Soviet Liberalization?

[West 36]

God, voting rights

The hell is wrong with voting rights?

spred of literature beeing the only thing worth mention, and done in every capitalist country anyway

Yeah, uh, no.

communism was not only anti-democratic, but also genocidal from the very start
if you read what marx, engels etc. wrote, you will find nice not so little list of ethnic groups that should cease to exist

Really? I'd like to see sources. All the commies I now (not the ones that worship Stalin or Mao, mind you) are ardent supporters of democracy. Not to mention a workers council is democratic. And Marx didn't say anything anti-democratic. And the Trotsky quote "Communism needs democracy like the body needs air. But if classless society= genocide then I guess you're right there.
And do tell about Marx' And Engels' desire to destroy ethnic groups. Last I checked, communists weren't exactly the bastion of racism in the world. In fact just yesterday I read of the French communist party countering a 'human zoo' exhibit where natives were shown in cages at a kind of worlds fair in the 1930's where they spoke against colonialism and the horrors committed throughout the empires.

I'm not saying in anyway the USSR was great, no, I'd argue the opposite. I do think, at the start, it might of had something going for it, but really I don't see how such a backwards country could of risen up to those ideals it spoke so highly of with such immense pressure from the outside world trying to ensure that didn't occur. Stalin sealed the fact that that wouldn't happen. Perhaps if other revolutions occurred in more modern nations, with more industry then that could have helped, or if Spain, Germany, or Ireland saw different outcomes there would be hope, but Russia and the rest of the USSR simply didn't have the means to survive on its own with that kind of idealized life. I'm not endorsing Stalin either, I hate the guy, but he did keep the USSR together and modernized it, but that took far too many lives. If there was no Sino-Soviet split, that might have helped too, but I'm giving too much examples and lee-way now, what happened happened, and its unfortunate. Had things gone differently, then yes, what that the USSR said might actually had been done, and that would be good. Of course then you could argue if that would work, but that's another thing. If the USSR failed after doing all it said and tried, without the epic loss of life, then that would just suck.
end.

 

[Princeps]

USSR wanted and started that competition

nonsense.....

 

[holy king]

Oh please. If Lenin intended it to be anti-democratic, they why bother to create the soviets?

lenin cut down and destroyed the soviets.
ever heard of what happened in st. petersburg in 21?

 

[luiz]

The hell is wrong with voting rights?

He was ridiculing the fact that the Soviet Union gave women voting rights, but there was only one candidate running for every position. Some voting rights, those.

Really? I'd like to see sources.

Marx once stated, in of his letters, something along these lines:
"...in our path to communism we may well need to wipe out one or two inferior races."

Now, I don't think Marx was more racist than the norm of the time. He was more willing to advocate mass murder, though.

All the commies I now (not the ones that worship Stalin or Mao, mind you) are ardent supporters of democracy.

No, they aren't.

Not to mention a workers council is democratic.

Would you be so kind as naming one communist country that actually allowed workers coucils to operate freely?

And Marx didn't say anything anti-democratic.

Dear God, go read the man.

And the Trotsky quote "Communism needs democracy like the body needs air."

Trotsky was also the father of the policy of forced collectivization of agriculture and of confiscation, without any compensation, of the peasant's production, what ultimately lead to massive famines. Trotsky was an ardent supporter of Lenin's efforts to execute all "enemies of the people".

He was just as bad as Stalin. But hey, if you want to take meaningless quotes instead of actuall actions...

But if classless society= genocide then I guess you're right there.

Genocide = genocide. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... communism did seem to produce quite alot of people fond of a good old fashioned genocide.

And do tell about Marx' And Engels' desire to destroy ethnic groups. Last I checked, communists weren't exactly the bastion of racism in the world.

Doctor's Plot? Forcefull exile of whole nationalities?

In fact just yesterday I read of the French communist party countering a 'human zoo' exhibit where natives were shown in cages at a kind of worlds fair in the 1930's where they spoke against colonialism and the horrors committed throughout the empires.

Kudos to them, too bad the French Communist Party also enthusiatically supported and worshiped Stalin during the peak of his democide.

I'm not saying in anyway the USSR was great, no, I'd argue the opposite. I do think, at the start, it might of had something going for it, but really I don't see how such a backwards country could of risen up to those ideals it spoke so highly of with such immense pressure from the outside world trying to ensure that didn't occur. Stalin sealed the fact that that wouldn't happen. Perhaps if other revolutions occurred in more modern nations, with more industry then that could have helped, or if Spain, Germany, or Ireland saw different outcomes there would be hope, but Russia and the rest of the USSR simply didn't have the means to survive on its own with that kind of idealized life. I'm not endorsing Stalin either, I hate the guy, but he did keep the USSR together and modernized it, but that took far too many lives. If there was no Sino-Soviet split, that might have helped too, but I'm giving too much examples and lee-way now, what happened happened, and its unfortunate. Had things gone differently, then yes, what that the USSR said might actually had been done, and that would be good. Of course then you could argue if that would work, but that's another thing. If the USSR failed after doing all it said and tried, without the epic loss of life, then that would just suck.
end.

And here's the typicall communist drivel made by people with no notion of history.

Things went wrong when the Bolsheviks declared war on the Provisional Government and decided that all power belonged to them. It wasn't Stalin who bastardized the USSR, it was disgraced since day one. Stalin was the natural follower of the brutal, murderours, absolutist regime created by the psychotic mind of Lenin.

 

[luiz]

Curious charicature I found on wiki:

Made in Nazi Germany? No, in the Soviet Union. The great bastion of anti-racism according to our friend West 36.

 

[Cato the Elder]

luiz, I hope you do realise that not all communists are exactly the same, just as all capitalists aren't exactly the same. If you're going to say Alexander Dubček and Joseph Stalin are equally evil because they're both communists, then why not say the same of Ronald Reagan and Francisco Franco for both being capitalist?

 

[luiz]

luiz, I hope you do realise that not all communists are exactly the same, just as all capitalists aren't exactly the same. If you're going to say Alexander Dubček and Joseph Stalin are equally evil because they're both communists, then why not say the same of Ronald Reagan and Francisco Franco for both being capitalist?

Are all nazis evil? Communism is an evil ideology. By communism I of course mean marxism-leninism. I don't have a single a marxist-leninist in high regard. Other collectivists/socialists may or may not be evil, just like the rest of us.

 

[holy king]

marxism is not comparable to nazism.

i'd say that marx's critic of capitalism (his main opus after all) is still valid and true for example.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Are all nazis evil? Communism is an evil ideology. By communism I of course mean marxism-leninism. I don't have a single a marxist-leninist in high regard. Other collectivists/socialists may or may not be evil, just like the rest of us.

I might not be a fully staunt supporter of Lenin or Marx but I do believe what can be read in a book isn't always the true story.

I don't hail Lenin as a hero, nor do I shun him as a villian. The truth to that matter is that Lenin took the reigns of a country coming from the Great War but was diverging into a Civil War, not a good place at that time. I don't defend Lenin's actions but I can honestly say that put in the same situation can any of us fully say we would if been all cherries and sun shine and happy la-de-da? Lenin was in a bad position which brought about bad things.

I refuse to judge Lenin as hero or villian simple because he was in a way a victim of circumstance.

To say Communism is an evil ideolgy is foolhardy. Ideologies are not evil but rather those who follow them... If the Nazi's hadn't been rascist, massacres, ect. would it hold the same meaning today? Ideologies are the spawn of the crazies who commit the evil, not the name of the ideology itself. Communism has had some nuts, but to claim Communism evil is idiocy.

 

[luiz]

I might not be a fully staunt supporter of Lenin or Marx but I do believe what can be read in a book isn't always the true story.

Certainly true, specially if the book was written by a marxist.

I don't hail Lenin as a hero, nor do I shun him as a villian. The truth to that matter is that Lenin took the reigns of a country coming from the Great War but was diverging into a Civil War, not a good place at that time. I don't defend Lenin's actions but I can honestly say that put in the same situation can any of us fully say we would if been all cherries and sun shine and happy la-de-da? Lenin was in a bad position which brought about bad things.

Put in the same situation, I would try to work within the framework of the Provisional Government, and push for democratic reforms, which were a real possibility and already ongoing.

I wouldn't go behind the back of my own country and make deals with the germans against the interests of my country.

Lenin stated, bluntly, that he wanted to turn the international war Russia was fighting into a Civil War. The Civil War, with all it's horrors, is on him.

By now we know that the Germans actually financed Lenin and the Bolsheviks, since it was them who brought Russia to it's knees and eventually surrendered at Brest-Litvosk. He was a traitor, a man only concerned with gaining all power to himself, a mass murderer and the main responsible for the great tragedy that was the Soviet Union.

