Re: Time to talk about gun control?

77
featureless wrote:Let us not forget, the US was built on the backs of slaves and the near eradication of the indigenous, so not exactly limited to socialism/communism.
Slavery existed at that time and before, by all or almost all nations including Africa and including the native Americans.

It has been eradicated in most of the west by primarily Capitalist counties. Ironically, it still exist in Africa and Communist start-ups.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

78
Dobe wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:58 am (Suggest “Lenin” by Victor Sebestyen, A favorite “Stalin” by Robert Service, “Nomenklatura” by Michael Volensky. And for a real account of purge and torture, there is the classic “Gulag Archipelago” by Alexander Solzhenitsyn.)
[snip]
(Suggest “First They Killed My Father” by Loung zing.)
Thank you for these recommendations. I've added them to my reading queue.

Time to talk about gun control?

79
TriggerPuller wrote:
Dobe wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:58 am (Suggest “Lenin” by Victor Sebestyen, A favorite “Stalin” by Robert Service, “Nomenklatura” by Michael Volensky. And for a real account of purge and torture, there is the classic “Gulag Archipelago” by Alexander Solzhenitsyn.)
[snip]
(Suggest “First They Killed My Father” by Loung zing.)
Thank you for these recommendations. I've added them to my reading queue.
I truly believe you will enjoy them. Although, I must admit, reading “Mao: The Unknown Story” was a challenge. Primarily because this book is so depressing. It took me several months to complete it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

81
Dobe wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:17 pm
featureless wrote:Let us not forget, the US was built on the backs of slaves and the near eradication of the indigenous, so not exactly limited to socialism/communism.
Slavery existed at that time and before, by all or almost all nations including Africa and including the native Americans.

It has been eradicated in most of the west by primarily Capitalist counties. Ironically, it still exist in Africa and Communist start-ups.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not arguing slavery's continued existence around the world, just that no system seems to be very good at putting people first (there's always some group of assholes looking to exploit!). We have a pretty rampant sex trafficking problem in the US. Is that not a form of slavery? Student loans are not much different than indentured servitude. Neither is debt service on a mortgage, here in California! :lol:

Dobe, I have no problem with differences of opinions and often learn from them. As long as we're all respectful, please stay out of lurk mode.

To bring this back around to topic, curious on your views on gun control. What would be acceptable regulation? Background checks? Felons? I'm very much interested in thoughts beyond "non starter" (I think we can both agree that the 2A says "shall not be infringed"). My opinion is that rigidity on the issue doesn't seem to be serving either side particularly well.

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

83
Also worth remembering, the US is hardly a saint when it comes to supporting oppressive regimes and mass civilian casualties.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-ki ... ii/5492051

Hell, just the (2nd) Iraq war alone saw somewhere around 600,000 civilians killed (estimated) due to our illegitimate war. Vietnam 3.4-8 million. But it wasn't on our soil so it doesn't matter..... :rolleyes:
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
- Maya Angelou

Image

Time to talk about gun control?

84
featureless wrote:
Dobe wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:17 pm
featureless wrote:Let us not forget, the US was built on the backs of slaves and the near eradication of the indigenous, so not exactly limited to socialism/communism.
Slavery existed at that time and before, by all or almost all nations including Africa and including the native Americans.

It has been eradicated in most of the west by primarily Capitalist counties. Ironically, it still exist in Africa and Communist start-ups.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not arguing slavery's continued existence around the world, just that no system seems to be very good at putting people first (there's always some group of assholes looking to exploit!). We have a pretty rampant sex trafficking problem in the US. Is that not a form of slavery? Student loans are not much different than indentured servitude. Neither is debt service on a mortgage, here in California! :lol:

Dobe, I have no problem with differences of opinions and often learn from them. As long as we're all respectful, please stay out of lurk mode.

To bring this back around to topic, curious on your views on gun control. What would be acceptable regulation? Background checks? Felons? I'm very much interested in thoughts beyond "non starter" (I think we can both agree that the 2A says "shall not be infringed"). My opinion is that rigidity on the issue doesn't seem to be serving either side particularly well.
And I said I wasn’t going to do this...
The more free a society, the more potential for laws to be broken. Let’s take a step back in time under Stalin. We really didn’t know what ole “Kobe” was up to, until Khrushchev took power, denounced Stalin, and allowed the west to look up the skirt of communist Russia. But, did you know that Moscow was one of the world’s safest and crime free cities of its size while Stalin was in power?

So, the answer you ask...I have no answer that will satisfy the group. I do have a quick story I will share.
When I was in the 8th grade, I was charged with coming up with a science project for my science class. Being an outdoorsman, and a shooter, I thought “why not take a military rifle to class, detail strip it, label the parts, and explain how the contraption actually works.”
To makes matters better, or worse depending on how you are viewing this, I enlisted a buddy. He chose a Japanese 7.7 Arisaka rifle, and I went with the .30 caliber (30/06) US 1903 Springfield.
So here is what we did. We cleared it with the teacher, then the principal, and of course our parents. Our requirements were to take these functioning rifles to the principal’s office the day of the science project. He checked to make sure the rifles were not loaded.
We detail-stripped both rifles, laying the labeled parts onto white towels. We explained how the bolt action rifles worked, and the wars in which each were used.

