Because he was the one ordered many of the atrocities. If you wish to deny a basic fact of history, be my guest, but it will not reflect good on your intelligence.Originally Posted by mike
Funny you can only resort to pathetic word games like this in order to get your point across.It begs the question what number in this hierarchy Lenin himself was at.![]()
Then you obviously have no read much, for Lenin in particular make clear the need for terror to be used to secure a revolution's success. Trotsky himself said that "Not believing in force is like not believing in gravity". Then of course there was Sergei Nechaev's "Catechism of the Revolutionary" which calls for the use of terror and merciless destruction, which was a major influence on Bolshevik thinking. Or how about Chernishevsky's "What is to be Done", so influential Lenin copied many of his points in his own version of "What is to be Done".Sure, but my question was more specifically what makes something a particularly Communist atrocity rather than an atrocity in general. Is it whatever type of system is in place? Because to me it would have to be part of the ideology itself to have such a name. I am unable to find anywhere in Communist literature of the turn of the century suggestions for establishing a secret police to murder "speculators," for example.
It's quite clear here you dont know squat about the subject matter here!
Yes it is!What about the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq? Was this a Democratic atrocity?
BS, unless you mean Lenin's concept of "Democratic Centralism", where party members are only allowed to debate a topic but ultimately must follow the Party's orders?Actually, Lenin and Trotsky both claimed to support "party democracy" even before the Civil War.![]()
Sure because Trotsky only started advocating such a policy once he knew he was falling out against Stalin. Before then, Trotsky could hardly be considered an advocate of party democracy.There is no reason for us to argue whether or not they were right in this, simply for you to be honest and acknowledge that Trotsky never made any "sudden conversion to party democracy [as] a means of self-defense."
I have. Unlike you, I judge by actual practice.You can go to a site like marxists.org and read their old pre-Revolution pamphlets if you want.
Ie you cant refute it!Yes, I'm sorry, but quoting the same piece of cr@p that you keep posting is not going to persuade me.
Anthony Sutton is regarded as a foremost expert on the Soviet economy. I can even quote from Edvard Radsinsky's biography on the last Tsar talking about the large amount of industrial growth at the turn of the century.You can paste it another thousand times if you want, that doesn't mean any of it is verifiable or accurate.
Care to actually quote a source, or do you wish to pull BS out of your ass AGAIN?Crack open an encyclopedia and look up Russian agriculture in pre-Revolution times. None of them come close to saying what you claim. They talk about how backwards and weak the farming was, how most of Russia's economy relied on industry because the peasants were very inefficient at managing their farms, how Russia still used the Julian calendar, etc.
Encyclopedia's are known to be inaccurate in many areas because it takes several years to print them. Also historical assestments are known to change over time as new resources and research becomes available.Why do none of them seem to agree with anything your enormous screed claims? Is it some sort of Anglo-American Communist encyclopedia conspiracy?
To which you're trying to deny.You're making a lot of convoluted arguments regarding this. Let us compare them with some facts and see where they seem to break down:
1. You say there were a lot of Communist atrocities
Yes thats what a communist atrocity is. Of course you're trying to play Kung-sun Lung-tzu(who famously said a "white horse is not a horse") by claiming a communist atrocity is not really a communist atrocity.2. Your definition of "Communist atrocity" seems to be an atrocity by the government in charge (the Communists)
Please point to atrocities committed by the tsars that came anywhere near those of the Bolsheviks. You have yet to give one fucking example!4. Therefore, one must be led to conclude you do not oppose atrocities, merely ones initiated by Communist leaders.
Yes.5. You think Stalin violated the precepts of Bolshevism
I am.6. You are "anti-Stalin"
Yes.7. You say that Stalin was better for Russia than Bolshevism was
Yes.8. Many more people (including Orthodox Christians) were executed or imprisoned or forced into exile under Stalin than prior to his rule.
Nice "white horse". Im speaking within the context of the communist leadership I believe Stalin was better than Trotsky or the other Bolshevik leaders. Now if that simple argument cannot enter your feeble mind, well thats your fucking problem not mine!9. Therefore, again I can only come to the conclusion that it was not atrocity in itself that you are against, because you seem to make a very large moral distinction between the crimes of Trotsky and Lenin, and those of Stalin and Nicholas II.
I personally dont give a rats ass what you think of me. You have yet to back your assertions up with any facts or sources, instead you resort to straw men and spinning to make your view known. As I said before, when I defend Stalin, Im defending within the context who was available in the Communist leadership. How the fuck this simple fact escapes your mind is totally unknown, but from what I've read from your other posts, I can assume you're of very low intelligence!From these 9 points I can only assume you are either a hypocrite that lives in a fantasy world of convenience, or else a raving psychopath. This is not a scientific argument, just my own conclusion.
HA! If anybody is a moron here, it's you! YOU HAVE YET TO POST ONE FUCKING FACT TO SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTIONS!Thank you, I like it when morons roll their eyes at me.
Sorry Kung-sun Lung-tzu, but a white horse is still a horse!It is "supposed to prove" the difference between a "Communist atrocity"--that is, as I understood you to mean then, a crime inherent in Communist ideology--and an outright atrocity in general.
You wont answer because you know dittly fuck about this topic as is proven by your pitiful "arguments" here!I will not answer the question you've given because it is a false dilemma.
Have you ever met people from that era? I have and they contradict what you say. Hell they're the biggest supporters for a return to Communism.You've also just said that Stalin's abandonment of traditional Communism was a "GOOD!" thing, yet this abandonment does not seem to have improved matters at all. I think you will not find a great many people who lived in those times that preferred the 1930-50s over the 1920s. Materially perhaps, but not overall.
Yes I can tell you have trouble comprehending anything!I am having trouble comprehending
I've explained this plenty of times. If your feeble brain is not capable of comprehending it(as you yourself admit), then thats your problem not mine. Im here to discuss things with intelligent being not morons who waste my time.how you can say "I am a staunch anti-Communist and therefore a staunch anti-Stalinist" as if Communism logically leads to Stalinism, and then go on to say that Stalin abandoned traditional Communism and this separation made him better than those who actually tried to follow it.
The Okhrana never operated on the same level as the Cheka/NKVD/KGB. Political prisoners were simply exiled to Siberia to live in modest shacks. There was nothing like the gulag system under the Tsars.Who created the secret police? Stalin or the Tsars?
Freedom of Press was guranteed by the Tsar after 1905.Who controlled and censored all forms of communication? Stalin or the Tsars?
The Tsars never controlled industry and business the way the Communists did. The Tsars regulated but never owned them.Who controlled most industry and business? Stalin or the Tsars?
It was Lenin dumbass! There were no gulags under the Tsars.Who created the gulags? Stalin or the Tsars?
Thats not an atrocity but a military mistake.Who let the Russian naval fleet be destroyed by Japan for the sake of imperialism? Stalin or the Tsars?
Yes there was like 5 million dead in WW1 compared to 20 million of the Civil War and 30 million of WW2. Yeah thats a real good comparisonWho was responsible for millions of people dying in WW1? Stalin or Nicholas?![]()
Nice list of "atrocities"
You call it BS because you cant refute it!I sure hope this is another quote from that BS about America helping the USSR you keep posting.![]()
Thank you moron, you failed to refute my quote. Instead you engage in pointless ad hominem.That is hilarious! Are you that ignorant of history that you actually believe the public had no role in forcing Nicholas out? You are, god, just nevermind, I would have to violate half of the ToS just to say it.![]()
No.Take a Russian baby out of Russia, put him in Spain with Spanish parents, now his "cultural heritage" and "national identity" is Spanish.
LOL! When I have time I'll quote Anthony D. Smith on this.Culture and nationalism are completely psychological byproducts. They exist only in your imagination. Take away the root of them, and you take away 99% of the BS that effects political foreign policies and decisions on ethnic minorities.
Nice straw man, where I say otherwise?Well, expert on Orthodoxy, perhaps you know then that Vladimir was not a Christian until he was 30
One of many reasons why he chose the faith.--and only then because he wanted to marry a Christian Byzantine duchess.
Perun was not a Norse God. Dont tell me you by that "normanist theory" which has been discredited for some time by accredited historians.He certainly had no problem being a practicing pagan and erecting monuments to Norse gods until 988,![]()
You failed to refute a single one of my assertion, and can only make straw men to argue your points!so your faith in his Christianity prior to that year is a little more solid than mine.
Indeed, speaking of which you've failed to prove anything of your arguments here!There is nothing to prove here.
I was speaking rhetorically about how flimsy the history of the Russian Orthodoxy is. It is all based on circumstance and coincidence rather than some material reasons for it being the state religion.
I was mocking your notion of how "horrible" it would've been if Russian had their women cover themselves. Apparently my remark was justifed!...What? I don't know any Russians that make women cover themselves. I was talking about how bad it would be if Islam was their state religion. What on earth are you talking about, you idiot?
Yes I do know what a straw man is, and you're using them quite alot I might add!Do you even know what a straw man is?
Since this is a forum for the discussion of Russian history, I believe thats very much fair. Suprising you're supposed to be a moderator here yet you seem to forget what the fuck this forum is actually about!My whole point is that you cannot focus on his views "concerning Russia"![]()
Non sequiter. Im referring to Trotsky's views on Russia when he was a native of Russia.It would be like saying a quote by Abraham Lincoln on slavery is illegitimate when talking about ancient Greece or modern Sudan because he lived in the United States.
Oh boy, another white horse!I wouldn't call it a "doctrine."![]()
I have wonder how familar you are with anything remotely related to intelligent discussion. I mean really.I have to wonder how familiar you are with Communism though. I mean really.
Jews were an ethnic minority dumbass. And if Im not mistaken many ethnic minorities enjoyed certain rights that were denied even ethnic Russians. For example, Finns were exampt from conscription as were Batlic peoples I believe. Oh the horror of Russian chauvenism.OK, well, you didn't really argue anything I just said. You just bitched about the Jews for a couple of sentences and said nothing about the Tsarist treatment of ethnic minorities.![]()
And what colors are those might I ask?I guess now you've shown your true colors.
ROTFL! I must say you're very paranoid if you think Im somebody else.Are you related to that guy Eagle by any chance?![]()
Maybe because many anti-semities are intelligent people. Do you want me to go through a list of famous anti-semites?Why is it that every psychopath who posts some 400-page long essay in a single post here an obligatory anti-Semite?
Im not a white nationalist. Nice try at ad hominemIs there something in your white nationalism handbook that says to do this or what?![]()
Have years of supremacist research on the subject shown that it makes your argument seem more factual to paste a whole booklet into one message at the start of a thread?
Then you contradicted yourself. Thank you for disproving yourself!I didn't say the Orthodox church wants to completely control the government.
Please point to examples of Orthodox forcing their religion down peoples throats. I just read about how Russian missionaries treated native Indians in Alaska: how they spent time in their villages learning their languages and cultures so as to preach in manners they could understand, how they used rational arguments to defend the faith, how they allowed the natives free choice whether to attend church or not. Yeah thats so brutal!How dare they have it forced down their throats by the people in charge, is my point.![]()
Because whether you like it or not, the Orthodox church is part of Russian culture. Any moron who knows anything about Russia know this. But then again, you've proven your total lack of knowledge on Russian history and russian culture.I don't see why, for example, Moscow schools should have mandatory "culture classes," where an Orthodox priest comes in and tells kids about the Church in the 19th century for an hour, yet at the same time Halloween is banned for being a "pagan holiday."
And now we see your true colors!And thank you for this list. It was very informative, but I think the website would be better if a MIDI of Soul Asylum's Runaway Train was playing in the background on autorepeat.