Guatemalan libertarian activist speech.

[JudoThrowFiasco]

I would call Nordic countries socialist, with capitalist elements. With Sweden maybe leaning towards the capitalist side, more than the rest. But I'd point to their multi-cultural policy as a problem in that regard, creating too much inequality between groups. to truly be capable of adopting effective socialist policy. They've cut down on a lot of stuff in recent times. Their integration policies have been pretty crappy, atleast recently. Easier to keep the ship afloat, when the pirates all know each others scams and quirks.

To uphold a proper welfare state takes careful balancing between the two sides. Wealth must be amassed, sometimes by cutting down on some of the socialist elements, so that the "good times" can be had at a later date. It comes quite naturally to a people who have been used to amassing "winter reservations" during the summer, for the long, dark winter.

However, I'd say that a progression towards a more complete socialist state is fully possible, through further automation. I'd say the risk of a collapse before that happens, is pretty significant though, causing a "relapse" to capitalism and crude global competition. Right now I'm particularly worried about the low births, resulting an aging, mostly retired population which may over-load the economy.

Never really agreed with or fully understood the argument that the nordic countries are socialist -- its more cuddly capitalism (Norway being an exception but even they have a strong private market that they know they will need to continue to foster to compete in a post petroleum economy) The nords have a comparable and in some cases a exceeded portion of millionaires per capita and similar Pre tax poverty rates of the United States - with gini's in the 25% range-- it just differs in amount of welfare spending, and benefits from small homogeneous population that share way, way, way more commonalities than the United States, and to a lesser separation, Canada, England, etc. I mean, i dont think there is a correlation between Sweden becoming less homogeneous and their ecnomic inequality becoming the fastest rising in the developed world. The US could have similar distribution of public funds on a state level -- but we have seen that even in the leftist states, they have a less desire for consumption taxation that makes nordic countries among the most expensive to live / depleting PPP despite having high GDP/ Captia.

 

[ShinkanPo]

That explains the general election it doesnt explains why people picked Trump over the other 17 major republican candidates.

You guys are just lucky that your institutions are solid enough to not have democracy threatened over it.

Its actually pretty amazing to be honest how solid their institutions are.

 

[TheGreatA]

Never really agreed with or fully understood the argument that the nordic countries are socialist -- its more cuddly capitalism (Norway being an exception but even they have a strong private market that they know they will need to continue to foster to compete in a post petroleum economy) The nords have a comparable and in some cases a exceeded portion of millionaires per capita and similar Pre tax poverty rates of the United States - with gini's in the 25% range-- it just differs in amount of welfare spending, and benefits from small homogeneous population that share way, way, way more commonalities than the United States, and to a lesser separation, Canada, England, etc. I mean, i dont think there is a correlation between Sweden becoming less homogeneous and their ecnomic inequality becoming the fastest rising in the developed world. The US could have similar distribution of public funds on a state level -- but we have seen that even in the leftist states, they have a less desire for consumption taxation that makes nordic countries among the most expensive to live / depleting PPP despite having high GDP/ Captia.

I suppose it depends on the definition of socialism. They are probably not socialist countries by late 1800's or early 1900's definition.

In today's terms, they are about as left-leaning as it gets, compared to other Western countries, though. They are not truly capitalist in the American sense.

A funny thing about the USSR, is that in its later days, the Soviets actually attempted to adopt "the Nordic model", which Gorbachev was an admirer of, but it had no chance of working in such a large entity. Not to mention that USSR was built on terror, rather than benevolence, anyway. It was too late to try to mold the Soviet Union into anything else. Stalin's fingerprints were all over it.

I believe that there's a correlation between homogeneity/level of effective socialism/wealth distribution, yes. A small country with a "monolithic" culture is bound to be more equal than a large country with multiple cultural elements. There are simply too many variables to be taken into account, in the latter scenario. And wealth inequality, no matter the level of prosperity, is always bound to create more internal instabilities. That's why I do not think that "multi-cultural" policy is the way to go, if we want to improve people's living standards. The people need to stand united in something, to create a level of trust, and common culture is a good place to start.

It's really the Nordic people and their mentality, which leads me to consider Nordic countries as socialist rather than capitalist. For the most part, there's no real will to assume further individual responsibilities. Any attempts to cut down on welfare/labour rights, are furiously resisted. Even though these same people will vote for right-wing parties in hopes of cutting down on taxes (which are ridiculous, in fairness).