We both received As, and took our rifle to our vehicles until the end of the day.

In answer to your question, I pose one to you? What is the difference between then and now? This is why more stringent laws are not the answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by Dobe on Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

85
My point is that Socialism or Communism didn't murder anyone....people murdered people. The concepts of Marx and Lenin didn't kill people - a mass murdering maniac named Stalin killed people by the millions. This is the point.....we can have Socialism without the murder. They are not mutually inclusive.

I have Conservative/Republican friends who logic the same way - Nazis banned guns therefor anyone who bans guns is likely a Nazi - thus, Democrats are the analogy to Nazis because they want to ban guns. The Nazis were Socialists according to this logic and I see it on the Conservative guns boards every day because the Nazi Party called themselves the National Socialist German Workers Party and they were anything but Socialists - the were an extreme Right Wing phenomenon. Yet now days we see leftist philosophy being touted as being like Nazis because Leftists want to ban guns and so did Nazis.

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress.

I am sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Time to talk about gun control?

86
VodoundaVinci wrote:My point is that Socialism or Communism didn't murder anyone....people murdered people. The concepts of Marx and Lenin didn't kill people - a mass murdering maniac named Stalin killed people by the millions. This is the point.....we can have Socialism without the murder. They are not mutually inclusive.

VooDoo
The system itself lends itself to brutality.
This is in part because an all powerful government has no competition. The results are a despot and an elite class. And no, it’s nothing like what is in America.

Remember, in order to have true socialism, and if you are a true student of Marx, socialism must flow into Communism. Even though Lenin jumped a step by not waiting for the proletariat revolution.

The more power you give a government, the fewer rights you have as an individual. This goes without saying.

And by the way, if you are saying that neither Socialism nor Communism is responsible for what Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pots, and Mao did, then how can you blame Capitalism for the problems under its economic structure? Think about it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

89
Dobe wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:54 pm In answer to your question, I pose one to you? What is the difference between then and now? This is why more stringent laws are not the answer.
I don't disagree with you here. Most of the members here don't either and is why we support root cause mitigation over gun laws.

As a Californian, I live in the land of gun laws. They are clearly not the answer, burdening the law-abiding and providing, at best, minor hurdles/inconveniences to the criminals. My baggage as a Californian is that gun control laws are here for good and will worsen (I have no faith in the CA9 and little in the Supreme Court to bring back some balance to the 2A here). With that mindset, I look for ways to bring something to the table that is more palatable than ever increasing infringement--compromise, at least at the California level. Have no fear, it is only a matter of time before the coastal restrictions migrate inward. Sorry about that. Truly.

So what has changed between then and now? Disparity of incomes for one. The war on drugs for another (Prohibition was a marvelous example of black markets leading to a huge uptick in gun violence). The mass incarceration of, primarily, black men leaving children with no role models, no economic support and looping them directly back to disparity of income and drugs (I specify black males as they account of the majority of gun homicide, statistically). Our "correctional" system, isn't. Systemic racism/sexism has always been with us but fires up in fits and spurts as we're seeing under the Trump and Obama administrations. Our/my argument is that if we address the root causes of such social issues, not only do we end up with a better and more equal society, we also reduce gun violence. The problem is that politicians aren't game for expensive and long-term solutions--it doesn't sell well to the public (no immediately visible action for our attention deficit-riddled society) or their purse string masters. Much easier to ban this, that and the other. Especially "the other". We get no where when everybody else is the problem.

Time to talk about gun control?

90
VodoundaVinci wrote:My point is that Socialism or Communism didn't murder anyone....people murdered people. The concepts of Marx and Lenin didn't kill people - a mass murdering maniac named Stalin killed people by the millions. This is the point.....we can have Socialism without the murder. They are not mutually inclusive.

I have Conservative/Republican friends who logic the same way - Nazis banned guns therefor anyone who bans guns is likely a Nazi - thus, Democrats are the analogy to Nazis because they want to ban guns. The Nazis were Socialists according to this logic and I see it on the Conservative guns boards every day because the Nazi Party called themselves the National Socialist German Workers Party and they were anything but Socialists - the were an extreme Right Wing phenomenon. Yet now days we see leftist philosophy being touted as being like Nazis because Leftists want to ban guns and so did Nazis.

VooDoo
I feel a need to make a correction of the above. Fascism and Marxism/Socialism are so close that if you were to put both into a can, shake them up, and draw one out, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference until you looked at the uniforms.

