Russian argues with socialist guy at occupy Wall Street rally

So here is the video of an immigrant from Russia arguing with a socialist guy (who says he opposes Stalin but supports Lenin and Trotsky) who is selling communist literature and soliciting money for a "militant fund" (which goes to run his paper). The Russian guy makes some pretty good points. Some parts of the debate are difficult to hear because of some Occupy Wallstreet big mouths shouting incoherent nonsene from a microphone in the background.

Anyone else find it weird that people saw what happened in Russia, yet still want to keep advocating for communism/socialism.

He's a traitor to the Mother Country.

His simple mind has been addled by Capitalist and Imperialist propaganda.

:P

Anyone else find it weird that people saw what happened in Russia, yet still want to keep advocating for communism/socialism.

whipassmt

Anyone else find it weird that people saw what happened in Russia, yet still want to keep advocating for communism/socialism.

whipassmt

He's a traitor to the Mother Country.

His simple mind has been addled by Capitalist and Imperialist propaganda.

:P

Stesilaus

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Anyone else find it weird that people saw what happened in Russia, yet still want to keep advocating for communism/socialism.

BossPerson

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Anyone else find it weird that people saw what happened in Russia, yet still want to keep advocating for communism/socialism.

comp_atkins

There have been capitalist dictators who have carried out killings, so obviously capitalism is inherently flawed and could not operate successfully in any capacity anywhere.

Anyone else find it weird that people saw what happened in Russia, yet still want to keep advocating for communism/socialism.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Anyone else find it weird that people saw what happened in Russia, yet still want to keep advocating for communism/socialism.

whipassmt

As if the fascists weren't doing the same. But seriously, what's wrong with this?

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Anyone else find it weird that people saw what happened in Russia, yet still want to keep advocating for communism/socialism.

toast_burner

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]Communism didnt exactly work out in Russia as it should have according to Marx. Try the Paris commune or the Spanish revolutionSocijalisticka

As if the fascists weren't doing the same. But seriously, what's wrong with this?

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Anyone else find it weird that people saw what happened in Russia, yet still want to keep advocating for communism/socialism.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Anyone else find it weird that people saw what happened in Russia, yet still want to keep advocating for communism/socialism.

whipassmt

I think you're missing the point. You're making the argument that communism in basically any form is inherently flawed because of atrocities committed under a communist regime. The Nazis came into powerr democratically, so the atrocities committed by the Nazis were a result of democracy, therefore according to your logic democracy is inherently flawed.

OWS still exists?chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Spanish revolution? was that the "revolution" in the 1930s where leftist radicals went around slaughtering people and destroying churches.

whipassmt

As if the fascists weren't doing the same. But seriously, what's wrong with this?

No it's not. Communism seeks to establish a classless society, facism enforces class distinction. Communism aims towards pure democracy, facism towards authoritarian control. Communism advocates the communal ownership of the means of production, facism the private ownership with strong ties to government. The only real similarities are that there has been nationalistic sentiment and authoritarian control in both facist and communist countries, but that has much more to do with how history and culture unfold than any similarities in creed.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]Anyone else find it weird that people saw what happened in Nazi Germany, yet still want to keep advocating for democracy and capitalism.

theone86

I think you're missing the point. You're making the argument that communism in basically any form is inherently flawed because of atrocities committed under a communist regime. The Nazis came into powerr democratically, so the atrocities committed by the Nazis were a result of democracy, therefore according to your logic democracy is inherently flawed.

and you disagree?

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Nazi germany wasn't democratic and there are very few people who advocate for Nazism (i.e. Nationalist Socialism).

Storm_Marine

I think you're missing the point. You're making the argument that communism in basically any form is inherently flawed because of atrocities committed under a communist regime. The Nazis came into powerr democratically, so the atrocities committed by the Nazis were a result of democracy, therefore according to your logic democracy is inherently flawed.

and you disagree?

Yup.

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

I think you're missing the point. You're making the argument that communism in basically any form is inherently flawed because of atrocities committed under a communist regime. The Nazis came into powerr democratically, so the atrocities committed by the Nazis were a result of democracy, therefore according to your logic democracy is inherently flawed.

theone86

and you disagree?

Yup.

:/

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]Anyone else find it weird that people saw what happened in Nazi Germany, yet still want to keep advocating for democracy and capitalism.

toast_burner

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Nazi germany wasn't democratic and there are very few people who advocate for Nazism (i.e. Nationalist Socialism).

whipassmt

The soviet union wasn't communist. look at what anarchists did during the Spanish revolution, that was true communism.RushKing

[QUOTE="RushKing"]The soviet union wasn't communist. look at what anarchists did during the Spanish revolution, that was true communism.whipassmt

Probably destroy and loot property like anarchists usually do. :/

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]Anyone else find it weird that people saw what happened in Nazi Germany, yet still want to keep advocating for democracy and capitalism.

theone86

I think you're missing the point. You're making the argument that communism in basically any form is inherently flawed because of atrocities committed under a communist regime. The Nazis came into powerr democratically, so the atrocities committed by the Nazis were a result of democracy, therefore according to your logic democracy is inherently flawed.

I love watching videos of the guy.

My favorite.

You can see him argue with your typical antisocial, unconfident socialist who doesn't even want to become successful himself!

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"]The soviet union wasn't communist. look at what anarchists did during the Spanish revolution, that was true communism.Storm_Marine

Probably destroy and loot property like anarchists usually do. :/

Anyone else find it weird that people saw what happened in Russia, yet still want to keep advocating for communism/socialism.

whipassmt

Except Russia was neither. Russia was a Junta.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Nazi germany wasn't democratic and there are very few people who advocate for Nazism (i.e. Nationalist Socialism).

whipassmt

I think you're missing the point. You're making the argument that communism in basically any form is inherently flawed because of atrocities committed under a communist regime. The Nazis came into powerr democratically, so the atrocities committed by the Nazis were a result of democracy, therefore according to your logic democracy is inherently flawed.

You're still missing the point, which is that you're abstracting the actions of very specific examples in an attempt to disparage communism as a whole. You're completely ignoring the fact that those countries are not the only representatives of communism, and in fact are widely considered to have taken many liberties with communist thought. Most prominent communists spoke out or do speak out against totalitarianism, hell Trotsky was thrown in prison for speaking out against Stalin. The assertion that any theory of government didn't work in specific instances, therefore it could never work under any circumstances is fallacious.

I love watching videos of the guy.

My favorite.

You can see him argue with your typical antisocial, unconfident socialist who doesn't even want to become successful himself!

kingkong0124

No political system is perfect, they all have some flaws. But in general democratic countries have been fairly well, whereas pretty much every major Communist country has a lack of freedom and has suffered economically.

whipassmt

You're drawing the dividing line in the wrong place. Democracy can be socialist or communist and free market capitalism can be fascist and authoritarian. Communism and democracy aren't opposites, they describe two different aspects of how a country functions.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

I think you're missing the point. You're making the argument that communism in basically any form is inherently flawed because of atrocities committed under a communist regime. The Nazis came into powerr democratically, so the atrocities committed by the Nazis were a result of democracy, therefore according to your logic democracy is inherently flawed.

theone86

You're still missing the point, which is that you're abstracting the actions of very specific examples in an attempt to disparage communism as a whole. You're completely ignoring the fact that those countries are not the only representatives of communism, and in fact are widely considered to have taken many liberties with communist thought. Most prominent communists spoke out or do speak out against totalitarianism, hell Trotsky was thrown in prison for speaking out against Stalin. The assertion that any theory of government didn't work in specific instances, therefore it could never work under any circumstances is fallacious.

Also many of the flaws within Communism are found directly in Marx's manifesto, such as his anti-liberty desire to get rid of inheritance.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Anyone else find it weird that people saw what happened in Russia, yet still want to keep advocating for communism/socialism.

whipassmt

So what country has Communism been good in, China? Vietnam, Cambodia?

whipassmt

They're not communist. In a communist state, there is no state, just the local apparatus.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] No political system is perfect, they all have some flaws. But in general democratic countries have been fairly well, whereas pretty much every major Communist country has a lack of freedom and has suffered economically.

whipassmt

You're still missing the point, which is that you're abstracting the actions of very specific examples in an attempt to disparage communism as a whole. You're completely ignoring the fact that those countries are not the only representatives of communism, and in fact are widely considered to have taken many liberties with communist thought. Most prominent communists spoke out or do speak out against totalitarianism, hell Trotsky was thrown in prison for speaking out against Stalin. The assertion that any theory of government didn't work in specific instances, therefore it could never work under any circumstances is fallacious.

Also many of the flaws within Communism are found directly in Marx's manifesto, such as his anti-liberty desire to get rid of inheritance.

You're still missing the point. To say that communism can never work because it has never been implemented successfully is fallacious, especially when you abstract that to all communist thought and not just the style of communist regime that has been present on the world stage thus far. Vietnam and Cambodia trace their style of communism back to Stalin's cult of personality, which is derived from Lenin's vanguard party, which is an authoritarian concept that many communists vocally opposed. Marx was very specifically anti-authoritarian.

Marx is also not the penultimate source on communism. Communism is a political ideology and therefore constantly changing according to the views of its supporters. Getting rid of inheritance is not an integral part of communist theory, though it could be given any group's views. the point is that there can't be any discussion of what could be beneficial in communism if the entire ideology is dismissed and condemned because of a certain strand of that ideology.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

You're still missing the point, which is that you're abstracting the actions of very specific examples in an attempt to disparage communism as a whole. You're completely ignoring the fact that those countries are not the only representatives of communism, and in fact are widely considered to have taken many liberties with communist thought. Most prominent communists spoke out or do speak out against totalitarianism, hell Trotsky was thrown in prison for speaking out against Stalin. The assertion that any theory of government didn't work in specific instances, therefore it could never work under any circumstances is fallacious.

theone86

Also many of the flaws within Communism are found directly in Marx's manifesto, such as his anti-liberty desire to get rid of inheritance.

You're still missing the point. To say that communism can never work because it has never been implemented successfully is fallacious, especially when you abstract that to all communist thought and not just the style of communist regime that has been present on the world stage thus far. Vietnam and Cambodia trace their style of communism back to Stalin's cult of personality, which is derived from Lenin's vanguard party, which is an authoritarian concept that many communists vocally opposed. Marx was very specifically anti-authoritarian.

Marx is also not the penultimate source on communism. Communism is a political ideology and therefore constantly changing according to the views of its supporters. Getting rid of inheritance is not an integral part of communist theory, though it could be given any group's views. the point is that there can't be any discussion of what could be beneficial in communism if the entire ideology is dismissed and condemned because of a certain strand of that ideology.

Communism will be a reality when either human nature fundamentally changes or Jesus comes back to earth. Whichever comes first.

[QUOTE="RushKing"]The soviet union wasn't communist. look at what anarchists did during the Spanish revolution, that was true communism.whipassmt

[QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

He's a traitor to the Mother Country.

His simple mind has been addled by Capitalist and Imperialist propaganda.

:P

whipassmt

There is a fairly large communist movement in Russia. The communist party in Russia is the second largest political party in Russia. Stalin himself actually has a considerable amount of popular support there.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] So what country has Communism been good in, China? Vietnam, Cambodia?

Also many of the flaws within Communism are found directly in Marx's manifesto, such as his anti-liberty desire to get rid of inheritance.

whipassmt

You're still missing the point. To say that communism can never work because it has never been implemented successfully is fallacious, especially when you abstract that to all communist thought and not just the style of communist regime that has been present on the world stage thus far. Vietnam and Cambodia trace their style of communism back to Stalin's cult of personality, which is derived from Lenin's vanguard party, which is an authoritarian concept that many communists vocally opposed. Marx was very specifically anti-authoritarian.

Marx is also not the penultimate source on communism. Communism is a political ideology and therefore constantly changing according to the views of its supporters. Getting rid of inheritance is not an integral part of communist theory, though it could be given any group's views. the point is that there can't be any discussion of what could be beneficial in communism if the entire ideology is dismissed and condemned because of a certain strand of that ideology.

I'd say a desire to get rid of or at lease lessen class distinctions, a belief to some degree in a commons, and a belief in equal democratic standing of individuals within a society and equal opportunity to succeed. You're going to have different definitions depending on whom you speak to about it, many communists would say that in order to be truly communist the commons must include all means of production, for example. I'm less worried about specifics, though, and more with giving a general sense fo principles.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"]The soviet union wasn't communist. look at what anarchists did during the Spanish revolution, that was true communism.RushKing

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Spanish revolution? was that the "revolution" in the 1930s where leftist radicals went around slaughtering people and destroying churches.

whipassmt

As if the fascists weren't doing the same. But seriously, what's wrong with this?

It makes no difference, the socialists were doing what was neccessary to maintain power. Theone already covered the plethora of incompatibledistinctions between the two. Given the socio-economic conditions of the Spanish working class, and the role the Catholic church played in their subjugation, the violent reaction is understandable.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Anyone else find it weird that people saw what happened in Russia, yet still want to keep advocating for communism/socialism.

BossPerson

Also many of the flaws within Communism are found directly in Marx's manifesto

whipassmt

That's the last thing to read if you actually want to understand Marx's views.

So here is the video of an immigrant from Russia arguing with a socialist guy (who says he opposes Stalin but supports Lenin and Trotsky) who is selling communist literature and soliciting money for a "militant fund" (which goes to run his paper). The Russian guy makes some pretty good points. Some parts of the debate are difficult to hear because of some Occupy Wallstreet big mouths shouting incoherent nonsene from a microphone in the background.

whipassmt

Socialism is not communism.

Canada is a socialist country and they are doing fine.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

So here is the video of an immigrant from Russia arguing with a socialist guy (who says he opposes Stalin but supports Lenin and Trotsky) who is selling communist literature and soliciting money for a "militant fund" (which goes to run his paper). The Russian guy makes some pretty good points. Some parts of the debate are difficult to hear because of some Occupy Wallstreet big mouths shouting incoherent nonsene from a microphone in the background.

NailedGR

Socialism is not communism.

Canada is a socialist country and they are doing fine.

Yeah, socialism and capitalism are economic, Communism and Democracy are political ideologies. They aren't paired together.

That said, I think Capitalism is the better system, but of course I think those with money and power should use them responsibly.

You're still missing the point. To say that communism can never work because it has never been implemented successfully is fallacious, especially when you abstract that to all communist thought and not just the style of communist regime that has been present on the world stage thus far. theone86

Marx was very specifically anti-authoritarian.

Marx did not think that authoritarianism would be ideal in a communist, post-capitalist society, sure. But he did not oppose authoritarianism on principle. He, for instance, defended the Paris Commune.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

So here is the video of an immigrant from Russia arguing with a socialist guy (who says he opposes Stalin but supports Lenin and Trotsky) who is selling communist literature and soliciting money for a "militant fund" (which goes to run his paper). The Russian guy makes some pretty good points. Some parts of the debate are difficult to hear because of some Occupy Wallstreet big mouths shouting incoherent nonsene from a microphone in the background.

NailedGR

Socialism is not communism.

Canada is a socialist country and they are doing fine.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

You're still missing the point. To say that communism can never work because it has never been implemented successfully is fallacious, especially when you abstract that to all communist thought and not just the style of communist regime that has been present on the world stage thus far. radicalcentrist