So commies killed 100 million people in the course of the

[nadinbrzezinski]

20th century... yes, yes they did... so did Fascists...

So when somebody tells me that this is a good reason to avoid any lefty thought... I could use this as a rational to avoid neo liberalism.

History is really tricky that way... and some of the millions that died under fascist regimes died ON THIS CONTINENT, and we sponsored those regimes. It was part of the cold war... just liket he USSR sponsored some of those commie regimes that also committed crimes against humanity...

But if that is your rationale... really this is quite even in that statistic of horrors.

[white_wolf]

1. I'll take this a step further.

If you want to blame a nation's economic policy for all the deaths that nation has caused, then capitalism likely beats out socialism. How many have we killed through our imperialist wars, how many people have died at the hands of dictators we supported?

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. actually we are even steven on that one

The Cold war was a series of proxy wars fought by both sides. There might be a difference of a million or two, but really at those numbers, it really does not matter.

Oh and internally the Gulags kiled about 70 million people... but those were police state tactics continuing from the Tsarist regime... so the Cheka was terrible, so what the Tsarist secret police. Heck the HQ was the same and many of the early personnel were the same.

[white_wolf]

3. Oh and the 100 million number is likely inflated.

The people who started the 100 million meme often count the deaths caused by WWII and the various famines as deaths caused by communism. This ignores the fact that Russia had trouble with famine throughout it's history as did China.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. No I am including the Gulags here

the number are around 60-70 million... and that does include WW II... that was 40 million, But for example many Red Army troops that came back from POW camps went straight to the Gulags.

[AngryAmish]

20. It is hard to say the famine in Ukraine during collectivization or the Great Leap Forward were not

a result of Communism. The ideology created the disruption, not disease or weather.

[JVS]

21. If US farmers protested an end to corn subsidies by destroying their crops...

would the disruption be a creation of the end of the subsidy or would it be the creation of the farmer's reaction to the policy

[AngryAmish]

22. except the Ukrainian farmers did not destroy anything

The Great Leap Forward was a national policy rooted in Communist thought - the great strides possible when "the people" work together. Absurd idea, tens of millions dead.

Ukrainian Terror famine was done because social justice and collectivization demanded it. Ukrainians said no, I like my life the way it is. So Stalin took the food.

[ileus]

5. eh...carbon footprints.

Imagine how bad global warming would be with the generations of those 100 million.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. 100 million in a population of 7 billion is a drop in a bucket

really.

[Drale]

7. As far as I'm concerned the Communist leaders in Russia, China etc...

where right wing dictators using the idea of Communism to get the people to do what they wanted.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. And POLITICAL SCIENTISTS will disagree with you

Authoritarian thought exists on both extremes. The key word here is... extremes.

Why at the extremes, from the citizen's point of view it really does not make a tinker's damn of a difference.

[provis99]

9. actually, you are wrong. Political scientists view authoritarianism as right wing.

Authoritarian is almost always a right wing phenomenon. Theodore Adorno covered this topic extentively in the 20th Century, and more recently, Bob Altemeyer has written a book on how authoritarianism is by and large a right-wing phenomenon.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. And stalin was a right winger... .mkay

[izquierdista]

11. Here's the link

to Altenmeyer's book: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

It will definitely help you understand authoritarianism, which will give your one-dimensional left-right dichotomy some depth.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. I will read it

but to my mind we need to talk of true believers, which exist on both ends of the spectrum... and it is a standard political science dichotomy. I see he is writing from the POV of political dissonance and PSYCHOLOGY.

[haikugal]

13. You beat me to it...this is a book everyone should read.

[Cervantes]

38. Wait... you think Stalin was left wing?

eek!

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. It is standard history

it is also standard political science thinking.

In the more recent past, starting with a RW in England, there has been a revision of the standard left right axis placing all statist systems (that be fascism and Communism) in the left wing. I see that now the left is starting to do the same shit in the US.

But this is so basic poli sci 101 it is not even funny.

Also there is a MORE RECENT dimensional plane that does not rely on the standard axis but more in the libertarian et al axis... here is where your political believes are tested. But the axis itself, is pretty basic poli sci 101 and in there, yes Stalin was on the extreme left wing... why the dimensional plane MIGHT replace, in time, the axis...

[Cervantes]

46. Calling yourself communist doesn't make you a communist. Behaviour is more important than title

If you want to learn more, go find a dictionary and look up the word "misnomer." There should be a picture of Stalin's face under it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Again this is STANDARD POLI SCI

have a good day.

Perhaps I should tell more than just one person to go take a survey class of Western Europe and a survey course of Political Science and chiefly comparative government.

Jaysus by your logic the Extreme RIGHT WING, like oh Pinochet and Franco, can be disavowed for the same reasons.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[provis99]

55. I teach political science, so I don't have a clue where you get your nonsense.

YOUR ideas are not STANDARD POLI SCI. And no professor calls it "poli sci"; at most an undergrad does.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Actually it is

but that is ok... I guess I did not finish my degree either, or my masters...

I must have imagined those degrees...

Have a good long fracking day.

[provis99]

57. come on; that "it is STANDARD" claim is clownish and sophomoric.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between political systems and economic systems. Communism, as is the state capitalism practiced by the Soviet Union. Ideas of left and right as applied to political ideology are different things.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. I guess thiose folks with Ph.Ds who developed this

Are clownish and sophomoric. See my sig...

[Marr]

58. Actually, IIRC, Altemeyer explained his usage of the phrase "right-wing" as meaning essentially,

'aligned with the powers that be', and whether political scientists would put those powers on the left or right side of the political spectrum doesn't actually figure into it. He would call an officer in the Soviet Union a right-wing authoritarian follower, even though his politics are left wing.

[indurancevile]

32. they'll disagree with you as well, because they aren't clones of one another.

[Cervantes]

53. But...but..but... She's taken CLASSES!

She knows ALL ABOUT THIS STUFF!

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Actually I have a tad more than just classes

but you keep trying that one.

[coalition_unwilling]

17. Oy vey - in addition to the disastrous typo ('where' when I think

you must have meant 'were'), what makes you think Mao was a 'right-wing' dictator? If Mao was 'right-wing,' then what do you call the current Chinese leadership?

[JDPriestly]

14. You are quite correct, nainbrzezinski, however, Stalin

may have set a record for killing people, especially people he considered his own countrymen.

[blindpig]

15. Stalin did this, Stalin did that....

It seems that Stalin was responsible for every death in the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1955.

There were injustices during the 'purges' to be sure, however the scale is fantastically inflated. And yes the kulaks were harshly repressed, but they were reactionary opportunists who threatening the existence of the revolution, too fucking bad for them.

[LanternWaste]

26. Yes... Stalin did do this. And he did that also.

Yes... Stalin did do this. And he did that also (unless of course you were simply aiming for hyperbole and melodrama to better argue an unsupported position...in which case, well done. Bravo.)

I don't think he was responsible for *all* deaths though... merely 15,000,000 (give or take a few hundred thousand depending on which valid, peer reviewed source you prefer). Although I don't know if that would make his actions more palatable to you as it was Stalin himself who said, "one death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic." I wonder if he inflated that quote...? :shrug:

[blindpig]

31. Oh yeah, sez who?

This from Austin Murphy's Triumph of Evil (EPAP 2000):


The Soviet Union is also reputed to have murdered tens of millions of
people, mostly during the period of Stalin's rule between 1930 and 1953
(Rummel, 1990). While an analysis of Stalin’s most notorious decade, the
1930s, merits a detailed analysis that is postponed until the first
chapter of this book, it is possible to utilize demographic data alone
to disprove Rummel’s conjecture that Stalin and his successor
deliberately murdered millions of innocent civilians in the 1940s and
1950s (which included the years of the murderous Nazi invasion in World
War II). In particular, Chalk and Jonassohn (1990) report census data
indicating that the population of the Soviet Union had risen to 209
million by 1959, of which 75 million had been born since 1940, implying
209-75=134 million of these living in 1959 having been in existence
before 1940. Combining the early 1939 Soviet population of 168 million
with 24 million new Soviet citizens (who were added as a result of
Soviet re-annexations of formerly Russian territory later in 1939)
implies a population of 192 million at the end of 1939. Given Rummel's
(1990) own estimates of 20 million Soviets killed by the Nazis in World
War II, there are a total of 192-20-134=38 million people left who could
have died from deaths not related to the Nazis. That number of deaths
represents only 38/20=1.9 million per year over the 1940-1959 interval,
or under 1.0% of the population annually. Such an annual death rate is
far less than the over 3% Russian death rate under the czar even in
peacetime in 1913 (Wheatcroft, 1990), is less than the 1.9% Soviet death
rate in 1928 before Stalin took full control (Buck, 1937), is even below
the 1.1% death rate in the final year of communism in 1990, and is
significantly less than the 1.6% death rate under Yeltsin's capitalist
Russia (Becker, 1997a). Thus, although there was some guerrilla warfare
between Soviet troops and Nazi collaborators (i.e., “freedom fighters”
in CIA terminology) after areas of the Soviet Union seized by Hitler
were liberated in World War II, and although the Soviet Union had
hundreds of the Nazi collaborators executed and many others deported
(Associated Press, 2000e), there is no evidence of Stalin having killed
a significant number of people in the 1940s and 1950s. Similarly, while
there were numerous executions in other Eastern Europe countries under
Soviet military occupation after World War II, they numbered only in the
hundreds (Parrish, 1996).

[Ikonoklast]

50. Hahahahaaaa!

Slave to a failed religion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. By that yardstick yes he did

but by percentage of the population he had some that were close... Somoza comes to mind.

And let's not mention Suharto....

But by raw numbers, yep, he did.

[blindpig]

16. numbers....

'snip'

Medvedev concludes that nine to 11 million prosperous peasants were driven from their lands with another two to three million arrested or exiled in the forced collectivisation of the early 1930s. But, Fitzpatrick says, Medvedev makes no distinction between those who left their villages voluntarily and those who left by force. This was the era of industrialisation and many of Medvedev's millions were moving to the town. Medvedev also bases his figures on the assumption that the average peasant family in the late 1920s had eight members, whereas in fact five was the normal size. Fitzpatrick also cited the famous conversation between Churchill and Stalin as another flimsy source, often used by some to claim that Stalin told Churchill that ten million peasants died in collectivisation. The actual passage in _The Hinge of Fate_ makes it clear Stalin was talking about the total number of peasants he was dealing with, not those who died. According to Fitzpatrick, a respected estimate, concurred with by several historians in the West, is that of the historian Victor P Danilov, who recently wrote in _Pravda_ that approximately three to four million died in the famine of the early 1930s. But where does that leave us on the matter of the purges?

In his 1946 survey, _The Population of the Soviet Union_, the demographer Frank Lorimer studied data from the Soviet census of 1925 and 1939 and all available information on fertility and mortality between these two dates. He calculated that what demographers call "excess deaths", that is, in Lorimer's method, a comparison of the reported total population in 1939 with the expected population at that date - given the count in 1925 and everything known about fertility, mortality and emigration between those years - amounted to somewhere between 4.5 million and 5 million, though this total included perhaps several hundred thousand emigrants, such as those Central Asian nomads moving into Sinkiang to avoid collectivisation.

In their 1979 volume _How the Soviet Union is Governed_, Professors Jerry Hough and Merle Fainsod generally supported Lorimer's calculation and concluded that the more extreme western estimates "cannot be sustained". Rather, "a smaller - but still horrifying - number" of "maybe some 3.5 million" emerges as the direct or indirect result of collectivisation in the early 1930s. With respect to the purges of 1937 and 1938, Hough and Fainsod again criticise excessive Western estimates, and report that on the evidence of extant demographic data, "the number of deaths in the purge would certainly be placed in the hundreds of thousands rather than in excess of a million". Indeed, "a figure in the low hundreds of thousands seems much more probable than one in the high hundreds of thousands, and even George Kennan's estimate of 'tens of thousands' is quite conceivable, maybe even probable."

'snip'

http://www.campin.me.uk/Politics/purging-stalin.txt

[blindpig]

18. Concerning Ukrainian emigres, nationalists and propaganda...

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html

[LanternWaste]

27. Try Utopia in Power by Michel Heller, Mikhail Heller

Try Utopia in Power by Michel Heller, Mikhail Heller. It doesn't have a political agenda as does your source, so it comes out as less biased. :shrug:

[blindpig]

30. The political agenda of the Village Voice?

:shrug:

[indurancevile]

33. oh for god's sake: everyone has an agenda or bias. heller emigrated in 1969 &

he has an agenda. there is no neutral source. assess the evidence. the authors' biases are part of the evidence.

Mikhail Heller, a Soviet emigre and author who has lived in Paris since 1969, has produced a textbook for the school of thought that depicts the Soviet Union as a great machine. Chapter by didactic chapter, he lays out the ideology and methods whereby, in his view, the Soviet citizen is denatured, beguiled, infantilized and frightened into becoming little more than a willing cog. ''Homo sovieticus,'' a new type of human being, is here, or almost here. Mr. Heller scoffs at those in the West who say that the Soviet Communists' vaunted engineering of souls has never been that consistent or that successful, and that the trend since Stalin's time has been away from the Great Leader's totalitarian utopia. The book was originally published in Paris in a French translation three years ago (this edition is anonymously translated from the French), before the rise of glasnost and perestroika, and the author supplies a new introduction dismissing these phenomena as variations on an old theme. Yet every week brings new headlines from the Soviet Union that seem to undercut his argument that essentially nothing has changed. All the same, Mikhail Gorbachev's reforms would not be having such hard going if it weren't for the Orwellian elements wedded to the Soviet system from its beginnings, and Mr. Heller's morose examination of this debasement of Soviet life provides valuable insight into what, to a large extent, the Soviet Union still is.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/17/books/in-short-nonfiction-956588.html.

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-05-22/books/bk-5109_1_soviet-union


and if you for one moment think that the leadership of the west isn't molding "capitalist man" in the very same fashion, you haven't thought things through far enough. our brainwashing and behavioral conditioning is simply more successful because it poses as "freedom".

[JVS]

35. Actually the guy who wrote the article blindpig linked to is likely agenda free.

After eight years as a daily newspaper reporter, culminating in a stint at the Kansas City Times, he went on to co-write (or “ghost”) 11 autobiographies. These include works with Cher and Bill Parcells, along with three New York Times best-sellers: Return with Honor (with Capt. Scott O’Grady, 1995); My Story (with Sarah Ferguson, The Duchess of York, 1996); and My Father’s Daughter (with Tina Sinatra, 2000). He also co-wrote, with Betty Mahmoody, For the Love of a Child (1992), the sequel to Not Without My Daughter.
Coplon’s solo work includes a non-fictional treatment of rodeo bull riding (Gold Buckle, HarperCollins West, 1995) and magazine pieces for New York (where he is a contributing editor), The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, Rolling Stone, Men’s Journal, and Playboy. While his topics vary broadly, he has written frequently about NBA basketball, and his work has twice been anthologized in The Best American Sports Writing (1991 and 1997). His New York profile of the late Gerald Boyd, the highest-ranking black editor in the history of the New York Times, won a 2008 Mirror Award from the Newhouse School.
In a controversial article in The Village Voice in 1988, Coplon analyzed the scholarship surrounding the Ukrainian famine of the 1930s, and argued that allegations of genocide against the Soviet Union were historically dubious and politically motivated as part of a campaign by the Ukrainian nationalist community.


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


Sounds pretty innocuous to me.

[indurancevile]

43. no one is agenda-free. everyone has a pov. seeing the genocide allegations as

politically motivated on the part of the ukrainian nationalist community is also an agenda/bias.

agenda/bias/pov has nothing to do with truth or falsehood. it simply means there is no neutral observer. there can't be if the observers are human because human viewpoints are limited & linked to emotions, upbringing, etc.

[Starry Messenger]

45. +

[blindpig]

28. Misplaced post.

[blindpig]

19. "Bring out your dead..."

<. . .> Popular estimates of executions in the Great Purges of 1937-1938 vary from 500,000 to 7 million. We do not have exact figures for the numbers of executions in these years, but we can now narrow the range considerably. We know that between October 1, 1936, and September 30, 1938, the Military Board of the Supreme Court, sitting in 60 cities and towns, sentenced 30,514 persons to be shot. According to a press release of the KGB, 786,098 persons were sentenced to death “for counterrevolutionary and state crimes” by various courts and extra-judicial bodies between 1930 and 1953. It seems that 681,692 people, or 86.7 percent of the number for this 23-year-period were shot in 1937-1938 (compared to 1,118 persons in 1936). A certain number of these unfortunates had been arrested before 1937, including exiled and imprisoned ex-oppositionists who were summarily killed in the autumn of 1937. More important, however, our figures on 1937-1938 executions are not entirely comparable to those quoted in the press release. Coming from a 1953 statistical report “on the quantity of people convicted on cases of NKVD bodies,” they also refer to victims who had not been arrested for political reasons, whereas the communique concerns only persons persecuted for “counterrevolutionary offenses.” In any event, the data available at this point make it clear that the number shot in the two worst purge years was more likely a question of hundreds of thousands than of millions.

Of course, aside from executions in the terror of 1937-1938, many others died in the regime’s custody in the decade of the 1930s. If we add the figure we have for executions up to 1940 to the number of persons who died in GULAG camps and the few figures we have found so far on mortality in prisons and labor colonies, then add to this the number of peasants known to have died in exile, we reach the figure of 1,473,424. To be sure, of 1,802,392 alleged kulaks and their relatives who had been banished in 1930-1931, only 1,317,022 were still living at their places of exile by January 1, 1932. (Many people escaped: their number is given as 207,010 only for the year of 1932.) But even if we put at hundreds of thousands the casualties of the most chaotic period of collectivization (deaths in exile, rather than from starvation in the 1932 famine), plus later victims of different categories for which we have no data, it is unlikely that “custodial mortality” figures of the 1930s would reach 2 million: a huge number of “excess deaths” but far below most prevailing estimates. Although the figures we can document for deaths related to Soviet penal policy are rough and inexact, the available sources provide a reliable order of magnitude, at least for the pre-war period.

Turning to executions and custodial deaths in the entire Stalin period, we know that, between 1934 and 1953, 1,053,829 persons died in the camps of the GULAG. We have data to the effect that some 86,582 people perished in prisons between 1939 and 1951. (We do not yet know exactly how many died in labor colonies.) We also know that, between 1930 and 1952-1953, 786,098 “counter-revolutionaries” were executed (or, according to another source, more than 775,866 persons “on cases of the police” and for “political crimes”). Finally, we know that, from 1932 through 1940, 389,521 peasants died in places of “kulak” resettlement. Adding these figures together would produce a total of a little more than 2.3 million, but this can in no way be taken as an exact number. First of all, there is a possible overlap between the numbers given for GULAG camp deaths and “political” executions as well as between the latter and other victims of the 1937-1938 mass purges and perhaps also other categories falling under police jurisdiction. Double-counting would deflate the 2.3 million figure. On the other hand, the 2.3 million does not include several suspected categories of death in custody. It does not include, for example, deaths among deportees during and after the war as well as among categories of exiles other than “kulaks.” Still, we have some reason to believe that the new numbers for GULAG and prison deaths, executions as well as deaths in peasant exile, are likely to bring us within a much narrower range of error than the estimates proposed by the majority of authors who have written on the subject.

http://www.etext.org/Politics/Stalji...s/AHR/AHR.html

[blindpig]

24. Yes indeed, Winston Churchill - mass murderer.

How Churchill 'starved' India
28 October 2010



It is 1943, the peak of the Second World War. The place is London. The British War Cabinet is holding meetings on a famine sweeping its troubled colony, India. Millions of natives mainly in eastern Bengal, are starving. Leopold Amery, secretary of state for India, and Field Marshal Sir Archibald Wavell, soon to be appointed the new viceroy of India, are deliberating how to ship more food to the colony. But the irascible Prime Minister Winston Churchill is coming in their way.

"Apparently it is more important to save the Greeks and liberated countries than the Indians and there is reluctance either to provide shipping or to reduce stocks in this country," writes Sir Wavell in his account of the meetings. Mr Amery is more direct. "Winston may be right in saying that the starvation of anyhow under-fed Bengalis is less serious than sturdy Greeks, but he makes no sufficient allowance for the sense of Empire responsibility in this country," he writes.

Some three million Indians died in the famine of 1943. The majority of the deaths were in Bengal. In a shocking new book, Churchill's Secret War, journalist Madhusree Mukherjee blames Mr Churchill's policies for being largely responsible for one of the worst famines in India's history. It is a gripping and scholarly investigation into what must count as one of the most shameful chapters in the history of the Empire.

The scarcity, Mukherjee writes, was caused by large-scale exports of food from India for use in the war theatres and consumption in Britain - India exported more than 70,000 tonnes of rice between January and July 1943, even as the famine set in. This would have kept nearly 400,000 people alive for a full year. Mr Churchill turned down fervent pleas to export food to India citing a shortage of ships - this when shiploads of Australian wheat, for example, would pass by India to be stored for future consumption in Europe. As imports dropped, prices shot up and hoarders made a killing. Mr Churchill also pushed a scorched earth policy - which went by the sinister name of Denial Policy - in coastal Bengal where the colonisers feared the Japanese would land. So authorities removed boats (the lifeline of the region) and the police destroyed and seized rice stocks.



more...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/78476-how-churchill-starved-india.html

[indurancevile]

34. nobody cares about western genocides, western preventable famines, though the evidence lies all

around us.

it's some kind of filtering process.

those are regrettable, but we have become so much more enlightened today.

stalin was a monster, our leaders were simply misguided, ill-advised, naive, etc.

[JVS]

39. It's true. Look at the genocide that Boris Yeltsin perpetrated on the Russian people....

by forcibly privatizing their property

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

[indurancevile]

42. yep, if you just go by negative population figures, looks like the transition to "freedom" (tm)

outdid stalin.

1.9 million v. 13+ million

population in russia grew every year but the famine/depression year of 1933.

it shrank every year 1992-2010.

those aren't all emigrees.

[LeftinOH]

25. Feh. Stalin was not a progressive liberal (in spite of what some RW noisemakers contend);

he wasn't on "our side", wasn't "one of our own". Feh.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. You are correct, he was not a progressive liberal

he was on the FAR LEFT, problem is that the FAR LEFT and the FAR RIGHT have a lot in common, including the rise of statism...

No, don't expect the RW to even be able to comprehend this.

My contention is that political extremes lead to horrors... and that both sides have done this... Those same RW noisemakers though will embrace people like Suharto... well until you can't or you should not... or for that matter people like Mubarak, who was a friend until well... he wasn't.

[LeftinOH]

37. That's why I like the political spectrum represented as a circle:

Not a straight line-

Although I don't think Libertarians belong at the very top of this particular example.

[provis99]

56. no, he was on the far right.

and your conclusion that the far left and far right have a lot in common is absurd; sounds like some DLC\third way Democrat crap.

[Cleita]

36. Maybe it should be called extremism. Being married

to any economic or political system past the point where it works any more is extremism and the outcome can never be good.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Perhaps and both extremes do it

if we want to add a complication to this, bring in the religious fundies of all stripes.

[CJCRANE]

44. I like this political compass:

The horizontal axis = economic axis
The vertical axis = social axis

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. That compass I supect, will replace the standard left right

axis sooner rather than later. It does touch on what I have been saying, and well. Being RIGHT OR LEFT does not free you from authoritarian tendencies.

By the way I have done it myself and I happen to be on the low left corner.

:-)

[edhopper]

51. The majority of the left in this country are not

and do not support Communist regimes. We are Social Democrats. Believe in representational government and see dictators as dictators. Its the right that equates liberalism and socialism with communism.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Yep... but you see in the standard right left axis

Social Demorats are QUITE TO THE RIGHT of commies... and I was making the point since some folks keep using the horrors communism by oh the Stalin Regime (yes, yes they did) but kindly ignore the horrors of the Franco, Hitler, and Mussolini, just at the top of the charts.

I will make another argument though... most modern day Americans really do not know what these words mean, why you can have people screaming at the fascist, commie socialist (insert politico here)... who occupies the WH. Yes they did the same to Clinton.

And we have been having this argument HERE of all places... and a few folks have been saying how horror of horrors, we cannot even read Marx because it will automatically, as night becomes day, lead to a few gulags.