Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Hey everyone, tomarrow is Che Guevara's B-day!!!

*sigh* nobody cares

I liked Che for what he believed in (morally) and how strongly he stood up for it and the courage to do so. But communism sucks the big one.

Good for Che. Pass him this envelope filled with combustive Cyanide.

communism works in theory.

happy birthday Che

Originally posted by Neo_Communist
Hey everyone, tomarrow is Che Guevara's B-day!!! is this the guy on all the t-shirts these days?

Yeah. Kids wear his shirts, but don't have a clue who the **** he is, much less what he was all about. He's actually quite overrated, and more of a fashion statement than an important historical figure.

I think he was pretty bad-ass back in the day.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
Yeah. Kids wear his shirts, but don't have a clue who the **** he is, much less what he was all about. He's actually quite overrated, and more of a fashion statement than an important historical figure.

He is the pillar to all Teenage rebels nowadays. 90% of kids know dick all about him, but they always chant about him.


Silly ****.

who?

hasta la victoria ignorante

Originally posted by Neo_Communist
*sigh* nobody cares

I read a book on the life of Che.

He was a top man.

Originally posted by Neo_Communist
*sigh* nobody cares

To true, I don't celebrate birthdays of communist terrorists.



Originally posted by Dr. Octagon
communism works in theory.

happy birthday Che

Communism only works in theory because Marx that little smartass made it to work theoretically.

Everyone can say Capitalism works in theory and would be right (it'S beside the point that it actually works) because it has to work by definition.

What Marx did was saying everyone gets exactly the amount they need (first of all that'S hard to accomplish) and now here's the tricky part, he also said they will be satisfied with it (this is the point that makes it theoretically work, but never ever practically)

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
Yeah. Kids wear his shirts, but don't have a clue who the **** he is, much less what he was all about. He's actually quite overrated, and more of a fashion statement than an important historical figure. Yep, Che Guevara's image is basically a mass produced brand. Interesting irony, isn't it?Originally posted by Bardock42
Everyone can say Capitalism works in theory and would be right (it'S beside the point that it actually works) because it has to work by definition.If you really think Capitalism is working incredibly well then you are somewhat deluding yourself.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Yep, Che Guevara's image is basically a mass produced brand. Interesting irony, isn't it?If you really think Capitalism is working incredibly well then you are somewhat deluding yourself.

Why? ...everyone has the same

It is too....we advance much faster with it, and most people (in the capitalistic countries) lead decent lives......and as I said in Theory it would work even better....cause Theory = Bullshit

Oh and I believe Capitalism to work much, much, much better than Communism....or is there any true communist state that can actually surpass any true capitalist state?

There has never been anything resembling a truly communist state that comes to my mind.

In the U.S. - the closest thing to the capitalist theoretical model that comes to mind - capitalism has worked so well that...
20% of the population account for more than 50% of household income.
37 million people live officially in poverty.
About 18% of children live in poverty.
If I recall correctly the U.S. has the highest crime rate, drug abuse rate, and proportion or homeless people in the OECD.

In theory both systems are meant to produce prosperity for all if everyone works hard. In practice that doesn't occur.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
There has never been anything resembling a truly communist state that comes to my mind.

In the U.S. - the closest thing to the capitalist theoretical model that comes to mind - capitalism has worked so well that...
20% of the population account for more than 50% of household income.
37 million people live officially in poverty.
About 18% of children live in poverty.
If I recall correctly the U.S. has the highest crime rate, drug abuse rate, and proportion or homeless people in the OECD.

In theory both systems are meant to produce prosperity for all if everyone works hard. In practice that doesn't occur.
First it's still the Number One Super Power so I guess the system is the best we have.

Second the US has other problems..and there never has been a truly Capitaist system either so that'S not really fair to compare.

I believe there are only Three people that think Communism is something that should be aquired, Medicore or worse people that are not good enough o compete, people that thinkl they can get most out for themself if it would come true (usually politicians) and mayb a few people who actually for one or another reason believe it could bethe best for everyone (although they are obviopusly wrong)

So lets take one of the States that consider themself Comunist just to oppose the US (which by the way is not the most capitalist system ever and probably not even nowadays)

The Soviet Union.
30 000 000+ people starving to death just in the first view years
Every household was spied on and could be put to jail without trial.
After only 70 years the country was so poor and economically at it's limits that they actually had to form a new (now capitalist) government.

way to go for Communism right there....

Oh and that poverty you are talking aboot....it'S only a "felt" poverty....our definition of poverty is very, very strange and stupid.
The US has people that have not much money but you can't call them poor in the sense of people starving to death in Africa.

Let me give you an example of the stupidity of the measurement of poverty in teh UN. Igf everything in Germany would stay exactly the same, no one has less money no one has more....and Bill Gates would move to Germany we would suddenly have more poor people.....can anyone explain that to me. So actually the German people would have 80 000 000 000 $ more but there would still be more poor people....hmm sounds wrong to me.....

The Measuring System is unfair towards Capitalistic system
Because by that definition poor is everyone that has less than 70% of the average income. But is that really poverty? or just a figure that doesn't say anything?

Another exaple....A truly comunist state would have no poor people, let'S say every person in North Corea gets exactly 100$ per year.....that'S not a lot...but by that definition no one would be poor...

In theory communism is a great idea. In practice it doesn't work at all. Anyone who says there has never been true capitalism is full of s*it. The mostly "wealthier countries" are a myth except China. The US as a nation no longer exists, only large, multinational corporations exist. Countries in the traditional sense are disappearing only to be replaced by corporations. Think governments are evil? Just wait until corporate world control is complete. Communism on paper is a great idea. In reality it goes against human nature, whuch is unlimited greed.

Firstly the Soviet Union comes nothing close to resembling the theoretical Communist state.
Yes, poverty is a misnoma if one compares wealthy nations with developing nations. So?
Thirdly the poverty line isn't defined by 70% of the average wage in the statistics given. It is defined as roughly a quarter of the median household income. Poverty statistics predominantly don't include the homeless. So the figure given for the proportion of population below the poverty line is under-representative.
Again, in theory both systems are meant to produce prosperity for all if everyone works hard. In practice that doesn't occur with either.
Lastly Bardock24 it's pretty presumptuous to say that other people or other views are "obviopusly wrong" if they disagree with your libertarian views and that they all somehow fit into one of your three very generalised categories.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Firstly the Soviet Union comes nothing close to resembling the theoretical Communist state.
Yes, poverty is a misnoma if one compares wealthy nations with developing nations. So?
Thirdly the poverty line isn't defined by 70% of the average wage in the statistics given. It is defined as roughly a quarter of the median household income. Poverty statistics predominantly don't include the homeless. So the figure given for the proportion of population below the poverty line is under-representative.
Again, in theory both systems are meant to produce prosperity for all if everyone works hard. In practice that doesn't occur with either.
Lastly Bardock24 it's pretty presumptuous to say that other people or other views are "obviopusly wrong" if they disagree with your libertarian views and that they all somehow fit into one of your three very generalised categories.

Neither does the US. It claims to be but it is not. It is just as much Capitalist as the Soviet Union was Communist.

Good.

Ok, you say 25% I say 70% I have to admit that I only heard this figure...but now how can we find wich one is the right number? Although I believe it is measured different in teh US. Actually if the Homeless would be included that would account for less Poverty since the median Income of the Households would be lower, right?

But the Capitalistic system is not designed to produce prosperity for everyone...that's jsut wrong. It is designed to give everyone the chance to survive and maybe even advance if they work hard and are good enough.

You need to read what I said. I didn't say that everyone that disagrees with me is obviously wrong but everyone that believes that the Communist System would be the best for everyone...this is easy to proof too..it wouldn't be the best for the doctror who now gets less money for the same work it wouldn't be good for the Business owner..c.ause well he wouldn't have a business to own anymore....

The U.S. is a better example of a true capitalist model than the Soviet Union is of a true communist model.
The median is unlikely to change much. Median's aren't as easily skewed as averages.
It is designed to give everyone the chance to survive and maybe even advance if they work hard and are good enough? Then the design has failed.
You cannot say those people are "obviously wrong" considering you have nothing evidential to support that claim. And you cannot presume to generalise people into categories in the way that you do as if they are an amorphous collective consciousness.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The U.S. is a better example of a true capitalist model than the Soviet Union is of a true communist model.
The median is unlikely to change much. Median's aren't as easily skewed as averages.
It is designed to give everyone the chance to survive and maybe even advance if they work hard and are good enough? Then the design has failed.
You cannot say those people are "obviously wrong" considering you have nothing evidential to support that claim. And you cannot presume to generalise people into categories in the way that you do as if they are an amorphous collective consciousness.

Nope. No....that'S wrong....The US is not a true Capitalist society at all..they are maybe a little more than Germany and such but they are not really.....in that aspect the USSR and the USA are similar.

Ok, I don't know how exactly Medians are calculated and such...but I guess theres something really, really wrong when 10000 (I doun't know the amount of Homeless people) "households" enter it with an income of aboot 0.

No it didn't....there os no true capitalistic system and in those resembling the system most everybody has the chance to succeed. It migh be hard...yes but if one has the ability to work hard and has an idea how to make money of it there'S always a chance....oh and the people that work hard will at least survive....a Comunist system cannot guarantee that cause there would never be enough wealth to actually make sure that it applies.

My friend....I am sure you know that most things that are not actually facts here are merely my opinion....it'S not really necessary to type "imo" behind every new sentence.
But if it hellps you lets say "In my opinion there are only 3 Types of people that support Communism..." ...better?

And I can actually say that people that believe Communism would be the best for "everybody" are wrong...because it wouldn't be the best for me...therefore "everybody" must be wrong.....

I really have no idea where this Che worship comes from. He was a man of vicious political principles whose small acts of mercy on the battlefield were dwarved by the large acts of injustice born out of his beliefs- that he spoke very plainly about.

If you're going to have a revolution, you are certainly not gonna achieve much by protesting.

The differance between Che and many other revolutionaries and politicians who are ''praised'' by many others is that they did all Che did and worse, and LIED about it. Che openly spoke about what he believed in.

Tell that to the Czechs.

An honest founder of political terror is still a founder of political terror. Honesty may be an interesting concept in that regard but that's still no reason for him to be a positive icon.

che was the best british primeminister of all time

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I really have no idea where this Che worship comes from. He was a man of vicious political principles whose small acts of mercy on the battlefield were dwarved by the large acts of injustice born out of his beliefs- that he spoke very plainly about.

Yeah, but who should communists look upto anywhere else? Mao? Stalin? Castro?


Oh by the way 1969 today he was captured in Bolivia...which means his DeathDay comes up tommorow....not his Birthday

My Bad...67 not 69

Gramsci?

But that's not really the point, because most people that have a thing about him aren't Communists- in fact, most such people aren't even vaguely living the sort of life Che would have approved of.

Obviously, there were people in that area way worse than him, and if you made a list of "Most evil politicians of the Cold War" there would be a fair few above him, and he was an interesting guy (but then, Stalin was 'interesting' also).

But why the fact he was not the worst causes a whole bunch of people who basically know bugger all about him to pay such homage is beyond me.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Gramsci?

But that's not really the point, because most people that have a thing about him aren't Communists- in fact, most such people aren't even vaguely living the sort of life Che would have approved of.

Obviously, there were people in that area way worse than him, and if you made a list of "Most evil politicians of the Cold War" there would be a fair few above him, and he was an interesting guy (but then, Stalin was 'interesting' also).

But why the fact he was not the worst causes a whole bunch of people who basically know bugger all about him to pay such homage is beyond me.

Yeah I know, I was just making no point.....

I think many people have a thing aboot him cause he stood for something...for rebellion.....and now to give him some respect he is quite an impressive figure....in the famous pic of him he ight be one of the people with the most determination I have ever seen...now of course this doesn't justify the Cult like love for him...but it could explain some of it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No it didn't....there os no true capitalistic system and in those resembling the system most everybody has the chance to succeed. It migh be hard...yes but if one has the ability to work hard and has an idea how to make money of it there'S always a chance....oh and the people that work hard will at least survive....a Comunist system cannot guarantee that cause there would never be enough wealth to actually make sure that it applies.Work hard ergo success under a capitalist model? Hate to break it to you but that's not how the world works. Work hard ergo survive? Yay, people manage to scrape by, just. True communist model cannot guarantee that? Assumption. No wealth? Well if everybody was working hard then why would there be no wealth?

Capitalism and communism work in theory. The factor that screws both over in practice is people's intrinsic greed, laziness and selfishness. Capitalism simply complies better with people's greed and selfishness.
Originally posted by Bardock42
And I can actually say that people that believe Communism would be the best for "everybody" are wrong...because it wouldn't be the best for me...therefore "everybody" must be wrong..... So based on an initial assumption that you personally would not be financially better off under a true communist model you further that into an assumption that a communist model cannot possibly provide a better society as a whole than a capitalist model.

As for Che. I never understood his hero status. The t-shirts are cliche.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Work hard ergo success under a capitalist model? Hate to break it to you but that's not how the world works. Work hard ergo survive? Yay, people manage to scrape by, just. True communist model cannot guarantee that? Assumption. No wealth? Well if everybody was working hard then why would there be no wealth?

Capitalism and communism work in theory. The factor that screws both over in practice is people's intrinsic greed, laziness and selfishness. Capitalism simply complies better with people's greed and selfishness.
So based on an initial assumption that you personally would not be financially better off under a true communist model you further that into an assumption that a communist model cannot possibly provide a better society as a whole than a capitalist model.

As for Che. I never understood his hero status. The t-shirts are cliche.
You forgot the be good part....if you just work har but you are a dumbass you won't get very far.

Talking aboot assumptions, eh?

No, I wouldn't feel better in a Communist society (you know I like freedom and all) therefore I can quite positively say that not everyone will be happy....and that is not a reason why I believe Capitalism to be better...there are plenty others.

Originally posted by Neo_Communist
Hey everyone, tomarrow is Che Guevara's B-day!!!

Who cares? He is takeing a dirt nap right now after he got plugged by 10 bullets..and no one misses him.

''i know you've come to kill me, shoot coward, your only going to kill a man''

Happy b-day Che!

I feel so trendy! Yipeee..

Dumbasses.

Che would be spinning in his grave if he'd known everything he fought for would become a 20th century, meaningless, fashion statement.

That's what I don't understand about the people who wear T-shirts with his picture on them. I fell that, in his opinion, it would be like a man willing to carry a flag for which he isn't willing to die.

I WOULD LIKE TO REPEAT IT IS NOT CHE GUEVARAS BIRTHDAY TOMMORROW .....his Birthday is June 14th ...for all you people who for one or the other reason don't believe that he was a crazy ass terrorist.....

October 9th is his DeathDay ...... of course I would probably celebrate that much more likely.....

Originally posted by Bardock42
...for all you people who for one or the other reason don't believe that he was a crazy ass terrorist.....



So, you're saying that in 20 years, little kids will be running around with pictures of Bin Laden on their shirts?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, you're saying that in 20 years, little kids will be running around with pictures of Bin Laden on their shirts?

I highly doubt that's what he meant.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, you're saying that in 20 years, little kids will be running around with pictures of Bin Laden on their shirts?

Probably in other countries, yes.

Hell, he's already on shirts in Afghanistan.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, you're saying that in 20 years, little kids will be running around with pictures of Bin Laden on their shirts?

I highly doubt that...it is pretty much accepted in the Western World that Bin Laden is a terrorist. And the idea Bin Laden fought/fights for is very different from Che's.....so I'd say no. Now it'S a whole different thing in Islamic or even Islamistic Societies.

He is somehow Charismatic, though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I highly doubt that...it is pretty much accepted in the Western World that Bin Laden is a terrorist. And the idea Bin Laden fought/fights for is very different from Che's.....so I'd say no. Now it'S a whole different thing in Islamic or even Islamistic Societies.

He is somehow Charismatic, though.

I was joking.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I was joking.

I wasn't...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I wasn't...


Nor, do you have to be joking.

The fact remains...Che is a terrorist...as is Bin Laden.....


joke remains, despite it's suckiness....

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Nor, do you have to be joking.

The fact remains...Che is a terrorist...as is Bin Laden.....


joke remains, despite it's suckiness....

How is that a joke?....sounds rather sad top me.....

Originally posted by Bardock42
How is that a joke?....sounds rather sad top me.....

No, No...

MY sucky joke remains...

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
No, No...

MY sucky joke remains...

And I tell you IT DOES NOT.....cause it's not a joke

Originally posted by Bardock42
And I tell you IT DOES NOT.....cause it's not a joke


Okay...

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Okay...
No not okay...I am wrong....you come right back here and argue with me, mister.....

Originally posted by Bardock42
No not okay...I am wrong....you come right back here and argue with me, mister.....

I can't argue with you...

Whirly got banned....I am a curse.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I can't argue with you...

Whirly got banned....I am a curse.

So you don't argue with me cause you like me....I feel so honoured cry


Anyplace....yes Whirly was banned...you know why exactly? Oh and don't be to harsh to yourself...it's a gift I'd say....

Originally posted by Bardock42
So you don't argue with me cause you like me....I feel so honoured cry


Anyplace....yes Whirly was banned...you know why exactly? Oh and don't be to harsh to yourself...it's a gift I'd say....

No, I can't argue with you, becuase I'm too confused about the whole subject, and it's point, by now.


And I'm in no way upset over him being banned. No, I'll just have to defend homosexuality in the occasional one or two threads...instead of the seven or eight new ones that were here every time I logged on.

No, I have no idea why he was banned.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
No, I can't argue with you, becuase I'm too confused about the whole subject, and it's point, by now.


And I'm in no way upset over him being banned. No, I'll just have to defend homosexuality in the occasional one or two threads...instead of the seven or eight new ones that were here every time I logged on.

No, I have no idea why he was banned.

Ok...it was aboot some filtjhy communist who died yesterday and a few years back.......

Yeah....well....are you implying he's a homophobe?

Good then....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Good then....

no argument here.

Let the man rest in peace. That is what all the dead people want... eternal peace.

rip

Originally posted by WindDancer
Let the man rest in peace. That is what all the dead people want... eternal peace.

Oh really? And have the dead people told you this recently? Dead people want nothing becuase they are..DEAD. You people trying to get al l philisophical and just end up looking like idiots, no offense lol

Originally posted by KidRock
Oh really? And have the dead people told you this recently? Dead people want nothing becuase they are..DEAD. You people trying to get al l philisophical and just end up looking like idiots, no offense lol

Are the dead...any less dead.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Are the dead...any less dead.

I dont think they give a shit..considering the fact they are dead.

I don't know if I'm missing your point...or if you're missing mine.


My point: Wind is right....let them die.