Please, allow me to explain 'Stalinism'

[Comrade friend]

I have been looking at the Forum descriptions in the board index, it says for the Oposing Ideologys thread that it is a place where 'Stalinists' can debate. However, the term 'Stalinism' is a derogatory term used by Trotskyites and members of the Bourgeoisie. No one would call himself a 'Stalinist' because of the terms nature, furthermore, 'Stalinism' has not been mentioned by Stalin or any Marxist-Leninist writers.

If you do not believe me, Ernesto Guervara called himself Stalin II. Che's hero was Joseph Stalin. Che's ideology was based on what is called 'Stalinism' so was Fidel's.

Please do not see this as an attack, it is merely an observation and something to correct you.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, Stalinism is a recent label for the more authoritarian forms of marxism-leninism, ie policies similar to that old rascal Uncle Joe's.

What I object to is the West's insistence that Stalin was some sort of red fascist who murdered millions because he was an eeeeeeeeevil commie bastard who would rape your cattle and steal your wives if he had the chance.

The only 'Stalinists' I truly don't like are wannabe internet kiddie stalin worshippers like those single-figure IQ dipshits at ernesto-guevara.com.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 5 2004, 02:52 PM
However, the term 'Stalinism' is a derogatory term used by Trotskyites and members of the Bourgeoisie.
Who cares!


No one would call himself a 'Stalinist' because of the terms nature,

It must get inconvinient having to deny Stalins crimes over and over again.


If you do not believe me, Ernesto Guervara called himself Stalin II. Che's hero was Joseph Stalin.

Misguided fool!


Che's ideology was based on what is called 'Stalinism' so was Fidel's.

I wouldnt say Che was an ideologist and as for Castro........well...!


Please do not see this as an attack, it is merely an observation and something to correct you.

Whether or not you call yourself a stalinist is really irrelevant. The ideas of Stalin is a redundent anti-working class theory which is as dangerous as social democracy and along with leninism should equally be fought against, or avoided altogether.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 03:16 PM
What I object to is the West's insistence that Stalin was some sort of red fascist
Well..The definition of facist can very easily be applied to Stalin in a general sense.


who murdered millions because he was an eeeeeeeeevil commie bastard

He did kill millions of people.

I also get annoyed with people who claim Stalin was a communist.

[Revolt!]

what do u have against social democract TAT?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Revolt!@May 5 2004, 03:55 PM
what do u have against social democract TAT?
The capitalist apologetics, bourgeois procrastination and the working class sell outs...

[Comrade friend]

Whether or not you call yourself a stalinist is really irrelevant. The ideas of Stalin is a redundent anti-working class theory which is as dangerous as social democracy and along with leninism should equally be fought against, or avoided altogether

But if you are a supporter of Ernesto Guervara and his policys then you are therefore a supporter of Leninism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

He did kill millions of people.

I also get annoyed with people who claim Stalin was a communist.

Compare the why and how those millions were murdered you will see it was a short-sighted act of gross stupidity rather than outright malice.

Unlike the Nazi's 'final solution' which was a deliberate act.

I didn't say he was a communist. 'commie bastard' is the generic capitalist term for anybody with the slightest red whiff about them and you know that.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 5 2004, 04:10 PM

Whether or not you call yourself a stalinist is really irrelevant. The ideas of Stalin is a redundent anti-working class theory which is as dangerous as social democracy and along with leninism should equally be fought against, or avoided altogether

But if you are a supporter of Ernesto Guervara and his policys then you are therefore a supporter of Leninism.
What was Guevara? A revolutionary? I am a revolutionary, but I am an anarchist. If that means I dont support Guevara, then so be it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 04:14 PM
Compare the why and how those millions were murdered you will see it was a short-sighted act of gross stupidity rather than outright malice.
Many of Stalins acts were done through malice, including the forced famines, the siberian gulags and the executions.


I didn't say he was a communist. 'commie bastard' is the generic capitalist term for anybody with the slightest red whiff about them and you know that.

I was agreeing with you. It is stupid that people call him a communist, when he wasnt.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

While its true that Che was a supporter of Stalin and almost certainly a Leninist or whatever he is also sperately a symbol of revolutionary and left ideologies.

[Vinny Rafarino]

The ideas of Stalin is a redundent anti-working class theory

Misguided fool.


Many of Stalins acts were done through malice, including the forced famines, the siberian gulags and the executions.


Nonsense.



Well..The definition of facist can very easily be applied to Stalin in a general sense.


Do your best esse.


He did kill millions of people.

I also get annoyed with people who claim Stalin was a communist.



Some kids never learn.

[Dune Dx]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 5 2004, 06:25 PM

The ideas of Stalin is a redundent anti-working class theory

Misguided fool.


Many of Stalins acts were done through malice, including the forced famines, the siberian gulags and the executions.


Nonsense.



Well..The definition of facist can very easily be applied to Stalin in a general sense.


Do your best esse.


He did kill millions of people.

I also get annoyed with people who claim Stalin was a communist.



Some kids never learn.
because now we all know what your talking about with your random quotes!!

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 02:14 PM

He did kill millions of people.

I also get annoyed with people who claim Stalin was a communist.

Compare the why and how those millions were murdered you will see it was a short-sighted act of gross stupidity rather than outright malice.

The capitalists act out of gross stupidity too, dont you know. But the difference between a capitalist and Stalin....is that Stalin was supposed to have been working for the people. He killed like half of them.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 5 2004, 08:25 PM

The ideas of Stalin is a redundent anti-working class theory

Misguided fool.


Many of Stalins acts were done through malice, including the forced famines, the siberian gulags and the executions.


Nonsense.



Well..The definition of facist can very easily be applied to Stalin in a general sense.


Do your best esse.


He did kill millions of people.

I also get annoyed with people who claim Stalin was a communist.



Some kids never learn.
Surely you must get bored listening to yourself....I know everyone else is!

[elijahcraig]

I wouldnt say Che was an ideologist and as for Castro........well...!

He was a Maoist, which followed Stalin’s path. He wrote many essays on this stuff in various Latin American magazines.


Whether or not you call yourself a stalinist is really irrelevant. The ideas of Stalin is a redundent anti-working class theory which is as dangerous as social democracy and along with leninism should equally be fought against, or avoided altogether.

No it isn’t.


He did kill millions of people.

I also get annoyed with people who claim Stalin was a communist.

That’s ridiculous. At most 400,000. They simply lump everyone who died of famine, war, or disease onto the list and act like Stalin “had them murdered.”


What was Guevara? A revolutionary? I am a revolutionary, but I am an anarchist. If that means I dont support Guevara, then so be it.

Are everyone’s revolutionary armchairs ready? Yeah? Go!


Many of Stalins acts were done through malice, including the forced famines, the siberian gulags and the executions.

There was no forced famines. There were “gulags,” work camps. Executions? We have those in America.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Surely you must get bored listening to yourself....I know everyone else is!


Perhaps then one day you may take your own advice. My heart is warmed by that thought....C'mon mate, please?....Please?



There was no forced famines. There were “gulags,” work camps. Executions? We have those in America


Isn't this cat the cripple X Comrade Elijah? Why would we assume he has actually learned something? That would be far too much to ask.

[Hiero]

I wouldnt say Che was an ideologist and as for Castro........well...!

NO of course you wouldnt say that because that would mean admiting there are no similarities betwen you and CHE, which many do. Talking to a kid who couldnt beleif che wanst a catholic and was a stalinist, why because the kid was a catholic who thought evil of stalin.



What was Guevara? A revolutionary? I am a revolutionary, but I am an anarchist. If that means I dont support Guevara, then so be it.

So is castro, laden, the allotalla who revolted in iran. But you are anarchist and you dont support them. CHE was a revolutionary who wasnt a anarchist so
you dont support. You are spot on TAT

[BuyOurEverything]

Talking to a kid who couldnt beleif che wanst a catholic and was a stalinist, why because the kid was a catholic who thought evil of stalin.

Who said Che was Catholic?


So is castro, laden, the allotalla who revolted in iran. But you are anarchist and you dont support them. CHE was a revolutionary who wasnt a anarchist so
you dont support. You are spot on TAT


What the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you saying you support Bin Laden and the Ayotollahs? One can be a revolutionary and fundamentally disagree with other revolutionaries.


Many of Stalins acts were done through malice, including the forced famines, the siberian gulags and the executions.

That's bullshit. While I know you fundamentally disagree with Stalin (hey so do I), that does not mean you have to lie and demonize him. It is really not neccessary to distort facts in order to distance yourself and your ideology from the poster boy of 'the devil's ideology.' Tone down the rhetoric a bit and try to be objective. It's not like a guy that's been dead for decades now is actually relevant to anything.

That said, Stalinists are idiots. Why is this? Because there's no such fucking thing as Stalinism! The vast majority of people who consider themselves Stalinists are not any sort of Marxist-Leninists, they're just kids in dire need of a role model.

[Guest1]

I'm sorry, but the fact that you guys are arguing over the magnitude and intent behind his mass-slaughter doesn't allow me to take any of you seriously.

"Oh, but he didn't kill millions, he only killed 400 000!"

"Oh, he didn't mean to kill them, it was an unfortunate accident that had nothing to do with him signing off on a campaign of terror!"

Bullshit, who gives a fuck wether it was millions or hudnreds of thousands, stop dicking around with numbers. The guy was a maniac.

As for Che, you can look up to him without agreeing with his religious beliefs.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 6 2004, 01:02 AM
Perhaps then one day you may take your own advice. My heart is warmed by that thought....C'mon mate, please?....Please?
And on.....and on......and on.....


Isn't this cat the cripple X Comrade Elijah? Why would we assume he has actually learned something? That would be far too much to ask.

learn what? There's nothing to learn....not from you anyway!

[BuyOurEverything]

I'm sorry, but the fact that you guys are arguing over the magnitude and intent behind his mass-slaughter doesn't allow me to take any of you seriously.

"Oh, but he didn't kill millions, he only killed 400 000!"

"Oh, he didn't mean to kill them, it was an unfortunate accident that had nothing to do with him signing off on a campaign of terror!"

Bullshit, who gives a fuck wether it was millions or hudnreds of thousands, stop dicking around with numbers. The guy was a maniac.

As for Che, you can look up to him without agreeing with his religious beliefs.

Sorry, but how can you dismiss Stalin as a homocidal maniac while looking up to Che, who blew oodles of heads off with no pretence of any sort of trial? Stalin did not did not maliciously murder 400,000 people, he believed (correctly or not) that he was justified and that the killings were neccessary. Bear in mind that this was in the middle of a war.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 07:03 AM
That's bullshit. While I know you fundamentally disagree with Stalin (hey so do I), that does not mean you have to lie and demonize him. It is really not neccessary to distort facts in order to distance yourself and your ideology from the poster boy of 'the devil's ideology.'

So the mock trials, executions and siberian death camps were all because he just couldnt stop loving.... <_<

The siberian camps did exist just like auswitz did. The famines did happen, just like the mass gassings did. Or are we to believe that the bourgeoisie and the jews have conspired the holocaust just to keep us ignorant people down.

There is countless evidence from independent film makers to government files to actual people giving their accounts, not just the bourgeois historians. I have not distorted anything the facts are quite clear. Stalin was a tyrant, just like Hitler.

Stalinists of course will deny everything because it is in their interest to. Why should listen to them anymore than we would listen to holocaust deniers. Because for them is it easy. They can just say "its the bourgeoisie" and then we all must believe them...None of the stalinists here, including RAFraud have ever been to Russia, so all they have to go on is the propoganda from what ever Stalinist book or paper they have read. Are we supposed to believe that, just because the people who write these things claim to be socialists, or even communists?...Real objective&#33;


Tone down the rhetoric a bit and try to be objective.

Show me somethng which I said that was untrue please...I bet you money RAF cant.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 07:45 AM

I&#39;m sorry, but the fact that you guys are arguing over the magnitude and intent behind his mass-slaughter doesn&#39;t allow me to take any of you seriously.

"Oh, but he didn&#39;t kill millions, he only killed 400 000&#33;"

"Oh, he didn&#39;t mean to kill them, it was an unfortunate accident that had nothing to do with him signing off on a campaign of terror&#33;"

Bullshit, who gives a fuck wether it was millions or hudnreds of thousands, stop dicking around with numbers. The guy was a maniac.

As for Che, you can look up to him without agreeing with his religious beliefs.

Sorry, but how can you dismiss Stalin as a homocidal maniac while looking up to Che, who blew oodles of heads off with no pretence of any sort of trial? Stalin did not did not maliciously murder 400,000 people, he believed (correctly or not) that he was justified and that the killings were neccessary. Bear in mind that this was in the middle of a war.
So now you&#39;re a Stalinist apologist....

Many of the people Stalin killed had nothing to do with the revolution. The revolution was firmly over by the time of the 30&#39;s. Stalin was just paranoid, and like any other tyrant who is afraid of losing power, lashed out malicously and with purpose.

Speak to Ukrainians, speak to Lithuanians and Estonians, Hungarians and Czechs and ask them what it was like to live under Stalin. Go to any of the eastern block countries, including Russia, and speak to them about what happened to their communities. There&#39;s your evidence&#33;

[Politrickian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2004, 06:55 AM
Speak to Ukrainians, speak to Lithuanians and Estonians, Hungarians and Czechs and ask them what it was like to live under Stalin. Go to any of the eastern block countries, including Russia, and speak to them about what happened to their communities. There&#39;s your evidence&#33;
But don&#39;t you understand, TAT, those people have been brainwashed by the bourgeoisie&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Politrickian+May 6 2004, 10:28 AM--> (Politrickian &#064; May 6 2004, 10:28 AM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2004, 06:55 AM
Speak to Ukrainians, speak to Lithuanians and Estonians, Hungarians and Czechs and ask them what it was like to live under Stalin. Go to any of the eastern block countries, including Russia, and speak to them about what happened to their communities. There&#39;s your evidence&#33;
But don&#39;t you understand, TAT, those people have been brainwashed by the bourgeoisie&#33; [/b]
So their experiences werent really real, they didnt really go through the siberian experience. People dont really remember the famines in Ukraine etc...they were just brainwashed into believing that they had experienced those things <_< These bourgeoisie have magic powers....incredible&#33;

[Osman Ghazi]

Even from people who were defending Stalin as not such a bad guy, the lowest numbers I heard were 2.5 million, and that was just in the labour camps and labour colonies. Those are the numbers I stick to. The famines, they were deliberate in the sense that the Central government took too much food, but they weren&#39;t designed to maliciously kill people. And you could say that the Army purges were just Stalin being paranoid, but at the same time, the Army did represent the &#39;systemic right&#39; of the USSR. Personnally I believe the numbers to be somewhere around 5 million, including the people killed by the NKVD and the kulaks thrown in the gulags.

[cubist]

speak tro the ukranians may say that they hated stalin but they will tell you it was better under the USSR, they are now run by a mafia corrupted governement, who even steal humanitarian aid when they impound it for weeks at the airport in kiev,

go to mihkalovka orphanage, or cherkassy, or the boarding school for off the rail kids in can&#39;t think of the name, its horrible mate come out of communism join the west and starve becuase you can&#39;t support yourself,

[The Feral Underclass]

yeah...

[cubist]

yeah.....?

sometimes i wonder TAT,

[The Feral Underclass]

What about?

[cubist]

why you even bother posting when you say yeah......

[The Feral Underclass]

What else is there to say...

[cubist]

if you agree then agree, if not then not,maybe. anyways this is pointless, whats wrong with this place man it seems so morbid and un motivated at the moment,

[The Feral Underclass]

I dont feel morbid or un motivated...

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 6 2004, 05:35 AM
I&#39;m sorry, but the fact that you guys are arguing over the magnitude and intent behind his mass-slaughter doesn&#39;t allow me to take any of you seriously.

"Oh, but he didn&#39;t kill millions, he only killed 400 000&#33;"

"Oh, he didn&#39;t mean to kill them, it was an unfortunate accident that had nothing to do with him signing off on a campaign of terror&#33;"

Bullshit, who gives a fuck wether it was millions or hudnreds of thousands, stop dicking around with numbers. The guy was a maniac.

As for Che, you can look up to him without agreeing with his religious beliefs.
Word&#33;
I dont see why we must sit around trying to excuse Mr.Dzugashvili......the things.
What makes it ok? When has doing things like that ever helped with the advancement of communism?

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 08:28 AM

But don&#39;t you understand, TAT, those people have been brainwashed by the bourgeoisie&#33;
Stalin was the burgeoisie&#33;

With his head up his lucky ass...people try to call him some kind of man of the people, but he was not. I hope no one is naive enough to let some one like that make whores of us today, just becasue they say their our comrade.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 01:17 PM
speak tro the ukranians may say that they hated stalin but they will tell you it was better under the USSR, they are now run by a mafia corrupted governement, who even steal humanitarian aid when they impound it for weeks at the airport in kiev,

go to mihkalovka orphanage, or cherkassy, or the boarding school for off the rail kids in can&#39;t think of the name, its horrible mate come out of communism join the west and starve becuase you can&#39;t support yourself,
Yeah......

missing Stalin, and missing the USSR are two different things you know.
So what is it you are trying to say here.

[cubist]

i was merely endorsing the dislike or stalin as outlined by otherpeople but displaying the dislike of cpaitalism in the ukraine tahts all

[Dune Dx]

yeah...










:lol:

[elijahcraig]

Isn&#39;t this cat the cripple X Comrade Elijah? Why would we assume he has actually learned something? That would be far too much to ask.

Cripple X. Far off, the smell of dead flowers on tombstones by grassy hillsides ‘neath rain.

It seems the same rhetoric spews from more than one wound.


I&#39;m sorry, but the fact that you guys are arguing over the magnitude and intent behind his mass-slaughter doesn&#39;t allow me to take any of you seriously.

"Oh, but he didn&#39;t kill millions, he only killed 400 000&#33;"

I didn’t say “he only killed 400 000”. I meant that the Russian Revolution under Stalin resulted in the deaths of about 400,000. Under the American Revolution, near to 100,000 died, or left the country (deportation). Compare the size of America to Russia—400,000 is not a larger number relatively speaking.


"Oh, he didn&#39;t mean to kill them, it was an unfortunate accident that had nothing to do with him signing off on a campaign of terror&#33;"

I don’t think anyone said that.



As for Stalin being a maniac…I see no proof of this whatsoever, anywhere.


o the mock trials, executions and siberian death camps were all because he just couldnt stop loving.

“Death camps” are very much like prisons. Mock trials? There were none that I know of. American diplomats were at the trials of many of the so-called fraudulent trials.

Executions? Of course there were. But that isn’t necessarily inhumane under the circumstances. I don’t think you grasp the word “revolution” properly.


The siberian camps did exist just like auswitz did. The famines did happen, just like the mass gassings did. Or are we to believe that the bourgeoisie and the jews have conspired the holocaust just to keep us ignorant people down.

Prove it.


There is countless evidence from independent film makers to government files to actual people giving their accounts, not just the bourgeois historians. I have not distorted anything the facts are quite clear. Stalin was a tyrant, just like Hitler.

Prove it.


Stalinists of course will deny everything because it is in their interest to.

I don’t know what “interests” we have that are so important. What, being “right” on a message board? Ahha.


So their experiences werent really real, they didnt really go through the siberian experience. People dont really remember the famines in Ukraine etc...they were just brainwashed into believing that they had experienced those things These bourgeoisie have magic powers....incredible&#33;

You sound like a ten year old kid who masturbates too much.

I suggest everyone read “The Stalin Era.”

[Vinny Rafarino]

Cripple X. Far off, the smell of dead flowers on tombstones by grassy hillsides ‘neath rain.

It seems the same rhetoric spews from more than one wound.


I hear you comrade. The cripple X called me a fraud. I love it. I think he assumes he is the "only one" fighting against capitalism.

What are you gonna do eh?



“Death camps” are very much like prisons. Mock trials? There were none that I know of. American diplomats were at the trials of many of the so-called fraudulent trials.

Executions? Of course there were. But that isn’t necessarily inhumane under the circumstances. I don’t think you grasp the word “revolution” properly.



It&#39;s amusing people still rant about these issues. Good grief.

Let&#39;s see how far the next "anarchist" revolution goes without suppressing and eliminating the former ruling class.

I recommend no one to hold their breath.


I suggest everyone read “The Stalin Era.”


Or just some works by Stalin for that matter....Wait, I can hear it now...

"This is just what he said, not what he did"......

Okay, fair enough...PROVE IT.


Good to have you back Comrade Elijah.

[Osman Ghazi]

Russian Revolution under Stalin

The Whites were crushed in 1921. Stalin came to power in 1924. Therefore, there was no Russian Revolution under Stalin. The kulaks were allowed to come to power because of the NEP, a policy he supported.


near to 100,000 died, or left the country (deportation

Being killed and leaving the country are subtly different. Please don&#39;t lump them together like that.


Mock trials? There were none that I know of.

Oh right. I forgot. 66% of the pre-revolutionary Party were actually reactionaries. I remember now.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 6 2004, 09:36 PM
Let&#39;s see how far the next "anarchist" revolution goes without suppressing and eliminating the former ruling class.
At least Anarchists doesn&#39;t advocate replacing the ruling class with another who does things "in the name of the workers" and makes themselves look like clowns, murderers and terrorists (they did that everywhere, from the USSR to China, from Cambodia to North Korea). But of course, it&#39;s better to kill the bourgeoisie, because as we know it seems our ideas can&#39;t beat them, right? So that&#39;s why we need authoritarian power-hungry leaders to murder them. :rolleyes:

Honestly I&#39;m tired of all this Stalin crap. This threads get nowhere. I think Leninism is not useful anymore. It was a "good idea" to fight against the 20th century imperialism and it made some achievements in fact, but there&#39;s nothing special about it anymore. People just won&#39;t tolerate the "glorious vanguard" who wants to "crush the bourgeoisie". Claiming that it was just the "bourgeois media" won&#39;t do (especially considering that nazis says the same kind of crap concerning the holocaust, I&#39;m not suggesting that the "Communist death tolls" are accurate, far from it). Do not take this as a "personal thing", it&#39;s just my oppinion.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 11:28 PM
It seems the same rhetoric spews from more than one wound.
Is that the same thing David Irving said when he was fired from his job as a lecturer....


I didn’t say “he only killed 400 000”. I meant that the Russian Revolution under Stalin resulted in the deaths of about 400,000.

Prove it&#33;


As for Stalin being a maniac…I see no proof of this whatsoever, anywhere.

What&#39;s a maniac. Anyone could be classes as a maniac. Tyrannt however is easily defined.


American diplomats were at the trials of many of the so-called fraudulent trials.

So now we should trust the bourgeoisie :rolleyes:


Prove it.

Go to Russia and look at the camps yourself, they are there, for all to see&#33;


I don’t know what “interests” we have that are so important. What, being “right” on a message board? Ahha.

It dosnt really go down to well with the pundits having to admit that your idol was a mass murderer.


You sound like a ten year old kid who masturbates too much.

I certainly masturbate to much. Other than that, whats your point? Oh that&#39;s right...you&#39;re a stalin crime denier&#33;&#33;&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 6 2004, 11:36 PM
What are you gonna do eh?
Oh per-lease&#33;


It&#39;s amusing people still rant about these issues

It must be very inconvinient for you.


Let&#39;s see how far the next "anarchist" revolution goes without suppressing and eliminating the former ruling class.

Bring it on&#33;


I recommend no one to hold their breath.

Insightful there RAF. I notice you ignored my thread to you...I wonder why that was?


Okay, fair enough...PROVE IT.

Prove what to you? I dont need to prove the holocaust happened, the evidence is fucking clear. Or should we not trust these jews...most of them a bourgeois after all


Good to have you back Comrade Elijah.

Yeah...It must get lonly being you

[Vinny Rafarino]

At least Anarchists doesn&#39;t advocate replacing the ruling class with another who does things "in the name of the workers" and makes themselves look like clowns, murderers and terrorists (they did that everywhere, from the USSR to China, from Cambodia to North Korea). But of course, it&#39;s better to kill the bourgeoisie, because as we know it seems our ideas can&#39;t beat them, right? So that&#39;s why we need authoritarian power-hungry leaders to murder them.



That&#39;s the best you have to offer? "At least we don&#39;t...."? Well comrade, that&#39;s not good enough.

Perhaps you can explain to me what you are going to do with all of the former ruling class once you strip them of everything they consider holy. A cucumber sandwich and some Kool-aid won&#39;t do the trick.



Honestly I&#39;m tired of all this Stalin crap. This threads get nowhere. I think Leninism is not useful anymore. It was a "good idea" to fight against the 20th century imperialism and it made some achievements in fact, but there&#39;s nothing special about it anymore.

Well the moment "anarchism&#39; produces a revolution that brings about a communist society, I will admit you&#39;re right and sing the black flag.


People just won&#39;t tolerate the "glorious vanguard" who wants to "crush the bourgeoisie".

You would be surprised what people will "tolerate". Look around you.


Claiming that it was just the "bourgeois media" won&#39;t do

Actually, there is no evidence AT ALL. The "bougeois media&#39;s" help is not necessary.



(especially considering that nazis says the same kind of crap concerning the holocaust, I&#39;m not suggesting that the "Communist death tolls" are accurate, far from it)

Then what exactly are you suggesting? The holocaust has nothing to do with this. There is plenty of overwhelming evidence about the holocaust, but NONE supporting "millions of dead by Stalin&#39;s hand".

Tell you what boys, I will make it easy on you. Produce empirical evidence supporting your line and I will immediately change mine.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 7 2004, 08:18 PM
Perhaps you can explain to me what you are going to do with all of the former ruling class once you strip them of everything they consider holy. A cucumber sandwich and some Kool-aid won&#39;t do the trick.
That really depends on the situation. Violence is soemthing which should be avoided and of course if people lay down their arms to the majority peacefully then they will be free to go and can join in society if the choose. If they attack us and fight us, then we will defend ourselves.


Well the moment "anarchism&#39; produces a revolution that brings about a communist society, I will admit you&#39;re right and sing the black flag.

A revolution of this nature is inevitable. Whether we will still be around to see it is debatable. Inevitbale nonetheless.


You would be surprised what people will "tolerate". Look around you.

Are you saying people will have no choice?


Actually, there is no evidence AT ALL.

Nazis use this one all the time, they rarely ever succeed in convincing people.


Then what exactly are you suggesting? The holocaust has nothing to do with this. There is plenty of overwhelming evidence about the holocaust, but NONE supporting "millions of dead by Stalin&#39;s hand"

There is documentry evidence, photographic evidence, eye witness accounts, people who were there and the camps in siberia that remain as a symbol of Stalins oppression. Pretty much just like the evidence supporting the fact the holocaust happened. Have you seen any of this holocaust evidence? No&#33; Do you believe it happened? Overwhelmingly it would seem. Have you seen any of the evidence about Stalins crimes? No&#33; Do you believe it happened? Of course not, because then you wouldnt have some idol to want to be.

I suggest you go to Russia and see for yourself


Tell you what boys, I will make it easy on you. Produce empirical evidence supporting your line and I will immediately change mine.

Like I said ebfore, I dont need to prove anything to you, just as I dont have to prove the holocaust happened. Why dont you prove to us that Stalin didnt commit these crimes.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I already know everything you are going to say TAT. This is why I responded to another individual&#39;s post and not yours. I have no desire to continue arguing over the same points with you.



El Infiltr(A)do,

I await your response.

[The Feral Underclass]

You attempted to patronize El, not ask him serious questions. Now stop being childish. I gave legitimate answers to your questions, which may I add were on anarchism in general, now you answer me.

[The Feral Underclass]

Choose your targets will aye RAF...I suppose if there is any fear of loosing... ;)

[Vinny Rafarino]

You are way to catty for me, I will pass.



P.S.




Last word&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

Answer my points god damn ya&#33;

[elijahcraig]

The Whites were crushed in 1921. Stalin came to power in 1924. Therefore, there was no Russian Revolution under Stalin. The kulaks were allowed to come to power because of the NEP, a policy he supported.

The Revolution does not end until Communism comes about.

Stalin himself, and Lenin, said that Socialism was not even fully in place in the USSR. Therefore, the revolution continues until Socialism…and in the end Communism does.

And we all know the US and its imperialist allies did not simply “stop attempting to end the revolution” after 1921.


Being killed and leaving the country are subtly different. Please don&#39;t lump them together like that.

I said they left the country or were killed, not that 100000 left.


Oh right. I forgot. 66% of the pre-revolutionary Party were actually reactionaries. I remember now.

Good to see your memory is working again.


At least Anarchists doesn&#39;t advocate replacing the ruling class with another who does things "in the name of the workers" and makes themselves look like clowns, murderers and terrorists (they did that everywhere, from the USSR to China, from Cambodia to North Korea). But of course, it&#39;s better to kill the bourgeoisie, because as we know it seems our ideas can&#39;t beat them, right? So that&#39;s why we need authoritarian power-hungry leaders to murder them.

Honestly I&#39;m tired of all this Stalin crap. This threads get nowhere. I think Leninism is not useful anymore. It was a "good idea" to fight against the 20th century imperialism and it made some achievements in fact, but there&#39;s nothing special about it anymore. People just won&#39;t tolerate the "glorious vanguard" who wants to "crush the bourgeoisie". Claiming that it was just the "bourgeois media" won&#39;t do (especially considering that nazis says the same kind of crap concerning the holocaust, I&#39;m not suggesting that the "Communist death tolls" are accurate, far from it). Do not take this as a "personal thing", it&#39;s just my oppinion.

Etc, etc. We know all this Anarchist rhetoric, you can find it in any significant Anarchist’s work of the past few centuries, we don’t need some 12 year old to continue to spout the nonsense.


Is that the same thing David Irving said when he was fired from his job as a lecturer....

Applause from the “New Left” in the crowd, is that what you are looking for?


Prove it&#33;

There is a site called Red Comrades which you can find all this information.

As for “proving” anything—that is your job since you are the accuser.


What&#39;s a maniac. Anyone could be classes as a maniac. Tyrannt however is easily defined.

I didn’t come up with the word, I simply replied.


So now we should trust the bourgeoisie

I don’t know what that means.


Go to Russia and look at the camps yourself, they are there, for all to see&#33;

Right. I’m sure you have. But wait—you’re an anarchist right? And we aren’t suppose to believe the petit bourgeois either, eh?


It dosnt really go down to well with the pundits having to admit that your idol was a mass murderer.

I have no “idols”.


I certainly masturbate to much. Other than that, whats your point? Oh that&#39;s right...you&#39;re a stalin crime denier&#33;&#33;&#33;

My point is you have no idea what you’re talking about.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 11:07 PM
Applause from the “New Left” in the crowd, is that what you are looking for?
*bows*


There is a site called Red Comrades which you can find all this information.

Go to skrewdriver.org and you will find evidence which denies the holocaust.


As for “proving” anything—that is your job since you are the accuser.

There&#39;s nothing to prove. The facts are clear.


I don’t know what that means.

I find it very strange that people can say that the bourgeoisie on one hand are not trust worthy, and then use the American establishment as some proof that Stalin was legitimiate.


Right. I’m sure you have.

No, I havent. But I have met and spoken with many people who have been to Russia. I met one girl who spent 2 months working in a siberian community. Some of the stories that she camne back with...or maybe she was a bourgeois mole&#33;


And we aren’t suppose to believe the petit bourgeois either, eh?

I sense that you are trying to imply something here...


I have no “idols”.

Evidently.


My point is you have no idea what you’re talking about.

And you have done very little to change that.

[Guest1]

Actually, come to think of it, I think masturbation is exactly what you guys are missing.

All that blue-balls is affecting you stalin-kiddies&#39; judgements.

Look up some porn, download some films on kazaa, it&#39;ll do you some good. I would suggest you get a girlfriend or boyfriend, but I don&#39;t think anyone would go for someone obsessed with a ruthless murderer with an inferiority complex and webbed feet.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Actually, come to think of it, I think masturbation is exactly what you guys are missing.

All that blue-balls is affecting you stalin-kiddies&#39; judgements.



What are you nuts? Some of us were communists prior to you birth son.

Just so you know, there is no such thing as "blue balls". When you mature into a man you will figure that out.

[The Feral Underclass]

I love the way that a "grown man" would rather patronise a "young boy" than discuss actual points raised against him...

....you&#39;re not fooling anyone RAF...I dont believe a word you say. I think you&#39;re a fraud. Now either debate the topics like the mature person you claim so righously that you are and make us silly people realise the errors of our naive way...

[Guest1]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 7 2004, 04:59 PM
What are you nuts? Some of us were communists prior to you birth son.
Damn, that makes it even worse. Seriously old man, I know they looked down upon it when you were young, but there&#39;s nothing wrong with some masturbation, or sex if you can get it at your age.

Try it sometime, it&#39;ll release all that pent up anger and frustration and I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll never need your religious beliefs ever again.

Why worship some dead dictator with psychological problems when you can wank instead?

[DaCuBaN]

Why worship some dead dictator with psychological problems when you can wank instead?

Repetitive actions release stress. Nuff said really :lol:
I firmly believe the fixation with wanking that has arisen in modern day society can be attributed to the computer gaming industry, just as modern dance culture can (ref. alleged nintendo pac-man quote). Think about the games we played &#39;back in the day&#39;. Wasn&#39;t it all just wiggling your stick?

[Individual]

Joe, you don&#39;t believe him?

You do remember that RAF went to Mexico right?

You don&#39;t remember? :blink: Well holy jesus, praise the lord&#33;

RAF is one of those real communists (living in a real un-communist nation mind you) that went to Mexico&#33; Of all places, Mexico Joe&#33; You should know that by now.

Quick RAF, get him with one of your junior comments&#33; That should get him where it hurts&#33;

;)

Edit: As for your comment below. Looked like you cared enough to give your thoughts. :rolleyes:

You bet, my silly threads in the CC. Guess those don&#39;t compare to all of the immature and egotistical problems presented by yourself. You real communist you.

You dig? (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=1e110ed263ce556bfb021326143d9235&search_in=posts&result_type=posts&highlite=)

;)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Rompipalle.


I&#39;m glad you have found another way to amuse yourself beyond your silly threads in the CC.

Guess what, no one cares.






Damn, that makes it even worse. Seriously old man, I know they looked down upon it when you were young, but there&#39;s nothing wrong with some masturbation, or sex if you can get it at your age.


I am fully versed in several styles of masterbation, including the "ancient chinese secret".


Try it sometime, it&#39;ll release all that pent up anger and frustration and I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll never need your religious beliefs ever again.



I am beyond the "trying" phase. I have made it an art form.


