Your own Bloody History

[John Caulfield]

On Lenin

Lenin's rapacious agricultural policies 1918-1923 created a famine that killed by starvation and associated diseases about 7,300,000 people. Half of these victims comprise democide, the other half are the unintentional victims of failed policies. Here is a photo of two of the victims, a mother and her child. For documentation, see Lethal Politics. Source: my record has it at Museum of Communism, but now can't find it there.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM1.LENIN.FAM.VIC2.HTM

Inquiry Reveals Lenin Unleashed Systematic Murder of 200,000 Clergy
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/sovietatheism1.html


*Under Lenin and Stalin, the Soviet government became the greatest mass-murderer in history. Lenin's collectivization and purges of 1921-1922 caused 4 million deaths

http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue06/governments.htm

The term Lenin's Hanging Order refers to the handwritten order [1] dated August 11, 1918, written by Vladimir Lenin instructing communists operating in and around Penza to publicly hang at least one hundred kulaks; publicize their names; confiscate their grains and to take an unspecified number of hostages.

In terms of the Order, this was intended to be demonstrated to "people hundreds of kilometers around" by way of an example, in response to kulak revolts in 5 volosts in the area. The Order was specifically addressed to comrades Kuraev, Bosh, Minkin and other Penza communists and required the recipients to acknowledge receipt of the Order by telegraphic mail and to confirm the execution of the Order.

The Penza area is in the East European plains.

The order was discussed during a controversy around a 1997 BBC documentary, Lenin's Secret Files, based on Robert Service's findings in recently opened Soviet archives.

The text is as follows:

Send to Penza To Comrades Kuraev, Send to Penza To Comrades Kuraev, Bosh, Minkin and other Penza communists Comrades! The revolt by the five kulak volost's must be suppressed without mercy. The interest of the entire revolution demands this, because we have now before us our final decisive battle "with the kulaks." We need to set an example. 1) You need to hang (hang without fail, so that the public sees) at least 100 notorious kulaks, the rich, and the bloodsuckers. 2) Publish their names. 3) Take away all of their grain. 4) Execute the hostages - in accordance with yesterday's telegram. This needs to be accomplished in such a way, that people for hundreds of miles around will see, tremble, know and scream out: let's choke and strangle those blood-sucking kulaks. Telegraph us acknowledging receipt and execution of this. Yours, Lenin P.S. Use your toughest people for this.

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin%27s_Hanging_Order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LeninsHangingOrder1.gif

What were the most important human rights violations committed under Lenin's rule?

V.I. Lenin was the founding father of the Soviet Union and its dictator during the Russian Civil War that followed. A series of strokes after the Civil War, and his early death in 1924, gave him a mere five years to reign. The brevity of his tenure led many to assume that subsequent human rights abuses in the Soviet Union were not Lenin's fault. Oppression did intensify after Stalin replaced Lenin as the absolute ruler of the USSR. But Lenin did everything that Stalin would later do, except execute fellow Communists. As Richard Pipes notes, this "is not as significant as it may appear at first sight. Towards outsiders, people not belonging to his order of the elect - and that included 99.7 percent of his compatriots - Lenin showed no human feelings whatever..." (Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime)

Lenin repeatedly indicated that large-scale killing would be necessary to bring in his utopia, and did not shrink from this realization. His speeches and writings overflow with calls for blood: "Merciless war against these kulaks! Death to them." "We'll ask the man, where do you stand on the question of the revolution? Are you for it or against it? If he's against it, we'll stand him up against a wall." As Pipes sums up, "Lenin hated what he perceived to be the 'bourgeoisie' with a destructive passion that fully equaled Hitler's hatred of the Jews: nothing short of physical annihilation would satisfy him." Moreover, "The term 'bourgeoisie' the Bolsheviks applied loosely to two groups: those who by virtue of their background or position in the economy functioned as 'exploiters,' be they a millionaire industrialist or a peasant with an extra acre of land, and those who, regardless of their economic or social status, opposed Bolshevik policies." (Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime) Lenin used all three of the tools of mass murder that his successors and imitators would later perfect.


Deaths due to extreme hardship conditions in slave labor camps
Lenin's secret police, the Cheka, pioneered the development of the modern slave labor (or "concentration") camp. Inmates were generally frankly treated as government-owned slaves, and used for the most demanding work - such as digging arctic canals - while receiving pitifully small rations. As Pipes explains, "Soviet concentration camps, as instituted in 1919, were meant to be a place of confinement for all kinds of undesirables, whether sentenced by courts or by administrative organs. Liable to confinement in them were not only individuals but also 'categories of individuals' - that is, entire classes: Dzerzhinskii at one point proposed that special concentration camps be erected for the 'bourgeoisie.' Living in forced isolation, the inmates formed a pool of slave labor on which Soviet administrative and economic institutions could draw at no cost." (The Russian Revolution) The number of people in these camps according to Pipes was about 50,000 prisoners in 1920 and 70,000 in 1923; many of these did not survive the inhuman conditions. The inmates might be bourgeoisie, or peasants, or members of other socialist factors such as the Mensheviks or the Social Revolutionaries, or members of ethnicities thought to be hostile to the Bolsheviks, such as the Don Cossacks. The death rates in these camps appear to have been in the extreme hardship range of 10-30%. While the number thus killed was only a small percentage of the total exterminated under Lenin's regime, it laid the foundation for Stalin's slave labor empire.


Deaths due to man-made famine
By far the largest number of unnatural deaths for which Lenin and his cohorts were responsible resulted from famine. Lenin and his regime tried to depict the famine as simply bad luck, but the truth is rather different. To feed his troops and keep the cities producing munitions, Lenin needed food. He got it by "requisitioning" it from the peasantry - demanding delivery of large sums of food for little or nothing in exchange. This led peasants to drastically reduce their crop production. In retaliation, Lenin often ordered the seizure of the food peasants had grown for their own subsistence, sometimes ordering the confiscation of their seed grain as a further sanction. The Cheka and the army began by shooting hostages, and ended by waging a second full-scale civil war against the recalcitrant peasantry.

The ultimate results of this war against the peasantry were devastating. Official Soviet reports admitted that fully 30 million Soviet citizens were in danger of death by starvation. The White forces shared little of the blame: as Pipes notes, the Civil War was essentially over by the beginning of 1920, but Lenin continued his harsh exploitation of the peasantry for yet another year. Moreover, the areas under White control had actually built up a food surplus. The horrific famine of 1921 was thus much less severe in 1920, because after the reconquest of the Ukraine and other White territories, the Reds shipped the Whites' grain reserves to Petrograd, Moscow, and other cities with less hunger but more political clout. Low estimates on the deaths from this famine are about 3 million; high estimates go up to 10 million - which would probably have been much higher if not for foreign relief efforts which Lenin had the good sense to permit. For perspective, the last severe famine in Russia hit in 1891-92, and cost about 400,000 lives.


The famine ended soon after Lenin relaxed his choke-hold on the peasantry, but he showed no sign of remorse for what his policies had done. Other Bolsheviks were shaken by the events, but Lenin's successor, Joseph Stalin, learned only to husband his strength until the peasantry could be utterly broken.


Executions
Under Lenin's rule - unlike that of his successors - executions played a far more important role than deaths in forced labor camps. The primary function of Lenin's secret police, the Cheka, was carrying out summary executions of "class enemies" in what came to be known as the Red Terror. The exact number murdered is usually estimated at between 100,000 and 500,000, but the chaotic wartime conditions make the accounting especially difficult. Large-scale executions of hostages began after a failed effort of the Social Revolutionaries to seize power in mid-1918. (The hundreds of hostages shot in "retaliation," however, not only did not participate in the failed coup, but almost invariably had no affiliation of any kind with the SRs). From then on the Red Terror turned in every conceivable direction: execution of the bourgeoisie and Czarist sympathizers; execution of White POWs and friendly civilian populations; and finally execution of Lenin's socialist

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/b...omfaq.htm#part4 (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part4)

On Stalin

Stalin was effectively the dictator of the Soviet Union.

His forced collectivisation of agriculture cost millions of lives, while his programme of rapid industrialisation achieved huge increases in Soviet productivity and economic growth but at great cost. Moreover, the population suffered immensely during the Great Terror of the 1930s, during which Stalin purged the party of 'enemies of the people', resulting in the execution of thousands and the exile of millions to the gulag system of slave labour camps.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figu...in_joseph.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/stalin_joseph.shtml)

STEPANTSY, UKRAINE -- Olga Skoba's memories of the great famine in her village are dominated by a single image.
When she was a girl, about 12 years old, she watched men pile the emaciated corpses of those who had died onto a wooden cart each day to take them to the cemetery. The cart was so full, she remembers, that the bodies could not fit on it properly. One morning, the head of one of her neighbours dragged behind the cart, bouncing off stones as a final indignity on the way to the grave.

Ms. Skoba, like anyone old enough to remember the famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine, which left an estimated seven million to 10 million people dead, has many terrible memories. By her estimate, half of this tiny farming community was wiped out. She says she survived only because her mother hid bread under her head scarf to keep the Soviet secret police from seizing it

http://www.ukemonde.com/genocide/ukraineholocaust.html

Now in his eighties, Ivan Leschenko was a child during the famine. He remembers how some people resorted to cannibalism.


A quarter of Ukraine's population was wiped out in just two years

"Such things really did happen. I know that one of my relatives ate human flesh. Just imagine how bad the situation was that people were forced to do that

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6179818.stm

The Ukrainian famine (1932-1933), or Holodomor (Ukrainian: �“�¾�»�¾�´�¾�¼�¾Ñ€), was one of the largest national catastrophes of the Ukrainian nation in modern history with direct loss of human life in the range of millions (estimates vary). While the famine in Ukraine was a part of a wider famine that also affected other regions of the USSR, the term Holodomor is specifically applied to the events that took place in territories populated by ethnic Ukrainians.

Most modern scholars agree that the famine was caused by the policies of the government of the Soviet Union under Stalin, rather than by natural reasons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Ukraine's parliament has voted in favour of declaring a Soviet-era famine an act of genocide against its people.

Historians say Soviet leader Joseph Stalin created the famine, confiscating the harvest of Ukrainian peasants to force them to join collective farms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6193266.stm


On mao

Mao more lethal
than Hitler, Stalin
Expert says Chinese leader's policies led to death of 77 million countrymen


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=47616 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47616)

last but not least your own bloody history

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=472...ry+of+communism (http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=4728056907669314763&q=bloody+history+of+communism)

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-69...ry+of+communism (http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-6990636097246645692&q=bloody+history+of+communism)

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-25...ry+of+communism (http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-2530696121976040859&q=bloody+history+of+communism)

[RedAnarchist]

Why don't you take this crap to soviet-empire, where you might actually find stalin kiddies to annoy?

[MrDoom]

Equating hatred of the bourgeoisie with Nazi racism?

Very funny, meatbag.

