Why are Stalinist, Stalinist?

[Nobody]

To all you Stalinist, what do you see that is great in a mass murder? Out of pure curosity, tell me what makes you what you are, other than misguided.

[canikickit]

It seems to me that the majority of people who wander around various places on the internet, talking about how Stalin was good because he did this, and Trotsky was bad was because of that other thing that happened are doing it because they have been brainwashed by pro-Stalin propaganda.

Too me, most of them appear to be people in their teens who, having discovered the internet, and Stalin in History, have read a few (or a fair few) articles on Stalin, and somehow become convinced that Stalin was the greatest thing in history.


I don't know.
They're not the only ones though.

p.s. it should, perhaps be noted that there are some people who admire many of Stalin's policy's, which they feel would benifit society (some of them can be a little obsessed :wink:).

(Edited by canikickit at 2:26 am on May 20, 2003)

[Pete]

I am afraid of people with a personality cult on anyone. Really, do you hate yourself that much? It is like you naming your self Trostky? WHY? WHY???

[Anonymous]

All hail Ayn Rand!

[Totalitarian]

Stalinism was the logical extension of Leninism.

[synthesis]

Quote: from Totalitarian on 7:18 am on May 20, 2003
Stalinism was the logical extension of Leninism. Exactly.

[Liberty Lover]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 3:29 am on May 20, 2003
All hail Ayn Rand!


How is Ayn pronounced?

[kylie]

Well although i would certainly not support stalinism or consider myself one, under Stalin some things did improve. Due to collectivisation, the USSR was transformed from a very backwards state(in terms of production) into a modern industrial power. From 1928 to 1938, while the impterialist states were under the great depression, the USSRs manufacturing output rose 600%. (the source of this is The rise and fall of great powers, Paul Kennedy).
That said, the idea that stalinism is the natural progression of leninism has no basis at all. Throughout Stalins career, he worked against Lenin, in terms of what Lenin wanted, and ideologically.

(Edited by feoric at 9:04 am on May 20, 2003)

[ComradeJunichi]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 8:57 am on May 20, 2003

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 3:29 am on May 20, 2003
All hail Ayn Rand!


How is Ayn pronounced?


Ann Rand

[Invader Zim]

Stalin had many of the charicteristics of Hitler, i would never support such a crime against humanity.

Even if one worker died to complete the 5 year plans they would not have been worth what they cost. Instead millions died, which makes them against all that leftists stand for.

[kylie]

Quote: from AK47 on 12:16 pm on May 20, 2003

Even if one worker died to complete the 5 year plans they would not have been worth what they cost. .
Even if this worker was one who had been put in a labour camp for a crime?
Or if an increase in the speed of producing goodX caused one industrial accident in which this worker died, but the product improved the health service?
Workers could be easily corrupted and used to aid counter-revolution, if the right security measures were not in place. So you think we should just let them carry on undermining the revolution, because they are workers?

[Liberty Lover]

Quote: from ComradeJunichi on 11:48 am on May 20, 2003
Ann Rand


Thanks. I was never quiet sure about that one.

[inessa1917]

i think that the most serious problem of the stalinism that it seriously simplifies the complicated questions and theories Marx, Engels, Lenin and the others deals with. (the economy doesn't work? well, it can only be caused by a sabotage, tell the stalinists.) the other main problem with stalinism is that there theory is always judged and ruled by the current changes of practice tactics. (that's how the revolutionary USSR could be easily turned a usual imperialistic country.)

this is a very easily digestible ideology, which is very actionist, so it can be attractive for all those who are enthusiastic with the thought of the communism but still, they can't see through easily the complicated historical happenings and philosophical questions in the world. (and they weren't able to enjoy the "great" effects of stalinism in work.)

[Cassius Clay]

'Stalinist', 'Stalinism' there's no such thing.

Why? Read the numerous threads in the archives. Stalin was not a murderer or anything of the sought. Other than the moustache he had no characteristics with Hitler. The reason I'm a 'Stalinist' is because the USSR under him was a society which proved that there is a alternative to Capitalism, Socialist relations were put into place for the first time and the society was far more democratic than any in the west. Sure mistakes were made and there were shortcomings, it would be stupid to deny this. We criticise Stalin for where he went wrong and at the same time we should acknowledge what he acheived. But if someone is going to tell me a extreme right-wing lie I will refute that everytime, whether it be here or anywhere else.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from feoric on 12:32 pm on May 20, 2003

Quote: from AK47 on 12:16 pm on May 20, 2003

Even if one worker died to complete the 5 year plans they would not have been worth what they cost. .

Even if this worker was one who had been put in a labour camp for a crime?
Or if an increase in the speed of producing goodX caused one industrial accident in which this worker died, but the product improved the health service?
Workers could be easily corrupted and used to aid counter-revolution, if the right security measures were not in place. So you think we should just let them carry on undermining the revolution, because they are workers?




Since when has it been a leftist proncipal to work criminals to death, that is mearly and horrid form of capital punishment, of which im agianst. So i stick by what i said.

As to industrial accidents, the workers should have been given better working conditions where such accidents do not occure. However even in the most efficent working enviroment i accept that such accidents do happen. So in that case what i said has an exception, but as well all know many innocent workers were worked to death for the "good" of "socioty".

[ComradeJunichi]

To the original question: "Stalinism" is not mass murder, the ideology is not about taking complete control and going around killing workers and throwing innocent perfect little people into evil gulags. How many socialist revolutions do you support in the world? Are there any socialist governments you support at all? If you support Cuba that could classify you as socialist but why is it if you support the Soviet Union you're labeled as the most evil anti-commie but commie Hitler Nazi Jew-hating gulag making worker killing Stalinist fuck? How idealistic will you get if you denounce every revolution that comes?

I'm just wondering, how did Stalin go against everything Lenin wanted?

I always question myself as how some people can be communist but denounce all socialist revolutions as "corrupt". Why bother believing in it if you always deny it put in practice? It's never going to be perfect, and you're not going to get absolute freedom of speech and absolute direct democracy.

Anyway, I'm going off topic. Why am I a "Stalinist"? Hmm, I don't think I am - but I have been told I've been infected with the Stalinitis disease. I do support the Soviet Union until 1953, I would still support the Soviet Union after 1953 opposed to the imperialists but that's another story. I think comrade Cassius says it best, criticism for Stalin goes along with respect for Stalin. We don't praise him as a god but as a revolutionary hero, people don't/shouldn't despise him and say everysingle thing about him is evil including his moustache.

[Nobody]

I won't deny that under Stalin the indusrty output f the CCCP was increased many times over. It is that the cost in lives was so high. Millions of innocents were put to death, either in work camps or in front of firing squads. That is the problem I have with Stalin. If you could prove that all these people had commimted hofficfic crimes, I would be more symathepic, but I have heard, from communists under Stalin, that many were killed for either disagreeing, or doing some silly thing, like breaking a shovel.

[Cassius Clay]

And precisly what 'millions' were these? I'm sure if we looked at every single case, we would see that many were guilty, alot were innocent. Hence whey thousands were released when they appealed there cases. Workers had the power to sack their own managers, I'm sure if some manager had the nerve to sack (which he couldn't even do) or worse yet attempt to arrest a worker for accidently breaking a shovel then he would be out faster than you can say 'Revolution'. And rightly so. Read 'In Search of Soviet Gold' by John Littlepage a a-political American who worked in the USSR from the late 20's to late 30's. He testify's to the fact that sabotage was going on.

BTW your just as likely to die in Russia today if your NOT in prison than if you were in prison in the USSR in the 1930's. As for modern Russian prisons themselves, there's no comparision.

[Invader Zim]

OK CC say that the millions (and it was millions) were all guilty of some crime or other, since when has it been a leftist principalt to issue the death sentance. It is a basic leftist principal to be against the death sentance. So there for Stalin is still guilty im my eyes whether or not thay were all just like Harold Shipman or not.

[Cassius Clay]

Erm it wasn't 'Millions' and Capital punishment was abolished between 1945 and 1949. And if you bothered to do any research you'll see that the number of deaths in prisons fell when modern medicines were introduced in the late 40's such as penicilin (spell). Also loads of people went to prison without ever having a death sentenced passed on them, even if they did they could appeal.

You can argue whether Capital punishment is right or not all day, fact is it has nothing to do with this topic.

[Guest1]

It's not just killings. It's the general atmosphere of repression and having to watch what you say. Some better society that is. If I can't be happy, I don't want your revolution.

[kylie]

I'm just wondering, how did Stalin go against everything Lenin wanted?
I didnt say 'everything'. But here are some examples:
Stalin during the civil war repeatedly ignored Trotskys authority, despite him being in a higher position, and Lenin asking Stalin to take more notice of what Trotsky asked of him.
Stalin being opposed to peace with the central powers.
Stalin wanting to incorporate other republics into russias own union. Ignoring Lenins with for them to at least appear equal, to stop nationalism being a problem.
'Stalin is too crude, and this defect which is entirely acceptable in our milieu and in relationships among us communists, becomes unnacceptable in the position of general secretary. i therefore propose to comrades that the4y should devise a means of removing him from his job and should appoint to this job someone else' This being by Lenin. And then soon after, we see that Stalin becomes the general secretary, going against the wishes of Lenin.

Since when has it been a leftist proncipal to work criminals to death, that is mearly and horrid form of capital punishment, of which im agianst. So i stick by what i said.
These people who get put in camps are not workers. They are enemies of the worker, wishing to revert back to capitalism. As for it being a 'horrid form of capital punishment', what alternatives are there? If a person will not accept socialism, would you rather they be left alone to continue their counter-revolutionary actions? Using them as labour forces them to help the cause of socialism.

As to industrial accidents, the workers should have been given better working conditions where such accidents do not occure.
The end would justify the means. If some workers die as a result of increased production, but this increasement allows for revolution to spread further, it is neccessary, as under capitalism far many more would die. And unlike with socialism, where it would be in the short term only, in capitalism it is over the long term.

[Invader Zim]

I was refering to the millions placed inside gulags and worked to deathg well known historical fact, any historian worth there pension will tell you so to. I fail to see why you still believe such fairy tales about Stalin. I realise that only 30,000 grave have been found to this day, however Russai is the largest country on earth there are a lot of areas difficult to access which could be one of the mass graves.

Even if they only ever find 30,000 graves then that still is 30,000 murders commited by Stalins Regime and he still would be a criminal and fascist. You say that only CRIMINALS were placed in gulags to starve to death, that is still capital punishment so it has every thing to do with this thread.

These people who get put in camps are not workers. They are enemies of the worker, wishing to revert back to capitalism. As for it being a 'horrid form of capital punishment', what alternatives are there?

how about excile, how about imprisonment, how about letting them do what they want. They could never reverse the revolution if it was the peoples will, so leave them to get on with there futile cause. Any way since when have workers who dropped a tool or were a little behind in there targets been counter revolutionarys.

If you support that kind of mistreatment of workers then you are no socialist.

(Edited by AK47 at 8:54 am on May 21, 2003)

[kylie]

how about excile
allowing them to continue to damage the revolution, from abroad.

how about imprisonment
why waste resources on them when they could be creating resources themselves?

how about letting them do what they want
let them try to undermine socialism and bring about the return of capitalism?

They could never reverse the revolution if it was the peoples will, so leave them to get on with there futile cause.
under socialism it may appear to some that capitalism will give them more freedom. so it is possible, as the support the whites got during the civil war, that a lot will support counter-revolution. although over time it would be possible to educate people, before this there is still a risk. you seem to forget what socialism is actually for. its to allow for people to adjust to not living under capitalism, so things such as money will still be a temptation, if a group was to offer a return to making money if they supported the overthrowing of the current socialist government, its possible they would accept.

If you support that kind of mistreatment of workers then you are no socialist
i dont think you are in any position to be saying who is socialist and who isnt, as a supporter of the invasion of Iraq and opposing the Palestinians defending themselves. but no i dont consider myself to be 'socialist'. the term is now used by the various reformist organisations, who i would certainly not want to associate myself with.

[antieverything]

Stalinism was the logical extension of Leninism.Certainly, this statement has more truth in it than most here would admit. I can't stand appologists for Lenin.


Socialist relations were put into place for the first time and the society was far more democratic than any in the west....that isn't funny.

How can we not support revolutions? Who said we didn't support revolutions? How can you not support a revolution that is inevitable? What we don't support is a vanguard instituting a dictatorship. When you become a dictator you cease to be proletarian.

[Cassius Clay]

''It's not just killings. It's the general atmosphere of repression and having to watch what you say. Some better society that is. If I can't be happy, I don't want your revolution.''

Nobody has shown me any 'killings' yet. Yes there was 'repression' at times, against people who were in the service of Imperialism, from Trotskyites, Tsarists and Nazi fifth collums. And dam right to, if there wasn't we would probably all be speaking German right now and singing the praises of Hitler.

But there was no 'repression' per say or climate of fear. Why did Maxim Gorky write to Stalin to complain to him that he shouldn't allow newspapers to criticise the government so much 'Because it can only be useful to our enemy's'? Why in 1937 did Zhadnov and Stalin work to make sure that nobody was beyond criticism, including themselves?

antieverything can I ask what isn't 'funny'. In a Capitalist society workers can be hired and fired as much as the bosses so desire, workers have no say in what goes on in the factory and the managers have the power. None of this in the USSR between the 1930's and 1953.

AK47 you seem to find really hard to acknowledge that every society has criminalls, the U$A has three million more than the USSR ever had. As I've pointed out your far more likely to die in a Russian prison today (92,000 Russian prisoners have TB for example) than you were in Stalin's time, no one 'starved' to death not intentionally atleast. If you could of ran a better prison system at that time and in those circumstances by all means go ahead, I'll give all credit to you. But fact is the USSR had a better prison system than most, even compared to one's today. But what do you think prison is? A holiday camp? It's no such thing, people tend to go there to be rehabilated not to have the time of there lifes.

And just because Russia is a big place is no excuse. They can find the remains of a 30,000 year old Elephant, where's all these '60 million' bodies whom Gorbachev and Yakolev had personally seen every case of? No wonder he was asked by a group of Russian women 'Haven't they put you in prison yet?'. On these '30,000' the fact that they were most likely killed by the Nazis means nothing, because to blame it on Stalin would suit what ever little fantasy you want to indulge in.

Feoric. Stalin didn't disobey Trotsky, it was precisly Trotsky who refused to follow the will of the Central Committe.

KOLCHAK: This is in the summer of 1919. Our troops are advancing against Kolchak and are operating near Ufa. A meeting of the Central Committee Is held. Trotsky proposes that the advance be halted along the line of the River Belaya (near Ufa), leaving the Urals In the hands of Kolchak, and that part of the troops be withdrawn from the Eastern Front and transferred to the Southern Front. A heated debate takes place. The Central Committee disagrees with Trotsky, being of the opinion that the Urals, with its factories and railway network, must not be left In the hands of Kolchak, for the latter could easily recuperate there, organise a strong force and reach the Volga again, Kolchak must first be driven beyond the Ural range Into the Siberian steppes, and only after that has been done should forces be transferred to the South. The Central Committee rejects Trotsky's plan. Trotsky hands in his resignation. The Central Committee refuses to accept it. Commander-in-Chief Vatsetis, who supported Trotsky's plan, resigns. His place is taken by a new Commander-in-Chief, Kamenev. From that moment Trotsky ceases to take a direct part in the affairs of the Eastern Front.

"DENIKIN: This Is In the autumn of 1919. The offensive against Denikin is not proceeding successfully. The 'steel ring' around Mamontov (Mamontov's raid) is obviously collapsing. Denikin captures Kursk. Denikin is approaching Orel. Trotsky is summoned from the Southern Front to attend a meeting of the Central Committee. The Central Committee regards the situation as alarming and decides to send new military leaders to the Southern Front and to withdraw Trotsky. The new military leaders demand 'no Intervention' by Trotsky in the affairs of the Southern Front. Operations on the Southern Front, right up to the capture of Rostov-on-Don and Odessa by our troops, proceed without Trotsky.''

It was Trotsky who proposed a 'No peace no war' stragegy, if your reffering to Stalin's role in early 1917, he later admitted he was totally wrong and had made a mistake. You point out to Lenin calling Stalin 'rude' which over something totally personal. Big deal, lets see what Lenin wrote on Trotsky. http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/lenin...ta-trotsky.html (http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/lenin-conta-trotsky.html)


I leave you with a quote that I've quoted on this board once before, but it's appriate for just about every thread with the name of Josef Stalin in it.

"It's an odd thing but when you tell someone the true facts of a
mythical tale they are indignant not with the teller but with you. They don't
WANT to have their ideas upset. It rouses some vague uneasiness in them, I
think, and they resent it. So they reject it and refuse to think about it. if
there were merely indifferent it would be natural and understandable. But it is
much stronger than that, much more positive. They are annoyed. Very odd, isn't
it?"

Oh well kids, remember Stalin 'ruined it for us Commies' and was just a 'Fascist'. Whatever makes you sleep better at night.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from feoric on 12:35 pm on May 21, 2003
how about excile
allowing them to continue to damage the revolution, from abroad.

how about imprisonment
why waste resources on them when they could be creating resources themselves?

how about letting them do what they want
let them try to undermine socialism and bring about the return of capitalism?

They could never reverse the revolution if it was the peoples will, so leave them to get on with there futile cause.
under socialism it may appear to some that capitalism will give them more freedom. so it is possible, as the support the whites got during the civil war, that a lot will support counter-revolution. although over time it would be possible to educate people, before this there is still a risk. you seem to forget what socialism is actually for. its to allow for people to adjust to not living under capitalism, so things such as money will still be a temptation, if a group was to offer a return to making money if they supported the overthrowing of the current socialist government, its possible they would accept.

If you support that kind of mistreatment of workers then you are no socialist
i dont think you are in any position to be saying who is socialist and who isnt, as a supporter of the invasion of Iraq and opposing the Palestinians defending themselves. but no i dont consider myself to be 'socialist'. the term is now used by the various reformist organisations, who i would certainly not want to associate myself with.


So you support capital punishment then and the right to oppress freedom of speach and thought because the workers may not "be clever enouh to think the right things".

Try this web site it may be more to your tastes: -

site (http://www.***************)

[Invader Zim]

Cassius

And just because Russia is a big place is no excuse. They can find the remains of a 30,000 year old Elephant, where's all these '60 million' bodies whom Gorbachev and Yakolev had personally seen every case of? No wonder he was asked by a group of Russian women 'Haven't they put you in prison yet?'. On these '30,000' the fact that they were most likely killed by the Nazis means nothing, because to blame it on Stalin would suit what ever little fantasy you want to indulge in.

They have not found the remains of the Nazi's holacaust, only around 50,000 bodys, do you deny that as well, Stalinist dreamer?

Also i have found a few inconsistancys among the stalinist camp. Cassius you seam to be under the impression that no prisoners were executed or worked to death. (on purpose at least)

Feoric however says that they were killed as that is the only way to deal with such counter revolutionarys...

please argue among your selves and when you come to an agreement i will still be here to rip your puny arguments to shreds.

(Edited by AK47 at 11:53 pm on May 21, 2003)


(Edited by AK47 at 11:54 pm on May 21, 2003)


(Edited by AK47 at 8:39 am on May 22, 2003)

[Pete]

Cassius only said that during 1945-1949 the death penalty was illegal and that they where not worked to death on purpose...

[kylie]

Big deal, lets see what Lenin wrote on Trotsky. ]http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/lenin...ta-trotsky. (http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/lenin-conta-trotsky.[/i)
This was from during the period before 1917. During this time Trotsky and Lenin were in disagreement about a lot of things. But, Trotskys views changed, he had said many times that during that time a lot of what he thought was incorrect. Im sure if i was to look further back, there would be similar things about Stalin, but all of what i listed was during the time the Bolsheviks were in power.

Try this web site it may be more to your tastes:
So you are accusing me of being a white nationalist? You cant back this up with any kind of facts, you not actually addressing what i responded to you with reveals the weakness of your arguements.

KOLCHAK
Actually, Trotsky was not disobeying the central commitee with this. The people who opposed his and Vatzetis's thoughts of holding back to allow some resources being moved to address the growing danger of Denikin, were Kamenev, Smilga and Lashevich. When the central commitee decided to go with their view over that of Trotskys, this was accepted and put into practice. So where here does Trotsky disobey?

. Denikin captures Kursk. Denikin is approaching Orel. Trotsky is summoned from the Southern Front to attend a meeting of the Central Committee. The Central Committee regards the situation as alarming and decides to send new military leaders to the Southern Front and to withdraw Trotsky.
The plan being implemented Trotsky was opposed to. His plan was:

The plan that I advocated from the outset was exactly the opposite. I demanded that with our first blow we cut the volunteers off from the Cossacks, and, leaving the Cossacks to themselves, concentrate all our strength against the volunteers. The main direction of the blow, according to this plan, would be not from the Volga toward Kuban, but from Voronezh toward Kharkoff and the Donyetsk region. In this section of the country which divides the northern Caucasus from the Ukraine, the peasants and workers were wholly on the side of the Red army. Advancing in this direction, the Red army would have been moving like a knife through butter.
And upon being adopted, was successful.

if your reffering to Stalin's role in early 1917,
Stalin was opposed to both 'neither peace nor war' and the suggestion of peace. He supported the continuation of the war, which would have resulted in the fall of the Bolshevik rule.



(Edited by feoric at 9:25 am on May 22, 2003)

[Cassius Clay]

''They have not found the remains of the Nazi's holacaust, only around 50,000 bodys, do you deny that as well, Stalinist dreamer?''

Oh dear why do you bring up the Holocaust, you know full well I don't deny that? My point was there's loads of mass graves in the Soviet Union, all of them from 1941-44 commited by the Nazis.

''Also i have found a few inconsistancys among the stalinist camp. Cassius you seam to be under the impression that no prisoners were executed or worked to death. (on purpose at least)''

Executed yes, I don't deny that. No one however was worked to death deliberatly. Why do you continue with this claim?

''please argue among your selves and when you come to an agreement i will still be here to rip your puny arguments to shreds.''

Funny at all the time you've been at this board you haven't proven anything or ripped any argument of myn to shreds. In one thread you said Stalin purged all the military, when I gave you the evidence to really what happened I got no reply. Fact is you've been shown the evidence to what really happened, and you continue with these right-wing lies.

Ferioc. I couldn't care less if there all 'before 1917' for starters they aren't. My point is you Trots just can't stop quoting something Lenin wrote over personal matters which even then he found room to criticise Trotsky. Yet if Lenin writes whole articles against Trotsky, it doesn't matter. Quite the double standard.

[Felicia]

Quote: from LevTrosky on 6:42 pm on May 19, 2003
To all you Stalinist, what do you see that is great in a mass murder? Out of pure curosity, tell me what makes you what you are, other than misguided.

Most just follow Stalin because they think that he was hot and they want to bang him! :biggrin:

[Dirty Commie]

Quote: from felicia on 2:53 pm on May 22, 2003

Quote: from LevTrosky on 6:42 pm on May 19, 2003
To all you Stalinist, what do you see that is great in a mass murder? Out of pure curosity, tell me what makes you what you are, other than misguided.

Most just follow Stalin because they think that he was hot and they want to bang him! :biggrin:

*shivers in disgust*

[Felicia]

Quote: from Dirty Commie on 3:56 pm on May 22, 2003

Quote: from felicia on 2:53 pm on May 22, 2003

Quote: from LevTrosky on 6:42 pm on May 19, 2003
To all you Stalinist, what do you see that is great in a mass murder? Out of pure curosity, tell me what makes you what you are, other than misguided.

Most just follow Stalin because they think that he was hot and they want to bang him! :biggrin:

*shivers in disgust*

haha, not me silly! All of those other boys.....

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 9:03 am on May 22, 2003
''They have not found the remains of the Nazi's holacaust, only around 50,000 bodys, do you deny that as well, Stalinist dreamer?''

Oh dear why do you bring up the Holocaust, you know full well I don't deny that? My point was there's loads of mass graves in the Soviet Union, all of them from 1941-44 commited by the Nazis.

''Also i have found a few inconsistancys among the stalinist camp. Cassius you seam to be under the impression that no prisoners were executed or worked to death. (on purpose at least)''

Executed yes, I don't deny that. No one however was worked to death deliberatly. Why do you continue with this claim?

''please argue among your selves and when you come to an agreement i will still be here to rip your puny arguments to shreds.''

Funny at all the time you've been at this board you haven't proven anything or ripped any argument of myn to shreds. In one thread you said Stalin purged all the military, when I gave you the evidence to really what happened I got no reply. Fact is you've been shown the evidence to what really happened, and you continue with these right-wing lies.

Ferioc. I couldn't care less if there all 'before 1917' for starters they aren't. My point is you Trots just can't stop quoting something Lenin wrote over personal matters which even then he found room to criticise Trotsky. Yet if Lenin writes whole articles against Trotsky, it doesn't matter. Quite the double standard.



My point was there's loads of mass graves in the Soviet Union, all of them from 1941-44 commited by the Nazis.

Do i see any credible proof to support this... no.

Executed yes, I don't deny that. No one however was worked to death deliberatly. Why do you continue with this claim?

because its true, there are many eyewitness accounts and testomonys to prove this.

Executed yes

Also what gave stalin the right to execute anyone, why should he have that power to choose who live and who dies?

In one thread you said Stalin purged all the military, when I gave you the evidence to really what happened I got no reply.

You got know reply because you posted nothing to prove it incorrect, im still waiting for that responce with evidance.

Fact is you've been shown the evidence to what really happened

I have seen no profe what so ever, i have seen links to obviosly bias stalinist propaganda which contained no actual evidance to support any of there claims, just wild accusation of all historians being capitalist propagandists. Which in its self is hypocritical as there own pathetic sources were from the findings of these same historians they chose to call propagandists. (these sources i hasten to add had been bent and mutilated to fit the ideals they wished to show the public).

Still waiting for real evidance from credible historians. Not fairy tales from stalinist web pages which dont actually offer any hard facts only possibilitys streched to fit there ideals.

[Yezhov]

AK47, you cannot disprove my humble comrades argument. It is upon your shoulders to prove that these 'millions' died. If you were in fact to in seek out where all the bodies would be, I suggest you would find them in the trail of the nazi assault. Also, it's fair for one to say that only via Stalin's rearmament of mother Russia, could they have repulsed the nazi advance.

[nz revolution]

AK47 doesnt support the Palestinian intifada? Please ask Malte to change your name to M16.

SO you support two invasions? I bet you even support the Nazi invasion of the USSR?

[CubanFox]

Fact: Operation Barbarossa was a war waged for [Caspian] oil. :o

[Cassius Clay]

[[/quote]
Most just follow Stalin because they think that he was hot and they want to bang him! :biggrin:
[/quote]

Dam you got me :biggrin: .


''Do i see any credible proof to support this... no.''

First of all you haven't shown any of these graves. But why not go to Babi Yar in the Ukraine, Katyn in Poland, Minsk or Vilnus in Lithuania. There your find plenty of mass graves, all commited by the Germans and their Fascist allies. Do you have any proof what so ever the Soviets did it? None what so ever, want prove the Germans did it, sure they filmed it. and it was the Soviets who built memorials to the victims.

''because its true, there are many eyewitness accounts and testomonys to prove this.''

Who Alexander Soljenistyn? Yes people died in prison, alot during the war when conditions were hard for everybody, but fact is your just as likely to die if your NOT in prison in today's Russia than you were in a Soviet prison fifity years ago. A prisoner doing 'forced' labor actually recieved the same wages each month as a worker who wasn't in prison.

''Also what gave stalin the right to execute anyone, why should he have that power to choose who live and who dies?''

Erm he didn't. Stalin didn't have that power, he actually said he was against Bukharin's execution, did the court give a dam? No they didn't. I've proven this to be wrong enough times, to be bothered to do it again.


As for the rest of your post. On the military, you showed ridiculious numbers, when I gave you the real numbers you didn't respond. Let's talk about 'facts' or 'evidence'. Where's the prove for your 'fifty' million? No where. I've provided evidence, an American worker who works in the USSR for ten years and has no particular political ties and tesitifies to sabotage is not 'Stalinist'. Neither is the American Ambassador who was at the Moscow trials, or Getty and certainly Jewish groups who in the 1980's exposed the massive fraud being used by Neo-Nazi orginisations who helped the Reagen administration in their propaganda war against Stalin.

What sources do you rely on? According to one ex-dissident himself, who was 'eyewitness' to all this 'oppression' and what have you 'they were not right in the head'. And it was a 'very profitable bussiness', 'the more you lied the more they paid you'. Well that's very 'reliable' isn't it. Not to mention they've allready been proved to be rubbish, anybody with common sense knows that.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Whether or not Stalin killed 100 million people (?!), it has been made clear that 'Stalinists' do not wish to kill any innocent civilians.

May we now turn the attention of this forum to the fact that Stalinism is an authoritarian ideology, and why are you in favor of a strong authoritarian regime? This is a more logical direction to take when asking, "why are you a Stalinist?"

[Felicia]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 6:50 am on May 23, 2003
[

Most just follow Stalin because they think that he was hot and they want to bang him! :biggrin:


Dam you got me :biggrin: .

I know you better that you think I do ;)

[Pete]

I didn't feel like retyping an old post (well from today but else where on the net) so this is my reply to you Victor Commie:

My personal stance, as a Marxist (note not Leninist as I do not believe I fully understand what it means to be Leninist at this point in time), is that authoritarian measures are need after the revolution, but not totalitarian. There is a difference between the two, which is constantly misunderstood. I do not care if I am labeled an authoritarian, because that is what is required for progress to exist. The bourgeoisie must be divided, and then oppressed until they cease to exist. I am not saying the killing of these people, but their assimilation, or their childrens assimilation into the proletariate. But the first thing that must be done is that I must become a proletariat, and throw off this bourgeoisie life that I do live. Most people, I would believe, on this site are bourgeoisie who are willing to support and become proletariat, but are young and unable to do so as of yet. Purging is not necassarily killing.

I have many 'libertarian' opinions, which are idealistic. But my practical ones probaly would put me near the top of the Political compass (where my ideals put me near the bottom). The thing to remember is that from complete equality comes complete freedom, and the state hinders both equality and freedom, but it is necassary until the borgeoisie and remaining aristocrats, plutocrats ect cease to exist. Thus the state should be authoritarian in nature in order to crush the islands of reaction into the sea. Look at them like a sandbar. Some resist and are destroyed, but many, although resisting at first, give way and join the greater whole. That is what must be done.

Liberals have no claim to being socialist nor communist. Socialism is the step between the current thesis and communism. You cannot give your enemies freedom to destroy you, that is a major fault with in todays society. The major fault with totalitarian societies is that they kill decent instead of trying to assimilate it into the greater whole (which I see as authoritarian for the purposes of this paragraph). Liberals want change for the benifit of the now and think little past tomorrow, as communists and socialists we must look ahead years, if not decades to final victory. The first revolution is not victory, but a plateau on which we can organize to achieve victory. It must be harsh, but guiding. Our enemies are not each other, although sectratarians would believe so, but liberals, facists, ect ect who stand against our movement. And when united as a front we can topple anything. But we are not united and the proletariat is not completely on our side as of yet. If they are, there is little vantage of this since liberals dominate the media when conservatives are not.

Original Posting at ISF (http://www.socialistfront.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=46&st=30)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Crazypete, what exactly would you clasify as a 'liberal' action as opposed to the 'authoritarian' solution to the same issue?

[Anonymous]

Quote: from Totalitarian on 7:18 am on May 20, 2003
Stalinism was the logical extension of Leninism.


I pose a question to all communist not just Salinist:

So far communism has a very good track record of producing governments where ONE man stands at the top and controls everything. Has any communist system not produced a single man that is standing at the top with total control of everything?

[kylie]

There has never been a communist system. The best there has been is states which have tried to move towards socialism. Assuming you meant this as well, and not communism, then yes there has been dictatorships where on person was not all-powerful. 1917-1923 while Lenin was the figurehead, he could not just do what he wanted. If he felt a program or policy should be implemented, he would have to get the other members of the politburo to agree also. And also he had to make sure the majority of the bolshevik party was in agreement with him, to make sure there was no threat to the leadership.
Cassius Clay, i have added to my previous post, though you dont seem to have addressed it, i assume because you were unaware of this.

[Pete]

Victor, welcome to Basics Politics.

Liberal-least strict

Authoritarian-strict

Totalitarian-most strict

We live in liberal democracies, although America is more authoritarian than liberal at the moment.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 8:15 am on May 24, 2003
Victor, welcome to Basics Politics.

Liberal-least strict

Authoritarian-strict

Totalitarian-most strict

We live in liberal democracies, although America is more authoritarian than liberal at the moment.

Pete, I know. You saud you would choose authoritarian measures over liberal measure after a revolution. I simply want to know exactly what kinds of measures we are talking about here.

[Cassius Clay]

'Authoritarian'? As another comrade from another board explained there is no such thing. I believe in Socialist democracy, this is why I uphold the USSR between 1917-1953. If some are portrayed as 'Authoritarian' then it is only because of ultra-Liberal rhectoric and ideology which is so dominant.

Would a KPD member in 1930's Germany say to the workers he wanted to creat a 'Totilitarian state' which was 'Authoritarian'? No he or she wouldn't, they would say that their short term goal would be workers liberation from Capitalism and to set forth creating a Socialist society. Infact can anyone find any, and I mean any reference to 'Authoritarianism' in Stalin's or other Soviet leaders, newspapers, writings etc? No they cant, what they will find is what the typhical KPD member would say.

I think it's a inevitable thing that in the period of revolution and probably a Civil War there is going to be a need for terror, repression of our enemies and at some stage the bourgesie and their allies is going to try to regain power, through whatever means. That they will attempt to make a comeback should not be in doubt.

Does this view make me a 'Authoritarian'? Well I'm sure some would label that on me, but I know I'm not and neither was Stalin or any other real Bolshevik. Rather my view above is a realist one proved by history.

Ferioc. Your right I haven't got a clue what your talking about, please enlighten. Why didn't you just post whatever you said in a new post?

[kylie]

Quote: from feoric on 8:46 am on May 22, 2003
Big deal, lets see what Lenin wrote on Trotsky. ]http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/lenin...ta-trotsky. (http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/lenin-conta-trotsky.[/i)
This was from during the period before 1917. During this time Trotsky and Lenin were in disagreement about a lot of things. But, Trotskys views changed, he had said many times that during that time a lot of what he thought was incorrect. Im sure if i was to look further back, there would be similar things about Stalin, but all of what i listed was during the time the Bolsheviks were in power.

Try this web site it may be more to your tastes:
So you are accusing me of being a white nationalist? You cant back this up with any kind of facts, you not actually addressing what i responded to you with reveals the weakness of your arguements.

KOLCHAK
Actually, Trotsky was not disobeying the central commitee with this. The people who opposed his and Vatzetis's thoughts of holding back to allow some resources being moved to address the growing danger of Denikin, were Kamenev, Smilga and Lashevich. When the central commitee decided to go with their view over that of Trotskys, this was accepted and put into practice. So where here does Trotsky disobey?

. Denikin captures Kursk. Denikin is approaching Orel. Trotsky is summoned from the Southern Front to attend a meeting of the Central Committee. The Central Committee regards the situation as alarming and decides to send new military leaders to the Southern Front and to withdraw Trotsky.
The plan being implemented Trotsky was opposed to. His plan was:

The plan that I advocated from the outset was exactly the opposite. I demanded that with our first blow we cut the volunteers off from the Cossacks, and, leaving the Cossacks to themselves, concentrate all our strength against the volunteers. The main direction of the blow, according to this plan, would be not from the Volga toward Kuban, but from Voronezh toward Kharkoff and the Donyetsk region. In this section of the country which divides the northern Caucasus from the Ukraine, the peasants and workers were wholly on the side of the Red army. Advancing in this direction, the Red army would have been moving like a knife through butter.
And upon being adopted, was successful.

if your reffering to Stalin's role in early 1917,
Stalin was opposed to both 'neither peace nor war' and the suggestion of peace. He supported the continuation of the war, which would have resulted in the fall of the Bolshevik rule.



(Edited by feoric at 9:25 am on May 22, 2003)


I added it to this post as it was only half finished, but i needed to reboot.

[Cassius Clay]

Ferioc, you are simply wrong. According to whom did Stalin oppose the treaty? Trotsky in his autobiography? That's hardly reliable since this is the same man who said Stalin had killed Lenin. Also on the civil war issue, you've used Trotsky to try and refute what happened. Trotsky refused to follow the Central Committe's orders and his interferring got to the stage where the military pacificly wanted him to have no involvment in anything. This is what happened.

However since this is off topic, I suggest if you really want to continue the discussion you start a new thread.

[synthesis]

Has any communist system not produced a single man that is standing at the top with total control of everything?

The Paris Commune is the general model on which most non-Leninist socialists (myself included) use as a model.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from DyerMaker on 8:40 pm on May 24, 2003
Has any communist system not produced a single man that is standing at the top with total control of everything?

The Paris Commune is the general model on which most non-Leninist socialists (myself included) use as a model.

I am not familiar enough with the Paris
Commune. It is a model? Then it is just a theory that has not been used an application to run a country.

[Som]

A theory? no, its something put into practice.

Other examples include huge parts of Spain between 1936-1939, and the ukraine between 1917 and 1921.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I would still like to know in what situation and for what purpose, the authoritarians plan to use their 'strict'-type policy?

[YKTMX]

Becuase they're entrenched in 50 years of dogma and Stalinist propaganda. He was a counter-revolutionary who destroyed the opportunites of October in favour of his own personality cult and and all consuming thirst for power. And if I'm honest, I'd rather live under capitalism than a murderring tyrant like Stalin. Anyone who supports Stalin is basically denouncing October, as Stalin murdered most of its leaders, most obviously dear Lev.

If Stalinism is socialism then pass the Coca-Cola.

[Pete]

X, you know that Kruschev was extremely anti-stalinist and quite revisionist. There is no way that the CCCP was "entrenched in 50 years of dogma and Stalinist propaganda."

Victor could you just copy/paste that IM i sent oyu when the posting wasn't working so all could see my answer?

[synthesis]

It is a model? Then it is just a theory that has not been used an application to run a country.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/p/a....m#paris-commune (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/p/a.htm#paris-commune)

Read.

[El Barbudo]

Lenin said Paris Commune wasnt a good model to follow, because it was too weak the way it was organised. Because im french and i dont know english well, i wont explain why the Commune felt. If any french people want to know, however, i can explain.

[YKTMX]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 10:13 pm on May 25, 2003
X, you know that Kruschev was extremely anti-stalinist and quite revisionist. There is no way that the CCCP was "entrenched in 50 years of dogma and Stalinist propaganda."

Victor could you just copy/paste that IM i sent oyu when the posting wasn't working so all could see my answer?


I was referring more to "Stalinists" rather than the Soviet Union itself, .

