Are you a Trotskyite/Liberal/Utopian? [Archive]

Bolshevika

29th August 2003, 01:48

Originally posted by AK47+Aug 29 2003, 01:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AK47 @ Aug 29 2003, 01:39 AM)
Unrelenting [email protected] 29 2003, 02:35 AM
B, and i think im turning into a Moaist-satlinist
Fight the dark side...

But seriously why? Stalin and Mao were state capitalists and not remotly socialist, especially towards the ends of their "reigns". Not to mention the simple fact they WERE dictators, how is one man in control a socialist policy? Sounds more like feudalism to me. [/b]
Ouch, easy there. Stalin and Mao were not "state capitalists" for they supported egalitarian socialist policies, such as collectivization, public services, and no private property. If you ask me, that is nothing like feudalism, which is actually more similar to objectivism, the opposite of what Stalin and Mao put into place.

They were dictators? Who told you that? I agree that Stalin was quite feared amongst his party, but he was far from a "dictator". A dictator is an autocratic power who makes all the decisions himself without the influece of anyone else. Stalin and Mao were not "dictators" for they had the Communist vanguard make the decisions for them.

I see you are suffering from Red Star 2000 fever.

Invader Zim

29th August 2003, 02:15

Originally posted by Bolshevika+Aug 29 2003, 02:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bolshevika @ Aug 29 2003, 02:48 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 01:39 AM

Unrelenting [email protected] 29 2003, 02:35 AM
B, and i think im turning into a Moaist-satlinist
Fight the dark side...

But seriously why? Stalin and Mao were state capitalists and not remotly socialist, especially towards the ends of their "reigns". Not to mention the simple fact they WERE dictators, how is one man in control a socialist policy? Sounds more like feudalism to me.
Ouch, easy there. Stalin and Mao were not "state capitalists" for they supported egalitarian socialist policies, such as collectivization, public services, and no private property. If you ask me, that is nothing like feudalism, which is actually more similar to objectivism, the opposite of what Stalin and Mao put into place.

They were dictators? Who told you that? I agree that Stalin was quite feared amongst his party, but he was far from a "dictator". A dictator is an autocratic power who makes all the decisions himself without the influece of anyone else. Stalin and Mao were not "dictators" for they had the Communist vanguard make the decisions for them.

I see you are suffering from Red Star 2000 fever. [/b]
Ouch, easy there. Stalin and Mao were not "state capitalists" for they supported egalitarian socialist policies, such as collectivization, public services, and no private property.

Supporting in words and supporting in practice are differemt. The fact remains that Stalin was all powerful, the things he did to his political enemys PROVES this. In socialism the power should belong to the people not an individual.

As for state capitalism, stalin collected all capital but instead of spreading it around equily him and those who supported him prospered, everyone else had to make do. Anyone who denys this please find me a source which proves that all peasants in the USSR who lived as well as Stalin and I will admit defeat. He got the high life along with those who helped control the state and supported him where as the people didnt. State capitalism.

They were dictators? Who told you that?

Studing and common sense told me that, the fact is Stalin was never going to be removed from power unless by force. He aslo had total control of the nation, no amount of claiming its capitalist propaganda will change that fact. If Stalin wanted something you can be damn sure that no system was going to stop him or disagree with him, as they who could stop him were all dead, some even with pick axes sticking out their skulls.

I see you are suffering from Red Star 2000 fever.

Ohh god, if you only knew how much we hated each other...

Bolshevika

29th August 2003, 03:39

Supporting in words and supporting in practice are differemt. The fact remains that Stalin was all powerful, the things he did to his political enemys PROVES this. In socialism the power should belong to the people not an individual.

I do disagree with some of the things Stalin did to counter revolutionaries in the gulags, however, some people were looking for it.

I personally prefer Mao's form of dealing with reactionaries and counter revolutionaries (I am much more of a Maoist than Stalinist, although I support both for the most part)

As for state capitalism, stalin collected all capital but instead of spreading it around equily him and those who supported him prospered, everyone else had to make do. Anyone who denys this please find me a source which proves that all peasants in the USSR who lived as well as Stalin and I will admit defeat. He got the high life along with those who helped control the state and supported him where as the people didnt. State capitalism.

Ever here of Stalin's Five-Year-Plan and collectivized farming? Well, Stalin sucessfully overthrew the Kulaks via peasant revolution, and collectivized the farms there.

Stalin, from what I've gathered, was a simple man. Even the imperialists admit this. So please link me proof to all these allegations.

Studing and common sense told me that, the fact is Stalin was never going to be removed from power unless by force. He aslo had total control of the nation, no amount of claiming its capitalist propaganda will change that fact. If Stalin wanted something you can be damn sure that no system was going to stop him or disagree with him, as they who could stop him were all dead, some even with pick axes sticking out their skulls.

I'm sorry but 'common sense' has failed you. Are you a Trotskyite? From that last sentence I'm beginning to see where most of your anti-Stalin roots are coming from.

Scottish_Militant

29th August 2003, 04:26

Lynch, you are a buffoon :lol:

Vinny Rafarino

29th August 2003, 05:41

I happen to know that he and comrade Elijah are two different people. Nice attempts to discredit him though character assassination lads. How very Trot of you all.

Comrade Lynch,

We unfortunately have to deal with this "communist" revolutionary character on ISF as well. These kats get their bottle up staight away when they are in large groups...much like nazis and rats do.

AK47,

I give comrade Josef "man of steel" Stalin 14.5 to 1 odds over "Little" Leon Trotsky in a full contact match to the death.

synthesis

29th August 2003, 06:37

Stalin and Mao were certainly not state capitalists. I can understand the rationale behind such an accusation, though.

As to the topic question - how about "neither" (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=12&t=15437)?

RevolucioN NoW

29th August 2003, 10:50

wow, another 'ur either with us or with the terrorists' style bullshit display. I have no problem with Niomi Klien, good reporter and 'No Logo' and 'Fences and windows' are 2 of the best books i have ever read. Ill go A to show my solidarity to the people of the world, not with a few ultra dogmatic stalinists who has their time 60 years ago.

:ph34r:

Saint-Just

29th August 2003, 12:32

Originally posted by RevolucioN [email protected] 29 2003, 10:50 AM
wow, another 'ur either with us or with the terrorists' style bullshit display. I have no problem with Niomi Klien, good reporter and 'No Logo' and 'Fences and windows' are 2 of the best books i have ever read. Ill go A to show my solidarity to the people of the world, not with a few ultra dogmatic stalinists who has their time 60 years ago.

:ph34r:
Ultra dogmatic? How ridiculous. Comrade RAF, elijahcraig, ernestolynch, Unrelenting Steve and I are certainly not dogmatic.

We are the ones who support virtually all Marxist-Leninist states and today have support for a plethora of leftist movements. We realise that the situation in every country is slightly different and as such demands a different approach. We subscribe to Marx and Lenin but not dogmatically.

Looking at the world today we have not 'had out time'. I think you will find that our style of socialism is still very much popular where socialism has been successful. Certainly the world Communist powers have declined. This Naomi Klein approach is hardly seeing the kind of success Marxism-Leninism has at the moment.

I choose A. Should this not have been made in to a poll?

This poll is not asking people whether they are Stalinist or otherwise. It means precisely what it says.

Elect Marx

29th August 2003, 14:14

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 29 2003, 12:32 PM
Ultra dogmatic? How ridiculous. Comrade RAF, elijahcraig, ernestolynch, Unrelenting Steve and I are certainly not dogmatic.
Chairman Mao, I know from expiriance that some of the members you have listed, are very dogmatic and sectairian. I am dissapointed to see you post such a broad and unsupported claim. You ususaly seem to make such reasonable posts. I can see why you would want to defend those members that agree with your stances on many issues but you must not support them without proof or a reasonable argument. You haven't deffended them and you hurt your own credability with this method.

Elect Marx

29th August 2003, 14:20

Oh yeah, I'm gonna have to choose B :lol: Though I thing there is a little bit of B in A and this thread seems a bit divisive but less so than the other 2 or 3 like it.

redstar2000

29th August 2003, 14:51

Are you a Trotskyite/Liberal/Utopian?, Or are you a Socialist/Communist?

