judaism and marxism

[yuriandropov]

for almost 100 years now, facists and capitalists alike have been trying to label communism in the same context as judaism. two reasons for this:
1- marx was from a jewish family
2- communism speaks of internationalism, much like judaism.

well, to deal with the first myth. marx was baptised a protestant. his father was a jew but denounced the religion, citing its greed as a main cause. marx then turned into a devout atheist who launched several vitriolic attacks on the jewish people. also, whenever he spoke of jews, he would say, 'they'. making it very claer he did not want to associate himslef with judaism and to distance himself from his jewish ancestory. considering that it is rumoured that hitler had jewish ancestory (meaning if you trace everone back far enough they probobly have jewish blood), i think we can dismiss that reason.

internationalism. judaism (or several jewish leaders) speaks of no nations, just jews ruling over the world. communism does not speak of no nations, it just speaks of international brotherhood and co-operation amongst nations.

now that it has been established there is no link between the philosophy of communism and the religion of judaism, we can now look at another facist argument. that jews were prominant under bolsheviks.

a complete myth. when bolsheviks seized power in october (november new style) 1917, they immidiatly faced opposition in the form of monarchists, capitalists and the bougeoisie. these were called the white armies. the 'whites' were deeply anti-semitic. claiming 'kill jews and reclaim russia!'. the bolsheviks seized on this propaganda opportunity and enlisted thousands of jews to help fight the whites. claiming that they would be killed by the whites otherwise. after the bolshevik win in the civil war of 1918-1921, it would appear that the bolsheviks were a party of the jews? wrong. as soon as the civil war was over, the yevsektsii was set up. this was an organisation set up to assimilate jews to the soviet lifestlye. lenin had already dismissed jewish culture as 'the slogan of rabbi's and the bourgeoisie, the slogan of our enemies!' and stalin had already started the first (of what would be many) attacks on the jewish culture.
the plight of jews was furthered by the NEP (new economic policy) that basically put an end to the petty bourgeoisie. the petty bourgeoisie that was made up of jews. the bolsheviks were sick of the exploitation the jews had put the russian people through for years ad ordered a stop to it. the perpertrators of this jewish persecution were mainly lenin and stalin. lenin then ordered a complete ban on the language of hebrew calling it, 'the reactionary language of the bourgeoisie'. only yiddish was permitted. jewish education was impossible and all aspects of jewish life were stopped by the bolsheviks. the remaining secular jews left in the bolsheviks were later exiled to siberia for having 'nationalist tendancies'. lenin wanted to do this earlier but was afraid of losing support of the jewish prolaterat. something that had happened already due to manipulation by the hebrew speaking jewish bourgeois. the jewish bourgeois had hijacked the jewish prolaterat and turned them in to nationalists. this left stalin with no choice, but to completley eradicate all aspects of jewish culture. the jews of the soviet union made themselves enemies of the people with there disgracful reaction to the NEP. the jewish bourgois then manipulated the unsuspecting prolaterat with zionism and jewish nationalism. distancing themselves not only from the workers movement, but the soviet system. lenin knew this would happen and actually instructed stalin to act accordingly when it finally did.

so there you have it. jews are not only unassociated with communism, but are historically enemies of communism.

i suggest you read marx's two anti-semitc books, 'a world without jews' and 'the jewish question'.

i couldn't find any link to AWWJ, but i have a link to a page with many quotes from it. i also have the link to the text of the jewish question.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...ewish-question/ (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/)

http://www.zundelsite.org/english/zgrams/z...909/990917.html (http://www.zundelsite.org/english/zgrams/zg1999/zg9909/990917.html)

read these two sites to realise what marx think's of 'gods chosen people'.

[Michael De Panama]

If any thread should be locked, Malte, it's this one.

[yuriandropov]

WHAT!!! WHY???

in this thread, apart from seperatin judaism with communism, i am trying to defend the jewish prolaterat. the reason jews were persecuted in the USSR was because of the bourgeis jews. thats what i was trying to say.

[Michael De Panama]

Seriously Yuri, this is just totally uncool.

(There were no bourgeois jews in the USSR. There was no bourgeoisie.)

(EDIT: Well, there WAS a bourgeoisie, but it wasn't ruled by jews. It was the Stalinist regime. But let's not get into that.)

(Edited by Michael De Panama at 3:21 am on May 17, 2002)

[I Will Deny You]

[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:14 pm on May 16, 2002
for almost 100 years now, facists and capitalists alike have been trying to label communism in the same context as judaism. two reasons for this:
1- marx was from a jewish family
2- communism speaks of internationalism, much like judaism.[hr]You forgot reason #3, which is that a huge amount of Jews were communists. Jews made up over half of the communist parties in America and Canada.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:14 pm on May 16, 2002
well, to deal with the first myth. marx was baptised a protestant. his father was a jew but denounced the religion, citing its greed as a main cause. marx then turned into a devout atheist who launched several vitriolic attacks on the jewish people. also, whenever he spoke of jews, he would say, 'they'. making it very claer he did not want to associate himslef with judaism and to distance himself from his jewish ancestory. considering that it is rumoured that hitler had jewish ancestory (meaning if you trace everone back far enough they probobly have jewish blood), i think we can dismiss that reason.[hr]Perhaps you're forgetting all of the people who updated Marxist philosophy to change with the times and elaborated and improved upon many of his theories. Marx is certainly not the only communist philosopher with Jewish blood . . . the only notable aspect of the relationship between Judaism and communism when Marx is being considered is that Marx denounced Judaism, unlike so many other communists.[hr]You forgot reason #3, which is that a huge amount of Jews were communists. Jews made up over half of the communist parties in America and Canada.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:14 pm on May 16, 2002
internationalism. judaism (or several jewish leaders) speaks of no nations, just jews ruling over the world. communism does not speak of no nations, it just speaks of international brotherhood and co-operation amongst nations.[hr]Judaism does not speak of Jews ruling the world. Anti-semitic literature does. The Torah, the only "official" Jewish text, was, according to legend, given to Moses while he was wandering in the desert with a bunch of former slaves for decades. I'll repeat that, because you seem to have a hard time understanding things like this: The only official Jewish text was, if you take the official legend literally, given to a bunch of slaves who were wandering in the desert for years and years. Do you really think that a text whose origins were almost certainly among the poor and oppressed would have said that Jews were supposed to rule the world? Give me a break. The Torah (which, I will say now as a disclaimer so that no one accuses me of being a Zionist, was almost 100% metaphors) only promised the Jews a small strip of land that even their leader was not let into. How the hell can this be considered world domination? As for the Jewish leaders who supposedly said this, I couldn't help but notice that you didn't give a single name, much less any context. Let's face facts here: In over five millennia, it's inevitable that there will be a few wackos here and there. You're a Russian, but from what I can tell there are only two leaders in the history of your country who you agree with. When the diaspora is taken into account I really don't think that the words of one leader can be applied to a huge, diverse group of people that's been around for a very long time. Also, Jews haven't had the upper hand for most of their existence and many Jewish records are ambiguous or metaphorical, so something that could be interpreted as a promise of world domination might simply be one leader's promise to his or her people that they will no longer be oppressed one day. At any rate, I've studied Judaism for years and have never heard a credible account of even one Jewish leader who called for world domination. But I know that there's plenty of anti-semitic bullshit about leaders saying that Jews can/should/will rule the world. And Judaism does recognize nations, but is considered fairly internationalist because for a religious minority the Jews are very widespread and racially diverse.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:14 pm on May 16, 2002
a complete myth. when bolsheviks seized power in october (november new style) 1917, they immidiatly faced opposition in the form of monarchists, capitalists and the bougeoisie. these were called the white armies. the 'whites' were deeply anti-semitic. claiming 'kill jews and reclaim russia!'. the bolsheviks seized on this propaganda opportunity and enlisted thousands of jews to help fight the whites. claiming that they would be killed by the whites otherwise. after the bolshevik win in the civil war of 1918-1921, it would appear that the bolsheviks were a party of the jews? wrong.[hr]Wait a second there, pal . . . I thought it was the Jews who were greedy and took advantage of the gentiles. But in the only historical reference I can remember you giving since you joined the board, you gave an example of non-Jews using the Jews' desperation and fear for their own purposes, and then dumping the Jews when they didn't need them anymore. You sure are selective as far as when you can be bothered to give an example and when you can't.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:14 pm on May 16, 2002
as soon as the civil war was over, the yevsektsii was set up. this was an organisation set up to assimilate jews to the soviet lifestlye. lenin had already dismissed jewish culture as 'the slogan of rabbi's and the bourgeoisie, the slogan of our enemies!' and stalin had already started the first (of what would be many) attacks on the jewish culture.[hr]Well, if Stalin said it then it must be true. You may not be a Trot, but you must admit that Trots are communists. Why have you never given a quote from a Trotskyist (who, it can be argued, cared for the interests of the Russian people far more than the Stalinists as we can tell by the fact that Troskyists did not go around killing people left and right) about how anti-communist the Jews are? You'll probably find one around the time the president of the Mel Brooks fan club dons a white robe. Also, since when does refusing to assimilate equal hatred of the masses? A person can wish to hold onto their cultural identity and still be willing to work for the good of the people who are not in their cultural group.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:14 pm on May 16, 2002
the plight of jews was furthered by the NEP (new economic policy) that basically put an end to the petty bourgeoisie. the petty bourgeoisie that was made up of jews.[hr]By the time of the revolution there were a few Jewish members of the bourgeoisie, but the vast majority of Jews were still very poor. The reason that the emergence of Jews in the bourgeoisie was mentioned out of proportion is that for centuries, Jews were not allowed to do nearly as many things as the non-Jewish citizens of czarist Russia. If it weren't for the years and years of irrational czarist anti-semitism, rich Jews would be mentioned just as much as the rest of the upper class. The masses found it easy to blame Jews for their suffering because they had made it rich very recently, but in reality Jewish exploitation was no worse than non-Jewish exploitation and if you look at all of the numbers you will see that under the czarist system a non-Jew was still far more likely to exploit others than a Jew was. One more question: If so few Jews were poor, where did Stalin find so many impoverished Jews to persecute and massacre?[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:14 pm on May 16, 2002
lenin then ordered a complete ban on the language of hebrew calling it, 'the reactionary language of the bourgeoisie'.[hr]In Lenin's time, Hebrew was only learned so that sacred works in Judaism could be read. Hebrew was not spoken as a first language by any Jews, whether they were rich or poor. The Jews in the bourgeoisie were the most assimilated, so they were the least likely to speak Hebrew. This is religious persecution, and should not be confused by ignorant scum like you for liberation of the masses.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:14 pm on May 16, 2002
jewish education was impossible and all aspects of jewish life were stopped by the bolsheviks. the remaining secular jews left in the bolsheviks were later exiled to siberia for having 'nationalist tendancies'.[hr]In Lenin and Stalin's time, there were (as I have already said) rich Jews and poor Jews. The most assimilated and least nationalistic were the rich Jews. A Jew with "nationalistic tendencies" was, in all probability, a poor Jew. The rich Jews could not have been branded as overly nationalistic unless there was some serious fabrication going on. Once again, the rich Jews would not have been hurt by this, and instead of going after the upper classes regardless of creed or ethnicity to bring meaningful change, the leaders took the easy way out and played on the masses' bigotry to distract them from the fact that the change they wanted was not happening.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:14 pm on May 16, 2002
lenin wanted to do this earlier but was afraid of losing support of the jewish prolaterat.[hr]Ah, so there was a Jewish working class after all, eh? And it was large and outspokenly leftist enough to be influential! Who would have guessed? Certainly not anyone who had read nothing but your previous posts.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:14 pm on May 16, 2002
something that had happened already due to manipulation by the hebrew speaking jewish bourgeois. the jewish bourgeois had hijacked the jewish prolaterat and turned them in to nationalists. this left stalin with no choice, but to completley eradicate all aspects of jewish culture.[hr]Perhaps the Jewish proletariat couldn't have been manipulated so much if they hadn't been abandoned and manipulated by Lenin. Their loyalty wouldn't have been up in the air if they were not dumped like yesterday's garbage. I find it odd that in the beginning of your post you painted Lenin as undoubtedly anti-semitic and unapolagetically manipulative of the Jews (without justifying it in any satisfactory way, or really any way at all) and now that you've acknowledged that there was a Jewish working class you write that Lenin had "no choice, but to" act so inhumanely, as if he didn't want to. It seems as though you're having trouble coming to terms with your idol's unsubstantiated idiocy and his unevenly applied loyalty to the workers and the oppressed. He did not sacrifice the Jewish workers in order to save the non-Jewish workers, who were much larger in number. He took money that could have been used to feed starving Russian children (or any starving children, really) and spent it on persecuting workers who he had lied to and cheated earlier in his career. And the Jews were not turned into ardent nationalists during Lenin's short rule, by the way. They had been that way for centuries in reaction to their oppressors, the vast majority of whom were non-Jewish and unreasonably anti-semitic.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:14 pm on May 16, 2002
the jews of the soviet union made themselves enemies of the people with there disgracful reaction to the NEP.[hr]Hold on. First you said that it was common knowledge among the best and brightest of the communist elite that Jews were inherently greedy. When you couldn't find any facts to back up your accusation, all of a sudden the Soviet leaders were not planning their actions with unproven stereotypes in mind, but were reacting specifically to the Jews' opinions on the NEP. Make up your mind . . . either the Jews were persecuted because everyone knows how greedy and smelly they are, or they were persecuted because of their reaction to this or that. The fact that you fabricate evidence and dump it when it's suddenly inconvenient shows how seriously you deserve to be taken.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:14 pm on May 16, 2002
distancing themselves not only from the workers movement, but the soviet system.[hr]The Jews could not possibly have been compelled to distance themselves from the Soviet system because Stalin signed pacts with Hitler and was a raving, paranoid anti-semite, right? Here's a history of Jews in communist Russia, according to you:
1) The Red Army manipulates Jews and then dumps them because they know, from historical knowledge that you've conveniently forgotten to substantiate on this board, that the Jews are actually greedy.
2) The Jews are subsequently persecuted by the Soviets.
3) The Jews stop supporting the Soviet system so much. (What could possibly move them to do such a thing? Oh yeah, the persecution and manipulation. But according to you, it's all the fault of the ruling Jews that the Jewish workers disliked the Soviet system. Nothing can be blamed on Saint Lenin.)
4) The Soviets continue the cycle of anti-semitism and resentment. I would hope that the Soviets would be the ones to stop this cycle, because as you have told us (but not explained with any detail or proof) the Soviets were much more mature than the Jews.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:14 pm on May 16, 2002
so there you have it. jews are not only unassociated with communism, but are historically enemies of communism.[hr]You did not so much prove your point as you did shoot yourself in the own foot and completely neglect to address the other side's argument (and facts).

Next time, try shooting yourself a little higher up,
Lindsay

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from Michael De Panama on 10:20 pm on May 16, 2002
by jews. It was the Stalinist regime. But let's not get into that.)Oh contrare Michael, let's get into that indeed! There were hardly any Jews in the ruling class before the revolution, and after the revolution the ruling class was made up of Stalin and the few friends of his whose executions he did not order. (I alluded to this in my last post, but did not really get into it. However, Michael brings up a very good point.)

Yuri, how can you claim to be defending the Jewish proletariat when you can't help but hide your love for Lenin, who used the Jews when it was convenient for him and then dumped them, not because of anything that they had done, but because of stereotypes? If Lenin had taken care of the people who had fought for him and had not encouraged anti-semitism in order to polarize the Jew/non-Jew differences, the Jewish workers would not have been so easily manipulated by the more powerful Jews. The Jews were persecuted in the USSR because of pondscum like you.

Lindsay

(Edited by I Will Deny You at 10:37 pm on May 16, 2002)

[vox]

"his father was a jew but denounced the religion, citing its greed as a main cause"

Care to cite a source for that? I read that they were a non-religious family and his father became a Protestant to facilitate his business connections. But, please, cite the source you have for the greed reason.

You may not know this, but "A World Without Jews" is the same pamphlet (thank Stalin for it) as "On The Jewish Question," which was a polemic against "The Jewish Question" by Bruno Bauer.

However, I think that Jim Farmelant answers the question pretty nicely:

"Marx's "On the Jewish Question" was written within the context of a debate between Marx and fellow Young Hegelian Bruno Bauer over the politics of Jewish emancipation. This essay is among Marx's "pre-Marxist" writings since he wrote it before becoming a communist. Bauer took the position that the achievement of Jewish emancipation in Prussia could not occur until Jews had renounced their identity as a separate people. And Bauer also argued that it was not possible to grant emancipation to the Jews when Christians themselves were not free. (The emancipation of the Jews in France during the French Revolution indeed did involve the formal renunciation by the Jewish community there of being any sort of a separate people from the French nation). Marx criticized Bauer's stance, citing among other things the experience of the United States whose Bill of Rights and many of its state constitutions (Marx as I recall cited the New Hampshire state constitution) had established separation between church and state of state neutrality between religious faiths. In other words Marx argued that the political emancipation of the Jews in Prussia would not require that the Jews give up their identity as a separate group or people. However, Marx then drew a distinction between political emancipation and human emancipation. Political emancipation for Marx meant the achieving of political rights under the bourgeois state.

"Marx by no means disparaged this but this sort of emancipation was insufficient since these sort of rights were linked to egoism and private property. The sort of liberty that was possible under the bourgeois state was not to be equated with a genuine human emancipation which in his view required the transcendence of what he at the time called commercial society. For Marx whereas the achievement of political emancipation required that Jews be granted equal civil rights with Gentiles, human emancipation required the abolition of the distinction between Jews and Gentiles as a social distinction which was rooted in commercial society (what he later called capitalism). In this discussion Marx was influenced by the critiques of religion that had been developed by fellow Young Hegelians like D.F. Strauss, Bruno Bauer, and Ludwig Feuerbach. But Marx went beyond them by his attempt to unveil the material roots of religion and of religious distinctions as a social phenomena. In particular Marx drew upon the work of his friend Moses Hess mwho in 1843 had rejected what he called the "theological consciousness" of the Young Hegelians and called for a social analysis of the human condition.

"Marx in "On the Jewish Question" went to provide such a social analysis focusing on the material roots for the existence of a Jewish minority within Christian Europe. For Marx this material basis lied within the fact that Jews were disproportiantely concentrated in trade and commerce which gave them real economic and political power out of proportion to their actual numbers. This economic power made it possible for the Jews to press the demand for civil equality and to infiltrate their social and commercial values into civil society. The state in turn was dependent upon the Jews for its own financial integrity and so it required that the Jews perform their functions within the world of commerce. Thus civil society in Marx's view provided the material basis for the existence of the Jews as a separate group or caste which needed them as traders, huckster, and moneylenders. Therefore, the Jews would not diappear until either they abandoned their roles as traders and hucksters or the state itself liberated itself from the need for commercialism.

