Stalinism is not communism.

[Zaras]

So would Lenin if he had ruled more after all Stalin wasn't the one that ordered the Tsars family executed and thrown in acid.

Thrown in a well. Lenin was plenty dictatorial, but let's not make shit up here.

[CTALNH]

Totalitarianism is nothing more than taking the enforcement of laws to a more serious enforcement level.

The level where you murder people and shut them out of the process of making laws.

Face it, Stalin was no better than the fucking Tsar from Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin who sent soldiers to massacre civilians on the Odessa steps.

Well not everything is fine and dandy you know if need be I would have to kill 100.000.000 people for achieving a worldwide unified federation I would do it without a second thought.

[Voerdeland]

The level where you murder people and shut them out of the process of making laws.

Face it, Stalin was no better than the fucking Tsar from Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin who sent soldiers to massacre civilians on the Odessa steps.

Well not everything is fine and dandy you know if need be I would have to kill 100.000.000 people for achieving a worldwide unified federation I would do it without a second thought.

And that's why everyone hates you

[Communist Quinntopia]

And that's why everyone hates you

So true.

[CTALNH]

So would Lenin if he had ruled more after all Stalin wasn't the one that ordered the Tsars family executed and thrown in acid.

Thrown in a well. Lenin was plenty dictatorial, but let's not make shit up here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_o ... nov_family

Okay sorry they weren't thrown into acid but a pit on the side of the road.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Self-declaration of intent means little or nothing. North Korea describes itself as "democratic", so is it an example of the failure of democracy?

That's a fair point, but do you really feel that none of the examples of communist states were not, at any significant point of their development, trying to achieve a genuine communist society? Again, I'm a total layman, but I understand there was a fair amount of goodwill behind both the 1917 revolution and, to a lesser degree, the Chinese Civil War.

I'm not much of an expert on Mao, really, but the 1917 revolution was more or less finished when Lenin refused to work with the Socialist Revolutionaries.

Or is a more telling point that none of the revolutionaries with claimed communist content and the means to power actually were, under your auspices, true communists? In that sense, not only may communist society be unstable, but communist intentions could be.

I'd argue instead that those claiming to be communists were not actually communists but merely power-hungry individuals who hit upon communism as an ideology with popular appeal, then abused this appeal and the ideology for their own ends.

See: USSR.

The level where you murder people and shut them out of the process of making laws.

Face it, Stalin was no better than the fucking Tsar from Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin who sent soldiers to massacre civilians on the Odessa steps.

Well not everything is fine and dandy you know if need be I would have to kill 100.000.000 people for achieving a worldwide unified federation I would do it without a second thought.

- "The end only justifies the means so long as the means justify the end."

Leon Trotsky. If you have to kill 100,000,000 people to achieve something, it's probably not worth achieving.

Fortunately, in the absence of totalitarianism, killing 100,000,000 people to advance communism isn't necessary.

[CTALNH]

That's a fair point, but do you really feel that none of the examples of communist states were not, at any significant point of their development, trying to achieve a genuine communist society? Again, I'm a total layman, but I understand there was a fair amount of goodwill behind both the 1917 revolution and, to a lesser degree, the Chinese Civil War.

I'm not much of an expert on Mao, really, but the 1917 revolution was more or less finished when Lenin refused to work with the Socialist Revolutionaries.

Or is a more telling point that none of the revolutionaries with claimed communist content and the means to power actually were, under your auspices, true communists? In that sense, not only may communist society be unstable, but communist intentions could be.

I'd argue instead that those claiming to be communists were not actually communists but merely power-hungry individuals who hit upon communism as an ideology with popular appeal, then abused this appeal and the ideology for their own ends.

See: USSR.

Then at the same time all the people who you called "power-hungry individuals" can call you a liberal bourgeoisie anarchist

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I'm not much of an expert on Mao, really, but the 1917 revolution was more or less finished when Lenin refused to work with the Socialist Revolutionaries.



I'd argue instead that those claiming to be communists were not actually communists but merely power-hungry individuals who hit upon communism as an ideology with popular appeal, then abused this appeal and the ideology for their own ends.

See: USSR.

Then at the same time all the people who you called "power-hungry individuals" can call you a liberal bourgeoisie anarchist

What? I do not understand what you are trying to say.

[Zaras]

What? I do not understand what you are trying to say.

Yeah. "Liberal bourgeois anarchist" is an oxymoron.

[CTALNH]

That's a fair point, but do you really feel that none of the examples of communist states were not, at any significant point of their development, trying to achieve a genuine communist society? Again, I'm a total layman, but I understand there was a fair amount of goodwill behind both the 1917 revolution and, to a lesser degree, the Chinese Civil War.

I'm not much of an expert on Mao, really, but the 1917 revolution was more or less finished when Lenin refused to work with the Socialist Revolutionaries.

Or is a more telling point that none of the revolutionaries with claimed communist content and the means to power actually were, under your auspices, true communists? In that sense, not only may communist society be unstable, but communist intentions could be.

I'd argue instead that those claiming to be communists were not actually communists but merely power-hungry individuals who hit upon communism as an ideology with popular appeal, then abused this appeal and the ideology for their own ends.

See: USSR.

Well not everything is fine and dandy you know if need be I would have to kill 100.000.000 people for achieving a worldwide unified federation I would do it without a second thought.

- "The end only justifies the means so long as the means justify the end."

Leon Trotsky. If you have to kill 100,000,000 people to achieve something, it's probably not worth achieving.

Fortunately, in the absence of totalitarianism, killing 100,000,000 people to advance communism isn't necessary.

Trosky the man that was called a fool by his own son....

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I'm not much of an expert on Mao, really, but the 1917 revolution was more or less finished when Lenin refused to work with the Socialist Revolutionaries.



I'd argue instead that those claiming to be communists were not actually communists but merely power-hungry individuals who hit upon communism as an ideology with popular appeal, then abused this appeal and the ideology for their own ends.

See: USSR.




- "The end only justifies the means so long as the means justify the end."

Leon Trotsky. If you have to kill 100,000,000 people to achieve something, it's probably not worth achieving.

Fortunately, in the absence of totalitarianism, killing 100,000,000 people to advance communism isn't necessary.

Trosky the man that was called a fool by his own son....

Trotsky the man who left the USSR out of disgust at what Stalin was doing to it and was murdered despite being more of a communist than Stalin ever was, I think you mean.

[CTALNH]

What? I do not understand what you are trying to say.

Yeah. "Liberal bourgeois anarchist" is an oxymoron.

Yeah "liberalist bourgeois scum" fits better.

[Zaras]

Trosky the man that was called a fool by his own son....

After he asked his son how could he be a vegetarian but wear fur, and his son promptly stormed to his room yelling "THAT'S DIFFERENT! GOD! URRGH!".

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Yeah. "Liberal bourgeois anarchist" is an oxymoron.

Yeah "liberalist bourgeois scum" fits better.

So, what was the point you were trying to make about "liberal bourgeoisie"?

And more to the point, did I misread or did you just call me "liberal bourgeois scum"?

[Ashmoria]

fine

but that puts "communisim" into the category of anarchism in terms of being a useless political philosophy that has never and will never be put into practice on a national level.

i suppose that is a step up from the grim reality of communism around the world.

That is why I'm in favour of having a teeny tiny state, doing healthcare and not much else, rather than no state at all.

yeah

thats my point. you have reduced "communism" to a silly mental exercise with no connection to the real world.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

That is why I'm in favour of having a teeny tiny state, doing healthcare and not much else, rather than no state at all.

yeah

thats my point. you have reduced "communism" to a silly mental exercise with no connection to the real world.

I fail to see how it has no connection to the real world.

[Zaras]

Yeah "liberalist bourgeois scum" fits better.

So, what was the point you were trying to make about "liberal bourgeoisie"?

And more to the point, did I misread or did you just call me "liberal bourgeois scum"?

Hey, I think CTALNH just learned a new word!

[Hippostania]

I feel bad for agreeing with you. Stalinism isn't communism, but ultra-authoritarian socialism.

[Ashmoria]

yeah

thats my point. you have reduced "communism" to a silly mental exercise with no connection to the real world.

I fail to see how it has no connection to the real world.

you will never have a teeny tny state that only does healthcare. its a ridiculous waste of time to bother thinking about that.

[CTALNH]

Yeah "liberalist bourgeois scum" fits better.

So, what was the point you were trying to make about "liberal bourgeoisie"?

And more to the point, did I misread or did you just call me "liberal bourgeois scum"?

No I called you a "liberalist bourgeois scum" because you called every Leninist,Maoist,Stalinist out there power hungry individuals.

[Zaras]

So, what was the point you were trying to make about "liberal bourgeoisie"?

And more to the point, did I misread or did you just call me "liberal bourgeois scum"?

No I called you a "liberalist bourgeois scum" because you called every Leninist,Maoist,Stalinist out there power hungry individuals.

Because, newsflash!

THEY WERE.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I feel bad for agreeing with you. Stalinism isn't communism, but ultra-authoritarian socialism.

Indeed.

See, we can agree about politics!

So, what was the point you were trying to make about "liberal bourgeoisie"?

And more to the point, did I misread or did you just call me "liberal bourgeois scum"?

No I called you a "liberalist bourgeois scum" because you called every Leninist,Maoist,Stalinist out there power hungry individuals.

What were they if not power-hungry people?

[CTALNH]

No I called you a "liberalist bourgeois scum" because you called every Leninist,Maoist,Stalinist out there power hungry individuals.

Because, newsflash!

THEY WERE.

Newsflash so is everyone into politics.

[Zaras]

Because, newsflash!

THEY WERE.

Newsflash so is everyone into politics.

Newsflash: you're wrong. Seretse Khama wasn't. Ergo, not everyone in politics is power-hungry. Ergo, shut up, you're making yourself look very bad.

[CTALNH]

Newsflash so is everyone into politics.

Newsflash: you're wrong. Seretse Khama wasn't. Ergo, not everyone in politics is power-hungry. Ergo, shut up, you're making yourself look very bad.

LOL thats the only reason someone goes into politics.