[ArtAllm]

Please do take a peek at the sources.

You do not speak Russian, you have never talked to the victims or their descendants, but you have the nerve to ask me to look at "sources", that deny history and whitewash the crimes of the most bloody and genocidal ideology?

We can't have a debate if you won't listen to my arguments.

Listen, you have chosen as a profile picture the picture of a murderer, that is responsible for the death of more than 10 Million Russian Christians.

And you can get away with it?

Why?

Because nobody cares about the sensibilities of white Christians!

Can you imagine a Jew having a discussion with somebody, who has the picture of Adolf Hitler in his profile, and asking his opponent to read his sources?

You would be imprisoned in almost any Western country, if you do that!

Jews are so paranoiac about Hitler, that they even forbid any images that (due to their fantasy) could have something similar to Hitler!

Kettle that looks like Hitler brews trouble for JCPenney

"He even has his right arm extended," wrote another, while a third added: "I'm a little Nazi, short and stout".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... enney.html

Telegraph View: It sounds unlikely but one little end-of-terrace house in Swansea looks like the Nazi leader.

As we see, the double standard is right in your face!

[MememyselfandIJK]

you have never talked to the victims or their descendants

A majority of eastern Europe prefers conditions under the soviet union than now and Russians miss the Soviet Union by a margin of 55%-37%. Besides that like saying you never talked to the victims of capitalism or American "intervention."

Can you imagine a Jew having a discussion with somebody, who has the picture of Adolf Hitler in his profile, and asking his opponent to read his sources?

Because he caused the biggest war in human history and no one in Germany wants him back (in fact, Germans still fell shame for his regime 70 years later). Meanwhile, even Stalin is the 3rd most popular figure in Russian history -- A survey from late 2006 found that 47 per cent of Russians viewed Stalin as a positive figure, and only 29 per cent as a negative one and it is found that if he ran for leadership today, he would get >35% of the vote

Listen, you have chosen as a profile picture the picture of a murderer, that is responsible for the death of more than 10 Million Russian Christians.

Two things:

1. I don't see a source for that
2. Are you talking about the Russian civil war? That's like blaming Stalin for starting WWII. The whites mobilized before the reds

Jews are so paranoiac about Hitler, that they even forbid any images that (due to their fantasy) could have something similar to Hitler!

By the way, you are talking to a Jew right now. The house comparison I just find funny. The ad, at most I would probably ask the company to not put them up anymore or change the design, but not yell for the existing ones to be taken down. I suppose that is paranoid.

[QatzelOk]

It's kind of funny to see people claiming that communism "killed people."

It's like saying that sharing has killed 100 million people, so whatever you do.... don't share!

More accurate to say that the civil disturbances necessary to have a fair system have lead to many deaths of both communist supporters and of "people who hate sharing."

People who hate sharing are always the ones who instigate violence when they are forced to share. But this isn't communism (sharing) that kills them. It's the civil disturbance that these greedbags provoke that kills.

[Zionist Nationalist]

It's kind of funny to see people claiming that communism "killed people."

It's like saying that sharing has killed 100 million people, so whatever you do.... don't share!

More accurate to say that the civil disturbances necessary to have a fair system have lead to many deaths of both communist supporters and of "people who hate sharing."

People who hate sharing are always the ones who instigate violence when they are forced to share. But this isn't communism (sharing) that kills them. It's the civil disturbance that these greedbags provoke that kills.

Communism is not sharing.

Communism=everybody are poor (except for the elite)

[One Degree]

Psychologist consider 'sharing' pretty low on individual human moral/intellectual development.

[anna]

It's kind of funny to see people claiming that communism "killed people."

Evil people working in brutal totalitarian communist regimes "killed people."

Millions of innocent people. Smh at people who find that simply incidental. Lotta crazy people in this world.

[Dave]

For some reason I was only allowed to vote for two options. I wanted to vote for FOUR.

The options I voted for, after being forced to reduce to two, were Cold War Mentality and Other.

The strongest reason Americans are opposed to communism are propaganda and the fact it was the state ideology of our official enemy for over 50 years.

Americans, like any other people, do not in any sense choose what to believe in. Their beliefs are chosen for them by those who control the means of propaganda.

[MememyselfandIJK]

Communism is not sharing.Communism=everybody are poor (except for the elite)

Communism is collective ownership of the economy (to be specific the intuitions that allow the economy to run such as the means of production). In a true communist society wealth is evenly distributed and no one is wealthier than another. Rather, the fruits of the economy are shared instead of being pulled up to the insanely wealthy (Really, why does one person have to own more than 1 billion people?).

Evil people working in brutal totalitarian communist regimes "killed people."

It's kind of funny to see people claiming that communism "killed people."

I know!
Someone dies under communist state = Its communism! Communism is bad.
Someone dies under capitalist state = It wasn't capitalism! Just a tragedy! OR It was the state's fault! Not the economic system!

The strongest reason Americans are opposed to communism are propaganda and the fact it was the state ideology of our official enemy for over 50 years.Americans, like any other people, do not in any sense choose what to believe in. Their beliefs are chosen for them by those who control the means of propaganda.

I think you do bring up a very good point here. American suffer from the illusion of free choice much more than they are willing to admit and the culprits tend to be both the wealthy and the state.

For some reason I was only allowed to vote for two options. I wanted to vote for FOUR.

Sorry that's how I made the poll. I did it like two months ago.

[Dave]

I think you do bring up a very good point here.
American suffer from the illusion of free choice much more than they are willing to admit and the culprits tend to be both the wealthy and the state.

This is not just Americans, but any people. Americans are perhaps less willing to admit this given our self-conception as free, individualistic people.

But man is a social, tribal animal. Americans, regardless of our ideology, are unable to escape the laws of influence.

And while the wealthy are of course more influential than the poor in America as in every other society, there is not a direct relationship between wealth and influence. Katy Perry for instance influences more minds than Warren Buffet does. Even the state has only a weak grasp of the means of influence in the United States--witness the struggles of the President of the United States to even remain in office against a determined attack against him by the means of propaganda.

Sorry that's how I made the poll. I did it like two months ago.

I got over it. Perhaps it was a good thing as it allowed you and I to zero in on propaganda as a central cause.

[anna]

I know!
Someone dies under communist state = Its communism! Communism is bad.

Your premise is nonspecific.

If someone died under the communist state because the communist state tortured them to death, then yes, communism is bad.

[Zionist Nationalist]

Communism is collective ownership of the economy (to be specific the intuitions that allow the economy to run such as the means of production). In a true communist society wealth is evenly distributed and no one is wealthier than another. Rather, the fruits of the economy are shared instead of being pulled up to the insanely wealthy (Really, why does one person have to own more than 1 billion people?).

That doesn't make any sense

Why shold I distribute my wealth with some losers who cant manage their finances?

[MememyselfandIJK]

@anna yes, but deaths from prison camps and such are FAR LOWER then they are portrayed in western media (I can elaborate if you want). Furthermore many right-wing groups claimed that Stalin killed 140 million people. That's higher than the 1945 soviet population! Finally if you go with the definition that communism has killed ~100 million total over 80 years, you then must be willing to concede that Capitalism kills that many in 5 years -- specifically because resources are used to maximize profit, not maximize welfare. That kind of thinking will not sustain us as scarcity increases due to rising population, global warming and other factors.

[Dave]

@Zionist Nationalist,
I suppose the more honest communists would tell you because said losers will shoot you if you don't.

Which would make them not so loserish after all. When you're in the bourgeoisie you ride the tiger. We need to be nice to the losers or they might kill us.

[MememyselfandIJK]

suppose the more honest communists would tell you because said losers will shoot you if you don't.

Good point. I could go into things like surplus labor value and such, but I think this is a nice, quick way of saying it.

@Zionist Nationalist You cannot oppress a majority forever. You can only influence their ideas for a time. Once they realize the truth, there will be no effective way of stopping them.

[anna]

@anna yes,

So you agree. It's bad for the communist state to torture its people to death.

How in the world do you equate "dead" with "sharing?"

How do you justify any deaths from torture, forced deprivation, forced labor, forced starvation, mass execution, etc. etc. etc. ?

but deaths from prison camps and such are FAR LOWER

And... somehow if you can come up with a lower number... it's okay?

then they are portrayed in western media (I can elaborate if you want). Furthermore many right-wing groups claimed that Stalin killed 140 million people. That's higher than the 1945 soviet population! Finally if you go with the definition that communism has killed ~100 million total over 80 years, you then must be willing to concede that Capitalism kills that many in 5 years -- specifically because resources are used to maximize profit, not maximize welfare. That kind of thinking will not sustain us as scarcity increases due to rising population, global warming and other factors.

Capitalism has its evils, but last I checked, the average citizen in a free country isn't being arrested for thought crimes against the state and sent to a 'reeducation camp.'

[Dave]

Good point. I could go into things like surplus labor value and such, but I think this is a nice, quick way of saying it.

The labor theory of value is an intellectual concept, and one which can and will be lawyered--especially by the intelligent people who are extracting surplus value (or those intellectuals paid by said rich people to defend the rich). To take one example--the labor theory of value suggests that corporations suffering losses are being robbed by their workers. Under the LTV said employers would in theory be justified in covering losses by taking wages from their employees.

It's best to avoid such nonsense and simply look at reality. Men are primitive communists. A man wants more. But a man especially resents another man having more than he does.

This is the enduring power of not just communism but all left-wing ideologies. And in a way it's good this exists. Whether capitalists or feudalists, elites should have the Sword of Damocles hanging over them.

I'm a capitalist myself, and I do my best to treat my employees well. They're good people. But would I treat them as well if not for the implicit threat of revolution and expropriation?

I'd like to think that I would, but maybe I wouldn't. And I know many of my fellow capitalists would not.

[MememyselfandIJK]

@anna The original statement was

If someone died under the communist state because the communist state tortured them to death, then yes, communism is bad.

You never acknowledged that capitalist states do the exact same thing. Case in point -- Guantamano Bay. The US is just as guilty as the USSR on such things. Moreover, modern Russian records show that gulags worked more like modern prisons then death camps. Less than 1/2 a million people died in gulags under Stalin -- much closer to the US prison mortality than even conservative figures presented during the cold war. Of those ~430,000, more than half died due to malnutrition and starvation during 1941-3, when the Nazis were invading the USSR, draining their resources. It doesn't take that big of a leap to claim that Nazis killed more in soviet gulags than the soviets themselves! Aside from death tolls Gulags had pros and cons compared to western prison systems. Emphasized is the hard labor, but the US has been guilty of promoting such types of punishment -- even for foreign reparations. Soviet gulags had a large art and cultural component. Gulags actively competed with each other to put on the best plays and musicians and bands did perform. Some gulags had large ~30,000 book libraries and guards would try to teach some of the prisoners how to read if they were illiterate.

Moreover, as for the full toll, the alleged number has been rising for nearly 75 years. Today right-wing groups claim that Stalin killed 140 million. Keep in mind that the 1930 soviet population was less than that. If Stalin had truly killed 140 million, or even 60-80 million the USSR would have suffered severe demographic collapse and would have broken up much earlier. Specifically about famines, famines were a large part of Russian and Chinese history. In fact famines in pre-communist China were much worse than the Great Leap forwards. The Soviets themselves saw the troubles in the west and such as a reason to rapidly industrialize at any cost. At first they tried to pay for British machinery with gold. However Britain refused soviet gold at a time when both economies needed it. It was only then the soviets turned to crops. They calculated that as long as the next harvest succeeded, trading food would not be a problem. Clearly the gamble didn't pay off. Even then, strict rationing that could only occur under a communist system (not unlike the Cuba of the 2000s) helped reduce the impact.

I think a mistake that you are making is that you are equating capitalism with freedom. Capitalism does not necessary entail freedom -- in fact they are mostly independent. Have you heard of corporate lobbying or the Coca-Cola death squads?

[anna]

@anna The original statement was

You never acknowledged that capitalist states do the exact same thing.

Not like the USSR did. Not like China did. Not like North Vietnam did. Eastern bloc. etc. Come on... the history is known.

Case in point -- Guantamano Bay.

Not a valid comparison. You can't compare enemy combatants to civilians.

Having said that, Gitmo was a bad idea, badly visioned, badly handled.

The US is just as guilty as the USSR on such things.

No it's not. There are no death camps in the U.S.

Moreover, modern Russian records show that gulags worked more like modern prisons then death camps.

Our privately-run prisons aren't anything to brag about but - no. Just no. You need to talk to some refugees who lived through the gulags.

Less than 1/2 a million people died in gulags under Stalin

Why should I trust your numbers? And why is less than half a million something to be celebrated?

Soviet gulags had a large art and cultural component. Gulags actively competed with each other to put on the best plays and musicians and bands did perform. Some gulags had large ~30,000 book libraries and guards would try to teach some of the prisoners how to read if they were illiterate.

Good lord, you make them sound like the Salvation Army.

Propaganda.

Moreover, as for the full toll, the alleged number has been rising for nearly 75 years. Today right-wing groups claim that Stalin killed 140 million. Keep in mind that the 1930 soviet population was less than that. If Stalin had truly killed 140 million, or even 60-80 million the USSR would have suffered severe demographic collapse and would have broken up much earlier. Specifically about famines, famines were a large part of Russian and Chinese history. In fact famines in pre-communist China were much worse than the Great Leap forwards. The Soviets themselves saw the troubles in the west and such as a reason to rapidly industrialize at any cost. At first they tried to pay for British machinery with gold. However Britain refused soviet gold at a time when both economies needed it. It was only then the soviets turned to crops. They calculated that as long as the next harvest succeeded, trading food would not be a problem. Clearly the gamble didn't pay off. Even then, strict rationing that could only occur under a communist system (not unlike the Cuba of the 2000s) helped reduce the impact.

Propaganda.

I think a mistake that you are making is that you are equating capitalism with freedom. Capitalism does not necessary entail freedom -- in fact they are mostly independent. Have you heard of corporate lobbying or the Coca-Cola death squads?

No, I believe there's such a thing as evil capitalism, not only in the U.S./West, but in the developing world exploited by multinational corporations.

Freedom comes from our constitution.

[MememyselfandIJK]

Why should I trust your numbers? And why is less than half a million something to be celebrated?

Its in official archives (I think you can look it up) and mentioned in Blackshirts and Reds. I'm stating this because here in the US, the number is cited as 12 million -- over 25 times the amount. Second, as a population the US has a greater percentage of people under some kind of prohibition or imprisonment that the Soviets did. May I also add that US prisoner mortality is still significant despite modern prison reforms. Even if you discard the fact that most gulag deaths were due to the pressures of invasion, the number of US prison deaths is still an uncomfortable portion of gulag deaths despite the kind of society we live in.

Propaganda.

Good lord, you make them sound like the Salvation Army. Propaganda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_and_culture_in_the_Gulag_labor_camps

[ArtAllm]

Americans, like any other people, do not in any sense choose what to believe in. Their beliefs are chosen for them by those who control the means of propaganda.

Bingo!
That is why Hollywood will never permit any movies about the Holodomor or other crimes, committed by Bolsheviks against white Christians.

Before WWII Communism was a globalist project, Commies, like Trotsky, promoted globalism. Comintern was an instrument of Globalists.

As long as the Soviet Union was a puppet of Globalists, nobody in the USA cared a rat's ass about the crimes of Commies. That is the reason why USA was an ally of the most murderous regime that killed before the outbreak of WWII millions and millions of white Christians.

How many civilians killed the National Socialists before the outbreak of WWII?
Perhaps some thousands, but not millions.

But Stalin was the Uncle Joe, and USA went to bed with the Soviet Union.

If you sleep with dogs you wake up with fleas, after WWII Commies subverted the USA.

How come the most influential American financial experts were Soviet spies?

Harry Dexter White (October 9, 1892 – August 16, 1948) was an American economist and senior U.S. Treasury department official. Working closely with the Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr., he helped set American financial policy toward the Allies of World War II while at the same time he passed numerous secrets to the Soviet Union.[1] He was the senior American official at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference, that established the postwar economic order. He dominated the conference and imposed his vision of post-war financial institutions...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Dexter_White

As we see, Commies were the best friends of the American deep state during WWII.

So what happened after WWII?

How could it come to the Cold War?

Well, the answer is simple.

During WWII Stalin was forced to abandon his globalist Commie-Ideology, he was forced to revive Russian nationalism, because Russians were not ready to die for some shitty Communism. After the German Wehrmacht occupied Soviet territory, the Russians were allowed to rebuild their Churches, while Stalin was still persecuting Christians in the remaining part of the SU and destroying Russian Churches and other national monuments.

Russians saw the Wehrmacht as liberators. So Stalin had to stop his persecution of the Russian Church, and he had to revive the Russian National heroes, like Suvorov, Nevsky, Kutusov, et.

How else could Stalin save his own ass?

That was the rebirth of Russian Nationalism, after WWII Stalin tried to roll the process back, but it was too late.

After WWII Russian Nationalism and the nationalism of other Soviet ethnic group grew more and more, and this process ended in the collapse of this artificial creation of Bolsheviks, called Soviet Union.

The creation of the Homo Sovieticus, a mixture of all different ethnic groups of the Soviet Union, was an utopian project.

The tendency of segregation and self-preservation was stronger.

But it seems that Globalists do not learn from their mistakes, they now started a remake of this old dream - destroying the traditional ethnic groups and creation of a new hodge podge human being - in all Western countries.

In other words, as soon as Soviet Union stopped promoting the World Revolution, speak Globalism, it became useless for international banksters, they stopped supporting this regime, that became nationalistic.

Today Commies have more influence in the USA, than in the Christian Russia, that is openly Christians and openly calls itself a National state, that promotes the family values and the interests of its own people.