|
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 |
On July 11 2018 04:29 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:22 JimmiC wrote: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 GH if everything we have been told is a lie, and any time we bring up historical references you say they are lies.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? I've asked you 15 times about Stalin, which you have clearly read since you have answered other parts. I got sick of asking and said if you don't respond I'll just assume. So that is what I have done. Am I wrong do you think he was a pure evil dictator? I see a lot of you saying you didn't say that, I don't see you saying it is not true. Also, are you so sure that Lenin wouldn't see you in your personal situation as bourgeoisie? Are you sure you would avoid the bullet to the back of the head and your wealth redistributed?
Yes I remember your obnoxious fixation on my opinions on Stalin.
I'm 100% sure I would not be bourgeoisie
|
|
|
On July 11 2018 04:36 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:29 JimmiC wrote:On July 11 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:22 JimmiC wrote: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? I've asked you 15 times about Stalin, which you have clearly read since you have answered other parts. I got sick of asking and said if you don't respond I'll just assume. So that is what I have done. Am I wrong do you think he was a pure evil dictator? I see a lot of you saying you didn't say that, I don't see you saying it is not true. Also, are you so sure that Lenin wouldn't see you in your personal situation as bourgeoisie? Are you sure you would avoid the bullet to the back of the head and your wealth redistributed? Yes I remember your obnoxious fixation on my opinions on Stalin. I'm 100% sure I would not be bourgeoisie I believe Wolf asked a similar question as well. It is valuable to know where you are coming from on your points. It is not a complicated question. I'm not sure why you are dodging it so hard.
Lots of reasons I've chosen not to engage with you on Stalin. You can see my comments I've made using the search function or refer to the several times I've told you why. This should be the last time I have to address it.
|
On July 11 2018 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 03:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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
In Cambodia people were taken from their homes, forced to work on farms, mal-nourished, and were killed if they resisted.
Soviet gulag's weren't a walk in the park either.
|
On July 11 2018 04:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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 In Cambodia people were taken from their homes, forced to work on farms, mal-nourished, and were killed if they resisted. Soviet gulag's weren't a walk in the park either.
I know. Doesn't change my point though. You're missing a key distinction between what you're describing and chattel slavery, a kinda ironic one considering the topic.
|
On July 11 2018 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 04:29 JimmiC wrote:On July 11 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:22 JimmiC wrote: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? I've asked you 15 times about Stalin, which you have clearly read since you have answered other parts. I got sick of asking and said if you don't respond I'll just assume. So that is what I have done. Am I wrong do you think he was a pure evil dictator? I see a lot of you saying you didn't say that, I don't see you saying it is not true. Also, are you so sure that Lenin wouldn't see you in your personal situation as bourgeoisie? Are you sure you would avoid the bullet to the back of the head and your wealth redistributed? Yes I remember your obnoxious fixation on my opinions on Stalin. I'm 100% sure I would not be bourgeoisie
I have bad news for you:
You will not get to decide if you are an enemy of the people. The man with the gun from the People’s Government will decide because of his own reasons. He is part of the people’s police force, which has less accountability and oversight than ICE.
|
On July 11 2018 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
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.
Lenin called the peasants "kulaks" and confiscated their food and their land, and either conscripted large numbers of them or wiped them out. And did the same to striking industrial workers, for "sabotage". And used the military to kill the tens of thousands of people who rebelled against this. This is basically Lenin 101, and is probably on some high school student's flashcards for "war communism", "bread war" and "peasant revolts".
Oh, right, and this was while they were printing money and causing hyper-inflation and had caused widespread famine.
So yay, crisis averted.
|
|
|
On July 11 2018 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 04:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2018 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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 In Cambodia people were taken from their homes, forced to work on farms, mal-nourished, and were killed if they resisted. Soviet gulag's weren't a walk in the park either. I know. Doesn't change my point though. You're missing a key distinction between what you're describing and chattel slavery, a kinda ironic one considering the topic.
GH - you would need to point that out and then explain why the chattel distinction truly matters.
I don't think someone forced to work in horrid conditions until they die an early death really give a shit how you categorize their enslavement. But apparently you do?
|
On July 11 2018 04:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:29 JimmiC wrote:On July 11 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:22 JimmiC wrote: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? I've asked you 15 times about Stalin, which you have clearly read since you have answered other parts. I got sick of asking and said if you don't respond I'll just assume. So that is what I have done. Am I wrong do you think he was a pure evil dictator? I see a lot of you saying you didn't say that, I don't see you saying it is not true. Also, are you so sure that Lenin wouldn't see you in your personal situation as bourgeoisie? Are you sure you would avoid the bullet to the back of the head and your wealth redistributed? Yes I remember your obnoxious fixation on my opinions on Stalin. I'm 100% sure I would not be bourgeoisie I have bad news for you: You will not get to decide if you are an enemy of the people. The man with the gun from the People’s Government will decide because of his own reasons. He is part of the people’s police force, which has less accountability and oversight than ICE.
I wouldn't be bourgeoisie though or perceived as their ally, nor would I have tried to kill him so I think I would have been a welcome comrade particularly in my community, though maybe a too Stalinesque in my rhetoric for Lenin lol.
I'm fond of living and don't really give a shit about property though so I'd have to get caught up in some paranoid fear play, which spoiler alert, already something I have to live with being black in the US.
On July 11 2018 05:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2018 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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 In Cambodia people were taken from their homes, forced to work on farms, mal-nourished, and were killed if they resisted. Soviet gulag's weren't a walk in the park either. I know. Doesn't change my point though. You're missing a key distinction between what you're describing and chattel slavery, a kinda ironic one considering the topic. GH - you would need to point that out and then explain why the chattel distinction truly matters. I don't think someone forced to work in horrid conditions until they die an early death really give a shit how you categorize their enslavement. But apparently you do?
Admittedly I'm being a bit facetious at this point to keep myself entertained but that would be a distinction of being personal property that an individual can do as they please with removing you of all humanity and dignity.
I find the whole "personal property" part amusing considering we're talking about the role of chattel in socialism.
|
On July 11 2018 04:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:36 JimmiC wrote:On July 11 2018 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:29 JimmiC wrote:On July 11 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:22 JimmiC wrote: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? I've asked you 15 times about Stalin, which you have clearly read since you have answered other parts. I got sick of asking and said if you don't respond I'll just assume. So that is what I have done. Am I wrong do you think he was a pure evil dictator? I see a lot of you saying you didn't say that, I don't see you saying it is not true. Also, are you so sure that Lenin wouldn't see you in your personal situation as bourgeoisie? Are you sure you would avoid the bullet to the back of the head and your wealth redistributed? Yes I remember your obnoxious fixation on my opinions on Stalin. I'm 100% sure I would not be bourgeoisie I believe Wolf asked a similar question as well. It is valuable to know where you are coming from on your points. It is not a complicated question. I'm not sure why you are dodging it so hard. Lots of reasons I've chosen not to engage with you on Stalin. You can see my comments I've made using the search function or refer to the several times I've told you why. This should be the last time I have to address it. Thank you here is the quote I found, but it seems to have come from a different less radical version of yourself. "Don't think it's fair to link everything Stalin did and call it Communism unless you're going to call things like Japanese interment, Slavery, race based laws, the use of Nuclear weapons on civilians, the Napalm and Agent orange in Vietnam, etc... reflective/a result of Capitalism. So if we're calling Stalins Russia Communist, it's only fair to call Slavery a part of Capitalism." Because were you not calling slavery part of Capitalism like a page or two back? I can understand why you don't want to give your opinions on Stalin if you think you are keeping plausible deniability or something, but otherwise you are just leaving people to come up with their own conclusions, which based on your avoidance of criticism of him are going to lead people to think you support him.
Are you embracing the perspective that white supremacy is part and parcel of capitalism as we know it?
|
If you protested the Bolsheviks half as much as you do your current government, you definitely would have been executed.
|
|
|
On July 11 2018 05:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:
If you protested the Bolsheviks half as much as you do your current government, you definitely would have been executed.
It would be you guys protesting the Bolsheviks though?
On July 11 2018 05:10 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 05:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:55 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:29 JimmiC wrote:On July 11 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:22 JimmiC wrote: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? I've asked you 15 times about Stalin, which you have clearly read since you have answered other parts. I got sick of asking and said if you don't respond I'll just assume. So that is what I have done. Am I wrong do you think he was a pure evil dictator? I see a lot of you saying you didn't say that, I don't see you saying it is not true. Also, are you so sure that Lenin wouldn't see you in your personal situation as bourgeoisie? Are you sure you would avoid the bullet to the back of the head and your wealth redistributed? Yes I remember your obnoxious fixation on my opinions on Stalin. I'm 100% sure I would not be bourgeoisie I have bad news for you: You will not get to decide if you are an enemy of the people. The man with the gun from the People’s Government will decide because of his own reasons. He is part of the people’s police force, which has less accountability and oversight than ICE. I wouldn't be bourgeoisie though or perceived as their ally, nor would I have tried to kill him so I think I would have been a welcome comrade particularly in my community, though maybe a too Stalinesque in my rhetoric for Lenin lol. I'm fond of living and don't really give a shit about property though so I'd have to get caught up in some paranoid fear play, which spoiler alert, already something I have to live with being black in the US. On July 11 2018 05:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2018 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2018 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2018 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:54 xDaunt wrote: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 In Cambodia people were taken from their homes, forced to work on farms, mal-nourished, and were killed if they resisted. Soviet gulag's weren't a walk in the park either. I know. Doesn't change my point though. You're missing a key distinction between what you're describing and chattel slavery, a kinda ironic one considering the topic. GH - you would need to point that out and then explain why the chattel distinction truly matters. I don't think someone forced to work in horrid conditions until they die an early death really give a shit how you categorize their enslavement. But apparently you do? Admittedly I'm being a bit facetious at this point to keep myself entertained but that would be a distinction of being personal property that an individual can do as they please with removing you of all humanity and dignity. I find the whole "personal property" part amusing considering we're talking about the role of chattel in socialism. Real question here, if the US is so bad, and you fear for your safety why don't you move? Or have you tried to immigrate and have not been accepted. I don't think Black people up here feel that way, at least not the majority. And if you are educated a country like Venezuela would be happy to have you, there has been a huge brain drain.
US influence spreads far beyond it's borders, but also I have a family and life here. I'm not leaving just because white people refuse to act right.
|
On July 11 2018 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 05:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:
If you protested the Bolsheviks half as much as you do your current government, you definitely would have been executed. It would be you guys protesting the Bolsheviks though?
So you think you'd be above being a starving peasant or industrial worker?
Or just that you'd be cool with that?
|
|
|
Estonia4505 Posts
I personally *doubt that he would be faring all that well as someone black in a country which was basically a project of Russian ethnic superiority. I still hear the racism from the older generation here, way worse than anything in the US, even though they thankfully don't have much opportunity to act on it. The idea that he would thrive is laughable.
EDIT: changed a word.
|
On July 11 2018 05:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 04:55 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:29 JimmiC wrote:On July 11 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:22 JimmiC wrote: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? I've asked you 15 times about Stalin, which you have clearly read since you have answered other parts. I got sick of asking and said if you don't respond I'll just assume. So that is what I have done. Am I wrong do you think he was a pure evil dictator? I see a lot of you saying you didn't say that, I don't see you saying it is not true. Also, are you so sure that Lenin wouldn't see you in your personal situation as bourgeoisie? Are you sure you would avoid the bullet to the back of the head and your wealth redistributed? Yes I remember your obnoxious fixation on my opinions on Stalin. I'm 100% sure I would not be bourgeoisie I have bad news for you: You will not get to decide if you are an enemy of the people. The man with the gun from the People’s Government will decide because of his own reasons. He is part of the people’s police force, which has less accountability and oversight than ICE. I wouldn't be bourgeoisie though or perceived as their ally, nor would I have tried to kill him so I think I would have been a welcome comrade particularly in my community, though maybe a too Stalinesque in my rhetoric for Lenin lol. I'm fond of living and don't really give a shit about property though so I'd have to get caught up in some paranoid fear play, which spoiler alert, already something I have to live with being black in the US.
This is why its impossible to talk to you about these authoritarian regimes, you don’t engage with the most nefarious aspect of these governments, that their own rules didn’t matter. That is the most sinister part of these sorts of governments, that they claim you will be fine if you play by the rules they set forth, only to find out that the person in charge does not care. The rules only exist to further those in power and can be ignored when those in power see fit.
So when I say you don’t get to pick, I mean that the person who decides if you are an enemy of the people, he might do it because you did something he didn’t like. Or you dated a girl he likes and she isn’t happy with you. Or he wants your apartment. Or he is having a bad day and you exist in his space talking about something that displeases him.
|
On July 11 2018 05:12 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:57 JimmiC wrote:On July 11 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:36 JimmiC wrote:On July 11 2018 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:29 JimmiC wrote:On July 11 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:22 JimmiC wrote:On July 11 2018 04:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
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? I've asked you 15 times about Stalin, which you have clearly read since you have answered other parts. I got sick of asking and said if you don't respond I'll just assume. So that is what I have done. Am I wrong do you think he was a pure evil dictator? I see a lot of you saying you didn't say that, I don't see you saying it is not true. Also, are you so sure that Lenin wouldn't see you in your personal situation as bourgeoisie? Are you sure you would avoid the bullet to the back of the head and your wealth redistributed? Yes I remember your obnoxious fixation on my opinions on Stalin. I'm 100% sure I would not be bourgeoisie I believe Wolf asked a similar question as well. It is valuable to know where you are coming from on your points. It is not a complicated question. I'm not sure why you are dodging it so hard. Lots of reasons I've chosen not to engage with you on Stalin. You can see my comments I've made using the search function or refer to the several times I've told you why. This should be the last time I have to address it. Thank you here is the quote I found, but it seems to have come from a different less radical version of yourself. "Don't think it's fair to link everything Stalin did and call it Communism unless you're going to call things like Japanese interment, Slavery, race based laws, the use of Nuclear weapons on civilians, the Napalm and Agent orange in Vietnam, etc... reflective/a result of Capitalism. So if we're calling Stalins Russia Communist, it's only fair to call Slavery a part of Capitalism." Because were you not calling slavery part of Capitalism like a page or two back? I can understand why you don't want to give your opinions on Stalin if you think you are keeping plausible deniability or something, but otherwise you are just leaving people to come up with their own conclusions, which based on your avoidance of criticism of him are going to lead people to think you support him. Are you embracing the perspective that white supremacy is part and parcel of capitalism as we know it? No LOL and where you got that from is amazing. I'm pointing out that on one thread long ago you said you can't blame communism for Stalins crimes any more then you can you blame slavery on capitalism. And then proceed to blame slavery on capitalism.
So then you don't think Stalin's actions can be called Communism?
On July 11 2018 05:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 05:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:55 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:29 JimmiC wrote:On July 11 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 04:22 JimmiC wrote: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? I've asked you 15 times about Stalin, which you have clearly read since you have answered other parts. I got sick of asking and said if you don't respond I'll just assume. So that is what I have done. Am I wrong do you think he was a pure evil dictator? I see a lot of you saying you didn't say that, I don't see you saying it is not true. Also, are you so sure that Lenin wouldn't see you in your personal situation as bourgeoisie? Are you sure you would avoid the bullet to the back of the head and your wealth redistributed? Yes I remember your obnoxious fixation on my opinions on Stalin. I'm 100% sure I would not be bourgeoisie I have bad news for you: You will not get to decide if you are an enemy of the people. The man with the gun from the People’s Government will decide because of his own reasons. He is part of the people’s police force, which has less accountability and oversight than ICE. I wouldn't be bourgeoisie though or perceived as their ally, nor would I have tried to kill him so I think I would have been a welcome comrade particularly in my community, though maybe a too Stalinesque in my rhetoric for Lenin lol. I'm fond of living and don't really give a shit about property though so I'd have to get caught up in some paranoid fear play, which spoiler alert, already something I have to live with being black in the US. This is why its impossible to talk to you about these authoritarian regimes, you don’t engage with the most nefarious aspect of these governments, that their own rules didn’t matter. That is the most sinister part of these sorts of governments, that they claim you will be fine if you play by the rules they set forth, only to find out that the person in charge does not care. The rules only exist to further those in power and can be ignored when those in power see fit. So when I say you don’t get to pick, I mean that the person who decides if you are an enemy of the people, he might do it because you did something he didn’t like. Or you dated a girl he likes and she isn’t happy with you. Or he wants your apartment. Or he is having a bad day and you exist in his space talking about something that displeases him.
You think that's not the case now 100 years later in the free and fair US of A?
Or Tulsa Oklahoma if you want an example from roughly the same time.
|
Well, we're far beyond the dumb "communism is great, it just never got implemented well" argument that keeps coming up. GH is basically going full-on "Russian communism was great", and conveniently ignoring all the starving bottom-class people that were massacred for being uppity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
