Che=Rabid, Sociopathic Killer

[Dapper Dan Man]

My family was there on both accounts, Hovercar. Besides that fact no matter how the Soviets treated them, they still *were* invaders and conquerers. Loosening restrictions does not make them any more noble for that fact.

 

[Hovercar Madness]

You're right ofcourse, but I wasn't exactly being a Soviet apologist on that account. I always found the Neutral block a nice alternative to both soviet and american hegemony (though it is disconcerting how both Yugoslavia and Egypt got the shit bombed out of them by nato members at some point). I like how it's always overlooked how great a part Nato played in the establishing of the Iron curtain through unifying the western occupied sectors in Germany and subsequently re-militarising it at a high pace. In Dutchieland PvdA at some point had the balls to demand withdrawal from NATO, too bad that never came to fruition.

 

[John Uskglass]

It was communists who saved the entire world from Nazi Germany and her allies.

The most casualties ! = Beat.

USSR would have lost without the UK, USA, France and the other Western Allies. Heck, the Soviets would have lost without the Italian difficulties in the Greek campaign.

It was communists who instituted free healthcare, social security and education for everyone.

Now who is confusing Socialism with Communism? If anything, in most countries Communism delayed these reforms: see Latin America and the United States, where such things where written off as 'communism', while Socialism still had an okay reputation.

It was communists who rejected segregation by race and nation, a practice embraced by republics and monarchies throughout the world.

French Republic got rid of Slavery and later segregation before Socialism, let alone Communism exsisted. One again, Communism slowed down these reforms in several areas: the South African Whites used the excuse Blacks !=Marxists pretty often.

The autogenocidal practices you speak of, though commonplace under certain communist regimes, aren't inherent to communism as a political system.

Gravity is'nt a law, it does'nt happen ALL the time, just every single time anything falls or is in space.

It is. Even Tito had it's brazen, violent anti-clericalism and the UDBA.

In my country, for example, communist partizans were liberators - a barefoot army of peasants who took up arms and, under the banner of the Communist Party, with no regard to their own safety and solely noble goals of liberty and equality on mind, defeated the nazifascist aggressors and their quisling allies.

And then continued to set up a regiem that was not any better? You see the problem, don't you? Replacing Nazis with Soviets is replacing being eaten by a shark to being bitten by a rattle snake.

Three of my grandmother's brothers died in that noble struggle, viciously murdered by brutes in service of a racist and imperialist regime, and both of my grandfathers were injured.

Three? Wow.

Still, despite the fact that they did work very hard to get rid of a 'racist and imperialist regime', their works created a regiem that was violently anti-clerical and depended upon a violent secret police service to maintain stability, then collapsed into one of the most violent national collapses in recent memory.

To portray communism as an infernal menace and straight-facedly state that you "have little pity for anyone injured under a Red Flag" is not only incredibly moronic, it is also a blatant display of disrespect for thousands of common people who bled and died so that your opinionated middle-class American ass could sit in front of a computer and spout bullheaded nonsense.

Guffaw. No Communist ever died for me. I'm the living, breathing epitomy of almost everything Communists fought against: I'm the child of a well to do borgoise man, I'm an American, I am EXTREMLEY religious and I'm patriotic.

True, some Communists did die for a good cause, like defeating the Nazis, but most of them fought to replace it with something just as bad.

 

[Bradylama]

So Tito is ok for suppressing nationalism at gunpoint? A fat lot of good that did, eh?

 

[Brother None]

The most casualties ! = Beat.

Do you mean most casualties taken != beat? That'd make sense. But seeing as 6 times more nazi soldiers were on the Eastern front than on the Western, you'll find the argument harder to defend

I'm sure the SU couldn't have won without the US. Same goes for the US, though

Now who is confusing Socialism with Communism? If anything, in most countries Communism delayed these reforms: see Latin America and the United States, where such things where written off as 'communism', while Socialism still had an okay reputation.

One would almost argue it all comes back to Marxism, except that it doesn't, as Marx would've probably disliked the "halfway" mode between capitalism and socialism that it the welfare state. John is right here (by exception)

French Republic got rid of Slavery and later segregation before Socialism, let alone Communism exsisted. One again, Communism slowed down these reforms in several areas: the South African Whites used the excuse Blacks !=Marxists pretty often.

Not really his points. Communists in principle are less nationalist and racist than other political ideoligies, though this kind of attitude has been betrayed on several counts, most noteable of which is the Great War propaganda of Stalin.

Gravity is'nt a law, it does'nt happen ALL the time, just every single time anything falls or is in space.

Wow, trying to chalk up lame arguments, are we, Raven Sir?

He's right, autogenicide isn't inherent of communism.

And then continued to set up a regiem that was not any better? You see the problem, don't you? Replacing Nazis with Soviets is replacing being eaten by a shark to being bitten by a rattle snake.

Nonsense, pure nonsense. Comparing nazis to communists in that sense is idiotics, as communists tended to make far less casualties *per year*. Yes, I'm sure the casualty numbers are higher, especially under Stalin's rule, but overall you'll find the communsit had a softer touch than nazis. That doesn't make them perfect, but it does make them better.

Still, despite the fact that they did work very hard to get rid of a 'racist and imperialist regime', their works created a regiem that was violently anti-clerical and depended upon a violent secret police service to maintain stability, then collapsed into one of the most violent national collapses in recent memory.

OH NOEZ IT WAS ANTI-CLERICAL?!!?!?!? Hint: a lot of political movements from the 18th century onwards were anti-clerical. That means exactly dick-shit.

Again, the commie secret police does not compare to the practices of the nazi empire.

And arguing a regime is bad because its collapse was violent is too retarded to even think up a counterargument to.

Guffaw. No Communist ever died for me. I'm the living, breathing epitomy of almost everything Communists fought against: I'm the child of a well to do borgoise man, I'm an American, I am EXTREMLEY religious and I'm patriotic.

You're also a moron. Millions of SU citizens fought under the Communist flag to defeat both the nazis and the Japanese. Your ingratitude to them shows you are little more than the kind of spoiled capitalist child they would despise. Perhaps they shouldn't have, perhaps they should've made peace with the nazis (by removing Hitler or not) somewhere during the war, doubling up on the US. Guess where you'd be then right now, huh?

 

[John Uskglass]

I'm sure the SU couldn't have won without the US. Same goes for the US, though

Probably.

Not really his points. Communists in principle are less nationalist and racist than other political ideoligies, though this kind of attitude has been betrayed on several counts, most noteable of which is the Great War propaganda of Stalin.

Non, non, Liberalism is simply not racist, even if it did have a tendancy to help out Nationalism. Also, modern Liberalism is about as international as you get: it's certainly more international then modern Social Democracy.

He's right, autogenicide isn't inherent of communism.

Killing mass numbers of people is, and that's autogenocide. Eradicating the upper class=autogenocide. Not to mention Trotskyite-Maoist 'Permanent Revolution' ideals.

Nonsense, pure nonsense. Comparing nazis to communists in that sense is idiotics, as communists tended to make far less casualties *per year*. Yes, I'm sure the casualty numbers are higher, especially under Stalin's rule, but overall you'll find the communsit had a softer touch than nazis. That doesn't make them perfect, but it does make them better.

*per year* seems kind of silly, as the Nazis knew they where collapsing after 13 years of rule under their most insane ruler. If Stalin had been in control under the military collapse of Russia, I don't want to think about what could have happened.

Also, I think you might be wrong on the *per year* thing, at least in the beggining of the two ideologies, when you include the man-made famine in Ukraine.

Also, you are forgetting that Hungary, Romania and Slovakia where Fascistic, and I think it's pretty likely less people where killed by their Fascist regiem then by their Warsaw-Pact regiem.

OH NOEZ IT WAS ANTI-CLERICAL?!!?!?!? Hint: a lot of political movements from the 18th century onwards were anti-clerical. That means exactly dick-shit.

Again, the commie secret police does not compare to the practices of the nazi empire.

I said violently anti-clerical Kharn. And I find it remarkably petty of you to mock anti-clerical violence of the era; there are still monastaries with oversized graveyards from the Russian Civil War.

And arguing a regime is bad because its collapse was violent is too retarded to even think up a counterargument to.

It was weak and therefore it broke up and broke up hard. That's certainly fair enough; if Yugoslavia had had a strong, economicly open regiem during Tito's reign, things could have been diffirent.

You're also a moron. Millions of SU citizens fought under the Communist flag to defeat both the nazis and the Japanese. Your ingratitude to them shows you are little more than the kind of spoiled capitalist child they would despise. Perhaps they shouldn't have, perhaps they should've made peace with the nazis (by removing Hitler or not) somewhere during the war, doubling up on the US. Guess where you'd be then right now, huh?

Millions died against the Japanese?

No, I don't think I show any lack of gratitude towards the Russian war veternas and dead of World War II. They where strong people who lived through difficult times, seeing 80% of their male population dead by war or act of totalitarian government. But they where as much victums of the Stalin regiem as of the Nazis, and they did not fight for me or my country or my ideology.

In that sense, I make a retractment: certain people did fight very hard for a rightious cause under a Red Flag, but I still do not think many people's fates where that better off.

 

[Bradylama]

The Russians saved the world from the Nazis and the United States saved the world from the Russians.

How different would post-war Europe look like had we never entered the war? Would Britain be the only free nation of the Old-World?

Arguing over who-beat-who is trivializing a culmination of events that could not have occurred without each other.

Could the Russians have beaten Hitler if the Allies didn't open new fronts in Italy and France? Probably. But one more gun in the right place can determine the fate of nations. This whole discussion path is pointless.

 

[Hovercar Madness]

Killing mass numbers of people is, and that's autogenocide. Eradicating the upper class=autogenocide. Not to mention Trotskyite-Maoist 'Permanent Revolution' ideals.

What? Where in gods name does any marxist theorist call for the eradication of the upper class?

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

It was weak and therefore it broke up and broke up hard. That's certainly fair enough; if Yugoslavia had had a strong, economicly open regiem during Tito's reign, things could have been diffirent.

 

[Bradylama]

What? Where in gods name does any marxist theorist call for the eradication of the upper class?

Well, there's Marx for one.

The problem with a Worker's Revolution is that somebody has to get put on the cutting block. And since the oppressor is seen as the Boss Man, guess who that is?

 

[Hovercar Madness]

Well, there's Marx for one.

Can't remember hearing Marx calling for the eradication of anyone. Engels was a factory owner, which would make this claim very masochistic to boot.

The problem with a Worker's Revolution is that somebody has to get put on the cutting block

That's a very strange way of reasoning. A change of power does not necessitate the eradication of the ancien regime. When a company is nationalized this doesn't automatically involve wiping out the previous owners.

Marxist economic theory is based around the fact that factory owners do not add value to the product made in said factory, and are therefor not needed. Does this involve killing them? I fail to see the historic reference in this matter. Perhaps the closest thing was Stalin collectivisation of kulak farms and widespread killing when they wouldn't comply, but accusing a state of genocide when getting rid of "criminals" (crime is really a matter of interpretation in any case) is rather silly. Besides, most capital fled after the revolution anyway, and probably moved to america where they had libertarian grandchildren.

 

[Bradylama]

Revolutions occur when the "lower-humans" can no longer tolerate the conduct of those in power. Since the wealthy have all of the power in the conditions necessary to precipitate a Worker's Revolution, they aren't going to easily give it up. The solution then, is to seize it from them, forcefully. In many cases this requires a bloody coup by the proletariat.

The wealthy become disenfranchised and incapable of living in the absolute equality of a Marxist world. They will either dissent, or flee the country.

The Romanovs weren't asked nicely to step out of the limelight, they were murdered by the Bolsheviks.

The eradication of the Bourgeoise by any means necessary is the first step of Marxism. Whether or not Engels owned a factory is besides the point, since in the case of a Marxist revolution, he would give up his factory, as opposed to being murdered or deported.

 

[welsh]

Well John, I will say this about the communist regimes- they were a nasty bunch. Look at most of the communist countries around the world and you'll find some bloody hands. Those in Europe don't compare to some of the authoritarian- communists that came to power in Africa (Ethiopia?) or Asia (Cambodia).

Though in many of those situations one can question how Marxists or Communist those regimes actually were. Cult of Personalities don't really fit Worker's Paradises.

But perhaps part of the problem is that you are combining cause and effect a bit too closely.

The motivation for why people fight in a revolution or a rebellion or against an imperial conqueror need not be for the regime that may one day replace that which was removed.

Did all the Yugolsavs who fought against the Nazis want a authoriatarian regime under Tito (who despite his neutrality was very partial to Stalin)? Did all the revolutaries fighting against military strongmen fight in order to become russian satellites or just for a better world? Did the Vietnamese peasants fight for a communist dictatorship under Ho, or did they fight for nationalism and land reform?

Similar in the Civil War- most southerners who fought for the South were not fighting to protect slaves they didn't own, but on some vague notion of "states rights" they usually didn't understand, as well as to protect their homelands. (Oh and posting a link to a insurance broker who is probably a Jackson apologetic, is silly. You wouldn't believe the Virginians who revise history for their hero worship).

What motivates a person to fight in a revolution (driven my an immediate goal of removing something they think is bad) might not be the same thing as fighting for a long-term goal (the creation of another "bad" regime).

Go back and look at the revolutions of the 20th century and most of them were Marxist or Maoist insurgencies. Why? Because the communist systems provided a organization blueprint for successful revolution. It was able to link political and military goals effectively- it created and sustained committed cadres and enforced discipline within the rank and file. And it was a tried and successful method by which a committed few could overthrow a tyrant.

Add that to a mind-set that a person often believes what they want to believe, that they see "truth" through their own perceptions of what truth is or what truth should be, and than add the basic ego issue that people don't like to be wrong- and you have a lot of folks believing that communism is better than the brutal authoritarianism that they currently live under.

I would think that if you look back at many of the revolutions of the 20th century, you might find that many of the revolutionaries were disillusioned after the revolutions success. They had fought to create a better world and to a certain degree they succeeded in defeating one particular tyranny only to find they have replaced him with another.

You may be mistaking the cause and the effect. The reason many of these people fought was because of something immediate- to fight against tyranny, imperialism, land-reform, repression. Often they used communist ideologies to help them stay organized and committed and perhaps because those were the only viable rebels out there.

That the leaders of those revolutions created repressive authoritarians might have more to do with the access of those leaders to power more than an commitment to ideology. YOu have many regimes that come to power in different ways- through liberal elections, military coups or worker revolutions, and once in power the leader uses his new power to insulate and seize personalize power, creating for himself a new authoritarian regime.

Whether a person becomes an authoritarian strongman may have less to do with particular ideologies than the ability of ruling elites to monopolize power. If that (the ability to monopolize power) is a more valid cause, perhaps the problem with communist revolutions is that they made the monopolization of power easier.


But here again be careful- Say what you will about Russian Communism but you are talking about a country that emerged from world war 2 a devestated country and emerged to be one of the two superpowers of the 20th century. Much of that had to do with using surplus labor, but still- that's an accomplishment not to be sneezed at. Whereas Tito used secret police and repression against nationalism, for his reign he kept Yugoslavia together and not in another round of bloodletting. Would Cuba be such a mess but for the US embargo- and why the embargo- becaue Castro nationalized US assets when it was US assets that supported Batista.

 

[Hovercar Madness]

Revolutions occur when the "lower-humans" can no longer tolerate the conduct of those in power. Since the wealthy have all of the power in the conditions necessary to precipitate a Worker's Revolution, they aren't going to easily give it up. The solution then, is to seize it from them, forcefully. In many cases this requires a bloody coup by the proletariat.

I concur with most of what you say, but you claim this mostly requires a "bloody coup". The october/november revolution was almost entirely without violence. The civil war started by the whites however....

The Romanovs weren't asked nicely to step out of the limelight, they were murdered by the Bolsheviks.

Yes, when whites were close to liberating the captured czar they were killed by the reds as a precaution. You could call this a wrong call, but policy it was not.

The eradication of the Bourgeoise by any means necessary is the first step of Marxism. Whether or not Engels owned a factory is besides the point, since in the case of a Marxist revolution, he would give up his factory, as opposed to being murdered or deported.

Eradication. Auto-genocide. Strange terms for a wholy different method. The clergical and bourgeois powerstructure was to be dismantled to be replaced by the dictatorship of the proletariat. Stripping someone of their power doesn't mean they "have" to resist. Call it a simple change of judiciary system. Several forms of property are outlawed, don't comply with the law, then Stalin not happy.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Well, Kharn and Welsh addressed John's posts quite well. I have a few things to add, though.

USSR would have lost without the UK, USA, France and the other Western Allies. Heck, the Soviets would have lost without the Italian difficulties in the Greek campaign.

That's very doubtful. In fact, I'm certain USSR would have won without any US aid. They won the key victories months before the States joined the war in Europe and launched the invasion of North Africa.

Now who is confusing Socialism with Communism? If anything, in most countries Communism delayed these reforms: see Latin America and the United States, where such things where written off as 'communism', while Socialism still had an okay reputation.

By Marx's definition, socialism a system that predates communism - an intermediate stage of workers' dictatorship that is supposed to follow the revolution. In practice, true communism was never realized - all countries that we refer to as communist were in fact socialist, and terms socialism and communism are used synonymously. That socialism is perceived better than communism by Americans is ironic - it is in socialism that redistribution of wealth and destruction of the upper classes occurs. Communism is an advanced stage of equality, prosperity and eudaimonia, that was never attained.

French Republic got rid of Slavery and later segregation before Socialism, let alone Communism exsisted. One again, Communism slowed down these reforms in several areas: the South African Whites used the excuse Blacks !=Marxists pretty often.

Communism as an ideology is strictly egalitarian and rejects any notion of racial or ethnic segregation. Most communist regimes adhered to that principle quite rigorously, Yugoslavia being a fine example.

Gravity is'nt a law, it does'nt happen ALL the time, just every single time anything falls or is in space.

It is. Even Tito had it's brazen, violent anti-clericalism and the UDBA.

Killing mass numbers of people is, and that's autogenocide. Eradicating the upper class=autogenocide. Not to mention Trotskyite-Maoist 'Permanent Revolution' ideals.

No, it isn't. It was practiced by individual regimes of USSR, China and several other countries. Most communist countries never practiced autogenocide. I know you Americans are very attached to your suburban houses and SUVs, but nationalizing property *isn't* autogenocide. Marxist ideology doesn't condone genocide in any form - unlike nazism, which is genocidal at its core.

For the record, I strongly approve of Tito's anti-clericalism. Church has no business sticking its nose into affairs of the state and society.

And then continued to set up a regiem that was not any better? You see the problem, don't you? Replacing Nazis with Soviets is replacing being eaten by a shark to being bitten by a rattle snake.

What do *you* know about the socialist regime in Yugoslavia? Though repressive, it brought unprecedented equality, prosperity and safety. Over 80% of my fellow countrymen look back at it with nostalgy. To compare it to the preceding nazifascist puppet regime that conducted systematic genocide of hundreds of thousands of people is both insulting and moronic.

Three? Wow.

Four, actually, but one was a member of the ustashe militia.

Still, despite the fact that they did work very hard to get rid of a 'racist and imperialist regime', their works created a regiem that was violently anti-clerical and depended upon a violent secret police service to maintain stability, then collapsed into one of the most violent national collapses in recent memory.

It was weak and therefore it broke up and broke up hard. That's certainly fair enough; if Yugoslavia had had a strong, economicly open regiem during Tito's reign, things could have been diffirent.

Bullshit. Yugoslavia had one of the least repressive forms of socialism in the history. The secret police you speak of had barely a thousand members and was employed only against ultranationalist terrorists and Informbiro agents which abounded from the day the regime rose to power and all sought to overthrow the regime and replace it each with their own flavor of totalitarism. In the end, it was *absence* of Tito's strong-arm leadership that led to collapse and ethnic conflicts. The '80s establishment simply wasn't strong or competent enough to contain ethnic tensions, which were further fueled by deep economic crisis. Had Tito been alive, Yugoslavia would have survived and probably undergone a profound economic transformation like China or Cuba.

And anti-clericalism is a good thing. Fuck priests, too bad no-one persecutes their pedophilic asses anymore.

Guffaw. No Communist ever died for me. I'm the living, breathing epitomy of almost everything Communists fought against: I'm the child of a well to do borgoise man, I'm an American, I am EXTREMLEY religious and I'm patriotic.

No, I don't think I show any lack of gratitude towards the Russian war veternas and dead of World War II. They where strong people who lived through difficult times, seeing 80% of their male population dead by war or act of totalitarian government. But they where as much victums of the Stalin regiem as of the Nazis, and they did not fight for me or my country or my ideology.

Well, that's a fine example of bigoted, obstinate idiocy if I ever saw one. Red Army soldiers and Croatian, Polish, French and Italian partizans fought for good of the entire world. Unless members of your family were Nazis, you owe them your gratitude as much as anyone.

True, some Communists did die for a good cause, like defeating the Nazis, but most of them fought to replace it with something just as bad.

Simply put, you are wrong and example of Yugoslavia alone proves it.

Also, you are forgetting that Hungary, Romania and Slovakia where Fascistic, and I think it's pretty likely less people where killed by their Fascist regiem then by their Warsaw-Pact regiem.

If you don't count extermination of all Jews, Gypsies and other minorities, then yeah, fascist puppet regimes were a-okay.

 

[John Uskglass]

That's very doubtful. In fact, I'm certain USSR would have won without any US aid. They won the key victories months before the States joined the war in Europe and launched the invasion of North Africa.

Operation Torch was on November 8th, 1942, at which point the German Army controlled 80% of the city of Stalingrad.

By Marx's definition, socialism a system that predates communism - an intermediate stage of workers' dictatorship that is supposed to follow the revolution. In practice, true communism was never realized - all countries that we refer to as communist were in fact socialist, and terms socialism and communism are used synonymously. That socialism is perceived better than communism by Americans is ironic - it is in socialism that redistribution of wealth and destruction of the upper classes occurs. Communism is an advanced stage of equality, prosperity and eudaimonia, that was never attained.

Socialism in the American mind is easily confued with Social Democracy (with good reason). Socialists you are talking about=Communists.

And I don't really give two solitary shits what Marx talked about, really. The material world is what mattered in his philosophy, not thought (mother of all ironies), thus I see no reason to judge his ideology by ideas, but rather by results.

Communism as an ideology is strictly egalitarian and rejects any notion of racial or ethnic segregation. Most communist regimes adhered to that principle quite rigorously, Yugoslavia being a fine example.

Cuba's homophobia, the USSR's wars in the Caucases and Central Asia (even seen Ivan the Terrible?), China's intolerance of Muslims, Tibetans, Manchurians and a half dozen other minorities, etc....there was MORE ethnic conflict in the Warsaw Pact then in NATO.

No, it isn't. It was practiced by individual regimes of USSR, China and several other countries. Most communist countries never practiced autogenocide. I know you Americans are very attached to your suburban houses and SUVs, but nationalizing property *isn't* autogenocide. Marxist ideology doesn't condone genocide in any form - unlike nazism, which is genocidal at its core.

Make that Democratic Kampuchea, Vietnam, the USSR, China, Laos, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Cuba, the Shining Path...that's actually almost all the Communist world.

For the record, I strongly approve of Tito's anti-clericalism. Church has no business sticking its nose into affairs of the state and society.

There's a diffirence between a seperation of Chruch and State and Ever Hoxha/Menshevik like violence. Tito was not on the good side.

Well, that's a fine example of bigoted, obstinate idiocy if I ever saw one. Red Army soldiers and Croatian, Polish, French and Italian partizans fought for good of the entire world. Unless members of your family were Nazis, you owe them your gratitude as much as anyone.

A lot of Partisans where not Communists, you know that.

They did not fight for me, my country or my ideology. They helped out against the Nazis, but they fought as much for worldwide Communist revolution, something I would fight to the death against, as would almost all of my countrymen.

The USSR's war against the Nazis was not a crusade of ideologies but a war against extermination. If it really was a war of ideologies with the rightious Soviets against the evil Nazis, how the fuck do you explain the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

Simply put, you are wrong and example of Yugoslavia alone proves it.

You know, I don't even know if Tito really counts as a communist. His belief in Market Socialism is pretty goddamn un-Marxist, and he was'nt a member of the Warsaw Pact. You said yourself he was essentially a closeted ally of Nato.

If you don't count extermination of all Jews, Gypsies and other minorities, then yeah, fascist puppet regimes were a-okay.

The Nazis exterminated the Gypsies, Jews, Homosexuals, dissident preists, etc...before 1944, thousands of Jews where able to flee to Fascist Hungary because the regiem was more tolerant (sadly, this ended when Germany essentially took control).

The Soviets and the Nazis where simply not that diffirent, especially under Stalin and Hitler. If Stalin's regiem was crumbiling under outside pressure in the 30's, I have no doubt that if he had the infrastructure he would have sped up his autogenocide to rates that compare, if not surpass, the Nazi regiem. Simply put, it should be obvious: the Nazi's 'Final Solution' was the desperate plan of an insane regiem that knew it was going to fail, although it had been setting up camps like Dachau in case. The pre-exsisting Gulag system would essentially work like Dachau if Stalin fell.

There's a book you should read Ratty, it's excellent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Book_of_Communism

 

[Sander]

If you don't count extermination of all Jews, Gypsies and other minorities, then yeah, fascist puppet regimes were a-okay.

Fascism is not the same as Nazism, Fascism is a general form of government, while Nazism is the German-specific form of fascism that sought the extermination of, amongst others, all the Jews.

Please, don't confuse Fascism and Nazism, they are two different things, and Fascism should not be judged on the banes of Nazism, but on it's own banes.

And I don't really give two solitary shits what Marx talked about, really. The material world is what mattered in his philosophy, not thought (mother of all ironies), thus I see no reason to judge his ideology by ideas, but rather by results.

Well, his object was to change the material world into something better, and he obviously thought this could best be done through material actions. However, this doesn't mean that these are the results he craved for or pleaded for, in fact they're far from it, and methinks you know it. He wanted to surpass the stage communist regimes have up till now have been stuck at (or passed, for the worse) and make the world pass into an entirely different phase of more anarchist-like sharing of all goods.
If you look at it point-blank, then, you are saying 'People have extremely poorly tried to implement what Marx wanted and they failed at it. Hence Marx' ideas (and, as I seem to remember you claiming, Marx himself, I might be wrong, though) suck huge donke balls.' which seems skewed, at least.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Operation Torch was on November 8th, 1942, at which point the German Army controlled 80% of the city of Stalingrad.

You overestimate significance of that operation. Firstly, the decisive blow to Germans in North Africa was dealt by Brits in October 1942 at El Alamein. Secondly, as forces Germans had deployed in Africa were negligible compared to what they were losing in USSR, the consequences of the defeat wouldn't be felt until 1944, when oil shortage turned into the most crippling factor for the German military. It was in 1943 that the tide of the war was irreversibly turned by two decisive battles - Stalingrad and Kursk.

Cuba's homophobia, the USSR's wars in the Caucases and Central Asia (even seen Ivan the Terrible?), China's intolerance of Muslims, Tibetans, Manchurians and a half dozen other minorities, etc....there was MORE ethnic conflict in the Warsaw Pact then in NATO.

USSR and China were/are both imperialist superpowers first and socialist countries second. In most other countries there was little friction between various ethnicities or persecutions based on ethnicity. Again I name socialist Yugoslavia as an example of a federation that encompassed nations which had been enemies for most of their recent history, yet remained very stable and peaceful for the entire duration of Tito's reign.

Make that Democratic Kampuchea, Vietnam, the USSR, China, Laos, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Cuba, the Shining Path...that's actually almost all the Communist world.

Cuba? I don't see how it was autogenocidal. OK, so Che killed a bunch of people in early days of the Castro regime. Compared to Lenin's purges in 1918-1921 and Khmer Rouge rise to power, the Cuban revolution was actually benign. Hell, even Tito's regime was responsible for quite a bit of blooshed in the period between 1945 and 1950s, but to call it autogenocidal would be a serious overstatement. Same goes for most European socialist regimes.

There's a diffirence between a seperation of Chruch and State and Ever Hoxha/Menshevik like violence. Tito was not on the good side.

What? He just confiscated Church property and put a few priests behind bars. Said property was obtained through centuries of usurpation of secular power and said priests were suspected of collaborating with the puppet regime in WWII. *I* would have done the same. Other than that, the regime was relatively tolerant of people's religious needs - everyone was allowed go to church and celebrate religious holidays openly, but at the cost of being able to build a career in politics.

You know, I don't even know if Tito really counts as a communist. His belief in Market Socialism is pretty goddamn un-Marxist, and he was'nt a member of the Warsaw Pact. You said yourself he was essentially a closeted ally of Nato.

Tito was a sly player. He did what was needed to make Yugoslavia strong, independent and prosperous, even if it meant saying no to Stalin, entering favorable agreements with western powers and liberalizing the economy. But nonetheless, Yugoslavia was socialist through and through.

The Soviets and the Nazis where simply not that diffirent, especially under Stalin and Hitler. If Stalin's regiem was crumbiling under outside pressure in the 30's, I have no doubt that if he had the infrastructure he would have sped up his autogenocide to rates that compare, if not surpass, the Nazi regiem. Simply put, it should be obvious: the Nazi's 'Final Solution' was the desperate plan of an insane regiem that knew it was going to fail, although it had been setting up camps like Dachau in case. The pre-exsisting Gulag system would essentially work like Dachau if Stalin fell.

They were different in sense that Nazis had genocide of all non-Aryan races in planning since the conception of the ideology, while Soviet crimes were work of a paranoid madman and his goons who were willing to do *anything* to stay in power. Make no mistake, I despise everything Stalin did, either. Even if it weren't for the small fact that his regime committed one of the most massive genocides in the history, I would still hold Stalin's USSR in great antipathy for the way they treated their allies. If you recall, Soviet Union was *enemy* of Tito's Yugoslavia, because under the guise of socialist revolution, Soviets imposed their imperialist interests upon all countries of the eastern block (rejecting Stalin was probably the best political move Tito ever made). But my point still stands - Nazism and Communism are completely different in nature, and Communism as an ideology doesn't advocate genocide.

 

[Brother None]

Operation Torch was on November 8th, 1942, at which point the German Army controlled 80% of the city of Stalingrad.

...

And the Americans kicked them out and retook Stalingrad?

Socialism in the American mind is easily confued with Social Democracy (with good reason). Socialists you are talking about=Communists.

Whoa, hey, WHOOOOAAAA, HORSEY! Back up there.

Socialism = a non-democratic, anti-capitalist movement that goes back to Marx and Engels, though most popular versions are based on adaptation made by Lenin, Trotski, Mao and occasionally Stalin

Social Democray = a democratic, capitalist movement that stems from the Social Reforms of the late 19th and early 20th century, noticeably Bismarck's Laws of 1883-1889 and Britain's following Social Welfare Acts of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and H.H. Asquith, suchs as the Trade Boards Act against 'sweating' of 1909, the Shops Act of 1911, the National Insurance Act of 1911, but which most noticeably grew nuder F.D. Roosevelt in the States and following European governments that took over his example in (Western) Europe.

And I don't really give two solitary shits what Marx talked about, really. The material world is what mattered in his philosophy, not thought (mother of all ironies), thus I see no reason to judge his ideology by ideas, but rather by results.

But then you're not longer judging his ideology, your judging people's adaptation of his ideology.

Can you see the difference?

even seen Ivan the Terrible

...Grozny was a communist? Must've been a time-travelling communist, then

But my point still stands - Nazism and Communism are completely different in nature, and Communism as an ideology doesn't advocate genocide.

I don't think John understands this, you might almost as well quit.

Unless we should start judging the auto-genicidal capitalist regimes in the world's history. I mean, even the French Revolution, the American Revolution and Civil War, the Boer War and other gems of Western history, we're still stuck with the Taliban, current Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc.

"Yes, but not all of them are auto-genicidal." That's because some of them are democratic. Maybe democracy is the answer to it all, but democracy isn't the opposite of communism.

Also, Johnny-boy:
Russian Civil War (1917-22): 9 000 000
Soviet Union, Stalin's regime (1924-53): 20 000 000
HITLER TOTAL: Courtois: 25,000,000 (between 15 million and 35 million)

Ignoring post-Stalin numbers, which only makes the comparison better for you, that's 29 million deaths in 36 years for the Russian communists, and 25 million deaths for Hitler in 8 years. Or .8 million deaths a year for the communists and 3.1 million deaths a year for the nazis.

If you want me to bring other communists into the equasions we're going to have to equalise for population numbers.

 

[Hovercar Madness]

...Grozny was a communist? Must've been a time-travelling communist, then

I take it he's referring to the second "Ivan the Terrible" film Eisenstein made after the war, which he used as a personal critique of Stalin (Grozny gets all paranoyed and purges stuff). Though was this has to do with genocide in the caucasus we can only begin to imagine.

On the issue of Stalingrad, I always found the view that Hitler lost the war when he didn't manage to capture Moscow in the autumn of '41 more plausible. Hitler faced his first defeats in the war and was faced with the disastrous "winter in Russia" scenario. Stalingrad may have had strategic and symbolic importance, but a turning point it was not.

Also, Johnny-boy:
Russian Civil War (1917-22): 9 000 000
Soviet Union, Stalin's regime (1924-53): 20 000 000
HITLER TOTAL: Courtois: 25,000,000 (between 15 million and 35 million)

It might also be worth mentioning that during Jeltsin's first year in power one million unnatural deaths occured, which was more than Stalin managed during the peak of the purges in '33/'34. Jeltsin for teh win.