Why worship some dead dictator with psychological problems when you can wank instead?


I agree. Perhaps those that spend to much time worshipping the idea of crushing those dictators with psychological problems should try it out.

But then again, whatever would they do with their time? Revolt?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 8 2004, 12:32 AM
Guess what, no one cares.
No...you&#39;re right...So drop the act and say soemthing usful. Debate the issue, answer the points. Defend your position. This is the purpose of debate. The very thing the board, you moderate, was set up for.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 8 2004, 12:32 AM
I am fully versed in several styles of masterbation, including the "ancient chinese secret".... am beyond the "trying" phase. I have made it an art form.
Are you for real.....?


I agree. Perhaps those that spend to much time worshipping the idea of crushing those dictators with psychological problems should try it out.

And the desire to have control over another person is perfectly ok....

[Vinny Rafarino]

Are you for real.....?


C&#39;mon Cripple X, sex is your favourite topic.


Throw in a couple tabs of E and some Oakenfold and you will never leave this thread.




Haven&#39;t you boys figured it out yet? No matter how much you whine and *****, you are incapable of goading me into anything. I prefer to let you kids stew and count your "answer me&#33;" posts.


It&#39;s comical.


Good try though AQ, you almost got me....Try again.




And the desire to have control over another person is perfectly ok....

Too late, I already have it over you two.

[Guest1]

I am fully versed in several styles of masterbation, including the "ancient chinese secret".

I am beyond the "trying" phase. I have made it an art form.

Too late, I already have it over you two.
You know what, I think I&#39;m really beginning to understand the Psychiatric view towards Authoritarians of any kind, Left or Right (as if there was a difference).

They say you people suffer from delusions of grandeur.

Never really believed it till just now.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 7 2004, 06:18 PM
That&#39;s the best you have to offer? "At least we don&#39;t...."? Well comrade, that&#39;s not good enough.

Perhaps you can explain to me what you are going to do with all of the former ruling class once you strip them of everything they consider holy. A cucumber sandwich and some Kool-aid won&#39;t do the trick.
I&#39;d leave them there. There&#39;s nothing we should do. If they decide to take some guns and try to defend their "glorious private property" then they will surely be outnumbered. Note that I don&#39;t think that an Anarchist revolution will be "purely anarchist" on the beginning. Chances are that their property might be taken be force by various groups of revolutionaries. They don&#39;t want to live there? Maybe they should go away. But they mustn&#39;t be allowed to take their private property with them. Chances are the revolution will get bloody anyway.
Are you suggesting that there shouldn&#39;t be, for example, "freedom of speech" just because bourgeois might brainwash the poor proletarians? That&#39;s not a "revolution", that&#39;s just an authoritarian coup that claims to defend the proletarians from all the bourgeois evils, even if the same people it&#39;s meant to represent disagrees with those policies.


Well the moment "anarchism&#39; produces a revolution that brings about a communist society, I will admit you&#39;re right and sing the black flag.

Ok


You would be surprised what people will "tolerate". Look around you.

I get your point but honestly I&#39;m sure the revolution will make the people to try to control things for themselves. People will surely feel "able" to do so.


Actually, there is no evidence AT ALL. The "bougeois media&#39;s" help is not necessary.

I meant to say that people isn&#39;t very interested in the "vanguard" nowadays. They will probably be more "individualist", especially considering how "Communism" is seen nowadays (thanks to the media and of course many not very wise actions by those leaders so worshipped by most leninists).


Then what exactly are you suggesting? The holocaust has nothing to do with this. There is plenty of overwhelming evidence about the holocaust, but NONE supporting "millions of dead by Stalin&#39;s hand".

This probably created a misunderstanding. I was talking about the propaganda. Chances are that people will see those "comrades in the vanguard" as some totalitarian Hitler wannabes. That will make people distrust them, at least on the beginning. Please note that the idea of the "transitional state" and the "vanguard" can help at the start of the revolution, for example, if the bourgeoisie tries to recover their old "benefits" by force. But I think this might be only useful for military issues. If they start claiming that they represent the workers because the workers "can&#39;t rule by themselves", then that&#39;s a worrying thing if you ask me. It will lead into a totalitarian rule where corruption, paranoia, brainwash and lack of respect can emerge. Simmilar experiences in the past century showed how that order has many flaws.
There are few ways to prove things that happened such a long time ago anyway. It&#39;s hard to find witnesses or good and trustable sources of information.


Tell you what boys, I will make it easy on you. Produce empirical evidence supporting your line and I will immediately change mine.

That&#39;s not necessary. In fact, that&#39;s stupid. According to what you say, you are already very much into your ideas, so why bother? The real point here is, if the situation asked for a revolution and there was a tendency to bring more autonomy to the people, instead of centralising power, what would you do? Would you support that movement? Or would you resort to trying to take power by yourself?

[Enver Hoxha]

Wow Hitler lives&#33;

Congratulations kids your Fuhrer would be most proud of you in continuing your brave and glourious strunngle against the tyranny that is &#39;Stalinism&#39;. But like dear Adolf you must not forget to include words like &#39;butchers&#39; and &#39;bloodthirsty murderers&#39; when describing Stalin and them &#39;Stalinists&#39;. It&#39;s a shame that the Reich&#39;s propaganda ministry is currently closed since you&#39;ll be able to find a cushy job there.

Now breifly I actually got angry reading this thread (or the first two pages of it) but then I remembered that some people will believe every fairy tale about Stalin there is and no matter how many times you show them the real facts behind that myth they still remain simple dogmatic people. It&#39;s quite similar to the current Neo-Conservatives who began as so called &#39;leftists&#39; in various &#39;anti-Stalinist&#39; parties and are now supporting the current illegal occupation and murder in Iraq.

Oh but let me guess you &#39;criticise Stalin from the left&#39; and while you dont believe &#39;Capitalist propaganda&#39; you go repeating it anyway when it comes to Stalin. Not good enough. Ignorance is not an excuse when you&#39;ve been shown the evidence a million times before. The material is out there, especially since you all have access to the internet and visit leftist sites like this one it is not difficult to find. So before replying that &#39;Stalin murdered half his people&#39;, or that &#39;Stalin&#39;s ideas were anti-working class&#39; why dont you read what the evidence from the archives shows and why dont you read Josef Stalin&#39;s works and show us how they were anti-democratic?

Someone says &#39;ask the Czechs, the Ukrainians, the Lithuatians?&#39; about Stalin etc, etc. This has to be one of the more ignorant statements to make. The Ukrainian &#39;Stalinists&#39; probably have more members to their party than have gone through any of your Anarchist or whatever ranks in the last thirty years. They also are involved in fighting for workers rights, against domestic fascism and against the increasing poverty (check North Star Compass for a more in depth report on their work).

But you would prefer to go on believing a handful of Ukrainians who acted as mercanaries at the camps for Hitler killing Jews and Communists (not to mention millions of others) and then went on to become CIA stogges. That&#39;s okay but just dont pretend to be any sought of leftist when your backing Fascists in the Ukraine over Marxist-Leninists.

You know even the Capitalists asked the Russian people about Stalin. Even their opinion poll came back with far more in favor of Stalin then against. And these folks massacre them &#39;Stalinists&#39; in a democraticly elected parliament. When you all say &#39;well lets ask so and so&#39; you dont even bother finding out what they&#39;re answers might be. Or what is really going on in the world. Tell me how many of you are aware of the former soldiers in Latvia who in WW2 fought against the Nazis for the Red Army who are now suffering in jail for being supposed &#39;Stalinists&#39;? This is all while that same government allows SS parades and Nazi salutes. Or the Communists in Lithuania in jail for 14 years? Then you have the nerve to tell us what they might think of Stalin. In Georgia they (the workers, students and peasants) rose up when Khruschev gave his speech.

Yes a few million people were in jail in the USSR under Stalin. More people were infact in jail in the U&#036;A in the 1990&#39;s under Clinton. And unlike in U&#036; jails prisoners were not paid less than workers in the third world (Salvador to be exact) to work producing trainers and jeans. They were infact paid roughly the same as workers on the outside, and were not allowed to work for more than 6 to 8 hours a day. No one deny&#39;s there was a prison system in the USSR and people went into there. No one also deny&#39;s that conditions in those prisons were bad relativley and that people died. But when it&#39;s shown that this was worse during the years 1941-45 maybe it can be seen that perhaps it had more to do than Stalin being a &#39;Maniac&#39;. Particularly when capital punishment was actually abolished in the years after WW2. The death rate also fell dramatically in the prisons when modern medicine (pencilin) was introduced in the late 1940&#39;s.

No doubt innocent people died in the USSR&#39;s prisons. No doubt innocent people were arrested, but first bare in mind the vast majority of prisoners were NOT arrested for being counter-revolutionary but for being criminalls. Now by all means criticise the USSR and Stalin for being a society where there were a many great deal of criminalls (but not as many as in the U&#036;A) but ask yourselfs if you could of eliminated the causes of this in the aftermath of a World War, Civil War and violent revolution which aims to radically change society. Unlike in today&#39;s Russia there weren&#39;t 92,000 prisoners with TB.

No doubt there were also innocent people deemed counter-revolutionary. But to blame this on Stalin is far to simplistic. You think if I&#39;m arrested now for not buying a ticket on the train twice last week that I should blame Tony Blair for directly having me arrested? No I shouldn&#39;t, a state and society is far more complexed than that. Even the bourgesie have recently been getting rid of that myth. So when there are example&#39;s of Stalin saying various people were innocent and them being arrested anyway does this reflect the image of Stalin being responsible for every death and the USSR being a society ruled over by a monolithic Stalin?

And it was under Stalin that the life expectancy doubled from Tsarist times. Pretty difficult to do if you murdered 20 million or whatever. Now that the life expectancy is on average nearly a decade younger than under Stalin in modern day Russia and the fact the population has decreased by near 10 million since 1990 where are you shouting off about Capitalism. Your not because your so wrapped up in bad mouthing Stalin and defending your own precious little groups from any attack that you dont acknowledge the real situation in the world.

If you did you would pay attention to the workers struggles in the former USSR, to the people&#39;s war in Nepal and the Phillipines, to the struggle against the IMF in Ecaduor or countless other examples of them &#39;Stalinists&#39; trying to set up a &#39;Authoritarian&#39; state.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Enver [email protected] 8 2004, 05:42 PM
Congratulations kids your Fuhrer would be most proud of you in continuing your brave and glourious strunngle against the tyranny that is &#39;Stalinism&#39;. But like dear Adolf you must not forget to include words like &#39;butchers&#39; and &#39;bloodthirsty murderers&#39; when describing Stalin and them &#39;Stalinists&#39;. It&#39;s a shame that the Reich&#39;s propaganda ministry is currently closed since you&#39;ll be able to find a cushy job there.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah&#33;


Now breifly I actually got angry reading this thread (or the first two pages of it) but then I remembered that some people will believe every fairy tale about Stalin there is and no matter how many times you show them the real facts behind that myth they still remain simple dogmatic people.

What facts have been displayed in this discussion by you people?


It&#39;s quite similar to the current Neo-Conservatives who began as so called &#39;leftists&#39; in various &#39;anti-Stalinist&#39; parties and are now supporting the current illegal occupation and murder in Iraq.

Yes, neo-conservatives dislike Stalin, just as most of them dislike Hitler. How outragous of them? I do not support the war in a Iraq, I am left wing and I am anti-stalinist.......

This argument is such bullshit. You can not justify your support of Stalin and his history by claiming that everyone who does not is neo-conservative or not left wing. People do not support Stalin and his history, because just like Hitlers, his history is full of tyranny, oppression and persecution.


Oh but let me guess you &#39;criticise Stalin from the left&#39; and while you dont believe &#39;Capitalist propaganda&#39; you go repeating it anyway when it comes to Stalin.

Actually, I have spoken to people and anaylzed the information I have seen and heard and made my own conclusion. That being that Stalin was a tyrant.


Ignorance is not an excuse when you&#39;ve been shown the evidence a million times before.

What evidence? You can spout as muchg rhetoric as you want, at the end of the day, you are supporting a tyrant...did I mention I thought Stalin was a tyrant.


The Ukrainian &#39;Stalinists&#39; probably have more members to their party than have gone through any of your Anarchist or whatever ranks in the last thirty years.

What kind of a defence is that? So there are lots of misguided fools in one country? That dosnt mean Stalin was a good person..?


They also are involved in fighting for workers rights, against domestic fascism and against the increasing poverty (check North Star Compass for a more in depth report on their work).

You mean they are trying to get rid of the opposition?


But you would prefer to go on believing a handful of Ukrainians who acted as mercanaries at the camps for Hitler killing Jews and Communists (not to mention millions of others) and then went on to become CIA stogges.

So now the Ukrainians who arent Stalinists are mercenciers and CIA agents?


That&#39;s okay but just dont pretend to be any sought of leftist when your backing Fascists in the Ukraine over Marxist-Leninists.

Fuck Marxist-Leninism for a start. Secondly, just because I am anti stalin does not mean i am a fascist support, I dispise them both equally.


Even their opinion poll came back with far more in favor of Stalin then against.

Show me this poll&#33;


you all say &#39;well lets ask so and so&#39; you dont even bother finding out what they&#39;re answers might be. Or what is really going on in the world.

All this just for opposing the history of a tyrant...?


Tell me how many of you are aware of the former soldiers in Latvia who in WW2 fought against the Nazis for the Red Army who are now suffering in jail for being supposed &#39;Stalinists&#39;?

The nazis were there for maybe 3 years...the Stalinists were there for 50, people get pissed off when another country dominates your country for 50 years. I am not suprised they put some of them in prison..


Yes a few million people were in jail in the USSR under Stalin. More people were infact in jail in the U&#036;A in the 1990&#39;s under Clinton. And unlike in U&#036; jails prisoners were not paid less than workers in the third world (Salvador to be exact) to work producing trainers and jeans. They were infact paid roughly the same as workers on the outside, and were not allowed to work for more than 6 to 8 hours a day. No one deny&#39;s there was a prison system in the USSR and people went into there. No one also deny&#39;s that conditions in those prisons were bad relativley and that people died. But when it&#39;s shown that this was worse during the years 1941-45 maybe it can be seen that perhaps it had more to do than Stalin being a &#39;Maniac&#39;. Particularly when capital punishment was actually abolished in the years after WW2. The death rate also fell dramatically in the prisons when modern medicine (pencilin) was introduced in the late 1940&#39;s.

So Stalin gave his people some reforms..big fucking deal, no one gives a shit. He didnt do very much in the way of achieving communism did he...


No doubt innocent people died in the USSR&#39;s prisons. No doubt innocent people were arrested, but first bare in mind the vast majority of prisoners were NOT arrested for being counter-revolutionary but for being criminalls. Now by all means criticise the USSR and Stalin for being a society where there were a many great deal of criminalls (but not as many as in the U&#036;A) but ask yourselfs if you could of eliminated the causes of this in the aftermath of a World War, Civil War and violent revolution which aims to radically change society. Unlike in today&#39;s Russia there weren&#39;t 92,000 prisoners with TB.

blah blah blah


No doubt there were also innocent people deemed counter-revolutionary. But to blame this on Stalin is far to simplistic. You think if I&#39;m arrested now for not buying a ticket on the train twice last week that I should blame Tony Blair for directly having me arrested? No I shouldn&#39;t, a state and society is far more complexed than that. Even the bourgesie have recently been getting rid of that myth. So when there are example&#39;s of Stalin saying various people were innocent and them being arrested anyway does this reflect the image of Stalin being responsible for every death and the USSR being a society ruled over by a monolithic Stalin?

Plausable deniability...a bit like "I was under orders..."


And it was under Stalin that the life expectancy doubled from Tsarist times. Pretty difficult to do if you murdered 20 million or whatever.

Not really...


Now that the life expectancy is on average nearly a decade younger than under Stalin in modern day Russia and the fact the population has decreased by near 10 million since 1990 where are you shouting off about Capitalism. Your not because your so wrapped up in bad mouthing Stalin and defending your own precious little groups from any attack that you dont acknowledge the real situation in the world.

The real situation of the world?...None of this proves that Stalin was not a tyrant. Hitler gave everyone cars and radios and people jobs...whats your fucking point?


If you did you would pay attention to the workers struggles in the former USSR, to the people&#39;s war in Nepal and the Phillipines, to the struggle against the IMF in Ecaduor or countless other examples of them &#39;Stalinists&#39; trying to set up a &#39;Authoritarian&#39; state.

The peoples struggle in Nepal...I thought that was just a bunch of Maosists blowing things up..wait a minute, thats exactly what it is...

[Bianconero]

Hitler gave everyone cars and radios and people jobs...

Not quite, Anarchist. For all I know Hitler had communists, socialists (social-democrats), jews etc. deported to rather unfriendly places like Auschwitz-Birkenau instead of giving them &#39;cars and radios.&#39;

Stalin got rid of the bourgeois class, or tried to, which is not the same as eliminating a whole etnic group and anyone, who stood in the way of him (Hitler), his bourgeois party and the bourgeoisie, that supported him financially from the beginning.

Anarchist, you don&#39;t impress anyone. I for one know you should stick to those &#39;let us all pay tribute to beautiful people&#39; topics.

[DaCuBaN]

But you would prefer to go on believing a handful of Ukrainians who acted as mercanaries at the camps for Hitler killing Jews and Communists (not to mention millions of others) and then went on to become CIA stogges. That&#39;s okay but just dont pretend to be any sought of leftist when your backing Fascists in the Ukraine over Marxist-Leninists.

