- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 2,854
- Reaction score
- 567
- Location
- Oslo, Norway
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
ALFONS:
The Soviet model was more akin to state capitalists.
The soviet model was a Marxism–Leninism socialist model.
Tito sought to improve life. Unlike others who rose to power on the communist wave after World War II, Tito did not long demand that his people suffer for a distant vision of a better life. After an initial Soviet-influenced bleak period, Tito moved toward radical improvement of life in the country. Yugoslavia gradually became a bright spot amid the general grayness of Eastern Europe.
—The New York Times, May 5, 1980
What is "the Soviet model" and how is it "Marxist-Leninist"?
MarxismWhat is "the Soviet model" and how is it "Marxist-Leninist"?
Actually, there were not that much difference between Lenin and Stalin. To make "communism" sound better, Lenin is often presented as the good guy, while Stalin is the one who corrupted the system.LOL wow that was like the biggest non-response in the world. Let me ask some more specific questions, see if you can pin down what you're actually saying for us to respond. Let's start with a really easy question for you: Is "the Soviet model" to which you are referring that of the NEP period or of collectivisation? Further, if you choose one or the other, then the other by definition is not "the Soviet model". How can you reconcile your assertion with the fact that you are being hypocritical and claiming that "the Soviet model" includes both the NEP period as well as collectivisation, which are mutually exclusive?
It was Lenin, not Stalin who made the first Gulags.
There are differences betweem them, but Soviet didn't change substantially from Lenin to Stalin and therefore I put it under the same label.
No, I tell you that the system of governemnt didn't change that much. You are just idolizing Lening, because then you can make socialism look better. You want to blame all the faults of communism on Stalin, when in fact it was doomed to fail from the begining.So in other words you can't answer the question and instead wanted to go off on some irrelevant rant about how Lenin and Stalin are the same.
Not true, read this from wikipedoiaIf you are referring to work camps, those were around for decades, if not centuries, before the Russian Revolution. The work camps at the time Lenin was active resembled in absolutely no way the work camps under the GULag system from the 30's onward. Professional historians recognize that the conditions at the work camps were relatively well off until around the 30's.
by May 1919, there were some 16,000 enemies of the people imprisoned in the Tsarist katorga labour camps; by September 1921 the prisoner populace exceeded 70,000.[84][85][86][87][88][89]
Camlon said:No, I tell you that the system of governemnt didn't change that much. You are just idolizing Lening, because then you can make socialism look better.
From 1918, camp-type detention facilities were set up, as a reformed analogy of the earlier system of penal labor (katorgas), operated in Siberia in Imperial Russia. The two main types were "Vechecka Special-purpose Camps" (особые лагеря ВЧК, osobiye lagerya VChK) and forced labor camps (лагеря принудительных работ, lagerya prinuditel'nikh rabot). They were installed for various categories of people deemed dangerous for the state: for common criminals, for prisoners of the Russian Civil War, for officials accused of corruption, sabotage and embezzlement, various political enemies and dissidents, as well as former aristocrats, businessmen and large land owners.
If Lenin was such a good guy then why did he do this?
Also read this
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS COMMITTED DURING LENIN'S RULE
Never said that. I just said that they didn't follow different economic models.Hah I don't idolize Lenin at all I just recognize that saying "Stalin = Lenin" is basically trolling.
He supported it.First, "he" did not do this. The state did.
Second, because every state has prisons?
I haven't posted very much from other websites, but I think it addresses well that Lenin wasn't completly different from Stalin. I willl post it again so it easier for you to read it.First, I'm not going to respond to every single thing you cut and paste from other websites.
I'm coming back to that when you admit that Lenin wasn't completly different from Stalin and hence they didn't change their model.Second, the original question was for you to describe "the Soviet model". You're avoiding the question.
by May 1919, there were some 16,000 enemies of the people imprisoned in the Tsarist katorga labour camps; by September 1921 the prisoner populace exceeded 70,000.[84][85][86][87][88][89]
Didn't say it was representative among socialist, but a substantial amount of socialists are anti-semetic. If Israel was a muslim country, it would get a lot less criticism from the socialists in Europe and a lot more from the far right in Europe.
This is not a fringe element. The socialist party of Norway (Norway is normally considered a tolerant country) had the occupation as a theme in their summer camp. I was there, many years ago. They showed this picture. http://www.friendsofsabeel.org.uk/images/Israel-Palestine_maps.jpg
Which is completly historical inaccurate, and they always focus on Israel. I have never seen them write anything about Zimbabwe or North Korea. People in those countries are living under much worse conditions. That's why I said we see tendencies, but we also see openly racists among socialists.
That depends on where you put them. For instance Vigrid in Norway is not economical conservative, but is normally put on extreme right for historical reasons.
But it's not socialism, socialism is defined quite clearly in wikipedia, and it doesn't fulfill the requirements. Also in the article below, they state quite clearly that it is not socialism.
Social democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Some Americans will label it socialist, but the American public don't really know what socialism is.
Racism or anti-Semitism on the right is the core of their ideology. In case of the left, it's not... when socialists are racists, they are so despite their ideology. When far-right people are racists, they are so because of their ideology.
Never said that. I just said that they didn't follow different economic models.
I don't know which country you live in, but I can hardly see how imprisoning people for their position in society or their political beliefs are anything similar to prisons.
by May 1919, there were some 16,000 enemies of the people imprisoned in the Tsarist katorga labour camps; by September 1921 the prisoner populace exceeded 70,000.[84][85][86][87][88][89]
I feel I must ask this question:
If I creat a political concept that others follow, th does not inherently include notion like genocide like Naziism, and it is followed by mant others with different types of my notion... ...and every movement made by those people who tried to follow my concept resulted in mass bloodshed and death... is the concept blameless? Should it be allowed to continue? Why not? Blame the people not the concept, right?
It depends on the situation, both may be culpable to some extent.
Is the concept blamesless, Stillballin75? What of communism? Is the theory not blameless? Why shouldn't it be?
You're not supposed to realize the dead collateral, Ballin.
It shouldn't be blameless.
You think that. Does everyone, though? *Looks around*
If people seem to keep dying under a persistent concept, perhaps it is not such a good thing?
Concepts are blameless. Like all inanimate objects, holding them responsible is crazy.
So Nazism as an ideology is blameless, but Nazis themselves hold all the responsibility?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?