: It will be a great consolation to those who survived to know that their families were decimated by socialism - not communism. Actually, not even socialism, I said thats what Stalin et al called it, I was pointing out the general inorance of such things in your case, as far as I am concerned teh victims in said countries are victims of a breed of capitalism- state capitalism.
:We can certainly count on some people to bring up this point while overlooking the depravity of imperial Marxists. Do you suppose maybe that you missed my point, Deathy?
I'm not over looking teh depravity of teh Leninists, I certainly think that they missed a very simple point in their plans- anyone who wants to hold power must first and formost see that they retain it. This is true of any power structure. the point is not to create power structures, but to end them.
: Right! I've clearly admitted the failure of U.S. policy in many of these instances in previous posts.
But was it a failure, or just the normal functioning, thats the point being raised?
:You have no intention of finding fault in communist imperialism, do you!?
I do, I think that much of what happened with teh third international was rather teh Foriegn policy of Moscow, though teh Idea that all Commmunist movements were under the direct control of Moscow has shown itself to be a Cold-war fantasy.
:You have no intention of ascribing any moral imperative to the actions of the U.S. that opposed it, do you!? You really don't believe an egalitarian ideal can become depraved, do you!?
No, I don't believe the US had any moral underpinnings, I don't even think world war two was fought for moral reasons (the Alliance with Stalinist Russia blows that fantastic notion out of the water.) A curursory examination of US forign policy Before, During and After the Cold War shows that nothing much changes in all that time, except the Justifications for interventions in smaller countries. Again, as for your second point, I'm not entirely convinced that many of those movements were egalitarian (certainly Vietnam was a Nationalist Revolt first and foremost, as was Cambodia), and further, I think they were inhrently flawed due to their practise of a minority trying to lead and impose egalitarian principles on teh majroity- they were just Jacobins, really.
: That's cute. Capitalism is guilty no matter what. I want you to know I'm not here to defend capitalism so much as get you to see your own blind trust in men and the plots they devise to remove the stain of their own depravity. Look at what you've done here, Deathy. You've completely glossed over the hundred million dead at the hands of the practioners of your ideology by blaming it on capitalism.
No, they're not my comrades:
1:the SPGB was founded in 1904, before Lenin even wrote 'what is to be done.
2:the SPGB *opposed* the bolshevik revolution, on teh grounds that Socialism was not possible:
i)In russia.
ii) In a revolt only led by a minority.
3:As far as I am concerned, most of those subsequent revolutions were bringing about Capitalism in their states (a lot of eminent capitalist economists thought a Leninist Dictatorship was a fiiiine way for a third world economy to develop its economy).
: Look, your not going to remove communist culpability by calling the U.S.S.R. capitalist.
I'm not saying that the Perpetrators did or didn't kill millions (I'd have to read the book for further details), but rather that those eperpetrators had precious little to do with Marxian Socialism.
:That's not my argument. I argue that the U.S. was morally correct to stop whatever it is you wish to call the imperial collectivist machine that was the Soviet Union.
Ah, now thats a different argument. However, from the descriptions I've heard of teh US's attempts to do this,
1:They seem highly selective actions, confined to specific US imperialist spheres of influence, rather than a world-wide attempt to stop Russia.
2:It was a mismatched fight, with much US effort going in to talking the enemy up.
3:The US never intervened in the Recognised Russian sphere.
4:The war istelf seemed generally to lack principles- the US behaviour towards Italy and Greece after the War, its continued suypport for Turkey and Indonesia, etc. suggest that economic/political interest predominate over naive anti-communism.
: Sure! Hold the U.S. policy maker's feet to the fire if his tactic used in morally opposing widescale depravity was illegal or immoral itself. I have no desire to support immorality on any level. Make sure, however, that when you do this you don't offer a blanket condemnation of all U.S. servicemen, most of which are committed to honor.
I don't, I only ever stick t condemming teh leadres and decision makers that sacrifice working class lives in wars that are not in teh workers interest (and thats all wars). Soldiers are workers and decent people too. they probably really believed they were fighting Communism, although as the character in 'Short Timers' puts it, 'If I were fighting for a word, that word would be 'Pootang!''
: Put "Black Book of Communism" in your browser and find out. It's on the best seller list in France and has cause a great deal of commotion in the upper levels of government there.
Some authors would be helpful, might have other works listed here....
Deathster.
