Why do all the people that post in this Communist forum have some secret knowledge and understanding of Morals that they wont reveal when I ask? Communists are Amoral, sometimes immoral in the case of Stalin, and his massacre of 50,000 plus Jews and native Russians. What moral base are you talking about? Amoral means you have no morals, therefore you don't have a moral base? Thats what communisms about, you may be confusing this with the concept of values.
You know what Im talking about. Everytime I ask what you and Green are talking about with your morality crap you beat around the bush, and say Im too far gone. For instance. Explain to me why you don't agree that Communists have no morals.
See you guys are just proving why Communism wasn't succesfull. I WIN AGAIN. BOW DOWN TO MY SWORD OF WISDOM AS I STRIKE THROUGH YOUR HAMMER AND SICKLE! YOU SHALL KNEEL BEFORE ME! AS I SHOW THE TRUTH THAT GOD RULES! AND CAPITALISM IS WHAT HE WANTS FOR MANKIND! CAPITALISM FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
why u always want to WIN????????????????????? is it so important??????????? is this your so-call moral????????????????????????????????
we want to exchange our opinions in peace why we have to care if ur an aiti-commie, its none of our business u just have no respect im afraid this will cause u a lot of trouble in the real world...hmmm none of our business either
how can we have respect for someone who doesn't want it? you aren't explaining yourself, thus making you unrespectable. and who are you to determine respect? acting like a snobbish asshole. how can you not understand something that is not explained? this is the internet dude, the real world is A LOT different, why do you think so many people act like assholes, cuz if they did it real life, that stranger from canada discussing communism and human morals could take it to heart and kill the man because his reality has been attacked. Instead you can just own with the MIGHTY SWORD AND WISDOM. GOTTA WIN EVERYTHING! COMPETE! SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST! eXtREME! WOOOO. Morals are different from attitude and behavior. I can be the biggest asshole in the world and still know the difference between good and bad. Is ridiculing someone on the internet bad? Does it involve morals? No, it involves entertainment and satisfaction. Most intellectuals are assholes, it's the one's who can be an asshole back that mutually understand each other better.
DUDE WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN. YOu haven't said understand anything yet. You don't know shit, just admit it cuz WE WIN. YOU FUCKIN LOSE. THE COMMIE ALWAYS LOSES. GO TO JAIL GO THE FUCK TO JAIL YOU FAGGOT BITCH. Or else just explain I am willing to learn your theories.
Read what I wrote in the other thread. I wasn't beating around the bush. I hadn't returned to the thread yet. Stalin wasn't a Communist. I said that in my reply to the other thread too. In it I explained morals, or lack of morals, or whatever you want to call it. Everyone has their own moral base.
Communism has never existed. Communism isn't a bunch of stupid Stalinists forming a party and overthrowing the government. Communism is the movement of the proletariat as a whole (the global community) agianst oppression and exploitation.
That's just a dodge. Communism is a bunch of people who identify themselves as communists trying to establish communism. So whether it is this, rather than communism itself, which has resulted in such catastrophe is not really important.
Assuming that people who identify themselves as communists (example: the Chinese Communist Party) are communists is a self-defeating philosophy that is pointless to subscribe too. Remember, people trying to establish Communism, not Stalinism.
Yea but Stalin joined the Bolshevik party. It was Lenin and his party that were the revolutionary scum. Stalin only perpetuated it. Lenin was the liar, the evil man. Lenin was the one that said he backed the proletariat when he was just wanted to get himself rich and his elitist Bolshevik party. So Stalinism as you call it was only a result of Leninism which was the real evil. The classes never united. The rich were rich and the poor were poor. IT was a waste, it destroyed Russia. The Czar system worked much better. Utopian Communism has never existed. Communism certainly has attempted to, and it blows goats. It turns your country into a world leader then an immediate downward spiral into a third world nation once things go wrong, then gets everyone rebels against you. Its a shitmess.
morals are expensive. thats why americas deficit is in the eight trillins....yes, with a T and russias surplus is a fraction of that (wich is still huge)...... and japans surplus is the biggest cause they make playstations
You are REALLY ignorant and your ignorance is REALLY pissing me off. The difference between Leninism and Stalinism is huge. Leninism is an expansion on Marxism, and Stalinism is an evil proletarian bonapartist system which moves away from Communism and Marxism. What evidence do you have that all Lenin wanted was as you claim "he just wanted to get himself rich and his elitist Bolshevik party". The fact is, there is none, because thats not what Lenin wanted. Of course the classes never united. Why would they do that? What do you mean it destroyed Russia? They were a backwards country with a midevil political system. The Czar system had people starving to death. Stalinism isn't much better, and I hate both those systems, but you have no idea what you're talking about. You're REALLY ignorant. I want to but I'm not going to throw insults at you, but that doesn't make a difference. "Utopian Communism" wont exist after hundreds maybe thousands of years of communism, and communism wont exist until perhaps a hundred or so years of socialism. Its not something that some dumbass says "Hey, lets try this" and then it fails because of how it is layed out. You've taken it way out of context, or perhaps you never even were never able to even look at it in context. The change into socialism is a process that is taking place on a global scale. Its unrealistic and contrary to dialectical materialism to expect ideals to change the course of human hisory. Thats called philosophical idealism, which is bs, and thats the incorrect context you are looking at this in. Its self-defeating to be a philosophical idealist. As to your original post, I will tell you. Communists are moral people. We follow the basic idea that PEOPLE SHOULD HELP EACH OTHER because that simply makes the world an all around better place to live. You're brainwashed, and your thoughts are disgusting to me.
All people have morals. Their morals are just different. Calling people immoral because they don't conform to your view of ultimate morality is stupid because there is no ultimate morality. We're better off applying changes after observing various facts and figures than wasting our time making moral judgements (especially if we claim that the morality is not ours but instead that it is divine). Communism is the conditions necessary for the liberation of the proletariat (read the manifesto). Communism is humanism. The only way we will effectively be able to help others is through the creation of a workers state.
The Czarist system, like all coersive propertied hierarchical systems, created the Stalins of this world. Thousands of years of savage violent brutality that held the vast mass of Russians in helpless servitude to a few rich, propertied hierarchs has stamped patterns of behavior in the minds of the masses that will take generations to heal. The violence of the Communist Russian Proletariat is a direct result of centuries of being victimized by the sado-masochistic homo-eroticism of anal-retentive property. That's not true. There was only the Proletariat and a handfull of the Bourgeoise who were willing to cooperate. The Proletariat, thanks to free universal education, were in charge of everything. From Machine Operators to Managers; from Filling Clerks to Party Bureaucrats, the Proletariat were in charge of it all. There were no property owning "rich". No individual "owned" any of the People's material wealth. Individuals, like Stalin, were assigned the use of material goods based on their job needs. Your average fat Yuppie uses of more material goods than Stalin ever did. And when he died, those few goods were reassigned to someone else. The masses of starving, homeless, Poor that existed under the Czar, ceased to exist once the hard adjustment to collective farming and industry was complete. Stalin was a true Proletariat, Lenin was NOT. Though Lenin and his martyred brother were true revolutionaries from their early youth, they were none the less born into the Bourgeoise, and never fully understood the Proletariat situation of the Russian Masses. Stalin's mind was the mind of the Proletariat; Stalin's violence was the violence of the Proletariat. No matter how violent or oppressive, the Russian Masses always understood and loved Stalin as one of them. It was Stalin who expanded upon Marx more than Lenin. Stalin was a witness to the fact that Peasant-like Proletariat, such as the Russian Masses, could create a revolution and begin a Communist Dialectic. Marx didn't believe it was possible, and Marx was wrong. Stalin's Proletarian Bonapartist system was not evil, it was the logical first Dialectical step that a Peasant-like Proletariat would take towards Communism. How could bourgeois Intelectuals like Lenin and Trotsky, no matter how revolutionary, relate to Peasant-like minds molded by centuries of cruel obedience to Czarism. True, the Russians respected Lenin and Marx, like ill-educated people respect a college professors, but Stalin they could relate to, Stalin they understood, and Stalin they loved. And only a hard Peasant-hearted Stalin could have inspired the Russians to undure such rapid collective industrialization, and to undure and over-come the mass-murdering Fascist War-Machine. To be more scientifically accurate, Marx's Communist Dialectic of Scientific Socialism must be adjusted to fit reality, and not our Bourgeois prejudices. And we must stop denying Stalin and Mao simply because Marx didn't think that the hundreds of millions of suffering serfs and coolies were worthy of revolution. Most of all, we must stop denying that the Proletariat of Russia and China were truly following a Communist Dialectic simply because they were still dealing with encultured patterns of violent and oppressive behavior beaten into them by thousands of years of savage propertied-hierarchical cruelty. A Dialectic is a process that must fit reality as it exists, not as we would wish it.
You're the propaganda parrot. All the propaganda we've ever heard has been against Stalin and Mao. Wether it be the apologists from the Right, who refuse to accept moral responsibility for entrenched behavioral patterns generated by thousands of years of brutal Aristocratic cruelty,,, or from the Left, who continually disassociate and distance themselves from the brutally honest social realism of Russian and Chinese Communism under Stalin and Mao,,, no one is willing to place Stalin or Mao in an accurate and realistic historical context. Stalin, like all of us raised under the boot of hierarchy, is a victim. I've gone beyond the usual Western propaganda, and have read accounts straight from the mouths of the Russian People themselves. Even those who were held in Stalin's Gulags, cried like orphaned children when Stalin died. Because, despite all their intelectual disagreements, for them, like for everyone, Stalin represented the unbelievable triumph of the nobody-from-nowhere against the Propertied-Aristocracy's thousand year death-grip.
