Reply to Saddam Supporter

[elijahcraig]

You support Stalin and many would say the same thing about him, but you would know they are simply accepting western propaganda about him instead of challenging it. The same applies to Saddam.

Stalin was a Communist, Saddam is not, and never has been.

You are really sad.

[Thud]

Uhm...

Having a shiny red star on one's hat does not make one into a communist.

Stalin was a fascist.

[Invader Zim]

Why do you have the avatar of a conviced stalinist moderator?

[James]

and have the following in your sig;
"One of the 18 Greater Spammers"

[elijahcraig]

Uhm...

Having a shiny red star on one's hat does not make one into a communist.

Stalin was a fascist.

I’ve heard this enough. Show me a fascist policy.

Also, if you don’t change your avatar, I think you should be banned.

You’re also signaturing Nietzsche which combines three strikes and a dusty pat on the butt as you make your way back to the dugout.

[Thud]

"Why do you have the avatar of a conviced stalinist moderator?"

I don't. The RAF were leninist-marxists.
I originally plannned on taking an Uncle Sam picture as my avatar, but that would have been too obvious, and I assume most of the immatur posters would start to whine without really knowing what my intentions were. It's like when Jello Biafra shouted "kill the poor" at the top of his lungs.


"and have the following in your sig;
"One of the 18 Greater Spammers" "

It's an internal joke. ;-)


"I’ve heard this enough. Show me a fascist policy."

All right... Not textbook fascism, but consider these two things: 20 millions. Gulag.

Does that smell like communism to you?

"Also, if you don’t change your avatar, I think you should be banned."

Let us, for the love of God, not offend or rock the boat. I was under the impression that this was a leftist discussion forum... Am I mistaken? Read my comments on my avatar above.

"You’re also signaturing Nietzsche which combines three strikes and a dusty pat on the butt as you make your way back to the dugout."

Yes, I do. And if you combine that statement, lovely irony (a word you can look up in the dictionary by the way) and recent events, you might draw a conclusion. Or have someone intellectual do it for you... :rolleyes:

[elijahcraig]

I don't. The RAF were leninist-marxists.
I originally plannned on taking an Uncle Sam picture as my avatar, but that would have been too obvious, and I assume most of the immatur posters would start to whine without really knowing what my intentions were. It's like when Jello Biafra shouted "kill the poor" at the top of his lungs.

They were actually Maoists, ie Stalin-supporters…buddy.

You dislike Biafra? Now I really hate you.


All right... Not textbook fascism, but consider these two things: 20 millions. Gulag.

Does that smell like communism to you?

Wow, you really are a moron.

I’d like to see PROOF of these things, not your spam of an accusation.


Let us, for the love of God, not offend or rock the boat. I was under the impression that this was a leftist discussion forum... Am I mistaken? Read my comments on my avatar above.

It’s called sarcasm, Elmer.


Yes, I do. And if you combine that statement, lovely irony (a word you can look up in the dictionary by the way) and recent events, you might draw a conclusion. Or have someone intellectual do it for you...

If you’d like to debate Stalin or Nietzsche intellectually, that’d be fine, as I am an expert on at least the latter, and fairly knowledgeable about the former.

Though I highly doubt your ability to debate Nietzsche as you probably found that quote on a “Nietzsche quotes” page alongside a Winston Churchill “heroism quote.”

[Thud]

Again,

"You dislike Biafra? Now I really hate you."

You completely misunderstand me. I do not dislike Biafra. The real funny thing is that I probably agree with you on most things, but you don't seem to understand my sarcasm.

It's like when Jello Biafra shouted "kill the poor" at the top of his lungs.

See, here I am comapring him to me, we both use sarcasm, while you obviously are under the impression that I compared him to the immature whiners. Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer...

"They were actually Maoists, ie Stalin-supporters…buddy."

Yeah, well. Ulrike Meinhof seem to disagree with you.

"Wow, you really are a moron.

I’d like to see PROOF of these things, not your spam of an accusation."

Yes. I am the moron. :rolleyes:

Of course, and while we're at it; Holocaust was a lie, invented by the victors to stain the Hitler's good name and reputation.


"If you’d like to debate Stalin or Nietzsche intellectually, that’d be fine, as I am an expert on at least the latter, and fairly knowledgeable about the former."

I'm sure you are, but you don't seem to understand what I am writing... Instead of being so damn intent on bashing me, see what I'm saying...

[elijahcraig]

You completely misunderstand me. I do not dislike Biafra. The real funny thing is that I probably agree with you on most things, but you don't seem to understand my sarcasm.

I don’t think it was a matter of sarcasm; I understood your position on “wannabe communists,” whatnot; I was unclear on whether you were comparing Biafra’s screaming “kill the poor” to the wannabe communists’ flamboyance in avatar usage.

In other words…
See, here I am comapring him to me, we both use sarcasm, while you obviously are under the impression that I compared him to the immature whiners. Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer...


Yeah, well. Ulrike Meinhof seem to disagree with you.

Maybe you should ask resident Moderator Comrade RAF.


Of course, and while we're at it; Holocaust was a lie, invented by the victors to stain the Hitler's good name and reputation.

There are hoards of threads on this subject; the Holocaust is easily provable; Stalin’s crimes are not.


I'm sure you are, but you don't seem to understand what I am writing... Instead of being so damn intent on bashing me, see what I'm saying...

I love my bashing I do.

[Thud]

"Maybe you should ask resident Moderator Comrade RAF."

Or maybe I should read their manifesto? Oh, wait a second, I seem to remember reading something like that a little while ago... =p

"There are hoards of threads on this subject; the Holocaust is easily provable; Stalin’s crimes are not."

Where are you from? I'll be so bold as to assume you're not from a former Soviet state. Well, guess what bucko, some of us are. Some of us grew up in "communism" and some of us has fathers who were sent to the Gulags by Stalin because they asked for larger bread rations to the people. Someone fought for CCCP in the second world war against the nazis and and when the war was won (at a terrible cost I might add) and when they came home to their socialist paradise expecting to be treated as heroes, they were sent to the Stalags because they had become "enemies of the revolution?" Why the labelling as enemies? Because they had seen how the western countries had freedom of speach and they were so insolent as to mention this to their superiours. "Superiours among equals" that would be.

[elijahcraig]

Or maybe I should read their manifesto? Oh, wait a second, I seem to remember reading something like that a little while ago... =p

I’m not debating this. RAF is an expert on…the RAF (among other things)—just ask him.


Where are you from? I'll be so bold as to assume you're not from a former Soviet state. Well, guess what bucko, some of us are. Some of us grew up in "communism" and some of us has fathers who were sent to the Gulags by Stalin because they asked for larger bread rations to the people. Someone fought for CCCP in the second world war against the nazis and and when the war was won (at a terrible cost I might add) and when they came home to their socialist paradise expecting to be treated as heroes, they were sent to the Stalags because they had become "enemies of the revolution?" Why the labelling as enemies? Because they had seen how the western countries had freedom of speach and they were so insolent as to mention this to their superiours. "Superiours among equals" that would be.

Trash. Post some evidence or fuck the hell off, I don’t feel like reading another “personal time spent in a gulag” rant.

BUCKO.

[Thud]

"Trash. Post some evidence or fuck the hell off, I don’t feel like reading another “personal time spent in a gulag” rant."

Poor you. I suppose it must be a living nightmare having to suffer yourself through boring 6 line paragraphs. Or wait, could that be the problem? That you don't feel like reading the bad sides of Stalin's incumbency?

And as for evidence, I could probably find any evidence for anything and equal evidence to disprove the same. This is the internet. How can you trust anything I can possibly present you with as proper and truthful evidence?

"I’m not debating this. RAF is an expert on…the RAF (among other things)—just ask him."

Seriously, I won't ask some internet dude of something I already have first-hand info about. If you don't want to discuss it, don't bring it up.

[elijahcraig]

Poor you. I suppose it must be a living nightmare having to suffer yourself through boring 6 line paragraphs. Or wait, could that be the problem? That you don't feel like reading the bad sides of Stalin's incumbency?

I’ve read 50,000 pages of such nonsense on this very board, don’t need to see your “eternal truth” on the subject.


And as for evidence, I could probably find any evidence for anything and equal evidence to disprove the same. This is the internet. How can you trust anything I can possibly present you with as proper and truthful evidence?

From this standpoint, there is no use in debating, we can just shout opinions at one another all day.


Seriously, I won't ask some internet dude of something I already have first-hand info about. If you don't want to discuss it, don't bring it up.

I’m just going to let RAF handle this.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I suppose there is not much to say since this cat has "first hand knowledge"minds
of Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meihof. That's very interesting because it's highly debatable if either Andreas or Ulrike themselves had much of a clue what they were thinking about most of the time.

The RAF were an M-L group that leaned more towards Maoism and third world revolution. They did not really approve of the state of the USSR after 1953 and wanted to model their movement after the guerrilla efforts of comrades Guevara and Castro in Cuba.

For the most part however, they really just liked to blow things up and revel in the fact that they were the vanguard of the German proletariat.

In the beginning, Baader and Meinhof did not really have much of a political identity beyond "fighting capitalism". Horst Mahler called all the shots.

Just so you know, THUD, in Meinhof's "The Concept of the Urban Guerilla", there is no mention of either Stalin or the USSR. For the most part it's an essay stating what Carlos Marighella already wrote.

So I'm not sure to what "Manifesto" from Ulrike Meinhof you are referring to.

I doubt you are referring to the Manifesto that Horst Mahler wrote as it was never recognised by the RAF.

A good decision by the RAF seeing that Horst Mahler in now in a neo-fascist party in Germany and writes propaganda for the Nazi's.

Two more things, your nonsense about "gulags" and "20 million murders by Stalin" are outrageous lies, I suggest you do some research. I also suggest you learn what the word "fascist" means.

[elijahcraig]

Just so you know, THUD, in Meinhof's "The Concept of the Urban Guerilla", there is no mention of either Stalin or the USSR. For the most part it's an essay stating what Carlos Marighella already wrote.

Yes, that was the only "manifesto" I could think he could be referring to--the one by Marighella.

[Invader Zim]

I've done my research, even if this guy hasn't: -

# Here are a few illustrative estimates from the Big Numbers school:

* Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these:
o Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s.
o Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin.
o Gold, John.: 50-60 million.
* Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939.
* Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into:
o 1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
o 1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
o 1939-45: 18,157,000
o 1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
o TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine
* William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and Eastern Europe: 50M+
* Wallechinsky: 13M (1930-32) + 7M (1934-38)
o Cited by Wallechinsky:
+ Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million.
+ Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: 60 million.
* MEDIAN: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during the 1930s.

# And from the Lower Numbers school:

* Nove, Alec ("Victims of Stalinism: How Many?" in J. Arch Getty (ed.) Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, 1993): 9,500,000 "surplus deaths" during the 1930s.
* Cited in Nove:
o Maksudov, S. (Poteri naseleniya SSSR, 1989): 9.8 million abnormal deaths between 1926 and 1937.
o Tsaplin, V.V. ("Statistika zherty naseleniya v 30e gody" 1989): 6,600,000 deaths (hunger, camps and prisons) between the 1926 and 1937 censuses.
o Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53.
o Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state prisoners shot, 1931-53.
* Gordon, A. (What Happened in That Time?, 1989, cited in Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993): 8-9 million during the 1930s.
* Ponton, G. (The Soviet Era, 1994): cites an 1990 article by Milne, et al., that excess deaths 1926-39 were likely 3.5 million and at most 8 million.
* MEDIAN: 8.5 Million during the 1930s.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin

I suppose they are all capitalist liars... you guys are so boring.

[elijahcraig]

Enigma, have you read any of the above books?

[antieverything]

Oh wonderful argument...especially coming from a guy who, as far as I've seen, cites a geocities website without a single citation!

[Vinny Rafarino]

o Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53.



After filtering through the normal lies, I have actually found one that is probably accurate in this list;

o Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53.


I personlly have the count to be a bit over 700,000, but 642,980 is damn close to reality.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Yes, that was the only "manifesto" I could think he could be referring to--the one by Marighella.


The Baader-Meinhof group wrote a manifest called "The concept of the Urban Guerilla" in '71. It was pretty much a very, very short version of Carlos' "Mnimanula of the Uban Guerilla"

Furthermore, the writing credits are given to over 12 members of the RAF, not just Ulrike Meinhof.

It's actually small enough to post here, so here you go;

If we are correct in saying that American imperialism is a paper tiger, i.e. that is can ultimately be defeated, and if the Chinese Communists are correct in their thesis that victory over American imperialism has become possible because the struggle against it is now being waged in all four corners of the earth, with the result that the forces of imperialism are fragmented, a fragmentation which makes them possible to defeat- if this is correct, then there is no reason to exclude or disqualify any particular country or any particular region from taking part in the anti-imperialist struggle because the forces of revolution are especially weak there and the forces of reaction are especially strong.
As it is wrong to discourage the forces of revolution by underestimating their power, so it is wrong to suggest that they should seek confrontation in which these forces cannot but be squandered or annihilated. The contradiction between the sincere comrades in the organizations -let's forget about the prattlers- and the Red Army Faction, is that we charge them with discouraging the forces of revolution, and suspect us of squandering the forces of revolution. Certainly, this analysis does indicate the directions in which the fraction of those comrades working in the factories and at local level and the Red Army Faction are overdoing things, if they are overdoing things. Dogmatism and adventurism have since time immemorial been characteristic deviations in periods of revolutionary weakness in all countries. Anarchists having since time immemorial been the sharpest critics of opportunism, anyone criticizing the opportunists exposes himself to the charges of anarchism. This is something of an old chestnut. The concept of the "urban guerrilla" originated in Latin America. Here, the urban guerrilla can only be what he is there: the only revolutionary method of intervention available to what are on the whole weak revolutionary forces. The urban guerrilla starts by recognizing that there will be no Prussian order of march of the kind in which so many so-called revolutionaries would like to lead the people into battle. He starts by recognizing that by the time the moment for armed struggle arrives, it will already be too late to start preparing for it; that in a country whose potential for violence is as great and whose revolutionary traditions are as broken and feeble as the Federal Republic's, there will not -without revolutionary initiative- even be a revolutionary orientation when conditions for revolutionary struggle are better then they are at present- which will happen as an inevitable consequence of the development of late capitalism itself.

To this extent, the "urban guerrilla" is the logical consequence of the negation of parliamentary democracy long since perpetrated by its very own representatives; the only and inevitable response to emergency laws and the rule of the hand grenade; the readiness to fight with those same means the system has chosen to use in trying to eliminate its opponents. The "urban guerrilla" is based on a recognition of the facts instead of an apologia of the facts. The student movement, for one, realized something of what the urban guerrilla can do. He can make concrete the agitation and propaganda which remain the sum total of left-wing activity. One can imagine the concept being applied to the Springer Campaign at that time or to the Heidelberg students' Cabora Bassa Campaign, to the squads in Frankfurt, or in relation to the Federal Republic's military aid to the comprador regimes in Africa, in relation to the criticism of prison sentences and class justice, of safety legislation at work and injustice there. The urban guerrilla can concretize verbal internationalism as the requisition of guns and money. He can blunt the state's weapon of a ban on communists by organizing an underground beyond the reach of the police. The urban guerrilla is the weapon in the class war.

The "urban guerrilla" signifies armed struggle, necessary to the extent that it is the police which makes the indiscriminate use of firearms, exonerating class justice from guilt and burying our comrades alive unless we prevent them. To be an "urban guerrilla" means not to let oneself be demoralized by the violence of the system. The urban guerrilla's aim is to attack the states apparatus of control at certain points and put them out of action, to destroy the myth of the system's omnipresence and invulnerability.

The "urban guerrilla" presupposes the organization of an illegal apparatus, in other words apartments, weapons, ammunition, cars, and papers. A detailed description of what is involved is to be found in Marighella's Minimanual for the Urban Guerrilla. As for what else is involved, we are ready at any time to inform anyone who needs to know because he intends to do it. We do not know a great deal yet, but we do know something.

What is important is that one should have had some political experience in legality before deciding to take up armed struggle. Those who have joined the revolutionary left just to be trendy had better be careful not to involve themselves in something from which there is no going back.

The Red Army Faction and the "urban guerrilla" are that fraction and praxis which, because they draw a clear dividing line between themselves and the enemy, are combated most intensively. This presupposes a political identity, presupposes that one or two lessons have already been learned.

In our original concept, we planned to combine urban guerrilla activity with grass-roots work. What we wanted was for each of us to work simultaneously within existing socialist groups at the work place and in local districts, hoping to influence the discussion process, learning, gaining experience. It has become clear that this cannot be done. These groups are under such close surveillance by the political police, their meetings, timetables, and the content of their discussion so well monitored, that it is impossible to attend without being put under surveillance oneself. We have learned that individuals cannot combine legal and illegal activity.

Becoming an "urban guerrilla" presupposes that one is clear about one's own motivation, that one is sure of being immune to "Bild-Zeitung" methods, sure that the whole anti-Semite-criminal-subhuman-murderer-arsonist syndrome they use against revolutionaries, all that shit that they alone are able to abstract and articulate and that still influences some comrades' attitude towards us, that none of this has any effect on us.

RAF

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 03:52 PM


All right... Not textbook fascism, but consider these two things: 20 millions. Gulag.

Does that smell like communism to you?


So maybe he killed people maybe he didnt i dont care, but you argument is really poor. Just because someone kills alot of people does not make them a facist and does not prove they are not communist.