User talk:Gnomz007/Archive2

communism thought today and the youth

Hi. I noticed that you seem to think 1) Communist is bad, and you seem to use your ethinicity in making it seem more reasonable 2) You think that the young (naive) have been somehow taught or just decided to think that communism is good and they they didn't experience it, and easily believe it is good...

What you don't understand is that most communists today have nothing to do with a non-existent country, the USSR (which is your entire basis on anticommunism). Most everyone who supports communism today has little care for Stalinism. And most young communist associate with Trotsky if any at all from the old legacy of the october revolution... Besides, young communists are aware of

1) USSR wasn't communist, because the state owned everything (socialism) Although they were run by a communist described party, but since the fall of Lenin they didn't seem to care much for the ideal of lenin's communism: "for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie"-- Stalin withdrew from the comintern to show support for the west! Since the fall of Lenin and rise of Stalin, the USSR's legitamcy as a revolutionary force ended long ago, almost as soon as it started. 2) Troksy described this as nothing related to communism or even socialism since it was a deformed communist state, ie: completely corrupt (where were the worker's running *anything*?) 3) Some communists in the later half of the 20th century saw hope in communism and the USSR, but so many saw and still see the USSR as a corrupt state, and wished or are thankful for its demise. The saying after the collapse of USSR: "one down, one more to go."

I understand your point. I'm pretty much aware that most Communists today are thinkers on their own and are not mindless (just like the historical intellientsia).

But what you must understand that during actual course of events there were commited many acts that would be considered crimes by any standard without Stalin.

I do not believe that the initial goal of Bolsheviks was to starve or murder people, but this is what they have done to keep the situation their way. There is no value in any ideology on it's own, only in it's accomplisments, what you call capitalism is closer to lacking ideology at all - and for what I know it does accomplish.

And the mantra workers-workers does not work in Russia - most of population was peasants - all my grand-grands were peasants and they really did not like what was going on.

What annoys me is that people have no problem saying the "C"-word just like it was not written on everywhere in the USSR, like it is untainted.

I can not endorse it - most of the time when it meets the reality(not just USSR, there are other distant examples) - it causes mismanagement, coercion and such, I would not insist that it had corrupt ideas behind, just because of indoctrination. There is just one bad idea which is always a bad idea - "we've got to do it, no matter what".

What if this difference between USSR and what you want is the difference between science and engineering.

By contrast I do endorse Open Source - because it is practical - people have plenty of creativity and many people want to have a hand in a bigger project - and it works well within capitalistic framework, nobody does any coercion.

If there is a society which can produce superior results - it can be without Trotsky, Lenin and the "C"-word at all.

I have no hope to combat beliefs, for "Personal beliefs can be likened to nails - the harder you hit them, the deeper they are" (IIRC Tolstoy wrote that).

If you really believe that western democracy is sold out, then it completely contradicts my feelings, and please, don't hit it, this is a belief.

–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 20:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why do you even need Marx - he wrote more than a century ago, and most people who swore by him have brought nothing but destruction, I refuse to comment on his writings, there are not much of those I've had as compulsory reading imposed by an old-school philosophy instructor.

I do not have a reason to believe that those minority of "good Bolsheviks" was not just a random group in their traditional in-fighting, today it is easy to review those distant events and it looks completely different from different POV, you can not see it well today nor can I. I'm against bashing Bolshevisks mindlessly, but I think I know enough not to like them as a whole and particular personalities also.

But anyway thank you for enlightement on the matter.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 22:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

This discusion is nice. Like many indepth talks, there will be replies so here are some:

reply #1: Trotsky was anti-soviet, and anti-communism as we all know it, but not anti-communism as those (like me) who support communism or simply anti-capitalism. He spoke such truths and I respect him, he was outspoken, he wasn't a polotician, and he was so true...

reply #2: Marx is a philosopher, but philosophical truths are eternal and this doesn't matter how long ago they were written. Plato wrote repulic SOO long ago, and we model most of our governments on it! Marx's writings are only 150 years old, and MUCH more contemporary than Plato. His writing will be true for a long time and are much more relating now. Here are some Marx quotes... "The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them" (to this day, the only ones that I can vote for are those of the highest class... the fact that his writings are still SO true merits Marx with much credit... even though he is a critic!) Also consider that "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. " And yet Marx still has so much credit by so many (becuase he spoke the truth, as all philosphers do, and wasn't out to fill others with propganda-- people truely see through propganda and respect a true voice), he is often considered one of the greatest contemporary philosophers in very western countries (eg: England recently did such a poll). more quotes at marx quotes.

reply #3: Communism, even in theory, back in the 19th century, was meant to be a applied to advanced industrialized societies, not in backwards undeveloped nations, where the slightest disprution will cause massive famine. When a new government, any goverment, is first founded, it is very rough phase (simply consider the all powerful USA, they owned slaves and killed british officials (treason) and native americans (mass civilian casualties) with pride). Now, imagine these factors when the USSR first came into power: a) No mass produced supplies from industrial production, if a war breaks out so many die because of such little food/supplies. b) All of the strongest western powers (90% of all the strength in the world...?) are against your country c) every other factor that comes with setting up not only a new government, but an ENTIRE new method of government... d) a 3 year civil war just occured in a very ruined nation... I'm supprised they even did so well with the power of Europe, USA and Japan against them.

reply #4: During the Russian Civil War, western countries helped fight the red army by sending troops to Russia, thus prolonging the war, and prolonging the state of civil war which caused a massive amount of civilian casualties (all in the effort of capitalist counter-revolution ideology indirectly killing civilians, very common)-- these are yet more killed by western powers. Western powers are also very responsible for killing massive ammounts of civilians... The CIA was relentless in installing brutal dictatorships in south america-- which resulted in many civilian casualties. And simply one more small example, Luis_Posada_Carriles who was employed by the CIA while he killed 73 people in a jetliner bombing-- the CIA-- the very actions of USA are the most ideological of all of history-- the nation that currently wants to forcibly (ie: against any soveirgn will) install "american democracy" in all nations-- is the most ideological and interfering nation of all history (not to mention what they do after they make countries dependant on them, see neocolonialism for one example)

reply #6: Before there was capitalism, there were monarchies and a very strict class system. The transition from this system to capitalism was rough, many died because when price controls where moved, many couldn't afford bread-- like with implementing any completly new system, people die as a result of change. This didn't bother Adam_Smith or others who promoted capitalism (ones who wouldn't starve from it, but would only gain because they were rich). And capitalism had a rough start, many were thinking it would turn into a form of slavery, where workers had no control and worked nonstop in factories.

reply #7: The ruling elite hate communism. They love to say communism = Soviet communist party, and that because the collapse of the USSR, that communist is dead and that capitalism is the only way, even if there are problems. I think if there is one thing that I could change here at all, it would be that communism is alive, capitalism isn't the *only* way and that communism isn't the USSR.

And last, I feel sorry because of how the USSR failed (long, long ago) at implementing communism, and only existed as a brutal relic of a failed attempt from so long ago... only to be used by capitalists as a weapon against anti-capitalist thought.

Fears of capitalism turning into slavery...aah thats Marx.

Monarchies were not good - ask anyone, Russian exceptionally, but they were all passing away, transition to capitalism was rough but capitalism did not turn into such massive slavery as USSR was. If you wish - not that harsh, actually much better.

Look, I know this is a not a solid argument, I do not want to endorse war of any kind, but it was USSR who precedented use of subversive tactics and proxy-wars, so CIA defaulted to support any opposition to USSR if any. Again who wanted to make world revolution?

You may think it is double standard to allow panic tactics for one side and disallow for another, but and I do not want to side with guys exploiting a backwards country for their massive plans.

I know I give Bolshevikls a single chance - not to be themselves or not to exist.

Capitalist society is real and does not have an option not to be "truly capitalistic" and evade your blame. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 01:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Just one last note, every Chechnyan separatist leader is rumored to have some KGB history...interesting. If you think that current USA policy has anything to do with ideology, I recommend looking back at history and seeing which countries had proxy wars backed by USSR and USSR-backed leaders making threats. You can see anti-communism as ideology, but it is Communism which by default has enemies, fear is no ideology.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 02:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for using the word to signify Soviet version of it, but since we speak of reality... –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 02:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't Marxism or Marx himself that saw workers becoming slaves, it was things like the great depression and children working in factories which prompted this, and at the time it was very sound thinking, capitalism was killing people and was only getting worse, and most importantly of all, it was rather new... which inherently means it is going to be difficult.

well... you say that, "USSR who precedented use of subversive tactics and proxy-wars, so CIA defaulted to support any opposition to USSR if any. Again who wanted to make world revolution?"... they used to want revlution, and it was still part of their "cause", but not really so after Lenin died and Stalin took over.... when Stalin dismantled the comintern, the very essence and creation of Lenin's revolution, USSR was nothing about revolution anymore. CIA topled leftist governments, of which had nothing to do with USSR. And since when did the KGB go into far away countries and set up communist countries like the western powers did so often?? So... the USA can topple governments foricbly and set up brutal, facist dictatorships to their own south, but the USSR couldn't even help communism in their own south? And then, somehow now the USA has the right to wage war in all of these countries? Since when did the USSR ever set up a proxy war?? I don't recall them helping any South American countries... USA has and currently probes and enforces itself everywhere in the world. CIA and the ruling elite described themselves as counter-revolutionaries, and with their abundant resources, they have done far more than communist-- no, all types of revolutionaries put together.

and... these so called communist revolutions (the only classless revolutions, in all previous revolutions there was a class which gained from and lead the revolution... ie: the rise of the bourgeosie and their triumph over monarchies...) could only happen in backwards countries, away from countries which used such pervasive and anti-democratic forms to protect capital and the capitalist... Besides, the united states lynched, jailed and censored people who even sympathised with communist ideas during 2 red scares. The European churches promoted facism simply because it was a means to counter communism. Members of the commuist party of Germany (Spartacus_League were brutaly slaughtered, and their bodies dumped in a river. Is it any wonder that if any communist revolution would occur, it would occur in countries with weakest elites?--4.152.102.39 03:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This is fear, and there is no smoke without fire and fire was there. And making revolution in Russia is an exploitation of a country, if that is the only chance for an ideology than it must accept it and NEVER TAKE IT, the chance of success of unverified social theory and chance of total chaos which was the actual result.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 04:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Whoa were both editing this at the same time heh. So about the last comment that I missed, "If you think that current USA policy has anything to do with ideology, I recommend looking back at history"... Doesn't american say they did it for democracy? And doesn't prez bush always say that "american democracy" must be in all countries everywhere? (ie: purely and very ideological, esp now that no other superpower can balance their aggresion) I'm just citing it, straight from their mouthes... The truth is, that neither the USSR or the USA were fighting for ideology after 1921, by then it was just a fight for power and capital... the never ending struggle all groups of people partake in at all times of the year and all hours of the day... Neither the USA nor the USSR fought for ideas after 1921, although, some in the Communist party felt it was important for there to be international revolution, and some in USA felt that democracy must be protected and then put into all nations... however, these people weren't in charge... and it was only rhetoric. --4.152.102.39 03:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Nope, this can not be, USSR was finacing millitary of many countries, and sponsored many countries' conversion during Cold War, you can claim any motives on their part, but they(we) apparently won nothing but millitary presense and could win not too much.

I see a trap in this argument

• you want me to stand up for USA democracy which I am willing to because I have hope in the political system here, not in Bush or Kerry in particular, it is harder to do because I have to take responsibility for Bush.
• You want me to accept that communism is a good ideology but not the one which was real but the theoretical one and because fear of it resulted ideology which is worse

I can not do that because the real one resulted in disaster and I see immediate benefits of keeping things, as they are, actually I see how countries benefit from converting from that USSR-type rotten state into capitalism. Sure there is a lot of inequality in those countries, but for that matter Russia ceased to mass-import grain during the droughts we are experiencing - production slowly climbs.

Sorry for bringing this thing back to this but for me the Communism it is memorials to heroes who exiled my grand-grands for being kulaks, leaving 6 childeren to relatives to grow, food by cards, unreadably writen history books, so you can not really figure out anything you learn, bookshelves of nonsense like "Atheists' handbook" sold bundled with The Three Musketeers after you bring 10kg of recyclable paper, it is work which nobody actually needs and nobody actually does, "international duty" in Afganistan(not done by me - I was too young to be drafted), next dumb-faced politician proposing nonsense policies because they sound contradictory to Yeltsin anti-people regime, then (post-Soviet) philosophy taught exclusively through Marx and arguments of Engels with others.

This all comes bundled, you can find many other bad things in current state but unfortunately I'm closed, I do not like the Soviet ideology and I do not care about the one which shares the name, and I see hope in current. Call me a conservative, call me borgeouise. I'm really sorry if that insults your feelings. It is good that you can agree with me about Soviet, but I can not agree on Bolsheviks. An we will never agree on USA - you attack it, but I can not return you that favor because you want to establish equality of it to USSR and make my accounts to it to it a null. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 12:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it would seem we are both ending discusion soon. And we are both reasonable thinkers who agree on reasonable things and disagree on things that many other people disagree on.

== A few ending points ==

• I am attacking the USA in this context here, I do not "attack" the USA whenever I speak. I wouldn't call it attacking though, but it that is what others will call it, I have no problem with that and I will continue to do such. So, how is it okay for the USA to be the first to engage in such aggressive counter-revolutionary interferences all around the world, and it is wrong for the USSR to promote communism in their world? I'm not saying the USSR is fine, but the USA seems to be much worse... And how can USSR start a proxy war, it is the USA that sticks its nose everywhere and starts wars. You are critical of USSR's support for local countries, which was nothing but simple foreign policy compared to USA's aggressive counter-revolutionary cause.
• I'm not interested in changing people to communism. I support communism, and I enjoy exchanging ideas. This is a great advent of the internet-- I can talk about simple things regarding to communism without fear of being blacklisted.
• Yes, you are a conservative in regard to preserving current existing structure of capitalism; whereas, I am radical in that I wish to see this end one day, replaced by anything better than capitalism-- even fuedalism was once broadly considered the "only way" and "good"... the way I see it is, slavery based societies -> fuedalism -> capitalism -> ???????... end of world or begginning of a new system?

so you also live in USA? I took Russian in college... (not at all to do with communism!!, my interest in communism started in my sociology studies... I chose to learn Russian because in America, it is such an interesting and mysterious language/culture... also a very beautiful sounding language too) I continued to learn more and can speak a little but now am too busy to study right now.--4.152.102.222 20:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

communism thought today and the youth

Hi. I noticed that you seem to think 1) Communist is bad, and you seem to use your ethinicity in making it seem more reasonable 2) You think that the young (naive) have been somehow taught or just decided to think that communism is good and they they didn't experience it, and easily believe it is good...

What you don't understand is that most communists today have nothing to do with a non-existent country, the USSR (which is your entire basis on anticommunism). Most everyone who supports communism today has little care for Stalinism. And most young communist associate with Trotsky if any at all from the old legacy of the october revolution... Besides, young communists are aware of

1) USSR wasn't communist, because the state owned everything (socialism) Although they were run by a communist described party, but since the fall of Lenin they didn't seem to care much for the ideal of lenin's communism: "for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie"-- Stalin withdrew from the comintern to show support for the west! Since the fall of Lenin and rise of Stalin, the USSR's legitamcy as a revolutionary force ended long ago, almost as soon as it started. 2) Troksy described this as nothing related to communism or even socialism since it was a deformed communist state, ie: completely corrupt (where were the worker's running *anything*?) 3) Some communists in the later half of the 20th century saw hope in communism and the USSR, but so many saw and still see the USSR as a corrupt state, and wished or are thankful for its demise. The saying after the collapse of USSR: "one down, one more to go."

I understand your point. I'm pretty much aware that most Communists today are thinkers on their own and are not mindless (just like the historical intellientsia).

But what you must understand that during actual course of events there were commited many acts that would be considered crimes by any standard without Stalin.

I do not believe that the initial goal of Bolsheviks was to starve or murder people, but this is what they have done to keep the situation their way. There is no value in any ideology on it's own, only in it's accomplisments, what you call capitalism is closer to lacking ideology at all - and for what I know it does accomplish.

And the mantra workers-workers does not work in Russia - most of population was peasants - all my grand-grands were peasants and they really did not like what was going on.

What annoys me is that people have no problem saying the "C"-word just like it was not written on everywhere in the USSR, like it is untainted.

I can not endorse it - most of the time when it meets the reality(not just USSR, there are other distant examples) - it causes mismanagement, coercion and such, I would not insist that it had corrupt ideas behind, just because of indoctrination. There is just one bad idea which is always a bad idea - "we've got to do it, no matter what".

What if this difference between USSR and what you want is the difference between science and engineering.

By contrast I do endorse Open Source - because it is practical - people have plenty of creativity and many people want to have a hand in a bigger project - and it works well within capitalistic framework, nobody does any coercion.

If there is a society which can produce superior results - it can be without Trotsky, Lenin and the "C"-word at all.

I have no hope to combat beliefs, for "Personal beliefs can be likened to nails - the harder you hit them, the deeper they are" (IIRC Tolstoy wrote that).

If you really believe that western democracy is sold out, then it completely contradicts my feelings, and please, don't hit it, this is a belief.

–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 20:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why do you even need Marx - he wrote more than a century ago, and most people who swore by him have brought nothing but destruction, I refuse to comment on his writings, there are not much of those I've had as compulsory reading imposed by an old-school philosophy instructor.

I do not have a reason to believe that those minority of "good Bolsheviks" was not just a random group in their traditional in-fighting, today it is easy to review those distant events and it looks completely different from different POV, you can not see it well today nor can I. I'm against bashing Bolshevisks mindlessly, but I think I know enough not to like them as a whole and particular personalities also.

But anyway thank you for enlightement on the matter.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 22:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

This discusion is nice. Like many indepth talks, there will be replies so here are some:

reply #1: Trotsky was anti-soviet, and anti-communism as we all know it, but not anti-communism as those (like me) who support communism or simply anti-capitalism. He spoke such truths and I respect him, he was outspoken, he wasn't a polotician, and he was so true...

reply #2: Marx is a philosopher, but philosophical truths are eternal and this doesn't matter how long ago they were written. Plato wrote repulic SOO long ago, and we model most of our governments on it! Marx's writings are only 150 years old, and MUCH more contemporary than Plato. His writing will be true for a long time and are much more relating now. Here are some Marx quotes... "The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them" (to this day, the only ones that I can vote for are those of the highest class... the fact that his writings are still SO true merits Marx with much credit... even though he is a critic!) Also consider that "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. " And yet Marx still has so much credit by so many (becuase he spoke the truth, as all philosphers do, and wasn't out to fill others with propganda-- people truely see through propganda and respect a true voice), he is often considered one of the greatest contemporary philosophers in very western countries (eg: England recently did such a poll). more quotes at marx quotes.

reply #3: Communism, even in theory, back in the 19th century, was meant to be a applied to advanced industrialized societies, not in backwards undeveloped nations, where the slightest disprution will cause massive famine. When a new government, any goverment, is first founded, it is very rough phase (simply consider the all powerful USA, they owned slaves and killed british officials (treason) and native americans (mass civilian casualties) with pride). Now, imagine these factors when the USSR first came into power: a) No mass produced supplies from industrial production, if a war breaks out so many die because of such little food/supplies. b) All of the strongest western powers (90% of all the strength in the world...?) are against your country c) every other factor that comes with setting up not only a new government, but an ENTIRE new method of government... d) a 3 year civil war just occured in a very ruined nation... I'm supprised they even did so well with the power of Europe, USA and Japan against them.

reply #4: During the Russian Civil War, western countries helped fight the red army by sending troops to Russia, thus prolonging the war, and prolonging the state of civil war which caused a massive amount of civilian casualties (all in the effort of capitalist counter-revolution ideology indirectly killing civilians, very common)-- these are yet more killed by western powers. Western powers are also very responsible for killing massive ammounts of civilians... The CIA was relentless in installing brutal dictatorships in south america-- which resulted in many civilian casualties. And simply one more small example, Luis_Posada_Carriles who was employed by the CIA while he killed 73 people in a jetliner bombing-- the CIA-- the very actions of USA are the most ideological of all of history-- the nation that currently wants to forcibly (ie: against any soveirgn will) install "american democracy" in all nations-- is the most ideological and interfering nation of all history (not to mention what they do after they make countries dependant on them, see neocolonialism for one example)

reply #6: Before there was capitalism, there were monarchies and a very strict class system. The transition from this system to capitalism was rough, many died because when price controls where moved, many couldn't afford bread-- like with implementing any completly new system, people die as a result of change. This didn't bother Adam_Smith or others who promoted capitalism (ones who wouldn't starve from it, but would only gain because they were rich). And capitalism had a rough start, many were thinking it would turn into a form of slavery, where workers had no control and worked nonstop in factories.

reply #7: The ruling elite hate communism. They love to say communism = Soviet communist party, and that because the collapse of the USSR, that communist is dead and that capitalism is the only way, even if there are problems. I think if there is one thing that I could change here at all, it would be that communism is alive, capitalism isn't the *only* way and that communism isn't the USSR.

And last, I feel sorry because of how the USSR failed (long, long ago) at implementing communism, and only existed as a brutal relic of a failed attempt from so long ago... only to be used by capitalists as a weapon against anti-capitalist thought.

Fears of capitalism turning into slavery...aah thats Marx.

Monarchies were not good - ask anyone, Russian exceptionally, but they were all passing away, transition to capitalism was rough but capitalism did not turn into such massive slavery as USSR was. If you wish - not that harsh, actually much better.

Look, I know this is a not a solid argument, I do not want to endorse war of any kind, but it was USSR who precedented use of subversive tactics and proxy-wars, so CIA defaulted to support any opposition to USSR if any. Again who wanted to make world revolution?

You may think it is double standard to allow panic tactics for one side and disallow for another, but and I do not want to side with guys exploiting a backwards country for their massive plans.

I know I give Bolshevikls a single chance - not to be themselves or not to exist.

Capitalist society is real and does not have an option not to be "truly capitalistic" and evade your blame. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 01:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Just one last note, every Chechnyan separatist leader is rumored to have some KGB history...interesting. If you think that current USA policy has anything to do with ideology, I recommend looking back at history and seeing which countries had proxy wars backed by USSR and USSR-backed leaders making threats. You can see anti-communism as ideology, but it is Communism which by default has enemies, fear is no ideology.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 02:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for using the word to signify Soviet version of it, but since we speak of reality... –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 02:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't Marxism or Marx himself that saw workers becoming slaves, it was things like the great depression and children working in factories which prompted this, and at the time it was very sound thinking, capitalism was killing people and was only getting worse, and most importantly of all, it was rather new... which inherently means it is going to be difficult.

well... you say that, "USSR who precedented use of subversive tactics and proxy-wars, so CIA defaulted to support any opposition to USSR if any. Again who wanted to make world revolution?"... they used to want revlution, and it was still part of their "cause", but not really so after Lenin died and Stalin took over.... when Stalin dismantled the comintern, the very essence and creation of Lenin's revolution, USSR was nothing about revolution anymore. CIA topled leftist governments, of which had nothing to do with USSR. And since when did the KGB go into far away countries and set up communist countries like the western powers did so often?? So... the USA can topple governments foricbly and set up brutal, facist dictatorships to their own south, but the USSR couldn't even help communism in their own south? And then, somehow now the USA has the right to wage war in all of these countries? Since when did the USSR ever set up a proxy war?? I don't recall them helping any South American countries... USA has and currently probes and enforces itself everywhere in the world. CIA and the ruling elite described themselves as counter-revolutionaries, and with their abundant resources, they have done far more than communist-- no, all types of revolutionaries put together.

and... these so called communist revolutions (the only classless revolutions, in all previous revolutions there was a class which gained from and lead the revolution... ie: the rise of the bourgeosie and their triumph over monarchies...) could only happen in backwards countries, away from countries which used such pervasive and anti-democratic forms to protect capital and the capitalist... Besides, the united states lynched, jailed and censored people who even sympathised with communist ideas during 2 red scares. The European churches promoted facism simply because it was a means to counter communism. Members of the commuist party of Germany (Spartacus_League were brutaly slaughtered, and their bodies dumped in a river. Is it any wonder that if any communist revolution would occur, it would occur in countries with weakest elites?--4.152.102.39 03:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This is fear, and there is no smoke without fire and fire was there. And making revolution in Russia is an exploitation of a country, if that is the only chance for an ideology than it must accept it and NEVER TAKE IT, the chance of success of unverified social theory and chance of total chaos which was the actual result.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 04:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Whoa were both editing this at the same time heh. So about the last comment that I missed, "If you think that current USA policy has anything to do with ideology, I recommend looking back at history"... Doesn't american say they did it for democracy? And doesn't prez bush always say that "american democracy" must be in all countries everywhere? (ie: purely and very ideological, esp now that no other superpower can balance their aggresion) I'm just citing it, straight from their mouthes... The truth is, that neither the USSR or the USA were fighting for ideology after 1921, by then it was just a fight for power and capital... the never ending struggle all groups of people partake in at all times of the year and all hours of the day... Neither the USA nor the USSR fought for ideas after 1921, although, some in the Communist party felt it was important for there to be international revolution, and some in USA felt that democracy must be protected and then put into all nations... however, these people weren't in charge... and it was only rhetoric. --4.152.102.39 03:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Nope, this can not be, USSR was finacing millitary of many countries, and sponsored many countries' conversion during Cold War, you can claim any motives on their part, but they(we) apparently won nothing but millitary presense and could win not too much.

I see a trap in this argument

• you want me to stand up for USA democracy which I am willing to because I have hope in the political system here, not in Bush or Kerry in particular, it is harder to do because I have to take responsibility for Bush.
• You want me to accept that communism is a good ideology but not the one which was real but the theoretical one and because fear of it resulted ideology which is worse

I can not do that because the real one resulted in disaster and I see immediate benefits of keeping things, as they are, actually I see how countries benefit from converting from that USSR-type rotten state into capitalism. Sure there is a lot of inequality in those countries, but for that matter Russia ceased to mass-import grain during the droughts we are experiencing - production slowly climbs.

Sorry for bringing this thing back to this but for me the Communism it is memorials to heroes who exiled my grand-grands for being kulaks, leaving 6 childeren to relatives to grow, food by cards, unreadably writen history books, so you can not really figure out anything you learn, bookshelves of nonsense like "Atheists' handbook" sold bundled with The Three Musketeers after you bring 10kg of recyclable paper, it is work which nobody actually needs and nobody actually does, "international duty" in Afganistan(not done by me - I was too young to be drafted), next dumb-faced politician proposing nonsense policies because they sound contradictory to Yeltsin anti-people regime, then (post-Soviet) philosophy taught exclusively through Marx and arguments of Engels with others.

This all comes bundled, you can find many other bad things in current state but unfortunately I'm closed, I do not like the Soviet ideology and I do not care about the one which shares the name, and I see hope in current. Call me a conservative, call me borgeouise. I'm really sorry if that insults your feelings. It is good that you can agree with me about Soviet, but I can not agree on Bolsheviks. An we will never agree on USA - you attack it, but I can not return you that favor because you want to establish equality of it to USSR and make my accounts to it to it a null. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 12:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it would seem we are both ending discusion soon. And we are both reasonable thinkers who agree on reasonable things and disagree on things that many other people disagree on.

== A few ending points ==

• I am attacking the USA in this context here, I do not "attack" the USA whenever I speak. I wouldn't call it attacking though, but it that is what others will call it, I have no problem with that and I will continue to do such. So, how is it okay for the USA to be the first to engage in such aggressive counter-revolutionary interferences all around the world, and it is wrong for the USSR to promote communism in their world? I'm not saying the USSR is fine, but the USA seems to be much worse... And how can USSR start a proxy war, it is the USA that sticks its nose everywhere and starts wars. You are critical of USSR's support for local countries, which was nothing but simple foreign policy compared to USA's aggressive counter-revolutionary cause.
• I'm not interested in changing people to communism. I support communism, and I enjoy exchanging ideas. This is a great advent of the internet-- I can talk about simple things regarding to communism without fear of being blacklisted.
• Yes, you are a conservative in regard to preserving current existing structure of capitalism; whereas, I am radical in that I wish to see this end one day, replaced by anything better than capitalism-- even fuedalism was once broadly considered the "only way" and "good"... the way I see it is, slavery based societies -> fuedalism -> capitalism -> ???????... end of world or begginning of a new system?

so you also live in USA? I took Russian in college... (not at all to do with communism!!, my interest in communism started in my sociology studies... I chose to learn Russian because in America, it is such an interesting and mysterious language/culture... also a very beautiful sounding language too) I continued to learn more and can speak a little but now am too busy to study right now.--4.152.102.222 20:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I really appreciate your interest in Russia, but I do not share your view on American society - I am really amazed how well the democracy works, and how well all this capitalistic framework actually works for society, and how much less mindlessness it is here.

It was USSR where they had to have one informant for every 20 people, it was USSR there they had to hastily rewrite history, ban their own writers, it was USSR where they had to lock people from knowledge, any village idiot had the capacity to be prosecuted as dissident(I've known of one), and where it's subjects can draw unfavorable comparison to Benin - one world's poorest counries.

I can think of none what can be worse.

I think communication is a wonderful thing, and this is precisely why I think democracy can really live as it is - western democracy as such is not afraid of information. I know you can say a lot about freedom of press here, but there can be nothing of the order, as it was in USSR.

A revolution creates possibility of all kind of things to happen - and it happened to Russia, you can not guarantee that what your ideology can be upheld or dropped timely if it does not work.

You think that counter-revolution is that hurts - I think that it is revolution that hurts in the first place.

Just I want to warn you - you bring it all into grey areas where you can not draw a firm line you see between yourself and Soviet Communists - first you associate oneself with some faction among those guys, then you would not notice, how you just repeat the history, or even worse. The main thing what matters on Wikipedia here is that you may not notice how you rewrite history for them.

It takes such a big theory to vindicate communism, and even more to get a really bad perspective on capitalism. I have heard from some Russians traveling around the world and see that it is not bad.

I can not believe in any Utopia, why - because it takes so much to be disapointed in democracy for good and have communism pulled out of being condemned. There is one way you can impose a concept hard to understand - by force, be prepared to have it perverted, be prepared to lie. You saw an example of that in Russia, twice, both thanks to revolution - first nobody understood communism, then few understood capitalism, but it went much smoother.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 02:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know it, I am used to see how point of view interferes with perception of facts, everyone has got own world model, it is highly influenced by what you like in this world, which things you can accept, of what you can not accept being deprived.

I can not take your world view, I see freedom as I understand it - today, here. And I have hope for it's improvement, and I see the same hope for Russia. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 03:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, schema is everything. Although... I am not a communist, but I am a Marxist so I have that kind of schema-- I see the world as a balance of power where the strong do what they will, and the weak do what they must. You see the world as very stable and functional. You would be happy with a functionalist schema, whereas I prefer the conflict_theory schema.--4.152.102.222 03:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm happy to have a place in sociology, so be it, the article does not really explain my schema, besides position on the conflicts, but ok–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 05:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, my views can be somehow quantized to functionalistic, but I see sort of balance of conflicts, debate, competition, but I'm far from wanting conflicts I see more artificial –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 05:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Why I object you

As an engineer I know that any idea lives by it's baseline implementation.

Baseline understanding of Marxism turns people into murderous swine, face it - it was like that. Bulgakov, Averchenko wrote about that, it is not any delusion, it is reality.

Baseline understanding of American values created a sustainable society. One of the worst examples of poor understanding of how democracy works is president Putin, but they are not able to ruin everything, so the people tasted the freedom.

You can teach humanity anything only if you feed and entertain people well while you do that, current system succeded at that.

You should always first look up to people who oppose you. Opposition you face is always your fault - there is no wrong people - any society which is not sustainable collapses by itself, like USSR did and only then different guys come to claim the corpse of the regime.

Evil empire was sustainable for some time, by Stalinism, after going over dead bodies of counter-revolutionaries, over dead bodies of dissidents, over dead bodies of incarcerated - slaves, over colkhoz serfdom, over free thought.

This world shows no mercy, whats sustainable lives.

For me it is a sight of beauty when in USA a person can use an ammendment to constitution to enforce his rigth for just and speedy trial on a car ticket. Ideology? Whatever, but I can accept this one. There are not too many who will oppose it as such. I see how contradictions between individuals turn into synergy, how minorities can eventually make themselves accomodated through apealing to American values, I would not want to see it go, no way. Thank God it is sustainable too. If you object current policies, then I have hope they will be fixed if they are ultimately wrong, through American values. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 15:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

USSR wasn't sustainable because literally dozens of extremely strong countries did whatever they could to fight them... Example: During the French Revolution, France was invaded by Holy Roman Empire and Prussia because those country's nobles feared capitalism overthrowing them... same reason capitalist countries invaded russia to fight the Red Army. However, the French liberals had support from rich people who didn't live in a country imbolized by freezing temperatures (they could round up civilians and get them into an army to fight back).

Communists and capitalist just don't get a long, it is why they were outlawed in America, killed in Germany, etc. It is why in a communist_state, there are not allowed to be other parties (not even socialist parties, because socialist and communist kill each other too-- this is basic human nature). And USA wasn't so great back then, just like when USSR started out, the USA did things which were brutal and mass murdered too in their early yaers (killing of native americans).

And yes, the USSR were lead by murderous revolutionaries-- the point of revolution is to overthrow (usually kill or scare off by threat of killing) the one that is being revolted against: the bourgeoisie). The point of revolution during the American Revolution was to revolt against English officials who told Colonist to pay taxes... When a country first begins, it is a very rough start and it isn't a good era in their history... Originally, during Lenin's reign, the USSR was about revolution... after that it became controlled by power greedy Stalin, and should have been dissolved right there. Basicaly: yes, the point of *revolutionary* Marxism was to use force (killing) the bourgeoisie-- whereas social_democracts are about *reform* and not armed struggle... There is a CLEAR devision between those who use books and those who advocate guns within communism and these two do not work together, they are seperate.

It is all about power. America is so strong that they can let their citizens speak out, without it hurting the government. If citizens speak out too much, then they will be publicly intimated by the private sector (called not patriotic, or basically black listed). IF the private sector can't control it, then laws are inacted sedition act to control it. When America began to loose power over the thoughts and minds of its people, it simply outlawed that kind of speech. The difference between China, USSR and USA on freedom-- USA doesn't have to censor as much as the USSR did or China does, only because the USA has been established for awhile and is very stable as a result (they didn't have counter revolutionaries all around the world either).

and yes, "This world shows no mercy, whats sustainable lives." Or as I call it, "the strong do what they can"-- in war, and in most everything else, ideology doesn't matter-- in USSR, no matter the year, most people woke up from their beds in a society which was blindly going towards something, only a few of them wanted international revolution. In a war, when people fight each other, it isn't about ideology when bullets are tearing into nearby comrades. And when American companies cause starvation in other countries, it isn't about democracy or ideological things-- it's about business. Ideology is pretty and nice, but the world is about who has more power, not who is just.--4.152.102.247 22:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have problem with single thing - you just too often cross into endorsing USSR activity, while I object it from very-very inception.

I know democracy is no magic bullet, I know it takes common understanding and effort to make it live to it's face value, I'm disillusioned about it, but my hope is in it.

I do not want not to judge your theory, I'm sorry, I'm not accepting it.

Think what you know. I wish you to follow your conscience, I will follow mine.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 02:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, we could argue forever. I am not bloodthirsty about your martyrs, I do not want to challenge the merits of any of what you say. I've read far worse things about USA, even more apocalyptic pictures, while I was trying to find reasons behind different movements here.

But what really matters - all people think they see into alternative possibilities of the past and into the future, a little. You could not communicate anything if people did not extrpolate using shared meaning.

I do, and I see many things differently, there is a whole abyss of how differently we extrapolate, this is not a gap you could fill, nor can I.

If you have facts - contribute them to Wikipedia, allow the other side to see what it does.

OK? –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 14:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Just so you know it, there is no sauce you can serve me the thing I'm opposed to - I have my own martyrs, I have my own agressors. I do not enjoy reading anti-American collection of facts and judgements, but I can survive that.

I am unable to show you the picture that they actually create in my mind, but it is still consistent with my pro-American and pro-democratic-capitalist pro-liberal thinking, it even if I take them as 100% thruth.

You can not see how facts work backwards for me when you use your reasoning, this is nothing what can be reversed.

I wish to stop this discussion, I will archive this talk, because it is unrelated to editing Wikipedia as such.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 19:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

yeah archive it, it's like 5 pages long lol and takes up 90% of this page loL! Anyway, I learned things by talking to you. Like, how the USSR was shallow even from the start, and was led by idealist and not the masses... the french revolution succeded and had masses (although people were cutting off everyone's head, even their own revolutionary comrades...) But at least the masses were a power-base in this, and could put their ideas in it. Without support of the people, it isn't good.