Quantcast
Sunday, November 3rd, 2013 at 11:18 am  |  17 responses

Mikhail Prokhorov Says His Five-Year Plan For the Nets Was Inspired By Vladimir Lenin


Mikhail Prokhorov has stated he has a five-year plan to get the Brooklyn Nets an NBA Championship, and he told YES Network (transcribed by NetsDaily) about the plan’s hilarious and absurd inspiration: “SK: For you, why is pursuing a Championship so very important? MP: Then what I am doing here? So, because I don’t go halfway on anything. I’ll go to the end. I’ll go all the way. SK: Why did you put a five year timetable on it when you first got here? MP: You know, it was based on the Five Year Plan of Vladimir Lenin. But, it didn’t work good in the Soviet economy, and I hope it will work much better here. SK: What is your response to fans or the media who have had criticisms,  saying ‘You can’t buy a team.’ MP: Just, I agree 100 percent. It’s just impossible to buy a team because if you want to be a real Champion, you need a combination of factors. Of course money, plus you need to have the best people on court and out of court. You need to have a passion. You need to have team spirit. And of course you need tremendous work to do.”

  • Add a Comment
  • Share
  • RSS

Tags: ,

  • JoeMaMa

    What a hack.
    Give Anthony Robbins the credit he deserves.

  • Drago

    “I must break you!”

  • Tobias Fernandez

    The Most Interesting Man

  • YourFather

    Communism failed.

  • T Bear

    Lenin was a brilliant philosopher and theorist. Read “State and Revolution” and “Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism” before you say anything else. Seriously, do yourselves this favor.

    Also, quick rant:
    The 5-year plans weren’t Lenin; they were Stalin. And they weren’t a failure by any means–they transformed the USSR into an industrial powerhouse in only a few decades (something which took capitalist countries chundreds of years to do, all without enslaving Africans and committing genocide against First Nations’ people) which later allowed them to defeat fascism in Europe.

    80% of Nazi casualties happened on the Eastern front; the Reds beat fascism, thanks in no small part to these 5-year plans. The USSR economy grew faster than any other in the world.

    Centrally planned socialist economies–since they aren’t driven by the private accumulation of a handful of rich f*cks–function the best. There’s full employment, guaranteed healthcare and education, zero homelessness, etc. Economy-wise it’s just better; check this graph out.

    Peace!

  • T Bear

    Sorry, just to clarify: That graph compares the USSR with (mostly capitalist) countries that had similar industrial output per capita, before the region known as the USSR became socialist. It wouldn’t make sense to compare it to countries which were already way more industrialized at the time before socialism.

    Rant over! Lol.

  • EJ

    The USSR entered the industrial age when the scientific discoveries required for it had already been made, whereas western countries had to make the discoveries and invent the inventions in order to become industrialized, which surely took some time. Also Russia has the most natural resources in the world.
    I’m pretty sure that those factors played a bigger role in Russia’s quick industrialization than any sort of political or economic planning ever could.

  • Teddy-the-Bear

    Really? All the Western countries made those discoveries together? And by “discoveries” I hope you mean “massacring and plundering of non-white nations all over the globe”, right?

    Um, dude, if political organization and economic planning had nothing to do with the USSR’s (it was NOT just Russia, but all of Eastern Europe) industrialization, then why were all of these countries dirt-poor and backward under feudalism/capitalism? The resources were always there. It was *socialism*, after overthrowing feudalism and capitalism, that allowed the economic development of these once imperialized countries.

  • Chubachuchi

    That transformation into a powerhouse was at the expense of hundreds of thousands of farmers dying from mass starvation though don’t forget that.

  • T Bear

    It wasn’t the industrialization that led to the famines at the time, and these famines happened to be the last in Eastern Bloc history–whereas previously, in feudal times, famines were frequent occurrence. Also, “hundreds of thousands” is an exaggeration. Collectivization of agriculture was met with resistence by the
    wealthy kulaks who resisted giving up their land to the masses of
    peasants who toiled on them. These kulaks deliberately sabotaged yields
    and burned crops because they didn’t want the peasants (backed by the
    Red Army) to take what was rightfully theirs. That was a major factor which contributed to famine, in addition to the weather patterns during that time. There was no *deliberate* famine, which is what Cold War propaganda has lied to us about (using the same anti-Communist horror stories that first originated in Nazi Germany; literally much of what we’re told to believe about so-called “manmade” famines in the USSR has its origins in fascist propaganda of the time).

  • Chubachuchi

    I was taught that the Kulaks were the hardworking farmers unjustifiably labeled “wealthy peasants” since they owned more land. They actually weren’t rich, it’s just that owning land was against Marxism. Yeah they slaughtered and stuffed themselves with their own livestock and burned their crops to prevent the govt from collectivizing things they have worked so hard for. When they resisted Stalin sent army detachments to terrorize and even kill them.
    Yeah I agree I don’t think the famine was deliberate it was just that Lenin and Stalin had a better picture of how the revoultion was going to take place, but in reality Russia, which was a largely agricultural country, was very ill-suited for Marxism, which is most ideal for a highly industrialized state.
    I think the sources that were used in my class from sometime ago did have some bias as they are western writers (McCauley, Gaddis, some Israeli historian, other people I can’t remember) but most of the books were post revisionist with an abundance of data from the former USSR, China, the Eastern bloc etc so these reads are as close as you can get to objective on a very significant and recent topic like this. Hopefully this is true lol cause the program was supposed to teach us stuff from worldy angles lol

  • EJ

    Scientific discoveries and inventions are not made by massacring non-white people, they were made by people like Newton, Faraday and Tesla. Politicians are the ones who massacre people.
    Back in Feudal times, all those countries were poor because back then electric generators and things like that didn’t exist.

    I think you give too much credit to politicians when it comes to creating wealth. Politicians have no tangible skills, all they can do with the economy is take money from one hand and give it to the other. Whether or not you view that as a good thing, it doesn’t create wealth. People who actually make stuff are the ones who are really responsible for the increase in wealth in the world.

    Yes the resources were always there, but it wasn’t the politicians who made good use of them, it was the scientists and engineers who did that. Oil and natural gas, for example, would be completely useless without scientists and engineers. No amount of political planning could ever do that.

  • kwamepooh

    you been living in that system?

  • Teddy-the-Bear

    I don’t think you know what it is I’m saying… Who the hell said anything about politicians? Politicans represent a particular class in society that has power–that’s it. The steam engine alone isn’t what created the industrial revolution. It was the under bourgeoisie–the capitalist class–in which feudal lands were expropriated, and then subsequently used to exploit the working class the whole world over, including the super-exploitation, genocide, and enslavement of Global South peoples. Yet it wasn’t the bourgeoisie who DID the actual work required to industrialize the Western world; it was the WORKERS who extracted these resources, who worked the mines, who picked the cotton, who manufactured the goods, who built the goddamn steam engines, etc. etc.–they’re the ones on whose backs the Western world became industrialized. Capitalism developed through EXPLOITATION of Western workers, and super-exploitation of Global South workers (as well as pockets of internally colonized workers’ in the West), as well as slave labor. That’s how capitalism developed.

    Socialism is the overthrow of the capitalist class and the establishment of a workers’ state whereby the means of production are collectively owned by the working class, and the economy then becomes planned so that production occurs whereever it’s needed (including the further development of productive forces), so that society as a whole can benefit. UNLIKE capitalism where production happens so as to line the pockets of the capitalist class–a slim minority of the population that owns the means of production. It’s that simple.

  • Teddy-the-Bear

    If socialism had nothing to do with the USSR’s rapid development, then why have poor capitalist countries not developed the same way? Matter of fact, why does Cuba (a socialist country) have the best living standards in all of Latin America? What accounts for the difference in development and standard of living between China and India?

    Capitalist restoration in the Eastern Bloc was a DISASTER. The Russian life expectancy fell by a full 8 years in the span of just 2 years after the collapse of the USSR! The Russian economy has only just recovered in the last 5-10 years.

  • EJ

    Lenin and Stalin and all those guys were politicians, and as far as I know all socialist systems have had politicians or rulers. None of them have ever reached statelessness, which I don’t find surprising. To me increasing the influence of the state is a silly plan to get rid of the state.

    I don’t know of the policies of Cuba, China and India, or poor capitalist countries, so I don’t know what’s behind their differing development. There’s probably many factors that are not political that play into that.
    However, if you check the list of countries ranked by human development index, you’ll see that Argentina, Chile, Barbados, The Bahamas and Uruguay are ranked higher than Cuba.

  • Wings23

    I had a Five-Year Plan to marry Lola Falana

    *shoutout to Shock lol

Advertisement