Commuists Against Oppression - Anybody else see an oxymoron?!

[Khayembii Communique]

These things you yourself have not responded to, concrete as they are. Well done for another leftist diversionary tactic!

I'm willing to respond to all of that in time, but I'm not going to allow you to jump from one topic to another. That, combined with citing random websites that have absolutely no authority or credibility on the matter, are the exact methods used by conspiracy theorists.

If you can't respond to what I have to say then there's no point in me even responding to you because that shows that you can't actually defend your views.

youtube has idiots from every political persuasion. I don't see what the point of bringing that up was.

He's a dishonest troll; what else do you expect? He can't respond to any rebuttals to his wacky points, which is why he always insists on ignoring my responses and changing the topic. This tactic is pitifully predictable.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Jumping from one topic to another? Wacky points?

Which points are they? That all communist leaders have practised totalitarianism and even murder? That your refusal to acknowledge or deny cold hard facts of life under Communism means that it's apt to move to the next? Or is it that my weblinks just don't meet with your approval and so therefore lack 'credibility'?


I suppose the only thing left for you to do is call me a troll to try and deflect attention from your own genuine ineptitude in rebutting points. (And I can't be one of those if you're always replying!)

Let's make this simple for you. Deny that Stalin murdered scores of millions in purges, repressions and ethnic cleansing. Deny that a dictatorship was established under Lenin, breaking his promise of power to the people. Deny that a terrible holocaust took place across the Communist world as dissidents, ethnic minorities and gays were persecuted. Deny that territory was invaded in Eastern Europe or Far East Asia on the behest of dictators.

...And provide your own weblinks 'proving' these denials.



_______________________

It is almost impossible to find out how many homosexuals were persecuted in the Soviet Union during 1938-1944. Many of homosexuals were executed as "enemies of the people." This is a famous vintage image depicting how the Soviet Union Secret Police officer was shooting two homosexual men. You can see that those men were wearing the white girls' underwear. Apparently this execution was in 1944. Wearing women's panties was common for homosexuals in the Soviet Union at that time to show someone's particular sexual orientation to a potential sexual partner.

http://www.charonboat.com/item/132


http://www.stalinsethniccleansing.com/nextfinal.htm

http://www.iccrimea.org/surgun/pohl-asn-2004.html

http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/stalin-joseph , etc.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Let's make this simple for you. Deny that Stalin murdered scores of millions in purges, repressions and ethnic cleansing. Deny that a dictatorship was established under Lenin, breaking his promise of power to the people. Deny that a terrible holocaust took place across the Communist world as dissidents, ethnic minorities and gays were persecuted. Deny that territory was invaded in Eastern Europe or Far East Asia on the behest of dictators.

How about you respond to this post instead and we have an actual discussion?

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

I did: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...ybody-else-see-oxymoron-5.html#post1058781166

Perhaps then you can talk about the sailors.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

That's not a response. That's a change of topic.

If you don't want to back up your claims that Lenin "established the Soviet dictatorship after dissolving the embryonic parliament" then it very clearly shows that you have no support for your assertion and are clinging to it out of ideological necessity rather than a desire to understand reality. In that case no debate can be had with you because you're relying solely on delusion.

 

[Mell]

''How come there have never been any democratic communist regimes then?''

Healthy democracies do employ some of what could be considered communist ideals. What works is adopted and improved upon. Communism in countries which uphold it tend to stagnate and deterioriate, because they become easily corrupt and are rigid and unadaptable, becasue they dont generally truely have the interests of communist ideals at heart.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Lenin establishes the dictatorship after Democracy lets him down:

Lenin declared the new communist government on 8 November 1917. The parliament planned by the provisional government – called the ‘Constituent Assembly’ – went ahead as planned, but, when the Bolsheviks only won 175 seats and the Social revolutionaries won 370, Lenin closed it down and set up instead what he called the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Lenin and his ‘Politburo’ (cabinet) ruled by decree: ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ was in effect dictatorship by the Bolshevik party

.



Russia 1917




What's the point in having a Peoples' State when few people voluntarily fall into line under the right leaders?!

Lenin declared the new communist government on 8 November 1917. The parliament planned by the provisional government – called the ‘Constituent Assembly’ – went ahead as planned, but, when the Bolsheviks only won 175 seats and the Social revolutionaries won 370, Lenin closed it down and set up instead what he called the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Lenin and his ‘Politburo’ (cabinet) ruled by decree: ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ was in effect dictatorship by the Bolshevik party.

Constituent Assembly




More on that lovely misunderstood man who only wanted peace, love and understanding on his own unique terms:

Lenin had never seen any reason to share power with any other political party, he believed his way was the only and correct way, and others would lead the revolution astray, so it had to be under his leadership. Lenin set up a commission to deal with those he saw as counter-revolutionary, known simply as the Checka and forerunner of the KGB, having the power to arrest, try and execute anyone they saw as dangerous to the regime. Opposition groups were dealt with ruthlessly. It was intended to smite counter-revolutionaries, but the Checka took it upon themselves to root out all forms of criticism. In Moscow, the popular clown BinBon who satirized the Communists on stage attracted the attention.

Lenin Seizes Power




Gone, finito, shut: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election,_1917




Funny how I like to cling to facts out of 'ideological necessity'!





And now, LENIN TAKES A BATH:

You can see Vladimir Lenin's embalmed skin sack being taken from its exhibit case at the Lenin Mausoleum in Moscow and given its yearly bath in a soup of formaldehyde, methanol and ethanol.

http://www.charonboat.com/item/135

A meal fit for a king!

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Lenin declared the new communist government on 8 November 1917.

Lie #1. This isn't true at all. The new government was declared on November 8, 1917 Gregorian (October 25 Julian) by the 2nd Russian Congress of Soviets. The following resolution was passed:

Decision to Form the Workers' and Peasants' Government

The All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies resolves:

To establish a provisional workers' and peasants' government, to be know as the Council of People's Commissars, to govern the country until the Constituent Assembly is convened. The management of individual branches of state activity is entrusted to commissions whose members hall ensure the fulfillment of the programme announced by the Congress, and shall work in close contact with mass organisations of men and women workers, sailors, soldiers, peasants and office employees. Governmental authority is vested in a collegium of the chairmen of those commissions, i.e., the Council of People's Commissars.

Control over the activities of the People's Commissars with the right to replace them is vested in the All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers', Peasants' and Soldiers' Deputies and its Central Executive Committee.

At the present time the Council of People's Commissars is constituted as follows:

Chairman of the Council — Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin);
People's Commissar of the Interior — A. I. Rykov;
Agriculture — V. P. Milyutin;
Labour — A. G. Shlyapnikov;
Army and Navy Affairs — a committee consisting of:
V. A. Ovseyenko (Antonov), N. V. Krylenko and P. Y. Dybenko;
Commerce and Industry — V. P. Nogin;
Education — A. V. Lunacharsky;
Finance — I. I. Skvortsov (Stepanov);
Foreign Affairs — L. D. Bronstein (Trotsky);
Justice — G. I. Oppokov (Lomov);
Food — I. A. Tedorovich;
Posts and Telegraph — N. P. Avilov (Glebov);
Chairman for Nationalities Affairs — J. V. Jugashvili (Stalin).
The office of People's Commissar of Railways is temporarily vacant.

Source

The parliament planned by the provisional government – called the ‘Constituent Assembly’ – went ahead as planned, but, when the Bolsheviks only won 175 seats and the Social revolutionaries won 370, Lenin closed it down and set up instead what he called the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’.

Lie #2. "Lenin" never dissolved the Constituent Assembly. The question of the seizure of power, as I said in my last post, was decided first by the Soviets and then by the Bolsheviks.

Moreover, reporting the election results in this way is fallacious, as the Socialist Revolutionary party split into Left SR's and Right SR's, of which the Left SR's allied themselves with the Bolsheviks or simply fused into the Bolshevik party. So the "Socialist Revolutionary party" didn't even exist as a unified party at the time of the elections. Despite splitting over the October Revolution, there was no time to change the ballot cards for the election and the party lists had been drawing up in September. So did over thirteen million peasants vote endorse the transfer of power to the soviets or reject the October Revolution? Based on the CA results it is impossible to tell, based on subsequent events (during the Civil War years) its clear that the majority favored the former

So, in brief, the Bolsheviks were indeed the largest single party to triumph in the CA elections (the SRs no longer existing by 1918) or at least close in popularity to the Left SRs. The former was unquestionably the party of the revolutionary Russian working class. Taken together however these two were undoubtedly the most popular parties in Russia and constitute a clear endorsement of the October Revolution on the part of the Russian toiling classes.

