[Public_Domain]

[Mustang1]

Goober_McGee Goober_McGee:

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

Thanks comrade. Mistakes happen, like Stalin, so you must learn from them.

You're absolutely right mistakes do happen, like Hitler. National Socialism really is a great ideology and I think we really have to separate the ideology from the actions of the individuals who espoused that ideology. So it's okay, the next time National Socialism comes to power in a country we'll think things through a little more so mistakes won't be repeated.

Uhh...how is this analogous? Stalin perverted (and on many levels so did Lenin before him) Marxism/Socialism with a brutal totalitarian regime that murdered his own people. Where did Hitler do that with National Socialism? It didn't start out as a reactionary movement? It wasn't stepped in radical nationalism? There was no racist overtones in the Volkish desire? Besides, Drexler was no Marx as Hitler assumed ideological control by 1921, thus Nazism was largely under his (and the Strassers, Goebels, Himmler) guidance. He never perverted it, he only nurtured it and expanded upon it.

And the last time i checked, socialism HAS been implemented in modern democratic societies whereas historical Nazism has become a cautionary tale and often misquoted tactic on internet forums.

[Mustang1]

Proculation Proculation:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Proculation Proculation:

That I understand but the two are inseparable.

No, they're not. What about Cyprus? In fact, if you want to be accurate, the states/individuals you listed are types, sub-sets of communism (certainly it's not Marxism in all cases) where authoritarian/totalitarian governments run hand and hand with ideology or a professed ideology. That's specifically why history/political science recognizes Leninism, Maoism, Trotyskism, Stalinism as forms/types/variants of communism and many contemporary models are actually defined as state communist, which is not pure communism (the best example of this would be the Paris Commune).

Besides, if you really wanted to get technical, many socialist states have existed that are no more guilty of atrocities than any other ideology.

Hummm I didn't know about Cyprus but I went to look it up. It seems that indeed, a Marxist party has won the 2008 elections. But further reading tells me that there has not been any change really. The economy is still running in free-market mode.

I understand what you mean. But as you say, communism never happened (and is impossible). Karl Marx ideal was more a theoretical essay than a model. Actually, his work was much more useful to perfect liberalism than to promote communism. He precised important terms like "property", "rights" and "personal freedom".

For Marx, personal freedoms (even religious) must be proscribed since it's against the society good and considered "bourgeois". In a communist ideal, there's not only no property but also no freedoms.

That said, I don't understand how you can subdue 100% of people to give up all their properties and freedoms. The solution he found was the "class struggle" and the revolution. That's why communism is inseparable with some kind of authoritarian-totalitarian and with mass murders: those who do not believe in communism must be eliminated. Since the final ideal of Marx was communism over ALL the world, that is kinda scary since if it's a willingful group with only a few dissenters, they can just evict them. Your case about the Paris Commune is right but it was small and not long living. It was people sharing the same communist ideal.

But if you want to "liberate" a whole country, you have to purge the dissenters. That's the revolution and the violent part of the road to communism. The problem is that you never fulfill all the checklist to, at the end, declare the end of the state and give the power to the people. Conclusion: you stay in a endless authoritarian-totalitarian state.

So like I said, the model Marx imagined in more an essay, an ideal. But it is totally impossible to achieve.

I'm not promoting Marxism, far from it, in fact. I'm merely stating that when his ideas have been practically applied they deviate from the original model in such a manner that they actually receive their own lexicon. Stalinism isn't Marxism, for example. And when these brutal, ugly regimes achieve political power their mandates are implemented under the iron heal of totalitarianism. Government style is arguably just as influential when examining a state, and when genocide, murder or cleansing occurs historically it's a mix of "communism" (or its variants) AND authoritarian/totalitarianism.

[Proculation]

no no no.

I understood you didn't want to promote Marxism. Sorry if I was not clear (i'm french you know.. ).

I just wanted to give some hints about all the terms that are, i hope you understand, "mistaken".

[Mustang1]

Proculation Proculation:

no no no.

I understood you didn't want to promote Marxism. Sorry if I was not clear (i'm french you know.. ).

I just wanted to give some hints about all the terms that are, i hope you understand, "mistaken".

That's no problem...i just wanted to make a distinction between ideology and government style.

[Proculation]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Proculation Proculation:

no no no.

I understood you didn't want to promote Marxism. Sorry if I was not clear (i'm french you know.. ).

I just wanted to give some hints about all the terms that are, i hope you understand, "mistaken".

That's no problem...i just wanted to make a distinction between ideology and government style.

So anyway, I stand to what I said:

Mr Canada has very great skills to what he does.

But, I just hope he will understand the paradox of what he is sketching

Hint for Mr Canada: If you want to use a more "neutral" symbol, use the "socialist rose":





or the more radical "hand in the air":





They are more neutral symbol still associated to socialism and communism but less associated with the atrocities of the USSR et al. like the hammer and sickle.

I'm sure you can get some nice pictures from them and less provocative.

[Proculation]

I still call Voltaire to say: "I disapprove of what you say (or draw), but I will fight to death for you to say it (or draw it)" !

[Public_Domain]

[Public_Domain]

[Thanos]

Found these for you:

Soviet war paintings

A so-called "professional art critic" would probably hate them altogether, but to me they seemed pretty epic. Typically Russian. Epic artwork for a people used to both epic tragedies and victories. "The greatest victory in the history of the world", as Garth Ennis correctly called it in "303".

Damn heart-breaking too if you ask me, especially these two. First one's titled "Missed In Action" and the second one's "The Last Letter". Damn things are nearly enough to make me start weeping:

[Public_Domain]

[PostFactum]

Pretty nice

[PublicAnimalNo9]

This picture says it all for me. THIS, is what the Russian soldiers were fighting for, not for Stalin, not for some ideological doctrine, but for their homes and neighbours.

[martin14]

Thanos Thanos:

Found these for you:


Damn heart-breaking too if you ask me, especially these two. First one's titled "Missed In Action" and the second one's "The Last Letter". Damn things are nearly enough to make me start weeping:

Nice find Thanos.



Much better than our idiotically ignorant resident attention whore.

[Public_Domain]