|
|
Post by ayatollah on Nov 27, 2021 19:23:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Myshkin on Nov 28, 2021 4:13:44 GMT
All due respect, Ayatollah of Rocknrollah, but this isn't pleasant and it is political.
And I wouldn't blame the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks were Lenin and Trotsky and the great Russian Revolution against a corrupt Czar. Holdomor was a Stalinist plot. Stalin fancied himself the Dictator of the Proletariat after the Revolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Nov 28, 2021 4:17:27 GMT
All due respect, Ayatollah of Rocknrollah, but this isn't pleasant and it is political.
And I wouldn't blame the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks were Lenin and Trotsky and the great Russian Revolution against a corrupt Czar. Holdomor was a Stalinist plot. Stalin fancied himself the Dictator of the Proletariat after the Revolution.
I admit it isn't pleasant, but it shouldn't be a political debate. It's one of Stalin's many atrocities but Stalin was a Bolshevik, one of the "Old Party". If monkey wants to move it to politics I have no quarrel. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Myshkin on Nov 28, 2021 4:34:15 GMT
All due respect, Ayatollah of Rocknrollah, but this isn't pleasant and it is political.
And I wouldn't blame the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks were Lenin and Trotsky and the great Russian Revolution against a corrupt Czar. Holdomor was a Stalinist plot. Stalin fancied himself the Dictator of the Proletariat after the Revolution.
I admit it isn't pleasant, but it shouldn't be a political debate. It's one of Stalin's many atrocities but Stalin was a Bolshevik, one of the "Old Party". If monkey wants to move it to politics I have no quarrel. But there was a division among the Bolsheviks with Stalin. He even had Trotsky murdered. The Soviet Union would have been a better place without Stalin. |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Nov 28, 2021 8:00:35 GMT
All due respect, Ayatollah of Rocknrollah, but this isn't pleasant and it is political.
And I wouldn't blame the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks were Lenin and Trotsky and the great Russian Revolution against a corrupt Czar. Holdomor was a Stalinist plot. Stalin fancied himself the Dictator of the Proletariat after the Revolution.
I admit it isn't pleasant, but it shouldn't be a political debate. It's one of Stalin's many atrocities but Stalin was a Bolshevik, one of the "Old Party". If monkey wants to move it to politics I have no quarrel. Hmm, an interesting point - does "pleasant conversation" mean pleasant conversation about pleasant topics, or does it mean pleasant conversation (i.e. squabble/insult-free) about any topic? Hadn't really thought that through. |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Nov 28, 2021 8:19:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cryptoflovecraft on Nov 28, 2021 13:19:29 GMT
All due respect, Ayatollah of Rocknrollah, but this isn't pleasant and it is political.
And I wouldn't blame the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks were Lenin and Trotsky and the great Russian Revolution against a corrupt Czar. Holdomor was a Stalinist plot. Stalin fancied himself the Dictator of the Proletariat after the Revolution.
In the fight between Trotsky and Stalin, I much prefer Stalin. Trotsky was a globalist who wanted to use Russia as a base for "international democratic revolution". In many respects, he was precursor to today's "democratic revolutionaries" (i.e., the neocons and liberal hawks) who want to launch endless wars and coups against "enemies of democracy" across the world. It's no secret that William Kristol's dad (and godfather of neoconservatism), Irving Kristol , was a flaming Trotskyite in his youth before moving on to the Democratic Party and then becoming a Reagan Republican late in life. Like so many Jewish American Communists, Irving became disillusioned with Communism as the Soviet Union became more nationalistic and anti-Zionist under Stalin. (He eventually became disillusioned with the Democratic Party as it became more dovish in the late sixties. Reagan made the GOP more hawkish and suitable for neocon globalists like Kristol.) Getting back to Stalin, it's true that he purged the Communist party in Russia of its original leadership during the so-called "show trials". Many of these Bolsheviks were guilty of treason against Russia esp. the Trotskyites (most of whom were Jews). Stalin replaced them with his own lackeys and ushered in a more nationalistic version of Communism (or as Stalin called it, "socialism in one country"). Personally, I think this was the right move for Russia. Stalin strengthened Russia, turning it into a modern industrialized country and eventually a superpower. Had history turned out differently and Trotsky defeated Stalin, who knows what direction Russia would have taken. Trotsky wanted to launch revolutions all over the globe whereas Stalin wanted to focus on making Russia great and powerful. Up until WWII, when Germany forced his hand, Stalin had an isolationist foreign policy and no desire to expand. Thanks to Stalin, Russia was able to defeat Germany in The Great Patriotic War. The occupation of Eastern Europe that followed was the result of a war that Russia was forced into. |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Nov 28, 2021 13:46:55 GMT
All due respect, Ayatollah of Rocknrollah, but this isn't pleasant and it is political.
And I wouldn't blame the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks were Lenin and Trotsky and the great Russian Revolution against a corrupt Czar. Holdomor was a Stalinist plot. Stalin fancied himself the Dictator of the Proletariat after the Revolution.
In the fight between Trotsky and Stalin, I much prefer Stalin. Trotsky was a globalist who wanted to use Russia as a base for "international democratic revolution". In many respects, he was precursor to today's "democratic revolutionaries" (i.e., the neocons and liberal hawks) who want to launch endless wars and coups against "enemies of democracy" across the world. It's no secret that William Kristol's dad (and godfather of neoconservatism), Irving Kristol , was a flaming Trotskyite in his youth before moving on to the Democratic Party and then becoming a Reagan Republican late in life. Like so many Jewish American Communists, Irving became disillusioned with Communism as the Soviet Union became more nationalistic and anti-Zionist under Stalin. (He eventually became disillusioned with the Democratic Party as it became more dovish in the late sixties. Reagan made the GOP more hawkish and suitable for neocon globalists like Kristol.) Getting back to Stalin, it's true that he purged the Communist party in Russia of its original leadership during the so-called "show trials". Many of these Bolsheviks were guilty of treason against Russia esp. the Trotskyites (most of whom were Jews). Stalin replaced them with his own lackeys and ushered in a more nationalistic version of Communism (or as Stalin called it, "socialism in one country"). Personally, I think this was the right move for Russia. Stalin strengthened Russia, turning it into a modern industrialized country and eventually a superpower. Had history turned out differently and Trotsky defeated Stalin, who knows what direction Russia would have taken. Trotsky wanted to launch revolutions all over the globe whereas Stalin wanted to focus on making Russia great and powerful. Up until WWII, when Germany forced his hand, Stalin had an isolationist foreign policy and no desire to expand. Thanks to Stalin, Russia was able to defeat Germany in The Great Patriotic War. The occupation of Eastern Europe that followed was the result of a war that Russia was forced into. Yeah, thanks Stalin. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Myshkin on Nov 28, 2021 17:02:56 GMT
All due respect, Ayatollah of Rocknrollah, but this isn't pleasant and it is political.
And I wouldn't blame the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks were Lenin and Trotsky and the great Russian Revolution against a corrupt Czar. Holdomor was a Stalinist plot. Stalin fancied himself the Dictator of the Proletariat after the Revolution.
In the fight between Trotsky and Stalin, I much prefer Stalin. Trotsky was a globalist who wanted to use Russia as a base for "international democratic revolution". In many respects, he was precursor to today's "democratic revolutionaries" (i.e., the neocons and liberal hawks) who want to launch endless wars and coups against "enemies of democracy" across the world. It's no secret that William Kristol's dad (and godfather of neoconservatism), Irving Kristol , was a flaming Trotskyite in his youth before moving on to the Democratic Party and then becoming a Reagan Republican late in life. Like so many Jewish American Communists, Irving became disillusioned with Communism as the Soviet Union became more nationalistic and anti-Zionist under Stalin. (He eventually became disillusioned with the Democratic Party as it became more dovish in the late sixties. Reagan made the GOP more hawkish and suitable for neocon globalists like Kristol.) Getting back to Stalin, it's true that he purged the Communist party in Russia of its original leadership during the so-called "show trials". Many of these Bolsheviks were guilty of treason against Russia esp. the Trotskyites (most of whom were Jews). Stalin replaced them with his own lackeys and ushered in a more nationalistic version of Communism (or as Stalin called it, "socialism in one country"). Personally, I think this was the right move for Russia. Stalin strengthened Russia, turning it into a modern industrialized country and eventually a superpower. Had history turned out differently and Trotsky defeated Stalin, who knows what direction Russia would have taken. Trotsky wanted to launch revolutions all over the globe whereas Stalin wanted to focus on making Russia great and powerful. Up until WWII, when Germany forced his hand, Stalin had an isolationist foreign policy and no desire to expand. Thanks to Stalin, Russia was able to defeat Germany in The Great Patriotic War. The occupation of Eastern Europe that followed was the result of a war that Russia was forced into. Well I'm an American nationalist, not a Russian nationalist. So what's good for Russia as a military powerhouse is directly opposed to my interests. So I can cheer on a man like Putin because he leans in the direction of Orthodox nationalism. Stalin killed what was vibrant and positive about Bolshevism.
And I'm not a gobalist, but Marxism by its nature is globalist. Trotsky understood Marx. Stalin didn't. As I said, we can explain Stalin if we consider his reign the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. But he really did kill the Marxist hope in Russia.
This is the world envisioned by Stalin:
This is the world as envisioned by Lenin and Trotsky:
I prefer the latter.
|
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Nov 28, 2021 18:48:15 GMT
In the fight between Trotsky and Stalin, I much prefer Stalin. Trotsky was a globalist who wanted to use Russia as a base for "international democratic revolution". In many respects, he was precursor to today's "democratic revolutionaries" (i.e., the neocons and liberal hawks) who want to launch endless wars and coups against "enemies of democracy" across the world. It's no secret that William Kristol's dad (and godfather of neoconservatism), Irving Kristol , was a flaming Trotskyite in his youth before moving on to the Democratic Party and then becoming a Reagan Republican late in life. Like so many Jewish American Communists, Irving became disillusioned with Communism as the Soviet Union became more nationalistic and anti-Zionist under Stalin. (He eventually became disillusioned with the Democratic Party as it became more dovish in the late sixties. Reagan made the GOP more hawkish and suitable for neocon globalists like Kristol.) Getting back to Stalin, it's true that he purged the Communist party in Russia of its original leadership during the so-called "show trials". Many of these Bolsheviks were guilty of treason against Russia esp. the Trotskyites (most of whom were Jews). Stalin replaced them with his own lackeys and ushered in a more nationalistic version of Communism (or as Stalin called it, "socialism in one country"). Personally, I think this was the right move for Russia. Stalin strengthened Russia, turning it into a modern industrialized country and eventually a superpower. Had history turned out differently and Trotsky defeated Stalin, who knows what direction Russia would have taken. Trotsky wanted to launch revolutions all over the globe whereas Stalin wanted to focus on making Russia great and powerful. Up until WWII, when Germany forced his hand, Stalin had an isolationist foreign policy and no desire to expand. Thanks to Stalin, Russia was able to defeat Germany in The Great Patriotic War. The occupation of Eastern Europe that followed was the result of a war that Russia was forced into. Well I'm an American nationalist, not a Russian nationalist. So what's good for Russia as a military powerhouse is directly opposed to my interests. So I can cheer on a man like Putin because he leans in the direction of Orthodox nationalism. Stalin killed what was vibrant and positive about Bolshevism.
And I'm not a gobalist, but Marxism by its nature is globalist. Trotsky understood Marx. Stalin didn't. As I said, we can explain Stalin if we consider his reign the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. But he really did kill the Marxist hope in Russia.
This is the world envisioned by Stalin:
This is the world as envisioned by Lenin and Trotsky:
I prefer the latter.
Have you ever thought about how history may have turned out if Trotsky had come to power? I think a Holodomor or something like it would've still happened. But the USSR would've probably been more aggressive and possibly invaded it's neighbors to the west, which almost certainly drawn Germany into a war, but maybe the west would've come in on the German side with the Soviets being aggressors. It'd be an interesting alternate history fiction. Anyway I digress. The Holodomor is a terrible tragedy and when I look at today's inflation and shortages I think it's good to remember too much interference in the economy can lead to disaster. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Myshkin on Nov 28, 2021 19:13:14 GMT
Well I'm an American nationalist, not a Russian nationalist. So what's good for Russia as a military powerhouse is directly opposed to my interests. So I can cheer on a man like Putin because he leans in the direction of Orthodox nationalism. Stalin killed what was vibrant and positive about Bolshevism.
And I'm not a gobalist, but Marxism by its nature is globalist. Trotsky understood Marx. Stalin didn't. As I said, we can explain Stalin if we consider his reign the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. But he really did kill the Marxist hope in Russia.
This is the world envisioned by Stalin:
This is the world as envisioned by Lenin and Trotsky:
I prefer the latter.
Have you ever thought about how history may have turned out if Trotsky had come to power? I think a Holodomor or something like it would've still happened. But the USSR would've probably been more aggressive and possibly invaded it's neighbors to the west, which almost certainly drawn Germany into a war, but maybe the west would've come in on the German side with the Soviets being aggressors. It'd be an interesting alternate history fiction. Anyway I digress. The Holodomor is a terrible tragedy and when I look at today's inflation and shortages I think it's good to remember too much interference in the economy can lead to disaster. Oh I'm under no illusion that my heroes like Trostky couldn't have been butchers as well. I don't think any powerful man goes to heaven.
There's as much interference in the economy with capitalism as there is with socialism.
|
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Nov 28, 2021 19:27:47 GMT
Have you ever thought about how history may have turned out if Trotsky had come to power? I think a Holodomor or something like it would've still happened. But the USSR would've probably been more aggressive and possibly invaded it's neighbors to the west, which almost certainly drawn Germany into a war, but maybe the west would've come in on the German side with the Soviets being aggressors. It'd be an interesting alternate history fiction. Anyway I digress. The Holodomor is a terrible tragedy and when I look at today's inflation and shortages I think it's good to remember too much interference in the economy can lead to disaster. Oh I'm under no illusion that my heroes like Trostky couldn't have been butchers as well. I don't think any powerful man goes to heaven.
