Che Guavera

Post Reply New Topic

Ukraine's 2004 election pitted the sitting president's prime minister from 2001 against the sitting president's prime minister from 2004. To think there would be substantial change from that is foolish. In fact, the most change was being proposed by the blue and white side, that wanted closer ties with Russia... the blue and white prime minister's economic record was also far better than that of the orange prime minister. People were fed up with the sitting president's corruption, a president who stole the 1999 election from the red side that promised reunification with Russia (the oranges even admitted to this during the 2004 election)... by the way, one of the orange prime minister's people admitted last year that his supposed poisoning was a hoax. The orange prime minister, now the president, turned around and accused him of the poisoning. The orange prime minister, now the president, enjoys a 7% job approval rating.



In Cuba, there was another reason for the "blood spilling". Guevara had been in Guatermala in 1954. The reformist elected governments did not spill any blood at all, and the army was able to seize power and plunge the place in a civil war that killed 100,000 people. Thus, the army had to be made loyal, and that meant getting rid of those who were a threat to the revolution from within the institutions, particularly if they had blood on their hands.

Nevwr heard about and dont care about him.

@ ZEGH8578 - sorry dude, should have read your post properly

@ xenon13 - excellent point. Very few critics actually look at how Guevara's political thought developed and in what conditions, probably because they'd be outright shamefaced about what they'd have to look at. Also look at Chile under Allende as well, the CP played ball went for the democratically elected and stalinist historical stages/evolutionary route, they elected their government and got an absolute slaughterhouse for their efforts. The workers even asked Allende straight out to give them weapons so they could defend him and the government against the coup, he said no, stating the generals had reassured him that there were no such plans to overthrow him, he sent the workers home. Then the hammer dropped. On a lot of people.

And for whatever reason New Scientist is talking about how Yuschenko's skin saved from the dioxing poisoning (New Scientist - Yuschenko) I can't remember where I saw it now but I read an article detailing how the whole skin and face thing was down to his fairly excessive alchoholism.

edit: can't really assess the reliability of the site but for a quick look this is pretty good

please be accurate ruyven, if nothing else. The USSR of 1924-1991 was Stalinist, which is a very specific form of marxism; meaning this - "Actually the rich get richer and the poor get richer at a much slower rate. Under Communism, the minions and lackeys of the State, especially the big bosses get what they need. The masses suffer in squalor. The late and unlamented Soviet Union, the practical outcome of Communist Theory was well know for its waiting lines. Productivity was extremely low because people spent a quarter of their time in lines. But they had "free" health care. Whoopie!" - is the result of Stalinist theory, not 'communist theory' per se(I'm going to go ahead and assume you mean Marxism by this). East Germany was born out of an extremely brutal war and heavy oppression, few people wth any political (much less marxist) know-how thought one could bring revolution on the end of a bayonet. I'm not defending it, just pointing out that your attempting to associate these states with 'communist theory' in total is an erroneous analysis of history, if not purely ideologically motivated. These (incluing Cuba and North Korea) were the result of Stalinism. My understanding is that by reading one chapter here, a foreword there, one can arrive at Stalinism, but it is only possible to see this possibility retroactively; after the fact.

I'm increasingly convinced that the attempts to destroy marxism by beating it with the stick of stalinism (by this I mean the events in history following the death of Lenin - the purges, the killings, the occupation of eastern europe, the list goes on) are a result of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. I'd need more time to fully expand on this but in very crudely articulated essence - the crimes of stalinism all came after the Russian revolution in 1917 (and the first successful Marxist one), therefore because of this.

Yushchenko's problem was caused by binge drinking and a herpes virus causing a rosacea outbreak. The intelligence agent with whom he spoke and who presumably poisoned him was known to be a supporter of his. David Zhvania, who was one of his associates, admitted last year that there was no poisoning, that it was caused by drinking.

As for the rich becoming richer in a Communist state, I don't really think so... this is because the ideology provides a restraining factor on such things... when they dropped Communism all of a sudden it was open season to plunder as much as possible... This doesn't mean there would not be a ruling class with privileges, simply that this class would be more restrained, certainly in public.

One serious problem in the east bloc was that being a Communist was a prerequisite to advancing in life, so you signed up as such even if you weren't really a communist. This was really the downfall of the system, as eventually people realised that few people in the party were communists. True, some of the ideology was internalised, but it's a bit like I guess those people who claim to be Christians who go to church once and a while...