The Ghost of Stalin - the lightweight Conservative and Liberal response

Conservatives and their lap dogs, The Conservative-Lites (aka: Dems/Liberals) tend to bring up Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Hitler way too often - as if these leaders debunk the entire Socialist movement.

Basically, that is just a shallow and weakly informed obfuscation of the truth.

Obama, Tony Blair, Zapatero etc.. and other populist 'socialist' figures, are light years away from these Real men.

Now, if you want to attack Socialism in any of its true guises, then better arguments are needed.

Who is willing to have a go?

 

The Khmer Rouge was one of my hobbies. I'd be happy to answer any questions. My study is extensive.

 

Ok, well first off, could Pol Pot really be considered a Socialist?

 

The Cambodia of now (and similar nations) could do with a Pol Pot type figure today (minus the killing fields) - this is because bourgeoisie corruption has destroyed modern day society there.

 

What do Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Hitler, the Kim Dynasty in NK, etc. all have in common? Socialism. All believed in the principals of socialism. Their actions are the inevitable result of attempted socialism.

A revolutionary will deliver fiery speeches calling for the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of a "true" socialist state. Eventually, he rallies more support and leads a revolution, overthrowing the government.

What's a "Workers of the world, Unite!" State without a central government? The Leaders of the revolution will, of course, establish a central government to unite the workers and spread socialism. They will probably either choose a form of soviet democracy (If they aren't already totalitarian) or an extremely rigged form of representative democracy (If already totalitarian).

Depending on how moderate the leader is, the nation will either become a totalitarian regime right off the back, or the radicals will call the leader out as a traitor to the revolution and kill him, remove him from office or wait for him to die. One way or another, the radicals will come to power. With the radicals in power, the Soviet Union is recreated. Eventually, capitalism will begin to break through in the nation (China), or the country will collapse (Soviet Union).

Story of every attempt to establish a "true" socialist state.

 

Hitler should not be mentioned with the above names as National Socialism was not even remotely the same ideology, and in fact was its greatest and most formidable historical ideological enemy.

 

Cambodia was not developed enough to support a Communist regime. People forget that Russia had a developing proletariat. In the end the government just didn't have the infrastructure to run the countryside - which was one of the main real reasons for the famine. Though I doubt deaths were anywhere near two million.

 

Hitler's National Socialism was not about the elimination of class; it was focused on the elimination of class distinctions and building the volksgemeinschaft (people's community).
The sons of shoe makers would attend the same schools as the sons of a Professor, bringing about, as Hitler said, "a fantastic idea where birth means nothing and ability means everything."
It is through this system that boy born to a poor family, if deserving, could rise through the Hitler Youth, the SS, and possibly become Fuehrer of the nation.

In maximizing the potential of the individual, you maximize the potential of a race and nation.

It was about destroying barriers based on class so that the nation could fulfill it's complete potential as a people and as a whole.
Germany's middle class drastically grew under National Socialist rule, while Communists eliminate the middle class entirely, through taxation and terror, creating a nation of slaves. In that regard, the Corporate-Capitalist is much closer to the Communist than a National Socialist could ever be. The Socialism in National Socialism has virtually nothing to do with Marxist ideology and didn't originate with Marx or Engels in the slightest. It's fathers are Darwin, Nietzsche, Wagner, and -above all- Adolf Hitler.

[video=youtube;aGfiV8n_eBY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGfiV8n_eBY[/video]

It is also Western civilizations newest and most modern political system and ideology. The fact that it was destroyed by outsiders and then suppressed has much to do with the rapid decline of the West today, who now have ideas, faiths and concepts they do not sincerely believe in enforced on them in its place.
Nihilism, stagnation, decline and collapse will be the inevitable result without its rebirth.

[video=youtube;Bn7qry9wCAk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn7qry9wCAk[/video]

 

I would think that Stalin, Castro and Mao for example, were great and true Nationalists - so would you accept them? (if we just forget about the ideology for a minute). I believe that originally Castro was a fan of Hitler.

- - - Updated - - -

And how about we just make the words 'bourgeoisie and Jew' interchangeable - aren't we onto the same thing here?

Ie: human traits

 

Jewish Bolshevism isn't Socialism - it's sadism. I'm no Christian but it wouldn't hesitate to call it Satanic.
Just as a reminder of what the Jews unleashed on the Russian people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheka

This isn't ideology. This is Jewish blood lust disguised as a political system, where they stole everything from an entire Empire and plundered it dry, tortured, raped and mutilated millions of people, and called it "Bolshevism." They went so far as to target all "good looking people" for extermination solely because it was believed they would be more prone to counter-revolution (I think it was to ravage Russian gentile eugenics). This morphed into Stalinism after the death of Lenin, but they were still his executioners. It wasn't until Stalin had reason to believe the Jews were plotting against him that he turned on them, so to me, most of Stalin's legacy is unleashing Jewish mass murderers on everything and everyone from Siberia to Berlin.

I have no love for Stalin. I hate him. I also hate Communist ideology. It isn't in the same hemisphere as National Socialism. I would expect no quarter from them and would give no quarter to them.

As for Mao and Castro, I leave the Asians and Cubans to their own affairs. If they want to slaughter themselves under Communist autocrats, I don't think it's for me to interfere in their right to self determination, so long as they are not threatening the West. I honestly know little about Mao beyond the basics, which is on one hand he helped modernize China (which I see no reason for me to applaud), and on the other drastically increased Communism's 20th century death toll through, of course, more famine.

I am just not a Communist. I detest it. I believe misguided Western Communists are potentially ripe for conversion to National Socialism, but I feel there is no way to deal with the committed but through the sword. It has an indisputable record now of turning human beings into savage, mindless animals, which was its intent with the rise of Bolshevism and Lenin's own words make no effort to conceal that fact.

Meanwhile, National Socialism, hearkening back to days shrouded in fog and myth, when our ancestors, forged from the rains and snows of Northern Europe, hammered their place into history, created one of the most advanced civilizations known to man. They were in some fields decades ahead of those around them, and their technology would later put an American flag on the moon.

 

Another aspect of Communism worth noting is its vile aims. To create mankind anew into the "ideal Communist" it seeks the destruction of all nations, all races, all culture, and through all of this, the whole of human history. It wants one world, made up of a bland brown mass of miscegenation, with no pride, no culture, and no history. That, to the Communist, is the great ideal - humanity stripped of its everything in order to make a more suitable slave. It despises the family, it despises all traditions. It despises true art.

It is an ideology of contempt and hatred for the entire human race.

It is the exact opposite of National Socialism.

 

This is funny...
Not understanding the difference between social democracy , democratic socialism , Bolivarianism and national socialism can lead to some very embarrassing posts .

If you want a real debate on this ask real questions and avoid placing apples and oranges in the same shack .

For starters socialism gets regional characteristics so in Europe internationalism gets on the top , in Asia it is used to serve a national cause and in America the most important aspect is self sufficiency and independence .

 

Where's all this 'Jewish' connection coming from anyway?

First off, virtually all the Bosheviks were atheists, - but where were the Jews.

Lenin, Stalin, the Politburo etc.. all jews - I don't really buy that.

 

Who determines what is true art?

Who determines what is moral?

Who determines what is correct behaviour?

do you have some kind of system to base it all on?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm trying to get to the bottom of this issue, so really needed to include Stalin, Lenin and Hitler in the same jug.

And what do you make of all the 'Communists are Jews' claim?

 

What issue? socialism is a transitional period between capitalism and communism, if it is not a transitional period then it is not socialism.

Nonsense, i am an atheist .

 

A brief summary:
[video=youtube;Qa9oUFgvqA8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa9oUFgvqA8[/video]
Of this list only Lenin (only 1/4th Jewish and Nikolai Bukharin are not Jewish)

Some reading material:
http://www.rense.com/general43/jewishrole.htm
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jan/25/russia.books
(Duke's response to the above book dealing: http://davidduke.com/solzhenitsyn-on-the-jewish-role-in-the-bolshevik-terror/)

Jew discussing it on Israeli opinion website:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

Genrikh Yagoda: NKVD Chief and perhaps the worst mass murderer of the 20th century.
Responsible for the Holodomor genocide which killed 7 ~ 9 million Ukrainians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genrikh_Yagoda


Here is Putin, who is friendly to Jews, declaring that 85% of the original Soviet government was Jewish. If anyone has the documents to know that with absolute certainty, it's him
http://www.timesofisrael.com/putin-first-soviet-government-was-mostly-jewish/

Winston Churchill in the London Times:
[video=youtube;8DdthbAVrC0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DdthbAVrC0[/video]



I have numerous books on the Bolshevik revolution and all of them try to dance around the subject by claiming the Bolshevik revolution "wasn't Jewish because it was Jewish. It was Jewish because Communists were the `urban intelligentsia`... which just happened to be all Jewish." Western Jewish-ruled media makes an effort to dance around the subject when it is right there for all to see.

I suppose this is where people call me an anti-Semite.

 

One of the very first laws passed by the victorious Bolsheviks after murdering the Tsar and his family was to make antisemitism punishable by death.

Communism was originally as Jewish as National Socialism was German.

 

I have no problem with government programs to help those who truly need it. I'm not talking about 500 different programs to help those who simply don't want to face hard times in their own life. I'm talking about just a few programs to help those who are really bad off. Some might call me a socialist for having these beliefs and I wouldn't mind if they did.

My problem is with collectivism. When socialism turns to collectivism then it becomes something evil. Having a few programs to help the destitute can still leave us with a society that recognizes people as individual human beings. But it seems that societies who have collectivized everything made the step to collectivize people as well. People cease to matter as individuals are thought of in terms of groups. Individual human life begins to lose importance because all a collectivist cares about is the group.

A country that has decided to use some of their pooled money in ways that might help the destitute has, to my knowledge, never degenerated into a brutal and cruel society. It is the societies that chose to collectivize that have produced Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. These are the societies that have produced histories greatest monsters because these are the societies that ceased to value the life of the individual.

 

It's not called nationalism socialism without a good reason. It's a form of socialism, and it's part of the socialist movement. Marxism is just one branch in the movement you know. Good luck trying to convince anyone that Hitler wasn't a socialist when he himself referred to his movement as such, and when his actions support it.

 

And yet.... not even remotely the same ideology.

 

Has it occurred to you that socialism is a very broad movement?

 

Clearly, which is why I fail to see why you take such exception to me pointing out the fact that National Socialism was a completely different ideology than the Communism represented by Stalin and the Bolsheviks.

 

Munter was talking about the socialist movement wasn't he? Of which both stalin and hitler were part.

 

Yes. Are you bothered by the fact that I would point out that they do not all belong lumped in with one another? You just said it was a broad movement.
National Socialism paid for lower class German families to take foreign vacations, which they wouldn't be allowed to do otherwise. It gave loans to newly married couples to begin their new life with the understanding that the amount that would have to be paid back was dependent on how many healthy children they had. It made sure that bright, intelligent children from humble backgrounds would be given the best possible education.

Is this the same as Stalin's policy of collectivization? No. Did Hitler share the same aims as Trotsky? No.
Was Germany society under National Socialism similar at all to life in Russia under the Bolshevik regime? No.

It's a complete different ideology and a completely different world view striving for entirely different goals. I don't think pointing this out is outside the parameters of the discussion.

 

Are you bothered by the fact that they're part of the same, albeit very broad, movement, and thus can be lumped together? Seemingly, yes. Your point was that hitler shouldn't be mentioned alongside people like Stalin and mao. But of course he can, because they were all part of the socialist movement, and recall, munter was speaking of socialists, not communinsts.