And we hope the same is done for us on your next religious strawman thread for the sake of insulting those of a religious bent...

HA ha ha!! Putin WILL NOT DO THIS AGAIN he says. I thnk a few pages back he said he wasn't going to have another communist discussion thread....and yet here he is. A "Man of his Word" Putin IS NOT! lol

@ Draugnar - I wasn't insulted by Putin's religion-bashing thread. It was *extremely* informative as it demonstrated that any man is capable of taking words out of context, mixing them with a pre-conceived emotional ideology, and ignoring truth. It is Putin's (and many of his fellows) entire argumentative style. For the most part, they are *strict* ideologists, and will *never* let actual facts and history get in the way of their emotionally-held belief system.

By the way, it's *GREAT* to see this thread on Page 8 after soooooo many proclaimed it a dead thread before it began, said "been there, done that" blah blah blah like 95% of the threads on here aren't ALL been-there-done-that threads! lol OK...flame on! I'm back for a minute, Putin....so feel free to throw your random hatred my way, you silly little emotional boy, you! By the way, did you know Tressel by any chance? You and he I'm *sure* share a lot of the same ethical principles...

Shut your word hole, Krellin.

All the bad stuff done by communists were done by Not Real Communists.

Hi Krellin, nice to see you, i really wish you would continue posting because i hate it when there is nothing entertaining to watch!

As for communism, i've got a big rant about China and the benefits of NOT being a democracy, i mean it's not about the economics, but communism is two things to my mind, a centralized economic decision making system and a single party government which rules absolutely.

I guess you don't have a problem with only one of those things in a country as you seem to think China is great now that they've embraced capitalism, right?

or am i wrong again?

You just had to go and poke the rabid weasel, orathaic...

@Putin33 (if you're here in the thread still), you did not answer a question... If Cuba and East Germany and North Korea are not fair examples of Communism (due to outside pressures/economic warfare) then what is? Can we ever get a fair example of Communism and its success, and if so, how? I figured that the Soviet Union and Mao's China were more than fair laboratories for Communism... large stable countries with a long time to try out their theories in practice, a lot of resources, a willing populace... why were they failures? (or at least I submit that they were) It did sound like you are a supporter of Communism as a system - did I read you wrong? When can it work and why has it not? ...or did I misread your defense of Cuba, East Germany and North Korea? Do you, despite the outside pressures/economic warfare and various brutal policies each has pursued, do you view these countries as success stories? (overall, I mean - not just a select program like Cuba's medical system) Thanks ahead of time for your response.

I never said they were not fair examples. I consider them to be successes. I'm saying the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary in each state where socialism exists until capitalism has been vanquished. This stage is necessary to defending the gains made by socialism. I tried to explain what happens when socialists refuse to defend the gains of socialism from the bourgeoisie. Counterrevolution and extermination. This has happened so many times it has almost proven to be a truism.

I think people refuse to recognize that the history of mankind is the history of class struggle. We cannot pretend that the bourgeoisie, once overthrown, will simply roll over and accept the new order. They will fight to the end.

I do not accept your premise that socialist countries were 'failures'. The system worked so long as it was implemented. Gorbachov and his allies admitted that they sought to destroy the USSR. You cannot say that the system is inherently unworkable if people within the leadership deliberately sought to destroy it. There was nothing 'inevitable' about Gorbachov's destructive policies. The system was working quite normally prior to his radical policies. As people around during the time attest, there was no upsurge in discontent, in consumer satisfaction. The economy had actually improved since the early 1980s. People were eating better than ever. There was no "food shortage", as propagandists like to claim.

Without the military support of the USSR, the central European socialist countries, particularly East Germany, were sitting ducks. Everyone admits that the East German economy did very well, and the standard of living was on par or higher than many western capitalist countries. This is despite the fact that they had serious disadvantages in their development.

1 - They and they alone had to pay reparations to the USSR for WWII (more than $5 billion), West Germany paid next to nothing. East Germany was deindustrialized after the war.
2 - West Germany was the beneficiary of the Marshall Plan (itself a violation of WWII agreements). Money poured in to rebuild West Germany. No such money poured into East Germany.

Yet East Germany prospered. It did not collapse, it was annexed and dismantled. With the Soviet withdrawal of military support there was nothing would defend it from annexation. The industry of the country was wholly privatized. The currency was deemed worthless by fiat. This cannot be deemed a 'failure' of the system anymore than the conquest of France by Germany can be deemed a 'failure' of liberal democracy.

There was a cascade of counterrevolutions after Gorcachov's "reforms" because of the interconnectedness of the Comecon system, the liberalization of the migration regime, economic sabotage from the West, and because Gorcachov's withdrawal of military support emboldened counterrevolutionaries in each one of the central European countries. Socialist leaders, far from being bloodthirsty, decided to surrender to these counterrevolutionary putschists rather than risk civil war.

Oh and I forgot another disadvantage faced by the GDR - the existence of the enemy encampment of West Berlin. West Berlin was used as a base for economic sabotage (bribing East German professions to emigrate), espionage, and military provocation until 1961, when the Wall put an end to that nonsense.

Now you're even defending the Berlin Wall? Do you hear that? That that's the sound of the last bit of your credibility blowing away, Usefulidiot33.

You've become very emotional and visceral for a supposed realist, Invictus.

I can be nothing but emotional when I see someone championing one of the most potent symbols of oppression of the last century. You're beyond the pale. The only good thing about your beliefs is that so few people still share them.

I do love how the same people who can pat themselves on the back for claiming that the mutual threat of nuclear war prevented WWIII will all of a sudden become full of righteous indignation when someone suggests that a mere wall did it. Oh no, walls are so very bad. But threatening to exterminate whole countries, that's positively rational and moral!

The fact is Europe was in a state of perennial military crisis, crisis centered around Berlin, prior to 1961. West Germany openly proclaimed that their goal was to annex East Germany, which is why they refused to acknowledge that East Germany was a legitimate state. After the wall was built, the West German newspapers were all crying about how the Army would not be marching gloriously through the Brandenberg gate.

"I can be nothing but emotional when I see someone championing one of the most potent symbols of oppression of the last century"

Yes, right, you're the same person who defended White Man's Burden. But of course mutilating indigenous populations and seizing their land for profit isn't "oppression", in your book, it's "altruism".

Just another sanctimonious liberal, insisting that your empire's crimes must be glossed over and looked at through the objective lens of military strategy and reasons of state, only to cry and whine when others dare to defend themselves. Spare me.

I think it is important to defend the Berlin Wall, or else I'd have to defend why the West did nothing about the Hungarian revolt.

I don't think I've ever been called a liberal before.

I defended the beautiful POEM The White Man's Burden because it's so often misinterpreted by people like you as a celebration of imperialism. Far from it, it says how heavy the burdens are and meager the rewards, with the strong implication it's not worth it. I do think the examples you give are ones of oppression. I believe in personal liberty.

I don't gloss over the crimes of the United States at all. I do however, also acknowledge that the country's done some truly great things. Keeping the peace in Europe and Northeast Asia for sixty years, protecting freedom of the seas, and all in all establishing the international liberal world order we all benefit from come to mind. There have been monstrous things as well, like pretty much all of the Vietnam War. But I acknowledge that. You can't even bring yourself to condemn North Korea.

Spare me your antique left critiques.

i can judge North Korea, but i can also judge my own 'democracy' and American Imperialism.

By the way, i have a rock which prevents tiger attacks, do you want to buy it? because i think you'll find you can't claim credit for the non-existence of something.

keeping peace in Europe and Northeast Asia, except for the wars which occurred in those places many of which were part of US foreign policy objectives. Though to be fair, Europe and Northeast Asia were largely better off than those regions of south and central america where the was no opposition to US dominance.

In all cases i judge a country not a good/evil based on their actions, merely as having goals and how the practically tried to achieve these goals.

As such, North Korea is trying to fulfill a pure ideology and this has had negative effects on the nutrition and general health of the population. This does not sit well with Invictus' notion of 'personal liberty' but i don't see one as inherently better than the other. Infact i believe any ideology has positive effects and when pursued at the expense of all else this will damage all other possible positives.

