Quick Question for the Stalinists

[Michael De Panama]

Exactly what about fascism do you disagree with?

That is, if you do disagree with it.

[Dan Majerle]

Michael, the thread should be renamed, "What are your favourite points of Fascism?". Stalinists = fascists. As simple as that. Thine Stalin and all those scum are jesters. They claim to be communists when in fact under communism the state according to Marx would "whither away". Under a Stalinist regime, the state assumes dictatorial powers and dreams of a 1000 year rule as Hitler dreamt of a thousand year reich. Stalin was even a racist, anti-semite in the end of his rule which further buttresses the fact that all fascists are racists and Stalin was a fascist.

[yuriandropov]

facism, is the highest form of capitalism. i hate caitalism. also, facism says that certain men are born better than others based on colour, intelligence and financial background. facism tells the working class that there miserable life is caused by other ethnic groups when in reality, its caused by the capitalist corperations that facists use to get into power. facism is everlasting government, wheras stalinism, although oppressive (only deservadly to the middle class), eventually would turn into true communism.

[Michael De Panama]

Dan, I completely agree with you that Stalinism is the same thing as fascism. I'm just trying to prove it.

Disregard what comes before or after either Stalinism or fascism. Disregard that you think it is the "highest form of capitalism". All of that is subjective and could be applied to Stalinism as well. As a system in the present day, what do you dislike about fascism?

Fascism, by the way, doesn't say that the working class's problems are caused by other ethnic groups. That would be Nazism. Regardless, Stalin DID blame a lot of the USSR's problems on the Jews.

Stalnism also puts certain people in a class above the rest based on the situation they were born into.

Come on, give me a better explanation than that.

[yuriandropov]

stalin did not put others in a class above the rest. do you know the story about his son in WWII? stalin sent his son to fight the germans and he was captured, the germans offered stalin' son back to him in exchange for one of the nazis top generals. stalin refused. if that was any other non-communist leader, they would have taken the offer. but stalin valued the state above his own flesh and blood. he did it for the people because stalins son was no more important than anyone else in the USSR.
i think i pretty much sumed up why i hate facism. it does blame ethnic groups for everything. stalin only ever blamed jews and, if you knew what i knew, you'd think he had a point. jews were the centre of corruption in the soviet union (not all jews before i'm called racist again).
i hate facism becasue it justifies racism, capitalism and strict government. whereas stalinism justifies strict government only for a short period of time before socialism can be acheived.

[Michael De Panama]

Idiot. Do I have to dumb this down for you?

I'm asking you about fascist ideology, not Nazi ideology. I know that Nazis ARE fascists, but that doesn't mean that all fascists are Nazis. If that is too confusing for you, let me put it to you this way:

I have a dog named Speedy. He is a good little doggie. Very friendly. Never bites. Speedy the doggie is a dachshund. Now, it IS true that all dachshunds are doggies. However, not all doggies are dachshunds. No! There are golden retreivers, yorkshire terriors, labradores, chihuahuas, poodles, and a whole world of cute little doggies out there that AREN'T dachshunds.

So, you see, Nazi ideology is different than the broad fascist ideology, just as dachshunds are a particular breed of a whole cute and cuddly world of doggies.

Maybe you could also look at Jews in this way. That, yes, there are some particular Jewish people who are capitalist and, yes, they are probably pretty bad people. But there is a whole world out there! Yes! A whole lovely world of people outside your thick skull! Of course, you probably won't look at it that way.

One could even take this example further, if you still don't understand it. Dachshunds are german dogs. Nazis are also german. Does that mean that everything from germany is Nazi? No! Marx was a german! Lenin was a german! Even Speedy is german!

So you must understand now that you are confusing Nazi ideology with the broad fascist ideology. Nazis ARE fascists, this is true. But not all fascists are Nazis. Fascist ideology does not specifically target ethnic minorities for the world's problems.

If you don't know what fascism is, little Jonny, then I'll post to you Mussolini's definition of fascism.

[Michael De Panama]

I'll pretend I'm Peaccenicked for a second and play copy and paste...

Here's the Italian Encyclopedia's definition of fascism, in the lovable Benito Mussolini's own words:

"Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

...The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after...

...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....

...even that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it."

