He was!? :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Csar
I tell you, if Stalinism is actually in any way legitimate communism then I'm an Evangelical Christian World-Ender named Snowball Ikari.
Printable View
He was!? :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Csar
I tell you, if Stalinism is actually in any way legitimate communism then I'm an Evangelical Christian World-Ender named Snowball Ikari.
You must admit, Stalin adopted a lot of policies from Trotsky, who is usually ascribed a "true" communist in the face of "revisionist/traitorous" Marxism-Leninism (i.e. Stalinism)...
Mao was definitly EVIL... like in DEVIL...
anyway... True communism cant be achieved but in books and ideas and dreams... atleast i believe so... but if it could ever be achieved... that is when the nature of men (as in humans) changes, it would be the best form of goverment in the world...
It's a ridiculous idea anyway. And men will always be selfish.
Then explain people who cheerfully give money to the less fortunate. :dizzy2:
Anyway, Hitler is way worse IMHO. Stalin was "just" a nasty, bloody-handed, utterly ruthless, paranoid and opportunistic tyrant; Hitler had a full-fledged (and fully nutty) dogma that glorified war and lack of reason, with a lot of ugly racial hierarchy stuff on top of that. Even if he didn't initially intend to exterminate the Jews but shove them into some remote corner or something, his ideas about creating Lebensraum involved mass murder of Slavs and other "lesser races" pretty much from the start and by default.
Are the liquidation of thousands of farms, killing of hundreds of Red Army officers, and the senseless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Red Army recruits any better? Hitler was short-term and Stalin was long-term. Hitler couldn't have conquered the entire world, especially with the small population of Germans compared to the world population.
Stalin, on the other hand, could have taken over the world.
...but never wanted to risk it. Hitler was actually crazy enough to try, and got millions killed in the process.
Soviet adminstrations was generally speaking incompetent as Hell, which caused a fair amount of friction. Stalin's solution was to squash anything and anyone who looked like a troublemaker; I'm under the impression he was suspicious of the loyalty of the Red Army (not necessary without a cause; that was originally Trotsky's animal, and he had the man killed too) and thus not only purged the officer corps but also subjected the remainder to strict political control, with the end result that the whole apparatus became nearly paralyzed before Barbarossa. As a side note that leash was loosened a bit after the German advance stalled, presumably as a reward of loyal service.
Anyway, purging the Red Army officer corps was just yet another ugly example of his brand of brutal personnel management which resulted in unintented and destructive side effects (ie. massive losses against the Germans). The really nasty thing however was the huge full-spectrum purges of the late Thirties, which affected the entire society - I've read he actually called them off after a few years because he realized the endless witch-hunts were about to cripple not only the society and economy, but also the security services themselves.
The destruction of the independent peasantry and establishement of the kolhos system wasn't really Stalin's work by what I know of it, though. AFAIK it was carried out by the Bolsheviks under Lenin quite early on to ensure political control of the majority of food supplies, so they could be gathered and distributed by the governement if necessary - unscrupulous individuals having a nasty habit of profiteering during famines by coldly sitting on supplies and waiting the prices to rise. Happened during the Russian Civil War and the chaos afterwards quite often enough, and by that point "excessive force" was about the only problem-solving method the Bolsheviks had in their repertoire any more, so...
As a side note, the Germans didn't dismantle the system in areas they conquered - they needed it to extract supplies for their own armies. Around the same time they were also confiscating agricultural produce from French farmers for the war effort, which unsurprisingly pissed them off something fierce... :no: Logistical planning was never the Nazis' strong suit.
They get to go away with that warm, fuzzy feeling that they've done their bit. And then they get to go out and take moral superiority over others because they're obviously a "better" person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
There is no selfless good deed.
Your hyperbole aside, it's true that people donate money to ease their conscience. So? Isn't the basis of a good chunk of the stuff all people do what feelings they relate to it?
If altruism isn't a reason to help people, what is? :inquisitive:
EDIT: spelling.
Sure thing, Craterus. Want to pull the other one, it's got bells on too ?
How about I told you I just give the coin for no other reason I consider it my basic civil responsibility as someone not so down and out he needs to ask strangers for money ? Or had the exact same attitude to paying the (fairly high) taxes that maintain the social security system ?
@Kralizec: I'm not saying people shouldn't help people. I'm saying that they certainly get something out of doing it.
@Watchman: You wouldn't pay taxes if you didn't have to. And by giving "the coin", do you not feel some satisfaction that you have done your basic civil duty? I'd guess probably. Especially considering you're on here lecturing me about it.
And this little argument(?) was started because I don't think true communism could ever work. If anything, the country would fall to ruin through a lack of motivation in its future. Why should a kid work hard at school to become a doctor, when he can get paid just as much being a dustman?
Oh, so you're claiming a funny little trait called "kindness" some people happen to have is, ultimately, selfish too ? Suit yourself. Although that sort of thinking in general leads to a kind of dissipation of the whole distinction, because when everything is something that something in practice loses all meaning, as it is already everything. Or, "light" only becomes meaningful if you have "shadow" to compare it to.
Your definitions make "selfisness" roughly as relevent as air to the entire topic. They're too wide.
Besides, you missed the whole point of the taxes thing. I've no issues about paying them in the first place, so the fact their payment is ultimately enforced by the state monopoly on legitimate violence is entirely irrelevant. If those taxes weren't there, well, I'd have to find another channel to realize my more altruistic urges.
Plus IMHO your stance sounds like the typical excuse-muttering of selfish pricks who would like the whole world, and all other people, to share their callous attitude so they wouldn't have to feel occasional pangs of conscience when witnessing altruistic behaviour.
How in the world you explain the well-documented behaviour pattern where people are willing to die for "something greater" - their family, friends, nation, ideals, religion, whatever - with that worldview is somewhat beyond me though.
If people's sole motivations were "monetary" and "selfish", however, human civilization as we know it wouldn't even exist. Care to explain healthcare workers willing to put in long hours for entirely inadequate wages for no other reason than some inner urge to keep helping others, or the oft-documented occasion of doctors sticking to their Hippocratic oaths for no other reason than sticking to their ideals to the bitter end if need be, for example ? Firemen and other rescue workers who regularly risk life and limb for a fairly meager salary ? Volunteers who put their lives on the line to drive a truckload of disaster relief thorugh endless miles of Third World backwaters haunted by brutal bandits and Tupac Armies ?
Anyway, the real problem with most forms of communism is that they place altogether unrealistic requirements on the central planning side. There's simply no way even the most inhumanly competent analysts and bureaucrats could have managed the command economy Really Existing Socialism involved, nevermind now the Gaussian standard-distribution real people actually saddled with the job. Some sort of self-adjusting anarcho-syndicalist network thingy lacking central authority might theoretically work better, but thus far the rare few attempts have invariably fallen prey to hierarchically organized aggressive neighbours and, one suspects, would sooner or later produce the phenomenom where an ambitious actor begins absorbing others for his own ends as AFAIK has thus far invariably happened in power vacuums.
Not much of a choice is it?
Stalin: paranoid tyrant, orchestrated the killing of millions in order to establish a state of terror wherein no one would oppose him on any level for any reason. Willing to starve millions more in order to industrialize and acquire a modern armed force with which to acquire more subjects.
Hitler: willing to kill millions in pursuit of some ill-conceived concept of racial purity. Willing to murder friends in pursuit of power. When faced with a hopeless situation, willing to kill everyone, destroy everything and leave nothing but ruins behind.
Either of these individuals stand near the epitome of evil, choosing betwixt them for the "title" has about as much value as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I'll change it to Hitler, because we would have used the nuke on every single German city, to stop Hitler. We didn't with Russia.
"Epitome of evil" is a term better suited for superhero movies. Ww2 would have been much longer and maybe even would have had a different outcome without stalins drastic measures. Not much different than Ivan Grozny, except the fact that he was rulling in 20th century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Here is a few questions. I've seen that number of people stalin killed varies from 20 to 50 millions, does anyone have exact figures? I mean, 30 million difference is a lot. Does the figure include german war prisoners, criminals, number of people died during the ww2 (it was almost impossible to feed the nation, I imagine those in camps weren't a priority) etc... So if anyone could clarify the numbers, it would be appreciated...
The problem (from what I've heard) is that it isn't well documented and victims of famine, overwork etc. weren't all kept on record unlike the Nazis in the concentration camps who kept documents listing everything.
Trotsky didn't believe that the number of victims from Stalins purges were as great as were claimed, but how can you tell when they not only get rid of these people, but also get rid of the people who knew them, and try make out that they never existed in the first place.
Quite a tough job to make out exact numbers.
that is what i say too... but it doesnt go for a lot of people... but definitly for some...Quote:
Originally Posted by Craterus
marshal murat... NO PERSON OR COUNTRY CAN CONQUER THE ENTIRE WORLD... POINT!
Watchman... Craterus' point is that pity and such come from the fact that you want the help the person to get it as good as you... that means that you have it better... he links that to that you also immediatly think you are better than that person... and his point is not something that comes out of nowhere because i know a lot of people that think that way about people that have less.
If Stalin was such a threat, soooo evil, then why didn't we nuke him to the stone age? He had nuclear weapons as well, but if he again was soooo evil, then I think we would have found a way to destroy Russia.
We weren't ready to absorb the casualties he'd have dished out in return. Destroying evil is not a bad objective, but one should try not to do it Quixotically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
During the 40's and into the early 50's when the CCCP would have had real difficulties in delivering their nuclear weapons, they still had the more powerful conventional forces located in Eastern Europe -- and we would not have been able to use nukes among mixed forces in Western civilian centers once the battle was engaged.
The conventional force threat was always present even after the CCCP developed fairly reliable ICBM delivery systems in the 1950s and 1960s. Our ICBM technology was more reliable and far more accurate, but even if half of a Russian launch failed and numerous warheads missed their intended targets the civilian casualties would have been horrific. After Stalin and Beria were kaput, the CCCP changed.
It seems that even most bold estimates don't go over 30 millions, including 6-10 millions deaths from famine during colectivization (which is also an overestimate probably since there was a growth of population, and not a decline during colectivization).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hepcat
The real figure is probably less than 10 millions including germans pows and victims of deportation...
Stalin would win by knockout in the sixth due to moustache size.
Richer in fortune and material wealth: better?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Such an attitude is the proof of its own vanity.
Mind you, I don't really care about the argument based on numbers -- they were responsible for millions of deaths, period. A more valid and effective discussion would consider their philosophies and styles and the implications of such. Or their moustache size, since nobody ever dared to measure their little dinghies for all the world to be in awe of.
Well if you look at it like that then there is no such thing as "legitimate communism" :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Communism as an ideal is defined as something can be seen, in a way as an extreme version of the familiar ideal of the "Common Good," prevalent just about everywhere. Stalin was purely dictatorial and would've used fascism, random-ism, or whatever political catchphrase as his propaganda banner if it was more appropriate for the population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Csar
The only "ideological" contribution of Stalinism to "Communism" that I could think of right off the top of my head is as simple as "Communism in one country" -- how in the world is that even ideological? At least Leninism (Bolshevism?), as an ideology, tries to apply Marx's wishy-washy utopian theories into real life. The results, of course, has been judged by history. It wasn't very nice. That and Marxism isn't the only kind of communism or other socialist theories around. It was just the most prominent -- and most despised, for obvious reasons -- one.
A trivia: Lenin wrote in his testament that he wouldn't like to see comrade Stalin on top.
Hitler versus Stalin ???
I'd voted gah, but as there is no safe option, i'll go with Hitler...
Yeah, well, what irks the snot out of me is that A) he generalizes that to apply to everyone (and I suspect for rather tendentious reasons, given the rather haughty manner he expressed it in) B) the severe lack of analytical depth involved in the statement C) what suspiciously looks like an attempt to define selfishness as "natural" and therefore morally acceptable (or, conversely, defining selflessness as merely a variation of selfishness and hence morally the same, which among other things already goes against the linguistical definitions of the concepts) D) his insistence on reducing the endless complexity of weird stuff that humans have motivating their actions to basically selfish economical calculations, which isn't exactly supported by empirical evidence anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
There's a lot of good arguments against Communism as a theoretical model of socioeconomical organization, nevermind now Really Existing Socialism (which didn't have all too much in common, and couldn't actually be understood and analyzed, with its nominal theoretical and ideological basis...), but what he put forward isn't part of it.
Anyway, I hold Hitler to be worse of the two because for him mass murder carried definite inherent value; his very ideology which he actually believed in (by all accounts and evidence, anyway) pretty much necessitated it. For Stalin it was merely a means to an end; and pragmatic tyrants who'll kill you to secure their power are much preferable to genuinely loony ones that'll kill you merely because of what you physically are. After all, the former is survivable by keeping your head low and adapting to the ebbies of internal politics; the latter, should you be unfortunate enough to have been born as someone belonging to a group scheduled for "removal", as such isn't.
Political opinion and suchlike are things people can change if necessary. What they're born as isn't, and as such I'd say murdering people because of the latter is worse as it doesn't leave them any way out of the hit list.
Cooperatives?Quote:
Originally Posted by Csar
An interesting scenario might be how the CCCP would have changed if Beria had taken charge instead of Khrushchev. Beria, in a reaction against Stalinism, wanted to liberalise the Soviet Union, giving greater autonomy to the states, making government more transparent, allowing more freedom of speech and opinion, etc. Basically all the political reforms Gorbachev came up with in the 1980s. Khrushchev, Malenko, and the rest of the crew realised this would lead to the breakup of the Soviet Union, as later happened under Gorbachev, and deposed him. The Soviet Union was fundamentally rotten, in its formation and government, and any liberalisation would IMHO result in its dissolution. The authoritarianism of Khrushchev and others managed to put this off for a few decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
About the difference between Hitler and Stalin. Stalinism is tyranny for political advantage, where obedience to the party line was the key to survival. Hitlerism was laxer on this point, but placed far greater emphasis on the idea that certain peoples were inherently superior or inferior. For example, Hitler disliked (understatement) Jews because IHO Jews as a race were inferior, while Stalin disliked Jews because of their links with the outside world (he supported a homeland for Jews, but inside the USSR and hence under his control).
[QUOTE=AntiochusIII]Richer in fortune and material wealth: better?
Such an attitude is the proof of its own vanity.
QUOTE]
Im missing your point... You mean better life, beter person... better what... I meant that Craterus links having a better "standard" of life to being a better person
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Why am I being referred to as "he"? Since when did I become male?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman