Reds - 2

[nietzscheprime]

5:06 and 5:07 Trotsky :D

[jacktheripoff1888]

F---k communisim.

Ask any Ukrianian who survived 1930-32.

Any Russian who survived the great purge 1934-38.

Any Chinese who survived the great leap foward 1958-62 and the cultural revolution 1966-76.

Any Cambodian who survived Pol Pot 1975-79.

North Korea is still there to show it's shining example.

But there are over 100 million you can't ask, they didn't survive.

Nice going "comrades" !

[gigijbijbj]

@jacktheripoff1888 But if you study the essence of Karl Marx, jacktheripoff1888 you will find that many nations who have claimed to be a communist state are not so. For example the was only supposed to be a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat untill the state 'withers away'. Now compare that theory to the events that you have just described with so called "Communist states"

[XxPhoenixHarpyexX2]

@jacktheripoff1888 yeah, and Fvckl you too, fvck as well your traitor anti-social ukrainian. idiot, ukrainian never liked russians you moron. and \PLUS you are talking only about the majorities. Fvck capitalism. DOnt you have any brain yto realize that EVERYTHING or EVERYBODY in this world has ATLEAST one enemy? no matter what you do or think, there will aLWAYs a small group of people who WILL oppose you cuz they DONT LIKE YOU for no good reason. How many people loved copmmunism? more

[jacktheripoff1888]

@XxPhoenixHarpyexX2

Where did I say that Ukrainians loved Russians in that whole statement?

I'm well aware that when the Nazis blitzkrieged into The Ukraine in June 1941, they were initially welcomed as liberators from Stalin. Until the SS arrived.

[impCaesarAvg]

We see Trotsky and Lenin in this film, but never Stalin.

[Steeplerot]

@impCaesarAvg

Stalin did not help in the October Revolution, he showed up after it was "safe" and then went on to kill everyone who actually fought so they could never challenge him for power.

[XxPhoenixHarpyexX2]

@Steeplerot you are right, stalin never fought along side with Lenin and trotsky, he was a sneaky opportunist person who wanted power to make his own cause. stalin was never a real communist. he was a traitor who killed all the red army's ancients soldiers and therefore,killed communism, killed what lenin started and didnt finish. STalin ruined everything with his stupid nationalism! lenin should never have had made him his pupil successor

[masterDevis]

@XxPhoenixHarpyexX2 "Stalin is an opportunist, a manipulator, and a traitor! He cares only for power and will do anything to keep it. He is not to be trusted, Vladimir!"

[wemonk]

be content to enjoy the film

[theoldbeagle7]

you like reds. read t.muldoon's smoking in bathrooms.

[Trotten84]

Great movie.

But the best book to understand the Russian revolution is "The Revolution Betrayed" of Leo Trotskij. (well, honestly, it's a kick-ass book, but the mainreason I wrote that is because it's fun to make stalists go bananas ^^ )

[cfortnerXYZ]

I'm not sure that any difference remains between RWT683 and Constantine. I will post. Make fun if you will Trotten84 but millions died in artificial famines.only frail hope lies between

[cfortnerXYZ]

In this country everyone has a voice. In any country where I am I have a voice. Conscience has a voice-conscience is a voice. American Conservatism is Trotskyiteism-which means just make trouble for everyone else but make a profit for yourself. Neocons are cowards and so are all the people who buy their ideas from Tel Aviv to Washington.

[RWT683]

Guess what? I agree totally with this! Now try and figure that out.

[megarouge2001]

I agree with John Reed's thoughts as well... Very Christian....

[RWT683]

Who is Jack Reed to speak for anybody? This is the fiasco of Bolshevism. Who in NY elected Jack Reed?

I wish I had been into a life of privilege like Mr. Reed. Then perhaps I could afford the luxury of traveling the world as a communist.

Who was Lenin? A descendant of German nobles... and a trained lawyer! What a great hero for the working class! Who was Trotsky? A Jew exported from NY for the occasion and bankrolled by Wall Street!

[RWT683]

The typical Russian peasant at the time was so poor and so uneducated they would follow anyone who promised bread. Lenin & co. get up in front of these medieval-minded people wearing business suits (real working class!) and sounding educated and sure, they'll believe in Marxism or whatever hocus pocus promises bread!

A Marxist revolution never happened in a single industrialized country. It seems to succeed, Marxism needs people too illiterate to know better. Contrary to Marx of course.

[cfortnerXYZ]

You couldn't even read the Grundrisse and understand it. You just lick up the vomit of ignorance spouted by Hannity and Coulter and Levin and vomit it out again pretending it's your own.

[RWT683]

Oh the Grundrisse. OK. Ich nehm deshalb an du kannst Deutsch...fuehren wir denn dieses Gespraech weiter in jener Sprache?

Didn't think so.

I couldn't have less in common with those fucktarded neo-con Zionist puppets -- at least vis-a-vis their foreign policy views.

You just show how 2 dimensional your thought-process is by assuming I'm a neo-con for shattering your marxist wet-dream.

I happen to like the movie but the Bolsheviks were mass-murdering liars and hypocrites.

[cfortnerXYZ]

Actually russia had a long tradition of revolutionaries of all sorts-stenka razin for for example. There were examples of the monarchy itself being revolutionary-Peter the Great for example-it's just too complex to be pushed into a pigeon hole to be tidily despised.

[RWT683]

I meant "born into a life of privilege." Typo sorry.

[cfortnerXYZ]

All revolutions are Marxist. Thesis, anthesis, synthesis and then on and on again. All movements are marxist. All thought and action are marxist.

[RWT683]

So if I piss on a copy of Das Kapital would you consider that a Marxist action?

[cfortnerXYZ]

actually, more Hegelian than Marxist.

[RWT683]

In what way? Just curious.

[cfortnerXYZ]

Marxism, like American Conservatism is a failure. Not because theire is not a lot of truth displayed but because of the moral failure of those who proclaim both of them. This is the dialectic at its root. The Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Someone does or says or writes something with which you disagree-what do you do?

[cfortnerXYZ]

well what you disagree with was the thesis, your reaction whethere it is pissing on a book or simply rolling your eyes is the antithesis and two continue with the energy expended to form a synthesis-pissing on a book doesn't have much impact on either the book or the ideas contaianed in it.

[cfortnerXYZ]

Mark Twain advocated killing the czar and anyone else in the "royal" family. Lenin faced 6 allied armies fighting with the white russians. Reagan was afraid things were spinning out of control when the Berlin wall came down. Maggie thatcher pleaded with Gorbachev to send the soviet army to prevent it. You are a fool.

[RWT683]

Reagan and Thatcher? Huh? I guess you couldn't refute my post so you changed the subject.

Thatcher still believed in 19th century "balance of power" BS and was afraid by absorbing the Marxist-impovrished GDR Germany would get "too powerful" again...lol. Europe ignored the dumb bitch.

[helmuthoorn]

All this idealism, energy and bloodshed.....wasted.

[Jcobb1018]

The idea , the sentiment. Everything is a waste if you think about it hat way. Nothing lasts. People are designed so selfish. The Russian Revolution didn't work? No shit. Stalin wasn't the best leader? No shit. But the idea; the struggle... that is what was beautiful. Can you at least understand that?

[RWT683]

"Stalin wasn't the best leader."

That's a gargantuan understatement.

If you think struggle is beautiful....try National Socialism -- that's what it's all about. Sure Hitler wasn't the best leader....but it's the idea you see....

[helmuthoorn]

Sorry, but no.

Any ideology, no matter how appealing and idealistic, that denounces the Word of God as the only Source of universal truth has to be rejected at forehand as being crippled by and affected with an unrealistic anthropology; and history has proven this axiom right.

These eventual historical facts render the neo-atheist theories of people like Richard Dawkins c.s. just as unrealistic as Marxism.

Wouldn't call the history of communism interesting ; TRAGIC is a better description.

[Jcobb1018]

john reed; intersting guy.

[KellyGreen5555]

@Jcobb1018 Ya think? lol

[anirbanganguly]

Thanks to revleft com for the discussion threads which help a lot to form the arguments against the cappies.

[anirbanganguly]

Thanks to Yvette for the article on how communism/socialism doesn't take away one's individuality in bluelinchpin wordpress com.

[mushroompeacepipe646]

For all supporters of the Communism, there is a reason why theres not alot of Communism now, Communism leads to one disaster to another! I should know, my family are Polish and they've experienced the horrors of what the Soviets are capable of.

[anirbanganguly]

Friend, The idea is "everyone according to his/her need,everyone according to his/her ability". It's not same as the one you said.

[BelayaArmiyaForever]

That is an idea that fuels MEDIOCRITY !

[anirbanganguly]

The ideas opposing this idea fuels MEDIOCRITY!

[BelayaArmiyaForever]

Communism is the empowerment of mediocrity .

"everyone according to his/her need,everyone according to his/her ability"

The battle cry for mediocrity !!

[anirbanganguly]

OK.You mean to say communism strips one off one's individuality. I disagree.

First let me start with the current system.

In order for the capitalist system to work, you have to have far more poor than you do middle class, and far more middle class than you do rich, and far more rich than you do stinking filthy rich.

[anirbanganguly]

For someone to move up or down the system, they have to forcefully displace another person on the ladder, forcing them down the ladder and perhaps even into extreme poverty, just to move up the ladder themselve.Logically this system is supposed to produce more mediocrity.

[anirbanganguly]

Moreover,even under the capitalist system were all clones of eachother. Were all dressed up in our iPods, logo wear, designer jeans, same hairstyles, driving in the same cars and coming from the same cookie cutter houses, where we buy the latest stuff to keep up with the Jones.

[anirbanganguly]

Now,coming to the idea "Everyone according to.." etc it simply means under a capitalist system if you work in a factory, etc, especially in a poorer country, you will likely starve as you work because you simply are not making enough to get by. But under a communist system, however, no one eats cake while the rest of the country starves to death. No one deserves food more than anyone else, so why should the poor starve?

[anirbanganguly]

Under communism, you help out with whatever youre good at, and you are given food as long as either you contribute, or you are not able to contribute. Theres nothing that says that you cant be a doctor or an artist or a teacher. Whatever your talent is, whatever way you can help those around you.

[anirbanganguly]

One other thing,don't confuse individualism with individuality.Current capitalist system has devalued human life and freedom to the greatest extent. It worships INDIVIDUALISM, not individuality, and has a hard time making that difference. The capitalist system apparently doesnt feel that the starving Africans are as unique or important as those in America who have inhereted money.

[Hottides]

Who objectively and fairly defines "ability", and "need"? Should those with superior ability support mediocrities? Should the ambitious, energetic and brilliant work to satisfy the needs of the complacent, lazy and stupid?

[anirbanganguly]

As to "needs" , Marx's poetic statement of 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs' sums everything up. Everyone has different levels of needs, based on their lifestyle and necessities they require. Under capitalism, many never get these needs fulfilled. Under socialism, who cares if one family requires less while another requires more? We have the resources, by eliminating surplus value and imperialistic hegemony to let everyone live in luxury.

[anirbanganguly]

As to "laziness" , Marxists view revolutionary change as society passing between different stages- slavery to feudalism to capitalism to socialism to communism.

[anirbanganguly]

The idea is that, in the communist stage of history, work will have lost its exploitative character (you will be working for the benefit of society as a whole, which includes you, rather than for the purpose of making your boss a profit), and therefore people will actually want to work, and find the concept of being 'paid a wage' for their work odd, as everyone 'contributes according to their ability, and takes according to what they need'.

[scrappmutt2]

@anirbanganguly I (as well as most people) do better work when I profit individually from the work I do rather than the work I do for people as a favor or expecting nothing in return individually. That is the problem with communism; you're working on a favor basis or for nothing in return rather than the benefit your work brings to yourself. The "benefit of society" reminds me of Mussolini's statism. Who says Communism and Fascism aren't related?

[lilwillywicked]

@anirbanganguly That might be the idea but the idea won't work because Human beings are by nature greedy

[anirbanganguly]

If this seems far-fetched, keep in mind that the way humans think can change a LOT over time or due to different circumstances. For example, there was no concept of 'wage labour' in the Middle Ages, and during the colonization of Africa, the white settlers were able to screw over the natives, because the native Africans never developed the concept of 'land ownership'.

[anirbanganguly]

Now as for socialism- the transitional stage- we realize that immediately after the revolution, there will not be enough industry to provide as much consumer goods as needed, and many of the peoples' minds will still be stuck in the old capitalist ways, and they will still expect 'wages'.

[anirbanganguly]

Well, that's what we had to do. The difference, however, is that unlike in capitalist society, everyone had to pull their weight- you cannot make money by buying a factory, hiring workers, and sitting in an office while your workers do all the hard work.

[anirbanganguly]

There will be differences in income, because we need doctors and rocket scientists, and since many will still have a capitalist mindset, we will have to give them a monetary incentive to do these jobs.

However, despite these differences in income, we mean to make the point that everyone's work, regardless of whether it is skilled or unskilled labour, is important, and therefore a janitor has as much a right to health care, housing, and food as a doctor.

[anirbanganguly]

For example if you look at the countries we call 'socialist' (whether you agree with them or not) you'll notice that the state used its resources to fund programs that benefit the whole of society or build things that everyone uses

[anirbanganguly]

like the Cuban health care system, which provides the best health care in Latin America (even though they're under economic embargo and only have a shoestring budget, everyone can count on free medicine unlike my country India which claims to have an economic boom but never had free health care even after 60 years of indepedence).

[mushroompeacepipe646]

i think the idea of everyone of having the same amount of money and power etc. is not totaly corrupt. Yet its just imposible for every single person to be the same, its the same thing with the idea of people ending wars and just getting along peacfully, its a GREAT idea, but its not going to happen, just like Communism. But the flip of Communism is that it need turn corrupt and it ruined lives and even killed lives, and Communism turned into a killing machine and nothing more.

[BlSabbatH2]

after every revolution there will be a small elite that command and a large mass that is commanded, the change stays only with the colour of the uniform. It's so simple.

[BelayaArmiyaForever]

BRILLIANT !! Very true !

[mushroompeacepipe646]

Communism might have been a good idea in the beginning everything got out of hand before, during and after the Second World War. Also because of Communism their were nearly 20 million victims killed and for what, because of a system?

[tiffanymaec]

no, because of the context. It was not communism's failing, it was Russia's. The ACTUAL reason it didn't work was because it was not a truly Marxist revolution or government. If any of you knew the history of Russia, you would see that it was at a different stage of economic and social development than the rest of Europe. They were trying to fit a model where it wasn't suited. This is exactly why there was a split between the Bolseviks and the Mensheviks. Stalin killed 20 million, not Marx.

[mushroompeacepipe646]

Please Excuses Me but in my opinion, Communism is the lowest of the low. The whole idea of Communism awful, they murder countless victims! I feel very sorry for people who support Communism even though they don't really understand it!

[anirbanganguly]

I too feel sorry for people who oppose communism even though they don't really understand it.

[mickyc05]

very true

[00retmarut00]

A wonderful tribute to John Reed is this film by Warren Beatty. "10 day that shock the world!"

[RobGoth100]

National Socialism had its roots in Communist socialism. The first between Facism and Communism was brother against brother with social democrats and social conservatives being the common enemy.

[Steeplerot]

You have no clue what you are talking about do you? NS party started as a small meeting group in a beer hall in Munich that Hitler took over.

Hitler did not name the party.

[Patriotman54]

I love Germany

[RobGoth100]

...a small meeting group of socialists who rejected leadership from Moscow; thus National Socialists. Stalin named all socialist dissent from Stalinism as "fascist."

[Steeplerot]

National Socialists were meeting in the beer hall in Munich WAY before Stalin was in power, Hitler was in jail writing Mein Kampf way after he had taken over the NS party in 1923, Stalin had nothing to do with it. Hitler says in Mein Kampf that he despises Socialists but left the name in the party to confuse the working class and to insult the left in Germany.

Hitler killed Socialists, Anarchists, and Communists. Matter of fact, so did Stalin.

Screw both of them. They were both dictators.

[Steeplerot]

Anyhow, neither Stalinism nor Nazism were Democratic movements. Thus neither were based on the teaching of Marx in any way shape of form. 404 -Socialism not found.

[IneptTroopr]

Well said

[RobGoth100]

I am sure the beginings of Nazism must have been just as romantic for some.

[IneptTroopr]

Except Nazism wasn't a democratic movement from below. Learn a bit about the history of the Russian Revolution; it was nothing like the rise of the Nazis.