Does Czech Repoblic for Dictatorship rather then Democracy?

[vilas 477]

I see Tonci :) moreover it is fun like some people from west due to i do not know, lack of criticism to their media or what, believe that for example in 1981 Solidarity was fighting to establish capitalism, while it was trade union which wanted to make more equality in current system, but all now say they were fighting with socialism, which is bullshit, cause 21 Demands clearly show that they wanted more social, more days off, higher salaries, more social care - this is not fight for capitalism :D but ironically all believe that in 80s we wanted to destroy socialism and get capitalism instead, they do believe it strongly and they are surprised when we say about our lack of satisfaction due to poverty, unemployment, homeless people etc. (as you Tonci see, some american teenagers even dare to say to me about my life in 80s, probably they were not even born while i lived here but they better know how my life was like, imagine 15 y.o. man from South Africa saying to 90 y.o. man from France "you do not know anything about WW2")

the same fun is with "democracy", they love "democracy" when voters choose "political correctness" but when voters are like they say "bigots" than they do not call it democracy (like those Putin legal regulations), People voted for Putin, noone cheated election, he was democratically voted cause they have economical growth in Russia and people do not call it democracy cause in his system you cannot demean some things which are saint for people believing in Orthodox church for example, heh

they are like guys who say "M109A6 is tank, look, it has tracks, it has barrel, it is tank"

Edited February 22, 2014 by vilas

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

They don't call it democracy because it's a sham. The election wasn't free or fair. Opposition parties are not given fair access to the media and are intimidated, some killed.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Well, democracy cannot be summed up by free elections. It needs other major factors such as free press (freedom of speach for the opponents, etc.), strict separation of powers (ie independant justice and parliament), a good average level of education of the people, etc. And in my (very own) opinion, not involvement at all of any religion in the government and in the Constitution. Russia is a weak democracy considering all this.

[vilas 477]

It needs other major factors such as free press

if media companies are owned by big corporations and those corportations order to write things by their media , than you call it still democracy, example:

company X is big corporation, company X own TV station A, policitian B is corrupted and take bribes from X and orders their products although they are overpayed and worse quality than from company Y, polician C is not corrupted and takes no bribes he wants gov. to change contracts from X to Y because Y has cheaper offer and better quality products,

in A all the time you hear "mr B is good prime minister, we have growth, all is good, C is mad fascist, he is known as person who noone likes cause he is abusing his wife, some people say he was taking bribes" - week before elections

mr B wins, mr C looses,

mr C can make lawsuit agains A, he will win it next year, but mr B will be prime minister for next 5 years and X will earn bilion from state orders, even if someone will kill mr C, than tv station A will say "mr C died in car accident"

please, is it democracy ? but such things do happen across all world , especially now, when a lot of corporations are international big companies with budgets much bigger than many states, they own not only factories, they own banks, tv stations, internet news agencies etc.

world economy goes to oligopolism, not 1000 competiting companies, but few cooperating companies , 1000 companies can competee, but few companies can sign agreement "minimal price is..."

Edited February 22, 2014 by vilas

[scrim 1]

Don´t bother vilas, you can see in other threads that he doesn´t really bother to understand what other people write.

Don't pretend you actually understand whatever the heck it is vilas wrote there just because you can't defend Communism from being blamed for its crimes. It's just slightly above denying the Holocaust.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Yes, free press may not mean much. Plurality of medias is a better term. They may be more or less controlled, but as long as all the opinions can express themselves, that's ok.

