Proof Putin is no longer communist/liberal

But you'll vote for Secretary and Senator Quitter. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

The jury is still out on that!

j.l....
I had more belief in american exceptionalism until I began to read the conservative rants of yinz guys....I'm always amazed and wish i knew why so many right wing teapublicans post their political views on an escort site....surely there must be some site that deals in political differences and discourse....who are you trying to reach through this site....who is your target audience.... Originally Posted by stevepar

You ask a very good question - who is my target audience?
In this posting, anyone who reflexively opposes Putin because we were all trained to hate the commies.
In the world turned upside down that we live in, Putin opposes the liberal west staked out by Obama and his fellow travelers. One must be tricked by past patriotism for the old and great America to support the new, autocratic, oppressive America of today - and automatically assign hatred toward anyone who questions the official narrative.
Ultimately, my audience is anyone who loves America because of what it used to be, and has an internal conflict about loving his abuser, the current US Government.

Simplistic claptrap :-) I'm not at all defending how it eventually happened, but that many people saw a need to do something and some did it even though it went terribly wrong is understandable. Are you supportive of the absolutist monarchy in Russia and the serf system? What about "tyranny and freedom" before the revolution? You paint all socialists with the same brush but only some of the left in Europe and the US were enthralled by the communist "experiment" in Russia. Even that obsession was primarily because of the complete takeover of all news media and the suppression of much of the reality. Turns out lots of socialists and progressives were appalled by the reality once they found it out (as you note). Similar to many well meaning conservatives when they find out the abuses of capitalism and plutocracy - but then there are many that just don't give a shit even when they do find out.

Lenin was shot (they tried to assassinate him twice) which led fairly quickly to his death at age 53. Winston Churchill, who ardently opposed him, said of Lenin, "He alone could have found the way back to the causeway... The Russian people were left floundering in the bog. Their worst misfortune was his birth... their next worst his death."

Trotsky was run out and Mensheviks and other leftist parties were outlawed (which is why the assassination attempt). Then Stalin supplanted him despite his wishes to take power from Stalin. They were all eventually very bad (though not bad in every aspect) and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was a travesty in concept, but far more in execution. In light of the terrible absolutist monarchy in place at the time (in China as well) it is understandable that they were searching for something better. Too bad it was such a complete mess to try to replace it. That is not to say that it wasn't right to try to replace the horribly oppressive system that existed at the time or that some of their ideas didn't have some merit. It is just sad that it went so terribly wrong. There IS something to be said for self-determination as well so again, the situation is not just black and white.

Bottom line is (to your point about simplistic) that it wasn't just a simple black and white situation (Communists and communism were horrible - they were but supplanted at least an equally horrible system but not everything about them WAS horrible, especially in relation to the system that went before). It is similar to the Arab Spring, horrible regimes supplanted by big messes so far (though not as bad yet as Communist Russia or China). I don't know, maybe it IS really simple in that Russians and Chinese are just horrible in governing their own people. You tell me? Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

Well, yes, but in our haste to rid ourselves of the devil we know, when we take the chance to throw off such oppressive government, and ask people to die to do it, it is a horrible tragedy to replace it with something that is worse. Hence, we should look to the lessons of history and what has happened when well meaning liberal reformers have supported unrealistic replacement schemes.
Cuba is a great example. No doubt the brutal dictator Batista had to go - but I'd rather that he were replaced by a patriarchal, benevolent right wing dictator who allowed prostitution to continue to flourish than a murderous, left wing blowhard who turned the island into a 1950's, crumbling time warp.

The jury is still out on that! Originally Posted by bigtex

What? You have been her biggest cheerleader on here for years.

???

e·rase [ih-reys]
verb (used with object), e·rased, e·ras·ing.
1.
to rub or scrape out, as letters or characters written, engraved, etc.; efface.
2.
to eliminate completely: She couldn't erase the tragic scene from her memory.
3.
to obliterate (material recorded on magnetic tape or a magnetic disk): She erased the message.
4.
to obliterate recorded material from (a magnetic tape or disk): He accidentally erased the tape.
5.
Computers. to remove (data) from computer storage. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Remember now you're the dumbass.


