Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Yeah, compared to pretty much anything else.Compared to what? Liberalism? Pragmatism? Christianity? It is to laugh!
Yeah, compared to pretty much anything else.Compared to what? Liberalism? Pragmatism? Christianity? It is to laugh!
Even your propagandists’ grossly exaggerated numbers, counting every death from starvation even in countries that have been starving for centuries and where hunger went way down and life expectancy went way up post-revolution (pretty much every socialist country), and conflating the revolutionary violence of Marxists with the much more prevalent counterrevolutionary violence of Stalinism, give a figure of 100 million “killed by Marxism.” Meanwhile, the same number is killed every 6 years by capitalist business as usual (reckoned using the same ground rules but without exaggeration) and your ideology considers it so natural that you don’t even recognize the systemic nature.Yeah, compared to pretty much anything else.
It's not about luck. It's about facts, something you know nothing about.Good luck with that.
None of that was facts.It's not about luck. It's about facts, something you know nothing about.
Stalinism was simply a response to failed Marxism - as the people started waking up to the imbedded shortcomings of the non-market-based system, Uncle Joe took over and basically forced it down their throats. You know, like the neo-Marxists in the Demcratic party are doing today.Even your propagandists’ grossly exaggerated numbers, counting every death from starvation even in countries that have been starving for centuries and where hunger went way down and life expectancy went way up post-revolution (pretty much every socialist country), and conflating the revolutionary violence of Marxists with the much more prevalent counterrevolutionary violence of Stalinism, give a figure of 100 million “killed by Marxism.” Meanwhile, the same number is killed every 6 years by capitalist business as usual (reckoned using the same ground rules but without exaggeration) and your ideology considers it so natural that you don’t even recognize the systemic nature.
It's funny because a major controversy between Stalin and the Left Opposition was market-based production. Stalin, supported by the capitalists, wanted to continue and expand Lenin's temporary "New Economic Policy" allowing farmers and small business owners to own private property and produce for the market; but to do so he had to brutally suppress the resistance of the communists associated with the Left Opposition.Stalinism was simply a response to failed Marxism - as the people started waking up to the imbedded shortcomings of the non-market-based system, Uncle Joe took over and basically forced it down their throats. You know, like the neo-Marxists in the Demcratic party are doing today.
Dude, that's fake history.It's funny because a major controversy between Stalin and the Left Opposition was market-based production. Stalin, supported by the capitalists, wanted to continue and expand Lenin's temporary "New Economic Policy" allowing farmers and small business owners to own private property and produce for the market; but to do so he had to brutally suppress the resistance of the communists associated with the Left Opposition.
Cite the relevant passages or STFU.
the economic relaxation of the NEP implied a relaxation of state control in some spheresCite the relevant passages or STFU.
I don't think that says what you think it says...the economic relaxation of the NEP implied a relaxation of state control in some spheres
Thus the NEP was in general regarded as no more than a temporary retreat; a “peasant Brest-Litovsk” that would have to be made good as soon as the economy had to some degree recovered. In the Communist Party as a whole the policy was accepted only with reluctance, out of perceived necessity.
Trotsky, though not as much as his associate Yevgeny Preobrazhensky, was increasingly committed to a “left” policy and a swift end to the NEP, with a planned economy at home and revolutionary action abroad. None of the communist leadership thought of abandoning the idea of world revolution. The major division was between those who thought, as had been wholly orthodox, that the Russian Revolution could not survive on its own and that therefore the main effort should be in supporting revolution abroad, and those—Stalin most prominent among them—who now
proclaimed the slogan “Socialism in One Country.”
It's ALL facts. And facts don't care about your feelings, Woke Goose stepper.None of that was facts.
It's bad politics to be pro-Mccarthism, but whatevs.
It says that Stalin turned against the historical communist position in order to continue the “relaxation of state control” that allowed for private capital accumulation.I don't think that says what you think it says...
No, it says communism failed and Stalin was forced to introduce some slight market based reforms to keep it afloat. He (and the USSR) was still communist.It says that Stalin turned against the historical communist position in order to continue the “relaxation of state control” that allowed for private capital accumulation.
Ewwww, no.It's ALL facts. And facts don't care about your feelings, Woke Goose stepper.
Oh, and the country is about a year away from becoming a neo Pro McCarthy, as in New House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, as the Nazi element in Congress is voted out of office.
You are thinking of Lenin, for whom the NEP was a temporary expedient given the (relative) failure of the first nation-scale attempt at socialism, in a backward, crisis-ridden country that was immediately forced to defend itself against the invasion of the most powerful empires in the world while building an economy from scratch. For Stalin, the “market-based reforms” that allowed for the creation of a privileged bureaucratic caste were ends in themselves.No, it says communism failed and Stalin was forced to introduce some slight market based reforms to keep it afloat. He (and the USSR) was still communist.
Stalin was not a capitalist - he was one of yours. Period!You are thinking of Lenin, for whom the NEP was a temporary expedient given the (relative) failure of the first nation-scale attempt at socialism, in a backward, crisis-ridden country that was immediately forced to defend itself against the invasion of the most powerful empires in the world while building an economy from scratch. For Stalin, the “market-based reforms” that allowed for the creation of a privileged bureaucratic caste were ends in themselves.
He was a socialist in the same sense that Napoleon was a capitalist. His power rested on the triumph of the revolutionary historic class, and he was perforce required to defend the conquests of that class; but his own political circumstances propelled him toward alliance with the counterrevolution whose ebb to the revolutionary flow he represented. It is no coincidence that every anticommunist current in world politics, each of which had been implacably opposed to Lenin, viewed Stalin positively as the “moderate” (that is, centrist) alternative to Lenin’s “extremism.” Nor that he was denounced forcefully from the beginning by the communist remnant led by Lenin and Trotsky.Stalin was not a capitalist - he was one of yours. Period!
Yes, Joe was so "moderate" that under his leadership the official policy of the USSR was to export communism all over the world. Look, I get why you want the world to forget that Stalin was a commie, because that kind of puts a real crimp in your efforts to paint communism in a positive light. Nobody is falling for it...He was a socialist in the same sense that Napoleon was a capitalist. His power rested on the triumph of the revolutionary historic class, and he was perforce required to defend the conquests of that class; but his own political circumstances propelled him toward alliance with the counterrevolution whose ebb to the revolutionary flow he represented. It is no coincidence that every anticommunist current in world politics, each of which had been implacably opposed to Lenin, viewed Stalin positively as the “moderate” (that is, centrist) alternative to Lenin’s “extremism.” Nor that he was denounced forcefully from the beginning by the communist remnant led by Lenin and Trotsky.
It's going to happen. Joe has accomplished something Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan failed to do. He has UNITED the vast majority of American voters, (better known as mainstream conservatives) who are pissed off at this fcked up economy, pissed off at voter fraud and pissed off at the current crop of idiots with Ds beside their name.Ewwww, no.