GREATES MAN ON EARTH - Joseph Stalin [Archive]

Vinny Rafarino

26th July 2003, 13:48

I may as well add to this "well thought out thread"

The opening post left quite a bit to be desired.

Thr purges were far far from great. The were however necessary for the State to survive. What's the matter with you? I am stunned that anyone that supports comrade Stalin would even dream up such an idea.
Anyone who thinks comrade Stalin did cartwheels every time a subversionist was put to death for the people is either a moron or 12 years old.

"Stalin Stalin Stalin"? For fuck's sake man, comrade Stalin would be ahamed of anyone idolising him in such a vulger fashion.

When I first read the opening post I instantly thought og several posts ignorant posts that would immediately surface.

AK47, you know as well as I that Stalin never killed "millions" of his own people. When will you stop believing those silly lies perpetuated by the west to make communism "the evil enemy of freedom"?

"Stalin was a state capitalist" Whine Whine Whine. If you understand communism to even the slightest degree you would know that some form of capitalist economic policy is absolutely fundamental in developing a socialist state from a fuedalistic country that has a GDP based almost entirely in agriculture. Jesus where are your heads? A jump straight to communism from fuedalism sure worked out well for Cambodia didn't it.

Civilians that perform subversionist acts against the State are political dissidents and therefore traitors to the people. Execution is a standard policy for traitors, even today. If you think for a minute that comrade Stalin simply waltzed into random homes and chose individuals to be executed by using the popular "rock paper scissors" method you are out of your mind.

Totalitarian, brutal dictator. What a silly thing to say. By definition a dictator must have "absolute power". Comrade Stalin had no such thing.

Do you want to lay blame for individuals starving in the post-revolution Soviet Union? Blame the Kulaks.

"State capitalism is not Marxism"

Thanks for letting us all in on that little secret Elijah. Pure Marxism is a theory that can only be put into affect when to masses are politically mature and responsible enough to govern themselves. Putting these ideals into practise is a long way off.

How can anyone actually compare the Soviet Union under stalin to "1984"? Do you not read much?

It appears AK47 is the individual who decided to be cliche king in this thread. I reckon a lad has to be good at something.

Sandanista

26th July 2003, 15:48

funny thing is, i always thought that in communism the state withers away, yet in stalinist russia the state was the strongest tool of oppression, just like the "evil" west.

To Joseph Stalin and Koba, WTF?

In cambodia there never was communism, the Khmer Rouge were a vile little lot, they killed the majority of the cambodian itellectualls, including marxists.

I think AK47s analysis of comparing 1984 to stalinist russia is chliched, however essential.

The sooner the majority of comrades on here realise that russia, cuba, north korea etc were not and still are not communist, the sooner we can make advances towards the revolution.

Anarchist Freedom

26th July 2003, 16:25

i am very sadend by this thread it is offending in a way i never saw stalin as a great man beacause he gave communism a bad name and thats not good for me.l because when your 14 and you say your communist people belive i am evil it really is a curse. Then i take at least 10 mins explaining the difference i am very saddend by stalin i have very little respect for him . i only respect him because he fended off those nazi scum in stalingrad now volvograd and leningrad and moscow.

everything else stalin did sending his people to die in siberia pains me i dislike stalin alot and he was a evil person

Anarchist Freedom

26th July 2003, 16:29

oh and please no more political illiterate people should be allowed in these forums i am becoming extremely vexxed by there ignorant remarks about political ideals such as this one.

(Edited by Socialistfreedom88 at 4:30 pm on July 26, 2003)

Invader Zim

26th July 2003, 17:44

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 1:48 pm on July 26, 2003
I may as well add to this "well thought out thread"

The opening post left quite a bit to be desired.

Thr purges were far far from great. The were however necessary for the State to survive. What's the matter with you? I am stunned that anyone that supports comrade Stalin would even dream up such an idea.
Anyone who thinks comrade Stalin did cartwheels every time a subversionist was put to death for the people is either a moron or 12 years old.

"Stalin Stalin Stalin"? For fuck's sake man, comrade Stalin would be ahamed of anyone idolising him in such a vulger fashion.

When I first read the opening post I instantly thought og several posts ignorant posts that would immediately surface.

AK47, you know as well as I that Stalin never killed "millions" of his own people. When will you stop believing those silly lies perpetuated by the west to make communism "the evil enemy of freedom"?

"Stalin was a state capitalist" Whine Whine Whine. If you understand communism to even the slightest degree you would know that some form of capitalist economic policy is absolutely fundamental in developing a socialist state from a fuedalistic country that has a GDP based almost entirely in agriculture. Jesus where are your heads? A jump straight to communism from fuedalism sure worked out well for Cambodia didn't it.

Civilians that perform subversionist acts against the State are political dissidents and therefore traitors to the people. Execution is a standard policy for traitors, even today. If you think for a minute that comrade Stalin simply waltzed into random homes and chose individuals to be executed by using the popular "rock paper scissors" method you are out of your mind.

Totalitarian, brutal dictator. What a silly thing to say. By definition a dictator must have "absolute power". Comrade Stalin had no such thing.

Do you want to lay blame for individuals starving in the post-revolution Soviet Union? Blame the Kulaks.

"State capitalism is not Marxism"

Thanks for letting us all in on that little secret Elijah. Pure Marxism is a theory that can only be put into affect when to masses are politically mature and responsible enough to govern themselves. Putting these ideals into practise is a long way off.

How can anyone actually compare the Soviet Union under stalin to "1984"? Do you not read much?

It appears AK47 is the individual who decided to be cliche king in this thread. I reckon a lad has to be good at something.

AK47, you know as well as I that Stalin never killed "millions" of his own people. When will you stop believing those silly lies perpetuated by the west to make communism "the evil enemy of freedom"?

Do I? Do I also know the winning lottery numbers for next week?

But seriously I have seen extracts from the soviet archives which state that stalin never killed anyone, I have however seen extracts which state the oppersit.

How can anyone actually compare the Soviet Union under stalin to "1984"?

I did not, I compaired it to Animal Farm, a different book my dear Comrade RAF. I also put in a quote from that book as well. However now that you mention it "Big-Brother is watching you."

Perhaps it is not such an unrealitic view of the Stalinist police state, or what ever you want to call the witch hunt for "counter revolutionarys".

It appears AK47 is the individual who decided to be cliche king in this thread. I reckon a lad has to be good at something.

Oh yes very witty, excuse me while I go and crack a rib...

(Edited by AK47 at 5:45 pm on July 26, 2003)

Koba Dzhugashvili

26th July 2003, 19:04

I just finished reading a book on Stalin, I do think that he made mistakes. He was only human, and everyone makes mistakes. . I hold nothing against anyone who does not like Stalin, so I hope we can all be freinds here.AK when I was asking about you talking to me or JS I meant when you said about him being a pretty ok guy

Loknar

26th July 2003, 19:16

Well this is a tough one. On one hand Stalin killed millions while industrialization Russia by selling the food that would have sustained them. However on the other Russia went from having a lower industrial out than Algeria to then rivaling America in industry. With this new industrial power Russia was able to win WW2 (and also they won because the Germans screwed up early on). I am convinced that had Stalin not industrialized Russia , they would have lost WW2 because the lack of equipment.

However, one thing that cant be disputed was that Stalin was a paranoid man. He was virtually alone after his wife committed suicide. When new rulers are suddenly alone it isn’t unheard of for them to 'purge' their best people out of distrust (I recommend reading about Ancient Koryo).

Overall Stalin and Mao are the worse mass murderers in history, Hitler is actually at #3 (Pol Pot is there if you want to go by ratio). However , he does deserve credit for beating the Nazi's back.

(Edited by Loknar at 7:17 pm on July 26, 2003)

elijahcraig

27th July 2003, 01:24

I'd suggest anyone who wants to know of the Stalinist State Capitalism read the articles I posted links to on the thread on "Stalinism".

Invader Zim

27th July 2003, 01:30

Quote: from Koba Dzhugashvili on 7:04 pm on July 26, 2003
I just finished reading a book on Stalin, I do think that he made mistakes. He was only human, and everyone makes mistakes. . I hold nothing against anyone who does not like Stalin, so I hope we can all be freinds here.AK when I was asking about you talking to me or JS I meant when you said about him being a pretty ok guy

Both of you are considerably better than some of the other marxist leninists we have had on this site before, well from first impressions at any rate. And welcome comrades ignore all the other critical bastards, if they dont like if your posts are long enough or detailed enough fuck 'em.

Vinny Rafarino

27th July 2003, 02:13

Loknar your statement contained absolutely no historical fact. I would suggest adding the phrase "in my opinion" to all of your posts. The same can be said for AK, Elijah and all the other individuals that choose to spread lies about comrade Stalin.

What I find most odd about these children is the fact the cling like leeches to this 1950's western rhetoric about comrade Stalin that has been debunked and proven to be lies for generations, yet they still bother to post it. Ask them for facts, they call you an "stalinist" asshole and leave the thread. They may even make a claim and when you ask them for supporting facts they actually loose it and tell me to find the supporting facts to back up [/]their[/i] statements. Truly absurd.

AK47 you are the one that brought up the book 1984 in this thread. Since it is a commom mistake for new-left children to compare 1984 with the Soviet Union I can only assume you are also making this comparison, after all this is a "Stalinist" thread, not a thread on literature.

The sooner the majority of comrades on here realise that russia, cuba, north korea etc were not and still are not communist, the sooner we can make advances towards the revolution.

Thanks for the insight genius. We all know there has never been a true "marxist communism" State. These nations are/were working towards that goal. It is good to see you know absolutely nothing about the practise of communism Sandanista. You fit right into the new-left.

I'd suggest anyone who wants to know of the Stalinist State Capitalism read the articles I posted links to on the thread on "Stalinism".

I think perhaps it would be wiser to actually read history that contains fact rather that the opinionated lies of some child.

elijahcraig

27th July 2003, 02:47

Loknar your statement contained absolutely no historical fact. I would suggest adding the phrase "in my opinion" to all of your posts. The same can be said for AK, Elijah and all the other individuals that choose to spread lies about comrade Stalin.

Lies? I think the only revisionist historian here is you RAF.

What I find most odd about these children is the fact the cling like leeches to this 1950's western rhetoric about comrade Stalin that has been debunked and proven to be lies for generations, yet they still bother to post it. Ask them for facts, they call you an "stalinist" asshole and leave the thread. They may even make a claim and when you ask them for supporting facts they actually loose it and tell me to find the supporting facts to back up [/]their statements. Truly absurd.

I guess the mass graves in Siberia are western propaganda also huh RAF?

I don't believe everything about Stalin, a lot of it is propaganda. But I also know people who lived through Stalinism, and they can tell me of their firsthand knowledge. Although, I guess one of my best friend's grandmother is also...western propaganda/

AK47 you are the one that brought up the book 1984 in this thread. Since it is a commom mistake for new-left children to compare 1984 with the Soviet Union I can only assume you are also making this comparison, after all this is a "Stalinist" thread, not a thread on literature.

I wouldn't compare USSR to 1984, but definitely Animal Farm fits perfectly.

Vinny Rafarino

27th July 2003, 03:49

Number one, why are you answering for AK47?

Two, since you want to move this topic from "the crimes of stalin" thread I will embarrass you here too.

The only "mass grave" not containing SOLDIERS FROM WWII ever found in Russia held around 35,000 bodies and has never been linked to Stalin. As a matter of fact, this it is said that after more research we will probably see that these bodies are ALSO from WWII. Now since this was several months ago and I have heard nothing on it, I can onlyu imagine these bodies were indeed found to be soldiers from WWII.

Watch the cockroaches scatter.

PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF TO ANY "MASS GRAVES" CONTRIBUTED TO STALIN YOU FUCKING DOLT! IF NOT PLAESE SHUT THE FUCK UP! YOUR USELESS BABBLINGS ARE GETTING ANNOYING.

You are completely full of shite Elijah. No post you ever make is supported with fact and you call ME a historical revisionist. I will only answer questions from you that you support with fact from now on. Hitherto I have been having fun with your idiocy but at this point I can no longer take how obtuse and inept you are.

FACT ONLY! NO FICTION!

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 3:52 am on July 27, 2003)

elijahcraig

27th July 2003, 03:56

Number one, why are you answering for AK47?

All of those could be addressed to me also, I commented on the last because I thought it interesting.

Two, since you want to move this topic from "the crimes of stalin" thread I will embarrass you here too.

The only "mass grave" not containing SOLDIERS FROM WWII ever found in Russia held around 35,000 bodies and has never been linked to Stalin. As a matter of fact, this it is said that after more research we will probably see that these bodies are ALSO from WWII. Now since this was several months ago and I have heard nothing on it, I can onlyu imagine these bodies were indeed found to be soldiers from WWII.

Watch the cockroaches scatter.

PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF TO ANY "MASS GRAVES" CONTRIBUTED TO STALIN YOU FUCKING DOLT! IF NOT PLAESE SHUT THE FUCK UP! YOUR USELESS BABBLINGS ARE GETTING ANNOYING.

Calm down, damn. RAF the revisionist is taking the bait like a fucking liberal tonite!

http://www.gendercide.org/case_stalin.html

Vinny Rafarino

27th July 2003, 04:05

Are you now going to finally concede this argument to me boy? You have dodged my request for proof too many times. You are a worthless debator.

elijahcraig

27th July 2003, 04:10

Are you now going to finally concede this argument to me boy? You have dodged my request for proof too many times. You are a worthless debator.

I'd like to know what you'd consider "proof"? Because everything I post is called "western propaganda"? You sound like a right-winger I know who denounces everything on US Imperialism as "Liberal propaganda" or "commie propaganda".

Loknar

27th July 2003, 04:42

COMRAD RAF

How was I wrong? Please quote me.

Vinny Rafarino

27th July 2003, 05:36

Quote: from Loknar on 7:16 pm on July 26, 2003
Well this is a tough one. On one hand Stalin killed millions while industrialization Russia by selling the food that would have sustained them. However on the other Russia went from having a lower industrial out than Algeria to then rivaling America in industry. With this new industrial power Russia was able to win WW2 (and also they won because the Germans screwed up early on). I am convinced that had Stalin not industrialized Russia , they would have lost WW2 because the lack of equipment.

However, one thing that cant be disputed was that Stalin was a paranoid man. He was virtually alone after his wife committed suicide. When new rulers are suddenly alone it isn’t unheard of for them to 'purge' their best people out of distrust (I recommend reading about Ancient Koryo).

Overall Stalin and Mao are the worse mass murderers in history, Hitler is actually at #3 (Pol Pot is there if you want to go by ratio). However , he does deserve credit for beating the Nazi's back.

(Edited by Loknar at 7:17 pm on July 26, 2003)

If you insist.

Show me proof that Stalin Killed millions of people. PROOF.

I feel like I am speaking chinese to you fools. Do any of you ever bother to include proof in your claims?

Now to the foolish boy called Elijah.

What are you an idiot? You don't know what "proof" means? Let me give you a little hint. Everything you have posted hitherto had been opinion.

You talk of "mass graves" attributed to Stalin. Show them to me.

elijahcraig

27th July 2003, 06:18

The nazi revionist continues his rampage of historical revisionism...

Give me an example of "proof". How could I prove this to you? What sources would you trust?

Loknar

27th July 2003, 07:29

http://images.google.com/images?q=Mass+murder+,+Stalin&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=0

(Edited by Loknar at 7:31 am on July 27, 2003)

Vinny Rafarino

27th July 2003, 07:31

Why are you calling me a Nazi? Anyone who knows me here knows that I am not a Nazi. Is this your childish way of getting back at me for schooling you in every thread boy?

Show me empirical evidence that "mass graves filled with millions of bodies created by comrade Stalin"

Please use the dictionary son for the word "empiricle" if you don't know what it means.

In addition, you were suppost to prove how I am a "historical revisionist" and now a "nazi".

Your posts get more and more absurd as you go on..You are merely a little child throwing a temper tantrum with these factless accusations.

Good luck boy.

Loknar

27th July 2003, 07:33

I think he's comparing you to Nazi’s who claim that the holocaust never happened.

elijahcraig

27th July 2003, 07:39

No, I was comparing someone who denies the Stalinist mass murders to a nazi on the non-existence of the holocaust.

I read through the link you posted on Stalin in "The Crimes of Stalin" (which I had read through before since the Maoist Internationalist Organization and I are involved sometimes, though not often, we are in contact), and must say...this is mostly one-sided Stalinist propaganda. True, Stalin's murder estimate is OVERESTIMATED COMPLETELY. But it is still a high number, extremely high. DuBous, Xun, Robeson...all wrote these things before the crimes of Stalin were discovered. It was a closed totalitarianistic society, there is no way these people could've known the crimes. You are ignorant to think otherwise, as a materialist, these things are worthless in analysis of Stalin. I'll admit the conditions for certain things improved (infant mortality rates, etc), but that does not change the fact that Stalin was a mass murderer.

Vinny Rafarino

27th July 2003, 07:43

I'm done with this twat. He obviously cannot show empiricle proof of the "stalin killed millions of perople" fallacy that the west has spoon fed this moron. I've asked for proof in 6 different posts and have received only double-talk and dodges. You are no longer worth my time. Please feel free to post your "proof" whenever you like boy. Please be sure it's not mere opinion and can be considered empiricle evidence.

elijahcraig

27th July 2003, 08:02

Here's a site on the gulags:

http://www.gulag.hu/

Go to "site map".

http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/intro.html

On Russian Archives on Repression and Terror, etc.

Ghost Writer

27th July 2003, 08:04

Hey fuckface, why don't you go right to the Soviet's own archived materials to get an estimate of the number dead? However, when looking at this data should should keep in mind that it is a conservative estimate, since they are biased, after all. The number that I like is 18 million.

Anyone defending Stalin is a piece of shit.

Vinny Rafarino

27th July 2003, 08:13

Hey "fuckface" one of these links is to the Soviet archives. Some other trot a while back on this forum posted the same thing. I went through every link in the archives looking for some sort of paper stating stalin killed millions. None to be found. It's easy to shoot down trots these days...They walk right into it.

Did you bother to read the soviet archives before posting the Elijah? Fool.

This first website you provide as "proof" is exactly what I told you not to post, someone's fucking OPINION!

Do you know what empiricle evidence means elijah?

Ghost Writer

27th July 2003, 08:20

Do you know what empiricle evidence means elijah?

If your going to use big words like empirical, and ask whether somebody understands how they are defined, it would behoove you to spell them correctly, Comrade RAF.

elijahcraig

27th July 2003, 08:26

RAF once again proves his revisionism.

And you call posting a link to Maoist Internationalist Movement's Stalin FAQ proof that Stalin was a true communist? You must be joking. Those people say things like "he only executed about 800,000 people". Hahahahahahahahahaha

http://www.osa.ceu.hu/gulag/

I guess I'll keep posting until I find a site to your pleasing and that is not "western propaganda".

Vinny Rafarino

27th July 2003, 08:33

Quote: from elijahcraig on 8:26 am on July 27, 2003
RAF once again proves his revisionism.

And you call posting a link to Maoist Internationalist Movement's Stalin FAQ proof that Stalin was a true communist? You must be joking. Those people say things like "he only executed about 800,000 people". Hahahahahahahahahaha

http://www.osa.ceu.hu/gulag/

I guess I'll keep posting until I find a site to your pleasing and that is not "western propaganda".

Nice proof moron. Where are the "mass Graves" ?

Please provide proof that I ever stated to you I provided a MIM link as proof of anything (it is however) If you will go back to the post I put that link in, I specifically provided it to a comrade who asked for a pdf. copy of Anna louise Strong's book.

I notice you have alot of trouble with rational thought Elijah. Let me guess...You are say.....15?

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 8:37 am on July 27, 2003)

elijahcraig

27th July 2003, 08:38

I'd like you to tell me exactly what sort of proof you need? I am posting things, I don't know what the fuck you want. It seems all you'll accept is Stalinist propaganda.

Vinny Rafarino

27th July 2003, 08:41

Please look up the word "empiricle" in the dictionary.

Ghost Writer

27th July 2003, 08:48

"Please look up the word "empiricle" in the dictionary."

Take your own advice, pal.

elijahcraig

27th July 2003, 08:49

I think that's the 2nd time you've spelled that wrong jackass.

http://web.qx.net/jon/stalin.html

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purges

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine

Vinny Rafarino

27th July 2003, 09:02

That's your empiricAL proof?

Keep trying "jackass"

Remember son. When you point out typo's in another's posts you must beiginn to watch your own with a heavy eye. Whould not want to look foolish by misspelling something now would we?

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 9:04 am on July 27, 2003)

elijahcraig

27th July 2003, 09:12

Here is the definition for you:

Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
Date: 1569
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>

So, you want an observation from someone there...

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk1...sjk/kolyma.html (http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/sjk/kolyma.html)

My friend's grandmother lived in Russia under Stalin. Most of her family was taken to a "gulag". And they weren't kulaks or bourgeois, but poor workers. She doesn't like to talk about it much, but when she does she gets real sad.

Without regard for theory...

Capable of being verified or disproved...

Why do you need this sort of evidence?

RAF, I would like to know about your history in Stalinism. I am not a Trotskyist, though I like most of his works. Convince me, have I been brainwashed?

elijahcraig

27th July 2003, 09:13

Defensive about spelling aren't we RAF?

Vinny Rafarino

27th July 2003, 09:28

I'm noit defensive at all. YOU were the one who pointed out that I made a typo. Nice try on flipping this one over on me as well. Have you not noticed you tend to attempt this tactic all the time with no success? Remeber elijah not only am I smarter than you, I am also more educated.

Is this the grandmother of that fool Xred? The one that was 4 years old when all this was going on? Please.

Do you have any photographs of mass graves containing millions of bodies that have not been determined to be casualties of WWII? Do you know anyone that has witnessed 19 million people getting murdered by Stalin? Allow me to answer for you. No.

This next link you provide is written from the perspective of the prisoners. I'm sure these political dissidents have shining things to say about comrade Stalin. Did you bother to read the reference list of this "book"? I doubt it. It's filled with western right wing journalists and blatant anti Soviet Union authors.

Nice try though kid.

elijahcraig

27th July 2003, 09:33

No, I don't know who you are referring to Xred? No, this is a friend I have in "real life". I think she's like somewhere around 90 years old or so. About dead I'd say.

You know the arguments you make are the exact same types of arguments nazis make for the holocaust? I've argued with them. There is a striking resemblance.

I'm not turning anything around, just kidding. Damn RAF.

Vinny Rafarino

27th July 2003, 09:51

Once again comparing me to nazis.

How can you make this comparison? There is absolute proof of the holocaust.

There is no proof of Stalin murdering millions of people.

Do you not understand this? Your statement has no foundation. Why do you keep saying it then? you say the same things over and over again, I ask for proof..You dodge this issue for hours. You try to turn attention from yourself by pointing out spelling errors or quickly changing the subject. IT WILL NOT WORK ON ME. I AM SMARTER THAN YOU.

Please have your friend's grandmother create an account on che-lives for debate about comrade Stalin. If she is unable to do so then she can possibly a fictitious icon created by you in a attempt to ward me off. NO CHANCE.

Le't see, I believe I have covered all of your little tricks you use to attempt to get out of a debate, so now lets see the proof.

Sandanista

27th July 2003, 13:18

Well where's your proof RAF, and might I ask what age u are becoz u act like a 15 year old stalinist.

Stalin's crimes were not necessity, they were disgusting no matter what number they amount to.

I AM a genious thank you for pointing that out, i dont have to prove that stalin was a bastard to u bcoz no matter what i say ull just say "trot propaganda" like a wee wean, "comrade" stalin should have purged himself for suppressing all artistic freedoms, killing a great number of innocent russian workers and dirtied the name of marxists all over the world.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

27th July 2003, 17:21

Quote: from Koba Dzhugashvili on 1:36 am on July 26, 2003
The people who he killed were not "his" people, they had lost their nationality by commiting treason.

A nationalist Stalinist, can it get any worse?

Loknar

27th July 2003, 18:52

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 9:51 am on July 27, 2003
Once again comparing me to nazis.

How can you make this comparison? There is absolute proof of the holocaust.

There is no proof of Stalin murdering millions of people.

Do you not understand this? Your statement has no foundation. Why do you keep saying it then? you say the same things over and over again, I ask for proof..You dodge this issue for hours. You try to turn attention from yourself by pointing out spelling errors or quickly changing the subject. IT WILL NOT WORK ON ME. I AM SMARTER THAN YOU.

Please have your friend's grandmother create an account on che-lives for debate about comrade Stalin. If she is unable to do so then she can possibly a fictitious icon created by you in a attempt to ward me off. NO CHANCE.

Le't see, I believe I have covered all of your little tricks you use to attempt to get out of a debate, so now lets see the proof.

You know RAF, I also know a victim of Stalin's brutality. She is a old woman from the Ukraine. She was there when the famine happened, you know, when food was considered property of the state. She also told me that her father was turned in by someone for having a Bible so he was exported to Siberia. When he returned he was like an old man, he could only eat light food because of a bad stomach condition that he attained in Siberia. When the Nazis invaded she was taken back to Germany with a few friends for forced labor. She and her friends were liberated by the allies, however she decided not to return but her friends did. By this time the people in Germany of Russian origin were 'tainted' in Stalins mind. She never heard from her friend or friends again. COMRAD RAF, what EXACTLY do you want? Photographs? Hell do you think that every Jew murdered in the camps was recorded on a film reel? State archives must show unnatural death tolls per province. Are you going to tell me that Berea was not having a fun time shooting political enemies and raping young women? RAF, using your logic I can say the bombing of Dresden never happened. I can say that it was a NAZI propaganda trick.

COMRAD RAF, how does it feel to be trapped on this forum with all the scum that Communists hate? I am a stone cold cappie and you are just as much a piece of crap like I and all the other cappies are to the Communists on this forum.

(Edited by Loknar at 6:56 pm on July 27, 2003)

Comrade Raz

27th July 2003, 19:06

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 9:51 am on July 27, 2003
Once again comparing me to nazis.

How can you make this comparison? There is absolute proof of the holocaust.

There is no proof of Stalin murdering millions of people.

Do you not understand this? Your statement has no foundation. Why do you keep saying it then? you say the same things over and over again, I ask for proof..You dodge this issue for hours. You try to turn attention from yourself by pointing out spelling errors or quickly changing the subject. IT WILL NOT WORK ON ME. I AM SMARTER THAN YOU.

Please have your friend's grandmother create an account on che-lives for debate about comrade Stalin. If she is unable to do so then she can possibly a fictitious icon created by you in a attempt to ward me off. NO CHANCE.

Le't see, I believe I have covered all of your little tricks you use to attempt to get out of a debate, so now lets see the proof.

I'd like to see some actual proof of the holocaust which is more convincing than that which is aimed at Stalin. I'm not trying to defend the Nazis just saying that there are pictures off people killed under Stalin (compiled by western governments and media now doubt) and there are pictures of the holocaust what more do you want.

No one will ever know exactly how many people Stalin killed but the fact that those that he did kill and that you would defend the killing of where actually completly innocent. Would you kill a starving worker in the USA if he stole a loaf of bread from WalMart? Stalin killed workers and peasents for stealing grain when they where starving. There is proof of it much already provided by elijah.

I know you'll have a pop at me RAF, go ahead as we are all intitled to our own opinions on situations. In Stalins Russia you where not.

Invader Zim

27th July 2003, 19:18

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 2:13 am on July 27, 2003

AK47 you are the one that brought up the book 1984 in this thread. Since it is a commom mistake for new-left children to compare 1984 with the Soviet Union I can only assume you are also making this comparison, after all this is a "Stalinist" thread, not a thread on literature.

Since it is a commom mistake for new-left children to compare 1984 with the Soviet Union I can only assume you are also making this comparison,

Well for starters my ideology is most certainly not new left, infact it is considerably older than any Marxist ideology or spin off of such an ideology.

As to the referance to 1984, I am beggining to believe that you are having troublpe reading. I will place this in step by step order so as to avoid confusion: -

1. I made a comment about Animal farm.
2. Josef Stalin said it was a good book.
3. I asked if he had read 1984, as it is another book by the same author.

I made no comparissons at all between 1984 and Stalins regime. 1984 was designed as a parody of capitalist beurocracy and totalitarianism which capitalism leads to.

Animal Farm on the other hand was a parody of Stalins regime.

Vinny Rafarino

27th July 2003, 20:27

Quote: from Loknar on 6:52 pm on July 27, 2003

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 9:51 am on July 27, 2003
Once again comparing me to nazis.

How can you make this comparison? There is absolute proof of the holocaust.

There is no proof of Stalin murdering millions of people.

Do you not understand this? Your statement has no foundation. Why do you keep saying it then? you say the same things over and over again, I ask for proof..You dodge this issue for hours. You try to turn attention from yourself by pointing out spelling errors or quickly changing the subject. IT WILL NOT WORK ON ME. I AM SMARTER THAN YOU.

Please have your friend's grandmother create an account on che-lives for debate about comrade Stalin. If she is unable to do so then she can possibly a fictitious icon created by you in a attempt to ward me off. NO CHANCE.

Le't see, I believe I have covered all of your little tricks you use to attempt to get out of a debate, so now lets see the proof.

You know RAF, I also know a victim of Stalin's brutality. She is a old woman from the Ukraine. She was there when the famine happened, you know, when food was considered property of the state. She also told me that her father was turned in by someone for having a Bible so he was exported to Siberia. When he returned he was like an old man, he could only eat light food because of a bad stomach condition that he attained in Siberia. When the Nazis invaded she was taken back to Germany with a few friends for forced labor. She and her friends were liberated by the allies, however she decided not to return but her friends did. By this time the people in Germany of Russian origin were 'tainted' in Stalins mind. She never heard from her friend or friends again. COMRAD RAF, what EXACTLY do you want? Photographs? Hell do you think that every Jew murdered in the camps was recorded on a film reel? State archives must show unnatural death tolls per province. Are you going to tell me that Berea was not having a fun time shooting political enemies and raping young women? RAF, using your logic I can say the bombing of Dresden never happened. I can say that it was a NAZI propaganda trick.

COMRAD RAF, how does it feel to be trapped on this forum with all the scum that Communists hate? I am a stone cold cappie and you are just as much a piece of crap like I and all the other cappies are to the Communists on this forum.

(Edited by Loknar at 6:56 pm on July 27, 2003)

First off Loknar. I am not caged in OI. I post in several forums. Was this your little attempt at making me angry? I have always known your are dim but this is absurd.

Second.

The problem with you dolts is you cannot produce ANY evidence whatsoever besides tired rhetoric that has been logically debunked years ago. Then you chime in with "I know an old woman". Who is this old woman? Does she suffer from any mental disorders? Did she actually live in the Soviet Union or is she simply telling the stories her subversionist parents told her. Was she herself a subversionist? Please produce her.

If you fools presented this type of evidence in a court of law you would have had your cases dismissed years ago.

"Stalin killed workers and peasents for stealing grain when they where starving. There is proof of it much already provided by elijah."

Please provide this proof Raz.

AK47.

As usual you did not understand what my post meant to convey. I am used to you missing the pint however.

You really should find a new slag besides "Im begginning to believe you have trouble reading"

You use it so much it has no meaning any longer. I have no trouble reading son. You simply have trouble with comprehension. There is no need for you to explain these books to me. I'm sure I read them before you were even born.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 8:54 pm on July 27, 2003)

Loknar

27th July 2003, 20:47

OK RAF, show me something that will change my mind.

elijahcraig

27th July 2003, 23:14

RAF, I'd like to know HOW I can prove this to you. What do you want? You say "evidence"...but I have shown you many things which you dismiss as "western propaganda". Are you that stupid? That's what right-wingers do when you try to tell them about capitalism..."commie propaganda". You've debunked "NOTHING". You've posted ONE link to a MIM site which is highly suspect for trustworthy information...It's like a nazi giving me a link to Church of the Creator to disprove the Holocaust...it's useless. Please disprove the evidence I've provided in numerous links. Because the "western propaganda" thing is useless to anyone who is not a complete dumbass.

Vinny Rafarino

27th July 2003, 23:16

I am not the one factlessly accusing comrade Stalin of killing millions of people. You are. Therefore the burden of proof lies with you.

It's simple logic Loknar. The burden of proof lies with the accuser. Period.

Since we are making comparisons here, I must say you Anti-Stalin kids are exactly like the theists I debate with. The scream and whine about the existence of "god" yet are unabel to produce any evidence of "god's" existence. Only a blind belief in some old book. The only evidence you have supporting the theory that Stalin committed murder in the millions are some old books written by individuals that were attempting to make Communism look like the "evil empire" where freedom is non-existent much like the individual. What a bunch of bollocks. The right fought a brilliant defaming campaign and has even successfully turned members of our own party against us. They struck at the world's youth with an iron made red-hot in the stoves of propaganda and vicious lies. I have never seen a campaign of massive mental programming be so completely successful ever in history.

Now who do you want to compare the book 1984 too AK47?

Now back to Elijah. Son you are obviously too obtuse to continue with this debate. I have asked you at least 10 times to provide empirical proof of these so called "crimes" you are accusing comrade Stalin of. All you ever provide is a link to a website where someone else gives their OPINION of Stalin.

I do not want not consider ANYONE'S opinion relevant in this matter. Please provide evidence that would stand up in a court of law. If you cannot then simply shut the fuck up.

And for the final time, stop supplying links to editoralesque web sites that promote the fall of communism as proof of your claims. If you do this again our debate is over son. I will have no choice but to declare vistory and move on. Me allowing you to last this long after all the time you spent dodging my question while trying to anger me was more than nice. I am no longer being that forgiving to you.

Last chance son.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 11:33 pm on July 27, 2003)

elijahcraig

27th July 2003, 23:23

I am not the one factlessly accusing comrade Stalin of killing millions of people. You are. Therefore the burden of proof lies with you.

I have provided proof, you have discounted it as propaganda, the burden is on you to disprove the information I've given.

Since we are making comparisons here, I must say you Anti-Stalin kids are exactly like the theists I debate with. The scream and whine about the existence of "god" yet are unabel to produce any evidence of "god's" existence. Only a blind belief in some old book. The only evidence you have supporting the theory that Stalin committed murder in the millions are some old books written by individuals that were attempting to make Communism look like the "evil empire" where freedom is non-existent much like the individual. What a bunch of bollocks. The right fought a brilliant defaming campaign and has even successfully turned members of our own party against us. They struck at the world's youth with an iron made red-hot in the stoves of propaganda and vicious lies. I have never seen a campaign of massive mental programming be so completely successful ever in history.

RAF, do you believe the holocaust occured...because that's the next thing I'd expect a revisionist to say.

Loknar

27th July 2003, 23:30

COMRAD RAF, what about those Polish offiers shot by the red army? The Germans documented the mass grave there and there are film reels and pictures.

ANd what about Kruchev (the man who overthrew Berea) ? Dont you know that he was the one who made Stalins atrosities public?

COMRAD RAF you are probably one of those crazy people who believe the anti-American propaganda. AMerican A-bombing Japan, killing people in impeialistic wars, its all a lie. The A-bomb droppings never happened. You see how crazy that sounded? This is how you sound.

Vinny Rafarino

28th July 2003, 00:08

Well that's it for you elija. That was the last chance for you to redeem yourself and provide proof that is not a website containing another person's opinion. I am now complewtely finished with you as you cannot hold a logical debate. Don't bother rplying to this as I will ignore any bullshit remark you make. In addition, be very careful on ISF.

VICTORY!

Loknar,

That post was absolute bullshit. Provide the evidence.

If you are referring to the mass grave recently found with 35,000 CASUALTIES OF WWII in it than you are a moron. Millions of people died in the war and were buried in mass graves all over the eastern front. None of these have anything to do with your bullshit accusations.

You also have only opne more chance to produce actual evidence to support your claims. YOUR WORD IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH LOKNAR. You must be prepared to show proof that Stalin murdered millions of citizens and put them in mass graves. I will accept only empirical evidence. Anything else I will dismiss.

Invader Zim

28th July 2003, 00:11

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 8:27 pm on July 27, 2003

AK47.

As usual you did not understand what my post meant to convey. I am used to you missing the pint however.

You really should find a new slag besides "Im begginning to believe you have trouble reading"

You use it so much it has no meaning any longer. I have no trouble reading son. You simply have trouble with comprehension. There is no need for you to explain these books to me. I'm sure I read them before you were even born.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 8:54 pm on July 27, 2003)

As usual you did not understand what my post meant to convey. I am used to you missing the pint however.

Really I think what you said was perfectly clear, however I will quote you again: -

AK47 you are the one that brought up the book 1984 in this thread. Since it is a commom mistake for new-left children to compare 1984 with the Soviet Union I can only assume you are also making this comparison,

Do correct me if I am wrong but do you not clearly state there that I made a comparison between 1984 and the soviet union?

You said above that I was making a comparison between 1984 and Stalins regime. I challange you to find one place in the post I which I first mentioned 1984, a link between that book and Stalins regime!

The post in dispute is below: -

Quote from Me
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: from Koba Dzhugashvili on 1:36 am on July 26, 2003
The people who he killed were not "his" people, they had lost their nationality by commiting treason.

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

Most of them were killed for there very existatnce or because his 5 year plans placed to much pressure on the farming and crops failed and they died of starvation. Hardly enemys of the people were they?

Animal farm is good book. Good to know other read it.

Have you read 1984?

As you can clearly see no such comparison was made. Below is what I think 1984 is a parody of, from earlier in this thread: -

1984 was designed as a parody of capitalist beurocracy and totalitarianism which capitalism leads to.

I hope that is quite clear.

You really should find a new slag besides "Im begginning to believe you have trouble reading"

Perhaps, and I am sorry about my inability to flame, I obviously have not had as much practise as you. However, It does not alter the inescapable fact that you may be older than me but your still in the wrong.

I have no trouble reading son. You simply have trouble with comprehension.

I think I have dealt with that above and more than proved that you most certainly did not read my post, and my comprehension is just fine thanks.

There is no need for you to explain these books to me. I'm sure I read them before you were even born.

I am sure that you have, but your being older proves nothing exept that the the phrase "the older the wiser" is obviously false.

PS dont try and patronise me "grand-dad".

elijahcraig

28th July 2003, 00:16

I guess the RAF revisionist can continue to be a revisionist. You, the nazis, and American Capitalists...what a group.

Vinny Rafarino

28th July 2003, 00:50

Wrong AK47 You have proved nothing.

"Do correct me if I am wrong but do you not clearly state there that I made a comparison between 1984 and the soviet union? "

No. My statement says I "assume" you are making a comparison. You do know what assume means eh mate?

You do not debate well my friend.

"You said above that I was making a comparison between 1984 and Stalins regime. I challange you to find one place in the post I which I first mentioned 1984, a link between that book and Stalins regime!

And I did. You even highlight it in your post again.

I still think you were comparing Stalin to 1984. The bullshit line you used about "just bringing the book up to see if the kid liked it" is bollocks. You know it and I know it. This was not a thread on literature. You were in the middle of some Stalin-bashing and you cite a book that is commonly used as a propaganda tool against Stalin.

Yeah...Coincidence eh? Get real AK47..You have been caught. Now be a man and admit to it.

long posts do not make for good debate all the time mate.

Invader Zim

28th July 2003, 01:16

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 12:50 am on July 28, 2003
Wrong AK47 You have proved nothing.

"Do correct me if I am wrong but do you not clearly state there that I made a comparison between 1984 and the soviet union? "

No. My statement says I "assume" you are making a comparison. You do know what assume means eh mate?

You do not debate well my friend.

"You said above that I was making a comparison between 1984 and Stalins regime. I challange you to find one place in the post I which I first mentioned 1984, a link between that book and Stalins regime!

And I did. You even highlight it in your post again.

I still think you were comparing Stalin to 1984. The bullshit line you used about "just bringing the book up to see if the kid liked it" is bollocks. You know it and I know it. This was not a thread on literature. You were in the middle of some Stalin-bashing and you cite a book that is commonly used as a propaganda tool against Stalin.

Yeah...Coincidence eh? Get real AK47..You have been caught. Now be a man and admit to it.

long posts do not make for good debate all the time mate.

My statement says I "assume" you are making a comparison. You do know what assume means eh mate

To assume is to hold a belief and to suppose that belief is a fact. Well you believed with out any basis in fact that I made a comparison. And you were wrong and obviously so, stop trying to wriggle out of it.

I have provided the quotations as evidance that you were wrong. Accept it.

You do not debate well my friend.

Perhaps not, but at least I provide evidance instead of just flinging wild accusations at other people, accusations which I add have no evidance to support them.

And I did. You even highlight it in your post again.

And please do define this phantom link for me.

I still think you were comparing Stalin to 1984.

I think your paranoid. I was comparing Animal farm to Stalins regime right at the beggining of the thread, and when a comrade said it was a good book I asked if they had read 1984, which is a perfectly natural question. Its called making small talk with newbie's. You know trying to make them feal welcome.

You know it and I know it.

No I dont know it at all. You are obviously just trying to provoke me, with your obvious lies and accusations. Until you actually post these words where I directly say what you accuse me of saying the challange remains open.

You were in the middle of some Stalin-bashing and you cite a book that is commonly used as a propaganda tool against Stalin.

No its not, its an anti capitalism book as I said earlier in the thread, I think you are confusing 1984 with Animal farm.

Yeah...Coincidence eh? Get real AK47..You have been caught.

Christ what the hell is wrong with you, do you always see conspiricy, or are you just going through a bad patch?

Now be a man and admit to it

There is nothing to admit to, for god sake. Why do you continue to persist in your obvious lie?

elijahcraig

28th July 2003, 01:30

RAF, no one compared USSR to 1984, someone did compare USSR to Animal Farm (since it is a satire of that country). I've always thought 1984 was a satire of a facist society where corporatism and state have combined.

Invader Zim

28th July 2003, 01:41

Quote: from elijahcraig on 1:30 am on July 28, 2003
RAF, no one compared USSR to 1984, someone did compare USSR to Animal Farm (since it is a satire of that country). I've always thought 1984 was a satire of a facist society where corporatism and state have combined.

Look RAF, is this not even further proof of your being wrong? Give up your petty attempt to discredit me, your lies will not cut the mustard.

Vinny Rafarino

28th July 2003, 01:45

AK47 if you think 1984 is not used as a propaganda tool against the soviet union than you are ignorant as well as immature. Remeber son, I have been dealing with capitalist propaganda against the ussr for 20 years. BELIEVE ME, THE WEST USES 1984 AS A FUCKING PROPAGANDA TOOL AGAINST COMMUNIST. PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ARSE FOR 5 FUCKING MINUTES AND PAY ATTENTION.

Loknar

28th July 2003, 01:47

The writter of 1984 is a Socialist...

elijahcraig

28th July 2003, 01:51

RAF, I agree 1984 has been USED against the USSR, but Orwell did not intend it that way. Oceania is based on the US.

I think we need to stop this petty arguing, it's useless.

Vinny Rafarino

28th July 2003, 01:52

That has nothing to do with the fact that the west have been using the book 1984 as propaganda against communism for ages. I've seen it for 20 fucking years. Since probably before any of you twits were even born

You blokes are absolute morons.

elijahcraig

28th July 2003, 01:56

I AGREE WITH YOU! I agree 1984 has been used against the USSR by capitalist fucks. I agree. Stop calling me a moron. That doesn't mean the book is bad, it is a great work of art. It is based on the US, obviously worked up more. I mean, I don't even see HOW they can use it against the USSR or communism, it is a class system based on proles, etc.

But I think arguing over this is stupid, "you compared"..."you assumed you compared"..."no you compared"...it's useless.

Vinny Rafarino

28th July 2003, 02:01

I'm not referring to you in the last post Elijah. only AK47 and Loknar.

elijahcraig

28th July 2003, 02:07

Ok. Sorry.

Loknar

28th July 2003, 02:13

RAF, I am not disputing the use of 1984 as propaganda by the west (I dont know if it is used in that manner aganst the SU), I am merely pointing out that Orwell was a Socialist.

Vinny Rafarino

28th July 2003, 02:32

Gee whiz loknar. Thanks for that tid-bit.

I agree Elijah. It is a supid argument. However I have noticed almost all arguments that AK47 presents are stupid. I will now have to bring back an oldie but a goodie.

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/AK47shut.gif

elijahcraig

28th July 2003, 02:33

hhahahaaha

CopperGoat

28th July 2003, 04:14

Comrades, Comrades, let's stop this foolish fight of historical blabbber jabber. who cares about this, you are making us all look bad in Opposing Ideologies...

Loknar

28th July 2003, 04:25

COMRAD RAF

Fuck you. I was just pointing something out, you are a complete asshole. You remarked that you "were more educated" to Elija or AK-47. Well maybe that's so, but your educational background doesn’t mean that you aren’t an asshole. You are by far the most arrogant Communist I've ever met. I actually know nice Communists who I can actually have an intelligent conversation with, you are an asshole basically, you think you are better than everyone else and worst of all you sound so fuckin' arrogant.

Ghost Writer

28th July 2003, 05:33

Fuck you. I was just pointing something out, you are a complete asshole. You remarked that you "were more educated" to Elija or AK-47. Well maybe that's so, but your educational background doesn’t mean that you aren’t an asshole. You are by far the most arrogant Communist I've ever met. I actually know nice Communists who I can actually have an intelligent conversation with, you are an asshole basically, you think you are better than everyone else and worst of all you sound so fuckin' arrogant.

Correction: Comrade RAF already knows that I am better than him. Maybe he thinks that he is better than some people, but he knows that I am a better person. I love knowing that my superiority eats him up inside. One thing you did get right is that he is an asshole.

Vinny Rafarino

28th July 2003, 08:29

Thank you for your insight Loknar. I will sleep well tonight knowing that you agree that I am smarter and more educated than you, Elijah, AK47 and most importantly Ghost Whiner here.

I certainly hope you wrote down that address Ghost Wanker. I can't wait to see you.

Yes copper goat. This thread is absurd. This is what happens when too many children with limited knowledge of socialism get together to Stalin-bash. I stick around due to the sheer comedy of it. Throw twats like little Normie here ito the mix and it's better that the "he-man woman hater's club" episode of "our gang".

Comrade Raz

28th July 2003, 13:47

It's true that this post is pointless as nearly everyone here at Che-Lives agrees that Stalin was an idiot, but seeing as you keep asking for proof from the anti-stalinists here lets see some from you.

Confused on how you can proove something that did not happen, well provide a link to a holocaust deniars website and then one to a deniar of the crimes of Stalin and show us how one is far superior in its deflection of the critisisms thrown at it by most.

Invader Zim

28th July 2003, 14:31

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 1:45 am on July 28, 2003
AK47 if you think 1984 is not used as a propaganda tool against the soviet union than you are ignorant as well as immature. Remeber son, I have been dealing with capitalist propaganda against the ussr for 20 years. BELIEVE ME, THE WEST USES 1984 AS A FUCKING PROPAGANDA TOOL AGAINST COMMUNIST. PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ARSE FOR 5 FUCKING MINUTES AND PAY ATTENTION.

But it was written as a parody of capitalist beurocracy and totalitarianism like I have said. Just because ignorant fools in the USA confuse it with the USSR, does not mean I do you twit.

Would you just accept that i said no such thing and made no such comparison.

PS and you accuse me of being immature, after posting that pic in the middle of OI.

Xprewatik RED

28th July 2003, 16:14

I don't see how Stalin can be called a ,"great", man. He murdered millions and sent them to prison labor camps.
My familiy, along with millions of other Ukrainians suffred his wrath.
He created a class system within the USSR. Can you honestly tell me that: the head of the KGB, a fireman, and a governor of Moscow had the same material possesions. Why was it that only some got to go to the West and others not? Why was it some got drivers, and others lived in progects that were 16 stories high, and lacked a working elevator.
Russia industrialized through slave labor. Why don't you go on the streets of Kyiv, or Lviv, or go to the country side, and ask some of the old people their horrible tales. Why don't you ask them about the purges. It was the non-russian territories of the Soviet Union that suffered. Did you know speaking a language besides Russian was a crime? What kind of a system if that.

Comrade RAF, you accuse me of using Westen propoganda. However, it is you that lives a disillusioned life. I have real proof, not the rubbish that Stalin lovers make up.
The workers should support there Communist society. The Communist government should guide the workers not force them in there places.

YKTMX

28th July 2003, 18:01

Amen brother.

Vinny Rafarino

28th July 2003, 18:12

Produce the proof the Xred.

And not all those rubbish stories about your grandmother being transported to Siberia when she was 4 years old and had no clue what was going on. I have debunked them several times over in previous threads.

Please use fresh material if you can.

Raz,

Once again, I am not accusing comrade Stalin of murdering millions of people. You are. Therefore the burden of proof lies with you lot.

I am beginning to wonder if you children have any sense at all? This post has been seen twicew over in the current threads on Stalin. Do you silly young ones not read them? I imagine you simply blindly post your garbage without having any facts besides "old gramma" stories and lies pulled straight from a Yank high school text book.

Get real kids.

AK47,

Fair enough you didn't say anything...Whatever you say mate. However since I am now decreed as immature by our friend AK47 here I would like to add this old masterpiece to the thread;

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/akpecker.jpg

Now lighten up kiddies! This thread is and always will be a complete waste of time for all of us.

Cassius Clay

28th July 2003, 18:31

Well if the Ukrainians suffered so much then why did over 4.5 million serve in the Red Army and defend there homeland so valliently during the war? If the non Russian republics of tthe USSR 'suffered the most' then why were there uprisings against Khrushchev's Capitalist restoration in both Lenin and Stalin's name. It was under Breznheve that it became compulsory to speak Russian in the otehr republics. In the Balitcs when Socialism was put into practice in the 1940's in schools Russian, Polish, Yiddish and Native tounge was taught.

Those that compare those who deny the Holocaust to those who defend Stalin are being ludicrous. There's plenty of evidence the Holocaust happened. There's film and photographic evidence, there's thousands of eye-witness accounts from both survivors and prsion guards, there's the Goebbels Diarys, the census of the Jewish people before the war and after, the meeting chaired by Heydrich and the fact that the Nazis and Hitler himself despised the Jews, in 1939 Hitler said 'If the Jews succeed in pulling Europe towards another war then it will mean the end of the Jewish Race in Europe'.

There you go that's just of the top of my head. Now what evidence is there for Stalin's 'so called mass murder'. Let's aslo remember that those who claim that Stalin did all these things began by earning a living by writing in the Nazi press, you can find similar claims to what your all writing in 'Alt-politics-White Power' and other Fascist sites.

As I said in the 'Were the Old Bolsheviks Guilty?' thread, if Stalin had the power of life and death over anyone then surely he would of released the dozen or so doctors (who were by the way arrested, not because anyone was 'paranoid' but because a witness came forward saying that she had witnessed them murder someone) whom according to Stalin's daughter 'He thought were not guilty' and was 'Very distressed over them' (not precise quotes). Fact is if Stalin had went to the NKVD and asked them to go and shoot someone they would of laughed in his face.

Fact is also that the USSR had a maximum of 2.5 million people in prison, and that was in the after marth of the war. The U$A has some 2.8 million in prison proper and another three million involved somehow (Bail and such) in their prison system. Yet no one calls the Americans of running 'slave labour'. Yet this is precisly what is going on in America, people in America are kept in their purely for profit and are paid less than workers in Salvador. In the USSR prisoners recieved 20 to 30 roubles for every 8 hours they worked (which was the maximum they could work), this was roughly the same as the wages recieved of those people not in prison. The survival rates in the USSR's prisons were very good for the time, today in modern day Russia your just as likely to die if you live on the outside then you were in a 1930's USSR prison. Also note that the death rate in USSR's prisons started falling alot when modern medicines such as penicinlin were introduced (around 1950). Today in Russia 92,000 prisoners have TB for crying out loud. Yet no one has a go at Putin do they. If Stalin was such a evil guy who 'murdered millions' then it must be asked why Capital punishment was abolished between 1945-49.

Now someone mentioned Katryn, exactly the west tried their best to pin this one on Stalin. Yet in the end it's proven the Nazis were guilty all along, even Lech Walsea refused the so called 'evidence' that Yelstin gave him. Which was bought threw bribes and witness intimidation not to mention ignoring the facts.

What Comrade RAF is asking for is some evidence, based on reliable evidence such as archival data (a number of western historains and Russian ones have researched it who are not sympathectic to Stalin and reveal a entirely different story then what you all claim. Getty being the best example.), photographic and film evidence, I mean the Nazis filmed all there atrocities in the Baltics aswell as the death camps also filmed by the allies and Saddam filmed all his victims being shot. So why didn't Stalin? Hmm maybe because he didn't even have that sought of power. Do you expect anyone to believe that independent teams researching nature and stuff are capable of finding the remains of a 30,000 year old Elephant yet government sponsered and international guys aren't capable of finding the remains of even a fraction of these '20 million bodies' that are little more tahn 50 years old?

Now no one denies the purges or that people died. Soemtimes people were innocent and were wrongly arrested especially during Yezhov's time (picture the head of the FBI literally going mad imagine what he could get away with for a comparision) this is why thousands who appealed their cases were released. NKVD officials who abused there power purposly were punished and removed from their posistions. Hell according to the Times (British right-wing broadsheet) there was a play going around at this time throughout the USSR which was ridiculing the purges, or rather those officials who arrested innocents for whatever reasons.

Even the figures from the Soviet archives that state around 600,000 died in the Soviet prison system at this time are not entirely accurate, since many who appealed their cases were wither realesed or had their sentences reduced. Also most in the USSR's prisons were just common criminalls in a society which had been brutalised and was going through enourmous change and even chaos. No wonder there were criminalls. Now most who died ended up dead not because they were executed but because of other reasons. This was especially true during the war, when conditions were bad for everyone. But even compared to modern day prisons in Russia they were a hell of alot better.

Now admittingly I haven't provided sources for the above in this thread. But elsewhere in this board I have numerous times so just do a search or look into the archives. It's simple folks so go ahead. Or you can continue believing fairy tales.

See yeah.

Vinny Rafarino

28th July 2003, 19:40

And that's that.

Good day children.

Comrade Raz

28th July 2003, 20:00

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 6:31 pm on July 28,
Those that compare those who deny the Holocaust to those who defend Stalin are being ludicrous. There's plenty of evidence the Holocaust happened. There's film and photographic evidence, there's thousands of eye-witness accounts from both survivors and prsion guards, there's the Goebbels Diarys, the census of the Jewish people before the war and after, the meeting chaired by Heydrich and the fact that the Nazis and Hitler himself despised the Jews, in 1939 Hitler said 'If the Jews succeed in pulling Europe towards another war then it will mean the end of the Jewish Race in Europe'.

There is plenty of first hand accounts of the crimes of Stalin including those of relatives of Stalin. Read some of the links provided by Elijah as these contain evidence similar to the evidence provided for the proof of the holocaust. There are pictures of Stalins crimes what more do you want. Just because you agree with the guys economics does this mean you have defend everything he does.

RAF,
I skimmed through your post and saw no links to sites or even effort at providing proof that Stalin was not guilty so felt little need to read it properly. Just because you are defending someone it does not mean you do not need evidence, at a trial for a murderer the defense lawyer doesn't just sit there asking for proof against his client he defends him by giving 'proof' that he did not commit the crime.

Vinny Rafarino

28th July 2003, 20:31

Quote: from Comrade Raz on 8:00 pm on July 28, 2003

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 6:31 pm on July 28,
Those that compare those who deny the Holocaust to those who defend Stalin are being ludicrous. There's plenty of evidence the Holocaust happened. There's film and photographic evidence, there's thousands of eye-witness accounts from both survivors and prsion guards, there's the Goebbels Diarys, the census of the Jewish people before the war and after, the meeting chaired by Heydrich and the fact that the Nazis and Hitler himself despised the Jews, in 1939 Hitler said 'If the Jews succeed in pulling Europe towards another war then it will mean the end of the Jewish Race in Europe'.

There is plenty of first hand accounts of the crimes of Stalin including those of relatives of Stalin. Read some of the links provided by Elijah as these contain evidence similar to the evidence provided for the proof of the holocaust. There are pictures of Stalins crimes what more do you want. Just because you agree with the guys economics does this mean you have defend everything he does.

RAF,
I skimmed through your post and saw no links to sites or even effort at providing proof that Stalin was not guilty so felt little need to read it properly. Just because you are defending someone it does not mean you do not need evidence, at a trial for a murderer the defense lawyer doesn't just sit there asking for proof against his client he defends him by giving 'proof' that he did not commit the crime.

That's your answer eh? You have got to be kidding me. Your knowledge of a court of law is litmited. I will not explain the burden of proof to you again. If you have not gotten it by now you are simply either a dolt, ignorant or just hiding from the truth because you do not have the balls to admit you are wrong. What are you 12 years old son? Try prosecuting a case bases on circumstantial evidence and see how far you get boy. A defense attorny's evidence is only provided as a direct refute to any and all evidence that the prosecution team puts forth. Don't try to school me on this son. I finished grad school years ago.

I see none of you here are capable of providing irrefutable proof and will continue to dodge and double talk your way out of it until you are blue in the face.

I personally don't care as I do not believe in your fairy tales. Do you still put your fallen out teeth under your pillow at night in hopes of a fiver mate?

When you find some evidence son feel free to post it.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 8:37 pm on July 28, 2003)

Loknar

28th July 2003, 20:38

Ok, what about this:

DId the Soviets record how many people died on a yearly basis? I'll try to dso a search and find those records.

Comrade Raz

28th July 2003, 20:44

Despite any amount of evidence given against Stalin and his crimes you just say no.

What evidence you say? All those sites posted by anti-stalinists here is another. It may have already been posted but seeing as i doubt you read any of them you just blindly dismiss them that wont matter.

http://www.trussel.com/hf/stalin.htm

And yes occiasionaly i do pull my own teeth out and put them under my pillow as its hard work living on the dole in this country and money wherever it comes from is a welcome sight.

Vinny Rafarino

28th July 2003, 20:46

They sure did. The numbers are no where near what the right wing and psudo-leftists claim they are. By all means, research it.

Comrade Raz

28th July 2003, 20:56

Oh, and also. My knowledge of court law is limited but i do know that in the minds of many historians western or otherwise Stalin has been tried and convicted thousands of times because of the 'evidence' made apparent to them.

Maybe in a court of law you don't need to provide evidence that someone didn't do something wrong but i've bought into these western lies convince me that Stalin did not commit these crimes.

I believe this petty argument about Stalin should end now as you have said many times RAF (and im in agreement) not because i have lost (although thats what u will say) but because we are in a world run by cappie shit and we must unite and fight together to get rid of these idiots rather than squabling amongst each other. The animosity within the left wing is the reason why we are in world run by basturds like these americans.

Finally in reply to your last post RAF i don't claim the killings to be any where near as high as these sick righties estimate my idea is of the killings being of around the six million mark similar to the amount Hitler killed. The killings are not the only reason i dislike Stalin, the way he made himself like a prophit and how he had no regard for the individual ( i don't favour individuals having more money than others but they must have the freedom to flourish in art etc). I also respect some things he did like the industrilization of Russia (although his methods where harsh). I'm anti most authoritarian rule socialist or otherwise and its obvious that Stalin was an authoritarian.

(Edited by Comrade Raz at 9:08 pm on July 28, 2003)

Vinny Rafarino

28th July 2003, 21:03

I find it amazing that you feel Khruschev's (a capitalist) opinion on Stalin is considered "irrefutable evidence"

I ask you to please do this;

Like Kelvin9210, please do not EVER sit on a jury.

If you want this argument to end then produce irrefutable evidence to your claims. Otherwise you must be content with appearing the fool.

Invader Zim

29th July 2003, 01:08

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 6:12 pm on July 28, 2003

AK47,

Fair enough you didn't say anything...Whatever you say mate. However since I am now decreed as immature by our friend AK47 here I would like to add this old masterpiece to the thread;

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/akpecker.jpg

Now lighten up kiddies! This thread is and always will be a complete waste of time for all of us.

...Whatever you say mate.

It is obvious you still believe your own rubbish about what I did not say, however I am far to weary of this discussion, I am prepaired to let it rest. If you want to believe this obvious falicy you created, you are entitled to, as an advocate of free speach I realise that you are entitled to your own stupid opinion.

As for the pic there is a place for that stuff, its called chit chat, not OI... however my one of the sixth sense was better.

Well if the Ukrainians suffered so much then why did over 4.5 million serve in the Red Army and defend there homeland so valliently during the war?

Come on Rob, I am sure that the USSR was had national service, and that this went as far as the Ukraine... Or not? I am not sure but it would seem logical at time of war to have coscription.

Vinny Rafarino

29th July 2003, 02:40

Thanks for your insight son. I'll be sure to make some new pictures to post in OI just for you silly boy.

Invader Zim

29th July 2003, 02:44

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 2:40 am on July 29, 2003
Thanks for your insight son. I'll be sure to make some new pictures to post in OI just for you silly boy.

Be my guest grand dad.

Xprewatik RED

29th July 2003, 16:45

I haven't been able to post on the board for some reason, I finally just got through.
Here is some information I have found relating to Stalin's crimes against Ukraine, and its people.

----------------------------------------
Black Famine

http://ukrhistory.tripod.com/index-12.htm
---------------------------------------
-here's a site with a listing of many sites relating to black famine

http://ukrhistory.tripod.com/index-18.htm
---------------------------------------

-heres another site listing

http://www.undergrounds.com/tree.php3/catid=19045

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

Vinny Rafarino

29th July 2003, 16:58

Thank you for those lovely editorials. They in no was provide irrefuteable evidence to anything.

Editorials equeal opinion.

Opinion does not equal fact.

Nice try but it's not going to hold water son. R.J. Rummel is hardly an "irrefutable source of empirical evidence" His propaganda is based on sole opinion alone.

Again, blame the Kulaks for any starving Ukranians. Not Stalin.

I think I'm going to put up a web page claimimg that Stalin could fly by flapping his arms up and down. I can't wait for some liberal leftist to use it as fact in some debaste. Perhaps they will say it's irrefutable evidence that comrade Stalin was possessed by demons.

Xprewatik RED

29th July 2003, 17:10

Oh, so first it never happened and now it was the kulaks? So the kulaks of Ukraine united together, lol. You are losing ground RAF. You are the one with no evidence, because you have shown none. Lets hear some of your proof. All you will ever do is dimiss the famine, because your life is based on a lie. Kulaks could'nt starve a country under Soviet control, they were sent to Siberia remember, thats what you said?

Maybe I should say that Hitler was a great man, and make a website dismissing everything against him as anti-facist propoganda. And I'll say the death camps were aparment complexes, and then I'll say all the dead Jews are hiding!

Comrade Raz

29th July 2003, 17:49

Quote: from Xprewatik RED on 5:10 pm on July 29, 2003
Oh, so first it never happened and now it was the kulaks? So the kulaks of Ukraine united together, lol. You are losing ground RAF. You are the one with no evidence, because you have shown none. Lets hear some of your proof. All you will ever do is dimiss the famine, because your life is based on a lie. Kulaks could'nt starve a country under Soviet control, they were sent to Siberia remember, thats what you said?

Well said Xprewatik RED.
The reason you defend Stalin is obviously becasue you agree with his policys not because you have any evidence supporting his inocence.
It's the same with people who deny the holocaust or the crimes of Pinochet its cause they agree with those people, I doubt you deny either of these killings because (and i agree) Hitler and Pinochet where complete basturds, as was Stalin.

(Edited by Comrade Raz at 5:50 pm on July 29, 2003)

Cassius Clay

29th July 2003, 20:39

Actually the Red Army didn't have conscription until the mid-late 30's due to the threat from the Nazis and Imperialists. Tsarist Russia also had a conscript system yet no one was willing to fight for that regime, yet over 4 million Ukrainians fight with the Red Army. From the comparisions many have made this would be like SS formations being made up volluntering and willing Jews.

Now onto this 'famine', no one denies people died, but this was more due to illness and epidemics (much like the Spanish Infulenza) and civil war in the countryside between the Kulaks and peasants/the 25,000 and some Red Army. Remember also at the same time there were real famines in British India and the American Mid-West, so it wouldnt be to wild a claim to say that nature played it's role aswell.

But the Politburo was dammed if they did and dammed if they didn't when it comes to Collectivisation. The Kulaks were literally prepared to starve the cities, due to the NEP they had a monopoly on the grain. Kulaks would often suddenly say that they wanted more than the allready agreed pice with the government when a official went to collect. One was even told 'Do a little dance and we will give you the grain'.

Never the less Collectivisation tripled the amount of grain getting to everyone.

''1931-32 were the worst years for collectivization...due to the class struggle going on and due to a drought. Production fell to 69.5 and 69.9 respectivly.

1933...the first year since collectivization was firmly in place...production increased to 89.8 million tons. And this time...the collectives delivered 45+% of their production to the cities...beasue of increased machinery use.

1935 was 98.4 million tons

1937 was 120.9 million tons

1940 was 118.8 million tons!!!

So YES..it did almost double...from 69-70 million tons to 121 million tons!!!!!!

Food consumption as a precentage increased 120% for bread and what products; 180% for patatoes; 147 % for fruit and vegetables; 148% or milk and dairy products; 179% for meat products!!!''

The above is from Charles Bettelheim. L'économie soviétique (Paris: Éditions Recueil Sirey, 1950).

Also I would like to make the point that Collectivisation was not 'forced' on the peasantry. Alexader Zinoviev a former dissident who defected to the west in the 1970's now says that his mother and all her friends who lived during Collectivisation when asked if they would of preffered it under before they gave the reply 'No because we are making progress and things are getting better' (not precise quote).

Now I'd like to make the point that many of the sources for this 'famine' come from extreme right-wing accounts. Robert Conquest for example has almost all his sources come from people like the below.

''Roman Shukhevych was the commander of the Nachtigall Batallion, composed of Ukrainian nationalists wearing the German uniform. This battallion occupied Lvov on June 30, 1941 and took part in the three-day massacre of Jews in the region. In 1943 Shukhevyvh was named commander of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (the Banderivtsy, or UPA), armed henchmen of the OUN fascist Stepan Bandera, who after the war pretended that they had fought Germans and Reds.

.

Tottle, op. cit. , pp. 111-112.

All their `tales' of battles that they had fought against the Germans turned out to be false. They claimed to have executed Victor Lutze, the Chief of Staff of the German SA. But, in fact, he was killed in an automobile accident near Berlin.

.

Ibid. , p. 112.

They claimed to have done battle against 10,000 German soldiers in Volnia and Polyssa, during the summer of 1943. Historian Reuben Ainsztein proved that during the course of this battle, 5000 Ukrainian nationalists had participated at the sides of 10,000 German soldiers, in the great campaign of encirclement and attempted annihilation of the partisan army led by the famous Bolshevik Alexei Fyodorov !''

And for his 'Harvest of Despair' the 'witnesses' are.

''The most important eyewitness accounts about the `genocide' appearing in the film are made by German Nazis and their fomer collaborators.

Stepan Skrypnyk was the editor-in-chief of the Nazi journal Volyn during the German occupation. In three weeks, with the blessing of the Hitlerite authorities, he was promoted from simple layman to bishop in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and in the name of `Christian morality', put forward vicious propaganda for Die Neue Ordnung, the Hitlerite New Order. Fleeing the Red Army, he sought refuge in the U.S.

The German Hans von Herwath, another eyewitness, worked in the Soviet Union in the service that recruited, among the Soviet prisoners, mercenaries for General Vlasov's Russian Nazi army.

His compatriot Andor Henke, also appearing in the film, was a Nazi diplomat.''

Are these people reliable? Hardly. Lets also add folks like William Randolph Hearst who was admirer of Hitler and faked photographs and film 'evidence'. This was exposed in a article in a magazine called 'Village Voice' which to my knowledge is NOT Communist and in the rest of the article is full of criticism for Stalin aswell.

As chief researcher for the film, Carynnyk had two major functions -- to locate and interview famine survivors, and to find archival photographs. Talking heads would not be enough to make a case for genocide. To gain its intended shock value, the film would have to show what the famine was like. "There can be no question," assessed the Winnipeg Free Press, "that without the films and photographs uncovered from the 1932-33 famine, the film would lose much of its authority."

"I gave them two sets of photographs," Carynnyk said. "I told them, `Here are the ones from the 1930s, and here are the ones from 1921-22.' But in the cutting of the film, they were all mixed up. I said this can't be done, that it will leave the film open to criticism... My complaints were ignored. They just didn't think it was important."

One problem, Carynnyk said, was that producer Slawko Nowitski faced an impossible five-month deadline to ready the film during the famine's 50th anniversary. (In fact, Harvest of Despair would not be completed until late 1984). But the researcher believes it was more than mere sloppiness at work. "The research committee was more interested in propagandistic purposes than historical scholarship," said Carynnyk, who has sued the Famine Research Committee for copyright violation. "They were quite prepared to cut corners to get their point across."

In October 1983, Carynnyk left the project -- "relieved of his duties," according to Nowitsky, "because he did not produce the required material." Three years and seven awards later, the lid blew last November at a meeting of the Toronto Board of Education, where terror-famine proponents were pressing to include the film in the city's high school curriculum. The show stopped cold when Doug Tottle, former editor of a Winnipeg labor magazine, stood up and declared that "90 per cent" of the film's archival photographs were plagiarized from the 1921-22 famine.

Tottle traced several of the most graphic photos, including that of the starving girl, to famine relief sources of the 1920s. (Some of these resurfaced in 1933 as anti-Soviet propaganda in Völkischer Beobachter, an official Nazi party organ). Other pictures were lifted from the 1936 edition of Human Life in Russia, by Ewald Ammende, an Austrian relief worker in the earlier Volga famine. Ammende attributes them to a "Dr. F. Dittloff," a German engineer who supposedly took the photos in the summer of 1933. The Dittloff pictures have their own bastard pedigrees --three from 1922 Geneva-based relief bulletins, others from Nazi publications. Still other Dittloffs were also claimed as original by Robert Green, a phony journalist and escaped convict who provided famine material to the profascist Hearst chain in 1935. Green, a convicted forger who used the alias "Thomas Walker," reported that he took the photos in the spring of 1934 -- almost a year after the Ukraine famine had ended, and in direct contradiction of Dittloff.

Although Green was exposed by The Nation and several New York dailies by 1935, right-wing émigrés have used his spurious photos for decades. "It's not that these pictures were suddenly discovered in 1983 and accidentally misdated" in the film, Tottle noted.

Tottle had done his homework. Carynnyk confirmed that "very few" photos in Harvest of Despair could be authenticated, and that none of the famine film footage was from 1932-33. But the Ukrainian Famine Research Committee decided to stonewall. At first they insisted that any photos from the 1920s were used only when the film discussed the Volga famine -- a blatant evasion, since that segment lasts a scant 28 seconds and uses only two still photos, neither especially potent. Committee chairman Wasyl Janischewskyj recently softened that stance: "We have researched further and made discoveries that some photos we thought were from 1932-33 were not ... We are now having further deep investigations of these pictures."

Even bougesie historains and western Sovietologists are now beggining to admit the truth and reject the right-wing clap trap and lies.

"There is no evidence it was intentionally directed against Ukrainians," said Alexander Dallin of Stanford, the father of modern Sovietology. "That would be totally out of keeping with what we know -- it makes no sense."

"This is crap, rubbish," said Moshe Lewin of the University of Pennsylvania, whose Russian Peasants and Soviet Power broke new ground in social history. "I am an anti- Stalinist, but I don't see how this [genocide] campaign adds to our knowledge. It's adding horrors, adding horrors, until it becomes a pathology."

"I absolutely reject it," said Lynne Viola of SUNY- Binghamton, the first US historian to examine Moscow's Central State Archive on collectivization. "Why in god's name would this paranoid government consciously produce a famine when they were terrified of war [with Germany]?"

"He's terrible at doing research," said veteran Sovietologist Roberta Manning of Boston College." He misuses sources, he twists everything."

Anyway I've got to go now, but I will continue my case if you all refuse the above.

See yeah.

Invader Zim

29th July 2003, 21:50

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 8:39 pm on July 29, 2003
Actually the Red Army didn't have conscription until the mid-late 30's due to the threat from the Nazis and Imperialists. Tsarist Russia also had a conscript system yet no one was willing to fight for that regime, yet over 4 million Ukrainians fight with the Red Army. From the comparisions many have made this would be like SS formations being made up volluntering and willing Jews.

I will take your word for it.

However I still disagree with you on he whole stalin issue, but what the hey, I cant prove he killed millions you cant prove he did not, lets call it quits. I can prove he did some nasty stuff like give the chop to half his family, but I am sure that you have evidance that they were Trots or whatever.

But on to more serious issues, PM me about another London meating.

Vinny Rafarino

29th July 2003, 22:42

I would like to see your evidence that comrade Stalin gave the chop to half of his family comrade AK47.

XRED and "well said" RAZ;

Please feel free to pruduce your evidence to refute comrade Clay's post.

Again, Xred's gramma's supposed testimony does not qualify as proof. So please don't bother with that.

Edit:

For the record kiddies, you will never find a statement from me saying that people did not "starve" in the Ukraine. Only that the "Great Famine" as you perceive it did not happen.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 10:45 pm on July 29, 2003)

Invader Zim

29th July 2003, 23:32

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 10:42 pm on July 29, 2003
I would like to see your evidence that comrade Stalin gave the chop to half of his family comrade AK47.

Well for example when his son was captured by the Germans in WW2 he let his son die proclaming that he had no son called Jacob. I am sure you are well aware of the story. But more disturbing is how he had the vast majority of his brothers/sisters/etc in law get the chop. I saw a very interesting BBC program on it only a few days ago, I will see if I can find it on the net.

Vinny Rafarino

29th July 2003, 23:51

I can dig what your trying to lay down here comrade but I was looking for something a bit more credible that a BBC special or "stories" that we may have heard.

I believe none of what I hear and about half of what I see. In order for me to be conviced I would require irrefutable empirical evidence of any accusation.

I am a bit shocked that you do not share this ideal comrade AK47.

Invader Zim

30th July 2003, 00:02

A rather good web site do read, of course it will be immidiatly classed as right wing propaganda, but what the hell: -

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSstalin.htm

And if you want evidance then here is this for a taster, documants released from the soviet archives: -

Below is a translation
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/images.gif/d3presid.gif

Translation: -
To the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolshevik)
We appeal to you, asking you to pay a minimum of attention to our request.

We are prisoners who are returning from the Solovetsky concentration camp because of our poor health. We went there full of energy and good health, and now we are returning as invalids, broken and crippled emotionally and physically. We are asking you to draw your attention to the arbitrary use of power and the violence that reign at the Solovetsky concentration camp in Kemi and in all sections of the concentration camp. It is difficult for a human being even to imagine such terror, tyranny, violence, and lawlessness. When we went there, we could not conceive of such a horror, and now we, crippled ourselves, together with several thousands who are still there, appeal to the ruling center of the Soviet state to curb the terror that reigns there. As though it weren't enough that the Unified State Political Directorate [OGPU] without oversight and due process sends workers and peasants there who are by and large innocent (we are not talking about criminals who deserve to be punished), the former tsarist penal servitude system in comparison to Solovky had 99% more humanity, fairness, and legality. [...]

People die like flies, i.e., they die a slow and painful death; we repeat that all this torment and suffering is placed only on the shoulders of the proletariat without money, i.e., on workers who, we repeat, were unfortunate to find themselves in the period of hunger and destruction accompanying the events of the October Revolution, and who committed crimes only to save themselves and their families from death by starvation; they have already borne the punishment for these crimes, and the vast majority of them subsequently chose the path of honest labor. Now because of their past, for whose crime they have already paid, they are fired from their jobs. Yet, the main thing is that the entire weight of this scandalous abuse of power, brute violence, and lawlessness that reign at Solovky and other sections of the OGPU concentration camp is placed on the shoulders of workers and peasants; others, such as counterrevolutionaries, profiteers and so on, have full wallets and have set themselves up and live in clover in the Soviet State, while next to them, in the literal meaning of the word, the penniless proletariat dies from hunger, cold, and back- breaking 14-16 hour days under the tyranny and lawlessness of inmates who are the agents and collaborators of the State Political Directorate [GPU].

If you complain or write anything ("Heaven forbid"), they will frame you for an attempted escape or for something else, and they will shoot you like a dog. They line us up naked and barefoot at 22 degrees below zero and keep us outside for up to an hour. It is difficult to describe all the chaos and terror that is going on in Kemi, Solovky, and the other sections of the concentrations camp. All annual inspections uncover a lot of abuses. But what they discover in comparison to what actually exists is only a part of the horror and abuse of power, which the inspection accidently uncovers. (One example is the following fact, one of a thousand, which is registered in GPU and for which the guilty have been punished: THEY FORCED THE INMATES TO EAT THEIR OWN FECES. "Comrades," if we dare to use this phrase, verify that this is a fact from reality, about which, we repeat, OGPU has the official evidence, and judge for yourself the full extent of effrontery and humiliation in the supervision by those who want to make a career for themselves. [...]

We are sure and we hope that in the All-Union Communist Party there are people, as we have been told, who are humane and sympathetic; it is possible, that you might think that it is our imagination, but we swear to you all, by everything that is sacred to us, that this is only one small part of the nightmarish truth, because it makes no sense to make this up. We repeat, and will repeat 100 times, that yes, indeed there are some guilty people, but the majority suffer innocently, as is described above. The word law, according to the law of the GPU concentration camps, does not exist; what does exist is only the autocratic power of petty tyrants, i.e., collaborators, serving time, who have power over life and death. Everything described above is the truth and we, ourselves, who are close to the grave after 3 years in Solovky and Kemi and other sections, are asking you to improve the pathetic, tortured existence of those who are there who languish under the yoke of the OGPU's tyranny, violence, and complete lawlessness....

To this we subscribe: G. Zheleznov, Vinogradov, F. Belinskii.

Dec. 14, 1926

True copy

______________________

TRANSLATOR'S COMMENTS: The letter is written in very poor Russian. For the sake of clarity, the translator corrected the grammar and substituted a few words.

Evidance on the Gulags

You can view about 20 such documents on the USSR (most on stalin) at this page: -

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/intro1.html

I origionaly found this material to debate with a peson called "new democracy" aka Oren the Butcher (seriously thats his screen name on other sites) who also believes your denial shit.

Invader Zim

30th July 2003, 23:18

Ahh it appears that we dont get images on the new board... no matter Just put the pic URL in the address bar instead... either that or I just have not worked out how to post pics on this board...

Invader Zim

31st July 2003, 00:52

Ahh fixed, the new boards code is case sensative...

Invader Zim

31st July 2003, 22:04

I made a smilie just for you RAF take a look: -

http://www.che-lives.net/users/ak47/other/StalinAni.gif

Vinny Rafarino

1st August 2003, 23:18

I've seen that lette posted before. No one has ever disputed there were gulags. I have asked you repeatedly so supply empirical evidence supporting your claim that Stalin murdered millions. You kids need to take the fucking cotton out of your ears and pay attention 'cos all you ever give me are websites containing editorials with no relevance whaqtsoever or try to stter the topic to something else. Gulags in this case.

Let me make this easy on you son. Yes there were gulags. Yes it was in the early 20'th century. Yes (this may be a shocker for you AK47) subversionists were made to LABOUR in these camps. They were afterall labour camps you know.

I'm glad you feel a criminal's word is an accurate and empirical piece of evidence. We all know that all criminals always tell the complete truth about their prisons. Until you start living in reality please don't bother to post this garbage.

Invader Zim

1st August 2003, 23:57

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 1 2003, 11:18 PM
I've seen that lette posted before. No one has ever disputed there were gulags. I have asked you repeatedly so supply empirical evidence supporting your claim that Stalin murdered millions. You kids need to take the fucking cotton out of your ears and pay attention 'cos all you ever give me are websites containing editorials with no relevance whaqtsoever or try to stter the topic to something else. Gulags in this case.

Let me make this easy on you son. Yes there were gulags. Yes it was in the early 20'th century. Yes (this may be a shocker for you AK47) subversionists were made to LABOUR in these camps. They were afterall labour camps you know.

I'm glad you feel a criminal's word is an accurate and empirical piece of evidence. We all know that all criminals always tell the complete truth about their prisons. Until you start living in reality please don't bother to post this garbage.
Well actually you were supposed to use that as a sample and then look at the site dumb ass like I said: -

You can view about 20 such documents on the USSR (most on stalin) at this page: -

Which provides many interesting stories. Such as one where people were put in Gulags for stealing a loaf of bread... Hardly a just punishment to place them in a Gulag.

I'm glad you feel a criminal's word is an accurate and empirical piece of evidence. We all know that all criminals always tell the complete truth about their prisons. Until you start living in reality please don't bother to post this garbage.

And I wonder what he did... Probably stole a loaf of bread! Idiot.

Vinny Rafarino

2nd August 2003, 00:21

Piss off you moron. Please show me proof beyond your silly little fantasy stories where people were put in labout camps for stealing bread. Your ignorance to reality as well as the fact you swollow this rubbish as fact shows you have an extremely limited intellect.

You are an imbecile. Good luck to you in the future and remember this;

Shit is different from shinola jackass.

Go play with something shiny you silly little monkey.

Invader Zim

2nd August 2003, 00:31

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 2 2003, 12:21 AM
Piss off you moron. Please show me proof beyond your silly little fantasy stories where people were put in labout camps for stealing bread. Your ignorance to reality as well as the fact you swollow this rubbish as fact shows you have an extremely limited intellect.

You are an imbecile. Good luck to you in the future and remember this;

Shit is different from shinola jackass.

Go play with something shiny you silly little monkey.
Ahh poor fool has to resort to flame to make an argument or respond to any points made... How cute.

As for the referance to a person being sent to a Gulag for stealing bread please read my post instead of flaming it.

Ohh you really are good to laugh at, however the joke is beggining to wear thin.

Post something constructive or not at all.

Vinny Rafarino

2nd August 2003, 00:41

I'm done with you boy. You have no sense at all.

Comrade Hector

2nd August 2003, 10:13

Stalin was a true dedicated Communist. His achievments were industrializing the Soviet Union and establishing it as a super power, collectivization, supressing the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie, leading his people to victory over Fascism, following challenging the US imperialists. Lets not forget that many of Stalin's so-called "victims" were Fascists, Capitalists, Zionists, Cossacks, Czarists, Mensheviks, and other counter-revolutionary scum. Not to mention petty criminals such as child molestors, rapists, murderers, theives, and other bandits. Russian comrade, my respects to your great grandfather for serving in the glorious Red Army participating in the defeat of Nazi Germany.

"SMRT FASIZMU! SLOBODA NARODU!" ---Josip Broz Tito

Cassius Clay

2nd August 2003, 11:18

Ak you've quoted that source before and all I can say is if you could of run a better prison system just a few years after a Woprld War, Civil War and Revolution then by all means go ahead. All that quote really proves is that the USSR and Stalin were nothing like the 'police state' you try to portray. All that document is is prisoners writing to the Bolshevik Party complaining on condiditions, and rightly so by what he describes. Can anyone imagine a black or latino prisoner in the U$ being able to write to the Republican party. The standards in prison did improve when time allowed, although its still important to note that prison is not meant to be a holiday camp.

BTW I'm really not sure how I can disprove a negative.

Invader Zim

2nd August 2003, 15:49

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 2 2003, 12:41 AM
I'm done with you boy. You have no sense at all.
Ohh sorry I was unnaware that you had stared, as I see no sources to disprove anythig I have said. When looking at is you have not even begun to refute the source at all, not even looked at it. So RAF all you have done is flamed and *****ed, nothing more. Great argment mate, age definatly does not signify ability.

Ak you've quoted that source before and all I can say is if you could of run a better prison system just a few years after a Woprld War, Civil War and Revolution then by all means go ahead.

perhaps not but the rest of the allies managed why should the USSR fail, and thats only the war! As for the Revolution and Civil war I believe you are being a little economic with the dates, Lenin managed an excelent job in stabalising the country. Hense the reason why it was ripe for mass industrialisation, which Stalin proved it to be. :cool:

Can anyone imagine a black or latino prisoner in the U$ being able to write to the Republican party.

Actually yes I can, in Britiain a prisoner can write to the local MP for his or her area, etc, also they can write to the press or to a political party if they so wish. This being the heart of european capitalism it is supprisingly liberal.

The standards in prison did improve when time allowed, although its still important to note that prison is not meant to be a holiday camp.

Yes but people were placed in "prison" for very minor offenses such as having a different opinion from the "party" or Stalin. If they did that in capitalist countrys like the one we live in we would be discussing this from the confines of Strangeways or Dartmoor prison.

The very fact that the capitalists are more liberal and reasonable than Soviet Russia under Stalin says quite a lot about Stalins regime.

At least you catualy provide an argument CC unlike our backwards friend RAF...

PS we need mre publisity for the new London trip.

Vinny Rafarino

2nd August 2003, 16:32

Whatever you say AK47. I'm not worried 'cos you are not fooling anyone. Every one here already knows about you. Too late son, Elvis has already left the building...The general consensus is that you are a twit.

Cassius Clay

2nd August 2003, 16:46

''Actually yes I can, in Britiain a prisoner can write to the local MP for his or her area, etc, also they can write to the press or to a political party if they so wish. This being the heart of european capitalism it is supprisingly liberal.''

Just like those prisoners way back in 1920's Russia no.

In terms of the actual conditions and how they should of improved, sooner. I think it's the accepted view that the two most damaged nations in terms of physical ruin as a result of World War One were France and then Russia, note the French hadn't gone through a complete social change and had actually 'won' the war unlike Russia. When those prisoners wrote that letter it was 1926 no, five years at the most from when the Civil War had ended. Like I said if you could of done a better job then by all means.

Not sure about 'having a different opinion than Stalin' first a constitution (something I belief Liberal Britain doesn't have) was introduced in the 1930's which guarrenteed freedom of speech and one example of this was Maxim Gorky writing a letter to Stalin saying 'we should not allow so much criticism in our press because it will only play into the hands of our enemies'. Odd that a 'Liberal' Gorky would be telling a 'Authoritarian' Stalin this. Well something doesn't add up.

Now as for being arrested for minor things, let me quote something from a former dissitent Alexander Zinoviev.

''I was already a confirmed anti-Stalinist at the age of seventeen ....
The idea of killing Stalin filled my thoughts and feelings ....
We studied the technical possibilities of an attack .... We even practiced.
If they had condemned me to death in 1939, their decision would have been just. I had made up a plan to kill Stalin; wasnít that a crime?''

All Zinoviev got was (and he had formed a group, armed with 'pistols, rifles and grenades' to go and kill the leadership on May-Day) a year or so prison and later served in the Red Army and airforce.

BTW on the whole 'prison' vs 'Gulag' thing. I cant remember where I heard this and I wouldn't be surprised if it's just a type of myth. Still it's lesson is important. In the mid 1990's a Russian student in America was talking to his American counterpart, 'what happened to all the Gulags?' the American asked, 'oh nothing now that we are friends they've become prisons again'.

Anyway about London, advertise it as much as possible I was incidently invited to go up there today but since I would of spent all the money I got and then be skint come September. So it better be worth it (ie plenty of people turning up) othersie your all of to Siberia come revolution time. :D

Invader Zim

2nd August 2003, 16:47

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 2 2003, 04:32 PM
Whatever you say AK47. I'm not worried 'cos you are not fooling anyone. Every one here already knows about you. Too late son, Elvis has already left the building...The general consensus is that you are a twit.
Your petty flaming is not answering my points. Debate or fuck off. :angry:

Vinny Rafarino

2nd August 2003, 16:54

Wow that angry smiley face sure has me scared...I can see how much of a toughguy you are once attempt to get your bottle up. Pleas provide what I asked for originally. It's not my fault you are an imbecile that lacks common sense. It's not my fault people find you utterly absurd. It's not my fault you are unable to provide facts to support your silly notion.

Cos it's your fault boy.

Xprewatik RED

2nd August 2003, 17:03

There was no writing or complaining to the party, that was a certain inprisonment.
RAF you have shown no evidence, you are a vanguard supporter in Mexico, what do you know about Soviet life?
If a revolution isnt supported by the people, and requires sending over 10million people to prison camps, than it is not worth it. And it should be an opened society, were people can debate. Not a closed oppressive society, I thought Communism went with democracy. A democracy of the workers.

Invader Zim

2nd August 2003, 17:03

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 2 2003, 04:54 PM
Wow that angry smiley face sure has me scared...I can see how much of a toughguy you are once attempt to get your bottle up. Pleas provide what I asked for originally. It's not my fault you are an imbecile that lacks common sense. It's not my fault people find you utterly absurd. It's not my fault you are unable to provide facts to support your silly notion.

Cos it's your fault boy.
I grow tired wading through the sea of ignorance that surrounds you. I am going to debate with CC feal free to join it if you must, however if you resort to flaming I will ignore you.

Xprewatik RED

2nd August 2003, 17:15

Yeah good point ak-47, RAF go promote your party in Mexico, or whatever you do.

