[RD] Why y'all always trying to defend Nazis?

[Yeekim]

2. In the USSR, people were not persecuted on racial or national grounds.

... with some quite significant exceptions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aardakh
EDIT: See also novel «Ночевала тучка золотая…» (The Inseparable Twins).
But yeah, generally people were persecuted on other grounds. For example according to the profession of their parents.

 

[Hehehe]

The question remains. Speech, fine. March, fine. Violence, no. But where does intimidation fit in? As the Nazis were marching around town with their torches chanting out their hatred people gathered on the steps of their synagogue expecting to have to protect it. Neighbors came out to join them, because they also thought it might be necessary. Does this "right to free speech" overmatch people's right to feel safe from assault? Keeping in mind that the marchers descended on the town from across a large region specifically to produce an intimidating presence...in a town that had done nothing to indicate that they were interested in any suppression of free speech in the first place. The local organizer had freely expressed his opinion many times. His only real complaint was that the rest of the people in the town had ignored him.

This event was never about free speech. It was about a white supremacist trying to use intimidating out of town support to get his way against the will of the majority.

I already told you. They have to get a permit. If they have a permit, get police out there protecting the synagogues.

What basic human rights does the communist ideology advocate the removal of?

Oh yes, the official communist doctrine is about buying everyone a free pony, and maybe violate property rights while doing it. In practice these regimes have turned into complete nightmares where political opponents are persecuted relentlessly. And everything I see from you seems to be perfectly in line with those genocidal communist regimes of the past. You seem to believe in a revolution for your cause, despite the fact that your cause is incredibly unpopular. You also don't seem to respect basic rights for your political opponents.

Maybe your regime would turn out better than the past regimes, but all I know is that I definitely don't want to try it. If commies tried to do an armed revolution I would fight them just as I would fight the fascists.

2. In the USSR, people were not persecuted on racial or national grounds. All the people in the Soviet Union were equal. In the US, there was no such equality and it will not be for a long time. A person of any nationality could take any position, any social niche.

What's your take on Holodomor then? Did it not happen? Was it not targeted? What about the minorities in the Soviet Union that wanted independence? Were they not persecuted?

 

[inthesomeday]

@Hehehe

Your fundamental problem then is you have the common, evil idea that property or ownership should be respected over the collective need.

 

[Красный Комиссар]

What a mistake. Answer written for the user "Inthesomeday".

***
Continuation of the demolition of monuments and street riots should be "unknown snipers." (In Ukraine and it was) Snipers kill protesters, but accuse the murders of power. So the Nazis on the streets themselves do not appear, there will be many more interesting things. Try not to repeat what happened in Ukraine, the consequences you do not like.

***

I don't really subscribe to Marx's ideology other than as an accurate way to analyze history. In terms of practical application of Communism, I'd prefer Makhnov or Kropotkin. Of course, all of these people lived a long time ago and their practical ideas probably aren't as applicable to modern day life, and Marx himself lived in a different country in a different century than Lenin or Stalin tried to apply his very specific practical concepts about achieving communism.

Makhno and Kropotkin were anarchists. How do you imagine building an anarchic society? How can one abandon such coercive tools as the army, the police, the state, the tax inspectorate in a separate territory? This territory will be seized by neighboring states.

Even theoretically, this is possible only after the construction of communism throughout the world. And this is a very long time, even if all countries agree to this, decades are needed for this. Even our children will not live to see it before. Is it necessary? We all know people who can not do anything on their own, they need a leader. There are people prone to violence, they need a policeman. For as long as there is more than one state in the world, an anarchist society is impossible.

That's nice to hear.

You mean Nestor Makhno?
I don't know much about Kropotkin, but based on a quick googling he seems somewhat agreeable.

Kropotkin is an interesting person. Count, scientist, revolutionary. Proved that the landscape of Siberia is the consequences of melting glaciers. I escaped from prison.

Eyekim, do you understand Russian? I can throw a video about Kropotkin. But there is a very specific format.

Spoiler Видео :

 

[Hehehe]

@Hehehe

Your fundamental problem then is you have the common, evil idea that property or ownership should be respected over the collective need.

"Collective need" is one of those nebulous terms that fundamentalists can use to justify anything. I define what is the collective need, and the collective need overrides everything else

 

[Yeekim]

I do understand Russian, albeit not as well as English.
And I much prefer written sources to videos, but thanks I guess.

