Welcome to Gaia! ::

The Marxist, Communist, and Socialist Guild

Back to Guilds

Formerly called the NCS, this is a place for communists and socialists to talk about communism and socialism. 

Tags: Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Political, Left 

Reply MCS: Marxism, Communism, Socialism
YOU ARE GOING TO LOVE THIS!!! Goto Page: 1 2 3 [>] [»|]

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

Handmade Soldier

PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2007 9:51 pm


Quote:
The Lenin / Trotsky period, 1917-24
Some people think Lenin and Trotsky were "not as bad" as Stalin, that the 1917 revolution was not criminal from the start, but only became criminal later. This is one of the greatest lies in history. Lenin and Trotsky killed 4 million people - men, women and children - by mass executions, death camps, and state-caused famine. See [The Black Book of Communism] for a good introduction to their genocide, which started as soon as they got into power in 1917.

The resistance
All across the Russian countryside in 1917-22, there were riots and uprisings as heroic peasants tried desperately to hold on to their freedom. They were well aware of the nature of the scum that had taken over their country. These forgotten heroes were killed by the million. Their families - men, women and children - were executed or sent to death camps. Their villages were burnt, and even bombed with chemical weapons by the monsters Lenin and Trotsky.
Russian White Guard and Anti-Communism movement
The Tambov rebellion of 1920
It is true that the anti-communist resistance came in many forms, from liberal democrats to socialist anarchists to Jew-hating nationalists. The latter carried out hundreds of pogroms of Jews. In some areas, the Russian civil war was a conflict between communism and democracy. In other areas, it was a conflict between communism and fascism. But no crimes by (some of) their enemies can justify the crimes of Lenin and Trotsky.
The famine
The Bolsheviks destroyed Russia's economy. By 1920 the ruble had lost 96 percent of its value.
Lenin and Trotsky's oppression became ferocious as the cities ran out of food due to the collapse of the economy, caused by themselves and their stupid Marxist ideas. Innocent rural Russia was robbed of its food and butchered and starved by the parasitical (literally) urban communists.
The Bolsheviks started a massive program of confiscating the food of the countryside, and starved them into submission. The monsters Lenin and Trotsky deliberately started a famine as a political weapon. They caused the massive famine of 1921-2, deliberately killing 2.5 million men, women and little children, according to [Rudolph J. Rummel], or 5 million, according to [The Black Book of Communism].

PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2007 9:58 pm


Quote:
Ronald Reagan - The man who won the Cold War
Ronald Reagan, the Soviet Union's most deadly enemy. The man who won the Cold War for the free world. The man who destroyed communism.
National Review

The book Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism, Peter Schweizer, 2002.

The book Ronald Reagan: How An Ordinary Man Became An Extraordinary Leader by Dinesh D'Souza, 1999.
Extracts
Russian Revolution: How Reagan won the cold war by Dinesh D'Souza - Reagan, not Gorbachev, won the cold war. "In the Cold War, Reagan turned out to be our Churchill: it was his vision and leadership that led us to victory."

Dutch Courage - Mark Steyn's obituary of Reagan. How Reagan ended the appalling idea of "detente". "the Presidents and Prime Ministers of the free world had decided that the unfree world was not a prison ruled by a murderous ideology that had to be defeated but merely an alternative lifestyle that had to be accommodated. ... Unlike these men, unlike most other senior Republicans, Ronald Reagan saw Soviet Communism for what it was: a great evil. ... That's what counts. He brought down the "evil empire", and all the rest is fine print."
Freedom's Team: How Reagan, Thatcher and John Paul II won the Cold War by John Fund

Reagan predicts the end of the Soviet Union and describes it as "The Evil Empire":
Reagan in 1977 - "My theory of the Cold War is that we win and they lose."
Speech at University of Notre Dame, 1981. He predicts - as no one else did at the time - that the Soviet Union would end: "The West won't contain communism, it will transcend communism. .. it will dismiss it as some bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written."
Speech to the House of Commons, 1982 (and short version). He predicts - again, as no one else did - that the Soviet Union would end: "In an ironic sense Karl Marx was right. We are witnessing today a great revolutionary crisis ... But the crisis is happening not in the free, non-Marxist West, but in the home of Marxist-Leninism, the Soviet Union. It is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history by denying human freedom and human dignity to its citizens. ... What I am describing now is a plan and a hope for the long term - the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history" Within a decade, the Soviet world collapsed and Marxism-Leninism was on the ash-heap of history.
Speech to the National Association of Evangelicals, Orlando, Florida, 1983. He describes the Soviet Union as "the focus of evil in the modern world". He talks of "the aggressive impulses of an evil empire".

Reaction to the "Evil Empire" speech
Dissidents in the gulag hear the "Evil Empire" speech.
The prisoners' conscience by Natan Sharansky - "We dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth - a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us."
Interview with Natan Sharansky - ".. the great brilliant moment when we learned that Ronald Reagan had proclaimed the Soviet Union an Evil Empire before the entire world. There was a long list of all the Western leaders who had lined up to condemn the evil Reagan for daring to call the great Soviet Union an evil empire ... This was the moment. It was the brightest, most glorious day. Finally a spade had been called a spade. Finally, Orwell's Newspeak was dead. ... For us, that was the moment that really marked the end for them, and the beginning for us. The lie had been exposed and could never, ever be untold now. This was the end of Lenin's "Great October Bolshevik Revolution" and the beginning of a new revolution, a freedom revolution - Reagan's Revolution."

Reagan was of course ridiculed by the western left for this description. Also here.
What the left said about Reagan in the 1980s - "Primitive: that is the only word for it. ... What is the world to think when the greatest of powers is led by a man who applies to the most difficult human problem a simplistic theology - one in fact rejected by most theologians?"
There They Go Again - Dinesh D'Souza on Reagan's critics - proved wrong by history.
The Axis of Evil

More Soviet dissidents
In Solidarity by Lech Walesa
Damjan de Krnjevic-Miskovic - "Ronald Reagan, then - for us who were born in tyranny - will always be remembered as the man who gave us back our free will."

Reagan, religion and "intelligence"
Reagan (like all the American religious conservatives) is a flawed hero. The opposition to communism - like the opposition to Nazi fascism and Islamic fascism - is a coalition of all lovers of freedom, of all faiths and none. But Reagan does not see this, and excludes people of no faith. See again his speech to the National Association of Evangelicals, Orlando, 1983. Maybe we can forgive the American religious conservatives, though, because if judged by results at least, they did not actually establish a religious tyranny in the US, while they did defeat the communist tyranny.

Intelligence and politics
The Simple Truth About Ronald Reagan: It took a while, but I finally realized the Gipper was a lot smarter than the folks who derided him. Folks like me. by Roger Franklin. - The threat of global nuclear holocaust is gone - thanks to him.

Missile defence
Reagan's visionary "Star Wars" technology has continued to advance, and pretty soon it may become impossible to attack the US with missiles (it is already impossible to attack it with an air force, navy or ground army).
Soon it may only be possible to attack the US through stealth - an attack like 9/11 delivered by apparent civilians already in the US. The ultimate nightmare is a nuke smuggled in on truck or ship and detonated. This remains a very real threat.


The end of the Cold War
The "anti-war" protesters of the 1980s
Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War (also here) by Mona Charen.
See extract and review.
I am old enough to remember the left's hatred of Reagan in the 1980s. And now I realise they were wrong. If we had followed the advice of the liberal left in the Cold War, the Soviets would still be in power today. How can anyone doubt that this would be the case.
An interesting claim that Charen makes is that in all of world history, communists have never won a single election. Every single communist government ever was imposed by force. No people ever freely chose a communist government in open elections.

The Committee for No Defense (CND) by Alexis Amory and Michael P. Tremoglie
The left hated Reagan in the 1980s - article by Phil Craig. - The left was wrong in the 1980s. And it's wrong now.
The "anti-war" marchers never complained about Soviet wars. - Throughout the Cold War, all across Europe, American embassies were besieged by "anti-war" protesters. Soviet embassies were left alone.
Today, American and Israeli embassies are besieged by the same sort of moral cripple. Chinese, Cuban, Iranian and North Korean embassies are left alone.
Ch.19 of [Schweizer, 2002] is a long list of the Soviet support and funding that we now know was given to Western European "anti-war" groups in the 1980s. Without the knowledge of most of the marchers, yes. But it is disturbing that the democidal Soviet tyranny wanted to see the "anti-war" movement succeed. That alone should make one think there is something wrong with the movement.

The modern "anti-war" protesters
The Paradox of the Fisks: The most criticised societies in the world will be the least criminal societies

The Nobel Peace Prize
The unelected communist dictator Gorbachev won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 for letting some of his slaves go. Reagan, who forced him to, got nothing. See articles on Gorbachev.
The West German leader Willy Brandt won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1971 for his appeasement of the Soviet Union. Reagan, who actually liberated Eastern Europe, got nothing.
US President Jimmy Carter, under whom world socialism achieved its maximum strength, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. Reagan, who reversed Carter's policies and led the free world to victory, got nothing.
The Gipper and the Hedgehog: How an "amiable dunce" outsmarted the world by Glenn Garvin. Genrikh Grofimenko, former adviser to Brezhnev, says clearly that it was Reagan who defeated the Soviets. "Grofimenko marvels that the Nobel Peace Prize went to "the greatest flimflam man of all time," Mikhail Gorbachev, while Western intellectuals ignore Reagan - who, he says, "was tackling world gangsters of the first order of magnitude.""
Lucky Dimwit? by John O'Sullivan - I remember well how, as he describes, the fashionable circles "seized on Gorbachev as a way of denying Reagan or the West any credit for the liberation of half a continent". I fell for this line myself. We all worshipped Gorbachev - the unelected communist dictator. It took me years to realise that it was Reagan who ended the Cold War and saved the world.
"All we are saying .. is give jihad a chance" - Michelle Malkin and Bryan Preston on some Nobel Peace Prize winners.

The Stalin Peace Prize, later re-named the Lenin Peace Prize. That's right, a "peace" prize named after two genocidal butchers. Recipients of this disgusting award include Picasso, Hewlett Johnson, Pablo Neruda, Paul Robeson, Bertolt Brecht, W.E.B. DuBois, Fidel Castro, Nelson Mandela, Linus Pauling and Angela Davis.

Pope John Paul II
Mehmet Ali Agca and the shooting of the Pope in 1981.
Apparently, Brezhnev and Andropov were behind the shooting of the Pope, because they were afraid of the threat he posed to their tyrannical rule in Europe.


Handmade Soldier


Handmade Soldier

PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2007 10:00 pm


http://markhumphrys.com/communism.html

where I got that information.
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2007 10:20 pm


http://www.lindsayfincher.com/2004/06/the_fall_of_communism_reagans.html
something that could contradict the second post

Handmade Soldier


Steve Sage

PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2007 11:06 pm


Quote:
Of course, there were serious structural weaknesses that were built into the Soviet economy, chief among those being the command style economy. In such an economy, the ability to output a product in large quantities was more important that actually producing a quality good. There was no room for innovation in such an economy, as factory managers simply followed the orders that were passed down to them from the bureaucrats in GOSPLAN. ("Hmmm...I could try implementing these new production techniques that might speed up the output of the factory goods, but what if it fails? I'll lose my job, my dacha, and my car. And even if it does work, then GOSPLAN will set even higher quotas for next year. I think I'll just stick with what I do every year.") Furthermore, there was no rational relationship between supply and demand - this, too, was determined by Moscow bureaucrats. A majority of Soviet industry was geared towards producing weapons for the military or other heavy industry machinery. None of these products satisfied Soviet consumers who desired the same blue jeans, cars, and kitchen appliances that were commonplace in the Western countries.


I like this part. Because it acknowledges how crap a** Socialist economics work
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2007 2:04 am


Quote:
All across the Russian countryside in 1917-22, there were riots and uprisings as heroic peasants tried desperately to hold on to their freedom.


Umm, did I read that correctly?

Hold on to what freedom? There was freedom under the Tsar?


L-O-L

TheRussianBlade


Maryhl

Shy Werewolf

PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2007 7:24 am


TheRussianBlade
Quote:
All across the Russian countryside in 1917-22, there were riots and uprisings as heroic peasants tried desperately to hold on to their freedom.


Umm, did I read that correctly?

Hold on to what freedom? There was freedom under the Tsar?


L-O-L

They probably mean freedom in the liberal bourgeois sense. Possibly a little anarchist too. One's more interested in economic control, the other in power of authority.
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2007 8:57 am


Well, it could be anything. It could be saying that that the Jan/Feb revolution provided "freedom", that socialism excludes democracy and capitalism results/foments democracy, etc.

34616782446782 b76


Contra mundus

PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2007 1:05 pm


REDGallenger
Well, it could be anything. It could be saying that that the Jan/Feb revolution provided "freedom", that socialism excludes democracy and capitalism results/foments democracy, etc.
That's a little laughable too.
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2007 8:11 pm


I don't consider it "socialism" if democracy is not obviously present. And I don't mean voting for ******** dictators.

Maryhl

Shy Werewolf


evilsiletto

PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2007 3:58 am


First off, I want to say Trotsky was a fool, no wonder he got killed by an ice pick - He ran off, for fear of what might happen he was tracked to mexico - then coup de grace - R.I.P Trotsky -

Didn't Lenin kill 30k people - yet people still respected him did they not?

There was no freedom under the Czar, i'm afraid.. And poor Ana's family was in the middle of it. sad

Putin.. So far, has made one mistake perhaps more - the cutting off of Georgia's oil/trade.

If I remember correctly, that's exactly what America did, and the result?
Bombing of Pearl Harbor - Midway - other sites i've forgotten.

Marx, all I really know about him was he was the father of modern day communism -
Meaning, everyone has the same amount of pay/food/clothing/ - according to their status.. But, what's that mean to something with royal blood? Like a king/queen? And the monarchy?

Sorry for seeming to be off topic.. sweatdrop I'll learn my place someday..
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2007 2:37 pm


evilsiletto
First off, I want to say Trotsky was a fool, no wonder he got killed by an ice pick - He ran off, for fear of what might happen he was tracked to mexico - then coup de grace - R.I.P Trotsky -

Didn't Lenin kill 30k people - yet people still respected him did they not?

There was no freedom under the Czar, i'm afraid.. And poor Ana's family was in the middle of it. sad

Putin.. So far, has made one mistake perhaps more - the cutting off of Georgia's oil/trade.

If I remember correctly, that's exactly what America did, and the result?
Bombing of Pearl Harbor - Midway - other sites i've forgotten.

Marx, all I really know about him was he was the father of modern day communism -
Meaning, everyone has the same amount of pay/food/clothing/ - according to their status.. But, what's that mean to something with royal blood? Like a king/queen? And the monarchy?

Sorry for seeming to be off topic.. sweatdrop I'll learn my place someday..
I know Lenin set up contrition camps, I ask what did he do with the people, I asked people before and nobody will say. What did he do with the bourgeoisie and so called enemy of the people? I knew he raped the Russian country side and made the farmers starve as a result. I also know he tried to invade Luthienia to bridge a gap to Germany, he also ordered his so called freedom fighters to bomb railroads in other countries. If a revolution requires the lambs then count me out. I recall those who win make history. Going back to Lenin he also caused the famine and cut the ruble price to be only worth 3% of its value, that was caused by Lenin saturating the value. Wonder who supplied aid to them? Lets see the United States. So does killing 30,000 make you a ok guy and Stalin killing 50,000,000 million evil?

UF6


Contra mundus

PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2007 4:29 pm


Steven Hawkings
I know Lenin set up contrition camps, I ask what did he do with the people, I asked people before and nobody will say. What did he do with the bourgeoisie and so called enemy of the people?
Fight and imprison them I'm sure, this was mostly during the Russian Civil War I'm sure. A few who acted independently killed them.

Quote:
I knew he raped the Russian country side and made the farmers starve as a result.
Farmers burned their crops and had revolts actually.

Quote:
I also know he tried to invade Luthienia to bridge a gap to Germany, he also ordered his so called freedom fighters to bomb railroads in other countries.
Hmmm....I've never heard this....let me look it up.

Quote:
If a revolution requires the lambs then count me out. I recall those who win make history.
Yes it's a sad reality, and Russian has endured some of that.

Quote:
Going back to Lenin he also caused the famine and cut the ruble price to be only worth 3% of its value, that was caused by Lenin saturating the value.
No no no, to begin with areas like Russia and China had famines and shortages of crops very very often. It's not an abnormal thing. Yet it should be recognized agricultural polices were rarely drastic under Lenin as under Stalin. The idea of Kulaks barely started when he was alive.

Quote:
Wonder who supplied aid to them? Lets see the United States. So does killing 30,000 make you a ok guy and Stalin killing 50,000,000 million evil?
U.S. aid? That soon after invading?

He did create these camps I think (though I rarely hear about them now), however not at all for the purpose of extermination. I think it was perhaps in more of a PoW status.

Situations are complicated, Lenin has perhaps disappointed me a few times, but is by no means comparable or close to comparable to the Stalin. Lenin had a revolution and Civil War to contend with in his time. Stalin took control during a more stable situation.
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2007 4:38 pm


50 million sounds a little high. Mao tops off at about 80 million and that's largely because its China.

Maryhl

Shy Werewolf


UF6

PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2007 4:48 pm


Demon Kagerou
50 million sounds a little high. Mao tops off at about 80 million and that's largely because its China.
It differs, some books say 100 million which is high, some say 40 million, others say 50 million. I bet it could be lower. The Holcoast was around 12-15 million. I heard there is revisions being made on that. I'm trying to take middle number. Numbers are often skewed. I do believe its quite high I'm just quoting from my European History book.
Reply
MCS: Marxism, Communism, Socialism

Goto Page: 1 2 3 [>] [»|]
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
//
//

// //

Have an account? Login Now!

//
//