“Redneck” may have unsavory connotations depending on how the term is used, but it is far from a virulently racist hate term.

Quite a few rednecks are proud of that term, and use it liberally.

Uses virulently racist term of hate (“redneck”) for Southern Whites? Check.

Generalizing about Whites, Republicans? Check.

Folks, I think we’ve got a liberal on our hands.

Not me!

No one is above the law and those who dis-regard it, should be made to answer to it with-out mercy.

on April 20th, 2010 at 9:03 am

Beholder, what you are espousing is a Trotskyite position, and an incorrect one.

———-
Ruslan ,you know I respect your views and this is no exception. However I don’t see the Trotskyite position here at all. Yes, it has been argued by those who are “Trotskites” (notably Tony Cliff) but I don’t agree with your view that such criticism is therefore limited to Trotskyism, nor that it is an incorrect interpretation of history.

In fact my comment about practicing state capitalism is fairly common Marxist self-criticism. I am by far a “utopian” thinker, nor do I think it would be reasonable to think that the Communist experience in USSR would be without its challenges under the best of circumstances and have never argued that totalitarianism would be the result of the workers’ struggle.

However it is historical fact that the workers began to lose direct authority for the control of state enterprise, beginning with, I argue, the 1932 measures which put the supply of necessary goods for survival into the hands of the factory bosses, which I cited as a question of historical record.

There’s an insightful analysis of these and other historical events on the departure from Marxist principles in the USSR under Stalin here:

http://www.marxists.org/archiv.....h01-s1.htm

Stalin, as the most important leader of the worldwide Communist movement after Lenin’s death, cannot and should not be above criticism. It can be argued that Stalin made contributions to the workers’ struggle through theoretical works, protecting Communism from opportunists, advancing international proletarianism and so on, but it can also be argued that Stalin — and if you wish to be more kind to Stalin — the international Communist movement after Lenin’s death, committed a number of errors which have been recognized.

If you argue, as you have, that American socialism (i.e. labor unions, restrictions on trusts and so on, welfare, food stamps etc.) is not to be considered true socialism, then I would be curious to know how you defend Stalin’s methods as being true to the ideas inherent in Marx’s writings on class struggle in (and this is the important qualifier) implementation.

The old Obama is a closet Muslim idea was huge among these writers many of whom were either active duty military or recent veterans. From the tone of this discussion it was very clear a serious danger exists within our military today. It is a fertile breeding, recruiting and training ground for a new and very deadly threat to this nation. As a former intelligence officer myself I feel this threat is just as dangerous if not more so to the general population now than any Islamic terrorist threat.

i agree with your description of Lenin’s attitude toward the NEP. in addition, he was subtle enough to appreciate the distinction between markets in a socialist economy and those in a capitalist economy. the overall context for a market, for Lenin, makes the difference.

John,
for any Republican to insinuate that he cares about life in, or the general welfare of, foreign populations (whether in Germany, the U.S.S.R., Vietnam, Irag, or any other country) is mere cant and nothing more. the Nixon campaign for the presidency in 1968 sabotaged peace talks with the Vietnamese solely for the purpose of promoting his victory in the election.

the only priority that Republicans have is a healthy bottom line for corporate America. then they wonder why
much of the country considers them beneath contempt.

by the way, go check the dictionary to learn the proper definition of the word “socialism,” so that you don’t embarrass yourself any further. you should also read the party platforms of the Democratic Party over the course of the 20th century. you won’t find in them a plank to nationalize the means of production.

no one is impressed with your zeal in repeating the buzz words of Republican Party propaganda.

Prove it.

That’s a goddamn lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kreutzer,_Jr.

White guy. Probably Christian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Liberty_killings

White guy. Probably Christian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_R._Woodson

African-American guy. Religion unknown, but the government says “probably not terror-related,” which is pretty much code for “dude’s not Muslim.”

By the way, if you look at the Fort Hood article on Wikipedia… here… I’ll link to it for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

…They link to five other attacks. If you count the Fort Hood shooting in that list, three are by accused “Islamic militants”, and the other three are by non-Muslims.

I’d say that means we need to give equal attention to Muslims AND non-Muslims when it comes to the potential for terror attacks. Might I point out that the death threats against President Obama here in the U.S. are overwhelmingly coming from white non-Muslims?

Oh, and this kind of skews the balance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

White. Prior military service. Religion unknown, but definitely not Muslim.

In fact, if you look at all the statistics throughout the history of this nation, white men have been responsible for far more terrorist attacks than Muslims of any race have been. We’re profiling the wrong people.

I was 4.0 student in all my Political Science classes. You are making up things I did not say, which seems ongoing with you and explains your distortions of reality, politics, et cetera.

John, you can’t bluff your way out of the fact that you clearly don’t know what you are talking about, and your “education” clearly comes from years of listening to glorified radio DJs and reading their ghostwritten books.

At the very least try to salvage some dignity.

@Jeff

The most I can say about both policies is that they were disastrous for socialism. The reforms of Khruschev were akin to NEP style politics, the main difference being that Khruschev re-packaged NEP policies as a “return to Leninism” and a permanent course, whereas in fact Lenin reluctantly accepted the policy as a necessary, but temporary measure. As one follows the increasing amount of market-style reforms in the USSR and other socialist countries, one can see more corruption, and more failures, until the system finally collapsed thanks to the influence of those who had an interest in seeing it gone.

Interestingly enough, Fidel Castro came up with an interesting argument regarding the USSR, specifically that they had no sense of moderation. With NEP it was all capitalism in the countryside. With collectivization, it was collectivize at all costs. Of course this is a matter of hindsight but it is an interest argument.

1. You attempted to espouse your wacky beliefs, which were promptly shot down by your professors. You concluded that there is a “politically correct” conspiracy in academia, which is the real reason why your ideas about politics aren’t taken seriously.

2. You held your tongue and wrote what you thought your professor wanted to see, so as to pass the course. Then see above.

if you’re collecting such benefits, you are either a socialist (according to the Right’s understanding of that term) or a hypocrite; my guess is the latter.

Rusian,
i’d be interested to hear any comparisons that could be made between the NEP of 1921 and Deng’s market reforms in China. have you given this any thought?

April 17th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
As usual, a bigoted irrelevant remark from you, Jeff. No argument of the facts. Just claims. Yet another fulginating from a Net troll.
April 17th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
The same for you, Stephen Manning.

You credited me for my military service and then claimed I should be embarrassed, obviously, because I disagree with you.

I am embarrassed either that you might be a US citizen more propaganda in your head than history or that I served a nation where you may have benefitted by that service.

However, you are still engaged, like the others, without proof or logical argument, in name-calling. Typical Net Troll behavior of provoking rather than contributing.

however, the international Left itself was split into factions in a debate that resulted from a power struggle between Trotsky and Stalin beginning in the mid-1920’s. Trotsky’s characterizations of Stalin’s policies appear to be unfair, particularly with respect to Comintern policy toward China from that same era. in comparing Stalin’s letters to Molotov with Trotsky’s tracts on this subject, one can’t help but conclude that Trotsky was inspired by personal pique toward Stalin. this is unfortunate because the international Left lionized Trotsky for most of the mid-20th century at Stalin’s expense. one wouldn’t expect the Right to characterize Stalin fairly or accurately, but the Left by and large also has refused to dig deeper than Trotsky’s bombast against him.

the more important question is whether it’s helpful for analytical purposes to characterize a dictatorship as “totalitarian.” i know Hannah Arendt penned a few chapters on totalitarianism, but i don’t believe there is a valid distinction between the two. charges of totalitarianism only manage to obstruct a lucid analysis: the more critical distinction is between left-wing and right-wing dictatorships. the U.S. Dept. of State’s behavior toward dictatorships indicates that it has made this distinction throughout the twentieth century, e.g. support for the Pinochet regime in Chile (to name only one in a long list) but covert attempts at subversion of left-wing dictatorships such as Castro’s Cuba.

under Russia’s New Economic Policy of 1921, a limited “market socialism” was implemented. there was a limited sphere of private enterprise, particularly in agricultural production. in the late 1920’s, Stalin abandoned it.