Well, I understood it weren't just 'a few' and personally I would massacre them no. But your answer is clear. Edit: Damn, I ment wouldn't of course! :tongue:
Well to give you an idea, we're talking about a class of people who sent 2 million young Russians to their deaths in the most pointless war in history, in the name of God and Czar. Compare that to a few thousand Monarchists dead, the ones who sent the working people to the front to fight their war. Their actions were just. If it had not been for those executions, before, and during the Russian Civil War, the Whites would have gained control again, and maybe even sent a million more young men to die in a pointless war.
haha let me jst say wht a LEGEND i once fingrd a girl in the bck of a shit supermarket in tennerife on a stack on toilet roles
communism was kind of a vulgaration of marxism. On Karl Marx deathbed he decided after seeing how his school of class conflict sociology had been exploited to the advantage of the bourgoisee ( sp?) that he was no communist. It was exploited through loose interpretations of the communist manifesto. From what I hear they were all puppets of the Rothschilds anyways (Marx, Stalin, Lenin), and that entire system was a mere experiment that failed for them. Hence it inevitably fell.
It wasn't the party crying for bread in the streets, it was the people. When anyone can willingly join the party, and DIRECTLY vote on every action taken by the party instead of a bureaucracy at the top of the party deciding what to do, then the people and the party are one in the same. Every vote counted, when the vote was counted that was the position of the party: Democratic Centralism. So who were they supposed to give power to, a party that wouldn't listen to the people, or a party run by the masses?
Democratic centralism is almost an oxymoron, it's democratic to anyone who follows the party, but then once the majority choose it's choice, the other minority even in the party have to follow along. Any real democratic party would put itself up for election to the people as a whole, not the people supporting it. Also if I recall correctly in 1921 Lenin along with the rest of the bolshevik leaders put a "temporary" ban on different factions within the party
Exactly, meaning if the party votes on something (meaning I also vote on it), and the outcome is something I do not want, I still have to do it because the majority voted on it, and it is the will of the mass of the party. When the people as a whole are still in a Capitalist mind set, this is a recipe for disaster. Would you honestly ask the opinion of the ruling classes, bureaucrats, CEO's, on subjects like the War, and Property, among other things? First a party representing the interests of the working class as a whole must take power, and remove all Counter Revolutionary elements. Do you really think a society can just go from a Capitalist society, to a ideal Communist Society just because of a Revolution? This is why there must be a Dictatorship by the Proletariat first, so to remove the cancer from the body that is our country. During this time, famine was a real possibility due to the friction that was going on with people forming their own groups within the party, because they bickered over how to prevent famine, they thought their ideas were right, and did not agree with what the masses of the party believed, and voted on (the "New Economic Policy"). By stopping the meetings of these factions, and bringing them back within the party and then allowing Capitalism on a small scale in cities through the Party's guidelines, famine was avoided, and people had bread. If these factions had been allowed to continue meeting, they would have most likely ousted the Central Committee, and started a new rule.
- That's the point though, it's the mass of the party, not the mass of country -But look at what happened, it became a dictatorship of party executives. There's no such thing as a dictatorship of the proletariat, it's just a dumb phrase to appease peasent's. If anything Hitler was more of a dictator of the people, at least he got into power by the NSDAP winning the reichstag elections and massive loopholes in the constitution. And shouldn't the people have the voting choice as to if they want capitalism or not for the sake of democracy? Not to mention by putting economic controls in state hands you not only take away one of the core basic freedoms(economic, social and political) but you give the state massive power. -Famine had already been going on since 1915 and it was nothing new. The bolshevicks as a whole at first followed by those ruling from the top had no other agenda then to get power then to secure their power. If other factions took over and were supported wouldn't that be their right then, and more importantly isn't it their right to at least debate, there's no real evidence aside from political motivations that in 1921 there was going to be any real threat to Lenin's government. And anyways what difference would this be from what the Bolsheviks did in the October revolution to the previous government of the February revolution which was far more democratic. Had that government not kept Russia in WW1 the best odds are they would have not been overthrown and Russia's future/past could have been dramatically different. Not to mention the fact when Lenin did take Russia out of WW1, we forget this now because Germany eventually lost, but had they not, most of eastern Europe right now would be the German empire with the peace treaty they signed.
I just addressed that, so let me repeat: When the people as a whole are still in a Capitalist mind set, this is a recipe for disaster. Would you honestly ask the opinion of the ruling classes, bureaucrats, CEO's, on subjects like the War, and Property, among other things? First a party representing the interests of the working class as a whole must take power, and remove all Counter Revolutionary elements. Do you really think a society can just go from a Capitalist society, to a ideal Communist Society just because of a Revolution? This is why there must be a Dictatorship by the Proletariat first, so to remove the cancer from the body that is our country. Yes, after Lenin died. Lenin gave clear warnings about Stalin's unwillingness to listen to other's ideas, and suggested that he not have any real seat of power, this warning was not headed, and the entire Central Committee, plus 80% of the original Commissars were executed. So we go from downplaying the Communist Party, to calling Hitler a man of the people? Please. . . tell that to the 12million dead, and 35million Soviet dead who died for his "lebensraum". A Dictatorship BY the Proletariat (although Dictatorship OF the Proletariat is a popular term as well, but is an inaccurate translation from German and sets the wrong meaning across) is simply where a party representing the interests of the working masses are allowed to make decisions to better the lives of the working people by allowing the working people to join the party and vote on any action that is taken through Democratic Centralism, locally and nationally, which before Lenin died, was being done. Those people as I understand it, had a voting choice, within the party, they didn't like what the masses of the party decided on, and so they started their own groups to try and oust the Bolshevik Party. What does it matter if the state controls the economy if the state is run directly by the masses? Freedoms in this country were unsurpassed at the time, allowing women to participate fully in politics, gay rights, freedom of religion, etc, etc, which was rarely seen anywhere else in the world. Not to mention free education. But they didn't take over, because most people supported the Bolshevik party instead of reactionary elements within the party. The right to debate takes place within the party meetings, you could say what you wanted! They voted, and the masses choose what to do. These people didn't like it, and so they started their own factions. They were in every sense of counter-revolutionaries, and betrayed the Communist Party by not complying to their own party that they swore to stay loyal to. Far more democratic?!?! Tell that to the 2 million young dead Russian soldiers who again, died in the most pointless war in history. The Bolsheviks gave the people what they wanted, PEACE, and BREAD, something neither the Tsar, nor the Duma ever thought to give the Russian people. But they didn't because they cared nothing for the working people. Maybe you'd like to volunteer for the front then?
I just have one question: why does the Holocaust Museum turn you on? Honestly, I've heard of some strange turn-ons, but never something like this. Forgive me if I sound rude, but I find your actions very disrespectful and tasteless. I feel so disgusted, and I am not even Jewish. I am not going to put you down because I am not a perfect person either, but I do hope you've learned from this to have more respect for others.
It's been done, it can't be changed, so move on. I understand you wanted to be daring, but as well as being that you have been disprespectful, distasteful and offensive to a lot of people as well. Maybe next time you get the urge you could do it in a normal library or outside a police station or something, where it won't be as wrong on such a deep level.
This thread, along with about a billion others on various forums in this site is now on my list of reasons why I should stick in RT. At least the people there don't suck ass and pound a subject into the ground. So they did something "highly inappopriate," IMO, it's not that much different than screwing in a cemetery. I can see it being offensive to some, but I swear to god, the people on this site are like fucking rabid dogs. They get offended and then leap to attack until they ultimately get bored. Seems to me their intentions weren't necessarily to offend, just to do something wild and rebellious. I've always wanted to screw in a taboo place (church, cemetery, etc.) , but never with the intentions of truly offending someone else in mind. So they didn't put thorough enough thought into their actions before they followed through, I'm sure the tongue lashings in this thread have been more than enough, and name-calling certainly puts no one any higher than the original poster or his lady. Let the freaky couple be and just hope that the next time they get a freaky urge, they follow through in a less-offensive place. *retreats*
Yeah, I agree with Ramona here. Most of you people are fucken insane. The original poster and his girl just had some fun in the Holocaust Museum. I'm Jewish, had most of my family die in the Holocaust... but honestly, how can you miss the humor behind it? Getting fingered in there is hilarious ...and shit, to the people getting offended. Grow some balls and grow up.
I agree as well. Nobody even saw it, so what. As a matter of fact I think everyone should finger their beloved one there and regard it as a stand against the holocaust and racial hate in general
I'm joining the recent consensus ^. who really cares? really? it's just a museum, an ocean away from where the Holocaust even happened. maybe it's my problem, because I don't care much for symbols.
Most people don't take things like this lightly. They view what the OP and his lady did as a slap in the face to those who suffered in the past. I am sure their intentions were just to have some fun, but there are plenty of other places they could have got off. Now, I am not going to sit here and call them names or tell them they're horrible people, but I am not going to support what they did either. Like verseau said, if they didn't want a reaction from other people, this thread wouldn't exist.
Ask yourself: Is this something that the OP should be concerned with, or should those people just grow some testicles and get a sense of humour?
Grow some balls and get a sense of humor?! When I think of humor, I might watch Family guy, the Simpson's, Bill Maher or something, but fingering a girl in the Holocaust Museum?! That's a pretty fucked up sense of humor. How about you grow some balls and learn some respect for those who came before you!