Comrade RAF, explain stalin 2 me plz

[Unrelenting Steve]

Comrade RAF, do u really like STALIN??? What is ur view of the purges if you are his fan, I mean killing other comrades, just because they were jews and he was paraniod about them being smarter than him (well thats my take on it neway)??? plz explain......

[Nobody]

Ohhhh boy, Stevie, you're setting 'ur' self up. Prepare to be cruficied.


















Not by me of course, by COMRADE RAF!!

[elijahcraig]

Yeah, you're in for a pounding.

[Unrelenting Steve]

ive never really ever heard a pro stalin argument.........

[elijahcraig]

Go read the ten million threads in this section and you'll find one.

[Unrelenting Steve]

all oive read is praise, nothing justifying his questionable and what looks to me like hippocratical actions, I mean, where did he get the nerve to banish the jews, did they all turn capitalist over night???? I dont think so..... so what can poeple possibly say to cover that???

[elijahcraig]

Read "Crimes of Stalin", Cassius Clay explains it all. He did not "banish the jews", you've been reading too many Robert Conquest books.

[Unrelenting Steve]

i am having trouble finding it, link plz!.....

[elijahcraig]

Crimes of Stalin (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=5200)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Let us start with this;

Comrade Stalin NEVER killed anyone because they were Jewish. Where you got this information from I don't know. Perhaps from ***************?

Purges of the bourgois in a newly formed state are required to keep subversion from continuing it's decadent course through humanity. The bourgois will stop at nothing to counter the revolution and bring back their way of life. Individuals that were the "ruling party" of the bourgoise will never be "re-educated".

It is imperative to the success of the revolution that any counter revolutionary ideals be dealt with quickly as the will eventually root themselves "underground" and begin to systemetically gather support from other displaced members of the bourgois that used to benefit from capitalism. One cannot rationally expect these people simply to give up their wealth and embrace a way of life that is "in the interest of the people" rather than in the interest of gaining personal wealth. If they gave a fuck all about the working class, they would have turned their back on their greedy and pathetic lives long ago. These are our enemies. If you turn you backs on them for even one small moment, they will slip a knife into your ribs.

Look at the USSR. Under Stalin, subversioninsm was harshly dealt with. The country thrived into a super power. Upon his death, subversionism was considered "revisionism" and allowed. In approximately the same amount of time it took toi build this superpower, capitalist subversionists successfuly destroyed it.

This is simple human psychology.

People were killed in the USSR yes. Not in the amounts that the west would like you to believe, but it did happen.

These people were counter-revolutionariy members of the bourgoise. Don't fool yourself into thinking they would not do the exact same to you if given the chance.

Their deaths were required to advance socialism. I'm sorry, but its a fact of life. You cannot change human nature, you can only work around it.

[lostsoul]

Originally posted by Unrelenting [email protected] 9 2003, 09:45 PM
Comrade RAF, do u really like STALIN??? What is ur view of the purges if you are his fan, I mean killing other comrades, just because they were jews and he was paraniod about them being smarter than him (well thats my take on it neway)??? plz explain......
I am sorry, i don't seem to understand why you are asking for information regarding Stalin when you seem to already have a opinion on it already.

Are you asking to learn or just to start an argument?

[Nobody]

COMRADE RAF, as always an excellent arguement! Point, match, game.

[187]

Where did you get your facts from on Stalin and the USSR RAF?

[IHP]

I love that someone called LevTrotsky supports the most Stalinist member of this board. And isn't "game, set, match"? I'm not having a go mate, don't get all uptight, curious is all.

--IHP

[Loknar]

So it can not be that Stalin was paranoid right? I would not even bother to ask RAF about Stalin or even present him with evidence, he thinks everything is propaganda unless it is pro Salin. Pretty soon some asshole will claim thwt Mao's Great leap was not as bad as it seems and only 50 people died :rolleyes:

[F_Hayek]

Their deaths were required to advance socialism. I'm sorry, but its a fact of life. You cannot change human nature, you can only work around it.