[synthesis]

Quote: from El Barbudo on 11:30 pm on May 25, 2003
Lenin said Paris Commune wasnt a good model to follow, because it was too weak the way it was organised. Because im french and i dont know english well, i wont explain why the Commune felt. If any french people want to know, however, i can explain.
Well, my first response is naturally: Fuck Lenin! I want nothing to do with his inevitably totalitarian bullshit.

However, I do speak a little French - do you think I could get your own spin on it?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

This is Crazy's reply to my previous question.

i can't seem to post right now, but the reasons are pretty straight forward. in order for a revolution to succeed, opposition must be crushed. i do not mean killing them, but demoralizing and assimilating them as much as possible into the victorious class, or else future conflicts will arise. with out a heavy hand at the start the revolution will falter and fail to the counter revolutionaries, who will have more forgien support. of course power cannot remain centralized forever and needs to be broken down to more localized levels (the original point of the soviets). corruption of this system is seen in revisionist CCCP and other centralized 'socialist' states (china for example). the power is not decentralized when the masses are prepared and opposition quelled, thus another revolution is necassary to advance humanities progress.

[El Barbudo]

To answer DyerMaker, i agree that Lenin turned to be a totalitarist, killing people to stay on top of Soviet's hierarchy. However, he was a charismatic leader, a great intellectual and a strong theorician.

About Paris Commune:
Je vais résumer ma pensée... Une des choses qui a amenée la perte de la Commune fut la trop grande place accordée aux bureaucrates. Toute la ''société'' de la commune était fondée sur ces cadres élus à vie. On peut très bien faire des liens entre la bureaucratie de la Commune et la bureaucratie soviétique sous toutes ces formes (Politburo, Soviets, Conseils, etc.)

[YKTMX]

Quote: from DyerMaker on 12:30 am on May 26, 2003

Quote: from El Barbudo on 11:30 pm on May 25, 2003
Lenin said Paris Commune wasnt a good model to follow, because it was too weak the way it was organised. Because im french and i dont know english well, i wont explain why the Commune felt. If any french people want to know, however, i can explain.
Well, my first response is naturally: Fuck Lenin! I want nothing to do with his inevitably totalitarian bullshit.

However, I do speak a little French - do you think I could get your own spin on it?


Why do you have the Hammer and Sickle in your avatar then. If you're not a Leninist, you can't call yourself a Marxist, simple as that.

[Anonymous]

If you're not a Leninist, you can't call yourself a Marxist, simple as that.

Whoa....

I may not be a communist, but I know that there are many people on this site that would have some serious fucking issues with what you just said.

[Pete]

I even have issues with what X just said. I am not a Leninist but I am a Marxist.

TO your last post, X, you did refer to 50 years of 'Stalinism,' and I told you that there was no such period since stalin came to power democratically in 1927 and died in 1954. that is less than 30. Kruschev and company (brenev other guy and gorbachev [that bastard]) undid what stalin did, and thus the revolution failed. (I am enjoying 'thus')

[Nobody]

Dude, this thread been viewed 666 times .... freaky.

[Pete]

Theists beware mwhahahahahaha

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from nz revolution on 8:36 am on May 23, 2003
AK47 doesnt support the Palestinian intifada? Please ask Malte to change your name to M16.

SO you support two invasions? I bet you even support the Nazi invasion of the USSR?


Your wit like your intelegance are as sharp as cotton wool.

Now to talk to people with an IQ above 40.

Why do you have the Hammer and Sickle in your avatar then. If you're not a Leninist, you can't call yourself a Marxist, simple as that.

How do you work that out??? Its a completely false statment, Infact its just stupid. Marx's teachings can be interpreted in many ways, not necessarily the way that Lenin interprited it.

To any Stalinists... sorry Marxist Leninist's what ever the hell you call your selves.

What do you think of the way that Stalin tricked his way into power, for example telling Trotsky a false date for Lenin's funeral so he could be chief morner? Or the fact to boost popularity for himself with in the party he prodused fake pictures etc? Also supporting one enemy to destroy another one, then back stab the other one?

Hardly an honerable things to do.

[synthesis]

Why do you have the Hammer and Sickle in your avatar then. If you're not a Leninist, you can't call yourself a Marxist, simple as that.
Before I say this, I'd like to tell redstar2000 that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

FUCK OFF! :angry:

The hammer and sickle transcends your totalitarian ideology!

[Vinny Rafarino]

"Your wit like your intelegance are as sharp as cotton wool."
"Now to talk to people with an IQ above 40."

AK. Before you jest on another's intelligence (ahem)
try consulting a dictionary...Here's a good link for you,
http://dictionary.reference.com
Cheers mate!

Now back to the topic:
It appears that MOST "socialists" on this forum are indeed very adamant about social reform. However what they do not consider is what needs to be done AFTER the revolution. Subversionists will attack your new people's government from ALL sides, as Stalin qickly found out. There is only one answer to this problem. Subversionists will have to be silenced. Permanately. Distastefull as it may be, it is absolutely necessary to complete social reform. Look at China, Mao understood this AND accepted it. Subversionists are just as willing to die for their cause as any revolutionary and WILL do everything in their power including assasination
(review russian Kulak history) to bring down the revolution. When you choose revolution it must be understood that there will be actions you must take in the name of reform that you find to be morally wrong. If that is unacceptable to you, the capitalists will be more than happy to have you back. Stalin, Mao, Minh and EVEN Castro accepted this as part of the revolution.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 3:50 am on May 26, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 3:40 am on May 26, 2003
"Your wit like your intelegance are as sharp as cotton wool."
"Now to talk to people with an IQ above 40."

AK. Before you jest on another's intelligence (ahem)
try consulting a dictionary...Here's a good link for you,
http://dictionary.reference.com
Cheers mate!



My spelling is poor because i am dyslexic, i cannot help it. However stupid comments with no relavance to the thread like those ones made by nz revolution can be avoided.

Also dyslexia has no actual bearing on a persons intelegence, as you will note Albert Einstein was dyslexic.

So do not confuse poor spelling with stupidity.

[Pete]

NZ was simply pointing out your standing on certain issues AK. They have relevance to this topic, if you look at them. It shows how you are willing to support rightwing authoritarians becasue they claim to be liberals but reject left wing authoritarians becasue they do not lie about their stance on things.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 4:08 am on May 26, 2003
NZ was simply pointing out your standing on certain issues AK. They have relevance to this topic, if you look at them. It shows how you are willing to support rightwing authoritarians becasue they claim to be liberals but reject left wing authoritarians becasue they do not lie about their stance on things.

No they fucking well dont. What the fuck has making assumptions about my views on the Nazi invasion of Russia have to with Stalinist theory? Absloutly nothing.

As it happens i dont support Nazi's invading anywhere, why would I?

Even more importantly what does Palistine have to do with Stalin? Nothing!!!! My view on Palistine is the one shared by the majority of the board, i think that the Isreil's are bang out of order, however i belive that the point has been reached where there is nothing short of Genocide which can be done about it.

Those were the only things that, that totalitarian fool actualy said, both completely irrelavant.

[Pete]

You did support the Iraq war.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 4:28 am on May 26, 2003
You did support the Iraq war.

Well Fascist dictators who have commited genocide generaly do make me feal that they should be declared war apon and ignominiusly removed from any position of power, which generaly does not go against leftist principal. But hey when the US is doing the kicking it automatically becomes imoral and unjustified. Of course if it had been any other nation in the world no-opne would have given a rats ass, but thats the fickle old way of the world.

[Pete]

And now they are selling the oil to American and British companies and installing their own facsist government under the leadership of one general franks. Well they can have any government they want as long is its not religious right? You see my point?

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 4:40 am on May 26, 2003
And now they are selling the oil to American and British companies and installing their own facsist government under the leadership of one general franks. Well they can have any government they want as long is its not religious right? You see my point?

Entirley, however that does not alter the fact that Saddam needed to be removed by someone. Admittedly the US stealing there oil is completly imoral, but whats worse Oil or Genocide?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Cheers AK...I was unaware of your condition.

Being a forum discussing Stalinist views, I too do not see the relevance of palistine to this thread. Stop slaggin' him lads.

there are MANY left-wing (usually hard-line left wingers like myself) socialist that agree with Sadaam's removal.
especially if you go the route of political evolution. The faster the capitalists form a one-world government, the faster capitalism crumbles and socialism takes over. I do not agree with it, however it will advance our plans quicker and IT ALREADY HAPPENED! GET THE FUCK OVER IT AND USE IT TO OUR ADVANTAGE!

[Pete]

Pan-arabism is there first my friend. Look how the religion is the major political force beside the american army. I was just reading that the Ministry of Oil is not open for business yet...still being inspected or anything. But this is all for another thread.

[Som]

Look at China, Mao understood this AND accepted it.

Yes, look at china, and look at it as soon as Mao died.

Historys shown that brutal tactics and centralized authoritarianism havn't stopped the resurgence of the capitalism, its just delayed it.

These tactics are a counter-revolution in themselves, instead of freeing the people, its just a revolution for different masters, with slightly different agendas.
So yes, look at China, the soviet union, and so on to see that the means become the means.
Maybe if the chinese people could vote out deng, or stalin, kruschev, gorbachev, tito, whoever you'd like to blame for the fall of socialism in those countries, then this never would've been a problem, but they have no say, just a bunch of oligarchs that are supposedly acting in their interests.

and of course, in those revolutions quite a few of the most genuine socialists have been declared as 'subversionists' and silenced permantly, because that new ruling class decided they were filthy trot anarchist ultra-leftist burgiouse traitors, or whatever colorfully bullshit label you'd like to attach.

Most of the centralization and authoritarianism in the Soviet Union took place AFTER the whites were defeated in the civil war.

During that war, while the Bolsheviks were taking complete power, while lenin said that "free speech is essentially a burgioiuse notion" and while trotsky was calling for military discipline in factories, proposing that those that don't fall in line with it be put in concentration camps, A bunch of anarchists in the Ukraine, led by Makhno, who had no official authority at all, had risen at the same time and were fighting the whites just as effectively, even saving the red army at one point.
The Makhnovists destroyed prisons, instead of filled them, encouraged independent power to the soviets, instead of giving their group authority over them, encouraged free speech, instead of repressed it, and fought completely against authoritarianism.
They were quite successful, and it was never the old order that stopped them, it was trotksy and the red army.

Their existence sort of shows that the idea that leninist reactionary authoritarianism is absolutly necesary, to be a fairly weak argument.


A lot of leninists are just capitalists that don't like money.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Good point.

I will agree that authouritarianism lasted much too long in these cases. But what was to be done? without it these socialist states would have fallen due to western influenced subversionist a long time ago. You cannot simply say that there is no place for authouritarianism in a newly formed socialist state. It cannot be done as long with all these capitaslist countries constantly throwing the heads of loyal socialists on the chopping block.

[Som]

I think the russian revolution would've been fine had it been organized more freely, without the Leninist authoritarianism and the bolshevik centralization of power.
Genuinely giving the power the soviets, and letting them keep it.

If the anarchists could do it under similiar conditions without even admitting to having any authority at all, the revolutionaries in russia could do it as well.

Maybe only a vague and unofficial authoritarianism, and by a true democracy, not a party claiming to act in the interests of the majority. I doubt there was much pro-capitalist propaganda being spread throughout barcelona in 1936, and just as little support for the french ruling classes being heard in the paris commune.
A sort of authoritarianism no one needs to be shot for.

Not very authoritarian at all really.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Anything is possible comrade...However the times are indeed different now. Would the anarchists succeed in the same fashion today? Unlikely. I've spent 20 years of my life attempting to advance socailism. It's too important to me to simply hope for the best. You cannot deny that the influnce of even one subversionist is too many in the early stages of developing a socialist state from a capitalist one. I do agree that there are necessary "borders" that should be put into place...Removing the notion altogether simply will not work...Unfortunate but true.

cheers

[YKTMX]

Hmm, I honestly wasn't aware that that would have been such a controversial statement. Listen, people are entitled to their own opinions on the subject, but the fact is, the Russian Revolution is the only genuinely Marxist revolution to have succeded. You can argue until the cows come home about it's consequences, but Lenin was the only person to crystalize Marxist theory of revolution into an attainable goal. I mean, I sometimes doubt the validity of people who argue that you don't even need a party for there to be a revolution. The idea that the masses will one day wake up and come to the conclusion that society needs to be replaced is quite naive. Also, I think on the general point, people really, really misunderstand the idea of the party as vanguard. It's not about telling the masses what to do and what not do, its about leading the energies of the people in the right direction, otherwise history shows us, it will fail. Lenin's metaphor as the Party as the piston to the people's steam is the best way of explaining this.

Anyway, yeah. I'm away for a flame retardant suit :)

[Anonymous]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 6:31 am on May 26, 2003
You cannot deny that the influnce of even one subversionist is too many in the early stages of developing a socialist state from a capitalist one. I do agree that there are necessary "borders" that should be put into place...Removing the notion altogether simply will not work...Unfortunate but true.

cheers


Your all scary scary people. From the last couple of post I gather:

1) Communist do no fear authority. Even from junior dictators.

2) Genocide and supression of subversives is an academic exercise.

