.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to ShadowSD.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="ShadowSD:458239"]PatMeebles said:[QUOTE]Just because there's state control doesn't take away the leftist label. Right-Wing fascists set the precedent, but totalitarianism acts in a different way, as it's goal is a "utopia" of same-class collectives working for the greater good. Right-Wing fascism operates in a control freak manner, but does not have the goal of creating a "utopia of equality." So don't try to brush away Stalin under us Right-wingers' rug. Our ideology wasn't warped to create Stalinism; it was your ideology that bred it. Not to blame you for the USSR, but to blame my ideology on the USSR is actually more ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Idealogy can be twisted and used to start anything; fascists have used every political angle in the book to position themselves for their eventual rise to power. But the political angles mean nothing, it's the laws that go into effect and their enforcement that matter. Everyone in Stalin's USSR was not equal, in fact, there was just as much oppression and suffering as in any other dictatorship. So the idealogy that spawned it was meaningless, because the realities were identical: reactionary (far right) authoratarianism. Come on, do you think Stalin [b]really[/b] believed in the equality that Karl Marx preached? If Hitler, in a different political climate, had preached the same shit for political purposes, would he automatically have reverted from far right to far left on your political spectrum just because of his language. What kind of reasoning is that? Reality trumps idealogy in defining any political system. The idealogy that spawned the Iranian Revolution was initially just anti-monarchy, but the laws that eventually took hold were more authoritarian than the king's. We don't give their goverment a pass and call them anti-monarchy in our own tradition simply because that's the idealogy they started with, so why the Soviets? Almost all revolutions go through these stages, they begin with lofty ideas, but often power gets seized by the most ruthless. Seizing that power, in addition to violence, also often involves pandering to the political climate to cement their position, which means embracing the popular idealogy at the time in promises that will never be kept. The question is, how many extra years of mileage are you going to let the Soviet fascists get out of their bullshit promises? Their attempt to achieve a state of communism was a failure, and existed in name only. For us to validate them as leftist glosses over this failure, which is ridiculous to me considering we won the Cold War. The fact is that true communism cannot be put into practice on a large scale and still function, that inherant failure is why democracy is a better form of government; that is why we win. Why gloss over that? [/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.003 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][