Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,312 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 3 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“Point to one example of a successful so-called national liberation movement that has not ended up administering the system of production for the market with to a realizing profit.”
Building socialism is a process. Who are you to criticise how actual, real world socialists arrive at the destination?
There is a group in Venezuela that has written hundreds of articles regarding the situation in that country,( and other countries in latin america because they have branches ) and they do know what they are talking about, and they do a lot of researches and they have correspondents, and it is known as the International Communist Current. The government of Venezuela is just another capitalist state running a capitalist economy. The above article shows the spread of criminality promoted by the government of Chavez, it is not about class struggle it is about houses and properties stolen from other workers, by the military, and criminal groups that supported Chavez, it is a country where most of the means of production are in the hands of private capitalists and those properties are protected by the government. You do not know anything about the history of Latin America
“Lefties always need heroes, and then those heroes become part of the ruling class, then they get disappointed and grab another hero, and the eternal cycle continues all the time, from failure into failures”
No, we need leaders. Heroes are a happy byproduct.
——————————————————–Workers do not need leaders, the conception of leadership came from the social democrats and the opportunist Lenin, who developed the concept of leadership on What is to be done? which is the basis for the vanguard party to lead, workers are their leaders,
Marx worked for more than 25 years on the conception of the self-emancipation of the working class, and the Bolsheviks did not support that, they claimed that workers will only fight for economism and that workers needed the intellectuals and professional cadres
Marx always said that the liberation of the working class would be obtained by the workers themselves, he never mentioned anything about leaders, and the concept of heroes was promoted by the bolsheviks which contradict the materialist conception of history also developed by Marx, he indicated that individuals do not make history, it is indicated on several of his works including the communist manifesto
The conception of heroes is part of the individual conception of history which is a bourgeois conception, the concept of heroes also created the cult of personality in the soviet union, even more workers received prizes when they produced more than other workers, and it is known as economic exploitation, they needed workers to work extra hours to accumulate capital because it was a society based on capitalist production, and the extraction of surplus value which is the law of capitalism, even more, they adopted Ford assembly line to force workers to work harder and to receive prizes. You do not have any Marxist foundation.
Most reformist organizations from the left support the concept of heroes, and they worship their heroes dead or alive, they worship guerrillas fighters, military heroes ( like the right-wingers), and people that have emulated themselves
“LOL TS It is not unusual for an imperialist power to annex some neighbouring territory on the pretext that the populace there is ethnically or culturally akin to the imperialist power in question. That doesn’t make the actions of that power any the less “imperialist””
But that’s not why Russia entered the conflict. For one, the leaders of the Donbass invited the Russians in to defend them against an imminent Nazi invasion.
“The Russian military did not just enter the Donbass to protect the civilian population there.”
No, it did not. It had other demands. Demilitirization and denazification of the Natostan backed coup regime.
“No, it entered via the North, via Belarus and went as far as the outskirts of Kiev. And you reckon that this is not the blatant act of an imperialist power eh? LOL”
The purpose was to force Kiev to negotiate. It almost worked til Bojo arrived and scuttled the talks.
“Maybe it’s because you are clearly a sandwich or two short of a picnic that you can’t seem to grasp the concept that the “enemy of an enemy is not necessarily a friend.”
Tell that to Alan, he calls the CIA his “friend”.
“In case you weren’t aware the British ruling class actually sides with the Ukrainian ruling class in this conflict. I don’t and the SPGB does not.”
And yet you vomit up your ruling class’ propaganda at every opportunity. Putin is a billionaire/ Russian aggression…Guardian article after Guardian article. At some point a disinterested observer has to conclude these people either collaborate with, or are the willing dupes of, their ruling class.
“So do please explain – how then can we possibly be “simping” for this class when we oppose both regimes in this conflict?”
Just did.
“Workers do not need leaders”
Hahahahahahahaha!
And how’s that working for your “party”? All seven of you. Lol
“The Communist (sic!) Party of China is the club for China’s capitalist class. During Mao’s regime it was a nationalist clique that imposed itself on the population and inflicted on workers and peasants decades of misery, bloodshed, torture, intimidation and coercive regimentation, promoting the idolatry of one man and his sycophantic clique-members. It never had anything to do with ideas or freethought, which require free people and democratic, free expression. It destroyed centuries of literary works and records, and thought was subjected to fascist control.
Today, the CPC remains an imposed authoritarian tool of Chinese capitalism and imperialism.”Where’d you read that? Forbes magazine or the Guardian? Lol
“I guess our resident clown, TS, must think that the Nazis were “winning the battle of ideas” when the Nazi Party secured 37.3 percent of the popular vote in the July 1932 elections…”
37 per cent is not winning.
“He seems to think the validity of an idea or an argument depends on how much support it attracts.”
Good try. The validity of an argument relies on evidence. China, once one of the poorest countries on earth is now one of the most prosperous. That is thanks to the leadership of the CPC. The facts speak for themselves.
“There was a time when 99.99 percent of the populace believed the sun revolved around the earth. ‘Nuff said”
There was a time when a bunch of socialist posers believed what the Guardian said 99.9% of the time. Nuff said. Lol
“The Communist (sic!) Party of China is the club for China’s capitalist class. During Mao’s regime it was a nationalist clique that imposed itself on the population and inflicted on workers and peasants decades of misery, bloodshed, torture, intimidation and coercive regimentation, promoting the idolatry of one man and his sycophantic clique-members. It never had anything to do with ideas or freethought, which require free people and democratic, free expression. It destroyed centuries of literary works and records, and thought was subjected to fascist control.
Today, the CPC remains an imposed authoritarian tool of Chinese capitalism and imperialism.”Where’d you read that? Forbes magazine or the Guardian? Lol
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
No, the same type of ideas appear in the works of Enver Hoxha and Albania Today, and it was also said by many Stalinist parties that supported the Albanian tendency. When Mao Tse Tung was the head of the CPC the Soviet Union was called Soviet social imperialism and they wrote a pamphlet about that and which was also printed in Peking Review. It was also the argument of CPCML, MLPUSA, CPUSML, it is also the argument of the quarterly magazine known as the Communist Journal broke from Stalinism and Maoism, ex-COUSML and many others in Europe and Latin Americahttps://www.marxists.org/subject/china/peking-review/1975/PR1975-05b.htm
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/imp_ch6.htm
TS “Building socialism is a process. Who are you to criticise how actual, real world socialists arrive at the destination?”
____________________________________________________________Because trying to arrive at socialism via state capitalism is a complete dead end. You are not building socialism. All you are doing is building capitalism. Even you cannot possibly be so naive as to imagine that the authoritarian capitalist regimes like China, North Korea, Venezuela etc ad nauseum intend to establish the Marxian goal of a moneyless wageless stateless and non-market alternative capitalism
“Nelson Mandela was another ‘national liberator” who collaborated with the ruling class.”
True, but why? The collapse of the USSR. There was no more support from actual socialists.
Don’t Blame Mandela for Our Failure
_______________________________________________________
The problem is not neoliberalism, probably, the best statement would be, do not blame neo-liberalism, the problem is capitalism, and capitalism can not be reformed to benefit the majority of the workers. Neoliberalism does not exist, what the lefties called neoliberalism, it is monetarism. The article published by SOYMB shows that Mandela’s reforms only benefited the ruling class of South Africa ( black and white ) and workers strike against the reforms that were made and the reforms that were not done
TS> “And yet you vomit up your ruling class’ propaganda at every opportunity. Putin is a billionaire/ Russian aggression…Guardian article after Guardian article. At some point a disinterested observer has to conclude these people either collaborate with, or are the willing dupes of, their ruling class.”
“So do please explain – how then can we possibly be “simping” for this class when we oppose both regimes in this conflict?”
Just did.
_______________________________________________________________________
Further proof that our resident clown could not argue his way out of a paper bag if he tried …How, pray, can we collaborate with or be the willing dupes of the Western ruling class when we explicitly oppose BOTH SIDES in this capitalist war? The fact that we might quote an article from the Guardian or some other newspaper does not mean we are “spewing up ruling class propaganda”. That’s a stupid argument. You yourself use capitalist sources to back up your own claims. A quick scan of this page alone shows you using Reuters as a source.
Apart from that, the fact that the capitalist press might report for example that “Putin is a billionaire” or whatever does not make it untrue, does it now? Your feeble line of argument seems to be that just because an article in the Guardian says Putin is a billionaire it must obviously be false because the Guardian is a capitalist propaganda outlet. That’s a pathetic way of going about proving your point.
If you want to say Putin is not a billionaire then what you need to do is go about marshaling facts that demonstrate that Putin cannot possibly be a billionaire. You don’t do that. Your whole mode of argumentation is based on ad hominem attacks or ridiculing sources. That’s weak. Very weak
People like Marx drew on capitalist sources like contemporaneous newspapers and periodicals to build up his argument. Would you say he was therefore spouting ruling-class propaganda?
“I guess our resident clown, TS, must think that the Nazis were “winning the battle of ideas” when the Nazi Party secured 37.3 percent of the popular vote in the July 1932 elections…”
37 per cent is not winning.
__________________________________________________________Not the point
You are equating the validity of an argument with the number of supporters it attracts. Therefore according to your daft logic, there was quite a lot to be said in favour of the Nazis and that, indeed, you would consider yourself to be some extent a Nazi as well – at least to the extent that you believed they were right which they must have been having garnered 37% of the electoral support
https://en.internationalism.org/worldrevolution/201109/4486/gaddafi-s-links-british-state
Gaddafi’s collaboration with the British state and the USA and his links with terrorists
“In the Panama paper (like Putin’s investments)”
Lol, Putin isn’t mentioned in
the CIA op aka the Panama papers.“Gaddafi also had a net worth of more than 200 billion dollars”
BS printed in Fortune magazine, the only reason for being which is to denigrate socialism and to trumpet the superiority of capitalism. And here you are using it as a source as if any of the fanciful nonsense emanating from it is God’s truth. Pathetic. As I’ll explain again for the simpletons; the pretzeled reasoning that Gadaafi was fabulously wealthy is that because much of the nation’s resources were nationalised and therefore the property of the state, and that Gadaafi was the head of state therefore all the nation’s nationalised wealth was his! The reasoning is so tortured it has PTSD.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Panama Paper does show traces of Gaddafi’s money and they also show three women linked to the money of Putin, most dictators do not have their own accounts they use strawmen. Nationalization was an economic process started by the capitalist class in England( by the Manchesterists ) to avoid other capitalists having exclusive control and domination of the means of production, that is the reason why the railroad and telegraph were controlled by the state, it has nothing to do with giving wealth to the workers, and it has nothing to do with socialism, it is just another bourgeoise term borrowed by the lefties
https://worldcrunch.com/business-finance/panama-papers-show-traces-of-gaddafiamp39s-missing-treasure
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.