[Michael De Panama]

Come on, Yuri, I know you're online right now. I hope you aren't ignoring me like Thine Stalin has been doing with this topic.

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from yuriandropov on 2:20 pm on May 12, 2002
i hate facism becasue it justifies racism, capitalism and strict government.
You've already proven your inability to differentiate between theory and application in the "Plight of a Stalinist" thread, but I'll try and explain a simple concept to you once again (even though I know it's unlikely to yield results): Fascism, in theory, does not rely on racism. Got it, pal? As for fascism's alleged justification of capitalism, it can be used for communism as well. And where its justification of "strict government" is concerned . . . well, Stalinism is even worse in the strict government area. Unlike what you claimed, Stalinism is not strict government for a short period of time. (That is, unless you live under Stalin's strict government for a short period of time and are then shot by some of his troops, but that's another story.)

[yuriandropov]

well, what do you want me to answer, your points are bullshit. everytime i make a point, you just come back with sarcasm and insults, whenever you make a point, i try to come back with a reasonable argument. i would get frustrated with your annoying tone but i've already got my hand broken and a costly bill for a wall repair on a house that isn't even mine to prove that its not worth it.
i didn't even mention nazi ideology. facism is the opposite of what i believe in. at least nazi ideology is anti-capitalist (although i'm still against it).
lenin-german? well that says a lot doesn't it. considering there is a statue every few yards of lenin in my home town. and under the statue is says, vladimir lenin, BORN HERE IN ULYANOVSK RUSSIA! last time i checked my passport, ulyanovsk was in russia not germany.
i seem to post the same thing over and over on this board. you aren't communists, your just rich kids who grew a conciounce. you'll be working in coperate america in a few years. if you love communism and the working class, e-mail me. and come to russia with me to help the poor, the true prolaterat. i said this in a thread earlier today and i haven't got one fucking e-mail! anyway, i'm england for about another week, then i'll be gone and you can all go back to living in your little dream world or your synagogue or whatever cause yuri will be living in the real world, without computer, internets and white picket fences like you have. i can't beleive it, the one chance i get to go on holiday and see my family in england, and i spend it arguing with a bunch of pre pubesnet, jew loving, middle class americans.
anyway, i'm awaiting e-mails comrades? anyone going to give up there rich lifestyle and help the russian prolaterat? no, i thought not.

[Michael De Panama]

Haha, I knew you'd have to pull something like that to get out of this.

What do I want you to answer? My first question. What exactly about fascism do you disagree with? Like I said in my previous post, I am not speaking of Nazi ideology. You mentioned that fascism promotes racism, that it puts all of society's blame on the ethnic minorities, and that it is supposed to be an everlasting government. All of these things are Nazi ideology, which is a branch of fascism. I am talking about the root. I am talking about fascism in general, not specific fascist groups. Fascism is not necessarily a system of racism, just like a dog is not necessarily a dachshund.

Though instead of answering the question, you'd rather waste your time *****ing about an insignificant little comment I made that Lenin was German. You're right. I don't know who I was thinking of when I wrote it but I really wasn't paying attention. But there's no need to make such a fuss about it.

As for your *****ing about the lack of support your noble cause has recieved, perhaps the Jew-loving people on this message board are too young, too naive, too bourgeois, and too ignorant to support your romantic quest to put another mass murdering lunatic into power in Russia. It must be quite sad for you. After all, you ARE Russian. You DID work for the KGB. And surely you are older than me. But I think when it all comes down to it, your idea of a revolution is the same as Stalin's idea of a revolution, and that kind of revolution will not come from people who willingly support your cause. No. You, like Stalin, only have one way of rallying up support: To TAKE support by force. Perhaps you'd like to exile me to Mexico, Yuri, and then perhaps you'd like to have me assassinated?

Because what it all comes down to is that your violent authoritarian beliefs will not spread through diplomatic measures. I'm sure that every sane person on this board would rather, by diplomatic means, support me and my democratic internationalist "Jew-loving" vision of Marxism, than your pseudo-fascist authoritarian nationalist anti-semetic right-wing vision of Marxism, and this includes the capitalists (If there ARE any sane capitalists on this board).

Would you like to put it to the test?

