Stalin, Communism and the left wing

[elektra]

When communists or fascist or any group that refuses opposition takes over, the first people they kill are those they consider "threats". Scientists, teachers, college professors and so on. The stupid people become their flock. In other words, all the best liberals are killed first. It's always been that way. Look how easily led the GOP base is. "Let him die?" Really?

You think liberal socialist teachers and scientists trying to prove CO2 warms the planets are the same as the scientists of the 1930's? You and your ideas would not even be heard, you would be laughed at.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The fact that they had "voting" is cute but immaterial. When there is only one choice is it really voting?

Well they probably had more than one choice, though everyone would have been from the same party but might have been from different factions.

However in the US how much choice is there? Everyone votes for two parties, who appear almost the same but spend their whole time making themselves look really different with issues that are of a lower level than the bread and butter of daily life.

I'm finding more similarities than I would like between the voting in the USSR and the USA.

There is more than a smidgen of truth to this statement. Slowly but surely the US is becoming a progressive nightmare. They have been working on dismantling this country for decades now. There is no doubt of that.

Problem is you seem to be blaming the wrong people.

You're actually supporting the people who are causing all the problems by playing the partisan game.

You're the people causing all the problem. Your theory that you aren't partisan is also a hoot.

Hey, why don't we just slap each other, I mean, it'll be just as good as this crap.

Why am I partisan? I don't support the main two parties. I PREFER the democrats t the republicans, but would love to see both of them get taken down a lot and put in a system where 4 or 5 parties have a chance and real democracy exists.

But you seem to think a person who is non-partisan won't veer one way or another on a topic which the reps and dems have basically decided they own. Bull.

This is where you're getting really confused.


What you don't seem to realise about the partisan game is that it's there to keep the status quo.

We can look back at the development of how the two main parties have got so successful in keeping people in their places.

Joseph McCarthy was a big part of the development, he basically accused people, getting the right their own way, and if his accusation later became false, who gave a damn? The damage had already been done.
Wars have also helped massively, they allow the govt to put through draconian laws whenever they feel like it.

But from the parties point of view it works like this.

Big business want to have control of govt. They don't want to have to pay over the odds, they want to get control for a cheaply as possible. This means "stable govt", as little changes as possible in the personnel that matter. ie, Congressmen and women who have taken the money and are willing to do as they are told and vote for the things that they want.

PR would maybe make some politicians a little more stable, but overall it would mean more parties, more money needing to be spread around and more ideas. Democracy would suddenly be a reality rather than something people are told they have. Who would pay to see the system disappear and replaced by something which doesn't benefit them? Not big business that's for sure.

If you look at issues in other western countries, compared to the US, you see they are different. Different because the two main parties need policies which fit their agenda, ie, nothing which rocks the boat but gives the impression that people actually have something to vote for.

Let's vote for abortion, gun control and other things. Yes, they have an impact on daily life, but they are not the bread and butter. They are not education, health and so on. Obama brought health as a topic, and he's getting hammered for it for going against big business,though he perhaps did it in a way where certain parts are happy. However it's become a decisive issue which they possibly believe can keep the people away from the issues that really matter.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's your opinion. "Study says" is not fact.[/QUOTE]

Great post. I mean, I write a whole load, presenting evidence and things, and you write something that a 10 year old could easily right. Well done, move up a grade at school and pass go. Do you want a shiny star too?

But seriously, do you want to live in ignorance? You're on a DEBATE message board and the one thing you're not doing is debating. Come on.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Keep this handy, show it to a Progressive

Right Wing = minimum government, maximum individual Liberty

Left Wing = Maximum Government, minimum individual liberty

Maximum liberty = no abortions, no alcohol, no drugs, no jay-walking, no sex, no decent education, however there are lots of wars to scare you into accepting draconian measures with lots of spying, lots of controls on what you can and can't do.

Yeah right.

Wrong. That isn't what maximum liberty equals.

No sh*t.

The right in general are not for maximum liberty. SOME Libertarians are, however they are on the fringes of the right usually, and I wouldn't even call Libertarian right or left, it's in a different direction.

But certainly traditional conservatives are not much interested in liberty at all.

Leonard Peltier has been locked up for a long time. I suspect that actress was bumped off by the US govt not wanting to have Native American issues rocking the boat again. I mean they did so well locking up Peltier, taking away their focal point, and it's lasted for over 30 years. Why would they want Native Issues back again?

You sign a treat and then completely ignore it, but it's still a treaty and you could still be forced to honor it when you have no intention of doing so. Better to kill some people right? I mean it's not like the US govt has a problem with the deaths of some Americans to keep their profits up.

 

[frigidweirdo]

CO2 is the weakest of the GHG's and also the one with the least amount of concentration in the atmosphere. It is a TRACE gas. It makes up less than one half of one percent of the total atmospheric mix, and mans contribution to that fantastically small number is less than five percent of that vanishingly small number.

Every bit of empirical evidence says that CO2 plays no part in the global temperature.

Which I guess it's why you've presented so much evidence here.

Yes, it makes up a small percentage of the atmosphere. That doesn't mean it isn't having an impact.

It's the same as smoking doesn't cause cancer. You can just ignore the reality, try and pick at anything you can, present a few things that don't quite make sense and claim no one else has evidence. But at the end of the day what happens is what happens. Smokers are more likely to get cancer.
The world is getting warmer when it should be getting cooler.

And yet you fight for big business to be able to make loads of profit over the health of the planet. I have to wonder why you do.

 

[kaz]

There were 2 factions of the communist party in Russia. Stalin led the right wing camp and Trotsky led the left wing camp.

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.

What I find amazing is that conservatives in America are totally unaware that conservatism exists in ALL societies.

Well, that you consider Stalin to be conservative certainly demonstrates some awareness of where you are on the political spectrum.

Try something novel...educate yourself...

The Art of Conservatism Marxism According to Stalin

Marxists are conservatives to you, that explains your posts.

 

[kaz]

Try something novel...educate yourself...

The Art of Conservatism Marxism According to Stalin

Reading commie propaganda isn't "educating yourself." All you did by posting that is prove that you're a commie.

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

Commie propaganda?

Here is the heading of the author...

The Art of Conservatism
"Soon the world will wake up and discover that conservatism is not only an economic and political doctrine, but it is also a way of life; an endeavor created to obtain a virtuous, noble cause based upon the beliefs and the ideals of free markets, free speech, and limited government... this is a lifestyle mankind could really get to like."

That doesn't jive with the content of the blog which is an apology for Marxism.

There is no apology for Marxism. There is just a clear explanation that Stalin was no Marxist, there was no socialism in Russia, and that Stalin led the right wing of the communist party.

In other words, the article was an apology for Marxism. The "right-wing" of the communist party is still far to the left of Barry Obama or even Elanor Holmes Norton. The fact that marxists disagree is hardly surprising, but that doesn't prove Stalin wasn't a Marxists. Socialists have been making war on each other for over 100 years.

How are Barry or Norton to the left of Marxists? Just because they don't have what Stalin did regarding ubiquitous control over the economy doesn't mean they don't want it. If they could get it, where would they stop short of the Communist governments? When would they say no, I don't want that? I disagree with this, they are hard core Marxists.

 

[rdean]

When communists or fascist or any group that refuses opposition takes over, the first people they kill are those they consider "threats". Scientists, teachers, college professors and so on. The stupid people become their flock. In other words, all the best liberals are killed first. It's always been that way. Look how easily led the GOP base is. "Let him die?" Really?

Liberals are the ones who "refuse" opposition.

Hmm, yea, Republicans are 90% white and all conservative.
Democrats are all colors, with some even being conservative.

But it's Republicans who are "open minded"? Hilarious!

 

[rdean]

When communists or fascist or any group that refuses opposition takes over, the first people they kill are those they consider "threats". Scientists, teachers, college professors and so on. The stupid people become their flock. In other words, all the best liberals are killed first. It's always been that way. Look how easily led the GOP base is. "Let him die?" Really?

You think liberal socialist teachers and scientists trying to prove CO2 warms the planets are the same as the scientists of the 1930's? You and your ideas would not even be heard, you would be laughed at.

Today's scientists know more. Conservatives know less. Funny how that works.

 

[kaz]

Reading commie propaganda isn't "educating yourself." All you did by posting that is prove that you're a commie.

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

Commie propaganda?

Here is the heading of the author...

The Art of Conservatism
"Soon the world will wake up and discover that conservatism is not only an economic and political doctrine, but it is also a way of life; an endeavor created to obtain a virtuous, noble cause based upon the beliefs and the ideals of free markets, free speech, and limited government... this is a lifestyle mankind could really get to like."

That doesn't jive with the content of the blog which is an apology for Marxism.

There is no apology for Marxism. There is just a clear explanation that Stalin was no Marxist, there was no socialism in Russia, and that Stalin led the right wing of the communist party.

In other words, the article was an apology for Marxism. The "right-wing" of the communist party is still far to the left of Barry Obama or even Elanor Holmes Norton. The fact that marxists disagree is hardly surprising, but that doesn't prove Stalin wasn't a Marxists. Socialists have been making war on each other for over 100 years.

How are Barry or Norton to the left of Marxists? Just because they don't have what Stalin did regarding ubiquitous control over the economy doesn't mean they don't want it. If they could get it, where would they stop short of the Communist governments? When would they say no, I don't want that? I disagree with this, they are hard core Marxists.

When communists or fascist or any group that refuses opposition takes over, the first people they kill are those they consider "threats". Scientists, teachers, college professors and so on. The stupid people become their flock. In other words, all the best liberals are killed first. It's always been that way. Look how easily led the GOP base is. "Let him die?" Really?

Liberals are the ones who "refuse" opposition.

Hmm, yea, Republicans are 90% white and all conservative.
Democrats are all colors, with some even being conservative.

But it's Republicans who are "open minded"? Hilarious!

Name positions actual Democrats who actually disagree and positions that they actually disagree on.

 

[Bfgrn]

Try something novel...educate yourself...

The Art of Conservatism Marxism According to Stalin

Reading commie propaganda isn't "educating yourself." All you did by posting that is prove that you're a commie.

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

Commie propaganda?

Here is the heading of the author...

The Art of Conservatism
"Soon the world will wake up and discover that conservatism is not only an economic and political doctrine, but it is also a way of life; an endeavor created to obtain a virtuous, noble cause based upon the beliefs and the ideals of free markets, free speech, and limited government... this is a lifestyle mankind could really get to like."

That doesn't jive with the content of the blog which is an apology for Marxism.

There is no apology for Marxism. There is just a clear explanation that Stalin was no Marxist, there was no socialism in Russia, and that Stalin led the right wing of the communist party.

In other words, the article was an apology for Marxism. The "right-wing" of the communist party is still far to the left of Barry Obama or even Elanor Holmes Norton. The fact that marxists disagree is hardly surprising, but that doesn't prove Stalin wasn't a Marxists. Socialists have been making war on each other for over 100 years.

You clearly don't have a clue. Stalin was a strong believer in Darwinism. His beliefs and your ilk are identical. Survival of the fittest, or the richest.

There was nothing in Stalin's upbringing that could be mistaken for liberal or nurturing. His father was an alcoholic who was physically abusive. Stalin attended a Russian Orthodox seminary.

 

[Bfgrn]

There were 2 factions of the communist party in Russia. Stalin led the right wing camp and Trotsky led the left wing camp.

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.

What I find amazing is that conservatives in America are totally unaware that conservatism exists in ALL societies.

Well, that you consider Stalin to be conservative certainly demonstrates some awareness of where you are on the political spectrum.

Try something novel...educate yourself...

The Art of Conservatism Marxism According to Stalin

Marxists are conservatives to you, that explains your posts.

The funny thing about conservatives in America is they believe there is no such thing as conservatives in other nations and cultures. They continually confuse liberal/conservative with left/right governments.

Think about it...would a conservative in Russia want to 'conserve' free market capitalism? The US Constitution?? American culture???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There were 2 factions of the communist party in Russia. Stalin led the right wing camp and Trotsky led the left wing camp.

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.

What I find amazing is that conservatives in America are totally unaware that conservatism exists in ALL societies.

Well, that you consider Stalin to be conservative certainly demonstrates some awareness of where you are on the political spectrum.

Try something novel...educate yourself...

The Art of Conservatism Marxism According to Stalin

Marxists are conservatives to you, that explains your posts.

The funny thing about conservatives in America is they believe there is no such thing as conservatives in other nations and cultures. They continually confuse liberal/conservative with left/right governments.

Think about it...would a conservative in Russia want to 'conserve' free market capitalism? The US Constitution?? American culture???

too stupid!! the word can have a different meaning at any time and in any country.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There were 2 factions of the communist party in Russia. Stalin led the right wing camp and Trotsky led the left wing camp.

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.

What I find amazing is that conservatives in America are totally unaware that conservatism exists in ALL societies.

Well, that you consider Stalin to be conservative certainly demonstrates some awareness of where you are on the political spectrum.

Try something novel...educate yourself...

The Art of Conservatism Marxism According to Stalin

Marxists are conservatives to you, that explains your posts.

The funny thing about conservatives in America is they believe there is no such thing as conservatives in other nations and cultures. They continually confuse liberal/conservative with left/right governments.

Think about it...would a conservative in Russia want to 'conserve' free market capitalism? The US Constitution?? American culture???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

there is no such thing as conservatives in other nations and cultures.

too stupid and 100% !! all know some want change and some want status quo. By todays modern American definition change toward freedom is conservative while change town govt is liberal.

Now do you finally understand?

 

[kaz]

There were 2 factions of the communist party in Russia. Stalin led the right wing camp and Trotsky led the left wing camp.

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.

What I find amazing is that conservatives in America are totally unaware that conservatism exists in ALL societies.

Well, that you consider Stalin to be conservative certainly demonstrates some awareness of where you are on the political spectrum.

Try something novel...educate yourself...

The Art of Conservatism Marxism According to Stalin

Marxists are conservatives to you, that explains your posts.

The funny thing about conservatives in America is they believe there is no such thing as conservatives in other nations and cultures. They continually confuse liberal/conservative with left/right governments.

Think about it...would a conservative in Russia want to 'conserve' free market capitalism? The US Constitution?? American culture???

too stupid!! the word can have a different meaning at any time and in any country.

so you can compare communist "conservative" to American "conservative" when they are based on completely different standards?

 

[Bfgrn]

Well, that you consider Stalin to be conservative certainly demonstrates some awareness of where you are on the political spectrum.

Try something novel...educate yourself...

The Art of Conservatism Marxism According to Stalin

Marxists are conservatives to you, that explains your posts.

The funny thing about conservatives in America is they believe there is no such thing as conservatives in other nations and cultures. They continually confuse liberal/conservative with left/right governments.

Think about it...would a conservative in Russia want to 'conserve' free market capitalism? The US Constitution?? American culture???

too stupid!! the word can have a different meaning at any time and in any country.

so you can compare communist "conservative" to American "conservative" when they are based on completely different standards?

Conservatism and liberalism are personality traits, tendencies and the manifestation of upbringing. There are even physical differences in the brain.

The lack of self awareness in conservatives is alarming...

HERE is what ULTRA-conservatism looks like..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Most moronic thing I ever read on the Internet: Stalin was a Conservative

 

[Bfgrn]

Most moronic thing I ever read on the Internet: Stalin was a Conservative

Yea, Stalin was a 'liberal'...

Stalinist social policies included restrictions on divorce, the banning of legal abortion, and pro-natalist policies.

 

[bripat9643]

Try something novel...educate yourself...

The Art of Conservatism Marxism According to Stalin

Marxists are conservatives to you, that explains your posts.

The funny thing about conservatives in America is they believe there is no such thing as conservatives in other nations and cultures. They continually confuse liberal/conservative with left/right governments.

Think about it...would a conservative in Russia want to 'conserve' free market capitalism? The US Constitution?? American culture???

too stupid!! the word can have a different meaning at any time and in any country.

so you can compare communist "conservative" to American "conservative" when they are based on completely different standards?

Conservatism and liberalism are personality traits, tendencies and the manifestation of upbringing. There are even physical differences in the brain.

The lack of self awareness in conservatives is alarming...

HERE is what ULTRA-conservatism looks like..

That's what radical Islam looks like, which is a lot like liberalism since to wants to control your entire life.