Stalin, a product of Lenin! Lenin, a product of the Tsars!

I am reading a book titled "Young Stalin". It is by Simon Sebag Montefiore. I have found within the book's pages a totally different man from whom I thought Stalin was. On the one hand most biographies of Stalin are written by his enemies in exile, so can't be impartial. On the other hand, the only biographies with a positive attitude towards this dictator were written only in his lifetime in Russia and are wildly partial and off the mark. We should not forget that after his death Stalin was denounced by his own party so there were no biographies about him published later in Russia. Therefore it is hard to find an impartial book about him. Fortunately this book tries to be that, although it is more negative than positive. The author exhibits all the symptoms of a person who has not lived through similar times and is writing about a man and a time he can't FEEL anything about. I can, however, understand every word, since I have lived through similar times and can feel every moment of the young Stalin's life. I can understand why he did what he did, at least before he became the blood-thirsty dictator he was.

It is fascinating to think what would have happened to Stalin if he had lived in a different time. I try to imagine him in Canada in our time. At most, he would have been a Jack Layton, leader of the NDP. If the Bolshevik coup had been crushed and defeated, he would have been a martyr, or at least an old revolutionary émigré with lots of stories to tell about his adventurous life. He would never have become the Stalin we know now. His life would not have been much different than the life of all the Russian revolutionaries deported after October, or the life of Spanish Civil War heroes after the defeat of the Spanish government by Franco.

What made him STALIN, the worst dictator in history, was the October Revolution. Without Lenin, there could not be a Stalin. Stalin is the natural product of Lenninism. He is the legitimate son of Lenin's brutal Civil War and dictatorship. But we can't understand Lenin without understanding the suffocating dictatorship of the Romanovs and Tsarist Russia. Without that dictatorship, Lenin could not have succeeded in bringing about the October coup. The population would not be ready to tolerate so much brutality. Other parties have tried, after the October, to copy it in other countries, but where the situation was not ready, they were all defeated. German communists tried hard to have their own revolution in 1918 and 1919 but were defeated because German society was more advanced and less brutal at the time. Even British communists tried their hand at revolution in the 1920s, but it was a farce because people would just not accept a bloody revolution.

So, I believe, if we trace the roots of Stalinism, at the end of the day the blame rests with the Tsars and their stupid, backward regime. The same thing can be said about the Islamic Republic in Iran. Yes, they are brutal. But you can't blame it all on them only. Without the brutal, murderous dictatorship of the Shah, Khomeini could not have achieved success and come to power.

==================================================================

I agree that Stalin could not do what he did without Lenin, but I also believe it was not necessary to be so brutal. There is no logical reason for the necessity of Stalin's extreme brutality. Russia would still become an industrial country, no matter what political system it had. Many other countries went through the same phase without any blood. IT WAS NOT NECESSARY. It was illogical and evil. It can only be explained by Stalin's personality. I believe if other members of the Bolshevik party had ruled Russia instead of Stalin there would not have been such blood bath. Even if Lenin had survived and ruled, he would not expose his fellow contrymen to such a brutality and at least not killed his own party members. Mao was a brutal communist, but he killed much less of his own party members than Stalin did, in a much larger and more populous country.

.

CAPITALISM, OR GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATE WELFARE SYSTEM

Bear Stearns downfall and purchase by JP Morgan proves again the hollow claims of capitalists about Laissez-faire economy and the rule of government in it. At times of prosperity when the greed rules supreme, their economists claim that the government should be as small as possible. It should not interfere in the affairs of the market and must let capitalists shave the public as much as they want to fill up their pockets and own 10 estates instead of only 1. Any attempt at wealth redistribution is faced by hollers of interference. NO, it is not good for economy. NO, the government should not interfere at all and should let the economy run its course.

But look at Bear Stearns comedy now. The moment the excess greed turns into the economic storm and the ships start sinking left and right and centre, then the same capitalists turn to the government, with caps in hands, for survival. The same government which was "BAD" and was not supposed to touch their pockets, now has to save them out with "tax payer's" money. The same people, who were not worthy enough as human beings to share in the prosperous times, are now expected to pay out of their pockets and through their taxes to save out the capitalist's companies and corporations.

Women and Men

I watch the pigeons on my balcony. I always used to think these are real romantic birds. Look how deeply they kiss each other. Then I watch more closely and the reality sinks in. They are not kissing, what happenes is as simple as this: The female is getting food from the male. Exactly like how a chick gets food from the parents, she pushes her beak into the males' open beak, and the male regurgitates the food to her. Instantly after she gets some food, she lays down and lets the male have his way and f... her. So no food, no sex, as simple as that. No kissing, just a simple payment.

But when you look deeper into why they do that, you understand the evolutionary reason for this behaviour. In pigeons, it is the male that feeds the chicks once they get older. The female stops feeding them when the chicks are a few weeks old, and it is the poor male that has to feed the chicks. And by getting food(or begging food) from the male, the female is actually TESTING him. She wants to know if this guy is "giving" enough to be willing and ready to share his food. The line of thought is: if he feeds me, then he will feed my chicks too.

Do the females in our species act differently?
====================================================================
It is not only men who love porn? Women enjoy porn. But porn for women is different from men. Women's porn are the romantic novels and movies consumed by them in huge quantities. For them, it functions exactly as visual porn functions for men.

HUGE MARKETS BEGET DICTATORSHIP AND CORRUPTION

In a country with a huge population, the market is huge. In such a country, the capitalist system can reach the height of its power because of the size of the market. The money and consequently power tends to concentrate in fewer and fewer hands and in the long-run the political system becomes a corrupt plutocracy and democracy dies. In Such a society the gap between rich and poor becomes wider and wider until the system collapses from within. A very good example of such a system is ancient Rome, or the successive empires in China built on the back of millions of peasants. Each empire ruled for a few hundred years and was thrown into anarchy and chaos and fell in a peasant revolution. A modern version is US, where the capitalist and corporation lobby has become so powerful that the legislature just can't pass any laws to narrow the gap and the poor become poorer everyday despite the huge wealth of the country.

If a country is small and has smaller population, the market in not large. As a result, the capitalists in that country can never gather enough money to be able to influence the political system at will. An example of such a country is Canada, or Scandinavian countries, or Switzerland. Democracy in such countries lasts longer and is more vibrant because there is not enough concentrated money to influence it. The lobby power of small capitalists can never compete against the will of the people. These countries tend to have a more just and socialist system and the gap between rich and poor is smaller.