Compromise of principles is what has allowed the PRC communist party push their country forward to become an international super-power. This does not mean communism/socialism will always be worse for all time. It just means the Chinese currently see some greater advantage to their development. Though most environmentalists see this development as a global threat. So they can't even as a good thing. </rant>

and yes, i do like to poke the rabid weasel, please Krellin, make some contribution, you are invaluable!

@Putin33, I appreciate the response - sorry I was being dense. I guess I was having a hard time believing that you saw East Germany and North Korea as success stories... and even more so, that you saw the USSR and China as success stories. I actually used to self-identify as a communist - back about 1980 or so. I wondered long and hard about what went wrong that allowed Stalin to get in power and do what he did and how things might have been different had Trotsky held power post-Lenin and what would have happened under Lenin had he been around longer. I continue to be a big fan of socialist movements and unionist movements. I saw the Solidarity movement in Poland as a re-awakening of socialism and a chance to sweep away the corrupt/bureaucratic elements running the government and thus to improve things under the umbrella of communism/socialism. Alas the pendulum swung further than I expected and Poland eventually left communism entirely along with the rest of the eastern block. Looking at the Soviet Union, I saw Stalin as the betrayal of Communism and as the counter-revolution... whereas you see Gorbachev as that. That, clearly, is a big difference in our views right there. One can point to the disaster of the Collectivization of Agriculture resulting in the deaths of millions, one can point to the Gulag or to the excesses of the KGB, or one can look at the Prague Spring - a move to Democratic Socialism - the ultimate goal of Communism (as I understand it), was crushed by the Soviets - making clear that to the Soviet leadership it was about dictatorship and power - not socialist freedom and reform.

My views have become less apologetic about the Soviet experiment over time and basically I've come to believe that it was doomed to failure from pretty early on... Ultimately, I think the difference between us is that I see the entire arc of the Warsaw Pact/USSR history and the history of Communist China as indicative of it being doomed from the start... Basically - that both had ample opportunity to make it work and were doomed by the limits of human nature and by the ongoing/long-term brutality of the regimes - and that their ultimate collapse was indicative of the non-stickiness, if you will, of Communism as envisioned by those countries. I see buyers remorse from well informed (and thoroughly indoctrinated) buyers who had generations to experience (and embrace) what they bought... you see, apparently, a clear success that was pre-maturely aborted by a putsch.

I realize that there is still communist sympathies in Russia and other former communist countries... but, I understand that the support for a return to communism is something around 20% - hardly a convincing number. If Communism was such a rousing success for 70 years you would think that the number would be much higher - say a majority - both immediately after the "putsch" and now, only 20 years later (and through all the stumbles and failings of the "democracy" of Russia and the various democracies around Eastern Europe). So, anyway... I guess that's about where we are. I became disillusioned about Communism and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat - and you did not. I wonder what Marx would say about it (not that that would necessarily be the definitive word).

Kipling's whole political life was dedicated to supporting Empire. He can see that by his political affiliations as well as his writings. He was purposely sent by the Empire to report on the Boer war, a war in which British conduct had disgusted the entire world for their brutality.

WMB was an exhortation for America to engage in the business of Empire in the Philippines, and that's exactly how the American public interpreted it, as can be seen if anyone bothers to read the public reaction to this poem. His message was that it was a moral duty to bring development to backward peoples. It was a "burden" to help them, much like the human rights imperialists of today feel like they must bomb "barbarian" lands for their own good. A civilizing mission.

Both Democratic empires (British, Belgian, French, American) and Communistic empires (Soviet, Chinese) believe they are justified to torture and kill in support of their greater good - and that such campaigns will eventually result in world-wide Democracy or Socialism, as the case may be. I see little difference in their calculation... and I think it is about Empire and power and a very low opinion of people's power of reasoning and the power of education and patience. Democracy that sticks comes from within - peacefully (or mostly so)... Socialism that sticks... well, I'm not sure we've seen that... as much as I'd like to see it.

It's not surprising that ex-"democratic socialists" end up propagating this false equivalence narrative. The Soviets supported every national liberation movement among the colonized peoples, the "democracies" were busy subjugating them. What side were the western democracies on in Algeria in the 1950s? Which side was the USSR on? Which side were the western democracies on in Kenya? Which side was the Soviet Union on? Which side were the western democracies on in South Africa? Which side was the Soviet Union on? To equate the two is utter nonsense.

Russia was invaded by 14+ countries in 1917, but they're an "empire". China is an "empire", but who did they invade again? The western democracies engaged in more than 100 acts of aggression around the world during the Cold War. But people desperate to pretend they're 'morally pure' will equate the freedom fighter that defends himself from aggression with the colonizer. Heaven forbid you morally pure people actually do anything, in practical terms, to improve the world. That would involve getting your morally pure hands dirty. We can't have that.

You're not an advocate of socialism, you propagate this line about how it's all doomed to failure due to human nature. If human nature is the obstacle than your utopian vision is doomed to failure as well.

China invaded Tibet. But I can already guess where you stand on that...

So every act by the West in the Cold War was colonialism and every act by the USSR was support for freedom fighters? What was the Cuban intervention in Angola if not neocolonialism? What were the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia if not naked imperialist power plays to preserve Soviet control? What was Soviet support of the Arabs in the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars if not cynical ploys to increase Soviet influence in the Middle East?

Again, the West is far from blameless in having committed dreadful acts. I claim no immaculateness. But you completely ignore the heinous actions of communist nations which at the very least equal the sins of the West. Your way of thinking is a relic of a bygone era, a legacy of an ideology which has lost and been completely discredited. You won't even deign to find common ground with dexter morgan, who seems to represent a mature new left which has come to terms with the horrors and failures of the past. Who knows, maybe some sort of democratic socialism will win out in the end. As a libertarian I certainly don't like the idea of it, but it's much better than living under the yoke of a communist dictatorship like the sort you continually shill for, Usefulidiot33.

So take comfort in the confines of radical academia, perhaps the only place left on Earth where your sort of communist orthodoxy is still taken seriously, and even then probably just in English departments.

The Cuban intervention in Angola? you think cuba had any chance of colonizing Angola? it is still celebrated today as support for the great gains made.

The USSR didn't support the action at first and Cuba was running old second world war transport planes pushing their entire transport capacity to the limit.

Now they were supporting those 'freedom fighters' who happened to agree with them on philosophical grounds, meanwhile the US and China merely supported other 'freedom fighters'

They are pretty equivalent, except the Cubans had no chance of becoming a dominant power even regionally - this is not motivated by empire building but ideology spreading and is qualitatively different imho. (though when the USSR got involved my arguement loses it's weight... that does not take anything away from the cuban motivation)

Still while i claim it is still celebrated as support of a righteous freedom fighter's movement that is mostly because they freedom fighters won and the cuban didn't colonise (merely providing technical, medical and administrative support) Still i don't know of any other more altruistic military action in the history of the world.

that said, yes, invictus, human behaviour remains constant in the seeking of power as a means to an ideological end.

@Putin33, I was going to ask you why the Putin handle... I now can guess... you actually like the guy and his politics, I suspect. Return to Russian greatness, autocracy (by another name), etc. You are a true believer... slap the tag of Communist on it, and it is blameless and pure. Czechoslovakia? [cricket, cricket...]

You sneer at Democratic Socialist like we're just "splitters" (Monty Python Holy Grail and the whole bit about the different communist/socialist/workers parties comes to mind). Whatever, man... I'm about the closest you have to an ally here... and in most places in the western world. I haven't met a true Communist Comrade of the Soviet Union loving variety in 25 years. ...and that was 25 years ago in Berkeley, bless their hearts.

Oh - I got another one for you - how about Stalin's treaty with Nazi Germany and his invasion of Poland? I'm sure it was doctrinally pure - sticking up for the little guy, and all that.

@Putin33, when I said I was a communist, I wasn't kidding - I joined a Trotskyist group, helped distribute a paper, and got involved in supporting both a Palestinian community group and the PATCO strikers... no doubt there is a file on me somewhere. I don't understand the sneering about my later position as Democratic Socialist, either... it's not like I said Social Democrat. I do understand the difference. Do you? Or are you so in love with authority that the idea of democracy even within the confines of state/public ownership of the means of production is repugnant to you?