Social Democrats Thread #1

Equality 7-2521 wrote: So how easily Marxists justify their murder? I can't even look at your symbolic formulation of the syllogism. It's making my nerd blood boil. Seriously Roy for words being senseless you certainly use a lot of them.

Do you think murder will stop by you abhorring it, or it being officially abhorred?

Murder is just a word. In reality, there is only context.

A policeman shooting a madman on a killing streak
A madman killing someone on a killing streak
a solider killing someone on a killing streak
a state executing a madman who went on a killing streak

Can these murders be seen apart from their context? No reasonable person does.

Lenin didn't set out to "murder" anyone. He did what was necessary when other countries invaded his own, intending to do that.

WHAT was the alternative? Surrender? Let the Whites come in and put down the workers? Be Concrete.


American Landings In Eastern Russia





Edited by RoyFairbank - June 29 2012 at 07:46

RoyFairbank wrote: Do you think murder will stop by you abhorring it, or it being officially abhorred? Murder is just a word. In reality, there is only context. A policeman shooting a madman on a killing streak A madman killing someone on a killing streak a solider killing someone on a killing streak a state executing a madman who went on a killing streak Can these murders be seen apart from their context? No reasonable person does. Lenin didn't set out to "murder" anyone. He did what was necessary when other countries invaded his own, intending to do that. WHAT was the alternative? Surrender? Let the Whites come in and put down the workers? Be Concrete. American Landings In Eastern Russia

Do you think that asking worthless questions that have nothing to do with the discussion make your point?

We have context for all of those things. I'm suggesting that things be viewed free from context. However, the word murder itself has a context embedded with in it. Saying A murdered B is different than saying A killed B.

I don't remember Poland trying to invade his country. I remember him invading Poland with plans to march into Germany to spread his precious workers revolution high on the Red Army's defeat of the Whites in an incredibly bloody civil war which in no large part was triggered by his Red Terror - since circumstances evidently dictated that he respond to an assassination attempt with a broad and unfocused reign of system murder.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I don't remember Poland trying to invade his country. I remember him invading Poland with plans to march into Germany to spread his precious workers revolution high on the Red Army's defeat of the Whites in an incredibly bloody civil war which in no large part was triggered by his Red Terror - since circumstances evidently dictated that he respond to an assassination attempt with a broad and unfocused reign of system murder.

Poland was an armed base for attacks on the Soviet Union during the Civil War (which was not over completely), it has been taken over by Germany, it was part of Russia for centuries before the Germans took it over in 1917 and installed a puppet government. The leader was a declared enemy of the Soviet Union who wished to overthrow the USSR, with German material support. Lenin wanted Poland as a buffer zone in case Russia was attacked again, and to extend the revolution. Russia had lost Finland and Poland early in the Russian Civil War.

The Red Army was not strong enough to ever invade Germany, and did not try.

The civil war started by a White march on Moscow and Petersburg led by Kerensky, before that the revolution was bloodless. Then the Entente intervened. It was realized after increasing attacks that an offensive had to be extended against the Whites within Bolshevik territory, who were coordinating violence and orchestrating attacks and assassinations (Lenin was shot himself). After increasing activity, Capitalists (White Supporters) were targeted in the "Red Terror," to eliminate them as a threat. This was a very focused and organized campaign of a systematic nature. It helped win the war.

This parallels the White Terror, which targeted workers and peasants suspected of supporting the Bolsheviks.

It is all quite inseparable from the war in general.

The ridiculous hostility to the Russian Revolution is ironic, I will state again, because it is usually accompanied by support for American wars.

In 2004, in Fallujah, Iraq the US executed every adult male in the city they could find, according to reports. Red, White, And Blue terror?




Edited by RoyFairbank - June 29 2012 at 08:57

The T wrote: ^I gave you context Roy. I'm sure if you were more nazi instead of red you would find the sorry ass justification I gave you for Shoah a little more to your taste. Using your lived equations/silogisms/whatever A kills innocent/non-combatant B even in war= murder It's simple as that. I remember september 11 2001, when the towers collapsed, I happened to be that afternoon with a friend and he had a friend at home who was typical ideologue communist Guevara worshipper. He clapped when the towers fell. He was happy and counted the dead as victims of just struggle against imperialism. Ideologues are the worst. Murder is just another political tool.

How naive. People will keep dying until you do something about it. That may involve them trying to kill you and you needing to resist them.

The early Soviet Union did not go out and try to kill innocents, it tried to address the threat of armed Whites as well as quite well armed Whites behind the lines trying to destroy the Revolution and cull the working class. Compare White attacks on common people to focused Red attacks on the upper class vanguard of Whites.

I'm sure innocents died, as in every war.

I'm not the Guevara fools who clap at death. I'm realistic when it comes to the actions of the armed capitalist nations in a revolution.

War and death will go on forever until capitalism is overthrown.

The Nazi's were the ultimate expression of capitalism's resort to war. Capitalism did succeed in destroy the Soviet Union, through facilitating its isolation and the rise of Stalin. Liberal newspapers like the Nation supported the Purges and laughed Trotsky away. The United States barred Trotsky from coming to the United States, the only place he had possibly a chance of avoiding execution. The only nation that would accept him was Mexico, a death trap practically run by the Mexican Communist Party. All the capitalists agreed Stalin was the "more reasonable" easier-to-work with "communist." All Stalin wanted was his socialism in one country, he'd dismantle the Comintern any day, and it only took him a bit over a decade to do that. The history of the Soviet Union as originally intended ends in 1927, when the opposition was banned and the Bolsheviks began to be exile, internal party democracy was finally destroyed by Stalin.

There are billions of war time casualties in history, and they are not all equal. That is simply imbecilic ideology.

All the historical events I have described, each has a different context, with different historical meaning and significance.  It doesn't boil down to identities, it is idealistic, and ultimately leads to an endorsement of the foggy ideal version of a nonexistent stable capitalism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Fairbank, X


Edited by RoyFairbank - June 29 2012 at 14:28

What's red and sounds like a bell?

Roy, every explanation you give for Lenin's many victims are put in the "context" of Red vs Whites. It would seem that justifies everything for you. A war of two groups trying to get control of power and shape society to their will. That is apparently what explains and justifies thousands of innocent "casualties of war". Really?

The way you paint it is not that different from today's wars that you criticize so much (in which most people here will support you). "Us vs them". In the end they also wars about gaining control and power, to shape society, and quite clearly one could find ways to put them in a "context" that makes them seem justified. Is that all you know how to do? You criticize wordiness but all you have done are plays of words.

No you are not the typical cliche Che Guevara t-shirt communist. You're far more dangerous: you're a heavily indoctrinated, cunning ideologue.

What's the "there are billions of war time casualties in history, and they are not all equal. That is simply imbecilic ideology" quote even supposed to mean or prove?

George Lakoff: How Right-Wingers Scam People Into Buying Their Toxic Philosophy