Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Communist purge question

  1. Top | #11
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,357
    Archived
    3,288
    Total Posts
    4,645
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by SLD View Post
    The purges in the Soviet Union had little to do with Nobles and capitalists. They had to do with threats to Stalin's power. Any military officer that could possibly threaten Stalin was shot. Anyone who dared to challenge any kind of party line was shot. But the overall death rates did have a significant ethnic quality. Ethnic Russians who remained loyal to the regime suffered the least, same with Georgians. The Kulaks probably the worst. The Ukrainians horribly. And while the Soviet Union could hardly claim any kind of antisemitism as Karl Marx was Jewish, jews weren’t exactly safe under Stalin. In fact Stalin was planning further purges of jews in the party when he died.

    SLD
    You also have to know that "Old Bolsheviks", "Trotskists" and "Cosmopolitans" were often just codewords for Jewish bolsheviks in Russia and elsewhere during the various purges.
    Kulaks (meaning 'fists' were the richer, successful peasants, who made a good living out of farming and were opposed to their land being taken from them and collectivised. Like all farmers they were tight fisted and ruled their employees, if they had any, with a fist of iron. Hence the name. Most were Ukrainians as their farmlands had been freehold for generations in contrast to the Russian type of landholding.

  2. Top | #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    454
    Archived
    5,525
    Total Posts
    5,979
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by BH View Post
    The communists supposedly killed thousands if not millions of nobles, well off people, and militant anticommunist. Here is my question. Why didnt they just admit their side was whooped, accept the general amnesty granted after the revolution or civil war, and work to help make the new system work instead of still trying to bring it down?
    "Supposedly"? Are you some sort of historical revisionist?

    I assume you mean Russia/USSR. I think it was because communism is a kind of purist ideology that wants to totally remake society, and therefore is prone to kill anyone judged deviant.

  3. Top | #13
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,769
    Rep Power
    15
    Trotsky, wasn't he hat guy who ended up with an axe in his head in Mexico?

  4. Top | #14
    Elder Contributor barbos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Mlky Way galaxy
    Posts
    10,627
    Archived
    8,047
    Total Posts
    18,674
    Rep Power
    65
    Russian Jews had disproportionate representation among revolution leaders and intelligentsia in general, so it's no wonder that they were purged as well as doing said purging.

    I know it's hard for americans with their history to accept but communists did not care about race, ethnicity, It was all about ideology and of course paranoia of that guy from Georgia.

    And yes, former regime guys who accepted new regime were OK during communists, at least until purges started.

  5. Top | #15
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Whale's Vagina
    Posts
    5,192
    Rep Power
    28
    Outside of very small groups where people are free to leave, large scale communism cannot exist with extreme authoritarian violence.

    Some degree of capitalism is an inherent byproduct of people controlling their own body to do the labor they choose and use the fruits of that labor as they choose. Contrary to the purely faith-based dogma, many people prefer to be laborers and not to take the risks with the fruits of their labor that owning the means of production entails. While others prefer to sacrifice immediate consumption or safe "savings" in favor of risking it on investing in future production of something that may not be in demand at prices that cover the cost.
    Thus, only by criminalizing basic human liberty of people to act as individuals and decide where, when, and how they work, and for what and whom can Capitalism be eliminated in favor of entirely worker or state owned production.

    You can naturally have a blend of these w/o oppression, but you cannot eliminate capitalism without oppression, and that requires sustained violence.

    Note that although many US leftists and Bern victims say things like "Capitalism is evil", they then point to highly capitalist societies like Canada, Sweden, and other parts of Europe as models the US should strive toward. That's b/c they have no clue what capitalism or communism is. They mistake strong governments that provide basic social services as being anti-capitalist, when in fact you can (and most 1st world democracies do) have those things with a largely capitalist economy. There are serious dangers that unregulated capitalism pose, and the US a shining example of those, but nothing about capitalism requires it not exist within a strong regulatory framework. Also, note that most right wingers and many "libertarians" share leftists delusion that government services and regulations are anti-capitalism. The difference it is they want to destroy the former to preserve the latter, while leftist want to do the opposite. Both are dangerously wrong.

  6. Top | #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    454
    Archived
    5,525
    Total Posts
    5,979
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post
    Outside of very small groups where people are free to leave, large scale communism cannot exist with extreme authoritarian violence.

    Some degree of capitalism is an inherent byproduct of people controlling their own body to do the labor they choose and use the fruits of that labor as they choose. Contrary to the purely faith-based dogma, many people prefer to be laborers and not to take the risks with the fruits of their labor that owning the means of production entails. While others prefer to sacrifice immediate consumption or safe "savings" in favor of risking it on investing in future production of something that may not be in demand at prices that cover the cost.
    Thus, only by criminalizing basic human liberty of people to act as individuals and decide where, when, and how they work, and for what and whom can Capitalism be eliminated in favor of entirely worker or state owned production.

    You can naturally have a blend of these w/o oppression, but you cannot eliminate capitalism without oppression, and that requires sustained violence.

    Note that although many US leftists and Bern victims say things like "Capitalism is evil", they then point to highly capitalist societies like Canada, Sweden, and other parts of Europe as models the US should strive toward. That's b/c they have no clue what capitalism or communism is. They mistake strong governments that provide basic social services as being anti-capitalist, when in fact you can (and most 1st world democracies do) have those things with a largely capitalist economy. There are serious dangers that unregulated capitalism pose, and the US a shining example of those, but nothing about capitalism requires it not exist within a strong regulatory framework. Also, note that most right wingers and many "libertarians" share leftists delusion that government services and regulations are anti-capitalism. The difference it is they want to destroy the former to preserve the latter, while leftist want to do the opposite. Both are dangerously wrong.
    Thanks for writing this. I completely agree. The American political terminology is completely off the rails. Europe socialist? It's like the Cold War never happened, and the Berlin Wall never existed.

    Yes, European countries have capitalist economies, but they also combine that with welfare states of various degrees and kinds. This is no contradiction, it is perfectly possible, as empirically demonstrated by literally decades of modern history.

    Capitalism is so much more efficient than a socialist economy, so even in most countries where it is not accepted in theory, it is accepted in practice.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •