|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37103 Posts
Next person to target GH and make fun of him will get a ban from me. Stick to the political discussions and don't go on a tangent.
|
edit: i am removing this post per seeker's warning (which i saw after hitting post)
|
On July 11 2018 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:06 xDaunt wrote:
When I was talking about enjoying the exposure of GH's Bolshevism a few days ago, I thought I was just joking. I didn't realize it was quite literal. It is a combination of overwhelming confidence in his positions and a lackluster understanding of world history. It is both impressive and unassailable. Surely, you could point out an example of this lackluster understanding of world history rather than just assert it with overwhelming confidence? I don’t think I’m going to be teaching you a 200 level 20th century Russian history courses for free just to prove that you would really not prefer Lenin over Clinton. Not really sure what I get out of it given your general attitude during this entire discussion. It appears you wont be teaching anyone anything and merely relying on your declaration of Lenin being one of the worst people of the 20th century along with all of his contemporary peers and the presumption of the ongoing theme that Hillary is less bad, which we would disagree on, even ignoring that Lenin lived in a different time and place.
I'm trying to figure out if your value system is skewed by ignorance of Lenin, or extreme worship of anyone connected to socialist beliefs.
So where does Stalin fit on you Trump/Clinton/Lenin scale?
|
On July 11 2018 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:06 xDaunt wrote:
When I was talking about enjoying the exposure of GH's Bolshevism a few days ago, I thought I was just joking. I didn't realize it was quite literal. It is a combination of overwhelming confidence in his positions and a lackluster understanding of world history. It is both impressive and unassailable. Surely, you could point out an example of this lackluster understanding of world history rather than just assert it with overwhelming confidence? I don’t think I’m going to be teaching you a 200 level 20th century Russian history courses for free just to prove that you would really not prefer Lenin over Clinton. Not really sure what I get out of it given your general attitude during this entire discussion. It appears you wont be teaching anyone anything and merely relying on your declaration of Lenin being one of the worst people of the 20th century along with all of his contemporary peers and the presumption of the ongoing theme that Hillary is less bad, which we would disagree on, even ignoring that Lenin lived in a different time and place.
Hilary is definitively less bad than Lenin. You can say conclusively she wouldn't oversee the wholesale murder of entire segments of the population.
Lenin does get a worse rap than he deserves as well, though. The idea that he was just a power hungry revolutionary is horseshit. People who met him at the time always described him as an absurdly driven idealist who ended up in power because he was the right man for it more than really wanting it. Lenin believed wholeheartedly in the Marxist cause and dedicated his life to furthering socialism. For good and bad.
That doesn't excuse what he did, but ignoring the man's qualities to deride him when you can do it fine taking them into account is unnecessary.
Also, re: Soviet Union, we turn to that great philosopher and notable supporter of said Union, Vladimir Putin: Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.
|
On July 11 2018 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:06 xDaunt wrote:
When I was talking about enjoying the exposure of GH's Bolshevism a few days ago, I thought I was just joking. I didn't realize it was quite literal. It is a combination of overwhelming confidence in his positions and a lackluster understanding of world history. It is both impressive and unassailable. Surely, you could point out an example of this lackluster understanding of world history rather than just assert it with overwhelming confidence? I don’t think I’m going to be teaching you a 200 level 20th century Russian history courses for free just to prove that you would really not prefer Lenin over Clinton. Not really sure what I get out of it given your general attitude during this entire discussion. It appears you wont be teaching anyone anything and merely relying on your declaration of Lenin being one of the worst people of the 20th century along with all of his contemporary peers and the presumption of the ongoing theme that Hillary is less bad, which we would disagree on, even ignoring that Lenin lived in a different time and place. I'm trying to figure out if your value system is skewed by ignorance of Lenin, or extreme worship of anyone connected to socialist beliefs. So where does Stalin fit on you Trump/Clinton/Lenin scale?
Why don't we establish what about Lenin makes it so obvious that president Hillary would be demonstrably better, and for whom?
On July 11 2018 03:44 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:06 xDaunt wrote:
When I was talking about enjoying the exposure of GH's Bolshevism a few days ago, I thought I was just joking. I didn't realize it was quite literal. It is a combination of overwhelming confidence in his positions and a lackluster understanding of world history. It is both impressive and unassailable. Surely, you could point out an example of this lackluster understanding of world history rather than just assert it with overwhelming confidence? I don’t think I’m going to be teaching you a 200 level 20th century Russian history courses for free just to prove that you would really not prefer Lenin over Clinton. Not really sure what I get out of it given your general attitude during this entire discussion. It appears you wont be teaching anyone anything and merely relying on your declaration of Lenin being one of the worst people of the 20th century along with all of his contemporary peers and the presumption of the ongoing theme that Hillary is less bad, which we would disagree on, even ignoring that Lenin lived in a different time and place. Hilary is definitively less bad than Lenin. You can say conclusively she wouldn't oversee the wholesale murder of entire segments of the population.
I have to presume this is an exclusively domestically focused position. Surely she would do little to nothing to slow (would have probably increased) the civilian casualties around the world from explosive ordinance to say nothing of the cost of life resulting from capitalism concentrating wealth to such degrees people have yachts with boats and helicopters on them while people working 40 hours a week are still under the poverty line.
So the argument is that brutal treatment of the bourgeoisie would be worse than the type of bombing that leads to 9 out of 10 of the people you kill not being the target or whatever other atrocities you want to pick from the Obama administration and amplify (no doubt she was more hawkish than Obama) then?
I want to make sure I understand it before I go into detail about why I disagree
EDIT: I should add P6's point about "the wrong people" being lumped in with the bourgeoisie
|
On July 11 2018 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:54 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:50 JimmiC wrote:On July 11 2018 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:31 Schmobutzen wrote:
GH, how capitalism inextricably connected to white supremacy?
And, how opposes socialism it fundamentaly? Well... On July 11 2018 01:30 Plansix wrote:
The best argument for socialism is that it provides more systems to address racism and inequality within itself, rather than having to prohibit specific practices in capitalism. That's the TLDR Capitalism has to have systems outside of itself to restrain/modify it, otherwise it would be even more exploitative and there would be more civil unrest (coups, revolutions, war, etc...). Racism stands in fundamental opposition to socialist principles. You can't be racist and treat people equitably and with dignity. They are mutually exclusive. No one objects to racist's capitalist credentials because they are racist, but being racist is unquestionably not socialist behavior. Again "theoretically" in practice humans get in the way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_Soviet_Union No kidding. If I had more time, I'd do a detailed post complete with research into how actual socialist and other authoritarian governments acted when it comes to race. This idea that Americans, capitalism, or even white people in general are uniquely racist is offensively absurd. I'm not surprised that you guys would align on the butchering of history, but if someone does something racist that is not a socialist action, but you guys wouldn't say doing a racist thing isn't capitalist. For instance, chattel slavery is fundamentally antithetical to socialism, can you guys say that about capitalism? If I owned slaves I couldn't be a socialist (I could support socialist stuff I guess), but I could totally be a capitalist and own slaves. There is nothing contradictory about that.
I think you can have slaves in socialism. USSR, China, North Korea and Cambodia all did do a lot of forced labor.
If I'm not mistaken, Marx believed that capitalism would help do away with divisions of race, nationality and religion... everything except class divide. Not an expert on the topic though.
|
Lenin’s charisma is undeniable, but being driven and power hungry are not mutually exclusive. Once Lenin obtained power he fervently advocated for the systematic execution or elimination of the bourgeoisie, which quickly shifted from a set group of monied people to anyone the government saw as a threat. He also refused to allow a coalition government with the non communist, advociting for their elimination.
Lenin is not Stalin in his scope or damage, but he laid the ground work for Stalin to kill 12 million people before WW2 even started.
|
On July 11 2018 03:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:54 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:50 JimmiC wrote:On July 11 2018 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:31 Schmobutzen wrote:
GH, how capitalism inextricably connected to white supremacy?
And, how opposes socialism it fundamentaly? Well... On July 11 2018 01:30 Plansix wrote:
The best argument for socialism is that it provides more systems to address racism and inequality within itself, rather than having to prohibit specific practices in capitalism. That's the TLDR Capitalism has to have systems outside of itself to restrain/modify it, otherwise it would be even more exploitative and there would be more civil unrest (coups, revolutions, war, etc...). Racism stands in fundamental opposition to socialist principles. You can't be racist and treat people equitably and with dignity. They are mutually exclusive. No one objects to racist's capitalist credentials because they are racist, but being racist is unquestionably not socialist behavior. Again "theoretically" in practice humans get in the way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_Soviet_Union No kidding. If I had more time, I'd do a detailed post complete with research into how actual socialist and other authoritarian governments acted when it comes to race. This idea that Americans, capitalism, or even white people in general are uniquely racist is offensively absurd. I'm not surprised that you guys would align on the butchering of history, but if someone does something racist that is not a socialist action, but you guys wouldn't say doing a racist thing isn't capitalist. For instance, chattel slavery is fundamentally antithetical to socialism, can you guys say that about capitalism? If I owned slaves I couldn't be a socialist (I could support socialist stuff I guess), but I could totally be a capitalist and own slaves. There is nothing contradictory about that. I think you can have slaves in socialism. USSR, China, North Korea and Cambodia all did do a lot of forced labor. If I'm not mistaken, Marx believed that capitalism would help do away with divisions of race, nationality and religion... everything except class divide. Not an expert on the topic though.
I mean "slave" has many meanings nowadays, that's why I specifically mentioned chattel slavery
|
On July 11 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 11 2018 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:06 xDaunt wrote:
When I was talking about enjoying the exposure of GH's Bolshevism a few days ago, I thought I was just joking. I didn't realize it was quite literal. It is a combination of overwhelming confidence in his positions and a lackluster understanding of world history. It is both impressive and unassailable. Surely, you could point out an example of this lackluster understanding of world history rather than just assert it with overwhelming confidence? I don’t think I’m going to be teaching you a 200 level 20th century Russian history courses for free just to prove that you would really not prefer Lenin over Clinton. Not really sure what I get out of it given your general attitude during this entire discussion. It appears you wont be teaching anyone anything and merely relying on your declaration of Lenin being one of the worst people of the 20th century along with all of his contemporary peers and the presumption of the ongoing theme that Hillary is less bad, which we would disagree on, even ignoring that Lenin lived in a different time and place. I'm trying to figure out if your value system is skewed by ignorance of Lenin, or extreme worship of anyone connected to socialist beliefs. So where does Stalin fit on you Trump/Clinton/Lenin scale? Why don't we establish what about Lenin makes it so obvious that president Hillary would be demonstrably better, and for whom?
Considering that your values and beliefs seem to differ so greatly with the rest of the thread (and most of the world, really), it seems far more fruitful to find out what values you prioritize that allows you to say that leaders like Lenin and Kim Jong-Il are better than leaders of western democracies.
|
On July 11 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 11 2018 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:06 xDaunt wrote:
When I was talking about enjoying the exposure of GH's Bolshevism a few days ago, I thought I was just joking. I didn't realize it was quite literal. It is a combination of overwhelming confidence in his positions and a lackluster understanding of world history. It is both impressive and unassailable. Surely, you could point out an example of this lackluster understanding of world history rather than just assert it with overwhelming confidence? I don’t think I’m going to be teaching you a 200 level 20th century Russian history courses for free just to prove that you would really not prefer Lenin over Clinton. Not really sure what I get out of it given your general attitude during this entire discussion. It appears you wont be teaching anyone anything and merely relying on your declaration of Lenin being one of the worst people of the 20th century along with all of his contemporary peers and the presumption of the ongoing theme that Hillary is less bad, which we would disagree on, even ignoring that Lenin lived in a different time and place. I'm trying to figure out if your value system is skewed by ignorance of Lenin, or extreme worship of anyone connected to socialist beliefs. So where does Stalin fit on you Trump/Clinton/Lenin scale? Why don't we establish what about Lenin makes it so obvious that president Hillary would be demonstrably better, and for whom?
I think President Lenin would use executive orders to kill off some capitalist big wigs if he were truly as idealistic as described; however, this would erode the reputation of the American left to the point where it would put the country on an ultra-libertarian trajectory for the foreseeable future. Hillary would just delay the reform that is hopefully coming to the Democratic party soon though people like OC and the like, so I would say that Lenin putting leftist progress in reverse would be worse for you than Hillary.
However, he might be able to do something about giant corporations like Amazon and Alphabet and Facebook that increasingly claw away at our right to privacy.
|
On July 11 2018 03:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 11 2018 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:06 xDaunt wrote:
When I was talking about enjoying the exposure of GH's Bolshevism a few days ago, I thought I was just joking. I didn't realize it was quite literal. It is a combination of overwhelming confidence in his positions and a lackluster understanding of world history. It is both impressive and unassailable. Surely, you could point out an example of this lackluster understanding of world history rather than just assert it with overwhelming confidence? I don’t think I’m going to be teaching you a 200 level 20th century Russian history courses for free just to prove that you would really not prefer Lenin over Clinton. Not really sure what I get out of it given your general attitude during this entire discussion. It appears you wont be teaching anyone anything and merely relying on your declaration of Lenin being one of the worst people of the 20th century along with all of his contemporary peers and the presumption of the ongoing theme that Hillary is less bad, which we would disagree on, even ignoring that Lenin lived in a different time and place. I'm trying to figure out if your value system is skewed by ignorance of Lenin, or extreme worship of anyone connected to socialist beliefs. So where does Stalin fit on you Trump/Clinton/Lenin scale? Why don't we establish what about Lenin makes it so obvious that president Hillary would be demonstrably better, and for whom? Considering that your values and beliefs seem to differ so greatly with the rest of the thread (and most of the world, really), it seems far more fruitful to find out what values you prioritize that allows you to say that leaders like Lenin and Kim Jong-Il are better than leaders of western democracies.
People keep telling me they are horrible people then pointing to things that are untrue, mischaracterizations, absent context, and so on. I know the US educational system spent it's entirety lying and manipulating me so I need to be shown why they are so much worse than their contemporaries.
I mean you guys had the obvious one of Harding, but I suppose the Debs thing complicates that.
On July 11 2018 03:57 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 11 2018 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:06 xDaunt wrote:
When I was talking about enjoying the exposure of GH's Bolshevism a few days ago, I thought I was just joking. I didn't realize it was quite literal. It is a combination of overwhelming confidence in his positions and a lackluster understanding of world history. It is both impressive and unassailable. Surely, you could point out an example of this lackluster understanding of world history rather than just assert it with overwhelming confidence? I don’t think I’m going to be teaching you a 200 level 20th century Russian history courses for free just to prove that you would really not prefer Lenin over Clinton. Not really sure what I get out of it given your general attitude during this entire discussion. It appears you wont be teaching anyone anything and merely relying on your declaration of Lenin being one of the worst people of the 20th century along with all of his contemporary peers and the presumption of the ongoing theme that Hillary is less bad, which we would disagree on, even ignoring that Lenin lived in a different time and place. I'm trying to figure out if your value system is skewed by ignorance of Lenin, or extreme worship of anyone connected to socialist beliefs. So where does Stalin fit on you Trump/Clinton/Lenin scale? Why don't we establish what about Lenin makes it so obvious that president Hillary would be demonstrably better, and for whom? I think President Lenin would use executive orders to kill off some capitalist big wigs if he were truly as idealistic as described; however, this would erode the reputation of the American left to the point where it would put the country on an ultra-libertarian trajectory for the foreseeable future. Hillary would just delay the reform that is hopefully coming to the Democratic party soon though people like OC and the like, so I would say that Lenin putting leftist progress in reverse would be worse for you than Hillary. However, he might be able to do something about giant corporations like Amazon and Alphabet and Facebook that increasingly claw away at our right to privacy.
I don't think "eroding the reputation of the American left... putting us on a ultra libertarian trajectory" isn't really how I would see the president executing billionaires and appropriating their property to the people going. I also don't think the Democratic party has any intention on substantial reforms by any other way but force (political or otherwise).
|
On July 11 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
I have to presume this is an exclusively domestically focused position. Surely she would do little to nothing to slow (would have probably increased) the civilian casualties around the world from explosive ordinance to say nothing of the cost of life resulting from capitalism concentrating wealth to such degrees people have yachts with boats and helicopters on them while people working 40 hours a week are still under the poverty line.
So the argument is that brutal treatment of the bourgeoisie would be worse than the type of bombing that leads to 9 out of 10 of the people you kill not being the target or whatever other atrocities you want to pick from the Obama administration and amplify (no doubt she was more hawkish than Obama) then?
I want to make sure I understand it before I go into detail about why I disagree
EDIT: I should add P6's point about "the wrong people" being lumped in with the bourgeoisie
Okay, so basically you believe that Lenin only ordered the massacre of rich people.
And absolve him of any WW2 and Cold War atrocities by virtue of him losing the power struggle to Stalin.
|
On July 11 2018 03:57 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 11 2018 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:06 xDaunt wrote:
When I was talking about enjoying the exposure of GH's Bolshevism a few days ago, I thought I was just joking. I didn't realize it was quite literal. It is a combination of overwhelming confidence in his positions and a lackluster understanding of world history. It is both impressive and unassailable. Surely, you could point out an example of this lackluster understanding of world history rather than just assert it with overwhelming confidence? I don’t think I’m going to be teaching you a 200 level 20th century Russian history courses for free just to prove that you would really not prefer Lenin over Clinton. Not really sure what I get out of it given your general attitude during this entire discussion. It appears you wont be teaching anyone anything and merely relying on your declaration of Lenin being one of the worst people of the 20th century along with all of his contemporary peers and the presumption of the ongoing theme that Hillary is less bad, which we would disagree on, even ignoring that Lenin lived in a different time and place. I'm trying to figure out if your value system is skewed by ignorance of Lenin, or extreme worship of anyone connected to socialist beliefs. So where does Stalin fit on you Trump/Clinton/Lenin scale? Why don't we establish what about Lenin makes it so obvious that president Hillary would be demonstrably better, and for whom? I think President Lenin would use executive orders to kill off some capitalist big wigs if he were truly as idealistic as described; however, this would erode the reputation of the American left to the point where it would put the country on an ultra-libertarian trajectory for the foreseeable future. Hillary would just delay the reform that is hopefully coming to the Democratic party soon though people like OC and the like, so I would say that Lenin putting leftist progress in reverse would be worse for you than Hillary. However, he might be able to do something about giant corporations like Amazon and Alphabet and Facebook that increasingly claw away at our right to privacy.
The problem with advocating for Lenin as preferable is that the concepts of the “bourgeoisie” was mercurial and shifted to meet the needs of person enforcing the executions. There were no specific rules for who was or was not executed. So I, being the son of a small business owner, could be part of that ever shifting class. Or any of us. The man laid the foundation for one of the most largest and most harmful authoritarian regimes in human history through his use of excessive violence as a political tool for change.
|
On July 11 2018 03:54 Plansix wrote:
Lenin’s charisma is undeniable, but being driven and power hungry are not mutually exclusive. Once Lenin obtained power he fervently advocated for the systematic execution or elimination of the bourgeoisie, which quickly shifted from a set group of monied people to anyone the government saw as a threat. He also refused to allow a coalition government with the non communist, advociting for their elimination.
Lenin is not Stalin in his scope or damage, but he laid the ground work for Stalin to kill 12 million people before WW2 even started.
I suppose you think that the bourgeoisie wasn't advocating for the "systematic execution or elimination" of Lenin and the bolsheviks? Regardless of what you think of Lenin, you must consider what forces were arrayed against him and his comrades and what the counter-revolutionaries, also, wanted to do.
Here is Lenin's last testament:
“Stalin is too coarse and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a minor detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance.”
|
On July 11 2018 04:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 03:57 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On July 11 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 11 2018 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:06 xDaunt wrote:
When I was talking about enjoying the exposure of GH's Bolshevism a few days ago, I thought I was just joking. I didn't realize it was quite literal. It is a combination of overwhelming confidence in his positions and a lackluster understanding of world history. It is both impressive and unassailable. Surely, you could point out an example of this lackluster understanding of world history rather than just assert it with overwhelming confidence? I don’t think I’m going to be teaching you a 200 level 20th century Russian history courses for free just to prove that you would really not prefer Lenin over Clinton. Not really sure what I get out of it given your general attitude during this entire discussion. It appears you wont be teaching anyone anything and merely relying on your declaration of Lenin being one of the worst people of the 20th century along with all of his contemporary peers and the presumption of the ongoing theme that Hillary is less bad, which we would disagree on, even ignoring that Lenin lived in a different time and place. I'm trying to figure out if your value system is skewed by ignorance of Lenin, or extreme worship of anyone connected to socialist beliefs. So where does Stalin fit on you Trump/Clinton/Lenin scale? Why don't we establish what about Lenin makes it so obvious that president Hillary would be demonstrably better, and for whom? I think President Lenin would use executive orders to kill off some capitalist big wigs if he were truly as idealistic as described; however, this would erode the reputation of the American left to the point where it would put the country on an ultra-libertarian trajectory for the foreseeable future. Hillary would just delay the reform that is hopefully coming to the Democratic party soon though people like OC and the like, so I would say that Lenin putting leftist progress in reverse would be worse for you than Hillary. However, he might be able to do something about giant corporations like Amazon and Alphabet and Facebook that increasingly claw away at our right to privacy. The problem with advocating for Lenin as preferable is that the concepts of the “bourgeoisie” was mercurial and shifted to meet the needs of person enforcing the executions. There were no specific rules for who was or was not executed. So I, being the son of a small business owner, could be part of that ever shifting class. Or any of us. The man laid the foundation for one of the most largest and most harmful authoritarian regimes in human history through his use of excessive violence as a political tool for change.
Get your parents to give their business to it's workers (doesn't mean they couldn't still work there playing an important role) and you'd be a champion of the revolution. Crisis averted.
We're wading into murky waters when we get into who else might have got lumped in, but remember we have to weigh this against the millions of civilians the US kills to maintain it's global empire. Including but not limited to the kind of bombing we do where 90% of the people killed weren't the target.
|
It's hard to imagine someone from 100 years in the past in current day institutions. I just can't appreciate these comparisons between 'great people' (good or bad) from the past.
Anyway, I think these videos are very interesting:
Richard Pryor (2 minutes)
Boots Riley (5 minutes)
It's really fun to make the algorithm of YouTube work for you and pull up these kind of gems.
|
On July 11 2018 04:12 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 03:54 Plansix wrote:
Lenin’s charisma is undeniable, but being driven and power hungry are not mutually exclusive. Once Lenin obtained power he fervently advocated for the systematic execution or elimination of the bourgeoisie, which quickly shifted from a set group of monied people to anyone the government saw as a threat. He also refused to allow a coalition government with the non communist, advociting for their elimination.
Lenin is not Stalin in his scope or damage, but he laid the ground work for Stalin to kill 12 million people before WW2 even started. I suppose you think that the bourgeoisie wasn't advocating for the "systematic execution or elimination" of Lenin and the bolsheviks? Regardless of what you think of Lenin, you must consider what forces were arrayed against him and his comrades and what the counter-revolutionaries, also, wanted to do. Here is Lenin's last testament: “Stalin is too coarse and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a minor detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance.”
And in response to that threat of violence, Lenin created a system of government with due process, trials or any ability for anyone, including Lenin, to stop the violence he willingly unleashed. And resisted all efforts to reign them in or make peace with the people he opposed.
On July 11 2018 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 04:08 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:57 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On July 11 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 11 2018 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:06 xDaunt wrote:
When I was talking about enjoying the exposure of GH's Bolshevism a few days ago, I thought I was just joking. I didn't realize it was quite literal. It is a combination of overwhelming confidence in his positions and a lackluster understanding of world history. It is both impressive and unassailable. Surely, you could point out an example of this lackluster understanding of world history rather than just assert it with overwhelming confidence? I don’t think I’m going to be teaching you a 200 level 20th century Russian history courses for free just to prove that you would really not prefer Lenin over Clinton. Not really sure what I get out of it given your general attitude during this entire discussion. It appears you wont be teaching anyone anything and merely relying on your declaration of Lenin being one of the worst people of the 20th century along with all of his contemporary peers and the presumption of the ongoing theme that Hillary is less bad, which we would disagree on, even ignoring that Lenin lived in a different time and place. I'm trying to figure out if your value system is skewed by ignorance of Lenin, or extreme worship of anyone connected to socialist beliefs. So where does Stalin fit on you Trump/Clinton/Lenin scale? Why don't we establish what about Lenin makes it so obvious that president Hillary would be demonstrably better, and for whom? I think President Lenin would use executive orders to kill off some capitalist big wigs if he were truly as idealistic as described; however, this would erode the reputation of the American left to the point where it would put the country on an ultra-libertarian trajectory for the foreseeable future. Hillary would just delay the reform that is hopefully coming to the Democratic party soon though people like OC and the like, so I would say that Lenin putting leftist progress in reverse would be worse for you than Hillary. However, he might be able to do something about giant corporations like Amazon and Alphabet and Facebook that increasingly claw away at our right to privacy. The problem with advocating for Lenin as preferable is that the concepts of the “bourgeoisie” was mercurial and shifted to meet the needs of person enforcing the executions. There were no specific rules for who was or was not executed. So I, being the son of a small business owner, could be part of that ever shifting class. Or any of us. The man laid the foundation for one of the most largest and most harmful authoritarian regimes in human history through his use of excessive violence as a political tool for change.
Get your parents to give their business to it's workers (doesn't mean they couldn't still work there playing an important role) and you'd be a champion of the revolution. Crisis averted.
There is a fundamental part you don’t understand about the systems we are talking about. All the stuff you said doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter what my parents or I do. Or anyone does. If the person in power(aka, the uniform and gun), whoever that maybe, wants them dead, then they die. This system was not fair and did not have rules, just like the Nazis and their “racial purity”. It had the illusion of rules and order, but the reality never reflected it. All the rules, classes and systems were just an excuse to kill people for whatever reason the Officer of the People or SS Officer wanted at the time. It is a system that empowered sociopaths to kill whoever with the blessing over the people in power, and make up reasons why later.
|
|
|
On July 11 2018 04:22 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 04:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 11 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
I have to presume this is an exclusively domestically focused position. Surely she would do little to nothing to slow (would have probably increased) the civilian casualties around the world from explosive ordinance to say nothing of the cost of life resulting from capitalism concentrating wealth to such degrees people have yachts with boats and helicopters on them while people working 40 hours a week are still under the poverty line.
So the argument is that brutal treatment of the bourgeoisie would be worse than the type of bombing that leads to 9 out of 10 of the people you kill not being the target or whatever other atrocities you want to pick from the Obama administration and amplify (no doubt she was more hawkish than Obama) then?
I want to make sure I understand it before I go into detail about why I disagree
EDIT: I should add P6's point about "the wrong people" being lumped in with the bourgeoisie Okay, so basically you believe that Lenin only ordered the massacre of rich people. And absolve him of any WW2 and Cold War atrocities by virtue of him losing the power struggle to Stalin. GH has never said a bad thing about Stalin, it is pretty obvious that he thinks he was a great leader he just won't post it directly because he knows the back lash. It is also very telling that he thinks it killing a bunch of rich people (including all their relatives and children) is an ok thing to do. GH if everything we have been told is a lie, and any time we bring up historical references you say they are lies. Where are you getting your information from and how can we read it. You keep saying prove Lenin/Stalin is bad we try and you say its misinformation. Please show us where he is good, and not just what he said. Lots of evil people have said wonderful things.
lol. I see you didn't come up with those examples.
How about you just use the search feature and link me some of the things I've said about Stalin?
+ Show Spoiler +OR just read them so you can stop already
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
