New Communist Party in Romania!

[BloodRaven]

After 21 years , The Communist Party in Romania has been brought back to life on july 3th 2010. Finally , after the proof that capitalism made living harder and harder as the years past since `89, a new hope has come!

[RED DAVE]

Some fucking hope: a stalinist party.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

Some fucking hope: a stalinist party.

RED DAVE

Please spare us the drama. Can anyone put in any background on this newly emerging group?

[pranabjyoti]

some fucking hope: A stalinist party.

red dave
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. What a relief.

[Nolan]

Some fucking hope: a stalinist party.

RED DAVE

What, just upset that our tendency has outdone yours in yet another country?

[Crux]

What, just upset that our tendency has outdone yours in yet another country?
Not really. I support a reinvention of the romanian communist party, on the bolshevik model. That you want what existed 21 years say quite a lot.

[The Red Next Door]

How we know, there is not any pro nicolae in the party?

[Crux]

How we know, there is not any pro nicolae in the party?
It might well be that the whole party is a neo-nicolae invention. I have no further information then the first post in this thread. That the pressure from below has caused new organizations to form is of course a good sign, but the relevant question is what kind and what role they can play.

[gorillafuck]

What, just upset that our tendency has outdone yours in yet another country?
You do know you're talking about Romania?

[Nolan]

Not really. I support a reinvention of the romanian communist party, on the bolshevik model. That you want what existed 21 years say quite a lot.

I was told it was a "stalinist" party. That is a reinvention on the Leninist model. There was no "stalinist" party 21 years ago, so I don't know what you're talking about.

[Barry Lyndon]

Some fucking hope: a stalinist party.

RED DAVE

How do you know it's a Stalinist party? Here we go again with your piercing analysis- you don't know a damn thing about it and you label the party as 'Stalinist'.

[Crux]

I was told it was a "stalinist" party. That is a reinvention on the Leninist model. There was no "stalinist" party 21 years ago, so I don't know what you're talking about.
We really ought have a thread in learning just for the stalinists to get to know what stalinism actually is. And maybe other issues like oppurtunism, centrism and secterianism. But that's beyond the scope of this thread.

[Nolan]

We really ought have a thread in learning just for the stalinists to get to know what stalinism actually is. And maybe other issues like oppurtunism, centrism and secterianism. But that's beyond the scope of this thread.

I already know what it is: a meaningless term applied to governments the user doesn't like with no regard whatsoever to said states relation to the ideological legacy of Josef Stalin.

[Delenda Carthago]

Good luck.Romania is a tuff situation.

[Crux]

I already know what it is: a meaningless term applied to governments the user doesn't like with no regard whatsoever to said states relation to the ideological legacy of Josef Stalin.
No, you do not.

[Taikand]

Wait, PCR( Partidul Comunist Roman) isn't the same as nPCR?
PS: Don't give me that "diacritics talk".

[Nolan]

No, you do not.

Well it only follows that when you conjure up a fictional movement you must also create an ideology to go with it, so please, inform us what "stalinism" is. To be honest I expect half-assed answers like "lol bureacracy" or "what North Korea has."

The fact that you ignoramuses think the Soviet Union in 1991 was "stalinist" when by then the state had long ago made flogging the Stalin era and everything it stood for a party hobby shows just how meaningless your definition of "stalinism" is.

And Q, don't be a fucking coward. It's funny that you negrep me as a troll for replying to more of the same old "ZOMFG Stalinism!!11" bullshit that passes for a legitimate post in your eyes.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Well it only follows that when you conjure up a fictional movement you must also create an ideology to go with it, so please, inform us what "stalinism" is. To be honest I expect half-assed answers like "lol bureacracy" or "what North Korea has."

The fact that you ignoramuses think the Soviet Union in 1991 was "stalinist" when by then the state had long ago made flogging the Stalin era and everything it stood for a party hobby shows just how meaningless your definition of "stalinism" is.

And Q, don't be a fucking coward. It's funny that you negrep me as a troll for replying to more of the same old "ZOMFG Stalinism!!11" bullshit that passes for a legitimate post in your eyes.

Anything post-1928 and not Trotskyist is Stalinism to most Trots. Khrushchev and Brezhnev, the good Stalinists... :laugh:

[Nolan]

Anything post-1928 and not Trotskyist is Stalinism to most Trots. Khrushchev and Brezhnev, the good Stalinists... :laugh:

Believe it or not I once had a trot tell me Yeltsin and Putin were continuations of "stalinism." But if you think anyone after Stalin was ML, anything is possible I suppose.

[Crux]

Stalinism is a function, just like reformism grew out of the the labour aristocracy in western europe, so did stalinism out of the beuracracy in the soviet union, and later states. yeltsin etc can be called a continuation of this, in so far as they directly sprung out of the old beurucratic caste of the soviet union.

[Ravachol]

Stalinism is a function, just like reformism grew out of the the labour aristocracy in western europe, so did stalinism out of the beuracracy in the soviet union, and later states. yeltsin etc can be called a continuation of this, in so far as they directly sprung out of the old beurucratic caste of the soviet union.

The term 'Stalinism' however is used to refer to two distinct phenomena here, on the one hand the ideological positions of anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism and on the other hand members of the manegerial class of the Soviet Union and their defenders. These are not one and the same, regardless of my positions on 'Stalinism' (or actually, leninism in general), such a distinction has to be made.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I've grown a little more accepting of the term "Stalinism" in recent weeks, however I believe that to reasonable be called a Stalinist one must at the very least be an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist. So Putin, Yeltsin, Ceausescu, Kim Jong-il, the Castros, none are/were Stalinists. Stalin was indeed tough on his opponents, and it's also true that Putin was as well, this is why he is sometimes referred to as a neo-Stalinist, the difference however is that Putin's opponents were the good guys, while Stalin's were capitalists and saboteurs.

[Ravachol]

I've grown a little more accepting of the term "Stalinism" in recent weeks, however I believe that to reasonable be called a Stalinist one must at the very least be an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist. So Putin, Yeltsin, Ceausescu, Kim Jong-il, the Castros, none are/were Stalinists. Stalin was indeed tough on his opponents, and it's also true that Putin was as well, this is why he is sometimes referred to as a neo-Stalinist, the difference however is that Putin's opponents were the good guys, while Stalin's were capitalists and saboteurs.

Is this honestly your position on the complex situation of the Soviet Union under Stalin? :confused: A 'good guys' versus 'bad guys' scenario. Honestly, I know plenty of 'stalinists' and their positions are usually rather nuanced, I can hardly imagine you truly believe what you posted.

[Das war einmal]

...So, when is a link going to be posted?

[Nolan]

...So, when is a link going to be posted?

Couldn't find anything about it on Google. Starting to think the OP made it up.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Couldn't find anything about it on Google. Starting to think the OP made it up.

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=3829034


"The Romanian Communist Party has been reborn after a 20 year absence. On Saturday the leaders of a former socialist party decided to change name, and now aim to get the communist party into the parliament by 2012.

The new Romanian communist party wants education to be free and and will work for state-ownership in key industries.

In a communiqué spokespersons of the party say they aim to put an end to the economic turmoil in the country.

Some question how much influence the party can get, the newsbureau AFP reports."

We can first start discussing how "Stalinist", or indeed communist/socialist a party that aims to get into a bourgeoisie parliament is... It certainly doesn't seem to be a revolutionary party. Social democrats that realised their neo-liberal politics were no good, maybe.

[bie]

and on the other hand members of the manegerial class of the Soviet Union and their defenders.
The author of the "managerial class" theory, James Burnham ("Managerial Revolution") was working for CIA as a Trotskyist and later became one of the most prominent ideologues of neoconservatism. (http://www.voltairenet.org/article30052.html). Therefore this theory is nothing but the another aggressive action against socialist nations invented during the Cold War.

[Q]

The author of the "managerial class" theory, James Burnham ("Managerial Revolution") was working for CIA as a Trotskyist and later became one of the most prominent ideologues of neoconservatism. (http://www.voltairenet.org/article30052.html). Therefore this theory is nothing but the another aggressive action against socialist nations invented during the Cold War.

This line of "argument" is growing old and boring. I'm unsure which logical fallacy you exactly employ though. I'm doubting between confirmation bias, confusion of correlation and causation, non sequitur or a post hoc, ergo propter hoc. I guess I'll let you take your pick (http://www.revleft.com/vb/debate-and-common-t129704/index.html?t=129704).

[Spawn of Stalin]

Is this honestly your position on the complex situation of the Soviet Union under Stalin? :confused: A 'good guys' versus 'bad guys' scenario. Honestly, I know plenty of 'stalinists' and their positions are usually rather nuanced, I can hardly imagine you truly believe what you posted.
No, I agree that it was a complex situation. Please don't imply that I was trying to oversimplify things, all I said was that Putin oppressed progressive people, and yes, progressives are the good guys, that is, unless you're a reactionary.

[FSL]

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=3829034



We can first start discussing how "Stalinist", or indeed communist/socialist a party that aims to get into a bourgeoisie parliament is... It certainly doesn't seem to be a revolutionary party. Social democrats that realised their neo-liberal politics were no good, maybe.

I'm pretty sure you're confusing Leninists with some left-communist variety.

[Ravachol]

The author of the "managerial class" theory, James Burnham ("Managerial Revolution") was working for CIA as a Trotskyist and later became one of the most prominent ideologues of neoconservatism. (http://www.voltairenet.org/article30052.html). Therefore this theory is nothing but the another aggressive action against socialist nations invented during the Cold War.

Heh, I already doubted if I should use that term because of Burnham. I didn't refer to his theories of the 'Managerial Class' but to anarchist class analysis and the specific class controlling the means of coercion. ;)

[hardlinecommunist]

Does anyone have a website link for this new Communist Party in Romania.

[Blake's Baby]

The author of the "managerial class" theory, James Burnham ("Managerial Revolution") was working for CIA as a Trotskyist and later became one of the most prominent ideologues of neoconservatism. (http://www.voltairenet.org/article30052.html). Therefore this theory is nothing but the another aggressive action against socialist nations invented during the Cold War.

Sort of true. The reason he invented it was to prove that the USSR wasn't state capitalist, which of course it was, so the theory is bunk.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I'm pretty sure you're confusing Leninists with some left-communist variety.

I'm not sure what was said about the party actually entails, but it could be that it's just some social-democratic party looking to influence the political landscape through reform from the vague press release, or something genuine.

http://www.pasro.ro/

I think this might be the party that assumed the name of PCR.

[Proletarian Ultra]

I don't believe anyone here of any tendency upholds Nicky C. aka Nixon's favorite Communist.

[Q]

As posted on 'spotters:


Apparently the Socialist Alliance Party (Partidul Alianta Socialista, www.pasro.ro) decided to rename itself the Romanian Communist Party (Partidul Comunist Român, PCR) at a extraordinary party congress yesterday, adopting a name that was first introduced by Ceausescu upon becoming leader of the ruling party previously known as the PMR in 1965. The press release announcing the name change is titled "Romanian Communist Party is making a comeback on the political scene" (according to Google Translate) which avoids mentioning Ceausescu by name, but goes on to denounce the "coup of December 1989", calling it "a large-scale aggression" with "no other purpose than to destroy us as a nation", even mentioning a "genocide against the Romanian people".

I think this is a very interesting move coming from the PAS, which is a founding member of the European Left, which tends not to be too happy associating itself with Stalinism/Ceausescuism/the Eastern Bloc. On the other hand, PAS was created by a 2003 split in the PSM (Socialist Party of Labour) which seems to have been pretty much a continuation of Ceaucescu's original PCR until the majority joined the Social Democrats. The reason for the name change might be increased nostalgia for the pre-1989 regime brought about by the extreme cuts inflicted on the Romanian working class - does anyone know more (or speak Romanian)? The PAS/PCR seems to have quite some members, judging from the fact that (according to wikipedia) it is led by " an 165-member National Committee, a 60-member Directive Committee and a 60-member Executive Bureau."

Their leader Constantin Rotaru ran for president last year and came 9th of 12 candidates with 43,684 votes (0.45%), parliamentary results apparently aren't much better.
Given their past, I guess the earlier accusation of Stalinist was correct.

Also, Glenn Beck, could you explain your negrep/comment you gave me for my previous post:

such a saucy little wench you are
Don't you think Revleft has way too much utter crap on it (in b4 "yeah, by you") and that we should strive for some proper reasoning and debate?
Chit-chat is only a small part of the forum, you know.

[Taikand]

I'll look into this "Communist" Party.
If I remember well PAS's president is Constantin Rotaru, owner of some factories.

După 1990, împreună cu mai mulţi colegi, înfiinţează o societate pe acţiuni (SC Rotarexim SA Râmnicu Vâlcea), unde îndeplineşte funcţia de director general (1990-1992). În acelaşi an, devine membru al Partidului Socialist al Muncii (PSM) şi preşedinte al Comitetului Judeţean Vâlcea al PSM.
I'll try to translate this.

After 1990, toghther with other collegues he starts a stock-based company (I don't know how would that be translated better) where he holds the position of CEO:confused: .In the same year he becomes a member of PSM (Socialist Party of Labour) and president of the PSM's County Counsil of Valcea .

"Imediat după lovitura de stat din decembrie 1989, în peisajul mediatic au apărut voci care au început să ne răstălmăcească istoria, minimalizînd şi denaturînd faptele de glorie ale înaintaşilor, să ne defăimeze personalităţile devenite simboluri şi valori ale spiritualităţii româneşti şi, în general, să-i prezinte pe români ca popor necivilizat, fără cultură, fără demnitate. La început mai timide, aceste atacuri au crescut, treptat, în agresivitate, ajungîndu-se ca, astăzi, ele să devină un fapt obişnuit, de care nu se mai simt deranjaţi nici măcar cei direct vizaţi, adică românii. "
This translates to

"Immediately after the coup in december '89, voices appeared in the media that started to temper with( sorry, found no better translation) our history, minimising the glorious deeds of our forefathers (fascism?), to bring infamy our great persons that have become symbols of our Romanian spirituality (<cough> nationalism) and, mainly, to present the Romanians as a savage people , cultureless , and lacking dignity. At first weak theses attacks rose , one step at a time, in agresivity to the point in which, today, it became a common fact, of which not even those targeted, the Romanian people, feel offended of."

[Blake's Baby]

...please, inform us what "stalinism" is...

Stalinism is the theory of socialism espoused by Stalin and copied by his successors, the 3rd International from 1928 to its demise, the successor parties of the 3rd International, the Maoists, Hoxhaists, and Castroists etc.

It is the theory of 'Socialism in One Country' (AKA 'actually existing Socialism'). If you believe in either (or both) of these things, you're a Stalinist. The rest of us don't believe socialism was ever established.

Of course, we argue amongst our non-Stalinist selves as to whether the USSR remained a 'workers' state' from 1920 onwards, or whether a new managerial/technocratic/bureaucratic class took power, or if it was just (state) capitalism. But we all agree it wasn't socialism.

[bie]

Sort of true. The reason he invented it was to prove that the USSR wasn't state capitalist, which of course it was, so the theory is bunk.
But why he wanted to prove that USSR wasn't "state capitalist"? Regardless of your answer, it was actually Burnham and other who popularized that sort of conspiracy theories ("managerial class", "state capitalism" etc.) among the so-called progressive circles. They also influenced the way how we look now on USSR and Peoples Democracies - the common for them, regardless of the label - was to treat them not as the legitimate workers democracies but if it was ruled by "managers and directors", "bureaucracy" , dictators etc etc. The aim was clear - turn people against the soviet alternative. Looking at the dogmatism of some of you, they even succeeded to some extent. But - ask people who actually lived under Stalin, Brezniev or others. Why it is not them - but CIA agents who spread this sort of theories?

I didn't refer to his theories of the 'Managerial Class' but to anarchist class analysis and the specific class controlling the means of coercion.
I see. I pretty disagree with the statement that managers constitute a separate social class. There is no managers class under capitalism therefore I cannot see the reason why they would suddenly arise in the socialist planned economy.

[Blake's Baby]

But why he wanted to prove that USSR wasn't "state capitalist"? ...

1 - the American bourgeoisie was desperate to make the equation Stalinism=Communism, so they point to it and say 'look! Communism sucks!' when really they mean 'look! Particulaly brutal capitalism sucks!' - admitting it was state capitalism would have meant admitting that all those so-called socialists were just about a different form of management of capitalism;

2 - If the USSR was 'state capitalist' then Trotsky was wrong, and implicated in a regime of massive failure, mass murder, and yes capitalism;

3 - the invention of a 'new managerial class' theory means Marx was wrong too and the proletariat does not overthrow the capitalists, 'mangers' do.

As I say, all bunk, directed at the consciousness of the international working class. That is, the working class's consciousness of the USSR as state capitalist and hindrance to world revolution (which of course was the Trotskyists ostensible project).

[bie]

1 - the American bourgeoisie was desperate to make the equation Stalinism=Communism, so they point to it and say 'look! Communism sucks!' when really they mean 'look! Particulaly brutal capitalism sucks!' - admitting it was state capitalism would have meant admitting that all those so-called socialists were just about a different form of management of capitalism;
No. It was actually much simpler. Bourgeoisie were not desparate to "equate Stalinism=Communism" simply because "stalinism" is a communism. The major threat for the western bourgeoisie were not the tiny sects of trotskyists and all other enemies of the Soviet Union (on the contrary, they were often allied). The major threat to the imperialism was the great power of the Soviets and its example. The though that it is possible for the country to be run by the workers and peasants and that the marxist theory really works, and the successes of the socialism were huge, that it was possible to bring over 200 mln people from the medieval age straight to XX century, to build an efficient economy and to win a world war. This was what made bourgeoisie desperate. That is why bourgeoisie had many stories - for those on the right - to believe that USSR is a devil's country, for that on the left - that it is "state capitalist", "undemocratic" etc. The effect is the same.

2 - If the USSR was 'state capitalist' then Trotsky was wrong, and implicated in a regime of massive failure, mass murder, and yes capitalism;
What? I guess I missed the point.

3 - the invention of a 'new managerial class' theory means Marx was wrong too and the proletariat does not overthrow the capitalists, 'mangers' do.
True. It was an attack on marxism, but I cannot see the reference to the "state capitalism" theory. In fact they are substantally the same in its class analysis of USSR.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

the invention of a 'new managerial class' theory means Marx was wrong too and the proletariat does not overthrow the capitalists, 'mangers' do.

Marx was not a god. He was capable of making mistakes.

Marx never said his word was some sort of eternal gospel, and he and Engels vigorously opposed the idea that it was.

"The materialist conception of history has a lot of them nowadays, to whom it serves as an excuse for not studying history... In general, the word 'materialist' serves many of the younger writers in Germany as a mere phrase with which anything and everything is labeled without further study, that is, they stick on this label and then consider the question disposed of. But our conception of history is above all a guide to study, not a lever for construction after the manner of the Hegelian. All history must be studied afresh, the conditions of existence of the different formations of society must be examined individually before the attempt is made to deduce them from the political, civil law, aesthetic, philosophic, religious, etc., views corresponding to them. Up to now but little has been done here because only a few people have got down to it seriously. In this field we can utilize heaps of help, it is immensely big, anyone who will work seriously can achieve much and distinguish himself. But instead of this too many of the younger Germans simply make use of the phrase historical materialism (and everything can be turned into a phrase) only in order to get their own relatively scanty historical knowledge " - Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_05.htm)

[Taikand]

All this talk is Off-Topic, isn't it?

[Blake's Baby]

OK, back to the topic; if this new party believes in 'socialism in one country' or 'actually existing socialism' then it's Stalinist, even though Stalinists don't think Stalinism exists.

[Taikand]

I don't think any popular leftist group in this country will be internationalist. There is a powerful drive in the society that is nationalism. The view that foreign agents destroyed our economy after '89 and that we "are selling our country" is widely agreed on.

[Blake's Baby]

And that's why yet another founding of a nationalist party claiming the mantle of communism would be a tragedy (if indeed this party is, which I suspect it will be).

The only hope for the international working class is an world revolution against international capitalism leading to the establishment of global socialism. So, it needs an international class party to help in that process.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Among Official Communist tendencies, I hope to see the new CP adopt a Third Period approach like the KKE (repudiating even Ceaucescu as a "revisionist" but especially setting up red unions of their own and opposed to coalitions with the center-left), and not either a Eurocom approach like the PCF or a hyper-nationalist approach like the KPRF - or even the halfway-house "anti-revisionist" approach a la Hoxhaism.

[FSL]

OK, back to the topic; if this new party believes in 'socialism in one country' or 'actually existing socialism' then it's Stalinist, even though Stalinists don't think Stalinism exists.

"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states."


1915, by someone not named Stalin. The working class thanks him for stating what should now be obvious to everyone.

[Blake's Baby]

Tell me, how did that invasion of Poland go in 1920? Roaring success was it?

Revolution cannot be exported at the end of a bayonet. Nor can 'socialist production' be organised in one country. Have you really learned nothing from the failures of the last 90 years?

[Nolan]

OK, back to the topic; if this new party believes in 'socialism in one country' or 'actually existing socialism' then it's Stalinist, even though Stalinists don't think Stalinism exists.

So are Kim Jong Il and Raul Castro "stalinists?" :lol:

It's like a law of physics. If you're a trot or other manner of anti-ml, I can predict with 99+% accuracy that you will know fuck all what socialism in one country really means.

[Blake's Baby]

I can predict that as a Stalinist, you'll have fuck all clue about what socialism actually means.

Yes, Kim Jong Il and Raul Castro are stalinists, and they have fuck all clue about socialism; yes, you are a Stalinist, and you have fuck all clue about socialism.

Socialism will be international or it will be nothing; it will be brought about by the world working class after the world revolution; what you get so excited over is a particularly brutal (and inefficient) form of state capitalism. So, good luck with that, cheerleading pretty much the crappest form of capitalism going - someone today described it as 'social democracy with bayonets' and I thought that was quite apt.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Among Official Communist tendencies, I hope to see the new CP adopt a Third Period approach like the KKE (repudiating even Ceaucescu as a "revisionist" but especially setting up red unions of their own and opposed to coalitions with the center-left), and not either a Eurocom approach like the PCF or a hyper-nationalist approach like the KPRF.

Why do you say this? Maybe you are thinking in terms of the specific situation in Romania, but my understanding is that the original "Third Period" policies did not work well, even led to disaster, in China , Germany, the US, and elsewhere. The KKE is regarded as being overly sectarian and doesn't "work well with others" which is a detriment to the Greek workers movement.

Of course it is important to disavow Ceaucescu and the bureaucratic class he led, as well as the "reform" faction which overthrew him. Communism has nothing to do with the "genius of the Carpathians".

[Nolan]

I can predict that as a Stalinist, you'll have fuck all clue about what socialism actually means.

Yes, Kim Jong Il and Raul Castro are stalinists, and they have fuck all clue about socialism; yes, you are a Stalinist, and you have fuck all clue about socialism.

Socialism will be international or it will be nothing; it will be brought about by the world working class after the world revolution; what you get so excited over is a particularly brutal (and inefficient) form of state capitalism. So, good luck with that, cheerleading pretty much the crappest form of capitalism going - someone today described it as 'social democracy with bayonets' and I thought that was quite apt.

Oooh I think I've touched a nerve!

So since I've shown how your definition of "stalinist" is meaningless, are you going to try to redefine it or does it just mean whatever you want it to? (somewhat of a rhetorical question since I know what the answer will be)


Socialism will be international or it will be nothing;Yes, yes, we've heard it all before. We know how you're going to implant brainwashing microchips with education in leftist theory in the brain of every worker and one day the great hive mind will rise as one and overthrow capitalism all over the world at the same time, solving all problems and eliminating all threats of internal and external reaction. Might want to get your ass off the internet and get working on that.

[Blake's Baby]

Touched a nerve? Got a nerve.

"Stalinist" isn't meaningless at all. It's 'a believer in Socialism in One Country/actually existing Socialism". Seems pretty simple to me, perhaps you aren't clever enough to understand it though.

Brainwashing microchips? Perhaps you have mistaken me for the KGB or the Stasi or any other of the vicious counter-revolutionary organisations your political masters established to repress the working class.

[Nolan]

The KKE is regarded as being overly sectarian and doesn't "work well with others" which is a detriment to the Greek workers movement.

AND OMG THEY SAID PEOPLES INSTEAD OF WORKERS THAT MEANS THEIR NATINOALISTS.


Of course it is important to disavow Ceaucescu and the bureaucratic class he led, as well as the "reform" faction which overthrew him. Communism has nothing to do with the "genius of the Carpathians".

Agreed.

[Taikand]

Currently, politicians and bourgeois aren't referred very often as "people".
One of the main events here lately is the floods that already killed 52 persons. Many pointed out that although <insert bad things before '89'> the "genius of the Carpathians" was able to build dams extremely quickly while politicians nowadays (see current president) put the blame on those affected by these terrible events (like they should have insured their houses and such) . The nationalism presented by this party isn't one of superiority, no one is claiming that our great nation" is better than the others, the sentiment is actually that we have the potential to do more, as a nation, then just to be a second world country.

[People's War]

Good. It's about time we started to regain ground in Eastern Europe.

[the last donut of the night]

Gee, wouldn't be great if we just ended the pissing contest and paid some respect to our comrades in Romania who are at least trying to build a legitimate resistance to capitalism; one that doesn't exist solely in a computer screen.

[Taikand]

I see it as an interesting move on the political stage here, heck, I'd even join this party if I wasn't so tied with my parents (can't wait to go to college).
I think I already said that, any legitimate leftist movement here will also have an amount of nationalism, but more in the sense of national self-determination, as almost everyone sees the nation as nothing but a pawn on the international stage.

[vyborg]

is there any website in english about it? strenght? leaders? programmes etc?

[Taikand]

Nope, I haven't found anything in English but looking around their site they look more and more like fascists. Folklore music, flags, flags and flags, their motto is "Performance Continuity Romanianism". They also praise DPRK's Juche.
Too bad.

[Zanthorus]

1915, by someone not named Stalin. The working class thanks him for stating what should now be obvious to everyone.

Well Lenin certainly said a lot of things. Many of them plain flat out wrong. Interestingly enough we could even ask Stalin about the absurdity of "socialism in one country" and in 1924 he would've said:


The efforts of a single country are enough to overthrow the bourgeoisie; this is what the history of our revolution proves. But for the definitive triumph of Socialism, the organization of socialist production – the efforts of one country alone are not enough, particularly of an essentially rural country like Russia; the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are needed.

Of course if we asked him again in 1926 he would've changed his line to something a little more politically convenient.

Interestingly, Lenin himself also changed his political convictions throughout his life and what he said in one year may not accurately reflect his general line of thinking on any particular subject. In this case it might be instructive to take note of the following:


To approach the prospects of a social revolution within national boundaries is to fall victim to the same national narrowness which constitutes the substance of social-patriotism. Vaillant to his dying day considered France the promised land of social revolution; and it is precisely from this standpoint that he stood for national defense to the end. Lensch and Co. (some hypocritically and others sincerely) consider that Germany’s defeat means first of all the destruction of the basis of social revolution ... In general it should not be forgotten that in social-patriotism there is, along-side of the most vulgar reformism, a national revolutionary Messianism which deems that its own national state, whether because of its industrial level or because of its ‘democratic’ form and revolutionary conquests, is called upon to lead humanity towards socialism or towards ‘democracy.’ If the victorious revolution mere really conceivable within the boundaries of a single more developed nation, this Messianism together with the program of national defense would have some relative historical justification. But as a matter of fact this is inconceivable. To fight for the preservation of a national basis of revolution by such methods as undermine the international ties of the proletariat, actually means to undermine the revolution itself, which can begin on a national basis but which cannot be completed on that basis under the present economic, military, and political interdependence of the European states, which was never before revealed so forcefully as during the present war. This interdependence which will directly and immediately condition the concerted action on the part of the European proletariat in the revolution is expressed by the slogan of the United States of Europe.


It follows that if the demand for the freedom of nations is not to be a false phrase covering up the imperialism and the nationalism of certain individual countries, it must be extended to all peoples and to all colonies. Such a demand, however, is obviously meaningless unless it is accompanied by a series of revolutions in all the advanced countries. Moreover, it cannot be accomplished without a successful socialist revolution.


The proletariat will at once utilise this ridding of bourgeois Russia of tsarism and the rule of the landowners, not to aid the rich peasants in their struggle against the rural workers, but to bring about the socialist revolution in alliance with the proletarians of Europe.


The task of the proletariat follows obviously from this actual state of affairs. This task is a bold, heroic, revolutionary struggle against the monarchy (the slogans of the January conference of 1912 – the ’Three Whales’s), a struggle which would attract all democratic masses, that is, first and foremost the peasantry. At the same time, a relentless struggle must be waged against chauvinism, a struggle for the socialist revolution in Europe in alliance with its proletariat. The war crisis has strengthened the economic and political factors impelling the petty bourgeoisie, including the peasantry, towards the Left. Therein lies the objective basis of the absolute possibility of the victory of the democratic revolution in Russia. That the objective conditions for a socialist revolution have fully matured in Western Europe, was recognized before the war by all influential socialists of all advanced countries.


Russia is a peasant country, one of the most backward countries of Europe. Socialism cannot be immediately triumphant there but the peasant character of the country with the huge tracts of land in the hands of the feudal aristocracy and landowners, can, on the basis of the experience of 1905, give a tremendous sweep to the bourgeois democratic revolution in Russia and make our revolution a prelude to the world socialist revolution, a step towards it ... The Russian proletariat cannot by its own forces victoriously complete the socialist revolution. But it can give the Russian revolution dimensions such as will create the most favorable conditions for it, such as will in a certain sense begin it. It can facilitate matters for the entrance into a decisive battle on the part of its main and most reliable ally, the European and American socialist proletariat.


Upon the strength of the revolutionary movement, in the event of its being entirely successful, will depend the victory of socialism in Europe and the achievement not of an imperialist armistice in Germany’s struggle against Russia and England, or in Russia’s and Germany’s struggle against England, or the United States’ struggle against Germany and England, etc., but of a really lasting and really democratic peace.


I now pass on to the third question, namely, the analysis of the current situation with reference to the position of the international working-class movement and that of international capitalism. From the point of view of Marxism, in discussing imperialism it is absurd to restrict oneself to conditions in one country alone, since all capitalist countries are closely bound together. Now, in time of war, this bond has grown immeasurably stronger. All humanity is thrown into a tangled bloody heap from which no nation can extricate itself on its own. Though there are more and less advanced countries, this war has bound them all together by so many threads that escape from this tangle for any single country acting on its own is inconceivable.


This is a lesson to us becausethe absolute truth is that without a revolution in Germany, we shall perish.


World imperialism cannot live side by side with a victorious advancing social revolution.


Our backwardness has thrust us forward and we will perish if we are unable to hold out until we meet with the mighty support of the insurrectionary workers of other countries.


We do not live merely in a state but in a system of states and the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist states for any length of time is inconceivable. In the end one or the other must triumph.


The result is a state of equilibrium which, although highly unstable and precarious, enables the Socialist Republic to exist—not for long, of course—within the capitalist encirclement.
...
It was clear to us that without aid from the international world revolution, a victory of the proletarian revolution is impossible. Even prior to the revolution, as well as after it, we thought that the revolution would also occur either immediately or at least very soon in other backward countries and in the more highly developed capitalist countries, otherwise we would perish. Notwithstanding this conviction, we did our utmost to preserve the Soviet system under any circumstances and at all costs, because we know that we are working not only for ourselves but also for the international revolution.
...
We admit quite openly, and do not conceal the fact, that concessions in the system of state capitalism mean paying tribute to capitalism. But we gain time, and gaining time means gaining everything, particularly in the period of equilibrium, when our foreign comrades are preparing thoroughly for their revolution. The more thorough their preparations, the more certain will the victory be. Meanwhile, however, we shall have to pay the tribute.


But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile powers of moribund capitalism can still deprive us of that. We must clearly appreciate this and frankly admit it; for there is nothing more dangerous than illusions (and vertigo, particularly at high altitudes). And there is absolutely nothing terrible, nothing that should give legitimate grounds for the slightest despondency, in admitting this bitter truth; for we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism—that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism.

(Thanks to comrade Kléber for all the quotes including the Stalin one)

[CJCM]

Some fucking hope: a stalinist party.

RED DAVE

Just watch the damm movie and don't critisize Marxism Leninism ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtU7ERJ3cTw&feature=related

[Die Neue Zeit]

Among Official Communist tendencies, I hope to see the new CP adopt a Third Period approach like the KKE (repudiating even Ceaucescu as a "revisionist" but especially setting up red unions of their own and opposed to coalitions with the center-left), and not either a Eurocom approach like the PCF or a hyper-nationalist approach like the KPRF.

Why do you say this? Maybe you are thinking in terms of the specific situation in Romania, but my understanding is that the original "Third Period" policies did not work well, even led to disaster, in China , Germany, the US, and elsewhere. The KKE is regarded as being overly sectarian and doesn't "work well with others" which is a detriment to the Greek workers movement.

Of course it is important to disavow Ceaucescu and the bureaucratic class he led, as well as the "reform" faction which overthrew him. Communism has nothing to do with the "genius of the Carpathians".

In the current environment of business unionism and decaying organized labour, there's nothing wrong with setting up red unions to counter this as well as apolitical syndicalism on the part of anarcho-syndicalists (apolitical because their orgs. like the IWW or CNT aren't affiliated to mass political parties).

Generally speaking, Third Period Stalinism (the purest "Anti-Revisionism" that makes Hoxhaism look "revisionist") has some general principles, but when taken too far has led to disasters here and there:

1) China didn't have a revolutionary situation re. Kautsky, in that the CCP had mass political support. "All power to the soviets" has always been an ultra-left or left-deviationist maneuver. Moreover, it wasn't a unified country given Japan's occupation.

2) The US-based IWW took an explicitly anti-political turn. They didn't bother to set up, say, a Labor Party, even in reaction to the Comintern's rather valid takeover efforts. The idiocy here is the CP-USA's then-fetish for total illegality instead of going the One Big Red Union route.

3) Trotsky's "United Front" proposal for Germany was utter crap. There was too much hostility even on the part of the SPD to work with the KPD. The latter also made the mistake of working with the entire Nazi party and not trying to split that "petit-bourgeois socialist" party. Growing the SAPD (Socialist Workers Party, splinter from the SPD) and attempting to split the Nazis, and then working with whatever resulted (bigger SAPD and a new left-nationalist party reconciled with the then-hostile-to-Nazis German Nazbols) would have been the better tactic, with hindsight.

4) The KKE may be justified in its sectarianism after the non-activity of SYRIZA, not to mention growing problems in that coalition. The right-wing has threatened to split.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Nope, I haven't found anything in English but looking around their site they look more and more like fascists. Folklore music, flags, flags and flags, their motto is "Performance Continuity Romanianism". They also praise DPRK's Juche.
Too bad.

In other words, the new CP is a "tankie" party. :(

[Zanthorus]

DNZ, just wondering while we're on the topic what you thought of the apparent link between the third period attitude towards the United Front and Bordiga's approach. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=3867)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ah, Stalin's "red united front from below" makes sense too. But in practice, however, and like I said, this "united front from below" should have been modified quite a bit with respect to left-nationalists: Denounce Hitler and those around him, work with the grassroots left-nationalists (like joint strikes and joint demonstrations), but also encourage a split in the Nazi party.

It should have been modified to include "working with" existing parties like the SAPD. "Working with parties" has to emerge at some point or at different points.

In short: a Communitarian Populist Front (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=3740).

[4 Leaf Clover]

people show some respect to the OP

[Crux]

Eh, it's an old party with a new name. Not much to get excited about.

[Nolan]

Nope, I haven't found anything in English but looking around their site they look more and more like fascists. Folklore music, flags, flags and flags, their motto is "Performance Continuity Romanianism". They also praise DPRK's Juche.
Too bad.

I hope "Romanianism" isn't what it sounds like.

The left can't afford more of this kind of shit.

I love how they have Vlad the Impaler on their home page. Leaves a good first impression.

[Ovi]

What, just upset that our tendency has outdone yours in yet another country?
Not that I want to spoil your fun, but this isn't really news. It's about a party called the Socialist Alliance Party (created in 2003) changing it's name to the Romanian Communist Party. What a revolutionary thing to do during these times of rising popular dissatisfaction with the government and capitalism in general. I haven't seen Vlad the Impaler on their website, which is a complete mess http://www.pasro.ro/ Anyway, they should have used him for propaganda purposes, since people regard him as a good man :laugh: .

[AK]

Not that I want to spoil your fun, but this isn't really news. It's about a party called the Socialist Alliance Party (created in 2003) changing it's name to the Romanian Communist Party. What a revolutionary thing to do during these times of rising popular dissatisfaction with the government and capitalism in general. I haven't seen Vlad the Impaler on their website, which is a complete mess http://www.pasro.ro/ Anyway, they should have used him for propaganda purposes, since people regard him as a good man :laugh: .
Revleft's analysis of Vlad the Impaler is that he is both an anti-imperialist and a fascist :blink:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/vlad-impaler-heroic-t138066/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/vlad-tepes-he-t134777/index.html

[Taikand]

Taking into cosideration the current situation I'd say that a revolution will not happen without a vanguard, which is a very big compromise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFytGsdVtFA
At least we have nationalist around that also have media coverage, not like a real left would be needed.

[Ovi]

Taking into cosideration the current situation I'd say that a revolution will not happen without a vanguard, which is a very big compromise.

If there will be a revolution around here, it will be one without a vanguard. Nobody trusts political parties anymore, especially communist ones. People in this country don't vote to choose who should govern them, but who shouldn't. Nobody really has any hopes that things will improve if their party wins the elections, but at least the other party won't win. Labor unions are seen as instruments of the social democrats and union leaders as corrupt officials who go on strike when the party tell them to and renounce all struggle as soon as they have enough material incentive to do so. The idea of an institutionalized leadership, whether through a party or a labor union, is no longer seen as a solution; except of course for the right wingers who'd love to have dictator crush the communists. Leftism is certainly not dead, but leftist organization are. The romanian communist party is just as dead.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFytGsdVtFA
At least we have nationalist around that also have media coverage, not like a real left would be needed.
Fortunately most people have better things to do than participate in anti gay marches, be eurosceptics and praise some fascist leaders.

[Taikand]

I know this is kinda Necro, reviving such an old thread but, meh:
I've seen some interviews on the street on the local television and they were interesting.
The conditions for a revolution are here, what is needed is some organisation, I think anarchist don't oppose organisation.
PS: "Capitalul e arma fascismului." is a slogan used by a certain leftist group around this fish shaped country? Or it's just some graffiti?

[Rakhmetov]

Some fucking hope: a stalinist party.

RED DAVE



Oh, that is a lot of cant. You must be living in cloud cookoo land if you wish to compartmentalize every Marxist-Leninist communist party as "Stalinist" just so you can justify your narrow interpretation of the historical class struggle.

[mrki]

Nope, I haven't found anything in English but looking around their site they look more and more like fascists. Folklore music, flags, flags and flags, their motto is "Performance Continuity Romanianism". They also praise DPRK's Juche.
Too bad.

Too bad indeed.
There are just too many impalers and vampires.