Jo Stalin - great or vile?

Joseph Stalin (Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili – the name is not Russian, neither was he; he was Georgian) was one of the most outstanding leaders of the past century. Yet, his methods and general practice does not fit into said century, so we should rather look at him as a more… medieval sort of a “Great Leader”.

For someone who has studied a bit or Russian history, only one person can be compared with Stalin as for the deeds they’ve done: Peter the Great. They both inherited (well, Stalin was not Lenin’s actual heir, but you know how those things go…) a state (kingdom for Peter) that was waaay behind it’s neighbours in technology, education level, quality of life and actual power, but bestowed some great strengths and qualities (it had potential, to speak so).

They both recognized what the problem is, and managed to figure out ways to actually face it. They both had to import technology from outside: Peter even worked in a shipyard to do so, Stalin just had to call in several industrial giants of USA, promising they could have a (tiny) bit of the pie, if they provided USSR with the know-how.

Both began a program of industrialization. Stalin was much more successful in his, as he managed wonders: The two five-year plans brought USSR from the 18th century (where it was, compared with most European countries, technology-wise in the 1920s) into the 20th century, non-stop and with great effectiveness: Before 1929 USSR was not among the top 20 countries in terms of industrial production, despite it being #2 in population. In 1941 only one country had a greater industrial production than USSR: USA. Even Germany was only 3rd, while Britain was 4th.

Peter wasn’t so successful, though, as he had more problems and less power than Joseph, despite him being a nominal “absolute monarch”. The boyars of Peter’s era were still very strong and influential and resisted even the slightiest effort to modernize the country.

The very same threats Stalin faced: He couldn’t convince anyone to do what it takes to modernize the country, so he figured out that the only way was to mobilize everybody in the name of the revolution, despite their feelings. To achieve this and to stabilize his rule (which was always in danger, he wasn’t the “correct” man for that position, Trotsky was) he formed (actually: Upgraded) the Cheka and begun the infamous purges: Either you work for the revolution, or you go to the gulag.

When he tried to impose the collectivism as the standard farming system in the USSR, he faced some heavy opposition. When he did impose the “revolution” in the farming production, two million people died because of the famine that came after. A heavy death toll to pay, to be honest. Too heavy for the outcome, but the system was established despite the kulaks and worked until recently.

Then, he tried to make everybody a “Soviet” citizen. That was tough. All people had their own heritage and some of them (like the Cossacks) were so proud of it, they would never adopt the “new” way of life, or seize their traditional customs. Again, their way of life and customs stood in the way of the revolution, so he murdered their leadership and deported the rest from their soil, to be assimilated in other parts of the vast land.

During those reforms, Stalin did kill a number of people. Official and unofficial accounts together, plus estimations and a good deal of guessing, brings the death toll of this period to around 4 million people.

That is not a small number by any account (actually it does put Jo up there in the pantheon of the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century) but it’s waaaaay lower than the outrageous numbers produced by some mindless propaganda brigades (25 million, 30 millions, I’ve even read 50 millions by one&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif

Another great feat by Jo. S. was the building of a decent military. USSRs standing army up until 1929 was a revolutionary army. For those who are not familiar with Leninist term, let me explain what that was: A militia army, without professional military personel in the lead, with heavy interference by the Party committees (90% of the “officers” were also members of “revolutionary” committees and boards) with very minimal discipline, loose organization and a very fuzzy doctrine (sort of “the enemy is equally within and outside”).

Stalin knew he couldn’t win a war with this army – hell, he couldn’t win a football game with this army. He started steadily to reform the army, with the help of a few officers and party officials that shared his vision about the new Red Army. He wanted to create a fully mechanized army, with the Tanks being the very heart of it (he was ahead of the German practice at the time). The soviet industrial revolution being on it’s way (because of the two 5-year plans) helped him to that.

In 1929 the Revolutionary Army had a handful of very poor light tanks, few weapons, inadequate equipment, no airplanes, 19th century artillery, and was moving on foot. 10 years later the Soviet army was a well-equipped modern army, with the best tanks of the time, partly mechanized and well supplied, with modern artillery and even a modest-sized force of some very good airplanes.

Well, we have to admit he did succeed. And he would be much more successful if he didn’t murder 65-70% of the army officers during the last purges. The Red Army, therefore, was not ready to face the more than adequate (best of their time, for sure) German officers, both in tactical and in strategic level.

Peter was cruel too, you know. But in cruelty and generally in his personal behaviour, Stalin resembles another great leader of the Russian past, Ivan the Terrible, which should be really called “Ivan the Terrified”: His cruelty was surpassed only by his insecurity. That was true also with Stalin. Some of the purges (like the one in the military around 1936-7) was dictated by Stalin’s stunning insecurity.

Thoughts? Opinions? Flames?

The first goal/rule of forming a society is the protection of the individuals who are part of it. Thus anything good that Stalin might have done to Russia, was something that would be done maybe after 10-20 years anyway and was not worth those "sacrifices". For evolution we need sacrifices, but what he has done to his own comrades...do not validate him as agreat leader but rather a leader-to-be-avoided-to-have. Would prefer to live in Germany of 1930, or in Russia of 1950?

Dead wrong, mate. Russia wasn't industrialized in 2 centuries, how would that become true without much sacrifice in 10 years? And he did wish to protect his citizens, the bulk of his citizens from those who could harm them (that is those who opposed the revolution).

I pressume you don't know much about class struggle and the likes, do you? If you did, you could understand (not approve, just understand) "Why".

if the price for ultra fast industrialisation was to be to throw factorytoxic or nuclear waste into the water of the people who work there , completely destroying the environment , building defective unreliable 'made in USSR' stuff and forcing everyone to drive completely unsafe Lada's (in compination that most of the russians are constantly drunk) , then i ll pass thank you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/dizzy.gif

Do you mean that Russia was a country in need to spill its own blood in order to achieve industrialization? When did the rest of the countries which managed it did such crimes?
Maybe the problem was after all communism and Stalin was the one who forced progress in a country without the political backround to be able for that. But my question remain unanswered. Don't you believe that goal#1 of any society/state is to protect its members?

If you think that Stalin was good then its like saying that Hitler was a good man. Stalin was defintly worse than Hitler though.

I believe Stalin was motivated solely by his desire for personal power. Once he became head of state the survival of the Soviet Union and the increase of it's power became an extention of this desire. Anyone or anything that got in his way was dealt with.

Would the Soviet Union haved survived without him? Could someone have ruthlessly industrialized and yet gradually phased in agricultural collectivism, for example, to lessen the disruption of output and subsequent famine. Were the Army purges of the thirties necessary for modernization or did he act to eliminate percieved threats to his absolute power?

I guess, to sum up, you have to weigh the survival of the state and the benefits that provided to the people, against the horrors he caused to ensure his personal survival and absolute power.

I can't call Stalin a great leader because to me he lacked vision. He wanted nothing more than the oppressive status quo to continue with himself as its primary benefactor. I think history will view Stalin as yet another hardship the Russian and Soviet peoples had to endure.

Exactly my point. Stalin fought and took actions for his own good and fame-not for USSR's. Hitler is remembered for his crimes AND the rise of Germany after the desastrous WWI-Stalin only for his crimes though.

Ktonos

To me Hitler wasn't much different than Stalin. He was an insecure meglomaniac who tied his own self worth to the greatness of the fatherland. He offered the German people easy excuses, blaming the Jews and other "lesser races" for all their problems. Yes, the Versailles treaty was way too harsh but the leadership that willingly entered into WWI, and lost, was never held accountable. Any decent leader could have brought Germany back, it would've taken longer but Germany had too many resources and talent not to rise again.

To me, Hitler's only mark on history is a stain, a number tatooed on my roomates mother's arm. I still remember how old she looked. Like she was his grandmother.

Hey Guys,

Stalin was Great and he was vile.

Read William L. Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" for some facinating insight into Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and the Second World War.

Shirer was an Americain journalist stationed in Berlin, until the point that hostilities broke out between Germany & the U.S.A.

Besides having the benefit of being an eye witness to many of the events, Shirer's work is complemented and strengthened by the access he was able to secure to the German Military and Government archives, captured completely intact, thanks to the speed with which the Third Reich fell, and the fact that the Germans never bothered to destroy these documents.

Shirer's work is recognised as having Scholarly merit, and is generally recognised by the Academic community as being a reliable source.

It is a facinating and essential read.

Azrael

If anyone think that Stalin was good so say it and I will tell you why he wasnt good.

hitler received a germany with almost no army and no weapons , fighters, bombers etc and made it into the strongest and most technologically advanced nation of their time ( they didnt lose because allied weapons were better, they lost because they were terribly outnumbered) , on the other hand stalin received a totalitarian , holoclerotic state with practically no human rights and managed to make it worse , millions died , millions were sent to Siberia , russia went deep into debt. so there is no comparisson. i believe the former USSR nations would be in a much better state and hatred would be less if stalin never existed.

German lost ww2 because Hitler and his stupid decisons.

Xero is correct.

Part of Hitler's obsession with Germany being the Master Race led to his inability to order German troops to retreat, even for strategic advantage.

If the Germans had retreated from Stalingrad, they could have regrouped and possibly defeated the Russian forces.

Instead, Hitler refused to beleive that his troops could be defeated and refused to withdraw them from Stalingrad, allowing his troops to be surrounded.

As W.W. II neared it's end, Hitler lived almost in a fantasy world. As the Russians advanced on Berlin, he kept assuring people that releif in the form of German Armies that weren't even there would break the seige on Berlin before his bunker fell.

Azrael

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Nov. 22 2002,08:21)]Joseph Stalin (Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili – the name is not Russian, neither was he; he was Georgian) was one of the most outstanding leaders of the past century. Yet, his methods and general practice does not fit into said century, so we should rather look at him as a more… medieval sort of a “Great Leader”.

For someone who has studied a bit or Russian history, only one person can be compared with Stalin as for the deeds they’ve done: Peter the Great. They both inherited (well, Stalin was not Lenin’s actual heir, but you know how those things go&#8230http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif a state (kingdom for Peter) that was waaay behind it’s neighbours in technology, education level, quality of life and actual power, but bestowed some great strengths and qualities (it had potential, to speak so).

They both recognized what the problem is, and managed to figure out ways to actually face it. They both had to import technology from outside: Peter even worked in a shipyard to do so, Stalin just had to call in several industrial giants of USA, promising they could have a (tiny) bit of the pie, if they provided USSR with the know-how.

Both began a program of industrialization. Stalin was much more successful in his, as he managed wonders: The two five-year plans brought USSR from the 18th century (where it was, compared with most European countries, technology-wise in the 1920s) into the 20th century, non-stop and with great effectiveness: Before 1929 USSR was not among the top 20 countries in terms of industrial production, despite it being #2 in population. In 1941 only one country had a greater industrial production than USSR: USA. Even Germany was only 3rd, while Britain was 4th.

Peter wasn’t so successful, though, as he had more problems and less power than Joseph, despite him being a nominal “absolute monarch”. The boyars of Peter’s era were still very strong and influential and resisted even the slightiest effort to modernize the country.

The very same threats Stalin faced: He couldn’t convince anyone to do what it takes to modernize the country, so he figured out that the only way was to mobilize everybody in the name of the revolution, despite their feelings. To achieve this and to stabilize his rule (which was always in danger, he wasn’t the “correct” man for that position, Trotsky was) he formed (actually: Upgraded) the Cheka and begun the infamous purges: Either you work for the revolution, or you go to the gulag.

When he tried to impose the collectivism as the standard farming system in the USSR, he faced some heavy opposition. When he did impose the “revolution” in the farming production, two million people died because of the famine that came after. A heavy death toll to pay, to be honest. Too heavy for the outcome, but the system was established despite the kulaks and worked until recently.

Then, he tried to make everybody a “Soviet” citizen. That was tough. All people had their own heritage and some of them (like the Cossacks) were so proud of it, they would never adopt the “new” way of life, or seize their traditional customs. Again, their way of life and customs stood in the way of the revolution, so he murdered their leadership and deported the rest from their soil, to be assimilated in other parts of the vast land.

During those reforms, Stalin did kill a number of people. Official and unofficial accounts together, plus estimations and a good deal of guessing, brings the death toll of this period to around 4 million people.

That is not a small number by any account (actually it does put Jo up there in the pantheon of the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century) but it’s waaaaay lower than the outrageous numbers produced by some mindless propaganda brigades (25 million, 30 millions, I’ve even read 50 millions by one&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif

Another great feat by Jo. S. was the building of a decent military. USSRs standing army up until 1929 was a revolutionary army. For those who are not familiar with Leninist term, let me explain what that was: A militia army, without professional military personel in the lead, with heavy interference by the Party committees (90% of the “officers” were also members of “revolutionary” committees and boards) with very minimal discipline, loose organization and a very fuzzy doctrine (sort of “the enemy is equally within and outside&#8221http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif.

Stalin knew he couldn’t win a war with this army – hell, he couldn’t win a football game with this army. He started steadily to reform the army, with the help of a few officers and party officials that shared his vision about the new Red Army. He wanted to create a fully mechanized army, with the Tanks being the very heart of it (he was ahead of the German practice at the time). The soviet industrial revolution being on it’s way (because of the two 5-year plans) helped him to that.

In 1929 the Revolutionary Army had a handful of very poor light tanks, few weapons, inadequate equipment, no airplanes, 19th century artillery, and was moving on foot. 10 years later the Soviet army was a well-equipped modern army, with the best tanks of the time, partly mechanized and well supplied, with modern artillery and even a modest-sized force of some very good airplanes.

Well, we have to admit he did succeed. And he would be much more successful if he didn’t murder 65-70% of the army officers during the last purges. The Red Army, therefore, was not ready to face the more than adequate (best of their time, for sure) German officers, both in tactical and in strategic level.

Peter was cruel too, you know. But in cruelty and generally in his personal behaviour, Stalin resembles another great leader of the Russian past, Ivan the Terrible, which should be really called “Ivan the Terrified”: His cruelty was surpassed only by his insecurity. That was true also with Stalin. Some of the purges (like the one in the military around 1936-7) was dictated by Stalin’s stunning insecurity.

Thoughts? Opinions? Flames?

---

I just got one question. Where do you live?

Erm, and what about the people? How did they profit from everything you said? How were they better off as being Soviet citizens instead of being e.g. Cossacks, how did they profit from having the military that could match the USA, what was the benefit for the common citizen of having effective Cheka, or from persuasion methods to join the revolution?
And for that matter, the same question goes for those that advocate that the rise of Germany under Hitler was a great thing, both for the Germans and the rest of the world. Let's compare that to the rise of Germany *after* WW2. And the answer is?

Stalin was interested in protecting the citizens of Russia/the USSR??

When did that come about?

I thought Uncle Joe was all about changing a dictatorship by the proleteriat into a dictatorship OF the proleteriat. By him.

The purges of the late '30's were pure megalomania - they were to protect HIM.

Who's to say the Sov's wouldn't have modernised anyway, and without the millions of dead? adn even done so better than they did under Uncle Joe?

The BBC maintains that 5 million "rich" peasants - Kulaks - starved to death in 2 years from 1932-34 under the first 5-year plan, and agricultural production fell 15%.

Total production was reportedly up 400% over the first 3 5 year plans until 1941, but no-one can tell how much of this was real - when factory managers were liable for execution if they failed to achieve targets who can say how many lies were told?

Where the quantities were real teh quality was often appalling - up to half the tractors made in the Soviet Union in teh 30's were scrapped due to break down. In 1940-41 when the famous T34 tank came into produciton it's mechanicals were so bad the Russians thought of stopping production altogether rather than carry on with the appalling quality

The organisation set up to administer the 5-year plan targets themselves totaled 500,000 people USSR wide - all of them non-productive

AT LEAST 7 million disappeared in the purges from 1934-39.

Stalin was certainly a man of his times in Europe betwen the wars. tehre were many other dictatorships or near-dictatorships - obviously Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, but there were also nasty governments in Yugoslavia, Hungary, Poland, Czheckolovakia, etc.

What made Stalin successful is that he killed more people than, and outlasted, them all.

Not a pair of achievements to celebrate IMO.

The easiest thing in the world is to dismiss someone in the basis of the horror he caused. The hardest thing is to evaluate someone according to the truth, and not the stupid propaganda that is floating around - and as we know, the history is written by the winners.

I didn't said Jo was an angel - he wasn't. He would not be a person I would like to live close too (or even under, meaning in a state governed by him).

But so are others as well: Napoleon: The bloodshed this tiny Corsican caused, is way worst than the one caused by Stalin and his friends. But we do not remember the butcher Napoleon, the man who led 700.000 people to Russia and came back with only his horse, the man who caused a great demographic problem in the whole Europe, three (at least) great famines and more than 15 million victims in the Napoleonic Wars era.

Same goes for others, like Genghis Khan. Nobody seems to recall that this man is the greatest butcher in history: He is directly responsible for the death of 50.000.000+ and indirectly... the numbers are insane, but bloody true. He wiped out at least six flurishing civilizations and distinct cultures, ravaged more than 100 cities and slaughtered their population. But history does not remember that; history remembers what a great conqueror he was, and how he managed to create an enormous empire.

Do you want me to go on? There is a dark side to every great man in history, you know. Single-sided simplistic approaches, serve only those who try to force their agenda (like, in Stalin's case, the "communist was bad" agenda). Those silly approaches find an audience among people who tend not to stand critically to history, but swallow whatever others serve them.

That is not the right approach.

I stand for my case: Stalin was a mass murderer (Hakonarson, the numbers I gave are the correct ones, the "7 million dissapeared during the purges" is a groos excageration) but also a great leader, a paranoic dictator but also the man who rebuild USSR twice, an insecure alcoholic but also the leader who has the greatest share in the defeat of the Axis during WW2.

As I said, it's rather easy to apply a label "bad" to a man of his calibre and forget about it. But easy solutions are not applicable here. But historical personalities aren't "good" or "bad"; those are simplistic approaches fit for the kindergarten or the first couple of elementary grades. History does not know black and white: it's full of shades of grey.

Rosacrux I think you are woefully incorrect in how Napolean and Genghis Khan are remembered.

Napolean is often referred to as the antichrist. Not exactly what one would term an honourific.

Genghis Khan is remembered as a blood thirsty conqueror whose empire crumbled almost as quickly as it was formed. I suppose the term for that would be premature-empire-rejection http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif.

As for the greatest share in defeating the Axis no. Germany maybe. Not much effect on the Italians and none on the Japanese. Axis was formed of more then just the Germans.

Being able to fight primarily on a single front is a lot easier then being on an Island under seige while your colonies ships are being torpedoed and the Japanese were steadily advancing throughout South East Asia. That was a multi theater confict: Singapore, North Africa, Papua New Guinea etc. The more theaters the harder it gets.

And if Stalin hadn't been around and the purges had not occured it may have been that Russia would have had a complete command and control structure, better made tanks and an army that was well feed (Napolean was right that the army does march on its stomach). So Stalin can be seen as an anti-catalyst for his country.

Not every great leader has massacred millions. And to be a 'great' leader I would not include someone who killed millions of his own to feed his own meglamanic desires.

For comparison see how many Julius Casaer killed of his enemies and particularly important his own people. Roman leaders were very careful to look after their people both with food and entertainment. That is one of the reasons it endured because the nation was founded on a way of life to make Rome great not just the leaders. Roman Emperors who are despised in the histories are the ones who did the least good for their people ie Nero and Caligula.

The art of being a great leader is not in the destruction but the creation. Stalin would get a D for his stint as a dictator. Many others I am sure could have risen Russia out of the ashes without wiping out the people in the process. Compare Germany and Japan post WWII or Britain as the it under went the industrial revolution. In fact where else in the world can you find any industrial revolution that killed as many people as under Stalin?

Seems he scores the lowest on that one in the entire world I suppose I should down grade his report card.

-----

Ability to help others D
Ability to reform government D
Ability to industrialise his society F

I must say this child shows a tendancy to bully and beat up others where others would use leadership and teamwork. No other pupil has shown such an ineptitude for industrial reform. Instead of building a new factory in two years he wiped out a quarter of his best co-workers to build the factory in a year and 11 months. Not what one causes an even exchange.

File Rosacrux, Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon did mass murders but they where so fine leaders that we only remember and agknowledge them as Great. The Russian people know only Peter as Great, not Stalin. If he did 10 good deeds for USSR and the Russians he did 100 evil.

Pape

Excactly how would USSR reform and be industrialized without Stalins efforts? You have some sources about some miraculous 5-year plans that would take a people of ignorant peasants, fearsome of everything new, and turn them into productive factory workers, engineers, and managers overnight? How would you do that?

He bloody did it though

You didn't read what I wrote in my opening post? In 1929 the Soviet industry was a bit bigger (and also a tad older) than the ...mexican one. In 1941 it was #2 (in terms of productivity and in sheer numbers) behind USA. I guess that proves me right and you wrong.

Stalin did create the Red Army. There was no Red Army before Stalin. How do you think that conglomerate of militia, temp. servicemen, gathered only "on occassion", without any sort of stable ierarchy and with no machinery, no armoured vehicles, no tanks, no airplanes, spiced up with several hundreds of party officials per division, would fair against the mighty Wehrmacht? I assure you, the panzerdivisionen would be as far as Novosirbirk in 6 months tops.

I give him the deserved disrepect (even loathe) for the murders he commited. But also I grant him (and I respect him) for his incredible feats.

Stalin was the right man, in the right place, in the right timeframe. Not easy to accept, but that's the truth.

Allthough me being a leftist and knowing that, what Stalin did killed the case for socialism worldwide (he was more effective in this than the real enemies of socialism - the capitalist governments and the multinationals - were, by twisting the whole leninistic concept to create "a state of one", a pure dictatorship) I do respect his ability to fight against incredible odds and succeed. And at the same time I despise his megalomaniac insecurity and look with terror at the crimes he commited.

But, really, that doesn't negate what he did. Is it so bloody hard to put aside emotions and look at the facts?

File Ktonos, I am not counting his good and bad deeds to weigh them. I certainly don't have to apply a label "good" or "bad" to the man. I can aknowledge what a bastard he was, but also recognize the ability and sheer productivity of his efforts.

Precisly what other nation underwent such drastic devastation due to industrialisation?

What other nation required so many purges to create an army?

I state it again. Russia could have became an industrialised nation with far less bloodshed. No other nation comes close to the destruction that Stalin did to become such.

An army could have been created by someone else with far less bloodshed.

Stalin is a failure because where every other true leader did these things without mass murder. The worst cases in Britain was the luddeties which resulted in hanging of the offenders. Compare that with millions of deaths.

Communism was proposed by Karl Marx to occur in a far more advanced country then Russia and it was to serve as a inbetween step between absolute authority and democracy.

Productivity by mass murder is a failure.

Productivity by inspiration and creating a positive environment is genius. In this case I would say that Henry Ford whips Stalins butt back and forth across the annuals of history.

As for modern societies like Australia productivity is a measure of how effective the workerforce is. Deaths and Accidents at work are seen as either a lack of training or management ineptitude. By that definition Stalin the head manager of Russia was terrible.

-----
History regards those as Great as someone to repeat their style. Someone who caused such destruction for such little gain is not someone that we would follow the example of.

If he was a great leader in history others would wish to emmulate his example. He would be leading a way of doing things. Instead people see the cost at which he paved his changes as far to expensive a price to pay. A great leader would have done it without the mass murders. That is the difference between a despotic idiot and a great genious both can achieve the same goals. The measure of the value is in how effortlessly they seem to do it. Watch an expert in their field and see how effortless they seem to do something. Then watch a newbie and compare the amount of strain they do to do the same thing.

Stalin strained, he creaked, he destroyed. A great leader would have modernised Russia without the mass murder. A great despot would do the mass murder as a personal means to power. I know which one Stalin is.

As for world leaders emmulating Stalin the only current world leader that I can think of trying to do so is Saddam Hussein.

Agreed at this certain point Rosacrux. Stalin created the requierements Ussr needed for being a major military/scient/teck/productive power for the next 40 years.
I believe that the methods he used eliminated his successes, but that is my opinion anyway.

OK gentlemen, we can agree to disagree, so we can come back like 100 years later (when the New Global Revolution will have succeed into throwing Capitalism into the trashcan of history) to discuss how history shall view Stalin then.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/smokin.gif

Agree to disagree.

Where do you live if you think communism is ever going to make a come back?

Over here it is the political equivalent of a Dodo. If any system is going to take out captialism in its present form it will be a green-captialist synthesis.

Not on Mars and I do not expect "communism" to take over; anarchy is the way to go into the future. A leftist-anarchism, of course, like anarcho-syndikalism. Because there is also corporate anarchism, which USA has experienced during the late 19th century in the far west - not something you'd like.

And... if socialism is the equivalent of the Dodo, Capitalism is the equivalent of a mammoth living in the 21st century.

What do you mean by anarchy? That one has always confused me and seems to have a multitude of definitions.

I said communism is a dodo not socialism.

For me socialism can be a strain of democracy. For instance Australia has a welfare state, education which is practically free to university level (you get a debt which is payed off as an extra tax when you earn enough money), free doctors for all, subsidised drug prescriptions, unemployment benefits, student benefits and loans etc.

---- Edit spelling ----

That's "socialist" only by the US standards (over there they believe even Britain is "socialist" and they considered Clinton "a leftie").

Anyway, communism = socialism. What USSR had was neither. X-Large subject, not prone to discussion right now.

Anarchy (leftist anarchy)=no central government, no police, no legal system. No wealth for the few - poverty for the little. No legal entities, only people. Even bigger discussion, you can start with this site if you need a slight overview and then we can talk about the specifics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Nov. 25 2002,05:15)]But so are others as well: Napoleon: The bloodshed this tiny Corsican caused, is way worst than the one caused by Stalin and his friends. But we do not remember the butcher Napoleon, the man who led 700.000 people to Russia and came back with only his horse, the man who caused a great demographic problem in the whole Europe, three (at least) great famines and more than 15 million victims in the Napoleonic Wars era.

---

This is just a good sign that you dont know a shit about the statics you are talking about like Stalin killed 4 million and then you say that Hitler killed 35 million. When someone said that Stalin killed more than 4 million (I think he killed about 40 million) you say that you cant know the numbers but how do you know that Hitler killed 35 million then?

Napoleon marched into Russia with an army of 600.000 people and came back with 50.000 not like you said that he came back with only his horse.