3) The revolution is more important than the individual. (Even ends justify means).

I get the sense that the academic theory of Communism is right regardless of how it has actually been put into practice. That the horrors brought upon humanity by Communist were flukes in the theory.

Your all scary scary people.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Cheers YKTMX I am in full agreement with you. However I always listen to any comrades opinion and attempt learn from them. (if possible) I believe SOM has some very insightful things to say on the subject....I don't feel they are very practical in this case but perhaps with cooperation from all our comrades regardless of how hard-line you are (yes, we ALL still have one goal in mind don't we) we will then agree on some sort of policy regarding subversionism. You all know my take on it. (Kelvin, if that scares you, you should check my original post on the page prior) The people will never simply rise up against their capitalist government, as the majority of people just want to sweep politics under the rug and hope they never hear about the atrocities commited on the human race by these so-called "freedom fighters". As the vanguard, we must take responsibility and begin to organise.

On another note, Kelvin you do indeed have something to worry about. With your contstant attacks on the movement you have definately proven yourself to be a subversionist. You will be dealt with when the time comes. Until then, I hope your credulous capitalist existence is enjoyable for you.

[Som]

I'd like to think a good portion of us dont fall into that kelvin, personally, I'm terrified of authority, even sometimes against it as a general concept.

Anything is possible comrade...However the times are indeed different now. Would the anarchists succeed in the same fashion today? Unlikely.

Well do you think the Leninists would succeed today in the same way today?
In the first world, i'd think only a mass revolution would ever suceed. That sort of revolution doesn't need a centralized party structure to come through, often barely a basic principle of socialism will do it.
People would probably also be more likely to join in a revolution that never involves them being told what to do.
A revolution where a large portion of the people are genuinely involved might come off stronger than one where if you defeat the party, you defeat the revolution.

You cannot deny that the influnce of even one subversionist is too many in the early stages of developing a socialist state from a capitalist one.

I'd rather risk having one right-wing subervionist than one person of any ideology with the power to shoot him for being wrong.

Just comes down to that the practicality is sort of way to vague and far off to tell, and that overall, i'd rather have complaining counter-revolutionaries, then anyone that could shut them up by force.
Never want a revolution that might have me killed.

Also, I think on the general point, people really, really misunderstand the idea of the party as vanguard. It's not about telling the masses what to do and what not do, its about leading the energies of the people in the right direction, otherwise history shows us, it will fail.

Well thats a nice thing to say, but as history shows, Its bullshit.
They understand it perfectly, and have seen what it leads to.
It is about telling the masses what to do and not to do, its about taking orders and hoping that one great leader will lead to another great leader and lead to another great leader. Now theres a bit of idealism.

The idea that the masses will one day wake up and come to the conclusion that society needs to be replaced is quite naive.

Its quite naive to think you can free the people by giving them orders. You don't need a party to have revolutionaries.

You can argue until the cows come home about it's consequences, but Lenin was the only person to crystalize Marxist theory of revolution into an attainable goal.

and of all the other people with marxist theories of revolution? Should they be considered unattainable because they haven't been tried?
I suppose before 1917, lenin should've just realized socialism was unnattainable, because it hadn't been.

Its a real weak argument to say just because it hasn't happened yet it can't, especially when it really hasn't even been tried.


Cheerful morning isn't it?

[Pete]

I think you have very very misunderstood Kelvin.

My consensus is this.
1) Authoritarian methods are necacssary at the start to remove serious opposition and assimilate them.
2)The supression of subversives is very important, but not violently. Genocide is wrong. (btw who mentioned genocide?)
3)The revolution is more important than the individual bourgeoisie.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I am against a Leninist style vanguard-led revolution, because it has been shown that this ends up with excessively authoritarian, beurocratic, nationalistic, state-capitalistic tendencies. I believe that the people must lead themselves into revolution.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Cheers, Good debate lads

How do you suggest subversionist be silenced Pete?
SSOM? I don't see sitting these "people" down and explaining to them that they can do whatever they want as long as it's not counter-revolutionary will work...perhaps we can smack them all on the wrist and scold them....."bad subversionist!...bad subversionist!...now go have a cookie."

That one will work for Kelvin I reckon.

[Pete]

massive reconditioning of their children and taxation, jail ect. Castro seems to be doing an alright job at the moment.

[Anonymous]

1) Authoritarian methods are necacssary at the start to remove serious opposition and assimilate them.

Do you honestly expect those in authority to give up power so easily?

[Pete]

No. I would advocate a second revolution (if necassary) to deteriorate the power more.

[Som]

SSOM? I don't see sitting these "people" down and explaining to them that they can do whatever they want as long as it's not counter-revolutionary will work...perhaps we can smack them all on the wrist and scold them....."bad subversionist!...bad subversionist!...now go have a cookie."

Oh i don't think thats such a bad idea, maybe cookies put them in a more cheerful mood?
maybe they wont be so hostile to a revolution full of cookies.
Cookies for all does sound rather appealing.

I'm inwilling to give anyone the power to shoot them when they havn't done anything. The people that have fit the bill as 'right-wing subversionist' to some of the leaders in a lot of revolutions have often been genuine socialists, trade union leaders, anarchists, and any other people that are actually on their side, but it doesn't benefit whoever has the power to silence them, to have them still around.

Pushing them into feeling theyre going to be killed even if they dont fight against the revolution is just going to make them more inclined to fight.

[Anonymous]

You do realize how extremely difficult that would be, don't you? A revolution is much easier in a capitalist state than in a fascist one.

[Pete]

I, though, am not suggesting a fascist state. There would be a difference DC. The bourgeoisie would be stripped of their power unless they joined the proles, and in essense never regain it.

[Vinny Rafarino]

No I don't DC.

The individuals in power ARE the same that began and led the revolution. I give them absolute trust to not do anything to put the movement at risk. They earned it.

Pete,
I agree these measures will work after the beginning stages of the state. However they simply will not work in the years following the revolution. Even Castro had to deal with subversionist "harshly" in the early years.

Som,
As a fellow comrade in arms, I respect and value your opinions. I just don't see your solutions as actually working...no matter how ideal they are. The cattle will not rise up and fight. Subversionists will not just eat their cookie and be quiet. I don't believe the authoritive government of the USSR led to their downfall. Without the constant economical and political attacks from the USA, the demise of the Soviet state never would have happend.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Damn....cookies for all does sound good...I think we have a winner comrades!!

COOKIES FOR ALL!!!

[synthesis]

I think it's in our best interests to not use the term "prole" in serious discussion. Let's not confirm too many stereotypes. Just use the term it's contracted from, proletarian.

Listen, people are entitled to their own opinions on the subject, but the fact is, the Russian Revolution is the only genuinely Marxist revolution to have succeded.

I disagree. The Marxist revolution is the entire proletariat rising against capitalism. The Russian Revolution was, to paraphrase Lenin's own words, an elite vanguard rising against capitalism because the actual proletariat was too inept to carry out its own revolution.

Did I mention that this vanguard comes from the same class stock of the bourgeoisie?

(Edited by DyerMaker at 10:11 pm on May 26, 2003)

[Anonymous]

Quote:
On another note, Kelvin you do indeed have something to worry about. With your contstant attacks on the movement you have definately proven yourself to be a subversionist. You will be dealt with when the time comes. Until then, I hope your credulous capitalist existence is enjoyable for you.


Thanks you confirm my suspicions. I can see you very nonchalantly waving good by to me as I get trucked off to a mass grave. Very "socially justice" seeking of you.

The point I have been trying to lead to here and in other threads there are no protections for an individual against a bullet in the back of the head and a secret mass grave in a revolution. After me, your all next.

(Edited by kelvin9 at 11:23 pm on May 26, 2003)

[Vinny Rafarino]

I thought I was clear in my original posts Kelvin. I was unaware you needed additional confirmation. I'm not quite sure that a simple wave goodbye would satisfy me. I would rather be the truck driver. That would allow me several hours to crack jokes at your expense and make you feel what it is like to be oppressed and be able to do nothing about it.

Cheers Kelvin

[Anonymous]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 1:11 am on May 27, 2003
I thought I was clear in my original posts Kelvin. I was unaware you needed additional confirmation. I'm not quite sure that a simple wave goodbye would satisfy me. I would rather be the truck driver. That would allow me several hours to crack jokes at your expense and make you feel what it is like to be oppressed and be able to do nothing about it.

Cheers Kelvin

From your previous post I am sure you are really just making light of it. Loyal revolutionaries have the same protections as the capitalist going off to the secret mass graves. I'll save a comfy spot for you.

I'll pose a more direct question. What protections do you have in a revolution to prevent the rise of dictator and prevent you from getting a bullet in the back of the head. Commies so far have a pretty reliable track record of producing systems with brutal authority.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Actually my capitalist schweinhunt friend...After 20 years of membership in the communist party...I joined in '83...I was hoping for a shot at the limited dictatorship myself...
Prior to turning power over to the collective once the subversionist are dealt with. No cookie from me kelvin.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 1:44 am on May 27, 2003
I was hoping for a shot at the limited dictatorship myself

So then in a revolution. The dictator just steps down? Come on? When has that ever happened?

Do more communist also have similiar dreams of being head dictator? If so there can only be one on top. The the others will be joining me in the secret ditch.

So what protection does a loyal revolutionary have from a bullet in the back of the head and getting shoved into a secret ditch?

[Palmares]

A dictatorship is hardly the aim of communism. If anything, that would be certain types of socialism (e.g. Stalinism - National Socialism).

Getting back to the exact subject, I would simply like to say that "Stalinists" are only "Stalinists" because they believe it is different to the "Trotskyist" view of it. For the most part this is true, and the persection of them is somewhat draconian (I emphasise, the "Stalinists" who believe it is good for credible reasons, rather than authoritarian reasons".

[Vinny Rafarino]

Kelvin-
What fantasies of social revolution are you getting this from?? Oh yes, I forgot. What you know about social revolution is what they teach you in your yanquee schools...and what you learn from the yanquee media and McCarthist parents. My fellow comrades will never end up in a ditch with the likes of you Kelvin. I could not think of a worse fate for my brothers then have to share dirt with you. Hey dude, did you get that dope ass new stereo yet. Word homey. Don't worry, there will always be some 12 year old girl in Bali making more if you didn't.


(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 12:17 pm on May 27, 2003)

[Vinny Rafarino]

I don't believe in nationalism CT. Nothing good has ever come from it. Only war, genocide and hate. I simply do not think Stalin was as bad as many comrades here think. For every anti-Stalin literature I can find...I can equal it's numbers with pro-Stalin literature. Who's lying comrade? I will always respect the man for what was accomplished.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 2:17 am on May 27, 2003
My fellow comrades will never end up in a ditch with the likes of you Kelvin


What protection do you have against a dictator?

Yes no one wants a dictator and all the evil it brings, but you have no protection from one.

Again communism has a good history of producing dictactors. You will be sharing the mass grave with me weather you want to or not.

[Pete]

Our protection are the models of the past. Look at Cuba.

[Palmares]

Quote: from kelvin9 on 2:00 pm on May 27, 2003

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 2:17 am on May 27, 2003
My fellow comrades will never end up in a ditch with the likes of you Kelvin


What protection do you have against a dictator?

Yes no one wants a dictator and all the evil it brings, but you have no protection from one.

Again communism has a good history of producing dictactors. You will be sharing the mass grave with me weather you want to or not.


Mass graves? Sharing them? What the hell?

Obviously you are a cappie. On what basis can you claim that you will share a grave, let alone have a grave from a (communist) dictator? I think you should get out of this "Stalinist" (no offence comrades) mindset and realise that there are other possibilities.

Where are Castro's mass graves?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Yes...Kelvin is a cappie....He'd respond to this but he's too busy being slagged by me in another thread...I suggest you join

[synthesis]

Again communism has a good history of producing dictactors.

So does capitalism.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from DyerMaker on 5:09 am on May 27, 2003
Again communism has a good history of producing dictactors.

So does capitalism.

Can you name them?

In the USA once every 4 years and sometimes every 8 years our head of state simply steps down. Governments with free markets have similiar systems where the head of government is voted out of office.

Do I have to name the communist leaders who held power for life? Dictators hold power for life.

[rAW DEaL bILL]

stalinists are stalinists because they are stupid. theyre obviously also fascists. they must think its a good idea to put one person in absolute power to control everything you do and to have someone practice genocide, therefore making thems stupid. it doesnt take much intellegence to realise absolute power corrupts absolutely. and kelvin. the tsars were capitalist for one example. there were many dictators that werent communist which means that a lot of them HAVE to have been capitalist or fuedelist etc...

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Where are Castro's mass graves?


Are you implying that Castro exercises genocide as a dictator? Let me know if you have information regarding that? BTW what possed you to ask that qestion? Maybe because in the back of your head you know that Castro IS a dictator.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 4:02 am on May 27, 2003
Our protection are the models of the past. Look at Cuba.


Please expand on that. What are they? You have piqed my curiosity.

[Anonymous]

Quote: the tsars were capitalist for one example. there were many dictators that werent communist which means that a lot of them HAVE to have been capitalist or fuedelist etc...


