Ahhh Communist Death tolls [Archive]

Exploited Class

23rd September 2003, 10:25

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 23 2003, 02:16 AM
Fucking protestwarrior.org....you're an idiot my friend.
I love protestwarrior.org!

I see anybody quoting from it and I immediately get to know who I am dealing with...

Their IQ level falls somewhere between 40 and 75.

Thank you for the giant flag of your ignorance Babylon5 Crusade. Nothing like somebody using figures made up by people to discredit a specific idea. BTW, does protestwarrior.org also list all the deaths created by the Christian religion? Or does that not help their cause of blinded hate? Is it because the bible puts the numbers of estimated deaths in there all the time, oh I get it, those might be factual numbers and they try to steer away from those.

I have an idea, instead of being lazy, which obviously you are by that impressive amount of copy and paste data, why not use the search function on the board and read this debate that has happened a hundred times over. Unless, you figured somehow that this was original or something. If you did, sorry the people prior to you that did the same thing you just posted, did it better.

I like how you call communists and leftists lazy, when it looks like with all your hard research time and effort you put in this post, the capitalists are the laziest mother fuckers on the planet. Maybe you should join a labor rights group and work to get the average work week lowered because you are either working too long at your job, or working too hard because you are too tired to post with any effort.

Exploited Class

23rd September 2003, 10:33

I'd like to see all the basis on all these figures, I believe it goes something like this.

*Died of natural causes while in a communist country*

*American Soldiers killed going over seas to fight communism*

*innocent civilians killed by americans, when american went across seas to fight communism*

*people who starved because of trade embargos imposed by the west*

*The nazis Russians killed in WW2*

*People who have voted socialist, communist, green, democratic or anything other than republican that have died do to any reasons*

*all the people nazi german soldiers killed in Russian when they tried to take over russia*

*all the communist soldiers that died fighting nazi german troops*

Ian

23rd September 2003, 11:09

That figure for China is just outrageous, if 65 million were killed that equates to 8.9% of the Chinese population of 1965 (assuming that protestwarrior are talking about the cultural revolution), now how likely do you think this is?

Click on this, do you think that a population that lost 65 million would have continued such growth? (http://www.demographia.com/db-chinapop.htm)

Another table (http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Asia/chinac.htm)

If you all can see the .gif image of the population of China you can see that after 1950 it expands rapidly, that generally doesn't happen when you kill 65 million... Available here (http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/data/anim/pop_ani.htm)
Source: Source: United Nations (1999): World Population Prospects. The 1998 Revision. New York (electronic data files)

Anastacia

23rd September 2003, 11:34

Lol.:D :lol: :P :lol: :D :P :lol: :D Babylon5 Crusade, you are pathetic. Take whatever ideology and all of them have killed many innocent people. Think, for example, how many innocent people USA alone have killed and is killing?

Vinny Rafarino

23rd September 2003, 11:42

Agreed EC. We are not even getting into the milti millions (WELL over 100) that have been killed in the name of capitalism either. This kat can't tell the difference between shit or shinola if he could possibly have bothered to post "death tolls" knowing full well the INCREDIBLE amount of death involved in capitalism. Fuck all, I think India, the nazis and the war in vietnam (franco and yanqui) count for near 90 million alone.

This fool must have been smokin them tweeds when he posted this.

CubanFox

23rd September 2003, 12:36

Capitalism, in the form of Tsarism, wiped out 1/4th of the Finnish working class in three months in 1917. That's 300,000 people. 100,000 per month. About 3,000 a day. About 125 an hour. Around two per minute. The White Terror was fucking fun, wasn't it, you Reaganite filth?
http://www.skalman.nu/sovjet/bilder/tsar.jpghttp://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSkolchak.JPGhttp://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSdenikin.JPGhttp://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSwrangel.JPGhttp://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSyudenich.JPG
Roughly 90% of Russia's industry and all that was owned by overseas companies in 1917. Capitalism was actively funding and aiding the White Army in its genocidal antics.
But they were fighting against communism...that makes it alright, doesn't it?

Doesn't it?

Loknar

23rd September 2003, 18:44

Many of you think Capitalism caused over 100 million deaths I'd like to see some info to that end and not bullshit.

Anyway, in my opinion many of those nations were not Communist, they were just labeled them selves as such.

RAF, will you claim that Stalin industrialized Russia the way he did without dropping 1 ounce of blood?

Cuban Fox, shall I bring up the terror the Maoists in Peru are causing?

Ian

23rd September 2003, 20:00

Lokanar: If you do bring up the maoist terror in Peru talk about how the counter-insurgent forces are supposed to have killed 6 times as many as the Maoists

Loknar

23rd September 2003, 20:21

Originally posted by Ian [email protected] 23 2003, 08:00 PM
Lokanar: If you do bring up the maoist terror in Peru talk about how the counter-insurgent forces are supposed to have killed 6 times as many as the Maoists
Perhaps it's true, but you have to look at the cause.

Vinny Rafarino

23rd September 2003, 20:46

RAF, will you claim that Stalin industrialized Russia the way he did without dropping 1 ounce of blood?

Quote me anywhere as saying comrade Stalin never dropped "an ounce of blood"

C'mon I dare ya....No I double dare ya.....No I triple dare ya....No I double-dog dare ya...

Fuck all, I TRIPLE DOG DARE YA!

Babylon5 Crusade

23rd September 2003, 20:48

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 23 2003, 08:46 PM

RAF, will you claim that Stalin industrialized Russia the way he did without dropping 1 ounce of blood?

Quote me anywhere as saying comrade Stalin never dropped "an ounce of blood"

C'mon I dare ya....No I double dare ya.....No I triple dare ya....No I double-dog dare ya...

Fuck all, I TRIPLE DOG DARE YA!
He didnt say you had said it. :rolleyes:

Vinny Rafarino

23rd September 2003, 21:08

My sister's, brother's, nephew's, cousin says he did.

chamo

23rd September 2003, 21:10

I never said that! *slap*

Invader Zim

23rd September 2003, 22:04

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 23 2003, 10:08 PM
My sister's, brother's, nephew's, cousin says he did.
so that means your nephew/niece said it? Because your sister's brother is your brither as well, and his nephew is either your son or your sisters, and his cousin is one of your siblings childern.

So which part of your family said what?

YKTMX

23rd September 2003, 22:14

Originally posted by Babylon5 [email protected] 23 2003, 07:26 AM
Country/Experiment Death Count
Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics (USSR) 20,000,000

Haha. OOO, making the socialist bit capitals. That's about as convincing as the argument for the USSR being socialist gets.

Vinny Rafarino

23rd September 2003, 22:20

Originally posted by Enigma+Sep 23 2003, 10:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Sep 23 2003, 10:04 PM)
COMRADE [email protected] 23 2003, 10:08 PM
My sister's, brother's, nephew's, cousin says he did.
so that means your nephew/niece said it? Because your sister's brother is your brither as well, and his nephew is either your son or your sisters, and his cousin is one of your siblings childern.

So which part of your family said what? [/b]
I should have been more clear;

It was my sister's brother's nephew's cousin ....Twice removed.

I hope that clears up any confusion enigma.

Ian

24th September 2003, 07:55

Sometimes I just have to wonder why we ever let the less stupid capitalists leave... I forget their names though... you know the ones I assume

RED CHARO

24th September 2003, 11:25

I can't belive nobody has said this but.......
THOSE KILLED IN LATIN AMERICA , were Reds killed by the Gringo backed regimes---all inocent Democratic civilians
THOSE 1.7 MILL KILLED IN AFRICA, mostly through famine and war iniciated by Gringos (note; over 1MILL dead in Congo, since 1998, fighting for Coltan; mineral for x- box and mobile phones)
CAMBODIA; didn't mention that it was the Vitenamese army that stopped it ... not the gringos who started it.....
THAT 1 MILLION IN VIETNAM , Are allthose killed during the Vietnam war; thus U.s's fault, AND mostly killed by Gringos....
AND 1 MILLION KILLED IN INDONESIA; were killed by u.s backed regime, all innocent civilians...

RONNI MATE, UR FUCKED.......

EneME

24th September 2003, 21:11

All i have to say is that in ES the right wing supported by the US on 5 million per day....murdered 75,000 ppl in a 12 year period that were FOUND not to mention those disappeared....and that is one TEENY TINY country thats as big as Massachusettes and at the time the pop was 5 billion. Can you imagine world wide? Gee I wonder why ppl hate Imperialism/Capitalism...

IHP

25th September 2003, 01:56

How many times have we seen these statistics put forth and refuted? I count at least a half-dozen by now.

Urban Rubble

25th September 2003, 02:57

Loknar, you dumb bastard.

"Perhaps it's true, but you have to look at the cause. "

I will agree, the PCP is Peru is pretty out of hand. They are nothing more than Marxist terrorists as far as I am concerned. BUT, they are fighting a government that is FAR worse than the PCP would ever be.

Your idiotic quote makes no sense. You say this bullshit but you fail to realize that the reason the PCP is fighting is because the Peruvian government, mostly the military, is carrying out much worse attrocities. Add to the fact that hundereds of thousands are starving and dying as a result of CAPITALISM, and you may see why they have to fight.

I make no excuses for the PCP, but if you think they are worse than the government than you are fucking insane.

Vinny Rafarino

25th September 2003, 03:01

What's even worse about Loknar's quote [Perhaps it's true, but you have to look at the cause.] is that he openly condones hypocracy as long as HE agrees with the excuses used for the killing.

It shows what the mindset of the right truly is.

Regicidal Insomniac

25th September 2003, 03:13

Overall, the African slave trade resulted in approximately 100 million people being lost on the continent if one includes deaths during slave trade-related wars, slaves lost during the middle passage (across the ocean) and those landing alive in other countries. .

By mass-execution prior to the arrival of Columbus the land defined as the 48 contiguous states of America numbered in excess of 12 millionnative inhabitants. Four centuries later, it had been reduced by 95% (237 thousand).

Now, those are just two of countless examples of ongoing, brutal processes commited for capital profit. If you deny that the savage collection of capital has not killed hundreds of millions of people on this planet, then you are the most moronic piece of nazi trash alive.

Rastafari

25th September 2003, 03:22

On the other hand, even if the cuba stats are real, 15,000 peple in 45 years is pretty good. Thats about 334 people a year, right? Taking into perspective the fact that its a small country, thats pretty respectable. Especially when you compare it to the US sanction in Iraq. Hell, I bet the war itself has probably cost about 1/2 that number right there. At least.

See what happens when you rationalize the justice of a system based on the lives it has taken away? There are so many referendums and things that have to be taken into consideration that it loses its point very quickly.

Besides, nobody expected a bloodless revolution in any of these truly communist countries. Some of them weren't even Left-Wing, and used the concept of a revolution as an excuse for clearing out the populace. But fuck, man, look at a small-time example of US colonialism. How many people do you think died during Jingoism? And if these little peices of misconstrued data contain, as I'm sure they do, death from natural causes and wars fought on the countries behalf, then what country hasen't had a horribly repressive regime?

Vinny Rafarino

25th September 2003, 03:47

But it's not good Rata. As a matter of fact it's so not goos that there would be an international outcry. That is why it's pure right wing fantasy.

The USA is formally the worlds leader when it comes to the number of inmates per capita with a percentage of .68%.

This number is INCREDIBLY high.

Using this kid's numbers, that would put Cuba's percentage on 100,000 inmates at .88%. An UNHEARD of number number. Using the 200,000 number cited by the kid that percentage raises to 1.7%! This number is so fantastic that it's laughable. It would be the equivalent of stating Stalin was responsible for 300 million murders in 7 years or even more absurd than that, it would be like saying Dubya is a warm and caring bloke that LOVES brown people.

Ever consider why these numbers are never heard of beyond editorials and conservative propaganda? Because no real government agency would use numbers so blatently false that if anyone bothered to refute them, the government would look like morons and liars to the international community. Given the current track record of lying by the current US terrorist regime, the last thing these morons want is to get caught in yet ANOTHER lie. Too bad Babble-on 5 could not think that far ahead cos it would have saved him some embarrassment.

EDIT:

I was good and drunk when I wrote this...I just noticed it's not even in the right thread. I think I had a lot of fun that night.

synthesis

25th September 2003, 04:49

Amartya Sen, who won a Nobel Prize in part for his research on the death tolls of Communist China, compares Communist China with Capitalist India.

What he said, essentially, was that in India alone, a democratic capitalist country, and in a mere 33 years, at least one hundred million people died from famine - the same cause of death as the majority of people in China.

This is just one capitalist nation. Sure, it's a huge country, but China's even bigger.

So, ignoring any numerical revisionism, one capitalist country "killed" the same number of people in 33 years as a large number of purportedly socialist countries did in a century.

But I never see this mentioned. All I ever hear about is this biased book of capitalist propaganda, the Black Book of Communism, and you never hear about this crime of capitalism, this famine that killed one hundred million people in 33 years. Same number, but one third of the time taken; Same number, but in just one fucking country.

Why's this?

Urban Rubble

25th September 2003, 05:41

Even the Black Book of Communism's numbers were lower than this douche bag's.

Look up my post "An example of Cpaitalist hypocrisy". It perfectly outlines how India's Capitalist nation killed far more than China's "brutal Communist regime".

People claim that Communism killed 100 million. My post (based on Amartya Sen's work) shows that India killed more than 100 million people in 45 years. Why ? Because, while a newly Socialist nation may be somewhat repressive, they have affordable health care set up for peasants in rural areas. Cpaitalist nations do not, because the very basis of Capitalism shows that the poor are not to be cared for.

Ian

25th September 2003, 06:26

But still DyerMaker, I haven't seen any evidence that 100 million died as a result of socialism, that was a very good post nonetheless.

Just remember that we really should be talking hypothetically about this death toll as I have seen little proof and I'm sure many other remain sceptical of such a figure. So really we should be saying that the 100 million Indians in 33 years is greater than the supposed death toll from 150 plus years of Socialism... Well I would like it that way ;)

Sorry just talking crap...

RED CHARO

25th September 2003, 12:36

I've seen Ronald Regans stats before on the 20th centuary Atlas site......

Xvall

25th September 2003, 20:37

EC got to it before I did. Yeah; what they do is claim that anyone who died while living in a socialist country, was a socialist, or was killed by a socialist, was a 'victim of communism'. Also, anyone who dies bleeding red is assumed to have died as a result of communism. (After all, red is the communist color) Actually, if some nazi came up to me and tried to kill me, and I shot him out of self defense, prostestwarrior would say that communism killed him. :rolleyes:

Please. This thread shouldn't even exist.

Xvall

25th September 2003, 20:44

THOSE KILLED IN LATIN AMERICA , were Reds killed by the Gringo backed regimes

Please refrain from using that word.

Rastafari

25th September 2003, 21:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 12:49 AM
Amartya Sen, who won a Nobel Prize in part for his research on the death tolls of Communist China, compares Communist China with Capitalist India.

What he said, essentially, was that in India alone, a democratic capitalist country, and in a mere 33 years, at least one hundred million people died from famine - the same cause of death as the majority of people in China.

This is just one capitalist nation. Sure, it's a huge country, but China's even bigger.

So, ignoring any numerical revisionism, one capitalist country "killed" the same number of people in 33 years as a large number of purportedly socialist countries did in a century.

But I never see this mentioned. All I ever hear about is this biased book of capitalist propaganda, the Black Book of Communism, and you never hear about this crime of capitalism, this famine that killed one hundred million people in 33 years. Same number, but one third of the time taken; Same number, but in just one fucking country.

Why's this?
Did this man publish his work in any book? Sounds like a very interesting and truthful arguement

Urban Rubble

26th September 2003, 00:55

Ya, he won a Nobel Peace prize for his work. He has written a few books.

I think Dyer Maker might have been a little off when he said he won his Nobel prize for research into the death tolls in China. I think he won it for his research on India, but I could be wrong.

synthesis

26th September 2003, 01:23

Here's the quote from Power and Terror, the book wherein I first heard of Sen.

The biggest component [of the 100 million number] was a famine in China from 1958 to 1960, which is estimated to have killed about twenty-five million people. The reason why it's called a political crime - an ideological crime - which is a good reason in my opinion, was discussed in the most detail by Amartya Sen; it's part of the work for which he won a Nobel Prize.

Don't Change Your Name

26th September 2003, 02:11

i dont believe those huge numbers. I bet that if they are "real" they include people killed by the right-wing bastards and natural deaths.

Plus, dont forget what capitalists did:
- about 20 million killed by the WW2 (started by the leading cappie countries), including genocide against jewish people, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc.
- WW1
- pro-yanqui fascist dictatorships in Chile and Argentina during the seventies: here in Argentina about 30000 of "us" killed or dissapeared because of being "subversives", which is a huge number compared to those 15000 "killed" by Cuba communists if we consider this country's population, the difference in time (during that 1976-1983 government military fascist assholes killed the double than Cuba did on 43 years!). In Chile pro-free-market yanqui supported an anti-democratic decision by imposing a dictatorship and killing thousands.
- other dictatorships that happened here before
- deaths in Central America (more thousands)
- killed African slaves
- victims of racism (example: black men killed by nazis)
- deaths in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, all Africa and most Middle East, caused both by yanqui troops and fascist muslims and jews
- deaths in India (a lot of them)
- deaths in protests by police and military
- Inquisition, Crusades, and wars ordered by the first fascists (kings and emperors)
- Colonialism and Imperialism killing people in Africa, southern Asia, America, etc.
- and i could go on for hours...

Ian

26th September 2003, 06:21

http://www.agitprop.org.au/political_art/images/cpasi10.800.jpg

Credit for this goes to Wat Tyler from the CPA

Vinny Rafarino

26th September 2003, 07:30

All true save for "cancer". That one just goes over the top.

Ian

26th September 2003, 07:39

Yeah that one was quite out of place, but it's good nonetheless... hey maybe the guy has a reason for putting in cancer, I don't know... Maybe he thinks the environmental factors that cause cancer are the products of capitalism.

Exploited Class

26th September 2003, 07:50

Originally posted by Ian [email protected] 26 2003, 12:39 AM
Yeah that one was quite out of place, but it's good nonetheless... hey maybe the guy has a reason for putting in cancer, I don't know... Maybe he thinks the environmental factors that cause cancer are the products of capitalism.
I am just curious, but when people start getting cancer? Is that something that has been around for ever but wasn't identified prior to a certain point? Or did it just start happening?

It is kind of funny this was brought up, because a co-worker and myself had a discussion in our cube one day about this exact query. What prompted it was the fact that we started to discuss how many non-natural products surrounded us. 10 computer monitors, the computers, all the paint, the cube walls, the carpet, the stuffing in the chair, the cleaning sprays, the flourecsent lighting, the A/C, the phones, plastics, ect..ect. Then we asked when cancer started and neither of us knew.

Babylon5 Crusade

26th September 2003, 07:57

Originally posted by Ian [email protected] 26 2003, 06:21 AM
http://www.agitprop.org.au/political_art/images/cpasi10.800.jpg

Credit for this goes to Wat Tyler from the CPA
I wont apolgise.

CubanFox

26th September 2003, 07:59

Originally posted by Babylon5 Crusade+Sep 26 2003, 07:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Babylon5 Crusade @ Sep 26 2003, 07:57 AM)
Ian [email protected] 26 2003, 06:21 AM
http://www.agitprop.org.au/political_art/images/cpasi10.800.jpg

Credit for this goes to Wat Tyler from the CPA
I wont apolgise. [/b]
What an enlightened post!

Exploited Class

26th September 2003, 08:02

Throw in that list CointelPro (http://www.cointel.org/) The creel commission (http://www.seattlecentral.org/faculty/jshoop/bookex.html) The Ludlow Massacre (http://members.tripod.com/~RedRobin2/index-29.html) and the almost total genocide of a continent of people, the American Indians.

I'll never forgive them for what they did to all those unique civilizations and races in the name of expansion and manifest destiny.

Exploited Class

26th September 2003, 08:04

That is, by the way a pretty powerful, cut to the point picture. I think it spells it out really nice and easy.

Loknar

26th September 2003, 08:23

50 million commies? Good, i am glad we killed that many, I wish it was more. But can you be more specific how we killed 50 million?

And name me 1 communist state where only 1 class of people existed.

Vinny Rafarino

26th September 2003, 08:36

I am just curious, but when people start getting cancer? Is that something that has been around for ever but wasn't identified prior to a certain point? Or did it just start happening?

It is kind of funny this was brought up, because a co-worker and myself had a discussion in our cube one day about this exact query. What prompted it was the fact that we started to discuss how many non-natural products surrounded us. 10 computer monitors, the computers, all the paint, the cube walls, the carpet, the stuffing in the chair, the cleaning sprays, the flourecsent lighting, the A/C, the phones, plastics, ect..ect. Then we asked when cancer started and neither of us knew.

As long as there have been genes, there has been cancer. Cancer is a disease that begins with mutation of critical regulatory genes, oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. Beyond the hereditary cases such as Hodgkin's lymphoma, certain carcinogens can also lead to mutations within these genes. I'm assuming that's what he meant with citing "cancer" as a capitalist invention. It's not completely "true" but it's not completely false either. A more fitting way to say it would have been to say, "certain types of cancer" versus simply "cancer".

The actual "origins" of most human cancers is relatively unknown, but is is a safe bet to say that if genes can mutate and be passed on through heredity now, there is no reason to assume that this has always been the case upon successful evolution into DNA sequenced life forms. In not hereditary cancers, covalent binding of chemicals to cellular macromolecules, DNA, RNA and proteins lead to the eventual growth of non-hereditary tumors. The more you are exposed to these carcinogenic chemicals, the higher your risk of developing a tumor. We all know that capitalist industries frequently produce products containing known chemicals that have been shown to be carcinogenic.

I feel like a nerd now sorry.

Ian

26th September 2003, 08:45

good post! I need to study about genes for an exam in 2 weeks or so... your post taught me more in a few seconds than all of my science lessons this year :)

Maybe one day the guy will edit the picture to make it certain types of cancer, but I dunno...

Cassius Clay

26th September 2003, 09:40

Loknar.

Yeah sure, 20 million Communists were killed by the genocide of Nazi Germany. Millions more by Japan in China, Indochina, Phillipines, Malaya, Korea. White Terror in Finland, Hungary, the Baltic states etc. The invasion by and backing of Anti-Semitic, rascist Tsarists by 14 nations in the Russian Revolution. The invasion of Korea which resulted in 1 million dead. CIA backed terror in Angola, Chile, Guatemala, death squards in Salvador, terriorists in Niguaraga. Oppression, torture and war in the former Eastern Bloc has led to massacres of Communists, see seige of White House in 1993.

The Capitalist Taliban (backed by the U$ up until months before 9/11) killed many a Commie, especially the Maoist RAWA. In Albania Communists were sent to the exact same camps the Nazis put them in, not to mention the thousands who died at the hand of the NATO backed Berisha regime.

In Iraq the CIA gave the Bathists lists of Communists to go and kill. They didn't let you down. The death toll there was only surpased in Indonesia under Sukarno.

Exploited Class

26th September 2003, 09:47

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 26 2003, 01:36 AM
As long as there have been genes, there has been cancer. Cancer is a disease that begins with mutation of critical regulatory genes, oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. Beyond the hereditary cases such as Hodgkin's lymphoma, certain carcinogens can also lead to mutations within these genes. I'm assuming that's what he meant with citing "cancer" as a capitalist invention. It's not completely "true" but it's not completely false either. A more fitting way to say it would have been to say, "certain types of cancer" versus simply "cancer".

The actual "origins" of most human cancers is relatively unknown, but is is a safe bet to say that if genes can mutate and be passed on through heredity now, there is no reason to assume that this has always been the case upon successful evolution into DNA sequenced life forms. In not hereditary cancers, covalent binding of chemicals to cellular macromolecules, DNA, RNA and proteins lead to the eventual growth of non-hereditary tumors. The more you are exposed to these carcinogenic chemicals, the higher your risk of developing a tumor. We all know that capitalist industries frequently produce products containing known chemicals that have been shown to be carcinogenic.

I feel like a nerd now sorry.
So what I got out of all that is that these so called "Genes" are our enemy? I guess I don't understand, why do we allow these "Genes" to be in us to this day! We need to pool our resources and deystroy all genes.

But seriously, that was the information I was looking for exactly. Thank you. You'd think that after losing a mother and grandfather to cancer, I would be more read up. That made sense without having to go to deep. I could have gone to the internet (obviously) but I seriously didn't want to read 15 pages to get the 2 paragraphs of information I was looking for.

Perhaps as Homer Simpon might say, "Stupid Mutating Genes".

Oh and I almost forgot...

"Stupid Nerd!"

*nerds need humiliation, it is what keeps them learning* :)

Ian

26th September 2003, 09:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 08:23 AM
50 million commies? Good, i am glad we killed that many, I wish it was more. But can you be more specific how we killed 50 million?

:rolleyes: Ach! If only we got 200 Million! :rolleyes:

...but we can't have everything out way, sometimes we just have to settle for 100 million...

CubanFox

26th September 2003, 10:30

Originally posted by Cassius [email protected] 26 2003, 09:40 AM
Loknar.

Yeah sure, 20 million Communists were killed by the genocide of Nazi Germany. Millions more by Japan in China, Indochina, Phillipines, Malaya, Korea. White Terror in Finland, Hungary, the Baltic states etc. The invasion by and backing of Anti-Semitic, rascist Tsarists by 14 nations in the Russian Revolution. The invasion of Korea which resulted in 1 million dead. CIA backed terror in Angola, Chile, Guatemala, death squards in Salvador, terriorists in Niguaraga. Oppression, torture and war in the former Eastern Bloc has led to massacres of Communists, see seige of White House in 1993.

The Capitalist Taliban (backed by the U$ up until months before 9/11) killed many a Commie, especially the Maoist RAWA. In Albania Communists were sent to the exact same camps the Nazis put them in, not to mention the thousands who died at the hand of the NATO backed Berisha regime.

In Iraq the CIA gave the Bathists lists of Communists to go and kill. They didn't let you down. The death toll there was only surpased in Indonesia under Sukarno.
Don't forget the CIA backed mujhadeen in Afghanistan that destroyed the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan!

Anarchist Freedom

26th September 2003, 10:33

babylon 5 and loknar ignorance is bliss in your case,

babylon did you ever noticed that capatilism kills people every day i mean havent oh wait your blinded by geroge bushes huge ass i mean lies w00ps.

loknar
i guess in capatilism they forgot to educate you because no one is eqaul and that your just a slave to another society in which you can not win
but did you know that when lenin took power he incresed the literacy rate by like 30% but when those ohh so great czars were in power the only people reading were the rich people who had everthing while a 100ft away from them a little baby is dying at birth because of malnutrion

when you 2 can actually show some competence in what your saying and dont just think youll win a dbate because of statistics created by liars and cheats!

