Stalin, Communism and the left wing

[Bfgrn]

If you can't believe them, then who can you believe? I certainly see no reason to take the word of a bunch of forum commies.

Do you believe someone when they tell you something that is clearly not true? Who can you believe? Hardly anyone, especially not politicians.

You say you see no reason to take the word of a bunch of commies, so why would you believe Stalin when he says he was a Communist?

When someone says that Stalin was a conservative, anyone can see that is clearly not true. I believe Stalin because all the evidence indicates he was a commie. For one thing, he was a member of the communist party almost his entire life.

That doesn't make him a liberal. Stalin was raised in a conservative household, attended Georgian Orthodox Seminary and was a big believer in Darwinism...survival of the fittest or richest. He restricted divorce, banned abortions and was vehemently opposed by the left in Russia led by Trotsky.

It makes him a left-winger. Social Darwinism was a doctrine dreamed up by the left in this country. Margaret Sanger and Woodrow Wilson were both advocates of social Darwinism. When someone becomes an absolute dictator, it's ridiculous to call any of his policies "conservative." They are simply expressions of his dictatorial whim.

You really have to be kidding me? You right wingers profess your social Darwinism on every thread...

bripat and friends...

 

[kaz]

What you need to realise is there is a big difference between Communism the theory and what people did claiming the name of Communism.

LOL, that's been my point to you, Skippy.

So....? What?

If that was your point, why didn't you just say it?

I did. Communists are lying to you. No kidding.

Well it was you saying it, not Communists, unless your point now is that you're a Communist.

You didn't say it, hence why it took me a load of posts just to wring it out of you.

Incoherent babbling

So what is your point. Why are you telling me that there's a difference between the theoretical Communism and Communism put in practice exactly?

Because you said they aren't communists because they are not theoretical communists. They followed the communist manifesto, they were communists. That you want to define communists as a Kibbutz is ridiculous.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What's the difference between a communist and a "plain liberal?"

Er... Communists want Communism, and plain liberals don't. That could be it. Don't you think?

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

 

[bripat9643]

If you can't believe them, then who can you believe? I certainly see no reason to take the word of a bunch of forum commies.

Do you believe someone when they tell you something that is clearly not true? Who can you believe? Hardly anyone, especially not politicians.

You say you see no reason to take the word of a bunch of commies, so why would you believe Stalin when he says he was a Communist?

When someone says that Stalin was a conservative, anyone can see that is clearly not true. I believe Stalin because all the evidence indicates he was a commie. For one thing, he was a member of the communist party almost his entire life.

That doesn't make him a liberal. Stalin was raised in a conservative household, attended Georgian Orthodox Seminary and was a big believer in Darwinism...survival of the fittest or richest. He restricted divorce, banned abortions and was vehemently opposed by the left in Russia led by Trotsky.

It makes him a left-winger. Social Darwinism was a doctrine dreamed up by the left in this country. Margaret Sanger and Woodrow Wilson were both advocates of social Darwinism. When someone becomes an absolute dictator, it's ridiculous to call any of his policies "conservative." They are simply expressions of his dictatorial whim.

You really have to be kidding me? You right wingers profess your social Darwinism on every thread...

bripat and friends...

No, actually, we don't. You really don't even know what social Darwinism is. And even if conservatives did advocate social Darwinism, the fact is that it originated as a doctrine of progressives, not conservatives.

 

[kaz]

If you can't believe them, then who can you believe? I certainly see no reason to take the word of a bunch of forum commies.

Do you believe someone when they tell you something that is clearly not true? Who can you believe? Hardly anyone, especially not politicians.

You say you see no reason to take the word of a bunch of commies, so why would you believe Stalin when he says he was a Communist?

When someone says that Stalin was a conservative, anyone can see that is clearly not true. I believe Stalin because all the evidence indicates he was a commie. For one thing, he was a member of the communist party almost his entire life.

That doesn't make him a liberal. Stalin was raised in a conservative household, attended Georgian Orthodox Seminary and was a big believer in Darwinism...survival of the fittest or richest. He restricted divorce, banned abortions and was vehemently opposed by the left in Russia led by Trotsky.

It makes him a left-winger. Social Darwinism was a doctrine dreamed up by the left in this country. Margaret Sanger and Woodrow Wilson were both advocates of social Darwinism. When someone becomes an absolute dictator, it's ridiculous to call any of his policies "conservative." They are simply expressions of his dictatorial whim.

You really have to be kidding me? You right wingers profess your social Darwinism on every thread...

bripat and friends...

Anarchists and minarchists want government by the wealthy. That actually sounds good to you, doesn't it? It makes sense to you?

You are a retard. Do you get a buzz off the kool-aid? Or is it more a fog effect?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your position seems to be that any attempt to make communism a reality that doesn't turn out to be the paradise claimed by communism is not real communism. That's propaganda. Communism can't be put into practice because it's impossible. Any attempt to do so will require all manner of makeshift adaptations, compromises and abandoning of principle. Furthermore, the amount of power communism give to its administrators always leads to tragic results.

Communism is a triangle with four corners. If you tell someone to draw such a creature, the result will never be what the designer intended. He himself couldn't even tell you how to draw it. Marx also did not tell anyone how to implement communism. All he could do is attack capitalism.

The claim that Stalin wasn't a communist because his attempt to implement it didn't match the delusions of the pinko professors is a non-argument. There can never be a real world example that matches their delusions, just as there can never be a triangle with four sides.

I don't agree that Communism is impossible. I think at present, and with the large number of people on the planet and the mentality that exists, yes, it's impossible. However I think in the future it's possible it will be possible.

But the point you are making is that the USSR wasn't true Communism, because it couldn't have been. I'd agree with that.

However what a Communist is, is something else. Why? Because a Communist is someone who idealises about Communism. Stalin was not one of those. Had he been, then the USSR would probably have been overrun by Hitler.

Marx also said that Communism would take a long time and go through many stages. Russia went from almost Feudal Monarchy to Ideal Communism within 6 months, give or take the Civil War and all that. Not even Marx would have said it would have been possible, and it wasn't.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You really have to be kidding me? You right wingers profess your social Darwinism on every thread...

that is true. We want to discourage dysfunctional social behavior while liberals want to encourage it. Hip hop culture is the perfect example.

 

[kaz]

LOL, another non-Democrat who never splits from the Democratic party. Whatever.

Since it depends on the Democrat, what two Democrats disagree with each other and what do they disagree about? What Democrats would disagree with anything on the Communist website?

Yeah, that wasn't the same frigidweirdo that started a post today against Obama fighting ISIS.

Who knows what Obama's strategy on ISIS is, he certainly doesn't. But you did call him out for that, I'll give you credit for that.

As for what Democrats? How the hell should I know? You go ask them.

You made the claim. You can't back it up, got it.

 

[kaz]

So, here's your argument summed up. Hitler was left wing, only everyone interpreted this as right wing, especially educated people.

Not people educated in economics. Hitler centrally planned the economy. Socialism.

Er.... What?

I didn't say Stalin was right wing. I said there were parts of what he did that were right wing. I'd say he was actually just a lot more extreme than he was left or right. Like Hitler and Mao too.

However we're come up with the definitions of far left and far right in order to be able to communicate. Far comes before left or right in both.

Stalin was no more extreme fiscally than the Democratic party. Why is he extreme and they are not? Ditto Mao and Hitler. They were authoritarian leftists.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Communism is a triangle with four corners.

communism killed 120 million human beings. Liberals
might just as well dream about HItler achieving his true aims and overlook the 60 million who died in the first failed attempt.

From Aristotle forward liberalism has been identified as the source of evil on this planet.

 

[kaz]

If you're a Conservative, the first person that comes to mind when you think of Individual Liberty and limited federal government is it Thomas Jefferson; if you're a Progressive, that first person is Josef Stalin

They've been arguing Stalin is a conservative. Explains a lot of posts, doesn't it? They think a Marxist is conservative, wow.

Stalin was a Marxist? Hardly.

Right. Stalin was all about individual liberty and limited govenment

The right's mantra of individual liberty and limited government didn't exist when Bush was the "decider"...it appears ONLY when a Democrat occupies the White House.

A decade of conservative control of our whole government NEVER brought us 'individual liberty or limited government'...


"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

I believe every non-liberal in this discussion thinks W was a government loving big spending liberal.

 

[westwall]

Fabian socialists have been filling your head with mush for decades trying to support the contention that there is a right wing totalitarian government system, and a corresponding left wing totalitarian system. That the left and right are somehow different.

The facts are that that "theory" is totally wrong. There are merely two types of government. Total government control, and anarchy. That's it. When you are talking about Hitler, Stalin and Mao, and all those like them...you are describing the same house floor plan. All you are arguing about is the paint on the walls.

There is a lot of stuff that is said and a lot of people take stuff in.

On the other hand I've experienced a lot, I've lived in some of these countries, among people who lived during these times, but also seen for myself what has happened.

Extremism is extremism. However there are many different ways of implementing extremism. Stalinism was different to what came after him in the USSR, which is different to what Putin is doing, which was clearly different to what Mao was doing, and totally different to what Hitler was doing.

Yes, they subjugated people, but not in the same ways, there are similarities, but to simply pass of history as all just being rather the same is advocating ignorance.

I too have lived in those countries. Your personal experiences don't mean a hill of beans to this discussion. The facts are as I stated them. Governments are either collectivist or they are anarchical. Those are the too extremes.

Total government as opposed to no government.

Until you can understand that basic fact you won't get anywhere.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The differences are trivial and irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that leftists gave them the power to impose their whims on the population. They are all different flavours of ice-cream.

No, I disagree.

How they came about has some similarities. All of them took over from a system which had replaced a Monarchy. In the cases of Russia and China it was because the monarchy had been weak. In the case of Germany it was because they got unlucky. Had the US not entered the war maybe they would have won and it would have been a different story.

Hitler rose through a hatred of the monarchy that had supposedly sold out the country at Versailles.
Stalin rose through a party which had risen. He was almost third generation to Hitler's second and Mao's second.

Russia was Monarchy, then the new govt, then Lenin's Communism, then Stalinism.

There was hatred at what had gone on before, the leaders were usually intellectuals who came from lower classes. Liberalism had allowed Germany and Russia to change, but China was actually becoming worse, it was more reactionary that it had been for centuries. Mao came through the military structure, as did Hitler, but not Stalin.

Hitler was a Nationalist. Stalin clearly wasn't. Mao didn't seem to have too much in the way of opinions. He was pro-Chinese but he wasn't really Nationalistic.

This led to major differences.

Stalin wanted to make everyone a Communist. Hitler wanted to get rid of people to leave what was left as the superior race. Mao just killed whoever got in his way and didn't have the religious question going on much, though religion was seen as bad.

All of these things and more, led to major differences. Yes, things were imposed on people, but if you think it's all the same, then it's because you don't want to see what's there.

You say different flavors of ice cream, but we're dealing with like cyanide flavor and things like that. Different ways to die, some are quick, some are slow, some are painful, others will just rot you out.

 

[westwall]

The confusion is massive here...

The Difference Between Socialism and Communism

Liberals want the decision to be spread out among more people, preferably everyone; conservatives want the decision to be made by as few people as possible, preferably just one.

Socialism, as envisioned by Marx and Engels was, ideally, a where everyone would share the benefits of industrialization. Workers would do better than in the English system at the time (The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848) because there were more workers than bosses and the majority would rule. As a purely economic system, socialism is a lousy way to run a large scale economy. Socialism is not a political system, it's a way of distributing goods and services. At their ideal implementation, socialism and laissez faire capitalism will be identical as everyone will produce exactly what's needed for exactly who needs it. In practice, both work sometimes in microeconomic conditions but fail miserably when applied to national and international economies. And they fail for the same reason: Human perversity. Too many people don't like to play fair, and both systems only work when everyone follow the same rules.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.

Whereas Marx saw industrialized workers rising up to take over control of their means of production, the exact opposite happened. Most countries that have gone Communist have been agrarian underdeveloped nations. The prime example is the Soviet Union. The best thing to be said about the October Revolution in 1917 is that the new government was better than the Tsars. The worst thing is that they trusted the wrong people, notably Lenin, to lead this upheaval. The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy allowing for taxation, local trade, some state capitalism... and extreme profiteering. Later that year, he purged 259,000 from the party membership and therefore purged them from voting (shades of the US election of 2000!) and fewer and fewer people were involved in making decisions.

All you're doing is quoting the Fabian Socialists playbook junior. Try coming up with something new.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I believe every non-liberal in this discussion thinks W was a government loving big spending liberal.

Which is why there's a 4 out of 5 chance they thought Bush was doing a great job throughout most of his presidency.

 

[westwall]

The differences are trivial and irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that leftists gave them the power to impose their whims on the population. They are all different flavours of ice-cream.

No, I disagree.

How they came about has some similarities. All of them took over from a system which had replaced a Monarchy. In the cases of Russia and China it was because the monarchy had been weak. In the case of Germany it was because they got unlucky. Had the US not entered the war maybe they would have won and it would have been a different story.

Hitler rose through a hatred of the monarchy that had supposedly sold out the country at Versailles.
Stalin rose through a party which had risen. He was almost third generation to Hitler's second and Mao's second.

Russia was Monarchy, then the new govt, then Lenin's Communism, then Stalinism.

There was hatred at what had gone on before, the leaders were usually intellectuals who came from lower classes. Liberalism had allowed Germany and Russia to change, but China was actually becoming worse, it was more reactionary that it had been for centuries. Mao came through the military structure, as did Hitler, but not Stalin.

Hitler was a Nationalist. Stalin clearly wasn't. Mao didn't seem to have too much in the way of opinions. He was pro-Chinese but he wasn't really Nationalistic.

This led to major differences.

Stalin wanted to make everyone a Communist. Hitler wanted to get rid of people to leave what was left as the superior race. Mao just killed whoever got in his way and didn't have the religious question going on much, though religion was seen as bad.

All of these things and more, led to major differences. Yes, things were imposed on people, but if you think it's all the same, then it's because you don't want to see what's there.

You say different flavors of ice cream, but we're dealing with like cyanide flavor and things like that. Different ways to die, some are quick, some are slow, some are painful, others will just rot you out.

And you are still arguing over the color of the paint. The only way too look at a government system is how they treat their citizens. There is so little difference in how a German was treated compared to how a Soviet was treated that to claim they are different is ludicrous.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I too have lived in those countries. Your personal experiences don't mean a hill of beans to this discussion. The facts are as I stated them. Governments are either collectivist or they are anarchical. Those are the too extremes.

Total government as opposed to no government.

Until you can understand that basic fact you won't get anywhere.

Ah, so it's a "i must believe you or you will just pound away at your point and nothing else" kind of thing.

Right, won't bother wasting my time then. Bye.

 

[bripat9643]

The differences are trivial and irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that leftists gave them the power to impose their whims on the population. They are all different flavours of ice-cream.

No, I disagree.

How they came about has some similarities. All of them took over from a system which had replaced a Monarchy. In the cases of Russia and China it was because the monarchy had been weak. In the case of Germany it was because they got unlucky. Had the US not entered the war maybe they would have won and it would have been a different story.

Hitler rose through a hatred of the monarchy that had supposedly sold out the country at Versailles.
Stalin rose through a party which had risen. He was almost third generation to Hitler's second and Mao's second.

Russia was Monarchy, then the new govt, then Lenin's Communism, then Stalinism.

There was hatred at what had gone on before, the leaders were usually intellectuals who came from lower classes. Liberalism had allowed Germany and Russia to change, but China was actually becoming worse, it was more reactionary that it had been for centuries. Mao came through the military structure, as did Hitler, but not Stalin.

Hitler was a Nationalist. Stalin clearly wasn't. Mao didn't seem to have too much in the way of opinions. He was pro-Chinese but he wasn't really Nationalistic.

This led to major differences.

Stalin wanted to make everyone a Communist. Hitler wanted to get rid of people to leave what was left as the superior race. Mao just killed whoever got in his way and didn't have the religious question going on much, though religion was seen as bad.

All of these things and more, led to major differences. Yes, things were imposed on people, but if you think it's all the same, then it's because you don't want to see what's there.

You say different flavors of ice cream, but we're dealing with like cyanide flavor and things like that. Different ways to die, some are quick, some are slow, some are painful, others will just rot you out.

Cyanide isn't a flavour, nor is it ice cream. The differences are trivial. None of them could have accomplished their crimes without the absolute power that control over the economy gives.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The right is the right, Christan or Muslim, and they want all the control, period.

the right wants limited govt to cripple the source of control and thus unleash freedom as our Founders intended.

A seemingly simple and obvious lesson but one which the liberal lacks the IQ to understand. Amazingly, the liberal is like a subspecies withiin the human species. They look the same but have a part of their brain missing.

 

[Bfgrn]

Do you believe someone when they tell you something that is clearly not true? Who can you believe? Hardly anyone, especially not politicians.

You say you see no reason to take the word of a bunch of commies, so why would you believe Stalin when he says he was a Communist?

When someone says that Stalin was a conservative, anyone can see that is clearly not true. I believe Stalin because all the evidence indicates he was a commie. For one thing, he was a member of the communist party almost his entire life.

That doesn't make him a liberal. Stalin was raised in a conservative household, attended Georgian Orthodox Seminary and was a big believer in Darwinism...survival of the fittest or richest. He restricted divorce, banned abortions and was vehemently opposed by the left in Russia led by Trotsky.

It makes him a left-winger. Social Darwinism was a doctrine dreamed up by the left in this country. Margaret Sanger and Woodrow Wilson were both advocates of social Darwinism. When someone becomes an absolute dictator, it's ridiculous to call any of his policies "conservative." They are simply expressions of his dictatorial whim.

You really have to be kidding me? You right wingers profess your social Darwinism on every thread...

bripat and friends...

No, actually, we don't. You really don't even know what social Darwinism is. And even if conservatives did advocate social Darwinism, the fact is that it originated as a doctrine of progressives, not conservatives.

You are full of shit, as usual...

What is Social Darwinism?

Herbert Spencer, a 19th century philosopher, promoted the idea of Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is an application of the theory of natural selection to social, political, and economic issues. In its simplest form, Social Darwinism follows the mantra of "the strong survive," including human issues. This theory was used to promote the idea that the white European race was superior to others, and therefore, destined to rule over them.

At the time that Spencer began to promote Social Darwinism, the technology, economy, and government of the "White European" was advanced in comparison to that of other cultures. Looking at this apparent advantage, as well as the economic and military structures, some argued that natural selection was playing out, and that the race more suited to survival was winning. Some even extended this philosophy into a micro-economic issue, claiming that social welfare programs that helped the poor and disadvantaged were contrary to nature itself. Those who reject any and all forms of charity or governmental welfare often use arguments rooted in Social Darwinism.

At its worst, the implications of Social Darwinism were used as scientific justification for the Holocaust. The Nazis claimed that the murder of Jews in World War II was an example of cleaning out the inferior genetics. Many philosophers noted evolutionary echoes in Hitler's march to exterminate an entire race of people. Various other dictators and criminals have claimed the cause of Social Darwinism in carrying out their acts. Even without such actions, Social Darwinism has proven to be a false and dangerous philosophy.

Scientists and evolutionists maintain that this interpretation is only loosely based on Darwin's theory of natural selection. They will admit to an obvious parallel between Darwin's theory of Natural Selection and Spencer's beliefs. In nature, the strong survive and those best suited to survival will out-live the weak. According to Social Darwinism, those with strength (economic, physical, technological) flourish and those without are destined for extinction.

It is important to note that Darwin did not extend his theories to a social or economic level, nor are any credible evolutionists subscribing to the theories of Social Darwinism. Herbert Spencer's philosophy is only loosely based on the premises of Darwin's work. - See more at: What is Social Darwinism

 

[frigidweirdo]

What you need to realise is there is a big difference between Communism the theory and what people did claiming the name of Communism.

LOL, that's been my point to you, Skippy.

So....? What?

If that was your point, why didn't you just say it?

I did. Communists are lying to you. No kidding.

Well it was you saying it, not Communists, unless your point now is that you're a Communist.

You didn't say it, hence why it took me a load of posts just to wring it out of you.

Incoherent babbling

So what is your point. Why are you telling me that there's a difference between the theoretical Communism and Communism put in practice exactly?

Because you said they aren't communists because they are not theoretical communists. They followed the communist manifesto, they were communists. That you want to define communists as a Kibbutz is ridiculous.

Oh, you fail to make a point properly means I'm incoherent. Right, got it.