View Full Version : Reason to Support the KKE
The Vegan Marxist
2nd June 2010, 07:21
Their mass organization & workers solidarity within Greece!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sca4817YHmU&feature=player_embedded
Delenda Carthago
12th June 2010, 11:06
No.
lol
BeerShaman
12th June 2010, 11:58
:DNone! Hah! Troll!
Palingenisis
12th June 2010, 13:57
What about their class colaborationism, their national chauvanism and condemnation of the December uprising?
What about their class colaborationism, their national chauvanism and condemnation of the December uprising?
It is all bullshit, spread by the enemies of the working class. There is no "class colaborationism" nor "national chauvinism" nor "condemnation of December uprising" (in this last one unless you really believe that crowds of an angry youth can take over the country, but in this case I recommend the visit to a doctor.) in KKE.
Palingenisis
12th June 2010, 14:57
It is all bullshit, spread by the enemies of the working class. There is no "class colaborationism" nor "national chauvinism" nor "condemnation of December uprising" (in this last one unless you really believe that crowds of an angry youth can take over the country, but in this case I recommend the visit to a doctor.) in KKE.
Well their talk of the "People" as opposed to the working class tells a different story as regards class collaborationism.
If you were Macodenian you might disagree about there being no national chauvanism in the KKE.
And no I dont believe that "crowds of angry youth" can take over a country...Neither do I believe in literally letting the cops get away with murder or branding the "angry youth" as foreign agents or whatever the KKE did.
Well their talk of the "People" as opposed to the working class tells a different story as regards class collaborationism.
It is nonsense. Alliance between working class, poor and middle farmers other popular strata (eg. youth, professionals) lead by the working class, is not only a well established and successful Leninist strategy, but the only way of building a force capable of defeating the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. By rejecting this you fall into anti-leninist sectarianism.
If you were Macodenian you might disagree about there being no national chauvanism in the KKE.
So far nobody was able to find any single argument confirming the "nationalist" stance of KKE.
And no I dont believe that "crowds of angry youth" can take over a country...Neither do I believe in literally letting the cops get away with murder or branding the "angry youth" as foreign agents or whatever the KKE did.
As far as I know KKE condemned the killing and organized series of protests (eg. here http://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/speech-aleka/). By the way - this is a some lack of consequence. First you condemn that KKE looks for allies in other exploited classes (eg. fishermen, farmers etc.) and then you refer to the protests that were not the working class based but - lead by youth! Think about that, it doesn't make sense!
Palingenisis
12th June 2010, 16:22
As far as I know KKE condemned the killing and organized series of protests (eg. here http://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/speech-aleka/). By the way - this is a some lack of consequence. First you condemn that KKE looks for allies in other exploited classes (eg. fishermen, farmers etc.) and then you refer to the protests that were not the working class based but - lead by youth! Think about that, it doesn't make sense!
Youth is not a social class but an age group...There are working class youths aswell as middle class youths. And what was called for was exactly what the working class of youth did not some pointless legal mopery.
this is an invasion
12th June 2010, 18:15
It is nonsense. Alliance between working class, poor and middle farmers other popular strata (eg. youth, professionals) lead by the working class, is not only a well established and successful Leninist strategy, but the only way of building a force capable of defeating the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. By rejecting this you fall into anti-leninist sectarianism.
So far nobody was able to find any single argument confirming the "nationalist" stance of KKE.
As far as I know KKE condemned the killing and organized series of protests (eg. here http://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/speech-aleka/). By the way - this is a some lack of consequence. First you condemn that KKE looks for allies in other exploited classes (eg. fishermen, farmers etc.) and then you refer to the protests that were not the working class based but - lead by youth! Think about that, it doesn't make sense!
I sure hope this doesn't represent the KKE's class analysis...
Youth is not a social class but an age group...There are working class youths aswell as middle class youths. And what was called for was exactly what the working class of youth did not some pointless legal mopery.
I've never said that "youth is a social class", but stated even the opposite. (post no.8) It is you who is making mistake when talking about "middle class" that is not actually a class in terms of the social science. Anyway...
What is more important here - what selection mechanisms did you actually applied during "december uprising" to distinguish between the working class youth and "middle class" youth in order to avoid "class collaboration-ism"?
I sure hope this doesn't represent the KKE's class analysis...
It is Lenin's.
Black Sheep
12th June 2010, 19:33
So far nobody was able to find any single argument confirming the "nationalist" stance of KKE.I do not know if i would call it nationalist.
KKE speaks openly of patriotism, condemning the bourgeoisie's "fake" profit-related and class-collaboration promoting 'patriotism', and counter proposing a.... different one, without analyzing it so much as far as i know, but simply portraying it as love for one's country.The place,the people, the earth of it.
Liana Kanneli a (devout patriot,and very much of a theist) parliamentarian of KKE has stated 'you are making a mistake if you think that marxism cannot be patriotic'
In my opinion what KKE's doing on that matter is pretty nasty... Instead of bashing ALL kinds of patriotism to the head, in order to destroy any hint,any possibility of class collaboration mentalities (ie, we must all unify and work together to save our country in this time of crisis) and promote ONLY the class identity of the workers and the capitalists, and the conflict between them, it mantains a mild but present patriotic rhetoric which firstly reaches a greater portion of the population, but for 'patriotic reasons', and secondy it makes its program appears "less radical", and "less utopian" for the apolitical.
But most importantly, the patriotic rhetoric, is the 'secret ingredient' with which socialism in one country mentality can follow up pretty smoothly.
Personally i think it is uneeded,and it's making more harm than good.I mean, ffs, rallies of KKE have ended up singing the NATIONAL ANTHEM, and it is a common practice to wave greek flags in rallies and marches,which made me fucking RAGE.
FFS.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nQNqi4BJUMk/SiecBYvnPhI/AAAAAAAAArE/foWDpyJYVeM/s400/getImage.jpghttp://s.enet.gr/resources/2009-09/7-25-thumb-large.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__22I37f1qq8/SBrwAWv7XbI/AAAAAAAAATY/twgd2DpmXr0/s320/kke_rallie.jpg
Proletarians have no fucking country! :mad:
Well, I see nothing wrong in proletarian patriotism, understood as the love for the people and the country. It is rather a positive term and this sort of rhetorics is useful in the struggle against imperialism. I don't think that anyone from KKE could state that "we must all unify and work together to save our country in this time of crisis". It is not a marxist-leninist statement. And about impossibility of "socialism in one country" - for me it is just a troskyist grumble, that only causes harm. If not socialism in one country - what then? Socialism in the all countries in the same time or nothing? This cannot be serious. We say that there is no other option and socialism has to win in one country first, before spreading to the all countries and building a World Soviet Republic. There is no other way, unless you believe that socialism will win in the all countries in the same time that is simply not feasible, due to a different level of development.
Idiocy gets you far.
Liana Kanneli a (almost nationalist, and very much of a theist) parliamentarian of KKE has stated 'you are making a mistake if you think that marxism cannot be patriotic'
Seriously, there is a christian working with the party?! Alert the presses, this is an abomination! Not to mention this is an "almost nationalist" that sings the Internationale with a raised fist. But unless she burns some flags or a church some people won't be impressed, will they?
In my opinion what KKE's doing on that matter is pretty nasty... Instead of bashing ALL kinds of patriotism to the head, in order to destroy any hint,any possibility of class collaboration mentalities (ie, we must all unify and work together to save our country in this time of crisis) and promote ONLY the class identity of the workers and the capitalists, and the conflict between them, it mantains a mild but present patriotic rhetoric which firstly reaches a greater portion of the population, but for 'patriotic reasons', and secondy it makes its program appears "less radical", and "less utopian" for the apolitical.
But most importantly, the patriotic rhetoric, is the 'secret ingredient' with which socialism in one country mentality can follow up pretty smoothly.
The Socialist Fatherland is in Danger!
http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/feb/21b.htm
Decree of the Council of People’s Commissars
February 21, 1918
Petrograd
If you've seen any talk about (even the slightest hint will very much do) "uniting all people to make it through the crisis" oh please, alert me, for I must be living in a different country.
If you can't understand what's the marxist position on bourgeois nationalism, you can try reading more or you can try to stop acting like you do. Either one is fine.
Oh, and the "socialism in one country mentality" is simply the mentality according to which if we make a revolution, we won't sit around watching the lovely capitalists exploit us until the rest of the world decides to join.
If you'd rather do that (which wouldn't surprise me at all, tons of anarchists shared this opinion), of course you shouldn't be supporting the communist party.
which made me fucking RAGE
Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Bash_the_Fash
13th June 2010, 00:52
There is no reason to support such a party.I'm a greek communist but still I believe that supporting KKE will just lead to nowhere!Their ideas are "oldfashioned" on some subjects, they even support ideas dating from the day of their foundation as a political party!
There is no reason to support such a party.I'm a greek communist but still I believe that supporting KKE will just lead to nowhere!Their ideas are "oldfashioned" on some subjects, they even support ideas dating from the day of their foundation as a political party!
A greek communist organized in/suporting what if I may ask?
Palingenisis
13th June 2010, 01:02
A greek communist organized in/suporting what if I may ask?
Maybe her/his class?
Maybe her/his class?
Is the class any sort of organization?
this is an invasion
13th June 2010, 01:28
It is Lenin's.
Well there's your problem.
Palingenisis
13th June 2010, 01:36
Is the class any sort of organization?
You start out with your estate and work place and organize around immediate issues effecting them...The question of power grows out of these struggles as does geniune organizations that can pose that pose that question...Good luck to the KKE with its attitude towards a large section of militant working class youth and their sympathizers.
You start out with your estate and work place and organize around immediate issues effecting them...The question of power grows out of these struggles as does geniune organizations that can pose that pose that question...Good luck to the KKE with its attitude towards a large section of militant working class youth and their sympathizers.
Well, if you think that those spontaneously organized mini-groups are able not only to defeat capitalism but also to defend against external and internal counterrevolution, to start building the socialist/communist society and to perform successful administration of the scarce resources without any sort of the political organization - It is me who wishes a good luck to you.
I would rather stick to the method that actually works, rather than from the utopian positions criticize genuine militant communist organizations.
Palingenisis
13th June 2010, 01:56
Well, if you think that those spontaneously organized mini-groups are able not only to defeat capitalism but also to defend against external and internal counterrevolution, to start building the socialist/communist society and to perform successful administration of the scarce resources without any sort of the political organization - It is me who wishes a good luck to you.
I would rather stick to the method that actually works, rather than from the utopian positions criticize genuine militant communist organizations.
Of course political organization is necessary but political organization along the lines of the Naxalites in India or the PCP in Peru which actually came near to capturing power...Do you honestly believe that the KKE is prepared for or seeking out and out civil war?
The KKE are a long way from Lenin, Stalin and Mao...I will stick with them.
Generally speaking, I rather think that every country has its own political force capable of fighting with capitalism, with different political histories, internal and external situations. Each of them has also targeted by its enemies, especially by reinforcing its peripheries; opportunist wings. Strictly speaking - its left (ultra-left) and right (revisionist, socialdemocratic). Both of them eventually lead to the alliance with the bourgeoisie. Therefore it is important by looking in terms of the struggle with that 2 deviations, and in my opinion KKE is doing very well on that field. This is the reason to support KKE.
Palingenisis
13th June 2010, 02:20
Generally speaking, I rather think that every country has its own political force capable of fighting with capitalism, with different political histories, internal and external situations. Each of them has also targeted by its enemies, especially by reinforcing its opportunist wings. Strictly speaking - its left (ultra-left) and right (revisionist, socialdemocratic). Both of them eventually lead to the alliance with the bourgeoisie. Therefore it is important by looking in terms of the struggle with that 2 deviations, and in my opinion KKE is doing very well on that field. This is the reason to support KKE.
Would you consider Trotskyism ultra-left? I wouldnt...Trots where I come from condemn rioting and urban guerrilla tactics out of hand. Marxist-Leninists are considerably to the "left" of Trots here (we know that rioting and firing a gun is often appropriate). The way they reacted to the December rebellion makes them class traitors to me.
Would you consider Trotskyism ultra-left? I wouldnt...Trots where I come from condemn rioting and urban guerrilla tactics out of hand. Marxist-Leninists are considerably to the "left" of Trots here
There is a seed of truth, most of Trots don't go beyond socialdemocratic ideology, but their critics of the XX century socialism is often from the ultraleft positions, so I think it is valid to say that they join both.
The way they reacted to the December rebellion makes them class traitors to me.
I rather think that young people now more need a proper education (also marxist) than the riot. But of course, all actions of this kind from the bourgeoisie state should be condemned, and this is beyond any doubt. But I don't think that escalation of nonsense violence would bring any good to the cause of the revolution and classless society.
Sir Comradical
13th June 2010, 03:17
There is no reason to support such a party.I'm a greek communist but still I believe that supporting KKE will just lead to nowhere!Their ideas are "oldfashioned" on some subjects, they even support ideas dating from the day of their foundation as a political party!
What is your opinion regarding Aris Velouchiotis?
Black Sheep
13th June 2010, 05:44
Seriously, there is a christian working with the party?! Alert the presses, this is an abomination! Not to mention this is an "almost nationalist" that sings the Internationale with a raised fist. I am sorry, i tend to consider communsits as logical people, with their logic and critical thinking applied to all aspects of their lives.
But you're right,the 'almost nationalist' comment was too far off.
I liked Kanelli super much in my young naive days, but as i read and watched more of her, she started to piss me off.Ignore my 'grudge'.
Edited original post.
But unless she burns some flags or a church some people won't be impressed, will they? No,you straw man making factory.But i will certainly not be impressed if she waves the greek flag in KNE's festival, or when she sings the national anthem in nazi resistance monuments.
Stop bashing what you think anarchism is / anarchists do.It is not equal to defending KKE.
If you've seen any talk about (even the slightest hint will very much do) "uniting all people to make it through the crisis" oh please, alert me, for I must be living in a different country. I didn't say KKE's propaganda promotes this, i meant that patriotism does.It unites all citizens of a country towards a common cause, which now is the salvation of the capitalists' asses.
If you can't understand what's the marxist position on bourgeois nationalism, you can try reading more or you can try to stop acting like you do. Either one is fine.Ad hominem much?
Hmm, i think i do though.Care to link me to a (short) article about it?
Oh, and the "socialism in one country mentality" is simply the mentality according to which if we make a revolution, we won't sit around watching the lovely capitalists exploit us until the rest of the world decides to join.
If you'd rather do that (which wouldn't surprise me at all, tons of anarchists shared this opinion), of course you shouldn't be supporting the communist party.Nope, that is what stalinists think trotskyist think.FFS.
And nope, i'd not rather do that,it's not shared by 'tons of anarchists.
Battalion of straw men.
i tend to consider communsits as logical people, with their logic and critical thinking applied to all aspects of their lives
The people here are 80% christian not because they're all crazy, but because that's what they've been taught. It's crazy to think communists won't ever work with anyone who's a christian.
No,you straw man making factory.But i will certainly not be impressed if she waves the greek flag in KNE's festival, or when she sings the national anthem in nazi resistance monuments.
Stop bashing what you think anarchism is / anarchists do.It is not equal to defending KKE.
Why would she want to impress you?
didn't say KKE's propaganda promotes this, i meant that patriotism does.It unites all citizens of a country towards a common cause, which now is the salvation of the capitalists' asses.
Bourgeois nationalism does this. And since you accept that in no way is the CP proposing we save the capitalists' asses, then in no way is it promoting bourgeois nationalism.
Once workers do liberate a country of course they will be "patriotic". Like the soviets decreed in 1918 or like it happened in WW2.
Hmm, i think i do though
Not of you think all patriotism does is promote the interests of the capitalists. Even in a society that will have none.
Nope, that is what stalinists think trotskyist think.FFS.
And nope, i'd not rather do that,it's not shared by 'tons of anarchists.
Battalion of straw men.
And aren't stalinists right on what trotskyists think? If they aren't, then why was Trotsky calling for peace with the "peasant's" egoism, for the reversal of the five-year plan, for the slowing down of growth. Why was he -quite eagerly- anticipating the soviet economy to crash?
If anarchists agree that socialism in one coyntry is a bad thing, then of course they share that opinion. It's not like you're given many choises.
A) You take the capitalists' property
B) You let them have it waiting for other countries to rebel.
If you chose A you're a communist, if not you're a reactionary. Simple as that.
Black Sheep
14th June 2010, 12:11
The people here are 80% christian not because they're all crazy, but because that's what they've been taught. It's crazy to think communists won't ever work with anyone who's a christian.
:bored: I didn't say they shouldn't dude.Although you can be taught to be sexist,racist and a petty bourgeoisie romantic, and that will be reason enough not to work with the CP.
ANyway, it was only a personal judgement let's drop it.
Why would she want to impress you?
:bored: Huh?
Personal judgement.
Man revleft fucks up the context. :lol:
Bourgeois nationalism does this.And since you accept that in no way is the CP proposing we save the capitalists' asses, then in no way is it promoting bourgeois nationalism.
Once workers do liberate a country of course they will be "patriotic". Like the soviets decreed in 1918 or like it happened in WW2.
The thing is that the term is used with an alternated meaning to be used as a 'common sense' factor in a group of people's emotional stance.When dealing with class struggle, it is foreign.It can be shoved in, but it really has no place there at all.
Patriotism has a historical reactionary colour.The CP's tactic is to embody and integrate it to serve the communist goal,which i think is dangerous and misleading.
The whole thing becomes wordplay after a certain point.
I wont follow on the Soviets example, it will derail everything.
Not of you think all patriotism does is promote the interests of the capitalists. Even in a society that will have none.
Not exactly, i think that patriotism is an idealistic notion, and as such i reject it immediately.
When i want to convince the workers to do what i want them to do, i will support my thesis with hard facts instead of some sentimental fetishist cultrure & land worship.
The 2nd period of your quote requires a definition of patriotism from your part.
And aren't stalinists right on what trotskyists think? If they aren't, then why was Trotsky calling for peace with the "peasant's" egoism, for the reversal of the five-year plan, for the slowing down of growth. Why was he -quite eagerly- anticipating the soviet economy to crash?
Hmm , ad hominem on trotsky?
Really? Then why does Trotsky criticises the early Kulak-friendly policies of the CPSU, why did the Left Opposition propose the 5 year plan itself (which was then rejected as ultra-leftism) and for the planning of the economy instead of wait-and-see opportunism of the current central committee?
If anarchists agree that socialism in one coyntry is a bad thing, then of course they share that opinion.
When i (and Trots) say 'socialism in one country' , they do not mean:
1)There's a country
2)It has socialism
3) 1,2 --> BAD
They mean specifically the stalinist socialism in one country "theory",thesies and practices.Either you consider Trots to be complete idiots, either you willingly oversimplify and misquote their criticisms.
It's not like you're given many choises.
A) You take the capitalists' property
B) You let them have it waiting for other countries to rebel.
If you chose A you're a communist, if not you're a reactionary. Simple as that.
Nobody chooses B.If you think that is what Trots propose, then simply stop listening to the vanguard's guidance and criticism and let Trots explain their position.
Ravachol
14th June 2010, 12:41
Not of you think all patriotism does is promote the interests of the capitalists. Even in a society that will have none.
Whilst I'm supportive of 'National Liberation' in some contexts, Patriotism has nothing to do with Communism whatsoever. Patriotism is the defense and love of one's nation. The nation is in itself a reactionary social construct that seeks to unified opposed class interests, there is nothing to defend in that. Even "love of one's country" can be dangerous in "socialism in one country" situation since we ought to have a "love of one's class". Patriotism amongst various 'countries', even if they have hypothetically eliminated the Bourgoisie, will lead to divisionary thinking between them and animosity. It only reproduces national thought and eventually the nation.
Obviously taking pride in one's attempt working towards Communism is different as here there is "love of one's class" and not of one's geographical region or, worse, 'nation'.
Palingenisis
14th June 2010, 13:16
Whilst I'm supportive of 'National Liberation' in some contexts, Patriotism has nothing to do with Communism whatsoever. Patriotism is the defense and love of one's nation. The nation is in itself a reactionary social construct that seeks to unified opposed class interests, there is nothing to defend in that. Even "love of one's country" can be dangerous in "socialism in one country" situation since we ought to have a "love of one's class". Patriotism amongst various 'countries', even if they have hypothetically eliminated the Bourgoisie, will lead to divisionary thinking between them and animosity. It only reproduces national thought and eventually the nation.
Obviously taking pride in one's attempt working towards Communism is different as here there is "love of one's class" and not of one's geographical region or, worse, 'nation'.
This is a tricky subject but there is definitely a line between patriotism (which is often something unconcious) and national chauvanism...The KKE's line on Macedonia is chauvanist...They also pander to the section of the capitalist class in Greece that is against western europe in general.
Are you actually based on the Falls? I thought the Anarcho-Syndicialist group was so against national liberation that they regard the Platformist group based in Dublin and Cork as being capitalist because they arent out and out Republican?
Ravachol
14th June 2010, 13:38
Are you actually based on the Falls? I thought the Anarcho-Syndicialist group was so against national liberation that they regard the Platformist group based in Dublin and Cork as being capitalist because they arent out and out Republican?
Hehe no I'm from the Netherlands but the location is more or less because of a closet sympathy for Irish Republican Socialism ;)
And I suspect you are referring to the WSM (http://www.wsm.ie/) which is criticised by some Anarcho-Syndicalists for pandering to much to republicanism. Whilst I slightly disapprove of their over-usage of references to the 'Irish' as if it were a homogenous entity I do not share the outright animosity towards repubican socialism (or a lot of other segments of the radical left) that some Anarcho-Syndicalists do.
Palingenisis
14th June 2010, 13:49
And I suspect you are referring to the WSM (http://www.wsm.ie/) which is criticised by some Anarcho-Syndicalists for pandering to much to republicanism. Whilst I slightly disapprove of their over-usage of references to the 'Irish' as if it were a homogenous entity I do not share the outright animosity towards repubican socialism (or a lot of other segments of the radical left) that some Anarcho-Syndicalists do.
Yeah I was refering to the WSM. I think what you complain about comes more from the want of a better word "populist" approach though rather than from nationalism as such (it goes hand in hand with references to "Greedy bankers and the super rich", that kind of thing). There is a qualitive difference though between them and the KKE.
The thing is that the term is used with an alternated meaning to be used as a 'common sense' factor in a group of people's emotional stance.When dealing with class struggle, it is foreign.It can be shoved in, but it really has no place there at all.
Patriotism has a historical reactionary colour.The CP's tactic is to embody and integrate it to serve the communist goal,which i think is dangerous and misleading.
The whole thing becomes wordplay after a certain point.
I wont follow on the Soviets example, it will derail everything.
Why won't you follow on the Soviet's example? It was a multi-national, multi-religion federation of people belonging to different races, rallying everyone to protect their "socialist fatherland". Not simply when Stalin and his reactionary SIOC had taken a hold, but in early 1918 as well.
It won't derail anything, it will just prove that your point "Patriotism has a historical reactionary colour" is wrong. When capitalists ask you to defend their country, that's when it is reactionary.
Not exactly, i think that patriotism is an idealistic notion, and as such i reject it immediately.
When i want to convince the workers to do what i want them to do, i will support my thesis with hard facts instead of some sentimental fetishist cultrure & land worship.
The 2nd period of your quote requires a definition of patriotism from your part.
Solidarity is also an idealistic notion. Internationalism as well. You never use those either? All you do is present "hard facts" when you talk to peopl?
Ideas are part of the superstructure, born mainly from the society's base, the economy, but also interacting with it. Solidarity, internationalism, protection of the liberated proletarian country are all ideals stemming from the socialist mode of production, where you have no conflicting interests, where production is large-scale, encompassing all the world to make beter use of the productive forces and where workers will be called to keep their country safe from imperialism, until it no longer exists.
The struggle is at all times an economic struglle, an ideological struggle and a political struggle. Limiting yourself to "hard facts" and to the "things that really matter" is economism, vulgar marxism. Now you might be ok with that, but of course a marxist-leninist party demands more from itself.
Hmm , ad hominem on trotsky?
Really? Then why does Trotsky criticises the early Kulak-friendly policies of the CPSU, why did the Left Opposition propose the 5 year plan itself (which was then rejected as ultra-leftism) and for the planning of the economy instead of wait-and-see opportunism of the current central committee?
When i (and Trots) say 'socialism in one country' , they do not mean:
1)There's a country
2)It has socialism
3) 1,2 --> BAD
They mean specifically the stalinist socialism in one country "theory",thesies and practices.Either you consider Trots to be complete idiots, either you willingly oversimplify and misquote their criticisms
Nobody chooses B.If you think that is what Trots propose, then simply stop listening to the vanguard's guidance and criticism and let Trots explain their position.
The other thing I could do is read Trotsky myself (shocking, I know) and see what I'm getting of it. What I am getting is what I've said. If you do read (you don't seem like you have, no offence) and end up with a differing opinion, I'd love to hear it.
10. Is it true that the Opposition denies the possibility of building socialism in our country?
Answer: This accusation is false and it is based upon an erroneous formulation of the question itself. Decades are required to build socialism solely with our own forces in our backward country. To presuppose that in the course of such a long period of time capitalism will be maintained and will continue to develop in other countries while we are in the meantime building socialism is to deny the ties of world economy and of world politics and to fall into crude national narrow-mindedness. The building of socialism in our country is an integral part of the world proletarian revolution. The success of socialist construction in our country is inseparable from the success of the revolutionary movement in the entire world. The Opposition is profoundly convinced of the victory of socialism in our country not because our country can be torn free of world economy and world revolution but because the victory of the proletarian revolution is guaranteed the world over.
The shift from the proletarian line inevitably leads to national narrow-mindedness, to an underestimation of our dependence on world economy and the crude embellishment of the NEP.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1927/xx/opposition.htm
These were said in 1927. 10 years later capitalists did not exist in the Soviet Union. If anything, there was an overestimation of their dependence on world economy.
But instead of congratulating the USSR on its expanding economy, on the liquidation of the capitalists, on growing when every other capitalist country was sinking (the same countries the USSR had to depend on according to him) he proclaimed the revolution "betrayed".
Well, at that point I see no reason to doubt he was an enemy of the revolution.
Wanted Man
14th June 2010, 16:15
The KKE's line on Macedonia is chauvanist...
What is their line on Macedonia?
Palingenisis
14th June 2010, 19:46
What is their line on Macedonia?
Thats its "Greece"....There is nasty current of national chauvanism in Russia, Serbia, Greece, etc that has nothing to do with proletarian patriotism.
Thats its "Greece"....There is nasty current of national chauvanism in Russia, Serbia, Greece, etc that has nothing to do with proletarian patriotism.
Back that up or edit your post.
Actually, since there is no way you can back up that stupid claim just edit your post.
And, lastly, please keep your opinions for yourself when they're based on ignorance. Thank you.
Wanted Man
14th June 2010, 20:40
Thats its "Greece"....There is nasty current of national chauvanism in Russia, Serbia, Greece, etc that has nothing to do with proletarian patriotism.
Ah, right. I also heard that your line on Macedonia is that all of its inhabitants should be rounded up and shot in the back of the head.
In other words: [citation needed]
Palingenisis
14th June 2010, 21:21
Ah, right. I also heard that your line on Macedonia is that all of its inhabitants should be rounded up and shot in the back of the head.
In other words: [citation needed]
Im sure they will back that up themselves here.
Wanted Man
14th June 2010, 21:38
Translation: you can't back it up and you're full of shit.
Serious politics doesn't seem to be your cup of tea; I would recommend going back to trying to start a Celtic people's war or whatever.
Homo Songun
15th June 2010, 05:33
The nation is in itself a reactionary social construct
No; its a bourgeois construct. Whether or not it is reactionary depends on the circumstances.
chegitz guevara
15th June 2010, 17:18
I sure hope this doesn't represent the KKE's class analysis...
It is Lenin's.
Nope. Lenin always talked about the workers, never the people.
Homo Songun
15th June 2010, 23:34
This is a terminology issue, not an ideology issue. "The People" is just shorthand in Marxist-Leninist circles for the consituent components of the anti-Monopoly Capitalist coalition, e.g. farmers, workers, the petit-bourgeoisie, etc. Built in to the definition is the understanding that the coalition is led by the working class, since they have nothing to lose but their chains. So in that sense, it is a Leninist concept, even if it is true that he never used the term. However, I think he did use it on certain occasions. Stalin used it, but it is mainly associated with Mao in my mind.
Nope. Lenin always talked about the workers, never the people.
Really? This is what Lenin actually said:
The first questions to arise are: how is the discipline of the proletariat’s revolutionary party maintained? How is it tested? How is it reinforced? First, by the class-consciousness of the proletarian vanguard and by its devotion to the revolution, by its tenacity, self-sacrifice and heroism. Second, by its ability to link up, maintain the closest contact, and—if you wish—merge, in certain measure, with the broadest masses of the working people—primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian masses of working people.
The art of politics (and the Communist’s correct understanding of his tasks) consists in correctly gauging the conditions and the moment when the vanguard of the proletariat can successfully assume power, when it is able—during and after the seizure of power—to win adequate support from sufficiently broad strata of the working class and of the non-proletarian working masses, and when it is able thereafter to maintain, consolidate and extend its rule by educating, training and attracting ever broader masses of the working people.
from: Left-wing communism - infantile disorder.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch06.htm
Black Sheep
16th June 2010, 10:45
Why won't you follow on the Soviet's example? It was a multi-national, multi-religion federation of people belonging to different races, rallying everyone to protect their "socialist fatherland". Not simply when Stalin and his reactionary SIOC had taken a hold, but in early 1918 as well.
It won't derail anything, it will just prove that your point "Patriotism has a historical reactionary colour" is wrong. When capitalists ask you to defend their country, that's when it is reactionary.
Because it will derail into a 'was USSR socialist' discussion,for which i am so not in the mood.
In general,not even the USSR, patriotism is irrelevant and abstract.
Defence of a 'socialist construct',as i said before it can be molded with different words,with which i wouldn't have any problem.
The workers in a socialist state/community,when facing an invasion, IMO, would fight for their socialist privileges and gains they have conquered with their struggle.
To use 'love for the socialist fatherland' is misleading and it just doesn't have to be.
Which is why i mentioned before that the use of the words 'patriotism' etc is uneeded,and potentially damaging to shaping a class consciousness.
Solidarity is also an idealistic notion. Internationalism as well. You never use those either? All you[...]party demands more from itself.
Interesting point,i will ponder on that.
However idealistic notions have a different 'amount' of relation to reality,and i guess each is considered and evaluated by that basis
So it still comes down to the objective usefulness of the 'patriotism' idea.
Was the 'protection of the liberated proletarian country' definition of patriotism i requested? :blink: Gotta be kidding.
These were said in 1927. 10 years later capitalists did not exist in the Soviet Union. If anything, there was an overestimation of their dependence on world economy.
But 10 years later, workers' democracy also did not exist.
I am reading Revolution Betrayed right now.
But instead of congratulating the USSR on its expanding economy
He does, on numerous occassions.
on the liquidation of the capitalists
He does, but critiquing a sloppy and 'wait-and-see' plan to wipe out the Kulaks.
on growing when every other capitalist country was sinking
He does.
the same countries the USSR had to depend on according to him
Not on their economies, on the solidarity of these countries' potential revolutions.
Well, at that point I see no reason to doubt he was an enemy of the revolution.
Fancy big and fat label.
I certainly don't know shit about trotskyism - but the things you say contradict what i am reading for the past 2 weeks.
Major derailage though.
May i ask you questions about KKE? it would certainly serve this thread's purpose well.
chegitz guevara
16th June 2010, 15:36
Really? This is what Lenin actually said:
from: Left-wing communism - infantile disorder.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch06.htm
Either you just proved my point, or you seem to think that the proletariat consists of something besides workers, or you're being even more pedantic claiming that "working people" means people and not workers.
Either you just proved my point, or you seem to think that the proletariat consists of something besides workers, or you're being even more pedantic claiming that "working people" means people and not workers.
"and of the non-proletarian working masses"
Not everyone who works is a proletarian. They can be a farmer who works in the land he owns or some guy with a grocery store or a doctor who accepts patients in his own office etc.
Now, the proletariat is the revolutionary class. These small owners are reactionary when they think of ways to protect their current interests because the solution is found in the past; before malls, private clinics and mechanized agriculture.
However, the weakest among them, those who have nothing else to expect but to be thrown in the same dustbin as the proletarians, can (and should) side with the proletariat.
The revolution in Russia was the result of the strategic alliance between the revolutionary working class and the poor peasantry who chose the workers over the nobility and the bankers.
Lenin spoke of this alliance and stressed its importance a million times, no idea how it comes as a surprise to you.
From the April theses:
The specific feature of the present situation in Russia is that the country is passing from the first stage of the revolution—which, owing to the insufficient class-consciousness and organisation of the proletariat, placed power in the hands of the bourgeoisie—to its second stage, which must place power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants.
I don't know if Lenin never spoke about "people" but as I'm reading the April theses I can see many times the word "masses".
Maybe you want to correct Lenin's class analysis, too?
chegitz guevara
17th June 2010, 16:44
All during the organizing of the RSDLP, and subsequently in the Bolshveik's, Lenin argued that they should organize the workers and leave other classes to other parties, such as the peasantry to the Socialist Revolutionaries, the middle classes to the Cadets, etc.
During the revolutionary periods of 1905 and 1917, yes, Lenin argued for an alliance with other classes, but he was always wary of them and always argued that the worker class should lead.
And, when he spoke of the masses, he almost always spoke of the working masses, not a classless masses in general.
Now, I'm not arguing whether it is right or wrong, simply pointing out that what is being ascribed to Lenin is not what Lenin wrote. Lenin was not a Socialist Revolutionary, nor an anarchist, and yet he worked to build alliances with them under the Bolshevik's leadership, not as equals. From Lenin's experience it is clear he thought that the workers must, unambiguously, be the leaders of the revolution, even when they were in a tiny minority. The reason for the Bolshevik/Communist Party dicatorship was precisely to protect the worker class character of the new state from being swamped by the nearly 80% to 90% peasant majority.
Also, you're being pedantic. When we say workers, we don't mean everyone who does work. Even most capitalists work. I find it incredible I should have to explain that when Marxists use the term worker, they specifically mean proletarians. What I find worse, however, is the tendency of some Marxists to equate proletarian merely with oppression or with ideological adherence to a particular type of Marxism, i.e., you're a proletarian if you can quote from the Little Red Book. By worker, and proletarian, we mean that class which has nothing to sell but it's labor power.
The reason for the Bolshevik/Communist Party dicatorship was precisely to protect the worker class character of the new state from being swamped by the nearly 80% to 90% peasant majority.
There wasn't a "bolshevick dictatorship" but the soviets were organized so that the vote of one urban worker would be equal to the votes of 5 peasants. That was to protect the working class' leading role in the revolution. As I said -and as no Leninist denies- the working class is the revolutionary class. It can form alliances with other elements when they face the danger of joining the proletariat. So a CP will always be the vanguard of the proletariat and will always look to draw non-proletarian elements away from the influence of capitalists and under its own (ofcourse without compromising its working class character).
Also, you're being pedantic. When we say workers, we don't mean everyone who does work. Even most capitalists work. I find it incredible I should have to explain that when Marxists use the term worker, they specifically mean proletarians. What I find worse, however, is the tendency of some Marxists to equate proletarian merely with oppression or with ideological adherence to a particular type of Marxism, i.e., you're a proletarian if you can quote from the Little Red Book. By worker, and proletarian, we mean that class which has nothing to sell but it's labor power.
Excuse me? Yes, pretty much a worker and a proletarian are the same thing. So, when someone speaks of the "non-proletarian working people" who do you think he's talking about? Obviously not workers who only have their labor power to sell. And I doubt he meant capitalists (who by the way don't work, at best they have ceremonial positions or engage in "enterpreneurship" which is work just as much as poker is).
You argued that Lenin spoke only of workers, ie proletarians. No, that's wrong, he clearly spoke of "non-proletarian working people".
If your point is that talking about "people" and not solely "workers" is contrary to leninist strategy, you are wrong.
Mitja
22nd October 2011, 23:00
pshhh! The show is starting shut up and we are going to see what is going to happen with KKE. Who knows maybe their ideas will work and everyone would be more happy or it can be stalin all over again :thumbdown:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.