First of all, this is written in a hurry, so my apologis if it is too superficial. I will elaborate on request.
I've got to say Lucefarul, I dont think he's trolling and I think you can change more minds talking to people than ignoring them.
He is trolling. Kindly reread some of his earlier posts here.
And I didn't start this thread to change anybody's mind. That is unlikely to happen as I hopefully play a minor role in anybody's life here. Besides, as perhaps already noted, I work in the spirit of Blake rather than Voltaire.
JH, you and me went over this before. While you are definitely not ring-wing in the MobBoss or Winner sense of the word, as a Liberterian you are definitely right wing economically, and I think thats what he's referring to. No one thinks you are a social conservative or reactionary. I dont agree with your politics, in fact I'm a mile from them, but you dont seem to be willfully hateful in your beliefs (unlike some of the other right-wingers here) and seem like a nice guy, hence we get along well.
I need to comment on this, only to make a confession and issue a friendly warning.
A few years ago I had my midlife-crisis, and instead of chasing young girls or buying a fancy red car or something like that I became attracted to anarchism. I needed to spend some time in the former Eastern Bloc to be cured. Please let that be a cautionary tale; don't repeat my mistake and be taken in by ultra-leftism.
Traditionally, and I think that sometimes traditions are good things, the difference between left and right is basically expressed in their attitude on power-relations, class perspective and distribution of wealth in society, not in identity politics and such rubbish. Frankly I prefer a good old-fashioned conservative to those "libertarians" (actually a term they stole from socialists, it is more to the point to call them propretarians or my own invention waletarians). It is not exactly a new thing that the upper class and their minions have been socially liberal, just to take one example from history; the English Civil War.
As for being nice, which anyway is not important in such a context, an internet forum is hardly the best place to establish is somebody is or not. Also try for instance to let your wife read some of things he wrote about women. She might then disagree with you.
Would changing from capitalism to communism involve major changes in any non economic aspects of society? Would it have any affect on language, culture, etc.?
It would affect it in that way that cultural life would be less commercial. That would for instance mean that we wouldn't get another teenage musical genius from the USA every week and we would be able to some films for grown-ups. As for language, obviously some value-laden words would change their meaning.
Generally also people's attitude would change from narcissism to maturity.
Wouldn't you rather be dead?
No, just kidding. How's it hanging man?
How awesome was it when Obama was elected?
Hope they don't do a JFK on his poor ass.
1.No, I have decided not to die (Sandman-reference, folks).
2.It could have been better.
3.I don't think that it was awesome at all, the empire just got a slicker and consequently more dangerous CEO.
4.I don't think he will be assasinated and I don't care.
I don't know about "great architecture" (most soviet buildings strike me as extremely ugly), but art was, surprisingly, very expressive in the USSR until stalinism set in.
True, except for that I don't find Soviet buildings particulary ugly, that cultural palace in Warszawa for instance is quite impressive.
What do you think of the Kerensky government? Had they not undertaken their eponymous offensive that summer, do you think they would have done a better or worse job with turning Russia into a Socialist state postwar than the Bolsheviks did? Is that sort of moderately socialist system "acceptable" in such a time of upheaval, or should the more extreme factions warrant support during such unique and advantageous times as Russia was in 1917?
I think the Bolsheviks was the right people for the job in that extreme situation. I think that a more moderate approach would be more suitable in the advanced industrial countries of today. For instance, an american Kerensky would have been nice (perhaps a more savoury version of Michale Moore
). And no, Obama is far from being an american Kerensky.
Was the Soviet Union and Romania back in the 80s communism? How much of a communist society was it?
As pointed out many times before, no. The Soviet Union was a partly socialist society, Romania more fascist like.
What are the comparative merits of Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, democratic socialism, and social democracy as forms of socialism?
Difficult question, and I don't know what you mean with democratic socialism. But I have to admit that I find little merit in trots.
I will come back to it on occasion.
Do you believe in god, or is it like an atheistic society?
I still don't believe in any sort of god.
why do you hate freedom comrade?
Because I love solidarity, equality, good taste and good manners.
Do you ever get upset about the negative portrayal of the Russian Revolution in Dr. Zhivago?
Not so much, the world is full of second rate authors. But awarding him the Nobel Prize.
Are you serious?
I am always serious.
Stalin is of course the ultimate straw man in bourgeois propaganda, which I could easily verify just by browsing a couple of underwhelming debates here. There is no doubt that the man commited serious crimes, but I think that he had a genuine devotion to socilism and that he through his effort should be reckoned as a progressive figure.
Regarding the other two mentioned, they were just miserable corporate thugs without any redeeming features.
no dude I'm serious I'm not trolling or flaming, most if not all communist/socialist governments have been authoritarian and have limited personal freedom, how come the UK or US don't seem to have this problem? and i don't want none of that BS "but those countries weren't really communist"
First of all, I most certainly regard countries where wealthy majorities have privileges and disproportional impact on political decisions as authoritarian. Keep also in mind that there are more than one kind of personal freedom.
Secondly, the countries where socialists took power were traditionally authoritarian societies (China, Russia,Poland, Cuba etc.. I can only think of one exception to that, and that is Czechoslovakia.
Thirdly, the countries were socialists took power were also surrounded by hostile countries. For instance, post-revolutionary Russia was invaded by a multi-national force and also had internal hostile elements like a substantial part of its military officers.
also, isn't a society inherently freer if they more control of the market? if they are allowed to own land? if they don't have to wait in food lines? if they can fire and hire employees at will? the list goes on and on........
Who are "they"?
Most people make a living by selling the value of their labour, not by owning land or capital. For them it is more important that they can keep the control over the values they create by said labour.
Yeah, and if you remove the texture, smell, and colour of crap, some people might call it awesome.
There are standards even for trolls. By the way, wasn't it you who once epressed your admiration for Herman Göring's old hunting companion Marshall Pilsudski?
Google-project for today; How many Red Army soldiers died in Polish labour camps after Poland's war of agression towards the USSR? (Minimum estamation is acceptable).
There're many Western intellectuals admiring Stalin as the savior of the people.
I can't remember that I gave you permission to answer anything on this thread, but I do remember something about fools and trolls.
As for Stalin, he doesn't need the admiration of "Western intellectuals" (I think it is quite telling about certain individuals that they use this as a derogatory term), he will manage to secure his place in history as a positive figure anyway.
Finally, I can only repeat my warning about trolling, which especially the two last quoted "gentlemen" should consider carefully.
