NationStates

CTALNH wrote:

Kvatchdom wrote:
Means that they recognize authority the time of the state.

They support violent revolution, but there is no need to kill every bourgeois out there. Especially now that 80% of the European populace is bourgeois in some way.

They generated a communist one right away, which was their problem.

And why shouldn't you kill them?

Because we're not murderous barbarians with a thirst for blood, like you think.

Zaras wrote:

CTALNH wrote:And why shouldn't you kill them?

Because we're not murderous barbarians with a thirst for blood, like you think.

In the name of revolutionary terror everything is permitted....

CTALNH wrote:

Zaras wrote:
Because we're not murderous barbarians with a thirst for blood, like you think.

In the name of revolutionary terror everything is permitted....

In your lunatic world, maybe.

CTALNH wrote:

Zaras wrote:
Because we're not murderous barbarians with a thirst for blood, like you think.

In the name of revolutionary terror everything is permitted....

Why must terror be put though?

CTALNH wrote:

Zaras wrote:
Because we're not murderous barbarians with a thirst for blood, like you think.

In the name of revolutionary terror everything is permitted....

Only if you're willing to betray all your principles.

If you trace your responsibility to history, then you cease to consider your responsibility towards your fellow men.

At the end of the day, what your politics seem to consist of to me is not communism by any stretch of the imagination, but rather a frenzied bloodlust which you've attached to an ideology (Stalinism) in which it's A-OK to express said bloodlust.

Honestly, the only people I see equating stalinism to communism are right-wing conservatives.




Though I can't say I actually know any Stalinists....

Silent Majority wrote:Though I can't say I actually know any Stalinists....

CTALNH will show you.

Of the Free Socialist Territories wrote:

CTALNH wrote:In the name of revolutionary terror everything is permitted....

Only if you're willing to betray all your principles.

If you trace your responsibility to history, then you cease to consider your responsibility towards your fellow men.

At the end of the day, what your politics seem to consist of to me is not communism by any stretch of the imagination, but rather a frenzied bloodlust which you've attached to an ideology (Stalinism) in which it's A-OK to express said bloodlust.

Hey if Marx says that the old world will tremble in the face of revolutionary terror i got no problem with that....

CTALNH wrote:

Of the Free Socialist Territories wrote:
Only if you're willing to betray all your principles.

If you trace your responsibility to history, then you cease to consider your responsibility towards your fellow men.

At the end of the day, what your politics seem to consist of to me is not communism by any stretch of the imagination, but rather a frenzied bloodlust which you've attached to an ideology (Stalinism) in which it's A-OK to express said bloodlust.

Hey if Marx says that the old world will tremble in the face of revolutionary terror i got no problem with that....

Marx also said that the workers had to emancipate themselves ( M: Provisional Rules of the Association, in The General Council of the First International; Minutes, 1864-66 [v.1], 288.)

"CONSIDERING, That the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves;"

Quit being selective about which bits you follow.

Your ridiculous and anachronistic idea of a totalitarian steward state has no basis in communism or current reality.

Divair wrote:

CTALNH wrote:In the name of revolutionary terror everything is permitted....

In your lunatic world, maybe.

You would be surprised that Marx said it now me....

Of the Free Socialist Territories wrote:

CTALNH wrote:Hey if Marx says that the old world will tremble in the face of revolutionary terror i got no problem with that....

Marx also said that the workers had to emancipate themselves ( M: Provisional Rules of the Association, in The General Council of the First International; Minutes, 1864-66 [v.1], 288.)

"CONSIDERING, That the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves;"

Quit being selective about which bits you follow.

Your ridiculous and anachronistic idea of a totalitarian steward state has no basis in communism or current reality.

"There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new – revolutionary terror"

Says he....

CTALNH wrote:

Of the Free Socialist Territories wrote:
Marx also said that the workers had to emancipate themselves ( M: Provisional Rules of the Association, in The General Council of the First International; Minutes, 1864-66 [v.1], 288.)

"CONSIDERING, That the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves;"

Quit being selective about which bits you follow.

Your ridiculous and anachronistic idea of a totalitarian steward state has no basis in communism or current reality.

"There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new – revolutionary terror"

Says he....

Congratulations on a) using a "Tu quoque" fallacy and b) dodging my point.

I'm not inherently opposed to violence, I just believe that it should only be used were necessary. I don't have any objection to stuff being blown up, provided that you're not killing people willy-nilly.

Now, deal with the fact that your beliefs go against the first clause of the First International, as you're opposed to self-emancipation.

Of the Free Socialist Territories wrote:

CTALNH wrote:"There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new – revolutionary terror"

Says he....

Congratulations on a) using a "Tu quoque" fallacy and b) dodging my point.

I'm not inherently opposed to violence, I just believe that it should only be used were necessary. I don't have any objection to stuff being blown up, provided that you're not killing people willy-nilly.

Now, deal with the fact that your beliefs go against the first clause of the First International, as you're opposed to self-emancipation.

I prefer the third....

Slain never achieved total communism, but he was most cetainly trying to, which therefore makes it communism.

Futhermore, I don't think any of the leftists here arguing with our Stalinist friend are against revolutionary terror when it is necessary, and only against groups that are in active, violent opposition to the revolutionary movement.

In other words, being reasonable.

Antiliberalbis wrote:Slain never achieved total communism, but he was most cetainly trying to, which therefore makes it communism.

You didn't read the OP either, did you?

CTALNH wrote:

Of the Free Socialist Territories wrote:
Congratulations on a) using a "Tu quoque" fallacy and b) dodging my point.

I'm not inherently opposed to violence, I just believe that it should only be used were necessary. I don't have any objection to stuff being blown up, provided that you're not killing people willy-nilly.

Now, deal with the fact that your beliefs go against the first clause of the First International, as you're opposed to self-emancipation.

I prefer the third....

But the First was brought into being by Marx and Engels. Ergo, by refusing to adopt its fundamental principle, you're not a Marxist and not a communist and shouldn't claim to be.

Trotskylvania wrote:Futhermore, I don't think any of the leftists here arguing with our Stalinist friend are against revolutionary terror when it is necessary, and only against groups that are in active, violent opposition to the revolutionary movement.

In other words, being reasonable.

I very much agree.

Trotskylvania wrote:Futhermore, I don't think any of the leftists here arguing with our Stalinist friend are against revolutionary terror when it is necessary, and only against groups that are in active, violent opposition to the revolutionary movement.

In other words, being reasonable.

There is such a thing in politics?

Of the Free Socialist Territories wrote:

Antiliberalbis wrote:Slain never achieved total communism, but he was most cetainly trying to, which therefore makes it communism.

You didn't read the OP either, did you?

I don't read anything that is pro-communist.

Antiliberalbis wrote:Slain never achieved total communism, but he was most cetainly trying to.

He wasn't. Ever.

Antiliberalbis wrote:

Of the Free Socialist Territories wrote:
You didn't read the OP either, did you?

I don't read anything that is pro-communist.

Then your opinion is meaningless as it is based on a stubborn and close-minded refusal to consider evidence that contradicts your opinion.

The whole point of the OP is that Stalinism fundamentally goes against major communist principles and is therefore not communist.

Finally, if you refuse to read the OP of a thread which has almost entirely been based around arguments put forward in the OP, why bother posting at all expect to display ignorance on the topic?

Antiliberalbis wrote:

Of the Free Socialist Territories wrote:
You didn't read the OP either, did you?

I don't read anything that is pro-communist.

Intellectual laziness always contributes so much to a topic.

Of the Free Socialist Territories wrote:

Antiliberalbis wrote:
I don't read anything that is pro-communist.

Then your opinion is meaningless as it is based on a stubborn and close-minded refusal to consider evidence that contradicts your opinion.

The whole point of the OP is that Stalinism fundamentally goes against major communist principles and is therefore not communist.

Do I need to read up on Nazism to have a valid negative opinion of it too?

Of the Free Socialist Territories wrote:

CTALNH wrote:I prefer the third....

But the First was brought into being by Marx and Engels. Ergo, by refusing to adopt its fundamental principle, you're not a Marxist and not a communist and shouldn't claim to be.

No not really I am just moving on from 1860 to well now.....

Well I got to live with you and you with me for the rest of our pitiful lives....
At least I will fight for the cause...

Antiliberalbis wrote:

Of the Free Socialist Territories wrote:
Then your opinion is meaningless as it is based on a stubborn and close-minded refusal to consider evidence that contradicts your opinion.

The whole point of the OP is that Stalinism fundamentally goes against major communist principles and is therefore not communist.

Do I need to read up on Nazism to disprove of it too?

It'd be useful to familiarise yourself with its principles in order to deconstruct it, yes.