"Much has been made of the Marx's intemperate language in this essay which had often been taken as anti-Semitic. And there is no doubt that his language lends itself to such an interpretation. On the other hand much if his argumentation is ironical in character. While he excorciated the Jews for their hucksterism and greed, he also wrote about the 'Judaizing' of Christian society and of Christians. And in doing so Marx in fact turned many of the favorite anti-Semitic stereotypes that Chrsitians had of Jews against them since by the 19th century, hucksterism was as much a characteristic of Gentiles as it was of Jews."

vox

[yuriandropov]

IWDY, about jews and internationalism, what i was trying to say is that judaism is very internationalist. judaism speaks of the messiah being jewish and if the messiah was jewish and came down from heaven and there was no nations, wouldn't a jew be in control of the whole world?
about lenin using the jews. well, he needed support from anywhere he could get it. its again, the makavellian principil of 'the enemy of my enemy is my freind'. remember, USSR did fight on the same side as USA in WWII. the reason, the had a common enemy. much like the jews and bolsheviks had a common enemy in the whites. lenin had no intention of bowing down to jewish culture after the civil war. he wanted a working class state. the jews, even the ones who were working class, didn't want to be a part of it. historically, jews have always stuck together when in different nations. like in poland, where you had a lot of jews all in one place. they refuse to assimilate to the culture of the nation. jews in 1920's USSR did not see themselves as soviets, but as jews.
reason 3 about jews in communist parties in USA. well, i don't even begin to class these as true communist parties. they were more interested in movements like womens liberation and black civil rights. ridiculous issues that had already been sorted out in the USSR by 1917 when lenin denounced all forms of sexism and denounced the slave trade.
when you say if lenin would have taken care of the prolaterat jews there would have been no problem. this is true. however, he did try too he tried to seperate the prolaterat jews from the bourgeois jews by such means as banning hebrew and trying to stamp out jewish culture that had kept the prolaterat jew down for so many years. but he knew that he would fail in his attempts to assimilate working class jews. because he knew the bourgeois jews would manipulate the prolaterat by religious means. eg, the bourgeois saying 'what is more important, your country, or your faith, the bolsheviks are anti-semite athiest gentiles, you will be judged on your decision when the jewish messiah comes!'. these would be harsh words for the unsuspecting jewish prolaterat who, at that time was probobly not very educated (only 10% literary rate in tsarist russia). the jews (most of them anyway) made there choice to remain jews. in doing this, they also spoilt the chances of secular bolshevik jews from becoming accepted into USSR because the bolsheviks were very suspicious of jews when they refused to assimilate. most jews in bolsheviks were accused of nationalism.
vox, i only breifly read your post but it appears you may be right about marx's father. i had previoulsy understood that marx's father denounced judaism for its greed (i have read it in several marx books). but i did some research and most sources say he actually denounced judaism for business reasons. it seems natural that marx, as a communist, would want to hide this. i will continue to look into it though.
michael de panama, the bourgeosie in USSR was not the ruling class. lenin lived in a mediocre apartment as did other bolsheviks. it was only really in brezhnevs days, when communist party members started enjoying massive benefits. they had previoulsy enjoyed small benefits, but it went too far under the incompitent brezhnev. even if they did enjoy a slight better standard of living (under stalin and kruschev), there was no favouritism. everyone had to start at the bottom of the communist party regardless. as i have said before, USSR wasn't ready for a party with no incentive to climb the ladder. the incentives should have been slowly reduced but becasue of brezhnev, it increased.
IWDY, i have never said there was no jewish prolaterat. however, unfortunatly, the jewish working class was significantly depleted because of the facist hitler.
when you say jews were persecuted because of 'pond scum' (again, someone will have to explain the meaning of that phrase) like me, that is blatant jewish propaganda to make up for the fact that so many people hate your facist religion.
jews should have been allowed to keep there culture? no way! lenin described jewish culture as bourgeois, all bourgeois culture must be destroyed if communism is to prevail. also, groups that don't assimilate could be seen as anti-soviet and possible enemies of the people.

[El Che]

Yea jews are the enemy of the people, hurray for ur stupidity.

[Moskitto]

I never realised how Rosa Luxemburg, Leon Trotsky, Albert Einstein, Emma Goldman and Bela Kun detested communism so much.

[I Will Deny You]

[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 2:43 pm on May 17, 2002
IWDY, about jews and internationalism, what i was trying to say is that judaism is very internationalist. judaism speaks of the messiah being jewish and if the messiah was jewish and came down from heaven and there was no nations, wouldn't a jew be in control of the whole world?[hr]No. This is just more proof that you need to take a refresher course in Judaism 101. The Messiah was supposed to be a supernatural being that inhabited the body of a Jewish mortal, but any supernatural being (no matter what form he/she/it is in) cannot be Jewish. G-d is not a Jew. Angels are not Jews. Only people can be Jews. Also, the Messiah would not control the whole world because the Messiah is supposed to be an extension of G-d and G-d chose to give people free will. Also, Jews believe that there should be no separate nations, not that there actually are no separate nations.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 2:43 pm on May 17, 2002
about lenin using the jews. well, he needed support from anywhere he could get it. its again, the makavellian principil of 'the enemy of my enemy is my freind'. remember, USSR did fight on the same side as USA in WWII. the reason, the had a common enemy. much like the jews and bolsheviks had a common enemy in the whites.[hr]The Jews fought the White Army because they assumed that it was more anti-semitic than the Red Army. But as Lenin, and Stalin (the man you claim was his chosen successor) have proven, the White Army wouldn't have an easy time being more anti-semitic than the Reds . . . would that even be humanly possible? Basically, Lenin backed down on his word.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 2:43 pm on May 17, 2002
lenin had no intention of bowing down to jewish culture after the civil war. he wanted a working class state. the jews, even the ones who were working class, didn't want to be a part of it. historically, jews have always stuck together when in different nations. like in poland, where you had a lot of jews all in one place. they refuse to assimilate to the culture of the nation. jews in 1920's USSR did not see themselves as soviets, but as jews.[hr]It would be impossible to generalize the Jews' attitudes in their entire history of Poland without ignoring major components of their relationship with the Polish rulers, but as you have already shown, you don't concern yourself much with facts. The Jews were the most integrated into Polish society when they were closest to being given equal rights, and they were the most nationalistic when anti-semitism was at its peak. This is not unusual in Jewish history, which is filled with stories of integration into the least prejudiced societies and a strong sense of cultural identity when they were treated the most unfairly. Perhaps Jews didn't see themselves as Soviets because, by the 1920's, they were already victims of fierce attacks and had been cheated by the government that was supposed to stick up for them. Didn't that ever occur to you?[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 2:43 pm on May 17, 2002
reason 3 about jews in communist parties in USA. well, i don't even begin to class these as true communist parties. they were more interested in movements like womens liberation and black civil rights. ridiculous issues that had already been sorted out in the USSR by 1917 when lenin denounced all forms of sexism and denounced the slave trade.[hr]The American government had also denounced sexism and racism many times, but the fact was that it still existed. If you don't consider American communist parties to be truly communist, do you consider the Soviet Communist Party to be truly communist? After all, the majority of members were men (if the Soviet Union wasn't sexist at all, why wasn't it ever led by a woman?) and it was incredibly and undeniably corrupt. As for Lenin denouncing the slave trade, Americans were the ones who suffered hundreds of millions of casualties to end slavery. And it's really easy for a man in Moscow, thousands of miles away from the places that the slave trade had affected, to denounce it. Lenin hadn't sorted either of those issues out . . . an official proclamation of "I don't like this!" does not go a long way to solve the problem. At any rate, the "ridiculous" civil rights movement was far more important in America because racism was so prevalent and there could never be an egalitarian society with scumbags like Strom Thurmond running the show. This was not much of an issue in Russia because it was far less diverse than America. THe American Communist Party adapted its communist ideology to American class issues.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 2:43 pm on May 17, 2002
when you say if lenin would have taken care of the prolaterat jews there would have been no problem. this is true. however, he did try too he tried to seperate the prolaterat jews from the bourgeois jews by such means as banning hebrew and trying to stamp out jewish culture that had kept the prolaterat jew down for so many years.[hr]You're saying that assimilation was what was needed, but the Jews who were assimilated were the upper class Jews! How the hell did Jewish culture keep Jews down? Surely, the Jews would try to break all barriers towards equality, so don't act as if Lenin was doing the Jews a favor by treating their culture so horribly. If their culture was indeed keeping them down (which I'd like to see you try to prove), why wouldn't the Jews just dump it themselves? Banning Hebrew would have done nothing to stop the upper class Jews, because they knew virtually no Hebrew anyway. Banning Hebrew was an attempt at forced assimilation because of bigotry, not some humane gesture with the aim of freeing the oppressed.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 2:43 pm on May 17, 2002
because he knew the bourgeois jews would manipulate the prolaterat by religious means. eg, the bourgeois saying 'what is more important, your country, or your faith, the bolsheviks are anti-semite athiest gentiles, you will be judged on your decision when the jewish messiah comes!'. these would be harsh words for the unsuspecting jewish prolaterat who, at that time was probobly not very educated (only 10% literary rate in tsarist russia).[hr]I don't think it mattered much that the Bolsheviks were atheist gentiles. But it did matter that they were anti-semitic, and even an impoverished population with a 10% literacy rate didn't need someone else to point it out to them that the Bolsheviks were raving anti-semites. As for the whole "judging when the messiah comes" thing, that's Christianity, not Judaism. Jews do not believe that the Messiah will come to judge people and take some to heaven and others to hell . . . very few Jews believe in hell at all. You have insulted the Jewish working class by making the assumption that they could not figure out for themselves that Lenin and Stalin were anti-semitic assholes. They knew it.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 2:43 pm on May 17, 2002
the jews (most of them anyway) made there choice to remain jews. in doing this, they also spoilt the chances of secular bolshevik jews from becoming accepted into USSR because the bolsheviks were very suspicious of jews when they refused to assimilate. most jews in bolsheviks were accused of nationalism.[hr]A person can be Jewish and still believe in working for the betterment of his or her entire community, whether it's filled with Jews, gentiles or a mix. The Jews didn't want to assimilate because the Soviet rulers were such scumbags towards them. Assimilation was not necessary in order to bring together a communist nation. The calls for assimilation came because of bigotry, not a concern for the interests of the general Soviet population.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 2:43 pm on May 17, 2002
IWDY, i have never said there was no jewish prolaterat. however, unfortunatly, the jewish working class was significantly depleted because of the facist hitler.[hr]The Soviet Jewish working class didn't suffer a whole lot because of Hitler. Try to stay on topic. The topic is Russia, not Germany or Poland.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 2:43 pm on May 17, 2002
when you say jews were persecuted because of 'pond scum' (again, someone will have to explain the meaning of that phrase) like me, that is blatant jewish propaganda to make up for the fact that so many people hate your facist religion.[hr]Again, you have failed to adequately explain how Judaism is fascist. You have ignored my explanation of the Talmud's importance and origin much like you have ignored almost all of the other evidence I have brought before you. As for the meaning of "pond scum", try using context clues. You'll figure out the meaning eventually.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 2:43 pm on May 17, 2002
jews should have been allowed to keep there culture? no way! lenin described jewish culture as bourgeois, all bourgeois culture must be destroyed if communism is to prevail. also, groups that don't assimilate could be seen as anti-soviet and possible enemies of the people.[hr]The average Jew was poorer than the average non-Jew, so I fail to see how Jewish culture was bourgeoisie if Soviet culture (which was not destroyed) was not. Again, you've overlooked the fact that Lenin was an anti-semitic politician, and politicians often conceal their bigotry in lies about how much they worry about the good of the majority of the people.

Eagerly awaiting your next batch of lies & In admiration of your ability to ignore evidence,
Lindsay

[yuriandropov]

oh how i wish you were to stand up at a factory in soviet times and spout this ant-soviet jewish bourgeois propaganda. that would be funny.
i am not computer literate so i can't paste what you said and answer it like you can. instead i'll try to answer the individuel points (or lies, whatever you want to call them)
was the CPSU communist? yes it was. a lot more interested in the working class than CPUSA. i admit that when brezhnev came in, bearucracy increased and so did party benefits, but the ideology was the same. as for corruption, you can't prove that. thats all i will say on that matter.
CPSU's lack of women. without starting to start a sex war, the nature of extremist ideology can be violent. women tend to be less violent and aggresive than men so that is really the only answer i can give. the opptunites were there for women, most chose not to take it.
the jewish messiah. every jew i ever spoke to about judaism tell me that is the case. they say jesus wasn't messiah because the messiah will be jewish. anyway, its beside the point. the point i was trying to make was to end the myth that marxist internationalism is different from jewish internationalism.
the soviet jewish working class didn't suffer under hitler? what are you talking about. virtually all soviet jews were from ukraine and belorussia. ukraine and belorussia were occupied by nazis. SS killed all jews they could find, and that was a lot.
upper class jews were assimilated. sort of true, but they were bourgeosie. they were enemies of the people. they were private land owners so, they were criminals. anyway, not all upper class jews were assimilated. and my point still stands that they manipulated the working class jews.
working class jews didn't need to be told what to think. you have taken that out of context. we both know how powerful religion is to the uneducated peasentry.
you fail to see how jewish cultue is bourgeois? lenin said it. thats why.also, it was very money orientated. most of the leading rabbi's were land owners who were exploiting the working class with religious threats.
about me CLAIMING stalin was lenins succesor. no-one was lenins chosen succesor, lenin believed in democratic centralism. he denounced stalins dictatoral tendencies in his last testament, but he favoured stalin's ruthless loyalty to the communist cause, rather than trotsky's menshevik past.
i will not reply to the rest of your comments as they are nothing more than anti-leninist lies. lenin wanted equality for the jewish prolaterat like i do, but they turned there back on lenin for there torah and talmud. in bolshevik USSR, that was something you simply didn't do (turn your back on lenin), and if you did, you should accept the concequences.
most of what you have written is from a blatantly jewish perspective. you are deeply anti-soviet and anti-leninist. if you claim to be a leftist, you would not be these things. you are a jewish pseudo-leftist trying to hijack communism to further your liberal aims. when in fact, your aims have nothing to do with marxism.

[RGacky3]

how about the Kibuts in Israel?

[Michael De Panama]

Good point, Gacky.

the jewish messiah. every jew i ever spoke to about judaism tell me that is the case. they say jesus wasn't messiah because the messiah will be jewish.

I doubt that. I don't believe anyone told you that rediculous bullshit. And I doubt that you've ever actually had an open conversation with a jew. Why would someone tell you that Jesus, who was a jew, was not the messiah because the messiah is supposed to be jewish? Come on. What kind of moronic argument is that? Jesus was jewish! If someone actually told you that, they are unbelievable idiots who have no idea what they are talking about.

you fail to see how jewish cultue is bourgeois? lenin said it. thats why.

Haha. Just because Lenin said so? Dare anyone question the almighty Lenin? After all, he isn't just one man! He's a GOD! And he's ALWAYS RIGHT! Even in fields that he knows nothing about! Because, as a god, he knows everything!

You've opened my eyes, Yuri. How could I have ever failed to see that jewish culture is bourgeois? I'm sure Lindsay feels the same way.

Geez. For such an anti-religion kind of guy, you sure are dogmatic.

about me CLAIMING stalin was lenins succesor. no-one was lenins chosen succesor, lenin believed in democratic centralism. he denounced stalins dictatoral tendencies in his last testament, but he favoured stalin's ruthless loyalty to the communist cause, rather than trotsky's menshevik past.

Bullshit. Find me proof that Lenin favored Stalin over Trotsky. What he donounced in his last testament WAS Stalin's ruthlessness and hunger for power. He specifically mentioned that Stalin would abuse his power. He specifically mentioned that Trotsky has done great things for the movement, and would continue to do great things for the future. Find me proof of this nonsense.

you are deeply anti-soviet and anti-leninist. if you claim to be a leftist, you would not be these things.

Bullshit. I also am deeply anti-Soviet and anti-Leninist, and I claim to be a leftist. I am very much a leftist. I don't see why you think that every single leftist has to agree with the Soviet system.

I don't agree that there was even any need for a communist revolution in Russia at the time when the proletariat had barely begun to develope. Russia wasn't industrial. Russia wasn't ruled by a bourgeoisie. Russia had just come out of it's feudalist days. No communist system will ever work unless it is run by the proletariat, and no pre-industrialized nation is going to have a proletariat. Thank Stalin for the oppression of the proletariat, as he was the one who industrialized Russia while still calling it a "communist" system. Stalin was Russia's bourgeoisie. The collapse of the USSR was the worker's revolution. It was a backwards society. Trotsky acknowledged this in his writings, that the Soviet system was doomed from the begining.

Che Guevara was much more anti-Soviet and anti-Leninist than Lindsay, by the way, and he claimed to be a leftist. Was he not a leftist? Who are you to tell others what they believe?

I'd write more, but I want to let Lindsay answer the rest, as your stream of bullshit was directed towards her and not me.

(Edited by Michael De Panama at 12:52 am on May 18, 2002)

[vox]

"Che Guevara was much more anti-Soviet and anti-Leninist than Lindsay..."

Something that people seem to forget, eh?

vox

[PunkRawker677]

"Che Guevara was much more anti-Soviet and anti-Leninist than Lindsay..."

And because Che Guevara didnt like them, we shouldnt either? i hope thats not what anyone is saying.. thats just ridiculous.

[RedRevolutionary87]

they werent religios. personally i think its stupid to think of jews as a race, because they are like any religion and are made up of many races. i think the problem with people is that they either view jews as something special or something below human, jews are people, its that simple, they are niether better nor worse. just because your familyl was jewish and now your athiest doesnt make you a jew, because your atheist. there is no god damn conspiracy, and judaism is just another religion, its bullshit, so are the rest of the worlds religions, the "jewish" worker is just as opressed as the white worker. dont let race lines divide us! we are the proleteriat, the rich dont care what religion we are! theyll still exploit us just the same! we need unity!

[I Will Deny You]

[hr]Quote: from PunkRawker677 on 1:03 am on May 18, 2002
"Che Guevara was much more anti-Soviet and anti-Leninist than Lindsay..."

