NationStates Jolt Archive


Why is Joseph Stalin so hated?

SocialistRevolutions
07-06-2007, 05:07
He helped defeat fascism and Nazism during the Second World War. He heroically opposed imperialism and defended the Third World. He made the U.S.S.R. the first genuinely socialist nation, and led to its industrialization, proving that real socialism can and does work.

How come so many people, including many counterfeit "leftists," hate him?
South Adrea
07-06-2007, 15:57
He made the U.S.S.R. the first genuinely socialist nation, and led to its industrialization, proving that real socialism can and does work.


Hmm, now that isn't strictly true is it, how exactly did it "work?"

Maybe he's hated for killing around 30 million of his own countrymen? That may have something to do with it.
Bolol
07-06-2007, 16:09
And...30,000,000,000 people later...
Law Abiding Criminals
07-06-2007, 16:10
He helped defeat fascism and Nazism during the Second World War. He heroically opposed imperialism and defended the Third World. He made the U.S.S.R. the first genuinely socialist nation, and led to its industrialization, proving that real socialism can and does work.

How come so many people, including many counterfeit "leftists," hate him?

Hitler revitalized the economy and was on the forefront of the charge out of the Great Depression. He was charismatic, and it was his regime that was among the first to link smoking to cancer. He stood up to communism and gave people something to believe in.

How come so many people, including many far-rightists, hate him?

Oh right, could be the overrunning several countries, could be his belligerent anti-Semitism and racism, and it could be the brutal killings and forced labor inflicted on millions. Stalin's guilty of many of those things as well.

Oh yeah, and there's another, perhaps more important reason both Hitler and Stalin are villified - in the end, their teams lost.
Hamilay
07-06-2007, 16:11
God damn it. This had been a perfect example of what to do with a retarded troll thread. 11 hours and it was completely ignored. It was well on its way to dying, but nooooooooooooooo, South Adrea, you just had to resurrect its idiocy for all the forum to see. :mad:
Call to power
07-06-2007, 16:17
I for one don't like his mustache, that is reason enough to hate any man

God damn it. This had been a perfect example of what to do with a retarded troll thread. 11 hours and it was completely ignored. It was well on its way to dying, but nooooooooooooooo, South Adrea, you just had to resurrect its idiocy for all the forum to see. :mad:

NSG must Fap!
The RSU
07-06-2007, 16:18
He helped defeat fascism and Nazism during the Second World War.
Possibly the only decent and honourable thing he did in his life.
He heroically opposed imperialism and defended the Third World.
Well, if you replace the word "heroicially" with "ruthlessly", "imperialism" with "everyone", and "defended" with "exploited", then yes. He did all that.
He made the U.S.S.R. the first genuinely socialist nation, and led to its industrialization, proving that real socialism can and does work.
Firstly, the USSR was a vicious dictatorship where every country but Russia was exploited, and for the record it's called the CCCP. The USSR, and Russia when Stalin was in control, were not genuinely Socialist countries, but authoritain dictatorships. While Russians industrialisation was a good thing, it came at a high price and started to cause friction with other countries. Stalin did the exact opposite of proving Socialism works; he created the stereotype that Communism was evil.
How come so many people, including many counterfeit "leftists," hate him?
Because he was a heartless bastard who slaughtered 12 million people in the Ukraine alone, bearing in mind Hitler's total body count was around 8 million, and anyone else who inconvienced him. And, considering you appear to be an old school Communist, i'm surprised you'd use a comment like "leftists" to describe your fellow Socialists.
Schwarzchild
07-06-2007, 16:22
Ahh, so sorry...it's time for a "Uncle Joe Stalin Appreciation Day." We could run it in his inimitable style. The theme of this year's celebration, PARANOIA. This would include the wildly successful "Purge" game where you get to trim your population because YOU are afraid your citizens are all out to get you, every citizen you purge faces the firing squad, except for those most close to you who get the "Hitler" treatment, garroted with a piano wire in front of the cameras so you can send a nice little memento to his/her family as a warning. Hire your own personal Beria to run the infamous Lefortovo prison, sort of like the "Roach Motel" of the Soviet Union's KGB, you check in but you don't check out (except maybe feet first).

What? You don't have any population left? OK, well...do the honorable thing and PURGE yourself.
Hamilay
07-06-2007, 16:22
I for one don't like his mustache, that is reason enough to hate any man



NSG must Fap!

Stalin's manly mustache is what let him beat Hitler and his dinky little brush of hair. It's his only redeeming quality.

This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “Why Lenin wore regular shoes, but Stalin wore boots?”

We’re answering: “At Lenin's time, Russia was still only ankle-high in shit.”

An old woman waited for two hours to get in a bus. Bus after bus came full and she couldn't squeeze herself in. When she finally managed to crawl in, she wiped her forehead, and said, "Finally, glory to God!"
The driver said, "Mother, you must not say that. You must say 'Glory to comrade Stalin."
"Excuse me, comrade," the woman said. "I'm just a backward old woman. I'll say from now on as you told me."
After a while, she said, "Excuse me, comrade, I am old and stupid. What shall I say if, God forbid, Stalin dies?"
"Oh, mother, then you shall say, "'Glory to God!"

At a May Day parade, a very old Jew carries a slogan, "Thank you, comrade Stalin, for my happy childhood!"
The Party representative approaches the old man. "What's that? Are you deriding our Party? Everybody can see, when you were a child, comrade Stalin was not yet born!"
"That's precisely what I'm grateful to him for!" the Jew said.

... um, random Stalin joke time? :p
South Adrea
07-06-2007, 16:35
God damn it. This had been a perfect example of what to do with a retarded troll thread. 11 hours and it was completely ignored. It was well on its way to dying, but nooooooooooooooo, South Adrea, you just had to resurrect its idiocy for all the forum to see. :mad:

Eh, what can I say I'm easily baited. No-one had to post after me.
Kryozerkia
07-06-2007, 17:02
Many leftists and socialists hate Stalin well... because aside from the fact he wasn't a true communist/socialist, he gives us a baaaad name.
Damor
07-06-2007, 17:07
Why is Joseph Stalin so hated?Because he was prone to making up statistics..

"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." --a quote attributed to Stalin
Isidoor
07-06-2007, 17:08
In soviet Russia Joseph Stalin hates you
Neo Bretonnia
07-06-2007, 17:08
... and for the record it's called the CCCP. ...

Not to nitpick, but technically that's not true. CCCP is the abbreviation for USSR in Russian using the Cyrillic alphabet. If you wanted to transliterate those letters into English, they's be "SSSR".
Vetalia
07-06-2007, 17:09
He killed 30 million people, committed untold atrocities bordering on genocide against multiple ethnic groups, instituted virulently anti-Semitic hysteria that bordered Nazi Germany in its intensity, and managed to severely damage the Soviet economy and environment with his irrational pursuit of heavy industry at all costs.

And the funny thing is, income inequality in the Soviet Union under Stalin was many, many times higher than it was in the capitalist nations. His country was further from socialism than any other system in use on Earth.
New Granada
07-06-2007, 17:09
So that spamming trolls like you can vandalize the forum with this shit.
Neo Bretonnia
07-06-2007, 17:11
Why is Stalin hated? Hmmm...

Colelctivism/Reorganization (Only killed 10,000,000. What are you complaining about?)

Government Assassinations, paranoia, made a deal with Hitler before HITLER broke the treaty through Operation Barbarossa. (Making him an ally of Hitler's prior to the Spring of 1942.)
Skiptard
07-06-2007, 17:21
He helped defeat fascism and Nazism during the Second World War. He heroically opposed imperialism and defended the Third World. He made the U.S.S.R. the first genuinely socialist nation, and led to its industrialization, proving that real socialism can and does work.

How come so many people, including many counterfeit "leftists," hate him?

And he killed more of his own people than the nazis did. GG him.

Why applaud him for making a socialist state? Everyone just got poorer except those lucky enough to know how to work the system. Key lesson the USSR taught us... socialism fails.

Thats the only useful thing he did, prove that.
Hoyteca
07-06-2007, 17:36
The only good thing Stalin did was fight another dictator from another homocidal regime. Stalin was an evil maniac who ruled his countrymen with an iron fist. Maybe I should say bloody iron fist. He makes Bush look like the greatest leader ever and that's quite an accomplishment for Stalin.

To find out why Stalin is hated, I suggest research. Stalin represents everything wrong with socialism and communism and is probably why it was so feared and hated during the Cold War. Plus, he and his fellow Communists turned communism from a natural evolution where the government slowly goes away through disuse and lack of need to an imperialistic terrorist party.
Lunatic Goofballs
07-06-2007, 17:40
...proving that real socialism can and does work.

Maybe I missed something... but didn't the USSR collapse 40 years later? :p
Cypresaria
07-06-2007, 17:48
A russian friend once surprised me by saying that Stalin was the best leader the USSR could ever of had

I went !!!!!! before he added

Between 1941 and 1945....outside of those years, he was a mass murdering psychopath
Newer Burmecia
07-06-2007, 18:53
Can I have what you're smoking please?
Hydesland
07-06-2007, 18:56
He helped defeat fascism

lol

and Nazism during the Second World War.

Yeah alright, he did do that.


He heroically opposed imperialism and defended the Third World.

lol


He made the U.S.S.R. the first genuinely socialist nation, and led to its industrialization, proving that real socialism can and does work.


double lol


How come so many people, including many counterfeit "leftists," hate him?

Well, mainly due to the millions of deaths. Among other things.
New Manvir
07-06-2007, 19:14
He helped defeat fascism and Nazism during the Second World War. He heroically opposed imperialism and defended the Third World. He made the U.S.S.R. the first genuinely socialist nation, and led to its industrialization, proving that real socialism can and does work.

How come so many people, including many counterfeit "leftists," hate him?

Yes Stalinist Russia did make a huge contribution to WW2 BUT........

Stalin is hated because of the number of people he killed and the brutality of his regime....The Great Purges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Purges_and_deportations)...like others have said he killed tens of millions of his own people......
Atopiana
07-06-2007, 19:41
He helped defeat fascism and Nazism during the Second World War. He heroically opposed imperialism and defended the Third World.

Stalin joined the Axis for a while, invaded and occupied Eastern Europe (Imperialist act), Finland (Imperialist) and lest we forget, 'helped defeat' the Nazis only after they attacked the USSR. His refusal to aid the Warsaw rebels, among other things, underlines the fact that Stalin was simply another nationalist power-hungry tyrant in Russia's long line of nationalist power-hungry tyrants.

He made the U.S.S.R. the first genuinely socialist nation, and led to its industrialization, proving that real socialism can and does work.

No, he didn't The USSR was never "genuinely socialist" principally thanks to things like, ooh, the GULAGs, the NKVD, the extermination of the Kulaks, the mass murder and starvation of millions of people... if that's real socialism, pass me some jackboots and a blackshirt.

How come so many people, including many counterfeit "leftists," hate him?

As an Anarchist... he's a tyrant, a psychopath, an affront to communism, a mass-murderer, a bully, a power-hungry dictator, and a disgusting specimen of humanity at its absolute worst. THAT's why he's hated - because he's worth hating!
Minaris
07-06-2007, 19:47
Why is Stalin hated?

Because he disobeyed and villified every principle of communism, and chose to do so in the name of communism.
Atopiana
07-06-2007, 19:50
...he disobeyed and villified every principle of communism, and chose to do so in the name of communism.

Incorrect, comrade.

Comrade Stalin has scientifically developed Marxist-Leninism to the degree at which we can confidently state that our beloved Comrade Stalin is showing us the way forwards to the ideal workers' society. This scientific fact that he has shown us is known as Stalinism in his honour, comrade.

What is called 'communism' is in fact quasi-Trotskyist proto-fascist capitalist saboteur propaganda ideology, comrade. Do not confuse the two, or else you may find yourself in Vorkutlag for urgent and most necessary re-education, comrade.
Minaris
07-06-2007, 19:55
Comrade Stalin has scientifically developed Marxist-Leninism to the degree at which we can confidently state that our beloved Comrade Stalin is showing us the way forwards to the ideal workers' society. This scientific fact that he has shown us is known as Stalinism in his honour, comrade.

What is called 'communism' is in fact quasi-Trotskyist proto-fascist capitalist saboteur propaganda ideology, comrade. Do not confuse the two, or else you may find yourself in Vorkutlag for urgent and most necessary re-education, comrade.

This message has been brought to you by the Ministry of Truth.

The Ministry of Truth, fighting crimethink and bringing doubleplusgood goodthink to the proles and Party Members since 1970.
Atopiana
07-06-2007, 19:57
This message has been brought to you by the Ministry of Truth.

The Ministry of Truth, fighting crimethink and bringing doubleplusgood goodthink to the proles and Party Members since 1970.

:eek: Comrade! MiniTru doubleplusgood - 'Ministry of Truth' trebleplusbad crimethought Eurasia/Goldstein!
Minaris
07-06-2007, 20:01
:eek: Comrade! MiniTru doubleplusgood - 'Ministry of Truth' trebleplusbad crimethought Eurasia/Goldstein!

Forgive, comrade. I need to use doubleplusgood Newspeak more and oldthinkful Oldspeak less.

Oh, and we are at war with EastAsia, comrade.
Atopiana
07-06-2007, 20:06
MiniLuv forgive, comrade.

Comrade - always war with Eastasia. Goldstein Brotherhood sabotage post.
Baltija
07-06-2007, 20:07
People already listed all of his major crimes, I'll just add that he has inflicted a lot of pain to my people (I'm Lithuanian), and we don't feel like we were "liberated" by USSR.

May I ask, why do we hate Hitler then? He has "liberated" half of Europe from Slavic untermensch, Jews, communists and capitalists. Seems like a very noble cause, don't you agree? So why don't we build a monument to this great man?

(I hope your sarcasm detector is on and not jammed by the overwhelming smell of bulls**t coming from the very first post of this thread)

Sincerely yours,
Baltija
Atopiana
07-06-2007, 20:11
Yeh, the Baltic States got a lot of shit from the USSR. As did the Poles, the Finns, the East Germans, the Prussians (ethnically cleansed), the Ukranians, the Chechens, the Kulaks, the Jews, the Gypsies, the left, the right, the loyal opposition... &c &c &c

There is, after all, a reason that so many Russians and Eastern European 'untermensch' fought with the Nazis. ;) The declaration of the 'European Crusade against Bolshevism' was a good recruiting ploy.
Olantia
07-06-2007, 20:12
Stalin isn't hated enough, in the humble opinion of this Russian.
Hynation
07-06-2007, 20:13
In soviet Russia Joseph Stalin hates you

(please don't tell me someone already said this)

Yes I do believe thats how it worked...and no I think you were the first
Kurona
07-06-2007, 20:13
He made the U.S.S.R. the first genuinely socialist nation, and led to its industrialization, proving that real socialism can and does work.

How come so many people, including many counterfeit "leftists," hate him?

If that were true, Russia will still be the Soviet Uninon
Hynation
07-06-2007, 20:14
Stalin isn't hated enough, in the humple opinion of this Russian.

Humple?...do you mean Humble? :)
Minaris
07-06-2007, 20:16
MiniLuv forgive, comrade.

Comrade - always war with Eastasia. Goldstein Brotherhood sabotage post.

Forgiven, comrade. Goldstein brotherhood doubleplussneaky doubleplusungoodwise
Atopiana
07-06-2007, 20:18
Stalin isn't hated enough, in the humble opinion of this Russian.

Given that Russia keeps producing 'Top Leader' polls with such notaries as Ivan the Terrible, Catherine the Great, Stalin, and other butchers in the top 10... I see your point. :p
Olantia
07-06-2007, 20:19
Humple?...do you mean Humble?
Sure; I've corrected myself already.
Isidoor
07-06-2007, 20:21
Yes I do believe thats how it worked...and no I think you were the first

YES!
Sordal-Corvo
07-06-2007, 20:24
He helped defeat fascism and Nazism during the Second World War. He heroically opposed imperialism and defended the Third World. He made the U.S.S.R. the first genuinely socialist nation, and led to its industrialization, proving that real socialism can and does work.

How come so many people, including many counterfeit "leftists," hate him?

Joseph Stalin did not make the Soviet Union a socialist nation, he made it a Stalinist nation. you might actually want to research what socialism truely is before making unfounded claims in support of a crazed mad man. if you want a much better rperesentative of a socialist leader look to Josip Bronz Tito. his form of communism was one that could have worked if not for the inherent unstability of the former Yugoslavia. and on a final note Stalinism does not work. command economies are horribly inefficient and can not last very long. not to say capitalism is any better, but it has stood the test of time and continues on to this day.
Yootopia
07-06-2007, 20:39
Errr I'm very much on the left and I can say why -

1) Only helped out people who were willing to serve him totally, see for example orders in the Spanish civil war that only the Stalinists were to recieve BT-2s and BA-6s (the best tanks and armoured cars of the war) and that they were to be under no circumstances used to support anarcho-communist forces or international battalions, both of which were on the same side as the Stalinist forces.

2) He killed masses of people, and the lack of proper long-term economic planning in favour of using the economy to attack his enemies (see the disputes of the late 20s) at the price of the actual people of the USSR. What he did to Ukraine was particularly bad.

3) His conduct towards political opponents, by essentially removing them from history (see the fact that photos of Trotsky's war train, or any record of the impact he had on the civil war are near to bloody impossible to find) was utterly disgraceful, and it's amazingly irritating to historians even now.

4) He didn't make Socialism work, he stole the successful parts of Trotsky's plans and after those stopped working in the mid-thirties, it was a complete farse in every single way.

*edits*

5) He also had a crap moustache.
Trotskylvania
07-06-2007, 21:18
He helped defeat fascism and Nazism during the Second World War. He heroically opposed imperialism and defended the Third World. He made the U.S.S.R. the first genuinely socialist nation, and led to its industrialization, proving that real socialism can and does work.

How come so many people, including many counterfeit "leftists," hate him?

I, a genuine leftist, hate Iosef Stalin because he schemed his way to power, killing or exiling any political opponents, then proceeded to destroy what little remained of socialism in Russia by forcably nationalizing agriculture, sending all opponents to gulags, killing at least 20 million of his own countrymen. Stalin's state capitalism is an affront to all legitimate socialists anywhere in the world. To equate the bureaucratic control of everyone's economic livelihood by the state to socialism is precisely why the right has consistently beaten socialists. So many Marx-Leninists are stuck defending a flawed paradigm that is not only unsocialistic but also in stark denial of human freedom.
Extreme Ironing
07-06-2007, 22:48
Apart from the obvious killing lots of people, being a bit of a bastard.... he really fucked up the musical development of many composers, Shostakovich in particular. Who knows what he would be written if the restrictions and threats had not been placed against him.
Katganistan
07-06-2007, 22:56
He helped defeat fascism and Nazism during the Second World War. He heroically opposed imperialism and defended the Third World. He made the U.S.S.R. the first genuinely socialist nation, and led to its industrialization, proving that real socialism can and does work.

How come so many people, including many counterfeit "leftists," hate him?

20 million deaths seems a good place to start.
Hydesland
07-06-2007, 22:57
I, a genuine leftist, hate Iosef Stalin because he schemed his way to power, killing or exiling any political opponents, then proceeded to destroy what little remained of socialism in Russia by forcably nationalizing agriculture, sending all opponents to gulags, killing at least 20 million of his own countrymen. Stalin's state capitalism is an affront to all legitimate socialists anywhere in the world. To equate the bureaucratic control of everyone's economic livelihood by the state to socialism is precisely why the right has consistently beaten socialists. So many Marx-Leninists are stuck defending a flawed paradigm that is not only unsocialistic but also in stark denial of human freedom.

I was going to say something, but i'm under the assumption your a trotskyist, I won't say anything if you're not.
Beekermanc
07-06-2007, 22:59
Maybe he's hated for killing around 30 million of his own countrymen? That may have something to do with it.


He killed far more than that...far more than Hitler ever did...not that it was a competition...they were both bastards
Hydesland
07-06-2007, 23:03
He killed far more than that...far more than Hitler ever did...not that it was a competition...they were both bastards

How dare you be son insensitive and trivialise it into a competetition

and besides, Mao whooped their asses ;)
Hydesland
07-06-2007, 23:04
Apart from the obvious killing lots of people, being a bit of a bastard.... he really fucked up the musical development of many composers, Shostakovich in particular. Who knows what he would be written if the restrictions and threats had not been placed against him.

He even banned Jazz, what kind of man would do that :eek:
Black Thursday
07-06-2007, 23:10
30,000,000 murders and this tidbit..

"The death of one man is a tragety, the death of millions is a statistic" - Joesph Stalin.

The man was a ruthless, opressive dictator. As were the other communist revolutionaries, Stalin was simply more open about it.
Daisy-Ico-Sicapu
07-06-2007, 23:11
Why so many people hated stalin? Well, stalin was in many ways like Hitler.
He sent countless "political enemies" to work camps strikingly similar to the Nazi ones. There was also the famine that struck Russia prior to WWII; Stalin did little to prevent thousands from dying of starvation. Much of the food that was harvested was used for military purposes.
I wonder if Soviet Propaganda is playing tricks on you. It is a fact that Stalin was just as murderous as Hitler--if not even more so.
SocialistRevolutions
07-06-2007, 23:26
Hmm, now that isn't strictly true is it, how exactly did it "work?"

Maybe he's hated for killing around 30 million of his own countrymen? That may have something to do with it.

Yes, fascists and their collaborators. So what?
SocialistRevolutions
07-06-2007, 23:28
I, a genuine leftist, hate Iosef Stalin because he schemed his way to power, killing or exiling any political opponents, then proceeded to destroy what little remained of socialism in Russia by forcably nationalizing agriculture, sending all opponents to gulags, killing at least 20 million of his own countrymen. Stalin's state capitalism is an affront to all legitimate socialists anywhere in the world. To equate the bureaucratic control of everyone's economic livelihood by the state to socialism is precisely why the right has consistently beaten socialists. So many Marx-Leninists are stuck defending a flawed paradigm that is not only unsocialistic but also in stark denial of human freedom.

Control of the economy by the state is socialism.
Damor
07-06-2007, 23:31
Control of the economy by the state is socialism.I would hazard to guess it actually depends on the sort of control that is exerted on the economy. And socialism involves a bit more besides economic control.
CoallitionOfTheWilling
07-06-2007, 23:32
Yes, fascists and their collaborators. So what?

right...

More like anyone who ever said or thought anything bad about Stalin. That and do those 30 million supposedly fascists deserve to die, when Stalin was a fascist himself?

You just advocated the deaths of 30 million people.
Damor
07-06-2007, 23:33
Yes, fascists and their collaborators. So what?AND they kicked puppies too.
Trotskylvania
07-06-2007, 23:34
I was going to say something, but i'm under the assumption your a trotskyist, I won't say anything if you're not.

I'm not a Trotskyist. My Nation started out as a joke that went too far.

I'm actually a green anarchist.
SocialistRevolutions
07-06-2007, 23:35
right...

More like anyone who ever said or thought anything bad about Stalin. That and do those 30 million supposedly fascists deserve to die, when Stalin was a fascist himself?

You just advocated the deaths of 30 million people.

They supported Nazi Germany which was the enemy of socialism. And Stalin was not a fascist, he was a socialist. The first true adherent to real Marxism in history.
CoallitionOfTheWilling
07-06-2007, 23:37
They supported Nazi Germany which was the enemy of socialism. And Stalin was not a fascist, he was a socialist. The first true adherent to real Marxism in history.

Right... been reading to much Soviet propaganda?

Stalin was fascist in the way that he had aggressive foreign and domestic policy.

Still advocating the deaths of 30 million people, no better then the Nazis themselves.
Shokei Shimasu
07-06-2007, 23:37
Gah! I was going to read this whole thing but I got a little bored and maybe even fed up with it. Everyone takes sides: That is one of the points of a debate. But have you thought of looking both ways?

I, personally, hate Stalin's guts. He deserves to be raised at least ten more times so that he can suffer has his people suffered. I don't plan on listing his crimes again...it's a waste of my post. Anyways, I can see why so many people hate him. I hate him. Socialism was not what he reached. It was a combination of Communism and many other things. These forms of government mostly revolved around Totalitarionism (If that is how you spell it.) Many fail to see this. That form of rule is small, yes, but see here that Stalin was trying to make it a bigger idea. Maybe not on purpose...but it was happening. Ruling every aspect of the peoples' lives: The definition. A cruel way of life. And the ruler: A paranoid, ruthless bastard.

When looking to win a debate, you look from both sides. I'm not trying to win...I'm just pointing it out. When looking the other way, you can see what Stalin did do to help the country. If Stalin hadn't done that, where would Russia (Or the USSR) be in the world now. It wouldn't be here. Stalin made it a World Power. Someplace noticable. Actaully on the map. Feared. A place with a powerful economy. What about the Space Age? It wasn't Stalin who put Russia through that but if Stalin hadn't ruled beforehand...would there have been a Space Age?

Now I know you may all be angry with me. "I can't believe you're standing up for him! How can you side with him!" I'm not. I already pointed out I hate him. In fact, there are not enough appropriate words to describe such hate. Even if I tried, I'd get banned from here.

Now I'm done.
SocialistRevolutions
07-06-2007, 23:38
Right... been reading to much Soviet propaganda?

Right...been reading too much McCarthyist propaganda?
Trotskylvania
07-06-2007, 23:40
Control of the economy by the state is socialism.

My wayward comrade, control of the economy by the state is state capitalism/bureaucratic collectivism. It was only Karl Marx that equated socialism with state control. Every socialist before him, and all libertarian Marxists and non-marxists have always considered socialism to be democratic control of productive property. Everyone from P.J. Proudhon to Saint-Simone to Mikhail Bakunin to Rudolf Rocker to Peter Kropotkin to Daniel DeLeon to Eugene Debs and Leo Tolstoy.
Yootopia
07-06-2007, 23:41
Yes, fascists and their collaborators. So what?
... Kulaks and NEPmen were not fascists, nor collaborators.

They were simply peasants and middlement who were made rich by the NEP, a policy which Stalin himself supported until he'd removed his enemies on the left, especially Trotsky, before he then supported collectivisation and eliminated his foes on the right wing.
CoallitionOfTheWilling
07-06-2007, 23:41
Right...been reading too much McCarthyist propaganda?

Where anywhere have I said anything remotely what McCarthy said?
SocialistRevolutions
07-06-2007, 23:43
My wayward comrade, control of the economy by the state is state capitalism/bureaucratic collectivism. It was only Karl Marx that equated socialism with state control. Every socialist before him, and all libertarian Marxists and non-marxists have always considered socialism to be democratic control of productive property. Everyone from P.J. Proudhon to Saint-Simone to Mikhail Bakunin to Rudolf Rocker to Peter Kropotkin to Daniel DeLeon to Eugene Debs and Leo Tolstoy.

"State capitalism" is a smear invented by false socialists to discredit real socialists like Marx and Stalin.
Desperate Measures
07-06-2007, 23:43
They supported Nazi Germany which was the enemy of socialism. And Stalin was not a fascist, he was a socialist. The first true adherent to real Marxism in history.

I find it weird, that above all the other dumb things in this thread, you are seemingly against freedom of speech. Weird.
CoallitionOfTheWilling
07-06-2007, 23:45
I find it weird, that above all the other dumb things in this thread, you are seemingly against freedom of speech. Weird.

Well, he is supporting Stalin...
Yootopia
07-06-2007, 23:45
They supported Nazi Germany which was the enemy of socialism.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact being different in what manner, exactly?
And Stalin was not a fascist, he was a socialist.
He was neither.
The first true adherent to real Marxism in history.
No he wasn't. If you'd ever read Marx, you'd know that he was nothing but a capitalist dictator - he and his fellow leaders became rich at the expense of the peasants and workers that he supposedly helped.

A real socialist would have actually distributed supplies and wealth equally.

A real communist would have left state control behind, because the workers would be helping each other out of their own free will.



What Stalin adhered to was a bastardised version of Marxist-Leninism, itself corrupted in an attempt to make communism work in a feudal state.
SocialistRevolutions
07-06-2007, 23:46
No he wasn't. If you'd ever read Marx, you'd know that he was nothing but a capitalist dictator - he and his fellow leaders became rich at the expense of the peasants and workers that he supposedly helped.

If he was "capitalist" why weren't the means of production privately owned?

A real socialist would have actually distributed supplies and wealth equally.

Stalin did that.

A real communist would have left state control behind, because the workers would be helping each other out of their own free will.

False.

What Stalin adhered to was a bastardised version of Marxist-Leninism, itself corrupted in an attempt to make communism work in a feudal state.

Fascist lies.
Desperate Measures
07-06-2007, 23:47
Well, he is supporting Stalin...

Yeah... I mean that is pretty weird in and of itself. But then when you think about how he is using his freedom of speech in order to support somebody who would not allow him his right to freedom of speech... I just find it weird...
Desperate Measures
07-06-2007, 23:47
If he was "capitalist" why weren't the means of production privately owned?



Stalin did that.



False.



Fascist lies.
Your logic is infallible.
Soviestan
07-06-2007, 23:48
He helped defeat fascism and Nazism during the Second World War. He heroically opposed imperialism and defended the Third World. He made the U.S.S.R. the first genuinely socialist nation, and led to its industrialization, proving that real socialism can and does work.

How come so many people, including many counterfeit "leftists," hate him?

I'm guessing it was the 'killing 30 million people', thing. Or something.
SocialistRevolutions
07-06-2007, 23:49
Your logic is infallible.

Logic.

A bourgeois ploy to oppress the masses.
Desperate Measures
07-06-2007, 23:50
Logic.

A bourgeois ploy to oppress the masses.

I bow to you. I believe that your genitalia is larger than my own.
CoallitionOfTheWilling
07-06-2007, 23:51
If he was "capitalist" why weren't the means of production privately owned?

Capitalist in the meaning that he exploited other people.


Stalin did that.
Only to his supporters.



False.
isn't the true meaning of communism a country with no government, and everyone shares wealth and property fully equally for the benefit of the entire country?



Fascist lies.

Right... Soviet propaganda there.
Damor
07-06-2007, 23:52
Communism would most likely not have been hated so much from the 1930's till it's collapse if it weren't for Stalin. Not to mention they'd have had a much better response to germany's invasion. Heck, if he hadn't killed of his generals and officer corps, he might not have bumbled as he did in Finland, and Germany wouldn't have even considered to attack the obviously weak soviet state.
Desperate Measures
07-06-2007, 23:53
Only to his supporters.





And only some of the time.
Trotskylvania
07-06-2007, 23:54
"State capitalism" is a smear invented by false socialists to discredit real socialists like Marx and Stalin.

"false socialists?" People like Mikhail Bakunin and Emma Goldman who were further to the left then Marx? okayyyyy...
SocialistRevolutions
07-06-2007, 23:55
Capitalist in the meaning that he exploited other people.

He didn't exploit people.

Only to his supporters.

Prove it.

isn't the true meaning of communism a country with no government, and everyone shares wealth and property fully equally for the benefit of the entire country?

Stalin was working toward that, but Khrushchev reversed it.

Right... Soviet propaganda there.

How about no.
Yootopia
07-06-2007, 23:55
If he was "capitalist" why weren't the means of production privately owned?
... They were, just by Stalin and his cronies.

The workers didn't have any control after 1917 - Stalin set the rates of production, and the workers had to produce their wares to a certain standard, at a certain rate etc. etc.

The experiment with workers control of the factories had predictable results, in that nobody went to work, everyone got more pay, and nothing got done. That's why it got changed as soon as War Communism hit.
Stalin did that.
No he didn't.

Factory managers earned vastly, vastly more than the workers inside them.

Barely 1/3 of them were actually working class, most were managers back in Tsarist times. Stalin propped up the middle classes again, just like the Tsar, with the same consequences - mass urban unemployment and discontention within workers.

He also used the NYKD in the same manner as the Tsar used his secret police - it's just that he claimed that it was right to kill a certain group of people or other.
False.
... I've read almost every word that Marx ever wrote or spoke, and let me tell you - you are ignorant of the true meaning of communism. Get your fucking act together.
Fascist lies.
Bollocks.

Lenin had to adapt Marxism to fit a country where 85% of the population were peasants. So he did.

Stalin stuck to this because of the deification of Lenin, because it kept him in power and this was really all that mattered to him.
Damor
07-06-2007, 23:55
Logic.

A bourgeois ploy to oppress the masses.You know, you could back that up with some arguments. Just recently that point came up in a philosphy class (how logic and reason is used as a method to obtain power over the 'mob', just as force is).

Of course, Stalin also oppressed the masses, but by force, not logic. Not any better, really.
SocialistRevolutions
07-06-2007, 23:55
"false socialists?" People like Mikhail Bakunin and Emma Goldman who were further to the left then Marx? okayyyyy...

State capitalism is a term invented by retards. Capitalism implies PRIVATE OWNERSHIP, not STATE OWNERSHIP.

And how could Goldman, who opposed the Bolsheviks, credibly be considered left-wing?
Trotskylvania
07-06-2007, 23:56
I bow to you. I believe that your genitalia is larger than my own.

I'm starting to think that he's a deliberate caricature of Leninists. He's laying it on way too thick. He must truly have prolific genitalia to do this. ;)
Changing Mottos
07-06-2007, 23:56
Oh yeah, and there's another, perhaps more important reason both Hitler and Stalin are villified - in the end, their teams lost.

An excellent point: History is written by those who win wars, not by those who lose them.

All the history books are written from the viewpoint that those who won the wars were right and those who lost were wrong, which is not necessarily so (that is, those who won the wars were NOT necessarily right and those who lost were not necessarily wrong), but this bias still prevails in the history books.
SocialistRevolutions
07-06-2007, 23:56
Get your fucking act together.

Don't flame.
CoallitionOfTheWilling
07-06-2007, 23:57
He didn't exploit people
Stalin was working toward that, but Khrushchev reversed it.


Yeah, I guess he eventually would have gotten it, When and if he was able to keep on executing all Russians to the point at which their population was 1, Stalin himself, where he could share the wealth with himself.
Yootopia
07-06-2007, 23:57
Logic.

A bourgeois ploy to oppress the masses.
...

You're such a tit.
Desperate Measures
07-06-2007, 23:58
State capitalism is a term invented by retards.

funny
Yootopia
07-06-2007, 23:58
Don't flame.
Answer my points.
Trotskylvania
07-06-2007, 23:59
State capitalism is a term invented by retards. Capitalism implies PRIVATE OWNERSHIP, not STATE OWNERSHIP.

And how could Goldman, who opposed the Bolsheviks, credibly be considered left-wing?

No, capitalism is a term that implies ownership and domination by a privileged few, the bourgeousie under capitalism, and a group of conceited intellectuals under bureaucratic collectivism.

Goldman opposed the Bolsheviks because they had betrayed the genuine revolutionaries from below. It was Lenin who smashed the soviets, the worker's councils that had been the force of the revolution. Goldman was much further to the left then the Bolsheviks.
Turquoise Days
08-06-2007, 00:01
Does anyone remember a troll... very similar to this one, but I think its focus was creationism, possibly. Basically, near all of its posts consisted of:
<quote>
False
<quote>
Prove it
<quote>
Not equivalent
<quote>
False
<quote>
Incorrect
and so on... Ring any bells?
Chardopia
08-06-2007, 00:01
you all can agree hitler was a horribile person right?

well stalin beat him and just think of all he horribile things he did to beat the best known villan in history
Yootopia
08-06-2007, 00:02
you all can agree hitler was a horribile person right?

well stalin beat him and just think of all he horribile things he did to beat the best known villan in history
Pol Pot was actually the worst villian EVAR. In my opinion.
SocialistRevolutions
08-06-2007, 00:04
No, capitalism is a term that implies ownership and domination by a privileged few, the bourgeousie under capitalism, and a group of conceited intellectuals under bureaucratic collectivism.

No capitalism implies PRIVATE - I'll spell that again, p-r-i-v-a-t-e - ownership.

Goldman opposed the Bolsheviks because they had betrayed the genuine revolutionaries from below. It was Lenin who smashed the soviets, the worker's councils that had been the force of the revolution. Goldman was much further to the left then the Bolsheviks.

Lenin smashed capitalists and reactionaries, the people Goldman loved.
Changing Mottos
08-06-2007, 00:05
Capitalist in the meaning that he exploited other people.

Capitalism does NOT automatically or necessarily mean "exploitation of other people"; it simply means that the means of production are held by private citizens and not the government.

Right... Soviet propaganda there.

Equating capitalism with exploitation of other people is Soviet propaganda, as well as falsehood.
Xiscapia
08-06-2007, 00:07
Wow...was this guy stupid, or was he looking to get flamed to a crisp?
Our special team invesigates, more at 11...
Trotskylvania
08-06-2007, 00:10
No capitalism implies PRIVATE - I'll spell that again, p-r-i-v-a-t-e - ownership.

Okay, if we accept your definition of capitalism, then let's look at the you're beloved Soviet Despotism. For all intents and purposes, the Communist Party owned the Soviet State. They dictated what was to be produced, who would get what, and who had the privilege of living another day. They owned that country.

Lenin smashed capitalists and reactionaries, the people Goldman loved.

Let me quote Emma Goldman directly.

There Is No Communism in Russia
By Emma Goldman, n.d.

[So far as I know, this classic essay has never before appeared on the Net. Scanned from Red Emma Speaks: An Emma Goldman Reader, third edition, compiled and edited by Alix Kates Shulman. The essay was first published in H.L. Mencken's journal American Mercury, volume XXXIV, April 1935.—DC]

Communism is now on everybody's lips. Some talk of it with the exaggerated enthusiasm of a new convert, others fear and condemn it as a social menace. But I venture to say that neither its admirers—the great majority of them—nor those who denounce it have a very clear idea of what Bolshevik Communism really is.