Jim

You ask a very good question - who is my target audience?
In this posting, anyone who reflexively opposes Putin because we were all trained to hate the commies.
In the world turned upside down that we live in, Putin opposes the liberal west staked out by Obama and his fellow travelers. One must be tricked by past patriotism for the old and great America to support the new, autocratic, oppressive America of today - and automatically assign hatred toward anyone who questions the official narrative.
Ultimately, my audience is anyone who loves America because of what it used to be, and has an internal conflict about loving his abuser, the current US Government. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

To underscore what you have posted, JL, this is what Odumbo's former ambassador to Russia had to say during an NPR interview:

NPR: "What does Putin want from Ukraine?"

"First of all, I don't know. Second, I don't believe anybody who will tell you that they do know. My best guess is that he himself doesn't know, and let me explain that: I think that this was not some master plan that Putin's been plotting for decades — annex Crimea and go in to take Novorossiya. In fact, I've been digging through old Putin speeches. I've never seen him devote a speech to the necessity of reuniting Crimea with Russia. That came only recently [noticeably after -- which McFaul fails to mention -- the Western supported and sponsored revolt which overthrew the legitimate government in Ukraine].

"This phrase 'Novorossiya,' New Russia, which is [used] to describe these eastern Ukrainian regions — I think he used that for the first time just a couple of weeks ago. So that actually gives me hope, because that means it's not some grand plan, master design that he feels he is now empowered to execute, but that this is more contingent. He's making it up as he goes, and he's calculating about the cost of direct military intervention and then occupation in Ukraine. And Putin is a smart person. He's not doing it a vacuum, and he, I think and I hope, he knows how costly that would be" (Michael McFaul: Odumbo's ambassador to Russia from January 2012 to February of this year).

http://www.npr.org/2014/05/15/312822...an-for-ukraine

What? You have been her biggest cheerleader on here for years. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

I can say with 100% certainty that I have never voted for Hillary. Thus, "the jury is still out on that."

But, I have voted for Bill.

So maybe you should change the carrier in your avatar to a Russian carrier..............no wait.

The Russians sold their carrier to the Chinese Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Nah, I'll change it to a French carrier since France is trying to sell a carrier to Vlad.

In an ironic way, the "godless, commie, bastard" Putin is more Christian than Dear Leader. Putin's Russia defends Christian doctrine and the church while Obama continues his drive to secularize America. Pretty soon, we will be the "godless bastards". And yes, I know Putin does it all for show. I seriously doubt Putin is a real Christian just like I know Obama is definitely not a Christian.

So maybe you should change the carrier in your avatar to a Russian carrier..............no wait.

The Russians sold their carrier to the Chinese Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Nah, I'll change it to a French carrier since France is trying to sell a carrier to Vlad. Originally Posted by Cpalmson

Both of yinz are wrong...

The Chinese bought their carrier from Ukraine, not Russia. Actually what they bought was a stripped-down hulk that was supposed to be used as a floating hotel and casino, not a functioning warship, but that's another story...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese...rrier_Liaoning


And France is trying to sell Russia two amphibious assault ships, not carriers...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/wo...s-us.html?_r=0

Why would Vlad buy from France? It appears "the Russians... have little confidence in their own shipyards."

.

Simplistic claptrap :-) I'm not at all defending how it eventually happened, but that many people saw a need to do something and some did it even though it went terribly wrong is understandable. Are you supportive of the absolutist monarchy in Russia and the serf system? What about "tyranny and freedom" before the revolution? You paint all socialists with the same brush but only some of the left in Europe and the US were enthralled by the communist "experiment" in Russia. Even that obsession was primarily because of the complete takeover of all news media and the suppression of much of the reality. Turns out lots of socialists and progressives were appalled by the reality once they found it out (as you note). Similar to many well meaning conservatives when they find out the abuses of capitalism and plutocracy - but then there are many that just don't give a shit even when they do find out.

Lenin was shot (they tried to assassinate him twice) which led fairly quickly to his death at age 53. Winston Churchill, who ardently opposed him, said of Lenin, "He alone could have found the way back to the causeway... The Russian people were left floundering in the bog. Their worst misfortune was his birth... their next worst his death."

Trotsky was run out and Mensheviks and other leftist parties were outlawed (which is why the assassination attempt). Then Stalin supplanted him despite his wishes to take power from Stalin. They were all eventually very bad (though not bad in every aspect) and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was a travesty in concept, but far more in execution. In light of the terrible absolutist monarchy in place at the time (in China as well) it is understandable that they were searching for something better. Too bad it was such a complete mess to try to replace it. That is not to say that it wasn't right to try to replace the horribly oppressive system that existed at the time or that some of their ideas didn't have some merit. It is just sad that it went so terribly wrong. There IS something to be said for self-determination as well so again, the situation is not just black and white.

Bottom line is (to your point about simplistic) that it wasn't just a simple black and white situation (Communists and communism were horrible - they were but supplanted at least an equally horrible system but not everything about them WAS horrible, especially in relation to the system that went before). It is similar to the Arab Spring, horrible regimes supplanted by big messes so far (though not as bad yet as Communist Russia or China). I don't know, maybe it IS really simple in that Russians and Chinese are just horrible in governing their own people. You tell me? Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

Nice quote by Winston Churchill. Too bad I didn't get anything out of the rest of your post. Why would you ask if I support Czarism? Pretty stupid question. Is that something you ask all critics of Stalin? Do you ask critics of Hitler if they support the Kaiser? You want to draw some kind of moral equivalence between the genocidal horrors of the communist gulag and unspecified “abuses of capitalism and plutocracy”. They're not even in the same moral universe. Capitalism is an economic system, not a political ideology. When it comes to delivering the highest standard of living with the least disruption of personal freedom, capitalism leaves every alternative economic system far behind in the dust.

Why do you stretch and strain so hard to defend a completely failed and discredited idea like communism? Were you a Marxist in college? Their ideas did NOT have merit and it's more than “just sad” that they “went so terribly wrong” - it's predictable. Go tell the people of Eastern Europe how “sad” you are that they had to endure four decades under the communist yoke, while Western Europe leaped ahead. Tell them in a nice condescending way how sorry you are – then add that at least the commies had good intentions and SOME good ideas... Yeah, and Hitler made the trains run on time, didn't he?

Here's the real bottom line - Communism doesn't work in theory or in practice. In Marxist terms, it contains the seeds of its own destruction. It inevitably collapses under the weight of its own inherent contradictions. The Berlin Wall came down 25 years ago - why? Per capita income in South Korea is 17 times higher than in North Korea - why? History is full of instructive lessons for those who will open their eyes.

.

I am NOT praising Lenin, Mao, etc., but I do find it hilarious that the fundamental economic principles behind Marx's picture of communism are straight from the Apostolic times. Of course the Wacko Thumped fringe of Christianity often ignores that part of the bible.

The difference, OT, is that biblical communism was voluntary, not state enforced. That type of system is beautiful, but will only be successful among people much less flawed than are we. Jesus encouraged love among His followers, which resulted in their kindness and charity towards each other. This was short lived, to say the least. Modern Marxism is based in control and enforced through fear. Quite different.

The difference, OT, is that biblical communism was voluntary, not state enforced. That type of system is beautiful, but will only be successful among people much less flawed than are we. Jesus encouraged love among His followers, which resulted in their kindness and charity towards each other. This was short lived, to say the least. Modern Marxism is based in control and enforced through fear. Quite different. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Well said, and I completely agree. I was not trying to imply that they are the same, but I find the underlying principles being so similar a great irony. I would like to sit with Marx and get his views--I suspect he would be disgusted with the way the communists have used his words to justify something I think he would be very much opposed to.

I am NOT praising Lenin, Mao, etc., but I do find it hilarious that the fundamental economic principles behind Marx's picture of communism are straight from the Apostolic times. Of course the Wacko Thumped fringe of Christianity often ignores that part of the bible. Originally Posted by Old-T

+1

Well said, and I completely agree. I was not trying to imply that they are the same, but I find the underlying principles being so similar a great irony. I would like to sit with Marx and get his views--I suspect he would be disgusted with the way the communists have used his words to justify something I think he would be very much opposed to.
Originally Posted by Old-T

Actually, I might even agree with you on that.