Thread: vladimir ulyanov (lenin)

Originally Posted by DenisM

Originally Posted by Светлана Ежова

Originally Posted by DenisM

Хмм, как бы сказать помягче...

Кровавый деспот, узурпировавший власть в России и принесший огромные страдания всему русскому народу. Где-то так.

От Светланы: Я полностью соглашусь с Вами. Ленин мне тоже не очень нравится. Я думаю, что он был плохим человеком!
Догбой! Почему Вы думаете, что он был героём Советского Союза?
Действительно, я ненавижу его и Дзержинского!

Thanks a lot for correcting me! I will remember that. One question though. Why did you use "chelavyek" instead of "mooshina" (forgive my stupid attempts at transliteration)? Lenin was a "mooshina." Well, My Russian is not perfect but you can understand me so it must be pretty good hee

Ленин наш вождь!

Когда был Ленин маленьким с кудрявой головой
Он тоже бегал в валенках по горке ледяной

Originally Posted by Светлана Ежова

What did Lenin and Krupskaya do to me....? Nothing. But it's what they did to other people I didn't like.

Oh my God! What had Krupskaya done?

By the way, you don't believe in socialism? I mean real socialism, not the pretend stuff the USSR had, but real socialism as a theory?

Originally Posted by Светлана Ежова

Why did you use "chelavyek" instead of "mooshina" (forgive my stupid attempts at transliteration)? Lenin was a "mooshina."

Because it sounds like "Lenin has sexual problems".

Lenin and the "Old Bolsheviks", including Trotsky et al, were not the guys who did away with the Tsars. They did away with the guys who had done away with the Tsars just a few months before.

Then they pulled out from the war that was almost won and lost a huge chunk of territory and made one of the greatest European powers a joke. Which utterly destabilized Europe and led to the world's biggest slaughter two decades later.

Incidentally, it also was two decades later that Stalin finally had got rid of that Old Bolshevik scum.

Originally Posted by BETEP

Originally Posted by Светлана Ежова

What did Lenin and Krupskaya do to me....? Nothing. But it's what they did to other people I didn't like.

Oh my God! What had Krupskaya done?

By the way, you don't believe in socialism? I mean real socialism, not the pretend stuff the USSR had, but real socialism as a theory?

I am a leftist. I visit the anti-communist action board to debate with the people who support capitalism. I don't like Lenin because I feel that Lenin's beliefs were a poor example of what a socialist country should be like. If I supported anyone of that time period it would be Plekhanov, Martov and the Mensheviks. I like them. (Of course it would be totally unfair for me to say I don't like "Bolsheviks" because Bukharin was one and I really like him. That's why I never try to generalize.)

It is hard to understand why anyone is a leftist in this day and age. The Rights of the Individual outweigh the Wants of the Many. Once that rule is broken......no one is safe.

Originally Posted by Friendy

Originally Posted by Dogboy182

Infact, i wish lenin were alive today.

Lenin IS alive. (I can’t believe you didn’t know such a well-known fact )
http://www.davno.ru/posters/1967/
_________________
Ленин и теперь живее всех живых (В. В. Маяковский)

Hee. I have that poster.

Originally Posted by DDT

It is hard to understand why anyone is a leftist in this day and age. The Rights of the Individual outweigh the Wants of the Many. Once that rule is broken......no one is safe.

Any right that you have has been granted to you by your society. So long as the society thinks having that right is OK, you have it. If the society changes its mind, your right will be revoked faster than you can say f***. That has nothing do with socialism, leftism or rightism.

Originally Posted by DDT

It is hard to understand why anyone is a leftist in this day and age. The Rights of the Individual outweigh the Wants of the Many. Once that rule is broken......no one is safe.

Once again, your logic begs the question why you support Bush. If you think the individual's rights are superior to that of the many then why on earth do you support someone who has taken away more civil liberties in the past 4 years than any US president in history (save perhaps John Adams or Woodrow Wilson)? I'm not advocating Kerry as an alternative, mind you. He voted in favor of most of the legislation we're talking about here. But still, sometimes your comments make me wonder if maybe you got kicked in the head by a cow or something.


By the way, there's an easy and valid argument to make against what you've said, and that is that a lot of people (myself included) do agree with you that individual happiness is more important than self-sacrifice for some Feuerbachian deity called "man," but that the easiest way for me to ensure my own individual happiness is by cooperating with others. If I contribute to a welfare system it is so if I need it someday, I can be sure it will exist and I will not become destitute and homeless. If I help come up with ideas of how to abolish the wage system, it is so I myself do not have to live paycheck to paycheck. If I advocate the end of workplace hierarchy and top-down control, it is because I do not want some asshole telling me what to do. The fact that other people want or don't want these things will not make me want or not want them. I am not doing it for them. But it is obvious I could not establish a system like this by myself, for the same reason that 100 men working 2 hours can accomplish vastly more than 1 man working 200 hours. It is not always stupid for an individual to relinquish some of his short-term desires to ensure the long-term ones come to fruition. Case in point: not cheating on my fiance with a Denny's waitress so that I might have a wife six months from now.

You might do good to read a little Stirner.

Originally Posted by mike

Originally Posted by DDT

It is hard to understand why anyone is a leftist in this day and age. The Rights of the Individual outweigh the Wants of the Many. Once that rule is broken......no one is safe.

Once again, your logic begs the question why you support Bush. If you think the individual's rights are superior to that of the many then why on earth do you support someone who has taken away more civil liberties in the past 4 years than any US president in history (save perhaps John Adams or Woodrow Wilson)? I'm not advocating Kerry as an alternative, mind you. He voted in favor of most of the legislation we're talking about here. But still, sometimes your comments make me wonder if maybe you got kicked in the head by a cow or something.


By the way, there's an easy and valid argument to make against what you've said, and that is that a lot of people (myself included) do agree with you that individual happiness is more important than self-sacrifice for some Feuerbachian deity called "man," but that the easiest way for me to ensure my own individual happiness is by cooperating with others. If I contribute to a welfare system it is so if I need it someday, I can be sure it will exist and I will not become destitute and homeless. If I help come up with ideas of how to abolish the wage system, it is so I myself do not have to live paycheck to paycheck. If I advocate the end of workplace hierarchy and top-down control, it is because I do not want some asshole telling me what to do. The fact that other people want or don't want these things will not make me want or not want them. I am not doing it for them. But it is obvious I could not establish a system like this by myself, for the same reason that 100 men working 2 hours can accomplish vastly more than 1 man working 200 hours. It is not always stupid for an individual to relinquish some of his short-term desires to ensure the long-term ones come to fruition. Case in point: not cheating on my fiance with a Denny's waitress so that I might have a wife six months from now.

You might do good to read a little Stirner.

Hee. Good one, Mike I love it!

I think Mike was serious.

I know Mike was serious. That's why I said 'hee, good one." Because his comments were good. Because I agree with him.

I think you must confuse me with "Pledge of Allegiance" (see I probably couldn't even spell it right) Crowd. This is not a Bush Kerry issue. I only support Bush because the Democrats will eventually take even more rights away than Bush. We can argue all day over how much government should play in social issues and I concede that the government will have to play a role in this. For example there is a HUGE problem with health care in the USA but I don't think that either party will fix it since they both seem to kiss up to the Insurance Industry.
I am speaking of Property Rights which has been an issue since early civilization and also Liberty Rights. Communism believes that a person Must share his rights which means in essence that he has no rights because Bad Manners is correct when he says that we only have our rights as long as society thinks we should have them. However one of the reasons I like the US is that the Founders wrote a document acknowledging that cetain rights come from a Creator and can not be taken away. This form of government is unique and has problems but that does not mean that we should go down Socialist Road and turn it into another European state. Afterall that is what the early Americans were trying to get away from.

The Rights of the Individual vs the Needs of the Many is the basic premise for Left and Right. But since neither form of government works we must work it out amongst ourselves and.... I hate to admit it........compromise...arghhhhhh!

Originally Posted by DDT

I think you must confuse me with "Pledge of Allegiance" (see I probably couldn't even spell it right) Crowd. This is not a Bush Kerry issue. I only support Bush because the Democrats will eventually take even more rights away than Bush.

I think it's a cooperative effort between both parties.

We can argue all day over how much government should play in social issues and I concede that the government will have to play a role in this.

This has nothing to do with government. I don't believe the government should play a role in welfare matters whatsoever. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

I am speaking of Property Rights which has been an issue since early civilization and also Liberty Rights.

The idea of communism is not to destroy property rights, but to "transcend" them. I'll make two points here:

1) You seem to be ignoring the transitional phase, socialism, where individual property rights exist but rights to capital (i.e. the machines, the factories) are granted only to the collective whole. It would not be one day we have capitalism, then overnight everyone is expected to possess only what they use.

2) You also seem to be unaware of the broad variety of leftist and postleftist (also called "poststructuralist") movements that exist. Not every socialist is a communist (syndicalists, mutualists, the individualist anarchists who supported free markets and competition, etc.), but every communist is necessarily first a socialist (actually, I shouldn't say every--for example, in Alexander Berkman's book the ABCs of Anarchist Communism he asks why this transitional phase is necessary at all).

Communism believes that a person Must share his rights which means in essence that he has no rights because Bad Manners is correct when he says that we only have our rights as long as society thinks we should have them.

Communism believes that if you are not using something, you have no legal claim to it. If I own 400 acres of land and only occupy and use 1 of them, I cannot really justify letting the other 399 sit there. So someone else who wants to live there or do something with the land could appeal to the community that shares it for the right to use it rather than pay me rent for something I am not really losing something by not using. Now, if I was actively and efficiently farming on those 399 acres and selling the produce at market, then I could justify possessing it because I am being productive with it. In that case no one could take that away from me. The inherent problem is that it's unlikely I could do this without hiring people to help me. The second I do that, under communism they are entitled to participate in the process of producing and have their voice heard. Likewise, excluding the more authoritarian movements like Bolshevism, Trotskyism, et cetera, there are not many leftist groups that would deny people the right to private enterprise. It is simply the utility of the capital and the level of exploitation in the employer-employee relationship that would be a problem.

That is communism.

However one of the reasons I like the US is that the Founders wrote a document acknowledging that cetain rights come from a Creator and can not be taken away.

Like the right to own slaves, the right not to drink alcohol, etc., right? By the way, that is certainly not the point of the Constitution, however it may be worded. Any of the amendments can be removed at any time providing they get Congressional approval to do so. Congress could take away every single one of the items on the Bill of Rights if a majority vote decided to.

This form of government is unique

No, it isn't. Our government is a combination of democratic Athens and republican Rome. The legislature was almost identical to England's parliamentary system in the 18th century.

BTW there are many, many democracies in existence today. Read a newspaper sometime. There is a universe outside of America.

...and has problems but that does not mean that we should go down Socialist Road and turn it into another European state. Afterall that is what the early Americans were trying to get away from.

Um, socialism as a popular political thought didn't even exist when the Constitution was created. Also, the "European states" at that time were absolute monarchies, not the welfare states they are today. That didn't happen until the end of the 19th century with the formation of Social Democratic parties.

The Rights of the Individual vs the Needs of the Many is the basic premise for Left and Right. But since neither form of government works we must work it out amongst ourselves and.... I hate to admit it........compromise...arghhhhhh!

The basic premise for Left (here I am not talking about liberals, but actual leftists) and Right (and here I am talking about capitalists, of which liberals are a part) is control of the means of producing. The left believes that, since laborers are the source of everything in the economy, they ought to have a fair say in the decisions of that economy rather than just being automatons. The right believes that they should shut the fuck up and get back in the salt mines. It should be noted that the right will talk about the "needs of the many" when it serves their purposes (i.e. buying war bonds and enlisting in the army when it needs to protect a large, overseas financial interest).

And you need to get past this concept that the answer to everything is either the government or private enterprise. Both have a great way of fucking up the simplest things. What we need is more direct public action and popular cooperation without relying on two different assholes only concerned with themselves. Want higher wages? Don't ask the government to raise the minimum wage and weaken the buying power: form a union and walk out until the company gives in. Want a loan but don't think you should pay exorbitant interest rates? Form a citizens' credit bank and charge user fees to cover the expenses.

I think I'm a little in love with Mike

Originally Posted by Линдзи

I think I'm a little in love with Mike

Hee.
Whatta ya think of that, Mike?

She only said that to provoke me to jealousy, me thinks.

Communist prick who mass-murdered millions of Russians and Ukrainians and deserves to burn in hell for all eternity!

Eloquent.

[quote=Светлана Ежова]

Originally Posted by "Линдзи":211fcwni

I think I'm a little in love with Mike

Hee.
Whatta ya think of that, Mike?[/quote:211fcwni]

Flattering. Very flattering. But I think I'll be playing San Andreas for the next month or so after work and don't have time to think about romance or other frivolities. Sorry, ladies.