I suppose a lot of people just don't have much of an idea on how it all works. You can't demand the table to be set, without paying up for it. Massive taxes and high costs of living, are the price that have to be paid for the social services.

 

[ShinkanPo]

I have not seen Trump level of stupidity and incoherency anywhere in the world, highly developed or otherwise.

Like the people who compared him to Duterte, who I would concede as the closet international comparison. But Duterte was dealing with actual existentially pressing concerns and a very flawed country, was posing actual reforms (however brutal and reactionary), and was speaking to specific issues. The United States never had his country's problems, his country's informational deficit, or his country's justifications for electing a dolt. And, on top of that, Duterte is just objectively less of a moron than Trump, who was just randomly talking out of his ass and lying constantly.

If Trump level demagoguery is common in the third world, I have not been privy to it at all. It'd be like Mexico electing....I don't know, I honestly cannot think of a Mexican celebrity who is as stupid and laughable as Trump.

Hmnnn Duterte practically sold us to the Chinese no comparison to Trump at all.

Check his response to the ongoing South China sea issue, his loans from China and the way he trashed foreigh relations and badmout allies.

Duterte says China's Xi vowed to protect him from ouster
'We will not allow you to be taken out from your office,' Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte recalls Chinese President Xi Jinping telling him

https://www.rappler.com/nation/2025...acebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nation


That is just one of his goverments facepalm inducing statements.

 

[ShinkanPo]

she is hot as well. a strange one to, ruling class but atheist. An atheist latina in latin america? WTF that is like non existent in 3rd/2nd world many times let alone in guatemala. And a childless 33 year old woman in guatemala?

Would.

 

[Rod1]

Economic freedom vs authoritarianism, is a different conversation, in my mind. Both socialism and capitalism can produce freedom, or slavery, indeed. But they largely go on achieving it in different ways. Socialist model relieves people of responsibilities, while capitalism enables people to take more responsibility.

Giving a person too much responsibility can enslave them, as it may limit the freedom of their action and choice. I consider America to be an offender in this regard. But then, relieving a person of responsibilities can also help enslave them, by rendering them incapable of independently running their own affairs without state intervention into even the smallest details of daily life. China is an obvious example.

My ideal of a society consists more so of independent-minded people, who can make the necessary sacrifices for collective interests. Not a collective herd, nor a completely ego-centric blob of individuals. It would be preferable if this process of "sacrifice" could take place, with as little state intervention as possible, resulting more so from actual acts of "good-will" and good sense, than fear of punishment. But that, again, is a pipe dream in the current state of affairs.

Does it really relieves people of their responsibilities? they simply relieve them from their freedoms and force them into a particular line of work.

I simply think that taxes can be raised to cover for welfare programs as long as the economy supports it. In the end humans will want some degree of freedom.

 

[Trotsky]

Hmnnn Duterte practically sold us to the Chinese no comparison to Trump at all.

Check his response to the ongoing South China sea issue, his loans from China and the way he trashed foreigh relations and badmout allies.

Duterte says China's Xi vowed to protect him from ouster
'We will not allow you to be taken out from your office,' Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte recalls Chinese President Xi Jinping telling him

https://www.rappler.com/nation/2025...acebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nation


That is just one of his goverments facepalm inducing statements.

Yeah, I wasn't meaning in terms of policy. I was just meaning in terms of demagoguery and being cartoonish and reactionary.

Never had a problem with Marx, nor any philosopher/intellectual/political thinker really. Can't really be held responsible for the shit that went down when people tried to apply their own "versions" of those philosophies or political ideologies, into the real-world.

Never considered myself "right-wing" either until I came to this forum. I certainly don't consider myself an apologist for capitalism or outdated ideas. More so a critic.

Yeah, I've gotten the impression that philosophically you're a far cry from what would traditionally be termed as "right-wing," but I'm also predisposed towards lending that classification pretty liberally as a way to fool myself into thinking there is still virtue in right-of-center thought (that absolutely does not exist in the United States).

For instance, the new intellectual giant of the right today is Jordan Peterson, and his thoughts on Marxism are maddeningly uninformed, reductive, and altogether unhelpful to meaningful discourse. But they also follow a long lineage of Cold War-era reduction and partisanship in analysis of Marxism as being inherently evil, unworkable, etc. and contrary to development through a capitalist system (when in actuality, as you touched upon, capitalism is fundamentally necessary in Marxian socialist development).

 

[Rod1]

For instance, the new intellectual giant of the right today is Jordan Peterson, and his thoughts on Marxism are maddeningly uninformed, reductive, and altogether unhelpful to meaningful discourse. But they also follow a long lineage of Cold War-era reduction and partisanship in analysis of Marxism as being inherently evil, unworkable, etc. and contrary to development through a capitalist system (when in actuality, as you touched upon, capitalism is fundamentally necessary in Marxian socialist development).

This is a great point, most of us see marxism as "control the means of production" and the Soviet examples.

I think a lot of communists had good intentions, others, not so much.

 

[TheGreatA]

Does it really relieves people of their responsibilities? they simply relieve them from their freedoms and force them into a particular line of work.

Freedom bears with it a certain level of responsibility, wouldn't you say? In a totalitarian socialist state, you are "given" a particular line of work. The choice is made for you, and therefore you are relieved of the responsibility of having to compete in a free market, possibly receiving nothing for your troubles.

Some people may enjoy the lack of responsibilities. A lot probably wouldn't.

Still, there are accounts of women who say that they feel more free in a place like Saudi Arabia than America, apparently. Because all of your choices are made for you, and you are taken "care of".

I simply think that taxes can be raised to cover for welfare programs as long as the economy supports it.

Indeed, they can be, but you need the population to go along with that. That has proved troubling in countries like the United States, even though the economy certainly supports it. It's not as much of a problem in a small North European country, where people were grown accustomed to taking care of everybody in the village during the winters, anyway. You lived and died off how you treated your fellow men and women. You put provisions away during the summers, to make it through a winter.

The socialist model in Nordic countries is just an extension of what already existed. Adopting a capitalist model akin to America's, would've been in conflict with the people's conscience. That's why there was a bloody civil war fought in Finland, pitting conservatives/capitalist against socialists. The ultimate result was a compromise between both parties, even if the conservative side won the battles. An ethno-state with socialist elements.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

I suppose it depends on the definition of socialism. They are probably not socialist countries by late 1800's or early 1900's definition.

In today's terms, they are about as left-leaning as it gets, compared to other Western countries, though. They are not truly capitalist in the American sense.

A funny thing about the USSR, is that in its later days, the Soviets actually attempted to adopt "the Nordic model", which Gorbachev was an admirer of, but it had no chance of working in such a large entity. Not to mention that USSR was built on terror, rather than benevolence, anyway. It was too late to try to mold the Soviet Union into anything else. Stalin's fingerprints were all over it.

I believe that there's a correlation between homogeneity/level of effective socialism/wealth distribution, yes. A small country with a "monolithic" culture is bound to be more equal than a large country with multiple cultural elements. There are simply too many variables to be taken into account, in the latter scenario. And wealth inequality, no matter the level of prosperity, is always bound to create more internal instabilities. That's why I do not think that "multi-cultural" policy is the way to go, if we want to improve people's living standards. The people need to stand united in something, to create a level of trust, and common culture is a good place to start.

It's really the Nordic people and their mentality, which leads me to consider Nordic countries as socialist rather than capitalist. For the most part, there's no real will to assume further individual responsibilities. Any attempts to cut down on welfare/labour rights, are furiously resisted. Even though these same people will vote for right-wing parties in hopes of cutting down on taxes (which are ridiculous, in fairness).

I suppose a lot of people just don't have much of an idea on how it all works. You can't demand the table to be set, without paying up for it. Massive taxes and high costs of living, are the price that have to be paid for the social services.

I dont view capitalism as an absolute term that relates specifically to the US model -- it has a wide variety of scope ( i personally like the cuddly to cutthroat scale) I agree with you that the nordic people have a much more united culture/ identity / pigmentation that allows for way more acceptance of universal social spending. I have a Finnish friend who describes it as not really about helping the poor but programs accessible to everyone. Even still, Vermont, which is also a small, homogeneous state couldnt come together to convince everyone to increase their taxation for UHC. Which, is very odd to me -- considering their local taxes would not have raised that much.

Also, for as much as a large portion of the United States clamors for healthcare reform, education spending -- they would pretty much all shit bricks if they had to pay nordic gas, food, living costs to pay for it. Also, to be fair -- if healthcare reform was presented in a series of rocky like montage commercials of people helping people, brotherhood, etc - and just showed it as white country folk, helping white country folk -- the south would be all over it.

 

[Trotsky]

This is a great point, most of us see marxism as "control the means of production" and the Soviet examples.

I think a lot of communists had good intentions, others, not so much.

It's obviously a very complicated topic and, for another example of someone on the right who is commendably open-minded on the topic, @InternetHero and I have touched on the multifarious (and wildly interesting) linguistic aspects of it, in terms of concepts, words, and phrases carrying frustratingly divergent meanings.

However, to my eye, Marxism never really took hold in Latin America, so much as Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism touched down in Cuba (not by way of the Cuban Revolution, but by way of the Cuban Missile Crisis) and then left a berth for a wide variety of Latin American state capitalist systems, none of which followed anything even resembling classical Marxism (Venezuela, for instance, I would consider could be properly termed as "socialism," which like I touched upon carries a wide variety of meaning, but is about as far from Marxism as has ever existed, in that it took on the Leninist formation through democratic means and then stripped the operation of even the most basic Marxian pretenses that Lenin and Stalin retained in the Bolshevik government.

 

[Rod1]

Freedom bears with it a certain level of responsibility, wouldn't you say? In a totalitarian socialist state, you are "given" a particular line of work. The choice is made for you, and therefore you are relieved of the responsibility of having to compete in a free market, possibly receiving nothing for your troubles.

Not really, that amounts to forced labor and slavery then you have to participate in the black market which is quite capitalistic in order to survive.

Do you honestly believe that Venezuelans are doing away with the 2 dollars a month they get paid? nope, most, if not all are participating in the black market.

The most entrepeneurial persons i know are cuban exiles most of the things they learned in the 90s crisis applied into a country with a market economy, same with the Chinese immigrants.

Indeed, they can be, but you need the population to go along with that. That has proved troubling in countries like the United States, even though the economy certainly supports it. It's not as much of a problem in a small North European country, where people were grown accustomed to taking care of everybody in the village during the winters, anyway. You lived and died off how you treated your fellow men and women. You put provisions away during the summers, to make it through a winter.

I think the US isnt a great example, i think most people all around the world consider that education and healthcare should be provided by government.

 

[ShinkanPo]

Yeah, I wasn't meaning in terms of policy. I was just meaning in terms of demagoguery and being cartoonish and reactionary.



Yeah, I've gotten the impression that philosophically you're a far cry from what would traditionally be termed as "right-wing," but I'm also predisposed towards lending that classification pretty liberally as a way to fool myself into thinking there is still virtue in right-of-center thought (that absolutely does not exist in the United States).

For instance, the new intellectual giant of the right today is Jordan Peterson, and his thoughts on Marxism are maddeningly uninformed, reductive, and altogether unhelpful to meaningful discourse. But they also follow a long lineage of Cold War-era reduction and partisanship in analysis of Marxism as being inherently evil, unworkable, etc. and contrary to development through a capitalist system (when in actuality, as you touched upon, capitalism is fundamentally necessary in Marxian socialist development).

Dutz demagoguery has no comparisson he just said he will kiss the IMF chief Christine Lagarde so she will change her mind about Philippines ecconomic outlook.

"You know, Lagarde, I’ve seen her… Just pull her into a corner, kiss her, son of a ****, she will change her mind),” Duterte said yesterday

https://www.philstar.com/headlines/...imf-chief-change-her-mind#HZ1SbDRqlrfwuQOJ.99

https://www.philstar.com/headlines/...ppines-outlook-kiss-imf-chief-change-her-mind

 

[Rod1]

It's obviously a very complicated topic and, for another example of someone on the right who is commendably open-minded on the topic, @InternetHero and I have touched on the multifarious (and wildly interesting) linguistic aspects of it, in terms of concepts, words, and phrases carrying frustratingly divergent meanings.

However, to my eye, Marxism never really took hold in Latin America, so much as Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism touched down in Cuba (not by way of the Cuban Revolution, but by way of the Cuban Missile Crisis) and then left a berth for a wide variety of Latin American state capitalist systems, none of which followed anything even resembling classical Marxism (Venezuela, for instance, I would consider could be properly termed as "socialism," which like I touched upon carries a wide variety of meaning, but is about as far from Marxism as has ever existed, in that it took on the Leninist formation through democratic means and then stripped the operation of even the most basic Marxian pretenses that Lenin and Stalin retained in the Bolshevik government.

