Bismarck, North Dakota News

" Let's start here:

Stalinism, according to proponents of the term, is the political regime named after Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union from 1922-1953. Proponents of the term argue that it includes an extensive use of propaganda to establish a personality cult around an absolute dictator, as well as extensive use of the secret police to maintain social submission and silence political dissent.

The term "Stalinism" was coined by Lazar Kaganovich and was never used by Joseph Stalin who described himself as a Marxist-Leninist and a "pupil of Lenin" although he tolerated the use of the term by associates.[citation needed]

Like many other "-isms" it can be used as a pejorative term when referring to nation-states, political parties, or the ideological stance(s) of individuals, particularly "Anti-Revisionists". It is also used as a pejorative to describe politicians and political groups, Communist or non-Communist, who are perceived as particularly authoritarian or hard-line.

I don't understand how the term "Stalinism" is bandied about as a substitute for Socialism. Is the problem here that Mr. Kuhnley, like so many others, are so insecure that they are threatened by "elitists" pushing their agendas on them? It sounds like Mr. Kuhnley is advocating for anarchy.

It's amazing that after 8 years of having a "non-elitist" in the white house, just some guys most people voted for because they thought they would like to have a beer with him, apparently 71% of the population are ready for someone a little more intelligent. Maybe more elitist.
"

" America has given freedom to choose anything but the truth and of course, only the truth makes you really free. Only one church had the truth, all the rest are false. That only makes sense when they all disagree as to what truth is. But that church has fallen. What's left is lukewarm and believes one great lie - that it isn't idolatry to go to doctors and take drugs.

I'm free. "

" LL,

You sighted socialist programs, but ALL the people who pay in are benefited. That is the key difference. I think people hate socialism that either A. one person pays way more than the other although they get the same benefits or B. everyone pays in, but not everyone gets to reap the benefits. "

" Maybe socialism today can be described as sort of a Liberation Theology in governing. Meaning that politicians solicit support by promising how much government leverage they will use or create to liberate society of its burdens of everyday life. Vote for us, and "We'll make sure your burdens are lighter". The freedom that these kinds of made promises offer is illusive in that there usually is some government required complicity. It's catchy. Leading to total government control and finally tyranny. It is elitist in that it projects the notion that you can't handle your own affairs and need them to do it for you. Yet promises are never supported with any idea (detailed plan) of how it will be accomplished because they don't have one. Simply put, the hook is baited in general terms and cast to see how big it will catch on. "

" Socialism failed in the Soviet Union because of the tyranny of its early founding fathers, notably Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin et al. Socialism is not a bad thing particularly when balanced with Capitalism. Everywhere you look, here in the United States, you will see examples of socialism working perfectly. Socialism, as practiced in the United States or Sweden or Denmark or Canada or the United Kingdom or France to name a few (all very successful nations), is the collective ownership and administration of some means of production and distribution of some goods. Socialism, in our country, occurs when people (government) work together though taxation or reasonable fees or both to provide needed services the individual citizen would find it difficult or impossible to adequately do. Some examples here in the Bismarck/Mandan area are: The municipal water treatment plants, the municipal sewage systems, municipal street lighting systems, municipal curb, gutter, pavement systems, the municipal park and recreation systems, the police departments, the fire departments, the municipal garbage collection and land fill systems and our public school system (where I received my education). All of this and more are collectively owned and operated by the local citizens and all are examples of socialism. The State of North Dakota has its own bank, flourmill, and university/college system all examples of socialism.

Bismarck/Mandan receives some part of its electrical energy from Garrison Dam, which also provides flood protection and recreation, another Federal socialist project. All of these are examples of socialism and all of us contribute to these systems because we realize it is for the greater good of all of us. I suspect your comments are directed toward some of our candidates call for some type of socialized health care in our country. It will be our Representative Democracy that will make the final call on that issue.
"

" If government would just facilitate the development of energy by getting out of the way; if citizens would rise up and demand tax and tort reform, perhaps we'd get back on track as the greatest economic engine in the world. I used to like Obama; he used to just sya what he believed - not that I'd ever had voted for him - but now, by throwing Reverend Wright under the bus, he's proving that politics du jour is more important to him. "

" At a time when capitalism has provided the top one percent of our population with 17 percent of the income, the proposition that socialism is devastating the wealth of the middle class is absurd. If the "Wealth" went somewhere, where did it go? It should be pretty obvious to anyone who checks the figures that all the wealth has trickled to the top. How could anyone say socialism has caused this? "