:che:

Sabocat

26th September 2003, 10:58

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 26 2003, 04:36 AM

I am just curious, but when people start getting cancer? Is that something that has been around for ever but wasn't identified prior to a certain point? Or did it just start happening?

It is kind of funny this was brought up, because a co-worker and myself had a discussion in our cube one day about this exact query. What prompted it was the fact that we started to discuss how many non-natural products surrounded us. 10 computer monitors, the computers, all the paint, the cube walls, the carpet, the stuffing in the chair, the cleaning sprays, the flourecsent lighting, the A/C, the phones, plastics, ect..ect. Then we asked when cancer started and neither of us knew.

As long as there have been genes, there has been cancer. Cancer is a disease that begins with mutation of critical regulatory genes, oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. Beyond the hereditary cases such as Hodgkin's lymphoma, certain carcinogens can also lead to mutations within these genes. I'm assuming that's what he meant with citing "cancer" as a capitalist invention. It's not completely "true" but it's not completely false either. A more fitting way to say it would have been to say, "certain types of cancer" versus simply "cancer".

The actual "origins" of most human cancers is relatively unknown, but is is a safe bet to say that if genes can mutate and be passed on through heredity now, there is no reason to assume that this has always been the case upon successful evolution into DNA sequenced life forms. In not hereditary cancers, covalent binding of chemicals to cellular macromolecules, DNA, RNA and proteins lead to the eventual growth of non-hereditary tumors. The more you are exposed to these carcinogenic chemicals, the higher your risk of developing a tumor. We all know that capitalist industries frequently produce products containing known chemicals that have been shown to be carcinogenic.

I feel like a nerd now sorry.
.....you're frightening me. You really are Dr. Frankenstein. :lol:

Loknar

26th September 2003, 20:31

[COLOR=blue][COLOR=blue][COLOR=blue]Now guys, I didnt mean what I said. I am merely posting what some of you would post if 50 million capitalists were killed.

Cassius Clay

Yeah sure, 20 million Communists were killed by the genocide of Nazi Germany. Millions more by Japan in China, Indochina, Phillipines, Malaya, Korea. White Terror in Finland, Hungary, the Baltic states etc. The invasion by and backing of Anti-Semitic, rascist Tsarists by 14 nations in the Russian Revolution. The invasion of Korea which resulted in 1 million dead. CIA backed terror in Angola, Chile, Guatemala, death squards in Salvador, terriorists in Niguaraga. Oppression, torture and war in the former Eastern Bloc has led to massacres of Communists, see seige of White House in 1993.

WW2 was not a war between Capitalism and Communism. It was imperialism, those 20 million Russians were mostly peasants, how can you be sure they were Communists? Did Russians even have access to the Communist Manifesto?

What do you mean the "invasion" of Korea? As I recall it was a North Korean army with Soviet equipment that crossed the 38th Parallel.

And those other wars, that was cold war era combat. The Sovs and Americans were never concerned about spreading Capitalism and Communism as much as they were with spreading their own Hegemony. Wasn’t it Stalin who adopted the “Communism in 1 nation” policy?

CubanFox

Don't forget the CIA backed mujhadeen in Afghanistan that destroyed the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan!

What is wrong with liberating your country from foreign occupation? Russia had their own Vietnam, it's called Afghanistan.

Socialistfreedom8

loknar
i guess in capatilism they forgot to educate you because no one is eqaul and that your just a slave to another society in which you can not win
but did you know that when lenin took power he incresed the literacy rate by like 30% but when those ohh so great czars were in power the only people reading were the rich people who had everthing while a 100ft away from them a little baby is dying at birth because of malnutrion

I don’t care about equality, in fact I hate it. I don’t see why everyone needs to wear the same clothing and why I need to be named "Worker 5324454453", I am a human being, not a robot.

Yes Lenin and Castro did a great job in the educational department I don’t deny that. I am not a blind Capitalist who will refuse to see the good Lenin and even Stalin did for their country.

Can anyone here see that there is a big difference between capitalism and pure greed?

Xvall

26th September 2003, 23:40

Actually, Capitalism has attributed to cancer as the destruction of the ozone layer, pollution, and chemical contaminents within our food and water supplies can help lead to premature cancer of all sorts.

CubanFox

27th September 2003, 00:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 08:31 PM
What is wrong with liberating your country from foreign occupation? Russia had their own Vietnam, it's called Afghanistan.

The DR of Afghanistan was there before da Russkies invaded. The Russians invaded to prop it up, not to make Afganistan the 16th SSR.

Loknar

27th September 2003, 02:33

Originally posted by CubanFox+Sep 27 2003, 12:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CubanFox @ Sep 27 2003, 12:18 AM)
[email protected] 26 2003, 08:31 PM
What is wrong with liberating your country from foreign occupation? Russia had their own Vietnam, it's called Afghanistan.

The DR of Afghanistan was there before da Russkies invaded. The Russians invaded to prop it up, not to make Afganistan the 16th SSR. [/b]
It couldn’t be that they invaded to make it as puppet state right? Communists aren’t capable of Imperialism right?

You know at least I can admit that the US is an imperialist nation.

Vinny Rafarino

27th September 2003, 02:46

I was going to ignore Loknar's juvenile post however I find myself bored to the leverl of actually responding to his post;

WW2 was not a war between Capitalism and Communism. It was imperialism, those 20 million Russians were mostly peasants, how can you be sure they were Communists? Did Russians even have access to the Communist Manifesto?

What does the Russian peasants having access to document have to do with anything? By this absurd rationale, if you are illiterate, then you cannot be a communist. Good grief kid.

What do you mean the "invasion" of Korea? As I recall it was a North Korean army with Soviet equipment that crossed the 38th Parallel.

So, the yanquis tell the Koreans they are not allowed to cross over an imaginary border set up by foreigners into the rest of THEIR COUNTRY and when they do it's called an "invasion"? How do you invade your own country son? How? Dopes this mean the vietnamese "invaded" south VIETNAM? The last I had heard, those portions of these two countries were still known as VIENTAM and KOREA. When are you going to get it through your head boy? We (much like most of the globe) do not recognise the yanqui government's view of foreign policy. Why? Because we live in the real world.

And those other wars, that was cold war era combat. The Sovs and Americans were never concerned about spreading Capitalism and Communism as much as they were with spreading their own Hegemony. Wasn’t it Stalin who adopted the “Communism in 1 nation” policy?

Have you even read "socialism in one country"? (don't lie and say you have) How can you possible use something as a argument when you don't even know what it means? In this case here, it does not even support your argument.

What is wrong with liberating your country from foreign occupation? Russia had their own Vietnam, it's called Afghanistan.

This does not even make sense. How was the CIA liberating "their" country? the original wuestion you repied to simply made note that the CIA (US government) supported the regime that was fighting to instill an oppressive capitalist government against the wishes of the people of Afghanistan. You watch too many movies. I can imagine you know all the lines from Rambo III and Red Scorpion eh?

don’t care about equality, in fact I hate it. I don’t see why everyone needs to wear the same clothing and why I need to be named "Worker 5324454453", I am a human being, not a robot.

It seems you suffer from chronic short term memory loss. We have explained NUMEROUS times to you that communism does not want to instill "worker drones". I just had this comversation with you not 4 weeks ago whgen you suddenly and conveniently forgot the last time we educated you on the subject. I can only conclude that because you say the same things over and over again, even after being educated and re-educated on the subjects at hand, that you are only here to try to pick fights. In other words, you are a TROLL and nothing more.

Can anyone here see that there is a big difference between capitalism and pure greed?

Sure. Capitalism is a form of economics. "Pure greed" is an amygdalic response in the brain. Capitalism relies on "greed" to form the necessary "competetive emotions" required to always want more that what you actually require. Without this, capitalism cannot exist as the market woule dtagnate immediately.

Appearantly it is YOU that does not understand these two subjects.

P.S.

EC,

You're welcome.

"Stupid mutating genes".....That one go my cheeks hurting.

http://www.driko.org/smallpics/revengenerds.jpg

Loknar

27th September 2003, 03:00

RAF

Lets say I open a restaurant , a steak house. I am very successful and over time I accumulate tens of millions of dollars. My workers love working for me because I provide insurance and reasonable wages.

Then the revolution breaks out (Yeah it's inevitable), Commies come to power. What happens to my business? Probably nationalized. But what happens to the money that I earned? And more importantly what would happen to me?

You know RAF, I am actually reading the Manifesto, and I’ve read some of Marx’s other writings. He is very different from you guys on this forum. He didn’t write in such an arrogant manner. IF you are trying to educate me don’t be arrogant. I try to talk with respect towards others here but for some reason it is not returned.

Vinny Rafarino

27th September 2003, 03:25

Educating capitalists ain't my bag. You dig? I prefer more direct means of dealing with capitalists so if you are asking me to stop being arrogant and smug towards you, you are barking up the wrong tree dearest. Go to school if you want to be educated.

