On "us vs them", terrorism, etc.

[In fascist regimes] "The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc." Dr. Lawrence Britt

"When I was growing up, it was 'Communists'. Now it's 'Terrorists'. So you always have to have somebody to fight and be afraid of, so the war machine can build more bombs, guns, and bullets and everything." Cindy Sheehan

"When we peel away all the layers of burning flesh, all the carefully constructed fiction of human progress and benefits of science and technology, we must face a reality perhaps even more grim. There simply is no 'us versus them'. The side claiming to represent progress has done more and done worse, using as low-tech and brutal methods as any on either side of the technological and cultural divide." Daniel Patrick Welch

Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. Noam Chomsky

ziggy wrote:[In fascist regimes]Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. Noam Chomsky

Tell that to the victims of 9/11...

Tell that to those who have cheered the U.S. government's exportation of terrorism to southeast Asia and to the middle east for the past half century, and to Cuba and Central America and around the world for more than a century.

ziggy wrote:Tell that to those who have cheered the U.S. government's exportation of terrorism to southeast Asia and to the middle east for the past half century, and to Cuba and Central America and around the world for more than a century.

Okay. Consider that done--in fact, I delivered the message personally to Vietnam forty years ago. I wish that they would just ignore the whole thing.

They will- when enough generations have passed on that the history of it is but a glimmer of the nearly forgotten past.

Perhaps Mr. Chomsky or his boy Ziggy can tell the hundreds of millions of eastern Europeans and Asians, those who lived under the oppression and fear of Stalin, Lenis, Khrushchev and Brezhnev that Communism was merely a slogan created by the west and all they had to do to stop Communism was stop participating.

Who knew. I'm sure that had the Germans knew that was all that was required, they wouldn't have raced west to surrender to American and English troops.

"Should that time ever come, we do not intend to be lectured on "intervention" by those whose character was stamped for all time on the bloody streets of Budapest!"

http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/John_F_Kennedy/7.htm

Perhaps if the Turks, Polish, or any number of other eastern Europeans simply told the Cubans that all they had to do was not participate, there would have been no bay of pigs.

Had they only known all they had to do was quit, damn, I bet they would be pissed.

And all these people trying to get from East Berlin to West Berlin,



all they had to do was not participate.

Damn, if they had only known.

Communist Body Count: 149,469,610

Had they only known!!!

Communist Body Count: 149,469,610

Be careful. Fascism labeled as communism is not the same thing.

You can't really, for instance, call Pol Pot a "communist"

I didn't call Pot Pol anything. Scott Manning may have and if so, and you disagree with Manning including Pol's regime in the numbers I referenced, then you need to address that with Mr. Manning.

My point remains that Mr. Chomsky's statement and Ziggy's agreement that communism was the same boogeyman during it's heyday that terrorism is today is wrong. Ziggy, to his credit, obviously recognized the error of that comparison and wisely walked away as the numerous post I provided prove beyond all doubt that such an implication is utterly ridiculous.

I didn't call Pot Pol anything. Scott Manning may have and if so, and you disagree with Manning including Pol's regime in the numbers I referenced, then you need to address that with Mr. Manning.

I'll address it to to you, since you seem to think that Stalin, for instance, was really a communist.

Are you disputing that communism was a false boogeyman as terrorism is today?

As for Stalin, history has branded him a communist. You can take it up all you like but if you're disputing it, the burden of proof lies with you.

As for Stalin, history has branded him a communist. You can take it up all you like but if you're disputing it, the burden of proof lies with you.

Communism is against the very idea of a "state". Stalin made himself the state.

Stalin was by no means a communist. That is why they call that type of regime "Stalinist".

There you go. Case made. Read better history books.

Terry RC vs history. I think I'll side with history. You've proven nothing beyond how important it is to yourself that you must be right in all that you say and do no matter how many times by numerous credible sources that prove you wrong.

I believe there's a word for that. It's right on the tip of my tongue...

Terry RC vs history. I think I'll side with history. You've proven nothing beyond how important it is to yourself that you must be right in all that you say and do no matter how many times by numerous credible sources that prove you wrong.

Alright, Aaron. In what way did Stalin's actions illustrate his adhering to the tenets of communism? For extra points, try and use your own words.

I already gave you an example of how they did NOT.

Please tell me how Stalinism=communism.

Can't wait.

Well, let's see, his government controlled ownership of production, the central bank, ownership of land, inheritance, they controlled taxes, controlled communication and transportation, determined where people lived, where they went to school, what they studied in addition to being brutal murders and a controlling dictator.

So what do I win?

You don't win anything.

Pure communism, or the stage in history after socialism, refers to a classless, stateless society, one where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made in the best interests of the collective society with the interests of every member of society given equal weight in the practical decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.

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

ziggy wrote:

Pure communism, or the stage in history after socialism, refers to a classless, stateless society, one where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made in the best interests of the collective society with the interests of every member of society given equal weight in the practical decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.

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

Oh, you mean from each according to thier ability, to each according to their need.

Those are yours or someone else's words, Cato- not mine.

ziggy wrote:You don't win anything.

Pure communism, or the stage in history after socialism, refers to a classless, stateless society, one where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made in the best interests of the collective society with the interests of every member of society given equal weight in the practical decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.

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

Sure I did. You need to go back and read the thread. Terry claimed Stalin wasn't a communist and didn't rule with communism. I never claimed he was a strict communist but that he used communsim to rule the USSR.

Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (18 December 1879[2] – 5 March 1953) was a Soviet politician and head of state who served as the first General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's Central Committee from 1922 until his death in 1953. After the death of Vladimir Lenin in 1924, Stalin rose to become the leader of the Soviet Union, which he ruled as a dictator.

As the General Secretary of the Communist Party, I'd say I made my point. I'll take cash please.

ziggy wrote:Those are yours or someone else's words, Cato- not mine.

As my daddy often said Ziggy, actions speak louder then words. Words however, when written in the same pattern over the years become part of a larger pattern.

So while those may not be your words, it's easy to see why others, myself included, would believe those words first uttered by Louis Blanc and made famous by Karl Marx are the cornerstone of your belief system.

Whether Joseph Stalin adhered to them strictly or not is not the question. The fact that he used those words and the tenants of communism to brutally rule a nation is not historically disputed in spite of what you or Terry post.

I am curious though, are you now saying that communism of yesteryear was the same boogeyman that terrorism of today is Ziggy?

I am curious though, are you now saying that communism of yesteryear was the same boogeyman that terrorism of today is Ziggy?

Mostly, yes. For example, it was the political excuse for the escalation of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, even though the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution says nothing about communism.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:You don't win anything.

Pure communism, or the stage in history after socialism, refers to a classless, stateless society, one where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made in the best interests of the collective society with the interests of every member of society given equal weight in the practical decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.

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

Sure I did. You need to go back and read the thread. Terry claimed Stalin wasn't a communist and didn't rule with communism. I never claimed he was a strict communist but that he used communsim to rule the USSR.

Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (18 December 1879[2] – 5 March 1953) was a Soviet politician and head of state who served as the first General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's Central Committee from 1922 until his death in 1953. After the death of Vladimir Lenin in 1924, Stalin rose to become the leader of the Soviet Union, which he ruled as a dictator.

You mistakenly equate government centered socialism with stateless communism. American corporate socialism has much more in common with Soviet style socialsim than Soviet socialsim under Stalin had with communism.

As the General Secretary of the Communist Party, I'd say I made my point. I'll take cash please.

The Communist Party of the USSR, like the Democratic Party or the Republican Party of the USA, is/was just a name for a political machine. It has nothing to do with what it meant by a democratic or republican or communistic society by function.