[The Immortal Goon]

Well, I failed in not offending you, apparently I'll respect your wish and not counter with facts or figures or citations.

Stalin isn't someone I hate, but he's someone who clearly did a lot of things wrong. On this site, in particular, there's a contigent of individuals (that I group as Stalinists) that don't necessarily acknowledge his wrongs. Which is what I'm trying to needle at more than anything.

There's little need to do so for Trotsky since virtually nobody takes that position with Trotsky on the site.

That's all.

[fuser]

Yes, TIG. Any more my wishes of mine that you dreamed up and wish to fulfill? Do notify me because its good to see people on internet know about my wishes that I even have no idea that I ever wished. How you manage that, does sheer hatred of Stalin can give people such power?

But regardless I am glad that after all the talk of facts not once my facts or arguments or any point have been challenged (instead concentrating all effort on a small portion of my point on the practice of "selective quoting" and then misrepresenting it in order to opt out of this debate.), and also people do acknowledge Stalin's wrongs, they just don't want to get emotional by blind hatred of one man and instead of wrongs, start implying that Stalin wasn't even a communist ( ) like some people here.

[The Immortal Goon]

You made it quite clear you didn't want quotes, or a Stalin did x,y,z response.

So I'm not going to get into it. I didn't just conjure this up, you can see it on the previous page.

You say that this is some how misrepresenting you in order to, "opt out of this debate." What kind of a debate do you want to have that isn't reliant on either of the above?

You acknowledge that the Soviet Union of Stalin was different than that of Lenin (and then weirdly mock me for making that point).

You challenge that the west preferred Stalin to Trotsky, though without using quotes or citations, I don't know how you would want me to prove that point. I can tell you that it was because Trotsky was well known as Lenin's associate, because Trotsky ran the Red Army, and because of western Anti-Semitism. But you're just taking my word for it without any citations, so there you go I guess.

And nobody was making a Stalin=Bad argument. Kobe acknowledged the need for Red Terror. I mentioned it was possible to like Lenin's Soviet Union and dislike Stalin's as they were two different systems--something you acknowledged yourself.

So I'm not really sure what is left to be said. I'm not trying to twist you into some kind of argument in order to hide in a corner and not have to engage this discussion. You know me well enough to know that's not how I post. I just don't see the point.

[fuser]

I see you keep on misrepresenting my points in order to opt out, very well. Suit yourself but don't force on me something that I never said or meant, for starters I never said, "I don't want a Stalin did x,y,z response." It seems that your hatred for Stalin indeed got better of you, what I literally had said was that "spare me Stalinist x, y, z mmkay"rant". i.e. I don't want your internet armchair psychology that has nothing to do with the "facts" and arguments that I have presented and not that I won't hear anything about Stalin. Can you spot the difference between what I actually said and what you are saying I said?

Also, I already explained my points about "selective quoting" (in a very specific context regardless of you trying to ignore that and the context was Lenin liking Stalin or not and all I had said that in this context both kind of Lenin quotes are easily available and quoting them isn't really helpful but yeah people on "misrepresenting mission" don't care for contexts etc, right?)numerous times, which was again a very small part of my argument, you can keep repeating same thing while pretending that I haven't addressed it or I am against quotes or something like that.

So, yeah if you want to opt out, do so but don't try to force on me something that I never meant or said, probably if your responses hadn't been so emotionally charged up, you could had differentiated between, "Stalin x,y,z" and "Stalinist are x, y, x" because seriously these two statements clearly have two different meanings

You challenge that the west preferred Stalin to Trotsky

What? Where? I challenged you when you tried to imply that west and Stalin were cahoots.

And nobody was making a Stalin=Bad argument. Kobe acknowledged the need for Red Terror. I mentioned it was possible to like Lenin's Soviet Union and dislike Stalin's as they were two different systems--something you acknowledged yourself.

Many people are making that argument and no Kobe explicitly said that he doesn't wishes to defend Red Terror. I have to ask you here, have you even read the thread properly?

I mentioned it was possible to like Lenin's Soviet Union and dislike Stalin's as they were two different systems--something you acknowledged yourself.

There you go once again twisting my argument, What I had said was that USSR under Stalin and Lenin was not identical not that they were two different system, please quote me saying that if you are not indeed misrepresenting me. States evolve, they don't remain in a stasis

I'm not trying to twist you into some kind of argument in order to hide in a corner and not have to engage this discussion. You know me well enough to know that's not how I post. I just don't see the point.

.

If it quakes like a duck.........By my count, you have already misrepresented 5 of my arguments while addressing none of the actual points made, quite telling, won't you say? Plus I like how you are playing "You know me" card when you don't give two shit about that yourself.


But whatever that's all from me, I have no wish to continue here while you keep imagining things that I am saying.

[kobe]

Oh, I am most definitely defending it as already explained in my last post.

Some people feel only a need to observe history and not defend it. Advocacy of certain parts of history are only necessary insofar as someone objects to them on a moral basis. No one here is objecting to the Red Terror on a moral basis, because we all understand the context of revolution and civil war. So I felt no need in making a spirited defense of it, because it happened and there is no need to twiddle my thumbs over the whole thing.

Dafaq? How am I selectively presenting the fact, did you missed the part where this argument was supposed to be about Lenin and Stalin? I also didn't mention Holocaust, am I denying that now?

You did not deny it, you merely presented the Red Terror as some kind of isolated incident, when I think we can both agree that there is no such thing.

No, I am arguing against the stupid "great man of history" theory as if communism depended on whims of one or two personalities, if only by accident of history Stalin had died in his childhood, world would had been different today. Anyway if Stalin had died in say 1928, you would had said that Stalin was all about roses while Lenin was about guns, you don't know how he would had reacted in the situation of 1930s.

I am saying that systematic repression was part and parcel of the revolution and the moment and place in which it was born trying to excuse yourself from that by pinning everything on one man is just cowering to bourgeoisie propaganda. One can say that excesses happened during Stalin's reign and many things were handled poorly to which I may or may not agree and a good discussion can happen but to say, "Lenin good, Stalin bad, mmkay" is darn stupid.

The problem is that no one is making the argument that Lenin is good and Stalin is bad. I am making the argument that Stalin targeted members of his own party with the excuse that they were counter-revolutionaries while simultaneously consolidating power into his own hands. I already stated that the systematic repression began with the revolution. None of the institutions that Stalin used did he invent. He simply used them for ways that they were not intended to be used- to consolidate power and suppress revolutionary thought that threatened his power.

As far as the "great man of history" fallacy of the revolution, it was one that Stalin himself created. He is the one that suppressed the history of the revolution, not me. It's no accident that most only associate Lenin and Stalin with the revolution, and sometimes Trotsky. Even though there are millions of names that made it possible, we only remember the two because of Stalin's own purging of the record books and propaganda.

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language.

I think we can both agree on that at least.

Yeah, because there was/is absolutely no corruption in socialist or capitalist countries. And international capitalism is obviously not more advantageous to human progress just because it is international - on the contrary, flooding national markets with cheap foreign labour serves to dump wages and oppress the working class even more (because there is no international working class: the European workers care shit all about the Asian workers, and vice versa). So internationalism in itself is no virtue.

In fact, the nation-state is the most inclusive of all. Whereas the capitalists and communists are pitting the classes against each other, the nation embraces all its members, regardless of their class.

It's a circular argument of the nation-state. There is no international workers because of the nation state, therefore we must keep the nation-state in order to prevent the internationalism of workers. The only reason work is cheap is because of the labor market, an aspect of capitalism. Internationalism is a virtue because the international proletariat is the back on which all international capitalism is possible. Once the workers realize that they are owned by the banks and the cabal of international capitalism that keeps them in place and keeps the bourgeoisie in power, then the contradictions of capitalism become obvious. Essentially you are just ignoring a problem. There are hundreds of millions in poverty already suffering, but the nation-state keeps it so that the monopoly on violence keeps them in line rather than changing their material conditions. If they are lucky they can find asylum but the vast majority simply die slow and painful deaths. Then the west wonders why they turn to these militant religious groups. I don't.

As far as the nation-state being inclusive, that's a laugh. Nation-states are by definition extremely hierarchical, built on the terror of the armed forces and police force, built for the benefit of the capital owners that only get to live better lives than workers by sheer chance, built so that the most sociopathic and spineless connive their way to the top, built for the betterment of the ruling class, etc. I don't even need to point to systemic oppression however, I could just point out that the American nation-state once gleefully held chattle slaves that were treated like beasts of burden. I suppose they were embracing them, too? Or how about the Highland Scotts that were executed, put into prison, and had their culture and history destroyed. Or the German and Japanese nation-states back in World War 2. Man, they really embraced those undesirables. I can't wait until the churning of the mechanical clock of history embraces me too!

[Frollein]

Yeah, because there was/is absolutely no corruption in socialist or capitalist countries. And international capitalism is obviously not more advantageous to human progress just because it is international - on the contrary, flooding national markets with cheap foreign labour serves to dump wages and oppress the working class even more (because there is no international working class: the European workers care shit all about the Asian workers, and vice versa). So internationalism in itself is no virtue.

In fact, the nation-state is the most inclusive of all. Whereas the capitalists and communists are pitting the classes against each other, the nation embraces all its members, regardless of their class.

It's a circular argument of the nation-state. There is no international workers because of the nation state, therefore we must keep the nation-state in order to prevent the internationalism of workers.

That's your circular argument, not mine. People are guided by self-interest, which extends to their in-group. That will be their blood relatives first, and after them, any group they identify with. Logically, that will be the group that a) secures the fulfilment of their needs and interests and b) allows them to participate by helping to further the groups interests (and thereby implicitly their individual interests). That's of course a constant process of compromise, a dynamic of sacrificing some of one's own narrow interests to the "greater good" of the group vs manipulating the group consensus to one's own favour (or that of one's clan, a nested group-within-the-group).

The question is which is the greatest group the individual is able to identify with. The family, certainly; the clan (extended family), the tribe (related clans). After that, blood relations become too extended to really create an emotinal bond. So other common characteristics need to stand in that make up a common identity. A common language is one, for the very practical reason that it enables smooth communication. Common customs ("culture") is another one, because it makes up a lot of subliminal language, the "right" way of "how things are done". Voila, you have the ingredients of a nation: language and culture.

What does a European worker have in common with an African or Asian worker except the fact that he is working for someone? Nothing. And the fact that the majority of people are slaves is not enough to inspire emotional identification. Because that has been true for the majority of people for most of history. So what? Why would an English worker care about the conditions of a Korean worker? They have no impact on his life. That's why your communist revolution needs to be constantly promoted, why workers need to be "educated": because it's nothing that's self evident to them and nothing they'd lift a finger for.

The only reason work is cheap is because of the labor market, an aspect of capitalism. Internationalism is a virtue because the international proletariat is the back on which all international capitalism is possible. Once the workers realize that they are owned by the banks and the cabal of international capitalism that keeps them in place and keeps the bourgeoisie in power, then the contradictions of capitalism become obvious.

Dream on. All these "realizations" don't change anything about the power structures which have formed over the centuries. Have you ever asked yourself why they have formed the way they are and not like the communists dream them? It's in the way humans self-organize and that hasn't changed because humans are hierarchical beings, just like all social animals.

Essentially you are just ignoring a problem. There are hundreds of millions in poverty already suffering, but the nation-state keeps it so that the monopoly on violence keeps them in line rather than changing their material conditions. If they are lucky they can find asylum but the vast majority simply die slow and painful deaths. Then the west wonders why they turn to these militant religious groups. I don't.

You're conflating nationalism and imperialism. Not every nation is engaged in imperialism, though America most certainly is. But you are mistaken if you think that those militant religious groups will lay down their weapons and join your communist utopia once you have "educated" them. They know all about socialism in the Middle East. They just don't give a shit. Their tribal allegiances are much more important to them.

As far as the nation-state being inclusive, that's a laugh. Nation-states are by definition extremely hierarchical, built on the terror of the armed forces and police force, built for the benefit of the capital owners that only get to live better lives than workers by sheer chance, built so that the most sociopathic and spineless connive their way to the top, built for the betterment of the ruling class, etc. I don't even need to point to systemic oppression however, I could just point out that the American nation-state once gleefully held chattle slaves that were treated like beasts of burden. I suppose they were embracing them, too? Or how about the Highland Scotts that were executed, put into prison, and had their culture and history destroyed. Or the German and Japanese nation-states back in World War 2. Man, they really embraced those undesirables. I can't wait until the churning of the mechanical clock of history embraces me too!

Of course the nation-state is inclusive of its members, but what makes you think that blacks were regarded as members of the nation? They were not white, they didn't speak the language when they were brought here from Africa and they certainly didn't share the culture (and by the way, they were captured and sold by African tribes who profited a lot from this business). Neither did the English see the Scots as members of their nation, etc. And why would they? If I view all humans as members of my nation, it's not nationalism anymore.

[Conscript]

Don't listen to the German she-Nazi. It's all lies. The worker in Asia has more in common with the worker in Europe, than they do with their respective bosses. They feed and clothe each other, they compete in the same market, and they are pitted against each other as grunts in imperialist wars for their nations.

The commons stretches all over the world, transcends all nations, and encompasses all of humanity. Destroy all nation-states!

Edit: Just kidding about the nazi bit, I just like the connotations. Because you're German. And nationalist.

I do like your illiberalism and disgust for international finance, though. A fellow genosse (sp?) we will make you into.

[Frollein]

You're aware that not all nationalists are national socialists, right?

[Conscript]

They are all socialists here across the lake, if that's worth anything.

But seriously, I believe all nationalists have a place for the nazis and fascism. They understand it, they are cut from the same cloth. They can look at the historical progression leading up to it and see justification, especially when it comes to anti-communism. Churchill and Mises, for example, saw that much.

After all, just about every history class I took on genocide and such explicitly stated not all nationalism is bad. It just got that way because it was combined with socialism/communism, or something.

[Frollein]

*shrug* Since I'm neither a Nazi nor a Fascist, I'll leave it to them to counter that claim. But of course, from the point of Communism, everyone else is reactionary. Sort of like everyone lives south of you when you're on the north pole.

[Decky]

Seriously though, I wouldn't describe myself as a trot

Well everyone else would. You might as well just have stayed a libertarian if you wanted an anti worker ideology. You can't be pro Lenin and anti Stalin. Stalin was a Leninist.



How do you feel now?

[mikema63]

I feel like I hate ear gauges and his tattoos are of low quality.

[Decky]

[Rich]

Every organisation, on achieving a position of decisive influence in the life and ordering of society, quite inevitably, irrespective of the formal tenets of the its programme, attempts to impose on society its own type of structure, the one with which it is most familiar and to which it is most accustomed. Every collective re-creates, as far as it can, the whole social environment after its own image and in its own likeness.

[kobe]

That's your circular argument, not mine. People are guided by self-interest, which extends to their in-group. That will be their blood relatives first, and after them, any group they identify with. Logically, that will be the group that a) secures the fulfilment of their needs and interests and b) allows them to participate by helping to further the groups interests (and thereby implicitly their individual interests). That's of course a constant process of compromise, a dynamic of sacrificing some of one's own narrow interests to the "greater good" of the group vs manipulating the group consensus to one's own favour (or that of one's clan, a nested group-within-the-group).

Nonsense. People are guided by biological urges and cultural brainwashing. People act in self-interest all the time (some argue that no action is selfless), but as far as people's identifications go, it has much more to do with cultural brainwashing than anything else. For instance, Catholics identify with the church before they identify as anything else because that is how they are raised. Protestants identify more with their congregation and their family because that's how they are raised. Atheists have a different set of identifications altogether. Many grow up and despise their parents and blood relatives. Don't confuse your own personal preferences and beliefs with "natural" inclinations. There are none except to eat, to hydrate, and to procreate. Other than that, when we talk social structures they are confined to the realm of culture. As far as "the greater good" it only exists in the minds of people that believe in goodness as a quality that people can have. It is a contradictory notion to that of "self-interest", which states that no greater good exists to individuals, only that which benefits the individual.

The question is which is the greatest group the individual is able to identify with. The family, certainly; the clan (extended family), the tribe (related clans). After that, blood relations become too extended to really create an emotinal bond. So other common characteristics need to stand in that make up a common identity. A common language is one, for the very practical reason that it enables smooth communication. Common customs ("culture") is another one, because it makes up a lot of subliminal language, the "right" way of "how things are done". Voila, you have the ingredients of a nation: language and culture.

Ah yes, common language and customs. Things that have only existed for a few centuries. Things that were gotten at gun-point (or sword-point). A concept that had to be invented in order to keep the peasants in line and give more power to the absolute monarchs. That's what you're talking about, right?

What does a European worker have in common with an African or Asian worker except the fact that he is working for someone? Nothing. And the fact that the majority of people are slaves is not enough to inspire emotional identification. Because that has been true for the majority of people for most of history. So what? Why would an English worker care about the conditions of a Korean worker? They have no impact on his life. That's why your communist revolution needs to be constantly promoted, why workers need to be "educated": because it's nothing that's self evident to them and nothing they'd lift a finger for.

At one point in time magic was self-evident. Marxists do not concern themselves with self-evident truths. As far as what the European worker and the Asian worker have in common, it's simple: without either the work would not get done. With proper organization they would be able to do everything the capitalists and the banks supposedly are responsible for without the constant leaching of capital and the constant false-scarcity that the system is predicated on in order to improve the material conditions of a select few.

Also I laugh at the idea that people who know what it means to do an honest day's work don't identify with hard workers all over the world. The resentment burns like a fire through the working class towards anyone who doesn't know an honest day's labor. The problem is that they are easily tricked by cultures and nations into believing that the ruling class has their best interest in mind just because they speak the same language. Nor do the poor always identify with other poor, because the proletariat's hate for the lumpen can be greater than their hate for their masters. After all, the lumpen has never had an honest day's work or contribute much of any value to society. Nor further does someone fighting to survive identify with anyone, as hunger is its own passion.

Dream on. All these "realizations" don't change anything about the power structures which have formed over the centuries. Have you ever asked yourself why they have formed the way they are and not like the communists dream them? It's in the way humans self-organize and that hasn't changed because humans are hierarchical beings, just like all social animals.

Don't be ridiculous. You're the one that's dreaming if you think capitalism has anything at all to do with human nature. It's an economic system. People are born into it. That's why this whole idea of self-organization is in itself complete fabrication. Self-organization is a bourgeoisie phrase that means organize the way that society tells you or we will kill you or imprison you with no questions asked. Society is the rule of warfare. Every peaceful society does not last because one day an ambitious society comes along, swallows them up, rapes their women, re-names the country, changes the language, and then pretends that nothing ever happened. I bet as you read that sentence you thought of at least five different societies that applies to (including my own). So please, spare me the romantic Enlightenment notions about the ways humans self-organize. Violence is the way anything gets done in this world. That's why these realizations never happen, because if they do you get fired and then you learn your place. It is the capitalist's "right" to throw you out on the streets and ignore all the work that they have earned so much money on. What is the worker's right? To sell his labor on the marketplace. Oh my what a just system we self-established. Sure the worker agreed to that one.

You're conflating nationalism and imperialism. Not every nation is engaged in imperialism, though America most certainly is. But you are mistaken if you think that those militant religious groups will lay down their weapons and join your communist utopia once you have "educated" them. They know all about socialism in the Middle East. They just don't give a shit. Their tribal allegiances are much more important to them.

I thought Germans didn't have a sense of humor? Guess you must be an exception.

Try to understand this: nation-states have been around for maybe four hundred years. In that time the only action they have ever been good at is expansion. Since organization into countries there have been not just countless colonial wars but various empires and states that if you so choose you could look into a history book, pick one, and name off dozens of wars that they have engaged in. Even the implementation of language was met with resistance and had to be imposed through violence. Portugal, France, the Germanic states (which have been in constant warfare!), Spain, the Dutch, the Frankish Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the British, the Mughal Empire, the Russians... in the 19th century the Europeans literally had a conference where they divvied up the whole world. Americans systematically purged the natives, the Spanish did the same thing in South America, the French did so in Africa, entire tomes have been written about this. It wasn't even a hundred years ago that this all was going on, and now you want to pretend that you had no benefit from that? Bullshit. Sorry the Americans are doing it better than anyone else ever did but lets be real here, nation-states have been responsible for lots of human misery and lots of human progress at the same time.

As far as them knowing about socialism in the middle east, please. They haven't even mastered the idea of the nation-state. They are glorified petro-states that keep the ruling class in power via social control and constant threats of violence, all empowered by Western companies and powers that just want the sweet economic lubrication of crude oil. That's essentially the only way that the map stays the same, constant violence and oil. We all know that the way those states are organized has nothing to do with unified tribes and everything to do with how the maps were drawn in the first place. Why do you think they are hotbeds of violence?

Of course the nation-state is inclusive of its members, but what makes you think that blacks were regarded as members of the nation? They were not white, they didn't speak the language when they were brought here from Africa and they certainly didn't share the culture (and by the way, they were captured and sold by African tribes who profited a lot from this business). Neither did the English see the Scots as members of their nation, etc. And why would they? If I view all humans as members of my nation, it's not nationalism anymore.

So to summarize: the nation is inclusive of everyone except most of the people on the planet and a large percentage of people that live inside the boarders of the nation-state. You know, everyone.

[fuser]

Some people feel only a need to observe history and not defend it. Advocacy of certain parts of history are only necessary insofar as someone objects to them on a moral basis.

There's no such thing as "merely observing history", we all view history from the lens of our respective biases.

No one here is objecting to the Red Terror on a moral basis, because we all understand the context of revolution and civil war. So I felt no need in making a spirited defense of it, because it happened and there is no need to twiddle my thumbs over the whole thing.

When I wasn't attacking it, why there was a need to defend it? "What part of I am a commie and I support red terror", you missed? I am not sure whats your point here.

You did not deny it, you merely presented the Red Terror as some kind of isolated incident, when I think we can both agree that there is no such thing.

What? No, I didn't presented it as an isolated incident. What are you talking about? My point that Lenin was not averse to violent crackdown of counterrevolutionaries etc was proved by me quoting red terror. You still are pretending that I am attacking Lenin when I have explicitly stated that I support him and Red Terror.

This is like one can never talk about Stalingrad before mentioning Barbarossa, never, right?

The problem is that no one is making the argument that Lenin is good and Stalin is bad.

Oh, please.

I am making the argument that Stalin targeted members of his own party with the excuse that they were counter-revolutionaries while simultaneously consolidating power into his own hands. I already stated that the systematic repression began with the revolution. None of the institutions that Stalin used did he invent. He simply used them for ways that they were not intended to be used- to consolidate power and suppress revolutionary thought that threatened his power.

Lenin was not averse to repressing members of communist party as I already showed, why is it alright to hang a counter revolutionary peasant but not a counter revolutionary party member? Anyhow this is all speculative now, as I said if Stalin had died in 1927, he would had been what, all roses?

As far as the "great man of history" fallacy of the revolution, it was one that Stalin himself created. He is the one that suppressed the history of the revolution, not me.

What are you talking about? I am tired of people losing the chain of arguments, I am saying people in this thread are falling for that fallacy, how Stalin doing the same or not affects my argument?

It's no accident that most only associate Lenin and Stalin with the revolution, and sometimes Trotsky. Even though there are millions of names that made it possible, we only remember the two because of Stalin's own purging of the record books and propaganda.

Yeah, this is not "great man of history". Its literally impossible to remember a million names, people will of course remember names of prominent leaders of any revolution, I have already explained what great man of history is. And no we remember tons of people whether purged or not and this is exactly why I am saying how "Stalin bad" people wander into ridiculous territory, "we only remember the two because of Stalin's own purging of the record books and propaganda."

[kobe]

There's no such thing as "merely observing history", we all view history from the lens of our respective biases.

You're splitting hairs here, but sure. All you're really saying is that any interpretation of history is flawed because we can't possibly understand things we were not there to participate in. Thus I try not to make apologies because they are not needed. The events of history happen and flow into more events.

What? No, I didn't presented it as an isolated incident. What are you talking about? My point that Lenin was not averse to violent crackdown of counterrevolutionaries etc was proved by me quoting red terror. You still are pretending that I am attacking Lenin when I have explicitly stated that I support him and Red Terror.

This is like one can never talk about Stalingrad before mentioning Barbarossa, never, right?

Yeah you did, at least you tried to. Then I put it into proper context. Just like you tried to present the paper Lenin wrote about purging and I put it into proper context. Just like every other historical event needs context. It would be as if I presented a Wikipedia page about the Jewish uprisings in the ghettos to talk about Jewish agitation of the German state. Put something into historical perspective and it all makes more sense, imagine that.

Oh, please.

You're a laugh. In the context of history good and bad don't exist. So criticizing the leadership of Stalin is not calling him a bad guy, it's just criticism. Be a man about it, that's all I'm saying. Sorry if I think Stalin's system wasn't very good or empowering of the proletariat. It is what it is, comrade.

Lenin was not averse to repressing members of communist party as I already showed, why is it alright to hang a counter revolutionary peasant but not a counter revolutionary party member?

Stalin in fact suppressed other revolutionaries as he backed counter-revolutionaries in China. The fact is that if someone else had come into power Stalin himself would have been hanged because he harbored counter-revolutionary sentiment and was by and large someone who believed he knew more than he actually did. He was not the person to have as much power as he did.

Anyhow this is all speculative now, as I said if Stalin had died in 1927, he would had been what, all roses?

If ifs were a fifth we'd all be drunk. The person that said there are no such thing as stupid questions never heard that one.

What are you talking about? I am tired of people losing the chain of arguments, I am saying people in this thread are falling for that fallacy, how Stalin doing the same or not affects my argument?

I'm completely following the argument. You're accusing me of an opinion I have not nor will ever have. The only reason people argue it in such a way is because Stalin himself started the myth. I can criticize Stalin without thinking that he is the antichrist himself. He was not a very good leader and made a lot of well-documented mistakes and miscalculations. He was a very shrewd leader on the other hand.

Yeah, this is not "great man of history". Its literally impossible to remember a million names, people will of course remember names of prominent leaders of any revolution, I have already explained what great man of history is. And no we remember tons of people whether purged or not and this is exactly why I am saying how "Stalin bad" people wander into ridiculous territory, "we only remember the two because of Stalin's own purging of the record books and propaganda."

Ah so he did not attempt to create a cult of personality behind himself and Lenin. I see Stalin is still revising history and converting followers from the grave. Did you remember to light a candle for him at the Stalinist Mass too? (that was sarcasm)

[fuser]

You're splitting hairs here, but sure. All you're really saying is that any interpretation of history is flawed because we can't possibly understand things we were not there to participate in. Thus I try not to make apologies because they are not needed. The events of history happen and flow into more events.

lol what? I am not saying that at all, what I said is what I meant literally, no need to take any non existent implicit meaning from it.

Yeah you did, at least you tried to.

No, I didn't. I see you also are blessed with power of reading people's mind when their literal explicit words don't matter but what you think is going on in their mind. Tell me, is this superpower very handy for you?

Just like every other historical event needs context

Who said otherwise? Oh, sorry reading minds I see.

It would be as if I presented a Wikipedia page about the Jewish uprisings in the ghettos to talk about Jewish agitation of the German state.

Wtf? Have you read what I have written? Your example seems to be based on mind reading as usual and not actually what I have been writing. Its more like that I am saying "Jewish uprising" happened without claiming that it was an agitation of the German State, that part is result of your mind reading nothing more.

What part of I support red terror (obviously because of context) of Lenin you fail to understand, your Jewish example is trying to pretend that I am putting it in negative light, why are you persisting with this false argument even after explained otherwise so many times already.

Do tell me, what part of "My point that Lenin was not averse to violent crackdown of counterrevolutionaries etc was proved by me quoting red terror. " are you failing to comprehend? How quoting white terror nullifies that point of me? I see rather than just admitting that quoting white terror was just a captain obvious thing to do rather than it being related to my point, you will drag this point nonsensically.

You're a laugh. In the context of history good and bad don't exist. So criticizing the leadership of Stalin is not calling him a bad guy, it's just criticism. Be a man about it, that's all I'm saying. Sorry if I think Stalin's system wasn't very good or empowering of the proletariat. It is what it is, comrade.

Oh the sweet irony, in the same post a person says good and bad don't exist (while operating from the same narrative the whole time i.e. simplistic Lenin good, Stalin Bad) and then went on talking about Stalin system not good, its bad mmkay.

Stalin in fact suppressed other revolutionaries as he backed counter-revolutionaries in China. The fact is that if someone else had come into power Stalin himself would have been hanged because he harbored counter-revolutionary sentiment

And you were lecturing about context? And I see still continuing with your "great man of history" bs as if for nth time Stalin getting smallpox at the age of 9 will result in completely different world. Why are you so obsessed with personalities?

If ifs were a fifth we'd all be drunk. The person that said there are no such thing as stupid questions never heard that one.

And yet you were doing ifs, if only Lenin or any one else instead of Stalin. I like when people found something to be wrong when other people use it but its fine when they are using it.

I'm completely following the argument.

You are literally completely not. I noticed how you utterly failed to answer the question if you were indeed following the argument i.e. "I am saying people in this thread are falling for that fallacy, how Stalin doing the same or not affects my argument?" Care to answer?

Ah so he did not attempt to create a cult of personality behind himself and Lenin. I see Stalin is still revising history and converting followers from the grave.

Do you know our Sun is yellow? Ummm, surprised? Well I thought now that we are just saying random things that has nothing to do with quoted texts and some people's complete inability to follow an argument, why the hell not? Let me re-quote myself :

Yeah, this is not "great man of history". Its literally impossible to remember a million names, people will of course remember names of prominent leaders of any revolution, I have already explained what great man of history is. And no we remember tons of people whether purged or not and this is exactly why I am saying how "Stalin bad" people wander into ridiculous territory, "we only remember the two because of Stalin's own purging of the record books and propaganda."

What does your post has to do with my quoted post? ummm, absolutely nothing. Try harder.

Did you remember to light a candle for him at the Stalinist Mass too? (that was sarcasm)

Yes. Its not sarcasm.

[kobe]

Not sure I follow that last post. We've been pulled completely off track here (as tends to happen with discussion). You misrepresented a paper. I inadvertently implied that Lenin never committed any hangings or that I don't understand why they happened. I think we both understand why they happened. You seem to take personal offense to the idea that Stalin was a worse leader than Lenin and had some very strange ideas on how the soviet republics should be run, and suppressed revolutionaries (not counter-revolutionaries but fellow revolutionary figures) in order to needlessly consolidate power into his own hands.

Furthermore you seem to deny any possibility that Lenin did not approve of handing over complete control to Stalin and don't want to hear the evidence because it would be selective reporting of evidence. That I gather from your conversation with TIG.

What part of I support red terror (obviously because of context) of Lenin you fail to understand, your Jewish example is trying to pretend that I am putting it in negative light, why are you persisting with this false argument even after explained otherwise so many times already.

You'll find that you were the one that brought up the holocaust so I was merely alluding to a previous part of the conversation. Seems that as soon as you type something you forget about the last thing you typed.

Do tell me, what part of "My point that Lenin was not averse to violent crackdown of counterrevolutionaries etc was proved by me quoting red terror. " are you failing to comprehend? How quoting white terror nullifies that point of me? I see rather than just admitting that quoting white terror was just a captain obvious thing to do rather than it being related to my point, you will drag this point nonsensically.

I do stress putting everything into context. Seems like a good idea to me. You brought up the thesis, I brought up the antithesis, now it's time to synthesize rather than pretend events happen out of context. Just as when I say that Stalin did not invent the institutions which he utilized, I attempt to put his own actions into context. Just as I attempted to put the original paper that you quoted into context. Context. It's a great thing. I find it very useful.

Oh the sweet irony, in the same post a person says good and bad don't exist (while operating from the same narrative the whole time i.e. simplistic Lenin good, Stalin Bad) and then went on talking about Stalin system not good, its bad mmkay.

Yeah, that part where he supported Lamarckian inheritance and set back Russian genetics for years was pretty bad, I must say. That part where he legislated morality and degeneracy was also pretty dumb. The part where he cannibalized his own party leadership that we are talking about right now.

Seems like you just want me to throw my hat behind Stalin's policies which is something that I will not do because a lot of them were shit policies. He didn't like internationalism, he used scapegoats to explain away failures of his government, and if those failures had occurred in a capitalist country we would be using them as propaganda ad infinitum. I mean at a certain point you have to step back and realize that Stalin's government was a failure in a lot of ways. He did turn the USSR into an industrial superpower, no denying that, but that doesn't mean that you have to support his policies.

And you were lecturing about context? And I see still continuing with your "great man of history" bs as if for nth time Stalin getting smallpox at the age of 9 will result in completely different world. Why are you so obsessed with personalities?

No I was actually just making fun of you for using hypotheticals. Lets see, if Stalin died in childhood or 1927, I think this conversation would not be happening because we'd both be like "who the fuck is Stalin?"

[fuser]

I love when people are utterly devoid of any argument try to play Internet armchair Psychologists. You still reading my mind again,eh? I am taking personal offense, lol.

Furthermore you seem to deny any possibility that Lenin did not approve of handing over complete control to Stalin and don't want to hear the evidence because it would be selective reporting of evidence. That I gather from your conversation with TIG.

You sure don't know how to follow a discussion, at this point its just irritating. How the fuck you people are managing to overlook "literal" things that I am typing to construct arguments of your own,

Let me re-quote myself, it will be useless I know but still:

the context was Lenin liking Stalin or not and all I had said that in this context both kind of Lenin quotes are easily available and quoting them isn't really helpful

You know it means something completely different than what you are saying I am saying. How about next time actually reading my posts than imagining them? Will it be too hard?

You'll find that you were the one that brought up the holocaust so I was merely alluding to a previous part of the conversation. Seems that as soon as you type something you forget about the last thing you typed.

Umm, what? No I haven't forgot about it, that example still stands and you once again have lost the chain of argument. Your shitty Jewish uprising example is still shitty for reasons I already explained and you failed to counter them.

rather than pretend events happen out of context.

Hilarious. I don't know is there a problem with your reading comprehension or you are hoping that repeating same lie again and again will somehow make it true. Anyhow good to know that you are unable to argue the point that I made (numerous times now) when I gave the example of red terror.

Yeah, that part where he supported Lamarckian inheritance and set back Russian genetics for years was pretty bad, I must say. That part where he legislated morality and degeneracy was also pretty dumb. The part where he cannibalized his own party leadership that we are talking about right now.

Seems like you just want me to throw my hat behind Stalin's policies which is something that I will not do because a lot of them were shit policies. He didn't like internationalism, he used scapegoats to explain away failures of his government, and if those failures had occurred in a capitalist country we would be using them as propaganda ad infinitum. I mean at a certain point you have to step back and realize that Stalin's government was a failure in a lot of ways. He did turn the USSR into an industrial superpower, no denying that, but that doesn't mean that you have to support his policies.

Why you quote me and then write something that has nothing to with my quoted post? To pretend that you actually have a counter argument? or else if you want to discuss these things, start a thread or talk about it in here without randomly quoting me on something to which you have no counter points.

No I was actually just making fun of you for using hypotheticals. Lets see, if Stalin died in childhood or 1927,

So, basically you don't understand "great man of history", neither my mocking of it, good to know. And you are mocking my mock. God, you are confused.


But, meh I am done with this thread, if you people can't come up with any argument that is actually based on my post or completely unable to follow chain of arguments, then I have no intention of moving in circles and explaining same things again and again to people who are completely oblivious to those simple explanation.