Lets say I open a restaurant , a steak house. I am very successful and over time I accumulate tens of millions of dollars. My workers love working for me because I provide insurance and reasonable wages.

Then the revolution breaks out (Yeah it's inevitable), Commies come to power. What happens to my business? Probably nationalized. But what happens to the money that I earned? And more importantly what would happen to me?

A] You only think your workers love you. Fear of being unempoyed and not being able to feed your family will make the person who hates yo the most treat you like gold when you are around. It's called arse-kissing.

B] Your restaurant will be seized and owned by the state. All funds you have collected by raping the dignity of your employees will also be seized by the state and used to create a socialist economic platform and society.

C] IF you had tens of millions of dollars, it would be safe to say you went in circles of other people that had similar amounts of money (the ruling class) as wolves travel in packs. You would be considered a member of the bourgeois ruling elite and purged. Unless of course the Hack is at the helm, at that point he would invite you over for tea and cake to plan his surrender once the counter-revolution crushes his utopian society in a matter of weeks.

synthesis

27th September 2003, 03:40

Just so we're on the same page, by 'purged' are you implying 'killed'?

If so, then why should everyone with a lot of money be killed? Why is there no chance to convert?

If not, you should say 'abolished'. It carries much less sinister implications.

Comrade Ceausescu

27th September 2003, 03:45

loknars avatar speaks volumes about him.

Vinny Rafarino

27th September 2003, 03:48

That really depends on how much money you have. Obviously if you have tens of millions of dollars, you will be associating with the ruling elite of the bourgeoisie and will have most definitely contributed to surplus value oppression over the proletariat in many grievous ways. You will also have MUCH to lose once the new State siezes all of your assets. Thos with the most to lose are those that will; fight the hardest to retain or get back their assets and ALSO have the current connections with other ruling elitists to lead a counter revolution.

There is no other way my friend. He will most definitely have to be eliminated.

synthesis

27th September 2003, 04:37

So what could someone with many millions or billions of dollars do to redeem themselves in the eyes of the (your) revolution?

Vinny Rafarino

27th September 2003, 04:39

Nothing.

Loknar

27th September 2003, 04:41

RAF, what about your average mom and pop business?

Vinny Rafarino

27th September 2003, 04:42

The petty bourgeoisie can easily be re-educated and become productive members of a socialist society.

Loknar

27th September 2003, 04:47

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 27 2003, 04:42 AM
The petty bourgeoisie can easily be re-educated and become productive members of a socialist society.
So age makes a difference? If anything old people should be held to a higher standard as they are more experienced in life.

Or are you also saying that some business people can be reeducated so long as they aren’t as successful?

Aren’t the Bourgeoisie just Bourgeoisies? Don’t get soft RAF.

Vinny Rafarino

27th September 2003, 04:55

Who said anything about age? If you have no conception about class structures and political manoeuvreings among the ruling elite (the very wealthy) then you indeed have a lot to learn about politics, economics and sociology.

Please quote me talking about "age".

Loknar

27th September 2003, 05:01

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 27 2003, 04:55 AM
Who said anything about age? If you have no conception about class structures and political manoeuvreings among the ruling elite (the very wealthy) then you indeed have a lot to learn about politics, economics and sociology.

Please quote me talking about "age".
Well first you said that the bourgeoisie have no hope under your system, then I brought up old people, then you replied "petty bourgeoisie can be reeducated".

Vinny Rafarino

27th September 2003, 05:12

No you said "So, age makes a difference".

This statement would mean you are replying to some statement from me talking about age. I only ask for yu to quote me or admit you are wrong. It's not to hard a condept to figure out.

And If you read the posts, you will find I made the statement "The petty bourgeoisie can easily be re-educated and become productive members of a socialist society" PRIOR to you stating "so, age makes a difference".

Your last post of "Well first you said that the bourgeoisie have no hope under your system, then I brought up old people, then you replied "petty bourgeoisie can be reeducated" States that I made this comment AFTER your comment on "age".

Yet another mistake on your part Loknar. You can't pull one over on me cos I'm slicker than Castrol GTX kiddo.

synthesis

27th September 2003, 21:29

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 27 2003, 04:39 AM
Nothing.
OK. So what's your plan? Take all people with >10,000,000 in assets and have them shot?

Less? More?

Vinny Rafarino

27th September 2003, 21:33

That seems a bit simplistic don't you think? I don't have a plan bacause there is no revolution. In the event that revolution comes prior to the collapse of the capitalist economic platform, then we will do the necessary research required into the ruling class and judge what actions should be taken against them. Until that time comes, I do not see the logic in gabbing on about something that will only serve to cause arguments.

synthesis

27th September 2003, 21:40

Well, you're a Leninist. You can't fall back on the excuse that "the proletariat will do what it will" in your idea of a revolution because that is not how Leninist revolution works. Vanguardism is a planned revolution, so you clearly do have some sort of idea how yours would be carried out.

You have said that all people with many millions of dollars would be purged. When questioned as to the meaning of the word "purged," you never really answered the question but basically implied that, yes, it does mean death. Then, you said that there's no way out once the revolution gets off the ground - if you've got lots of money, you get purged.

Is this summary wrong? It doesn't seem like it to me, and if it's on the mark, my last question to you was merely an attempt to verify what seems to be your viewpoint.

So, am I wrong?

Cassius Clay

28th September 2003, 11:28

Loknar is a example of how western lies can go so far and work really effectively.

I used to be belief the Korean war was started by the Koreans. I even once wrote a nice little essay on it which got a A grade. It's bollocks, the puppet government in the South invaded the North, with the full backing of Dulles and the American Army who practically dicated what happened. I'm not pro-Kim II Sung just look into the facts.

Afghanistan. That was when the USSR was allready Capitalist, still recently Carter's national security adivser admitted that CIA aid was pouring in before the invasion.

As for WW2, were not Japan and Nazi Germany Capitalist. As were all their allies, how do I know they were all Commies. I dont but they didn't fight to hard to protect the Tsar did they? And over three million people joined the Communist Party after the 1941 invasion, this was despite the fact that the German Army was under direct orders to kill all CP members.

Vinny Rafarino

28th September 2003, 11:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 09:40 PM
Well, you're a Leninist. You can't fall back on the excuse that "the proletariat will do what it will" in your idea of a revolution because that is not how Leninist revolution works. Vanguardism is a planned revolution, so you clearly do have some sort of idea how yours would be carried out.

You have said that all people with many millions of dollars would be purged. When questioned as to the meaning of the word "purged," you never really answered the question but basically implied that, yes, it does mean death. Then, you said that there's no way out once the revolution gets off the ground - if you've got lots of money, you get purged.

Is this summary wrong? It doesn't seem like it to me, and if it's on the mark, my last question to you was merely an attempt to verify what seems to be your viewpoint.

So, am I wrong?
To begin with I never stated "the proloetariat will do what it will". YOU DID. I find your attempt to associate phrases with me just so you can SEEM like you are "catching me in something" to be juvenile.

Like I told you, any decisions on who should be eliminated will be made after the revolution. I have no desire to ponder this question now as it is fruitless. Once there comes a time to decide on what to do with the bourgeoisie, I am sure the appropriate decision will be made. A plan for revolution will be formed and carried out by the party once the conditions for revolution are met, as there are too many strategic variables to account for. Pre-planning a revolution outside of setting the initial forces in motion is impossible, the chaotic nature of warfare alone will see to that.

As far as the "purging" question goes, I believe I have been more than clear on my standpoint hitherto.

So in essence, yes, you are wrong.

Babylon5 Crusade

29th September 2003, 00:16

Lets add 11 more to the 100,000,000 death list!

Marxist Rebels bomb inoccent civilians when they were leaving restrants and discos bars.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=...storyID=3520723 (http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3520723)

SUPPORT COMMUNISM! KILL CIVILIANS!

IHP

29th September 2003, 00:45

ok, lets add 10,000 (a conservative number) that starved in the last few days to the capitalist death toll, due to starvation caused by big corporations raping the third world.

Xvall

29th September 2003, 01:16

While we are at it, let's add the 37,000,000+ civilians killed by Hitler and Mussolini. (Self-Proclaimed capitalists)

Rastafari

29th September 2003, 01:29

37,000,000?
That seems a tad high and I am curious as to the sources of your numbers.
I'd say 20,000,000 is more accurate, but one loses count after all of those innocent people.

Don't forget Tojo and Hirohito. and everyone the pre-mao china system saw dead. too many people

synthesis

29th September 2003, 01:31

To begin with I never stated "the proloetariat will do what it will". YOU DID. I find your attempt to associate phrases with me just so you can SEEM like you are "catching me in something" to be juvenile.

You are operating on two erroneous assumptions in this paragraph. The first is that the statement addressed was anything more than an attempt to subtly remind you that you had evaded the question at hand.

The second is that I'm 'out to get you', so to speak. I'm not. I noticed your statement that anyone with over a certain amount of money would be purged and I was intrigued by its connotations. You suggested that people with wealth would be purged, and I was wondering if that included, for example, those bourgeois with socialist sympathies, as has often been the case historically.