Mussolini was a socialist, and a strong believer at that. He and Lenin routinely corresponded and exchanged ideas. But there came this one overwhelming obstacle that neither he nor Hitler could get past. And that was the case of Nationalism. True Marxist have no borders, and communism should spread on its on.
This was the schism between Nazis and Communists. That and because Lenin and Stalin insisted that party rule was to come from Moscow.

To demonstrate just how close the two are, look at the progression or degradation of Marxism that was transformed into Marxism/Leninism to Marxism/Leninism/ Stalinism.
Marxism states that the proletariat would revolt eventually leading to a classless utopia, and evolve into true communism. The state would insure that all would be cared for. Remember the phrase “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”? Boarders were to mean nothing, and communism was to break down the wall of capitalism.

Lenin couldn’t or wouldn’t wait, so he bypassed the proletariat revolution. He did believe that the nation status was dead. This is the era of Marxism/Leninism.

Stalin quickly found that he could not govern without a national status. It sounds a little strange, but if you think about it, it will save me a paragraph of rambling.
Stalin also came to realize that communism wasn’t going to spread itself, so he began to push the boundaries of Soviet Russia via military force. This is now the era of Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism, and this isn’t that much different from Nazism. It just isn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

91
Dobe, you accused me of being overly emotional, but your post is easily so.
I'm not a believer in Communism or Marxist Socialism, but the point is real: In 1917 Russia was one of the most backward nations in years. 40 years later, in 1957, they were the first to put a satellite in space. And that was DESPITE Stalin's brutal, destructive policies killing the very people needed to move forward--as well as the Generals who might have engineered repelling the Nazi invasion.
(I have a friend who was raised Catholic and insisted that with the RC's education suppression we would have reached the Moon a thousand years earlier!)
Mao was, of course NOT the engine that put China forward. Instead his Great Leap Forward set China back probably 50 years.

But the constant assertions by Conservatives that they want less government and Liberals want more isn't supported by the history of the nation of the last 50 years. It's pure bullshit.
In fact, the strongest implementations of government controls have come under Republicans, from Nixon imposing wage and price controls,
to Bush rolling out the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the enhanced FISA, that GREATLY extended Government's power over the citizenry and violating the BOR,
to Trump claiming vice-regal powers of executive orders, to simply IGNORE both Federal and International Law on Asylum,
to States wanting to be able to tell women that their bodies aren't their own but everyone BUT theirs....

All Democrats push for is government to prevent businesses from poisoning our air, land, and water, from cheating us out of our earnings and savings, and from making us work in unsafe conditions.

"Socialism" is a trope used for social welfare programs. Without them, you see homeless children begging in the streets. Think not? I remember coming to Washington in 1983 when Reagan had been President for 2 years. Homeless people were on the streets EVERYWHERE in our nation's Capital! Every Metro station was surrounded with them. Somehow, the "rising tide" wasn't lifting THEIR boats!

"Socialism" that Marx spoke about, is something to be afraid of, but it means the State owns all the means of production, not that the State protects you from the worst excesses of Freebooter "Capitalism" and provides a safety net. That's social welfare, and it is utterly different than the bogeyman cries of "SOSHULISUM!!"
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

92
Dobe wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:29 pm
VodoundaVinci wrote:My point is that Socialism or Communism didn't murder anyone....people murdered people. The concepts of Marx and Lenin didn't kill people - a mass murdering maniac named Stalin killed people by the millions. This is the point.....we can have Socialism without the murder. They are not mutually inclusive.

I have Conservative/Republican friends who logic the same way - Nazis banned guns therefor anyone who bans guns is likely a Nazi - thus, Democrats are the analogy to Nazis because they want to ban guns. The Nazis were Socialists according to this logic and I see it on the Conservative guns boards every day because the Nazi Party called themselves the National Socialist German Workers Party and they were anything but Socialists - the were an extreme Right Wing phenomenon. Yet now days we see leftist philosophy being touted as being like Nazis because Leftists want to ban guns and so did Nazis.

VooDoo
I feel a need to make a correction of the above. Fascism and Marxism/Socialism are so close that if you were to put both into a can, shake them up, and draw one out, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference until you looked at the uniforms.

Mussolini was a socialist, and a strong believer at that. He and Lenin routinely corresponded and exchanged ideas. But there came this one overwhelming obstacle that neither he nor Hitler could get past. And that was the case of Nationalism. True Marxist have no borders, and communism should spread on its on.
This was the schism between Nazis and Communists. That and because Lenin and Stalin insisted that party rule was to come from Moscow.

To demonstrate just how close the two are, look at the progression or degradation of Marxism that was transformed into Marxism/Leninism to Marxism/Leninism/ Stalinism.
Marxism states that the proletariat would revolt eventually leading to a classless utopia, and evolve into true communism. The state would insure that all would be cared for. Remember the phrase “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”? Boarders were to mean nothing, and communism was to break down the wall of capitalism.

Lenin couldn’t or wouldn’t wait, so he bypassed the proletariat revolution. He did believe that the nation status was dead. This is the era of Marxism/Leninism.

Stalin quickly found that he could not govern without a national status. It sounds a little strange, but if you think about it, it will save me a paragraph of rambling.
Stalin also came to realize that communism wasn’t going to spread itself, so he began to push the boundaries of Soviet Russia via military force. This is now the era of Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism, and this isn’t that much different from Nazism. It just isn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is mostly factually incorrect.
Fascism ALWAYS includes an element of racist. Marxism does not (though admittedly, many so-called Marxists are racists). The American Communist Party was the FIRST political party in the USA to openly invite African-Americans to join as full members. All races and every ethnicity were invited to join. Of course, the Marxist assertion of Atheism meant your religion was irrelevant.

Mussolini STARTED as a Socialist but abandoned it for Nationalism.

Lenin NEVER thought International Communism must be or even SHOULD be based in Moscow. In fact, he believed that Berlin was the logical international capital. After all, without any support from Russian Communists, the German KPD consistently managed to get 25% of the national vote in Weimar Germany, and was independent of Russia. Stalin, OTOH, was the one who pushed for and insisted that international Communism be based and subservient to Moscow. Remember, Stalin was a narcissist, and a vicious sociopath, and in his youth, a violent terrorist.

Stalin didn't "find" he couldn't govern--he deliberately undermined the Politburo and all of Lenin's colleagues. First he turned on the Trotsky wing, and when they were destroyed, turned on the more conservative wing. It had NOTHING to do with necessities of governance but with his need to be an absolute, unquestioned tyrant. Remember: Lenin DETESTED Stalin and warned against the Party allowing him to rise to power.

Stalin's knowledge of Marxism was rather rudimentary, unlike Lenin. Lenin understood that Russia was probably the WORST country in Europe to attempt Communism. Stalin was simply a cruel Tsar pretending to be a Communist.

To insist that Fascism, Nazism and Communism are indistinguishable is like saying Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are no different from each other.

I think a better question would be: Does Marxist Leninism inevitably lead to a Stalin, or is it merely vulnerable to a Stalin? And it's important that Stalin wasn't a real Communist, and, I believe, never actually understood or believed in Communism.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Time to talk about gun control?

93
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Dobe wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:29 pm
VodoundaVinci wrote:My point is that Socialism or Communism didn't murder anyone....people murdered people. The concepts of Marx and Lenin didn't kill people - a mass murdering maniac named Stalin killed people by the millions. This is the point.....we can have Socialism without the murder. They are not mutually inclusive.

I have Conservative/Republican friends who logic the same way - Nazis banned guns therefor anyone who bans guns is likely a Nazi - thus, Democrats are the analogy to Nazis because they want to ban guns. The Nazis were Socialists according to this logic and I see it on the Conservative guns boards every day because the Nazi Party called themselves the National Socialist German Workers Party and they were anything but Socialists - the were an extreme Right Wing phenomenon. Yet now days we see leftist philosophy being touted as being like Nazis because Leftists want to ban guns and so did Nazis.

VooDoo
I feel a need to make a correction of the above. Fascism and Marxism/Socialism are so close that if you were to put both into a can, shake them up, and draw one out, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference until you looked at the uniforms.

Mussolini was a socialist, and a strong believer at that. He and Lenin routinely corresponded and exchanged ideas. But there came this one overwhelming obstacle that neither he nor Hitler could get past. And that was the case of Nationalism. True Marxist have no borders, and communism should spread on its on.
This was the schism between Nazis and Communists. That and because Lenin and Stalin insisted that party rule was to come from Moscow.

To demonstrate just how close the two are, look at the progression or degradation of Marxism that was transformed into Marxism/Leninism to Marxism/Leninism/ Stalinism.
Marxism states that the proletariat would revolt eventually leading to a classless utopia, and evolve into true communism. The state would insure that all would be cared for. Remember the phrase “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”? Boarders were to mean nothing, and communism was to break down the wall of capitalism.

Lenin couldn’t or wouldn’t wait, so he bypassed the proletariat revolution. He did believe that the nation status was dead. This is the era of Marxism/Leninism.

Stalin quickly found that he could not govern without a national status. It sounds a little strange, but if you think about it, it will save me a paragraph of rambling.
Stalin also came to realize that communism wasn’t going to spread itself, so he began to push the boundaries of Soviet Russia via military force. This is now the era of Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism, and this isn’t that much different from Nazism. It just isn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is mostly factually incorrect.
Fascism ALWAYS includes an element of racist. Marxism does not (though admittedly, many so-called Marxists are racists). The American Communist Party was the FIRST political party in the USA to openly invite African-Americans to join as full members. All races and every ethnicity were invited to join. Of course, the Marxist assertion of Atheism meant your religion was irrelevant.

Mussolini STARTED as a Socialist but abandoned it for Nationalism.

Lenin NEVER thought International Communism must be or even SHOULD be based in Moscow. In fact, he believed that Berlin was the logical international capital. After all, without any support from Russian Communists, the German KPD consistently managed to get 25% of the national vote in Weimar Germany, and was independent of Russia. Stalin, OTOH, was the one who pushed for and insisted that international Communism be based and subservient to Moscow. Remember, Stalin was a narcissist, and a vicious sociopath, and in his youth, a violent terrorist.

Stalin didn't "find" he couldn't govern--he deliberately undermined the Politburo and all of Lenin's colleagues. First he turned on the Trotsky wing, and when they were destroyed, turned on the more conservative wing. It had NOTHING to do with necessities of governance but with his need to be an absolute, unquestioned tyrant. Remember: Lenin DETESTED Stalin and warned against the Party allowing him to rise to power.

Stalin's knowledge of Marxism was rather rudimentary, unlike Lenin. Lenin understood that Russia was probably the WORST country in Europe to attempt Communism. Stalin was simply a cruel Tsar pretending to be a Communist.

To insist that Fascism, Nazism and Communism are indistinguishable is like saying Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are no different from each other.

I think a better question would be: Does Marxist Leninism inevitably lead to a Stalin, or is it merely vulnerable to a Stalin? And it's important that Stalin wasn't a real Communist, and, I believe, never actually understood or believed in Communism.
This could be fun. If you can stay away from this type of emotion “I have Conservative/Republican friends who logic the same way - Nazis banned guns therefor anyone who bans guns is likely a Nazi - thus, Democrats are the analogy to Nazis because they want to ban guns.”, I’ll debate you. If not, it simply becomes a feces throwing contest.

Make up your mind , let me know. This can’t go into the night. I have surgery tomorrow morning at 0630 hrs. Can’t miss that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Time to talk about gun control?

96
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************
A Response to YankeeTarheel

Sorry, but I just couldn't resist. I can stay with you for a few more hours, and then off to bed. I enjoy a good debate up to the point that it becomes something different.


This is mostly factually incorrect.
Fascism ALWAYS includes an element of racist. Marxism does not (though admittedly, many so-called Marxists are racists). The American Communist Party was the FIRST political party in the USA to openly invite African-Americans to join as full members. All races and every ethnicity were invited to join. Of course, the Marxist assertion of Atheism meant your religion was irrelevant.
Both Lenin as well as Stalin purged Jews. Pol Pots was no better against the Vietnamese. Mao, killed to be killing as long as he made money from the grain harvest. It is one thing to have a theory, yet another to make it work. Everything I posted above is factual.

Mussolini STARTED as a Socialist but abandoned it for Nationalism.
I'm Roman Catholic. I was Southern Baptist for 19 years. You think I may see Roman Catholicism through Southern Baptist eyes? You bet I do. The fact that Nationalism is the main dividing point between fascism and Marxism/communism is even more proof that Communism and fascism are very close. Remember, from Stalin to Putin...they are all nationalist, and so is China, and so was Pol Pots, etc.
Lenin NEVER thought International Communism must be or even SHOULD be based in Moscow. In fact, he believed that Berlin was the logical international capital. After all, without any support from Russian Communists, the German KPD consistently managed to get 25% of the national vote in Weimar Germany, and was independent of Russia. Stalin, OTOH, was the one who pushed for and insisted that international Communism be based and subservient to Moscow. Remember, Stalin was a narcissist, and a vicious sociopath, and in his youth, a violent terrorist.
Oh yes he did. He only wanted it in Germany when he was an emigre, and before the October Revolution. Don't forget the German pay off to Lenin, and that long train ride back into Russia. This was all done at the blessings and encouragement of the German government. Basically, Lenin was a national traitor, who justified his actions by believing he was betraying the Russian government only. Lenin would never have mandated Berlin after the Bolsheviks took power. The Comitern held at least 5 maybe 7 world conferences in Moscow starting in 1919. I'm not exactly sure of those dates, but it's close.
Also, Lenin was just as vicious as Stalin. He had his purges on the peasants long before Stalin took the reigns of power. Lenin's youth was no less colorful. Stalin at least had the buffering of the seminary. Lenin was raised as a radical, and his brother was hanged by the Czar for attempting an assassination of same Czar. A confirmed zealot too, as Lenin's brother was given the ability to renounce his actions. Lenin's brother could have walked away with his life. He chose rather to become a martyr, and to catapult his brother into a course that changed the world, and not for the better.

Stalin didn't "find" he couldn't govern--he deliberately undermined the Politburo and all of Lenin's colleagues. First he turned on the Trotsky wing, and when they were destroyed, turned on the more conservative wing. It had NOTHING to do with necessities of governance but with his need to be an absolute, unquestioned tyrant. Remember: Lenin DETESTED Stalin and warned against the Party allowing him to rise to power.
Stalin did what Lenin told him to do. Lenin played Stalin and Trotsky against each other, and Trotsky lost. Stalin was that worker who would do anything you asked him no matter what, and ask for more. The viciousness shown to the peasants started under Lenin. Stalin just carried out the actions. Lenin had no compassion for the peasants. He felt the future was with the proletariat.

Stalin's knowledge of Marxism was rather rudimentary, unlike Lenin. Lenin understood that Russia was probably the WORST country in Europe to attempt Communism. Stalin was simply a cruel Tsar pretending to be a Communist.
Stalin was both well education and well read. He didn't have a good command of the Russian language, but he was no dummy. He understood both what Marx wanted, what Lenin wanted (different from Marx), and what he wanted.

To insist that Fascism, Nazism and Communism are indistinguishable is like saying Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are no different from each other.

I'm glad you gave that analogy, because Judaism and Christianity are very similar, as are the sects of Islam - Shiites and Sunnis. And yes fascism and Communism are almost the same. You can throw racism in there if you wish, but you will find purges of races and nationalities on the communist side for sure.

I think a better question would be: Does Marxist Leninism inevitably lead to a Stalin, or is it merely vulnerable to a Stalin? And it's important that Stalin wasn't a real Communist, and, I believe, never actually understood or believed in Communism.
I have answered this above. For some reason, Marxist seem to glorify Lenin and Trotsky, without actually looking at the damage each of these two did to their people and the world.

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

97
[/quote]Second, how do you vote for a group of people who have as an agenda, the dismantling of the second amendment?[/quote]

This is a paranoid fantasy. Show me one credible price of legislation that talks about an outright gun ban or confiscation. Show me where this is in the national Democratic platform. Even St. Scalia wrote in the Heller opinion about the fact that the 2nd amendment isn’t an unlimited right and that restrictions on types of weapons are appropriate a la Miller. Your ideas about liberals rely on an excluded middle and years of propaganda.

I can show you in the national GOP platform where they support confining and torturing gay kids. I can show you where republicans have disenfranchised voters simply because of the color of their skin in 2018. I can show you where Republicans in my state push for public funding of theocracy. How do you defend that?

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

98
Dobe wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 4:39 pm *********************************************************************************************************************************************************************
A Response to YankeeTarheel

Sorry, but I just couldn't resist. I can stay with you for a few more hours, and then off to bed. I enjoy a good debate up to the point that it becomes something different.


This is mostly factually incorrect.
Fascism ALWAYS includes an element of racist. Marxism does not (though admittedly, many so-called Marxists are racists). The American Communist Party was the FIRST political party in the USA to openly invite African-Americans to join as full members. All races and every ethnicity were invited to join. Of course, the Marxist assertion of Atheism meant your religion was irrelevant.
Both Lenin as well as Stalin purged Jews. Pol Pots was no better against the Vietnamese. Mao, killed to be killing as long as he made money from the grain harvest. It is one thing to have a theory, yet another to make it work. Everything I posted above is factual.

Mussolini STARTED as a Socialist but abandoned it for Nationalism.
I'm Roman Catholic. I was Southern Baptist for 19 years. You think I may see Roman Catholicism through Southern Baptist eyes? You bet I do. The fact that Nationalism is the main dividing point between fascism and Marxism/communism is even more proof that Communism and fascism are very close. Remember, from Stalin to Putin...they are all nationalist, and so is China, and so was Pol Pots, etc.
Lenin NEVER thought International Communism must be or even SHOULD be based in Moscow. In fact, he believed that Berlin was the logical international capital. After all, without any support from Russian Communists, the German KPD consistently managed to get 25% of the national vote in Weimar Germany, and was independent of Russia. Stalin, OTOH, was the one who pushed for and insisted that international Communism be based and subservient to Moscow. Remember, Stalin was a narcissist, and a vicious sociopath, and in his youth, a violent terrorist.
Oh yes he did. He only wanted it in Germany when he was an emigre, and before the October Revolution. Don't forget the German pay off to Lenin, and that long train ride back into Russia. This was all done at the blessings and encouragement of the German government. Basically, Lenin was a national traitor, who justified his actions by believing he was betraying the Russian government only. Lenin would never have mandated Berlin after the Bolsheviks took power. The Comitern held at least 5 maybe 7 world conferences in Moscow starting in 1919. I'm not exactly sure of those dates, but it's close.
Also, Lenin was just as vicious as Stalin. He had his purges on the peasants long before Stalin took the reigns of power. Lenin's youth was no less colorful. Stalin at least had the buffering of the seminary. Lenin was raised as a radical, and his brother was hanged by the Czar for attempting an assassination of same Czar. A confirmed zealot too, as Lenin's brother was given the ability to renounce his actions. Lenin's brother could have walked away with his life. He chose rather to become a martyr, and to catapult his brother into a course that changed the world, and not for the better.

