BS: Robert Owen

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Oct 17 - 01:53 AM

it sounds wonderful! i really must try and get there.

i just think pronouncing a lifetime like Owen's a failure is SO indicative of what is wrong with our society, its the Thatcher's shopping trolley syndrome. If something is threepence cheaper this week - hang it! we'll call the more expensive provider a failure.

and so we throw away individuals, communities, whole industries, artforms....just discard them as commercial failures.

as Oscar Wilde said - we know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Ross Campbell
Date: 01 Oct 17 - 08:24 PM

Sorry your thread got hi-jacked, Al. (I've only skimmed through). Economic History classes at Strathclyde in the late sixties introduced me to Robert Owen and his ideas. Somehow, despite living within ten miles of New Lanark for the early part of my life, it was only last New Year that I first visited the site. I guess it looks much as it did, the cost of keeping it that way has been met by re-developing some of the buildings as private residences, there is a hotel and a Youth Hostel as well. There remain water-courses and turbine buildings from which the mills derived their power, parts of the mill buildings are occupied by a museum and visitor centre. Decent foot-paths allow you to get further up the gorge to the falls of Clyde. Some magnificent trees line the banks, could possibly be original planting from the time New Lanark was created. Well worth a visit if you get the chance.
Ross

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 17 - 03:35 AM

I'd totally forgotten this BEAUTY
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 05:22 PM

yes uncle joe entered into the language at that time. as in 'I'm not your Uncle Joe!'
meaning shape up!

not just communists - everybody used the term....perhaps not Noel Coward and Anthony Eden, but everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 12:01 PM

""Good old Uncle Joe" - and what?"
What Al said immediately before - work it out for yourself
It should have been "beneath"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 11:40 AM

"...sitting between an effigy of Stalin bearing the slogan, "Good old Uncle Joe" - and what?

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 08:47 AM

"i remember my father was very sceptical about Stalin's bad press. you see during the war - he had a very good press - being our ally."
I still have a family photograph somewhere of me as a very young child at a street party celebrating the end of the war, sitting between an effigy of Stalin bearing the slogan, "Good old Uncle Joe"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 07:40 AM

i remember my father was very sceptical about Stalin's bad press. you see during the war - he had a very good press - being our ally.

the sharp reversal caught a lot of people off guard.

however when you consider the enormity of his nastiness - i think the jury came in on him quite a while back. i suppose when his brother was hanged by the czar's men, it must have exounged a lot of human feeling from him.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 07:31 AM

"Are you attempting to put forward the line that none of those people died?"
Have I ever said that?
I am suggesting that some of the deaths may well have been due to Stalin's inept leadership but the accusation of deliberate murder has never been proved and if it is true, them every world leader who had mishandled famines and floods and other natural disasters or has sent generations of young men to war for gain are equally guilty of murder
The numbers game, both with Russia and Cina are a joke as both involved massive populations - the USSR was a former Empire, not even one country
Bohe were attempts to imprve the lot of everybody in states that were already deeply poverty stricken and both were reigned by oppressive regimes that treated the people like shit.
The ideals of both revolutions was to move to a more equitable society - Stalin adopted the peasant solution - "if you want to make an omelette, you have to break eggs"
His attitude may have come from his Georgian peasant background, but it could just as well come from his Jesuit training - he was a failed priest
So far, you haven't even approached this from a common-sense point of view, let alone provide evidence
You present a revolutionary people as a bunch of battery hens passively awaiting slaughter and kissing the blade that slits their throat
Doesn't even make sense to me
Katyn Wood was secretly ordered by Beria - if you wish to argue that he was a killer I have no argument with that

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 07:03 AM

Are you attempting to put forward the line that none of those people died? Katyn Wood never happened? Bet they all really loved Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 06:46 AM

"Is that "Fluff" all you have to offer?"
No fluff - solid argument which you are free to disprove with argument of your own
You still offer nothing to support you claims, just unproven lists
Ho hum
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 06:41 AM

Is that "Fluff" all you have to offer?

While an exact figure would be impossible to "prove" through lack of records the ones offered by those five historians can be, and have been, proven as is the consensus that they are definitely understated.

1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929;
9 to 11 million peasants forced off their lands and another 2  to 3 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program;
6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934;
1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935;
1 million executed during the ''Great Terror'' of 1937-1938;
4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps;
10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II;
1 million arrested for various "political crimes" from 1946 to 1953.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 06:10 AM

"Are they ALL WRONG?"
They are all unqualifed and unproven opinions and will remain so until evidence is provided and anomalies are explained
There a re libraries of books which claim the opposite and we would grow old and die if we started throwing them at each other
"Palash Ghosh"
Would that be the Palash Ghosh of editor of The International Business Times fame
Norman Davuies
"Jewish historians Lucy Dawidowicz[9] and Abraham Brumberg[10] object to Davies' historical treatment of the Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland. They accuse him of minimising historic antisemitism, and of promoting an idea that academic views of the Holocaust in international historiography largely overlook the suffering of non-Jewish Poles. "
"Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev"
supports the current President of Russia and former Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin.[2]"
You could do this forever, but what's the point
The idea that a revolutionary people like the Russians who kicked the Imperial system up the arse, walked away from the WW1 bloodbath, overthrew the Tsar ' "the Father of all the Russias" gave its life in millions to fight fascism, shold stand by silently while one man picked them off a million at a time is utterly ludicrous.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 04:56 AM

Steve, you have taken no part in any of the discussion on Owen and the history of the reform movement.
You joined the thread when you saw an opportunity to make a personal attack on me and my faith (26th Sept. 4.52AM)

If I have ever made an unchristian post, shame me by quoting it instead of just pretending I have.

Better still start discussing the actual subject of the thread.

I am offline for a while now.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 04:42 AM

How Many People Did Joseph Stalin Kill?
By Palash Ghosh @Gooch700 On 03/05/13 AT 8:55 AM


Joseph Stalin, who died 60 years ago in Moscow, was a small man -- no more than 5-foot-4. The abused son of a poor, alcoholic Georgian cobbler, Josef Vissarionovich Djughashvili (the future Stalin) also had a withered arm, a clubbed foot and a face scarred by small pox, but he stood very tall as one of history's most prolific killers.
Stalin's extremely brutal 30-year rule as absolute ruler of the Soviet Union featured so many atrocities, including purges, expulsions, forced displacements, imprisonment in labor camps, manufactured famines, torture and good old-fashioned acts of mass murder and massacres (not to mention World War II) that the complete toll of bloodshed will likely never be known.

An amoral psychopath and paranoid with a gangster's mentality, Stalin eliminated anyone and everyone who was a threat to his power – including (and especially) former allies. He had absolutely no regard for the sanctity of human life.

But how many people is he responsible for killing?

In February 1989, two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, a research paper by Georgian historian Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev published in the weekly tabloid Argumenti i Fakti estimated that the death toll directly attributable to Stalin's rule amounted to some 20 million lives (on top of the estimated 20 million Soviet troops and civilians who perished in the Second World War), for a total tally of 40 million.

''It's important that they published it, although the numbers themselves are horrible,'' Medvedev told the New York Times at the time. ''Those numbers include my father.'' Medevedev's grim bookkeeping included the following tragic episodes: 1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929; 9 to 11 million peasants forced off their lands and another 2  to 3 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program; 6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934; 1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935; 1 million executed during the ''Great Terror'' of 1937-1938; 4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps; 10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II; and at least 1 million arrested for various "political crimes" from 1946 to 1953.

Although not everyone who was swept up in the aforementioned events died from unnatural causes, Medvedev's 20 million non-combatant deaths estimate is likely a conservative guess. Indeed, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the literary giant who wrote harrowingly about the Soviet gulag system, claimed the true number of Stalin's victims might have been as high as 60 million.

Most other estimates from reputed scholars and historians tend to range from between 20 and 60 million.

In his book, "Unnatural Deaths in the U.S.S.R.: 1928-1954," I.G. Dyadkin estimated that the USSR suffered 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" during that period, with 34 to 49 million directly linked to Stalin.

In "Europe A History," British historian Norman Davies counted 50 million killed between 1924-53, excluding wartime casualties.
Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev, a Soviet politician and historian, estimated 35 million deaths.

Even some who have put out estimates based on research admit their calculations may be inadequate.

In his acclaimed book "The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties," Anglo-American historian Robert Conquest said: "We get a figure of 20 million dead [under Stalin], which is almost certainly too low and might require an increase of 50 percent or so."

Quotes attributed to Stalin reflected his utter disregard for human life. Among other bons mots, he allegedly declared: "Death is the solution to all problems. No man -- no problem," and "One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic."

Part of the problem with counting the total loss of life lies with the incompleteness and unreliability of Soviet records. A more troubling dilemma has to do with the fact that many some deaths – like starvation from famines – may or may not have been directly connected to Stalin's policies.

In any case, if the figure of 60 million dead is accurate that would mean that an average of 2 million were killed during each year of Stalin's horrific reign – or 40,000 every week (even during "peacetime").

If the lower estimate of 20 million is the true number, that still translates into 1,830 deaths every single day. Thus, Stalin's regime represented a machinery of killing that history – excluding, perhaps, China under Chairman Mao Tse-Tung -- has never witnessed.

Are they ALL WRONG? I don't think so. There was nothing "mishandled" during the "Holodomor" it was deliberate and cost the lives of millions. Stalin ruled by ruthless terror, plain and simple. The second greatest democide the world has ever known. The fact that you and yours were gullible enough to be taken in by him does not surprise me in the least.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 03:28 AM

"don't think the Latvians, Poles. or Estonians had much respect for him - sneaking or otherwise."
That's the problem Al - some didn't but many did - the workers adored Stalin and looked on him as the saviour of the word's first workers state - that's why he got away with what he did
I was twelve when Stalin died and I can still remember family friends weeping when when the news broke
Stalinism was basically a war between politicians and they were Stalin's targets - the show trials, the purges, the night arrests - all aimed at those he saw as a political threat and that is how he destroyed the Socialist dream - not by "45 million murders"
Stupidities like that were dreamed to to avoid discussing the real issues, possibilities and implications of a Socialist society - it is far easier to create and target a bogeyman than it is to argue the relative merits of social and political change
I remember reading John Reed's 'Ten Days that Shook the World for the first time and being swept away by the arguments that were taking place at the first congress - inspiring
Your thread made me look up the arguments that took place at The First Worker's International between all the differing factions, including the Owenites - working men and their supporters dreaming out loud how to make the world a better place for everybody
Still raises goosebumps
That's what these arguments should be about - not ploutering around in Cold War jargon that never had a basis in reality
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 03:19 AM

You love Jesus. You say that Jesus's teachings were largely socialist.
Yes.
But you are the very opposite of socialist.
No. You do not know me and make assumptions which are wrong.

This thread is about Owen and the reformers of that time, not me.

Respond to what I say on the subject instead of always trying to make it about me.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 09:53 PM

don't think the Latvians, Poles. or Estonians had much respect for him - sneaking or otherwise.

in the end do any of these bad people have a function other than to show us how life is not to be lived.

To 'fail' at being decent like a Owen, is a thousand times bigger success than being a 'successful' shit like Meyer Lansky or Stalin.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 08:40 PM

"Donuel "
If you are at a loss to provide proof one way or the other, a bit of common sense might do the trick
The Russian army walked away from the front in 1917, joined up with the workers and peasants, overthrew the Emperor and eventually executed him and his family as a confirmation that there was no going back
They fought off a counter-revolution, opposing 14 Western armies, united an entire Empire under one flag and eventually embarked on what they were still calling "the Great Patriotic War' when I visited there in 1964, during which they sacrificed 8,806,453 dead and 22,610,148 wounded
Are you honestly claiming that such people would stand by and say nothing while 43 Million of their number were massacred?
That would not take a dictator, it would take a mass-mesmerist.
I have watched newsreels of Stalin down the years and each time it has struck me "how could such an innocuous little man have done what it is claimed he did?
Unlike Hitler, he had the personality of a slice of stale bread, yet he has gone down as on of the most internationally adored leaders in world history.
Where the Russians really such a stupidly passive people?
The Russians we met still had a sneaky respect for him despite Khrushchev's revelations in 1956
C'mon. give us a break!
"I've challenged everything you've said"
Let him stew in his own juice Steve - oxygen of publicity and all that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 08:40 PM

"Donuel "
If you are at a loss to provide proof one way or the other, a bit of common sense might do the trick
The Russian army walked away from the front in 1917, joined up with the workers and peasants, overthrew the Emperor and eventually executed him and his family as a confirmation that there was no going back
They fought off a counter-revolution, opposing 14 Western armies, united an entire Empire under one flag and eventually embarked on what they were still calling "the Great Patriotic War' when I visited there in 1964, during which they sacrificed 8,806,453 dead and 22,610,148 wounded
Are you honestly claiming that such people would stand by and say nothing while 43 Million of their number were massacred?
That would not take a dictator, it would take a mass-mesmerist.
I have watched newsreels of Stalin down the years and each time it has struck me "how could such an innocuous little man have done what it is claimed he did?
Unlike Hitler, he had the personality of a slice of stale bread, yet he has gone down as on of the most internationally adored leaders in world history.
Where the Russians really such a stupidly passive people?
The Russians we met still had a sneaky respect for him despite Khrushchev's revelations in 1956
C'mon. give us a break!
"I've challenged everything you've said"
Let him stew in his own juice Steve - oxygen of publicity and all that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 05:03 PM

I've challenged everything you've said about your approach to both socialism and the socialist teachings of Jesus. No "baseless lies." Just my enquiring mind. No nasty digs. Just me being a bit suspicious of your apparent inconsistencies, which are manifold. You love Jesus. You say that Jesus's teachings were largely socialist. But you are the very opposite of socialist. All I want to do is to give you the opportunity to explain yourself. But you can't. You get all defensive and you think you can get round it by accusing us of all sorts of nastiness. But, honestly, Keith, we just want to know. Jesus was a bit of a socialist but you clearly disagree with that considerable element of his teaching. To be fair, you are far from being the only "Christian" who behaves that way. You don't seem to be very happy with yourself. Inner turmoil happens. I can't insist that you come clean. But, by their fruits an' all that...

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 03:14 PM

Donuel
I have laid out what I believed happened in the Soviet Union and what I know to have happened in the name of Western Democracy
I've always believed that the way to deal with these disputes is to slug them out by throwing facts at each other
From what I've read, Stalin was a megalomaniac peasant with no skills of leadership who should never have been leader
He wwas a no-mark as far as the Revolution was concerned - he banned one of the most important accounts of the events because his name never appeared in it.
If you can produce evidence that he was guilty of 43 million murders other than unqualified accusations originating from the time of the Cold War, I await it with interest
am an avid reader with a life-long interest in 19th and 20th century history and I have never come across such evidence to convince me that what Stalin did was anything but a mixture of bad leadership and eventually megalomaniac madness.
If you can put fill in anything I might have missed - feel free
I have my own personal hatred of Stalin - for debasing and eventually destroying the Workers State - but is he is guilty of murder so are all those I mentioned earlier
Noe - feel free
You are quite likely to be able to add Trump to your list of Nixon, LBJ, Dubya, Reagan... and all the other mass murdering politicians who ever stalked this planet
You really do have to understand them correctly before you can hate them rationally
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 01:37 PM

43 Million murders were the price of loyalty to Stalin.
Jim how many murders will Trump require?

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 01:18 PM

Jim,
Your approach to life has been the most inhumn and unchristian I have ever come across Keith

My approach to life is neither.
You just resort again to lying personal attack without foundation.

Steve,
So which of the socialist teachings of Jesus do you not accept?

Not one Steve. Sorry if you think my politics and faith are incompatible. I have no problem.

Neither of you can challenge anything I have said on the subject, so you resort to personal attack, impugning my politics, my faith and my approach to life.

All your accusations are without foundation in anything I have ever posted. Just baseless lies.

Now, enough about me!

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 01:00 PM

Keith, you said that much of the teaching of Jesus would be termed socialist. You described yourself several times before the last election as centre-right. Centre right is not socialist. So which of the socialist teachings of Jesus do you not accept? Or, to put it another way, why are you not a socialist? You've spent month after month here trying to smear the one major party in this country that currently has socialist pretensions. You've dug up or fabricated a ton of stuff that you think casts Labour under Corbyn as antisemitic, misogynistic and bullying. You've gone on and on and on about it. When I say you haven't got a socialist bone in you body, that's what I mean. So if Jesus was a bit of a socialist in much of his teaching, and you are as far as can be from being a socialist, you're not a follower of much of his teaching, are you? That's no "nasty dig." It merely a function of my enquiring (and sceptical) mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 08:16 AM

Your approach to life has been the most inhumn and unchristian I have ever come across Keith
Not a "nasty little dig", just an analysis of what you have argued
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 07:08 AM

Steve, you said, "So you don't follow Jesus, then, Keith."

Can you produce one post of mine to support that nasty little dig, or Al's claim that I support the bosses at the time of Owen?
No.

Now enough about me I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 07:07 AM

"1929 to 1953 Stalin was responsible for the deaths of some 43 million people (Not saying he killed them personally - they died under his orders)"
"History according to the Tebbit school of reactionary study" – utter nonsense
Stalin was an incompetent leader who eventually fell off the sanity twig – they most certainly didn't "die under his orders" unless of course, you can provide the documentation which proves they did – probably in the same file s the Owen misinformation you have yet to confirm)
Suggesting that the deaths that took place under Stalin's rule were "at his orders" is tantamount to claiming that the British who died in the World Wars did so under Asquith's, Lloyd Goeorge's or Churchill's orders – an utter stupid accusation.
Those that died in the Ukraine did so as a result of a mishandled famine and an opposed attempt at collectivisation to try and feed the entire Russian people
The wealthy landowning peasants, the Kulaks, were part of that slaughter – at the height of the famine they burned crops, slaughtered livestock and kept back produce that could have ben used to feed the victims.
The authorities mishandled the famine as the British authorities mishandled the Irish one, the only difference being that there is evidence that the British deliberately used the Irish one to solve 'the Irish Question' – no evidence exists that Stalin ever did that – not even Robert Conquest could come up with anything other than an outburst by Stalin saying the Ukrainians deserved what they got – and that was never verified.
The Soviet Union came into being as part of what probably began in France at the time of the Commune – an attempt to change the world order and replace it with something that served all the people rather than the few it still serves – it was a bloody class war with no clean hands on either side.
Prior to Stalin strutting his stuff the Empires were happily oppressing and slaughtering the occupants of the poorer nations – in their uncountable millions.
"Gallant little Belgium" under Leopold cheerfully massacred up to ten million Congolese in pursuit of rubber – the standard punishment for not meeting your quota was the removal of a hand – and this gallant little nation was one of those used as an excuse to sacrifice an entire generation.
While Stalin was in power, German capitalism financed Hitler in his rise to power – the rest of the world sat on their hands and appeased until he grew strong enough to send over ten million human beings to extermination - six million of them Jews
All victims of western capitalism
Then came round two of the grate Capitalist Bakeoff, WW2 – the dying throes of Empire culminating with
Dropping two obscene bombs of Japanese civilians which, apart from the immediate death toll,   created deformities in two generations of children
Since that, that hasn't been a year without oppressive war Korea and Viet Nam being among the star turns.
Now we are up to our arses in oil wars, religious conflicts, worldwide poverty, ethnic cleaning and racist hate – in a nutshell, western democracy
Socialism failed in Eastern Europe and what replaced it proved ten times worse and a a million times more dangerous that Stalin could ever dream up – Putin, former Yugolavia, Hungary…. And all the potential Fascist states now on the rise
In the comfortable west we have the racist hatred generated by Brexit, an accelerating gap between haves and have nots, a situation where we can't guarantee future generations they will have a planet to stand on and an insane despot in The White House
One of the ironies is that two of the most secure rising nations are Russia and China – both brought out of the feudal Dark Ages by Socialist reformers
"Under Stalin's orders" my arse
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 06:03 AM

If you're a socialist then I'm the Queen of Sheba. You told us several times before the election that you are centre-right.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 03:38 AM

Steve,
From what I read here you haven't got a socialist bone in your body. Centre-right you say

Prejudice and preconception Steve.
Can you actually quote something I have said to support that?
I think not.

I am at the centre of politics and voted Labour when they occupied that ground.
I would say that you can not be Christian and far-Right, but you certainly do not need to be far-Left.

I hold and have expressed nothing but admiration for Owen and the other reformers who drove the legislation that won the most far reaching reforms before the Labour Movement and unions even got off the ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 03:12 AM

"The situation following the was was of an empire that Rusia had sacrificed from 3,749,000[51] to 4,950,000 people from combat or war related deaths"

No it didn't - you have misread the Wiki Table you copied your figures from - those are the numbers of Russian military WOUNDED. During the First World War in terms of Deaths suffered as a percentage of the population Great Britain fared worse than Russia (Great Britain - 1.91% to 2.23%. Russia - 1.62% to 1.94%).

Russian fatalities during the Second World War which was much bloodier than the First amounted to over 25 million. During his rule 1929 to 1953 Stalin was responsible for the deaths of some 43 million people (Not saying he killed them personally - they died under his orders). Stalin's is named as being the second greatest Democide in the history of the world, second only to that perpetrated by China's Mao Zedong.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 03:03 PM

Incidentally Teribus, the War the Russin people walkd away from accounted for more than 41 million military and civilian casualties: there were over 18 million deaths and 23 million wounded, ranking it among the deadliest conflicts in human history. The total number of deaths includes about 11 million military personnel and about 7 million civilians.
All of this was over a row between two branches of our Royal family squabbling over which part of the planer they should own.
Stalin would have had to run to catch up with that one
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 02:12 PM

Er, you said that much of the teaching of Jesus would be termed socialist. From what I read here you haven't got a socialist bone in your body. Centre-right you say. Nothing like the man you purport to follow then!

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 01:37 PM

"The Soviet Union was a total screw up virtually from day one."
Yeah sure it was
It should have let the rest of the Russian Youth die iat the front
"During the Second World War Stalin killed more Russians than the Germans did."
Stalin is not recorded as killing a single individual - the total deaths of the war it walked away from amounted to 41 million
"Not once during the reign of the Czars did Russia ever find itself in a position where it could not feed its population -"
Utter nonsense - what history books are you working from in 1891-1892 alone 2 million died from starvation
in 1905 three quarters of the population were underfed, poorly housed and discontnted so the they appealed to the Tsar en mass on the streets, these appeals were met with hails of bullets from the Tsar's troops
The situation following the was was of an empire that Rusia had sacrificed from 3,749,000[51] to 4,950,000 people from combat or war related deaths
Their econimy was non-existant, they were living in squalor, hardly any industry, literacy virtually non existent, and an overall population ranging from serfdom to primitive Capitalism
Your anyalysius is as crass as you7r Russian comparisons
Can you actually quote any authoritative evidence of your claims on Owenism or are they as invented as your Russian claims?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 01:10 PM

So you don't follow Jesus, then, Keith.

What do you mean Steve?

Al,
Jim on the side of the workers. You on the side of the bosses.
I am amazed you could have read my posts and still made that accusation.
Nothing from me supports what I referred to as the "cruel exploitation" of the workers.
Preconception and prejudice Al. You just see what you expect to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 12:42 PM

The Soviet Union was a total screw up virtually from day one. Driven by some idiotic ideology that did not pay the blindest notice to the desires and needs of the people. All Lenin, Stalin & Co achieved was to replace an aristocratic hierarchy with one based on political acceptability (IIRC less than 5% of the population of the U.S.S.R. were members of the Communist Party - It was not one of those barrel up and join if you felt like it organisations - It was strictly by invitation only and members got all the perks).

During the Second World War Stalin killed more Russians than the Germans did.

Not once during the reign of the Czars did Russia ever find itself in a position where it could not feed its population - The history of the U.S.S.R. shows us that not once in its entire existence did the U.S.S.R. EVER manage to feed itself - nothing to do with invading armies and foreign interference - Stalin as a deliberate political move killed off everybody in Russia who knew how to farm efficiently - ideology defeating common sense.

But as we are supposed to be discussing Owen - His venture in the USA failed because it consisted of some well meaning souls, some idealists, a load of shysters and the remainder free-loaders. Guess which groups won through? In his philosophy Owen completely forgot that human beings are individuals each with their own aspirations and motivations - they did not fit into the moulds he imagined for them, New Harmony, Indiana was a failure.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 10:38 AM

"the point is the substance of what he did achieve."
It really isn't an easy question to answer in a few posts Al - but I am surprised at how much information and analysis there is about Owen on the net
This is a lot to read, but it seems to be the fairest summation of OWEN I have come across - worth dipping into rather than reading from start to finish
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 07:23 AM

"it was George Moore, the Irish writer who called Jesus - the pale socialist of Galilee."
A bit of a misnomer Al - Jesus' ideas (if he existed) were somewhat contradictory on an equal society - he lived in a slave society and never once condemned slavery
Jesus' idea was that we'd all be equal in Heaven - certainly not on earth
His followers nowadays dismiss much of his socialist leanings anyway - as them about rich men gong to Heaven or moneylenders being thrown out of the temple - then wait for the excuses - and as for slaughtering your fellow man or taking your goods and giving them to the poor - forget it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 07:20 AM

'Are you saying that I should not put my views because you and Jim hold different ones?'

no its the way you argue that is wearisome in the extreme.its like an endless sea trip, and every time you get off the gangplank, we're always in the same place - wherever we've sailed to.

take this discussion.

we wanted to talk about Robert Owen - this bloke who devoted his life and endeavours to something or other. but do we get to talk about it - do we buggery!

Jim on the side of the workers. You on the side of the bosses.

Its like a discussion on Picasso. And one bloke reckons Pablo should have been using matt and the other guy emulsion.
Its is not relevant whether socialism is 'a good thing'. the point is the substance of what he did achieve.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 07:08 AM

What you said tribus was
"Socialism" has failed every time" - full stop
Now you have added "in every single state that has tried to implement it"
The reasons these experiments have failed have been various - the invasion of The Soviet Union by 14 countries, an American inspired embargo of Cuban goods which lasted fifty-odd years, civil wars to return old systems....
Any nation that moves from a system, that serves only the wealthy to attempting to serve the needs of the entire population (socialism) is facing an uphill struggle from the outset - add actual armed and economic resistance to that struggle and you distort its objectives
The Soviet Union was an attempt to turn what had been The Russian Empire, a mixture of nations ranging from feudal agrarian capitalist to undeveloped industrial Capitalist into a unit that served all the people - a premature task that was forced on a leadership that was attempting to serve the immediate wish of a population demoralised and starved by Imperial war.
Despite the slaughter of WW1, ite invasion by Capitalist countries defending their own system of privilege, Civil War, and eventually another World war which led to the sacrifice of more people than any other single nation, the USSR had moved from being a primitively backward conglomerate of systems to a unified group with highly developed medical and education systems, well on the way to housing the entire population.
Economically it was a major competitor on the world stage and technically it was throwing satellites into space.
Personally, I have doubts as to some of the directions taken and I certainly regard Stalin a departure of the Socialist dream, but in terms of the ground covered by the entire population they moved forward we moved back - all the timid socialist measures Atlee produced had been either destroyed or, as with social medicine, starved near to death
The Education won by hard, bitter struggle are now only available to the wealthy of Britain.
Despite the embargo, Cuba moved from a country owned by six wealthy families, a place were rich yankee tourists went to launder money and watch women being fucked by animals - "America's open sewer" to a society that at least attempted to cater for the needs of all the population - still the most enviable medical and education service in that part of the world
Our rich Western society is based on the exploitation of poorer nations, thiers attempted to develop faired societies
You refer to Owen's experiment as being a failure - it failed because it was unable to meet the demands of the investors, not because it let down the workers or the customers
Owen was removed from the board because of the lack of profitability
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 06:59 AM

it was George Moore, the Irish writer who called Jesus - the pale socialist of Galilee.

Moore isn't read much nowadays but he was a big noise back in the 1890's. His book Esther Walters has been made into a film with Dirk Bogard and a TV series.

Socialism is catch-all term. You guys would argue about anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 06:32 AM

By the way - any community with a social conscience usually been the less well off looking after the lesser well off while the profiteers continue to take the lion's share
A typical example is the contradictions of charity with well meaning people donating to wards victims of war while our arms dealers become wealthier by selling weapons to perpetuate those wars
A society with a conscience would would be a different matter, but like Ghandi's description of Western civilisation, only "a good idea".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 06:31 AM

"Any social archeologist can make a reasonable stab at how earlier societies survived"

Now what was it I said in my previous post?

Having said that there is one whale of a difference between "socialism" as a political system, which always seems to fail, and a community having a "social conscience" which is extremely successful."

It is ONLY the latter, i.e. that the communities must have had a "social conscience" in order to survive and develop, that "Any social archaeologist" could take a reasonable stab at - nobody can say with any certainty that the structure of the societies they lived in were "Socialist" in any way, shape, or form that we would recognise today. As with most primitive beings the overriding element between competing groups would have been "Might is Right", the strong would have taken the best land, the least capable of adapting and evolving would have been pushed to the margins. The leader and hierarchy of any group would have been those best equipped to lead and protect it.

As a political system "Socialism" has failed in every single state that has tried to implement it - the latest failure has been in Venezuela.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 05:44 AM

"What records exist that would back that claim?"
Go read Morgan's work on the subject -
Any social archeologist can make a reasonable stab at how earlier societies survived
"Socialism" has failed every time and each time it has "failed" the supporters of "socialism" have all declared that it wasn't really "socialism" after all."
Socialism has never failed - it is an aim, not a new shirt you put on every time the old one gets dirty
Each time if has been tried it had introduced massive improvements - typical are the limited social aims that Labour introduced after the war
Any failure came about by neglect or opposition - social mediceine never ceased to cure, social housing never fell down because it was badly built, nationalisation never ceased to produce products fir for purpose...
They all ran into problems becase they didn't fir into a society that was based on favouring the few - they failed to be profitable - hence the incredible gap between those who have too much and those who have nothing - a society no longer fir for purpose
Keith's mindless denials are no longer worth acknowleging - go read a book Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 04:52 AM

So you don't follow Jesus, then, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 04:20 AM

"Socialism originated in the Stone Age"

Really? What records exist that would back that claim?

As with every other experiment, including Owen's, particularly his venture in the USA - "Socialism" has failed every time and each time it has "failed" the supporters of "socialism" have all declared that it wasn't really "socialism" after all.

Having said that there is one whale of a difference between "socialism" as a political system, which always seems to fail, and a community having a "social conscience" which is extremely successful.

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 04:09 AM

Jim, much of the teaching of Jesus would now be termed socialist, and many others since throughout history.
The Wiki page on Socialism has this,
"The first "self-conscious" socialist movements developed in the 1820s and 1830s. The Owenites,...."

I will not argue minor points around that, but my statements were factually correct and I gave quotes to show they were not just whims of mine.

The only case I want to defend is my original statement on this in reply to one from you.
I said, "The reforms were not achieved by "trades unions" Jim.
They were achieved by wealthy philanthropists and reformers, usually motivated by their Christian faith."

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 03:57 AM

Al, you say you disagree with me but you will not challenge what I say or discuss it.
So what is the point of coming to a discussion forum Al?
Why did you start this thread?

Of course you disagree with me. It would be a boring discussion if no-one did!
So, why can't you point out flaws in my argument or make a different case?

It looks as though you are comfortable with your preconceptions and prejudices and fear they may not stand up to scrutiny.

Are you saying that I should not put my views because you and Jim hold different ones?
Why? What are you afraid of?

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 03:00 PM

Keith
May as well put an end to this and keep tomorrow free for intelligent discussion
"No-one was called a socialist or referred to socialism before Owen."
You seem to have stumbled from one diaster to another here
"The socialist political movement originated as a theory in the revolutionary movements of the mid-to-late 1700s - probably in France as Socialismé
Nobody, including Owen called his theory Socialism - Owen called it "Co-operation" and his journal was called "The Co-operator"
Marx was the first to apply the term to Owen after his death - Utopian Socialism'
I reckon that's a total of own goals that must merit an entry in The Guinness Book of Records - don't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Robert Owen
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 02:47 PM

Keith - no one is challenging you. Maybe Jim - but no one else. We can't be arsed. Its like the first world war stuff - we just don't agree with you.

For some reason you seem to have more empathy with the right winger, the powers that be, the posh boys or whatever than we have.

for some reason. probably bitter experience. we tend to think that no one is in the corner for you when you're poor and unrepresented.