There's as much interference in the economy with capitalism as there is with socialism.
I know, I'm not making a comparison or on Team Capitalism. |
|
|
|
Post by cryptoflovecraft on Nov 29, 2021 21:28:54 GMT
In the fight between Trotsky and Stalin, I much prefer Stalin. Trotsky was a globalist who wanted to use Russia as a base for "international democratic revolution". In many respects, he was precursor to today's "democratic revolutionaries" (i.e., the neocons and liberal hawks) who want to launch endless wars and coups against "enemies of democracy" across the world. It's no secret that William Kristol's dad (and godfather of neoconservatism), Irving Kristol , was a flaming Trotskyite in his youth before moving on to the Democratic Party and then becoming a Reagan Republican late in life. Like so many Jewish American Communists, Irving became disillusioned with Communism as the Soviet Union became more nationalistic and anti-Zionist under Stalin. (He eventually became disillusioned with the Democratic Party as it became more dovish in the late sixties. Reagan made the GOP more hawkish and suitable for neocon globalists like Kristol.) Getting back to Stalin, it's true that he purged the Communist party in Russia of its original leadership during the so-called "show trials". Many of these Bolsheviks were guilty of treason against Russia esp. the Trotskyites (most of whom were Jews). Stalin replaced them with his own lackeys and ushered in a more nationalistic version of Communism (or as Stalin called it, "socialism in one country"). Personally, I think this was the right move for Russia. Stalin strengthened Russia, turning it into a modern industrialized country and eventually a superpower. Had history turned out differently and Trotsky defeated Stalin, who knows what direction Russia would have taken. Trotsky wanted to launch revolutions all over the globe whereas Stalin wanted to focus on making Russia great and powerful. Up until WWII, when Germany forced his hand, Stalin had an isolationist foreign policy and no desire to expand. Thanks to Stalin, Russia was able to defeat Germany in The Great Patriotic War. The occupation of Eastern Europe that followed was the result of a war that Russia was forced into. Well I'm an American nationalist, not a Russian nationalist. So what's good for Russia as a military powerhouse is directly opposed to my interests. So I can cheer on a man like Putin because he leans in the direction of Orthodox nationalism. Stalin killed what was vibrant and positive about Bolshevism.
And I'm not a gobalist, but Marxism by its nature is globalist. Trotsky understood Marx. Stalin didn't. As I said, we can explain Stalin if we consider his reign the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. But he really did kill the Marxist hope in Russia.
Yes, Stalin destroyed Bolshevism. He was the enemy within. Good for Stalin and for Russia! I think Putin (like many Russians) has an ambivalent view of Stalin. Dugin certainly admires him, too. Stalin was more of a nationalist (or a "National Bolshevik") than a genuine Marxist. Marxism is alien to the Slavic soul; it couldn't last for long in Russia. Russia has always prospered under autocracy (Tsarism, Stalinism, Putinism). |
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Nov 29, 2021 23:25:58 GMT
Well I'm an American nationalist, not a Russian nationalist. So what's good for Russia as a military powerhouse is directly opposed to my interests. So I can cheer on a man like Putin because he leans in the direction of Orthodox nationalism. Stalin killed what was vibrant and positive about Bolshevism.
And I'm not a gobalist, but Marxism by its nature is globalist. Trotsky understood Marx. Stalin didn't. As I said, we can explain Stalin if we consider his reign the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. But he really did kill the Marxist hope in Russia.
Yes, Stalin destroyed Bolshevism. He was the enemy within. Good for Stalin and for Russia! I think Putin (like many Russians) has an ambivalent view of Stalin. Dugin certainly admires him, too. Stalin was more of a nationalist (or a "National Bolshevik") than a genuine Marxist. Marxism is alien to the Slavic soul; it couldn't last for long in Russia. Russia has always prospered under autocracy (Tsarism, Stalinism, Putinism). I said this about a year ago on this forum, Russia has always had a czar. |
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Nov 30, 2021 11:12:45 GMT
All due respect, Ayatollah of Rocknrollah, but this isn't pleasant and it is political.
And I wouldn't blame the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks were Lenin and Trotsky and the great Russian Revolution against a corrupt Czar. Holdomor was a Stalinist plot. Stalin fancied himself the Dictator of the Proletariat after the Revolution.
All of that started under Lenin. They were all monsters. |
|