The Czars? The Romanoffs? After about 1890s?

If you called Peter and Catherine capitalist I'm sure they would not know what you are talking about. If you called them royalist they would embrace that title. Fuedalist? Definately not. Even the Romanoffs to the last Czar was fighting to undo the last vestiage of fuedalism.

Can you say the capitalist during the last Romanoffs were in the same peer group? The Stanfords, Andrew Carnagie, Crocker, Ford, Getty, etc. Do those capitalist call the Romanoffs part of thier peer group? Do the Romanoffs think themslves as part of the capitalist peer group?

I think you need to re-think your definition of a capitalist.

[Vinny Rafarino]

What the fuck are you babbling about Kelvin.

Bill, your statement is just a bit too broad. Fidel has been in power since 1959. Do you feel he is a dictator?Read this entire thread before making such remarks about Stalinists....and if you still feel the same comrade....provide some sort of reasoning why you think individuals that support Stalin and what he accomplished for socialism are automatically to be deemed facists and genocidal.

[Palmares]

Quote: from kelvin9 on 3:41 pm on May 27, 2003

Quote:

Where are Castro's mass graves?


Are you implying that Castro exercises genocide as a dictator? Let me know if you have information regarding that? BTW what possed you to ask that qestion? Maybe because in the back of your head you know that Castro IS a dictator.


No, I wasn't implying that. Where the hell did you get that? What possessed me to ask that question? Obviously because you were talking about mass graves (duh!).

BTW, did I say Castro ISN'T a dictator? No I did not.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Quote: from kelvin9 on 5:34 am on May 27, 2003
[quote]Quote: from DyerMaker on 5:09 am on May 27, 2003
Again communism has a good history of producing dictactors.

So does capitalism.

Can you name them?
____________________________________________

Why Yes Kelvin I can.

1) Adolf Hitler-Germany
2)Alfredo Stroesser-Paraguay
3)Ferdinand Marcos-Philippines
4)Anastasio Somoza Garcia (tacho)-Nicaragua
5)Anastasio Somoza Debayle (tacho's son)-Nicaragua
6)Humberto de Alencar Castello Branco-Brazil
7)AUGUSTO PINOCHET-Chile, Allende's Assassin

There are many, many more throughout history...Their capitalist governments left generations of bloodshed in their wakes.

Clear enough Kelvin??

[Invader Zim]

I can see that Kelvins reasoning has reached an all time high, very soon he will overtake the average nine year old in intelect.

[Yezhov]

"stalinists are stalinists because they are stupid. theyre obviously also fascists. they must think its a good idea to put one person in absolute power to control everything you do and to have someone practice genocide, therefore making thems stupid. it doesnt take much intellegence to realise absolute power corrupts absolutely.'

Is that a fact? And how does one actually base political opinion upon intelligence. I can see therefore that you are "stupid." Do you understand fascism? I don't believe you do.

You also presume many things in your post Raw Deal Dill. "They must do or think such and such" for example is presuming upon that which you don't understand. Your poorly written piece is not justified. Please do so.

Kelvin. Oh really? Where are these mass graves? Your posts imply a somewhat less-than-intelligent mind. I suggest you actually research what you're arguing.

Nikolai.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Yezhov on 7:18 am on May 27, 2003
"stalinists are stalinists because they are stupid. theyre obviously also fascists. they must think its a good idea to put one person in absolute power to control everything you do and to have someone practice genocide, therefore making thems stupid. it doesnt take much intellegence to realise absolute power corrupts absolutely.'

Is that a fact? And how does one actually base political opinion upon intelligence. I can see therefore that you are "stupid." Do you understand fascism? I don't believe you do.

.

Well to be honist if some guy came up to me telling me how his pet dog should be prime minister, i would think he was an idiot, and thats only a political opinion.

[Yezhov]

Well, to be "honist" I think that your "intelect" is somewhat lacking. If this is the quality of "commandantes" on this board, some dire straits are ahead.

First of all, say your moronic situation turns out to be true we'll analyze it. His statement could in fact be altogether relevant. His opinion of government is so low, that he feels that his pet dog could do a better job.

It is also possible that he is somehow disabled. Appearances are not a sound way to judge character. An example right here and now would be you Mr. AK47. Your spelling is not very good. This could be due a number of reasons. English might not be your first language, you could be very young (though I don't think this one is true), you could have some variety of mental problem. The possibilities are endless.

You would also be terribly judgemental if you thought he was an "idiot," as you don't know him.

Nikolai

(Edited by Yezhov at 7:44 am on May 27, 2003)

[Anonymous]

Quote: from Cthenthar on 6:29 am on May 27, 2003

Quote: from kelvin9 on 3:41 pm on May 27, 2003

Quote:

Where are Castro's mass graves?


Are you implying that Castro exercises genocide as a dictator? Let me know if you have information regarding that? BTW what possed you to ask that qestion? Maybe because in the back of your head you know that Castro IS a dictator.


No, I wasn't implying that. Where the hell did you get that? What possessed me to ask that question? Obviously because you were talking about mass graves (duh!).

BTW, did I say Castro ISN'T a dictator? No I did not.


OK. I personally feel he is a politcal genius. He has managed to maintain popular support eventhough food is rationed in his country. Which also speaks volumes for the ability of Cubans to endure.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from AK47 on 7:12 am on May 27, 2003
I can see that Kelvins reasoning has reached an all time high, very soon he will overtake the average nine year old in intelect.


Can you select a post that demonstrates 9 year old reasoning? Or do you just make blanket statements that you can not prove.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 6:48 am on May 27, 2003

Quote: from kelvin9 on 5:34 am on May 27, 2003
[quote]Quote: from DyerMaker on 5:09 am on May 27, 2003
Again communism has a good history of producing dictactors.

So does capitalism.

Can you name them?
____________________________________________

Why Yes Kelvin I can.

1) Adolf Hitler-Germany
2)Alfredo Stroesser-Paraguay
3)Ferdinand Marcos-Philippines
4)Anastasio Somoza Garcia (tacho)-Nicaragua
5)Anastasio Somoza Debayle (tacho's son)-Nicaragua
6)Humberto de Alencar Castello Branco-Brazil
7)AUGUSTO PINOCHET-Chile, Allende's Assassin

There are many, many more throughout history...Their capitalist governments left generations of bloodshed in their wakes.

Clear enough Kelvin??


Whoa. Serve credit where it is due. You got some of those right.

Hitler?

[Anonymous]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 6:13 am on May 27, 2003
What the fuck are you babbling about Kelvin.



If you try just a little harder you'll almost get there.

The post was unclear about which Czar he was talking about. It would be silly to call Ivan IV a capitalist or Peter, or Catherine. Only the last generation of Romanoffs would even know what a capitalist would be.

Seriously comrade. You need to brush up on your Russian history.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Yes Kelvin...Hitler was an admitted capitalist...Check out the Hitler was a socialist thread started by that twat dark capitalist...For fuck's sake Kelvin....Again....Please pay attention! You would think you would know these things by now....

They are all correct by the way...research them if you like.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Quote: from Yezhov on 7:18 am on May 27, 2003
"stalinists are stalinists because they are stupid. theyre obviously also fascists. they must think its a good idea to put one person in absolute power to control everything you do and to have someone practice genocide, therefore making thems stupid. it doesnt take much intellegence to realise absolute power corrupts absolutely.'

Is that a fact? And how does one actually base political opinion upon intelligence. I can see therefore that you are "stupid." Do you understand fascism? I don't believe you do.

You also presume many things in your post Raw Deal Dill. "They must do or think such and such" for example is presuming upon that which you don't understand. Your poorly written piece is not justified. Please do so.

Kelvin. Oh really? Where are these mass graves? Your posts imply a somewhat less-than-intelligent mind. I suggest you actually research what you're arguing.

Nikolai.


Cheers Nikolai. Well said.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 8:24 am on May 27, 2003
Yes Kelvin...Hitler was an admitted capitalist...Check out the Hitler was a socialist thread started by that twat dark capitalist...For fuck's sake Kelvin....Again....Please pay attention! You would think you would know these things by now....

They are all correct by the way...research them if you like.


Sorry. It is not my job to prove your point.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 8:27 am on May 27, 2003

Quote: from Yezhov on 7:18 am on May 27, 2003
"stalinists are stalinists because they are stupid. theyre obviously also fascists. they must think its a good idea to put one person in absolute power to control everything you do and to have someone practice genocide, therefore making thems stupid. it doesnt take much intellegence to realise absolute power corrupts absolutely.'

Is that a fact? And how does one actually base political opinion upon intelligence. I can see therefore that you are "stupid." Do you understand fascism? I don't believe you do.

You also presume many things in your post Raw Deal Dill. "They must do or think such and such" for example is presuming upon that which you don't understand. Your poorly written piece is not justified. Please do so.

Kelvin. Oh really? Where are these mass graves? Your posts imply a somewhat less-than-intelligent mind. I suggest you actually research what you're arguing.

Nikolai.


Cheers Nikolai. Well said.


Mass graves:
http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000087.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1010/p01s02-woeu.html

Stalin can not complete take the honor for this one, but it is very ironic that Lenin's statue is next to the grave site.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/05/31...and.exhumation/ (http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/05/31/poland.exhumation/)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Sorry. It is not my job to prove your point.



Your foolishness shows no bounds Kelvin. I already know Hitler was a capitalist...I am not questioning the fact. you are I am finished with you this evening Kelvin...I feel like I have tended a toddler in in a toy shoppe for several hours. You truly are absurd.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 9:05 am on May 27, 2003


Sorry. It is not my job to prove your point.



Your foolishness shows no bounds Kelvin. I already know Hitler was a capitalist...I am not questioning the fact. you are I am finished with you this evening Kelvin...I feel like I have tended a toddler in in a toy shoppe for several hours. You truly are absurd.


It is not my job to bring research to this forum to prove your point. Bring your own research here to we can all look at it.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 9:05 am on May 27, 2003


Sorry. It is not my job to prove your point.



Your foolishness shows no bounds Kelvin. I already know Hitler was a capitalist...I am not questioning the fact. you are I am finished with you this evening Kelvin...I feel like I have tended a toddler in in a toy shoppe for several hours. You truly are absurd.


Dude I feel sorry for you. Your really stretching. I am not even going to run with this one. If you credit Dark Capitalist as a credible source, then you have to believe everything he brings here to this forum? OK then Hitler was a capitalist, then what about everthing else that Dark Capitalist posts? Hmmmm.

[Pete]

Kelvin, how could Hitler not be a capitalist?!? He said that private enterprise was essential! He was buddy buddy with BMW who begain by producing war planes for him. Voltswagon, armed cars. Really...

[Guest1]

Kelvin, he said check the THREAD, not what dark capitalist said, dark capitalist started the thread to say that Hitler was a socialist, it was the responses that prove he was a capitalist that he was getting at.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Don't bother too much with this individual comrades. Making him look ridiculous was not only too easy, but began to become tiresome. I compare him to those nasty little mosquitos in South East Asia that continually bombard you no matter how much swatting you apply to them....Annoying? Indeed. Meaningful? Not likely.

(Unless one of these little bastards gives you Malaria)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Kelvin, no cookie for you! Haven't I already told you to read the manifesto?! Bad boy, tsk, tsk, tsk! Don't come back on here untill you read the communist manifesto, understand?! It'll only rob you of about an hour of you precious capitalistic existance.
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics.../manifesto.html (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html)


Hitler, by the way, a national socialist, which is just state capitalism, which is capitalism with complete and totalitarian influence from the government.

i think it has been made clear that capitalism has created far more dictators that communism ever has. and even though communism has created some 'dictators' (strictly for the purpose of this discussion), it is not in the agenda of modern communists to have any more dictators.

(Edited by Victorcommie at 3:06 pm on May 27, 2003)

[Palmares]

Quote: from Victorcommie on 6:59 am on May 28, 2003
Kelvin, no cookie for you! Haven't I already told you to read the manifesto?! Bad boy, tsk, tsk, tsk! Don't come back on here untill you read the communist manifesto, understand?! It'll only rob you of about an hour of you precious capitalistic existance.
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics.../manifesto.html (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html)


Hitler, by the way, a national socialist, which is just state capitalism, which is capitalism with complete and totalitarian influence from the government.

i think it has been made clear that capitalism has created far more dictators that communism ever has. and even though communism has created some 'dictators' (strictly for the purpose of this discussion), it is not in the agenda of modern communists to have any more dictators.

(Edited by Victorcommie at 3:06 pm on May 27, 2003)


Hitler was actually a social nationalist. National Socialism in name, is technically "Stalinism".

The rest is on point.

[Vinny Rafarino]

And so you are not conveniently "unable to recall" Kelvin
I will reiterate some of your most brutal capitalist dictators....I even added a couple...Just because I like you so much.

1)Adolf Hitler-Germany
2)Alfredo Stroesser-Paraguay
3)Ferdinand Marcos-Philippines
4)Anastasio Somoza Garcia (tacho)-Nicaragua
5)Anastasio Somoza Debayle (tacho's son)-Nicaragua
6)Humberto de Alencar Castello Branco-Brazil
7)AUGUSTO PINOCHET-Chile, Allende's Assassin
8)Francois Duvalier-Haiti
9)Jean-Claude Duvalier-Haiti

[Pete]

You forgot Benito Mussolini(Italy), Franco (Spain), Sallazar (Portugal), Hirohito (Japan), Suharto (Indonesia), Batista (Cuba), and many more.