I think its something i would really like to be educated about, but as i understand Lenin was a complete failure economically (no matter how hard he tried, he absolutely tanked the Russian industrial output) hence the NEP.

So what exactly would you consider a perfect (even if theorical) application of marxist in the modern context?

 

[TheGreatA]

Yeah, I've gotten the impression that philosophically you're a far cry from what would traditionally be termed as "right-wing," but I'm also predisposed towards lending that classification pretty liberally as a way to fool myself into thinking there is still virtue in right-of-center thought (that absolutely does not exist in the United States).

For instance, the new intellectual giant of the right today is Jordan Peterson, and his thoughts on Marxism are maddeningly uninformed, reductive, and altogether unhelpful to meaningful discourse. But they also follow a long lineage of Cold War-era reduction and partisanship in analysis of Marxism as being inherently evil, unworkable, etc. and contrary to development through a capitalist system (when in actuality, as you touched upon, capitalism is fundamentally necessary in Marxian socialist development).

I think he's a good guy but he's also a product of his time. I think the original reason he ever got as invested into philosophy, was because he had a nervous breakdown of sorts in his younger days, over the threat of nuclear war, WW3 etc. To him, these are clearer possibilities, than perhaps to us.

I agree with some of his "psycho-analysis" of Marx's "followers". But I think it is also important to separate the interpretations from the source material. Nietzsche could be said to have enabled and encouraged Nazism. But Nietzsche as a person, was quite far away from being a Nazi. He certainly didn't intend that sort of a movement to pop up, as an interpretation of his philosophy. I don't think Marx intended for the Soviet Union or Mao's China to be his legacy.

I suppose I can see the point in holding Marx responsible. But I don't hold him responsible myself. I believe in free speech and a degree of that freedom, is a lack of responsibility for the actions that may follow, on the part of others.

It wasn't Marx that massacred millions. And if some guy decides to take Peterson's "ball" and run with it straight to the abyss, Peterson can't be held responsible either.

We can't start preventing ourselves from saying things because they might be too "dangerous", or because they might be taken the "wrong way". Marx said his piece, and what happened, was what happened.

 

[TheGreatA]

Not really, that amounts to forced labor and slavery then you have to participate in the black market which is quite capitalistic in order to survive.

Do you honestly believe that Venezuelans are doing away with the 2 dollars a month they get paid? nope, most, if not all are participating in the black market.

The most entrepeneurial persons i know are cuban exiles most of the things they learned in the 90s crisis applied into a country with a market economy, same with the Chinese immigrants.

It only amounts to that if the economy is shit.

But if the economy was doing well, "forced labour" with decent privileges wouldn't sound that bad, to a lot of people. Some might choose that over being in a free market where the end result might be that you get no job and no privileges whatsoever.

There are still many Russians who wish the "good old Soviet days" still existed, when people didn't have to worry about making their own decisions. And there are obviously a lot of Chinese who feel quite good about their system.

People are sometimes willing to compromise from their freedom to choose if it means that they will be relieved from the responsibility of making the choices and carrying the consequences.

Sometimes the weight of the consequences is deemed more limiting to one's freedom.

 

[Trotsky]

I think its something i would really like to be educated about, but as i understand Lenin was a complete failure economically (no matter how hard he tried, he absolutely tanked the Russian industrial output) hence the NEP.

While I do consider him a usurper and an opportunist, I certainly would not term Lenin "a complete failure economically" at all. By any reasonable metrics, his worst performance was commendable and his developmental constraints understandable, but the demands of a post-World War international setting were such that "commendable" was just not sufficient, and so on with the NEP and the full-throated embrace of metro-industrial state capitalism that followed (and that led to a remarkable, albeit brutal and inhumane, economic ascension). And there's also the consideration of Lenin's true aims, as we know that they departed meaningfully from what would become Stalin's, even if they also departed from classical Marxism: as, even during the onset of the Bolshevik era, considerable time, focus, and capital were being diverted outwardly to leverage the domino effect necessary for the "real" revolution to take place in Western Europe. It's also meaningful, toward understanding the perspective of Lenin, to also understand his ill-fated insouciance to the rise of fascism: while Trotsky sense fairly early that it was an existential threat to the workers of the world, Lenin (who died before it realy picked up steam) thought it as hiccup in the spiraling degeneration of capitalism, and that it would pave the way for the communist revolution that never followed. Likewise, although i don't recall any direct language on this from Lenin, I think he overestimated the collective spine of social democratic groups.

So what exactly would you consider a perfect (even if theorical) application of marxist in the modern context?

Well, I think the foreclosure of the European revolution and the settling in of Stalinism more or less popped that balloon, as purportedly Marxian development would only touch down in remote and undeveloped corners of the world through Leninist seizures of state power, and not at the center (or even the realistic periphery) of the world economy. Even if ill-fated and likewise undertaken in a setting lacking the necessary economic preconditions, I still hold some great respect for the Yugoslavian system and would, if pressed, cite it as the most genuine example of Marxist application.

I'm not sure if Yugoslavia counts as "modern," though. Now, to posit a realistic Marxist development in a newly decentralized (what with the gig economy, internet age, and onset of automation) and wholly international marketplace that departs from centralized production/refinement of tangible resources and instead relies increasingly on intellectual property and devalues proletarian labor, seizure of the state now appears fundamentally more important than it did in the time of Lenin, in that state entitlement of legal recognition of worker ownership, or at least the sovereignty of worker interests as was promulgated in the Wagner Act of 1935, now seems to represent a new political requirement.

But, in short, I don't have a definitive and fool-proof path forward, especially since I have been away from the actual Marxist circles for many years now and haven't read Marxian theory at length in probably seven years, so I'm not the best person to field the question.

 

[Rod1]

While I do consider him a usurper and an opportunist, I certainly would not term Lenin "a complete failure economically" at all. By any reasonable metrics, his worst performance was commendable and his developmental constraints understandable, but the demands of a post-World War international setting were such that "commendable" was just not sufficient, and so on with the NEP and the full-throated embrace of metro-industrial state capitalism that followed (and that led to a remarkable, albeit brutal and inhumane, economic ascension). And there's also the consideration of Lenin's true aims, as we know that they departed meaningfully from what would become Stalin's, even if they also departed from classical Marxism: as, even during the onset of the Bolshevik era, considerable time, focus, and capital were being diverted outwardly to leverage the domino effect necessary for the "real" revolution to take place in Western Europe. It's also meaningful, toward understanding the perspective of Lenin, to also understand his ill-fated insouciance to the rise of fascism: while Trotsky sense fairly early that it was an existential threat to the workers of the world, Lenin (who died before it realy picked up steam) thought it as hiccup in the spiraling degeneration of capitalism, and that it would pave the way for the communist revolution that never followed. Likewise, although i don't recall any direct language on this from Lenin, I think he overestimated the collective spine of social democratic groups.



Well, I think the foreclosure of the European revolution and the settling in of Stalinism more or less popped that balloon, as purportedly Marxian development would only touch down in remote and undeveloped corners of the world through Leninist seizures of state power, and not at the center (or even the realistic periphery) of the world economy. Even if ill-fated and likewise undertaken in a setting lacking the necessary economic preconditions, I still hold some great respect for the Yugoslavian system and would, if pressed, cite it as the most genuine example of Marxist application.

I'm not sure if Yugoslavia counts as "modern," though. Now, to posit a realistic Marxist development in a newly decentralized (what with the gig economy, internet age, and onset of automation) and wholly international marketplace that departs from centralized production/refinement of tangible resources and instead relies increasingly on intellectual property and devalues proletarian labor, seizure of the state now appears fundamentally more important than it did in the time of Lenin, in that state entitlement of legal recognition of worker ownership, or at least the sovereignty of worker interests as was promulgated in the Wagner Act of 1935, now seems to represent a new political requirement.

But, in short, I don't have a definitive and fool-proof path forward, especially since I have been away from the actual Marxist circles for many years now and haven't read Marxian theory at length in probably seven years, so I'm not the best person to field the question.

Sounds incredibly complicated TBH, although i think i read that Lenin by the time of the NEP had taken Russia industrial production to much lower levels than 1917, but i think im going to recheck the sources.

 

[2arctanx]

Born and raised.

ya but she's not indigenous guatemalan. she's a white spaniard.

 

[Rod1]

ya but she's not indigenous guatemalan.

She is actually from Cuban, Guatemalan and Hungarian descent.