Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Solzhenitsyn Was Caught Telling The Truth 38
Yet Solzhenitsyn went still further. He said that not only Stalinism, not only Leninism, not only Communism--but socialism itself led to the concentration camps; and not only socialism, but Marxism; and not only Marxism but any ideology that sought to reorganize morality on an a priori basis. Sadder still, it was impossible to say that Soviet socialism was not "real socialism." On the contrary--it was socialism done by experts!
Intellectuals in Europe and America were willing to forgive Solzhenitsyn a great deal. After all, he had been born and raised in the Soviet Union as a Marxist, he had fought in combat for his country, he was a great novelist, he had been in the camps for eight years, he had sufÂfered. But for his insistence that the isms themselves led to the death camps--for this he was not likely to be forgiven soon. And in fact the campaign of antisepsis began soon after he was expelled from the Soviet Union in 1974. ("He suffered too much--he's crazy." "He's a Christian zealot with a Christ complex." "He's an agrarian reactionÂary." "He's an egotist and a publicity junkie.")
So many things wrong in so few words (Score:2)
Yet Solzhenitsyn went still further. He said that not only Stalinism, not only Leninism, not only Communism Ã" but socialism itself led to the concentration camps;
Saying that doesn't make it true. You should know better than to just embrace a quote that makes you feel good as being factual, smitty.
Can you point to a concentration camp that was set up by an actual socialist government? No, of course not. It was used by governments that used the term socialist as advertising but not by any that used it as a philosophy.
You also tried to dig at Lenin - the last communist of the USSR - as a leader of it, but that's dubious at best. Yes there were some gulags un
Re: (Score:2)
And you (and most like you) do a No True Scotsman [wikipedia.org] argument whenever the evils of Marxism and its descendants are pointed out.
Defend individual rights. Reject group rights. Much else falls into place. The reverse (Communism, Marxism) leads to many horrors. Always has. Always will.
Re: (Score:2)
And you (and most like you) do a No True Scotsman argument whenever the evils of Marxism and its descendants are pointed out.
You're misusing the No True Scotsman statement, there.
No True Scotsman applies when you're saying someone from group X does not do unrelated thing Y. The lack of relation between group X and thing Y are key to the No True Scotsman argument. Here we are talking about something that is a foundational pillar of Marxist Communism, and we can easily demonstrate that Stalin did not follow it.
In other words a No True Scotsman argument would be something like "Representative Johnson cannot be a Republican
So much weasel in one word: "actual" (Score:2)
No, you get to own Socialism just as much as I own every materialistic jackass that calls himself "Christian" and proceeds to shear a flock.
Because no ideas are immune to mortal thuggery. None.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's try for a couple other examples:
The difference - and this is important - is between what actually classifies someone as a particular type of thing and that which doe
Re: (Score:2)
The little Commie vanguard interacts with power and goes authoritarian. Film at eleven.
Your No True Scotsman play is rejected by all with any sense about them.
Re: (Score:2)
And then there is the bloody-minded refusal of all True Believers to confront the existential, historical reality that Every. Single. [FLOWERBED] Effort. At Marxism ends in tragedy.
Every single one?
I refer you again to the Hutterites. They apply true Marxist Communism to their daily lives with none of the tragedy you describe.
I suggest you paint with a narrower brush next time.
Your No True Scotsman play is rejected by all with any sense about them.
Don't make yourself into the same level of fool who misapplied that last week regarding my argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Your shrill denials of the No True Scotsman call are delicious, and underscore the validity of the claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Your shrill denials of the No True Scotsman call are delicious, and underscore the validity of the claim.
Wrong.
They do highlight your ability to crap all over logic and willingly distort meanings of words just to declare yourself victorious.
Seriously, find a different meme here. No True Scotsman has a specific meaning from a non-partisan source, that I linked to. If you want to find a different one that supports your nonsense please offer it up and we'll discuss whether it has any validity.
Re: (Score:2)
People.
Do.
Not.
Scale.
Once you get much above the immediate family unit, or (at best) a community of faith (which can succeed based upon a metaphysical feedback loop stabilizing the system, irrespective of the theory) the whole Marxist idea is a wash.
Now, I can shift gears and both support and defend your constitutional right to folly, but I retain my right to mock relentlessly the bloody-min
Re: (Score:2)
The desperate need to claim that "Real Socialism/Communism/Marxims Has Not Been Tried" is the ur-NTS argument.
No, it isn't. You can keep repeating that you believe it to be, but that won't make it so.
Once a government is taken over by a power hungry dictator, it ceases to be Marxist Communism. The fact that the system creates a power vacuum does not mean it aspires to fill it with one individual.
People. Do. Not. Scale.
You keep saying that, and yet you want your team to be leading all people. Even more so, you want nobody to ever feel they have the right to question the Infinite Wisdom of your team.
Re: (Score:2)
You really have not been paying attention to what I've been saying, but that's OK.
Re: (Score:2)
You keep saying that, and yet you want your team to be leading all people.
You really have not been paying attention to what I've been saying, but that's OK.
You've repeatedly told us you believe that your team is vastly superior in every possible way. You've repeatedly told us how terrible you see everyone else to be. You've repeatedly told us that the people who are not from your team are out to destroy the world and will do so any moment if given the opportunity.
You've repeatedly told us that only your team can prevent this destruction.
Re: (Score:2)
The GOP. .
I anticipate that your next move is to do some victory lap about how I've changed my course (I haven't) and that you've caught me in some inconsistency (you haven't). Wash; rinse; repeat.
Re: (Score:2)
The GOP. . .occasionally pays some lip service thereto.
I can't find a case of you ever attacking legislative actions that came from the GOP. You may whine that some of them are not sufficiently "conservative" - for whatever that means to you that particular week - but I have yet to see you bring up a bill signed by a POTUS from the GOP that you actually disagree with and see as outright bad policy.
In other words if you're trying to sell us on an idea of you not being an enthusiastic cheerleader for the GOP, you would do yourself well to provide some inform
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the non-falsifiable proposition. You play this game well. No matter what I say, your judgement can be safely predicted to be: "Well, you didn't bash the GOP enough". The only way not to lose these contests with you is to eschew playing. I would not say "win", because there is no regaining the time lost in all o
Re: (Score:2)
In other words if you're trying to sell us on an idea of you not being an enthusiastic cheerleader for the GOP, you would do yourself well to provide some information to back up such an argument.
Ah, the non-falsifiable proposition. You play this game well. No matter what I say, your judgement can be safely predicted to be: "Well, you didn't bash the GOP enough".
Or you could, you know, actually show an example of you being even a little disatisfied with the GOP. You keep finding ways to be cheery about everything they do, as best I have ever seen. Please, prove me wrong by showing a comment you've posted here where you were critical of a law signed by a POTUS from the GOP. You know your writing better than I do, it is certainly possible you did such a thing and I didn't see it or I don't remember seeing it.
We should also be able to agree that the search func
Re: (Score:2)
https://theothermccain.com/2016/05/21/a-balm-for-conservatives-in-trumpreich/ [theothermccain.com]
Poring over the old posts, I the overarching grief I have is with the GOP non-command of fiscal reform:
https://theothermccain.com/ [theothermccain.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Poring over the old posts, I the overarching grief I have is with the GOP non-command of fiscal reform:
Again, can you point to an actual bill signed by Trump - or any other POTUS from the GOP - that you have ever criticized? Is there a bill that shows this "non-command of fiscal reform" that you have actually posted criticism of? I'm making a very specific request, and I have not changed it. This is closer that you've gotten so far but still quite a ways away as you're basically just pointing to blog posts where you're saying "I wish they'd do more!".
For a glance at Twitter, I (seriously) thought the Citrus Caesar was a Clinton Campaign plant, and the Dems were going to crucify The Donald directly after the inauguration. Imagine my surprise when the major legal boom kept not being lowered.
A conspiracy that fails to reach fruition is not in a
Re: (Score:2)
*cough*Motorized goalposts*cough*
I doubt that you can be placated, because I don't gather that that is in your nature.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, can you point to an actual bill signed by Trump - or any other POTUS from the GOP - that you have ever criticized?
*cough*Motorized goalposts*cough*
Not even remotely. I've asked you that question multiple times in this thread.
Please, prove me wrong by showing a comment you've posted here where you were critical of a law signed by a POTUS from the GOP [slashdot.org]
I can't find a case of you ever attacking legislative actions that came from the GOP. [slashdot.org]
Now you're replying to the third time I've asked the same question. Not once have you been able to provide an answer for it.
I doubt that you can be placated, because I don't gather that that is in your nature.
I've asked you the same question at least three times in this thread. Try answerin
Re: (Score:2)
I've answered you variously, and it hasn't mattered.
Re: (Score:2)
I've asked you the same question at least three times in this thread. Try answering it for a change, instead of dancing around it.
I've answered you variously, and it hasn't mattered.
You and I would both like that to be true, but we both know it is not. I have very specifically asked you to show us an example of a single law signed by a POTUS from the GOP that you have stated opposition to. You have not answered that in any way.
If you want to change your stance to be that you just so happen to agree with every law signed by a POTUS from your team, while still being opposed to some poorly defined principles of the team, you can claim that. It doesn't disqualify you from being a c
Re: (Score:2)
You're such a bully.
Re: (Score:2)
You and I would both like that to be true, but we both know it is not.
You're such a bully.
The word bully clearly has a very different meaning to you than to me. I have merely repeated one question many times, and you have repeatedly not answered it.
I have repeatedly asked you
I have very specifically asked you to show us an example of a single law signed by a POTUS from the GOP that you have stated opposition to. You have not answered that in any way.
You are welcomed to be as much of a partisan as you wish; I have no power to stop you from doing that. You've laid it all out nicely at our feet just how much you adore the GOP and all that it does for you (or rather how much you believe it to do for you). Just don't pretend to not be one of their most loving fans w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Consider the source. (Score:2)
Media Bias / Fact Check [mediabiasfactcheck.com]
Overall, we rate PJ Media to be Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies, as well as numerous failed fact checks.
Detailed Report
Questionable Reasoning: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Poor Sourcing, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
Re: (Score:2)
You guys are great.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not know about the story of boy who cried wolf? They could be speaking complete truth but there is no reason to take the word of those with a reputation of deceit. Instead you should corroborate their claims using reliable sources. Frankly, I do not have time for those crying wolf.
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Slashdot... (Score:1)
you're strange hieroglyphs don't render well. Maybe, somewhere in the cloud, is a sanitation device, to clear out all that dirty unicode that pollutes the internet like coal dust.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh damn! I can't believe that happened! You have my deepest apologies! But unicode made me do it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
24 years, not too shabby, eh? Nothing wrong with the code, works just fine without all the emojis, though I wish it would sanitize the input. That's one of things computers are supposed to do for us.