Karl Marx

[vancityeagle]

Yes Putin is a gangster capitalist Orthodox fundamentalist. Czar not premier, and yes it it a fascinating how he is beloved by the right now and the left tends to despise him. Oh how times change.

well you do have a decent sized section of "the left" who do nothing but apologize for Putin, and I used to be one of them.

It can be easy to mistake him as a decent enough guy, because he's not going around invading countries like the US, and he does seem to be helping out countries like Iran, Syria, Venezuela. But its all a means to an end I'm afraid.

Russian propaganda is much better than American propaganda, so its easy to fall in to their deceptions.

 

[UnderAlienControl]

Marxian materialism, by its own moral theory, works for enlightenment rather than emancipation. Its enlightenment is not meant to make men free, but to make them realize the impossibility of freedom. —G.K. Chesterton

 

[lightseeker]

@vancityeagle
I’m just on my phone so will just touch on your points

here’s evidence that anti semitism was punishable by death

Anti-Semitism

www.marxists.org

But like I said that changed later. Stalin killed lots of Jews when Israel was starting up and the party wanted them to go there

i don’t know why you say it’s “definitely bullshit” that Christians were murdered for their religion because you gave no reason. it’s not

Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You say you’ve never read Marx, have you ever read anything about the solviet union? Have you read anything by people that lived there? You could be sent to the gulag for any reason. Any person which was perceived as holding views against the party was sent to prison or killed. I’m not going to give you a full history lesson here if you’ve never read about it.

if the Chinese invasion of Tibet was only about disputed territories, why did they walk into monestaries and slay the monks meditating? Why did they ban their religion? Why are the tibetans still today not allowed to sit in monestary and meditate? Why would they need to kill them all?

you seem to think if someone opposes Karl Marx they are a capitalist. Well I’m not, and this “dialectic” is exactly what the elites have used up until today to dilute debate and clear thinking. “If you’re not a communist you must be a capitalist” “if you’re not a democrat you must be a republican”, giving people no third option, or no option to be something totally different. So try to see things beyond “capitalism or communism” - they can both be wrong.
i say marxism is bullshit for the reasons I cited. That is not an endorsement for capitalism.

and what all communist revolutions shared was a violent and bloody slaying of what they called the bourgeoisie, and a subsequent totalitarian and authoritarian state to follow. The minor differences which followed, do not discount this universality.

 

[Helioform]

I don't know why anyone would defend Marxism or Communism as the ideology behind those led to biggest state sponsored mass murders in history.

Mao's regime alone killed 45 million people. Stalin's killed over 20 millions. They were all inspired by Marx's inherent hatred of spirituality, and individuality. Individuality and free thought is what drives free markets, which is often confused with capitalism. Capitalism as seen today is really Corporatism, which gives the ability to create separate legal entities that function independently from individuals. A bit like what is called state capitalism, or the centralized control of production.

But it is really not about economics but rather the underlying philosophy which drives Marxism which is anti-freedom since it tries to suppress the human soul. It tries to bring forced "equality" to a world where nobody will ever be equal to another for various reasons. It tries to bring about change through crisis, revolutions and wars. It is that idea that led to events like 9/11 which was being used to increase government control step by step.

 

[lightseeker]

I dont know why you are criticizing Marx's philosophy as being strictly "material" when the philosophy he opposes is completely about worshipping the Material. Capitalism couldn't get any more material.

Because this was the crux of my first post I’ll explain it further. Marx’s philosophy was purely material because he opposed spirituality and religion of all kinds and so did his followers. They eliminated the spiritual dimension of life and said that mankind’s fulfillment must come from the material world. They did not oppose capitalism on the ground that it was too material, but that it couldn’t properly satisfy mans material needs. They only wanted a different materialism, according to their doctrine and practice. They even founded their own religion with its own rituals, which was literally atheism

Marxist–Leninist atheism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I’m not saying anything controversial this is just literally what Marxism was and how it was carried out
“Marxism is materialism. As such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion as was the materialism of the eighteenth-century Encyclopaedists or the materialism of Feuerbach. This is beyond doubt. But the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels goes further than the Encyclopaedists and Feuerbach, for it applies the materialist philosophy to the domain of history, to the domain of the social sciences. We must combat religion — that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism” Lenin

That’s why capitalism and communism are two sides of the same coin and can be opposed and discounted equally.

 

[lightseeker]

I don't know why anyone would defend Marxism or Communism as the ideology behind those led to biggest state sponsored mass murders in history.

Mao's regime alone killed 45 million people. Stalin's killed over 20 millions. They were all inspired by Marx's inherent hatred of spirituality, and individuality. Individuality and free thought is what drives free markets, which is often confused with capitalism. Capitalism as seen today is really Corporatism, which gives the ability to create separate legal entities that function independently from individuals. A bit like what is called state capitalism, or the centralized control of production.

But it is really not about economics but rather the underlying philosophy which drives Marxism which is anti-freedom since it tries to suppress the human soul. It tries to bring forced "equality" to a world where nobody will ever be equal to another for various reasons. It tries to bring about change through crisis, revolutions and wars. It is that idea that led to events like 9/11 which was being used to increase government control step by step.

I don't know why anyone would defend Marxism or Communism as the ideology behind those led to biggest state sponsored mass murders in history.

Mao's regime alone killed 45 million people. Stalin's killed over 20 millions. They were all inspired by Marx's inherent hatred of spirituality, and individuality. Individuality and free thought is what drives free markets, which is often confused with capitalism. Capitalism as seen today is really Corporatism, which gives the ability to create separate legal entities that function independently from individuals. A bit like what is called state capitalism, or the centralized control of production.

But it is really not about economics but rather the underlying philosophy which drives Marxism which is anti-freedom since it tries to suppress the human soul. It tries to bring forced "equality" to a world where nobody will ever be equal to another for various reasons. It tries to bring about change through crisis, revolutions and wars. It is that idea that led to events like 9/11 which was being used to increase government control step by step.

Yes and this is relavant today because Marx created a system to destroy individuality and free thought (therefore freedom all together) and it is still being used by the elites to manipulate and control populations. It’s no coincidence that the Neo Cons who were responsible for 9/11 were the children of Trotskyists. The essence of Marxism is the destruction of freedom, individuality, spiritual idealism of any kind, or any higher purpose beyond serving the “party” and subsisting in a human ant hill.

and yeah corporate oligarchy, what we have, and communism, state control of production, are literally the same. Just different illusions given to the masses to keep them quiet.

Irving Kristol - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

These prophetic interviews really demonstrated that to me

 

[Helioform]

Yes and this is relavant today because Marx created a system to destroy individuality and free thought (therefore freedom all together) and it is still being used by the elites to manipulate and control populations. It’s no coincidence that the Neo Cons who were responsible for 9/11 were the children of Trotskyists. The essence of Marxism is the destruction of freedom, individuality, spiritual idealism of any kind, or any higher purpose beyond serving the “party” and subsisting in a human ant hill.

and yeah corporate oligarchy, what we have, and communism, state control of production, are literally the same. Just different illusions given to the masses to keep them quiet.

Irving Kristol - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

These prophetic interviews really demonstrated that to me

Very interesting interviews from the little I have watched of both. But it is not surprising I suspected as much. Marx's philosophy is self-contradicting anyway since it IS a set of ideas, which is driving his dialectical materialism so the source of change in society is indeed ideas and not physical events.

 

[lightseeker]

Very interesting interviews from the little I have watched of both. But it is not surprising I suspected as much. Marx's philosophy is self-contradicting anyway since it IS a set of ideas, which is driving his dialectical materialism so the source of change in society is indeed ideas and not physical events.

You’ve probably seen this one but I’ll post it as well

I don’t think religion has a say in politics ( no gods no masters ) but I think trying to destroy religion is a a waste of time and usually backfires. I have my own religion and don’t need anyone else’s approval for it. It’s not a matter of public importance or policy either. Ultimately I’m an individualist anarchist. There’s lots of misconceptions about Marx here but communism isn’t worth my time defending.

Markets Not Capitalism

praxeology.net

But anarchism isn’t a static philosophy that needs to adhere to one book or ideology from one certain time period. It grows and learns with times trial and error try new things etc. It understands that the world and it’s problems are complex.

