[Donna]

Yes, because life in the backwater regions of Russia were so progressive under the Czar. No wonder anarchists loved the Czar...

If Hitler overthrew Satan and took over Hell, that still wouldn't make him a hero.

[Abood]

Oh wow, Eauz quoted something Lenin said. It must be true!

Lenin was a fuckin' reactionary. He took power and didn't bare losing it. Whenever the workers revolted, he crushed them on the claim that "it's for the workers' own good." Of course it is. Fuckin' reactionary.

[Eauz]

@ Abood. You actually sound like a reactionary yourself. Ok Abood, we'll just start our anarchist society over here, while we live in a backwater hole.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

Yes, because life in the backwater regions of Russia were so progressive under the Czar. No wonder anarchists loved the Czar... Roll eyes

Anarchist loved the Tzar. I think not.

[Abood]

You only think I'm a reactionary because I disagree with Lenin. But fact is, I disagree with him because I think he's a reactionary. Therefore, I'm more progressive than Lenin.

[Eauz]

I really don't think you're a reactionary, but you seem to cry foul about everything. OMG, Lenin = teh Evil!!1!. Compared to the period of time and the progress made, Lenin was quite progressive, no matter how much evil he might have done. Sometimes, imperialism is quite progressive too, but at the moment, it is unprogressive. Maybe you hate the USSR, but it would be ridiculous to assume that the revolution that Lenin brought about was unprogressive compared to the state of society that Russia was in during the early 1900's.

[Abood]

When did I say Lenin = teh Evil!!1! ?

I think Lenin was a reactionary in crushing opposition I believe was more progressive.

[Eauz]

LoL @ the fact that a thread about liberalism has turned into a discussion about Lenin.

When did I say Lenin = teh Evil!!1! ?

When you called him a reactionary.

I think Lenin was a reactionary in crushing opposition I believe was more progressive.

Eliminating the counter-reaction to the revolution. Otherwise, any progress would be non-existent.

[Abood]

When you called him a reactionary.

'Evil' is not a relative word, while 'reactionary' is. You cannot equate the two.

Eliminating the counter-reaction to the revolution. Otherwise, any progress would be non-existent.

[Citizen J]

Sure I do, it works however you want it to work as long as it fits into the framework that was laid out by Charles Darwin and others that have written text afterword.

False. Science is the art of disproving what others before you have written. Only that which cannot be assailed is worthy of inclusion in the body of scientific knowledge. Theories are not fact and certainly not laws. All theories are subject to disproven evidence - even some laws are similarly subject.

Now, abood. Let's see how much of a hypocrit you are.

Pastafarianism, with their god (the flying spaghetti monster) is based upon precisely the exact same arguments as Intelligent Design. It uses exactly the same logic as ID to show that global warming is tied inversely to high seas piracy.

Since there is no logical difference between the two, then would you agree to have pastafarianism taught right along with ID and evolution? Or does this insult your sensibilities?

When I went to school, we hardly had enough time to explore the major theories, let alone delve into all the alternatives. But we were told this quite often. Alternatives were mentioned, but for the sake of brevity, only mentioned. If you have all that classroom time to delve deeply into many alternate theories, then your primary education probably does not have much breadth to it.

[Theodore]

Lenin was a fuckin' reactionary.

Uh huh. Transforming a semifeudal backwater into a modern state, laying the foundations of a successful command economy, implementing the most progressive social laws of his time... fucking reactionary indeed.

He took power and didn't bare losing it.

First of all, Lenin was hardly a dictator and there were times when his ideas were rejected. Second, even if he had been a dictator, in what way does this make his policies reactionary? The dictatorship of Ataturk was more progressive than a democratic regime at the time could have been.

Whenever the workers revolted, he crushed them on the claim that "it's for the workers' own good."

And it was. Had the RSFSR fallen, the poor, oppressed, etc. peasants would have suffered more than they had suffered under the most draconian of Lenin's policies.

I think Lenin was a reactionary in crushing opposition I believe was more progressive.

What progressive opposition? The peasant utopianism of left SRs? In any case, none of the opposition parties and movement could ever have formed a regime, so the question of how progressive that regime would have been is moot. Not to mention that they were a threat to the existing progressive regime.

Only that which cannot be assailed is worthy of inclusion in the body of scientific knowledge.

What can't be assailed usually isn't fit to be in elementary school textbook, since including it would be an insult to the pupils' intelligence. Science isn't founded on tautologies.