The Question of Leftist Framentation

[Traitorfish]

Don't think so. I do know that Thatcher had turned the PM role into more of a Quasi-Presdential role and that was defnitly continued by Blair. Also she started using Statuory instruments which I think are the equivalent of executive orders which bypass the scrutinity of parliament - which, again has been continued by Blair. Although on all of these fronts, credit to Brown as he has not raped the constituition as much.

I didn't mean those measures in particular- DNA databases were certainly not viable at the time, and the uniquity of the CCTV is as much a social phenomenon as any conscious government measure (the vast majority being privately owned)- but the general shift towards governmental authoritarianism. New Labour's repressive tendencies seem to stem from the Thatcherite legacy, rather than any Old Labour policies.

 

[innonimatu]

I think it's rather naive to frame the question as such. I mean, if it was merely about humanitarianism at its purest level then you wouldn't have ever written the OP. You guys would all be united. The question you need to ask yourself is where do I, your buddy and pal, fit into any of those otther groups. Where is my place in their worldview?

I don't think you are giving yourself enough credit Cheezy. In fact, I think you are really debasing yourself by putting your ideology on the same level as those other groups. Your worldview has evolved far beyond your average anarchist, green fascist, marxists, socialists, hegelists, progressives, etc, etc. I also think you underestimate the pragmatic nature of pure and total statism that exists within most of these groups. I find it kind of funny that you even mention Debs, a socialist, who was imprisoned for sedition by a progressive. Most leftists follow this same statist, controlling, selfish worldview at some level. That doesn't mesh with unselfishness or humanitarianism.

And I think that this was the most useful post on the thread so far. Perhaps the problem with "the left" now is that far too many groups are calling themselves "the left". Why are environmentalists bundled with the left? What about all the crazy "far-left" tiny political parties which came out of the 1960s?

Back in 1968, in Italy, Pasolini caused scandal with a comment he made about a clash between students and police there: "When yesterday at Valle Giulia you and the policemen were throwing blows, I sympathized with the policemen! Because policemen are sons of the poor, they come from urban or rural outskirts." In one phrase, he summed up the May '68.

As for statism, well, you can't kill the state. You can only change it. What increases real voluntary participation and democracy ought to be good. But perhaps it is also a common problem among the left that it focus its attention on economic relations and forgets about power relations. I personally believe that economic relations are more a result than a cause of power relations. That's why I'm not terribly optimistic, in a marxist sense, about a final evolution towards communism. When it happens, if it happens, it must be the result of a conscious social choice. The wealth for it already exists, but the choice has not yet been made, and can only be made if it is successfully argued for.
I think that John Galbraith, in his lifelong work, was the person who, in the 20th century, better understood the problem. He at least tried to draw attention to it among a wider audience, but few people seem to have noticed.

 

[Camikaze]

Indeed. I regard the Democrats and Republicans as two branches of the same party.

This is the problem. How are you meant to create a workable and influential alliance to oppose the right, that is inclusive and accepts a degree of compromise, if you restrict the definition of leftist? If there is going to be any sort of meaningful alliance, the fragmentation and very large differences need to be worked over for the meantime, until the left is clearly dominant over the right. Once that is achieved, then there is room to vary in leftist beliefs, but to achieve that first step, the fragmentation that you complain about in the OP must be forgotten, and you must compromise with those that are merely relatively leftist (i.e. the Democrats, who are relatively leftist compared to the GOP).

 

[luiz]

The Left did unite itself during several key moments of the 20th Century. The reason why the union is short-lived is because as soon as they believed they had control of the situation, Leninists/Stalinists would purge all others and try to establish the totalitarian state they're so fond of. That's what they did succesfully in Russia and failed to do in Spain.

That's why I find calls for Leftist union coming from a self-described Leninist to be laughable. "Unity now, firing squad tomorrow" should be your motto.

The CPUSA, for example, is a Marxist-Leninist organization, but their platforms are borderline libertarian-socialist. The Party and I are nearly of one mind, the uniqueness of this circumstance is why I joined.

May I ask what you think of the CPUSA stance during WW2? In particular how it lobbied for peace during the early stages of the War, claiming it was a British and French war of aggression against the peaceful Germans, and then as soon as Barbarossa was launched they become the most hysterical pro-war faction in the country, demonizing the Germans in every possible way. Is it not embarassing to affiliate yourself with such a hypocritical, lowly organization?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The Left did unite itself during several key moments of the 20th Century. The reason why the union is short-lived is because as soon as they believed they had control of the situation, Leninists/Stalinists would purge all others and try to establish the totalitarian state they're so fond of. That's what they did succesfully in Russia and failed to do in Spain.

Thanks for repeating what I've already said.

That's why I find calls for Leftist union coming from a self-described Leninist to be laughable. "Unity now, firing squad tomorrow" should be your motto.

I guess its only possible for you to defend your fascistoid positions when you make such a caricature of the opposition as this. Carry on, its only your

May I ask what you think of the CPUSA stance during WW2? In particular how it lobbied for peace during the early stages of the War, claiming it was a British and French war of aggression against the peaceful Germans, and then as soon as Barbarossa was launched they become the most hysterical pro-war faction in the country, demonizing the Germans in every possible way. Is it not embarassing to affiliate yourself with such a hypocritical, lowly organization?

This isn't "ask a Red" thread, but I'll answer it anyway.

Their position makes complete sense, and its essentially the same attitude the American public had about war before and after Pearl Harbor. The Communist Party opposed the war before June 1941 for the same reason it opposed the entirety of World War I: because it was a war between imperialist powers for imperialist goals that were of little interest to the men being sent to die to further those goals. After Barbarossa began, it was no longer a war of imperialists, but a war against socialism, and between capitalists and fascists, the capitalists were the lesser evil, so the communists temporarily allied with them against a mutual enemy with whom they were all already at war with anyway.

Its really not a hard concept, and its the same attitude that most peoples about war before they see something worth fighting for in that war. Its the attitude that sane people have about war. But we're all already aware of your bloodthirsty attitudes about war, aren't we Luiz? You made them clear when you said the calls for peace in Russia in 1917 were treasonous and wrong.

 

[luiz]

Thanks for repeating what I've already said.

You might have already said that, but you embrace a particular subset of the Left that is precisely the one mostly to blame for all the internal hatred and bloodshed. So I wouldn't take your appeal very seriously, if I was part of the non-Stalinist Left.

I guess its only possible for you to defend your fascistoid positions when you make such a caricature of the opposition as this. Carry on, its only your

What caricature? Didn't the Bolshviks engage in massive repression against the other currents of the Left?

Their position makes complete sense, and its essentially the same attitude the American public had about war before and after Pearl Harbor. The Communist Party opposed the war before June 1941 for the same reason it opposed the entirety of World War I: because it was a war between imperialist powers for imperialist goals that were of little interest to the men being sent to die to further those goals. After Barbarossa began, it was no longer a war of imperialists, but a war against socialism, and between capitalists and fascists, the capitalists were the lesser evil, so the communists temporarily allied with them against a mutual enemy with whom they were all already at war with anyway.

Its really not a hard concept, and its the same attitude that most peoples about war before they see something worth fighting for in that war. Its the attitude that sane people have about war. But we're all already aware of your bloodthirsty attitudes about war, aren't we Luiz? You made them clear when you said the calls for peace in Russia in 1917 were treasonous and wrong.

Please! Even you can't believe what you write!

The CPUSA, like the other lackeys of Stalin spread throughout the world, denounced WW2 as a war of imperialist aggression against Germany! They portrayed Germany as the lesser evil, because their master in Moscow was in good terms with the Fuhrer!

As soon as Barbarossa broke out, the Germans immediately became the vilest people in history and the CPUSA became enthusistic in its support of the imperialist cause, even silencing its members who had anything negative to say about Britain or the US government!

Their position was sane, of course, but it was not that of all sane people. It is the position of the sane slave, of the sane lackey with no dignity whose only purpose in life is to lick the boots of a bloodthirsty genocidal tyrant. That's the sort of people you're affiliating with, and it really saddens me. The CPUSA is pathetic even among the low standards of communist parties; it is a complete joke with no self respect.

----

Calls for peace are not treason, but receiving aid from the enemy to disrupt the war effort is. Obviously so.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You might have already said that, but you embrace a particular subset of the Left that is precisely the one mostly to blame for all the internal hatred and bloodshed. So I wouldn't take your appeal very seriously, if I was part of the non-Stalinist Left.

This is the caricature I'm talking about. You assume that every socialist is a Stalinist! How can you expect to be taken seriously when you say stupid things like that, especially when the evidence is so conclusively to the contrary?

What caricature? Didn't the Bolsheviks engage in massive repression against the other currents of the Left?

Yes they did. But you'd be hard pressed to find me endorsing such actions unless the other Left parties were actively fighting against the socialist government in power, such as was the case in Sovnarkom.

Please! Even you can't believe what you write!

The CPUSA, like the other lackeys of Stalin spread throughout the world, denounced WW2 as a war of imperialist aggression against Germany! They portrayed Germany as the lesser evil, because their master in Moscow was in good terms with the Fuhrer!

I know, he was on such good terms that he spent years trying to get Poland, the UK, and France into a defensive treaty with the USSR against the Furher! Ah, if only all friendships could be so quaint and loving!

As soon as Barbarossa broke out, the Germans immediately became the vilest people in history and the CPUSA became enthusistic in its support of the imperialist cause, even silencing its members who had anything negative to say about Britain or the US government!

The lesser of two evils, as I said. American attitudes about Japan were similar, before and after 7 December.

Their position was sane, of course, but it was not that of all sane people. It is the position of the sane slave, of the sane lackey with no dignity whose only purpose in life is to lick the boots of a bloodthirsty genocidal tyrant.

You know a lot about that, paladin of the rich and privileged as you are.

That's the sort of people you're affiliating with, and it really saddens me.

I'm sure they're all dead now.

Should no one associate with the Tories in England for defending the Empire? Should no one associate with the Democrats in the US because they were once pro-slavery and pro-segregation? Seriously, people and organizations can make mistakes, you know, and they can change their policies.

The CPUSA is pathetic even among the low standards of communist parties; it is a complete joke with no self respect.

Being considered to have no respect by someone like you is really quite the compliment.

Calls for peace are not treason, but receiving aid from the enemy to disrupt the war effort is. Obviously so.

Yes continue to believe those lies about Reichmarks if it suits your agenda; funny that even the Mensheviks defended Lenin against those accusations, and that we know the Provisional Government created that slander themselves to discredit Lenin and the Bolsheviks!

 

[luiz]

This is the caricature I'm talking about. You assume that every socialist is a Stalinist! How can you expect to be taken seriously when you say stupid things like that, especially when the evidence is so conclusively to the contrary?

Not every socialist is a Stalinist, but you are.
If I say that I would not pay much attention to your appeal if I was part of the non-Stalinist Left, I am obviously acknowledging that there is a non-Stalinist Left.

Yes they did. But you'd be hard pressed to find me endorsing such actions unless the other Left parties were actively fighting against the socialist government in power, such as was the case in Sovnarkom.

You support Lenin, who was personally resoponsible for brutal persecution. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Anyone urging for unity in the Left should first and foremost denounce Lenin on the harshest terms, since he is in large part to blame for the destruction of any chance of unity.

I know, he was on such good terms that he spent years trying to get Poland, the UK, and France into a defensive treaty with the USSR against the Furher! Ah, if only all friendships could be so quaint and loving!

He was a paranoid bastard. Eventually though he decided he could trust Hitler more than the West.

The lesser of two evils, as I said. American attitudes about Japan were similar, before and after 7 December.

The problem is, before Barbarossa the CPUSA considered Nazi Germany to be the lesser evil, because they were not thinking for themselves but rather taking direct orders from their Master! This is what makes me despise them the most. Fromo Wiki:

While General Secretary Browder at first attacked Germany for its September 1, 1939 invasion of western Poland, on September 11, the CPUSA received a blunt directive from Moscow denouncing the Polish government.
...
On September 17 the Soviet Union invaded eastern Poland and occupied the Polish territory assigned to it by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, followed by co-ordination with German forces in Poland.[16][17] The British, French, and German Communist parties, all originally war supporters, abandoned their antifascist crusades, demanded peace, and denounced Allied governments. The CPUSA turned the focus of its public activities from anti-fascism to advocating peace, not only opposing military preparations but also condemning those opposed to Hitler.
...
Secret short wave radio broadcasts in October from Comintern leader Georgi Dimitrov ordered Stalinist Browder to change the CPUSA's support for Roosevelt.[19] On October 23, the CPUSA began attacking Roosevelt.[20] The CPUSA dropped its boycott of Nazi goods, spread the slogans "The Yanks Are Not Coming" and "Hands Off", set up a "perpetual peace vigil" across the street from the White House and announced that Roosevelt was the head of the "war party of the American bourgeoisie."[20] By April 1940, the CPUSA Daily Worker's line seemed not so much antiwar as simply pro-German.[21] A pamphlet stated the Jews had just as much to fear from Britain and France as they did Germany.[21]
...
In allegiance to the Soviet Union, the party changed this policy again after Hitler broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact by attacking the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941.

Throughout the rest of World War II, the CPUSA continued a policy of militant, if sometimes bureaucratic, trade unionism while opposing strike actions at all costs. The leadership of the CPUSA was among the most vocal pro-war voices in the United States, advocating unity against fascism, supporting the prosecution of leaders of the Socialist Workers Party under the newly enacted Smith Act,[23] and opposing A. Philip Randolph's efforts to organize a march on Washington to dramatize black workers' demands for equal treatment on the job. Prominent CPUSA members and supporters, such as Dalton Trumbo and Pete Seeger, recalled anti-war material they had previously released.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cpusa#World_War_II_and_after_.281939.E2.80.931947.29

As you can see, we're not talking about reasonable anti-war people who reluctantly supported the war when Socialism was threatned. We're talking about cynical, two-faced slaves who used to support the war, then were ordered to oppose it, and finally were ordered to support it and thus became the most radical pro-war faction.

We're talking about people who were ordered to adopt a pro-Nazi line, and did so without hesitating. We're talking about the worst of the worst, shameless lackeys who barely fit the definition of human. And you join their party?

You see, I can respect people who hold the most repugnant ideal (though I will always dislike them, naturally). What makes the CPUSA (and it's school of Communism) particularly odious to me is precisely the fact they drop their repugnant ideals as soon as they are told to. I would respect far more a consistent seggregationist, or even a consistent Nazi. The CPUSA really represents the lowest point a human being can sink; it is disgusting and repulsive and just reading their history makes me feel nausea.

You know a lot about that, paladin of the rich and privileged as you are.

I don't lick the boots of any tyrant, Left, Right or Center. Unlike some people and some parties.

I'm sure they're all dead now.

Should no one associate with the Tories in England for defending the Empire? Should no one associate with the Democrats in the US because they were once pro-slavery and pro-segregation? Seriously, people and organizations can make mistakes, you know, and they can change their policies.

Nobody should associate with a Party that has still not denounced its shameful past.

The CPUSA, unlike other parties that made mistakes, never repented. Which is why it ceased to be even remotely relevant, and faded into "joke" territory. It is nothing more than an ugly relic of the past; in line with the American Nazi Party and etc.

Being considered to have no respect by someone like you is really quite the compliment.

By me and 99.99% of the american population. Or 99.999%.

Yes continue to believe those lies about Reichmarks if it suits your agenda; funny that even the Mensheviks defended Lenin against those accusations, and that we know the Provisional Government created that slander themselves to discredit Lenin and the Bolsheviks!

You actually deny that Lenin received aid from Germany during WW1? Really?

 

[Quackers]

I didn't mean those measures in particular- DNA databases were certainly not viable at the time, and the uniquity of the CCTV is as much a social phenomenon as any conscious government measure (the vast majority being privately owned)- but the general shift towards governmental authoritarianism. New Labour's repressive tendencies seem to stem from the Thatcherite legacy, rather than any Old Labour policies.

Naaaah I don't think so. Thatcher was a economically laissez faire and did the old lip service to the social conservatives of the party. Remember the "their is no society" quote. Labour's authoritarian polciies cannot be blamed on Thatcher (like the economic crisis she was ludicrosely blamed for) - it is a manifestation indepently within the labour party.

 

[Trajan12]

By me and 99.99% of the american population. Or 99.999%.

Another compliment...

 

[vesley1987]

The problem is, before Barbarossa the CPUSA considered Nazi Germany to be the lesse evil, because they were not thinking for themselves but rather taking direct orders from their Master!

Don't blame them, that’s their job.
When China had a border conflict with the Soviet Union over the Manchurian Chinese Eastern Railway in 1929, CCP actually had the audacity to call it an "international imperialist conspiracy against the Soviet Union" and ask all the workers to begin a massive strike and "armed defence of Soviet Union".

 

[Karalysia]

This is the advantage of the Socialist Party USA, we're consistent and on the ballots in 8 Northeastern states!

 

[luiz]

Another compliment...

If you think what I postes presents the CPUSA in a positive light I have nothing to say to you.

---------------

@Karalysia: You can judge how honest a Bolshevik's appeal for Left Unity is by the fact that the CPUSA supported the prosecution of the leaders of the Socialist Workers Party during WW2 for crimes of opinion!

A Bolshevik only preaches unity when he is marginalised, as is the case nowadays.

 

[REDY]

luiz, excellent posts. I realy like Cheezy as person but his political opinion is something unbelievable.
What you have said about CPUSA is nearly same as Czechoslovak communists. All were for most aggressive defence againist nazism before war, but during occupation of NAZi pigs they were tolerated and tolerating - because Moscow ordered so. And when USSR and NAZI Germany invaded Poland they turned againist own country and collaborated. And in 1941 they reverted again and started resistance.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Not every socialist is a Stalinist, but you are.

False.

Since you obviously don't pay attention to what I actually say, go ask Richard Cribb, for example, how I feel about Stalin, someone who has nothing to gain by speaking the truth in the matter.

If I say that I would not pay much attention to your appeal if I was part of the non-Stalinist Left, I am obviously acknowledging that there is a non-Stalinist Left.

Your opinion about what the Left should and should not do doesn't really matter, now does it?

You support Lenin, who was personally resoponsible for brutal persecution. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Anyone urging for unity in the Left should first and foremost denounce Lenin on the harshest terms, since he is in large part to blame for the destruction of any chance of unity.

Since I don't take my orders from a Rightist like you, I'm not obliged to any of the above.

But tell me, if Lenin and the Bolsheviks were so against unity, then why did the Bolsheviks seize power for the Petrograd Soviet and not simply for themselves, which they could have easily done? Why did they repeatedly invite other parties like the Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, and even the Anarchists to form the government, even after they had walked out and boycotted the Soviet? Why did he extend an invitation even to the Cossack dons to form their own Soviets and join Sovnarkom? Why, during the early days of the Revolution, did the Bolsheviks actively resist taking lives wherever possible, from the storming of the Winter Palace to the arrests of saboteurs, Kadet soldiers, Provisional Government members, and others? Have you read Ten Days that Shook the World? The Bolsheviks only adopted brutal methods when their hand was forced into doing so, because the infinitely smug Mensheviks refused to wield the power handed to them that they should have had the balls to take eight months earlier and decided instead to become terrorists and provocateurs. And the bourgeoisie, when they began to purposefully sabotage the rail lines and train consists, or the Provisional Government, as it destroyed public records, blew up telegraph stations, and downed power lines; these things are acts of terrorism and treason, and only counter-revolution can demand the brutal actions Lenin was forced into adopting. The Bolsheviks did not adopt these measures until they were forced to.

He was a paranoid bastard. Eventually though he decided he could trust Hitler more than the West.

Yes I'm sure its his fault that Poland, in its mouth-foaming anti-communist fascistoidism, repeatedly refused to sign a defense treaty, and that Britain and France made no efforts to do so. If you were faced with such an adversary, and all your attempts to secure collective security had failed, and the threat loomed every closer while your country was not ready for war, then you too would make a defensive treaty with the enemy to buy you time. Was Phillip II of Macedon also wrong for doing the same thing to the Illyrians and Athenians, while his country was similarly vulnerable? I imagine if you were in either of those situations that you would charge headlong in righteous fervor into your own destruction; fortunately neither Phillip not Stalin were as stupid as that.

The problem is, before Barbarossa the CPUSA considered Nazi Germany to be the lesser evil, because they were not thinking for themselves but rather taking direct orders from their Master! This is what makes me despise them the most. Fromo Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cpusa#World_War_II_and_after_.281939.E2.80.931947.29

Who cares. I've already told you I don't.

As you can see, we're not talking about reasonable anti-war people who reluctantly supported the war when Socialism was threatned. We're talking about cynical, two-faced slaves who used to support the war, then were ordered to oppose it, and finally were ordered to support it and thus became the most radical pro-war faction.

We're talking about people who were ordered to adopt a pro-Nazi line, and did so without hesitating. We're talking about the worst of the worst, shameless lackeys who barely fit the definition of human. And you join their party?

As I said, they're all dead now. The party now is not what it was.

You see, I can respect people who hold the most repugnant ideal (though I will always dislike them, naturally).

No, you can espose rhetoric when it suits your ends.

What makes the CPUSA (and it's school of Communism) particularly odious to me is precisely the fact they drop their repugnant ideals as soon as they are told to.

Yes I'm sure they actually believed that the Nazis were great wonderful people and then instantly changed their mind when told to.

I would respect far more a consistent seggregationist, or even a consistent Nazi.

And yet you have the chutzpa to call me bad?

Wow, just wow.

The CPUSA really represents the lowest point a human being can sink; it is disgusting and repulsive and just reading their history makes me feel nausea.

It should, we are your enemy, and the enemy of all who think a segregationist or a nazi is respectable.

If it makes you so sick, then leave this thread. Please, for the love of God.

I don't lick the boots of any tyrant, Left, Right or Center. Unlike some people and some parties.

I seem to remember you talking about how much better Pinochet was because he only executed a few thousand people. There was a rather long expose about how rightist dictators were better because political repression wasn't really that bad so long as it wasn't done by leftists.

You actually deny that Lenin received aid from Germany during WW1? Really?

Adamantly so, because I know that he did not. It is one of the most terrible, slanderous lies in history.

 

[Slaughter]

We have a saying in Brazil, and it says:

Leftists only get together in jail.

 

[BasketCase]

Political fragmentation is one of the most iconic problems of political Leftism. This thread is made to determine the following things:

1. The causes of Leftist political fragmentation
2. If Leftist Unity is the most desirable course of action
3. If Leftist Unity is possible

They're identical to the causes of conservative and rightist political fragmentation.

The problem isn't one of leftism; it's a problem with politics in general. Once a group is in power, the factions within that group all seize the chance to implement their own individual agendas. Everybody wants 100% of their agenda to become law. Which is impossible because the various liberal groups all have conflicting agendas.

This problem is universal, inevitable, and has no solution. But then, I like it that way. It prevents liberals from doing the country and the world too much damage.....

 

[luiz]

False.
Since you obviously don't pay attention to what I actually say, go ask Richard Cribb, for example, how I feel about Stalin, someone who has nothing to gain by speaking the truth in the matter.

Well you have joined a Stalinist party for Christ sake. And all your posts about the man are along the lines of "I don't like Stalin but I think we need to recognize the good he has done and I think the Western portrayal of him should be revised". That's Stalinist BS.

Your opinion about what the Left should and should not do doesn't really matter, now does it?

Nor does yours. You embrace an ideology that is responsible for the murder of more leftists than any other, you know.

Since I don't take my orders from a Rightist like you, I'm not obliged to any of the above.

No, you take your orders from your Party superiors, right?

Personally I take orders from no one. It is called being a free man, try it some day.

But tell me, if Lenin and the Bolsheviks were so against unity, then why did the Bolsheviks seize power for the Petrograd Soviet and not simply for themselves, which they could have easily done? Why did they repeatedly invite other parties like the Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, and even the Anarchists to form the government, even after they had walked out and boycotted the Soviet? Why did he extend an invitation even to the Cossack dons to form their own Soviets and join Sovnarkom? Why, during the early days of the Revolution, did the Bolsheviks actively resist taking lives wherever possible, from the storming of the Winter Palace to the arrests of saboteurs, Kadet soldiers, Provisional Government members, and others? Have you read Ten Days that Shook the World? The Bolsheviks only adopted brutal methods when their hand was forced into doing so, because the infinitely smug Mensheviks refused to wield the power handed to them that they should have had the balls to take eight months earlier and decided instead to become terrorists and provocateurs. And the bourgeoisie, when they began to purposefully sabotage the rail lines and train consists, or the Provisional Government, as it destroyed public records, blew up telegraph stations, and downed power lines; these things are acts of terrorism and treason, and only counter-revolution can demand the brutal actions Lenin was forced into adopting. The Bolsheviks did not adopt these measures until they were forced to.

