BS: Robert Owen

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:46 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 - 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 29 Sep 17 - 03:35 AM

I'd totally forgotten this BEAUTY
Jim Carroll

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: 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.