friday, July 8, 2016 11:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union
Ukraine
This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (April 2014)

Is this a weak attempt at a strawman? Posting a link to an article no one else has posted before, and then pointing out that there are errors in it?

Are you trying to make it look like you have an answer to my post, when in fact you don't?

#Embarrassing

Yep KPO, just another post made by 1kiki that missrepresents the truth. She presents a link to an article and then responds to the article as though it was you, or someone else who posted it. Very funny and sad at the same time. As you know, SIG does the same thing. She posts quotes that are actually made by her, then she responds to them as though she is responding to someone else.

I wish we had started a link a long time ago like the predictions thread where we could cut and paste these type of posts, along with our catching them at it. Then we could put a link to it in our signatures so others could check it out on occasion.

They are lairs plain and simple.

____________________________________________

1KIKI

Saturday, July 9, 2016 9:58 AM

"Is this a weak attempt at a strawman?"

The article from WIKI is one THAT EVEN THE EDITORS RECOGNIZE IS FLAWED (and they're a pretty tolerant bunch), and it recreates every argument you all have been making.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

1KIKI

Saturday, July 9, 2016 10:08 AM

But to address the history very briefly before I move off this topic ... there's a general recognition that the weather was bad, in this case too much rain rather than drought. Some articles indicate productive areas of Ukraine received three to five times the normal amount of rain, leading to the inability to harvest grain and having it rot in the field. One article traces a series of bad years, from 1929 onwards. You'd THINK that that kind of disastrous weather would get a mention in the historical accounts.

But, like a lot of other bullshit you all eat with gusto, the bullshit on this topic leaves out the very salient fact that weather led to greatly reduced harvests.

So, done with you now.

I've wasted enough time on you THREESTOOGES.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

SECOND

Saturday, July 9, 2016 11:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
But to address the history very briefly before I move off this topic ... there's a general recognition that the weather was bad, in this case too much rain rather than drought. Some articles indicate productive areas of Ukraine received three to five times the normal amount of rain, leading to the inability to harvest grain and having it rot in the field. One article traces a series of bad years, from 1929 onwards. You'd THINK that that kind of disastrous weather would get a mention in the historical accounts.

But, like a lot of other bullshit you all eat with gusto, the bullshit on this topic leaves out the very salient fact that weather led to greatly reduced harvests.

Weather is localized but food is transportable. You would think that Stalin would have shared Russian food with Ukrainians so that all Soviets could experience the same difficulties and eat the same number of calories. Or did Stalin decide that it was not right forcing Russians to share and that Ukrainians should justly suffer because of the rain? Or did Stalin believe it was God's will that Ukraine got too much rain and how could Stalin defy Heaven? You need to point out to us the speeches Stalin made where he tells Ukrainians that their starvation is not his problem to solve and that they are on their own. He'd have to give that speech and variations on it many times because the famine stretched out for many weeks, months, years. There must be abundant record of all those speeches where Stalin explains why he can't help Ukrainians.

1KIKI

Saturday, July 9, 2016 12:17 PM

"Weather is localized ..."

What a stupid statement. Do you think weather patterns don't encompass large areas, covering entire countries, even continents? How much of Europe would you say is under cloud cover in this image?

"... but food is transportable. You would think that Stalin would have shared Russian food with Ukrainians so that all Soviets could experience the same difficulties and eat the same number of calories."

I already addressed this regarding the China example. You must not have read it. And I'm not going to bother repeating it.

As to Stalin's speeches about how intended to starve Ukrainians, perhaps you mean this one:
In August, 1932, at a critical juncture in the events leading to the Holodomor, Stalin expressed his concern that “if we do not correct the situation … we could lose Ukraine.” ... “That explains the fact that the peasantry constitutes the main army of the national movement, that there is no powerful national movement without the peasant army, nor can there be. That is what is meant when it is said that, in essence, the national question is a peasant question."
Pretty ambiguous statements, wouldn't you say?

But I'm sure you have lots and lots of quotes ready. Let's see them

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

SECOND

Saturday, July 9, 2016 7:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Weather is localized ..."

What a stupid statement. Do you think weather patterns don't encompass large areas, covering entire countries, even continents? How much of Europe would you say is under cloud cover in this image?

"... but food is transportable. You would think that Stalin would have shared Russian food with Ukrainians so that all Soviets could experience the same difficulties and eat the same number of calories."

I already addressed this regarding the China example. You must not have read it. And I'm not going to bother repeating it.

As to Stalin's speeches about how intended to starve Ukrainians, perhaps you mean this one:
In August, 1932, at a critical juncture in the events leading to the Holodomor, Stalin expressed his concern that “if we do not correct the situation … we could lose Ukraine.” ... “That explains the fact that the peasantry constitutes the main army of the national movement, that there is no powerful national movement without the peasant army, nor can there be. That is what is meant when it is said that, in essence, the national question is a peasant question."
Pretty ambiguous statements, wouldn't you say?

But I'm sure you have lots and lots of quotes ready. Let's see them.

Nasa lost two space shuttles. I remember very clearly the second time where Nasa spoke of an act of god as being at fault. That is very much like blaming the weather, as you have done for starvation in Ukraine. The very first crash of a shuttle was actually blamed on the weather – too cold a day to launch – so no fault of management.

After much study and digging for facts that management did not want to speak about by people NOT in management at Nasa, the true causes of each shuttle crash were known. The blame rested on management, which needed to anticipate that not every day is sunny, even at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Starvation in Ukraine has been studied by people NOT in management of the Soviet Union or even present day Russia. The blame rested on management, which, just like Nasa, also needed to anticipate bad weather and remember to store food for those raining days.

P.S. I lived only 480 seconds away from Nasa, which is why the Space Shuttle example. https://goo.gl/maps/vyw65pxDkjH2

KPO

Friday, July 15, 2016 4:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Is this a weak attempt at a strawman?"

The article from WIKI... recreates every argument you all have been making.

A simple "Yes" would have sufficed.

So you couldn't argue against any of my points or my links (which trump yours by the way - there were plenty of reasons for the bad harvest besides rain, most of them Stalin's fault, and you can't blame rain for Stalin exporting millions of tonnes of food out of Ukraine), so what do you do? You go away and find an entirely separate Wikipedia article and point to flaws in that instead...??

Does anyone doubt that ideology makes people stupid? They need only look at kiki's performance in this thread.

KPO

Friday, July 15, 2016 6:39 AM

Another good article on the famine - http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/holodomor-what-man-made-famine-that-killed-mi
llions-1529803

Quote:
The catastrophe - often labelled as a genocide - took place under the brutal Soviet regime of Joseph Stalin, who was determined to crush the rebellious Ukrainian peasants and force them into collective farms. The policy meant farmers conceding their land and livestock to the state, and Stalin would then sell the excess grain abroad in a bid to catalyse Soviet Russia's industrialisation and make it a military superpower.

Hell-bent on teaching farmers "a lesson they would not forget" for resisting collectivisation, millions died in areas that were heavily populated by Ukrainians "while the Soviet Union simultaneously denied the famine and exported a quantity of grain great enough to feed the entire Ukrainian population," notes Rutgers University.

Bolshevik forces marauded through villages taking food and carrying out mass executions. Those who were caught stealing food or trying to leave the region in search of bread were imprisoned, turned back or executed.

At the height of the Holodomor, 17 people died each minute, 1,041 people died each hour and 25,000 people died each day. "It was the Soviet regime's deliberate seizure of Ukrainian crops and refusal to provide food relief that turned Europe's breadbasket into a land of immeasurable human suffering," a US statement read.

The trauma which swept through the nation was unimaginable. Entire villages starved to death as cities and roads lay strewn with the corpses of people searching for food in some of the world's most fertile land. People were forced to use dried nettle leaves and other weeds to make bread as they desperately tried to evade death. Villagers used wax in place of cooking oil, women were forced to offer sex in return for food and there are even reports of cannibalism.

"The peasants ate dogs, horses, rotten potatoes, the bark of trees, anything they could find," witness Fedor Bleov wrote. A young communist named as as Lev Kopolev observed "women and children with distended bellies turning blue, with vacant lifeless eyes. And corpses. Corpses in ragged sheepskin coats and cheap felt boots; corpses in peasant huts in the melting snow of Vologda [in Russia] and Kharkov [in Ukraine]." Citizens were banned from travelling abroad to obtain food, effectively decreeing a death sentence on the population.

...

KPO

Monday, July 18, 2016 4:02 AM

Quote:
KIKI has been paying attention to starving children for a long time. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60398

Oh really?

65 starved to death this year in just ONE of Assad's besieged towns in Syria - and hundreds across the country - and I haven't heard a peep out of Kiki.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-hunger-report-idUSKCN0ZS2C1

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2