@dorkvalized @Nimbius666

> “Look, maybe FDR was a murderous psychopath – even though I’m not calling him one – but I’m calling Stalin being one, that I do, yes”

You keep talking like I've ever said a single word in FDR's defense or like FDR has anything to do with the conversation or a post I made a year ago about how socialist authors are not really worth reading. I'm talking about socialist authors, not Stalin (murderous psychopath) "YEAH BUT YOU" so FDR (worst president we have ever had and the beginning of the shitty things that have plagued not only this country but the earth in the years since) isn't relevant unless you want to draw attention away from all of the terrible socialist states which was itself a diversion from terrible socialist authors. It's a way to confuse an internet argument, not a way to assess anything.

> I was speaking of Germany, and you seem to have taken it personally, for some reason.

This is almost certainly you reading into it things that are not present. My position on Germany remains "surrender be damned, we nuked the wrong country".

> Still, I hoped that this conversation could be at least a degree more substantial. Alas.

Thirteen months ago, I was dismissive about socialist authors (whom I have read and I found nothing redeeming). I don't know what you think the conversation is supposed to be. The reason the thread came back was that dagda was DJing. In as few words as possible, what are you hoping to discuss?

> Hide as in “refuse to give a portion of grain that’s due to the state and proportionate to the acreage of land, and pretend you don’t have any”.

As Kasparov noted, the first year they demand you share, the second year they accuse you of hoarding, and the third year you're hauled to the gulag. The state is a parasite; socialist states are just somewhat more aggressive.

> The “success” being continuing to exploit the local farmers like under tzars

Right, the USSR never exploited farmers.

The crime was being on the losing end: a revolutionary that loses is a brigand. That's all. We ourselves had a revolt and history would have recorded it differently had the fortunes been reversed; we had another revolt and it was put down and the perpetrators of that revolt were recorded as misguided. This is how history works: the victors write the history books.

> My bad, “owed”.

Taxation is theft and the state is a parasite.

> I’d like to think, that the street is only a street,

I can say a street I've driven is a pain in the ass, I can say it's a nice street with broad lanes and little traffic, but a man is not a street. I can characterize Stalin however I like; you may disagree and characterize him however you like.

> Choose one.

I will say that, although I hate FDR, he was held back by the domestic situation and given that, I'd rather have lived under FDR in the US than Stalin in the USSR. Now, I can also say, you know, if the option was to live under Stalin in the USSR or FDR in the USSR, I would have to flip a coin, because I don't think there would be much difference.

> By that logic, if no one spoke of Australia, it shouldn’t exist.

I was just remarking that it is unusual to hear someone attempt to defend Stalin. That's all.

> “My state approves this version of the history of your country”?

No, "Here are the things that the USSR and USA both agreed on, so there is very little reason to argue unless you can demonstrate that both had an incentive to lie about this specific topic."

> all 61 accusations against Stalin were lies.

I've heard similar about Hitler. Khrushchev knew Stalin personally; I don't think it is a stretch to say that Khrushchev's remarks that Stalin built a cult of personality is far from the truth. You are free to disagree.

> But I also know of one author, an American historian

An American and a Soviet were arguing. The American says that the American way is superior because of our freedom of speech. The Soviet says "We have that, too." The American says, "No, you don't: I can go to Capitol Hill in the middle of Washington DC and stand up and announce to everyone in the capital that the American president is a dangerous idiot. That's real freedom of speech!" And the Russian says, "We have that, yes." And the American gets incredulous and says, "No, you can't do the same thing!" So the Russian responds, "Of course I can: I can go to the middle of Red Square, stand on a soapbox, get a bullhorn, and announce to everyone in Moscow that the American president is a dangerous idiot!"
parasite.jpg