[yuriandropov]

if we were to put yours and mine theoris to the test, on this board you would win.

ok, let me get this sorted once and for all. firstly, i am not a stalinist. i may have used this word to describe myself, but only to distance myself with other 'socialists' on this board. what i want to do, is to bring young idealists, into the camp of the 'stalinists' or 'leninists' or whatever you want to call me. communism through 'democracy' will never work as the middle class will alway hijack the election. the only way for leftism to become popular is to become populist, like the communists are doing in russia now. you have to appeal to the working class. what interests the working class isn't civil rights, isn't gay rights, isn't pro life activists, what interests the working class is an end to exploitaion at the hands of the bouguasis. as i have said before, only once equality has been acheived with the working class, can all other forms of equality become clear.

on to facism, what i'll do for you michael is put a few of my hard line core beliefs down. if they coincide with facism, then i'm a facist, but i'm sure they won't.

1-the right for the prolaterat to rule over the bouguasis.
2-the centrally planned economy where all land is owned by the state and any private enteprise is kept under strict government control so that exploitation doesn't happen
3-if necessary, violent suppression of descent from rightest camps. freedom of speech will be allowed only from leftists. (eg me and you could argue like we are now)
4-the right to spend money on the peoples army, navy and airforce in case of a class war from abroad. "the state of the countries army, reflects the state of the country"- frederick engels.
5 the right of all citizens to free housing, gas, electric, heating, education, health care and employment.
6 the right for any citizen regardless of colour, ethniticity, financial background, sex or education to join the communist party (the only party, run by the people, for the people) same rules apply, investigations would be run to make sure the applicant is ideologically pure. no rightests.
7 the end of organised religion. religion can be practised privately but all church leaders will be releived from there position.
8 complete end to heriditery privilages. eg, if your father was general secratary, you will have to go to the same schools, and go through the same path as everyone else to move up the party. (this shuts up capitalist who say there is nothing to work for in communism)
9 the graduel shift of all task ran by buruecrats to be run by the workers. wherever possible, the workers soviet should take part in the day to day running of the workplace
10 the eventual dissolution of classes, currency and beraucrats. the result will be a workers state run by the working class. the ultimate goal is not anarchy, but classless communism.

[Michael De Panama]

communism through 'democracy' will never work as the middle class will alway hijack the election.

What? Do you not realize what you just said? Middle class? Do you not know what communism is? By definition, communism is a class-free society. There is no upper, middle, or lower class. Do you not even know the basics?

Then you later said that you only want equality among the working class, and THEN you want equality among everyone else. What are you proposing? That the proletariat each have the exact same conditions of work without any freedom of social mobility? In the capitalist world, the proletariat doesn't have the ability of socail mobility, so what are you proposing? That the proletariat should be turned into serfs? Or are you telling me that you want a structured and permanent division of classes between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat without a social ladder to climb?

Whatever it is, it certainly isn't communist. There are no classes in communism, as I've said before, and as you should already know.

From the explanation you gave of yourself, you sound like more of an idealist than anyone on this board.

1-the right for the prolaterat to rule over the bouguasis.

No, that's not fascist. It's not communist either, nor is it even Stalinist (Stalinism is not a dictatorship by the proletariat, as Stalinism is not a dictatorship of the majority). It's a part of Marxist theory that is supposed to be a very temporary system. I don't agree with it at all, but whatever.

3-if necessary, violent suppression of descent from rightest camps. freedom of speech will be allowed only from leftists. (eg me and you could argue like we are now)

Freedom of speech should be only allowed by leftists? You are too insecure about your beliefs, obviously. I am a strong advocate of all freedom of speech. I do not feel that the government should have the right to tell me what I can or cannot say. I'm guessing you just want to suppress the rightwing opposition. Why are you even concerned? If you were loyal to your beliefs, you wouldn't be so cowardly as to silence all other opposing beliefs. It is an embarrassment that you are so afraid of such weak minded people as the right wingers. It might be because you are fairly weak minded yourself. The rightwingers can argue all they want, but in the end we will always have the better arguments. I don't see why you would have any fear of such weak arguments. Let them have all the freedom of speech they want. Freedom of speech for all is very important.

4-the right to spend money on the peoples army, navy and airforce in case of a class war from abroad. "the state of the countries army, reflects the state of the country"- frederick engels.

