Results 101 to 120 of 160
This guy isn't actually from Russia,he just has some Russian heritage.
Even a moron realizes that Russia was much better off before 1989.
But then again this guy is a libertarian,you can't reason a libertarian.It's like talking to a brick wall (except that the wall doesn't talk dumb bullshit back to you.)
Today's Russia is a rotting,corrupt,inhumane,horrible country.
*Looks at crap article*
*Googles the auther, R.J. Rummel*
Ah, so we have a guy that thinks liberal democracys don't go to war against each other and so act nice to each other, weird, and who takes most of his claims about Soviet death tolls from Robert Conquest's book The Great Terror. A book which since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the opening up the Soviet archives has been widely criticised for having hugely exaggerated figures.
Of course we all know that the Soviet government as a whole (headed by Stalin) was responsible for the deaths of around 3 million people or so due to economic mismanagement. Saying 65 million people were killed is just batshit insane, and so laughed at.
No answer?
Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand. ~ Karl Marx
formerly Triceramarx
Lenin, in all his writings, frequently mentioned the proletariat controlling the means, founding a true workers state. I know you're a staunch stalinist, so I won't try to tell you otherwise but what Lenin wrote and what Stalin did post-Lenin death are two separate things.
"If ever a pen was a weapon, it was the pen which wrote Lenin's 1917 texts."
Ok then,how about some quotes and real proof now,eh?
Is it worse than the disastrous drop in living standards which occurred after the
“How in the hell could a man enjoy being awakened at 6:30 a.m. by an alarm clock, leap out of bed, dress, force-feed, shit, piss, brush teeth and hair, and fight traffic to get to a place where essentially you made lots of money for somebody else and were asked to be grateful for the opportunity to do so?” Charles Bukowski, Factotum
"In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as 'right-to-work.' It provides no 'rights' and no 'works.' Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining... We demand this fraud be stopped." MLK
-fka Redbrother
Why "post Lenin!? Russia was never was communist or socialist at any time. Lenin himself conceded just before his death that it was still advancing along the path of state capitalism and that socialism still lay in the future (not that state capitalism will ever pave the way to socialism - thats a totally discredited theory). As for workers controlling the factories - well who was the staunchest advocate of authoritarian "one man mangement". Thats right - V.Lenin!
For genuine free access communism
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=792
You got a point;Stalin wasn't a nice person,I even question what Lenin did with the Bolsheviks on one,or two things;he did take over an anarchist society after all.As an Anarcho-Communist I hate how people take a look at the Soviet Empire,and judge me for being a communist.The Soviet Union made the real communists look bad.
Proletarian revolution caused global fear... So all dominant capitalist states sent invasion forces to prevent reds taking the power because they were afraid of it ( actually they are always in fear of revolutions ). Do you think an anarchist community could fight against all these invasions and the so called white army ? Japan attacked from east and others from the west... And later there comes the second world war... more than 20 million soviet people died.. Would you expect the soviets to give out candies when all happened ? Did you expect a leader Stalin or other to behave soft in such an atmosphere ? It is a proletarian dictatorship... But you can not make the revolution separated from world. 2 wars.. fought by red army and then the cold war... Continuous assault so the soviets just can't breath. Any softness the soviets had shown they would collapse much earlier.. even the revolution would not be possible... We also say our thanks to Dzerzhinsky and Cheka for their steel behavior and remember the steel man Stalin with respect. Really you can not defend the revolution and make it by giving everybody candies... That can happen in dreams.
Soviets lost most valuable personal in second world war. Red army officers and party members went to the front lines in order to protect the motherland and the revolution and gains of proletarians.
USSR was not %100 socialist but still it proved a revolution can be possible... USSR does not prove socialism can not survive but it proved the opposite that socialism can be achieved. Look at our completely one polar world. There is no power to confront capitalists and they take any decisions they wish... When the Soviets were present, capitalist countries gave workers more social rights... But now they act just as they wish without fear of a big socialist power. They may only be afraid of their own people... Look how so called western democracies are going to evolve to true "police states" soon, wait and see.
I support the Soviet Union and miss the Red Army
Read about the Anarchists in Spain, they did quite a good job, or check out the Zapatistas, they did pretty well too.
No, I don't, but why the hell do you have a system where its just up to one dude to be soft or not, thats a dictatorship.
And don't give me this shit about a "proletarian" dictatorship, it was a Stalin dictatorship, nothing more, the actual proletarians had little or no say in public policy.
The Soviets DID collapse earlier, early in the USSR where the actual power of the soviets was nothing more than symbolic.
What it proved is that you can make State-Capitalism and industrialize quick with a brutal undemocratic regeim.
That had to do with the struggles in those countries, not the soviet union.
I don't doubt it, but a State-Capitalist police state is no better than a Capitalist police state.
Also don't give me this tough-soft thing.
Murdering dissidents and sending political opponants to gulags is'nt tough, its being a coward, it basically means you arn't confident in your ideas and your ideology enough to put them up to debate.
Good thread, guys.
When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues.
~John Maynard Keynes
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
I'm not against anarchism or anarchists in the end we want almost the same, communism-anarchism.
Of course we would wish that a more "democratic" council to take every decision during war. But that was not the fact and would hardly be. This is in the nature of Russian people with their leader worship. And it is also in the success of Stalin. He was really successful and he led the second world war well and in most of his decisions he was right. He took the initiative and worked for the Soviet People as a comrade, he was not a God or above something. But those days had extremely hard conditions and matter of taking immediate decisions did not let organize for a perfectly democratic decision system. This does not make it a dictatorship.
Answer to this was already given in my previous post. USSR ideologically planned a true scientific socialism but historical facts were too oppressive so this made USSR concentrate on different priorities like especially homeland defense. Facing 2 brutal wars.. Losing more than 20 million people at once... (this never happened to any country before) are not easy... And most of the planners of socialism and important party members died in front lines in war.
USSR was more democratic than most of the countries which exist today. How do you see democracy ? Being able to vote for different parties (which are in the end same). Democracy is something used in every tv channel to excuse something nowadays, but nobody can describe me what democracy is %100. In USSR even if you are a peasant you could go to the top. You could be head of communist party. Gorbachev is a proof of that. Maybe too much democracy letting him to the top was too bad isn't it ?
No, it is not a coincidence. Dissolve of Soviet Union caused ultimate changes in social rights... Most of the communists gave up the struggle and went to bars drinking. Remaining demonstrators lost ideological focus being much weaker against capitalist oppression. Divided. Many facts can be spoken here.. In middle east for example socialist focused organizations lost power instead religious organizations gained the power. This was all wished by USA.. depends on each country.. The effects of dissolve of USSR was enormous.
A state aiming for socialism and being authoritarian is much desirable against a capitalist police state.
Given all those conditions of USSR-Russia he could not behave soft, it is just my bad use of English I did not think of any other word but it s just an analogy.
Calling Stalin a murderer is false as if he killed every person one by one. He surely had some harsh decisions. But there is no ideology or system on earth which was not established without conflicts and maintains itself without blood and not imprisoning people. Name me any please. This did not happen and will not happen. Capitalists are the most imprisoning... Prisons are so full that they don't know what to do.
Your missing the point, they did very well militarily, even though you said its impossible.
Thats some racist bullshit, there is nothing innate in Russian people that is'nt in everyone else.
Like what? Being invaded in the winter and having tons and tons of soldiers?
It does'nt matter I'm not judging him on his generalship.
He was'nt just acting as the head of the military, EVERYTHING was him, he did'nt have terms, nor did he give up any authority after the war.
As a comrade ... My ass, its not a comrodery when one dude is in charge of all policy, and who lives and dies, thats kind of playing God.
Again, your internal liberty and democracy has nothing to do with military power, you can have plenty of internaly liberty and democracy and still have a strong military.
if your gonna give up everything socialist juts to have a strong military (which you don't need to do), then whats the point?
The Russian people were supposed to be the planners, if it actually was socialism.
Demcracy is when the people get to choose public policy, the USSR did'nt have any system that allowed the people to dictate public policy, the top party officials did.
Thats the same argument pro-Capitalists use, "Capitalism is fine because look at the rags to riches stories."
The dissolusion of the left in Europe started in the 80s, but now its comming back,
As for communists becoming alcoholics, let me see some data on that.
If anything the USSR killed a lot of hte left, trying to make every left organization a Stalinist organization.
The civil war in spain could have been won had Stalins party not tried to destroy the anarchists and other socialists.
Aiming for socialism? If they were Aiming for socialism they would instil democracy immediately and turn workplaces into worker controlled institutions.
As for the question, your asking if I want to get shit on by a dude in red or a dude in blue, I don't care.
If he signed death warrents, he is a murderer, and he did.
Thats not being tough, thats not defending russia, killing dissidents is'nt defending socialism or the revolution, its juts defending Stalins power.
Saying capitalists do it too is not an excuse.
I was told by multiple Russians that Russians need strong images in times of heavy troubles.
You are way too fast to accuse personally.
I have never seen such an example... Nor I expect to see... Finding itself in such a war and still maintaining an optimal democracy.. An optimal democracy is possible in communism which needs creation of new man which needs socialism... in order as described by Marx.
The main problem in our discussion as a whole...
Let's say you come to power instead of Stalin with your group since you can not come with whole people in the country, you and your group let's say are preaching anarchism and want to establish it... There are unlimited of capitalist agents in your country and unlimited number of people opposing your ideologies (Also by the way think about Germans invading the country and before that think about anti revolutionary invasions) Tell me now please what would you do. Give me another viable option please what would you do against these ? Briefly
Is that a materialist analysis? Thats just the way russians are???
I just gave you examples, Zapatistas and Anarchist Spain.
Not at all, infact communism is impossible without democracy, hell so is socialism. Democracy is a prerequisite to both.
The premis of that question is bullshit, if it was a true socialist revolution I would'nt "come into power," the most perhaps I oculd have is be a manager of some sort and 100% accountable to my constituents.
You fight them, and if someone is braking the law you hold them to account.
But having a system where one guy can kill someone juts because the dude said something bad about him or the government, you just destroyed the whole basis of democracy and thus socialism.
So the heading capitalist countries will conguratulate your "true socialist revolution" and are not going to interfere ? The answer is well known to this question, also you need some organized force in order to fight against invasion. You'll need to defend your ideology and you'll do it in order to survive. It was a matter of survival what had come to soviet people.
I don't believe in democracy with today's thinking. The word is degenerated and always used against communists for propaganda. .. What is "holding them to account" ? Also that Stalin murdered so many thinking is exeggerated and another anti communist propaganda of its time and today. I am always suspicious of people coming to me with these history channel arguements ( not mentioning you )
Any big revolution or change comes with costs... that is so obvious.
Considering that socialists insist that workers ought act and think alike as a class, its fairly ridiculous to question the claim the character of the Russian nation can be quantified.
A manager has to have authority to affect change, to direct people in certain directions that he or she thinks best. If he does not, then obviously that person cannot be held accountable should his or her management fail. The manager has to have power.
Which is what Stalin did.
But you have not addressed the specific problem which the poster raised, which was an accurate description of the problem which the USSR faced.
What does a nascent socialist community do when under siege by capitalists? Hope for the best? The anarchists of Spain or Zapastitas did not.
Best capitalist response this week!! (I mean that not sarcastically)
And I know what you mean. "How is classism not like racism," correct? Its a good point... that is, if you set aside the fact that we're all here to absolve both the class and race distinction.
What do you mean by authority? Whips and chains? Personally directs production? Coordinates autonomous workers?
"A manager has to have authority to affect change, to direct in certain directions..."
Save a species, have ginger babies!
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." ~Albert Einstein
