Clive_of the_Kremlin - Communist - Get Out of Our Club!

I was shocked to discover our resident match preview writer is a communist supporter. On his avatar he shows unwavering support for the murdering dictator Castro. https://calvinchimes.org/2016/12/02/yes-fidel-castro-was-an-evil-man/

If you're not familiar with the ills of communism here is a quick summary:

• Stalin oversaw the killing of 20 million of his own country folk that were otherwise deemed ethnic minorities and political prisoners. Even Nazi Hitler only managed 6 million Jews.

• You think HMP Wormwood Scrubs is bad? Try spending a night in a gulag. Better yet, try spending the rest of (your now very short life) as a kid in a gulag because of something some distant relative did.

• Gulags no longer exist you say. Well yes in North Korea they are home from home to a sizeable proportion of the country living on a diet of dead rats and grass (much like the unincarcerated citizens in fact).

• While we are on about North Korea it's no secret their leaders routinely have very young virgin girls brought to their rooms with the blessing of their parents, just for the honour of it, you know.

• Remember Ceausescu? Honecker? Jaruzelski? Brezhnev? All have one thing in common...they killed more of their own citizens keeping them in than enemies at war.

Well I could go on and on but you get the idea. Clive has a long history of genocide, anti semitism and crimes against humanity. For one of our members to come on this site and openly declare his extreme left wing persuasion which is entirely incompatible with zed zed, and by proxy the values of this forum and the Watford Rotary Club.

Clive should be banned from this site (but he can still do the match previews, provided no mention of keeping red flags flying in). I do not want to see a communist represent my club in any way. I have emailed my electricity and water supplier and urge you my right wing fellow supporters to do the same.

 

Splutter......Why, I oughta........!

 

I think it's only fair we give him a chance to explain himself and denounce his ways before we go writing emails to demand his removal from the forum.

 

You missed out Venezuela, Phil. A while ago I specifically asked Clive if he still supported the Maduro regime. He said he did. That's the outfit which has destroyed the country's oil-rich economy, presided over a 12,000% inflation rate (they did give the workers a bit of a rise in the minimum wage, but gave the army a rise of ten times as much), with 10% of the population emigrating already (they can't all be American stooges) - and yet Maduro and his chums seem to have plenty of money to spend.

Clive should probably be sent to the countryside to learn from the peasants (quick, before we send them back to where they came from) and after a decent bout of public self-criticism, should be allowed to post on subjects other than football and the loathsomeness of its clubs, fans and locations.

 

And I still do support Venezuela and Venezuelans Phil.

I thought it was Chavez who 'destroyed' the oil industry? Has Maduro destroyed it all over again? This was the oil industry which was used to try to bring down Chavez and which was deliberately sabotaged to create economic problems.

Are you seriously suggesting that Maduro and his chums, however many chums there were, are capable of spending sufficient money on luxury goods for themselves that it has caused an inflation rate of 12,000%? You'd think such incredible spending would produce some evidence wouldn't you? A money trail.

Do you think economic sanctions imposed by the enormous superpower just to the north could have anything to with it at all? Or is that all by the by and really it's all down to Maduro buying himself Ferraris and suchlike? They used to accuse Fidel of being rolling in money and enriching himself and that was the cause of Cuba's economic difficulties. The rich people's comic - Forbes' Magazine - even absurdly listed Fidel amongst the world's richest people on account of the millions they supposed he must have stashed away based on their careful analysis of some 'assumptions' they had made. Fidel had a fortune of $900 million they said. Fidel was richer than Queen Elizabeth II they said. Richer than the Prince of Monaco. Amazing! Shocking! And all made off the backs of the poor, suffering Cuban people.

That stupid and bizarre 'fortune' based on absolutely nothing was quoted for years and years afterwards as quality 'proof' that Fidel Castro was defrauding the Cuban people and interested only in his own riches. Absolute clear and positive proof. No discussion.

In response I remember Fidel offered to immediately resign if anyone could show that he had even one dollar saved in an international bank anywhere. "If they can prove that I have a bank account abroad, with $900m, with $1m, $500,000, $100,000 or $1 in it, I will resign. If they prove that I have a single dollar, I'll resign my post … there will be no need for plans or transitions. What would I need all that money for?"

Unsurprisingly, nobody ever took him up on that one. He died two years ago with no sign ever of this huge wealth he was supposed to have had and since he's been gone, there's no sign that his family left behind have been left an enormous fortune. At the same time, Eusebio Leal, the Havana City historian revealed that he was given the job of distributing more than 11,000 gifts the Head of State had received from 133 countries. These ranged, he said, from paintings, jewels, ivory, valuable tapestries, furniture and rugs to antique weapons and clothes. Leal reported distributing many of the gifts to museums and cultural centers across the island, while clothing went to old age homes run by the state and by the church. In all cases, according to Leal, Castro insisted he not be cited as the source of these donations. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/castro-i-am-not-rich/

Considering the evidence available, what would be your conclusion on whether Forbes were right about Fidel's riches, or whether Fidel was telling the truth?

As for 10% emigration - it's hardly surprising that when times are hard and money is low, people emigrate. It's what happened in Ireland during the potato famine. It's what happened in Cuba during the special period - also coincidentally as a result of US sanctions. You have to realise these sanctions and blockades are specifically designed to economically batter the country into submission and doing as the empire wants (in Venezuela's case hand back the oil fields, in Cuba's case hand back the mansions and sugar plantations).

It's really disingenuous for them to impose sanctions with the aim of damaging a country's economy and then sit back and say "Oh, look at that, their economy isn't doing very well is it?". Well no, it's not. Thanks to you!

 

Chavez started the rot but Maduro has made things a lot worse. It's easy to blame everything on the Americans, but no other country the Americans don't like has gone down the tubes so quickly and completely. No matter how useless and repressive you are, it's all the Yanks' fault, it seems.

 

Haven’t read these threads through but just a point of clarification:

The greatest mass murderer was Mao in ‘The Great Leap Forward’ in the 50’s and 60’s.
This communist leader starved an estimated 45 million of his own citizens by denuding the countryside of grain and seed corn etc.

The level playing field of a communist mantra and socialism at its best. Everyone equal.

Anyone who believes communism is the answer, Animal Farm is a very good read.

 

The stage show could be coming here soon:

 

I would doubt if Castro did have any $ hidden in Swiss bank accounts, it would all be in Swiss Francs.

But seriously, I don't think he was the type to squirrel away loads of money. He was top dog, the power of life or death over his subjects, with a willingness to imprison anybody that doesn't support his system, with a choice beautiful women at his beck and call. What more would he need?

Nevertheless, the continued notion that communist states rely on capitalism so much that they only fail because capitalist states don't play ball, never ceases to amuse me.

 

There are no communist states and probably never have been. There are states that are labelled as communist but they do not remotely meet the crteria of the Communist Manifesto. All you have is example of dictatorships where crazies took over the state and conned people. Communism would not work anyway as it loses to Darwinism.

 

This. The oil price needed to continue to unrealistically rise to justify their excessive spending. Even without sanctions, its fall would have been inevitable..

If you are to be certain of one thing in life, it should be the socialist cycle:
Socialist government gets in by criticising capitalism - "Surely anything is better than this - you're poor because of the rich - bring them down and we'll naturally rise up"
Huge public spending, using other peoples money and promising an unrealistic repayment of debt
Short term economic boost as people have more cash to spend
An event occurs (i.e. recession, commodity price fall) which exposes ridiculous (and ever-increasing) government debt
Investors lose confidence and stop lending/ charge much higher borrowing costs. The rich move their money and their jobs elsewhere.
Unemployment rises
Inflation rises
Hyperinflation (if country refuses to pay back its debt) rises
The state is left in a crippled state, having lost its brightest and the rich that pay for public services.
The people left have no jobs and no savings.
The state blames horrible capitalism for it's brutal evil ways.
(if they haven't learnt) Socialist government gets in by criticising capitalism - "Surely anything is better than this etc."

All hail the famous brand of South American populism that Corbyn idolises so.

 

Mike - You do know that Communism and Socialism are different things, right?

Proper socialism doesn't have a money system, so all your talk of investors, debt and spending doesn't really apply.

What you do is work out the amount of labour needed to convert materials into the goods and services we need to consume and divide that work out sensibly and proportionally amongst the population.

We could run through all the arguments against that simple idea, but we've already done it before many times.The punchline is that on your side, you believe humans to be fundamentally greedy and selfish and on my side, I don't accept that's the case.

 

Appreciate the humour but lets keep this to the one original thread?