Lenin and his ‘Politburo’ (cabinet) ruled by decree: ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ was in effect dictatorship by the Bolshevik party

The Politburo didn't exist until March 1919 so this isn't relevant to the events of 1917.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

The election results printed are according to data from Russian archives. I can't say I'm intimate in my knowledge of these minutiate political allegiances, but I'm quite sure that a minority of those politicians were in favour of the kind of full blown killers' autocracy Lenin had in mind. Lenin was the man behind the power and it was his influence and driving force which drove events as he could help them.



Little more than a gangster:

In October at great personal risk he returned to attend a meeting of the Bolshevik Central Committee in Petrograd where he gained their agreement to seek supporters in the army and navy and to prepare the workers' militia, known as the Red Guard, for a military take over. On the 7th and 8th of November, to little resistance, the Bolshevik revolution took place. Shortly after, at the Second All Russian Congress of Soviets, Lenin was confirmed as the new Chairman. He may have finally achieved his long held aim but the struggle was far from over.

Indeed, the regression to dictatorship so soon after the fledgling democracy was born was not without uproar. When you seize power you close the Democracy, as is a warlords' privilege when fighting a class and civil war.

When the fall of the Winter Palace was announced, the Congress adopted a decree transferring power to the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies, thus ratifying the Revolution.

The transfer of power was not without disagreement. The center and Right wings of the Socialist Revolutionaries as well as the Mensheviks believed that Lenin and the Bolsheviks had illegally seized power and they walked out before the resolution was passed. As they exited, they were taunted by Leon Trotsky who told them "You are pitiful isolated individuals; you are bankrupts; your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on — into the dustbin of history!"

October Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Though he was undisputed top dog, his paranoia and persecution complex bit deep:

Lenin believed his opponents now within the Party structure were more dangerous than ever. What came out of this was the start of suppression by fear and a number of 'show trials' occurred often ending in the death penalty for people seen to be enemies of the state by opposing the establishment of Bolshevism.

BBC - h2g2 - The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - A quickly readable potted history, though sanitised and leaving much out.

The Politburo didn't exist until March 1919 so this isn't relevant to the events of 1917.

I'd probably agree, if there two Lenins - one the 1917 model and the other the 1919.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

The election results printed are according to data from Russian archives.

I never said that the results you presented weren't the published results. I said that the way that you presented them was fallacious because the Socialist Revolutionary party didn't even exist as a united party anymore. By the time the election was cast the party had split into the Left SR's and the Right SR's, the former of which either allied with the Bolsheviks or formally joined them. And this isn't a "minutiate political allegiance"; this is one of the largest and most popular parties at the time splitting in two at a decisive moment. It is of profound importance. This fact alone prohibits us from being able to analyze the election results as a gauge of popularity as you have so superficially attempted to do.

Lenin was the man behind the power and it was his influence and driving force which drove events as he could help them.

The workers and peasants were the driving force. The transfer of power was pushed through and decreed by the 2nd Russian Congress of Soviets, not through the Bolshevik party. You cannot keep repeating something which is known to be not true without looking like a dishonest ideologically motivated partisan hack.

Little more than a gangster:

Ah so now even your sources are agreeing with me against you. BTW, the Red Guards were set up prior to the seizure of power by industrial workers and not through the Bolshevik party, either, not that it really matters.

Indeed, the regression to dictatorship so soon after the fledgling democracy was born

Here is the problem with your silly little claim. From your source:

the Congress adopted a decree transferring power to the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies, thus ratifying the Revolution.

The 2nd Russian Congress of Soviets were the ones that transferred power. Not the Bolshevik party, the Soviets.

They transferred power to the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies. Again, not to the Bolshevik party.

