Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Research on Lesser-Known Nazi Sites Is Now Public

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Seen
    07-18-09 @ 04:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,041

    Re: Research on Lesser-Known Nazi Sites Is Now Public

    Trotsky murdered thousands if not tens of thousands of people before he failed in his bid to out scheme Stalin after Lenin died.

  2. #12
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,887

    Re: Research on Lesser-Known Nazi Sites Is Now Public

    Trotsky murdered thousands if not tens of thousands of people
    So did Lincoln.

  3. #13
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:43 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,562

    Re: Research on Lesser-Known Nazi Sites Is Now Public

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    So did Lincoln.
    Yeah. That's EXACTLY the same.

    Trotsky:
    • We are for regulated labor on the basis of an economic plan, obligatory for the whole people and consequently compulsory for each worker in the country. Without this we cannot even dream of a transition to socialism ... [O]bligation and, consequently, compulsion are essential conditions for overcoming bourgeois anarchy, securing socialization of the means of production and labor, and reconstructing economic life on the basis of a single plan.

    • [E]even chattel slavery was productive ... Forced labor did not grow out of the feudal lords’ ill-will. It was a progressive [that is, a wave of the future] phenomena.

    • [R]epression remains a necessary means of breaking the will of the opposing side.

    • Intimidation is a powerful weapon of policy, both internationally and internally. War, like revolution, is founded upon intimidation. A victorious war, generally speaking, destroys only an insignificant part of the conquered army, intimidating the remainder and breaking their will. The revolution works in the same way: it kills individuals and intimidates thousands ... The State terror of a revolutionary class can be condemned ‘morally’ only by a man who, on principle, rejects (in words) every form of violence whatsoever. ... For this, one has to be merely and simply a hypocritical Quaker.



    No, he wasn't Stalin, but I'm hard-pressed to see how was any better.

    And the original point still stands -- the Communists killed nearly 100 million of their own people.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #14
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,887

    Re: Research on Lesser-Known Nazi Sites Is Now Public

    Yeah. That's EXACTLY the same.
    It's a pretty good comparison, I would reckon, as both were significant figures during their respective country's respective civil wars. Although perhaps a prominent US Civil War general such as Grant might have made a more fitting comparison, my point got through and that's what matters.

    Trotsky:

    * We are for regulated labor on the basis of an economic plan, obligatory for the whole people and consequently compulsory for each worker in the country. Without this we cannot even dream of a transition to socialism ... [O]bligation and, consequently, compulsion are essential conditions for overcoming bourgeois anarchy, securing socialization of the means of production and labor, and reconstructing economic life on the basis of a single plan.

    * [E]even chattel slavery was productive ... Forced labor did not grow out of the feudal lords’ ill-will. It was a progressive [that is, a wave of the future] phenomena.

    * [R]epression remains a necessary means of breaking the will of the opposing side.

    * Intimidation is a powerful weapon of policy, both internationally and internally. War, like revolution, is founded upon intimidation. A victorious war, generally speaking, destroys only an insignificant part of the conquered army, intimidating the remainder and breaking their will. The revolution works in the same way: it kills individuals and intimidates thousands ... The State terror of a revolutionary class can be condemned ‘morally’ only by a man who, on principle, rejects (in words) every form of violence whatsoever. ... For this, one has to be merely and simply a hypocritical Quaker.
    First, sources. I'm not going to waste my time looking up sources for your argument. I'll reply to your slander once you've done that.

    Second, this:

    No, he wasn't Stalin, but I'm hard-pressed to see how was any better.
    Probably because you don't know that much about the Russian Revolution, then, or the development within the Bolshevik Party following War Communism. Also, I have no interest in historical speculation about how history would have turned out had Trotsky become the General Secretary. The differences between Trotskyists and Stalinists is political, not historical.

    And the original point still stands -- the Communists killed nearly 100 million of their own people.
    How many have capitalists killed?
    Last edited by Khayembii Communique; 04-20-09 at 08:12 PM.

  5. #15
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:43 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,562

    Re: Research on Lesser-Known Nazi Sites Is Now Public

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    It's a pretty good comparison, I would reckon, as both were significant figures during their respective country's respective civil wars. Although perhaps a prominent US Civil War general such as Grant might have made a more fitting comparison, my point got through and that's what matters.
    There's a pretty big difference between fighting a war and rounding up your citizens for slaughter in a time of peace.

    Man, if you can't see that, than I'm profoundly sorry for you.

    But whats a few dozen million systematically murdered next to the glory of the revolution, eh?


    Sources:

    Leon Trotsky: Terrorism and Communism (Chapter 4)

    Leon Trotsky and the Dewey Commission



    Also, I have no interest in historical speculation about how history would have turned out had Trotsky become the General Secretary.
    Neither am I. I couldn't care less. It means nothing to what I said whatsoever.



