<<Don't miss the little details , such as they never had so bad a famine before in all their history as the 59-60 famine.>>
Your problem is you don't really know how many people died in the last Chinese famine since the outflow of information at the time was severely restricted, so it's not possible to make numerical comparisons. The last famine before Mao's famine was the famine of 1944, in which 4 million people were killed. Communism was not a culprit. The earlier famines don't have accurate death stats either. These things go back 4,000 years. Anyway, there have been no further famines in China and the pace and scope of their development is the true measure of communism's benefits, not that the last, and only the last, of China's 4,000 years of famine happened while the communists were trying to remake the nation.
<<Please describe Isreals dependance on US aid moneys and then useing the same standards describe the aid the USSR gave to Cuba..>>
The USSR's "aid" consisted of purchasing the Cuban sugar crop at world market prices after the U.S., Cuba's natural customer, had boycotted it. The US aid money is given to them for allegedly civilian uses, but in fact by relieving the Israeli government of the need to provide the equivalent amount of social services, permits it to spend the money saved on other purposes, specifically, weapons. The Israelis used to get $3 billion a year, and a further $3 billion was given to Egypt, primarily to keep it as a reliable US-ZioNazi ally, the $3 billion I understand was recently reduced to $2 billion and the Egyptians still get $3 billion.
How much the USSR "aided" Cuba besides buying its annual sugar crop at world market prices, I have no idea, but since you were the one who said that Cuba "leeched" off the Russians, I guess you have some specific numbers in mind.
<<[Russia after the fall of communism is etter for the worker who gets paid for working now. . . >>
LOL. Therein lies the problem. You realize of course that many Russian workers AREN'T "working now" whereas before, there was full employment?
<<better for the people in general that none of them are shackled against acheiveing their best potential. >>
No, huh? Maybe you can tell me how the son of an unemployed worker is not "shackled against achieving his best potential" when his father has no money, there is no more universal right to free JK to grad school education, and he himself is about to join the ranks of the unemployed? Maybe you can tell me how a pensioner is going to achieve his best potential when instead of retiring peacefully to study art and literature as he always intended, he now has to pick up passengers in his private automobile on his way to and from his night job at the airport to make a few extra rubles to put food on the table and avoid getting kicked out of an apartment formerly owned by the state and provided to its pensioners? (My wife and I met this guy when we were in Moscow - - forced out of retirement into a night job baggage handling at the airport and lucky to get it too, a former Aeroflot pilot.)
You're like most conservatives - - you don't know what you're talking about but you can spout a lot of theory which is nothing but bullshit propaganda and you have absolutely no idea whatsoever how your fucked-up Cold War theorizing plays out in the actual lives of real people.
<<The "biznissmen " you cokmplain of ,were not honest men when they were members of the KGB either.>>
They weren't billionaires then, they weren't even "biznissmen" so who gave a shit if they were honest or not? Today, freed from communist constraints on profit and ownership, they have managed, thanks to the blessing of capitalism, to acquire billions of dollars in assets, the rightful owners of which were the Russian people. This obviously leaves the Russian state and its people, billions of dollars poorer.
<<Iif the USSR promised their Pensioners a liveing after retirement what did they do to keep the promise? >>
Well, plane, I would suspect that they kept their promise and paid the pension. This guy was very specific about when his pension payments stopped - - that was AFTER the fall of communism, not before.
<<I fear that our government has promised our pentioners more than it will be possible to pay or do also.>>
Those of us who live in the real world are aware that such "fears" have been voiced for decades but have never come to fruition. Never will come to fruition. When your "fears" of a US pension DO come to fruition, you can then chalk it up to one more failure of capitalism, because the USSR under communism, DESPITE the utter devastation of WWII, never had to default on a pension payment in its entire history. And of course if they DON'T come to fruition, then they don't mean a God-damn thing, do they?