I refuse to judge Lenin as hero or villian simple because he was in a way a victim of circumstance.

Not an ordinary villain. He was one of the worst human beings to ever walk on this planet.

To say Communism is an evil ideolgy is foolhardy. Ideologies are not evil but rather those who follow them... If the Nazi's hadn't been rascist, massacres, ect. would it hold the same meaning today? Ideologies are the spawn of the crazies who commit the evil, not the name of the ideology itself. Communism has had some nuts, but to claim Communism evil is idiocy.

No, it isn't. Racism was very much a part of Nazi ideology, as was militarism and many other sins. Communism, or at least the marxist-leninist sect that became dominant, is also full of mortal sins. It is an evil ideology, if we are to consider anything as evil.

 

[Cato the Elder]

Are all nazis evil? Communism is an evil ideology. By communism I of course mean marxism-leninism. I don't have a single a marxist-leninist in high regard. Other collectivists/socialists may or may not be evil, just like the rest of us.

Alexander Dubček, to mention him again, was a staunch supporter of communism, yet if you were to read his biography (wikipedia's got a pretty good one), I doubt even Margaret Thatcher could say he was evil.

Salvador Allende is another good example. Marxist as could be, and although his economical policies didn't end up working out quite the way he planned, he was everything but a dictator, which sharply contrasts with his follow-up, the most capitalist Augusto Pinochet.

Just because someone's an advocate of an economical system doesn't mean that person is necessarily evil.

 

[luiz]

Alexander Dubček, to mention him again, was a staunch supporter of communism, yet if you were to read his biography (wikipedia's got a pretty good one), I doubt even Margaret Thatcher could say he was evil.

Dubcek was hardly a devout communist (though he certainly said he was during the day), proof being that after the fall of Communism he did not join some marxist party, but rather the Social Democratic Party of Slovakia. True marxists were the ones who arrested him and sent him to Moscow where he was lectured and humiliated.

Anyway, the man was not without flaws. For all his reformist impetus, he never challenged the one-party system.

Salvador Allende is another good example. Marxist as could be, and although his economical policies didn't end up working out quite the way he planned, he was everything but a dictator, which sharply contrasts with his follow-up, the most capitalist Augusto Pinochet.

Allende was a racist scumbag, and his refusal to compromise or to step back on some of his reforms is what set Chile on fire. Not to mention the failure of his policies. Allende was a radical, just because he is idolised by a bunch of people who do not know history doesn't mean he is deserving of that idol status.

Just because someone's an advocate of an economical system doesn't mean that person is necessarily evil.

Not if said economic system implies grotesque violations of individual rights, and in fact the complete destruction of the individual.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Dubcek was hardly a devout communist (though he certainly said he was during the day), proof being that after the fall of Communism he did not join some marxist party, but rather the Social Democratic Party of Slovakia. True marxists were the ones who arrested him and sent him to Moscow where he was lectured and humiliated.

Anyway, the man was not without flaws. For all his reformist impetus, he never challenged the one-party system.


Allende was a racist scumbag, and his refusal to compromise or to step back on some of his reforms is what set Chile on fire. Not to mention the failure of his policies. Allende was a radical, just because he is idolised by a bunch of people who do not know history doesn't mean he is deserving of that idol status.


Not if said economic system implies grotesque violations of individual rights, and in fact the complete destruction of the individual.

Alright then Luiz, tell me then... I'm a Communist. Am I an evil person? Studying communism was a turning point in my life and largely makes up a lot of my beliefs and theories of modern society and morality.

I'm not a violent person to say. I believe equality. I believe in individualism. But by your logic I am an evil person, no better then scum because the political affilitation I have decided to group myself in.

Now then tell me, with no hypocracy how you are better then me simply for the fact that I declare myself a Communist.

 

[knez]

Alright then Luiz, tell me then... I'm a Communist. Am I an evil person? Studying communism was a turning point in my life and largely makes up a lot of my beliefs and theories of modern society and morality.

I'm not a violent person to say. I believe equality. I believe in individualism. But by your logic I am an evil person, no better then scum because the political affilitation I have decided to group myself in.

Now then tell me, with no hypocracy how you are better then me simply for the fact that I declare myself a Communist.

1)
logical impossibility:
you can not believe in (social) equality and individualism

as some individuals are naturally more capable than others: if they can use their abilities in the world of limited resources they will get more of those resources

2)
the line between idealist and a monster is very thin, and communist have very little trouble crossing it

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

1)
logical impossibility:
you can not believe in (social) equality and individualism

as some individuals are naturally more capable than others: if they can use their abilities in the world of limited resources they will get more of those resources

2)
the line between idealist and a monster is very thin, and communist have very little trouble crossing it

1.) I agree that some idividuals are more capable but I do not believe in equality for them to take advantage of others for their own gain. Everyone is equal so long as it is done within the confines of the law, if it is wrong for me to oppose one person or party attaining too much powe that they may control others for their profit then let me be wrong.

I believe in equality in terms that the people do not need to serve the community and lose their individual status but rather they can be creative and prosperous while not taking advantage of others for their own prosperity.

2.) This could be said for Capitalism just as easily for Communism. Monsters are present in the Communist system but the Capitalist system is equally corrupted in that way. Democracy, which I support, is a system tghat allows people to choose their leaders... perhaps the systems true fault is its potential to wind up its own downfall.

 

[luiz]

Alright then Luiz, tell me then... I'm a Communist. Am I an evil person? Studying communism was a turning point in my life and largely makes up a lot of my beliefs and theories of modern society and morality.

I'm not a violent person to say. I believe equality. I believe in individualism. But by your logic I am an evil person, no better then scum because the political affilitation I have decided to group myself in.

Now then tell me, with no hypocracy how you are better then me simply for the fact that I declare myself a Communist.

You are ignorant. Clearly you knew very little about Lenin and the true nature of Bolshevism. Now, if after being exposed to the facts you change your mind, than there is nothing wrong with you.

But if you maintain that on the same circumstances you would have done the same, then yeah, you're evil.

 

[holy king]

Dubcek was hardly a devout communist (though he certainly said he was during the day), proof being that after the fall of Communism he did not join some marxist party, but rather the Social Democratic Party of Slovakia. True marxists were the ones who arrested him and sent him to Moscow where he was lectured and humiliated.

social democrats just ceased to be marxist during the eighties in western europe.
dont know about the slovakian party...

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

You are ignorant. Clearly you knew very little about Lenin and the true nature of Bolshevism. Now, if after being exposed to the facts you change your mind, than there is nothing wrong with you.

But if you maintain that on the same circumstances you would have done the same, then yeah, you're evil.

I refuse to change my mind becuase despite what you may think I do not believe either of us are in full possession of the facts. I admit in areas I am ignorant however in the areas I study I assure you I am not.

I never claimed I would have done the same if put into such situation even under the same situation. I claimed that it was a difficult time and called for quick decisions. Not right decisions but decisions none the less. The past is indeed tragic and cannot be changed, however for my claims you have no right to claim me evil or in anyway worse then you.

You critize me for holding to my claims and not giving them up... yet you do the exact same thing while damning me for doing it. Hypocrite.

 

[luiz]

social democrats just ceased to be marxist during the eighties in western europe.
dont know about the slovakian party...

We're talking about 1992. It wasn't marxist.

 

[luiz]

I refuse to change my mind becuase despite what you may think I do not believe either of us are in full possession of the facts. I admit in areas I am ignorant however in the areas I study I assure you I am not.

I never claimed I would have done the same if put into such situation even under the same situation. I claimed that it was a difficult time and called for quick decisions. Not right decisions but decisions none the less. The past is indeed tragic and cannot be changed, however for my claims you have no right to claim me evil or in anyway worse then you.

You critize me for holding to my claims and not giving them up... yet you do the exact same thing while damning me for doing it. Hypocrite.

Well, the facts are indeed out there for all to see. The Moscow Files were opened, despite the best efforts of the communists to keep the truth hidden forever.

It's a fact that Lenin received financing from Germany, which was at war with his own country. It is a fact that he stated numerous times his desire to start a Civil War in Russia. It is a fact that during and after the war, which he provoked, he used institutionalized terror as the main tool to control the population and get his will done. Extra-judicial executions, torture, you name it - there are documents proving that he ordered all of that, and then some more. It is a fact that he had absolutely no regard for the wishes of the "majority", that he in fact removed all significance form the soviets and persecuted groups that had more popular backing than the Bolsheviks, like the Socialist Revolutionaries. He made alliances with them when was convenient, and later declared them "western agents" and "counter-revolutionaries" and had them destroyed.

The facts are very much real and out there. I can understand an ignorant person not considering Lenin to be evil, but in possession of the facts, there is only one conclusion.