Stalinism is better than weak-communism

[israeli1986]

I'm one of the few people who will advocate Stalinism, because a system in which people have a say is certain to fail. These same people have no idea of how the economic systems work or what they will need in 10 years, or even what they really need today. Democracy = stagnation because people will only vote for their immediate interests and not to purse longterm goals. This is why a communist dictator is necessary to facilitate the advancement of the state and culture.

[Demogorgon]

Oh Dear.

I would have hoped if nothing else that somebody "proud to be Israeli" would remember what Stalin thought of Russian Jews wanting to emigrate to Israel.

[bezdomni]

Err...have you ever even read anything Stalin wrote?

It couldn't be more clear that you've completely neglected the works of Marx and Lenin.

Worker's democracy is the most important part of socialism. The dictatorship of the communist party is not the dictatorship of the proletariat. In fact, it is replacing one boss with another boss. The new boss might treat you better...but the property relations have not changed and thus exploitation of the working masses still continues.

Your version of "Stalinism" (which isn't even really an ideology) isn't even proper Stalinism.

[Demogorgon]

Ach, your just a Stormfront troll anyway, aren't you?

[israeli1986]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:57 am
Ach, your just a Stormfront troll anyway, aren't you?
actually no, I hate those bastards on stormfront, given they consider me subhuman.
Im just very angry that this site will also censor me.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Well Stalinism is a perversion of all things communist, you see. He granted no power to the people, did he? And state-owned property is private property masquerading as the property of all.

[israeli1986]

You guys misunderstood what I meant.

Democracy is actually rule by the ignorant. Most people don't watch the news, read the newspaper, or have a brain at all. They vote for someone becaue of the colour of their eyes, or because of their looks. They think that increased funding to all public services and lower taxes an work together. They think that a debt never has to be paid. They are also unprepared to do an honest day's work for a decent wage, they want more than they deserve. In my idea of a communist dictatorship, you get exactly what you deserve, no more no less. Oh and that includes minorities, you get hired based on qualification, not ethnic background, sexual orientation, sex, or religion.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Well let's just bugger the idea of voting for representatives then! They don't represent anyone but the elite and as you say they use cheap, shallow things to gain power.

While we're at it, let's bugger the idea of money, of wages, of all those! They don't represent the true value of a day's labour.

[israeli1986]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:06 am
Well let's just bugger the idea of voting for representatives then! They don't represent anyone but the elite and as you say they use cheap, shallow things to gain power.

While we're at it, let's bugger the idea of money, of wages, of all those! They don't represent the true value of a day's labour.
You need a clear system that appoints people to the higher ranking positions. The dictator should be one of the country's smartest individuals, most ruthless, and also best qualified academically. The ministers should also be similar, for example the best economist runs the economic planning department.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:08 am

You need a clear system that appoints people to the higher ranking positions. The dictator should be one of the country's smartest individuals, most ruthless, and also best qualified academically. The ministers should also be similar, for example the best economist runs the economic planning department.
And how do you achieve that? Stalin got rid of such people quite quickly, they were a threat to him after all.

BTW you say people vote for someone because they like their looks or the colour of their eyes or whatnot. Can you give me an example of that happening in Israel?

[israeli1986]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:10 am
And how do you achieve that? Stalin got rid of such people quite quickly, they were a threat to him after all.

BTW you say people vote for someone because they like their looks or the colour of their eyes or whatnot. Can you give me an example of that happening in Israel?
I can't give you an Israeli example (who knows how Golda Meir managed to get elected haha too ugly) but the best example is when Nixon lost to Kennedy because he looked uglier on TV.

You can't deny that Stalin was extremely successful in building the economy of the USSR at incredible rates, even though he persecuted intellectuals.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:13 am

I can't give you an Israeli example (who knows how Golda Meir managed to get elected haha too ugly) but the best example is when Nixon lost to Kennedy because he looked uglier on TV.

You can't deny that Stalin was extremely successful in building the economy of the USSR at incredible rates, even though he persecuted intellectuals.
Surely it should be easy for an Israeli to come up with Israeli examples?

And yes, the Soviet Union enjoyed an economic miracle. Do you think it happened because of or despite Stalin's repression though?

[israeli1986]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:17 am
[QUOTE=israeli1986,March 23, 2007 04:13 am]
Surely it should be easy for an Israeli to come up with Israeli examples?

And yes, the Soviet Union enjoyed an economic miracle. Do you think it happened because of or despite Stalin's repression though?
I think it happened because of his repression and strict control.

Israeli politics are actually rather complicated, for example we have so many political parties in the Knesset that it actually prevents anyone from ever having a majority goverment. There are even arabic anti-government parties. All parties have very limited platforms that only appeal to a few people. In Israel you define a party as right wing if it is pro war and left if it is against, it isnt really a measure of social values.

[Cheung Mo]

I don't think being physically attractive means as much as some American pundits make it out to mean in politics: I mean, take one look at Thatcher, Bush II, or Chretien.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:22 pm
I think Stalin's ruthlessness is the one thing that held the Soviet Union togather during World War 2. What do the rest of you think about the war years?
Actually Stalin's ruthlessness cost the Red Army all its earlier drawbacks. Only after he loosened some restrictions(on tactical retreats insted of holding the ground to last man) and let his generals to direct the war did the fortunes turned on for them.

Hitler greatly underestimated the commitment of Russian people to defend the gains of revolution they have accomplished in October 1917. Also his Slavophobia ,serious misunderstanding of Tactical weakness of Germany in war,Capablity of Russian Industrial strength and stupid Aryan superiority complex all lead to his downfall.

[MrDoom]

Wow - a serious Stalinist. :blink:

Somewhat refreshing after Chairman MLS.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:08 am
You need a clear system that appoints people to the higher ranking positions. The dictator should be one of the country's smartest individuals, most ruthless, and also best qualified academically. The ministers should also be similar, for example the best economist runs the economic planning department.
Whoa. Thanks. If I ever need a school example of a modern formulation of fascism, there I have it. The belief that the coercion of the inferior by the superior is the business of government.

First, screw ranks. No man is better than another just because he wears a silly hat. Second, screw clear systems. Communities are capable of developing and choosing their own systems. Those not satisfied leave, unless coerced to stay. If no one's satsified, the community dissolves. Third, screw dictators. Any community built on dictatorship will either have to employ coercion, or dissolve. Fourth, screw smart. An individual is the stupidest thing there is. A functioning community the smartest. And ruthlessness? That is only needed if you assume the choice of a ruthless system to begin with. Oh, and I know academia first hand. Take it from me; you wouldn't want one of those guys with his finger on the big Button, even if they were all A students. Especially not all A students. Or students at all. They'd probably punch that button just to see what noise it made :)

Of course, I understand and sympathize with part of your argument. Competence in government is important. We're living in the ruins of the lack of it. But I think most of all this incompetence comes from government and corporates setting themselves tasks which no one entirely sane would really want to attempt, much less achieve competence at.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:13 pm

You can't deny that Stalin was extremely successful in building the economy of the USSR at incredible rates, even though he persecuted intellectuals.
The Soviet economy under Stalin was underwritten by western capitalists. The Russian economy would have developed along the same lines under the Tsar.

But I will agree that Stalinism is the only reasonable and logical way socialism can 'succeed."

[RNK]

Whoa. Thanks. If I ever need a school example of a modern formulation of fascism, there I have it.

Well, he does support Israel...

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:49 pm
I'm one of the few people who will advocate Stalinism, because a system in which people have a say is certain to fail. These same people have no idea of how the economic systems work or what they will need in 10 years, or even what they really need today. Democracy = stagnation because people will only vote for their immediate interests and not to purse longterm goals. This is why a communist dictator is necessary to facilitate the advancement of the state and culture.
Shut up you elitist dickhead. Of course, the people as a whole are too stupid to know what is best for themselves :rolleyes: . What makes you think that the person in power will not manipulate it in such a way so as to benefit solely him? Also, how do you ever expect a workers' revolution to even start---let alone be successful---if the people, according to you, are to ignorant and stupid to know what is best for them? Also, though what you say about people needing to be attractive to get elected is true to an extent, it is most certainly not entirely true. Honestly, look at almost every world leader, they are ugly as fuck.

[bezdomni]

I'll ask you again.

If you consider yourself a Marxist-Leninist (as Stalin did), then how can you so blatantly disregard everything they stood for (such as worker's democracy).

Have you actually even read Marx or Lenin?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

How do you reconcile the 10-20 million odd people that died due to his policies with serious support of his ideology?

-Alex

[israeli1986]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 04:51 pm
I'll ask you again.

If you consider yourself a Marxist-Leninist (as Stalin did), then how can you so blatantly disregard everything they stood for (such as worker's democracy).

Have you actually even read Marx or Lenin?
Did Lenin really ever have a democracy, NO!!! because he realised that people are too stupid to be given political control.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:14 pm
How do you reconcile the 10-20 million odd people that died due to his policies with serious support of his ideology?

-Alex
From whence that figure by the way, it sounds fairly unlikely.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by israeli1986+March 25, 2007 08:30 pm--> (israeli1986 @ March 25, 2007 08:30 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 04:51 pm
I'll ask you again.

If you consider yourself a Marxist-Leninist (as Stalin did), then how can you so blatantly disregard everything they stood for (such as worker's democracy).

Have you actually even read Marx or Lenin?
Did Lenin really ever have a democracy, NO!!! because he realised that people are too stupid to be given political control. [/b]
<_< The question was not "Did Lenin have a democracy?" the question was, and allow me to spell this out for you so as to get it to penetrate your thick skull:
HAVE
YOU
EVER
READ
ANY
MARX
OR
LENIN?
Dickhead.

[israeli1986]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+March 25, 2007 08:41 pm--> (Jazzratt @ March 25, 2007 08:41 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:30 pm

[email protected] 25, 2007 04:51 pm
I&#39;ll ask you again.

If you consider yourself a Marxist-Leninist (as Stalin did), then how can you so blatantly disregard everything they stood for (such as worker&#39;s democracy).

Have you actually even read Marx or Lenin?
Did Lenin really ever have a democracy, NO&#33;&#33;&#33; because he realised that people are too stupid to be given political control.
<_< The question was not "Did Lenin have a democracy?" the question was, and allow me to spell this out for you so as to get it to penetrate your thick skull:
HAVE
YOU
EVER
READ
ANY
MARX
OR
LENIN?
Dickhead. [/b]
I&#39;ve never read Lenin, and I dont plan on it... Marx however, I have, and his ideas dont seem to be possible to implement

[Okocim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 05:33 am

Whoa. Thanks. If I ever need a school example of a modern formulation of fascism, there I have it.

Well, he does support Israel...
Don&#39;t link all Israel supporters with Stalinists.

[Red October]

Originally posted by israeli1986+March 25, 2007 05:20 pm--> (israeli1986 @ March 25, 2007 05:20 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:41 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:30 pm

[email protected] 25, 2007 04:51 pm
I&#39;ll ask you again.

If you consider yourself a Marxist-Leninist (as Stalin did), then how can you so blatantly disregard everything they stood for (such as worker&#39;s democracy).

Have you actually even read Marx or Lenin?
Did Lenin really ever have a democracy, NO&#33;&#33;&#33; because he realised that people are too stupid to be given political control.
<_< The question was not "Did Lenin have a democracy?" the question was, and allow me to spell this out for you so as to get it to penetrate your thick skull:
HAVE
YOU
EVER
READ
ANY
MARX
OR
LENIN?
Dickhead.
I&#39;ve never read Lenin, and I dont plan on it... Marx however, I have, and his ideas dont seem to be possible to implement [/b]
then how the fuck are you a communist? stalin at least claimed to be a marxist-leninist, but you have admitted ignorance of lenin&#39;s ideas and rejected those of marx. so how exactly are you any sort of leftist, much less a stalinist? is it just that you like the idea of an all powerful dictator, or do you genuinely care about the people? it sounds like you have nothing but contempt for the people. you should just proclaim yourself a fascist and get over it. but if you insist on calling yourself a communist, start your own party and entertain us. MLS was so much better than you.

[israeli1986]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 26, 2007 01:01 am
then how the fuck are you a communist? stalin at least claimed to be a marxist-leninist, but you have admitted ignorance of lenin&#39;s ideas and rejected those of marx. so how exactly are you any sort of leftist, much less a stalinist? is it just that you like the idea of an all powerful dictator, or do you genuinely care about the people? it sounds like you have nothing but contempt for the people. you should just proclaim yourself a fascist and get over it. but if you insist on calling yourself a communist, start your own party and entertain us. MLS was so much better than you.
I believe in providing to each person according to his needs, and in widespread, free public services, i.e. health care and education. Also, I think that people should be legally equal and not exploited. You do, however, need a dictator to run this type of system, otherwise the rich will exploit the system due to bribery, etc., and rise to the top. Even if you equalise a whole generation financially, the smartest will become wealthy and their descendents will rise to the top and re-instate a capitalist form of government exploitation. This is why absolute control needs to be in the hands of a very loyal and committed individual.

[Idola Mentis]

Sooo... to stop someone rich from getting to the top and do violence to the people, we put someone rich at the top where he can do violence to the people the way *you* want him to. Brilliant. Why not just cut out the middle man and put *yourself* at the top? That&#39;s your secret fantasy, isn&#39;t it?

How did the argument go? Oh, yes. Your head man, let&#39;s grant, he&#39;s a good man. He can be trusted with absolute power over the life and death of "his" people. Now, consider, is his second in command a good man too? He&#39;ll need to be. And the second in command&#39;s subordinates? All the way down? I&#39;d like to see you put two such people togheter in one place. Much less enough of them to run the world.

Enlightened absolutism has been tried; it&#39;s what the russians rebelled against in the first place.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by israeli1986+March 26, 2007 02:50 am--> (israeli1986 @ March 26, 2007 02:50 am)
Red [email protected] 26, 2007 01:01 am
then how the fuck are you a communist? stalin at least claimed to be a marxist-leninist, but you have admitted ignorance of lenin&#39;s ideas and rejected those of marx. so how exactly are you any sort of leftist, much less a stalinist? is it just that you like the idea of an all powerful dictator, or do you genuinely care about the people? it sounds like you have nothing but contempt for the people. you should just proclaim yourself a fascist and get over it. but if you insist on calling yourself a communist, start your own party and entertain us. MLS was so much better than you.
I believe in providing to each person according to his needs, and in widespread, free public services, i.e. health care and education. Also, I think that people should be legally equal and not exploited. You do, however, need a dictator to run this type of system, otherwise the rich will exploit the system due to bribery, etc., and rise to the top. Even if you equalise a whole generation financially, the smartest will become wealthy and their descendents will rise to the top and re-instate a capitalist form of government exploitation. This is why absolute control needs to be in the hands of a very loyal and committed individual. [/b]
I have a better solution: make it functionally impossible for rich people to return to the top of society by making it functionally impossible for &#39;rich&#39; people to even exist in the first place, which means getting rid of that which measures &#39;richness&#39;, i.e., money.

Chairman MLS was so much funnier. At least he did a good job at being a Stalin kiddie.

[Whitten]

Israeli, you clearly know nothing about Marxism-Leninism (the political praxis followed by Stalin). On the other hand, most of the "communists" replying in this thread suffer from the same ignorance.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

From whence that figure by the way, it sounds fairly unlikely.

Erm, bourgeoisie history text book. :blush: You caught me Jazzrat, you bastard. Still, I hear it&#39;s the consensus, even with Intelligetimate and ComradeMarcel, and the other ones that have the hard-on for Stalin.

The only times I&#39;ve seen significantly lower is with the real fruitcakes like Chairman MLS.

The only higher are from anti-communists.

-Alex

[bezdomni]

Did Lenin really ever have a democracy, NO&#33;&#33;&#33; because he realised that people are too stupid to be given political control.

Please don&#39;t project your obvious intellectual shortcomings upon the masses of people.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 11:40 pm

From whence that figure by the way, it sounds fairly unlikely.

Erm, bourgeoisie history text book. :blush: You caught me Jazzrat, you bastard. Still, I hear it&#39;s the consensus, even with Intelligetimate and ComradeMarcel, and the other ones that have the hard-on for Stalin.

The only times I&#39;ve seen significantly lower is with the real fruitcakes like Chairman MLS.

The only higher are from anti-communists.

-Alex
I wasn&#39;t attacking you, I was just wondering where the numbers came from. Now, though I don&#39;t know, I&#39;m satisfied that they are probably close to the truth.

[israeli1986]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 11:43 pm

Did Lenin really ever have a democracy, NO&#33;&#33;&#33; because he realised that people are too stupid to be given political control.

Please don&#39;t project your obvious intellectual shortcomings upon the masses of people.
You had better not be making fun of my English.... thats what stormfront does if you argue with them, ive had it done to me before there the arrogant bastards.... :angry:

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:49 pm
I&#39;m one of the few people who will advocate Stalinism, because a system in which people have a say is certain to fail. These same people have no idea of how the economic systems work or what they will need in 10 years, or even what they really need today. Democracy = stagnation because people will only vote for their immediate interests and not to purse longterm goals. This is why a communist dictator is necessary to facilitate the advancement of the state and culture.
yes because soviet dictators were so good at providing longterm prosperity

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by israeli1986+March 28, 2007 06:27 am--> (israeli1986 @ March 28, 2007 06:27 am)
[email protected] 26, 2007 11:43 pm

Did Lenin really ever have a democracy, NO&#33;&#33;&#33; because he realised that people are too stupid to be given political control.

Please don&#39;t project your obvious intellectual shortcomings upon the masses of people.
You had better not be making fun of my English.... thats what stormfront does if you argue with them, ive had it done to me before there the arrogant bastards.... :angry: [/b]
No, he&#39;s not making fun of your English. He&#39;s making fun of the fact you&#39;re a cretin.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by israeli1986+March 28, 2007 06:27 am--> (israeli1986 @ March 28, 2007 06:27 am)
[email protected] 26, 2007 11:43 pm

Did Lenin really ever have a democracy, NO&#33;&#33;&#33; because he realised that people are too stupid to be given political control.

Please don&#39;t project your obvious intellectual shortcomings upon the masses of people.
You had better not be making fun of my English.... thats what stormfront does if you argue with them, ive had it done to me before there the arrogant bastards.... :angry: [/b]
No...I&#39;m pointing out that your strange idea that the masses of people are too stupid to decide anything for themselves points out your obvious refusal to think.

It is also very contradictory to claim to be a Stalinist and have open disdain for Marx and Lenin.

[Red October]

I think most of us can agree that this kid cannot even be considered a Stalinist, much less a real communist. He probably just fantasizes about a strongman dictator (and I bet he wants it to be him) who runs the whole country with an iron fist.