This poll is not asking people whether they are Stalinist or otherwise. It means precisely what it says.

Precision, Chairman Mao, is "precisely" what is absent from stupid questions like this one.

Labels can sometimes be useful. When someone uses them carelessly, they are hopelessly inadequate.

In this case, note the use of the word "Trotskyite" (as opposed to the customary "Trotskyist"...). "Trotskyite" is a "Stalinite" term. I would conclude therefore that ernestolynch is a Stalinist.

So the real meaning of his question is: are you a Stalinist or are you anything else?

We are the ones who support virtually all Marxist-Leninist states...

Why do I have the feeling that this is "precisely" what ernestolynch & company are really talking about here?

At Che-Lives, Cuba comes in for a good deal of comradely criticism. The restoration of capitalism in China and the similar process currently taking place in Vietnam are noted and condemned. And the mystical pretensions and personal corruption of North Korea's "great leader" are a subject of ridicule.

Does that make us "liberal" or "utopian" or "anarchist" or whatever?

Only in the eyes of apologists for those particular governments. To them, "Marxism" is some kind of diplomatic post and their "parties" are like embassies.

Ambassadors do not criticize their employers.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Elect Marx

29th August 2003, 15:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 02:51 PM
Are you a Trotskyite/Liberal/Utopian?, Or are you a Socialist/Communist?

This poll is not asking people whether they are Stalinist or otherwise. It means precisely what it says.

Precision, Chairman Mao, is "precisely" what is absent from stupid questions like this one.

Labels can sometimes be useful. When someone uses them carelessly, they are hopelessly inadequate.

In this case, note the use of the word "Trotskyite" (as opposed to the customary "Trotskyist"...). "Trotskyite" is a "Stalinite" term. I would conclude therefore that ernestolynch is a Stalinist.

So the real meaning of his question is: are you a Stalinist or are you anything else?

We are the ones who support virtually all Marxist-Leninist states...

Why do I have the feeling that this is "precisely" what ernestolynch & company are really talking about here?

At Che-Lives, Cuba comes in for a good deal of comradely criticism. The restoration of capitalism in China and the similar process currently taking place in Vietnam are noted and condemned. And the mystical pretensions and personal corruption of North Korea's "great leader" are a subject of ridicule.

Does that make us "liberal" or "utopian" or "anarchist" or whatever?

Only in the eyes of apologists for those particular governments. To them, "Marxism" is some kind of diplomatic post and their "parties" are like embassies.

Ambassadors do not criticize their employers.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
I saw that too, but I agreed to being a socialist/communist never a stalinist. If this was some sort of feable attempt to label stalinsts or nonstalinists, then it was a sad attemt at it and failed to be precice of effective.

YKTMX

29th August 2003, 15:31

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhah. A.

Scottish_Militant

29th August 2003, 15:39

We unfortunately have to deal with this "communist" revolutionary character on ISF as well.

Who exactly is we?

According to Junichi, his forum is not a stalinist clique

But obviously you think otherwise?

Besides, it's worth pointing out that you failed miserably to 'deal' with any of my arguments on ISF, instead you resorted to petty insults which simply made you look stupid - the only thing you are good at ;)

elijahcraig

29th August 2003, 19:44

Reading through this whole trhead, I've forgotten the choices...I choose "True communist" either way. Stalinist.

Communist Revoltuionary, your arguments looked like a copy and paste article from Alan Woods. Nice "arguments" ..."Comrade".

Blackberry

30th August 2003, 12:54

Originally posted by AK47+Aug 29 2003, 11:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AK47 @ Aug 29 2003, 11:39 AM)
Unrelenting [email protected] 29 2003, 02:35 AM
B, and i think im turning into a Moaist-satlinist
Fight the dark side...

But seriously why? Stalin and Mao were state capitalists and not remotly socialist, especially towards the ends of their "reigns". [/b]
Who are you to judge? You are one of the best imperialist lackeys to frequent these depths.