Stalin didn't "find" he couldn't govern--he deliberately undermined the Politburo and all of Lenin's colleagues. First he turned on the Trotsky wing, and when they were destroyed, turned on the more conservative wing. It had NOTHING to do with necessities of governance but with his need to be an absolute, unquestioned tyrant. Remember: Lenin DETESTED Stalin and warned against the Party allowing him to rise to power.
Stalin did what Lenin told him to do. Lenin played Stalin and Trotsky against each other, and Trotsky lost. Stalin was that worker who would do anything you asked him no matter what, and ask for more. The viciousness shown to the peasants started under Lenin. Stalin just carried out the actions. Lenin had no compassion for the peasants. He felt the future was with the proletariat.

Stalin's knowledge of Marxism was rather rudimentary, unlike Lenin. Lenin understood that Russia was probably the WORST country in Europe to attempt Communism. Stalin was simply a cruel Tsar pretending to be a Communist.
Stalin was both well education and well read. He didn't have a good command of the Russian language, but he was no dummy. He understood both what Marx wanted, what Lenin wanted (different from Marx), and what he wanted.

To insist that Fascism, Nazism and Communism are indistinguishable is like saying Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are no different from each other.

I'm glad you gave that analogy, because Judaism and Christianity are very similar, as are the sects of Islam - Shiites and Sunnis. And yes fascism and Communism are almost the same. You can throw racism in there if you wish, but you will find purges of races and nationalities on the communist side for sure.

I think a better question would be: Does Marxist Leninism inevitably lead to a Stalin, or is it merely vulnerable to a Stalin? And it's important that Stalin wasn't a real Communist, and, I believe, never actually understood or believed in Communism.
I have answered this above. For some reason, Marxist seem to glorify Lenin and Trotsky, without actually looking at the damage each of these two did to their people and the world.
Dobe, I don't know where you're getting your information on Lenin but it's virtually ALL wrong. I don't even know where to start! Trotsky and Lenin were close and Lenin, in his will WARNED against Stalin. Both Trotsky and Feliks Dzerzhinsky were Jews and Lenin's right-hand men. Yes, Lenin was cold and cruel, but he was anti-religion, not anti-Semitic. Stalin was openly, blatantly anti-Semitic like the Tsar before him.

One thing about Lenin is that he was a true zealot always focused on HIS goal, getting to a Communist international state.

When you get into Asian politics things get so tangled that we simply cannot judge them by Western standards. I know very little about Cambodian history but in China, we have the oldest extant civilization on Earth, with a much, much, MUCH longer view of the world than we have. China is the center of the world, hence the "Middle Kingdom" to their POV. To them, the Communists are merely the latest dynasty, and still very,very new, not even 70 years old, rather than hundreds. I don't defend Mao. He was a bastard, and a pedophile, and possibly the greatest mass-murderer in history--but the numbers I've seen don't seem to have multiple sources (in a Russian history course in 1974, guest Ukrainian speaker claimed Stalin killed 110 million!)

I gotta go.. I'm no Communist or Socialist but I am somewhat familiar with the theories and history.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

99
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Dobe wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 4:39 pm *********************************************************************************************************************************************************************
A Response to YankeeTarheel

Sorry, but I just couldn't resist. I can stay with you for a few more hours, and then off to bed. I enjoy a good debate up to the point that it becomes something different.


This is mostly factually incorrect.
Fascism ALWAYS includes an element of racist. Marxism does not (though admittedly, many so-called Marxists are racists). The American Communist Party was the FIRST political party in the USA to openly invite African-Americans to join as full members. All races and every ethnicity were invited to join. Of course, the Marxist assertion of Atheism meant your religion was irrelevant.
Both Lenin as well as Stalin purged Jews. Pol Pots was no better against the Vietnamese. Mao, killed to be killing as long as he made money from the grain harvest. It is one thing to have a theory, yet another to make it work. Everything I posted above is factual.

Mussolini STARTED as a Socialist but abandoned it for Nationalism.
I'm Roman Catholic. I was Southern Baptist for 19 years. You think I may see Roman Catholicism through Southern Baptist eyes? You bet I do. The fact that Nationalism is the main dividing point between fascism and Marxism/communism is even more proof that Communism and fascism are very close. Remember, from Stalin to Putin...they are all nationalist, and so is China, and so was Pol Pots, etc.
Lenin NEVER thought International Communism must be or even SHOULD be based in Moscow. In fact, he believed that Berlin was the logical international capital. After all, without any support from Russian Communists, the German KPD consistently managed to get 25% of the national vote in Weimar Germany, and was independent of Russia. Stalin, OTOH, was the one who pushed for and insisted that international Communism be based and subservient to Moscow. Remember, Stalin was a narcissist, and a vicious sociopath, and in his youth, a violent terrorist.
Oh yes he did. He only wanted it in Germany when he was an emigre, and before the October Revolution. Don't forget the German pay off to Lenin, and that long train ride back into Russia. This was all done at the blessings and encouragement of the German government. Basically, Lenin was a national traitor, who justified his actions by believing he was betraying the Russian government only. Lenin would never have mandated Berlin after the Bolsheviks took power. The Comitern held at least 5 maybe 7 world conferences in Moscow starting in 1919. I'm not exactly sure of those dates, but it's close.
Also, Lenin was just as vicious as Stalin. He had his purges on the peasants long before Stalin took the reigns of power. Lenin's youth was no less colorful. Stalin at least had the buffering of the seminary. Lenin was raised as a radical, and his brother was hanged by the Czar for attempting an assassination of same Czar. A confirmed zealot too, as Lenin's brother was given the ability to renounce his actions. Lenin's brother could have walked away with his life. He chose rather to become a martyr, and to catapult his brother into a course that changed the world, and not for the better.

Stalin didn't "find" he couldn't govern--he deliberately undermined the Politburo and all of Lenin's colleagues. First he turned on the Trotsky wing, and when they were destroyed, turned on the more conservative wing. It had NOTHING to do with necessities of governance but with his need to be an absolute, unquestioned tyrant. Remember: Lenin DETESTED Stalin and warned against the Party allowing him to rise to power.
Stalin did what Lenin told him to do. Lenin played Stalin and Trotsky against each other, and Trotsky lost. Stalin was that worker who would do anything you asked him no matter what, and ask for more. The viciousness shown to the peasants started under Lenin. Stalin just carried out the actions. Lenin had no compassion for the peasants. He felt the future was with the proletariat.

Stalin's knowledge of Marxism was rather rudimentary, unlike Lenin. Lenin understood that Russia was probably the WORST country in Europe to attempt Communism. Stalin was simply a cruel Tsar pretending to be a Communist.
Stalin was both well education and well read. He didn't have a good command of the Russian language, but he was no dummy. He understood both what Marx wanted, what Lenin wanted (different from Marx), and what he wanted.

To insist that Fascism, Nazism and Communism are indistinguishable is like saying Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are no different from each other.

I'm glad you gave that analogy, because Judaism and Christianity are very similar, as are the sects of Islam - Shiites and Sunnis. And yes fascism and Communism are almost the same. You can throw racism in there if you wish, but you will find purges of races and nationalities on the communist side for sure.

I think a better question would be: Does Marxist Leninism inevitably lead to a Stalin, or is it merely vulnerable to a Stalin? And it's important that Stalin wasn't a real Communist, and, I believe, never actually understood or believed in Communism.
I have answered this above. For some reason, Marxist seem to glorify Lenin and Trotsky, without actually looking at the damage each of these two did to their people and the world.
Dobe, I don't know where you're getting your information on Lenin but it's virtually ALL wrong. I don't even know where to start! Trotsky and Lenin were close and Lenin, in his will WARNED against Stalin. Both Trotsky and Feliks Dzerzhinsky were Jews and Lenin's right-hand men. Yes, Lenin was cold and cruel, but he was anti-religion, not anti-Semitic. Stalin was openly, blatantly anti-Semitic like the Tsar before him.

One thing about Lenin is that he was a true zealot always focused on HIS goal, getting to a Communist international state.

When you get into Asian politics things get so tangled that we simply cannot judge them by Western standards. I know very little about Cambodian history but in China, we have the oldest extant civilization on Earth, with a much, much, MUCH longer view of the world than we have. China is the center of the world, hence the "Middle Kingdom" to their POV. To them, the Communists are merely the latest dynasty, and still very,very new, not even 70 years old, rather than hundreds. I don't defend Mao. He was a bastard, and a pedophile, and possibly the greatest mass-murderer in history--but the numbers I've seen don't seem to have multiple sources (in a Russian history course in 1974, guest Ukrainian speaker claimed Stalin killed 110 million!)

I gotta go.. I'm no Communist or Socialist but I am somewhat familiar with the theories and history.
Interesting as always. I have already sighted some of my sources. I do stand by them as well as my many Russian history classes under Dr. Owens. Keep reading on Lenin's will. There are even theories that Lenin's wife wrote the will. Remember, most of Lenin's late writings were transcribe by others as Lenin had suffered a stroke.

Good conversation. I look forward to others.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

100
OldBiff wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:14 pm. Show me one credible price of legislation that talks about an outright gun ban or confiscation. Show me where this is in the national Democratic platform. Even St. Scalia wrote in the Heller opinion about the fact that the 2nd amendment isn’t an unlimited right and that restrictions on types of weapons are appropriate a la Miller.
Well, that's partly bullshit and partly true. I can't speak for national efforts for a total ban, but "assault weapons" are certainly a ban agenda of the Dem platform. Feinstein has worked hard on making that semi auto rifles this time around, not just black, pistol grip death machines.

California has already passed numerous assault weapons bans. No confiscation yet, but no ability to pass them on when we croak or sell in state, so attrition will do it for them. The CA handgun gun roster will accomplish the same thing in time. So, it's in the works here, just a matter of time unless the courts intervein. I know it's easy to say it will never happen, but California is marching that direction. Newsom has his signing pen ready!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests