[Bolshevik ethics explicitly began and ended with atheism. Only someone who rejected all religious or quasi-religious morals could be a Bolshevik because, as Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and other Bolshevik leaders insisted, the only standard of right and wrong was success for the Party. The bourgeoisie falsely claim we have no ethics, Lenin explained in a 1920 speech. But what we reject is any ethics based on God's commandments or anything resembling them, such as abstract principles, timeless values, universal human rights, or any tenet of philosophical idealism.

For a true materialist, Lenin maintained, there can be no Kantian categorical imperative to regard others only as ends, not as means. By the same token, the materialist does not acknowledge the supposed sanctity of human life. All such notions, Lenin insisted, are "based on extra human and extra class concepts" and so are simply religion in disguise. "That is why we say that to us there is no such thing as a morality that stands outside human society; that is a fraud. To us morality is subordinated to the interests of the proletariat's class struggle," which means to the Party.

Aron Solts, known as "the conscience of the Party," explained: "We . . . can say openly and frankly: yes, we hold in prison those who interfere with the establishment of our order, and we do not stop before other such actions because we do not believe in the existence of abstractly unethical actions."]

Married A Horn said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[Bolshevik ethics explicitly began and ended with atheism. Only someone who rejected all religious or quasi-religious morals could be a Bolshevik because, as Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and other Bolshevik leaders insisted, the only standard of right and wrong was success for the Party. The bourgeoisie falsely claim we have no ethics, Lenin explained in a 1920 speech. But what we reject is any ethics based on God's commandments or anything resembling them, such as abstract principles, timeless values, universal human rights, or any tenet of philosophical idealism.

For a true materialist, Lenin maintained, there can be no Kantian categorical imperative to regard others only as ends, not as means. By the same token, the materialist does not acknowledge the supposed sanctity of human life. All such notions, Lenin insisted, are "based on extra human and extra class concepts" and so are simply religion in disguise. "That is why we say that to us there is no such thing as a morality that stands outside human society; that is a fraud. To us morality is subordinated to the interests of the proletariat's class struggle," which means to the Party.

Aron Solts, known as "the conscience of the Party," explained: "We . . . can say openly and frankly: yes, we hold in prison those who interfere with the establishment of our order, and we do not stop before other such actions because we do not believe in the existence of abstractly unethical actions."]

---

Democrats

---

Modern Progressive Democrats do have a lot of similarities to the Bolsheviks


[The Soviet policy on nationalities, or national minorities, was based on Lenin's belief that alongside the "bad" nationalism of predatory colonialist nations (i.e. Russian), there existed a "good" nationalism, that of oppressed ethnic peoples yearning for freedom. Lenin believed that a comprehensive state-sponsored program of "nation-building" could fulfill the nationalist aspirations of the many non-Russian peoples of the Soviet Union and thus prevent them from aspiring to any real autonomy.

The years of the "great transformation" from 1928 to 1932 saw the Soviet nation-building project peak in intensity, a process historian Yuri Slezkine has described as "the most extravagant celebration of ethnic diversity that any state had ever witnessed.]


Almost just like how modern Democrats embrace racial minority nationalism/identity but hate White American Nationalism.

and fascists… but I'm repeating what you said

You ignored my post. I am out. Your immaturity does not serve you well. It makes you an 8th lunchroom bully

Waco1947 said:

---

You ignored my post. I am out. Your immaturity does not serve you well. It makes you an 8th lunchroom bully

---

Oh man... if we would have all known that we would have ignored your posts long ago.

Waco1947 said:

---

You ignored my post. I am out. Your immaturity does not serve you well. It makes you an 8th lunchroom bully

---

We have all answered your lies over the years . Fact after fact; Scripture quote after Scripture quote, have been pointed out to you.

Yet you have ignore them all, and merely disappear for a few days or ( after each of Trump's elections ) a couple of weeks.

As a result everyone realizes to engage with you is pointless.

Bully ?

Don't flatter yourself.


You are the one poster I would avoid meeting in person.

The USSR's planned economy gave rise to a massive, unofficial "second economy" that arguably kept the system functional. Some estimate it at 10-20% of GNP.

At the core were ~tens of thousands of underground factories operating inside state factories, using them as cover. pic.twitter.com/IVodvVdZh1

— Jonathon P Sine (@JonathonPSine) December 18, 2024

Johnny Bear said:

---

OP is spot on. The popularly taught notion that if you go as far to the right as possible on the political spectrum you end up with fascism is completely false. What you actually end up with is a staunch libertarian. Fascism is just another brand or form of leftist totalitarianism and there was good reason the formal name of Hitler's party was the National SOCIALIST Party. And the Nazis didn't hate the Communists (and vice versa) because they were on opposite ends of the political spectrum - they hated them because they were the major rivals for power back in the day. Nazis and true conservatives have or had virtually nothing in common other than perhaps a strong love of country.

---

Spot on. As I've said many times = "when you get to the right pole in the GOP, you will find no Nazis. Just Ron Paul."

Communism is socialism by class = collectivism to benefit the working class.
Fascism is socialism by race = collectivism to benefit a nation.

Big difference: Communism is implicitly inclusive, everyone, everywhere - "Workers of the world, unite!" (at the expense of capitalists). By comparison, fascism is explicitly exclusive - "lebensraum for the German people!" (at the expense of anyone in the way who wasn't German).

whiterock said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

OP is spot on. The popularly taught notion that if you go as far to the right as possible on the political spectrum you end up with fascism is completely false. What you actually end up with is a staunch libertarian. Fascism is just another brand or form of leftist totalitarianism and there was good reason the formal name of Hitler's party was the National SOCIALIST Party. And the Nazis didn't hate the Communists (and vice versa) because they were on opposite ends of the political spectrum - they hated them because they were the major rivals for power back in the day. Nazis and true conservatives have or had virtually nothing in common other than perhaps a strong love of country.

---

Spot on. As I've said many times = "when you get to the right pole in the GOP, you will find no Nazis. Just Ron Paul."

Communism is socialism by class = collectivism to benefit the working class.
Fascism is socialism by race = collectivism to benefit a nation.

Big difference: Communism is implicitly inclusive, everyone, everywhere - "Workers of the world, unite!" (at the expense of capitalists). By comparison, fascism is explicitly exclusive - "lebensraum for the German people!" (at the expense of anyone in the way who wasn't German).

---

And all forms of socialism, including communism & fascism, are ultimately at the expense of everyone. They cannot work because the theories behind them ignore reality so the corrupt politicians must use increasingly severe & ruthless force to keep up appearances including propaganda, censorship, lawfare, & other forms of repression. It quickly includes gulags, concentration camps, labor camps, or "reeducation" camps. Whatever they are called, they are barbaric & brutal. In the 20th century well over 100 million innocent people were killed in the name of socialism in one form or another.

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

OP is spot on. The popularly taught notion that if you go as far to the right as possible on the political spectrum you end up with fascism is completely false. What you actually end up with is a staunch libertarian. Fascism is just another brand or form of leftist totalitarianism and there was good reason the formal name of Hitler's party was the National SOCIALIST Party. And the Nazis didn't hate the Communists (and vice versa) because they were on opposite ends of the political spectrum - they hated them because they were the major rivals for power back in the day. Nazis and true conservatives have or had virtually nothing in common other than perhaps a strong love of country.

---

Spot on. As I've said many times = "when you get to the right pole in the GOP, you will find no Nazis. Just Ron Paul."

Communism is socialism by class = collectivism to benefit the working class.
Fascism is socialism by race = collectivism to benefit a nation.

Big difference: Communism is implicitly inclusive, everyone, everywhere - "Workers of the world, unite!" (at the expense of capitalists). By comparison, fascism is explicitly exclusive - "lebensraum for the German people!" (at the expense of anyone in the way who wasn't German).

---

And all forms of socialism, including communism & fascism, are ultimately at the expense of everyone. They cannot work because the theories behind them ignore reality so the corrupt politicians must use increasingly severe & ruthless force to keep up appearances including propaganda, censorship, lawfare, & other forms of repression. It quickly includes gulags, concentration camps, labor camps, or "reeducation" camps. Whatever they are called, they are barbaric & brutal. In the 20th century well over 100 million innocent people were killed in the name of socialism in one form or another.

---

Haven't you heard? The people who've tried it so far weren't doing it right. "our lefitists" know the way to do it properly and lead us to understanding & unity in everlasting prosperity. Just give them the chance!

That's always the pathetic excuse of Marxists when confronted with the failures of their ideology. Few are ever willing to admit that the entire ideology is flawed and evil. It is impossible for any form of Marxism to succeed in the long run because their goals are unrealistic. Those who do become firm believers in capitalism.

The kind of equality Marxists seek, for example, is impossible. We are all unique individuals (created in God's image) and each with our own unique ambitions, personalities, skill levels, etc. Marxist equality (today they say "equity") is imposed by corrupt politicians & incompetent bureaucrats with increasingly stringent & brutal force. It always degenerates into mass murder and it always fails. Whatever "successes" Marxists systems have is based on parasitic behavior: exploitation, slave labor, theft on a massive scale, etc.

Everything about it is evil.

Hitler may very well have been possessed by a demon.

-F.A.Hayek

Is this from The Road to Serfdom? It looks familiar but it's been awhile since I read that book.

historian said:

---

Is this from The Road to Serfdom? It looks familiar but it's been awhile since I read that book.

---

Yes it is

Redbrickbear said:

---

-F.A.Hayek

---

I wrote my master's thesis on Max Eastman. I respected him because he had an opinion - communism is ideal - and then saw it in practice. Rather than making excuses and re-writing reality to fit his narrative (like most other regressives), he changed his opinion based on reality.

Unfortunately, the radical, regressive left has become fully anti-intellectual and anti-reality.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

-F.A.Hayek

---

I wrote my master's thesis on Max Eastman. I respected him because he had an opinion - communism is ideal - and then saw it in practice. Rather than making excuses and re-writing reality to fit his narrative (like most other regressives), he changed his opinion based on reality.

Unfortunately, the radical, regressive left has become fully anti-intellectual and anti-reality.

---

Thomas Sowell had the same journey.

historian said:

---

---

The US is full of a bunch of useful idiots. And many come in the guise of arrogant college students who think they have all the answers, being manipulated by these nonsensical professors.

Professors who probably live very non-Marxist, non-socialist lifestyles themselves. Outside of their words of course.

I mean, we see how the Democrats live...high on the hog...giving very little to charity....and adding to the global climate issues they concern themselves with. Treating people "fairly," but pushing legislation that only hurts them more, and talking to them like they're idiots.

These young numskulls think such things as socialism, Marxism, etc. are hip. They wear Che teeshirts, and some let their hair grow out and don't wear deodorant. So edgy.

It's all part of being immature and out of touch with the reality of the world. And these types are easily manipulated.

Yet, while heir professors glamorize it, the immature and privileged youth here in America buy into it.....hundreds of thousands of immigrants are fleeing their countries because of those very things that our immature kids, and their profs are glamorizing.

But oh, that's right. Those countries are just not doing it right. We here in the US know how to do it right. That leftist stuff.

*Eradicate babies in the womb right up until birth.
*Allow crime to run rampant and then, hell, our politicians will even bail you out.
*Perfectly okay to steal, smash and grab, as long as it isn't over a price tag of $999.99. Because YOU deserve it.
*Defund and demonize the people who are just trying to keep our streets safe.
*And oh yeah, make sure that the leaders of the opposing party are equally demonized, their messages misconstrued, lied about, or completely ignored and shut down. This even being admitted to by those behind it four years later.

And lest we forget that some of the biggest liberals in this country are some of the richest in the world. And they didn't get there by sharing their wealth. Some are even especially good at "reading the tea leaves" of the market. LOL.

They may have worn Che tees, but pretty capitalist mindsets themselves actually. And very successful at working the system, and/or building their businesses too.

Seeing how they push their extreme liberalism alone in this country, we honestly think they will "successfully" propagate the "ideals" of communism, Marxism and socialism. They can't because it's impossible. And they know it. They just SAY it because it sounds cool. And assuages their guilt. People of America, share what you have! Even though I don't have to, and won't!

I think I'll listen to those who have come to America, fleeing those "ideal" philosophies, rather than listen to a bunch of immature, privileged American college kids (and the adults they become) whose sense of struggle is having only one Starbucks a day rather than three.

Great article about rich Marxist in the media that illustrates the evils, hypocrisy, and lies of socialism:

Multimillionaire Media Host Says "Democracy And Capitalism Are Incompatible"

https://notthebee.com/article/multimillionaire-media-host-says-democracy-and-capitalism-are-incompatible