Some of the many historic stands against communist/Marxist tyranny and injustice. (Page 2)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
32Opinion
God. Again. Central Europe, not eastern. Poland, for example, is not eastern, it's central Europe. There is difference!
By the definition used in the UN in their statistics, and by most of Western Europe, Poland (and the Czech Republic) is in fact an Eastern European country.
Then again, outside of WWI literature, a "Central Europe" isn't really recognized. I think "Central Europe" is largely an attempt by the Eastern Bloc to separate itself from communism after the Soviets fell.
@Praec I am simple man. I look at the map of Europe, and I see Eastern part, mostly Russia, central and western. I also see southern and northern. My division is more precise.
I'm more concerned about geography, because that is objective, not politics.
And…yes, of course it is. Like…nobody want's to be associated with that USSR shit here.
Just like Japan is wrong. It's Nippon.
And just like the islands north from Nippon belongs to Nippon, not Russia.
You're certainly a simpleton, I'll give you that.
@Praec Thanks. ;-)
You, on the other hand, are predictable.
It is remarkable how many things are communist nowadays.
Like voting in a democracy.
Using strawman arguments don’t prove a point.
Not sure what happened to my comment. But I will say again. Define communism. What is the dictionary definition of communism?
So it’s a red herring now? Very well, the definition is quite simple. Communism advocates class warfare and abolishment of private property, two morally questionable actions.
Yes, so that property is owned by the public.
And I have asked this since I have been here at GaG. Which supposed communist state achieved this so-called society where all goods, services, property, etc. were owned by the public?
And the proper response is that just because something looks good on paper, doesn’t mean it will actually work in practice.
Yeah, that response has nothing to do with my question.
The fact is there will has never been a communist state and there never will be one. There will only be states that confiscate private property in the name of communism, then devolve into dictatorships that concentrate almost all of the wealth in the hands of a few. Just like with Russia, China, Cuba, and every other nation that claimed it was becoming "communist".
"According to this theory, it is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of changing the ownership of the means of production from private to collective ownership, and the existence of any government implies the dictatorship of one social class over another."
Power concedes nothing with out a demand. And supposed "communists" will not concede power once they have used this mythology to get it.
It sounds like you are agreeing with me.
I guess you can't get what I am saying.
You talk about Communism as though it actually has existed in reality. But you know it has not. It is only existed as a methodology for installing a dictatorship.
That's all.
The Soviet Union was simply a one-party authoritarian state.
*sighs
The reason why on paper communism has never been implemented to a society is because it doesn’t work in practice. Authoritarianism is what communism turns into. It’s a no true Scotsman to assume “true” communism hasn’t been properly applied yet.
@ADFSDF1996 correction: abolishment of private ownership of mass prodution tools.
@jacquesvol And how do communists plan on implementing that policy without resorting to authoritarianism?
@ADFSDF1996 I am no communist thus I don't know their plans. Best guess:
In a violent society like czarist Russia they had to revolt. In other societies they can use legal ways.
@ADFSDF1996 communism in one country will be sabotaged by other countries. That was the subject of the split between Trotsky, Lenin and Stalin
@jacquesvol Even if it’s done in a legal way, that’s no guarantee they won’t eventually resort to authoritarianism and authoritarianism is never a good thing.
The ideological split.
@jacquesvol That’s another reason why communism ends in disaster. Look at what happened to China and the Soviet Union during the 1950s.
No on is disputing that every attempt at creating a communist sate has resulted in absolute failure. But that, there has been no successful implementation. Because it is simply another method for amassing wealth and power into the hands of a few.
![Some of the many historic stands against communist/Marxist tyranny and injustice.]()
And those people do not relinquish power after they have amassed it. Because that was never their intention unlike;
George Washington could have ruled as emperor. But he choose to relinquish power. There was no such "system of governing" that could have stopped him from ruling with an iron fist.
It was his character that did. His goal was never to amass power, therefore, he was never going to keep it.
You seem to be under the same spell as most folks. That somehow, the system of government makes for the outcome, rather than the goals and the intentions of the people who are building it.
And that’s problem, how can you trust another person who’s trying to implement communism without knowing their true intentions? They can claim all sorts of positive change but in reality have an agenda of their own and or don’t want to relinquish their power.
You judge people by their actions. Not by the politics you ascribe to them. I don't know how people could have seen the actions of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and Mao and not think they weren't capable of installing totalitarian rule.
So you are implying that Nazism could work under a non totalitarian leadership?
And not to mention that an ideology can influence a leader’s actions.
Really, you think I am implying that any dictatorship could work in the long run? And let's think about this logically, how could Nazism work without brutality, oppression, murder, and genocide?
Hmmmm. . . that is an interesting thought actually.
And as for influence, I do not believe that. The Founding Fathers had a very specific plan in mind for the type of government they wanted to instill.
Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Hitler all had a specific type of government in mind when they rose to power.
And all of these men worked towards their specific goals.
If you apply the results of the Stanford prison experiment to all those dictators and look into their lives prior to their rise to power, it makes sense that they were influenced by both their upbringing and political ideologies they would be synonymous with.
For example, Stalin had a religious father who would beat him as a child. So when Stalin grew up, the militant atheistic attitude of communism most likely got his attention and is why he would go on to oppress the religious people in the Soviet Union under his rule.
Example 2. Adolf Hitler did not create the Nazi party. The party already existed in Germany prior to Hitler’s involvement, it was simply known as the German worker’s party (DAP) which would be renamed the national socialist German worker’s party (NSDAP) in 1920. And thus it’s inaccurate to assume that Hitler built the third Reich from scratch all by himself. He was most likely influenced (at least partly) by the ideology of the party he joined. Not to mention the political, economic and social turmoil in Germany during those days.
"If you apply the results of the Stanford prison experiment to all those dictators and look into their lives prior to their rise to power, it makes sense that they were influenced by both their upbringing and political ideologies they would be synonymous with."
But that's the thing. You talk as though they had actual beliefs in their system of governing and not in amassing power.
"For example, Stalin had a religious father who would beat him as a child. So when Stalin grew up, the militant atheistic attitude of communism most likely got his attention and is why he would go on to oppress the religious people in the Soviet Union under his rule."
The history of the world is full of little boys with religious fathers who beat them as children. That is simply no explanation.
"Example 2. Adolf Hitler did not create the Nazi party. The party already existed in Germany prior to Hitler’s involvement, it was simply known as the German worker’s party (DAP) which would be renamed the national socialist German worker’s party (NSDAP) in 1920. And thus it’s inaccurate to assume that Hitler built the third Reich from scratch all by himself. He was most likely influenced (at least partly) by the ideology of the party he joined. Not to mention the political, economic and social turmoil in Germany during those days."
And where does my statement care about the origin of the Nazis?
Hitler rose to power, focused power, concentrated it all into his own two hands.
That was his goal. You want to have a different argument.
What was the difference between George Washington and Hitler?
Washington could have ruled as Emperor unchallenged. He could have swept all of the other leaders of his time away with barely a thought. Americans would have followed his commands without question.
“But that's the thing. You talk as though they had actual beliefs in their system of governing and not in amassing power.” Why wouldn’t they have actual beliefs in their system of governing? As far as they were concerned, they felt they were doing the “morally correct” things.
“The history of the world is full of little boys with religious fathers who beat them as children. That is simply no explanation.”
It’s called circumstances.
“And where does my statement care about the origin of the Nazis?
Hitler rose to power, focused power, concentrated it all into his own two hands.
That was his goal. You want to have a different argument.
What was the difference between George Washington and Hitler?”
I’m explaining to you how he was INFLUENCED by the party he joined and not to mention th circumstances surrounding his nation. George Washington is irrelevant, it’s a non sequitur. And for your information George Washington was influenced by John Locke, not by the DAP, it’s that simple.
"Why wouldn’t they have actual beliefs in their system of governing? As far as they were concerned, they felt they were doing the “morally correct” things."
I am just interjecting logic into the debate. You don't engage in conspiracy and concealment of your actions if you think you are morally correct. It is amazing to me that you think Hitler would engage in deception while simultaneously believing in the moral justification for his actions.
"I’m explaining to you how he was INFLUENCED by the party he joined and not to mention th circumstances surrounding his nation. George Washington is irrelevant, it’s a non sequitur. And for your information George Washington was influenced by John Locke, not by the DAP, it’s that simple."
Again, I am just interjecting logic. Now you are making this claim that even our greatest leaders didn't have the intellect to make up their own minds. It seems as though you don't really have a response to my point. Everyone on this planet has "influences". We are talking about intentions.
Hitler did not rise to power with the intentions of simply spreading a political ideology. If he only wanted to spread supposed socialism as GaG pundits say, he would have resigned as soon as his goals were reached for Germany.
His goal was to conquer and rule as brutally as any other leader in human history had previously. Time and again, Hitler professed lied about his intentions. That's why you don't read what he wrote. You read about what he did.
That record should speak for itself.
Speculation does not equal facts.
History is factual.
It isn't speculation.
Indeed history is based on facts.
But what I’m saying is that your replies are mostly speculation rather than facts.
Nah. What Hitler did is a matter of record. I can send you links about what Hitler did on his way to starting WWII. Perhaps you are unaware.
What Hitler did isn’t in question.
What is in question, is the morality of communism.
You are just having issues with logic right now.
People are not defined by their speech. They are defined by their actions. Hitler claimed he just deporting non-Germans. But in reality he was exterminating Jewish people.
So do we go by what he claimed he was doing? Or by his actions?
So I am just telling you logically about how history remembers people.
George Washington was remembered for having full support to rule the United States as emperor, but declining and giving his power away to the next President. Historians remember him as the person who built the Office of the President through his actions alone.
Now you can pretend that did not happen. That's cool.
millercenter.org/.../impact-and-legacy
The topic is about communism, however you keep digressing by referencing historical fiigures just to keep your argument going.
In regards to George Washington and the founding fathers, you continue to ignore the fact that their ideology was based on John Locke’s ideas which emphasized on human rights.
Same way guys like Stalin, Castro and Mao were influenced by Marx’s ideas which emphasized on class warfare, militant atheism, abolishment of currency and the state.
You keep saying “blame the person, not the ideology” but fail to understand that ideology in part influences the individual. Communism was never successfully implemented because it only looks good on paper. Whenever someone tries to implement it, it always ends up in some form of authoritarianism.
Yes, the topic is about Communism and I told you that there has not been nor will there ever be a communist state. Because people who use that ideology are not interested in the actual goals professed by those ideologies. And that is easily assessed by looking at their actions.
It would be half past silly to claim that Kim Jong Un's goals have to do with Democracy and Freedom just because North Korea calls itself the People Democratic Republic of Korea. We know it is a brutal totalitarian dictatorship. We know it because of the actions of their leaders.
Now you can pretend to be obtuse if you wish. That is fine.
But my point is that it that anyone can profess any ideology. But they are judged on their actions.
And that is how it should be.
“Yes, the topic is about Communism and I told you that there has not been nor will there ever be a communist state. Because people who use that ideology are not interested in the actual goals professed by those ideologies. And that is easily assessed by looking at their actions.“ Then you get the point.
“It would be half past silly to claim that Kim Jong Un's goals have to do with Democracy and Freedom just because North Korea calls itself the People Democratic Republic of Korea. We know it is a brutal totalitarian dictatorship. We know it because of the actions of their leaders.” That’s the way totalitarian regimes are, they mask their true modus operandi by claiming to be for the people.
“Now you can pretend to be obtuse if you wish. That is fine.” Ad hominem
“But my point is that it that anyone can profess any ideology. But they are judged on their actions.
And that is how it should be.”
I never said otherwise, so that’s irrelevant.
You say it every time you talk about Communism. Because you believe and you argue that it is the political ideology that is evil and not the people who are trying to instill it. As though they are faithfully executing the principles the profess to believe in.
Men who run totalitarian regimes, do so because they mean to run totalitarian regimes.
And you always try to portray on paper communism as if it’s a utopia.
Even on paper communism has it’s flaws. It is anti religion, it doesn’t respect private ownership (farms, businesses, lands etc), it calls for the abolishment of currency and class warfare in which the “privileged” end up getting violently overthrown.
These flaws are some of the many reasons why communism is so susceptible to authoritarianism, it can’t work without using force and thus betrays the purpose of forming a Utopia in favor of a dystopia. Not everyone will willingly accept communism by giving up their lands, businesses, religion or money. What you end up getting is collectivism which is pretty much a sign that a country is on verge of authoritarianism, since a specific group matters more than the individual.
You’ve already said that you know Communism in it’s intended utopian form will never be achieved, yet here you are fanatically defending it. Why defend something that you know will never be achieved?
I never said that Communism was a Utopia. Only that we all know such a state is not possible. Because the people who use Communism use it to install a dictatorship. Perhaps the only one who was actually looking at it as a valid way to govern was Marx himself.
We know that every single dictator claiming communism as his doctrine never had any intentions of giving up power.
And of course it does not need to use force. Anyone can rise to power on using nationalism, creating an enemy for people to hate, promising higher wages, better life, etc. They can profess to believe in any ideology.
If they are charismatic enough, many people will follow them without question. Because many people simply feel the need to follow someone. And it is the intentions of the person who they choose that is of the upmost importance.
That’s brainwashing through misinformation.
The most important tool of any totalitarian regime.
Forgot the the biggest fighter of all: Hitler.
@jacquesvol It's a basic fact relevant to the topic. He's not making a random mention for the sake of it..
He was a criminal piece of manure
@jacquesvol
Still he fought against communist more than anyone else
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt0SACqvubg
Germany was defending Europe from the elites and Communism. Good take on the white armies.
I agree. People over the last 100 years were very evil and injustice prevailed on Earth.
You really don't want to know about the victims of Fascism, do you?
Present day fascists are DAESH (the Arabic name for ISIS)
They are not fascists, they are worse than fascists.
The same: a mix of high religiosity and brutal violence
There were many groups throughout history who weren’t fascists yet shared those same traits. Are you going to call them fascists as well?
![Some of the many historic stands against communist/Marxist tyranny and injustice.]()
The “league of militant atheists” call for the suppression of religion through violent means. Should they be classified as bolsheviks?
And the ISIS people consider 'DAESH' an insult.
@ ADFSDF1996
League of Militant Atheists didn't survive WW2
The “league of militant atheists” thankfully no longer exist but their ideas are still supported by radical groups like Neo Stalinists and antifa.
Neo Stalinists are as rare as unicorns.
Antifa is only a collection of small anti fascist groups
They aren’t as rare you think. There many people who are open about their advocacy of Stalin’s policies, and I’m not just talking about the few remaining communist countries in the world or the few Russians that want a stalinst Russia. I’m also talking about groups of extremists in the West who constantly ape the glories of communist regimes.![Some of the many historic stands against communist/Marxist tyranny and injustice.]()
And I don’t think you understand just how big Antifa actually is, it’s active in almost every Western country and basically attacks anyone who doesn’t agree with them, fascist or not. www.google.com/.../
Antifa is not a party, it's just a name adopted by most anti fascist groups. Not only in the US.
I never said it’s a party. It’s actually movement.
Being anti fascist is a healthy opinion
Not if it involves communism or anarchism. It’s also not good if it’s used to suppress the opinions of those who you disagree with regardless of they are fascists or not.
![Some of the many historic stands against communist/Marxist tyranny and injustice.]()
What good is opposing fascism when you use fascism of your own?
"What good is opposing fascism when you use fascism of your own?"
So, you agree with us that fascism is evil?
@goaded Depends how it’s used. If we’re talking about Nazism and antifa, yes it’s evil but...
while Nazism is always synonymous with fascism, fascism isn’t always synonymous with Nazism. Example, the falangists were fascists but they weren’t Nazis, Franco himself was reportedly not very fond of Hitler and even helped some Jews escape from Nazi germany.
Although both fascism and communism are extremist ideologies, the former of the two is the lesser evil.
But let’s address the elephant in the room which is why does it seem that you are defending communism?
ADFSDF1996 Franco was deeply religious, killed and mutilated hundreds of thousands, stole children, to hand them to conservative families, through the church
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shiFZdXqzDo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Spain)
No, the elephant in the room is that you don't think fascism is bad.
@jacquesvol do you understand the meaning of the term “lesser evil”?
@goaded And you think communism is any better?
Do you understand the meaning of the word "evil"?
Fascism and communism are not the only two possibilities.
@goaded Evil is evil but it’s still rather Ignorant to assume one thing can’t be more evil than another. Hence the usage of the two worded phrase “lesser evil”.
Obviously fascism and communism aren’t the only two political systems. But this conversation is specifically focused on those two ideologies.
I also notice you are being evasive of my question, so I’ll ask again. Do you think communism is any better? Because you give the impression that you are defending communism.
Communism (not Stalinism) could be better than fascism, yes. Fascism requires a class hierarchy and a dictator, communism doesn't.
I notice you deliberately associated the Communist Party of America with Stalinism, earlier. Maybe you should go and look at their web site and compare it with stormfront.
@goaded The problem with your logic is that you assume communism on paper can work. That’s being stubborn on your part. Too bad communism always becomes authoritarian once put into practice.
![Some of the many historic stands against communist/Marxist tyranny and injustice.]()
It’s kind of funny how you think there can be different types of communism but only one type of fascism. That’s a false dichotomy.
The communist party of America is proto Stalinist, hypothetically if they somehow took power (which will never happen) it wouldn’t take long for them to resort to authoritarianism that oppresses anyone that doesn’t agree with them.
Stormfront is a Neo-Nazi and white supremacist website founded by a former klansman. Some of the members on there even disavowed fascism because it doesn’t always involve race politics. It’s a strawman on your part to bring up stormfront.
What would you say democratic socialism is? Could it be close to a non-authoritarian form of communism?
I take your point about different types of fascism, but what do they all have in common? "Strong" leaders, and a rigid hierarchy, with winners and losers.
You're right that not all fascists are racist, but I think you'd have a hard time finding racists who are not fascists.
@goaded democratic socialism is leftist but I don’t know if it’s accurate to call it “communism”.
And yes indeed there are different types of fascism, some are racist and others are not.
Wow , I didn’t have so much information about this but thanks to you now I have
It doesn't work and never will
Interesting mytake, thanks for sharing!
whats the question dillweed?
You’re new to this site, so your ignorance is understandable. This is not a question, it’s an article.
Very well written.
Good shit mane
Love it