View Full Version : Stalin.... a monster or a strong leader?
I know i started a post on weather the USSR was evil a while back, but seeing this written made me think:
He (Stalin) was posthumously denounced by Khrushchev at the 20th Party Congress (1956) for crimes against the Party and for building a ‘cult of personality’. Under Gorbachev many of Stalin's victims were rehabilitated, and the whole phenomenon of ‘Stalinism’ officially condemned by the Soviet authorities. While many regard Stalin as a brutal dictator possibly equalled only by Hitler in the scale of the terror he wreaked, others question whether the Soviet Union would have survived to win victories in World War 2 under a more liberal leader.
My question is: Do you think stalin was an evil dictator or a man that had to do what he had to do to survive in a difficult time (holding the union together in the 20s, 30s, and through the 40s, industrilizing the USSR from a farming country to a semi modern country, and Expanding the Union and its influnce through eastern Europe?)
Reverend Joe
09-09-2005, 02:19
He was a great leader for building the nation- but he was an EVIL mother****er. I like to say I love him, to mess with my rightwinger friends, but the truth is I hate him, and even more so that I am reading a thorough biography on him, by Robert Service. Good book. Bad man.
By the way, if truth be told, he was not psychotic- he was really kinda hard to explain. If you read Robert Service's book, you will really understand him. Understanding and justifying, however, are two different things- so, while I vote that I understand what he did, that in NO way means that I see any justification for his actions.
LeftEyeNine
09-09-2005, 02:36
May one of you please summarize the Stalin's deeds ? I only know that he was a dictator, nothing more..
This would be a good place to start reading ... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin)
Reverend Joe
09-09-2005, 02:46
May one of you please summarize the Stalin's deeds ? I only know that he was a dictator, nothing more..
Uh...
Wow. That's like asking for a "summary" of Rome or Greece- or, aptly, Russia herself. But I am sure that a wiser person than I can help you.
PanzerJaeger
09-09-2005, 02:52
All self proclaimed "communists" are inherently bad people and should not be tolerated.
If it wasnt Stalin, it would have been someone else. He was simply the result of an evil ideology.
May one of you please summarize the Stalin's deeds ? I only know that he was a dictator, nothing more..
In Short:
Stalin was born in Georgia. He joined the communist part and along with many other famous Russian Revolutionaries (particurally Vladamir Lenin) helped overthrow the oppressive tsarist regime to form an athiest, Marxist state. After the death of the first leader (Lenin), Stalin rose to power elimimating policatal rivals. By the 1930s he had total control over the USSR. During this time, he made many purges including many of the top military officals and engineers of the USSR. Many people were sentenced death or exile on charges of false treason. Stalin killed some of the best and brightest the USSR had to offer. He also made many 5 year plans which industrilzied the USSR but at the cost of millions of lives. When Hitler declared war on Russia, 20 million Russians perished before Berlin was finally taken. Stalin had stern policy of not surrendering and sending soldiers of the Red Army on suicidial charges. After WWII was over, he lied to the other allied countries with his promisees of free elections in many of the nations "liberated". Access was also denied to East Germany and the USSR from western nations. Stalin continued his purges until his death in 1953.
Stalin certainly saved the USSR from death by Nazi Germany, but at what cost? He also made it a world super power, but at what cost?
Stalin was a monster and there can be no justification for the authoritarian, genocidal and disgusting things he did. The only thing he managed to do was put a black stain on the communist / socialist cause.
All self proclaimed "communists" are inherently bad people and should not be tolerated.
If it wasnt Stalin, it would have been someone else. He was simply the result of an evil ideology.
(snicker)
Why isn't there a snicker smiley? We need a snicker smiley!
LeftEyeNine
09-09-2005, 02:56
Well, I need no in depth things for a start. When he ruled, which party he belonged to, some numerical info about how many people he slained for his dictatorship etc. for example.
Anyway, I'll look into Wikipedia as instructed and still would like your own additions here.
Stalin killed nearly as many of his own people, maybe even more, than the German fascists. There can be no excuse. Even Lenin saw things going wrong, in his final letters in 1923, lamenting the institutionalization of his "war communism" into a permanent thing. Lenin wasn't much better himself. It would have been far better had Nestor Makhno come to greater power in the Ukraine and put Lenin down.
Devastatin Dave
09-09-2005, 03:00
Stalin was a monster and there can be no justification for the authoritarian, genocidal and disgusting things he did. The only thing he managed to do was put a black stain on the communist / socialist cause.
So has every leader of any country to adopt this form of government, putting a "black stain" on communism and socialism, if that's even possible. I know, I know, "They just haven't done it right, let's try it again". Not that millions of lives have already paid the price for this warped ideology. But hey.. :dizzy2:
LeftEyeNine
09-09-2005, 03:01
ghost908, that's absolutely what I wanted. Thank you so much..
By the way, the game Civilization I used to portrait Stalin as the leader of Russia. They change it in the 3rd, though. That guy should have possessed some real power..
As once said, power causes corruption. It was in the wrongest hand that time however..
Reverend Joe
09-09-2005, 03:03
So has every leader of any country to adopt this form of government, putting a "black stain" on communism and socialism, if that's even possible. I know, I know, "They just haven't done it right, let's try it again". Not that millions of lives have already paid the price for this warped ideology. But hey.. :dizzy2:
No system works. It's just a matter of how obvious it is. Capitalism likes to keep its enemies alive- that way, there are more sources of revenue. ~;)
All self proclaimed "communists" are inherently bad people and should not be tolerated.
If it wasnt Stalin, it would have been someone else. He was simply the result of an evil ideology.
1) There is no such thing as being 'inherently bad'.
2) Prove why it would have been 'someone else'.
3) Show how communism has caused more deaths through history than any other form of government. Let it be your beloved fascism, other forms of dictatorships or capitalism.
4) Show how communism is an 'evil ideology'.
For someone with views such as you do, plus stating they are a fascist and seemingly worships Germany during WW2, you are skating on thin ground when you go around declaring others anything to do with evil.
So has every leader of any country to adopt this form of government, putting a "black stain" on communism and socialism, if that's even possible. I know, I know, "They just haven't done it right, let's try it again". Not that millions of lives have already paid the price for this warped ideology. But hey.. :dizzy2:
Dave my friend, I am sure we have done this before. Dave you know full well there are places where socialism and communism works, not to mention how it has been incorporated into the capitalist model of so many nations. If it is so wrong and evil, how comes capitalism has to be 'tainted' by this 'evil and impure' ideology?
You also know full well - or should - that capitalism has killed just as many people as communism. Why is it that the one with ideals of fairness, equality and social justice for all men, women, colour and creed is evil and the one about making as much money as you can and screwing everyone who gets in your way, is so saintly?
PanzerJaeger
09-09-2005, 03:16
1) There is no such thing as being 'inherently bad'.
Not true. The existence of people such as Stalin refutes that claim.
2) Prove why it would have been 'someone else'.
Take a look down south in China, or anywhere in South Asia where communism flourished. Next stop by Cuba, and study up on the torture chambers of the beloved Che.
Do you think it was just a coincidence that the second largest genocide after communist Russia's was in communist China? The existence of North Korea doesnt make you stop and think.. "hey, maybe its not just some nuts, but the system."
3) Show how communism has caused more deaths through history than any other form of government. Let it be your beloved fascism, other forms of dictatorships or capitalism.
One only needs to look at the numbers. Combining Russia and China alone gives you the largest manmade genocide in history, not even counting all the others killed in the smaller countries.
4) Show how communism is an 'evil ideology'.
Do the genocides that have taken place in every communist country ever in existence not speak for themselves?
