chairman mao

[lostsoul]

happy bday mao. Rest in peace comrade.


here's some articles on him i found in the news today:
http://www1.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-...tent_293438.htm (http://www1.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/26/content_293438.htm)
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2003-12/...ent_1249659.htm (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2003-12/26/content_1249659.htm)
http://www1.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-...tent_292704.htm (http://www1.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/23/content_292704.htm)
http://www1.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-...tent_293394.htm (http://www1.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/25/content_293394.htm)
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200312/2...26_131239.shtml (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200312/26/eng20031226_131239.shtml)
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2003-12/...ent_1248360.htm (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2003-12/25/content_1248360.htm)
http://www1.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-...tent_293438.htm (http://www1.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/26/content_293438.htm)

[LuZhiming]

Rest in peace.... And the same to all of those many millions that died because of your moronic policies. Happy birthday Mao.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 02:51 AM
Rest in peace.... And the same to all of those many millions that died because of your moronic policies. Happy birthday Mao.
hahah!! nice!!

[lostsoul]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 07:51 AM
Rest in peace.... And the same to all of those many millions that died because of your moronic policies. Happy birthday Mao.
would you prefer china under Chiang Kai-shek's rule?

[SonofRage]

Tweedle Dumb or Tweedle Dee, hmm....

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 09:37 AM
would you prefer china under Chiang Kai-shek's rule?
I really don't know. That's a good question. I would have to flip a coin on that one.

[Soviet power supreme]

I heard from my history teacher that Mao's corpse in China isnt in good shape.He said that the Chines failed to embalm the Mao's body correctly.

[lostsoul]

Originally posted by LuZhiming+Dec 27 2003, 02:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LuZhiming @ Dec 27 2003, 02:05 PM)
[email protected] 27 2003, 09:37 AM
would you prefer china under Chiang Kai-shek&#39;s rule?
I really don&#39;t know. That&#39;s a good question. I would have to flip a coin on that one.

[/b]
Ok you do that then, cool guy.

[Invader Zim]

edit

[lostsoul]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 27 2003, 02:15 PM
I heard from my history teacher that Mao&#39;s corpse in China isnt in good shape.He said that the Chines failed to embalm the Mao&#39;s body correctly.
Most of the people who&#39;s body&#39;s were embalmed to put them on display&#39;s body&#39;s don&#39;t last long.

Basically when we die our bodies start to decompose right away, and to prevent that the doctors usually inject some thing into us so our bodys don&#39;t get too fucked up(for the funneral, etc..)

With mao, lenin, stalin, etc.. Only thing the doctors did was give alot more then the normal dosage to them after they died.

It doesn&#39;t prevent the body from decomposing, it just slows it down alot. I heard a few years after lenin&#39;s death all his hair feel out, and eventually his nose fell off. Ho chi minh had the same problem except his chin, they say feel off.


If you have time read, "a private life of chairman mao" by dr. Li Zhi-Sui
That is mao&#39;s doctor and the one who preserved his body. He talks about this for a chapter, but also says that the party knew mao&#39;s body would not last long so they made a body double. If you have time, i suggest you read the book, its pretty anti-mao but still gives a good idea of how mao thinked.

[SonofRage]

that whole personality cult thing is sickening. Just put that damn body in the ground or burn it and be done with it.

[Jesus Christ]

corpses are such a god damn waste of space

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 05:23 PM
Ok you do that then, cool guy.
If it makes you feel better, I think Mao was a brilliant man. His literary work is clever, and he was an excellent and charismatic military leader. It&#39;s many of his economic policies that I am against.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Yippee&#33; Lets have a honorary birthday cake&#33; Come on folks, he&#39;s long dead, move on.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Anyone here who is passionatly anti-Mao I would suggest you read some RCP stuff about him.

[SonofRage]

Yes, we all know how objective the RCP is about Mao :D

[Jesus Christ]

http://kuodesign.com/welcome/gift/othermail/mao.gif
somebody turned the lights out on mao lol

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Yes, we all know how objective the RCP is about Mao

They are a Maoist party.Whats your point?They give very good evidence to back up their claims.

[SonofRage]

If they are already very anti-Mao, you can&#39;t expect them to believe something from a Maoist party.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

maybe,maybe not comrade,but I think the bulk of them have not heard the other side of the story thats all.

[Sensitive]

WTF? Do you guys really think that Che Guevara would be repeating imperialist propagandistic lies (and also shit-talking) about Chairman Mao?

Or is "Che" just another brand-name to some of you?

Would you like a drink with that order of McCheNuggets?&#33; :angry:

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 09:11 AM
WTF? Do you guys really think that Che Guevara would be repeating imperialist propagandistic lies (and also shit-talking) about Chairman Mao?

Or is "Che" just another brand-name to some of you?

Would you like a drink with that order of McCheNuggets?&#33; :angry:
The only person using propaganda is you. And it&#39;s quite shameless propaganda as well: "Would you like a drink with that order of McCheNuggets?&#33;" and "Or is "Che" just another brand-name to some of you?" is quite a low method. Just because the facts aren&#39;t happy and nice about Mao, doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s propaganda. You apparently refuse to believe anything that makes your beloved leaders look bad, you don&#39;t seem to be much different than the many U.S. civillians who believe all of the crap they hear on Fox News. In my view, it is irrelivant whether Che Guevara would have said that or not. Let me ask you this: Would Che Guevara want people literally posing as him, and not thinking on their own?

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 27 2003, 02:15 PM
I heard from my history teacher that Mao&#39;s corpse in China isnt in good shape.He said that the Chines failed to embalm the Mao&#39;s body correctly.
That doesn&#39;t matter because every five years a little bird which Mao kissed in 1935 comes down and secretes a beautiful revolutionary potion which brighten his face and fixes hair. On this day, everyone in China cheers for Chairman Mao, a man of the people and a lovely overwight little guy, with a cute smile and a empty head.


Long live Chinese Socialism&#33;

[Sensitive]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 02:57 PM
The only person using propaganda is you. And it&#39;s quite shameless propaganda as well: "Would you like a drink with that order of McCheNuggets?&#33;" and "Or is "Che" just another brand-name to some of you?" is quite a low method. Just because the facts aren&#39;t happy and nice about Mao, doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s propaganda. You apparently refuse to believe anything that makes your beloved leaders look bad, you don&#39;t seem to be much different than the many U.S. civillians who believe all of the crap they hear on Fox News. In my view, it is irrelivant whether Che Guevara would have said that or not. Let me ask you this: Would Che Guevara want people literally posing as him, and not thinking on their own?
First of all, there was no "propaganda" in my post, and most importantly - there were no imperialist propagandistic lies in my post.

Secondly, you have given no facts, and merely made accusations.

Thirdly, I&#39;m sure you can find all kinds of "facts" (i.e. more pathetic accusations and lies) on any website either owned by a Western government (university, etc) or in any capitalist owned media outlet. I know this, because I am a history major and I&#39;ve seen every bit of anticommunist bullshit that the American university system has to offer and I have already seen it debunked.

Fourthly, the reason I was correct in accusing people like you on this website thinking of "Che" as just another brand name is because it is so obviously true&#33; He was a Marxist-Leninist, not some whiny anticommunist, liberal&#33; Che would not want to be your friend if you told him bullshit like you were posting in this thread.

[Tiki Man]

I say we wait until Che and his memory is successfully cloned, or we perfect past time travel, until we start arguing who he would be friends with. None of us here have met Che in reality, so not seeing CHe as an individual from some I can accept, but I do make notice of it.

It&#39;s just the people who have no idea who he was or what he represents that make me sick. AS long as you know his basic political views, that&#39;s enough for not having such a minor disagreement, no?

And propaganda is simply one side of the truth revealed. Sensitive didn&#39;t really say any facts. I say start backing up what either of you say with facts to make your point sharp if you must continue in this dagger fight. People have a ton of propaganda against Hitler, facts such as "he killed six million Jews", they never realize that he was trying to lengthen the existence of the human race, all they see are the bad things he convinced the Nazis to do...though they were pretty bad, so I&#39;m not defending Hitler. He did a few right things...right? Again, all we see are the dumb things he did. Attacking the Soviet Union. Allying with Italy. Not putting the Me262 into full use. Not approving the Fallschirmjagergewehr 42&#39;s production... I probably lost you all by now on that one.
The enigmatic Fallschirmjagergewehr 42 (FG42) was developed by the Luftwaffe without Hitler&#39;s approval after the 1941 debacle of Operation Merkur, wherein German paratroops on the island of Crete were badly mauled by long-range fire from well-dug-in British and NZ forces.There, now you know what I&#39;m talking about.....right?

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Well Che was a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist so he probobly would not have liked these anti-Mao views.He thought that the Chinese version of socialism was a lot better then the Soviet revisionist kind.

[Sensitive]

Originally posted by Tiki [email protected] 30 2003, 04:35 PM
Sensitive didn&#39;t really say any facts. I say start backing up what either of you say with facts to make your point sharp if you must continue in this dagger fight.
You&#39;re the guys that are making the bullshit claims, (that Mao or Chinese socialism "murdered millions"). You need to provide some "facts" - and keep in mind, I am a history major, and I&#39;ve already heard all "The Facts on Communism" (a registered trademark of the United States government). If you want to read a perfect example of some of the shit that is taught as "history", read the link in my signature "Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union".

[Saint-Just]

If it makes you feel better, I think Mao was a brilliant man. His literary work is clever, and he was an excellent and charismatic military leader. It&#39;s many of his economic policies that I am against.

That interesting, you would get on well with Mao and the CPPRC then because they also thought Mao&#39;s economic policies were wrong. That is why Mao lost control of the economy after the Great Leap Forward (part of 58-62&#39; Five Year plan). And, although Mao&#39;s economic policies failed, during the first five year plan they met or exceeded most of their production targets. And they also had economic success in the third Five Year Plan, which was of course the foundation of the prosperity that exists today in China.

[LuZhiming]

Secondly, you have given no facts, and merely made accusations.

What? It is common knowledge that the Great Leap Forward lead to the starvation of millions of people. It&#39;s just as much of a fact as "Hitler killed Jews."


Thirdly, I&#39;m sure you can find all kinds of "facts" (i.e. more pathetic accusations and lies) on any website either owned by a Western government (university, etc) or in any capitalist owned media outlet. I know this, because I am a history major and I&#39;ve seen every bit of anticommunist bullshit that the American university system has to offer and I have already seen it debunked.

History major? I haven&#39;t seen much of a demonstration of anything of that sort in any of your posts. You whine, you whine, you claim, you claim. You call anything against your idols "Imperialist propaganda." Do you even know what an imperialist is? Stalin was an imperialist, Mao was an imperialist, Lenin was an imperialist. They all extended their power on other nations through domination. Mao&#39;s economic failure is common knowledge, and you have yet to provide any sort of arguement that would in some way prove that that wasn&#39;t so.


Fourthly, the reason I was correct in accusing people like you on this website thinking of "Che" as just another brand name is because it is so obviously true&#33; He was a Marxist-Leninist, not some whiny anticommunist, liberal&#33; Che would not want to be your friend if you told him bullshit like you were posting in this thread.

Stop making a fool out of yourself. You don&#39;t know Che. That above assumption is quite a baseless one. I wonder, if Che was such a Marxist-Leninist, why exactly did he ever live in Guatemala under the hero Jacobo Arbenz? Sure, his policies were leftist in many aspects, but it was still a form of Capitalism, Leftist Capitalism if you will. So why was he there? Why did Che and Fidel negotiate with the U.S. before the Soviet Union if they were so dedicated to the Marxist-Leninist cause? Why wasn&#39;t Cuba immediately made Socialist?

[lostsoul]

What? It is common knowledge that the Great Leap Forward lead to the starvation of millions of people. It&#39;s just as much of a fact as "Hitler killed Jews."

I do not doubt people died during the "Great Leap Forward" but can this be linked to errors in Mao&#39;s tactics? or would they have been caused by people negelecting their farming work and focusing on production of steel?

Although he triggered the Greap Leap Forward, i don&#39;t think he was fully responsible for its failures.


If you have any more examples, please post.

Thanks


p.s LuZhiming I was just wondering, who would you consider a good communist leader in history? Not Mao, but Lenin? Stalin? ho chi minh? castro? etc.. I am just curious. Thanks

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Though some of Mao&#39;s economic policies failed,those failures,would have been considerd brilliant in Nationalist China.Mao is the built China into a great socialist state.Only to be destroyed by the reactionary-revisionist clique of Deng and the others.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Just because the great leap forward suffered some trouble, doesn&#39;t make the whole idea wrong. Of course, it really isn&#39;t necessary to try and keep villages independant. Likewise, would you support Hitler if he was a pacifist? Would you support him if he boost the global economy and had high approval ratings? Just because an ideology was effective doesn&#39;t mean it is right for the people. X number of people dieing doesn&#39;t really have much meaning except to show their may have been some administrative flaws in the great leap forward, and show that Hitler didn&#39;t give a rat&#39;s ass anyways. I say Communism must always go forward regardless of how many people die in the process, with as few as possible of course. A classless society is the goal, and nothing should stand in our way.

[Sensitive]

Do you even know what an imperialist is? Stalin was an imperialist, Mao was an imperialist, Lenin was an imperialist. They all extended their power on other nations through domination.
ROFL, kid, try learning about what imperialism actually is&#33; (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/m.htm#imperialism)



Mao&#39;s economic failure is common knowledge, and you have yet to provide any sort of arguement that would in some way prove that that wasn&#39;t so.
You&#39;re the one making the accusation (that Mao "killed millions"). As I have been saying in my previous posts - back up your accusation with some evidence&#33; I want to see which anticommunist author you bring a link too.



Stop making a fool out of yourself. You don&#39;t know Che. That above assumption is quite a baseless one.
LOL, you are the fool. Che was a Marxist-Leninist (and he thought very, very highly of Joseph Stalin, and Mao as well). He would not have liked you at all politically, and probably even less on a personal basis.



Why did Che and Fidel negotiate with the U.S. before the Soviet Union if they were so dedicated to the Marxist-Leninist cause?
Get a clue, Cuba is only 90 miles south of the most powerful regime in the history of the world - obviously the revolution wanted to remain "friendly" for as long as possible with Washington. However, once the land was redistributed (land which the American capitalist class owned), Cuba then made the alliance with the Soviet Union for protection. Also, Raul Castro and Che Guevara were the Marxist-Leninists, Fidel Castro was not.


Also, some of us are interested in what kind of "leftist" you claim to be. Lets hear it.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Stop making a fool out of yourself. You don&#39;t know Che. That above assumption is quite a baseless one. I wonder, if Che was such a Marxist-Leninist, why exactly did he ever live in Guatemala under the hero Jacobo Arbenz? Sure, his policies were leftist in many aspects, but it was still a form of Capitalism, Leftist Capitalism if you will. So why was he there? Why did Che and Fidel negotiate with the U.S. before the Soviet Union if they were so dedicated to the Marxist-Leninist cause? Why wasn&#39;t Cuba immediately made Socialist?

This is just....wow.Ok first off,just because you live in a country does not mean you support their government.I live in Bush&#39;s United States,does that mean I support him?Hell no&#33;Did the Jews in Hitler&#39;s Germany support him?Hell no&#33;They negotiated with the U.S. beacuse they didn&#39;t wan them to destroy their revolution,after all they supported Batista.It would have been too risky to come out and negotiate with the Soviets when they were a small island only miles away from the Soviet Union&#39;s biggest enemy.Nothing can "immidiatly be socialist",the road to even socialism takes time.And for obvious reason they didn&#39;t immidiatly proclaim themselves socialist.They adequatly prepared themselves before proclaiming "We are socialist&#33;".Saying Che Guevara was not a Marxist-Leninist is as ridiculous as saying Ronald Regan was not a conservative.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by lostsoul+Dec 31 2003, 02:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lostsoul @ Dec 31 2003, 02:32 AM)I do not doubt people died during the "Great Leap Forward" but can this be linked to errors in Mao&#39;s tactics? or would they have been caused by people negelecting their farming work and focusing on production of steel? [/b]

Well, let&#39;s be serious here. Unless under force or fear of, people aren&#39;t going to just produce steel and let themselves starve. Especially millions. It is no coincidence that some of the prime components of Mao&#39;s Great Leap Forward were in fact, industrialization largely through steel production.


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 02:32 AM
p.s LuZhiming I was just wondering, who would you consider a good communist leader in history? Not Mao, but Lenin? Stalin? ho chi minh? castro? etc.. I am just curious. Thanks

It depends on what you mean by "good communist leader." All of the above had great leadership abilities. Castro is the only one I personally like though. If good in any way means moral, that would immediately eliminate Stalin and Lenin.


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 05:53 AM
Just because the great leap forward suffered some trouble, doesn&#39;t make the whole idea wrong.

Right, just the steel prodcution and overworking part.


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 05:53 AM
Of course, it really isn&#39;t necessary to try and keep villages independant.

That wasn&#39;t what lead to the deaths of peasents. Things would have been much different if they weren&#39;t forced into labor for steel production. <_<


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 05:53 AM
Likewise, would you support Hitler if he was a pacifist? Would you support him if he boost the global economy and had high approval ratings?

Your first question is vague. Hitler did boost Germany&#39;s economy and had high approval ratings. I don&#39;t support him.


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 05:53 AM
Just because an ideology was effective doesn&#39;t mean it is right for the people.

:blink: If it really was effective that is proof that it was best for the people. And if an ideology doesn&#39;t work, then it was clearly not right for the people.


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 05:53 AM
X number of people dieing doesn&#39;t really have much meaning except to show their may have been some administrative flaws in the great leap forward, and show that Hitler didn&#39;t give a rat&#39;s ass anyways.

:huh: Yes, isn&#39;t that what I have been saying that all along?


I say Communism must always go forward regardless of how many people die in the process, with as few as possible of course.

I say: Not so.


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 05:53 AM
A classless society is the goal, and nothing should stand in our way.

In my view, such thinking is irrational and counter-productive.


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 05:53 AM
ROFL, kid, try learning about what imperialism actually is&#33;[/URL]

Well well, likewise father dearest, let me give you a history lesson: Lenin didn&#39;t invent the word &#39;imperialism.&#39; He just heard it one day, and decided to use it. His definitions are false. Haha, people in the U.S. used it before Lenin ever did. Need proof? The Anti-Imperialist League formed in 1898 by Mark Twain and others in response to the U.S.&#39; supposed Spanish/American War. Do you know what that means? Imperialism had been a common word on the streets for a long time when Lenin was a teenager. That&#39;s right genius, the word imperialism has been around a long time, much before this league, and certainly before Lenin.


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 05:53 AM
You&#39;re the one making the accusation (that Mao "killed millions"). As I have been saying in my previous posts - back up your accusation with some evidence&#33; I want to see which anticommunist author you bring a link too.

When you are going to quote someone, it should be quoted accurately. I didn&#39;t say Mao "killed millions." Please, go to any Chinese history site, start here: http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/toc.html


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 05:53 AM
LOL, you are the fool. Che was a Marxist-Leninist (and he thought very, very highly of Joseph Stalin, and Mao as well). He would not have liked you at all politically, and probably even less on a personal basis.

Yes ok, it&#39;s good to know you can read Che&#39;s mind, and apparently know facts that no one else does. Go ahead, keep ignoring all of the contrary evidence.


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 05:53 AM
Get a clue, Cuba is only 90 miles south of the most powerful regime in the history of the world - obviously the revolution wanted to remain "friendly" for as long as possible with Washington.

Right, even if that excuse cuts it, it doesn&#39;t account for Cuba having no interest in having anything to do with the Soviet Union, until they had no other choice.


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 05:53 AM
However, once the land was redistributed (land which the American capitalist class owned), Cuba then made the alliance with the Soviet Union for protection.

That is missing some details. Che Guevara himself went to meet with Richard Goodwin(Kennedy&#39;s assistant special counsel), promising to forswear any political alliance with the Soviet Union, pay for the former U.S. owned nationalised territories through trade, and to even consider cutting back on the funding for leftist revolutionaries.


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 05:53 AM
Also, Raul Castro and Che Guevara were the Marxist-Leninists, Fidel Castro was not.

And it comes as no surprise that Fidel was the smartest of the bunch as well. Heh, I had to say that, I still see little reason to believe Che was a Marxist-Imperi, I mean Marxist-Leninist. I have no clue on Raul.


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 05:53 AM
Also, some of us are interested in what kind of "leftist" you claim to be. Lets hear it.

I do not limit myself to an ideology. I am a leftist, but the type of leftist is open. I could be an anarchist, a Communist, a Socialist, a supporter of dictatorships, any of those. I support Castro for what he has done, not for what his ideology has done, because the Socialism/Nationalism/Dictatorship ruling he has, can be good or bad depending how it is carried out. And I hate Stalin for his imperialist and unacceptably brutal actions, not because he was a socialist or a dictator.


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 05:55 AM
This is just....wow.Ok first off,just because you live in a country does not mean you support their government.I live in Bush&#39;s United States,does that mean I support him?Hell no&#33;Did the Jews in Hitler&#39;s Germany support him?Hell no&#33;

True as that is, you are forgetting some things:

1. Che was born in Argentina, not Guatemala
2. Che had nothing forcing him to live in Guatemala, in fact he was living in poverty there largely for his refusal to join the Communist Party.


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 05:55 AM
They negotiated with the U.S. beacuse they didn&#39;t wan them to destroy their revolution,after all they supported Batista.

The U.S. sent aid to both Batista and Castro at the same time, at the height of the revolution. And this brings me to another point, there was a Communist Party in Cuba before Castro. And many of them had benefits from Batista, he had no problems with it. Castro (Justifiably in my view) later jailed these members of the Communist Party. Hmm, I wonder why Castro never tried to become a member of the Communist Party? Or Che? Or Raul? I wonder why Castro instead ran in an election?


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 05:55 AM
It would have been too risky to come out and negotiate with the Soviets when they were a small island only miles away from the Soviet Union&#39;s biggest enemy.

How was it any more risky than negotiating later?


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 05:55 AM
Nothing can "immidiatly be socialist",the road to even socialism takes time.And for obvious reason they didn&#39;t immidiatly proclaim themselves socialist. "We are socialist&#33;"

You&#39;re right, they proclaimed themselves socialism after the U.S.&#39; massive terrorism campaign against them proved to be devastating, and clearly left Cuba in need of protection. The timing is so convenient, gosh, I wonder why. :unsure: And what was that obvious reason you speak of? Fear of the United States? Hmm, well that&#39;s quite odd, because the United States had already begun terrorizing Cuba. How would they be any more feared? Or is there another reason? Castro: "I am not a Communist"


Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 05:55 AM
Saying Che Guevara was not a Marxist-Leninist is as ridiculous as saying Ronald Regan was not a conservative.

Yeah sure, the evidence is overwhelming. :rolleyes:

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Holy...oh my..ok...lets dig in&#33;


Well, let&#39;s be serious here. Unless under force or fear of, people aren&#39;t going to just produce steel and let themselves starve. Especially millions. It is no coincidence that some of the prime components of Mao&#39;s Great Leap Forward were in fact, industrialization largely through steel production.

Naturally the rich landlord peaseants did not want to cooperate.They were often given trials by the whole village,for crimes against the people.Those are the only resisitors of the Great Leap Foward.There was nothing to be afraid of for the common peaseant.


It depends on what you mean by "good communist leader." All of the above had great leadership abilities. Castro is the only one I personally like though. If good in any way means moral, that would immediately eliminate Stalin and Lenin.
Castro continuously proclaims himself a Marxist-Leninist,and his policies are that of a Marxist-Leninist,so why do you like him?



Right, just the steel prodcution and overworking part.

Fuck is wrong with producing steel?And the people worked overtime if they wanted to.They were vary passionate about fufilling the goals of the Great Leap Foward.


That wasn&#39;t what lead to the deaths of peasents. Things would have been much different if they weren&#39;t forced into labor for steel production.

It was a plan,a design.This is what their job was.Are you going to tell me that a guy who works in a Ford factory is forced to make cars?




Well well, father dearest, let me give you a history lesson: Lenin didn&#39;t invent the word &#39;imperialism.&#39; He just heard it one day, and decided to use it. His definitions are false. Haha, people in the U.S. used it before Lenin ever did. Need proof? The Anti-Imperialist League formed in 1898 by Mark Twain and others in response to the U.S.&#39; supposed Spanish/American War. Do you know what that means? Imperialism had been a common word on the streets for a long time when Lenin was a teenager. That&#39;s right genius, the word imperialism has been around a long time, much before this league, and certainly before Lenin.

It still meant the same thing.If they were against the war,which they interpurted as unjust and something the U.S. shouldn&#39;t have gotten involved in,they were "anti-imperialists" in the sense Lenin used the word in.How do you know that that word was common on the streets?Were you alive then and there?



Yes ok, it&#39;s good to know you can read Che&#39;s mind, and apparently know facts that no one else does. Go ahead, keep ignoring all of the contrary evidence.

Your ignorance upsets me.Have you read Jon Lee Anderson&#39;s book on Che?Obviously not,as he makes the same points about Che as comrade Sensitive does.This is the most trusted bio on Che,just ask everyone here&#33;


Right, even if that excuse cuts it, it doesn&#39;t account for Cuba having no interest in having anything to do with the Soviet Union, until they had no other choice.

No they didn&#39;t want to come out right away and say they were pro-soviet or else the US would have interfeird as they did with many other leftists governments in Latin America.



That is missing some details. Che Guevara himself went to meet with Richard Goodwin(Kennedy&#39;s assistant special counsel), promising to forswear any political alliance with the Soviet Union, pay for the former U.S. owned nationalised territories through trade, and to even consider cutting back on the funding for leftist revolutionaries.

Thats what diplomacy is.Do you actually think that everything every diplomat says is true?Of course not.With these meetings of diplomats,people tell each other what they want to hear.


And it comes as no surprise that Fidel was the smartest of the bunch as well. Heh, I had to say that, I still see little reason to believe Che was a Marxist-Imperi, I mean Marxist-Leninist. I have no clue on Raul.

Maybe because they all proclaimed themselves Marxists-Leninists,wrote books,and speeches and pamflets advocating Marxism-Leninism,and most of all implemented policies and ideas of the Marxist-Leninist nature.Saying otherwise is absurd.Please someone else,even if you hate me and we disagree on everything else,please back me up and stop this mans blindness.Maybe if a bunch of people would agree tha Che and Fidel are Marxists-Leninists then he will finnaly realize that yes,in fact they were.


True as that is, you are forgetting some things:

1. Che was born in Argentina, not Guatemala
2. Che had nothing forcing him to live in Guatemala, in fact he was living in poverty there largely for his refusal to join the Communist Party.

He didn&#39;t even spend much time in Guatemala.In fact he had to seek shelter in the Argentine embassy when Arbenz was overthrown or else he would have been arrested for his Marxist activities.Read "A revolutionary Life" for more evidence of this.And here you contraidct yourself.You claim Arbenz was not a communist,yet you say people could suffer sanctions against them for not joining the party?I have not heard of this happening a lot anywhere,but if it did happen,would not that government have to be communist to have the authority to do this?Because if the government was not communist or fascist or capitalist it dosen&#39;t matter if they were trying to force someone to join a party,whatever kind,it would have to be the kind the government is as no one else has the authority to do this.So if Arbenz and his government weren&#39;t communist who was that had the authority to do this?


The U.S. sent aid to both Batista and Castro at the same time, at the height of the revolution. And this brings me to another point, there was a Communist Party in Cuba before Castro. And many of them had benefits from Batista, he had no problems with it. Castro (Justifiably in my view) later jailed these members of the Communist Party. Hmm, I wonder why Castro never tried to become a member of the Communist Party? Or Che? Or Raul? I wonder why Castro instead ran in an election?

Yes before Castro became General Seceratary of the Cuban Communist Party,corruption ran through it.But many did not know this until after the revolution.Fidel and Che thought it would be too risky to join the communist party,because the common memeber of the Communist Party could get in big trouble with Batista.It was illegal.Raul was a member though.Many of Che&#39;s men knew nothing about communism,they were afraid of it because of the lies they were told about it.They would see Che reading books by Lenin and say "Who was Lenin?",all the well knowing he was a communist,they just wanted to know what Che would say,he would say"Someone who fought for his people".

How was it any more risky than negotiating later?

Well because maybe you have developed some defenses.Plus Cuba only came out that it was friendly with the Soviets after they were done negotiating,so if the US attacked immidiatly they would have the Soviets to back them up.Do you remember the Bay of Pigs invasion?


You&#39;re right, they proclaimed themselves socialism after the U.S. had a massive terrorism campaign against them. The timing is so convenient, gosh, I wonder why. And what was that obvious reason? Fear of the United States? Hmm, well that&#39;s quite odd, because the United States had already begun terrorizing Cuba. How would they be any more feared? Or is there another reason? Castro: "I am not a Communist"



Most of what you said didn&#39;t make sense.But as for that quote,oh soure on his first visit to the States Castro is gonna go running around with 10 cigars in his mouth,waving a Red Flag on the White House lawn and screaming "I&#39;m a communist&#33;yeah&#33;i&#39;m a communist&#33;i love the ussr&#33;screw imperialism&#33;"Ok exaguration but if he had said he was a communist,man that would&#39;ve gone over huge with Eisenhower,who already refused to meet with him because he suspected he was a commie.



Yeah sure, the evidence is overwhelming.

Have you read his speeches?His formal writings?I suggest you pick up a copy of "Che Guevara;Selected Speeches and Writings" very soon.

[Sensitive]

His definitions are false.

LOL, now you make (another) baseless accusation&#33;



Haha, people in the U.S. used it before Lenin ever did. Need proof? The Anti-Imperialist League formed in 1898 by Mark Twain and others in response to the U.S.&#39; supposed Spanish/American War. That&#39;s right genius, the word imperialism has been around a long time, much before this league, and certainly before Lenin.

I never claimed that "Lenin invented the word &#39;imperialism&#39;" - and I already knew that the word existed before he wrote that pamphlet. What the hell does that have to do with what we are talking about? The fact of the matter is that when communists (and other leftists) use the word "imperialist" we are generally talking about the highest stage of capitalism - economic imperialism. Now, if you were also trying to claim that the Soviet Union and China were trying to make "empires" in the old colonial sense - we (the rational members of this forum) again ask for you to bring us some evidence to back up these ridiculous (and baseless) accusations&#33;



Please, go to any Chinese history site, start here: http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/toc.html

LOL, you did exactly what I told you to do&#33; Thank you&#33; You found a lengthy piece (of shit) written about China and written by anticommunists (and it is on American university website (University of Maryland) just like I requested)&#33;

A simple reading of the "References for History of China (http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/references.html)" tells us more than enough about the drivel you gave us a link too.

Here are just some of the references:
"Barnett, A. Doak. Uncertain Pasage: China&#39;s Transition to the Post- Mao Era. Washington: Brookings Institution, 1974"
- Ah yes, the "Brookings Institute" a "think tank", which is known for being anticommunist.

"Butterfield, Fox. "The Pendulum in Peking Swings Far--Both Ways," New York Times, December 3, 1978, sect- 4, 1-"
- The New York Times - a capitalist owned, anticommunist newspaper.

""People&#39;s China: 25 Years. The Pattern of Politics," Problems of Communism, XIII, September-October 1974, 20-25."
- Well of course, "Problems of Communism" - a series of Western, anticommunist "historical" volumes.

" Whitson, William W. Chinese Military and Political Leaders and the Distribution of Power in China, 1956-1971 . (R-1091-DOS/ARPA June 1973. A report prepared for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and Department of State.) Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, June 1973."
- Another extremely right wing "think tank." Named after none other than one of the most extreme-anti-communists ever: Ayn Rand&#33;

Haha, you see?&#33; These are the "references" that you will find in any typical "history" of China or "history" of any other socialist country in an American university.

I know how "history is written"&#33;



Heh, I had to say that, I still see little reason to believe Che was a Marxist-Imperi, I mean Marxist-Leninist. I have no clue on Raul.

I&#39;ve seen a lot of odd stuff on this site, but you&#39;re the first person I&#39;ve ever seen that has denied that Che was a Marxist-Leninist.



I do not limit myself to an ideology. I am a leftist, but the type of leftist is open. I could be an anarchist, a Communist, a Socialist, a supporter of dictatorships, any of those.

What is obvious is that you do not understand any ideology&#33; I suggest doing a bit more reading, and less repeating of anticommunist BS.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

One of the problems with Mao&#39;s steel was that it was of very low quality, and thereby mostly useless, and people melted usable items to meet quotas.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Comrade Ceausescu+Dec 31 2003, 07:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Comrade Ceausescu @ Dec 31 2003, 07:53 AM)Naturally the rich landlord peaseants did not want to cooperate.They were often given trials by the whole village,for crimes against the people.Those are the only resisitors of the Great Leap Foward.There was nothing to be afraid of for the common peaseant. [/b]

...Except starvation.


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 07:53 AM
Castro continuously proclaims himself a Marxist-Leninist,and his policies are that of a Marxist-Leninist,so why do you like him?

Castro has been proclaiming that since he had to get protection from the Soviet Union, and he continues to for reasons I have been mentioning the entire time. The ideology he has doesn&#39;t matter to me, it&#39;s the way he carries out the ideology. And it really depends exactly how specifically you define "Marxist-Leninist." That term is an oxymoron, but putting that aside, it depends what you consider the significant policies of Lenin that fall into the Leninist category. It can&#39;t be all of his policies, there wouldn&#39;t be many Leninists if that was so.


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 07:53 AM
Fuck is wrong with producing steel?And the people worked overtime if they wanted to.They were vary passionate about fufilling the goals of the Great Leap Foward.

Being overworked from producing steel and having no food is kind of a problem, I know how crazy that must sound. Many Germans were passionate about Hitler&#39;s policies, is that an arguement for fascism?


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 07:53 AM
It was a plan,a design.This is what their job was.Are you going to tell me that a guy who works in a Ford factory is forced to make cars?

No President is forcing the people to work in Ford factories. :blink:


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 07:53 AM
It still meant the same thing.If they were against the war,which they interpurted as unjust and something the U.S. shouldn&#39;t have gotten involved in,they were "anti-imperialists" in the sense Lenin used the word in.How do you know that that word was common on the streets?Were you alive then and there?

That is completely false and you know it. That term had nothing to do with Capitalism as they proclaimed it, and it is obvious by the amount of Capitalists who used it long before Lenin. If one knows how to research, they do not need to live in those times to make such claims. For example, the New Republic used to print articles all the time on how the British Empire was "Imperialist," in criticism of it.