And because Che Guevara didnt like them, we shouldnt either? i hope thats not what anyone is saying.. thats just ridiculous.[hr]I think that Michael was simply pointing out that it's hypocritical for Yuri to tell me I'm not a leftist while posting on a board for Che Guevara, who, according to Yuri's criteria, is even less of a leftist than I am.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:51 pm on May 17,
oh how i wish you were to stand up at a factory in soviet times and spout this ant-soviet jewish bourgeois propaganda. that would be funny.[hr]Your accusations of being "anti-soviet" call to mind John Ashcroft's accusations that anyone who disagreed with the USA Patriot Act was anti-American. Is being anti-Soviet such a bad thing? I'm anti-prejudice and anti-elitism. If that makes me anti-Soviet, then I'm willing to shout my contempt for the corrupt and anti-semitic Soviet government from the rooftops. By the way, how are my posts "propaganda" when I back up what I'm saying much more than you do?[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:51 pm on May 17,
was the CPSU communist? yes it was. a lot more interested in the working class than CPUSA.[hr]The point is not which Communist Party was more communist than the other. What I'm saying is that the USA's Communist Party was not only interested in their economic agenda, which they knew would probably never be adopted by the American government, but they were also interested in social issues that were vital to egalitarianism. (By the way, you have yet to show that they Soviet Union was better for women than America, since they never even had a Geraldine Ferraro!) The USA's Communist Party stuck to their leftist economic ideals, but also expanded on original theory and realized that areas where they could realistically make a differnce were also led by egalitarians that needed their help. I'm not saying that the CPUSA was perfect, but they stuck fairly rigidly to theory and made an important difference where it was needed for equality.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:51 pm on May 17,
i admit that when brezhnev came in, bearucracy increased and so did party benefits, but the ideology was the same. as for corruption, you can't prove that. thats all i will say on that matter.[hr]They claimed to have a democratic system, but it was a one-party system. They ran a fake democracy. Did Communist Party members have to stand in line for bread like the rest of the Soviets? Everything that they got was better, and they got it first.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:51 pm on May 17,
CPSU's lack of women. without starting to start a sex war, the nature of extremist ideology can be violent. women tend to be less violent and aggresive than men so that is really the only answer i can give. the opptunites were there for women, most chose not to take it.[hr]At first the Communist Party was violent, but women had a lot more to gain from a true communist system than men did. It would be insane to think that the Party would be split exactly 50/50, but the disparity is striking. After the revolution, the Party was less violent (or would have been, had Stalin not been such a paranoid ass). They should have focused on domestic issues, which would not have required a strong stomach. This might be an excuse for the Party's beginnings, but after the 20's it should have become a non-issue.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:51 pm on May 17,
the jewish messiah. every jew i ever spoke to about judaism tell me that is the case. they say jesus wasn't messiah because the messiah will be jewish. anyway, its beside the point. the point i was trying to make was to end the myth that marxist internationalism is different from jewish internationalism.[hr]Um, Jesus was Jewish. I really don't see your point about the Jesus thing, anyway . . . you seem to be agreeing with me, except I know that Jesus was a Jew and you didn't until now. Wait, are you saying that Marxist internationalism is the same as Jewish internationalism? I think you made a typo.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:51 pm on May 17,
the soviet jewish working class didn't suffer under hitler? what are you talking about. virtually all soviet jews were from ukraine and belorussia. ukraine and belorussia were occupied by nazis. SS killed all jews they could find, and that was a lot.[hr]Well, all the Jews that Stalin didn't get to first. Stalin was much more of a threat to the Jewish working class than Hitler.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:51 pm on May 17,
upper class jews were assimilated. sort of true, but they were bourgeosie. they were enemies of the people. they were private land owners so, they were criminals. anyway, not all upper class jews were assimilated. and my point still stands that they manipulated the working class jews.[hr]The upper class Jews assimilated into the gentile Russian upper class. The lower class Jews were far less assimlilated into the gentile Russian lower class. I'm saying that the lower class Jews didn't need anyone to manipulate them into hating Soviet leadership. Of course, the Jews who were murdered by the Soviet leadership couldn't be manipulated at all. But you know what I mean.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:51 pm on May 17,
working class jews didn't need to be told what to think. you have taken that out of context. we both know how powerful religion is to the uneducated peasentry.[hr]Religion isn't the point. The point is that the Jews were discriminated against, it doesn't matter that they were discriminated against specifically because of their religion. They did not dislike the Soviets because of their religion. They disliked Soviets because Soviets went around killing them.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:51 pm on May 17,
you fail to see how jewish cultue is bourgeois? lenin said it. thats why.also, it was very money orientated. most of the leading rabbi's were land owners who were exploiting the working class with religious threats.[hr]WHY did Lenin say that? Back your points up, my boy. And Jewish culture was money-oriented because Jews were prohibited from nearly all jobs except for usury for hundreds of years. And rabbis did not exploit the working class. Once again, you seem to be confusing Judaism with Christian fundamentalism. (Not all monotheistic religions are the same!) Rabbis would have a hard time threatening anyone with religion, and Jews have a historically low tolerance for bullshit like that anyway.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:51 pm on May 17,
about me CLAIMING stalin was lenins succesor. no-one was lenins chosen succesor, lenin believed in democratic centralism. he denounced stalins dictatoral tendencies in his last testament, but he favoured stalin's ruthless loyalty to the communist cause, rather than trotsky's menshevik past.[hr]Loyalty is not a bad thing, but loyalty that's so ruthless that is requires the slaughter of millions of innocent people isn't necessarily the best way to go.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:51 pm on May 17,
i will not reply to the rest of your comments as they are nothing more than anti-leninist lies. lenin wanted equality for the jewish prolaterat like i do, but they turned there back on lenin for there torah and talmud. in bolshevik USSR, that was something you simply didn't do (turn your back on lenin), and if you did, you should accept the concequences.[hr]There's nothing in the Torah or the Talmud that says "Lenin smells like poo." At any rate, as you can't seem to understand, the working class Jews never read the Torah themselves and knew virtually nothing of the Talmud. The Jews turned their back on Lenin after fighting for him and being loyal to him, and then being dumped like yesterday's garbage! Do you really expect people to be loyal to someone who treats them like shit? First, you say that Lenin was an anti-semite and was only nice to them for strategic Machiavellian purposes. Now you say that he really did like him. What the fuck? You don't seem to admonish Lenin for turning his back on the Jews (which he did first . . . . he started it!), but you feel that the Jews got what was coming to them when they reacted like anyone with a bit of common sense or sense of self-worth.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:51 pm on May 17,
most of what you have written is from a blatantly jewish perspective. you are deeply anti-soviet and anti-leninist. if you claim to be a leftist, you would not be these things. you are a jewish pseudo-leftist trying to hijack communism to further your liberal aims. when in fact, your aims have nothing to do with marxism.[hr]I'm not a liberal, I just don't want to join the fan club of a paranoid murderer. Call me crazy, call me a liberal, call me what you will. My Judaism doesn't have much to do with this. If you were interpreting Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Wicca, Buddhism or any other religion and telling prejudiced lies about it, I would be just as angry. I'm only speaking out more than other people because I know a whole lot about the Talmud and Torah. Plenty of people can be anti-Leninist and still be leftists. The fact that Lenin claimed to be a leftist does not make him the be-all, end-all of communism. That's like saying that anyone who dislikes Pol Pot (who claimed to be a leftist) is an anti-communist.


Lindsay

[PaulDavidHewson]

hey RedRevolutionary87,

"they werent religios. personally i think its stupid to think of jews as a race, because they are like any religion and are made up of --->many races<------
......
"dont let race lines divide us! "

Can you please name me a few races that exist in this world? because I'm really having problems naming them.
I can actually name one, but i'm guessing you know the name of that one.

you are a communist, right? So, I thought communists didn't believe in races, religions, etc?
Everyone is equal and all that, right?

[PaulDavidHewson]

still waiting for RedRevolutionary87.

[I Will Deny You]

PaulDavid - I know you don't want to hear my thoughts on race, but I'm going to tell you anyway!

I think that race is a pretty abstract concept. It's like calling people "tall" or "short". Wilt Chamberlain was tall. Danny DeVito is short. Similarly, Wilt Chamberlain was black and Danny DeVito is white. Hardly anyone is the same exact height, but we can put them into general categories like 5'1"-5'3" and 5'10" to 6'0". So while no one is certainly tall or definitely short, we can group them into general categories that definitely make some sense.

[PaulDavidHewson]

for what reason?

Only because the have a slightly different DNA combination?

If cat1 has a white streak on his back and cat2 doesn't, would you classify this cat any different?

Person1 has brown hair and person2 has red hair, this means a slight difference in DNA.
Person3 has a black skin and person4 has a yellow skin, also a slight difference in DNA.

So, by your definition people have to be classified by height, weight, hair, eyes, color, penis size, etc?


"PaulDavid - I know you don't want to hear my thoughts on race, but I'm going to tell you anyway! "

Of course I want to hear your thoughts, I didn't join Che-lives because I like to see myself typing so much ;)

[yuriandropov]

the blatant anti-leninism on this board is nothing more than a disgrace! you do not realise what a great man lenin was! you don't realise that leninism=communism! lenin was the first man to establish a socialist state. not guevara, not pol-pot, not ho chi minh, LENIN! he was the first man to lead the prolaterat into victory against its oppressors. marxism-leninism is communism all on its own. nothing else matters. by all means, you should read stalin, guevara, maybe even trotsky, but communism should be practiced the way it was thought of by marx, and put into action by lenin.
i do not have time to answer each individuel point from IWDY or michael, i will just say this. bolsheviks wanted to create a working class state full of people who were either prolaterat, intelligencia or peasentry. anyone who wasn't in these catagories was a potential class enemy. the jews, for whatever reason, distanced themselves from the USSR government so were potential class enemies. if they would have denounced there judaism and joined the prolaterat struggle, there would be no need for zionism, the jews would have there own homeland, the USSR! but the prolaterat jew was manipulated and betrayed by the borgeois jew. lenin was not an anti-semite, he was anti anything but working class. when the jews went with there rabbi's rather than him, he hated them.
about women in USSR, it was unfortunate that there was so few, but there was. i personally thought there should have been more women in CPSU, but thats the way it is.
about lenin preffering trotsky? rubbish. when lenin was on his death bed, he only saw one man to talk (or communicate somehow as he lost the power of speech) too. stalin! he always liked stalin. he found him rude, but he trusted him. i will come back with quotes to prove this.

[PaulDavidHewson]

save your breath.

But at least I can say I respect Yuri more than I respect SS(no respect at all that is).

Yuri is at least trying to prove his point, However it's a shame he's been so mis- informed and stubborn.

(Edited by PaulDavidHewson at 1:43 am on May 21, 2002)

[yuriandropov]

IWDY, i will soon do a new post about the structure of the soviet government and communist party as you have no idea about it.

you say it was corrupt, where is your proof? its just rhetoric.

you say it wasn't democracy, if you wanted a say in the running of the country, join the communist party, you take a lot more active role in government than ticking a balot paper like in your bourgeois 'democracy'

you say how communist party members got things first. not entirely true, but what you fail to realise is that ANYONE could join the communist party. you worked your way up from the bottom and the benefits like cars for example, were returned to the state as soon as you died. NO PRIVILAGES FOR ANYONE! ok, some politburo members had things a little better, i don't agree with that, but communism takes time. the politbuto members started out the same place everyone did, there was NO FAVOURITSIM.

you have read too many western newspapers. western papers=propaganda. and before you say 'so do soviet papers' i'm not trying to tell you how YOUR country was run, you are doing that to me.

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from yuriandropov on 7:32 pm on May 20, 2002
the jews, for whatever reason, distanced themselves from the USSR government so were potential class enemies. if they would have denounced there judaism and joined the prolaterat struggle, there would be no need for zionism, the jews would have there own homeland, the USSR![hr]Since when does a person have to denounce their Judaism to join the class struggle? And as for the whole no-need-for-Zionism thing, at the time Israel was founded, Stalin didn't even have enough food for the USSR citizens who he hadn't killed yet. A couple million Jews wouldn't have been brought in so that they could join the class struggle. They would be used for target practice.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 7:32 pm on May 20, 2002
when the jews went with there rabbi's rather than him, he hated them.[hr]If he truly had this all-or-nothing, it's-the-rabbi-or-it's-me attitude, he didn't deserve to have them on his side.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 7:32 pm on May 20, 2002
about women in USSR, it was unfortunate that there was so few, but there was.[hr]This is, quite possibly, the worst excuse I've ever heard. I feel like Christopher Walken in Scotland, PA.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 7:32 pm on May 20, 2002
i personally thought there should have been more women in CPSU, but thats the way it is.[hr]Gee, there's a shock. A guy who wants more women around him![hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:09 pm on May 20, 2002
you say it wasn't democracy, if you wanted a say in the running of the country, join the communist party[hr]Where you either agree with everything that's said in the meetings for an extra loaf of bread, or get kicked out. You truly don't realize the importance of having more than one political party, do you?[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:09 pm on May 20, 2002
you take a lot more active role in government than ticking a balot paper like in your bourgeois 'democracy'[hr]In my (I just love how you said it's mine) democracy, a person can choose to tick a ballot once in a while. But they can also choose to take a much more active role than that. You see, in America our leader isn't paranoid. Perhaps he's too stupid to be paranoid . . . G-d knows I'd be the last person to defend Bush (and you can bet I didn't vote for him!) but at least he hasn't killed millions of people. In a democracy, bourgeoise or not, people have the right to petition the government without getting lined up and shot. Just today, I signed pro-choice and pro-welfare petitions that will be sent to my congressperson and the President. I also have the right to protest my government's policies, as I did with thousands of other people one month ago, without being carted away to a Siberian prison camp. No one in the Stalin country could do that.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:09 pm on May 20, 2002
you say how communist party members got things first. not entirely true, but what you fail to realise is that ANYONE could join the communist party.[hr]Anyone could join the Manson Family. Equal Opportunity does not automatically mean good things.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:09 pm on May 20, 2002
you worked your way up from the bottom and the benefits like cars for example, were returned to the state as soon as you died. NO PRIVILAGES FOR ANYONE![hr]The Soviets' bone to pick with capitalism was that benefits went to people who were good at nothing but kissing ass. But the USSR had the same problem. Benefits for ass-kissers is always a bad idea, whether those benefits are regulated by Stalin or anyone else.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:09 pm on May 20, 2002
ok, some politburo members had things a little better, i don't agree with that, but communism takes time. the politbuto members started out the same place everyone did, there was NO FAVOURITSIM.[hr]Unless you're a woman or a Jew, which leaves less than 50% of the population. But other than that, of course . . .

Communism takes time because the workers will gradually learn to want to work for the betterment of society. But why the hell would the workers think that working for the betterment of society is the best way to go if their leaders are so corrupt? Their leaders should have been the least corrupt! Communism takes time, but not for this reason. This is no excuse for the Politburo's corruption. (Or anyone else's.)[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:09 pm on May 20, 2002
you have read too many western newspapers. western papers=propaganda.[hr]Yeah, I was reading The National Enquirer every day during Stalin's reign and that's where I get all of my information on him. Give it up.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:09 pm on May 20, 2002
and before you say 'so do soviet papers' i'm not trying to tell you how YOUR country was run, you are doing that to me.[hr]Have my eyes stopped working, or did I just read a post of yours in which you said that in my country there is less democracy than there was in the Communist Party? I realize my country's system is very, very far from perfect, but just as I will defend the systems that are better than it is (if, say, the electoral college is compared with instant runoff voting), I will defend it against military dictatorships.

I hate Stalin, and you can't shoot me for saying so,
Lindsay

[I Will Deny You]

Sorry PaulDavid, I missed this:
Quote: from PaulDavidHewson on 5:49 pm on May 20, 2002
for what reason?

Only because the have a slightly different DNA combination?

If cat1 has a white streak on his back and cat2 doesn't, would you classify this cat any different?

Person1 has brown hair and person2 has red hair, this means a slight difference in DNA.
Person3 has a black skin and person4 has a yellow skin, also a slight difference in DNA.

So, by your definition people have to be classified by height, weight, hair, eyes, color, penis size, etc?


"PaulDavid - I know you don't want to hear my thoughts on race, but I'm going to tell you anyway! "

Of course I want to hear your thoughts, I didn't join Che-lives because I like to see myself typing so much ;)
I'm not saying that people have to be classified by height, weight, eye color, etc. (although a national penis size index would come in handy if I'm looking for a date), but I'm saying that they can be.

Lindsay

[Valkyrie]

Well, you've caught my attention now.

There is a national penis index. The normal standardized tests shows the average penis to be 5-3/4" to 6" in lenth. No test subjects on girth. :( For capitalists about 1/2 to 1" under that.

Time to get out those penis pumps, eh boyos?

[I Will Deny You]

Why the hell is there a national penis index? As much as I hate wastes of taxpayers' money (except for my salary, of course), I'd sure miss the national penis index if Paris and her anarchist friends took over.

Lindsay

[Valkyrie]

There will always be a penis index. We need something to measure things by. (since rulers are worth shit)

(Edited by Paris at 7:36 am on May 21, 2002)

[yuriandropov]

about jews not having to denounce there religion. sigh, communism=marxism-leninism=no religion

the core points in marxism leninism are black and white. they are not to be argued with, they are the way of life. one of the core points of the movement is NO religion. why can't you understand that? no religion is for the good of the people just like there are laws against stealing, because it is for the good of the people.
you speak of your 'democracy' as if it is better than communism. that is ridiculous. communism is the ULTIMATE democracy! heres an example:

vladimir is upset because he see's soviet foreign policy as aggressive, what can he do? well, he can join his local communist party organisation and work his way up until HE decides what foreign policy is! and if it his views are something he is not alone in thinking, he can protest through rallies with fellow comrades. like when USSR invaded afghanistan, several protested the invasion, but you didn't see that on CNN did you? because there to busy describing the ant-free speech soviet union aren't they?
you speak too much of stalin when you describe soviet times. when i lived under brezhnev, free speech was fine as long as you weren't the kind of dissident that yuri andropov (real one) described in his speech. under gorbachev, there was as much free speech as in USA! so where do you see the problem?
about women in USSR (again), what do you want me to say? they didn't join CPSU, is that my fault? no! just because soviet women didn't want to join CPSU, does not mean there was something wrong with the party.
you say you couldn't join the party if you were a woman and a jew. thats absolute rubbish! just because those two certain groups didn't join, doesn't mean they weren't allowed. unfortunatly, the jews in early 20's fucked everything up for soviet jews. they made enemiies of the bolsheviks, and that was not a wise move. this meant that jews were always treated with suspicion (rightly or wrongly). however, if a jew denounced his religion and proved he was a true marxist, he could join the party.

[Capitalist Fighter]

Yuri you seem to advocate the suppression of all opinions, be them popular or minority, if they object to particular principles of marxism/leninsm. Now i would not call that democracy. In capitalism we allow minority opinions such as your marxism/leninsm to be heard, as Che-lives.com is an excellent example, which makes in my opinion capitalism more democratic. However that isn't the point. The point the way i see is that no opinion, regardless how inane or stupid should never be suppressed. Yuri's beloved USSR failed in that sense as it did in many others...

[yuriandropov]

that is not true. leninist democratic centralism rules in favour of the majority, it is a populist government that rules in favour of the working class for a period of time until socialism can evolve. the views of the government should be the views of the majority of people.
in 20's USSR, high ranking bolshevik members (even lenin) would walk the streets and speak to the prolaterat to ask them there opinions. that is how it should be. however, we have moved on from that, we have more advanced ways of detemining the majority views like referendums (local and national). this is what i stand for. ruling in favour of the majority (the prolaterat) not the minority.

[PaulDavidHewson]

Who is anyone to decide that noone can have any religious pursuasion?

Why are they deciding that something as integral and fundamental as religion which has existed since the birth of mankind is to be abolished?

Yuri, don't you get it?
One day I'll create a state in which no one with red hair is allowed, so if your hair collor happens to be red, then I guess you're pretty screwed.

Religious freedom is very important in any state.
You spoke of laws earlier which are important, but where do you think these laws derrived their principles from?
Extreme religious pursuasion should be monitored very closely of course.

But the point is that it's !!!!!EXTREMELY NAIVE!!!!! to even imagine the possibility that anyone commited to their religious pursuasion will just denounce it like that.
People will not denounce, How in earth are they going to explain the fact that they denounced in the afterlife.
Religious people think that their luck/fortune will run out if they anger their god(s) and that they will go to hell.

So, please, please, please, don't even begin to imagine that commited religious people will favor any mortal above their god(s).
And no! those people are not enemies of the state, they just want to fucking basic right to have religious freedom!

ps: If I were to be seriously commited to any religion I would also not choose to ally myself with people who do not reckognise the right to religious freedom.

(Edited by PaulDavidHewson at 4:15 pm on May 21, 2002)

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:11 am on May 21, 2002
no religion is for the good of the people just like there are laws against stealing, because it is for the good of the people.[hr]Why is religion bad for the people? I know why stealing is bad. But I don't know why religion is bad. Why don't you tell me, Yuri?[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:11 am on May 21, 2002
you speak of your 'democracy' as if it is better than communism. that is ridiculous. communism is the ULTIMATE democracy! heres an example:

vladimir is upset because he see's soviet foreign policy as aggressive, what can he do? well, he can join his local communist party organisation and work his way up until HE decides what foreign policy is![hr]That's not democracy, that's ass-kissing. That's a system where the elite decide and a person who's too busy working and caring for his or her family to suck Stalin's dick doesn't have a say in what goes on. What if a person doesn't agree with the Communist Party at all . . . then what?[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:11 am on May 21, 2002
and if it his views are something he is not alone in thinking, he can protest through rallies with fellow comrades.[hr]And if his protests and rallies are not in support of Stalin, the Communist Party will send him on a free trip to Siberia because they love him so much![hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:11 am on May 21, 2002
like when USSR invaded afghanistan, several protested the invasion, but you didn't see that on CNN did you? because there to busy describing the ant-free speech soviet union aren't they?[hr]I haven't got cable television. I'm part of the rare breed that prefers reading to South Park reruns.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:11 am on May 21, 2002
you speak too much of stalin when you describe soviet times. when i lived under brezhnev, free speech was fine as long as you weren't the kind of dissident that yuri andropov (real one) described in his speech. under gorbachev, there was as much free speech as in USA! so where do you see the problem?[hr]Well, you're not as much of a Gorbachevist as you are a Stalinist and Leninist, right?[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:11 am on May 21, 2002
about women in USSR (again), what do you want me to say?[hr]I want you to admit that the Communist Party was run by mysoginists, and was therefore unequal, elitist and prejudiced.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:11 am on May 21, 2002
they didn't join CPSU, is that my fault? no! just because soviet women didn't want to join CPSU, does not mean there was something wrong with the party.[hr]There [b]is[/i] something wrong with the Party if virtually ZERO women want to join it and they don't consider the inclusion of women an important component of an egalitarian society.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:11 am on May 21, 2002
you say you couldn't join the party if you were a woman and a jew. thats absolute rubbish! just because those two certain groups didn't join, doesn't mean they weren't allowed.[hr]When there is a sample group that includes millions of people, there's obviously something fishy going on if neither one of those two groups' representation was ever even close to adequate.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:11 am on May 21, 2002
you say you couldn't join the party if you were a woman and a jew. thats absolute rubbish! just because those two certain groups didn't join, doesn't mean they weren't allowed. unfortunatly, the jews in early 20's fucked everything up for soviet jews. they made enemiies of the bolsheviks, and that was not a wise move.[hr]I've refuted this a million times.

Lindsay

[yuriandropov]

why is religion bad? religion sperates and divides the working class, religion says it doesn't matter that you have bad life on earth because you have a good life in heaven, religion is out dated, religion holds back science, the idea of a supreme being is anti-communistic. is that enough?

about protestors in USSR. strange that i don't recall any of the afghanistan protestors being sent to sibeira. could it be you are mis-informed?

about me being a stalinist. no, i'm a marxist-leninist. just because i agree with some of stalins policies does not mean i want a new stalin in russia. i beleive in the osrt of free speech gorbachev wanted, but only to a certain extent.

CPSU, misogonysts. i think that means anti-women (tell me if i'm wrong). if it does, that again is rubbish. women did not want to join. why when there were much more pressing problems in USSR would the CPSU be bothered that women weren't joining. as i keep saying, the offer was there, they didn't take it. how come politics all over the world is dominated by males? USSR was no different from USA or anyone else.
you have refuted my claims about women and jews. no you haven't. you've just denied them with constant anti-soviet propaganda.
now its my turn to ask you a question. politically, what are you? you denounce capitalism, you denounce facism, you denounce communism. it is easy to denounce what has come before you because you have hindsight. but your fantasy utopia has not, nor will not come. i await your responce.

[RGacky3]

RELIGION IS NOT ANTI COMMUNIST. if you don't allow people to believe in religion then you are oppressing them. All of those anti reiligion this you said are your views, it does not mean you must force them on the people. any way most religons don't conflict with socialist teachings, in fact many of them go along with it.

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:20 pm on May 21, 2002
why is religion bad? religion sperates and divides the working class, religion says it doesn't matter that you have bad life on earth because you have a good life in heaven, religion is out dated, religion holds back science, the idea of a supreme being is anti-communistic. is that enough?[hr]How the hell does religion separate and divide (those words mean the exact same thing, by the way) the working class? Be more specific, my boy. Religion also does not say that it doesn't matter if you're a bad person on earth. The closest thing to this is Catholicism, which is very far from Judaism and is almost an exact opposite of the Jewish sect that I belong to. As for religion holding back science, again, this does not happen with ever religion. (Read this month's issue of The Atlantic to see a great quote about religion and science. It's in the article "Cloning Trevor".) And how is the idea of a supreme being anti-communistic? You could not possible be more vague.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:20 pm on May 21, 2002
about protestors in USSR. strange that i don't recall any of the afghanistan protestors being sent to sibeira. could it be you are mis-informed?[hr]I was referring to Stalin's days, not Gorbachev's.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:20 pm on May 21, 2002
CPSU, misogonysts. i think that means anti-women (tell me if i'm wrong). if it does, that again is rubbish. women did not want to join. why when there were much more pressing problems in USSR would the CPSU be bothered that women weren't joining. as i keep saying, the offer was there, they didn't take it. how come politics all over the world is dominated by males? USSR was no different from USA or anyone else.[hr]There can be systemic discrimination. The fact that the CPSU did not buy billboards and print "we hate women" on them does not mean that there was no discrimination. You need to learn a bit about de facto discrimination. Politics all over the world is dominated by males because the world is mysoginistic. The USA is no different and no better. Just because the USA does it, doesn't mean the Soviet Union can. I have the USA's mysoginy just as much.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:20 pm on May 21, 2002
you have refuted my claims about women and jews. no you haven't. you've just denied them with constant anti-soviet propaganda.[hr]Once again, you remind me of John Ashcroft. "They're mad at me because they're anti-(American/Soviet)!" If what I say is such blatant propaganda, why not refute it with some cold hard facts?[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:20 pm on May 21, 2002
now its my turn to ask you a question. politically, what are you? you denounce capitalism, you denounce facism, you denounce communism. it is easy to denounce what has come before you because you have hindsight. but your fantasy utopia has not, nor will not come. i await your responce.[hr]I don't see how this is relevant to the topic. If you really wanted to know what I believe in, you could find out. At any rate, if I'm not far enough to the left you'd call me a psuedo-Marxist and if I'm just as far to the left (or farther) than you are, you'll call me a utopian. Either way, I lose. I wasn't born yesterday. I can see how you argue and operate.

Lindsay

[yuriandropov]

how does religion divide, well, i'l tell you. religon has divided northern ireland. religion has divided israel (palestine). religion has divided india and pakistan. if there was no religion, the workers of the world would unite instead of fighting each other. beacuse what is the main reason people fight each other? thats it, religion. religion seperates muslims and jews, it sperates catholics and protastents, it sperates muslims and hindus. the working class of palestine can never unite because of there different religions. you know that as well as i do.
you don't see how your political allegance is relavent. well, i think it is. you don't seem to have an allegiance. you just disgard everything because it is not the way YOU want it. the world is not perfect, every system has flaws. rather than going on about how women can't get in CPSU, why don't you talk about how in USSR, health care, housing and education was a free. why don't you talk about that in USSR, everyone was born equally, there was no heriditary privalages. why don't you focus on the good things? because you just like to moan at everything. you want what is good for you and you want it now.
you have twisted everything i have said. if i say i don't know the reason why women weren't represented in CPSU, i am a mysongonist. if i say the jews should have assimilated, i'm an anti-semite. because, its such an outragious idea that someone can not like judaism for a reason other than they are a minoriity. its ourageous that women didn't join CPSU becasue they didn't want to, they must have been oppressed! you don't hear me crying why more men aren't employed in the child-care industry do you?

[PaulDavidHewson]

You are simplifying the problems yuri.

For example, Ireland is divided because they just want their own island back, without a little bite taken from it by the english.

[yuriandropov]

i'm not simplifying it. the people who want northern ireland to be irish are catholic, the people who want it to remain british are protostant. if there ever was a socialist revolution in ireland, it couldn't involve both catholics and protastans because there religion means they are sworn enemies.

[I Will Deny You]

[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 12:27 pm on May 22, 2002
religon has divided northern ireland.[hr]As PaulDavid said, there's more at play in Northern Ireland than you realize. Go read some Tom Hayden if you must, but don't waste my time with such bullshit.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 12:27 pm on May 22, 2002
religion has divided israel (palestine).[hr]There has been much infighting among Jews before, and to an extent there still is quite a bit today. If Palestine had been full of non-Ashkenazi Jews and not Muslims before 1948, the refugees, whatever their religion, would still want their land back. While you're at it, you may as well say that hats must be abolished because the Jews and Muslims have different holy headgear. Some of the fiercest territorial disputes in history happened in medieval Europe by members of the exact same religion.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 12:27 pm on May 22, 2002
religion has divided india and pakistan.[hr]You're lucky that your naivete is oddly endearing, because otherwise I'd be itching to punch you in the face.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 12:27 pm on May 22, 2002
if there was no religion, the workers of the world would unite instead of fighting each other.[hr]Many (if not most) of the religious people on this planet, workers included, believe in the separation of church and state. So religion is not stopping them from uniting and creating their own nation. Are you so ignorant that you know nothing of the history of leftist revolutions?[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 12:27 pm on May 22, 2002
beacuse what is the main reason people fight each other? thats it, religion. religion seperates muslims and jews, it sperates catholics and protastents, it sperates muslims and hindus.[hr]So? Gender divides males, females and shemales. Race divides black, white, brown, red, yellow and green people. Taste in art divides surrealists from modernists . . . should art be abolished because it causes disagreements? How about books? Because I'd really like the Tolkien fans and the Rowling fans to fucking shut up already. Instead of being so lazy, why not propose that we embrace our differences and accept others'? Instead of sucking the soul out of everything in the name of revolution why not encourage workers to be proud of who they are? What do you think would be more effective: Going up to the world's workers and telling them to assimilate into Yuri's culture and forget their past, or telling them to share their culture with others and use the wisdom and moral codes that have been passed on from their ancestors to create an equal, moral, multicultural, integrated and accepting state?[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 12:27 pm on May 22, 2002
the working class of palestine can never unite because of there different religions. you know that as well as i do.[hr]How many sweatshops are there in Palestine, anyway?[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 12:27 pm on May 22, 2002
you don't see how your political allegance is relavent. well, i think it is. you don't seem to have an allegiance. you just disgard everything because it is not the way YOU want it. the world is not perfect, every system has flaws.[hr]I do have a political allegiance. But I know you'll find a million ways to criticize and condescend me for what it is. And again, if you really put your mind to it you just might find out what my political allegiance is.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 12:27 pm on May 22, 2002
the world is not perfect, every system has flaws. rather than going on about how women can't get in CPSU, why don't you talk about how in USSR, health care, housing and education was a free.[hr]There are two kinds of flaws in economic/social systems: The kinds of flaws that are necessary in order for the system to be put in place (in a capitalist system, people can become homeless and in a communist system, people who work the hardest might not be rewarded for it) and there are the kinds of flaws that come about because of greed, bigotry and stupidity and not only are unnecessary for a system's good features to be put into place, but often HURT the system. Mysoginy is the second kind of flaw. I won't moan about how a person who worked twice as hard as a lazy motherfucker wasn't rewarded very much in the USSR because I know that for the USSR's ideal of equality to come about, this had to happen. It's a trade off. But the mysoginy was not necessary to achieve some higher or more important goal than equality for and representation of women. (And by the way, I support free housing, healthcare and education and have been involved in projects in my area to bring these ideals to life.)[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 12:27 pm on May 22, 2002
why don't you focus on the good things?[hr]STALIN KILLED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, BUT HE HAD A NICE MUSTACHE.

