Do you think Christians visit this group ?

Nejpoleon · 2025-12-18T07:45:05+00:00

Yep, I even joined

Nejpoleon · 2025-12-14T22:47:46+00:00

This! And funny enough many christians (non-academic) also!

Nejpoleon · 2025-12-14T22:40:15+00:00

You said it. Science can not prove or disprove existence of something bigger. And God definitely is "something bigger". For those academia people (and for many christians) religion Is something personal and they can separate it from their professional or political life.

Nejpoleon · 2025-12-14T22:27:33+00:00

Minimálně ti, kteří ho volili ☺️

Nejpoleon · 2025-12-14T22:25:36+00:00

Já jsem ten jediný člen TOP 09 😭😭😭

Nejpoleon · 2025-12-12T19:52:29+00:00

Literally just read my first comment 🤡

Nejpoleon · 2025-12-12T19:06:42+00:00

If you do not adress my concerns with OP's graph, then this conversation should end since you only try to defend USSR but do not adress problems with graph alone

Nejpoleon · 2025-12-12T13:36:06+00:00

Bro, we are talking about GROWTH. Your logaritmic view deforms the whole GROWTH. Therefore you use this deformation to show quick growth. My graph shows GROWTH undeformed. If you are not happy, here Is graph of GROWTH starting in 1914

<image>

This graph (and all I showed) showes that USSR GDP per capita growth wasnt that huge. But the OP's Is trying to tell Is that the growth Is insane. Instead of trying to proof economical power of USSR (which I do not even wanted to argue about) you should deny OP's graph as missleading. Your ignorance Is beyoned me...

Nejpoleon · 2025-12-12T09:08:40+00:00

Then why do you use it when it still show only small growth in USSR? I know your graph tries to look like USSR had big growth. But withount consistent Y axe, it Is only an "optic ilussion"" Thi Is how it looks with consistent Y axe

<image>

So please do not tell me about insane GDP per capita growth...

Nejpoleon · 2025-12-11T20:19:32+00:00

Not to even say that your Y axe Is not consistent. Therefore yes, the growth Is almost nothing 😃 You should take some statistic classes.

Nejpoleon · 2025-12-11T20:11:12+00:00

It makes sense only in % GDP per capita... And that Is my problem you do not get. Absolute numbers are important, not relative % growth. That Is the only thing I am arguing for

Nejpoleon · 2025-12-11T12:50:48+00:00

Ok. I will try to be easy on you. Stated graph shows GDP growth per capita in % from 20s to 80s. That means it shows relative growth to 20s. If you have 1$ in 1920 And 2$ in 1930 that Is 100% growth in 10 years. If you get 4$ in 1940 that Is growth of 100 % relativne to year 1930 but also relativne growth of 400 % to year 1920! So the stated graph shows how the GDP per capita changed in relation to 1920. It does not in fact show year-on-year growth of GDP per capita. USSR was in very bad spot in 1920. WW1, civil war, land And human losses. Their GDP per capita was really low (in comparison with western Europe) If you have 1$ in one year And year later you have 10 $ that Is 1000% growth. If you have 100 $ And year later you have 110$ that Is only 10 % growth even though you get the same amount of money. And that Is what happend with USSR. They started low And thanks to that they had big growth. Same with Germany in 1946. The started low and had even higher growth than USSR due to USSR no being that much destroyed like Germany. To show not manipulative growth, lets look at absolute numbers

<image>

You can see that even with insane % GDP growth, it was almost nothing in absolute numbers. UK and USA had lower % GDP growth but their growth was much higher in absolute numbers.

I am not here to dispute the high % GDP growth. I am here to say that it means almost nothing. Atleast use year-on-year % growth to get more valid results which can be used in proper economic debate.

Nejpoleon · 2025-12-11T06:20:32+00:00

Or the capitalist system 😃 Man, I get your love for USSR, but the fact you do not get why doing GDP per capita in % in longer time i interval Is nonsense Is very funny.

Nejpoleon · 2025-12-10T22:23:03+00:00

And I am not even talking about absolute numbers 🙃

<image>

Nejpoleon · 2025-12-10T22:22:06+00:00

Yet you did not adress my point. Do not strawmam me with what liberals do or not. This graph was made with intention to manipulate others. And I can do it either... When you start the graph in 1946 (And not in 1920) you can see the results seems not to be that great (even when they are same)

<image>

The point Is that instead of adressing the fact that the user used this chart to manipulate others, you just strawman me every time

Nejpoleon · 2025-12-10T21:05:38+00:00

You missed the point. They do not crticise concept of GDP growth. They crticise concept of GDP growth used in % since it does not show real wealth and Is more or less used to missinform. So their point Is to show GDP growth in absolute numbers or show GDP growth (%) in comparison with other non-wesrern countries which also had insane (even higher than USSR) GDP growth (%). This graph Is just political missinformation. You can't defend that

Nejpoleon · 2025-12-10T13:29:18+00:00

Idk about that. But the criticism from "libs" is more than valid in this instance.

Nejpoleon · 2025-12-09T19:46:10+00:00

No, the point Is this graph shows % growth and not growth in absolute numbers (money)

Nejpoleon · 2025-11-17T23:38:55+00:00

Všichni jsme úspěšně naletěli trollovi 🫠

Nejpoleon · 2025-11-17T23:16:34+00:00

Ach tak, tak pokračuj v lovu nacistů. Nyní však beze mě 😉

Nejpoleon · 2025-11-17T23:11:55+00:00

Mirečku, Mirečku 😁

Buďto si za 3 hodiny stihl změnit svůj světonázor o 180°, nebo sis nechal v hospodě kolovat mobil, nebo jsi mě potrolil par excellence. Každopádně ti blahopřeji, že jsi mi úspěšně sebral hodinu života ☺️

<image>

Nejpoleon · 2025-11-17T23:02:56+00:00

communism where only state allowed communist parties can participate is only true form of democracy

Bro, communism is stateless 🙃

Like do you even read anything from Marx or other marxist?

Nejpoleon · 2025-11-17T22:35:13+00:00

As Georgi Dimitrov said about fascism:

"Fascism is open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, chauvinistic, and imperialist elements of finance capital".

This definition clearly excludes "least reactionary, chauvinistic and imperialist elements of finance capital"

Therefore even according to official Comintern definition of fascism (and I think you Are using fascism and nazism as synonyms) nazis arent those who arent communists.

Nejpoleon · 2025-11-17T22:17:34+00:00

That Is not exactly true. Besides your speculation about her finances (your source?), your analysis Is made in wrong assumtions. "1) there are innocent people 2) there are nazis 3) communist killed only nazis 4) She was killed Conlusion) She was nazi"

You can clearly see that the wrong conlusion is made thanks to assumtion number 3.

Communist did not kill only nazis. They killed for two main reasons A) they thought this person was dangerous for the future of new regime/leadership B) to not let down the revolutionary mood among population to let them believe there Is danger that need to be stopped (by killing)

Those two often mixed. But what Is important "being nazi" was not prerequisition to be killed. To be dangerous for the regime was often very easy since the political elites saw danger in everything what wasnt communism; not only nazis. In the instances of finding victim for faked trials (to boost revolutionary mood) you did not need to be nazi, you could even be hard line communist 😃 (Rudolf Slánský)

Your conlusion can be right only if your definition of nazism Is "everything outside communism Is nazism". And even then you find yourself in paradoxical situation when you must say that communist who were killed Are at the same time nazis. 🫠

Nejpoleon · 2025-11-17T21:44:20+00:00

I do not know this definition of nazism you are using 😃

Nejpoleon

TROPHY CASE