61–70 of 141 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
History is written by victors. Your image of Stalin is based on the history that was written about him after his death by people who openly declared themselves as victors over Stalinism. Remember, Stalin's image in 1930s was very different, culminating in Time's Man of the Year cover in 1939.
Saddam was also Man of the Year. It's not a popularity contest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Authored by: By Mario Sousa Member of the Communist Party Marxist-Leninist Revolutionaries Sweden
Do you have anything to say regarding the actual content of the argument put forward?
Everyone with rudimentary knowledge of European history can spot the stark inconsistencies between the official (read peer reviewed) history and this propaganda piece.
So somebody is spreading propaganda and lies. Absolute lack of references and sources leads me to believe that this pamphlet is a piece of propaganda no different from the drivel spread by the neo nazis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Authored by: By Mario Sousa Member of the Communist Party Marxist-Leninist Revolutionaries Sweden
Wow, I guess that means they are biased. Luckily, academics in universities across the US, funded by grants by the Koch brothers ( http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/11/144280/koch-uni... ), are writing objective articles about history, economics, policy and other topics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#Soviet_and_Western_de...
This was a particularly interested/relevant excerpt from Wells. I think of the open source ethos as one small example of what he's calling for in the second paragraph: I object to this simplified classification of mankind into poor and rich. Of course there is a category of people which strive only for profit. But are not... people in the West for whom profit is not an end, who own a certain amount of wealth, who wan…
Credit to Wells for then saying: "They understand that it is a bloody muddle, but they regard your simple class-war antagonism as nonsense." I wonder if Wells was one of the last people to disagree with Stalin who didn't end up with a bullet in the back of their heads?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think what listic may be referring to is that the Soviets conducted a more liberal discourse in their interactions with the Western press than they permitted domestically.
Sorry if I was unclear. As a Russian myself, I wondered whether this interview, which we can read here in English, was ever, during the period between 1934 to now, translated from English into Russian. The most direct reason for this interest being to show it to my non-English-speaking friends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Credit to Wells for then saying: "They understand that it is a bloody muddle, but they regard your simple class-war antagonism as nonsense." I wonder if Wells was one of the last people to disagree with Stalin who didn't end up with a bullet in the back of their heads?
The Bolsheviks cultivated celebrity visitors from the Western left. It wouldn't have worked to shoot them. (Edit: Originally this comment had a moderation bit in it as well, but someone rightly pointed out to me that it isn't helpful to wear the moderator hat and make a regular-user comment in the same post. So I've edited that out. I considered restricting myself to only making moderator comments, but (a) that's nev…
Sorry for any grief caused and keep up the good work.
[I promise to engage more brain cells when posting on obviously highly emotive topics in future and, if I have any doubt, to not post].
The little preface says that Wells was critisized for being too 'deferential' toward Stalin (Wells was a socialist, of course). It is actually striking to me... today, one can imagine NO journalist engaging in as _confrontational_ an interview with ANY politician or person in political power. Politicians today don't even expect to talk about ideas, certainly not with journalists for publication, let alone to be chall…
>today, one can imagine NO journalist engaging in as _confrontational_ an interview with ANY politician or person in political power. Just a guess, but are you saying this from an US POV? As an USian, I can't imagine seeing journalists confront or challenge a politician except by accident. Even when those accidents happen, the journalists and civility become the center of a follow-up media frenzy, rather than the sub…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Credit to Wells for then saying: "They understand that it is a bloody muddle, but they regard your simple class-war antagonism as nonsense." I wonder if Wells was one of the last people to disagree with Stalin who didn't end up with a bullet in the back of their heads?
Stalin referred to his Western supporters as "useful idiots".
Fascinating how important the questions of class and revolution are in this conversation (from both Stalin and Wells). Equally interesting is how theoretical and ideological the answers are. Great read!
And as for the subject of revolution, we glance over it like a ghost from the past. We act as (a society and a culture) though the current system will last forever although history, as both Stalin and Wells points out, shows us that social and economic systems gets replaced, in many cases by force.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, I guess that means they are biased. Luckily, academics in universities across the US, funded by grants by the Koch brothers ( http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/11/144280/koch-uni... ), are writing objective articles about history, economics, policy and other topics.
Are you implying that people claiming loss of there families were made up? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#Soviet_and_Western_de...
Now that armed right-wing bands have staged a coup in the Ukraine, we suddenly are hearing a lot of discussion about this right here, whereas when it was supposedly happening in the early 1930s, we see almost no mention of it in the press.