Who Are Fascists?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Hardly imperialism. Eastern Europe was a net drain on the USSR. The purpose of imperialsm is to benefit economically. The only benefit the USSR gained from Eastern Europe was keeping Germany further away.

Sure they benefited economically. Just look who produced what in the Eastern block, and who was therefore able to sell what to the other eastern european countries.

Given that Stalin generally hindered all attempts to spread the revolution beyond the USSR, I have to say, BS. In fact, the only revolution Stalin didn't try to stop was the Korean revolution. Some of the revolutions Stalin killed (or tried to), in order: Germany 1923; Britain, 1926; China, 1927-1949; France, 1935; Spain, 1937; Italy, 1945; etc. The ideology would have spread much further without the dead hand of Stalin holding it back.

Stalin was initially FOR the rev. 1923, he even planned to support it by providing weapons, only the circumstances changed (because a political coalition between SPD and several other parties, but without communits was formed) so that the plan had no chance to succeed.

And the pure fact that the USSR installed stalinist regimes in its satellites or used force to stabilize those regimes against the will of the people there spreaded indeed their ideology.....

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Stalinists are commies. They're just very poor ones. Anyway, surrounded by his felow Trotskyists, libertarian commies, council commies, Guevararistas, etc, he may make a ful recovery.

Would I be the council commie? I don't know the expression, but I feel it means "commie wanting to achieve his ends through the existing democratic process".

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Exclusionary fascists.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Dollars to donuts, the United States was far more vicious in its empire than the USSR was in its empire. Yes, the USSR, established dicatatorships in Eastern Europe and Mongolia (or rather, allowed them to come into being and kept the other side from fighting back). Including North Korea, that's what, seven countries (Korea would have been a dicatorship under Kim had no one intervened).

The U.S. beats that in the Americas alone.As I said, the historical record has the U.S. doing six times the dirty work as the Soviet Union. While not excusable, having been invaded thrice by Europe in thirty years (WWI, the foreign intervention, and WWII), killing over 35 million Soviets (and subjects of the Russian Empire), the USSR was eager to put as much distance between them and the next war as possible. Given that the U.S., even before the end of WWII, began preparing to surround and contain the USSR and any other revolutions that might result from the war, we can understand the USSR's paranoia.

Bascially, the USSR installed dicatorships to keep enemy armies further away. We installed dicatorships to make money, and we installed far more than the USSR. The USSR may have been wrong, but we were evil.

So now we can justify installing puppet dictatorships for one reason, and not for other reasons?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Anyway, only commies allowed in commie parties.

Hey, that's a grossly unreasonable qualification.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
So now we can justify installing puppet dictatorships for one reason, and not for other reasons?

Did I write that? No, it's the difference between beating a woman or raping her and her whole family. If I suggest that raping a woman and her whole family is worse than simply beating her alone, it is not an endorsement of beating her.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Would I be the council commie? I don't know the expression, but I feel it means "commie wanting to achieve his ends through the existing democratic process".

Council communists are anti-Leninist communists, followers of Panekoek, etc.

[MrFun]

Ok, since you put it that way, it sounds more reasonable.

[Ben Kenobi]

Anyway, surrounded by his felow Trotskyists, libertarian commies, council commies, Guevararistas, etc, he may make a full recovery.

[GePap]

Originally posted by BeBro
And the pure fact that the USSR installed stalinist regimes in its satellites or used force to stabilize those regimes against the will of the people there spreaded indeed their ideology.....

And what is the stalinist ideology besides complete totalitarian control of society?

Stalinist regimes are never big fans of helping spread revolution, so yes, the USSR under Stalin spread its ideology to border states-but not for ideological reasons, but for practical reasons (as in, no armies from Eastern europe invading Russia any time soon)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by BeBro
Sure they benefited economically.

The Soviet Unions spent many more billions on rebuilding and economically developing Eastern Europe than they ever saw in repatriated "profits." Eastern Europe was an economic drain on the USSR.

Stalin was initially FOR the rev. 1923, he even planned to support it by providing weapons,

The leaders of the KPD were unsure of themselves, and went to ask the Commintern whether they should go forward (they should have). Lenin was suffering from a stroke and unable to help them. Trotsky said, I need more information to analyze your situation. Stalin said, no, the time is not right. The world could have been such a different place but for that.

And the pure fact that the USSR installed stalinist regimes in its satellites or used force to stabilize those regimes against the will of the people there spreaded indeed their ideology.....

You are confusing cause with effect. You said the USSR did this to spread its ideolgoy, which is different from saying, because the USSR did this, it spread its ideology.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Serb
Everything is very simple folks.

Capitalism-
Fascism-
Nazism-

Communism-

Just one mistake.

Capitalism-
Fascism-
Nazism-

Communism-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

What, we should be one big monolithic block?

[DaShi]

****ing facists!

[Tripledoc]

If Stalin had allowed a communist revolution to take place in Germany would that not simply mean that the French and British would have paraded through Berlin, say within a few months?

Like the intervention during the Russian Civil War.

I think Stalin was correct.