<_<

[rcpnz]

"These people were counter-revolutionariy members of the bourgoise"
So there was a bourgeoisie?

Wage labour presupposes capital and capital presuppose wage labor
- Marx, Value Price And Profit

That is odd. Cos I thought that Stalin said that therewere only two calsses, proletarians and peasantry, and that they did not have antagonistic interests, so only one political party was needed(contradictory actually, if you consider what a social class is - as Marx defined it to be a grou pof people with synonymous economic interests).

F Hayek. Perhaps you could give me some help here. I am preparing for a debate with the Libertarian Alliance (www.la-articles.org.uk) , which you are a member of (you edited their &#39;Journal Of Libertarian Studies&#39; back in the 80&#39;s.). Perhaps you could tell me how to get copies of your books, and also the books of other Austrian School economists like Bohm-Bowark, and Jevons.

rcpnz

[Unrelenting Steve]

Lotsoul, people can always know more and change their perceptions.

u make very good points RAF. But what about Trosky (sorry, i cant spell it), what happened to him after Stalin got into power, im not sure, but didnt Stalin kill or expunge him in some way???

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 10:35 AM
"These people were counter-revolutionariy members of the bourgoise"
So there was a bourgeoisie?

Wage labour presupposes capital and capital presuppose wage labor
- Marx, Value Price And Profit

That is odd. Cos I thought that Stalin said that therewere only two calsses, proletarians and peasantry, and that they did not have antagonistic interests, so only one political party was needed(contradictory actually, if you consider what a social class is - as Marx defined it to be a grou pof people with synonymous economic interests).

F Hayek. Perhaps you could give me some help here. I am preparing for a debate with the Libertarian Alliance (www.la-articles.org.uk) , which you are a member of (you edited their &#39;Journal Of Libertarian Studies&#39; back in the 80&#39;s.). Perhaps you could tell me how to get copies of your books, and also the books of other Austrian School economists like Bohm-Bowark, and Jevons.

rcpnz
Are you attempting to say that Stalin did not believe in the existence of the bourgois? That would be amusing. As Stalin was a Leninist I do not see your theory as holding water mate.

What is the purpose of you quote from Marx? I can do that yet never actually say anything as well. .

Until the abolishment of capital, it will a factor in socialism. To deny it is to live in a fantasy land.



187,

20 years as a member of the communist party in many different countries.


Loknar,

I have no idea if Stalin suffered from paranoia. As there is little evidence anywhere to support that theory so I would have to say no. Perhaps if you were able to provide some empirical evidence to support any of your little "theories" then maybe I would not wave off your babblings so often. It&#39;s easy to claim that leaders you do not care for "probably" suffered from some mental disorder. Can you prove it?


Steve,

Lev was banished fro the Soviet Union. He was murdered in Mexico by a "Stalinist" Whether Stalin had anything to do with it we don&#39;t know. I can only hope he did.

Lev&#39;s theories were both irrational and counter productive to the movement. His attempt to use the upcoming nazi invasion together with civil war to overthrow the Soviet government with the hopes the Nazis would then "spare" the USSR was a betrayal to the people and the party. His "permanent revolution" ideal as well as his "multi party faction" ideal were in the intrest of healone. Not the people. I would have clipped him on Soviet soil. Comrade Stalin and the central committee were much too forgiving.

[YKTMX]

Can&#39;t people just read the other threads? <_<

[Moskitto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 10:36 PM
Read "Crimes of Stalin", Cassius Clay explains it all. He did not "banish the jews", you&#39;ve been reading too many Robert Conquest books.
Even Werth who contributed the USSR section of the black book of communism admitted Conquest was exagerating a lot and even worse, Rummel was taking things way too far.

[Loknar]

Comrad RAF, I do not think anyone can prove that he suffered from paranoia as a psychological profile probably does not exist.

I was wondering, what do you think of Trotsky and what he did for the revolution?? I am a cappy and I actually admire Trotsky.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 08:03 PM
I am a cappy and I actually admire Trotsky.
Haha, thanks for that one. God, it&#39;s the inevitability of it all.

[Cassius Clay]

Loknar well ofcourse you admire Trotsky, we are taught in school about what a great guy he was &#39;Leader of the Red Army&#39;, &#39;Closest Friend of Lenin&#39;, &#39;Victim of Stalinist repression&#39; and all that. Not forgetting that his biographys and works of his supporters are available everywhere and his view of the USSR and Stalin happens to also be accepted by every Capitalist in history. Point is no wonder you like the guy.

[187]

"20 years as a member of the communist party in many different countries."

And how do you know they didn&#39;t lie to you, or bend the truth significantly? What makes you so sure you weren&#39;t brainwashed?

[Bianconero]

Loknar well of course you admire Trotsky, we are taught in school about what a great guy he was &#39;Leader of the Red Army&#39;, &#39;Closest Friend of Lenin&#39;, &#39;Victim of Stalinist repression&#39; and all that. Not forgetting that his biographys and works of his supporters are available everywhere and his view of the USSR and Stalin happens to also be accepted by every Capitalist in history. Point is no wonder you like the guy.

Interesting, why is the West so calm with Trotsky? Only because he collaborated with them to denounche Stalin and the USSR? After all, Trotsky sure did a lot of things that were not progressive, yet he still was an enemy of the West, no?

[RevolucioN NoW]

Did Stalin organise &#39;Show Trials&#39; of fellow Bolsheviks in the 1930&#39;s to ensure that his leadership was unquestioned.

Did Stalin not purge the armed forces of nearly all its competent generals or officers.

Just a few questions, never heard anyone refute them.

[Loknar]

RevolucioN NoW

About 80,000 Red army officers were purged, as well as 3 of the 5 marshals. This is why the Soviet army -as in competent as it was- was so incompetent when the Germans invaded.


Cassius Clay

It is more than his anti Stalism that I like. I like Trotsky simply because he was intelligent, he had great ideas on how to use his army and he was a key figure in the revolution unlike Stalin.

[elijahcraig]

he was a key figure in the revolution unlike Stalin.

You do know he was in exile do you not?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Loknar,

I already spoke about Trotsky in my last post.

187,

If being "brainwashed" means looking at facts and hard evidence to form an opinion rather than simply swallowing what is told to you even when it&#39;s against logic, reasoning and history, then call me "brainwashed."


RevolucioN NoW,

The only people that talk of "show trials" are anti-communist. There has been many articles from unbiased non-communist authors that experienced these trials firsthand denouncing ther illegitimacy. The specific "show trials" you are referring to had the defendents cofessing their crimes in court. Not in some back room where they were being "tortured" and "coerced" out of them. These men proudly accepted their fate as counter revolutionaries because what they were doing they thought was right. The idea of "show trials" is just another propaganda tool used to discredit the Soviet Union, much like the "20 million murders" bollocks.


Bianconero,

Lev was an enemy to the US until the day he was exiled from the USSR. He then became a tool for capitalism to discredit the Soviet Union. His crimes against the people and communist party were unforgivable.

[187]

""If being "brainwashed" means looking at facts and hard evidence to form an opinion rather than simply swallowing what is told to you even when it&#39;s against logic, reasoning and history, then call me "brainwashed.""

Who&#39;s facts and who&#39;s hard evidence? I&#39;m not trying to sound like an asshole here, and I&#39;ve always been interested in revisionist theories... Maybe you could explain to me how you came accross the hard facts and evidence? Were these first hand accounts, documents, or what?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 03:26 AM
""If being "brainwashed" means looking at facts and hard evidence to form an opinion rather than simply swallowing what is told to you even when it&#39;s against logic, reasoning and history, then call me "brainwashed.""

Who&#39;s facts and who&#39;s hard evidence? I&#39;m not trying to sound like an asshole here, and I&#39;ve always been interested in revisionist theories... Maybe you could explain to me how you came accross the hard facts and evidence? Were these first hand accounts, documents, or what?
I look at reality. I look at the fact that there exists no evidence besides heresy from the west and ather anti Stalin groups of all these so called "crimes" commited by Stalin. I will not condemn a man on heresy. Period.

What revisionsist theories are you referring to? All of comrade lenin&#39;s theories are true to Marxism.

It&#39;s standard scientific practise. When confronted with an unknown element you first look at it, smell it then taste it. Logic and reason will never lie to you. People will lie to you.

[187]

"What revisionsist theories are you referring to?"

I use "revisionism" in the sense that you want to revise commonly accepted history.

I look at reality. I look at the fact that there exists no evidence besides heresy from the west and ather anti Stalin groups of all these so called "crimes" commited by Stalin. I will not condemn a man on heresy. Period.

Well, are there any facts that disprove what the west claims?

[Comrade Ceausescu]

:angry: at "loknar" criticizing mao and the great leap foward :angry:

[elijahcraig]

Loknar well ofcourse you admire Trotsky, we are taught in school about what a great guy he was &#39;Leader of the Red Army&#39;, &#39;Closest Friend of Lenin&#39;, &#39;Victim of Stalinist repression&#39; and all that. Not forgetting that his biographys and works of his supporters are available everywhere and his view of the USSR and Stalin happens to also be accepted by every Capitalist in history. Point is no wonder you like the guy.

I don&#39;t know what school you went to, but where I went, they were ALL bad. Trotsky was hardly mentioned, besides the negative "commie" comment. Stalin is highlighted as a mass murderer, Lenin as well. Trotsky as their accomplice in mass murder. School is so screwed up historically. For obvious reasons. I&#39;m handing in a paper tomorrow in english, in which I call Josef Stalin a "hero". I&#39;m waiting what my Baptist teacher is going to say. He likes James Joyce, it might not be all bad.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 03:59 AM
"What revisionsist theories are you referring to?"

I use "revisionism" in the sense that you want to revise commonly accepted history.

I look at reality. I look at the fact that there exists no evidence besides heresy from the west and ather anti Stalin groups of all these so called "crimes" commited by Stalin. I will not condemn a man on heresy. Period.

Well, are there any facts that disprove what the west claims?
Comrade Elijah used to call me a "history revisionist" as well.

I can&#39;t believe I have to go into this again. The burden of proof lies with the accuser not with the accused.
The facts I have are simple, every accusation made by the west cannot be supported with any substantial evidence. Until there is some, I will hold their arguments as they are. Pure fantasy created at a time when the west was in fear of communism "taking over the world".

What&#39;s the best way to halt a movement? Not attack it&#39;s leaders but attack it&#39;s people. Once the seeds of doubt and suspicion are thoroughly planted, they just need a bit of watered occasionally.

I&#39;m glad that you accept the western world&#39;s version of Soviet history without any doubts friend. After all the USA and it&#39;s allies would never ever lie to their citizens now would they?

[elijahcraig]

Comrade Elijah used to call me a "history revisionist" as well.

:lol:

[187]

"I can&#39;t believe I have to go into this again. The burden of proof lies with the accuser not with the accused."

You&#39;re revising history, therefore accusing the west of lieing. The burden of proof would infact lie on you.

"The facts I have are simple, every accusation made by the west cannot be supported with any substantial evidence. "

How is that a fact? Substantial is a subjective term. What do you want to see that hasn&#39;t been presented?

"I&#39;m glad that you accept the western world&#39;s version of Soviet history without any doubts friend."

I&#39;m trying to look at your side of the argument. I figure asking you questions and acknowledging you without insult or outright denial is proof that I don&#39;t just "accept the west with out any doubts".

Do you have any tangible facts that prove or disprove anything?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 06:33 AM
"I can&#39;t believe I have to go into this again. The burden of proof lies with the accuser not with the accused."

You&#39;re revising history, therefore accusing the west of lieing. The burden of proof would infact lie on you.

"The facts I have are simple, every accusation made by the west cannot be supported with any substantial evidence. "

How is that a fact? Substantial is a subjective term. What do you want to see that hasn&#39;t been presented?

"I&#39;m glad that you accept the western world&#39;s version of Soviet history without any doubts friend."

I&#39;m trying to look at your side of the argument. I figure asking you questions and acknowledging you without insult or outright denial is proof that I don&#39;t just "accept the west with out any doubts".

Do you have any tangible facts that prove or disprove anything?
I&#39;m revising nothing. The history you have swallowed is not my history, It&#39;s yours. It is fiction. Just because the US wills it does not mean it&#39;s real son. Until the west can support it&#39;s accusations against Stalin you will never have a leg to stand on. Try as you might to twist this around to me you will inevitably fail because YOU will never have empirical proof of ANY of these so called "crimes".


YOU know it. I know it. THE GLOBE knows it. I can care less if you continue to snub your nose at reality and logic and instead embrace fiction. It changes nothing.


I will explain this to you only one more time. The west has accused Stalin of severe crimes against humanity (this is your so called "history" eh?) that have been either debunked or had no support from actual fact.

Therefore using the laws of LOGICAL DEBATE that are prevalent in ANY court of law, the accuser (the west) will present their argument and "facts" to the defending council. At this time the defense will develop it&#39;s own counter argument and present it&#39;s own evidence that refutes the accuser&#39;s evidence.

Court rooms are like this for a reason son. Because any other way does not adhere to logic and reason, thus you are wrong.

I will be more that happy to refute any "evidence" you may have. I will not bother to refute any editorial or opinionated article from anyone, regardless of who they are. I will only consider hard empirical evidence.

In other words son, do what all the scientist can&#39;t, find me mass graves holding 20 million bodies that have been successfully radio-carbon dated to the time of the "great purges". Not before and not after. These individuals must be successfully identified through DNA to be Russian in nationality.


Show me how "logically" you can determine that the individuals that confessed to their crimes in a court of law...in front of a massive audience were "coerced" and "tortured" into doing this rather than simply maintaining their innocence publically as they could easily have done. These proud Russians knew there sentences would be no different whether they confessed or not. Good luck my friend.

Please show me absolute proof that Stalin&#39;s farm collectivation process was the absolute definitive reason for any amount of starvation in the Ukraine. Show me how the Kulaks "could not" have been responsible. Show me how the Civil War and invasion of the Nazis could have NOTHING to do with it. Show me the bodies son. Show me the bodies. Hiding millions of people ain&#39;t easy.

You know the drill son. Give it your best shot.

[187]

What were your numbers on soviet "bourgious purging", like 2 million?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Attributed to Stalin? I would say between 400,000 and 700,000 That would leave the crude death ratio within normal boundaries.

Up to 1.5 million is possible, but anything after that would bring the national crude death ration down to almost impossible levels.

[Cassius Clay]

Loknar, according to who is Trotsky intelligent? The answer is Trotsky and his supporters who happen to also support Hitler, one example is the Newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst a best friend of Hitler, he took the typhical Trot line saying &#39;Stalin had betrayed the Revolution&#39;. The rest of your post is what I&#39;m talking about, let me guess Stalin was a &#39;grey blur&#39; who &#39;played no role in the Civil War&#39; while Trotsky &#39;was the leader of the Red Army&#39;. You say all of this because this is what your taught, at school in documentaries. If it were anyone else historians (and some have bothered to do research, but they are criticsed by the likes of Radzinsky and Conquest) by now would of bothered to find out more sources than Trotsky&#39;s Autobiography. Stalin won the highest military medal, he saved Tsaritsyn, he fought in the East against Kolchak, he led the Military Revolutionary Council in October aswell being a member of the Central Committe something which Trotsky wasn&#39;t. Trotsky incidently was replaced by the brilliant Marshall Frunze and the military actually demanded that he play NO ROLE in MILITARY AFFAIRS because he kept on fucking up.