Invader Zim

2nd August 2003, 17:20

Originally posted by Cassius [email protected] 2 2003, 04:46 PM
''Actually yes I can, in Britiain a prisoner can write to the local MP for his or her area, etc, also they can write to the press or to a political party if they so wish. This being the heart of european capitalism it is supprisingly liberal.''

Just like those prisoners way back in 1920's Russia no.

In terms of the actual conditions and how they should of improved, sooner. I think it's the accepted view that the two most damaged nations in terms of physical ruin as a result of World War One were France and then Russia, note the French hadn't gone through a complete social change and had actually 'won' the war unlike Russia. When those prisoners wrote that letter it was 1926 no, five years at the most from when the Civil War had ended. Like I said if you could of done a better job then by all means.

Not sure about 'having a different opinion than Stalin' first a constitution (something I belief Liberal Britain doesn't have) was introduced in the 1930's which guarrenteed freedom of speech and one example of this was Maxim Gorky writing a letter to Stalin saying 'we should not allow so much criticism in our press because it will only play into the hands of our enemies'. Odd that a 'Liberal' Gorky would be telling a 'Authoritarian' Stalin this. Well something doesn't add up.

Now as for being arrested for minor things, let me quote something from a former dissitent Alexander Zinoviev.

''I was already a confirmed anti-Stalinist at the age of seventeen ....
The idea of killing Stalin filled my thoughts and feelings ....
We studied the technical possibilities of an attack .... We even practiced.
If they had condemned me to death in 1939, their decision would have been just. I had made up a plan to kill Stalin; wasnít that a crime?''

All Zinoviev got was (and he had formed a group, armed with 'pistols, rifles and grenades' to go and kill the leadership on May-Day) a year or so prison and later served in the Red Army and airforce.

BTW on the whole 'prison' vs 'Gulag' thing. I cant remember where I heard this and I wouldn't be surprised if it's just a type of myth. Still it's lesson is important. In the mid 1990's a Russian student in America was talking to his American counterpart, 'what happened to all the Gulags?' the American asked, 'oh nothing now that we are friends they've become prisons again'.

Anyway about London, advertise it as much as possible I was incidently invited to go up there today but since I would of spent all the money I got and then be skint come September. So it better be worth it (ie plenty of people turning up) othersie your all of to Siberia come revolution time. :D
Just like those prisoners way back in 1920's Russia no.

I was mearly pointing out that that was not a great example of the tolerant regime which you claim Stalin to have built, considering that the capitalist west also allowed such freedoms.

I think it's the accepted view that the two most damaged nations in terms of physical ruin as a result of World War One were France and then Russia, note the French hadn't gone through a complete social change and had actually 'won' the war unlike Russia.

Russia did not win or lose the war, it was forced to sign an out ragious treaty to the Germans (the treaty of Brest or somethig like that) It was however dismanled by the allies at the end of the war. However I would agree that Russia and France were the most economically damaged, however my earlier point was that Lenin repaired the dammage of the civil war and pasified the country largely before Stalin reached power.

Not sure about 'having a different opinion than Stalin' first a constitution (something I belief Liberal Britain doesn't have) was introduced in the 1930's which guarrenteed freedom of speech and one example of this was Maxim Gorky writing a letter to Stalin saying 'we should not allow so much criticism in our press because it will only play into the hands of our enemies'. Odd that a 'Liberal' Gorky would be telling a 'Authoritarian' Stalin this. Well something doesn't add up.

Yet throughout his time in "office", for lack of a better word, Stalin "purged" his political enemy, an excelent example is that of Trotsky. Your latest ally in this debate Comrade Hector highlighted this further by saying: -

Lets not forget that many of Stalin's so-called "victims" were Fascists, Capitalists, Zionists, Cossacks, Czarists, Mensheviks, and other counter-revolutionary scum.

That hardly seams tolerance of differing opinions. His list also does not include the old revolutionary circle of Bolshevik leaders whome Lenin had defeated the Tzar with, members of the party, who just happened to oppose some of Stalins ideals.

Now as for being arrested for minor things, let me quote something from a former dissitent Alexander Zinoviev.

''I was already a confirmed anti-Stalinist at the age of seventeen ....
The idea of killing Stalin filled my thoughts and feelings ....
We studied the technical possibilities of an attack .... We even practiced.
If they had condemned me to death in 1939, their decision would have been just. I had made up a plan to kill Stalin; wasnít that a crime?''

All Zinoviev got was (and he had formed a group, armed with 'pistols, rifles and grenades' to go and kill the leadership on May-Day) a year or so prison and later served in the Red Army and airforce.

One example of leniancy hardly constitutes as a argument to suggest that other prisoners were not condemed to extream sentances for minor crimes.

As for London we must start the propaganda campain...

Vinny Rafarino

2nd August 2003, 22:45

AK47,

You ignoring me is a treat I have been waiting for since June. Now let us see if you can hold up to your end of the bargain. I can only dream you have convictions.

On a side note, your view of the Soviet-German pact of non-aggression is immature and completely filled with lies. There is indeed no hope for you. I do not believe I have seen such a pedomorphic and utterly ridiculous view of international historical politics since I have been alive. Your pathetic attempts to discredit comrade Stalin through lies and propaganda are not only transparant but they are also counter-productive to the advancement of Socialism. I can only hope that upon your next meeting with comrade Clay, he smacks you straight away across your silly capitalist face.

Comrade Hector

2nd August 2003, 22:50

AK47, I don't deny that Stalin killed members of the old Bolshevik leadership, including Trotsky. Instead of eliminating them, he should've let them put their views out and struggled against those views if he did not agree with them. I do condemn Stalin for such tactics along with signing the Hitler-Stalin pact. Eventhough I'm a Stalinist, it would be totally naive for me to say Stalin did absolutley nothing wrong. In my previous post I was refering only to the right-wing scum, and other parasites whom were a threat to the Soviet working-class in the list of Stalin's "victims". By the way, I saw that you put an animated picture of Stalin holding the red flag with the hammer and sickle transforming into the swastika. Just for the record comrade, non of my Trotskyist comrades would agree on comparing Stalin with Hitler. Does this mean that you're one of those "USSR, Cuba, and China are state capitalist nations" type of "socialists"? No need to get offended, just a question not a statement.

Vinny Rafarino

2nd August 2003, 23:08

Do any of you really know the dynamics of the Soviet/German non aggression pact? Or are you simply viewing it as a "deal with Hitler" without ever studying why it was made. I am flabberghasted at the lack of historical knowledge on this forum.

Comrade Hector

2nd August 2003, 23:31

Comrade RAF, the pact signed by Hitler and Stalin was to ensure that no attack from Germany would be directed towards the Soviet Union. I can understand if Stalin wanted to sign this pact because of the fact that he didn't want another foreign army to occupy Russia. However, I condemn Stalin for signing this pact due to the fact that Hitler had stated repeatedly that he intended to crush Communism. Therefore Stalin should've realized that Hitler could not be trusted on this pact, and Stalin probably wouldn't have signed it and would've been better prepared for the Nazi attack. Fortunately the result of Hitler's surprise attack turned on him at the battle of Stalingrad, with Comrade Stalin leading the Soviet people to victory over Nazi Germany. I'm a Stalinist just as you are Comrade RAF. I just think Stalin should not have signed that pact with Hitler, as Hitler never had the intension of honoring it.

Vinny Rafarino

2nd August 2003, 23:45

Then being a "stalinist" you should be fully aware this treaty was not simply designed to keep the Nazi's from invading The Soviet Union. Stalin always knew Hitler had no intention of holding to the treaty. He himself had no intention to holding to the treaty. The treaty was simply designed to delay the invasion long enough to fully prepare the Red Army for the upcoming was as well as decide on a strategy to be used. You see the west was attempting to "push" the war towards the east while making no complete decisions on whether or not they would aid in the struggle.

Comrade Stalin needed to know what the yanks as well as the British were going to do. Did he plan for the Red army to battle the full force german invasion alone, or did he plan for the Red Army to to battle on the eastern front while the west invaded from the opposite front. These factors were invaluable in creating a war-time strategy. He also had to consider the many "rumours" floating around the Soviet Union of a Trotskyist led civil war being started against the Soviet Government as soon as the Germans reached Soviet Soviet soil.

As you can clearly see, the viewpoint that the Soviet/German pact of non-aggression was a "mistake" is a truly uneducated stance.

Invader Zim

3rd August 2003, 01:55

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 2 2003, 10:45 PM
AK47,

You ignoring me is a treat I have been waiting for since June. Now let us see if you can hold up to your end of the bargain. I can only dream you have convictions.

On a side note, your view of the Soviet-German pact of non-aggression is immature and completely filled with lies. There is indeed no hope for you. I do not believe I have seen such a pedomorphic and utterly ridiculous view of international historical politics since I have been alive. Your pathetic attempts to discredit comrade Stalin through lies and propaganda are not only transparant but they are also counter-productive to the advancement of Socialism. I can only hope that upon your next meeting with comrade Clay, he smacks you straight away across your silly capitalist face.
Stalinist Ignorance at its finnest. I never made a single referance to the nonaggression pact signed between Hitler and Stalin. Dumb ass.

Your pathetic attempts to discredit comrade Stalin through lies and propaganda are not only transparant but they are also counter-productive to the advancement of Socialism.

Considering that you have failed to make a single argument, I beg to differ. Take a leaf out of CC's book you may do better in future.

I can only hope that upon your next meeting with comrade Clay, he smacks you straight away across your silly capitalist face.

Capitalist now am I? Or is that what you call all the people who make you look a dumb ass? Well mate sorry to break it to you but I follow an ideology made before Marx was even born. Infact one of the founding socialist theorys... so again you are wrong, tell me are you ever correct?

As for CC smacking me in the face I will try and remind him.

Does this mean that you're one of those "USSR, Cuba, and China are state capitalist nations" type of "socialists"? No need to get offended, just a question not a statement.

Depends on when you are talking about. USSR yes and always was, with the possible exception of Lenin's regime.

China, I am unsure.

Cuba during the early regime it was definatly socialist, today however it is becoming more capitalistic, with growing reliance on tourism and the money which comes from that.

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2003, 02:13

You're right. You were making a reference to a different treaty.

So what "socialist" ideals do you follow? I'm sure it must be "progressive" if someone with your obvious lack of intelligence follows it. Is it the "oppersit" of marxism?

As far as you opinion of me always being "wrong", I merely brush off your comments like water of a duck's back. Coming from someone like you one can only conclude this comment is absurd.

It can be chalked up to this,

You only cite mere nonsense from an immature and somewhat retarded mind.

Thanks for your time Mr. Capitalist.

Invader Zim

3rd August 2003, 02:33

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 3 2003, 02:13 AM
You're right. You were making a reference to a different treaty.

So what "socialist" ideals do you follow? I'm sure it must be "progressive" if someone with your obvious lack of intelligence follows it. Is it the "oppersit" of marxism?

As far as you opinion of me always being "wrong", I merely brush off your comments like water of a duck's back. Coming from someone like you one can only conclude this comment is absurd.

It can be chalked up to this,

You only cite mere nonsense from an immature and somewhat retarded mind.

Thanks for your time Mr. Capitalist.
You're right. You were making a reference to a different treaty.

My god you actually said something that is true, this must be like a record for you...

So what "socialist" ideals do you follow? I'm sure it must be "progressive" if someone with your obvious lack of intelligence follows it.

My lack of intelligence??? Well at least I know the differance between the treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the Nazi/USSR non-aggression pact. Your obviously lack any historical knowladge or the ability to read. In my poinion both. You are quite frankly the most uninformed person I have ever had the displeasure to argue with. This includes those capitalists who think that Karl Marx was one of Groucho Marx's brothers.

As far as you opinion of me always being "wrong", I merely brush off your comments like water of a duck's back. Coming from someone like you one can only conclude this comment is absurd.

Well so far you have been consistantly wrong on an ever growing pile of debates, I believe my conclusion is more than fair.

You only cite mere nonsense from an immature and somewhat retarded mind.

If it were nonsense you would have not needed to resort to this flame match. As for my retarded mind you are the one who either cant read or has no historical knowladge. The hypocracy of your last comment is shocking.

Thanks for your time Mr. Capitalist.

Im not a capitalist you fool. Then again an idiot like you probably cannot desern between different political and economic ideologys. You probably find it difficult to count without using your fingers as well.

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2003, 02:50

I'm not sure what planet you hail from if you think I have a "pile" of debates where I have been "wrong" (us adults don't give a fuck all about winning or losing boy) Provide some proof. (Uh-oh! I said the P-word again...this should send him running!) Hitherto (look it up in the dictionary son) you have only been shown to avoid providing facts to support your "unique" theories by attempting to attack my character. I can care less. A charachter attack from the likes of you is like being called a "racist" by a Nazi. It's not my fault everything seems to go over your head. Not every one can possess a vast intellect. You unfortunately fall intom the category of the populace that contains the "global average" in intellect. Perhaps that's even somewhat forgiving. I personally feel you may indeed be retarded.

I understantand the difference in the treaties all to well sonny-boy. Remember, I've been a communist since before you were even born. Good try at slagging me though...I almost gave a toss.

Nice dodge of the remaining portion of my post asking what idealology you follow...Need time to surf the net quickly eh? Jackass.

Im not a capitalist you fool. Then again an idiot like you probably cannot desern between different political and economic ideologys. You probably find it difficult to count without using your fingers as well.

Look how quick the little monkey takes the banana. He He He.

Invader Zim

3rd August 2003, 03:34

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected]ug 3 2003, 02:50 AM
I'm not sure what planet you hail from if you think I have a "pile" of debates where I have been "wrong" (us adults don't give a fuck all about winning or losing boy) Provide some proof. (Uh-oh! I said the P-word again...this should send him running!) Hitherto (look it up in the dictionary son) you have only been shown to avoid providing facts to support your "unique" theories by attempting to attack my character. I can care less. A charachter attack from the likes of you is like being called a "racist" by a Nazi. It's not my fault everything seems to go over your head. Not every one can possess a vast intellect. You unfortunately fall intom the category of the populace that contains the "global average" in intellect. Perhaps that's even somewhat forgiving. I personally feel you may indeed be retarded.

I understantand the difference in the treaties all to well sonny-boy. Remember, I've been a communist since before you were even born. Good try at slagging me though...I almost gave a toss.

Nice dodge of the remaining portion of my post asking what idealology you follow...Need time to surf the net quickly eh? Jackass.

Im not a capitalist you fool. Then again an idiot like you probably cannot desern between different political and economic ideologys. You probably find it difficult to count without using your fingers as well.

Look how quick the little monkey takes the banana. He He He.
My god you really are dim...

Again if my arguments are so stupid then try prove them wrong instead of flaming me... Then again you obviously cant... No brain power.

I do not have to put up with an idiot like you... It has been fun to read your pathetic arguments and then shred them to pieces and watch you squirm and flame when you are given an argument in responce. Yet I grow tired of such trivial challanges. In short you bore me.

Comrade Hector

3rd August 2003, 03:38

AK47, you know I've done my own personal reseach on "socialists" who identify the Soviet Union and other Communist states as "state capitalism". The Soviet Union was anything but Capitalist. In the Soviet Union everything one needed was provided for, education, work, health care, child care, shelter, elderly care, not to mention no homelessness, poverty, or racism. Same with Cuba, because of Comrade Castro Cuba remains the most stable country in Latin America. China was once the same until after Mao's death, when the following revisionists deformed the Chinese Communist state. Ask yourself, would you have any of these mentioned above in any kind of Capitalist society? In regards to these "socialists" who use the term "State Capitalism" have a history of standing along side pro-imperialist counter-revolutionaries such as the Afghan Mujahedeen, Tibetan separatists, and of course standing with Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin supporting the Soviet Union's submission to the west. You see, because these "socialists" look at Cuba, China, North Korea, USSR, and Eastern Europe as "State Capitalist", hence they don't call to defend these nations from Capitalist counter-revolution, but stand with it. One group that is famous for doing this is the ISO (International Socialist Organization), a pseudo-Trotskyist group. And whats funny is that this group in particular stated that Boris Yeltsin was "clearing the way for Socialism" and "ending Stalinism".

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2003, 03:41

Comrade Hector,

We all know that "state capitalism" is a myth created by deluded Trots.

AK47,

Want another banana my little monkey?

I see you must not have found information on the internet about the "socialist practises" that precede Marx.

I'll give you a little more time to research it.

Rastafari

3rd August 2003, 03:42

wow! look what I found!
I got on this thread guessing it was about Joseph Stalin and was hoping to flame his power-hungry ass in a big way.

Instead, I find the online equivalent of a L.A. gang war...sweet
Stalin doesn't deserve 4 pages about him, let alone 8. Lets close this sucka' down and maybe put this fucking childishness behind us.

:(

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2003, 03:45

Uh-huh.

Join the band-wagon rasta. All the kids are doing it...It's all the rage!

Let me guess, your a white kid from suberbia who "thinks" Rastafarianism actually includes you.

Would you like to spread some lies about comrade Stalin? Here's your chance to look as foolish as every other deluded Trot and "anarchist" on this forum.

Comrade Hector

3rd August 2003, 04:12

Comrade RAF, I'm fully aware that you knew what is behind the "state capitalist" myth. I was making a point to AK47, to give him some thought about what comes with the whole "state capitalism" rant. You may find this strange but I actually have Trotskyist comrades who also expose the "state capitalism" lie similar to the way I did it. These comrades, call them "pseudo-Trotskyists". In regards to you're previous post, you said that Comrade Stalin knew that Hitler never had the intention of honoring the non-aggression pact but signed in order to delay and prepare for the Nazi invasion. But the Russians were totally unprepared for the German attack, and Comrade Stalin wasn't seen for weeks do to a nervous breakdown occurring after the Fascist invasion. The Nazis moved into Russia as far as Stalingrad, before being beaten back. Had the Soviets been prepared for the surprise attack, the Nazis probably wouldn't have penatrated so far into the Soviet Union.

Rastafari

3rd August 2003, 04:16

How old are you Comrade RAF?

Oh, and I learned these lies about Stalin on my own, no need for the bandwagon

I would be interested to hear you explain the Great Purge from 1936-1938, the assasination of good ol' Trot, the Ten Million Arrests and over 1 Million executions during his time in control (I know Russia is a big country, he ruled for a long time, it was exagerated, etc. , but a million people is big by any accounts you could provide), and the Gulag.

The 5-Year plans were insanely under-thought. Putting the whole country into agriculture then into industry is something the chairman mao would kill millions trying to do decades later, and both times only miraculous failures resulted.

Now, I've been generously good-natured towards you, and I would expect some level of decency, if it can be adequately mustered under such circumstances, out of you.

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2003, 04:45

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 3 2003, 04:12 AM
Comrade RAF, I'm fully aware that you knew what is behind the "state capitalist" myth. I was making a point to AK47, to give him some thought about what comes with the whole "state capitalism" rant. You may find this strange but I actually have Trotskyist comrades who also expose the "state capitalism" lie similar to the way I did it. These comrades, call them "pseudo-Trotskyists". In regards to you're previous post, you said that Comrade Stalin knew that Hitler never had the intention of honoring the non-aggression pact but signed in order to delay and prepare for the Nazi invasion. But the Russians were totally unprepared for the German attack, and Comrade Stalin wasn't seen for weeks do to a nervous breakdown occurring after the Fascist invasion. The Nazis moved into Russia as far as Stalingrad, before being beaten back. Had the Soviets been prepared for the surprise attack, the Nazis probably wouldn't have penatrated so far into the Soviet Union.
Comrade Hector,

I know comrade, I was posting that rhetorically for the benefit of the others. It was not meant as a "show you up post" being directed at you.

How would you feel if you were just invaded by the Nazis and were hearing rumours of a
Trot led counter revolution that was to use the upcoming war as a catalyst to seize power. The man's name may mean "man of steel" but in all actuality comrade Stalin was one of the most sensitive and frogiving of the Bolshevics. He on more than one occasion attempted to free individuals the council had declared as subversionists.

Without the delay that comrade Stalin's treaty caused in the Nazi invasion, the Red Army would not have been even remotely able to counter it. It bought just the right amount of time. A little more would have been ideal, but at least it worked.

Rasta,

I'm 35 and have been a member of the communist party since 1983.

Relax, I'm just breaking your balls a bit. I'm not going into supportive details as all the evidence supporting Trotsky's crimes against the people has been posted in countless other threads in this forum by me and many other comrades.

As there is no evidence to support the lies about the "great terror" the burden of proof does not lay with me. I have yet to find any "socialist" that can post any empirical evidence to support their claims. Perhaps you can provide proof for the statements in your previous post.

As with everyone else, I will advise you to this. Editorials and non-supportive "random" numbers will not be accepted as empirical proof.

I suggest researching Soviet economical statistics regarding the state of the economy before and after the 5-year plans. It was hardly a "failure".

Please also support your claim that Chairman Mao killed millions as well.

What western propaganda tome did this lovely bit of drivel come from?

Rastafari

3rd August 2003, 04:51

well, if you must know, the book I hit on Chinese Communism was "A Short History of Chinese Communism," written by a fellow who was the American Ambassador to "Formosa" for a while, written pretty cleanly but I don't know how straight the info was. As for Stalin, I read a book about Trotsky which I'm sure wasn't the best for Stalin statistics, supplemented with knowledge from a Russian History Class I took.

as for Stalin being a great leader of the workers, where is your empirical evidence, friend?
I am quite willing to learn if I can see credibility behind it

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2003, 05:14

I just explained that my friend. As with any logical debate, the accuser is burdened with to necessity of "proof"; as there does not exist any proof whatsoever to support the "claims" of the "Great Terror" it is not the accused that must present evidence. It is the same in any court of law friend Rasta. If Stalin were on trial today, the prosecuting team would produce evidence to support their charges and then advise the defense team about what type of evidence they are going to produce. It is at that point that the defense must then develop evidence to refute the "evidence" produced by the prosecution. (I roomed with a couple law students in graduate school) I have yet to find an anti-Stalinist who can produce anything besides opinion and heresy. No one can ever provide empirical evidence to any of these lies against comrade Stalin. Therefore it is utterly insane for the neo-left to continue their charade against Stalin.

However as I have been around the movement for many years and have seen many neo-leftist kiddies come and go, one fact always remains clear;

Children do not require evidence to believe what they want. That is why all political movements start with the youth. They are easily convinced and manipulated to an ideal without the unecessary "burden of proof". That more aged minds will require.

A perfect example is that half-wit AK47. After 5 minutes of debate with him I can see he is a brainwashed child. Eventually he may come around, but for now he simply is only good for a laugh. I stopped debating with him a couple months ago...Now I simply set on getting his bottle up. It's a good time.

I hope this makes sense to you friend Rasta.

EDIT:

As far as the "gulags" are concerned I reaqd a post in another thread that summed it up brilliantly. It was a post siting a conversation between a yanqui and a Russian (I can't remember who posted it...It may have been comrades Mao or Clay) I will paraphrase it here for you;

The Yank asks, "What happened to the gulags is Russia after the fall?"

The Russian responds, "They are still there but now that we are back to being friends they are called prisons again."

[Thank you to whomever for originally posting this]

Rastafari

3rd August 2003, 05:17

Stalin is basically a Leftist's scapegoat for a failed communist project, then?

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2003, 05:27

Well you must understand that the Soviet Union was immensly strong politically and economically until the onset of Khruschev's revisionist policies. He turned a booming, powerful Socialist state well on it's way to becoming a "true" communist society into a capitalist lapdog of the USA. After the old communists passed into history, the control over revision was lax at best.

So in a sense yes friend, Stalin is a neo-leftist scapegoat to a failed Socialist platform. They would not dare blame the true parties responsible (khruschev) as his party were themselves neo-leftists. That would mean the neo-left would have to take the blame for the fall. Since the West had already won the propaganda war and had the masses of the capitalist first world believeing that Stalin was an "evil oppressor of freedom" it makes perfect sense to use him as a scapegoat.

I would had I been a neo-leftist.

lostsoul

3rd August 2003, 05:35

I'm not sure but after Stalin's death didn't kruschev launch an anti-stalin campain? I don't know but i personally wouldn't take his views(or his followers) on Stalin simply because they have such a huge bias.

Lately i see the arguments on Stalin as stupid. If you follow his way of thinking unconditionally...your an idiot.

If you ignore him and think of him as simply a murder and nothing more...your also an idiot.

He did what he did..so drop it. Learn what you can from or about him and worry about the future.

He's dead. His USSR is dead. His dreams are dead. If the left keeps fighting so much with each other, socialism will be dead too.

Rastafari

3rd August 2003, 05:40

I guess part of what you say I can automatically realize as true. I never put 2 and 2 together though. Stalin must have been doing at least a semi-good job economically for the US to consider communists any kind of threat in the 50's.

What kind of position, in your opinion, would the Soviets had been in that same period of time had Trotsky stepped up to the plate?

and I am still half-way convinced that while he was a pretty good thing economically, he hurt Russia's chances of ever becoming great allies with China (Khruschev and his BRILLIANCE helped Cuban Relations disintegrate) and probably did have a few people killed, though, to be honest with you, I'm not sure it was in the millions. The capitalist system has a way of distorting things greatly, making them not only easier to believe but also harder to dispute.

See where the OI can get with semi-fruitful conversation (or maybe just listening to intelligent people with...well, not Opposing, per se, but differing Ideologies?

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2003, 05:43

I agree with most of what you said Lostsoul. I however disgree on one point;

that since the Stalin and the Soviet Union are gone, we must forget about them. If we do this, then we will be forgetting about the only Socialist society that actually worked.

Contrary to popular belief among the neo-leftists here, I do not idolise comrade Stalin in any way. I believe that idolisation is counter-productive. I simply defend the man who spent his entire life attempting to advance communism. Including several years in prison and exile in Siberia. His reputation does not deserve to be tarnished with bold-faced lies perpetuated by the west. Leninist philoshophy will work in the modern era as effectively as it did in the Soviet Union up to comrade Stalin's death. To ignore history is to be mere children in mindset.

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2003, 05:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 05:40 AM
I guess part of what you say I can automatically realize as true. I never put 2 and 2 together though. Stalin must have been doing at least a semi-good job economically for the US to consider communists any kind of threat in the 50's.

What kind of position, in your opinion, would the Soviets had been in that same period of time had Trotsky stepped up to the plate?

and I am still half-way convinced that while he was a pretty good thing economically, he hurt Russia's chances of ever becoming great allies with China (Khruschev and his BRILLIANCE helped Cuban Relations disintegrate) and probably did have a few people killed, though, to be honest with you, I'm not sure it was in the millions. The capitalist system has a way of distorting things greatly, making them not only easier to believe but also harder to dispute.

See where the OI can get with semi-fruitful conversation (or maybe just listening to intelligent people with...well, not Opposing, per se, but differing Ideologies?
For starters, I do not in any way doubt Khruschev's brilliance as a politician. He simply was not a communist polititian and therefore my enemy.

Trotsky's policies on "permanent revolution" and multi-party factions were only vialble once the State was in a global economical and political position to be able to implement them without having the original state suffer. The Soviet state was the "lab-rat" and demanded all the efforts of all the people to make the policies effective. Turning any amount of resources away as well as attempting to create a "rift" among the people would have devastating affects on the newly formed state. Trotsky was so bold as to try and use the invasion of the Nazis a catalyst to take take Red Army resources away from the Centre of the Soviet Union so he can attempt a coup of the current ruling party via civil war. That is in no way putting the "proletariat" first and foremost. Can you imagine a civil war in the Soviet Union at the same time as a Nazi invasion?!
This is why Trosky was put into exile.

I will post a telegramme from China to Moscow on the day od comrade Stalin's death;

Source: People's Daily, March 7, 1953.

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

Chairman

The Presidium of the Supreme Soviet

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Comrade Shvernik:

It was with boundless grief that the Chinese people, the Chinese government, and I myself learned the news of the passing away of the Chinese people's closest friend and great teacher, Comrade Stalin. This is an inestimable loss, not only for the people of the Soviet Union, but for the Chinese people, for the entire camp of peace and democracy, and for peace-loving people throughout the world. On behalf of the Chinese people, the Chinese government, and on my own behalf, I extend to you and to the people and government of the Soviet Union our deepest condolences.

The victory of the Chinese people's revolution is absolutely in separable from Comrade Stalin's unceasing care, leadership, and support of over thirty years. Since the victory of the Chinese people's revolution, Comrade Stalin and the people and government of the Soviet Union, under his leadership have rendered generous and selfless assistance to the Chinese people's cause of construction. Such a great and profound friendship as that which comrade Stalin had for the Chinese people will be forever remembered with gratitude by the Chinese people. The immortal beacon of Comrade Stalin will forever illuminate the path on which the Chinese people march forward.

Comrade Chairman, the glorious party of Lenin and Stalin and the great people and government of the Soviet Union will certainly have the brotherly confidence and support of the Communist Party of China, the Chinese people, and the Chinese government. With the greatest resolve, the Chinese people definitely will always and closely unite as one with the great Soviet people to consolidate and strengthen the world camp for peace and democracy headed by the Soviet Union, heighten their vigilance, redouble their efforts, strike at the provocateurs of war, and strive to the end for the lasting interest of the Soviet and Chinese peoples and of world peace and security. I believe that the laboring people and all progressive peace-loving people of the world will take the same path as we do, following the direction pointed out by Comrade Stalin, and take up the sacred cause of protecting world peace.

(Signed and dated in Beijing)

As you can see the Chinese did not attribute Stalin as a reason for not becoming allies.

EDIT:

I misinterpreted you intentions on staing "Khruschev's BRILLIANCE" I agree, his policies were shite to the communist party. He was indeed a brilliand capitalist politician.

Rastafari

3rd August 2003, 06:01

Khruschev's brilliance was a semi-sarcastic cut. Ideally, Nikita and Mao would have been the perfect leaders, being farmboys and all, but politicians have to be much more covert and sneaky than Nikita and much more formal than Mao, at least in today's world.

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2003, 06:03

Right,

I just made an edit in my last post to that affect.

I agree with you assessment of modern politicians.

Invader Zim

3rd August 2003, 17:23

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 3 2003, 03:41 AM
Comrade Hector,

We all know that "state capitalism" is a myth created by deluded Trots.

AK47,

Want another banana my little monkey?

I see you must not have found information on the internet about the "socialist practises" that precede Marx.

I'll give you a little more time to research it.
Well granddad if you were observant you would see that I actually have made a website on these socialist theories which preceded, there is a WWW. button located at the bottom of each of my posts will link you to the web site.

However your inability to notice such blatant and obvious buttons does not come as a surprise to me, especially considering your considerably efficient performance in demonstrating you abysmally low intelligence up to this point. So below are some links to resources on socialists who preceded Marx.

www.che-lives.net/users/ak47/index.html (http://www.che-lives.net/users/ak47/index.html) My site

http://www.the-wood.org/socialism/utopian.htm

Early working class Chartist movment (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/chartism.htm)

http://robert-owen.midwales.com/

http://felix2.2y.net/english/balle.html

Hopefully that will be enough light reading material for you.

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2003, 22:08

My little monkey is finally awake! Would you like a banana to start your day off right kiddo?

Invader Zim

3rd August 2003, 22:15

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 3 2003, 10:08 PM
My little monkey is finally awake! Would you like a banana to start your day off right kiddo?

However on a serious note, away from the rather boring flames, did you actualy read some of that material I gave to you to read?

Its actually 11:10 PM where I am, I also am not keen on banana's granddad, however I would prefer them to pills needed to keep old people alive. Tell me do you still have full working use of your bladder or will you be needing a bag soon?

No, I should not take the piss out of you, its like attacking an unarmed man. It goes against my sense of fairness and morality.

However on a serious note, did you read any of the material I posted, or are you for filling my expectations of arrogant ignorance and refusing to, as you feel it damages your pride to read material from your intellectual superior’s.

Xprewatik RED

3rd August 2003, 22:25

My little monkey is finally awake! Would you like a banana to start your day off right kiddo?

Comrade RAF you are funny. A dim witted fellow, who claims to have a PHD , yet all he can do is attack people on their characters in short sentances. What have you accomplished that deserves any respect. Name an important thing you did this year. This year I raised 2,200 dollars for an orphanage by spending much personal time typing up grant proposal-among smaller other small funraisers and helping with rallies-. In Ukraine this will go a long way for impoverished people. So listen, son maybe you should back your arguments, and reply to people's evidence. Or maybe you should go back to stapling flyers on poles in Mexico City. Makes me mad when a person claims he is so ,"educated", yet he acts like a bickering 1st grader.

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2003, 22:30

Xprewatik RED

3rd August 2003, 22:31

I reckon youn did not bother to review the last two pages of posts. That's okay son, they would have went right over you head. Don't be so angry that I am smarter than you boy. It's pure genetics.

Want a banana?

Im crying with laughter! The world needs more village idiots. You have truly given me a big smile :D I thank you. Now hurry those flyers won't staple themselves!

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2003, 22:32

Originally posted by AK47+Aug 3 2003, 10:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AK47 @ Aug 3 2003, 10:15 PM)
COMRADE [email protected] 3 2003, 10:08 PM
My little monkey is finally awake! Would you like a banana to start your day off right kiddo?

However on a serious note, away from the rather boring flames, did you actualy read some of that material I gave to you to read?

Its actually 11:10 PM where I am, I also am not keen on banana's granddad, however I would prefer them to pills needed to keep old people alive. Tell me do you still have full working use of your bladder or will you be needing a bag soon?

No, I should not take the piss out of you, its like attacking an unarmed man. It goes against my sense of fairness and morality.

However on a serious note, did you read any of the material I posted, or are you for filling my expectations of arrogant ignorance and refusing to, as you feel it damages your pride to read material from your intellectual superior’s. [/b]
Do you kids actually bother to read the thread or do you just look for posts aimed at you and submit a response. Nice job "socialists".

If you page back a bit monkey, you will find a post that clearly describes what it is you are aiming for.

Invader Zim

3rd August 2003, 22:44

Originally posted by COMRADE RAF+Aug 3 2003, 10:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (COMRADE RAF @ Aug 3 2003, 10:32 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 10:15 PM

COMRADE [email protected] 3 2003, 10:08 PM
My little monkey is finally awake! Would you like a banana to start your day off right kiddo?

However on a serious note, away from the rather boring flames, did you actualy read some of that material I gave to you to read?

Its actually 11:10 PM where I am, I also am not keen on banana's granddad, however I would prefer them to pills needed to keep old people alive. Tell me do you still have full working use of your bladder or will you be needing a bag soon?

No, I should not take the piss out of you, its like attacking an unarmed man. It goes against my sense of fairness and morality.

However on a serious note, did you read any of the material I posted, or are you for filling my expectations of arrogant ignorance and refusing to, as you feel it damages your pride to read material from your intellectual superior’s.
Do you kids actually bother to read the thread or do you just look for posts aimed at you and submit a response. Nice job "socialists".

If you page back a bit monkey, you will find a post that clearly describes what it is you are aiming for. [/b]
Look at that, when he is out flamed, he goes all defensive. Whats up grand dad cant stand the heat? The answer is get out now before we are forced to make you look even more foolish... which really will be challange considering how foolish you already look. However with you skill at alienating and insulting those who are sharper than you, i am sure we will overcome that difficulty.

But again have you read the material?

elijahcraig

3rd August 2003, 22:51

Robert Owens? That's utopianist idiocy right there. Marx explained why if I'm not mistaken. Talk about pandering to the elite.

Invader Zim

3rd August 2003, 23:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 10:51 PM
Robert Owens? That's utopianist idiocy right there. Marx explained why if I'm not mistaken. Talk about pandering to the elite.
And how do you work that out? Pandering to the elite? I realise that you probably know very little about it. Yet you feal the need to critisise. Also I am interested to see how you view the son of an Iron monger (very working class) as an elitist? Perhaps you dont now but he gave all his money to the movment and died a poor man because of it. Marx on the other hand sat on his arse living of Engles, Marx being from the Middle classes, it seems highly hypocritical to accuse a man such as Owen as being elitist when considering you support Marx.

Do you even understand the economics of Owens communitys? Marx's very theorys are mearly adaptions of these "utopian" theorys. Marx's attaks on its ideals were obvious attacks on alternative systems in an attempt to promote his own. I have read his "critisims" and was unimpressed to say the least. Does it not also strike you that Marx may also have been wrong? Or do you persieve him to be infalible? So the term utopian idiocy is rather rich considering that in essance Marx copied the theorys and incorporated them into his own theorys.

Sorry to rant but, it irriates me to see unfounded critisism of an equily good if not better ideology, at the hands of the uninformed.

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2003, 23:34

Originally posted by AK47+Aug 3 2003, 10:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AK47 @ Aug 3 2003, 10:44 PM)
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 3 2003, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 10:15 PM

COMRADE [email protected] 3 2003, 10:08 PM
My little monkey is finally awake! Would you like a banana to start your day off right kiddo?

However on a serious note, away from the rather boring flames, did you actualy read some of that material I gave to you to read?

Its actually 11:10 PM where I am, I also am not keen on banana's granddad, however I would prefer them to pills needed to keep old people alive. Tell me do you still have full working use of your bladder or will you be needing a bag soon?

No, I should not take the piss out of you, its like attacking an unarmed man. It goes against my sense of fairness and morality.

However on a serious note, did you read any of the material I posted, or are you for filling my expectations of arrogant ignorance and refusing to, as you feel it damages your pride to read material from your intellectual superior’s.
Do you kids actually bother to read the thread or do you just look for posts aimed at you and submit a response. Nice job "socialists".

If you page back a bit monkey, you will find a post that clearly describes what it is you are aiming for.
Look at that, when he is out flamed, he goes all defensive. Whats up grand dad cant stand the heat? The answer is get out now before we are forced to make you look even more foolish... which really will be challange considering how foolish you already look. However with you skill at alienating and insulting those who are sharper than you, i am sure we will overcome that difficulty.

But again have you read the material? [/b]
Do your best my little monkey friend! I need a good laugh today.

Amusing isn't it comrade Elijah. What the monkey does not know is that I have read all of this nonsense before the monkey was even born.

There is a reason no one gives a toss about Robert Owens. Monkeys adore him however.

elijahcraig

3rd August 2003, 23:45

And how do you work that out? Pandering to the elite? I realise that you probably know very little about it. Yet you feal the need to critisise. Also I am interested to see how you view the son of an Iron monger (very working class) as an elitist? Perhaps you dont now but he gave all his money to the movment and died a poor man because of it. Marx on the other hand sat on his arse living of Engles, Marx being from the Middle classes, it seems highly hypocritical to accuse a man such as Owen as being elitist when considering you support Marx.

Marx was from working class, get your facts straight utopianist.

Owen was opposed to democracy, he thought class did not matter, advised against violent revolution, that's utopianism.

Do you even understand the economics of Owens communitys? Marx's very theorys are mearly adaptions of these "utopian" theorys. Marx's attaks on its ideals were obvious attacks on alternative systems in an attempt to promote his own. I have read his "critisims" and was unimpressed to say the least. Does it not also strike you that Marx may also have been wrong? Or do you persieve him to be infalible? So the term utopian idiocy is rather rich considering that in essance Marx copied the theorys and incorporated them into his own theorys.

Yes, I understand. Engels was very influenced by Owens in his younger days, but eventually sided with Marx for obvious reasons.

"Marx's attaks on its ideals were obvious attacks on altuernative..."? That is rubbish. Marx gave Owens his dues, but stopped at that, the man was a utopian socialist, much like all were before Marx came around.

Your assertions are nonsensical. Marx pointed out Owen's utopianism, and Marx didn't "copy" anything. He took things from several economists...Adam Smith, Petty, Owens, etc etc etc. He developed a unique theory, a real scientific theory.

Sorry to rant but, it irriates me to see unfounded critisism of an equily good if not better ideology, at the hands of the uninformed.

It is not unfounded. Your assertions against Marx are unfounded. I thought they were being a tad bit mean calling you a monkey before...but now...I see why they did. You are a complete moron.

Banana for the Utopianist?

Invader Zim

3rd August 2003, 23:47

Originally posted by COMRADE RAF+Aug 3 2003, 11:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (COMRADE RAF @ Aug 3 2003, 11:34 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 3 2003, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 10:15 PM

COMRADE [email protected] 3 2003, 10:08 PM
My little monkey is finally awake! Would you like a banana to start your day off right kiddo?

However on a serious note, away from the rather boring flames, did you actualy read some of that material I gave to you to read?

Its actually 11:10 PM where I am, I also am not keen on banana's granddad, however I would prefer them to pills needed to keep old people alive. Tell me do you still have full working use of your bladder or will you be needing a bag soon?

No, I should not take the piss out of you, its like attacking an unarmed man. It goes against my sense of fairness and morality.

However on a serious note, did you read any of the material I posted, or are you for filling my expectations of arrogant ignorance and refusing to, as you feel it damages your pride to read material from your intellectual superior’s.
Do you kids actually bother to read the thread or do you just look for posts aimed at you and submit a response. Nice job "socialists".

If you page back a bit monkey, you will find a post that clearly describes what it is you are aiming for.
Look at that, when he is out flamed, he goes all defensive. Whats up grand dad cant stand the heat? The answer is get out now before we are forced to make you look even more foolish... which really will be challange considering how foolish you already look. However with you skill at alienating and insulting those who are sharper than you, i am sure we will overcome that difficulty.

But again have you read the material?
Do your best my little monkey friend! I need a good laugh today.

Amusing isn't it comrade Elijah. What the monkey does not know is that I have read all of this nonsense before the monkey was even born.

There is a reason no one gives a toss about Robert Owens. Monkeys adore him however. [/b]
I very seriously doubt it grand dad, that is unless you have done extensive research in european librarys. Most of the information regarding early socialism has only become widly available since the internet boom. Which was not before I was born. So you are a liar as well as a fool, howvery interesting.

There is a reason no one gives a toss about Robert Owens. Monkeys adore him however.

Also considering you cannot spell Owen's name I doubt you have read anything on him.

But I wish to discuss this with elijahcraig who is not a flaming fool completely devoid of reason. Not you grand dad.

However I am interested to here your reasons why you believe "no-one gives a toss about Robert Owens". That is if you are willing to temporarily leave aside our flame fest and discuss this rationally, if of course you answer this with a flame, it is obvious that you fear discussing it because you know nothing. However I am willing to give you this chanse to redeam your self.

elijahcraig

3rd August 2003, 23:56

AK47, Owens developed theory to a certain point. He is honored for that...but he also was a utopianist in that he did not believe in democracy, violent revolution, or really revolution at all. He was a utopianist in that he imagined a society (A New Vision of Society), yet did not advocate or acknowledge what it would take to get there. He did not use the class system in the way Karl Marx did, and did not really acknowledge class struggle. He knew, for example, that a majority must live in poverty and ignorance for the others to remain happy in modern society...but he did not use this as a springboard for class struggle. Therefore, he is a utopian socialist.

Invader Zim

4th August 2003, 00:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 11:45 PM
And how do you work that out? Pandering to the elite? I realise that you probably know very little about it. Yet you feal the need to critisise. Also I am interested to see how you view the son of an Iron monger (very working class) as an elitist? Perhaps you dont now but he gave all his money to the movment and died a poor man because of it. Marx on the other hand sat on his arse living of Engles, Marx being from the Middle classes, it seems highly hypocritical to accuse a man such as Owen as being elitist when considering you support Marx.

Marx was from working class, get your facts straight utopianist.

Owen was opposed to democracy, he thought class did not matter, advised against violent revolution, that's utopianism.

Do you even understand the economics of Owens communitys? Marx's very theorys are mearly adaptions of these "utopian" theorys. Marx's attaks on its ideals were obvious attacks on alternative systems in an attempt to promote his own. I have read his "critisims" and was unimpressed to say the least. Does it not also strike you that Marx may also have been wrong? Or do you persieve him to be infalible? So the term utopian idiocy is rather rich considering that in essance Marx copied the theorys and incorporated them into his own theorys.

Yes, I understand. Engels was very influenced by Owens in his younger days, but eventually sided with Marx for obvious reasons.

"Marx's attaks on its ideals were obvious attacks on altuernative..."? That is rubbish. Marx gave Owens his dues, but stopped at that, the man was a utopian socialist, much like all were before Marx came around.

Your assertions are nonsensical. Marx pointed out Owen's utopianism, and Marx didn't "copy" anything. He took things from several economists...Adam Smith, Petty, Owens, etc etc etc. He developed a unique theory, a real scientific theory.

Sorry to rant but, it irriates me to see unfounded critisism of an equily good if not better ideology, at the hands of the uninformed.

It is not unfounded. Your assertions against Marx are unfounded. I thought they were being a tad bit mean calling you a monkey before...but now...I see why they did. You are a complete moron.

Banana for the Utopianist?
Please tell me elijahcraig why did you resort to flame? Did I offend you? Did I flame you? No, yet when your ideological "hero" is critisised you feal the need to resort to falme. Well I am very sorry you feal that way.

Marx was from working class, get your facts straight utopianist.

Firstly the term is Utopian not utopianst.

Secondly I am also correct about Marx's upbringing, a quote from a biography (http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/marx.html) on Marx: -

Karl Heinrich Marx was born into a comfortable middle-class home in Trier on the river Moselle in Germany on May 5, 1818.

As you can see, my description of Marx being from the middle classes was correct. You see I actually read up on the theorys and History of those famous historical figures I respect, even if I do not agree with them 100%.

Owen was opposed to democracy, he thought class did not matter, advised against violent revolution,

At the time of Owen democracy was yet to be invented or given serious thought. You must remember that this was in the days before even conservatism was created, or practiced. As for being against violant revolution, there are many socialist theorys and ideologys which are against revolution. That is hardly a crime.

However I am pleased to see that you have learned to spell Owen's name correctly now... :D

Yes, I understand. Engels was very influenced by Owens in his younger days, but eventually sided with Marx for obvious reasons.

Well you are 100% correct on that, please read this passage from Marxist.org, it is Engles view on Owen: -

His advance in the direction of Communism was the turning-point in Owen's life. As long as he was simply a philanthropist, he was rewarded with nothing but wealth, applause, honor, and glory. He was the most popular man in Europe. Not only men of his own class, but statesmen and prince listened to him approvingly. But when he came out with his Communist theories that was quite another thing. Three great obstacles seemed to him especially to block the path to social reform: private property, religion, the present form of marriage.

He knew what confronted him if he attacked these — outlawry, excommunication from official society, the loss of his whole social position. But nothing of this prevented him from attacking them without fear of consequences, and what he had foreseen happened. Banished from official society, with a conspiracy of silence against him in the press, ruined by his unsuccessful Communist experiments in America, in which he sacrificed all his fortune, he turned directly to the working-class and continued working in their midst for 30 years. Every social movement, every real advance in England on behalf of the workers links itself on to the name of Robert Owen. He forced through in 1819, after five years' fighting, the first law limiting the hours of labor of women and children in factories. He was president of the first Congress at which all the Trade Unions of England united in a single great trade association. He introduced as transition measures to the complete communistic organization of society, on the one hand, cooperative societies for retail trade and production.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...c-utop/ch01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch01.htm)

"Marx's attaks on its ideals were obvious attacks on altuernative..."? That is rubbish. Marx gave Owens his dues, but stopped at that, the man was a utopian socialist, much like all were before Marx came around.

I disagree the very basis of Marx's theorys are direct copies of the utopian model communitys created in the early 1800's. Right down to the very basis of socialism. The wealth of a nation should be equily shared among the people. Owens theory, a communitys wealth should be shared equily in a co-operative manner through out the community.

It is not unfounded. Your assertions against Marx are unfounded. I thought they were being a tad bit mean calling you a monkey before...but now...I see why they did. You are a complete moron.

Banana for the Utopianist?

Considering that I have displayed I higher knowladge of your own political Idol that you do yourself, do you perhaps wish to retract the Banana statement?

AK47, Owens developed theory to a certain point. He is honored for that...but he also was a utopianist in that he did not believe in democracy, violent revolution, or really revolution at all. He was a utopianist in that he imagined a society (A New Vision of Society), yet did not advocate or acknowledge what it would take to get there. He did not use the class system in the way Karl Marx did, and did not really acknowledge class struggle. He knew, for example, that a majority must live in poverty and ignorance for the others to remain happy in modern society...but he did not use this as a springboard for class struggle. Therefore, he is a utopian socialist.

I see that you do not need to flame in this post. Regained your self control? Decided that I can follow my own, as you persive them to be, foolish ideology? If so good, as I do not dictate to you your political ideology, I ask the same of you.

AK47, Owens developed theory to a certain point. He is honored for that...but he also was a utopianist in that he did not believe in democracy, violent revolution, or really revolution at all.

I know that, and I also am aware of the flaws within his ideology, I would adapt them to iron out these problems as I would do with marxism's many flaws, I realise that no system is perfect.

He was a utopianist in that he imagined a society (A New Vision of Society), yet did not advocate or acknowledge what it would take to get there.

No, he made the community instead as a working model. Which kind of displays first hand "what it would take to get there."

He did not use the class system in the way Karl Marx did, and did not really acknowledge class struggle.

Again I disagree, there are a great many quotes from Owen which show his wish to emancipate the working class. The differance between Marx and Owen in essance is that Marx believed that the working class would emancipate its self, before turning to socialism. Owen believed that by following his theorys the working class would be emancipated. Any way a quote from Owen: -

"National arrangements shall be formed to include all the working classes in the great organisation(socialism)."

You also use the term Utopian as if it is an insult, I find this to be very odd, as to the rational mind, all socialism is a utopian dream until it is reformed enough for use in modern socioty.

Vinny Rafarino

4th August 2003, 00:41

very seriously doubt it grand dad, that is unless you have done extensive research in european librarys. Most of the information regarding early socialism has only become widly available since the internet boom. Which was not before I was born. So you are a liar as well as a fool, howvery interesting.

There is a reason no one gives a toss about Robert Owens. Monkeys adore him however.

Also considering you cannot spell Owen's name I doubt you have read anything on him.

But I wish to discuss this with elijahcraig who is not a flaming fool completely devoid of reason. Not you grand dad.

However I am interested to here your reasons why you believe "no-one gives a toss about Robert Owens". That is if you are willing to temporarily leave aside our flame fest and discuss this rationally, if of course you answer this with a flame, it is obvious that you fear discussing it because you know nothing. However I am willing to give you this chanse to redeam your self.

Is the monkey attempting to say that Owen's philosphy did not exist in writing until the" internet boom"?
Again, I will advise the monkey that I have read Owen's nonsense prior to the monkey's birth. As did all of my political science professors in graduate school. I think the monkey is caught in a corner here. No banana for you bad monkey!

Goodness me! The monkey is going to give spelling tips! (as we all know, spelling is the monkey's worst attribute) Is Owens the "oppersit" of Owen? He he! The monkey is a funny little lad! I will now crusade against the monkey's abomidable spelling until the monkey begins to cry and start ranting about his "alleged" dyslexia.

I belive no one gives a toss about Robert Owen because this is fact monkey. No one give a toss about Robert Owen. His utopian philosophy is generic, flawed and quite simply, pedomorphic. (look it up in the dictionary monkey)

Vinny Rafarino

4th August 2003, 00:55

At the time of Owen democracy was yet to be invented or given serious thought. You must remember that this was in the days before even conservatism was created, or practiced. As for being against violant revolution, there are many socialist theorys and ideologys which are against revolution. That is hardly a crime.

It appears the monkey has made another error. The monkey actually thinks that democracy dod not exist prior to Owen's impractical nonsense.

The Origin of Democracy;

When the beastly practice of Autocratic and Theocratic ruling reached its zenith, some western thinkers originated the idea that in order to eliminate the misery of mankind, the system of government should be based on the mutual contract of the people. Thus the theory of “Social Contract” was introduced by Hobbes and Locke. But Rousseau (1712-1778) gave it the practical shape. He said that every man wants freedom, but that is an impossibility. Thus, let every individual person allow his/her “will” to get absorbed into the will of the society. In other words, make the general will of the society the ultimate source of authority. Theoretically, it appeared to be a good idea but the difficulty arose in putting the general will of the people into practice. It was not possible to determine the will of every individual in a society. It was thus decided to base the form of government on the representatives of the people; and if opinions differ, the decision of the majority be accepted. Thus democracy came to be based on the following suppositions –

1) In a democratic government, there remains no distinction between a ruler and the ruled

and the people form their own government.

2) The will of the people can be determined through their representatives.

3) In order to find out whether a certain decision is right or wrong, the standard laid down is the opinion of the majority of representatives.

4) The minority is bound to accept the decision of the majority and the people as a whole are bound to obey them.

Thus Democracy came to be considered as the Government of the people, by the people and for the people. It developed chiefly in the West but the people of Asia and Africa who had suffered tremendously on account of their being exploited by the Autocrats and the Theocrats with the resultant misery and degradation followed them and took democracy to be a gift from Heaven and a panacea for their ailments.

The basic concept, in which democracy rests, namely that nobody has the right to rule another, is ideal but, the point is whether it has achieved or is capable of achieving the aim it has laid down before itself. The West (west of Pakistan) has been the cradle of democracy. Let us see what the thinkers of the West have got to say about it.

__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

Robert Owen 1771-1858

As you can see Owen was born only 7 years prior to the death of Rousseau.

Bad monkey=no banana.

Invader Zim

4th August 2003, 01:06

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 4 2003, 12:41 AM

very seriously doubt it grand dad, that is unless you have done extensive research in european librarys. Most of the information regarding early socialism has only become widly available since the internet boom. Which was not before I was born. So you are a liar as well as a fool, howvery interesting.

There is a reason no one gives a toss about Robert Owens. Monkeys adore him however.

Also considering you cannot spell Owen's name I doubt you have read anything on him.

But I wish to discuss this with elijahcraig who is not a flaming fool completely devoid of reason. Not you grand dad.

However I am interested to here your reasons why you believe "no-one gives a toss about Robert Owens". That is if you are willing to temporarily leave aside our flame fest and discuss this rationally, if of course you answer this with a flame, it is obvious that you fear discussing it because you know nothing. However I am willing to give you this chanse to redeam your self.

Is the monkey attempting to say that Owen's philosphy did not exist in writing until the" internet boom"?
Again, I will advise the monkey that I have read Owen's nonsense prior to the monkey's birth. As did all of my political science professors in graduate school. I think the monkey is caught in a corner here. No banana for you bad monkey!

Goodness me! The monkey is going to give spelling tips! (as we all know, spelling is the monkey's worst attribute) Is Owens the "oppersit" of Owen? He he! The monkey is a funny little lad! I will now crusade against the monkey's abomidable spelling until the monkey begins to cry and start ranting about his "alleged" dyslexia.

I belive no one gives a toss about Robert Owen because this is fact monkey. No one give a toss about Robert Owen. His utopian philosophy is generic, flawed and quite simply, pedomorphic. (look it up in the dictionary monkey)
Is the monkey attempting to say that Owen's philosphy did not exist in writing until the" internet boom"?

No grand dad, I am saying that it was not widely available... however as you have displayed your inability to read on many occasions, your misunderstanding of what was said was not surprising.

Again, I will advise the monkey that I have read Owen's nonsense prior to the monkey's birth. As did all of my political science professors in graduate school.

What so improving the conditions of the working class is "nonsense" now? Are you dim, a capitalist or both?

I think the monkey is caught in a corner here. No banana for you bad monkey!

The only thing in the corner is your life support machine grand dad.

Goodness me! The monkey is going to give spelling tips! (as we all know, spelling is the monkey's worst attribute) Is Owens the "oppersit" of Owen?

Yes I have poor spelling, however for some one who has read Owen's nonsense prior to my birth, your inability to spell his for letter name makes this a little hard to believe.

You also spelt “abomidable” and “philosphy” incorrectly they are spelt abominable and philosophy. So you are obviously a hypocrite as well as an idiot.

I will now crusade against the monkey's abomidable spelling until the monkey begins to cry and start ranting about his "alleged" dyslexia.

Do what you like, it will only highlight you elitist attitude. Other idiots have tried that tactic, yet when other members had a go at them for being elitist idiots they suddenly stopped, do you wish to continue the trend?

His utopian philosophy is generic, flawed and quite simply, pedomorphic. (look it up in the dictionary monkey)

I may be unable to spell; I do however know the meaning of simple words in my own native language, yet how you come to the conclusion that Owen’s theories were Juvenile? Or like all capitalists do you consider the whole left wing Juvenile?

Dark Capitalist

4th August 2003, 01:09

I hate bananas.

Vinny Rafarino

4th August 2003, 01:18

Some of the monkey's more recent abominations to the spelling of the english language:

"oppersit" I belive the mokey was intending to say "opposite"

"prepaired" The correct spelling being "prepared". I would have given him the "typo excuse" had the "i" been closer on the keyboard to the "r".

"falicy" The correct spelling being "fallacy"

"volluntering" Trying to say "volunteering" monkey?

I will have to say, that if I chose to add all the words that had been spelled "phonetically" by just one letter, this list would have been a mile long. I will give one example;

"knowladge" The correct spelling of course being "knowledge". This mistake of using phonetics to spell is made in a countless number of posts by the monkey.

And just think, I never even switched threads for some of the monkey's even juicier abominations.

Go whine to the other members monkey. I don't care. Perhaps this wioll teach the monkey not to bring up spelling errors in a forum.

No banana!

Invader Zim

4th August 2003, 01:19

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 4 2003, 12:55 AM

At the time of Owen democracy was yet to be invented or given serious thought. You must remember that this was in the days before even conservatism was created, or practiced. As for being against violant revolution, there are many socialist theorys and ideologys which are against revolution. That is hardly a crime.

It appears the monkey has made another error. The monkey actually thinks that democracy dod not exist prior to Owen's impractical nonsense.

The Origin of Democracy;

When the beastly practice of Autocratic and Theocratic ruling reached its zenith, some western thinkers originated the idea that in order to eliminate the misery of mankind, the system of government should be based on the mutual contract of the people. Thus the theory of “Social Contract” was introduced by Hobbes and Locke. But Rousseau (1712-1778) gave it the practical shape. He said that every man wants freedom, but that is an impossibility. Thus, let every individual person allow his/her “will” to get absorbed into the will of the society. In other words, make the general will of the society the ultimate source of authority. Theoretically, it appeared to be a good idea but the difficulty arose in putting the general will of the people into practice. It was not possible to determine the will of every individual in a society. It was thus decided to base the form of government on the representatives of the people; and if opinions differ, the decision of the majority be accepted. Thus democracy came to be based on the following suppositions –

1) In a democratic government, there remains no distinction between a ruler and the ruled

and the people form their own government.

2) The will of the people can be determined through their representatives.

3) In order to find out whether a certain decision is right or wrong, the standard laid down is the opinion of the majority of representatives.

4) The minority is bound to accept the decision of the majority and the people as a whole are bound to obey them.

Thus Democracy came to be considered as the Government of the people, by the people and for the people. It developed chiefly in the West but the people of Asia and Africa who had suffered tremendously on account of their being exploited by the Autocrats and the Theocrats with the resultant misery and degradation followed them and took democracy to be a gift from Heaven and a panacea for their ailments.

The basic concept, in which democracy rests, namely that nobody has the right to rule another, is ideal but, the point is whether it has achieved or is capable of achieving the aim it has laid down before itself. The West (west of Pakistan) has been the cradle of democracy. Let us see what the thinkers of the West have got to say about it.

__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

Robert Owen 1771-1858

As you can see Owen was born only 7 years prior to the death of Rousseau.

Bad monkey=no banana.
Yes it appears that you are correct... a very rare occasion for you. However I would very much like to see a nation, which incorporated the newly invented democracy. One, which Owen could have studied in depth to get a reasonable idea of its practicalities.

France??? Its been a feudalistic monarchy, a republic, a despotic empire, a Monarchy again and then a new republic... but not a democracy until the 1900's.

Britain, as I said conservatism was not even introduced until the 1840's by Robert Peel, and Peel was anti democracy and considered it to be liberal radicalism, hardly a democratic nation.

America, it can be argued that the USA is still not completely democratic never mind in the 1820's.

Germany... Otto Bismarck had not even unified the nation by this point.

Russia, a Feudalistic monarchy.

No more superpowers left... So please do enlighten me of a democratic state in the 1820's.

Vinny Rafarino

4th August 2003, 01:22

Look at the monkey backpeddle.....

Backpeddle backpeddle.

Invader Zim

4th August 2003, 01:35

You want to play the spelling game do you? I have an excuse for poor spelling what’s yours?

A list of RAF's abominations: -

"english" is spelt English.

"belive" is spelt Believe.

"mokey" is spelt Monkey.

"wioll" is spelt Will.

"abomidable” is spelt Abominable.

"philosphy" is spelt Philosophy.

"dod" is spelt Did.

"philoshophy" is spelt Philosophy.

"disgree" is spelt Disagree.

"polititian" is spelt Politician.

"vialble" is spelt Viable.

"telegramme" is spelt Telegram.

"staing" is spelt Stating.

Need I further highlight that your spelling is nearly as poor as mine?

Invader Zim

4th August 2003, 01:37

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 4 2003, 01:22 AM
Look at the monkey backpeddle.....

Backpeddle backpeddle.
Hardly, rather I admitted being wrong... unlike you.

Urban Rubble

4th August 2003, 01:41

O.K, to the monkey and the granddad, maybe you guys should concentrate on the argument at hand instead of *****ing at each other for spelling. And AK, don't bring up the me and Felicia thing, the only reason I pointed out her rampant spelling mistakes is because she said Americans were stupid in alot of catergories, spelling being one of them, so I decided to point out that she was a Canadian and in fact, shitty at spelling.

Continue with the debate, just quit pointing each others spelling mistakes, you've both made some, as I'm sure I have in this very post.

Fuk it man, we shuld just twy to git awong.

Invader Zim

4th August 2003, 01:44

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 4 2003, 01:41 AM
O.K, to the monkey and the granddad, maybe you guys should concentrate on the argument at hand instead of *****ing at each other for spelling. And AK, don't bring up the me and Felicia thing, the only reason I pointed out her rampant spelling mistakes is because she said Americans were stupid in alot of catergories, spelling being one of them, so I decided to point out that she was a Canadian and in fact, shitty at spelling.

Continue with the debate, just quit pointing each others spelling mistakes, you've both made some, as I'm sure I have in this very post.

Fuk it man, we shuld just twy to git awong.
And AK, don't bring up the me and Felicia thing, the only reason I pointed out her rampant spelling mistakes is because she said Americans were stupid in alot of catergories, spelling being one of them, so I decided to point out that she was a Canadian and in fact, shitty at spelling.

It never crossed my mind.

Vinny Rafarino

4th August 2003, 02:14

What I have noticed from you "list" of "mispellings" of mine is a series of typos and instances where a letter was left out or added (as they were right next to each other on the keyboard). These are hardly considered misspellings.

I did enjoy how you considered a non capitalised word as misspelled.

Good try monkey.

The only misspelled word in the lot is "telegramme" not an uncommon one among brits typing quickly at that.

Whoops.

Now try again monkey, this time try to use words that are truly misspelled. It may take a bit of common sense but so work hard at it. Don't make me include the VAST list of typos or words you have spelled phonetically.

Well here's a few of the monkey's from this thread alone anyhow.

coscription, evidance, meating, immidiatly, origionaly, referance, beggining, definatly, argment

excelent, supprisingly, countrys (attempting to say countries), feal (feel), dismanled, dammage, seams (seems)

whome, leniancy, extream, campain, finnest, differance, poinion (opinion), ideologys (one of my personal favourites)

responce, challanges, librarys, redeam

Now that's one heeeeeluva list! I caqn only imagine what it would be like had I chose to look into other threads.

I will now quote a previous post of mine that should enlighten the monkey as o why I no longer care to actually dabate with him.

just explained that my friend. As with any logical debate, the accuser is burdened with to necessity of "proof"; as there does not exist any proof whatsoever to support the "claims" of the "Great Terror" it is not the accused that must present evidence. It is the same in any court of law friend Rasta. If Stalin were on trial today, the prosecuting team would produce evidence to support their charges and then advise the defense team about what type of evidence they are going to produce. It is at that point that the defense must then develop evidence to refute the "evidence" produced by the prosecution. (I roomed with a couple law students in graduate school) I have yet to find an anti-Stalinist who can produce anything besides opinion and heresy. No one can ever provide empirical evidence to any of these lies against comrade Stalin. Therefore it is utterly insane for the neo-left to continue their charade against Stalin.

However as I have been around the movement for many years and have seen many neo-leftist kiddies come and go, one fact always remains clear;

Children do not require evidence to believe what they want. That is why all political movements start with the youth. They are easily convinced and manipulated to an ideal without the unecessary "burden of proof". That more aged minds will require.

A perfect example is that half-wit AK47. After 5 minutes of debate with him I can see he is a brainwashed child. Eventually he may come around, but for now he simply is only good for a laugh. I stopped debating with him a couple months ago...Now I simply set on getting his bottle up. It's a good time.

I hope this makes sense to you friend Rasta.

Please don't cry monkey.

Vinny Rafarino

4th August 2003, 02:18

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 4 2003, 01:41 AM
O.K, to the monkey and the granddad, maybe you guys should concentrate on the argument at hand instead of *****ing at each other for spelling. And AK, don't bring up the me and Felicia thing, the only reason I pointed out her rampant spelling mistakes is because she said Americans were stupid in alot of catergories, spelling being one of them, so I decided to point out that she was a Canadian and in fact, shitty at spelling.

Continue with the debate, just quit pointing each others spelling mistakes, you've both made some, as I'm sure I have in this very post.

Fuk it man, we shuld just twy to git awong.
I do love comrade Rubble. I jsut like breakin' the monkey's balls Rubble. You know me.

I noticed a comment from Sensitive in another thread stating no one but capitalists take the monkey seriously. That is an outright lie! Capitalists as well do not take the monkey seriously!

They are too smart for that.

elijahcraig

4th August 2003, 03:01

Ak47, I think we've read different biographies of Marx. That is why I made the "error".

I really don't have much more to say on this. Doctor Robert was a utopian socialist, pure and simple. Your denying it makes no difference, it is what it is.

Errors of Marxism? Really? Present some evidence of this.

Vinny Rafarino

4th August 2003, 03:27

I don't know about you comrade Elijah, but the monkey's antics are not amusing me at the moment. I'm going to let this useless thread die. If the monkey wants to debate with you regarding Owen's juvenile philosophy then by all means do so once he creates a thread on it.

For now I will save my bananas to get the monkey to do tricks at a later time.

lostsoul

4th August 2003, 05:14

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 3 2003, 05:43 AM
I agree with most of what you said Lostsoul. I however disgree on one point;

that since the Stalin and the Soviet Union are gone, we must forget about them. If we do this, then we will be forgetting about the only Socialist society that actually worked.

Contrary to popular belief among the neo-leftists here, I do not idolise comrade Stalin in any way. I believe that idolisation is counter-productive. I simply defend the man who spent his entire life attempting to advance communism. Including several years in prison and exile in Siberia. His reputation does not deserve to be tarnished with bold-faced lies perpetuated by the west. Leninist philoshophy will work in the modern era as effectively as it did in the Soviet Union up to comrade Stalin's death. To ignore history is to be mere children in mindset.
I simply meant we should study, learn and keep working. I have no doubt in my mind that Stalin was a great man(although he did make mistakes). But too many people spend their time arguing on him...Some for him..and some against him.

I just don't see the point of the left always fighting each other.

Lately the way i see it, is certain people instead of working towards the goal of a socialist world, prefer to argue and place blames instead of actually doing any work. Instead of doing work, its alot easier to say "so and so fucked up socialism, and now its fucked forever" and just giving up.

I am no way pro or anti stalin, although i do agree it seems that there is huge problems with information on him. I have read in every book i have read about him that he worked all day long and often slept in his office, and wrote over 14 volumes of articles. But yet, where are these books?(i have only found 2), what did he do in this time(why doesn't anyone talk about his achievments?)...but on the other hand when i read older books, they talk about how great he was and kind, which i'm sure is probally not too correct also.

In the end Stalin lost, when he died, the next goverment denouced him(along with the west) and they wrote the history on him. I am sure, they must have bullshited to prove their points at times.

in the end, the truth about Stalin will probally never be known. For the past year i have been on this site, i have seen people post points against Stalin, and others posting the same points that promote stalin. It seems to me China and USSR had this same arguement and its been going on for more then 50 years.

The arguement will probally end when socialism ends.

Vinny Rafarino

4th August 2003, 05:38

Good post. I cannot agree more.

Invader Zim

4th August 2003, 13:39

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 4 2003, 02:14 AM
What I have noticed from you "list" of "mispellings" of mine is a series of typos and instances where a letter was left out or added (as they were right next to each other on the keyboard). These are hardly considered misspellings.

I did enjoy how you considered a non capitalised word as misspelled.

Good try monkey.

The only misspelled word in the lot is "telegramme" not an uncommon one among brits typing quickly at that.

Whoops.

Now try again monkey, this time try to use words that are truly misspelled. It may take a bit of common sense but so work hard at it. Don't make me include the VAST list of typos or words you have spelled phonetically.

Well here's a few of the monkey's from this thread alone anyhow.

coscription, evidance, meating, immidiatly, origionaly, referance, beggining, definatly, argment

excelent, supprisingly, countrys (attempting to say countries), feal (feel), dismanled, dammage, seams (seems)

whome, leniancy, extream, campain, finnest, differance, poinion (opinion), ideologys (one of my personal favourites)

responce, challanges, librarys, redeam

Now that's one heeeeeluva list! I caqn only imagine what it would be like had I chose to look into other threads.

I will now quote a previous post of mine that should enlighten the monkey as o why I no longer care to actually dabate with him.

just explained that my friend. As with any logical debate, the accuser is burdened with to necessity of "proof"; as there does not exist any proof whatsoever to support the "claims" of the "Great Terror" it is not the accused that must present evidence. It is the same in any court of law friend Rasta. If Stalin were on trial today, the prosecuting team would produce evidence to support their charges and then advise the defense team about what type of evidence they are going to produce. It is at that point that the defense must then develop evidence to refute the "evidence" produced by the prosecution. (I roomed with a couple law students in graduate school) I have yet to find an anti-Stalinist who can produce anything besides opinion and heresy. No one can ever provide empirical evidence to any of these lies against comrade Stalin. Therefore it is utterly insane for the neo-left to continue their charade against Stalin.

However as I have been around the movement for many years and have seen many neo-leftist kiddies come and go, one fact always remains clear;

Children do not require evidence to believe what they want. That is why all political movements start with the youth. They are easily convinced and manipulated to an ideal without the unecessary "burden of proof". That more aged minds will require.

A perfect example is that half-wit AK47. After 5 minutes of debate with him I can see he is a brainwashed child. Eventually he may come around, but for now he simply is only good for a laugh. I stopped debating with him a couple months ago...Now I simply set on getting his bottle up. It's a good time.

I hope this makes sense to you friend Rasta.

Please don't cry monkey.
"Back peddle, back peddle"

polititian... yes like "T" is really close to "C" on the keyboard...

abomidable... Again "D" is really close to "N" on the key board... only on a different row and still four keys to the left...

philoshophy... Where did you get that H from "Grand dad" its only the other side of the keyboard from the next letters in the keyboard.

vialble... Yes both "A" and "B" are really close to "L"....

As every body can see you are an idiot, Liar, Hypocrite who can spell only marginally better than me. I could go through the entire thread finding spelling errors, that however would take far to much of my time. You may have lots of time on your hands, and no life, I however have far better things to be doing.

As for sensitive he is in the same league of stupidity as you are, and is constantly being made a complete fool. Like for example when he stated that those who fight for Saddam Hussein are freedom fighters. Hardly a great example grand dad.

lostsoul

4th August 2003, 17:36

AK47..your an serious idiot...almost 90% of your arguements are based on people's grammers, spelling, or by you twisting their idea's.

You serously think Spelling or Grammer makes any difference in someones's point? I'm pretty sure Lenin could not speak or write well in chinese..Did the chinese think he was stupid? Or maybe Malcom X had nothing good to say..since he couldn't speak Indian..or even Russian!!

I highly doubt Mao was a good typer and i have read in Gandhi's Autography that he couldn't type either...Both must be stupid.

I hope this is not too deeply rooted in your mind and prevents you from changing your ways. Cause your tactics of attacking people instead of attacking their idea's is simlair to the bourgeois old tactics to discredit good or valid idea's.

Vinny Rafarino

4th August 2003, 18:33

Bad monkey! No Banana!

At this rate I fear the monkey will starve.

I would like to hear from anyone besides the monkey that thinks I am an idiot, liar and hypocrite.

Until then I am done with the monkey.

Invader Zim

4th August 2003, 19:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 05:36 PM
AK47..your an serious idiot...almost 90% of your arguements are based on people's grammers, spelling, or by you twisting their idea's.

You serously think Spelling or Grammer makes any difference in someones's point? I'm pretty sure Lenin could not speak or write well in chinese..Did the chinese think he was stupid? Or maybe Malcom X had nothing good to say..since he couldn't speak Indian..or even Russian!!

I highly doubt Mao was a good typer and i have read in Gandhi's Autography that he couldn't type either...Both must be stupid.

I hope this is not too deeply rooted in your mind and prevents you from changing your ways. Cause your tactics of attacking people instead of attacking their idea's is simlair to the bourgeois old tactics to discredit good or valid idea's.
AK47..your an serious idiot...almost 90% of your arguements are based on people's grammers, spelling, or by you twisting their idea's.

On my entire time on this message board this is only like the second time I have ever commented on a another members spelling in a negative way. Especially considering I have over 2000 posts, it must make it a very low percentage, rather than your blatantly false 90%. So In short you are chatting out your ass.

I hope this is not too deeply rooted in your mind and prevents you from changing your ways. Cause your tactics of attacking people instead of attacking their idea's is similar to the bourgeois old tactics to discredit good or valid idea's.

LOL, in the very same post you attack me, rather than my ideals. What a hypocrite.

Also aren’t you the person who wished for the allied solders to be killed horridly In Iraq, and got flamed at by the whole forum?

Moskitto

4th August 2003, 19:46

Is this a spelling competition for the world spelling title? NO, so who the fuk cairs iff some1 cant spewl som fukng wors. Exactly.

In my extremely biased opinion RAF is completely wrong and Dark Capitalist is completely correct, Bananas suck.

lostsoul

5th August 2003, 02:50

Originally posted by AK47+Aug 4 2003, 07:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AK47 @ Aug 4 2003, 07:05 PM)
[email protected] 4 2003, 05:36 PM
AK47..your an serious idiot...almost 90% of your arguements are based on people's grammers, spelling, or by you twisting their idea's.

You serously think Spelling or Grammer makes any difference in someones's point? I'm pretty sure Lenin could not speak or write well in chinese..Did the chinese think he was stupid? Or maybe Malcom X had nothing good to say..since he couldn't speak Indian..or even Russian!!

I highly doubt Mao was a good typer and i have read in Gandhi's Autography that he couldn't type either...Both must be stupid.

I hope this is not too deeply rooted in your mind and prevents you from changing your ways. Cause your tactics of attacking people instead of attacking their idea's is simlair to the bourgeois old tactics to discredit good or valid idea's.
AK47..your an serious idiot...almost 90% of your arguements are based on people's grammers, spelling, or by you twisting their idea's.

On my entire time on this message board this is only like the second time I have ever commented on a another members spelling in a negative way. Especially considering I have over 2000 posts, it must make it a very low percentage, rather than your blatantly false 90%. So In short you are chatting out your ass.

I hope this is not too deeply rooted in your mind and prevents you from changing your ways. Cause your tactics of attacking people instead of attacking their idea's is similar to the bourgeois old tactics to discredit good or valid idea's.

LOL, in the very same post you attack me, rather than my ideals. What a hypocrite.

Also aren’t you the person who wished for the allied solders to be killed horridly In Iraq, and got flamed at by the whole forum? [/b]
althought i guessed at my percent...i no where said 90% of your posts..90% of your arguements(..with people). (but i can't blame you for twisting words around..its too much a part of you now).

I was trying to point out that your way of debating is wrong, and was attacking that. What did i attack other then your tactics of arguements?

Also aren’t you the person who wished for the allied solders to be killed horridly In Iraq, and got flamed at by the whole forum?

Yes..and i still agree with that. A little off topic, aren't we?

elijahcraig

5th August 2003, 02:54

"I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and voilence and enjoy it to the full" - [b:047

Lostsoul, I agree about the allied troops thing. What's with the signature? Trotsky wrote that didn't he?

lostsoul

5th August 2003, 03:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2003, 02:54 AM

"I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and voilence and enjoy it to the full" - [b:047

Lostsoul, I agree about the allied troops thing. What's with the signature? Trotsky wrote that didn't he?
Yes he did...I really like that quote so i put it on.
It really impressed me, after reading his Autiography and seeing that quote. He worked so hard his whole life, got stiffed from Stalin, kicked out and disowned by the people he tried to help. Yet he thought so postitive.

Here's a bit more of his article
http://www.newyouth.com/archives/classics/...y_testament.asp (http://www.newyouth.com/archives/classics/trotsky/trotsky_testament.asp)

If your intrested.

Take care

elijahcraig

5th August 2003, 03:07

Yeah, I think I've read it.

Although I support Stalin, I still don't hate Trotsky like some of the Stalinists do. I admire him for some things, and don't for others. I'd like to read all of his writings, then decide for good. I've read some of his material.

lostsoul

5th August 2003, 13:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2003, 03:07 AM
Yeah, I think I've read it.

Although I support Stalin, I still don't hate Trotsky like some of the Stalinists do. I admire him for some things, and don't for others. I'd like to read all of his writings, then decide for good. I've read some of his material.
Thats basically my thinking also, i like to read everyone's work and judge for myself and see if their work can be applied to mine. Trotsky and Stalin both have things that are good about them, as well as bad.

Invader Zim

5th August 2003, 14:42

Originally posted by lostsoul+Aug 5 2003, 02:50 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lostsoul @ Aug 5 2003, 02:50 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 07:05 PM

[email protected] 4 2003, 05:36 PM
AK47..your an serious idiot...almost 90% of your arguements are based on people's grammers, spelling, or by you twisting their idea's.

You serously think Spelling or Grammer makes any difference in someones's point? I'm pretty sure Lenin could not speak or write well in chinese..Did the chinese think he was stupid? Or maybe Malcom X had nothing good to say..since he couldn't speak Indian..or even Russian!!

I highly doubt Mao was a good typer and i have read in Gandhi's Autography that he couldn't type either...Both must be stupid.

I hope this is not too deeply rooted in your mind and prevents you from changing your ways. Cause your tactics of attacking people instead of attacking their idea's is simlair to the bourgeois old tactics to discredit good or valid idea's.
AK47..your an serious idiot...almost 90% of your arguements are based on people's grammers, spelling, or by you twisting their idea's.

On my entire time on this message board this is only like the second time I have ever commented on a another members spelling in a negative way. Especially considering I have over 2000 posts, it must make it a very low percentage, rather than your blatantly false 90%. So In short you are chatting out your ass.

I hope this is not too deeply rooted in your mind and prevents you from changing your ways. Cause your tactics of attacking people instead of attacking their idea's is similar to the bourgeois old tactics to discredit good or valid idea's.

LOL, in the very same post you attack me, rather than my ideals. What a hypocrite.

Also aren’t you the person who wished for the allied solders to be killed horridly In Iraq, and got flamed at by the whole forum?
althought i guessed at my percent...i no where said 90% of your posts..90% of your arguements(..with people). (but i can't blame you for twisting words around..its too much a part of you now).

I was trying to point out that your way of debating is wrong, and was attacking that. What did i attack other then your tactics of arguements?

Also aren’t you the person who wished for the allied solders to be killed horridly In Iraq, and got flamed at by the whole forum?

Yes..and i still agree with that. A little off topic, aren't we? [/b]
I am sorry for twisting your words it was not intentional. However on the same note stop trying to back peddle your way out of stating a piece of information you know to be false. You massively over exaggerated the figures and when challenged about that your only defence is I twisted your words. Sorry but that will just not wash, If you were to look through my many, many discussions and arguments on this board, you will see that I have only on very special occasions brought up spelling at all, and that is usually in my own defence.

In short I challange you to back up your figures, prove them or take them back.

I was trying to point out that your way of debating is wrong, and was attacking that. What did i attack other then your tactics of arguements?

You attacked me with flame, in the same breath as condemning my flaming.

If this, below, is not an attack on me, rather than my arguments, then I will apologise: -

"AK47..your an serious idiot..."

As you can see a flame, you can try to back peddle your way out of this like you attempted earlier, but like earlier you will be called out.

Yes..and i still agree with that. A little off topic, aren't we?

No more so than you are.

lostsoul

6th August 2003, 18:35

I am sorry for twisting your words it was not intentional. However on the same note stop trying to back peddle your way out of stating a piece of information you know to be false. You massively over exaggerated the figures and when challenged about that your only defence is I twisted your words. Sorry but that will just not wash, If you were to look through my many, many discussions and arguments on this board, you will see that I have only on very special occasions brought up spelling at all, and that is usually in my own defence.

I accept your apology. I wonder why you keep talking about your discussions and not your actual arguements with people. I am not you biographer so i personally don't read every one of your posts, only the ones I am also posting, therfore i can only speak of the ones i have seen. and I have seen you mostly twisting people's words or trying to change the subject and arguing. I accept your apology, but make sure it never happens again.

You attacked me with flame, in the same breath as condemning my flaming.

If this, below, is not an attack on me, rather than my arguments, then I will apologise: -

"AK47..your an serious idiot..."

I will not apologize unless you prove your not an idiot. Until then i stand by that remark and my remark on the Americian troops.

Yes..and i still agree with that. A little off topic, aren't we?

No more so than you are.

that is an obserd accusation and I demand you explain yourself!!!

Invader Zim

6th August 2003, 23:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 06:35 PM
I am sorry for twisting your words it was not intentional. However on the same note stop trying to back peddle your way out of stating a piece of information you know to be false. You massively over exaggerated the figures and when challenged about that your only defence is I twisted your words. Sorry but that will just not wash, If you were to look through my many, many discussions and arguments on this board, you will see that I have only on very special occasions brought up spelling at all, and that is usually in my own defence.

I accept your apology. I wonder why you keep talking about your discussions and not your actual arguements with people. I am not you biographer so i personally don't read every one of your posts, only the ones I am also posting, therfore i can only speak of the ones i have seen. and I have seen you mostly twisting people's words or trying to change the subject and arguing. I accept your apology, but make sure it never happens again.

You attacked me with flame, in the same breath as condemning my flaming.

If this, below, is not an attack on me, rather than my arguments, then I will apologise: -

"AK47..your an serious idiot..."

I will not apologize unless you prove your not an idiot. Until then i stand by that remark and my remark on the Americian troops.

Yes..and i still agree with that. A little off topic, aren't we?

No more so than you are.

that is an obserd accusation and I demand you explain yourself!!!
I accept your apology. I wonder why you keep talking about your discussions and not your actual arguements with people. I am not you biographer so i personally don't read every one of your posts, only the ones I am also posting, therfore i can only speak of the ones i have seen. and I have seen you mostly twisting people's words or trying to change the subject and arguing. I accept your apology, but make sure it never happens again.

I keep bringing up my discussions because they and arguments are forms of debate, again sorry for any confusion.

and I have seen you mostly twisting people's words or trying to change the subject and arguing.

It seems your observation is questionable then. I still however am waiting for you to either retract or prove your statement.

I will not apologize unless you prove your not an idiot. Until then i stand by that remark and my remark on the Americian troops.

What would you like to here? My I.Q or what? Well last time I got tested it was 133, the time before was 123. Which suggests one was innacurate, however both are well above the 100 average.

that is an obserd accusation and I demand you explain yourself!!!

Well discussing your opinion is hardly a relevant discussion on Stalin is it? While we are on demands I demand you take back your insult and your statements above.

Kapitan Andrey

7th August 2003, 11:31

Damn it!!! Bann those stupid-stalinistic-morons!!! >koba< and >stalin<!!! :angry:

lostsoul

7th August 2003, 14:43

Originally posted by AK47+Aug 6 2003, 11:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AK47 @ Aug 6 2003, 11:18 PM)
[email protected] 6 2003, 06:35 PM
I am sorry for twisting your words it was not intentional. However on the same note stop trying to back peddle your way out of stating a piece of information you know to be false. You massively over exaggerated the figures and when challenged about that your only defence is I twisted your words. Sorry but that will just not wash, If you were to look through my many, many discussions and arguments on this board, you will see that I have only on very special occasions brought up spelling at all, and that is usually in my own defence.

I accept your apology. I wonder why you keep talking about your discussions and not your actual arguements with people. I am not you biographer so i personally don't read every one of your posts, only the ones I am also posting, therfore i can only speak of the ones i have seen. and I have seen you mostly twisting people's words or trying to change the subject and arguing. I accept your apology, but make sure it never happens again.

You attacked me with flame, in the same breath as condemning my flaming.

If this, below, is not an attack on me, rather than my arguments, then I will apologise: -

"AK47..your an serious idiot..."

I will not apologize unless you prove your not an idiot. Until then i stand by that remark and my remark on the Americian troops.

Yes..and i still agree with that. A little off topic, aren't we?

No more so than you are.

that is an obserd accusation and I demand you explain yourself!!!
I accept your apology. I wonder why you keep talking about your discussions and not your actual arguements with people. I am not you biographer so i personally don't read every one of your posts, only the ones I am also posting, therfore i can only speak of the ones i have seen. and I have seen you mostly twisting people's words or trying to change the subject and arguing. I accept your apology, but make sure it never happens again.

I keep bringing up my discussions because they and arguments are forms of debate, again sorry for any confusion.

and I have seen you mostly twisting people's words or trying to change the subject and arguing.

It seems your observation is questionable then. I still however am waiting for you to either retract or prove your statement.

I will not apologize unless you prove your not an idiot. Until then i stand by that remark and my remark on the Americian troops.

What would you like to here? My I.Q or what? Well last time I got tested it was 133, the time before was 123. Which suggests one was innacurate, however both are well above the 100 average.

that is an obserd accusation and I demand you explain yourself!!!

Well discussing your opinion is hardly a relevant discussion on Stalin is it? While we are on demands I demand you take back your insult and your statements above. [/b]
WHO ARE YOU TO BE SO DEMANDING? i DEMAND YOUR DEMANDS STOP!!!

cause i'm DA-MAN

Invader Zim

7th August 2003, 15:59

Originally posted by lostsoul+Aug 7 2003, 02:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lostsoul @ Aug 7 2003, 02:43 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 11:18 PM

[email protected] 6 2003, 06:35 PM
I am sorry for twisting your words it was not intentional. However on the same note stop trying to back peddle your way out of stating a piece of information you know to be false. You massively over exaggerated the figures and when challenged about that your only defence is I twisted your words. Sorry but that will just not wash, If you were to look through my many, many discussions and arguments on this board, you will see that I have only on very special occasions brought up spelling at all, and that is usually in my own defence.

I accept your apology. I wonder why you keep talking about your discussions and not your actual arguements with people. I am not you biographer so i personally don't read every one of your posts, only the ones I am also posting, therfore i can only speak of the ones i have seen. and I have seen you mostly twisting people's words or trying to change the subject and arguing. I accept your apology, but make sure it never happens again.

You attacked me with flame, in the same breath as condemning my flaming.

If this, below, is not an attack on me, rather than my arguments, then I will apologise: -

"AK47..your an serious idiot..."

I will not apologize unless you prove your not an idiot. Until then i stand by that remark and my remark on the Americian troops.

Yes..and i still agree with that. A little off topic, aren't we?

No more so than you are.

that is an obserd accusation and I demand you explain yourself!!!
I accept your apology. I wonder why you keep talking about your discussions and not your actual arguements with people. I am not you biographer so i personally don't read every one of your posts, only the ones I am also posting, therfore i can only speak of the ones i have seen. and I have seen you mostly twisting people's words or trying to change the subject and arguing. I accept your apology, but make sure it never happens again.

I keep bringing up my discussions because they and arguments are forms of debate, again sorry for any confusion.

and I have seen you mostly twisting people's words or trying to change the subject and arguing.

It seems your observation is questionable then. I still however am waiting for you to either retract or prove your statement.

I will not apologize unless you prove your not an idiot. Until then i stand by that remark and my remark on the Americian troops.

What would you like to here? My I.Q or what? Well last time I got tested it was 133, the time before was 123. Which suggests one was innacurate, however both are well above the 100 average.

that is an obserd accusation and I demand you explain yourself!!!

Well discussing your opinion is hardly a relevant discussion on Stalin is it? While we are on demands I demand you take back your insult and your statements above.
WHO ARE YOU TO BE SO DEMANDING? i DEMAND YOUR DEMANDS STOP!!!

cause i'm DA-MAN [/b]
Bahh you waste my time, be silent or I will be forced to send Mr Flibble to kill you.