Hello - any Communists on this messageboard?

[ernestolynch]

I'm looking for Communists on this board.

[ComradeRed]

Oh, you wanted communists? No, that's *definitely* not this board. :lol:

What is it? Que? Qu'est-ce que vous voulez savoir?

[Xvall]

Lmfao.

[The New Yorker]

After reading this post,

I’ve had a sudden urge to walk into a restaurant and say "hey, do you sell food here?"

[redstar2000]

I'm looking for Communists on this board.

What's a "communist"? :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[synthesis]

Nope, no communists here. Just the tumbleweed and a half-drunk case o' moonshine to keep a man company.

[Palmares]

Try *************** or conservative-x.com

:rolleyes:

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 05:21 PM
Try *************** or conservative-x.com

:rolleyes:
I'd stay away from Stormfront. It's full of reds, Jews, and other assorted untermensch.

[Munchimoniam]

I think Capitalist Lawyer is a communist.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Communists here? Nope.

Brainwashed sheep who have a good way with words and would probably make a good living as a charlataan? Yep.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 22 2004, 08:57 AM
Communists here? Nope.

Brainwashed sheep who have a good way with words and would probably make a good living as a charlataan? Yep.
You don't have a good way with words! :lol:

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 21 2004, 10:57 PM
Communists here? Nope.

Brainwashed sheep who have a good way with words and would probably make a good living as a charlataan? Yep.
I think 'charlatan' only have one 'a'. But anyways, nice volcab. :D

[cubist]

only nazis and cappies here

this site is ironic its called che-lives becuase he's dead didn't you know?

[ernestolynch]

All I can see are Trots and their Fascist Fellow Travellers....

[NovelGentry]

Kill Ze Trotz!!!! Ressurrect Stalin, it's not as if Lenin prophecized all the mistakes he would make before he died.

But yes, I'm a communist, why do you ask?

[redstar2000]

...who have a good way with words...

We do, unfortunately, have a small number of people who are ruthless and determined enemies of literacy.

But you already knew that, didn't you. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 04:03 PM
All I can see are Trots and their Fascist Fellow Travellers....
:lol: DA TROTZ IZ IN IT WIV THE NAZIS!!!!!11 WAHHHHH!!!!!11

[h&s]

All I can see are Trots and their Fascist Fellow Travellers....

OK, so we have a Stalinist accusing other people with being fascists - that makes sense.... :blink:

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 22 2004, 07:44 PM
OK, so we have a Stalinist accusing other people with being fascists - that makes sense.... :blink:
Oh god, don't feed the dragon! :(

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 05:42 AM
:lol: DA TROTZ IZ IN IT WIV THE NAZIS!!!!!11 WAHHHHH!!!!!11
An icepick in every pot, a chicken in every Trot.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 04:11 PM
Kill Ze Trotz!!!! Ressurrect Stalin, it's not as if Lenin prophecized all the mistakes he would make before he died.

But yes, I'm a communist, why do you ask?
Why bother killing what is loud but meaningless? That would equate with beating an infant for crying too much.

In any case, over the years I have found that when trots grow up, they either become capitalitic in nature or change their line to something more realistic and applicable to the modern era.


In addition, Mr. "hammer and sickle forever's" suggestion that a "stalinist" would somehow be more closely compared to a fascist then any other "leftist" is so completely off the wall that it actually pains me to give it any attention at all.

Six glossies more and you could win your very own silk screened "trotsky forever!" t-shirt.

Don't give up son because the winner also gets to form his own faction of the international.

[Louis Pio]

In any case, over the years I have found that when trots grow up, they either become capitalitic in nature or change their line to something more realistic and applicable to the modern era.

As countless "stalinists" do.
Wheter they proclaim themselves hoxaists, old school communists or whatever.
Here in Denmark a good part of journalists, editors, leading public servants etc are old "communists".
Need I say they denounced their old views quite loudly? :D

[NovelGentry]

Comrade RAF, which group would you place over Stalinists as being the most fascist?

I don't know, maybe it's just cause I'm not a huge fan of Stalin's idiocy, but I'd consider intense nationalism, totalitarian control, and love of beurocracy to keep his followers viewed in that position.

[Osman Ghazi]

Why bother killing what is loud but meaningless? That would equate with beating an infant for crying too much.

In any case, over the years I have found that when trots grow up, they either become capitalitic in nature or change their line to something more realistic and applicable to the modern era.


In addition, Mr. "hammer and sickle forever's" suggestion that a "stalinist" would somehow be more closely compared to a t then any other "leftist" is so completely off the wall that it actually pains me to give it any attention at all.

Six glossies more and you could win your very own silk screened "trotsky forever!" t-shirt.

Don't give up son because the winner also gets to form his own faction of the international.


Ah, StalinAngel vs. TrotskyDevil round #3,234,854,982. And Go!

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 10:42 PM
Comrade RAF, which group would you place over Stalinists as being the most fascist?

Any group that supports FASCISM.




I don't know, maybe it's just cause I'm not a huge fan of Stalin's idiocy, but I'd consider intense nationalism, totalitarian control, and love of beurocracy to keep his followers viewed in that position.


Being as you are unfamiliar with the facts of "stalinism", I will only say that me and every other "Stalinist" (Stalin himself included) also have a severe dislike for bureaucracy, intense nationalism and "totalitarian control".

We do however have a great love for grilled baby-kebob.

[NovelGentry]

Any group that supports FASCISM.

I was looking for specific examples

The most I can say to the other stuff is that actions speak louder than words. For rather brief explanations of the actions I speak of you can check out the following on the following flaws:

Nationalism:

http://home.mira.net/~andy/bs/bs1-2.htm#1-0 -- should bring you to something titled: The Isolation of the Revolution

Totalitarian control:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_58 -- This is about one step short of Furor's Law where what the furor says goes. In short, if you oppose what Stalin thinks you oppose the entire Soviet Union and thus are a threat and are handled accordingly. The law itself isn't so strict but prove to serve Stalin's wishes by allowing people to be easily framed.

On Bureaucracy:

This is an issue on which I've never seen a single article show proof to exist, however, if you go back to that first link you may scroll down to the Stalin-Hitler Pact, which interestingly enough paints him as tolerant of fascism as a whole. After you read that though make your way to home via the "home" link, and look for the section titled: How the Communist International was Corrupted.


Now, I know a lot of people take such articles with a grain of salt, but I'm putting these points across as the points I believe in. So if you're gonn argue me you're gonna have to argue these articles and defend them. Feel free to bring up any portion of them to use in your argument, and I seriously hope you can change my mind, it would be nice to be able to have faith in yet another person who supposedly represented communism.

[h&s]

Stalin quote: "Socialism and fascism are not antipodes but twins."

[Palmares]

:o

RAF is going to be angry.


Originally posted by Comrade RAF
In addition, Mr. "hammer and sickle forever's" suggestion that a "stalinist" would somehow be more closely compared to a fascist then any other "leftist" is so completely off the wall that it actually pains me to give it any attention at all.

Saying a Stalinist is more like a fascist then a leftist is perhpas an exaggeration, but they are more strongly authoritarian nevertheless.

[Osman Ghazi]

Saying a Stalinist is more like a t then a leftist is perhpas an exaggeration, but they are more strongly authoritarian nevertheless.


Is a Stalinist 'more like' a t than an anarchist? Well, obviously.
But is a Stalinist 'like' a t? No. Stalinists, for all that they are misled little boys, really do desire communism, they just don't know how to get it.

Besides, what's with this political spectrum ? I thought we used the compass 'round here.

[h&s]

Saying a Stalinist is more like a fascist then a leftist is perhpas an exaggeration, but they are more strongly authoritarian nevertheless.

I'm not saying that Stalinists are not leftists at all.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 23 2004, 05:53 AM
Stalin quote: "Socialism and fascism are not antipodes but twins."
Wrong.

The real quote is as such:

"Objectively, Social Democracy and fascism are not antipodes
but twins.” .

Get your facts straight.



http://home.mira.net/~andy/bs/bs1-2.htm#1-0 -- should bring you to something titled: The Isolation of the Revolution


An article by a Trot by the name of Andy Blunden. He is as fanatical in his delusions as Alan Woods.


Totalitarian control:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_58 -- This is about one step short of Furor's Law where what the furor says goes. In short, if you oppose what Stalin thinks you oppose the entire Soviet Union and thus are a threat and are handled accordingly. The law itself isn't so strict but prove to serve Stalin's wishes by allowing people to be easily framed.

Wikipedia?

Good grief.


This is an issue on which I've never seen a single article show proof to exist, however, if you go back to that first link you may scroll down to the Stalin-Hitler Pact, which interestingly enough paints him as tolerant of fascism as a whole. After you read that though make your way to home via the "home" link, and look for the section titled: How the Communist International was Corrupte

You are confused about the details and point of the Soviet treaty with the Germans.
Perhaps you should take a class in political science.

In addition, "pointing me" to yet another load of nonsense by a fanatical trot is pointless. We already know what their opinions are.


RAF is going to be angry.

Why is that? The type of nonsense spilled forth by trot-drones is nothing more than ear piercing wails sent forth by an infant in need of a change.

[NovelGentry]

RAF, you're doing a lot to say that we're wrong but nothing to show us why. You throw Trot around as if it's an insult and never explain what made Trotsky so wrong and Stalin so right. You target the validity of these statements based on who they come from yet never even bother to make contradictory statements so that we're able to do the same. Despite the source being wikipedia it does a good job of explaining the overall abilities of Article 58, if you'd rather me point to something so that people can interpret it on their own then I would lead you this:

http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/uk58-e.html

Now I leave you with one more question, are you against the patriot act? If so, what makes article 58 any more righteous than it? Because it protect socialism? This type of legislation is not designed to protect anything other than the ability of a government to control any aspect they want of the peoples lives, all I can say is that I would hoped such people on this forum would know better.

I can only understand your last point as saying that politically speaking this treaty was necessary and to that I can only respond that I don't think it is the job of the revolution to have a traditionally political mind. The idea that such treaties should still be made only helps to show that little had changed in terms of traditional bureaucracy.

Now, I'm once again begging you to actually disprove something rather than just discrediting it. Once again, I truly would like to know what makes these peopl wrong, and furthermore what makes Stalin right. If all of this is just fanatical Trots trying to destroy Stalin's image then point me to the article of the fanatical Stalinist who can defend it. Or better yet, tell me yourself since you claim to be such a thing.

I cannot say I take a formal side in the Trotsky vs. Stalin battle, but I can assure you that until the day someone can prove me otherwise (which no one has made any valid attempt to do yet) I'm not going to be siding with Stalin.

Lastly, I was just wondering if you would consider yourself a Leninist and furthermore do you feel Lenin, revolutionarily speaking, was better than Stalin? If so, what do you say in response to Lenin's Testament?

[h&s]

Get your facts straight.
Sorry, how was I supposed to know it was inaccurate?
Lets not get offensive about this.
Anyway, we don't need quotes to prove Stalin was a fascist - he did it himself.

Stalin himself included) also have a severe dislike for bureaucracy, intense nationalism and "totalitarian control".
Then why, oh why did Stalin implement all of these?

The type of nonsense spilled forth by trot-drones is nothing more than ear piercing wails sent forth by an infant in need of a change.
What a nice, clear, mature argument; 'You are a Trot, therefore you are an idiot.'
You're a mod, for god's sake - set a better example. Do we go around calling Stalinists 'mindless drones,' and other such insults? No, and neither should you.

Originally posted by che-lives guidlines
We don't need to hear "trot, hippy, pot-head, feminist extremist" in every debate. Any so-called Stalinist who resorts to this is sent to the Opposing Ideologies forum, where they belong.

Abide by this.

[NovelGentry]

In defense of him with your last statement, We're in opposing ideologies.

[h&s]

That shouldn't change anything - Mods should set an example to others.

[NovelGentry]

Mods should be setting examples within the lines of the guidelines by allowing people to speak their mind and use whatever argument they wish so long as it's in the right place. The only example he's setting (granted that it would probably take these following statements including this one to point it out) is that it's ok to say such things in opposing ideologies. When he says it outside of this thread, then it becomes a bad example.

I see your argument as similar to a politician who smoke marijuana publically in a nation where marijuana is legal within the privacy of your own home. If the politician smokes marijuana in his own home he's not setting a bad example -- he's setting an example that follows the law, and whether it's bad or not is left up to whether the people even agree that it should be legal in the first place. However, the minute he steps outside he is setting a bad example by showing people that they can do things outside the law with no consequences (this is of course assuming a ideology that law should be followed - and I think that's very dependent on the law and who's making them). But the point is he's doing nothing outside the guidelines if anything he's doing exactly what a moderator should be doing, showing people that he's willing to accept the guidelines but not willing to let them overstep their bounds -- afterall, we're not looking for a police state here, are we?

[Guest1]

Whatever my personal opinions about Stalinism, please do not use the "mods should be an example" argument unless it's a really big issue.

RAF has simply dealt with this "Trot vs. Stalinist" debate alot, and would understandably not feel too inclined to wade into it at this point. Mods are allowed to have their opinions too, and allowed to be vague in some threads too.

He has more than proved his worth as a moderator and a comrade, despite the many disagreements many of us may have with his opinions.

I have no doubt about his dedication as a radical socialist. He is not the typical Stalinist with stereotypical delusions of grandeur. Stalinists like RAF receive my "comrade with differences" stamp. In otherwords, I trust them, it's their leaders I don't trust.

[NovelGentry]

CyM, as you should well know I'm not interestd in a Trots vs. Stalinist debate, as I thought I made clear last night. I'm interested in the truth about what this man did and for what reasons, which from what I can see does not have an altruistic standpoint. If it does, that is what I'm looking for. If he's clarified the three points I made about Stalin which relate him to facsists in the pasts, I would gladly follow any link to another thread where he has already done so. But as you may also be well aware, I'm still fairly new around here, and I would not have a clue as to where to begin looking for this information, furthemore, I don't think the search would narrow it down too much.

As far as proving his worth as a moderator or comrade, I don't call that into question at all, as I think I've shown here in defending the way he made his statements. I'm simply looking for a statement that does more than discredits the people who made statements against Stalin and does more to discredit the statements they made.

[Anarchist Freedom]

funny how these threads just show up somehow 8 D Its like a breath of fresh air every time i see these stupid redundent threads.

[Vinny Rafarino]

You throw Trot around as if it's an insult and never explain what made Trotsky so wrong and Stalin so right

I was under the impression that in the modern era questions such as "who was right, Trot or Stalin, are of no actual relevance to anyone but long winded "communist" speakers.


Now I leave you with one more question, are you against the patriot act?

:lol:


Lastly, I was just wondering if you would consider yourself a Leninist and furthermore do you feel Lenin, revolutionarily speaking, was better than Stalin? If so, what do you say in response to Lenin's Testament?

Actually, I am a communist.

The words of a man that has been mummified for nearly a century have no relevance to anything.


Abide by this.

The word "trot" is used to describe a TROT.

Much like the word "stalinist" is used (with all malice intended) to describe "Stalinists".

You show me yours and I will show you mine kiddo.


Anyway, we don't need quotes to prove Stalin was a fascist - he did it himself.



You're confused.


Do we go around calling Stalinists 'mindless drones,'

No, just things like FASCISTS. You won't win this one esse.


Then why, oh why did Stalin implement all of these?


Stalin did not have the power to implement ANYTHING on his own; unless of course you listen to the History Channel. :lol:


Stalinists like RAF receive my "comrade with differences" stamp. In otherwords, I trust them, it's their leaders I don't trust.


Thank you comrade, to show good faith, I promise to only eat the babies of your enemies.


In conclusion (again) anyone who thinks Stalin was a fascist is just not thinking clearly.

[NovelGentry]

I was under the impression that in the modern era questions such as "who was right, Trot or Stalin, are of no actual relevance to anyone but long winded "communist" speakers.

It's not, but when you further say something such as:


The word "trot" is used to describe a TROT.

Much like the word "stalinist" is used (with all malice intended) to describe "Stalinists".

It can only make me assume you think there's something wrong with being a Trot, or for that matter being a Stalinist. If you see that these words are used "with all malice intended" then you obviously believe there's something to be malicious towards which would indicate wrongdoing.


Actually, I am a communist.

Bravo with the attempt to make me look like I'm questioning your position as a communist. Sadly, I didn't ask what you were, I asked if you were a Leninist, it's a yes or no answer... I'll make the assumption right now that we both have the same definition of a Leninist. Or maybe you're implying that Lenininsts aren't Communists... I'm not really sure, I'll wait for you to clarify.


The words of a man that has been mummified for nearly a century have no relevance to anything.

So the same will be true for Stalin in the future? The same is true for Marx?

You have once again completely avoided answering any of my questions -- so I suppose I will have to give up yet again on finding someone who can explain Stalin's position to me.

But let me clarify what I said because you seem to think that I said Stalin was a fascist.


Comrade RAF, which group would you place over Stalinists as being the most fascist.

I don't know, maybe it's just cause I'm not a huge fan of Stalin's idiocy, but I'd consider intense nationalism, totalitarian control, and love of beurocracy to keep his followers viewed in that position.

I could swear that here I'm simply saying that Stalinists are the MOST fascist of any "grouping" of communists -- I don't ever recall actually saying they were Fascist. In fact, I realize it's a far step from Fascism, but I'm speaking in relative terms to other groups.

You've still yet to answer which group is more fascist, but I assumed that was because you misinterpreted my question so let me restate it a bit better: Out of all the different "groups" of communist, that is what can be considered separated points of view on how to go about communism (examples: Leninists, Trostkyists, Stalinists, Maoists, etc...), which group is the most fascist? Or are they all equally non-fascist?

If they are all equally non-fascist I'm asking you to explain the seemingly fascist ideals of Stalin I've already presented rather than just avoiding them like the plague. What makes my points about Stalin false? What actions did he take that show him not to be nationalist? I have ones that show he is, and you've presented me with nothing in return yet. This goes for the other two issues aswell.

I'm seriously trying to understand and you just seem to be avoiding it. I certainly hope you don't pretend to be educating me in this thread, cause you're doing a poor job of it. I can only hope that if you do pretend to educate people about communism, leninism, stalinism or any -ism that you do a better job with them than you have with me.

[NovelGentry]

I was under the impression that in the modern era questions such as "who was right, Trot or Stalin, are of no actual relevance to anyone but long winded "communist" speakers.

It's not, but when you further say something such as:


The word "trot" is used to describe a TROT.

Much like the word "stalinist" is used (with all malice intended) to describe "Stalinists".

It can only make me assume you think there's something wrong with being a Trot, or for that matter being a Stalinist. If you see that these words are used "with all malice intended" then you obviously believe there's something to be malicious towards which would indicate wrongdoing.


Actually, I am a communist.

Bravo with the attempt to make me look like I'm questioning your position as a communist. Sadly, I didn't ask what you were, I asked if you were a Leninist, it's a yes or no answer... I'll make the assumption right now that we both have the same definition of a Leninist. Or maybe you're implying that Lenininsts aren't Communists... I'm not really sure, I'll wait for you to clarify.


The words of a man that has been mummified for nearly a century have no relevance to anything.

So the same will be true for Stalin in the future? The same is true for Marx?

You have once again completely avoided answering any of my questions -- so I suppose I will have to give up yet again on finding someone who can explain Stalin's position to me.

But let me clarify what I said because you seem to think that I said Stalin was a fascist.


Comrade RAF, which group would you place over Stalinists as being the most fascist.

I don't know, maybe it's just cause I'm not a huge fan of Stalin's idiocy, but I'd consider intense nationalism, totalitarian control, and love of beurocracy to keep his followers viewed in that position.

I could swear that here I'm simply saying that Stalinists are the MOST fascist of any "grouping" of communists -- I don't ever recall actually saying they were Fascist. In fact, I realize it's a far step from Fascism, but I'm speaking in relative terms to other groups.

You've still yet to answer which group is more fascist, but I assumed that was because you misinterpreted my question so let me restate it a bit better: Out of all the different "groups" of communist, that is what can be considered separated points of view on how to go about communism (examples: Leninists, Trostkyists, Stalinists, Maoists, etc...), which group is the most fascist? Or are they all equally non-fascist?

If they are all equally non-fascist I'm asking you to explain the seemingly fascist ideals of Stalin I've already presented rather than just avoiding them like the plague. What makes my points about Stalin false? What actions did he take that show him not to be nationalist? I have ones that show he is, and you've presented me with nothing in return yet. This goes for the other two issues aswell.

I'm seriously trying to understand and you just seem to be avoiding it. I certainly hope you don't pretend to be educating me in this thread, cause you're doing a poor job of it. I can only hope that if you do pretend to educate people about communism, leninism, stalinism or any -ism that you do a better job with them than you have with me.

[NovelGentry]

I was under the impression that in the modern era questions such as "who was right, Trot or Stalin, are of no actual relevance to anyone but long winded "communist" speakers.

It's not, but when you further say something such as:


The word "trot" is used to describe a TROT.

Much like the word "stalinist" is used (with all malice intended) to describe "Stalinists".

It can only make me assume you think there's something wrong with being a Trot, or for that matter being a Stalinist. If you see that these words are used "with all malice intended" then you obviously believe there's something to be malicious towards which would indicate wrongdoing.


Actually, I am a communist.

Bravo with the attempt to make me look like I'm questioning your position as a communist. Sadly, I didn't ask what you were, I asked if you were a Leninist, it's a yes or no answer... I'll make the assumption right now that we both have the same definition of a Leninist. Or maybe you're implying that Lenininsts aren't Communists... I'm not really sure, I'll wait for you to clarify.


The words of a man that has been mummified for nearly a century have no relevance to anything.

So the same will be true for Stalin in the future? The same is true for Marx?

You have once again completely avoided answering any of my questions -- so I suppose I will have to give up yet again on finding someone who can explain Stalin's position to me.

But let me clarify what I said because you seem to think that I said Stalin was a fascist.


Comrade RAF, which group would you place over Stalinists as being the most fascist.

I don't know, maybe it's just cause I'm not a huge fan of Stalin's idiocy, but I'd consider intense nationalism, totalitarian control, and love of beurocracy to keep his followers viewed in that position.

I could swear that here I'm simply saying that Stalinists are the MOST fascist of any "grouping" of communists -- I don't ever recall actually saying they were Fascist. In fact, I realize it's a far step from Fascism, but I'm speaking in relative terms to other groups.

You've still yet to answer which group is more fascist, but I assumed that was because you misinterpreted my question so let me restate it a bit better: Out of all the different "groups" of communist, that is what can be considered separated points of view on how to go about communism (examples: Leninists, Trostkyists, Stalinists, Maoists, etc...), which group is the most fascist? Or are they all equally non-fascist?

If they are all equally non-fascist I'm asking you to explain the seemingly fascist ideals of Stalin I've already presented rather than just avoiding them like the plague. What makes my points about Stalin false? What actions did he take that show him not to be nationalist? I have ones that show he is, and you've presented me with nothing in return yet. This goes for the other two issues aswell.

I'm seriously trying to understand and you just seem to be avoiding it. I certainly hope you don't pretend to be educating me in this thread, cause you're doing a poor job of it. I can only hope that if you do pretend to educate people about communism, leninism, stalinism or any -ism that you do a better job with them than you have with me.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I was under the impression that in the modern era questions such as "who was right, Trot or Stalin, are of no actual relevance to anyone but long winded "communist" speakers.



It's not, but when you further say something such as:


QUOTE
The word "trot" is used to describe a TROT.

Much like the word "stalinist" is used (with all malice intended) to describe "Stalinists".



It can only make me assume you think there's something wrong with being a Trot, or for that matter being a Stalinist. If you see that these words are used "with all malice intended" then you obviously believe there's something to be malicious towards which would indicate wrongdoing.


QUOTE


The connection here is in your own mind only. How I feel about fanatics such as Trots and the ideology that "who was right" scenarios are fruitless and juvenile are completely separate issues.

Good job however attempting to speak in philosophical metre. I used to do the same thing in to attract chicks in undergrad. This unfortunately led to boring nights at coffee houses pretending to read Satre. This of course was concluded with a nice visit to the bath; High Society magazine in tow.


Bravo with the attempt to make me look like I'm questioning your position as a communist. Sadly, I didn't ask what you were, I asked if you were a Leninist, it's a yes or no answer... I'll make the assumption right now that we both have the same definition of a Leninist. Or maybe you're implying that Lenininsts aren't Communists... I'm not really sure, I'll wait for you to clarify.

You're confused.

If I were a "leninist", I would have said I were a "leninist". I, like Lenin consider myself to be a COMMUNIST.

Other unique cats consider me to be a Stalinist, or even the "the devil".

Do you like to go bowling?


You have once again completely avoided answering any of my questions -- so I suppose I will have to give up yet again on finding someone who can explain Stalin's position to me.


Try the man himself; it's not like his works are hidden from the public or anything.


So the same will be true for Stalin in the future? The same is true for Marx?


The will be true for EVERYONE in the future.


But let me clarify what I said because you seem to think that I said Stalin was a fascist.




Do I really believe that?

You're confused again.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I was under the impression that in the modern era questions such as "who was right, Trot or Stalin, are of no actual relevance to anyone but long winded "communist" speakers.



It's not, but when you further say something such as:


QUOTE
The word "trot" is used to describe a TROT.

Much like the word "stalinist" is used (with all malice intended) to describe "Stalinists".



It can only make me assume you think there's something wrong with being a Trot, or for that matter being a Stalinist. If you see that these words are used "with all malice intended" then you obviously believe there's something to be malicious towards which would indicate wrongdoing.


QUOTE


The connection here is in your own mind only. How I feel about fanatics such as Trots and the ideology that "who was right" scenarios are fruitless and juvenile are completely separate issues.

Good job however attempting to speak in philosophical metre. I used to do the same thing in to attract chicks in undergrad. This unfortunately led to boring nights at coffee houses pretending to read Satre. This of course was concluded with a nice visit to the bath; High Society magazine in tow.


Bravo with the attempt to make me look like I'm questioning your position as a communist. Sadly, I didn't ask what you were, I asked if you were a Leninist, it's a yes or no answer... I'll make the assumption right now that we both have the same definition of a Leninist. Or maybe you're implying that Lenininsts aren't Communists... I'm not really sure, I'll wait for you to clarify.

You're confused.

If I were a "leninist", I would have said I were a "leninist". I, like Lenin consider myself to be a COMMUNIST.

Other unique cats consider me to be a Stalinist, or even the "the devil".

Do you like to go bowling?


You have once again completely avoided answering any of my questions -- so I suppose I will have to give up yet again on finding someone who can explain Stalin's position to me.


Try the man himself; it's not like his works are hidden from the public or anything.


So the same will be true for Stalin in the future? The same is true for Marx?


The will be true for EVERYONE in the future.


But let me clarify what I said because you seem to think that I said Stalin was a fascist.




Do I really believe that?

You're confused again.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I was under the impression that in the modern era questions such as "who was right, Trot or Stalin, are of no actual relevance to anyone but long winded "communist" speakers.



It's not, but when you further say something such as:


QUOTE
The word "trot" is used to describe a TROT.

Much like the word "stalinist" is used (with all malice intended) to describe "Stalinists".



It can only make me assume you think there's something wrong with being a Trot, or for that matter being a Stalinist. If you see that these words are used "with all malice intended" then you obviously believe there's something to be malicious towards which would indicate wrongdoing.


QUOTE


The connection here is in your own mind only. How I feel about fanatics such as Trots and the ideology that "who was right" scenarios are fruitless and juvenile are completely separate issues.

Good job however attempting to speak in philosophical metre. I used to do the same thing in to attract chicks in undergrad. This unfortunately led to boring nights at coffee houses pretending to read Satre. This of course was concluded with a nice visit to the bath; High Society magazine in tow.


Bravo with the attempt to make me look like I'm questioning your position as a communist. Sadly, I didn't ask what you were, I asked if you were a Leninist, it's a yes or no answer... I'll make the assumption right now that we both have the same definition of a Leninist. Or maybe you're implying that Lenininsts aren't Communists... I'm not really sure, I'll wait for you to clarify.

You're confused.

If I were a "leninist", I would have said I were a "leninist". I, like Lenin consider myself to be a COMMUNIST.

Other unique cats consider me to be a Stalinist, or even the "the devil".

Do you like to go bowling?


You have once again completely avoided answering any of my questions -- so I suppose I will have to give up yet again on finding someone who can explain Stalin's position to me.


Try the man himself; it's not like his works are hidden from the public or anything.


So the same will be true for Stalin in the future? The same is true for Marx?


The will be true for EVERYONE in the future.


But let me clarify what I said because you seem to think that I said Stalin was a fascist.




Do I really believe that?

You're confused again.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 24 2004, 04:00 AM
Why is that? The type of nonsense spilled forth by trot-drones is nothing more than ear piercing wails sent forth by an infant in need of a change.
I just meant you wouldn't be 'nice' about your response. But hell, when are you 'nice' (I'm not trying to attack you, you're just a 'lil blunt, that's all). ;)

[Palmares]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 24 2004, 04:00 AM
Why is that? The type of nonsense spilled forth by trot-drones is nothing more than ear piercing wails sent forth by an infant in need of a change.
I just meant you wouldn't be 'nice' about your response. But hell, when are you 'nice' (I'm not trying to attack you, you're just a 'lil blunt, that's all). ;)

[Palmares]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 24 2004, 04:00 AM
Why is that? The type of nonsense spilled forth by trot-drones is nothing more than ear piercing wails sent forth by an infant in need of a change.
I just meant you wouldn't be 'nice' about your response. But hell, when are you 'nice' (I'm not trying to attack you, you're just a 'lil blunt, that's all). ;)

[NovelGentry]

The connection here is in your own mind only. How I feel about fanatics such as Trots and the ideology that "who was right" scenarios are fruitless and juvenile are completely separate issues.

Good job however attempting to speak in philosophical metre. I used to do the same thing in to attract chicks in undergrad. This unfortunately led to boring nights at coffee houses pretending to read Satre. This of course was concluded with a nice visit to the bath; High Society magazine in tow.

My connection here is based simply on what you said, no philosophy in mind. It's as simple as this, you either agree or disagree that the term trot can be used maliciously, but you apparently say that Stalinist can be, so why not trot? And if either can be used in that sense, they must have a reason for being able to be used in that sense. Certainly it's safe to say that the reason can be the ignorance of the person using it in that sense, but then you should be clearly unaccepting of it used in such a manner.


You're confused.

If I were a "leninist", I would have said I were a "leninist". I, like Lenin consider myself to be a COMMUNIST.

Other unique cats consider me to be a Stalinist, or even the "the devil".

Do you like to go bowling?

And it's good that you consider yourself a communist, but once again, I didn't ask you what you were, I asked you if you were a leninist, which is a simple yes or no. If you're not, then the answer is no, if you are, the answer is yes... I would also accept "I agree with many things Lenin had thought of, but there are other things I disagree with." Or something that at least explains an answer to the qeuestion... hell I would have even accepted "I don't believe in terms like leninist" -- but you didn't say these things, you stated you were something completely different and never answered my question.

I'd do my best effort not to label you anything without understanding your position first, if you don't label yourself anything but communist then that's all I would label you. Granted I did assume you were "Stalinist" in a prior post, but this was in order to back that you could explain to me the Stalinist point of view on the nature of the three terms I had prior questioned Stalins's fascistness on.

Yes, I do like going Bowling, but I don't do it too frequently.

Notice how I didn't say "I'M A SOCCER PLAYER!"


Try the man himself; it's not like his works are hidden from the public or anything.

I would, but as I believe I said before, action's speak louder than words. It's not his words I have questions about, it's his actions.


The will be true for EVERYONE in the future.

Now you seem to be getting the idea of what I'm looking for, that is, answers to my questions. But this, however, raises anothe question, what makes it true for Lenin and not certain other people? Please use any example you want of someone who this is untrue for.


Do I really believe that?

You're confused again.

I'm not sure whether you really do believe it, but you certainly throw the idea around. I have no other idea why you would say something like: In conclusion (again) anyone who thinks Stalin was a fascist is just not thinking clearly. Furthermore, I don't think any of the information I linked you to before said he was a fascist, it simply pointed out things he had done which I personally relate to fascism, and I believe I already clarified I don't think Stalin was a fascist, just more fascist than any other socialist/communist leader who now has a following named after him.

I'm simply trying to understand these actions. For example, going back to Article 58 -- I don't even see why it would be an issue for the state. The people can be armed and protect the revolution for themselves. Did Stalin have Trotsky killed? If so, what justified this? Was it the peoples justice that said he deserved to die or Stalins? Were the confessions of the Moscow trials false? Brought about by torture? I'm not asking you as if I expect you to know first hand, I'm simply willingly admitting you know more about the situation than I do... I thought i made that clear at the start. This is why I asked you to answer what I saw as Stalin's fascist tendencies in the first place, but you don't seem to respond to any of this -- at least tell me what book you read that uncovers these lies (if they are lies)... so that I may read the same thing and have a balanced opinion, don't just brush it off like they're undeserving of attention. Even if you believe they are undeserving of attention, do you not feel it your responsibility to properly educate or at least point people in the right direction when it comes to such issues? I don't know, maybe i'm not in the same position as you, but I just see that as a sort of duty and a first step to revolution, that is, making people understand that socialism/communism isn't bad, and when people say ",Well Stalin was bad!," proving them wrong.

[NovelGentry]

The connection here is in your own mind only. How I feel about fanatics such as Trots and the ideology that "who was right" scenarios are fruitless and juvenile are completely separate issues.

Good job however attempting to speak in philosophical metre. I used to do the same thing in to attract chicks in undergrad. This unfortunately led to boring nights at coffee houses pretending to read Satre. This of course was concluded with a nice visit to the bath; High Society magazine in tow.

My connection here is based simply on what you said, no philosophy in mind. It's as simple as this, you either agree or disagree that the term trot can be used maliciously, but you apparently say that Stalinist can be, so why not trot? And if either can be used in that sense, they must have a reason for being able to be used in that sense. Certainly it's safe to say that the reason can be the ignorance of the person using it in that sense, but then you should be clearly unaccepting of it used in such a manner.


You're confused.

If I were a "leninist", I would have said I were a "leninist". I, like Lenin consider myself to be a COMMUNIST.

Other unique cats consider me to be a Stalinist, or even the "the devil".

Do you like to go bowling?

And it's good that you consider yourself a communist, but once again, I didn't ask you what you were, I asked you if you were a leninist, which is a simple yes or no. If you're not, then the answer is no, if you are, the answer is yes... I would also accept "I agree with many things Lenin had thought of, but there are other things I disagree with." Or something that at least explains an answer to the qeuestion... hell I would have even accepted "I don't believe in terms like leninist" -- but you didn't say these things, you stated you were something completely different and never answered my question.

I'd do my best effort not to label you anything without understanding your position first, if you don't label yourself anything but communist then that's all I would label you. Granted I did assume you were "Stalinist" in a prior post, but this was in order to back that you could explain to me the Stalinist point of view on the nature of the three terms I had prior questioned Stalins's fascistness on.

Yes, I do like going Bowling, but I don't do it too frequently.

Notice how I didn't say "I'M A SOCCER PLAYER!"


Try the man himself; it's not like his works are hidden from the public or anything.

I would, but as I believe I said before, action's speak louder than words. It's not his words I have questions about, it's his actions.


The will be true for EVERYONE in the future.

Now you seem to be getting the idea of what I'm looking for, that is, answers to my questions. But this, however, raises anothe question, what makes it true for Lenin and not certain other people? Please use any example you want of someone who this is untrue for.


Do I really believe that?

You're confused again.

I'm not sure whether you really do believe it, but you certainly throw the idea around. I have no other idea why you would say something like: In conclusion (again) anyone who thinks Stalin was a fascist is just not thinking clearly. Furthermore, I don't think any of the information I linked you to before said he was a fascist, it simply pointed out things he had done which I personally relate to fascism, and I believe I already clarified I don't think Stalin was a fascist, just more fascist than any other socialist/communist leader who now has a following named after him.

I'm simply trying to understand these actions. For example, going back to Article 58 -- I don't even see why it would be an issue for the state. The people can be armed and protect the revolution for themselves. Did Stalin have Trotsky killed? If so, what justified this? Was it the peoples justice that said he deserved to die or Stalins? Were the confessions of the Moscow trials false? Brought about by torture? I'm not asking you as if I expect you to know first hand, I'm simply willingly admitting you know more about the situation than I do... I thought i made that clear at the start. This is why I asked you to answer what I saw as Stalin's fascist tendencies in the first place, but you don't seem to respond to any of this -- at least tell me what book you read that uncovers these lies (if they are lies)... so that I may read the same thing and have a balanced opinion, don't just brush it off like they're undeserving of attention. Even if you believe they are undeserving of attention, do you not feel it your responsibility to properly educate or at least point people in the right direction when it comes to such issues? I don't know, maybe i'm not in the same position as you, but I just see that as a sort of duty and a first step to revolution, that is, making people understand that socialism/communism isn't bad, and when people say ",Well Stalin was bad!," proving them wrong.

[NovelGentry]

The connection here is in your own mind only. How I feel about fanatics such as Trots and the ideology that "who was right" scenarios are fruitless and juvenile are completely separate issues.

Good job however attempting to speak in philosophical metre. I used to do the same thing in to attract chicks in undergrad. This unfortunately led to boring nights at coffee houses pretending to read Satre. This of course was concluded with a nice visit to the bath; High Society magazine in tow.

My connection here is based simply on what you said, no philosophy in mind. It's as simple as this, you either agree or disagree that the term trot can be used maliciously, but you apparently say that Stalinist can be, so why not trot? And if either can be used in that sense, they must have a reason for being able to be used in that sense. Certainly it's safe to say that the reason can be the ignorance of the person using it in that sense, but then you should be clearly unaccepting of it used in such a manner.


You're confused.

If I were a "leninist", I would have said I were a "leninist". I, like Lenin consider myself to be a COMMUNIST.

Other unique cats consider me to be a Stalinist, or even the "the devil".

Do you like to go bowling?

And it's good that you consider yourself a communist, but once again, I didn't ask you what you were, I asked you if you were a leninist, which is a simple yes or no. If you're not, then the answer is no, if you are, the answer is yes... I would also accept "I agree with many things Lenin had thought of, but there are other things I disagree with." Or something that at least explains an answer to the qeuestion... hell I would have even accepted "I don't believe in terms like leninist" -- but you didn't say these things, you stated you were something completely different and never answered my question.

I'd do my best effort not to label you anything without understanding your position first, if you don't label yourself anything but communist then that's all I would label you. Granted I did assume you were "Stalinist" in a prior post, but this was in order to back that you could explain to me the Stalinist point of view on the nature of the three terms I had prior questioned Stalins's fascistness on.

Yes, I do like going Bowling, but I don't do it too frequently.

Notice how I didn't say "I'M A SOCCER PLAYER!"


Try the man himself; it's not like his works are hidden from the public or anything.

I would, but as I believe I said before, action's speak louder than words. It's not his words I have questions about, it's his actions.


The will be true for EVERYONE in the future.

Now you seem to be getting the idea of what I'm looking for, that is, answers to my questions. But this, however, raises anothe question, what makes it true for Lenin and not certain other people? Please use any example you want of someone who this is untrue for.


Do I really believe that?

You're confused again.

I'm not sure whether you really do believe it, but you certainly throw the idea around. I have no other idea why you would say something like: In conclusion (again) anyone who thinks Stalin was a fascist is just not thinking clearly. Furthermore, I don't think any of the information I linked you to before said he was a fascist, it simply pointed out things he had done which I personally relate to fascism, and I believe I already clarified I don't think Stalin was a fascist, just more fascist than any other socialist/communist leader who now has a following named after him.

I'm simply trying to understand these actions. For example, going back to Article 58 -- I don't even see why it would be an issue for the state. The people can be armed and protect the revolution for themselves. Did Stalin have Trotsky killed? If so, what justified this? Was it the peoples justice that said he deserved to die or Stalins? Were the confessions of the Moscow trials false? Brought about by torture? I'm not asking you as if I expect you to know first hand, I'm simply willingly admitting you know more about the situation than I do... I thought i made that clear at the start. This is why I asked you to answer what I saw as Stalin's fascist tendencies in the first place, but you don't seem to respond to any of this -- at least tell me what book you read that uncovers these lies (if they are lies)... so that I may read the same thing and have a balanced opinion, don't just brush it off like they're undeserving of attention. Even if you believe they are undeserving of attention, do you not feel it your responsibility to properly educate or at least point people in the right direction when it comes to such issues? I don't know, maybe i'm not in the same position as you, but I just see that as a sort of duty and a first step to revolution, that is, making people understand that socialism/communism isn't bad, and when people say ",Well Stalin was bad!," proving them wrong.

[Vinny Rafarino]

My connection here is based simply on what you said, no philosophy in mind. It's as simple as this, you either agree or disagree that the term trot can be used maliciously, but you apparently say that Stalinist can be, so why not trot? And if either can be used in that sense, they must have a reason for being able to be used in that sense. Certainly it's safe to say that the reason can be the ignorance of the person using it in that sense, but then you should be clearly unaccepting of it used in such a manner.

Once again, you are speaking about to completely unrelated topics as if they are one.

If you cannot realise that then perhaps I cannot help you. In any case, the term "trot" is used as maliciously as the term "stalinist"; this I have never claimed otherwise.

Why people use these terms mailiciously is of no relevance or consequence; it does not even make for lively psychological analysis.


And it's good that you consider yourself a communist, but once again, I didn't ask you what you were, I asked you if you were a leninist, which is a simple yes or no. If you're not, then the answer is no, if you are, the answer is yes... I would also accept "I agree with many things Lenin had thought of, but there are other things I disagree with." Or something that at least explains an answer to the qeuestion... hell I would have even accepted "I don't believe in terms like leninist" -- but you didn't say these things, you stated you were something completely different and never answered my question.

Common sense achieves debate without having to hold another's hand while crossing the road.


Granted I did assume you were "Stalinist" in a prior post, but this was in order to back that you could explain to me the Stalinist point of view on the nature of the three terms I had prior questioned Stalins's fascistness on.

The fact that Stalin's "fascistness" is in question by you is the main reason you won't find me bowing to your demand for "further explanation".

The reason is quite simple; anyone who considers this to be a valid argument, or even question, is not really worth talking to.


I would, but as I believe I said before, action's speak louder than words. It's not his words I have questions about, it's his actions.


Then you are confused as to what exactly his "actions" were. I suggest you do some research on the subject.


Now you seem to be getting the idea of what I'm looking for, that is, answers to my questions. But this, however, raises anothe question, what makes it true for Lenin and not certain other people? Please use any example you want of someone who this is untrue for.


Stalin must be having me speaking in tongues. Once again, it is true for everyone; not simply Marx, Lenin, Stalin or Trotsky.



nd I believe I already clarified I don't think Stalin was a fascist, just more fascist than any other socialist/communist leader who now has a following named after him.

There is no such thing as "more or less fascist". You either subscribe to fascism or you don't; Stalin CLEARLY did not.


Did Stalin have Trotsky killed? If so, what justified this?

I reckon the only one who could answer that question is Stalin. Shall we ask him?

In any case, who really cares?


his is why I asked you to answer what I saw as Stalin's fascist tendencies in the first place, but you don't seem to respond to any of this -- at least tell me what book you read that uncovers these lies (if they are lies).

If you have noticed "fascist tendencies" within Stalin's character then you must be confused about what fascism means.

A world of information right at your fingertips and you ask me to hold your hand; most amusing.

[Vinny Rafarino]

My connection here is based simply on what you said, no philosophy in mind. It's as simple as this, you either agree or disagree that the term trot can be used maliciously, but you apparently say that Stalinist can be, so why not trot? And if either can be used in that sense, they must have a reason for being able to be used in that sense. Certainly it's safe to say that the reason can be the ignorance of the person using it in that sense, but then you should be clearly unaccepting of it used in such a manner.

Once again, you are speaking about to completely unrelated topics as if they are one.

If you cannot realise that then perhaps I cannot help you. In any case, the term "trot" is used as maliciously as the term "stalinist"; this I have never claimed otherwise.

Why people use these terms mailiciously is of no relevance or consequence; it does not even make for lively psychological analysis.


And it's good that you consider yourself a communist, but once again, I didn't ask you what you were, I asked you if you were a leninist, which is a simple yes or no. If you're not, then the answer is no, if you are, the answer is yes... I would also accept "I agree with many things Lenin had thought of, but there are other things I disagree with." Or something that at least explains an answer to the qeuestion... hell I would have even accepted "I don't believe in terms like leninist" -- but you didn't say these things, you stated you were something completely different and never answered my question.

Common sense achieves debate without having to hold another's hand while crossing the road.


Granted I did assume you were "Stalinist" in a prior post, but this was in order to back that you could explain to me the Stalinist point of view on the nature of the three terms I had prior questioned Stalins's fascistness on.

The fact that Stalin's "fascistness" is in question by you is the main reason you won't find me bowing to your demand for "further explanation".

The reason is quite simple; anyone who considers this to be a valid argument, or even question, is not really worth talking to.


I would, but as I believe I said before, action's speak louder than words. It's not his words I have questions about, it's his actions.


Then you are confused as to what exactly his "actions" were. I suggest you do some research on the subject.


Now you seem to be getting the idea of what I'm looking for, that is, answers to my questions. But this, however, raises anothe question, what makes it true for Lenin and not certain other people? Please use any example you want of someone who this is untrue for.


Stalin must be having me speaking in tongues. Once again, it is true for everyone; not simply Marx, Lenin, Stalin or Trotsky.



nd I believe I already clarified I don't think Stalin was a fascist, just more fascist than any other socialist/communist leader who now has a following named after him.

There is no such thing as "more or less fascist". You either subscribe to fascism or you don't; Stalin CLEARLY did not.


Did Stalin have Trotsky killed? If so, what justified this?

I reckon the only one who could answer that question is Stalin. Shall we ask him?

In any case, who really cares?


his is why I asked you to answer what I saw as Stalin's fascist tendencies in the first place, but you don't seem to respond to any of this -- at least tell me what book you read that uncovers these lies (if they are lies).

If you have noticed "fascist tendencies" within Stalin's character then you must be confused about what fascism means.

A world of information right at your fingertips and you ask me to hold your hand; most amusing.

[Vinny Rafarino]

My connection here is based simply on what you said, no philosophy in mind. It's as simple as this, you either agree or disagree that the term trot can be used maliciously, but you apparently say that Stalinist can be, so why not trot? And if either can be used in that sense, they must have a reason for being able to be used in that sense. Certainly it's safe to say that the reason can be the ignorance of the person using it in that sense, but then you should be clearly unaccepting of it used in such a manner.

Once again, you are speaking about to completely unrelated topics as if they are one.

If you cannot realise that then perhaps I cannot help you. In any case, the term "trot" is used as maliciously as the term "stalinist"; this I have never claimed otherwise.

Why people use these terms mailiciously is of no relevance or consequence; it does not even make for lively psychological analysis.


And it's good that you consider yourself a communist, but once again, I didn't ask you what you were, I asked you if you were a leninist, which is a simple yes or no. If you're not, then the answer is no, if you are, the answer is yes... I would also accept "I agree with many things Lenin had thought of, but there are other things I disagree with." Or something that at least explains an answer to the qeuestion... hell I would have even accepted "I don't believe in terms like leninist" -- but you didn't say these things, you stated you were something completely different and never answered my question.

Common sense achieves debate without having to hold another's hand while crossing the road.


Granted I did assume you were "Stalinist" in a prior post, but this was in order to back that you could explain to me the Stalinist point of view on the nature of the three terms I had prior questioned Stalins's fascistness on.

The fact that Stalin's "fascistness" is in question by you is the main reason you won't find me bowing to your demand for "further explanation".

The reason is quite simple; anyone who considers this to be a valid argument, or even question, is not really worth talking to.


I would, but as I believe I said before, action's speak louder than words. It's not his words I have questions about, it's his actions.


Then you are confused as to what exactly his "actions" were. I suggest you do some research on the subject.


Now you seem to be getting the idea of what I'm looking for, that is, answers to my questions. But this, however, raises anothe question, what makes it true for Lenin and not certain other people? Please use any example you want of someone who this is untrue for.


Stalin must be having me speaking in tongues. Once again, it is true for everyone; not simply Marx, Lenin, Stalin or Trotsky.



nd I believe I already clarified I don't think Stalin was a fascist, just more fascist than any other socialist/communist leader who now has a following named after him.

There is no such thing as "more or less fascist". You either subscribe to fascism or you don't; Stalin CLEARLY did not.


Did Stalin have Trotsky killed? If so, what justified this?

I reckon the only one who could answer that question is Stalin. Shall we ask him?

In any case, who really cares?


his is why I asked you to answer what I saw as Stalin's fascist tendencies in the first place, but you don't seem to respond to any of this -- at least tell me what book you read that uncovers these lies (if they are lies).

If you have noticed "fascist tendencies" within Stalin's character then you must be confused about what fascism means.

A world of information right at your fingertips and you ask me to hold your hand; most amusing.

[NovelGentry]

Once again, you are speaking about to completely unrelated topics as if they are one.

I never claimed that this topic was related to anything else that I was saying, it simply clarifies to me exactly whether or not you feel there's any reason to use the terms "trot" or "stalinist" in a malicious sense.


Common sense achieves debate without having to hold another's hand while crossing the road.

Common sense would lead me to believe that if you're unwilling to answer a question directly, you're avoiding it for some reason. It's what I watch every 4 years in the US Presidential Debates and it makes me wonder how any one in this damn country can want to vote for either of the major two parties after watching them skip their way around direct answers.


The fact that Stalin's "fascistness" is in question by you is the main reason you won't find me bowing to your demand for "further explanation".

The reason is quite simple; anyone who considers this to be a valid argument, or even question, is not really worth talking to.

It's not a matter of "bowing to demand," it's a matter of answering questions. The fact is I've never read anything about Stalin that shows otherwise, and I'm not talking about reading something that says he was fascist, I'm talking about reading something which describes what he did and coming to my own conclusions that he had some fascist tendencies.

If you're unwilling to accept such people I can only wonder if you're unwilling to accept the fact that you might be wrong. Furthermore, I think there are a lot more people than just I, people you probably talk to regularly, who would say the same.


Then you are confused as to what exactly his "actions" were. I suggest you do some research on the subject.

My original posts included information about his "actions," to which you failed to respond with anything meaningful. I have been thus far, unable to find any other work that says he did not take the same actions in which those articles stated -- and not for lack of trying.

Edit: On a side note, in case you didn't notice, that is exactly what I'm trying to do, and I considered Che Lives to be just another resource. I was told my several people here that you would be able to explain why the position I'm seeing is wrong, but so far you have not done this. My faith in the community as a place to learn is quickly dwindling.


Stalin must be having me speaking in tongues. Once again, it is true for everyone; not simply Marx, Lenin, Stalin or Trotsky.

I do apologize for this one, it was a simple misreading of your statement.


I reckon the only one who could answer that question is Stalin. Shall we ask him?

In any case, who really cares?

Once again I was asking for what you know in accordance with what you've read, I thought I clarified that after when I said "I'm not asking you as if I expect you to know first hand, I'm simply willingly admitting you know more about the situation than I do"

Furthermore, I care. You respond to trotsky but nothing about the Moscow Trials, or even bringing up the idea that he had other prominent members of the original party killed. This is something which I rekon would explain his position very much and would help to show his true nature, maybe you disagree, but I would consider that corruption and as such does not hold Stalin in a very good light.


If you have noticed "fascist tendencies" within Stalin's character then you must be confused about what fascism means.

A world of information right at your fingertips and you ask me to hold your hand; most amusing.

Fascism

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I could swear all those points were covered in my original three. A few minor changes we would have to make to fit my original bill is that "terorr and censorship" would have to be changed to "murder" -- To say if any of those brought to death (Trotsky) or party leaders during the Moscow trials were "opposition" then they were surely "suppressed" by Stalin, if he did indeed have them killed through unjust means. But once again, I do not know this, and cannot find anything that proves otherwise. As far as belligerent nationalism and racism goes, the racism part doesn't really stand true at all, but I made an argument against his nationalism. This isn't to say ignored the internationalist ideas of Lenin and the original Bolshevik party, but from what I have read he severely degraded this outlook. I make no claim that this is fact, but it is my understanding from what I have read and cannot seem to find anything that shows otherwise. One example being the forcable deporation of Chechens, to which I have seen Stalin's reasoning being that they were collaborating with the Germans, and which I have seen other accounts that show otherwise. I don't think there's any way to stay for sure, but let it be said that there are multiple accounts otherwise than the single account of Stalin's personal reasoning.

Once again, I don't make any claim that he was completely Fascist, I don't think he was making any attempt to "purify" mother Russia, as he would have if he had been fascist. But I don't see how these actions, if true, would not show him as having fascist tendencies and for that matter, more than most other socialist/communist leaders.

If you're just gonna argue this as me looking for you to "hold my hand" again, don't even bother. I'm looking for a quite simple logical explaination of theese actions. I don't care if you give them to me personally or if you present me with the titel of a book, a link, whatever, so long as it reasonably explains these. I'm not unwilling to read such things which would do so, whether I read them from you or from a book does not matter, but it is a different story when such information doesn't seem to exist in general. I'm simply asking for you to show me where you got your information (as I have showed you where I got mine, and could come up with a rather large number of other resources -- some pro-Stalin, others anti-Stalin).

[NovelGentry]

Once again, you are speaking about to completely unrelated topics as if they are one.

I never claimed that this topic was related to anything else that I was saying, it simply clarifies to me exactly whether or not you feel there's any reason to use the terms "trot" or "stalinist" in a malicious sense.


Common sense achieves debate without having to hold another's hand while crossing the road.

Common sense would lead me to believe that if you're unwilling to answer a question directly, you're avoiding it for some reason. It's what I watch every 4 years in the US Presidential Debates and it makes me wonder how any one in this damn country can want to vote for either of the major two parties after watching them skip their way around direct answers.


The fact that Stalin's "fascistness" is in question by you is the main reason you won't find me bowing to your demand for "further explanation".

The reason is quite simple; anyone who considers this to be a valid argument, or even question, is not really worth talking to.

It's not a matter of "bowing to demand," it's a matter of answering questions. The fact is I've never read anything about Stalin that shows otherwise, and I'm not talking about reading something that says he was fascist, I'm talking about reading something which describes what he did and coming to my own conclusions that he had some fascist tendencies.

If you're unwilling to accept such people I can only wonder if you're unwilling to accept the fact that you might be wrong. Furthermore, I think there are a lot more people than just I, people you probably talk to regularly, who would say the same.


Then you are confused as to what exactly his "actions" were. I suggest you do some research on the subject.

My original posts included information about his "actions," to which you failed to respond with anything meaningful. I have been thus far, unable to find any other work that says he did not take the same actions in which those articles stated -- and not for lack of trying.

Edit: On a side note, in case you didn't notice, that is exactly what I'm trying to do, and I considered Che Lives to be just another resource. I was told my several people here that you would be able to explain why the position I'm seeing is wrong, but so far you have not done this. My faith in the community as a place to learn is quickly dwindling.


Stalin must be having me speaking in tongues. Once again, it is true for everyone; not simply Marx, Lenin, Stalin or Trotsky.

I do apologize for this one, it was a simple misreading of your statement.


I reckon the only one who could answer that question is Stalin. Shall we ask him?

In any case, who really cares?

Once again I was asking for what you know in accordance with what you've read, I thought I clarified that after when I said "I'm not asking you as if I expect you to know first hand, I'm simply willingly admitting you know more about the situation than I do"

Furthermore, I care. You respond to trotsky but nothing about the Moscow Trials, or even bringing up the idea that he had other prominent members of the original party killed. This is something which I rekon would explain his position very much and would help to show his true nature, maybe you disagree, but I would consider that corruption and as such does not hold Stalin in a very good light.


If you have noticed "fascist tendencies" within Stalin's character then you must be confused about what fascism means.

A world of information right at your fingertips and you ask me to hold your hand; most amusing.

Fascism

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I could swear all those points were covered in my original three. A few minor changes we would have to make to fit my original bill is that "terorr and censorship" would have to be changed to "murder" -- To say if any of those brought to death (Trotsky) or party leaders during the Moscow trials were "opposition" then they were surely "suppressed" by Stalin, if he did indeed have them killed through unjust means. But once again, I do not know this, and cannot find anything that proves otherwise. As far as belligerent nationalism and racism goes, the racism part doesn't really stand true at all, but I made an argument against his nationalism. This isn't to say ignored the internationalist ideas of Lenin and the original Bolshevik party, but from what I have read he severely degraded this outlook. I make no claim that this is fact, but it is my understanding from what I have read and cannot seem to find anything that shows otherwise. One example being the forcable deporation of Chechens, to which I have seen Stalin's reasoning being that they were collaborating with the Germans, and which I have seen other accounts that show otherwise. I don't think there's any way to stay for sure, but let it be said that there are multiple accounts otherwise than the single account of Stalin's personal reasoning.

Once again, I don't make any claim that he was completely Fascist, I don't think he was making any attempt to "purify" mother Russia, as he would have if he had been fascist. But I don't see how these actions, if true, would not show him as having fascist tendencies and for that matter, more than most other socialist/communist leaders.

If you're just gonna argue this as me looking for you to "hold my hand" again, don't even bother. I'm looking for a quite simple logical explaination of theese actions. I don't care if you give them to me personally or if you present me with the titel of a book, a link, whatever, so long as it reasonably explains these. I'm not unwilling to read such things which would do so, whether I read them from you or from a book does not matter, but it is a different story when such information doesn't seem to exist in general. I'm simply asking for you to show me where you got your information (as I have showed you where I got mine, and could come up with a rather large number of other resources -- some pro-Stalin, others anti-Stalin).

[NovelGentry]

Once again, you are speaking about to completely unrelated topics as if they are one.

I never claimed that this topic was related to anything else that I was saying, it simply clarifies to me exactly whether or not you feel there's any reason to use the terms "trot" or "stalinist" in a malicious sense.


Common sense achieves debate without having to hold another's hand while crossing the road.

Common sense would lead me to believe that if you're unwilling to answer a question directly, you're avoiding it for some reason. It's what I watch every 4 years in the US Presidential Debates and it makes me wonder how any one in this damn country can want to vote for either of the major two parties after watching them skip their way around direct answers.


The fact that Stalin's "fascistness" is in question by you is the main reason you won't find me bowing to your demand for "further explanation".

The reason is quite simple; anyone who considers this to be a valid argument, or even question, is not really worth talking to.

It's not a matter of "bowing to demand," it's a matter of answering questions. The fact is I've never read anything about Stalin that shows otherwise, and I'm not talking about reading something that says he was fascist, I'm talking about reading something which describes what he did and coming to my own conclusions that he had some fascist tendencies.

If you're unwilling to accept such people I can only wonder if you're unwilling to accept the fact that you might be wrong. Furthermore, I think there are a lot more people than just I, people you probably talk to regularly, who would say the same.


Then you are confused as to what exactly his "actions" were. I suggest you do some research on the subject.

My original posts included information about his "actions," to which you failed to respond with anything meaningful. I have been thus far, unable to find any other work that says he did not take the same actions in which those articles stated -- and not for lack of trying.

Edit: On a side note, in case you didn't notice, that is exactly what I'm trying to do, and I considered Che Lives to be just another resource. I was told my several people here that you would be able to explain why the position I'm seeing is wrong, but so far you have not done this. My faith in the community as a place to learn is quickly dwindling.


Stalin must be having me speaking in tongues. Once again, it is true for everyone; not simply Marx, Lenin, Stalin or Trotsky.

I do apologize for this one, it was a simple misreading of your statement.


I reckon the only one who could answer that question is Stalin. Shall we ask him?

In any case, who really cares?

Once again I was asking for what you know in accordance with what you've read, I thought I clarified that after when I said "I'm not asking you as if I expect you to know first hand, I'm simply willingly admitting you know more about the situation than I do"

Furthermore, I care. You respond to trotsky but nothing about the Moscow Trials, or even bringing up the idea that he had other prominent members of the original party killed. This is something which I rekon would explain his position very much and would help to show his true nature, maybe you disagree, but I would consider that corruption and as such does not hold Stalin in a very good light.


If you have noticed "fascist tendencies" within Stalin's character then you must be confused about what fascism means.

A world of information right at your fingertips and you ask me to hold your hand; most amusing.

Fascism

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I could swear all those points were covered in my original three. A few minor changes we would have to make to fit my original bill is that "terorr and censorship" would have to be changed to "murder" -- To say if any of those brought to death (Trotsky) or party leaders during the Moscow trials were "opposition" then they were surely "suppressed" by Stalin, if he did indeed have them killed through unjust means. But once again, I do not know this, and cannot find anything that proves otherwise. As far as belligerent nationalism and racism goes, the racism part doesn't really stand true at all, but I made an argument against his nationalism. This isn't to say ignored the internationalist ideas of Lenin and the original Bolshevik party, but from what I have read he severely degraded this outlook. I make no claim that this is fact, but it is my understanding from what I have read and cannot seem to find anything that shows otherwise. One example being the forcable deporation of Chechens, to which I have seen Stalin's reasoning being that they were collaborating with the Germans, and which I have seen other accounts that show otherwise. I don't think there's any way to stay for sure, but let it be said that there are multiple accounts otherwise than the single account of Stalin's personal reasoning.

Once again, I don't make any claim that he was completely Fascist, I don't think he was making any attempt to "purify" mother Russia, as he would have if he had been fascist. But I don't see how these actions, if true, would not show him as having fascist tendencies and for that matter, more than most other socialist/communist leaders.

If you're just gonna argue this as me looking for you to "hold my hand" again, don't even bother. I'm looking for a quite simple logical explaination of theese actions. I don't care if you give them to me personally or if you present me with the titel of a book, a link, whatever, so long as it reasonably explains these. I'm not unwilling to read such things which would do so, whether I read them from you or from a book does not matter, but it is a different story when such information doesn't seem to exist in general. I'm simply asking for you to show me where you got your information (as I have showed you where I got mine, and could come up with a rather large number of other resources -- some pro-Stalin, others anti-Stalin).

[Vinny Rafarino]

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.



None of which resemble the conditions of the USSR prior to 1953.


If you're unwilling to accept such people I can only wonder if you're unwilling to accept the fact that you might be wrong. Furthermore, I think there are a lot more people than just I, people you probably talk to regularly, who would say the same.


The could and most undoubtably do. They, like you, are incorrect.


Common sense would lead me to believe that if you're unwilling to answer a question directly, you're avoiding it for some reason.

Am I avoiding it?

Or, have I been all to clear.


I'm talking about reading something which describes what he did and coming to my own conclusions that he had some fascist tendencies

I would suggest finding some reading material that is based in reality then.


You respond to trotsky but nothing about the Moscow Trials, or even bringing up the idea that he had other prominent members of the original party killed.

What about the trials? The individuals in questioned admitted their guilt in the presence of several third party individuals; it is well documented.

Absurd claims of "mock trials" and confessions under duress are nothing more than envious speculation.

In addition, as I have stated before, Stalin did not have the power to whack anyone out by himself. Stalin is actually attributed to attempting to save the lives of several party members that were sentenced to death by the central commitee.

I suppose you're going to rant about Stalin's "paranoia" next right?


but I would consider that corruption and as such does not hold Stalin in a very good light.


That book has already been written. Stalin will NEVER be held in a "good light", not now, not ever.

Not that it really matters.

[Vinny Rafarino]

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.



None of which resemble the conditions of the USSR prior to 1953.


If you're unwilling to accept such people I can only wonder if you're unwilling to accept the fact that you might be wrong. Furthermore, I think there are a lot more people than just I, people you probably talk to regularly, who would say the same.


The could and most undoubtably do. They, like you, are incorrect.


Common sense would lead me to believe that if you're unwilling to answer a question directly, you're avoiding it for some reason.

Am I avoiding it?

Or, have I been all to clear.


I'm talking about reading something which describes what he did and coming to my own conclusions that he had some fascist tendencies

I would suggest finding some reading material that is based in reality then.


You respond to trotsky but nothing about the Moscow Trials, or even bringing up the idea that he had other prominent members of the original party killed.

What about the trials? The individuals in questioned admitted their guilt in the presence of several third party individuals; it is well documented.

Absurd claims of "mock trials" and confessions under duress are nothing more than envious speculation.

In addition, as I have stated before, Stalin did not have the power to whack anyone out by himself. Stalin is actually attributed to attempting to save the lives of several party members that were sentenced to death by the central commitee.

I suppose you're going to rant about Stalin's "paranoia" next right?


but I would consider that corruption and as such does not hold Stalin in a very good light.


That book has already been written. Stalin will NEVER be held in a "good light", not now, not ever.

Not that it really matters.

[Vinny Rafarino]

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.



None of which resemble the conditions of the USSR prior to 1953.


If you're unwilling to accept such people I can only wonder if you're unwilling to accept the fact that you might be wrong. Furthermore, I think there are a lot more people than just I, people you probably talk to regularly, who would say the same.


The could and most undoubtably do. They, like you, are incorrect.


Common sense would lead me to believe that if you're unwilling to answer a question directly, you're avoiding it for some reason.

Am I avoiding it?

Or, have I been all to clear.


I'm talking about reading something which describes what he did and coming to my own conclusions that he had some fascist tendencies

I would suggest finding some reading material that is based in reality then.


You respond to trotsky but nothing about the Moscow Trials, or even bringing up the idea that he had other prominent members of the original party killed.

What about the trials? The individuals in questioned admitted their guilt in the presence of several third party individuals; it is well documented.

Absurd claims of "mock trials" and confessions under duress are nothing more than envious speculation.

In addition, as I have stated before, Stalin did not have the power to whack anyone out by himself. Stalin is actually attributed to attempting to save the lives of several party members that were sentenced to death by the central commitee.

I suppose you're going to rant about Stalin's "paranoia" next right?


but I would consider that corruption and as such does not hold Stalin in a very good light.


That book has already been written. Stalin will NEVER be held in a "good light", not now, not ever.

Not that it really matters.

[NovelGentry]

None of which resemble the conditions of the USSR prior to 1953.

Arguable assuming everything I've read thus far is wrong, which is very well could be.


The could and most undoubtably do. They, like you, are incorrect.

I made this point because you made claim that they are, "not worth talking to," which I think is a bit unfair.


I would suggest finding some reading material that is based in reality then.

Exactly what I'm trying to do, any suggestions?


What about the trials? The individuals in questioned admitted their guilt in the presence of several third party individuals; it is well documented.

I don't see what prevents any government from not fabricating 3rd party testimony.


In addition, as I have stated before, Stalin did not have the power to whack anyone out by himself. Stalin is actually attributed to attempting to save the lives of several party members that were sentenced to death by the central commitee.

The central committee is part of what bothers me about the USSR under Stalin. It would seem that anyone who ever opposed him was expelled for creating "disunity" -- Under such a position I don't see how it could have been much more than supporters of Stalin, which doesn't lead me to believe that he pushed them to death sentences, particularly if he made public statements otherwise, but it does make me wonder if the central committee had any truly independent thoughts from Stalin or whether he had their support because they were afraid of being charged with the same "disunity." If such is the case I don't see how the central committee would be anything other than a means of appearing less like a dictator.


I suppose you're going to rant about Stalin's "paranoia" next right?

I'm not too familiar with any ideas that he had "paranoia." Like I've repeatedly said, I'm looking to you in particular because I was told you'd be able to explain the truth of the situation to me. You have done so a bit more in this post, but there are still a number of questions that to me remain unanswered, those being the ones I have asked above.


That book has already been written. Stalin will NEVER be held in a "good light", not now, not ever.

Then by what means have you come to see him in good light? There has to be something I'm missing here, if it's never been argued that "Trots's" claims are false, and furthermore, never with any decent explaination what leads anyone to believe they are? There has to be one solid piece of literature out there that discredits any such claims with reasonable tact. That is all I'm looking for.

[NovelGentry]

None of which resemble the conditions of the USSR prior to 1953.

Arguable assuming everything I've read thus far is wrong, which is very well could be.


The could and most undoubtably do. They, like you, are incorrect.

I made this point because you made claim that they are, "not worth talking to," which I think is a bit unfair.


I would suggest finding some reading material that is based in reality then.

Exactly what I'm trying to do, any suggestions?


What about the trials? The individuals in questioned admitted their guilt in the presence of several third party individuals; it is well documented.

I don't see what prevents any government from not fabricating 3rd party testimony.


In addition, as I have stated before, Stalin did not have the power to whack anyone out by himself. Stalin is actually attributed to attempting to save the lives of several party members that were sentenced to death by the central commitee.

The central committee is part of what bothers me about the USSR under Stalin. It would seem that anyone who ever opposed him was expelled for creating "disunity" -- Under such a position I don't see how it could have been much more than supporters of Stalin, which doesn't lead me to believe that he pushed them to death sentences, particularly if he made public statements otherwise, but it does make me wonder if the central committee had any truly independent thoughts from Stalin or whether he had their support because they were afraid of being charged with the same "disunity." If such is the case I don't see how the central committee would be anything other than a means of appearing less like a dictator.


I suppose you're going to rant about Stalin's "paranoia" next right?

I'm not too familiar with any ideas that he had "paranoia." Like I've repeatedly said, I'm looking to you in particular because I was told you'd be able to explain the truth of the situation to me. You have done so a bit more in this post, but there are still a number of questions that to me remain unanswered, those being the ones I have asked above.


That book has already been written. Stalin will NEVER be held in a "good light", not now, not ever.

Then by what means have you come to see him in good light? There has to be something I'm missing here, if it's never been argued that "Trots's" claims are false, and furthermore, never with any decent explaination what leads anyone to believe they are? There has to be one solid piece of literature out there that discredits any such claims with reasonable tact. That is all I'm looking for.

[NovelGentry]

None of which resemble the conditions of the USSR prior to 1953.

Arguable assuming everything I've read thus far is wrong, which is very well could be.


The could and most undoubtably do. They, like you, are incorrect.

I made this point because you made claim that they are, "not worth talking to," which I think is a bit unfair.


I would suggest finding some reading material that is based in reality then.

Exactly what I'm trying to do, any suggestions?


What about the trials? The individuals in questioned admitted their guilt in the presence of several third party individuals; it is well documented.

I don't see what prevents any government from not fabricating 3rd party testimony.


In addition, as I have stated before, Stalin did not have the power to whack anyone out by himself. Stalin is actually attributed to attempting to save the lives of several party members that were sentenced to death by the central commitee.

The central committee is part of what bothers me about the USSR under Stalin. It would seem that anyone who ever opposed him was expelled for creating "disunity" -- Under such a position I don't see how it could have been much more than supporters of Stalin, which doesn't lead me to believe that he pushed them to death sentences, particularly if he made public statements otherwise, but it does make me wonder if the central committee had any truly independent thoughts from Stalin or whether he had their support because they were afraid of being charged with the same "disunity." If such is the case I don't see how the central committee would be anything other than a means of appearing less like a dictator.


I suppose you're going to rant about Stalin's "paranoia" next right?

I'm not too familiar with any ideas that he had "paranoia." Like I've repeatedly said, I'm looking to you in particular because I was told you'd be able to explain the truth of the situation to me. You have done so a bit more in this post, but there are still a number of questions that to me remain unanswered, those being the ones I have asked above.


That book has already been written. Stalin will NEVER be held in a "good light", not now, not ever.

Then by what means have you come to see him in good light? There has to be something I'm missing here, if it's never been argued that "Trots's" claims are false, and furthermore, never with any decent explaination what leads anyone to believe they are? There has to be one solid piece of literature out there that discredits any such claims with reasonable tact. That is all I'm looking for.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Arguable assuming everything I've read thus far is wrong, which is very well could be.

It will take more than scratching below the surface to find information that does the "great red devil" justice.

I suggest a backhoe or at the very least 5000 subversionist labourers! :lol:


I made this point because you made claim that they are, "not worth talking to," which I think is a bit unfair.

Unfair but just. To me that is.


Exactly what I'm trying to do, any suggestions?

None. I no longer have any interest in "changing people's minds about Stalin". He accomplished many great things in his day; most of which are irrelevant to bringing about the conditions necessary for revolution.

The modern era has created a demon out of the memory of Comrade Stalin; a demon that will never shed it's horns.

Regardless of what "the truth" may be or how I feel, Stalin will forever be the "enemy of freedom and democracy" to the masses.

This being known, who am I to try and dictate what the masses think? Right or wrong, they are the only thing that truly matters to a communist.

I've spoke on the subject of Stalin for two decades and have found that tales of treachery, corruption, murder and totalitarianism are much more appealing than actual history. Let the sheep have their grain, they earned it.


I don't see what prevents any government from not fabricating 3rd party testimony.

Have you grasped a fallen star with that reach of yours?


t would seem that anyone who ever opposed him was expelled for creating "disunity"

Once again, Stalin's reputation precedes his actual character. Many things "seem" to be most certain indeed.

It sells.


There has to be one solid piece of literature out there that discredits any such claims with reasonable tact. That is all I'm looking for.

For every article denouncing the great red devil is another that shaves off the horns.

Happy hunting!

[Vinny Rafarino]

Arguable assuming everything I've read thus far is wrong, which is very well could be.

It will take more than scratching below the surface to find information that does the "great red devil" justice.

I suggest a backhoe or at the very least 5000 subversionist labourers! :lol:


I made this point because you made claim that they are, "not worth talking to," which I think is a bit unfair.

Unfair but just. To me that is.


Exactly what I'm trying to do, any suggestions?

None. I no longer have any interest in "changing people's minds about Stalin". He accomplished many great things in his day; most of which are irrelevant to bringing about the conditions necessary for revolution.

The modern era has created a demon out of the memory of Comrade Stalin; a demon that will never shed it's horns.

Regardless of what "the truth" may be or how I feel, Stalin will forever be the "enemy of freedom and democracy" to the masses.

This being known, who am I to try and dictate what the masses think? Right or wrong, they are the only thing that truly matters to a communist.

I've spoke on the subject of Stalin for two decades and have found that tales of treachery, corruption, murder and totalitarianism are much more appealing than actual history. Let the sheep have their grain, they earned it.


I don't see what prevents any government from not fabricating 3rd party testimony.

Have you grasped a fallen star with that reach of yours?


t would seem that anyone who ever opposed him was expelled for creating "disunity"

Once again, Stalin's reputation precedes his actual character. Many things "seem" to be most certain indeed.

It sells.


There has to be one solid piece of literature out there that discredits any such claims with reasonable tact. That is all I'm looking for.

For every article denouncing the great red devil is another that shaves off the horns.

Happy hunting!

[Vinny Rafarino]

Arguable assuming everything I've read thus far is wrong, which is very well could be.

It will take more than scratching below the surface to find information that does the "great red devil" justice.

I suggest a backhoe or at the very least 5000 subversionist labourers! :lol:


I made this point because you made claim that they are, "not worth talking to," which I think is a bit unfair.

Unfair but just. To me that is.


Exactly what I'm trying to do, any suggestions?

None. I no longer have any interest in "changing people's minds about Stalin". He accomplished many great things in his day; most of which are irrelevant to bringing about the conditions necessary for revolution.

The modern era has created a demon out of the memory of Comrade Stalin; a demon that will never shed it's horns.

Regardless of what "the truth" may be or how I feel, Stalin will forever be the "enemy of freedom and democracy" to the masses.

This being known, who am I to try and dictate what the masses think? Right or wrong, they are the only thing that truly matters to a communist.

I've spoke on the subject of Stalin for two decades and have found that tales of treachery, corruption, murder and totalitarianism are much more appealing than actual history. Let the sheep have their grain, they earned it.


I don't see what prevents any government from not fabricating 3rd party testimony.

Have you grasped a fallen star with that reach of yours?


t would seem that anyone who ever opposed him was expelled for creating "disunity"

Once again, Stalin's reputation precedes his actual character. Many things "seem" to be most certain indeed.

It sells.


There has to be one solid piece of literature out there that discredits any such claims with reasonable tact. That is all I'm looking for.

For every article denouncing the great red devil is another that shaves off the horns.

Happy hunting!

[Nas]

(in response to the first post)

Hi comrade ernesto, to answer your question , you can find a lot of crazy "communists" in this boards but everyone believes strongly in their own opinions and believes in their own solution , except for a few

ps: don't be surprise if you meet immature people

[Nas]

(in response to the first post)

Hi comrade ernesto, to answer your question , you can find a lot of crazy "communists" in this boards but everyone believes strongly in their own opinions and believes in their own solution , except for a few

ps: don't be surprise if you meet immature people

[Nas]

(in response to the first post)

Hi comrade ernesto, to answer your question , you can find a lot of crazy "communists" in this boards but everyone believes strongly in their own opinions and believes in their own solution , except for a few

ps: don't be surprise if you meet immature people

[NovelGentry]

It will take more than scratching below the surface to find information that does the "great red devil" justice.

I suggest a backhoe or at the very least 5000 subversionist labourers! laugh.gif

Well, I'm happy to say that I no longer have to look to you to at least point me in the direction of such information. Someone has pointed me to a book which I'm hoping will balance most of the other things I've read about him. But time can only tell.


Unfair but just. To me that is.

I was moreso wondering that if you adhere to this, why do you talk to certain people on here. I don't want to bring names into it, but there are other people who have similar views on Stalin which you seem to talk to quite comfortably -- Despite them being not worth it.


None. I no longer have any interest in "changing people's minds about Stalin". He accomplished many great things in his day; most of which are irrelevant to bringing about the conditions necessary for revolution.

The modern era has created a demon out of the memory of Comrade Stalin; a demon that will never shed it's horns.

Regardless of what "the truth" may be or how I feel, Stalin will forever be the "enemy of freedom and democracy" to the masses.

This being known, who am I to try and dictate what the masses think? Right or wrong, they are the only thing that truly matters to a communist.

I've spoke on the subject of Stalin for two decades and have found that tales of treachery, corruption, murder and totalitarianism are much more appealing than actual history. Let the sheep have their grain, they earned it.

Once again, I've been pointed to a resource by someone else, your help is no longer necessary on this. However, I must say it would be good to see you change your mind. It's tough to find good educators who truly know what they're talking about, and I can only assume you do. Just seems too bad I'll never hear it from your perspective.


Have you grasped a fallen star with that reach of yours?

No, despite what you may believe it's a very short reach. I live in the United States, there's lots of supposed "3rd" party testimony that incriminates people in crimes they've not committed. I can only assume in many of these cases (what are commonly called US political prisoners) that the government has a hand in it. So it is not out of reach at all for me to believe that if the US government can do it, that the government of the USSR could.


Once again, Stalin's reputation precedes his actual character. Many things "seem" to be most certain indeed.

It sells.

I'm currently in the process of reading some of the testimon given in the Moscow Trials. I will form my opinion on that whether or not these expulsions were justified.


For every article denouncing the great red devil is another that shaves off the horns.

I asked very simply for you to point me towards one, as I could not find one. As I said earlier even pro-stalinist things I had found still don't make any claim that he didn't do certain things, they just try to justify it and to me come up short in that sense. Now I've got a book to check out though, so we'll see.

[NovelGentry]

It will take more than scratching below the surface to find information that does the "great red devil" justice.

I suggest a backhoe or at the very least 5000 subversionist labourers! laugh.gif

Well, I'm happy to say that I no longer have to look to you to at least point me in the direction of such information. Someone has pointed me to a book which I'm hoping will balance most of the other things I've read about him. But time can only tell.


Unfair but just. To me that is.

I was moreso wondering that if you adhere to this, why do you talk to certain people on here. I don't want to bring names into it, but there are other people who have similar views on Stalin which you seem to talk to quite comfortably -- Despite them being not worth it.


None. I no longer have any interest in "changing people's minds about Stalin". He accomplished many great things in his day; most of which are irrelevant to bringing about the conditions necessary for revolution.

The modern era has created a demon out of the memory of Comrade Stalin; a demon that will never shed it's horns.

Regardless of what "the truth" may be or how I feel, Stalin will forever be the "enemy of freedom and democracy" to the masses.

This being known, who am I to try and dictate what the masses think? Right or wrong, they are the only thing that truly matters to a communist.

I've spoke on the subject of Stalin for two decades and have found that tales of treachery, corruption, murder and totalitarianism are much more appealing than actual history. Let the sheep have their grain, they earned it.

Once again, I've been pointed to a resource by someone else, your help is no longer necessary on this. However, I must say it would be good to see you change your mind. It's tough to find good educators who truly know what they're talking about, and I can only assume you do. Just seems too bad I'll never hear it from your perspective.


Have you grasped a fallen star with that reach of yours?

No, despite what you may believe it's a very short reach. I live in the United States, there's lots of supposed "3rd" party testimony that incriminates people in crimes they've not committed. I can only assume in many of these cases (what are commonly called US political prisoners) that the government has a hand in it. So it is not out of reach at all for me to believe that if the US government can do it, that the government of the USSR could.


Once again, Stalin's reputation precedes his actual character. Many things "seem" to be most certain indeed.

It sells.

I'm currently in the process of reading some of the testimon given in the Moscow Trials. I will form my opinion on that whether or not these expulsions were justified.


For every article denouncing the great red devil is another that shaves off the horns.

I asked very simply for you to point me towards one, as I could not find one. As I said earlier even pro-stalinist things I had found still don't make any claim that he didn't do certain things, they just try to justify it and to me come up short in that sense. Now I've got a book to check out though, so we'll see.

[NovelGentry]

It will take more than scratching below the surface to find information that does the "great red devil" justice.

I suggest a backhoe or at the very least 5000 subversionist labourers! laugh.gif

Well, I'm happy to say that I no longer have to look to you to at least point me in the direction of such information. Someone has pointed me to a book which I'm hoping will balance most of the other things I've read about him. But time can only tell.


Unfair but just. To me that is.

I was moreso wondering that if you adhere to this, why do you talk to certain people on here. I don't want to bring names into it, but there are other people who have similar views on Stalin which you seem to talk to quite comfortably -- Despite them being not worth it.


None. I no longer have any interest in "changing people's minds about Stalin". He accomplished many great things in his day; most of which are irrelevant to bringing about the conditions necessary for revolution.

The modern era has created a demon out of the memory of Comrade Stalin; a demon that will never shed it's horns.

Regardless of what "the truth" may be or how I feel, Stalin will forever be the "enemy of freedom and democracy" to the masses.

This being known, who am I to try and dictate what the masses think? Right or wrong, they are the only thing that truly matters to a communist.

I've spoke on the subject of Stalin for two decades and have found that tales of treachery, corruption, murder and totalitarianism are much more appealing than actual history. Let the sheep have their grain, they earned it.

Once again, I've been pointed to a resource by someone else, your help is no longer necessary on this. However, I must say it would be good to see you change your mind. It's tough to find good educators who truly know what they're talking about, and I can only assume you do. Just seems too bad I'll never hear it from your perspective.


Have you grasped a fallen star with that reach of yours?

No, despite what you may believe it's a very short reach. I live in the United States, there's lots of supposed "3rd" party testimony that incriminates people in crimes they've not committed. I can only assume in many of these cases (what are commonly called US political prisoners) that the government has a hand in it. So it is not out of reach at all for me to believe that if the US government can do it, that the government of the USSR could.


Once again, Stalin's reputation precedes his actual character. Many things "seem" to be most certain indeed.

It sells.

I'm currently in the process of reading some of the testimon given in the Moscow Trials. I will form my opinion on that whether or not these expulsions were justified.


For every article denouncing the great red devil is another that shaves off the horns.

I asked very simply for you to point me towards one, as I could not find one. As I said earlier even pro-stalinist things I had found still don't make any claim that he didn't do certain things, they just try to justify it and to me come up short in that sense. Now I've got a book to check out though, so we'll see.