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.