So far, you have either repeated what you said before or avoided the question entirely. I suppose I'll just quit asking now, it's not really important anyways.

Vinny Rafarino

29th September 2003, 01:53

I believe there was more truth in those "erroneous assumptiops" than you would like to admit too.

If a member of the bougoise class were truly "sympathetic" to socialism, they would have given away ALL of their excess money long ago. Rich actors that take a trip to Iraq to "protest" the war or allow their likeness to be used in a PETA advert hardly constitutes them as "socialists". This of course will be considered at a much deeper level whrn the time is appropriate. Like I keep mentioning to you.

Consider this a "three-peat" then. I will assume the matter is closed.

CubanFox

29th September 2003, 02:14

Something like 47,000,000 Soviet citizens died in WWII. 20,000,000 were civilians.

And don't give me the Stalin-killing-own-people thing. Even under the assumption that Stalin was a murderous psycho, he well and truly stopped the purging during WWII. He needed all the citizens he could get.

Ian

29th September 2003, 05:24

47 000 000 is about 21 million more than the highest number I have ever heard put forward for Soviets killed, please source it.

CubanFox

29th September 2003, 05:34

It was from here (http://www.stokesey.demon.co.uk/wwii/index.html) but the page doesn't work anymore.

Ian

29th September 2003, 05:37

Oh Alright, cool.

Loknar

29th September 2003, 10:26

In WW2 50 million people were killed. IF you guys are saying 20 million more Russians are unaccounted for then that raises it to 70 million.

Why aren’t you guys looking at the famine? The great purges? Industrialization?

Babylon5 Crusade

29th September 2003, 16:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 10:26 AM
Why aren’t you guys looking at the famine? The great purges? Industrialization?
Because it was works for the people! All part of the revolution!

Invader Zim

29th September 2003, 17:54

Originally posted by Ian [email protected] 29 2003, 06:24 AM
47 000 000 is about 21 million more than the highest number I have ever heard put forward for Soviets killed, please source it.
Actually no that sounds acurate to me. I read that 56 million people died in the war and 90% were eastern european's primarily russians.

Stalins scorched earth policy.., Go stalin.

Ian

29th September 2003, 21:17

Well you must admit that it worked, whether you think the ends justify the means is a really good question, but I think against Hitler almost anything is acceptable (maybe not the bombing of Dresden).

YKTMX

29th September 2003, 21:28

Originally posted by Ian [email protected] 29 2003, 09:17 PM
Well you must admit that it worked, whether you think the ends justify the means is a really good question, but I think against Hitler almost anything is acceptable (maybe not the bombing of Dresden).
Well, the sacrifice of the Russian people was immense. The fact that Stalin "lead" them during the war is neither here nor there, he was too busy sobbing over Adolf letting the side down by invading Poland to care what happened.

Loknar

29th September 2003, 21:41

Originally posted by Ian [email protected] 29 2003, 09:17 PM
Well you must admit that it worked, whether you think the ends justify the means is a really good question, but I think against Hitler almost anything is acceptable (maybe not the bombing of Dresden).
There was nothing wrong with strategic bombing. Back then it was a way to destroy the enemies industrial production. I know Dresden was a nightmare, but you have to realize that there was never a war like WW2 and never one like it since. Total war was waged by both sides.

elijahcraig

29th September 2003, 21:43

Where do you get that from X?

YKTMX

29th September 2003, 21:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 09:43 PM
Where do you get that from X?
Well, it's a known fact that for a few hours after Hitler invaded Poland, Stalin was visibly shaken and felt betrayed. The rest was hyperbole.

elijahcraig

29th September 2003, 21:55

Where is a fact that shows this?

Vinny Rafarino

29th September 2003, 21:59

Well, it's a known fact that for a few hours after Hitler invaded Poland, Stalin was visibly shaken and felt betrayed

:lol:

Ian

29th September 2003, 22:10

Can you prove he felt betrayed? I don't think so!

Would you have been visually shaken if an anti-communist regime just invaded at bordering country? I place my money on Yes.

YKTMX

29th September 2003, 22:18

Originally posted by Ian [email protected] 29 2003, 10:10 PM
Can you prove he felt betrayed? I don't think so!

Would you have been visually shaken if an anti-communist regime just invaded at bordering country? I place my money on Yes.
Ofcourse I can't "prove" this. It is merely hearsay.

Ofcourse I would be worried. But I also wouldn't have been stupid enough to sign a non-agression pact with a goverment who's policy was anti-communist, anti-jew and anti-Russian. Stalin threw the dummy out the pram (so to speak) because the westeners screwed him at Berlin. He was so paranoid that Russia would be left to fight the Germans alone that he signed a pact that was never going to last. He also had the "misfortune" of almost all the generals of the Red Army deciding to becoming "enemies of the people" during the late forties. Man, that was unlucky :lol:

Ian

29th September 2003, 22:22

Which generals exactly?

elijahcraig

29th September 2003, 22:25

Ofcourse I can't "prove" this. It is merely hearsay.

Then why say it is a well known fact?

Ofcourse I would be worried. But I also wouldn't have been stupid enough to sign a non-agression pact with a goverment who's policy was anti-communist, anti-jew and anti-Russian.

Just get destroyed and attacked without preparation I suppose. I know man! Who wants preparation! We ain’t no dummies!

Stalin threw the dummy out the pram (so to speak) because the westeners screwed him at Berlin. He was so paranoid that Russia would be left to fight the Germans alone that he signed a pact that was never going to last.

Considering most of the American and British ruling classes were using the slogan “Turn the War Around”, meaning towards the USSR…this is not paranoia but a normal security measure.

He also had the "misfortune" of almost all the generals of the Red Army deciding to becoming "enemies of the people" during the late forties. Man, that was unlucky

Considering two of the top Communist theoriticians had just confessed to planning to violently overthrow the government…three or four actually—this is not a stretch of misfortune by any means.

And Stalin’s friend had just been assassinated by nazi infiltrators posing as respectable officials.

YKTMX

29th September 2003, 22:28

Originally posted by Ian [email protected] 29 2003, 10:22 PM
Which generals exactly?
Tukhachevski for one.

Ian

29th September 2003, 22:32

Mate that guy is not one of the top generals, see if you said Zhukov or Konev or Chuikov or Rokkosovsky I would be more astounded and agree they were a top general, but who the hell is that guy?

Ian

29th September 2003, 22:34

Wait no, wasn't he civil war?

YKTMX

29th September 2003, 22:41

Considering two of the top Communist theoriticians had just confessed to planning to violently overthrow the government…three or four actually—this is not a stretch of misfortune by any means.

And Stalin’s friend had just been assassinated by nazi infiltrators posing as respectable officials.

Yes, comrade but this is where the problem with Stalin paranoia comes in. If you assume that some generals are nazi collaborators, then presumably you search out the generals and deal with them appropriately. OR, you could use Uncle Joe's method, which consists of lumping supposed Nazi's in with half of the Red Army officials and also use it as an excuse to kill Zinoviev and Kamenev while you're at it.

elijahcraig

29th September 2003, 22:44

Yes, comrade but this is where the problem with Stalin paranoia comes in. If you assume that some generals are nazi collaborators, then presumably you search out the generals and deal with them appropriately. OR, you could use Uncle Joe's method, which consists of lumping supposed Nazi's in with half of the Red Army officials and also use it as an excuse to kill Zinoviev and Kamenev while you're at it.

You don’t agree that the confessed Zinoviev and Kamenev were traitors? That is pathetic. At least you could admit that, they did.

These things occur when times are hard and revolution is under defense. There should be no whining from liberals when the greatest revolution in the history of the world is at stake. And Nazis are infiltrating European governments. France fell because of it. If Stalin hadn’t done this, where would we be? Naziville.

YKTMX

29th September 2003, 22:46

http://marshals.narod.ru/mar1en.html

That is just a few "enemies of the people". Most of them strangely became "un-enemies" after they were dead.

YKTMX

29th September 2003, 22:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 10:44 PM

Yes, comrade but this is where the problem with Stalin paranoia comes in. If you assume that some generals are nazi collaborators, then presumably you search out the generals and deal with them appropriately. OR, you could use Uncle Joe's method, which consists of lumping supposed Nazi's in with half of the Red Army officials and also use it as an excuse to kill Zinoviev and Kamenev while you're at it.

You don’t agree that the confessed Zinoviev and Kamenev were traitors? That is pathetic. At least you could admit that, they did.

These things occur when times are hard and revolution is under defense. There should be no whining from liberals when the greatest revolution in the history of the world is at stake. And Nazis are infiltrating European governments. France fell because of it. If Stalin hadn’t done this, where would we be? Naziville.
I agree confessions were forced and that the trials were a surreal farce? Stalin did well defending the counter revolution, I'll give him that. Stalin sacrificed nothing during WWII, so don't give me that bourgeoise, war time leader rubbish, it just won't wash sonny.

elijahcraig

29th September 2003, 22:50

That link won’t work on my computer for some reason.

elijahcraig

29th September 2003, 22:51

I agree confessions were forced and that the trials were a surreal farce?

Prove they were forced. Many non-biased sources say otherwise.

YKTMX

29th September 2003, 22:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 10:51 PM

I agree confessions were forced and that the trials were a surreal farce?

Prove they were forced. Many non-biased sources say otherwise.
Kamenev killed Kirov? Anyone who believes that, well, haha. Stalin had him murdered because Kirov was becoming a bigger influence on the party than him and he was gaining support on several important issues. He was then accused of treason against the Soviet state WHILST in jail, if anyone can explain this to me, please do.

elijahcraig

29th September 2003, 23:02

Please prove that what you state is true. FOUNDATIONLESS assertions get you NOWHERE in a debate.

elijahcraig

29th September 2003, 23:03

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node99.html

elijahcraig

29th September 2003, 23:04

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node100.html

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node94.html

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node93.html

YKTMX

29th September 2003, 23:08

http://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma/w.../works/sa02.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma/works/sa02.htm)

Ian

29th September 2003, 23:09

Ok this thread seems to have been hijacked, I sorta helped it along a bit, sorry about that...

elijahcraig

29th September 2003, 23:11

That whole article was nothing but an attack on Stalin. Not one ounce of fact or source-notes to back any of it up. Good try though.

YKTMX

29th September 2003, 23:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 11:11 PM
That whole article was nothing but an attack on Stalin. Not one ounce of fact or source-notes to back any of it up. Good try though.
:lol: Hahaha. When in doubt, bury your head in the sand and blame the Trots.

elijahcraig

29th September 2003, 23:19

Here are the full transcripts:

http://art-bin.com/art/omoscowtoc.html

YKTMX

29th September 2003, 23:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 11:19 PM
Here are the full transcripts:

http://art-bin.com/art/omoscowtoc.html
Thanks for the link comrade. Unfortunately this will be in aid of historical interest only. Just because lies are written down doesn't make them true now does it?

Vinny Rafarino

29th September 2003, 23:42

Mr. X, you have a bad case of hypocracy. Now who's the one writing off evidence as "lies" huh? Were you not the one who used to break every pro-Stalinists balls saying all we do is discount your "evidence" as propaganda?

I've long since learned that debating with the likes of you is fruitless. Eventually comrade elijah will also ignore your silly rants and do something more productive. Forget about this kid Elijah. He simply wants to re-hash the same useless arguments over and over again. Well, I and everyone else are sick of them.

Have you noticed lately that the only time Stalin ever comes up is when one of these silly Trots tries to create ANOTHER useless argument over the same shit? They look absurd. Ignore them and they will eventually get the hint Comrade, NO ONE CARES.

YKTMX

29th September 2003, 23:55

Mr. X, you have a bad case of hypocracy. Now who's the one writing off evidence as "lies" huh

Are you talking about the PLP stuff or the transcript? What we're trying to do here is understand and contextualise the trial, not read it word for word.

I've long since learned that debating with the likes of you is fruitless. Eventually comrade elijah will also ignore your silly rants and do something more productive.

Hopefully.

He simply wants to re-hash the same useless arguments over and over again. Well, I and everyone else are sick of them

Who else?

Ian

29th September 2003, 23:59

Max Shachtman (sp?) isn't the most credible of sources, seeing as he was probably nowhere near Russia during the trials and he is a third campist, even by sectarian trotskyist standards.

Next you'll be providing James Burnham articles :lol:

;)

YKTMX

30th September 2003, 00:06

Originally posted by Ian [email protected] 29 2003, 11:59 PM
Max Shachtman (sp?) isn't the most credible of sources

And the PLP are? And I am not a secterian.

Ian

30th September 2003, 00:18

PLP aren't either

Loknar

30th September 2003, 02:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 10:44 PM

You don’t agree that the confessed Zinoviev and Kamenev were traitors? That is pathetic. At least you could admit that, they did.

They confessed to save their families. Do you think that everyone who confessed was really a collaborator? Do you know how many officers Stalin Purged? Do you think ALL of them were Nazis?

Urban Rubble

30th September 2003, 02:31

Zinoviev and Kamenev originally confessed to try and save their political careers.

Loknar

30th September 2003, 02:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 11:19 PM
Here are the full transcripts:

http://art-bin.com/art/omoscowtoc.html

Well this is certainly interesting. How come there were no cross examinations?

Also read here:

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/z/.../i.htm#zinoviev (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/z/i.htm#zinoviev)

Stalin hoped to use Zinoviev as a means of striking against ‘Trotskyism’ and thereby consolidate the ranks of the bureaucracy. In December 1934 Zinoviev and Kamenev were arrested and brought before a military tribunal ‘in connection’ with the GPU-engineered assassination of Kirov (this was part of a campaign of harassment to force them to indict Trotsky); they were sentenced to 10 years imprisonment as the leaders of a mythical counter-revolutionary group.

Finally in August 1936 they were brought from the jails to be framed in the first of the Moscow show trials. After making a public ‘confession’, Zinoviev was sentenced to death for ‘organizing the joint Trotskyite-Zinovievist Terrorist Centre for the assassination of Soviet government and CPSU leaders’, and shot on August 21st, 1936.

I am guessing that you Stalinists do not like Marxists.org

Vinny Rafarino

30th September 2003, 02:50

Marxist.org is a Trot web site. Their articles on comrade Stalin are very biased and contain very little factual information. Some of their information even borders on complete fantasy. Other than that, they are a good resource on the writings of Marx.

Lardlad95

30th September 2003, 02:58

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 30 2003, 02:50 AM
Marxist.org is a Trot web site. Their articles on comrade Stalin are very biased and contain very little factual information. Some of their information even borders on complete fantasy. Other than that, they are a good resource on the writings of Marx.
This Trotsky vs. Stalin shit has got to stop..

Both of the guys are dead, both of them weren't that great for Marxism anyway.

Trotsky..well teh average person doesn't know who he is and doesn't care

and Stalin, well whether he killed millions or not he ruined Communism's image

so I really don't see the point in these two groupds bickering.

marxist.org is the largest archive of Marxist writings and whether or not they are pro-trotsky or anti-stalin is irrlevant

Vinny Rafarino

30th September 2003, 03:02

I reckon you didn't read my post prior to this one.

Don't break my balls kid, I want an end to this absurd argument as well.

Lardlad95

30th September 2003, 03:05

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 30 2003, 03:02 AM
I reckon you didn't read my post prior to this one.

Don't break my balls kid, I want an end to this absurd argument as well.
reading the other post I see your point....you are right, no one cares about it anyway

elijahcraig

30th September 2003, 03:43

I agree RAF, we should end the trot vs. joe debates.

Lardland, I wouldn’t say Stalin ruined communism’s image, the capitalists could have used propaganda against anyone.

Lardlad95

30th September 2003, 03:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 03:43 AM
I agree RAF, we should end the trot vs. joe debates.

Lardland, I wouldn’t say Stalin ruined communism’s image, the capitalists could have used propaganda against anyone.
True they could have done the same thing to Che...they just happened to use Stalin...

But there is no room for what if here....either way Stalin or the image they portrayed of Stalin helped to shape the worlds opinion of communism

elijahcraig

30th September 2003, 03:51

Stalin wasn’t pretty like Che.

:lol:

Vinny Rafarino

30th September 2003, 04:03

Agreed.

We can say this,

People who support comrade Stalin (like myself) believe that the accusations against him are false.

People who do not support comrade Stalin believe that the accusations against him are true.

We have all presented our evidence countless numbers of times and the fact still remains;

People who support comrade Stalin (like myself) believe that the accusations against him are false.

People who do not support comrade Stalin believe that the accusations against him are true.

We will never know who was really right and who was really wrong, nor does it really matter. Stalin and the Trot are never going to be channeled by Miss Cleo to present their cases. The fraud from "crossing over" ain't never gonna give us some insight. And if either of these did, it would still mean fuck all to present day communism.

We all disagree on how the new socialist government should be run, fine. Why don't we work on creating the conditions necessary for revolution and then we will take it from there. The only true test to "who was right" and "who was wrong" is essentially to see what plan will provide the most economic stability once capitalism has collapsed. We can wither continue bickering about it, or we can have the balls to actually see for ourselves what platform is best.

I personally refuse to engage in any "my sources vs. your sources" debates any longer. If anyone want's to have a row with me about it, then you are barking up the wrong tree. I suggest we all decide what's more important to the proletariat, creating the necessary conditions for revolt or having a go at each other and looking like fools every time we get together. I can assure you all of one thing, the proletariat could care less about this issue. Why? They are too busy scraping enough cash together too make rent while keeping their families fed.

The revolution comes first comrades, the structure of the new state comes second. I'm sure once we have actually seen the collapse of the capitalist system, each and every idea will be taken into consideration. Until that time I implore every comrade to shut the fuck up about comrade Stalin and Trotsky.

P. S.

For anyone who thinks I have abandonded the ideals I have had for the last twenty years because I have decided to give the finger to this useless debate can all get bent.

elijahcraig

30th September 2003, 04:14

We should make a sticky of that post RAF.

Urban Rubble

30th September 2003, 04:48

Godmamnit Elijah, will you just shut the fuck up ? You argue about Stalin more than anyone on here. You bring him up every chance you get, when someone makes an offhand comment, you make it into an argument about Stalin. Sometimes you bring it up out of the blue. Then, RAF posts saying basically, this Trotsky vs Stalin shit is irrelevant, and you act like you agree.

You get infatuated really easily. Let's see, so far you have a crush on, RAF, Stalin, and now mimcomrade. Keep it up, eventually someone will give into your constant flattering and possibly start a relationship with you.

Fuck Stalin vs. Trotsky, I want Tyler vs. Elijah.

elijahcraig

30th September 2003, 04:56

X brought it up, rubble.

Well, the sacrifice of the Russian people was immense. The fact that Stalin "lead" them during the war is neither here nor there, he was too busy sobbing over Adolf letting the side down by invading Poland to care what happened.

That was his post. I asked where he got Stalin’s emotions from. This wasn’t a Trot vs. Stalin argument really, it was an argument over the trials of Kamenev and Zinoviev.

AND considering the whole thread is about communist deaths, the whole fifth page is about Stalin, and so on…I did not bring anything up. You have some weird need to attack me constantly.

synthesis

30th September 2003, 05:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 04:14 AM
We should make a sticky of that post RAF.
I fully agree. (for once) Brilliant post.

Vinny Rafarino

30th September 2003, 05:42

Thank you dyer and Elijah.

Rubble, stop breakin' the kid's balls. What do you want from him? You break his balls if he engages in a Stalin vs. Trot debatem...And then you break his balls when he says it's time to stop engaging in those debates.

Who cares if he just realised it's fruitless to continue with these useless debates? The pont here is that HE DID innit?

I know you don't like comrade Elijah, comrade Rubble. It's cool jack, you don't have to like him but please don't continue to alienate him when he's got the right idea. He's already stuffed in here with all the capitalists you know. Cut him some slack mate.

I'll take both of you on in mud-westling if you want. I'll even wear a cute little bikini with trotsky's face on each cup if you kats will stop slagging on each other.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

30th September 2003, 08:07

Cassius Clay

30th September 2003, 11:59

Quite funny that we have Loknar who as far as I can see is as right of the political spectrum as Rumsfield agreeing with 'Marxists.org' or what have you. It's not a surprise though, I quoted two quotes from Adolf Hitler and you Trots agreed with them.

I'm fed up of people saying 'stop winning their both dead' if only it was merely over personalities. It's far more than that. While Comrade RAF's point is valid we should not be dodging the issue. Trotskyism needs to be exposed, it needs to be fought against. On Saturday in Trafalgar Square I see a stool ran by the Trots, one banner declares 'Unconditional Defence of Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and China against Counter-Revolution' then on the stool there's books entitled 'Stalinism the gravedigger of the Revolution' and 'How Stalinism betrayed the USSR'.

Apart from the point that they clearly dont know where there going on what issue and following Trots words to the letter as if it is somehow releavent to today's situation in those countries (which it isn't). There's also the point that it has nothing to do with the issue at hand, that of Iraq. It confuses people who are interested in progressive ideas, it teaches that any struggle being led by real Marxist-Leninists or 'Stalinists' will lead to a society worse than Nazism. As such the massacre of peasants in the Phillipines in justified because 'the commies would kill more' the oppression and torture of 'Stalinists' in the former USSR is okay because, 'there Stalinists and would do the same or worse'.

So instead of having access to a genuine anti-Imperialist articles or Marxist-Leninist writtings (I'm no Maoist see ISF forum debate with MIM but there are anti-Imperialist struggles around the world being led by them. I heard the 'insult' of 'Stalinist' hurled at the Maoists little stool a few times.) they go to a march and pick up Trots writings or his followers on how 'evil' Stalin was.

Even if all those accusations were true perhaps if you put in half the effort of producing stuff which is relavent to the anti-Imperialist struggle as they do in trying to sign up members with the guarrentee that their 'anti-Stalinist' (happened to me twice while I was just looking for some real important articles on the issue at hand). If I actually thought it was relavent or to be more honest had more confidence I would of exposed their contradictions, lies and that they helped no one accept there leaders bank balance and the Imperialists.

Why do you think the Maoists are leading so many struggles in the world against Imperialism? Because there stool was the only one NOT full of praise for this guy or that guy and hatred for another guy, there stool actually addressed the issues, not only on Iraq but in Palestine, Nepal and elsewhere aswell as genuine stuff on fighting Capitalism and Imperialism.

YKTMX

30th September 2003, 12:25

Well, I don't really see the problem with a little harmless debate but I agree these arguments are getting little stale. I will try to refrain.

Vinny Rafarino

30th September 2003, 16:34

Originally posted by Cassius [email protected] 30 2003, 11:59 AM
Quite funny that we have Loknar who as far as I can see is as right of the political spectrum as Rumsfield agreeing with 'Marxists.org' or what have you. It's not a surprise though, I quoted two quotes from Adolf Hitler and you Trots agreed with them.

I'm fed up of people saying 'stop winning their both dead' if only it was merely over personalities. It's far more than that. While Comrade RAF's point is valid we should not be dodging the issue. Trotskyism needs to be exposed, it needs to be fought against. On Saturday in Trafalgar Square I see a stool ran by the Trots, one banner declares 'Unconditional Defence of Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and China against Counter-Revolution' then on the stool there's books entitled 'Stalinism the gravedigger of the Revolution' and 'How Stalinism betrayed the USSR'.

Apart from the point that they clearly dont know where there going on what issue and following Trots words to the letter as if it is somehow releavent to today's situation in those countries (which it isn't). There's also the point that it has nothing to do with the issue at hand, that of Iraq. It confuses people who are interested in progressive ideas, it teaches that any struggle being led by real Marxist-Leninists or 'Stalinists' will lead to a society worse than Nazism. As such the massacre of peasants in the Phillipines in justified because 'the commies would kill more' the oppression and torture of 'Stalinists' in the former USSR is okay because, 'there Stalinists and would do the same or worse'.

So instead of having access to a genuine anti-Imperialist articles or Marxist-Leninist writtings (I'm no Maoist see ISF forum debate with MIM but there are anti-Imperialist struggles around the world being led by them. I heard the 'insult' of 'Stalinist' hurled at the Maoists little stool a few times.) they go to a march and pick up Trots writings or his followers on how 'evil' Stalin was.

Even if all those accusations were true perhaps if you put in half the effort of producing stuff which is relavent to the anti-Imperialist struggle as they do in trying to sign up members with the guarrentee that their 'anti-Stalinist' (happened to me twice while I was just looking for some real important articles on the issue at hand). If I actually thought it was relavent or to be more honest had more confidence I would of exposed their contradictions, lies and that they helped no one accept there leaders bank balance and the Imperialists.

Why do you think the Maoists are leading so many struggles in the world against Imperialism? Because there stool was the only one NOT full of praise for this guy or that guy and hatred for another guy, there stool actually addressed the issues, not only on Iraq but in Palestine, Nepal and elsewhere aswell as genuine stuff on fighting Capitalism and Imperialism.
I agree with you comrade Clay. I just don't think exposing the dangers of the Trot's rhetoric on this site is going to change much here and to be honest comrade, being this is just a message board, it does not really matter. In actual life, I will always continue to expose them for what they are as that's where it really counts.

I can't count the number of times I have been part of a M/L group who's stool was used to expose the pitfalls of Trotskyism. I will continue to do this in the future. However it's simply useless here you dig?

How many times have we provided the same facts to people here only to have them spit it right back in our faces un-registered? It's shocking and more over, it's a shame. 'Oh well' I say comrade, luckily this board is what it is, a leftist discussion forum with no set 'political doctrine'.

P.S.

The "Adolf Hitler" statement thread was sheer brilliance by the way.

Lardlad95

30th September 2003, 20:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 03:51 AM
Stalin wasn’t pretty like Che.

:lol:
But Stalin had that whole Man of Steel thing going for him

Urban Rubble

30th September 2003, 23:34

I break his balls because he is a fool and constantly contradicts himself.

He makes a conscious effort to turn alot of arguments into Stalin debates, he does this alot. Then, when mentor RAF says that it is pointless (which it is) he says he agrees. Which is it kid ? Do you want to argue about Stalin constantly or do you not ? FUCK. I feel like I'm in bizzaro world.

If he now realizes that these debates are pointless, then fine, that is great. I just get sick of seeing him change his fucking stance whenever he gets word from you to do so. I guess I'm an idealist, I wish people could think for themselves.

The funny thing is, I tried to be nice and end this shit with you Elijah. I told you I think that you're a super smart kid, just a little easily convinced. I think your response was something like "Numbed skulls cannot be convinced" or something equally as brilliant. Don't worry honey, I don't hate you, this relationship can still be salvaged. Maybe when you get done sucking RAF off I can get a turn ? :wub:

As for the wrestling match, I'm down. To quote a great man "Come Tuesday, me and Petey are gonna fuck your ass".