Latest entries

Latest entries

usa.anarchistlibraries.net

Anarchism is definitely more interesting than communism, at least the thinkers are more interesting to read like those you cited esp Bakhunin. I do wonder though how do anarchists understand law and law enforcement? Like what happens in an anarchist society if someone murders someone. There is definitely something to be said that humanity will not be republicans vs democracts in the future but transhumanists vs anarcho primitivists

 

[vancityeagle]

@vancityeagle
I’m just on my phone so will just touch on your points

here’s evidence that anti semitism was punishable by death

Anti-Semitism

www.marxists.org

Ok that seems to check out, but I question the context. I doubt they would just kill anybody who said something bad about jews. I wonder why there doesn't seem to be much information backing this ascertion which is based off of a quote by Stalin. I found this guys response to the question posed on Quora "why was there a death penalty for anti-semitism in USSR ?" This seems logical to me.
from a software guy born and raised in USSR.

There was no direct reference to anti-semitism in the Soviet Criminal Code. The Criminal Code of Russian Soviet Socialist Republic of 1926 (with 1927 editions) had article 59.7, which defined the punishment for the incitement of interracial hatred in general. There was no provision for death penalty in there, except for when the crime was committed during mass riots or under martial law. But the reality of that time was that any crime could be re-qualified at will to a more serious one, if the judges saw the fit.
Aforementioned Stalin’s reply had “active anti-semites” expression:
Активные антисемиты караются по законам СССР смертной казнью.
Which leaves a lot of room as to how to decide whether anti-semites were “active”.

so according to this guy, who is Russian, and seems to understand and reference the exact law in question, there is no death penalty for general "anti-semitism" but you could be killed for commiting "anti-semitism" during a riot, which basically involves committing acts of violence against somebody, or some kind of serious crime involving not just anti-semitism but any racism towards any minority. Its not like they were killing people for making racist comments, which is what you were intentionally or unintentionally implying.

But like I said that changed later. Stalin killed lots of Jews when Israel was starting up and the party wanted them to go there

Yes Stalin killed lots of Jews in his purges, but not because they were Jewish but because they were spies.

i don’t know why you say it’s “definitely bullshit” that Christians were murdered for their religion because you gave no reason. it’s not

Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

there is a difference between saying

a) Christians were murdered and
b) Christians were murdered for their religion

and an even bigger difference when you claimed

c) "being a Christian was punishable by death" What you claimed or implied is that there was state sanction/law to murder Christians and that IS A LIE.

Yes Christians, along with Jews, and muslims were persecuted for their religions, but that doesn't mean the state would just go around killing you for being Christian.

from your wiki link

Religious beliefs and practices persisted among the majority of the population,[6] not only in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces which were allowed to exist by a state that recognized its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.[3][11]

the idea that they went around hunting and killing Christians simply because they were Christians is false.

Yes Russian clergymen were killed, but they were not killed for being Christians, just like Stalin did not kill Jews for being Jewish, they were killed for being spies, and collaborators. Most of the Russian Orthodox Church were supporters of the White Army and the Monarchs, they were political enemies, it didn't matter that they were Christian.

You say you’ve never read Marx, have you ever read anything about the solviet union? Have you read anything by people that lived there? You could be sent to the gulag for any reason. Any person which was perceived as holding views against the party was sent to prison or killed. I’m not going to give you a full history lesson here if you’ve never read about it.

Yes I know about this, again while they did do this, much of these claims have been exaggerated for dramatic effect. The majority of people sent to gulags were criminals and foreign collaborators, or insurgents. You certainly wouldn't want to be labelled an enemy of the state though.

if the Chinese invasion of Tibet was only about disputed territories, why did they walk into monestaries and slay the monks meditating? Why did they ban their religion? Why are the tibetans still today not allowed to sit in monestary and meditate? Why would they need to kill them all?

I dont know. I didn't say it was only about disputed territories, but that was a major factor. Maybe they did have a religious agenda, I haven't looked into that.

you seem to think if someone opposes Karl Marx they are a capitalist. Well I’m not, and this “dialectic” is exactly what the elites have used up until today to dilute debate and clear thinking. “If you’re not a communist you must be a capitalist” “if you’re not a democrat you must be a republican”, giving people no third option, or no option to be something totally different. So try to see things beyond “capitalism or communism” - they can both be wrong.

I dont know what you are or claim to be, but I've seen the same faulty or misleading arguments made time and time again, and usually its done so in an attempt to discredit socialism and defend the elitist structure of capitalism. I'm not making any judgement on you personally, but a lot of your arguments are quite misleading.

i say marxism is bullshit for the reasons I cited. That is not an endorsement for capitalism.

ok, but the reasons you cited dont really hold up. And you can't really blame Marx for what the Soviet Union did anymore than you can blame Jesus Christ for the Klu Klux Klan burning a cross in front of somebody's lawn.

and what all communist revolutions shared was a violent and bloody slaying of what they called the bourgeoisie, and a subsequent totalitarian and authoritarian state to follow. The minor differences which followed, do not discount this universality.

any revolution or counter revolution is bloody if the opposition refuses to submit. It doesn't matter what the political or religious ideology is, its actually irrelevant. You can't just pin it as a "hallmark of communism" Its a hallmark of revolution, or counter revolution, Period. Do You think the ruling class is just going to give up their power willfully. Of course not. You aren't really proving anything.

 

[vancityeagle]

I don't know why anyone would defend Marxism or Communism as the ideology behind those led to biggest state sponsored mass murders in history.

its not a matter of defending anybody, its a matter of getting FACTS correct. The biggest state sponsored mass murders in history were the Japanese and Nazi invasions of WW2.

Mao's regime alone killed 45 million people. Stalin's killed over 20 millions.

No they did not. Lets even forget that those numbers are bullshit which derive from highly dubious sources connected to the intelligence and military apparatus of the Western nations that launched the "cold war". Setting that aside, and we can discuss that in detail if you wish, Neither Stalin, nor Mao ordered anybody to intentionally kill that many people. The vast majority of those deaths are attributed to starvation, which was NOT INTENDED. At best you could accuse them of gross incompetence, but not mass murder.

They were all inspired by Marx's inherent hatred of spirituality, and individuality.

they weren't inspired by anything because mass deaths were not intended. China and Russia have both suffered plenty of famines in their history before Communism ever came to those nations.

Individuality and free thought is what drives free markets, which is often confused with capitalism. Capitalism as seen today is really Corporatism, which gives the ability to create separate legal entities that function independently from individuals. A bit like what is called state capitalism, or the centralized control of production.

yeah the "its not really capitalism" argument. Capitalism simply means PRIVATE control of the economy. You may be right that we dont have certain kinds of capitalism, but we certainly have A form of capitalism.

But it is really not about economics but rather the underlying philosophy which drives Marxism which is anti-freedom since it tries to suppress the human soul. It tries to bring forced "equality" to a world where nobody will ever be equal to another for various reasons. It tries to bring about change through crisis, revolutions and wars.

Other than the "forcing equality" you are pretty much describing what Capitalism does

It is that idea that led to events like 9/11 which was being used to increase government control step by step.

Communism lead to 911 ? Thats a really good one. See I really dont mind an honest, grown up, critique of Communism, but when it just descends into childish nonsense, like it usually does, then I have to step in.

and before you try with your "Neocons used to be bolsheviks" nonsense. Read this.

Max Shactman, Philip Selznick, Irving Kristol are really the only ones ever cited as being neo-concervative Trotskyists.

Further, they're not great Neo-Conservatives. Max Schactman was never anything but a hard leftist. He broke with Trotsky by going further to the left than Trotsky to a group Trotsky called, "ultraleft circles of petty-bourgeois intelligentsia." That is to say, where Trotsky advocated unconditional support for the Soviet Union, "ultraleft," individuals did not find it worth saving in WWII, especially after the Soviet-Nazi pact.

So, according to the prominent theory that neoconservatives are Trotskyists, Schactman moved to a more utopian left than Trotsky himself and somehow became a conservative by his endorsement of the New Left and the civil rights movement (darlings of conservatives at they time!) before he died. Though it is true some of Schactman's followers did go onto become neo-conservatives. But this is pretty weak tea to say that some students of Schactman (though never Schactman himself) later became neo-conservatives, thus neo-conservatives are tied to Trotsky in anyway whatsoever.

Philip Selznick has a slightly better claim to neo-conservatism, but a far worse claim to Trotsky. He was part of the Young People's Socialist League for only three year. He recounted it as mostly an, "intense intellectual experience." One thing he took from it that he carried away from it was the concept of bureaucracy being a bad thing (Trotsky took this from Lenin). Here the link wasn't far from anyone that opposed bureaucracy. When Shactman and his people broke with Trotsky, Selznick demanded, "the rejection of Bolshevism and of Leninism."

This is a little better match to conservatism in that much later Tea-Baggers and them would argue that the free-market somehow was the opposite of bureaucracy, but as I hope to show why this itself isn't the best connection either.

Kristol is a better conservative, but a worse Trotskyist than the others. He was attracted to a group of Schactmanites largely for their anti-soviet feeling. This, of course, already separated him far from Trotsky and even pretty far from Max Shactman who was an ultra leftist in his rejection of the Soviet Union, while Kristol was pretty much just against the Soviet Union. He was deeply against the civil rights movement and New Left (separating him from Schactman even further) but for the New Deal and government expansion into certain areas (separating him from Selznick). When allying with Harringtonists for the expansion of New Deal-like programs, Michael Harrington described what he thought was a slur against Kristol as a, "neo-conservative." Kristol picked it up and ran with the idea of a conservative expansion of government and whatnot, based on Reaganomics and the expansion of capitalism.

Alright, so these are the three that are always brought up as the Trotskyists turned Neo-Conservatives. One of them was a Trotskyist for a bit, one was actually a neo-conservitive. They all would violently disagree with each other. So what do they all have in common?

They're Jews. And that's all that really matters, because this theory that neo-conservatism is a Trotskyist thing comes from state-rights Republicans that have a Confederate bend and don't like the big bad Union, something neo-conservatives are more willing to accept [/QUOTE]

 

[Helioform]

No they did not. Lets even forget that those numbers are bullshit which derive from highly dubious sources connected to the intelligence and military apparatus of the Western nations that launched the "cold war". Setting that aside, and we can discuss that in detail if you wish, Neither Stalin, nor Mao ordered anybody to intentionally kill that many people. The vast majority of those deaths are attributed to starvation, which was NOT INTENDED. At best you could accuse them of gross incompetence, but not mass murder

So you refuse to believe historians. Seems like you are defending Communism after all if you deny reality like this. Stalin said "the death of one man is a tragedy and the death of millions is a statistic". And you believe this man over "western intelligence"? He killed and persecuted 3 to 20 million Christians. Even a Soviet paper published the numbers:

Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin (Published 1989)

www.nytimes.com

You did not even know that earlier so how can you claim to know anything about this? Mao's numbers were taken from Chinese province archives, and also millions died from execution, torture to death, forced starvation and 1 to 2 millions died of suicide due to the regime's insane tyranny.

they weren't inspired by anything because mass deaths were not intended. China and Russia have both suffered plenty of famines in their history before Communism ever came to those nations.

Mass deaths were not intended?? Again you deny reality and the horrific persecution of those who lived under those regimes. You know nothing of history apparently.

Communism lead to 911 ? Thats a really good one. See I really dont mind an honest, grown up, critique of Communism, but when it just descends into childish nonsense, like it usually does, then I have to step in.

and before you try with your "Neocons used to be bolsheviks" nonsense. Read this

Neocons have been heavily influenced by Marxism and if you don't see that again you are just trying to hide and blindly deny it. The only childish nonsense is the romanticized stuff you are peddling regarding communism. You said in another thread that you live in Canada so I am not too surprised about the socialist brainwashing you seem to have gone through. Anyway neocons have been influenced by Marxism quite a bit, as they use the same dialectical materialism paradigm

"Neoconservatism has, it is posited, been influenced by many of its founders being ex-communists. The idea of forcibly spreading democracy and free markets throughout the world is parallel to the Communist idea of a world revolution.

The political philosopher Francis Fukuyama stated that his book, The End of History, which was written from a neoconservative perspective, set forth an essentially Marxist vision of social evolution with liberal democracy replacing "pure communism" as the final state of society.[8] He furthered this parallel by stating that the Bush administration's sort of neoconservatism was a form of Leninism, i.e., a sort in which an elite vanguard tries to push the revolution forward when the proles won't.

The much more low-brow neoconconservative pundit Dennis Prager also authored a book similar to Fukuyama's called Still the Best Hope, which set forth a vision of the world in which people worldwide would embrace "American values" after the liberal media, universities and politicians could no longer dupe the public into voting left-wing. After this, the world would largely embrace American ultraconservatism, which would result in the fall of "leftism" and Islamic fundamentalism, leaving neoconservatism as the most widely embraced ideology in the world for the foreseeable future. Sound familiar?"

Neoconservatism

Imperialism Neoconservatism is a particular brand of American conservatism, remarkably different from other brands of American political philosophy. Its two major concerns are free market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy. During the George W. Bush administration and onward, more...

rationalwiki.org

 

[Helioform]

You’ve probably seen this one but I’ll post it as well

Yeah I knew about the 4 stages to implement communism. I like how he describes the leftists as "useful idiots" (reminds me of certain people here) who defend the socialist regimes (socialism leads to communism as Stalin said) only to be betrayed by their leaders and have a boot to their face in the end.

 

[lightseeker]

Ok that seems to check out, but I question the context. I doubt they would just kill anybody who said something bad about jews. I wonder why there doesn't seem to be much information backing this ascertion which is based off of a quote by Stalin. I found this guys response to the question posed on Quora "why was there a death penalty for anti-semitism in USSR ?" This seems logical to me.
from a software guy born and raised in USSR.

There was no direct reference to anti-semitism in the Soviet Criminal Code. The Criminal Code of Russian Soviet Socialist Republic of 1926 (with 1927 editions) had article 59.7, which defined the punishment for the incitement of interracial hatred in general. There was no provision for death penalty in there, except for when the crime was committed during mass riots or under martial law. But the reality of that time was that any crime could be re-qualified at will to a more serious one, if the judges saw the fit.
Aforementioned Stalin’s reply had “active anti-semites” expression:
Активные антисемиты караются по законам СССР смертной казнью.
Which leaves a lot of room as to how to decide whether anti-semites were “active”.

so according to this guy, who is Russian, and seems to understand and reference the exact law in question, there is no death penalty for general "anti-semitism" but you could be killed for commiting "anti-semitism" during a riot, which basically involves committing acts of violence against somebody, or some kind of serious crime involving not just anti-semitism but any racism towards any minority. Its not like they were killing people for making racist comments, which is what you were intentionally or unintentionally implying.




Yes Stalin killed lots of Jews in his purges, but not because they were Jewish but because they were spies.


there is a difference between saying

a) Christians were murdered and
b) Christians were murdered for their religion

and an even bigger difference when you claimed

c) "being a Christian was punishable by death" What you claimed or implied is that there was state sanction/law to murder Christians and that IS A LIE.

Yes Christians, along with Jews, and muslims were persecuted for their religions, but that doesn't mean the state would just go around killing you for being Christian.

from your wiki link

Religious beliefs and practices persisted among the majority of the population,[6] not only in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces which were allowed to exist by a state that recognized its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.[3][11]

the idea that they went around hunting and killing Christians simply because they were Christians is false.

Yes Russian clergymen were killed, but they were not killed for being Christians, just like Stalin did not kill Jews for being Jewish, they were killed for being spies, and collaborators. Most of the Russian Orthodox Church were supporters of the White Army and the Monarchs, they were political enemies, it didn't matter that they were Christian.


Yes I know about this, again while they did do this, much of these claims have been exaggerated for dramatic effect. The majority of people sent to gulags were criminals and foreign collaborators, or insurgents. You certainly wouldn't want to be labelled an enemy of the state though.


I dont know. I didn't say it was only about disputed territories, but that was a major factor. Maybe they did have a religious agenda, I haven't looked into that.



I dont know what you are or claim to be, but I've seen the same faulty or misleading arguments made time and time again, and usually its done so in an attempt to discredit socialism and defend the elitist structure of capitalism. I'm not making any judgement on you personally, but a lot of your arguments are quite misleading.


ok, but the reasons you cited dont really hold up. And you can't really blame Marx for what the Soviet Union did anymore than you can blame Jesus Christ for the Klu Klux Klan burning a cross in front of somebody's lawn.



any revolution or counter revolution is bloody if the opposition refuses to submit. It doesn't matter what the political or religious ideology is, its actually irrelevant. You can't just pin it as a "hallmark of communism" Its a hallmark of revolution, or counter revolution, Period. Do You think the ruling class is just going to give up their power willfully. Of course not. You aren't really proving anything.

Basically everything you said is factually wrong. I understand now that you are a Marxist and Stalinist sympathizer because you are using stalins justifications for his mass murders to argue for him. Saying that Stalin killed 20 million Christians because they were collaborators and that is ok... you believe the government should be able to kill people that disagree with it.... you believe mass murder of the population is justified under certain circumstances... I don’t know where you get your info but you should really read about the solviet union. read Solzhenitsyn. You will see a picture of a nation where you are killed for “collaborating” meaning using a joking tone in a letter to a friend (that was Solzhenitsyns sentence that he was sent to a work camp for decades for) or being suspected to harbour certain beliefs. Or the peasants that were emancipated in 1861 and by the 1920s had made decent farms for themselves. All of them were deported to labour camps and killed for being upper class.
I’m not going to prattle on because defending the solviet union is laughable. Do you defend the republic of North Korea? Let’s hear you tell me some of their propoganda to defend them lmao. Another very successful case of communism.

So you have your sights on “capitalism” as the great world evil. What about it? Do you believe that when I give my neighbor 5$ for eggs that is evil? Or is it federal reserve banking? Greed in general? Wall Street? The military industry? Saying capitalism blah blah is like not even knowing enough about politics or economics to know where you direct your frustration. Anyways tell me why North Korea is great because they’re anti capitalist

 

[illuminatimess]

Basically everything you said is factually wrong. I understand now that you are a Marxist and Stalinist sympathizer because you are using stalins justifications for his mass murders to argue for him. Saying that Stalin killed 20 million Christians because they were collaborators and that is ok... you believe the government should be able to kill people that disagree with it.... you believe mass murder of the population is justified under certain circumstances... I don’t know where you get your info but you should really read about the solviet union. read Solzhenitsyn. You will see a picture of a nation where you are killed for “collaborating” meaning using a joking tone in a letter to a friend (that was Solzhenitsyns sentence that he was sent to a work camp for decades for) or being suspected to harbour certain beliefs. Or the peasants that were emancipated in 1861 and by the 1920s had made decent farms for themselves. All of them were deported to labour camps and killed for being upper class.
I’m not going to prattle on because defending the solviet union is laughable. Do you defend the republic of North Korea? Let’s hear you tell me some of their propoganda to defend them lmao. Another very successful case of communism.

So you have your sights on “capitalism” as the great world evil. What about it? Do you believe that when I give my neighbor 5$ for eggs that is evil? Or is it federal reserve banking? Greed in general? Wall Street? The military industry? Saying capitalism blah blah is like not even knowing enough about politics or economics to know where you direct your frustration. Anyways tell me why North Korea is great because they’re anti capitalist

She was only stating facts, whereas you are expressing your emotions and „facts“ based on emotions.

Marx is not to be blamed for how Stalin, Lenin, Mao and so on perceived his scriptures. They misused it to justify their actions.

Another point, blaming the Jews for everything evil in this world is also a misconception and pretty weak. There is no „the“ Jews.

Y’all really love to blame a certain group of people.

 

[illuminatimess]

Your revisionism just opens the door for other revisionism. Don’t be surprised. It is laughable to defend the USSR ( not withstanding that it’s good they defeated the Nazis) but so is defending the Nazis which you do.

lol

 

[lightseeker]

She was only stating facts, whereas you are expressing your emotions and „facts“ based on emotions.

Marx is not to be blamed for how Stalin, Lenin, Mao and so on perceived his scriptures. They misused it to justify their actions.

Another point, blaming the Jews for everything evil in this world is also a misconception and pretty weak. There is no „the“ Jews.

Y’all really love to blame a certain group of people.

Stating that 20 million Christians were murdered because they were “collaborators” is not a fact. It’s Stalinist propoganda. Why should you be allowed to murder someone because they are collaborating against the government? Why would you use that as justification? That is totalitarianism, which Stalinist Russia was a great example of the most complete tyranny in history. Where you could be killed for being suspected to harbour anti communist ideas so the entire population is living a lie for their survival.

there is a “the jews” when they exist as a state together called israel which is my main criticism of them. Just like there is a “the Japanese” and nobody suspects you are talking about every person with an ounce of Japanese in them

and @Bertoxxulous yes every time communism turns out the way it does people say it wasn’t real communism. Oldest joke in the book

 

[lightseeker]

Your revisionism just opens the door for other revisionism. Don’t be surprised. It is laughable to defend the USSR ( not withstanding that it’s good they defeated the Nazis) but so is defending the Nazis which you do.

The irony is not lost upon me but the difference is, I do not defend the Nazis, I do not identify as a Nazi or fascist, I believe the Nazis committed many, many evils both in their ideology and their actions, I do not deny that people suffered under them. Not going to derail the thread into this, but I wanted to tell you this anyways. I made specific claims about where the holocaust narrative is false which you can find here if you want to continue that discussion https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/holocaust-revisionism.3613/

 

[shankara]

Did you bother to read the articles? It has far more in common with the far right than the left. I said state communism was authoritarian and bad. It’s a matter of degrees in some cases as Cuba and Vietnam are clearly better off post revolution. Regardless, Stalin and Mao where the worst things to ever happen to world workers. So much blood.

I'm not convinced about Cuba. Actually I think that Communism is the ultimate aim of the capitalists (using the word Communism in the pejorative sense referring to authoritarianism), the same social control without redistribution. Not that in the USSR there was real redistribution, resources just came to be controlled by party bureaucrats.

I think it's quite possible to take some elements from Communism and create a Socialist state which retains democratic institutions, even direct democracy. Of course this would require the work of ridding the populace of their false consciousness, a task which shouldn't be confused with instilling Marxist, Maoist or any other ideology. The people need de-programming, not re-programming, once people develop the ability to think for themselves they will necessarily prefer equality of wealth and real equality of opportunity to the lies they are living under now.

On the Cuban front...

 

[lightseeker]

Did you bother to read the articles? It has far more in common with the far right than the left. I said state communism was authoritarian and bad. It’s a matter of degrees in some cases as Cuba and Vietnam are clearly better off post revolution. Regardless, Stalin and Mao where the worst things to ever happen to world workers. So much blood.

View attachment 35448


Good of you to say but you should know that Holocaust “revisionism” is just a Nazi recruitment tool. I posted the quote from the ANP about its purpose. I’m not interested in continuing the discussion as there’s nothing left to say, no amount of evidence will change your mind. I just find it amusing that you will complain about revisionism when it comes to communism but you do it for fascism.

No I haven't read the articles yet but I will. Cuba and Vietnam ended up better off from communism it could be said, but during the revolution was such murder and horror, its really unspeakable. When in one night, the Vietcong went into a town and rounded up thousands of people, every person that was understood as being able to influence public opinion, even taxi drivers and barbers who people respected. All of them were rounded up at night and shot so nobody could speak against the coming system. And the CIA was amazed, how did they know who to round up? How did they do that? It's because they had infiltrated the population and been advised. This is from the Yuri Bezmenov interview, a KGB defector, which I highly, highly recommend anyone in this thread to watch so they can see how the solviet system operated.

Actually Vietnamese would say they are better off now in our present time, just living as normal people. I know people who live in Vietnam and they say that after the French occupation, then the communist occupation, they were occupied for so long that now they feel like the freest country in the world, its really a very happy country now. I dont think many want to go back to even what could be called an "ok communism". It's not like their nation thrived, its just that they didnt have the mass killings for decades, probably because the USA was in there killing them so they had an enemy to fight against, and didnt have to use their own people as their enemy.

 

[illuminatimess]

Stating that 20 million Christians were murdered because they were “collaborators” is not a fact. It’s Stalinist propoganda. Why should you be allowed to murder someone because they are collaborating against the government? Why would you use that as justification? That is totalitarianism, which Stalinist Russia was a great example of the most complete tyranny in history. Where you could be killed for being suspected to harbour anti communist ideas so the entire population is living a lie for their survival.

there is a “the jews” when they exist as a state together called israel which is my main criticism of them. Just like there is a “the Japanese” and nobody suspects you are talking about every person with an ounce of Japanese in them

and @Bertoxxulous yes every time communism turns out the way it does people say it wasn’t real communism. Oldest joke in the book

The issue you're referring to is still not related to Communism that Marx wrote about. Again, it's not Marx's fault for the execution of his philosophy.

In fact, his philosophy wasn't even an instruction booklet for the subsequent dictatorships. "Das Kapital" for example, was an analysis of capitalism.

Additionally, are you aware of the consequences of capitalism? For example, daily, 24000 people die as a result of hunger. The main reasons for world hunger are wars (executed by capitalist states), unequal distribution of food globally, biased global trade, inequality (one percent of the global population possesses nearly half of the global fortune), waste of recourses and climate change (which again, is the consequence of capitalistic ideology, id est the overproduction and overconsumption).

Millions died in the wars in the Middle East.

The list is endless to display how negatively capitalism has affected our world and societies.