I know why we are fighting "communism" - and it is not what you think.

[[email protected]]

look, i am going to repeat for like 5th time now that the point of this article is not to tell you about how great communism is - the point of this article is about why US is going around and spreading democracy.

I am sorry, but you just proved what I said earlier about how american people don't read, because you did not actually read what I was saying - you just skimmed through and look at one sentence (2 max) and make an assumption as if you have read the whole post. sorry buddy, its true.

my point is that we as a country right now are a very aggressive country that exploits people and countries around the world, and the moment that they stand up to us, we employ military, or CIA, or media propaganda to overthrow governments that don't want to play by the rules we give them even if what we are trying to do is unethical.

war in iraq is a perfect example. current N-issue with Iran is another example. previous installment of Shah in Iran is another example. Installment of Yeltsin in Russia is another example. collapse of the Soviet Union is another example. Destabilization attempts in Venezuela to overthrow Chavez is another example. Vietnam is another example. N Korea is another example. Guatemala is another example. Support of Kosovo's independence even if it is a violation of international law is another example. Breakdown of the Yugoslavia is another example. Break down of the Soviet republics into separate states is another example. Installment of Karzai in afghanistan is another example.

Should I continue pointing out how unethical we are??

and please, do everyone a favor, if you are going to participate in a discussion, make sure that you actually read and comprehend what is being discussed before you make any comments as what you are doing is wasting my time by making me explaining things 5 times to you. it is truly disrespectful from your side when you just spit out things based on assumptions without actually reading the whole post.

in other words be a good troll - the one that actually contributes to a discussion - not the one that creates confusion.

I read what you said, you are just wrong. Communism is a tool of the elite that is sold as a movement of the people. Lenin's book is propaganda.

'From the days of Sparticus, Wieskhopf, Karl Marx, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemberg, and Emma Goldman, this world conspiracy has been steadily growing. This conspiracy played a definite recognizable role in the tragedy of the French revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century. And now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their head and have become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.' - Winston Churchill 1922

'The state does not function as we desired. A man is at the wheel and seems to lead it, but the car does not drive in the desired direction. It moves as another force wishes.' – Vladimir Lenin

'Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.' - David Rockefeller

'If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.' - Gary Allen

'Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws.' - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

 

[Mini-Me]

I proved to you what I was arguing in my earlier post when I have provided you with an interview of Z. Brzezinski and 2 other articles. You are the conspiracy theorist when you believe that communism was an inside job and that it was controlled by the rich. The rich did everything they could to brake it so that they could exploit the people and the resources of the country, and the poor originally created communism to protect themselves from the foreign capitalist exploitation.

You still don't understand what is the difference between communism and despotism:

in communism there are no rich - absolutely, 0, non. everything belongs to the country and to the people. people chose a person to rule the country.

in despotism, the ruler party (be it one person or a group) own everything and everyone else owns nothing.

communism is, and has always been since 1913 a threat to the globalists that have been looking for ways to bring it down so that they could exploit cheap resources and people.

how else do you want me to explain it to you???

Cageybee, you are correct about why we "spread democracy," but you are incorrect about the true origins and intentions of Communism. This is the part of your argument that people are focusing on criticizing, primarily because you have not yet conceded on it. You say that in Communism, "there are no rich," but this is completely incorrect. The ruler the "people choose" (yeah, right) will always and inevitably have a supporting oligarchy - "the Party." In other words, in Communism, there is a superclass of rulers. Regardless of their initial intentions, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely...the ruling class ends up abusing its power for its own gain and exploiting the people more than capitalism ever could. Under Communism, "the people collectively own everything" in name only...because of the coercive power of the state, all resources are in reality at the disposal of the ruling class. This is the inherent danger of centralized power, and it is unavoidable. There is no significant difference between Communism and despotism, except that despotism is a broader word and Communism is a more specific type.

Now, Communism was sold to people based on the premise that it protects against the exploitation of the poor by the ruling class, but obviously, it does not. At the very best, it merely shifts the power from one group of despots to another. As you have correctly surmised, exploitation under "free market" capitalism is not a function of the free market, but rather, it's a function of credit-based inflationary money and government intervention (such as collusion between government and business).

So, the real question about Communism is...were the revolutionaries being honest with their people about trying to protect them from exploitation (and did they simply become despots further down the line)? If so, then perhaps you're correct in saying that they recognized the role of credit-based money in the dominance of the "capitalist class," and that's what they were trying to protect against. I suppose it is possible that the revolutionaries were quite sincere in their desire to protect people and simply took the wrong approach. However, as a more cynical person, I tend to believe that the Leninists knew what they wrought...I have a feeling they knew they would become powerful despots, and that's exactly what they wanted. If this is correct, then the only remaining question is: Were these despots in league with the Fed and the banking elite? Or were they "competitors?" It can go either way...

All of that said, I do agree with your conclusion that "spreading democracy" is a thinly-veiled attempt to exploit and loot other countries. In fact, I imagine most people in this thread probably agree...which is why the meat of the debate has centered around your claims about Communism.

 

[[email protected]]

Regardomg democracy....

“Democracy is the road to socialism” – Karl Marx


“The first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.” - Karl Marx

'Democracy is indispensable to socialism.' - Vladimir Lenin

'The goal of socialism is communism.' - Vladimir Lenin

 

[[email protected]]

cageybee, you talk about people under communism selecting their own rulers. Every candidate in the elections is owned by the elite, and the elections are a sham.

“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” – Joseph Stalin

The Soviet Union did not collapse. It just loosened so as to appear collapsed and they eased up on restrictions. The same people are in control. Just because they quit calling themselves communists is irrelevant. The rights of the people are still at the mercy of the state.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

Compassionate Communists saving USSR from Capitalists.

LOL.

Never underestimate the compassion of the man on the left:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

 

[cageybee]

Cageybee, you are correct about why we "spread democracy," but you are incorrect about the true origins and intentions of Communism. This is the part of your argument that people are focusing on criticizing, primarily because you have not yet conceded on it. You say that in Communism, "there are no rich," but this is completely incorrect. The ruler the "people choose" (yeah, right) will always and inevitably have a supporting oligarchy - "the Party." In other words, in Communism, there is a superclass of rulers. Regardless of their initial intentions, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely...the ruling class ends up abusing its power for its own gain and exploiting the people more than capitalism ever could. Under Communism, "the people collectively own everything" in name only...because of the coercive power of the state, all resources are in reality at the disposal of the ruling class. This is the inherent danger of centralized power, and it is unavoidable. There is no significant difference between Communism and despotism, except that despotism is a broader word and Communism is a more specific type.

Now, Communism was sold to people based on the premise that it protects against the exploitation of the poor by the ruling class, but obviously, it does not. At the very best, it merely shifts the power from one group of despots to another. As you have correctly surmised, exploitation under "free market" capitalism is not a function of the free market, but rather, it's a function of credit-based inflationary money and government intervention (such as collusion between government and business).

So, the real question about Communism is...were the revolutionaries being honest with their people about trying to protect them from exploitation (and did they simply become despots further down the line)? If so, then perhaps you're correct in saying that they recognized the role of credit-based money in the dominance of the "capitalist class," and that's what they were trying to protect against. I suppose it is possible that the revolutionaries were quite sincere in their desire to protect people and simply took the wrong approach. However, as a more cynical person, I tend to believe that the Leninists knew what they wrought...I have a feeling they knew they would become powerful despots, and that's exactly what they wanted. If this is correct, then the only remaining question is: Were these despots in league with the Fed and the banking elite? Or were they "competitors?" It can go either way...

All of that said, I do agree with your conclusion that "spreading democracy" is a thinly-veiled attempt to exploit and loot other countries. In fact, I imagine most people in this thread probably agree...which is why the meat of the debate has centered around your claims about Communism.

Russians proved to everyone that Communism works the way it was supposed to work - with no one, absolutely no one rich. If it wasn't for the USA across the world who started waging economic wars from across the ocean Russia would have been fine. On top of that, USA has constantly been trying to bring democracy to Russia and so that globalists could exploit and take over their land. Look at a map, and look at the size of the USA, and look at the size of Russia - how do you think they would have felt, if some foreigners would buy up the whole country so that their profits would benefit foreigners' country? Do you think they look at USA as that big?

But anyway, I'll get back to the subject about how Russians proved that Communism could work - they have created Chekists/KGB. This is a state within a state in Russia. All of them are military officers so they all are salaried workers, and they looked after the interests of Russia. The Communist Party and the Chekists/KGB were 2 states within the Russian government. The Communists ruled the country with the head of the state being the General Secretary. The Party did not have as many people as KGB did. The amount of KGB workers that worked for Communists was always a state secret. But there are rumors, and many people concur that there are probably 1 agent per 400 some people in the country. There were lots of agents and they controlled and made sure that Communists did not abused their powers. And Communists where all really scared of the KGB, because if they would catch anyone stealing or abusing their powers - they would bring them to justice. The KGB were all military people.
I used to live in the Soviet Union. I was born there and then moved to the US. I saw all the changes and I know how it was. Have you ever seen how the Russian leaders used to dress? If you look at pictures of the Russian leaders in the past, their clothes looked cheap. Look at Khrushev's pictures.

But, I did not this discussion to convert this country into a different regime. I am have started this discussion to support Ron Paul's non-intervention policy. When Ron Paul talks about non-intervention - he talking about being ethical and respect all the countries in the world. If they over there want to go nuts, bomb, fight, kill each other - let them do whatever they do over there, because we love peace and we don't want to tell anyone how they should live and be very respectful to everyone. We must work on trade, we must make investments into other economies, we must make partnerships stronger with countries like Russia and China. But what does our president do??? He shows disrespect to Russia and China. He recently completely pissed off the Russians and the Chinese. I bet Putin and Jintao were like what??? Is Bush fucking crazy or something?

Kosovo declared independence on its own, broke the International law and is basically trying to steal land from the Serbs. This act is like a robbery during a day in front of everyone. This act by itself promotes separatism. Russia had a huge problem with the Chechen Separatists. Some Chechen fighters were members of al Qaeda. And there are some articles on the web that talk about Shamil Basayev, before he got killed, was identified as a CIA agent. I don't know if it is true, but I've read some articles that talked about that.

You see, while they are trying to stop their Chechen and Other Separatists problems, Bush comes out and talks about how he supports Kosovo's independence. When Russia gets upset - US says sorry, it is how it is whether you like it or not.

So is Bush trying to wage a war with the Russians and the Chinese since Chinese are Russian allies?

What exactly is he trying to do??

 

[ButchHowdy]

In 1953, Under the GUISE of fighting communism was Mossadech overthrown and the Shah installed.

Since 1918, Winston JACOBSON Churchill knew how important having a controlling interest in oil was.

Mossadech wanted to retain 50% of the oil profits for Iran. BP demanded 90%, the rest is history.

Cageybee, the internet is a powerful tool and many 'Official Reports' of history have now been debunked. That is; history written, published, and distributed by the Zionists.

Same thing happened to the Christian religious system in 1910 when the Assemblies Of God put their cover over the corrupt study bible written by Cyrus Scofield through the Zionist Oxford University Press. From there it went on to the Dallas Theological Seminary and has been the staple of the many famous Christozionist preachers of today.

 

[cageybee]

In 1953, Under the GUISE of fighting communism was Mossadech overthrown and the Shah installed.

Since 1918, Winston JACOBSON Churchill knew how important having a controlling interest in oil was.

Mossadech wanted to retain 50% of the oil profits for Iran. BP demanded 90%, the rest is history.

Cageybee, the internet is a powerful tool and many 'Official Reports' of history have now been debunked. That is; history written, published, and distributed by the Zionists.

Same thing happened to the Christian religious system in 1910 when the Assemblies Of God put their cover over the corrupt study bible written by Cyrus Scofield through the Zionist Oxford University Press. From there it went on to the Dallas Theological Seminary and has been the staple of the many famous Christozionist preachers of today.

I totally agree with you. Zionists control everything but Russia, China, and some of OPEC. They are fucking evel and they want to take over the world and they want to rule us with their despot. And I bet that "The Protocols of Zions" is not a fake. Russians pushed them out of Russia and never let them take over the State.

Bow Bush is arguing that "Iraq Style" democracy would be perfect for Russia and Putin is telling him to go fuck himself: "We don't need you democracy"

It is basically a fight between Zionists and their puppets verses Russia-Iran-China-Venezuela.

 

[AgentSmith]

So, the real question about Communism is...were the revolutionaries being honest with their people about trying to protect them from exploitation (and did they simply become despots further down the line)? If so, then perhaps you're correct in saying that they recognized the role of credit-based money in the dominance of the "capitalist class," and that's what they were trying to protect against. I suppose it is possible that the revolutionaries were quite sincere in their desire to protect people and simply took the wrong approach. However, as a more cynical person, I tend to believe that the Leninists knew what they wrought...I have a feeling they knew they would become powerful despots, and that's exactly what they wanted. If this is correct, then the only remaining question is: Were these despots in league with the Fed and the banking elite? Or were they "competitors?" It can go either way...

All of that said, I do agree with your conclusion that "spreading democracy" is a thinly-veiled attempt to exploit and loot other countries. In fact, I imagine most people in this thread probably agree...which is why the meat of the debate has centered around your claims about Communism.

Yeah except they were not real revolutionaries. The "October Revolution" was actually a brutally executed Soviet coup of the peoples government led by the gangster Vladimir Lenin. The peoples revolution was the February Revolution. The idea that the October coup was a revolution was Soviet state propaganda.

The whole thing was a scam, they got the people to revolt and overthrow the czar and then came in and slit their throats.

 

[[email protected]]

I totally agree with you. Zionists control everything but Russia, China, and some of OPEC. They are fucking evel and they want to take over the world and they want to rule us with their despot. And I bet that "The Protocols of Zions" is not a fake. Russians pushed them out of Russia and never let them take over the State.

Bow Bush is arguing that "Iraq Style" democracy would be perfect for Russia and Putin is telling him to go fuck himself: "We don't need you democracy"

It is basically a fight between Zionists and their puppets verses Russia-Iran-China-Venezuela.

You are totally wrong. The owners of the Russian and Chinese central banks are the same syndicate that owns the Fed. and the Bank of International Settlements, World Bank, IMF, etc..

Bickering between Bush & Putin is irrelevant, they aren't in charge.

Come on, snap out of it and connect the dots. If the "capitalists" of the west who own the Fed. did not want worldwide communism they would run like hell from the UN and its treaties instead of promoting and supporting it.

"The American Communists worked energetically and tirelessly to lay the foundations for the United Nations, which we were sure would come into existence." - Earl Brower - former President of Communist Party USA

"The age of nations must end. The governments of nations have decided to order their separate sovereignties into one government to which they will surrender their arms." - U.N. World Constitution

"It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance." - George Bush Sr

 

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

All systems, no matter how good they sound when conceived, have eventually been " corrupted " by the mode of conflict - aggression. It has simply been the order of the day, governing all aspects of existence up until now. That is why, although I truly believe most people want to love their neighbors and enemies alike, people are engaged in conflict in pretty much all aspects of their daily lives. It is not a matter of good and evil, it is how things develop and mature. However, conflict is only 1 / 2 of the equation, and the time that approaches will usher in an age unseen yet in human history, of cooperation and bettering of others.

 

[AggieforPaul]

I was following you until the last couple paragraphs. Killing someone is never for their own good. The federal reserve is better than murder. Don't confuse Stalin's evil tactics with Lenin and Marx's theories. Marx actually envisioned a stateless utopia, certainly not an authoritarian regime.

 

[[email protected]]

I was following you until the last couple paragraphs. Killing someone is never for their own good. The federal reserve is better than murder. Don't confuse Stalin's evil tactics with Lenin and Marx's theories. Marx actually envisioned a stateless utopia, certainly not an authoritarian regime.

Marx's intentions may have been pure, but his philosophy was hijacked by those who knew the power of controlling money. It trumps political power because it allows you to select and determine the political leaders. The political system itself is irrelevant. Despotism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, Corporatism, it's all semantics and labels. Those who control money are the ones who are in control. Lenin may even have had good intentions but not understood how he was being used.

 

[cageybee]

Yeah except they were not real revolutionaries. The "October Revolution" was actually a brutally executed Soviet coup of the peoples government led by the gangster Vladimir Lenin. The peoples revolution was the February Revolution. The idea that the October coup was a revolution was Soviet state propaganda.

The whole thing was a scam, they got the people to revolt and overthrow the czar and then came in and slit their throats.

Is that what the Ring of Power tells you? Come on, conspiracy theorists, this film is based on so many theories and questions.

If Russia was or now is under control of the rich elite, Putin wouldn't have nationalized the Russian oil after it was sold to foreigners. And since Russia and China are allies, you can't tell that China is under control of the globalists. Rockefeller talked about China because they really are achieving big goals, so are the Russians. And the fact that Lenin was a "gangster" is totally ridiculous and I personally consider it as a "CIA propaganda."

Rockefellers are Zionists, and so are the Rothschilds. They love to see how other countries kept under "control" These Zionists want to implement a Despotism all over the world under their rule. Our foreign policy protects Israeli interests for some weird reason. Israel is not USA. Why do we care about a country and protecting it if it is not our country???

Zionists wish to fulfill a bible prophecy about Ruling the world from Jerusalem.

Right now I think these Zionists should be held personally accountable for ruining relations with Russia. USA can not afford having a country like that as an enemy and it is really bad for our country. So, these Zionists have compromised our national security, they have created hatred towards our country and ruined relations with 2 superpowers.

 

[[email protected]]

Is that what the Ring of Power tells you? Come on, conspiracy theorists, this film is based on so many theories and questions.

If Russia was or now is under control of the rich elite, Putin wouldn't have nationalized the Russian oil after it was sold to foreigners. And since Russia and China are allies, you can't tell that China is under control of the globalists. Rockefeller talked about China because they really are achieving big goals, so are the Russians. And the fact that Lenin was a "gangster" is totally ridiculous and I personally consider it as a "CIA propaganda."

Rockefellers are Zionists, and so are the Rothschilds. They love to see how other countries kept under "control" These Zionists want to implement a Despotism all over the world under their rule. Our foreign policy protects Israeli interests for some weird reason. Israel is not USA. Why do we care about a country and protecting it if it is not our country???

Zionists wish to fulfill a bible prophecy about Ruling the world from Jerusalem.

Right now I think these Zionists should be held personally accountable for ruining relations with Russia. USA can not afford having a country like that as an enemy and it is really bad for our country. So, these Zionists have compromised our national security, they have created hatred towards our country and ruined relations with 2 superpowers.

That's what the UN is all about. And those who own the Bank of International Settlements are pulling the strings on a global basis. Any country that is a member of the UN is in their web. That includes Russia and China just as much as the United States.

 

[Kade]

Communism is bad, really. It is bad for the people that have to live in the country where the communism is in power. But, why do these countries chose communism?

In Russia, Lenin advocated Communism to protect the country from the exploitation from the capitalists that use credit-based monetary systems. This monetary system, allows great industrial countries with good growth to start exploiting other countries before it actually earns any money. For example, if I constantly do business with the banks, and if I raise my credit to the point where I can borrow millions, I can go to poor countries and buy their productive companies, energy, and other things, thus, eventually I would basically enslave those companies and those countries' resources to me and to my country.

Our system is hungry for exploitation of other countries. That's why we have always been against the communism, because communist countries don't allow foreign investment and exploitation. That's why Bush is running around the world and spreading democracy, so that we can exploit as many countries as possible.

In his book "Imperialism - the highest stage of capitalism", Lenin talks about how capitalists exploit poor nations.

So, ever since we have adopted a credit-based monetary system in 1913, the revolution came to Russia few years later to protect it from exploitation from our country.

When the Soviet Union economy was collapsing from Reagan's economic pressures/attacks, Reagan came to Andropov and asked him to sign a partnership with the USA, but Andropov declined the offer, because it would allow US to completely exploit Russia.

That's why we were taught to believe that communists and despots are bad guys and that we must fight them around the world (because they don't allow us to exploit their.)

Why do we have to fight them anyway? Can't we just live our lives peacefully over here? No, because we are greedy and it would be awesome to get things from elsewhere for much cheaper. But how can we get it cheaper if the communism is all around us? We fight it and overthrow their governments.

But while we go around and promote democracy, we pass legislations over here that prevent foreigners from investing over here in case our economy falls and they try to buy up all our companies to enslave us.

I believe, that 1913, the year when we have adopted that damn credit-based monetary system is a year that changed the whole world.

Millions of people have been killed in the Soviet Union by the communists. Why did they kill them?? Was it because communists were ruthless killers???? No!!! They had to do it to prevent any movements of democracy in order to protect the people from the worse - The Federal Reserve Bank! People were uneducated. How could anyone explain to them that the Revolution and communism were really to protect the people from the exploitation of globalists.

While we just wake up to the fact that globalists are running the world, the foreign governments always knew that there is evil behind our government. They just had to take appropriate measures to prevent the evil from coming over there as their countries were not advanced as we were.

My friend, I am very sympathetic to these arguments, and you are very clear, but this fascist hellhole is the last place where people are willing to listen or debate you... run.

I am by nature, against all totalitarian governments, Socialist and Fascist. I lean towards a technocracy myself. Which, in essence, requires the republic.

 

[cageybee]

My friend, I am very sympathetic to these arguments, and you are very clear, but this fascist hellhole is the last place where people are willing to listen or debate you... run.

I am by nature, against all totalitarian governments, Socialist and Fascist. I lean towards a technocracy myself. Which, in essence, requires the republic.

I absolutely love the idea of a Republic and a small government. A true Republic is the best way of life. If one person in the country does not want his tax money to be supporting Israel, then our country can not support Israel. If , and only if the income tax is legal under the Republic, and if you tax my income, then you better respect how I want my money to be distributed. If I don't want our country to be at war, then we can't be at war.

But the USA is no longer a republic. It is a Fascist empire with a despotic regime.

 

[Meatwasp]

Cageybee ==== KGB

 

[jyakulis]

how am i a liar or how am i stupid? whats wrong with knowing and learning what things really are??

Dude we live in socialism right now. It's just gradual and they take our liberties away bit by bit. Our god given unalienable rights are being taken away until eventually the state will grant your rights. It's treating the state as god.
This gradual move is called fabianism.

"Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism would be the socioeconomic system that arises after the proletarian revolution, in which the means of production are owned collectively. This society would then progress into communism."

It's doomed to fail and always will be doomed to fail. Man is imperfect. So, there is no possible way for any imperfect individual to form a perfect society. PERIOD! END OF DISCUSSION. Jefferson made this point and it is still valid today.

If you still don't agree with me. Listen to the hour of the time by Bill Cooper the whole way through and really take time to digest what the man is saying. And if you still don't agree....well I don't know just check it out.

http://www.archive.org/details/Will...sCompleteReedit119wwwgeocitiescomariainvictus

 

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

Goddamn, people in here have trouble reading. I don't agree with Cageybee all the way, but it's clear he was never advocating communism. The biggest problem I have with the Alex Jones originated theory of communism being a tightly controlled plot from day one by globalists is that it draws too much from the hard right of old days and even Nazi propaganda. Replace globalist with Jew and you have much the same theory, and in fact almost the same theory, in its original form.

That isn't to say a lot of shady stuff wasn't going on with Western financiers and Russia (and the rest of the communist world) throughout the twentieth century. I think the links between funding of Bolsheviks and American elites has been overblown and distorted. What they were more likely financing was the FIRST Russian Revolution in February of 1917. This was not Bolshevik. It resulted in the "moderate socialist" government of Alexander Kerensky who held a platform of wanting state-run capitalism and a central banking system. He also wanted to firmly keep Russia in World War I--exactly the reason why the Allied Powers and bankers intervened on his side in the Russian civil war with money and arms. The second revolution in November, 1917, was the one that actually resulted in the Bolsheviks creeping to power. And even then, it only happened after a Civil War that raged well into the 1920s against Kerensky and remnants of the old Imperial order.

Why would Western bankers want to finance insane radicals, whose one good selling point (at least, for the war-exhausted Russian people) was taking Russia out of the war? As we all know, the Rockefellers, the Morgans, and all sorts of industrial and banking magnates profited handsomely from the war. It doesn't make sense that they would back an anti-war force, however appealing in traits of incipient tyranny.

Later, I do believe the bankers succeeded in slowly infiltrating Soviet ties over many decades, culminating in the mass robbery of the Soviet/Russian treasury by their oligarch friends under Yeltsin's regime. Yet, one of the prime drives of the Cold War, from my perspective, was the fact that the communist world's resources lay outside Western finance and the world bank system, at least until the '70s at earliest. Despite its monstrous abuses, the Soviet bloc and China (again, until the '70s) did remove a massive portion of the world's labor and resources from the grasp of the monsters we all know and hate. Of course, the reason for this was to keep said resources in the hands of their local despotic exploiters and tyrants, but it was a broken link in the global chain, nonetheless.

Finally, let's not forget that though they were both communist, China and the USSR were bitter enemies in the 1970s and 1980s. Border skirmishes along the Asian border nearly led to a full fledged war between the two on several occasions. Many of the neo-con scum today like Kissinger were salivating over this prospect, and the opportunity to play China and the USSR off against each other was a major reason for the economic and political opening we had with China starting under Nixon. China's leadership was desperate from the epic failures of their communist experiments like the Cultural Revolution, and was easily bought off by the banks and globalists. Besides, as noted before, they really had it in for the USSR, and thought they could get a firm leg up by making a tentative alliance with the US.

One last thought: Communism, in its less Soviet and Chinese led phases, seems capable of being a front for local tyrants who take a nationalist approach to their managing their countries. I don't think anyone believes Cuba or even some of the nominally communist smaller countries in Latin America still go around fervently believing in Marx and creating an idealistic utopia. Instead, communism is used as a political front to prop up leaders who are relatively nationalist. That isn't necessarily saying they commit to nationalistic policies for patriotic reasons. For instance, Castro stood down the US for five decades much more to retain his own power than to protect his people from outside exploitation. Nevertheless, such protectionism of the Cuban economy and political system from the bastards who were run out to Miami (and are now best friends forever with the neo-cons) and US interventionism can be viewed as nationalist. It's also worth noting Castro didn't immediately classify himself as a Marxist after his regime came into power. He was always sympathetic, but only adopted the label and symbols outright as a means of allying himself with the USSR for protection from a US government hellbent on overthrowing him and returning the old regime.

Apologies if this is narrative is somewhat disjointed, but it constitutes my own thoughts on communism, and some commentary for other views in this thread.