[vilas 477]

Don't pretend you actually understand whatever the heck it is vilas wrote there just because you can't defend Communism from being blamed for its crimes. It's just slightly above denying the Holocaust.

please try again understand differences between M1A1 and M109A6 - they both have tracks, they both have big barrel, both are big metal vehicles painted in camo, are they both "tank"?

when you will see man in good limousine, eating cavior, having sterward which holds bottle of wine and young 20 y.o. blond long-legged "assistant" on knees, do you consider such guy ideal communist ?

if you blame socialism for crimes (not red-nobles) than we can blame free market for Pinochet :D

Yes, free press may not mean much. Plurality of medias is a better term. They may be more or less controlled, but as long as all the opinions can express themselves, that's ok.

but you know we miss plurality,

many corporations buy other corporations and suddenly you see that 14 TV channels belong to 2 companies , 22 newspapers' titles' belong to one media corporation from country X etc.

problem is with big corporations, they kill free market cause monopolization and oligopolization kill competition,

the most funny is that people who praise capitalism and free market created corporations which ... kill free market cause they are monopolizing economy in some areas

when you criticize monopolism and corporations they bash you that you are against free market - ironic (we have such people here too who hate when we criticize corporations)

one day we can wake up and we will have "freedom of choice" between Coca Cola, Cola Light, Chery Coke , the same with media, you will have 100 channels in your TV, but owner is one man

Edited February 22, 2014 by vilas

[scrim 1]

please try again understand differences between M1A1 and M109A6 - they both have tracks, they both have big barrel, both are big metal vehicles painted in camo, are they both "tank"?

when you will see man in good limousine, eating cavior, having sterward which holds bottle of wine and young 20 y.o. blond long-legged "assistant" on knees, do you consider such guy ideal communist ?

if you blame socialism for crimes (not red-nobles) than we can blame free market for Pinochet :D

Then I'd call him a corrupt individual, which is the trend among their leaders. He is not what a Communist is in theory, i.e. he does not act according to how they supposedly act, but he is nonetheless a Communist, regardless of his behaviour. Counter-question, if a Catholic Pope has a mistress, riches and wages war, is he not a Pope or a Christian?

[Lenyoga 326]

Did I miss the point where we start discussing linguistic theory and the meaning of words, definitions and all?

[Tonci87 163]

@scrim

Wow, your analogies are really bad....

And you still don´t bother to actually comprehend what someone else writes.

[scrim 1]

How come you and any other, shall we say very left leaning person I ask just one of these questions respond with ad homimen attacks and not a single reason for why people like Stalin weren't Communists?

"Simple question, if Stalin wasn't a Communist, what was he?"

"You don't even try to understand, you are terrible at arguing, rabble rabble rabble!"

I've had enough of that BS for a lifetime, especially considering what happened to several of my family members and relatives in Poland at the hands of these persons you insist were not Communists before fleeing the country for good.

[Tonci87 163]

How come you and any other, shall we say very left leaning person I ask just one of these questions respond with ad homimen attacks and not a single reason for why people like Stalin weren't Communists?

"Simple question, if Stalin wasn't a Communist, what was he?"

"You don't even try to understand, you are terrible at arguing, rabble rabble rabble!"

I've had enough of that BS for a lifetime, especially considering what happened to several of my family members and relatives in Poland at the hands of these persons you insist were not Communists before fleeing the country for good.

I already answered you that, Stalin and people like him were dictators. I think Stalin might have had a good laugh if someone called him communist

[scrim 1]

And just since when was "dictator" a political ideology? You know what, never mind. If that's how stupid the arguments to defend Communism are going to get, please, by all means, revert back to shouting "God mom, you don't understand!".

[Degman 73]

Scirim, really ? :confused_o: ..We already explained you a difference between a Communism and "Communism", but you still dont get it, do you ? M109A6 really is a tank for you.

Okay, let's do it again:

Communism - no money, no government, no rich/poor (only normal), technology is used in a right way, etc.

(fake) "Communism" - rich dictator instead of no government (DO YOU GET IT ?), technology is used to create weapons and wars, etc.

I will ask you once again: do you get it ? :)

---------- Post added at 11:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 PM ----------

And just since when was "dictator" a political ideology? You know what, never mind. If that's how stupid the arguments to defend Communism are going to get, please, by all means, revert back to shouting "God mom, you don't understand!".

.. Jesus fucking Christ, are you a troll or what ? We are defending Communism, yes, but what kind of Communism ? REAL Communism, which is an Uthopia idea, not a "Communism" that we saw in USSR, Yugoslavia and similar countries that had dictators and every shit 100% different than in real Communism. Please stop be annoying.

[scrim 1]

Communism - no money, no government, no rich/poor (only normal), technology is used in a right way, etc.

(fake) "Communism" - rich dictator instead of no government (DO YOU GET IT ?), technology is used to create weapons and wars, etc.

Which takes us right back to what I wrote when you first jumped me: If we are to judge political ideologies based on what they theoretically revolve around, then every single political, religious and economical ideology throughout history is fake. Then there has never been a fascist, communist, capitalist, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, democratic, socialist or even Nazi state (Hitler, Goering and Goebbels hardly look like tall, blond and fit Aryans, right?).

Me on the other hand, and most others, judge political ideologies based on what they actually do. Every single political ideology has its own motives, that are not always honestly displayed. Why is it that some people lose all capacity for critical thinking when it comes to their own precious political beliefs?

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

@ scrim

Stalin was a power hungry psychopath who pretended to be a good socialist working towards communist ideals whilst murdering millions through greed and paranoia.

While the socialist state he ran functioned just well enough, Stalin himself and all the other leaders lived as royalty. Socialism and the hardship of working towards the communist utopia was for the ordinary people.

So they are perfectly correct when they say Stalin wasn't a communist. He enslaved an entire nation in socialist propaganda.

What's laughable is people are still falling for the same thing. If you have a good look at any 'man of the people' anywhere, they all claim piety whilst getting stinking rich.

See Tony Blair & Gordon Brown as good examples. Gordon's the worst of the two, runs a charity and takes 75% as costs, turns up at parliament about once a month yet takes a full salary and expences.

Sorry to bore you all to death with a long essay but at least this makes grammatical sense.

[Tonci87 163]

@ scrim

Stalin was a power hungry psychopath who pretended to be a good socialist working towards communist ideals whilst murdering millions through greed and paranoia.

While the socialist state he ran functioned just well enough, Stalin himself and all the other leaders lived as royalty. Socialism and the hardship of working towards the communist utopia was for the ordinary people.

So they are perfectly correct when they say Stalin wasn't a communist. He enslaved an entire nation in socialist propaganda.

What's laughable is people are still falling for the same thing. If you have a good look at any 'man of the people' anywhere, they all claim piety whilst getting stinking rich.

See Tony Blair & Gordon Brown as good examples. Gordon's the worst of the two, runs a charity and takes 75% as costs, turns up at parliament about once a month yet takes a full salary and expences.

Sorry to bore you all to death with a long essay but at least this makes grammatical sense.

You are perfectly right.

I myself believe that true communism might be a nice thing in theory, but it is simply impossible due to human nature. Socialism might be possible, but again you have politicians who only work for their own pockets and who are generally much more powerfull and richer than the "ordinary people". So that doesn´t work either.

[vilas 477]

Scrim you should learn more history :

Stalin was mad , cyco, sadistic killer, liar and false person, psychopath and anything what can be imagined worse he was, but i do not believe that in other economical system he would not have other "ideas",

Stalin was first Ochrana agent, do you know what is Ochrana ? it was Tsar (king) secret police, he was agent which was reporting his colleagues for money, he was greed and for money he was reporting his fellows to Ochrana ,

second thing he was Georgian, he hated Russians, Poles, Ukrainians and all around, he hated everyone except Georgians and Jews , he was not only killing people from other nations, he was killing his own generals, because he was afraid that someone can be better than he and he was killing even his own wise servants cause he was afraid of inteligent people, Soviet problems in WW2 were caused fact that in end of 30s, Stalin ordered to murder majority of generals (which were good commanders), Stalin was mentally ill sadist,

did you know that he was Tsar agent ? probably NOT

if there was Tsar after 1917 and there was no revolution, he would be monarchist and Tsar's agent ,

Second thing that you should learn about Cold War history (having in mind what you said about grandparents who escaped Europe due to commies) :

economical system in USSR was different than in other countries from East Block ,

Soviet Union had Kolhoz - state owned farms , this was close to communism indeed,

but Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and others - had private property farms, there were private farmers, so when you say about cold war, you cannot take one measure to USSR and rest of East Block when it comes to economy,

USSR was closer to communism than other countries, in other countries in 40s indded they tried to build USSR-like economy but they resigned, in USSR it was continued till the end of USSR,

USSR had much bigger citizen control and propaganda, USSR and East Germany were leading in typing phone calls and etc.

but comparing USSR in 30s-50s with other states in 70s-80s is misunderstanding , in 40s and 50s there was regular terror made by NKVD officers whose nationality was...

ca. 40% of officers of NKVD making terror in 40s and murdering my countrymen were not Russians,if you want to know, read yourself Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Public_Security_(Poland)

37.1% of those who murdered Poles were Jews, this is historical fact no matter if you like it or not , deal with it ,

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/NKVD#Jews_in_NKVD

http://www.fpp.co.uk/ActionReport/AR15/KGB_Jewish.html

this is by the way interesting to Ukraine topic, where people see "fascists" from Ukraine on Maydan but roots of those fascism is not seen because it is politically not correct , you must back some decade in history (3-7 milions Ukrainians died because of Stalin terror http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor , maybe because of it Ukrainians suported Hitler in WW2, as you see majority of officers heading NKVD were Jews, how does it rely with your American highschool knowledge?)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1033.htm

http://dath125.livejournal.com/25934.html

first we were saving them during WW2 (as the only country in which there was death penalty for helping Jew) than they "thanked" us by murdering and torturing us, when Stalin era ended and they were pushed off from power in "security police" they started to say about "antisemitism", but they do not like to say that they were head of NKVD and Stalin administration of terror,

grandfather of my friend from job was killed in Katyn during 1941 crime, another grandfather of another friend was killed in 1946s by "commies" with non-Polish names and their children now are citizens of Israel (comunist party removed them in 1968 from our country and they emigrated to Israel),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82aw_Skalski

this guy for example had a lot of movies on Youtube when he was telling about tortures he get in 1950s from Jews because he was Catholic

it was not ment to attack Jews but to show you that history is not that easy piece of science !

history is not "this one is bad, this another one is victim, this is saint side, this is evil side",

if you try to make history to hollywood mentality movie "good guy vs bad guy" it is childish, cause history is too complicated, as you said you were born after cold war ended, i was teenager back then, do you think i know less about "communism" in eastern europe than you ? i live there since i was born in 70s, beacause i was born in second half of 70s also do not tell me about communism fall because my mother was Solidarity activist here in 1980,

history is not easy hollywood movie with straight storyline, one hero, one bad guy,

if you will carefully read those articles in links you will see that history is not easy, white-black victim-opressor scenario, if you wanna judge past start from collecting knowledge from many sources, not only US colledge

Edited February 23, 2014 by vilas

[maturin 12]

Stalin was a power hungry psychopath who pretended to be a good socialist working towards communist ideals whilst murdering millions through greed and paranoia.

While the socialist state he ran functioned just well enough, Stalin himself and all the other leaders lived as royalty. Socialism and the hardship of working towards the communist utopia was for the ordinary people.

So they are perfectly correct when they say Stalin wasn't a communist. He enslaved an entire nation in socialist propaganda.

I don't think that any serious historian has ever doubted that Stalin believed in Marxism and Leninism. He was a theorist and a prolific author. He made many decisions and orchestrated many projects that were motivated by his ideological beliefs, and if he were really a complete cynic seeking only his own power, he would have taken the easy road and not risked his position on such endeavors.

Everyone please note that I am not disagreeing with anyone's characterization of Stalin as a mass-murdered psychopath (in the vernacular sense). And if you see any admiration in my post your are mistaken. But you are wrong to say he didn't believe in what he did.

It's just that Stalin was willing to compromise all his beliefs and ideological goals in the pursuit of power. He supported the right wing faction in order to destroy his left wing rivals, then adopted left wing positions to get rid of the right wingers. Doctrine lost often lost out in favor of strategic necessity. He was a Communist, but also the world's foremost killer of Communists.

Ironically, the USSR's last true-believer Communist was Gorbachev. All his disastrous USSR-killing policies were motivated by a sincere belief in Marxism.

Edit: And Tonci, I'm somewhat appalled that you completely ignored my post, which should have cleared everything up, and went on the blather at scrim for pages and pages.

COMMUNIST AND SOCIALIST ARE WORDS WITH MULTIPLE MEANINGS DEPENDING ON CONTEXT.

A member of a communist party is a communist. A state run by communists is a communist state. And the USSR was unquestionably socialist, as socialist is one of the broadest political categories imaginable. The END.

Insisting that people use only the theoretical, utopian definition of communism is idiotic, since you are in effect demanding that we ignore the eponymous political and economic system that ruled a good portion of the globe for half a century.

This thread is so full of the No True Scotsman fallacy that you all may have just caused a good portion of the population of the UK to disappear.

Edited February 24, 2014 by maturin

[scrim 1]

+10^.

I'm sorry vilas, but are you actually thick? I wrote quite clearly that I am not an American. In fact, I've never even set foot on the continent. Not that I see what that has to do with my knowledge of history. Saying that an American is narrow minded because he's an American is exactly the same thing as saying that someone is a drunk because he's a Pole, a Nazi because he's a German, etc.

And yes, Stalin was indeed a very naughty man. But just like Tonci, you appear to be under the impression that traits such as dictator, psychopath, liar, murderer, etc. can be considered political ideologies.

The rest of your post is just outright embarrassing to read. I don't think I've ever seen such a long post on these forums filled with nothing but OT rantings, straw man arguments and completely illogical assumptions about people.

[Degman 73]

Which part of difference between real Communism and fake Communism dont you understand ? As I already said, we doesnt support Stalin and his ideas, but real Communism ... NOT fake Communism (USSR, Yugoslavia, etc.). I have no idea how the hell someone can be so irrational as you are. Listen, we dont give a fuck if Stalin said that he is an Communist, because he was not .. declaring yourself in public as an Communist doesnt really make you a Communist, understand ? Communism is something that we never had, original idea older than fake Communism and DICTATORS which brainwashed your mind, as well as media and other elements of world-wide propaganda. Congratulations, you are an ideal sheep which every country wants to have as their citizen, listenting to their lies and orders. Communism is an alternate system in which there is NO DICTATORS or GOVERNMENT, but only people community working for good without killing each other for the fucking money. That's why our rulers, hunger for power, are trying to make it look like a bad thing. Watching you, I am afraid that they did a very good job.

Have a nice day!

[vilas 477]

DegmanCRO , he doesn't want to understand, he doesn't want to read historical sources cause he is teenager who "knows better"

[Degman 73]

DegmanCRO , he doesn't want to understand, he doesn't want to read historical sources cause he is teenager who "knows better"

Well, I am damn 15 yrs. old and I know these things. That he is an teenager just doesnt justify his low thinking.

[vilas 477]

15 , but Arma is from 16 :P baaaad :P

[scrim 1]

Well, I am damn 15 yrs. old and I know these things. That he is an teenager just doesnt justify his low thinking.

Hmm, I remember being a 15 year old kid, a long time ago, despite the nonsense vilas makes up. His statement about teenagers mistakenly said a lot about you though. I too thought I was at the top of the world when I was 15, that the "evil West" was the sole cause of everything bad, and that Communism was "really just misunderstood", so considering the massive hubris and general assholeness that characterizes essentially every 15 year old ever (not an insult, or solely directed at you. I don't think I know anyone who wouldn't go back in time and beat their teenage selves to a pulp if they could), I'll let you slide, because I know that no matter what I tell you, you already know you're right, and you will not for anything in the world consider that you may be wrong, and is picking a fight about something that is simultaneously a trivial and horribly offensive matter that will make you embarrassed of yourself in less than a dozen years from now, if you can remember it from all the other similar incidents. You like most people will end up genuinely rethinking a lot of things, trust me.

Then there's people like vilas of course, who, despite being old enough to have children of their own, still haven't grown up to understand that they're spouting a load of BS, irrelevant anecdotes and fiction to appear as though they are at the top of the world's intellect.