 

[Traitorfish]

Marx, who after all though of himself as practical-minded guy, provided an explicit "roadmap" about how this statelessness should be achieved.
This included a state of "a dictatorship of proletariat" that would also complete the task of physically eliminating bourgeoisie through "revolutionary terror".
Lenin, Stalin et al followed Marx's teachings to the letter. The problem was that Marx's roadmap obviously didn't lead where it was supposed to lead.
Fortunately. Because I doubt many would wish to live in the hive-mind Marx pictured as his utopia.

Marx was notoriously vague when it came to the actual politics of revolution, or even, really, to politics generally. He was a commentator and a theorist more than a militant. Lenin came out of the German Social Democratic tradition that emerged mostly after Marx's death, and on which Marx really didn't have any practical organisational influence.

Trotsky proposed to achieve everything at once. For which he was hit with an ice ax on the head.

You're confusing Trotsky with the Left Communists. Trotsky argued that the working class could achieve the first, capitalist "stage" without bourgeois leadership, and proceed immediately to the second, socialist stage. Lenin accepted this in outline if not in every specific; remember his famous declaration that "socialism is electricity plus soviets"?. It was Stalin who revised the permanent revolution out of Bolshevism, and that only belatedly, in the 1930s, to ground his support for the Popular Fronts and the concept of the "People's Republic". (Which of course in turn lead to Mao's explicit policy of class-collaborationism.)



Don't bring a poster-who-isn't-Traitorfish to a bickering-over-Marxist-arcana fight, boys.

 

[Yeekim]

"Collective need" is one of those nebulous terms that fundamentalists can use to justify anything. I define what is the collective need, and the collective need overrides everything else

Could also mention that eminent domain is a routine thing.

 

[Красный Комиссар]

... with some quite significant exceptions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aardakh
EDIT: See also novel «Ночевала тучка золотая…» (The Inseparable Twins).
But yeah, generally people were persecuted on other grounds. For example according to the profession of their parents.

Before the pair, remember the deportation of the Crimean Tatars. The plot is almost the same. They actively cooperated with the German invaders, the percentage of collaborators was so high that if all of them were tried by law (for this relied on shooting), then most men would have to be shot, and this is genocide.

But they were not shot, but moved to other regions of the country. Housing, work, money, etc. were provided in the new place.Crimean Tatars, for example, during searches of weapons, were exhausted enough to arm two divisions. Including mortars and machine guns.

Even other nations were extinguished. From the territory of Poland, the Germans and Ukrainians were evicted, from the territory of Ukraine - Poles. The Americans hid all the Japanese in the camps in the US, the Soviet Union moved Soviet Koreans to the Kazakh SSR for the same reason.


What do you mean under the persecution of children for the profession of parents, I did not understand. Probably you meant limitations for the representatives of the royal nobility.

 

[Hehehe]

Could also mention that eminent domain is a routine thing.

Fair enough. Collective need is not something that can be ignored outright, but neither is it an excuse for stealing.

That being said, I do believe that a more equal distribution of wealth would be beneficial for society. I am a social democrat. But I guess that's going off-topic

 

[Yeekim]

Marx was notoriously vague when it came to the actual politics of revolution, or even, really, to politics generally. He was a commentator and a theorist more than a militant.

You can not say he wasn't clear on both terror and dictatorship being absolutely necessary steps towards his pictured utopia, however.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I already told you. They have to get a permit. If they have a permit, get police out there protecting the synagogues.

Their permit was for a gathering and speakers in the park on Saturday. The Friday night terror march with torches was just a "fun thing to do while in town." The local police were confronted about trying to break it up by the reality that it would almost certainly lead to a deadly confrontation. So your continuous "well they had a permit so they were okay" defense falls flat.

 

[Красный Комиссар]

What's your take on Holodomor then? Did it not happen? Was it not targeted? What about the minorities in the Soviet Union that wanted independence? Were they not persecuted?

Right now in Ukraine, the Russian minority is persecuted for wanting to secede from Ukraine. This is separatism. The Basques are haunted by desire to separate from Spain, the Kurds from Turkey.

Not everyone wanted to separate themselves, but the nationalists were the main ones. This is not the majority of the population.

The Holodomor is primarily a propaganda myth of Ukrainian nationalists. There was indeed a famine in the country. Not only in the territory of the Ukrainian SSR, but also in the Volga region and in the Kazakh USSR, and even in the territory of Ukraine that was part of Poland. The reason for the famine is a cold winter and a dry summer, and not a purposeful genocide. The state helped people - distributed food aid, created shelters for orphans, etc. The perpetrators of the ill-considered food policy were punished.

The second cause of hunger is the non-effective use of land. The land was either from poor peasants who could not effectively process it. Either the kurkuls that speculated with grain, therefore, were interested in starvation, since this increased the price of grain many times over. The state solved this problem - it created collective and state farms.

 

[Yeekim]

What do you mean under the persecution of children for the profession of parents, I did not understand. Probably you meant limitations for the representatives of the royal nobility.

Should have said class, rather than "profession". Being a child of "kulaks" or bourgeoisie could, depending on time and place, easily lead to being shot, deported, or simply being excluded from certain educational or professional opportunities.

 

[inthesomeday]

Makhno and Kropotkin were anarchists. How do you imagine building an anarchic society? How can one abandon such coercive tools as the army, the police, the state, the tax inspectorate in a separate territory? This territory will be seized by neighboring states.

Even theoretically, this is possible only after the construction of communism throughout the world. And this is a very long time, even if all countries agree to this, decades are needed for this. Even our children will not live to see it before. Is it necessary? We all know people who can not do anything on their own, they need a leader. There are people prone to violence, they need a policeman. For as long as there is more than one state in the world, an anarchist society is impossible.

I disagree, in the modern day especially there is sufficient evidence that, if the economic base exists, a society can protect itself against invasion. Furthermore, there are historical examples of effectively executed quasi-anarchist societies, even some today like Rojava and Zapatista Chiapas.

Kropotkin is an interesting person. Count, scientist, revolutionary. Proved that the landscape of Siberia is the consequences of melting glaciers. I escaped from prison.

Eyekim, do you understand Russian? I can throw a video about Kropotkin. But there is a very specific format.

Kropotkin is the closest to what I think of all the early theorists of communism.

Fair enough. Collective need is not something that can be ignored outright, but neither is it an excuse for stealing.

And yet I would argue that the natural state of a society's products is under collective ownership by the society, and that the theft occurs when individuals or small groups and classes try and claim ownership over things.

That being said, I do believe that a more equal distribution of wealth would be beneficial for society. I am a social democrat. But I guess that's going off-topic

Equal distribution of wealth either is or isn't. There is no middle ground, because those with more will always establish themselves as the powerful class.

 

[Красный Комиссар]

Should have said class, rather than "profession". Being a child of "kulaks" or bourgeoisie could, depending on time and place, easily lead to being shot, deported, or simply being excluded from certain educational or professional opportunities.

I know many cases when former kulaks, camitalists and even noblemen achieved heights in Soviet society.

For example:
- Boris Yeltsin is a descendant of kulaks.
- Leonid Kravchuk - served as a messenger for Ukrainian nationalists and was detained for this MGB.
- the same Kropotkin is a count,

Many officers of the Red Army were former noblemen.

I came across such "victims". A person does not want to recognize a real vow as a vow and claims that he was repressed for political reasons.
For example. The employee claimed that her grandfather was being repressed because he owned the mill. But on a detailed examination it turned out that the ancestor grinded the flour from the stolen grain and did it secretly (did not pay taxes) and therefore by law was an accomplice in the criminal offense.
In Soviet society, such was public condemnation. It was more profitable to pretend to be a victim or to hide a true story. (for example, my friend only a couple of years ago found out that his grandfather was a policeman during the war, so the family was hiding it)

 

[luiz]

The authority of the state existed well before anyone was able to vote on it, on the power of the economic oligarchy that drafted the Constitution. People born under the authority of this state have grown to accept and submit to its power. Does this mean if they were realistically presented the choice between state and statelessness they would choose the state? I reckon not.

So what if the state was not originally democratic? Now it is. Now it exists with the consent of the people. Look, the whole point of the state is to protect the weak from the strong. I know some commies have this weird notion that the state is fundamentally a tool of oppression or whatever, but it's plain nonsense. The strong don't need the state; they can lord over the weak with their physical might (on ancient times) or with private armies. The state restricts the power of the strong, and by claiming the monopoly of violence, it prevents potentates from lording over everybody else. Which is not to say that all states are fair or blablabla, just that you commies get state theory completely upside down.

You make incredibly bold and arrogant claims. You claim to possess some sort of higher consciousness, that "masses" lack. If only they knew what you know, they would agree with you. You really think that's the case, bud? You really think statelessness is such an original idea? I reckon everyone over the age of 15 has thought about it at some point. On an internet forum such as this, most people have even a vague academic interest on the subject. And most people find it a dumb, or at least highly impractical, idea. And choose to vote for parties and people that wouldn't throw everything down the toilet. There are communist and anarchist parties in Western democracies. Anarchist and communist literature is freely distributed and easily available. People not wanting anything to do with those ideologies is the result of informed decisions. If you don't accept this, you fundamentally despise the masses you claim to defend. You think you have some higher authority, some higher enlightenment, some higher leadership quality... like if you were a natural leader (Duce, Fuhrer) or something.

If I ran for political office in the tremendously narrow context that the rigid center-right capitalist political establishment of the US allows, with the same corporate puppetry and meaningless buzz phrases as most politicians, I could probably get a pretty good vote percentage. The success of these parties has literally nothing to do with their ideologies, however, it is based in the fact that their masters are the same class who control the media and the courts. I think it's very silly to equate the success of political parties with the popularity of the ideologies they pretend to represent.

Rigid center-right blah blah blah... last I checked, there are socialist mayors of major cities in the US. People can vote for that crap, they just choose not for the most part.

What I think is very silly is for you to think you know better what the people want than election results themselves. Look, there might be a gazillion problems with any democratic system, but it still beats your gut feeling.

Only the oldest person on earth can really maintain this classic ad hominem. Experience may matter, but unless you're 89 you're not older than Noam Chomsky; unless you're 83 you're not older than the Dalai Lama; conversely, unless I'm 65 I'm not older than Don Black, the founder of Stormfront.

I was just pointing you it's very silly for you to accuse everybody who disagrees with you of naivité. From your writing and ideas it's not very hard to divine you are extremely young; it's not stretch to bet your positions will change substantially over the years. Look at some of the post history of this forum - do you think you're the first young radical to come along?

Don't assume we haven't read your precious commie literature. Use the search function. This forum is full of discussions on Marx, Kropotkin, Bakunin, and any other guru you may like (right-wing gurus like Rand and Rothbard were also discussed ad nauseam). I myself have posted a bunch of factual errors and grossly incompetent research to be found in Marx and Engels. I'm not naive or ignorant, I just disagree with your stuff - after reading and reflecting I decided it was nonsense.

 

[Yeekim]

Equal distribution of wealth either is or isn't. There is no middle ground, because those with more will always establish themselves as the powerful class.

There is still qualitative difference between degrees of inequality. Furthermore, your second sentence means you will always need to use terror to continue enforcing "perfect" equality.
Not worth it, and most likely unattainable anyway.

 

[Yeekim]

I know many cases when former kulaks, camitalists and even noblemen achieved heights in Soviet society.

For example:
- Boris Yeltsin is a descendant of kulaks.
- Leonid Kravchuk - served as a messenger for Ukrainian nationalists and was detained for this MGB.
- the same Kropotkin is a count,

Many officers of the Red Army were former noblemen.

Indeed. This does not refute what I said though. Soviet history spans 70 years. Some periods were worse than others and some people lot less lucky than others.

 

[Красный Комиссар]

I disagree, in the modern day especially there is sufficient evidence that, if the economic base exists, a society can protect itself against invasion. Furthermore, there are historical examples of effectively executed quasi-anarchist societies, even some today like Rojava and Zapatista Chiapas.

They are waiting for the same fate as their predecessors - strong states will conquer them.
These societies can not develop themselves. For an economic basis, an organized force-that is, the state-is needed. By self-organization it is not possible to build factories, factories, or armies. It is necessary to develop science, medicine, and planning. For this people who will do it, someone must feed, dress, protect, provide shelter, etc. People themselves are not organized, this is not a tribe of 100-200 people, millions of people.

In short, I am for communism, but I doubt the possibility of building an anarchic society.

Can I have a few questions?
- Where are you from?
- How do you feel about the protests in the US about the dismantling of monuments to the Confederates.
- Why are the left in the same ranks with LGBT activists.
- What they are trying to achieve (the ultimate goal)