NationStates Jolt Archive

We all know that January 27th is Holocaust Day.

It falls upon that day for that was the date in 1945 when Communist Soviet troops 'liberated' the Auswitch camp.

Of course for those Jews in the camp, they may have been thankful for the Communist troops who unlocked the camp gates and gave them food and medical care to treat their ill health.

However, the Holocaust (I personally don't think know if the number of Jews killed was 6 million or not, there was too much conflict and confusion to give a number on those killed) was NOT the worse act of genocide.

I would like to see all Holocaust events and days suspended until the Holocaust rememberence agenices remake Holocaust Day into an act of rememberence for a more evil ideology and more larger acts of genocide, those of the communist genocides.

How come we never have a day for the 45 million innocents killed under Stalin.

How come we never have a day for the 60 million killed under Mao.

All those millions killed in Vietnam, Cuba, Bolivia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Cambodia, North Korea, Eastern Europe, Yugoslavian occupied Croatia, Afghanistan, Eastern Norn of Africa and Grenada.

Communism is the most evil, illigocial and inhumane ideology ever to have walked the face of the Earth and to have plagued our common humanity.

In Germany it's illegal to deny the Holocaust or give the Fascist salute, yet I have seen many communist criminals in 'demonstrations' waving their wicked flags and chanting obscene slogans.

Somehow you can call for all rich people to be killed, yet cannot do the same for the Jews in Germany.

Why do we still offer an image of respectability to communists/socialists?

I say we merge any Holocaust events into a global day of rememberence for all victims of communism.

It's not like the Jews did not suffer under their 'Soviet' liberators.

Remeber the 'Jewish Doctors Plot' that Stalin used to crush Jews in the USSR.

Communism is far more evil, both in theory and practice than Nazism, we should make it so that people will be ashamed to call themselves communists in public, just like modern Germany has done with Nazism.

Although I do agree with you that Communism as practised by China and the USSR is wrong and evil, and never gained the notoriety it ought to have, I will have to disagree with everything else. Such a waste of your mind...

Although I do agree with you that Communism as practised by China and the USSR is wrong and evil, I will have to disagree with everything else. Such a waste of your mind...

Europa! I miss you!

:fluffle:

As much as i think your right on the fact that many died under Stalin and Mao, we shouldnt suspend the Holocaust Days either. That would do such a disservice to the victims.

Because the Holocaust was industrialized slaughter, far more heinous than what Stalin and Mao did. Where Stalin's purges and Mao's Great Leap Forward were lunatic policies of the arguably insane, Hitler's Holocaust was very methodical, rationalized, and purposeful. It was the intent of the atrocities that measures our reactions. While what Stalin and Mao did were no doubt horrendous, they lacked that element of systematic death that makes us cringe at the Holocaust.

Of course, I don't expect you to be in any way convinced of anything I might say, since you're clearly not going to accept that you're anything but 100% right, but I gave the reasons why the rest of us view the Holocaust as worse than anything else.

Oh, and you might look up the word 'genocide'. You've used it incorrectly.

Europa! I miss you!

:fluffle:
I am preaching to the infidels my dear friend. The Hand of Justice cannot be stayed. :x

Although I do agree with you that Communism as practised by China and the USSR is wrong and evil, I will have to disagree with everything else. Such a waste of your mind...

Im not saying that Holocaust studies be abolished, only that they merge Holocaust events into a wider analysis on the evils of communism and to remember the Jews plight in WW2 as part of a day of victims for communism.

We need to learn our lessons, communism is coming back sadly.

Look at Nepal, those Maoist terrorists are on the verge of toppling the King.

Then we have Venezuala, sad that the coup plotters of 2002 failed to oust Chavez on a permanent basis.

I am preaching to the infidels my dear friend. The Hand of Justice cannot be stayed. :x

NOOOOOOO!

Do not preach to the infidels. I am more important!

NOOOOOOO!

Do not preach to the infidels. I am more important!
Darkness shrouds thee young one; now desist, and leave Justice to its devices.

Im not saying that Holocaust studies be abolished, only that they merge Holocaust events into a wider analysis on the evils of communism and to remember the Jews plight in WW2 as part of a day of victims for communism.

We need to learn our lessons, communism is coming back sadly.

Look at Nepal, those Maoist terrorists are on the verge of toppling the King.

Then we have Venezuala, sad that the coup plotters of 2002 failed to oust Chavez on a permanent basis.

Nepal's King is just about as shitty. There really aren't many choices in that country right now.

Im not saying that Holocaust studies be abolished, only that they merge Holocaust events into a wider analysis on the evils of communism and to remember the Jews plight in WW2 as part of a day of victims for communism.
On this much I will agree. All the victims of WW 2 should be commemorated in fact.

Efficiency. That's the word I was looking for. Ruthless efficiency. That's why we see the Holocaust as worse. The ruthless efficiency of it versus the chaotic madness of Stalin and Mao. They just look nuts.

Lawful evil vs. chaotic evil. We always see the rational and intelligent villian as worse than the completely insane psychopath.

Nepal's King is just about as shitty. There really aren't many choices in that country right now.

No he is not.

The King only suspended democracy because it was a system that failed Nepal.

He did that for the best interests of his nation, the first of which is to crush the terrorist revolt of the Maoists.

If you look at China and Cambodia, both having Maoist regimes, you can see that the King is far better and alternative.

At least the King gave the democratic system a chance, only abolishing it when it failed the nation.

I bet you may life savings that the Maoists will not even give democracy a chance.

Darkness shrouds thee young one; now desist, and leave Justice to its devices.

No. Justice is not a priority compared to my fluffles.

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

No. Justice is not a priority compared to my fluffles.

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
Yes, well even Justice needs a break. It is Eternal, and that is highly burdensome. Maybe I shall seek thee out when I need a rest. :p

Contrary to popular belief, most of we communists find Stalin and Mao abhorrent too.

No he is not.

The King only suspended democracy because it was a system that failed Nepal.

He did that for the best interests of his nation, the first of which is to crush the terrorist revolt of the Maoists.

If you look at China and Cambodia, both having Maoist regimes, you can see that the King is far better and alternative.

At least the King gave the democratic system a chance, only abolishing it when it failed the nation.

I bet you may life savings that the Maoists will not even give democracy a chance.
Comparatively, he fares better. Although I can say little in favour of most modern monarchies, besides that they are too useless to cause harm anyway. Once they had their place, though now Monarchy cannot work anymore.

Ummm...what does Nazism and Stalinism have in common? :confused: It seems a lot of posters here are using communism and nazism interchangably and that is a big mistake. Plus nazism is towards the right of the political spectrum but it is different from fascism (ie. Moussalini).
Extreme communism is harmful, but isn't extreme capitalism? There have been plenty of genocides conducted by communists governments but everybody loves to forget the anti communist purges such as East Timor.

A few things people forget about the perverse Stalinist regimes labeled "communist" by systems of state propaganda:

1. Through effective food distribution and universal health care methods, Maoism saved a whole lot more Chinese lives than it killed. Amartya Sen has written on the subject.

2. Stalin's industrialization, though it came at an immense and completely unacceptable human cost, improved Soviet living standards very swiftly, and also had considerable positive effects on life expectancies and death rates.

3. Vietnam, while its GDP per capita is paltry, has far better health care statistics - life expectancy and infant mortality - than comparable nations.

4. The neoliberal economic regimes imposed upon Russia and Eastern Europe have led to skyrocketing mortality rates responsible for literally millions of deaths since the collapse of Stalinism.

5. The Indian state of Kerala, the only place on the planet where a Communist party has been elected democratically, has the highest life expectancy, best education system, and lowest infant mortality rate in India.

6. Cuba, though a Third World country economically, has managed, almost uniquely in Latin America, to achieve near-First World standards in health care and education.

Does that excuse the atrocities those regimes have committed? No, it doesn't, not at all. There is no doubt in my mind that Mao, Stalin, and similar leaders committed horrendous, completely inexcusable actions, and those leftists who engaged in defending the indefensible are properly condemned for it.

What I am trying to point out is not the benevolence of Stalinism (except in the case of Kerala, where the Communist Party isn't really Stalinist), but the horrific nature of the capitalist/feudal alternative that "we" tried and are trying to impose on other countries. If regimes as vile as existed in China and the Soviet Union could have achieved what they did just by rejecting the destructive mechanisms of capitalism and making a few token moves in line with their egalitarian rhetoric, then how much more could be accomplished through a truly democratic socialist system?

Ummm...what does Nazism and Stalinism have in common? :confused: It seems a lot of posters here are using communism and nazism interchangably and that is a big mistake. Plus nazism is towards the right of the political spectrum but it is different from fascism (ie. Moussalini).
Extreme communism is harmful, but isn't extreme capitalism? There have been plenty of genocides conducted by communists governments but everybody loves to forget the anti communist purges such as East Timor.
In all accounts, it's extreme statism. Capitalism is an economic system, no more, no less.

Im not saying that Holocaust studies be abolished, only that they merge Holocaust events into a wider analysis on the evils of communism and to remember the Jews plight in WW2 as part of a day of victims for communism.
Are you one of those insane types who think Nazism and Communism are the same thing? :confused:

Anyways, I agree with Sdaeriji. It's about the way these people were killed, not the number.

And I'll add the same thing I say every time: Germany has made the choice (helped by the victorious Allies of course) to remember the Holocaust and to give it the importance it has. You can commend them for that, because it certainly wasn't an easy path, I imagine.
Turkey, Russia, China and many other countries (and yes, the US too) have never faced up to the ugly parts of their history. But ultimately, that is something for them to decide. I personally believe that you can't keep these things under wraps forever, and eventually every nation comes to terms with its past, one way or another.

Contrary to popular belief, most of we communists find Stalin and Mao abhorrent too.

All forms of Communism, be they Stalinist, Maoist, Reformist, Anarchist, Libertarian Marxist (ie: Zapatista's in Mexico) are evil.

I hate what communism stands for even in it's 'utopian' theory.

Humans are not all equal!

Communism is anti-human for it sees the need to abolish private property (to be replaced with a load of bullshit about workers running the factories and people having total freedom from any governmental authority).

There are humans who God and nature favours to rule over others.

Those chosen leaders have a gift to rule in a benelovent and efficient manner to the benefit of us all.

In all accounts, it's extreme statism.
You know better than that though. Don't play into silly people's hands.

You know better than that though. Don't play into silly people's hands.
No, I am just distinguishing Capitalism from an actual governmental system in the way he/she meant it.

All forms of Communism, be they Stalinist, Maoist, Reformist, Anarchist, Libertarian Marxist (ie: Zapatista's in Mexico) are evil.

I hate what communism stands for even in it's 'utopian' theory.

Humans are not all equal!

Communism is anti-human for it sees the need to abolish private property (to be replaced with a load of bullshit about workers running the factories and people having total freedom from any governmental authority).

There are humans who God and nature favours to rule over others.

Those chosen leaders have a gift to rule in a benelovent and efficient manner to the benefit of us all.

Excellent. No further comment of mine is necessary. Thankyou.

There are humans who God and nature favours to rule over others.

Those chosen leaders have a gift to rule in a benelovent and efficient manner to the benefit of us all.
So in other words, you are a fascist beating a dead horse?

No he is not.

The King only suspended democracy because it was a system that failed Nepal.

He did that for the best interests of his nation, the first of which is to crush the terrorist revolt of the Maoists.

If you look at China and Cambodia, both having Maoist regimes, you can see that the King is far better and alternative.

At least the King gave the democratic system a chance, only abolishing it when it failed the nation.

I bet you may life savings that the Maoists will not even give democracy a chance.

The people of Nepal - the people, not the king - are the only people with the right to decide how to run their country.

The fact that the rebels identify with Mao does not mean that, if they win, they will commit the same atrocities he did.

Kravania - so because communism is so evil and horrid, it's totally justified that governments of East Timor massacred communists? Also, Nazi Germany killed communists in their concentration camps too.

Those of you in General may not know this, but Kravania is an In In person who is very very Anti-Communist\Socialist and anti anything on the left end spectrum, disagreeing with him is pointless.

Those of you in General may not know this, but Kravania is an II person who is very very Anti-Communist\Socialist and basicly anything on the left end spectrum, disagreeing with him is pointless.
He is more or less extremely fascist. :)

As much as i think your right on the fact that many died under Stalin and Mao, we shouldnt suspend the Holocaust Days either. That would do such a disservice to the victims.

how long do you have to give credit to victims, pretty soon the entire year is going to be nothing but hollidays for every time some one kills someone, or even just because someoen gets sick.

[QUOTE][Kravania - so because communism is so evil and horrid, it's totally justified that governments of East Timor? Also, Nazi Germany killed communists in their concentration camps too./QUOTE]

As I view communists as criminals and terrorists, I do not see anything wrong with Germany's extermination of communists. They desreved it, just like the terrorists got exterminated in Chile when that nation was liberated under General Augusto Pinochet.

Terrorists should be killed, as communists always end up resorting to terrorism, they need to be wiped out, unless you want to live in a society full of bombings, civil wars and abject moral and economic poverty.

Not to be insulting this guy sounds like a David Irving wannabe. BTW there is no way the soviets murdered 60 million people, that would be over 1/3 of the population. (about 143-163 million people)

Not to be insulting this guy sounds like a David Irving wannabe. BTW there is no way the soviets murdered 60 million people, that would be over 1/3 of the population. (about 143-163 million people)
They did though. Official statistics total deaths under Stalin to be around 40-60 million, most of which died due to Stalin's regime, and around 13 million I think which died in WW 2.

[QUOTE][Kravania - so because communism is so evil and horrid, it's totally justified that governments of East Timor? Also, Nazi Germany killed communists in their concentration camps too./QUOTE]

As I view communists as criminals and terrorists, I do not see anything wrong with Germany's extermination of communists. They desreved it, just like the terrorists got exterminated in Chile when that nation was liberated under General Augusto Pinochet.

Terrorists should be killed, as communists always end up resorting to terrorism, they need to be wiped out, unless you want to live in a society full of bombings, civil wars and abject moral and economic poverty.

Communists don't go a'bombing, silly. it's far too radical.

And there's somethiing to think about. Someone who advocates the slaughter of people based on their political views, talking about "abject moral poverty". You sound pretty poor yourself.

They did though. Official statistics total deaths under Stalin to be around 40-60 million, most of which died due to Stalin's regime, and around 13 million I think which died in WW 2.

Whose "official statistics"?

Suspend Holocaust Days/History Lessons.So what is "Holocaust days".. and how long does it last.. 5,7 days? and in what state, what country?

Whose "official statistics"?
Records kept within the USSR which came into the possession of historians after the KGB was dissolved.

...there is no way the soviets murdered 60 million people...
The Soviets probably didn't (although many also died of famine early on), but Mao certainly did.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin
The thing is that it is so difficult to tell. If you think it's hard to tell for the Nazis, who wrote down every little detail and knew everything that was happening, than how can we possibly know for these guys, who would just get people killed at random.

They did though. Official statistics total deaths under Stalin to be around 40-60 million, most of which died due to Stalin's regime, and around 13 million I think which died in WW 2.


If you read wikipedia's page on Stalin. It says that the death toll under Stalin is still being disputed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#Death_toll

I'm not denying that Stalin killed millions but it seems that every year people keep moving the number up.

If you read wikipedia's page on Stalin. It says that the death toll under Stalin is still being disputed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#Death_toll

I'm not denying that Stalin killed millions but it seems that every year people keep moving the number up.
Wikipedia is hardly reliable. They are indeed disputed, but most historians have agreed to put the figure at around 40-60 million.

Records kept within the USSR which came into the possession of historians after the KGB was dissolved.

So the "official statistics" of the USSR blame Stalin for 40-60 million deaths?

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin) gives the average number of scholarly estimates to be around 20 million; I find that to be more believable.

So the "official statistics" of the USSR blame Stalin for 40-60 million deaths?

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin) gives the average number of scholarly estimates to be around 20 million; I find that to be more believable.
Does it add in those killed in WW 2?

Wikipedia is hardly reliable. They are indeed disputed, but most historians have agreed to put the figure at around 40-60 million.

Do you have a source for that?

Wikipedia is usually very reliable, and when it isn't you can generally tell.

I do put Stalin with the five worst rulers in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the president of Yugoslavia during the civil war.

BTW Pinochet was a brutal dictator who murder up to 10,000 people in Chile and was protected by people like Reagan and Thatcher.

Also the west still hasn't done anything to stop the sudanese muslims massacring the sudanese blacks. Now estamated 400,000 dead.

Does it add in those killed in WW 2?
Probably not. But then, you can't blame Stalin for that. He wasn't exactly eager to go to war anyways.

But read my link above. It gives examples of different scholars, and 20 million is probably a reasonable medium.

Does it add in those killed in WW 2?

By whom? I assume it includes those killed by Stalin throughout all the years of his regime.

So what is "Holocaust days".. and how long does it last.. 5,7 days? and in what state, what country?

Some nations have numerous events dedicated to the Holocaust.

In England we only have Jan. 27th. Why we have it I don't know, as we were not involved in Jewish affairs during WW2.

Germany has many official functions for the Holocaust.

The point I made was Germany does work to not offend Jews by banning Nazi salutes and Holocaust denial, but (considering part of Germany suffered at the hands of Marxism) May Day is used by Leftist rioters and criminals to show off their criminality in the streets, urging people to embrace their destructive and muderous ideology.

And there's somethiing to think about. Someone who advocates the slaughter of people based on their political views, talking about "abject moral poverty". You sound pretty poor yourself.

The moral poverty I talked of was the lack of religion in communist nations.

Communism seeks to strip man of his close bond with our Creator.

But on the question of killing communists, I use logic.

Kill one communist and you may save 100s of innocent lives.

Look at Russia. When the communists took power in 1917, the communist party had 25,000 members.

If only those 25,000 communists were killed, then 45 million Russian would have lived.

Do you have a source for that?

Wikipedia is usually very reliable, and when it isn't you can generally tell.
My source would be historical works by Alan Bullock or Ian Kershaw, so nothing on the net really I am afraid. We studied excerpts of their findings at A- Level history. Bullock goes quite in-depth into both Stalin and Hitler in "Parallel Lives," and Kershaw does so with his book "Nemesis." The history books for A-level put the general consensus to be at 40-60 million, including those who died in WW 2. Remember, the USSR is not JUST Russia. It included Ukraine and many other Eastern European nations.

By whom? I assume it includes those killed by Stalin throughout all the years of his regime.
No, just those of the USSR killed under Stalin.

Probably not. But then, you can't blame Stalin for that. He wasn't exactly eager to go to war anyways.

But read my link above. It gives examples of different scholars, and 20 million is probably a reasonable medium.
It would be. Were it to include those killed in WW 2 it might reach the total number of aggregate deaths under Stalin's regime. Not necessarily all his fault, but usually they add them in.

The point I made was Germany does work to not offend Jews by banning Nazi salutes and Holocaust denial, but (considering part of Germany suffered at the hands of Marxism) May Day is used by Leftist rioters and criminals to show off their criminality in the streets, urging people to embrace their destructive and muderous ideology.
Sorry mate, but Germany doesn't do anything for "the Jews" (tm).

Germany does these things for itself, because they themselves have suffered plenty enough from Nazism, Fascism and, yes, therefore radical anti-Communism.

No, just those of the USSR killed under Stalin.

Okay, I see your point.

But then we must also accuse the Western allies of being genocidal, for their bombings of civilians in Germany and Japan.

Okay, I see your point.

But then we must also accuse the Western allies of being genocidal, for their bombings of civilians in Germany and Japan.
Oh I am not accusing anyone of being genocidical, just verifying that the death toll under the USSR was indeed tremendously high (even 20 million, you must agree, is an extreme number).

[QUOTE][Kravania - so because communism is so evil and horrid, it's totally justified that governments of East Timor? Also, Nazi Germany killed communists in their concentration camps too./QUOTE]

As I view communists as criminals and terrorists, I do not see anything wrong with Germany's extermination of communists. They desreved it, just like the terrorists got exterminated in Chile when that nation was liberated under General Augusto Pinochet.

Terrorists should be killed, as communists always end up resorting to terrorism, they need to be wiped out, unless you want to live in a society full of bombings, civil wars and abject moral and economic poverty.
What "terrorists" were there in Chile? :confused: Chile was at that time, a socialist (emphasis-democratically elected) country headed by President Allende who wanted to promote socialist ideas in Chile. How was Chile "liberated" from Pinochet? Pinochet is a military dictator:eek: , just like the rest of the leaders in the banana republics who were supported by the US to repress communism/socialism during the cold war.

We all know that January 27th is Holocaust Day.

It falls upon that day for that was the date in 1945 when Communist Soviet troops 'liberated' the Auswitch camp.

Of course for those Jews in the camp, they may have been thankful for the Communist troops who unlocked the camp gates and gave them food and medical care to treat their ill health.

However, the Holocaust (I personally don't think know if the number of Jews killed was 6 million or not, there was too much conflict and confusion to give a number on those killed) was NOT the worse act of genocide.

I would like to see all Holocaust events and days suspended until the Holocaust rememberence agenices remake Holocaust Day into an act of rememberence for a more evil ideology and more larger acts of genocide, those of the communist genocides.

How come we never have a day for the 45 million innocents killed under Stalin.

How come we never have a day for the 60 million killed under Mao.

All those millions killed in Vietnam, Cuba, Bolivia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Cambodia, North Korea, Eastern Europe, Yugoslavian occupied Croatia, Afghanistan, Eastern Norn of Africa and Grenada.

Communism is the most evil, illigocial and inhumane ideology ever to have walked the face of the Earth and to have plagued our common humanity.

In Germany it's illegal to deny the Holocaust or give the Fascist salute, yet I have seen many communist criminals in 'demonstrations' waving their wicked flags and chanting obscene slogans.

Somehow you can call for all rich people to be killed, yet cannot do the same for the Jews in Germany.

Why do we still offer an image of respectability to communists/socialists?

I say we merge any Holocaust events into a global day of rememberence for all victims of communism.

It's not like the Jews did not suffer under their 'Soviet' liberators.

Remeber the 'Jewish Doctors Plot' that Stalin used to crush Jews in the USSR.

Communism is far more evil, both in theory and practice than Nazism, we should make it so that people will be ashamed to call themselves communists in public, just like modern Germany has done with Nazism.

so that for one thing, you learn how to spell Auschwitz

The Communists were generally equal opportunity killers, and spread their slaughter out over decades instead of trying to get it all done in about 5 years.

The moral poverty I talked of was the lack of religion in communist nations.

Communism seeks to strip man of his close bond with our Creator.

But on the question of killing communists, I use logic.

Kill one communist and you may save 100s of innocent lives.

Look at Russia. When the communists took power in 1917, the communist party had 25,000 members.

If only those 25,000 communists were killed, then 45 million Russian would have lived.

And the moral poverty I'm talking about is your insistence that belief different from your own is inherently wrong. You are at best a fanatic and at worst completely binkers. Trying to mask it with "logic" is especially laughable. Maybe we could have killed zealous crusaders to save innocents in the holy land? Or perhaps killed those silly Jews to prevent the crumbling of the slave economy in Egypt?

I didn't think "moral" people advocated murder of any sort.

The Communists were generally equal opportunity killers, and spread their slaughter out over decades instead of trying to get it all done in about 5 years.
Well at least in that way they supported equal opportunity. :p

Okay, I see your point.

But then we must also accuse the Western allies of being genocidal, for their bombings of civilians in Germany and Japan.

The Japanese began terror bombing Chinese civilians in 1937, and the Germans started about the same time during the Spanish Civil War. Only the scale increased as the war began.

They didn't launch attacks the size of the US and British attacks because they lacked the means, they definitely had the will to do so. Read up on the German V1 and V2 strikes on London, and the Japanese effort to use balloons to launch attacks on the US, including biological weapons.

What "terrorists" were there in Chile? Chile was at that time, a socialist (emphasis-democratically elected) country headed by President Allende who wanted to promote socialist ideas in Chile. How was Chile "liberated" from Pinochet? Pinochet is a military dictator, just like the rest of the leaders in the banana republics who were supported by the US to repress communism/socialism during the cold war.

To begin with, Salvador Allende was a terrorist supporter himself.

He helped fly out of Bolivia leftist terrorists in 1967, after the failure of the terrorist revolt by Ernesto Guevara. One of Allende's closest advisors was Regis Debray, a terrorist from France who was linked to Guevara's terrorist network.

Allende, once in power, used armed gangs and rebel groups to crush opposition to his 'democratic' regime.

Futhermore, the election that brought him to power is now thought to have been rigged and there is no doubt that Allende used fraud to gain power.

General Pinochet disarmed the terrorists in Chile, kicked out terrorist leader Debray and brought stability and growth to Chile, something that Allende NEVER did.

Humans are not all equal!

There are humans who God and nature favours to rule over others.

Those chosen leaders have a gift to rule in a benelovent and efficient manner to the benefit of us all.
OKay, suppose you are right. I don't say that you are, but just suppose. Suppose also that one of these "favored persons" were to assume control of some nation or another...A king (or title of choice, of course) must have a court, mustn't he? A group of people that carries out his wishes, just below him? Every one of those people must also be good and just. Otherwise, one corrupt official can screw over the whole system. And then, most of those under these people must be just and good. And so on. The amount of harm that can be caused by any one individual lessens at each level quickly enough that it is soon inconsequential whether one is corrupt, but nonetheless, thats a large number of good, incorruptible people to find and put into power. It just doesn't work.

Sorry...

To begin with, Salvador Allende was a terrorist supporter himself.

He helped fly out of Bolivia leftist terrorists in 1967, after the failure of the terrorist revolt by Ernesto Guevara. One of Allende's closest advisors was Regis Debray, a terrorist from France who was linked to Guevara's terrorist network.

Allende, once in power, used armed gangs and rebel groups to crush opposition to his 'democratic' regime.

Futhermore, the election that brought him to power is now thought to have been rigged and there is no doubt that Allende used fraud to gain power.

General Pinochet disarmed the terrorists in Chile, kicked out terrorist leader Debray and brought stability and growth to Chile, something that Allende NEVER did.


the Dirty Wars in Argentina and Chile, to name but two of the Latin American nations that carried out such campaigns were brutal and ugly. But not technically genocide.

Just political murder sanctioned by the state. Which is bad enough.

We all know that January 27th is Holocaust Day.

It falls upon that day for that was the date in 1945 when Communist Soviet troops 'liberated' the Auswitch camp.

Of course for those Jews in the camp, they may have been thankful for the Communist troops who unlocked the camp gates and gave them food and medical care to treat their ill health.

However, the Holocaust (I personally don't think know if the number of Jews killed was 6 million or not, there was too much conflict and confusion to give a number on those killed) was NOT the worse act of genocide.

I would like to see all Holocaust events and days suspended until the Holocaust rememberence agenices remake Holocaust Day into an act of rememberence for a more evil ideology and more larger acts of genocide, those of the communist genocides.

How come we never have a day for the 45 million innocents killed under Stalin.

How come we never have a day for the 60 million killed under Mao.

All those millions killed in Vietnam, Cuba, Bolivia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Cambodia, North Korea, Eastern Europe, Yugoslavian occupied Croatia, Afghanistan, Eastern Norn of Africa and Grenada.

Communism is the most evil, illigocial and inhumane ideology ever to have walked the face of the Earth and to have plagued our common humanity.

In Germany it's illegal to deny the Holocaust or give the Fascist salute, yet I have seen many communist criminals in 'demonstrations' waving their wicked flags and chanting obscene slogans.

Somehow you can call for all rich people to be killed, yet cannot do the same for the Jews in Germany.

Why do we still offer an image of respectability to communists/socialists?

I say we merge any Holocaust events into a global day of rememberence for all victims of communism.

It's not like the Jews did not suffer under their 'Soviet' liberators.

Remeber the 'Jewish Doctors Plot' that Stalin used to crush Jews in the USSR.

Communism is far more evil, both in theory and practice than Nazism, we should make it so that people will be ashamed to call themselves communists in public, just like modern Germany has done with Nazism.

FYI, Mao, unlike Stalin, didn't set up gulags to specifically exterminate people. The people who died under Mao died because of the terrible failure of Mao's 5 Year Plan. As a result of the 5 Year Plan, really bad harvest season, natural disasters, and the massive population of China, lots of Chinese died of famine. A lot of people wanted to paint Mao as evil as Stalin; yes, Mao was a dictator, but he was not a psychopath like Stalin.

They didn't launch attacks the size of the US and British attacks because they lacked the means, they definitely had the will to do so...
Obviously. But strictly speaking, that doesn't excuse Mr. "There are no innocent bystanders" LeMay, or Mr. "in spite of all that happened at Hamburg, bombing proved a relatively humane method" Harris.

I think it's pretty important that eventually someone will set the record straight on the bombing runs of WWII. It wasn't excusable on either side.

This here site is bascially accurate.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

The fact remains, BOTH Hitler and Stalin killed millions, MILLIONS. Now we have an idea of how many Hitler/Nazis killed because, like someone said on here, they keep records very accurately. While the Russians could care less if they did or not, so we have no real number on Stalins killings.

We all know that January 27th is Holocaust Day.

It falls upon that day for that was the date in 1945 when Communist Soviet troops 'liberated' the Auswitch camp.

Of course for those Jews in the camp, they may have been thankful for the Communist troops who unlocked the camp gates and gave them food and medical care to treat their ill health.

However, the Holocaust (I personally don't think know if the number of Jews killed was 6 million or not, there was too much conflict and confusion to give a number on those killed) was NOT the worse act of genocide.

I would like to see all Holocaust events and days suspended until the Holocaust rememberence agenices remake Holocaust Day into an act of rememberence for a more evil ideology and more larger acts of genocide, those of the communist genocides.

How come we never have a day for the 45 million innocents killed under Stalin.

How come we never have a day for the 60 million killed under Mao.

All those millions killed in Vietnam, Cuba, Bolivia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Cambodia, North Korea, Eastern Europe, Yugoslavian occupied Croatia, Afghanistan, Eastern Norn of Africa and Grenada.

Communism is the most evil, illigocial and inhumane ideology ever to have walked the face of the Earth and to have plagued our common humanity.

In Germany it's illegal to deny the Holocaust or give the Fascist salute, yet I have seen many communist criminals in 'demonstrations' waving their wicked flags and chanting obscene slogans.

Somehow you can call for all rich people to be killed, yet cannot do the same for the Jews in Germany.

Why do we still offer an image of respectability to communists/socialists?

I say we merge any Holocaust events into a global day of rememberence for all victims of communism.

It's not like the Jews did not suffer under their 'Soviet' liberators.

Remeber the 'Jewish Doctors Plot' that Stalin used to crush Jews in the USSR.

Communism is far more evil, both in theory and practice than Nazism, we should make it so that people will be ashamed to call themselves communists in public, just like modern Germany has done with Nazism.
Actually no i wasnt aware that January 27th was Holocust day.
I agree with your comments about communism but really don't care either way as it doesn't really matter to me.

I think the USSR dhould not be idolised it killed as many Jews as the Germans.

Obviously. But strictly speaking, that doesn't excuse Mr. "There are no innocent bystanders" LeMay, or Mr. "in spite of all that happened at Hamburg, bombing proved a relatively humane method" Harris.

I think it's pretty important that eventually someone will set the record straight on the bombing runs of WWII. It wasn't excusable on either side.

Oh so the allies should of thrown roses at the Nazis? Is that what you are saying?

Obviously. But strictly speaking, that doesn't excuse Mr. "There are no innocent bystanders" LeMay, or Mr. "in spite of all that happened at Hamburg, bombing proved a relatively humane method" Harris.

I think it's pretty important that eventually someone will set the record straight on the bombing runs of WWII. It wasn't excusable on either side.

bottom line, Allied bombing helped end the war sooner while the Nazi death camps served no purpose other then murder.

Allied bombing reduced German industrial expansion, diverted massive resources (up to 60% of all artillery production for one thing), forced the Luftwaffe to fight until it was a gutted shell, and eventually when oil targets were hit, destroyed the ability of the German economy to support the war. Japanese production suffered even heavier losses, and remember a pair of bombing missions actually did force the Japanese Army to admit that it could not win the war by fighting the 'decisive battle' they were hoping to fight against the American invasion that was planned.

The Final Solution provided no military gain to Nazi Germany, other then some loot.

Obviously. But strictly speaking, that doesn't excuse Mr. "There are no innocent bystanders" LeMay, or Mr. "in spite of all that happened at Hamburg, bombing proved a relatively humane method" Harris.

I think it's pretty important that eventually someone will set the record straight on the bombing runs of WWII. It wasn't excusable on either side.

There have been some revisionistic ideas going on around lately. Ok, killing is never excusable. But we also have to set the record straight that it was the Axis who started the war. Germany was expanding it's territory over Europe. Japan have been seizing Chinese lands (Manchuria) and colonizing Korea for many years before WWII. Italy invaded Ethiopia. The Axis started the war, and it is the right thing for the Allies to stop their aggression.

Oh so the allies should of thrown roses at the Nazis? Is that what you are saying?
Well I doubt you can run an army while it's buried in Roses. Plus don't forget the thorns and such. Not to mention the WTF factor it would have on the Germans. ;)

So this thread has turned into a 'What group killed more.' again.

Some nations have numerous events dedicated to the Holocaust.

In England we only have Jan. 27th. Why we have it I don't know, as we were not involved in Jewish affairs during WW2.

Germany has many official functions for the Holocaust.

The point I made was Germany does work to not offend Jews by banning Nazi salutes and Holocaust denial, but (considering part of Germany suffered at the hands of Marxism) May Day is used by Leftist rioters and criminals to show off their criminality in the streets, urging people to embrace their destructive and muderous ideology.



The moral poverty I talked of was the lack of religion in communist nations.

Communism seeks to strip man of his close bond with our Creator.

But on the question of killing communists, I use logic.

Kill one communist and you may save 100s of innocent lives.

Look at Russia. When the communists took power in 1917, the communist party had 25,000 members.

If only those 25,000 communists were killed, then 45 million Russian would have lived.

Maybe u forgot about the Russian Civil War 1918-1922. During the period most russians supported the white army but recived no outside help. The white army was made of democrats, socialists and people who wanted a constitutional monarchy which it self was a group of competing ideas.

Second, most nations that adopted Marxist-Lenninist communism were nations that were completly backwards and were usually run by old feudal monarchies. (China & Russia). Most abanodned M-LC after a few years after. Most Instead adopted a system what is called State capatilism, So in a sense there really has never been a true communist state.

Third, the Soviet Union under Kruschev was equivelent to the U.S economically. It was Gorbochov who really put the nail in the coffin by limiting goods.

Fourth, China is now becoming the greatest economic power thru it's state capatilist-system which right now resembles fascism.

bottom line, Allied bombing helped end the war sooner while the Nazi death camps served no purpose other then murder.
Well, the judgement on the actual usefulness of the bombings is still out, and probably always will be. Studies by for example Galbraith shortly after the war suggested that it didn't. Actual military production increased steadily for Germany, so that might suggest that the effect was nowhere near as strong as it would have had to be to justify the murder of so many civilians.

But military purpose or not, to me the whole thing has always reeked of revenge and hatred. That might be easy for you to accept, afterall they were just Nazis, but my grandparents had to go through that, and it wasn't nice, no matter on which side you stand.

And finally, please don't go down the road of saying "they did much worse, so we are okay in doing bad things". It's not the case. You have your ideals, your rules and the things you stand by, regardless of what the other side does.
To me, I believe that no civilian should ever be killed. It should always be avoided, even if that might mean that your objective isn't as easy to achieve. So I cannot ever agree with attacks on civilian areas, not in Warsaw, not in London, not in Germany and not in Japan (and as for the nukes, suffice to say that I believe interpersonal relationships played more of a role in the surrender than the bombs).

So this thread has turned into a 'What group killed more.' again.

Communism killed more, there is NO debate on that one!

Plus there is the ideological aspect.

Fascism is a system that did work and one that meets human needs and works within the confines of the human condition.

Communism, on the other hand is a genocidal system that works against everything humans are and what humanity aspires to.

The Axis started the war, and it is the right thing for the Allies to stop their aggression.
Of course. But I don't think I ever suggested differently. My point was about some of the methods the Allies used.

And politically you would probably put me on the Internationalist Centre-Left, so don't think I'm defending anything the Nazis did.

The Japanese began terror bombing Chinese civilians in 1937, and the Germans started about the same time during the Spanish Civil War. Only the scale increased as the war began.

They didn't launch attacks the size of the US and British attacks because they lacked the means, they definitely had the will to do so. Read up on the German V1 and V2 strikes on London, and the Japanese effort to use balloons to launch attacks on the US, including biological weapons.

I don't believe I said a word about Nazi or Japanese atrocities.

All forms of Communism, be they Stalinist, Maoist, Reformist, Anarchist, Libertarian Marxist (ie: Zapatista's in Mexico) are evil.

I hate what communism stands for even in it's 'utopian' theory.

Humans are not all equal!

Communism is anti-human for it sees the need to abolish private property (to be replaced with a load of bullshit about workers running the factories and people having total freedom from any governmental authority).

There are humans who God and nature favours to rule over others.

Those chosen leaders have a gift to rule in a benelovent and efficient manner to the benefit of us all.

How cute. I suppose you're in favour of beating people who vote wrong too.

Maybe u forgot about the Russian Civil War 1918-1922. During the period most russians supported the white army but recived no outside help. The white army was made of democrats, socialists and people who wanted a constitutional monarchy which it self was a group of competing ideas.

Second, most nations that adopted Marxist-Lenninist communism were nations that were completly backwards and were usually run by old feudal monarchies. (China & Russia). Most abanodned M-LC after a few years after. Most Instead adopted a system what is called State capatilism, So in a sense there really has never been a true communist state.

Third, the Soviet Union under Kruschev was equivelent to the U.S economically. It was Gorbochov who really put the nail in the coffin by limiting goods.

Fourth, China is now becoming the greatest economic power thru it's state capatilist-system which right now resembles fascism.

Im aware that Trotskyists and Anarchists say that the USSR was a fake communism, not the real thing etc....

I care little for those petty debates.

I oppose the utopian communist theory as much as the Leninist system.

I don't believe in human equality and it sends shivers down my spine, if the communist idea ever became a reality (a global human system without private property, without religion, without humans being protected by their leaders and no money).

Like I said, Im a Fascist, please don't try and persuade me of the 'benefits' of utopian communism, for I know they go against everything humans stand for.

Maybe u forgot about the Russian Civil War 1918-1922. During the period most russians supported the white army but recived no outside help.

Actually, the capitalist powers gave substantial aid to the White Army, and in fact sent troops themselves.

OMG Teh ev1l commies111

Tehre ideology noez make sense11!1 Itz teh inhumane111

Therefore as logically follows - no more Holocaust rememberance day!:rolleyes:

I bet you've never cracked open a Marx book in your life(though feel free to prove me wrong, and show me where Marx wrote about mass genocide/pogroms as part of his ideas). And more than that I'm pretty sure you're a closet Nazi. Tis the only way you can get 'Stop Holocaust Remembrance' from 'NEWSBULLETIN - STALIN, THE DICTATORIAL MADMAN KILLED A BUNCH OF PEOPLE.' Plus this -

"(I personally don't think know if the number of Jews killed was 6 million or not, there was too much conflict and confusion to give a number on those killed)"

Isn't pulling in your favor.

Fascism is a system that did work and one that meets human needs and works within the confines of the human condition.

Communism, on the other hand is a genocidal system that works against everything humans are and what humanity aspires to.
Why don't you just come clean and announce what you've been broadly hinting at, that you're a Nazi appologist who feels that either the Holocaust didn't happen, or it was perfectly hunky dory that it did.

Communism killed more, there is NO debate on that one!

Plus there is the ideological aspect.

Fascism is a system that did work and one that meets human needs and works within the confines of the human condition.

Communism, on the other hand is a genocidal system that works against everything humans are and what humanity aspires to.


Both Fascism and State-Communism are bad. Again lay of the David Irving info. If u read marx as it was mean't to be read the whole idea isn't to create a state! That was the fundemental flaw in the USSR and China. BTW religion isn't a innocent ideal: The Crusades, The Inquistion, Witch Trials...........

If you read wikipedia's page on Stalin. It says that the death toll under Stalin is still being disputed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#Death_toll

I'm not denying that Stalin killed millions but it seems that every year people keep moving the number up.
The Holocaust is disputed by some too. Do you have a point?

Futhermore, the election that brought him to power is now thought to have been rigged and there is no doubt that Allende used fraud to gain power.

Indeed. Allende, like so many populists before him, committed the unforgiveable fraud of accepting elections that elect somebody they weren't supposed to as legitimate.

The proper response to such insubordinate elections is to suppress them. Elections are only legitimate when the right people get elected.

Actually, the capitalist powers gave substantial aid to the White Army, and in fact sent troops themselves.
Hmm...u right...What I read did say the UK sent them aid, but the problem was it was a group of diffrent views that most of the peasents didn't support.

Communism killed more, there is NO debate on that one!

Plus there is the ideological aspect.

Fascism is a system that did work and one that meets human needs and works within the confines of the human condition.

Communism, on the other hand is a genocidal system that works against everything humans are and what humanity aspires to.

Fascism, after it attains political control of a country, involves a powerful, dictatorial state that views the nation as superior to the individuals or groups of individuals composing it.　BOTH Facism and Communism are totalitarian forms of government. What I don't understand is why you continue to defend Facism. Arguing which of the two governments is better is like arguing who's the uglier twin. Why can't we just leave it at that and just assume that democracy, though far from perfect, is the one form of government that truly meets human needs.

The Holocaust is disputed by some too. Do you have a point?

The Holocaust is disputed by people like David Irving, who are not serious scholars. Apologists for Stalinism like Michael Parenti fall into that category on the subject of the Soviet Union.

But there is serious, scholarly debate on the subject of how many people the Soviet Union killed.

The part about the OP that stood out to me was the part where you said there were communists in Columbia.

While there certainly was some element of anti-Western capitalism in the guerilla warfare movement, I don't think you can exactly call it communist.

They DID train at and get some weapons from Russia and China, but only because in their own country they couldn't get what they needed.

The origin of this warfare movement was the fact an elite of the country was planning to strike a deal with American businesses that would end up destroying the lives of farmers, poor people, etc.

So I don't think they were exactly communists.

Hmm...u right...What I read did say the UK sent them aid, but the problem was it was a group of diffrent views that most of the peasents didn't support.

The UK, the US, and others.

The lack of servility on the part of the Russian proletariat was too much for their ruling classes to handle, until they realized that the Soviet Union, as a totalitarian distortion of socialism, was no real threat to developed capitalist states.

Animal Farm gets it right; it's a shame most people don't even understand the book.

The Holocaust is disputed by people like David Irving, who are not serious scholars. Apologists for Stalinism like Michael Parenti fall into that category on the subject of the Soviet Union.

But there is serious, scholarly debate on the subject of how many people the Soviet Union killed.

I do agree with this, i am not saying that what the Nazis did was right or not as bad, but to get to the bottom of why so many germans and others let it continue is to study where and when the Jews and others were killed and where, would enlighten many Holocaust deniers.;)

The Holocaust is disputed by people like David Irving, who are not serious scholars. Apologists for Stalinism like Michael Parenti fall into that category on the subject of the Soviet Union.

But there is serious, scholarly debate on the subject of how many people the Soviet Union killed.

Exactly my point. Holoccaust denial has already been proven invalid by Irving vs Lipstadt. Lipstadt is a professor at Emory Universty in Atlanta, GA. She sucessfly defended libel charges brought against her by Irving. At the end the British Court decided that Irving's evidence was false, He was a holocaust denier and a neo-nazi.

The UK, the US, and others.

The lack of servility on the part of the Russian proletariat was too much for their ruling classes to handle, until they realized that the Soviet Union, as a totalitarian distortion of socialism, was no real threat to developed capitalist states.

Animal Farm gets it right; it's a shame most people don't even understand the book.

No threat huh? Say that to the peoples of former Czech nation(i cant remember how to spell the whole name), Poland, Romania, the Baltic States, Hungery, and many more.....please do tell them that.

Animal Farm gets it right; it's a shame most people don't even understand the book.

Animal Farm is communist propaganda.

It claims that somehow, the ideal of communism or socialism would be better than the USSR socialism or the Chinese system.

Don't Forget, Geroge Orwell, that great 'defender of freedom', was a terrorist in Spain, supporting Anarchist groupings in Catalonia.

The very same Anarchists and Republicans who burned churces and killed preists and nuns, buring their bodies in the streets.

Spain was lucky in the end though, for it was liberated by General Franco and the Falange, shame that China or Cuba never had the same fate, they still suffer.

Well, the judgement on the actual usefulness of the bombings is still out, and probably always will be. Studies by for example Galbraith shortly after the war suggested that it didn't. Actual military production increased steadily for Germany, so that might suggest that the effect was nowhere near as strong as it would have had to be to justify the murder of so many civilians.

But military purpose or not, to me the whole thing has always reeked of revenge and hatred. That might be easy for you to accept, afterall they were just Nazis, but my grandparents had to go through that, and it wasn't nice, no matter on which side you stand.

And finally, please don't go down the road of saying "they did much worse, so we are okay in doing bad things". It's not the case. You have your ideals, your rules and the things you stand by, regardless of what the other side does.
To me, I believe that no civilian should ever be killed. It should always be avoided, even if that might mean that your objective isn't as easy to achieve. So I cannot ever agree with attacks on civilian areas, not in Warsaw, not in London, not in Germany and not in Japan (and as for the nukes, suffice to say that I believe interpersonal relationships played more of a role in the surrender than the bombs).


Strictly speaking, under international law, civilians are not supposed to be targeted. HOWEVER, under international law, if the military objective is important enough, civilian deaths are excused. This was actually recently discussed on MSN Slate magazine to name but one source.

Secondly, although the actual bombing failed to be decisive, tyhe fact that huge amounts of German weapons production, most of the Luftwaffe and millions of troops were kept busy defending Germany instead of fighting in Russia or in the West was a vital part of winning the war. Actual bombing did in fact cripple German oil production, which was decisive. Sadly, bombing raids like Hamburg were not decisive. However, Albert Speer himself said at the time, as did Goebbels, that if the British and Americans had been able to destroy several more cities shortly after Hamburg that they were certain morale would have collapsed in Germany. As that occured in 1943, tens of millions of lives would have been saved.

However the Allies lacked the ability to carry that out.

A lively debate occurs on the atomic strikes on Japan routinely about every 5 or 6 months in this forum. Suffice to say, most military historians agree that it ended the war, while many social historians disagree. Generally the those with Leftist views are more critical, while those with views to the Right or Center tend to see that it was needed.

As the other alternatives to end the war against Japan included blockade and attacks on transportation targets that would have brought mass famine to Japan killing millions or an invasion that would have killed even more, the deaths of 300,000 (approx) civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (combined) were a relatively cheap price to pay to end the worst war in human history.

Although even Churchill thought Dresden was a bit much. Only Harris ever defended it. It did force the British and American governments and high commands to order an end to the bombing campaign against Germany though (although the war ended about a month later anyway)

Im aware that Trotskyists and Anarchists say that the USSR was a fake communism, not the real thing etc....

I care little for those petty debates.

I oppose the utopian communist theory as much as the Leninist system.

I don't believe in human equality and it sends shivers down my spine, if the communist idea ever became a reality (a global human system without private property, without religion, without humans being protected by their leaders and no money).

Like I said, Im a Fascist, please don't try and persuade me of the 'benefits' of utopian communism, for I know they go against everything humans stand for.

Your no better then the communists. You are no better then the Hitlers of the world, you are no better then the Husseins of the world or Stalins. Damn hypocrits.....

Animal Farm is communist propaganda.

It claims that somehow, the ideal of communism or socialism would be better than the USSR socialism or the Chinese system.

Don't Forget, Geroge Orwell, that great 'defender of freedom', was a terrorist in Spain, supporting Anarchist groupings in Catalonia.

The very same Anarchists and Republicans who burned churces and killed preists and nuns, buring their bodies in the streets.

Spain was lucky in the end though, for it was liberated by General Franco and the Falange, shame that China or Cuba never had the same fate, they still suffer.

Wow you nazi bastard. You are no better then those that support the socialistic or communism you are against. :upyours: :rolleyes:

Animal Farm is communist propaganda.

It claims that somehow, the ideal of communism or socialism would be better than the USSR socialism or the Chinese system.

Don't Forget, Geroge Orwell, that great 'defender of freedom', was a terrorist in Spain, supporting Anarchist groupings in Catalonia.

The very same Anarchists and Republicans who burned churces and killed preists and nuns, buring their bodies in the streets.

Spain was lucky in the end though, for it was liberated by General Franco and the Falange, shame that China or Cuba never had the same fate, they still suffer.

have you actually READ Animal Farm? It was Orwell's attack on Stalinism and was not a defense of Communism.

The only good thing about Franco winning in the Spanish Civil War is that the Republicans committed even more excesses then the Nationalists did.

No threat huh? Say that to the peoples of former Czech nation(i cant remember how to spell the whole name), Poland, Romania, the Baltic States, Hungery, and many more.....please do tell them that.

I said "developed capitalist states," which Eastern Europe at the time was, for the most part, not.

And that was in reaction to a murderous genocidal invasion by a developed capitalist state, and would not have happened had there been no such invasion.

