Spanish Civil War discussion (split from "Long Live the KKE" thread)

[Magón]

Wow, this has really turned into a Anarchist v. Marxist free-for-all-at-each-other's-throats-deathmatch.

Can't we just agree to disagree? There's no point in arguing anymore, as examples have been given of the KKE's inability to be tolerable of Anarchists, Trotskyists, etc. in past Greek History that most Marxists, Stalinists, etc. fail to realize or take into consideration... even most will probably applaud such actions. But I'm not trying to add more fuel to the fire, even though that may seem what I just said, to be doing, I'm just pointing out the facts.

Anarchists are tired of being discriminated against when it comes to such things like what history's shown us. But it just doesn't seem like Marxists or Stalinists are able to accept that Anarchists are needed just as much in a successful revolution or action against the State/Imperialism/Totalitarianism/etc.

So, everyone just take a deep breath, and let the Marxists, Stalinists, etc. talk their KKE, and when it's really necessary to bring up a mistake, do so. Because really, just calling names, and blatant insults don't get anyone anywhere.

[Honggweilo]

Wow, this has really turned into a Anarchist v. Marxist free-for-all-at-each-other's-throats-deathmatch.

Can't we just agree to disagree? There's no point in arguing anymore, as examples have been given of the KKE's inability to be tolerable of Anarchists, Trotskyists, etc. in past Greek History that most Marxists, Stalinists, etc. fail to realize or take into consideration... even most will probably applaud such actions. But I'm not trying to add more fuel to the fire, even though that may seem what I just said, to be doing, I'm just pointing out the facts.

Anarchists are tired of being discriminated against when it comes to such things like what history's shown us. But it just doesn't seem like Marxists or Stalinists are able to accept that Anarchists are needed just as much in a successful revolution or action against the State/Imperialism/Totalitarianism/etc.

So, everyone just take a deep breath, and let the Marxists, Stalinists, etc. talk their KKE, and when it's really necessary to bring up a mistake, do so. Because really, just calling names, and blatant insults don't get anyone anywhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoYiAMWeSYc&feature=related

i never get tired of posting that :lol:

[28350]

I think I'm going to turn this thread into a play.
I can't tell yet if it's going to be a comedy or a tragedy, though.

[scarletghoul]

Fuck, Randy is the best band ever. I was listenin to them before I was commie..

[F9]

They're inherently against party structures. If not, they're basically not anarchists.
The idea of an anarchist offering advice on how to build a good vanguard party is rather funny. Let's at least keep in touch with the basics.

Go open your books again, and then come back talking about things you dont know.Its not an attack, its a true and honest comment on your reply to DR.

As for everyone supporting KKE, you are just missing parts, dont know them, dont want to know them, dont understand them, dont want to understand them etc etc.

Long live the revolution(now tell me which sounds better)

[Honggweilo]

Go open your books again, and then come back talking about things you dont know.Its not an attack, its a true and honest comment on your reply to DR.

As for everyone supporting KKE, you are just missing parts, dont know them, dont want to know them, dont understand them, dont want to understand them etc etc.

Long live the revolution(now tell me which sounds better)

This post didnt make any sence :confused:

[FSL]

Go open your books again, and then come back talking about things you dont know.Its not an attack, its a true and honest comment on your reply to DR.

Hey, you're an anarchist. Which party do you support?



As for everyone supporting KKE, you are just missing parts, dont know them, dont want to know them, dont understand them, dont want to understand them etc etc.

Long live the revolution(now tell me which sounds better

Anyone supporting Bolshevicks did it out of ignorance too?
Don' forget about Kronstadt and Machno while answering.

[Black Sheep]

Actually as both the revolution and the KKE are methods and means to achieve communism, as they exist, we haven't achieved communism and the longer they live, the more distant communism is.
So you are both reformist scum.

[Uppercut]

KKE rox mah sox.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

long live the Bolsheviks!

[Uppercut]

long live the Bolsheviks!

Damn right

[What Would Durruti Do?]

God save the queen!

[F9]

This post didnt make any sence :confused:

Which part out of it?I dont think it is that hard to understand what i tired to say DR.

[F9]

Hey, you're an anarchist. Which party do you support?

Thats not what i said, there is difference of an anarcho-communist supporting a party, and from the fact that there are anarchist tendencys that in fact have some different approach to partys(with different structure of course from the partys that exist now).Also, historically Anarchists did weight in, and contributed amongst partys, platformists always had the idea of having a "different party" and individually Anarchists havent been against partys the way we are today.Of course nowadays partys have reached a level of disgust but thats a different story.



Anyone supporting Bolshevicks did it out of ignorance too?
Don' forget about Kronstadt and Machno while answering.

Bolsheviks had the vanguard, they took the opportunity they had ahead them, and with lies, utopian ideas false propaganda etc, got a lot people with their side and happened what happened.At that moment, people were only seeking for the spark to ignite their hate for their oppressors, bolsheviks just did their propaganda better. I dont see why i should be "not forgetting kronstadt", or spanish revolution etc, its always the same thing, and will always be like that.Someone would be naive to think that all the people would join the CP, or the Anarchist group before the revolution happens, thats stupid and too utopian. People are forgetting peoples nature some times, and what the common people is like...
Do you think that all the people knew what communism was when they revolt with the side of the bolsheviks?Do you think that they were completely aware of what lenin etc were talking about?If you think so, then sorry but that would be too ridiculous to think about it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think I'm going to turn this thread into a play.
I can't tell yet if it's going to be a comedy or a tragedy, though.

Make it a tragicomedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragicomedy).

[the last donut of the night]

i'm sorry but seeing the level of clusterfuckery (yes it's a word, ok) in this thread, i ask the mods this technical question:

at what point in the thread's derailing am i allowed to be a completely unabashed troll without looking like an asshole, since everyone's already doing it?


PS: I don't think our Greek comrades and workers really get anything out of this. We might as well sink it to the depths of chit-chat, or even the trashcan if shit gets even rougher than it already is.

[bie]

International bourgeoisie thank anarchists and its agents among anarchists for a great job done on attacking on of the most successful and militant workers organization. Well done. For the other members of this forum - please think what anarchism has to offer to the working class - absolutely nothing. Under this ideology it is impossible to solve basic but critical issues like organization of labor, country defense, conscription, coordination of production of different branches of industry etc. "Anarchist country" cannot exist, cannot sustain and cannot defend itself (especially in conditions of siege). It is not a realistic vision - it simply cannot work in practice.

It is nothing else than a pure petty bourgeoisie utopia, that projects some of the petty bourgeoisie anti-imperialism but joins it with bourgeois individualism and distaste for discipline and subordination, especially to larger political entities. As some parts of petty bourgeois are highly limited and exploited by contemporary monopoly capitalism, its ideology can be also anti-imperialist. But as petty bourgeoisie cannot see a positive way out of the situation, under conditions of accumulation of capital - its ideology cannot be realistic. It is or entirely reactionary - based on coming back to the idealized past of society of free producers, not limited by monopolies or the state - or simply Utopian - like e.g. anarchism, where lack of possibility of the positive ideology due to instability of its social class is being projected as the imaginary and extremely unrealistic Utopian vision of "anarchist society". What is common for the petty bourgeoisie ideologies is its distaste for the monopolies and monopolies controlled state - but also, due to its historical position, impossibility to produce any real alternative. It is also clear that some parts of the petty-bourgeois ideologies are hostile to the working class due to the fact, that working class ideology require collectivization
(nationalization) of the private property. There is no place for the petty bourgeoisie in the workers societies. Petty bourgeoisie cannot stand discipline, necessity of subordination, inconveniences caused by the class war and siege situation. They cannot be real revolutionaries, but they are being used to attack genuine workers organizations, which aim in building a real classless society - from purely utopian positions. In that attack they degenerate to be purely tool in hands of monopoly imperialism.

[Delenda Carthago]

International bourgeoisie thank anarchists and its agents among anarchists for a great job done on attacking on of the most successful and militant workers organization. Well done. For the other members of this forum - please think what anarchism has to offer to the working class - absolutely nothing. Under this ideology it is impossible to solve basic but critical issues like organization of labor, country defense, conscription, coordination of production of different branches of industry etc. "Anarchist country" cannot exist, cannot sustain and cannot defend itself (especially in conditions of siege). It is not a realistic vision - it simply cannot work in practice.

It is nothing else than a pure petty bourgeoisie utopia, that projects some of the petty bourgeoisie anti-imperialism but joins it with bourgeois individualism and distaste for discipline and subordination, especially to larger political entities. As some parts of petty bourgeois are highly limited and exploited by contemporary monopoly capitalism, its ideology can be also anti-imperialist. But as petty bourgeoisie cannot see a positive way out of the situation, under conditions of accumulation of capital - its ideology cannot be realistic. It is or entirely reactionary - based on coming back to the idealized past of society of free producers, not limited by monopolies or the state - or simply Utopian - like e.g. anarchism, where lack of possibility of the positive ideology due to instability of its social class is being projected as the imaginary and extremely unrealistic Utopian vision of "anarchist society". What is common for the petty bourgeoisie ideologies is its distaste for the monopolies and monopolies controlled state - but also, due to its historical position, impossibility to produce any real alternative. It is also clear that some parts of the petty-bourgeois ideologies are hostile to the working class due to the fact, that working class ideology require collectivization
(nationalization) of the private property. There is no place for the petty bourgeoisie in the workers societies. Petty bourgeoisie cannot stand discipline, necessity of subordination, inconveniences caused by the class war and siege situation. They cannot be real revolutionaries, but they are being used to attack genuine workers organizations, which aim in building a real classless society - from purely utopian positions. In that attack they degenerate to be purely tool in hands of monopoly imperialism.
somebody's hurt...:lol:

[bie]

somebody's hurt...:lol:
It is all you can do?

[ComradeOm]

I think I'm going to turn this thread into a play.
I can't tell yet if it's going to be a comedy or a tragedy, though.Something like Hamlet perhaps: the admins standing around, crippled with indecision and inactivity, until everyone dies of stupidity

[Saorsa]

death to all bank workers! anarchyyyyyyyyyyy

[Magón]

International bourgeoisie thank anarchists and its agents among anarchists for a great job done on attacking on of the most successful and militant workers organization. Well done. For the other members of this forum - please think what anarchism has to offer to the working class - absolutely nothing. Under this ideology it is impossible to solve basic but critical issues like organization of labor, country defense, conscription, coordination of production of different branches of industry etc. "Anarchist country" cannot exist, cannot sustain and cannot defend itself (especially in conditions of siege). It is not a realistic vision - it simply cannot work in practice.

It is nothing else than a pure petty bourgeoisie utopia, that projects some of the petty bourgeoisie anti-imperialism but joins it with bourgeois individualism and distaste for discipline and subordination, especially to larger political entities. As some parts of petty bourgeois are highly limited and exploited by contemporary monopoly capitalism, its ideology can be also anti-imperialist. But as petty bourgeoisie cannot see a positive way out of the situation, under conditions of accumulation of capital - its ideology cannot be realistic. It is or entirely reactionary - based on coming back to the idealized past of society of free producers, not limited by monopolies or the state - or simply Utopian - like e.g. anarchism, where lack of possibility of the positive ideology due to instability of its social class is being projected as the imaginary and extremely unrealistic Utopian vision of "anarchist society". What is common for the petty bourgeoisie ideologies is its distaste for the monopolies and monopolies controlled state - but also, due to its historical position, impossibility to produce any real alternative. It is also clear that some parts of the petty-bourgeois ideologies are hostile to the working class due to the fact, that working class ideology require collectivization
(nationalization) of the private property. There is no place for the petty bourgeoisie in the workers societies. Petty bourgeoisie cannot stand discipline, necessity of subordination, inconveniences caused by the class war and siege situation. They cannot be real revolutionaries, but they are being used to attack genuine workers organizations, which aim in building a real classless society - from purely utopian positions. In that attack they degenerate to be purely tool in hands of monopoly imperialism.

Are you just jealous of us, because we can:

A. Be self sustaining and sufficient from a State Organization. (In other words, be a self sustaining and sufficient individual.)

B. Have no need of a hierarchy in our lives, to tell us what we can and cannot do.

C. Live our lives, that obviously have no need to gain more over others. (Like this Petty Bourgeoisie you speak of does need.)

D. Have no need for man made laws, which restrict our rights to do what we please.

E. Organize when it's necessary, rather than waste resources, man power, etc. on constantly doing things that don't need to be done all the time.

F. Have the common curtsy to look someone in their eyes before killing them or double-crossing them, rather then stab them in the back I don't know how many times. (Spain, Greece, Russia, France, etc. are examples of Leninists doing such against Anarchists.)

G. Actually allow people to think for themselves, rather than have someone thinking for them. (In other words, free thinkers rather than Sheep.)

H. Allowing people to have their own values and ideas on how this or that should go. (I believe Leninists are some of the biggest downers, when it comes to someone of the Peasant/Working Class having an idea, that is either taken from them without them allowing it, or just simply struck down.)

I. Able to organize a Union, that is able to collect and organize people better and in more numbers, than a Vanguard Party, which is obviously a limited grouping of people thought to be the "leaders" of the Working Class. (Which ultimately is just replacing one Bourgeoisie with another one, calling themselves "leaders of the people".)

J. I think Anarchists have a pretty good idea on how to defend ourselves, it's being stabbed in the back by so called "Comrades" we have a hard time dealing with.

K. Able to keep monopolies and the like, out of our society since obviously in an Anarchist Society, everyone works to help everyone, rather than personal gains.

I would go down the whole alphabet if I needed to, but I don't think I need to go down that far. Also, I think you really need to look more into the Spanish Civil War. Read actual accounts of the time, like George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. He tells you what the PSUC and the Soviet Union did to this "Petty Bourgeoisie" or better yet, the Anarchists and Socialists of Spain to undermine them. Also, he tells you in some chapters, how land was given to the works of the land, rather than just one head leader of the land. I think you've got to look a lot more into it, because Anarchy isn't just simply Anarchy in the sense that everyone does what they want because they can. It's quite the opposite. Everyone does what they want, in the mindset that doing something wrong won't only hurt those they've done it to, but they themselves as well. Because in an Anarchists Society, everyone relies on everyone else to get the necessary jobs done, and keep them going.

Read up kid! :thumbup1:

[Delenda Carthago]

"long live KKE" became within some pages "well,you anarchists are no better":laugh:

[Delenda Carthago]

death to all bank workers! anarchyyyyyyyyyyy
nothing to say,just quoting in case you realise how low was that you just said because of your lack of answers and you want to change it...

scripta manent

[Saorsa]

burn all banks anarchyyyyyyyyyyy

[bie]

"Nin": I will address some of your points (I am not getting into a historical debates, lets concentrate on ideological questions).


A. Be self sustaining and sufficient from a State Organization. (In other words, be a self sustaining and sufficient individual.)
Oh, I am sure you can educate yourselves and cure on your own too. Stop being silly, we all need State Organization at this stage. If you really don't need it - wish you a good luck - stop going to the doctor. Or maybe you want private doctors?

B. Have no need of a hierarchy in our lives, to tell us what we can and cannot do.
This is typical of the petty bourgeoisie. It also indicates that you have little to do with workers world and industry, which is entirely based on hierarchy. Industry cannot run if there is no hierarchy involved - especially at this stage of development of the productive forces. Maybe in the future communist world, when automation will replace human labour it will be possible to develop less hierarchical ways of management, but - unfortunately - at the early stages of transformation of the society hierarchy is necessary. It is a requirement of the productive forces, not someone arbitrary decision. In other words - there is a need for supervisors, managers, directors etc. even in the socially owned industry.

In other words - a anarchist vision of the lack of hierarchy cannot be applied to industry - also cannot be applied to an army. Can you imagine an army with no hierarchy? It is pretty childish.


C. Live our lives, that obviously have no need to gain more over others. (Like this Petty Bourgeoisie you speak of does need.)
I have nothing against the way you live or what you do. I have met many great people among anarchists, we have also cooperated for some time against the war in Iraq etc. , until this cooperation was broken by anticommunist sentiments of some of their leaders. Actually among the best people I have met were anarchists. The subject of my critique is the ideology, the political vision that is - gently speaking - incorrect.

E. Organize when it's necessary, rather than waste resources, man power, etc. on constantly doing things that don't need to be done all the time.
Well, but what is this organization for if you cannot present the working class with a coherent and realistic vision of what to do?

G. Actually allow people to think for themselves, rather than have someone thinking for them. (In other words, free thinkers rather than Sheep.)
OK, but the class struggle is not about freethinking, but rather it is a bloody war. If by "freethinking" you call objecting the scientific laws of human development, there is nothing good that comes out of that. Revolutionary theory is a science - therefore it is subjected to identical restrictions as every scientific theory. In science you don't have complete freedom - you have to comply with certain rules. The same with the revolutionary theory.

H. Allowing people to have their own values and ideas on how this or that should go. (I believe Leninists are some of the biggest downers, when it comes to someone of the Peasant/Working Class having an idea, that is either taken from them without them allowing it, or just simply struck down.)
Marxist-leninist political line also allow people to have their own values and ideas on how this and that should go. The best of them are implemented in practice, and I think that this is a difference.

I. Able to organize a Union, that is able to collect and organize people better and in more numbers, than a Vanguard Party, which is obviously a limited grouping of people thought to be the "leaders" of the Working Class.
...that was never the case. Lets look at Greece for example (thread is about KKE). Where are your Unions?

J. I think Anarchists have a pretty good idea on how to defend ourselves,
OK, so what is that idea? What is your position on conscription?

K. Able to keep monopolies and the like, out of our society since obviously in an Anarchist Society, everyone works to help everyone, rather than personal gains.
If you keep the monopolies away, how would you produce items necessary to sustain life - lets say - means of transport?

I would go down the whole alphabet if I needed to, but I don't think I need to go down that far. Also, I think you really need to look more into the Spanish Civil War. Read actual accounts of the time, like George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. He tells you what the PSUC and the Soviet Union did to this "Petty Bourgeoisie" or better yet, the Anarchists and Socialists of Spain to undermine them. Also, he tells you in some chapters, how land was given to the works of the land, rather than just one head leader of the land. I think you've got to look a lot more into it, because Anarchy isn't just simply Anarchy in the sense that everyone does what they want because they can. It's quite the opposite. Everyone does what they want, in the mindset that doing something wrong won't only hurt those they've done it to, but they themselves as well. Because in an Anarchists Society, everyone relies on everyone else to get the necessary jobs done, and keep them going.
Well, I tell you once again that the vision of Anarchist Society (regardless of how beautiful it was) is an Utopian vision. It is not realistic. It cannot work in practice. It cannot sustain itself and cannot defend itself. The class struggle is a full scale war, where only the power and might can solve the conflict. And you won't build the power and might based on petty bourgeois sentiments of lack of hierarchy, organized army and state. This is a sad reality, but it is better to look at things how they are instead of falling into a science-fiction type of stuff.

And concerning Spanish Civil War - I didn't want to fall into a historical debate, but - do you know that Andreas Nin (probably someone important for you) was a Gestapo collaborator, that started a rising on the rear of the Republican forces with the cooperation of Nazi's in Barcelona in may 1937? It is quite a significant fact, isn't it? Other thing is that George Orwell, another "hero" was on the pay-list of the British Intelligence Services, therefore he was working directly for the imperialism.

[Honggweilo]

Are you just jealous of us, because we can:

A. Be self sustaining and sufficient from a State Organization. (In other words, be a self sustaining and sufficient individual.)

B. Have no need of a hierarchy in our lives, to tell us what we can and cannot do.

C. Live our lives, that obviously have no need to gain more over others. (Like this Petty Bourgeoisie you speak of does need.)

D. Have no need for man made laws, which restrict our rights to do what we please.

E. Organize when it's necessary, rather than waste resources, man power, etc. on constantly doing things that don't need to be done all the time.

F. Have the common curtsy to look someone in their eyes before killing them or double-crossing them, rather then stab them in the back I don't know how many times. (Spain, Greece, Russia, France, etc. are examples of Leninists doing such against Anarchists.)

G. Actually allow people to think for themselves, rather than have someone thinking for them. (In other words, free thinkers rather than Sheep.)

H. Allowing people to have their own values and ideas on how this or that should go. (I believe Leninists are some of the biggest downers, when it comes to someone of the Peasant/Working Class having an idea, that is either taken from them without them allowing it, or just simply struck down.)

I. Able to organize a Union, that is able to collect and organize people better and in more numbers, than a Vanguard Party, which is obviously a limited grouping of people thought to be the "leaders" of the Working Class. (Which ultimately is just replacing one Bourgeoisie with another one, calling themselves "leaders of the people".)

J. I think Anarchists have a pretty good idea on how to defend ourselves, it's being stabbed in the back by so called "Comrades" we have a hard time dealing with.

K. Able to keep monopolies and the like, out of our society since obviously in an Anarchist Society, everyone works to help everyone, rather than personal gains.

I would go down the whole alphabet if I needed to, but I don't think I need to go down that far. Also, I think you really need to look more into the Spanish Civil War. Read actual accounts of the time, like George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. He tells you what the PSUC and the Soviet Union did to this "Petty Bourgeoisie" or better yet, the Anarchists and Socialists of Spain to undermine them. Also, he tells you in some chapters, how land was given to the works of the land, rather than just one head leader of the land. I think you've got to look a lot more into it, because Anarchy isn't just simply Anarchy in the sense that everyone does what they want because they can. It's quite the opposite. Everyone does what they want, in the mindset that doing something wrong won't only hurt those they've done it to, but they themselves as well. Because in an Anarchists Society, everyone relies on everyone else to get the necessary jobs done, and keep them going.

Read up kid! :thumbup1:

i shat brix... :lol:

[insert random comment along the lines of unscientific utopian socialism, bi-polar analysis, lol orwell, "mean while, in reality", and "you and what army? its not 36'", "donde esta nin? en salamanca o en berlin!"]

Both Maknho and Durruti we're strict and diciplined as fuck (both against external and internal enemies), quit believing that any succesfull anarchist project didnt have any form of hierarchy.. also lol for supporting Nin as an anarchist

[Honggweilo]

nothing to say,just quoting in case you realise how low was that you just said because of your lack of answers and you want to change it...


said the king of single word comebacks




somebody's hurt..

sure...

keep telling yourself...

[Saorsa]

Marxism and capitalism - two sides of the same coin.

[Fietsketting]

And concerning Spanish Civil War - I didn't want to fall into a historical debate, but - do you know that Andreas Nin (probably someone important for you) was a Gestapo collaborator, that started a rising on the rear of the Republican forces with the cooperation of Nazi's in Barcelona in may 1937? It is quite a significant fact, isn't it?

Thats what the PCE made of it and we all know how trustworthy there propaganda has been, right? In June 16, 1937 the government, under further Communist sway, declared POUM illegal.

Nin and most of the leadership of POUM were arrested and never seen again. Andreu Nin was probely tortured and murdered, under the supervision of the NKVD. Comandante Contreras" Vittorio Vidali, and Iosif Grigulevich anyone?

[HEAD ICE]

ay yo i have nothing to say so i'm just droppin in this thread to say FUCK THE KKE hahahaha i'm out peace

[black magick hustla]

the kke is full of dicks

[the last donut of the night]

the kke is full of dicks

nah uh

[Magón]

And concerning Spanish Civil War - I didn't want to fall into a historical debate, but - do you know that Andreas Nin (probably someone important for you) was a Gestapo collaborator, that started a rising on the rear of the Republican forces with the cooperation of Nazi's in Barcelona in may 1937? It is quite a significant fact, isn't it? Other thing is that George Orwell, another "hero" was on the pay-list of the British Intelligence Services, therefore he was working directly for the imperialism.

Yeah, yeah, heard it all before many times. Nin was a Nazi, worked with the Gestapo on many accounts, even thought to be a Jew Killer, worked with Franco, was an Agent Provocateur, and many other things that were completely bullshit, and not even an idea to anyone, until the May Day fighting in Barcelona happened. Which is ironic, because the PSUC which was backed by the Soviet Union, actually had good feelings towards POUM/Nin, along with the CNT-FAI and UGT. It wasn't until the May Day fighting, that Nin suddenly became an outcast, and POUM was outlawed in the Republic. Sort of like what Stalin did to Trotsky and Trotskyists in general, demonizing them under false pretenses, and getting all mad because someone else was having more success than them in the world.

The real truth about Nin, is he was one of Trotsky's actual secretaries, quit after Spain erupted, fought against Franco as the leader of the POUM, was later demonized by the PSUC and Soviet Union/NKVD, kidnapped in Barcelona and tortured/executed by the NKVD. But it's no mystery, that before the May Day fighting, Nin was already disillusioned with Marxism by far, and began calling himself a Socialist. That sort of ticked off the PSUC, who didn't like him talking down about Marxism.

And since when was Orwell on the pay with the British Empire? Sure he lived in England, and had a fine life when he returned from Spain, but if you read his stuff, he quite criticizes the English for doing nothing to help Republican Spain. And most of the Propaganda being put forth in Spain, against the POUM, etc. came from outside places, not actually in Spain. Such as England, France, etc.

Oh, and did I forget to mention that both men were highly counter-revolutionary?:rolleyes::laugh:


Both Maknho and Durruti we're strict and diciplined as fuck (both against external and internal enemies), quit believing that any succesfull anarchist project didnt have any form of hierarchy.. also lol for supporting Nin as an anarchist

Did I say there was a problem with discipline? Obviously working with a large group, you have to set up disciplinary rules that people won't break, because it obviously helps nothing, and in fact hurts what's trying to be accomplished. But having a State or Government tell me what's right and wrong, isn't something I'm keen on accepting or following. Anarchists know there's a need for discipline, but Self Discipline comes first and foremost in an Anarchist. When it comes to fighting, obviously discipline is needed, because if you have unorganized chaos, you're probably going to loose the fight.

And I'm not a Anarchist through and through, so I don't see why supporting Nin is so bad? Like I already said, Nin began considering/calling himself a Socialist, rather a Marxist.

Both of you need to read up on actual people, that fought and lived during the Spanish Civil War, ignore the propaganda spewed by idiots, and actually get the facts and a general idea about someone, that isn't propaganda. Anything less, and I'm not going to continue speaking with you, because it obviously gets us no where.

[Os Cangaceiros]

And concerning Spanish Civil War - I didn't want to fall into a historical debate, but - do you know that Andreas Nin (probably someone important for you) was a Gestapo collaborator, that started a rising on the rear of the Republican forces with the cooperation of Nazi's in Barcelona in may 1937?

:lol:

Oh wow, just...wow.

No, actually the fact of the matter is that NKVD scum tortured him to death, then spread the word that he had fled to fascist-controlled territory. I guess that this fact has failed to set into the minds of old-religion Stalinoids, though.

[bie]

I guess that this fact has failed to set into the minds of old-religion Stalinoids, though.
Oh, come on, don't tell me you didn't know about the fact, that involvement of Gestapo in May Days in Barcelona 1937 was well documented by Germans. For example, its evidence is on Harro Schulze-Boysen death sentence made by German Reichskriegsgericht (available in German archives - see N. Haase). But it is a little bit off topic - isn't it? We are not here to discuss historical questions (regardless of how wrong you are, and how much were you influenced by bourgeoisie propaganda).

The point is that - while attacking KKE (by the way - in pretty funny way) - you, as an anarchist have nothing to offer to the working class. Your project, vision - ideology is Utopian - petty bourgeois - not realistic. You cannot even answer simple questions. As you cannot offer anything positive, because your "anarchist society project" is childish and extremely naive, you are doing extremely bad job for the working people while attacking their political organizations from Utopian and petty-bourgeos positions. This is the point.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Oh, come on, don't tell me you didn't know about the fact, that involvement of Gestapo in May Days in Barcelona 1937 was well documented by Germans. For example, its evidence is on Harro Schulze-Boysen death sentence made by German Reichskriegsgericht (available in German archives - see N. Haase). But it is a little bit off topic - isn't it? We are not here to discuss historical questions (regardless of how wrong you are, and how much were you influenced by bourgeoisie propaganda).

Care to give a source to the claim that Nin was a fascist collaborater, from a non-Stalinist source?


The point is that - while attacking KKE (by the way - in pretty funny way) - you, as an anarchist have nothing to offer to the working class. Your project, vision - ideology is Utopian - petty bourgeois - not realistic. You cannot even answer simple questions. As you cannot offer anything positive, because your "anarchist society project" is childish and extremely naive, you are doing extremely bad job for the working people while attacking their political organizations from Utopian and petty-bourgeos positions. This is the point.

super cool story bro

[bie]

Care to give a source to the claim that Nin was a fascist collaborater, from a non-Stalinist source?
I told you. It is on the death sentence given by German Reichskriegsgericht to antifascist activist, Harro Schulze-Boysen, who passed the information about the coup in May 1937 to Soviet intelligence. He was caught and executed few years later by Nazi court. The direct reason for his execution was that he passed on the information that the coup was prepared with the cooperation of Gestsapo. This was independently confirmed by Sudoplatov (current NKVD official) in his memories in 1990s. Sudoplatov at that stage was an anticommunist (therefore it is the second "non-stalinist" source). The text of the sentence is available on p.105 of N. Haas book (Das Reichskriegsgericht...). It is also "non-stalinist" source - therefore you have two.

super cool story bro
Can you answer a simple question for me, then? If you get rid of monopolies, right, how would you obtain eg. means of transport? Where will you get them from? A very simple question, I am very curious of your answer.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I told you. It is on the death sentence given by German Reichskriegsgericht to antifascist activist, Harro Schulze-Boysen, who passed the information about the coup in May 1937 to Soviet intelligence. He was caught and executed few years later by Nazi court. The direct reason for his execution was that he passed on the information that the coup was prepared with the cooperation of Gestsapo. This was independently confirmed by Sudoplatov (current NKVD official) in his memories in 1990s. Sudoplatov at that stage was an anticommunist (therefore it is the second "non-stalinist" source). The text of the sentence is available on p.105 of N. Haas book (Das Reichskriegsgericht...). It is also "non-stalinist" source - therefore you have two.

Right, so you don't have a verifiable source, and your "independent source" is a former NKVD official's "memories". Roger.


Can you answer a simple question for me, then? If you get rid of monopolies, right, how would you obtain eg. means of transport? Where will you get them from? A very simple question, I am very curious of your answer.

I don't have any idea as to what you're talking about, so I can't answer your question.

[bie]

Right, so you don't have a verifiable source, and your "independent source" is a former NKVD official's "memories". Roger.
Of course, both sources are verifiable. The text of the sentence was presented in on the page 115 of Haase book (from 1993). Sudoplatov memories are also considered by historians as a primary source.

I don't have any idea as to what you're talking about, so I can't answer your question.
Well, OK. Lets imagine a scenario of a working class revolution in some place. Factories are being taken over by workers, bourgeoisie is being kicked out. Some basis for the new society is being build. And now - how would you solve the problem of scarcity of goods. As you are limited mostly to the things you can produce yourself or some possibility of trade with other (non-revolutionary) societies. As the revolutionary situation is very likely to approach hostility from outside, this second option is quite limited. Lets think of an any good - eg. trucks to transport raw materials to factories.
Where would you get it from? Communists can answer this question by economic planning and plans of industrialization, that require centralized and sophisticated system of institutions and nationalization of private property. The correctness of that approach was proved by the historical experience (eg. success of the first 5 years plan). My question is - how would you approach this problem from the anarchist perspective? As far as I know, it is impossible to solve.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Of course, both sources are verifiable. The text of the sentence was presented in on the page 115 of Haase book (from 1993). Sudoplatov memories are also considered by historians as a primary source.

Still no verifiable source, I see. I'm not sure if you realize this, but a copy of "the Haase book from 1993" is not sitting in my lap right now. But I'll be sure to take your word for it, along with the memories of a former NKVD agent that "are also considered by historians as a primary source". (Do you actually know what the definition of "primary source" is? There is nothing inherently truthful about primary sources, they're just accounts from people who lived in a time period.)


Well, OK. Lets imagine a scenario of a working class revolution in some place. Factories are being taken over by workers, bourgeoisie is being kicked out. Some basis for the new society is being build. And now - how would you solve the problem of scarcity of goods. As you are limited mostly to the things you can produce yourself or some possibility of trade with other (non-revolutionary) societies. As the revolutionary situation is very likely to approach hostility from outside, this second option is quite limited. Lets think of an any good - eg. trucks to transport raw materials to factories.

Where would you get it from? Communists can answer this question by economic planning and plans of industrialization, that require centralized and sophisticated system of institutions and nationalization of private property. The correctness of that approach was proved by the historical experience (eg. success of the first 5 years plan). My question is - how would you approach this problem from the anarchist perspective? As far as I know, it is impossible to solve.

Dude, I'm not gonna do your homework for you. Anarchism as a political tendency has been around for almost 200 years. Believe it or not, questions regarding economic planning have been addressed during that time period. Happy hunting! :thumbup1:

[bie]

I'm not sure if you realize this, but a copy of "the Haase book from 1993" is not sitting in my lap right now.
In mine either. I am sure it can be found somewhere in the library. Happy hunting.

Do you actually know what the definition of "primary source" is? There is nothing inherently truthful about primary sources, they're just accounts from people who lived in a time period.
Yes, I know, but: once again - the text of the sentence states clearly about Nazi involvement in May Days in Barcelona in 1937. As the source is German, it has an evidential value. Second - memories of Sudoplatov. He was an old man in the 1990s, in that time he adopted different world view and he spoke very critically about the work of the secret services. He was an anticommunist. Why would he lie? He exposed many or the "dirty work" of some Soviet agents (including assassinations).

Dude, I'm not gonna do your homework for you. Anarchism as a political tendency has been around for almost 200 years. Believe it or not, questions regarding economic planning have been addressed during that time period. Happy hunting!
Very disappointing indeed.

[Os Cangaceiros]

In mine either. I am sure it can be found somewhere in the library. Happy hunting.

Right-I'll be sure to toddle off to my local library to find an obscure source about something that Stalinoids claim is common knowledge, yet can't even provide a link to a non-Stalin Society source in regards to.


Yes, I know, but: once again - the text of the sentence states clearly about Nazi involvement in May Days in Barcelona in 1937. As the source is German, it has an evidential value.

Wow, Germany had an interest in a destabilizing event within the Republic during a war they were aiding. Welcome to espionage 101. :rolleyes:

That doesn't say anything in regards to Nin as a fascist collaborater, by the way.


Second - memories of Sudoplatov. He was an old man in the 1990s, in that time he adopted different world view and he spoke very critically about the work of the secret services. He was an anticommunist. Why would he lie? He exposed many or the "dirty work" of some Soviet agents (including assassinations).

Classic Stalinoid hypocrisy: if one was ever a capitalist prior to critiquing a "communist" regime, their credibility is totally shot, while the 60 year old memories of a former NKVD agent are considered rock-solid proof when it comes to defending their positions.


Very disappointing indeed.

My heart bleeds for you. :crying:

[black magick hustla]

yea and kornstadt was a black hundredist plot and hungary 56 was masterminded by a bunch of ex members of the arrow cross party. oh what else, bukharin was a traitor as was all the bolshevik old guard, and the soviet union turned capitalist the day when the last nail was hammered into old uncle joes coffin (and uncle joe was poisoned)

[black magick hustla]

Blaaaaaaaaaaaarg petit bourgeois thought blaaaaaaaarg

[Os Cangaceiros]

the entire lenin-era politboro was comprised of closet fascists, saboteurs and trotskyist wreckers.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

i smell a sitcom

[ComradeOm]

i smell a sitcomOne's an anarchist moderator and the other's a dedicated Ant-Revisionist Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist. Together they fight crime

(Seriously, why this this thread still open? Why?)

[Thirsty Crow]

the entire lenin-era politboro was comprised of closet fascists, saboteurs and trotskyist wreckers.
And do you think that this eternal truth does not hold? Geez, how naive :rolleyes:
:laugh:

[bie]

the entire lenin-era politboro was comprised of closet fascists, saboteurs and trotskyist wreckers.
It happens quite often that in case of the revolutionary (or even instability) situations (like 1917 in Russia), to the high ranks positions are being pushed people with ties to the security services of the third countries. By doing this, third countries want to gain control over the situation. Therefore there is nothing strange in the fact that some of the high officials in the Revolutionary government (not all, of course) were playing a sort of a double-game. Few of them did not remain loyal to the Revolution, but with help of the third countries - turned into a leaders of the counterrevolution afterwards. There is nothing strange or unusual in this. Gen. Pinochet was once a loyal to the revolution as well. 5th columns were acting not only in USSR, but also in all the European countries. The difference was that in USSR it was possible to fight the 5th column before the war came, that allowed saving many millions of lives, that would be lost in another civil war. Can you imagine what would happen if Tuchaczevski started his Franco style - coup de etat in 1941 or 1942? How difficult the fight against fascism would be? How many more innocent civilians would die? These are quite serious questions.

and the soviet union turned capitalist the day when the last nail was hammered into old uncle joes coffin (and uncle joe was poisoned)
No. Soviet Union turned capitalist with privatization of socialist economy in 1991. However, some of the elements of the capitalist relations of production were continuously introduced before that by the hostile to deepening of the socialist relations. And as capitalism is known to bring the misery - the restoration of capitalism in Russia effected in shortening the life expectancy for men by 7 years. It is pretty clear.

(Seriously, why this this thread still open? Why?)
This thread shows very well the current state of the "far left" - with people trying to rebuild the serious revolutionary movement, based on realistic and scientific principles and bunches of fooled youth, influenced and inspired by bourgeois anticommunism - shouting and spiting on them. But when you ask them a simple question - what can you offer to the working people - they cannot answer. I am sure that after few years most of this youth will simply grow out of that and realize how utopian and naive they were. It is an open question who will they become?

edit: I am sure that among them are many genuine anticapitalists, but what is this anticapitalism for when you cannot present a real alternative, but concentrate on attacking organizations that actually know what to do. Think about that.

[Honggweilo]

Both of you need to read up on actual people, that fought and lived during the Spanish Civil War, ignore the propaganda spewed by idiots, and actually get the facts and a general idea about someone, that isn't propaganda. Anything less, and I'm not going to continue speaking with you, because it obviously gets us no where.

i lol'd at the guy suggesting i stop reading "propaganda" and read up on orwell instead :D. The Nin-gestapo connetion may be a bit farfetch'd, but the proto-cliffite "create a shitstorm everywhere we have to make alliances, just for the heck of it" tactics of the POUM was the biggest unintentional ally of fascism. If you wont believe historical sources, just look at the ironic "unite against fascism" "coalition".

[Honggweilo]

@ Nin

about the "reading up" bit

http://www.revleft.com/vb/bullets-came-all-t56071/index.html

[Ravachol]

Your project, vision - ideology is Utopian - petty bourgeois - not realistic.
(..)
As you cannot offer anything positive, because your "anarchist society project" is childish and extremely naive, you are doing extremely bad job for the working people
(..)


Care to back that up with, say, arguments?

[Honggweilo]

Care to back that up with, say, arguments?

thats a difficult request in the middle of this derailed shitslinging flame war, with no hopes of being put on track again :lol:

[ComradeOm]

thats a difficult request in the middle of this derailed shitslinging flame war, with no hopes of being put on track again :lol:Out of curiosity, doesn't it fall under your remit - you know, as a Global Moderator - to do something about that? I mean, I assumed that moderators played some role in the maintenance of these forums?

[Honggweilo]

Out of curiosity, doesn't it fall under your remit - you know, as a Global Moderator - to do something about that? I mean, I assumed that moderators played some role in the maintenance of these forums?

moderating this thread for me would be a conflict of interest, dont you think :rolleyes:. Besides, i'm enjoying the harmless drama XD (though its reaching boilling point)

[Honggweilo]

Ok i went through with splitting this from the original thread. For those who want to continue the debate on whether the NKVD ate babies, Nin was a gestapo agent, or why Durrutti lacked any decent facial hair, continue it here.

KEEP IT CIVIL, WITHOUT WAR

[bie]

Care to back that up with, say, arguments?

Yes. First of all, I have asked my interlocutor "Explosive Situation" a simple question in the form of:

Lets imagine a scenario of a working class revolution in some place. Factories are being taken over by workers, bourgeoisie is being kicked out. Some basis for the new society is being build. And now - how would you solve the problem of scarcity of goods. As you are limited mostly to the things you can produce yourself or some possibility of trade with other (non-revolutionary) societies. As the revolutionary situation is very likely to approach hostility from outside, this second option is quite limited. Lets think of an any good - eg. trucks to transport raw materials to factories.
Where would you get it from? Communists can answer this question by economic planning and plans of industrialization, that require centralized and sophisticated system of institutions and nationalization of private property. The correctness of that approach was proved by the historical experience (eg. success of the first 5 years plan). My question is - how would you approach this problem from the anarchist perspective?

I didn't get an answer, therefore I assume that this problem cannot be solved in by the theory of decentralization and lack of central institutions (state). Correct me if I am wrong. Another thing is an army and conscription. How will you solve that? Lets assume that every revolution brings a military retaliation (as happened always in a history). Defense, healthcare, education, transport, production - it cannot run in the decentralized and non-institutional form. They all require central ministerial institutions. It is the requirement not of the socio-economic formation - but of the level of development of the productive forces (therefore it is something more elementary than just capitalism/socialism dichotomy). This is also the reason why you need ministerial central institution both in capitalism and socialism. Concerning "anarchist vision" - lets discuss their solutions. I am looking forward to hear it.

[Lyev]

Ok, I'm confused, can someone explain here to me very briefly what the actual point of contention here is, besides an infantile free-for-all where, basically, everyone is just head-butting their keyboards? As I understand, the pro-KKE side is claiming that anarchist group(s), at least in Greece, are either superfluous or, even worse, counter-constructive. I'll also add that this ill-thought out premise that every anarchist is an immature 13-year-old who is simply out on a demonstration to throw bricks at windows is of course ridiculous. Furthermore, I understand that some animosity between anarchists and the KKE etc. in Greece can be traced back to the island's somewhat tumultuous past, what with the Greek civil war and so on. I think the KKE was around at this time, although I'm not too sure. I don't know very much about it, can someone elaborate a bit on this? Thanks comrades.

[Honggweilo]

Ok, I'm confused, can someone explain here to me very briefly what the actual point of contention here is, besides an infantile free-for-all where, basically, everyone is just head-butting their keyboards? As I understand, the pro-KKE side is claiming that anarchist group(s), at least in Greece, are either superfluous or, even worse, counter-constructive. I'll also add that this ill-thought out premise that every anarchist is an immature 13-year-old who is simply out on a demonstration to throw bricks at windows is of course ridiculous. Furthermore, I understand that some animosity between anarchists and the KKE etc. in Greece can be traced back to the island's somewhat tumultuous past, what with the Greek civil war and so on. I think the KKE was around at this time, although I'm not too sure. I don't know very much about it, can someone elaborate a bit on this? Thanks comrades.

ffs i split the thread for a reason, dont start that discussion here

[Magón]

@ Nin

about the "reading up" bit

http://www.revleft.com/vb/bullets-came-all-t56071/index.html

So what? I can't like Nin, because he wanted to finish what was started, and not just stop halfway? He wanted full revolution, rather than just sit dead in the water action, waiting for Franco and his Fascist Goons to come marching into Barcelona and the rest of Spain? Because he saw the PSUC as a threat to the revolution in Spain, and wanted to oust them before they could do anything more to hurt the fighting? (Because they were under the thumb of the Soviet Union/Comintern) Because he wanted action now, and reforms later. (Usually in a war situation, I find that taking action first, is the better way to go, than reforming this and that, while your enemy is on the attack doing none of that. The enemy is usually focused on victory, and later fixing society when the time is more ideal.)

I don't see why I can't support Nin? He wanted constant revolution, he wanted the people to be free from oppressors. I don't see why, as an Anarcho-Socialist, I can't support Nin? I think he's a very interesting man in history, and as a man of revolution, I find him to be an idle of mine to some extent. Another thing you might want to read, is a book by the name The Spanish Cockpit by Franz Borkenau. It's about his time in Spain during the war, and very insightful.

Also, completely off from the topic at hand, but I like you put my old post as the starting post, Deconditioned. That post was directed to the actual KKE discussion in Ongoing Struggles, than it was to the Spanish Civil War discussion. :thumbup1:

[Lyev]

ffs i split the thread for a reason, dont start that discussion hereSorry! Didn't see that this thing was in history.

[Barry Lyndon]

Shut the fuck up, bie. I'm so sick of your lies and slanders you fling against the brave anarchists and Trotskyists who fought in the Spanish Civil War against fascism, as well Trotsky himself. Someone who thinks forged documents and tortured confessions of the Moscow Trials are reliable evidence, but that everyone else is a 'liar', 'petit-bourgeois' 'capitalist agent' is not someone I have the time or the patience to argue history and politics with.

Get over yourself. Stalinism failed. Stalinism will always fail. Stalinism destroyed the USSR and the Eastern Bloc. But thats fine, just go ahead and blame everyone and everything under the sun but yourself and your failure of a political ideology(and no, it is not 'Marxist-Leninism'- the horrors of Stalinism are totally at odds with everything that Marx and Lenin strove for).

[bie]

Oh Barry Lyndon, don't get too excited. Tell me better what Trotsky did that you admire him so much?

And a little remark. USSR wasn't destroyed by "stalinism" but by antistalinism. The people who forced policies of perestroika and glasnost weren't "stalinists. On the contrary - they were fierce antistalinists. The banner of "antistalinism" was the gathering place for revisionists, liberals, nationalists and social-democrats in late USSR - who eventually brought the capitalism back. M. Gorbachev and B. Yelsin were both fierce antistalinists. Actually under Stalin leadership the USSR experienced unprecedented growth and great victory over fascism. And these are simple facts, sufficient to prove non only that your thesis of "stalinism destroyed USSR" simply doesn't hold but is also the expression of the great ignorance.

You seem to me to have some sort of cognitive dissonance.

[RED DAVE]

You seem to me to have some sort of cognitive dissonance.Considering that the USSR had no effective Unions, no Soviets, no Socialism and was not a Republic, I would think that the cognitive dissonance is on your part.

RED DAVE

[bie]

Considering that the USSR had no effective Unions, no Soviets, no Socialism and was not a Republic, I would think that the cognitive dissonance is on your part.
Bravo. USSR means Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. It means that it consisted of the union (not "effective Unions") of republics (yes, not monarchies) which socio-economical formation was socialism (not capitalism or feudalism) and administrated by the Soviets (yes - thousands or soviets from sielsoviet to Supreme Soviet, not by tsar). Barry Lyndon claimed that "Stalin destroyed USSR". I presented arguments that it couldn't be the case, because it was Stalin who actually built USSR, therefore I wouldn't make a sense to build and destroy things at the same time. Therefore your comment is offtopic. By the way - you also represent here a very narrow and - quite sectarian viewpoint. Talk to the people from former socialist countries. They will always tell you before they had socialism (or even communism) and regardless of what was their opinion on that (these are varied), they can distinguish between real socialism and capitalism, and do it - quite correctly.

[CJCM]

Talk to the people from former socialist countries. They will always tell you before they had socialism (or even communism) and regardless of what was their opinion on that (these are varied), they can distinguish between real socialism and capitalism, and do it - quite correctly.

To add to this argument the vice pres of Poland's Solidarity even conforms this on Euronews (http://www.euronews.net/2010/08/31/solidarity-founder-misses-30th-anniversary-event/) ( Just Push Play )


“Only in the 1990s did we realise that the changes were not what we’d expected,” said the vice-president of Solidarity, Marciej Janowski. “Free market rules were introduced and businesses had to adjust to them. Some sectors were liquidated. For the first time we experienced unemployment. This was a problem that many people, including some in Solidarity, could not face. Even today they are blaming the government or Solidarity for it not turning out the way they wanted it to.”

[Panda Tse Tung]

Shut the fuck up, bie. I'm so sick of your lies and slanders you fling against the brave anarchists and Trotskyists who fought in the Spanish Civil War against fascism, as well Trotsky himself. Someone who thinks forged documents and tortured confessions of the Moscow Trials are reliable evidence, but that everyone else is a 'liar', 'petit-bourgeois' 'capitalist agent' is not someone I have the time or the patience to argue history and politics with.

Get over yourself. Stalinism failed. Stalinism will always fail. Stalinism destroyed the USSR and the Eastern Bloc. But thats fine, just go ahead and blame everyone and everything under the sun but yourself and your failure of a political ideology(and no, it is not 'Marxist-Leninism'- the horrors of Stalinism are totally at odds with everything that Marx and Lenin strove for).

orly? Then what is this?

[CJCM]

Shut the fuck up, bie. I'm so sick of your lies and slanders you fling against the brave anarchists and Trotskyists who fought in the Spanish Civil War against fascism, as well Trotsky himself. Someone who thinks forged documents and tortured confessions of the Moscow Trials are reliable evidence, but that everyone else is a 'liar', 'petit-bourgeois' 'capitalist agent' is not someone I have the time or the patience to argue history and politics with.


Pfff well I'll say it for you than Barry :
R I P Reality:crying:
Hello hypotheses history :(


Stalinism destroyed the USSR and the Eastern Bloc.
And what created the USSR and the Eastern Bloc, omg it was the dark spectre of Marxism-Leninism ( AKA: Stalin-destroy-all-non-moustage-supporters-or-burn-in-a-Rostov-cesspitt-awwwrgh-ism)

[RED DAVE]

And what created the USSRThe Russian Revolution, led by a genuinely revolutionary party, not a stalinist bureaucracy, which strangled it in its infancy.


and the Eastern BlocThe Russian army. It lasted, in its state capitalist glory, all of 40 years, and then reverted to private capitalism.

RED DAVE

[CJCM]

The Russian Revolution, led by a genuinely revolutionary party, not a stalinist bureaucracy, which strangled it in its infancy.

The Russian army. It lasted, in its state capitalist glory, all of 40 years, and then reverted to private capitalism.

RED DAVE

Ill give you a thank you for telling me the western anti Communism version, just for your effort :)
And would you now give me your ideological answer ?
For all i know the ''red army'' diabolically did not incorporate Austria, did not invade Yugoslavia, didn't go further into Germany, had plans to unite a free demilitarized Germany, gave autonomy to such a high degree that it could not interfere from Moscow into local affairs, didn't took half of China, didn’t go into Scandinavia and it did fund reparation projects in the whole liberated territories....
Was it just because they wanted to spread the gains of the Russian Revolution to other countries or was it an evil counterproductive project to install capitalism with autonomy and thus working against itself?
Now I'm no Tom Clancy but i can say that the second can only exist in some weird piece of fiction ;).

[The Author]

Considering that the USSR had no effective Unions, no Soviets, no Socialism and was not a Republic, I would think that the cognitive dissonance is on your part.

RED DAVE

You know, it's incredible, the lengths to which some people go to "criticize" something without any basis. It goes to show how bankrupt some people's tendencies are in terms of its usage.

Unions, which had the power to hire and fire workers whereas managers did not have this right as in capitalist countries. Unions, which guaranteed workers pensions, decent health clubs, libraries, recreational facilities, vacation bonuses, and all of the perks necessary to boost the mental psyche of the individual as he could develop the potential to at least better himself as opposed to worrying about debt or rents or expenses in living, an obvious big step up from the capitalist, Tsarist past.

Soviets, at the municipal, regional, and republican level where people participated in everyday decision-making of their local community or region and have the power to decide politics in the Union as a whole (After all, it was the very system that eventually brought about the U.S.S.R.'s own demise because it was the workers themselves who decided upon dissolution, decided upon perestroika and glasnost, and thought they could get the best of both worlds when in fact they fucked themselves- good points on why ideology is important in the running of a socialist society.). Soviets, in which everyone participated and in which anyone who participated could easily join the Communist Party. So that's a myth cast aside by the advocates of "Party Dictatorship" since it really was a working class dictatorship.

Socialism, when everything was in the hands of the state, there were progressive taxes towards workers of different incomes, private property and exploitation were nonexistent (Oh, and before some dumbass comes in and starts presenting charts on wage earnings among workers and officials, wage differentials is not an example of exploitation. It's when a laborer is not paid in full according to the hours of labor performed or the pieces produced that exploitation takes place, since the surplus value goes into the hand of an individual person who builds a luxury villa, a private hunting range, or travels to some exotic foreign location with that surplus value, or takes that surplus value, invests it, and creates more capital through interest and commodity speculation. It's when a laborer cannot earn enough to take care of himself because the capital produced through his labor-power went into someone else's hands. In the Soviet Union, the laborer was paid according to skill and ability and the rigors of the work performed, and the surplus did not go into some individual's pocket, but went towards the State, which protected society as a whole, which gave people hospitals, schools, roads, libraries, housing, and space technology to name a few things.). Socialism, which obviously had the remaining problems from the past of shortages, not enough in terms of agricultural output, not enough in consumer goods, not enough in better housing or quality of living as was ultimately needed. But this is socialism, not communism. There is an obvious reason why Marxism-Leninism emphasizes that a transitory period is necessary to changeover from capitalism to communism. You cannot change society and its conditions overnight, you have to study its material conditions and work forward from there. But no, the "critics" don't like this. The "critics" don't want transition, they say it's state capitalism, misquoting Lenin as their excuse. The "critics" expect communism with no understanding of the changes necessary to go from one social condition to the next. They use catchphrases like "labor time vouchers," "worker militias" and "worker councils" and "workers control," disguising the fact that they really cannot stand the concept of revolutionary change and they really do not want to experience a repeat of the past, or facts. They don't like the concept that change is hard. But if they studied history, they would know that socialist revolution is not an easy and simple thing. But it's a necessary thing, and the only way to save humanity from capitalist destruction. Someone once said on this forum that this planet could become a dead cinder when people are done with it if things stay the way they are. We can see this fate. Or, if we look at this dialectically, we can see the opposite outcome. We can see a bright, prosperous new future after struggling to overthrow everything that was old, everything that kept humanity behind and bring our productive capacities, our abilities to understand and utilize the objective laws of nature to our advantage. It won't be easy, but it certainly beats the shit out of doing nothing or sitting at the sidelines and watching this world go supernova. Seeing this dialectically, we can change our condition through perseverance and struggle. The past taught us that we can do it, that it was not for naught, that we will face hardships but we shall have to face them to better life for future generations, and so we must go forward and carry on the struggle.

Republic, when there was representative democracy, when there were constitutions and constitutional rights not guaranteed in capitalist countries and the Communist Party was open to anyone who wanted to dedicate themselves to the struggle, to ideological education and experience (the openness of the Party was another reason why the U.S.S.R. brought itself to dissolution, because of the fact that garbage could get in and destroy things. Purges counter this, but no, the "critics" say everyone was 100% innocent. The Mass Line helped, but when you have a society that chooses to ignore ideology, masses without consciousness mean nothing). Republic, when nations were guaranteed ethnic and national rights not found in any other republic in existence, and the fact that this Republic had its members having the right to secede.


The Russian Revolution, led by a genuinely revolutionary party, not a stalinist bureaucracy, which strangled it in its infancy.Oh, I thought the Revolution had already started with the formation of Soviets ("All Power to the Soviets!") and the "genuinely revolutionary party" just walked in the Winter Palace, took the keys to the kingdom, and ran things its own way? Or, was it a "genuinely revolutionary party" which "degenerated" after the so-called "Murder of Old Bolsheviks" who joined the party in 1917 and after and not before when the Party was already forming its revolutionary status? Or what about the workers who were supposedly fucked over in Kronstadt or those vast Soviets that were supposedly undermined by that "genuinely revolutionary party"? Where's the consistency? Who's telling the truth, who is full of shit, who has the facts?