Famous people talk about Russian

[Canell]

Russians are idealists, which is not a bad thing, but causes some troubles.

 

[Medusa]

fabulous russian classics in literature , bolshoi ballet ,russian revue ,patinage artistique figure skating

 

[DDD]

I don't know what's more funny... islamists bragging that their ideology is superior to "Western materialism" and making the world Muslim will bring heaven on earth, or the claim of Russian nationalists that "the Russian soul can cure the world", totally unaware that nobody else takes them seriously as they're erring so obviously.

It's funny when people in an authoritarian state where the media is government controlled rant about "Western propaganda".

But hey, your government told you we're not really free here in the West, so why shouldn't you just believe it, right? Your government has always been right in the 20st century.

Stop, please, stop! :lamo :lamo

 

[DDD]

It is a bit funny to see people that are partisans of their biased media. How positivistically they defend and are amazed as to why on earth could we possibly think otherwise! What is wrong with us! Like they never heard of other media, interpretionism, or use critical thinking.

But I think this funniness lasts as long as they are way off your doorsteps! Should you have an army of such people wanting in your borders, it is no longer funny! It starts getting scary!

For you are no longer in the comfort of a PC trying to put some alternative perspective to a closed mind! The closed mind is acting on your demise and no time to take your BS into a serious enough consideration to spark even the slightest of influence!

 

[Medusa]

That's grossly oversimplified.

Most of the killing done by self-proclaimed communist regimes was of elements representing capitalism or the previous system. The Hungarian regime, in its case, killed and jailed a large number of dissenters to maintain itself - such is the reality of trying to establish collectivism in the face of a capitalist bloc. Though admittedly, with the removal of Imre Nagy, the imperial Stalinism was shown to be far less devoted to its own cause than I would've liked.

The same thing is true about Cuba, but on a more extreme level. The (self-proclaimed, once again) communist government has been under siege, with the population recognizing that. With constant ideological and trade pressures - thanks to The Land of the Free -, they've had to restrict elections to the bottom half of government positions. These positions are typically those of a highly participatory, localized system of governance, reflective of local demographics, but with the candidates needing to be approved by the CP. But this is not surprising, and neither is the staving off of dissent. because Cuba could veer off the path of socialism at any time. In many ways, Cuba is a compromise between Nagy's socialism (best suited for the powerful, industrialized countries), and Kadar's (Made to engage with the realities of smaller, less industrialized ones.)

And in Russia, it was largely the same, but with the thorough annihilation of previous systems of power. They also had Stalin's economic brutality, done again, to prevent capitalist elements from working their way in, and resulting in a famine. Or, in Trotsky's case, Kronstadt and the Civil War.

But it wasn't all killing for killing's sake. They all had reasons, drawing from the despotic ideologies they faced. And you know, it's pretty amazing to hear an anti-capitalist writing this all off so simply. The libertarian left can be so blissfully naive.

it is america

do whatever you want as ikari always says :mrgreen:

the left of america is still our right l think

 

[Org]

Of course they had a reason. The reason was "ain't no one gonna question. or challenge my authority. Not man, not gods!"

Commies are rather egocentric, murderous megalomaniacs.

You still have to look at it in context. Socialism isn't some ideology coming from nowhere. I mean, it has a material form and all, but at it's core is a critique of capitalism. Did the Bolshevik party just appear for no reason? No, and the same thing could be said about any communist party, brutal or benign.

So we can talk about how nasty these people were - and sure, that's part of socialist history -, but ignoring the broader scope of their actions is unacceptable.

 

[Ikari]

You still have to look at it in context. Socialism isn't some ideology coming from nowhere. I mean, it has a material form and all, but at it's core is a critique of capitalism. Did the Bolshevik party just appear for no reason? No, and the same thing could be said about any communist party, brutal or benign.

So we can talk about how nasty these people were - and sure, that's part of socialist history -, but ignoring the broader scope of their actions is unacceptable.

All major commie regimes have executed a large and significant portion of their population to gain power. That's just a measured fact.

 

[Org]

All major commie regimes have executed a large and significant portion of their population to gain power. That's just a measured fact.

Correction: to maintain power. So, go on. You were trying to make some kind of point?

 

[Ikari]

Correction: to maintain power. So, go on. You were trying to make some kind of point?

About half your population, that's what it takes to make a commie state. There is something fundamentally flawed about the philosophy which isn't correctly accounting for humans and because of it, it's easily taken advantage of by despots and maniacs. About half your population. How many did Stalin kill? Mao? Pol Pot? You can get all defensive and snippy if you like, but measurement is as it is. You may as well argue that the fossil record was manipulated by gods to make it appear older than it is.

 

[Org]

About half your population, that's what it takes to make a commie state. There is something fundamentally flawed about the philosophy which isn't correctly accounting for humans and because of it, it's easily taken advantage of by despots and maniacs. About half your population. How many did Stalin kill? Mao? Pol Pot? You can get all defensive and snippy if you like, but measurement is as it is. You may as well argue that the fossil record was manipulated by gods to make it appear older than it is.

It doesn't really matter, because I don't deny the atrocities committed under the Communist Parties, but your numbers are off. Russia, for example:

Population
Population in 1917
Death toll

Anyway, I don't care about the exact numbers. Because what matters is why these killings occurred. It wasn't that communism preached murder - no, Russia, for example, killed communists in large numbers. And Marx and Bakunin never advocated many of the violent measures carried out by communist states. So I'd say that the cause was a combination of these factors, none of which disqualify communism as a modern political ideology:

a.) The CP of Russia prevented decentralization, leading to overbearing states and shortages.
b.) Attempts at communism occurred when pressures of capitalism and the previous regimes threatened their stability.
c.) They also had to deal with industrialization, and leaders decided to force it through a powerful state apparatus.
d.) In many cases, such attempts also went against core Marxist principals, by happening without a proletarian majority.

 

[Ikari]

It doesn't really matter, because I don't deny the atrocities committed under the Communist Parties, but your numbers are off. Russia, for example:

Population
Population in 1917
Death toll

Anyway, I don't care about the exact numbers. Because what matters is why these killings occurred. It wasn't that communism preached murder - no, Russia, for example, killed communists in large numbers. And Marx and Bakunin never advocated many of the violent measures carried out by communist states. So I'd say that the cause was a combination of these factors, none of which disqualify communism as a modern political ideology:

a.) The CP of Russia prevented decentralization, leading to overbearing states and shortages.
b.) Attempts at communism occurred when pressures of capitalism and the previous regimes threatened their stability.
c.) They also had to deal with industrialization, and leaders decided to force it through a powerful state apparatus.
d.) In many cases, such attempts also went against core Marxist principals, by happening without a proletarian majority.

Yeah, Russia had a lot of people, it was hard for them to get half. Still all considered Stalin got 10's of millions. Which ain't no small beans.

Again, no commie country has come to be without massive murder of its own people. Not perhaps the best of styles to go for.

 

[head of joaquin]

What's a little voter suppression?

Republicans should know.

 

[head of joaquin]

All major commie regimes have executed a large and significant portion of their population to gain power. That's just a measured fact.

Thank God we didn't do that in the US. We just killed Indians and slaves and they didn't count.

 

[Org]

Yeah, Russia had a lot of people, it was hard for them to get half. Still all considered Stalin got 10's of millions. Which ain't no small beans.

Again, no commie country has come to be without massive murder of its own people. Not perhaps the best of styles to go for.

I still don't know what your point is...

Anyway, saying that "no commie country has come to be without massive murder of its own people" is just plain wrong. Soviet Russia was not a communist country - neither was Maoist China - or post-Batista Cuba - or Hungary under Rakosi, Nagy and Kadar. Sure, communism has been attempted, but it's never been realized.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Republicans should know.

So much for keeping politics out of a "Non-Political" forum.

Why Russians think U.S. elections are unfair

 

[Ikari]

I still don't know what your point is...

Anyway, saying that "no commie country has come to be without massive murder of its own people" is just plain wrong. Soviet Russia was not a communist country - neither was Maoist China - or post-Batista Cuba - or Hungary under Rakosi, Nagy and Kadar. Sure, communism has been attempted, but it's never been realized.

Point is no commie country has ever come into power without massive murder and genocide. This is measured fact. To establish a.communist country takes about half your population typically.

 

[DDD]

Point is no commie country has ever come into power without massive murder and genocide. This is measured fact. To establish a.communist country takes about half your population typically.

I think he means that since no Communism has ever occurred yet in any country, some tried it through socialism but did not made it (e.g., Russia, China), that socialism should be blamed for the genocide. Not commies but socialists.

 

[Org]

I think he means that since no Communism has ever occurred yet in any country, some tried it through socialism but did not made it (e.g., Russia, China), that socialism should be blamed for the genocide. Not commies but socialists.

Yes and no? Socialism shouldn't be blamed for genocide, and neither should communism. The anti-socialist, authoritarian politics of supposed communist states should be held accountable. This includes those pushing a programme of their facilitation - namely, the Marxist-Leninists.

 

[DDD]

Yes and no? Socialism shouldn't be blamed for genocide, and neither should communism. The anti-socialist, authoritarian politics of supposed communist states should be held accountable. This includes those pushing a programme of their facilitation - namely, the Marxist-Leninists.

You are vague.

 

[Org]

You are vague.

Oh? What would you like me to clarify?

 

[Mach]

Yes and no? Socialism shouldn't be blamed for genocide, and neither should communism. The anti-socialist, authoritarian politics of supposed communist states should be held accountable. This includes those pushing a programme of their facilitation - namely, the Marxist-Leninists.

You're really embracing this, it's bizarre to me to witness this in near-real time. You do understand that the argument that "it's never been realized" ends up with the admission that the ideal is an ideal and factually "can never be realized in it's idealized state". As such, there IS NOT REALIZATION of socialism/communism beyond what HAS BEEN EVIDENCED IN REALITY. Now, if the ideas of socialism/communism could be realized *even on paper* with a modern understanding of how societies/power works, even that would be something to work with. But everyone knows that too fails. It fails on paper, and in practice, yet you claim it's not failing because what it really is has never been realized. It's akin to apologists with regards to their deities and divinity. Imagine you have this "ideal utopia" and it has two ultra-simplified aspects. One rule is that people get to vote on what to do with all property. The other is that people will live in peace and harmony and utopia. Now, you implement this in reality, and immediately based on rule 1, people form alliances and grab power, etc., such that it becomes yet another authoritarian political state that uses this veneer of "but we voted on it, its therefore fair!" to rule. You're then in the absurd position of claiming that no, it's not been realized because what about the harmony and utopia!! That wasn't implemented! That's because it's a derivative of the other rule, you don't get to create it, it RESULTS from other actions/rules.

 

[Mach]

And to be clear, socialism and communism as ideas are largely the product of misinformed, ignorant European philosophers dreaming up notions that had little to no basis in reality. When tested in any realistic way, they failed spectacularly, and tragically. We have since come to understand enough about humans behavior, power, etc., that we also understand why on paper they make no sense....at least certainly not delivering what they claim to.

What they refined however was a set of complicated enough propgoganda that can be used to upset the status quo and presumably gain some support of the lower/working class politically based on the populist styled message it centers around. Christianity rose to great power and still holds significant sway in our world, yet it's based entirely on mythology. Just because socialism still enjoys attention and supporters has no relevance at all to it's credibility as a realistic system that does what it claims it can do. (like most religions)

 

[Org]

You're really embracing this, it's bizarre to me to witness this in near-real time. You do understand that the argument that "it's never been realized" ends up with the admission that the ideal is an ideal and factually "can never be realized in it's idealized state". As such, there IS NOT REALIZATION of socialism/communism beyond what HAS BEEN EVIDENCED IN REALITY. Now, if the ideas of socialism/communism could be realized *even on paper* with a modern understanding of how societies/power works, even that would be something to work with. But everyone knows that too fails. It fails on paper, and in practice, yet you claim it's not failing because what it really is has never been realized. It's akin to apologists with regards to their deities and divinity. Imagine you have this "ideal utopia" and it has two ultra-simplified aspects. One rule is that people get to vote on what to do with all property. The other is that people will live in peace and harmony and utopia. Now, you implement this in reality, and immediately based on rule 1, people form alliances and grab power, etc., such that it becomes yet another authoritarian political state that uses this veneer of "but we voted on it, its therefore fair!" to rule. You're then in the absurd position of claiming that no, it's not been realized because what about the harmony and utopia!! That wasn't implemented! That's because it's a derivative of the other rule, you don't get to create it, it RESULTS from other actions/rules.

I'm going to challenge the basic assumption of that post. See, socialism has existed - very successfully.

In Spain, lacking a state, members of the population established a rather successful system of socialist anarchism. Hungary under the CP was a positive thing, lacking many of the problems it has under capitalism today. In Venezuela, socialism thrives, but needs some adjustments. In Cuba, despite problems, socialism has greatly improved the lives of the people, and there's hope for the switch to a market economy.

 

[DDD]

Oh? What would you like me to clarify?

You start with a:

Yes and no?

About punishing either communism or socialism. Yes and no for two other concepts such as communism and socialism leaves with many combinations. Yes for Commie, no for Social, no for social, yes for commie, yes to two, and no to two. The later it seems to apply for you continue with:

Socialism shouldn't be blamed for genocide, and neither should communism.

But then state Marxists and Leninists (arguably the greatest socialism supporters and facilitators) should be punished instead:

The anti-socialist, authoritarian politics of supposed communist states should be held accountable. This includes those pushing a programme of their facilitation - namely, the Marxist-Leninists.

What good is there in the two if the system never works and its greatest supporters commit genocide and should be (but were not) persecuted for crimes against humanity?

Secondly, how much testing at the cost of human life are you willing to go with until convinced that it could never work?

The systems do not consider greed and exploitations that come with forced sharing of wealth.

 

[Org]

You start with a:



About punishing either communism or socialism. Yes and no for two other concepts such as communism and socialism leaves with many combinations. Yes for Commie, no for Social, no for social, yes for commie, yes to two, and no to two. The later it seems to apply for you continue with:



But then state Marxists and Leninists (arguably the greatest socialism supporters and facilitators) should be punished instead:



What good is there in the two if the system never works and its greatest supporters commit genocide and should be (but were not) persecuted for crimes against humanity?

Secondly, how much testing at the cost of human life are you willing to go with until convinced that it could never work?

The systems do not consider greed and exploitations that come with forced sharing of wealth.

Look at post #48. It really depends upon what you mean by it "working", but socialism has had some success. And it's still in revision. I mean, socialism is a broad word, so if you're asking if I think socialism could ever work using an authoritarian, anti-democratic state, then I'll say that it won't. But if you're talking about the decentralized kind, there's a lot of evidence to say that it has potential to work on a large scale.

It's like capitalism. It worked terribly under Batista, but fairly well under Roosevelt. When dealing with words like socialism and capitalism, you have to recognize that the failure of one system is the failure of that system, not all of them.