(Are you happy now?)[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 12:27 pm on May 22, 2002
you want what is good for you and you want it now.[hr]I have not moaned about the disadvantages of the Soviet system that were necessary, but I have moaned about the unnecessary disadvantages. I already explained this, but I'm sure you'll just ignore my point and repeat yourself again. What do I want? I don't want to be paid more than the janitors who work at the school where I teach, even though for the time being I am. I don't want superior healthcare even though I put more money into the system than others. I want to be allowed to attend synagogue. I want to have just as much say in my government as my male counterparts. If that's too much to ask, then maybe your system is not the best.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 12:27 pm on May 22, 2002
if i say i don't know the reason why women weren't represented in CPSU, i am a mysongonist.[hr]When you said that you "honestly don't give a fuck" if over 50% of the population was represented in the Soviet system, there's something wrong. What an egalitarian you are. Didn't it ever occur to you to figure out why this historically unrepresented and abused group wasn't given a say in the CPSU? Or are you just a sheep who accepts everything that you're said?[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 12:27 pm on May 22, 2002
if i say the jews should have assimilated, i'm an anti-semite. because, its such an outragious idea that someone can not like judaism for a reason other than they are a minoriity.[hr]You called Judaism fascist using evidence that was out of context (and really very inconsequential in the grand Jewish scheme of things). Your flimsy evidence has gotten to the point where it's transparent, and we can see right through it. You even admitted that you're an anti-semite.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 12:27 pm on May 22, 2002
its ourageous that women didn't join CPSU becasue they didn't want to, they must have been oppressed![hr]It wouldn't be outrageous that one particular woman wouldn't want to join the CPSU, but it's outrageous that millions upon millions of women chose not to join.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 12:49 pm on May 22, 2002
i'm not simplifying it. the people who want northern ireland to be irish are catholic, the people who want it to remain british are protostant.[hr]That's not the reason for the conflict, though.

Lindsay

[yuriandropov]

IWDY, why don't you give me answers instead of sarcastic sentances that i don't even understand.

'As PaulDavid said, there's more at play in Northern Ireland than you realize. Go read some Tom Hayden if
you must, but don't waste my time with such bullshit.'

i'll admit i don't know much about the situation in northern ireland, but to me, the major factor dividing the communities there is religion. if there were no protastants there, there would be no need for a northern ireland would there? it would all be part of the republic of ireland.

'You're lucky that your naivete is oddly endearing, because otherwise I'd be itching to punch you in the face.'

what does this even mean? and don't come back and say, 'figure it out for yourself', just fucking explain! india is hindu, pakistan is muslim, they are just about to go to war over religious speratists! i know that is not the only reason, but it is a major factor.

'How many sweatshops are there in Palestine, anyway?'

again, what does this mean? is it relavent to the point i was making?

'And again, if you really put your mind to it you just might find out what my political allegiance is.'

WHY DON"T YOU JUST FUCKING TELL ME!!!!

'STALIN KILLED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, BUT HE HAD A NICE MUSTACHE.'

did stalin rule USSR from 1922-1991? no! what about other soviet policies that had nothing to do with stalin. soviet communism doesn't mean stalinism.

'Didn't it ever occur to you to figure out why this historically unrepresented and abused group wasn't given a say in the CPSU?'

no, because you see i was rather busy trying to stop your country dropping a nuclear bomb on us. it took up most of my time so i couldn't look into the all important question of why women didn't want to join the party. while your doing your job next, why don't you wonder 'why aren't men represented in the child-care industry?' i am sure this question has come up for you many times.

'I want to be allowed to attend synagogue. I want to have just as much say in my government as my male counterparts.'

well don't come to russia! then your life will be fullfilled.

'That's not the reason for the conflict, though.'

well what is then? just give me a brief summary of the reason. i have said religion, what do you say?

'I won't moan about how a person who worked twice as hard as a lazy motherfucker wasn't rewarded very much in the USSR'

proves how much you know about the USSR doesn't it. remember 'he who shall not work, shall not eat'?




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[I Will Deny You]

[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:04 pm on May 22, 2002
'As PaulDavid said, there's more at play in Northern Ireland than you realize. Go read some Tom Hayden if
you must, but don't waste my time with such bullshit.'

i'll admit i don't know much about the situation in northern ireland, but to me, the major factor dividing the communities there is religion. if there were no protastants there, there would be no need for a northern ireland would there? it would all be part of the republic of ireland.[hr]There are plenty of sites that explain the situation in Northern Ireland better than I ever could. I admit it's not my forte. Maybe you and I should ask an Irish member to explain it to us once again. But I do know that it's not just about religion. Religion is a factor, but it's definitely not the only factor. And maybe we should help these people learn to live with each other instead of abolishing what makes them different. Because if we just get rid of our differences, we'll really be getting rid of our livelihood.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:04 pm on May 22, 2002
'You're lucky that your naivete is oddly endearing, because otherwise I'd be itching to punch you in the face.'

what does this even mean? and don't come back and say, 'figure it out for yourself', just fucking explain! india is hindu, pakistan is muslim, they are just about to go to war over religious speratists! i know that is not the only reason, but it is a major factor.[hr]This means that if you weren't so obviously brainwashed, I would blame you and only you for your ignorance and I'd want to attack you. Happy now?

India is Hindu. This is true. But India is lots of other things, too. There's more to a group of people than its religion. Lots of neo-imperialism pits Christians against Christians. The US is Christian and Latin America is Christian. And is the war in Colombia going on because of religion? No. It's going on because of greed. There are Catholics against Catholics. The most important role religion played in the policies of the United States in the past half century can be understood if you know this name: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:04 pm on May 22, 2002
'How many sweatshops are there in Palestine, anyway?'

again, what does this mean? is it relavent to the point i was making?[hr]My point is that the problem in the Middle East has nothing to do with oppression of the working class. It has to do with the fact that the Ashkenazis don't have the right of return to Eastern Europe and therefore, because of British imperialism, Palestinians don't have the right of return to Palestine. All of this can be traced back to Nazism, which was a secular movement as I recall.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:04 pm on May 22, 2002
'And again, if you really put your mind to it you just might find out what my political allegiance is.'

WHY DON"T YOU JUST FUCKING TELL ME!!!![hr]I've already explained why I won't tell you. If you weren't so immature and irrational, we wouldn't be having this problem.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:04 pm on May 22, 2002
'STALIN KILLED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, BUT HE HAD A NICE MUSTACHE.'

did stalin rule USSR from 1922-1991? no! what about other soviet policies that had nothing to do with stalin. soviet communism doesn't mean stalinism.[hr]That's correct, but we're debating Stalinism in particular.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:04 pm on May 22, 2002
'Didn't it ever occur to you to figure out why this historically unrepresented and abused group wasn't given a say in the CPSU?'

no, because you see i was rather busy trying to stop your country dropping a nuclear bomb on us. it took up most of my time so i couldn't look into the all important question of why women didn't want to join the party. while your doing your job next, why don't you wonder 'why aren't men represented in the child-care industry?' i am sure this question has come up for you many times.[hr]I've answered this in another thread.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:04 pm on May 22, 2002
well don't come to russia! then your life will be fullfilled.[hr]This makes no sense. Are you trying to tell me that if I come to Russia my life will be fulfilled, or that I shouldn't come to Russia because if I do my life will be unfulfilled? Proofreading: it's a lifesaver.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:04 pm on May 22, 2002
'That's not the reason for the conflict, though.'

well what is then? just give me a brief summary of the reason. i have said religion, what do you say?[hr]Don't ask for the same information twice. See above.[hr]Quote: from yuriandropov on 5:04 pm on May 22, 2002
'I won't moan about how a person who worked twice as hard as a lazy motherfucker wasn't rewarded very much in the USSR'

proves how much you know about the USSR doesn't it. remember 'he who shall not work, shall not eat'?[hr]Maybe "lazy motherfucker" wasn't the best choice of words, but we still know that people who claim to be doing a job often aren't. You obviously haven't met too many electricians, because we had to go through five before we found one who actually did the work he claimed to. This is really a matter of whether or not it could be discovered that someone wasn't pulling their weight. Because we both know that a person who isn't working won't write "I'M TOO LAZY TO WORK AT ALL" on their forehead with a Magic Marker.

Lindsay

[TheDerminator]

"did stalin rule USSR from 1922-1991? no! what about other soviet policies that had nothing to do with stalin. soviet communism doesn't mean stalinism"

I'll crack the jokes!

Nothing to do with the leader who followed Lenin, and who created dictatorial bureaucratic centralism? Nothing to do with Stalin? Yuri, U R defending the indefensible. There is a large difference between dictatorial bureaucratic centralism, and dictatorial beauracratic centralism. By seeking to show Stalin as the proper heir to Stalin, U do the business of the exact same dirty business as bourgeois historians.

Look who you are aligning yourself with. It ought to give you some idea of the falsehood you are perputuating. U R an apologist Stalin, and hang by your own naivety. The buck should stop with the top leader, and to deny the responsibility of Stalin is as bad as denying the responsibity of a Hitler. I do not imagine U will like the comparison, because at every turn U R an apologist for the indefensible.

The spirit of socialism is close to the spirit of Christ, a jew. The spirit of Stalin is closer to the spirit of Torquemada. Like all Stalinists, U R all theory and no spirit.

If U do not possess the spirit of socialism, which is a compassionate humane spirit, U R a hypocrit! And that is the nature of all Stalinists. Hypocrits. They talk about the greater good of Communism, whilst apologising for pure bastardom.

Without the spirit of Socialism, U understanding nothing of its real essence.

U R pursuing fools gold, and progressive humanity rejects the bastardom that U taint socialism with and taint Lenin and the Bosheviks with. Any attempt to condone the brutality of Stalin and his evil cohorts is an appalling insult to the spirit of Socialism. Without that spirit, U R not a socialist, U R pretty much on the side of evil. Stalinism was an evil.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

derminated