Re: Time to talk about gun control?
76Let 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.
Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent
Slavery existed at that time and before, by all or almost all nations including Africa and including the native Americans.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.
Thank you for these recommendations. I've added them to my reading queue.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.)
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.TriggerPuller wrote:Thank you for these recommendations. I've added them to my reading queue.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.)
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!Dobe wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:17 pmSlavery existed at that time and before, by all or almost all nations including Africa and including the native Americans.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.
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
Added! I'll probably listen to audio versions (when available) for my first run-through. Audio is easier, and I can consult hard copy versions later if I need to retrieve particular details.
And I said I wasn’t going to do this...featureless wrote: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!Dobe wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:17 pmSlavery existed at that time and before, by all or almost all nations including Africa and including the native Americans.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.
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
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.
The system itself lends itself to brutality.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
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.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 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.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
This is mostly factually incorrect.Dobe wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:29 pmI 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.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
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 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.YankeeTarheel wrote:This is mostly factually incorrect.Dobe wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:29 pmI 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.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
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
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.
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.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.
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.Mussolini STARTED as a Socialist but abandoned it for Nationalism.
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.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 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 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 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.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 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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Mussolini STARTED as a Socialist but abandoned it for Nationalism.
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.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.
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 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 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 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.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'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 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.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.
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.YankeeTarheel wrote: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.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.
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.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.
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.Mussolini STARTED as a Socialist but abandoned it for Nationalism.
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.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.
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 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 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 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.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'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 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.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.
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.
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.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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests