|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 5, 2004 17:36:27 GMT -5
OK, even I have to stand in on this one.
If you mean that Lenin was a "good" leader in that he managed to keep his party in power despite the fact that the majority of the population detested it then I guess you are right.
But he was never a morally good leader. Firstly he held national elections, then choose to ignore their results once the Bolsheviks lost out to the Socialist Revolutionaries.
Secondly his policy of "War Communism" during, and for a while after, the civil war resulted in a famine that killed something like five million peasants in southern Russia.
Finally, when handing the factories over to the complete control of the workers didn't work in 1918, he dealt with this by blaming the middle classes, and inciting class warfare in both the cities and the countryside.
If by this you mean Lenin's skill in overriding the soviet councils, abusing trade unionism, and putting factories under harsh dicipline (one worker described them as "worse than a Tsarist prison camp") then it is less an example of being maluable and more an example of going back on all the promises he had made when he surged into power on the wave of popularity following the Kornilov affaire.
Sorry to disagree with you, we really should be uniting against a common enemy on this board, but even from a socialist perspective Lenin was not a good leader.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 5, 2004 18:36:10 GMT -5
If that's your goal, take it to DU. This is our place and you're a guest here.
If DU actually let conservatives post, I don't think I would go in as an aggressive asshat, posting insults and hit pieces and expecting people to continuously defend their entire world view. That's boring and no one's is likely to change. I'd like to think I have enough class that I would ask questions, be respectful and stick to the issues.
I do appreciate your honesty about the modern liberals and their ideological roots. Even the word "progressive" has its roots in communism.
|
|
|
|
Post by KGBagent on Jun 5, 2004 20:22:29 GMT -5
frankiegoestostoke ,
I'd love it if you'd support some of those claims.
Also, are you seriously naivete enough to think that Lenin was behind all of that, like the factory conditions? Do you realize that he too, had political peers to appease?
And as for the 5 million peasants, dont lie, those were the people that dies from the revolution, not from the famine "that Lenin solely caused."
Lenin had to rebuild a nation that was completely destroyed. And by completely, I mean Iraq would seem like a fucking oasis filled with mermaids. Lenin had to also gain support in order to rule and make his peoples' lives better. To do that, he had to adapt, his policies, change, and he used horrible means. But w/o those means, he would not have succeeded. whether it was in carrying out the revolution, or it was actually rebuilding Russia.
The fact of the matter is that Lenin was brilliant. It was Lenin that led a successful revolution against all odds and superior technologies. It was Lenin that began to rebuild the country from its complete devastation. It was Lenin that went against all of his comrades' wishes and implemented the NEP. He risked his career for his people.
He was a magnificent leader with only one downfall: Stalin.
Don't you dare attack Lenin for Stalin's bullshit. Dont you dare.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 6, 2004 5:06:47 GMT -5
This isn't a lie. Five million peasants died in one of the worst famines of the 20th century. Of course Lenin wasn't the sole cause, but his policy of grain requisitioning made the situation a lot worse.
Lenin should never have been in office in the first place. This was the job of the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet. The elections to the constituent assembly held in December 1917 were won fair and square by the socialist revolutionaries.
Lenin was one of the worst socialists ever. Right from his first few weeks of power he began to go back on all of his beleifs, on socialism itself.
Firstly he created the Sovnarkom in 1917 which bypassed the soviets as a descision making body! Despite the fact Lenin came to power almost entirely on the strength of the slogan "All power to the soviets".
Secondly, it was Lenin's descision to put factories under strict control after handing them over the workers and factory shop committees had resulted in such a disaster.
Finally it was Lenin who created the Cheka, Lenin who instigated the extremely arbitary and almost violent "Revolutionary Justice" judicial system.
Russia was working when it was under the control of Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries in the Petrograd Soviet. The Mensheviks and SRs realised that "all power to the soviets" under the bolsheviks wouldnt actually mean "all power to the soviets". They saw through Lenin's "revolution" at once, and were forced to fight for Kolchack during the civil war.
The very people who had supported Lenin's seizure of power in October 1917 turned their backs on him in 1923. The Kronstadt sailors, the military body which had stormed the winter palace, rose up against Lenin in ten days of bitter fighting in Petrograd.
From any ideological standpoint Lenin was not a good leader.
I do concede that Leninism and Stalinism, while they were both brutal, were different. And Stalinism, certainly in terms of agrarian policy, was much harsher.
Lenin didn't impliment the NEP because he felt sorry for all the people living under war communism (his idea). He did because otherewise they wouldn't have lasted another month in power. In March 1923 the Red Army was at practical war with the peasantry, and with the workers in the cities.
I could use the same argument to say that Nicolas II created the October manifesto in 1905 in a noble attempt to risk his career for the people.
I have been conducting my arguments with as much good grace as possible. The "unite" thing was a quasi-joke given the topic was Bolshevism.
|
|
ldd
Pup
Posts: 4
|
Post by ldd on Jun 6, 2004 10:32:04 GMT -5
KERRY IS SUCH BAD NEWS --
Look at the label of a jar of Heinz sandwich slice pickles. Yep...."Made in Mexico." Check out some of your Heinz products.
Sen. John Kerry keeps talking about U.S. corporations leaving this country and setting up shop in foreign countries, taking thousands of jobs with them. He is right, because that has happened. However, he is
trying to blame it on George W. Bush.
As far as I know, Bush has not moved one factory out of this country because he is not the owner of a single factory.
That cannot be said about Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Kerrys own 32 factories in Europe and 18 in Asia and the Pacific. In addition, their company, the Heinz Company, leases four factories in Europe and four in Asia. Also, they own 27 factories in North America, some of which are in Mexico and the Caribbean.
I wonder how many hundreds of American workers lost their jobs when these plants relocated to foreign countries. I also wonder if the workers in Mexico and Asia are paid the same wages and benefits as workers in the United States.
Of course they're not. However, Kerry demands that other companies that relocate should pay the same benefits they did in the U.S. Why does he not demand this of the Heinz Company, since he is married to the owner?
If Kerry is elected, will he and his wife close all those foreign factories and bring all those jobs back to America? Of course they won't. They're making millions off that cheap labor.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 6, 2004 10:47:07 GMT -5
Welcome to the board, ldd. You're right. I have read that the majority of the Heintz factories were out sourced. Liberals scream about out sourcing out of one side of their mouth, and scream about corporate welfare out of the other. Apparently, they want Kerry to tax the hell out of "the rich" and keep companies in America by convincing them with....his looks?  They also fail to realize that we are in sourcing more jobs than we are out sourcing. |
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 6, 2004 13:46:46 GMT -5
Yup. Its about time there wasn't a presidential candidate who is drawn from the rich and the elite. It stifles the representative purpose of politics.
Unfortunaly this election is about two different elites. One who is more left than the other, so unfortunatly Kerry it is for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by KGBagent on Jun 7, 2004 20:55:45 GMT -5
That gov't wasn't worth shit. It had no power whatsoever. Meanwhile, Russia was devastated from two ghastly wars and needed a strong central gov't, like the amserican states in the early 1800s. Lenin was the right man for the job. He would use whatever means neccesary to gain power, with some heart, of course, but once i power will strive, and DID strive to benefit the people, and only the people. Lenin did not have power over Russia at that time. www.historylearningsite.co.uk/russia_1918_to_1921.htmAlso, if you hadn't noticed, b/c my family sure has, the soviets were given power rather quickly when Lenin's russia began to rise from the ashes. Do you not understand that harsh and hypcritical measures had to be taken in order to make Russia country? Hell, do you know with what ease any country could have invaded it? Can you not uderstand that people must be sacrificed for the good of the many? Adams was right, security comes before freedom. But once the security isn't such an issue, it's all the way back to freedom and liberty. and as for the Chekra, that was used in order to instill order and unity. It was used in a times fo great need of unity and for a country totally devasted to be a country again. How many times must I repeat this? Lenin only used these tactics in the beginning, and only b/c it was neccesary. Bullshit. You just twisted the truth. DONT LIE. Lenin did not become leader for the same reasons that Bush did. That is ridiculous. he followed Marxism for god's sake. tried to anyway... but he couldn't. that's my point, is that he couldn't just unite all of the russians in unity with nothing to start on. Check what state Russia's economy was in during that period of time from the above link. For crying out loud, you have no idea what you are talking about, Lenin was a socialist by nature, Bush is a fucking capitalist elitist. Whats the diff between the two? One of them actually wants to help the people. You have no idea what oyu are talking aobut, my entire family has been speaking of this guy for all of my life and they are really very much so against communism. Lenin was not a horrible person, nor did he create anything just to stya in power. More like to help russia. Once again, you are confusing Stlain and Lenin. Well put, I agree. By the way, idl and mo, you forget who bush is and what he has done. You are BLIND. |
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 8, 2004 15:36:45 GMT -5
The Provision Government had no power at all, I agree. The real power lay with the soviets (particularly the Petrograd Soviet), and the military and factory committees. However, power should have slipped from the PG, and fallen into the hands of a coalition socialist government, mainly made up of SRs and Mensheviks, with a Bolshevik and perhaps even a Kadet minority. This would have happened if the elections to the consitutent assembly had been respected by the Bolsheviks in December 1917. As long as they weren't peasants, who were ruthlessly exploited under War Communism, or the working classes who had their trade unions hijacked... This simply isn't true. The moment Lenin took office he embarked on a program of feirce centralisation, starting with the Sovnarkom in 1917 ( weeks after comming to power) and ending with Nomenklatura system in 1923, that meant that loyalty to the party was more important than experice in the heirarchy of the civil service! The Soviets ceased being an important descision making body within weeks of the October revolution. Which part of my statement was bullcrap? The fact that Russia was in a better state, economically and socially in April 1917... hell even September 1917, than it was through all the early 1920's? Or the fact that "all power to the soviets" and "bread peace and land" for that matter didn't actually mean "all power to the soviets" or "bread peace and land". Russia was not at civil war in 1917, the peasants werent starving, food protesters werent fired upon. Lenin inherrited the economic crisis that had brought down the Tsar, and made it tenfold worse. Lenin was using the Cheka, or the GPU as it became, right up until his death. Political repression didn't just disapear after the civil war. In some areas it even intensified. The Cheka was necessary to keep the Bolsheviks in power, but perhaps a coalition of socialist governments would have been more popular... I'm sorry, but there is no excuse for Lenin's actions. He ruined what could have become a peaceful socialist state. He ruined the world's only shot at socialism. He should never have taken power in the first place, and the murder and repression he carried out once in power is inexcusable. The NEP was a concession. The whole idea of the NEP was create an economic concession rather than a political one. It was in direct response the Kronstadt rising of March 1923. The NEP was implimented because the Communist Party would have been overthrown otherwise. We may disagree about Lenin, but we agree about this. Keep up the good work.  |
|
|
|
Post by BOLO on Jun 13, 2004 16:19:36 GMT -5
frankiegoetotoke and KCBagent do not border on the ridiculous, they have passports which allow them in to the realm.
The hypothesis they present are intangibles which they wish to represent as variable and flexible.
In order to substantiate or support any of their arguments they have to change the meaning of words and Ideologies. frankie tends to wander far afield, and I agree with MO they are both boring. I almost went to sleep trying to read them. KC makes promises he won't keep. Like not posting anymore. Mores the shame. He should keep his word. But then he is a lefty, and any one who has a modicum of sense knows Liberals never mean what they say, nor say what they mean, and should never be held to what they said.
And so it goes.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 18, 2004 8:14:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bibster on Jul 29, 2004 16:35:54 GMT -5
I agree completely with what you said. Unfortunately about 50% of this country don't care and would rather live an immoral life then come to terms about Kerry and his evil ways. I can't stand the guy. I've enver hated a politician in my life until John Kerry surfaced. HE's an animal. He has no morals and only cares about becoming president. Most of what he's released about his military recors is false. HE's a big liar. He's flip flopped on Iraq. He's gone for supporting the war (As a senator) to arguing against it as a political candidate. I'm sickened by the thought of this guy becoming president. HE makes Clinton look like a saint. Check out www.itstherightway for articles titled "scar kerry" and "Dirty Kerry". it's a conservative website trying to fight the good fight. |
|
|
|
Post by pukaman on Sept 12, 2004 10:18:10 GMT -5
Apocalypse Bush!
Why care for the planet when the End Times are almost here? Vote Bush and
hop on the salvation train!
ÊÊ
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, September 8, 2004
Mark Morford's Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and Friday on
SF Gate, unless it appears on Tuesdays and Thursdays, which it never does. Subscribe to this column at sfgate.c
Ê
This is the great thing about rabid fundamentalism. You really just don't
have to give a damn.
ÊTake the environment. I mean, isn't it just a little pointless to care so
damn deeply about the air and the soil and the water and the stupid little
disposable animals on this silly spinning ball of expendable rock when the
Second Coming is imminent and a blood-soaked fire-breathin' Jesus who looks
remarkably like Mel Gibson will return very soon to smite the heathens and
the gays and the vegetarians and the Francophiles, and who will rescue all
those who worship patriarchy and country music and blue-chip oil portfolios?
You're goddamn right it is.
ÊLook. This much has become clear. Bush is, more than anything else, an
extreme fundamentalist Christian. He is widely regarded as the most openly
pious and sanctimonioous president in modern American history. He actually
preaches the GOP screed in evangelical churches across America. He panders
so slavishly to the anti-choicers and the Bible-thumpers and the homophobes
it makes Jerry Falwell swoon and giggle.
ÊAnd Bush actually says, out loud, that God speaks through him, and that God
is on our side [when] we bomb the living crap out of Afghanistan and Iraq and that
it is the Almighty's wish that we take control of these angry pip-squeak
nations and in so doing kill thousands of civilians and tens of thousands of
young Iraqi soldiers, as over 1,000 American soldiers are now dead over a
makeshift cause that never really existed. God wanted it this way, that's
why.
ÊBush has called Jesus his "favorite philosopher." He has claimed that the
act of being "born-again" saved him from a long, sad life of vaguely
homoerotic frat parties and repetitive binge drinking and going AWOL from
the National Guard, all so he could turn his full attention to righteously
ruining multiple businesses and then making Texas the most murderous and
polluted state in the union.
ÊBut, you know, why stop there?
ÊGod, of course, isn't just about the current Iraqi war. Bush understands
this. Nor is God just about slamming gays or creating nasty, isolationist
foreign policy. God is not merely about setting those gul-dang Muslim
heathens straight about who is the supreme big-daddy all-powerful
mega-righteous SUV-drivin' American-flag-wavin' God and who is just a
dimestore wannabe false idol scruffy Allah.
ÊBecause above all, God is nothing if not all about putting a quick and
fiery stop to all this Earthly nonsense ASAP. He is nothing if not all about
the coming apocalypse. And He is nothing if not all about saving those who
believe, as Bush does, that he is among the chosen to be saved.
ÊThis is the fundamentalist truth. And this is the BushCo maxim. The End
Times provide the ultimate meaning, the final straw, the only thing worth
caring about, because it defines the BushCo worldview like nothing else
except maybe embarrassing grammar and crushing deficits and a secret craving
for gin. You can see it in his sad, vacant eyes: Bush is absolutely
convinced that God is a Republican. Why else would He create all those cool
M-1 tanks and oil refineries and those neat deer-antler chandeliers?
Exactly.
ÊDo you see? Do you get it? If not, you haven't been reading nearly enough
of those silly pulpy sociopathic gazillion-selling "Left Behind" doomsday
books so frighteningly adored by the Christian Right. It's simple, really:
The world is gonna end real soon. The End Times are comin'. All the signs
are in place -- famine, war, disease, sodomy, fires, hurricanes, Avril
Lavigne -- and Bush, by instigating holy wars and inciting more terrorism
and burning through the planet's natural resources as fast as humanly
possible, is merely hastening the blessedly inevitable. As his fellow
fundamentalists say, God bless him.
ÊHey, it explains a lot, this view. It explain how Bush can just smirk and
mumble and, with one big, heartless shrug, dismiss the complete lack of WMD
and the loss of 1.6 million U.S. jobs and the nation's staggering $422
billion budget deficit. Pay down the national debt? Bah. Planet's going to
hell anyway, people. Stock up on nuclear missiles and get yourself an escape
pod. Can't afford one? Whatta shame.
ÊIt surely explains the general GOP hatred of gay marriage, of open-hearted
sex, of those wicked, sin-inducing vaginas (that harlot Eve is gonna pay,
dammit), of environmentalism, of caring about air quality and water quality
and the EPA and organic foods and homeopathic medicine and resource
management and the Alaska Wildlife Refuge and the U.N. and any country that
doesn't have a McDonald's and a Starbucks and a decent strip club for lonely
gin-soaked Republican expats.
ÊAnd it explains not only the outright contempt for any view other than
Bush's own, but the willingness to legislate that hatred, codify it, to make
it outright illegal to think or feel or love otherwise.
ÊLook at it this way: When you have an angry, patriotic God and the red-hot
promise of the juicy apocalypse on your side, there is no such thing as a
counter-argument. There is no such thing as competition. There is no such
thing as giving a damn what anyone else thinks.
ÊHow else do you explain it? How else can you understand the most
aggressive, war-hungry, abusive, nature-loathing, isolationist
administration in American history? How else can you explain BushCo's
overall "F" grade from every environmental organization in the world? How
can you explain his mauling of long-term Social Security planning? The
decimation of the idea of universal health care? A pre-emptive,
attack-first-ask-questions-never, warmongering policy that creates more
anti-U.S. hatred by the minute?
ÊHow can you explain the fact that every human rights organization on the
planet is appalled by Bush's actions? Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib to John
Ashcroft to the Patriot Act to gutting funding for international women's
health care. Hey, if God had wanted us to care about other viewpoints, He
would've made everyone speak English. Can I get a "hell yeah?"
ÊThis lust for apocalyptica, then, is perhaps the best way we have to at
least partially understand the shamelessness of this administration's
policies and its blatant disregard for international law, its open hatred of
any nation that disagrees with us and the deep, profound concern only for
nations that either cower in our God-flexin' presence and/or have resources
that Bush's corporate pals are salivating to exploit.
ÊAnd it is the perhaps ultimate explanation for the Right's final cattle
call, its bitter war cry of a message, its exact parallel to every
pseudo-religious evangelical scam artist on late-night cable TV.
ÊListen, good people of America. If you just send your money to the party
and give up all that careful, nuanced thinking, if you just quit
questioning our decisions and load up on blind faith, it will all be OK and
you can have all the guns and fast food you want and those terrifying gays
will leave you alone because BushCo will take care of you and God will
reserve your seat on the glory train to salvation. Deal? Praise Jesus!
Praise Bush/Cheney! Hallelujah you are saved! Even as we are, you know,
doomed.
ÊIsn't bogus salvation fun?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eagle68 on Sept 20, 2004 22:10:34 GMT -5
It is bad for America for Kerry to even be permitted to run for president. It will be terrible if enough people are deceived enough to vote him in office. That will truly be a disaster!! For more information on Kerry deceptions check out this site... www.daily-watch.com/lifeThere is even a poll there as well as a place to leave feedback.. |
|
|
|
Post by uac84244525 on Sept 21, 2004 23:11:25 GMT -5
John Kerry isn't bad for America and I can prove it. I wrote an essay yesterday for my 7th grade english class, here it is guys, I hope you like it. ------------------------------------------------------------ WHY I SUPPORT JOHN KERRY [/b][/u][/size] John Kerry is a great guy to be president of America because he cares about people and George Bush hates people. George Bush lets hurricanes come and John Kerry wouldn't. George Bush hates black people and John Kerry likes them. Third, George Bush wants to take over the world and John Kerry just wants the world to be in charge of America so we don't have to think and work hard. First, George Bush hates the enviroment and he doesn't care if pollution goes everywhere. Pollution makes the air hotter and then all the ice caps melt and then more water gets evaporated, and now hurricanes come. If Kerry was president he would make everyone stop polluting and then the ozone layer would get fixed because Kerry would find a way to fix it. The hurricanes would stop coming and it would be less hot and even kids in Africa would have less famine and drout. Second, George Bush hates people. He says that poor people shouldn't get to take money from rich people. John Kerry is smarter. He says "So what if rich people worked for there money, they don't need it so I will take it and give it to poor people and black people." George Bush is racist and hates black people and doesn't think they should have jobs. Kerry thinks black people should have a better chance of getting a job than white people because he knows white people were racist against blacks like 50 years ago. George Bush is a very bad guy. Third, George Bush wants America to rule the world. He attacked Iraq so he could take all the oil and sell it in America and make more money, and now he rules the Iraq government. Now he wants to take over Iran and Korea and take over more oil and lots of rice and toy factories in Korea. All he wants is money and he is one of the most greedy people ever. John Kerry is much nicer and cares about America and the world more and he thinks America should be ruled by all the other countries. This makes more cense because then more other countries would be happy, and this proves John Kerry cares about people when George Bush hates them. In conclusion, George Bush is a bad guy who is mean, racist, greedy, and power hungry. John Kerry is a nicer guy and he cares about people and he isn't racist. He knows being greedy and racist is bad, and he doesn't want to take over the world. America fought England in the revolutionary war because we didn't want a king in charge, but Bush thinks kings are good and now he wants to be king of the whole world. John Kerry stands up for what America was fighting for in the revolutionary war and he will make sure nobody can be king and that everyone has liberty and justice for all. |
|
