Jews and the Left
Dax
"So what was it to be a Jew? ...it appears that they are more an
ethnic cabal with a strong sense of ethnic separatism, hatred for
the outgroup they lived among, obsession with racial purity, and
adopting varying strategies that would further their group interests
over others they lived amongst, at any cost to the social fabric or
culture they were part of."
*************
JEWS AND THE LEFT.
This chapter [from Dr Kevin McDonald's book "The Culture of
Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in
Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements"] looks into
the origins and causes of Jewish involvement in leftist movements.
Most of these radicals came from Eastern European families who were
radicalized by Marxism and who were also atheists. So what was it to
be a Jew? Looking at MacDonald's explanations of the history of
Eastern Jews, it appears that they are more an ethnic cabal with a
strong sense of ethnic separatism, hatred for the outgroup they
lived among, obsession with racial purity, and adopting varying
strategies that would further their group interests over others they
lived amongst, at any cost to the social fabric or culture they were
part of. When we look at the Jewish culture in depth, and note the
contradictions with other religions, it becomes apparent that as a
facultative group they are more like the Freemasons, Gypsies, the
Mafia, or even the modern day militias that form around blood or
racialism without any real identifiable ideology outside of whatever
strategizing is required for domination and control over the
cultures they live amongst. Similar to political nepotism, it is the
advancement of the kinship that is paramount in adopting differing
political and ethical positions that upon examination are illogical
and contradictory.
Eastern European Jews had been radicalized before they immigrated
into the United States, and they continued to be involved in radical
politics. For those immigrating after 1900, 69% of those involved in
radical politics in the United States had been involved in radical
politics in Europe. In Europe the radicalization of Jews was
primarily a matter of committing to a cohesive authoritarian group
that found in communism the ideal utopian formulation of a reduction
of ethnic hegemony while continuing to be a part of a Jewish
subculture. That is they could have their cake and eat it too. Deny
ethnocentric importance while continuing as crypto-Jews, similar to
the strategy they used to deal with the Iberian Inquisition.
In the United States, this strategy took the form of the Jewish
intelligentsia attempting to destroy the structural integrity of
traditional gentile religious fundamentalism or nationalism, while
the Jews continued to promote group ties and separatism to maintain
Jewish blood purity. Judaism could only flourish unchallenged if
they effectively neutralized any other group's potential hostility
to their domination in many of the higher cultural institutions, as
well as wealth accumulation far above any other group.
In the United States the emergence of Jewish Bolsheviks at the
forefront of radical politics resulted in the establishment of a
secular Jewish subculture. The Eastern Jewish Marxists were not
religious, and in fact were instrumental in trying to suppress or
weaken religious faith in both Europe and the United States, and
this secularization effort continues aggressively today through the
ACLU, the social sciences, academia, and most importantly in
Hollywood, areas that are dominated by Jews. The commitment to
Judaism has for a very long time now not been connected to religion,
but to secularism. Even the more Orthodox Jews are more interested
in separation and racialism....
Studies of radicals during the 1960s on major university campuses
showed that from 50% to 90% of them were Jews, and an overwhelming
majority of the radical Jews claimed that their parents were
atheists. (Of the radicals on campus during the sixties, my own alma
mater was reported to be made up of 90% Jews. I was a part of the
anti-war movement after I left the military, and yet I was not aware
of the ethnicity of the radicals I associated with, though I must
admit I was on the fringe and not very hard-core. I say this only
because I never knew of anyone who paid attention to whether someone
was Jewish or not, and now 30 years later I realized how unaware I
was of the real objectives of the radicals.) These campus radicals
were part of the 'contraculture' attacking everything that was
perceived to be part of the gentile establishment, ripping apart the
fabric of mid- century America that was perceived in need of radical
alteration to better serve Jewish interests.
Another example of the effectiveness of Jewish propaganda is how
there is a magnitude of difference between the perception of
genocide carried out by the Nazis while there is almost no mention
of Jewish involvement in similar actions by Bolshevik Jews. After
Germany lost the war, and Jewish Bolsheviks moved into Poland and
other Eastern block countries to varying degrees, with a systematic
and ruthless reign of terror carried out against Polish nationalists
and the Catholic Church. These crypto-Jews in Poland went to great
lengths to hide their Jewishness by changing their names, and if
they could pass as Polish they were promoted to more visible
positions in the government.
So similar purges and massacres have been carried out under
communism, with a strong presence of Jews in the inner workings of
the secret police. MacDonald points out that especially in Poland,
the Jewish masters did the bidding for the Soviets, and demanded
sacrifice and hardship from the Polish people to serve their masters
in Moscow. One wonders, how is the slave labor used by the Nazis for
a few years balanced against the brutalization of Polish and other
ethnic people for decades by Marxists? Is there any outcry for their
genocide against the west? No, and there won't be as long as they
have monopolistic control of the media, academia, politics and
Hollywood.
And likewise, "The American radical movement glorified the
development of Jewish life in the Soviet Union. . . . The Soviet
Union was living proof that under socialism the Jewish question
could be solved." And how many millions of people died because of
the Jewish promotion of Marxism just to keep their blood pure?
Genetic assimilation was too much to ask. Human bondage for the West
was preferable to genetic mingling with the lesser goyim. Gentile
nationalism must be destroyed at any cost, while Jewish nationalism
or Zionism was to be embraced and rationalized for the continuation
and expansion of Judaism, under the watchful eye of an American
Jewry with enormous financial support.
MacDonald writes, "Within Russian Jewish communities, the acceptance
of radical political ideology often coexisted with messianic forms
of Zionism as well as intense commitment to Jewish nationalism and
religious and cultural separatism, and many individuals held various
and often rapidly changing combinations of these ideas." That is,
Judaism is an evolutionary strategy that requires its members to
formulate policy and moral positions for promoting their own
interests against other groups they find themselves confronted by.
And when groups vary in mental ability, ethnocentrism, or morality,
conflict will result.
The American Jewish left is now in a bitter feud with the religious
right of the Republican Party. They view the Christian coalition as
advocating a homogeneous Christian culture, one that may turn
inimical to Jewish interests. This seems absurd to me, as the
Christian Coalition is probably more a result of the final death
throes of fundamentalists in an increasingly secular world. Nonethe-
less, Jewish voters were more supportive of conservative fiscal
policies and less supportive of government attempts to redistribute
wealth than either African Americans or other white Americans.
Recent Jewish political behavior is thus self-interested both
economically and in its opposition to the ethnic interests of white
Americans to develop an ethnically and culturally homogenous
society." That is, Jewish interests seem overly egalitarian towards
the poor when used for promoting diversity and multiculturalism, but
they flinch when their own money is involved.
http://home.att.net/~eugenics/mac.htm
T. E.
>
> "So what was it to be a Jew? ...it appears that they are more an
> ethnic cabal with a strong sense of ethnic separatism, hatred for
> the outgroup they lived among, obsession with racial purity, and
> adopting varying strategies that would further their group interests
> over others they lived amongst, at any cost to the social fabric or
> culture they were part of."
This assessment describes perhaps *some* Jews, but it goes far better
with and describes fully and acurately *all* white supremacists.
So what's your point? That white supremacists are worse than Jews
or that Jews need to take lessons from white supremacists?
tewins
'Jewish Bolsheviks' imprisoned, exiled or killed hundreds of Jewish activist
the the SR, the Mensheviks and their own party. (heavy irony)
Get your head out of the sand.
tewins
confusing.
T. E. wrote in message <3AF1AA36...@agere.com>...
A. Melon
>Dax wrote:
>>
>> "So what was it to be a Jew? ...it appears that they are more an
>> ethnic cabal with a strong sense of ethnic separatism, hatred for
>> the outgroup they lived among, obsession with racial purity, and
>> adopting varying strategies that would further their group interests
>> over others they lived amongst, at any cost to the social fabric or
>> culture they were part of."
>
>This assessment describes perhaps *some* Jews, but it goes far better
>with and describes fully and acurately *all* white supremacists.
It's good to see that you concede that at least some Jews are the
equivalent (actually a subset) of white supremacists. It is true that
the above description does not fit all Jews, but in my judgment it
is applicable to a majority of them. And, supremacist Jews are in
absolute numbers a much larger group than those the media
generally refers to as white supremacists, i.e. KKK/skinhead types,
who probably number no more than a few thousand in the entire
USA.
>So what's your point? That white supremacists are worse than Jews
>or that Jews need to take lessons from white supremacists?
None of this is the point of the cited article, which is concerned
with the Jews historical involvement with the political left.
However, in my view Jews are second to none when to comes
to being supremacists. They have a very long history of
separatism and intense tribalism which carries through to the
present time. They beat garden-variety white supremacists
hands down.
Che'Gu Maru
in the sand. Instead, they are buried firmly up their own asses.
"tewins" <tew...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:4poI6.17380$482....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Alex Chaihorsky
"Che'Gu Maru" <chgu...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:9cv1be$49a$1...@news.hal-pc.org...
Calling people neo-Nazis, anti-Semites and using foul language one-liners
when we do not like their arguments is exactly what is wrong with us today.
Jews do not have and should not have a monopoly on truth, decency and the
right to insult their opponents.
As a Jewish refugee from Russia, I am more concerned that Trotskys, Yakirs,
Kamnevs, Sverdlovs, etc., will never happen again, that we do not give life
to monsters like Yagoda (chief NKVD), Yurovski (killer of Nicolas the 2d and
his family), Kaganovitch, etc.
Many of Russian Jewish refugees have very different opinions about socialism
and communism, that were pure theory to Jews in the US and tragic historical
event for us. My Grandparents were atheist Communists, my parent are atheist
anti-communists and I am religious anti-Communist, anti-Socialist,
anti-Marxist and anti-All-Forms-Of-Collectivisms.
If you would read immigrant papers published in Russian here in the US, you
will see that the descendants of Russian Communist Jews are rabidly
anti-Communist and pro-individualism and Capitalism.
How the American Jewry is still in love with Marxism, is beyond me.
Cheers,
Alexander Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
D Stephen Heersink
wraps, that they have sought messianic deliverance in Marxist doctrine
and Freudian psychoanalysis.
What will forever remain an enigma is why so many Jews held to
communist beliefs during and after the Stalinist's purges and pogroms,
and why they continue to believe the community supersedes all
individual charism. Admittedly, as "the chosen people" they tend to
grasp things in terms of collective polity, but most active
communists, leftists, and other collectivists were hardly practicing
religious Jews. The communistic salvation and Marxist redemption was
perceived entirely in a secular view.
As a host of conservative Jews, who once were on the Left,
have written with candor and honesty, the problem seems that the
intellectual anti-intellectualism often found among Jewish scholars
and academics became elitist fodder as "us" vs. "them" in the tug of
war between communism and conservatism. Irving Kristol and many others
made the march through the Red Sea and back again, realizing there was
no promised land "there." Still, the titularly Jewish Marx and Freud,
often debasing their own religious heritage, became cultural pariahs
for intellectual Jews in search of the missing messiah.
________________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
T. E.
>
> "T. E." <teps...@agere.com> wrote:
>
> >Dax wrote:
> >>
> >> "So what was it to be a Jew? ...it appears that they are more an
> >> ethnic cabal with a strong sense of ethnic separatism, hatred for
> >> the outgroup they lived among, obsession with racial purity, and
> >> adopting varying strategies that would further their group interests
> >> over others they lived amongst, at any cost to the social fabric or
> >> culture they were part of."
> >
> >This assessment describes perhaps *some* Jews, but it goes far better
> >with and describes fully and acurately *all* white supremacists.
>
> It's good to see that you concede that at least some Jews are the
> equivalent (actually a subset) of white supremacists.
Who's making concessions? The odds are any group of people who
consider themselves separate by one definition or another are likely
(if the group is large enough) to have members who display some or all
of the attributes described above.
> It is true that
> the above description does not fit all Jews, but in my judgment it
> is applicable to a majority of them.
Your judgment based on what? Of the thousands of Jews I've met,
not one has fulfilled the description above. On the other hand,
of the dozen or so white supremacists I've met, each and every one
can be accurately described as above.
> And, supremacist Jews are in
> absolute numbers a much larger group than those the media
> generally refers to as white supremacists, i.e. KKK/skinhead types,
> ...
Even those believing in Zion tend to do so without asserting they are
"chosen" because they are supreme or superior. Whereas, white supremacy
is by definition an assertion of superiority.
> ...who probably number no more than a few thousand in the entire
> USA.
And each and every one by definition fulfills the description above:
A 100% asshole-to-member ratio.
> >So what's your point? That white supremacists are worse than Jews
> >or that Jews need to take lessons from white supremacists?
> None of this is the point of the cited article, which is concerned
> with the Jews historical involvement with the political left.
> However, in my view Jews are second to none when to comes
> to being supremacists. They have a very long history of
> separatism and intense tribalism which carries through to the
> present time.
Separatism and supremacism are not equivalent, nor does either
depend on the other. Using your "logic," Other supremacists
would include:
- Jesus ("Upon this rock I will build my church." Literally,
that was, "Upon this rock I will build my called-out (separate)
people.)
- By extension, all groups calling themselves a Church.
- Martin Luther
- The Buddha
- Each and every cloistered community from Carmelite nuns to
Shinto Priests
- The U.S. Marines (The few, the proud)
- Lepers
- All Native Americans (tribes, you know)
> They beat garden-variety white supremacists
> hands down.
Bzzzzt. You're entitled to your opinion of course, as am I.
My own opinion is that you're one of the least perceptive people
I've encountered.
tewins
>will see that the descendants of Russian Communist Jews are rabidly
>anti-Communist and pro-individualism and Capitalism.
>How the American Jewry is still in love with Marxism, is beyond me.
>
Because they lived through Vietnam - national guardsmen shooting protestors,
the demolitition of the 'New Deal' - threadbare safety net as it was, the
destruction of the nation's economy in an arms race - all to destroy the
USSR. From your perspective, there's always the trend of rebellion against
one's parents, but more particularly there's the fact that, until Gorbachev,
the USSR represented a repressive, bureaucratic state rather than the
realisation of socialism. The efforts of Khrushev and Gorbachev, however,
ought to have given people hope. There's also the fact that on its south
eastern flank the USSR had to deal with nations like Iran for the sake of
its own security. (look what ended up happening in Afghanistan) This
disillusioned a lot of Jews. On the other hand, you can point out that a
lot of the Jewish Marxist tradition in the US stems from Jewish Menshevik
exiles such as Martov, and Humanists such as Erich Fromm. Such people
always made clear their projects were different than that of the Stalinists
anyway. Some of them paid for it with their lives. They have every right
to be proud of maintaining an alternative, more humanist and liberal version
of Marxism, and they have every right to keep that tradition alive today and
in the future.
Alex Chaihorsky
>
> >will see that the descendants of Russian Communist Jews are rabidly
> >anti-Communist and pro-individualism and Capitalism.
> >How the American Jewry is still in love with Marxism, is beyond me.
> >
>
> lot of the Jewish Marxist tradition in the US stems from Jewish Menshevik
> exiles such as Martov, and Humanists such as Erich Fromm. Such people
> always made clear their projects were different than that of the
Stalinists
> anyway.
The absolute majority of American and European Communists supported
Bolsheviks and saluted everything they did.
Andre Zhid was one of the every few critics and was ostracised for that
ruthlessly.
The reality is - every implementation of Marxism gave birth to monstrocities
of enormous proportions. Nazis can also argue that they need the second
chance that there were more humane and non-radical Nazis than Hitler. Do we
owe them a second chance? Why Marxists are better? They killed more people
for no other reason than "wrong" class label than Nazis killed for "wrong"
race label.
>Some of them paid for it with their lives.
Yes, but majority just before they died, applauded others being killed
(Bucharin, Yakir, Schmidt, Radek).
Or were killing others themselves (Yagoda, Sverdlov, Ezhov,Trotsky, etc.)
>They have every right
> to be proud of maintaining an alternative, more humanist and liberal
version
> of Marxism, and they have every right to keep that tradition alive today
and
> in the future.
>
Right to be proud... Certainly.
Neo-Nazis are also proud of their heritage. So are Maoists.
Marxism is a monster ideology. Anyone who read "Communist Manifesto" (really
read it, not read an article about it) knows that.
In my opinion there is no difference between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.
Mensheviks never had power available to them. If they would - they will do
exactly the same as Bolsheviks. All Marxist are nice until they seize power.
The bestiaries starts the next day.
If you want to enslave the country you meet resistance. And if you did read
Manifesto, you know that Marxism is about slavery.
If you disagree - let us stop right here and argue that.
But - one condition - you sign, as I do, with your real name. If you believe
in what you say - you should have no problem with it. I do not argue with
shadows.
Regards,
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
tewins
Ok, first things first. If you've read the Communist Manifesto, you know
its about the following things:
*Capitalist industrialisation had brought about a proletariat dominated by
workers whose labour is exploited, and who work in conditions of absolute
emiseration and alienation. There is poverty. Work is mind-numbing,
physically draining, repetitive.
*Workers were brought together like huge armies in factories based on mased
production. This brought about class consciousness - and provoked workers to
organise as a class, and as a Party.
*The conflict that arose between bourgeoisie and proletariat was a
dialectical, historical and materialist process which Marx envisaged as
ending with the victory of the proletariat. Observing the conditions of
absolute emiseration that existed in 1848, this was a compelling argument.
*The oppressed, the proletariat, the masses - organised as a class, were to
seize state power and socialise all industry, abolishing exploitation.
A period of 'The Dictatorship of the Proletariat' was to follow during which
the proletariat organised as a class fought of resistance from the
bourgeoisie. The socialisation of industry was to herald SOCIALISM - in
which industry was democratically controlled, production was geared towards
need first, and an emphasis was placed on allowing workers to more fully
develop their capacities of human beings: rather than being trapped in an
'industrial prison'.
*As revolution swept the industrialised world, a new internationalism would
arise based upon workers common humanity. As socialism was consolidated
worldwide, the differences between nations would be put aside - a trend
already reocognised in capitalism by Marx's observations of cultural
interpenetration, increased trade and cosmopolitanism. Marx was possibly
the first theorist of globalisation.
*Eventually human solidarity would be so great that there would no longer be
any need for the state or its oppressive apparatus. A stateless world
society of Communism based on radical democracy, the limitless development
of each human being, material abundance, and human solidarity would take its
place.
THIS is what the Communist Manifesto argued. I see nothing essentially
'evil' about it, although by the 20th Century it was obviously a flawed
guide to action. This was so for the following reasons:
* universal suffrage and massive levels of mobilisation suggested the
proletariat could use parliament to further its ends, and, according to
Kautsky, proletarian mobilisation would become overwhelming that the
transition to socialism would be peaceful. Between them, Kautsky and
Bernstein - one an orthodox, the other a liberal Revisionist Marxist..
challenged the necessity of violent revolution. They carried a HUGE section
of the Marxist movement with them.
* ABSOLUTE emiseration of the proleriat was in decline as overall living
standards rose and welfare was introduced. The conditions of EXTREME
suffering and degradation observed by Marx were being replaced by social
relations that were still exploitative and oppressive, but in which the
worker was allotted a share of material comfort. Prospects of revolution in
the Industrialised world was thus diminished, and did not appear likely
again until the Depression.
* It failed to recognise the usefullness of the Market - not in the sense of
Monopoly Capital, but in the sense of liberal and flexible means of consumer
choice that could not be provided for with state planning. Abolishing
classes remained paramount, but abolishing the market caused more harm than
good. Hence it was that Tito was to support a 'market socialism', and early
on the Bolsheviks shifted from disastros 'War Communism' to the NEP. (New
Economic Policy)
* It failed to recognise that seizure of power in one state would result in
hostility and encirclement by bourgeois states. Hopes of simultaneous
socialist revolutions were desperate and fanciful. In such circumstances,
the state could not 'wither away' but, rather, would have to become
increasingly strong to fend off potential aggressors and subversion.
Jacobin style Terror was resorted to, reach previously unthinkable extremes
under Stalin.
It also failed to recognise that, even under favourable circumstances, the
State retained a legitimate ADMINISTRATIVE and WELFARE role.
* Marx's theory was inspired by truly ethical concerns at the emiseration of
the proletariat and the injustice of exploitation and plutocracy. However,
Marx provided no theory of ethics to complement his work, and this was
always a glaring absence - the most important weakness.
Now - on to your comparison of Nazism and Soviet Marxism.
Under Stalin, the USSR degenerated into a bureaucratic police state under a
constant shadow of Terror. Nevertheless, the USSR could easily be
distinguished from Nazism as follows:
* it was internationalist, not nationalist
* it promoted equal status for women, rather than the degrading status
allotted women by Nazism
* Although the bureaucratic caste was parasitic, there was no capitalist
style exploitation, nor was there the corporatist Fascist collusion of
classes, military, industry and so on.
* Jews had equal rights as citizens in the USSR and rose to the heights of
power, inspiring gross Anti-Semitism in the Ukraine, for instance, where
there was widespread complicity in the Holocaust.
* It supported the Republican government in Spain
As conceded, however, all this continued under a reign of state terror and
the absence of political liberties. This was, in part, due to exceptional
circumstances - but the extent of Stalins crimes are, ultimately,
inexcusable.
NOW - as for your allegations of all Marxists 'being the same' - this
betrays great ignorance. I will cite some examples.
* Kautsky and his supporters opposed the dissolution of the Constituent
Assembly and argued early on that Lenin's methods might help lead to what
eventually occurred under Stalin. Kautsky was a Marxist and a irrepressible
democrat. During the German revolution he headed the USPD (Independant
social democratic party of Germany) which support the important gains of the
revolution, but opposed emulating the Bolsheviks.
* Berstein advocated a similar position from a liberal-Marxist, Revisionist
perspective
* Rosa Luxemburg also criticised Lenin's centralism, fearing the Party would
rule in place of the people
* The Mensheviks opposed the banning of opposition parties and supported the
constituent assembly. Martov's Left Internationalist faction also supported
the Soviets and embraced a true socialist internationalism. Menshevik
leaders were executed or exiled.
* In Austria, Marxists like Otto Bauer were to develop an ETHICAL Marxism
that drew upon Kant, correcting the ommissions of Marx
* Gramsci corrected Lenin's obsession with the State, turning to positional
struggles in civil society as the key to change
* dozens of Trotskyist, Luxemburgist and other organisations were to oppose
Stalinism from a Marxist perspective, while Erich Fromm and others were to
develop a LIBERAL, HUMANIST Marxism that was radically at odds with
Stalinism also.
* Adorno and others in the Frankfurt School of critical theory were to
develop of 'permenantly critical' school of Marxism, steeped in Idealism and
uncompromising ethics. The Frankfurt School confronted the combination of
Stalinism and Fascism as a potential 'bad totality' and made a point of
NEVER compromising ethics or the truth for the sake of political expedience.
(unlike the Stalinists who abandoned the truth, ethics, justice - all for
expediency's sake.)
* Marcuse was to develop a radical Marxism that looked to students and
minorities for inspiration, and which criticised sexual repression and
distortion under capitalism. Marcuse was critical of what he called 'Soviet
Marxism'.
* Habermas and others were to blend Marxism and liberalism in a mixture
which combined the BEST of both traditions
* In the USSR, Khruschev did much to bury the legacy of Stalinism, while
Gorbachev promised a process of liberalisation that thoroughly transformed
the USSR. (although those who plotted against the very Constitution should
have been countered before Yeltsin's COUP. The ex-Soviet people have paid
the price ever since.)
FINALLY - comparing Stalin's crimes to those of Imperialism
The toll of Stalin's purges and Terror is well known. What is not so well
known, is that with Western and often CIA backing the following occurred:
(this is just a small sample)
* over a million killed in carpet bombing and napalm bombing in Vietnam
* over half a million killed in Indonesia in a CIA backed coup
* The removal of a democratically elected government, over a decade of
dictatorship, and the slaughter of over 7000 in Chile, with CIA
backing
* hundreds of thousands killed by oppressive US Client States in Central and
South America with CIA backing
* Secular government overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistam
with CIA backing. Women oppressed now like nowhere else on earth.
* Thousands slaughtered by French in Terror in Algeria
* Democratically elected government in Australia removed in 'constitutional
coup' backed by CIA
* Swedish PM and great reformer Olaf Palme assassinated - possible CIA
involvement.
* Turkish oppression of Kurds - use of their own language banned, atrocious
conditions in prisons, thousands killed
* Thousands killed by repressive governments allied with the West in South
Korea and Taiwan
* Palestinians remain with recognition, dignity or citizenship rights for
over 30 years
If you can damn there entire tradition of Marxism on the basis of Stalin's
crimes, then I could just as easily damn liberalism, conservatism,
corporatist social democracy and the whole delusion of Western liberal
democracy on the same basis. We live in a brutal world dominated by saved
geo-political, economic and religious power struggles. Supposedly secular,
religious, liberal, conservative, socialist regimes all over the world are
collectively responsible for the death of MILLIONS. Your criticism is not
best directed at Marxism - but at CIVILISATION ITSELF - which constantly
totters on the edge of collapse on account of the barbarism and atrocities
committed by those who pose as its 'saviours'.
My position is this: I am an Ethical democratic socialist. Believe it or
not I am also a Christian. I believe a movement is better off remaining in
opposition while staying true to its ideals than holding on to power through
ATROCITIES which DESTROY the foundations of every the movement is MEANT to
stand for. On this issue I stand with Zygmunt Bauman. (a great and very
original socialist thinker) I believe that socialists, conservatives,
liberals - who together have an HONEST commitment to human rights and
dignity, and who oppose savagrey and atrocities - have more in common than
there supposed ideological 'fellow-travellers' to whom torture, murder and
horrendous atrocities are just 'par for the course' in seizing and
maintaining state power.
Stop generalising about Marxism and see that atrocities and acts of
oppression are committed by regimes of every SUPPOSED ideological
persuasion. Stop painting Marxism and socialism as homogenous and complicit
with Stalinism when I have given you so many examples of those at odds with
his Terror I have lost count! Face the TRUTH and join the ranks of that
tiny minority: socialists, liberals, conservatives alike, who are NOT
apologists for some of the most atrocious acts in all human history.
Finally - I *am* using my real name - I always do
>The absolute majority of American and European Communists supported
>Bolsheviks and saluted everything they did.
>Andre Zhid was one of the every few critics and was ostracised for that
>ruthlessly.
>
Alex Chaihorsky
> This is going to be a LONG post.....
>
>
> oppression are committed by regimes of every SUPPOSED ideological
> persuasion. Stop painting Marxism and socialism as homogenous and
complicit
> with Stalinism when I have given you so many examples of those at odds
with
> his Terror I have lost count! Face the TRUTH and join the ranks of that
> tiny minority: socialists, liberals, conservatives alike, who are NOT
> apologists for some of the most atrocious acts in all human history.
>
> Finally - I *am* using my real name - I always do
>
>
>
Thank you for your detailed answer. I will give you mine as soon as you tell
me your real name. I have no idea what is "tewin". Sorry, I do not argue
with ghosts, as I said before.
Alexander Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
tewins
This is VERY close to my real name, believe it or not. I have already left
articles on other horrendous personal experiences that will probably ensure
I have no future in public life. Nevertheless I feel some small comfort
in not giving my whole name. This has nothing to do with me having anything
to 'hide' about my politics, and everything to do with certain
occult-related experiences I have related under this name.
In relations to THOSE experieces, I wish I had never been as open as I have
been. I felt my life was over and nothing else mattered after the HORROR I
suffered. If you do a search on Google you will quickly discover what I
mean, and probably deduce I am a raving nutcase.
Then you will see why I stop short of using my own name - even though,
admittedly, what I already use is close enough for anyone who knows of me to
identify me.
I have given you a very substantial respose. If you care to let it stand,
then fine. I believe I have thoroughly rebutted your arguments. But I
would PREFER a response. It is true I worry about people posting with
similar sounding names as I, and being held responsible for others
opinions, but even that will not convince me to 'shed this last veil'. As
I said, if you search Google you will discover why. But please don't accuse
me of being mad, thus distorting the discussion we're having. Apart from my
horrifying, life-destroying experiences I still believe I have a keen, sharp
mind, and my analysis in most fields is spot on. But one cannot lose one's
soul and then just 'go on' seeking success in the material world - as if it
even matters anymore.
tewins
Dear Alex,
(replies below)
Alex Chaihorsky wrote in message <9d4cdq$f...@dispatch.concentric.net>...
>OK, I take your explanation and would make an exception for you. This is
>only because you state that you are a religious person. I am a Jew, but I
>have deepest respect for Christianity (Protestantism in particular).
>
>But, as I said - first I will discuss Manifesto. If we will come to an
>agreement about it, then we can move further.
> I was encouraged by one word you said - "TINY" when you were talking about
>>Face the TRUTH and join the ranks of that tiny minority: socialists,
>liberals, conservatives alike, who >are NOT apologists for some of the most
>atrocious acts in all human history."
>There may be a TINY group like that. Would you agree that VAST majority of
>Socialist and Communists today are of the COMMON variety?
I'd agree that the vast majority of ALLEGED socialists, liberals, social
democrats, conservatives and the extreme right, who occupy positions of
POWER, are all alike in their 'realpolitik', 'the ends justify the means"
approach. There are few remaining in the Left today who would be apologists
for Stalin, but that doesn't stop those at the heights of power disciplining
their movements through means that are nothing short of criminal. (and the
same goes for all other political movements) As for the so-called moderate
'centre' of Conservatives and Liberals - between them, the 'mainstream' of
US politics and government
has been responsible for imposing and supporting authoritarian 'client
states' whose victims are in the millions. And we all know the record of the
extreme right. So, what I'm saying is that most of those who are
preoccupied with POWER - on ANY political inclination - more than likely
have their fair share of blood on their hands.
But most of the true Left these days, apart from those directly descended
from Stalinism, occupy either a liberal democratic socialist approach (such
as I do) or a Luxemburgian-style left-wing Communism which is completely
unstained by the Stalinist legacy. This marginalised minority is NOT
responsible in any way for the crimes of Stalinism or the Stalinist
tradition. This is why I really urge you to take note of all those I
listed - which are but a fraction of a radical left tradition spanning over
100 years - which stands in opposition to Stalinist authoritarianism and
corporatist social democracy alike.
What is more, as I said, alongside this marginalised leftist minority there
are also a host of liberals and conservatives who are also honest and
dedicated civil libertarians. Despite ideological differences, I would have
far more in common with any of these people than a Beria or a Stalin.
But when you start talking about the George Bush Snrs and Ronald Reagans of
the world, you're talking about men who claim to stand for the 'moderate
centre' (relative to Communism and Fascism) yet who, through the CIA
primarily have funded and supported vicious client states whose victims have
been in the millions. Many so-called 'liberal Democrats are no better. And
all these people pervert the democratic process, excluding any real input
from the people at large or any group deemed to be at some arbitrary point
to 'the left of centre'. (it's even down in writing in the Charters of
several Western security agencies) Over the past 30 years what this has
meant is corporatisation, privatisation, public spending and welfare
cutbacks, corporate subsidies - all without any real input 'from below': all
decided from above by corporate sponsors, lead bodies, right wing think
tanks and so on. So we have this combination of corpate/security
establishment oligarchy compared with the sponsoring of vicious, repressive
client states. And this is the so called 'liberal democratic moderate
centre'. How much better is this than the so-called 'totalitarian'
societies: except to say we, in the West, are kept content by realtive
affluence, consumerism, and a highly successful propagandist culture
industry? The minute students, workers, minorities, the poor - begin to
organise - out come the riot police, the agent provocateurs, the secret
police - just like in any 'totalitarian' society.
Now where I stand is with a fellow I was introduced to (not personally) in
my Honors year called Zygmunt Bauman: a truly marvellous intellectual who
has written such books as 'Postmodern Ethics' and 'Socialism: the Active
Utopia', where he argues a) For the critical importance of ETHICS despite
the pervasive postmodern uncertainly on the modern Left, and b) a
democratic socialism that is radical, democratic and oppositional: that
prefers to remain a counter-culture or counter-hegemonic bloc working from
below, than a tyrannical government imposing its will 'from above'.
It would be well worth your looking into his writings. He is truly a rare
breed of intellectual.
>Please, try to make your points short and use as little propaganda language
>as you can ("Face the TRUTH" kinda stuff is pure propaganda and you know
>it)., without hurting the substance. I will try to do the same.
>As English is my second language, I apologize ahead of the time for
>grammatical and syntactical inconsistencies.
Sorry, it's difficult to keep it short when the issues are so complex and
there's so much to say. I'm sorry if, English being your second language,
you have any difficulties.
>
>I have to address this before I address anything else..
>Marx was a monster. If you read Manifesto you will find:
>
>1. Complete liquidation of private property
>2. Liquidation of the family, introduction of "official, open mutual
>ownership of wives"
>3. Children taken from families are brought up by community (Hillary,
>hello!)
>4. Industrial armies, not employer - employee, (and that is from the guy
who
>LOVES proletariat!)
>5. Central credit by central banks with total banking monopoly for the
>State.
>6. Age when children start working - 9 years of age (Resolution of Geneva
>International Congress).
*Ok - as for 'industrial armies', I think you're thinking of the
'militarisation of labour' promoted by Trotsky and Lenin during the 20s.
This was opposed by a significant Communist faction, the 'Workers
Opposition' amongst whose numbers I would have been counted.
*As for bank nationalisation - I see no problem with breaking the financial
oligarchy, which the world over is despotic and collusive.
*As for the 'age when children start working - 9', I am all but certain that
the Communists campaigned against child labour, and I'd like you to provide
evidence directly from the Manifesto to support yourclaim to the contrary.
*As for the 'abolition of the family' - this was a most unfortunate term,
which was really meant to mean the abolition of the BOURGEOIS family - which
virtually institutionalised adultery and the exploitation of women.
Marx writes,
"The bourgeois sees his wife as a mere instrument of production. He hears
that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and
naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to
all will likewise fall to the women."
"He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with
the status of women as mere instruments of production."
So we here, here, Marx's real aim was women's liberation, but the
unfortunate term 'Abolition of the Family' has been the source of much
criticism over the years, and it is yet one more fault of Marx's that it is
such a provocative and unrealistic term that he should never have used it.
But I have never claimed Marx was without fault - merely that there is still
something of value in his writings and the tradition he inspired.
As for claims Socialists will ALWAYS turn to tyranny when in power I cite
the examples of Gorbachev, Finnish socialism and Swedish socialism.
Even Fidel Castro's Cuba has a better human rights record than the
neighbouring Central American US client states - a MUCH better record.
But primarily, I am speaking of Sweden and Finland.
Alex Chaihorsky
Have a good life. This is not an honest discussion.
But I do have to explain why, so others understand why I call it that:
1. There is no such thing as right and left in ideologies. This is extreme
simplification for the purpose of confusion. After Gorbatchev reforms in
Russia, for instance, Communists were called - Extreme Right and Democrats -
Left.
1.1 There are different flavors of individualistic capitalism from Liberal
(Classic, not stolen term) Locke and Adam Smith type laissez-faire, to
Scandinavian (failed) type of more regulated markets and thicker safety net.
1.2 There are different types of collectivistic ideologies like Nazism,
Communism and Socialisms of many colors but with the same core - partial or
complete control of the industries, different conditions on the private
property, one group ideological domination (race group for Nazis, class
groups, like proletariat, for Marxist Socialism and Communism)
These socialisms can be Marxian and non-Marxian (National Socialisms like
Nazism, etc).
Now where are "the right?" Or the "extreme right"? I guess you are talking
about extreme Liberal, laissez-faire Capitalists. I would like to know when
and where they left oceans of blood, killing fields or starvation camps
like:
1. Russian Socialism lead by Soviet Communists
2. Chinese Socialism lead by Chinese Communists,
3. Cambodian Socialism lead by Pol Pot, a delegate of 24th Congress of CP
USSR, where representatives of ALL European and American Communist AND
Socialist parties met him with standing applause (I saw it with my own
eyes).
4. North Korean Church-he (two teespoons of Marx, two tablespoons of Lenin
and a gallon of blood. Serve hot with old style Russian SS20 ballistic
rockets).
Where and when the supporters of the staunchest individualism and Capitalism
ever created
1. Concentration camps where millions would die,
2 Created artificial hunger that pushed people to cannibalism, while the
government would sell wheat to its neighboring countries (Soviet Ukraine
starvation of late 20-ies early 1930-ies)
3. Would kill people for no other reason as their class identity
4. Would order to kill children like Lenin did (no western socialist
objected, the still carry Lenin's portraits on the Broadway May Day parade
in New York)
5. Would eliminate people in such numbers that the whole cities were emptied
and grass grew on the streets (Cambodia)
6. Would eliminate resistance of their own people with chemical weapons
(gases) like Communist Tuchachevsky in Tambov.
You called in your previous mail the "honest" group TINY. Now you call it
> But most of the true Left these days, apart from those directly descended
> from Stalinism, occupy either a liberal democratic socialist approach
(such
> as I do) or a Luxemburgian-style left-wing Communism which is completely
> unstained by the Stalinist legacy.
If you are talking about Rose Luxemburg, Sir, I have news for you. The
bloody bitch witnessed ALL the atrocities of Lenin and Trotsky since 1917,
without even as much as a twitch. Never objected to the atrocities of Bela
Kune and Zemljatchka in Hungary and were eagerly waiting for the spread of
Communism into Germany. Like the rest of German Communists, largest part of
which would join Hitler after the Reichstag provocation..
My word to you, Sir, - you are positiong yourself to become an intellectual
apologist for future atrocities of the kind that will make Stalin look like
a nice, kind, Santa Claus.
Read about Mr. Bucharin - a nice, smiling, educated Russian Communist, was
against Stalin's agricultural reforms, loved birds and was considered "Party
Favourite". Nevertheless, Mr Bucharin wanted people to be better and fast.
He invented an interesting method for that - kill bad people and leave only
good. Simple and effective. Since there is no G-d (Marxism demands atheism,
religion is "an opiate for the people") there is no sacred value in life and
FOR THE COLLECTIVE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE, everything is moral. Poor idiot
never thought that his buddy Stalin would see him as a bad man. So he was
killed, but before that volunteered to kill his former friends Kamenev and
Zinoviev. To his disappointment he did not get a job.
All Socialists and Communists were for morality, compassion, children,
women, peace... until they came to power. So your ETHICS token is of the
same variety. You will be ethical and compassionate and wonderful and loving
UNTIL you got the power.
How do we know that - because you and your TINY group never openly and
publicly called USSR "AN EVIL EMPIRE". Never boycotted Russian Communists
when they committed their atrocities right to the Afgan war. You were
allowed mild criticism, but never touched the core - Marxist theories of
PROLETARIATE DICTATORSHIP.
Your Christianity is a very superficial one if you accept monsters like Rosa
Luxemburg. I think that you just use it as a distraction because you know
that atheistic Socialism/Communism have very little chance to attract
American Public today.
Now about Sweden and Finland. These coutries were never Socialist. They
implemented some socialist features into their Capitalism, but calling them
Socialist is laughable.
I lived in Sweden and have spent considerable time in Finland.
Recently, BTW, Swedes abandoned most of their Socialist features of the
past. If you do not know that, you have no idea what Sweden is now. Finland
is a special case. Having huge Soviet Russia next to them they did not need
to be very productive, like a parasite (no offence to brave, clever and
honest Finns) co-habitor of a big organizm.
And now they still have a huge Russian, Latvian and Estonian markets where
they sell inferior products at a premium price. However they will tell you
that this is drying up and Finland is facing very tough times. But if there
is one nation in the world in which I have full confidance - its Finns.
So, I do not see any difference between the priases for humanity, morality,
compassion, etc., of former varieties of Marxist Socialists and you. Your
analysis of manifesto is word-by-word what they taught us in Russian
Universities at the Theoretical Communism classes. Right to the tiny
details.
But do not expect an easy win here. We will fight with our teeth and claws.
If you will try circumvent the Constitution and to pull the Socialist stunt
on us, we will tear you apart with our bare hands and eat your raw liver. I
owe that to the Commies for everything they have done to my family,
bastards.
And in the very front lines of your mortal enemies will be standing
Russians, Jews, Ukrainians, Georgians, Germans, Poles, Hungarians, Chinese,
Cambodians, Bulgarians - all of the nations and nationalities that have
experiences your ideology in all of its varieties. I hope I will have an
honor to die in that battle. I cannot dream of a better death for myself.
Alexander Chaihorsky
Reno, Nevada
"tewins" <tew...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:yDqJ6.21032$482....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
~~~i LeoNid ~~
<tew...@bigpond.com> planted &I saw in alt.conspiracy:
>
>This is VERY close to my real name, believe it or not. I have already left
>articles on other horrendous personal experiences that will probably ensure
>I have no future in public life. Nevertheless I feel some small comfort
>in not giving my whole name. This has nothing to do with me having anything
Sorry for my intrusion into this tet-a-tet conversATion:) But since it is
on a public group, and I was allowed to see it:).. I am not particularly
interested in other subtopics in this thread; but what is this search for
'G0d's:) name? I know - in Judaic, and some other (like Celtic) cultures -
names mean aLOT. (And - are used within these 'cultural' surroundings to
form a 'destiny' accordingly:)
But isn't it - that content is more imortant then the carrier? (WEll, in
most cases, and for discussions, in particular) I do, usualy (never say
always:) argue with Ghosts/Anons etc, if content interests/triggers me.
And a person has all rights to be anonymous (in practice - such a state
doesn't exist nowadays, with a total surveilance, - anonymity - if
maintained - is very RELATIVE; ask Einstein's Ghost:)
>to 'hide' about my politics, and everything to do with certain
>occult-related experiences I have related under this name.
>In relations to THOSE experieces, I wish I had never been as open as I have
>been. I felt my life was over and nothing else mattered after the HORROR I
>suffered. If you do a search on Google you will quickly discover what I
I did some search, after reading this. But, excuse me my 'honesty' (well,
in THIS case:), didn't find anything particularly interesting (personaly speaking).
And it has nothing to do with English as a second language issue. I am capable
of reading long 'stories' too, if I got and KEEP interested:)
>mean, and probably deduce I am a raving nutcase.
>Then you will see why I stop short of using my own name - even though,
>admittedly, what I already use is close enough for anyone who knows of me to
>identify me.
>
You 'Fish'(out of the net:) language philosophy is plain boring. (Speaking
for myself, o'coz:) And excuse me, if you will.
>
>I have given you a very substantial respose. If you care to let it stand,
>then fine. I believe I have thoroughly rebutted your arguments. But I
>would PREFER a response.
This one IS to the POINT. Nothing substitute a formal response.
--
Respectfully,
--
LeoN to e-mail: cut "auto_no." if present.
(.Ä….) ` to think - is to speak quietly, to speak - is to think aloud`
\~/
My posted articles archive: http://leo.portland.co.uk/doc00.htm
--
PS: You asked somewhere in the thread not to acuse you of being MAD.
Well - this is not an acusation - that matters. But rather forced
placement into Mental institution, and/or drugging you. Both 'methods' are
- readily available in a Holly Land. - So U better not come here, if you
are 'eretic' or DC-dent:) (Although, as I said in one of my posts,
'curses' also work:) in IsReal, because of tech advances HERE. They can
even induce 'parkinSON' disease' simptoms on you). (Wailing:) Ooh Well.
tewins
As someone who, despite being a socialist, was persecuted by Satanists for
his belief in God, I know all about curses. I know all about being made to
freeze: to burn. I know about people who stalk you, calling you 'sick' for
your faith, bleating at you like sheep, mocking you, and telling you "you're
going to Fall you motherf...r." I have no idea about 'Holly Land' whatever
that is - would you care to tell me? - but I know about psychiatrists who
come to your house without warning: who laugh at you, calling you a
'psychotic Seventh Day Adventist' and saying they're going to "knock your
eye out." I know what it's like to be committed for merely saying that I
had been stalked and that I had received death threats - which my mother
corroborated. I know about thereafter being locked up with people who
urinate in your bed, talking about 'spiders', 'flies' and 'wolves': people
who make bizarre hand signals with the thumb and little finger, accusing you
of being a vampire and a paedophile. I have had a teacher joke about
'aliens' and call me POISON in front of an entire class. I have been
stalked, laughed at, been called a 'bisexual fly'. I know about having a
load of fabrications and lies being recorded in a psychiatric file, access
to which certain people attempted to block. I know about psychiatrists who
are occultists and hypocrites - who abuse their position of power over their
patients. If the patient isn't insane when they 'go in', these people make
damn sure they are by the time they leave.
I know all about EVIL: and I have little hope for my soul. But I will not
capitulate to it. I will not live a lie. I will not remain silent about
abuses of power, lies, atrocities. I have seen so much hate and evil that
God is my only hope - a hope I am not willing to give up on yet. I have
had threats on my life. I have been beaten up. I have frozen and lost
consciousness for over a week. In my life I have been urinated on, spat
on, kicked, defamed, mocked, threatened. When I was an 8 year old child the
school bully threatened to beat me with a heavy club, forcing me to climb
up a thorn bush, ripping my hands and feet to shreds. And I have suffered
other horrors most cannot even conceive.
I don't know if you mean to threaten me - but to Hell with you if you do.
I have had my life taken from me, Brothers and Sisters alike tormenting me,
cursing me, persecuting me, mocking my suffering.
ABOVE ALL I always believed in COMPASSION - about that essential human
impulse to reach out to other human beings in the name of LOVE: that
inherent instict by which we reach out with our hearts to another human
being who is suffering: and wish them hope, dignity, life, peace.
I have seen such Hell there is precious little I can believe in anymore. I
know how evil some of those behind world communism were, just as I know how
evil their opponents are. I look at world history and truly I am APPALLED.
I look at people who HATE, who PERSECUTE, who OPPRESS and MOCK - and I DO
NOT UNDERSTAND. I cannot understand this hatred. After everything I have
been through I cannot understand it .
And I thank God I cannot understand it - that even if I have lost all other
hope, at least I believe I am a GOOD PERSON.
I have lost almost all hope for my soul, for success in public life, for
happiness and companionship. Sometimes at night I bury my head in my hands,
I rock, I almost cry. But I am a good person. ONE THING YOU OR ANYONE
CANNOT TAKE AWAY FROM ME. No matter how much you lie, how much you play
emotional games, how much you spew forth your hate - you cannot convince me
I *deserved* any of this.
And if you presume to threaten me, behind your veil of anomynity - if you
choose such evil and hatred, do not pretend you are anything other than what
you are. Mr Chaihorsky presumes to accuse ME of all people of the crimes of
Stalin, when I probably know the evil that infests this world far better
than he. I do not have the power to bring down the system of perversion,
cruelty and hatred which has pervaded the world for centuries and centuries
before I was born. I will do my moral responsibility and remain faithful to
the truth - but I will not succumb to threats by YOU or ANYONE. I already
fear I have lost what is most precious to me - to anyone - I will not
succumb in such a way.
As to whether you speak of 'God' or 'G-d', I simply seek the truth. I seek
God.; I seek healing. I seek righteousness. I seek mercy. I seek life.
What I SEE everywhere is deception.
But I will go on looking. And when I have the strength I will pray.
tewins
Despite your obvious hostility - almost hatred - towards me, I will try to
answer you accusations objectively.
*I* am being completely honest. *I* am ALWAYS honest.
It is one of the reasons my life has been so hard!
>Now where are "the right?" Or the "extreme right"? I guess you are talking
>about extreme Liberal, laissez-faire Capitalists. I would like to know when
>and where they left oceans of blood, killing fields or starvation camps
Try Pinochet and Somoza........
Try the First World War
Try over one million Vietmanese killed in the Vietnam 'police action',
largely by indiscriminate carpet bombing
Try over half a million Indonesian Leftists killed - logistial support and
name lists provided courtesy of the CIA!
>3. Cambodian Socialism lead by Pol Pot, a delegate of 24th Congress of CP
>USSR, where representatives of ALL European and American Communist AND
>Socialist parties met him with standing applause (I saw it with my own
>eyes).
Oh, and if you think the USSR approved of Pol Pot, why do you think it is
the USSR-sympathetic Vietmanese Communist government had to invade Cambodia
to stop the GENOCIDE Pol Pot was inflicting upon Cambodia's ethnic
Vietmanese? Pol Pot was no Communist - he was a fascist, ultra-nationalist,
genocidal bigot, and he seized power because of the vaccuum created by US
bombing!
>3. Would kill people for no other reason as their class identity
Communist did not aim to 'kill the Bourgeosie' they aimed to destroy the
bourgeois CLASS by removing bourgeois SOCIAL RELATIONS. There is a huge
difference.
>5. Would eliminate people in such numbers that the whole cities were
emptied
>and grass grew on the streets (Cambodia)
I don't know a single Western socialist who supported Pol Pot. Certainly
no-one I know.
>6. Would eliminate resistance of their own people with chemical weapons
>(gases) like Communist Tuchachevsky in Tambov.
Well both sides used chemical weapons in abundance in the First World War.
Churchill used them against the Red Army. Sadaam Hussein used them against
the Kurds. the British considered using them in the second World War in
TROPICAL conditions - multiplying their effects several times. to test
their effects they EXPERIMENTED on AUSTRALIAN soldier - and, of course, we
all know who armed Sadaam Hussein....
>
>You called in your previous mail the "honest" group TINY. Now you call it
>
>> But most of the true Left these days, apart from those directly
descended
>> from Stalinism, occupy either a liberal democratic socialist approach
>(such
>> as I do) or a Luxemburgian-style left-wing Communism which is completely
>> unstained by the Stalinist legacy.
>
THIS group IS tiny. It comrprises the former liberal Communists, some left
social democrats and democratic socialists, and those from fringe
libertarian Marxist groups. These people barely figure on the political
map. The Western Communist parties are all but gone, but in their last years
the liberal Communists fought tooth and nail against the Stalinists on
issues such as the Czech invasion.
>If you are talking about Rose Luxemburg, Sir, I have news for you. The
>bloody bitch witnessed ALL the atrocities of Lenin and Trotsky since 1917,
>without even as much as a twitch. Never objected to the atrocities of Bela
>Kune and Zemljatchka in Hungary and were eagerly waiting for the spread of
>Communism into Germany. Like the rest of German Communists, largest part of
>which would join Hitler after the Reichstag provocation..
WHAT ANTI-STALINIST SOCIALISTS **REALLY** SAID
YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT ROSA LUXEMBURG ***REALLY*** SAID? PLEASE READ ON
Rosa Luxemburg was murdered by the FREIKORPS - that paramilitary
organisation that crushed the revolution and which went on to form the core
of the SA, swelling the ranks of the Nazi Party.
Before she was killed, Rosa Luxemburg wrote the following:
"But the remedy which Trotsky and Lenin have found, the elimination of
democracy as such, is worse than the disease it is supposed to cure: for it
stops up the very living source from which alone can come the correction of
all the innate shortcomings of social institutions. That source is the
active, untrammelled, energetic political life of the broadest masses of the
people."
"Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of
the one party -however numerous they may be - is no freedom at all. Freedom
is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not
because of any fanatical concept of 'justice' but because all that is
instinctive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this
essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when 'freedom'
becomes a special privilege."
Rosa Luxemburg on economic and social life:
"The whole mass of the people must take part in it. Otherwise socialism
will be decreed from behind a few official desks by a dozen intellectuals."
She praises "mass initiative in place of intertia." "It is rule by TERROR
which DEMORALISES." "Public life gradually falls asleep, a few dozen party
leaders of inexhasutible energy and boundless experience direct and rule"
AND of the threat the Bolsheviks tactics posed:
""a dictatorship to be sure" but "not the dictatorship of the proletariat."
more so.. "in the sense of the rule of the Jacobins." "such conditions must
inevitably cause a brutalisation of public life: attempted assassinations,
shootings of hostages etc..."
AND about democratic centralism:
"We misuse words and practice self deception when we apply the same term -
discipline - to such dissimilar notions as: 1) the absence of thought and
will in a body with a thousand automatically moving hands and legs, and 2)
the spontaneous co-ordination of the conscious, political acts of a body of
men. What is there is common between the regulated docility of an oppressed
class and the self-discipline and organisation of a class struggling for
its emancipation?"
Now - what were you saying about Rosa Luxemburg????
>My word to you, Sir, - you are positiong yourself to become an intellectual
>apologist for future atrocities of the kind that will make Stalin look like
>a nice, kind, Santa Claus.
>Read about Mr. Bucharin - a nice, smiling, educated Russian Communist, was
>against Stalin's agricultural reforms, loved birds and was considered
"Party
>Favourite". Nevertheless, Mr Bucharin wanted people to be better and fast.
>He invented an interesting method for that - kill bad people and leave only
>good. Simple and effective. Since there is no G-d (Marxism demands atheism,
>religion is "an opiate for the people") there is no sacred value in life
and
>FOR THE COLLECTIVE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE, everything is moral. Poor idiot
>never thought that his buddy Stalin would see him as a bad man. So he was
>killed, but before that volunteered to kill his former friends Kamenev and
>Zinoviev. To his disappointment he did not get a job.
ON BUKHARIN
Bukharin was fighting for his life years before he was actually killed. He
did everything he could to stop Stalin's ascendancy. *He* could not always
be honest for this very reason. He could not always calls things as he saw
it. He had to carefully position himself to outflank Stalin: to prevent the
Terror, the 'agricultural reforms' and so on. The apparatus of Terror was
already in place. Bukharin had tried before to stop the onset of Stalinism
in the 20s, when he sided with Kollontai forming the 'Worker's Opposition'.
He failed then.. but must have vowed to SURVIVE long enough to stop Stalin.
Stalin had mercy on Kollontai, merely forcing her to leave the country, but
Bukharin paid with his life. And right to the very end he faced his fate
bravely, and would not comrpromise before Stalin even while facing death.
His wife also paid the price for her husband's idealism for the rest of her
life, being imprisoned and exiled to Siberia - separated from her family.
These people gave their lives for what was right and you defame their
memory. And yet here we are - you are accusing Bukharin - and yet you are
silent about Somoza, Pinochet, Suharto. Now WHY is THAT?
ON RELIGION AND 'POWER'
As for G-d, perhaps if you are a Freemason, or God otherwise - *I* believe
in God. God is my ONLY hope. But I understand Marx's position on the
alientation inherent in religion when I examine the history of Christian
sectarianism and the wars that have been fought in its name. IN THIS I AM
WITH TOLSTOY. But like Tolstoy I believe in God. And I have SUFFERED for
my belief in God more than you could conceive!
>All Socialists and Communists were for morality, compassion, children,
>women, peace... until they came to power. So your ETHICS token is of the
>same variety. You will be ethical and compassionate and wonderful and
loving
>UNTIL you got the power.
I will NEVER 'come to power' because I am exactly the character type that is
NOT capable of such crimes. I take my ethics seriously - for me they are
EVERYTHING. For that I had my life destroyed. I had members of my own Left
faction stalking me, trying to bribe me and breaking into my house. Don't
talk to me about 'abandoning ethics'.
My entire life has been destroyed because I refused to abandon mine!
>How do we know that - because you and your TINY group never openly and
>publicly called USSR "AN EVIL EMPIRE". Never boycotted Russian Communists
>when they committed their atrocities right to the Afgan war. You were
>allowed mild criticism, but never touched the core - Marxist theories of
>PROLETARIATE DICTATORSHIP.
Leftists did not go in for the Cold War propaganda because, while they
understood the USSR's faults - AND OPENLY CRITICISED THE USSR, they
understood clearly than in the West we were little better. And they hoped,
possibly prayed, for reform. While Reagan was calling the USSR the 'Evil
Empire', Gorbachev was bringing about real democratic reform and fighting
for peace. Reagan was fuelling hate to justify the arms race and possibly a
nuclear war.
>Your Christianity is a very superficial one if you accept monsters like
Rosa
>Luxemburg. I think that you just use it as a distraction because you know
>that atheistic Socialism/Communism have very little chance to attract
>American Public today.
CHRISTIANITY
My Christianity - my belief in God - is at the very CORE of my ENTIRE belief
system. It is more important to me even than my socialism - for it is my
ONLY source of HOPE. I was influenced to be a Christian was a child, being
sent to Christian camps. but the 'tracts' of Jack Chick (try a net search
to find out more about this monster) forever changed my life, inspiring fear
and horror. I had psychiatric counselling for years because of the trauma
Jack Chick inflicted on me - nights praying desperately not to be cast into
Hell - nightmare after nightmare.
For years I was an agnostic (never an atheist).
But then I came across the writings of Leo Tolstoy and I was inspired to
take up Christianity again. Ever since I have prayed to God, sometimes
desperately, sometimes in an almost personal, conversational style.
I rejected materialism absolutely (in THIS sense I never fully accepted
marxism), and while certain passages in the Bible challenged my faith -
brutal as they were - I would not - could not - give up my belief and hope
in God. And I will tell you that I faced persecution you could not believe
for this faith. I have faced Satan. I have faced Babylon.
I fear I have lost my soul. My only hope is God. God is more important to
me than anything. My only hope.. The hope that keeps me alive.
How dare you accuse me of being 'falsely' Christian when you don't know the
first thing about me!
Let me tell you, if you are a practicing Jew, we worship the same God.
And I worship God with all my heart - with every shred of Hope I have left
in my body. Even if you cannot accept that Jesus was the Messiah, take note
of the warning "judge not lest you be judged."
In particular, do not judge with any finality people you do not understand.
And if you cannot make an informed judgement, do not jump to accusations or
conlusions.
>
>Now about Sweden and Finland. These coutries were never Socialist. They
>implemented some socialist features into their Capitalism, but calling them
>Socialist is laughable.
>I lived in Sweden and have spent considerable time in Finland.
>Recently, BTW, Swedes abandoned most of their Socialist features of the
>past. If you do not know that, you have no idea what Sweden is now.
I know Sweden was under enormous pressure to wind back a significant portion
of their welfare state. The prior Swedish example is still one I strongly
identify with, however.
>
>So, I do not see any difference between the priases for humanity, morality,
>compassion, etc., of former varieties of Marxist Socialists and you. Your
>analysis of manifesto is word-by-word what they taught us in Russian
>Universities at the Theoretical Communism classes. Right to the tiny
>details.
It is also a correct EXPOSITION of the Manifesto. But you are completely
neglecting my CRITICISMS of the manifesto, portaying me as a mouthpiece,
when I am as independant a mind as you are likely to find.
>But do not expect an easy win here. We will fight with our teeth and claws.
>If you will try circumvent the Constitution and to pull the Socialist stunt
>on us, we will tear you apart with our bare hands and eat your raw liver. I
>owe that to the Commies for everything they have done to my family,
>bastards.
>And in the very front lines of your mortal enemies will be standing
>Russians, Jews, Ukrainians, Georgians, Germans, Poles, Hungarians, Chinese,
>Cambodians, Bulgarians - all of the nations and nationalities that have
>experiences your ideology in all of its varieties. I hope I will have an
>honor to die in that battle. I cannot dream of a better death for myself.
Yours is the kind of anger that gives rise to atrocities - by which the West
can claim indignation at events in the ex-USSR while supporting mass murder
and genocide in East Timor, Indonesia, Chile, Central Amercia - the list
goes on. Blind hate gives rise to blind hate in a vicious circle.
I tell you I am a Christian and an Ethicist first. I distance myself from
Stalin.
I show you a whole tradition of leftist thinkers who were radically opposed
to Stalin. And you ignore it. You think only of whatever personal pain
your family has suffered. And there is a vicious circle of hate and
violence - like in the Middle East and Northern Island. I reach my hand out
to you as a HUMAN BEING in the name of human dignity, rights - the very
principle of life - and you react with such anger you may as well be
spitting on me!
Once again, I urge you to consider what liberal democratic socialists alredy
think. I have already shown you what Luxemburg REALLY wrote.
Let me tell you, the Stalinists have violated me also - but have have kept
my perspective regardless, and held on to my ideals!
MORE OF WHAT SOCIALISTS ****REALLY**** SAID
Here are a few other examples.
Quotes from Karl Kautsky:
"A class or stratum which is waging a struggle for freedom cannot regard
such a system of tutelage as its goal but must decisively reject it."
"There can be no socialism without democracy."
Kautsky on the Bolsheviks:
from 'Dictatorship and Democracy'
"this small band was to succeed where the Utopians had failed and was to
conquer state power and bring socialism to the proletariat by means of a
coup. This was the conception of Blanqui and Weitling. The proletarians,
too ignorant and depraved to organise and rule themselves were to be
organised an ruled from above by a government composed of their elite."
"Masses cannot be organised clandistinely and, above all, a secret
orgnisation cannot be a democratic one." "Hence the Messiah complexes of
the leaders and their dictatorial habits."
"Dictatorship as a form of government means depriving the opposition of
their rights by abolishing their franchise, the freedom of the press and
freedom of association" "The dictatorship of a single person or an
organisation of a proletarian party - but not of the proletariat."
from 'Terrorism and Communism'
"those who defend Bolshevism do so by pointing out that their opponents -
the Finnishg White Guards, the Baltic barons and the counter-revolutionary
Czarist generals and admirals were just as bad. But is it a justification
of theft that other people steal? Moreover, their opponents do not OFFEND
AGAINST THEIR OWN PRINCIPLES WHEN THEY KILL PEOPLE ARBITARILY TO STAY IN
POWER."
"Nothing could be more erroneous than the assertion that as reappeared in
the discussions at the latest congress of the Third International in Moscow.
This is that parliamentarism and democracy are bourgeois institutions by
their very nature."
from Eduard Bernstein, the Revisionist liberal Marxist
"liberal organisations of modern society are distinguished from [feudal
organisations] exactly because they are flexible, and cpaable of change and
development. They do not need to be destroyed but only further developed.
For that we need organisation and energetic action, but not necessarily a
revolutionary dictatorship."
"Unable to believe in finalities at all, I cannot believe in the 'final aim'
of socialism. But I strongly believe in the socialist movement, in the
march forward of the working classes, who step by step must work out their
emancipation by changing societyfrom the domain of a commercial land-holding
oligarchy to a real democracy which in all its departments is guided by the
interests of those who work and create."
Zygmunt Bauman on Stalinism
"The transient bourgeois values of progress measured by the number of
factory chimneys, work discipline, puritan morality, are portrayed as
universal laws of historical development and attributes of human
perfection. The Soviet System came to measure its own perfection and own
progress in 'the building of socialism' with the help ofthe bourgeois
mesuring rod. At the same time it joined forces with the most conservative
bourgeois counter-utopia in denouncing the aim of disalienation and the
popular demand for control, which had constituted the uniqueness of the
socialist utopia."
* I have lost my notes on Bloch, Bauman and others it appears... so I can't
give you as many quotes as I would like.. But Bauman is an intellectual
truly worth looking at. If you want an example of a socialist RADICALLY at
odds with Stalinism and pragmatism, read Bauman. I can recommend
'Socialism - the Active Utopia' and 'Postmodern Ethics'.
You could go on - read the Western Communists, the Eurocommunists - the
criticisms and abandonment of 'the Dictatorship of the Proletariat', the
opposition from Western Communist parties to the Czech invasion -
But viewing this objectively would mean abandoning all your convenient
conclusion that "all socialists and Marxists are evil murderers, statists,
oppressors, monster."
Really, though - I urge you to consider the truth. I have given you some
quotes. With study I could provide a LOT more - Carrillo, my of lecturer,
Peter Beilharz, Lukacs, Heller - the Budapest School. You'd be hard pressed
to call Peter Beilharz a Stalinist for instance. After him, Bauman and
others, there are a host of democratic ethical socialists who REJECT and
CONDEMN the history of Terror and hypocricy. Do them the justice of taking
them seriously.
I could encourage you to read Adorno, Horkheimer, Habermas - ESPECIALLY
ADORNO... but you have to be willing to do it - to open your mind...
I tell you - I am a liberal democratic socialist and a Christian. You can,
if you wish, call me a liar - as it seems you have inferred. But I know you
will rarely find anyone as honest as I am. My incorruptibility was part of
the reason my life was destroyed. I have been, perhaps, less critical of
LENIN than some of the authors I have mentioned - because sometimes I have
been torn between realpolitik and pure ethicism. I can definately see
Lenin's perspective, and I don't think Lenin WANTED a Stalinist system to
arise. For him Terror was a temporary necessity in a struggle for
survival - where his enemies would just as glady executed him if they
could - like what happened in Germany. (the perfect example!!!) ***BUT***
I am an ethicist first, and in the end I am strongly sympathetic with
Kautksy, Luxemburg and others. I can see how Lenin's centralism objectively
assisted the rise of the Stalinist phenomena. And then there are the
murders, the executions - the TERROR - which I find Morally unacceptable.
You can take everything I say from the bottom of my heart seriously.
Or alternatively you can dwell on whatever injustices your family has
suffered - and allow it to bring you to hate and condemn people who have
nothing to do with those who oppressed you or your family. I am asking YOU
to be honest - to be CRITICAL - to take everything I say at face value.
For I tell you I am not a liar. Believe me - I know what the Stalinists are
capable of. I know how they colonised and abused the psychiatric system -
not just in the USSR but even here in the West!!! But I have seen the
depths to which their greatest enemies are also capable of sinking:
screaming "you're going to Fall you motherf....r!" ... laughing "You're
dead." And I have had what I believe to be Stalinist agents tell me
"how do you feel about suicide and self mutilation?" - just before I went to
what I fear to be my damnation - knowing the trap into which I was heading
and LAUGHING - doing nothing to stop me. POSING as my friend and then
MOCKING me as I faced damnation!
Whatever you have been through - believe me, I have seen at least as much if
not more - but I have maintained my hope in God and my Idealism.
If after everything I have seen and suffered I can still remain faithful to
my ideals, the least I should be able to expect of you is that you consider
them thoroughly, with an open heart and an open mind.
tewins
tewins
Leo.. I see you have had some awful experiences of your own. So I take it
your message was intended more as a warning, not a threat. My apologies.
If you believe I am in some danger I would like you to email me. I once had
a woman who flared red in the face in the most unnatural fashion threaten me
with a lobotomy. Shortly afterwards I was being stalked and receiving death
threats. Upon, foolishly, mentioning this, I was committed. Perhaps I am
so discredited I will now be left alone. Perhaps my claims so threaten them
they will try commiting me again - even to the point of a forced lobotomy.
As I said, a woman threatened me with it once, and I have faced unbelievable
abuse at the hands of the psychiatric system Unfortunately, it appears to
me that all sides abuse the psychiatric system equally. It is very much a
TOOL for the silencing, discrediting, and mental destruction, for those who
various, often OPPOSING INTERESTS view as a threat. I remember after lies
had been written down in my file and I was committed on false premises,
being threatened with being held down, sedated and locked up, because I
insisted my mother be with me during any interview, and that the interview
be recorded. My mother would not leave me, and they could not get away with
it.. Instead they threatened to commit her also, and wrote down blatant
lies in misquotes down in their 'files'. With my mother's help, I managed
to send an appeal to the Mental Health REview Board - as a result I was out
within a few days because they knew damn well the trouble they'd be in if
what they had done became public. I was put through such HELL during those
few days, however, that by the conclusion, I no longer had the strength to
fight them. These interests contest control of the psychiatric system - and
are opposed to one another - but all use it as a tool of oppression.
~~~i LeoNid ~~
some natural normality in life:)
On Mon, 7 May 2001 23:40:44 +1000 impersonator of "tewins"
<tew...@bigpond.com> planted &I saw in alt.conspiracy:
>
>Leo.. I see you have had some awful experiences of your own. So I take it
>your message was intended more as a warning, not a threat. My apologies.
Of course, -not a threat. More like - facts description (based on personal
continuing:( and uninvited - experience) and some analysis. And you don't
owe me an apology (for your previous post in the thread at LEAST).
>If you believe I am in some danger I would like you to email me. I once had
Well. I don't see the point for (suppose to be private; do you belive -
such thing exists?:) - e-mailing regarding this topic. (Not - that I for
publicity by/for all means; quite an opposite; Just tell it to the
"people" "leakers":)
>a woman who flared red in the face in the most unnatural fashion threaten me
>with a lobotomy. Shortly afterwards I was being stalked and receiving death
>threats. Upon, foolishly, mentioning this, I was committed. Perhaps I am
>so discredited I will now be left alone.
Don't you even think like this. Coz you 'll have prove again and again,
for the "truth seekers", that they, discredited you, were right, untill
the deadline comes:)
>...Perhaps my claims so threaten them
>they will try commiting me again - even to the point of a forced lobotomy.
>As I said, a woman threatened me with it once, and I have faced unbelievable
>abuse at the hands of the psychiatric system Unfortunately, it appears to
>me that all sides abuse the psychiatric system equally. It is very much a
>TOOL for the silencing, discrediting, and mental destruction, for those who
>various, often OPPOSING INTERESTS view as a threat.
Very right. But are there only two sides? May be, there are those, also,
who like me, belive - that aim's doesn't justify means/pacification (at
all means)..?
>... I remember after lies
>had been written down in my file and I was committed on false premises,
>being threatened with being held down, sedated and locked up, because I
>insisted my mother be with me during any interview, and that the interview
>be recorded. My mother would not leave me, and they could not get away with
>it.. Instead they threatened to commit her also, and wrote down blatant
>lies in misquotes down in their 'files'. With my mother's help, I managed
>to send an appeal to the Mental Health REview Board - as a result I was out
>within a few days because they knew damn well the trouble they'd be in if
>what they had done became public.
Are you kidding me. Public in General?:) Who cares. G. Public will rather
want to know the "truth" by applying inquisition to you. And if you won't
burn, you'll be drown:)
>.... I was put through such HELL during those
>few days, however, that by the conclusion, I no longer had the strength to
>fight them. These interests contest control of the psychiatric system - and
>are opposed to one another - but all use it as a tool of oppression.
>
Not all. 2 say the LEAST.
>
Leonid.
PS: Last two of your articles are very touching indeed, and are not
boring, may be because I was through some of the same ("Чучело") (if not
worse) _figuraly_ speaking, experience as _described_ here. It even looks,
like two different persons wrote these, and some other of you_named
posts:). Try to be youself, whatever you are, and what (G*d constructed)
sircumstances allow. Regards and all the be(a)st:)
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
Is tewins your first name, or your last name?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com
ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com
ab...@earthlink.com
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
~~~i LeoNid ~~
I am not a G00d person (by polliti`cal`ly-correct definitions:), as I
discriminate, and can't stand even some Groups of people (without them
been proven guilty:)
But wat is allowed to Individ - (Jupiter:)) (that doesn't include physical
affects of others against will, o'caz) is not always allowed to (a Bool:)
.gov or other officials (unless done in lawfull - open - manner, like
'protectionistic' economic state rullings, etc.)
Scott D. Erb
tewins wrote:
> I'd agree that the vast majority of ALLEGED socialists, liberals, social
> democrats, conservatives and the extreme right, who occupy positions of
> POWER, are all alike in their 'realpolitik', 'the ends justify the means"
> approach.
True. Having worked in Washington DC for awhile for a Senator, I was a bit
shocked (at that time I was only 24 and pretty idealistic) by the way
politicians operate, a power game. I didn't see the "left" or "right" behaving
all that much better than the other, power games cross ideological boundaries.
> There are few remaining in the Left today who would be apologists
> for Stalin,
And a few on the right who would be apologists for fascism, but most on the Left
and Right are motivated by different beliefs about what is best. One thing
about democracy is that it functions because of the fact people don't see the
other side as evil or so dangerous they must be stopped at all costs. Places
without a political culture that values compromise and tolerance often have
trouble establishing a stable democracy because they haven't learned that it is
"OK to lose" and "OK to disagree" without seeing the other side as evil.
The problem now with our democracy is that our system is so large and
bureaucratized that people lose the ability to hold the use of power
accountable, or keep its use transparent.
> but that doesn't stop those at the heights of power disciplining
> their movements through means that are nothing short of criminal. (and the
> same goes for all other political movements) As for the so-called moderate
> 'centre' of Conservatives and Liberals - between them, the 'mainstream' of
> US politics and government
> has been responsible for imposing and supporting authoritarian 'client
> states' whose victims are in the millions.
That is very true, and something most Americans don't realize. When people
learn about foreign policy they are often shocked at what is done in the name of
democratic ideals, including overthrowing democracies in favor of
dictatorships. I think perhaps the biggest tragedy for the US in the Cold War
was how often extreme anti-Communism led to a foreign policy that betrayed the
basic American values of liberty and democracy. There the "ends justifies the
means" logic dominated. Some say it was necessary, I don't think it was.
> And we all know the record of the
> extreme right. So, what I'm saying is that most of those who are
> preoccupied with POWER - on ANY political inclination - more than likely
> have their fair share of blood on their hands.
Politics has a tendancy to draw lovers of power, like moths to the flame. Lloyd
Etheredge in his book "Can Governments Learn" identifies a personality type
called "hardball politician" which seems to get drawn to government and politics
as a way to exercise power and try to compensate for low self-esteem. The
personality type includes a cold calculating nature, a defective sense of humor
(loves to ridicule others but is very sensitive to being ridiculed himself), an
inability to love, a tendancy to use others for his or her own ends, and a
belief that the world is populated with other hardball politicians. Etheredge
argues that to the extent that this personality type populates decision making
processes, there are things blocking government from critiquing its basic goals
and objectives in policy. Instead, the only learning that occurs is tactical,
how to avoid future mistakes.
Authoritarian regimes, superpowers, etc., concentrate more power at the top, so
they are likely to be even more a magnet for such kinds of power seekers. Sure,
there are non-hardball politicians around, but when I read Etheredge and thought
about my time working in DC, a lot seemed to ring true about the culture there.
The major reason I got out is I didn't have the heart to play such power games,
it seemed rather stupid.
> But most of the true Left these days, apart from those directly descended
> from Stalinism, occupy either a liberal democratic socialist approach (such
> as I do) or a Luxemburgian-style left-wing Communism which is completely
> unstained by the Stalinist legacy. This marginalised minority is NOT
> responsible in any way for the crimes of Stalinism or the Stalinist
> tradition.
Very true. The most obscene tactic found on the usenet is for people to take an
extreme (Nazism for the right, Stalinism for the left) and then try to brand
everyone is left or right of center with the crimes down on the "extremes." The
truth is that the whole spectrum is multi-dimensional, with anarcho-capitalists
often having more in common with anarcho-socialists than they do with
conservative Republicans. That's why its best to consider the ideas and not
imagine some kind of holy war.
> This is why I really urge you to take note of all those I
> listed - which are but a fraction of a radical left tradition spanning over
> 100 years - which stands in opposition to Stalinist authoritarianism and
> corporatist social democracy alike.
Even a Social Democrat like Kurt Schumacher of the German SPD after WWII cast a
strong anti-Communist voice, calling the East bloc Communists "red painted
fascists." He was a proud leftist and a socialist, but as anti-communist
(looking at the USSR and the East bloc) as anyone.
> What is more, as I said, alongside this marginalised leftist minority there
> are also a host of liberals and conservatives who are also honest and
> dedicated civil libertarians. Despite ideological differences, I would have
> far more in common with any of these people than a Beria or a Stalin.
> But when you start talking about the George Bush Snrs and Ronald Reagans of
> the world, you're talking about men who claim to stand for the 'moderate
> centre' (relative to Communism and Fascism) yet who, through the CIA
> primarily have funded and supported vicious client states whose victims have
> been in the millions. Many so-called 'liberal Democrats are no better.
JFK and Johnson come to mind, I can't say their foreign policies are any more
ethical than those of Bush and Reagan.
Yes. Have you read Roberto Unger's work? He argues for a similar sort of
anti-statist socialism, based on radical democracy. Unger's work is both
intellectually stimulating and also he tries to deal practically with how to
make such a movement, moving past the theory which often becomes so intriguing
and fascinating that people lose track of the need to turn theory into reality.
I don't know if the person you're responding to here will look up the author you
suggest, but I certainly will!
(rest snipped)
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> OK, I take your explanation and would make an exception for you. This is
> only because you state that you are a religious person. I am a Jew, but I
> have deepest respect for Christianity (Protestantism in particular).
>
> But, as I said - first I will discuss Manifesto. If we will come to an
> agreement about it, then we can move further.
> I was encouraged by one word you said - "TINY" when you were talking about
> liberals, conservatives alike, who >are NOT apologists for some of the most
> atrocious acts in all human history."
> Socialist and Communists today are of the COMMON variety?
>
> as you can ("Face the TRUTH" kinda stuff is pure propaganda and you know
> it)., without hurting the substance. I will try to do the same.
> As English is my second language, I apologize ahead of the time for
> grammatical and syntactical inconsistencies.
>
> Marx was a monster. If you read Manifesto you will find:
>
> 1. Complete liquidation of private property
> 2. Liquidation of the family, introduction of "official, open mutual
> ownership of wives"
> 3. Children taken from families are brought up by community (Hillary,
> hello!)
> 4. Industrial armies, not employer - employee, (and that is from the guy who
> LOVES proletariat!)
> 5. Central credit by central banks with total banking monopoly for the
> State.
> 6. Age when children start working - 9 years of age (Resolution of Geneva
> International Congress).
>
> civilization, please, state which one is.
>
> This system was implemented four times almost totally - in Hitler's
> concentration camps, Stalin's GULAG and Mao's re-educational settlements and
> Pol Pots' Cambodia camps.
> Partially - USSR, Red China, Vietnam, North Korea.
> Superficially - Poland, E. Germany, Hungary, Mongolia, Czechoslovakia
>
> All socialists remain civilized until they seize the power. Then the
> Marxist bestiary begins.
> EVERY TIME.
> I am not, BTW, declaring that socialist are bad people "en masse", and that
> they just sit there craving for blood. But they become monsters as soon as
> they get involved with the implementation of any form of socialism on
> political level. What I mean is that one can implement some features of
> socialism inside capitalistic society, but as soon as they try to change the
> political and economical system - blood, blood, blood.
>
Henry Kissenger once said "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
In this, he was wrong.
Only the corrupt seek overwhelming power, and only the absolutely corrupt
seek absolute power.
It's not that, upon obtaining power, these people suddenly become corrupt...
it's more that, once they attain the level of power they wish to achieve,
these wolves pull off their sheep disguises.
> Regards,
>
> Alex Chaihorsky
> Reno, NV
>
> "tewins" <tew...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:ZQ1J6.19569$482....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
T. E.
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com
ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com
ab...@earthlink.com
That's nasty. I like it. Are you sure it works?
Alex Chaihorsky
> Dear Alexander,
>
>
> Despite your obvious hostility - almost hatred - towards me, I will try to
> answer you accusations objectively.
>
No hostility. No hatred. Just warning - you try to get around US
Constitution and impose Socialism on us - there will be enough people who
would take it as an honor to give up their lives to stop you.
>
> *I* am being completely honest. *I* am ALWAYS honest.
> It is one of the reasons my life has been so hard!
>
No one ever said - I am dishonest. Your arguments are dishonest - I will try
to argue that further down.
> >Now where are "the right?" Or the "extreme right"? I guess you are
talking
> >about extreme Liberal, laissez-faire Capitalists. I would like to know
when
> >and where they left oceans of blood, killing fields or starvation camps
>
>
>
> Try Pinochet and Somoza........
Pinochet saved his country from Soviet-supported Communist insurgence. I was
in Russian Army at the time - we were prepared to go there. Today in former
Soviet space Pinochet is one of the most popular figures, because WE know
what he prevented. You may not believe that. Because your experience with
Communists/Socialist is drinking coffee and discussing books at the
University clubs paid by US taxpayers. Our experience with the scum is
millions killed, starved and tortured.
I guess you know more
>Try over one million Vietnamese killed in the Vietnam 'police action',
>largely by indiscriminate carpet bombing
Your point?
>Try over half a million Indonesian Leftists killed - logistical support and
>name lists provided courtesy of the CIA!
Again - are you going to mention all the killing record against militant
Communists and snip out all of my mentions of millions of innocent people
who never tried to overthrow any governments and install monstrous regimes
killed, tortured and starved in the name of the PROLETARIATE DICTATORSHIP?
>
> >3. Cambodian Socialism lead by Pol Pot, a delegate of 24th Congress of CP
> >USSR, where representatives of ALL European and American Communist AND
> >Socialist parties met him with standing applause (I saw it with my own
> >eyes).
>
>
>
> Oh, and if you think the USSR approved of Pol Pot, why do you think it is
> the USSR-sympathetic Vietnamese Communist government had to invade
Cambodia
> to stop the GENOCIDE Pol Pot was inflicting upon Cambodia's ethnic
> Vietnamese? Pol Pot was no Communist - he was a fascist,
ultra-nationalist,
> genocidal bigot, and he seized power because of the vaccuum created by US
> bombing!
>
Oh, really? So, all the Communists and Socialist of the world were
applauding the NAZI?
Or you can find any dissent on that from ANY Socialist or Communist Party of
the world? They WERE ALL PRESENT and they ware all giving a standing
applause to COMRADE POL POT!
Vietnamese invaded to cover the atrocities of their fellow Commie, because
it became an embarrassment after the extent of these had terrified the
world.
Like you did not know that.
>
> >3. Would kill people for no other reason as their class identity
>
>
>
> Communist did not aim to 'kill the Bourgeosie' they aimed to destroy the
> bourgeois CLASS by removing bourgeois SOCIAL RELATIONS. There is a huge
> difference.
>
So, why they killed them? Not by Stalin, BTW, by Lenin, Trotsky, Sverdlov,
with John Reed and other American Commies at their side. No mentioning of
disgust from them.
Removing SOCIAL RELATIONS by locking people in concentration camps and
working and starving them to death?. REMEMBER ? CONCENTRATION CAMPS WERE
INVENTED BY COMMUNISTS.
They were theoretically described bt Engels - the need for separate, guarded
places where people who oppose the imposition of the Dictatorship of
Proletariat will be placed.
now a single Western socialist who supported Pol Pot. Certainly
> no-one I know.
Like that is an argument. Please. They all supported him, because they never
accused him of being a monster. You just called him a Nazi a while ago. A
radical Marxist Commie, a RED KHMER, is a Nazi! A Nazi delegate at Soviet
Communist Party Congress!
I love your style.
>
>
> >6. Would eliminate resistance of their own people with chemical weapons
> >(gases) like Communist Tuchachevsky in Tambov.
>
>
>
> Well both sides used chemical weapons in abundance in the First World War.
> Churchill used them against the Red Army. Sadaam Hussein used them
against
> the Kurds. the British considered using them in the second World War in
> TROPICAL conditions - multiplying their effects several times. to test
> their effects they EXPERIMENTED on AUSTRALIAN soldier - and, of course, we
> all know who armed Sadaam Hussein....
>
>
What sides? Tuchachevsky used gasses AGAINST HIS OWN PEOPLE. Not during war,
not against enemy - against farmers of Tambov region who resisted being
robbed of their meager wheat yield by regular Red Army. THEIR OWN PEOPLE!
BTW - I have never heard about British using gases against Red Army. Can you
provide me with any references?
> >
> >You called in your previous mail the "honest" group TINY. Now you call it
> >
>
>
> >> But most of the true Left these days, apart from those directly
> descended
> >> from Stalinism, occupy either a liberal democratic socialist approach
> >(such
> >> as I do) or a Luxemburgian-style left-wing Communism which is
completely
> >> unstained by the Stalinist legacy.
> >
>
>
>
> THIS group IS tiny. It comprises the former liberal Communists, some
left
> social democrats and democratic socialists, and those from fringe
> libertarian Marxist groups. These people barely figure on the political
> map. The Western Communist parties are all but gone, but in their last
years
> the liberal Communists fought tooth and nail against the Stalinists on
> issues such as the Czech invasion.
>
>
Slainists? Stalin was dead in 1953. Czech invasion was 1968. Yes, there were
a bit of flak from Euro Commies, but then they all shut up and the biggest -
French, Spanish, Italian, English and my favorite - American Communist
Parties were all present on the next USSR Party Congress with no dissent.
Because the money was still coming from us. We, Russian people were robbed
and exploited, so you, here were paid by Soviet Communists, your papers,
your magazines, you bloody Parties can survive comfortably. That is why
among Russian people Gus Holl, your damn General Secretary was nicknamed
Gas Hall.
>
> >If you are talking about Rose Luxemburg, Sir, I have news for you. The
> >bloody bitch witnessed ALL the atrocities of Lenin and Trotsky since
1917,
> >without even as much as a twitch. Never objected to the atrocities of
Bela
> >Kune and Zemljatchka in Hungary and were eagerly waiting for the spread
of
> >Communism into Germany. Like the rest of German Communists, largest part
of
> >which would join Hitler after the Reichstag provocation..
>
>
>
>
> WHAT ANTI-STALINIST SOCIALISTS **REALLY** SAID
>
Who cares what they said - WHAT THEY DID ID SUPPORT LENIN and TROTSKY and
the other Communist bestiary. If you judge Commies on what they say - they
are all angels with wings. It is what they do - killing, torture,
eliminating whole classes of citizens that what make them who they are.
Are you that gullible that you do not understand the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
WORD AND A DEED?
>
> YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT ROSA LUXEMBURG ***REALLY*** SAID? PLEASE READ ON
>
-----TONS OF BLOODY BITCH WORDS SNIPPED - because they are just - WORDS.
The deeds were simple - Luxemburg was and remained a high ranking member of
the Bolshevik Party - Comrade Rosa. Until today is an icon in Communist
Bestiary. Has streets, factories, squares named after her in Soviet Union
(that NEVER happened to anyone who dissented from Party policies).
Never dissented, never publicly accused Lenin of being a killer of children
and a bloody monster, never threw her Bolshevik Card to their faces.
----------------------
> Now - what were you saying about Rosa Luxemburg????
I hope a monster like that would never arise from the womb of a Jewish woman
again.
Because Pinochet is a hero, Suharto - I have never heard of him killing
millions and throwing other millions into exile, etc. Sukarno, his
predessesor, was a Communist, that one I know. Destroyed the country and
threw
it back 100 years.
See, there were villians among all ideologists. Communists and Socialists
are the only ones WHO WERE ALWAYS MONSTERS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, ON 100:1
SCALE TO ANY OTHER MONSTER EXCEPT NATIONAL SOCIALIST HITLER, WHO WAS (AND
YOU CAN DENY THAT AS MUCH AS YOU CAN) - A SOCIALIST.
Now Bucharin. First - you have not addressed my point - Bucharin proposed to
kill bad people and keep good to enchance humans or not? Or you do not know?
Interesting how you argue - not addressing the argument, but presenting you
absolutely unsubstantiated "evidence".
Now, if you are not knowledgeable about certain things (no shame in that) -
do not post anything about it. Because if you do - you look foolish.
Bucharin betrayed everybody and everything. He was Lenin's favorite, but as
soon as the bald demon was gone befriended Trotsky. As soon as Trotsky lost
the war with Stalin he denounced Trotsky and started to call Stalin "Koba" -
his criminal nickname. Did some anti-Stalin deals with Kamenev and Zinoviev
and betrayed them to Stalin later.
In prison, wrote tons of letters to Stalin calling him "the greatest", "love
of his life", "the only true friend" Asked for forgiveness and in return
promised to destroy all opposition to any Stalin's actions.
praised Stalin for killing his old friends and comrades.
In Russian we have a word MRAZ - scum. That is who your Bucharin was.
"
"
>
>
> ON RELIGION AND 'POWER'
>
>
> As for G-d, perhaps if you are a Freemason, or God otherwise - *I* believe
> in God. God is my ONLY hope. But I understand Marx's position on the
> alientation inherent in religion when I examine the history of Christian
> sectarianism and the wars that have been fought in its name. IN THIS I AM
> WITH TOLSTOY. But like Tolstoy I believe in God. And I have SUFFERED for
> my belief in God more than you could conceive!
Tolstoy was an interesting fellow. In Benesh's memoirs he describes how he
visited Tolstoy in Krasnyje Poljani and on the way to the mansion saw many
peasants that were in the last stages of syphylis - noseless, puss coming
out of lesions. Whe he got to talk to Tolstoy he asled - why don't you get
some doctors here to help your peasants? Tolstoy answered - "This is their
fault. They shouldn't have sinned. Now - let them pay the price". Benesh was
speachless.
Suffer - shmaffer. Who cares? If suffering does not make you a better man -
you have suffered in vain. If you were a better man to begin with - who
needs suffering?
If suffering would have made you a better man you should have abandoned the
Communist/Socialist devil worship. Because only devil requires that much
blood and tears.
>
>
> >All Socialists and Communists were for morality, compassion, children,
> >women, peace... until they came to power. So your ETHICS token is of the
> >same variety. You will be ethical and compassionate and wonderful and
> loving
> >UNTIL you got the power.
>
>
>
> I will NEVER 'come to power' because I am exactly the character type that
is
> NOT capable of such crimes. I take my ethics seriously - for me they are
> EVERYTHING. For that I had my life destroyed. I had members of my own
Left
> faction stalking me, trying to bribe me and breaking into my house. Don't
> talk to me about 'abandoning ethics'.
> My entire life has been destroyed because I refused to abandon mine!
>
So you KNOW who they are! You know what kind of people you deal with, but
you are too weak to wean yourself from that poisonous tit. Too much of a
temptation to be the world saviour, working class hero, the comforter of the
weak, the Robin Hood, the Revolutionary! This is easy, my friend. Working
your ass of building roads, ships, working in mines, labs, inventing things,
studying the laws of nature - that is boring. But picturing yourself in
front of the roaring crowds WHO LOVE YOU - that is what 90% of your,
home-grown revolutionaries are all about.
>
> >How do we know that - because you and your TINY group never openly and
> >publicly called USSR "AN EVIL EMPIRE". Never boycotted Russian Communists
> >when they committed their atrocities right to the Afgan war. You were
> >allowed mild criticism, but never touched the core - Marxist theories of
> >PROLETARIATE DICTATORSHIP.
>
>
>
> Leftists did not go in for the Cold War propaganda because, while they
> understood the USSR's faults - AND OPENLY CRITICISED THE USSR, they
> understood clearly than in the West we were little better. And they
hoped,
> possibly prayed, for reform. While Reagan was calling the USSR the 'Evil
> Empire', Gorbachev was bringing about real democratic reform and fighting
> for peace. Reagan was fuelling hate to justify the arms race and possibly
a
> nuclear war.
>
Listen to yourself. What a pathetic attempt! Reagan came to power in 1980.
He was calling USSR an Evil Empire almost right away. Gorby came to power 5
years later, exactly because USSR needed a break in arms race, which was
breaking its economy apart. If not for Reagan, you will still have USSR
intact, armed to the teeth and killing Afgans, starving Ethiops, arming
Cubans to keep Angola at war, etc.
REAL DEMOCRATIC REFORM? I beg of you - stay away from the issues you have no
idea about, do not make a mockery of yourself.
I never accused you of that. Stop your hysteria. I said :
>Your Christianity is a very superficial one if you accept monsters like
> Rosa Luxemburg.
I do not know your problems, but this is irrelevant. If your suffering
brought you to Socialists, you lost your soul. You sold it to the devil. And
there are no excuses for that. None.
>
> Let me tell you, if you are a practicing Jew, we worship the same God.
> And I worship God with all my heart - with every shred of Hope I have left
> in my body. Even if you cannot accept that Jesus was the Messiah, take
note
> of the warning "judge not lest you be judged."
Pray more and hope that divine intervention save you, since you have not
have enough compassion, mental capasity and intellectusl honesty to let go
of the Collectivist Tit.
Judging I an not. Judging involves sentencing and executing the sentence.
So, stop whining, you will be OK.
But do not ask for mercy - you will see no mercy from me or my other
brothers who have been your Communist/Socialist slaves and will never ever
allow you to do it again, as long as we have some blood in our veins.
>
> In particular, do not judge with any finality people you do not
understand.
> And if you cannot make an informed judgement, do not jump to accusations
or
> conlusions.
You, cold blooded Marxist executioners would love that. It is not enough for
you that you have killed millions and tortured, starved to death children,
old people and women just because they were of the WRONG CLASS. In Russia,
China, Hungary, Poland, Cambodia you destroyed societies, cultures,
religions, erased the whole populations and moved them thousands of miles
away (Chechens, Crimea Tartars, Ingushes, Karakalpacs, ethnic Germans from
Volga, etc., etc., etc.)
YOU WANT MORE AND YOU WANT NO JUDGMENT? Where were you whn Stalinist Troykas
were judging people in and shot them within 24 hours? Did your favourite
Communists and Socialists demonstrate in front of the White House? Demanded
to stop American flow of goods to Russia? Demanded for American engineers to
come back? Draw caricaures on blood-thirsty Stalin? Ha?
I do not hear you!
Enough.
We are mortal enemies. Same as we are with Nazis. We said never again to
Nazis, and we said never again to you, Communists/Socialists.
Do you hear me? NEVER AGAIN.
Never again will you establish your abominable class preference societies.
Never again will you parasitize on hard working people and feed the lazy
lumpen mobs that will keep you in power. Never again will you re-educate us,
make us "better humans", declare our religions "people's opiate", our
culture "reactionary", never again will you reduce us to state slaves who
march in fromnt of you on your abominable parades with the giant icons of
your despicable faces.
You said Lenin didn't want Stalinist system to arise? You are ignorant my
friend. Slain was a monster, but Stalin have not done 1/10 of what Lenin
did. Lenin was a sadist, a pathological killer of whole classes. Lenin
demanded shootings of the whole hamlets, hysterically demanded shootings of
children and families of his opponents. You are delusional.
You said you extend your hand to me? I'd rather wait. See, shaking hands
with Communists/Socialists is a little bit to much for me now. May be
generation or two later. Call my grandson.
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
D Stephen Heersink
Peter to pay Paul. If that's moral, then what's immoral?
_____________________________________
D. Stephen Heersink
Conservative Manifesto Home Page
http://home.att.net/~dshsfca/TCM.html
Post message: Conse...@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: ConservMan...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: ConservMan-...@yahoogroups.com
List owner: ConservM...@yahoogroups.com
Alex Chaihorsky
"D Stephen Heersink" <dsh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:t10gftc77po6q13ml...@4ax.com...
> The only ethic of socialism is that the majority's tyranny steals from
> Peter to pay Paul. If that's moral, then what's immoral?
> _____________________________________
> D. Stephen Heersink
> Conservative Manifesto Home Page
> http://home.att.net/~dshsfca/TCM.html
No, that was before ETHICS.
Now majority tyranny steals from Peter and SHARES IT with Paul.
In addition, Christ's name is used with proselytes instead of Marx's
(although between themselves they still INVOKE The Bearded Monster's
name).and serious effort is excersized to excommunicate Hitler from the
SOCIALIST church,
I guess the leader of the NATIONAL SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY would be very
surprised and angered by this voluntarism. Herr Hitler, was a follower of
Herr Gottfried Feder, who, as Herr Karl Marx, wanted world revolution under
the "Proletariat of the World, unite!" slogan.
ETHICAL SOCIALISM? What is next? ETHICAL NAZISM? Same logic can be applied,
Hitlerism denounced, true Nazism proclaimed as ETHIOCAL and PROGRESSIVE!
Monsters of the World, Unite!
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
tewins
You even ignored the example of Zygmunt Bauman who draws, aongst others from
Levinas. Do you know who Levinas is?? Tell me - did you even read my quote
of Bauman's work? Have you heard of the Budapest School? Heller? Lukacs?
Fehr? Do you give a damn about the truth, or will you close your eyes to
anything that challenges your demonisation of the Left as if it were some
kind of homogenous bloc???
These people did more than "write mere words". They did not attend
conferences fawning over Stalin. They were opposed to Stalinism right from
the start, and fought against it uncompromisingly with all their strength.
I am an Australian. I am also a liberal democratic socialist. I am not a
Communist - but I identify with the tradition of the liberal communists.
You want some concrete examples of what liberal communists and leftists were
doing in Australia: of their character? Let me give you a couple of
examples.
This time READ THEM. And do yourself a favour. Read the previous excerpts
I provided you with also. You accuse me of ignorance - yet here you are
trying to put Kautsky and Berstein in the same basket as Stalin.
Even an intellgient Conservative academic will tell you that is the height
of ignorance. My mothers second cousin is a good friend of mine, and he is
a staunch Conservative. He recognises the difference between those I have
mentioned and Stalin clearly. Why do YOU close your eyes to it?
Please Read On
ERIC AARONS: FORMER Communist Party of Australia Secretary
from Biography "What's Left?"
Reapproachment with Christianity
"I was also stimulated at this time by the arrival in Australia from Europe
of the trend towards dialogue between Marxists and Christians. I 1967 a
TV program on this subject was made under the title 'This Tiny Ship in
Space', some of the preparatory sessions for which were held in the large an
pleasant lounge room of our flat at Neutral Bay. In 1968 a well attended
three day dialogue was held at Sydney university and much later, in 1978.
These sessions taught me something about religious principles of which I was
pretty ignorant and helped me probe my own principles. Many of the people I
met had an integrity and dedication to a cause similar to my own and my
respect for them grew as I got to know them."
On Czechoslovakia
"It was the invasion in August 1968 by the Armies of the Soviet Union and
the Warsaw Pact countries that forced the pace of change among communists in
Australia and around the world." "[We] we surprised and pleased by the
election of Alexander Dubcek to the leadership. His declaration in favour
of 'socialism with a human face', the lifting of censorship and a new
freedom of political activity outside the framework of 'the leading role of
the Communist Party' raised our hopes that communism's fading image might be
revitalised."
""Laurie was summon to the Soviet Embassy on 10 July where he was read an
alarming letter from the CPSU to the CPA (and other parties) that clearly
hinted at the possibility of military intervention."
"We replied officially on 18 of July supporting the action program and
OPPOSING the CPSU's call for state force to be used to repress the
political upsurge."
"We responded to the invasion immediately, with printed condemnations and
public meetings."
"Representatives of the CPSU used all sorts of tactics to try to gain
support for their position within our party. A personable and friendly
embassy official... had gone back to Mascow at the end of 1968, and on his
return sought a long talk with me. His ploy was to make out there was
considerable opposition to the invasion within the leadership of the CPSU,
and if only we would mute our criticism and be patient, everything would
work out for the best. (The same tactic was used in other countries at the
time as well) After a long discussion, he and his wife, and handsome young
blonde, suddenly kissed me invitingly in a clear offer to me to compromise
my position. But - stalwart that I was - I did not succumb to the
temptation."
"Finding that they were a small minority, the pro-Soviet faction soon
afterwards departed to form the 'Socialist Party'.
From 'Bernie Taft' 'Crossing the Party Line' - former CPA National Secretary
On Pol Pot
"After a couple of days in Ho Chi Minh city I flew with a small number of
delegates for a few days to Phnom Phen in Cambodia. There I got a glimpse
of the atrocities that the Khmer Rouge had inflicted on the Cambodian
people. The stories that individuals told were horrifying.
I went to an extermination camp, Toul Sleng, where I was told that hundreds
of people had been imprisoned, tortured and photographed. I saw these
photographs displayed on the walls of their prisons."
"I came away from Vietnam and Cambodia with a deep feeling of sadness and
shame for the in justices that these people had suffered, and for the
inhumane way in which they had been treated - bu the West in the case of
Vietnam, and by Pol Pot in Cambodia."
>No hostility. No hatred. Just warning - you try to get around US
>Constitution and impose Socialism on us - there will be enough people who
>would take it as an honor to give up their lives to stop you.
Your posturing is absurd - the people I am talking about are civil
libertarians who want to bring about democratic change. And here you are
dreaming of streets drenched with blood. These people might like to
mobilise a mass movement for the reform of the constiution, but most are not
about to circumvent it. Not the liberal democratic socialists. The left
communists sects, alternatively, are about the most marginalised political
groups in the US. The talk about revolution, but they cannot even resolve
their own sectarian differences. In practice, they are those who work on
the ground to campaign for health care reform, against Nazism and racism,
for a living wage. And yet the way you speak, I can just imagine you
herding them into a soccer stadium, torturing them, and killing them - like
your hero Pinochet.
>> Try Pinochet and Somoza........
>
>Pinochet saved his country from Soviet-supported Communist insurgence. I
was
>in Russian Army at the time - we were prepared to go there. Today in former
>Soviet space Pinochet is one of the most popular figures, because WE know
>what he prevented. You may not believe that. Because your experience with
>Communists/Socialist is drinking coffee and discussing books at the
>University clubs paid by US taxpayers. Our experience with the scum is
>millions killed, starved and tortured.
>I guess you know more
Yes - I have spoken with people whose families were tortured and killed by
Pinochet. I know a democratically elected government was overthrown in a
coup, and a Terror was exercised that would have made the Jacobins blush! I
know while your 'heroes' in Central and South America have killed hundreds
of thousands between them you think nothing of this. You obviously care
nothing for the liberties and civil rights you claim to defend. When a
government reaches some arbitary 'left of centre' point, you want to drench
the streets with blood. And you call yourself a democrat!
>>Try over one million Vietnamese killed in the Vietnam 'police action',
>>largely by indiscriminate carpet bombing
>
>Your point?
My point is that this was the doing of the 'moderate centrist democratic'
West. My point is that regimes supposedly of the Left AND Right all over
the world have committed atrocities. But you are only willing to SEE those
that suit your political agenda. My point is I place myself entirely
outside of this framework. I do not justify mass murder under any
circumstances. I ask you 'join that tiny minority of people who defend
civil liberties under ALL circumstances, regardless of political bias.' And
in response you try and come up with excuses for regimes that have killed
thousands - between them, millions!
>>Try over half a million Indonesian Leftists killed - logistical support
and
>>name lists provided courtesy of the CIA!
>
>Again - are you going to mention all the killing record against militant
>Communists and snip out all of my mentions of millions of innocent people
>who never tried to overthrow any governments and install monstrous regimes
>killed, tortured and starved in the name of the PROLETARIATE DICTATORSHIP?
Oh - 600,000 communists, socialists, leftists, trade unionists DESERVED to
die? Is this what you are saying? Is your humanity valued by your
political inclination? So, if I were in Nazi Germany in 1933, I suppose
would would be applauded while Hitler threw me into a concentration camp!!
Voltaire would look upon you with disgust.
>Vietnamese invaded to cover the atrocities of their fellow Commie, because
>it became an embarrassment after the extent of these had terrified the
>world.
>Like you did not know that.
What I KNOW is that there is EXTREME bigotry against ethnic Vietmanese in
Cambodia - and that it has lasted for centuries.
I know that Pol Pot attempted to commit genocide, and as such he was no
internationalist and no communist. I know Vietnam invaded to prevent the
ethnic Vietmanese population of Cambodia from being completely exterminated.
THAT is what I know.
CONCENTRATION CAMPS WERE
>INVENTED BY COMMUNISTS.
Concentration camps were invented by the British Empire and first used in
the Boer War.
>
>now a single Western socialist who supported Pol Pot. Certainly
>> no-one I know.
>
>Like that is an argument. Please. They all supported him, because they
never
>accused him of being a monster. You just called him a Nazi a while ago. A
>radical Marxist Commie, a RED KHMER, is a Nazi! A Nazi delegate at Soviet
>Communist Party Congress!
>I love your style.
I just gave you a quote of EXACTLY what the former National Secretary of the
Communist Party of Australia thought of Pol Pot. Yet I know you will just
choose to ignore it, like you choose to ignore everything else that doesn't
support your own prejudices.
>What sides? Tuchachevsky used gasses AGAINST HIS OWN PEOPLE. Not during
war,
>not against enemy - against farmers of Tambov region who resisted being
>robbed of their meager wheat yield by regular Red Army. THEIR OWN PEOPLE!
>BTW - I have never heard about British using gases against Red Army. Can
you
>provide me with any references?
I could if I had tinme to research - if I could remember where I read it.
But I give you my word, as far as I know, it is true. On the net I found
references to the use of Chemical weapons by both sides in the civil war. I
wish I knew where to find the reference I found this information in - but
we cannot always recall these things. If you say, therefore, that my claim
is unsubstanitated - well, in this case you would be right - even though I
personally know it is true.
>Slainists? Stalin was dead in 1953. Czech invasion was 1968. Yes, there
were
>a bit of flak from Euro Commies, but then they all shut up and the
biggest -
>French, Spanish, Italian, English and my favorite - American Communist
>Parties were all present on the next USSR Party Congress with no dissent.
Bullshit there was no dissent - the Communist Party of Australia split over
the issue in 1970, and the Communist majority were no longer recognised by
the USSR. There was MASSIVE, ONGOING dissent. Dubcek was a communist
himself for crying out loud.
That is why
>among Russian people Gus Holl, your damn General Secretary was nicknamed
>Gas Hall.
I don't know about the CPUSA. I am an Australian. I am not a communist. But
I seek to defend the legacy of the liberal communists and the Western and
Eurocommunists against ignorance and slander - those who would like to
doctor history so as to dismiss socialism for all time - with no regard for
the TRUTH.
>> WHAT ANTI-STALINIST SOCIALISTS **REALLY** SAID
>>
>
>Who cares what they said - WHAT THEY DID ID SUPPORT LENIN and TROTSKY and
>the other Communist bestiary. If you judge Commies on what they say - they
>are all angels with wings. It is what they do - killing, torture,
>eliminating whole classes of citizens that what make them who they are.
>Are you that gullible that you do not understand the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
>WORD AND A DEED?
So I take it that in 1919 you would be on the side of the Freikorps who went
on to perform the Beer Hall Putch, and who formed the core of the SA and
Nazi Party? I suppose you think the Left just should have sat down and let
themselves be massacared without any resistance?
>-----TONS OF BLOODY BITCH WORDS SNIPPED - because they are just - WORDS.
>The deeds were simple - Luxemburg was and remained a high ranking member of
>the Bolshevik Party - Comrade Rosa. Until today is an icon in Communist
>Bestiary. Has streets, factories, squares named after her in Soviet Union
>(that NEVER happened to anyone who dissented from Party policies).
> Never dissented, never publicly accused Lenin of being a killer of
children
>and a bloody monster, never threw her Bolshevik Card to their faces.
>----------------------
what the FUCK is this then?
Rosa Luxemburg on economic and social life:
"The whole mass of the people must take part in it. Otherwise socialism
will be decreed from behind a few official desks by a dozen intellectuals."
She praises "mass initiative in place of intertia." "It is rule by TERROR
which DEMORALISES." "Public life gradually falls asleep, a few dozen party
leaders of inexhasutible energy and boundless experience direct and rule"
This is the stuff they never would even have LET you read in the Soviet
Union. Yeah - they exploited Rosa Luxemburg as a martyr in the USSR - but
her critical texts, like what you have just read were BANNED.
You praise a murderer like Pinochet, yet you celebrate the bashing, shooting
and throwing of Rosa Luxemburg into the Landwehr canal.
Were Hitler not Anti-Semitic, you would have been right there with him,
throwing leftists in concentration camps and having them shot.
>> >He invented an interesting method for that - kill bad people and leave
>only
>> >good. Simple and effective. Since there is no G-d (Marxism demands
>atheism,
>> >religion is "an opiate for the people") there is no sacred value in life
>> and
>> >FOR THE COLLECTIVE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE, everything is moral. Poor
idiot
>> >never thought that his buddy Stalin would see him as a bad man. So he
was
>> >killed, but before that volunteered to kill his former friends Kamenev
>and
>> >Zinoviev. To his disappointment he did not get a job.
Oh - and you just praise Pinochet - cos he kills the 'REALLY bad' people -
the leftist 'untermench' and their families. You hypocrite. You talk about
providing references for your claims. I see no evidence for your claims
about Bukharin. As for the religious question - James Connolly was a
Catholic, Roger Garaudy was a Christian and wrote an entire book about
'Christian Marxism.' I could go on and on like this, but as usual, you will
see only what you want to see. Marx was wrong on the question of religion -
but he may well have been right about the Christian churches and their
sectarian wars.
>Because Pinochet is a hero, Suharto - I have never heard of him killing
>millions and throwing other millions into exile, etc. Sukarno, his
>predessesor, was a Communist, that one I know. Destroyed the country and
>threw
>it back 100 years.
Suharto killed over 600,000 in Indonesa and over 200,000 in East Timor. If
you include those Indonesian dissidents and West Papuans he killed the
figure's pretty close to a MILLION. And he was supported for over 30 years
by the West, and given logistical advice by the CIA.
>See, there were villians among all ideologists. Communists and Socialists
>are the only ones WHO WERE ALWAYS MONSTERS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, ON 100:1
>SCALE TO ANY OTHER MONSTER EXCEPT NATIONAL SOCIALIST HITLER, WHO WAS (AND
>YOU CAN DENY THAT AS MUCH AS YOU CAN) - A SOCIALIST.
Only in the same sense that he was ALSO, paradoxically, a CAPITALISM.
And if you want to make the EQUIVALENT conclusion that this must mean all
capitalists are Nazis then fine - GO AHEAD. I can't believe that a man who
is obviously somewhat knowledgable can possibly dare to use such a hollow
argument.
You want Communists and Socialists who were not Monsters - let me think of
some that come into my head in an instant -virtually without effort
Karl Kautsky
Eduard Bernstein
Satniago Carrillo
Otto Bauer
Zygmunt Bauman
Herbert Marcuse
George Lukacs
Maxim Gorky
Tito
Agnes Heller
Fenric Fehr
Dubcek
Olaf Palme
Willy Brandt
British PM Harold Wilson
Antonio Gramsci
Eric Aarons
Bernie Taft
Fidel Castro (guilty of some authoritarianism - but def not a 'monster')
Stuart Holland
Marx himself, who was never responsible fo an atrocity in his life
Erich Fromm - liberal humanist marxist psychoanalytic theorist
my old lecturer Peter Beilharz
Allende
Mikhail Gorbachev
Boris Frankel
Australian Leftist MP Tom Uren
Australian Communist author, Frank Hardy
Ralph Miliband
Boris Kargarlitsky
Roger Garaudy - Christian Communist who was expelled from the Central
Committe of the French Communist Party
I could almost go on forever. Now, if EVERY SINGLE socialist and communist
that ever lived is/was a monster - give me and individual explanation for
EACH one! NO EXCEPTIONS.
>Suffer - shmaffer. Who cares? If suffering does not make you a better man -
>you have suffered in vain. If you were a better man to begin with - who
>needs suffering?
>If suffering would have made you a better man you should have abandoned the
>Communist/Socialist devil worship. Because only devil requires that much
>blood and tears.
You talk about devil worship and you having no fucking idea. I was stalked
and threatened by Satanists. I have suffered for my belief in God. Have
you? Would you remain loyal to God even if you feared you had lost your
very soul? I have faced Satan myself. I have had my soul ripped apart in
agony you can't conceive. And yet I believe in God.
I will not compromise. I have no time for 'deals' and 'contracts'. I will
live a decent, moral, honest, authentic life - and if you choose to damn me
from your ivory tower of ignorance then that is your failing, not mine.
I will pray to be healed - and all these years while I have waited and
prayed, I have not turned from God - abandoned Him - or Cursed him for what
He allowed to happen to me. Do you know what it's like to feel worms
devouring your spirit, bursting through your chest, arms, burrowing into
your brain? Do you know what its like to freeze, burn - lose consciousness
for days? Do you know what it's like to have the Life drained from you, to
feel you limbs rot and fall away? Can you imagine a spiritual AGONY worse
than any merely physical agony you have felt in your life? Yet I have
remained faithful to God regardless. I wonder if you would remain faithful
to God if you had been through this.
Faithfulness to God should bring people together. Compassion, Mercy,
Justice - is the cornerstone of all human righteousness. But you are more
concerned with killing and damning your ideological adversaries. You talk
about 'devil worship' - but you have no idea who Satan is. I know - VERY
WELL. And I CHOOSE to worship GOD. And if some day, you are in the
position of a Pinochet, say, and you happen to have me tortured and shot,
you probably believe this would be 'the will of God'. I suspect God Himself
would have different ideas. I tell you of my suffering and you respond,
"Who Cares?" Perhaps one day God will remember that, Alexander.
>So you KNOW who they are! You know what kind of people you deal with, but
>you are too weak to wean yourself from that poisonous tit. Too much of a
>temptation to be the world saviour, working class hero, the comforter of
the
>weak, the Robin Hood, the Revolutionary! This is easy, my friend. Working
>your ass of building roads, ships, working in mines, labs, inventing
things,
>studying the laws of nature - that is boring. But picturing yourself in
>front of the roaring crowds WHO LOVE YOU - that is what 90% of your,
>home-grown revolutionaries are all about.
I do not 'deal' with them. I would expose them if I had the evidence. I
remember one of the staffers who harrassed and mocked me saying "You're a
fighter aren't you?!!" Yes, I am a fighter!! I will not give up my
independance, my dignity, my beliefs, my integrity for anyone. I will not
let them beat it out of me - either physically, or through their whisper
campaigns, their innuendo, their threats, their lies. And because I will
not turn from my beliefs - I will not respond to their PERVERSION of
socialism by abandoning my ideals. I will not let them take THAT from me -
like they took my life, my future, my friends - some would say even my
sanity!
Everyone likes external self-validation. Most people need it. Some twisted
Sister who mocked my suffering and offerred my no respect dared say
everything I did was just to sate my 'Ego' - in some pathetic attempt to
justify what they were doing to me. But if I could, as an intellectual,
inspire others to achieve what I failed to achieve, I would be just as
happy. Everyone craves acceptance, recognition. But that was not WHY I was
active in the left for so long. Recognition was, for a time, an enjoyable
consequence - but I was willing to GIVE THAT UP when I stood up against the
machine for my independance and beliefs - AND PAID THE PRICE - humiliation,
isolation, mockery - the destruction of my personal and public life. Have
you ever given up EVERYTHING for your beliefs? How dare you judge me.
>Listen to yourself. What a pathetic attempt! Reagan came to power in 1980.
>He was calling USSR an Evil Empire almost right away. Gorby came to power 5
>years later, exactly because USSR needed a break in arms race, which was
>breaking its economy apart. If not for Reagan, you will still have USSR
>intact, armed to the teeth and killing Afgans, starving Ethiops, arming
>Cubans to keep Angola at war, etc.
>REAL DEMOCRATIC REFORM? I beg of you - stay away from the issues you have
no
>idea about, do not make a mockery of yourself.
Oh, and I suppose you think the CIA did a FINE job of bringing the Taliban
to power. I bet you're a REAL supporter of women's rights.
>I do not know your problems, but this is irrelevant. If your suffering
>brought you to Socialists, you lost your soul. You sold it to the devil.
And
>there are no excuses for that. None.
'Judge not lest you be judged'. Who do you think you are - God? You are
just like the friends of Job - who judged him and criticised him - who
thought they were soooo wise. Do you think you are any better? Do you
think God would think any more of you - that you claim to speak FOR Him?
You accuse me of hysteria - yet I tell you I am full of passion - for I
speak from the depths of my heart. I do not think it is possible to be TOO
earnest.
I have told you my problems - I was persecuted by Satanists for my belief in
God. People stalked me, mocked me, bleated at me like sheep - said "you're
going to FALL you MOTHERFUCKER." I had my soul torn apart.
I have faced Satan. I have faced Babylon. THESE are 'my problems'.
And if you choose to judge and dismiss me knowing nothing of my experience,
my inner feelings, convictions or beliefs - then you are WORSE than those
friends of Job - in your arrogance and your presumptuousness.
I say to you - we both believe in God - which ought mean we believe in Love,
Justice, Mercy. I say to you 'let us celebrate what we have in common in a
world where, even today, people are brought to ruin and are persecuted for
their belief in God." And YOU wish me damnation.
I wish nothing less that life, peace and reconciliation for the entire of
humankind. Life of the body and of the spirit. Hope. Respect. Dignity.
Love. And you - you would simply put yourself in God's place. Your
pretense to holding the 'moral high ground' is untenable. Yet I do not
judge you as you judge me. I wish that you find it in your heart to love
all your fellow men and women, and that you find peace in eternal life. I
wish damnation on no-one. Not you. Not those who mocked me, stalked me,
destroyed me. Not anyone.
>You, cold blooded Marxist executioners would love that. It is not enough
for
>you that you have killed millions and tortured, starved to death children,
>old people and women just because they were of the WRONG CLASS. In Russia,
>China, Hungary, Poland, Cambodia you destroyed societies, cultures,
>religions, erased the whole populations and moved them thousands of miles
>away (Chechens, Crimea Tartars, Ingushes, Karakalpacs, ethnic Germans from
>Volga, etc., etc., etc.)
>YOU WANT MORE AND YOU WANT NO JUDGMENT? Where were you whn Stalinist
Troykas
>were judging people in and shot them within 24 hours? Did your favourite
>Communists and Socialists demonstrate in front of the White House? Demanded
>to stop American flow of goods to Russia? Demanded for American engineers
to
>come back? Draw caricaures on blood-thirsty Stalin? Ha?
>I do not hear you!
*I* was not alive. But had I been, and had I known the truth, I would have
been in the left of the Social Democratic parties, and I would not have
shrunk away from the truth of what was happening in the Soviet Union.
I have given you countless examples of socialists - Marxists even - who had
NOTHING to do with Stalin - who criticised the trend towards dictatorship
even in Lenin's time! But you ignore all of this. I tell you who I am -
what I believe - and you respond by setting up this straw man - this
invention - this lie. You show no respect for the truth and no respect for
history. I entertain no double standards. I condemn Stalin as I condemn
Hitler as I condemn succesive US governments who have sponsored client
states which, between them, have killed millions. I make no exceptions. I
profess no double standards. But YOU - you would make EXCEPTIONS. If we
are mortal enemies it is for this reason and this reason only:
When it comes to human rights and dignity I make *no* exception. You DO.
You hold double standards. I DO NOT. I confront the past of the Left - and
when it is offensive I repudiate it - denounce it. YOU try and make excuses
for mass murderers and despots. I am on common ground with Christians, Jews
and all manner of people over the world who do not comrpromise on the issue
of human rights and liberties. Once again - YOU make exceptions where it
suits your interests. Let me tell you, with opinions like yours, there is
not a civil liberties organisation in the world who would accept you.
>make us "better humans", declare our religions "people's opiate", our
>culture "reactionary", never again will you reduce us to state slaves who
>march in fromnt of you on your abominable parades with the giant icons of
>your despicable faces.
You put words in my mouth and ignore everything I actually say.
>
>You said you extend your hand to me? I'd rather wait. See, shaking hands
>with Communists/Socialists is a little bit to much for me now. May be
>generation or two later. Call my grandson.
Your hatred has made you blind and you cannot see. The spirit is above ALL
things. I believe in God, and I have suffered for these beliefs. You claim
to believe in God also. I tell you I should be able to extend my hand to
you, for the spiritual kingdom is above all kingdoms - but you would spit in
my face. You place the earthly world of ideology before this - and so it is
you let your hatred blind you. You will not allow yourself to see who I
really am or what I really say.
Let me tell you this: (THIS IS **VERY** IMPORTANT)
There is a book by the Australian socialist author, Frank Hardy,
It is called 'But the Dead are Many'.
Read this book and perhaps you will understand me better. Take note of my
email address. Write back to me when you have read the book.
If by then you do not understand then you will never understand.
tewins
Please Read On
Reapproachment with Christianity
On Czechoslovakia
On Pol Pot
>No hostility. No hatred. Just warning - you try to get around US
>Constitution and impose Socialism on us - there will be enough people who
>would take it as an honor to give up their lives to stop you.
Your posturing is absurd - the people I am talking about are civil
libertarians who want to bring about democratic change. And here you are
dreaming of streets drenched with blood. These people might like to
mobilise a mass movement for the reform of the constiution, but most are not
about to circumvent it. Not the liberal democratic socialists. The left
communists sects, alternatively, are about the most marginalised political
groups in the US. The talk about revolution, but they cannot even resolve
their own sectarian differences. In practice, they are those who work on
the ground to campaign for health care reform, against Nazism and racism,
for a living wage. And yet the way you speak, I can just imagine you
herding them into a soccer stadium, torturing them, and killing them - like
your hero Pinochet.
>> Try Pinochet and Somoza........
>
>Pinochet saved his country from Soviet-supported Communist insurgence. I
was
>in Russian Army at the time - we were prepared to go there. Today in former
>Soviet space Pinochet is one of the most popular figures, because WE know
>what he prevented. You may not believe that. Because your experience with
>Communists/Socialist is drinking coffee and discussing books at the
>University clubs paid by US taxpayers. Our experience with the scum is
>millions killed, starved and tortured.
>I guess you know more
Yes - I have spoken with people whose families were tortured and killed by
Pinochet. I know a democratically elected government was overthrown in a
coup, and a Terror was exercised that would have made the Jacobins blush! I
know while your 'heroes' in Central and South America have killed hundreds
of thousands between them you think nothing of this. You obviously care
nothing for the liberties and civil rights you claim to defend. When a
government reaches some arbitary 'left of centre' point, you want to drench
the streets with blood. And you call yourself a democrat!
>>Try over one million Vietnamese killed in the Vietnam 'police action',
>>largely by indiscriminate carpet bombing
>
>Your point?
My point is that this was the doing of the 'moderate centrist democratic'
West. My point is that regimes supposedly of the Left AND Right all over
the world have committed atrocities. But you are only willing to SEE those
that suit your political agenda. My point is I place myself entirely
outside of this framework. I do not justify mass murder under any
circumstances. I ask you 'join that tiny minority of people who defend
civil liberties under ALL circumstances, regardless of political bias.' And
in response you try and come up with excuses for regimes that have killed
thousands - between them, millions!
>>Try over half a million Indonesian Leftists killed - logistical support
and
>>name lists provided courtesy of the CIA!
>
>Again - are you going to mention all the killing record against militant
>Communists and snip out all of my mentions of millions of innocent people
>who never tried to overthrow any governments and install monstrous regimes
>killed, tortured and starved in the name of the PROLETARIATE DICTATORSHIP?
Oh - 600,000 communists, socialists, leftists, trade unionists DESERVED to
die? Is this what you are saying? Is your humanity valued by your
political inclination? So, if I were in Nazi Germany in 1933, I suppose
would would be applauded while Hitler threw me into a concentration camp!!
Voltaire would look upon you with disgust.
>Vietnamese invaded to cover the atrocities of their fellow Commie, because
>it became an embarrassment after the extent of these had terrified the
>world.
>Like you did not know that.
What I KNOW is that there is EXTREME bigotry against ethnic Vietmanese in
Cambodia - and that it has lasted for centuries.
I know that Pol Pot attempted to commit genocide, and as such he was no
internationalist and no communist. I know Vietnam invaded to prevent the
ethnic Vietmanese population of Cambodia from being completely exterminated.
THAT is what I know.
CONCENTRATION CAMPS WERE
>INVENTED BY COMMUNISTS.
Concentration camps were invented by the British Empire and first used in
the Boer War.
>
>now a single Western socialist who supported Pol Pot. Certainly
>> no-one I know.
>
>Like that is an argument. Please. They all supported him, because they
never
>accused him of being a monster. You just called him a Nazi a while ago. A
>radical Marxist Commie, a RED KHMER, is a Nazi! A Nazi delegate at Soviet
>Communist Party Congress!
>I love your style.
I just gave you a quote of EXACTLY what the former National Secretary of the
Communist Party of Australia thought of Pol Pot. Yet I know you will just
choose to ignore it, like you choose to ignore everything else that doesn't
support your own prejudices.
>What sides? Tuchachevsky used gasses AGAINST HIS OWN PEOPLE. Not during
war,
>not against enemy - against farmers of Tambov region who resisted being
>robbed of their meager wheat yield by regular Red Army. THEIR OWN PEOPLE!
>BTW - I have never heard about British using gases against Red Army. Can
you
>provide me with any references?
I could if I had tinme to research - if I could remember where I read it.
But I give you my word, as far as I know, it is true. On the net I found
references to the use of Chemical weapons by both sides in the civil war. I
wish I knew where to find the reference I found this information in - but
we cannot always recall these things. If you say, therefore, that my claim
is unsubstanitated - well, in this case you would be right - even though I
personally know it is true.
>Slainists? Stalin was dead in 1953. Czech invasion was 1968. Yes, there
were
>a bit of flak from Euro Commies, but then they all shut up and the
biggest -
>French, Spanish, Italian, English and my favorite - American Communist
>Parties were all present on the next USSR Party Congress with no dissent.
Bullshit there was no dissent - the Communist Party of Australia split over
the issue in 1970, and the Communist majority were no longer recognised by
the USSR. There was MASSIVE, ONGOING dissent. Dubcek was a communist
himself for crying out loud.
That is why
>among Russian people Gus Holl, your damn General Secretary was nicknamed
>Gas Hall.
I don't know about the CPUSA. I am an Australian. I am not a communist. But
I seek to defend the legacy of the liberal communists and the Western and
Eurocommunists against ignorance and slander - those who would like to
doctor history so as to dismiss socialism for all time - with no regard for
the TRUTH.
>> WHAT ANTI-STALINIST SOCIALISTS **REALLY** SAID
>>
>
>Who cares what they said - WHAT THEY DID ID SUPPORT LENIN and TROTSKY and
>the other Communist bestiary. If you judge Commies on what they say - they
>are all angels with wings. It is what they do - killing, torture,
>eliminating whole classes of citizens that what make them who they are.
>Are you that gullible that you do not understand the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
>WORD AND A DEED?
So I take it that in 1919 you would be on the side of the Freikorps who went
on to perform the Beer Hall Putch, and who formed the core of the SA and
Nazi Party? I suppose you think the Left just should have sat down and let
themselves be massacared without any resistance?
>-----TONS OF BLOODY BITCH WORDS SNIPPED - because they are just - WORDS.
>The deeds were simple - Luxemburg was and remained a high ranking member of
>the Bolshevik Party - Comrade Rosa. Until today is an icon in Communist
>Bestiary. Has streets, factories, squares named after her in Soviet Union
>(that NEVER happened to anyone who dissented from Party policies).
> Never dissented, never publicly accused Lenin of being a killer of
children
>and a bloody monster, never threw her Bolshevik Card to their faces.
>----------------------
what the FUCK is this then?
Rosa Luxemburg on economic and social life:
"The whole mass of the people must take part in it. Otherwise socialism
will be decreed from behind a few official desks by a dozen intellectuals."
She praises "mass initiative in place of intertia." "It is rule by TERROR
which DEMORALISES." "Public life gradually falls asleep, a few dozen party
leaders of inexhasutible energy and boundless experience direct and rule"
This is the stuff they never would even have LET you read in the Soviet
Union. Yeah - they exploited Rosa Luxemburg as a martyr in the USSR - but
her critical texts, like what you have just read were BANNED.
You praise a murderer like Pinochet, yet you celebrate the bashing, shooting
and throwing of Rosa Luxemburg into the Landwehr canal.
Were Hitler not Anti-Semitic, you would have been right there with him,
throwing leftists in concentration camps and having them shot.
>> >He invented an interesting method for that - kill bad people and leave
>only
>> >good. Simple and effective. Since there is no G-d (Marxism demands
>atheism,
>> >religion is "an opiate for the people") there is no sacred value in life
>> and
>> >FOR THE COLLECTIVE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE, everything is moral. Poor
idiot
>> >never thought that his buddy Stalin would see him as a bad man. So he
was
>> >killed, but before that volunteered to kill his former friends Kamenev
>and
>> >Zinoviev. To his disappointment he did not get a job.
Oh - and you just praise Pinochet - cos he kills the 'REALLY bad' people -
the leftist 'untermench' and their families. You hypocrite. You talk about
providing references for your claims. I see no evidence for your claims
about Bukharin. As for the religious question - James Connolly was a
Catholic, Roger Garaudy was a Christian and wrote an entire book about
'Christian Marxism.' I could go on and on like this, but as usual, you will
see only what you want to see. Marx was wrong on the question of religion -
but he may well have been right about the Christian churches and their
sectarian wars.
>Because Pinochet is a hero, Suharto - I have never heard of him killing
>millions and throwing other millions into exile, etc. Sukarno, his
>predessesor, was a Communist, that one I know. Destroyed the country and
>threw
>it back 100 years.
Suharto killed over 600,000 in Indonesa and over 200,000 in East Timor. If
you include those Indonesian dissidents and West Papuans he killed the
figure's pretty close to a MILLION. And he was supported for over 30 years
by the West, and given logistical advice by the CIA.
>See, there were villians among all ideologists. Communists and Socialists
>are the only ones WHO WERE ALWAYS MONSTERS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, ON 100:1
>SCALE TO ANY OTHER MONSTER EXCEPT NATIONAL SOCIALIST HITLER, WHO WAS (AND
>YOU CAN DENY THAT AS MUCH AS YOU CAN) - A SOCIALIST.
Only in the same sense that he was ALSO, paradoxically, a CAPITALISM.
>Suffer - shmaffer. Who cares? If suffering does not make you a better man -
>you have suffered in vain. If you were a better man to begin with - who
>needs suffering?
>If suffering would have made you a better man you should have abandoned the
>Communist/Socialist devil worship. Because only devil requires that much
>blood and tears.
You talk about devil worship and you having no fucking idea. I was stalked
>So you KNOW who they are! You know what kind of people you deal with, but
>you are too weak to wean yourself from that poisonous tit. Too much of a
>temptation to be the world saviour, working class hero, the comforter of
the
>weak, the Robin Hood, the Revolutionary! This is easy, my friend. Working
>your ass of building roads, ships, working in mines, labs, inventing
things,
>studying the laws of nature - that is boring. But picturing yourself in
>front of the roaring crowds WHO LOVE YOU - that is what 90% of your,
>home-grown revolutionaries are all about.
I do not 'deal' with them. I would expose them if I had the evidence. I
remember one of the staffers who harrassed and mocked me saying "You're a
fighter aren't you?!!" Yes, I am a fighter!! I will not give up my
independance, my dignity, my beliefs, my integrity for anyone. I will not
let them beat it out of me - either physically, or through their whisper
campaigns, their innuendo, their threats, their lies. And because I will
not turn from my beliefs - I will not respond to their PERVERSION of
socialism by abandoning my ideals. I will not let them take THAT from me -
like they took my life, my future, my friends - some would say even my
sanity!
Everyone likes external self-validation. Most people need it. Some twisted
Sister who mocked my suffering and offerred my no respect dared say
everything I did was just to sate my 'Ego' - in some pathetic attempt to
justify what they were doing to me. But if I could, as an intellectual,
inspire others to achieve what I failed to achieve, I would be just as
happy. Everyone craves acceptance, recognition. But that was not WHY I was
active in the left for so long. Recognition was, for a time, an enjoyable
consequence - but I was willing to GIVE THAT UP when I stood up against the
machine for my independance and beliefs - AND PAID THE PRICE - humiliation,
isolation, mockery - the destruction of my personal and public life. Have
you ever given up EVERYTHING for your beliefs? How dare you judge me.
>Listen to yourself. What a pathetic attempt! Reagan came to power in 1980.
>He was calling USSR an Evil Empire almost right away. Gorby came to power 5
>years later, exactly because USSR needed a break in arms race, which was
>breaking its economy apart. If not for Reagan, you will still have USSR
>intact, armed to the teeth and killing Afgans, starving Ethiops, arming
>Cubans to keep Angola at war, etc.
>REAL DEMOCRATIC REFORM? I beg of you - stay away from the issues you have
no
>idea about, do not make a mockery of yourself.
Oh, and I suppose you think the CIA did a FINE job of bringing the Taliban
to power. I bet you're a REAL supporter of women's rights.
>I do not know your problems, but this is irrelevant. If your suffering
>brought you to Socialists, you lost your soul. You sold it to the devil.
And
>there are no excuses for that. None.
'Judge not lest you be judged'. Who do you think you are - God? You are
>You, cold blooded Marxist executioners would love that. It is not enough
for
>you that you have killed millions and tortured, starved to death children,
>old people and women just because they were of the WRONG CLASS. In Russia,
>China, Hungary, Poland, Cambodia you destroyed societies, cultures,
>religions, erased the whole populations and moved them thousands of miles
>away (Chechens, Crimea Tartars, Ingushes, Karakalpacs, ethnic Germans from
>Volga, etc., etc., etc.)
>YOU WANT MORE AND YOU WANT NO JUDGMENT? Where were you whn Stalinist
Troykas
>were judging people in and shot them within 24 hours? Did your favourite
>Communists and Socialists demonstrate in front of the White House? Demanded
>to stop American flow of goods to Russia? Demanded for American engineers
to
>come back? Draw caricaures on blood-thirsty Stalin? Ha?
>I do not hear you!
*I* was not alive. But had I been, and had I known the truth, I would have
been in the left of the Social Democratic parties, and I would not have
shrunk away from the truth of what was happening in the Soviet Union.
I have given you countless examples of socialists - Marxists even - who had
NOTHING to do with Stalin - who criticised the trend towards dictatorship
even in Lenin's time! But you ignore all of this. I tell you who I am -
what I believe - and you respond by setting up this straw man - this
invention - this lie. You show no respect for the truth and no respect for
history. I entertain no double standards. I condemn Stalin as I condemn
Hitler as I condemn succesive US governments who have sponsored client
states which, between them, have killed millions. I make no exceptions. I
profess no double standards. But YOU - you would make EXCEPTIONS. If we
are mortal enemies it is for this reason and this reason only:
When it comes to human rights and dignity I make *no* exception. You DO.
You hold double standards. I DO NOT. I confront the past of the Left - and
when it is offensive I repudiate it - denounce it. YOU try and make excuses
for mass murderers and despots. I am on common ground with Christians, Jews
and all manner of people over the world who do not comrpromise on the issue
of human rights and liberties. Once again - YOU make exceptions where it
suits your interests. Let me tell you, with opinions like yours, there is
not a civil liberties organisation in the world who would accept you.
>make us "better humans", declare our religions "people's opiate", our
>culture "reactionary", never again will you reduce us to state slaves who
>march in fromnt of you on your abominable parades with the giant icons of
>your despicable faces.
You put words in my mouth and ignore everything I actually say.
>
>You said you extend your hand to me? I'd rather wait. See, shaking hands
>with Communists/Socialists is a little bit to much for me now. May be
>generation or two later. Call my grandson.
Your hatred has made you blind and you cannot see. The spirit is above ALL
tewins
tewins
~~~i LeoNid ~~
<alex_ch...@hotmail.com> planted &I saw in alt.conspiracy:
>
>Now majority tyranny steals from Peter and SHARES IT with Paul.
>In addition, Christ's name is used
It is not - Christ - it is h(is)er followers. If that is - what you wanted
to say:) I'd prob. agree. Maintenence people do most of the ACTUAL
HIstory. (not theorists, although - they - hopefully - clevere (honey:)
enough to influence it/"truth looking" mob).
with proselytes instead of Marx's
>(although between themselves they still INVOKE The Bearded Monster's
>name).and serious effort is excersized to excommunicate Hitler from the
>SOCIALIST church,
Christ and Marks were Jews, whereas Fuhrer - not OR?. How cum?:)
>Monsters of the World, Unite!
>
Now sing a "Mar`sel`eza", if you are a S(Z)inger:)
"Normal [ethi`cal <- mine] people _should_ stand up":)
>Alex Chaihorsky
>Reno, NV
>
Leonid (Just I) PS: posts archive: http://leo.portland.co.uk/doc00.htm
tewins
Dear Leo,
>Very right. But are there only two sides? May be, there are those, also,
>who like me, belive - that aim's doesn't justify means/pacification (at
>all means)..?
I, I would like to think so, but I really don't know who to trust. Even
those with the best of intentions can be being manipulated by those who
intentions are anything but pure. I used to be the staunchest humanist you
could imagine - but now I wonder if my only hope is in God himself - and if
the earth shall be the expression of Hell as it always has been, despite all
attempts to prevent this.
>Are you kidding me. Public in General?:) Who cares. G. Public will rather
>want to know the "truth" by applying inquisition to you. And if you won't
>burn, you'll be drown:)
Oh, I know what it's like to cop it from several directions at once.
Smiling at you one minute, knife in the back the next. You search for
someone 'pure', 'earnest', 'trustworthy' - but where would one find such a
person?
And moreover - where would one find such a person who was willing and able
to help?
>
>PS: Last two of your articles are very touching indeed, and are not
>boring, may be because I was through some of the same ("Чучело") (if not
>worse) _figuraly_ speaking, experience as _described_ here. It even looks,
>like two different persons wrote these, and some other of you_named
>posts:). Try to be youself, whatever you are, and what (G*d constructed)
>sircumstances allow. Regards and all the be(a)st:)
I sincerely hope for the best, but not the beast. That is half my problem,
Leo. :)
Regards,
tewins
Scott D. Erb
D Stephen Heersink wrote:
> The only ethic of socialism is that the majority's tyranny steals from
> Peter to pay Paul. If that's moral, then what's immoral?
> _____________________________________
By your definition all taxation is immoral, and thereby so is
conservatism, and in fact any form of government that is anything less
than purely voluntary. Do you really want to take such an extreme stance?
Kevin Lee Sparrow
<alex_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>working and starving them to death?. REMEMBER ? CONCENTRATION CAMPS WERE
>INVENTED BY COMMUNISTS.
No, in fact they 'invented' by British Army in South Africa during
Boar War.
Kevin
tewins
~~~i LeoNid ~~ wrote in message <3af6c1bf.37823484@localhost>...
>Now, I'll attach one more little car to this train (thread, that is:)
>
Leo - tell me, did you always write like this - and please don't take
offense - or has there been a slow degneration of your writing abilities?
If so, how did this happen?
Alex Chaihorsky
That can go forever - I address your arguments, you do not address mine and
bring new.
Old tactics, been there done that.
I do not care what socialist said what. There are clever neo-Nazis that
produce quite benevolent texts, saying that Hitler was wrong, etc., just
give us another chance.
Only deeds matter and only words of those who did the deeds and then we can
compare their words to their deeds.
I give a damn about facts, deeds, reality. I have read too many books in my
life to take texts seriously if they are not supported by action.
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
"tewins" <tew...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:9SRJ6.22214$482.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
~~~i LeoNid ~~
tewins
Yours is the response of a man who can't rebut another's arguments in
detail, and has paid no attention not only to what was SAID but to history
itself. I have given you the names of communists and socialists who did not
just argue against Stalinism 'after the fact': but who actively ORGANISED
against it. I have demonstrated this and YOU have ignored it because it
flies in the face of your demonology. Tell me - did you actually READ my
response? Will you try and find a copy of Frank Hardy's 'But the Dead are
Many', or do you presume you know everything already? You accuse me of not
addressing your arguments - yet I would say I answered your arguments very
directly. You argue that the Left supports Stalinism in practice - and just
throws around token statements. I showed you that Australian Communists
ORGANISED against the Czech invasion, and that the Party SPLIT over the
issue. I showed you that the KGB attemped to compromise leading Australian
communists - but they would not be compromised. And then you come with the
old argument "they are all words - they DID nothing." I have lost my WHOLE
LIFE because I would not be enslaved by these people. And once again you
just ignore this and trot out your preconceived caricatures.
You said: "ALL socialists and communists are MONSTERS." I gave you a list
for you to respond to. I doubt you know who even a fraction of those people
are/where, yet you presume to judge them.
You talk about the importance of religion, and when I tell you what I have
sufferred for my faith you say "Who Cares?"
What is WORST is that you accused me of Satanism, after I have been
persecuted for my belief in God - and then when I respond to your atrocious
accusation - you do not even show any sign that you have so much as READ
what I said in return. I speak to you from the bottom of my heart - of
convictions acquired through gut-wrenching agony - and you just deny or
ignore what I say - cos 'its just too hard' to accept that I am being
honest - and that your sweeping prejudices are unjustified.
If you 'couldn't be bothered' reading the entire post then 'be bothered'
now.
And make some effort to understand those you condemn as 'no different than
Stalin': Read Hardy's 'But the Dead are Many'. Like I said, if you don't
understand what I'm about by then, you never will. If you will not accept
my challenge then it is clear to all that you are close-minded, and will do
anything to avoid engagement with ideas and facts that challenge your
prejudices and preconceptions.
Alex Chaihorsky wrote in message <9datln$4...@dispatch.concentric.net>...
~~~i LeoNid ~~
>
No, I am NOT.
>
>>Very right. But are there only two sides? May be, there are those, also,
>>who like me, belive - that aim's doesn't justify means/pacification (at
>>all means)..?
>
>
>
>I, I would like to think so, but I really don't know who to trust. Even
I hesitated wheither to 'respond' to this post 'imitation' at all, as I
equaly dislike being a confessors, or `confessie`. But as you insist..
Educate yourself to the point to be able to trust yourself,.. or don't
trust anybody, Uself including, in I you may trust:)
>those with the best of intentions can be being manipulated by those who
>intentions are anything but pure. I used to be the staunchest humanist you
Re-read my 'teachings'. Intentions/aims values less (at LEAST not more)
then methods/means.
>could imagine - but now I wonder if my only hope is in God himself - and if
>the earth shall be the expression of Hell as it always has been, despite all
>attempts to prevent this.
>
And as there is NO just G0d (As I already said, I am - (if)the Ur only
hope - is not G00d), there is no hope for U, given your believe.
>
>>Are you kidding me. Public in General?:) Who cares. G. Public will rather
>>want to know the "truth" by applying inquisition to you. And if you won't
>>burn, you'll be drown:)
>
>
>
>Oh, I know what it's like to cop it from several directions at once.
>Smiling at you one minute, knife in the back the next. You search for
>someone 'pure', 'earnest', 'trustworthy' - but where would one find such a
>person?
In haven:) May be. BTW, "smiling" is NOT an antonim to 'knifing'. Smiling
and critisizing: Well - May be:). And as you like Black and White
contrasts, here is one you 'll like. Dead are many (are you 1 of them?;
not a hidden threat, whatsoever). I prefer to be alive, inspite of my
birth "destiny" (although, couldn't say, that I m 'extremely' happy in my
current wonderfull place; just 'moderately'[have to 'express' that] - not
to have my valium of drugs increased:). And alive are at_least 1 more then
dead:)
>And moreover - where would one find such a person who was willing and able
>to help?
>
But U R hel pin g me, as we have the same aim:) Aren't U trying?
>>
>>PS: Last two of your articles are very touching indeed, and are not
>>boring, may be because I was through some of the same ("Чучело") (if not
>>worse) _figuraly_ speaking, experience as _described_ here. It even looks,
>>like two different persons wrote these, and some other of you_named
>>posts:). Try to be youself, whatever you are, and what (G*d constructed)
>>sircumstances allow. Regards and all the be(a)st:)
>
>
>I sincerely hope for the best, but not the beast. That is half my problem,
>Leo. :)
>
I know. I am the "moshiah" of those alive:)
>
>Regards,
>
Regards 2 U 2
>tewins
>
Does this name has something to do with relation to judaism? It reminds me
something - may be from my previous life:), although I didn't read "Tania"
(for today:), or studied talmud. This is not a "teFilin", I guess? You
don't have to answer, though, as, I mostly pay attention to content, and
not JUST names, and am educated enough for my "moshiah" level:) (So, you
can't fool me:)
tewins
Oh, I have little doubt there is a being/force that is God - for I have NO
doubt of the existence of His opposite.
is.
>>
>And as there is NO just G0d (As I already said, I am - (if)the Ur only
>hope - is not G00d), there is no hope for U, given your believe.
>>
>>Oh, I know what it's like to cop it from several directions at once.
>>Smiling at you one minute, knife in the back the next. You search for
>>someone 'pure', 'earnest', 'trustworthy' - but where would one find such
a
>>person?
>
>In haven:) May be. BTW, "smiling" is NOT an antonim to 'knifing'. Smiling
>and critisizing: Well - May be:). And as you like Black and White
>contrasts, here is one you 'll like. Dead are many (are you 1 of them?;
>not a hidden threat, whatsoever). I prefer to be alive, inspite of my
>birth "destiny" (although, couldn't say, that I m 'extremely' happy in my
>current wonderfull place; just 'moderately'[have to 'express' that] - not
>to have my valium of drugs increased:). And alive are at_least 1 more then
>dead:)
Well as to whether or not I am dead or alive.. that cannot be expressed in
terms of black and white. I fear I am, at least in some sense, dead in the
spirit - having unravelled after 'this kiss of death', being force-fed
'Wine', and having the very breath taken by the 'Sisters' who plagued my
nightmares. I had a dream once - of an owl and a dragon, both
disintegrating. Both paths are closed to me. God help me if there is
nothing left but the Worm. I am 'Hanging at the Crossroads' - but I am not
dead in the flesh, at least. You say there is no God - but I cannot give up
on God - the only one who might possibly make me Whole again - and let me
choose my Path - whatever path I choose. If the Tree of Life is brought
down, has God the Power to restore it? That is the central question.
>>And moreover - where would one find such a person who was willing and
able
>>to help?
>>
>But U R hel pin g me, as we have the same aim:) Aren't U trying?
Oh, I try. I appreciate you earnestness and your interest. :)
>>>like two different persons wrote these, and some other of you_named
>>>posts:). Try to be youself, whatever you are, and what (G*d constructed)
I read once that the human spirit is like an onion - layer upon layer, and
not comprised of a unified mind. There are times when I have 'not been
myself', but this has not happened for a long time now. The freezing and
burning have ceased, as have the long periods of losing consciousness.
THIS ego, THIS self, THIS mind - I do not want to lose. I do not want to be
eclipsed. I do not even know whether he-who-has-lived-before is alive now.
We were shattered, and I was witness to his persecution. I do not wish the
death of any part of myself. As I was whole once I wish to be whole again.
Most urgent, though, is the question of whether the Temple can be rebuilt -
even by the hand of God - a House for this Mind and Soul in the next life.
>>tewins
>>
>Does this name has something to do with relation to judaism? It reminds me
>something - may be from my previous life:), although I didn't read "Tania"
>(for today:), or studied talmud. This is not a "teFilin", I guess? You
>don't have to answer, though, as, I mostly pay attention to content, and
>not JUST names, and am educated enough for my "moshiah" level:) (So, you
>can't fool me:)
Whatever, 'moshiah' means (mockery of 'messiah?' - no, it has nothing to do
with Judaism. It is simply of composite resembling my name. My interest in
Judaism is manyfold. Firstly, I am interested from a sociological/political
perspective. Secondly, I am interested from a spiritual perspective: in the
meaning of Kabbala - and the search for the true God. When I see Jews
commiting acts of hatred and oppression it truly saddens me, for I have
looked everywhere and seen nothing but evil, and when you hope for a God as
in the Ideal of Love/Mercy/Justice, you hope for more.. You hope that you
might find someone who could show you the Path to Healing: by which the Tree
of Life might once more be made whole, and no aspect of the Spirit left
Fallen. What I need, is to be healed, and taken into the spirit, that I
might live my life at peace with myself. There is no other solution. But
this is the central question: do you believe God extends His hand to all
humanity or not? If this is not true, then there cannot be any hope.
regards,
tewins
Alex Chaihorsky
remembers.
It is easy for you to hope - you never was a slave in socialist country, it
is difficult for me to forget that I was such a slave and engage with you on
yet another dream trip into the NEXT implementation of the same monstrous
utopia.
You shower me with WHAT WAS SAID, I SHOW YOU WHAT WAS DONE.
There is no point in dragging than on and on.
Regards,
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
"tewins" <tew...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:on9K6.22954$482.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
tewins
You have neatly avoided responsibility for your argument, not long ago, that
I was a Satanist. I gave you a reply, and I felt I was deserving of some
explanation. I also wonder if you will read 'But the Dead are Many'. I
cannot force you. You say that you remember, while I hope. Well, I do both.
I remember being stalked, whispher campaigns that I was a paedophile,
receiving death threats, having my house broken into. I remember VERY well.
But I do not give up Hope - for without that we have nothing. When Hope
eludes me, I draw close to wondering whether it is worth while going on
living - such are MY MEMORIES. But posit your binary opposition if you
ust - it shows you have not really been paying attention. In any case,
since this thread is spread over many newsgroups, I thought the least I
could do was introduce whoever is reading this to the ideas of one of the
thinkers of was discusssing. Therefore I will leave this except from
'Socialism: the Actice Utopia" with the comments I made a few years ago.
Socialism: the active utopia - Zygmunt Bauman
Chapter One: Utopia and Reality
p 9: metaphors: 'sturdy jeep of necessity', 'flying carpet of human will' -
determinist, non-
determinist juxtaposition
p 10 Utopia has been reduced to "only one of the two originally intertwined
meanings...
to 'a 'place which does not exist' and not 'a place to be desired', eutopia)
here 'the dominant usage rendered the irrepevance of utopia self-verifying."
"The insufficiency of treating utopias as predictions which turned out to be
false, or plans
which failed to prove their realism, will become evident if we only agree
that each
moment of human history is, to a greater or lesser degree, an open-ended
situation; a
situation which is not entirely determined by the strucure of its own past,
and from which
more than one strong of events may follow."
Bauman argues that rather than comdemning utopias we ought consider "to what
degree... events have been influenced.. by the presence of the
aforementioned visions in
the public mind."
CW Mills understood that, "our statements about the future become, from the
start,
active factors in shaping the future."
ie: the vision of utopia shapes our hopes, aspirations and action NOW - we
cannot
abandon socialist utopias simply because of the experience of so-called
'really-existing-
socialism'.
p 12 "One wonders how far the freedom that people actually enjoy can be
measured by
the extent to which they are able to imagine worlds different from their
own."
The term 'mere utopia' "reflects more the nature of the social system in
which it has
become common currency than the value of utopia which it pretends to
assess."
p 13 "one cannot be critical about something that is believed to absolute."
(eg:
capitalism)
(eg: Brumby attempting to drop references to 'socialism' & 'capitalism'
from ALP
platform - establishes capitalism as an uncontestable absolute - denies us
any object of
criticism. ie: because there is and cannot be anything else...)
By exposing the partiality of the current reality... utopias pave the way
for a critical
attitude and critical activity which alone can transfrom the present
predicament of man."
"the situation in which major political blocs of a nation know no better
than to argue
about the balance of payments.. signals.. a dangerous drying up of the
reservoir of
utopian ideas...." Utopias set the stage for a politics that takes stock
"of all
opportunities contained in the present."
p 14 "The thin line which divides a genuine realism from downright
conservatism
disguised as soberness runs between willingness and refusal to consider the
full range of
human alternatives, however fantastic they may seem from the perspective of
a
complacent or disenchanted commonsense." "Utopias respond to neither "what
can I
know?" (the concern of philosophers) nor "what ought I do" (which is the
domain of
politicians & ideologues), but "what may I hope?" ( a category, Bauman
suggests, that
Kant himself may have rejected)
Chapter Two: Utopia and the Modern Mind
Jacobinism:
pp 20-21
"He wonders why one should tinker in trvial ways with society. Why not sit
down, take a
long look at the social scene, mediate on first principles nd draw up new
blueprints?"
Whatever sinister results the Jacobin blend of self-assurance and impatience
may
eventually bring, this view of the world has an emancipating quality since
it amounts to a
manifesto of the human right to shape man's own destiny and to an emphatic
rejection of
the authority of 'the real' and 'the realistic'. The Jacobin is the one to
declare that men
have history, but a history which can be conciously directed to the greater
benefit of its
subjects; and that man is not only perfectible, but perfectible enough to
rise to the level at
which he will be able to set the pattern for his own perfection."
individuals considered 'wayward' - need to be 'forced into happiness': blend
of cultural
engineering, impatience and "I know better" attitude.
"HENCE the notoriously haughty and cotemptuous stance towards the resistance
of the
multitude: so deeply soaked in the present..."
p 22 "What differentiates the utopian attitude from the commonsensical mood
of
European thought is not the belief in techne and its supra-individual
foundations, but the
rather subtle distinction between activism and quietism..."
quoting Gerber "the utopian imagination cannot remain content with far off
bliss and
perfection - it is characterised by an insatiable desire to pull heaven down
to earth by
violent effort" however "the writer of social utopias of the near future
has to
compromise with reality in a way unknown to the creator of social myths."
On Education - Rouseeau etc
pp 23-24
how to resolve the contradiction between the assertion that "it is possible
to apply teche
to human personalities, the shape and reshape them at will" and that
"people may.. be
lifted from their present conditions and transplanted into a different world
by educators
who must have been brought up in the same conditions and, by definition,
must remain
under their sway."
Bauman argues
"One category of responses was.. openly elitist. The benevolent despot; the
Legislator;
the Philosopher; the Scientist - all of them belonged to the family of
Supermen who by
dint of miraculous power, omnipotent technology or ability to wrench its
secrets from
History, were able to unravel and bring to their less endowed fellows the
ideas which, in
a sense, were ''not from this world.'"
Bauman's second example is effectively that of Marxism (ie: of a dialectic
of History)
whereby, the individual, society as a whole or Reason as a supra-individual
entity
"endows existence with the capacity to transcend itself without having been
set in motion
by an external force."
"Thus capitalism breeds its own gravediggers; oppression itself stimulates
forces which
will eventually bring it down." Still a "midwife of history is
necessary": the social
scientist, the 'New Prince', vanguard party etc... ie: that "people must
be led into a better
life: either by force, or by being shown the pattern they otherwise would
not construct
themselves."
Still - the aim of this might be that of allowing people to truly determine
their own lifes -
ie: autonomy - therefore, so long as one is reflective, modest and
conversational in one's
approach - allowing for a plurality of actors - is there a problem here?
Perhaps only
that historically this has not been the case - nor has there been the
opportunity for this!
p 26
Lenin's "image of the working class as the fearless and never erring giant
about to pull
down the rotten structure of bourgeois society coexisted with a hardly
flaterring picture
of specific workers and acutal labour organisations as pedestrian,
opportunist, and eager
to play the bourgeois game according to bourgeois rules."
once again: does not need to be 'either, or': such language was a helpful,
indeed,
romantic element of Marxist language - also: needed to evoke a positive,
transformational self-image for the working class: nevertheless, a more
balanced
critique, with more modest assumptions would appear better suited in the
current
environment. Such language currently does not resonate in the least, and
is dated.
p 30
Industrial, 'modern' utopias (eg: Marx), idyllic, 'retrograde' utopias:
eg: that the social
corrupts: eg: Rosseau, or otherwise that a return to pre-indsutrial
life-forms is necessary:
Beilharz examines this question in depth in 'Postmodern Socialism'. One can
also see
elements of both kinds of thinking in Marx....
p 31
"Even the most ardent preachers of the new industrial world must have drawn
their
definition of order, as a safe and predictable situation founded on the
regularity and
recurrence of human conduct, from the living memory of the past, since it
was never
demonstrated by the system currently in existence. One may legitmately ask
whether any
blueprint for the future can ever be produced entirely from scratch, without
the author's
helping himself generously to the stock of collective memories and
accessible
experiences. Hence the frequently noted tenuousness of the line dividing
'prospective'
and 'retrospective' utopias, enthusiasm for progress from a conservative
nostalgia.
The real dividing line runs between the preachers of greater complexity and
the admirers
of simplicity ( in the latter case it is, by definition, always a 'return'
to simplicity.)
nb: but is it even this simple? for instance: using such a division,
defenders of the
nation state could be seen as nostalgic and regressive. On the other hand,
is the
development of monopoly captialism, and the resultant vanishing of projects
of autonomy
and democracy a good or progressive thing? Without the faith that this
'march of
history' leads necessarily to socialism, it could be argued that we are
ill-advised to
march blindly forward, effectively trusting in History. Even if one
imagines such things
as world or regional government, what of the scale involved and the
consequences for
democracy & participation: as opposed to bureaucratisation and
rationalisation? What
of the fact that such embryonic political forms pale in comparison to the
power of
Captial? What of the withdrawal of the nation-state without the presence of
some supra-
national public actor to take its place? All these are of concern...
Internationalism also
has been important, but this is not to say that nation states cannot be
important actors in
this sense... ie: nation states as practial geographical, political and
administrative
bodies of the scale necessary for provision of infrastructure,
redistribution etc, but not so
great as to result in absolute rationalisation & alienation... Also:
nation states without
essentialist nationalism: the two are not necessarily one and the same.
Furthermore:
what of arguments for local democracy on the same grounds?
The positive, relativising power of Utopia
p 35 "Utopia, which spells out the range of possibilities, draws a horizon
for the current
human reality, says Bloch. The scientific attitude, which would restrict
the field of
permitted knowledge to that part of the human world which has already been
traversed
and left behind, conveys a distorted, since impoverished, picture of the
actual field in
which human perception, ratiocination and decision-making take place. Men
see their
situation in terms of its distance from the horizon which exists only as
possibility; and
our analysis of the degree of rationality in their behaviour will not fully
recognise the role
played by reason unless we refer the concept of rationality to the continual
effort to
diminish the gap which divides the reality at hand from another, possible
reality, still
eluding the grasp of instrumentally oriented science. This approach,
apparently defying
the most essential canons of science, is more akin to the mode of human
existence, which
is intrinsically critical, continuously 'transcending without transcendence'
(Bloch; and 'by
placing itself on a normative standpoint, distantiates itself from the
actual situation and
views the existing achievement as relative'."
p 35
As Theodore Adorno puts it, society can become 'problematic' (ie: an object
of
intellectual and practical criticism), only if people can conceive of one
which is different
from it."
nb: once again - Brumby, rewriting platform, ceasing to think of socialism
and
capitalism - doing away with the opposition and hence of the very idea of a
utopia
beyond capitalism, mangerialism, corporatism etc.... This is a trap into
which the Left
itself has also falllen.
and, controverisally
"socialism shares with all other utopias the unpleasant quality of retaining
its fertility
only in so far as it resides in the realm of the possible." (ie: as opposed
to so-called
'really-existing socialism')
nb: but here too the degeneration of socialism has been due to historical
contingencies:
is this to say we are to give up hope for socialism as anything but a
normative ideal: a
never-realised concept? I would say not - that instead, while 'socialism'
may never be
reached as an 'end destination', there are socialist practices and
objectives that are
worthwile, and which clearly run counter to capitalism. The practice of
socialism in this
sense is socialism's realisation.... The error is to approach this
recklessly, without
regard to the mutli-faceted and ever-changing nature of the project itself,
not to mention
the dangers of divorcing the idea from everyday life and the aspirations of
ordinary
people.
Chapter Three: the historical location of Socialism
modernity
p 38 Bauman uses the Weberian Reinhard Bendix as a way of approaching this
problem, using his two concepts of 'impersonalism' and 'plebiscitarianism'.
"the first was the rising pre-eminience of 'impersonalism' as the paramount
principle
regulating the way in which individuals were pioneered into the network of
socially
defined roles and behavioural patterns; the second was the advent of
'plebiscitarianism',
as - simultaenously - the authority's working rule and the keynote of its
legislation."
(Bendix in Bauman)
p 39-40 "the principle of impersonalism not only delimits the social
essence of the
individual; it is operative in generating a life-space congenial to and
consonant with such
delimited individuals." Nevertheless, Bauman questions whether or not it
would be
better to speak of a 'topping' "of the traditional life-world in modern
times with an
impersonal structure of the greater society.... [given that] a very large
part of the life-
world still remains heavily 'particularised', densely-acked with
face-to-face, multi-faceted
relations and apparently open to meaning-negotiating initiatives."
p 41 "Plebiscitarianism - the second of Bendix's two parameters of
modernity - consists
in the inclusion of the masses in the political process. they now become
'citizens' of the
state instead of subjects of a prince."
"The masses turned citizens do not take over the former rulers' faculty of
entering politics
as socially identifiable persons. Only when they have undergone and
completed the
process of impoersonalisation can the subjects of a patrimonial ruler
re-emerge as the
masses looming large in the modern idiom of authority." "thanks to this
reduction,
accomplished by the modern notion of citizenship,.. public opinion can boil
down to the
computation of statistical distributions and democracy can be measured by a
crudely
arithmetical yardstick of numerical majority."
p 42 'Plebisctarianism' also works on the assumption that non-political
inequality does
not affact the role of the citizen; that citizens somehow shake off the
non-political bonds
at the threshold of the body politic. Having theoretically spearated the
sector of
citizenship from the totality of the individuals status, the plebisctarian
legitimation
conceives its conceptual feat as an operation on social reality; it is,
indeed founded on the
belief that an individual can enjoy his equal political rights while
remaining unequal in
spheres other than the political."
Liberalism and socialism (p 42 cont)
"and it was precisely in this form that the ideal of purely political
equality has been
challenged and rejected by its socialist counter-culture..." (ie:
liberalism = purely
political equality) "In this sense, the socialist counter-culture was a
continuation of the
liberal-capitalist culture as well as its rejection......" p 43 "What
remained to be done
by the socialist counter-culture was to draw conclusions the liberal
ideology could not,
and did not wish to draw: that what had been done in politics could and
should be
repeated in other spheres of human deprivation. As one of the delegates to
the South
German People's Party expressed it at a conference in 1868, 'Democracy must
become
social-democracy if it honestlty wants to be democracy."
"Liberalism saw the quality of citizenship as the foundation and guarantee
of the
individual's freedom, ie: his freedom to be unequal in other spheres than
the political.
Socialism, on the contrary, considered the establishment of political
equality as a means
and a first step to the incorporation of the totality of individual life
into a community of
equal men."
pp 44-46 on socialist of the French Revolution, Gracchus Babeuf, who wrote
'Manifesto
of the equals' in 1796, and effectively called for the welfare state while
defending himself
at his trial......
"Instead of guarding their dubious 'right to fight each other on equal
terms', the state
should take care of the personal and communal well-being of all individuals,
so as to
liberate them once and for all from agonising uncertainty and fear of the
future which
competition inevitably brings about. only such a state 'will put an end to
the gnawing
worm of perpetual inquietude, whether throughout society as a whole, or
privately within
each of us, about what tomorrow will bring, or at least what next year will
bring, for our
old age, for our children and for their children.' Babeuf's was the call
for a welfare state,
made on behalf of those who in the zero-sum game of competition expected to
be the
losers."
on Rosseau: (p 46)
"'the consuming ambition, the ardour o raise one's relative fortune',
russeau wrote in his
Discourse on the Origin of Inequality among Man (1755), 'is dues less to
genuine need
than a desire to stand out from the others.' needs are 'natural', human
relations are
artifical; as such they can be changed' and when changed appropriately they
will remove
the only motive for the human pursuit of wealth and thus return man to the
'natural' state
of happiness founded on the satisfaction of his genuine needs.
A man, happy yesterday, becomes poor and so deprived today; he beomes poor
'without
losing anything. Because as everything changed around him, he himself did
not change
at all.' For the sake of these decent, modest men, one has to put some
brakes upon
change."
on socialist counter-culture: p 47
"the notion of a'counter-culture' contains a dialectical and conflict-ridden
unity of
continuity and rejection. to be a counter-culture, a system of beliefs and
postulates must
engage in a significant polemic with the dominant culture, must question it,
so to speak,
in its own words, and to do so must speak essentially the same language in
order to make
the dialogue comprehensible. These conditions were fully met by the
socialist utopia in
relation to the dominant liberal-bourgeois utopia."
Bauman in conclusion: (p 48)
"It seems that the notorious convolutions of the political history of
socialism were to a
large extent contained already in this equivocal, dialectical relation
between the
bourgeois and the socialist utopias. the socialist utopia could present
itself as a genuine
substitute for the bourgeois way of dealing with the issues of modernity, or
as a further
stage into which the previous stages smoothly and imperceptibly merge."
Chapter Four - The Structure of the Socialist Utopia
Bauman uses Wittegenstein, seeking to reject economistic or 'essential'
bases to socialism....
p 49 "One cannot help invoking Wittgenstein's analysis of 'essences': what
do all games
have in common? Are they not rather objects scaterred all over a broad
canvas in such a
way that each object shares some traits with each of its neighbours but
shares with each
of them a different feature? Having noted Wittgenstein's warning it seems
well to avoid a
futile attempt to extricate a common essence from all members of the
historically
produced family of socialist teachings, and in particular to avoid the
temptation to reduce
socialism as a historical phenomenon to a specific blueprint of an
alternative society
whose features are recognisable at first sight."
Yes - but this is not to say that here are not interpretations of socialism
worth fighting
for: socialism, like many other categories, movements etc will always be
contested
ground, and some interpretations are better than others. Furthermore, there
are certain
features most - if not all - socialisms do tend to have in common - ie:
rejection of crude
individualism, some sense of social solidarity - but yes, these are fairly
rudimentary. the
'nuts and bolts' of different interpretations have been worked out
historically: but it is
also worth noting that we are kidding ourselves if we imagine we can easily
'break' with
our own history.... ALSO - for me at least, the most worthy aspects of
socialism spring
from an intuitive ethic of being with, and being for the Other. This
intutive striving for
the Other can be seen at the 'heart' of much of the socialist project -
whether or not this
is in fact recognised.
different definitions of socialism:
pp 49-50 Durkheim "faced with the necessity of discussing socialism as a
'thing'
[argued] "We denote as socialist every doctrine which demands the
connection of all
economic factors, or of certain among them, which are at the present time
diffuse, to the
directing and concious centres of society." Shumpeter: "By socialist
society we shall
designate an institutional pattern in which the control over means of
production itself is
vested with a central authority - or, as we may say, in which, as a matter
of principle, the
economic affairs of society belong to the public and not to the private
sphere."
Bauman is critical of what he sees as a view that supposes socialism is a
phenomenon
which "stands or falls by the structure of economic relations..."
"their authors obviously wish to define socialism by reference to the
structure of the
system which socialists propose to institute, rather than the structure of
socialism itself,
as a body of beliefs and attitudes in its own right."
fair criticism - socialism needs ethical foundations I believe - otherwise
it is nothing but
a 'blueprint' - as opposed to a guiding light for human action: however -
certainly this IS
addressed in Marx, and in the work of ethical socialists in differing ways?
Also: this is
not to say that the economy is unimportant! (which seems to be the
suggestion often
enough....)
p 51: "the critics of injustice began to look beyond the implementation
of the capitalist
utopia of unrestrained freedom."
Bauman's practical socialism looks increasingly like the welfare state - a
socialism
which defends the rights of the underclass to dignity - why, however, shy
away from a
more radical project?
p 53 Two concepts of freedom
"Freedom to live a full and authentic life involves, among other things,
freedom to rise
above the level of others and to influence their behaviour, since life is
always lived with
and amongst others. And individual cannot therefore conclude that he is
genuinely free if
he is prevented from extending his freedom so as to impinge on the similar
intentions of
the others. the fuller the freedom, the greater the sacrifice of equality."
on the other hand...
p 53 "There was a pronounced tendency within socialist thought, though not
necessarily
a universal one, to reinterpret freedom as a predicate of the community
rather than of the
individual. In ancient Greek political thought, freedom was often
understood as the
ability of the polis to settle its own affairs without outside interference;
the conflict
between individual and collective freedom was not looked upon as an eternal
human
predicament, as it was to be much later. The conflict was largely prevented
by the direct,
almost unreflective and natural partcipation of the individual in the polis.
The memory
of this situation returns time and time again in the modern socialist
utopia; socialism
pretends to be about enhancing the power - the positive freedom - of the
community, and
thereby of each community member; it assumes that a erally free community
can afford
well-nigh unlimited personal freedom of its members, and that this personal
freedom
afforded to everybody is a necessary condition of freedom for the community
as a
whole."
hence we have two conceptions of freedom: one narrow - 'freedom to' -
including
freedom to exploit, oppress and 'freedom from' as in 'freedom from
responsibility or
care' The other, as indicated, is about POSITIVE freedom, empowering
freedom. A
freedom which refers to peoples capacity for personal & and social
development, as
well as the capacity to collectively determine their own lives. It might
also be sugested
that this necessarily emphasises the responsibility of care as an important
foundation of
such freedoms. As always, our conceptions of freedom are contextual.
Bauman identifies two distinct schools of socialist thought
p 55 1) one - decentralist and libertarian - he associates with Proudhon;
the idea of
"justice and equity from the bottom up, through the spontaneous, elemental
activity of
individuals freed from all shackles of dependancy and submission. All
regulation from
above will tend to distort the individual's natural inclination to
'mutuality' butressed on
egalitarian justice. It seems that these socialist utopians never reached
in their
imagination beyond the level of the Gemeinschaft-like community."
These people people in the modesty of human needs, and opposed centralism,
statism the
idea of a 'supra-community' govt.
2) the second he associates with Karl Marx and Louis Blanc - that which saw
"in the powerful machinery of the state the only lever of social justice.
The power of the
privileged must be crushed by an equally strong power, and the weak can
acquire such
power only be 'constituting themselves into a government.'
Bauman argues that this is associated with the view that "modern technology
and
organisation are firmly set on integrating people on a higher societal
scale, and that the
process has already reached the point of no return."
p 57 Bauman connects the second conception of socialism to Friedrich Engels
who
believed that while capitalism produced its own gravediggers, it also
provided to
material basis upon which socialism could be built. He criticises both
currents, however,
for failing to address the problems that a victorious socialist economy
might encounter.
This is of special importance, for who today is willing to accept blindly
the notion that
'socialism will deliver the goods' when historical experience sugegsts
otherwise? He
argues that,
"The second current, clearly overstimating capitalism's productive capacity
and
underestimating its ability to produce new needs at a faster rate than new
goods, leaves it
to the capitalist predecessor to render the economy unproblematic by making
the dreams
of abundance come true."
As I have considered elsewhere, this must necessarily call some of
socialism's more
ambitious suppositions into question - for questions of 'abundance' and
'need' are as
closely links to the problems of modernity as those of capitalism. Such
circumstances
call for a socialism that is perhaps even more critical, but which is also
more modest in
its pretensions.
Socialism, History, Teleology and Human Will
Finally, for Ch 4, Bauman examines the socialist treatment of teleology in
History, and
as he put it "The antimony between history as a lawful process, and creative
action."
pp 60-61 Kant & Hegel
"Kant formulated the idea, later to be turned into a major pivot of the
Hegelian system,
that the destiny of the human race is to move consistently toward a crowning
idea, and
that according to 'The Plan of Providence', men have to direct their
exertions to this end."
"The idea appears again, on a much grander scale, in Hegel. The Spirit
envelops history
through the actions of nations; nations are immanent in the historical
process but unfree;
the Spirit is free, but transcendent. It is enough to substitute the
informed conciousness,
founded (according to nineteenth century standards) on scientific analysis,
for the
metaphysical Spirit, and oppressed classes for nations, to move into the
very midst of the
third dilemma of the socialist utopia." Indeed, this is what Marx - and to
an even greater
extent Engels, do.
p 62 Bauman then interperets Marx as promoting an idea of "historically
determined
freedom from history" by which the increasingly transperent naure of social
conflict and
the increasing capacity for reflection and recognition of this offer for the
first time the
possibility that people may seize control of their own history. (even if
not under
conditions of their own choosing)
p 63 According to Bauman, the Marxist view of historical telology is,
however,
problematic in that
a) it is interpereted by some in an overly determinist fashion (ie:
historical inevitability)
- a view which has acted to discourage political action and initiative
b) even where human action is integrated as a central component of this
teleology it does
not resolve the contradiction between the 'assumption of open-endedness' and
the
tendency to 'emperically close' the realm of possibility by 'unveiling its
historical
determinants'.
I would suggest that the truth is somewhere in-between - indeed, agree, that
people make
their own history, but not under conditions of their own choosing. Even
here - not under
conditions of our own choosing, the breadth of the 'realm of possibility' is
indeed great,
and I do not see any necessary contradiction between historical materialism
and human
will.
Chapter Five: Utopia and Commonsense
Here Bauman emphasises the importance of Gramsci in mediating the
problems and contradictions identified in the previous Chapter.
p 65 Bauman identifies the questions of teleology, history and human will
and being of
central importance, highlighting the predicament of a socialism,
"caught between suicidal adventurism on the one side and no less suicidal
compromise
with 'realism' on the other."
He identifies Gramsci's model of the 'historic bloc': "the match between a
particular
social structure, seen above all as the network of economic dependencies,
and political
'superstructure'." Here Gramsci "ascribes the vital role in sustaining the
historical bloc to
'civil society', which he, in apparent opposition to Marx's elaboration of
this Hegelian
term, regards as a vital constituent of the superstructure rather than the
structure itself.
According to Gramsci, civil society comprises the sphere of ideology and is
operated
mostly by intellectuals; it sustains the conditions of a specific class rule
and the everyday,
habitual behviour of the bulk of society, by securing their reciprocal
sustaining and
reinvigoration."
(of course, we might even go so far as to question the accuracy of the
'structure/superstructure' opposition: after all - although not necessarily
its analytical
usefulness. Also: in Gramsci's sense, 'intellectual' has a far broader
meaning than the
current accepted common usage - also being split into 'traditional' and
'organic'
intellectuals)
Gramsci's analysis hence undermines crudely statist versons of socialism
which depend
overwhelmingly on state power as the most important 'lever of change',
exposing the
role of intellectuals, the institutions of civil society etc of maintaining
a consensus of
'commonsense' which, unltimately, is by far the most effective impediment to
change.
Nevertheless, it is worth remembering the key role the state has played even
in instances
where counter-hegemonic historic-blocs have promised lasting change: eg:
Chile 1973,
Australia 1975
Gramsci's own explanation is as follows:
"the equilibrium between political society... (ie: dictatorship or some
other coercive
apparatus used to control the masses in conformity with a given type of
production and
economy).... and civil society (or the hegemony of a social group over the
entire nation
exercised through so called private organisations such as the church, the
unions, the
schools, etc)" (Gramsci in Adamson p 165)
Bauman notes that while Gramsci made an exception in the case of Russia
where civil
society had just about collapsed (warranting a 'war of movement'
intitially, before any
'war of position'), in Western societies "civil society is the decisive
battlefield between
capitalism and socialism." (p 67) Here co-option of potentially
counter-hegemonic
intellectuals and elites is of great importance. (eg: practice as opposed
to theory of the
Accord) By (p 70), Bauman is criticising the means by which social
democracy, "far
from having destroyed the bourgeois-inspired commonsense.. [seems[.. to
[dissolve].. the
originally intransigent socialist utopia... 'taming' socialism, blunting
its cutting edge,
transforming the very term into a household word used to describe a limited,
'economic
corporative interest." Then, by (p 71), he argues, "This contradiction
between the
utopian thrust and the recalcitrant 'actuality' institutionalising and
effectively protecting
the former telos, should be seen as the most embarrassing antinomy of all
those which
have haunted modern socialism..."
p 69 Bauman explores Kautsky's opinion, endorsed by Lenin, that socialist
conciousness
must be "introduced into the proletarian struggle from without, and not
something which
[arises] out of it spontaneously." On this reckoning, the progressive
elements of the
bourgeoisie and the petit-bourgeoisie introduce socialism, because it is
only they who
have the capacity for "profound scientific knowledge."
Hence "the workers.. must be taught, and their teachers are intellectuals."
This is only partly true.... depending on your understanding of socialist
conciousness. If
by 'socialist conciousness' you mean a thorough understanding of Marxist
dialectics etc -
then yes - there was some reason to believe this... although in modern
Western societies
education is hardly limited to the upper classes, and the process might be
seen as having
been released from crudely class-based constraints. Here socialist
conciousness might
still be the forte of intellectuals, but those intellectuals may themselves
be working class.
Alternatively, you might reject this reasoning altogether because of its
narrow
understanding of 'socialist conciousness' - surely an intuitive striving to
be for and with
the Other is in itself a form of socialist conciousness which finds
expression in everyday
life? And surely people, workers, citizens etc do learn through struggle?
Otherwise we
may as well forget all about dialectics!
Nevertheless, this is not to say that intellectuals do not play a key role
in helping to make
sense of struggle, and to promote a coherent, politically applicable form of
socialist
conciousness? Surely also there is the potential that where a sufficiently
robust counter-
hegemony exists sharp distinctions between intellectuals and the proletariat
may become
blurred? This, I imagine, may be an ideal we ought work towards.
This Chapter concludes with the observation,
"Capitalism, so Marx hoped, would tame nature; socialism would transform
society from
a natural-like, blind and intractable 'over there', into a concious process
of historical
creativity. To put it briefly, Marxist socialism was not about the
management of the
economy, and not even about the forms of ownership, but about the activity
of the
masses. This essence of Marxist socialism,which has since been lost in the
bureacratised, administered practice of Western socialism and communism - so
it can be
argued - was grasped by Lenin and his associates; but onlyto be applied in
conditions to
which, according to Marx, it was utterly inapplicable." (p 76)
Chapter Six - A Socialist Experiment
This Chapter refers to the experience of Bolshevism and the tragic
struggle for socialism in Russia.
Bauman discusses the historical circumstances of the Russian Revolution:
including the
preponderance of the peasantry, industrial backwardness - and makes it clear
that on
Marx's terms, Russia was not ready for true freedom. (ie "The realm of
freedom actually
begins only when labour, conditioned by need and external necessity, ceases,
therefore,
in the nature of the case, it lies beyond the sphere of particular
production." (Marx in
Bauman from Capital (vol 3), p 80)
In this sense freedom is found only outside of labour.... partly
convincing: but what of
creative work? Also: is it at all feasible that there be a point 'beyond
work'? This is,
once again, an enduring problem of modernity as well as capitalism. In
light of these
debates, many socialists have attached special importance to the struggle
for reduced
working hours - but it might be added that provision of opportunities for
individual and
social development would need to accompany this....
p 84
Anyway - I digress - Bauman continues, critiquing the supression of
civil-society in early
Soviet Russia. As he puts it, "the possibility of a civil society growing
from the 'grass
roots' level was cut off." "The vehement debate waged by the party
intellectuals was
incomprehensible to something like 90% of the population." Peasant
involvement in the
Party was limited (one in every 600 was a Party member as opposed to one in
40 manual
& white collar workers), due largely to the view that "the peasantry is in,
but not of, the
socialist state.... it appears.. only as an object, as a problem to be
solved."
Bauman then describes how such problems intensified under Stalin
p 85
"The political state now assumed complete, unqualified monopoly of systemic
integration; abandoning (or deliberately renouncing) all hopes of the
assistance which a
closely-knit, full-blooded civil society might eventually offer, the state
settled for a
purely political, that is, coercive, means of sustaining the system."
In effect, the Party - and the bureacracy - substituted itself for the
self-activity of the
working class, and in the process decisively cut short the Utopian horizon,
and the
potential for critical as well as creative activity. ( pp 86-90)
Nevetheless, the
conditions for a vibrant civil society did not exist - although some - such
as Bukharin -
argued for a less extreme course which might have been more fruitful -
presuming Nazi
Germany did not over-run an insufficiently industrialised Soviet Union.
p 90
"What, in fact, took place in the Soviet Union was a modernising
revolution,complete
with industrialisation and urbanisation, nation-building, construction of a
modern state
towering over vast domains of public life, ruled by a narrow minority, with
the masses
engaged in their habitual everyday routine and rarely transcending the
confines of
commonsense."
p 91
further analysis:
"It is no longer a utopia situated on the other side of the
industrialisation process, which
socialism originally abandoned to the mercy (or, rather, to the
mercilessness) of
bourgeois domination. On the contrary, it is now a utopia of
industrialisation as such; a
capitalist utopia with no room for capitalists, a bourgeois utopia in which
private tycoons
of entrepreneurship have been replaced by the grey, smart conformity of the
bureaucratic
octopus, and risky initiative by secure discipline."
pp 99-100
"In Deutscher's words again, 'the revolution in a precapitalist society,
which nevertheless
aspired to achieve socialism, produced a hybrid which in many respects
looked like a
parody of socialism.... The Russian revolution has acted as a deterrent to
revolution in
the West."
"The power of socialism, as we saw before, consisted in its status as the
counter-culture
of capitalism, and in its role as a thoroughly critical utopia, exposing the
historical
relativity of capitalist values, laying bare their historical limitations,
and thereby
preventing them from freezing into an horizon-less commonsense. The
ideology adopted
by the Soviety system and then fed back into the capitalist world with all
the initial
authority of the 'first socialist country' was, on the plane of essential
values and ethical
system, a complete reversal of these premises. The transient bourgeois
values of progress
measured by the number of factory chimneys, work discipline, puritan
morality, were
portrayed as universal laws of historicak development and attributes of
ultimate human
perfection. The Soviet system came to measure its own perfection and itsown
progress in
the 'building of socialism' with the help of the bourgeois measuring rod.
At the same
time it joined forces with the most conservative bourgeois counter-utopia in
denouncing
the aim of dis-alienation and the popular demand for control, which had
constituted the
uniqueness of the socialist utopia. In consequence, to the extent that the
Soviet system
was successful in influencing the frame of mind of the socialist forces in
the West, it
strengthened the grip of the bourgeois hegemony over commonsense."
Bauman also questions the Soviet model's reliance on the state. I have
already put
arguements as to why I believe the state ought not therefore be neglected -
even although
overdependance ought be avoided. It also needs to be remembered that the
Soviet Union
did not really have much choice but to compete with capitalism laregly on
its own terms -
exactly because it was in competition. We might refer to this as state
capitalism, a
hybrid system, degenerated workers state - whatever - but the historical
considerations
are quite plain. This does not , however, justify using the 'bourgeois
measuring rod':
which effectively erases utopian hope and vision.
Chapter Seven: Socialism as Culture
p 103
In this chapter Bauman continues to criticise the historical tendency of
Soviet 'socialism'
to "reduce the case against capitalism to that of alleged inefficiency",
"the broad
humanistic ambitions originally attached to the idea of common ownership
[having]
gradually been shelved." BUT, as he argues "Unless attacked at its roots
the hegemonic
capitalist culture demonstrates an enormous survival capacity, which Marx
failed to
appreciate." Alternatively, he suggests, Grmasci sounded "the toscin of
cultural
revolution."
p 105
Aristolian distinction btwn 'telo' and 'nomos' - first being 'what ought to
be' - 'repressed
and hidden potential' - the second being the external force which bars this.
Bauman goes
on from this to argue that while Captial makes good arguments as to why
capitalism may
collapse under the weight of its own contradictions, "it hardly makes a
convincing case
for the necessity of human freedom establishing itself as an uncontested
factor of human
history, or of the 'active man' doing away with the shackles of alienated
institutions. On
the contrary, one learns from Capital that alienation is a self-perpetuating
process and
that the only necessity it creates is.. for the individual to surrender of
perish."
IMPORTANTLY, for understanding the necessarily relatively modest nature of
realisable
socialist claims:
p 107: "To be sure there is still a wide gap between socialist demands and
willing or
grudging capitalist concessions; and no welfare state can bring social
equality anywhere
near the socialist ideal. But the gap has been narrowed to the point at
which one can see
from one coast clear outlines of the other; and what one see is much less
inspiring than
one used to hope."
p 108: but then, difficultly: "The socialist utopia has brought
contemprary society as far
as possible while acting within the framework circumscribed by hwat has come
to be
known as the industrial society. The next step, if there is one, will lead
into the great
Unknown."
'If there is one' seems appropriate here - for there is no indication that
we are truly ready
to move beyond the industrial society. (unless you're a believer in
post-industrial
capitalist utopias) Indeed, the very real - even if limited - social
democratic 'utopia' of
the welfare state, publicly owned industries etc: is in the midst of
decline. Saving,
extending and democratising what's left may be the only immediate strategty
available.
This may be a disappointment for some, but for others it is the most
pressing for the very
quality of their lives. Of course, none of this is to say that we abandon
our more
radically utopian aspiration: but we must urgently grapple with the world
around us as it
is - not only as we would like it to be.
Hence Marcuse was correct when he suggested (quoted in Bauman p 110)
"What is at stake in the socialist revolution is not merely the extension of
satisfaction
within the existing universe of needs.... The revolution involves a radical
transformation
of the needs and aspirations themselves, cultural as well as material; of
conciousness and
sensibility; of the work process as well as leisure. This transformation
appears in the
fight against the fragmentation of work, the necessity and productivity of
stupid
performances and stupid merchandise, against the acquisitive bourgeois
individualm
against servitude in the guise of technology, deprivation is the guise of
the good life,
against pollution as a way of life."
But at the same time, we need to recognise our own complicity in consumer
culture: to
recognise that in ways we actually enjoy this: indeed - perhaps given the
choice, and the
opportunity to reflect upon their condition, ordinary people would not
reject consumer
culture out-of-hand. Hence we must also be ready with less radical visions
of change:
to be sure, visions that seek to do away with exploitation and poverty, but
also which
while seeking to do away with alienation, also recognise that many are
paradoxically 'at
home' in their alienated state. This suggests perhaps a greatly reduced
role for the
market - not necessarily its elimination per se. If there is a point'
beyond' what we can
currently envisage, then perhps one day we will transcend this state: but
except in
limited way (ie: alternative lifestyles etc), it is beyond our reach - it
is a message which
does not at all resonate with most peoples everyday hopes, experiences,
desires....
Hence in this chapter, Bauman has throroughly explored the gap between
socialist
promise and necessary socialist practice.
Chapter Eight: Continuity and Change
Yet more criticsms of social democracy: the reduction of socialism to
another way of
managing captialism. Hence, quoting Anderson,
"To salvage the continuity of the utopia, one has to deny the continuity of
practice which
the utopia inspired; practical accomplishments, allegedly sprouting from
socialist
intentions, in fact distorted their genuine meaning. The abolition of the
property bases of
exploitation turned into providing a cheap infrastructure for private
enterprise, into
shifting the burden of keeping private enterprise alive on the shoulders of
the people, into
'socialisation of losses'."
But, Bauman still insists that there is continuity with change. Hence
Bauman insists in
the ongoing concern with 'socialisation of happiness - a opposed to
privatisation of
happiness', solutions collective sufferings to be found in the totality of
human social
relations - p 116 - "a positive attitude toward the societal whole.. based
on 'active co-
operation and mutual complementation."
He then talks of socialism as aiming to eliminate 'surplus repression'. (pp
122-123)
(ie: elimination of struggle, of conflict: a deadening of hopes and
aspirations - eg: the
practice of corporatism)
and in conclusion (p 132)
"Deprived... of their individuality, men and women eagerly lend their ears
to the
promises of the monotonous predictability of the rationally prorammed
society, which,
upon closer scrutiny, turns out to be a recipe for totalitarianism.
Commonsense is,
indeed, and escape from freedom; but to look for this sort of retreat, men
had first to be
forced into a situation in which freedom is available only in onjunction
with terror or
impotence. We have now enough historical evidence to suspect that such
situation is
generated by capitalist conditions with no more intensity than it is by the
traditional
(read: Stalinist) socialist treatment of their ills."
Chapter Nine: Roads from Utopia
Bauman finishes more or less where he began, criticising determinist,
positivistic view of
history and of socialism as being in of themselves are form of alienation.
(ie: from one's
creative powers, one's ability to act wilfully and conciousness to shape
society as one
sees fit, to CHOOSE socialism, rather than to 'fall into it' out of
necessity.)
"the old utopia.. will.. charge [the new, radical utopia] with adventurism,
ingnorance,
reason-defying utopian voluntarism.. etc."
Bauman appears to be advocating the radical utopia: which may in part be
commended
for breaking free of the corporatist/Stalinist bind - but the above
criticisms are not
without teeth. Hence, while I would hope for and argue for a more radical
utopia, here
and now I would struggle for the limited utopia of the welfare state, of
social democracy,
of strategic capital democratisation... But this 'limited' approach would
not be all-
containing: certain environmental demands (imperatives even!) necessary
test
capitalism's logic, structure and priorities to their limits. Increasingly,
in such cases, we
have no option BUT to be radically utopian if we really want to make a
difference.
Recognising the need for such contestation: such cultural struggle: is
Bauman's strongest
point against corporatism/Stalinism. It is a point we cannot truly afford
to ignore.
Alex Chaihorsky wrote in message <9dc31k$p...@freepress.concentric.net>...
Alex Chaihorsky
1. I never called you Satanist, please, do not put the words in my mouth. I
said I think your faith is superficial. There is a difference.
2. There are people who build bridges, roads, make space travel possible,
invent cures, teach children, - make society work.. And there are people who
claim that they know how to make society work better - socialists,
communists. Every time they try - millions are dead, industries destroyed,
people ready to ran away, corruption is rampant. Then they have to be bailed
out, population saved by capitalist neighbors, fed, clothed, humanitarian
aid, money to dispose of their crazy nuclear experiments, money for schools,
support their science and culture, etc.
But despite this - all these socialists and communists still want another
chance. And another. And another.
But your trials are up. Done, gone. The glass is empty. The bloody fun is
over. You have been left with zero credibility and only can survive in
protected environment within prosperous capitalistic societies, as a
curiosity, albeit a dangerous one.
Why should I read yet another crybaby socialist diatribe?
"Oh-give us another chance, oh, we want power so much, we will be good boys
now, no concentration camps, no forced labor, no millions of dead bodies,
please, please, please..."
Nope. Not a chance. Not a glimpse. Not a speck.
And thank your justice systems that they, unlike Marxist class justice that
you like so much, will not hold you responsible for the deeds of your
ideology. Which is right and proper way to dispense justice. But sometimes
it is so tempting to give you a bit of your own medicine...
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
"tewins" <tew...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:CXmK6.23306$482.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
tewins
Alex Chaihorsky wrote in message <9ddh0c$s...@dispatch.concentric.net>...
>Sir,
>
>1. I never called you Satanist, please, do not put the words in my mouth. I
>said I think your faith is superficial. There is a difference.
Actually, you called me a 'devil worshipper' - if you go back through your
responses this will be confirmed. I don't see upon what you base your
notion that my faith is 'superficial' either. You are being deeply
insulting and arbitrarily judgemental. You claim that you are not
judgemental. Well, if this is so, then take back your 'judgement' and
apologise for your accusations. It is one thing for you to denounce my
opinions. It is another to slur a person's character so viciously. If you
have any decency, youw ill retract and apologise. You will not accept that
there is a redeeming feature or individual within a socialist tradition that
is extraordinarily broad, and which has run for about 200 years. I have
provided every argument and reference I could to encourage you to open your
mind - but in the end you are unable to distinguish between Stalin on the
one hand, and the likes of Meidner, Kollontai, Garaudy - even Leon Blum or
Stuart Holland. As a left winger, it would be the equivalent if, say, I was
unable to make any distinction between Burke and Hitler. But nothing I say
will prompt you to open you mind - even in the slightest. I even
included Bauman's condemnation of Jacobinsim - I doubt you even read it, and
if you did, your mind would grapple with it in the same fashion a person
might, say, try to place a square into a round hole. I give up on making
the slightest impression on you in this respect - although I would ONCE
AGAIN urge you to read 'But the Dead are Many' by Frank Hardy. Perhaps, at
least then, that would help you understand me. I will give you a quote from
the conlusion of the book - perhaps it will encourage you to seek it out:
This includes quotes from the suicide note of John Morel, the central
character of Hardy's story:
"You may feel that I have let the side down in the inner-Party struggle.....
hard liners may take solace from the manner of my death.... They will say
that my opposition was born of ideological doubts and religious hangups.
Not to worry, Jack. I will answer them........."
"A process of change is at work in the Communist movement..... within me and
in the memory of me which they cannot reverse...'
As John continued I could not sustain my sense of scientific detachment.
"The inner-Party struggle.... will be decided historically. We should stop
thinking about ideology, economics and politics and seek to understand the
purpose of life and the meaning of death".......
"Suicide is a man's attempt to give final human meaning to a life which has
become humanly meaningless... "Love does not cling to the I in such a way
as to have the Thou only for its 'content', its 'object'; but love is
between I and Thou. The man who does not know this with his very being,
does not know love; even though he ascribes to it the feelings he lives
through, experiences, enjoys and expresses."
"You often asked where we went wrong, Jack. Well, we failed to confront
each other as Thou. Our mission required us to see everything and everyone
in relation to our particular Cause, that is, we had no real relation with,
or present realisation of, a Thou - everyone about us became an It; serving
our particular Cause. In other words, people we associated with became
Its instead of Thous. Whereas in ideal love, the Thou is one with the I: I
am Thou to others; others are Thou to me; and we are one."
"Confrontation with the dreadful truth that a man might wisely choose death
is (or I hope will be in your case) an experience more productive of pity
and terror and more purifying than the cathartic experience in tragedy.
"For only out of the most profound feeling of pity and terror can you
transcend your limitations and fulfill your literary and human potential -
and pay your debt to me."
"The divine drummer declares that when he rises with the dawn he will sound
his drums for you in the morning very, very early,,,,, and you will
understand."
"I will take my epoch upon my shoulders and I will answer for it this day
and forever. And this book is not the answer; it is a fugue blemished was
false notes and imperfect cadences, discordant and unresolved like the
flight that inspired it.
John Morel has given his answer. But he sees it as incomplete until I have
given my answer. We each sowed the golden seedlings of Utopianism and
reaped the black harvest of tragedy... an experience more inductive of pity
and fear than the cathartic experience in tragedy."
"The cover of the book fills the room and there is only a body hanging and I
am running and my steps are leaden and my trousers are falling down and
people point and laugh at me and I shout at them:
You who will rise up out of the flood into which we have gone under think
too when you speak of our weakness and the dark time from which you have
escaped."
"I am coming, coming very early..... and the shoreline is close to me and
John hanging close to me, his mouth agape like a strangled bird, saying if I
must die what am I dying for... suppose I do not die, by some miracle I
remain alive what for?"
"I am floating on a wave to the shore. Then I am running to the dreadful
function where all the roads meet and John is hanging there and he is
speaking to me. I cried for help and you did nor listen, you did not know
how, too late to listen now."
"And when I looked up, his legs were still, his arms lolling, his eyes
bulging from their sockets, his mouth slammed shut like a trap door.
Rat-it-a-tat: the train wheels are rattling on the rails and I am falling
from the train, falling, falling. It is only the falling dream; the hedge
will break my fall and the lush green leaves will caress my face."
tewins
right-wing client states - which I would like to hear you explain to the
families of those thousands who died: shot, limbs and heads severed with
machettes, left for the dogs in the street as a 'warning' to others. And
perhaps you might also try explaining yourself to the clerics of Central
Amercia: perhaps to the family of Archbishop Romero, who was assassinated by
the El Salvadorean US client state for defending the poor. I take
responsibility for my politics - and they are those of civil liberties and
full human emancipation - NOT Stalinism. Likewise, may you take
responsibility for you politics - and for for millions of deaths you have
deemed 'necessary' in the 'realipolitik' struggle against Communism.
~~~i LeoNid ~~
<tew...@bigpond.com> planted &I saw in alt.conspiracy:
>Dear Leo,
>
give up
>on God - the only one who might possibly make me Whole again - and let me
>choose my Path - whatever path I choose. If the Tree of Life is brought
>down, has God the Power to restore it? That is the central question.
>
Good for you that belive...if U do:) I wish I'd be educated less to belive
too (not just to express it:)
>
>>>>like two different persons wrote these, and some other of you_named
>>>>posts:). Try to be youself, whatever you are, and what (G*d constructed)
>
>I read once that the human spirit is like an onion - layer upon layer, and
>not comprised of a unified mind.
Interesting comparison. From the 'ChippoLino' tale? I guess - most of us
has passed through the `Jesuit´ colledge of life at some extent. I hope, I
didn't became fully blown one, though, like U?:)
[the rest of 'curved mirror reflection' skipped :-]
>Whatever, 'moshiah' means (mockery of 'messiah?' - no, it has nothing to do
You are right. This is exactly 'nessiah' - in Hebrew, not mockery. But you
may interpret my intentions any way you like. I neither require, nor give
apologies. And if there IS something serious (and not 'jailable':) - I
prefer - HARD currency, as a compensation:)
>might find someone who could show you the Path to Healing: by which the Tree
Hillary, I don't seek:)
>this is the central question: do you believe God extends His hand to all
>humanity or not? If this is not true, then there cannot be any hope.
>
I - clearly - don't. (re-read my ´confessions´ :) And since the G0d
doesn't exist, the question has no meaning. But the justice - in ideal -
IS objective. With this - Peeeeaaaace To Your Home.
>
>regards,
>
Remark: I don't want to intentionaly hurt somebody's feelings/believes,
but am not ready to give up my rights for expressions (And non-existence
of G0D - as a being, is NOT a belief, but truth)
>
>tewins
>
i Leonid.
Alex Chaihorsky
people - they were in our Universities, schools, etc. These were
brain-washed, uneducated, radical Marxists lead by Russian-paid
international Communists like Volodja Tannenbaum.
Pinochet, as opposed to you, knew what would happen when USSR-supported
Communists of Chile would take full control.
Was he brutal? Thanks G-d, yes. Is Chile now much better off then before -
you bet. And - later he dropped out of politics and let civilians to run the
country.
I have friends in Chile, both local and Americans and Brits who work there -
as you know with exception of Communists who ran away, Chileans are very
pro-Pinochet.
I hate it when blood runs on the streets, but if the choice is between them
establishing yet another Communist regime or common folk defending human
rights and dignity - Civil Wars may be the only option, as it was in the US
over slavery.
Families of thousands who died deserve as much compassion a families of NKVD
officers, Nazi soldiers, Vietcong soldiers who perished, etc. All these
people were brainwashed and made into blind tools of Marxist and Hitler
bastards. They saw what was going on, but preferred to look the other way.
We regret their deaths, but they left no other choice.
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
"tewins" <tew...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:UBwK6.23758$482.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Alex Chaihorsky
Try not to get into pathetic mode with all these "If you have any decency,
youw ill retract and apologise".
judge of that.
If I do not have any decency - do not answer my post.
That is how easy this is.
BTW, its not only Pinochet - I believe that Senator McCarthy is a real
American hero.
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
"tewins" <tew...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:JqwK6.23745$482.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Khab
Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> Pinochet was defending his couture against Communist dogs. I knew these
> people - they were in our Universities, schools, etc. These were
> brain-washed, uneducated, radical Marxists lead by Russian-paid
> international Communists like Volodja Tannenbaum.
> Pinochet, as opposed to you, knew what would happen when USSR-supported
> Communists of Chile would take full control.
> Was he brutal? Thanks G-d, yes. Is Chile now much better off then before -
> you bet. And - later he dropped out of politics and let civilians to run the
> country.
> I have friends in Chile, both local and Americans and Brits who work there -
> as you know with exception of Communists who ran away, Chileans are very
> pro-Pinochet.
Yes, I'm sure the ordinary Chileans are so fond of the U.S.-backed dictator who
overthrew Allende's government, i.e. the elected government.
"In 1974, Murielita Navarrete, a twenty-two year-old Chilean activist,
vanished. The authorities removed every trace of her institutional life: birth
certificate, school or university reports, hospital records, driver's livense.
There is also no death certificate - the Pinochetgovernment had, in modern
terminology, _disappeared_ her. Her mother, Ana Maria, and her sister Berenice
searched for her for seven years. Ana Maria was told personally by Pinochet
that she was mistaken: she had born only one daughter. Overcome by illness and
exhaustion, they fled to London where I recorded them. The song was made from
our six-hour conversation. Murielita was never found."
--Peggy Seeger, liner notes to her CD, "Period Pieces"
tewins
Alex Chaihorsky wrote in message <9df5qo$h...@dispatch.concentric.net>...
>Quote me calling you these things and I will see if I reconsider.
>Try not to get into pathetic mode with all these "If you have any decency,
>youw ill retract and apologise".
>If I used more heat than is due - I will apologize. But I alone will be a
>judge of that.
>If I do not have any decency - do not answer my post.
>That is how easy this is.
I will try one last time, Alex. You referred to me as a 'devil worshipper'.
[Begin quote]
Suffer - shmaffer. Who cares? If suffering does not make you a better man -
you have suffered in vain. If you were a better man to begin with - who
needs suffering?
If suffering would have made you a better man you should have abandoned the
Communist/Socialist devil worship. Because only devil requires that much
blood and tears.
[End quote]
I request an apology.
tewins
Did you read this??? If so, do you have a response? Do you have a mind?
Do you have a heart? Are you human?????
Alex Chaihorsky
From the mouth of a Socialist I take that as a compliment. My Granddad was
proclaimed an ENEMY OF THE USSR by Stalin in 1938 and sentenced to death. My
Dad was put in concentration camps as a SON OF THE ENEMY OF THE STATE and
was saved because the war started.
Now, I have an honor to be called the ENEMY OF THE MANKIND by an Australian
Socialist, whose biggest horror in life was a mad kangaroo, who never saw a
dictatorship in his life and the most dangerous thing he ever done is
ordered crocodile stake semi-raw.
I would prefer that coming from a bit less operetta socialist, but I guess I
have to work harder for that.
But thank you , anyway.
I got more than I have ever hoped for from you.
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
"tewins" <tew...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:55LK6.24124$482.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> I don't have double standards, Alex. I asked you to join that tiny,
> pan-ideological minority, who stand against civil liberties abuses without
> exception - and you reply with THIS. A conservative who identifies with
> this tiny minority group is as much my Brother as the socialist who does.
> But you, Alex, are no-one's brother. The person who justifies torture,
> Terror, dismemberment and murder is the ENEMY of MANKIND. Enjoy your
> murderous hypocricy, your close-minded hate, and your complete disregard
for
> life whenever it 'suits your purposes'.
>
>
>
> Alex Chaihorsky wrote in message <9df5gf$o...@dispatch.concentric.net>...
tewins
evidently you haven't been reading my posts properly. If you knew what it
was like to have your soul devoured in agony perhaps you'd understand - but
you haven't even been listening. I take it from you glib dismissal of my
Horror, that surely YOU cannot be a Christian - and if you claim you are,
then you are the grossest hypocrite. You tried to dismiss Tolstoy as
callous - and yet I have recalled horrors to you more awful than most could
comprehend, and your response is glib dismissal: in your words, "Who
cares?".
Stalin was responsible for Terror, mass murder, abuse of state power. He
was an enemy of mankind. Hitler - the same. Pinochet - the same. Suharto,
Somoza - the same. And if you try and justify the Terror and Oppression of
any of these regimes, then it's fair for you to occupy the same category.
And if you don't believe there is such a thing as an 'enemy of mankind' or,
by the same principle, 'crimes against humanity' - then I take it you are
letting the Nazis off the hook.
My grandfather was imprisoned in Changi POW camp after fighting the Japanese
fascists in Singapore. From what he experienced, it would be fair to say
the Japanese Imperial Army was 'the enemy of mankind'. My father was a
refugee from Germany after WWII, and was witness to some of the excesses of
the victorious Soviet Troops. He saw plenty of people killed, others
committing suicide - he was 5 years old. This doesn't mean I'm not glad the
Nazis lost the war - but if you want to boil everything down to 'personal
family history', I have as much reason as you to despise the Soviets. But I
do not boil everything down to family history: I try to step back from this,
and argue for what is ideally right. I do not fall back on past family
tragedies and injustices to avoid thinking openly or critically about the
world, and about ideas TODAY.
And I see that you still have not responded to my excerpts to 'But the Dead
are Many'. It's universal, human plea, would fly against all your
prejudices and caricatures - leaving you groping around trying to 'put a
square into a round hole'. And so you have simply left it - refused to
recognise it. But I will not let you get away with it that easily!!!!
This story reflects the experience of so many idealistic young Communists,
and their destruction by the Stalinist machinery: but YOU want to label
THESE people as 'monsters' TOO!!!! No - it is all too much. Respond to
the excerpt, or have all people reading this exchange draw the inevitable
conclusion that you are a close-minded reactionary, who refuses to engage in
any way with any material that doesn't support his prejudices. Emotional
arguments put aside - that is the judgement readers would be driven to make.
Alex Chaihorsky wrote in message <9dg9dr$c...@dispatch.concentric.net>...
Ray Carney
On Sat, 5 May 2001 11:57:54 +1000, "tewins" <tew...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
>
>>will see that the descendants of Russian Communist Jews are rabidly
>>anti-Communist and pro-individualism and Capitalism.
>>How the American Jewry is still in love with Marxism, is beyond me.
>>
>
>
>
>Because they lived through Vietnam - national guardsmen shooting protestors,
>the demolitition of the 'New Deal' - threadbare safety net as it was, the
>destruction of the nation's economy in an arms race - all to destroy the
>USSR. From your perspective, there's always the trend of rebellion against
>one's parents, but more particularly there's the fact that, until Gorbachev,
>the USSR represented a repressive, bureaucratic state rather than the
>realisation of socialism. The efforts of Khrushev and Gorbachev, however,
>ought to have given people hope. There's also the fact that on its south
>eastern flank the USSR had to deal with nations like Iran for the sake of
>its own security. (look what ended up happening in Afghanistan) This
>disillusioned a lot of Jews. On the other hand, you can point out that a
>lot of the Jewish Marxist tradition in the US stems from Jewish Menshevik
>exiles such as Martov, and Humanists such as Erich Fromm. Such people
>always made clear their projects were different than that of the Stalinists
>anyway. Some of them paid for it with their lives. They have every right
>to be proud of maintaining an alternative, more humanist and liberal version
>of Marxism, and they have every right to keep that tradition alive today and
>in the future.
>
>
Mathew
On 4 May 2001, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
>
> "Che'Gu Maru" <chgu...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
> news:9cv1be$49a$1...@news.hal-pc.org...
> > DAX (and all the other neo-Nazi-wannabe's on UseNet) don't have their
> heads
> > in the sand. Instead, they are buried firmly up their own asses.
> >
> > "tewins" <tew...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > news:4poI6.17380$482....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > > Oh, that's right - it was all a big cospriracy - which must explain why
> > the
> > > 'Jewish Bolsheviks' imprisoned, exiled or killed hundreds of Jewish
> > activist
> > > the the SR, the Mensheviks and their own party. (heavy irony)
> > > Get your head out of the sand.
> >
>
> Calling people neo-Nazis, anti-Semites and using foul language one-liners
> when we do not like their arguments is exactly what is wrong with us today.
> Jews do not have and should not have a monopoly on truth, decency and the
> right to insult their opponents.
> As a Jewish refugee from Russia, I am more concerned that Trotskys, Yakirs,
> Kamnevs, Sverdlovs, etc., will never happen again, that we do not give life
> to monsters like Yagoda (chief NKVD), Yurovski (killer of Nicolas the 2d and
> his family), Kaganovitch, etc.
> Many of Russian Jewish refugees have very different opinions about socialism
> and communism, that were pure theory to Jews in the US and tragic historical
> event for us. My Grandparents were atheist Communists, my parent are atheist
> anti-communists and I am religious anti-Communist, anti-Socialist,
> anti-Marxist and anti-All-Forms-Of-Collectivisms.
> If you would read immigrant papers published in Russian here in the US, you
> will see that the descendants of Russian Communist Jews are rabidly
> anti-Communist and pro-individualism and Capitalism.
> How the American Jewry is still in love with Marxism, is beyond me.
If the American jewery is in love with Marxism then certainly they would
move to places where it exists.You are living in the past,Alexander and
out of touch with today's world.
You are in love with America,but then explain why America does business
with Communist China.China was much worse than Russia.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alexander Chaihorsky
> Reno, NV
>
>
>
>
Mathew
On Fri, 4 May 2001, D Stephen Heersink wrote:
> It's no secret, and Jews are not in pains to keep it under
> wraps, that they have sought messianic deliverance in Marxist doctrine
> and Freudian psychoanalysis.
>
> What will forever remain an enigma is why so many Jews held to
> communist beliefs during and after the Stalinist's purges and pogroms,
> and why they continue to believe the community supersedes all
> individual charism. Admittedly, as "the chosen people" they tend to
> grasp things in terms of collective polity, but most active
> communists, leftists, and other collectivists were hardly practicing
> religious Jews. The communistic salvation and Marxist redemption was
> perceived entirely in a secular view.
Probably the truest form of Communism is the Kibbutz in Israel,but
incoporates some Capitalism in it.
But just as Communism is crumbling,Capitalism will soon too.
>
> As a host of conservative Jews, who once were on the Left,
> have written with candor and honesty, the problem seems that the
> intellectual anti-intellectualism often found among Jewish scholars
> and academics became elitist fodder as "us" vs. "them" in the tug of
> war between communism and conservatism. Irving Kristol and many others
> made the march through the Red Sea and back again, realizing there was
> no promised land "there." Still, the titularly Jewish Marx and Freud,
> often debasing their own religious heritage, became cultural pariahs
> for intellectual Jews in search of the missing messiah.
>
> ________________________
> D. Stephen Heersink
> San Francisco
> dsh...@worldnet.att.net
>
>
Alex Chaihorsky
> I've already told you what the greatest horror of my life was - but
> evidently you haven't been reading my posts properly. If you knew what it
> was like to have your soul devoured in agony perhaps you'd understand -
but
> you haven't even been listening. I take it from you glib dismissal of my
> Horror, that surely YOU cannot be a Christian - and if you claim you are,
> then you are the grossest hypocrite. You tried to dismiss Tolstoy as
> callous - and yet I have recalled horrors to you more awful than most
could
> comprehend, and your response is glib dismissal: in your words, "Who
> cares?".
>
It was you who never paid attention.. I am a Jew and stated that many times.
I understand that you are taking upon yourself now the task of defining who
can and who cannot be a Christian. So, to be a Chrustian, one does not have
to believe in Christ, but rather subscibe to YOUR philosophy? Interesting.
That only confirms my opinion that your faith is just a superficiality.
Now about your HORROR.
Unless you state your real name and tell us what actually happened, your
HORROR is a TALE.
It is up to you to make us take your words seriously.
> Stalin was responsible for Terror, mass murder, abuse of state power. He
> was an enemy of mankind. Hitler - the same. Pinochet - the same.
Suharto,
> Somoza - the same. And if you try and justify the Terror and Oppression
of
> any of these regimes, then it's fair for you to occupy the same category.
> And if you don't believe there is such a thing as an 'enemy of mankind'
or,
> by the same principle, 'crimes against humanity' - then I take it you
are
> letting the Nazis off the hook.
>
Propaganda. Propaganda, Propaganda.
You cannot compare Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, who killed millions for no reason
other than being of wrong class or wrong race with Pinochet and others who
fought a war with Communist and Socilais class war killers. By saying that I
"let Nazis off the hook", you , bastard, are entering a territory that you
have no idea about.
Reread my mail, you, stupid man, and FIND ONE QUOTE THAT WOULD SUPPORT ME
LETTING NAZIS OFF THE HOOK.
Before you do that - this conversation is over.
I can talk to whiners, weaklings and idiots. But not to liars.
> My grandfather was imprisoned in Changi POW camp after fighting the
Japanese
> fascists in Singapore. From what he experienced, it would be fair to say
> the Japanese Imperial Army was 'the enemy of mankind'. My father was a
> refugee from Germany after WWII, and was witness to some of the excesses
of
> the victorious Soviet Troops. He saw plenty of people killed, others
> committing suicide - he was 5 years old. This doesn't mean I'm not glad
the
> Nazis lost the war - but if you want to boil everything down to 'personal
> family history', I have as much reason as you to despise the Soviets. But
I
> do not boil everything down to family history: I try to step back from
this,
> and argue for what is ideally right. I do not fall back on past family
> tragedies and injustices to avoid thinking openly or critically about the
> world, and about ideas TODAY.
Drooling, drooling, drooling.
I do not hate Commies for what they done to my family - but for what they
did to all the peoples of all the countries they controlled. You need to
read my posts very selectively to think that I am just vigilant for my
folks. That selectivity tells me a lot about you.
>
>
> And I see that you still have not responded to my excerpts to 'But the
Dead
> are Many'. It's universal, human plea, would fly against all your
> prejudices and caricatures - leaving you groping around trying to 'put a
> square into a round hole'. And so you have simply left it - refused to
> recognise it. But I will not let you get away with it that easily!!!!
I do not care about words if they are not supported by deeds. Said that many
times, but you do not want to read certain things. Typical Commie - yank wha
t you want from the opponent's text and ignore the rest!
> This story reflects the experience of so many idealistic young Communists,
> and their destruction by the Stalinist machinery: but YOU want to label
> THESE people as 'monsters' TOO!!!!
WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? There were NO YOUNG IDEALISTIC COMMUNISTS WHO
FOUGHT STALIN. Read the history. Stalin's machine was dismantled after his
death by the same people (Khruschev &Co.) who were his fiercest killers
during his rule! They started to fear that they will fall the victims of the
same machine and made sure that as Kruschev said "STALIN KILLED HIS OWN
PARTY. WE CANNOT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN AGAIN". Did they ever objected to
Lenin's terror? They liberalized the regime a bit, so they can be assured
that they can still enjoy the fruits of the Communist Slavery and made a
rule that COMMUNIST NOMENCLATURA is above the law. That was followed by
Brezhnev corrupt times, when COMMUNIST NOMENCLATURA raped and robbed the
country, while bathing in Champaigne and stuffing the panties of their wifes
with diamonds.
YOUNG IDEALISTIC COMMUNISTS! What an ignorant joke you are!
You have no idea what you are talking about, are you? But may be it is I,
who is an ignorant imbecil?WHO WERE YOUNG IDEALISTIC COMMUNISTS? Names,
names, names!
What a joke you are! What an ignorant imbecil! Only an IMBECIL can seriously
claim that there were YOUNG IDEALISTIC COMMUNISTS who fought Stalin!
Dismantled his "machinery"!
Khruschev is a YOUNG IDEALISTIC COMMUNIST! Khruschev - the butcher of
Ukraine! Stalin's favourite "Nikitka"! Member of Politburo during all the
darkest years of the TERROR! YOUNG IDEALISTIC COMMUNIST!
This, BTW, may be something that exonerate you. May be you are not a clever
Communist propagandist - may be you just an ignorant bleeding-heart kangaroo
lover who was brainwashed and never cared to study any history?
>No - it is all too much. Respond to
> the excerpt, or have all people reading this exchange draw the inevitable
> conclusion that you are a close-minded reactionary, who refuses to engage
in
> any way with any material that doesn't support his prejudices. Emotional
> arguments put aside - that is the judgement readers would be driven to
make.
EXACTLY.
No emotional argument will ever shade the fact that you are a Commie
propagandist, Class War proponent and a threat to humanity. RED SNAKES I
call your kind.
Never will you get another chance, NEVER. So, the only way for you to enjoy
your ideology is to go to Red China, but you, bastards, never do that - you
prefer to live in comfort of Capitalism, freedom and liberty yourselves.
Like your idol RED BITCH Rosa Luxemburg and her buddy Karl, like Barbus,
Feihtwanger, Rollan, - all the Red BASTARDS who proclaimed Stalin a "Father
of Nations" and USSR - New Paradise, but never moved there, just a quick
visit to get some money and back, back to their hated capitalist monsters,
to their comfort, wines, entertainment, burlesques, and food, food, food!
And fast, fast, fast!
RED SNAKES, and always were payed in DOLLARS, FRANKS, MARKS, KRONAS.
Or, like you, in AU$$$$
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
Khab
> No emotional argument will ever shade the fact that you are a Commie
> propagandist, Class War proponent and a threat to humanity. RED SNAKES I
> call your kind.
> Never will you get another chance, NEVER. So, the only way for you to enjoy
> your ideology is to go to Red China, but you, bastards, never do that - you
> prefer to live in comfort of Capitalism, freedom and liberty yourselves.
> Like your idol RED BITCH Rosa Luxemburg and her buddy Karl, like Barbus,
> Feihtwanger, Rollan, - all the Red BASTARDS who proclaimed Stalin a "Father
> of Nations" and USSR - New Paradise, but never moved there, just a quick
> visit to get some money and back, back to their hated capitalist monsters,
> to their comfort, wines, entertainment, burlesques, and food, food, food!
> And fast, fast, fast!
> RED SNAKES, and always were payed in DOLLARS, FRANKS, MARKS, KRONAS.
> Or, like you, in AU$$$$
>
Both Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Marx were dead by the time Stalin took power. And
I suggest you read "Organizational Questions of the Russian Social-Democracy".
You can find it at
http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxembur/works/1904/org-rsd/index.htm.
tewins
bitch. I'm not going to waste my time on him much longer.
tewins
tewins
As for my personal horrors, I have described these in detail elsewhere in
the thread. If you didn't care to pay any attention then, I doubt you'd
give a shit now. We're both supposed to believe in God. *I* have had to
wrestle with some of the most diabolical forces imaginable. But you say
'Who Cares'?. So much for your 'faith.'
>It was you who never paid attention.. I am a Jew and stated that many
times.
>I understand that you are taking upon yourself now the task of defining who
>can and who cannot be a Christian. So, to be a Chrustian, one does not have
To be a Christian you must 'love your neighbor', instead of aiding in his
oppression. One must thirst for righteousness. One must be a peace maker.
One must be willing to be persecuted for righteousness's sake. One must be
merciful. Such HUMAN values can translate into, and are incompatible with,
certain political values. But the values of Christianity are not socialist,
liberal or conservative - even although any one of these ideologies can
incorporate Christian values. It is something socialism is suited to doing,
but usually has not done in the past - and the same can be said for all
other ideologies and movements.
>> This story reflects the experience of so many idealistic young
Communists,
>> and their destruction by the Stalinist machinery: but YOU want to label
>> THESE people as 'monsters' TOO!!!!
>
>WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? There were NO YOUNG IDEALISTIC COMMUNISTS WHO
>FOUGHT STALIN. Read the history. Stalin's machine was dismantled after his
>death by the same people (Khruschev &Co.) who were his fiercest killers
>during his rule! They started to fear that they will fall the victims of
the
>same machine and made sure that as Kruschev said "STALIN KILLED HIS OWN
>YOUNG IDEALISTIC COMMUNISTS! What an ignorant joke you are!
Yes - I'm an 'ignorant joke'. I've had my house broken into, been stalked,
had whisper campaigns spread around that I was a paedophile, I've been
beaten up, had my mind fucked with in ways you couldn't understand. But I'm
an 'ignorant joke' you say. I've already told you about the Aarons
brothers, Bernie Taft and Frank Hardy. But what you have to ask yourself
is - why did Frank Hardy write 'But the Dead are Many'? He wrote it as an
attack upon the effective spiritual and psychological warfare that was waged
upon what we will call 'liberal communists' within the Communist Party of
Australia - and of its potentially tragic consequences. All over the world
there are idealistic communists, socialists and others, who are, above all,
earnest, honest idealists. They do not cave in to the pressure of the
machinery: to the attempts of compromise them and make them dependant.
Against hypocricy and hate, they hold on to their ideals and they pay the
price. I am one of these people, and *I* have paid the price: because I
would not let the Stalinist forms of discipline, the crushing of every spark
of autonomy and idealism, the social means of control - stand without
challenge. I fought for an organisation in which EVERY SINGLE MEMBER was a
thinking, self-critical individual, who explored EVERY issue with their own
critical faculties, and made their own moral decision -in defiance of the
disciplinary pressures that fell upon them. In such a way, I did did not
only draw from Marxism, but also liberalism - hence the term 'liberal
democratic socialist'. But a man who is unable to distinguish Roger Garaudy
from Joseph Stalin obviously doesn't give a FUCK about the plain truth of
the matter. I know very well what the Stalinists are capable of, and what
the heirs to Nazism are capable of - I have suffered at both their hands.
Once you reach a particular point in politics, you are either comrpromised
or you are destroyed - this is the plain truth about our 'liberal
democracies'. If it's not the State, than its the underground Nazi
organisations, the Stalinists, the Chinese, the KGB, organised crime. No
one reaches a position of power without having their autonomy and, I would
argue, dignity, snuffed out in this process. I fought it with every ounce
of resistance I had - and my entire life was destroyed as a result. Fuck
you, Alex. I've told you this so many times, but you just don't give a
shit.
You said at the beginning of this thread that 'this was not an honest
exchange'. Well, from your perspective it certainly isn't. You pay
attention to nothing I say except what you can twist for your own
preconceived goals. I can't believe ANYONE can be as INSENSITIVE as you -
therefore I draw the conclusion that you are some kind of fucking liar who
is playing some kind of sick game with me.
"!
>Khruschev is a YOUNG IDEALISTIC COMMUNIST! Khruschev - the butcher of
>Ukraine! Stalin's favourite "Nikitka"! Member of Politburo during all the
>darkest years of the TERROR! YOUNG IDEALISTIC COMMUNIST!
>This, BTW, may be something that exonerate you. May be you are not a clever
>Communist propagandist - may be you just an ignorant bleeding-heart
kangaroo
>lover who was brainwashed and never cared to study any history?
I have studied plenty of history, but I have never heard Khruschev described
as a 'butcher'. To me, and most people, he was the man who worked on the
inside, quietly organising against Stalin, biding his time, ever-wary of the
threat the Stalinist Terror posed to him, awaiting his opportunity - and
finally, unleashing the truth and pushing forward a program of liberal
reform never before seen in the USSR. If you can substanitate your claims
he was a 'butcher', go ahead.
>EXACTLY.
>No emotional argument will ever shade the fact that you are a Commie
>propagandist, Class War proponent and a threat to humanity. RED SNAKES I
>call your kind.
>RED SNAKES, and always were payed in DOLLARS, FRANKS, MARKS, KRONAS.
>Or, like you, in AU$$$$
Well, I've never been paid a cent to comrpromise myself. I would never
accept it. I'm almost 30. I'm on a disability pension because of a severe
stress disorder I suffer as a result of what happened to me. I cannot
afford a place of my own and live with my mother. I cannot afford my own
car, and lost every friend I had in the world as a result of what happened
to me.
As for 'Red Snakes' - yes there are snakes, spiders, wolves, flies. The
man who believes in God is left lost, desperate and confused upon learning
of it all. But the man who believes in God perseveres, and prays that God
will restore him, and help him make sense of the world, and find cause to
live once again. This is what it's all REALLY about - which, in a way, is
what I've been trying to tell you. But if you live in blissful ignorance,
who am I to drag you out of Paradise? I wish I was still there myself.
tewins
tragedy that they are crumbling. People are torn between the security and
comfort of 'community' where there are no 'strangers', and 'the lights and
fireworks' of the booming metropolis where EVERYONE is a stranger. Somehow,
we must find a way that people can enjoy BOTH.
As for capitalism's 'invetiable collapse', I remember writing an essay in
which I wrote with resignation that capitalism appeared the unsurpassable
basis of civilisation, and that even in a society with socialist values, it
was impossible to imagine an end to market relations, or even a revolution
so sweeping it could do away with the very SYSTEM of Capital. My lecturer
replied that 'even with the historians detachment surely even capitalism
cannot last forever.' Maybe "somewhere over the horizon" there is a
future I cannot possibly perceive or conceive of from where I stand. But
from where I stand, socialist that I am, even my imagination is not such I
can realisitically conceive of a transition that utterly does away with
capitalism. I'm not even sure that's what I'd want. (eg: Market Socialism,
under Tito, was, I believe, quite a good idea) Ideally I would like to see
an end to Capital, but not the Market - if that makes any sense.
Chief
see
> an end to Capital, but not the Market - if that makes any sense.
And exactly what do you trade in a market if not capital. What many fail to
understand about capitalism is that it requires free markets to function
ideally. We do not have free markets, and I'm excluding NECESSARY
regulation. I will leave it to you to think about how markets are not
totally free; a bloated ever growing socialistic government would be near
the top of the list of reasons.
Unknown
It all depends on what you mean by "capitalism".
This is what my dictionary says :
"Capitalism is an economic and political system
where property, business and industry are owned
by individuals and not by the state."
I disagree with what my dictionary says.
In my opinion, capitalism is not a political system.
I see it as an economic system.
There will always be private property, I'm quite sure of that.
What I think will probably happen in time, is that the nature of
capitalism will change.
It's possible that "big business" will eventually become a vast
number of small businesses.
This will probably be the natural free choice of business itself,
for economic and social reasons.
Alex Chaihorsky
Yes, they were dead by 1919, after unsuccessfull Communist coup. It was
Barbus, Feihtwanger, Rollan who supported Stalin.
Alex.
"Khab" <khNOaba...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AFC8B7A...@home.com...
Alex Chaihorsky
"tewins" <tew...@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:DZ0L6.24702$482.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
 > I know very well what the Stalinists are capable of, and what
> the heirs to Nazism are capable of - I have suffered at both their hands.
You live with you Mommy, not in the Gulag barracks and you KNOW what Stalinists are capable of? You are living on a welfare handout, do you know what hunger is?
You have an audacity to compare your life with the life of a Gilag prisoner?
You claim you have suffered in the hands of heirs of Nazis? Your life on Australian welfare can be compared with a life of a Nazi concentration camp detainee?
Are you SURE?
> Once you reach a particular point in politics, you are either comrpromised
> or you are destroyed - this is the plain truth about our 'liberal
> democracies'. If it's not the State, than its the underground Nazi
> organisations, the Stalinists, the Chinese, the KGB, organised crime. No
> one reaches a position of power without having their autonomy and, I would
> argue, dignity, snuffed out in this process. I fought it with every ounce
> of resistance I had - and my entire life was destroyed as a result. Fuck
> you, Alex. I've told you this so many times, but you just don't give a
> shit.
Fuck you and your Socialist ideology. No home, no car, no skills, no job, no money. True Kangaroo Commie! Certainly you want socilaism!
>
> You said at the beginning of this thread that 'this was not an honest
> exchange'. Well, from your perspective it certainly isn't. You pay
> attention to nothing I say except what you can twist for your own
> preconceived goals. I can't believe ANYONE can be as INSENSITIVE as you -
> therefore I draw the conclusion that you are some kind of fucking liar who
> is playing some kind of sick game with me.
What games do I play with you? Posting my views? Did I change my position ever? Wake up, sonny, you are playing the games with your own head by believing in most monstrous ideology in the world.
>
> "!
> >Khruschev is a YOUNG IDEALISTIC COMMUNIST! Khruschev - the butcher of
> >Ukraine! Stalin's favourite "Nikitka"! Member of Politburo during all the
> >darkest years of the TERROR! YOUNG IDEALISTIC COMMUNIST!
> >This, BTW, may be something that exonerate you. May be you are not a clever
> >Communist propagandist - may be you just an ignorant bleeding-heart
> kangaroo
> >lover who was brainwashed and never cared to study any history?
>
>
>
> I have studied plenty of history, but I have never heard Khruschev described
> as a 'butcher'. To me, and most people, he was the man who worked on the
> inside, quietly organising against Stalin, biding his time, ever-wary of the
> threat the Stalinist Terror posed to him, awaiting his opportunity - and
> finally, unleashing the truth and pushing forward a program of liberal
> reform never before seen in the USSR. If you can substanitate your claims
> he was a 'butcher', go ahead.
>
Here are pure facts (in the state of our discussion anything else will leave for you a wiggle out option)
----------------------------------
NIKITA SERGEEVICH KHRUSHCHEV
1894 Apr 17: Born in Kalinovka, Kursk Province, the child of peasants.
1909: Moves to Yuzovka (later Stalino, later Donetsk) in Donbas region, Ukraine. Father works in mine.
1909-12: Learns metal-fitter's trade at Bosse factory in Yuzovka.
1912-18: Works as metal fitter in generator plants of Ruchenkov and Pastukhov mines.
1915: Becomes "avid reader of Pravda".
1917: Represents miners at political meetings.
1918: Becomes Bolshevik.
1919: Joins Red Army.
1919-1921: Soldier and Party Worker in Ninth Rifle Division, attached to Budyonny's First Mounted Army.
1921: Death of first wife in famine.
1922: Back to Yuzovka from Front.
1922: Becomes deputy director of Ruchenkov mines.
1923: Student and political leader at Yuzovka Workers Faculty.
1924: Works in Yuzovka Party organization.
1924: Married Nina Petrovna.
1925: Appointed Party Secretary of Petrovsko-Marinsk District of Stalino (formelly Yuzovka) Region.
1925: Attends 9th Ukrainian Party Congress, chaired by Kaganovich.
1925: Nonvoting Delegate to 14th All-Union Party Congress, Moscow.
1926: First recorded public speech at Ukrainian Party Conference in Kharkov.
1927: Delegate to 15th All-Union Party Congress, Moscow.
1927: Promoted from Stalino District to Regional Party apparatus.
1928: Promoted by Kaganovich to Deputy Chief of Organizational Section of Ukrainian Central Committee in Kharkov.
1929-31: Student and Political worker at Stalin Industrial Academy in Moscow. Suslov is teacher in school.
1931: Elected First Secretary of Bauman District.
1931 Jan: Elected to Moscow City Party Committee. Head of committee is Kaganovich.
1931 Jul: Promoted to First Secretary of Red Presnya District; keeps Bauman District still in his hands.
1932 Jan: Second Secretary Moscow City Party Committee; second to Kaganovich.
1933: Second Secretary Moscow Regional Committee.
1933: Active in construction of the Moscow Metro.
1934: Made First Secretary of Moscow City Committee.
1934: Elected to Central Committee at 17th Party Congress (the "Congress of the Victors").
1934 Dec: Following Kirov's murder, accompanies Stalin to Leningrad (!!!) as a member of the commission to arrange Kirov's funeral. Cult of the Personality
1935: First Secretary Moscow City and Regional Committees.
1937: Appointed Candidate Member of Stalin's Politburo.
1938 May: Appointed First Secretary of Ukrainian Central Committee.
1939 Mar: Made Full Member of Politburo. (!!!)
1939 Sep - 1940: Supervises occupation and sovietization of western (Polish) Ukraine. Thousands of KATYN killings of Polish officers, students, priests, intellectuals, are done under his direct supervision.
ENOUGH?
>
> As for 'Red Snakes' - yes there are snakes, spiders, wolves, flies.  The
> man who believes in God is left lost, desperate and confused upon learning
> of it all. But the man who believes in God perseveres, and prays that God
> will restore him, and help him make sense of the world, and find cause to
> live once again. This is what it's all REALLY about - which, in a way, is
> what I've been trying to tell you. But if you live in blissful ignorance,
> who am I to drag you out of Paradise? I wish I was still there myself.
>
Alex Chaihorsky
<ah...@no-spam-to-world.std.com> wrote in message
news:sodeltw...@world.std.com...
> >>>>> Alex Chaihorsky writes:
>
> Alex> Quote me calling you these things and I will see if I reconsider.
> Alex> Try not to get into pathetic mode with all these "If you have any
decency,
> Alex> youw ill retract and apologise".
> Alex> If I used more heat than is due - I will apologize. But I alone
will be a
> Alex> judge of that.
> Alex> If I do not have any decency - do not answer my post.
> Alex> That is how easy this is.
>
> Alex> BTW, its not only Pinochet - I believe that Senator McCarthy is a
real
> Alex> American hero.
>
> You are mistaken. He was a liar, a drunk, and about as anti-American
> as they get. Had he really had a list of spies (he did not, it was
> a lie) and had he gotten them arrested and jailed I would agree with
> you. However he had no such list (it was a raw publicity grab), and
> instead he tried to create a stalinist thought police, which is disgusting
> as can be.
>
> Pinochet was a mass murderer, and should have been jailed for life. But
> justice is rare for powerful dictators.
>
> I still hope Castro can be jailed, but expect he will die before justice
> is served.
>
>
> --
> Andrew Hall
> (Now reading Usenet in talk.politics.misc...)
In recent years Russian KGB archives (see Vinona Papers) completely
supported ALL McCarthy claims on Stalin agents infiltrating State
Department.
The fact that he was a drunk does not change anything to me.
I guess we disagree on Pinochet. What in your opinion should have been done
by Chileans after Soviet-supported Communists came to power?
Again - I was in Russia at the time and know real well the Chilean Commies -
they were with us in Universities, everywhere. True "Proletariat
Dictatorship" leninists they were - I have no doubt that Chile will be
flooded with blood.
Please, tell me (I am genuinely interested) - what should normal people do
when faced with Communist takeover?
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
Alex Chaihorsky
Apology for what? You said that I called you a Devil worshiper. I never did!
I called you a "Communist/Socialist devil worshiper".
Are you a "Communist/Socialist devil worshiper"? Certainly you are! English
supposed to be your mother tongue and you do not understand the difference
between Devil worshiper and "Communist devil" worshiper?
Devil is the word we use for the "fallen angel" - aka Satan, aka Lucifer,
etc.. Communist devils are not angels - there are people. And your idols,
like the RED BITCH - your beloved Rosa Luxemburg. Same Rosa Luxemburg that
with her friend Karl Liebknecht attempted the coup-de-etat in January 1919
and establish Communist government in Germany. Failed. Was found dead. Angry
Lenin ordered death of many Russian aristocrats (like Czars brothers, Great
Dukes, who voluntarily gave up their rights to the Russian Throne in favor
of Democratic Government). One of the brothers - Konstantin, was a liberal
historian and archeologist with international name.
These are you idols and therefore you ARE a Communist devil worshiper.
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
Khab
Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> I was talking about Karl Liebknecht, not Marx.
>
> Yes, they were dead by 1919, after unsuccessfull Communist coup. It was
> Barbus, Feihtwanger, Rollan who supported Stalin.
>
Then
a. Say Karl Liebknecht
b. If they were dead by the time Stalin came to power, why are you accusing
them of supporting him?
Khab
Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
The Venona Papers support the claims that there was a list of Communists in the
State Department. But first of all, no one would have given McCarthy access to
such a list, because of his mouth, and second of all, that doesn't make it
morally right to persecute people for a political belief, regardless of whether
you agree with it or not.
>
> The fact that he was a drunk does not change anything to me.
>
> I guess we disagree on Pinochet. What in your opinion should have been done
> by Chileans after Soviet-supported Communists came to power?
> Again - I was in Russia at the time and know real well the Chilean Commies -
> they were with us in Universities, everywhere. True "Proletariat
> Dictatorship" leninists they were - I have no doubt that Chile will be
> flooded with blood.
> Please, tell me (I am genuinely interested) - what should normal people do
> when faced with Communist takeover?
>
I'll repeat this for the third time: Allende was democratically elected. Even
if he was supported by the Soviets, and I hadn't heard that he was, that doesn't
delegitimatize him. Precisely what did he do that you are opposed to, aside
from having the wrong ideology?
>
> Alex Chaihorsky
> Reno, NV
Alex Chaihorsky
>
>
> Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
>
> > I was talking about Karl Liebknecht, not Marx.
> >
> > Yes, they were dead by 1919, after unsuccessfull Communist coup. It was
> > Barbus, Feihtwanger, Rollan who supported Stalin.
> >
>
> Then
> a. Say Karl Liebknecht
> b. If they were dead by the time Stalin came to power, why are you
accusing
> them of supporting him?
>
1. It is common knowledge that Karl Liebknecht was Rosa's friend. I said
"her friend Karl" You ASSUMED that is was Marx. Anyone who knows history of
German Communists would understand.
So, DO NOT ASSUME, if you do not know - ASK.
2. Again, I never said that Rosa and Karl supported Stalin. I said that
about Barbus, Feihtwanger, Rollan.
Alex.
Alex Chaihorsky
"tewins" <tew...@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:ni8L6.25007$482.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...ÂAlex Chaihorsky wrote in message <9divu2$5...@dispatch.concentric.net>...
"tewins" <tew...@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:DZ0L6.24702$482.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
 > I know very well what the Stalinists are capable of, and what
> the heirs to Nazism are capable of - I have suffered at both their hands.Â
FUCK ME? NO, FUCK YOU, YOU WORTHLESS MAGGOT, parasite who lives on a public handout and has an audacity to pontificate to honest taxpayers!
Fuck you and your Socialist ideology. No home, no car, no skills, no job, no money. True Kangaroo Commie! Certainly you want socilaism!
You are merely 30 and you "suffered in the hands of Nazis and Communists?"
You live with you Mommy, not in the Gulag barracks and you KNOW what Stalinists are capable of? You are living on a welfare handout, do you know what hunger is?
You have an audacity to compare your life with the life of a Gilag prisoner?
You claim you have suffered in the hands of heirs of Nazis? Your life on Australian welfare can be compared with a life of a Nazi concentration camp detainee?
Are you SURE?ÂÂ
No I have no idea what it's like in a Gulag or a concentration camp. I never claimed I did. What I do know is what its like to be threatened and harrassed by people who have broken into your home, and are in possession of the details of your most intimate conversations as they have taken place in your own house. I know what it's like to be threatened and bombarded with antisemitic comments by Nazis who are suspicious of you because of your   mothers prior close friendship with several prominent members of Australia's Jewish community. I know what it's like to have my entire life laid bare: every personal fear and hang up preyed upon: to feel vulnerable and helpless. I know what it's like to live in fear after several death threats, and what it's like for your closest 'comrades' to turn on you: try to comrpomise or bribe you, and then resort to whisper campaigns and character assassination: that you are a 'spy' or a 'paedophile' or a 'lunatic'. THAT'S what I know about. I know what it's like to have one group of people stalking you calling you a 'Jew Lover', while others stalk you an call you 'Richard Nixon' - presumably because they think you work for the Chinese. I know what it's like for people to try and lure you into organised crime, to be rejected as 'inappropriate', and then beaten up when I dared open my mouth about what happened. I know what it's like to be driven to such terror and paranoia that you live your entire life in fear.ÂI know what it's like for psychiatric staff to come to your house uninvited and without warning, and after hearing your claim that you have received death threats, laugh at you, calling you a 'psychotic Seventh Day Adventist' and threatening "we're going to knock your eye out." I know what it's like to be committed on false pretenses - to have a file inches think compiled that comprises utter lies and misquotes after all requests for interviews to be recorded have been denied. I know what it's like to be stuck in a mental institution for over a week while the staff deliberately try and drive you insane: where the nurses, when they're not threatening you, make strange hand signals, interrogate you on whether you're a Freemason, and claim that they're 'magical'. I know what it's like, after receiving death threats for weeks, to try and hang on to my sanity, while I was surrounded by people who talked about the occult, vampires, 'spiders', 'flies', 'wolves' - being stuck in a seclusion ward with people who speak incomprehible chaotic gibberish and urinate in you bed while the nurses laugh at you - "you're NEVER getting out of here.": while patients laugh at me and call me a paedophile and a vampire. I know what it's like to be threatened, mind-fucked and mocked while my mother approached the Mental Health Review Board - and for those who did this to me to shit themselves and let me out the day before my hearing because they were scared shitless that I would reveal the truth about what they did to me.ÂI know what it's like for people who flare red in the face like they're on fire to threaten you. "You can take the HEAT?" "You're DEAD." "You're Sick" "You're going to FALL you MOTHERFUCKER." I know what it's like to search for help from the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, and even to desperately search for a Rabbi to help me. I know what it's like to be turned away with no answers, and eventually to be driven to study the Occult.I know what it's like to be stalked by people who say you have "cancer", that you're a "smoker". I know what it's like to buy a book on Enochian Magic, which you have read is 'Angelic', and for a series of synchronic incidents to occur after reading the page on 'Babalon'. I know what it's like to feel like I was being swarmed by abominations, insects, worms, devouring my spiritual body in agony, as I screamed and people walked past me saying "Beg for Mercy, Kid." I know what it's like to return home, to find someone has left a crate of 'WINE' in my back yard, and for my penis to collapse as if I had been castrated: for my mother to laugh at me, saying 'where's you dick gone?", as I limp around crying in agony. I know what it's like to sit down, and to see RED everywhere I looked while I felt like my body was rotting and unravelling. I know what it's like to freeze and burn, and lose consciousness for days at a time. I know what it's like to go to my grandmother, thinking that I was dying, and to feel water pass through holes in my body, and for it to feel like one of my spiritual arms rots and falls away from my body - and for my poor grandmother to point at me while I cried "pray for me" and laugh - having no control over her own actions. I am speaking of PAIN worse than any physical pain you have likely felt in your life.ÂÂI know what it's like, after this, to be committed again - and to see the satisfaction in their eyes - because now something has happened which they can use to justify what they did to me in the first place: that they can claim I was 'insane'. I know what it's like to be locked up again, and told repeatedly by nurses and doctors: "go to sleep", "you're never getting out of here until you go to sleep", and cynically, again and again, "are you HAPPY? are you HAPPY?" I know what it's like, then, to go freezing cold, and to lose consciousness for a week. I know what it's like, after I awoke, to feel such a freezing cold in my head that I could barely remain conscious for another two days: to desperately fight for consciousness as if I was fighting for my life.ÂI know what it's like - for two years afterwards - to fear for my soul: to be plagued by horrible nightmares - to pray to God for up to 8 hours a day for several months on end, begging him to deliver me: to finally lose all but the slightest hope, and not even have the strength to pray anymore. I know what it's like to look back at over a decade in politics and six years at uni - and to know I am FINSHED: to know, after all I have worked for, that I am respected by no-one, thought by many to be insane, and the butt of jokes and ridicule - all the while I KNOW politics is dominated by those who are arrogant beyond description, or whose behaviour goes beyond being thuggish to to point of being CRIMINAL. I know what it's like to fear for my soul, with nothing left in the world to believe in or fight in - to shy away from suicide, but to have no will to live.ÂBut I have told you much of this before - and you have shown the depth of your concern - the depth of your 'humanity'.ÂÂTHAT'S what I KNOW - oh, but I'm sorry to bother you with my 'pathetic whining' - of course, I haven't been through anything - and YOU know EVERYTHING. I doubt, even after all of this, you're capable of the slightest ounce of compassion - and you call yourself religious.
ÂÂÂ1937: Appointed Candidate Member of Stalin's Politburo.Since that time Nikita was in the center of TERROR. Soon (see below) his signatuire was on EVERY death sentence.
1938 May: Appointed First Secretary of Ukrainian Central Committee.Upon election, he says "I pledge myself to spare no efforts in seizing and annihilating all agents of fascism, Trotskyites, Bukharinites, and all those despicable bourgeois nationalists on our free Ukrainian soil."ÂÂ
It is POSSIBLE, that Khruschev was appalled by this, but knew speaking out would make his life forfeit. It is possible, therefore, to assume that he and others organised covertly, risking their lives, awaiting the moment they were strong enough to repudiate and dismantle Stalinism. I believe it is possible - and while I myself could not have 'played along' all those years, awaiting my chance - I can understand the position of a person who did. I thank God I was not in the USSR, because I would have been executed with the 'Bukharinites', not being 'made of the stuff' necessary to work by stealth, and bide my time for decades, hiding my revulsion at everything that was occuring around me.ÂÂÂ
Alex Chaihorsky
>
>
> Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
>
>
> The Venona Papers support the claims that there was a list of Communists
in the
> State Department. But first of all, no one would have given McCarthy
access to
> such a list, because of his mouth, and second of all, that doesn't make it
> morally right to persecute people for a political belief, regardless of
whether
> you agree with it or not.
>
Not just Communists. Agents of a foreign nation that was in a state of cold
war with this country. So, this is not a question of ideology. Persecution
for being secret agent of foreign country is, certainly, persecutable.
Senator McCarthy did not and could not PERSECUTE nobody. He was trying to
alert the Congress to the situation. You know THAT. A Senator CANNOT
persecute, even if he/she wants to.
>
> I'll repeat this for the third time: Allende was democratically elected.
Even
> if he was supported by the Soviets, and I hadn't heard that he was, that
doesn't
> delegitimatize him. Precisely what did he do that you are opposed to,
aside
> from having the wrong ideology?
Yes, he was elected by due process. So, removing him was illegal. That is
why I think Pinochet is a hero. He knowingly committed a political crime to
save millions of his countrymen from Communist TERROR. That risk he took
upon himself. Later he removed himself from politics and transferred the
power to democratically elected civilian government. Now, it was and is for
Chileans to thank him or condemn him for that.
Chile is a democratic country now (I have not heard any accusations of Chile
being dictatorship or any accusations coming from UN commissions) and is
very respectful and greatful to Pinochet.
All accusations are coming from Communist refugees that fled the country.
Is my logic 100% iron-clad? No. From a legal point of view Pinochet was
WRONG.
My question - if Neo-Nazis will come to power by democratic process, will
you oppose an attempt to stop them on the grounds of their history?
If you do oppose it and let them have the power, I lost my argument. If you
do not - I won.
This is how true patriots risk their own future and sometimes life to do the
right thing. Which may turn out to be a wrong thing. Risk is risk.
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
Alex Chaihorsky
How would you explain then that American Jewry (not "Jewry" use your
spelling checker) that comprised the bulk of American Communist Party since
1920- never moved to USSR "where it existed"?
I said many times - study, read and think twice before you post.
Alex.
"Mathew" <m...@kuentos.guam.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSD/.3.91.1010512070122.28687D-100000@saba.kuentos.guam.net...
Khab
Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> "Khab" <khNOaba...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3AFD11F1...@home.com...
> >
> >
> > Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> >
> > > I was talking about Karl Liebknecht, not Marx.
> > >
> > > Yes, they were dead by 1919, after unsuccessfull Communist coup. It was
> > > Barbus, Feihtwanger, Rollan who supported Stalin.
> > >
> >
> > Then
> > a. Say Karl Liebknecht
> > b. If they were dead by the time Stalin came to power, why are you
> accusing
> > them of supporting him?
> >
>
> 1. It is common knowledge that Karl Liebknecht was Rosa's friend. I said
> "her friend Karl" You ASSUMED that is was Marx. Anyone who knows history of
> German Communists would understand.
Yes, but the general tone of your arguments suggests that when you say 'friend'
you really mean 'fellow communist traitor'. And there were at least three
prominent German communists whose first names were Karl.
>
> So, DO NOT ASSUME, if you do not know - ASK.
> 2. Again, I never said that Rosa and Karl supported Stalin. I said that
> about Barbus, Feihtwanger, Rollan.
"Like your idol RED BITCH Rosa Luxemburg and her buddy Karl, like Barbus,
Feihtwanger, Rollan, - all the Red BASTARDS who proclaimed Stalin a "Father of
Nations""
What was that about not having said that Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht
supported Stalin?
>
>
> Alex.
Khab
Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> "Khab" <khNOaba...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3AFD13BA...@home.com...
> >
> >
> > Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> >
> >
> > The Venona Papers support the claims that there was a list of Communists
> in the
> > State Department. But first of all, no one would have given McCarthy
> access to
> > such a list, because of his mouth, and second of all, that doesn't make it
> > morally right to persecute people for a political belief, regardless of
> whether
> > you agree with it or not.
> >
>
> Not just Communists. Agents of a foreign nation that was in a state of cold
> war with this country. So, this is not a question of ideology. Persecution
> for being secret agent of foreign country is, certainly, persecutable.
> Senator McCarthy did not and could not PERSECUTE nobody. He was trying to
> alert the Congress to the situation. You know THAT. A Senator CANNOT
> persecute, even if he/she wants to.
So you don't consider denouncing and effectively blacklisting people as
communists persecution?
McCarthy didn't know about Venona. No one would have trusted him with that
information, because he was an idiot with a big mouth.
>
>
> >
> > I'll repeat this for the third time: Allende was democratically elected.
> Even
> > if he was supported by the Soviets, and I hadn't heard that he was, that
> doesn't
> > delegitimatize him. Precisely what did he do that you are opposed to,
> aside
> > from having the wrong ideology?
>
> Yes, he was elected by due process. So, removing him was illegal. That is
> why I think Pinochet is a hero. He knowingly committed a political crime to
> save millions of his countrymen from Communist TERROR.
Specific crimes committed by Allende, aside from ideology?
In other words, you're saying that if you disagree with the policies of a duly
elected government, you have the right to stage a violent insurrection and set
up a dictatorship.
> That risk he took
> upon himself. Later he removed himself from politics and transferred the
> power to democratically elected civilian government. Now, it was and is for
> Chileans to thank him or condemn him for that.
> Chile is a democratic country now (I have not heard any accusations of Chile
> being dictatorship or any accusations coming from UN commissions) and is
> very respectful and greatful to Pinochet.
> All accusations are coming from Communist refugees that fled the country.
Really?
"In 1974, Murielita Navarrete, a twenty-two year-old Chilean activist,
vanished. The authorities removed every trace of her institutional life: birth
certificates, school or university reports, hospital records, driver's license.
There is also no death certificate - the Pinochet government had, in modern
terms, disappeared her. Her mother, Ana Maria, and her sister Berenice searched
for her for seven years. Ana Maria was told personally by Pinochet that she was
mistaken, she had born only one daughter. Overcome by illness and exhaustion,
they fled to London where I recorded them. The song was made from our six-hour
conversation. Murielita was never found."
--Peggy Seeger, in the liner notes to her CD "Period Pieces"
>
> Is my logic 100% iron-clad? No. From a legal point of view Pinochet was
> WRONG.
> My question - if Neo-Nazis will come to power by democratic process, will
> you oppose an attempt to stop them on the grounds of their history?
> If you do oppose it and let them have the power, I lost my argument. If you
> do not - I won.
Assuming a fair and honest election, they have the mandate of the people. I
would certainly protest loudly and often, but my opinions don't give me the
right to tell a country that they only have the right to elect people I agree
with.
Actually, if this country ever went far enough to the right to make electing
neo-Nazis even a serious possibility, I'd probably leave the country. However,
that doesn't give me the right to stage a violent insurrection, as long as they
obey the Constitution. If they turn the government into a military
dictatorship, then yes, I believe I would have the moral imperative to bring
them down.
tewins
Alex Chaihorsky wrote in message <9dj5ro$4...@dispatch.concentric.net>...
~~~i LeoNid ~~
<alex_ch...@hotmail.com> planted &I saw in alt.conspiracy:
>
>"tewins" <tew...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>news:Y8LK6.24131$482.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>>
>> Alex Chaihorsky wrote in message <9df5qo$h...@dispatch.concentric.net>...
>> >Quote me calling you these things and I will see if I reconsider.
>> >Try not to get into pathetic mode with all these "If you have any
>decency,
>> >youw ill retract and apologise".
>> >If I used more heat than is due - I will apologize. But I alone will be a
>> >judge of that.
>> >If I do not have any decency - do not answer my post.
>> >That is how easy this is.
>>
in me (almost opposite) in this post. Have you eaten a half-raw aligator
steak lately? (May i prepare you one? We are what _vi_ eat:). I tend to
agree with essence of what you put above, but...
>>
>> I will try one last time, Alex. You referred to me as a 'devil
>worshipper'.
>>
>>
>> [Begin quote]
>>
>> Suffer - shmaffer. Who cares? If suffering does not make you a better
>man -
>> you have suffered in vain. If you were a better man to begin with - who
>> needs suffering?
>> If suffering would have made you a better man you should have abandoned
>the
>> Communist/Socialist devil worship. Because only devil requires that much
>> blood and tears.
>>
>>
>> [End quote]
>>
Suffer in g is _caused_ by something. If this cause is external (physical
affection/torture, hi tech or not) it is - plain fascism and should be
threated as such.
If your `soul is suffering from internal conscientious_ness, eating you
(white/black [soul] guilt:) and is )_NOT_( caused by artificial means
(art* dreams/ adrenalin /melatoning other _chemically_/bio/.. [it is still
physical {un_nut(s:)ural_}, affection:-] affected means, etc. `valium
change:) that this _is_ indeed only your personal problem.
You have my permission:) though, to seek a spirit`ual healing, if _you_ so
desire.
>>
>> I request an apology.
>>
>>
Forgive my tautologies, please.
Note: All mistakes are mine, unless - not inserted by miss`communication:)
>
--
LeoN to e-mail: cut "auto_no." if present.
(.Ä….) ` to think - is to speak quietly, to speak - is to think aloud`
\~/
My posted articles archive: http://leo.portland.co.uk/doc00.htm
tewins
did!
>I called you a "Communist/Socialist devil worshiper".
>Are you a "Communist/Socialist devil worshiper"? Certainly you are! English
>supposed to be your mother tongue and you do not understand the difference
>between Devil worshiper and "Communist devil" worshiper?
>
>Devil is the word we use for the "fallen angel" - aka Satan, aka Lucifer,
>etc.. Communist devils are not angels - there are people. And your idols,
>like the RED BITCH - your beloved Rosa Luxemburg. Same Rosa Luxemburg that
>with her friend Karl Liebknecht attempted the coup-de-etat in January 1919
>and establish Communist government in Germany. Failed. Was found dead.
From Alfred Doblin's "Karl and Rosa" .
"The soldier with the red, young face beneath his steel helmet was waiting
for her, his rifle resting on the ground in front of him, both hands on the
barrel. He was stocky, flaxen haired, and he had a little moustache. On his
right cheek, just above the cheekbone, was set a blood-red, star-shaped scar
like a funnel. It was Runge, the sharpshooter who had never been able to do
anything right in his life. But this time he would.
He saw her coming towards him. Where have I seen that waddling duck with
the white hair before?
And he raises the rifle by its barrel and swings it high over his head and
lets the butt fall like a hammer on her skull.
His face undergoes a change. It goes indistinct and broader and powerful
and black. He spirals up into the air.
He stands there, a shadowy mass of clouds before a radiant background. Only
his countours can be seen and the sharply chiseled mouth with a cynical
smile playing about it; the wide open, defunct eyes of pride; and the awful
muscle of his arm, the iron shoulders, the fallen angel of hate, who grabs
her hair and pulls at it.
She spits in his tyrannical face. She tries to tear herself away and
screams her loathing at him: you have no power over me.
And now the soldier, his legs spread apart, has already drawn back his arm
for the second heavy blow. He swings the butt over his head and slams it
down on her skull with such impact that it cracks, and like a slaughtered
animal she falls to the ground with the butt. She lies there like a sack
and moves no more.
He picks up his rifle again and turns it, checking to see whether the wood
has cracked. He nods to the other two who are bent down over the mute,
black body, and says, satisfied "It's all in one piece."
They grab the lifeless woman by her shoulders and legs and toss her into the
van. Soldiers and officers climb in behind.
Bloody Rosa, the Red Sow, there she lies, they can rejoice.
The car rattles and shakes. The horn blows and screams at the facades of
the buildings. The hosts of the damned and the wicked are lured out by the
noise. They cling to the car and are ready to prepare a banquet for her.
They turn with the spokes,howling, yelping, cheering among the tires.
The Landwehr canal, to the next bridge, let's not make life difficult for
ourselves. The poor child is going to bleed to death. We should do
something about that. There, here's - a bullet. And there's another.
That makes two by my arithmetic. And now you're dead, and that's what should
happen to you all, all you swine and Jews, the whole tribe. Now you'll no
longer be able to open that trap of yours and spit your poison, you snake.
To the next bridge, in to the water, dilute the poison.
Fish, she'll learn what she never learned before: to keep her mouth shut.
.............
Handshakes and laughter. And now for a nice healthy drink. They celebrated
to the next morning...
Wavy G
"Alex Chaihorsky" <alex_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dj7df$5...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Mathew, I beg of you - stop making a fool out of yourself.
> How would you explain then that American Jewry (not "Jewry"
No. You are wrong too. It's "Jewry". Not, "Jewry".
Alex Chaihorsky
death (Nobody knows who killed her, remember? So all that passage is a
FANTASY). BTW, you do realize that the COMMUNISTS such as Rosa and Karl
attempted to steal power FROM FELLOW SOCIALISTS, do you not? The Revolution
of Nov 10th brought to the power democratic socialists, remember? Lenin was
furious and Karl and Rosa attempted a coup. So it would be more realistic to
assume that she was killed by SOCIALISTS.
In any case my theory is as good as Doblin's. Certainly he had to make an
anti-Semitic motive too. He was there, listening, right?
And you willing to forget the deaths of MILLIONS of Lenin/Trotsky's victims
during 1917-1919 Russian Revolution which she applauded and was an active
participant because ... of a FANTASY account of her death?
Or you are one of these guys who cannot comprehend a number, but need a
picture?
For you a story about RED BITCH being killed is more important than a cold
fact that MILLIONS were starved, killed, thrown under ice alive?
Wow!
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
"tewins" <tew...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:SubL6.25123$482.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Alex Chaihorsky
You do not know what happened. You are using "would have trusted", assuming
things.
Who cares how he got the info? The fact is - he was right all along.
Blacklisting Communists who openly declare that they have no motherland and
their only alliance is with International proletariat? Who openly declare
their aim for Proletariat Dictature?
CERTAINLY.
> >
> > >
> > > I'll repeat this for the third time: Allende was democratically
elected.
> > Even
> > > if he was supported by the Soviets, and I hadn't heard that he was,
that
> > doesn't
> > > delegitimatize him. Precisely what did he do that you are opposed to,
> > aside
> > > from having the wrong ideology?
> >
> > Yes, he was elected by due process. So, removing him was illegal. That
is
> > why I think Pinochet is a hero. He knowingly committed a political crime
to
> > save millions of his countrymen from Communist TERROR.
>
> Specific crimes committed by Allende, aside from ideology?
>
> In other words, you're saying that if you disagree with the policies of a
duly
> elected government, you have the right to stage a violent insurrection and
set
> up a dictatorship.
No, I did not say that. I said that if a Political Party which ideology is
studded with the history of atrocities WITHOUT SINGLE EXCEPTION comes to
power - honest people will have to decide if they want to follow German
example or Pinochet example. No third way is available (immigration is
another option, but not for people with responsibilities).
And your point is?
>
> >
> > Is my logic 100% iron-clad? No. From a legal point of view Pinochet was
> > WRONG.
> > My question - if Neo-Nazis will come to power by democratic process,
will
> > you oppose an attempt to stop them on the grounds of their history?
> > If you do oppose it and let them have the power, I lost my argument. If
you
> > do not - I won.
>
> Assuming a fair and honest election, they have the mandate of the people.
I
> would certainly protest loudly and often, but my opinions don't give me
the
> right to tell a country that they only have the right to elect people I
agree
> with.
Yours is certainly a one way to look at it. I already acknowledged the legal
holes in my logic. What I say is - if you are sure in your heart that you do
the right thing - do it, but be prepared to answer the judgement of the
nation later.
>
> Actually, if this country ever went far enough to the right to make
electing
> neo-Nazis even a serious possibility, I'd probably leave the country.
However,
> that doesn't give me the right to stage a violent insurrection, as long as
they
> obey the Constitution. If they turn the government into a military
> dictatorship, then yes, I believe I would have the moral imperative to
bring
> them down.
What if you know that in all the history of Communist/Socialist movement
there were not a one instance where they would not install their beloved
Proletariat Dictatorship?
Did Alliende EVER denounced Proletariat Dictatorship? NO. Did he ever
denounced Class warfare? NO.
That is my point.
Alex Chaihorsky
eno, NV
Khab
Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> You cannot be THAT stupid. So a sobbing paragraph of speculation on her
> death (Nobody knows who killed her, remember? So all that passage is a
> FANTASY). BTW, you do realize that the COMMUNISTS such as Rosa and Karl
> attempted to steal power FROM FELLOW SOCIALISTS, do you not? The Revolution
> of Nov 10th brought to the power democratic socialists, remember? Lenin was
> furious and Karl and Rosa attempted a coup. So it would be more realistic to
> assume that she was killed by SOCIALISTS.
Please elaborate more coherently.
>
> In any case my theory is as good as Doblin's. Certainly he had to make an
> anti-Semitic motive too. He was there, listening, right?
> And you willing to forget the deaths of MILLIONS of Lenin/Trotsky's victims
> during 1917-1919 Russian Revolution which she applauded and was an active
> participant because ...
She wasn't an active participant in the Russian Revolution; she was in prison at
the time. Furthermore, she disapporoved of Lenin, and foresaw the totalitarian
state the U.S.S.R. would become.
Khab
Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> "Khab" <khNOaba...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3AFD2D85...@home.com...
> >
> >
> > Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> >
> > > "Khab" <khNOaba...@home.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3AFD13BA...@home.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> <snip>
> > So you don't consider denouncing and effectively blacklisting people as
> > communists persecution?
> >
> > McCarthy didn't know about Venona. No one would have trusted him with
> that
> > information, because he was an idiot with a big mouth.
> >
> > >
>
> You do not know what happened. You are using "would have trusted", assuming
> things.
So in effect, you're saying that someone who blurts out top secret information
for the purpose of violating the 1st Amendment is the sort of person who would
be trusted with that information in the first place.
>
> Who cares how he got the info? The fact is - he was right all along.
>
So you're arguing that the ends justify the means. Nice, very nice for someone
nominally so opposed to a dictatorship as the transition to a classless society.
> Blacklisting Communists who openly declare that they have no motherland and
> their only alliance is with International proletariat? Who openly declare
> their aim for Proletariat Dictature?
> CERTAINLY.
>
It's a blatent violation of the 1st Amendment to blacklist people for their
political beliefs.
And you're mistaken; in Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx writes that the
dictatorship of the proletariat is to be the transition stage between capitalist
and socialist/communist society. In fact, socialism holds that everyone has to
be free, which clearly conflicts with your conception that socialist society is
"the dictatorship of the proletariat".
"Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one
party - however numerous they may be - is no freedom at all. Freedom is always
and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any
fanatical concept of 'justice' but because all that is instructive, wholesome,
and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and
ifts effectiveness vanishes when 'freedom' becomes a special privilege."
--Rosa Luxembourg, "The Russian Revolution"
The ideology is not studded with the history of atrocities. There is absolutely
nothing in the socialist philosophy calling for atrocities.
Here, you are holding that every adherent to a particular point-of-view is
tainted by the actions of others.
You argue that only communist refugees from Chile object to Pinochet; I've
provided a counter-example to your assertion.
And I note that you have not provided me with a single crime committed by
Allende, aside from the alleged "crime" of being a communist.
>
>
> Alex Chaihorsky
> eno, NV
Mathew
On 5 May 2001, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
>
> "tewins" <tew...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:azII6.18929$482....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> >
> > >will see that the descendants of Russian Communist Jews are rabidly
> > >anti-Communist and pro-individualism and Capitalism.
> > >How the American Jewry is still in love with Marxism, is beyond me.
> > >
> >
> >On the other hand, you can point out that a
> > lot of the Jewish Marxist tradition in the US stems from Jewish Menshevik
> > exiles such as Martov, and Humanists such as Erich Fromm. Such people
> > always made clear their projects were different than that of the
> Stalinists
> > anyway.
>
> The absolute majority of American and European Communists supported
> Bolsheviks and saluted everything they did.
> Andre Zhid was one of the every few critics and was ostracised for that
> ruthlessly.
>
> The reality is - every implementation of Marxism gave birth to monstrocities
> of enormous proportions. Nazis can also argue that they need the second
> chance that there were more humane and non-radical Nazis than Hitler. Do we
> owe them a second chance? Why Marxists are better? They killed more people
> for no other reason than "wrong" class label than Nazis killed for "wrong"
> race label.
>
> >Some of them paid for it with their lives.
>
> Yes, but majority just before they died, applauded others being killed
> (Bucharin, Yakir, Schmidt, Radek).
> Or were killing others themselves (Yagoda, Sverdlov, Ezhov,Trotsky, etc.)
>
> >They have every right
> > to be proud of maintaining an alternative, more humanist and liberal
> version
> > of Marxism, and they have every right to keep that tradition alive today
> and
> > in the future.
> >
>
> Right to be proud... Certainly.
> Neo-Nazis are also proud of their heritage. So are Maoists.
> Marxism is a monster ideology. Anyone who read "Communist Manifesto" (really
> read it, not read an article about it) knows that.
Marxism as it has been,is never the way Marx intended it to be.
Marxism/Communism is soley a "material" based ideology(as it has been
manifested),Capitalism is based on "materialism".
Do you see the difference?
> In my opinion there is no difference between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.
> Mensheviks never had power available to them. If they would - they will do
> exactly the same as Bolsheviks. All Marxist are nice until they seize power.
> The bestiaries starts the next day.
> If you want to enslave the country you meet resistance. And if you did read
> Manifesto, you know that Marxism is about slavery.
> If you disagree - let us stop right here and argue that.
> But - one condition - you sign, as I do, with your real name. If you believe
> in what you say - you should have no problem with it. I do not argue with
> shadows.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex Chaihorsky
> Reno, NV
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
~~~i LeoNid ~~
<m...@kuentos.guam.net> planted &I saw in alt.conspiracy:
>Marxism/Communism is soley a "material" based ideology(as it has been
>manifested),Capitalism is based on "materialism".
>
>Do you see the difference?
>
Please elaborate. Its interesting to hear your o-pi-nion.
As far as I understand -on/in practice- - what is in the West -now- - is
mostly _imitation_ of capitalism, with capital (at large) moved by several
-ideo-logy- (sub)branches, who already accumulated most of it.
And there is little (if anything at all) left to free (from ideology)
enterprize.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> I was talking about Karl Liebknecht, not Marx.
>
> Yes, they were dead by 1919, after unsuccessfull Communist coup. It was
> Barbus, Feihtwanger, Rollan who supported Stalin.
Names I'm not familiar with.
Alex, can you fill me in on them?
>
> Alex.
>
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com
ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com
ab...@earthlink.com
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
Alex Chaihorsky
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3AFEFD64...@yahoo.com...
> Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> >
> > I was talking about Karl Liebknecht, not Marx.
> >
> > Yes, they were dead by 1919, after unsuccessfull Communist coup. It was
> > Barbus, Feihtwanger, Rollan who supported Stalin.
>
> Names I'm not familiar with.
>
> Alex, can you fill me in on them?
>
Sure.
Karl Liebknecht (sorry, I may misspell some names), international Communists
(Left Social-Democrat) - at the time Russian Communist Party was called
RSDWP - Russian Social Democrat Workers Party.
Together with Rosa Luxemburg successfully accomplished left-wing coup in Jan
1919, after Nov 10th "Revolution" in Germany brought to power mid-stream
Social-Democrats that were on their way to establish (more or less)
Democratic regime.
Using soldiers and navy that were loyal to Communists, took over some key
positions (if I remember right some banks and telegraph stations).
In a very short time the coup was over. Their bodies were found in a ditch.
Never ever have I seen any info on who killed them.
Both these characters were supporters of Lenin/Trotsky Terror tactics. In
some articles they discussed more democratic way of handling the situation,
but these remained just whst it was - some words on paper. Many did the same
trick - published some "humane" articles to cover their butts if the shit
will ever hit the fan and actively took part in killings and extermination
themselves.
These two never openly opposed Lenin and remained members of the same
Communist organizations. In Russia both were very popular until now. Their
names attached to streets, squares, factories, plants, ships, etc.
Barbus, Leon Feihhtwanger (I may misspell this one), Romen Rollan - European
Communists, writers. Supported Stalin's Terror despite the fact that their
own friends were killed. Did that because:
1. Were wined and dines like no one else in the history of the mankind
personally by Stalin
2. Were true Communists - believed that Communism must win at ANY costs (See
Rolan's diaries).
Among this folks only one was hones enough to dissent - Andre Zhid. For his
open criticism of Stalin he was ostracized by the rest of them.
Alex Chaihorsky
attempted to answer).
Before we proceed, I would like to know your real name.
Our discussion is getting more and more serious and I do not do that with
someone who can disappear at any time into oblivion.
Please, tell me who you are and we will proceed.
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, Nevada
"Khab" <khNOaba...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AFDB707...@home.com...
Khab
Alex Chaihorsky
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
"Khab" <khNOaba...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AFF3634...@home.com...