Saddam & Stalin

[pa bajo con euda]

I've noticed some people like Sadam and Stalin, and I am not here to say you are wrong, im not even siding i am ineerested in why you like these people. My teachers, media, and history books make them look bad. And al my teachers say that stalin killed 24 million people, more or less. I know some of you say the western media exagerates, but even if he didnt kill that much people, he stil killed. again, i am not saying this is what i buhleve, but thats something might say to debate about.

soooo anybody?

[Zingu]

I know some people like Stalin on this forum (Not I), but uh...Saddam? :blink:

[Jersey Devil]

What about Nasser?

[NovelGentry]

but even if he didnt kill that much people, he stil killed

The guy in your avatar killed peopl too.

[pa bajo con euda]

who did che kill, are you talking about that camp bulshit or whatever he made?

[Jersey Devil]

Don't tell me that your so blinded by idealism that you don't believe that Guevara killed do you?

[pa bajo con euda]

why you putting words in my mouth?

its an honest question, i came here to gain knowledge cause im trying to learn

[NovelGentry]

who did che kill, are you talking about that camp bulshit or whatever he made?

I'm well aware his numbers too (and actions) are exagerrated, just the same as Stalins. The point is very simply that Che did Kill, and it wasn't just all people shooting at him. If you read his jounals from the Cuban revolution you would be well aware that the penalty for deserting the guerrilla forces was *officially* death.

He's also very ok with documenting one of the deaths of someone who stole food and deserted. Not to mention, he was firing weapons at soldiers in Batista's army, do you really think he never hit one? Do you think that he was repsonsible for NO death at La Cabana? That's a bit naive to think.

Again, exagerration is there, but to really think he killed no one is fairly easily proved false just by reading the man's own diaries.

[Jersey Devil]

Of course he "killed", he fought in a war, that is what happens in wars. Furthermore, he personally "killed" and tortured prisoners from the former Batista government, many which were secret police. Now, can we say that this was justified, that depends on your opinion. However, we can say without a shadow of a doubt that he did kill.

[Totalitarian Militant]

1- Answer the question or reply pa bajo con euda:
Che did kill people. Brothers, fathers, sons, etc. Admit it. Everyone has in these kinds of positions.
2-I, being Russian, having a grandparent from the WW2 era, have this to say. Stalin, although crazy and eventually very paranoid, had good qualities. He made the Soviet Union a world power. No offense to Lenin, but the Soviet Union was shit before Stalin came to power. His 4 and 5 year plans, had a huge cost of human life, but made it better for everyone else surviving. Look at Russia during World War 2. They went from having to drop out of world war one, fighting with United States civil war rifles, to an army that once mobilized made the Germans look bad.
The pushed unbelievably fast. Thats just inbelievable alone.
His plans:
[i]Stalin introduced the Five Year Plans. This brought all industry under state control and all industrial development was planned by the state. The state would decide what would be produced, how much would be produced and where it should be produced. An organisation called Gosplan was created to plan all this out.

The first five year plan was from 1928 to 1932.

The second five year plan was from 1933 to 1937.

The third five year plan was from 1938 to 1941 when the war interrupted it.[/i

he was the epitomy of a leader who did everything for the country rather than for the people. The industry was greater than the people, and they suffered for it.

As for Saddam, anyone who likes him is a moron. He did nothing but kill and harm people, and take care of his own.
He had torture chambers, some of which for children. He used chemical weapons. ADOLF HITER DIDNT EVEN USE THEM (thank god he felt em).
Saddam is completely bad. End of story.

[Kaan]

If you are sincerely interested in studying leftism, than it is first necessary for you to come to grips with the fact that the majority of the things in your history books are lies or distortions used to sell the U.S. position. And your teachers, though they may be good people, have heard these lies all their lives and are repeating them to you. Its ok though, everyone has the period where they aren't sure what to support because of what they are taught all their lives.

Personally, I do support Stalin because he supervised the fastest economic growth in history within the USSR and helped defeat fascism in Europe. I don't support Sadaam because he was a CIA puppet, but some people support him because has been opposing U.S. imperialism just recently, which is a pretty childish position in my opinion, but you asked... so hey.

[Abstrakt]

Damn Kaan, I thought Sadaam was always anti-U.S. Imperialistic. But a CIA puppet? This is all new to me, so please, elaborate.(Thanks for the knowledge that you've already kicked)

[Jersey Devil]

During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq was aided by the West because the Iranians were very anti-West at the time, with the Ayatollah of course. However, later in the Iran-Iraq war the Reagan administration actually aided the Iranians with arms and used the money made from the arms to sell to the Contras. This was where the relationship with the West and Iraq ended and Reagan faced scrutiny by the Senate and House because the legislative branch was completely unaware that this was occuring at the time.

[redstar2000]

Revolutionary politics is not about personal affection (or hatred) for "great leaders"...it's about understanding historical situations -- what really happened and why -- in as deep a way as we can.

Anyone can say that so-and-so was a hero...or a bastard -- that just doesn't tell us anything useful.

For example, one of Saddam Hussein's "accomplishments" was the repression of the religious freedom of the Shiite majority in Iraq.

Sounds "awful", doesn't it?

Well...except for the fact that among the Shiites are religious fanatics who, if they get the chance, will impose a bloody Iran-style theocracy on Iraq.

For another example, Stalin conducted an extensive purge of the Red Army shortly before World War II began -- the officers who had been in the old Czarist army were retired and some of them were tried and executed for planning a pro-Nazi military coup.

When this happened, all of the "western" military "authorities" were simply appalled. It was "stupid" and even "criminal".

And yet...Stalin's new generals, after initial setbacks, ultimately defeated the Nazis.

All of which is to say that social reality is complicated...and you have to look carefully at the details to make any kind of sensible evaluation.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[SpeCtrE]

Originally posted by pa bajo con [email protected] 23 2005, 11:32 PM
I've noticed some people like Sadam and Stalin, and I am not here to say you are wrong, im not even siding i am ineerested in why you like these people. My teachers, media, and history books make them look bad. And al my teachers say that stalin killed 24 million people, more or less. I know some of you say the western media exagerates, but even if he didnt kill that much people, he stil killed. again, i am not saying this is what i buhleve, but thats something might say to debate about.

soooo anybody?
Stalin and Saddam, like them... you have got to be kidding me! :blink:

I hate stalin for the man he was, for the bad rap he gave communism, and for all those lives that he sent to the gulag archepelago and siberia.

I hate sadam for the dictator that he was, for the piece of shit he is , and for not killing himself when he was about to be captured by the Yankees...

Did I mention I hate Saddam because he killed the Kurds, Shias and People altogther.

But, I hope you are going to submit the name of the people who like Saddam and Stalin.... Since we don't tolerate them here, especially Stalinists. ;)

[rice349]

is this thread a joke?

[Rage]

I probly should not post here :P


I am not a supporter of Saddam but I can honstly saw I like him more then George Bush :lol: .

As for Stalin... I don't like him... Much...


And are you serious about not knowing Che killed hundreds? Wow.

All I can say is don't use an avitar of someone who you dont know about, because it is just as bad as those un-educated people that were Che shirts and all they know about him is that he was some guy with an army.


/,,/
Rock on!

[SpeCtrE]

Wow, if you really think that Che killed people just like Saddam or stalin, you are either a peace creep hippie, or really disturbed reactionary.

[Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 05:17 PM
Wow, if you really think that Che killed people just like Saddam or stalin, you are either a peace creep hippie, or really disturbed reactionary.
I think he killed people, but defiantly not like Stalin and Saddam.

Hell, its war.

/,,/
Rock on!

[Livetrueordie]

don't like either

[Abstrakt]

Originally posted by Jersey [email protected] 29 2005, 08:48 AM
During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq was aided by the West because the Iranians were very anti-West at the time, with the Ayatollah of course. However, later in the Iran-Iraq war the Reagan administration actually aided the Iranians with arms and used the money made from the arms to sell to the Contras. This was where the relationship with the West and Iraq ended and Reagan faced scrutiny by the Senate and House because the legislative branch was completely unaware that this was occuring at the time.
Thanks. That does ring a bell. Funny how things flip.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Rage+Apr 29 2005, 05:35 PM--> (Rage @ Apr 29 2005, 05:35 PM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 05:17 PM
Wow, if you really think that Che killed people just like Saddam or stalin, you are either a peace creep hippie, or really disturbed reactionary.
I think he killed people, but defiantly not like Stalin and Saddam.

Hell, its war.

/,,/
Rock on! [/b]
i agree. Che was in a reovlution, of course people will die.

[Dwarf Kirlston]

Originally posted by Totalitarian [email protected] 24 2005, 02:37 AM
As for Saddam, anyone who likes him is a moron. He did nothing but kill and harm people, and take care of his own.
He had torture chambers, some of which for children. He used chemical weapons. ADOLF HITER DIDNT EVEN USE THEM (thank god he felt em).
Saddam is completely bad. End of story.
Adolf hitler didn't use chemical weapons?? they were available since WWI where I believe the Germans did use it against the british, and I remember at one point reading about his plan of blitzkrieg and how he used tear gas... but i might be wrong.

Saddam is completely bad? because he tortured children and used chemical weapons? I'm pretty sure that means he's not the greatest ever -but torture has been used in Abu Ghraib and been excused by neo cons as "pranks"...

are you sure the abuse of the children (you're talking 1 month? 4 yrs? 8 yrs? 14 yrs? 18?) wasn't just "fooling around"?

...I find it subtly ludicrous... especially the childish "End of story"

[Red Heretic]

Stalin is a leader that we, as communists, should uphold, but not without criticism. Stalin committed alot of horrible acts and suffered a great deal from paranoia. However, Stalin contributed very much to socialist economics, and the fight against fascism. We can't just say "I don't like Stalin, he killed people." We have to dig deep into what were Stalin's ideas, what did he do right, and what did he do wrong.

[Totalitarian Militant]

Just like Saan mentioned about teachers teaching you lies and all that..........

Well, my teacher for AMERICAN history admitted to me that she is basically communist.

So my class has no bais, except maybe for communism. <_<


Stalin is a leader that we, as communists, should uphold, but not without criticism. Stalin committed alot of horrible acts and suffered a great deal from paranoia. However, Stalin contributed very much to socialist economics, and the fight against fascism. We can&#39;t just say "I don&#39;t like Stalin, he killed people." We have to dig deep into what were Stalin&#39;s ideas, what did he do right, and what did he do wrong.

You, makhno, make my list of intelligent people here.


Adolf hitler didn&#39;t use chemical weapons?? they were available since WWI where I believe the Germans did use it against the british, and I remember at one point reading about his plan of blitzkrieg and how he used tear gas... but i might be wrong.

Saddam is completely bad? because he tortured children and used chemical weapons? I&#39;m pretty sure that means he&#39;s not the greatest ever -but torture has been used in Abu Ghraib and been excused by neo cons as "pranks"...

are you sure the abuse of the children (you&#39;re talking 1 month? 4 yrs? 8 yrs? 14 yrs? 18?) wasn&#39;t just "fooling around"?

...I find it subtly ludicrous... especially the childish "End of story"

You are completely wrong. He never used them. Its a historical fact. He experienced them, I think mustard gas, in ww1, and he never ever used them because of how horrible they would be for his troops. If you think about, which you didnt, if he used them, so would the allies. Thats why he didnt.

Whats ludicrous? Hitler was horrible, but Saddam was too. Just because you cant accept it you take cheap shots at my comments? Thats just plain pathetic.
Abu Ghraib wasnt 1/100th of anything Saddam ever did. Comparing the 2 is ignorant to facts and complete propaganda that you should feel shameful about.

[SpeCtrE]

I consider the killings done by Che as a necessary evil, killings that had to be done for achieving something more greater.

But not those Done By Stalin and Saddam.

[SpeCtrE]

Oh, by the way, I know Adolf Hitler Used Chemical weapons. I think My teacher once told me that he made a variation of the mustard gas to be used on the Jews.

I forgot the name of the chemical, But I remember it is in a yellow powder form.

[SpeCtrE]

The simple fact is that Saddam and Hitler are belong to the same league, Hitler Killed, So did Saddam, en masse.

WMD or not, I think I ma glad that saddam is ousted.

[Bolshevist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 11:58 AM
Oh, by the way, I know Adolf Hitler Used Chemical weapons. I think My teacher once told me that he made a variation of the mustard gas to be used on the Jews.

I forgot the name of the chemical, But I remember it is in a yellow powder form.
Are you thinking about Zyklon B?

[Black Dagger]

Stalin is a leader that we, as communists, should uphold, but not without criticism.

Why should he be &#39;upheld&#39; (glorified?)? What GOOD has he done for the communist movement? Stalin and the USSR in general, has HURT the &#39;image&#39;, the word &#39;communist&#39;, possibly more than any capitalist propagandist in history has ever done.
What i find more confusing, your username is &#39;makhno&#39; (ie. the anarchist) and you have a syndicalist star and black cat in your avatar, and your defending stalin? &#39;anarchists for stalin&#39;, that&#39;s a new one.



However, Stalin contributed very much to socialist economics,

How does this relate anarchism? &#39;stalinism in one country&#39; and ULTRA-hierachy arent exactly the &#39;economic principles&#39; anarchist society should be built on.



...and the fight against fascism.

So did Churchill, and all the &#39;allies&#39;.



We can&#39;t just say "I don&#39;t like Stalin, he killed people." We have to dig deep into what were Stalin&#39;s ideas, what did he do right, and what did he do wrong.

I agree that communists and anarchists need to reflect on history and historical figures critically, no matter their political disposition, but could please explain to me the aspects of stalinism you deem worth &#39;upholding&#39; as &#39;right&#39;?

[SpeCtrE]

That is it, Zyklon-b

[fokker-scourge]

well i watched a thing on the history channel about Saddam&#39;s main encouregments for his dicatorship were

The Godfather (what a chode ) and stalin


i personally think saddam is a foolish leader who is over confedent and murders ppl for no reason



well stalin aint so different


he wasnt a fool leader he was a good leader but i think hes a evil man


he murderd more people then hitler. but saddam ways of execution were more gruesom


most of stalin&#39;s &#39;executions&#39; were in labor camps and he didnt chose too have those ppl killed

just too work.......

im personally not a big fan of stalin, hes not russian, he was not one of the originial Bolsheviks, but he did lead a shit hole of a nation too one of the most powerful countries on earth that only a union of fat capitalist were too rivel it ill give him that

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 09:50 PM
Stalin is a leader that we, as communists, should uphold, but not without criticism. Stalin committed alot of horrible acts and suffered a great deal from paranoia. However, Stalin contributed very much to socialist economics, and the fight against fascism. We can&#39;t just say "I don&#39;t like Stalin, he killed people." We have to dig deep into what were Stalin&#39;s ideas, what did he do right, and what did he do wrong.
How about killed 60- 100 million people. And history has byenlarge forgotten him because he was on our side in ww2.

[Bolshevist]

He did not kill 60-100 million people, that is a obvious lie, and a little reason should reveal this. Even the trots agree with me on this&#33;

[Jersey Devil]

i personally think saddam is a foolish leader who is over confedent and murders ppl for no reason

Ludicrous, he killed "his own people" (if this phrase is even correct as he was a Sunni and he killed Shia muslims) because during the Iran-Iraq war many Iraqi Shia leaders were known or suspected to be collaborting with the Iranians.

[SpeCtrE]

He did not kill 60-100 million people, that is a obvious lie, and a little reason should reveal this. Even the trots agree with me on this&#33;

Don&#39;t call anyone Trot here, it is abusive and shows that you are a stalinist, which are not much tolerated here.


I don&#39;t know if you guys know this about saddam. But did you guys know that Saddam organized his systems wholly following Stalin. Like for example, the structure of the Security Police, the municipality....etc.

Saddam had a whole library dedicated to Stalin in his royal palace. He followed the steps of the guy so well...

Guess they are not much different.

[1936]

Who likes suddam? AND WHY&#33;?&#33;?

And i know who likes stalin....BUT WHY&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?

[1936]

And eagle that comparison is a bit unfair........

Suddam wasnt THAT bad.....sure he killed alot....but stalin makes that figure looks silly&#33;

[Bolshevist]

Originally posted by Eagle
Don&#39;t call anyone Trot here, it is abusive and shows that you are a stalinist, which are not much tolerated here.

LOL, how can me calling people Trotskyites or Trots be abusive when people call themself as such? And how does it prove that I am a stalinist?

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 08:57 PM
He did not kill 60-100 million people, that is a obvious lie, and a little reason should reveal this. Even the trots agree with me on this&#33;
People often put way too much stress on Stalin&#39;s murder rate and the Great Purges. We have to remember he ultra-centralised the USSR which pushed him further and further away from worker&#39;s democracy, and he reintroduced privileges in order to keep other "communists" on his side.

[Bolshevist]

The power belonged to the Soviets. Stalin was not an omnipotent person as many people like to claim he was.

[Redmau5]

The power in the Soviets was token. Only Bolsheviks were allowed to stand and then it became Stalinists. If the Soviets had real power then there would have been no centralised government.

I know Stalin was still subject to the Politburo but he made sure that most of them were his cronies. He also bought off any opposition by offering them privileges and scarce resources.

[workersunity]

i dont support saddam nor stalin

[Hiero]

If the Soviets had real power then there would have been no centralised government.

And you don&#39;t want a centralised government?

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 09:13 AM
And you don&#39;t want a centralised government?
No true communist wants centralised government. Because a centralised government means a new ruling class oppressing the workers. However, i recognise it was necessary for centralisation in the years after the 1917 revolution. But Stalin had no intention of de-centralising the government and this became the model for the Soviet Union until it&#39;s collapse in 1991. There was no workers democracy whatsoever. It&#39;s a known fact that Lenin was making moves to de-centralise the government and introduce more democracy within the party. He also wanted to reduce the massive bureaucracy that emerged. This is the complete opposite of what Stalin did when he came to power.

Stalin was also nationalistic, extremely paranoid and vain. Lenin would have been disgusted at the adulation which Stalin placed upon him and himself.

[Hiero]

It&#39;s a known fact that Lenin was making moves to de-centralise the government and introduce more democracy within the party.

Well fact away, what were these reforms?

[Redmau5]

Well he couldn&#39;t exactly implement them due to the slight handicap of being dead.

[bezdomni]

Stalin was an unimpressive leader. The only "good" thing he did was turn the soviet union into a superpower, but at terrible costs.

He started industrialisation plans so that there would be more supplies for the military. This ended up in the majority of the Soviet workforce producing manufactured goods instead of consumer goods, which ended up in millions on the verge of starvation and living in one-room apartments. Also, the "goods" that were produced for the military were typically low-quality or unsafe. Their nuclear submarines gave cancer and radiation poisioning to nearly anybody who was on them because the reactors weren&#39;t contained enough. Their soldiers would drink the engine lubricant (a very high proof alcohol, because regular lubricant would freeze) and would oftentimes be too drunk to fight.

And I don&#39;t think I even need to address the purges. He killed all of the original bolsheviks so nobody would remember that instead of fighting in the october revolution, he was having a hangover.

He didn&#39;t even fully grasp marxism. He didn&#39;t understand Dialectical Materialism, and used metaphysics instead. Read Mao&#39;s (who was scarcely better than Stalin) critique of him.

[SpeCtrE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:05 PM
And eagle that comparison is a bit unfair........

Suddam wasnt THAT bad.....sure he killed alot....but stalin makes that figure looks silly&#33;

Even the trots agree with ME on this&#33;

Simple logic. Correct me if I am wrong.

When you said even the Trots agree with me on this, don&#39;t you think that you are making it obvious that you are defending Stalin. That is how I saw it. I could be mistaken, correct me if I am.


And eagle that comparison is a bit unfair

Well, the comparison could be fair or unfair. That depends on who you read and which mainstream media you have on your intellectual diet. But the actual figures are not know, and will not be known. I never expected Saddam and his henchmen to keep a tally on how many people they have killed.

I was only comparing Saddam and Stalin in a sense that Saddam has killed a percentage of the Iraqi Population, which is almost equivalent to the percentage of the soviet population that Stalin killed.


Suddam wasnt THAT bad.....sure he killed alot....but stalin makes that figure looks silly&#33;

I am betting five capitalist dollars that our dear fellow friend Saddam wouldn&#39;t have failed us if he was given large population. :P

[Freak]

I consider the killings done by Che as a necessary evil, killings that had to be done for achieving something more greater.

Heh. some people say the same about Bush in Iraq. You can&#39;t have it both ways.

Also, making prisoners strip off their clothing and pile in "human pyramids" is humiliation, not torture. Same with disrespecting the Koran, it&#39;s not torture by any stretch of the imagination. Some people will go to great lengths to make everthing fit their agendas.

Freak