Speaking generally, Communism is the ideal of human equality and brotherhood. It considers the exploitation of man by man as the source of all slavery and oppression. It holds that economic inequality leads to social injustice and is the enemy of moral and intellectual progress. Communism aims at a society where classes have been abolished as a result of common ownership of the means of production and distribution. It teaches that only in a classless, solidaric commonwealth can man enjoy liberty, peace and well-being.

My purpose is to compare Communism with its application in Soviet Russia, but on closer examination I find it an impossible task. As a matter of fact, there is no Communism in the U.S.S.R. Not a single Communist principle, not a single item of its teaching is being applied by the Communist party there.

To some this statement may appear as entirely false; others may think it vastly exaggerated. Yet I feel sure that an objective examination of conditions in present-day Russia will convince the unprejudiced reader that I speak with entire truth.

It is necessary to consider here, first of all, the fundamental idea underlying the alleged Communism of the Bolsheviki. It is admittedly of a centralized, authoritarian kind. That is, it is based almost exclusively on governmental coercion, on violence. It is not the Communism of voluntary association. It is compulsory State Communism. This must be kept in mind in order to understand the method applied by the Soviet state to carry out such of its plans as may seem to be Communistic.

The first requirement of Communism is the socialization of the land and of the machinery of production and distribution. Socialized land and machinery belong to the people, to be settled upon and used by individuals or groups according to their needs. In Russia land and machinery are not socialized but _nationalized_. The term is a misnomer, of course. In fact, it is entirely devoid of content. In reality there is no such thing as national wealth. A nation is too abstract a term to “own” anything. Ownership may be by an individual, or by a group of individuals; in any case by some quantitatively defined reality. When a certain thing does not belong to an individual or group, it is either nationalized or socialized. If it is nationalized, it belongs to the state; that is, the government has control of it and may dispose of it according to its wishes and views. But when a thing is socialized, every individual has free access to it and use it without interference from anyone.

In Russia there is no socialization either of land or of production and distribution. Everything is nationalized; it belongs to the government, exactly as does the post-office in America or the railroad in Germany and other European countries. There is nothing of Communism about it.

No more Communistic than the land and means of production is any other phase of the Soviet economic structure. All sources of existence are owned by the central government; foreign trade is its absolute monopoly; the printing presses belong to the state, and every book and paper issued is a government publication. In short, the entire country and everything in it is the property of the state, as in ancient days it used to be the property of the crown. The few things not yet nationalized, as some old ramshackle houses in Moscow, for instance, or some dingy little stores with a pitiful stock of cosmetics, exist on sufferance only, with the government having the undisputed right to confiscate them at any moment by simple decree.

Such a condition of affairs may be called state capitalism, but it would be fantastic to consider it in any sense Communistic.
II.

Let us now turn to production and consumption, the levers of all existence. Maybe in them we shall find a degree of Communism that will justify us in calling life in Russia Communistic, to some extent at least.

I have already pointed out that the land and the machinery of production are owned by the state. The methods of production and the amounts to be manufactured by every industry in each and every mill, shop and factory are determined by the state, by the central government—by Moscow—through its various organs.

Now, Russia is a country of vast extent, covering about one sixth of the earth's surface. It is peopled by a mixed population of 165,000,000. It consists of a number of large republics, of various races and nationalities, each region having its own particular interests and needs. No doubt, industrial and economic planning is vitally necessary for the well-being of a community. True Communism—economic equality as between man and man and between communities—requires the best and most efficient planning by each community, based upon its local requirements and possibilies. The basis of such planning must be the complete freedom of each community to produce according to its needs and to dispose of its products according to its judgment: to change its surplus with other similarly independent communities without let or hindrance by any external authority.

That is the essential politico-economic nature of Communism. It is neither workable nor possible on any other isis. It is necessarily libertarian, Anarchistic.

There is no trace of such Communism—that is to say, of any Communism—in Soviet Russia. In fact, the mere suggestion of such a system is considered criminal there, and any attempt to carry it out is punished by death.

Industrial planning and all the processes of production and distribution are in the hands of the central government. Supreme Economic Council is subject only to the authority of the Communist Party. It is entirely independent of the will or wishes of the people comprising the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. Its work is directed by the pollicies and decisions of the Kremlin. This explains why Soviet Russia exported vast amounts of wheat and other grain while wide regions in the south and southeast of Russia were stricken with famine, so that more than two million of its people died of starvation (1932-1933).

There were “reasons of state” for it. The euphonious has from time immemorial masked tyranny, exploitation and the determination of every ruler to prolong and perpetuate his rule. Incidentally, I may mention that—in spite of country-wide hunger and lack of the most elemental necessities of life in Russia—the entire First Five-Year Plan aimed at developing that branch of heavy industry which serves, or can be made to serve, _military_ purposes.

As with production, so with distribution and every other form of activity. Not only individual cities and towns, but the constituent parts of the Soviet Union are entirely deprived of independent existence. Politically mere vassals of Moscow, their whole economic, social and cultural activity is planned, cut out for them and ruthlessly controlled by the “proletarian dictatorship” in Moscow. More: the life of every locality, of every individual even, in the so-called “Socialist” republics is managed in the very last detail by the “general line” laid down by the “center.” In other words, by the Central Committee and Politbureau of the Party, both of them controlled absolutely by one man, Stalin. To call such a dictatorship, this personal autocracy more powerful and absolute than any Czar's, by the name of Communism seems to me the acme of imbecility.
III.

Let us see now how Bolshevik “Communism” affects the lives of the masses and of the individual.

There are naive people who believe that at least some features of Communism have been introduced into the lives of the Russian people. I wish it were true, for that would be a hopeful sign, a promise of potential development along that line. But the truth is that in no phase of Soviet life, no more in the social than in individual relations, has there ever been any attempt to apply Communist principles in any shape or form. As I have pointed out before, the very suggestion of free, voluntary Communism is taboo in Russia and is regarded as counter-revolutionary and high treason against the infallible Stalin and the holy “Communist” Party.

And here I do not speak of the libertarian, Anarchist Communism. What I assert is that there is not the least sign in Soviet Russia even of authoritarian, State Communism. Let us glance at the actual facts of everyday life there.

The essence of Communism, even of the coercive kind, is the absence of social classes. The introduction of economic equality is its first step. This has been the basis of all Communist philosophies, however they may have differed in other respects. The purpose common to all of them was to secure social justice; and all of them agreed that it was not possible without establishing economic equality. Even Plato, in spite of the intellectual and moral strata in his Republic, provided for absolute economic equality, since the ruling classes were not to enjoy greater rights or privileges than the lowest social unit.

Even at the risk of condemnation for telling the whole truth, I must state unequivocally and unconditionally that the very opposite is the case in Soviet Russia. Bolshevism has not abolished the classes in Russia: it has merely reversed their former relationship. As a matter of fact, it has multiplied the social divisions which existed before the Revolution.

When I arrived in Soviet Russia in January, 1920, I found innumerable economic categories, based on the food rations received from the government. The sailor was getting the best ration, superior in quality, quantity and variety to the food issued to the rest of the population. He was the aristocrat of the Revolution: economically and socially he was universally considered to belong to the new privileged classes. After him came the soldier, the Red Army man, who received a much smaller ration, even less bread. Below the soldier in the scale was the worker in the military industries; then came other workers, subdivided into the skilled, the artisan, the laborer, etc. Each category received a little less bread, fats, sugar, tobacco, and other products (whenever they were to be had at all). Members of the former bourgeoisie, officially abolished as a class and expropriated, were in the last economic category and received practically nothing. Most of them could secure neither work nor lodgings, and it was no one's business how they were to exist, to keep from stealing or from joining the counter-revolutionary armies and robber bands.

The possession of a red card, proving membership in the Communist Party, placed one above all these categories. It entitled its owner to a special ration, enabled him to eat in the Party stolovaya (mess-room) and produced, particularly if supported by recommendations from party members higher up, warm underwear, leather boots, a fur coat, or other valuable articles. Prominent party men had their own dining-rooms, to which the ordinary members had no access. In the Smolny, for instance, then the headquarters of the Petrograd government, there were two different dining-rooms, one for Communists in high position, the other for the lesser lights. Zinoviev, then chairman of the Petrograd Soviet and virtual autocrat of the Northern District, and other government heads took their meals at home in the Astoria, formerly the best hotel in the city, turned into the first Soviet House, where they lived with their families.

Later on I found the same situation in Moscow, Kharkov, Kiev, Odessa—everywhere in Soviet Russia.

It was the Bolshevik system of “Communism.” What dire effects it had in causing dissatisfaction, resentment and antagonism throughout the country, resulting in industrial and agrarian sabotage, in strikes and revolts—of this further on. It is said that man does not live by bread alone. True, but he cannot live at all without it. To the average man, to the masses in Russia, the different rations established in the country for the liberation of which they had bled, was the symbol of the new regime. It signified to them the great lie of Bolshevism, the broken promises of freedom, for freedom meant to them social justice, economic equality. The instinct of the masses seldom goes wrong; in this case it proved prophetic. What wonder, then, that the universal enthusiasm over the Revolution soon turned into disillusionment and bitterness, to opposition and hatred. How often Russian workers complained to me: “We don’t mind working hard and going hungry. It's the injustice which we mind. If the country is poor, if there is little bread, then let us all share that little, but let us share equally. As things are now, it's the same as it used to be; some get more, others less, and some get nothing at all.”

The Bolshevik system of privilege and inequality was not long in producing its inevitable results. It created and fostered social antagonisms; it alienated the masses from the Revolution, paralysed their interest in it and their energies, and thus defeated all the purposes of the Revolution.

The same system of privilege and inequality, strengthened and perfected, is in force today.

The Russian Revolution was in the deepest sense a social upheaval: its fundamental tendency was libertarian, its essential aim economic and social equality. Long before the October-November days (1917) the city proletariat began taking possession of the mills, shops and factories, while the peasants expropriated the big estates and turned the land to communal use. The continued development of the Revolution in its Communist direction depended on the unity of the revolutionary forces and the direct, creative initiative of the laboring masses. The people were enthusiastic in the great object before them; they eagerly applied their energies to the work of social reconstruction. Only they who had for centuries borne the heaviest burdens could, through free and systematic effort, find the road to a new, regenerated society.

But Bolshevik dogmas and “Communist” statism proved a fatal handicap to the creative activities of the people. The fundamental characteristic of Bolshevik psychology is distrust of the masses. Their Marxist theories, centering all power in the exclusive hands of their party, quickly resulted in the destruction of revolutionary cooperation, in the arbitrary and ruthless suppression of all other political parties and movements. Bolshevik tactics encompassed the systematic eradication of every sign of dissatisfaction, stifled all criticism and crushed independent opinion, popular initiative and effort. Communist dictatorship, with its extreme mechanical centralization, frustrated the economic and industrial activities of the country. The great masses were deprived of the opportunity to shape the policies of the Revolution or to take part in the administration of their own affairs. The labor unions were governmentalized and turned into mere transmitters of the orders of the state. The people's cooperatives—that vital nerve of active solidarity and mutual help between city and country—were liquidated. The Soviets of peasants and workers were castrated and transformed into obedient committees. The government monopolized every phase of life. A bureaucratic machine was created, appalling in its inefficiency, corruption, brutality. The Revolution was divorced from the people and thus doomed to perish; and over all hung the dreaded sword of Bolshevik terrorism.

That was the “Communism” of the Bolsheviki in the first stages of the Revolution. Everyone knows that it brought the complete paralysis of industry, agriculture and transport. It was the period of “military Communism,” of agrarian and industrial conscription, of the razing of peasant villages by Bolshevik artillery—those “constructive” social and economic policies of Bolshevik Communism which resulted in the fearful famine in 1921.
IV.

And today? Has that “Communism” changed its nature? Is it actually different from the “Communism” of 1921? To my regret I must state that, in spite of all widely advertised changes and new economic policies, Bolshevik “Communism” is essentially the same as it was in 1921. Today the peasantry in Soviet Russia is entirely dispossessed of the land. The _sovkhozi_ are government farms on which the peasant works as a hired man, just as the man in the factory. This is known as “industrialization” of agriculture, “transforming the peasant into a proletarian.” In the _kolkhoz_ the land only nominally belongs to the villaoe. Actually it is owned by the government. The latter can at any moment—and often does—commandeer the _kolkhoz_ members for work in other parts of the country or exile whole villages for disobedience. The _kolkhozi_ are worked collectively, but the government control of them amounts to expropriation. It taxes them at its own will; it sets whatever price it chooses to pay for grain and other products, and neither the individual peasant nor the village Soviet has any say in the matter. Under the mask of numerous levies and compulsory government loans, it appropriates the products of the _kolkhoii_, and for some actual or pretended offenses punishes them by taking away all their grain.

The fearful famine of 1921 was admittedly due chiefly to the _razverstka_, the ruthless expropriation practiced at the time. It was because of it, and of the rebellion that resulted, that Lenin decided to introduce the NEP—the New Economic Policy which limited state expropriation and enabled the peasant to dispose of some of his surplus for his own benefit. The NEP immediately improved economic conditions throughout the land. The famine of 1932-1933 was due to similar “Communist” methods of the Bolsheviki: to enforced collectivization.

The same result as in 1921 followed. It compelled Stalin to revise his policy somewhat. He realised that the welfare of a country, particularly of one predominantly agricultural as Russia is, depends primarily on the peasantry. The motto was proclaimed: the peasant must be given opportunity togreater “well-being.” This “new” policy is admittedly only a breathing spell for the peasant. It has no more of Communism in it than the previous agrarian policies. From the beginning of Bolshevik rule to this day, it has been nothing but expropriation in one form or another, now and then differing in degree but always the same in kind—a continuous process of state robbery of the peasantry, of prohibitions, violence, chicanery and reprisals, exactly as in the worst days of Czarism and the World War. The present policy is but a variation of the “military Communism” of 1920-1921, with more of the military and less of the Communist element in it. Its “equality” is that of a penitentiary; its “freedom” that of a chain gang. No wonder the Bolsheviki declare that liberty is a bourgeois prejudice.

Soviet apologists insist that the old “military Communism” was justified in the initial period of the Revolution in the days of the blockade and military fronts. But more than sixteen years have passed since. There are no more blockades, no more fighting fronts, no more counter-revolution. Soviet Russia has secured the recognition of all the great governments of the world. It emphasizes its good will toward the bourgeois states, solicits their cooperation and is doing a large business with them. In fact, the Soviet government is on terms of friendship even with Mussolini and Hitler, those famous champions of liberty. It is helping capitalism to weather its economic storms by buying millions of dollars' worth of products and opening new markets to it.

This is, in the main, what Soviet Russia has accomplished during seventeen years since the Revolution. But as to Communism—that is another matter. In this regard, the Bolshevik government has followed exactly the same course as before, and worse. It has made some superficial changes politically and economically, but fundamentally it has remained exactly the same state, based on the same principle of violence and coercion and using the same methods of tenor and compulsion as in the period of 1920-1921.

There are more classes in Soviet Russia today than in 1917, more than in most other countries in the world. The Bolsheviki have created a vast Soviet bureaucracy, enjoying special privileges and almost unlimited authority over the masses, industrial and agricultural. Above that bureaucracy is the still more privileged class of “responsible comrades,” the new Soviet aristocracy. The industrial class is divided and subdivided into numerous gradations. There are the _udarniki_, the shock troops of labor, entitled to various privileges; the “specialists,” the artisans, the ordinary workers and laborers. There are the factory “cells,” the shop committees, the pioneers, the _komsomoltsi_, the party members, all enjoying material advantages and authority. There is the large class of _lishentsi_, persons deprived of civil rights, the greater number of them also of chance to work, of the right to live in certain places, practically cut off from all means of existence. The notorious “pale” of the Czarist times, which forbade Jews to live in certain parts of the country, has been revived for the entire population by the introduction of the new Soviet passport system. Over and above all these classes is the dreaded G.P.U., secret, powerful and arbitrary, a government within the government. The G.P.U., in its turn, has its own class divisions. It has its own armed forces, its own commercial and industrial establishments, its own laws and regulations, and a vast slave army of convict labor. Aye, even in the Soviet prisons and concentration camps there are various classes with special privileges.

In the field of industry the same kind of “Communism” prevails as in agriculture. A sovietized Taylor system is in vogue throughout Russia, combining a minimum standard of production and piece work—the highest degree of exploitation and human degradation, involving also endless differences in wages and salaries. Payment is made in money, in rations, in reduced charges for rent, lighting, etc., not to speak of the special rewards and premiums for _udarniki_. In short, it is the _wage system_ which is in operation in Russia.

Need I emphasize that an economic arrangement based on the wage system cannot be considered as in any way related to Communism? It is its antithesis.
V.

All these features are to be found in the present Soviet system. It is unpardonable naivete, or still more unpardonable hypocrisy, to pretend—as the Bolshevik apologists do—that the compulsory labor service in Russia is “the self-organization of the masses for purposes of production.”

Strange to say, I have met seemingly intelligent persons who claim that by such methods the Bolsheviki “are building Communism.” Apparently they believe that building consists in ruthless destruction, physically and morally, of the best values of mankind. There are others who pretend to think that the road to freedom and cooperation leads through labor slavery and intellectual suppression. According to them, to instill the poison of hatred and envy, of universal espionage and terror, is the best preparation for manhood and the fraternal spirit of Communism.

I do not think so. I think that there is nothing more pernicious than to degrade a human being into a cog of a soulless machine, turn him into a serf, into a spy or the victim of a spy. There is nothing more corrupting than slavery and despotism.

There is a psychology of political absolutism and dictatorship, common to all forms: the means and methods used to achieve a certain end in the course of time themselves become the end. The ideal of Communism, of Socialism, has long ago ceased to inspire the Bolshevik leaders as a class. Power and the strengthening of power has become their sole object. But abject subjection, exploitation and degradation are developing a new psychology in the great mass of the people also.

The young generation in Russia is the product of Bolshevik principles and methods. It is the result of sixteen years of official opinions, the only opinions permitted in the land. Having grown up under the deadly monopoly of ideas and values, the youth in the U.S.S.R. knows hardly anything about Russia itself. Much less does it know of the world outside. It consists of blind fanatics, narrow and intolerant, it lacks all ethical perception, it is devoid of the sense of justice and fairness. To this element is added a class of climbers and careerists, of self-seekers reared on the Bolshevik dogma: “The end justifies the means.” Yet it were wrong to deny the exceptions in the ranks of Russia's youth. There are a goodly number who are deeply sincere, heroic, idealistic. They see and feel the force of the loudly professed party ideals. They realize the betrayal of the masses. They suffer deeply under the cynicism and callousness towards every human emotion. The presence of _komsomolszi_ in the Soviet political prisons, concentration camps and exile, and the escapes under most harrowing difficulties prove that the young generation does not consist entirely of cringing adherents. No, not all of Russia's youth has been turned into puppets, obsessed bigots, or worshippers at Stalin's shrine and Lenin's tomb.