For someone with views such as you do, plus stating they are a fascist and seemingly worships Germany during WW2, you are skating on thin ground when you go around declaring others anything to do with evil.
Nice diversion, but this has nothing to do with fascism does it?
Okay I will play.
1) There is no such thing as being 'inherently bad'.
Maybe - maybe not.
2) Prove why it would have been 'someone else'.
Were any of the other leaders of the USSR truely any better then Stalin in how they used their power. They might of killed less people for crimes against the state - but the history of the USSR shows that there was some potential even with another leader then Stalin of massive crimes against humanity on their own citizens by the rulers of the USSR. Would they have gone to the extremes that Stalin did - well that is questionable.
3) Show how communism has caused more deaths through history than any other form of government. Let it be your beloved fascism, other forms of dictatorships or capitalism.
Oh lets just throw some figures out there.
Lenin - had by direct means a lot of people killed - and by indirect means caused the death of many more. I am not going to look up the sites - but the number of people killed on Lenin's orders exceed 1,000,000. If you throw in the governmental caused famine - the number grows even larger very quickly.
Then there is Stalin - figures vary from 10,000,000 to 20,000,000 killed on his orders. Depending on who's data your looking at. This is not counting the soldiers killed fighting the Nazi's.
Pol Pot - over 1,000,000.
North Korea - unknown how many.
Communist China - again unknown how many - but estimates place it at a greater number then Stalin's purges.
Facism runs a close second compared to those killed by communism - and you have to include the war figures to get them as high as the numbers killed in the name of communism.
4) Show how communism is an 'evil ideology'.
I would think it was perfectly clear. Just read Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. It set the conditions for the corruption. Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely.
For someone with views such as you do, plus stating they are a fascist and seemingly worships Germany during WW2, you are skating on thin ground when you go around declaring others anything to do with evil.
Yep good point.
1) There is no such thing as being 'inherently bad'.
2) Prove why it would have been 'someone else'.
3) Show how communism has caused more deaths through history than any other form of government. Let it be your beloved fascism, other forms of dictatorships or capitalism.
4) Show how communism is an 'evil ideology'.
For someone with views such as you do, plus stating they are a fascist and seemingly worships Germany during WW2, you are skating on thin ground when you go around declaring others anything to do with evil.
2. All members of the bolshiviek (sp) party were mostly corrupt like Lenin and Stalin, thus it would have been someone else.
3. Communism has not been around long enough to cause as many deaths as the other things. The first communist were written by Marx and Engles in the mid 1800s, compared to dictatorships which have been around for ages. It has a had a huge impact on the world. Looking from an example of the USSR (Stalin) , many other countries developed a corrupt form of "communism" which led to the suffering of millions.
4. It is an evil ideology plan and simple. It sounds good in theory, until you start to analyze it. ex: A Business owner starts a business. SInce, he started it, he takes most of the risks, so he should reap the greatest profit. HIs employes should get paid according to what he thinks is fair, for after all, they are not risking a lot simply working. The communist idea is flawed in the fact that in neglects how much risk the owners put forth. Another thing is, you have no personal freedom. Communism eliminates private property making everything state owned and controled. The idea is good in which everyone shares, but their is no person. It is just a mass. There is no uniqueness which cuts down on creativity.
Left Eye Nine, you are very welcome :bow:
Zharakov
09-09-2005, 03:23
Stalin will rot in hell... MAY COMMUNISIUM DIE FOREVER!
Stalin will rot in hell... MAY COMMUNISIUM DIE FOREVER!
We just have do away with the fake communist states now: China and Viet Nam. Oh yeah.. and that worthless little island below us.
Zharakov
09-09-2005, 03:26
I wish the rest of the world would overthrow there useless governments and help out in ridding the world of the most vile curse to the world... Communisium...
Reverend Joe
09-09-2005, 03:32
Zharakov, for god's sake, keep it civil.
PanzerJaeger
09-09-2005, 03:33
His sentiment is quite reasonable considering the topic.
I wish the rest of the world would overthrow there useless governments and help out in ridding the world of the most vile curse to the world... Communisium...
Says the person who is debating so persistantly in another thread about every life - even when very debatable whether it is a life or not - being so important. It always amazes me, as I have said here before, how the very same people who will scream until the cows go home about life being sacred are the first to declare that war should be implemented, overthrow should be the first resort and that an eye for an eye, including the death penalty, should alwways be in effect.
Sometimes it just seems like certain people want to impose their morals and their thinking on others, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. Ah well...
Let me go a pee then I shall attempt to answer some of the responses to my post to PJ.
AntiochusIII
09-09-2005, 03:34
His sentiment is quite reasonable considering the topic.Yup. From now on we are allowed to show the middle finger everytime anyone brings up Hitler. ~;)
Seamus Fermanagh
09-09-2005, 03:36
Zharakov, for god's sake, keep it civil.
Actually, given his passion for the issue, I believe he is.
Seamus
Zharakov
09-09-2005, 03:37
His sentiment is quite reasonable considering the topic.
Many of you do not understand how it feels to know the MILLIONS of your people were killed by this monster Stalin...
I really don't like stalin... So please understand why I also don't like Communisium... You can't understand unless you lived during it...
But I will tone down...
As long as we don't actually compare anyone to Hitler. Then we'll have to invoke Godwin's Law.
AntiochusIII
09-09-2005, 03:41
As long as we don't actually compare anyone to Hitler. Then we'll have to invoke Godwin's Law.Sorry, too late, I did. ~D
Considering Zharakov being a Russian, and the people's suffering beneath Stalin's dictatorship brutal regime in the cover of "communism" I think he is entitled to be rather...passionate about the issue.
But those right-wing propaganda believers in the West should not take advantage of his real experiences.
On the issue of communism I'll let the more informed discuss. Though, actually, I feel that many are just shouting at the "American haters" with no real knowledge of the ideology, as I am.
PanzerJaeger
09-09-2005, 03:44
Yup. From now on we are allowed to show the middle finger everytime anyone brings up Hitler.
You seem to be implying I would have a problem with that..
Zharakov
09-09-2005, 03:46
Hitler is just as bad as Stalin... Hitler did things that should not be spoken of...
But at least he did not win WWII
Reverend Joe
09-09-2005, 03:52
Many of you do not understand how it feels to know the MILLIONS of your people were killed by this monster Stalin...
Obviously you have never heard of the Holocaust. I have seen my family tree on my mother's side- they are eastern European Jews- and there is an entire section that is cut off during 1943-45. Dozens of people. So don't tell me that I do not undestand what it feels like to know that millions of my people were killed by a monster. I know what it feels like. And, admittedly, I despise Hitler. But I do not simply go around shouting "Facism is evil!" I at least try to provide a reasonable explanation as to why it is evil.
But thank you for toning down.
Zharakov
09-09-2005, 03:53
That is why I sadi manny... I knew there would be some Jewish people here.
I don't think you'll get much argument about that, Zharakov. We all pretty much agree here. Well, except for one person, it seems. And I thought Russiancsar was a countryman of yours.
Zharakov
09-09-2005, 03:55
If he is...
Well, then we are diffrent Russians...
Before Lenin died around the 1920's he didn't want Stalin to become the dictator and I don't know how it happened but it did happen. From what I read Stalin killed more than 20 Russians during his reign in Russia. Before Germany invaded Russia Stalin had purged the Red Army and most of his generals where inexprienced and that is one of the reasons that Russia lost in the beginning and I've also heard that Russia was planning an invasion of Germany I don't know if it is true if anyone knows they can say. The only reason Stalin won against Hitler is because of sheer numbers and help from the Allies. Stalin was indeed a bad man indeed but he did help Russia turn into the Super power it was during the Cold War. I also read that Stalin was planning another purge before he died.
Joke Quote I don't know what it is but I read it somewhere
Stalin and Hitler were both in a huge pool of blood. Hitler was up to his neck and the blood was about to Stalins stomach. Hitler says you killed more of your people that I did and yet the blood is only to your stomach and it is up to my neck. Why? Stalin says because I'm am standing on Lenin's shoulders
Hope this helps some people
~:cheers: :duel: :duel:
Soulforged
09-09-2005, 03:58
I know i started a post on weather the USSR was evil a while back, but seeing this written made me think:
He (Stalin) was posthumously denounced by Khrushchev at the 20th Party Congress (1956) for crimes against the Party and for building a ‘cult of personality’. Under Gorbachev many of Stalin's victims were rehabilitated, and the whole phenomenon of ‘Stalinism’ officially condemned by the Soviet authorities. While many regard Stalin as a brutal dictator possibly equalled only by Hitler in the scale of the terror he wreaked, others question whether the Soviet Union would have survived to win victories in World War 2 under a more liberal leader.
My question is: Do you think stalin was an evil dictator or a man that had to do what he had to do to survive in a difficult time (holding the union together in the 20s, 30s, and through the 40s, industrilizing the USSR from a farming country to a semi modern country, and Expanding the Union and its influnce through eastern Europe?)
I think that this fact as a politician is irrelevant, is like saying look mom this sir is evil he scares me!!! Please it's nonsense, no actions of politicians can be trully judge as personal unilateral decisions totally detracted from reality, perhaps he knew what he was doing...In the other hand if we're talking as an human, i didn't know him, and i suspect that no one did, so it's stupid to try to judge him by the art of politics.
Nah man I'm not Russian so I wouldn't understand
Strike For The South
09-09-2005, 04:02
Stalin was bad extremely bad I don't see how his actions could be justified he was cruel evil and despicable long live capitalism ~;)
Communism never worked right because humans are power hungry and Communism is based on everyone is equal which is why Communism could and will not ever be a good government
:bow:
PJ -
Not true. The existence of people such as Stalin refutes that claim.
Actually it doesn't. What it proves is that people can choose in such ways that they can be described as 'bad' or 'evil' if you will. It does not prove that Stalin HAD or was BORN WITH those choices already pre determined, like you stated. There is also no way you can prove it. People are free to choose, Stalin was not following anything inherent, because no ideology can have any inherent qualities. It is shown by the way ideologies change and move with time, surely if things were so inherent in ideologies then capitalism would still used in the same mold as when it was first thought of and it would be used in pretty much the same way all across the globe. It isn't on both accounts, because ideologies are subjective to the person using it, meaning your comment of communism being inherently evil is rubbish.
2)
You will not see me denying that there has been some nasty dictators who have used communism and changed the boundaries of the movement for their own means, of course that has happened. But what you stated was -
If it wasnt Stalin, it would have been someone else. He was simply the result of an evil ideology.You are implying that because of communism as it is, it is not Stalin who really is to blame for his actions at all, for he is simply the by product of a greater being, and if it wasn't stalin it would have been another person. Which is wrong. Not only have I showed you how it cannot be the ideology and has to be the man, but just because there is dictators doing similar things to Stalin elsewhere on the globe present and past, it doesn't mean that if there was no Stalin the same things would have happened in Russia. You provide NO proof for your claim, you are simply providing names of fellow people.
For instance, when Reagan died, there was much celebration by you and others about how he personally defeated Communist Russia. Now the argument about the besides, if he did do that, it would be wrong for me to state that 'someone would have done it anyway' as I am sure you would agree, in fact as you and others stated at the time with your celebration of him. Not only were the old phrases like 'one in a million' and 'the only one who could of saved us, and did' etc used - or phrases to that extent - but you were perfectly willing to claim praise for actions taken by Reagan as his and his alone, not some separate, mystical 3rd person.
Again, with figures such as Churchill during WW2, he is praised time and time and time again as the one who saved the UK and stood strong at the point of time we needed it. You, indeed, claim this as well. Again it would be wrong - surely you agree - to simply, flatly, state that 'someone would have done it anyway' and take all credit from Churchill's actions. The fact remains that he did the actions and there is no reason and no grounds to postulate about what if's or what would's, because they weren't and we simply do not have the foresight to see what would happen anyway. Stalin, Reagan and Churchill are all the same in this respect, I am sure you can find a bunch of comparable situations to Churchill and Reagan - in fact they are fairly comparable in themselves, right? - and state how 'someone would have done it anyway', but the fact remains that it is a nothing statement, a statement not based on anything other than an airy fairly opinion. Just because two are in praise and the other is in damnation, it does not mean the facts change and you can suddenly declare that 'someone else would have done it anyway'.
3)
The deaths caused directly by Communism in the past and present is more than other forms, maybe, true. But Capitalism bleeds people, it drains and then brushes them under the carpet as a figure in govt bureaucracy. How many thousands die every year in America alone simply because they cannot afford things, things which not only the rich have excess of but which the state could provide quite easily? How many people die in far away countries - from the point of view of us in the west - to provide our consumer juggernaught, fuelled by Capitalism, with cheap products. How many people are abused and live in complete and utter misery due to this saintly Capitalist way? On top of that you have the wars, secretive ones and otherwise fought by Capitalist countries against others, merely for economical or political means. Why is it that if a Communist country were to do the same it is an atrocity but suddenly a Capitalist one does the same and it is a brilliant, self defensive, strategic move? There is no difference, the only one is the people who count one and discount the other.
The fact remains that there are problems with all our systems, it is terrible and sad, but it remains a fact. But I state again, why is the one with the belief in equality, freedom and fairness for all men, women, colour and creed 'evil' yet the one aimed at self preservation, money, greed and individualism 'good'. You tell me.
4)
Do the genocides that have taken place in every communist country ever in existence not speak for themselves?
You clearly didn't know how to prove your statement and you go back down well trodden lines of 'genocide', 'killing', 'inherent evil!' It must be real nice to live in such a well defined world where you can put Communist into 'evil' and Capitalist and Fascist into 'good', without actually proving it to yourself, but you are living a deceit of yourself, woven by your own hand.
Why is it PJ, you believe Fascism is so brilliant, yet when people state the Nazis you can - presumably with a straight face - state how 'I don't support that type, but a different type', yet with Communism it is the 180 degree reverse? It baffles me everytime, every single time...
Regardless of that, you still haven't answered my point with your lovely little statement about genocides, as I have tried to state, genocides happen under every regime. 'Evil' things and horrible people rise up out of every type of system it doesn't mean something is an 'inherently bad' or 'evil ideology' it simply means that genocides happen because people a) let it happen and b) make it happen. Throwing off statements like you do, does not PROVE anything, it is simply a rubbish statement, you might as well not make it.
I asked you to prove how Communism - have you read the Communist manifesto? Have you read Adam Smith?... - is an evil ideology and you simply haven't.
I also like the way you would not answer my last point.
Communism never worked right because humans are power hungry and Communism is based on everyone is equal which is why Communism could and will not ever be a good government
:bow:
As opposed to the United States which was created after the American Revolution and the document which declared the independence which began the revolution.
What was the line again?
Oh, yeah.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
Darn communists. They ruin everything! Even the Declaration of Independence!
Strike For The South
09-09-2005, 04:18
As opposed to the United States which was created after the American Revolution and the document which declared the independence which began the revolution.
What was the line again?
Oh, yeah.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
Darn communists. They ruin everything! Even the Declaration of Independence!
All men are created equal what you do with your life is in your hands not the staes
As opposed to the United States which was created after the American Revolution and the document which declared the independence which began the revolution.
What was the line again?
Oh, yeah.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
Darn communists. They ruin everything! Even the Declaration of Independence!
DAMN COMMUNIST TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:
All men are created equal what you do with your life is in your hands not the staes
Exactly, my friend. And if you'd like I can start trotting out example after example of communist writers who said exactly what you just said, from Proudhon to Bakunin, even Marx, and Kropotkin and beyond. In fact, I could make the case that the basic tenet of communism is exactly that - that each person is equal and responsible for his or her actions. What others do with the idea doesn't make the idea itself wrong. Even in our own country, the difference between the federalists and the republicans, between Adams and Jefferson, was huge; and that was just within their own times. I guarantee you that the difference between Jefferson and Bush, or even Jefferson and William Jefferson Clinton, is even greater. For all the Pol Pots and Stalins, there is also the Barcelona of the late 1930's or the kibbutzim of the socialist utopian Jews who settled in the Levant 40 years before the Balfour Declaration was even conceived or the Paris Commune. On the other end of the spectrum, capitalism produced the fascists like Mussolini and Hitler and the Japanese zaibatsu. The ideology is only a beginning point. What one does with the idea is not the same as the idea. ~;)
Soulforged
09-09-2005, 04:33
Communism never worked right because humans are power hungry and Communism is based on everyone is equal which is why Communism could and will not ever be a good government
:bow:
All people keep saying the same, wow this must be real. Not it's not, in fact no state whatsover achieved communism, as the respectfull interpretation of Lenin stated, but there was one state that Marx called the most important revolution (because if i'm correct he believed that the French Revolution was the worst wasted opportunity to orient society to a reconciliation) it was the Commune of Paris, so like it seems that many keep ignoring it i'll post a little link. (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/pariscommune/Pariscommunehistory.html)...enjoy. ~:cheers:
It even has interpretations from the anarchist, i love it!!! ~D
I think I answered you Redleg and Ghost in the previous post bar a few points -
I would think it was perfectly clear. Just read Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. It set the conditions for the corruption. Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I do not believe the 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely', as the fact that, that situation is not always the case proves that it cannot be right. There are heads of business and government who wouldn't dream of corruption and have no record of it, unless you add ad hoc bits onto the statement, it is therefore completely wrong. If you do decide to add ad hoc arguments onto the phrase then you loose completely any legitimacy in the statement and therefore useless.
People are not governed by their emotions or doctrines or pre determined choices in their heads, they simply choose what they want when they want via a bit of social conditioning in certain circumstances - therefore a doctrine such as the one you state Redleg can never be right. We are our choices not a phrase.
4. It is an evil ideology plan and simple. It sounds good in theory, until you start to analyze it. ex: A Business owner starts a business. SInce, he started it, he takes most of the risks, so he should reap the greatest profit. HIs employes should get paid according to what he thinks is fair, for after all, they are not risking a lot simply working. The communist idea is flawed in the fact that in neglects how much risk the owners put forth. Another thing is, you have no personal freedom. Communism eliminates private property making everything state owned and controled. The idea is good in which everyone shares, but their is no person. It is just a mass. There is no uniqueness which cuts down on creativity.
Firstly you start off by answering my question with seemingly a Capitalist system in mind. The whole point of Communism is that there is not business in the way we have business, so the whole thing about profit, being paid etc, is useless. The whole society is made up differently to how ours is, you cannot go around using Capitalist models mixed in with Communist ones to critique Communism.
Secondly, I also do not think you understand the goal of Communism. the whole idea of Communism IS personal freedom. Do you not know the last 3 lines of the Communist manifesto? They are pretty famous....
The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!
Getting rid of freedom it is not.
Exactly, my friend. And if you'd like I can start trotting out example after example of communist writers who said exactly what you just said, from Proudhon to Bakunin, even Marx, and Kropotkin and beyond. In fact, I could make the case that the basic tenet of communism is exactly that - that each person is equal and responsible for his or her actions. What others do with the idea doesn't make the idea itself wrong. Even in our own country, the difference between the federalists and the republicans, between Adams and Jefferson, was huge; and that was just within their own times. I guarantee you that the difference between Jefferson and Bush, or even Jefferson and William Jefferson Clinton, is even greater. For all the Pol Pots and Stalins, there is also the Barcelona of the late 1930's or the kibbutzim of the socialist utopian Jews who settled in the Levant 40 years before the Balfour Declaration was even conceived or the Paris Commune. On the other end of the spectrum, capitalism produced the fascists like Mussolini and Hitler and the Japanese zaibatsu. The ideology is only a beginning point. What one does with the idea is not the same as the idea. ~;)
Perfection my friend, perfection.
Del Arroyo
09-09-2005, 05:05
Ethics aside, Stalin's policies almost certainly weakened Russia and lay her open to Nazi conquest. The early reverses in the war can be almost entirely attributed to the shortage of experienced military leadership (Stalin killed like 1/3 of the entire officer corps), and the fact that Stalin wanted to do things HIS WAY, without listening to his advisors.
Once things got bad enough, he started listening, and the war turned around.
But seriously, knocking off political rivals is one thing, crushing rebellions through massacre is one thing, but slaughtering entire sectors of your population for very dubious, if not silly, reasons, is not excusable or productive from any perspective.
DA
Soulforged
09-09-2005, 05:10
But seriously, knocking off political rivals is one thing, crushing rebellions through massacre is one thing, but slaughtering entire sectors of your population for very dubious, if not silly, reasons, is not excusable or productive from any perspective.
DA
I agree with you, but if the revelions were of individualists or capitalists that may want to rise again then they must be stoped. Period. Socialism towards communism is not a "pink" world (neither is capitalism), but it's the most reasonable mean to achieve communism, at least that i may know. Maybe all capitalists will be willing to just give up to their oversized subjective rights and give some profit....mmmm i think not.
PanzerJaeger
09-09-2005, 05:14
Actually it doesn't. What it proves is that people can choose in such ways that they can be described as 'bad' or 'evil' if you will. It does not prove that Stalin HAD or was BORN WITH those choices already pre determined, like you stated. There is also no way you can prove it. People are free to choose, Stalin was not following anything inherent, because no ideology can have any inherent qualities. It is shown by the way ideologies change and move with time, surely if things were so inherent in ideologies then capitalism would still used in the same mold as when it was first thought of and it would be used in pretty much the same way all across the globe. It isn't on both accounts, because ideologies are subjective to the person using it, meaning your comment of communism being inherently evil is rubbish.
Does not the fact that he had the freedom to choose to do good or evil, and chose to do evil prove that he was inherently a bad person? It would be different if he was just following orders, and his life was at stake if he didnt do evil, but he chose to, and reveled in it.
Does not his enjoyment in killing others point to an inherent evil?
You are implying that because of communism as it is, it is not Stalin who really is to blame for his actions at all, for he is simply the by product of a greater being, and if it wasn't stalin it would have been another person. Which is wrong. Not only have I showed you how it cannot be the ideology and has to be the man, but just because there is dictators doing similar things to Stalin elsewhere on the globe present and past, it doesn't mean that if there was no Stalin the same things would have happened in Russia. You provide NO proof for your claim, you are simply providing names of fellow people.
I in no way said that Stalin was not to blame. I said that the communist system brings to leadership the most evil people in society. I cannot believe you are not acknowledging the fact that every country that ever attempted communism produced a dicator. Thats a bucketload of proof right there.
For instance, when Reagan died, there was much celebration by you and others about how he personally defeated Communist Russia. Now the argument about the besides, if he did do that, it would be wrong for me to state that 'someone would have done it anyway' as I am sure you would agree, in fact as you and others stated at the time with your celebration of him. Not only were the old phrases like 'one in a million' and 'the only one who could of saved us, and did' etc used - or phrases to that extent - but you were perfectly willing to claim praise for actions taken by Reagan as his and his alone, not some separate, mystical 3rd person.
Yes, because there were not Reagan spawns coming out of every democracy on earth like there were aspiring stalins in every communist country. Only Thatcher was as strong as Reagan. Reagan was in fact one in a million, all the communist leaders were pretty much the same. Death, poverty, corruption.
The deaths caused directly by Communism in the past and present is more than other forms, maybe, true. But Capitalism bleeds people, it drains and then brushes them under the carpet as a figure in govt bureaucracy. How many thousands die every year in America alone simply because they cannot afford things, things which not only the rich have excess of but which the state could provide quite easily? How many people die in far away countries - from the point of view of us in the west - to provide our consumer juggernaught, fuelled by Capitalism, with cheap products. How many people are abused and live in complete and utter misery due to this saintly Capitalist way? On top of that you have the wars, secretive ones and otherwise fought by Capitalist countries against others, merely for economical or political means. Why is it that if a Communist country were to do the same it is an atrocity but suddenly a Capitalist one does the same and it is a brilliant, self defensive, strategic move? There is no difference, the only one is the people who count one and discount the other.
Do you have any numbers? You seem a little confused about the situation in America and abroad. You cannot really be trying to find relativity between the communist genocides and some vague claims of people starving in America can you? Capitolism has given new hope to millions of people around the world. If you think life was all roses and honey before the sweatshops in China, read a little about the Cultural Revolution. Capitolism has its faults, but cannot in any way be compared to communism on any plane of relativity.
The fact remains that there are problems with all our systems, it is terrible and sad, but it remains a fact. But I state again, why is the one with the belief in equality, freedom and fairness for all men, women, colour and creed 'evil' yet the one aimed at self preservation, money, greed and individualism 'good'. You tell me.
Because the former resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people! Greed might not be pretty, but it sure isnt a gulag.
You clearly didn't know how to prove your statement and you go back down well trodden lines of 'genocide', 'killing', 'inherent evil!' It must be real nice to live in such a well defined world where you can put Communist into 'evil' and Capitalist and Fascist into 'good', without actually proving it to yourself, but you are living a deceit of yourself, woven by your own hand.
If the most people ever killed by a social system doesnt convince you, I dont know what will..
Why is it PJ, you believe Fascism is so brilliant, yet when people state the Nazis you can - presumably with a straight face - state how 'I don't support that type, but a different type', yet with Communism it is the 180 degree reverse? It baffles me everytime, every single time...
Because fascism and communism are not the same. The principles behind fascism promote a strong society, the principles behind communism promote a broken and self-defeating society.
Regardless of that, you still haven't answered my point with your lovely little statement about genocides, as I have tried to state, genocides happen under every regime. 'Evil' things and horrible people rise up out of every type of system it doesn't mean something is an 'inherently bad' or 'evil ideology' it simply means that genocides happen because people a) let it happen and b) make it happen. Throwing off statements like you do, does not PROVE anything, it is simply a rubbish statement, you might as well not make it.
Would you deny that communism in even its very best form seeks to destroy a standing society? Isnt that what the revolution is about? That leads to nothing but death and destruction. No other ideology has such a destructive fundemental principle besides possibly anarchy.
I asked you to prove how Communism - have you read the Communist manifesto? Have you read Adam Smith?... - is an evil ideology and you simply haven't.
I have read more than you assume. I also have the strange ability to read between the lines. Behind all the utopian propaganda, lies an evil ideology that cannot be sustained without the death of all those opposed to it.
I also like the way you would not answer my last point.
Oh but I did. If you cannot defend your ideology without dragging in mine as a completely off-topic red herring, you may want to reconsider your own. Ill be happy to discuss fascism in a thread about fascism. ~:)
But seriously, knocking off political rivals is one thing, crushing rebellions through massacre is one thing, but slaughtering entire sectors of your population for very dubious, if not silly, reasons, is not excusable or productive from any perspective.
DA
Pol Pot tried the same thing in Cambodia. Mass murder accomplishes only one thing - mass murder. Hitler tried it. The Japanese made a run at it in Manchuria. Mao tried it. Mlosevic and Mladic tried it. The Romans did it in Carthage. The U.S. did it during the sad episode of Manifest Destiny. Rulers seem to have a fascination with taking this perceived shortcut to their goals. Kill off those who disagree. It has never worked. It will never work. I may be biased though. Instead of finding the problem in the powers wielding a particular idelogy; I've come to believe that the problem is in the power itself. In my view, the problem is rulers, not what rule they apply. When power is allocated from the top down, rather than the bottom up, the end result is always bad. ~;)
Perfection my friend, perfection.
Thanks! I'll stay out of your other discussion, I think. Your opponent will rub me the wrong way and I'll find myself stomping around the room doing my impression of John Cleese in one of the Fawlty Towers episodes.
Papewaio
09-09-2005, 06:26
For a strong leader that builds his country without mass murder I would have to defer to Lee Kuan Yew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew)
bmolsson
09-09-2005, 06:49
Stalin was a sympton of communism going sour. Concentrated power makes people blind.....
Even dont want to read through all the comments as the answer is easy to know if you and your parents have lived ender its $%& rule. Just because him and his surroundings my country was fallen backwards for 50 years, 10% of population were killed or just dead from hunger in Syberia and its hard to find any family here who has not somehow suffered from it. And we still are fighting with problems caused by that annection. And half of europe does the same. What about building up - it all was built for ruling the world not for people. As the joke was told - if you worked in radio fabric and tried to connect all the details, you always got a tank :) Mostly everything what was builded up was made to built regimes in Cuba, Africa, Asia etc on the shoulders of locals. There were two evel regimes during WW2 and unfortunately world destroyed just one of them. And what els about building. Also western europe now suffers from that building, because of immigration and cheap workers now. Dont forget that in 30ties life standarts and development in eastern europe was the same level in many countries as in west. Look at that now. Its a result. Argh, post makes anger in the morning :)
I think I answered you Redleg and Ghost in the previous post bar a few points -
Maybe but I was just throwing comments out - a mere surface arguement. But I will go into spefics on this one point for now.
I do not believe the 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely', as the fact that, that situation is not always the case proves that it cannot be right. There are heads of business and government who wouldn't dream of corruption and have no record of it, unless you add ad hoc bits onto the statement, it is therefore completely wrong. If you do decide to add ad hoc arguments onto the phrase then you loose completely any legitimacy in the statement and therefore useless.
Just so I understand what you are refering to by "ad hoc." According to what I understand of the arguement style -
Psychologically, it is understandable that you would try to rescue a cherished belief from trouble. When faced with conflicting data, you are likely to mention how the conflict will disappear if some new assumption is taken into account. However, if there is no good reason to accept this saving assumption other than that it works to save your cherished belief, your rescue is an ad hoc rescue.
Do you mean that in your assertion about ad hoc. Since you stated that I will try to stay away from anecdotal observations that show that power does indeed corrupt and just link the Manifesto to Stalin's evil or would you like me to link it to another individual.
Since the statement is an adage - I don't think its necessary to use an ad hoc arguement to rescue the postion. .
Now you can find fault with the adage and my use of it in regards to my statement of I would think it was perfectly clear. Just read Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. It set the conditions for the corruption. Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely. However lets pursue the course of action that you mentioned - staying away from the ad hoc arguementive style the best that I can.
Now I not going to link the whole document - but I will quote some of the key passages that lead me to my conclusions
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
Now one must understand why Marx used the term despotic and what he meant by it. The conclusion of the Manifesto that I have come to accept as being valid is that Marx advocated the forcing of society into communism by starting with a socialistic state - and using the state authority to force change through despotic means until such a time that class distinctions have disappeared. Could I be incorrect with this conclusion - maybe but that is what I have come to conclude based upon reading Marx's work. Not all of them by the way but the Communist Manifesto and several other works.
So one must understand what despotic means. My understanding of despot happens to follow the definition of the word as found in Webster's dictionary.
2 a : a ruler with absolute power and authority b : a person exercising power tyrannically
Now would you classify Stalin as a despot? Since I do classify him as a despot who used the communist doctrine as envisioned by Marx - I shall continue with the discussion. If you find fault with this statement that is fine because its my opinion - not necessarily fact.
Now would you call the mass purges conducted by Stalin as a corruption of power by the individual? I know I do. Are there other examble of Stalin being corrupted by power - sure but lets just go with the use of mass killings because of his will to do so. Lets not go into his life style verus all others in the USSR.
So Stalin had absolute power as specified in the Communist Manifesto - because the manifesto calls for use of despotic inroads to achieve certain goals.
Its my belief that Stalin was corrupt before he came into power - and in being given absolute power he became corrupt absolutely.
But again you stated you do not believe "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" so what type of arguement would you like me to pursue if I can not cite ancedotal evidence of spefic instance of indivduals being corrupted by the power they gained.
People are not governed by their emotions or doctrines or pre determined choices in their heads, they simply choose what they want when they want via a bit of social conditioning in certain circumstances - therefore a doctrine such as the one you state Redleg can never be right. We are our choices not a phrase.
People are indeed governed by their emotions as well as many other things. What do you think the concept of love and hate is.
From people much smarter then I - not sure what it says but I draw the conclusion that emotions are involved somehow in the process.
5. External signaling function: Emotions signal and coordinate individuals’ intentions in an improvised, shared narrative. Since emotions supply the motive force to effect goals and intentions, the social function of outward emotional displays is to communicate heuristically an individual’s putative motives, goals and intentions, and thus to regulate the behavior of others
(Campos, Mumme, Kermoian & Campos, 1994). Emotional exchanges thereby govern the distributed processing in which multiple individuals coordinate a shared, improvised response to circumstances. Emotional event by emotional event, response decision by response decision, relational turning point by relational turning point, people improvise a shared narrative that both
governs and informs their relationships with each other. In improvised narratives, people can cooperate to share both pains and joys, amortizing, by proxy, harms and benefits over the pool of cooperating individuals. People can also compete for status, in order to promote, at others’
expense, the avoidance of their worst emotions and the attainment of their preferred emotions, competing, by proxy, for their own competence. In the same way that individual decision making can be characterized by an emotionally based form of Prospect Theory (Zeelenberg, 1999), social status behavior is arguably characterized by an emotional variant of Game Theory.
http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~carl/papers/FrankelRay.ISRE00.pdf#search='Are%20people%20governed%20by%20their%20emotions'
Soulforged
09-09-2005, 07:22
Does not the fact that he had the freedom to choose to do good or evil, and chose to do evil prove that he was inherently a bad person? It would be different if he was just following orders, and his life was at stake if he didnt do evil, but he chose to, and reveled in it.
Does not his enjoyment in killing others point to an inherent evil? First, no it doesn't make him evil, good and bad in politics are very realitive values, you seem to believe in moral utopias after all...Second: aha now you seem to know what Stalin was feeling when he ordered the mass murders as you call it... :no: Could it be indiference instead of enjoyment?
I
in no way said that Stalin was not to blame. I said that the communist system brings to leadership the most evil people in society. I cannot believe you are not acknowledging the fact that every country that ever attempted communism produced a dicator. Thats a bucketload of proof right there. Aaaa and capitalism doesn't, you're blind. The problem with communism is that it requires despotism at the first to force the reconcilation, so in that point both teories go to the opposite extremes, one being all for society and the other all for the individual. Capitalism for instance grants power to a reduced group of man that can be corrupted the same as one and act behind all governement. To me it makes not difference, except that the despotism of the proletariat (maybe we should actualice this term) had the purpose of create an equal and free society, capitalism only has the purpose of keeping a classist system.
Death, poverty, corruption. I see again unilateral assumptions. This maybe the reality of despotism in some point, but are you denying that capitalism kills by hunger and poverty? In fact this are the best weapons of mass destruction, and you don't even see your system questioned.
Do you have any numbers? You seem a little confused about the situation in America and abroad. You cannot really be trying to find relativity between the communist genocides and some vague claims of people starving in America can you? Capitolism has given new hope to millions of people around the world. If you think life was all roses and honey before the sweatshops in China, read a little about the Cultural Revolution. Capitolism has its faults, but cannot in any way be compared to communism on any plane of relativity. No because communism is best and in fact cames from a visionary. Capitalism bringing hope? Ha i think that you see the world of "roses". Following and report from the UN 33 millions of people starve of hunger every year only in South America, tens of thousands die of hunger per year, i think that's a pretty big number, but if you want to say that this is because of the corruption then say it i'll refutate you over and over.
If the most people ever killed by a social system doesnt convince you, I dont know what will.. When then you're against society. But the deaths doesn't indicate anything. Why don't you try to understand what you read? Anhiquilation of people is subsiadiary in any system, the state itself is the problem and not the economic model. At least the teory of communism pretends to end with the state forever (many others criticize it for that, but that are points of view)
Because fascism and communism are not the same. The principles behind fascism promote a strong society, the principles behind communism promote a broken and self-defeating society. Ohhhh...Are sure you readed the facist teory? Facist comes from "facere", and it's the worst kind of right wind model ever, if you want to see it that way. It purposes the control of every single human being and brainwash, but not looking for a best society, but keeping the classist system. The state in this case is so strong that they think they can control people's minds...this was in fact one of the purposes of Mussolinni, of course it's a way of speaking, Mussolinni was an intelligent guy, control people's minds means control what they read, what they do in privacy, thus changing the social reproductive system of the nation. It's the most similar to the represented in "1982" the movie.
Would you deny that communism in even its very best form seeks to destroy a standing society? Isnt that what the revolution is about? That leads to nothing but death and destruction. No other ideology has such a destructive fundemental principle besides possibly anarchy. Definetily you misinterpreted all. Communism is all about society. In fact in the legislation system that Marx proposed, there would not be any subjective rights during the despotism, just the law (objective) that belongs to pure social relationships, so it's sort of the contrary. An communism in it's best form is in fact society distributed between the individuals, knowledge of all things that you know to survive and relate in society are in the individuals achieved that moment, thus making the state innecesary.
I
have read more than you assume. I also have the strange ability to read between the lines. Behind all the utopian propaganda, lies an evil ideology that cannot be sustained without the death of all those opposed to it. Ohhhh, sir evil ideology don't touch it bites!!! Please no ideology is evil, just persons can be, and only if you consider ethics in the middle. And utopian propagandaaaa!!!! **** if you look a little on the French revolution and the promises made you'll know that we're living in constant propaganda of an stangnant state, the classic Leviatan of Hobbes, only that individuals like you seem to accept it.
Papewaio
09-09-2005, 07:35
Under which government systems are these people starving?
Proof is in the lack of pudding. ~;)
Soulforged
09-09-2005, 07:39
Under which government systems are these people starving?
Proof is in the lack of pudding. ~;)
On the system of the eternal capitalism ~;) plus pure neoliberalism. :no:
Papewaio
09-09-2005, 07:42
Yes lots of starving people in America and Australia... whoops I mean lots of people dying from being Obese.
The day I can choose a better system then capitalism I will.
But I will not forfeit freedom of choice for despotism.
Zalmoxis
09-09-2005, 07:42
We need somebody to try doing an anarchist government. And we need a new crazy dictator. Kim doesn't cut it anymore.
P.S. And when I was a kid and teen during esn of 70s and all the 80s, I cuouldnt play PC games and stuff like that like lot of "young anarhists" here do :) I had to read books about Lenin, Stalin, crashing victories (off course, that everyoine knew (even from official history books) that WW2 Russia won alone and all those allies were just begging for help and mercy :) ), evil west and other bull%&^ things :)))
P.P.S. And forgot to say, that during Stalin regime we all would be in line waiting for wonderfull 20 years work in uranium mines or something like that just because we are discussing that post... :dizzy2:
Probably one of the worst ills done to the ability of the human race to advance politically was for Marx and Engels to call it the Communist Manifesto rather than the Marxist Manifesto or something else, and for Lenin to use it as the basis for what he called temporary "war communism" which would then become the permanent installation of a new kind of bourgeoisie - the chekists and apparatchiks who destroyed all of the other ideas which were functioning after the initial revolution, from the Makhnovists in the Ukraine to the factory syndicates to the farmer's unions. The Marxists began as a minor part of the revolution, with many other experiments in communism extant at the same time.
For people who have never read, or even heard of, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon or Mikhail Bakunin or Peter Kropotkin or Nestor Makhno to pronounce their understanding of communism, based upon the Communist Manifesto and resultant creation of Lenin, is rather like someone claiming to understand all modern art after seeing only one abstract expressionist painting by Mark Rothko, or even all of Rothko's works. Such a person might be able to carry on a reasonably informed discussion about Mark Rothko, a less informed discussion about abstract expressionism, and know nothing at all about the rest of modern art from the impressionists to the fauvists to the Dadaists, the cubists, the surrealists all the way up to op art. Does a painting by Rothko look anything at all like a Jackson Pollock or a Salvador Dali or a Max Ernst, much less a Renoir or a Klimt? Should someone who has never seen a Chagall be respected for voicing an opinion on Chagall after having seen a couple of Kandinsky paintings or maybe a Warhol or two? Wouldn't that be absurd?
Or to stretch another analogy to the limit, trying to understand and critique communism based solely upon the source of just one branch of communism is like trying to claiming to understand of the the entire Christian Bible and religion after reading only the pentateuch of the Old Testament. Absurd, but not much different than critiquing communism based upon one branch of communism.
But claims are made, apparently unaware that the Communist Manifesto is not the sum of all communist theory. Not even close. Bakunin was a contemporay or Marx. He even translated Das Kapital into Russian. But he was most definitely not a Marxist. Proudhon predates Marx, Engels and Bakunin, with his Qu'est-ce que la propriété? published 8 years before the Manifesto. Basing an opinion about communism upon the works of Marx and Engles and the resultant creation of Lenin ignores things like the communist/socialist kibbutzim established in what is now Israel in the 1890's and early 1900's which predate the Bolsheviks by a decade or more. Some of those kibbutzim still exist and still function with the same anarchist/syndicalist internal structure that they have had for over 100 years. The anarchist/communists of Barcelona fought both the fascist Falangists of Franco and the Stalinist Republican Army. And that was their downfall, fighting two stronger enemies at once. But they still managed to last 3 years in Catalonia. Marxism, Marxist/Leninism and most especially Stalinism are not all there is to communism. The old adage about the three blind men and the elephant comes to mind.
A little knowledge is not a good thing. It leads to more misunderstanding than no knowledge at all.
Aenlic, in fact, theme was not about ideology. But with communism is one big problem. As pure ideology in its best version its not that bad. Only problem - its never realizes and even more - its not possible I think to realize it in life. All the artists, writers, painters you noted - lot of them somehow i nspired from that ideology, but it was more as the protest to their life in conservative society - they were more "against" then "for". None of them have lived in those "branches" of communism which were available. The idea of ideology isnt bad, it says "to everyone for its needs". But... someone will decide "its needs", also your needs etc... And in all those revolutions in the beginning of 20 century was the same scenario - slaves fight for their freedom untill they became rulers - then they start to need slaves. Have you read Animal farm of Orvel? Its easy and clear view of communism ideology - everything started so nice, doesnt it? And result we can see (very very close to reality) in next book - 1984.
Aenlic, in fact, theme was not about ideology. But with communism is one big problem. As pure ideology in its best version its not that bad. Only problem - its never realizes and even more - its not possible I think to realize it in life. All the artists, writers, painters you noted - lot of them somehow i nspired from that ideology, but it was more as the protest to their life in conservative society - they were more "against" then "for". None of them have lived in those "branches" of communism which were available. The idea of ideology isnt bad, it says "to everyone for its needs". But... someone will decide "its needs", also your needs etc... And in all those revolutions in the beginning of 20 century was the same scenario - slaves fight for their freedom untill they became rulers - then they start to need slaves. Have you read Animal farm of Orvel? Its easy and clear view of communism ideology - everything started so nice, doesnt it? And result we can see (very very close to reality) in next book - 1984.
I suspect a bit of a language barrier, Edex; but I'll try to explain.
My post wasn't meant for you; but for earlier posts which attempted to present the Communist Manifesto as the whole of communism.
Your point about Marxism, although I'm sure it has been often repeated as being communism, is correct. Marxism, as practiced by Lenin was a very bad thing. The world would have been better off had someone put a bullet in his head long before the revolution. The same for Stalin; but for him maybe a bullet would be too quick and painless a death. ~:)
And Animal Farm was not about communist ideology, although it has been portrayed as such. It was about the dangers of a bureaucratic state or totalitarianism, both anti-Stalinist and anti-fascist. So too was the later 1984. Orwell, or really Eric Arthur Blair - his real name, was a socialist. He fought for the communist Republican Army against the fascists in the Spanish Civil War, but joined the more radical anti-Stalinist POUM. After being nearly killed with a bullet to the neck (not good being over 6 feet tall when everyone else in the battle is short), he went back to England and wrote a great essay called Homage to Catalonia about his experiences seeing the classless society created by the POUM in Barcelona. He had first-hand experience with the Stalinists who controlled the Republican Army and the Stalinists who controlled the English communists and socialists. He was very much against Stalinism and state control and very much for anarchist communism, as he saw it demonstrated in Barcelona. I highly recommend Homage to Catalonia.
While I highly respect your views against communism as it must appear to someone living in the former Soviet Union, I ask you not to judge the idea by the practice. Because what you endured there was communism only in name. It was actually closer to state-controlled, centralized capitalism than anything else.
Yes, I know that post wasnt ment fo me, but anyway. And as I also told - I agree hat its not fault of ideology. What I think is, that history unfortunately have prove that marxism, communism and similar ideologies are not made to work in real life or at least noone could make it. Thats what I was talking about. About Orwell - I know more or less of his biography and political views and that novels was not wrote to show ideology. i ment that those novels showed the result what happened with tries to make this ideology work by ordinary humans, even if it was not idea of the author - it didnt worked out. By the way - those two novels was strictly forbidden as the Orwell himself. I got the book when I was 13 in typewright with blue copy paper on old lightly yellow bad quality paper pages - medieval romantic :)
One more strange thing noone can explain about soeviet interpretation of communism is - if everybody must be equal, why they all must be equal poor, not equal rich nd free :)
anyway - its hard to split ideology and practice as we have nothing to compare with. All attempts to make communism to work in practice finished with something they shoud not, so we dont have positive experience in the world... If we would have, it would be easyer to talk about.
I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you say.
Was your copy of Orwell what was called a samizdat? I have always been intrigued by that wonderful idea. Anything, like the samizdat, which could worry the KGB at the time must have been terribly dangerous to have.
I think the internet is our modern samizdat. With it, hopefully, no country can ever fully control information again. At least we can hope.
Yes, its called so. Actually its not a special term - samizdat in russian language means "self publisher", thats it :) And internet really is a thing in that case. But I dont know if it works and if it helps much in the places where it could. I dont think that in ttalitarism countries which exist now there are much chance to access internet, but i dont know it for sure.
I think a sign that the internet is working is the vigor with which the Chinese government is trying to suppress it. Supression is often a sign of success. It is having an effect.
Yes, I heard about chinese government fight with this windmill
We can only hope that they have even less success than Don Quixote.
Blah Blah Blah
But claims are made, apparently unaware that the Communist Manifesto is not the sum of all communist theory....Blah blah blah
Funniest rant I have seen in a long time. Based fully upon your own assumptions about what others have read or not read.
Adrian II
09-09-2005, 14:41
And Animal Farm was not about communist ideology, although it has been portrayed as such. It was about the dangers of a bureaucratic state or totalitarianism, both anti-Stalinist and anti-fascist.Being well-read in all the books and currents you mentioned all the way from Proudhon to Kropotkin and back, I was rather impressed by your notion that marxism/leninism unjustly claimed an entire movement and its name for its own particular purposes. This whole panel of the history of the left is now mostly forgotten except by you and me and a few other voracious readers.
But you are stretching the truth about Animal Farm and its author's intentions if you claim that the book is about totalitarianism in general. Totalitarian movements have certain aspects in common, therefore the occurrence of any parallels between Animal Farm and, say, nazism or Italian fascism are no surprise. But there are just too many references to recent Russian history and the entire communist episode after 1917 in the book for anyone to deny that it targeted Russian communism.
I am not going to enumerate them here. Suffice it to say that the book's most famous proverb ('All animals are equal, but...') could only refer to the egalitarian rhetoric of communists (nazism and fascism were anti-egalitarian) and that the new revolutionary song of the animals, Beasts of England, contains countless references to the International and none whatsoever to the Deutschlandlied or the Horst Wessel Lied.
Animal Farm is clearly an anti-Soviet parable. But Aenlic has a point about 1984, which does take aim at a wider target. For example, I've read that Orwell was very disillusioned at life in wartime Britain and that partly underpinned the book's references to propaganda and perpetual war.
My post wasn't meant for you; but for earlier posts which attempted to present the Communist Manifesto as the whole of communism.
I find it consequential that you post the last two comments after I explained my reasoning of Power Corrupts absolutely power corrupts absolutely and linking Stalin and the Communist Manifesto to that statement.
So to clarify - Is it your opinion that I am wrong about how the Communist Manifesto set the conditions for the tryanny that was done by Lenin and then Stalin in the name of the communist revolution. Or to be more precise, given the above mentioned quote:
Am I wrong in linking the Marxist doctrine of communism as shown in the Communist Manifesto for setting the conditions for the corruption of power by Lenin and most importantly Stalin - and all the other tryants that followed the Marxist doctrine of communism.
If you think I have only read the Communist Manifesto - then your sadly mistaken once again. I haven't even discussed the overall philisohy of communism - just the ideology as it applies to Stalin and the former USSR. (Now there is a fallacy used in that approach, but its a relative minor one given the impact of Marxism on the Communist ideologue)
Now lets look at the kibbutz functions verus the forcing of society that was advocated by those that supported the Marxist doctrine of communist ideology. I can give you a major clue - it was willing done. Even then the Kibbutz is not just a pure commune but has several unique political ideologues intermix into the system - to include democracy. The Kibbutz serves as one of the best community models for both communism and democracy.
warning a fallacy is about to take place
Now I will pronounce my ignorance on Catalonia and the efforts of the communist movement there - but again it seems instead of critiquing the linking of Stalins corruption of power and the linkage of the Communist Manifesto to that corruption - you chose to make a rather broad assumption of your own.
Oh wait - I guess we are now both guilty of argument logic fallacies.
Psychologically, it is understandable that you would try to rescue a cherished belief from trouble. When faced with conflicting data, you are likely to mention how the conflict will disappear if some new assumption is taken into account. However, if there is no good reason to accept this saving assumption other than that it works to save your cherished belief, your rescue is an ad hoc rescue.
Aenlic's ad hoc rescue was making the assumption quoted above and the its also contained in the first post he made after mine.
Redleg's well I will let Jag and Aenlic tell us what mine was.
Go ahead and deny the role marxist doctrine has had on the communist ideologue. Indeed the Marxist thought started out as a minor player in communist ideology - however it had the major impact on the ideology. Or would you argue against that also.
"an extremely evil man"
I prefer calling him paranoid(sp?) and selfseeking.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-09-2005, 21:50
Stalin killed nearly as many of his own people, maybe even more, than the German fascists. There can be no excuse. Even Lenin saw things going wrong, in his final letters in 1923, lamenting the institutionalization of his "war communism" into a permanent thing. Lenin wasn't much better himself. It would have been far better had Nestor Makhno come to greater power in the Ukraine and put Lenin down.
He killed about 10x the amount the Nazi's did in concentration camps. Almost ALL his own countrymen, not even POWS, his OWN PEOPLE. He tried too hard. The communist idea is fine, but I think he took it to far. It wasn't a mistake, he did it on purpose, but he could have done ALOT better without murdering all those people.
But you are stretching the truth about Animal Farm and its author's intentions if you claim that the book is about totalitarianism in general. Totalitarian movements have certain aspects in common, therefore the occurrence of any parallels between Animal Farm and, say, nazism or Italian fascism are no surprise. But there are just too many references to recent Russian history and the entire communist episode after 1917 in the book for anyone to deny that it targeted Russian communism.
I am not going to enumerate them here. Suffice it to say that the book's most famous proverb ('All animals are equal, but...') could only refer to the egalitarian rhetoric of communists (nazism and fascism were anti-egalitarian) and that the new revolutionary song of the animals, Beasts of England, contains countless references to the International and none whatsoever to the Deutschlandlied or the Horst Wessel Lied.
I specifically said that the book was intended as anti-Stalinist. But you must also remember when it was written. It was published in 1945. It contains a lot which is specifically anti-fascist as well. And it also contains elements which are specifically targetted at the Stalinist trend in British socialism and communism at the time. The main focus is anti-Stalinist. And I never claimed otherwise. I do maintain that it isn't specifially anti-communist, just like Marxist/Leninist ideology is all there is to communism. Blair understood this. He was very familiar with the differences between communism and socialism and Leninist and Stalinist version using those names. He took a bullet in the neck while fighting for one communist ideology (POUM) against the Stalinists. It might be helpful for someone else to note the phrase for which POUM is acronym. Be wary when saying that Blair was anti-Marxist.
As for the use of references to the International. They make my point as well. Read Homage to Catalonia. In it he takes specific aim at the ComIntern for corrupting communism and socialism and spreading Stalinism instead. He wrote it specifically in response to what he saw happening to the movement in Britain, compared with what he saw as the ideal in Barcelona.
Animal Farm used the Soviet system and Stalinism, and the corrupt version of ideals which Blair supported, as a paintbrush to attack a much wider target. Saying that Animal Farm was only an attack on Soviet communism is somewhat narrow and focuses only on the allegory and not on the broader message. Blair, or Orwell, refined that attack and message in the later 1984; but you can see the elements in the earlier work.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.