NationStates Jolt Archive

This post commemorates the passing of the great leader 55 years ago to this day, March 5, 1953. This is a dedication not to the man but to the practical work of building socialist development in industry and agriculture in the Soviet union, to his steadfast work in building local soviet worker power, for building revolutionary democracy, for destroying fascism and the advancement of Marxism-Leninism. Yet even today, 55 years after his death, his true legacy is desperately obscured by the bourgeois in order to hide the reality that a people can reach industrialization in one generation and a feudal backwater can be turned into a industrialized state without hundreds of years, as is what is happening in the 'developed world'. Such academics as Ludo Martens, Bill Brand etc have all worked in defending not 'Stalins' work, he was but a small part, but the work of millions of people, who united in common purpose, escaped a capitalist nightmare.

And to commemorate him then, it would be reactionary to focus on any personal aspects, rather than commemorating the work of the soviet people.

Naturally the cynicism of the self-flattering bourgeois will emerge to 'enlighten' us on the 'terror' of Stalin, and in effect to tell us that the peasants using self-defense against kulaks slaughtering their cattle and families was 'unjust', or white guards and czarists hording grain and selling it abroad, causing millions to starve, was 'innovative'.


We are immediately told of 'Stalin's Rule, yet in reality Stalin didn't rule anything, in modern contrast the Presidential executive system in the US gives more power to one person than the democratic-centralist party model in the USSR, which in contrast had millions of politically active members of soviet worker councils, the role of the central committee was overall guiding of industrial and socialization developments, and of coordination, linking Stalin with 'totalitarianism' is plain wrong because the efforts of Soviet development were for the most part ad-hoc actions by local workers. The seizure of power by the Soviet worker councils in the cities set about a series of events and violent struggles in the countryside. The kulaks[rural capitalists] fought violently against this rising of their peasants, and slaughtered thousands of peasants, killed communists etc. The peasants realized they didn't have to live in feudal conditions under serfdom to the kulak landlords. In revenge the kulaks refused to join the growing free collective farm movement, and they slaughtered over 30,000,000 cattle, burnt houses (both their own and those of the collectives), this directly caused the famine of 32, many died of exposure in the winter because the kulaks horded fuel, millions starved because the kulaks were speculating on higher grain prices in overseas capitalist markets, and sold millions of tonnes through illegal trade in the Ukraine.

The majority of those who died were the kulaks and their families themselves, either through starvation, exposure, or being killed in civil war actions by the peasants in revenge. These same Ukrainian kulaks (or the remnants of them) fought for the Nazi's when the Ukraine was occupied (in fact the kulaks started attacking the peasant army before the Germans even arrived). The Ukrainian right-wing kulaks then helped the Germans in exterminations of Slavs, communists, soviet pows, and mass deportations of Jews.

The difference is that the Russian revolution was a revolutionary great leap for over 200 million peasants who lived with no electricity, constantly on the brink of starvation by a regime which kept them in a pitiful existance, a cesspool for servility and incredulity, shame,crude antisemitism, ignorance, superstition and barbarity. Socialism pulled these downtrodden of the earth and gave them electricity, power over their labor and true liberation, it was a giant step forward for humanity. Stalin industrialized an entire country in 15 years, he gave the option to the world of development in one generation, instead of the 'developing world' today which will never develop but simply get worst. The only casualties of this were the result of the civil war caused by the far-right elements that resisted industrial socialization and killed to keep Russia as a bulwark of backward feudalism and poverty, if you want to blame the peasants for resisting fascism then do so. The Eastern Front was simply a continuation of the far-right campaign to destroy worker liberation in Russia, and to bring about a second dark age.

So here is not to 'Stalin', here is too what he represented, liberation for the working masses!

And here we have Exhibit A on historical blindness ladies and gentlemen...

Liberation in the form of death! Yay!

Because it's -okay- to kill people, as long as they're not you. NOT!

Get it Andares? This same argument was used against communists in the US during the Cold War. It Does Not Work!
Sorry, but I am comfortably say that the Ukrainian kulaks, who through exporting grain abroad for personal profit, civil war activities including slaughtering cattle and participation with the SS in the holocaust, killed more than 50 million people, deserved to be confronted.

And here we have Exhibit A inane pithy one-line troll

Thanks.

I'd celebrate the death of the monster Stalin, but March 5th was yesterday.

Liberation in the form of death! Yay!

Because it's -okay- to kill people, as long as they're not you. NOT!

Get it Andares? This same argument was used against communists in the US during the Cold War. It Does Not Work!

I fail to see how anyone can glorify someone who caused millions of deaths and stifled musical and artistic development in the country for decades, and indirectly attributed to Russia's continuing flawed democracy.I just need to scroll up to see it... :p

Slowpoke? Is That You?

I fail to see how anyone can glorify someone who caused millions of deaths and stifled musical and artistic development in the country for decades, and indirectly attributed to Russia's continuing flawed democracy.

Sorry, but I am comfortably say that the Ukrainian kulaks, who through exporting grain abroad for personal profit, civil war activities including slaughtering cattle and participation with the SS in the holocaust, killed more than 50 million people, deserved to be confronted.

Is it any wonder they were involved with the SS, considering the campaign of genocide waged against them by the Soviets during the 20's and 30's?

What's really sad is that although this is clearly a trolling, offensive thread, it's the kind of thing that will run for pages and pages...

Is it any wonder they were involved with the SS, considering the campaign of genocide waged against them by the Soviets during the 20's and 30's?Wise comrade Stalin in his wise wisdom was able to forsee this and thus punished them preemtively.

I wonder in how many places Andaras' heart would break when he discovers that Stalin actually prayed to God during the Great Patriotic War?

Wise comrade Stalin in his wise wisdom was able to forsee this and thus punished them preemtively.

I wonder in how many places Andaras' heart would break when he discovers that Stalin actually prayed to God during the Great Patriotic War?

Andaras' threads depress me

I really like a good historical debate, but I can't even debate with Andaras. No matter how many facts I put together, how long the post is, how many footnotes there are, he always rejects the sources as 'bourgoisie garbage' and simply copy and pastes an article from a website.

That level of ideological indoctrination saddens me, because it means he's blinded to the things that went wrong in the Soviet Union under Stalin. At least the Nazis who occassionally pop up debate properly.

Andaras' threads depress me

I really like a good historical debate, but I can't even debate with Andaras. No matter how many facts I put together, how long the post is, how many footnotes there are, he always rejects the sources as 'bourgoisie garbage' and simply copy and pastes an article from a website.

That level of ideological indoctrination saddens me, because it means he's blinded to the things that went wrong in the Soviet Union under Stalin. At least the Nazis who occassionally pop up debate properly.I don't know. Occasionally some of the racists do, but there's plenty of blind ones among that bunch. They're just easier to forget because they tend to be one post wonders or get banned. It's the cleverer ones that stick to mind. Meanwhile Andaras has gained infamy by being a pretty much one of a kind phenomenon.

That level of ideological indoctrination saddens me, because it means he's blinded to the things that went wrong in the Soviet Union under Stalin. At least the Nazis who occassionally pop up debate properly.

Think of it as practice for arguing against Scientologists. The methods he uses are exactly the same, minus the legislation trigger happiness.

Stalin didn't 'wage' anything, the level of communication and technological development did not exist anywhere in the world for what you are suggesting. The civil war in the Ukraine was the result of the kulaks trying to create a capitalist 'state within a state', hording peasant grain and selling it abroad, causing the famine. The peasants rose up and collectivization offered them the opportunity of development out of feudal landlordism by the kulaks. Those who died were mostly kulaks themselves and their families, who slaughtered their own cattle in protest to loosing their landed serfs.Proof?

I have a paper to do, but I can't help myself. Could you cite a source for that?The current Real-Time-Forum is forums2.jolt.co.uk ;)

Is it any wonder they were involved with the SS, considering the campaign of genocide waged against them by the Soviets during the 20's and 30's?

Stalin didn't 'wage' anything, the level of communication and technological development did not exist anywhere in the world for what you are suggesting. The civil war in the Ukraine was the result of the kulaks trying to create a capitalist 'state within a state', hording peasant grain and selling it abroad, causing the famine. The peasants rose up and collectivization offered them the opportunity of development out of feudal landlordism by the kulaks. Those who died were mostly kulaks themselves and their families, who slaughtered their own cattle in protest to loosing their landed serfs.

I have a paper to do, but I can't help myself. Could you cite a source for that?

Sure.

Douglas Tottle, Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard (Toronto: Progress Books, 1987), pp. 5--6.

The Nation 140 (36), 13 March 1935, quoted in Tottle, p. 8.

James Casey, Daily Worker, 21 February 1935, quoted in Tottle, p. 9.

J. Arch Getty, Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered, 1933--1938 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 5.

R. W. Davies, The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia I: The Socialist Offensive; The Collectivisation of Soviet Agriculture, 1929--1930 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1980), pp. 4--5.

Lynne Viola, The Best Sons of the Fatherland: Workers in the Vanguard of Soviet Collectivisation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 22.

Stalin, Problems of Agrarian Policy in the U.S.S.R. Leninism, p. 155.

Stalin, On the Grain Front. Leninism, p. 59.

Robert H. McNeal, editor, Resolutions and decisions of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Volume 3, The Stalin Years: 1929--1953 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974), p. 23.

R. W. Davies, The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia II: The Soviet Collective Farm, 1929--1930 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1980), pp. 13--14.

Stalin didn't 'wage' anything, the level of communication and technological development did not exist anywhere in the world for what you are suggesting. The civil war in the Ukraine was the result of the kulaks trying to create a capitalist 'state within a state', hording peasant grain and selling it abroad, causing the famine. The peasants rose up and collectivization offered them the opportunity of development out of feudal landlordism by the kulaks. Those who died were mostly kulaks themselves and their families, who slaughtered their own cattle in protest to loosing their landed serfs.

I have a paper to do, but I can't help myself. Could you cite a source for that?

the real question that needs to be asked is what kind of sex was uncle Joe* into?

also did Stalin ever do anything wrong beyond that time he ran naked in blind nunnery?

*looking at that name I'd like some proof he wasn't a child molester

*snip*

If Stalin was so great then why was his body removed from a glass coffin that was with Lenin?

Sure.

Douglas Tottle, Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard (Toronto: Progress Books, 1987), pp. 5--6.

The Nation 140 (36), 13 March 1935, quoted in Tottle, p. 8.

James Casey, Daily Worker, 21 February 1935, quoted in Tottle, p. 9.

Well, to be fair, Tottle is an extremely controversial historian who denies the Holodomor, so he's hardly reliable. That's like trying to use Holocaust Revisionists like Irving to prove the Holocaust never happened

J. Arch Getty, Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered, 1933--1938 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 5.

Getty is listed by wiki as a Revisionist, which instantly shoots up a warning flare for me; revisionists are inherently untrustworthy, but still, it's a source to start with.

R. W. Davies, The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia I: The Socialist Offensive; The Collectivisation of Soviet Agriculture, 1929--1930 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1980), pp. 4--5.

Lynne Viola, The Best Sons of the Fatherland: Workers in the Vanguard of Soviet Collectivisation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 22.

I'm going to see if my library has copies of these, I'll look in a sec. Otherwise I don't know about them as sources.

Stalin, Problems of Agrarian Policy in the U.S.S.R. Leninism, p. 155.

Stalin, On the Grain Front. Leninism, p. 59.

You can't really use Stalin as a source in this debate. He's hardly going to be reliable; again, it's akin to using Mein Kampf to justify the Holocaust.

Robert H. McNeal, editor, Resolutions and decisions of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Volume 3, The Stalin Years: 1929--1953 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974), p. 23.

R. W. Davies, The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia II: The Soviet Collective Farm, 1929--1930 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1980), pp. 13--14.

I'm going to try and find these two as well, and then begin debating your argument. Bear with me.

http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1173277999-StalinCat.png

If Stalin was so great then why was his body removed from a glass coffin that was with Lenin?

if he was so smart how come he died to begin with? :p

Sure.

Douglas Tottle, Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard (Toronto: Progress Books, 1987), pp. 5--6.He's got plenty of pro-Soviet bias.
The Nation 140 (36), 13 March 1935, quoted in Tottle, p. 8.

James Casey, Daily Worker, 21 February 1935, quoted in Tottle, p. 9.Both sources lacked the access afforded today.

J. Arch Getty, Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered, 1933--1938 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 5.

R. W. Davies, The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia I: The Socialist Offensive; The Collectivisation of Soviet Agriculture, 1929--1930 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1980), pp. 4--5.

Lynne Viola, The Best Sons of the Fatherland: Workers in the Vanguard of Soviet Collectivisation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 22.Haven't had time to check these out.

Stalin, Problems of Agrarian Policy in the U.S.S.R. Leninism, p. 155.

Stalin, On the Grain Front. Leninism, p. 59.:rolleyes:

Andaras: Mr. Djugashvili, are you guilty of genocide?
Stalin: Most certainly not!
Andaras: Well, there you have it. Case closed!

Robert H. McNeal, editor, Resolutions and decisions of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Volume 3, The Stalin Years: 1929--1953 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974), p. 23.

R. W. Davies, The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia II: The Soviet Collective Farm, 1929--1930 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1980), pp. 13--14.Haven't had time to check these out.

Interesting selection of objective sources there. :rolleyes:

Stalin, Problems of Agrarian Policy in the U.S.S.R. Leninism, p. 155.

Stalin, On the Grain Front. Leninism, p. 59.

Because Stalin himself is an utterly impartial observer.

Tottle doesn't 'deny' the holodomor, no one denies the famine, Tottle uses excellent sources and arguments to put across that the famine was caused by the civil war and the uprising against the kulaks by the peasants, who expropriated the kulak colonies, and the kulaks in retaliation slaughtered cattle, burnt communes to the ground etc. The kinda 'totalitarian' control purported by pseudo-intellectuals and professional slanders like Conquest has been thoroughly disproved.

Also, just because wiki says their 'revisionist', is that the end-all? I have seen many things of wiki which are completely false yet remain because of the small amount of active editors on smaller articles of lesser interest.

Because Stalin himself is an utterly impartial observer.Someone so far removed from reality must be distant enough to the topic at hand, wouldn't you say? :p

Tottle doesn't 'deny' the holodomor, no one denies the famine, Tottle uses excellent sources and arguments to put across that the famine was caused by the civil war and the uprising against the kulaks by the peasants, who expropriated the kulak colonies, and the kulaks in retaliation slaughtered cattle, burnt communes to the ground etc. The kinda 'totalitarian' control purported by pseudo-intellectuals and professional slanders like Conquest has been thoroughly disproved.

Also, just because wiki says their 'revisionist', is that the end-all? I have seen many things of wiki which are completely false yet remain because of the small amount of active editors on smaller articles of lesser interest.

Well, we'll see.

I'd also like to request that, if you are serious about this debate, you not use the following words:


Borgouisie (I can never spell that, blast it)
Fascist
McCarthy
Capitalist


Because you do in every other thread and they're just weasel-words. Try and debate without them, please?

Tottle doesn't 'deny' the holodomor, no one denies the famine, Tottle uses excellent sources and arguments to put across that the famine was caused by the civil war and the uprising against the kulaks by the peasants, who expropriated the kulak colonies, and the kulaks in retaliation slaughtered cattle, burnt communes to the ground etc. The kinda 'totalitarian' control purported by pseudo-intellectuals and professional slanders like Conquest has been thoroughly disproved.Care to point them out? (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/tottlefraud.pdf)
Also, just because wiki says their 'revisionist', is that the end-all? I have seen many things of wiki which are completely false yet remain because of the small amount of active editors on smaller articles of lesser interest.You aren't objective, though, so how can we know whether it really is falsehoods your complaining about?

Stalin didn't 'wage' anything, the level of communication and technological development did not exist anywhere in the world for what you are suggesting. The civil war in the Ukraine was the result of the kulaks trying to create a capitalist 'state within a state', hording peasant grain and selling it abroad, causing the famine. The peasants rose up and collectivization offered them the opportunity of development out of feudal landlordism by the kulaks. Those who died were mostly kulaks themselves and their families, who slaughtered their own cattle in protest to loosing their landed serfs.

Which Kulak uprising are you talking about or this one:

To break the resistance of the peasants in the Ukraine, the North Caucasus, and Kazakhstan, Stalin inflicted on these areas in 1932-33 an artificial famine, shippingout all the food from entire districts and deploying the army to prevent the starving peasants from migrating in search of nourishment. It is estimated that between 6 and 7 million people perished in this man-made catastrophe.

COMMUNISM: A HISTORY by Richard Pipes.

Borgouisie (I can never spell that, blast it)

bourgeoisie n.
bourgeois adj.

try and remember its "bour" and "g(e)" "ois". ;)

if he was so smart how come he died to begin with? :p

Didn't he die of a stroke or something, the same as Lenin did?

bourgeoisie n.
bourgeois adj.

try and remember its "bour" and "g(e)" "ois". ;)

Bah, I try, but I don't think I ever will. It's the same with me and Bureau. I always try and add an 'A' after the B.

Oh no not again. I recall another poster who tried this.
Stalin=bad.
bad=no food
no food=hunger
hunger=death
death=religious debate
religious debate=going in circles

I conclude this thread will most certainly go in circles. How anyone can defend Stalin's actions is beyond me, seems pointless and futile but that's just my opinion.

I hope people like Stalin never take power again.

Lol, talk about biased sources.:rolleyes:

So you prefer the actual source:

This from the notes section:

Werth in Courtois, The Black BOok of Communism, 159, 167

Which Kulak uprising are you talking about or this one:



COMMUNISM: A HISTORY by Richard Pipes.

Lol, talk about biased sources.:rolleyes:

Lol, talk about biased sources.:rolleyes:Pot, meet Kettle.

Tottle doesn't 'deny' the holodomor, no one denies the famine,

Well, that's a good starting point

Tottle uses excellent sources and arguments to put across that the famine was caused by the civil war and the uprising against the kulaks by the peasants, who expropriated the kulak colonies, and the kulaks in retaliation slaughtered cattle, burnt communes to the ground etc.

Here's the part I'll want to debate. I'd argue that whilst the Civil War caused a great deal of the Holodomor, the Kulaks did not rise up against the peasants as such, and that the Kulaks were used as a convenient excuse by Stalin for his purges.

The kinda 'totalitarian' control purported by pseudo-intellectuals and professional slanders like Conquest has been thoroughly disproved.

Again with the weasel-words. This just adds nothing to the debate.

Also, just because wiki says their 'revisionist', is that the end-all? I have seen many things of wiki which are completely false yet remain because of the small amount of active editors on smaller articles of lesser interest.

No, but I believe any historian should be wary of anyone calling themselves revisionist in any subject - take the Institute for Historical Revision, for instance.

Didn't he die of a stroke or something, the same as Lenin did?

well then if hes so great why didn't he see it coming and find a cure for death!

then when hes done with that he can work out a better way than having a crap on the environment as a means of national development and then maybe just maybe he will realize that the regions agricultural development was unfinished when he decided it was time to go all industrial

I'm going to try and find these two as well, and then begin debating your argument. Bear with me.

I dub thee....Sisyphus

So you prefer the actual source:

This from the notes section:

Werth in Courtois, The Black BOok of Communism, 159, 167

You realize right that the Black Book of Communism is complete work of fiction right, even the authors who were involved now distance themselves from it. They all think Courtois was obsessed with getting the 100 million figure, so they fabricated a little here and there to get it up to that number. Solzhenitsyn, Applebaum and Conquest are just more in a long line of far-right anti-communist propagandists posing as intellectuals.

then when hes done with that he can work out a better way than having a crap on the environment as a means of national development and then maybe just maybe he will realize that the regions agricultural development was unfinished when he decided it was time to go all industrial

And in the process of going industrial, destroying the agricultural industry and if it wasn't for American assistance, many more millions would have died in the famine.

You realize right that the Black Book of Communism is complete work of fiction right, even the authors who were involved now distance themselves from it. They all think Courtois was obsessed with getting the 100 million figure, so they fabricated a little here and there to get it up to that number. Solzhenitsyn, Applebaum and Conquest are just more in a long line of far-right anti-communist propagandists posing as intellectuals.

Now I shall wait for some verifiable proof of these assertions.

Now I shall wait for some verifiable proof of these assertions.

You will get nothing my fascist friend.

You realize right that the Black Book of Communism is complete work of fiction right, Proof?
even the authors who were involved now distance themselves from it. They all think Courtois was obsessed with getting the 100 million figure, so they fabricated a little here and there to get it up to that number.Bullshit to the first part. They're distancing themselves from the introduction by Courtois and claim the numbers are between 65 and 93 million lives. Considering that the book consists of a lot of authors, I'd be surprised if they distance themselves from the book as a whole.
Solzhenitsyn, Applebaum and Conquest are just more in a long line of far-right anti-communist propagandists posing as intellectuals.Proof?

You will get nothing my fascist friend.There's that F-word again.
I spose you mean the thousands of American troops in Russia during the civil war then? Those which quietly looked on while the fascist whites under their noses committed mass murder. Industrialization was done against the tide of reactionary opposition who want to retain their peasant servility, who didn't want an educated, empowered people.Proof?

I spose you mean the thousands of American troops in Russia during the civil war then? Those which quietly looked on while the fascist whites under their noses committed mass murder. Industrialization was done against the tide of reactionary opposition who want to retain their peasant servility, who didn't want an educated, empowered people.

Um no actually...

When the Russian famine of 1921 broke out, the ARA's director in Europe, Walter Lyman Brown, began negotiating with Soviet deputy People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Maxim Litvinov, in Riga, Latvia. An agreement was reached on August 21, 1921 and an additional implementation agreement was signed by Brown and People's Commisar for Foreign Trade Leonid Krasin on December 30, 1921. [1]

At its peak, the ARA employed 300 Americans, more than 120,000 Russians and fed 10.5 million people daily. Its Russian operations were headed by Col. William N. Haskell. The Medical Division of the ARA functioned from November 1921 to June 1923 and helped overcome the typhus epidemic then ravaging Russia. The ARA's famine relief operations ran in parallel with a much smaller Mennonite famine relief operation in Russia. [2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Relief_Administration

And in the process of going industrial, destroying the agricultural industry and if it wasn't for American assistance, many more millions would have died in the famine.
I spose you mean the thousands of American troops in Russia during the civil war then? Those which quietly looked on while the fascist whites under their noses committed mass murder. Industrialization was done against the tide of reactionary opposition who want to retain their peasant servility, who didn't want an educated, empowered people.

You will get nothing my fascist friend.

Fascist? *dies of laughter*

In that case, I'll stick to the source since you cannot prove it to be false as you claimed it to be.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fascism
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bourgeoisie
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/far_right

I believe someone here needs to take a look next time he wants to label someone fascist or right-wing.

By the way:

fascism

1. A political regime based on strong centralized government, suppressing through violence any criticism or opposition of the regime, and exalting nation, state, or religion above the individual.
2. A system of strong autocracy or oligarchy.

Fits perfectly to practical Marxism-Leninism, eh?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fascism
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bourgeoisie
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/far_right

I believe someone here needs to take a look next time he wants to label someone fascist or right-wing.

By the way:

fascism

1. A political regime based on strong centralized government, suppressing through violence any criticism or opposition of the regime, and exalting nation, state, or religion above the individual.
2. A system of strong autocracy or oligarchy.

Fits perfectly to practical Marxism-Leninism, eh?

A bit ironic isn't it?

Stalin was a bad man,end of story.Careful now. Andaras might call you a fascist.

Stalin was a bad man,end of story.
Yes,Stalin introduced the collectivization of agriculture,which was a good thing. Stalin built on the CCCP's economy with industrialization. Yes,that was a good thing.
But those are the only two good thing that I can see. And if this makes Stalin a good man,then Atilla the Hun and Adolf Hitler were saints. I will also defend that statement with things like "Atilla was also fun on some days".
Stalin betrayed Comrade Lenin. Who started the Soviet Union in the first place. Lenin was out to stop Stalin in the end,but was in such poor health that he could no longer do so. Stalin not only took advantage of Lenin's ailing health to undermine the hard work he had done to create total equality,but sent the Soviet Union into a downward spiral that made the deepest pits of hell look like a day at the beach. Not only was Stalin a murderous pile of poo-poo,but he was an afront to the Soviet Union and Lenin. Stalin was the man who put such a horrible mark on the once beloved Soviet Union,it was Stalin who initiated the cold war. It was Stalin who cared little for the people,and only cared for himself. It was Stalin who also cared so much for industrialization,to impress the United States of America and Great Britain,that he forgot about the people,and caused starvation and squandered thousands apon thousands of Roubles.
No Comrade,Stalin was a horrible,miserable excuse for a human being,Like Adolf Hitler was. He sent thousands of thousands of people to their deaths,and for what,to defend Stalingrad? Which was ruins? Useless to even Germany (Volga River Aside) as a tactical post? Even Hitler's top staff knew this! But Stalin continued simply because of his name sake.
I agree with an earlier post,Stalin was a Stain on the Soviet Union,one which never went away.

And don't you even dare to use Bourgeois (or however you spell it) Capitalist,or Fascist,or any of those other pathetic little insults you seem to throw at other people.
I lived in the Soviet Union for 12 years of my life,and loved it. I am pro-communist and damn sure wish the Soviet Union was still around.

Stalin was a bad man,end of story.
Yes,Stalin introduced the collectivization of agriculture,which was a good thing. Stalin built on the CCCP's economy with industrialization. Yes,that was a good thing.

It was? So you loved the fact that Stalin pretty much killed the agricultural industry in the nation?

And here we have Exhibit A on historical blindness ladies and gentlemen...

/thread

Yes,Stalin introduced the collectivization of agriculture,which was a good thing. Stalin built on the CCCP's economy with industrialization. Yes,that was a good thing.
But those are the only two good thing that I can see.

Hm, actually I don't think that Stalin did much good for soviet agriculture - remember Lysenko and his idiotic plan of cutting away the tree lines that protected the cernozem from atmospheric erosion.

The only good thing about Stalin I can think of is that he found the best way to unite most of the Soviet people against the fascist invasion (some sadly fought on the other side), by calling on the old image of Mother Russia.
Oh another thing, Stalin was the only world leader who actually sent military aid to the Spanish Republic against Franco.

That, and no more. The soviet intellectual life was ruined under Stalin - and this prepared the ground for the stagnation of the Brez'nev era.

Oh another thing, Stalin was the only world leader who actually sent military aid to the Spanish Republic against Franco.

I hope he's rotting in the deepest level of hell, but GRACIAS MIL POR AYUDARNOS, STALIN.:D

And for that very reason, I hope he's rotting in the deepest level of hell.:D

I wonder: how can you support one of the worst slaughterers of their own citizens while hating another of the worst slaughterers of their own citizens?

I. Smell. Contradiction.

? you edited your post right when I was answering...

It is Stalin whose policies most doomed the USSR to collapse.

His mania for information control, his purges of independent minded technicians and engineers, his single-minded focus on heavy industry and his program of military expenditures doomed the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union needed free flows of information, if it was to succeed, but this mania for control, made it so that this information could not be had. The system Stalin constructed, though, was one which could not permit for this...a system that is workable with readily available 1930's technology, barely so with readily available 1950's technology, and not possible beyond that. You can try to shuffle the blame onto Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev all you want Andaras, but they were merely reacting to the changes and opportunities necessitated by new information technology. Stalin is the single, central source of blame for the collapse of the USSR.

Heavy industry was not the wave of the future in 1945. American scientists had already developed ENIAC, and the electronics revolution was under way. The Soviet Union was making tremendous strides in certain fields, such as welding technology and steel manufacture, but, truth be told, this is not where the economies of the world were heading. It is telling that by the eighties, there were 25 Million Computers in the United States, and 100,000 in the USSR.

Further, the system of five-year plans did not facilitate effective development of new technologies. Risky endeavors, not guaranteed to pan out, were not only not rewarded, but were actively punished, if an engineer was unable to make a new technology work. The man who developed the commercially viable lightbulb, Thomas Edison, once boasted "Why, I haven't failed, I've discovered 10000 ways not to make a lightbulb!" In Stalinist Russia Edison would not have lasted past the first hundred. This system doomed thousands of able technicians to Siberia and death, and crippled the willingness of Soviet scientists to work on breakthrough fields.

An excellent anecdote to illustrate this, would be one that expresses a team of mainframe designers in Russia. When instructed to lay out their goals for the next five year plan, they did not list a single piece of technology that had not been developed. In fact, some transistors they listed as being planned for development in the upcoming span were already being mass produced and used in radios.

Independent minded engineers and technicians, such as Peter Palchinsky, who offered criticisms of the technical viability of Soviet projects, such as the Dnieper Dam, White Sea Canal and Magnitogorsk were labeled "wreckers". Never mind that none of these projects ever lived up to expectations, that they were ridiculously costly in terms of human lives, usually including their own. They were true believers, and when they questioned the technical grounds upon which these mega-projects were designed, they were killed. It is of little surprise that engineers who later saw something being done improperly would not correct for it, for fear of their own lives. How ridiculous does that sound to you?

Soviet defense expenditures were exceedingly high, and were primarily focused on maintaining occupation forces in Eastern Europe, to lock all the countries of the Warsaw Pact together. The Soviet government knew that there was not a true offensive threat from NATO, they knew that the real threat was that their satellites would break away and defect to the west. A literal condemnation of their system. These expenditures, though, were used to repress and kill Eastern Europeans, for nothing more than the Soviet governments desires for control.

I wonder: how can you support one of the worst slaughterers of their own citizens while hating another of the worst slaughterers of their own citizens?

I. Smell. Contradiction.

? you edited your post right when I was answering...

Yes, I know I'm contradicting myself. But I am greatful Stalin helped my country against Franco. To reap benefits, blood has to be shed, unfortunately.

And yes, I edited my post because I misread the original post.;)

Industrialization was done against the tide of reactionary opposition who want to retain their peasant servility, who didn't want an educated, empowered people.

The only "reactionaries" who questioned the Stalinist policy of industrialization were competent engineers, who did so on the technical grounds of the projects, and they were usually true believers in the cause of Soviet Socialism. The questioned the effectiveness, the cost and the sustainability of the industrial policies that were pursued under Stalin, and they provided feasible alternatives, and were shot for it.

Hm, actually I don't think that Stalin did much good for soviet agriculture - remember Lysenko and his idiotic plan of cutting away the tree lines that protected the cernozem from atmospheric erosion.


Don't forget Lysenko's bizarro embrace of Lamarckism, and his use of politics to remove opponents of his theories. Literally dozens of excellent Russian biologists died because Lysenko denounced them in Stalin's presence.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fascism
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bourgeoisie
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/far_right

I believe someone here needs to take a look next time he wants to label someone fascist or right-wing.

By the way:

fascism

1. A political regime based on strong centralized government, suppressing through violence any criticism or opposition of the regime, and exalting nation, state, or religion above the individual.
2. A system of strong autocracy or oligarchy.

Fits perfectly to practical Marxism-Leninism, eh?
If anyone in this thread is a fascist, then I think it is safe to say that it is Andaras. That is of course using the definition given above.

Do you think if we combined this thread with this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=551197) they would cancel each other out? Like matter with anti-matter?

Do you think if we combined this thread with this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=551197) they would cancel each other out? Like matter with anti-matter?

nah, it might create a stupidity black hole, a realm in which no intelligent thought can escape.

Now if only we could harness that power.Get all the people to stop wasting their time on refuting Andaras and do something productive. There. I've figured out a way to harness the power of this thread with minimal loss of energy :p

One of the greatest serial killers who ever lived!

nah, it might create a stupidity black hole, a realm in which no intelligent thought can escape.

That's because it's basically adding dense matter to other dense matter. You'd need a thread from well... just about any other non-troll/cultist NSGer. The energy generated from this thread so far is sort of proof of that theorem.

Now if only we could harness that power.

Yes, I know I'm contradicting myself. But I am greatful Stalin helped my country against Franco. To reap benefits, blood has to be shed, unfortunately.

And yes, I edited my post because I misread the original post.;)

Oh. I see.
:)

Get all the people to stop wasting their time on refuting Andaras and do something productive. There. I've figured out a way to harness the power of this thread with minimal loss of energy :p

No, no. Matter/intellect annihilation produce huge amounts of energy, much more than if you put it to other uses. The trick is in harnessing that released energy.

No, no. Matter/intellect annihilation produce huge amounts of energy, much more than if you put it to other uses. The trick is in harnessing that released energy.You can't. My idea is far more practical.

Don't forget Lysenko's bizarro embrace of Lamarckism, and his use of politics to remove opponents of his theories. Literally dozens of excellent Russian biologists died because Lysenko denounced them in Stalin's presence.

Yeah. Every time politics wants to direct research and knowledge because of political ideas, shit happens.
See also: Inquisition vs Galileo Galilei, Nazi vs Einstein...
That's why I'm scared when I hear the Pope trying to enforce "ethical values" on research.

You can't. My idea is far more practical.

A pity. Near limitless energy, just out of our reach.

Well I have to praise Andaras for his positive viewpoint on comrade Stalin, but for some of His decisions, i have to disagree a bit

mostly, the part where He had millions of his own soviet countrymen rounded up like cattle and stuck into trains to be sent to the front lines, then if they got scared at their first time in a warzone and ran, they were shot as 'traitors'
[that movie 'enemy at the gates' highlights this perfectly]

But at least under the soviet USSR regime, all the lesser members of the union were better off - so many of them had lots or potential workers, but no resources to use, and the USSR built so many factories, especially in Ukraine and Poland to make them manufacture goods, and gave them the resources to turn into stuff
NOW that the USSR is no more, the factories are closed because without the resources from across the USSR fed into them, they cant make things


Oh, and to answer Call To Power's question about Stalin's death:
Stalin died of a Brain Haemorrage, which is highly suspicious as the nearby jewish doctors refused to help him as he lay dying, this supports the idea:

As Stalin rose to power under Lenin, comrade Stalin secretly gave Lenin poisons which caused Lenin to eventually die of multiple schlerosis.
After world war 2, Stalin Himself began a very nazi path of purging the jews from the USSR
It makes perfect sense, that, all those jews, either survivors from the german camps or those who fled into the USSR to escape hitler, were so full of hate and fear that the were about to face a 2nd turn of slaughter, followed comrade Stalin's idea and caused Stalin's brain haemorrage with secret poisoning

Why do I always miss threads like these?

Oh, and to answer Call To Power's question about Stalin's death:
Stalin died of a Brain Haemorrage, which is highly suspicious as the nearby jewish doctors refused to help him as he lay dying, this supports the idea:

Of course they refused to help him. Cause as you explained:

Stalin Himself began a very nazi path of purging the jews from the USSR

It makes perfect sense, that, all those jews, either survivors from the german camps or those who fled into the USSR to escape hitler, were so full of hate and fear that the were about to face a 2nd turn of slaughter, followed comrade Stalin's idea and caused Stalin's brain haemorrage with secret poisoning

The only problem with this conspiracy theory is that Stalin had already been exterminating the jews before he died.

Mayhaps bad timing??

Or your mind tries to save itself by not registering things posted by AP?
:p

Or your mind tries to save itself by not registering things posted by AP?
:p

That could be it too. Or like me, you just pop into threads for pure amusement and after they've been going on for quite some time.:D

On a side note, these timewarps are messing up my head.
http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o173/KatayokunoTenshi_01/Emoticon/Emoticon%20by%20Reichu/Freakout/twitch.gif

Why do I always miss threads like these?

Mayhaps bad timing??

Well I have to praise Andaras for his positive viewpoint on comrade Stalin, but for some of His decisions, i have to disagree a bit

mostly, the part where He had millions of his own soviet countrymen rounded up like cattle and stuck into trains to be sent to the front lines, then if they got scared at their first time in a warzone and ran, they were shot as 'traitors'
[that movie 'enemy at the gates' highlights this perfectly]

But at least under the soviet USSR regime, all the lesser members of the union were better off - so many of them had lots or potential workers, but no resources to use, and the USSR built so many factories, especially in Ukraine and Poland to make them manufacture goods, and gave them the resources to turn into stuff
NOW that the USSR is no more, the factories are closed because without the resources from across the USSR fed into them, they cant make things


Oh, and to answer Call To Power's question about Stalin's death:
Stalin died of a Brain Haemorrage, which is highly suspicious as the nearby jewish doctors refused to help him as he lay dying, this supports the idea:

As Stalin rose to power under Lenin, comrade Stalin secretly gave Lenin poisons which caused Lenin to eventually die of multiple schlerosis.
After world war 2, Stalin Himself began a very nazi path of purging the jews from the USSR
It makes perfect sense, that, all those jews, either survivors from the german camps or those who fled into the USSR to escape hitler, were so full of hate and fear that the were about to face a 2nd turn of slaughter, followed comrade Stalin's idea and caused Stalin's brain haemorrage with secret poisoningThat's even more delusional than Andaras' posts so far.

That could be it too. Or like me, you just pop into threads for pure amusement and after they've been going on for quite some time.:D

On a side note, these timewarps are messing up my head.
http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o173/KatayokunoTenshi_01/Emoticon/Emoticon%20by%20Reichu/Freakout/twitch.gif

I win!!

I win!!

http://ui22.gamespot.com/2261/hitler_4.jpg

http://ui22.gamespot.com/2261/hitler_4.jpg

*salutes kitty Hitler*

How can one even contemplate "commemorating" Stalin, a figure whom the rational world deems misguided at best, and despicable as a general rule?

How can one even contemplate "commemorating" Stalin, a figure whom the rational world deems misguided at best, and despicable as a general rule?

It's AP, do you really need to know any more?

It's AP, do you really need to know any more?

Well yes, but I thought this would be a step too far, even for him.

I can't have been the only poster to have first thought this was satire?

Well yes, but I thought this would be a step too far, even for him.

I can't have been the only poster to have first thought this was satire?Andaras is a self-proclaimed Stalinist. The idea that he won't want to commemorate Stalin is irrational on its very own.

Have you seen his wonderful contributions to the North Korea thread?

Well yes, but I thought this would be a step too far, even for him.

I can't have been the only poster to have first thought this was satire?

Probably the first poster who has been introduced to AP's version of reality who thought that.

Talk to AP, dude. I'm just here to have fun.
*passes him the pop corn bucket*
Want some, Dyakovo?

*takes some popcorn*
*passes out soda*

Marx is the one true god and Stalin is his prophet
;)

How can one even contemplate "commemorating" Stalin, a figure whom the rational world deems misguided at best, and despicable as a general rule?

Talk to AP, dude. I'm just here to have fun.
*passes him the pop corn bucket*
Want some, Dyakovo?

Talk to AP, dude. I'm just here to have fun.
*passes him the pop corn bucket*
Want some, Dyakovo?

I'll take some thanks. Frankly, no amount of reasoning is gonna work here.

I'll take some thanks. Frankly, no amount of reasoning is gonna work here.

*takes soda from Dyakovo*
Exactly. Just sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

I'll take some thanks. Frankly, no amount of reasoning is gonna work here.

Very true, any time you provide AP, with facts to back up your position he simply says its bourgeois propaganda.

Just have one thing to say ... I hate communism. Thank god "comrade" Stalin's dead and hopefully that retarded ideology will follow suit.

*takes soda from Dyakovo*
Exactly. Just sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

*tries to sell popcorn and soda to AP*

*sigh*

This again?

Lenin himself pleaded to the Central Committee of the Communist Party to watch out for power, and keep him from getting into a position of authority. That's why he was named General Secretary of the CPSU in the first place: it was a bullshit position designed to placate Stalin, and keep him away from anything important. Stalin's sole duty as General Secretary was to keep the records of membership in the CPSU.

In a supreme twist of irony, this was all Stalin needed to consolidate power in the USSR. By having the records of party membership, he could contact individuals without arrousing the suspicions of others, and keep detailed records of supporters and enemies. It took him only four short years after Lenin's death to make himself master of the Soviet Union.

Stalin controlled the information. He was able to get enough people to rally around his personality cult to make himself the undisputed leader. Anyone who opposed him soon became an unperson (read: murdered), deleted from the party registrar and carefully cleaned from any public record. Stalin was a tyrant, pure and simple. The NKVD was his instrument of terror, the secret police that made his mastery over the Communist Party and the Red Army permanent.

You can waffle all you want about the Ukrainian famine, Andaras. That's not the real issue. Stalin's USSR was not a worker's paradise. One has to only look at the lists of people who were purged for disloyalty to Stalin, not the USSR, to understand that Stalin was a menace who acted in a manner unbecoming of a communist. These records are all now public. Quite a few of them were released during Khrushchev's de-stalinization campaign, and many millions more were released during the glasnost and after the fall of the USSR in 1991.

Just have one thing to say ... I hate communism. Thank god "comrade" Stalin's dead and hopefully that retarded ideology will follow suit.

Considering he was born in 1878, I'd be scared if he wasn't dead.








Edit: Hey AP, if you lose your account again you should consider Zombie Stalin as your new nation name.

Considering he was born in 1878, I'd be scared if he wasn't dead.

Zombie Stalin does not approve of your bourgeois revisionism. ;)

Zombie Stalin does not approve of your bourgeois revisionism. ;)

What?!? AP has left and come back with a new nation already?

Yeeeeeaaaaaaaah, Marx was an idiot and got everything wrong.

Though, even if Stalin was a horrible horrible man, you have to be impressed. Everyone loved Hitler, so he came to power. Everyone frigging hated Stalin, and he STILL came to power. Props, in my book.

Still an asshole, though. Like Marx.

Let us remember Stalin.

Let us remember a million people murdered in his name, on his command.

Let us remember his twisting of a regime that was trying, however imperfectly, for a better world, into an edifice to the glory of a single, utterly unworthy, human being.

Let us remember two dozen peoples, crushed beneath a dictators' boot.

Let us celebrate the death of one for whom it would be better had he never lived.

And let us say, for the sake of humanity, let us never see his like again.

In NSG you don't laugh at Communism, Communism laughs at you!:D

*tries to sell popcorn and soda to AP*

Wait, isn't AP here?:confused:

Indeed! Let us commemorate the memory of a paranoid sociopath who even Lenin did not want to take the reigns of the Soviet Uninion!


Andaras, you make me laugh.

Marx, even if you intensely disagree with him, can not be described as an ‘idiot’. He was obviously a very intelligent man.
All Marx was was a historian/philosopher who was, in the eyes of many historians at least, wrong on certain issues. Some parts of Marxist theory are generally accepted. That doesn't make him an idiot at all, otherwise every historian who got something wrong would be an idiot.

*nods*

Wait, isn't AP here?:confused:

He's actually offline now, and he would be offended by the fact that items which are being shared freely with everyone else is being sold to him.



*:fluffle:'s Nanatsu*
there's no escaping the fluffling

Marx was an idiot and got everything wrong.
Marx, even if you intensely disagree with him, can not be described as an ‘idiot’. He was obviously a very intelligent man.

Does anyone find it strange that Stalin used Capitalist methods to industrialize the USSR?

Does anyone find it strange that Stalin used Capitalist methods to industrialize the USSR?

Not a bit, given the Communist Party's rather absurd stance on the issue of socialism in one country. As Lenin himself remarked in his later years, "Socialism is just the state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people." Contrast that to his earlier remarks in State and Revolution in which he declared that socialism smashed the bourgeois state capitalist monopoly and replaced it with worker's democracy. Such about-faces are quite common among those with near absolute power.

Get all the people to stop wasting their time on refuting Andaras and do something productive. There. I've figured out a way to harness the power of this thread with minimal loss of energy :p

I, for one, am doing something productive here.

My final paper for IS 554 is about the role of information and technology and the fall of the Soviet Union, it's due in a week, and as I often do, I'm trying to use NSG as a sounding board for what I'm writing. This seemed like the perfect place to elucidate my positions on Stalin's impact, even some thirty-plus years after his death and discrediting by Khrushchev (not that that changed much in the lives of Soviet citizens, and not that Khrushchev was not a full accomplice in many of IVD's crimes, he most certainly was).

That post actually sorted my thoughts a bit...it's nice.

Not that I really need to put the effort in...to fail this quarter not having a grade in the finals for any of my classes wouldn't fail me, the only way I could fail is if I were to plagiarize. And then graduation...commencement in nine days!

http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1173277999-StalinCat.png

Whether Nazi or Communist, you cannot condone the death of millions of people from an Autocratic leader.

History is always open to debate, and I am much more apathetic to communist ideals rather than fascist. All the same however, you cannot claim that the terror of Stalin is circulated by the bourgousie - otherwise communists ALWAYS can hide behind the guise of this socialist ideal.

Realistically, you could argue that in an effort to protect communism, the proletariat will always portray the bourgousie in a negative light. Its a natural instinct to protect yourself and your kin, and communists are no different. :)

The day one of the most brutal dictators in history died. Ironically, he was so damn powerful and scary that when he was having a heart attack in his room his subordinates were too fucking scared to decide who would go in and try to save him.

He's actually offline now, and he would be offended by the fact that items which are being shared freely with everyone else is being sold to him.



*:fluffle:'s Nanatsu*
there's no escaping the fluffling

LMAO!!
http://hera.divshare.com/files/2007/05/26/741921/Vladimir_Lenin-cat.jpg

Oh, funny thing. Here in Spain we have a saying about people that have chronic diarreah.
"¡Tiene el culo rojo, cómo botón de socialista!" - He has a red ass, like a Socialist's pin.
And, since we're paying homage to Zombie Comrade Stalin, here's a little something from another Zombie comrade, Fidel Castro.
http://colombia.indymedia.org/uploads/2007/02/boca_culo_castro.jpgjhryx7.jpg

Dude... Stalin wasnt even a Communist. Stalin was a power grabber & he would have done even better advancing up the ranks in the Nazi party.


AAAALSOOOOO... Im fairly sure Stalin was an Okhrana Agent of the Tsar. ever notice how mnay fucking times he "escaped" from Siberia with a Dead Arm hanging off of him? And the fact he made himself a Dictator, & used old imperialistic Czarist methods, like banishing & later killing Trotsky, who I think kicked ass

and the gulgags, his slave labor camps...
STALIN WAS NOT FUCKING SOCIALIST
I admire him for what he did: uniting the Soviet Union, and destroying the Nazis, but Stalin replaced one incredibly harsh European dictator with Himself.

Lenin, however, kicked ass, bcuz he was actually communist.

Glad he's dead. Hope he suffered on his deathbead. Hope he was tortured by the knowledge of his crimes and terrified by his impending damnation. Hope his soul is writhing in as much torment as it can possibly be made to bear, for all eternity, in the company of every Red who preceded him, accompanied him or succeeded him in death.

Any questions?

Yes. Just one.

Who the hell made you passer of judgment on all who would dare dissent from orthodoxy?

Edit: god damn time warp.

I lol'ed at OP.

Does anyone find it strange that Stalin used Capitalist methods to industrialize the USSR?

No. Stalin's policies were in many ways a dream for the tycoons of the era; strikes were outlawed, missing work could get you fired or jailed, there were no universal "free days", meaning an effective seven day work week, the employers had total control over their workers' supplies of food and ration cards, and so on. Stalinism was basically a completely dehumanized materialism that sought nothing but economic gain at any cost, and in many cases that gain was little more than a waste of resources. The NEP had outstripped the Five Year Plan in many economic aspects, and certainly was able to avert severe famine and suffering in the process.

In fact, by the 1930's he had outright declared equality was detrimental to the building of socialism; soon thereafter, wage brackets were created and the Party's partmaximum system was abolished, leading to one of the greatest income divides in the world and far outstripping any of the capitalist nations.

Did he achieve things? Yes, he did, but those achievements have to be weighed against their costs...and I don't think industrialization need to be accomplished at the cost of millions of lives and untold human suffering.

Sillyness

Your funtastically amusing.

Glad he's dead. Hope he suffered on his deathbead. Hope he was tortured by the knowledge of his crimes and terrified by his impending damnation. Hope his soul is writhing in as much torment as it can possibly be made to bear, for all eternity, in the company of every Red who preceded him, accompanied him, succeeded him or will yet succeed him in death.

Any questions?

Glad he's dead. Hope he suffered on his deathbead. Hope he was tortured by the knowledge of his crimes and terrified by his impending damnation. Hope his soul is writhing in as much torment as it can possibly be made to bear, for all eternity, in the company of every Red who preceded him, accompanied him, succeeded him or will yet succeed him in death.

Any questions?

Arent you the good little Christian?

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another (John 13:34).

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28).

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse (Romans 12:14).

We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it (1 Corinthians 4:12).

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:17-21).

Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing (1 Peter 3:9).

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble (1 John 2:9-10).



Any of those look familier buddy?

The bolded part I think applies to you very well, don't you think?

Glad he's dead. Hope he suffered on his deathbead. Hope he was tortured by the knowledge of his crimes and terrified by his impending damnation. Hope his soul is writhing in as much torment as it can possibly be made to bear, for all eternity, in the company of every Red who preceded him, accompanied him, succeeded him or will yet succeed him in death.

Any questions?

Nope.
http://colombia.indymedia.org/uploads/2007/02/boca_culo_castro.jpgjhryx7.jpg

Marx, even if you intensely disagree with him, can not be described as an ‘idiot’. He was obviously a very intelligent man.

Sure he can. Few things he described have actually taken place:
ie: The middle class in the US which isn't supposed to exist.
The revolution of farmers and peasants in Russia that wasn't supposed to happen.
General failure of communism to actually work on any scale larger than a bunch of monks.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. It couldn't happen to a viler piece of trash.

Never claimed to be a saint, buddy.

I will continue to hate demonic individuals like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and their ilk with the heat of 10,000 suns. And if indeed it proves (as I expect) that God has seen fit to consign them to eternal torment, then I will rejoice in God's justice.

Somebody shout "Amen!"

I'm no Christian, but I'll join you in this just to rub it in Knights of Liberty's (man, talk about a doubly antidescriptive name) face.

AAAAAAAAAAMEEEEN! You's got deh powah o' deh lawd! Deh spirit's in me, I can feel it movin' inside me! Oh lawdy!

I'm no Christian, but I'll join you in this just to rub it in Knights of Liberty's (man, talk about a doubly antidescriptive name) face.



My my you are mature. You also make the mistake of thinking I suppot Stalin. In reality what I said earlier was:

Indeed! Let us commemorate the memory of a paranoid sociopath who even Lenin did not want to take the reigns of the Soviet Uninion!


Andaras, you make me laugh.



I just think New Mitanni is a hypocritical nutjob, who likes to talk a lot about God and such without actually following any of the beliefs that make being a Christian worthwhile. I also am amussed that I am an athiest and seem to know more about NM's faith than he does.

Arent you the good little Christian?

Never claimed to be a saint, buddy.

I will continue to hate demonic individuals like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and their ilk with the heat of 10,000 suns. And if indeed it proves (as I expect) that God has seen fit to consign them to eternal torment, then I will rejoice in God's justice.

Somebody shout "Amen!"

Never claimed to be a saint, buddy.

I will continue to hate demonic individuals like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and their ilk with the heat of 10,000 suns. And if indeed it proves (as I expect) that God has seen fit to consign them to eternal torment, then I will rejoice in God's justice.

Somebody shout "Amen!"



Well, you dont have to be a saint to not relish in the death of someone, which is rather un Christlike.


See, if you really knew anything about your religion, and werent just some mindless church drone like I can imagine you are, you would know that nothing you say on this board is Christian in any way, in fact it seems to fly right in the face of Christan teachings.

EDIT: I think Im going to throw verses from your own Holy Book at you more often NM, it puts you on the defensive rather quickly.

All you need to be is someone who loves justice and hates evil.






The irony.

Nope.

Fidel's soon to take his place in the Red zone. Burn, baby, burn :D

And that reminds me of a news article I once read. It described a picture that was published in a Chilean newspaper during the regime of the late unlamended Salvador Allende. The picture was of Allende and Castro together, with the Andes mountain range in the background.

The caption was, "Dos Picos de los Andes."

Most appropriate.

I'm no Christian,

All you need to be is someone who loves justice and hates evil.

but I'll join you in this just to rub it in Knights of Liberty's (man, talk about a doubly antidescriptive name) face.

:D

RhynoDD;13506323']AAAAAAAAAAMEEEEN! You's got deh powah o' deh lawd! Deh spirit's in me, I can feel it movin' inside me! Oh lawdy!

Testify, my brother!

I just think New Mitanni is a hypocritical nutjob, who likes to talk a lot about God and such without actually following any of the beliefs that make being a Christian worthwhile. I also am amussed that I am an athiest and seem to know more about NM's faith than he does.

NM reads like a Bushevik Fundie, who listens to Jeezus rather than Jesus.

Jesus vs. Jeezus (http://www.thepaincomics.com/Jesus%20vs.%20Jeezus.jpg)

You are a funny little boy, but your actual knowledge of how I practice my faith is rather limited.



By blowing up abortion clinics and doing The Lord's work by tirelessly fighting teh ebil moslams and teh sneaky Jewz Im sure.

Talk about amusing statements. :p

But since you're fond of quoting Scripture, I have one for you:

"So speak and so act as people who will be judged by the law of freedom. For the judgment is merciless to one who has not shown mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment." James 2: 12-13.

Satan's minion Stalin will be judged by the law of freedom, which will be merciless to him who showed no mercy to tens of millions of his victims. He showed no mercy, thus nothing will triumph over the judgment he will suffer.



But, I thought that only God was allowed to pass judgement, and his mortal followers were supposed to love everyone regardless of how they behaved? You know, like what it says here:

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:17-21).


Or does that little tid bit not fit into your neocon fundie world view?

Testify, my brother!

My brothah! Come forthah, and be healedah!

oh Andaras... gotta love the keyboard communists. Glory to great Comrade Stalin, the bulwark of the Revolution! Stopping those inhuman fascists from taking over the world!:rolleyes:

I used to think Stalin was great, and in some respects he was. But I think the Russians, Ukrainians and other Soviets were better off fighting for Hitler. At least he wasn't going to starve them. I agree with most commies (being a former one myself) that the numbers were altered about Holodomor, but not enough to justify anything.

Stalin was a good leader for Russians (mostly) but a terrible leader for the rest of the USSR. I'm glad he's gone, but not glad that he survived the Patriotic War. That revisionist scum was unintelligent, barbaric and gave a horrible name for communism.

I just think New Mitanni is a hypocritical nutjob, who likes to talk a lot about God and such without actually following any of the beliefs that make being a Christian worthwhile.

You are a funny little boy, but your actual knowledge of how I practice my faith is rather limited.

I also am amussed that I am an athiest and seem to know more about NM's faith than he does.

Talk about amusing statements. :p

But since you're fond of quoting Scripture, I have one for you:

"So speak and so act as people who will be judged by the law of freedom. For the judgment is merciless to one who has not shown mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment." James 2: 12-13.

Satan's minion Stalin will be judged by the law of freedom, which will be merciless to him who showed no mercy to tens of millions of his victims. He showed no mercy, thus nothing will triumph over the judgment he will suffer.

RhynoDD;13506381']My brothah! Come forthah, and be healedah!

"Elvis, heal me!
Save me, Elvis!"

--Mojo Nixon, "Elvis is Everywhere" http://artists.letssingit.com/song-6kc4m4l

RhynoDD;13506296']Sure he can. Few things he described have actually taken place:
ie: The middle class in the US which isn't supposed to exist.
The revolution of farmers and peasants in Russia that wasn't supposed to happen.
General failure of communism to actually work on any scale larger than a bunch of monks.

The first is an example of equivocation. Marx defined classes based on their relationship to the means of production. In the US, for all intents and purposes, the small business owner has been eradicated. Their share of the population is very small, and their share of the total production in this country is tiny. IS their a middle income bracket? Yes. But to a Marxist, income is not the determinant of your class.

The second one is something he did not have the forsight to predict. Quite frankly, no one did. Its not a contradiction to Marxist theory. The factors of the war and famine brought about revolution, which is a thoroughly Marxist analysis.

Clear your head of the notion that the USSR was communist. Just because Old Uncle Joe said they were doesn't mean they were. In fact, the USSR negated the very meaning of socialism/communism-- which until then was the society built by the free association of workers after they abolished private ownership of the means of production and instituted a system of workplace democracy.

Oh, if only I had a time machine and a pie. and a bulletproof vest

:)

The first is an example of equivocation. Marx defined classes based on their relationship to the means of production. In the US, for all intents and purposes, the small business owner has been eradicated. Their share of the population is very small, and their share of the total production in this country is tiny. IS their a middle income bracket? Yes. But to a Marxist, income is not the determinant of your class.
Ah, well then. I'll tell the homeless guy he's lower class because he's retarded, not because he's poor.

The second one is something he did not have the forsight to predict. Quite frankly, no one did. Its not a contradiction to Marxist theory. The factors of the war and famine brought about revolution, which is a thoroughly Marxist analysis.
That's kind of my point. No foresight to accurately predict the event he was trying to predict.

Clear your head of the notion that the USSR was communist. Just because Old Uncle Joe said they were doesn't mean they were. In fact, the USSR negated the very meaning of socialism/communism-- which until then was the society built by the free association of workers after they abolished private ownership of the means of production and instituted a system of workplace democracy.

I always listen to Old Uncle Joe. He buys me icecream whenever I visit.

As for fighting the evil that is Islamo-Nazism, however, I take my inspiration from Pope Urban II, not to mention Emperor Manuel II Palaeologos, as cited by Pope Benedict XVI.

Lets have some fun. Prove to me that Islam = Nazism and is evil.



There's no evil-doer to feed, give drink to or forgive here, pal. IVD is dead, dead, dead.

What about that part about reserving judgement for God?

RhynoDD;13506477']I put the "fun" in fundie.

Mitanni puts the "mental" in "fundamentalist" :D

Oh, if only I had a time machine and a pie. and a bulletproof vest

:)

*hands over suspicious looking toaster*
here borrow my old time machine.
My new time machine is excellent,
*brandishes blowtorch*
It makes everyone run away as soon as i switch it on.*nods*;)

By blowing up abortion clinics and doing The Lord's work by tirelessly fighting teh ebil moslams and teh sneaky Jewz Im sure.

Please, try to come up with something more original that the old "blowing up abortion clinics" BS. As for "teh sneaky Jewz", well, as member no. 24 of the Jew Crew I would have to take issue with that, and furthermore, I remind you that those who bless the Jews God will bless, while those who curse the Jews God will curse. Genesis 12:3.

As for fighting the evil that is Islamo-Nazism, however, I take my inspiration from Pope Urban II, not to mention Emperor Manuel II Palaeologos, as cited by Pope Benedict XVI.

But, I thought that only God was allowed to pass judgement, and his mortal followers were supposed to love everyone regardless of how they behaved? You know, like what it says here:

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:17-21).

There's no evil-doer to feed, give drink to or forgive here, pal. IVD is dead, dead, dead.

Or does that little tid bit not fit into your neocon fundie world view?

"Neo-con"? I am no "neo-con." Nor am I a "fundie", as I have shown too many times to mention. Try checking the definition of terms you use before you demonstrate your ignorance through misuse.

'Nuff said.

"Neo-con"? I am no "neo-con." Nor am I a "fundie", as I have shown too many times to mention. Try checking the definition of terms you use before you demonstrate your ignorance through misuse.

I put the "fun" in fundie.

As for fighting the evil that is Islamo-Nazism...
A quick question... How does Islamo-Nazism differ from Islamo-Fascism.

We should refer to everyone as 'Comrade' for the next five years, in honour of the Five Year Plan.

In the US, for all intents and purposes, the small business owner has been eradicated. Their share of the population is very small, and their share of the total production in this country is tiny.

The facts say otherwise:

http://www.sba.gov/advo/press/06-17.html



Small business continues to drive the United States economy, according to a report issued today by the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration. Newly released data show that in 2005, small businesses represented 99.7 percent of all the nation’s employer businesses. Data also show that they employed 57.4 million Americans or 50.6 percent of the non-farm private sector workforce.



Marxism is rubbish, it was rubbish when it was written, and it will remain rubbish forever. It has no connection with the reality of human behavior. Collectivism doesn't work and never will. Free enterprise and the protection of private property and individual rights are the only sound bases for social advancement, economic prosperity and human liberty.

RhynoDD;13506502']Be careful. That's actually the Amityville toaster. Don't try to toast waffles with it.

So what do you get if you try to toast a human hand in it?

*hands over suspicious looking toaster*

Be careful. That's actually the Amityville toaster. Don't try to toast waffles with it.

Mitanni puts the "mental" in "fundamentalist" :D

You put the laughter in slaughter?

RhynoDD;13506502']Be careful. That's actually the Amityville toaster. Don't try to toast waffles with it.
tee=hee.
So what do you get if you try to toast a human hand in it?

I don't know, ask LG he's got it now.
But i assume it's probably quite low down in the manual instructions of what to cook.

We should refer to everyone as 'Comrade' for the next five years, in honour of the Five Year Plan.
Aye!
And after 2 years we should gradually fail to do that.

What's the bright line on small business? At one point does a business become a large business?

That's great that you have such firm opinions on Marxism and "free enterprise". Care to back them up?

New Mitanni doesnt need to back up opinions. Hes got Gawd on his side.

The facts say otherwise:

http://www.sba.gov/advo/press/06-17.html



Marxism is rubbish, it was rubbish when it was written, and it will remain rubbish forever. It has no connection with the reality of human behavior. Collectivism doesn't work and never will. Free enterprise and the protection of private property and individual rights are the only sound bases for social advancement, economic prosperity and human liberty.

What's the bright line on small business? At one point does a business become a large business?

That's great that you have such firm opinions on Marxism and "free enterprise". Care to back them up?

I don't know, ask LG he's got it now.
But i assume it's probably quite low down in the manual instructions of what to cook.

Andaras.

Knights of Liberty, New Mitanni, quit the sideshow and get back to the main event.

Well, back in the 1930s, the New York Times and other prominent newspapers and magazines hailed Stalin as a great man leading a great country that was doing great things in the name of Communism.

I guess some people actually believed that horseshit.

Well, back in the 1930s, the New York Times and other prominent newspapers and magazines hailed Stalin as a great man leading a great country that was doing great things in the name of Communism.

I guess some people actually believed that horseshit.

When you look at it, what he was doing was a good thing. Same with what Hitler was originally doing. The problem is when you look at the details of it. That's when the real facts come out that shows that Hitler and Stalin were both evil.

Well, back in the 1930s, the New York Times and other prominent newspapers and magazines hailed Stalin as a great man leading a great country that was doing great things in the name of Communism.

I guess some people actually believed that horseshit.

I've read Assignment in Utopia...Eugene Lyons describes that very mindset and shows how it was possible. He was a Soviet apologist for a while before the sheer burden of the task and the glaring evils that he was forced to defend caused him to back away from it. And, for those who might be inclined to doubt it, Eugene lived in the USSR for six years and personally met with Josef Stalin. I don't think any of the latter-day neo-Stalinists can even claim to have remotely the same amount of experience.

However, to their credit, the Soviet people did not embrace the evil of Stalin in the same way that many Germans embraced Hitler; however, unlike the Germans, they were simply too broken and too worn down to resist.

When you look at it, what he was doing was a good thing. Same with what Hitler was originally doing. The problem is when you look at the details of it. That's when the real facts come out that shows that Hitler and Stalin were both evil.

It was a good thing that he intentionally sacrificed tens of millions of people to his own ego? The deaths of those people are mere "details" to you?

What is it with you people? This is the second acknowledgment on this forum in a single day that genocide is either a good thing or a "detail".

It was a good thing that he intentionally sacrificed tens of millions of people to his own ego? The deaths of those people are mere "details" to you?

Maybe you should go back and reread what I said. If you do not look at the facts but the product, what Stalin was doing deserved to be hailed. Its when you look at the details is where the real person emerges. And yes...in this case, the deaths of millions of people are details to be used against Stalin being a great man. You have a reading comprehension problem?

What is it with you people? This is the second acknowledgment on this forum in a single day that genocide is either a good thing or a "detail".

Who the fuck said anything about a genocide being a good thing?

It was a good thing that he intentionally sacrificed tens of millions of people to his own ego? The deaths of those people are mere "details" to you?

Corneliu isn't defending Stalin...what he's saying is that Stalin's goals were good, but the evil was in how they were carried out. The Soviet government wanted to industrialize, educate, and develop the country for the benefit of its people, but that goal was carried out through the use of brutal and murderous tactics that more than outweigh the good things achieved.

Magnitogorsk and DneproGES weren't worth millions of human lives.

Corneliu isn't defending Stalin...what he's saying is that Stalin's goals were good, but the evil was in how they were carried out. The Soviet government wanted to industrialize, educate, and develop the country for the benefit of its people, but that goal was carried out through the use of brutal and murderous tactics that more than outweigh the good things achieved.

Magnitogorsk and DneproGES weren't worth millions of human lives.

Thank you!

A quick question... How does Islamo-Nazism differ from Islamo-Fascism.

I imagine it's because Hitler killed more people, in more brutal ways, than Mussolini ever dreamed of. But Michael Medved (IIRC) first came up with the term "Islamo-Nazi", and it seems to fit better.

Mitanni puts the "mental" in "fundamentalist" :D

Well, I am an MIT grad and a Mensan :D

But again, "fundamentalist"? Clearly not.

HERE HERE! Stalin's legacy is often quite misunderstood.

Happy birthday to the man who slaughtered 22 million people!

Happy birthday to the man who slaughtered 22 million people!

Hey, what happened with Lenin? Aren´t we making a thread to honor the old coot? He was a Commie too.:D

Andaras, care to do the honors?

Warning: The following post is an inane attack on the OP




The OP---> :( :mp5: <---Me

What's the bright line on small business? At one point does a business become a large business?

That's great that you have such firm opinions on Marxism and "free enterprise". Care to back them up?

History shows us that that communist countries faired pretty crummy in comparison to capitalist ones.

Aside: Total capitalism is not a good thing.

Naturally the cynicism of the self-flattering bourgeois will emerge to 'enlighten' us on the 'terror' of Stalin,

May I be the first.

History shows us that that communist countries faired pretty crummy in comparison to capitalist ones.

Aside: Total capitalism is not a good thing.

Capitalist countries can turn out pretty crappy too. The thing is that capitalism doesn't have the near 100% fail rate Communism does.

Capitalist countries can turn out pretty crappy too. The thing is that capitalism doesn't have the near 100% fail rate Communism does.

Right-o. We should let history teach us, that is really what it is good for. The Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea...there is no "near" to it.

Oh, if only I had a time machine and a pie. and a bulletproof vest

:)

The Gestapo would club you, steal the vest for R&D, and Hitler would eat pie. Congratulations, you made the Nazi war machine win.

Stalin's dead. Good. Fuck that fucking shithole of a psychotic mass murderer and fuck whatever idiotic "principles" he died for.

No more needs to be said, nor in any other way.

Well, I am an MIT grad and a Mensan :D

But again, "fundamentalist"? Clearly not.The little lies we tell ourselves when we cry ourselves to sleep... :rolleyes:

Sure he can. Few things he described have actually taken place.
So someone’s an ‘idiot’ for not being able to predict what the world will be like in 180 years?

Then we’re all idiots, I suppose.

Marx and Engels sure got things wrong on occasion, but Marx’s own critique of 19th century laissez faire industrial capitalism is bang on the mark, and his theory of alienation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx’s_theory_of_alienation) still readily applies to modern-day capitalism.

Getting something wrong doesn’t make one an idiot. What is idiotic is the attitude of many Marxists, exemplified by AP here, that we can quite happily use a nearly 200-year-old model of society to clamour for political change.

So someone’s an ‘idiot’ for not being able to predict what the world will be like in 180 years?

No, he's an idiot for trying.

Anyone else get the feeling he made this thread just to watch people duke it out?

some memories are best forgot. there are always more fun things to do then remembering. other then to always remember the environment and our universal dependence on it.

=^^=
.../\...

Stalin and his colleagues gave socialism a bad name. Which is a pity.

If China keeps its current political structure and becomes the world's economic, industrial and political powerhouse, does that mean that communism was the right way to go?

Stalin and his colleagues gave socialism a bad name. Which is a pity.

If China keeps its current political structure and becomes the world's economic, industrial and political powerhouse, does that mean that communism was the right way to go?

Not really for they have instituted a limited form of capitalism in their nation.

It is the reason that Stalin was so successful in building socialism, and fighting a class struggle for the liberation of the working masses, that he has become such a target for the virulent slanders and outright lies against his name. The bourgeois even have the pseudo-liberal-left to slander him 'in the name of socialism'.

It is the reason that Stalin was so successful in building socialism, and fighting a class struggle for the liberation of the working masses, that he has become such a target for the virulent slanders and outright lies against his name. The bourgeois even have the pseudo-liberal-left to slander him 'in the name of socialism'.

He successfully built socialism? I assume that you know that there are differences between both communism and socialism.

That level of ideological indoctrination saddens me, because it means he's blinded to the things that went wrong in the Soviet Union under Stalin. At least the Nazis who occassionally pop up debate properly.

Actually, that raises an interesting point.

Anyone who were to pop up here to defend Nazism and to celebrate a Hitlerian anniversary would likely find themselves at the very least warned, and quite probably forum-banned.


But write a long post defending the other great genocidal mass-murderer of the 20th century (though we might make that a triumvirate depending on how we treat Mao), and you can have a thread go on for more than ten pages of depressing, counter-intuitive guff.


The best thing I can say about Stalin is that he was somewhat more equal-opportunity in his approach to totalitarian mass murder than Hitler was. Where Hitler tended to target specific groups, Stalin was happy to kill anyone, regardless of ethnicity, religion, background or mental status; so at least he didn't discriminate when it came to slaughter.

Actually, that raises an interesting point.

Anyone who were to pop up here to defend Nazism and to celebrate a Hitlerian anniversary would likely find themselves at the very least warned, and quite probably forum-banned.


But write a long post defending the other great genocidal mass-murderer of the 20th century (though we might make that a triumvirate depending on how we treat Mao), and you can have a thread go on for more than ten pages of depressing, counter-intuitive guff.


The best thing I can say about Stalin is that he was somewhat more equal-opportunity in his approach to totalitarian mass murder than Hitler was. Where Hitler tended to target specific groups, Stalin was happy to kill anyone, regardless of ethnicity, religion, background or mental status; so at least he didn't discriminate when it came to slaughter.

You answered your own issue.

If someone comes in supporting Hitler, they must deal with the fact that Hitler was specific and discriminatory in his mass murder, plain and simple he was outright racist. Stalin, for all his evil, was a fair man and not racist, he killed everyone equally, regardless of religion, skin colour, gender, sexuality, or whatever. In some ways that does make Stalin a great man ahead of his time. He truely did impliment a system where you were not tortured or killed because of race or gender, if Stalin was having you killed it was because he just plain didn't like you for who you were as a person through your own actions, not some aspect of birth.

What a way to come to equality, through simply killing everyone.

Stalin, for all his evil, was a fair man and not racist, he killed everyone equally, regardless of religion, skin colour, gender, sexuality, or whatever.

I appreciate that there was a certain level of irony in your post, but given the nature of Stalinist show trials, somehow 'fair man' isn't the first description that springs to mind.

The little lies we tell ourselves when we cry ourselves to sleep... :rolleyes:

Might as well stop now, mate, you obviously don't know what you're talking about on this point. In fact, you're in danger of becoming another Andaras.

Stalin was a strong man. He got what he wanted done. He held onto power, and forced the Soviet Union into the position of a Super Power. He was also a bloody tyrant, a murderer, and paranoid.

if Stalin was having you killed it was because he just plain didn't like you for who you were as a person through your own actions, not some aspect of birth.



Or his paranoid mind just imagined you were planning to overthrow him...

Might as well stop now, mate, you obviously don't know what you're talking about on this point. In fact, you're in danger of becoming another Andaras.The difference between you and Andaras lies solely in what deluded ideologies you pursue.

Or his paranoid mind just imagined you were planning to overthrow him...

It's still equal opertunity!

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f65/jasonf21/JosephStalinFidelCastroVladimirLeni.jpg

Actually, that raises an interesting point.

Anyone who were to pop up here to defend Nazism and to celebrate a Hitlerian anniversary would likely find themselves at the very least warned, and quite probably forum-banned.

But write a long post defending the other great genocidal mass-murderer of the 20th century (though we might make that a triumvirate depending on how we treat Mao), and you can have a thread go on for more than ten pages of depressing, counter-intuitive guff.
I completely agree with that. I think it's ridiculous that while support for Nazism isn't tolerated in a lot of countries, but support for another genocidal regime (One that possibly managed an even higher death toll) is. If countries are going to arrest and imprison holocaust deniers, they should do the same with those who deny the holodomor. If they're going to ban swastikas, they should ban the hammer and sickle. If nazis former neo-nazis are shunned from the political mainstream, then the same should apply for those who have been involved with communist groups when they were younger.

The difference between you and Andaras lies solely in what deluded ideologies you pursue.

When you compare me to Andaras, you make Baby Jesus cry. ;)

When you compare me to Andaras, you make Baby Jesus cry. ;)Do I look like I care? :p

When you compare me to Andaras, you make Baby Jesus cry. ;)

Well, you two are ideologically polar opposites, but you both debate in the same manner and the sources both of you cite are equally suspect.

Well, you two are ideologically polar opposites, but you both debate in the same manner and the sources both of you cite are equally suspect.
To be fair, I haven't seen him voicing support of Hitler or the nazis (Though I'm not on that much so correct me if I'm wrong). Which in my view is what support of Stalinism is equivalent to.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13534060']To be fair, I haven't seen him voicing support of Hitler or the nazis (Though I'm not on that much so correct me if I'm wrong). Which in my view is what support of Stalinism is equivalent to.

If Hitler had been targeting Palestinians instead of Jews, he very well might voice support.

But, Ill give him this. For all his blustering and lack of credible sources (if any), NM at least doesnt practice revisionist history, which is my pet peeve. So kuddos.

Одна смерть - трагедия, миллион смертельных случаев - статистическое. -- Сталин

If Hitler had been targeting Palestinians instead of Jews, he very well might voice support.

GODWIN'S LAW. /THREAD

RhynoDD;13534311']GODWIN'S LAW. /THREAD

Was the big, pink pitch necessary? Do you have anything worthwile to say?:rolleyes:

Was the big, pink pitch necessary? Do you have anything worthwile to say?:rolleyes:

i like the pink text. what? oh come on, it's a least a nice change from watching certain posters complain about Bourgeoisie oppression.

i like the pink text. what? oh come on, it's a least a nice change from watching certain posters complain about Bourgeoisie oppression.

But I hate pink.:( I could've been green or purple. I like those better.:D

i like the pink text. what? oh come on, it's a least a nice change from watching certain posters complain about Bourgeoisie oppression.

I concur. It adds color.

And personally, I thought it was particularly worthwhile.

RhynoDD;13534340']I concur. It adds color.

And personally, I thought it was particularly worthwhile.

Again, just to be a pain, I hate pink.:headbang:

Again, just to be a pain, I hate pink.:headbang:

PINK PINK PINK PINK PINK YOU PINK PINK PINK PINK PINK PINK WILL PINK PINK PINK PINK PLACE PINK PINK PINK LAXATIVE PINK PINK PINK PINK IN PINK PINK PINK YOUR PINK PINK PINK PINK COLLEAGUES PINK PINK PINK PINK COFFEE PINK PINK PINK PINK PINK NAR PINK PINK PINK HAR PINK PINK PINK HAR PINK PINK PINK.

PINK PINK PINK PINK PINK YOU PINK PINK PINK PINK PINK PINK WILL PINK PINK PINK PINK PLACE PINK PINK PINK LAXATIVE PINK PINK PINK PINK IN PINK PINK PINK YOUR PINK PINK PINK PINK COLLEAGUES PINK PINK PINK PINK COFFEE PINK PINK PINK PINK PINK NAR PINK PINK PINK HAR PINK PINK PINK HAR PINK PINK PINK.

Narf.

RhynoDD;13534369']Narf.

The 2 of you are the worst!!!!:headbang:
I HATE PINK!!!!!

The 2 of you are the worst!!!!:headbang:
I HATE PINK!!!!!

Look at my post closely, there is a message within those pink words.:D

The 2 of you are the worst!!!!:headbang:
I HATE PINK!!!!!

Hypocrite.

Look at my post closely, there is a message within those pink words.:D

ROFL!!:D
I will put laxative on my collegues coffee.
You're a master hypnotist!!!:eek:

RhynoDD;13534381']Hypocrite.

o.O
Imbécil...

ROFL!!:D
I will put laxative on my collegues coffee.
You're a master hypnotist!!!:eek:
Pretty cool eh?
I know i sometimes hypnotise myself but then i forget what i'm supposed to do, so i've developed a sort of special forgetting mechanism to deal with it.
:D
Oh and there's got to be pictures as well, as proof of your actions for the my greater good...i mean for the worlds greater good.

o.O
Imbécil...

Mortal...

Oh and there's got to be pictures as well, as proof of your actions for the my greater good...i mean for the worlds greater good.

You want picture-proof that people pooed?

RhynoDD;13534393']You want picture-proof that people pooed?

well, it doesn't have to be of poo, just of the action of people rushing to go somewhere that is very important to them. yeesh but i hope noone ever takes that seriously and does that, what a horrible thing to happen. I should never have given away pranks like that, especially to the internet.

Mortal...

Idiota...o.O

Do I look like I care? :p

Not knowing what you look like, I can't say.

Now if you'd said, "Do you think I care?" I would say, "One day you will :p"

Pretty cool eh?
I know i sometimes hypnotise myself but then i forget what i'm supposed to do, so i've developed a sort of special forgetting mechanism to deal with it.
:D
Oh and there's got to be pictures as well, as proof of your actions for the my greater good...i mean for the worlds greater good.

Hear ya go. Proof!!
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj63/simpsonfan614/iampooping.jpg

Idiota...o.O

Poor deluded mortal fool...

Poor deluded mortal fool...

Hm... And now to the news:
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd72/teachtinker2007/poop.jpg

Hm... And now to the news:
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd72/teachtinker2007/poop.jpg

If you weren't mortal, you wouldn't have that problem...

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13534060']To be fair, I haven't seen him voicing support of Hitler or the nazis (Though I'm not on that much so correct me if I'm wrong). Which in my view is what support of Stalinism is equivalent to.

Anyone who has (1) read what I've written, (2) knows anything about me and/or (3) has an IQ above room temperature is well aware that I oppose, have opposed and always will oppose the little Austrian paperhanger and his past and present-day minions. Attempts to suggest otherwise are among the usual lies lefties trot out in their endless, and pathetic, attempts to smear anyone who opposes them.

And you're right, Stalin and Hitler had much in common. Hitler was a National Socialist, Stalin claimed to be building socialism in one country, among other things.

BTW: Check out Jonah Goldberg's new book, Liberal Fascism.

BTW: Check out Jonah Goldberg's new book, Liberal Fascism.

You would mention a book whos claims have been debunked in all credible accademic circles, as well as by groups and individuals with an IQ above their age.


Mmmm historical revisionism.

If you weren't mortal, you wouldn't have that problem...

Well true, but then again, who says I'm a mortal? Heck, I could be a vampire or a zombie for what you know about me. What say you? Hmmm?:cool:

And you’re right, Stalin and Hitler had much in common. Hitler was a National Socialist, Stalin claimed to be building socialism in one country, among other things.
Yes, both men knew how to use propaganda and misuse words.

Check out Jonah Goldberg’s new book, Liberal Fascism.
A book that claims Hitler was left-wing and that ‘liberals’ are the intellectual descendants of fascists?

I don’t think so. Or at least, TG me when Mr. Goldberg learns what the terms 'fascism' and 'liberalism' mean.

Yes, both men knew how to use propaganda and misuse words.


A book that claims Hitler was left-wing and that ‘liberals’ are the intellectual descendants of fascists?

I don’t think so. Or at least, TG me when Mr. Goldberg learns what the terms 'fascism' and 'liberalism' mean.

Your name make me think of a fuzzy fluffy cute bear thing. I've wanted to say that for a long time.

Well true, but then again, who says I'm a mortal? Heck, I could be a vampire or a zombie for what you know about me. What say you? Hmmm?:cool:

I say I need to get my Vampire Staker 2000. (Ten points to the first person to get the reference)

And my shotgun.

RhynoDD;13534524']I say I need to get my Vampire Staker 2000. (Ten points to the first person to get the reference)

And my shotgun.

*sniffs*
You want little vampy me dead?
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff75/izzieW/Smiley/sad.gif

Well true, but then again, who says I'm a mortal? Heck, I could be a vampire or a zombie for what you know about me. What say you? Hmmm?:cool:

Neither of which is truly immortal, I meant mortal as in "can die", not mortal as in "dies of natural causes". Although, technically, the sun is natural and therefor vampires do die of natural causes, which means that vampires are a moot argument, and zombies are dead anyway. So you have no argument! Ya Ha!

Yes, both men knew how to use propaganda and misuse words.

To the contrary, both men knew exactly what they were talking about.


A book that claims Hitler was left-wing and that ‘liberals’ are the intellectual descendants of fascists?

I don’t think so. Or at least, TG me when Mr. Goldberg learns what the terms 'fascism' and 'liberalism' mean.

The most cursory examination of his book makes it abundantly clear that he is well aware of the meaning of both terms. Maybe you are the one who needs educating.

Perhaps Goldberg's book is best made the topic of a separate thread, though.

The most cursory examination of his book makes it abundantly clear that he is well aware of the meaning of both terms. Maybe you are the one who needs educating.


No, it doesnt. Sorry. Liberalism is the concern for social progression and allowing people to be free from the government in their personal lives, individual rights, freedoms, and equal oppertunity.

Facism by its very nature is an oppresive government that restricts the rights of its people and make the indivudual subordinate to the state.

The two are at odds with each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism

Neither of which is truly immortal, I meant mortal as in "can die", not mortal as in "dies of natural causes". Although, technically, the sun is natural and therefor vampires do die of natural causes, which means that vampires are a moot argument, and zombies are dead anyway. So you have no argument! Ya Ha!

Ah, but what if I'm a new breed of vampire that can't be killed by the sun? Hm? And if zombies are dead anyway, that would make me undead and therefore, I can achieve a certain degree of immortality like that. I still have something to argue. Ya Ha!:D

Ah, but what if I'm a new breed of vampire that can't be killed by the sun? Hm? And if zombies are dead anyway, that would make me undead and therefore, I can achieve a certain degree of immortality like that. I still have something to argue. Ya Ha!:D

No one survives the Vampstaker 2000...or my shotgun.

It shoots spam.


And bullets.

RhynoDD;13534563']No one survives the Vampstaker 2000...or my shotgun.

It shoots spam.


And bullets.

*stakes him*
Just checking.:D
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z223/windbird2000/Holidays/vampire.gif

Ah, but what if I'm a new breed of vampire that can't be killed by the sun? Hm? And if zombies are dead anyway, that would make me undead and therefore, I can achieve a certain degree of immortality like that. I still have something to argue. Ya Ha!:D

Huuuh!? (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/RhynoD/normal_es21_eps14_055.jpg)

Undeadness implies a lack sentience which you appear to have, zombies = moot point.

P.S. Do you know where the Ya Ha! comes from? anyone?

Mortal.

Huuuh!? (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/RhynoD/normal_es21_eps14_055.jpg)

Undeadness implies a lack sentience which you appear to have, zombies = moot point.

P.S. Do you know where the Ya Ha! comes from? anyone?

Mortal.

I DO I DO! Hence, the pic.

Huuuh!? (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/RhynoD/normal_es21_eps14_055.jpg)

Undeadness implies a lack sentience which you appear to have, zombies = moot point.

P.S. Do you know where the Ya Ha! comes from? anyone?

Mortal.

Nope, I don't know from where the Ya Ha comes from. Lets hope it's not Yiddish.:D

Or his paranoid mind just imagined you were planning to overthrow him...

Or that you are a cousin of the person who is the mechanic of the brother of a person that is a friend with a person who may be planning to overthrow Stalin...

Or that you are a cousin of the person who is the mechanic of the brother of a person that is a friend with a person who may be planning to overthrow Stalin...

Hell, being in the same neighborhood as a cousin of the person who is the mechanic of the brother of a person that is a friend with a person who may be planning to overthrow Stalin is enough to put you in hot water. After all, Stalin had no problem liquidating entire villages and casting them off to the Siberian wilderness to confiscate whatever of value he could.

God help you if you had an American dollar or some gold jewelry...the GPU would wring every last cent from you through weeks of torture, and then make you send letters to foreign relatives asking for more money.

yay! He's still dead!!

yay! He's still dead!!

OhNo! There's Zombie Stalin! (http://pink-porcupine.deviantart.com/art/Zombie-Stalin-34384941)

OhNo! There's Zombie Stalin! (http://pink-porcupine.deviantart.com/art/Zombie-Stalin-34384941)

Hey, we get to kill him again!! YAYYYYY!!

:sniper:
:sniper:

New Mitanni, Chumblywumbly, KoL, you're welcome to have an actual discussion away from the peanut gallery; please start a new thread if you want to.

Spammers, a warning: I'm taking names. The technique of forcing the closure of a thread by irretrievably spamming it up is treatable with ban-hammers.