Busheviks? Do you know what the Bolsheviks did, people? I suppose, though, that cheapening the deaths of 100 million people, from the gulags, the purges, the forced starvation of the Ukrainian peasants, the kulaks, etc., the vast majority of whom would not have died had Lenin not seized power, is nothing to be even slightly concerned about when you can use the connotation to get in a cheap shot at Bush.

Busheviks? Do you know what the Bolsheviks did, people? I suppose, though, that cheapening the deaths of 100 million people, from the gulags, the purges, the forced starvation of the Ukrainian peasants, the kulaks, etc., the vast majority of whom would not have died had Lenin not seized power, is nothing to be even slightly concerned about when you can use the connotation to get in a cheap shot at Bush.


Dont worry he is getting to achieve all that. He already started the process and will end it soon or later. :rolleyes:

Do you know what the Bolsheviks did, people?

Well they freed millions from serfdom, hundreds of years of political, economic, and cultural repression. The Bolsheviks did more good then bad in the initial years, it was Stalinism that most people get confused with. You are confusing (like most do) the policies of Stalin with Bolshevism. So really, I don't see why someone would nessecary complain, I mean enough with the emotional responses people.

I use the term Bushevik just to denote a new movement in America, with devoted followers, Eng Grez. I do enjoy the discomfort it causes Busheviks, because they so humorously resent any comparison with any of the various Soviet leadership cliques of yore. As Undecided pointed out, not all were murdurous Stalinists, and early Bolshevism was a legitimate popular movement. Busheviks are highly sensitive about such a comparison, I think not only out of ignorance toward Soviet history, but also in the discomforting realization that the secretive and insular Bushevik leadership would have fit in well in the Kremlin.

Anyway, Some say "Bushies", or "Bushites", or "Bushistas" (I kind of like that one too for similar reasons of irony) but I like the ring of "Bushevik" best. "Neoconservative" or "Neocon" is clumsy and a little confusing. If you have a more apt and catchy title for your movement, let's hear it, Eng Grez.

You see, here's my problem: I bring irrefutable evidence to support my side, and you make statements like this. How would you respond if I said:

Saddam Hussein is a Stalinist dictator who has killed hundreds of thousands of people at the least, started two unprovoked wars, both of them solely to gain control of more oil and a larger coastline to export that oil from, has numerous links to terrorist groups including Al-Qaida, has broken over a dozen United Nations Security Council Resolutions, never fully cooperated with UN Weapons inspectors or dismantled his WMD or WMD programs, and represents a clear and present destabilizing force and threat to the Middle East and the United States and cannot be allowed to remain in power lest he succeed someday in becoming an imminent threat to the mainland United States or our allies.

Yet here you are, saying that Bush has plans for gulags, forced collectivism, political purges, and genocide?

Who declared that you can spout such bullshit and expect to be taken seriously, and expect to be not called on it?

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html - Point me out the 100 million Bush has killed. The forced famines and deportations of millions of people. The Bush gulags. Where are they? Point them out.

Again why are you confusing the doctrines of Stalinism and Bolshevism? Are you seriously this ignorant of Soviet History?

Interesting to observe modern day socialists and communists pretending that, "Left" to itself, their political philosophy hasn't naturally given rise to P.C. genocide.

Denial of facts is a sure sign that reality has left the building.

Eng Grez: "Yet here you are, saying that Bush has plans for gulags, forced collectivism, political purges, and genocide?"

Clearly a hypersensistivity to criticism of Bushniks. As Bushevism continues to crack up, you're going to have your work cut out for you defending this failed American schism, Eng Grez. Or you could just relax: When Rush Limbaugh says "FemiNazi", I don't think it's intended or taken to mean that feminists are perpetrating a holocaust. Even though I don't agree with Limbaugh's world view, I have chuckled at his wordplay, and I like listening to America's more more xenophobic rhetoric in order to understand the present American movement toward fascism. Yes fascism, as defined politically, and not by association with past Italian or German varieties. American politics is not unique, superior, or incomparable with the rest of the world, and if we are to abandon our political sense of irony and humor, then the USA really is tilting toward a darker time. We should resist and reject attempts at stifling toungue-in-cheek for sterilization and political correctness of our political discourse, because it cripples political communication.

Mr.G- What and whom are you talking about?

The Bolsheviks did more good then bad in the initial years,

Seeing as how you attritube that in fact the Bolsheviks did accomplish some good, you would be admitting that Bush has accomplished some good, since you compared him to the Bolsheviks. :D

Saddam Hussein is a Stalinist dictator who has killed hundreds of thousands of people at the least,
Yes he did. And where was the US when he was doing this? Ah yes, they were selling him the weapons he used to slaughter the hundreds of thousands of people. Why didn't they stop him when he used chemical weapons on the Iranians and the Kurds? Why did they turn a blind eye to the slaughter? Why was Daddy Bush and Rumfield flying into Iraq with big grins on their faces and having lavish meals with Saddam, making new deals as he was slaughtering people?

started two unprovoked wars,
Mmmm hmmm, and the US only interfered when he invaded Kuwait. I wonder why that is? :rolleyes: Ah yes, you answered it yourself...

both of them solely to gain control of more oil and a larger coastline to export that oil from,
Funny that, isn't it?

has numerous links to terrorist groups including Al-Qaida
Hmmm. You do realise that with the exception of Bush, who is in absolute denial, everyone else is saying that such links have not been found? Hell, even Bush's henchmen have come out and admitted that along with no WMD's, no links to Al Qaida have been found.

has broken over a dozen United Nations Security Council Resolutions
Heh. So have many other countries.

never fully cooperated with UN Weapons inspectors or dismantled his WMD or WMD programs,
Never dismantled it? You'd think that if he had not dismantled it, they'd have found the damn things by now, don't you? Interesting that, isn't it?

and represents a clear and present destabilizing force and threat to the Middle East
You mean the oil right? Or Isreal?

and the United States
How so? They haven't found any weapons created by Saddam that would have been able to reach the US mainland. So how did he present a "clear and present destabilizing force and threat to the US"? Name calling does not classify as a destabilizing force or threat. But even you admit that the threat is not in any way imminent with this comment:

and cannot be allowed to remain in power lest he succeed someday in becoming an imminent threat to the mainland United States or our allies.
So which is it? Did he pose a present threat to the US or was that threat maybe one day possible in the distant future? Even the US and Allied forces have found that he posed no possible threat to the US now or anytime soon because he did not have the weapons that could have posed a threat. The only ally that the US is interested in protecting in the region is Isreal, a country that Saddam would be insane to attack considering the arms Isreal has stockpiled.

So why the pre-emptive strike against Saddam and Iraq when it was not Saddam who ordered the terrorist attacks on the US? It was not Iraq who posed the threat against the US, but Bin Laden. Does Bush have that much of a problem with geography and got mixed up between Afghanistan and Iraq? Had Bush concentrated on Bin Laden as he did on Saddam, Bin Laden would no longer pose a threat to the US or her allies around the world. Even when 9/11 happened, Bush was still focused on Saddam. Bin Laden is probably pissing himself laughing in his cave somewhere because he realises that not only has he gotten away with an attack on the US and her allies, but the US has gotten rid of a man he hated (Saddam). Instead of having the forces concentrated in Afghanistan where there should have been more men searching for Bin Laden and bringing down Al Qaida, because that is where the powerbase to the threat against the US actually is, Bush reduces the manpower in Afghanistan and goes after a man that posed no imminent threat to the US.

Oh, to be so ignorant.

Again why are you confusing the doctrines of Stalinism and Bolshevism? Are you seriously this ignorant of Soviet History?

It has been a typical dodge for the past fifty years to say that "Bolsheviks weren't Stalinists" when trying to rationalize Bolshevism and the 100 million deaths the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 in Russia is directly responsible for around the globe. Guess what: if Lenin hadn't had had his revolution (which caused millions of deaths on its own during the Red-White War), Stalin never would have been anything more than two steps up from a bandit chief in the Caucasus. Stalin was an Old Bolshevik. He, Molotov, Kruschev and a few others were the only Old Bolsheviks left by the time World War Two came around, thanks to Stalin purging most of the Old Bolshies in 1936 and 1937.

There was one Stalinist: Stalin. Stalin was a Bolshevik. Stalinism is Bolshevism with Stalin replacing the Communist utopia as the figure to be worshipped by the proletariat. There is no difference between the two. Police states are police states. The USSR of Lenin and Trotsky was just as murderous and repressive as the USSR of Stalin.

When the midgets come out and play:

Seeing as how you attritube that in fact the Bolsheviks did accomplish some good, you would be admitting that Bush has accomplished some good, since you compared him to the Bolsheviks

Funny you don’t seem to notice that I don’t call Bush a Busheviks I was merely portraying to the masses your overt ignorance Soviet history, and your pathetic attempt to explain to those who obviously know more then you about concepts.

It has been a typical dodge for the past fifty years to say that "Bolsheviks weren't Stalinists" when trying to rationalize Bolshevism and the 100 million deaths the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 in Russia is directly responsible for around the globe.

Too bad Stalin purged ever single member of that party in the 30’s so he can endeavor on his Authoritarian rampage in Russia. The Bolshevik revolution was perverted by Stalin; Lenin didn’t want Stalin to be in the party because he was considered a reckless ignoramus, not unlike you. It is easy for an ignoramus to spew shit without realizing the history of a nation; I mean I can only wish I were only so simpleminded.

Guess what: if Lenin hadn't had had his revolution (which caused millions of deaths on its own during the Red-White War), Stalin never would have been anything more than two steps up from a bandit chief in the Caucasus.

If Lenin didn’t have his revolution, Nazi Germany would rule Europe genius! If Lenin didn’t have a revolution millions of Russians would be serfs with no political rights at all, if the Revolution didn’t happen Russia would have collapsed under its own weight. You should thank the Bolsheviks if you’re Jewish, they saved your ass. So STFU!

There was one Stalinist: Stalin. Stalin was a Bolshevik. Stalinism is Bolshevism

What nonsense are you saying? Stalin was merely a hit man in the Bolshevik party, then became the man who appointed men in the party, Lenin wanted Stalin out you midget! Trotsky was to be the successor from Lenin, but that seemed to slipped your little grasp of history.

Stalin replacing the Communist utopia as the figure to be worshipped by the proletariat. There is no difference between the two.

Of course not, boy you really don’t know what you are talking about. Your statements contradict each other, oh great one.

The USSR of Lenin and Trotsky was just as murderous and repressive as the USSR of Stalin.

To bad that isn’t true, and too bad that history didn’t allow that opportunity.

Busheviks? Do you know what the Bolsheviks did, people? I suppose, though, that cheapening the deaths of 100 million people, from the gulags, the purges, the forced starvation of the Ukrainian peasants, the kulaks, etc., the vast majority of whom would not have died had Lenin not seized power, is nothing to be even slightly concerned about when you can use the connotation to get in a cheap shot at Bush.

So I assume you're equally offended by Rush Limbaugh's neologism: "Feminazi."

No answer: That is the crux. Dissent from Bushevism must shut up, because...

Well, just because.

Or do you want to help me out here, Ingress? Why are my syllogisms inferior to yours? I'm a Commie? Is this an accurate deduction?

Undecided, it was Lenin who established the secret police within months of the Bolshevik assumption of power. It was Lenin who created the concept of "democratic centralism." It was Lenin whose tirade against "factionalism" made impossible organized dissent even within the limited confines permitted under democratic centralism. Furthermore, the idea that Trotsky was Lenin's heir apparent is pure revisonism. In the first case, you seem to forget that whereas Stalin was always a member of the Bolsheviks, Trotsky had a long dalliance with the Menshevik party before making the switch. Furthermore, whereas Stalin "would visit Lenin more often than anyone else when Lenin lived incapacited in Gorki. As for Trotsky, at the end of 1922, he had to ask for directions to Gorki - apparently, he had never been there.

"Trotsky would bombared Lenin with long memoranda, explaining why so much was wrong in Soviet Russia and how to correct it. Lenin would frequently scrrible on such memoranda "V arkhiv" - "Into the Archive" - meaning that they required no action. Stalin, by contrast would send him succint notes, a few pointed sentences, suggesting to Lenin how best to implent his decisions, but never questioning the decisions themselves." (Richard Pipes, [i]Three "Whys" of the Russian Revolution, p. 82-83)

Furthermore, the idea that the Bolsheviks saved the Jews is pure fiction: "Whenever anybody came to him (Trotsky) asking him to help other Jews, he would explode in anger and insist that he was not a Jew but an 'internationalist." On one occassion he said that the fate of the Jews concerned him as little as the fate of the Bulgarians. He was in the Ukraine in 1919 during the horrible pogroms carried out by the White and independent Cossack bands. Not once did he do anything about them, even when he could, as in 1920 when the Red Cavalry retreating from Poland massacred jews."
(Pipes 81-82).

Finally, dismissing Stalin as an ignoramus was precisely the mistake that cost Trotsky his life. Was Stalin an intellectual giant on par with Marx? No. Was he a disciplined theoretician on par with Lenin? Was he a captivating public speaker on par with Trotsky? No. Was he a masterful politican? Absolutely, and that's why he won and Trotsky lost.

EDIT: Also, the Bolshevik Revolution was, in theory, Marxist. Well, who'd be most qualified to lead a Marxist revolution? Lenin, a member of both the bourgeoisie and the nobility? Trotsky, a Jew?* Or, Stalin, of proletariat stock?

* I'm aware Marx himself was Jewish. That being said, the following represent Marx's opinion of, to quote Cartman, "the horror and filthiness of the common Jew":

"What is the profane basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly god? Money."

"We discern in Judaism, therefore, a universal antisocial element."

"Mammon is his idol which he adores not only with his lips but with the whole force of his body and mind."

"What was, in itself, the basis of the Jewish religion? Practical need, egoism."

"Money is the jealous god of Israel, beside which no other god may exist."

"The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the trader, and above all of the financier."

"Judaism is the vulgar practical application of Christianity."

(All quotes taken from On the Jewish Question, available in The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd ed.)

Can you possibly spin this any farther from a simple handle? Busheviks: people who are followers/apologists for the GW Bush regime. Either produce a better moniker, or stop dissembling. "Bushevik" is just a label, and if you do not fit it, then support your President while rising above it.

Rise above it: What should we call you? you are becoming a minority, so freely choose your own collective name- or renounce Bushevism, which does not represent the majority American opinion, or shut up.

a Bush supporter :m:

Undecided, it was Lenin who established the secret police within months of the Bolshevik assumption of power.

Understood, but every nation at the period had secret police. It was WWI; there were enemies of the state. I also understand that of course that Lenin made his secret police to quell dissent but the Russian people didn’t seem to mind, he only grew in popularity. Now we must remember the thought processes of the Russian people at this time, demoralized, starving, and defeated, with no rights. It’s a trade off for sure but most Russians were too ignorant to care.

It was Lenin who created the concept of "democratic centralism." It was Lenin whose tirade against "factionalism" made impossible organized dissent even within the limited confines permitted under democratic centralism.

Yes I understand that Lenin created that concept, and at least it had some democratic underpinnings, also I understand that he believed that dictatorship would be necessary as well. He believed that both had a role within the system, it was still better then an Absolutist Czar and worse then democratic England for sure. But this Russia we are talking about here, let’s keep it in context of the country and time.

In the first case, you seem to forget that whereas Stalin was always a member of the Bolsheviks, Trotsky had a long dalliance with the Menshevik party before making the switch.

I haven’t forgotten, I know that Trotsky is a evolutionary, and Stalin was a revolutionary.

Trotsky would bombared Lenin with long memoranda, explaining why so much was wrong in Soviet Russia and how to correct it. Lenin would frequently scrrible on such memoranda "V arkhiv" - "Into the Archive" - meaning that they required no action. Stalin, by contrast would send him succint notes, a few pointed sentences, suggesting to Lenin how best to implent his decisions, but never questioning the decisions themselves."

Meaning? Who cares? In Lenin’s will the vote of confidence was not in Stalin’s corner, so really I don’t see the relevance.

Furthermore, the idea that the Bolsheviks saved the Jews is pure fiction: "Whenever anybody came to him (Trotsky) asking him to help other Jews, he would explode in anger and insist that he was not a Jew but an 'internationalist."

Oh of course Bolsheviks were not nationalist, tell a pure communist if he is Islamic he would scream at you as well. Of course that is one of the tenents of the regime that scared so many outside Russia, that nationalities, religions, cultures were nothing more then the separation of labor. I can guarantee you that Trostky was not alone in his hatred of categoricalism.

On one occassion he said that the fate of the Jews concerned him as little as the fate of the Bulgarians.

So? That is a honest comment, the fate of the Jews are not exceptional, why make it out as such?

He was in the Ukraine in 1919 during the horrible pogroms carried out by the White and independent Cossack bands.


Note the perpetrators.

Not once did he do anything about them, even when he could, as in 1920 when the Red Cavalry retreating from Poland massacred jews."

Sad and disgusting, may I ask who was commanding those Reds?

Was Stalin an intellectual giant on par with Marx? No. Was he a disciplined theoritician on par with Lenin? Was he a captivating public speaker on par with Trotsky? No. Was he a masterful politican? Absolutely, and that's why he won and Trotsky lost.

Stalin was ruthless, Stalin was a political genius, he was a genius of deception, folly, and he was someone who changed the face of the world forever. For better for worse the Stigma or light of Stalin still lingers today.

Arise ye workers [starvelings] from your slumbers
Arise ye prisoners of want
For reason in revolt now thunders
And at last ends the age of cant.
Away with all your superstitions
Servile masses arise, arise
We'll change henceforth [forthwith] the old tradition [conditions]
And spurn the dust to win the prize.

So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race.
So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race.

No more deluded by reaction
On tyrants only we'll make war
The soldiers too will take strike action
They'll break ranks and fight no more
And if those cannibals keep trying
To sacrifice us to their pride
They soon shall hear the bullets flying
We'll shoot the generals on our own side.

No saviour from on high delivers
No faith have we in prince or peer
Our own right hand the chains must shiver
Chains of hatred, greed and fear
E'er the thieves will out with their booty [give up their booty]
And give to all a happier lot.
Each [those] at the forge must do their duty
And we'll strike while the iron is hot.


Did you read that? If that defines a commie, then I am one. But we digress, Bushista. If you cannot grasp what is quoted above, an that it has not yet occurred, then do not speak to me about Communism. I will henceforth call you Bushmen, who are too primitive to understand political and societal evolution. So please attack me for calling yo a Bushman, and we'll go from there.

Have some pity: The Cold War entailed some very powerful, persistent propaganda and programming. We should help those fellow travelers still caught in that bygone spell to recover, through encouragement of voluntary, independent self re-education. There are immense changes in motion, and it's disorienting for all of us.

Has broken over a dozen United Nations Security Council Resolutions,

Israel has broken over 100


Never fully cooperated with UN Weapons inspectors

Not only has Israel got more UN resolution against it them any other countries but on numerous occasions it has attacked and KILLED UN officials. it has also on many occasions (illegally) raided UN camps.


or dismantled his WMD or WMD programs,

Israels nuclear weapon program has been completely looked over by America and the UN and instead they decide to attack Iraq for WMDs even though it was highly unlikely that Iraq would have them at the start of the war he would have them.


And represents a clear and present destabilizing force and threat to the Middle East

What the fuck about Israel!!!! Already 5 wars have been started because of them



And the United States and cannot be allowed to remain in power lest he succeed someday in becoming an imminent threat to the mainland United States or our allies.

Same goes for Israel, it’s just that US supports Israel because:
1) it has to for the Republicans to get votes. Right wing Christian Zionist and Jewish Zionists have a voting power of well over 200,000. When the US started peace plans in the Middle East, the white house was bombarded with 100,000 postcards from these parties threatening to not vote for the Republicans and as a result the peace process was scrapped.

2) Israel is needed to dominate the Middle East and to stop it from ever regrouping and repeating an Ottoman like empire.

Busheviks? Do you know what the Bolsheviks did, people? I suppose, though, that cheapening the deaths of 100 million people, from the gulags, the purges, the forced starvation of the Ukrainian peasants, the kulaks, etc., the vast majority of whom would not have died had Lenin not seized power, is nothing to be even slightly concerned about when you can use the connotation to get in a cheap shot at Bush.

What about calling people Clintonistas, as Rush did for years? Turnabout is fair play.

First of all Shag Pole. Are you under the misconception we are blind? Cus that was a little unnecessary. *rubs eyes*

Personally I think that the Isrealis are a scarier threat to a stable middle east than anyone coming out of iraq. Does anyone remeber the 6 day war? Nuf said. Between the nukes and their own fighting forces they're pretty good at taking care of themselves. I mean yeah wars have been started because of them, but they've started a fair few themselves.

Eng Grez, if your so worried about police states overseas maybe you should take a look at your own beloved Patriot Act. Monitering of basically everything, police arrests on allegations of sedition and terrorism without access to legal aid. Geez those crazy russian commies, what were they thinking? How could they do things like that! A democratic country like America would never...

Undecided and hypewaders,

Let us take a nice, long look at history, shall we?

Bolshevism was an attempt at forcefully bringing about the communist revolution, was it not, a strategy that had basically been abandoned by the numerous Western European socialists, was it not?

The Bolshevik revolution of 1917 did indeed bring about Communist control of the Russian Empire, did it not?

The principles of that revolution were aggressively exported worldwide, were they not?

Men believing in that revolution did in fact take power in North Korea, China, Cuba, Angola, etc., did they not?

Millions upon millions upon millions of people died as a result of that, did they not?

Their deaths were rationalized by Bolshevik propaganda, were they not?

----------------

There also were not many differences between Stalinista and traditional Bolshevisks.

What are those differences? The rights of the individual are subordinate to those of the state; in fact the rights of the individual do not exist at all. The stated goal of both the Bolsheviks and Stalin, who was a Bolshevik, was to bring about a Communist paradise, was it not?

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/his1g.htm
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/his1i.htm

Lenin was just as murderous as Stalin. Trotsky was just as murderous as Stalin. Bolshevism is almost entirely indistinguishable from Stalinism. Stalinism is Bolshevism with Stalin as God rather than a future Communist utopia as God.

Perhaps before you go about saying I don't know my history, you should learn some yourselves.

Let us take a nice, long look at history, shall we?

Coming from you this should be fun…for all the wrong reasons mind you.

Bolshevism was an attempt at forcefully bringing about the communist revolution, was it not, a strategy that had basically been abandoned by the numerous Western European socialists, was it not?

Communism unto itself was to be a violent revolution of the proletariat class against the bourgeoisie they were following the edicts of Marx more then WE socialists were. It would have been folly not to encourage a revolution in 1917; the rule of the absolutist Czar was a failure, and millions were starving and the country was defeated.

The Bolshevik revolution of 1917 did indeed bring about Communist control of the Russian Empire, did it not?

Obviously by definition, Bolshevik is merely a name for a segment of the two members of the Socialist Party. Unfortunately for them communism never occurred, so I don’t see why you would slander the word.

The principles of that revolution were aggressively exported worldwide, were they not?

Oh of course, it was supposed to be a spontaneous worldwide revolution, and it almost worked in Europe with the “communist” revolutions in Hungary, and Germany. Again I really don’t see what you are trying to get at here?

Men believing in that revolution did in fact take power in North Korea, China, Cuba, Angola, etc., did they not?

Those men perverted the values of the communist ethos, and they are not to be considered other then mere despots. To believe that these men were the forbearers of communism is laughable.

Millions upon millions upon millions of people died as a result of that, did they not?

Because of despotism not communism.

Their deaths were rationalized by Bolshevik propaganda, were they not?

Bolshevik did not last longer then 1928, so again you are using terms you obviously don’t know anything about.

There also were not many differences between Stalinista and traditional Bolshevisks.

But those numerically small differences, were categorically much larger.

The rights of the individual are subordinate to those of the state; in fact the rights of the individual do not exist at all.

Which was better then having no rights at all, you had the right to a house, you had a right to an education, you had a right to a job, etc. Under the Czars you had absolutely nothing, so it might be prim and pretty to talk about the “horrors” of pseudo-communism from our consumerist society, but your inability to look at the situation from a Serf in Russia is appalling.

The stated goal of both the Bolsheviks and Stalin, who was a Bolshevik, was to bring about a Communist paradise, was it not?

In different and widely different contexts, Stalin abandoned the belief of the worldwide revolution, and set about setting up “communism” in one state, that is the single greatest difference between the two, and why Stalin ruined the dream.

Lenin was just as murderous as Stalin. Trotsky was just as murderous as Stalin.

Funny, did they kill 35 million people like Stalin? I very highly doubt that. Also I see your inability to mention N.E.P? Ignorance bodes you well son.

Bolshevism is almost entirely indistinguishable from Stalinism.

To an ignoramus surely.

Stalinism is Bolshevism with Stalin as God rather than a future Communist utopia as God.

Mind showing me where in Bolshevik literature where there was the “cult of the personality” nonsense, if you cannot show me this then STFU, thank you.

Perhaps before you go about saying I don't know my history, you should learn some yourselves.

Rightieo!

Bolshevism was about the violent confiscation of property from the "greedy" borgeois... no?

yep... i totally see Bush leading a popular uprising of America's homeless to steal (um.. reallocate...) houses and cars from the middle-class people... anarchy, chaos, 98% income tax

totally..

the 'intellectuals' on the left have no arguments so they cynically exploit historic tragedies to promote their propaganda

they use such words and cheapen and reduce the tragedies of the past. they "hijack" words reserved for tragedies so there are no more words left to describe those tragedies that are much worse than anything that could possibly be happening today in any part of the world.

my favourite such bullshit comes from http://www.internationalanswer.org/
they call Bush a nazi and America's war a genocide

great link..thanks.