Do you think Communism should be despised as much as Nazism?

[Kevbad the Bad]

Many, if not most, people associate Communism with its authoritarian Leninist varieties associated with Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea etc. In all these cases mass murder, often racially motivated, became a commonplace at times, violations of human rights became the norm, environmental destruction happened on a huge scale and militarisation of whole societies was thought necessary for the transformation of humanity. As bad as the Nazis? Yes. Worse than the Nazis? Dunno.

 

[mx wcfc]

Have you ever had any problems in the past because you wore badges?

Well, there were a couple of times when I got caught out on my own, in the wrong place with the wrong badges on, and was lucky to escape without a kicking. But I still wear badges.

 

[Edie]

True, but also applicable to the "centre".

Which regime, British empire?

 

[ElizabethofYork]

. He even sometimes wears political t-shirts when he goes to pubs!

Interesting! Can you give some examples?

 

[girasol]

I don't think there is much you can do to change his opinion.

 

[Schwartz]

Careful, now.

Elaborate.

Many, if not most, people associate Communism with its authoritarian Leninist varieties associated with Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea etc. In all these cases mass murder, often racially motivated, became a commonplace at times, violations of human rights became the norm, environmental destruction happened on a huge scale and militarisation of whole societies was thought necessary for the transformation of humanity. As bad as the Nazis? Yes. Worse than the Nazis? Dunno.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head when it comes to people’s associations with the term ‘Communism’. I think that’s largely part of the problem.

By the way, it is questionable whether or not Lenin really was an authoritarian figure - it is a debate that is contested by various historians and scholars.

Mind you, I don’t think the general public would react to a hammer and sickle t-shirt the same as they would to a swastika t-shirt. And, Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Che Guevara and other self-proclaimed communists are still incredibly popular according to various polls.

Well, there were a couple of times when I got caught out on my own, in the wrong place with the wrong badges on, and was lucky to escape without a kicking. But I still wear badges.

May I ask you, what badges? Do you get people looking at you a lot?

 

[Schwartz]

Interesting! Can you give some examples?

He’s got t-shirts with Margaret Thatcher’s face and things like “I Voted Tory” or “Vote Tory” on them.

 

[yield]

I think any extreme political ideology, right or left, is dangerous and leads to totalitarianism. I thought that was pretty much an uncontested history lesson from the 20th century. Fascism to the right, Communism to the left, death camps and secret police on both sides.

True, but also applicable to the "centre".

Never forget the horrors of the Lib Dem Death Camps. <shudders>

The Little Orange Book re-education camps were no laughing matter.

In all seriousness The megadeaths of Liberalism

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

By the way, it is questionable whether or not Lenin really was an authoritarian figure - it is a debate that is contested by various historians and scholars.

Mind you, I don’t think the general public would react to a hammer and sickle t-shirt the same as they would to a swastika t-shirt. And, Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Che Guevara and other self-proclaimed communists are still incredibly popular according to various polls.

Lenin and all the Bolsheviks were authoritarian from the very start, resorting to mass imprisonment, firing squads, censorship, and a complete denial of any meaningful democracy. There shouldn't be any real debate about that.

 

[Schwartz]

Lenin and all the Bolsheviks were authoritarian from the very start, resorting to mass imprisonment, firing squads, censorship, and a complete denial of any meaningful democracy. There shouldn't be any real debate about that.

There was a time difference between the actual Revolution and the Civil War and the latter isn’t normally resolved by shaking hands and handing out flowers. I’m not trying to justify everything that happened, but context is the key.

Under Lenin people weren’t killed for having different political opinions and until he died there was plenty of political discussion.

The Soviets were called workers’ councils for a reason.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

He even sometimes wears political t-shirts when he goes to pubs!

It would only be friendly to do similar so that he doesn't feel alone







(from sabcat)

 

[Mattym]

He even sometimes wears political t-shirts when he goes to pubs!

Dead Kennedys- Nazi Pubs, fuck off?

 

[Schwartz]

I don’t even have a problem with him being a Tory. What I do have a problem with is when someone holds views without reading or understanding his/her opposing views. I’ve read absolutely loads of pro-capitalist and Conservative books. Some may ask me, “Why?” It’s simple - I want to understand my ‘opponent’s’ views.

The whole notion, “I am right and you are wrong” never ends well.

I prefer a rational debate.

 

[Schwartz]

Dead Kennedys- Nazi Pubs, fuck off?

I was a punk in the 1980s and had some merchandise with that band on them. The good old days!

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

There was a time difference between the actual Revolution and the Civil War and the latter isn’t normally resolved by shaking hands and handing out flowers. I’m not trying to justify everything that happened, but context is the key.

Under Lenin people weren’t killed for having different political opinions and until he died there was plenty of political discussion.

The Soviets were called workers’ councils for a reason.

What a load of cack. The context of the Revolution and Civil War was that the Bolshevik leadership became progressively more dictatorial, more corrupt, more intransigent, more undemocratic as time wore on. People were killed under Lenin for having different opinions, because that of necessity meant that you wanted different outcomes. The Soviets were called workers' councils because that was their original intention, but the Bolsheviks took them over and prevented them carrying out their purpose. People's democracies were not democratic and involved very few people in their decision-making process.

 

[Schwartz]

What a load of cack. The context of the Revolution and Civil War was that the Bolshevik leadership became progressively more dictatorial, more corrupt, more intransigent, more undemocratic as time wore on. People were killed under Lenin for having different opinions, because that of necessity meant that you wanted different outcomes. The Soviets were called workers' councils because that was their original intention, but the Bolsheviks took them over and prevented them carrying out their purpose. People's democracies were not democratic and involved very few people in their decision-making process.

There were two revolutions in 1917 and both for the most part were peaceful. There was no real violence during the October Revolution.

The ‘Red Terror’ what you are referring to happened during the Russian Civil War and not during either revolution.

Lenin died in 1924 and between 1917-1924 no one was killed for having an opposing political view to the Bolsheviks. In fact, there were plenty of discussions and debates about different political views. If you can cite a source which states otherwise then go ahead.

The real crimes happened after Lenin’s death.

Even historians like Orlando Figes concede what I have mentioned.

Check out the following debate between him and Alan Woods:

 

[8ball]

The Little Orange Book re-education camps were no laughing matter.

In all seriousness The megadeaths of Liberalism

Useful to appreciate the difference between the different stripes of Liberalism, and neo-liberalism.

 

[A380]

...

I do know a few people who have badges/pins on their jackets, but badges pins are not exactly directly in someone’s face.

We don't need no stinkin badges

 

[Schwartz]

We don't need no stinkin badges

Some people like to advertise their political affiliations.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

There were two revolutions in 1917 and both for the most part were peaceful. There was no real violence during the October Revolution.

The ‘Red Terror’ what you are referring to happened during the Russian Civil War and not during either revolution.

Lenin died in 1924 and between 1917-1924 no one was killed for having an opposing political view to the Bolsheviks. In fact, there were plenty of discussions and debates about different political views. If you can cite a source which states otherwise then go ahead.

The real crimes happened after Lenin’s death.

Even historians like Orlando Figes concede what I have mentioned.

Check out the following debate between him and Alan Woods:

The Red Terror indeed happened at the start of what is usually called the civil war, but that conflict included violence against all opposition, anarchists, socialist revolutionaries, Mensheviks, 'Greens', Kronstadt rebels, a host of national minorities as well as the 'whites'. Outside of the Communist Party there was very little discussion allowed. Lenin was still alive during War Communism when requisition of peasant grain harvests and the like ended with the death of millions, the targeted death of Ukrainians, Tatars, Volga Germans and Turkic peoples of Central Asia.

 

[Pickman's model]

There were two revolutions in 1917 and both for the most part were peaceful. There was no real violence during the October Revolution.

The ‘Red Terror’ what you are referring to happened during the Russian Civil War and not during either revolution.

Lenin died in 1924 and between 1917-1924 no one was killed for having an opposing political view to the Bolsheviks. In fact, there were plenty of discussions and debates about different political views. If you can cite a source which states otherwise then go ahead.

The real crimes happened after Lenin’s death.

Even historians like Orlando Figes concede what I have mentioned.

Check out the following debate between him and Alan Woods:

Kronstadt never happened

 

[Schwartz]

The Red Terror indeed happened at the start of what is usually called the civil war, but that conflict included violence against all opposition, anarchists, socialist revolutionaries, Mensheviks, 'Greens', Kronstadt rebels, a host of national minorities as well as the 'whites'. Outside of the Communist Party there was very little discussion allowed. Lenin was still alive during War Communism when requisition of peasant grain harvests and the like ended with the death of millions, the targeted death of Ukrainians, Tatars, Volga Germans and Turkic peoples of Central Asia.

So you have proven my point. The violence happened during the civil war and not the revolution.

Be my guest and watch the debate I linked you to watch and then tell me what you think. As I’ve already stated, a historian who despises everything that Lenin and the Bolsheviks stood for accepts that they come to power peacefully and that the violence only happened during the Civil War. To somehow think that violence didn’t happen on both sides is absurd.

 

[yield]

I don’t even have a problem with him being a Tory. What I do have a problem with is when someone holds views without reading or understanding his/her opposing views. I’ve read absolutely loads of pro-capitalist and Conservative books. Some may ask me, “Why?” It’s simple - I want to understand my ‘opponent’s’ views.

Same here. Some of them like Roger Scruton and Francis Fukuyama were interesting. G. K. Chesterton was really funny.

Michael Oakeshott was dull though. Alexandre Kojeve's part in the formation of the EU is interesting. Many of them were devoutly religious.

There seems to be some things in common about tories I know. Deference and a belief in hierarchy.

Obsession with status symbols be they their houses, cars or shoes.

A vested interest in the status quo and that we're in a meritocracy and hard work pays.

Useful to appreciate the difference between the different stripes of Liberalism, and neo-liberalism.

For sure. A liberal-hating republican is a different thing here than in the states. Ideally we'd be able to use broadbrush strokes but instead we're drawn into defining ideologies or criticising the horseshoe theory.

Or was there a glorious moment of real exisiting socialism in revolutionary Russia. After the land reforms in the Soviets. Or was it always a degenerate worker's state.

 

[Schwartz]

Kronstadt

Stop trolling me.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

So you have proven my point. The violence happened during the civil war and not the revolution.

Be my guest and watch the debate I linked you to watch and then tell me what you think. As I’ve already stated, a historian who despises everything that Lenin and the Bolsheviks stood for accepts that they come to power peacefully and that the violence only happened during the Civil War. To somehow think that violence didn’t happen on both sides is absurd.

The violence of the Bolsheviks was greater and more indiscriminate. That's why they succeeded, that and the fact that their opponents were divided. And that they inherited the Tsarist state after they seized power, and all its attendant violence, corruption and power. You're still saying 'both sides', but there were many, many sides. I haven't got time to watch some Leninist apologist right now, as I'm watching a Billy Connolly program.

 

[Schwartz]

The violence of the Bolsheviks was greater and more indiscriminate. That's why they succeeded, that and the fact that their opponents were divided. And that they inherited the Tsarist state after they seized power, and all its attendant violence, corruption and power. You're still saying 'both sides', but there were many, many sides. I haven't got time to watch some Leninist apologist right now, as I'm watching a Billy Connolly program.

You keep changing your tune. The terror happened during the Civil War and not the actual Revolution. You’ve basically admitted that anyway.

Watch the debate I sent you and then tell me what you think. You may learn a thing or two...

 

[Flavour]

Lenin died in 1924 and between 1917-1924 no one was killed for having an opposing political view to the Bolsheviks. In fact, there were plenty of discussions and debates about different political views. If you can cite a source which states otherwise then go ahead.

The real crimes happened after Lenin’s death.

Admittedly funnier than any of the Christmas cracker jokes this year.

Lenin the gentle, oh how long must his good name be dragged through the mud?

Are you 17? Cos I used to say and think stuff like this when I was 17 and had only been told what to think and had not, you know, actually read any books

 

[butchersapron]

True, but also applicable to the "centre".

Slavery and empire to the centre.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

You keep changing your tune. The terror happened during the Civil War and not the actual Revolution. You’ve basically admitted that anyway.

Watch the debate I sent you and then tell me what you think. You may learn a thing or two...

There was little opposition to the Revolution because nearly everyone wanted an end to the war. So all kinds of people supported it initially. After that the Civil War developed. Not everything happened all at once. It took time for the sheer viciousness of the new regime to become apparent, partly because of the effectiveness of their propaganda machine and the censorship. The Civil War, as it is often called, only really happened when the Bolsheviks tried to extend their power outside of the Russian heartlands.

 

[SheilaNaGig]

I have a Conservative friend who thinks that Margaret Thatcher is the best thing since sliced bread and thinks that Communism is as evil as Nazism and represents the same totalitarianism, genocide, dictatorship, etc.

Trying to explain to him that Communism is not the same as Stalinism or Maoism, that Communism wants to abolish the state (it will eventually wither away), etc is like talking to a brick wall. Similarly, when I point out the good things that happened during the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc, he calls me an “apologist”, but the same person will defend Thatcher till pigs start flying despite all of what happened in Britain during the 1980s; he actually thinks that this country is in a much better place today because of her.

He also repeats the same old cliches such as Conservatism being more ‘natural’ because people are ‘naturally greedy and selfish’. When I asked him to prove that an innate human nature exists he stumbles and changed the subject.

He hasn’t even read any of the basic socialist or communist books so god knows where he gets his ideas from about left-wing ideas. Perhaps the Daily Mail.

He’s such an oddball when I compare him to some other friends who are Conservative voters. He’s the type of person who wants everyone to know his political beliefs and doesn’t like any form of criticism, even if it is constructive criticism. He even sometimes wears political t-shirts when he goes to pubs! Needless to say that things have got heated in the past.

What do you think?

Even for me, this is transparent.