Politics

[zandaddy]

I know you say that, but you also say that Stalin "destroyed fascism and ended the Holocaust." Although it is technically true, it is akin to saying that a mass murderer also once stopped a mass shooting. You also say that you can't say communism didn't ruin them. I would argue that communism did do great damage to these countries, one just has to look at what they did.

I will come to comrade OpticsNerd defense in this situation. While I can agree that while Stalin was responsible for alotta death we can agree that this man was responsible for a lot of good things...

1. Russia was a key player in winning WWII. If the allies didn't have their help then the war would most certainly have gone to the Nazis. Good thing Stalin decided to side with the allies in the end. (Either way he would of fought the Nazis for obious reasons...)
2. Russia went from a poor weak country in the hands of monarchs to a global power with large wealth. Although I will say that they could have implement the 5 year plans better and could have spent the wealth they accumulated on the people and not just weapons... -_- (Dang it Stalin)
3.The damage that communism caused to these countries was mainly because of the western world! Supporters of communism had to fear the capitalists of the western world who wanted to destroy communism. This caused paranioa and violence in these countries that probably wouldn't have occured if they didn't have pressure from western worlds... This caused corruption and made the communist government focus more on it's own exsistance than the people's well being. So blame America for communism not working out...
All I will say is Stalin was a two sided coin but you cannot place all the blame on just him. Look at the bigger picture.

Stalin was not responsible for the good things. The economic improvement the USSR had came at the cost of human lives and suffering. The conditions of most people improved little to none. The damage done to these countries was not because of the "Western world." Katyn did not happen because of the Western world. Forced collectivization did not happen because of the Western world. The Great Purge did not happen because of the Western world. If you're going to say we should excuse Stalin of his crimes against humanity, then we might as well excuse Hitler because he built roads. We don't (and should in no circumstances) excuse Hitler for his crimes against humanity because he improved some aspects of his country. Excusing Stalin's crimes against humanity is an insult to all those who died and were oppressed under his iron fist. It is an insult to Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, who were forcibly incorporated into the USSR. It is an insult to Poland, who was turned into a satellite state and had uncountable numbers of its people killed by Stalin's orders. Tell them that Stalin was "responsible for a lot of good things" as you would tell Hitler's victims that he "built roads". Saying one of these is acceptable and the other is not a glaring example of cognitive dissonance.

I think LIPX3's point of comparing Stalin's success (comparatively low to that of what he had done morally wrong) to Hitler's success is a great point. This discussion is getting a bit out of hand. Can we not just come to the consensus that Stalin was, overall, not a good person in what he did to cause his success, which isn't even viewed as success to all in the world? There are bad people in the world. If you endorse the concept of communism, that's one thing. But don't defend historical superpowers used to kill innocent lives for the sake of economic improvement.

[TheChiScientist]

I will come to comrade OpticsNerd defense in this situation. While I can agree that while Stalin was responsible for a lotta death we can agree that this man was responsible for a lot of good things...

1. Russia was a key player in winning WWII. If the allies didn't have their help then the war would most certainly have gone to the Nazis. Good thing Stalin decided to side with the allies in the end. (Either way, he would have fought the Nazis for obvious reasons...)
2. Russia went from a poor weak country in the hands of monarchs to a global power with large wealth. Although I will say that they could have implemented the 5 year plans better and could have spent the wealth they accumulated on the people and not just weapons... -_- (Dang it Stalin)
3. The damage that communism caused to these countries was mainly because of the western world! Supporters of communism had to fear the capitalists of the western world who wanted to destroy communism. This caused paranoia and violence in these countries that probably wouldn't have occurred if they didn't have pressure from western worlds... This caused corruption and made the communist government focus more on its own existence than the people's well being. So blame America for communism not working out...
All I will say is Stalin was a two-sided coin but you cannot place all the blame on just him. Look at the bigger picture.

Stalin was not responsible for the good things. The economic improvement the USSR had come at the cost of human lives and suffering. The conditions of most people improved little to none. The damage done to these countries was not because of the "Western world." Katyn did not happen because of the Western world. Forced collectivization did not happen because of the Western world. The Great Purge did not happen because of the Western world. If you're going to say we should excuse Stalin of his crimes against humanity, then we might as well excuse Hitler because he built roads. We don't (and should in no circumstances) excuse Hitler for his crimes against humanity because he improved some aspects of his country. Excusing Stalin's crimes against humanity is an insult to all those who died and were oppressed under his iron fist. It is an insult to Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, who were forcibly incorporated into the USSR. It is an insult to Poland, who was turned into a satellite state and had uncountable numbers of its people killed by Stalin's orders. Tell them that Stalin was "responsible for a lot of good things" as you would tell Hitler's victims that he "built roads". Saying one of these is acceptable and the other is not a glaring example of cognitive dissonance.

I think LIPX3's point of comparing Stalin's success (comparatively low to that of what he had done morally wrong) to Hitler's success is a great point. This discussion is getting a bit out of hand. Can we not just come to the consensus that Stalin was, overall, not a good person in what he did to cause his success, which isn't even viewed as a success to all in the world? There are bad people in the world. If you endorse the concept of communism, that's one thing. But don't defend historical superpowers used to kill innocent lives for the sake of economic improvement.

I agree 100% that Stalin committed crimes against humanity. I'm just trying to state that you can't directly blame communism for Stalin's actions. Stalin acted in the interest of communism but communism was not a direct factor in all of these horrible things. It's like saying capitalism was directly responsible for all the death in Africa. Countries acted in the interest of capitalism but caused countless deaths in their journey to make profits. I think this video shows a clear example of atrocities committed by capitalists and in this case, the American government supported executions of people asking for fair pay... (Also note how they were labbled "communists")
The Banana Massacre
Now tell me that capitalism isn't evil or has caused unnecessary deaths...
(Granted you can find evils in both Capitalism and Communism a like but you can't just focus on just one being responsible.)

[LIPX3]

Stalin was not responsible for the good things. The economic improvement the USSR had come at the cost of human lives and suffering. The conditions of most people improved little to none. The damage done to these countries was not because of the "Western world." Katyn did not happen because of the Western world. Forced collectivization did not happen because of the Western world. The Great Purge did not happen because of the Western world. If you're going to say we should excuse Stalin of his crimes against humanity, then we might as well excuse Hitler because he built roads. We don't (and should in no circumstances) excuse Hitler for his crimes against humanity because he improved some aspects of his country. Excusing Stalin's crimes against humanity is an insult to all those who died and were oppressed under his iron fist. It is an insult to Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, who were forcibly incorporated into the USSR. It is an insult to Poland, who was turned into a satellite state and had uncountable numbers of its people killed by Stalin's orders. Tell them that Stalin was "responsible for a lot of good things" as you would tell Hitler's victims that he "built roads". Saying one of these is acceptable and the other is not a glaring example of cognitive dissonance.

I think LIPX3's point of comparing Stalin's success (comparatively low to that of what he had done morally wrong) to Hitler's success is a great point. This discussion is getting a bit out of hand. Can we not just come to the consensus that Stalin was, overall, not a good person in what he did to cause his success, which isn't even viewed as a success to all in the world? There are bad people in the world. If you endorse the concept of communism, that's one thing. But don't defend historical superpowers used to kill innocent lives for the sake of economic improvement.

I agree 100% that Stalin committed crimes against humanity. I'm just trying to state that you can't directly blame communism for Stalin's actions. Stalin acted in the interest of communism but communism was not a direct factor in all of these horrible things. It's like saying capitalism was directly responsible for all the death in Africa. Countries acted in the interest of capitalism but caused countless deaths in their journey to make profits. I think this video shows a clear example of atrocities committed by capitalists and in this case, the American government supported executions of people asking for fair pay... (Also note how they were labbled "communists")
The Banana Massacre
Now tell me that capitalism isn't evil or has caused unnecessary deaths...
(Granted you can find evils in both Capitalism and Communism a like but you can't just focus on just one being responsible.)

I agree with you, I was responding to the person who was directly defending Stalin's actions.

[TheChiScientist]

I think LIPX3's point of comparing Stalin's success (comparatively low to that of what he had done morally wrong) to Hitler's success is a great point. This discussion is getting a bit out of hand. Can we not just come to the consensus that Stalin was, overall, not a good person in what he did to cause his success, which isn't even viewed as a success to all in the world? There are bad people in the world. If you endorse the concept of communism, that's one thing. But don't defend historical superpowers used to kill innocent lives for the sake of economic improvement.

I agree 100% that Stalin committed crimes against humanity. I'm just trying to state that you can't directly blame communism for Stalin's actions. Stalin acted in the interest of communism but communism was not a direct factor in all of these horrible things. It's like saying capitalism was directly responsible for all the death in Africa. Countries acted in the interest of capitalism but caused countless deaths in their journey to make profits. I think this video shows a clear example of atrocities committed by capitalists and in this case, the American government supported executions of people asking for fair pay... (Also note how they were labbled "communists")
The Banana Massacre
Now tell me that capitalism isn't evil or has caused unnecessary deaths...
(Granted you can find evils in both Capitalism and Communism a like but you can't just focus on just one being responsible.)

I agree with you, I was responding to the person who was directly defending Stalin's actions.

Do note he (Or she?) was defending Stalin's actions of improving their nation via communism. They're not defending his crimes against humanity, just the fact that he used communism to improve a very broken country. Now Stalin's implementation of communism was definitely not the best way but nonetheless you cannot deny the impact communism had on Russia. (Unfortunately a byproduct was countless deaths)

[LIPX3]

I agree 100% that Stalin committed crimes against humanity. I'm just trying to state that you can't directly blame communism for Stalin's actions. Stalin acted in the interest of communism but communism was not a direct factor in all of these horrible things. It's like saying capitalism was directly responsible for all the death in Africa. Countries acted in the interest of capitalism but caused countless deaths in their journey to make profits. I think this video shows a clear example of atrocities committed by capitalists and in this case, the American government supported executions of people asking for fair pay... (Also note how they were labbled "communists")
The Banana Massacre
Now tell me that capitalism isn't evil or has caused unnecessary deaths...
(Granted you can find evils in both Capitalism and Communism a like but you can't just focus on just one being responsible.)

I agree with you, I was responding to the person who was directly defending Stalin's actions.

Do note he (Or she?) was defending Stalin's actions of improving their nation via communism. They're not defending his crimes against humanity, just the fact that he used communism to improve a very broken country. Now Stalin's implementation of communism was definitely not the best way but nonetheless you cannot deny the impact communism had on Russia. (Unfortunately a byproduct was countless deaths)

I'm confused. I've often heard from people espousing communism that the USSR "wasn't real communism" or was some form of state capitalism, and have seldom heard people unabashedly defend the USSR's economic system. While the results of what that economic system did in the USSR are impressive, they are far from unique. Japan accomplished a comparable improvement under capitalism, as did post-war Western Europe, not to mention the economic growth due to capitalism throughout much of the developing world today. China's economic growth did not take off until they embraced capitalism.

[UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F]

I agree with you, I was responding to the person who was directly defending Stalin's actions.

Do note he (Or she?) was defending Stalin's actions of improving their nation via communism. They're not defending his crimes against humanity, just the fact that he used communism to improve a very broken country. Now Stalin's implementation of communism was definitely not the best way but nonetheless you cannot deny the impact communism had on Russia. (Unfortunately a byproduct was countless deaths)

I'm confused. I've often heard from people espousing communism that the USSR "wasn't real communism" or was some form of state capitalism, and have seldom heard people unabashedly defend the USSR's economic system. While the results of what that economic system did in the USSR are impressive, they are far from unique. Japan accomplished a comparable improvement under capitalism, as did post-war Western Europe, not to mention the economic growth due to capitalism throughout much of the developing world today. China's economic growth did not take off until they embraced capitalism.

The way I look at it is that while it was never communist, there is also a lot of misinformation about the USSR in the US left over from the Cold War, and we should always be reasonably skeptical about claims made about the USSR.

[OpticsNerd]

I think LIPX3's point of comparing Stalin's success (comparatively low to that of what he had done morally wrong) to Hitler's success is a great point. This discussion is getting a bit out of hand. Can we not just come to the consensus that Stalin was, overall, not a good person in what he did to cause his success, which isn't even viewed as a success to all in the world? There are bad people in the world. If you endorse the concept of communism, that's one thing. But don't defend historical superpowers used to kill innocent lives for the sake of economic improvement.

I agree 100% that Stalin committed crimes against humanity. I'm just trying to state that you can't directly blame communism for Stalin's actions. Stalin acted in the interest of communism but communism was not a direct factor in all of these horrible things. It's like saying capitalism was directly responsible for all the death in Africa. Countries acted in the interest of capitalism but caused countless deaths in their journey to make profits. I think this video shows a clear example of atrocities committed by capitalists and in this case, the American government supported executions of people asking for fair pay... (Also note how they were labbled "communists")
The Banana Massacre
Now tell me that capitalism isn't evil or has caused unnecessary deaths...
(Granted you can find evils in both Capitalism and Communism a like but you can't just focus on just one being responsible.)

I agree with you, I was responding to the person who was directly defending Stalin's actions.

I only defend SOME of his actions. I defend the actions that improved his country, not his crimes against humanity.

[Things2do]

Am I understanding this right? It's already illegal for most of these people to have a gun, and they probably bought said gun on a street corner. So, laws that made it harder to legally buy a gun are going to stop the buying and selling of illegal guns, right?

[TheCrazyChemist]

Am I understanding this right? It's already illegal for most of these people to have a gun, and they probably bought said gun on a street corner. So, laws that made it harder to legally buy a gun are going to stop the buying and selling of illegal guns, right?

Well, given that they were a gang, I'm not sure if those guns were even imported or made legally. But obviously I could be wrong because that's just an assumption of mine. Gun laws are supposed to make it harder for people to buy guns legally because more thorough background checks are done and etc (I think, I haven't done any research and this is only what I've heard so basically I'm not the most reliable source). So, I think it's supposed to prevent other things, like school shootings. However, I don't even think that a gang would get those guns legally, so I'm not sure how gun laws would affect that (I'm probably wrong, could someone more knowledgeable correct me on this).

[EastStroudsburg13]

Am I understanding this right? It's already illegal for most of these people to have a gun, and they probably bought said gun on a street corner. So, laws that made it harder to legally buy a gun are going to stop the buying and selling of illegal guns, right?

I think you answered your own question. They're not going to stop the buying and selling of illegal guns, just like murder laws don't stop murder. But making it harder to do so is the entire point.

Plus, if you look at the article:

But many of the illegal weapons seized in Chicago come from across the state line in Indiana, where gun laws are less restrictive.

They may be exchanged on street corners, but they originate elsewhere.