Nicky number two

[EwokUtopia]

Czar Nicholas the Second of Russia. Was he evil? Was he really behind all the evil?
Personally, I think he was a good man, but a terrible leader, much like the wizard of oz. His problem was that his family was his first concern, which is an admirable way to be a terrible figure, I dont think he was after personal gain, he was raised from birth to believe that the power he had was his by divine right. If you pound that into somebody all his life then tell him its wrong when hes 40, what do you think will happen? The execution of him was wrong, but it was incredibly evil to murder his wife, daughters, sickly son, doctors, assistants, and dog in Yekaterinberg. The man was by no means a good leader, but he did'nt deserve to die. He himself wasnt kept informed of the goings on in his country. how could he understand the plight of the proletariate if people made damn sure he was distanced from them. He wasnt evil, his advisors were. He also had a cool beard.

[Scars]

He was a terrible leader and was simply following the traditions of what had gone before him. His advisors obviously didn't help and I'd say he was some what distracted by his sons illness.

This is one of the problems of absolute monarchy's.

[Little Miss Red]

He was not evil! He was a bad leader,yes, but a bad man? Never. That is why the his family are saints in the Russian Orthodox Church.

I think the execution of the Romanovs was a bad idea. Lenin should have just used them in bargaining with the Germens. Nicholas could not live, of course but can you condemn children for their fathers' inadecacies?I say no.

Olga Nicholaina (1895-1918)
Tatiana Nicholaina(1898-1918)
Marie Nicholaina(1900-1918)
Anastasia Nicholaina(1904-1918)
Alexei Nikolevitch(1905-1918)
May they rest in peace.

Anyone interested should check out Alexander Palace Forums.

[ComradeOm]

Nicholas was merely the same as every Tsar before him. Was he a "bad man"? Probably not. But the vast majority of "his" people lived miserable lives while he enjoyed the high life. I doubt their plight even crossed his mind. He was a product of an obsolete class, one no longer able to maintain their power and positions through force. In the end he and his cronies were swept away by history.

As for whether the Romanov’s should’ve been killed… that’s not much of a decision. I wouldn’t hesitate to say yes. Lenin and the Bolsheviks destroyed the old feudal order, smashed it to pieces, and the deaths of the royal family were a necessary part of that.

Its news to me that Nicholas is a saint, I guess that sums up everything you need to know about religion as well.

[Scars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 01:32 PM
Its news to me that Nicholas is a saint, I guess that sums up everything you need to know about religion as well.
He is not a saint, his family are, but 'martyrs' would be a better description of how they're viewed. They're also only considered saints in the Russian Orthodox church. And stranger people have been sainted- the Catholics are going through the processes of sainting an atheist (I shit you not)

[EwokUtopia]

He and his family didnt deserve to die. Nobody does. The proletariate suffered under the soviets as well as the czar, the soviets were a violently equal society where party members became the new elite, and the class struggle continued on a different level. The way to create a good society isnt based on class hate, but rather classless love.

[Little Miss Red]

I guess you say that, but you probably know nothing about them.

Olga took after her father, she liked to read. Towards the end she got very depressed, I think because a Bolshevik sailor raped her. Fate of the Romanovs. Her hair was the darkest.
Tatiana had the pretty green eyes, blondish hair. She took after her mother and was the most beautiful. I think one of the Princes of England proposed to her.

Marie. My favorite, she was chubby and loved people. She sat with the soldiers on the trains, and was the most aware of her situation. She could of married Lord Mountbatton but she wanted "to marry a soldier and have nine kids".

Anastasia, was the redhead infante terrible. Oh, I don't have to describe shvibzik to you, do I? She was the youngest, and Anna Anderson thought she was Anastasia.

Alexei was a very cute boy who had hemohillia. He would not have lived long anyway,so I guess it doesn't matter here.
Uhh...I'm getting sentimental.

[BuyOurEverything]

Olga took after her father, she liked to read. Towards the end she got very depressed, I think because a Bolshevik sailor raped her. Fate of the Romanovs. Her hair was the darkest.
Tatiana had the pretty green eyes, blondish hair. She took after her mother and was the most beautiful. I think one of the Princes of England proposed to her.

Marie. My favorite, she was chubby and loved people. She sat with the soldiers on the trains, and was the most aware of her situation. She could of married Lord Mountbatton but she wanted "to marry a soldier and have nine kids".

Anastasia, was the redhead infante terrible. Oh, I don't have to describe shvibzik to you, do I? She was the youngest, and Anna Anderson thought she was Anastasia.

Alexei was a very cute boy who had hemohillia. He would not have lived long anyway,so I guess it doesn't matter here.
Uhh...I'm getting sentimental.

What... the... fuck...

Seriously, was Nicholas a bad guy? Like CO said, maybe, maybe not. Was Hitler, Pinochet, or Batista 'bad people' in their personal lives? Who cares, their government policies caused the suffering and deaths of millions. Ditto with Nicholas. Did his kids deserve to die? The question we really should be asking is why are we talking about this? Do you know how many children suffered and died under his rule? By starvation or rape and murder by his soldiers? Do you know a single one of their names?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

To bad more people like this scum fuck weren't murdered in the course of history. We'd be alot better off now.

Classless love? WTF. Sounds nice, but back here in reality it doesn't work to good.

[Little Miss Red]

No. Unknowns don't have sites devoted to people saying "that picture is so cute I just want to hug him!" Emigre community and their descendents,historians,and just general people love the Romanovs.I used to adore Anastasia. The cartoon enchanted me when I was like 7, and I loved Russian history ever sense.

Hey, serious question. Were the graves of past dynasties really desecrated during the Revolution? I read that they were hanged on poles. Really creepy.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:06 AM
To bad more people like this scum fuck weren't murdered in the course of history. We'd be alot better off now.

Classless love? WTF. Sounds nice, but back here in reality it doesn't work to good.
Cause in real life, communism works just dandy, doesn't it? You sound like a very violent and angry person, let go of the hatred, has it done a damn thing to make you happier? classless love IS possible. Think about what was created in the sixties, had it not been for that damnable Nixon and Reagan, the world would be in a much better place. Im not saying kill Nixon or Reagan, just keep them from power. Nicholas's innocence can be argues, but what is an unargueable fact is the innocence of his daughters, son, and pet dog. And, further to the point, far more died under Lenin than under Nicholas II, is he one of history's scum that you would gladly kill? Personally I think Kerensky was the best choice, but also the least loved one, A time of radicals is no time for rational's. Socialism is the solution, not Communism. The only good Communist regime has a leader who never claimed to be a communist anyways. Castro states he is an anti-imperialist socialist, and he has my respect, even if he is a tad on the violent side. Put down your guns, and they win, they put down their guns and you win, everyone puts every gun down, everyone wins.

[Zingu]

What the fuck.

We're talking about how pretty the little spoiled brats were? Wearing their diamond necklaces while the masses starved in the streets?

Something is wrong with that picture, maybe?

It was nessecary for them to die, wiping out the royal line of succession was the final step for entombing the autocracy forever. If "L'Etat, C'est Moi", then it is nessecary to execute that person if one wishes to destroy the state and any chances of it re-emerging.

There is no such thing as "evil".


Put down your guns, and they win, they put down their guns and you win, everyone puts every gun down, everyone wins.

And then the capitalist and the worker can sing, holding hands, prancing down the flowerly meadows of class harmony "Happy, happy, happy, happy!" :rolleyes:

Why should I have compassion for ones who have none?

[Black Dagger]

Cause in real life, communism works just dandy, doesn't it?

First of all, this statement makes no sense- there has never been 'communism'- so saying 'communism doesn't work' is illogical. Secondly, this has zero to do with the current discussion.

'The autocrats should be killed!
'No, communism doesn't work!'



You sound like a very violent and angry person, let go of the hatred,

Communists are angry people, anyone alive who is not angry about the way society currently functions needs to wake up- or perhaps step out of their gated neighbourhood. When a communist 'lets go' of their 'hatred' for capitalism, i.e. their passion for humanity, equality, liberty, solidarity- then they're no longer a communist. People will 'let go' when they get the ruling class off their backs, out of their work place, and out of existence.



has it done a damn thing to make you happier?

Yes. Communism provides hope for the future, society does not have to be run to serve the interests of the few, struggling for this change is a fulfulling (although at times frustrating) experience. What could make me happier than to know that the struggles of my life are in some way contributing to a future without class and the state? Having hatred for capitalists, does not proclude one from being happy- it just means that there are things and people in society that make you unhappy... angry- that aspect does not have to consume my or any communists' life/thoughts 24/7- and it doesn't.



classless love IS possible.

What is 'classless love'? Is that like 'christian love'?



Think about what was created in the sixties,

What was created in the 60s?



had it not been for that damnable Nixon and Reagan, the world would be in a much better place.

Possibly, but 'better' is not communism- i don't want 'better' capitalism- i want a communist society, no exploitation, no wages, no state- anything else is not good enough.



Im not saying kill Nixon or Reagan, just keep them from power.

You say that as if Nixon or Reagan would not have been replaced by someone equally as pro-capitalist and reactionary. If Reagan and Nixon were 'kept from power' (how would that be achieved by the way?)- there would just be another ruling class stooge, democrat or republican- to take their place.



Nicholas's innocence can be argues, but what is an unargueable fact is the innocence of his daughters, son, and pet dog.

These are all rallying points of counter-revolution (well, maybe not the czars dog <_<). As long as the Romanov&#39;s still existed there would be hope amongst the whites that the old regime could be restored. What&#39;s the point of restoring the monarchy if there are no longer any monarchs? You can&#39;t just &#39;make up&#39; a new royal family. By killing off the Romanov dynasty, a vital symbol/rallying point for autocratic counter-revolution was destroyed. Moreover, if the Romanov&#39;s were spared, it would also provide ammunition for &#39;western&#39; states to invade Russia. They could paint their invasion as an attempt to restore the &#39;rightful rulers&#39; of to the throne- i.e. re-instate the czarist autocracy. Would you have preferred that the red army was defeated and one of the ex-czars kids took the throne as the puppet of some white general?



And, further to the point, far more died under Lenin than under Nicholas II, is he one of history&#39;s scum that you would gladly kill?

Considering Lenin himself died shortly after the revolution i find this doubtful. Care to back this statement up with some sources perhaps?



Socialism is the solution, not Communism.

Solution to what? Capitalism? You realise socialism (in the context you&#39;re speaking) is a form of capitalism right? State-capitalism is still capitalism. As long as classes and wages still exist, and the workers do not control/manage the means of production- that&#39;s capitalism. So you support &#39;modified&#39; capitalism? How is this meant to be achieved? The democratic party? The greens? Some other liberal bourgeois &#39;political party&#39;?



The only good Communist regime has a leader who never claimed to be a communist anyways.

Ah, i see, you actually have no understanding of even basic marxism, that explains a lot. You&#39;re alluding to Casto yes? Care to explain how Cuba is a &#39;communist regime&#39;?



Castro states he is an anti-imperialist socialist, and he has my respect, even if he is a tad on the violent side.

How is castro &#39;a tad on the violent state&#39;? You mean when he overthrew the Batista dictatorship?



Put down your guns, and they win, they put down their guns and you win, everyone puts every gun down, everyone wins.

:lol: That makes absolutely no sense.

Let&#39;s try some logic shall we?

P1-The state needs arms to prevent communists from smashing capitalism and the state.

Therefore,

C1- Without arms capitalism and the state would be virtually defenceless.

P2-Communists need to use arms to smash capitalism and the state.

Therefore,

C2- Without arms capitalism and the state cannot be smashed.

Now you come in, with &#39;everyone puts every gun down, everyone wins&#39;.

From C1 & C2, it&#39;s self-evident that if &#39;everyone puts every gone done&#39;- that capitalism/state will win. Why? Because the only way for communists to win, is to smash capitalism and the state. We can see in C2 that without arms this cannot be acheived. Even if the state also layed down their arms (why would they every do this? How would they maintain their authority? No police? No military?), in this scenario so have &#39;we&#39;- are we going to have a big debate? A sing-along? How exactly is anything going to be sorted out- change - in this scenario? No guns does not entail any kind of resolution, and it most definately does not entail the abolition of capitalism. No guns just means no conflict, and no conflict in effect means the maintenance of the status-quo, capitalism.
This is because the capitalist class has no interest in &#39;stepping down&#39;- it makes no sense that capitalists would just &#39;give up&#39; their wealth and power. That is the whole reason why communists need arms, because the capitalists will not &#39;step aside&#39; for the &#39;good of humanity&#39;. Communists have arms so that we can force the capitalists to step-aside. If they don&#39;t, they get shot.

That&#39;s what revolution is, a class war, class-against-class. Capitalists vs. everyone else, to determine how society and the means of production will be organised. Communist want liberty, equality & solidarity- workers self-management, the workplace and community controlled by the workers and the community themselves. Direct-democracy. Capitalists want the wage-system, the maintenance of class- that is, the maintenance of the ownership and control of the means of production by capitalists- not by the workers- the people who produce the wealth for the capitalists.

Capitalists want what ever political system will allow them to continue to exist. Liberal democracy is fine, but history has shown that they&#39;ll take fascism, or some other kind of dictatorship, just as long as they can keep their wealth and property. that is at the end of the day- their overarching concern- hanging on to their position- and that is why &#39;we&#39; cannot rely on them to just give their privilege away- that is why &#39;we&#39; must take it from them, that is why &#39;we&#39; needs arms.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Maybe you&#39;d care to put down the bong for a moment and dig into reality.


Cause in real life, communism works just dandy, doesn&#39;t it?

We&#39;ll wait until it exists to answer that question.


You sound like a very violent and angry person, let go of the hatred, has it done a damn thing to make you happier?

Yeah, it&#39;s called being a class concious worker in capitalist society. I&#39;ll let go of it when the material conditions for it exist (no more capitalism).


classless love IS possible.

What the fuck does it even mean? How can you have "classless" anything while classes exist? All this talk about "classless love" reminds me the "classless Volk" talk under Hitler.


Think about what was created in the sixties,

What happened? A bunch of drugged out petit-bourgeois college students piggy backed on the legitimate liberation struggles of oppressed people from around the world? And what happened to them all? They graduated and took up managerial possitions bossing around proletarians.


had it not been for that damnable Nixon and Reagan, the world would be in a much better place. Im not saying kill Nixon or Reagan, just keep them from power.

"Keep them from power" how? With classless love? :lol:

And if it had not been for them, then what? It would have been some other piece of shit in the White House. I really don&#39;t think you get how this whole system works at all.


Nicholas&#39;s innocence can be argues, but what is an unargueable fact is the innocence of his daughters, son, and pet dog.

No one is innocent; especially not members of the rulling class pre-socialism.


And, further to the point, far more died under Lenin than under Nicholas II, is he one of history&#39;s scum that you would gladly kill?

No they didn&#39;t. The Russian revolution occured in 1917, Lenin died in 1924.

Secondly, even if they did, so what? 1 murdered worker is horrible and unforgivable; 100,000 murdered capitalists would be incredibly wonderful.


Personally I think Kerensky was the best choice, but also the least loved one, A time of radicals is no time for rational&#39;s. Socialism is the solution, not Communism.

Sort of funny since that what existed in the USSR. You do know that USSR stood for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics right? You also know that socialism is as far as we&#39;ve ever gotten anywhere?

But, you&#39;re probably referring to democratic socialism, "capitalism with a human face"; and of course that would fit just perfectly with your bourgeois liberal views (and no doubt background).


The only good Communist regime has a leader who never claimed to be a communist anyways. Castro states he is an anti-imperialist socialist, and he has my respect, even if he is a tad on the violent side.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Fidel Castro is a Marxist-Leninist communist. He&#39;s a part of the Partido Cubano Comunista.

The Cuban revolution was just that, a revolution. People died, lots - before, during, and after.

Batista had 20,000 supporters of the 26 July movement murdered in 2 years. I guess they should have fought back with "classless love"? Oh wait no they shouldn&#39;t have, because they would have all been killed and there would be no Cuban revolution.


Put down your guns, and they win, they put down their guns and you win, everyone puts every gun down, everyone wins.

What a nice idea that is, you learn it in church? Why the fuck would the rulling class ever "put down its guns"? Show me one precident of that in human history, ever.

[Andy Bowden]

Of course the Tsar deserved it. He was a class enemy FFS, wether he was a "nice person" or not is irrelevant. We judge people on their actions, not personalities.

:blink:

[viva le revolution]

Classless love? Sixties [/I]Revolutionaries[I]? Sounds like Ewok utopia is extremely new to histotry and reality&#33;

[viva le revolution]

Excuse me i hate to burst your bubble, but communism isn&#39;t a marijuana cult&#33;
And secondly, history is judged by actions, not personalities, if you are prepared to excuse Tsar Nicholas for his personality, Hitler too was passionate and generous towards his wife Eva Braun and close friends, care to extend to him the same courtesy? As i see it, you need a seroius study of history&#33;

[Little Miss Red]

It&#39;s just funny is how your perspective is. I went back to Alexander Palace and looked at there topics about this and most of them said that Lenin was sociopath.

Personally, I don&#39;t see how killing 4 inncoent girls is going to further revolution.
It only blackens the communist reputations. Wilson was very nice to the Bolshevik regime until he received word that they had executed the royal family.

[EwokUtopia]

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it&#39;s evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don&#39;t you know that you can count me out
Don&#39;t you know it&#39;s gonna be all right
all right, all right

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We&#39;d all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We&#39;re doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don&#39;t you know it&#39;s gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah

ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...

You say you&#39;ll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it&#39;s the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain&#39;t going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don&#39;t you know it&#39;s gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right






I&#39;ll take Lennon instead of Lenin any day.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 11:15 AM

What a nice idea that is, you learn it in church? Why the fuck would the rulling class ever "put down its guns"? Show me one precident of that in human history, ever.
How about the end of aparthied? or the end of british rule in india?


Talk about murdering the bourgeois is useless; most people in the western world are middle class bourgeois. I would prefer Scandinavian Socialism any day when compared with the horrors of Stalins regime. You say that that is not true Communism, and you may well be right, but the real question is, how do you set up communism without a strong man taking charge and becoming a proletarian despot? Violent revolutions result in violent regimes. Equality without freedom is a peice of shit. If you want to Murder little girls and a sickly boy based on their birth, go ahead, your a monster. Just to say "they&#39;d do the same" makes no sence, an eye for an eye? I think not, or do you think that the Jewish community should have murdered 6 million Germans after the war? Revenge is the worst justification for attrocity. Violent revolutions will not occur within the west, and if they occur within the south, power hungry dictators will take charge, it&#39;s happened before. How do you plan to make the American masses, who are for the most part fat and complaicent, pick up guns? Show me one precident in history where a communust/marxist revolution has ended up in anything other than a brutal and oppressive regime, ever.

[metalero]

Look at historical conditions, and you will see that the execution of the royal family didn&#39;t come out of revenge, but rather it was a mean to destroy any remnants of the old system, and to prevent that a monarchy would ever be restored. The same way bourgeoise french revolutionaries chopped off the heads of the royal family back in the XVIII century to do away with feudalism and to avoid some kind of government in exile made by royal members. The Russian working class had to face imperialist invasion and counter-revolutionary armies that if allowed would have crushed, tortured and executed the workers the same way they did in germany with Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebchknet and the german workers; This, of course, under the indifferent eyes of the "peaceful" social-democrats and "non-violent" liberal bourgeois.

[EwokUtopia]

So then in your eyes, the killing of an innocent baby is permissive if his last name is Romanov? Simply stating that politics are bourgeois and proletarian means nothing in defending them. Hitler was a proletarian, were his politics good?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Personally, I don&#39;t see how killing 4 inncoent girls is going to further revolution.

Good thing what you think didn&#39;t and doesn&#39;t matter at all.


Wilson was very nice to the Bolshevik regime until he received word that they had executed the royal family.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


I&#39;ll take Lennon instead of Lenin any day.

What do you think, posting the lyrics to a bourgeois-liberal anti-revolution song is going to help your case? You look more pathetic with every response.

And if you bothered to do any research you&#39;d know that Lennon gave up the idea of peaceful revolution later in life; see "Working Class Hero".

By the way, have many "Lennonist" revolutions have there been anyway? :rolleyes:


How about the end of aparthied? or the end of british rule in india?

How about it? Did the rulling class put down its guns? No.

Apartheid ended in South Africa after a military defeat by the Cubans and Angolans, a long and hard struggle by Blacks - including, you guessed it - ARMED STRUGGLE&#33;&#33;

India? There was peaceful struggle and armed struggle, with more and more people opting for the latter. Basically, the ongoing struggle and threat of stepping up the struggle that forced the rulling classes to acquiesce. Do remember that India never gained economic and political independence - only formal independence.


Talk about murdering the bourgeois is useless;

Not to people concered with revolution.


most people in the western world are middle class bourgeois.

No they&#39;re not. Do you just pull these things out of thin air? Let me guess, you have no source to back this up either..


I would prefer Scandinavian Socialism any day when compared with the horrors of Stalins regime.

What the fuck is Scandinavian Socialism? You mean bourgeois liberal democracy w/ some social programs? That&#39;s capitalism, not socialism. Last time I checked no Scandinavian countries were in a post-capitalist transition towards communism.

The horrors of capitalism everyday long out-do anything that happened in the USSR under Stalin - but obviously you don&#39;t have to uphold Stalin to be a communist. Most here don&#39;t (including me). Many consider the USSR under Stalin to be State Capitalist.


You say that that is not true Communism, and you may well be right, but the real question is, how do you set up communism without a strong man taking charge and becoming a proletarian despot?

Try reading. There are numerous books - or even threads on this vary forum..


Violent revolutions result in violent regimes. Equality without freedom is a peice of shit.

Right; but since neither has ever truly existed you don&#39;t have much to go on. "As long as there is a state, there can be no freedom; when there is freedom, there will be no state."

I suggest you&#39;re talking about bourgeois "right", which would fit right in with your class outlook.


If you want to Murder little girls and a sickly boy based on their birth, go ahead, your a monster.

"I&#39;ve been called worse by better people."


Violent revolutions will not occur within the west,

Oh no? See France, Spain, etc.


and if they occur within the south, power hungry dictators will take charge, it&#39;s happened before.

1. No it hasn&#39;t. See Nicaragua, Cuba, El Salvador, etc.
2. By your logic we should just give up and smoke weed right?


How do you plan to make the American masses, who are for the most part fat and complaicent, pick up guns?

Most people in the U.S. already own guns. And like I said, read some books. "We" don&#39;t want to make anyone do anything; capitalism will take care of that itself.


Show me one precident in history where a communust/marxist revolution has ended up in anything other than a brutal and oppressive regime, ever.

Cuba.


So then in your eyes, the killing of an innocent baby is permissive if his last name is Romanov?

"Permissive"? <_< In case you haven&#39;t noticed, we judge people by class and class outlook, not last name.

Have there been excesses in revolutions? Maybe (though many haven&#39;t gone nearly far enough), but you know what they say, "a revolution is not a dinner party."


Simply stating that politics are bourgeois and proletarian means nothing in defending them. Hitler was a proletarian, were his politics good?

He was? "From 1905 onward, Hitler was able to live the life of a Bohemian on a fatherless child&#39;s pension and support from his mother." I don&#39;t think so. Do you have anything else to make up?

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 01:04 AM

How about the end of aparthied? or the end of british rule in india?



Again i would refer you to the history books.
The pan-african liberation movement was among the bloodiest in history, with african marxists strongly opposing the colonial forces, with many marxist and african nationalist leaders murdered, eg. Patrice Lumumba. Or the suppression of the Mau mau in Kenya. Even Nelson Mandela was jailed unjustly. It would be sheer naivity on your part to say that apartheid was ended peacefully.
As for India, living in Pakistan i would be in the best position to know, the quit-india movement was extremely aggressive and violent. Indian communist movements were constantly pressurizing the british to leave. In 1857 a failed uprising of muslim and hindu soldiers was brutally crushed. in 1946 a revolt of indian sailors aboard 7 ships waving cpommunist banners were attacking british ports, marxist leaders such as Bhagat Singh constantly attacked british forces etc. etc. With the result that most communist movements were crushed severly with widespread torture and bloodshed. even during partition, which was one of the bloodiest exodus&#39; in history, there was no such thing as peace, with trainloads of bodies arriving in pakistan and india, the result of communal strife. Any person living in india and pakistan will gladly kick your ass for being foolish enough to state that independance was peaceful.
Again, i say learn some history kiddo.

[Luís Henrique]

Communists are angry people,

I am not. What does that have to do with my political ideas? :rolleyes:

[Gura]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 05:07 AM

Show me one precident in history where a communust/marxist revolution has ended up in anything other than a brutal and oppressive regime, ever.

Cuba.
Nicaragua as well. In fact, the Nicaraguan government was the complete opposite of brutal and oppressive. Not even the members of Somoza&#39;s National Guard were arrested or executed for being members of that outfit. The Sandinistas declared that no one woudl be imprisoned because of membership in an organisation, that it would first have to be proved that they did something criminal. They also abolished the death penalty.

In retrospect, their reluctance to imprison the members of the National Guard led to many of these people joining the Contras.