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 07:53 AM
Your ignorance upsets me.Have you read Jon Lee Anderson&#39;s book on Che?Obviously not,as he makes the same points about Che as comrade Sensitive does.This is the most trusted bio on Che,just ask everyone here&#33;

That is irrelivant. Not you, not Sensitive, and not Jon Lee Anderson have any clue whether Che Guevara would dislike me at all. You two don&#39;t even have an arguement for this quite laughable claim.


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 07:53 AM
No they didn&#39;t want to come out right away and say they were pro-soviet or else the US would have interfeird as they did with many other leftists governments in Latin America.

:lol: What? The U.S. was interferring&#33;


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 07:53 AM
Thats what diplomacy is.Do you actually think that everything every diplomat says is true?Of course not.With these meetings of diplomats,people tell each other what they want to hear.

Yeah? So Che went out of his way to meet with him just to lie? You are in pure denial at this point.


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 07:53 AM
Maybe because they all proclaimed themselves Marxists-Leninists,wrote books,and speeches and pamflets advocating Marxism-Leninism,and most of all implemented policies and ideas of the Marxist-Leninist nature.Saying otherwise is absurd.Please someone else,even if you hate me and we disagree on everything else,please back me up and stop this mans blindness.Maybe if a bunch of people would agree tha Che and Fidel are Marxists-Leninists then he will finnaly realize that yes,in fact they were.

Haha, Fidel also had proclamations that he wasn&#39;t a Communist back in 1959 as well. Che refused to join Communist parties in Guatemala and Cuba, Fidel refused to join the one in Cuba, they tried to negotiate with the U.S. numerous times, he even ran for an election&#33; Fidel arrested Communists, Che chose to live under a Capitalist, and both of them were persuing bourgeois careers in law and medicine. Yet you ignore all of these things, because when he had no choice, Cuba became &#39;Communist.&#39;


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 07:53 AM
He didn&#39;t even spend much time in Guatemala.In fact he had to seek shelter in the Argentine embassy when Arbenz was overthrown or else he would have been arrested for his Marxist activities.

Well obviously, the leader of it was overthrown, and a right wing dictator was put in his place. :rolleyes: Marxist activities? Che was completely unknown in Guatemala, he was poor, how would anyone know of supposed Marxist activities?


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 07:53 AM
And here you contraidct yourself.You claim Arbenz was not a communist,yet you say people could suffer sanctions against them for not joining the party?

Che didn&#39;t suffer sanctions, but he wasn&#39;t allowed in to the official medical position. Or at least, that&#39;s what his biographies say. Jacobo Arbenz certainly wasn&#39;t running any sort of Socialist or Communist government.


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 07:53 AM
I have not heard of this happening a lot anywhere,but if it did happen,would not that government have to be communist to have the authority to do this?

Not really, look at Batista. Many of the members of his cabinet were of the Communist Party, was he a Communist? :lol:


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 07:53 AM
Because if the government was not communist or fascist or capitalist it dosen&#39;t matter if they were trying to force someone to join a party,whatever kind,it would have to be the kind the government is as no one else has the authority to do this.So if Arbenz and his government weren&#39;t communist who was that had the authority to do this?

I was just going by his biography on that point, I start to wonder if that is even true, because Arbenz wasn&#39;t Communist or Socialist.


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 07:53 AM
Yes before Castro became General Seceratary of the Cuban Communist Party,corruption ran through it.But many did not know this until after the revolution.Fidel and Che thought it would be too risky to join the communist party,because the common memeber of the Communist Party could get in big trouble with Batista.It was illegal.Raul was a member though.

I didn&#39;t know that about Raul, but I searched on that, and your claim appears to be true. Anyway, if they were in a threat of being in trouble, why could Raul join? Raul always has been more radical than Fidel, he may have been a Socialist of some sort. And if it was so corrupt, why did Raul bother joining it? Why was Raul so enthusiastic about joining the party and then enthusiastic about jailing its members?


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 07:53 AM
Many of Che&#39;s men knew nothing about communism,they were afraid of it because of the lies they were told about it.They would see Che reading books by Lenin and say "Who was Lenin?",all the well knowing he was a communist,they just wanted to know what Che would say,he would say"Someone who fought for his people".

Yeah, they just wanted to end corruption in Cuba.


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 07:53 AM
Well because maybe you have developed some defenses.

Are you really serious with this one? This isn&#39;t knights going on a siege, this is an island with a U.S. base on it, that would have no chance of holding off a U.S. invasion. What were they going to develop? Better weapons? How exactly would they do that, if they were going to be independent? Were they expecting to build a bunch from scratch? Is there any indication that they ever did anything like this? Honestly, this is quite a strange arguement you have here.


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 07:53 AM
Plus Cuba only came out that it was friendly with the Soviets after they were done negotiating,so if the US attacked immidiatly they would have the Soviets to back them up.

And Cuba had no negotiations with the Soviet Union intul much after U.S. terrorism had took its toll, Cuba had nationalised its territories, and U.S. negotiation had failed. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 07:53 AM
Do you remember the Bay of Pigs invasion?

What does that have to do with anything? Cube became under attack before that.


Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2003, 07:53 AM
Most of what you said didn&#39;t make sense.But as for that quote,oh soure on his first visit to the States Castro is gonna go running around with 10 cigars in his mouth,waving a Red Flag on the White House lawn and screaming "I&#39;m a communist&#33;yeah&#33;i&#39;m a communist&#33;i love the ussr&#33;screw imperialism&#33;"Ok exaguration but if he had said he was a communist,man that would&#39;ve gone over huge with Eisenhower,who already refused to meet with him because he suspected he was a commie.

Eisenhower didn&#39;t want to meet Castro because Castro openly criticized the U.S.&#39; dominance over Cuba. If he was willing to do speak so openly against the U.S., why was he afraid to declare Cuba as Communist? It doesn&#39;t add up.


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 08:09 AM
LOL, now you make (another) baseless accusation&#33;

It isn&#39;t baseless. I have already pointed out the matter of its use in the U.S. Capitalists don&#39;t accuse others of being Imperialists if its definition had anything to do with Capitalism as Lenin claims. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 08:09 AM
I never claimed that "Lenin invented the word &#39;imperialism&#39;" - and I already knew that the word existed before he wrote that pamphlet. What the hell does that have to do with what we are talking about?

Right, it&#39;s interesting that you would use Lenin as a reference to the supposed (fabricated) definition of imperialism.


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 08:09 AM
The fact of the matter is that when communists (and other leftists) use the word "imperialist" we are generally talking about the highest stage of capitalism - economic imperialism.

Oh, now it has changed from the definition of Imperialism to "What leftists tend to call it." This is pure denial, an attempt to back out of an arguement.


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 08:09 AM
Now, if you were also trying to claim that the Soviet Union and China were trying to make "empires" in the old colonial sense - we (the rational members of this forum) again ask for you to bring us some evidence to back up these ridiculous (and baseless) accusations&#33;

Well let&#39;s see:

- Stalin tried to make an alliance with Mussolinni after the latter had invaded Ethiopia
- The Soviets invaded Finland and annexed some of the territory
- Soviet Union held on to East Germany as their own
- Soviet Union signed an agreement with the U.S. and Britain giving it the rights to particular lands


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 08:09 AM
LOL, you did exactly what I told you to do&#33; Thank you&#33; You found a lengthy piece (of shit) written about China and written by anticommunists (and it is on American university website (University of Maryland) just like I requested)&#33;

A simple reading of the "References for History of China (http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/references.html)" tells us more than enough about the drivel you gave us a link too.

Here are just [i]some of the references:
"Barnett, A. Doak. Uncertain Pasage: China&#39;s Transition to the Post- Mao Era. Washington: Brookings Institution, 1974"
- Ah yes, the "Brookings Institute" a "think tank", which is known for being anticommunist.

"Butterfield, Fox. "The Pendulum in Peking Swings Far--Both Ways," New York Times, December 3, 1978, sect- 4, 1-"
- The New York Times - a capitalist owned, anticommunist newspaper.

""People&#39;s China: 25 Years. The Pattern of Politics," Problems of Communism, XIII, September-October 1974, 20-25."
- Well of course, "Problems of Communism" - a series of Western, anticommunist "historical" volumes.

" Whitson, William W. Chinese Military and Political Leaders and the Distribution of Power in China, 1956-1971 . (R-1091-DOS/ARPA June 1973. A report prepared for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and Department of State.) Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, June 1973."
- Another extremely right wing "think tank." Named after none other than one of the most extreme-anti-communists ever: Ayn Rand&#33;

Haha, you see?&#33; These are the "references" that you will find in any typical "history" of China or "history" of any other socialist country in an American university.

I know how "history is written"&#33;

Look, I really don&#39;t know where to find decent English sources on the internet on the matter. You can read books by Fred Teiwes, who certainly isn&#39;t a biased source, or some books by people from the Asian Studies sector of the Australian National University.


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 08:09 AM
I&#39;ve seen a lot of odd stuff on this site, but you&#39;re the first person I&#39;ve ever seen that has denied that Che was a Marxist-Leninist.

Look, what I&#39;m saying is that Fidel wasn&#39;t, Cuba wasn&#39;t, and Che at the least didn&#39;t care enough (to do it) about making Cuba a Marxist-Leninist state.


[email protected] 31 2003, 08:09 AM
What is obvious is that you do not understand any ideology&#33; I suggest doing a bit more reading, and less repeating of anticommunist BS.

Oh please, you are being blatantly stupid and arrogant. You are so heavily indoctrinated by &#39;Communist&#39; Bullshit, that you ignore all reason and evidence that goes against your ridicolous doctrines. There is no need to blatantly accuse people of things you don&#39;t know about.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

You dumbass.I&#39;m not gonna take the time and energy to make another huge post.you are not worth the time.drown in your lies you fool.

[Sensitive]

It isn&#39;t baseless.

[...]

Right, it&#39;s interesting that you would use Lenin as a reference to the supposed (fabricated) definition of imperialism.

You claim that Lenin&#39;s work, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism is incorrect, yet you have provided no evidence to back up this claim. Your accusation is baseless.




This is pure denial, an attempt to back out of an arguement.

And you are purely full of shit - I did not back out of any argument. This is the era of imperialism (as Lenin described it), you have provided no evidence whatsoever to disprove reality. You have just tried to play with words and claim that Lenin is wrong.



- Stalin tried to make an alliance with Mussolinni after the latter had invaded Ethiopia
Attempting to make a peace deal to buy more time before the fascist invasion of CCCP does not make the Soviet Union "imperialist".



- The Soviets invaded Finland and annexed some of the territory
The Soviet Union fought to liberate Finland from capitalism (even Leon Trotsky supported this).



- Soviet Union held on to East Germany as their own
Yet again, we see another baseless accusation coming from you.



- Soviet Union signed an agreement with the U.S. and Britain giving it the rights to particular lands
What are you talking about? The Eastern European socialist countries?




or some books by people from the Asian Studies sector of the Australian National University.

LOL, Australia is just another (weaker) imperialist power like the United States. Their universities are undoubtedly filled to the brim with anticommunism.




Look, what I&#39;m saying is that Fidel wasn&#39;t, Cuba wasn&#39;t, and Che at the least didn&#39;t care enough (to do it) about making Cuba a Marxist-Leninist state.

You are denying that Che was a Marxist-Leninist, and that is why we are laughing at you.

And Cuba is a "Marxist-Leninist state".




Oh please, you are being blatantly stupid and arrogant. You are so heavily indoctrinated by &#39;Communist&#39; Bullshit, that you ignore all reason and evidence that goes against your ridicolous doctrines. There is no need to blatantly accuse people of things you don&#39;t know about.

Once again, the content in your posts indicates that you have no understanding of any political ideology (and your only source of "history" comes from the bourgeoisie).

[LuZhiming]

You claim that Lenin&#39;s work, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism is incorrect, yet you have provided no evidence to back up this claim. Your accusation is baseless.

The Anti-Imperialist League? That&#39;s evidence.


And you are purely full of shit - I did not back out of any argument. This is the era of imperialism (as Lenin described it), you have provided no evidence whatsoever to disprove reality. You have just tried to play with words and claim that Lenin is wrong.

This is one of the most shameless things I have ever seen on this board. I have clearly pointed out how Lenin did not make the word &#39;Imperialism," therefore it is clear that his definition is not reliable. I pointed out the contradiction of it with the usage of it in the U.S., and you continue to ignore. That is a hell of a lot more evidence that a link to one of Lenin&#39;s writings.


Attempting to make a peace deal to buy more time before the fascist invasion of CCCP does not make the Soviet Union "imperialist".

It sounds like it to me, either way, he was making peace with a fascist, and didn&#39;t give a damn about the Ethiopians as usual.


The Soviet Union fought to liberate Finland from capitalism (even Leon Trotsky supported this).

:lol: Yeah right, just like the U.S. is liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein? The utter hypocrisy and indoctrination on this is so clear, and you can&#39;t see it&#33; And the fact that Leon Trotsky supported that, isn&#39;t suprising and it makes no difference. I have never liked Trotsky or anyone involved in the Soviet Union.


Yet again, we see another baseless accusation coming from you.

What would you call the Soviet presence then?


What are you talking about? The Eastern European socialist countries?

They were not all Socialist countries, and none of them approved on that anyway.


LOL, Australia is just another (weaker) imperialist power like the United States. Their universities are undoubtedly filled to the brim with anticommunism.

I had a feeling you would say such a ridicolous thing, and it shows your ignorance. Do you know how many Asians live in Australia? Australia, especially ANU, are extremely well known for their Asian studies. I really don&#39;t know what to say to this moronic statement.


You are denying that Che was a Marxist-Leninist, and that is why we are laughing at you.

Right, he certainly didn&#39;t care enough about the ideology.


And Cuba is a "Marxist-Leninist state"

It is? I could understand calling it Stalinist (Not that I would agree) but it has a share of differences than Lenin&#39;s Soviet Union. Lenin&#39;s Soviet Union is quite well known for having thousands of people on the streets. Lenin&#39;s Soviet Union was also well known for invading other countries, similar to the United States which the Soviet Union was so much like. Most of the economic policies of Cuba resemble Stalin&#39;s, not Lenin&#39;s.


Once again, the content in your posts indicates that you have no understanding of any political ideology (and your only source of "history" comes from the bourgeoisie).

That last assumption is quite an annoying one. Frankly, (In fact I have mentioned this earlier) most decent Chinese history sources are in Chinese, and on the internet there isn&#39;t much to find. I am quite fond of particular instances in Chinese history (My username is named after a Three Kingdoms general), and it isn&#39;t from "bourgeoisie" sources.

[Sensitive]

The Anti-Imperialist League? That&#39;s evidence.
How does that disprove Lenin&#39;s analysis of modern capitalism (imperialism)? The most advanced capitalist countries (here in the West) are the imperialists. And you were repeating some of their propagandistic lies about Mao.



I have clearly pointed out how Lenin did not make the word &#39;Imperialism,"
And I already replied: "I never claimed that "Lenin invented the word &#39;imperialism&#39;" - and I already knew that the word existed before he wrote that pamphlet. What the hell does that have to do with what we are talking about? The fact of the matter is that when communists (and other leftists) use the word "imperialist" we are generally talking about the highest stage of capitalism - economic imperialism."




therefore it is clear that his definition is not reliable. I pointed out the contradiction of it with the usage of it in the U.S., and you continue to ignore. That is a hell of a lot more evidence that a link to one of Lenin&#39;s writings.

You have still not disproved Lenin&#39;s analysis of modern capitalism (imperialism).




I have never liked Trotsky or anyone involved in the Soviet Union.

Yes, but we already knew that you were anticommunist.




I had a feeling you would say such a ridicolous thing, and it shows your ignorance.

LOL, and now you deny that Australia is imperialist&#33;

And the rest of the shit you posted isn&#39;t even worth replying too. Comrade Ceausescu is right, I should not have wasted the time responding to stupid hippies like yourself. :angry:

[Saint-Just]

This is one of the most shameless things I have ever seen on this board. I have clearly pointed out how Lenin did not make the word &#39;Imperialism," therefore it is clear that his definition is not reliable.

The meaning of words developes somewhat over time. Although what they meant in their conception is often a heavy contribution towards the way in which we understand the word there are always other ideas that serve to give the word meaning.

It sounds like it to me, either way, he was making peace with a fascist, and didn&#39;t give a damn about the Ethiopians as usual.

I do not think you are giving due respect to the level of threat that existed in Europe at that time. The precise point at which Stalin signed this agreement was the immediate aftermath of Germany&#39;s invasion of Czechoslovakia. Prior to this invasion the British and French had agreed that they would defend this territory. When they did not defend it it became clear to Stalin that a German invasion was almost inevitable, as such it became purely logical to sign this agreement since the USSR could not defend against a German invasion.

Also, today many Chinese are Western indoctrinated and are anti-communist.

[LuZhiming]

How does that disprove Lenin&#39;s analysis of modern capitalism (imperialism)? The most advanced capitalist countries (here in the West) are the imperialists. And you were repeating some of their propagandistic lies about Mao.

You are being so hypocritical. You have thus far backed none of your claims up with anything.


And I already replied: "I never claimed that "Lenin invented the word &#39;imperialism&#39;" - and I already knew that the word existed before he wrote that pamphlet. What the hell does that have to do with what we are talking about?

What does it have to do with it? It alone proves that at the least, it is simply a pure assumption to use Lenin&#39;s writings as a reliable source for the meaning of imperialism.


The fact of the matter is that when communists (and other leftists) use the word "imperialist" we are generally talking about the highest stage of capitalism - economic imperialism."

And economic imperialism wasn&#39;t committed by the Soviet Union? And it is completely irrelivant what Communist or other leftists usually mean when they say the word, that wasn&#39;t the question, and you are now trying to change it to that for obvious motives.


You have still not disproved Lenin&#39;s analysis of modern capitalism (imperialism).

And you have still have not proved at all that Lenin&#39;s words are reliable.


Yes, but we already knew that you were anticommunist.

Right, we all know how well the Soviets follwed Marx&#39;s writings. :rolleyes:


LOL, and now you deny that Australia is imperialist&#33;

And now you are putting words in my mouth&#33; It is quite sickening that you would post about the reliability of these sources when you clearly don&#39;t know jack about Australia.


And the rest of the shit you posted isn&#39;t even worth replying too. Comrade Ceausescu is right, I should not have wasted the time responding to stupid hippies like yourself. :angry:

I am glad that I have angered you. I hope you stay in that mood.


The meaning of words developes somewhat over time. Although what they meant in their conception is often a heavy contribution towards the way in which we understand the word there are always other ideas that serve to give the word meaning.

Your statement is almost correct. "The meaning of words developes somewhat over time. Although what they meant in their conception is often a heavy contribution towards the way in which we understand the word there are always other ideas that serve to give the word another meaning."


I do not think you are giving due respect to the level of threat that existed in Europe at that time. The precise point at which Stalin signed this agreement was the immediate aftermath of Germany&#39;s invasion of Czechoslovakia. Prior to this invasion the British and French had agreed that they would defend this territory. When they did not defend it it became clear to Stalin that a German invasion was almost inevitable, as such it became purely logical to sign this agreement since the USSR could not defend against a German invasion.

I don&#39;t agree. Don&#39;t you think Stalin could have at least tried to make some sort of agreement on the matter with the British, French, or even the U.S.? I really wonder if the three would have let (Assuming he even could have) Hitler take Russia, the largest country.


Also, today many Chinese are Western indoctrinated and are anti-communist.

That isn&#39;t untrue, but a large majority of Chinese are anti-Chinese government, which doesn&#39;t make them fond of Capitalism either. Actually, if you talk to a lot of Asians in Australia, there are considerable amount of Socialists, or at least people that claim they are. And that does not necessarily mean (Although I don&#39;t deny the likelyhood that it could) that history would be rewritten. Australia is a lot more intellectually free than say, the United States, especially on historical matters. ANU is quite famous for its contributions to Asian studies, and I don&#39;t mean by the United States.(Who cares very little about Asian history of any kind.)

[Saint-Just]

That isn&#39;t untrue, but a large majority of Chinese are anti-Chinese government, which doesn&#39;t make them fond of Capitalism either. Actually, if you talk to a lot of Asians in Australia, there are considerable amount of Socialists, or at least people that claim they are. And that does not necessarily mean (Although I don&#39;t deny the likelyhood that it could) that history would be rewritten. Australia is a lot more intellectually free than say, the United States, especially on historical matters. ANU is quite famous for its contributions to Asian studies, and I don&#39;t mean by the United States.(Who cares very little about Asian history of any kind.)

I was talking about Chinese who live in China. I was saying most of them have a western view and do support the Chinese government.

Yes, I have occasionally used Australian sources for Asian studies.