PDA

View Full Version : The Perfect Communist



Fraxinus Excelsior
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 01:41 AM
A recent post (http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=173815&postcount=83) made by Tifilis got me thinking:

http://www.komunizm.px.pl/scs.jpg

Isn't it just wonderful that when millions of Soviet citizens were starving to death, djugashvili was able to have such nice cars?

Marx said:

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."So, was djugashvili's lifestyle contradictory to communist ideology?

By red definition, shouldn't owning these cars have made djugashvili a "bourgeois" property owner?

Nehaj
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 02:55 AM
Yeah. Real communist would have driven a Ford.

Social-Nationalist
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 05:31 PM
Isn't it just wonderful that when millions of Soviet citizens were starving to death,
...as a result of kulak terrorism and natural disasters.

djugashvili was able to have such nice cars?
Can you substantiate this?

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
That is communism, not socialism. USSR was socialist, and never claimed to be 'communist'. Socialism is "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his deeds."

So, was djugashvili's lifestyle contradictory to communist ideology?
Not in the slightest. By the way, Stalin died with only two pairs of clothes and ten roubles in his pocket. He didn't have a bad, so he slept in a sofa. His lifestyle was very 'Spartan'.

By red definition, shouldn't owning these cars have made djugashvili a "bourgeois" property owner?
By 'property' Marxists mean the means of production...owning private property means privately owning the means of production, and being bourgeois means owning the means of production and being an employer of wage labour, i.e., a capitalist. Private property has nothing to do with personal property. If I had my own private factory and I employed workers, I would be a bourgeois.

You know, all of this would be crystal clear from a simple study of the very basics of Marxism. But anti-communists are rarely ever interested in that.

AryanKrieger
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 08:08 PM
A recent post (http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=173815&postcount=83) made by Tifilis got me thinking:

http://www.komunizm.px.pl/scs.jpg

Isn't it just wonderful that when millions of Soviet citizens were starving to death, djugashvili was able to have such nice cars?

Marx said:
So, was djugashvili's lifestyle contradictory to communist ideology?

By red definition, shouldn't owning these cars have made djugashvili a "bourgeois" property owner?
Stalin, a half Jew was by definition a hypocrite.
The only valid form of socialism is National Socialism-socialism for Das Volk.

Social-Nationalist
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 08:28 PM
Stalin, a half Jew was by definition a hypocrite.
The only valid form of socialism is National Socialism-socialism for Das Volk.
Read my refutation above...and Stalin was not half Jewish.

StrÝbog
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 10:01 PM
...as a result of kulak terrorism and natural disasters.

LOL so the kulaks were to blame for upwards of 10 million of their own deaths? The Ukrainian famine was a 'natural disaster'?

Really, Communist apologetics are wearing thin...


By 'property' Marxists mean the means of production...owning private property means privately owning the means of production, and being bourgeois means owning the means of production and being an employer of wage labour, i.e., a capitalist. Private property has nothing to do with personal property. If I had my own private factory and I employed workers, I would be a bourgeois.

Marxists seem to openly believe that personal property is fair game to redress 'social inequities.' Suppose a millionaire bestows his fortune upon his son, is that now the son's personal property or 'bourgeouis' private property? The Winter Palace was the personal property of the Tsar, that didn't prevent the Marxists from taking it. Lenin stole the Romanov art collection and sold it on the Western black market; this constitutes theft of personal, not corporate, property.

Now, imagine what would have happened to someone who attempted to steal and sell Stalin's cars in order to redistribute wealth, and was caught. Would he/she have been regarded as a Worker's Hero? I think not.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 06:53 AM
I must admit that I always admired Socialists or Communists because I always felt that their hearts were in the right place. It was always their heads I questioned.

Social-Nationalist
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 08:27 AM
LOL so the kulaks were to blame for upwards of 10 million of their own deaths? The Ukrainian famine was a 'natural disaster'?

Really, Communist apologetics are wearing thin...
The majority of Soviet historians (anti-communists included) are of the opinion that the famine was not deliberate, and natural factors played a significant, according to some overriding, role. Conquest and the like are crackpots who do not represent the views of most Soviet historians. By the bye, the Kulaks were destroying grain deliveries, killing government officials, killing farm animals, attacking collectives, and committing numerous other acts of terrorism, because the bolsheviks took their wealth away from them.

Marxists seem to openly believe that personal property is fair game to redress 'social inequities.'
No, egalitarianism has nothing to do with Marxist thinking, Lenin explicitly attacked the concept on numerous occasions, and personal property has nothing to do with Marx's theses of socialism and communism.

Suppose a millionaire bestows his fortune upon his son, is that now the son's personal property or 'bourgeouis' private property?
You really need to understand the term 'bourgeois'. It does not mean 'rich' or 'middle class'. it is simply descriptive of him who privately owns the means of production and employs wage labour. (of course this correlates with wealth, but that is beside the point.) I suppose a million dollars is personal property, though Marxists are generally oppose to inheritance of wealth; but not simply on the grounds that it is personal property.

The Winter Palace was the personal property of the Tsar, that didn't prevent the Marxists from taking it. Lenin stole the Romanov art collection and sold it on the Western black market; this constitutes theft of personal, not corporate, property.
It was a great humane act. Had these parasites not been annihilated (and as a result, their personal property taken), they could have been used as symbolic leaders of the counter-revolution. It was a strategic necessity, and the bolsheviks weren't religious enough to respect their Divinity. I value their 'personal property' (and their lives) less than that of many ordinary families. after all, their disgusting exorbitance of wealth and luxuries came about through expenditure of the profits acquired by means of robbing the workers of the wealth that they produce & hence (in my opinion) is rightfully theirs.

Now, imagine what would have happened to someone who attempted to steal and sell Stalin's cars in order to redistribute wealth, and was caught. Would he/she have been regarded as a Worker's Hero? I think not.
Correct, that would be theft. but I do not hold those feudal cretins at the same level as the bolsheviks or the common man on the street.

Fraxinus Excelsior
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 08:40 PM
...as a result of kulak terrorism and natural disasters. And, djugashvili's ridiculous collectivist programs.

Can you substantiate this?Well, since I wasn't there, I'll just take his fancy-clothes and the cars (in the picture) as evidence enough.

That is communism, not socialism. USSR was socialist, and never claimed to be 'communist'. Socialism is "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his deeds."djugashvili (Stalin) was appointed General Secretary of the Communist Party (of the USSR) in April 1922.

Not in the slightest. By the way, Stalin died with only two pairs of clothes and ten roubles in his pocket. He didn't have a bad, so he slept in a sofa. His lifestyle was very 'Spartan'.Sure, he did; a "Spartan lifestyle" is by choice, and it his highly probable that a "Spartan lifestyle" was not why he died "with only two pairs of clothes and ten roubles in his pocket". This happened, I believe, because Soviet society realized he was nothing more than a malignant dwarf with only his best interests in mind, so they "communized" his possessions, giving them to other high ranking party officials.
By 'property' Marxists mean the means of production...owning private property means privately owning the means of production, and being bourgeois means owning the means of production and being an employer of wage labour, i.e., a capitalist. Private property has nothing to do with personal property. If I had my own private factory and I employed workers, I would be a bourgeois.Is that why, in every communist country, the largest houses are confiscated and used as "communal housing" of some sort?

You know, all of this would be crystal clear from a simple study of the very basics of Marxism. But anti-communists are rarely ever interested in that. If I ever wish to expand my understanding of "marxist" ideology, I would go read the talmud.

In the following link, we see how "marx" tried his best to express his "ideas" on private property: Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm)

Social-Nationalist
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 10:28 PM
And, djugashvili's ridiculous collectivist programs.

False. They were wholly successful, and they constituted the final phase of liquidating the agricultural bourgeoisie, a rich minority who'd exploited the poor peasants for over 300 years, and who were the primary cause of the troubles associated with the process of collectivisation (as I said, because their wealth and power were taken away from them by the bolsheviks, they responded by killing farm animals, destroying grain deliveries and trains, refusing to produce, killing government officials, etc.; in a word doing everything in their power to thwart collectivisation).


Well, since I wasn't there, I'll just take his fancy-clothes and the cars (in the picture) as evidence enough.

The picture doesn't suggest anything to me. Perhaps you could be more explicit.

And need I remind you that your original thesis was that his having a car made him bourgeois, and that your argument collapsed when I defined 'bourgeoisie' for you?

djugashvili (Stalin) was appointed General Secretary of the Communist Party (of the USSR) in April 1922.
A completely irrelevant fact. How does this counter what you quoted? You might as well tell us what your favourite type of cheese is.

Sure, he did; a "Spartan lifestyle" is by choice, and it his highly probable that a "Spartan lifestyle" was not why he died "with only two pairs of clothes and ten roubles in his pocket". This happened, I believe, because Soviet society realized he was nothing more than a malignant dwarf with only his best interests in mind, so they "communized" his possessions, giving them to other high ranking party officials.
What possessions are you talking about? Can you name any specific ones? (Never mind the fact that Stalin's salary, and the salary of other high-ranking members of the communist party, was 30 roubles.) And what were Stalin's "best interests"? Avoid uneducated pseudo-psychologising in your answer (which will be difficult, since his only 'best interest' could be 'power', of which he had little).

Is that why, in every communist country, the largest houses are confiscated and used as "communal housing" of some sort?
Can you give me any specific examples of this? Always try to give specific examples to reinforce your argument, otherwise it is generally weak, as in this case.

If I ever wish to expand my understanding of "marxist" ideology, I would go read the talmud.
Where is Marx's theory of alienation mentioned in the Talmud? And what about the labour theory of value (which never existed in any form until Locke)? Or how about historical and dialectical materialism? And so on and so forth. And if you haven't read the Talmud, and if you are as utterly ignorant of the basic concepts of Marxism as I well know you are, how did you conclude that your knowledge on Marxism would expand on reading the Talmud?

In the following link, we see how "marx" tried his best to express his "ideas" on private property:
What "about" these "ideas"? "What" do "they" have "to" "with" "the" "discussion"? I think it rather "cute" that you are trying to reinforce your argument by putting key words in inverted commas, as if it somehow makes a weak argument stronger. You don't even do it right. :)

For your original thesis was that Stalin's lifestyle contradicted his ideology, and as evidence of this you submitted that his owning a car made him a bourgeois (which I easily refuted by presenting you with the definition of bourgeois, something which you have doubtless never seen in your life). You have now completely dodged responsibility for this claim.

By the bye, those manuscripts, though brilliant, bear little similarity with his later thought, which is what constitutes "Marxism" proper. Not only this, but, as I recall, those manuscripts are concerned with private property, not personal property -- and are therefore irrelevant to this discussion (your original thesis being based on the now disproven assumption that Stalin's personal property made him a bourgeois).

Fraxinus Excelsior
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2004, 01:33 AM
False. They were wholly successful, and they constituted the final phase of liquidating the agricultural bourgeoisie, a rich minority who'd exploited the poor peasants for over 300 years, and who were the primary cause of the troubles associated with the process of collectivisation (as I said, because their wealth and power were taken away from them by the bolsheviks, they responded by killing farm animals, destroying grain deliveries and trains, refusing to produce, killing government officials, etc.; in a word doing everything in their power to thwart collectivisation).Well, how about murderous, insane, maniacal, etc.


The picture doesn't suggest anything to me. Perhaps you could be more explicit. Often times the blind are blind because they choose to be blind. ("denial", as in "you are in denial")
And need I remind you that your original thesis was that his having a car made him bourgeois, and that your argument collapsed when I defined 'bourgeoisie' for you? And need I remind you that by owning private/personal property and by being a "have", he was a member of the property owning class, and that, in marxist thinking, makes him an oppressor of the "have nots".


A completely irrelevant fact. How does this counter what you quoted? You might as well tell us what your favourite type of cheese is.It's highly relevent because you are incorrect, again;


That is communism, not socialism. USSR was socialist, and never claimed to be 'communist'. Socialism is "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his deeds." You said that the USSR was not communist, when in fact the USSR was very communist.


Can you give me any specific examples of this? Always try to give specific examples to reinforce your argument, otherwise it is generally weak, as in this case.Cuba, China, etc., look around for any houses larger than shack-size that don't have, like 20 people living there.


Where is Marx's theory of alienation mentioned in the Talmud? And what about the labour theory of value (which never existed in any form until Locke)? Or how about historical and dialectical materialism? And so on and so forth. And if you haven't read the Talmud, and if you are as utterly ignorant of the basic concepts of Marxism as I well know you are, how did you conclude that your knowledge on Marxism would expand on reading the Talmud? When you can finally break yourself away from some book by marx, take a look at "The Bible: The Devil's Book"; it explains the truth about judaeo-bolshevism.
What "about" these "ideas"? "What" do "they" have "to" "with" "the" "discussion"? I think it rather "cute" that you are trying to reinforce your argument by putting key words in inverted commas, as if it somehow makes a weak argument stronger. You don't even do it right. I used the quotation marks on "marx" because his name was not "marx", and I used quotes on the other words, such as "ideas", because I believe that using the word "idea" in reference to "marx" almost grants legitimacy to his work.

Maybe you should go back to grammar school, bud.

Don't get frustrated just because you're too dense to comprehend anything that goes on in the real world. I'm sure that if you think really hard you might just be able to almost understand the basics of politics and economics; until then, keep trying, I'm sure you'll get there one day.


For your original thesis was that Stalin's lifestyle contradicted his ideology, and as evidence of this you submitted that his owning a car made him a bourgeois (which I easily refuted by presenting you with the definition of bourgeois, something which you have doubtless never seen in your life). You have now completely dodged responsibility for this claim.It wasn't the car that made him bourgeois, it was the fact that it was a brand new luxury car; and it looked like he had more than one of them.


By the bye, those manuscripts, though brilliant, bear little similarity with his later thought, which is what constitutes "Marxism" proper. Not only this, but, as I recall, those manuscripts are concerned with private property, not personal property -- and are therefore irrelevant to this discussion (your original thesis being based on the now disproven assumption that Stalin's personal property made him a bourgeois).Owning "private property" and/or "personal property" are contradictory to communist "thinking"; owning either qualifies one as a "have".

Since this particular thread has devolved into infantile bickering, as is often the case when discussing with communists/morons, I will not be returning (to this thread) to answer any more flaccid commie "retorts".

Social-Nationalist
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2004, 06:36 PM
And need I remind you that by owning private/personal property and by being a "have", he was a member of the property owning class, and that, in marxist thinking, makes him an oppressor of the "have nots".
Not according to Marxist thinking. According to your laughably distorted conception of Marxist thinking which bears no similarity with actual Marxist thinking. You aren't even capable of distinguishing private property from personal property, as shown above and repeatedly in the course of this discussion.

You said that the USSR was not communist, when in fact the USSR was very communist.
Do you even know what communism is? How does Stalin's leadership from 1921 make the Soviet Union communist? The Soviet Union was socialist, and never claimed to be communist. A 'communist state' is an oxymoron which is only used by anti-communists.

I used the quotation marks on "marx" because his name was not "marx", and I used quotes on the other words, such as "ideas", because I believe that using the word "idea" in reference to "marx" almost grants legitimacy to his work.
'Ideas' of which you are admittedly ignorant.

It wasn't the car that made him bourgeois, it was the fact that it was a brand new luxury car; and it looked like he had more than one of them.
This contradicts your original thesis:
'By red definition, shouldn't owning these cars have made djugashvili a "bourgeois" property owner?'

Owning "private property" and/or "personal property" are contradictory to communist "thinking"; owning either qualifies one as a "have".
No, only private property. You can't even tell me which thesis of Marxism owning personal property contradicts; again and again you exhibit unparalleled ignorance.

Oskorei
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2004, 07:47 PM
And what about the labour theory of value (which never existed in any form until Locke).
Except in the theories of Ibn-Khaldun and Thomas Aquinas of course ;)