LONG LIVE STALIN!!!

[lenin]

Malte you bastard! i am sure now you have blocked my ip! i haven't been able to get on this site in over 6 weeks! i am at an internet cafe now! i have sent you numerous e-mails but you have not reponded! you cannot take other opinions! oh well, i am buying a new computer, so we will see if you have banned me or not. any while i am here....

fuck de panama
long live stalin
long live lenin
long live the USSR!!!!

[Michael De Panama]

Holy shit, man, you've come out of your elf village!!

Man, just when you think the Stalinists are all finally gone...

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from lenin on 7:14 pm on July 17, 2002
Malte you bastard! i am sure now you have blocked my ip! i haven't been able to get on this site in over 6 weeks! i am at an internet cafe now! i have sent you numerous e-mails but you have not reponded! you cannot take other opinions! oh well, i am buying a new computer, so we will see if you have banned me or not. any while i am here....

fuck de panama
long live stalin
long live lenin
long live the USSR!!!!


Welcome back, lenin

Screw the USSR

Screw communism

[Hattori Hanzo]

screw the exploiters

[RGacky3]

YAAAY
Long LIVE LENIN
Long LIVE THE USSR
Long live CUS (community union soicalism)
Long live Liebach (neo-solviet industrial band)
Long live project pitchfork (liberal socialist industrial band)

let lenin and TS Back in.

YAAAAAAY (runs around waving giant red flag)

[Michael De Panama]

Gacky, you closet Stalinist.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Hattori Hanzo on 7:30 pm on July 17, 2002
screw the exploiters


where r u from?

[Hattori Hanzo]

hey, i need a huge red flag to run around waving!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Hattori Hanzo on 7:42 pm on July 17, 2002
hey, i need a huge red flag to run around waving!

You can find one at the "defeated regimes" surplus store

[Hattori Hanzo]

haha
pretty funny, but there was never a true communist regime
still a good joke

[Nateddi]

WB Dzerzhinsky :)

[RGacky3]

Quote: from Michael De Panama on 7:41 pm on July 17, 2002
Gacky, you closet Stalinist.


I'm not a stalinist, I am just against every one fucking with them, I am for stalinist/liberal unity.

None the less I don't have a big flag, only a red blanket which I call a flag, and some little red communist pins that I put on it.

Long live socialism
Long live NOISE
Long live INDUSTRIAL
Long live communism
Long live lots of other things I like

Comrades Unite.

[RGacky3]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 7:44 pm on July 17, 2002

Quote: from Hattori Hanzo on 7:42 pm on July 17, 2002
hey, i need a huge red flag to run around waving!

You can find one at the "defeated regimes" surplus store


no you will find it at the "regimes that will soon destroy capitalism and the U$" store.

[Nateddi]

I have a 5x3 ft soviet flag I bought for $15 at bornintheussr.com

[Michael De Panama]

You'd have better luck trying to unite fire with ice.

Or rather, why not try to unite the Stalinists with the Nazis? They're practically the same thing.

[Nateddi]

Stalinists do not believe in superiority of one race over another. Nazis do. Hell, many nazis are not even authritarian.

[Hattori Hanzo]

Quote: from RGacky3 on 7:53 pm on July 17, 2002

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 7:44 pm on July 17, 2002

Quote: from Hattori Hanzo on 7:42 pm on July 17, 2002
hey, i need a huge red flag to run around waving!
YEEEEEEEEEEEEAH

relate to the matter as i drop the bomb, cause i'm housin'
You can find one at the "defeated regimes" surplus store


no you will find it at the "regimes that will soon destroy capitalism and the U$" store.

[Brian]

Die Communism!

[Hattori Hanzo]

brian has only insults and randomness

[Brian]

Fuck you!

[Nateddi]

Quote: from Hattori Hanzo on 8:46 pm on July 17, 2002
brian has only insults and randomness

[guerrillaradio]

Ah fuck, bad timing Lenin, just when I'm about to go on holiday...(don't tell me, holidays are a fascist perversion and I should be shot for it). *snort* Stupid sovietists.

Have fun fuckin with em Mikey.

Long live chocolate!!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from RGacky3 on 7:53 pm on July 17, 2002
[quote]Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 7:44 pm on July 17, 2002


no you will find it at the "regimes that will soon destroy capitalism and the U$" store.


LOL, please

[Hattori Hanzo]

Quote: from Nateddi on 8:55 pm on July 17, 2002

Quote: from Hattori Hanzo on 8:46 pm on July 17, 2002
brian has only insults and randomness


any objections?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Brian on 8:42 pm on July 17, 2002
Die Communism!



I think we actually agree on a lot, why do I find myself arguing with you over things?

[komsomol]

Lenin, the only way Malte could block your IP would be to block a range of IP's if you have a dial-up or proxy that you go through or you have a static IP that doesnt change (like broadband doesn't). Either way, getting a new PC doesn't help it, you need a new internet account. Sometimes I havent been able to get on here for a long time, (memory overloads).

[Hattori Hanzo]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 9:05 pm on July 17, 2002

Quote: from RGacky3 on 7:53 pm on July 17, 2002
[quote]Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 7:44 pm on July 17, 2002


no you will find it at the "regimes that will soon destroy capitalism and the U$" store.


LOL, please

wait

[Hattori Hanzo]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 9:07 pm on July 17, 2002

Quote: from Brian on 8:42 pm on July 17, 2002
Die Communism!


why argue with me? one disagreement can lead to an arguement. good? bad? who cares
I think we actually agree on a lot, why do I find myself arguing with you over things?

[Mazdak]

Welcome back lenin, it is good to have someone who backs up stalin here. Long live Lenin(both of them).

[marxistdisciple]

Stalin was sort of like Bush is going to be, except he killed more people, was more evil, and more authroitarian. Actually he was much worse than Bush ever will be....... In fact he killed more people than Hitler! Why do people somehow think that is good!? You are nuts!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Hattori Hanzo on 9:07 pm on July 17, 2002

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 9:05 pm on July 17, 2002

Quote: from RGacky3 on 7:53 pm on July 17, 2002
[quote]Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 7:44 pm on July 17, 2002


no you will find it at the "regimes that will soon destroy capitalism and the U$" store.


LOL, please

wait


for what, an alien invasion?

[Mazdak]

Marxist disciple- it is not how many people stalin killed, but his reasons behind it. And the death toll in the soviet union due to collectiviztion is very much exaggerated.

[Michael De Panama]

What about his lack of reasons, other than his own paranoia, behind the deaths of millions of his SUPPORTERS?

[Mazdak]

Paranoia? I know Stalin wasn't exactly the most sane person towards the end of his life but i wouldnt be either. He saw himself as sourrounded by enemies and rightly so, he had many political enemies within his country, as well as all the so called "allies." Patton is just one of the many generals who wanted to invade the soviet union. i dont think you would be trusting if you were in his position either.

[peaccenicked]

Mazdak what have you read.
I reccomend look at this course. Your views on Stalin are both brutal and niave.
http://www.swan.ac.uk/history/teaching/tea...-1953/index.htm (http://www.swan.ac.uk/history/teaching/teaching%20resources/Stalin's%20Russia,%20Stalin's%20Russians%201929-1953/index.htm)

[Mazdak]

I am not in the position to argue well, considering i have almost zero support here. I am looking at the page....
I looked at the course. i have read many things like this. I have seen both sides and i dont pretend to be a philosopher or a Stalin expert... I just

I just finished scanning the website to find...
NOTHING. There was almost nothing there except a few brief paragraphs. What was i supposed to see?

[peaccenicked]

There is a good bibliography. Click on the thematic reading list. Then maybe try the library.

[RGacky3]

YES LONG LIVE BOTH LENINS,

AND POWER NOISE/INDUSTRIAL

[Michael De Panama]

I'm waiting for you, Lenin.

Come keep Gacky and the rest of the Stalinists company.

[Ernesto Guevara]

All stalin did was mess up the soviet union. Lenin tried hard ,Kruschev tried hard but stalin didnt. The only good thing stalin did was not surrender to the germans. Thaz it.

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 4:41 pm on July 18, 2002

Quote: from Hattori Hanzo on 9:07 pm on July 17, 2002

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 9:05 pm on July 17, 2002

Quote: from RGacky3 on 7:53 pm on July 17, 2002
[quote]Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 7:44 pm on July 17, 2002


no you will find it at the "regimes that will soon destroy capitalism and the U$" store.


LOL, please

wait


for what, an alien invasion?
No. For hell to freeze over.

Lindsay

[ernestolynch]

New poster here - greetings.

Can someone here of the revisionists tell me when it was that the 50 million were released from the Gulags? I must have missed that one. I've scoured encyclopaedias, old news reports and the web but haven't seen pictures of their release.

[Mazdak]

Excellent. Welcome, a fellow Stalinist i hope??

[Vladimir]

Fuck Stalinism, its stupid, thats it, all i can come up with, its just fucking stupid.

You stalinists are idiots, i hate you.

[Mazdak]

We love you too

[Hattori Hanzo]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 9:41 pm on July 18, 2002

Quote: from Hattori Hanzo on 9:07 pm on July 17, 2002

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 9:05 pm on July 17, 2002

Quote: from RGacky3 on 7:53 pm on July 17, 2002
[quote]Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 7:44 pm on July 17, 2002



YEah, funny enough, but you won't be laughing when you're dead

no you will find it at the "regimes that will soon destroy capitalism and the U$" store.


LOL, please

wait


for what, an alien invasion?

[Capitalist Fighter]

I sincerely hope that Lenin comes back, i thought he was great to debate with. :)

[maoist3]

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K18832071

Marxistdisciple says Stalin killed more than Bush.
It goes to show that Marxistdisciple is not what
his/her name says.

According to Marxists, and as proven right inside
his book Capital, capitalism is responsible for death--everything from lung disease to starvation.

However, Marxistdisciple ONLY counts executions--
not people saved from capitalism through Stalin's
rapid development of the economy and stifling of capitalism. Marxistdisciple does NOT measure what
s/he is talking about. Go ahead Marxistdisciple
or anyone else, propose a standard and let's
use it for other supposed socialist leaders or
capitalist countries and we'll see who the
real mass murderers are.

People opposing Stalin are the ones responsible
for millions of deaths more than necessary. That
is why the life expectancy today in the ex-USSR is
lower than what it was when Stalin got done--
DESPITE TECHNICAL PROGRESS SINCE THEN--
the last 50 years!

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/stalin.html

It's outright irresponsible apologetics for mass murder
to oppose Stalin--unless murder is only executions
and not deliberate withholding of the means of
survival. Marx was concerned with the latter, the FBI
only the former.

Stalin executed people for the benefit of the
proletariat and exploited peasants. That shows up
clear as day in any statistics, including those of the
U.$. imperialists.

[peaccenicked]

''Stalin executed people for the benefit of the
proletariat and exploited peasants. That shows up
clear as day in any statistics, including those of the
U.$. imperialists.''

Is that why he ordered the murder of Trotsky in Mexico?
Is that why he murdered the remaining bolsheviks?
Did Stalin not try to crush all dissent in the USSR?
Did Stalin not create a climate of fear?

Capitalism is a mass murdering system but that makes no excuse for the crimes of Stalin.
Come to think of it Mao was not much better than Stalin.

[maoist3]

Peacenicked says:
[first quoting me, maoist3]
''Stalin executed people for the benefit of the
proletariat and exploited peasants. That shows up
clear as day in any statistics, including those of the
U.$. imperialists.''

Is that why he ordered the murder of Trotsky in Mexico?
Is that why he murdered the remaining bolsheviks?
Did Stalin not try to crush all dissent in the USSR?
Did Stalin not create a climate of fear?

Capitalism is a mass murdering system but that makes no excuse for the crimes of Stalin.
Come to think of it Mao was not much better than Stalin.

******************
maoist3 replies: I don't know whether you
claim to be Marxist or not, but look at what
you chose to focus on. You should call yourself
a "dissident" or a Liberal, because Liberals tolerate
all dissidents--at least in theory, while usually
covering for incarceration rates like the u.$. one.

Your refusal to acknowledge your own apology for
mass murder is evident in your not replying to my
request: to name a standard of measurement
that you believe is fair, and then naming the leaders
who you think did better than Stalin. Most of the
people opposing Stalin do so from thin air, out
of religious fervor, not out of anything they can
point to on this earth. Show us who DID more
to improve things for the working people, not
people who preached prettier. We materialists say,
"go to your God in heaven and leave us of this
world alone!"

Unlike Liberals who like to tolerate people who
believe they have the right to starve others to
death, we Marxist-Leninists do not tolerate
slave-owners, grain-speculators etc. That's why
we Marxist-Leninists have ALWAYS done more than
Liberals, dissidents, mushy socialists etc. to
increase the life expectancy of the population--i.e.
what matters overall on average for the workingpersyn.

Yes, Stalin created a climate of fear and it's a damn
good thing. People in his party were AFRAID of
taking bribes, AFRAID of going on U.$. payroll,
AFRAID that Stalin would kill them if he found them
pushing capitalism.

You fail to see the class basis of your comments above.
Your comments above zero in perfectly on the
petty-bourgeoisie with no survival needs--people
who are already fed, clothed, sheltered etc., people
who only fear Stalin and not death from lack of
survival rights that actually exist. It is only such
middle-class and capitalist people who fear the
proletarian state more than the loss of survival rights
caused by not having an intolerant eye toward
the bourgeoisie.

Dead people have no "free speech," so
is it better to be dead than "afraid"? The millions
who died in societies such as India that did not
pursue Mao's course are evidence that Peacenicked
thinks so.

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/phil...ilviolence.html (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/philviolence.html)

[Brian]

You know maoist3,there is something called a 'Quote' tag.Learn to use it.



(Edited by Brian at 7:27 am on Aug. 5, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

Maoist3, you are simply reinventing history to follow
a crass class line that has no historical credence whatsoever.
I will for the moment reffer you to this article which is a starting point in defeating your inhuman dogmatic slumber.
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/guest/radical/RC-USSR.HTM

[Brian]

Stalin and Mao did somethings that make Hitler look like not such a bad guy.

[maoist3]

I asked for a standard and leaders that accomplished
more than Stalin by the standard peacenicked set up.
I said, "Go ahead Marxistdisciple
or anyone else, propose a standard and let's
use it for other supposed socialist leaders or
capitalist countries and we'll see who the
real mass murderers are."

What I got instead was some reference to a professor
in Glasgow. Did they implement Ticktinism in Glasgow or
anywhere else?

The answer peacenicked gave me is rather like
going to a car dealer, looking at the cars
and then buying a blueprint instead of a car,
(which might be better for the environment
but that's another point). I asked for another
car to compare with the car I'm comparing with
and at most peacenicked responded with a blueprint.
I asked for both the specs and the car.

This kind of academic idealism is fine in academia.

"Ticktin's originality shines through most
brilliantly in the second chapter on social
control," says peacenicked referenced post.


Originality is great for academia, to get tenure, to
get articles published. That's part of academic production under capitalism. In bourgeois academia,
not only is there no penalty for idealism, there is a reward for pissing on reality with an idea. In contrast,
materialist activists want what is effective in achieving
communist goals. Drawing a blueprint may in fact be
scientific work, but if it has not been implemented
we have to question whether it has a design flaw--
namely no attractiveness to the proletariat. For this
reason materialists compare practices with practices,
not ideas.


"Over the last twenty years or so, Hillel Ticktin
was probably the only theorist to predict that the
USSR would disintegrate, arguing, contrary to
scholars influenced by Cold War rhetoric, that it
was a profoundly unstable social formation," says the Peacenicked posting.


The above is a pretty typical academic lie,
especially as injected in a place like this Che forum. It could be true in the context of--"within the following
peer-reviewed journals recognized by the Queen of
England and used in English intelligence, no one
predicted instability and instead theory of 'totalitarianism' had rather too much sway."
Those of us who saw the Soviet Union as capitalist
did not say it was stable and were not surprised
by its collapse.

Ticktin argues that the Stalinist system was never a planned society. Lack of control over the
process of production by a democratic collectivity
of freely associated producers makes all talk of
planning in the Soviet Union meaningless," says the peacenicked's referenced article.

Again the above is a blueprint. Where is the
implementation. If it cannot be implemented, you
need a blueprint for implementation and then a
practice of implementation. Otherwise one becomes
guilty of dogmatic idealism--what Marx was talking about when he said that ideas cannot carry out anything.

BTW, I just got a one sentence letter
to stop my "spamming" for my "sect."
No explanation. Hear this: Malte,
you can ban me, but don't give me shit
about spamming. You misuse the word
to the benefit of the advertisers and other
capitalists who really do spamming.
As far as I'm concerned there is a lot
more substance in my posts than those of the one-sentence jokers here.


(Edited by maoist3 at 8:07 pm on Aug. 6, 2002)


(Edited by maoist3 at 8:18 pm on Aug. 6, 2002)

[new democracy]

"haha
pretty funny, but there was never a true communist regime
still a good joke ". if there never were communist regimes why is the cuban flag is your avatar?

[PunkRawker677]

The Cuban Flag was the same before Communism entered the country. The flag doesn't stand for Communism. It stands for the Island itself.

[Anonymous]

LONG LIVE STALIN!=LONG LIVE HITLER!

[Mazdak]

Quote: from the anarchist on 4:03 pm on Aug. 7, 2002
LONG LIVE STALIN!=LONG LIVE HITLER!


Except for the fact that Stalin didnt massacre millions of ethinicities because they werent "Aryan" he executed political enemies and such. To compare the two is retarded. They had completely different ideologies(except for authoritarianism).

[peaccenicked]

Quote: from maoist3 on 7:59 pm on Aug. 6, 2002
I asked for a standard and leaders that accomplished
more than Stalin by the standard peacenicked set up.
I said, "Go ahead Marxistdisciple
or anyone else, propose a standard and let's
use it for other supposed socialist leaders or
capitalist countries and we'll see who the
real mass murderers are."

What I got instead was some reference to a professor
in Glasgow. Did they implement Ticktinism in Glasgow or
anywhere else?

The answer peacenicked gave me is rather like
going to a car dealer, looking at the cars
and then buying a blueprint instead of a car,
(which might be better for the environment
but that's another point). I asked for another
car to compare with the car I'm comparing with
and at most peacenicked responded with a blueprint.
I asked for both the specs and the car.

This kind of academic idealism is fine in academia.

"Ticktin's originality shines through most
brilliantly in the second chapter on social
control," says peacenicked referenced post.


Originality is great for academia, to get tenure, to
get articles published. That's part of academic production under capitalism. In bourgeois academia,
not only is there no penalty for idealism, there is a reward for pissing on reality with an idea. In contrast,
materialist activists want what is effective in achieving
communist goals. Drawing a blueprint may in fact be
scientific work, but if it has not been implemented
we have to question whether it has a design flaw--
namely no attractiveness to the proletariat. For this
reason materialists compare practices with practices,
not ideas.


"Over the last twenty years or so, Hillel Ticktin
was probably the only theorist to predict that the
USSR would disintegrate, arguing, contrary to
scholars influenced by Cold War rhetoric, that it
was a profoundly unstable social formation," says the Peacenicked posting.


The above is a pretty typical academic lie,
especially as injected in a place like this Che forum. It could be true in the context of--"within the following
peer-reviewed journals recognized by the Queen of
England and used in English intelligence, no one
predicted instability and instead theory of 'totalitarianism' had rather too much sway."
Those of us who saw the Soviet Union as capitalist
did not say it was stable and were not surprised
by its collapse.

Ticktin argues that the Stalinist system was never a planned society. Lack of control over the
process of production by a democratic collectivity
of freely associated producers makes all talk of
planning in the Soviet Union meaningless," says the peacenicked's referenced article.

Again the above is a blueprint. Where is the
implementation. If it cannot be implemented, you
need a blueprint for implementation and then a
practice of implementation. Otherwise one becomes
guilty of dogmatic idealism--what Marx was talking about when he said that ideas cannot carry out anything.

BTW, I just got a one sentence letter
to stop my "spamming" for my "sect."
No explanation. Hear this: Malte,
you can ban me, but don't give me shit
about spamming. You misuse the word
to the benefit of the advertisers and other
capitalists who really do spamming.
As far as I'm concerned there is a lot
more substance in my posts than those of the one-sentence jokers here.


(Edited by maoist3 at 8:07 pm on Aug. 6, 2002)


(Edited by maoist3 at 8:18 pm on Aug. 6, 2002)

You dont make any sense. Ticktin makes a criticism. The value of the criticism is how true it. There has never been a revolutionary situation in Glasgow.
History does not go according to plan.
How can a criticism be implemented.
How can you be a material if you tell lies about history.
how can associate Stalin and Mao with communist goals. They were both personal dictators who ended up reversing the gains of their respective national revolution and millions died for nothing. It was nothing to do with pro capitalist counter revolutionaries.
You are talking to me like a mindless automaton, who is giving out a thoghtless political line.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 5:01 pm on Aug. 8, 2002)

[Guest]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 4:49 pm on Aug. 8, 2002

You dont make any sense. Ticktin makes a criticism. The value of the criticism is how true it. There has never been a revolutionary situation in Glasgow.
History does not go according to plan.
How can a criticism be implemented.
How can you be a material if you tell lies about history.
how can associate Stalin and Mao with communist goals. They were both personal dictators who ended up reversing the gains of their respective national revolution and millions died for nothing. It was nothing to do with pro capitalist counter revolutionaries.
You are talking to me like a mindless automaton, who is giving out a thoghtless political line.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 5:01 pm on Aug. 8, 2002)


maoist3 replies for MIM: As with most people
on this list criticizing Stalin, your problem is not with Stalin or Mao, but with Marx. Your idea of criticism is scholastic and idealist. Read Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" in 1845.

"The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question." That is just thesis II.

Here is VIII:
"All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice."

There is much, much more on this question from Marx.
I see from reading your posts you claim Marx from
time to time. You should abandon your claim
or come out straight as a non-Marxist or dump
your criticisms of Stalin/Mao.

OK, so Ticktin did not make anything happen in Glasgow.
What about the rest of the world? Are there no
societies comparable to Russia or China that Ticktinism
prevailed in? Let me suggest that the closest is Yugoslavia
--and we can all see what happened there.

Your bottom line problem is that you have to stand
FOR something in social practice. As of now, your
method of criticism is intellectually precisely that of
religion. It is merely a cheap shot to criticize someone
like Stalin who has a real world political record with
the ideas of a professor that have been implemented
no where or worse. Anyone can come up with ideas
to criticize practices with. You think we Stalinists can't?
You think we can't write poetry too? If humyns haven't
implemented your ideas, then it is YOUR ideas
that are not humyn. It is you who are covering
up for capitalist mass murder and simultaneously
criticizing the masses for not being able to accomplish
your fine ideas/poetry/religion.

[peaccenicked]

Your argument is based on the fallacy that might is right.
The practice of stalinism also has to contend with the practice of anti stalinism. Stalinism has such a bad reputation that its practice is not worth repeating to the nth degree.
How can you justify genocide and talk about poetry.
That is deeply incongrous.

[maoist3]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 5:46 am on Aug. 9, 2002
Your argument is based on the fallacy that might is right.
The practice of stalinism also has to contend with the practice of anti stalinism. Stalinism has such a bad reputation that its practice is not worth repeating to the nth degree.
How can you justify genocide and talk about poetry.
That is deeply incongrous.

maoist3 replies for the Maoist Internationalist Movement:

In other words, that's your moralistic excuse for
why in 100 years in over 150 countries with all
their revolutionary situations, there has been
no Ticktinist revolution that you will defend. In other
words, you turn your nose up at the proletariat
globally for its failure to enact what you persynally
and subjectively want and feel no compunction about
serving as a figleaf for the institutional violence of the
capitalist status quo. Yet you then have the nerve
to call Stalin inhumyn and a tyrant.

Sorry, but Marxism is not some kind of purified
Christianity. Marxism is scientific communism.
If in 100 years since "What Is To Be Done?"
you can't point to anything where "might" has
made right through revolution, then you are simply
not talking about a proletarian blueprint for change. You
are talking about something that interests bourgeois
academics and theologians as isolated from society.
If what you were talking about were in proletarian
interests, it would have happened somewhere.

Let me suggest that Kant is your man, not
Marx. Marx believed that
the proletariat had the might to get the job done.
You may not agree, but you shouldn't call yourself
Marxist if you don't. You would destroy all that is beautiful
in the real world for the benefit on an idea in your head.

[peaccenicked]

''100 years in over 150 countries''
There is no Stalinist revolution to defend either.
Stalinism is bloody counter revolution. I have no moronic fetish with isms either something is true or it is not and
Moaist3 perpetuates monstrous myths and lies.

''Yes, Stalin created a climate of fear and it's a damn
good thing. People in his party were AFRAID of
taking bribes, AFRAID of going on U.$. payroll,
AFRAID that Stalin would kill them if he found them
pushing capitalism.''
This is just ugly reactionary pish. Stalin crushed all dissent progressive or reactionary. Nobody could speak out on anything.
This pandering to a Stalinist myth is perverse.
you are the biggest bullshiter I have had this misfortune to come across.
You have vno scientific credentials not unless you are trying to turn state thuggery into a science.


The proletariat did not get the job done, they were politically defeated.

[maoist3]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 8:00 am on Aug. 9, 2002
''100 years in over 150 countries''
There is no Stalinist revolution to defend either.
Stalinism is bloody counter revolution. I have no moronic fetish with isms either something is true or it is not and
Moaist3 perpetuates monstrous myths and lies.

''Yes, Stalin created a climate of fear and it's a damn
good thing. People in his party were AFRAID of
taking bribes, AFRAID of going on U.$. payroll,
AFRAID that Stalin would kill them if he found them
pushing capitalism.''
This is just ugly reactionary pish. Stalin crushed all dissent progressive or reactionary. Nobody could speak out on anything.
This pandering to a Stalinist myth is perverse.
you are the biggest bullshiter I have had this misfortune to come across.
You have vno scientific credentials not unless you are trying to turn state thuggery into a science.


The proletariat did not get the job done, they were politically defeated.


maoist3 replies for MIM:
Peacenicked says s/he has no fetish with
"isms," which again is a way for
peacenicked to be able to piss without
having anything that s/he stands FOR.
(I mean in reality not his/her imagination
detached from reality.) Does the phrase
"cheap shot" have any meaning for you
peacenicked? Your strategy like most
idealists' is "piss-and-run," piss on
accomplishments and run before anyone
can piss back on what you stand for.
You expect people to accept your
words in exchange for pissing on a reality.

Peacenicked can't defend hself so now cries "lies" without
pointing to anything specific. It reminds
me precisely of capitalist propaganda techniques.

The only thing specific that we have talked about
in this thread that could be a lie is the reviewer's
claim that only Ticktin saw an unstable Soviet Union.
You have yet to defend how that could be other than
a lie. Do you think all your readers here are unfamiliar
with the facts of various positions that existed other
than Ticktin's?

Such a fearful petty-bourgeois this peacenicked is that
s/he AGAIN raises the question of dissent--the thing
that people with full bellies are so concerned about,
the thing prioritized by them with peacenicked as their
spokesperysn. Peacenicked, why bother calling
yourself a "Marxist"? Why not be an honest and
open spokespersyn for the petty-bourgeoisie as a
"libertarian" instead of giving Marx a bad name?

It's not surprising, because s/he has nothing s/he stands FOR.
I'm going to tell everyone why too. There is
nothing that all his/her "dissidents" or Ticktinists have done
in the whole world that add up to the accomplishments Stalin had in just
one country, never mind China following on the road of Stalin.
There is nothing
s/he wants to defend that compares with the
dramatic implementation of survival rights that is in this table alone:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K18832071

The reason these "dissidents" don't accomplish
anything relative to followers of Stalin is that
these dissidents aren't interested in the questions
that Marx was--food, clothing, shelter, medicine.
They are interested in TALKING about those things
and then claiming they are dissidents, because
their REAL interest is simply freedom of speech
for the petty-bourgeoisie.

Then s/he gets emotional about "state thuggery."
In case peacenicked did not notice, there is no where
in the industrial world where the state has been
abolished. Hence there is state thuggery everywhere.
That is as obvious as the sun rising each day and nothing
but a red herring for you to raise in the midst of having
your idealist line squashed by scientific communism.
YOU have not succeeded in abolishing the state either,
so don't give me that shit. Anyone who thinks
the state is going to be abolished while the life
expectancy is still 38 better be thinking
again. When people's lives are at stake, being
risked by real estate, food and medicine profiteers,
you better believe you are in a society of violence and
hence a state.

[peaccenicked]

''Peacenicked says s/he has no fetish with
"isms," which again is a way for
peacenicked to be able to piss without
having anything that s/he stands FOR''

This does not make sense. You make assertions that dont hold water on close examination. I am thouroughly
anti stalinist, What I am for is genuine socialism and not your piss poor version of it.

'' Your strategy like most
idealists' is "piss-and-run," piss on
accomplishments and run before anyone
can piss back on what you stand for.
You expect people to accept your
words in exchange for pissing on a reality. ''

The only person here pissing on reality because suggest that the human voice is shit below economic need. All your denounciations are very thin and only based on this counter revolutionary value system.
For what you are saying is that the human voice is valueless.
Here you are nothing short of a pig ignorant reactionary
that does not know anything of revolutary humanism that exudes from all of Marx's work.
''Communism as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being — a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man — the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution. ''

The thuggery of Stalinism is the abuse of State power, which has been denounced by both Kruschev and Castro. The way you argue is thuggish. You are nothing more than a thug defending thuggery.
You're as communistic as the man on the moon.





(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:19 am on Aug. 10, 2002)

[maoist3]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 12:08 am on Aug. 10, 2002
''Peacenicked says s/he has no fetish with
"isms," which again is a way for
peacenicked to be able to piss without
having anything that s/he stands FOR''

This does not make sense. You make assertions that dont hold water on close examination. I am thouroughly
anti stalinist, What I am for is genuine socialism and not your piss poor version of it.
(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:19 am on Aug. 10, 2002)


Of course it does not make any sense to you. You
are profoundly idealist. I am here defending
a REALITY, the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1953.
I am saying that it is proof of what the humyn
can do. You again are throwing about merely
words, "genuine socialism." You've been told this
several times, but are unable to respond.

[maoist3]

'' Your strategy like most
idealists' is "piss-and-run," piss on
accomplishments and run before anyone
can piss back on what you stand for.
You expect people to accept your
words in exchange for pissing on a reality. ''

The only person here pissing on reality because suggest that the human voice is shit below economic need. All your denounciations are very thin and only based on this counter revolutionary value system.
For what you are saying is that the human voice is valueless.
Here you are nothing short of a pig ignorant reactionary
that does not know anything of revolutary humanism that exudes from all of Marx's work.
''Communism as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being — a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man — the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution. ''

(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:19 am on Aug. 10, 2002)


maoist3 replies: Don't kid yourself: there is nothing
humane about your decadent apologetics for capitalism's
institutional violence eradicated by Stalin, Mao
and their followers. The above quote is about
communism--which neither Stalin nor Mao claimed
to have achieved. No one in industrial society
has achieved it, but it certainly cannot be accomplished
while people like you successfully prevent the
implementation of actual survival rights in food,
clothing, shelter and housing.

Your bottom line problem is that you think TALK
is a panacea. Stalin proved it isn't. Instead,
misleading talk kills, like the cigarette advertising
of the 1960s before the surgeon general's warning
was put on cigarette cartons.

You think you have a right to misinform people
about matters related to survival, but we Maoists
are here to tell you that you don't. That goes for
cigarettes; that goes for the people opposing
sex education while AIDS may cause people death;
that goes for people who think it's OK to speculate
in grain in the midst of starvation or
borderline starvation. Their "opinions" about these things
when it comes to survival rights cannot be tolerated
anymore than a driver's ed instructor should tell
immigrants that green means stop and red means go.
Rather spreading of such "opinions" is known to
the proletariat as murder or at least serving as an
accomplice to murder.

Yes, Stalin did kill probably hundreds of thousands
of chattering petty-bourgeois who just would not
implement a clear plan for survival rights. And no,
that was not a setback for the population
of the Soviet Union. You see, peacenicked,
the proletariat does not need your kind of "free speech"
chatter to advance. Quite the contrary, Stalin's
getting rid of it is what allowed the most stunning
reduction of institutional violence in world history
up to that date. That is the fact.

[maoist3]

The thuggery of Stalinism is the abuse of State power, which has been denounced by both Kruschev and Castro. The way you argue is thuggish. You are nothing more than a thug defending thuggery.
You're as communistic as the man on the moon.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:19 am on Aug. 10, 2002)


maoist3 replies for MIM:
So you defend the portion of reality in which
Khruschev ruled the Soviet Union, yes or no?

You defend Castro's Cuba as socialist advance,
yes or no?

Or will you be retreating to your verbal-religious
kingdom?

[peaccenicked]

You are putting words in my mouth and twisting them.
The falseness of your position is that you have to use insincere methods and making phoney assumptions.

''maoist3 replies: Don't kid yourself: there is nothing
humane about your decadent apologetics for capitalism's
institutional violence eradicated by Stalin, Mao
and their followers.''

I make no apology for capitalism.
Condemning stalinism is not the same as apologizing for capitalism. The only connection is your tiny minded paranoid stalinist way of thinking.
Not only are you kidding yourself but you are not kidding
me on, that you have in anything other than a complete
and utter sophistic thug, defending thuggery.
To replace one set of institutionalist violence with one arguably worse in its barbarity.
You have heard this before but millions of deaths are mere statistics to you and your filthy anti human creed.






(Edited by peaccenicked at 2:45 am on Aug. 10, 2002)

[maoist3]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 2:39 am on Aug. 10, 2002
You are putting words in my mouth and twisting them.
The falseness of your position is that you have to use insincere methods and making phoney assumptions.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 2:45 am on Aug. 10, 2002)


maoist3 replies: This is baby talk. If you can't draw
the logical implications of your positions out, others
do not have to sit by passively while you spread your
religious dogmatism.

Just because you never came out and said, "I
am a dogmatist-idealist of the sort Marx pilloried,"
does not mean you are not one. People who cannot
live with the implications of their politics should not
get into politics. It is a science, not a place where you
can express your subjective desires in some kind
of haven free from scrutiny.

For your kind of politics, I'd suggest a Buddhist
temple or such place where your persynal relationship
to your subjectively created Ideals will not face
outside interference by people actually concerned
with the whole living humyn species.

[Stormin Norman]

Wow. Peacenicked is getting his ass kicked by his own kind this time. How funny!

[Edelweiss]

Malte replies for Che-Lives: :)

Maoist, go back to your stupid sect and pray to your your gods Stalin, Mao and your beloved sect leader.
maoist, you are just a brainwashed robot of your tiny sect, fuck off.

[Stormin Norman]

How can you guys expect to initiate change with all of this infighting amongst yourselves? I thought a Maoist would be welcomed by his friends.

[maoist3]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 2:39 am on Aug. 10, 2002

To replace one set of institutionalist violence with one arguably worse in its barbarity.
You have heard this before but millions of deaths are mere statistics to you and your filthy anti human creed.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 2:45 am on Aug. 10, 2002)


maoist3 replies for MIM:
Ah, here we have the cat out of the bag. Maybe
peacenicked is a cappie, that's why s/he says
the Stalin era socialism was "arguably worse."
Well, after all, I'm here in the socialism vs. capitalism
thread. The only problem with that view is that
peacenicked is posting all over the Che-lives community,
not just this thread, and usually does so citing
people such as Marx and Lenin (and the idealist Trotsky.)

On the other hand, another possible interpretation
would be that peacenicked would be one of those
many deprived people who never learned in high
school how to read a statistical table. However,
in this case, my sympathy is limited because
while peacenicked has obviously done overtime
in studying idealism, s/he never took the time
to remedy her arithmetic illiteracy.

S/he wants to be concerned about the petty-bourgeois
chatterboxes shot by Stalin, but s/he's unconcerned
that the kind of progress seen in
http://makeashorterlink.com/?K18832071

represents MILLIONS OF LIVES SAVED PER YEAR
(and not millions saved in 30 years of Stalin's rule,
but in EACH INDIVIDUAL year.)

Let me explain. You take the population of a country,
and divide it by 1000. That's how many thousands
there are in that country. Then multiply that by the
improvement in the mortality rate per 1000, say
between 1913 and 1953, and then you know how
many lives were saved in 1953 because of advances
since 1913. Anyone who does this will see why Stalin is still
a beloved leader in Russia, second after Lenin according
to public opinion polls.

At first I thought peacenicked was unconcerned about
the common persyn, because s/he was a cappy who
thinks socialism is "worse" than capitalism.
Then I thought it might be another case of mathematical
illiteracy. I doubt it, but I present the method
for peacenicked to learn if s/he is interested.

I have concluded that peacenicked
throws around numbers like "millions" and statements
like "arguably worse" because s/he is idealist.
The fact that s/he only said "arguably" worse again
shows that s/he is not concerned ultimately with
comparing realities but instead suiting her
religious needs with the likes of "thou shalt not
kill" and "the end does not justify the means."

[maoist3]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 6:54 pm on Aug. 11, 2002
How can you guys expect to initiate change with all of this infighting amongst yourselves? I thought a Maoist would be welcomed by his friends.


maoist3 replies for MIM:
Stormin, drop the pose. You can't expect to get away
with it here! Peacenicked is your best buddy, the kind
often paid to create division amongst real world
socialists by your kind.

China's greatest contemporary writer, Lu Xun already exposed this kind of idealism:
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/luxu...unonstalin.html (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/luxunonstalin.html)

So what kind of cappie are you Stormin Norman?
Liberal or fascist? Where do you stand on this
next quote?

"Misleading talk kills, like the cigarette advertising
of the 1960s before the surgeon general's warning
was put on cigarette cartons.

"You think you have a right to misinform people
about matters related to survival, but we Maoists
are here to tell you that you don't. That goes for
cigarettes; that goes for the people opposing
sex education while AIDS may cause people death;
that goes for people who think it's OK to speculate
in grain in the midst of starvation or
borderline starvation. Their "opinions" about these
things when it comes to survival rights cannot be
tolerated anymore than a driver's ed instructor
should tell immigrants that green means stop and
red means go. Rather spreading of such "opinions" is known to
the proletariat as murder or at least serving as an
accomplice to murder."

[maoist3]

Quote: from Malte on 6:46 pm on Aug. 11, 2002
Malte replies for Che-Lives: :)

Maoist, go back to your stupid sect and pray to your your gods Stalin, Mao and your beloved sect leader.
maoist, you are just a brainwashed robot of your tiny sect, fuck off.


maoist3 replies:
Too bad you can't defend your politics other than
by getting persynal Malte. I would say better
to be brainwashed by a socialist sect than
a capitalist media.

Well, if you have persynal objection to me,
ban me, Malte. Don't complain so much. You
don't want your community with Stormin Norman
broken up by people exposing your commonalities
defending capitalist violence, then kick out the
ones that don't belong in your community, simple
as that!

For those who actually can read and do not
suffer mathematical illiteracy,
let's see Malte call Lu Xun and W.E.B. Du Bois brainwashed
robots:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z14D32D71

When they are done with that they can explain
how the Black Panther Party was brainwashed robots.

Unfortunately, when they get done with all that,
the only thing left will be capitalism. But after
all, peacenicked said socialism is "arguably worse."

[Edelweiss]

Maoist, I recomend you to go to North Korea to enjoy the pleasures of a Stalinist regime.

[Edelweiss]

For your kind of politics, I'd suggest a Buddhist
temple or such place where your persynal relationship
to your subjectively created Ideals will not face
outside interference by people actually concerned
with the whole living humyn species.


LOL! That's exactly what you are doing, Maoist! Your ideology hasn't any social relevance any more. Really, you are the one who has lost sense for reality. I doubt that Maoism will ever again go beyond a religion for some tiny sects like the MIM.

[vox]

I may have quoted this before on this board, but I will again. From The Twilight of Capitalism by Harrington:

I will not attempt to make a documented analysis of Stalinism here. I have already done so in Socialism, and in any case I only raise the issue in terms of the Marxist misunderstanding of Marx. Let me simply summarize from my earlier study. Communism in all its existing forms (and there are obviously differences of a considerable, and even murderously antagonistic, significance among them) is a system of bureaucratic collectivism in which the state owns the means of production and a party bureaucracy owns the state by means of a totalitarian monopoly of political power. It is exploitative in the exact sense that Marx gave that term--the workers and peasants are forced to surrender a surplus to the bureaucracy; a portion of their working day is a "free" gift to the rulers.

Within this context, Marxism functions as an ideology--that is, as the very opposite of the revolutionary theory that Marx intended--as a tool for mystifying the relations of power in the minds of the masses. Marx had talked of a society in which the means of production are in the hands of the producers. For him, socialized property was the means whereby the true end of socialism, the domination of the masses over the social conditions of their existence, could be achieved. Stalinism took the form of socialized property, but filled it with a new, totalitarian content. It then stressed the formal similarity of its institutions to those proposed by Marx and cited this as the living proof that Soviet (or Chinese or whatever) Communist practice was the incarnation of Marxism.

So a doctrine that seemed quite similar to the vulgar Marxism of the Second International became functional under Communism. Stalin was the supreme scientist who deciphered the inexorable laws of history. Therefore, what he decided to do for the masses was right, even if he did it literally over their dead bodies. A typical example of this kind of thinking is found in Stalin's last essay, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR.

First, there is the general statement of an all-embracing dialectic to be found throughout reality: "Marxism regards laws of science--whether they be laws of natural science or of political economy--as the reflection of objective processes which take place independently of the will of man." Then comes a deduction in a characteristically nonempirical and catechetical style:

"[The Soviet government] relied on the economic laws that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces. The productive forces of our country, especially in industry, were social in character, the form of ownership, on the other hand was private, capitalistic. Relying on the economic law that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces, the Soviet government socialized the means of production, made them the property of the whole people, and thereby abolished the exploiting system and created socialist forms of economy."

There are a number of revealing aspects to this quotation. First of all, it implies that the Soviets made history in an utterly rational fashion. They surveyed reality, noted the appropriate law (which is supposed to operate independently of human will) and they enacted it (that is, they willed it). For a Marxist to suggest such a picture of the revolutionary process is preposterous on the face of it. Secondly, it is the Soviet government that is the agency of this transformation. The working class is not mentioned. Thirdly, Stalin does not determine that Soviet policy is socialist by examining the actual, existential conditions of the people. That, among other things, would prove to be embarrassing. Instead, he makes a scientific syllogism based on a sham law: Where the means of production are socialized, there is socialism, and the people rule; but in the Soviet Union the means of production are socialized; therefore in the Soviet Union there is socialism and the people rule. With such a methodology Stalin did not have to bother about facts or 180 degree turns in the party line. A law could be found, or invented, to justify anything the master scientist did.

[Edelweiss]

http://www.red-encyclopedia.org/groups.html

Maoist Internationalist Movement: A tiny sect of Maoist revolutionaries, formed in October 1983 from an old SDS splinter, "RADACADS." Originally known as the "Revolutionary Internationalist Movement" (RIM), the MIM changed its name in 1984 after the Revolutionary Communist Party took the name RIM for its international organization. The MIM broke with the RCP officially over the issue of the war in El Salvador and the role of the FMLN. Virulently anti-Trotskyist, the MIM labels nearly every group it dislikes as demonstrating some form of "Trotskyist revisionism." They even label their fellow Maoists at the RCP "Crypto-Trotskyists"! Their organization's line also includes right-wing moralist ideas, including homophobia and refusing a woman's right to abortion. Obviously a group of aging New Left cooks, the MIM has only a small clustered membership in Western Massachussetts, Detroit and the Berkeley area. If the MIM used its time for positive organizing instead of blasting possible allies, perhaps some good could be accomplished.

[maoist3]

Quote: from Malte on 11:49 pm on Aug. 11, 2002
http://www.red-encyclopedia.org/groups.html

Maoist Internationalist Movement: A tiny sect of Maoist revolutionaries, formed in October 1983 from an old SDS splinter, "RADACADS." Originally known as the "Revolutionary Internationalist Movement" (RIM), the MIM changed its name in 1984 after the Revolutionary Communist Party took the name RIM for its international organization. The MIM broke with the RCP officially over the issue of the war in El Salvador and the role of the FMLN. Virulently anti-Trotskyist, the MIM labels nearly every group it dislikes as demonstrating some form of "Trotskyist revisionism." They even label their fellow Maoists at the RCP "Crypto-Trotskyists"! Their organization's line also includes right-wing moralist ideas, including homophobia and refusing a woman's right to abortion. Obviously a group of aging New Left cooks, the MIM has only a small clustered membership in Western Massachussetts, Detroit and the Berkeley area. If the MIM used its time for positive organizing instead of blasting possible allies, perhaps some good could be accomplished.



maoist3 replies for MIM: thanks for the
libel malte: I hadn't seen that one before.
There are three underlying factual errors in that
short snippet--pretty good compared with the
average capitalist press which
would probably average six factual errors per paragraph; although I have a feeling the author may have intended to be more accurate but is easily
taken in by bourgeois propaganda or confused
about MIM and another group.

Anyway folks, keep trying despite all the misinformation
out there.

[maoist3]

Quote: from Malte on 9:57 pm on Aug. 11, 2002
Maoist, I recomend you to go to North Korea to enjoy the pleasures of a Stalinist regime.


maoist3 replies:
I don't recall any Maoist saying that a country
occupied by 37,000 Amerikkkan troops is a pleasure
to live in. However, I have heard the same kind
of crap spread by the CIA in the bourgeois press.

But Malte, I'm afraid you must now answer the
same questions posed to peacenicked. What do
you stand FOR?

Dimwits of Idealism, show me anywhere in the
world an accomplishment at any time in history
greater than this one from the point of view
of the common man

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K18832071

before the year 1950. (There
were others after thanks to Stalin.)

Don't TALK to me about your IDEAS. SHOW ME
in the REAL WORLD.

[Edelweiss]

You know, Maoist, I even I agree with some parts of Maoism, but I would never make it a religion and preach it as you are doing. Everyone outside your sect is "petit-bourgeois", you are claiming to be the only one who knows the entire truth and you doesn't accept any slight divergence from your ideals, everyone in your sect who slightly disagrees with your leader or your officall line will be expelled from your group. The good of your sect is more important for you than the good of the proletariat. Sorry, but that's is not what I call effective fight against capitalism. Your group is so self-centered that you totally lost the connection to todays society. And you are talking to me about the "real world"...
And btw: Mao once was an idealist too, before he led the revolution in China.

[vox]

Gosh darnit. I'm being ignored. Maoist3 has been so good at answering everything, too. I understand the Harrington passage is not easily answered by straightforward, dogmatic, reactionary statements, but I thought it would at least be acknowledged.

Now my feelings are all hurt and junk.

vox

[peaccenicked]

Moaist3, you braindead, jack-in-the box, economic improvements in the Stalinist world have less to do with positive socialism than a lack of BEING PLUNDERED BY imperialism.
Politics is ugly and if anybody is serving capitilism here it is you, who is all just words, bullshit words.
Your principles are anti socialist and you let the cat out of the bag everytime you open that big shithole of yours that you have nothing to offer democracy.
Indeed you scoff at democracy and equate state murder
with social gains.
The idealism of giving Stalinism a honorable place in proletarian history is the one that drowns your idiocy in the here and now, internationally.
The dustbin of history is truly yours.
Stalinism is a worse ideology than capitalism because it paints the liberation of the working class as the callous disregard for human life for economic gain. Capitalism merely
tries to tie its interests with workers interests.
Moaist3 is an outright enemy of the working class.
His/hers fake 'socialism' serves to keep the workers ideologically tied to capitalism and HOSTILE TO SOCIALISM.

[maoist3]

Quote: from vox on 1:49 am on Aug. 12, 2002
Gosh darnit. I'm being ignored. Maoist3 has been so good at answering everything, too. I understand the Harrington passage is not easily answered by straightforward, dogmatic, reactionary statements, but I thought it would at least be acknowledged.

Now my feelings are all hurt and junk.

vox


maoist3 replies for the Maoist Internationalist Movement:

Well Vox, you quoted the following from
Vietnam War supporter Harrington:
"Communism in all its existing forms (and there are obviously differences of a considerable, and even murderously antagonistic, significance among them) is a system of bureaucratic collectivism in which the state owns the means of production and a party bureaucracy owns the state by means of a totalitarian monopoly of political power."

The reason I ignored this thing
from you Vox is that we don't have
anything in common. You see Malte is moderating
this Che-Lives thing and Che said he was a communist
and he died trying to set up another front in Bolivia to
drain away Yankee troops from Vietnam.

Peacenicked throws around the names of Marx,
Lenin and Trotsky. And even Stormin Norman gets
involved by implying Peacenicked is on my side instead
of corrupted by his side of the class struggle.

You on the other hand, Vox, are not claiming
to be for communism. In fact, I wish you would
work harder and recruit Peacenicked and Malte here,
so they would not abuse Marx so much. They
clearly belong with you.

My goal is communism and you either do not
share that goal or think it is self-defeating.
However, if it will make you feel better,
I will direct the same question as before, but
to YOU, but I warn you that since
you don't care about the common man
the way a communist does, this is not
likely to satisfy you much. How's that.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K18832071
That's
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/life...xpectussr2.html (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/lifeexpectussr2.html)

My question is now a DEMAND. Show me
somewhere, something better in all of world
history for the common man up to the year 1950.

Spare me your sophisms, and show me.


(Edited by maoist3 at 6:08 am on Aug. 12, 2002)

[vox]

maoist3,

Thank you for replying. I'm feeling a little fiesty tonight and your post serves me well.

Anyone who read the passage I posted from Harrington, with which I agree completely, would understand the name-calling that maoist3 uses as points.

Maoist3 says: "My goal is communism and you either do not share that goal or think it is self-defeating."

I think neither of the two (hint for the newcomers: this is the fallacy of the excluded middle, which states that two alternatives are given as if they are the only two that exist. Clearly, this is not the case.) If you want Communism as it manifested under Stalin, then no, I'm not with you at all, for Harrington, I believe, showed that Stalinism had nothing at all to do with Marx. You did not argue this point in your response.

Also, you say, "You on the other hand, Vox, are not claiming to be for communism."

Really? When did I say I was against it? I did, of course, imply that I'm against Stalinism, but Harrington showed, I think pretty effectively, that Stalin DID NOT HELP THE PROLETARIAT. Isn't that the case, maoist3?

How can you, using Marx, state that Authoritarian Collectivism is Marxist communism?

I notice that you only attack me (and others who had nothing to do with my post, such as Peacenicked and Malte) but you don't address at all what Harrington had to say. NOT AT ALL. JUST LIKE A CAPITALIST WHO AVOIDS THE ARGUMENT.

So, if you have something to say, please do. Otherwise, shut your hole.

What's truly laughable is that you say I don't support the common man. On what is this based? Because I don't support the elitism that Stalin established YOU say I don't support the common man? That's rubbish, plain and simple.

The fact is, you're here supporting a nonrepresentative system, based on Stalinism, and when confronted with the idiocy of Stalinism, all you do is make groundless accusations against me, not quoting me at all anywhere (though I've left messages all over this board).

The fact is, when you see the reality of Stalinism, as my Harrington quote so clearly showed, you DON'T EVEN ADDRESS IT, but rather you attack me, like every right-winger on this forum has done at one time or another.

The fact is, you didn't provide ONE SINGLE SENTENCE that refuted what Harrington said. You've admitted he is right by not saying a single thing in response, and that admission means that YOU ARE WRONG.

You're done here, maoist3. Go and lick your wounds. You didn't provide a SENTENCE against Harrington.

I'm not stupid enough to mistake totalitarian oppression as Marxism. I can only believe that you are.

vox

[peaccenicked]

Quote: from maoist3 on 6:00 am on Aug. 12, 2002
.


My goal is communism and you either do not
share that goal or think it is self-defeating.
However, if it will make you feel better,
I will direct the same question as before, but
to YOU, but I warn you that since
you don't care about the common man
the way a communist does, this is not
likely to satisfy you much. How's that.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K18832071
That's
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/life...xpectussr2.html (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/lifeexpectussr2.html)

My question is now a DEMAND. Show me
somewhere, something better in all of world
history for the common man up to the year 1950.

Spare me your sophisms, and show me.


(Edited by maoist3 at 6:08 am on Aug. 12, 2002)

This is all you provide and have provided to defend stalinism. Comparative death rates. This indicator says what Stalinism outdid Capitalism for a certain period of time in this area.
Join the Capis on this board who say the US is doing more for the common man than communism did for anyone. Economic criterion alone is not enough.
The crudity of your communism is sickening.
The political culture of the population is the first measure of socialism.
Eating under mass ideological slavery is not the same as eating under freedom be it stalinist or capitalist.
You want a ''communism'' of well kept prisoners.
Really, I think you are sick through and through.
Socialism is a form of organisation in which the proletariat become the ruling class.
This was not evidated in soviet Russia. Lenin called it a peasants and workers state with gross bureauctatic deformations. Stalin only made these deformations worse.
What in hell is that got to do with socialism or proletarian rule?

[maoist3]

Quote: from vox on 6:33 am on Aug. 12, 2002
maoist3,
Anyone who read the passage I posted from Harrington, with which I agree completely, would understand the name-calling that maoist3 uses as points.

Maoist3 says: "My goal is communism and you either do not share that goal or think it is self-defeating."

I think neither of the two (hint for the newcomers: this is the fallacy of the excluded middle, which states that two alternatives are given as if they are the only two that exist. Clearly, this is not the case.) If you want Communism as it manifested under Stalin, then no, I'm not with you at all, for Harrington, I believe, showed that Stalinism had nothing at all to do with Marx. You did not argue this point in your response.

vox


maoist3 replies for MIM: I'm sorry Vox, but it appears
you are unaware that Harrington did not call himself
a communist, Stalinist or otherwise, no need for discussing excluded middles.

Yeah, I know you probably heard it
a lot from Republicans that "Democrats=Communists,"
but alas, it's not true. If it were true, we'd see
that Stormin Norman here able to address what I asked
him. Harrington was a Democratic Party activist
specifically and openly opposed to communism
and if you push too much harder he's gonna start
twisting in his grave.

I realize you may not be able to interpret
what Harrington said, what with poor high school reading
instruction these days, but it does not change the fact
that we have nothing in common via that quote
you posted. There's nothing to discuss except the
FACT that you are trying to change the subject.

And like I said, best of luck recruiting Peacenicked and Malte.

[new democracy]

IF YOU ASK ME MAOIST3 IS AN EXEMPLE OF HOW MAOISM IS A CULT. I REMEMBER THAT IN MY THREAD "PEOPLE WAR IN PERU" WHEN I CONDEM SHINING PATH HE SAID THAT I SUPPORT CAPITALISM WHEN I AM ANTI CAPITALIST. HE DID NOT SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THEIR DRUG TRADING, ATTECKS ON CIVILIANS, AND THEIR BRUTALITY. THEY ALSO ACT CRASY IF YOU SAID "SHINING PATH" INSTEAD OF COMMUNIST PARTY OF PERU.

[Mazdak]

The Shining path are freedom fighters. As they themselve said, what do you do with an old shoe? you discard it. The same is what should be done to the government and capitalists in peru.

[Guest]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 3:08 am on Aug. 12, 2002

Stalinism is a worse ideology than capitalism because it paints the liberation of the working class as the callous disregard for human life for economic gain. Capitalism merely
tries to tie its interests with workers interests.



maoist3 replies for MIM: There you have
it Stormin Norman. Peacenicked has more in common
with you than me: "I-told-you-so."

[maoist3]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 6:51 am on Aug. 12, 2002
[quote]Quote: from maoist3 on 6:00 am on Aug. 12, 2002

This is all you provide and have provided to defend stalinism. Comparative death rates. This indicator says what Stalinism outdid Capitalism for a certain period of time in this area.

maoist3 replies for MIM: Your first sentence
and sentence fragment is a lie.
I posted links to not just one table but several
tables and also whole books.

Because of idiots like you, Malte is going to accuse
me of "spamming." Here we go again:
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/stalin.html
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/phil...ilviolence.html (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/philviolence.html)


Your last sentence above is the first descent
from the mountain of your Idealist dogma.
And although the fact that the USSR was
catching up to and beating
the U$A when Stalin was around attracted much
nationalist attention, the real point of the table
is the speed with which the change happened.

Now you let Stormin Norman and other cappies
have their way with you, because you are unable
to see that what Stalin did was in fact the FASTEST
improvement of life expectancy in humyn history
prior to that point. What your cappie friends are talking about
took centuries to achieve at the expense of slaves, Indians etc.
For a non-imperialist country suffering starvation, homelessness
etc., the U$A was never a realistic model, and too slow anyway.

As for your crap about slavery and well-fed prisoners,
and economics not being everything, well that's
what non-Marxists said to Marx. (And Bush said
to Clinton for that matter!) Don't get pissed with
me. Your target is Marx. But if you think it's easier
to eliminate massive prison systems, state thuggery
and slavery when the people are in such a weak position
that they are not fed, clothed, sheltered etc.,
it's not likely you have the capability to understand Marx

anyway, and it does not surprise me then that you target me instead.
You still need to figure out why
Marx wrote a "critique of critical criticism."

(Edited by maoist3 at 8:06 pm on Aug. 12, 2002)


(Edited by maoist3 at 8:10 pm on Aug. 12, 2002)

[maoist3]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 3:08 am on Aug. 12, 2002
economic improvements in the Stalinist world have less to do with positive socialism than a lack of BEING PLUNDERED BY imperialism.


[email protected] replies: I see, and you would have
us believe that Stalin had nothing to do with
not being plundered by imperialism, that it was an
accident that under his pathbreaking socialist leadership
never seen in the world before, the life expectancy
increased more quickly than ever before in huymn
history.

Then how come under Khruschev--who called
Stalin "criminal"--improvements in mortality rates
decelerated and then reversed? How come Mao
following Stalin had the exact same accomplishment
as Stalin?

Can History possibly speak any more loudly and any more factually to you?
If you want to spread your
Liberal panaceas, go ahead, but do not call them
"Marxist" and don't claim to be for the commoner.

Again, I'm not interested in your various verbal
sophisms: show me where progress was greater
than under Stalin in any society in any
time prior to 1950. Sell me a car and quit talking about
their blueprints.

(Edited by maoist3 at 8:26 pm on Aug. 12, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

''As for your crap about slavery and well-fed prisoners,
and economics not being everything, well that's
what non-Marxists said to Marx. (And Bush said
to Clinton for that matter!) Don't get pissed with
me. Your target is Marx. ''

You are one god almighty liar. Lying for Stalin against Marx. I doubt very much that your statistics are correct.
In fact they look exactly like the sort of state propaganda that had very little to do with what was going on actually. Managers falsified figures in fear of State reprisal. Your paradise was a pile of useless paper from the office of the politbureau.
Marx understood crude communism one hundred times better than you. You are an outright enemy of Marx's thought, socialism, and the very notion of truth.

[maoist3]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 10:45 pm on Aug. 12, 2002
I doubt very much that your statistics are correct.


maoist3 replies for MIM: In other words your
Almighty Dogma tells you from the recesses of your
feeble mind to question facts without offering any of
your own. It's called lacking scientific integrity and very
revealing in it own right, because it's always easier
to dismiss facts than to engage them or actually
replace them if they are wrong.

Your dogma gives you an easy way out, no stats
required. You are so far detached from reality
you imagine that China became a billion people
by shooting every other persyn like in your Trotskyist
fairytales.

I can almost guarantee a "Black Book of Communism"-
type-selective-patches-of-data response coming from
some moron soon. But I warn you in advance,
the figures presented are OVERALL figures
and give the OVERALL picture and I won't accept
anything less than OVERALL stats to replace them
as being anything other than lacking scientific integrity.

(Probably the CIA is working on it somewhere,
cooking up some new stats now that they realize
the hole in their strategy.)

(Edited by maoist3 at 11:12 pm on Aug. 12, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

''Postscript: end of counterrevolution
In the ensuing debate members of the Spartacist League described Hillel Ticktin's views as "anti-Soviet" and "standard anti-communist stuff". Comrade Ticktin replied:

The Spartacist League has consistently denounced me for at least 18 years. I remember the remarks made by them in San Francisco in 1981 (interestingly, one of the people who denounced me then is now on the right). Nevertheless, at least the SL is still around - unlike a number of other left groups. However, you ought to take account of something very simple. You are extremely isolated. I do not actually think that that is a good thing. It would be a good thing if the left could talk to each other in a reasonable fashion and actually develop, rather than repeating the same old slogans. I was denounced in 1981 for exactly the same thing - and I am prepared to repeat it 100 times over.

The problem with your analysis is not just that you have no analysis, but that it is not based on reality. Just reply to these simple facts. How many workers in the Soviet Union supported the regime? How many workers could possibly have supported Stalin under the post-1929 conditions? They did not - they were totally opposed to the system. And just consider the world around you. How many people outside the Soviet Union actually support what existed there? Very few.

Why isolate yourselves like that? If you are socialists, be socialists - do not go and support something which was an absolute horror in the world and which even today is retarding the possibility of socialism. What you are doing by saying these things is putting people off, avoiding the possibility of socialism and failing to see the nature of the period. For you it must be a period of reaction. But for me it is not a period of reaction. The end of the Soviet Union is a victory. I am sure you will denounce me for saying these terrible things - but I am prepared to be denounced.

It is critical that the Soviet Union has been removed. We are in a completely new period now, a period of the possibility of change. It is not a reactionary period. Trotsky talked about a period of counterrevolution. We have come to the end of that period. The end of the counterrevolutionaries saw the end of the counterrevolution. That is what we are talking about.

We have to analysise this new period, not repeat old slogans.''

Orwell:''He controls the present controls the past''

Stalin controlled much of that past. You deny the circumstances that brought about his monstrous role, you deny the historical recording of his subterfuge of truth. The world will not listen to your lies. You are finished.
The archives have been opened and the truth is gradually trickling out.
http://www.russianarchives.com/rao/catalog...rac_pozn_7.html (http://www.russianarchives.com/rao/catalogues/trans/trac/trac_pozn_7.html)

[Guest]

Hey, this is mazdak. I cant log in... Whats going on here?? Is there an error on my computer or was i booted or something??

[peaccenicked]

Here is a link to the Stalin era archive project.
http://www.utoronto.ca/serap/bull95.htm

[maoist3]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 12:57 am on Aug. 13, 2002
The archives have been opened and the truth is gradually trickling out.
http://www.russianarchives.com/rao/catalog...rac_pozn_7.html (http://www.russianarchives.com/rao/catalogues/trans/trac/trac_pozn_7.html)



maoist3 replies:
In other words, Peacenicked does not have any facts
to refute me with, but s/he is banking on a revision
of history, a major rewrite, and s/he'll get back to
us as soon as the CIA is done with it.

It's another dodge.

It's also laughable to hear from the never-born
Ticktinist movement that we Stalin followers
are "dead." Ask the U.$. troops in the Philippines
if we are dead. Answer why the Brits just sent
$10 million and the U.$. $20 million to repress us in Nepal alone.
Enquire why a "dead" movement's journalist
was just imprisoned for 20 years in Turkey if the movement
is dead. Find out why Stalin is still the 2nd favorite Russian
leader mentioned in public opinion polls
not in bourgeois Western academic and theological circles but
among the Russian people.
As someone already mentioned on this
community, there are more Turkish followers of Stalin than
total mushy "socialists" of all kinds in the u$A
combined, so you need to get out more before you call us "dead."

Hearing from a Ticktinist is rather like hearing from the
inventors of chicken soup that it's a cure for AIDS,
because after all, the scientifically constructed drugs did not really cure it yet.

Keep on dreaming Peacenicked: it's all you're good at.

BTW, why haven't you called Lu Xun, W.E.B. Du Bois
and Ernest Hemingway "robots" yet? I found
a perfect source for your next article:
http://www.hollywoodinvestigator.com/2002/minds.htm

(Edited by maoist3 at 5:20 am on Aug. 13, 2002)


(Edited by maoist3 at 5:23 am on Aug. 13, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

Fact is Stalin falsified history and you are saying he did not,why?
The struggles in Nepal and Turkey are not the private property of maoists. I would say maoists are influential in Nepal more than Turkey that has a larger proletarian base.
The fact that Stalinist/Maoists can hijack guerilla movements is a sorry state of affairs.
Mainly because they will bring about nothing in the long term but a return to the market on new terms for the new elite.

How come when you point to what was ''actually existing socialism'' to workers in the advanced countries,
what they point to is mass murder, poverty, shoddy goods, total absence of dissent and all you can say to them is when they point to this is that politics is a dirty business stay out of it.
You arrogant little blowhead, The facts about Stalinism are hard to find because Stalin supressed the truth.
When are you going TO WAKE UP?
You are insistentent that the socialist movement carries your perverse baggage.
You are dead, on this screen. You write the words of the fading ghost of stalinism, which has only a small remnants of pernicious influence left on this planet.

[maoist3]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 5:41 am on Aug. 13, 2002
When are you going TO WAKE UP?



maoist3 replies:
Why would I ever wake up speaking with you?
You are so boring, no facts, all rhetoric and piss.
Now you are launching into a justification for
why you cannot argue factually and yet you expect
people to take you seriously,
and can't understand why they don't. Snore, snore, snore.

Will it ever occur to the know-nothings to shut up
until they know something? Peacenicked should at
least wait until the next edition of CIA memoranda
cross h/h desk.


(Edited by maoist3 at 7:46 am on Aug. 28, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

If you believe that anti stalinism is a cia plot, it means you have no idea what is going on in the world.
I would go see someone about your paranoia and leave politics to people who are not quite as mad as you.
The evidence that you are wrong is staring you in the face, all you do is mime the mim, like some fundamentalist quoting the bible.
Not only that a bible that excuses mass murder by turning it into an exercise in cultural relativism. The majority is not always right but that is unaccepatable to most people,including me.
Malte is right, you should fuck off and take your sectarian garbage with you.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 8:21 am on Aug. 14, 2002)

[vox]

Maoist3,

You wrote, "I'm sorry Vox, but it appears
you are unaware that Harrington did not call himself
a communist, Stalinist or otherwise, no need for discussing excluded middles."

I'll ask for everyone when I say, huh? The fallacy of the excluded middle has nothing to do with Harrington at all. I mentioned it in response to a silly and fruitless choice YOU provided in regard to ME. Did you really think that no one here would notice that?

"Harrington was a Democratic Party activist
specifically and openly opposed to communism
and if you push too much harder he's gonna start
twisting in his grave."

See, here's the thing, Maoist3. Regardless of however Harrington self-identified, the fact remains that what he wrote, and I quoted, is a valid criticism of Stalinism, one that you have yet to respond to. Though you accuse me of trying to change the subject, in reality it's you who will not answer the subject at hand. Rather, you seek only to villify the opponent rather than the argument. We can add the ad hominem attack to your list of logical fallacies.

"I realize you may not be able to interpret
what Harrington said, what with poor high school reading
instruction these days, but it does not change the fact
that we have nothing in common via that quote
you posted. There's nothing to discuss except the
FACT that you are trying to change the subject."

I understand perfectly well what Harrington wrote, which is why I quoted it. You're here supporting Stalin, yet you show yourself to be absurdly unable to answer this criticism of Stalin's circular logic. I'm not at all trying to change the subject.

Perhpas Maoist3 will only answer criticisms of Stalinism from Stalinists? That, it appears, is the case, and in that cocoon of circular thinking Maoist3 will stay forever insulated from the reality that surrounds him.

vox


(Edited by vox at 7:42 pm on Aug. 14, 2002)

[RedCeltic]

Yes, Michael Harrington was anti-Communist. He was however a Marxist and a Democratic Socialist. True.. his most famous book, "The Other America" propelled LBJ's "War on Poverty."

However Harrington also wrote:

Socialism Past & Future, Toward a Democratic Left, Twilight of Capitalism, etc... any of which I would advise you to pick up.

As for supporting Vietnam... so what? That doesn't make what the man said less true. Now I wish I didn't take that quote I had in my sig of his from "The Other America"...

BTW: A Communist is a Marxist-Leninist, not just a Marxist.

[komsomol]

What? A Marxist is a Communist. Communism was the economic dimension of Marx' views.

[vox]

Moloch,

I don't want to speak for Red Celtic, but Harrington (I think it was in Socialism: Past and Future but I'm not certain) distinguished between a capital C Communist and a small c communist, using the term Communist to identify those who supported the USSR. I find this a convenient way to avoid confusion when using the word, but I don't believe it's been universally accepted. More's the pity.

vox

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from MOLOCH on 12:11 am on Aug. 15, 2002
A Marxist is a Communist. Communism was the economic dimension of Marx' views.


People often exaggerate Marx's role in Communism. He wasn't actually the first communist, and Marxism is only a type of Communism.

[peaccenicked]

In Marx's writings he uses the words ''socialism'' and ''communism'' interchangeably. He was not the first but he and Engels claimed that along with Morgan and Dietzgen that they were the first Scientific socialists or communists. Morgan and Deitzgen had both reached his conclusions independently. I could say I am a Morganist or a Deitzgenite and I would be saying the same thing,
at least according to Marx, if my deductions are correct.

The modern day use of the word 'communist' is problematic because capitalist proaganda is so deeply inbedded in public consciousness and that is very much about equating communism with Stalinism. The term 'socialist' because it has a broader tradition, and it used to be adopted by reformists, is safer to use.
The significance of words in communication is important,
and I dont consider it unprincipled to drop the word ''communist'' in general. However when asked I will say yes . These are difficult times and I dont want to fetishise Stalinism which is perhaps the worst trait of many Trotskyists who cant speak a sentence without using the word 'Stalinist'

[maoist3]

Quote: from vox on 10:39 pm on Aug. 14,
2002
See, here's the thing, Maoist3.
Regardless of however Harrington self-identified,
the fact remains that what he wrote, and I quoted,
is a valid criticism of Stalinism, one that you
have yet to respond to. Though you accuse me of
trying to change the subject, in reality it's you
who will not answer the subject at hand. Rather,
you seek only to villify the opponent rather than
the argument. We can add the ad hominem attack to
your list of logical fallacies.

(Edited by vox at 7:42 pm on Aug. 14, 2002)


maoist3 replies for MIM: Vox, I already told you
at the beginning in this thread that we
are not talking about the same thing and therefore
I'm not interested in the discussion. First of all
that is true because we were talking about a
mortality table when you showed up and ignored it,
a table showing the greatest accomplishment of the
humyn species in the shortest period of time up to
1950 when it came to a specific question, namely
the needs of the common persyn. You have yet to
address that, and instead have changed the
subject.

Secondly, Vox, there is nothing for me to attack
ad hominem, because the debate was never joined.
Marx believed he was a scientist, and according to
the British people who voted for him at BBC, he
was the genius of the last millenium. Does that
mean a plurality of the British public is
communists? Of course not.

Any number of people call themselves "post-
Marxist" for that matter, by which they mean they
have studied Marx (and often consider it the duty
of any intelligent persyn) and go from there but
do not consider themselves Marxist. Harrington can
be called "Marxologist" (Marxology=the study of Marx)
like most intellectuals at
all concerned with public life, but it does not
mean he had a scientific agenda that I find at all
interesting. While I agree with guerrillaradio
that Marxism is only the most significant type of
communism, Harrington was no type of communist at
all.

Vox, when you say "valid criticism of Stalinism,"
I might ask "valid according to what class?" But I
don't even need to go that far. Is it "valid" to
say that he should be criticized for
collectivizing agriculture? Some would say so, but
I'm not interested in those folks either. I will
show them the mortality tables and get the same
reaction--"so what"?

When Samuel P. Huntington came up with the
strategy/justification to bomb the countryside
during the Vietnam War, he referred to both Marx
and Lenin on a scientific basis. Nonetheless,
Huntington is somewhere to the right of Atilla the
Hun. Likewise, Hitler adopted much Lenin. So what?
Just because Huntington made reference to Marx,
Lenin and Mao in his work, am I now obliged to
discuss whether or not Huntington was right that
bombing the countryside was the best thing for
u.$. imperialism to do or be guilty of not
defending Marx, Lenin and Mao? Of course not.
Huntington discussed Marx, Lenin and Mao to be
able to improve the chances for U.$. control of
Vietnam. Harrington had a similar agenda. Hitler
used Lenin for the Aryan Race and the march of the
Third Reich, but I certainly have no intention of
joining in with him in a discussion of the best
way to advance the Lebensraum. So Vox, I'm
completely willing to admit that a discussion of
the Stalin era mortality table does not help you
with the Harrington type agenda question. I have
no need to make ad hominem attacks. There is no
debate between us: like two ships passing in the
night. While I agree with guerrillaradio that
Marxism is only the most significant type of
communism, Harrington was no type of communist at
all.

I'm not saying you, Malte and Peacenicked are far,
far apart. You are actually quite close. The first
reaction of Malte and Peacenicked is to ignore
the mortality tables and talk about "dissent"
and other stuff that people can't live on. Clearly,
the proletarian agenda is not on the tip of their tongues.
However, as soon as we get to talking about Che, we are
talking about the comparative success of people
calling themselves communist. Now, Peacenicked is
not interested in comparative historical
questions, only the moral imperatives of what Marx
thoroughly derided as "critical criticism" (of
Stalin in Peacenicked's case). Hence, Peacenicked
really belongs in the same boat as Harrington, but
just isn't admitting it yet, and you should therefore
have great success with Peacenicked.

I don't expect people to drop study of Marx: I
realize it is embarassing to any self-respecting
intellectual to do so. However, I do think that
Peacenicked and Malte ought to join Vox in
"Marxology."

[RedCeltic]

Quote: from MOLOCH on 6:11 pm on Aug. 14, 2002
What? A Marxist is a Communist. Communism was the economic dimension of Marx' views.


Technically you're correct. However, modern times require modern definitions. I have yet to encounter any group that considers themselves "Communist" but simply Marxist and not any form of Marxist-Leninist.

It's like saying for example that everyone in the "New World"... North & South America are technically "Americans". However, if a Canadian was to visit you in Scotland and say, "I'm an American"... you wouldn't say, "Oh? Which country?" you would assume he meant the United States of America.

So are all Marxists Communists? Going by the technical meaning of the word... yes. However modern associations of the word mean that when someone says 'Communist' the reply is naturally, "Stalin or Trotsky."


(Edited by RedCeltic at 7:35 am on Aug. 15, 2002)

[Edelweiss]

I'm so sick of this dogamatic "I'm more Marxist/Communist than you" discussions. Maybe I should close this thread, it's leading nowhere.
btw: Maoist, I know I can't really accuse you that, but how came that so many Maoists are turning Nazi's? Especially in Germany, some leading Neo-Nazi's were Maoists before. Well, I would say they just changed their leader, not much of their ideology. The "volkish" thinking is the same. (there is no English word for "Volk" or "völkisch", so I had to invent one, I hope you understand what I mean).

[Guest]

Quote: from Ernesto Guevara on 11:30 pm on July 21, 2002
All stalin did was mess up the soviet union. Lenin tried hard ,Kruschev tried hard but stalin didnt. The only good thing stalin did was not surrender to the germans. Thaz it.


You're a total dumbass, thats all I can say.

[Red Revolution]

The only credit to be given to stalin is how he managed to rally loads of soviet conscripts and build so many T-34's and greatly improved the morale of the Soviet people during WW2

[peaccenicked]

''Vox, when you say "valid criticism of Stalinism,"
I might ask "valid according to what class?" But I
don't even need to go that far. Is it "valid" to
say that he should be criticized for
collectivizing agriculture? Some would say so, but
I'm not interested in those folks either. I will
show them the mortality tables and get the same
reaction--"so what"?
Fuck you, you bastard and that is a working class attitude and that is for my class. You dont speak for my class and if you did I would be the first against the wall.

If not the first to blow the wall up. I would stuff the word ''valid'' right down your throat. You are more pig ignorant than Storming Norman.
My criticism of you here is not 'valid'. You dont give a toss about validity. Winning recruits for your cult. is your only fucked up concern. Valid.
Mortality rates are not the measure of communism, merely your idiocy

Tell me what do you think of Marx's opinion of the position of woman in society.

[peaccenicked]

That is the way Marx measured Society.

[maoist3]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 4:01 am on Aug. 17, 2002

Tell me what do you think of Marx's opinion of the position of woman in society.



maoist3 replies: What a jerk! Does it not occur
to you that you haven't even refuted that mortality
table with regard to the position of wimmin?
Or are you paid to say this shit?

Do you think infant mortality rates go down like
that in that table of the Stalin era mortality rates
without a vast improvement in the health
of wimmin? Do you think you and the CIA
will be able to rewrite THAT? What doctors are you
going to find to back you up? What kind of insensitive
idiot ARE you? And detached from reality as you
are, HOW THE FUCK DID CHINA GET TO BE A BILLION
PEOPLE? Moron.

Now you claim to speak in the name of wimmin?
Where has there been greater and faster progress
for wimmin than in Bolshevik revolutions in Russia
and China? Again, my refrain, "SHOW ME!"

Wimmin DIE in childbirth, thus contributing hugely
to infant and overall mortality rates--WHEN healthcare
and basic nutrition is fucked up by capitalism and/or semi-feudalism.

You are LYING to wimmin by opposing Stalin and Mao
with your crap about Stalin and Mao being "reactionary"
and "enemies of the working-class." It is YOU who
are the enemy of the working-class, attacking those
who make progress while finding capitalism superior
to "Stalinism."

[new democracy]

look who is here!!! maoist3!!! my favorite cult member!!!

[peaccenicked]

A piss poor attempt to whitewash your position.
Woman are hundred times better off in advanced capitalism than in a society that orders them to make babies. All you are doing is defending out dated decadent outbreach of private property posing as communism.
''Show me'' Lives worth living. Not fucking state lies.
WHAT YOU SAY
We murder people but everybody is happy.
We keep people alive better than the capitalists did
which just about nobody believes and that includes me.
Your right to well being is as good as the authority that provides.

You are a slave promoting slavery.
Economics can improve peoples lives, if that was so, I do not believe the statistics of professional liars but the Form of society, the way people are actually organised determines its nature.

It does not help you because you think 'validity' is a CIA cover story and I think you dont really believe it yourself,
that life as a doctor in the USSR was a full time horror story, not for what you did but what you were expected to forget.
Wax merry about social achievements as registered by the frightened bureaucrats all you want.
The essence of Marx, who you dont read or understand,
saw through these crude and lower forms of ''communism'' all he wanted was to give human beings a starting place, in real social relations, not in the perversity you shamelessly parade.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 5:14 am on Aug. 17, 2002)

[maoist3]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 5:04 am on Aug. 17, 2002
A piss poor attempt to whitewash your position.
Woman are hundred times better off in advanced capitalism than in a society that orders them to make babies. (Edited by peaccenicked at 5:14 am on Aug. 17, 2002)


maoist3 replies: Well then Peacenicked,
if you are correct, then surely you will do
a survey of wimmin who have lived BOTH
in the West and in Mao's China or the
Stalin-era Soviet Union and find out where
they think wimmin were more liberated. Unfortunately,
for you, it's been done, and the West is not
best, contrary to cappies like you.

Then after that, if you are an anti-imperialist,
you will go even further and discount those
wimmin's voices who said they were better
off because of the exploitation of other
nations by the Western capitalist, i.e.
imperialist countries. In other words, you
will find a lot of people who think the living
standard was higher in the West obviously, but not a lot
of people who think that at a given level
of development Stalinism/Maoism is inferior
for wimmin. But go ahead,
if this interests you, it's the first materialist
interest you've shown in COMPARING REALITIES
as opposed to constructing rhetoric derived from
dogmas to criticize Stalin with.

That's how a materialist proceeds, by comparing
realities. Of course, you are free to argue that
wimmin in Taiwan obeying Confucianist strictures
are better off than wimmin in Mao's China, but
you'd be LYING again. And do answer us which
is better off, if the liberation of wimmin is the
index you TRULY want to use. For that matter,
you can compare advanced Japan with Mao's
mostly peasant China and tell us which is
better for wimmin, because Mao DID make that
much difference for wimmin.

We recommend that people read our MIM Theory #2/3
drawing actual comparisons between the Soviet
Union, China and Albania on the one side and the
capitalist countries on the other. We will see that
cappies like Peacenicked are lying.

BTW, Peacenicked, nice dodge concerning the FACT
that infant mortality rates derive MOSTLY from the
health of the mother.

[peaccenicked]

Your surveys are untruthful, I dont trust them at all.
All you are showing is slavish blind faith.
A materialist starts with reliable sources.
Everything not stalinist is CIA in your ficticious nightmare. What sources would you accept because if you really want to know I will give you as much trustworthy information as I have cross referenced, but I think is pointless you are not interested in anything outside your idealised class identity.
Frankly I think you dont give a shit.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 6:28 am on Aug. 17, 2002)

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Michael De Panama on 7:41 pm on July 17, 2002
Gacky, you closet Stalinist.




he's not a closet stalinist. He's just a little weird. that's all.

[maoist3]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 6:24 am on Aug. 17, 2002
Your surveys are untruthful, I dont trust them at all.
All you are showing is slavish blind faith.
A materialist starts with reliable sources.
Everything not stalinist is CIA in your ficticious nightmare. What sources would you accept because if you really want to know I will give you as much trustworthy information as I have cross referenced, but I think is pointless you are not interested in anything outside your idealised class identity.
Frankly I think you dont give a shit.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 6:28 am on Aug. 17, 2002)



maoist3 replies: Still nothing to say about reality, huh?

Why not ANSWER the questions with facts for a change?
1. Was Taiwan better for wimmin's liberation or Mao's
China? (For those who do not know, the reactionary
upper classes fleeing Mao's revolution went to the
Chinese province of Taiwan in 1949 and Mao never
invaded Taiwan, so it became a U.$. satellite.)

2. Are you an admirer of conditions for wimmin
in Japan or don't you think Mao's China was better?

3. Was the condition of Armenian, Georgian,
Azeri, Tajiki wimmin better before or during Stalin's
rule? In other words, do you think Central Asia
was better off under Islam? How did national
minority wimmin fair without Stalin in 2002?
Have you seen the movie "Yol" about Turkey's
wimmin who did not have a Stalin-led revolution?

4. Where were wimmin more advanced in the
professions--tiny backward Albania or the united $tates?

Peacenicked is everywhere standing with institutional
capitalist violence and reaction against the status of wimmin.

[Mazdak]

Maost- are you a robot or xsomething? why do all your posts begin "maoist replies to" and such. It seems as though you are like a robot or something. Are you a real person even?

I know it sounds a little stupid but seriously, do you have like, cybernetic implants or something?!

[maoist3]

Quote: from Mazdak on 3:41 am on Aug. 19, 2002
Maost- are you a robot or xsomething? why do all your posts begin "maoist replies to" and such. It seems as though you are like a robot or something. Are you a real person even?

I know it sounds a little stupid but seriously, do you have like, cybernetic implants or something?!

maoist3 replies: Yes, I am a robot. Do you have
something against robots?

[American Kid]

I gotta admit, that makes ya pause and take stock for a moment, doesn't it.........?

[Mazdak]

I have nothing against robots.

[peaccenicked]

meoewvist dead head
How does a few social gains for women add up to support of mass murder. You are just a fucking idiot.
I suggest you stay out my face.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 1:24 pm on Aug. 22, 2002)

[maoist3]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 1:22 pm on Aug. 22, 2002
meoewvist dead head
How does a few social gains for women add up to support of mass murder.
(Edited by peaccenicked at 1:24 pm on Aug. 22, 2002)


[email protected] replies:
YOU were the one to point to Marx and say that
the status of wimmin was the measure of a society.
Did you change your mind, now that you realize
the societies following Stalin's road would emerge
the victor in such a comparison? Are you lacking
in scientific integrity AGAIN? Why can't you just
admit that you are WRONG, given that you have
had it proven in public, right here.

YOU raised the question of wimmin
in this thread in order
to get out of having to produce your own
account of the life expectancy gains in the USSR
and China.

Of course you are very wise to back off, because
yes, you did completely lose the argument on
wimmin as well.

So now you admit that wimmin in countries following
Stalin's road made gains. A gain is "progress" peacenicked,
not counterrevolution. Get it through your
thick skull.

And if you are going to go back to your "reaction"-
in-Stalin's-USSR argument, then do so with comparisons to other
countries or admit it is all a product of your feeble religious mind.

[Edelweiss]

Here's a link for you, maoist3:
http://www.cultinformation.org.uk/home.html

Get help, before it's too late! :)

[suffianr]

"LONG LIVE STALIN!!!"

Oh, get over it, man.

[maoist3]

Quote: from Malte on 4:49 pm on Aug. 22, 2002
Here's a link for you, maoist3:
http://www.cultinformation.org.uk/home.html

Get help, before it's too late! :)



[email protected] replies:
Malte, here is a link for you, from a web project concerned with preventing the resurgence of Nazism.
Get help.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J4F222691

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...ad-hominem.html (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)

[new democracy]

Quote: from lenin on 7:14 pm on July 17, 2002
you cannot take other opinions!

lol. a stalinist talking about freedom of speech. and stalin is dead!

[Mazdak]

ND Shut up. Malte isnt authoritarian. From what i have seen, although he says he isnt liberal, he sure as hell isnt a Stalinist. This is a place for leftists to have discussion yet so far i can count quite a few LEFTISTS who have been banned by malte. Excuses excuses.

And why not use your own arguments? This isnt a country. There is no reason to restrict FELLOW LEFTISTS.

[Subcomandante che]

Stalin is no great leader. He forced people to like him. He killed millions of his own people for no reason. He is a leader of injustice. he is a disgrace to the Russians. fuck stalin and people who support him and his stupid ass ideas.

[Field Marshal]

guys, just stop responding to these posts. He wants attention and he's going to keep making stupid threads like this again like he has before.

[Mazdak]

Lenin's IP was banned. He cant :(

[Marxman]

LONG BE DEAD STALIN and FUCK YOU for BETRAYING DEAR LENIN AND TROTSKY.

[Ymir]

I don't recall Stalin shooting Lenin and screaming "BETRAYER OF THE REVOLUTION!"

[Mazdak]

Fuck the trotskyists who are willing to betray their own comrades just to keep power for themselves.

Trotsky was an opportunist who started as a menshevik. Stalin Stuck with the Bolsheviks from the beginning. He never betrayed lenin. Trotsky was the traitor.

[Marxman]

Mazdak, don't miss CHILDRENS' CHANNEL's special show called "I love being brainwashed." I've heard they even assembled guests there, so you can join with the rest of the group. I'm sure they want candidates like you.

[Ymir]

Marxman didn't you used to be a Stalinist?

[MaxB]

Marxism, the religion of the failed.

[new democracy]

Quote: from MaxB on 5:17 pm on Sep. 22, 2002
Marxism, the religion of the failed.
super smart. i guess that is the reason that lenin and who was an aristocrat, became a marxist.

[Marxman]

Yeah, I used to be a Stalinist but I was never so foolish to slander anyone else than cappies.

But I see that and practice proved that Stalinists eat their young, so to speak.

Marxism is not a religion, by the way. Anyone who says that, lacks of complete ability of education.

[LeninCCCP]

Fuck Maoist's and Stalinist's more so on Maoist's he was a friggin dead head smokin opium and Stalin was just a murderor who singlehandedly ruined the Russian Military by killing his top people who "threatened" his power. What a fucking dumbass.

[zendo]

SUB COMANDANTE CHE

IF YOU HATE STALIN SO MUCH, THEN WHY THE HELL DO YOU CALL YOURSELF SUB COMANDANTE CHE HAHA

DONT YOU KNOW THAT STALIN WAS CHE GUEVARA'S INSPIRATION THAT LED HIM TO COMMUNISM???

ALLOW ME TO QUOTE CHE DIRECTLY

"In the so called mistakes of Stalin lies the difference between a revolutionary attitude and a revisionist attitude. You have to look at Stalin in the historical context in which he moves, you don't have to look at him as some kind of brute, but in that particular historical context . . . I have come to communism because of daddy Stalin and nobody must come and tell me that I mustn't read Stalin. I read him when it was very bad to read him. That was another time. And because I'm not very bright, and a hard-headed person, I keep on reading him. Especially in this new period, now that it is worse to read him. Then, as well as now, I still find a Seri of things that are very good."

AS YOU CAN SEE CHE GUEVARA HAD A GREAT DEAL OF ADMIRATION FOR COMRADE STALIN, AS ANY REAL LEARNED MARXIST WOULD

ANYONE AND I MEAN ANYONE THAT ADMIRES THE GREAT CHE GUEVARA MUST ALSO ADMIRE THE GREAT STALIN

OTHERWISE IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE AN IMBECILE OR A HYPOCRITE OR BOTH :lol: