NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread is dedicated to the birthday of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, a great man who led the Bolsheviks to overthrow the petite-bourgeois regime of Kerensky in the Great October Socialist Revolution and establish a dictatorship of the working class in the territorial possession of the former Russian empire, known as the Soviet Union. He directed the Red Army to defeating the right-wing fascist, anarchist and counter-revolutionary forces, as well as the armies of the US, France, Britain, Imperial Japan and others who tried to strangle worker power in Russia yet only succeeded in cementing the solidarity of the brotherly union of soviets.

On the theoretical field Lenin fundamentally advanced Marxist theory onto key issues such as Imperialism and Self-determination of peoples. His famous work 'The State and Revolution' is commonly referred to as the 'second Communist Manifesto', as it fundamentally set out the position of the working class in society and the nature of revolution in the state.

On a more general note Leninism today is noted as the theory for the political organization of the working class effectively to aggravate class warfare against the bourgeois, in particular through the avante-garde of the Party.

On the theoretical field Lenin fundamentally advanced Marxist theory onto key issues such as Imperialism and Self-determination of peoples. His famous work 'The State and Revolution' is commonly referred to as the 'second Communist Manifesto', as it fundamentally set out the position of the working class in society and the nature of revolution in the state. Pull the other one. (And while you're at it, learn how to differentiate between bourgeois and bourgeoisie. They are not interchangeable.)

This thread is dedicated to the birthday of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, a great man who led the Bolsheviks to overthrow the petite-bourgeois regime of Kerensky in the Great October Socialist Revolution and establish a dictatorship of the working class in the territorial possession of the former Russian empire, known as the Soviet Union. He directed the Red Army to defeating the right-wing fascist, anarchist and counter-revolutionary forces, as well as the armies of the US, France, Britain, Imperial Japan and others who tried to strangle worker power in Russia yet only succeeded in cementing the solidarity of the brotherly union of soviets.

On the theoretical field Lenin fundamentally advanced Marxist theory onto key issues such as Imperialism and Self-determination of peoples. His famous work 'The State and Revolution' is commonly referred to as the 'second Communist Manifesto', as it fundamentally set out the position of the working class in society and the nature of revolution in the state.

On a more general note Leninism today is noted as the theory for the political organization of the working class effectively to aggravate class warfare against the bourgeois, in particular through the avante-garde of the Party.

Which is why he allowed the Central Asian states to have independence from the Russian majority, huh?

On another note, I think you mean monarchist forces, not fascist forces, since the term didn't exist back then and it doesn't adequately describe the White Russian forces.

Which is why he allowed the Central Asian states to have independence from the Russian majority, huh?

No, that's why the union was set up, to each soviet republic to have autonomy yet central direction within the brotherly union of worker states.

No, that's why the union was set up, to each soviet republic to have autonomy yet central direction within the brotherly union of worker states.Integrating independent countries into a dictatorial union is not an example of self-determination. Just FYI.

Integrating independent countries into a dictatorial union is not an example of self-determination. Just FYI.

'Dictatorial'!?!... oh I see more anti-communist drivel...

The Soviet Union gave autonomy to all it's republics, which is why the culture of each soviet republic that which constituted an independent and distinct group of people. Class however has no border.

Ah give over, Happy Birthday Vlad.

'Dictatorial'!?!... oh I see more anti-communist drivel...

Well, how would you characterize the government then? It certainly wasn't democratic..

Well, how would you characterize the government then? It certainly wasn't democratic..
You mean a bourgeois 'democratic' republic I assume. No if that's what you mean, it was rule by the Workers', Peasants' and Soldiers' Soviets with the Party as the vanguard of the ruling working class.

I do not accept petty distinctions for political systems, I look only to their class content.

You mean a bourgeois 'democratic' republic I assume. No if that's what you mean, it was rule by the Workers', Peasants' and Soldiers' Soviets with the Party as the vanguard of the ruling working class.

I do not accept petty distinctions for political systems, I look only to their class content.

When you look solely at illusion, all you build is illusion.

When you look solely at illusion, all you build is illusion.

On the contrary it's those of the liberalistic mindset who look to illusions, they view everything in their ludicrous 'left-right' spectrum and endless 'isms', they fail to see the only material real distinction in all government - class.

All government is the repression of one class and the assertion of another.

You mean a bourgeois 'democratic' republic I assume. No if that's what you mean, it was rule by the Workers', Peasants' and Soldiers' Soviets with the Party as the vanguard of the ruling working class.

I do not accept petty distinctions for political systems, I look only to their class content.

Have you ever heard of the quote "All Animals Are Equal, But Some Are More Equal Than Others"? It wasn't just a parable but an accurate reflection of the class stratification that took place in the guise of Communism in the Soviet Union.

Have you ever heard of the quote "All Animals Are Equal, But Some Are More Equal Than Others"? It wasn't just a parable but an accurate reflection of the class stratification that took place in the guise of Communism in the Soviet Union.
Oh god, ever heard that endless 1984 buzzwords fail as argument?

This is compounded by the fact that Orwell was a closet anti-communist and proven state-informer.

Oh god, ever heard that endless 1984 buzzwords fail as argument?


Animal Farm

Anarchism right wing? What have you been smoking, cause I want some too:rolleyes:

Oh god, ever heard that endless 1984 buzzwords fail as argument?

This is compounded by the fact that Orwell was a closet anti-communist and proven state-informer.

So instead of trying to come up with any links that disproves the consolidation of power by Stalin following Lenin's death and the class stratification between Communist Party officials and the Proleteriat you simply attack the messenger?

That and you reference the wrong Orwell book.

You're not even a real Marxist. You're an authoritarian statist.

Animal Farm
... is a piece of anti-communist claptrap. One which was written around the same time Orwell was collaborating with the British Foreign Office Propaganda Unit in identifying communists to the capitalist establishment.

Orwell was nothing but a tawdry second-rate propagandistic for British 'McCarthyism'.

Anarchism right wing? What have you been smoking, cause I want some too:rolleyes:

Objectively anarchism represents both the hooligan elements known as the lumpenproletariat, driven to violence against the 'establishment' in economic desperation and petty theft, and also the young offspring of urban petite-bourgeois who think it's cool to rebel.

On the contrary it's those of the liberalistic mindset who look to illusions, they view everything in their ludicrous 'left-right' spectrum and endless 'isms', they fail to see the only material real distinction in all government - class.

All government is the repression of one class and the assertion of another.

Sorry, Andaras, it just isn't that simple. It never has been.

Marx saw a nasty, brutish world of exploiters and exploited, and that's what he wrote about. He wasn't wrong; Industrial Revolution Britain really was that bad.

But by Lenin's time, things had changed. And had Marx travelled much (he was very much the european bumpkin) he would have seen that his generalizations made no sense in most of the rest of the world.

Class is merely a label, it has no reality beyond that. Today, Marx's class distinctions are utterly inadequate to the reality of the post-industrial world - what matter who owns the factory, when the profit is made at the cash register?

Marxist concepts of "class" have permeated our modrn lexicon. But it's about time we realised they have no real applicability to the modern world.

Sorry, Andaras, it just isn't that simple. It never has been.

Marx saw a nasty, brutish world of exploiters and exploited, and that's what he wrote about. He wasn't wrong; Industrial Revolution Britain really was that bad.

But by Lenin's time, things had changed. And had Marx travelled much (he was very much the european bumpkin) he would have seen that his generalizations made no sense in most of the rest of the world.

Class is merely a label, it has no reality beyond that. Today, Marx's class distinctions are utterly inadequate to the reality of the post-industrial world - what matter who owns the factory, when the profit is made at the cash register?

Marxist concepts of "class" have permeated our modrn lexicon. But it's about time we realised they have no real applicability to the modern world.

I have no time for your propertied ideology quite honestly. It is the common tactic of those who wish for the working class never to rule to revert to such petty tactics. Class is material reality, failure to recognize it is either startlingly ignorance or cynical opportunistic lies from the person.

It is obvious that those agents of the propertied ruling class will say anything to retain their position and the present position of capital exploitation of labor.

Objectively anarchism represents both the hooligan elements known as the lumpenproletariat, driven to violence against the 'establishment' in economic desperation and petty theft, and also the young offspring of urban petite-bourgeois who think it's cool to rebel.

No, "objectively" anarchism is a political ideology characterised by voluntary association, with the abolition of the state and the legitimacy of state violence and oppression, and more generally opposed to all oppresion. Consequently, in most forms of anarchism (except anarcho-capitalism which isn't technically anarchism) the notion of private property is abolished (and consequently the notion of theft) and all goods are held in common. Thus by all descriptions, it is left wing (again except anarcho-capitalism), different to marxism-leninism in that it is socially liberal as opposed to authoritarian.

"Subjectively", it has been used to describe underclass vandals, terrorists and a fad, but that's another matter <- plus neither of these cathegories are right-wing either, because they are not politically orientated.

No, "objectively" anarchism is a political ideology characterised by voluntary association, with the abolition of the state and the legitimacy of state violence and oppression, and more generally opposed to all oppresion. Consequently, in most forms of anarchism (except anarcho-capitalism which isn't technically anarchism) the notion of private property is abolished (and consequently the notion of theft) and all goods are held in common. Thus by all descriptions, it is left wing (again except anarcho-capitalism), different to marxism-leninism in that it is socially liberal as opposed to authoritarian.

"Subjectively", it has been used to describe underclass vandals, terrorists and a fad, but that's another matter <- plus neither of these cathegories are right-wing either, because they are not politically orientated.

HEY KIDS 15-24!!!

ARE YOU SICK OF MOM AND DAD TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO?

DO YOU SPEND HALF YOUR ALLOWANCE AT HOT TOPIC?

ARE YOU A FRESHMAN IN COLLEGE STUDYING LIBERAL ARTS WHO JUST DISCOVERED CHOMSKY?

DO YOU COVER UP YOUR BASIC LACK OF SOCIAL SKILLS BY CLAIMING TO BE OPPOSED TO "AUTHORITY" OR "HIERARCHY"?

DO BEGIN A LOT OF SENTENCES WITH WORDS LIKE "LIKE..." OR "HEY MAN.."

DO YOUR ATTEMPTS TO BE MULTICULTURAL END UP STEREOTYPING AND PATRONIZING OTHER CULTURES?

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT MANKIND MUST INEVITABLY REVERT TO A MORE OR LESS MEDIEVAL EXISTENCE OR FACE A CATASTROPHIC ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER?

ARE YOU OBLIVIOUS TO YOUR OWN HYPOCRISY?

DO YOU FIND THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO PROTEST IS TO PUT ON "GUERRILLA THEATRE" USING IMAGES AND THEMES THAT WOULD ONLY MAKE SENSE TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE TAKEN THE SAME DRAMA/LIBERAL ARTS COURSES AS YOU?

DO YOU FIND "DANCING IN A PUBLIC STREET TO POORLY PLAYED FAKE DRUMS" TO BE A SOUND STRATEGY FOR GUERRILLA WARFARE?

DO YOU FIND YOU CAN EXPLAIN AWAY ANY PROBLEM IN YOUR PROPOSED SOLUTION TO SOCIAL PROBLEMS BY SAYING WORDS LIKE "BOTTOM UP", "GRASS ROOTS", OR "GUERRILLA WARFARE"?

DO YOU, DESPITE YOUR STATED HATRED OF ALL AUTHORITY, TEND TO IDOLIZE VARIOUS FIGURES BECAUSE THEY ALLEGEDLY HAD THE SAME VIEWS AS YOU?

WOULD YOU LIKE TO PRETEND YOUR IDEOLOGY IS BASED ON SOME DEEP PHILOSOPHY WHEN IN FACT YOU ACTUALLY JUST WANT TO DO WHATEVER YOU FEEL LIKE?


If you answered "yes" to at least half of these questions- WE'VE GOT AN IDEOLOGY FOR YOU!!!



ANARCHISM!!!

(that's about all I have to say about anarchism)

Is any government politically orientated?

I have no time for your propertied ideology quite honestly. It is the common tactic of those who wish for the working class never to rule to revert to such petty tactics. Class is material reality, failure to recognize it is either startlingly ignorance or cynical opportunistic lies from the person.

It is obvious that those agents of the propertied ruling class will say anything to retain their position and the present position of capital exploitation of labor.

Slightly tangental.

How do you define class?

HEY KIDS 15-24!!!

<snip>

(that's about all I have to say about anarchism)

M.T.H.

How do you define class?

It isn't how I define it, it's what class is. Class is a group of people sharing common relations to labor and the means of production. the notion of class includes the development of collective consciousness in a class – arising from the material basis of having in common relations to the labor process and the means of production.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY LENIN!!!!

everyone else stop arguing and have some cake!

seriously if you're that opposed to socialism then why click on a thread titledm "Long live Marxism-Leninism!"

It isn't how I define it, it's what class is. Class is a group of people sharing common relations to labor and the means of production. the notion of class includes the development of collective consciousness in a class – arising from the material basis of having in common relations to the labor process and the means of production.

To me that seems to mean everythiong and nothing. And isn't a particuarly helpful answer. Perhaps that is my fault for not asking the correct question though.

I meant to ask, how does one define the classes. OR. What are the criteria for the classes?

seriously if you're that opposed to socialism then why click on a thread titledm "Long live Marxism-Leninism!"

(Not opposed to socialism but) haven't you just answered your own question?

Nie! to Marxism,and its cousins, Communism,Socalism,and American Liberalism.

Adam Smith forever!!!!!

:)

Nie! to Marxism,and its cousins, Communism,Socalism,and American Liberalism.

Adam Smith forever!!!!!

:)

facepalms

(Not opposed to socialism but) haven't you just answered your own question?

that makes much more sense! Thank you! you click on a link called "Long live Marxism-Leninism!" because you're opposed to Marxist-Leninism! Thanks for clearing that up!

that makes much more sense! Thank you! you click on a link called "Long live Marxism-Leninism!" because you're opposed to Marxist-Leninism! Thanks for clearing that up!

Makes perfect sense to me.

No if that’s what you mean, it was rule by the Workers’, Peasants’ and Soldiers’ Soviets with the Party as the vanguard of the ruling working class.
Translation: rule of the Party, by the Party, for the Party.


Fuck the Party.

Anarchism right wing? What have you been smoking, cause I want some too:rolleyes:
There’s a large right-wing anarchist tradition; see the social anarchism/individualist anarchism divide. Robert Nozick and Murray Rothbard are two prominent examples of right-wing anarchists (though many social anarchists will label them as ‘libertarians’).

that makes much more sense! Thank you! you click on a link called "Long live Marxism-Leninism!" because you're opposed to Marxist-Leninism! Thanks for clearing that up!
This is largely a debate forum.

Translation: rule of the Party, by the Party, for the Party.


Fuck the Party.

Just what I'd expect from an anti-organizational hooligan minority. That's why we have democratic centralism, so the minority nobodies are kept to stfu.

There’s a large right-wing anarchist tradition; see the social anarchism/individualist anarchism divide. Robert Nozick and Murray Rothbard are two prominent examples of right-wing anarchists (though many social anarchists will label them as ‘libertarians’).
Exactly, anarchists are lumpenprole tools of the bourgeois state, I see them as little different from the bourgeois police or other tools of the ruling class.

Just what I'd expect from an anti-organizational hooligan minority. That's why we have democratic centralism, so the minority nobodies are kept to stfu.


Hmm, irony

Just what I’d expect from an anti-organizational hooligan minority.
You’re too kind. :p

As a social anarchist committed to decentralised organisation, I'll denounce the Party at every turn.

That’s why we have democratic centralism, so the minority nobodies are kept to stfu.
I believe that’s also why ‘you’ have Gulags.

Exactly, anarchists are lumpenprole tools of the bourgeois state, I see them as little different from the bourgeois police or other tools of the ruling class.
You believe anarchists (either individualist or socialist) are controlled by the state to oppress the masses?

It is in times of provoked crisis and political activity that the militant street elements of anarchists will in the desperation of the times attack Communists just as those Ukrainian bands of rapists did in the civil war. Fascist movements came to back on the street hooliganism of far-right anarchists.

It is in times of provoked crisis and political activity that the militant street elements of anarchists will in the desperation of the times attack Communists just as those Ukrainian bands of rapists did in the civil war. Fascist movements came to back on the street hooliganism of far-right anarchists.

Everybody always blames the rapists. :rolleyes:

It is in times of provoked crisis and political activity that the militant street elements of anarchists will in the desperation of the times attack Communists
Well, that’s what you get for overthrowing a popular revolution (albeit a faulty one) and installing an oligarchy.

*steals Lenin’s cake*

Everybody always blames the rapists. :rolleyes:

No, I am referring to the fact that the Ukrainian anarchists were nothing short of a band of roaming rapists and criminals using their ultra-vague ideology to do it. They were completely opportunist too as they actively helped the Whites.

I would like to say, happy birthday lennin, and that, I support socialism or in a better sense, democratic socialism, or more importantly I support the government that values the poor and frowns upon the rich biased bigotry.

Well, that’s what you get for overthrowing a popular revolution (albeit a faulty one) and installing an oligarchy.

*steals Lenin’s cake*
Kerensky was no revolutionary, the Tsar abdicated. The Provisional government represented the interests of the urban petite-bourgeois, and the pro-war interests of the Allies who were using Russian men as cannon fodder for the Germans in their war for profit.

:cool: I say i support any government that values the poor working man over the rich, tycoon.

*steals Lenin’s cake*

YOU ARSEHOLE!!!!!!

I'm sorry i guess i didn't relize a thread simply stating its lenins anniversary was up for discussion.

And everyones attacks on communism is largely based non stalinism, a far shoot for Marxist-Leninism.

:cool: I say i support any government that values the poor working man over the rich, tycoon.

Best first post ever, you will go far son.

band of roaming rapists and criminals using their ultra-vague ideology to do it.
If I had a choice, I'd rather be raped with a ultra-vague ideology than ultra-hard one. Or preferably not at all. Thank you.

Yes, better to be raped by something flacid than hard

(could not help myself it was out there and open, sorry if it was an inappropriate joke)

If I had a choice, I'd rather be raped with a ultra-vague ideology than ultra-hard one. Or preferably not at all. Thank you.
No, literally - rape. Look up the atrocities of the Makhnovshchina. They were a bunch of criminals.

It is in times of provoked crisis and political activity that the militant street elements of anarchists will in the desperation of the times attack Communists just as those Ukrainian bands of rapists did in the civil war. Fascist movements came to back on the street hooliganism of far-right anarchists.

Like communists never attacked anarchists for no other reason than dickwaving :rolleyes: (note: see Spanish Civil War)

Just what I'd expect from an anti-organizational hooligan minority. That's why we have democratic centralism, so the minority nobodies are kept to stfu.

By that sort of reasoning you have a lot in common with fascists. The people rule, fuck the individual. The rule of the people, by the people, but not for the people (because they are systematically butchered).

Exactly, anarchists are lumpenprole tools of the bourgeois state, I see them as little different from the bourgeois police or other tools of the ruling class.

And communists are proles that will trade their civil and economic freedoms for the ego of the leader. Might be just me but corrupt exploitative institutions are different from corrupt egotistical exploitative dictators how? (besides the megalomania I mean).

It isn't how I define it, it's what class is. Class is a group of people sharing common relations to labor and the means of production. the notion of class includes the development of collective consciousness in a class – arising from the material basis of having in common relations to the labor process and the means of production.

This might come as a shock to you but social groups aren't inherently existent. They exist because they are defined, and just because YOU didn't define them yourself, but rather Marx, doesn't make them objective reality, drone.

Kerensky was no revolutionary, the Tsar abdicated. The Provisional government represented the interests of the urban petite-bourgeois, and the pro-war interests of the Allies who were using Russian men as cannon fodder for the Germans in their war for profit.
Kerensky was a douche, no doubt about that, but again, that’s no reason to install an oligarchy in his stead.


“Woo-hoo! Revolution! Now, guys, just let us control everything for a bit, just so we can make sure you’re really free.”

*50 years later*

“Guys, why you be revolting?”

This thread is dedicated to the birthday of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, a great man who led the Bolsheviks to overthrow the petite-bourgeois regime of Kerensky in the Great October Socialist Revolution and establish a dictatorship of the working class in the territorial possession of the former Russian empire, known as the Soviet Union. He directed the Red Army to defeating the right-wing fascist, anarchist and counter-revolutionary forces, as well as the armies of the US, France, Britain, Imperial Japan and others who tried to strangle worker power in Russia yet only succeeded in cementing the solidarity of the brotherly union of soviets.

On the theoretical field Lenin fundamentally advanced Marxist theory onto key issues such as Imperialism and Self-determination of peoples. His famous work 'The State and Revolution' is commonly referred to as the 'second Communist Manifesto', as it fundamentally set out the position of the working class in society and the nature of revolution in the state.

On a more general note Leninism today is noted as the theory for the political organization of the working class effectively to aggravate class warfare against the bourgeois, in particular through the avante-garde of the Party.


Just a couple of inaccuracies I need to point out.

As was pointed out before, to describe any of the White armies as "Fascist" is inaccurate as this ideology was still in it's infancy, being pioneered by Mussolini and his Fascisti in Italy at the time. The term you are looking for is, in fact, Monarchist, which is completely different.

Of course, you also discount the many Socialist elements of the White movement, hiding them behind the term "counter-revolutionary".

Also, the foreign interventionist forces were token in nature, and barely ever even engaged in combat with the Red armies.

Lenin didn't personally direct the war effort either. He concentrated on matters of state and governance, whilst he left the directing of the war to his Lieutenant, Trotsky, who coincidentally organised the Octobor coup d'etat in the name of Lenin also.

No, literally - rape. Look up the atrocities of the Makhnovshchina. They were a bunch of criminals.

So you and the "establishment" do have things in common after all eh? Criminals and terrorists etc. aren't anarchists in the philosophical/political sense. Just because you attribute "anarchism" to these groups, just like the propaganda of the "establishment" does not invalidate the political ideology.

Some rapists claim (or are claimed) to be anarchists -> Anarchists are all rapists -> Anarchism BAD.

Do I have to enumerate all the logical fallacies in there?

Andaras never tires, does he?

I have a nice poster just for him:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Bij_Bolszewika.jpg

:D

I honestly thought this would have been one of those, uh how should i say, socialism/communism vs capitalism so where did, anarchy fall into the picture? which I don't have a problem with as one of my best friends is one, when i know to be true that government in a necessary evil but then again everyone has different views on different or similar things, the only thing, is similarity in views

my stereotype sense is tingling.

Perhaps secret policemen everywhere could have an annual holiday to celebrate Lenin's legacy.

I hope the bastard enjoyed being braindead and in perpetual pain for a year or so. Given what he did to the Russian upper, middle, and lower classes, he deserves it.

... is a piece of anti-communist claptrap. One which was written around the same time Orwell was collaborating with the British Foreign Office Propaganda Unit in identifying communists to the capitalist establishment.

Orwell was nothing but a tawdry second-rate propagandistic for British 'McCarthyism'.

What! Bollocks mate, bollocks. The National Archive recently declassified files from its archives noting that Orwell was under watch for being suspected as a Communist sympathizer. Get your facts right.

Oh, what the hell. Happy birthday, Vladimir.

http://tintinrevolution.free.fr/stuff/lenin%20smashing%202.jpg

Perhaps secret policemen everywhere could have an annual holiday to celebrate Lenin's legacy.

lulz

:cool: I say i support any government that values the poor working man over the rich, tycoon.

And since they both need each other to thrive, I say that any government that oppresses the rich in favor of the poor is no better than the opposite.

Centrism FTW.

I was living in a communst country, so i have rigt to say NEVER AGAIN COMMUNISM OR SOCIALM. Lenin was a MURDER!

And since they both need each other to thrive, I say that any government that oppresses the rich in favor of the poor is no better than the opposite.

Centrism FTW.

Yes although that may be true, you can only have one or the other, as you can see through the views of both capitalist's and communism we have only seen these, so in what you are saying that both government types are worth nothing in retrospect, it is personnel choice and preference you see as what happens there has never as far as i know been a government that effectively balanced the scales between rich and poor. you see what i mean?

No, that's why the union was set up, to each soviet republic to have autonomy yet central direction within the brotherly union of worker states.

I find your support of the USSR saddening.

Yes although that may be true, you can only have one or the other, as you can see through the views of both capitalist's and communism we have only seen these, so in what you are saying that both government types are worth nothing in retrospect, it is personnel choice and preference you see as what happens there has never as far as i know been a government that effectively balanced the scales between rich and poor. you see what i mean?

I know what you mean, although I think they're doing an OK job at balancing the scales here in Northern Europe. Of course the inherent problem with it is that people will always complain. Everyone, no matter to which class they belong, always wants more, and preferably at the expense of others, because people are naturally greedy and envious. Because of that, finding a perfect balance between supporting the rich and the poor is impossible, because it doesn't exist. Still, I'd say that trying to find some sort of compromise is always better than just giving up and going to the extreme, regardless of whether that extreme is capitalism or communism.

Also, I wouldn't exactly say that capitalism and communism are worthless in or of themselves. I believe that any government type can be made work, as long as the people agree with it, and are willing to make it work. Some systems just offer more incentive for the people to do it.

I find your support of the USSR saddening.

Then you'll truly despair when you find out that AP believes the height of the Soviet Union was under the rule of Josef Stalin.

I know what you mean, although I think they're doing an OK job at balancing the scales here in Northern Europe. Of course the inherent problem with it is that people will always complain. Everyone, no matter to which class they belong, always wants more, and preferably at the expense of others, because people are naturally greedy and envious. Because of that, finding a perfect balance between supporting the rich and the poor is impossible, because it doesn't exist. Still, I'd say that trying to find some sort of compromise is always better than just giving up and going to the extreme, regardless of whether that extreme is capitalism or communism.

Also, I wouldn't exactly say that capitalism and communism are worthless in or of themselves. I believe that any government type can be made work, as long as the people agree with it, and are willing to make it work. Some systems just offer more incentive for the people to do it.


You pose a very good and informative argument, and I agree with you, though i can say that i am at a loss of information on European government as i am in the states, ye know. and can see worse thing here, or a great rift between the rich and poor here. the main influencing factor of my choice in politics though, is mainly from personal experience's and feeling for the people the masses. aswell as being poor myself, or more or less my family

'Dictatorial'!?!... oh I see more anti-communist drivel...Well, one could argue that not Lenin and later Stalin were the autocrats of the Soviet Union, and that it was a dictatorship of the proletariat as opposed to the dictatorship of one man, but one would be wrong. Either way, though, the USSR was still dictatorial.
The Soviet Union gave autonomy to all it's republics, which is why the culture of each soviet republic that which constituted an independent and distinct group of people. Class however has no border.Because russianizing the Baltic states to eradicate their culture was an act of granting them autonomy and preserving their culture. Is it "Pretend the USSR did the exact opposite of what it really did" Day or something?

It isn't how I define it, it's what class is. Class is a group of people sharing common relations to labor and the means of production. the notion of class includes the development of collective consciousness in a class – arising from the material basis of having in common relations to the labor process and the means of production.And like all man-made categorization attempts, it fails first contact with reality.

Is it "Pretend the USSR did the exact opposite of what it really did" Day or something?

For AP it's "Pretend the USSR did the exact opposite of what it really did lifetime."

Nie! to Marxism,and its cousins, Communism,Socalism,and American Liberalism.

Adam Smith forever!!!!!

:)
Oh, goody. Replace one hopelessly flawed ideology with another. Adam Smith was every bit as deluded as Marx.

No, I am referring to the fact that the Ukrainian anarchists were nothing short of a band of roaming rapists and criminals using their ultra-vague ideology to do it. They were completely opportunist too as they actively helped the Whites."And self-determination cannot be accepted if it fails to determine what I want."

:rolleyes:

Oh, goody. Replace one hopelessly flawed ideology with another. Adam Smith was every bit as deluded as Marx.

I have one thing to say, though everyone has a right to their ideals and opinions, define right and wrong, it is only a matter of perspective, as there truly is no right or wrong, good and bad, good and evil, those all are just words.

Yes although that may be true, you can only have one or the other, as you can see through the views of both capitalist's and communism we have only seen these, so in what you are saying that both government types are worth nothing in retrospect, it is personnel choice and preference you see as what happens there has never as far as i know been a government that effectively balanced the scales between rich and poor. you see what i mean?

You chaps have obviously never heard of syndicalism yes?

For AP it's "Pretend the USSR did the exact opposite of what it really did lifetime."Heheheh. I can't wait till he claims Gagarin wasn't the first man in space then =P
I have one thing to say, though everyone has a right to their ideals and opinions, define right and wrong, it is only a matter of perspective, as there truly is no right or wrong, good and bad, good and evil, those all are just words.Wrong: Has no basis in reality. Economic theories take a while to be proven or disproven, usually well after the lifetime of the original proposer. Communism and Socialism are not the next step after capitalism and there is no such thing as an invisible hand guiding the market, either literal or metaphorical. So reality has spoken, so it hath come to pass.

You chaps have obviously never heard of syndicalism yes?
in all honesty i can at least say that i have not, but then again, i am not a representative for my country, so i don't know specifics.
Heheheh. I can't wait till he claims Gagarin wasn't the first man in space then =P
Wrong: Has no basis in reality. Economic theories take a while to be proven or disproven, usually well after the lifetime of the original proposer. Communism and Socialism are not the next step after capitalism and there is no such thing as an invisible hand guiding the market, either literal or metaphorical. So reality has spoken, so it hath come to pass.
i was talking about the words in general, but ok.

... is a piece of anti-communist claptrap.

Oh, only pro communist claptrap for you, eh?

You guys are definitely spoiling an otherwise grand birthday party.

*distributed cake to everyone equally*Except thm damn bourgeoisie over there..

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/5481/lolwutsp3.jpg

/thread

The Soviet Union gave autonomy to all it's republics, which is why the culture of each soviet republic that which constituted an independent and distinct group of people. Class however has no border.

Which is why official Soviet policy was to exterminate the local languages and customs, and replace them with Russian.

Click Stand;13630536']You guys are definitely spoiling an otherwise grand birthday party.

*distributed cake to everyone equally*Except thm damn bourgeoisie over there..
A party! I shall invite my bestest friends!

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/Communist20Party.jpg

A party! I shall invite my bestest friends!

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/Communist20Party.jpg

Will someone volunteer to take Karl home tonight? Last time he ended up in Cambodia with no pants.

Lenin was shit. His bullshit rushed theories on an immediate revolution from Tsarist rule to socialism totally undermined the core anthropological aspects of Marxism anyway which was why the Mensheviks, who at least understood Marxism and not the juvenile violent dreams of the pseudo-working class (that is the upper classes pretending to be working class, a.k.a Lenin) propagated by Lenin, laughed at him as the immature 'political theorist' he was (don't get me wrong, I don't think the Mensheviks are right either). Lenin didn't do anything good for Russia, his 'war communism' ruined the economy and no matter how far he tried to compromise his economic views in order to raise capital again, the economy would never recover fully. His red terror was as bad if not worse than what the people of Russia suffered under the Tsar, which is why even the praised Hero's of the revolution grew to hate him and even rebelled against him (Kronstadt).

I am too lazy to look, but can someone tell me if anyone started a thread celebrating Hitler's birthday the day before yesterday? After all, Nazism murdered A LOT fewer people than Marxism-Leninism, and Hitler at least did some useful things, like building autobahn, whereas Lenin was pure hatred. So, anybody in the mood to celebrate Hitler? I did not think so. But why is the double standard with Lenin?

I am too lazy to look, but can someone tell me if someone started a thread celebrating Hitler's birthday the day before yesterday? After all, Nazism murdered A LOT fewer people than Marxism-Leninism, and Hitler at least did some useful things, like building autobahn, where's Lenin was pure hatred. So, anybody in the mood to celebrate Hitler? I did not think so. But why is the double standard with Lenin?If you divide the amount of killing versus the amount of time it took (which is highly unrealistic, seeing as the Nazis started killing a lot more during the last few years of their reign), you'll note that Nazism, in its short history, was a lot deadlier and crueller.

If you divide the amount of killing versus the amount of time it took (which is highly unrealistic, seeing as the Nazis started killing a lot more during the last few years of their reign), you'll note that Nazism, in its short history, was a lot deadlier and crueller.

True, Lenin didn't kill that many people directly, most of the deaths under him were the result of famine. Hitler was far worse than Lenin, at least Lenin viewed his killing as a necessary means to an end in order to remove class divisions, where as Hitler likely viewed his killing as good ends in themselves.

True, Lenin didn't kill that many people directly, most of the deaths under him were the result of famine. Hitler was far worse than Lenin, at least Lenin viewed his killing as a necessary means to an end in order to remove class divisions, where as Hitler likely viewed his killing as good ends in themselves.

I suspect not. I won't dispute that Hitler would, and did, endorse rather more cruel executions than did Lenin, however, he did execute and massacre in the name of a goal; a racially pure, territorially enlarged, unified Greater Germany. A perverted goal, perhaps, but a political goal similar to Communism all the same.

I suspect not. I won't dispute that Hitler would, and did, endorse rather more cruel executions than did Lenin, however, he did execute and massacre in the name of a goal; a racially pure, territorially enlarged, unified Greater Germany. A perverted goal, perhaps, but a political goal similar to Communism all the same.

Perhaps, still, I think racial purity is a worse goal than economic equality.

True, Lenin didn't kill that many people directly, most of the deaths under him were the result of famine. Hitler was far worse than Lenin, at least Lenin viewed his killing as a necessary means to an end in order to remove class divisions, where as Hitler likely viewed his killing as good ends in themselves.
Perhaps, still, I think racial purity is a worse goal than economic equality.


That doesn't change the fact that both Lenin and Hitler were acting in what they believed to be the best interest of their respective nations.

That doesn't change the fact that both Lenin and Hitler were acting in what they believed to be the best interest of their respective nations.

Exactly.

True, Lenin didn't kill that many people directly, most of the deaths under him were the result of famine. Hitler was far worse than Lenin, at least Lenin viewed his killing as a necessary means to an end in order to remove class divisions, where as Hitler likely viewed his killing as good ends in themselves.

This is a highly immoral statement. Also untrue. First, the motives of a mass murderer do not matter, and saying that one mass murderer was not as bad as another because of the alleged difference in motives is truly disgusting (just as it would be disgusting to say "at least death in a gas chamber is quick and is nothing compared to slow death by starvation" - although if given a choice, I personally would prefer to be murdered by Hitler rather than Lenin). Mass murder is mass murder, period. Second, Hitler actually was no less idealistic than Lenin - and he genuinely believed that, say, by exterminating the disabled (incidentally, that's what his mass murder program started with) he was improving the human race. Third, Lenin actually enjoyed killing the people he hated as much as the next totalitarian dictator (and yes, after having read thousands and thousands of pages of his writings in the original Russian I can testify that he intensely hated whole classes of people, especially the middle class - incidentally, he almost never said anything about the upper class, which he had an ambition to move into from his humble middle class birth). Not even only people - when it came to avenging the death of his terrorist brother, he even had the tsar's family dog killed (along with the family itself, family servants and family doctor).

If you divide the amount of killing versus the amount of time it took (which is highly unrealistic, seeing as the Nazis started killing a lot more during the last few years of their reign), you'll note that Nazism, in its short history, was a lot deadlier and crueller.

So the Nazis had a higher evil per time rate, while the commies had greater total evil.

It's the same old question; which is more evil, evil per capita, or gross domestic evil?

This is a highly immoral statement. Also untrue. First, the motives of a mass murderer do not matter, and saying that one mass murderer was not as bad as another because of the alleged difference in motives is truly disgusting (just as it would be disgusting to say "at least death in a gas chamber is quick and is nothing compared to slow death by starvation" - although if given a choice, I personally would prefer to be murdered by Hitler rather than Lenin). Mass murder is mass murder, period. Second, Hitler actually was no less idealistic than Lenin - and he genuinely believed that, say, by exterminating the disabled (incidentally, that's what his mass murder program started with) he was improving the human race. Third, Lenin actually enjoyed killing the people he hated as much as the next totalitarian dictator (and yes, after having read thousands and thousands of pages of his writings in the original Russian I can testify that he intensely hated whole classes of people, especially the middle class - incidentally, he almost never said anything about the upper class, which he had an ambition to move into from his humble middle class birth). Not even only people - when it came to avenging the death of his terrorist brother, he even had the tsar's family dog killed (along with the family itself, family servants and family doctor).

Firstly I think Lenin is a shit bag no doubt about it, but some shitbags are worse than others, I don't see how that's a problem. Lenin didn't directly murder anywhere near as much people as Hitler did, again the majority of deaths came from his negligence which caused a famine, not because he wanted all those millions of people to die. Secondly, he viewed the classes he hated as evil exploiters who deserved to die, which is different from feeling that they deserve to die simply for being 'weak and impure'. He didn't actually kill that many 'bourgeois', most of the time they were assaulted with their property vandalised, but I admit many were killed. I don't buy that he enjoyed killing as much as you say he did, you're going to have to present evidence for this I'm afraid.

Oh yeah and he was reluctant to kill the Tsar and his family at first because of the unrest it may cause, but was convinced to because the Tsar were giving the monarchists too much hope.

HEY KIDS 15-24!!!

<snip>

ANARCHISM!!!

(that's about all I have to say about anarchism)
Haha, that's quite true, even speaking as a teen myself. But you could say exactly the same thing about young communists who drone on about class warfare and the bourgeois.

So the Nazis had a higher evil per time rate, while the commies had greater total evil.

It's the same old question; which is more evil, evil per capita, or gross domestic evil?Counter question: Is it regrettable that the Nazis were stopped, thus leaving the question open whether they were worse?

This is a highly immoral statement. Also untrue. First, the motives of a mass murderer do not matter, and saying that one mass murderer was not as bad as another because of the alleged difference in motives is truly disgusting (just as it would be disgusting to say "at least death in a gas chamber is quick and is nothing compared to slow death by starvation" - although if given a choice, I personally would prefer to be murdered by Hitler rather than Lenin). Mass murder is mass murder, period. Second, Hitler actually was no less idealistic than Lenin - and he genuinely believed that, say, by exterminating the disabled (incidentally, that's what his mass murder program started with) he was improving the human race. Third, Lenin actually enjoyed killing the people he hated as much as the next totalitarian dictator (and yes, after having read thousands and thousands of pages of his writings in the original Russian I can testify that he intensely hated whole classes of people, especially the middle class - incidentally, he almost never said anything about the upper class, which he had an ambition to move into from his humble middle class birth). Not even only people - when it came to avenging the death of his terrorist brother, he even had the tsar's family dog killed (along with the family itself, family servants and family doctor).

Well that just fucking clinches it doesn't it?

Well, one could argue that not Lenin and later Stalin were the autocrats of the Soviet Union, and that it was a dictatorship of the proletariat as opposed to the dictatorship of one man, but one would be wrong. Either way, though, the USSR was still dictatorial.
Because russianizing the Baltic states to eradicate their culture was an act of granting them autonomy and preserving their culture. Is it "Pretend the USSR did the exact opposite of what it really did" Day or something?

It saddens me that many of Stalin's errors are attributed to Lenin. Lenin insisted that there was to be national self-determination for all the peoples of the former Russian Empire and that no privileges would be accorded to the Russians. Lenin even encouraged the secession of Finland from the Russian government.

Perhaps, still, I think racial purity is a worse goal than economic equality.

Why? To begin with, if your choice of junk science is eugenics rather than Marxism, you will view racial purity as a better goal (and purely intuitively it actually makes more sense). Then, at least the Nazis were actually sincere about achieving that goal, while the Commies never actually wanted economic equality - they just used the so-called "state ownership of means of production" as a very useful tool of totalitarian control. Seriously, just check out the facts on the ground. Lenin owned not one but TWO Rolls-Royces. Brezhnev had hundreds of cars in his collection. That's some economic equality! Communist party functionaries had their own separate (i.e. segregated) hospitals and shopping networks, schools for their children, special lounges at rail stations, gated housing developments, etc. - they even produced some car models available only to them! That's a hypocrisy on a huge scale (and yes, it started with Lenin and his hencmen). The analogy in Germany would have been if all important Nazis had Jewish and African mistresses and were producing offspring by them. Since we no that not to be the case, we have to admit Hitler and the Nazis were much more idealistic than Lenin and the Commies. Just in case someone misunderstands, that's not to say that the Nazis were "better" but rather that idealism is irrelevant in judging ACTIONS. I personally think that idealists willing to kill people for their ideals are more dangerous than people willing to kill people for personal profit.

Firstly I think Lenin is a shit bag no doubt about it, but some shitbags are worse than others, I don't see how that's a problem. Lenin didn't directly murder anywhere near as much people as Hitler did, again the majority of deaths came from his negligence which caused a famine, not because he wanted all those millions of people to die. Secondly, he viewed the classes he hated as evil exploiters who deserved to die, which is different from feeling that they deserve to die simply for being 'weak and impure'. He didn't actually kill that many 'bourgeois', most of the time they were assaulted with their property vandalised, but I admit many were killed. I don't buy that he enjoyed killing as much as you say he did, you're going to have to present evidence for this I'm afraid.

Confiscating the peasants' harvest is NOT negligence. Lenin did want millions to die, and in fact extermination of cossacks was official state policy. It is actually very hard to know just how exactly Lenin viewed those he hated, why he hated them etc. As I already pointed out, it is just curious how in his writings he so often spews hatred for the MIDDLE CLASS, not "evil exploiters". And apparently he just hated their way of life, not anything particular that they did. At least that's my impression from reading him (and I had to A LOT of that, having received Soviet education).

I have a theory that it was mostly sort of self-hatred. He was born (138 years ago) in a provincial middle class - but upwardly mobile! - family. He hated his background and wanted to move into the upper class. And almost did. His father had a very successful career in the education bureaucracy and shortly before dying managed to gain inheritable (not just life!) peerage. So, curiously. if you look at the first volume of Lenin's Collected Works (55 volumes), the first documents published there (college application etc.) are all signed "Nobleman Vladimir Ulyanov". If nothing had happened, Lenin would have probably managed to fulfil his ambition to fully move into the upper class, and then he would have just been an insufferable snob, always looking down on the middle class and never missing an opportunity to express his contempt for them. Well, with his ego and amibition he would have probably eventually become a cabinet member or something. Maybe even a prime-minister - ironically, that's the position he had in the Soviet government. But something did happen - his big brother almost (got arrested just a couple hours before the planned assassination) managed to blow up the tsar and whatever innocent bystanders just might happen to be on a crowded street when his powerful bomb was supposed to detonate (you can't make omelette without breaking some eggs etc. - and, of course, a sniper rifle is not just romantic enough). After acquring such notoriety, Lenin realized that his career prospects became a little limited (especially in government) and then completely flew off his handle, combining his hatred of the middle class with a burning desire to avenge his brother (who was hanged after declining a commutation proposal).

As for evidence, just read his writings from 1918-1920. There are plenty of instructions to execute whole categories of people at some locations, often ending with an open-ended "etc." (i.e. he wanted even more people to be executed, but was too lazy to list them all and left it to the locals to decide). Sometimes he was offering a bounty (e.g. 100,000 rubles for every person hanged). Seriously, just READ Lenin.

Happy birthday to an ideology that started a rebellion that was ultimately responsible for tens of millions of deaths! Whoo-hoo!

It is amazing that such a destructive ideology still has disciples. I reckon the lessons of the 20th century mean nothing to the younger generations. No doubt the socialists who teach in public schools cast a favorable light upon Lenin and Marx. A damn shame.

Lenin insisted that there was to be national self-determination for all the peoples of the former Russian Empire

Yeah, that must be why he invaded newly independent Poland, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia and annexed all of them but Poland (which managed to beat the crap out of the Red Army).

Good for you! Every one needs a hero, no matter how cruel, evil, and generally unpleasant that hero may have been.

Confiscating the peasants' harvest is NOT negligence. Lenin did want millions to die, and in fact extermination of cossacks was official state policy. It is actually very hard to know just how exactly Lenin viewed those he hated, why he hated them etc. As I already pointed out, it is just curious how in his writings he so often spews hatred for the MIDDLE CLASS, not "evil exploiters". And apparently he just hated their way of life, not anything particular that they did. At least that's my impression from reading him (and I had to A LOT of that, having received Soviet education).


Ok, I understand what you are saying, grain requisitioning was a terrible policy I admit but let me explain it a bit:

Lenin wanted to take surplus grain from the peasants and cossacks which were absolutely essential for the starving cities since many were refusing to supply the cities if they would receive no monetary award and due to inflation money was worthless anyway. It is thought that he instructed to kill those who refused to give away their surplus grain since anyone who does not give food to the cities deserved it, however it is unclear if this instruction came from him or lower down. The policy was a disaster because it just caused the peasants to not grow any surplus grain at all since it would just be looted. Still, I think the majority of those who died in the famine were city folk, and again I don't think he wanted all these people to die.


I have a theory that it was mostly sort of self-hatred. He was born (138 years ago) in a provincial middle class - but upwardly mobile! - family. He hated his background and wanted to move into the upper class. And almost did. His father had a very successful career in the education bureaucracy and shortly before dying managed to gain inheritable (not just life!) peerage. So, curiously. if you look at the first volume of Lenin's Collected Works (55 volumes), the first documents published there (college application etc.) are all signed "Nobleman Vladimir Ulyanov". If nothing had happened, Lenin would have probably managed to fulfil his ambition to fully move into the upper class, and then he would have just been an insufferable snob, always looking down on the middle class and never missing an opportunity to express his contempt for them. Well, with his ego and amibition he would have probably eventually become a cabinet member or something. Maybe even a prime-minister - ironically, that's the position he had in the Soviet government. But something did happen - his big brother almost (got arrested just a couple hours before the planned assassination) managed to blow up the tsar and whatever innocent bystanders just might happen to be on a crowded street when his powerful bomb was supposed to detonate (you can't make omelette without breaking some eggs etc. - and, of course, a sniper rifle is not just romantic enough). After acquring such notoriety, Lenin realized that his career prospects became a little limited (especially in government) and then completely flew off his handle, combining his hatred of the middle class with a burning desire to avenge his brother (who was hanged after declining a commutation proposal).


I don't think his reasons for becoming a Marxist were that shallow, this could all just be circumstantial, also don't you think that info gathered from soviet education may be unreliable.


As for evidence, just read his writings from 1918-1920. There are plenty of instructions to execute whole categories of people at some locations, often ending with an open-ended "etc." (i.e. he wanted even more people to be executed, but was too lazy to list them all and left it to the locals to decide). Sometimes he was offering a bounty (e.g. 100,000 rubles for every person hanged). Seriously, just READ Lenin.

I've read some of the things he has said, from what I understand many of these executions were during the civil war and were not because they were simply part of a class he didn't like but because they were rebelling against the Bolsheviks.

I find it interesting that capitalists aren't the ones who praise Lenin and Stalin the most. After all, they did the most out of anyone to actively destroy communism.

(you can't make omelette without breaking some eggs etc. - and, of course, a sniper rifle is not just romantic enough).Did they even have sniper rifles back then?

I find it interesting that capitalists aren't the ones who praise Lenin and Stalin the most. After all, they did the most out of anyone to actively destroy communism.

True they did, but I guess it's that whole, mass murder and genocide and conquest and repression bit that prevents me from lauding their greatness like Andy would.

Ok i just want to say, I do not support outright communism everything owned by the state, as i am an American and hold that everyone should own their own property. But I will repeat myself, I support any government who cares for the poor, and i mean the people in grueling poverty barely keeping their heads above water poor, and in any sense, dislike the posh snobs in the upper classes that look down upon the poor man. I mean has anyone who even post's this dribble understand what it is to be poor? now i am talking about the theory, not real world examples that have been, shot down as dictatorships, and In a sense so far the only country that has instituted communism, and has had effect with it would be Cuba. But, the power to the people statement comes to mind still, and in my mind, a government is to be ruled by the masses not the other way around
which in a sense every modern country, is ass backwards to what government should be. think about things that way. I admit, i may have been swayed by propaganda to extent, but otherwise, i do not watch the news as i find it untrustworthy and a primary tool with which the government to force it's will upon the masses, i mean everyone is equal at birth, it is not how much money you have that counts it's your character and your judgment that counts in the world, but then again i may be talking out ofmy ass and my argument a mute point you decide.

Did they even have sniper rifles back then?

Why, yes, they did. The United States Springfield 1903, German Mauser's and various products from the Enfield company had been fitted with telescopic sights, and had seen extensive use during World War One.

In fact, Rifled-Muskets had been fitted with telescopic sights as early as the American Civil War.

This thread is dedicated to the birthday of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, a great man who led the Bolsheviks to overthrow the petite-bourgeois regime of Kerensky in the Great October Socialist Revolution and establish a dictatorship of the working class in the territorial possession of the former Russian empire, known as the Soviet Union. He directed the Red Army to defeating the right-wing fascist, anarchist and counter-revolutionary forces, as well as the armies of the US, France, Britain, Imperial Japan and others who tried to strangle worker power in Russia yet only succeeded in cementing the solidarity of the brotherly union of soviets.

On the theoretical field Lenin fundamentally advanced Marxist theory onto key issues such as Imperialism and Self-determination of peoples. His famous work 'The State and Revolution' is commonly referred to as the 'second Communist Manifesto', as it fundamentally set out the position of the working class in society and the nature of revolution in the state.

On a more general note Leninism today is noted as the theory for the political organization of the working class effectively to aggravate class warfare against the bourgeois, in particular through the avante-garde of the Party.

Gawd , has'nt this loony been banned yet?

Mind you you gotta Lenin some points, like expanding the tsar's gulag system and system of internal exile, by abolishing the tsar's secret police force and creating his own, that the hero's of the revolution ended up rebelling against it when they found out instead of a system of socialist democracy they'd fought for was being replaced by a dictatorial government.
And finally Lenin paved the way for Stalin to run Russia..............

And finally in a purely personal attack, You sir have no idea what it means today to be working class, you sound exactly like all 'communists' I heard in my youth, disaffected middle class dreamers.

-snip-

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o170/psychoticmongooses/howaboutnogw5.jpg?t=1208887393

Gawd , has'nt this loony been banned yet?

Three times, IIRC, or do you mean something else? :)

I have no time for your propertied ideology quite honestly. It is the common tactic of those who wish for the working class never to rule to revert to such petty tactics. Class is material reality, failure to recognize it is either startlingly ignorance or cynical opportunistic lies from the person.

It is obvious that those agents of the propertied ruling class will say anything to retain their position and the present position of capital exploitation of labor.

What you don't seem to get is that I'm not an agent of anything.

I have been a worker. I have been a soldier. I have worked for myself. I have had people work for me. Today, I am a teacher.

I don't need your obsolete ideology. The failed doctrines of the past have no place in the future we are making,

Even VI Lenin eventually relised that communism has no worth. Towards the end of his dictatorship, he instituted the New Economic Policy, or NEP - which was controlled capitalism in all but name.

For that, I do honour him. It takes great moral courage to admit, and try to fix, your own mistakes.

Andaras never tires, does he?

I have a nice poster just for him:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Bij_Bolszewika.jpg

:D

No no no, Andaras looks more like this:

http://www.phill.co.uk/comedy/young/young25.jpg

HEY KIDS 15-24!!! ARE YOU SICK OF MOM AND DAD TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO?, etc...

This is really the only thing he said in two-odd pages of material that made even a little bit of sense, and it had the added value of being funny.

On that note, I find it hard to reconcile the concept of 'self-determination' with any kind of dictatorship, but especially the collectivist nightmare embodied in 'the dictatorship of the proletariat.'

Well that just fucking clinches it doesn't it?

Yes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeTheDog)

Lenin wanted to take surplus grain from the peasants and cossacks which were absolutely essential for the starving cities since many were refusing to supply the cities if they would receive no monetary award and due to inflation money was worthless anyway.

He actually wanted to take all grain, and, incidentally, he was consciously following on (and expanding) the experience of the French Revolution. It had absolutely nothing to do with starving cities (which only started to starve as a result of that policy). The whole idea was to use food as a weapon to regulate behavior. That continued (in more and more elaborate form) throughout the entire existence of the Soviet Union. I.e. you do exactly as they say - you get food and other material benefits, you don't - well, too bad (you starve, or, in later, more generous times, you just live in a slum, never get a decent job, your children can't get into college, etc.). That's the essence of Communism, not some unfortunate byproduct of extreme conditions, like a civil war. And by the way, the peasants were actually trying to take their surplus grain to the cities themselves, in order to barter it (don't forget - the cities had manufactured goods). But Lenin ordered summary execution of such "speculators" (just as the French revolutionaries did). As I said, it was all about state monopoly on food, not about starving cities.

Still, I think the majority of those who died in the famine were city folk, and again I don't think he wanted all these people to die.

He did.

I've read some of the things he has said, from what I understand many of these executions were during the civil war and were not because they were simply part of a class he didn't like but because they were rebelling against the Bolsheviks.

If you look at his actual quotes, he was often ordering mass executions in cities where there was absolutely no rebellion - but where some people potentially might be merely contemplating perhaps a possible rebellion at some future date. "Red Terror" was a state policy, after all.

Gawd , has'nt this loony been banned yet?Lunacy isn't a bannable offence.

Ok i just want to say, I do not support outright communism everything owned by the state, as i am an American and hold that everyone should own their own property. But I will repeat myself, I support any government who cares for the poor, and i mean the people in grueling poverty barely keeping their heads above water poor, and in any sense, dislike the posh snobs in the upper classes that look down upon the poor man. I mean has anyone who even post's this dribble understand what it is to be poor?

Yes, I understand perfectly - I lived in the Soviet Union. So I was relatively poor and knew much poorer people. Then for a while I was a poor graduate student here (in the US). Now, Soviet government most definitely never cared for the poor, and the Communist Party functionaries were precisely "the posh snobs" who "look[ed] down upon the poor man". It is just unbelievable how much contempt they had for workers and peasants. And that snobism started with Lenin himself. Scratch it - it actually started with Marx. Seriously, few things in life are more snobbish than, say, the Marxist concept of "false consciousness" (i.e. the notion that Communist leaders know the interests of the workers better than the workers themselves).

Did they even have sniper rifles back then?

Yes, most sniper rifles are simply well made rifles fired by a skilled marksman.

No no no, Andaras looks more like this:

http://www.phill.co.uk/comedy/young/young25.jpg

I believe Vespy is displaying a Polish poster showing our forces repelling the aggressive Bolshevik invaders - and succeeding

Good riddance to Lenin, piss be upon him

Seriously, few things in life are more snobbish than, say, the Marxist concept of "false consciousness" (i.e. the notion that Communist leaders know the interests of the workers better than the workers themselves).

The workers themselves change their minds as to what is in their interests. On what basis would you maintain that it is impossible for anyone to be ahead of the rest?

The real difference is between attempting to build a mass movement on the basis of working with and convincing people (the social democratic parties of the West) and seizing control as an elite without solid, long-term popular support (Lenin).

Generating consciousness of oppression, and the willingness to challenge and change it, is always an active process--it does not happen automatically.

This is really the only thing he said in two-odd pages of material that made even a little bit of sense, and it had the added value of being funny.It was mildly amusing, but no more accurate than anything else he's said in the thread.

Why, yes, they did. The United States Springfield 1903, German Mauser's and various products from the Enfield company had been fitted with telescopic sights, and had seen extensive use during World War One.

In fact, Rifled-Muskets had been fitted with telescopic sights as early as the American Civil War.

Yes, most sniper rifles are simply well made rifles fired by a skilled marksman.Well, you learn something new everyday. :)

Well, you learn something new everyday. :)

Even now most sniper rifles are simply high-quality hunting rifles, there are some exceptions, such as the Barrett 'light-fifty' and the AS-50 (and really any other .50 caliber or 12.7mm "sniper" rifles).

On that note, I find it hard to reconcile the concept of 'self-determination' with any kind of dictatorship, but especially the collectivist nightmare embodied in 'the dictatorship of the proletariat.'

"The dictatorship of the proletariat" is not a "dictatorship" in the ordinary sense. It just means the rule of the working class.

Even now most sniper rifles are simply high-quality hunting rifles, there are some exceptions, such as the Barrett 'light-fifty' and the AS-50 (and really any other .50 caliber or 12.7mm "sniper" rifles).

50 cal snipers are fun as hell to shoot. I think the only thing more fun would be a 50 cal machine gun, but I haven't had a chance to try one of those.

Or a 120mm-ish sized tank round...that would be fun...
Or a AAA machine gun that shoots 2000 rounds a minute....that would be really fun.

50 cal snipers are fun as hell to shoot. I think the only thing more fun would be a 50 cal machine gun, but I haven't had a chance to try one of those.
Yes they are.
Or a 120mm-ish sized tank round...that would be fun...
Not much different from a 105mm I imagine... :D
Or a AAA machine gun that shoots 2000 rounds a minute....that would be really fun.
That does sound like fun also.

Gawd , has’nt this loony been banned yet?
Banning people for their views is exactly the sort of shit a lot of us are arguing against in this thread.

Andaras may have views that, mildly put, are rather misguided, but I believe he means well. Moreover, he's made a significant effort recently to better get on with the members of NS:G. Good on him.

“The dictatorship of the proletariat” is not a “dictatorship” in the ordinary sense. It just means the rule of the working class.
Is that not what our original use of ‘dictatorship’ also means: ‘rule of X’?

I mean, we’re looking at a society which is, for better or worse, wholly run for and by the working class. Sounds much like a standard dictatorship to me.

Is that not what our original use of ‘dictatorship’ also means: ‘rule of X’?

When "X" is the vast majority of the population? No.

Edit: I understand where Marx was coming from with his terminology--in the context of his point, it makes perfect sense--but it's more important to stress that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is meant to occur within the framework of democratic institutions.

When "X" is the vast majority of the population? No.

Edit: I understand where Marx was coming from with his terminology--in the context of his point, it makes perfect sense--but it's more important to stress that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is meant to occur within the framework of democratic institutions.

2. absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.

I win.

The workers themselves change their minds as to what is in their interests. On what basis would you maintain that it is impossible for anyone to be ahead of the rest?

My point was that the Commies are snobs. They claim that any point they know with absolute certainty what the "real" interests of workers are - and if the workers see their interests any differently, it's their bad (and they still are obligated to let the Commies lead them). It is really no different from monarchy, where the monarch always knows best. Whether this attitude is based on "divine rights of kings" or some revelation received from Marx, does not really matter it's still snobism of the worst kind.

When “X” is the vast majority of the population? No.

Edit: I understand where Marx was coming from with his terminology—in the context of his point, it makes perfect sense—but it’s more important to stress that the “dictatorship of the proletariat” is meant to occur within the framework of democratic institutions.
Sure, but (and I admit it’s been a year or so since I last brushed up on Marx) aren’t those democratic institution always weighted towards the interests of the working class?

It’s almost a moot point, because, as you undoubtedly know, the industrial working class in Marx’s time made up the majority of the population, so democratic institutions would favour the proletariat by necessity. But my point is that Marx was well aware of this. He’s ensuring the working class get a bigger say than everyone else because, and through the very fact that, they are the majority of the population.

I win.

So?

Again, my point is not that "dictatorship" is necessarily an inappropriate term, merely that the ordinary sense in which it is used does not apply here.

My point was that the Commies are snobs. They claim that any point they know with absolute certainty what the "real" interests of workers are

With "absolute certainty"? Really?

Some communists may believe with such dogmatism. Not all. Not even most, I would guess.

and if the workers see their interests any differently, it's their bad (and they still are obligated to let the Commies lead them).

Nonsense. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the dictatorship of the proletariat. It occurs after the development of consciousness among the working classes--it is not imposed upon them.

It is really no different from monarchy, where the monarch always knows best.

True, your straw man isn't.

It isn't how I define it, it's what class is.

Regardless of whatever other ways I may agree or disagree with you, I have to say this is untrue at a very fundamental level. I'm not going to get all Derrida because I'm sick as hell and cranky and fuzzy, but words do not have inherent meaning, they do not have uniform or stable meaning; they are, in fact, continually redefined and reimagined every time we use them. This may or may not be relevant to the discussion at hand (probably not), but it is noteworthy.

Nonsense. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the dictatorship of the proletariat. It occurs after the development of consciousness among the working classes--it is not imposed upon them.

Then why is the suppression of free information in communist China so important? Why are movements led by the people 50 years after the revolution still "counter-revolutionary"? Why is change that comes from within crushed by the government "for the sake of the people" who want it to change?

Indeed. Long live Marxism-Leninism so we may not forget the horrible opressive system that it is.

Banning people for their views is exactly the sort of shit a lot of us are arguing against in this thread.

Andaras may have views that, mildly put, are rather misguided, but I believe he means well. Moreover, he's made a significant effort recently to better get on with the members of NS:G. Good on him.

Entirely in agreement. Some of the things he says make me want to tear my hair out, but he certainly isn't a troll and I usually at least respect what he has to say, even when it drives me crazy.

"The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate."
--Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

But my point is that Marx was well aware of this. He’s ensuring the working class get a bigger say than everyone else because, and through the very fact that, they are the majority of the population.

Right.

But before we decry this breach of republican principles, let's not forget that for Marx this is an essential feature of every political system within class society, because within his political theory class interests are not reconcilable.

And he has a point. As long as our economic lives are dominated by vast differences in wealth and power, achieving a just political order may be beyond the scope of possibility.

My feelings about Marxism are roughly the same as my feelings about Christianity: good guy with a good message, until real people get involved and it all goes to hell.

Then why is the suppression of free information in communist China so important?

Because there is not and has never been a "dictatorship of the proletariat" in China.

So?

I should get a prize or something...cuz I won.

Again, my point is not that "dictatorship" is necessarily an inappropriate term, merely that the ordinary sense in which it is used does not apply here.

Fair enough. Though it's a dodgy thing to argue because the very least "dictatorship" carries a negative connotation of being over-bearing, harsh, absolute, etc. So to say dictatorship of the proletariat isn't the same as a traditional dictatorship isn't necessarily true, as it could be exactly like a traditional Stalin-esque (for lack of better example) dictatorship, except the cruel, paranoid, overbearing dictators are the working class, which could be royally screwing the middle class over, rather than being fair to all classes.

Regardless of whatever other ways I may agree or disagree with you, I have to say this is untrue at a very fundamental level. I'm not going to get all Derrida because I'm sick as hell and cranky and fuzzy, but words do not have inherent meaning, they do not have uniform or stable meaning; they are, in fact, continually redefined and reimagined every time we use them. This may or may not be relevant to the discussion at hand (probably not), but it is noteworthy.

You win, too.

There are many ways to define class: income, standard of living, type of labor, ethnicity. All of them matter, because all of them help define the other.

The proletariat doesn't get pissed off because they're manual laborers, they get pissed off because they make jack shit. So one causes, defines, or leads to the other.

So yes, Andaras, it does matter how exactly you are defining class.

This thread is dedicated to the birthday of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, a great man who led the Bolsheviks to overthrow the petite-bourgeois regime of Kerensky in the Great October Socialist Revolution and establish a dictatorship of the working class in the territorial possession of the former Russian empire, known as the Soviet Union. He directed the Red Army to defeating the right-wing fascist, anarchist and counter-revolutionary forces, as well as the armies of the US, France, Britain, Imperial Japan and others who tried to strangle worker power in Russia yet only succeeded in cementing the solidarity of the brotherly union of soviets.

On the theoretical field Lenin fundamentally advanced Marxist theory onto key issues such as Imperialism and Self-determination of peoples. His famous work 'The State and Revolution' is commonly referred to as the 'second Communist Manifesto', as it fundamentally set out the position of the working class in society and the nature of revolution in the state.

On a more general note Leninism today is noted as the theory for the political organization of the working class effectively to aggravate class warfare against the bourgeois, in particular through the avante-garde of the Party.

I´m sorry Andaras, but there´s nothing to celebrate. It´s just Lenin´s birthday. And while we´re at it, why not celebrate Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Slobodan Milosevic, Marcos, Mussolinni and Franco´s birthdays? They´re all birds of a feather, the lot of them.

Yes, I understand perfectly - I lived in the Soviet Union. So I was relatively poor and knew much poorer people. Then for a while I was a poor graduate student here (in the US). Now, Soviet government most definitely never cared for the poor, and the Communist Party functionaries were precisely "the posh snobs" who "look[ed] down upon the poor man". It is just unbelievable how much contempt they had for workers and peasants. And that snobism started with Lenin himself. Scratch it - it actually started with Marx. Seriously, few things in life are more snobbish than, say, the Marxist concept of "false consciousness" (i.e. the notion that Communist leaders know the interests of the workers better than the workers themselves).


i was merely stating, my own views, on the subject at hand, and the governmental theories, such as Marxism and Leninism, which as i said as a theory they worked, (from the opening words of this post) but in real world, the only one in a sense to achieve what was first sought, would be Cuba. and i cannot stress enough the fact that, I hold the majority rules concepts of democracy, yet the overall government, frowning upon the wealthy.

And aswell the fact that I do hate the rich, for looking down upon me, and trying to put words in my mouth when i can ably speak for myself and very well mind you.

So to say dictatorship of the proletariat isn't the same as a traditional dictatorship isn't necessarily true, as it could be exactly like a traditional Stalin-esque (for lack of better example) dictatorship, except the cruel, paranoid, overbearing dictators are the working class, which could be royally screwing the middle class over, rather than being fair to all classes.

Couldn't you apply this sort of reasoning to any political system?

I´m sorry Andaras, but there´s nothing to celebrate. It´s just Lenin´s birthday. And while we´re at it, why not celebrate Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Slobodan Milosevic, Marcos, Mussolinni and Franco´s birthdays? They´re all birds of a feather, the lot of them.

GODWIN'S LAW. /THREAD.

is his body still in that glass casket? i wanna see it one day


happy birthday lenin, if only your dream had not been corrupted by so called man of steel stalin, because of him the red soceity will never come true, although im not that unsatisfied with how things are in europe now a days anyway


great idea, bad execution...get it?

Happy birthday to you...
Happy birthday to you...
I hope you're still burning...
It looks good on you!

Couldn't you apply this sort of reasoning to any political system?

Why not?

Happy birthday to you...
Happy birthday to you...
I hope you're still burning...
It looks good on you!

ROFL!:D

I´m sorry Andaras, but there´s nothing to celebrate. It´s just Lenin´s birthday. And while we´re at it, why not celebrate Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Slobodan Milosevic, Marcos, Mussolinni and Franco´s birthdays? They´re all birds of a feather, the lot of them.

sorry for the double post


but lenin never lived to see a complete process of a soviet union, he died at a very early age, and before WW2, like i wrote earlier, stalin was the head honcho of oppression

sorry for the double post


but lenin never lived to see a complete process of a soviet union, he died at a very early age, and before WW2, like i wrote earlier, stalin was the head honcho of oppression

I know that. That´s not what I was aiming for on my post. Even if Lenin never lived to see what Stalin did, I still see no reason to celebrate his birthday.

It's also Jack Nicholson's birthday you know. Here's a picture.

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Jack-Nicholson-Photograph-C12148072.jpeg

Though i feel like the black sheep of this overall discussion i am thoroughly enjoying it, learning different views an all that. along with a bit of history mixed into it. and can honestly say, that i look forward to reading more on this subject, and would go and track down the volumes of Marx and Lenin so that I could overall understand them better and not embarrass myself, or in some way show that i am ignorant. I will admit also that i am 14 and act more like an adult, than some i know, call it boasting or what have you, but i have reasons for saying that along with reasons for having to grow up so fast. but right now im off, to read a bit of the book i have been reading for the past few days and would like to have this discussion or topic, as a quick link or something along the lines. how do i do so?

"The dictatorship of the proletariat" is not a "dictatorship" in the ordinary sense. It just means the rule of the working class.

I personally remain aggressively opposed to any sort of collectivist tyranny of the majority, whether it's called 'the dictatorship of the proletariat', 'worker's soviets' or 'Steve.'

I personally remain aggressively opposed to any sort of collectivist tyranny of the majority,

Do you prefer an "individualist" tyranny of the minority?

Marx would argue that there are no other options within the present material structure of society. It's one or the other... and at least the rule of the working class offers us a way out by offering the prospect of the abolition of class society.

1) It's Marxist-Leninism, 'Marxism-Leninism' sounds rubbish, so it isn't used.

2) Nah, it's pretty pish.

but right now im off, to read a bit of the book i have been reading for the past few days and would like to have this discussion or topic, as a quick link or something along the lines. how do i do so?
If you're on Internet Explorer, press Alt + Z to add this page to your favourites, in Firefox, press Ctrl + D.

Hope that helps.

If you're on Internet Explorer, press Alt + Z to add this page to your favourites, in Firefox, press Ctrl + D.

Hope that helps.

There's the "subscribed threads" thingy as well I suppose. Depends how many threads you post in though I suppose.

1) It's Marxist-Leninism, 'Marxism-Leninism' sounds rubbish, so it isn't used.

Marxist-Leninism: 30,000 results (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22marxist-leninism%22&btnG=Google+Search)
Marxism-Leninism: 349,000 results (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22marxism-leninism%22&btnG=Search)
Marxism-Leninism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism-Leninism)

You're quite wrong.

(Marxism-Leninism is better grammar, too.)

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o170/psychoticmongooses/howaboutnogw5.jpg?t=1208887393
hehe.:D


<snip Lenin is awesome>

So i bet you like the colour red (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ftqpeqU8GeQ) eh? now i don't know why but this song comes to mind when viewing Andaras' posts. jaded. (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=705LEH3j2g0)

So i bet you like the colour red (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ftqpeqU8GeQ) eh? now i don't know why but this song comes to mind when viewing Andaras' posts. jaded. (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=705LEH3j2g0)

Just makes me think of the Communist Song (http://youtube.com/watch?v=EwTZ2xpQwpA).

You thought that was going to be a rickroll, didn't you? Admit it. And it's not. So ha.
Instead, you have been Tayroll'd. Enjoy.

Just makes me think of the Communist Song (http://youtube.com/watch?v=EwTZ2xpQwpA).

You thought that was going to be a rickroll, didn't you? Admit it. And it's not. So ha.
Instead, you have been Tayroll'd. Enjoy.

now that is a wierd song.
typical, way to weird out this perfectly good thread on...
*checks*
Lenin and soviet Russia?
oh carry on.
I'm glad it wasn't that rick roll

(Marxism-Leninism is better grammar, too.)
Not really to do with grammar. It's a regional thing, and you cannot honestly claim that "Marxism-Leninism" sounds better than "Marxist-Leninism", now, can you?

That's like saying "Iranian" sounds better than "Persian", or "Austria-Hungary" sounds better than "Austro-Hungary".

Just awkward to say.

As to the amount of results - thank you the Yanks for that one.

Not really to do with grammar.

No, it has everything to do with grammar.

Marxism-Leninism is not the particular variety of Leninism that is Marxist--and if it were, it would simply be Marxist Leninism, with no hyphen. It's Marxist and Leninist--thus, its adjective form has both of them be adjectives, Marxist-Leninist, and its noun form has both of them be nouns, Marxism-Leninism.

The construction "Marxist-Leninism" has "Marxist" as an adjective... but there's nothing for "Marxist" to modify.

It's a regional thing,

Bad grammar sometimes is.

and you cannot honestly claim that "Marxism-Leninism" sounds better than "Marxist-Leninism", now, can you?

"Marxist-Leninism" sounds (or at least looks) much worse, because it has an adjective connected by a hyphen to the noun it seems like it should modify.

No, it has everything to do with grammar.

Marxism-Leninism is not the particular variety of Leninism that is Marxist--and if it were, it would simply be Marxist Leninism, with no hyphen. It's Marxist and Leninist--thus, its adjective form has both of them be adjectives, Marxist-Leninist, and its noun form has both of them be nouns, Marxism-Leninism.

The construction "Marxist-Leninism" has "Marxist" as an adjective... but there's nothing for "Marxist" to modify.
The 'Marxist' bit reflects on 'Leninism'. Chrissakes, man.
"Marxist-Leninism" sounds (or at least looks) much worse, because it has an adjective connected by a hyphen to the noun it seems like it should modify.
'Marxism-Leninism' is mumbletabulous, because of the repeated m/n sound. 'Marxist-Leninism' breaks it up a bit, which is nice.

Indeed. Long live Marxism-Leninism so we may not forget the horrible oppressive system that it can be.

Fixed

The construction "Marxist-Leninism" has "Marxist" as an adjective... but there's nothing for "Marxist" to modify.

Maybe it should be Leninist-Marxism?
or Leninist Marxism?
;)

The 'Marxist' bit reflects on 'Leninism'.

First, no, it doesn't. There's no such thing as non-Marxist Leninism. "Marxist" does not modify Leninism.

Second, if it did, it would be "Marxist Leninism", with no hyphen. Not "Marxist-Leninism."

Chrissakes, man.

Hey, you're the one who tried to score points by correcting other people's grammar.

Fair's fair. ;)

First, no, it doesn't. There's no such thing as non-Marxist Leninism. "Marxist" does not modify Leninism.

Second, if it did, it would be "Marxist Leninism", with no hyphen. Not "Marxist-Leninism."



Hey, you're the one who tried to score points by correcting other people's grammar.

Fair's fair. ;)

It's like watching the most confusing ping-pong match ever. Or cricket.

First, no, it doesn't. There's no such thing as non-Marxist Leninism. "Marxist" does not modify Leninism.

Second, if it did, it would be "Marxist Leninism", with no hyphen. Not "Marxist-Leninism."

Hey, you're the one who tried to score points by correcting other people's grammar.

Fair's fair. ;)
Take it up with the Great British Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), the great proponents of Marxist-Leninism, along with the Revolutionary Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), the Popular People's Communist Party (ML), usw., I sure as hell didn't think it up.

Take it up with the Great British Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist),

Adjective-adjective. That's perfectly correct.

The problem is adjective-noun: "Marxist-Leninism."

From the website of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist):
"Guided by Marxism-Leninism with a revolutionary party so directed we shall meet the struggle and establish workers power."

The British working class and its party (http://www.workers.org.uk/where/prog.html)

I sure as hell didn't think it up.

No, that particular error seems rather common.

Adjective-adjective. That's perfectly correct.

The problem is adjective-noun: "Marxist-Leninism."

From the website of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist):
"Guided by Marxism-Leninism with a revolutionary party so directed we shall meet the struggle and establish workers power."

The British working class and its party (http://www.workers.org.uk/where/prog.html)
Hmm, fair doos. Until the late 1990s they were self-proclaimed believers in Marxist-Leninism, but it seems the times, they have a-changed.

On the contrary it's those of the liberalistic mindset who look to illusions, they view everything in their ludicrous 'left-right' spectrum and endless 'isms', they fail to see the only material real distinction in all government - class.

All government is the repression of one class and the assertion of another.

Id agree with you in principal but Leninism isnt the way to fix it...

For it did not end the Class struggle, it simply replaced the old Bourgeoisie with a new one made of Politicians...it in fact made the struggle worse, for in the USSR the Government WAS the Bourgeoisie...

Social-Democracy is the way to go...

Social-Democracy is the way to go...
Or just a dictatorship of those who put the effort in to get into the inner clique...

Well, one could argue that not Lenin and later Stalin were the autocrats of the Soviet Union, and that it was a dictatorship of the proletariat as opposed to the dictatorship of one man, but one would be wrong. Either way, though, the USSR was still dictatorial.
Because russianizing the Baltic states to eradicate their culture was an act of granting them autonomy and preserving their culture. Is it "Pretend the USSR did the exact opposite of what it really did" Day or something?

The Soviets dealt equally with all reactionary socially harmful elements in society, the Russian Cossacks were not treated preferentially in terms of class enemies compared to any other nationality.

The Soviets dealt equally with all reactionary socially harmful elements in society, the Russian Cossacks were not treated preferentially in terms of class enemies compared to any other nationality.

But the Politicians were...and they Dictated who the "Harmful Elements" of society were...Thats not very free at all if you ask me...

Indeed. Long live Marxism-Leninism so we may not forget the horrible opressive system that it is.

Socialism is by definition the dictatorship of the ruling working class politically organized by the avant-garde of the Communist Party. If you expect me to mourn for the propertied parasites in society who are repressed justifiably by the State then your asking too much, I do not care for bourgeois scum.

People who oppose worker power represent the five per cent of Tsarists, bourgeois, speculators, kulaks, pimps, maffiosi and Vlasovites, all justifiably repressed by any socialist state.

People who oppose worker power represent the five per cent of Tsarists, bourgeois, speculators, kulaks, pimps, maffiosi and Vlasovites, all justifiably repressed by any socialist state.

You forgot the 95% of Russian Society during the Soviet Union that had no Freedom of Speech, Religion, or virtually any Freedoms, with the Exception of the Freedom to Starve....

You forgot the 95% of Russian Society during the Soviet Union that had no Freedom of Speech, Religion, or virtually any Freedoms, with the Exception of the Freedom to Starve....

Andaras is against human rights. They're fascist. *nods*

If you expect me to mourn for the propertied parasites in society who are repressed justifiably by the State...

How does one define a propertied parasite, or a propertied person, anyway? According to you? This is an actual question, I am not being glib.

Andaras is against human rights. They're fascist. *nods*

No I am for true human rights, the liberation of the working masses and not bourgeois privilege.

Simply put I believe comrade Stalin said it best in his memory to Lenin:

Comrades, we Communists are people of a special mould. We are made of a special stuff. We are those who form the army of the great proletarian strategist, the army of Comrade Lenin. There is nothing higher than the honour of belonging to this army. There is nothing higher than the title of member of the Party whose founder and leader was Comrade Lenin. It is not given to everyone to be a member of such a party. It is not given to everyone to withstand the stresses and storms that accompany membership in such a party. It is the sons of the working class, the sons of want and struggle, the sons of incredible privation and heroic effort who before all should be members of such a party. That is why the Party of the Leninists, the Party of the Communists, is also called the Party of the working class.
DEPARTING FROM US, COMRADE LENIN ENJOINED US TO HOLD HIGH AND GUARD THE PURITY OF THE GREAT TITLE OF MEMBER OF THE PARTY. WE VOW TO YOU, COMRADE LENIN, THAT WE SHALL FULFILL YOUR BEHEST WITH HONOR!
For twenty-five years Comrade Lenin tended our Party and made it into the strongest and most highly steeled workers' party in the world. The blows of tsarism and its henchmen, the fury of the bourgeoisie and the landlords, the armed attacks of Kolchak and Denikin, the armed intervention of Britain and France, the lies and slanders of the hundred-mouthed bourgeois press -- all these scorpions constantly chastised our Party for a quarter of a century. But our Party stood firm as a rock, repelling the countless blows of its enemies and leading the working class forward, to victory. In fierce battles our Party forged the unity and solidarity of its ranks. And by unity and solidarity it achieved victory over the enemies of the working class.

facepalms


In your dreams boyo :)

Marxism is failed, get over it.

:P

Adam Smith!!!!!!!!

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

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

^ dead over 200 years, and still is the man,man.

Oh, goody. Replace one hopelessly flawed ideology with another. Adam Smith was every bit as deluded as Marx.

*skips forward many pages*

Adam Smith was no optimist, you know. His own economic system made him uncomfortable.

Simply put I believe comrade Stalin said it best in his memory to Lenin

Simply Put...Stalin and his Policies are a 'Case in Point' of why and how Marxism failed...

You capitalists have to learn the difference between Marxist-Leninism and Stalinism, Lenin and Stalin.

Stalin killed thousands, Lenin did not! Lenin was a great man!
The revolution was unbloody(less so than the american revolution) its just the civil war, which was fuelled by nearby nations, that the violence happened.

*skips forward many pages*

Adam Smith was no optimist, you know. His own economic system made him uncomfortable.

I never thought of Adam Smith as outlining a "System" more along the lines of simply explaining how Economics work...

I never thought of Adam Smith as outlining a "System" more along the lines of simply explaining how Economics work...

I only call it "his system" because people often seem to think capitalism was something he implemented.

I only call it "his system" because people often seem to think capitalism was something he implemented.

Idk, i never really thought of Capitalism as a System really, just the result of Governments not interfering in the Economy and leaving it to the Free Market...

simply put, The less a Government interferes then the more Capitalist it will be...

No I am for true human rights, the liberation of the working masses and not bourgeois privilege.

I.E. human rights that don't actually give any rights to humans...

I.E. human rights that don't actually give any rights to humans...

human rights that don't give EXTRA rights to LUCKY humans.

human rights that don't give EXTRA rights to LUCKY humans.

So not Marxism-Leninism?

Seeing as those who were high-ranking party members had more rights than those who weren't under said system, a situation that got worse under Stalinism.

LUCKY humans.

Lucky Humans= Communist Party Officials

What about the last stage, true communism with no government.

What about the last stage, true communism with no government.

Which wont be achieved through a Leninist State, because the Communist Party Officials wont allow it to be so, being that they would have to relinquish Political, and Economic Power...

Its a lesson in the fact that "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely"

you clearly have little faith in humanity.
as the stage before is perfect democracy that statement is invalid.

you clearly have little faith in humanity.
as the stage before is perfect democracy that statement is invalid.

Little, I have Zero Faith in Humanity, Read my Sig, it says my attitude towards Humanity...


And even in a Perfect Democracy, you will have Politicians with Power, who will not Relinquish it...

And to a Communist Party Member, a Democracy, let alone a Perfect Democracy, will never be achieved, for the simple fact that if anyone has a Differing opinion, or suggests that someone other than that Member should have the Power, that person would be Imprisoned or Shot...

you clearly have little faith in humanity.

Leninism is humanity?

Does your faith in human nature extend to trusting the capitalists to be generous to those over whom they rule?

What about the last stage, true communism with no government.

What about it?
It has never been achieved, and probably never will be.

What about it?
It has never been achieved, and probably never will be.

Give me time. I'm working on it.

Introducion:

I have been observing Nationstates for more than a year and i feel i must finally post. I have seen several personalities, Andaras the Marxist, Lunatic Goofballs the pun of jokes and fun, and others who I have seen come and go.
I simply say hello and greetings to all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andaras as our resident Marxist. I salute you to the brave cause and ideal you have. I celebrate the certain ideas of Marx and of others i will not mention immediately.

Yet I cannot help by see you may be too aligned to see other points through a neutral lens.

I try to absolve myself from labels and if my ideas and ideals happen to be similiar to something it is either: 1. Luck 2. Just that similar. My ideas if labels must be placed take parts of several things. (Ask me later) Lets just say i abhore absolute unwavering no exception extremes and may we find common ground. I will not pretend to know all of Marx and my ideas will come at another time.

Does your faith in human nature extend to trusting the capitalists to be generous to those over whom they rule?

I believe not all rich capitalists are assholes. but when some have more money than like a thousand working class peoples(or even more, like bill gates) its getting a bit ridicolous.

And to a Communist Party Member, a Democracy, let alone a Perfect Democracy, will never be achieved, for the simple fact that if anyone has a Differing opinion, or suggests that someone other than that Member should have the Power, that person would be Imprisoned or Shot...

Stalinist stereotype...

What about it?
It has never been achieved, and probably never will be.

once upon a time democracy had never been achieved, capitalism hadn't, internet hadn't its called progress.

Andaras as our resident Stalinist. I salute you to the brave cause and ideal you have.

Fixed

I believe not all rich capitalists are assholes. but when some have more money than like a thousand working class peoples(or even more, like bill gates) its getting a bit ridicolous.

And when certain people have a vastly greater share of political power than others, isn't it similarly ridiculous?

Why does it take contempt for humanity to oppose Leninist elitist vanguardism?

once upon a time democracy had never been achieved, internet hadn't its called progress.

True, but show me one instance of a Marxist government actually succeeding...

The odds are not in your favor.

Stalinist stereotype...


Actually, it was meant to be a HUMAN stereotype, Communism simply happens to be the Topic of the Thread...

And that "Progress" you talk of, only happens because people Fight For it, it never happens on its own, Hence why the Czar was killed, and eventually, the USSR was overthrown, so that Freedom can Progress towards its natural destination...

Originally Posted by Drakonaj
Andaras as our resident Stalinist. I salute you to the brave cause and ideal you have.

Fixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Andaras clasify himself as he wishes and don't rob my message of its context >_>

True, but show me one instance of a Marxist government actually succeeding...

The odds are not in your favor.

CUBA! if not for the USA(blockades, invasion) and the shock when its international backer the USSR collapses who knows how successful it could've been.

True, but show me one instance of a Marxist government actually succeeding...

The odds are not in your favor.

You actually don't have to go that far. Just ask for a Marxist revolution.

CUBA! if not for the USA(blockades, invasion) and the shock when its international backer the USSR collapses who knows how successful it could've been.

No-one since those things did happen, sorry but even communist countries have to deal with the consequences of existing in the real world.
As to whether or not its a success, lets see how things play out now that they have different leadership, it is impossible to judge at this point how much of their 'success' was because of Marxism and how much was because of the leadership abilities of Fidel Castro.

CUBA! if not for the USA(blockades, invasion) and the shock when its international backer the USSR collapses who knows how successful it could've been.

That is if you consider Castro's Government a Success...

I guess if you define Success as not Dying, then yes...

But, I dont consider an Oppressive, Hateful Government like Cuba, Successful at all...

Castro not oppressive and hateful!!! now i'm just getting pissed off!!!

i don't like Rual, Ches should've taken over after Fidel, granted he's dead, but if he wasn't.

i don't like Rual, Ches should've taken over after Fidel, granted he's dead.

Sounds good to me.

Yeeah..well, Id like to find an example of Non-Oppressive Castro...

Im reading through Cuba's Wikipedia Profile(had to look up Castro's name, lol) and im not seeing many...

yeah, and look how well marxism has worked out in the end! Horribly!

Let's praise the ideology that's killed hundreds of millions of people!

Yay, communism! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=iyUu-8nbd58)

yeah, and look how well marxism has worked out in the end! Horribly!
Это - только из-за вмешательства злых капиталистических собак свиньи.
That's only because of the interference of the evil capitalist pig-dogs.

That's only because of the interference of the evil capitalist pig-dogs.

Um...the Soviet Union was destroyed by its own people...

Let's praise the ideology that's killed hundreds of millions of people!

Yay, communism! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=iyUu-8nbd58)

I dont think i couldve said it better than that, My Hats off to you and the guy who posted that...

Это - только из-за вмешательства злых капиталистических собак свиньи.
That's only because of the interference of the evil capitalist pig-dogs.

Uh huh. Well, if they had a better strategy, maybe they'd still be around. Or maybe it's the ideology that's messed up? No, that couldn't be it. Because we all know that turning ourselves into robots for the state is the ultimate human aspiration!

Uh huh. Well, if they had a better strategy, maybe they'd still be around. Or maybe it's the ideology that's messed up? No, that couldn't be it. Because we all know that turning ourselves into robots for the state is the ultimate human aspiration!

Of course, I Trust Skynet, lol...

Yeeah..well, Id like to find an example of Non-Oppressive Castro...

Im reading through Cuba's Wikipedia Profile(had to look up Castro's name, lol) and im not seeing many...

yeah i would like you to give me an example of you not posting on an internet forum.

research the cuban government man.

Andaras is against human rights. They’re fascist. *nods*
Many theorists beyond simply Marxist-Leninists have questions about the legitimacy of human rights as a system of emancipation. It's worrying that any debate over human rights is instantly regarded with suspicion; we shouldn't block of any line of enquiry, and should always be on the lookout for positions or ideologies that stagnate and become an 'untouchable' norm.

I have my own worries about human rights.

In your dreams boyo :)

Marxism is failed, get over it.

:P

Adam Smith!!!!!!!!
With in-depth political commentary like that, how can you lose? :p

I have my own worries about them as well.

What, in particular?

Uh huh. Well, if they had a better strategy, maybe they'd still be around. Or maybe it's the ideology that's messed up? No, that couldn't be it. Because we all know that turning ourselves into robots for the state is the ultimate human aspiration!

Um...the Soviet Union was destroyed by its own people...

I was being sarcastic...

I rather thought that would be obvious based on my previous posts.

I was being sarcastic...

I rather thought that would be obvious based on my previous posts.

Sorry, I didnt read your previous posts, I think they were posted before i came into the debate...:D

Many theorists beyond simply Marxist-Leninists have questions about the legitimacy of human rights as a system of emancipation. It's worrying that any debate over human rights is instantly regarded with suspicion; we shouldn't block of any line of enquiry, and should always be on the lookout for positions or ideologies that stagnate and become an 'untouchable' norm.

I have my own worries about human rights.


Correct me if im wrong, but, you would Consider supporting a Regime that was Anti-Human Rights?

Sorry, I didnt read your previous posts, I think they were posted before i came into the debate...:D

No, we've been posting at the same time, almost literally, which might be why you missed them.

No, we've been posting at the same time, almost literally, which might be why you missed them.

Ah, Ive been arguing with These two, so Ive been prettymuch Homing in On them, lol...

My Bad Man...

Cuba is tame compared to the cruel North Korea.

Kim jong il is an evil prick!
The cult of personality surrounding him and his father is so disgusting and they are supose to work for the people but they only work for themselves!

It was the same in Romania under that asshole Ceausescu and Elena! They had a cult of personality expanded under them. In the end they were overthrown and all their crimes were exposed!

So if you want to blindly support these despots you should questions everything and actually look at the effects these assholes have on the common people!

If communism worked properly I'm sure it would all be fine but its these people in power that get corrupted!
Everyone knows of Ceausescu's palaces which he lived in yet he called them "Palaces of the people" the statues and portraits they had of themselevs everywhere. the rumour that 1 in every 4 citizens worked for securitate

Now that the regime is gone the common people are given a true voice and now the whole world knows how those corrupt despots opporate!

Sure those revolutions stood for real values but once in power they only cared about thier own wealth, they enriched themselves and frightened the people into submission! this is no way to live. You can only supress a group of people for so long before they get fed up with it. Humans are individualistic people we think and have our own thoughts we cant be made to live like ants like they are in North Korea

well I was only meant to speak for like a paragraph but went overboard.

and by the way I've spoken to people from Bulgaria, Romania, East Germany and I have a pen pal in cuba so I've heard the truth from them of how the people are treated and how the state just walked all over thier people and their dignity.

Cuba is tame compared to the cruel North Korea.

*snip

The DPRK is based on Juche, not Marxist-Leninism.

Ah, Ive been arguing with These two, so Ive been prettymuch Homing in On them, lol...

My Bad Man...

No problem, my statement had the desired effect, just not on the people I was hoping... :D

well whatever. My point was just how its the leaders that get corrupt. that only mouth the words without actually working for the people they only work for themselves.

Cuba is tame compared to the cruel North Korea.



Look, Kim Jung-Il is an Asshole...

America is full of Dicks...

Marxists are Pussies...

Pussies hate Dicks, cause sometimes Dicks get carried away...but, Remember Dicks also fuck Assholes...and if you dont Fuck Assholes then they just shit all over everything...

Best Civilization Analogy ever, lol...

True, but show me one instance of a Marxist government actually succeeding...

Sandinista!
Granted, the FSLN was never hardline Marxist (though some factions of it were, along with Ortega), and they were voted out of power thanks to the evil capitalist pig-dogs, but they did wonders for Nicuragua during their time in power.
I doubt Andaras is fond of them, as well. ;)

Sandinista!
Granted, the FSLN was never hardline Marxist (though some factions of it were, along with Ortega), and they were voted out of power thanks to the evil capitalist pig-dogs, but they did wonders for Nicuragua during their time in power.
I doubt Andaras is fond of them, as well. ;)

Definitely a point in their favor... :D

Let me start out by saying that I do not ascribe to either the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or any any such bourgeois devices, but Communists in history have used their legal devices to unmask and denounce the old bourgeois state. . . . For Communists, human rights are contradictory to the rights of the people, because we base rights in man as a social product, not man as an abstract with innate rights. "Human rights" do not exist except for the bourgeois man, a position that was at the forefront of feudalism, like liberty, equality, and fraternity were advanced for the bourgeoisie of the past. But today, since the appearance of the proletariat as an organized class in the Communist Party, with the experience of triumphant revolutions, with the construction of socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat, it has been proven that human rights serve the oppressor class and the exploiters who run the imperialist and landowner states. My position is very clear. I reject and condemn human rights because they are bourgeois, reactionary, counterrevolutionary rights, and are today a weapon of revisionists and imperialists, principally imperialists.

snip

What do the proposed People's Rights entail?

My position is very clear. I reject and condemn human rights because they are bourgeois, reactionary, counterrevolutionary rights, and are today a weapon of revisionists and imperialists, principally imperialists.

And i Rest my Case...:rolleyes:

Sandinista!
Granted, the FSLN was never hardline Marxist (though some factions of it were, along with Ortega), and they were voted out of power thanks to the evil capitalist pig-dogs, but they did wonders for Nicuragua during their time in power.
I doubt Andaras is fond of them, as well. ;)

There was a time in my life where, whenever I heard the word Sandinista, I thought people were referring to someone named Sandra or Sandi. I was a teenage air head. Yes, I was.
*sighs sadly*

Let me start out by saying that I do not ascribe to either the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or any any such bourgeois devices, but Communists in history have used their legal devices to unmask and denounce the old bourgeois state. . . . For Communists, human rights are contradictory to the rights of the people, because we base rights in man as a social product, not man as an abstract with innate rights. "Human rights" do not exist except for the bourgeois man, a position that was at the forefront of feudalism, like liberty, equality, and fraternity were advanced for the bourgeoisie of the past. But today, since the appearance of the proletariat as an organized class in the Communist Party, with the experience of triumphant revolutions, with the construction of socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat, it has been proven that human rights serve the oppressor class and the exploiters who run the imperialist and landowner states. My position is very clear. I reject and condemn human rights because they are bourgeois, reactionary, counterrevolutionary rights, and are today a weapon of revisionists and imperialists, principally imperialists.

Then, tell me, what the fuck sort of value would Marxist-Leninism hold for me? Why on Earth should I surrender myself to a system in which the state and party would reserve the right to drag me out back and pop a cap in me, because I looked at a Checka funny one day three years ago?

What, in particular?
Apart from a worry about the general trend in Western society to enshrine human rights as an unquestionable set of commandments (slight hyperbole, perhaps, but you get my drift), I’ve got four main areas of... suspicion, you could say:

Firstly, I’m not satisfied with the metaphysical account of human rights commonly given; namely, that they are somewhere beyond that of merely legal rights (a form of rights I am much more happy with), and that they ‘exist’ in some manner or are inherent in human beings. I recognise that different accounts exist, but many proponents of human rights slip off into rather vague language. This needs to be cleared up.

Secondly, and far more importantly, I worry that they’re not suitable to protect the freedoms they are supposed to. Admittedly, this could perhaps be more of a problem of enforcing a standard of human rights, rather than a problem of human rights themselves, but I’m not entirely convinced that they’re the best way to ensure a certain standard of living for all humans. You could say I’m worried about their practicality.

Thirdly, I’m torn between the two attractive ideas of (1) having certain actions that are simply taboo in any circumstances, and (2) the admirable quality of flexibility in real-life situations. I’m sympathetic to the Nozickean concept of patterned principles being a threat to liberty (while being aware both that Nozick is talking about patterned principles in relation to distributive justice, and the inherent paradox in having a patterned principle saying patterned principles are dodgy) along with the ‘axe murderer’ objections to Kant (see here (http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:rhKQsHQUHBYJ:www.david-lockwood.co.uk/philosophy//home/07_Kant’s_Liar_Thought_Experiment.pdf+kant+axe&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk&client=firefox-a)) , which I think can apply to the realm of human rights also.

Fourthly (and again, this might not be a problem of human rights themselves, but of their implementation), I am very wary of how widely and flippantly human rights are invoked in society. If we are to have human rights, then I think we need to have a good long look at what rights are needed. A huge amount of talk involving liberty descends into what I see as needless talk about (human) rights. I feel that there might be a better system available.

All the above comes with the proviso that I do recognise the usefulness of human rights in certain situations.

so if you were in control of a country you would allow

Torture
Censorship of information and material
Arrest without trial
Intimidation
Banning any demonstration, protest or strike
Banning people from speaking what they think and believe
Would you stop people from worshiping and following a religion?
would you allow people to travel abroad to move houses and cahnge jobs?

Do you even view people as human beings with feelings and thier onw memories, wants and needs? do you just see them as something that has to be controlled and using any means nessacary to keep them under control?

If a citizen in your country said

"The party has made so much stupid mistakes" would you have him arrested?

Do you support those acts that are incompatable with human dignity?

That question is aimed at Andaras /\

That is the first time ive felt the need to put a User's Quote in My sig, it just so epitomizes the problem with the Marxist system...

so if you were in control of a country you would allow

Torture
Censorship of information and material
Arrest without trial
Intimidation
Banning any demonstration, protest or strike
Banning people from speaking what they think and believe
Would you stop people from worshiping and following a religion?
would you allow people to travel abroad to move houses and cahnge jobs?

Do you even view people as human beings with feelings and thier onw memories, wants and needs? do you just see them as something that has to be controlled and using any means nessacary to keep them under control?

If a citizen in your country said

"The party has made so much stupid mistakes" would you have him arrested?

Do you support those acts that are incompatable with human dignity?

AP thinks that the greatest/most admirable leader the Soviet Union had was Stalin, so what do you think the answers are?

Then, tell me, what the fuck sort of value would Marxist-Leninism hold for me? Why on Earth should I surrender myself to a system in which the state and party would reserve the right to drag me out back and pop a cap in me, because I looked at a Checka funny one day three years ago?
I am guessing then that you must be a petty-bourgeois yourself then, and you talk about 'Why should I', your selfish and individualist claptrap belies your position I am afraid. It is not the petty minority classes that are decaying with the Old system that will decide the future of society. These classes have only inflated and largely artificial political power from the use of their capitalist profits. The real power of society lies with the Great Class, those who produce the needs of society, the great workers, it is they would through their size and coming economic power that they will construct socialism and a new future.

You can whinge and whine all you like, but the old decayed petty-classes cannot last and you and your ilk can cry about 'rights' and all your claptrap all you like, it makes little difference.

Correct me if im wrong, but, you would Consider supporting a Regime that was Anti-Human Rights?
Depends what you mean by ‘Anti-Human Rights’.

What I’m trying to say is that human rights aren’t necessarily the only way to protect liberty, and I reject the notion that if you argue against human rights, you are necessarily arguing against people’s/society’s freedoms. Therefore, I may well support a regime (or at least, support a regime as much as a social anarchist can! :p) that believes it can protect liberty without human rights being involved.

Obviously, I wouldn’t support a regime that abandons human rights merely so it can fuck over its citizenry.

Depends what you mean by ‘Anti-Human Rights’.

What I’m trying to say is that human rights aren’t necessarily the only way to protect liberty, and I reject the notion that if you argue against human rights, you are necessarily arguing against people’s/society’s freedoms. Therefore, I may well support a regime (or at least, support a regime as much as a social anarchist can! :p) that believes it can protect liberty without human rights being involved.

Obviously, I wouldn’t support a regime that abandons human rights merely so it can fuck over its citizenry.

“ All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. ”

—Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

Im not entirely sure its Possible for Liberty without this....

Depends what you mean by ‘Anti-Human Rights’.

What I’m trying to say is that human rights aren’t necessarily the only way to protect liberty, and I reject the notion that if you argue against human rights, you are necessarily arguing against people’s/society’s freedoms. Therefore, I may well support a regime (or at least, support a regime as much as a social anarchist can! :p) that believes it can protect liberty without human rights being involved.

Obviously, I wouldn’t support a regime that abandons human rights merely so it can fuck over its citizenry.
Liberty is by definition a bourgeois elitist ideology that seeks to put the 'rights' of the rich landowners and petty-bourgeois above the working class majority.

Capitalist human rights = the right to exploit

woah *backs out slowly*

What I’m trying to say is that human rights aren’t necessarily the only way to protect liberty…

Which is why I want Andaras to explain his People's Rights.