[Potemkin]

But what wore down the German army to give them the time to win the Battle of Stalingrad, but what kept the nazis from rolling right into Moscow when they were 15 miles away? And what gave the Soviets even the chance of giving an offense? The winter! It was the winter that saved them!

Keep repeating that like a mantra, and maybe someday you'll convince someone other than yourself.

And it was the arrival of fresh troops from the Far East of Russia, transported thousands of miles within days, which saved Moscow. Those troops - 400,000 of them, and 1000 tanks and 1000 planes - were produced by the Soviet military-industrial comples, and were transported along Soviet infrastructure in Soviet trains. Those troops burst upon the Nazi Wehrmacht on the outskirts of Moscow and pushed them back. Those troops and tanks and planes were not conjured up by General Winter, but by the Soviet industrial capacity built up in the 1930s.

One thing that changed in Russia after October 1917 was that the professions were thrown open for the working class. A man whose parents and grandparents had been factory workers and peasants could become a doctor or a nuclear physicist or even the leader of his nation. Compare that with Britain at the same period, where an aristocratic and privileged bourgeois class kept a stranglehold on the professions and the educational system, excluding the "lower orders" from achieving educational or professional advancement. October 1917 was a great victory for the working class and a defeat for the gang of parasites and exploiters we call the 'ruling class'. It shattered the old system of class privilege forever and created a society of equal citizens who fought side by side to defeat Hitler's fascist hordes. You may see that as a bad thing, but I do not.

And the US wasn't doing this for years? More than once had a man gone from rags to riches under the US flag.

I was talking about Britain, not America. And the only difference in America is that the "lower order" are given the opportunity to become exploiters in their turn - an opportunity which is not often extended to the British masses. Each wave of immigrants in America would ruthlessly exploit the succeeding wave of immigrants in order to climb up the social ladder. That exploitation has now been extended out into the developing world, but the principle remains the same.

[Attila The Nun]

Keep repeating that like a mantra, and maybe someday you'll convince someone other than yourself.

People already do. It is only the banter of the socialists with their blind nationalistic "Motherland wins al because she is superior!" garbage that has people disbelieving.

And it was the arrival of fresh troops from the Far East of Russia, transported thousands of miles within days, which saved Moscow. Those troops - 400,000 of them, and 1000 tanks and 1000 planes - were produced by the Soviet military-industrial comples, and were transported along Soviet infrastructure in Soviet trains. Those troops burst upon the Nazi Wehrmacht on the outskirts of Moscow and pushed them back. Those troops and tanks and planes were not conjured up by General Winter, but by the Soviet industrial capacity built up in the 1930s.

But could they defeat a full force (who hadn't been eaten by the Soviet winter) of German soldiers in Moscow? No way in Hell. As i have said before, the Russian army had very poor technology, vastly undertrained soldiers, little supplies (not even enough to give everyone in the army a gun), and a severe lack of leadership. HAd it not been for the winter, Germany would have had all these.

I was talking about Britain, not America. And the only difference in America is that the "lower order" are given the opportunity to become exploiters in their turn - an opportunity which is not often extended to the British masses. Each wave of immigrants in America would ruthlessly exploit the succeeding wave of immigrants in order to climb up the social ladder. That exploitation has now been extended out into the developing world, but the principle remains the same.

Not even al of them were exploiting. Look at Abraham Lincoln, he was not what you would call a rich man from birth, but he ended up being President of the United States, that's quite a feat.

[Potemkin]

But could they defeat a full force (who hadn't been eaten by the Soviet winter) of German soldiers in Moscow? No way in Hell. As i have said before, the Russian army had very poor technology, vastly undertrained soldiers, little supplies (not even enough to give everyone in the army a gun), and a severe lack of leadership. HAd it not been for the winter, Germany would have had all these.

I'm not denying that the hard Russian winter was a strong factor in the defeat of the Nazis, but it was not the only factor. And you may as well say that it was the Russian winter alone which defeated Napoleon, or disease alone which enabled the white settlers in America to destroy the Native American tribes.

I was talking about Britain, not America. And the only difference in America is that the "lower order" are given the opportunity to become exploiters in their turn - an opportunity which is not often extended to the British masses. Each wave of immigrants in America would ruthlessly exploit the succeeding wave of immigrants in order to climb up the social ladder. That exploitation has now been extended out into the developing world, but the principle remains the same.

Not even al of them were exploiting. Look at Abraham Lincoln, he was not what you would call a rich man from birth, but he ended up being President of the United States, that's quite a feat.

Abraham Lincoln was not born in a log cabin, contrary to popular belief. And as I said before, I'm talking about the semi-feudal social system of Britain (and the completely feudal system of Tsarist Russia), not America. But even in America, this "American Dream" myth is largely that - a myth. What were the chances of somebody born into a family of factory workers in 19th century America to become President? Not too good, and even now, their chances are virtually zero. However, the bourgeois class in American have shown themselves to be more subtle than their British counterparts, by allowing selected members of the working class to advance up the social ladder, and not treating them with contempt because of their class origin. This, however, is little more than a political and psychological ploy to keep the toiling masses content with their lot. The British ruling class have failed to adopt this ploy, which is why the British working class are more clear-sighted about the nature of the capitalist system, and politics in Britain is generally more left-wing than in America. We've never been taken in by any equivalent of the "American Dream" claptrap.

[Attila The Nun]

I'm not denying that the hard Russian winter was a strong factor in the defeat of the Nazis, but it was not the only factor. And you may as well say that it was the Russian winter alone which defeated Napoleon, or disease alone which enabled the white settlers in America to destroy the Native American tribes.

No, but it is the russian winter which gave a slight hope that the USSR could win. They owed their victory to their geographical position, not anything else.

Abraham Lincoln was not born in a log cabin, contrary to popular belief. And as I said before, I'm talking about the semi-feudal social system of Britain (and the completely feudal system of Tsarist Russia), not America. But even in America, this "American Dream" myth is largely that - a myth. What were the chances of somebody born into a family of factory workers in 19th century America to become President? Not too good, and even now, their chances are virtually zero. However, the bourgeois class in American have shown themselves to be more subtle than their British counterparts, by allowing selected members of the working class to advance up the social ladder, and not treating them with contempt because of their class origin. This, however, is little more than a political and psychological ploy to keep the toiling masses content with their lot. The British ruling class have failed to adopt this ploy, which is why the British working class are more clear-sighted about the nature of the capitalist system, and politics in Britain is generally more left-wing than in America. We've never been taken in by any equivalent of the "American Dream" claptrap.

Ignore Lincoln then, if it's all "claptrap". Ignore Andrew Jackson too, and you might as well forget the whole thing about Philidelphia Steel (a company built by a poor scottish immigrant, Andrew Carnegie), since we all know the bourgeoise secretly rule the world. What a master plan!

Seriously, you're a little paranoid. While class struggle might be existant, it is not to the extent socialists rant about.

[Potemkin]

No, but it is the russian winter which gave a slight hope that the USSR could win. They owed their victory to their geographical position, not anything else.

And America didn't?!

Face it, dude. If it wasn't for the Atlantic Ocean, Hitler's goons would have kicked your butts. And Britain had the Channel - without that, Hitler's Panzers would have overrun London as well as Paris. The most decisive factor in any war is geography.

Ignore Lincoln then, if it's all "claptrap". Ignore Andrew Jackson too, and you might as well forget the whole thing about Philidelphia Steel (a company built by a poor scottish immigrant, Andrew Carnegie), since we all know the bourgeoise secretly rule the world. What a master plan!

I'm not familiar with Andrew Jackson, although I seem to recall that he was very keen on exterminating Indians. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As for Andrew Carnegie, why do you think he left Scotland for America? He had no chance of social advancement in Britain, so he became what we now call an economic migrant. When he was 13 years old, he trespassed into the grounds of the local laird (the Scottish equivalent of an aristocratic 'lord of the manor') to steal apples. He later remembered gazing at the vast estates and the huge mansion the laird lived in, and thinking to himself, "Why should he have so much, while I have so little?" This is the question any member of the working masses in Britain asks themselves, sooner or later, and the answer is still the same: capitalism.

Seriously, you're a little paranoid. While class struggle might be existant, it is not to the extent socialists rant about.

No, it's only paranoia if they're not out to get you. What I have is healthy class consciousness. I know who my class enemies are, rather than being, like you, a victim of false consciousness (which I believe you Americans call 'cognitive dissonance').

[Attila The Nun]

Face it, dude. If it wasn't for the Atlantic Ocean, Hitler's goons would have kicked your butts. And Britain had the Channel - without that, Hitler's Panzers would have overrun London as well as Paris. The most decisive factor in any war is geography.

Well, yeah, and economy. And while the US economy was in the tubes during th 1930s, once they entered the war they had a great army, and could make guns and tanks and planes faster than Hitler could ever destroy them.

I'm not familiar with Andrew Jackson, although I seem to recall that he was very keen on exterminating Indians. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, trail of tears. Which is why I hate that he's on the $20. But, that was not the reason I brought him up.

As for Andrew Carnegie, why do you think he left Scotland for America? He had no chance of social advancement in Britain, so he became what we now call an economic migrant. When he was 13 years old, he trespassed into the grounds of the local laird (the Scottish equivalent of an aristocratic 'lord of the manor') to steal apples. He later remembered gazing at the vast estates and the huge mansion the laird lived in, and thinking to himself, "Why should he have so much, while I have so little?" This is the question any member of the working masses in Britain asks themselves, sooner or later, and the answer is still the same: capitalism.

While the hierarchical system might still have existed in Britia, it is because of government and remanents of a fuedal class structure, not because of capitalism. And I am full aware of why he moved to America, and he made himself from poor ro rich, something only possible in a capitalist system.

No, it's only paranoia if they're not out to get you. What I have is healthy class consciousness. I know who my class enemies are, rather than being, like you, a victim of false consciousness (which I believe you Americans call 'cognitive dissonance').

How do I have an irrational fear of the upper classes not trying to take me over? That doesn't make any sense. And, once more, the lower class knows plenty more than you give them credit for.

[Potemkin]

Face it, dude. If it wasn't for the Atlantic Ocean, Hitler's goons would have kicked your butts. And Britain had the Channel - without that, Hitler's Panzers would have overrun London as well as Paris. The most decisive factor in any war is geography.

Well, yeah, and economy. And while the US economy was in the tubes during th 1930s, once they entered the war they had a great army, and could make guns and tanks and planes faster than Hitler could ever destroy them.

Which is precisely the case for the Soviet Union too. The Rooskies had General Winter, and the Yanks had the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Okay?

I'm not familiar with Andrew Jackson, although I seem to recall that he was very keen on exterminating Indians. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, trail of tears. Which is why I hate that he's on the $20. But, that was not the reason I brought him up.

Yeah, you brought him up as a 'self-made' man. But the fact that this 'man of the people' sided with tyrannical oppression and ethnic cleansing is very relevant. And it means that you, as a nation, had a bloody nerve in smugly and self-righteously condemning the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia or Kosovo, or Darfur now, as though your own nation had never done anything similar. You even put your mass-murderers and ethnic cleansers on your currency. Your shit stinks the same as the rest of us.

While the hierarchical system might still have existed in Britia, it is because of government and remanents of a fuedal class structure, not because of capitalism. And I am full aware of why he moved to America, and he made himself from poor ro rich, something only possible in a capitalist system.

It still exists in Britain, and it is kept alive by the capitalist system. And it is entirely possible to go from being poor to rich in a Communist society - just look at Ceaucescu and his cronies in Romania!

How do I have an irrational fear of the upper classes not trying to take me over? That doesn't make any sense.

I said that you have false consciousness in not knowing who your class enemies are - you have an irrational lack of fear.

And, once more, the lower class knows plenty more than you give them credit for.

Well, I'm lower class, and I think I'm pretty smart.

[Attila The Nun]

Which is precisely the case for the Soviet Union too. The Rooskies had General Winter, and the Yanks had the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Okay?

While the Russians might have been industrialized, they were not certainly tp the point of American industrialization.

Yeah, you brought him up as a 'self-made' man. But the fact that this 'man of the people' sided with tyrannical oppression and ethnic cleansing is very relevant. And it means that you, as a nation, had a bloody nerve in smugly and self-righteously condemning the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia or Kosovo, or Darfur now, as though your own nation had never done anything similar. You even put your mass-murderers and ethnic cleansers on your currency. Your shit stinks the same as the rest of us.

Exactly. No nation doesn't have skeletons in theor closet. And the Soviet Union is not excluded. Nor is any natrion in the CCCP.

It still exists in Britain, and it is kept alive by the capitalist system. And it is entirely possible to go from being poor to rich in a Communist society - just look at Ceaucescu and his cronies in Romania!

I meant without all of the corruption. But, classes still do exist in socialist systems because classlessness while order is impossible. Without big government socialism has no longevity, and without anarchy, there shall be no pure socialism.

I said that you have false consciousness in not knowing who your class enemies are - you have an irrational lack of fear.

So how am I paranoid? And, besides, cannot classes just live in peace? In most societies they actually can.

Well, I'm lower class, and I think I'm pretty smart.

Reading propoganda does not make you smart, it makes you gullible.

[Potemkin]

While the Russians might have been industrialized, they were not certainly tp the point of American industrialization.

But that they were even at the point they were was because of the crash industrialisation of the 1930s. Remember, Russia was about a hundred years behind America industrial development in 1920; by 1940, they had almost completely caught up.

Exactly. No nation doesn't have skeletons in theor closet. And the Soviet Union is not excluded. Nor is any natrion in the CCCP.

True, but after Khrushchev's Twentieth Congress sppech, they admitted it. America, however, still smugly lectures the rest of the world as though their shit doesn't stink and butter wouldn't melt in their mouths.

It still exists in Britain, and it is kept alive by the capitalist system. And it is entirely possible to go from being poor to rich in a Communist society - just look at Ceaucescu and his cronies in Romania!

I meant without all of the corruption.

But that's exactly what brought the ruling elite into power in Britain - their ancestors were medieval robber barons, or else their great-great-great-great-great grandmothers had fucked King Charles II. Even the nouveaux riches who rose during the early 19th century did so by ruthless exploitation of other people's labour.

But, classes still do exist in socialist systems because classlessness while order is impossible. Without big government socialism has no longevity, and without anarchy, there shall be no pure socialism.

I think you're confusing class with hierarchy. The concept of class has a very specific meaning - a person's class status is defined by their relation to the mode of production. The capitalist mode of production is unusual in that it generate unusually intense levels of class conflict. The social hierarchy of the feudal period was an organic hierarchy, in the sense that there was a perception that all the classes shared the same interests, both aristocrat and peasant. Under capitalism, that perception is shattered and the 'organic' community is replaced by naked exploitation and class struggle. That kind of class hierarchy is not inevitable, and the fact that you believe it is demonstrates your ignorance of history. I would tend to agree that order is impossible without some kind of hierarchy, whereas I strongly believe that order is possible without a rigid class-based hierarchy. In fact, in a truly communist society, there would be no real dividing line between rulers and ruled, and there certainly would be no state structure.

I said that you have false consciousness in not knowing who your class enemies are - you have an irrational lack of fear.

So how am I paranoid?

I don't believe I said you were.

And, besides, cannot classes just live in peace? In most societies they actually can.

Name one (apart from the US). Most societies on Earth are currently being ripped apart by Maoist insurgency or Islamist campaigns (which are usually motivated by a hatred of the corrupt, Westernized ruling elite). Class hatred and class struggle is a fundamental part of world affairs, and always have been. As Marx said, "The history of all former civilizations has been the history of class conflict."

Well, I'm lower class, and I think I'm pretty smart.

Reading propoganda does not make you smart, it makes you gullible.

As opposed to reading capitalist propaganda, which is okay? And why is reading Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' not reading propaganda, while reading Marx's 'Das Kapital' is?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

The main obstacle to a workers' revolution in America is the existence of a written Constitution which 'enshrines' the values of bourgeois liberalism for all time.

Newsflash: Nothing is enshrined "for all time" in the U.S. Constitution. We have amended our Constitution 27 times. Little things, you know, like the Bill of Rights, the abolition of slavery, guaranteeing women's right to vote ....

Within just twenty years, Russia went from being a backward agrarian society of illiterate peasants to being a modern industrialised nation, capable of beating back the most advanced military machine that had ever existed, Hitler's Wehrmacht. What took America nearly two hundred years to achieve, the Soviet Union achieved in a tenth of the time.

Newsflash: The U.S. was a modern industrialized nation within less than a century after its establishment. And the U.S. took on the most powerful military that the world, at that time, had ever seen -- that of the British Empire -- and kicked its ass twice, first in the Revolutionary War and then in the War of 1812.

[Attila The Nun]

But that they were even at the point they were was because of the crash industrialisation of the 1930s. Remember, Russia was about a hundred years behind America industrial development in 1920; by 1940, they had almost completely caught up.

First of all, it wasn't a hundred years, they were already somewhat industrialized. And, second of all, they were hardly what you would call close to industrialization.

True, but after Khrushchev's Twentieth Congress sppech, they admitted it. America, however, still smugly lectures the rest of the world as though their shit doesn't stink and butter wouldn't melt in their mouths.

Please. Socialists and communists still do claim moral highground over capitalists all the time, even though the exploitation still exists under both systems.

It still exists in Britain, and it is kept alive by the capitalist system. And it is entirely possible to go from being poor to rich in a Communist society - just look at Ceaucescu and his cronies in Romania!

But that's exactly what brought the ruling elite into power in Britain - their ancestors were medieval robber barons, or else their great-great-great-great-great grandmothers had fucked King Charles II. Even the nouveaux riches who rose during the early 19th century did so by ruthless exploitation of other people's labour.

Because what their great-great grandparents did really means they're corrupt now.

I think you're confusing class with hierarchy. The concept of class has a very specific meaning - a person's class status is defined by their relation to the mode of production. The capitalist mode of production is unusual in that it generate unusually intense levels of class conflict. The social hierarchy of the feudal period was an organic hierarchy, in the sense that there was a perception that all the classes shared the same interests, both aristocrat and peasant. Under capitalism, that perception is shattered and the 'organic' community is replaced by naked exploitation and class struggle. That kind of class hierarchy is not inevitable, and the fact that you believe it is demonstrates your ignorance of history. I would tend to agree that order is impossible without some kind of hierarchy, whereas I strongly believe that order is possible without a rigid class-based hierarchy. In fact, in a truly communist society, there would be no real dividing line between rulers and ruled, and there certainly would be no state structure.

But doesn't government hierarchy often cause social hierarchy (a.k.a. classes)?

Name one (apart from the US). Most societies on Earth are currently being ripped apart by Maoist insurgency or Islamist campaigns (which are usually motivated by a hatred of the corrupt, Westernized ruling elite). Class hatred and class struggle is a fundamental part of world affairs, and always have been. As Marx said, "The history of all former civilizations has been the history of class conflict."

There's also Britian. Don't forget them. And France, and Germany, and, infact, let's count most of Europe in this one, along with India, Pakistan, and Austrailia, and many of the island nations around Austrailia, Canada too, not to mention Brazil, and in fact, most of the Caribbean. Yep, and more.

As opposed to reading capitalist propaganda, which is okay? And why is reading Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' not reading propaganda, while reading Marx's 'Das Kapital' is?

Did I say they weren't both propoganda?

[Potemkin]

The main obstacle to a workers' revolution in America is the existence of a written Constitution which 'enshrines' the values of bourgeois liberalism for all time.

Newsflash: Nothing is enshrined "for all time" in the U.S. Constitution. We have amended our Constitution 27 times. Little things, you know, like the Bill of Rights, the abolition of slavery, guaranteeing women's right to vote ....

...but all based on the fundamental principles of bourgeois liberalism, which are assumed to be eternal, unchanging truths.

Newsflash: The U.S. was a modern industrialized nation within less than a century after its establishment. And the U.S. took on the most powerful military that the world, at that time, had ever seen -- that of the British Empire -- and kicked its ass twice, first in the Revolutionary War and then in the War of 1812.

With a lot of help from France, as I recall. Which makes the recent scorn that American have heaped on France a little ironic. Without France's military help during the Revolutionary Wars, Britain would have kicked your asses.

And it took America slightly longer than a century; it took the CCCP about 20 years.

[Potemkin]

But that they were even at the point they were was because of the crash industrialisation of the 1930s. Remember, Russia was about a hundred years behind America industrial development in 1920; by 1940, they had almost completely caught up.

First of all, it wasn't a hundred years, they were already somewhat industrialized.

Most of which had been destroyed by WWI, the Revolution, and the four-year Civil War. By 1921, the industrial base of Russia had virtually ceased to exist.

And, second of all, they were hardly what you would call close to industrialization.

Not sure what you mean by this; please clarify.

Please. Socialists and communists still do claim moral highground over capitalists all the time, even though the exploitation still exists under both systems.

That's because we are morally superior . And strictly speaking, there is no exploitation (ie, using people's labour for private profit) under Communism; though there can be political oppression.

But that's exactly what brought the ruling elite into power in Britain - their ancestors were medieval robber barons, or else their great-great-great-great-great grandmothers had fucked King Charles II. Even the nouveaux riches who rose during the early 19th century did so by ruthless exploitation of other people's labour.

Because what their great-great grandparents did really means they're corrupt now.

True. Their ancestors were corrupt. They themselves are just parasitic and exploitative.

But doesn't government hierarchy often cause social hierarchy (a.k.a. classes)?

Again, you are conflating the concepts of class and heirarchy. If the means of production are not privately owned, then there cannot be a hierarchy based on conflicting social classes. There can be a hierarchy based on access to decision-making power; this usually takes the form of a bureaucratic hierarchy. It is not the same as a class-based hierarchy, since an individual's status is not determined by their relation to the mode of production. And in fact, there is usually much more social mobility within that hierarchy than there is in a class-based hierarchy. Strictly speaking, the Soviet nomenklatura were not a separate ruling class; they were drawn from every part of society. Khrushchev, for example, was of peasant stock and had worked as a miner; Stalin was the son of a cobbler and was an ex-seminary student, and so on. A class-based hierarchy is based on hereditary class privileges, and the private ownership of the means of production.

There's also Britian. Don't forget them. And France, and Germany, and, infact, let's count most of Europe in this one, along with India, Pakistan, and Austrailia, and many of the island nations around Austrailia, Canada too, not to mention Brazil, and in fact, most of the Caribbean. Yep, and more.

How could I forget Britain, since I live here? And there is class conflict in Britain, though not of the same intensity as in most other nations. Blair's recent attacks on the privileges of the House of Lords and the forthcoming ban on fox hunting are all aspects of that class struggle. And are you seriously suggesting there is no class struggle in India, Pakistan, or Brazil? Are you insane? Some provinces of India are governed by the Communist party, and have been for decades. And let's not forget the obscenity of the caste system there. And Pakistan has had a radical Islamist problem since 1979; the ruling elite there are in serious trouble. And as for Brazil, there has been a generalised leftist insurgency there for nearly a hundred years; the ruling class felt so threatened that they even imposed a reactionary military dictatorship there in the 1960s. And I'm not even going to mention Colombia, Peru, Argentina, Chile, Mexico (Chiapas, anyone?) or El Salvador....

As opposed to reading capitalist propaganda, which is okay? And why is reading Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' not reading propaganda, while reading Marx's 'Das Kapital' is?

Did I say they weren't both propoganda?

Fine. So you read your propaganda, and I'll read mine. Okay?

[Todd D.]

Potemkin, do you have any idea what you are talking about, or are you just spewing what you've heard from your buddies over at S-E.com?

French support in the Revolutionary War was beneficial, but was in no way the reason that the US won the war. Firstly, the French only sided with the Americans after initial US victories against the British army. Secondly, French support was mostly naval, whereas much of the war was fought inland, especially in Pennsylvania, New York, and Massacusetts.

During the War of 1812, the French were downright hostile to the Americans, due to the US's anti-Catholic ideology. There was no support from the French in the War of 1812, and the Americans still defeated the British, only 30 years after becoming a nation.

And it took America slightly longer than a century; it took the CCCP about 20 years

How many Americans died during Industrialization? How many Russians died during the 5 year plans. If you value time over human life, I pity you. Besides, 100 years to industrialize? Says who? It took the US about 30-40 years from agrarian to industry. It took Russia about the same time period, adjusting for the fact that they were not completely agrarian at the time of the Communist Revolution. The two are comparable.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

...but all based on the fundamental principles of bourgeois liberalism, which are assumed to be eternal, unchanging truths.

Nothing is assumed in the U.S. Constitution to be an eternal, unchanging truth. The provision for amendment (Article V) imposes no limit on amendments except for the provision that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate." (And the enforceability even of that limit is dubious: An amendment could provide explicitly for the repeal of that provision, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the validity of constitutional amendments is a "non-justiciable" question -- i.e., an issue which the courts simply will not decide.)

With a lot of help from France, as I recall. Which makes the recent scorn that American have heaped on France a little ironic. Without France's military help during the Revolutionary Wars, Britain would have kicked your asses.

As Todd D. has pointed out, French assistance in the Revolutionary War was helpful, but not essential, and France did not help the U.S. in the War of 1812. Anyway, any debt that the U.S. owed France was amply repaid in World War II.

And it took America slightly longer than a century; it took the CCCP about 20 years.

Actually, it took the U.S. rather less than a century. And neither the USSR nor present Russia has yet caught up.

[Attila The Nun]

Most of which had been destroyed by WWI, the Revolution, and the four-year Civil War. By 1921, the industrial base of Russia had virtually ceased to exist.

But the USSR still did have something to start with.

Not sure what you mean by this; please clarify.

Indistrialization usually means they haven't had industry before. This is false.

That's because we are morally superior . And strictly speaking, there is no exploitation (ie, using people's labour for private profit) under Communism; though there can be political oppression.

Yes mass opression, but it is of the same. Just because it is now government abuse does not make it any better.

True. Their ancestors were corrupt. They themselves are just parasitic and exploitative.

That doesn't make anysense. People are different. Your ancestors do not make you exploitative. You can make yourself exploitative, but not your ancestors.

Again, you are conflating the concepts of class and heirarchy. If the means of production are not privately owned, then there cannot be a hierarchy based on conflicting social classes. There can be a hierarchy based on access to decision-making power; this usually takes the form of a bureaucratic hierarchy. It is not the same as a class-based hierarchy, since an individual's status is not determined by their relation to the mode of production. And in fact, there is usually much more social mobility within that hierarchy than there is in a class-based hierarchy. Strictly speaking, the Soviet nomenklatura were not a separate ruling class; they were drawn from every part of society. Khrushchev, for example, was of peasant stock and had worked as a miner; Stalin was the son of a cobbler and was an ex-seminary student, and so on. A class-based hierarchy is based on hereditary class privileges, and the private ownership of the means of production.

But all that was before the revolution. By the revolution they were both powerful. And this beraucratic hierarchy leads to social hierarchy.

How could I forget Britain, since I live here? And there is class conflict in Britain, though not of the same intensity as in most other nations. Blair's recent attacks on the privileges of the House of Lords and the forthcoming ban on fox hunting are all aspects of that class struggle.

This is hardly what I would call class struggle. These are not done to harm the "ruling class" at all.

And Pakistan has had a radical Islamist problem since 1979; the ruling elite there are in serious trouble.

That's more religious and cultural.

Fine. So you read your propaganda, and I'll read mine. Okay?

I've actually read neither.

[Potemkin]

French support in the Revolutionary War was beneficial, but was in no way the reason that the US won the war. Firstly, the French only sided with the Americans after initial US victories against the British army. Secondly, French support was mostly naval, whereas much of the war was fought inland, especially in Pennsylvania, New York, and Massacusetts.

That naval help was pretty important in preventing the British from landing reinforcements, at Yorktown for example. It's like saying that the Greek victory at Salamis was unimportant, because most of the battles fought between the Greeks and the Persians were inland. Without the victory at Salamis, and the breaking of Xerxes' sea power, the Greeks wouldn't have had a chance of winning those land battles. The same applies to the American Revolutionary War.

During the War of 1812, the French were downright hostile to the Americans, due to the US's anti-Catholic ideology.

That is surprising, as France was a republic by that time, with an anti-Church ideology. As I recall, in the 1790s they even attempted to eradicate Catholicism as an organised Church within France.

There was no support from the French in the War of 1812, and the Americans still defeated the British, only 30 years after becoming a nation.

I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but at that time, we were fighting the Napoleonic Wars against.... now, which country was it again... oh yes, FRANCE! Sounds like 'help' to me.

And it took America slightly longer than a century; it took the CCCP about 20 years

How many Americans died during Industrialization?

Judging by the number of industrial accidents - workers being killed in mine shafts or construction projects, children having limbs amputated in factory machinery, families dying of slow malnutrition or cholera or typhoid due to poor or nonexistent sanitation, or simply killed by factory bosses for daring to go on strike or demonstrate, over a couple of hundred years, I would say that at least several million must have died to build up American industrial might.

How many Russians died during the 5 year plans.

Like America, several million.

If you value time over human life, I pity you.

In this case, time was human life. As Stalin said, "We are one hundred years behind the advanced capitalist nations. We must make up that lack within ten years. Either we do this, or they shall crush us." Stalin may have been a murdering bastard, but he was right about that. The capitalist scum encircled the Soviet Union, and had already invaded Russia to try to crush the Russian proletariat, and they were itching for a chance to try again. Time was human life - every delay meant the possible victory of the capitalists, and the crushing of the hopes of the working masses, perhaps forever.

Besides, 100 years to industrialize? Says who? It took the US about 30-40 years from agrarian to industry.

There was already some industry present even in the 18th century, and the process of industrialisation continued even into the 1920s. 30-40 years is not a realistic figure.

It took Russia about the same time period, adjusting for the fact that they were not completely agrarian at the time of the Communist Revolution. The two are comparable.

Not really. Russian industry had been almost totally destroyed in WWI, the Revolution and the four-year Civil War. It had to be rebuilt virtually from scratch.

[Potemkin]

...but all based on the fundamental principles of bourgeois liberalism, which are assumed to be eternal, unchanging truths.

Nothing is assumed in the U.S. Constitution to be an eternal, unchanging truth.

Doesn't the Declaration of Independence start off with some nonsense about "We hold these truths to be self-evident...."?

Anyway, any debt that the U.S. owed France was amply repaid in World War II.

Granted. WWII was hardly France's finest hour; huge numbers of American and Allied troops died to liberate France from Nazi occupation. But I still assert that without the help of France (which was a world superpower back then), we would have kicked your rebellious butts.

And neither the USSR nor present Russia has yet caught up.

Russia was the only other superpower apart from America throughout the Cold War. It's only when they abandoned Communism and allowed themselves to be plundered by the capitalist thieves and gangsters that they lost that place.

[Potemkin]

But the USSR still did have something to start with.

No, it didn't. "Yes, it did!" No, it didn't. "Yes, it did!"

This argument could go on for a long time....

Indistrialization usually means they haven't had industry before. This is false.

If the industrial base is negligible beforehand and is of superpower status afterwards, I think it is reasonable to talk about a process of 'industrialisation' having occurred.

Yes mass opression, but it is of the same. Just because it is now government abuse does not make it any better.

It may be morally just as reprehensible, but it is a different kind of process; strictly speaking, it is oppression rather than exploitation.

That doesn't make anysense. People are different. Your ancestors do not make you exploitative. You can make yourself exploitative, but not your ancestors.

No, it is your relation to the mode of production which makes you exploitative, which is the same thing as saying that it is your class identity which makes you exploitative. You seem to believe that the fundamental mode of social relations is between individuals, whereas in fact it is between classes. A feudal lord cannot help but be oppressive to his peasants, no matter how 'nice' he may be as an individual. Likewise, the owner of a factory cannot help but be exploitative to his workers, no matter how 'nice' or humanitarian he may be as an individual.

And this beraucratic hierarchy leads to social hierarchy.

A bureaucractic hierarchy is a social hierarchy. A class hierarchy is a different kind of social hierarchy.

This is hardly what I would call class struggle. These are not done to harm the "ruling class" at all.

Yes, they are. The hereditary peers in the (unelected) upper chamber of Parliament which we call (unsurprisingly) the 'House of Lords' were able to vote on legislation affecting everyone in the country, and they could even veto legislation democratically advanced and voted upon by the elected lower chamber, the 'House of Commons'. Therefore, by definition, these hereditary peers are the ruling class. Blair has removed their right to vote in the upper chamber. This, by definition, is an action against the ruling class. Likewise fox hunting - it is a 'sport' practiced almost exclusively by the aristocracy and the haute bourgeoisie. By attacking it, and in fact banning it, Blair is attacking the ruling class itself. Even the ruling class itself believe that the proposed ban on fox hunting is part of the class struggle, and they are absolutely right.

And Pakistan has had a radical Islamist problem since 1979; the ruling elite there are in serious trouble.

That's more religious and cultural.

It's also a struggle of the lower classes against the ruling elite, who tend to be secular and Westernised.

Fine. So you read your propaganda, and I'll read mine. Okay?

I've actually read neither.

And it shows.

But seriously, how can you call yourself a 'Libertarian' and not have read Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations'? I'm a fucking Commie, and even I've read it.

[Attila The Nun]

This argument could go on for a long time....

Yes, but Russia was industrialized beforehand or else they could have never fought in WWI.

If the industrial base is negligible beforehand and is of superpower status afterwards, I think it is reasonable to talk about a process of 'industrialisation' having occurred.

Superpowers don't mean anything in industrialization (though it did help). Oh, and I love how you marxists prance around the Five Year Plan as if it was the greatest economic reform plan of all time.

It may be morally just as reprehensible, but it is a different kind of process; strictly speaking, it is oppression rather than exploitation.

Except with exploitation, industrial reform can change it. With government opression no one an stop it.

No, it is your relation to the mode of production which makes you exploitative, which is the same thing as saying that it is your class identity which makes you exploitative. You seem to believe that the fundamental mode of social relations is between individuals, whereas in fact it is between classes. A feudal lord cannot help but be oppressive to his peasants, no matter how 'nice' he may be as an individual. Likewise, the owner of a factory cannot help but be exploitative to his workers, no matter how 'nice' or humanitarian he may be as an individual.

Hardly. If that was true than you'd have to count out most modern industry.

A bureaucractic hierarchy is a social hierarchy. A class hierarchy is a different kind of social hierarchy.

That's what classes are! Social hierarchy!

Yes, they are. The hereditary peers in the (unelected) upper chamber of Parliament which we call (unsurprisingly) the 'House of Lords' were able to vote on legislation affecting everyone in the country, and they could even veto legislation democratically advanced and voted upon by the elected lower chamber, the 'House of Commons'. Therefore, by definition, these hereditary peers are the ruling class. Blair has removed their right to vote in the upper chamber. This, by definition, is an action against the ruling class. Likewise fox hunting - it is a 'sport' practiced almost exclusively by the aristocracy and the haute bourgeoisie. By attacking it, and in fact banning it, Blair is attacking the ruling class itself. Even the ruling class itself believe that the proposed ban on fox hunting is part of the class struggle, and they are absolutely right.

But what is happening to the House of Lords is simple reform, now higher taxes upon the rich, that would be attack upon a class.

It's also a struggle of the lower classes against the ruling elite, who tend to be secular and Westernised.

But aren't some of the richest people in the world (And the ruling class in some countries) islamic fundimentalists?

But seriously, how can you call yourself a 'Libertarian' and not have read Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations'? I'm a fucking Commie, and even I've read it.

I'm not very libertarian, I mainly think that because I find myself agreeing with libertarians on more and more issues. But, I don't like my opinions spoon-fed to me.