Strictly speaking, under international law, civilians are not supposed to be targeted. HOWEVER, under international law, if the military objective is important enough, civilian deaths are excused. This was actually recently discussed on MSN Slate magazine to name but one source.

Secondly, although the actual bombing failed to be decisive, tyhe fact that huge amounts of German weapons production, most of the Luftwaffe and millions of troops were kept busy defending Germany instead of fighting in Russia or in the West was a vital part of winning the war. Actual bombing did in fact cripple German oil production, which was decisive. Sadly, bombing raids like Hamburg were not decisive. However, Albert Speer himself said at the time, as did Goebbels, that if the British and Americans had been able to destroy several more cities shortly after Hamburg that they were certain morale would have collapsed in Germany. As that occured in 1943, tens of millions of lives would have been saved.

However the Allies lacked the ability to carry that out.

A lively debate occurs on the atomic strikes on Japan routinely about every 5 or 6 months in this forum. Suffice to say, most military historians agree that it ended the war, while many social historians disagree. Generally the those with Leftist views are more critical, while those with views to the Right or Center tend to see that it was needed.

As the other alternatives to end the war against Japan included blockade and attacks on transportation targets that would have brought mass famine to Japan killing millions or an invasion that would have killed even more, the deaths of 300,000 (approx) civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (combined) were a relatively cheap price to pay to end the worst war in human history.

Although even Churchill thought Dresden was a bit much. Only Harris ever defended it. It did force the British and American governments and high commands to order an end to the bombing campaign against Germany though (although the war ended about a month later anyway)

The fact remains that the Emperor, after hearing what has happened to his people in those two cities, was crushed and decided to end the war. Documented fact that he decided that the war was pointless, especially when he realized the USA was not giving up.

Wow you nazi bastard. You are no better then those that support the socialistic or communism you are against. :upyours: :rolleyes:

No, he is far, far worse. Do not compare the anti-Stalinist left to him.

It was Orwell's attack on Stalinism and was not a defense of Communism.

Because it was aimed at the left and not at the right. Orwell was not fond of preaching to the choir.

Wow you nazi bastard. You are no better then those that support the socialistic or communism you are against. :upyours: :rolleyes:
I agree with u Earabia but please don't troll on the forum.(as a friend). I agree that he is a David Irving wannabe.

The fact remains that the Emperor, after hearing what has happened to his people in those two cities, was crushed and decided to end the war. Documented fact that he decided that the war was pointless, especially when he realized the USA was not giving up.

which does indeed justify both attacks

I agree with u Earabia but please don't troll on the forum.(as a friend). I agree that he is a David Irving wannabe.

Sorry. I was just annoyed. At first he brought up an important issue, then he turned it into a facists rant.....:mad:

The fact remains that the Emperor, after hearing what has happened to his people in those two cities, was crushed and decided to end the war. Documented fact that he decided that the war was pointless, especially when he realized the USA was not giving up.
*blinks* Ok... interesting opinion you got there. That's not how it happened, and the ending was far more complex, but interesting nonetheless. Let me guess, high school history book?

*blinks* Ok... interesting opinion you got there. That's not how it happened, and the ending was far more complex, but interesting nonetheless. Let me guess, high school history book?

Did i say that was the total answer? Nope. Trying to read what i am thinking by how i answer the question of someone else?? Well duh it is a lot more complex then that. :rolleyes:

*blinks* Ok... interesting opinion you got there. That's not how it happened, and the ending was far more complex, but interesting nonetheless. Let me guess, high school history book?

By the way you also got to remember that there was resistant groups in Japan too. And that there was other varables like the fact that Japanese were out of resources(did you know that the Japanese were told to use pitch forks and otehr NON-gun weapons?). So dont insult me buddy, i am very informed more then you just let on.

Oh cant forget that the Emperor wasnt actually anti-western, but was pressured to go to war because of the militaristic/expansionistic parts of the government and military wanted to invade other regions to get more resources and expand the "Great Empre". So dont tell me what i dont know. ;)

*blinks* Ok... interesting opinion you got there. That's not how it happened, and the ending was far more complex, but interesting nonetheless. Let me guess, high school history book?

its the simple answer, but essentially, with support, the bombing raids gave Hirohito the support he needed to force an end to the war over the objections of the real fanatics on the Imperial General Staff.

Even so, they still tried to take over the government to stop the surrender.

Couple reasons:

Because the evil of the holocaust was plastered all over the pages of newspapers and textbooks, because we saw the pictures. American troops did indeed take the Buchenwald complex, Dachau and plenty of other camps. On the opposite end of the spectrum there aren't all that many pictures of the Gulag system, or the suffering of the people of China.

Because the holocaust was industrialized mass murder. So terrifying in scope and efficiency that it's tough to imagine. While the random killing of the Stalinist and Maoist systems just seem random and chaotic. No furnaces, no gas, just good old bullets, hard labor and hunger. We are used to those things, we are used to mass graves. We are not used to heaps of shoes, rains of ashes and people-furnaces.

Because, in perhaps the greatest tragedy of human history, people don't care.

Did i say that was the total answer? Nope. Trying to read what i am thinking by how i answer the question of someone else?? Well duh it is a lot more complex then that. :rolleyes:
I don't bother to read what you're thinking, I read what you have written. Sorry, my ESP has been on the fritz lately. But of you're going to start off with something like "The fact remains" on this board, you better type what you actually think are the facts.

I don't bother to read what you're thinking, I read what you have written. Sorry, my ESP has been on the fritz lately. But of you're going to start off with something like "The fact remains" on this board, you better type what you actually think are the facts.

But you didnt actual put any input yourself, right. :rolleyes: ;)
Next time you respond to a post, why dont you put up facts so you can show me i am wrong, other then saying "oh you didnt put up facts". ;)

We all know that January 27th is Holocaust Day.
We don't. And rest assured, the date will slip from memory sometime between now and waking up tomorrow morning. Anyway, that was over a month ago.

G'night.

Soheran: I agree with u in what u said about that the wes say the bolshieviks as no threat. I personally would have rather have seen the Whites win and Russia goto a democratic nation. As I have stated before I believe that most nations that have adopted communism never really put into place. Instead they created a state capitalist system that forced people to work in factories and farms. Instead they should have created a stateless nation were everyone works in cooperation.

Soheran: I agree with u in what u said about that the wes say the bolshieviks as no threat. I personally would have rather have seen the Whites win and Russia goto a democratic nation. As I have stated before I believe that most nations that have adopted communism never really put into place. Instead they created a state capitalist system that forced people to work in factories and farms. Instead they should have created a stateless nation were everyone works in cooperation.

Which is no different then what Mao or Lenin or Stalin wanted. :confused:

Which is no different then what Mao or Lenin or Stalin wanted. :confused:
Fair enough about Mao and Lenin, but I'm not too sure whether Stalin was really all that interested in Communism anymore, particularly later on.

Soheran: I agree with u in what u said about that the wes say the bolshieviks as no threat. I personally would have rather have seen the Whites win and Russia goto a democratic nation. As I have stated before I believe that most nations that have adopted communism never really put into place. Instead they created a state capitalist system that forced people to work in factories and farms. Instead they should have created a stateless nation were everyone works in cooperation.
NO FUCKING STATE CAPITALISM. OXYMORON. DOESN'T WORK. CUT THE BULLSHIT.

Sorry about that, but the term state capitalism is a trigger to me. It's a complete contradiction. The term itself is generally a subtle, almost subconscious attempt by those on the left to project something that's clearly evil and associated with their ideology onto the opposite ideology which has nothing to do with what happened. It's actually quite Orwellian, and a fine example of doublethink.

When the state gets involved, it stops being capitalism.

The correct term in the case of the Soviet Union and the PRC is "totalitarian socialism."

Which is no different then what Mao or Lenin or Stalin wanted. :confused:

Err no....Mao and Stalin forced people to work in colective farms and factories. If u read manifesto Marx was advocating a stateless system. Unfortunatly Stalin, Lennin and Mao perverted the system by creating huge state systems. Unfortunatly because of this Marxism is pretty much a gonner and most neo-communist/socialists like me advocate a system called Anarcho-communism or Libertatian Socialism.

Unfortunatly because of this Marxism is pretty much a gonner and most neo-communist/socialists like me advocate a system called Anarcho-communism or Libertatian Socialism.
...Some of us have drifted toward Anarcho-Syndicalism , as well.

Fair enough about Mao and Lenin, but I'm not too sure whether Stalin was really all that interested in Communism anymore, particularly later on.

True on that with Stalin. :)

Soheran: I agree with u in what u said about that the wes say the bolshieviks as no threat. I personally would have rather have seen the Whites win and Russia goto a democratic nation.

If the Whites had won Russia would have reverted to feudalism, not to democracy, and probably would have become Europe's own Third World, to the extreme detriment of its people.

If someone like Krushchev had succeeded Lenin, the correct choice would be clear, but considering who actually did succeed him, the issue becomes far more complex.

Which is no different then what Mao or Lenin or Stalin wanted.

Lenin held to an elitist vanguard theory contrary to the egalitarianism of socialism. Stalin dispensed with socialism entirely.

Mao transgressed the borders of sanity.

NO FUCKING STATE CAPITALISM. OXYMORON. DOESN'T WORK. CUT THE BULLSHIT.

Sorry about that, but the term state capitalism is a trigger to me. It's a complete contradiction. The term itself is generally a subtle, almost subconscious attempt by those on the left to project something that's clearly evil and associated with their ideology onto the opposite ideology which has nothing to do with what happened. It's actually quite Orwellian, and a fine example of doublethink.

When the state gets involved, it stops being capitalism.

The correct term in the case of the Soviet Union and the PRC is "totalitarian socialism."

Both fascism and stalinist communism are a form of state capitalism. If u ever picked up a book u would realize that in fact both stalin and mao worked with the west to develop money for the inner circles, therefore they replaced the nobles and the bourgieous and the monarchy.

its the simple answer, but essentially, with support, the bombing raids gave Hirohito the support he needed to force an end to the war over the objections of the real fanatics on the Imperial General Staff.

Even so, they still tried to take over the government to stop the surrender.
Not exactly, it was more that the bombings provided the face saving measures and the excuse to end the war. The peace faction within the Imperial court and the Japanese cabnet at the time actualy had to resort to a delberately mistranslated note to convince the Emperor Showa that the US and Allies would allow the Imperial Throne to continue (it did no so thing) and quite possibly, he would be allowed to remain on the throne and would not face the tribunal (the note didn't say that either). Add in the sudden Soviet offence that removed the last shreads of hope that the Emperor Showa was klinging to that Stalin would broker a cease fire between the US and Japan, and he was finally willing to invoke the Imperial Will.

That is as simplistic as I can make it.

By the way you also got to remember that there was resistant groups in Japan too. And that there was other varables like the fact that Japanese were out of resources(did you know that the Japanese were told to use pitch forks and otehr NON-gun weapons?). So dont insult me buddy, i am very informed more then you just let on.
Believe you me, I am very much aware of the situation in Japan at that time. I'd hazard to say possibly more than you.

Oh cant forget that the Emperor wasnt actually anti-western, but was pressured to go to war because of the militaristic/expansionistic parts of the government and military wanted to invade other regions to get more resources and expand the "Great Empre". So dont tell me what i dont know.
Pressured... pressured... hmm... well, if you mean that he didn't give the actual orders to advance until AFTER the Kwangtang Army advanced, yes. If you mean he was really against the actions of the Army, he had a funny way of showing it. You know, like rewarding all the officers of that army and bestoing an Imperial Rescript upon them and their actions.

Anti-Western is also a iffy thing. He didn't hate the west, but he did tend the view the world in terms of racial conflict and felt that Japan and the yellow race would have to struggle against the white race, who were activly trying to keep the yellow race down, for its place in the world.

But you didnt actual put any input yourself, right.
Next time you respond to a post, why dont you put up facts so you can show me i am wrong, other then saying "oh you didnt put up facts".
Well, I WAS trying to keep this from being hyjacked into yet another "Should the bombs have been dropped & What caused Japan to surrender" thread. Now if you'd like to make such a thread, I'll be glad to go out full bore on ya.

Unfortunatly because of this Marxism is pretty much a gonner and most neo-communist/socialists like me advocate a system called Anarcho-communism or Libertatian Socialism.

Um, socialism is socialism, plain and simple. Once a socailists, always a socialist....the other subnames are just a cover. ;) :p

NO FUCKING STATE CAPITALISM. OXYMORON. DOESN'T WORK. CUT THE BULLSHIT.

Sorry about that, but the term state capitalism is a trigger to me. It's a complete contradiction. The term itself is generally a subtle, almost subconscious attempt by those on the left to project something that's clearly evil and associated with their ideology onto the opposite ideology which has nothing to do with what happened. It's actually quite Orwellian, and a fine example of doublethink.

When the state gets involved, it stops being capitalism.

The correct term in the case of the Soviet Union and the PRC is "totalitarian socialism."

It's actually a perfectly legitimate term in the context of leftist ideological argumentation, where it originated (as a variation on Trotsky's theory of the degenerate worker's state), but you're right that, technically, it's something of a misnomer in the context of general political science.

Totalitarianism is incompatible with collective ownership; there is no such thing as "totalitarian socialism."

Totalitarianism is incompatible with collective ownership; there is no such thing as "totalitarian socialism."
Why? Totalitarianism just means that the State is a totality, that it's interests transcend those of any single person, and that it therefore needs to govern all your interactions with others.

Replace "state" with "proletariate", and you could get pretty close to some interpretations of the dictatorship of the proletariate.

Um, socialism is socialism, plain and simple. Once a socailists, always a socialist....the other subnames are just a cover. ;) :p

Do you have any idea of the differences among socialists? There are a great deal, and there have always been.

Why? Totalitarianism just means that the State is a totality, that it's interests transcend those of any single person, and that it therefore needs to govern all your interactions with others.

Totalitarianism mandates a dictator, and dictatorship is incompatible with collective ownership.

Both fascism and stalinist communism are a form of state capitalism. If u ever picked up a book u would realize that in fact both stalin and mao worked with the west to develop money for the inner circles, therefore they replaced the nobles and the bourgieous and the monarchy.
Let's lay off of the childish personal insults here. Believe me, I've picked up plenty of books. I've picked up Karl Marx, I've picked up Adam Smith, I've picked up more than you'd realize.

Capitalism is inherently an economic system of private, personal initiative, and the state has nothing to do with it. Totalitarian socialism is the term, thank you.

[QUOTE=NERVUN]Not exactly, it was more that the bombings provided the face saving measures and the excuse to end the war. The peace faction within the Imperial court and the Japanese cabnet at the time actualy had to resort to a delberately mistranslated note to convince the Emperor Showa that the US and Allies would allow the Imperial Throne to continue (it did no so thing) and quite possibly, he would be allowed to remain on the throne and would not face the tribunal (the note didn't say that either). Add in the sudden Soviet offence that removed the last shreads of hope that the Emperor Showa was klinging to that Stalin would broker a cease fire between the US and Japan, and he was finally willing to invoke the Imperial Will.
Believe you me, I am very much aware of the situation in Japan at that time. I'd hazard to say possibly more than you.QUOTE]

Now this just sounds like an arrogant response to me " I'd hazard to say possibley more then you", why is that? Are you not assuming?

And you know what? I think youa re just saying that to get a bigger head. :rolleyes:

Besides the letter thing is more of a high school response to the issue of what happened at the time. And besides, not exactly what happened anyways.

You also forget to mention that Russia joined the war in 1945. And that they invaded Manchuria, plus the Japanese were confused and not sure if the bombing of the Hiroshima city( this is documented by the way) was true(many were to shocked that a whole city could ever go up in smoke). So many varables, and so sorry if i was not so percise in my arguement. :rolleyes:

Totalitarianism mandates a dictator, and dictatorship is incompatible with collective ownership.
No, totalitarianism does not mandate a dictator. Totalitarian is derived from the word total, and is a reference to a system in which the state has total control of one's life, irregardless of the political system by which decisions are made. Socialism does indeed imply a state exists. It's perfectly plausible for society itself to be totalitarian. There are no logical contradictions.

Do you have any idea of the differences among socialists? There are a great deal, and there have always been.

Right...:rolleyes: Like there is differnece in the types of facists we have out there. :rolleyes:

Right...:rolleyes: Like there is differnece in the types of facists we have out there. :rolleyes:
No seriously, the differences between Socialist groups can be enormous, and many a time they have proceeded to attack each other quite violently.

Have a look through this list, and you tell me whether they are all the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Branches_of_socialism

It's actually a perfectly legitimate term in the context of leftist ideological argumentation, where it originated (as a variation on Trotsky's theory of the degenerate worker's state), but you're right that, technically, it's something of a misnomer in the context of general political science.
It's a total misnomer in a social sciences context. And my university experience has generally exposed me to academics who have discarded by and large the leftist arguementation, for various reasons, espescially it's increasing inconsistency with the rest of the social sciences.

Totalitarianism is incompatible with collective ownership; there is no such thing as "totalitarian socialism."
See previous post.

No seriously, the differences between Socialist groups can be enormous, and many a time they have proceeded to attack each other quite violently.

Have a look through this list, and you tell me whether they are all the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Branches_of_socialism
I'll not argue that the left is very fragmented and composed of many different specific ideologies. That's for certain.

No seriously, the differences between Socialist groups can be enormous, and many a time they have proceeded to attack each other quite violently.

Have a look through this list, and you tell me whether they are all the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Branches_of_socialism

Like Andal said sure it looks like it is fragmented, but the main idea of socialism is still there and that is what scares me...

Like Andal said sure it looks like it is fragmented, but the main idea of socialism is still there and that is what scares me...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanist_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

I think the only thing these two have in common is that they ultimately seek to eliminate a poor, disenfranchised underclass of people. And if that is all that is socialism, then I don't really know what problem people seem to have with it.

Now this just sounds like an arrogant response to me " I'd hazard to say possibley more then you", why is that? Are you not assuming?
Oh, I try not to assume too much. But, if you'd take a nice gander at my location, you might see just why I may have access to more information about what life in Japan was life right before the surrender.

Ya know, just living in Japan and all.

Besides the letter thing is more of a high school response to the issue of what happened at the time. And besides, not exactly what happened anyways.
As I said, that was as simplistic as I can make it for a thread that is not concerned about it in the first place. It does however relate that no, the bombings didn't drive the Emperor Showa to surrender due to what happened to his people. They were nessesary to end the war yes, but they were not simple cause and effect as you stated.

You also forget to mention that Russia joined the war in 1945. And that they invaded Manchuria,
Hmm, what part of "Add in the sudden Soviet offence" fails to mention the entry of the USSR into the war?

plus the Japanese were confused and not sure if the bombing of the Hiroshima city( this is documented by the way) was true(many were to shocked that a whole city could ever go up in smoke).
No, the military knew damn well that the city was gone. They clamped down on all information (to the cost of many, many lives. I still shudder at those images) coming out of the city however. They were unsure of the cause, if it was an atomic bomb or not. They had already lost cities, BTW. Tokyo was flattened more by firebombing than Hiroshima was.

So many varables, and so sorry if i was not so percise in my arguement. :rolleyes:
But there are far, far better ways to put it than the misleading statement you made, which was my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanist_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

I think the only thing these two have in common is that they ultimately seek to eliminate a poor, disenfranchised underclass of people. And if that is all that is socialism, then I don't really know what problem people seem to have with it.

But in order to do that they have to bring down the others that have worked hard for their money and take that away to give to the "poor" and "disenfranchised underclass" So it is more then just to eliminate the poor. I want to keep my rights of choicing to live the way i want, whether that be poor or rich. ;) :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanist_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

I think the only thing these two have in common is that they ultimately seek to eliminate a poor, disenfranchised underclass of people. And if that is all that is socialism, then I don't really know what problem people seem to have with it.
Fundamentally the fact that some of us view other things are far more important than minimization of suffering.

Like going to sleep. Goodnight.

No, totalitarianism does not mandate a dictator. Totalitarian is derived from the word total, and is a reference to a system in which the state has total control of one's life, irregardless of the political system by which decisions are made. Socialism does indeed imply a state exists. It's perfectly plausible for society itself to be totalitarian. There are no logical contradictions.

But Soviet "socialism" still wasn't socialism, whatever the definition of totalitarianism. It lacked collective ownership; state ownership is not necessarily collective ownership.

Socialism does not at all imply the existence of a state.

It's a total misnomer in a social sciences context. And my university experience has generally exposed me to academics who have discarded by and large the leftist arguementation, for various reasons, espescially it's increasing inconsistency with the rest of the social sciences.

The reason it's described as "state capitalism" is because the state bureaucracy simply replaces the capitalist as the confiscator of surplus-value for personal benefit, instead of returning it to the working class or using it for collective benefit, as it is supposed to.

It doesn't meet Marx's definition of capitalism, nor does it meet the typical definitions of capitalism. But it makes the relevant point - that in the context of historical determinism, dialectical materialism, and just plain general morality, the Soviet Union's regime was equivalent to the capitalists and not a great departure from the typical practice.

Leftist terminology does tend to have different emphases than the general modern social science terminology does.

But in order to do that they have to bring down the others that have worked hard for their money and take that away to give to the "poor" and "disenfranchised underclass" So it is more then just to eliminate the poor. I want to keep my rights of choicing to live the way i want, whether that be poor or rich. ;) :D
Well, apart from that I don't think anyone ever chooses to be poor (and that is coming from an economics student...), you don't seem to understand transhumanist socialism and movements like it.

It means that perhaps in the future we can use technology to bring about equality, or almost equality, rather than violence.

But Soviet "socialism" still wasn't socialism, whatever the definition of totalitarianism. It lacked collective ownership; state ownership is not necessarily collective ownership.

Socialism does not at all imply the existence of a state.



The reason it's described as "state capitalism" is because the state bureaucracy simply replaces the capitalist as the confiscator of surplus-value for personal benefit, instead of returning it to the working class or using it for collective benefit, as it is supposed to.

It doesn't meet Marx's definition of capitalism, nor does it meet the typical definitions of capitalism. But it makes the relevant point - that in the context of historical determinism, dialectical materialism, and just plain general morality, the Soviet Union's regime was equivalent to the capitalists and not a great departure from the typical practice.

Leftist terminology does tend to have different emphases than the general modern social science terminology does.
No. You're wrong. I'd go into detail, but I've got a midterm in seven and a half hours and I need some sleep.

Fundamentally the fact that some of us view other things are far more important than minimization of suffering.

So do many socialists, especially the anarchists.

Self-determination and self-management is a very important one for many.

Amen to that.

As someone sympathetic to both anarco-communist and anarcho-syndicalist causes, I can say that these are focused on a higher level of democracy than exists in the current system.

The focus on direct action, direct democracy, personal empowerment within these systems show the lie in attempts to paint them as statist power structures or a slacker 'welfare state'.

Instead true democracy, both political AND ecomonic, can be implemented to a degree far greater than statist capitalism. (sorry, when the systems are combined I gotta use the term).

Andaluciae & Earabia: What you have been taught to fear is the Soviet/Red China bogeyman. People seem to forget that both nations were our allies during WWII against Germany & Japan. But like me & Soheran are saying that isn't nessarly communism/socialism.

If you look at a Nolan political map u will see that there is 4 directions:

Planned economy(-10 to -6), Free-market(6 to 10)
Authoratarian(10 to 6), Social Permissive) (-6 to -10)
Centerist (-5 to 0) (0 to 5)

If you take the 3 Stalinist/Maoist leaders Stalin, Mao, PolPot most would read(-10,-10) to (-8,-8)

Most Fascists would center economically but socially authoritian. (0,10) for instantce the British National Party is (-1,10) witch would make it a centerist authoritarian.

My own views(Libertarian Socialist, Anarcho-Communist & Green) generally are between economically -8 to -5 and socially -8 to -5 but have sometimes blurred into anarchist views.

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.php

Lawful evil vs. chaotic evil.
Yeah, Hitler was more like a demi-litch and Mao and Stalin were more like giant ogres. Hitler used something more like a +5 vorpal sword where Mao and Stalin used +3 Clubs of Crushing.:)

Andaluciae & Earabia: What you have been taught to fear is the Soviet/Red China bogeyman. People seem to forget that both nations were our allies during WWII against Germany & Japan. But like me & Soheran are saying that isn't nessarly communism/socialism.

If you look at a Nolan political map u will see that there is 4 directions:

Planned economy(-10 to -6), Free-market(6 to 10)
Authoratarian(10 to 6), Social Permissive) (-6 to -10)
Centerist (-5 to 0) (0 to 5)

If you take the 3 Stalinist/Maoist leaders Stalin, Mao, PolPot most would read(-10,-10) to (-8,-8)

Most Fascists would center economically but socially authoritian. (0,10) for instantce the British National Party is (-1,10) witch would make it a centerist authoritarian.

My own views(Libertarian Socialist, Anarcho-Communist & Green) generally are between economically -8 to -5 and socially -8 to -5 but have sometimes blurred into anarchist views.

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.php
But if you add +4 to the socio/political hyper thermal regulation paradigm you realize that centrist tendencies tend to subtract 3 to 7 points from the anarcho-phase element of the islamo-fascist narco punitive measure of political fastidiousness. That means that when the libertarian generated phase of socio histry point scales of 9 to 7 respectively, you will merit no more than 8 cross cultural economic tendencies of liberal narcist plot points.

All those millions killed in Vietnam, Cuba, Bolivia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Cambodia, North Korea, Eastern Europe, Yugoslavian occupied Croatia, Afghanistan, Eastern Norn of Africa and Grenada.
:rolleyes:
Fuzzy history.

Andaluciae & Earabia: What you have been taught to fear is the Soviet/Red China bogeyman. People seem to forget that both nations were our allies during WWII against Germany & Japan. But like me & Soheran are saying that isn't nessarly communism/socialism.
Well, explain to us what is so different and better about your socialism then.

But if you add +4 to the socio/political hyper thermal regulation paradigm you realize that centrist tendencies tend to subtract 3 to 7 points from the anarcho-phase element of the islamo-fascist narco punitive measure of political fastidiousness. That means that when the libertarian generated phase of socio histry point scales of 9 to 7 respectively, you will merit no more than 8 cross cultural economic tendencies of liberal narcist plot points.

That's a little too jingolistic for me. Islamofascism(Saddam) would generally be a little more economic left of most Euro fascist nations. Saddam would probaly register as (-3,10). As far as the other stuff it doesn't make really much sense to me. I do think that the 3 level NS chart is a little more accrute though.

Well, explain to us what is so different and better about your socialism then.

My socialism is socialism without force. I is essentially socialism that is chosen by the people. I beleve that small areas should make their own descions on how to govern, open government and free will. Soviet/Maoist system is socialism by force.

I think you mean authoritarian socialism, not communism. Communism is just an economic system that the USSR et al. intended to reach (supposedly).

I think you mean authoritarian socialism, not communism. Communism is just an economic system that the USSR et al. intended to reach (supposedly).

Exactly my point Letila. People forget that communism actully predates Marx. There have been Co-op societies thru out the history of the world.(Native Americans,Amish,Mennonites,San Marino). Real Communism is a state without a state which to my belief is more towards anarchism. Marx is a good philisophical starting point but to put communism in to action u would have to drastically change alot.

The only anarchism I will support is anarcho-capitalism. Seeing as it's impractical for now, democracy will have to suffice.

In today's language communist means statist-communism and anarcho-communist means that opposite.

Anarcho-capitalism (despite being a contriction in terms) is just about the most evil society I can imagine. A world in which the only government is the coporation that owns you <shudder>.

In today's language communist means statist-communism and anarcho-communist means that opposite.

Anarcho-capitalism (despite being a contriction in terms) is just about the most evil society I can imagine. A world in which the only government is the coporation that owns you <shudder>.

I could be very danerous if u could imagine a world like "Jennifer Goverment" or something by Ayn Rand. But both could live in cooperation. Maybe?

No. The holocaust is not the worst recorded slaughter in human history, but it certainly ranks as one of the ones most imprinted on the minds of the populace and was carried out in the most chilling ways imaginable. I see nothing wrong with taking a full day to remember this horrifying event and I hope it encourages people to remember other acts of murder that have happened, are happening and will happen.

Unfortunately, if we were to create a day of rememberance for every atrocity humanity has committed against its own kind, we would run out of days in the year long before we ran out of atrocities. Heck, we'd run out of milliseconds in the year.

Contrary to popular belief, most of we communists find Stalin and Mao abhorrent too.

Only after their crimes became too widely-proven to ignore.

Totalitarianism is incompatible with collective ownership; there is no such thing as "totalitarian socialism."

ROFLMAO!!!!! :D

Unfortunately, if we were to create a day of rememberance for every atrocity humanity has committed against its own kind, we would run out of days in the year long before we ran out of atrocities. Heck, we'd run out of milliseconds in the year.
Jan 27th should be a unified day of remebrance for:

The Holocaust
Soviet Genocide
Chinese Genocide by the Japanese.
Chinese Genocide under Mao.
The Cambodian Genocide.(The Killing Fields)
Native American Genocide.
African Slave Genocide.
The Yugoslavian Genocide.
The Rwandian Genocide.
The Sudanese Black Genocide.
The Australian Aborigine/Maori/Tasmanian Aborigine Genocide.

BTW Pinochet was a brutal dictator who murder up to 10,000 people in Chile and was protected by people like Reagan and Thatcher.

Pinochet killed around 3,000, not 10,000.

-snip-
It will just result in anger among excluded victims of massacres.

Pinochet killed around 3,000, not 10,000.


I said up to 10,000. 3000 is the estimated known people killed. Many of the bodies were never recovered that were probaly thrown in the jungle.

That's a little too jingolistic for me. Islamofascism(Saddam) would generally be a little more economic left of most Euro fascist nations. Saddam would probaly register as (-3,10). As far as the other stuff it doesn't make really much sense to me. I do think that the 3 level NS chart is a little more accrute though.
I understand, but if you thermolate the transsocio factor of combobulated liberal regulation to level 4 you'll get a more rounded communistic transgendered preop progression on the rabbelston scale at -3 to verifiable 4 in transpenile occupation. Its the nuclear weilding homoerotic champions of socialist nazi gay bikers that translate the violent social upheavel at 4 on the richter scale of anal hamster stuffing social paradigms.

I understand, but if you thermolate the transsocio factor of combobulated liberal regulation to level 4 you'll get a more rounded communistic transgendered preop progression on the rabbelston scale at -3 to verifiable 4 in transpenile occupation. Its the nuclear weilding homoerotic champions of socialist nazi gay bikers that translate the violent social upheavel at 4 on the richter scale of anal hamster stuffing social paradigms.

Well, Dan, I find that rather shallow and pedantic.

Well, Dan, I find that rather shallow and pedantic.
Its just my inner child expressing himself. He tends to liek to hang out on message boards when I've kept him here at work for 11 hours. He knows he's here for another four at least so I gotta let him express himself or he'll start to throw tantrums.

Animal Farm is communist propaganda.

It claims that somehow, the ideal of communism or socialism would be better than the USSR socialism or the Chinese system.

Don't Forget, Geroge Orwell, that great 'defender of freedom', was a terrorist in Spain, supporting Anarchist groupings in Catalonia.

The very same Anarchists and Republicans who burned churces and killed preists and nuns, buring their bodies in the streets.

Spain was lucky in the end though, for it was liberated by General Franco and the Falange, shame that China or Cuba never had the same fate, they still suffer.

You honestly see Franco as a liberator?

Pass whatever you're smoking, it must be strong. :D

Animal Farm is communist propaganda.

It claims that somehow, the ideal of communism or socialism would be better than the USSR socialism or the Chinese system.

Don't Forget, Geroge Orwell, that great 'defender of freedom', was a terrorist in Spain, supporting Anarchist groupings in Catalonia.

The very same Anarchists and Republicans who burned churces and killed preists and nuns, buring their bodies in the streets.

Spain was lucky in the end though, for it was liberated by General Franco and the Falange, shame that China or Cuba never had the same fate, they still suffer.

Orwell said something to the effect of "every line I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism." Animal Farm fits this same idea/purpose... it wasn't communist propaganda; it was an anti-totalitarian commentary.

Andaluciae & Earabia: What you have been taught to fear is the Soviet/Red China bogeyman. People seem to forget that both nations were our allies during WWII against Germany & Japan. But like me & Soheran are saying that isn't nessarly communism/socialism.

I don't think the US was allied with Red China; it was allied with Chiang Kai-Shek, who HATED communists. He continued to fight communists until the Second United Front, even while Japan was basically controlling Manchuria.

Orwell said something to the effect of "every line I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism."

"and for democratic socialism."

Edit: Here's the whole quote.

"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/wiw/english/e_wiw

"and for democratic socialism."

Edit: Here's the whole quote.

"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/wiw/english/e_wiw
What was his understanding of it?

What was his understanding of it?

I'm not sure. He wrote an essay on World War II where he advocated the nationalization of major industries and a large reduction in income gaps, I recall. He also was very much sympathetic to the Anarchists in Spain and their experiments with democratic self-management of the economy.

Orwell was not a very ideological person, probably to his credit, so there is no convenient label to post on what he thought.

I'm not sure. He wrote an essay on World War II where he advocated the nationalization of major industries and a large reduction in income gaps, I recall. He also was very much sympathetic to the Anarchists in Spain and their experiments with democratic self-management of the economy.

Orwell was not a very ideological person, probably to his credit, so there is no convenient label to post on what he thought.
Then perhaps Kravania will remain in opposition to him.

How come we never have a day for the 45 million innocents killed under Stalin.

How come we never have a day for the 60 million killed under Mao.

While we're at it, how about a day for the 100 million Native Americans killed under European colonial rule and several U.S. administrations?

They are indeed disputed, but most historians have agreed to put the figure at around 40-60 million.

What "most historians"? Based on the following summary, historical opinion seems to be rather divided. Moreover, the 40-60 million figure does seem highly implausible.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin

What "most historians"? Based on the following summary, historical opinion seems to be rather divided. Moreover, the 40-60 million figure does seem highly implausible.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin
Is this including the death of Soviet soldiers engaged in warfare with the Axis?

My source would be historical works by Alan Bullock or Ian Kershaw, so nothing on the net really I am afraid. We studied excerpts of their findings at A- Level history. Bullock goes quite in-depth into both Stalin and Hitler in "Parallel Lives," and Kershaw does so with his book "Nemesis."

First of all, two books are hardly likely to be representative, especially when you are dealing with a disputed topic. Second, by "A-level" I take you to mean secondary school, and in my experience it is wise not to put too much stock in what you hear from your high school teachers. Generally speaking, they only have an undergraduate education themselves... and that usually from some years ago. Moreover, given the general sweep of the courses they have to teach, chances are good they never even had a college-level course in the topic you are studying.

Of course, it's possible your teacher is excellent, and he/she happened upon texts that hit on the right number. But given the fact that the 40-60 million figure truly strains credibility, I am inclined to suspect that a lower number is more accurate--perhaps 20 million, which seems to be a developing consensus.

None of this, of course, diminishes the horror of the USSR under Stalin. But to truly do justice to that horror, one must strive for accuracy in its discription. Arbitrarily inflating the number actually dishonors the memory of the 20 million who really died.

Is this including the death of Soviet soldiers engaged in warfare with the Axis?

Had you expended the minimal effort required to actually read the link, you would see that it does.

EDIT: Some do, some don't. But notably, most of the "higher number" (40-60M) also exclude war deaths... which contributes to their lack of plausibility.

First of all, two books are hardly likely to be representative, especially when you are dealing with a disputed topic. Second, by "A-level" I take you to mean secondary school, and in my experience it is wise not to put too much stock in what you hear from your high school teachers. Generally speaking, they only have an undergraduate education themselves... and that usually from some years ago. Moreover, given the general sweep of the courses they have to teach, chances are good they never even had a college-level course in the topic you are studying.
It's the equivalent of your AP. As for the teachers, they are specialist in their topic. My teacher in particular held a Masters from King's College in History.

Of course, it's possible your teacher is excellent, and he/she happened upon texts that hit on the right number. But given the fact that the 40-60 million figure truly strains credibility, I am inclined to suspect that a lower number is more accurate--perhaps 20 million, which seems to be a developing consensus.
Indeed she was excellent and extremely well-read. She had said that little certainty had been developed, but a lot of historians she had read had estimated pretty high figures.

None of this, of course, diminishes the horror of the USSR under Stalin. But to truly do justice to that horror, one must strive for accuracy in its discription. Arbitrarily inflating the number actually dishonors the memory of the 20 million who really died.
If that is indeed the true number. Remember, there is a tendency to add up the deaths of soldiers who fought in WW 2 to those killed by the regime itself.

My socialism is socialism without force. I is essentially socialism that is chosen by the people. I beleve that small areas should make their own descions on how to govern, open government and free will. Soviet/Maoist system is socialism by force.

That is not true though, you are forcing by changing others beliefs to fit yours through law and legislation and changing norms that dont want to be changed. I want my individuality to stay, not be blended into a socail group that wants to make everyone equal. I believe in equal opportunity.

Had you expended the minimal effort required to actually read the link, you would see that it does.

EDIT: Some do, some don't. But notably, most of the "higher number" (40-60M) also exclude war deaths... which contributes to their lack of plausibility.
I had checked the link, and noticed that quite a few didn't. That is why I am wondering if the 20 million figure is accurate at all. I believe Soviet deaths from WW 2 were estimated to be around 13 million, although I'm not quite sure.

We all know that January 27th is Holocaust Day....

Communism is the most evil, illigocial and inhumane ideology ever to have walked the face of the Earth and to have plagued our common humanity.


there's a holocaust day?

you forgot americanism

Oh by the way i was charted to be on the Right Libertarian. Basically i am like 2 squares from the x axis and 3 squares from the y axis( i think i got that right).

Economic Left/Right: 2.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.26

I had checked the link, and noticed that quite a few didn't. That is why I am wondering if the 20 million figure is accurate at all. I believe Soviet deaths from WW 2 were estimated to be around 13 million, although I'm not quite sure.

Actually, Soviet deaths are estimated to be around 6.5 million in WW2... You must be thinking of the number of wounded, which is closer to 14 million.

In either case, it is more than disingenuous to just lump these into the mass murder for which Stalin was responsible. One may as well accuse FDR of mass murder for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who died in the same war. Surely the Axis powers share at least reciprocal responsibility, not to mention the Allied powers whose post WWI policies contributed to the rise of German nationalism, fascism, and ultimately imperialism.

20 million people dead is still a daunting figure (and it even maintains your point that more were killed by Stalin than by Hitler). I prefer this number, not for any ideological reason, but simply because I think--based on the historical evidence--that it is probably more accurate. The larger estimates are generally based on the differentials between recorded census numbers and projections from earlier numbers, which is flimsy at best. All it would take to skew the result is for reasonable numbers of people simply to have decided to have fewer children... which, given the situation in the USSR, would be entirely understandable.

Finally, "mass murder" is probably a better term than "genocide" for what Stalin did. His murders were politically motivated, but (in general) do not seem to have been directed toward any ethnic, racial, or religious group. I think the reason we remember the Holocaust as we do is not so much that the number of deaths is staggeringly impressive, but that we shudder at the thought that human beings can be driven to systematically and mechanically kill other human beings on no other basis than race, ethnicity, or religion.

Once again, however, I wonder why so few care to remember the worst genocide in history: namely, the destruction of many tens of millions of people (I believe the estimate is 100 million or so just for North America) in the European invasion of the Americas.

Actually, Soviet deaths are estimated to be around 6.5 million in WW2... You must be thinking of the number of wounded, which is closer to 14 million.

In either case, it is more than disingenuous to just lump these into the mass murder for which Stalin was responsible. One may as well accuse FDR of mass murder for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who died in the same war. Surely the Axis powers share at least reciprocal responsibility, not to mention the Allied powers whose post WWI policies contributed to the rise of German nationalism, fascism, and ultimately imperialism.
It probably is the wounded. The numbers are usually lumped together to give a total of deaths under the USSR, rather than those directly caused by it.

20 million people dead is still a daunting figure (and it even maintains your point that more were killed by Stalin than by Hitler). I prefer this number, not for any ideological reason, but simply because I think--based on the historical evidence--that it is probably more accurate. The larger estimates are generally based on the differentials between recorded census numbers and projections from earlier numbers, which is flimsy at best. All it would take to skew the result is for reasonable numbers of people simply to have decided to have fewer children... which, given the situation in the USSR, would be entirely understandable.
20 million is still indeed a huge number, especially considering Russia had a population of around 120 million at the time. It's a sixth of the entire population.

Finally, "mass murder" is probably a better term than "genocide" for what Stalin did. His murders were politically motivated, but (in general) do not seem to have been directed toward any ethnic, racial, or religious group. I think the reason we remember the Holocaust as we do is not so much that the number of deaths is staggeringly impressive, but that we shudder at the thought that human beings can be driven to systematically and mechanically kill other human beings on no other basis than race, ethnicity, or religion.
Yes, it is mass murder.

Once again, however, I wonder why so few care to remember the worst genocide in history: namely, the destruction of many tens of millions of people (I believe the estimate is 100 million or so just for North America) in the European invasion of the Americas.
Perhaps because it has faded from recent memory. I was actually staggered by the amount of deaths Mao caused. Some people still hail him as a hero though.

Jan 27th should be a unified day of remebrance for:

The Holocaust
Soviet Genocide
Chinese Genocide by the Japanese.
Chinese Genocide under Mao.
The Cambodian Genocide.(The Killing Fields)
Native American Genocide.
African Slave Genocide.
The Yugoslavian Genocide.
The Rwandian Genocide.
The Sudanese Black Genocide.
The Australian Aborigine/Maori/Tasmanian Aborigine Genocide.

Hey, we didn't exactly try to kill them all.
We just took their land, stole maybe one or two generations of them and shot a few of them when they got pissed off at the fact we were taking their land.

It's horrible, but not really genocide....

Communism is the most evil, illigocial and inhumane ideology ever to have walked the face of the Earth and to have plagued our common humanity.

Amen.

BLAH BLAH BLAH
Fine, I'll purge you first. lmao...Stalin and Mao were excommunicated from the Order of Communist Comrades decades ago. Come on: Communism is the answer!

The numbers I usually near for Stalin in the USSR is about 20 million, even in some rabidly anti-Communist books. Koba the Dread by Martin Amis comes to mind. That is, for Stalin's actual killings, including the Ukraine terror-famine, the gulags and random shootings.

The estimates I hear for World War II for Soviet casualties are much, much higher than 6.5 million. Usually, the numbers are 20-25 million. Remember, that the Nazis were quite enthusiastic about killing civilians. And Red Army casualties were truly atrocious. The breakdowns I often hear are around 8-10 million military dead and 10-15 million civilian deaths. There's also 1-2 million deaths which had to do with Stalin shooting people or deporting ethnic groups, but those are probably in with the civilians.

The combined total is 40-45 million, but this isn't all Stalin's fault. Although, his purging the officer corps and refusing to put the Soviet Union on a proper war footing before June 1941 contributed a lot to it.

Picking between Hitler, Stalin and Mao ... it's nit-picking. I think the lesson to be learned is that totalitarianism of any sort, socialist, fascist, whatever, is not good. And furthermore, that psychopaths should not rule countries. So let's say that state communism and fascism (and it's National Socialist derivative) are just plain bad. I would also add theocracy personally. When religion becomes the state, well, there's no room in that system for dissent.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10517796&postcount=60
the election that brought him to power is now thought to have been rigged and there is no doubt that Allende used fraud to gain power.is now thought by whom?

FOX/CNN/AP?
The Pentagon?
The US Gov.?
The White House?
Bush?
The CIA Fact book? :D

Hey, we didn't exactly try to kill them all.
We just took their land, stole maybe one or two generations of them and shot a few of them when they got pissed off at the fact we were taking their land.

It's horrible, but not really genocide....

Then the same thing could be said of the Amerindian Genocide.

Oh by the way i was charted to be on the Right Libertarian. Basically i am like 2 squares from the x axis and 3 squares from the y axis( i think i got that right).

Economic Left/Right: 2.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.26


Thank you for making my point Earabia. Just because you are a capitalist doesn't mean that you are a right-wing dictator like Pinochet. The same is true with socialism. Just because you are a socialist doesn't mean that you a Stalinist totalitarian.

Hey, we didn't exactly try to kill them all.
We just took their land, stole maybe one or two generations of them and shot a few of them when they got pissed off at the fact we were taking their land.

It's horrible, but not really genocide....

In fact their was genocide of the Tasman Abos thats why they're isn't any full blodded Tasmans left.(Mostly remaining people are of mixed descent). They Australian government nearly did the same with the Australian Abos and nearly brought them to extinction. (approx 250,000-1 million before european settlement to 50-90,000 in the 1930's to a population of 450,000 today)

http://www.africawithin.com/rashidi/destruction_aborigines.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aborigine

5. The Indian state of Kerala, the only place on the planet where a Communist party has been elected democratically, has the highest life expectancy, best education system, and lowest infant mortality rate in India.

Wrong, an eastern european country also democratically elected communism, only to fall under stalinism a few years later.

Can you guess which it is?

There are humans who God and nature favours to rule over others.

Those chosen leaders have a gift to rule in a benelovent and efficient manner to the benefit of us all.

Unfortunately, I don't believe in God as having any effect upon this world.

And as far as nature goes, it's hard to tell.

Wrong, an eastern european country also democratically elected communism, only to fall under stalinism a few years later.

Can you guess which it is?

I'll take a guess and say other Czechoslovakia or Hungary.

Intrestly enough Yugoslavia was actually a independent communist nation that actually was rather sucessfully though still a dictatorship. Tito managed to keep the various ethnic groups from warring.

Wrong, an eastern european country also democratically elected communism, only to fall under stalinism a few years later.

Can you guess which it is?

Yes, it is indeed wrong. Other Indian states have elected Communist governments, and probably cities elsewhere in the world have. I wasn't thinking when I made that statement.

Czechoslovakia?

Once again, however, I wonder why so few care to remember the worst genocide in history: namely, the destruction of many tens of millions of people (I believe the estimate is 100 million or so just for North America) in the European invasion of the Americas.

read some historical anthropology... disease killed most of the Native Americans, not deliberate action.

It's horrible, but not really genocide....As far as I can remember, the ENTIRE indigenous population of Tasmania was wiped out. That would be genocide...

As far as I can remember, the ENTIRE indigenous population of Tasmania was wiped out. That would be genocide...

I stand corrected. Sadly.

Once again, however, I wonder why so few care to remember the worst genocide in history: namely, the destruction of many tens of millions of people (I believe the estimate is 100 million or so just for North America) in the European invasion of the Americas.

The colonization of the Americas was not a genocide. To call it such does a great disservice to the targets of genocides, namely the Jews and Armenians.

First I should mention Stannard pulled 100 million out of his ass, it has no data to back it up, and it overlooks deaths from unrelated causes, like disease and famine, which weren't always the Europeans fault or intent.

While there were genocidal events during colonization, overall the intent of the settlers wasn't to wipe out the natives, intent defines a genocide.

"There are other terms to describe what happened in the Western Hemisphere, but genocide is not one of them. It is a good propaganda term in an age where slogans and shouting have replaced reflection and learning, but to use it in this context is to cheapen both the word itself and the appalling experiences of the Jews and Armenians, to mention but two of the major victims of this century."

The important thing is that they were all bad men and they all did bad things.

Fascists make me laugh.
Communists make me cry.
Libertarians make me scream.
Anarcho-Socialists turn me on. :cool:

Although I do agree with you that Communism as practised by China and the USSR is wrong and evil, and never gained the notoriety it ought to have, I will have to disagree with everything else. Such a waste of your mind...


Ditto.

The idealology of communism and socialism is in no way evil or wrong.

The evil dictators who have called their fascist societies "communist" are the ones you should be against. Most modern communists understand that they were just evil, and only want to have equal opportunities for life for those who are at the bottom of the barrel in free-market or free-market esque societies.

Don't call the idealology evil because its greatest false supporters were.


EDIT: And sorry for responding to a very old post, I'm tired.

Ditto.

The idealology of communism and socialism is in no way evil or wrong.

The evil dictators who have called their fascist societies "communist" are the ones you should be against. Most modern communists understand that they were just evil, and only want to have equal opportunities for life for those who are at the bottom of the barrel in free-market or free-market esque societies.

Don't call the idealology evil because its greatest false supporters were.


EDIT: And sorry for responding to a very old post, I'm tired.
Modern communism and socialism are indeed not evil. Still, they do not appeal to me in any way.

Please spare a thought for the 15,000 poor men who were thrown in the camps for being homosexuals, left there for years and subjected to some of the most horrific treatment imaginable. Less than 40% of the victims survived and, unlike the jews, gypsies and Poles, were never compensated after the "liberation" (even the SOVIETS were less hostile to them than the allies, THE FUCKING SOVIETS FOR GOD'S SAKE), some even thrown back in prison to serve "the remainder of their sentence". The final insult was the fact that the SS enjoyed better pensions than the prisoners in the end because of the years of work they did in the camps. The SS soldiers were rewarded for working as part of a sadistic organization, the victims punished for being victims. Does the thought of it not want to make you kill yourself and everybody else?

Does the thought of it not want to make you kill yourself and everybody else?
No. What would be the point of that?