    How many have capitalists killed?
    Don't know. How many? Communists keep excellent records and boast of their accomplishments, so it's pretty easy to track.

    Besides, the difference is, capitalISTS are individual people. The murders I speak of were done officially by the Communist Party, whose symbol you'll wear gladly.
    Last edited by Harshaw; 04-20-09 at 10:23 PM.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  6. #16
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,887

    Re: Research on Lesser-Known Nazi Sites Is Now Public

    There's a pretty big difference between fighting a war and rounding up your citizens for slaughter in a time of peace.
    Sure, but I don't see how that's relevant. The Russian Civil War lasted until 1921.

    Sources:

    Leon Trotsky: Terrorism and Communism (Chapter 4)

    Leon Trotsky and the Dewey Commission
    I was referring to your earlier quotes that you provided without sources. As far as these links are concerned, now I'm going to have to ask for quotes because I really have no idea what you're attempting to prove with these links.

  7. #17
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,887

    Re: Research on Lesser-Known Nazi Sites Is Now Public

    I just noticed that the links you provided are the sources for your quotes (you just didn't specifically state that).

    * [R]epression remains a necessary means of breaking the will of the opposing side.
    Here is a more full quote for context:

    Kautsky, in spite of all the happenings in the world to-day, completely fails to realize what war is in general, and the civil war in particular. He does not understand that every, or nearly every, sympathizer with Thiers in Paris was not merely an “opponent” of the Communards in ideas, but an agent and spy of Thiers, a ferocious enemy ready to shoot one in the back. The enemy must be made harmless, and in wartime this means that he must be destroyed.

    The problem of revolution, as of war, consists in breaking the will of the foe, forcing him to capitulate and to accept the conditions of the conqueror. The will, of course, is a fact of the physical world, but in contradistinction to a meeting, a dispute, or a congress, the revolution carries out its object by means of the employment of material resources – though to a less degree than war. The bourgeoisie itself conquered power by means of revolts, and consolidated it by the civil war. In the peaceful period, it retains power by means of a system of repression. As long as class society, founded on the most deep-rooted antagonisms, continues to exist, repression remains a necessary means of breaking the will of the opposing side.

    Source
    I don't see what's wrong with this quote at all, and don't understand why you cited it as some kind of evidence that Trotsky is "as bad as Stalin" or whatever you're trying to prove. This was written in 1920, at the height of the Civil War, when such repression was a real necessity.

    The American Civil War was fought for the purposes of repressing the secessionists and unifying the country. What do you think a Civil War is?

    Now, I've addressed this quote first, as it is the only quote for which you have provided a legitimate source (MIA is the most authoritative online collection of Marxist works). The other source you've provided is some obscure site that was incredibly crudely made and which I am much less inclined to accept as a source.

    * [E]even chattel slavery was productive ... Forced labor did not grow out of the feudal lords’ ill-will. It was a progressive [that is, a wave of the future] phenomena.
    As for this, due to the source, I am not going to trust the paraphrasing of the author here in claiming that Trotsky was saying that chattel slavery was "a wave of the future". Nor could I find any information on the source that is cited. This simply does not fit in with anything he has ever said. I have found an article that does state that Trotsky did make such a claim (that chattel slavery played a progressive role) at the Third All-Russian Congress of Trade Unions.

    Based on the few minutes of searching that I put into this I can pretty much guarantee that Trotsky was claiming that historically chattel slavery played a progressive role, much in the same way that capitalism played a progressive role. It would be ridiculous to claim, though, that because they claimed this that they would also claim that it still plays a progressive role (in their time, or ours) or that they endorsed either.

    We are for regulated labor on the basis of an economic plan, obligatory for the whole people and consequently compulsory for each worker in the country. Without this we cannot even dream of a transition to socialism ... [O]bligation and, consequently, compulsion are essential conditions for overcoming bourgeois anarchy, securing socialization of the means of production and labor, and reconstructing economic life on the basis of a single plan.
    This quote is from here:

    History has known slave labor. History has known serf labor. History has known the regulated labor of the mediaeval craft guilds. Throughout the world there now prevails hired labor, which the yellow journalists of all countries oppose, as the highest possible form of liberty, to Soviet “s1avery.” We, on the other hand, oppose capitalist slavery by socially-regulated labor on the basis of an economic plan, obligatory for the whole people and consequently compulsory for each worker in the country. Without this we cannot even dream of a transition to Socialism. The element of material, physical, compulsion may be greater or less; that depends on many conditions – on the degree of wealth or poverty of the country, on the heritage of the past, on the general level of culture, on the condition of transport, on the administrative apparatus, etc., etc. But obligation, and, consequently, compulsion, are essential conditions in order to bind down the bourgeois anarchy, to secure socialization of the means of production and labor, and to reconstruct economic life on the basis of a single plan.

    Source
    Sounds dreadfully totalitarian, doesn't it? But wait, let's look a few paragraphs above this:

    The very principle of compulsory labor service is for the Communist quite unquestionable. “He who works not, neither shall he eat.” And as all must eat, all are obliged to work.
    I think this speaks for itself.

    Last quote:

    * Intimidation is a powerful weapon of policy, both internationally and internally. War, like revolution, is founded upon intimidation. A victorious war, generally speaking, destroys only an insignificant part of the conquered army, intimidating the remainder and breaking their will. The revolution works in the same way: it kills individuals and intimidates thousands ... The State terror of a revolutionary class can be condemned ‘morally’ only by a man who, on principle, rejects (in words) every form of violence whatsoever. ... For this, one has to be merely and simply a hypocritical Quaker.
    Source here.

    Nothing in this quote is false, again, so I don't see what your problem is with it. The state monopoly on violence is the vast majority of the time maintained not directly through violence but indirectly through the threat of violence. This is true for all revolutions, from the Russian to the French to the American. Every single class/group that rises to power must "suppress, rifle in hand, all attempts to tear the power out of its hands" for it to maintain such power (the quote is Trotsky's, from the same chapter of the book as this quote is from). He goes on:

    Where it has against it a hostile army, it will oppose to it its own army. Where it is confronted with armed conspiracy, attempt at murder, or rising, it will hurl at the heads of its enemies an unsparing penalty.
    As Trotsky rightfully said in your quote, "one has to be merely and simply a hypocritical Quaker" to "morally condemn" this truth.

    Anyways, you can keep going if you wish; I'm well used to the dishonest attempts at misrepresenting Trotsky as saying/doing/being something that he isn't or didn't do. I'm just more used to it coming from Stalinists than you.

    By the way, did you even read Terrorism and Communism or did you just go to Google and type in something like "communism terror trotsky"?

  8. #18
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:43 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,562

    Re: Research on Lesser-Known Nazi Sites Is Now Public

    I'm not trying to "prove" anything by those quotes, really; Trotsky himself is meaningless to the point. The history of the Communist Party speaks for itself. Which isn't to say there isn't a very powerful apologist movement; always has been.

    But hey, whatever you gotta do to justify the most brutal and deliberate mass murderers in all of history . . . and that's a plain, simple fact. They were unspeakably ghastly.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  9. #19
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,887

    Re: Research on Lesser-Known Nazi Sites Is Now Public

    I'm not trying to "prove" anything by those quotes, really; Trotsky himself is meaningless to the point.
    I think the Trotsky issue really came up when you responded to my comparison of Trotsky to Lincoln with sarcastic remarks and these quotes, then later went on to say:

    There's a pretty big difference between fighting a war and rounding up your citizens for slaughter in a time of peace.
    Which wasn't relevant to the conversation at all, as both Lincoln and Trotsky were fighting a war and not "rounding up...citizens for slaughter in a time of peace."

    Basically I was refuting your attempt at character assassination of Trotsky, which was a rather poor attempt based on others I have seen. If you don't want to defend your claims then that's your prerogative.

    The history of the Communist Party speaks for itself.
    It's senseless to claim that the history of the CCCP is some kind of monolithic entity, whereby if you support it in one instance you must support it in all. I support the Revolutionary Social Democratic Labour Party, its Bolshevik faction before the split, the Bolshevik Party after the split and its formation into the Communist Party up to around Lenin's death in 1924.

    Following Lenin's death and the bureaucratization of the party up to the rise of Stalin policies changed; hence the political split between Trotskyists who recognize this shift and Stalinists who deny it and claim that Stalin was in line with Lenin's politics and Marxism in general.

    That is of course all I can say; while the political differences still exist, it is absurd to approach history in such a way whereby one outright supports or denies an action, a decision, a development, etc... From a historical point of view I can recognize the developments under Stalin and the benefits achieved under his rule, while also recognizing the faults and the horrors as well. This in the same way that Trotsky claimed that chattel slavery was once progressive or how Marx claimed that capitalism was once progressive.

    But hey, whatever you gotta do to justify the most brutal and deliberate mass murderers in all of history
    Which mass murderers do you think I support?
    Last edited by Khayembii Communique; 04-21-09 at 01:56 AM.

  10. #20
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:43 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,562

    Re: Research on Lesser-Known Nazi Sites Is Now Public

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Which mass murderers do you think I support?
    The Communist Party, the one whose symbol you'd gladly wear.

    Saying you support it up until 1924 is like saying you support the Nazis until Ernst Roehm was killed, before the death camps. You know, the "good Nazis," the ones who fixed the economy and rebuilt the country.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •