Hong Kong
- This topic has 637 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“So I’ll take that’s a long winded way of you saying that you can’t answer the question?”
Well, I wouldn’t expect anyone of your pedigree and mental acuity to be able to assimilate nuance. Reading comprehension is difficult for your kind after all. So, take it however you like.
Leaving aside your attempts to distract the issue.
With regards to the question of the Chinese “communist” Party declaration that Capitalism in China had been superseded by “underdeveloped Socialism” and the later admission that capitalism has been “reintroduced”, you have stated that “In the real world compromises must be made and challenges overcome. Mistakes will inevitably be made.”
Given that you agree that the Chinese “communist” Party made “mistakes” when declaring that “under developed socialism” would supersede capitalism and given that this mistake was one which related to the overarching basis of the Chinese economic system, why then should anyone believe the Chinese “communist” Party when it now states that “full communism” will be in place by the year 2120?
you’ve never read a word of Furr
Strange how you ignore an earlier post of mine where I did say I read half way through a long article by Furr on Trotsky and then skimmed the rest of it seeking the smoking gun. There was nothing of substance that was convincing or stood up to scrutiny. And it was sufficient confirmation to me that Furr is not worth reading in full.
I’m not a Trotskyist. If he plotted with the Nazis to betray the USSR, it merely confirms my personal opinion of the man who could head the Red Army slaughtering peasants and nationalists, Nestor Mahkno’s forces and the Kronsdadt Communards was particularly ruthless and if he had prevailed in the power struggle, atrocities would still have occurred.
However the point is that Furr does not furnish any damning documents to justify even an indictment much less a verdict.
Confessions that are not supported by forensic evidence are extremely questionable. Where is the verifiable factual evidence? Nowhere. And under Furr’s strange rules of logic, that is evidence of guilt.
If there was an anti-Stalin bloc within the higher tiers of the Bolshevik Party would I be surprised. Of course not. Would it surprise me if they considered a putsch against Stalin? Not at all.
Does any of this power politics inside the Bolshevik Party suggest it was ideological divide over how to bring socialism closer, not as I read it.
There are not evidences that Trotsky collaborated with the nazis, the USA and he was not a Zionist Lenin and Trotsky laid the foundation for Stalin and Isaac deutscher wrote that Trotsky created the conditions for Stalin because he lost popularity among the workers The assassin of Trotsky was an ex Trotsky and there are suspicious that the government of Mexico sympathized with Stalin He knew his assassin
PS. The expression fuck you should not be used in this forum
On my cyber travels, I learned that TS has a strange bed-fellow who justifies Stalin’s trials as a patriotic nationalist protecting his nation from jewish marxism.
https://counter-currents.com/2013/02/the-moscow-trials-in-historical-context/
https://counter-currents.com/2012/11/was-stalin-jewish-and-does-it-matter/
Who is Bolton?
“There was nothing of substance that was convincing or stood up to scrutiny.”
I don’t know which article of Furr’s you claim not to have read but merely skimmed, but this one is 170 pages long. You, arbiter of truth, trained historian, expert in Soviet history pontificate from your perch atop your ivory tower that there is “nothing of substance” in it? You turn arrogance up to eleven! Alan, friend of the CIA, wannabe failed lawyer, has made his judgement! He skimmed the article, don’t you know?! LOL.
You would have to read the entire document to be able to make such a claim. Your analysis would fail a first year high school history class. As the article criticising Furr’s detractors aptly put it, you’ve made nothing but vague pronouncements and completely ignore the copious evidence. You do this because the evidence is damning. Back to the stupid factory Alan, your contributions there are sorely missed.
On 1918 Lenin and Trotsky we’re commissars killings Bolsheviks The most ridiculous trial laid down by ridiculous lawyers
The Trotskyists also accused the stalinists on trying to kill Lenin and that his disease was produced by poison
He had two diagnoses brain hemorrhage and sphyllis and in that tune they used arsenic but he had a family’s history of cardiac diseases
TS, post examples of the copious damning evidence produced by Furr.
Can you do that?
You say you have read all his claims so it will be easy for you to copy and paste the relevant facts that are irrefutable.
Can you do that?
I’ve given my reasons why I consider it a waste of my time to delve into the works of Furr. You, however, hold a different opinion of his worth.
Present what you consider is Furr’s best proof to us
Can you do that?
A simple enough request, isn’t it?
I have read Furr on Trotsky and Isaac Deutscher on Trotsky Trilogy, and I prefer Deutscher as a more accurate source, as well Deutscher is a much better source on Joseph Stalin. On the Trial, the ICC has written very accurate articles. There are a couple of Mexican writers and Argentinian that are more accurate than Furr
http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Grover%20Furr/Furr%20tortsky%20japan.pdf
https://archive.org/details/prophetarmedtrot01deut“On my cyber travels, I learned that TS has a strange bed-fellow who justifies Stalin’s trials as a patriotic nationalist protecting his nation from jewish marxism.”
And that friends, is what is known as an “association fallacy”. You really are a bore, Alan.
“An association fallacy is an informal inductive fallacy of the hasty-generalization or red-herring type and which asserts, by irrelevant association and often by appeal to emotion, that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another. Two types of association fallacies are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association.”
So, following Alan’s logic, if a white-supremacist wrote a book on teetotalling or vegetarianism then all vegetarians and teetotallers are bedfellows with Nazis. Alan, you’re a joke.
“You say you have read all his claims”
I’ve never said anything of the sort. I did say his work convinced me that just about everything I’d ever “learned” about Stalin was false. To which you attempted to discredit the good professor by pointing to a Wikipedia article (LOL) and a podcast (LOL) as the final word on his work. I said your sources were a laugh and that given you had never read any of Furr’s writings you were not qualified to expound upon it. You then read “half” of one of his articles and “skimmed” the rest and now claim to be an authority on things Grover Furr. Good old Alan, arrogant as they come.
“so it will be easy for you to copy and paste the relevant facts that are irrefutable.”
And why would I get into arguments about a criminal trial with you, Alan? You are a dishonest interlocutor. Not only have you pathetically tried to associate me with white supremacists, you don’t seem to understand some of the most basic tenets of law. You think eyewitness testimony and hearsay are the same. You think confessions are not evidence. I mean, how can I have a discussion about law and evidence with someone so dim? I’ve gotta ask, was dropping you on your head as a baby your mother’s full time occupation?
AJ “so it will be easy for you to copy and paste the relevant facts that are irrefutable.”
TS – And why would I get into arguments about a criminal trial with you, Alan? You are a dishonest interlocutor.
TS is sidestepping questions, yet again.
Your fooling nobody (with the possible exception of yourself), it is clear you cannot produce the evidence you claim to have, in the same way you cannot explain why anyone should trust the Chinese “communist” Party’s claim that they will have achieved “full communism” by 2120, given their backtracking on their claims about “underdeveloped socialism”.
It appears, my friend that you are full of it.
I await you posting the evidence that you can present that demonstrates the validity of Furr’s claim.
Often used as evidence is the confessions. But these are not legal if made under any form of duress. That is not restricted to torture but includes threats to ones family safety and well-being, or inducements such as promises of clemency. Many who “confessed” in court retracted those statements of guilt while serving their initial jail sentences and before they were later executed.
Meantime I suggest you read what this organisation wrote in 1937 concerning the Moscow Show Trials. You should be aware that the SPGB didn’t have a horse in this race as we are both anti-Trotsky and anti-Stalin.
“…If the Stalin Government staged a colossal frame-up on distorted or non-existent evidence of plots and sabotage for the purpose of destroying the Bolshevik movement, and thus removing rivals from the scene, then the dictatorship system plainly stands exposed and condemned. If, on the other hand, the plots and terroristic acts by the convicted men really did take place, as charged, then the dictatorship equally stands condemned, for we are left to believe that out of any ten prominent Communists at any given time some eight or nine will turn out within a few years to be the agents of the Nazis, or of the rulers of Japan, or some group of foreign capitalists…In short, notwithstanding the confessions, and although there is no reason to doubt that the dictatorship provokes underground opposition because it will not allow legal opposition parties, the only attitude that can be adopted towards the trials is to challenge the bona fides of the prosecution because a genuine trial is impossible under dictatorship conditions…”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/1937/russia_wrong.htm
In a 1938 editorial the Socialist Standard said:
“…The usual confessions were made by these Old Bolshevists that they had been the agents of Japan, Germany, Great Britain, and so on, but with the difference that the dates of the treachery were placed much farther back. Rakovsky “confesses” that he was in the pay of the British Secret Service in 1924. Sharangovitch was spying for the Poles in 1921. Rosenholtz began his espionage for Germany in 1923. Trotsky (but he isn’t in Moscow, so someone else had to confess for him) worked for Britain from 1926 and for Germany from 1921. Bukharin confessed that he was plotting against Lenin in 1918.
All of this leads to an interesting speculation. Either the confessions are false or they are genuine. If the latter, then we have to believe that right back in the early days, during and after the Bolshevist seizure of power, the leaders were secretly conspiring against each other. It will be recalled that Lenin and other exiled leaders reached Russia in 1917 in a train which crossed Germany and was placed at their disposal by the German military authorities. The charge was made that Lenin and his friends were nothing but German agents paid by Germany to disorganise the Russian army. The charge was denied by Lenin and the denial was accepted by the working-class organisations generally. But if, as the Communists say, these Moscow confessions are genuine, then many of the men concerned were at the very beginning hopelessly corrupt. If the rest of them, why not Lenin? If these things were going on how could Lenin and others in the Bolshevist movement have had no inkling of them? If the confessions stand then it would seem that the whole gang would be under suspicion of being, as they were charged at the time, a crowd of murderous adventurers…”
As socialists who adhere to the Materialist Conception of History, we do not take a snap-shot of events in history but study the process of history unfolding over years and decades.
“But these are not legal if made under any form of duress. That is not restricted to torture but includes threats to ones family safety and well-being, or inducements such as promises of clemency.”
And I presume you have evidence of such “duress”?
TS, i have admitted and explained why I have not read Furr.
I have now asked you to show me that you yourself have read Furr and understand his arguments sufficiently enough to communicate them to this forum by citing some of his facts and information that has convinced you of their validity.
So far in this exchange I have maintained what I would consider a degree of civility towards you. However I now weary of your ad hominems.
It is ironic that you become so indignant that I pointed out the overlap of your own views with a racist, when from the earliest posts I have defended the pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong from being judged instruments of the CIA and NED because they happen to share an anti-Beijing agenda with the protesters.
“it is clear you cannot produce the evidence”
Rubbish. I’ve provided a link to 170 pages of evidence. Anyone who cares to, friend of the CIA Alan included, can read through it and find all the evidence they like. I’m not going to play Alan’s little game nor yours. The fact is that neither of you care a jot about the truth or the participants in the trial. You hate them all to a man. The only thing you snowflakes care about is discrediting the USSR along with all other socialist countries. You are useful idiots of the capitalists and imperialists; a bunch of morally bankrupt fanatics. I fart in your general direction.
- The topic ‘Hong Kong’ is closed to new replies.