3rdreich

[Juby (Tercios)]

 I actually wasn't talking about you.  you were just asking questions which is cool.

[Gen. Volkov]

 Juby, I have been restrainong myself from flaming you, but you started flaming me. So I will discontinue this discussion now, because even though I believe I know more about communism than you, I do not want to start flaming you, so I am doing the honorable thing and stopping, I also ask that either this topic be closed, or it be started as a topic in its own right in the Ultramods. Because it way off fromt he orginal point. And these long posts are starting to seem like spam.

[Juby (Tercios)]

 There is no honour in lieing, you said many lies such as Stalin killed Lenin, you said that native americans were all fighting to survive (which is a pretty cruel thing to say about native americans, it's like saying europeans helped them by coming), you said dictators became dictators after communism was established, once again this is not true, Mao established a dictatorship soon as his army one, same with lenin, they said that they would become completely communist but never followed through, face it, you told me to look in an encyclopedia for the facts you stated, I tell you to re-read yours cause you are mistaken, and you obviously haven't read the communist manifesto because you would be using what it says to prove your point, ie saying that it says this but that is wrong because so and so, instead you've simply been stating fallacies and stereotypes of communism.  I think it's rude you would try and debate my political ideology without reading about it, and then when faced with your lack of any real background in communist writtings perpetuate ignorance by sticking to your fallacies of fact.  I have argued with many people who have read the Manifesto and Das Kapital, and many who have not, the people who have realize that statements like yours are easily countered in the books already and so they naturally don't ask those questions because they know what my response will be, the people who haven't make statements based on preconceived notions and fallacies, I think you owe everyone in here an apology for perpetuating ignorance to save yourself embarressment.

[Gen. Volkov]

 STOP FLAMING! I was NOT lying! Stalin had Lenin KILLED!!!!! GO READ YOUR FREAKING HISTORY!!! Also! Stop it with this holier than thou/I know more than you attittude. I can GUARANTEE you don't. Native Americans WERE fighting to survive! That's why its called SUBSISTENCE LEVEL! Europeans were fightting to survive too, just on a higher level! YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT HISTORY! GO read some and then come back and debate with me!

*Calms down* See there ya go.. you made me flame you.

[Juby (Tercios)]

 I have the encyclopedia right here, it says nothing about Stalin killing Lenin, it would be more honorable for you to admit you lied rather then defending a lie just to try and discredit me. And I have never flamed you, I've said, accuratly that you were lieing.

[Gen. Volkov]

 Well its the encyclopedia. IT doesn't tell everything. BUt Stalin did have Lenin mudered. I can find that online for you. And I have not told any fallacies, but you are calling me a liar because you want to prove your point and discredit me. THAT IS FLAMING!

[Juby (Tercios)]

 tsk tsk, you know nothing of native american communites, they weren't these starving people waiting for europeans to civilize them, they were living fairly well, some areas had developed strong agriculture, and I never said i knew more then you, but from your arguements, I know I know much more about communism then you, and as for history, you have said blatantly wrong things, and you called me quite a rude thing, but edited it soon after, the only "flame" i committed was confronting you on your historical lies and exposing your lack of knowledge in certain areas that you claim to know more then me about.  You said quite angrily i have an I know more then you attitude, you said a bit ago, you know more then me about communism, I've shown this to be false and so you accuse me of doing what you did?  I say it again, you obviously have not read the communist manifesto and Das Kapital as you have claimed.

[Gen. Volkov]

 Oh I'm SO sorry for stating such lies.. I don't know what EVER came over me. I mean you must be right because you have read those two books more recently than me.. I mean what do I know.. I'm just lowly college student.. Its obvious that the primitive Native Americans who were living at a subsistence level before we got here were WAY more advanced in political and all other areas than those poor Europeans who sailed across the ocean to meet them.

*End sarcasm*

JUby, that's it. I can't take this anymore, the only thing you do know well is communism, yet you don't the first thing about history or the truth about your precious communism, I'm sick of this pointless argument and I concede. You have worn me out. I'm tired of you flaming me and I'm tired of arguing pointless things. My last point is that communism is not as good as capitalism for humans, if it was, the majority of the world wouldn't be capitalist. THat's all. I'm done, and I am not posting in this thread again.

[Juby (Tercios)]

 that's quite the odd post, I never said Natives were more advanced then europeans, however they deserve more credit then you give them.  More recently read them?  admit it, i mean when I say something incorrect I admit I'm wrong, however here I have siad nothing wrong, sometimes debatable but never wrong, it's not the end of the world for you to admit that you didn't read those books, It's painfully obvious to anyone who has that you haven't.  you keep telling me to read history, I've taken a few history courses and did very well (Modern Western Civilization, Canadian American History. etc.) and I may be a lowly grade 12 student applying to a few prestiguos universities, but I guess that doesn't make me even close to your great american college standerds *snickers*, so far, I haven't said anything historically inaccurate, you have, read history yourself, you would realize that Stalin has not been implicated in Lenin's death.

[Trogdor 22]

BUt Stalin did have Lenin mudered. I can find that online for you.

the internet isn't the most reliable source...

[Trogdor 22]

Stop it with this holier than thou/I know more than you attittude. I can GUARANTEE you don't.  YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT HISTORY! GO read some and then come back and debate with me!

It looks like you're the one wit the holier then thou attitude.

[Dur?]

 May I add my comment?

Communism, in order to work, beleives that all problems are external to man. If we could alleviate, therefore, poverty and lack, and give people opportunity, then we could create a Utopia. However, Communism has never worked because  mankind IS self-centered, greedy, and lazy. Therefore, the basic premise is faulty.

Even after the masses gain control, and therefore power; then the power corrupts them. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Read history from the beginning, it has always been so.

 So when peasants are no longer peasants, but become the rulers, they fall into the same behaviour that their own rulers had over them before. And the cycle perpetuates.


And I would also like to ad a bit about Stalin: While I don't beleive you can prove Stalin killed Lenin,  I have a bit of information about Josef that might enlighten a few people.

Excerpt from "What Everyone Should Know About the 20th Century, page 129-131

Stalin Launches a Purge of the Communist Party

The event: When the 17th Communist Party Congress in 1934 showed support for Sergei Kirov, a moderate and potential rival of its chairman Josef Stalin, the Soviet leader not only engineered Kirov's assasniation in December 1934, but used the murder as a pretext for arresting most of the parties; high-ranking officials as counterrevolutionary conspirators, launching the first of a series of sweeping and deadly purges of the Soviet Government that would last until 1938 and destroy even the hope of a challenge to Stalin's already all-but-absolute control of Russia.


Stalin was born Josef Vissarionovitch Djugashvili on December 21, 1879, in Gori, a rural town in the tsarist state of Georgia. His brutal father, an impoverished and alcaholic shoemaker, was killed in a brawl when Josef was eleven, whereupon the boy's indulgent mother groomed him for the Orthodox preisthood. By the time he entered the Tiflis Theological Seminary at age fourteen the youth's rebelliousness had earned him the nickname "Koba", after a legendary Georgian bandit and rebel. Koba became involved in radical and anti-tsarist political activity in 1898, and a year later left the seminary to become a full-time revolutionary. Soon he was touring the Caucasus, stirring up laborers and organizing strikes on behalf of the Social Democrats.

In 1903 the party split into two groups, V.I. Lenin's radical Bolshevik faction and the more moderate Mensheviks. Stalin fell in with the radicals and grew close to Lenin. For the next decade, from 1903 until he was exiled to Siberia in 1913, Stalin worked to expad the Bolshevik's power, organizing cell after cell across the nation, and financing ?the parties' work through a series of daring robberies. Repeatedly arrested, ?he always managed to escape, which has led to some speculation ta he was in the pay of tsarist secret police. ?Regardless of such rumours, Lenin in 1912 elevated Stalin to the bolshevik Central Commitee, the parties' inner circle. Reticent, even inarticulate, ?Stalin nevertheless became the first editor of Pravda ("Truth"), the Bolshevik's official newspaper., and adopted the name of Stalin, meaning "Man of Steel".

? In 1913, the wily Stalin was at last exiled to Siberia, returning to Russia only after the overthrow of Nicholas II in March 1917. When the first Bolshevik attempt to seize power in the summer of 1917 failed, resulting in the arrest of Leon Trotsky and the self-imposed exile of Lenin, Stalin worked to re-organize the party and played a central role in the October Revolution.

Stalin served in a succession of commisar posts in the Bolshevik government while working quietly to consolidate greater power. ?By 1922, he was named General Secretary of the party's Central Commitee, a position from which he could control most of the party. By the time Lenin fell victim to the stroke that would kill him, he had grown disenchanted with Stalin and had taken steps to to prevet him from assuming a leadership role after his death. But when Lenin died in 1924, despite a letter to the party he left warning against Stalin, the latter promoted himself as te Communist leader's handpicked successor and rutlessly exploited his position as general secretary to eliminate all who opposed him.

?Once his position was secure, Stalin announced a retreat from Lenin's ideal of world communist revolution by advocating "Socialism in one country". He also imposed a economic program far more moderate than the one Lenin had envisioned. Opposed by party leftistsm Stalin eliminated much of the left. Having accompished this in about 1928, he instantly shifted ground ?and adopted radical leftist economic programs, including the forced collectivization of agriculture and a hyper-accelerated program of industrialization. With his original left-wing opponents neutralized, Stalin attacked the party's right wing. By 1930, opposition on the left and the right had been quashed. Stali had become the undisputed dictator of the Soviet Union.

In order to transform the Soviet Union rom an agricultural nation into a modern industrial power, Stalin expropriated the lands of the middle-class farmers, or kulaks, "deporting" or killing those who offered resistance. His regime decreed a series of five-year plans to enforce collectivization and industrialization, financing the plans by exportin grain and otherproduce despite a devastating famine that swept throuh the Soviet Union in 1932. Millions who resisted were executed, and millions more starved to death. A 1988 estimate put the deahs that directly resulted from the forced collectivization of 1928-1933 at 25 million.

? ?During the first five-year plan, opposition to Stalin mounted, and there was a short-lived peasant revolt, which the dictator easily crushed. More challenging was the 17th Party Congress and its mild suport for Sergei Kirov, a Moderate rival to Stalin. Wit Kirov's murder as an excuse for arresting most of the party's highest-ranking officials as counterevolutionary conspirators, beginning in 1936 Stalin conducted a series of public trials of party officials and senior military officers. As a result of the mssive purges, by 1939 , 98 of the 139 central commitee members had been executed, and 1,108 of the 1,966 delegates to the 17th congress had been arrested. Moreover Stalin's KGB (secret police) cheif Lavrenti Beria directed the arrest, execution, exile, and imprisonment of millions of ordinary Soviet citizens.


The deaths caused by forced collectivization- through eecution as well as starvation- would have been more than enough to make Josef Stalin the most prolific mass-murder in a century that offered tough competition for that dubious title.

And to these must be added the devastation of the purges, which went well beyond the hundreds of party officialsneutralized and the millions of citizens persecuted or executed. For, in eliminating so many of his senior military officers, Stalin badly crippled the Red Army, making Russia ripe for Hitler's invasion of 1941. The purges, coupled with the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939, not only shocked the citizens of Western nations but also disillusioned many Communists and would-be communists worldwide, including a number in the United States. to them, as to the recently purged old party faithful, Stalin had betrayed the Revolution.

Please pardon my spelling mistakes.


Now that you know all this, you can decide for yourself whether Stalin killed Lenin or not. IMO, I certainly woudn't put it past him to do it with no hesitation.


As a closing comment, I hope, Juby, that you refrain from using absolutes such as "You obviously have NEVER read anything smart.", or "I have said NOTHING wrong.", as its inflammatory. In Volkov's defense, I think he was thinking about that guy who was exiled to Mexico, and then assasinated. Forgot his name though.

Sincerely,

Dur?

[Juby (Tercios)]

 The guy is Trotsky.
I never said "You have obviously never read anything smart" I said he obviously never read the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital as he claimed because he was saying stereotypes which anybody who has read those two works would realize that those steroetypes are easily countered and would think of real questions to ask.  I also you were selective in your other quotes, I said "I had never said anything wrong, sometimes debatable but never wrong", I said this because I was being perfectly accurate historically but added the debatable because the essence outside of the history and what we infer from history is debatable.
As for your stance, I would say as I previously have that people are not inherantly evil, I do not believe that people are born greedy no more then they are born lazy or theives or anything else.  I attribute these qualities to how we were raised, I use the various aboriginal communites around the world as evidence that because these concepts of power do not occur in every society that they must not be inherant.  I would say that if we raised our children in a communist country that they wouldn't be just born looking for billions of dollars in paper. I beleive I already went over what I percieved as good utilitariansism and bad utilitarianism earlier so just read back, but this would establish that what is truely important can be easily fulfilled and what is greedy and wasteful is a construct of our specific society.

[~>John<~]

 [Ideas from Scott on cross-x.co,]Capitalism is good, it promotes selfishness, productivity, and life.
Communism is bad, it promotes selflessness, laziness, sacrifice, death.

First of all, selflessness is bad because it is anti-life. I its late, i wont get to far into a warrant, but, if you donated every cent to a bum, youd be broke, a bum, and dead.

Your ideas sound great, taken out of context. Lets bring them back to reality. A poor man wants to be treated, but can't afford it. Under your ideal, society or whatever gang claims to represent the majority, would steal my property and my life for someone elses. ITs the same thing as removing an eye from those who can see and giving 1 to the blind. Is that desirable? you know the answer, its the same principle.

selflessness is the antithesis of life. The meaning of the word itself is to remove or destroy the self. Utilitarian thought is a great way to show you way. Lets pretend their are a bunch of angry North Korean commies who are starving, lets say 22 million. It would be in the greatest good for me to work my ... off growing food, so that i can give it away to them in the process, even if i day of a heart attack. I dont see a dime because the broke communists are too poor. Take that and apply it any form of redistribution of resources, taxes to communism.


Communism IS! Giving one eye to the blind so we are equal

[Juby (Tercios)]

 First off, read the whole debate first, second:
You are a catholic who is talking about how doing the right thing is wrong?
Ummmm a rich person could give millions of dollars to the poor and still be middle class.  the average person would not have to sacrifice anything, because they are the average, the rich would have to sacrifice most of what they have to help the poor, giving to the poor is not some bottomless pit that your money is wasted in, the poor aren't a bunch of drunks.  Rich people per capita are the highest substance abusers.  Gang?  I talk about democracy and you, captain america, call it a gang?  Why would anybody give their eye to a blind man?  If you make more money then you need and would waste on something useless like a porsche when all you need is bloody regular car to get from point A to point B.  The money goes to the poor, your example is not accurate at all, if eyes represent money, in communism everyone would be guareenteed two eyes (middle class) and we would take the third and fourth and fifth and so on extra eyes the rich have to the blind, so you can see why your analogy fails, your only thinking that everyone is middle class or poor.  Also the world as a whole is producing 140% of the food that it needs (americans are consuming way more then what they need, canadians and europeans and such are not free from blame but were nowhere near your levels), we can feed everyone and then some, just cause north Korea is unable to feed itself does not mean that we can't feed them, their is a world surplus, we can feed everyone with ease but don't out of greed, you wouldn't go broke feeding the world because their is enough for everyone, but the rich are controlling way more wealth then they will ever need.
Go back and read why people would not become lazy in communism, think about what I said about good and bad utilitarianism, why not work because it comes out of your interests and not to beat the neighbour.  You can't just say something like "Capitalism is good, it promotes selfishness, productivity, and life. Communism is bad, it promotes selflessness, laziness, sacrifice, death." and not back it up with fact,  you have to show why your right through examples, people aren't just gonna say, "oh well john says that so it's obviously true", people aren't stupid john.
Here's a question John for your catholic sensibilities, if people are naturally "selfish or lazy" and can never be "selfless and hardworking" and according to the bible god made man in his image then does that mean that god is only motivated by selflishness and when not motivated by selflishness god is lazy?