Socialism the new communism? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Socialism the new communism?


IndianaMatt
10-02-2012, 19:51
Like we had McCarthyism in the 50s, I'm noticing that the new trend in popular demagoguery is to call someone you don't agree with a Marxist or a socialist (these are actually two totally different, but loosely related concepts). This is usually a sign that you are talking to someone who has no idea what socialism really is, and in 99% of the cases has never actually been to a socialist country.

I've been to a socialist country. We are SO SO far away from socialism.

Chronos
10-02-2012, 20:25
Well, if you want to get technical, I doubt you've been to a socialist country either. A socialist economy is impossible -- the closest the world has seen was the first four years of communist Russia (the "war communism" era), and Pol Pot's Cambodia, where use of money was forcibly banned. As a result, capital was consumed, specialization of labor was crippled, and cities were emptied out as people went directly back to bare personal subsistence-type labor. These types of attempts at "true socialism" inevitably end quickly after mass death and starvation. In Cambodia, Pol Pot was deposed, and in Russia, Lenin introduced the "new economic policy" (which involved use of money again, in order to sustain the economy).

There is a truly excellent online lecture about the argument that a socialist economy is impossible -- a compelling insight first put forward by von Mises back around 1920 or so: Calculation and Socialism | Joseph T. Salerno - YouTube

DonGlock26
10-02-2012, 20:35
A socialist is a communist that hasn't murdered yet.

aircarver
10-02-2012, 21:08
New boss .... same as old boss ....

.

countrygun
10-02-2012, 23:24
Like we had McCarthyism in the 50s, I'm noticing that the new trend in popular demagoguery is to call someone you don't agree with a Marxist or a socialist (these are actually two totally different, but loosely related concepts). This is usually a sign that you are talking to someone who has no idea what socialism really is, and in 99% of the cases has never actually been to a socialist country.

I've been to a socialist country. We are SO SO far away from socialism.



"Like we had McCarthyism in the 50s, I'm noticing that the new trend in popular demagoguery is to call someone you don't agree with a Marxist or a socialist"

I remember the days when comparing someone to McCarthy was similar to a "tin foil hatter" today. but i also remember that papers that came from the Kremlin after the fall of the wall proved that McCarthy was a lot more right than he got credit for.

"I've been to a socialist country. We are SO SO far away from socialism"


Entire Countries have been in denial about their State before,(My father told me there wasn't one German, outside of the arrogant SS officers he dealt with, in Germany who admitted they knew what was going on with the camps) so one individual in denial now doesn't surprise me.

Ringo S.
10-02-2012, 23:51
A socialist economy is impossible -- the closest the world has seen was the first four years of communist Russia (the "war communism" era)

"War communism" was temporary economical policy, brought to life by extreme conditions of civil war, hunger and shortages, and was abandoned right after the war, replaced with NEP (new economic policy), that brought back market.
According to theory, socialism is first faze of communism, when "From each, according to his abilities, to each, according to his labor" principle works. Private property on means of production is abolished, but laws of the market and money are still in use. So, socialism and communism are not something that should be compared. According to theory, communism could not be developed without a period of living in socialism, when communist principals are grown.
So, socialist economy not only possible, it also could be successful. Rice of USSR from ruins of Civil war to number two in the world and somewhere even number one (space exploration, for example) in short decades, teaching us, that with right people in charge, any political system could be successful.
And opposite, even successful capitalist economy could be ruined, with idiots in charge of the country...

SDDL-UP
10-03-2012, 00:02
IndianaMatt,

I don't know what more evidence you're waiting for? Obama is a socialist (yes... really), about two thirds the democrats in the Senate are socialists (yes... really) and the more these socialists promise, give away, and mortgage our future, the more they cultivate fat dumb and happy little socialists...

GAFinch
10-03-2012, 05:21
Socialism is dominant in our culture but with innocent-sounding "progressive" codewords instead of traditional German and Russian terms so people don't realize it. Most Democrats nowadays want European-style soft socialism/neo-socialism. Some of the people running our country right now, though, are lifelong communists and calling them socialists is giving them the benefit of the doubt. The "Forward" slogan is an old communist slogan. The traditional scope of religion in public life has been narrowed by the ACA. A creepy cult of personality surrounds the President. Congressional power is being sidelined while executive power is being strengthened including new emergency powers on standby. Every Democrat-picked SCOTUS justice is hard left. One of this country's biggest companies was nationalized. The relatively non-corrupt volunteer military is being shrunk. A permanent voting majority is being created through welfare/healthcare handouts. The only thing missing is gun registration to precede a disarming of the populace.

Skyhook
10-03-2012, 07:00
IndianaMatt,

I don't know what more evidence you're waiting for? Obama is a socialist (yes... really), about two thirds the democrats in the Senate are socialists (yes... really) and the more these socialists promise, give away, and mortgage our future, the more they cultivate fat dumb and happy little socialists...

It's like some nightmarish flashback to 1928 Germany in many respects.

As for the nice face of Nationalist Socialism, let's peek into MA's future.. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/natural-versus-phony_653236.html

Chronos
10-03-2012, 14:52
"War communism" was temporary economical policy, brought to life by extreme conditions of civil war, hunger and shortages, and was abandoned right after the war, replaced with NEP (new economic policy), that brought back market.
According to theory, socialism is first faze of communism, when "From each, according to his abilities, to each, according to his labor" principle works. Private property on means of production is abolished, but laws of the market and money are still in use. So, socialism and communism are not something that should be compared. According to theory, communism could not be developed without a period of living in socialism, when communist principals are grown.
So, socialist economy not only possible, it also could be successful. Rice of USSR from ruins of Civil war to number two in the world and somewhere even number one (space exploration, for example) in short decades, teaching us, that with right people in charge, any political system could be successful.
And opposite, even successful capitalist economy could be ruined, with idiots in charge of the country...

I know you have a Russian heritage and perhaps don't feel like watching the video I linked, but I highly, highly recommend it for understanding why a true socialist economy is impossible.

A very important point is that after war communism and the NEP was implemented, Russia was no longer running according to socialist economic theory. Sure, it was a centrally managed economy, but as you note it brought back money and a market in order to survive and halt the mass death. All attempts at "pure socialist economy" must default to such a system after a very short time, for the economic reasons described in detail in the lecture I linked.

I understand that Russia was eventually quite good at a few politically selected things (at the expense of nearly everything else), but it was good at exactly nothing during the attempt at implementing socialist theory, during which money was banned, and the government truly tried to implement "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

An analogous situation happened in Cambodia, with the same economic consequences. Their politicians were a bit less willing to compromise the principles of a socialist economy, however, and so their regime crashed and burned after they had left two million deaths from an initial population of 7 million (in 3 years).

It is remarkable that the analysis of von Mises had predicted this inevitable phenomenon already prior to 1920.

brickboy240
10-03-2012, 15:06
Funny...I thought the new form of demagoguery was to call someone that disagreed with you a RACIST.

As in how many will call you racist if you disagree with Obama's plans. Somehow...people assume it HAS to do with his race and not his ideas?

I only refer to someone as communist, Marxist or socialist if they exhibit those tendencies and yes...all are slightly different.

Obama is not a communist...he is more of an oligarchical socialist when you examine his policies and actions.

-brickboy240

series1811
10-03-2012, 15:47
Like we had McCarthyism in the 50s, I'm noticing that the new trend in popular demagoguery is to call someone you don't agree with a Marxist or a socialist (these are actually two totally different, but loosely related concepts). This is usually a sign that you are talking to someone who has no idea what socialism really is, and in 99% of the cases has never actually been to a socialist country.

I've been to a socialist country. We are SO SO far away from socialism.

I don't usually quote Wikipedia, but I don't think they could really get this one wrong. Which of these did you visit that makes you think you have socialism figured out?

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

Ringo S.
10-03-2012, 15:56
A very important point is that after war communism and the NEP was implemented, Russia was no longer running according to socialist economic theory.1920.
Interesting... Some economical utopical theory exist, and USSR didn't use it, and this is what... bad thing?
I don't care, whatever you name it, but theory, that was used in USSR in 30-40s, was highly effective. When in hardest of conditions of the war, when half of industrial therritory was lost to enemy, industry of Soviet Union could overcome Germany an the whole industry of occupied Europe, and produce more tanks, aeroplanes and etc, and better quality, then the Axis, we can say; "Whatever you name it, that bolsheviks build, it works very good".
Then came trotskist Khruschov and all start slowly moving to wrong direction.... like today's US...

countrygun
10-03-2012, 16:10
Interesting... Some economical utopical theory exist, and USSR didn't use it, and this is what... bad thing?
I don't care, whatever you name it, but theory, that was used in USSR in 30-40s, was highly effective. When in hardest of conditions of the war, when half of industrial therritory was lost to enemy, industry of Soviet Union could overcome Germany an the whole industry of occupied Europe, and produce more tanks, aeroplanes and etc, and better quality, then the Axis, we can say; "Whatever you name it, that bolsheviks build, it works very good".
Then came trotskist Khruschov and all start slowly moving to wrong direction.... like today's US...

Yah, and at the same time Germany was building a great autobahn and "Folks cars" under National Socialism. How did that work out?

427
10-03-2012, 16:18
Interesting... Some economical utopical theory exist, and USSR didn't use it, and this is what... bad thing?
I don't care, whatever you name it, but theory, that was used in USSR in 30-40s, was highly effective. When in hardest of conditions of the war, when half of industrial therritory was lost to enemy, industry of Soviet Union could overcome Germany an the whole industry of occupied Europe, and produce more tanks, aeroplanes and etc, and better quality, then the Axis, we can say; "Whatever you name it, that bolsheviks build, it works very good".
Then came trotskist Khruschov and all start slowly moving to wrong direction.... like today's US...
You think Stalinism is a good thing??? Yeah, OK.

How many ordinary Russian people were killed because of Stalinism along with the purges and famines? Millions? Far more than Hitler ever dreamed of.

Skyhook
10-03-2012, 16:29
You think Stalinism is a good thing??? Yeah, OK.

How many ordinary Russian people were killed because of Stalinism along with the purges and famines? Millions? Far more than Hitler ever dreamed of.

I'd also like to see the destruction of family farms for collective farms addressed. What happened to food production with that genius, socialist move?

countrygun
10-03-2012, 16:29
You think Stalinism is a good thing??? Yeah, OK.

How many ordinary Russian people were killed because of Stalinism along with the purges and famines? Millions? Far more than Hitler ever dreamed of.


Hard to believe that someone could overlook the fact that Stalin holds the worlds record....for killing Russians.

427
10-03-2012, 16:39
I can't believe that there are people who are nostalgic for leaders like Lenin, Stalin and Mao, who combined, killed 100's millions of their own people though their theories and all but ignore that little inconvenient truth. Amazing.

countrygun
10-03-2012, 16:51
I can't believe that there are people who are nostalgic for leaders like Lenin, Stalin and Mao, who combined, killed 100's millions of their own people though their theories and all but ignore that little inconvenient truth. Amazing.

Well, you know the crude old joke (repeated for political value only)

Q: You know the difference between "Rape" and "Rapture" ?

A: Salesmanship.

Chronos
10-03-2012, 16:53
Interesting... Some economical utopical theory exist, and USSR didn't use it, and this is what... bad thing?
I don't care, whatever you name it, but theory, that was used in USSR in 30-40s, was highly effective. When in hardest of conditions of the war, when half of industrial therritory was lost to enemy, industry of Soviet Union could overcome Germany an the whole industry of occupied Europe, and produce more tanks, aeroplanes and etc, and better quality, then the Axis, we can say; "Whatever you name it, that bolsheviks build, it works very good".
Then came trotskist Khruschov and all start slowly moving to wrong direction.... like today's US...

The point is that USSR could not run an economy according to socialist theory because it is physically impossible for anyone to do so, and not because it is a "good thing" or "bad thing," or how vast and beautiful the USSR's killing machines were some 20 years after the socialist economic theory had ended in mass death and was replaced.

Just incidentally, I am right now at this moment wearing a watch that was produced in 1970 USSR -- it is one of the best and most famous that they ever produced. I find it to be a cool piece of economic history. But it is in no way comparable in quality to what the west was producing at the same time.

Snowman92D
10-03-2012, 17:18
I guess I've spaced it...but what was it that "U.S.S.R." stood for? I mean, I know they were communists, I know the bloodspill and misery they caused worldwide, but what did the abbreviation stand for?

Oh, yeah...Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. As was noted above, a "socialist" is a communist who hasn't murdered anybody yet.

Flying-Dutchman
10-03-2012, 17:38
Like we had McCarthyism in the 50s, I'm noticing that the new trend in popular demagoguery is to call someone you don't agree with a Marxist or a socialist (these are actually two totally different, but loosely related concepts). This is usually a sign that you are talking to someone who has no idea what socialism really is, and in 99% of the cases has never actually been to a socialist country.

I've been to a socialist country. We are SO SO far away from socialism.
Marxist, Communist, Socialist –These are extreme words to be avoided unless the descriptive fits; and in the case of Obama, and his staff members Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod it fits.

These are children of Communist Party members; Red Diaper Babies.

60 years ago these folks would have a thick FBI file and if in a position of power would have to change their name to find work or leave the Country.

Snowman92D
10-03-2012, 18:04
...in the case of Obama, and his staff members Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod it fits.

These are children of Communist Party members; Red Diaper Babies.

:goodpost:

fortyofforty
10-03-2012, 18:55
Interesting... Some economical utopical theory exist, and USSR didn't use it, and this is what... bad thing?
I don't care, whatever you name it, but theory, that was used in USSR in 30-40s, was highly effective. When in hardest of conditions of the war, when half of industrial therritory was lost to enemy, industry of Soviet Union could overcome Germany an the whole industry of occupied Europe, and produce more tanks, aeroplanes and etc, and better quality, then the Axis, we can say; "Whatever you name it, that bolsheviks build, it works very good".
Then came trotskist Khruschov and all start slowly moving to wrong direction.... like today's US...

Pay no attention to Lenin's and Stalin's extensive use of slave labor in the Gulag to help their economy stay afloat. Nothing to see here.

GAFinch
10-03-2012, 19:00
A socialist is a communist that hasn't murdered yet.

Yeah, that's why our Dear Leader's callous/sociopathic reference to an ambassador and two SEAL's being massacred on the anniversary of 9/11 as just a bump in the road is very disturbing and should heavily factor into forming a proportional response plan to his potential re-election.

fortyofforty
10-03-2012, 19:15
Yeah, that's why our Dear Leader's callous/sociopathic reference to an ambassador and two SEAL's being massacred on the anniversary of 9/11 as just a bump in the road is very disturbing and should heavily factor into forming a proportional response plan to his potential re-election.

Well it's not as though this President's policies have led to the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans or a Border Patrol Agent or two. Oh, wait. Never mind.

Ringo S.
10-03-2012, 19:17
Pay no attention to Lenin's and Stalin's extensive use of slave labor in the Gulag to help their economy stay afloat. Nothing to see here.
Oi, wey!... Can you imagine, that figure of Gulag prisoners at the pick was almost the same, as figure of prisoners of jail system in USA NOW? Hard to believe? Understood, years of education by liberal media and liberal historians. And figure of 100 million of soviet victims, I saw here is sign of historical ignorance about russian history among americans that border with lunacy...

fortyofforty
10-03-2012, 19:22
Oi, wey!... Can you imagine, that figure of Gulag prisoners at the pick was almost the same, as figure of prisoners of jail system in USA NOW? Hard to believe? Understood, years of education by liberal media and liberal historians. And figure of 100 million of soviet victims, I saw here is sign of historical ignorance about russian history among americans that border with lunacy...

If you are so ignorant of history as to compare the United States criminal justice system with the Soviet Gulag then I cannot help you. I am embarrassed for you, in fact. Your education was an abject failure. I use direct Soviet sources to gain insight into the Gulag. You use Soviet propaganda. I will stick with historical fact, you can while away your time in a Stalinist fantasyland. Had you spent any time in the Gulag you'd be singing a different tune.

427
10-03-2012, 20:02
Oi, wey!... Can you imagine, that figure of Gulag prisoners at the pick was almost the same, as figure of prisoners of jail system in USA NOW? Hard to believe? Understood, years of education by liberal media and liberal historians. And figure of 100 million of soviet victims, I saw here is sign of historical ignorance about russian history among americans that border with lunacy...

I said the combined deaths of Lenin, Stalin and Mao. Combined. I'll quote myself and bold the important part.

I can't believe that there are people who are nostalgic for leaders like Lenin, Stalin and Mao, who combined, killed 100's millions of their own people though their theories and all but ignore that little inconvenient truth. Amazing.

Since you consider me ignorant on Russian history and you're feeling nostalgic for Communism, please enlighten me on the actual numbers of victims under the great humanitarian, Stalin. Mao and Lenin, too, please.

Since we'll probably never know the exact number, it's OK to round to the nearest million.

What was Hitler's death toll? A "paltry", by comparison, 6-7 million?

Ringo S.
10-03-2012, 23:25
What was Hitler's death toll? A "paltry", by comparison, 6-7 million?
That's nice... For people, who like to throw moronic figures of hundreds of millions killed by Stalin personally, I can say - Hitler killed about 55 millions. That's the toll of WWII, that he started. How do you like this method of counting? And by the way, should I add to guilty party people who helped Hitler to rice his Third Reich, rulers of England an France?
And Chikatillo killed only something like dozen women, why bother to even put him under trial?

countrygun
10-03-2012, 23:50
That's nice... For people, who like to throw moronic figures of hundreds of millions killed by Stalin personally, I can say - Hitler killed about 55 millions. That's the toll of WWII, that he started. How do you like this method of counting? And by the way, should I add to guilty party people who helped Hitler to rice his Third Reich, rulers of England an France?
And Chikatillo killed only something like dozen women, why bother to even put him under trial?

OK so you want to deflect from Stalins killing of his own people. Got it. They didn't count because it was for "The right reasons" I suppose, he was still a great leader:upeyes:

427
10-04-2012, 00:00
That's nice... For people, who like to throw moronic figures of hundreds of millions killed by Stalin personally, I can say - Hitler killed about 55 millions. That's the toll of WWII, that he started. How do you like this method of counting? And by the way, should I add to guilty party people who helped Hitler to rice his Third Reich, rulers of England an France?
And Chikatillo killed only something like dozen women, why bother to even put him under trial?

You call my figures moronic, OK. So how many Russians died under Stalinism from the purges, the famines? Set the record straight - I don't want to misrepresent the humanitarian that was Stalin.

JFrame
10-04-2012, 04:51
I find it amusing that the single remaining topic of conversation on this thread is whether Stalin was a genocidal maniac or not...

The OP post had so much fail, and was so thoroughly discredited, that it is a mere afterthought at this point. :cool:


.

GAFinch
10-04-2012, 06:41
Well it's not as though this President's policies have led to the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans or a Border Patrol Agent or two. Oh, wait. Never mind.

Yeah, there's also that...may as well consider them American citizens who hadn't moved here yet. That policy is particularly bad since it was intentionally designed to not track weapons except by tracing serial numbers of ones found at crime scenes. Gun violence is unacceptable, unless it involves brown people. Environmental protections against oil companies are critical, unless it involves brown people.


I find it amusing that the single remaining topic of conversation on this thread is whether Stalin was a genocidal maniac or not...

The OP post had so much fail, and was so thoroughly discredited, that it is a mere afterthought at this point. :cool

Yes, criticizing people for criticizing people who believe in failed political theories.

Ringo S.
10-04-2012, 11:35
So how many Russians died under Stalinism from the purges, the famines? Set the record straight - I don't want to misrepresent the humanitarian that was Stalin.
You know, I read somewhere , that 100 millions of africans died as result of slave trade, and 100 millions of indians died as result of genocide... Must be true... Cos'... you know...it's in the books. That means that US killed twice more people, then Stalin...

PocketProtector
10-04-2012, 11:45
Marxist, Communist, Socialist –These are extreme words to be avoided unless the descriptive fits; and in the case of Obama, and his staff members Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod it fits.

These are children of Communist Party members; Red Diaper Babies.

60 years ago these folks would have a thick FBI file and if in a position of power would have to change their name to find work or leave the Country.

Yep

Socialism by definition is just a midstep....

Definition of socialism (n)

bing.com · Bing Dictionary
so·cial·ism
[ sṓshə lìzəm ]

political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles
movement based on socialism: a political movement based on principles of socialism, typically advocating an end to private property and to the exploitation of workers
stage between capitalism and communism: in Marxist theory, the stage after the proletarian revolution when a society is changing from capitalism to communism

Both are hell, and were the History of the world until the Constitution of the USA, which opened the door for the greatest economic engine EVER KNOWN.

PocketProtector
10-04-2012, 11:46
Marxist, Communist, Socialist –These are extreme words to be avoided unless the descriptive fits; and in the case of Obama, and his staff members Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod it fits.

These are children of Communist Party members; Red Diaper Babies.

60 years ago these folks would have a thick FBI file and if in a position of power would have to change their name to find work or leave the Country.

Yep

Socialism by definition is just a midstep....

Definition of socialism (n)

bing.com · Bing Dictionary
so·cial·ism
[ sṓshə lìzəm ]

1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles
2. movement based on socialism: a political movement based on principles of socialism, typically advocating an end to private property and to the exploitation of workers
3. stage between capitalism and communism: in Marxist theory, the stage after the proletarian revolution when a society is changing from capitalism to communism

Both are hell, and were the History of the world until the Constitution of the USA, which opened the door for the greatest economic engine EVER KNOWN.

fortyofforty
10-04-2012, 12:25
You know, I read somewhere , that 100 millions of africans died as result of slave trade, and 100 millions of indians died as result of genocide... Must be true... Cos'... you know...it's in the books. That means that US killed twice more people, then Stalin...

So, you don't have an answer, then. OK. That tells me everything I need to know about you. :wavey:

countrygun
10-04-2012, 12:42
You know, I read somewhere , that 100 millions of africans died as result of slave trade, and 100 millions of indians died as result of genocide... Must be true... Cos'... you know...it's in the books. That means that US killed twice more people, then Stalin...

Just out of curiosity, and since I am part Indian and am a minor student of history, could you please tell me what books you have read that claim "100 millions of indians died as a result of genocide"?

I am really curious about this factoid that I have missed in 40 years of studying that side of my family tree. I was unaware that there ever were 100s of millions of Indians TO be killed.

If you would please give those citations I would be grateful

427
10-04-2012, 13:45
You know, I read somewhere , that 100 millions of africans died as result of slave trade, and 100 millions of indians died as result of genocide... Must be true... Cos'... you know...it's in the books. That means that US killed twice more people, then Stalin...

Another strawman. You claim the numbers posted about Communism are moronic - What do your posted numbers about indians and slaves say about you?

You also make the claim that I'm ignorant about Russian history, perhaps you could show us how superior your historical knowledge is buy answering how many died as a result of the Stalinism you're so nostalgic for?

It's as simple question for someone who knows Russian history as well as you claim.

Ringo S.
10-04-2012, 13:54
I am really curious about this factoid that I have missed in 40 years of studying that side of my family tree. I was unaware that there ever were 100s of millions of Indians TO be killed.

If you would please give those citations I would be grateful
Right after you give me meaningful citation about 100 of millions killed by Stalin. I think 100 millions of killed indians\negroes and 100 millions of killed by Stalin have similar source - politically motivated lies and propaganda. Stalin's Russia became world power, so he must be descredited. On the other side, US is opponent in "Cold war", so it must be shown as bad country.
So, in reality, all the REAL guilt of Stalin in the eyes of the West, he dare to made Russia into power, that had to be respected. "That's all, folks!" (c)

427
10-04-2012, 14:08
Right after you give me meaningful citation about 100 of millions killed by Stalin. I think 100 millions of killed indians\negroes and 100 millions of killed by Stalin have similar source - politically motivated lies and propaganda. Stalin's Russia became world power, so he must be descredited. On the other side, US is opponent in "Cold war", so it must be shown as bad country.
So, in reality, all the REAL guilt of Stalin in the eyes of the West, he dare to made Russia into power, that had to be respected. "That's all, folks!" (c)

http://standupforamerica.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/strawman.jpg

countrygun
10-04-2012, 14:09
Right after you give me meaningful citation about 100 of millions killed by Stalin. I think 100 millions of killed indians\negroes and 100 millions of killed by Stalin have similar source - politically motivated lies and propaganda. Stalin's Russia became world power, so he must be descredited. On the other side, US is opponent in "Cold war", so it must be shown as bad country.
So, in reality, all the REAL guilt of Stalin in the eyes of the West, he dare to made Russia into power, that had to be respected. "That's all, folks!" (c)



Here are four citations.


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

http://gendercide.org/case_stalin.html

http://suite101.com/article/stalins_purges-a75511

http://www.russiansabroad.com/russian_history_63.html



Now please show me a citaton to back up your claims of a "100 million indians" please?

Show me a link to a source that supports you claim of even anyone saying that, much less proving it.

expatman
10-04-2012, 14:28
Here are four citations.


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

http://gendercide.org/case_stalin.html

http://suite101.com/article/stalins_purges-a75511

http://www.russiansabroad.com/russian_history_63.html



Now please show me a citaton to back up your claims of a "100 million indians" please?

Show me a link to a source that supports you claim of even anyone saying that, much less proving it.

LOL!!

He can't.

He knows he can't.

We know he can't.

That's all folks!

427
10-04-2012, 14:29
Here are four citations.


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

http://gendercide.org/case_stalin.html

http://suite101.com/article/stalins_purges-a75511

http://www.russiansabroad.com/russian_history_63.html



Now please show me a citaton to back up your claims of a "100 million indians" please?

Show me a link to a source that supports you claim of even anyone saying that, much less proving it.

Don't forget the famines.

Aftermath of a Soviet Famine
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/26/AR2008042602039.html

Seven million died in the 'forgotten' holocaust
http://www.ukemonde.com/genocide/margolisholocaust.html

Famine in Russia: the hidden horrors of 1921
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/5rfhjy.htm

nraman
10-04-2012, 16:51
Like we had McCarthyism in the 50s,

I suppose you never heard of the Venona Project and what they found.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_papers

Tailgunner Joe, a true American hero, was destroyed by the Leftist Press because he was right.
McCarthyism means being a great American unless the term is used by the Press.
IMO, Joe being Hoover's friend knew what was going on and Joe couldn't give all the information that would surely compromise the Venona Project.
Besides, he took the blame for everything that was going on. No, he was not a member of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, he was a Senator, he couldn't be a member of a House Committee.
Great guy!

Ringo S.
10-04-2012, 20:12
Now please show me a citaton to back up your claims of a "100 million indians" please?.

http://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/0289.htm
"...Research by some scholars provides population estimates of the pre-contact Americas to be as high as 112 million in 1492....In any case, the native population declined to less than 6 million by 1650..."

http://www.thelawkeepers.org/gifford.htm
"...Slave after Slave, too, suffered but lived through dreadful and miserable centuries watching their children and grandchildren be sold into slavery time and time again and wept and pleaded to no avail for compassion from their Slave Masters. As many as 100 million Blacks died in the Transatlantic/African Slave Trade..."
- - -
You see, I can bring any kind of 'accurate" information from the WWW too... there's a lot of stuff floating around in there.
And of course, you sources are all true and mine are all lies.

fortyofforty
10-04-2012, 20:17
http://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/0289.htm
"...Research by some scholars provides population estimates of the pre-contact Americas to be as high as 112 million in 1492....In any case, the native population declined to less than six million by 1650..."


- - -
You see, I can bring any kind of 'accurate" information from the WWW too... there's a lot of stuff floating around in there.
And of course, you sources are all true and mine are all lies.

Forgetting something, aren't we"

Research by some scholars provides population estimates of the pre-contact Americas to be as high as 112 million in 1492, while others estimate the population to have been as low as eight million. In any case, the native population declined to less than six million by 1650.

Well, maybe you just made an honest mistake in your editing. Sure. How very Stalinist of you. :upeyes:

GAFinch
10-04-2012, 21:44
http://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/0289.htm
"...Research by some scholars provides population estimates of the pre-contact Americas to be as high as 112 million in 1492....In any case, the native population declined to less than 6 million by 1650..."

European colonies in the U.S. got going in the late 1600's and we didn't spread out west until the 1700's and 1800's. Assuming that the 100 million people estimate is correct, the same researchers said that 90% of Native Americans died from diseases accidentally spread by European explorers, not from warfare or genocide.

427
10-05-2012, 14:29
http://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/0289.htm
"...Research by some scholars provides population estimates of the pre-contact Americas to be as high as 112 million in 1492....In any case, the native population declined to less than 6 million by 1650..."
You do realize that in 1650 the United States didn't exist as a Nation until 1776, right? You also know what the Spanish did in the New World, right?
http://www.thelawkeepers.org/gifford.htm
"...Slave after Slave, too, suffered but lived through dreadful and miserable centuries watching their children and grandchildren be sold into slavery time and time again and wept and pleaded to no avail for compassion from their Slave Masters. As many as 100 million Blacks died in the Transatlantic/African Slave Trade..."
You understand that Europeans like the Brits, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, and the French were the one's engaged tin the slave trade and transport on the African side. Other Africans were involved in selling of their own people. North America was NOT the only destination.
- - -
You see, I can bring any kind of 'accurate" information from the WWW too... there's a lot of stuff floating around in there.
And of course, you sources are all true and mine are all lies.
Nice try, but another failure.

Still haven't answered the question of how many died as a result of Stalinism.