BS: How many socialists are there here?

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: autolycus
Date: 01 May 08 - 02:42 PM

If they come for the Trade Unionists, then wake me up - that'll be something happening.

Interesting your example is not about the working-class doing something - one of my points.

What I'll do on being woken is take in the situation and work out, with your help, what's going on first.

Not going to wake up, and leap into action without doing that first; some might regard that as a bit silly, me, for one.

And I notice Teribus moves on from socialists to have a pop, courtesy of the Telegraph, at the 'Labour Governmnet'. not a word about the activities of the banks, or the largesse they've just received (£50 or 60 billion? I forget).

merely that the attack changes target, and blithely proceeds. Just no pleasing the not-Left, is there.

Ivor



    Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 01 May 08 - 05:27 AM

"Wake me if something happens."

Why what will you do?

When they came for the Trade Unionists I did not complain for I was not a Trade Unionist. When they came for the ............................

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 03:10 PM

Ideas certainly can't be killed, no matter how hard the telegraph tries.

Seeing the Brits putting the ideas into practice - ah, that's a whole other kettle of wax.

Wake me if something happens.


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 12:59 PM

Great quote Mick from a wonderful song writer and muscian.
thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 12:52 PM

And now we've a government in London,
The New Labour Party's won the day.
And they come back to find their roots,
In their sharp Italian suits,
and when the cameras have gone, so have they.

And they whisper that Socialism's dyin'
Ya cannae sell it at the supermarket till.
But while there's 50 left like me,
we'll make bloody well they see,
that ideas are the hardest thing to kill.

Brian McNeill, from his song titled The Prince of Darkness.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 12:42 PM

"The old marxist line was that the Labour Party, when it comes to it, essentially keeps the seats warm till the Tories return." - Ivor

Interesting article here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/30/do3002.xml

Some of the appended comments are quite good.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 12:20 PM

The old marxist line was that the Labour Party, when it comes to it, essentially keeps the seats warm till the Tories return.

We can sit and wait for the working-class to rise up, and I shall be long gone before that happens in the UK or US


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 05:13 AM

I'm a Labour supporter, but even I can't defend the tax rises for the poor. You'd have to made of stone, not to be disappointed by New Labour and some of its decisions.

The trouble with the New Tories as an alternative is that one fears that they have the same old agenda.

Tax breaks for the stinking rich.

widespread unemployment, with not a care in the world as to the social ills it will bring in its wake.

Insults and humiliation for those of us who live 'on the state' - pensioners, carers, disabled people, the unemployed, etc.

Worst of all Irish policy dictated by the Unionists, and MI5's dirty public school fingers in every foreign policy pie. the none cleaning out of that Augean stables has been the keenest disappointment about New Labour.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: skarpi
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 03:24 AM

no Socialist : but a whiskey list I prefer better :>)

I am to the right to the middle and never from behind , like the
Socialist.


what that mean I have no idea ,

all the best Skarpi

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 03:13 AM

I said nothing but nothing about all Tories being among the rich.

I'm fully aware of tories at all levels of society, all of them worried about having socialism.

I did ask once which was more absurd, a champagne socialist or a working-class tory, but that thread had no legs.

   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 09:15 PM

"Aaaaaaaaand, please note this is being done in the UK not by a Conservative but by a Labout Government.

As I say, nothing for Tories to worry about unless worry is your normal/usual state."


I agree Auto, that it's being done by a Labour govt. I would challenge any argument which refers to this govt as Socialist though. IMHO they are more capitalist than Maggie Thatcher.

I DO wonder where you got the idea that all Tories are to be found among the rich.
Here's one Tory who just had his tax doubled by Gordon Brown because he has a total income less than £15,000, and all his taxable income falls inside what used to be the ten pence band (now twenty pence).

I paid eighty pounds extra this month.

Oh! and by the way, the U-turn which everyone hailed is another smoke and mirrors dodge in the true New Labour mould. He hasn't instituted protection for us that have lost out. He has merely SAID that he will, and he HASN'T said when.

Meanwhile we continue to subsidise tax cuts for those who earn three times more than we do.

You will understand, I am sure, why I won't be voting New Labour anytime soon.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: autolycus
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 05:45 PM

in a capitalistic society the risk is specific to those who mjessed up...


Oh. I thought the money men were the ones who messed up, selling those duff mortgages, yet it;s the money men being bailed out.

Aaaaaaaaand, please note this is being done in the UK not by a Conservative but by a Labout Government.

As I say, nothing for Tories to worry about unless worry is your normal/usual state.


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 05:40 PM

Yeah, ya see... It all comes down to "risk"...

In a socialistic society the risk is spread evenly and in a capitalistic society the risk is specific to those who mjessed up...

So in the US we do indeed have a socialistic system for the rich... They are well protected from risk... The working class has no such protection...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: autolycus
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 05:29 PM

i I heard the other month we have socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the poor.

Confirmed last week of course by the bankers being provided with £60,000,000,000 of taxpayers money, while the 10pence tax band for the poorest got removed.

How starl does the example have to be before everyone's got it?


Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 07:18 PM

Sounds about right.

If you keep getting the impression that you're being peed on, just remember:   that's trickle-down economics.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: autolycus
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 05:59 PM

I heard the other month we have socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the poor.

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 05:02 PM

Actually, with the bail out of Chrysler back in '89 and the recent bail out of Bear Stearns we have had corporate socialism for a long time...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: autolycus
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 04:15 PM

Mao and Stalin did the sort of things that human beings are going to do in a Marxist state.

So did Solzhenitsin and Shostakovich

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Slag
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 05:26 AM

Yes, yes to all. Idealism says that because roses smell sweeter they make a better soup than cabbages.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: GUEST,Sapper in the Office (1st time in weeks)
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 05:15 AM

Alan, I'm having a lot of fun on another forum with a Militant supporter who is in total denial about the Communist nature of the USSR and China! He totally refuses to admit that there was anything remotely Socialist about Stalin for example and comes back with bloody great chunks of obscure and turgid Marxist self justification in response!

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 03:48 AM

The trouble is Al, its a bit like these people who say - Christianity is a great idea, someone should try it sometime.

And I've found a terrific diet, but I can't stick to it.

He wasn't a true Marxist/Socialialist/Christian/Muslim/etc.

I play real folk music, but no folk actually like it - but its the real traditional stuff all right

You have to factor in the human element into the equation. These great movements and belief systems are not important as abstract thoughts. However much we would like to think we are the guardians of the light when it comes to socialism, christianity or even the bloody pathetic folk tradtion - its the commerce with reality and people that gives it importance. Not a set of ideas.

Mao and Stalin did the sort of things that human beings are going to do in a Marxist state.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: alanabit
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 02:25 AM

Marxism actually requires an almost obsessive degree of democracy at every level and a high degree of decentralisation. (Yes I can spot the potential weakness!) I don't think anyone is accusing Mao or Stalin of that. Marx and Engels were actually gentle people in their private lives. Engels, in particular, went to great trouble to educate himself about other people's needs. He himself came from a wealthy weaving family in Wuppertal. Stalin and Mao were thugs, who used whatever political clothes, which suited their purpose, to get themselves into power.
It works both ways. One of the darlings of the right in post war Germany was the Bavarian bully Franz Josef Strauß. It emerged after his death that he had earned a considerable part of his fortune by negotiating arms deals with the DDR. Did that make him a good "Communist" or a good "Conservative"?

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: autolycus
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 01:38 AM

Bit like that conserv, I mean Conservative, definition of Socialism that Sapper offered upthread

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Slag
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 12:12 AM

Rig, I expect better from you. Simplistic, unsubstantiated, unsupportable. But then again, on par for this type forum! Really, it explains nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 10:21 PM

"Socialism is dependent on the good will of ALL. Unfortunately, not ALL are good."

                Which explains why, to date, capitalism has been more successful. More people are bad than good, and capitalism works well for bad people.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 06:43 PM

OOPS. Wrong thread.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 06:43 PM

It's hard to believe that a simple discussion of transmittable veneral diseases can turn into THIS!

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Slag
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 06:39 PM

Yup! Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, et al. Were not socialists. That's the point. Socialism is dependent on the good will of ALL. Unfortunately, not ALL are good. Remember the "more equal" pigs in Orwell's "Animal Farm".*

It all goes awry when Glorious Leader or First Citizen says "Now lets all close our eyes..." (read: "Now you all turn in your AK-47s..." or "...We'll collectivize ALL your money...", etc.).

As soon as you start looking to someone else to do what you can and should do for yourself...you're done.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: autolycus
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 12:43 PM

For those who rmemeber their Monty Python.