EDIT: Here's some more information on the transfer of power:

The statistics of this Congress which assembled during the hours of insurrection are very, incomplete. At the moment of opening there were 650 delegates with votes: 390 fell to the lot of the Bolsheviks – by no means all members of the party, but they were of the flesh and blood of the masses, and the masses had no roads left but the Bolshevik road. Many of the delegates who had brought doubts with them were maturing fast in the red-hot atmosphere of Petrograd.

How completely had the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries squandered the political capital of the February revolution At the June Congress of Soviets the Compromisers had a majority of 600 votes out of the whole number of 832 delegates. Now the compromisist opposition of all shades made up less than a quarter of the Congress. The Mensheviks, with the national group adhering to them, amounted to only 80 members – about half of them “Lefts.” Out of 159 Social Revolutionaries – according to other reports 190 – about three-fifths were Lefts, and moreover the Right continued to melt fast during the very sitting of the Congress. Toward the end the total number of delegates, according to several lists, reached 900. Hut this figure, while including a number of advisory members, does not on the other hand include all those with votes. The registration was carried on intermittently; documents have been lost; the information about party affiliations was incomplete. In any case the dominant position of the Bolsheviks in the Congress remains indubitable.

A straw-vote taken among the delegates revealed that 505 soviets stood for the transfer of all power to the soviets; 86 for a government of the “democracy”; 55 for a coalition; 21 for a coalition, but without the Kadets. Although eloquent even in this form, these figures give an exaggerated idea of the remains of the Compromisers’ influence. Those for democracy and coalition were soviets from the more backward districts and least important points.

...

The Council of People’s Commissars was ratified by an overwhelming majority. Avilov’s resolution, according to the excessively generous estimate of Sukhanov, got 150 votes, chiefly Left Social Revolutionaries. The Congress then unanimously confirmed the membership of the new Central Executive Committee: out of 101 members – 62 Bolsheviks, 29 Left Social Revolutionaries. The Central Executive Committee was to complete itself in the future with representatives of the peasant soviets and the re-elected army organisations. The factions who had abandoned the Congress were granted the right to send their delegates to the Central Executive Committee on the basis of proportional representation.

Trotsky, L.D. History of the Russian Revolution, Vol. III

The transfer of power was not without disagreement. The center and Right wings of the Socialist Revolutionaries as well as the Mensheviks believed that Lenin and the Bolsheviks had illegally seized power and they walked out before the resolution was passed. As they exited, they were taunted by Leon Trotsky who told them "You are pitiful isolated individuals; you are bankrupts; your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on — into the dustbin of history!"

What is the problem with this?

EDIT: Also, you'll note in the above quote "The factions who had abandoned the Congress were granted the right to send their delegates to the Central Executive Committee on the basis of proportional representation". So the Right SR's and the Mensheviks were the ones that actually refused to submit to one of the most democratic bodies ever created; they were the ones that chose class warfare.

Lenin believed his opponents now within the Party structure

When is "now"? October 1917? 1919? 1920? When speaking about the course of events between 1917 and his death you have to be specific because the course of events developed at such a rapid pace that one cannot talk about them without referring to a specific time period.

Oh, and moreover, if this is speaking about October 1917, which is really my best guess since that is what we have been talking about this whole time, I think it's interesting to note that on the most important question of the day - the question of the seizure of power - two members of the Bolshevik Central Committee disagreed - Zinoviev and Kamenev. Judging by your portrayal of Lenin, you would guess that his response would have been a "show trial...ending in the death penalty". However, he had neither the power nor the reason to do so. His response was simply a public rebuke in the newspapers. Doesn't really fit your portrayal of the man at all, but then again that is because your portrayal is ridiculous.

The fact that you keep quoting Wikipedia I think is really telling of your superficial knowledge of the events at hand, and also of your need to justify your ideological presumptions ex post facto.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

You're quite right when you say I have only a passing knowledge of the minutiae of the inclinations of individual Revolutionary politicians. But there's nothing wrong in quoting Wikipedia when its sources are credible. That's what looking into things is for.

I can loosely compare the Soviet motion to the German Enabling Act allowing Hitler his own rule by decree. Not to mention the Nazis' use of the term 'seizure of power'. Here are yet more links outlining Lenin's exploitation of events and his own rise to force his rule of the roost:

Lenin and Trotsky achieved power by manipulating a vote which gave SOVNARKOM the right to rule by decree. Thomas et al illustrate, "Lenin played the role of the consummate politician: he promised whatever the people wanted so long as it enhanced his own power and position."

The Bolsheviks were still a minority and the there was pressure in the party to return to parliamentary style government. Lenin acted quickly dissolving the Constituent Assembly justifying this action

Vladimir Lenin and the Russian Revolution - by Tom Wynter - Helium



Lenin's Red Guards were his own stormtroopers, allowing him to coerce and intimidate political opposition at the least. (It is immaterial where they were drawn from.)

Lenin understood that many Russians had hoped for the election of a Constituent Assembly. In November, the nation-wide election for the Constituent Assembly was held. The Bolsheviks won only 1/4 of the votes in this election. (It must be remembered that the Bolsheviks got support chiefly from the revolutionary centres—the Petrograd and Moscow Soviets and the soviets in other places still supported the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries). Most of the votes went to the Social Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks. The 1iberals also won some votes. Lenin had no intention to give up power to a freely elected Constituent Assembly. After the Assembly had sat for one and a half day, Lenin ordered the Red Guards to disperse it by force. Although this repressive action led to a hardening of opposition to Lenin on the part of the non-Bolshevik parties, Lenin had secured temporary control of the political situation.

Totalitarianism in Europe (1919 - 1939)


Jim Fixed It for Lenin! And once more the offerings from your Marxist website doesn't tell the whole story. (Just as you'd expect people from the National Front to avoid mentioning the horrors of the Nazi regime.)





And Trotsky's spiteful jeering is evidence of additional contempt for those not in step with the new order. Rather than acting passively as an audience, Lenin's people resorted to the usual hullabaloo tactic. Plus, if the 'allowance' of these people to join the Executive Committee was so gracious, why were any pretences of Democracy finally snuffed out in Lenin's time?


I don't know about any 'ideological presumptions'. Though I am aware of my cynicism towards dictatorship, in the front line as this country was in the teeth of both the Nazi and Soviet threats Churchill warned us all about.

___________________________________

LENIN GOT HIS NOSE CHOPPED OFF!

http://www.rferl.org/content/GoodBye_Lenin_/1766997.html

Least he deserved!

 

[Jail Com of 300]

 

[Khayembii Communique]

I can loosely compare the Soviet motion to the German Enabling Act allowing Hitler his own rule by decree.

You could but you'd make a huge idiot out of yourself considering the two aren't even similar in any way shape or form.

Not to mention the Nazis' use of the term 'seizure of power'.

The Nazi's were German. Lenin lived in Germany. OMFGLENINSANAZI!!! :roll:

Here are yet more links outlining Lenin's exploitation of events and his own rise to force his rule of the roost:

The Bolsheviks were still a minority and the there was pressure in the party to return to parliamentary style government. Lenin acted quickly dissolving the Constituent Assembly justifying this action

Dude, I already disproved this in my previous posts. You couldn't respond to those. Stop repeating yourself. You're wrong.

Lenin's Red Guards were his own stormtroopers

No they weren't.

And once more the offerings from your Marxist website doesn't tell the whole story.

Unlike your silly little National Front comparison the account that I quoted from is viewed by Russian Historians as one of the most complete and accurate ever written.

Oh and how does it not "tell the whole story"?

And Trotsky's spiteful jeering is evidence of additional contempt for those not in step with the new order.

They deserved it. And besides, this is an incredibly stupid argument. It doesn't have anything to do with the events whatsoever and doesn't even really support whatever it is you're trying to say, either. It's stupid.

Plus, if the 'allowance' of these people to join the Executive Committee was so gracious, why were any pretences of Democracy finally snuffed out in Lenin's time?

Ah so you admit then that I am right, yet again. I admire your honesty but you really need to stop clinging to this version of events that obviously isn't true.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

1. The German Enabling Act was also passed by an intimidated parliament which also contained politicians from other parties genuinely supporting the move.

2. The Nazis also used the term 'seizure of power' to describe their own 'victory' over Democracy.

3. Funny how I've got all these different, credible sources to choose from while you stick with just the one. You haven't even disproved anything either, merely leaving gaps for me to fill. (And you do it incompetently too, seeing as I'm supposed to be such a duffer at debating with somebody defending a psychopathic and murderous regime!)

4. Lenin using military forces to crush sundry opposition, including democratic political opposition, sounds just like wielding a stormtroop to me. Anybody can take a look online at this if they wish, my links being a mere h'ors deuvre!

5. Funny how you claim to be so right without actually touching on virtually any point I made since the opening post! You failed, for example, to deny the mass murders, torture and oppression the Communists outshone even the Nazis at. Indeed, why don't you answer the question as to why Democracy was snuffed out under Lenin if being allowed to sit on the Executive Committee was such a gracious permission?

And nothing in what you say alters the main thrust of the entire topic - that Communism spawned a brutal, murderous, hypocritical and supremacist creed which was responsible for more deaths than Hitler, Mussolini and the militarist Japanese of Hirohito combined! You would deny it and bury me in hyperlinks otherwise.



______________________________________________

Ah so you admit then that I am right, yet again

Asking a question is proof of something?! With that mentality, no wonder you called the death tolls of communist leaders 'irrelevant'!

__________________________________________________

THE COMMUNIST PARTY HINDERED THE HUNT FOR THE ROSTOV RIPPER:

His case is noteworthy not only because of the large number of his victims but because efforts by Soviet police to issue warnings to the public during their investigation were hampered by the country’s official ideology, which asserted that serial murder was impossible in a communist society.

Andrei Chikatilo (Soviet serial killer) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

They know a thing or two about psychotic mass murder too you know!

___________________________________________________

THE TRUE FACE OF COMMUNISM - Martial Law in Poland!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RF4LDkgWyw&feature=related

 

[Khayembii Communique]

3. Funny how I've got all these different, credible sources to choose from

Which credible sources? The random websites you've been linking to that have been making claims without backing them up? Meanwhile I have been quoting from primary documents and credible scholarly works. The only way you can ever respond is either by repeating your already disproven claim or changing the subject.

Let's review.

First, you claim that "Lenin established the dictatorship" and "dissolved the [Constituent Assembly]". I proved you wrong quoting primary sources showing that this is categorically false and that the transfer of power to the Soviets was done through the 2nd Russian Congress of Soviets, one of the most democratic bodies to ever have existed. Your response? Repeat your earlier claim and try to change the subject.

Second, you attempt to make the claim that the October Revolution was a Bolshevik coup and cite the election results for the Constituent Assembly as evidence. I respond by telling you that that's not an argument because the most popular party at the time - the Socialist Revolutionaries - didn't even exist as a unified party and that the party split with the Left SR's going over to the Bolsheviks. This invalidates the election results as a gauge of political support. Your response? Repeat your earlier claim and try to change the subject.

And of course peppered in are a bunch of silly claims that when pressed you don't even back up. Your whole argument is a joke.

while you stick with just the one.

When a primary source conclusively proves one's point then that is the only source needed. What do you want other sources for?

You haven't even disproved anything either, merely leaving gaps for me to fill.

Your delusional stubbornness is impressive. On the two actual points we have been discussing I have conclusively proved you were wrong. Now if you want to continue this discussion you can back up your position by attempting to show that the transfer of power wasn't through/to the Soviets. But we both know that isn't possible, as the primary documents have shown (as well as all reputable academia) that this is an indisputable fact. Denying this is comparable to denying that the Declaration of Independence was adopted on July 4, 1776.

4. Lenin using military forces to crush sundry opposition, including democratic political opposition, sounds just like wielding a stormtroop to me. Anybody can take a look online at this if they wish, my links being a mere h'ors deuvre!

Yes your links to Wikipedia and the first hits that came up on a Google search of "Red Guard Murderers" or whatever idiotic thing you looked up. :roll:

5. Funny how you claim to be so right without actually touching on virtually any point I made since the opening post! You failed, for example, to deny the mass murders, torture and oppression the Communists outshone even the Nazis at.

I actually addressed this very point, and specifically explained why I'm not going to allow you to jump around from one topic to another in order to avoid debate. You can complain about that all you want but that's just a sign of your inability to actually discuss the matter at hand and calls your credibility into question. Admitting you have no idea what you're talking about didn't really help, either. :lol:

And nothing in what you say alters the main thrust of the entire topic - that Communism spawned a brutal, murderous, hypocritical and supremacist creed which was responsible for more deaths than Hitler, Mussolini and the militarist Japanese of Hirohito combined! You would deny it and bury me in hyperlinks otherwise.

The question is fallacious on its face; I don't need to bury you with hyperlinks. "Communism killed xyz million people" isn't a statement to be taken seriously enough to respond to.

You want to continue this then you can respond to the actual question at hand, otherwise you're just a troll that I'm not going to entertain any further.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

I couldn't care less if you 'entertain' me or not. Particularly as once again you dismiss the seriously huge death tolls of Communist leaders as something frivilous enough to ignore!

Your arrogance would otherwise be stalling, but if one of my heroes Lech Walesa had to deal with communist humbug in his turn then so may I. Indeed, slamming someone for not knowing every detail of something is absurd. I got by, with the humungus archive of material existing to back up my claims.


You 'don't allow me to jump around' because it would force you to accept that under Communism death, destruction, oppression and a lack of respect for human rights is par for the course. Furthermore my sources take their material from a vast array of documents listed in their bibliographies; plus I have as much right not to take your far left Marxist website at face value as you do to dispense with my lengthy and varied resources.

In Lenin's style you say I'm wrong because you say so. I've proved that Lenin closed the Assembly using his Red Guard. You say the Congress put up the motion for transfer of absolute power but I replied that Lenin also played his hand to help ensure that power was transferred to him. He wasn't exactly going to refuse was he, power hungry murderer that he was!


Coming to a conclusion, or daring to disagree with your statements, conclusions or mindsets, can be called 'changing the subject' if you wish. Yourself, you've done nothing else, choosing to deflect attention away from Lenin's totalitarianism rather than face up to the hideous horrors Communist doctrine scarred the Earth with.


______________________________________________________

The REAL Workers' Revolution!

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=le...=youtube.com&hl=en&client=opera&hs=JvI&rls=en

Good old Lech! As a Pole, there's lots of stuff about Communism I can recognise already!

 

[Khayembii Communique]

In October 1917 who resolved the seizure of power? Who was power transferred to?

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Ah ah ah! I've answered you more than enough up to now.


Now it's time for you to have the grace to reciprocate. As I asked earlier:

Let's make this simple for you. Deny that Stalin murdered scores of millions in purges, repressions and ethnic cleansing. Deny that a dictatorship was established under Lenin, breaking his promise of power to the people. Deny that a terrible holocaust took place across the Communist world as dissidents, ethnic minorities and gays were persecuted. Deny that territory was invaded in Eastern Europe or Far East Asia on the behest of dictators.

...And provide your own weblinks 'proving' these denials.

__________________________________________

Reputedly, Stalin admitted that the Devil was on his side because the Dark One was a good Communist!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reMFluRR2cc

Spoken in jest, but ne'er a truer word was said in it! Once again the frivilous attitude to the autocracy and horror.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Answer it again then.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Deny that a dictatorship was established under Lenin,

He wasn't exactly going to refuse was he, power hungry murderer that he was!

One of the funniest things things I always hear are stories of how Lenin dictated the Bolsheviks but then how few of them seem to obey him. For a supposedly absolute ruler of Russia he couldn't even absolutely rule the Bolsheviks. Kamenev and Zinoviev not only voted against the October insurrection (and thus "Lenin's coup" which supposedly propelled him to absolute power) they even leaked plans about before it happened, yet both had high positions throughout the Civil War and later. Or peace with Germany, Lenin wanted immediate peace, Trotsky wanted to only accept German terms if they started a new offensive, and Bukharin wanted to wage a "revolutionary war" against Germany, yet neither Trotsky or Bukharin were put on trial or killed for this, in fact Lenin conceded to Trotsky. Some bloodthirsty absolute dictator he was. The closest dictatorship Lenin helped establish was a worker's dictatorship, which is a certain "power to the people."

Deny that Stalin murdered scores of millions in purges, repressions and ethnic cleansing.

I deny this, it was closer 10,000,000,000,000,000. Stop making Stalin look like an amateur.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

....Lenin conceded to Trotsky. Some bloodthirsty absolute dictator he was.

Goring argued long and hard with Hitler against the invasion of Russia in 1941, yet Hitler didn't have him killed either. Goring botched and boobed right through the war but Hitler still left him alone, only finally ordering him demoted in 1945 for trying to take over his leadership. 'Some bloodthirsty dictator'. eh?!


As the man says, Lenin's genius to was jump on popular discontent for the tsarist regime and bodgers of the baby democracy. If, as you say, few people listened to him without coercion, then that only shows what a perepheral figure Lenin actually was to anything other than the web of power he was insinuating into.


Yet yet yet yet another independent source describing the Red Terror and dictatorship, this one an education website used by teachers and students: Lenin, Vladimir: Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity
__________________________________________________________

I deny this, it was closer 10,000,000,000,000,000. Stop making Stalin look like an amateur.

Another communist with a frivilous attitude to the death tolls! No wonder the world is at last glad to be rid of communism in Europe and Russia! They haven't been voted back, despite 70 years of 'practical' experience!

 

[Cookie Monster]

Goring argued long and hard with Hitler against the invasion of Russia in 1941, yet Hitler didn't have him killed either.

With the respective issues, Lenin capitulated, Hitler didn't. Your example is void and stupid.

If, as you say, few people listened to him without coercion, then that only shows what a perepheral figure Lenin actually was to anything other than the web of power he was insinuating into.

No, it shows that Lenin's word wasn't law. That because Lenin once said something or spoke some words not everyone fell into line.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Your example is void and stupid.

Just like Communism, which is why it killed 100 million people worldwide - a workload enough to make even a Nazi feel overwhelmed! The fact Hitler too was a mass murdering demagogue isn't changed by whether he won or lost arguments on the issues. Hitler often also gave way with his generals and colleagues, as would have Lenin.


Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age ... - Google Books

That because Lenin once said something or spoke some words not everyone fell into line.

...And they suffered for it, particulularly the hated peasants.

So Lenin's government advanced to the next stage: sending the Cheka and the Red Army to seize grain directly from the peasant. This was ideologically justified by dubbing peasants who resisted grain as wealthy "kulaks," though rich and poor alike found themselves staring down the muzzles of the Cheka's guns. Once again, the resort to ever greater brutality did not bring the desired results. Minimal food was collected, and the peasants went into open revolt. Lenin, who in every other matter seemed to be the master of the temporary compromise, could not control his hatred of the resisting peasants.

Lenin and the First Communist Revolutions, VII




Paranoia against even his own party comrades: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...ybody-else-see-oxymoron-6.html#post1058786440

After miraculously surviving an assassination attempt, Lenin became increasingly ruthless, driven by paranoia fuelled by the threat of counter-revolutionaries and those loyal to the old Tsarist regime.

http://www.leader-values.com/Content/detail.asp?ContentDetailID=965



Another death blow to the myth of Lenin's goodness: Vladimir Lenin died from syphilis, new research claims - Telegraph

VAST RED TERROR PICTURE AND DATA ARCHIVE: Lenin red terror - Google Search

Many Russian communists openly proclaimed that Red Terror was needed for extermination of entire social groups or former "ruling classes".

Red Terror - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Despite the misty Mills & Boon romanticism which communists still shroud Lenin under, the lessons of his needlessly brutal regime still send the world shuddering 90 years later.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

You're wasting your time. He's already discredited himself. He can't even discuss this when you actually try to get him to stay on topic. I proved this earlier in the thread. He's a troll.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

I wouldn't exactly say that of Cookie Monster. He asked a question and I answered it and it went pretty well.

Pity I couldn't get the others to stay on topic about Communism's tyranny and deaths I opened with, but it was an interesting chat with plenty of links to back it all up anyway.

I'd have liked to have seen some of theirs.