Che=Rabid, Sociopathic Killer

[John Uskglass]

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.

The first shows the Tartars as being mindless, genocidal sub-human Asiatics: ironically, very close to the way the Germans portrayed the Russians in film.

The USSR had more rascism then most of the west during it's entire exsistance.

And the Americans kicked them out and retook Stalingrad?

They diverted German material and manpower and leadership to North Africa and got attention off the Russians.

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

Dude, not what I meant, I know there is a diffirence, a pretty big one. My point is that Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists can both be called Socialists, making it pretty damn confusing.

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

Can you see the difference?

I could, if there where one or two bad apples. But as it is, every apple is bad.

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.

The French revolution works as Autogenocide, but not that many died during the Civil War compared to the Napoleonic Wars or the Russian Civil War.

"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.

Totalitarianism is the opposite, and practical Communism is totalitarianism.

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.

I've already adressed this. If the Soviets where collapsing like Hitler's regiem, we would have seen a similar rate of autogenocide. And he already killed more.

And it's mighty cute of you to equalize population numbers for China but not for the Reich: the Germans killed 25 million from all over Europe, Lenin and Stalin killed 29 Million from the USSR.

Also, if you want to compare numbers relitivley, Democratic Kampuchea takes the gold.

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

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.

The fact that you are both arguing who is more "evil" based upon the sheer scale of people they killed is, frankly, disgusting. Who the fuck cares whether one of them killed more people than the other? Does it have to conform to some arbitrary notion of "Well, you were killed by the less evil regime, because they only killed 800k a year, not 3100k." Both regimes were horrid, grow the fuck up people, seriously. It is pretty damn morbid to me.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

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

Nope. One of the fundamental qualities of socialism (as proposed by Marx) is that it's a democratic system. However, unlike liberal democracy most countries have nowadays, socialist concept of democracy recognizes will of the majority above rights of an individual - that's why it's called dictatorship of the proletariat. If the system was designed to protect individual rights, then property rights too would be unassailable and redistribution of wealth would be impossible.

 

[Brother None]

The USSR had more rascism then most of the west during it's entire exsistance.

The West? During the West's entire existance? All the slaughters, colonialism, crusades, wars against people that talk kind of funny? Thcyeah.

They diverted German material and manpower and leadership to North Africa and got attention off the Russians.

A bit of attention, sure, but not exactly all of it.

Dude, not what I meant, I know there is a diffirence, a pretty big one. My point is that Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists can both be called Socialists, making it pretty damn confusing.

Not really, because in the modern world, 'cept for former USSR sattelites, socialist is simply social democrat, because socialists in the Marxist term just don't exist anymore. Why? Because most non-communist countries have been spoon-fed propaganda for so long that that stacks up with realism (reality being that communism sucks), meaning most communist parties are insignificant by this point

Except in former USSR countries

I could, if there where one or two bad apples. But as it is, every apple is bad.

Nonsense, there's little wrong with the Marxian ideology that isn't wrong with Smith's invisible Hammer of Smiting Poor People +2

The French revolution works as Autogenocide, but not that many died during the Civil War compared to the Napoleonic Wars or the Russian Civil War.

Tally-ho!

Totalitarianism is the opposite, and practical Communism is totalitarianism.

One could argue as much. Ratty probably wouldn't

I've already adressed this. If the Soviets where collapsing like Hitler's regiem, we would have seen a similar rate of autogenocide. And he already killed more.

And it's mighty cute of you to equalize population numbers for China but not for the Reich: the Germans killed 25 million from all over Europe, Lenin and Stalin killed 29 Million from the USSR.

I ignored numbers there because they're too hard to get. The USSR was a fairly stable lap of land, 'cept for the Civil War and WWII shifts, but Germany was expanding and collapsing pretty fast, it'll be pretty hard to get exact numbers on that.

Also, "if the soviets" were is a kind of non-argument unless you can look into alternate realities. Remember that in the end the Soviets *were* collapsing and Gorbachev never applied auto-genicide.

It is pretty damn morbid to me.

Good thing that I don't care.

To think that somehow, by your logic, the recent floods in Ukraine (uhm, I think) killing 5 people is morally as terrible as all the people that died in the Indonesian floods seems pretty childish to me. I mean, seriously, what kind of world-view holds it that all evils are equal?

Nope. One of the fundamental qualities of socialism (as proposed by Marx) is that it's a democratic system. However, unlike liberal democracy most countries have nowadays, socialist concept of democracy recognizes will of the majority above rights of an individual - that's why it's called dictatorship of the proletariat. If the system was designed to protect individual rights, then property rights too would be unassailable and redistribution of wealth would be impossible.

Democracy equals liberal representative democracy in the same sense that social democracy equates socialism. Excuse me for short-cutting again, should've been more exact.

 

[John Uskglass]

The West? During the West's entire existance? All the slaughters, colonialism, crusades, wars against people that talk kind of funny? Thcyeah.

The USSR, nucklehead.

A bit of attention, sure, but not exactly all of it.

Lord no.

Not really, because in the modern world, 'cept for former USSR sattelites, socialist is simply social democrat, because socialists in the Marxist term just don't exist anymore. Why? Because most non-communist countries have been spoon-fed propaganda for so long that that stacks up with realism (reality being that communism sucks), meaning most communist parties are insignificant by this point

Except in former USSR countries

So, it's a rule that applies throughout the modern world (a modern world that started 20 years ago), and does not apply to probably the biggest hotbeds of Socialist parties? See? It's kind of confusing mate.

Nonsense, there's little wrong with the Marxian ideology that isn't wrong with Smith's invisible Hammer of Smiting Poor People +2

Mebbe the fact that it never worked anywhere, irregardless of how many people attempted to reform it? I mean, come on, Smith's capitalism dominates the Globe, while Communsm is a one word joke.

I ignored numbers there because they're too hard to get. The USSR was a fairly stable lap of land, 'cept for the Civil War and WWII shifts, but Germany was expanding and collapsing pretty fast, it'll be pretty hard to get exact numbers on that.

Also, "if the soviets" were is a kind of non-argument unless you can look into alternate realities. Remember that in the end the Soviets *were* collapsing and Gorbachev never applied auto-genicide.

Come on. Gorbachev was not as batshit as Stalin, nor did he set up the regiem. If Stalin's regiem was collapsing, he would have gone Batshit.

But I have to say, I think FB has a point, this is kind of morbid.

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

No, it isn't morally as terrible as what had occured. Sad yes, but calling actions of nature morally wrong is utterly stupid.

Now to the comparison between the numbers of deaths. You have a pretty fucked up value of what is right or wrong. Is it like cards, where killing "'counter-revolutionaries' beats a 'killing Jews'? It doesn't take a frigging genius to relize that both are morally reprehensible, Kharn. Maybe you are a bit too jaded in your isolated socialist state, but some people do give a shit about what is morally right and wrong. Adding up numbers is hardly the best way to go about determining what is good and bad. It is a good thing your own little myopic view on life doesn't determine global policy either, because, by that argument, a war is always more "evil" than anything approximating murder or genocide. After all, more people are killed in the war than the genocide, so why not allow it?

Disgusting.

 

[Brother None]

So, it's a rule that applies throughout the modern world (a modern world that started 20 years ago), and does not apply to probably the biggest hotbeds of Socialist parties? See? It's kind of confusing mate.

"modern"? I dunno, I'm pretty sure it applies to most of South America and Africa too, don't want to be calling those donkeyfuckahs modern. Zeehays!

That said, it's not that confusing if you actually live in a country that has anything other than just a right wing or just a left wing.

Mebbe the fact that it never worked anywhere, irregardless of how many people attempted to reform it? I mean, come on, Smith's capitalism dominates the Globe, while Communsm is a one word joke.

Smith's capitalism has not been applied directly anywhere on the Globe. In that sense it's as big a failure as Marx's communism. Neither have been adapted directly, both have been adapted.

Maybe it's not inherent of communism to cause trouble wherever it's adapted but rather it is inherent of communism to be adapted in places likely to have trouble? It's hard to say if communism really did much "bad" for Russia, considering the long line of psychopath Czars.

Come on. Gorbachev was not as batshit as Stalin, nor did he set up the regiem. If Stalin's regiem was collapsing, he would have gone Batshit.

Stalin was also one of a number of heads that the USSR has had, no sense equating him with Russian communism.

But I have to say, I think FB has a point, this is kind of morbid.

I think morbid used as a term to cut off any sensible discussion is as pointless as bringing in nazis. I don't care if it's morbid or not, that's how history works.

No, it isn't morally as terrible as what had occured. Sad yes, but calling actions of nature morally wrong is utterly stupid.

Morally terrible isn't morally wrong. It's like morally reprehensible, you see.

Now to the comparison between the numbers of deaths. You have a pretty fucked up value of what is right or wrong. Is it like cards, where killing "'counter-revolutionaries' beats a 'killing Jews'? It doesn't take a frigging genius to relize that both are morally reprehensible, Kharn. Maybe you are a bit too jaded in your isolated socialist state, but some people do give a shit about what is morally right and wrong. Adding up numbers is hardly the best way to go about determining what is good and bad. It is a good thing your own little myopic view on life doesn't determine global policy either, because, by that argument, a war is always more "evil" than anything approximating murder or genocide. After all, more people are killed in the war than the genocide, so why not allow it?

The Netherlands is not a socialist state, try to keep up to date, will you, we've been run by neo-liberalist (as in right-wing) capitalists for more than 10 years now.

Funny, though, did I note anywhere that both aren't morally reprehensible? Do you even understand why I posted those numbers, flat-out and cold? It's just a part of the argument, it wasn't meant as an end-all be-all. Stop stuffing words in my mouth.

History doesnt work at all like that Kharn. The number of deaths never implied who was moral or immoral in a war, the perspective of the winner did. That is a relatively recent phenomena. Ouch, my historically-accurate mind aches with such blasphemy!

The perspective of the winner? Talk about historically inaccurate! The perspective of the winner means that victory determines history, this means that the victor is always good. There might've been many turns and twists in history that would've had a different outcome and a different world, how's that for morally reprehensible?

Is colonizing the United States wrong because it slaughtered the Indians or right because it led to a bright new future for millions?

Hell, history has taken many twists like this, a lot of them more subtle. In its history mankind had to defeat many other humanoïds in the struggle to survive, either absorbing them or being one of the causes of its extermination in one form of another. Morally reprehensible, sure, but I don't think modern man would've wanted it another way? Surely not, as we wouldn't exist.

Morals is a part of who wins. No, this isn't moral relativism, because I still believe in a certain set of morals, I also think past victories have led us to adopt morals that I consider wrong, just as they've led us to adopt some we consider right. Nothing I can do about it, it's the victors call.

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

History doesnt work at all like that Kharn. The number of deaths never implied who was moral or immoral in a war, the perspective of the winner did. That is a relatively recent phenomena. Ouch, my historically-accurate mind aches with such blasphemy!

 

[Brother None]

History doesnt work at all like that Kharn. The number of deaths never implied who was moral or immoral in a war, the perspective of the winner did. That is a relatively recent phenomena. Ouch, my historically-accurate mind aches with such blasphemy!

The perspective of the winner? Talk about historically inaccurate! The perspective of the winner means that victory determines history, this means that the victor is always good. There might've been many turns and twists in history that would've had a different outcome and a different world, how's that for morally reprehensible?

Is colonizing the United States wrong because it slaughtered the Indians or right because it led to a bright new future for millions?

Hell, history has taken many twists like this, a lot of them more subtle. In its history mankind had to defeat many other humanoïds in the struggle to survive, either absorbing them or being one of the causes of its extermination in one form of another. Morally reprehensible, sure, but I don't think modern man would've wanted it another way? Surely not, as we wouldn't exist.

Morals is a part of who wins. No, this isn't moral relativism, because I still believe in a certain set of morals, I also think past victories have led us to adopt morals that I consider wrong, just as they've led us to adopt some we consider right. Nothing I can do about it, it's the victors call.