From the 'Nudge nudge' sketch, I quote

Sayyyyyyyyy. Noooooo. More!

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: autolycus
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 07:24 PM

Ah right. See, there's a bit of a glide there from
i elements of the socialist grouping trying to deny

to
i is whatever the Socialist says it is

as tho 'elements of the socialist' is a synonym for "the socialist".

Anyway, yes there are fantastic disagreements within Socialism - with you there. Nevertheless, they also have a vast amount in common, so it's not impossible to get a basic grip on what socialism is essentially about.

is your point that because

i Socialism is whatever the Socialist says it is

therefore we can't discuss anything or what?


Ivor (off to bed too late)

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: sapper82
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 01:18 PM

basically Ivor, with elements of the socialist grouping trying to deny that the USSR was ever communist or socialist, Socialism is whatever the Socialist says it is.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: autolycus
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 01:05 PM

and your point(s) is(are)?

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: pdq
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 12:35 PM

And 12 different mutually-exclusive plans that they will demand be immediately instituted.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: sapper82
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 11:52 AM

If you put 10 socialists in a room to discuss the nature of scoialism, you will still end up with 12 different and mutually exclusive definitions.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: DougR
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 12:15 AM

A big bunch.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 04:33 AM

Well to be honest, I think the insurance companies have to be 'in the loop'. And that is a tricky one. You see, if you don't, the insurance companies are always looking for some way to limit their liability in cases of serious illness, and kick it into the ball park/remit of the state system.

You have to give these buggers something to do with their vast profits other than build huge office blocks. Its not an easy one - they get off too lightly in this country (England) - but it needs facing, and can be faced.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 11:07 PM

Exactly so, WLD!

There is plenty of agitation for a national health care system here in the U. S., and hardly a day goes by when I don't hear something on the radio or television relating to it (of course, I tend to watch and listen to PBS and NPR, which some folks insist are "liberally biased" merely because they actually report the news!). In fact, there's a "Frontline" program on my local PBS affiliate tonight, called "Sick Around the World" ("The healthcare systems of other advanced democracies could provide the United States with ideas as to how to reform its healthcare system"), which I am planning to watch.

The major presidential candidates, particularly Hillary and Obama, are talking about the access to health care problem, and both are promising to do something about it if elected, but both of them are trying to keep the insurance companies in the loop. The insurance companies and their lobbyist (BIG money!) have been the biggest stumbling block on the way to national health care for years. The health insurance companies make absolutely obscene profits.

I believe it was on "Bill Moyers' Journal" a few months back, when Moyers interviewed a number of insurance company employees and learned that it's standard policy for health insurance companies to examine and analyse every claim that comes in to see if they can find a way to deny payment! This, when you may have been paying hefty premiums for years! I'm covered by health insurance (my wife's job with the library), and I've had to use it a few times, and subsequently, I've had to twist some noses to make sure they paid my doctors according to their own contract, not just toss the bill back to me, saying, "Sorry, we don't cover this. This is a 'patient responsibility' charge." It can be done if you come on strong and don't let them intimidate you. Mention your attorney if necessary and sometimes they fold up like a cheap lawn-chair.

But that sort of nonsense shouldn't be necessary.   Trying to cheat like that to pad the profits just isn't nice!

As you say, it's a basic right. And the idea that there are those who would deny people this right unless they can make a profit from it - and that some of the finest politicians that money can buy go along with it - really fries me!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 08:25 PM

I feel very sorry when I read of Americans in straitened circumstances struggling to pay for drugs and medical procedures.

I know you don't the big taxes that we pay, but I think that is irrelevant. The intention to take care of poor people simply isn't there in the political parties.

You need to form a pressure group. Bugger global warming.... if the green lobby can achieve visibility , you certainly can. you must organise and let your voices be heard if you want to change those smug bumfaces - both democrat and republican.

Freedom from this sort of anxiety is a basic right, just like the vote.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 07:57 PM

Essential services.

911 is the local telephone number for emergency services. Just dial and tell the dispatcher the nature of the emergency and give your address. Actually, with computerized Caller ID and reverse directory, they already have the address.

If a burglar is breaking into your house, or you see someone breaking into a neighbor's house, you call the police, and the police department immediately dispatches a car. Paid for by taxes.

If your house catches fire, you call the fire department. The fire department dispatches a fire truck to your house immediately. Paid for by taxes.

Seattle is said to be a good city to be in if you're planning to have a heart attack because a telephone call to 911 and a Medic One aid van with a couple of paramedics aboard will be dispatched immediately. Their response time averages about three minutes between the call and the Medic One van's arrival. And if deemed necessary, they will transport you, in the van, to the nearest hospital. The 911 emergency call system and the emergency services are all paid for by taxes.

There is a grid of streets all over Seattle, making it possible for me to drive anywhere in the city. There are bridges across Lake Washington, across the Ship Canal, and across the Duwamish River. I can get on an Interstate, state, or county highway and drive to anyplace in the country. Anyplace on the continent. These are not toll-roads. Even if I haven't a dime in my pocket, I can drive on these roads. Paid for by taxes.

On the subject of streets in the city, I use a wheelchair. On almost every corner, there is a wheelchair ramp cut into the curb. In fact, if a corner lacks a wheelchair ramp, I can (and have) called the city engineer and within a few weeks, one is cut into the corner. Paid for by taxes.

There is a large library in downtown Seattle. Brand new building. And there are branch libraries in neighborhoods all over the city. Paid for by taxes.

I received a very good education in public schools, first in California, then in Seattle. Paid for by taxes. I only had to dig into my own pocket when I attended a state university, but what made it affordable to me was that the university is subsidized by taxes.

There is quite a number of services that do not require that I immediately dig out my wallet to make use of them. They are paid for by taxes. And, true indeed, I pay taxes, so I do pay for these services. But those taxes are nominal, and are, in no way, a financial burden. The police and fire departments, Medic One, the libraries, and the schools are paid for out of property taxes and city and state sales taxes. The street and highway system is paid for mostly with gasoline taxes (which is, of course, a form of "use tax").

Health care is an essential service. Just ask anyone who's ever been seriously ill or has had a serious accident. But usually the first thing you are asked when you go to a provider of health care, be it a doctor's office or a hospital, is, "Are you insured? How are you going to pay for this?" I've been there. I know.

It's interesting to note that you could suffer a heart attack and be saved by Medic One, only to die later because of your inability to afford follow-up treatment.

I don't think I need to carry this argument any further. Everybody knows the dynamics. We have tax supported emergency services, such as police, fire, and Medic One. We have a tax supported street and highway system. We even have tax supported libraries and schools. But you could have a failing heart, or cancer eating your insides out, or a potentially lethal infection, and if you can't afford health insurance (as 47 million Americans can't), you can't get treatment without more than likely putting yourself and your family in deep in debt for the rest of your lives.

The United States is the only modern industrialized nation that does not have an national health care system. Most other countries have very good systems, free of charge to those who need to make use of them. In fact, the idea of having to pay for something as essential as quality health care is something that strikes many Europeans in particular as bizarre, if not verging on the barbaric.

But wouldn't that increase our taxes? Well, I really don't know about that! After all, we've pooped away something like $511 billion so far on an illegal and unnessary war, which is making us far less safe from terrorism than if we had just left it alone, while at the same time, destroying any remaining American prestige in the world, and which one presidential candidate says could go on for the rest of the century. And this on top of Bush's tax cuts for the country's most wealthy citizens, those most able to pay taxes and who needed tax cuts the least.

I guess it depends on what you think is important.

We could afford an excellent single payer national health care system. Well, at least we could have, BB (before Bush).

No? No single payer national health care service? Why do you say "no?"

Oh! I see! A single payer national health care service is "socialistic!"

Well, screw that! I'm not a socialist, but I think a little "socialism" here and there ain't necessarily a bad thing!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 07:50 PM

It seems to me like socialism was organized to work better in a society where large numbers of people went to work at the same place and at the same time, like mines, steel mills, and factories.
                     I wonder what kind of effects things like telecommuting and flex-time has on it?

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: autolycus
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 06:22 PM

Teribus, Slad, and others.

There is an an awful lot of the argument upthread you are simply ignoring.
Here's one of mine that's sort of slightly on your side, for example.

in my current experience, the UK is a conservative , small 'c', country,I mean, kingdom, where many of the wotking class have a CEO's baton in their knapsack, and otherwise have an infinite quantity of putting-up-wth-ness-with-their-chains to keep them going till they're gone.

And selling off council houses (social housing) to them not only set the seal of the future for capitalism, but demonstrated by its popularity where large swathes of the British working-class are at.

Really makes me wonder why the Conservatives and people further right get in such a sweat about twitches from the centre-left (making them out to be rabid communists and everything)



Especually that last para.

best wishes

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: pdq
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 05:05 PM

Yer easier to wind up than a $5 Timex, unca Donald.

Just for the record, it is very difficult for the average American, with an untrained eye, to tell one thug waving a copy of Karl Marx from another. Yes, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Mao Zedong and Stalin all look about the same from here. Only difference I se is that Castro still breathes, at least as of 4:57 PM EDT.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 04:56 PM

Also, I'm quite certain that your use of the term "Liberal Arts major" in the context of this thread is imply that those who disagree with you on scientific matters must be a) ignorant of science, and b) politically liberal.

Wrong on both counts. There are plenty of Liberal Arts majors (such as myself) who are quite knowledgeable in many realms of science. And I know a fair number of Liberal Arts majors who are politically very conservative.

And since it does make use of the argumentum ad hominen (a fallacious attempt to refute an argument by attacking the person presenting the argument rather than confronting the argument itself--hence, invalid), it is a transparent attempt to muddy the waters.

Actually, in a sense, in addition to be the fallacy of the argumentum ad hominem, it is a variation on the "straw man" fallacy.

Don Firth

P. S. Ain't "Liberal Arts" a bitch?

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 04:30 PM

Furthermore, I am not a "proponent" of any of these philosophies, much as a few folks here would like to pigeon-hole me as such. Just because I was a "Liberal Arts" major doesn't mean that my knowledge is limited to those subjects exclusively.

Using such epithets to dismiss someone with whom you disagree is just another variation on the argumentum ad hominem. That's one of those pesky things one learns in Liberal Arts classes, such as Philosophy 115 - Basic Principles of Logic.

There. I've just plugged a hole in your education. No need to thank me.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 04:13 PM

It's already been done by lots of knowledgeable folks with strings of letters after their names. You could read a few books or even just google a bit. A lot of information out there for those who are really interested in learning.

It's not my responsibility to spend my time and energy plugging holes in your education.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: pdq
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 04:04 PM

If there are subtle differences between Marxism, Socialism and Communism, the burden of explaining said nuance is on the proponents of these philosophies. Have fun, unca Donald.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 03:26 PM

They weren't even trying for socialism.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 03:13 PM

Ah, of course, they failed therefore they were not "real" socialists.

Why didn't anybody point that to them at the time - might have saved a lot of people a great deal of grief.

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 01:21 PM

Any attempt to conflate socialism with the political systems of Mussolini and Hitler—and for that matter, Stalin—is disingenuous. Even if those three did toss the work "socialism" around, there are huge differences between socialism and the systems those three presided over.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: How many socialists are there here?
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 06:00 AM

Amongst all those things I was supposed to note!

"note that the Mugabes, Nkrumahs, Kenyattas and so on used the tag 'socialism' as a way of getting support (economic and political) from the Soviet Union. Other dictators, like Banda and Bokassa, courted Britain and America. The result on the ground was often not a lot different."

Anybody ever got anything other than "political" support from the Soviet Union?? "Economic" support would of course have been really worth taking them up on considering how successful they were in their own right (The USSR I mean). Mind you they did litter the planet (one person in sixty of the worlds population could have one) with that seemingly indispensible little gadget in the developing world known as the AK-47. In all those "trouble" spots around the globe where you have people with absolutely sod all, hacking bits off each other and killing massive numbers of each other, there you see blasted across the TV screens of the World, the bounty of "Communist Aid" in the shape of the 12.7mm Heavy Machine Guns, the BMP Armoured Personnel Carriers, the T-54, T-56 and T-64 Tanks. You see their principle was, "Give a man a meal and he will return for another hand-out tomorrow. Give a man an AK-47 and he can go and rob and disposess some other poor bastard and thereby feed himself for life." (Example: Darfur).

Also odd how before the left insisted that post-WW2 that colonies were bad, there were no massed famines in Africa - Reasons for that of course was that there were fewer people, less transport, less mobility in general and that the colonial power had a duty of responsibility to care for the citizens that the IMF and the World Bank does not.

Also note that when those who previously turned to the USSR and the Communist Block for "Aid", when they started getting it from the big bad evil "West" things started to get better, not perfect I know but an improvement.