TrueScotsman
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“The BBC are preparing for the fall of Bakhmut”
But I thought it was a WW1 “stalemate”? Lol! You bunch of faux Marxists. I thought Marxism was based on materialism. You jokers are idealogues. Evidence goes out the window with you clowns. Russia is winning decisively.
“How’s your Russian Tinky Winky”
What’s “Tinky Wink”? Your stage name at the local glory hole? Or is it what you called your transgendered GI Joe doll when you were in primary school? You still in school Bojo’s half-baked brain because I’ve never heard a grown adult speak like that.
“He says in this apparently genuine interview”
“Genuine” according to whom? The CIA? You are a clown. Lol
“Milchakov has openly made the following statement “I’m not going to go deep and say, I’m a nationalist, a patriot, an imperialist, and so forth. I’ll say it outright: I’m a Nazi”
The source is Radio Free Europe aka the CIA. You and All-in, credulous dupes. Lol
“Anyway, instead of writing off the deaths of 30,000 Russian troops”
In my estimation of deaths I was including Donbas militiamen who were technically Ukrainian. Russian military losses are somewhere around 10,000. Again, tragic for the families of those killed but Russians don’t tolerate Nazis.
“as being “not being catastrophic”, why are you (the alleged anti Nazi) not joining them, you do know what the word chickenshit means, don’t you?”
You’re playing that old record again? You’re more boring than a white ant infestation. You think I’m a chickenshit? Easy to say from the comfort if your mother’s basement. Try saying it to my face and I’ll happily break a few of your teeth.
“Russia had a mobilisation of 300,000”
They were reservists not conscripts. You know the difference, right?
“What is catastrophic asks TW, the catastrophy is the families bereft following the deaths of their loved ones”
Soldiers are killed in wars. It’s the risk one takes for signing up for such work. Though the deaths are tragic for the families involved its hardly “catastrophic” for Russia as was the suggestion made by the original poster.
“Are you making the same mistake as the EU’s Usula Von Der Leyden conflating casualty figures with deaths?”
Van der Liar didn’t make a mistake. She momentarily forgot her role as chief EU propagandist and let the truth slip. But you run with the Guardian’s slapdash cover story. She “misspoke”. Lol. Whatever floats your boat.
“It’s turned out to be an error of catastrophic proportions.”
Erm, in case you hadn’t noticed, Russia is winning. It is grinding NATO’s military assets to dust, has won the world, minus “the west” to its cause, fifth columnists within the country have revealed themselves or fled, Putin’s popularity at home is off the charts, much of the world, witnessing the shameless theft of Russian foreign reserves is turning away from the dollar and thus weakening the US, Russia has annexed huge swathes of resource rich territory, grown its population and all at the cost of less than 20-30,000 lives. Remind me, what’s this “catastrophic error” of which you speak?
“Putin made an unprovoked attack on Ukraine.”
You may disagree with the Kremlin’s decision to launch its SMO but to call it “unprovoked” is an egregious falsehood. The very phrasing you use is not your own but a brain-worm conceived in the bowels of a neo-con think tank and going on to infect your credulous mind through mainstream media. Don’t believe me? Search for the phrase on the net and witness the tens of thousands of hits.
The US has been diligently working at provoking this conflict for years. How do we know this? Because they published a manual on doing so and spent billions ensuring its success. The RAND report on “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia” sets out the strategy play by play. Read it for yourself and then tell me Russia was “unprovoked”.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
“Putin was the aggressor”
No, the US/NATO and its proxy fascists in Kiev were the aggressors. They’d been slaughtering Russian speaking Ukrainians in Donbass for years knowing full well this would provoke the Kremlin into coming to their aid. Scott Ritter has written a cogent argument that Moscow acted legally when it launched its SMO.
“Ukraine the victim of that aggression.”
They are, of US/NATO/Kiev fascist aggression.
“Further to my earlier comment on Putin’s tentative hold on power
Former Putin aide: Coup a ‘real possibility’”
All-in’s speculation is so divorced from reality you may as well be asking if the empress of the moon people prefers hard or soft boiled eggs. Here’s another prediction for you: there will be no coup against Putin.
“Any Marxist will tell you – from the surplus labour of the worker as per the Labour Theory of Value.”
No shit Sherlock, but that surplus wealth is at the disposal of the community as a whole when an enterprise is nationalised.
“So you seek the same wealth distribution as in Vietnam as positive.”
No, I was merely pointing out that socialism and a state are not incomoatible.
“Vietnam had 458 people with a net worth of above $30 million in 2019. The number of ultra-high net worth (UHNWI) individuals in Vietnam is projected to hit 753 by 2024. Vietnam had five billionaires by the end of 2019, with the figure expected to rise to six in 2024.”
Irrelevant to my point.
“How do those rich people acquire their wealth?”
Again any Marxist will tell you. From the theft of labour of the workers according to the Labour Theory of Value.”
Newsflash! Water still wet, fire still hot.
“The Somalis actually have more than one state.
Or do you refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the breakaway republics Somaliland and Puntland?”
Somalia is in the grip of warlordism. This is not controversial. And what of the Palestinians? Crickets.
“I note no mention of the Kurds in Syria and their movement to create an independent state from Syria.”
Rubbish. I’ve spoken of the Kurds who are from Turkey not Syria and are a terrorist movement supported by your mates in the CIA.
“Just as you rightly criticise the Ukrainian government of discriminating against Russian-speakers, Syria forbids the use of the Kurdish language.”
Rubbish. The Kurdish terrorists are CIA contras. I’ve previously linked to an article on this very thread explaining as much.
“Would you care to name these non-capitalist states?”
The USSR, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, China, etc.
“Half the shareholdings are not owned by the Russian government but by individuals and foreign corporations.”
I was bringing up the fact in regards Russia not being imperialist. Do keep up.
“I also take it you understand the nature of buying government bonds. The income derived by the government from Gazprom partly goes to repaying the Russian bond buyers and the interest due to them.”
And the relevance of that to Russia not being imperialist is?
“The ordinary Russian citizen does not benefit directly from the state ownership of Gazprom as you presume.”
And how else is healthcare, education, pensions, infrastructure, etc subsidised and paid for?
You have to despair at the sheer inanity of this feeble attempt to justify the continuation of capitalism and its core institution, the nation-state. Having agreed with the principle that “The working men have no country” TS continues: ” as long as nation-states exist the only means of protecting oneself from the predations of other states is to have one of your own”. Who is the “your” in your sentence TS???
“It cannot be the workers you have in mind if you seriously agree with the socialist claim that “workers have no country”.”
In case you hadn’t noticed I don’t seriously agree with the claim. Nation states are a necessary evil. The Palestinians have no nation state and look at them. Torn asunder by the wolves. Ask the Somalis what it’s like having no state. Socialists can and do have states. Where you got the idea that states must be capitalist I’ve no idea. But then again nothing you say makes much sense. Your thinking is as convoluted and confused as all the other blockheads in your little gaggle of a “party”.
“It is not us you are addressing but one group of capitalists vis a vis another.”
Lol. I don’t think any members of the capitalist class are dropping in on this thread.
“And that has been clear as daylight all along. You support one capitalist regime vis a vis another”
I support the right to self defence against imperialist aggression. Something beyond the ken of a coward of your ilk.
“and therefore the indefinite continuation of capitalism itself.”
Lol, that’s quite the leap of logic you’ve made there. Hate to rain on your parade but supporting the right of self defence has no bearing whatsoever on capitalism.
“The very (il)logic of your own argument commits you to indefinitely resisting socialism as an alternative to capitalism”
Erm, no. That you’ve got that covered with your endless, yawn inducing tirades against actually existing socialists and socialism.
“since according to you “As long as nation states exist” you will continue to need to support the nation-state and hence capitalism”
I never said that last part so no, not according to me. That would be according to you. So give credit where it’s due.
“In other words a self-fulfilling prophecy!”
You mean in your words.
“Instead of sneering at what you characterise as the “infantilism” of the socialist position”
The infantilism of your interpretation of the socialist position. Plenty of socialists believe in the state.
“it is in fact the ONLY mature and logical way out of the impasse of endless capitalist warmongering that your position commits you to”
Whatevs. Lol
“And why should any worker care?”
Ask a Syrian worker whether they’re better off under their present government or one of extremist headchoppers. Some forms of government are very much worse than others.
““The working men have no country. We cannot take away from them what they have not got.” The Communist Manifesto”
In principle all well and good. In reality, until the whole world is communist, a bunch of bollocks.
“It is Russia and Ukraine and all other nation-states around the world that we should seek to eliminate.”
Yes, but until then we’re stuck with them and some are very much worse than others.
“Our case is that it should not simply be the Russian worker to wish defeat upon its government but that workers everywhere should aspire for the same.”
And that is why you are an infantile ideologue. As long as nation states exist the only means of protecting oneself from the predations of other states is to have one of your own. Without it you’re a babe in the woods moments away from being torn to shreds by the wolves.
““The existence of the state and the existence of slavery are inseparable” – Marx”
And yet Marx accepted that a state was necessary til it withered away. You’re being very selective with your quotations.
“Do you oppose another Russian Revolution that deposes the Russian oligarchy from power and ownership?”
NATOstan can go first.
“A defeat for Russia could possibly facilitate and lead to such a social revolution.”
No, it would mean the immiseration of the Russian people on such a scale that the 90s would look like a picnic. But Russia won’t lose so the point is moot.
“A defeat for Ukraine merely brings occupation and the imposition of a puppet regime.”
That is what Ukraine is now. A puppet of NATOstan. The Minsk agreement allowed for Ukrainian neutrality. Remind me, who scuppered the deal?
“Does TS also accept Lenin’s idea of revolutionary defeatism in that working people cannot win in a capitalist war and should advocate a class war instead to bring about one’s “own” nation’s defeat?”
This is not a war of competing capitalisms. For the US/NATOstan it is an imperialist war for markets and resources but for Russia it is an existential war of defense against said imperialist aggression. The very existence of the entity known as Russia is at stake.