Much as I dislike the glorification of Stalin and the demonisation of his &#39;enemies&#39; I have not done sufficient reading to clarify my position. Do you perchance have any outside sources, impartial or otherwise from which I could glean further information?

[Guest1]

Everything you need to know about Stalin and his followers (http://www.aestetix.net/wtfdance/buffer/index.html)

[Vinny Rafarino]

I for one know you should stick to those &#39;let us all pay tribute to beautiful people&#39; topics.


Indeed, politics are not their bag.



I&#39;d leave them there. There&#39;s nothing we should do. If they decide to take some guns and try to defend their "glorious private property" then they will surely be outnumbered

That&#39;s very interesting. You would allow these subversives to create a counter revolution among your workers. You also assume that "they would be easily crushed" in the event the decided to revolt. (you obviously don&#39;t realise that we are talking about the very same group of people that rule you now)

The idea of communism is to achieve an enlightened state of conciousness among your masses. Without the removal of silly notions such as greed, a communist environment is not possible.

Don&#39;t worry, all they will be asking for are a few "little reforms". Worked well for Khruschev yes?


They don&#39;t want to live there? Maybe they should go away

That&#39;s funny, this is the exact same thing that capitalists currently spout about Communists. Are you personally willing to "love it or leave it"? I would say no, you are not. You also think that there will inevitably be a revolution and that we will win.

You don&#39;t think that the former ruling class will do the same? The quickest way to being an "opressive state" is to spend years oppressing some of your people. Why not simply solve the problem immediately? You cannot oppress what no longer exists.


But they mustn&#39;t be allowed to take their private property with them

What exactly to you consider "private property"?


Are you suggesting that there shouldn&#39;t be, for example, "freedom of speech" just because bourgeois might brainwash the poor proletarians?

Not only am I suggesting it, I am recommending it. Do you feel that there should be "freedom of speech" for those, such as Nazis, who intend on converting our children into their perverse way of thinking? Some people should NEVER be allowed a platform to reproduce their garbage. Too many young people hide behind "freedom of speech" and are content to deal with the repercussions of such "freedoms". It&#39;s utterly absurd as these are the VERY SAME people that would fire one into the back of your head if they are given the chance.


That&#39;s not a "revolution", that&#39;s just an authoritarian coup that claims to defend the proletarians from all the bourgeois evils, even if the same people it&#39;s meant to represent disagrees with those policies.



Why is it that some people fire out "authoritarian" whenever they need "quick line".

How will YOU protect the "proletarians" from "bourgeois evils"? Cupcakes?



I get your point but honestly I&#39;m sure the revolution will make the people to try to control things for themselves. People will surely feel "able" to do so.


This issue is much to important to be left up to "assumptions". We can all "assume" the former ruling class will simply "fall in line". We can "assume" that the people will be able to operate the systems that MAKE LIFE BETTER for the people without creating industrial disaster. What happens if the people are not "surely able" to do what is required?


I meant to say that people isn&#39;t very interested in the "vanguard" nowadays. They will probably be more "individualist", especially considering how "Communism" is seen nowadays (thanks to the media and of course many not very wise actions by those leaders so worshipped by most leninists).


The majority of the people on the globe don&#39;t even know what "vanguard" means.

Good grief, "the media" excuse? People are not interested in Communism any longer because of us. It must be all that "assuming" we have done over the last 40 years.


This probably created a misunderstanding. I was talking about the propaganda. Chances are that people will see those "comrades in the vanguard" as some totalitarian Hitler wannabes. That will make people distrust them, at least on the beginning.

the reality of the situation is that YOU will see the "comrades in the vanguard" as "totalitarian Hitler wannabees". The people will do what they are told, as they have always done.


Please note that the idea of the "transitional state" and the "vanguard" can help at the start of the revolution, for example, if the bourgeoisie tries to recover their old "benefits" by force. But I think this might be only useful for military issues

Is this your "back up plan" in case your "assumtions" are wrong? Fair enough, it&#39;s always good to have a back up plan.


If they start claiming that they represent the workers because the workers "can&#39;t rule by themselves", then that&#39;s a worrying thing if you ask me

And what would you do if indeed they can&#39;t rule by themselves? Oh yeah, I forgot about your "back up plan".



It will lead into a totalitarian rule where corruption, paranoia, brainwash and lack of respect can emerge. Simmilar experiences in the past century showed how that order has many flaws.


And what "experiences in the past" are you referring to? "Corruption"? Show me.
"Paranoia"? Show me. "Lack of respect" (whatever that means to you) Show me.


There are few ways to prove things that happened such a long time ago anyway. It&#39;s hard to find witnesses or good and trustable sources of information.


It&#39;s especialy hard to find witnesses and trustable sources for events that never happened. And why should the capitalists even bother? No one takes us seriously anyway. It must have been because the left is seen as a bunch of "fair weather" fans that will turn on their own instantly yet FAIL TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE.

Communists, socialists and anarchists are viewed as the "the three stooges" of politics.


That&#39;s not necessary. In fact, that&#39;s stupid. According to what you say, you are already very much into your ideas, so why bother?

Is it really "that stupid" or is it that you can&#39;t do what I ask? If you can prove to me that Stalin committed all these "fantastic crimes" I will join you. You can&#39;t tell me that you would not love to "win over" a "Stalinist"? If you do then you are lying.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Everything you need to know about Stalin and his followers

This post has been edited by Che y Marijuana on May 8 2004, 07:54 PM


--------------------

LoVe, PeAcE, HaSh, MuSiC

WTF?


Resorting to spamming now CYM? What a shocker.

I take it you won&#39;t be creating any threads in the CC about other members spamming the board now right?

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 8 2004, 07:59 PM

Everything you need to know about Stalin and his followers

This post has been edited by Che y Marijuana on May 8 2004, 07:54 PM


--------------------

LoVe, PeAcE, HaSh, MuSiC

WTF?


Resorting to spamming now CYM? What a shocker.

I take it you won&#39;t be creating any threads in the CC about other members spamming the board now right?
I asked for people to submit sources for information on Stalin - as my own information is purely UK history textbook stuff. I fail to see the spam...


How will YOU protect the "proletarians" from "bourgeois evils"? Cupcakes?

I say mob rule - if you don&#39;t like what someone is saying, lynch :D :lol:
I firmly believe that authoritarian regimes are a terrible way to go - even if these decisions are made for the best of intentions, they are erroneous.

*EDIT*

I only just looked at CYM&#39;s link

WTF indeed <_< :rolleyes:

[Vinny Rafarino]

I firmly believe that authoritarian regimes are a terrible way to go - even if these decisions are made for the best of intentions, they are erroneous.



So do I.


Remember, "authoritarian, tyrant regime supporter" is simple pedomorphic drivel from "anarchists" that compares equally with a newborn child crying to have his diaper changed.

[Guest1]

Comrade RAF, when did I ever create a thread in the CC about people spamming?

Besides, have a sense of humour.

DaCuBaN, here&#39;s the serious links:

Anarchist Faq, H.6 What actually happened in Russia? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH6.html)

How Lenin Lead To Stalin (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws91/lenin33.html)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Comrade RAF, when did I ever create a thread in the CC about people spamming?



I never said you did, merely that now you won&#39;t.


Yes cuban, read as much "anarchist" propaganda as you can, it&#39;s good for a laugh.


Besides, have a sense of humour.


YOU (shall we count the number of "I was offended by this" threads from you) are going to tell ME to have a sense of humour...now that&#39;s rich.

[kapitalistsvinya]

Stalin got rid of the bourgeois class, or tried to, which is not the same as eliminating a whole etnic group and anyone, who stood in the way of him (Hitler), his bourgeois party and the bourgeoisie, that supported him financially from the beginning.


So what about when Stalin packed all the Chechen&#39;s in cattle cars and forcibly relocated them to Kazackstahn, where 1/3 of them died? What about the Katyn forest massacre where 20k polish intelligentsia were shot and dumped in the swamp? Stalin&#39;s repression of ethnic groups was pretty much on par with Hitler. All this has been thouroughly documented on by both western AND soviet historians.

[DaCuBaN]

So when there are example&#39;s of Stalin saying various people were innocent and them being arrested anyway does this reflect the image of Stalin being responsible for every death and the USSR being a society ruled over by a monolithic Stalin?

He doesn&#39;t directly deserve the blame for the deaths of these people - those who fired the shots/opened the valves/whatever also deserve as much &#39;credit&#39; as he does. This does not excuse the fact that he failed to protect those who had not been proven guilty

That, to me, is injustice. Which isn&#39;t communism. Ergo stalinism is not a form of communism, and long may it remain such.

[Bianconero]

So what about when Stalin packed all the Chechen&#39;s in cattle cars and forcibly relocated them to Kazackstahn, where 1/3 of them died?

One could now assume that &#39;Stalin packed all the Chechen&#39;s in cattle cars and forcibly relocated them to Kazackstahn&#39; because they were Chechens. That would of course back up your assertion that Stalin&#39;s motives were racist and nationalist. But among those &#39;relocated&#39; were not only Chechens, but also Crimean Tatars, Kalmyks, Ingush, Balkars, Karachai, and Meskhetians.

And I can assure you Stalin didn&#39;t &#39;relocate&#39; them because of their nationality. These people had collaborated with fascist forces. I agree that Stalin was wrong and that those 25% that died (not 1/3, or 33%, as you assume) should be mourned. But were they shot, exterminated? Of course not. War is war, I don&#39;t like war, Stalin didn&#39;t chose to go to war. And Stalin&#39;s intention was to win that war he didn&#39;t chose to be part of. Stalin thought it would be safer to &#39;relocate&#39; them, as they were endangering the Soviet Union. Stalin&#39;s mistake should not be forgotten, but neither should his motives, that were far from &#39;racist.&#39;


What about the Katyn forest massacre where 20k polish intelligentsia were shot and dumped in the swamp?

4 100 died, and they were polish army officers, not &#39;intelligentsia.&#39;

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 08:15 PM
Not quite, Anarchist. For all I know Hitler had communists, socialists (social-democrats), jews etc. deported to rather unfriendly places like Auschwitz-Birkenau instead of giving them &#39;cars and radios.&#39;
True. My point was that even tyrants who commit crimes on the scale of Hitler and Stalin are nice sometimes. That dosnt stop them from being tyrants though.


Stalin got rid of the bourgeois class, or tried to, which is not the same as eliminating a whole etnic group and anyone, who stood in the way of him (Hitler), his bourgeois party and the bourgeoisie, that supported him financially from the beginning.

Stalin did get rid of the bourgeois class you are right. Along with everyone else that stood in his way, workers included and subjugated them to am oppressive, undemocractic state, with him at the head of it. A bit like Hitler. Not exactly the same, but not that far off.


Anarchist, you don&#39;t impress anyone.

I&#39;m not attempting to.


I for one know you should stick to those &#39;let us all pay tribute to beautiful people&#39; topics.

Old wounds die hard aye. Get over yourself. I&#39;m really not that interested.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 8 2004, 09:57 PM

I for one know you should stick to those &#39;let us all pay tribute to beautiful people&#39; topics.


Indeed, politics are not their bag.
That&#39;s odd. I distinctly remember making a thread, directed at you, laying out an argument against your misunderstandings which you subsequently ignored. I also replied to you in this thread, again you ignored me.

You get stranger every day....did you not get your Tacrine prescription this week?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 8 2004, 07:57 PM
That&#39;s very interesting. You would allow these subversives to create a counter revolution among your workers. You also assume that "they would be easily crushed" in the event the decided to revolt.
I see...so you just want to take power "in the workers name", and crush the bourgeoisie even if capitalism hasn&#39;t created a situation for it to happen.
In a revolutionary situation they will be crushed because they won&#39;t have any resource left to fight. By then capitalism would have probably collapsed, and people would try to "get things back". That&#39;s where we should help.


(you obviously don&#39;t realise that we are talking about the very same group of people that rule you now)

1) They won&#39;t rule forever
2) People is still too much into that lie about "working hard makes us rich and thanks to capitalism I ha a tv and a house". They don&#39;t have a real reason to change thing YET.


The idea of communism is to achieve an enlightened state of conciousness among your masses. Without the removal of silly notions such as greed, a communist environment is not possible.

I thought communism was a logical historical step. I never knew that people would let a vanguard to take power to "brainwash" them into it. People must be "enlightened" before or during the revolutionary process. There&#39;s no real point in a revolution if the people doesn&#39;t want the change. They eventually will.


That&#39;s funny, this is the exact same thing that capitalists currently spout about Communists. Are you personally willing to "love it or leave it"? I would say no, you are not. You also think that there will inevitably be a revolution and that we will win.

So? There are no real "Communist" countries. There won&#39;t be capitalist countries then. Capitalism will collapse everywhere. You&#39;re right, they will probably not have where to go to. Unless we try to establish "Socialism in one country".


You don&#39;t think that the former ruling class will do the same? The quickest way to being an "opressive state" is to spend years oppressing some of your people. Why not simply solve the problem immediately? You cannot oppress what no longer exists.

I don&#39;t get your point.


What exactly to you consider "private property"?

I was talking about "means of production", and obviously that private that can be moved. I&#39;d make collective assemblies go and ask them "listen up, you damn exploiter, you have the following options: or you cooperate and give us your irrational and stolen property, or we give you some money and you get out of it, or you shoot us but we outnumber you and you get killed".


Not only am I suggesting it, I am recommending it. Do you feel that there should be "freedom of speech" for those, such as Nazis, who intend on converting our children into their perverse way of thinking? Some people should NEVER be allowed a platform to reproduce their garbage.

Yes, there should. Their ideas must be answered through debating and proving how stupid they are. I&#39;m sure that after a revolution people will see how stupid they are. Does anyone in the working class advocates a return to slavery or feudalism?? I don&#39;t think so. It can only happen when those oppresing fascists control the media and drop massive propaganda. But if the media is collectivized, it means that it is under the control of the people who threw the opressors out of power, so such people will be seen on a suspicious way. In case they try to "bring back the good old days" they will get shot.


How will YOU protect the "proletarians" from "bourgeois evils"? Cupcakes?

They can protect themselves. Even if they can&#39;t, I can tolerate it if you decide to form some kind of "Workers Militia", unless you go around imposing things on others or once there&#39;s no more need for imposing things on a certain group.


What happens if the people are not "surely able" to do what is required?

We can&#39;t know that yet. We will only know then. It makes no sense to discusss it now.


the reality of the situation is that YOU will see the "comrades in the vanguard" as "totalitarian Hitler wannabees". The people will do what they are told, as they have always done.

Then forget about the revolution.


Is this your "back up plan" in case your "assumtions" are wrong? Fair enough, it&#39;s always good to have a back up plan.

sort of. But it depends on many things. Chances are that if suddenly a revolutionary situation happens nowadays there&#39;s a chance for a "vanguard" to take power. But as it doesn&#39;t seem we will see this happen tomorrow, I think there will be bigger chances of the authority dissapearing. And I&#39;m talking about a momentary resistance, until we "win". If we lose that struggle and the state still holds power they can retake it and we are back to the golld old slavery.


And what would you do if indeed they can&#39;t rule by themselves? Oh yeah, I forgot about your "back up plan".

They will be forced to rule themselves. They have to adapt to the environment to survive. They usually do in capitalism.


And what "experiences in the past" are you referring to? "Corruption"? Show me.
"Paranoia"? Show me. "Lack of respect" (whatever that means to you) Show me.

Do I really need to show you? I&#39;ll just mention the "Trotskyists are social fascists and reactionaries that claim to fight with us but we must purge them because they are helping the fascists" which traduces to "Trotskyists want to dethrone me to put the other one in power".


It&#39;s especialy hard to find witnesses and trustable sources for events that never happened. And why should the capitalists even bother? No one takes us seriously anyway. It must have been because the left is seen as a bunch of "fair weather" fans that will turn on their own instantly yet FAIL TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE.

Communists, socialists and anarchists are viewed as the "the three stooges" of politics.

We should work in those aspects. We need to get our "message" spread.


Is it really "that stupid" or is it that you can&#39;t do what I ask? If you can prove to me that Stalin committed all these "fantastic crimes" I will join you. You can&#39;t tell me that you would not love to "win over" a "Stalinist"? If you do then you are lying.

I&#39;m not exactly trying to prove that "Stalin was a mass murderer"

[Bianconero]

True. My point was that even tyrants who commit crimes on the scale of Hitler and Stalin are nice sometimes. That dosnt stop them from being tyrants though.

I knew what your &#39;point&#39; was, and I did point out that your Hitler-Stalin comparison is not legitimate as Stalin never attempted to eliminate an etnic minority, for example.

Stalin was serving the people, whereas Hitler served the bourgeoisie and his own petty-bourgeois paranoia. Stalin sure made mistakes, but his intentions always were to ensure Soviet power, to serve the people and the people&#39;s rights.


Stalin did get rid of the bourgeois class you are right. Along with everyone else that stood in his way, workers included and subjugated them to am oppressive, undemocractic state, with him at the head of it. A bit like Hitler. Not exactly the same, but not that far off.

Stalin, in my oppinion, did whatever he thought was best for the Soviet Union, the first workers&#39; state, i.e. he did what he thought was best for the people. While he made mistakes, he also helped the Soviet Union become a world power, ensured workers&#39; right, ensured womens&#39; rights, eliminated illiteracy, made the Soviet Union a secular nation and advanced health care.

[Enver Hoxha]

Erm first of all regarding the Katryn massacre, even Lech Walsea admitted that the so called &#39;evidence&#39; for that was rubbish and refused to accept it. There is also the fact that numerous eye witnesses testify to the Nazis carrying it out. And actually it was something like 13 people who died in the deportations during the war, even Robert Conquest admits that there was no &#39;mass murder&#39; involved. And that&#39;s in his book &#39;Stalin. Destroyer of Nations&#39;.

The issue of Stalin supposedly being a &#39;rascist&#39; has been dealt with before in a thread in the History forum. Suffice to say it was proven rubbish. Trouble is it takes just one line to say a lie but it takes many more to refute that lie.

So instead of doing all of that again why dont you folks who alledge that Stalin was a &#39;rascist&#39; who &#39;oppressed ethnic groups&#39; on a &#39;par with Hitler&#39; go here and continue the discussion?

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5417&st=0

Anarchist Tension spouts all his/her &#39;blah, blah, blah&#39; stuff when replying, the pointbeing I presume that it is just empty rhectoric us &#39;Stalinists&#39; are using. But if you analyse and look into this thread even slightly that&#39;s all you will see he/she provides. No problem with you being criticical of Stalin and voicing that opinion but perhaps you ought to bring some evidence to support that view. You see posts that simply go on and on with the words &#39;murder&#39;, &#39;tyrant&#39;, &#39;dictator&#39; and such dont actually prove anything.

Yes your right I didn&#39;t provide any actual sources in my last post, didn&#39;t have the time.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I see...so you just want to take power "in the workers name", and crush the bourgeoisie even if capitalism hasn&#39;t created a situation for it to happen.
In a revolutionary situation they will be crushed because they won&#39;t have any resource left to fight. By then capitalism would have probably collapsed, and people would try to "get things back". That&#39;s where we should help.


So you are content with waiting for capitalism to collapse? My dear comrade, if we wait until capitalism to collapse, a revolution is not necessary.

I&#39;m sorry, I must have had you confused with a fellow revolutionary.


They don&#39;t have a real reason to change thing YET.


Do you think they will EVER have a reason to "change society" prior to having no choice in the matter? If you honestly "assume" the masses will once again "rise up and throw off their chains" WE will have to make sure those "chains" weigh an astonishing amount, otherwise the masses will continue to drag their chains about as if they are nothing more than a "minor inconvenience".


I thought communism was a logical historical step. I never knew that people would let a vanguard to take power to "brainwash" them into it. People must be "enlightened" before or during the revolutionary process. There&#39;s no real point in a revolution if the people doesn&#39;t want the change. They eventually will


In that case, why should we even bother?



So? There are no real "Communist" countries. There won&#39;t be capitalist countries then. Capitalism will collapse everywhere. You&#39;re right, they will probably not have where to go to. Unless we try to establish "Socialism in one country

It appears to me that you are not interested in establishing socialism anywhere.


I don&#39;t get your point.



The point is that if you "create" another class of people that feel they are being "oppressed" (and they will be right) then eventually they will be sitting in the position we are right now, absolutely "certain" that they will "eventually change the world".

Is that what you want?


I was talking about "means of production", and obviously that private that can be moved. I&#39;d make collective assemblies go and ask them "listen up, you damn exploiter, you have the following options: or you cooperate and give us your irrational and stolen property, or we give you some money and you get out of it, or you shoot us but we outnumber you and you get killed


This is not 1917. The "means of production" are not the only issue in the modern world. It has become much more complicated. The masses don&#39;t even know what the word "proletarian" is, nor do they care. Anyway, since you feel it necessary to "wait until society has no other option" why would you even bother to address an issue that would never happen?


Yes, there should. Their ideas must be answered through debating and proving how stupid they are. I&#39;m sure that after a revolution people will see how stupid they are.

That is a horrible, horrible mistake.


They can protect themselves. Even if they can&#39;t, I can tolerate it if you decide to form some kind of "Workers Militia", unless you go around imposing things on others or once there&#39;s no more need for imposing things on a certain group.


And you feel CERTAIN about that? I always assumed the masses were much to important to be "left up to chance".


We can&#39;t know that yet. We will only know then. It makes no sense to discusss it now.



The typical anarchist excuse, "we will all just have to wait and see". Good plan.



Then forget about the revolution.


My friend, I believe you already have. This conversation is over.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Enver [email protected] 9 2004, 08:55 PM
Anarchist Tension spouts all his/her &#39;blah, blah, blah&#39; stuff when replying, the pointbeing I presume that it is just empty rhectoric us &#39;Stalinists&#39; are using. But if you analyse and look into this thread even slightly that&#39;s all you will see he/she provides. No problem with you being criticical of Stalin and voicing that opinion but perhaps you ought to bring some evidence to support that view. You see posts that simply go on and on with the words &#39;murder&#39;, &#39;tyrant&#39;, &#39;dictator&#39; and such dont actually prove anything.

Yes your right I didn&#39;t provide any actual sources in my last post, didn&#39;t have the time.
I wouldnt give a nazi trying to deny the holocaust the time of day...why would I give you any...

[DaCuBaN]

I wouldnt give a nazi trying to deny the holocaust the time of day

If it would shut him up, why not? You don&#39;t have to accept what they say. By refusing to even acknowledge the argument, no matter how much you disagree with it is to discredit yourself; which I believe is undeserved.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 8 2004, 05:23 PM
YOU (shall we count the number of "I was offended by this" threads from you) are going to tell ME to have a sense of humour...now that&#39;s rich.
Uhh, I very rarely create ANY threads in the CC, let alone threads about being offended.

You can count the threads I&#39;ve made about being offended on one hand.

Then again, conveying the truth is not part of a Stalinist&#39;s job description :lol:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 01:45 AM

I wouldnt give a nazi trying to deny the holocaust the time of day

If it would shut him up, why not? You don&#39;t have to accept what they say. By refusing to even acknowledge the argument, no matter how much you disagree with it is to discredit yourself; which I believe is undeserved.
Be my guest...

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 5 2004, 01:52 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 5 2004, 01:52 PM)
[email protected] 5 2004, 03:16 PM
What I object to is the West&#39;s insistence that Stalin was some sort of red fascist
Well..The definition of facist can very easily be applied to Stalin in a general sense. [/b]
No it can&#39;t. Stalin didn&#39;t possess any fascist ideas. Corrupt human nature, progress through elimination of the weak, national-chauvanism and so on.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think generally it can be applied to him.

Strong dictatorial centalization. Militaristic. Disciplined. Obedience to the state. Oppression of opposition. etc etc

[Osman Ghazi]

That is if you think of m being solely authoritarian measures. It is, however, a more thoroughly developed ideology than people give it credit for. But I agree that he had certain charicteristics that a t would have such as exhaltation of their soldiers, the agrandizement of the Soviet state etc., etc.

[elijahcraig]

Go to skrewdriver.org and you will find evidence which denies the holocaust.

Why debate a topic like Stalin’s “crimes,” if you can’t even look at the other side of the argument.

The holocaust is easily proven…Stalin’s crimes are not.


There&#39;s nothing to prove. The facts are clear.

A faithful Christian saying^.


I find it very strange that people can say that the bourgeoisie on one hand are not trust worthy, and then use the American establishment as some proof that Stalin was legitimiate.

There is no motivation for bourgeois military officers to lie in favor of their enemy. They made an honest concession.


No, I havent. But I have met and spoken with many people who have been to Russia. I met one girl who spent 2 months working in a siberian community. Some of the stories that she camne back with...or maybe she was a bourgeois mole&#33;

Stalin was voted second greatest leader of all time behind Lenin, I don’t take the “Anarchist talks” seriously. You’re most likely lying, conveniently.


All that blue-balls is affecting you stalin-kiddies&#39; judgements.

Look up some porn, download some films on kazaa, it&#39;ll do you some good. I would suggest you get a girlfriend or boyfriend, but I don&#39;t think anyone would go for someone obsessed with a ruthless murderer with an inferiority complex and webbed feet.

I get plenty of self-and-or-other sex. I just read “Venus in Furs,” if we want to get into pornography-literature, etc.


...you&#39;re not fooling anyone RAF...I dont believe a word you say. I think you&#39;re a fraud. Now either debate the topics like the mature person you claim so righously that you are and make us silly people realise the errors of our naive way...

Stone cold pathetic idealist anarchist nonsense. Utterly dogmatic. As Ibsen would say: “Plebian&#33;”


Why worship some dead dictator with psychological problems when you can wank instead?

Or do both?


And the desire to have control over another person is perfectly ok....

In fact, it’s completely natural.


I get your point but honestly I&#39;m sure the revolution will make the people to try to control things for themselves. People will surely feel "able" to do so.

Petty idealism.


The peoples struggle in Nepal...I thought that was just a bunch of Maosists blowing things up..wait a minute, thats exactly what it is...

That’s not exactly the opinion of most leftists, especially Michael Albert and Chomsky.

The US supports a king who suppresses peasant revolts. The US gives 8.6 million a year in arms to such “developing” countries. In other words, suppressing the masses and supporting a dictator.

The Maoists and the Marxist-Leninist party have wide support actually. Us Communists aren’t all “evil vanguard rich Leninists.” As you seem to (pathetically, ignorantly, arrogantly) think. While the “Anarchist Christian saviors of the world” are going to one day sweep the world into a paradise of sorts.


Everything you need to know about Stalin and his followers

This post has been edited by Che y Marijuana on May 8 2004, 07:54 PM


--------------------
LoVe, PeAcE, HaSh, MuSiC

WTF?

Hippie idiocy.


Anarchist Faq, H.6 What actually happened in Russia?

AKA, how Goldman and Berkman wanted free speech when there was a mass famine and complete civil war in the country (idealism, even Anarchists like the writer of Angels in America admits this).


So what about when Stalin packed all the Chechen&#39;s in cattle cars and forcibly relocated them to Kazackstahn, where 1/3 of them died? What about the Katyn forest massacre where 20k polish intelligentsia were shot and dumped in the swamp? Stalin&#39;s repression of ethnic groups was pretty much on par with Hitler. All this has been thouroughly documented on by both western AND soviet historians.

Proof, please.


Stalin did get rid of the bourgeois class you are right. Along with everyone else that stood in his way, workers included and subjugated them to am oppressive, undemocractic state, with him at the head of it. A bit like Hitler. Not exactly the same, but not that far off.

I’m sure that he “got rid of” everyone in his way, if they stood along with the bourgeois.


I see...so you just want to take power "in the workers name", and crush the bourgeoisie even if capitalism hasn&#39;t created a situation for it to happen.
In a revolutionary situation they will be crushed because they won&#39;t have any resource left to fight. By then capitalism would have probably collapsed, and people would try to "get things back". That&#39;s where we should help.

Blah, blah blah, we get your fucking anarchist party line.


So? There are no real "Communist" countries. There won&#39;t be capitalist countries then. Capitalism will collapse everywhere. You&#39;re right, they will probably not have where to go to. Unless we try to establish "Socialism in one country".

What is a “real” Communist country? Cuba is a socialist nation.


Yes, there should. Their ideas must be answered through debating and proving how stupid they are. I&#39;m sure that after a revolution people will see how stupid they are. Does anyone in the working class advocates a return to slavery or feudalism?? I don&#39;t think so. It can only happen when those oppresing fascists control the media and drop massive propaganda. But if the media is collectivized, it means that it is under the control of the people who threw the opressors out of power, so such people will be seen on a suspicious way. In case they try to "bring back the good old days" they will get shot.

Petty idealism.


They can protect themselves. Even if they can&#39;t, I can tolerate it if you decide to form some kind of "Workers Militia", unless you go around imposing things on others or once there&#39;s no more need for imposing things on a certain group.

The revolution imposes revolution on EVERYONE. Your “workers milititias” don’t solve everything.


We can&#39;t know that yet. We will only know then. It makes no sense to discusss it now.

That’s ridiculous. It’s a large part of the theory of revolution.


Do I really need to show you? I&#39;ll just mention the "Trotskyists are social fascists and reactionaries that claim to fight with us but we must purge them because they are helping the fascists" which traduces to "Trotskyists want to dethrone me to put the other one in power".

According to the Utopianists? Who else?


I wouldnt give a nazi trying to deny the holocaust the time of day...why would I give you any...

Because you’re a moron.


Strong dictatorial centalization. Militaristic. Disciplined. Obedience to the state. Oppression of opposition. etc etc

1. Dictatorial centiralization is not fascism, it is the masses having a system of control of the state.
2. Militarism is necessary when you’re surrounded by enemies.
3. Discipline is necessary also.
4. Obedience to the state under socialism is necessary if you want it to succeed, it’s called collectivism, instead of capitalist individualism.
5. Oppression of opposition is absolutely necessary. If Lenin hadn’t executed the 100 kulaks who stopped grain transportation (causing a famine of millions), the other kulaks would have continued to do so, thereby causing a revolution to become controlled by the rich and the Imperialist invaders.

I suppose you’d like decentralized mass idiocy, peacetime hippie utopian ideals, let them cut you down good with those flowery machine guns, people in the military running around nonsensically, without orders or ability to form an attack or defense, disobedience to a state which represents the masses, thereby aiding the enemy, allowing the opposition (every nation on earth) to do whatever they please, as in Cuba, where USAID sends money to “opposition dissenters” through the US Interests Section with which to subvert the governmeny, bomb hotels, and bomb ships, bringing down the socialist state. Ridiculous.

[Osman Ghazi]

Well, elijah, I&#39;d say that the test of time has already proved Leninism to be a failure. If it hasn&#39;t worked as of yet after 20 or so attempts, why exactly will it work now? What is different about today&#39;s situation then that of 100 years ago that would allow a Leninist revolution to succeed? I think that the ideology needs some revival. Some new blood and new ideas.

And also, I think the TAT&#39;s analysis of the Nepal is a little harsh. Gayanedra (is that his name?) will get his comeuppins sooner or later and it will be the Maoists who lead Nepal out of the darkness.

The Marxist-Leninist Party of Nepal are turncoat traitors who cozied up to the government for years and now, who do they fight with? Their comrades in the hills? No, they stand side by side with the capitalist &#39;democratic opposition&#39; whose feeble and laughable attempts to change Nepalese society are a disgrace.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 11:01 PM
Why debate a topic like Stalin’s “crimes,” if you can’t even look at the other side of the argument.
I can, and have. I just don&#39;t believe your lies.


The holocaust is easily proven…Stalin’s crimes are not.

Have you seen any of the evidence?


There is no motivation for bourgeois military officers to lie in favor of their enemy. They made an honest concession.

Yet the same bourgeoisie completely lied and fabricated elaberate deceptions to fool us all into believing Stalin was an oppressive tyrant. Liars and champions of the truth, consistent and inconsistent all at the same tiem...These bourgeosie really do have magic powers.


Stalin was voted second greatest leader of all time behind Lenin,

Prove it&#33;


You’re most likely lying, conveniently.

Then we have something in common.


Stone cold pathetic idealist anarchist nonsense. Utterly dogmatic. As Ibsen would say: “Plebian&#33;”

RAF refuses to debate with me and chooses calling everyone names instead. Patronizing everyone and trying to look big and clever. Nothing dogmatic. Simply fact.


In fact, it’s completely natural.

Even if this were true, it dosnt make it right.


Petty idealism.

Wonderful refutation there. It is far easier to sling names around than debate the point. There is actually no evidence to suggest that consciousness can not lead to a revolution, rather than a revolution lead to consciousness. There is however a vat of historical evidence to suggest that the ability for people to understand and accept new levels of consciousness is not only feasible but historically inevitable.


That’s not exactly the opinion of most leftists, especially Michael Albert and Chomsky.

You mean the same Mike Albert and Chomsky who are calling for people to vote for John Kerry.


The US supports a king who suppresses peasant revolts. The US gives 8.6 million a year in arms to such “developing” countries. In other words, suppressing the masses and supporting a dictator.

This does not mean we should support the fighters in Nepal. Just because the US back their King does not mean they are right. These fighters have declared a unilateral war against a King which does involves the Nepelese people insofar as it gets them killed regulaly, so they can put themselves into the position of Kings. They crave power, just like the monarch does.


Us Communists aren’t all “evil vanguard rich Leninists.” As you seem to (pathetically, ignorantly, arrogantly)

Per-lease...Who are you trying to impress. You are right, not all Communists are misguided. You however...


AKA, how Goldman and Berkman wanted free speech when there was a mass famine and complete civil war in the country

God forbid that the workers might actually be able to have a voice...


Blah, blah blah, we get your fucking anarchist party line.

Inconvinient aren&#39;t we...


Because you’re a moron.

You&#39;re so kind to me Elijah...


I suppose you’d like decentralized mass idiocy, peacetime hippie utopian ideals, let them cut you down good with those flowery machine guns, people in the military running around nonsensically, without orders or ability to form an attack or defense, disobedience to a state which represents the masses, thereby aiding the enemy, allowing the opposition (every nation on earth) to do whatever they please, as in Cuba, where USAID sends money to “opposition dissenters” through the US Interests Section with which to subvert the governmeny, bomb hotels, and bomb ships, bringing down the socialist state.

No I dont.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 10 2004, 01:52 PM
I think generally it can be applied to him.

Strong dictatorial centalization. Militaristic. Disciplined. Obedience to the state. Oppression of opposition. etc etc
I don&#39;t think these things define fascism. I think what is more important is ideology and philosophy. I would say it is akin to appliying Anarcho-capitalist to your ideology.

[The Feral Underclass]

Fair do&#39;s&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Bianconero]

Have you seen any of the evidence?

Do you mean evidence for the Holocaust? I have seen evidence for that. I&#39;ve visited both Auschwitz-Birkenau and Mauthausen. For example.


There is however a vat of historical evidence to suggest that the ability for people to understand and accept new levels of consciousness is not only feasible but historically inevitable.

Care to provide your &#39;historical evidence&#39;, Anarchist? And I do not care about your oppinion. You said &#39;evidence&#39;, now I&#39;m asking for it. After all, while you keep on talking about yourselves being &#39;revolutionaries&#39; and how the masses &#39;will lead themselves&#39; I&#39;m yet to see one of your glorious revolutions.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 01:16 PM
Care to provide your &#39;historical evidence&#39;, Anarchist? And I do not care about your oppinion. You said &#39;evidence&#39;, now I&#39;m asking for it. After all, while you keep on talking about yourselves being &#39;revolutionaries&#39; and how the masses &#39;will lead themselves&#39; I&#39;m yet to see one of your glorious revolutions.
The gay rights movement
Black rights movement
Womens rights movement
Historical materialism (that&#39;s a good one)
The light bulb
THE WORLD ISNT FLAT&#33;&#33;&#33;

etc etc etc

[elijahcraig]

Well, elijah, I&#39;d say that the test of time has already proved Leninism to be a failure. If it hasn&#39;t worked as of yet after 20 or so attempts, why exactly will it work now? What is different about today&#39;s situation then that of 100 years ago that would allow a Leninist revolution to succeed? I think that the ideology needs some revival. Some new blood and new ideas.

Leninism as we know it was to a large extent the product of revolutions in weak non-industrialized nations. The Imperialists could easily destroy a revolution in these countries…Nicaragua, China, wherever. If the revolution did succeed, it was at a large cost, and was never allowed to flourish. The third world revolutions were put down easily by the US and their Capitalist allies, and mostly because of weak power, etc. thus causing a “party” to take power over the masses, who were most of the time destroyed completely by famine, war, etc. and who could not operate and function as they should in the idealized theories of Communists and Anarchists. Stalin is an example of a man coming to power alongside a party, following the example of Lenin, and continuing on this path, in order to defend the revolution which occurred. The authoritative measures taken are necessary if we are to preserve the revolution; and, then again, if authoritative measures are taken, it eventually ends up as a state capitalist regime under revisionists, etc. The point is that the ideal outcome of a revolution is what we are debating, ignoring the material conditions in which these revolutions occurred. Leninism has not failed, it simply could not defeat the odds in such an unconsciousness of the masses, alongside mass illiteracy, weak power, etc. Leninism is the material product of the revolution in the past. I would not be surprised if the ideology shifted the next time a large amount of revolt is happens, depending on when and where.

And if we are going to suggest an alternative to Leninism, we can by no means suggest “Anarchism” or any other more idealistic form of thought. That would be suicide in a situation of revolution. Any ideology would have to be more materialistic, not less, as is the case with Libertarian Socialism, and all other brands/products of the enlightenment which the utopianists follow dogmatically.

The “difference about today’s situation then that of 100 years ago” is a great deal, but not of any great significance. The material conditions are very much the same, give or take a few things. The material conditions of capitalism will not change fundamentally, they will change in regards to strategy, etc. When you say “allow a Leninist revolution to succeed,” I would have to know what you consider “succeeding,” and what alternatives you could suggest that aren’t completely out of the frame of possibility, or potentiality of happening. Leninism and strong party discipline, if you want to be serious about revolution instead of being “unhappy” with the circumstances of the actual conditions, is the only ideology that currently will have any chance of securing a strong “red fortress” of a socialist society, as our comrades in Nepal call it, against the archers of Imperialism surrounding the socialist nation today more than ever.

I am sure “new ideas” could be given, but the fundamentals of revolution remain the same.


And also, I think the TAT&#39;s analysis of the Nepal is a little harsh. Gayanedra (is that his name?) will get his comeuppins sooner or later and it will be the Maoists who lead Nepal out of the darkness.

The Marxist-Leninist Party of Nepal are turncoat traitors who cozied up to the government for years and now, who do they fight with? Their comrades in the hills? No, they stand side by side with the capitalist &#39;democratic opposition&#39; whose feeble and laughable attempts to change Nepalese society are a disgrace.

I agree with both of these analyses.



I can, and have. I just don&#39;t believe your lies.


No, you haven’t. You compared the argument to nazism, you did NOT look at the website.


Have you seen any of the evidence?

I have relatives who were killed in the holocaust, so YES, I have “seen” the evidence.


Yet the same bourgeoisie completely lied and fabricated elaberate deceptions to fool us all into believing Stalin was an oppressive tyrant. Liars and champions of the truth, consistent and inconsistent all at the same tiem...These bourgeosie really do have magic powers.

But they have no reason to lie for Stalin, you reasoning is off.


Prove it&#33;

Poll:

“According to the last opinion poll held by the Russian Center for Public Opinion (VCIOM), 53% of the questioned think that Stalin-s role in the history of Russia was great. Number of people who negatively estimate the role of the leader is almost twice as less and makes up 33%.”

http://english.pravda.ru/society/2003/03/06/44072.html

IN this poll, only Lenin was ahead of Stalin. I think it was this poll, I can’t find the link directly to Pravda from MIM.

RAF, do you have this link? I used to have it saved.


RAF refuses to debate with me and chooses calling everyone names instead. Patronizing everyone and trying to look big and clever. Nothing dogmatic. Simply fact.

I wasn’t calling your attitude towards RAF’s character dogmatic, chimp X.


Even if this were true, it dosnt make it right.

It doesn’t make it wrong either.


Wonderful refutation there. It is far easier to sling names around than debate the point. There is actually no evidence to suggest that consciousness can not lead to a revolution, rather than a revolution lead to consciousness. There is however a vat of historical evidence to suggest that the ability for people to understand and accept new levels of consciousness is not only feasible but historically inevitable.

More than something like 2/3 of the US still believes in Creationism—where’s the new “consciousness”? In the universities with the scholars.

Your “new consciousness” is a lie.


You mean the same Mike Albert and Chomsky who are calling for people to vote for John Kerry.

No, I meant the ones that leave in an asscrack called Crippled X’s Bubbly Bathtub Partyhouse.


This does not mean we should support the fighters in Nepal.

Who is “we”? I DO. RAF DOES. EVERY REAL Socialist DOES. YOU DON”T because you are a petty idealist like Emma Goldman and her Sasha.


Just because the US back their King does not mean they are right. These fighters have declared a unilateral war against a King which does involves the Nepelese people insofar as it gets them killed regulaly, so they can put themselves into the position of Kings. They crave power, just like the monarch does.

I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean by “unilateral,” are they suppose to ask the UK to help them pass a UN resolution, jackass.

“So they can put themselves into the positions of Kings”…do you have any source or proof of this or are you merely throwing around your “theories” stolen from Bakunin and the rest of the “theorists” of the elitist Anarchist know-it-alls?


Per-lease...Who are you trying to impress. You are right, not all Communists are misguided. You however...

I’m trying to impress my godman idol Comrade Shining Stalin, of course. *****y little piece of shit.


God forbid that the workers might actually be able to have a voice...

That’s not the point. The point is that there is no notion of free speech when people are starving and a civil war is happening. It’s called motherfucking REVOLUTION, little twelve year old.



The gay rights movement
Black rights movement
Womens rights movement
Historical materialism (that&#39;s a good one)
The light bulb
THE WORLD ISNT FLAT&#33;&#33;&#33;

etc etc etc

1. Wow, they want to get married, now that’s a revolution.
2. That’s not “your revolution,” most of these Black leaders were Stalinists, in fact.
3. I don’t support Feminism, and there has been no revolution.
4. ?

[Osman Ghazi]

Leninism has not failed, it simply could not defeat the odds in such an unconsciousness of the masses

But according to Lenin, the Revolution must establish conciousness. After all, the working class are divided and corrupt, right?

[Vinny Rafarino]

RAF, do you have this link? I used to have it saved.



No I don&#39;t comrade, I have not bothered posting links to anything for some time here. There simply is not a need. These kids are too young to drop their rag.


I wasn’t calling your attitude towards RAF’s character dogmatic, chimp X.



What the cripple X does not know is that I refuse to debate with him solely for the reason that he is beyond reason. He can slag an attempt to bait me all he wants but it will do no good.

I used to get offended when kids like he and that AQ fellow when they call me a "fraud" and such. Now I find it a simple measure of certain absurdity to see how far they will go. It&#39;s all good for a laugh.

I can see them smiling with "triumph" as they click extra hard on that mouse button when they have "shown me up"...It&#39;s somewhat of a thrill to see how far they will go once the toy is taken away.

They are very simple people.

[DaCuBaN]

No I don&#39;t comrade, I have not bothered posting links to anything for some time here. There simply is not a need. These kids are too young to drop their rag

On a side note, could you please start again? I have never contested to being omnipotent and my job is quite....slow... so I have a lot time to read. It makes the debate last longer for me ;)

Seriously though, I&#39;d appreciate any links you do believe relevant.

[elijahcraig]

But according to Lenin, the Revolution must establish conciousness. After all, the working class are divided and corrupt, right?

There is no “magical” “consciousness” which is established by a revolution. An increase WAS made in consciousness through education and increasing of living standards under the USSR, nonetheless.

The “consciousness” is hindered, at least in the past, by various Imperialist advances.

[Osman Ghazi]

But conciousness is necessary for communism. If the Revolution does not need it, and if it does not create it, where does it come from?

And if conciousness increased so much, why were the people rushing into the streets to defend Yeltsin and the Winter Palace?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 9 2004, 08:14 PM
So you are content with waiting for capitalism to collapse? My dear comrade, if we wait until capitalism to collapse, a revolution is not necessary.

I&#39;m sorry, I must have had you confused with a fellow revolutionary.
A revolution will be necessary. Otherwise we would see a new class society reappear.


Do you think they will EVER have a reason to "change society" prior to having no choice in the matter? If you honestly "assume" the masses will once again "rise up and throw off their chains" WE will have to make sure those "chains" weigh an astonishing amount, otherwise the masses will continue to drag their chains about as if they are nothing more than a "minor inconvenience".

That&#39;s hard to predict but it has become obvious a few times already that the dream of becoming rich by "working hard" is like winning a lottery. The Great Depression of the 30s and the last Argentinian "revolt" are some proofs of that, although they need a good analysis.


In that case, why should we even bother?

Because people needs information and because otherwise they could just trust any similing capitalist politician that wants to make 1 or 2 changes and that&#39;s it. The consequences could be worst than those "welfare liberal" governments, especially if those try to pretend to be "the chosen" that will get rid of some scapegoat and claim to bring back "our nation&#39;s greatness".


It appears to me that you are not interested in establishing socialism anywhere.

I am interested but there&#39;s not a good situation for it nowadays.


This is not 1917. The "means of production" are not the only issue in the modern world. It has become much more complicated. The masses don&#39;t even know what the word "proletarian" is, nor do they care. Anyway, since you feel it necessary to "wait until society has no other option" why would you even bother to address an issue that would never happen?


That is a horrible, horrible mistake.

In the same way censoring them is. They will be seen as old-fashioned ultra-greedy slave-owners by then.


The typical anarchist excuse, "we will all just have to wait and see". Good plan.

I don&#39;t really see what&#39;s wrong with it. I&#39;m not suggesting that we can&#39;t have ideas about that society, only that we can&#39;t be sure of how things will be when "it happens", which could affect things on many ways.


My friend, I believe you already have. This conversation is over.

Whatever

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 11:03 PM
And if we are going to suggest an alternative to Leninism, we can by no means suggest “Anarchism” or any other more idealistic form of thought. That would be suicide in a situation of revolution. Any ideology would have to be more materialistic, not less, as is the case with Libertarian Socialism, and all other brands/products of the enlightenment which the utopianists follow dogmatically.
There is nothing unmaterialistic about anarcho-communism.

In a revolutuionary situation we would defend ourselves just as you would. We just wouldn&#39;t go around killing everyone...shame on us :rolleyes:


No, you haven’t. You compared the argument to nazism, you did NOT look at the website.

I don&#39;t need to look at the website to know the lies, anymore than I need to look at skrewdriver.org. I have heard it all before and the reason I compared the argument to nazism is because it is easily comparable with the nazis holocaust denials.

Prove it come the cries....blah blah and more blah


I have relatives who were killed in the holocaust, so YES, I have “seen” the evidence.

Prove it?


But they have no reason to lie for Stalin, you reasoning is off.

Why would they lie about him at all then? If the bourgeoisie are such consistant liars and manipulaters of the truth why did they give him a break on this particular point. Why didn&#39;t they just lie about this as well?

That&#39;s because THEY AREN&#39;T LIES&#33;&#33;&#33;


“According to the last opinion poll held by the Russian Center for Public Opinion (VCIOM), 53% of the questioned think that Stalin-s role in the history of Russia was great. Number of people who negatively estimate the role of the leader is almost twice as less and makes up 33%.”

Interesting. What would be more interesting is to know who and how many people were asked. Usually it is not all inclusive.

Regardless, I conceed. A group of people do think that Stalin was a great leader. It just goes to prove how misguided some people really are. It would obviously make our job easier if they werent.


I wasn’t calling your attitude towards RAF’s character dogmatic, chimp X.

Well than what were you talking about?


It doesn’t make it wrong either.

Only to people who desire power and authority over people.


More than something like 2/3 of the US still believes in Creationism—where’s the new “consciousness”? In the universities with the scholars.

Your “new consciousness” is a lie.

The entire population of the civilized world use to think the earth was flat, and that burning witches was a godly act...or is that a lie too.


Who is “we”? I DO. RAF DOES. EVERY REAL Socialist DOES.

The two shining beacons for working class liberation...How can you use yourselves as a legitimization of socialism...YOU DENY STALINS CRIMES :blink:


YOU DON”T because you are a petty idealist like Emma Goldman and her Sasha.

I believe that working class action should be carried out by the working class because otherwise you end up with Stalin, Mao etc etc NOT COMMUNISM&#33;&#33;&#33;


I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean by “unilateral,” are they suppose to ask the UK to help them pass a UN resolution, jackass.

Oh For pity sake


u·ni·lat·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (yn-ltr-l)
adj.
Of, on, relating to, involving, or affecting only one side: “a unilateral advantage in defense” (New Republic).
Performed or undertaken by only one side: unilateral disarmament.
Obligating only one of two or more parties, nations, or persons, as a contract or an agreement.
Emphasizing or recognizing only one side of a subject.
Having only one side.
Tracing the lineage of one parent only: a unilateral genealogy.
Botany. Having leaves, flowers, or other parts on one side only.

The struggle isnt about them...it&#39;s about freeing the working class.


“So they can put themselves into the positions of Kings”…do you have any source or proof of this or are you merely throwing around your “theories” stolen from Bakunin and the rest of the “theorists” of the elitist Anarchist know-it-alls?

Yes....yes I am&#33;


1. Wow, they want to get married, now that’s a revolution.

They arent put in prison or executed any longer however...


3. I don’t support Feminism, and there has been no revolution.

What a suprise...


4. ?

The light bulb....try taking that idea back to medevil europe...they would have probably burnt you, along with those whitches...

[Danton]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 09:03 PM
Leninism as we know it was to a large extent the product of revolutions in weak non-industrialized nations. The Imperialists could easily destroy a revolution in these countries…Nicaragua, China, wherever.
Cuba?

Also I would hardly classify China as a weak nation or somewhere that has been impeded by imperial intervention, Leninism has systematically collapsed worldwide due to inherent faults, mis-management and corruption, just as the "know it all elitist anarchists" like Bakunin predicted..

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 11 2004, 09:14 AM
Fair do&#39;s&#33;&#33;&#33;
I thought carefully about it and its not quite the same as that. Its more like calling your ideology liberalism. But you can say that socialism, conservatism and fascism do have some of the same traits, but that does not make them all socialist or all conservative and so on.

[Bianconero]

The gay rights movement
Black rights movement
Womens rights movement
Historical materialism (that&#39;s a good one)
The light bulb
THE WORLD ISNT FLAT&#33;&#33;&#33;

etc etc etc

These are not revolutions. The gay rights movement sure is progressive, but that is not what I wanted to debate. It has indeed achieved &#39;new levels of counsciousness&#39;, but that ain&#39;t a revolution.

My point is that you, without centralist organization, without a party to guide and lead the masses, will never have a revolution. I know you find it pretty amusing, Anarchist, to tell people &#39;the masses are already angry&#39; (your words a couple of weeks ago) or &#39;the time will come&#39;, but I, aswell as anyone who actually aims for change (and not for big words), will not accept this.


In a revolutuionary situation we would defend ourselves just as you would. We just wouldn&#39;t go around killing everyone...shame on us

&#39;We just wouldn&#39;t go around killing everyone&#39;, too. And &#39;we&#39; never did.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 07:48 PM
These are not revolutions. The gay rights movement sure is progressive, but that is not what I wanted to debate. It has indeed achieved &#39;new levels of counsciousness&#39;, but that ain&#39;t a revolution.
I agree. But my point was that people achieve new levels of consciousness. As you stated, that is a fact. Indeed it is not a revolution but it could be.


My point is that you, without centralist organization, without a party to guide and lead the masses, will never have a revolution.

Political parties are platforms for people to have power and authority. I am fully aware that there must be a movement and organization groups, but I do not believe that a leader with centralised authority is the best way to do that.


I know you find it pretty amusing, Anarchist, to tell people &#39;the masses are already angry&#39; (your words a couple of weeks ago) or &#39;the time will come&#39;, but I, aswell as anyone who actually aims for change (and not for big words), will not accept this.

There are many short comings with the anarchist movement and there level of activities and in what direction those activities are going I can readily admit that. The workers are angry and the time will come, the problem is finding the most effective way to put that anger into perspective and to organize for that time. Leninism is not the effective way to do it and the organization for that time will not lead to what we want. It is a proven fact.


&#39;We just wouldn&#39;t go around killing everyone&#39;, too. And &#39;we&#39; never did.

We will let history be the judge of that.

[elijahcraig]

But conciousness is necessary for communism. If the Revolution does not need it, and if it does not create it, where does it come from?

And if conciousness increased so much, why were the people rushing into the streets to defend Yeltsin and the Winter Palace?

1. There was class consciousness was present in a wide spread way in Russia in 1917 and before, there would have been no revolution had it not been.
2. There was class consciousness created by the Russian Revolution afterwards.
3. I simply do not think of this as the “magical” presence which supposedly “appears” one day, the way the Anarchist utopianists do.

1. Your assertions about Yeltsin and the Winter Palace have almost nothing to do with the consciousness created by the revolution, the time span includes a half century of revisionist state capitalism enforced brutally on the masses.


A revolution will be necessary. Otherwise we would see a new class society reappear.

You’ll most likely see that anyway.


Because people needs information and because otherwise they could just trust any similing capitalist politician that wants to make 1 or 2 changes and that&#39;s it. The consequences could be worst than those "welfare liberal" governments, especially if those try to pretend to be "the chosen" that will get rid of some scapegoat and claim to bring back "our nation&#39;s greatness".

This doesn’t really answer RAF’s core argument.


I am interested but there&#39;s not a good situation for it nowadays.

Attitude of a moron, utopianist, fucking shithead.


I don&#39;t really see what&#39;s wrong with it. I&#39;m not suggesting that we can&#39;t have ideas about that society, only that we can&#39;t be sure of how things will be when "it happens", which could affect things on many ways.

The fundmentals of ALL revolutions, in particular socialist revolutions, are ALWAYS the same. The conditions may VARY according to each instance, but the core is always the same. Your idiotic “how a society will look” is not what we are speaking of, we are speaking of how the revolution will be defended, and how the function of a revolution will effect the society afterwards in terms of defense etc. The notion of “how a communist society will look” is idealism, and has no place in materialist analysis. Socialist society and how it functions will be a result of the revolution and its strategy of defense, therefore, with all of the knowledge we have on the workings of the revolution, we should be able to make very accurate statements and estimations of “how it will happen.”



There is nothing unmaterialistic about anarcho-communism.

In a revolutuionary situation we would defend ourselves just as you would. We just wouldn&#39;t go around killing everyone...shame on us

Anarchism is a result of the Enlightenment’s utopian ideologies. Materialism in the Marxist sense does not apply to Anarchism, meaning the Anarchist “idealizes” on what society he wants, and then attempts to act on it…discovering that all of his “ideals” must come crashing down in the most authoritative situation of all situations: revolution. You spend all time on the idealization of the perfect society, then attempt to prove it to be “possible,” and then attack anyone who disagrees as being a totalitarian, Marxist, whatever. IN other words, your opponents are realists.

On defense you once again show the ignorance and naïve nature of the Anarchist. Who is “ourselves,” you and a few other middle class “Anarchists”? The workers will form a disciplined armed force under the party for defense, as they have always done. Or whatever the situation’s particularities call for. Organization and discipline defend revolutions, not disorganized “militias” of “Anarchists.”


I don&#39;t need to look at the website to know the lies, anymore than I need to look at skrewdriver.org. I have heard it all before and the reason I compared the argument to nazism is because it is easily comparable with the nazis holocaust denials.

Prove it come the cries....blah blah and more blah

Where have you “heard it all before” if you haven’t seen the evidence?


QUOTE
I have relatives who were killed in the holocaust, so YES, I have “seen” the evidence.


Prove it?

Prove I had relatives killed in the holocaust? Talk to my great-grandmother, her husband didn’t enjoy the gas chamber too much.


Why would they lie about him at all then? If the bourgeoisie are such consistant liars and manipulaters of the truth why did they give him a break on this particular point. Why didn&#39;t they just lie about this as well?

That&#39;s because THEY AREN&#39;T LIES&#33;&#33;&#33;

They would lie about him in favor of the Imperialists. They didn’t “give him a break,” in this case they simply had no reason to lie, the “lie” of “corrupt court cases” was created much later.

I don’t know the internal workings of American officers and their reasoning.


Interesting. What would be more interesting is to know who and how many people were asked. Usually it is not all inclusive.

Regardless, I conceed. A group of people do think that Stalin was a great leader. It just goes to prove how misguided some people really are. It would obviously make our job easier if they werent.

“Our job”? Moron.


Well than what were you talking about?

Your attitude towards Anarchism, and your application of Bakuninist logic to every “power struggle” you see, when it may not exist, as is the case in Nepal, and your insistence that they are “power hungry want-to-be kings,” or whatever idiotic rant you said.


Only to people who desire power and authority over people.

You are correct. And ALL people desire power and authority over people. It is a fact of life, in psychology as in every relation. Socialism does not solve the authority issue, though I don’t consider it an issue, it changes the economic situation in favor of “not-starving” every poor person. The fundamentals of human nature (or that nature which they have fundamentally had throughout all history) stays the same: that of the psychological and on every level (I used Bloom’s discussion in Ulysses as an example of power-relations on a microlevel such as the conversation). Foucault spent his whole life showing this relationship.


The entire population of the civilized world use to think the earth was flat, and that burning witches was a godly act...or is that a lie too.

I don’t know what this means.

Moving from “burning witches” to “burning Communists and gays” doesn’t exactly show a “great new consciousness.” And Sagan said 95% of the populace was Scientifically illiterate, meaning that people knowing the world is a sphere (or something close to it) doesn’t mean much. They can’t tell me much more.


The two shining beacons for working class liberation...How can you use yourselves as a legitimization of socialism...YOU DENY STALINS CRIMES

We deny that the exaggerated crimes added to Stalin’s name, done so to keep the working class non-socialist. The same is done to Castro now, and many “New Leftists” now compare him to Stalin as well. The rabbit-hole of brainfucking goes deeper than one can imagine.


I believe that working class action should be carried out by the working class because otherwise you end up with Stalin, Mao etc etc NOT COMMUNISM&#33;&#33;&#33;

Calm down, my poor infant cripple, your bum leg is beginning to twitch beneath the mammoth obesity of your disability.


QUOTE
I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean by “unilateral,” are they suppose to ask the UK to help them pass a UN resolution, jackass.


Oh For pity sake

QUOTE
u·ni·lat·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (yn-ltr-l)
adj.
Of, on, relating to, involving, or affecting only one side: “a unilateral advantage in defense” (New Republic).
Performed or undertaken by only one side: unilateral disarmament.
Obligating only one of two or more parties, nations, or persons, as a contract or an agreement.
Emphasizing or recognizing only one side of a subject.
Having only one side.
Tracing the lineage of one parent only: a unilateral genealogy.
Botany. Having leaves, flowers, or other parts on one side only.


The struggle isnt about them...it&#39;s about freeing the working class.

I know what the word means, dickhead, I want to know who the working class is suppose to engage in the effort to free itself.


They arent put in prison or executed any longer however...

They just get routinely beat up and sometimes murdered.

That’s called reform.

Engels also called marriage the basis for the capitalist family, therefore voiding feminism…etc.


What a suprise...

(Weeps for the poor cripple, little tiny tim).


The light bulb....try taking that idea back to medevil europe...they would have probably burnt you, along with those whitches...

Now they burn Communists and execute Anarchists.


Cuba?

Also I would hardly classify China as a weak nation or somewhere that has been impeded by imperial intervention, Leninism has systematically collapsed worldwide due to inherent faults, mis-management and corruption, just as the "know it all elitist anarchists" like Bakunin predicted..

1. Cuba is a socialist state which will not last much longer due to the Imperialism of the US and the weakness of its capabilities.
2. China was predominately peasant, uneducated, and weak in terms of defense compared to the Imperialist world. The corruption came from revisionism and the Imperialist interventionism.
3. Your “inherent faults” are products of revolution in the circumstances in which it took place (third world).


Political parties are platforms for people to have power and authority.

Correct, it’s called WORKING CLASS POWER AND AUTHORITY, Little Crippled boy.


I am fully aware that there must be a movement and organization groups, but I do not believe that a leader with centralised authority is the best way to do that.

We know, that doesn’t show how you will accomplish a revolution though, which is the point.


The workers are angry and the time will come, the problem is finding the most effective way to put that anger into perspective and to organize for that time. Leninism is not the effective way to do it and the organization for that time will not lead to what we want. It is a proven fact.

The workers consider “Anarchism” a pathetic boy’s dream, for the most part. As well as Marxism. I doubt you will get either of these accepted in the USA, or many other places of the first world. The third world requires Leninism, with few changes, to defend a revolution against large Imperialist attacks.

Proven fact? It is a proven fact that Imperialists can very easily destroy working class revolutions, nothing else.


We will let history be the judge of that.

History is not a judge, those who form history are the judge…in this case: Capitalist elites who form certain “facts” with either no proof or created myth. Very much like a religious etiquette of sorts.

The historians create the historical myths which the utopian Anarchists follow as dogmatic truths to be glorified.

The origin of the myths lie in the hands of those who burn witches, Communists, and other opponents of the economic and cultural system at hand.

[The Feral Underclass]

I am tired of being called a moron, prick, cripple x etc etc etc

If you want to debate with me seriously then stop acting like an idiot. Your points are interesting, but I really dont have the time, patience or inclination to debate with people who can not stop slinging names at me in every sentence.

It just discredits you and makes you look like a fool. Grow up.

[elijahcraig]

It seems our little Cripple has been thoroughly beaten and disfigured to the point where he can no longer spew his idiotic rants on the evils of the human spirit.

I suppose the "Stalinists" have won this won?


Cripple X: I&#39;ll be back next time, you crazy Super Heroes (as he flies into the distant on his magic walking stick, leg all limp and dangling).

[Cartoon fadeout...



Put up or shut up, and don&#39;t give me your excuses of feeling the opposition to be "immature."

[The Feral Underclass]

If you continue to call me names then I dont want to talk to you, it&#39;s that simple. Will you stop with the name calling or not?

To be honest with you though...you are actually very amusing...Your last post actually did make me laugh, in a comedy way, not in a, "you make me laugh" way...You&#39;re quite the wit..

[elijahcraig]

Stop being so sensitive and reply to my points.



I call &#39;em as I see them. I will type whatever your posts conjure up.

[The Feral Underclass]

Nah...you&#39;re alight thanks.

[DaCuBaN]

Put up or shut up, and don&#39;t give me your excuses of feeling the opposition to be "immature."

These comments were not aimed at the content of your arguments, but more at the direct antagonisation you decided was appropriate

It&#39;s not.

[elijahcraig]

These comments were not aimed at the content of your arguments, but more at the direct antagonisation you decided was appropriate



I am fully aware of this, being that, as a Human, I also have the ability to comprehend simple statements.


It&#39;s not.

I don&#39;t want to get into a debate about this. I will type what I think is relevant or very funny, despite the sensitive bunny rabbits we have frolicing in the meadows of utopian flourish.

[DaCuBaN]

Duly noted. People on here can be oversensitive, but rather than isolating yourself it would make more sense to concede the small point of not ripping the shit out of people ;)

It&#39;s not relevant though: I merely thought it worth interjecting

[elijahcraig]

I think RAF and many others also "rip the shit out of people" fairly regularly. I&#39;ve got company in my nature.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

The fact that Stalin killed people is undenialable. You can point out individuals who have been executed (most of the people who worked in the military or government), but I feel that the claim that 20 million were executed by Stalin looks rather suspicious, I have yet to see the mass graves that would have to out do Hitler&#39;s. I do believe he purged people, and that is totally uncalled for, but I don&#39;t think that it was taken to the level that the McCarthyite propaganda machine claimed. Regardless about how you feel about Stalin, I think most people have some reservations about killing their own fellow comrades in order for political gain. I don&#39;t care how people feel about Stalin, I just would like to see my fellow comrades get along and stop this childish argueing. Stalinism, anarchy, who cares? We are all fighting the same thing right?

[Urban Rubble]

I can&#39;t believe there are still people out there stupid enough to say Stalin was a monster while glorifying Lenin. Stalin was everything that Lenin was with a bit of paranoia added for flavor. Lenin was every bit as rutheless as Stalin. You simply cannot support Lenin and hate Stalin. Stalin followed the path Lenin started, the only difference is that Stalin went a bit farther with his repressions.

[elijahcraig]

We are all fighting the same thing right?

No.



Rubble, I don’t think “repressions” is the right word. I suppose it depends on the angle from which you view the actions.

[thatCHEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 10:40 PM
I think RAF and many others also "rip the shit out of people" fairly regularly. I&#39;ve got company in my nature.
I always thought there was something up with Stalin. That moustache, his love of tight uniforms. You crazy Stalinists, no wonder you&#39;re so *****y.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 05:40 PM
I think RAF and many others also "rip the shit out of people" fairly regularly. I&#39;ve got company in my nature.
So do Fascists and religious folk.

Now relax. You wanna put some humour in your posts, that&#39;s not the way about it. Rip into him, go ahead, but don&#39;t detract from your arguments by overusing the adhominem.

Believe me, we all know RAF does it too, it doesn&#39;t win him any fans either. He doesn&#39;t take it as far as you do though, just gets you started, then disappears when things are definitely out of hand.

That&#39;s what he did when you got restricted, remember? So chill out and keep it under control.

Now shall we continue this debate like fellow Communists? Or are you gonna risk pissing more people off in order to be sectarian?

[Danton]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 08:55 PM

1. Cuba is a socialist state which will not last much longer due to the Imperialism of the US and the weakness of its capabilities.
2. China was predominately peasant, uneducated, and weak in terms of defense compared to the Imperialist world. The corruption came from revisionism and the Imperialist interventionism.
3. Your “inherent faults” are products of revolution in the circumstances in which it took place (third world).



1. Cuba is a socialist country in the back yard of the U.S which has defied such predictions for 45 years, repeated attempts at infiltration, subversion and indeed invasion have yeilded only unified resistance and sneaking regard from much of latin america, the carribean, and forward thinking europe.. Your speculation is probably owed to the (pre - U.S election) tightening and talk of transition, In reality the Cuban people are as steadfast as ever, as the record attendances on Labour day indicate..

2. Imperial intervention in China&#39;s revolution was minimal, the centralisation of Soviet power in Russia and it&#39;s subsequent split was a defining factor in it&#39;s demise, it was mother Russia&#39;s lack of support for such third world revolutions It was also dogged by high ranking internal corruption - a recurring trait of a revolution led from the top downwards..

3. We have seen time and time again, "third world" nations resist imperial agression, tooth and bone, with sticks and stones against smart bombs if need be.. Only with a true peoples revolution does a nation aquire the necessary unity for such a struggle...

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 13 2004, 04:18 AM
I can&#39;t believe there are still people out there stupid enough to say Stalin was a monster while glorifying Lenin. Stalin was everything that Lenin was with a bit of paranoia added for flavor. Lenin was every bit as rutheless as Stalin. You simply cannot support Lenin and hate Stalin. Stalin followed the path Lenin started, the only difference is that Stalin went a bit farther with his repressions.
second that motion, Leninism is uncommunistic&#33;

[elijahcraig]

I always thought there was something up with Stalin. That moustache, his love of tight uniforms. You crazy Stalinists, no wonder you&#39;re so *****y.

I do love moustaches, *****ing, and wearing ass-tight military uniforms. Ah, My God: Stalin.


So do Fascists and religious folk.

Now relax.

I am relaxed, my salsy little *****: I’m merely naturally happy to make sarcastic remarks—you and your cohorts are the ones who take everything so seriously.

Fascists are good to debate on philosophy, and religious folk…I avoid.


You wanna put some humour in your posts, that&#39;s not the way about it. Rip into him, go ahead, but don&#39;t detract from your arguments by overusing the adhominem.

Thanks for the unneeded advice, my hippieish comrade.


Believe me, we all know RAF does it too, it doesn&#39;t win him any fans either. He doesn&#39;t take it as far as you do though, just gets you started, then disappears when things are definitely out of hand.

He’s actually a forum administrator, no? Fans?


That&#39;s what he did when you got restricted, remember? So chill out and keep it under control.

I actually called someone a pussy, out of context and merely as an insult. I am using these attacks as indictments of ideologies I consider utopian, idealist, and just plain stupid.


Now shall we continue this debate like fellow Communists? Or are you gonna risk pissing more people off in order to be sectarian?

I refuse to answer these questions, under the right I have as an asshole.


1. Cuba is a socialist country in the back yard of the U.S which has defied such predictions for 45 years, repeated attempts at infiltration, subversion and indeed invasion have yeilded only unified resistance and sneaking regard from much of latin america, the carribean, and forward thinking europe.. Your speculation is probably owed to the (pre - U.S election) tightening and talk of transition, In reality the Cuban people are as steadfast as ever, as the record attendances on Labour day indicate..

Economic problems are significant, and will eventually lead to the downfall of the nation once the US begins to end the embargo and “embrace” the Cuban socialist state.


2. Imperial intervention in China&#39;s revolution was minimal, the centralisation of Soviet power in Russia and it&#39;s subsequent split was a defining factor in it&#39;s demise, it was mother Russia&#39;s lack of support for such third world revolutions It was also dogged by high ranking internal corruption - a recurring trait of a revolution led from the top downwards..

I disagree.


3. We have seen time and time again, "third world" nations resist imperial agression, tooth and bone, with sticks and stones against smart bombs if need be.. Only with a true peoples revolution does a nation aquire the necessary unity for such a struggle...

I don’t disagree with this statement, and don’t know why you provided it as an argument against Marxism.


second that motion, Leninism is uncommunistic&#33;

Right, keep tellin’ yerself that, Mr Big Shot. (Cowboy smirk).

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 13 2004, 04:18 AM
I can&#39;t believe there are still people out there stupid enough to say Stalin was a monster while glorifying Lenin. Stalin was everything that Lenin was with a bit of paranoia added for flavor. Lenin was every bit as rutheless as Stalin. You simply cannot support Lenin and hate Stalin. Stalin followed the path Lenin started, the only difference is that Stalin went a bit farther with his repressions.
A revolution isn&#39;t a pretty thing, especially when you&#39;re going from feudal to &#39;socialist&#39;. What Lenin did (other than though war) was no where near as bad as what was happening in American ghettos and reservations at the time.

Stalin on the other hand, starved people to get the economy going.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Believe me, we all know RAF does it too, it doesn&#39;t win him any fans either. He doesn&#39;t take it as far as you do though, just gets you started, then disappears when things are definitely out of hand.



I didn&#39;t think that making "making friends" was of any concern to anyone, considering that this happens to be a political message board. However I do feel compelled to say that, as far as I know, there are really only three of you that are unable to go a day or two without attempting to "show me up".

You stooges know exactly who you are.


I do agree that comrade Elijah does indeed love to push the envelope as far as he possibly can, this is actually why I like him so much.

The only reason I do not "attack" the stooges as I once did is because I agreed to keep my "flaming" (one of my better attributes) to a minimum when I became a Forum Moderator.

Once I find a memer that deserves an actual debate with me, I will be more than happy to oblige them; those that want to keep rehashing the same "Stalin blows" debate that we have already "agreed to disagree" on will have to settle with being ignored. I have no desire to, once again, find out they don&#39;t like Stalin.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 10:39 PM

3. We have seen time and time again, "third world" nations resist imperial agression, tooth and bone, with sticks and stones against smart bombs if need be.. Only with a true peoples revolution does a nation aquire the necessary unity for such a struggle...

I don’t disagree with this statement, and don’t know why you provided it as an argument against Marxism.
"The act of the working class must be by the working class"
- Karl Marx

[elijahcraig]

Stalin on the other hand, starved people to get the economy going.

That has no logic to it.


"The act of the working class must be by the working class"
- Karl Marx

Ok…once again, I don’t see how this is an argument against my points.

Care to expand, my pet?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 07:14 PM
That has no logic to it.
Of course it has no logic to you. If it did, you might have to admit you were wrong.


Ok…once again, I don’t see how this is an argument against my points.

Care to expand, my pet?

"the workers will accept what ever they are forced to."
-ElijahCraig

[elijahcraig]

Of course it has no logic to you. If it did, you might have to admit you were wrong.

Care to explain what great Stalinist idea Koba came up with to “help the economy by starving the people”? It just doesn’t make sense.


"the workers will accept what ever they are forced to."
-ElijahCraig

RAF, he&#39;s developing a file of our quotes, oh no&#33; lol

And? That was a statement on what the workers will “accept” not what their function in a revolution would be. It was a statement in agreement with RAF’s comment on how much a people will “stand for.”
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 05:14 PM

Stalin on the other hand, starved people to get the economy going.

That has no logic to it.
Alrrrrrrrrrighty then, you would agree that logically there is a cost to the production of anything, maybe with the exception of child birth?

Okay so instead of spending money on bread or rice, you spend the money on saaaaaaaay..... steel instead. Seeing as steel will build a factory that will last the lives of many human beings, and rice will last as long as a bowell movement. What you do is you try to get the factory built while having to feed the workers as little as possible.

Yes, unfortunately there is a sick capitalistic logic to it.

[elijahcraig]

Alrrrrrrrrrighty then, you would agree that logically there is a cost to the production of anything, maybe with the exception of child birth?

Okay so instead of spending money on bread or rice, you spend the money on saaaaaaaay..... steel instead. Seeing as steel will build a factory that will last the lives of many human beings, and rice will last as long as a bowell movement. What you do is you try to get the factory built while having to feed the workers as little as possible.

Yes, unfortunately there is a sick capitalistic logic to it.[/QUOTE]

That might work if Stalin were Satan himself, but seeing how he is not, and I am assuming you don&#39;t believe in the primitive concept of the completely evil individual, I know he was not. Meaning those who starved did so as a product of the situation and not Stalin "starving" people or "forcing famine," both ridiculous concepts only compleyely biased Trotskyists or Anarchists could view as a possibility. That a man went from leading workers rights movements all of his life to suddenly killing everyone who he was just figthing for in such an idiotic manner...it just isn&#39;t logical.

[Vinny Rafarino]

If anarchists and Trots were logical, they would no longer be anarchists and Trots Comrade Elijah.

At least we can say that they are indeed consistent in their hipocracy, specifically the "anarchists". I have noticed over the years that those that "create the most bureaucracy" are those that condemn, with sincere apathy, all policies that ensure the people will be able to provide themselves with a stable alternative to capitalist economic platforms.

Take this site for instance Comrade, hoe many times to you see our resident "anarchists&#39; whining about "site rule breakers"? They adore the utopian "anarchist" ideology yet they fail to even slef promote the conditions that they worship.

They condemn historical communist leaders for their "beaurocracy" yet in the very same breath, attempt to bring about "social acceptance" of their own idols. They scream "No more masters&#33;" yet feel they could not get by without their daily dose of Bakunin.

They are not even the master of their own thoughts, much less the "salvation" of the working class.

They are simple toys of the ruling class. As long as "anarchists" continue to promote their own selfish interests over the good of the people, they will never be more than confused children fighting over "the people&#39;s shovel and pail" in the local "community sandbox".

The quicker these deluded kids abandon their "beyond reproach" bureaucratic nonsense, the better off "the community sandbox" will be; until then it will remain filled with socially inept children whining about how they have been "offended" by little Billy Johnson&#39;s "rude comments".

[Salvador Allende]

I do not have the time to read all the pages, but I will say that the very man most of you despise and hate (Stalin) was a hero to many of the men whom you consider heroes (namely Che and Mao).

Like it or not, Stalin brought about the most effective, fastest and biggest economic growth possibly of all time. He turned a peasant state into an industrial state that was leading the world. In his reign at the helm of the Socialist world he brought over 700,000,000 more people into Socialism and out of Capitalism. Koba also was one of the few people to stand up to the USA and the Capitalist influences of the world and went face-to-face with them whenever he had to, the very thing most people want someone to do nowadays.

Most of Koba&#39;s actions, such as the deportation of Poles, were confirmed in signatures from Parliament from such notable Russian politicians as Mikhail Kalinin (the same person Kaliningrad is named after). To take all blame off of the politicians such as Kalinin and Khruschov and to turn them all on Koba is simply wrong&#33; Despite what Nikita told the world, Koba did not do all of the "evil" in the USSR. Khruschov was behind many of them himself, but of course, he wasn&#39;t going to tell anyone that because he figured if the world knew what happened because of him, his name would be forever cleared&#33; Khruschov re-introduced the class system and to an extent, capitalism in the USSR and most of the world. Khruschov betrayed Stalin&#39;s legacy.

Many people believe that "Stalinism" is simply the continuation of Marxism-Leninism. The term "Stalinist" itself is simply a derogatory term used by Trotskyists. The majority of Trotskyists can&#39;t even hold their partys together for 2 years before they split over the most trivial of things. Lenin himself was no angel, he made mistakes and had flaws as did Stalin, but it seems Trotsky is somehow turned into a god who was unfairly robbed out of a position in a nation he would have turned into a utopia&#33; Trotsky had his opportunity in a congress meeting in 1923 where he could have used Lenin&#39;s Testament to become the new president and actually, he could have used it anytime from then until 1928, but he didn&#39;t. Trotsky was too passive in that moment to take power and if he could not have handled a simple opportunity like that or even accept a good deal from Germany (1917, when he didn&#39;t sign the pact with Germany and later accepted a MUCH worse deal of Brest-Litovsk) or even defeat Poland (during Russian Civil War) how could he have defeated Hiter or any of the Axis nations and spread Socialism? He wouldn&#39;t have been able to.

So, like it or not, Stalin did way more good than Trotsky would or could have done.

[elijahcraig]

SA, that was a perfect analysis.

[Eastside Revolt]

OK, now that Spok and Leonard Nemoy have finnished concurring on what is logical.....


Stalin was a sociopath, I cannot condone the following of a sociopath. Call me a yankee patriot, but in my opinion if you are going to have that type of authoritarian rule, you&#39;re gonna need some checkes and balances, or opposition of some sort. Yes the economic systems used in his empire have been a miracle for Cuba. North Korea on the other hand, "starves people to get the economy going".
Cuba was lucky to have a good man at the helm, however being a small island community, it isn&#39;t as easy to be currupted by power. In large scale economies, and nations with multiple cultures, you can&#39;t be rallying behind one human being.

Just because I am against the totalitarianism, doesn&#39;t mean I can&#39;t appreciate socialism as a whole. True Russia went from a peasant state to an industrial state, however I live in an already industrialised state. In my opinion, centralised authority of that degree is no longer needed here.

[elijahcraig]

More nonsense. If you can&#39;t prove the assertions you make about people being "sociopaths," then you cannot assert it. It&#39;s simply reciting mythologized history.

[Maynard]

I do not know as much as Stalin, as elijahcraig or Comrade RAF for instance, there is no way I could debate them on such a subject without being humilated. :) I haven&#39;t read all of this thread, so I could be asking things that have already been asked

However, a few questions come too mind, like would any "stalinist" recognize that Stalin made some errors ? What are your thoughts on the the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact ? Also, I recently read that Stalin advised Mao too negiotate with Chiang and not take power, why would he do that ?

[Salvador Allende]

Well, I am no Stalinist, I am more of a Maoist. But, I believe Stalin specifically followed Lenin&#39;s idea that the urban proletariat would be the van-guard of the revolution. Because of this, it was generally seen by the Socialist world that Mao was carrying about the revolution completely wrong because Mao was aimed at getting the agricultural proletariat. However, Mao saw that the proletariat as a whole was the key, not neccesarily urban or agricultural. That is the main reason why a lot of Socialists had a problem with Mao. However, IMO, Mao made the last big important change in Marxism-Leninism and carried on the truth in China against US-imperialism and Soviet-revisionism after Stalin.

[Maynard]

That makes sense but what would the USSR have too lose by allowing Mao too take control, whether the revolution was led by the urban proletariat or not ? What was there too object against or what was "wrong" about it ?

Also, on another note, if Mao was against US imperalism, why did he have meetings with Nixon, a staunch anti communist ? While reportdely saying that his "anti-imperialist slogans" were nothing but "empty cannons." ?

[Vinny Rafarino]

However, a few questions come too mind, like would any "stalinist" recognize that Stalin made some errors


I suppose that would depend on what you consider to be errors made by Stalin.


I would say that one error made by Stalin (an error he himself recognised) would be the the unmanaged collectivisation of the agriculture in parts of the Soviet Union that were well "out of reach" to the party.

The party "assumed" that the small amount of individuals that were responsible for producing the majority of the agricultural output for specific regions would promtly give up their "right of profit" and fall in line with party wishes. The party also left the management of distribution facilities to those that had limited to no experience with social distribution of goods.

These individuals simply got "confused" with social method and were easily intimidated by their former "masters". (so much for anarchist theory eh?)

It took many years to "correct" this problem of distribution (this is where anti-communist claim Stalin "forced" famine in the Ukraine) but it was indeed corrected.


What other "errors" are you referring to?



What was there too object against or what was "wrong" about it ?


First we must understand that the conditions that existed in China were quite different that those in the USSR, however I will say that perhaps it would have been a good idea for the Chinese communist party to place more influence on the building of industry.

The communist party of China felt that they could rely on the USSR to provide them with industrial producton while they attempted to educate their population (an essential part of social progression) for the "transition to communism". World War II made this policy impossible unfortunately.

It was a very good plan but circumstances in Europe at the time and the irresponsibilty of those that took control of the party after Stalin and Mao made the original ideology obsolete.

So in reality I would not say that there was anything "wrong" with the idea itself, it simply would have produced better results if China would have industrialised like the USSR.

[elijahcraig]

However, a few questions come too mind, like would any "stalinist" recognize that Stalin made some errors ? What are your thoughts on the the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact ? Also, I recently read that Stalin advised Mao too negiotate with Chiang and not take power, why would he do that ?

1. Of course he made errors.
2. It was a required pact in order to help the USSR survive. Remember at the time that the US and the UK were wanting to “turn the war around” and attack the USSR.
3. Did you read this in Blum? According to Chairman Mao (the poster on this board), this technique worked rather well.


Well, I am no Stalinist, I am more of a Maoist.

Maoists support Stalin, though. So you are also a Stalinist, though that name only means that you supported Stalinist.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 08:13 PM

However, a few questions come too mind, like would any "stalinist" recognize that Stalin made some errors ? What are your thoughts on the the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact ? Also, I recently read that Stalin advised Mao too negiotate with Chiang and not take power, why would he do that ?

1. Of course he made errors.
2. It was a required pact in order to help the USSR survive. Remember at the time that the US and the UK were wanting to “turn the war around” and attack the USSR.
3. Did you read this in Blum? According to Chairman Mao (the poster on this board), this technique worked rather well.
The Red Army was a few hundred thousand strong, whilst the KMT was over 4 million strong. The Red Army had not only the task of fighting the KMT but the Japanese imperialists who had already had some success invading China. If the Red Army and the KMT fought between themselves it would be likely that the Japanese imperialists could defeat both of them.

So, they decided to create a military alliance with the KMT and fight the Japanese and then overthrow the KMT following victory against the imperialists. They fought the Japanese and won, then they fought the KMT and won once more.


In the case of non-aggression pact with the Germans, the Nazis had just invaded Czechoslovakia. Britain and France had promised to intervence should the Nazis attempt to take Czechoslovakia. At this point in 1936 the Soviets could see that no one would stop the Nazis should the move into the USSR, previously it was thought that the British and French would since they had strong ties and imperial interests in Eastern Europe, particularly the French (in Yugoslavia). The USSR was not ready for war, indeed if the Nazis invaded were the Soviets prepared for war the Nazis (Germany as a highly advanced capitalist nation of 80 million) could still defeat any Soviet forces (only recently out of feudalism and a population of around 200 million). So, the Soviets decided to prolong the chance of any Nazi invasion to prepare their forces. Following this pact the Soviets quickly built up their armed forces.

[Read_Trotsky]

some characteristics of stalinism:

1. Nationalism

2. Bureaucratism

3. Appeasing imperialism (which includes crushing attempted revolutions in other countries)

the list goes on...

Read: The Revolution Betrayed by Leon Trotsky

[Read_Trotsky]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 16 2004, 05:25 AM
Trotsky had his opportunity in a congress meeting in 1923 where he could have used Lenin&#39;s Testament to become the new president and actually, he could have used it anytime from then until 1928, but he didn&#39;t. Trotsky was too passive in that moment to take power and if he could not have handled a simple opportunity like that or even accept a good deal from Germany (1917, when he didn&#39;t sign the pact with Germany and later accepted a MUCH worse deal of Brest-Litovsk) or even defeat Poland (during Russian Civil War) how could he have defeated Hiter or any of the Axis nations and spread Socialism? He wouldn&#39;t have been able to.


That may or may not be true but are you anti-Trotsky because of his politics or his personal characteristics? or his bad timing? or his haircut? Trotskyism is the understanding that it is necessary to spread the revolution. Permanent Revolution, remember? While Stalin was preaching "socialism in one country". And "peaceful co-existance". What do you think?

[Urban Rubble]

That may or may not be true but are you anti-Trotsky because of his politics or his personal characteristics? or his bad timing? or his haircut?

I think a better question would be why in the hell would you support Trotsky, or follow him, whatever.

A couple quick reasons:

His desire to shoot workers for being late.

His crackpot "militarization of labor" theories.

His haircut.

I&#39;m not a fan of Stalin or Trotsky, but if you are going to go with Soviet style authoritarian Socialism, you may as well do it right and go with Stalin.

[elijahcraig]

1. Nationalism

2. Bureaucratism

3. Appeasing imperialism (which includes crushing attempted revolutions in other countries)

1. Nationalism in the USSR was for the most part the product of the unification of the Russian people as a result of the war with Hitler.

2. Trotsky was known as the biggest bureaucrat of them all.

3. ?