[John Caulfield]

No why dont you scum admut your own crimes before judging anyone else Communism has killed more then Nazism ever dreamed yet scum like you lot want to give it another go sad really

[RedAnarchist]

That's your argument? Oh noes, then we must say sorry! :blink:

Listen, we are not interested in this. It's obvious that any baseless argument you weakly throw at us will be crushed, so why don't you go back to Stormfront and moan about the red terrorists over there?

[KC]

Yeah, you're an idiot.

[John Caulfield]

Listen, we are not interested in this.

Yeah you lot aint interested in your own history are you?

So what are you trying to say the killing Fields in cambodia never happend
The great leap forward which costs millions of lives in china never happened
Stalins famine in the Ukraine never happened ,Lenins failed collectiztion policy led to famine that led to 5 millions deaths never happened,Tiananmen Square massacre in China never happened,,

Are you seriously trying to say none of these happened?

[MrDoom]

What does the Soviet Union and China, and all those other totalitarian regimes have to do with communism?

We're not Stalin-loving dictator-worshippers here.

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 12, 2007 05:10 pm

Listen, we are not interested in this.

Yeah you lot aint interested in your own history are you?

So what are you trying to say the killing Fields in cambodia never happend
The great leap forward which costs millions of lives in china never happened
Stalins famine in the Ukraine never happened ,Lenins failed collectiztion policy led to famine that led to 5 millions deaths never happened,Tiananmen Square massacre in China never happened,,

Are you seriously trying to say none of these happened?
i wish your birth never happend now piss off biatch!

[Raúl Duke]

Why do people come from nowhere to bother a leftist site....Don&#39;t they have anything better to do in life? <_<

Well, I suppose Stalin, Lenin, and Mao had their blunders, especially Pol Pot;yet to say that "communism" (those were not communists societies, they were socialist countries ruled by a vanguard party and its leader. The left has many different definitions on how a socialist society would be like; for example, Libertarian Socialists want a society controled directly by the people without leaders, etc through assemblies, etc.) killed more than capitalism is quite dumb. So many wars, famines, etc have been caused by capitalism since its very existence. The reason why you are yelling bloody murder is that the bourgeosie do their best to descredit communism by equating them to what you are talking about.

Another thing, not everyone here is a marxist-leninist (and even if they were, no one here is advocating the shit your talking about.); here we have members of different revolutionary leftist ideologies.

SO, before you hastly judge us (wait, you already did :rolleyes: ) please stay and look at learning, etc so you can know what we really are about :) ;)

[John Caulfield]

What does the Soviet Union and China, and all those other totalitarian regimes have to do with communism?

Um incase you dont know your own hstory The soviet union was run by a 1 party commie Dictatorship so is china still

And do you lot you support free Elections in china,Cuba and North Korea Yes or no? Or would you as i suspect rather see the people in these countries be ruled by a 1 commie party dictatorship?

[Entrails Konfetti]

I&#39;m afraid Mr. Knowitall it aint as simple as that, Socialism is such a diverse set of theories and beliefs, a type of socialism called Communism-- is diverse aswell, there are many different types of Communists and theories. Saying theres only one type, is like saying all capitalists have the same policies and theories.

Despite your arrogance you haven&#39;t mastered political and sociological theories yet. Your no expert, and you sound like a few sheets of crappy anti-Communist pamphlets rolled into one. Pick up a book, build a library.

[John Caulfield]

Well, I suppose Stalin, Lenin, and Mao had their blunders,

Oh Blunders so you call

Ukraine&#39;s parliament has voted in favour of declaring a Soviet-era famine an act of genocide against its people.

Historians say Soviet leader Joseph Stalin created the famine, confiscating the harvest of Ukrainian peasants to force them to join collective farms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6193266.stm


So you call that a blunder

On Lenin

Lenin&#39;s rapacious agricultural policies 1918-1923 created a famine that killed by starvation and associated diseases about 7,300,000 people. Half of these victims comprise democide, the other half are the unintentional victims of failed policies. Here is a photo of two of the victims, a mother and her child. For documentation, see Lethal Politics. Source: my record has it at Museum of Communism, but now can&#39;t find it there.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM1.LENIN.FAM.VIC2.HTM

Inquiry Reveals Lenin Unleashed Systematic Murder of 200,000 Clergy
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/sovietatheism1.html


*Under Lenin and Stalin, the Soviet government became the greatest mass-murderer in history. Lenin&#39;s collectivization and purges of 1921-1922 caused 4 million deaths

http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue06/governments.htm

The term Lenin&#39;s Hanging Order refers to the handwritten order

So you call that a blunder

On mao

Mao more lethal
than Hitler, Stalin
Expert says Chinese leader&#39;s policies led to death of 77 million countrymen


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=47616 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47616)


So you call 77 mllions deaths a blunder

So in other words you call 77 million deaths collateral damage

[MrDoom]

Um incase you dont know your own hstory The soviet union was run by a 1 party commie Dictatorship

What exactly is &#39;communism&#39; and what made the USSR communist? Furthermore, why is having one political party neccessarily a bad thing? After all, the USA has only one party, arbitrarily divided into &#39;Democrat&#39; and &#39;Republican&#39; to give the illusion of &#39;free&#39; elections.


so is china still

China is capitalist. Why else would they censor Marxist writings?


And do you lot you support free Elections in china,Cuba and North Korea Yes or no? Or would you as i suspect rather see the people in these countries be ruled by a 1 commie party dictatorship?

I don&#39;t support &#39;free&#39; elections because I don&#39;t support any rich bourgeois dictator being in power while the masses are allowed to &#39;elect&#39; one every few years.

Secondly, what does North Korea have to do with this? They have never been communist, you textbook-parroting meatbag.

[Ander]

Hey John Caulfield, you are so fucking stupid and ignorant that it almost hurts me to read your mindless garbage.

Firstly, these are not our crimes and this is not our history, don&#39;t be fucking daft. I wasn&#39;t personally there when Lenin began to implement his economic policies and as far as I know neither was anyone from this board.

Unlike Nazi trash, such as yourself (I&#39;m assuming you are a Nazi), we don&#39;t latch onto a political figure and cast them as our heroes. While you idiots are jerking off to photographs of Hitler, we are learning about Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, appreciating their accomplishments, and noting their mistakes.

Secondly, the number of people on the forum who actually consider themselves "Stalinists" are probably less than the number of fingers on your hand (though considerably higher than the number of brain cells in your head). This means that most posters here will likely agree with your criticisms of Stalin, thus you&#39;re really not proving much. Of course, as many of the "Stalinists" from the board will tell you, those numbers are grossly exaggerated and poorly calculated (not to mention most are from Western sources).

As you should know none of these examples you have provided were even remotely communist. Socialist is another matter, but still there is a substantial amount of debate over this.

However, the fact that you would even equate Pol Pot&#39;s regime and Tiananmen Square with communism at all is a clear indicator of your ignorance.

The Khmer Rouge, if you know anything about history, were too twisted to be Marxists and several of their ideas have nothing to do with communism at all&#33; Many historians have simply labeled them this way because they had some socialist tendencies. In reality, Pol Pot wanted to establish a kind of agrarian utopia in Cambodia, but also espoused nationalist and genocidal beliefs. I admit that it is somewhat difficult to understand the Khmer Rouge, however I seriously doubt that you will find a single person here who views them in a positive light. Bottom line: not socialist.

By the time the Tiananmen massacres occurred, Mao was long dead and the capitalists had set China on a road away from socialism. The only thing you just accomplished was provide one of many examples of oppression in a capitalist dictatorship. Thanks :)

[MrDoom]

Noone who ever brings up Tiananmen Square as an indictment against communism ever seems to note that the student protesters were communists... :rolleyes:

[Raúl Duke]

I actually use the word "blunder" not to offend Marxist-Leninists and their off-shoots (since some seem to get offended when their leaders get criticized) : I didn&#39;t intend the word to mean "collateral damage." <_<

Than again, why should I apologize to you; You seem to judge us collectively through the actions of some leaders.

Also, I&#39;m an anarchist; SO I don&#39;t support these governments you talk about. (but I bet you don&#39;t even know what a real anarchist is or what real anarchism is all about; so, why sould I bother. You don&#39;t even know what Marxism is about. :rolleyes: )


WorldNetDaily links
are you a conservative?; maybe its hopeless to debate with you. (same goes for Nazis)

[black magick hustla]

Communism at its most basic level is the theories on social liberation formulated by marx and engels. After that, it just branches out. I dont think you need to be a fucking genius to realize this, don´t you?

It is not a system of government, it is the period of society when classes and the state are abolished. How to reach that, however, is when the discussion starts.

Throughout the history of the bolsheviks, there was also a communist countermovement to the bolsheviks, manifested through the left communist opposition and the anarchists. Most of the board members are left communists or anarchists.

[Comrade J]

Ah I fucking hate it when we get unintelligent people here. I can cope with the ones who disagree with us but at least know what communism is, but when they think we&#39;re all Stalinists I just feel embarassed for them.

John Caulfield, do some fucking reading on what communism is. I&#39;m not asking you to even agree with it, but at least learn what it is, clearly your rant about gulags and collectivisation is because of your misguided views of communism.

And if you think China is anywhere near communist, then you are more stupid than my damn rabbit, and he&#39;s dim even by lagomorph standards.

[Ol' Dirty]

The African slave trade was a capitalist endevour, but the rich rarely point out that attrocity. The colonial powers killed or enslaved millions upon millions of the indigeonous peoples they conqured, repressing the local people and imposing old-world customs on them, yet little more than a mention is given of their loss in most history books, which is rather ironicaly mostly slanted towards the views of affluent, straight white men -history-. Black women are, unfortunately, considered the lowest of the low in American society. My point being: the United States&#39; human rights record is just as attrocious as any "communist state (which is a capitalist-created fallacy.) The list goes on and on, of course, but there is another importan fact I would like to address:

Not all "communist" groups have been true to the principles of the movement. The Khmer Rouge was an ethnicly-based millitia that was not at all communistic, and North Korea, China and the USSR are and were obviously only nominaly socialist. Communism is, by neccessity, democratic, representative, popular and fair, all things that wer absent in these countries. We are talking about two entirely different things, dude.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 12, 2007 02:42 pm
Ukraine&#39;s parliament has voted in favour of declaring a Soviet-era famine an act of genocide against its people.

Historians say Soviet leader Joseph Stalin created the famine, confiscating the harvest of Ukrainian peasants to force them to join collective farms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6193266.stm


So you call that a blunder
No, actually the famine, was created by natural conditions, and attacks by Kulaks, and Stalin, didn&#39;t even know of the famine, till late, not to mention a lot of the Ukrainian famine pictures, didn&#39;t actually come from the Ukrainian famine, and that most U.S. and related sources, get there "data," from Nazi collaborators, such as Hearst.

What good would a famine due in regards to Stalin? None, makes no logical sense.

Source 1 (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node68.html#SECTION0080000000000000000http)
Source 2 (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/k2grain.html)
Source 3 (http://rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm)

Not to mention this topic was already refuted here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61796&st=0)

So, in short, fuck you, and your revisionist fabricated history.

[RedCeltic]

Thank you for your vain attempt at enlightening us here. However the lack of knowledge and understanding of the radical left and it’s history is on your part. Very few here are unaware of all you have “reveled” to us. In fact, if you had any knowledge at all of the movement’s history, you would know that it is in fact the very reason the left is so splintered.

Various groups throughout different periods in Soviet history have splintered from different communist and socialist parties in western countries such as the United States and the UK. Right from the beginning, some anarchists such as Emma Goldman and Peter Kropotkin were disappointed when the Bolsheviks seized power. Kropotkin said, “This Buries the Revolution.” And expected that the revolution would be made by libertarian, not authoritarian methods.

Next came “Left Communists” who were dissatisfied with the idea of organizing labor into state run industry, thus creating “State Capitalism” as opposed to how they (and many others) viewed communism, as being run by worker councils.

In the United States, a big schism formed in the Socialist Party and the “left wing” of the party which endorsed the Bolsheviks were kicked out.. forming the Communist Party and the Communist Labor party. (latter merging as ordered by Moscow.)

After Lenin’s death and Stalin took over and the Soviets denounced Trotsky, Trotsky’s supporters had been kicked out of the communist party in the US and formed the Socialist Worker’s Party.

Years latter, The Socialist Worker’s Party would have it’s own conflict when some members endorsed Soviet actions in Hungary. Those members were kicked out and formed the Worker’s World Party.

Later, the Communist Parties across the world had a huge crisis in members dropping out in disgust due to Khrushchev’s historic speech where he denounced Stalin’s murderous crimes. For years these parties had maintained that such accusations were fabrications of the capitalist press.

All the while, there had been minor groups such as in the US that maintained anti Leninist positions. The Socialist Labor Party for example has a pre – Leninist ideology, which blends Marxism with ideas put forward by Daniel De Leon.. blending Marxism and Syndicalism. (Radical industrial unions supported by a radical Marxist party)… this is the ideology I follow btw.

The World Socialist Movement, formed in 1904 in the UK and 1916 in the US, also maintains a pre-Leninist ideology, that is similar in some aspects of the SLP.

I could go on and on with this, however there are numerous books out there that could enlighten you as to the diverse history of the left. That is, assuming you had actually wanted to know what you are talking about as opposed to just coming here to spew ancient cold war dogmatic propaganda in a vain attempt to garnish a knee jerk reaction.

[Demogorgon]

If I have any responsibility for what happened in the Soviet Union, I take it you must take personal responsibility for masaccarring political prisoners in the stadiums in Santiago?

[John Caulfield]

China is capitalist.

And thats why CHINA&#39;S prime minister promised to maintain "socialism for 100 years" yesterday as the Communist Party tried to play down media discussion of political reform. is it?

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/sto...&issue_id=15309 (http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=31&si=1784409&issue_id=15309)


I don&#39;t support &#39;free&#39; elections because I don&#39;t support any rich bourgeois dictator being in power while the masses are allowed to &#39;elect&#39; one every few years.

Thats cuz you would rather people live under a 1 commie party dictatorship


, actually the famine, was created by natural conditions,

I dare and challenge you to go over to The Ukraine and say it to some peoples faces you could give out leaflets outside its parliament over the vote they had to declare it an act of genocide see what will happen to you

[Qwerty Dvorak]

And thats why CHINA&#39;S prime minister promised to maintain "socialism for 100 years" yesterday as the Communist Party tried to play down media discussion of political reform. is it?
China have been letting capitalist Western corporations rape the working class there for years now. Why do you think they put &#39;Made in China&#39; on toys and such? It&#39;s not for the laugh you know.Also, have you heard of China&#39;s recent decision to pass legislation to protect private property?

This is something I find quite humorously flawed about capitalist arguments. They assert that:
a) Communism is bad for the economy.
b) Communism is bad for the people because of what is still happening in China, which is Communist.
but China actually has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. So, either assertion (a) is wrong because Communism cannot be inherently bad for the economy if China is Communist and it is experiencing economic growth, or assertion (b) is wrong because China cannot be Communist because they are experiencing economic growth.



Thats cuz you would rather people live under a 1 commie party dictatorship

Pointless trash like this is called trolling, and is a bannable offence.



I dare and challenge you to go over to The Ukraine and say it to some peoples faces you could give out leaflets outside its parliament over the vote they had to declare it an act of genocide see what will happen to you
Just because people are bitter doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re right.

[JazzRemington]

Why even respond to this troll? He&#39;s posted nothing new: everyone who first comes on here posts this nonsense and either leaves or gets banned.

[MrDoom]

China is capitalist.

And thats why CHINA&#39;S prime minister promised to maintain "socialism for 100 years" yesterday as the Communist Party tried to play down media discussion of political reform. is it?

China&#39;s so-called "socialism" is state-capitalism; do the Chinese workers control the means of production? No, they don&#39;t. Just because the ruling party is called &#39;communist&#39; doesn&#39;t mean it actually is.



I don&#39;t support &#39;free&#39; elections because I don&#39;t support any rich bourgeois dictator being in power while the masses are allowed to &#39;elect&#39; one every few years.

Thats cuz you would rather people live under a 1 commie party dictatorship

No, meatbag, I&#39;d rather have a 0-party democratic "dictatorship" of the proletariat, something entirely different.

Please attempt to show more intelligence and critical-thinking than a brainwashed propaganda drone from a capitalist dictatorship.

[Raúl Duke]

This guy is a waste of time. He still continues to criticize all of us because of the actions of a few leaders. Maybe he didn&#39;t read my new post.


QUOTE
China is capitalist.

And thats why CHINA&#39;S prime minister promised to maintain "socialism for 100 years" yesterday as the Communist Party tried to play down media discussion of political reform. is it?

What the PM says and what is actualling happening are two different things. What always matter most is action, not words.


Thats cuz you would rather people live under a 1 commie party dictatorship
Again, like I said; not all of us supports 1 party rule. There are also anarchists as well as Marxists-Leninists. I suppose this is evidence that you didn&#39;t read my last post.

[colonelguppy]

jesus christ people china isn&#39;t capitalist, don&#39;t paint it like it is just because you want to distance it from your ideology.

yes i realize it allows free trade zones, but that hardly characterizes the economy as a whole.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:45 am
jesus christ people china isn&#39;t capitalist, don&#39;t paint it like it is just because you want to distance it from your ideology.

yes i realize it allows free trade zones, but that hardly characterizes the economy as a whole.
Oh come on, even Milton Friedman was describing it as Capitalist before he died.

[JazzRemington]

I also read somewhere that China is considering inacting private property laws.

[John Caulfield]

Just because people are bitter doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re right

I guess survivors of the holocaust are wrong because they are bitter are they?


He still continues to criticize all of us because of the actions of a few leaders.

So should people not critize nazism either because of the action sof one leader?
then again Commie leaders killed more then the 1 nazi leader ever did thats why Im condemming you lot

[MrDoom]

I guess survivors of the holocaust are wrong because they are bitter are they?

That&#39;s not what he said, dolt.


So should people not critize nazism either because of the action sof one leader?
then again Commie leaders killed more then the 1 nazi leader ever did thats why Im condemming you lot

You&#39;ve yet to define how and why Kim Jong Il and lads like him are communist.

Also, the actions of the Nazis were not just from one leader, that&#39;s why the Nuremburg trials were held, you fucking moron.

[Raúl Duke]

QUOTE
He still continues to criticize all of us because of the actions of a few leaders.

So should people not critize nazism either because of the action sof one leader?
then again Commie leaders killed more then the 1 nazi leader ever did thats why Im condemming you lot

Thats because not all of of follow these leaders. It seems like you turn blind to mot of the points in my posts and take what you can to further criticize.

For example: me, an anarchist, do not follow these leaders you mention nor support their political ideologies. Also since I&#39;m an anarchist, none of your condemnations are really affecting me since none of the leaders you use to condemn some of the members of this board (mostly Marxist-Leninists) are "anarchists leaders". (which is somewhat impossible, there have only been anarchist thinkers and the closest to leader you can get are certain guerilla leaders like Makhno and Derruti.)

[RNK]

You&#39;re a god damned idiot for even trying to pull a comparison between Nazism and Communism out of your useless ass.


So should people not critize nazism either because of the action sof one leader?

The difference is, most so-called "Communist" leaders betrayed the tenets of Communism and utterly failed to even partially meet Communism&#39;s expectations, whereas Nazis followed their Nazi code to the letter. Pick up a copy of the Communist Manifesto, and then pick up a copy of Mein Kampf. Read both, and see if you can tell the difference. If you can&#39;t, don&#39;t come back here, because there&#39;s something horribly, horribly wrong with you and we don&#39;t need our time wasted by idiots.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:56 pm

QUOTE
He still continues to criticize all of us because of the actions of a few leaders.

So should people not critize nazism either because of the action sof one leader?
then again Commie leaders killed more then the 1 nazi leader ever did thats why Im condemming you lot

Thats because not all of of follow these leaders. It seems like you turn blind to mot of the points in my posts and take what you can to further criticize.

For example: me, an anarchist, do not follow these leaders you mention nor support their political ideologies. Also since I&#39;m an anarchist, none of your condemnations are really affecting me since none of the leaders you use to condemn some of the members of this board (mostly Marxist-Leninists) are "anarchists leaders". (which is somewhat impossible, there have only been anarchist thinkers and the closest to leader you can get are certain guerilla leaders like Makhno and Derruti.)
There is no point in reasoning with a troll. The whole point in this thread is for him to get people to attempt to justify, or explain away actions of totalitarian leaders. People such as yourself or I who follow a different ideology than Marxist – Leninism, and attempt to show the bigger picture are outright ignored.

There is nothing communist about nationalized industry or authoritarian police states.

[Comrade J]

John Caulfield, communism is a stateless, classless society. As China is both a state, and has classes, by definition it cannot be communist...

Define what you believe communism to be, you clearly have no idea, you&#39;re merely parroting whatever was taught to you by Fox, school, some right-wing website etc.
Bear in mind that all these sources are anti-communist, as they are either tools of the state (which communists aim to destroy) or are capitalist, and would thus lose out in a revolution. Therefore, it&#39;s clear why they would do all within their power to convince everybody that communism is a one party dictatorship over a nation.

I&#39;m a communist and I don&#39;t believe parties are always necessary, I believe the working class are perfectly able to organise themselves without a minority vanguard leading the way (the autonomist view), which doesn&#39;t fit in with your view of communism, so one of us has got to be wrong...

Please, do some reading, you&#39;re just embarrasing yourself, you fucking imbecilic troll.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+March 12, 2007 08:19 pm--> (Demogorgon &#064; March 12, 2007 08:19 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 12:45 am
jesus christ people china isn&#39;t capitalist, don&#39;t paint it like it is just because you want to distance it from your ideology.

yes i realize it allows free trade zones, but that hardly characterizes the economy as a whole.
Oh come on, even Milton Friedman was describing it as Capitalist before he died. [/b]
well i&#39;d like to see some quotes and some context before i believe that. i realize that they are headed that way in the future, but it&#39;s a little soon for that label.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 12, 2007 08:03 pm
Thats cuz you would rather people live under a 1 commie party dictatorship
Not even addressing the fact that given Soviet and just flat out Marxist-Leninist civics, that a dictatorship is impossible, you do realize that a vanguard, or party, is comprised of millions of people, all with very different and opposite view points, ideas, and such? So that would eliminate party identity rivalry that halts politics, and makes a nation stagnant, in petty high school like rivalry, as seen in America.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+March 12, 2007 09:37 pm--> (colonelguppy @ March 12, 2007 09:37 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:19 pm

[email protected] 13, 2007 12:45 am
jesus christ people china isn&#39;t capitalist, don&#39;t paint it like it is just because you want to distance it from your ideology.

yes i realize it allows free trade zones, but that hardly characterizes the economy as a whole.
Oh come on, even Milton Friedman was describing it as Capitalist before he died.
well i&#39;d like to see some quotes and some context before i believe that. i realize that they are headed that way in the future, but it&#39;s a little soon for that label. [/b]
Milton Friedman didn’t just know about China developing a free market economy, he had a hand in it. In 1988, a speech made by Friedman titled “The Chinese Economic Reform” was taped and given to Zhu Rongji, the architect of the Chinese economy.

[colonelguppy]

well i&#39;m certainly glad they did, perhaps they will turn the way of chile and match economic freedom with political freedom.

[Vladislav]

You know, before attacking us about our beliefs, you should actually learn what communism is.Have a look around the forums.How many people actually agree with the past leaders? Make a list or something. It&#39;s more productive than just copy pasting a load of crap from sites that you agree with. Please do some reading now. There might still be hope for you.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:28 am
well i&#39;m certainly glad they did, perhaps they will turn the way of chile and match economic freedom with political freedom.
Yet Chile still hasn&#39;t returned to pre-Pinochet levels of political freedom (look at the electoral system), how do you explain that?

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:28 pm
well i&#39;m certainly glad they did, perhaps they will turn the way of chile and match economic freedom with political freedom.
Considering that I find it quite impossible to go from a feudalistic authoritarian society to a democratic communist one, with out major industrialization through capitalist free market, I welcome development in China. Marx had never intended for Communism to be an alternative to capitalism. He intend for it to be a next stage to emerge out of a highly developed industrialized free market state with a high level of production.

A desire for funds from Moscow played a large role in why various leaders of revolutions throughout the world in the 20’th century turned to communism. If you look back, none of them, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, etc.. started out with such an intention.

I think that over the next few decades as China’s economy grows, it will be inevitable that there will be a more successful push to political freedoms. With such freedoms will come the ability to fight abuse of workers that is right now running ramped in China. Only then could we expect to see true socialism develop in China.

[hazer87]

While you shmucks are equally as wrong as the other, a new genocide is in our world today. And like the Nazi&#39;s and Lenin-Stalan U.S.S.R, it deals with corruption. It&#39;s a human default that leads to inhuman things. It is the path of wanting complete control, power, and wealth. Socialism can work, we just haven&#39;t found the right person to run it. When we realize that the combination of democracy and socialism, the balance of control, power, and wealth will come along with it. If we take the good things that have come of these major flaws of being human, we can peice them together for our answer.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+March 13, 2007 09:20 am--> (Demogorgon @ March 13, 2007 09:20 am)
[email protected] 13, 2007 03:28 am
well i&#39;m certainly glad they did, perhaps they will turn the way of chile and match economic freedom with political freedom.
Yet Chile still hasn&#39;t returned to pre-Pinochet levels of political freedom (look at the electoral system), how do you explain that? [/b]
well of course everyone&#39;s electoral system has it&#39;s draw backs and advantages, but i was referring to political rights than anything.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+March 13, 2007 06:56 pm--> (colonelguppy @ March 13, 2007 06:56 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:20 am

[email protected] 13, 2007 03:28 am
well i&#39;m certainly glad they did, perhaps they will turn the way of chile and match economic freedom with political freedom.
Yet Chile still hasn&#39;t returned to pre-Pinochet levels of political freedom (look at the electoral system), how do you explain that?
well of course everyone&#39;s electoral system has it&#39;s draw backs and advantages, but i was referring to political rights than anything. [/b]
I thought the right to choose your government came high on the list of political rights?

Anyway my point was that despite the so called "free market miracle" (which actually hurt most people in Chile) political rights still haven&#39;t returned to pre-Pinochet (or pre-Allande for that matter) levels. A lot of that is down to the electoral system, but there are other major problems too.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by John Caulfi[email protected] 13, 2007 01:48 am

Just because people are bitter doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re right

I guess survivors of the holocaust are wrong because they are bitter are they?


He still continues to criticize all of us because of the actions of a few leaders.

So should people not critize nazism either because of the action sof one leader?
then again Commie leaders killed more then the 1 nazi leader ever did thats why Im condemming you lot
commie leaders is an oxymoron, moron. damn homie.. this fucking eh? LOL.
go read some books. seriously. why are you guys wasting your time with this clown?

some people are beyond ignorant.

[Raúl Duke]

While you shmucks are equally as wrong as the other, a new genocide is in our world today. And like the Nazi&#39;s and Lenin-Stalan U.S.S.R, it deals with corruption. It&#39;s a human default that leads to inhuman things. It is the path of wanting complete control, power, and wealth. Socialism can work, we just haven&#39;t found the right person to run it. When we realize that the combination of democracy and socialism, the balance of control, power, and wealth will come along with it. If we take the good things that have come of these major flaws of being human, we can peice them together for our answer.

Sounds like you might be interested in libertarian socialism :) ;)
(which includes anarchism and left communist tendencies)

[anti-authoritarian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 06:22 pm
While you shmucks are equally as wrong as the other, a new genocide is in our world today. And like the Nazi&#39;s and Lenin-Stalan U.S.S.R, it deals with corruption. It&#39;s a human default that leads to inhuman things. It is the path of wanting complete control, power, and wealth. Socialism can work, we just haven&#39;t found the right person to run it. When we realize that the combination of democracy and socialism, the balance of control, power, and wealth will come along with it. If we take the good things that have come of these major flaws of being human, we can peice them together for our answer.
Why the hell do you keep referring to Stalin? Stalin wasn&#39;t a bloody communist let along a socialist.

Also in case you havn&#39;t worked it out, human nature and mentality is shaped by the society it lives in. Any &#39;flaws&#39; are merely representations of the current system.

[Janus]

Socialism can work, we just haven&#39;t found the right person to run it.
:blink: That&#39;s the kind of reasoning that has resulted and will continue to result in massive failures.


jesus christ people china isn&#39;t capitalist, don&#39;t paint it like it is just because you want to distance it from your ideology.

yes i realize it allows free trade zones, but that hardly characterizes the economy as a whole.
It&#39;s a mixed economy with some state control and some capitalist control. However, the growing trend has been pushing towards the latter in which private corporations and businesses are expanding their influence with gov. support and concessions past the so called Special Economic Zones. Despite the rhetoric of the PRC government, China will soon be capitalist in all but name.

[RedCeltic]

Socialism can work, we just haven&#39;t found the right person to run it. When we realize that the combination of democracy and socialism, the balance of control, power, and wealth will come along with it.

I question how committed anyone or any group could be to democracy while supporting the idea of leaders and a vanguard. It was Lenin’s perversion of Marx’s theories when he wrote “What is to be Done” which created the idea of “Communist Leadership” or a vanguard of a small group of intellectuals who do nothing but study Marxism.

How connected could such a person be to the working class? Eugene Victor Debs had once said, “I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition”

The working class must rise collectively with a majority, or not at all. A minority group of intellectuals can not sufficiently represent the majority, and as history has proven, is highly vulnerable to corrupt people who use it as a ruse to advance their own quest for political power.

I side with anarchists and left communists, only in that society and industry must be organized collectively, independent of state power and influence. However, where I differ personally, and thus side with Marxist-Le Leonists and World Socialists, is that Due to the fact that the state is the major inhibiter of such organization being possible, I see the necessity for a radical socialist party that is supported by the majority to democratically seize control of the state, and turn it into an administrative arm of the workers.

This is quite different mind you, from a vanguard party gaining power, nationalizing industry under their own control, using police state totalitarian methods to suppress decent, which also includes worker movements to collectively organize, independent of state control.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:06 pm
You&#39;re a god damned idiot for even trying to pull a comparison between Nazism and Communism out of your useless ass.


So should people not critize nazism either because of the action sof one leader?

The difference is, most so-called "Communist" leaders betrayed the tenets of Communism and utterly failed to even partially meet Communism&#39;s expectations, whereas Nazis followed their Nazi code to the letter. Pick up a copy of the Communist Manifesto, and then pick up a copy of Mein Kampf. Read both, and see if you can tell the difference. If you can&#39;t, don&#39;t come back here, because there&#39;s something horribly, horribly wrong with you and we don&#39;t need our time wasted by idiots.
How did the communists of the past betray communism?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 05:03 pm

Socialism can work, we just haven&#39;t found the right person to run it. When we realize that the combination of democracy and socialism, the balance of control, power, and wealth will come along with it.

I question how committed anyone or any group could be to democracy while supporting the idea of leaders and a vanguard. It was Lenin’s perversion of Marx’s theories when he wrote “What is to be Done” which created the idea of “Communist Leadership” or a vanguard of a small group of intellectuals who do nothing but study Marxism.

How connected could such a person be to the working class? Eugene Victor Debs had once said, “I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition”

The working class must rise collectively with a majority, or not at all. A minority group of intellectuals can not sufficiently represent the majority, and as history has proven, is highly vulnerable to corrupt people who use it as a ruse to advance their own quest for political power.

I side with anarchists and left communists, only in that society and industry must be organized collectively, independent of state power and influence. However, where I differ personally, and thus side with Marxist-Le Leonists and World Socialists, is that Due to the fact that the state is the major inhibiter of such organization being possible, I see the necessity for a radical socialist party that is supported by the majority to democratically seize control of the state, and turn it into an administrative arm of the workers.

This is quite different mind you, from a vanguard party gaining power, nationalizing industry under their own control, using police state totalitarian methods to suppress decent, which also includes worker movements to collectively organize, independent of state control.
Its the age old problem for the socialists, which will never be resolved: How does one build socialism peaceably, freely, benignly? What is, and what is not socialism is also hotly debated. That is the theme of the debates on all the other forums.

The vanguard theory does exacly what is described. It has been the tool of absolute terror and tyranny during the 20th Century.

But Debs vision has problems as well. It sort of calls for a world wide socialist revolt, which aside from its impracticality, also basically says the workers can figure out the socialist solution for themselves. That is nice, except that we know from this board alone there are many socialists who will deny that what others claimed was socialsim was in fact socialism. So obviously there will need to be some guideposts, some direction, in order to develop socialism properly (which is the vanguard argument). Otherwise, folks such a myself can safely, and without fear of rational contradiction, can describe a Stalin or a Mao or a Hitler as a socialist (which they always claimed to be), as they simply figured out socialism for themselves.

I sometimes wonder if socialists understand the implications of socialism.