[Anonymous]

Sate capitalism is an oxymoron.

[Pete]

As is national socialism.

[Palmares]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 1:30 pm on May 28, 2003
Sate capitalism is an oxymoron.



Quote: from CrazyPete on 1:37 pm on May 28, 2003
As is national socialism.

Both are fucked. They are self-defeating.

What else would you expect from Hitler and Stalin?

Capitalist fascism and ...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

DC, you say that state capitalism is an oxymoron because to you capitalism means a society in which the ownership of capital equals power and in state capitalism, power comes from the head of state, entirely. What you are missing is that in state capitalism, the ownership of capital also equals much power, in the maner that one with capital, as in any capitalist society, has enormous influence over the govenment.
I'll give you an analogy:
state capitalism is to capitalism as monarchy is to feudalism
understand?

[synthesis]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 3:30 am on May 28, 2003
Sate capitalism is an oxymoron.
False.

Show me a capitalist country in the last hundred years with no involvement from the government.

[notyetacommie]

It's very interesting how some people call Stalin a national socialist. Which nation are you talking about? Georgian, no doubt?:) Do you know he was Georgian, not Russian? Do you know that many active politburo members were not Russian? Nor were they Georgian?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Yes, we are all aware that stalin is Georgian...and before you say it, we all know his name was really
Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili. He was also a nationalist. These are facts. It is also a fact that he should be respected by everyone.

[Pete]

Dyer, I believe he is talking of the theory of capitalism (which is why I agreed with him)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from DyerMaker on 6:33 am on May 28, 2003

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 3:30 am on May 28, 2003
Sate capitalism is an oxymoron.
False.

Show me a capitalist country in the last hundred years with no involvement from the government.


USA 1920's-1930's Boom and Bust, Ended up in economic collaps.

I think for a while in the 1840's in or just after Peels ministary. But im not sure, it depends on if you include things such as the factory acts as economic involvment. It asl odepends on if you consider taking away legislation to gain more fee trade.

So you are prbably correct, but im not entirley sure.

(Edited by AK47 at 1:15 pm on May 28, 2003)

[Som]

As a fellow comrade in arms, I respect and value your opinions. I just don't see your solutions as actually working...no matter how ideal they are. The cattle will not rise up and fight. Subversionists will not just eat their cookie and be quiet. I don't believe the authoritive government of the USSR led to their downfall. Without the constant economical and political attacks from the USA, the demise of the Soviet state never would have happend.

Heres really another point we break, makes this a bit of a different look, I don't want the type of system the soviet union had. While I think its socialism is preferable most of the time, i don't support what essentially becomes trading masters, switching from the rule of the capitalist class, to the rule of the party, even if it does claim to act in the interests of the people.

This sort of emphasizes my point about the means becoming the end, with that, I don't find 'subversionists' to be a problem that can be stopped by totalitarian means. If its a popular and free revolution, they'll be more likely to stopped by their neighbors and the society around them, and it'll be alot more pleasant that way for everyone.
Sort of like to handle it similiar to the tories in the american revolution, they officially never had to shutup, weren't punished unless they fought for the british, but there was still enough for a good 60,000 of them to flee to canada.

Generally, I don't really think it would be worth it to trade the capitalists for state managers, and the capitalist ruling class for the socialist ruling class.
Kelvin also does have a point about those indiscriminate ditches, as Lenin, Mao, and even Castro killed and jailed people who had similiar opinions to mine, they were never enemies of their revolutions.
Never want a revolution thats going to have me killed.

I think its way to simple to blame america for the fall of the soviet union, even if america played nice, you still would've had kruschev to turn it even more state capitalist, and you still would've gotten a gorbachev and yeltsin as well. Power and ideology have a habit of not working together very well.

Maybe your a bit nicer though, Comrade.

Need some more cookies.

[Vinny Rafarino]

That is why these forums and debates are essential to the development of the movement. One political agenda will eventually need to be agreed upon. The rifts must be sealed in order to progress. I have faith in every one of my comrades here and hope to see an agreement in policy quite soon. Simply because I may have a more "hard line" view than others does not mean I am not open to accepting the "majority rules" prospect of our party if it will advance the revelotion. I simply want the issues debated clearly and concisely with all relevant fact presented and discussed.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 4:09 pm on May 27, 2003
Kelvin, how could Hitler not be a capitalist?!? He said that private enterprise was essential! He was buddy buddy with BMW who begain by producing war planes for him. Voltswagon, armed cars. Really...


Please provide a source. I have brought my research here for you to look at, why not you? I would like to see the context of what was said by Hitler. eg What date did it take place, the setting, other parts of speech or letter associated with your quotation. Then I can remark about your post.

How did the Hitlers Nazi's get their name?

(Edited by kelvin9 at 12:56 am on May 29, 2003)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I don't think so, comrade raf, I've been coming to these forums for several months and a genral agreement upon ideology does not seem to be in the near future. Excellent sig, comrade.

[Anonymous]

Quote:
Hitler, by the way, a national socialist, which is just state capitalism, which is capitalism with complete and totalitarian influence from the government.
to have any more dictators.


Common really. What were the social policies that made Hitler so popular? Does a man get popular control of a country during a depression by making the rich richer?

You made the claim. How did you go about learning that?

(Edited by kelvin9 at 1:08 am on May 29, 2003)

[Anonymous]

Hey folks:

How about those mass graves?

Sorry the BBC is not the only one who reports mass graves in Soviet Union.

[Pete]

There was a large civil war and mass famine in the soviet union.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 1:14 am on May 29, 2003
There was a large civil war and mass famine in the soviet union.

Hmmm, No. The NKVD put them there.

"Many of the victims were murdered with a single shot to the back of the head"

http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000087.html

[Pete]

That site has a libertarian/menshivik feel ( I cannot decide which )

[Palmares]

Quote: from notyetacommie on 8:52 pm on May 28, 2003
It's very interesting how some people call Stalin a national socialist. Which nation are you talking about? Georgian, no doubt?:) Do you know he was Georgian, not Russian? Do you know that many active politburo members were not Russian? Nor were they Georgian?


Stalin was a national socialist. "Socialism in one", hence "National Socialism". Hitler was a social nationalist.


Quote: from kelvin9 on 10:54 am on May 29, 2003

How did the Hitlers Nazi's get their name?



Nazi = Na ('na'tionaler) zi(so'zi'alismus)

The name was a lie.

BTW, was this sarcastic?

[Pete]

No it was oppurtunist. Hitler only ever joined the party as a spy for the German Military, but he gained influence inside of it quickly.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, but how about the social policies? He was a very popular leader. I assume he was a capitalist and the rich people brought him to power durring a depression.

[Pete]

He supported the same things as the Communists did in some cases, but ran on a platform of Lebenstraum (living space for the german people), Anschlautz (sp) (uniting the german people) and being anti-communist. He played into the nationalistic feeling of the people of Germany, and Austria (where he is actually from). Nazism is a distorted version of fascism because of its oppurtunist beginnings and emphasis on the German Motherland's Honour, Territorial Intergrety, and Purity.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 2:38 am on May 29, 2003
He supported the same things as the Communists did in some cases, but ran on a platform of Lebenstraum (living space for the german people), Anschlautz (sp) (uniting the german people) and being anti-communist. He played into the nationalistic feeling of the people of Germany, and Austria (where he is actually from). Nazism is a distorted version of fascism because of its oppurtunist beginnings and emphasis on the German Motherland's Honour, Territorial Intergrety, and Purity.

He did some Communist things? And that is capitialism?

[Pete]

To save face he supported a strike that the communists also supported, but at the same time he said that private ownership was central to his platform (thus being anti-communist). He was an oppurtunist so he tried to undercut the communists to gain their votes and then not act on those principles, but his own. (Lebanstruam and Anschlutz especially ... they led to WWII)

[Yezhov]

Kelvin, that is your evidence? Where are the hard facts? "up to such and such" etc.

Just slightly disappointing from a capitalist. At least the Stalin killed 40 million people arguments haven't arrived.

The last link. Have you even read it? I suggest you read it again.


Some historians have suggested Poles acted out of revenge for what they saw as Jewish co-operation with repressive Soviet occupiers, who left the Lenin statue behind when they fled the invading Germans.

Just pathetic Kelvin.

Nikolai

[synthesis]

Let's put this in proper perspective, kelvin. The Nazis called their capitalist, totalitarian party National Socialist. The Soviets called their totalitarian satellite states People's Democracies.

Doesn't make it true, does it?

Blatant lies in naming designed to gain outside support for a totalitarian regime occur frequently.

[Palmares]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 11:54 am on May 29, 2003
No it was oppurtunist. Hitler only ever joined the party as a spy for the German Military, but he gained influence inside of it quickly.


Sorry, I meant what is a joke that they were asking what it meant. I've always thought it common knowledge (hence sarcasm).

[Vinny Rafarino]

Just slightly disappointing from a capitalist. At least the Stalin killed 40 million people arguments haven't arrived.

I'm sure they are in the mail Nikolai...They arrive at the rate of about one every three pages or so.



(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 4:13 am on May 29, 2003)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

at least Stalin killed 40 million people.

just kidding comrades:biggrin:

[Anonymous]

Quote:
Kelvin. Oh really? Where are these mass graves?

Nikolai.


You asked where the graves where and I showed you.

This one even has a nice map to show you where it is.

http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000087.html

Opps! Sorry it was this one:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1010/p01s02-woeu.html

How is that pathetic? You can at least thank me for helping you find the mass graves, geeez!

[Anonymous]

Quote: from Yezhov on 3:27 am on May 29, 2003
Kelvin, that is your evidence? Where are the hard facts? "up to such and such" etc.

Just slightly disappointing from a capitalist. At least the Stalin killed 40 million people arguments haven't arrived.

The last link. Have you even read it? I suggest you read it again.


Some historians have suggested Poles acted out of revenge for what they saw as Jewish co-operation with repressive Soviet occupiers, who left the Lenin statue behind when they fled the invading Germans.

Just pathetic Kelvin.

Nikolai


The last link? Oh sorry, did you give me one to look at? Sure, please repost and I'll be happy to read it.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from Victorcommie on 5:00 am on May 29, 2003
at least Stalin killed 40 million people.

just kidding comrades:biggrin:


Stalin did not kill people, the famine did:

http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/

Does anyone read Russian?

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/famine.html

I only took 4 years of Russian in college many years ago and most of it was technical. The document reports seems to describe the medical symptoms of starvation.

[Anonymous]

Hitler? A capitalist. Maybe. Being anti-communist does not mean your a capitalist.

But but but Marcos? He was a pupet dictator allied with the USA. Capitalist?

http://www.pcij.org/stories/1998/media.html

The system that Marcos left behind had many state owned businesses. After all it is easier to steal the profits if the business is owned by your corrupt government.

http://www.ceji-iocj.org/English/internati...Chain-Jn99).htm (http://www.ceji-iocj.org/English/international/Speech-SusanGranada(GlobalChain-Jn99).htm)

Again privitization became more intense after Marcos was gone.

Soooo? Was Marcos a capitialist?

[Cassius Clay]

Those three links don't prove anything. Now you don't think that those graves near Leningrad were victims of the seige and Nazi Occupation. As for the Jews in Poland, hmm Jews and Nazi Occupation. Could it shock horror be the Nazis again.

Honestly you tried your best to blame Katryn on the Soviets and that's been proven to be a lie.

Oh yes and Hitler was a Capitalist. Who said that his aim was to defend private property? Hitler. Who met with two of Germany's biggest industrialists in 1932 to explain he 'was the only alternative to the Communists'? Who made huge profit from the death camp system? German companys.

Oh yeah and there was no 'Famine' in the Ukraine.

[Cassius Clay]

AK in answer to your question about Trotsky being 'decieved' by Stalin about Lenin's funeral.

First of all is anybody supposed to believe that Stalin (a 'third rate figure' according to Trotsky) was Trotsky only source of information? What happened was Stalin told Trotsky originally the date of the funeral was on the Saturday because that's when it originally was. It was moved to the Sunday because tens of thousands more people wanted throughout the USSR wanted to go to the funeral. Yet Trotsky somehow doesn't know this? He has no other source of information? He can't order a special train or something? Yet thousands of peasants and workers do manage to get to the funeral?

This shows once again how Trotsky lies. He didn't turn up because he was a arrogant bastard in love with his own ego, not because he was 'decieved by evil Stalin'.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 10:30 am on May 29, 2003
AK in answer to your question about Trotsky being 'decieved' by Stalin about Lenin's funeral.

First of all is anybody supposed to believe that Stalin (a 'third rate figure' according to Trotsky) was Trotsky only source of information? What happened was Stalin told Trotsky originally the date of the funeral was on the Saturday because that's when it originally was. It was moved to the Sunday because tens of thousands more people wanted throughout the USSR wanted to go to the funeral. Yet Trotsky somehow doesn't know this? He has no other source of information? He can't order a special train or something? Yet thousands of peasants and workers do manage to get to the funeral?

This shows once again how Trotsky lies. He didn't turn up because he was a arrogant bastard in love with his own ego, not because he was 'decieved by evil Stalin'.

You are probably right but could i see a link with evidance to just catagorically prove this? Im sure your right but just a little more proof.

[Pete]

You don't need a link AK, its common fucking sense.

[Pete]

Kelvin, drop the 'hitler was a communist' claim. You proved that you did not know his policies, and thus have no backing.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 12:40 pm on May 29, 2003
Kelvin, drop the 'hitler was a communist' claim. You proved that you did not know his policies, and thus have no backing.

I never did. The claim in dispute was Hitler was a capitalist.

Actaully I do know his policies. I wanted to see if the people claiming he was a capitalist knew about his socialist policies.

Cradle to grave social reform that took care of Germans. Many social programs and services that helped Germans during the world wide depression. Is that a capitalist? No.

Germans historically have had a socialist bent to their programs with and without Hitler.

http://countrystudies.us/germany/112.htm

(Edited by kelvin9 at 2:28 pm on May 29, 2003)

Additionally the counter point made by a comrade was dictators produced by the USA. The USA did not produce Hitler. Give the credit where it is due. There were dictators produced by the USA, not Hitler.

(Edited by kelvin9 at 2:49 pm on May 29, 2003)

[Pete]

The germans have always been afraid of popular uprisings. Sure hitler gave everyone a job. In the army. What did he use the jews for? Slave armies for corporations. Oscar Schindler anyone?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

just because Hitler has some social programes, that does not necessarily prevent him being a capitalist. The US has some social programes, is it not extremely capitalistic? the point is that private ownership and free enterprise were both major aspects of nazi germany, thus makeing it capitalist.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Quote: from kelvin9 on 6:07 am on May 29, 2003

Quote: from Yezhov on 3:27 am on May 29, 2003
Kelvin, that is your evidence? Where are the hard facts? "up to such and such" etc.

Just slightly disappointing from a capitalist. At least the Stalin killed 40 million people arguments haven't arrived.

The last link. Have you even read it? I suggest you read it again.


Some historians have suggested Poles acted out of revenge for what they saw as Jewish co-operation with repressive Soviet occupiers, who left the Lenin statue behind when they fled the invading Germans.

Just pathetic Kelvin.

Nikolai


The last link? Oh sorry, did you give me one to look at? Sure, please repost and I'll be happy to read it.


Again you show your incapacity for rational thought Kelvin....Notice comrade Nikolai places the information in question WITHIN the actual post. (I have it in bold so even you will see it). It's simply gets worse and worse for you the more you post...(I thought sinister was bad)

As far as your "mass graves" are concerned, I can dig up any hole full of bodies in Russia and claim "That fucker Stalin must have done it". With all the violence that existed within Russia during this the ENTIRE era, is it not possible that other parties are responsible? Specifially, the army that was currenty INVADING Russia and committing racial genocide all over Europe. (this post is directed to anti-stalinist socialists as well).

I will include a portion of your own link to affirm:

Alexandra Reznikova, a volunteer with the human rights group Memorial, looks at bones in a grave site near Toksovo. The grave is thought to be evidence of a Stalin-era mass murder.

What does "thought to be evidence" mean to you? Kelvin I beg you please do not ever respond to jury duty notices.

Worthless your posts are.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 6:06 am on May 30, 2003)

[atlanticche]

mass murder was the most important thing Stalin ever did
he removed a huge portion of the population of russia not to mention the world
he removed every political enemy he had and any rising up force he lowered the need for food and money needing ot be spent on things other than the military
so he could creat a larger military to defeat Hitler though this was stupid because he created enemies of communism which of never existed if he hadnt done so
there is nothing good about Stalinism it just kills innocent people and created unecasary enemies it is stupid

[Pete]

atlanticche. I hope you enjoy the upcoming filming of "Che, oh how liberal!"....

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 12:40 pm on May 29, 2003
You don't need a link AK, its common fucking sense.


I was actually thinking of the changing of the dates, from saturday to sunday, i want to see some evidance of that, not the fact that it was not within Trotsky's power to reach the funeral.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Quote: from atlanticche on 4:40 pm on May 30, 2003
mass murder was the most important thing Stalin ever did
he removed a huge portion of the population of russia not to mention the world
he removed every political enemy he had and any rising up force he lowered the need for food and money needing ot be spent on things other than the military
so he could creat a larger military to defeat Hitler though this was stupid because he created enemies of communism which of never existed if he hadnt done so
there is nothing good about Stalinism it just kills innocent people and created unecasary enemies it is stupid


So...you prefer Naziism over the totalitarian reputation given to Communism by Stalin?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Oh yeah and there was no 'Famine' in the Ukraine.


Yes there was no famine in the Ukraine, just lots of medical symptoms of starvatlion.

[Pete]

Perhpas it could have been malnutrition, which afflicts more people than starvation does.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 6:05 am on May 30, 2003

Quote: from kelvin9 on 6:07 am on May 29, 2003

Quote: from Yezhov on 3:27 am on May 29, 2003
Kelvin, that is your evidence? Where are the hard facts? "up to such and such" etc.

Just slightly disappointing from a capitalist. At least the Stalin killed 40 million people arguments haven't arrived.

The last link. Have you even read it? I suggest you read it again.


Some historians have suggested Poles acted out of revenge for what they saw as Jewish co-operation with repressive Soviet occupiers, who left the Lenin statue behind when they fled the invading Germans.

Just pathetic Kelvin.

Nikolai


The last link? Oh sorry, did you give me one to look at? Sure, please repost and I'll be happy to read it.


Again you show your incapacity for rational thought Kelvin....Notice comrade Nikolai places the information in question WITHIN the actual post. (I have it in bold so even you will see it). It's simply gets worse and worse for you the more you post...(I thought sinister was bad)

As far as your "mass graves" are concerned, I can dig up any hole full of bodies in Russia and claim "That fucker Stalin must have done it". With all the violence that existed within Russia during this the ENTIRE era, is it not possible that other parties are responsible? Specifially, the army that was currenty INVADING Russia and committing racial genocide all over Europe. (this post is directed to anti-stalinist socialists as well).

I will include a portion of your own link to affirm:

Alexandra Reznikova, a volunteer with the human rights group Memorial, looks at bones in a grave site near Toksovo. The grave is thought to be evidence of a Stalin-era mass murder.

What does "thought to be evidence" mean to you? Kelvin I beg you please do not ever respond to jury duty notices.

Worthless your posts are.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 6:06 am on May 30, 2003)


Keep going. There are other people reading this thread. Your are getting more looney all the time. Ask your fellow Comrades.

(Edited by kelvin9 at 1:24 am on May 31, 2003)

[IHP]

On the contrary, your's seem to be becoming more desperate. Ever heard of the expression 'grasping at straws'?

Lets look at Comrade RAF's post. No lets take it back one post. As a skeptic of lot of the 'mass grave theories, I checked your links, bucko. You know what I found in the third one as comrade GAF stated?

Some historians have suggested Poles acted out of revenge for what they saw as Jewish co-operation with repressive Soviet occupiers, who left the Lenin statue behind when they fled the invading Germans.

This was from your link. GAF was showing how foolish you are that you don't even check your own links.

And all the other information he has provided further disproves your theory.

You should probably stop posting...it is becoming embaressing.

--IHP

EDIT: Sorry one of those was from Nikolai, the other information was from GAF.

(Edited by i hate pinochet at 8:04 am on May 31, 2003)

[IHP]

Ok, I guess you have nothing further to say Kelvin?

Good. Settled.

--IHP

[Vinny Rafarino]

It's quite a laugh...I knew we all understood. I How was it to understand Nikolai's post? NOT HARD AT ALL!!That kat is simply an imbecile. Done...No more Kelvin. I do believe we have ruined the dear boy.

Quote: from atlanticche on 4:40 pm on May 30, 2003
mass murder was the most important thing Stalin ever did
he removed a huge portion of the population of russia not to mention the world
he removed every political enemy he had and any rising up force he lowered the need for food and money needing ot be spent on things other than the military
so he could creat a larger military to defeat Hitler though this was stupid because he created enemies of communism which of never existed if he hadnt done so
there is nothing good about Stalinism it just kills innocent people and created unecasary enemies it is stupid

You have no idea what you are talking about. Please provide facts to support your opinions.

Please also make an attempt at grammar. You're embarrassing yourself with these babblings.

[IHP]

Yes, indeed the young lad has been somewhat ruined. Maybe he'll admit, you were right, he was wrong. Sadly I only came in at the end, though.

Atlanticche: That's your opinion, and that's fine. But could you please put in a full stop here or there? Seriously, I ran out of breath trying to read it.

--IHP

[Soviet power supreme]

Yes I want to know what would people in here Che-lives do to counter revolutionaries?

Stalin is criticized putting them to labour camps and executing them.
You would just let them go?

This what cappies and fascists have done in Finland.Why wouldn't we do the samething?
http://www.sunpoint.net/~solidkom/kuvia/TammisaariPunavank.jpg

[Xvall]

I'm assuming they're stalinists because that is their ideological choice. Just as some people here choose to be maoists, anarchists, or whatever. You should have known that starting a topic like this would get a lot of unfriendly replies, by the way.

And I don't thing any of the stalinists who reply to his posts with the same logic (I am right, you are wrong and counter-revolutionary) are any better than he is.

I'm under the impression that many of us have problems with killing counter-revolutionaries because it isn't really clearly defined. Is it a person militiantly opposing the revolution? Someone who just doesn't agree with us?

[Guest1]

the practice of killing counter-revolutionaries has been shown to eventually lead to the condemnation of anarchists, libertarian communists and labour leaders. after all, if a worker realizes his new boss is just another opressor under another name, he is threatening the revolution and deserves to be shot.

[suffianr]

Curious, but the photo looks like it's been doctored; the prisoners seeming to be facing the camera at an odd angle, and the guy with the rifle on the left is too close to the target. Also, they all look like they're posing outside the local tavern, and how can their boots be so impossibly shiny when the ground looks all muddy, like it's just rained or something. And what's with the body on the ground? Did they shoot that guy first and then think to themselves, Hey boys, get yer cameras out, we'll have a Kodak Moment before we do the rest!

Maybe I've been staring at this bloody computer for too long...

[The Children of the Revolution]

Also, they all look like they're posing outside the local tavern, and how can their boots be so impossibly shiny when the ground looks all muddy, like it's just rained or something. And what's with the body on the ground? Did they shoot that guy first and then think to themselves, Hey boys, get yer cameras out, we'll have a Kodak Moment before we do the rest!


LOL, I was thinking the same thing comrade!

Stalinism is an ideological choice, yes. Based on killing lots of people and perverting Marxism. It seems to be an extension of the Stalinist personality cult developed in the 1940's-1950's. They should all be imprisoned and "rehabilitated", Stalinism is a dangerous mental condition. It's promoters shouldn't be allowed to roam the streets.

Everyone should worship (in a sense) Lenin and Trotsky (but mainly Lenin) instead.

[Soviet power supreme]

Tavern?I don't see any tavern.I see couple barns, fence and forest.
Well here is another one.
http://www.sunpoint.net/~solidkom/kuvia/TamperePunavank2.jpg

[Guest1]

actually, worshipping anyone will be jsut as bad. even marx shouldn't be worshipped.

[Man in the White Shirt]

I agree with Che and Hash, as communist we are (or should be) atheists. What are religions but cults of personality? Christians worship Jesus for his teachings, Buddhists worship Buddha for his teachings... and Stalinists worship Stalinists for his teachings. No, even Marx and Che (gasps from readers), are perfect we need to remember that. As Communists it can be easy to forget this, but if we do we are forced to walk the same twisted path to failure like our predecessors.

[Guest1]

yep. communism should be about challenging the commonly held beliefs, even within the movement, and thinking for yourself. be analytical, and don't be a blind follower of anything.

[Bolshevika]

Stalinists worship Stalinists

Idiocy, I don't worship Stalin at all. Maybe at times, I joke around as if I do, but i do not 'worship Stalin' anymore than you worship Che.

[Guest1]

I thought you said somewhere that you weren't a stalinist. we said stalinists worship stalin. I even hesitate sometimes to call myself a marxist, because I reserve the right to criticise marx despite believing in many of his teachings. that what real political involvement is. don't be a sheep.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 1 2003, 12:16 AM
actually, worshipping anyone will be jsut as bad. even marx shouldn't be worshipped.
Nobody/nothing should be worshipped, since than it/he/she loses their essence and their real meaning and that is just what makes them/it great ...

[Tom-Guevarist]

I'm no stallinist, butt about the goelag camps, brittain indrustrialised in 300 years, France in 200, butt by those camps Russia in 25 years(not all his murders were just for his hate)

[RGacky3]

Yeah and Hitler saved the Economy, whats your point?

BTW, the technology was already there whereas those hundreds of years ago it had yet to be invented. so making that comparison is a little bit falwed.

[GPDP]

It's like I'm really in 2000 motherfucking 3!