Communism. Good or bad. What do you really know about Communism?

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

For sure.
They could have prepared themselves much better to maybe defend themselves, instead declaring war to Germany.
And it was even more the case for France, that was absolutely not ready.

My French grandmother told me that she was impressed by the difference when my grandfather went on war (bad clothes, badly equiped) and when the Germans occuped her city few monthes later. (top equipment).

That's a question we must think about. Would have Germany attacked France and England if they had not declared war to Her ?


And I'd like to know if after a German referendum, Hitler could have went on war even against Czechoslovakia !
Not that sure. People like you and me don't want to die. German people were not different.

Too many countries are not really democratic in such important situations.

That's just fantasy politics of the weakest kind, in the real world Hitler usurped power over a weak Germany, in the 1932 elections (the last before WW2) he came second to Hindenberg but still managed to become Chancellor as he was a master manipulator, as Chamberlain found out.

It was evident to all from the mid 1930's on that the bastard was looking to expand Nazi Germany. How would you as a pacifist Marxist Anarchist Buddhist real honest to goodness Communist have persuaded Adolf to hold a vote of the German people before declaring the Anschluss and the annexing of the Sudetenland?

Shoulda woulda coulda ..... don't work in real life
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/15/m...da-woulda.html

[Roubignol]

@Wendigo

Don't you understand that in a lot of Western democracies, elites have written Constitutions that do not represent the interests of their citizens.

If Marx had written the German Constitution, Germany never would have gone on war in WWI or in WWII.

Just read his books. Real Marxists are peaceful. Not fake Marxists as deepsepia is used to mention.
That's the kind of people that you defend that declare that war and unfairness as... normal.

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

@Wendigo

Don't you understand that in a lot of Western democracies, elites have written Constitutions that do not represent the interests of their citizens.

If Marx had written the German Constitution, Germany never would have gone on war in WWI or in WWII.

Just read his books. Real Marxists are peaceful. Not fake Marxists as deepsepia is used to mention.
That's the kind of people that you defend that declare that war and unfairness as... normal.

I'm defending no one xyz just pointing out the total impossibility of your visions, the world has never been and never will be better if ruled by a committee of experts

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Wendigo

I'm defending no one xyz just pointing out the total impossibility of your visions, the world has never been and never will be better if ruled by a committee of experts

You know who does have "rule by a committee of experts"?

The Islamic Republic of Iran

It's called the velayet i-faqih = "Guardianship of the [Islamic] jurisprudential scholars"

They have a Parliament and somewhat legimate elections -- but the "guardians" can basically throw anyone out and.are accountable to no one.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

You know who does have "rule by a committee of experts"?

The Islamic Republic of Iran

It's called the velayet i-faqih = "Guardianship of the [Islamic] jurisprudential scholars"

They have a Parliament and somewhat legimate elections -- but the "guardians" can basically throw anyone out and.are accountable to no one.

Are they revocable by the people as I mentionned in my corresponding message?

I don't know why do you try to disqualify better and fairer political systems as the ones that exist today.

Originally Posted by Wendigo

I'm defending no one xyz just pointing out the total impossibility of your visions, the world has never been and never will be better if ruled by a committee of experts

Do you really want to live in this mediocre system, when better ones are possible and protectable by a fair Constitution written by and for the citizens?

[Arturo2nd]

Philosophical orientation is pragmatism. IMO we should look to what has worked well in government and avoid what has not. Some socialist ideas are working very well in many places. Laissez faire capitalism has proven to breed widespread social inequity, resentment, and ultimately civil disorder and violence. The idealistic notions of communism have bred state violence, economic inefficiency and stagnation, and tyranny in most countries where it has been tried.

I would really like to see us try to adopt the best features of the various systems of government while avoiding what hasn't worked. There seems to be little point in promoting political systems that proved wildly unpopular, and, thus acquired odious reputations. Few of us would advocate a return to chattel slavery, would we? (Hint: the masters thought it was great and argued that the slaves were well served by that arrangement, but the ungrateful wretches kept rebelling) How about feudalism?

I'm just saying that those who advocate communism or anarchy wind up looking like idiots to normal people.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Are they revocable by the people as I mentionned in my corresponding message?

I don't why do you try to disqualify better and fairer political systems as the ones that exist today.

These are your fantasies.

I deal in the reality of political power.

The world has lots of experience with tyrants of different flavors-- and only a very limited number of systems that have proven effective in restraining tyranny.

The idea "wouldn't it be nice if I were a good king" doesn't hold any appeal for me.

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Do you really want to live in this mediocre system, when better ones are possible and protectable by a fair Constitution written by and for the citizens?

See, I'm a man who lives in the world of the practical.

Political systems are intrinsically dangerous. They put power in the hands of a small number of people-- and as the State has grown more efficient, the things that it can do are terrifying and murderous.

So in my world -- which Brits will recognize as "Whiggish"-- the first order of business in a political system is to divide up power into separate pots, checks and balances.

And I happily settle for "mediocre" -- when the alternative is tyranny.

Imperial Germany was quite effective as a government-- when it was lead by Bismarck; when the idiot Kaiser decided that he was a big boy and was tired of the Iron Chancellor, all that power turned it into a disaster.

Good systems are by definition not "the best".

They're what avoids "the worst".

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

These are your fantasies.

I deal in the reality of political power.

The world has lots of experience with tyrants of different flavors-- and only a very limited number of systems that have proven effective in restraining tyranny.

The idea "wouldn't it be nice if I were a good king" doesn't hold any appeal for me.

Today we all follow tyrants (mainly bankers and plutocrats) who arrogated to themselves the right to print money. They parsimoniously distribute it to the hard working lowest class and generously distribute it to the members of the "leisure class".

It's quite evident that in the USA, you have eluded the fact to question your own Constitution.
In France, there always was thinkers who disputed it.... but they are confronted by the manipulation of the French and European "leisure class".
It's difficult to get a fairest distribution of money, if the strongest economy (USA) fights against it, because it's country runned by a greedy plutocracy.

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Do you really want to live in this mediocre system, when better ones are possible and protectable by a fair Constitution written by and for the citizens?

I'm happier living in the present real life system we have than one that is merely a series of random rainbow-scented ideas being floated around with never any chance of entering the realm of reality.

[deepsepia]

And of football interest . . . Russia has just declassified materials documenting how Stalin had the founders of the Spartak football club purged for an alleged plot, some were shot, some narrowly escaped with their lives. Original reporting was in Russian in Kommersant; this is clearly an effort towards openness by the regime towards some openness about their history, which is to be welcomed . . .

Originally Posted by The Starostin brothers

In 1935, Nikolai Starostin founded the “Spartak” sports society, modeled on the “Pischevik” soccer club. A year later, the first Soviet soccer championship took place, and Spartak instantly became one of the most popular teams in the country, catapulting its players to stardom.

In July 1937, Stalin summon Alexander Kosarev (the head of the Soviet All-Union Leninist Young Communist League) and asked for an update on the fight against “enemies of the people” within the Komsomol. Kosarev explained that his organization didn’t have any enemies of the people, but Stalin didn't like that answer, and a few days later he secretly ordered a “repression operation” against “anti-Soviet elements.” Police immediately started investigating the Staristin brothers, who were among Kosarev's closest friends.

On August 13, 1937, the Spartak team returned from Paris, after winning an international tournament. The players were surprised to find, however, that nobody showed up to welcome them home. That September, Soviet newspapers started running articles slamming the Staristin brothers for supposed bourgeois sympathies and aspirations of becoming professional soccer players, which was illegal in the USSR, where all athletes at least formally combined their competitive play and industrial work.

Between December 1937 and January 1938, police arrested 11 people with personal ties to the Starostins. The first man taken into custody was Viktor Ryabokon, a referee, who later testified that Nikolai Starostin had plotted a terrorist attack against Joseph Stalin. In February, police arrested several more people close to the Staristin brothers. Everyone arrested told investigators the same story: On May 1, 1937, a group under Nikolai Starostin’s command planned to carry out a series of terrorist attacks during the May Day Parade at Red Square. A bomb was supposed to go off inside the Lenin Mausoleum, and gunmen stationed in the square and atop the “GUM” State Department Store were going to shoot Stalin. Investigators concluded that the assassination never took place due to poor planning. Researchers from the “Memorial” human rights group told Kommersant that these testimonies were almost certainly obtained through torture.

By mid-1938, most of the people arrested over the preceding six months had been sentenced to death and shot. Kosarev, the man who assured Stalin that he needn’t fear “enemies of the people” in the Komsomol, was executed in February 1939.

In March 1942, police arrested Nikolai, Andrey, and Peter Starostin. Their brother Alexander was arrested in October. Then, according to the partially declassified police records, someone apparently intervened and started protecting the Starostin brothers. Initially, prosecutors wanted to try them for treason, but these political charges were ultimately dropped for lesser economic offenses. As Nikolai Starostin wrote in his memoirs, the case “was reduced to allegations of stealing a wagon loaded with textiles, and in the end they had to sink to the absurdity of [charging us] with propagating the mores of bourgeois sports.”

full story at:

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2018/06/21/the-starostin-brothers