BBC: Useful Idiots

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If you look at the loyalty that ethinic Russian's have to Stalin it was pretty amazing stuff. You can argue that the non native soviets at the time absolutely hated Stalin and for example the Ukrainian's greeted the Nazi's as liberators.

Even today there are Russian's that pine for the return of centralized controls and Josef Stalin.

We tend to forget that life in Russia before Stalin was little different to life during his rule, pograms, mass starvation, gulags etc.
To understand his rule you have to compare him to the Tzar, not current times.

I think this is equally true when we marvel at why leftists at the time from the west forgave Stalin his murders, they were equally aware that millions were dying under British rule in India, Henry Ford was gunning down strikers openly in the US etc.

Hard times.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

We tend to forget that life in Russia before Stalin was little different to life during his rule, pograms, mass starvation, gulags etc.
To understand his rule you have to compare him to the Tzar, not current times.

I think this is equally true when we marvel at why leftists at the time from the west forgave Stalin his murders, they were equally aware that millions were dying under British rule in India, Henry Ford was gunning down strikers openly in the US etc.

Hard times.

Thousands maybe, not millions. Want to look at imperialism gone truly wrong? Read about Stalin and Ukraine.

[afc wimbledon]

Between 1769 and independance there were easily 15 to 20 million deaths from famine in India, realistically there would have been regardless of who was in charge, none the less imperial rule there and in Ireland didn't help much.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Between 1769 and independance there were easily 15 to 20 million deaths from famine in India, realistically there would have been regardless of who was in charge, none the less imperial rule there and in Ireland didn't help much.

OT from thread......
Comparing famine deaths in India to what happened in the Ukraine is comparing apples and oranges. Yes they were both famines but one was manmade and easily preventable and they other was simply a case of lack of food production due to some disaster.

The British simply did not have the technology or the production potential to stop what happened and continued to happen even after independence. Heck there was 14 or so famines from they 11-17th century during the Mogul Empire.

1943 1.5 million died

1960 another 1.5 million died. I know they were 2 or so famine in the 70's. Have no idea how many died then.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

OT from thread......
Comparing famine deaths in India to what happened in the Ukraine is comparing apples and oranges. Yes they were both famines but one was manmade and easily preventable and they other was simply a case of lack of food production due to some disaster.

The British simply did not have the technology or the production potential to stop what happened and continued to happen even after independence. Heck there was 14 or so famines from they 11-17th century during the Mogul Empire.

1943 1.5 million died

1960 another 1.5 million died. I know they were 2 or so famine in the 70's. Have no idea how many died then.

I agree, I wasn't attempting to suggest they were the same, just that when we veiw Stalin from todays perspective we forget that contempry critics were used to a world far more brutal than today.

Most on the left had just finished fighting the 'great war' a completely meaningless fight amongst cousins for control of a few coal fields in Northern France that cost 20 million lives, they honestly thought that a few lives were worth sacrifising for bringing on the global revoloution that was supposed to stop all that.

It seems naive now but we havn't just lost most of our friends in the trenches.

[tjinaz]

There is the real tale of the Left run Amok and recent history (1975)

[Hack&Lube]

Stalin ruled not because of awesome quotes but because of thinly veiled facism and the cult of personality. That's all.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

There is the real tale of the Left run Amok and recent history (1975)

Yes those well known commies, Thatcher and Reagan, their support of the Khmer was shamelessly idiotic!!

[icarus]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

We tend to forget that life in Russia before Stalin was little different to life during his rule, pograms, mass starvation, gulags etc.
To understand his rule you have to compare him to the Tzar, not current times.

Just curious, which Russian ruler since Ivan the Terrible do you consider came anywhere close to Stalin in terms of inhumanity? I think you'll find the closest you come is Lenin.

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by peter12

I can only describe radical relativism to be some form of ridiculous psychosis.

Actually, according to some critical theorists, Slavoj Zizek for example, ideology IS psychosis, substituting the real way of things for the images of a political plan.

Marxism is, arguably, the world's first real ideology given Marx's attempt to create a new social science modeled along the lines of Darwin's new natural science.

Philosophy major? You can always tell the students who spent a lot of time in Philosophy classes. They go to no ends to tell you how they understand everything, quote all these contradictory philosophers to support their point, but never have an original thought of their own. H.L. Mencken said something to that effect, but Bertrand Russell told him he was wrong.

First real ideology? Organized religion.

On the OP, I haven't been able to install the correct plugin to get the media to load so I haven't been able to listen to the documentary. I can only assume that "useful idiots" was a reference to Lenin's quote about the willing compliance of journalists and the media to perpetuate a lie and create myth? Ironic that this turns into a right versus left debate when both ends of the political spectrum, and every ideological step in between, have been guilty of media manipulation to support their political goals. For every Stalin you have Pinochet. For every Lenin you have a Bush. Zealots are the same on both sides. They all sell their souls for power and control.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by icarus

Just curious, which Russian ruler since Ivan the Terrible do you consider came anywhere close to Stalin in terms of inhumanity? I think you'll find the closest you come is Lenin.

I see little difference except inscale in any of the Tzars, they all sent hundreds of thousands to Siberia, under their inept rule millions lived in poverty and died when the crops failed.

I give you that Stalin was the best organised of them and therefore killed many more, but Russians were well used to leaders who didn't care if they lived or died.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I see little difference except inscale in any of the Tzars, they all sent hundreds of thousands to Siberia, under their inept rule millions lived in poverty and died when the crops failed.

I give you that Stalin was the best organised of them and therefore killed many more, but Russians were well used to leaders who didn't care if they lived or died.

Let's not get carried away. The Tsars actually sent very few people to Siberia, and they sent the "politicals" there to live in villages, not to work in concentration camps. These deportees could and did escape whenever they felt like, the only limiting factors being weather and transportation.
The most brutal of the Tsars after Ivan the Terrible were Peter the Great and Nicholas I, but they are mere children compared to Stalin.
There is a big difference between internally exiling hundreds, maybe a few thousand, people at most, and intentionally murdering tens of millions. As mentioned above, the only leader that came close to Stalin's brutality was Lenin, but illness/death prevented us from seeing how many millions he would have exterminated...

[tjinaz]

Yes those well known commies, Thatcher and Reagan, their support of the Khmer was shamelessly idiotic!!

So Thatcher and Reagan funding them after they were out of power against the Viets is relative how considering Reagan wasn't even elected until November 1980.

The base argument still stands. The Khmer came in to form a workers utopia following the Chinese model and in the two and a half years they held power killed 1/5 of their population through incompetence. How does the fact that Reagan and Thatcher gave them food and supplies after they were out of power change that?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Let's not get carried away. The Tsars actually sent very few people to Siberia, and they sent the "politicals" there to live in villages, not to work in concentration camps. These deportees could and did escape whenever they felt like, the only limiting factors being weather and transportation.
The most brutal of the Tsars after Ivan the Terrible were Peter the Great and Nicholas I, but they are mere children compared to Stalin.
There is a big difference between internally exiling hundreds, maybe a few thousand, people at most, and intentionally murdering tens of millions. As mentioned above, the only leader that came close to Stalin's brutality was Lenin, but illness/death prevented us from seeing how many millions he would have exterminated...

I wouldn't disagree, but within the context of this discusion I will still hold that Russians accepted Stalin for the same reason they currently accept Putin, I don't think they expect a hell of alot more than brutal dictatorships.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

So Thatcher and Reagan funding them after they were out of power against the Viets is relative how considering Reagan wasn't even elected until November 1980.

The base argument still stands. The Khmer came in to form a workers utopia following the Chinese model and in the two and a half years they held power killed 1/5 of their population through incompetence. How does the fact that Reagan and Thatcher gave them food and supplies after they were out of power change that?

I was trying to illustrate that both the left and the right can and will show willfull ignorance of evil when it suits them, sometimes, as in Pol Pot, both sides will support the same evil.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I wouldn't disagree, but within the context of this discusion I will still hold that Russians accepted Stalin for the same reason they currently accept Putin, I don't think they expect a hell of alot more than brutal dictatorships.

"Order" is more important than "freedom", as long as "order" comes with potatos.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I wouldn't disagree, but within the context of this discusion I will still hold that Russians accepted Stalin for the same reason they currently accept Putin, I don't think they expect a hell of alot more than brutal dictatorships.

I wouldn't say they accepted Stalin, but lived in constant abject fear. The Black Marias were out every night knocking on doors. Stalin would getting standing ovations for an hour in length because the first people in crowd to stop clapping would go missing that very night. Read the Gulag Archipelago--the full version, not the abridged version--and you'll get an the picture of how bad things got in the Soviet Union. It is an astonishing read.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

"Order" is more important than "freedom", as long as "order" comes with potatos.

And Vodka.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by icarus

I wouldn't say they accepted Stalin, but lived in constant abject fear. The Black Marias were out every night knocking on doors. Stalin would getting standing ovations for an hour in length because the first people in crowd to stop clapping would go missing that very night. Read the Gulag Archipelago--the full version, not the abridged version--and you'll get an the picture of how bad things got in the Soviet Union. It is an astonishing read.

I'm sorry but I disagree, Stalin was worshiped by many in his time and to this day. As is Mao and to a lesser degree Hitler.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I'm sorry but I disagree, Stalin was worshiped by many in his time and to this day. As is Mao and to a lesser degree Hitler.

This is true - my parents/grandparents recall that many genuinely wept when he died. It's a classic duality - the "bad things" were due to Beria/Ezhov/NKVD, the "good things" were due to Stalin...