Conquer Club

Norse wrote:

ignotus wrote:Voting for Lenin or Stalin shouldn't be an option, because they were Communists and not fascists

Fascist, by definition:

Most scholars agree that a "fascist regime" is foremost an authoritarian form of government

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the interests of the state

fascism had a strong base of support among the working classes and extremely poor peasants

Most scholars hold that fascism as a social movement employs elements from the political left

i agree that Stalin ruled in fascist manner, but you can't say that for Lenin.
if so u would have to write Churchill and Roosevelt (remember interment camps for Japs and Krauts)

xtratabasco wrote:where is Bush on the list?

under insert zionist

got tonkaed wrote:

mybike_yourface wrote:

-ShadySoul- wrote:Lenin
because the guy wasnt a dictator and wasnt a stuck up rich bitch
He wanted to help the poor, and his ideas made perfect sense until the russians took it over the top. Lenin is my hero. Plus, i think he is the only world leader whos body is perfectly preserved

what's the difference between lenin killing hundreds of thousand to force his ideas on the people or any later dictator? how has state socialism helped the poor of the world anymore than state capitilism or fascism?

thats a trick question....it isnt.

no its not....and yes bike, lenin did do some bad things but he wanted the best for everybody. There is now way a revolution can occur without some casualties and sacrifices. That is the story of any revolution. The difference is Lenin discovered a big hole in the Russian goverment, and he knew that was the reason that holded Russia down. He had the interest of evvery one in his mind, and didnt do it for his own status. Because look at it this way, he already had every thing he came from a wealthy family, he already had status and power, and he could just live a normal life: of stealing more money and laughing at the poor. But he didnt did he? It was a matter of principle to him, to give the freedom to the slaves. That is why i respect him. And if he was bad, i guess you have forgoten how awful Stalin was.

i think there might be a few pretty questionable assumptions there. Hes doing the best for everyone by killing people who oppose him? What kind of utopian society is that? Its a rather neat idea that we can be in position to say who deserves to live and deserves to not, because they dont want the change we want to bring.

And im not here to argue lenin was worse than stalin. But simply because your not the worst guy doesnt mean there arent bad things about you. There are things i like about Lenin, but you cant really dismiss the fact that he killed a pretty high number of people.

Why no Francisco Franco? Overthrew a legitimately elected government, leader of Spain for 40 years, small-time contributor to Germany and Italy during the invasion of the Soviet Union, and, of course, "a loyal friend and ally of the United States" as proclaimed by Richard Nixon.

Oh, and in breaking news from Madrid, Francisco Franco is still dead. We'll keep you posted on any and all updates to this story as it progresses.

-ShadySoul- wrote: There is no way a revolution can occur without some casualties and sacrifices.

clearly, you have never heard of Ghandi...

mr. incrediball wrote:

-ShadySoul- wrote: There is no way a revolution can occur without some casualties and sacrifices.

clearly, you have never heard of Ghandi...

Not exactly true... It wasn't revolution, and there were millions of casualties.

Guiscard wrote:

mr. incrediball wrote:

-ShadySoul- wrote: There is no way a revolution can occur without some casualties and sacrifices.

clearly, you have never heard of Ghandi...

Not exactly true... It wasn't revolution, and there were millions of casualties.

india got their indipendance, same thing really

not his fault, but i'll have to concede there

mr. incrediball wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

mr. incrediball wrote:

-ShadySoul- wrote: There is no way a revolution can occur without some casualties and sacrifices.

clearly, you have never heard of Ghandi...

Not exactly true... It wasn't revolution, and there were millions of casualties.

india got their indipendance, same thing really

not his fault, but i'll have to concede there

No. Not the same thing at all. It wasn't a revolution. The British gave them independence for various factors, not just Ghandi's protest. Some of the most compelling reasons for the British to leave India came from violent means, and the past was in no way free of bloodstains - Indian Mutiny anyone?

WTF is indipendance?

Some kind of indigenous, writing implement boogie?

Norse wrote:WTF is in dip en dance?

Some kind of indigenous, writing implement boogie?

it's when you first dip it in and dance afterwards. normally u have to dance first and pray that you'll get the chance to dip it afterwards.

Simonov wrote:

Norse wrote:WTF is in dip en dance?

Some kind of indigenous, writing implement boogie?

it's when you first dip it in and dance afterwards. normally u have to dance first and pray that you'll get the chance to dip it afterwards.

got tonkaed wrote:i think there might be a few pretty questionable assumptions there. Hes doing the best for everyone by killing people who oppose him? What kind of utopian society is that? Its a rather neat idea that we can be in position to say who deserves to live and deserves to not, because they dont want the change we want to bring.

And im not here to argue lenin was worse than stalin. But simply because your not the worst guy doesnt mean there arent bad things about you. There are things i like about Lenin, but you cant really dismiss the fact that he killed a pretty high number of people.

no i cant ignore that, and you are right, but like i said no major change can occur without sacrifices. Just look at what it did for Russia. Before the revolution they werent heard of, they weren't economically powerful or stable, and they were world's outcasts. Then, when the USSR was formed, they became knowen. Russia finally got a reputation , and they were able to compete against a great power that controlled the world since the end of world war 1, USA. So, like i said, it was for the better and it changed not just Russia, but the world.

-ShadySoul- wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:i think there might be a few pretty questionable assumptions there. Hes doing the best for everyone by killing people who oppose him? What kind of utopian society is that? Its a rather neat idea that we can be in position to say who deserves to live and deserves to not, because they dont want the change we want to bring.

And im not here to argue lenin was worse than stalin. But simply because your not the worst guy doesnt mean there arent bad things about you. There are things i like about Lenin, but you cant really dismiss the fact that he killed a pretty high number of people.

no i cant ignore that, and you are right, but like i said no major change can occur without sacrifices. Just look at what it did for Russia. Before the revolution they werent heard of, they weren't economically powerful or stable, and they were world's outcasts. Then, when the USSR was formed, they became knowen. Russia finally got a reputation , and they were able to compete against a great power that controlled the world since the end of world war 1, USA. So, like i said, it was for the better and it changed not just Russia, but the world.

If you decide to look at the statistics, you fond that Lenin only acheived his production aims using neo-Capitalist NEP, which only just brought Russia to Tsarist pre-war levels. Stalin then used 5 year plans and collectivization to put Russian industry on the proverbial map. At the expense of the "kulaks" and millions of workers dead in appaling conditions

-ShadySoul- wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

mybike_yourface wrote:

-ShadySoul- wrote:Lenin
because the guy wasnt a dictator and wasnt a stuck up rich bitch
He wanted to help the poor, and his ideas made perfect sense until the russians took it over the top. Lenin is my hero. Plus, i think he is the only world leader whos body is perfectly preserved

what's the difference between lenin killing hundreds of thousand to force his ideas on the people or any later dictator? how has state socialism helped the poor of the world anymore than state capitilism or fascism?

thats a trick question....it isnt.

no its not....and yes bike, lenin did do some bad things but he wanted the best for everybody. There is now way a revolution can occur without some casualties and sacrifices. That is the story of any revolution. The difference is Lenin discovered a big hole in the Russian goverment, and he knew that was the reason that holded Russia down. He had the interest of evvery one in his mind, and didnt do it for his own status. Because look at it this way, he already had every thing he came from a wealthy family, he already had status and power, and he could just live a normal life: of stealing more money and laughing at the poor. But he didnt did he? It was a matter of principle to him, to give the freedom to the slaves. That is why i respect him. And if he was bad, i guess you have forgoten how awful Stalin was.

you say he "wasnt a stuck up rich bitch" then you talk about him coming from a privledged familly. i think you're confused.

if he wanted the best for everybody he wouldn't have had his hand in killing hundreds of thousands. those hundreds of thousands were part of "eveybody". your exactly right about revolution. that's why no one wants too hear that archaic retoric. what's changed for all the death lenins idea created? it's the same totalitarian crap. i don't want your or his/their revolution. i want freedom and peace. that's the problem with you communists. your so close but you just can't see what force and government really are. marx, lenin, mao, castro all those guys were never going to let things evolve into true liberty after they established their "proletariat state". it never happened. communist have stabbed everyone in the back everytime and look what it accomplished. not shit.

I agree with the outlines of mybike

You can no more say Lenin was a great revolutionnary than say Hitler. Look at his treatment of the clergy, War Cmmunism and the Kronstadt sailor incident.

Napoleon Ier wrote:I agree with the outlines of mybike

You can no more say Lenin was a great revolutionnary than say Hitler. Look at his treatment of the clergy, War Cmmunism and the Kronstadt sailor incident.

werd

capitalist swines! oops i'm one too.

Guiscard wrote:

mr. incrediball wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

mr. incrediball wrote:

-ShadySoul- wrote: There is no way a revolution can occur without some casualties and sacrifices.

clearly, you have never heard of Ghandi...

Not exactly true... It wasn't revolution, and there were millions of casualties.

india got their indipendance, same thing really

not his fault, but i'll have to concede there

No. Not the same thing at all. It wasn't a revolution. The British gave them independence for various factors, not just Ghandi's protest. Some of the most compelling reasons for the British to leave India came from violent means, and the past was in no way free of bloodstains - Indian Mutiny anyone?

I usually bow to your knowledge of history Guiscard, but I disagree slightly here.
Yes its true the British granted India independence for a number of reasons (as with every decision) but I would have thought Ghandi's involvement was one of the major factors. He was popular with the Liberal movement in Britain due to his non violent protest and his educated British manor and critics found it hard to argue against the moral high ground he assumed. He united Indian independence movements in a way that no other leader had before. Granted the Indian independence has to be seen in a geopolitical context (as the empire generally was dissolved).
As for the mutiny you mentioned - I thought that actually strengthened the imperialists rule. It acted as a bogyman for years after that allowed the Raj to use stricter control methods and fuel for the arguments of imperialists that India would descend into violence and civil war if the British left.

As for the topic, please, Communism is NOT Fascism. Although both advocate greater emphasis of the State over the individual, it is for very different ends. Fascism is ultimately a narrow minded nationalist outlook and supports the conservative institutions and existing class systems.
Communism on the other hand puts the means of production in the direct hands of the producers. It is a global solidarity movement. It promotes equality of race, gender and wealth redistribution.

flashleg8 wrote:I usually bow to your knowledge of history Guiscard, but I disagree slightly here.
Yes its true the British granted India independence for a number of reasons (as with every decision) but I would have thought Ghandi's involvement was one of the major factors. He was popular with the Liberal movement in Britain due to his non violent protest and his educated British manor and critics found it hard to argue against the moral high ground he assumed. He united Indian independence movements in a way that no other leader had before. Granted the Indian independence has to be seen in a geopolitical context (as the empire generally was dissolved).
As for the mutiny you mentioned - I thought that actually strengthened the imperialists rule. It acted as a bogyman for years after that allowed the Raj to use stricter control methods and fuel for the arguments of imperialists that India would descend into violence and civil war if the British left.

Oh I'm not trying to devalue Gandhi's contribution in the least, but modern Indian historiography (post subaltern) is tending to highlight the fact that there was never really any proper unity in the independence movement. In a country so massive, so diverse and so religiously divided no one man at any point could be said to represent the ideals of a nation. It was a claim which came more from the Gandhian faction than from a reflection of reality. His involvement was one of the major factors, but violent resistance was also a significant contributor. You are spot on with the mutiny, but my point was that many within India did, and still do, see it as the first war of independence, the start of the violent uprising which led to independence. Hindu nationalism had a long history of terrorism almost in the modern model. They blew a lot of things up and killed a lot of people. Then we get to partition, which was (arguably) something pushed for by the Muslims and eventually accepted by Congress and the British (to cut of the diseased limb, so to speak). That was an inherent part of Indian independence, something which came from elements of the Indian independence movement not from the British. It was always going to lead to bloodshed, obviously encouraged by our haphazard drawing up of the border, but my point still stands. Violence was inherent in the Indian independence movement. Gandhi must be applauded for his amazing work, and his noble and successful attempts at peaceful revolution, but revolution it was not, nor peaceful.

Honestly, what's wrong with you people?

I start a thread so we can talk about tyrannical war-lords, and these 2 soppy, liberal pinkoes cant help but talk about ghandi.

Norse wrote:Honestly, what's wrong with you people?

I start a thread so we can talk about tyrannical war-lords, and these 2 soppy, liberal pinkoes cant help but talk about ghandi.

they're just trying to dodge the facts about communist tyrants.

Mussolini was the only real Fascist . Hitler was National Socialist.
They were all scum of the earth of course, and a bit thick.
Although admittedly Benito and Adolf had the gift of the gab-like the bloke down the pub who talks a good fight and initailly seems interesting, but after a while you realise hes just a sad old fart...

Think Lenin was a Liberal Democrat.

was a Che Guevarra a fascist? i think he was a socialist but i still admire the shit outta him.

Just because you don't call yourself a Fascist doesn't make you not a Fascist. Hitler could've claimed he was from the National Union of Pretty Fairies and Happiness and Flowers and Happiness, he was still a fascist.

Additionally, I still find Franco's absence from this poll a travesty. He lasted 30 years longer than anybody else! C'mon!