Call Of Duty Black Ops Communism Piece Of Sh!t!
Bowman says his last words communism piece of shit and dies 
sry for recording beginning just skip a little or not I know this is like 2010 but yea I just wanted to record this and show you guys.
By: Smartin24562
Read more from the original source:
Call Of Duty Black Ops Communism Piece Of Sh!t! - Video
Archie Brown discusses the contributions of historians to the understanding of Communism and why it failed.
Before an author tries to explain when and why Communism ended, it helps to know what Communism is what distinguishes Communist systems from other highly authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. Communism in its heyday in power had six essential defining characteristics. The first two are related to its political organisation: the monopoly of power of a Communist party and rigid discipline and strict hierarchy within that party what was euphemistically known as democratic centralism. Communisms two economic defining features were its centralised, command economy (with prices and output targets fixed administratively) and state ownership of the means of production. There were also two characteristics of great ideological significance the sense of belonging to an international Communist movement greater than the sum of its parts and the aspiration to build communism, the classless, stateless society of the future. Hazy and remote that last goal may have been, but it was the ideological justification for the partys leading and guiding role and one of the many features distinguishing Communist countries from states ruled by socialist parties of a social democratic type.
It is clear that Communism has ended in Europe. Yet that isnt the whole story. It may reasonably be objected that in the wider world Communism hasnt ended yet. However, the two most populous of the five remaining Communist states, China and Vietnam (the former with 16 times more people than the latter), have largely abandoned a Communist economic system, although they retain the political power structures. Change is underway in Laos, and Cuba will evolve more quickly now that the Obama administration is abandoning Americas longstanding and counterproductive policy of boycotting its small island neighbour. North Korea remains in a class of its own a monument of unreconstructed Communism which will come crashing down one of these days, possibly at, or soon after, the next dynastic succession. Hereditary rule has been the one startlingly unorthodox variation of Communist government to be developed by Kim Ilsung and Kim Jong-il. The cult of the leaders personality has also been taken a shade further in North Korea, but Stalin, Mao and Ceausescu were already strong contenders in that particular competition to set Marx spinning in his Highgate grave.
The development of Communist doctrine occurred primarily in the 19th century with the growth of an industrial working class and the conclusions Marx and Engels drew from this. Their theory was supplemented, especially on the political organisational side, by Lenin in the last years of that century and the first two decades of the next. The rise of Communist systems was the most momentous political development of the first half of the 20th century, their fall the most dramatic occurrence of its second half. The relative importance for that demise of ideas, individuals and economic decline is hotly debated.
The belief that the Bolsheviks had the right ideas but they were distorted and trampled on by Stalin has fewer adherents than in the past. In the uncompromising judgement of Richard Pipes: Communism was not a good idea that went wrong, it was a bad idea (Pipes, Communism: A Brief History, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2001). In general, however, Pipes gives short shrift to the significance of ideas for politicians in Communist systems (as distinct from zealots joining the party in non-Communist countries). He is right in supposing that few party officials spent much time poring over the works of Marx and Lenin. Yet, there were many aspects of the doctrine which were accepted unquestioningly by these same officials and which were essential ideological underpinnings of the regimes.
Communist rule involved a large measure of coercion, but especially in consolidated Communist systems it did not rely on coercion alone. An official language of politics prevailed which made certain concepts almost literally unthinkable. To alter radically the vocabulary of politics had serious implications for the exercise of political power. Thus, when Mikhail Gorbachev as early as 1987 used the term pluralism positively (albeit, initially a socialist pluralism later he was to embrace political pluralism), this gave a green light to radically reformist party intellectuals to publish critiques of the Soviet past and present which undermined the authority of the ruling nomenklatura. Gorbachev himself told party officials in 1988 that the Communists had gratuitously awarded themselves the right to rule over the entire population. In future, if they were to justify their leading role, it should be on the basis of contested elections. (The first competitive elections in Soviet history for a legislature with real power duly took place the following year.)
In a more profound study than that of Pipes, Andrzej Walicki (Marxism and the Leap to the Kingdom of Freedom: The Rise and Fall of the Communist Utopia, Stanford University Press, 1995) pays due attention to the significance of ideas in the dismantling of a Communist system in the Soviet Union (as, in impressive detail, does Robert D. English in Russia and the Idea of the West: Gorbachev, Intellectuals, and the End of the Cold War, Columbia University Press, 2000). The change in ideas had profound international consequences. It was in 1988 that Gorbachev declared that the people of every country had the right to choose for themselves what their political and economic system should be. As Walicki observes, it is hardly surprising that a major consequence of this frankness was the collapse of Communism in Poland and, soon afterward, in the other countries of East-Central Europe.
Communism would have ended years earlier throughout most of Eastern Europe but for the belief, based on experience, that any attempt to discard Communist rule there would produce Soviet armed intervention to reimpose it. Thus the change in the USSR was the crucial facilitating condition for all that happened in 1989. That Gorbachev a radical reformer holding the most powerful office within the system played the decisive role in all of this has become increasingly accepted, even by authors who have focused mainly on the process of change throughout Eastern Europe during 1989, such as Robin Okey (The Demise of Communist East Europe: 1989 in Context, Arnold, 2004). The role of the last Soviet leader is examined more fully in my The Gorbachev Factor (Oxford University Press, 1996). Claims have also been made for the importance of the part played by President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II, but Reagan elicited no positive change in the Soviet Union from the first three of the four Soviet leaders with whom he overlapped. Things changed only after Gorbachev came to power. The pope helped to inspire the rise of Solidarity, but was powerless to prevent the imposition of martial law in December 1981, which outlawed the organisation. It re-emerged as a serious force within Polish society only three years after the launch of the Soviet perestroika in 1985 the reform of the system that by 1988 was turning into fundamental transformation.
Economists, unsurprisingly, emphasise the declining growth rates, technological lag and general inefficiency of the Communist economic system as the decisive factors in bringing the regimes down. That argument is to be found both in the work of the British economist Philip Hanson (The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Economy, Pearson, 2003) and that of the Russian acting prime minister who presided over the leap to market prices in 1992, the late Yegor Gaidar (Collapse of an Empire: Lessons for Modern Russia, Brookings, 2007). Relative economic failure is seen as just one of the long-term reasons for the demise of most Communist states by the authors of four recent histories of Communism worldwide three substantial tomes by Oxford scholars: Robert Services Comrades. Communism: A World History (Macmillan, 2007); David Priestland, The Red Flag: Communism and the Making of the Modern World (Allen Lane, 2009); my own The Rise and Fall of Communism (Bodley Head, 2009); and in Leslie Holmess masterpiece of concision, Communism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2009). In fact, it was not so much economic crisis that forced reform as reform which created political crisis.
The kind of radical reform which Gorbachev launched was a political choice. It had profound consequences, both intended and unintended. The sophisticated array of rewards and sanctions under Communism provided means other than liberalising reform of controlling their societies. It takes more than budgetary deficits and a declining rate of economic growth to bring down highly authoritarian regimes. Nothing, it turned out, was more important in determining when Communism ended in Europe than the support for fresh thinking of the person wielding more institutional power than anyone else in the entire Soviet bloc.
See original here:
Signposts: Why did Communism end when it did ? | History Today
From Conservapedia
Communism is a left-wing materialistic and often violently atheistic ideology created to justify the overthrow of Capitalism, replacing free market economics and democracy with a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Under Communism, the political system replaces the private ownership of the means of production with "collective ownership" of the economy, this is to be accomplished through direct "democratic" control by the workers.[1] Twentieth century Communism was based on Karl Marx's manifesto which proposed to establishment of a "classless society." However, all Communist societies have had a class structure, notably the USSR, which was dominated by a self appointed Nomenklatura.
In the belief that "people cannot change", governments under the banner of Communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that it caused the death of approximately 148,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[8]
President Ronald Reagan in an address before the British House of Commons said,
Today, communism continues to rule over at least one-fifth of the world's people.[10]
Communism is based upon Marxism, a philosophy which uses materialism to explain all physical and social phenomena. The theory of evolution influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, Engels, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin.[11] Marx wrote, "Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." Marx offered to dedicate the second German edition of his polemic "Das Kapital" to Charles Darwin, but Darwin declined the "honour." [12][13]
Economically, communism advocates a socialist economy in which the government owns the means of production. In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "dictatorship of the proletariat". This drives all market-based economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages. In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions.
Even more important, one party controls every organization from the local labor union to the the army to the national government. The party is not elected. Its top officials (the "Politburo") select replacements when there is a vacancy. usually a dictator (like Stalin, Mao or Castro) controls the Politburo, but sometimes power is shared among five or six people. No dissent is allowed--all news media are controlled, and the Internet is heavily censored.
Elites do not disappear. Members of the ruling party (see Nomenklatura) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are allegedly immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure.
Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by Karl Marx, and its modifications under Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong, advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any government (Communism).
See the article here:
Communism - Conservapedia
The Memorial House of the Bulgarian Communist Party on mount Buzludzha anunusual structure, known locally as "the Saucer" has fallen into disrepair since the fall of the Communist regime in 1989, although it remains a popular site for graffiti artists.
A monument is seen near the Memorial House of the Bulgarian Communist Party on mount Buzludzha.(Stoyan Nenov/Reuters)
Photographers take pictures inside the crumbling main hall of the Memorial House of the Bulgarian Communist Party.(Stoyan Nenov/Reuters)
The monument is now a crumbling and decaying reminder of Bulgaria's past.(Stoyan Nenov/Reuters)
A mosaic is pictured inside the Memorial House of the Bulgarian Communist Party.(Stoyan Nenov/Reuters)
Murals of (L-R) Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin are seen inside the crumbling main hall of the Memorial House of the Bulgarian Communist Party.(Stoyan Nenov/Reuters)
The monument still provides spectacular views of Bulgaria's countryside.(Stoyan Nenov/Reuters)
YOU MIGHT LIKE THISSponsored Content by Taboola
Follow this link:
Bulgaria's Mount Buzludzha: A Decaying Monument to Communism
Bob Santamaria.
Towards the end of his life, Bob Santamaria, who had been devoted to fighting communism, would wonder aloud if his mission had failed and his life been wasted. Communism, as such, was dead of course, and perhaps he deserved some slight credit. Yet many of the causes and institutions he was for - not least the Catholic church - had seemed to disintegrate in the struggle.
Perhaps it was but a self-pitying effort to get family and friends to contradict him, recite some of his victories and the importance of his influence. But no-one knew the weaknesses of their arguments, or could be more ruthless in demonstrating them than the man himself. That realism had always been part of his armour.
The Australian Communist Party was dead in the water long before the end of the Cold War in 1989. When Santamaria began his crusade against it 50 years earlier, it had been at the height of its power. The Soviet Union, whose policy it then slavishly followed, was heroically winning the war against Hitler, almost all by itself, after an embarrassing period in which it had been more or less on his side. In the earlier period, Australian communists had seemed to be consciously sabotaging the war effort but once Hitler stabbed Stalin in the back, the party was unbanned, and, in part because of publicity for the titanic struggle in Russia and Ukraine, reached its all-time peak strength of about 23,000 paid up and committed members. That was up from about 4000 two years earlier.
One did not join the communist party in the same manner as one joins Facebook. Or joins Labour or the liberals by emailing $5. One joined a movement, a struggle, a religion and a cause that would take almost all parts of one's life. One's conscience and background is closely examined by people suspicious about spies and infiltrators.
Advertisement
Nor was it a matter of attending the odd meeting, like going to church on Sundays, as membership of Labor or the Liberals could be. One became committed to a life of activism, involvement, causes, front groups and regular embarrassments before workmates, neighbours, schools and family. If there's anything like it in Australia today, apart from within proto-terrorist movements, it is probably more like joining an intense live-in cult or monastic order.
Santamaria was far from the only one who saw a major threat to his religion, to Australia and to western civilisation from the growth of the ACP.
Disciplined party activists were organising themselves inside trade unions and, with classic Leninist tactics, seizing control from complacent, sometimes corrupt moderates. They were doing the same in any number of front organisations, using them, as the ASIO history puts it, to attract "well-intentioned but politically naive people" to support Soviet objectives.
Beyond well-disciplined members of the party were any numbers of bedfellows and fellow travellers broadly sympathetic to the party and its people, or otherwise having interests in common. The ACP preached a violent overthrow of capitalist democracy and its replacement by a "dictatorship of the proletariat" - led, of course, by it. But if avowedly revolutionary, much of its success in penetrating almost all parts of Australian society came from mundane identification with ordinary working class life, trade union affairs, arts, literature, culture, sports and the environment. Communism, like Catholicism and Sharia was a complete system of life, with an answer for everything.
View original post here:
Did ASIO make the faintest difference?