Vinny Rafarino

30th August 2003, 13:19

"communist" charlatan...I mean Recolutionary,

"we" are my fellow marxist/leninists that have not been fooled by the Trot's treachery.

"I" failed miserably eh? Not according to us real communists.

Let me guess....You gonna call me a "dogmatic Stalininst", a "totalitarian lunatic", a "state capitalist" or babble about a "deformed workers state" next.... :lol:

Invader Zim

30th August 2003, 13:43

Originally posted by Neutral Nation+Aug 30 2003, 01:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Neutral Nation @ Aug 30 2003, 01:54 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 11:39 AM

Unrelenting [email protected] 29 2003, 02:35 AM
B, and i think im turning into a Moaist-satlinist
Fight the dark side...

But seriously why? Stalin and Mao were state capitalists and not remotly socialist, especially towards the ends of their "reigns".
Who are you to judge? You are one of the best imperialist lackeys to frequent these depths. [/b]
:whine: :whine:

Piss off, that is unless you actually have something interesting to say... (well there is always a first time for every thing)

Saint-Just

30th August 2003, 15:51

Chairman Mao, I know from expiriance that some of the members you have listed, are very dogmatic and sectairian. I am dissapointed to see you post such a broad and unsupported claim. You ususaly seem to make such reasonable posts. I can see why you would want to defend those members that agree with your stances on many issues but you must not support them without proof or a reasonable argument. You haven't deffended them and you hurt your own credability with this method.

Some of my comrades are dogmatic and sectarian. However, I do not agree that those I listed are.

I did not use any proof or reasonable argument because while going through a plan for such a post I realised I would have to first define ‘dogmatic’ and then explain why the members I listed do not fit that description. I simply could not be bothered to construct a lengthy argument.

I did go some way in saying that since we support such a large number of Marxist-Leninist and other states we could not be dogmatic. This assumes that these states are non-dogmatic, the sum-total of their ideologies is not overwhelmingly dogmatic rather.

I can give an example of where our support lies:
USSR until 1953
PRC until 1976
Cuba
Eastern Europe to varying dates up to 1989.
DPRK
Generally Chavez’s Venezuala, Milosevic’s Yugoslavia, Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.
Various shortlived socialists revolutions e.g. Chile, Nicaragua
We also support groups such as FARC

I can see why you would want to defend those members that agree with your stances on many issues but you must not support them without proof or a reasonable argument.

I am circumspect about this, but I could say I am more loyal than I am reasonable. If you become one of my Comrades you too will enjoy my unquestioning defence of your integrity.

Redstar2000. My comment was not meant for eyes such as yours. I largely agree with you. However, Guardia Bolivariano would be a case of someone who choose A yet is not a Stalinist. I think there is some validity to what I said in that we are differentiating between ‘authoritarians’ and libertarians on this site.

Bolshevika

30th August 2003, 16:13

CM: My politics are similar to yours (I support all of the nations you mentioned, except I'm a little split on Mugabe), but you support Milosevic? Could you please state a case for him? I know he was part of the Yugoslavian Communist party, but from what I heard (mostly just Western propaganda to support a U.S. military conflict), he was a 'genocidal maniac' who attempted to kill the different ethnicities in his nation. I don't know much about him.

ernestolynch

30th August 2003, 17:50

To balance what you may have been told by the CIA-CNN-BBC, take a look here:

http://www.tenc.net/

http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/99eeu/

Plus you should maybe read Noam Chomsky, William Blum, Michael Parenti and news reports from John Pilger and Robert Fisk. Chomsky in particular wrote a lot during the NATO war against Jugoslavia.

In a nutshell my view is: Yugoslavia - multi-racial socialist country (with its faults but...), a block to US/German dominance in the Balkans, which is key to control of the southwestern front in to the former USSR, and strategically close to Turkey and the Middle East. Germany and US rivals for power here, encourage and foment nationalism in Croatia, Slovenia and Islamic Fundamentalism in Bosnia. The US failed to control Albania in 1993 (?) so with help of Islamicists and Nazis (the KLA 'freedom fighters' were in fact far-right Fascists) commit terrorist acts against socialist Albanians and the minority population in Kosovc-Metohija (Serbs, Roma and Jews).

Milosevic stamps on the Nazi terrorists and a minor civil war erupts.

The West sees its cue and sends over its task force of journalists to frighten the western public with claims of 'Greater Serbia', 'Serbs=Nazis' and 'ethnic cleansing'. One Labour MP, Ben Bradshaw, even claimed on TV that the Serbs were on the side of the Nazis in WW2 - luckily Tony Benn was there to inform the viewers that Bradshaw was lying.

NATO demands free access to the WHOLE of the FR Yugoslavia, under the Rambouillet Talks, after FRY agrees to withdraw its police and troops from Kosovo. Of course FRY refuses, and is blitzed for the first time since the Luftwaffe did so in WW2.

This was the first time by the way that the German Air Force took part in combat action SINCE 1945. The horror on the faces of some of the elderly Serbs, Jews and Roma as German tanks rolled into Yugoslavia was unforgettable.

Milosevic is replaced in a right-wing coup of businessmen and gangsters (hailed by Trotskyists SWP as a Peoples Revolution - idiots and is on trial in the NATO court in Den Haag- a court only recognised by NATO.

All the national industries of Yugoslavia are now sold and closed down by western companies.

Kosovo is a haven for drug/guns/sex-slave gangsters and its minority population live in fear or in refugee camps in Serbia and Montenegro.

I was only going to write a sentence! :o

Bolshevika

30th August 2003, 18:04

Thank you Ernesto, very interesting indeed.

elijahcraig

30th August 2003, 18:50

I don't think its possible for me to support a National Socialist, which Milosevic was. Serbs bating non-Serbs, it was fueld by racism. I support all the other countries you mentioned, not too sure about Mugabe though. And I'm not sure it matters if Milosevic was part of the Yugoslavian Communist Party, that party had been revisionist since Tito.

ernestolynch

30th August 2003, 18:54

Read the links, see who was doing the baiting.

CompadreGuerrillera

30th August 2003, 20:05

I vote a C, FUCK labels, labels suck, labels are for posers, who are too stupid to think, i Have my beliefs, and both lie in B AND A mind you, so im just not gonna participate in this

O ya, and elijah, and ernest, isnt one poll good enough for you?

Lardlad95

30th August 2003, 20:14

Well I'm a liberal socialist....so...do I vote C?

Lardlad95

30th August 2003, 20:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 07:44 PM
Reading through this whole trhead, I've forgotten the choices...I choose "True communist" either way. Stalinist.

Communist Revoltuionary, your arguments looked like a copy and paste article from Alan Woods. Nice "arguments" ..."Comrade".
was stalin a true communist?

I just want your opinion on the matter

elijahcraig

30th August 2003, 20:17

"FUCk Lables! I'z not a poswer! Fuck em al!"

-CG

You are labeled no matter what the circumstance, stop the bourgeois individuality bullshit, what are you 10?

elijahcraig

30th August 2003, 20:18

I obviously believe Stalin was a true communist.

Lardlad95

30th August 2003, 20:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 08:18 PM
I obviously believe Stalin was a true communist.
I see.....well everyone has a ri ght to their own opinion.

I wont pry....whaat you believe is your own buisness..well until we all become cells in a social body...then you can think what they make you think :D

elijahcraig

30th August 2003, 20:27

Who made me think what I think? What the hell are you talking about?

Lardlad95

30th August 2003, 20:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 08:27 PM
Who made me think what I think? What the hell are you talking about?
No I was just joking....

Saying that we disagreed but you are allowed to believe what you wish to believe, until of ourse we convert to communism then we will all be forced to believe the same thing.

I was just joking

RevolucioN NoW

31st August 2003, 10:36

Ultra dogmatic? How ridiculous. Comrade RAF, elijahcraig, ernestolynch, Unrelenting Steve and I are certainly not dogmatic.

Sorry, didnt realise you would be offended by such a broad comment. Dogmatism is inherent in orthodox Marxism-lenism based on my interpretation. that and a blood stained security apparatus and censorship of everything.

I can give an example of where our support lies:
USSR until 1953
PRC until 1976
Cuba
Eastern Europe to varying dates up to 1989.
DPRK
Generally Chavez’s Venezuala, Milosevic’s Yugoslavia, Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.
Various shortlived socialists revolutions e.g. Chile, Nicaragua
We also support groups such as FARC

I would not have supported the USSR since the first purges of members of the proletariat. late 1920's i think.

China was going well until the "great leap forward". the "cultural revolution" was good as it required little bloodshed, at least initially.

Cuba is an interesting situation: Fidel is undoubtably a dictator, however the country has made many real advances along the path to socialism. Is this the way that Che envisioned Cuba?

DPRK is facist in my mind, but i dont want to start a long debate about it.

VIVA CHAVEZ

Milosevic, he wasnt even really a communist, he was a rabid serb nationalist, you know, right wing/nazi/facist

Mugabe has made no progress to socialism, the people starve and he shuts down the opposition, and werent his election figures in the 90%'s, i dont believe elections like that.

Chile/nicaragua were noble causes, and the nicaraguan revolution lasted 10 years, not really short lived.

I heard that FARC were heavily involved in the drug trade, any more information you can provide.

:ph34r:

elijahcraig

1st September 2003, 03:43

I heard you were a mushroom, I don't know if its true, but I heard it. Can you disporve it?

Scottish_Militant

1st September 2003, 04:29

Elijahcraig, I know you are a mushroom - and I can prove it by quoting any of your posts, especially that last one.

Milosevic and Mugabe, socialists??? LOL :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

About as socialist as Stalin....

elijahcraig

1st September 2003, 04:35

Ah...mushrooms.

RevolucioN NoW

1st September 2003, 04:36

Er, what the fuck does mushroom mean (i dont eat them, but i dont think that, in the context that you used, it is related to food).

:ph34r:

elijahcraig

1st September 2003, 04:43

SHUT UP YOU MUSHROOM HATER!

Xvall

1st September 2003, 05:31

Congratulations! You've gotten everyone to attack each other and accuse each other of not being 'true' communists.... Again..

Purple

1st September 2003, 08:45

Why can't we all just get along? :(

Saint-Just

1st September 2003, 13:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 04:13 PM
CM: My politics are similar to yours (I support all of the nations you mentioned, except I'm a little split on Mugabe), but you support Milosevic? Could you please state a case for him? I know he was part of the Yugoslavian Communist party, but from what I heard (mostly just Western propaganda to support a U.S. military conflict), he was a 'genocidal maniac' who attempted to kill the different ethnicities in his nation. I don't know much about him.
I have been to busy to answer this, sorry Red.

This is something short I put on ISF recently and also some links:

I'l give you a summary, Milosevic is a socialist, he was attacked for being a socialist and he never committed any act of ethnic cleansing. Nowadays, Yugoslavia has been fragmented by the imperialist forces and is now subjected to their imperialist economic plans. There were thousands of refugees, but they were not victims of ethnic cleansing but rather NATO bombing. Now, Milosevic is being held to an illegitimate war-crimes trial. A treaty between nations needs to be drawn up for such a trial, but in Milosevic's case there was none. Although, they have not managed to prove anything as of yet since there is nothing to prove, it is expected the trial will last for years. I doubt they will ever let him go, but it does not matter as the damage to his nation has been done.

I will give you these sources to look at, they are very interesting and explain most of what I would explain:

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstatete...Oterrorism.html (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/yugoslavia/NATOterrorism.html)

http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/199904...opagandawar.htm (http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19990424propagandawar.htm)

Saint-Just

1st September 2003, 13:31

Originally posted by RevolucioN [email protected] 31 2003, 10:36 AM
Sorry, didnt realise you would be offended by such a broad comment. Dogmatism is inherent in orthodox Marxism-lenism based on my interpretation. that and a blood stained security apparatus and censorship of everything.

I would not have supported the USSR since the first purges of members of the proletariat. late 1920's i think.

China was going well until the "great leap forward". the "cultural revolution" was good as it required little bloodshed, at least initially.

Cuba is an interesting situation: Fidel is undoubtably a dictator, however the country has made many real advances along the path to socialism. Is this the way that Che envisioned Cuba?

DPRK is facist in my mind, but i dont want to start a long debate about it.

VIVA CHAVEZ

Milosevic, he wasnt even really a communist, he was a rabid serb nationalist, you know, right wing/nazi/facist

Mugabe has made no progress to socialism, the people starve and he shuts down the opposition, and werent his election figures in the 90%'s, i dont believe elections like that.

Chile/nicaragua were noble causes, and the nicaraguan revolution lasted 10 years, not really short lived.

I heard that FARC were heavily involved in the drug trade, any more information you can provide.

:ph34r:
Calling us dogmatic suggest we are inflexible ideologues. We follow a certain dogma, but we are not dogmatic.

You can't assert something to be absolutely correct unless you are willing to debate it. You cannot say the DPRK is fascist unless you know a lot about it. However, nor am I wanting to debate that right now.

I can argue with you about Zimbabwe.

Slobodan Milosevic is a tolerant person in my mind and not the least bit of a 'right wing/nazi/fascist', however that is unfortunately what people who oppose U.S. imperialism get called, Mugabe started to be called a fascist.

Yes, FARC surely are involved in the drug trade. Highly immoral, however the region has little other source of revenue.

elijahcraig

1st September 2003, 16:24

I'm not sure on Milosevic.

Invader Zim

1st September 2003, 21:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 05:24 PM
I'm not sure on Milosevic.
I am him and Saddam would have got on like a house on fire, both into fascism and ethnic cleansing. What a pair, if they catch Saddam, then they may get sent to a high security internation prison for genocidal maniacs together.

Mugabi will hopefully get given the Mussolini treatment, im sure many in Zimbabwe are looking forward to choosing a lamp post... just for him.

ernestolynch

1st September 2003, 22:24

Originally posted by AK47+Sep 1 2003, 09:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AK47 @ Sep 1 2003, 09:59 PM)
[email protected] 1 2003, 05:24 PM
I'm not sure on Milosevic.
I am him and Saddam would have got on like a house on fire, both into fascism and ethnic cleansing. What a pair, if they catch Saddam, then they may get sent to a high security internation prison for genocidal maniacs together.

Mugabi will hopefully get given the Mussolini treatment, im sure many in Zimbabwe are looking forward to choosing a lamp post... just for him. [/b]
Spoken like a mouthpiece of the Liberal Capitalists. Keep waiting for the BBC/CNN/Sky cheque in the post. Lickspittle.

http://www.tenc.net
http://www.blythe.org

Invader Zim

1st September 2003, 22:58

LOL, dont make me laugh, you can post your pathetic sites which buddy up to fascists, it does not ater the fact, thay these people are fascists.

The infamous mass graves discovered in Yogoslavia are testomony to these facts. Also the fact that there was a massive revolution in Serbia which removed Milosevic, so I doubt he was the great socialist you make him out to be.

As for Zimbabwe, the crimes of Mugabi are very well documented, with pleanty of footage and eyewitness acounts, but then again you are a stalinist, so logic probably isnt your strong point.

RevolucioN NoW

1st September 2003, 23:32

Calling us dogmatic suggest we are inflexible ideologues. We follow a certain dogma, but we are not dogmatic.

I might be new to this but if one follows "a certain dogma" this would make them dogmatic correct? I would also like to hear your interpretation of what "dogma" means.

I can argue with you about Zimbabwe.

How so, Mugabe is a facist, could you list all of his advances in the feild of health care, education or in genera standards of living for the poorest. His process of land reforms, done with good intentions (expropriating land from white farmers for he oppresend balck majority) have led to a near starvation sitiuation. Slobodan is the same, mass-murderer, nationalist and a supporter of ethnic cleansing, things that the left shoulf be opposing.

If you can provide me with details of mugabe or slobodan's social reforms which *worked* mabye ill change my position.

Yes, FARC surely are involved in the drug trade. Highly immoral, however the region has little other source of revenue.

This is true, however the EZLN seem to get along without any use of drug production/trafficing (while they do operate at a lower level).

Did FARC initiate good social reforms in its 'liberated terrirtory' before it was taken back?

:ph34r:

Saint-Just

2nd September 2003, 14:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 10:58 PM
The infamous mass graves discovered in Yogoslavia
If they had found mass graves my opinion on Yugoslavia and the patriot Slobodan Milosevic would be different. However they never found any, the 100,000 mass-rape camps did not exist.

They have not been able to prove anything against Milosevic in the Hague.

You will find many liberal leftists such as yourself backing Milosevic AK47:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/yugo/article/0,2...,527546,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/yugo/article/0,2763,527546,00.html)

Indeed, there are many human rights activists defending the poor victim of imperialist aggression.

FistFullOfSteel

2nd September 2003, 14:15

IM B...one time red,always red :)

YKTMX

2nd September 2003, 14:16

Surely the fact that people of Yugoslvia kicked out Slobba in a revolution is reason enugh to doubt him. As for Mugabe, you've got to be kidding? He's a dictator with a human rights record that would make Pinochet blush.

Scottish_Militant

2nd September 2003, 14:48

They are both racists, and rascism is incompatible with socialism

FistFullOfSteel

2nd September 2003, 15:07

only right wingers are racists..those fucking bastards

Cassius Clay

2nd September 2003, 15:19

While I dont buy any of the propaganda from the west thrown at Milosevich and Mugabe I'm not entirely sure where this idea that they are 'Socialists' comes from. Milosevich was/is a Serb Nationalist who came out of the ranks of the scum Titoites, he pursued a policy of Great Serb Nationalism. He oppressed the Kosovar Albanians who had a right to self-determination and he had done since the late 1980's. I do not support the KLA, they are a bunch of cutthroats and fascists in the pay of the west. Neither do I justify Imperialism's crimes in Yugoslavia.

Partija Rada and Communists in Albania have done some excellent anyalysis of these events and on the whole pursued a correct line of niether siding with Imperialism or the Radical Nationalists.

However I will make a difference between correct criticism and western lies. Milosevich was rountinely criticised by the parliament and he acknowledged he lost the election quicker than Bush. Milosevich's crime in the eye of the west was that he refused to play ball with the IMF, because of that NATO bombed Yugoslavia to ruin and now the all the Yugoslav people suffer at the hands of Imperialism, namely the IMF and Global Bank.

Saint-Just

3rd September 2003, 20:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 02:16 PM
Surely the fact that people of Yugoslvia kicked out Slobba in a revolution is reason enugh to doubt him. As for Mugabe, you've got to be kidding? He's a dictator with a human rights record that would make Pinochet blush.
It was a U.S./CIA backed bourgeois coup.

YKTMX

4th September 2003, 00:10

Originally posted by Chairman Mao+Sep 3 2003, 08:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chairman Mao @ Sep 3 2003, 08:39 PM)
[email protected] 2 2003, 02:16 PM
Surely the fact that people of Yugoslvia kicked out Slobba in a revolution is reason enugh to doubt him. As for Mugabe, you've got to be kidding? He's a dictator with a human rights record that would make Pinochet blush.
It was a U.S./CIA backed bourgeois coup. [/b]
I don't doubt that it could have been, but I don't think it makes sense to doubt that there was genuine "will of the people" behind it.

Vinny Rafarino

4th September 2003, 00:16

I cannot upport Milosovic. I have to agree with comrade Clay on this issue. Milosovic was nothing but a Serb supra-nationalist underthe guise of being communist. The crimes he committed are difinitely exaggerated by the West however I do not feel he was acting in the interest of the proletariat. I also believe he was responsible for certain crimes against the Muslim population of the former Yugoslavia. Even one death in the name of racial or religious purity is too many.

I could be wrong here, but something tells me I am not.

EDIT:

I do however fully support every other socialist or socialist nation on you list comrade Mao. I would like to discuss with you later, without the too much interference your views on Molosevic. Perhaps there is something you know that I don't. Let's organise it later comrade.