Already the dictatorship has become an absolute necessity for the continuation of the regime. For where there are classes and social inequality, there the state must resort to force and suppression. The ruthlessness of such a situation is always in proportion to the bitterness and resentment imbuing the masses. That is why there is more governmental terrorism in Soviet Russia than anywhere else in the civilized world today, for Stalin has to conquer and enslave a stubborn peasantry of a hundred millions. It is popular hatred of the regime which explains the stupendous industrial sabotage in Russia, the disorganization of the transport after sixteen years of virtual military management; the terrific famine in the South and Southeast, notwithstanding favorable natural conditions and in spite of the severest measures to compel the peasants to sow and reap, in spite even of wholesale extermination and of the deportation of more than a million peasants to forced labor camps.

Bolshevik dictatorship is an absolutism which must constantly be made more relentless in order to survive, calling for the complete suppression of independent opinion and criticism within the party, within even its highest and most exclusive circles. It is a significant feature of this situation that official Bolshevism and its paid and unpaid agents are constantly assuring the world that “all is well in Soviet Russia and getting better.” It is of the same quality as Hitler's constant emphasis of how greatly he loves peace while he is feverishly increasing his military strength.

Far from getting better the dictatorship is daily growing more relentless. The latest decree against so-called counter-revolutionists, or traitors to the Soviet State, should convince even some of the most ardent apologists of the wonders performed in Russia. The decree adds strength to the already existing laws against everyone who cannot or will not reverence the infallibility of the holy trinity, Marx, Lenin and Stalin. And it is more drastic and cruel in its effect upon every one deemed a culprit. To be sure, hostages are nothing new in the U.S.S.R. They were already part of the terror when I came to Russia. Peter Kropotkin and Vera Figner had protested in vain against this black spot on the escutcheon of the Russian Revolution. Now, after seventeen years of Bolshevik rule, a new decree was thought necessary. It not only revives the taking of hostages; it even aims at cruel punishment for every adult member of the real or imaginary offender's family. The new decree defines treason to the state as

“any acts committed by citizens of the U.S.S.R. detrimental to the military forces of the U.S.S.R., its independence or the inviolability of its territory, such as espionage, betrayal of military or state secrets, going over to the side of the enemy, fleeing to a foreign country or flight [this time the word used means airplane flight] to a foreign country.”

Traitors have, of course, always been shot. What makes the new decree more terrifying is the remorseless punishment it demands for everyone living with or supporting the hapless victim, whether he knows of the crime or not. He may be imprisoned, or exiled, or even shot. He may lose his civil rights, and he may forfeit everything he owns. In other words, the new decree sets a premium on informers who, to save their own skins, will ingratiate themselves with the G.P.U., will readily turn over the unfortunate kin of the offenders to the Soviet henchmen.

This new decree must forever put to rest any remaining doubts as to the existence of true Communism in Russia. It departs from even the pretense of internationalism and proletarian class interest. The old tune is now changed to a paean song of the Fatherland, with the ever servile Soviet press loudest in the chorus:

“Defense of the Fatherland is the supreme law of life, and he who raises his hand against the Fatherland, who betrays it, must be destroyed.”

Soviet Russia, it must now be obvious, is an absolute despotism politically and the crassest form of state capitalism economically.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/63/227.html
Yootopia
08-06-2007, 00:11
No capitalism implies PRIVATE - I'll spell that again, p-r-i-v-a-t-e - ownership.
Since Stalin was an autocratic dictator, who theoretically owned anything he wanted, he did have private ownership of all of the means of production.

The fact that he used that to make the state richer or better at fighting a war means nothing at all. It was still his. Hence private ownership.
Lenin smashed capitalists and reactionaries, the people Goldman loved.
He also smashed leftist opponents, anyone who liked democracy at all, and anyone who looked a bit rich, even if they were a socialist.
The fact that he had to take out the sailors at Kronstadt shows that the USSR failed in the early years.

The fact that the deification of Lenin led to Stalin ruling in much the same way shows a complete lack of intellectual integrity.
Zarakon
08-06-2007, 00:11
Because he's responsible for the deaths of more people then Hitler.

This has been your addition of easy answers to stupid questions.
CoallitionOfTheWilling
08-06-2007, 00:12
Capitalism does NOT automatically or necessarily mean "exploitation of other people"; it simply means that the means of production are held by private citizens and not the government.



Equating capitalism with exploitation of other people is Soviet propaganda, as well as falsehood.

Uh, I know. the person who SR responded to used it like that, but SR didn't see it so i pointed it out.

I'm a staunch capitalist myself.
Bald Anarchists
08-06-2007, 00:12
Since Stalin was an autocratic dictator, who theoretically owned anything he wanted, he did have private ownership of all of the means of production.

Stalin was the state. :p
Desperate Measures
08-06-2007, 00:13
You know, I think it is time for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F8fi5uXIlo&mode=related&search=
Yootopia
08-06-2007, 00:14
Stalin was the state. :p
Essentially, yeah.
Europa Maxima
08-06-2007, 00:14
Logic.

A bourgeois ploy to oppress the masses.
I see you take this rather seriously, given your argumentation. :p
Bald Anarchists
08-06-2007, 00:14
Okay, if we accept your definition of capitalism, then let's look at the you're beloved Soviet Despotism. For all intents and purposes, the Communist Party owned the Soviet State. They dictated what was to be produced, who would get what, and who had the privilege of living another day. They owned that country.

The Communist Party didn't own the state, it was the state, and vice versa. The U.S.S.R. wasn't capitalist by any stretch of the imagination.

Let me quote Emma Goldman directly.

Now there's a leftist I can respect, one who denounces tyranny whatever political stripe it is.
SocialistRevolutions
08-06-2007, 00:18
Stalin was the state. :p
No, Stalin was the saviour of the Russian people.

Wow...was this guy stupid, or was he looking to get flamed to a crisp?
Our special team invesigates, more at 11...
Neither. I am here to resurrect the memory of the greatest man ever to walk the Earth. Your disrespect is a disgusting outgrowth of your bourgeois upbringing.

Capitalism does NOT automatically or necessarily mean "exploitation of other people"; it simply means that the means of production are held by private citizens and not the government.


Equating capitalism with exploitation of other people is Soviet propaganda, as well as falsehood.
There is no such thing as Soviet propaganda. Just facts.

Pol Pot was actually the worst villian EVAR. In my opinion.
Your opinion is worthless then.


Now there's a leftist I can respect, one who denounces tyranny whatever political stripe it is.
Typical bourgeois reactionary. Supporting traitors to our cause.
Zarakon
08-06-2007, 00:19
No, Stalin was the saviour of the Russian people.


Neither. I am here to resurrect the memory of the greatest man ever to walk the Earth. Your disrespect is a disgusting outgrowth of your bourgeois upbringing.


There is no such thing as Soviet propaganda. Just facts.


Your opinion is worthless then.


Typical bourgeois reactionary. Supporting traitors to our cause.

Have we EVER had someone that was so obvious a troll as this guy before?
Trotskylvania
08-06-2007, 00:21
I see you take this rather seriously, given your argumentation. :p

He must have much bigger genitalia than anyone else on this board to make arguments like that. :p
Desperate Measures
08-06-2007, 00:22
What's with communists and their use of the term bourgeois? I always skip the sentences with that word because I just imagine it's part of some slogan or something. That said, I've only read half the things I've read by communists.
Yootopia
08-06-2007, 00:22
No, Stalin was the saviour of the Russian people.
a) No he wasn't
b) Doesn't mean that he didn't own everything even if he was
Neither. I am here to resurrect the memory of the greatest man ever to walk the Earth. Your disrespect is a disgusting outgrowth of your bourgeois upbringing.
You using broadband?
There is no such thing as Soviet propaganda. Just facts.
Right... right... *pisses self laughing*
Your opinion is worthless then.
I dunno... killing 40% of your own population, some on the grounds that they were intellectuals because they wore glasses is kind of the worst thing you can do.
Typical bourgeois reactionary. Supporting traitors to our cause.
... any other buzzwords you want to throw in to discredit your argument still further?
Bald Anarchists
08-06-2007, 00:22
He must have much bigger genitalia than anyone else on this board to make arguments like that. :p

How does he ride a bike? :D
Yootopia
08-06-2007, 00:24
What's with communists and their use of the term bourgeois? I always skip the sentences with that word because I just imagine it's part of some slogan or something. That said, I've only read half the things I've read by communists.
As a leftist I agree.

Along with the words "counter-revolutionary" and "proletariat", it makes it irritating to read almost anything written by most communist 'intellectuals', who choose to preach to the converted, rather than actually trying to get new followers to the cause.
New Stalinberg
08-06-2007, 00:25
This is one of the dumbest OPs I've seen in a while.
Trotskylvania
08-06-2007, 00:25
How does he ride a bike? :D

Maybe the "Invisible Hand" is helping him?
Desperate Measures
08-06-2007, 00:26
How does he ride a bike? :D

Over the shoulder baby holder. http://www.parentsafely.com/shoulder.jpg
Trotskylvania
08-06-2007, 00:27
As a leftist I agree.

Along with the words "counter-revolutionary" and "proletariat", it makes it irritating to read almost anything written by most communist 'intellectuals', who choose to preach to the converted, rather than actually trying to get new followers to the cause.

I only use such terminology when fighting wayward leftists like SocialistRevolutions. I think its helpful to be able to out Marx them.
Yootopia
08-06-2007, 00:27
How does he ride a bike? :D
Anatomical padding and bib knickers :)
Bald Anarchists
08-06-2007, 00:27
Maybe the "Invisible Hand" is helping him?

Awww, you missed my reference. :(
Desperate Measures
08-06-2007, 00:28
As a leftist I agree.

Along with the words "counter-revolutionary" and "proletariat", it makes it irritating to read almost anything written by most communist 'intellectuals', who choose to preach to the converted, rather than actually trying to get new followers to the cause.

I imagine it has to do with the translations they read. Makes you realize that they are not reading much else if that is all their vocabulary has to offer.

Leftist too. Though the OP makes me doubt myself.
Trotskylvania
08-06-2007, 00:31
Awww, you missed my reference. :(

What? The fact that most commies ride bikes everywhere?
Bald Anarchists
08-06-2007, 00:32
What? The fact that most commies ride bikes everywhere?

The Breakfast Club.
Europa Maxima
08-06-2007, 00:32
What? The fact that most commies ride bikes everywhere?
Well you'd think overgrown gonads would get in the way, wouldn't you?
Trotskylvania
08-06-2007, 00:34
The Breakfast Club.

That's a little before my time, unfortunately. I'm only 18 this year.
Desperate Measures
08-06-2007, 00:34
What? The fact that most commies ride bikes everywhere?

Oh come on... You expect me to believe that communists haven't discovered the combustion engine yet?



really?
Trotskylvania
08-06-2007, 00:35
Well you'd think overgrown gonads would get in the way, wouldn't you?

Naw, this guys a "Man of Steel", like his idol, Stalin. ;)
Trotskylvania
08-06-2007, 00:37
Oh come on... You expect me to believe that communists haven't discovered the combustion engine yet?



really?

Some of us are either very ecologically minded or too poor to afford cars. :(
United Chicken Kleptos
08-06-2007, 00:53
He helped defeat fascism and Nazism during the Second World War. He heroically opposed imperialism and defended the Third World. He made the U.S.S.R. the first genuinely socialist nation, and led to its industrialization, proving that real socialism can and does work.

How come so many people, including many counterfeit "leftists," hate him?

One tends to think of various reasons, including the KGB, "unpersons", changing the past, the Great Purge, poisoning Lenin to quicken his death, totalitarian rule... That, and he made the Soviet Union just as bad or worse than it was under Tsar Nicholas II.
Zarakon
08-06-2007, 01:00
Wait...Did he just say you have to be a Stalinist to be a leftist?
Neesika
08-06-2007, 01:06
He helped defeat fascism and Nazism during the Second World War. He heroically opposed imperialism and defended the Third World. He made the U.S.S.R. the first genuinely socialist nation, and led to its industrialization, proving that real socialism can and does work.

How come so many people, including many counterfeit "leftists," hate him?


The Holodomor is just one good reason.

Next!
Andaras Prime
08-06-2007, 01:29
Wow, 9 pages of immature reactionary garbage replies.
Turquoise Days
08-06-2007, 01:32
Wow, 9 pages of immature reactionary garbage replies.

:eek: What?! Where?
Prumpa
08-06-2007, 01:39
Why is he hated? Because he enslaved a third of the world, and killed off people like they were nothing. I don't find it surprising that one of the places he's most hated in is the fmr. Soviet Union herself.
Underdownia
08-06-2007, 01:58
*Tries to resist temptation to start an immature spin-off thread called "OMG, why doesn't peepulz love Pol Pot???"*
Bald Anarchists
08-06-2007, 02:10
Wow, 9 pages of immature reactionary garbage replies.

Don't tell me you agree with the OP!? :eek:










;)
Bald Anarchists
08-06-2007, 02:11
poisoning Lenin to quicken his death

O RLY?
Bald Anarchists
08-06-2007, 02:13
That's a little before my time, unfortunately. I'm only 18 this year.

I'm only 21, and I've still seen it. ;)

(It came out a few months before I was born.)

Check it out sometime. Good stuff. :)
CoallitionOfTheWilling
08-06-2007, 02:35
Woo, woo, woo!!! (Troll detector goes off, several pages too late).

This guy is not serious. Of course, I still think PURGE would make a great game show, we could bring back golden oldies like Nikita Khruschev. Who could forget that time in the UN when he banged his shoe on his desk and yelled, "We will bury you!" How about the man with one big eyebrow, Leonid Brezhnev? My personal favorite is Yuri Andropov, the man who got his nine ounces quicker than any other General Secretary in the history of the Party, I hear those 9 millimeter brain tumours are still popular with Vladimir Putin. Who also masturbates to naked photos of Stalin every night. He misses his Communist Party and is determined to bring it back.

Imagine the ratings! Imagine the pure, unvarnished carnage on national TV! Imagine all of the LOVELY PARTING GIFTS!

~S

You Win The Thread! :)



EDIT: Oh no the time warp!
Schwarzchild
08-06-2007, 02:35
Yes, fascists and their collaborators. So what?

Woo, woo, woo!!! (Troll detector goes off, several pages too late).

This guy is not serious. Of course, I still think PURGE would make a great game show, we could bring back golden oldies like Nikita Khruschev. Who could forget that time in the UN when he banged his shoe on his desk and yelled, "We will bury you!" How about the man with one big eyebrow, Leonid Brezhnev? My personal favorite is Yuri Andropov, the man who got his nine ounces quicker than any other General Secretary in the history of the Party, I hear those 9 millimeter brain tumours are still popular with Vladimir Putin. Who also masturbates to naked photos of Stalin every night. He misses his Communist Party and is determined to bring it back.

Imagine the ratings! Imagine the pure, unvarnished carnage on national TV! Imagine all of the LOVELY PARTING GIFTS! Doubleplusgood!!!

~S
Xiscapia
08-06-2007, 02:49
Woo, woo, woo!!! (Troll detector goes off, several pages too late).

This guy is not serious. Of course, I still think PURGE would make a great game show, we could bring back golden oldies like Nikita Khruschev. Who could forget that time in the UN when he banged his shoe on his desk and yelled, "We will bury you!" How about the man with one big eyebrow, Leonid Brezhnev? My personal favorite is Yuri Andropov, the man who got his nine ounces quicker than any other General Secretary in the history of the Party, I hear those 9 millimeter brain tumours are still popular with Vladimir Putin. Who also masturbates to naked photos of Stalin every night. He misses his Communist Party and is determined to bring it back.

Imagine the ratings! Imagine the pure, unvarnished carnage on national TV! Imagine all of the LOVELY PARTING GIFTS! Doubleplusgood!!!

~S

I agree. You win.
Congressional Dimwits
08-06-2007, 03:04
He helped defeat fascism and Nazism during the Second World War. He heroically opposed imperialism and defended the Third World. He made the U.S.S.R. the first genuinely socialist nation, and led to its industrialization, proving that real socialism can and does work.

How come so many people, including many counterfeit "leftists," hate him?

Are you insane!?! He didn't "help defeat fascism;" he was a fascist! He originally formed an alliance with the Nazis- he only opposed them after they invaded Russia! The Soviets were imperialistic in their own right- even more so in treating their own people like peasants! In real socialism, a nation takes care of its people. It doesn't let them starve or even just murder millions of them out of dissent (which is essential to real socialism) or just genuine Paranoia (Stalin had theat disorder.)! And in what way was the Soviet Union ever socialist?!? I am a socialist, I hold freedom and equality sacrosanct, and, in the enitre history of eastern Europe or Asia, there has been no more unsocialistic figure than Joseph Stalin.
SocialistRevolutions
08-06-2007, 04:12
Are you insane!?!
No - in fact I am the only sane one here by the looks of it.

He didn't "help defeat fascism;" he was a fascist! He originally formed an alliance with the Nazis- he only opposed them after they invaded Russia! The Soviets were imperialistic in their own right- even more so in treating their own people like peasants!

The task of building an empire was necessary to achieve his grand goal. Indeed, were he not to excise Europe of its capitalist tumour, it would all avail to nothing.

In real socialism, a nation takes care of its people.

Which is exactly what Stalin did.

It doesn't let them starve or even just murder millions of them out of dissent (which is essential to real socialism)

The dissenters were nothing more than a sickness from within. Their elimination was necessary.

or just genuine Paranoia (Stalin had theat disorder.)!

No, he had a keen insight. It is your intellectual dishonesty that will not allow you to see this. Were cognitive dissonance a disease, you'd be dead now.

And in what way was the Soviet Union ever socialist?!? I am a socialist, I hold freedom and equality sacrosanct, and, in the enitre history of eastern Europe or Asia, there has been no more unsocialistic figure than Joseph Stalin.

It is saddening, the power Western media has to distance people from the truth.
Barringtonia
08-06-2007, 04:23
The suspicion would have to be, if you credit Socialist Revolution with any brains, that he's a right-wing troll playing the blind socialist to laugh at contradictory statements, or those that are simply shallow.

It's all a game and only one playa.

Donde esta la playa?

*pardon my poor Spanish pun*
New Ausha
08-06-2007, 04:34
He helped defeat fascism and Nazism during the Second World War. He heroically opposed imperialism and defended the Third World. He made the U.S.S.R. the first genuinely socialist nation, and led to its industrialization, proving that real socialism can and does work.

How come so many people, including many counterfeit "leftists," hate him?

That, AND he butchered 20 million innocent soviet citizens, initiated a national police force of pure terror, polluted and disgraced socialism, convaluding it into a faux version of Marxism, known today as Stalinism. Theres also raping Germany post world war II, and forcing eastern Europe into submission as satellite states, establishing a government monopoly of media. Aside from that, great guy.
Frisbeeteria
08-06-2007, 04:53
It is saddening, the power Western media has to distance people from the truth.

We're getting awfully tired of troll puppets. Roach-busters, or whatever you've been calling yourself lately, don't do this again.