Then why would the state of a country without capital be reflected by an army that is funded by capital?

6 the right for any citizen regardless of colour, ethniticity, financial background, sex or education to join the communist party (the only party, run by the people, for the people) same rules apply, investigations would be run to make sure the applicant is ideologically pure. no rightests.

The only party? And this "only party" is run ONLY by leftists? That would turn this party into another bourgeoisie, another ruling class, another form of oppression. A permanent ruling class. This is a fairly fascist concept.

7 the end of organised religion. religion can be practised privately but all church leaders will be releived from there position.

So would you have a problem with privately organized religions?

If not, I'd agree with you. The state should not fund any religious organization, as this would mix religion with government. Religious and political establishments should be kept as far away from each other as possible.

Of course, you probably wouldn't tolerate any form of Judaism to be practiced. But I shouldn't put words in your mouth.

8 complete end to heriditery privilages. eg, if your father was general secratary, you will have to go to the same schools, and go through the same path as everyone else to move up the party. (this shuts up capitalist who say there is nothing to work for in communism)

Move up the party? That sounds a lot like a class system. I'll remind you, yet again, that communism abolishes the class system. This is something you should already know.

9 the graduel shift of all task ran by buruecrats to be run by the workers. wherever possible, the workers soviet should take part in the day to day running of the workplace

Bureaucrats? Um...well...then we're still talking about capitalism, are we? I agree that everything should be run by the workers, but I don't believe that a bureaucracy should exist at all.

10 the eventual dissolution of classes, currency and beraucrats. the result will be a workers state run by the working class. the ultimate goal is not anarchy, but classless communism.

Haha, you said it yourself. "Classless communism". Now look back and see all the contradictions you've made.

Though this little top ten list was an interesting look into your political beliefs, it is completely irrelevent from the actual question I asked you. I will ask you for the third time, hoping to actually get an honest, real response:

WHAT ABOUT FASCISM DO YOU DISAGREE WITH?

By the way, Thine Stalin and all the other Stalinists...get down here now! You've everywhere except for where I need you.

[Menshevik]

I'll answer for Yuri, he is not a nationalist socialist, he is a Communist, therefore he does not condone facism. He does condone authoritarian tactics like facist govts., but once more he is a Communist. I'm sure he believes in loyalty to the state like facists and belief in the strength of the almighty dictator, but this still does not make him a facist or a facist sympathizer. Facism is a capitalist system, 'stalinism' or 'leninism' are not--they are forms of a Communist/Marxist system. I don't personally agree with this, but it's his philosophy.

[yuriandropov]

thank you menshevik, it seems you can read unlike michael de panama.

firstly about my beleifs. i was talking as if it were the first stages of the revolution. when the revolution happens, the middle class don't just dissapear as soon as blsheviks get in. look at russia. it was only in about 1940, when stalin eliminated the bouguasis (23 years after the revolution!) communism is EVENTUALLY a classless society because only the prolaterat exists. the only groups living will be the working class prolaterat, the intellagencia and the peasentry.
you say there should be no bereucrats, as i said, you can't just take over the country and say to workers, 'here your running the country now'. it must be graduel.
you say moving up the party isn't right. of course it is. if there was nothing to work for, the country wouldn't run. in a communist country, unlike a capitalist one, if you reach the position of GS, you deserve it. look at all the soviet leaders, most of them have come from peasent families. you don't see that in the USA. there has to be an incentive to work.
about the military, a state without capital. what? you are talking about the final stages of communism. that takes maybe 100 years. i'm talking abut the initial stages. you need to get your head out of the clouds and concentrate on the here and now rather than 100 years from now.
about the one party state, if there is oly one party, and it is run by the prolaterat (as i mentioned 99$ of CPSU members were prolaterat) then the prolaterat is the ruling power. in capitalism, the bouguasis rules over the prolaterat, in communism, the prolaterat rules over the bouguasis. in capitalism, the bouguasis oppresses the prolaterat by keeping them down financially and saying, you can't own any land.in communism, the prolaterat keeps the bouguasis down and says you can't own any land because everyone owns it. (and yes, i know i'm talking about classes but i am still talking about the intial stages of the revolution).
later i will give you the reason why the soviet communist system is better the 'democratic' system you seem to like.
anyway, on to facism. facism agrees with private property, i don't. facism agrees with racism (yes it does, nazism does aswell but facism is based on 'ethnic togetherness') i don't. facism is against communism, i am not. facism is for the bouguasis, i'm not. facism believes in imperialism, i don't. is that enough? yes, there are some things about facism i agree with, there are some things about capitalism i agree with and there are some things about nazism i agree with. but it doesn't make me a facist, capitalist, nazi does it? there are many areas of communism where lot of capitalists agree, but there not communists are they?
as i said, i will be back later to further my points about soviet communism.

[Anarcho]

To truly get ahead in the US, you need to work, and work hard. Your parents money or connections may make it easier, but you still have to work.

And the mere fact that you support brutal oppresion of an opposition party means that you are anti-democratic.

And the system you describe will always (at least historically) desolve into the totalitarian state that existed under Stalin.

[yuriandropov]

why should capitalists and facists be allowed to infect the mind of the prolaterat with there poison?

in communism, the prolaterat rules for the prolaterat. anyone who is against it, is against the interests of the prolaterat.

"ideas are more powerful than guns, and you wouldn't let you enemies have guns would you?"- J.V.Stalin

despite what you think, the soviet system was not un-democratic. if you wanted to debate the countries policies, you could join the communist party. anyone could join. and if you had any grievances with your housing arrangements or anything like that, you could go to your local communist party meeting and complain, and the party would fix it for you. the communist pary took care of the working class, it ruled in the interest of the working class, it WAS the working class. most USSR working class citizens didn't care about politics, they just wanted to be paid what they were worth. they just wanted to get on with there life, do there job and be treated fairly. if they were interestd in politics, they could join the party. and they would have to start the same place leonid brezhnev or yuri andropov started because there was no privilages based on parentage, race, sex or soviet nationality.

[yuriandropov]

'to truly get ahead in the US you have to work hard'. so are you saying that because a factory worker in the US doesn't have the same bank balance as an actor, he doesn't work hard? another bouguas myth.

[yuriandropov]

oh and one more thing, if you all LOVE democracy so much, how come anyone who disagrees with anything you all say ends up resticted to one forum? wheres my freedom of speech? how come you have to have your own private 'commie club'? because you know people like me will come and show you up for the liberal bougua's that you are (not directed at everyone, just a majority). how come i'm not allowed in the 'commie club'? am i not communist enough? i live in a communist (stalinist anyway) country? i am a member of the communist party, i was a member of the communist party of the soviet union, i was a member of several other communist organisations of the USSR, i worked for the soviet kgb for 7 years and now work for the belorussian kgb and yet i am not allowed in the 'commie club'.

ps this is not directed at all members. some of you do have an idea of what commuism is about (Red Celtic, thine stalin, nateddi, punkrawker and several others). the rest of you need to grow up and get into the real world.

[Menshevik]

yuri, I really wouldn't worry about the Commie Club, it's seems that people go there because they don't want to be argued with and just want to hear how right they are. You're right it seems pretty hypocritical, but hey what are you going to do. You still get to state your opinions at least.

[Michael De Panama]

why should capitalists and facists be allowed to infect the mind of the prolaterat with there poison?

Because we communists are allowed to spread our beliefs as well. The people of the nation should have equal rights, and this includes the people who don't want equal rights.

"ideas are more powerful than guns, and you wouldn't let you enemies have guns would you?"- J.V.Stalin

Haha. This only reinforces my argument that Stalin and his followers are cowards. The man feels threatened by opposing ideas, so he silences them.

It's a good comparison, I must say. But the point he tried to make is extremely weak, and only shows how insecure he is with his own ideas.

I would not let my enemy have a gun, but simply because I myself do not own a gun. If I had a gun that was ten times more powerfull than that of my enemy, and if I had a finger that was quicker to the trigger than that of my enemy, I would see no reason why I would not give my enemy a gun.

I am secure about my communist beliefs. I am confident that I am right, and I don't fear any sort of opposition. On the contrary, I encourage opposition. Because if I am not right, then I would like to know. My ideas are ten times stronger than that of my enemy. I have nothing to fear.

It's a shame that you do not feel secure about your beliefs, and have to cowardly propose the complete elimination of all opposing beliefs. Are you not strong enough to battle the opposition? Then why the fuck do you stand by your beliefs in the first place? I mean, if you doubt that your own beliefs are the strongest, why are they yours? Except, of course, for some bourgeois power hungry hidden agenda.

Which leads me to the conclusion that deep down inside, you know 100% that you are wrong, just like Stalin.

It's also funny that he is referring to the whole population of the Soviet Union as his enemies. Because, after all, he silenced the entire population of the Soviet Union from having any idea that does not see Stalin as a god. What a pig.

Anyway, I'll respond to the other stuff in another post.

[yuriandropov]

michael de panama, how come there has never been a government with your way of thinking? because your soft liberal stance would get crushed by the facists! your weak way of thinking is not populist enough. if you were to let capitalists and facists have there say, they could manipulate the prolaterat.
i keep saying this but the idea of the dictatorship of the prolaterat is to be a populist government and listen to the people. eg the USSR banned homosexuality. the leaders of the USSR didn't really care about wheather there was homosexuality or not, but it was a popular thing to do as the attitude towards homosexuality in USSR at the time was negative.
i have also said before, i am not a stalinist. i agree with many things he did but i beleive more in the leninist principle of democratic centralism during the transition to socialism.

[Michael De Panama]

you say there should be no bereucrats, as i said, you can't just take over the country and say to workers, 'here your running the country now'. it must be graduel.

Well, I didn't know we weren't talking about the finished product. But I did read in an earlier post you made somewhere else that you agreed that a dictatorship should rule forever, overlooking the whole thing.

you say moving up the party isn't right. of course it is. if there was nothing to work for, the country wouldn't run. in a communist country, unlike a capitalist one, if you reach the position of GS, you deserve it. look at all the soviet leaders, most of them have come from peasent families. you don't see that in the USA. there has to be an incentive to work.

If there was nothing to work for, nothing would work? Let me think where I've heard that argument before. Ah, yes! From every single capitalist that has crossed my path! And why did they argue with a communist about it? Because a communist believes in complete equality, with no social ladder to climb. People aren't working for nothing, they are working for the same amount as everyone. They are cooperating, not competing. In a communist society you are working for yourself and for everyone else. In a capitalist society you are working for the bourgeoisie and nobody else.

about the one party state, if there is oly one party, and it is run by the prolaterat (as i mentioned 99$ of CPSU members were prolaterat) then the prolaterat is the ruling power. in capitalism, the bouguasis rules over the prolaterat, in communism, the prolaterat rules over the bouguasis. in capitalism, the bouguasis oppresses the prolaterat by keeping them down financially and saying, you can't own any land.in communism, the prolaterat keeps the bouguasis down and says you can't own any land because everyone owns it. (and yes, i know i'm talking about classes but i am still talking about the intial stages of the revolution).

Wrong. In a capitalist society, the bourgeoisie rules over the proletariat. But in a communist society, the bourgeoisie doesn't fucking exist. What you are talking about is NOT communism, it is the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is an entirely different concept. The dictatorship of the proletariat is something that I personally disagree with. Regardless, it must not be confused with communism. Communism is a classless system. There is no division between bourgeois and proletariat. There is no rich and poor. There is no ruling class, whether it be the majority or the minority.

Either way, the dictatorship of the proletariat is described as an extremely temporarial system.

anyway, on to facism. facism agrees with private property, i don't.

No it doesn't. It agrees with private property for the ruling class. Just like Stalin. Stalin had private property.

facism agrees with racism (yes it does, nazism does aswell but facism is based on 'ethnic togetherness') i don't.

Not necessarily. It is not a fundamentally racist system. It does not conflict with racism, but it does not promote it. It promotes one class ruling over another class permanently. This could be applied to different races of people, or different economic classes of people. Whatever. And, from the posts you've made about Jews, you ARE pretty fucking racist.

facism is against communism, i am not.

Not all communism. I mean, Stalin and Hitler were buddies at one time! The only communism that the fascists don't like is MY communism, the REAL communism. Not your Stalinist communism.

facism is for the bouguasis, i'm not.

Ah. I must say, that is the best point you've made! I can't argue that. That's the biggest difference I can see between Stalinism and fascism. Stalinism is proletarian fascism, and pure fascism is bourgeois socialism. So, I guess whether you are a Stalinist or a fascist depends only on whether you are bourgeois or proletarian.

(Edited by Michael De Panama at 12:27 am on May 17, 2002)

[yuriandropov]

you bring up some interesting points that i am prepared to acknowledge. however, one point where you are way off is the social ladder thing. the social ladder doesn't just dissapear, it erodes away with time.
IMO the dicatorship of the prolaterat or democratic centralism should have gradually shifted to the workers in the USSR in the 70's. the standard of living was good, people were reasonably content and the workers were educated enough. but that idiot brezhnev ruined it! he was incompitent from the beginning. the beareucracy that he created was bloated and he was basically a figuehead leader who enjoyed the privalages like western cars. the power should have shifted to the local soviets in about 1974. then we would have a true peoples democracy now. as it was, gorbachev tried to shift power to the soviets but it was for the wrong reasons. the soviet system died the day yuri andropov died. he was the only man who could save it. chernenko was another brezhnev lacky and gorbachev didn't know weather he was coming or going (although he did have good intentions). what we need now in the soviet union is another lenin. i may be over-reacting, but alexander kuvaev may have the charisma and the revolutionary ways to bring socialism back to mother russia. we need to start from scratch though, democratic centralism, then the slow shift to workers soviets. the workers soviets are vital to the centrally planned economy. although i am anti-trotsky, what he said about the centrally planned economy was right. "the planned economy needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen. without it, it will die!".
anyway, i was just clearing up that i beleive in dictatorship of prolaterat first, then workers democracy. but not overnight.
i may side with right wingers on certain issues. like abortion, 'anti-semitism' (although marx was an anti-semite so technically this should be a left wing issue) and the death penalty, but my core beliefs are that of the manifesto.

[Thine Stalin]

Ok micheal, why the fuck should I reply? When all of the replies I got from you on my posts until recently were just personal attacks, I'm glad you've matured but I still hold a grudge anyway, answering your original question, I don't feel the need to look through the rest of your replies, even if what I'm about to say has already been said.

Marx said facism is the highest form of capitalism. I don't find so much paticularly wrong with facism, except for the capitalist economy. Thats why I will never support it.
I've said this so many times, I don't think I'd enjoy a stalinist goverment, but I think its necessary, ALL stalinists think its necessary, for the future of a communist nation. Communism does not WORK without a strict dictator like stalin!

This may be a poor comparison but a teacher that puts her students on the honor system and never punishes them, just suggests they don't do it anymore, is a failure. A teacher that is strict, teachers the students how to behave FIRST is a success, when the students have turned into the what she wants them to be, she can become lax, and the students can have more fun, but atleast they know their limits now. If they begin forgetting, back to the strict system, the stalinist system, until they learn.

You see stalinism is needed, once the people have learned, then it can be disposed for a more likeable goverment.

[Michael De Panama]

I don't have the energy to respond to everything here and write another epic, but I'd like to respond to this one thing:


Quote: from Thine Stalin on 2:05 am on May 17, 2002
This may be a poor comparison but a teacher that puts her students on the honor system and never punishes them, just suggests they don't do it anymore, is a failure. A teacher that is strict, teachers the students how to behave FIRST is a success, when the students have turned into the what she wants them to be, she can become lax, and the students can have more fun, but atleast they know their limits now. If they begin forgetting, back to the strict system, the stalinist system, until they learn.

That actually is a very good comparison, and I totally understand where you are coming from. And for a communist system to work in a pre-industrialized nation such as Russia and China were before the revolution, an authoritarian government would be inevitable. However, as far as communist theory goes, this "discipline" comes from the bourgeois oppression of the proletariat through industrialization. That's why communism would never work in a place that is not industrial.

So, it isn't really necessary to have a Stalinist regime mold the proletariat, as the proletariat is already being molded by the factories of capitalism. Stalinism doesn't have to come before true communism, capitalism does. Capitalism is this necessary evil that you speak of. Without capitalism there is no proletariat, and without a proletariat there can never be a successfull communist system.

[kingbee]

fuckin hell wots goin on? i read the first page and then everyone starts goin nuts with eachother. anyway, i wanted to post this in reply from the first page

stalin did refuse to trade his son for german pows. maybe because he was a dick, blah,blah, but what would all the red army think if he did trade his son? that would be no socialism would it, favouring one man above another?

im not saying i wouldnt trade my son (not that ive got one). he might have done a brutal decision, or he might have done a brave one. and i dont like stalin.

[RGacky3]

Stalin had good intentions, (to make a communist state) but he did it the wrong way, you can't stop exploitation with exploitation, you should not use oppression at all, thats not communism, thats tyranical. Fashism just plain sucks.

(Edited by RGacky3 at 12:37 am on May 18, 2002)


(Edited by RGacky3 at 11:55 pm on May 19, 2002)

[Michael De Panama]

Come on, no reply from Thine Stalin?

[yuriandropov]

michael de panama, i actually feel it is harder arguing with you than a capitalist. when arguing with a capitalist, it is balck and white. i agree with re-distribution of wealth, he doesn't. with you, you actually advocate capitalist ideas without knowing it. your libetarian ideals of communism are basically anarchy. what is anarchy? no government. what do capitalists want? no government.
nikita kruschev once said, 'be careful you don't go too far on the left, because you will come out on the right!'. this is a great point and it can be used to describe you. in anarchy, with no government, capitalists will again rise to the top. once they have rose to the top, there offspring will inherit there fortune and we will be back where we started. a massive class divide!
it is mans naturul instinct to better himself. it is some mens naturul instinct to better himslef at the expense of others if he has too. you can't change this, man has evolved over thousands of years, it will take thousands more for humans to evolve further.
maybe in 10,000 years, your libertarian communism will exist. look at my 10 points. the 10th point says the ultimate goal is classless communism. this will take hundreds, maybe thousands of years to achieve yet you dismiss the USSR after only 70! if your anarchy was implemented, the same old thing would happen. the greedy would rise to the top off the back of the workers. that is not what leftism wants. you don't want that, but what your advocating, will lead to that.

[Michael De Panama]

The reason you find it harder arguing with me is because you don't really understand my political ideology, and therefore make silly assumptions.

What capitalist ideals do I advocate?

I am not a libertarian communist. I do not advocate anarchy.

And, by the way, anarchy is opposed to capitalism. Anarchy is a leftist movement. The anarchist is also in favor of a classless society, he just has different ideas about how to achieve it.

But I don't agree that a government-free society would ever work. I'm not an anarchist. I am in favor of democracy. I don't want a society absent of government, I want a society to control their government, regardless of wealth. This is why I am a communist.

'be careful you don't go too far on the left, because you will come out on the right!'

I totally agree. But aren't I the softcore leftist, and you are the hardcore leftist? You said so yourself. I'm sure that this quote was in reference to Stalin. You are the one who supports Stalin. You are the proletarian fascist. You are the one who wants totalitarianism. I am the one who wants democracy. Democracy is leftist. It's not hardcore leftism like your hardcore fascist integration into communism, but I don't want to be fucking "hardcore". You are the one who came out on the right.

[yuriandropov]

about 'democracy' and communism. read my last post in 'to all libertarian communists' to realise the dangers of mixing the two so soon.
democracy is essential to communism. but first comes the dictatorship of the prolaterat. the first thing that must be secured in communism is, the communist party's power. then, prosperity for the working class. then, democracy for the working class. you only speak so much of democracy now because you have prosperity in USA. you would rather prosperity than democracy though wouldn't you? thats what democratic centralism does. it takes care of the prolaterat. this is firstly the most important task of the communist party. after that is taken care of, then democracy can come. but PEOPLES democracy, not the bourgeois democracy you have in USA. there is no point in having other political parties either. as stalin said 'ideas are more powerful than guns, and you wouldn't let your enemies have guns would you?'. you should be able to have multi-candidate elections, but not multi-party. like gorbachev tried to introduce.
anyway, what are you politically? my theory behind people not revealing there political identity on this board is, by not revealing your allegiance, you can insult all forms of previous government. that would fit nicely with the attitude of many of this forums members. just rebelling against authority. i would say most of you will be members of the US demcrat party later in life.