Jesus Christ. You are beyond redemption. Now you ignore history and spill out propaganda, in the worst Stalinist fashion. How depressing.

Anyone who is not a Stalinist slave knows full well that the Bolsheviks only tolerated the other factions while their hold of power was not complete. They were initially a minority faction, you know, and could not have seized power all alone from the beginning. Once their grasp was firm the tyrant Lenin begun an unprecedented purge of dissent.

But hey, your historical source is the pamphlet "10 days that shook the World", which is about as objective as the "Triumph of the Will". Why don't you ask any of the non-Bolshevik commies what they feel about Lenin? Why don't your read what the Mensheviks wrote on the Revolution?

Yes I'm sure its his fault that Poland, in its mouth-foaming anti-communist fascistoidism, repeatedly refused to sign a defense treaty, and that Britain and France made no efforts to do so. If you were faced with such an adversary, and all your attempts to secure collective security had failed, and the threat loomed every closer while your country was not ready for war, then you too would make a defensive treaty with the enemy to buy you time. Was Phillip II of Macedon also wrong for doing the same thing to the Illyrians and Athenians, while his country was similarly vulnerable? I imagine if you were in either of those situations that you would charge headlong in righteous fervor into your own destruction; fortunately neither Phillip not Stalin were as stupid as that.

Stalin was a complete moron who ignored repeated warnings from Britain and his own agents. His pact with Hitler did not increase the security of Russia, it rather provided the Germans many of the raw resourced they needed to inflict the humiliating defeats over the USSR in the early stages of the war.

Your revisionism is truly nauseating.

Who cares. I've already told you I don't.

As I said, they're all dead now. The party now is not what it was.

I suppose the same can be said about people trying to join the Nazi Party.

But lets not change the subject. You tried to portray the position of the CPUSA during WW2 as reasonable, I proved it was servile and disgusting. You were (once again) exposed in your vast ignorance.

Yes I'm sure they actually believed that the Nazis were great wonderful people and then instantly changed their mind when told to.

That's the worst part. They did not believe the Nazis were wonderful, but they distributed pro-German pamphlets when told to by their Master. And you think that's all fine? How do you feel about their support of the prosecution of socialists under the Smith Act?

And yet you have the chutzpa to call me bad?

Wow, just wow.

It should, we are your enemy, and the enemy of all who think a segregationist or a nazi is respectable.

And once again the Stalinist in you shows, by distorting my words. I did not say I find either of those respectable, I said I respect far more a person consistent and courageous enough to maintain a repugnant ideal than some boot licking slave that will espouse whatever ideology the Master tells him to.

If it makes you so sick, then leave this thread. Please, for the love of God.

No, you must be exposed.

I seem to remember you talking about how much better Pinochet was because he only executed a few thousand people. There was a rather long expose about how rightist dictators were better because political repression wasn't really that bad so long as it wasn't done by leftists.

I seem to remember always making it clear that I do not support Pinochet. He was a tyrant and a murderer. Was it better to live under Pinochet than under Castro or Lenin? Of course, that much is obvious. But I don't justify his acts, which is the difference between tyrant boot lickers and me.

Adamantly so, because I know that he did not. It is one of the most terrible, slanderous lies in history.

No, it is a documented fact. From means of transportation to money, Lenin was aided by the enemies of his country. Every historian worthy of the name knows that. In fact you know that, but you were ordered by your new master to deny the truth, and you obey.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Never realized why Lenin receiving money from Germans is such an issue anyway, certainly not for his defenders. It would be quite consistent for Lenin to do so, and it's definitely an acceptable action according to the revolutionary moral code. That action justified itself by turning out to be bad for Germany when Lenin and his successor Stalin created a mighty Soviet state that, despite everything, turned out to be Germany's downfall. "The imperialists will give us the rope on which they'll be hanged upon themselves" at its most classic. All hail Lenin's political genius.

I like Lenin as a character, he's quite complex. He's got a lot to answer for, though.

 

[Ecofarm]

Cheezy is not a Stalinist; he is against social authoritarianism. He only supports a near complete goverment domination of the economic realm.

ps. Cheezy, did I see you call yourself a socialist?

This is the caricature I'm talking about. You assume that every socialist is a Stalinist!