View Poll Results: Should Socialism - Communism be condemned like Nazim?

Voters
52. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    20 38.46%
  • No

    30 57.69%
  • No opinion

    2 3.85%
Page 17 of 28 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 277

Thread: Should Socialism - Communism be condemned like Nazim?

  1. #161
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,879

    Re: Should Socialism - Communism be condemned like Nazim?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon
    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.
    Hah I don't idolize Lenin at all I just recognize that saying "Stalin = Lenin" is basically trolling.

    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?
    First, "he" did not do this. The state did.

    Second, because every state has prisons?


    Also read this

    HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS COMMITTED DURING LENIN'S RULE
    First, I'm not going to respond to every single thing you cut and paste from other websites.

    Second, the original question was for you to describe "the Soviet model". You're avoiding the question.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  2. #162
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: Should Socialism - Communism be condemned like Nazim?

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Hah I don't idolize Lenin at all I just recognize that saying "Stalin = Lenin" is basically trolling.
    Never said that. I just said that they didn't follow different economic models.

    First, "he" did not do this. The state did.

    Second, because every state has prisons?
    He supported it.

    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.

    First, I'm not going to respond to every single thing you cut and paste from other websites.
    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.


    Second, the original question was for you to describe "the Soviet model". You're avoiding the question.
    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.

    HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS COMMITTED DURING LENIN'S RULE
    V.I. Lenin was the founding father of the Soviet Union and its dictator during the Russian Civil War that followed. A series of strokes after the Civil War, and his early death in 1924, gave him a mere five years to reign. The brevity of his tenure led many to assume that subsequent human rights abuses in the Soviet Union were not Lenin's fault. Oppression did intensify after Stalin replaced Lenin as the absolute ruler of the USSR. But Lenin did everything that Stalin would later do, except execute fellow Communists. As Richard Pipes notes, this "is not as significant as it may appear at first sight. Towards outsiders, people not belonging to his order of the elect - and that included 99.7 percent of his compatriots - Lenin showed no human feelings whatever..." (Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime)

    Lenin repeatedly indicated that large-scale killing would be necessary to bring in his utopia, and did not shrink from this realization. His speeches and writings overflow with calls for blood: "Merciless war against these kulaks! Death to them." "We'll ask the man, where do you stand on the question of the revolution? Are you for it or against it? If he's against it, we'll stand him up against a wall." As Pipes sums up, "Lenin hated what he perceived to be the 'bourgeoisie' with a destructive passion that fully equaled Hitler's hatred of the Jews: nothing short of physical annihilation would satisfy him." Moreover, "The term 'bourgeoisie' the Bolsheviks applied loosely to two groups: those who by virtue of their background or position in the economy functioned as 'exploiters,' be they a millionaire industrialist or a peasant with an extra acre of land, and those who, regardless of their economic or social status, opposed Bolshevik policies." (Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime) Lenin used all three of the tools of mass murder that his successors and imitators would later perfect.

    Deaths due to extreme hardship conditions in slave labor camps

    Lenin's secret police, the Cheka, pioneered the development of the modern slave labor (or "concentration") camp. Inmates were generally frankly treated as government-owned slaves, and used for the most demanding work - such as digging arctic canals - while receiving pitifully small rations. As Pipes explains, "Soviet concentration camps, as instituted in 1919, were meant to be a place of confinement for all kinds of undesirables, whether sentenced by courts or by administrative organs. Liable to confinement in them were not only individuals but also 'categories of individuals' - that is, entire classes: Dzerzhinskii at one point proposed that special concentration camps be erected for the 'bourgeoisie.' Living in forced isolation, the inmates formed a pool of slave labor on which Soviet administrative and economic institutions could draw at no cost." (The Russian Revolution) The number of people in these camps according to Pipes was about 50,000 prisoners in 1920 and 70,000 in 1923; many of these did not survive the inhuman conditions. The inmates might be bourgeoisie, or peasants, or members of other socialist factors such as the Mensheviks or the Social Revolutionaries, or members of ethnicities thought to be hostile to the Bolsheviks, such as the Don Cossacks. The death rates in these camps appear to have been in the extreme hardship range of 10-30%. While the number thus killed was only a small percentage of the total exterminated under Lenin's regime, it laid the foundation for Stalin's slave labor empire.

    Deaths due to man-made famine

    By far the largest number of unnatural deaths for which Lenin and his cohorts were responsible resulted from famine. Lenin and his regime tried to depict the famine as simply bad luck, but the truth is rather different. To feed his troops and keep the cities producing munitions, Lenin needed food. He got it by "requisitioning" it from the peasantry - demanding delivery of large sums of food for little or nothing in exchange. This led peasants to drastically reduce their crop production. In retaliation, Lenin often ordered the seizure of the food peasants had grown for their own subsistence, sometimes ordering the confiscation of their seed grain as a further sanction. The Cheka and the army began by shooting hostages, and ended by waging a second full-scale civil war against the recalcitrant peasantry.

    The ultimate results of this war against the peasantry were devastating. Official Soviet reports admitted that fully 30 million Soviet citizens were in danger of death by starvation. The White forces shared little of the blame: as Pipes notes, the Civil War was essentially over by the beginning of 1920, but Lenin continued his harsh exploitation of the peasantry for yet another year. Moreover, the areas under White control had actually built up a food surplus. The horrific famine of 1921 was thus much less severe in 1920, because after the reconquest of the Ukraine and other White territories, the Reds shipped the Whites' grain reserves to Petrograd, Moscow, and other cities with less hunger but more political clout. Low estimates on the deaths from this famine are about 3 million; high estimates go up to 10 million - which would probably have been much higher if not for foreign relief efforts which Lenin had the good sense to permit. For perspective, the last severe famine in Russia hit in 1891-92, and cost about 400,000 lives.

    The famine ended soon after Lenin relaxed his choke-hold on the peasantry, but he showed no sign of remorse for what his policies had done. Other Bolsheviks were shaken by the events, but Lenin's successor, Joseph Stalin, learned only to husband his strength until the peasantry could be utterly broken.

    Executions

    Under Lenin's rule - unlike that of his successors - executions played a far more important role than deaths in forced labor camps. The primary function of Lenin's secret police, the Cheka, was carrying out summary executions of "class enemies" in what came to be known as the Red Terror. The exact number murdered is usually estimated at between 100,000 and 500,000, but the chaotic wartime conditions make the accounting especially difficult. Large-scale executions of hostages began after a failed effort of the Social Revolutionaries to seize power in mid-1918. (The hundreds of hostages shot in "retaliation," however, not only did not participate in the failed coup, but almost invariably had no affiliation of any kind with the SRs). From then on the Red Terror turned in every conceivable direction: execution of the bourgeoisie and Czarist sympathizers; execution of White POWs and friendly civilian populations; and finally execution of Lenin's socialist opponents.

    A lot of the numbers are given here
    Vladimir Lenin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    For instance

    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]

  3. #163
    Sage
    German guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 06:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    5,187

    Re: Should Socialism - Communism be condemned like Nazim?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    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.
    That's probably true, yet there is a fundamental difference: Racism or anti-Semitism on the right is the core of their ideology. In case of the left, it's not. Socialists are traditionally internationalist and believe "people are ultimatily more divided by class than by race or nationality". Socialists want equality, including racial equality. That doesn't mean, of course, that there are no socialists who happen to be racist and/or anti-Semite.

    But when socialists are racists, they are so despite their ideology. When far-right people are racists, they are so because of their ideology.

    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/im...stine_maps.jpg
    How is this a sign of anti-Semitism? It may be a sign of a pro-Palestinian bias, but labeling an Israel-skeptic bias "anti-Semitic" is a stretch, don't you think?

    I'd agree that there are many on the left who have a pro-Palestinian biases of different degrees. But genuine anti-Semites are a fringe phenomenon. Most of them don't hate Jews in general. Most of them just are skeptic of the Israeli government, as they are of powerful governments doing excessive realpolitik in general, and maybe take this a little too far. Those who actually hate Jews are not that numerous, according to my observations.

    But you also got ardent pro-Israelis among the far-left, people who believe because of the Holocaust, the left has a special responsibility regarding solidarity with Israel. So it's really not a thing that should be generalized about socialists or the left. (Don't know about Norway, maybe that particular party you mention is an exception.)

    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.
    I've seen such a bias in favor of authoritarian regimes which happen to be socialist or traditionally socialist allies, among German socialists (members of the Left Party) too. This German Left Party also includes a "communist platform", a wing filled with East Bloc nostalgics and even Stalinists. But again, I'd say their influence on that party in general is limited.

    And nothing of that kind exists among German Social Democrats, yet they are labelled "socialist" by Americans too. Although this party can hardly be described as "left" anymore, considering their business-friendly policies.

    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.
    Sure. The German neo-Nazi party NPD is economically rather statist too. But that doesn't make them a "socialist" party.
    "Not learning from mistakes is worse than committing mistakes. When you don't allow yourself to make mistakes, it is hard to be tolerant of others and it does not allow even God to be merciful."

  4. #164
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Should Socialism - Communism be condemned like Nazim?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    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.
    Right, I agree. Social democracy, I suppose, could be more accurate described as welfare state capitalism if we want to get technical.

    Man, we really need you in the "Obama is not a socialist threads" lol.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  5. #165
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,313

    Re: Should Socialism - Communism be condemned like Nazim?

    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.

    Change your lean, please.
    Last edited by ecofarm; 05-19-11 at 07:57 AM.

  6. #166
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,879

    Re: Should Socialism - Communism be condemned like Nazim?

    Never said that. I just said that they didn't follow different economic models.
    Again, NEP and collectivisation are in contradistinction with one another. I've already addressed this.

    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.
    Erm, this happens in any postrevolutionary society because the state needs to assert authority and consolidate its power.

    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'm not going to respond to you quoting wikipedia, as if that's an argument. Especially one that is as poorly sourced as this.
    Last edited by Khayembii Communique; 05-19-11 at 12:49 PM.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  7. #167
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Should Socialism - Communism be condemned like Nazim?

    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?

  8. #168
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Should Socialism - Communism be condemned like Nazim?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    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.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  9. #169
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Should Socialism - Communism be condemned like Nazim?

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    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.

  10. #170
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Should Socialism - Communism be condemned like Nazim?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    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.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

Page 17 of 28 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... 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
  •