Robert Mugabe and Alexander Lukashenko

[L.A.P.]

Are these men legitimate Socialists and worth supporting or just pseudo-leftist like Gaddafi.

[Savage]

I don't support either of the three but you'll find there's a lot of support (on your side of politics) for Lukashenko particularly because he has to a large extent retained the policies of the Soviet Union in Belarus.

[Sasha]

for Lukashenko particularly because he has to a large extent retained the policies of the Soviet Union in Belarus.

you mean an drab depressed authoritarian police state run by an state capitalist regime and their KGB? yup, he retained it all...

[Savage]

you mean an drab depressed authoritarian police state run by an state capitalist regime and their KGB? yup, he retained it all...
yes I did mean that

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

you mean an drab depressed authoritarian police state run by an state capitalist regime and their KGB? yup, he retained it all...

Lukashenko has been carrying out a slow-paced privatization for some time now. He wants it speeded up.


Belarus to Expand Privatization in 2011

(17 February 2011)

Belarusian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Rumas said Wednesday that the government will greatly speed up privatization in 2011.

Government officials do not know how to efficiently manage state-owned enterprises and heavy government intervention is a major deterrent in attracting foreign investments, Rumas told parliament.

Attracting more foreign direct investment remain the most difficult task for 2011, he said.

Rumas said the government is going to pool public-owned capital, noting that massive purchase of foreign currency at the end of last year by the public showed a lack of investment tools for public funds.

The National Agency for Investment and Privatization, responsible for attracting foreign investment and monitoring the privatization of state property, will begin to work soon, he added.

Previously, the State Property Committee has introduced a draft plan on corporatizing the most valuable state assets, including 134 enterprises like oil giant "Belorusneft" and leading agricultural equipment maker Gomselmash.

(http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/90858/90865/7291048.html



Privatization Not for Closing Gaps, Lukashenko

(27 February 2011)

"The principles of privatization have long been known. And I demand their strict implementation. But, please, don't forget that the instrument of privatization should not be considered as a means to close gaps. It is primarily a way to attract direct investment in economic development," he said.

(http://telegraf.by/2011/02/privatization-not-for-closing-gaps-lukashenko.html)

The old authoritarianism is still there, though.

[Crux]

Are these men legitimate Socialists and worth supporting or just pseudo-leftist like Gaddafi.
If you are applying to join the PSL perhaps.
Mugabe burned any claim to progressive credentials long time ago and Lukashenko as far as I am aware never had any.

[Dire Helix]

Are these men legitimate Socialists and worth supporting or just pseudo-leftist like Gaddafi.

To be a pseudo-leftist one at least has to refer to themselves as socialist. Kinda like what Chavez does. Lukashenko doesn`t do even that; he`s never referred to himself as socialist or called for the implementation of socialism.

[L.A.P.]

To be a pseudo-leftist one at least has to refer to themselves as socialist. Kinda like what Chavez does. Lukashenko doesn`t do even that; he`s never referred to himself as socialist or called for the implementation of socialism.

Belarus is supposed to still have a socialist economy so I don't really think he needs to refer to himself as a socialist in order to be a socialist in this case.

[Sasha]

"still have"? You would dat such a things as an socialist economy ever existed around there? You must have been reading another Marx than I. ;)

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure "brutal police state" and "popular democracy" don't really correlate well.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Lukashenko is an asshole, Mugabe is an even bigger asshole. Lukashenko uses authoritarian practices on those who question his policies, and i don't think his government is transparent. If a government isn't transparent, it can't be communist. Mugabe has been killing and imprisoning his political enemies since the 80s, but it didn't really pick up until the last decade.

As for whether or not they are socialist ... Lukashenko is an anachronistic state capitalist who wants to maintain a sort of mini-USSR (and probably make himself personally rich in the process), and Mugabe is a nasty little ex-Maoist thug who uses race-baiting to distribute land from rich whites to rich blacks and giving lots of under-productive small plots of the least profitable land to peasants so as to make them think the land was redistributed fairly. Neither are remotely socialist, although it seems some still think that they are. I do know that Mugabe's family is famously corrupt (I dont know about Mugabe himself, but his wife is a bit of a "baller") (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Mugabe#Real_estate)

[gorillafuck]

(I dont know about Mugabe himself, but his wife is a bit of a "baller") (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Mugabe#Real_estate)Did you seriously just refer to Mugabes wife as a baller?

Anyway no.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Do you not think she's used her position to gain great personal wealth and that she is fond of conspicuous consumption? She seems to totally buy into that early 2000s superficial hyper-consumerist culture, and do it on the backs of her people. Do you disagree? Do you think the stories of her going on massive shopping sprees are CIA propaganda or something? And whats wrong with my sarcastic description of her lifestyle?

I don't see why anyone would excuse the actions of a modern day imelda marcos.

[Wanted Man]

Are these men legitimate Socialists and worth supporting or just pseudo-leftist like Gaddafi.

Neither? Like RedScare said, you need to make at least some claim to be "pseudo"-anything.

[Dimmu]

Both of these men are dictators.. Lukashenko is also a good friend if Putin who is a bourgeois peace of shit.

[hatzel]

Both of these men are dictators.. Lukashenko is also a good friend if Putin who is a bourgeois peace of shit.

Argumentum ad amicitiam? That's a new one :lol: But seriously yeah Lukashenko like ain't no good, ya hear?

[Wanted Man]

Lukashenko is also a good friend if Putin who is a bourgeois peace of shit.

You're about two years behind the times, dude.

[hatzel]

It's always nice to see the 'is Mugabe one of the goodies?' thread right next to the 'Mugabe sees to the arrest and torture of a bunch of socialists' thread. I frigging love you, Bobby! :tt1:

[Dimmu]

For many people on this forum it is enough for a leader to be anti-American. I mean its awesome to have such a position when you are not living in that country.. But would any of you would like to live in the same conditions like the people of Belarus or Zimbabwe?

[maskerade]

Guys, Robert Mugabe was cool during the war for liberation, but anyone who murders pretty much an entire ethnic group with the help of north korean soldiers is not someone we should look up to.

There is a reason a lot of Africans refer to him as 'the Hitler of Africa'

[gorillafuck]

Guys, Robert Mugabe was cool during the war for liberation, but anyone who murders pretty much an entire ethnic group with the help of north korean soldiers is not someone we should look up to.

There is a reason a lot of Africans refer to him as 'the Hitler of Africa'I have not heard of that, what are you talking about?


Do you not think she's used her position to gain great personal wealth and that she is fond of conspicuous consumption?...Well I said that mostly because "baller" is generally a word applied to guys who have sex with a lot of women.

[Toppler]

I definitely wouldn't put Mugabe into the same area as Lukashenko http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2011/01/letter-from-minsk-belarus-country.html

The guy who says "would you like to experience the conditions in which the people of Belarus live" why do you automatically presume bad conditions? Mugabe and Lukashenko cannot be compared, Lukashenko is popular and way more of a soft dictator, if he even is a dictator, than any other thugs in the area.

But of course "thos pur ppls are oppressed" is a popular canard, you know, they are individuals.

Mugabe on the other hand, has pretty much destroyed his own country.

[L.J.Solidarity]

The guy called himself Hitler (http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=29408) in 2003.

[gorillafuck]

The guy who says "would you like to experience the conditions in which the people of Belarus live" why do you automatically presume bad conditions? Mugabe and Lukashenko cannot be compared, Lukashenko is popular and way more of a soft dictator, if he even is a dictator, than any other thugs in the area.Lushenko is only a dictator in the sense of Belarus being a class society and hence perpetuating a class society. He was elected in an election like a lot of capitalist politicians though.

[Toppler]

I am defending Lukashenko not Mugabe.

Belarus has an extremely low unemployment rate (0.7 percent), no gangsters, no widespread poverty etc.

What I know is that they live much better than Russia and Ukraine and all CIS countries.

[Toppler]

Lushenko is only a dictator in the sense of Belarus being a class society and hence perpetuating a class society. He was elected in an election like a lot of capitalist politicians though.

Yeah, he is not a socialist. However I wouldn't mind living in Belarus any time right now, and its unemployment rate is cca 20x lower than Slovakia's, despite our country's comparative wealth. He is a lesser evil. Lesser than Putin, lesser than any of the US thugs, lesser than any psychotic madman in red drapes ala Kim Jong Il, lesser than any of our incompetent comedian politicians etc.

Don't put "any leader US hates" into the same category. Both believing that they are all thugs like Gaddafi or Kim Jong Il or on the other hand believing that all politicians who are not loved by the US are anti imperialist heroes is bullshit. Anyways, I am not defending Lukashenko for "anti imperialism", merely for the fact that he is better for his people than the politicians in the surrounding countries. Belarusians experience decent living conditions. And it has internet, travel etc... don't mistake it for an isolated hellhole like NK.

[Sasha]

I am defending Lukashenko not Mugabe.

Belarus has an extremely low unemployment rate (0.7 percent), no gangsters, no widespread poverty etc.

What I know is that they live much better than Russia and Ukraine and all CIS countries.

well 5 people do the drab depressed mundane job one person could do making it even more depressed, drab and mundane. The gangsters are called the kgb and everybody is just ad poor as everybody else (excluding the regime offcourse)
Yup, pretty much like the glorious ussr was.

[Dimmu]

well 5 people do the drab depressed mundane job one person could do making it even more depressed, drab and mundane. The gangsters are called the kgb and everybody is just ad poor as everybody else (excluding the regime offcourse)
Yup, pretty much like the glorious ussr was.

Pretty much.. I personally would not be able to live in a country with good living standards, but without freedom of speech..

[Hampton]

In The Daily Telegraph, Mugabe was criticised for comparing himself to Hitler. Mugabe was quoted as saying "This Hitler has only one objective: justice for his people, sovereignty for his people, recognition of the independence of his people and their rights over their resources. If that is Hitler, then let me be a Hitler tenfoldhttp://warrelics.eu/forum/military_photos/discussions/43851d1246191250-hitlers-mustache-robert_mugabe.jpg

Prob a great guy though, minus the homophobia and hyperinflation.

[Dire Helix]

well 5 people do the drab depressed mundane job one person could do making it even more depressed, drab and mundane. The gangsters are called the kgb and everybody is just ad poor as everybody else (excluding the regime offcourse)
Yup, pretty much like the glorious ussr was.

Based on the current political situation in Belarus, what do you think is the alternative to Lukashenko`s regime?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't like the privatization drives, but the peasant patrimonialism in Third World countries shouldn't be written off as reactionary:


Lord only knows why, like his fixation with posing some suggestion of programmatically justifiable criteria for an independent politically organized working class conditionally supporting something like a Lukashenko or Chavez where the revolution is unlikely to break out with genocidal warlords of Classical Antiquity

[Salyut]

I have not heard of that, what are you talking about?


The Gukurahundi. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gukurahundi)

[pranabjyoti]

Pretty much.. I personally would not be able to live in a country with good living standards, but without freedom of speech..
Which country in present world have "real" freedom of speech? Please stop spreading bourgeoisie democracy in the veil of "leftist ideology".

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

Which country in present world have "real" freedom of speech? Please stop spreading bourgeoisie democracy in the veil of "leftist ideology".

Please stop spreading authoritarianism in the veil of "leftist ideology". (sic)

[pranabjyoti]

Please stop spreading authoritarianism in the veil of "leftist ideology". (sic)
The base of leftist ideology is class authoritarianism. Better sell your liberal pseudo leftist commodity elsewhere.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

The base of leftist ideology is class authoritarianism. Better sell your liberal pseudo leftist commodity elsewhere.

You're wrong. The basis of leftist ideology is a class analysis of society. However, it is fundamentally wrong to assume that this means that all classes need to be authoritarian. The bourgoisie must be authoritarian in order to defend their class interests however, the working class being the majority of people in society and requiring their unity across race, gender, sexuality and nationality in order to overthrow the ruling class and institute a state of society in which equality reigns must inherently have the interests of humanity at heart and therefor not require the use of authoritarianism and the institution of one-party anti-democratic police states in order to function.

[pranabjyoti]

You're wrong. The basis of leftist ideology is a class analysis of society. However, it is fundamentally wrong to assume that this means that all classes need to be authoritarian. The bourgoisie must be authoritarian in order to defend their class interests however, the working class being the majority of people in society and requiring their unity across race, gender, sexuality and nationality in order to overthrow the ruling class and institute a state of society in which equality reigns must inherently have the interests of humanity at heart and therefor not require the use of authoritarianism and the institution of one-party anti-democratic police states in order to function.
A new version of Marxism! A LIBERAL ONE. FYI, WORKING PEOPLE AND WORKING CLASS AREN'T THE SAME. Even a petty-bourgeoisie also works and in most cases works harder than an industrial/organized sector worker. But that doesn't make him/her a part of working class.
Most of the people may work, but the aren't part of working class. I don't want to discuss this matter here because I have repeatedly discussed it in other threads.
Basically, you are denying the basic learning of Marxism that UNTIL AND UNLESS THERE IS A CLASS BASED SOCIETY, THERE IS CLASS DICTATORSHIP. Whether majority or minority.
Do you think that majority always takes the right decision?

[Jose Gracchus]

I think the point is, if a class dictatorship by a highly reactionary minority class like the bourgeoisie can offer (when pressed by long-term struggles) some basic individual liberties and political participation, why would we conclude the class dictatorship of the majority class - the working class - would necessarily be more repressive and authoritarian?

[Savage]

A new version of Marxism! A LIBERAL ONE. FYI, WORKING PEOPLE AND WORKING CLASS AREN'T THE SAME. Even a petty-bourgeoisie also works and in most cases works harder than an industrial/organized sector worker. But that doesn't make him/her a part of working class.
Most of the people may work, but the aren't part of working class. I don't want to discuss this matter here because I have repeatedly discussed it in other threads.
Basically, you are denying the basic learning of Marxism that UNTIL AND UNLESS THERE IS A CLASS BASED SOCIETY, THERE IS CLASS DICTATORSHIP. Whether majority or minority.
Do you think that majority always takes the right decision?

Under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the Proletariat exercises political power as a whole:

Bakunin:The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?
Marx:Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune.Lenin agrees:

Until the “higher” phase of communism arrives, the socialists demand the strictest control by society and by the state over the measure of labor and the measure of consumption; but this control must start with the expropriation of the capitalists, with the establishment of workers' control over the capitalists, and must be exercised not by a state of bureaucrats, but by a state of armed workers.In order for the rule of capital to be overcome, and therefore, capitalist society transformed through socialization, all of those subjected to capital must be the expropriators and they all must establish political power together. The minority of the exploited majority cannot champion the victory of labor over capital on their own.

[Savage]

I think the point is, if a class dictatorship by a highly reactionary minority class like the bourgeoisie can offer (when pressed by long-term struggles) some basic individual liberties and political participation, why would we conclude the class dictatorship of the majority class - the working class - would necessarily be more repressive and authoritarian?
In fact the opposite can be logically assumed, as with the 'withering away' of the state and therefore the gradual but continuous decline of the repressive state mechanisms, along with the socialization of society, we will the authoritarian aspects of society also decreasing.

[Toppler]

well 5 people do the drab depressed mundane job one person could do making it even more depressed, drab and mundane. The gangsters are called the kgb and everybody is just ad poor as everybody else (excluding the regime offcourse)
Yup, pretty much like the glorious ussr was.

Poor compared to who? They have food and jobs. That is not poverty. This is poverty http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=india+slum&view=detail&id=E58A3726C8BD9DF1D550A4D7F62C18005D76E9A9&first=1&FORM=IDFRIR

What is drab and depressive about a job in Belarus or the old USSR than a job anywhere else? This stupid retarded Western bullshit about "drab and boring" is making my blood boil. These millions of homeless kids in Russia or the 700 poor millions from India will take a "drab" country any time over their poverty and squalor. This article nicely mocks this attitude http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/12/25/the-real-reason-for-the-shining-path/

[pranabjyoti]

Those who are advocating for a liberal "socialism" are living in their self-created idealistic world. What you have said can certainly be true IF THAT COUNTRY BELONGS TO ANOTHER PLANET AND IT'S THE ONLY COUNTRY THERE I.E. NO CHANCE OF ANY KIND OF FOREIGN INTERVENTION.
All such utter "liberal blabbering" shows nothing but total lack of sense of reality. It's the basic inability to understand that when bourgeoisie is defeated in a single country, imperialism still remains and it will try with every heart and soul to destroy the revolution. And remaining bourgeoisie and their allies remain hidden in that country will help imperialism in this goal with tooth and nail. So, we have to fight them with tooth and nail in return.
I am curious how many of those people arguing for "liberal socialism" is engaged in "real" class struggle in real world. I guess NIL.

[Sasha]

Poor compared to who? They have food and jobs. That is not poverty. This is poverty http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=india+slum&view=detail&id=E58A3726C8BD9DF1D550A4D7F62C18005D76E9A9&first=1&FORM=IDFRIR

What is drab and depressive about a job in Belarus or the old USSR than a job anywhere else? This stupid retarded Western bullshit about "drab and boring" is making my blood boil. These millions of homeless kids in Russia or the 700 poor millions from India will take a "drab" country any time over their poverty and squalor. This article nicely mocks this attitude http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/12/25/the-real-reason-for-the-shining-path/

you see, thats what you get when you represent is an an choice between more or less 2 options, its like there is no such thing as actual communism/socialism to strive for, no thats ultra-left utopianism i'm constantly told here. whell fuck it, if we are going to take that option out of the equation i'm not afraid to say that yes, i prefer dutch/scandinavian style social democracy over an authoritarian police state.
bite me

[pranabjyoti]

you see, thats what you get when you represent is an an choice between more or less 2 options, its like there is no such thing as actual communism/socialism to strive for, no thats ultra-left utopianism i'm constantly told here. whell fuck it, if we are going to take that option out of the equation i'm not afraid to say that yes, i prefer dutch/scandinavian style social democracy over an authoritarian police state.
bite me
Yeah, you and others like you can certainly turn a blind eye towards the fact that those "social-democracies" were built on the bones of poor people of the third world mainly and they don't have to fight and kind of imperialist intervention. By this standard of logic, Hitler's Germany was one of the best places to live in Europe, who cares whether it's built on bones of jews and other oppressed minority.
Just forget that most European countries (including USA and Canada and Australia and NewZeland, I consider them extension of Europe) are built on the exploitation of people of third world, by eating their flesh and by sucking their blood alive.

[manic expression]

well 5 people do the drab depressed mundane job one person could do making it even more depressed, drab and mundane. The gangsters are called the kgb and everybody is just ad poor as everybody else (excluding the regime offcourse)
Yup, pretty much like the glorious ussr was.
Sorry, but that's complete crap. Almost everyone I met there weren't "depressed, drab [or] mundane". Quite the opposite, in fact. People by and large weren't poor by "western" standards (definitely not by US standards). Also, people did feel comfortable enough to criticize the government, even though most were at least mildly supportive since they know what life is like elsewhere in eastern Europe. Vilnius, though an enjoyable city in its own right, felt far more drab than Minsk or even Brest did IMO. Sure, once you get outside Minsk's (quite attractive) city center, there are a lot of concrete blocks, but that's essentially the same in every city hard-hit by WWII (hell, even Stockholm has its fair share). Judging the country on that alone is absurd, and your characterization of Belarus is essentially a 1950's stereotype that has absolutely no foundation in reality.

[Dire Helix]

you see, thats what you get when you represent is an an choice between more or less 2 options, its like there is no such thing as actual communism/socialism to strive for, no thats ultra-left utopianism i'm constantly told here. whell fuck it, if we are going to take that option out of the equation i'm not afraid to say that yes, i prefer dutch/scandinavian style social democracy over an authoritarian police state.
bite me

The "drab and oppressive authoritarian police states" originated out of struggle for "actual communism". Not saying that we shouldn`t aim higher than that(we absolutely should), but the reality is always different from the Utopian dreams of perfect socialism that one may have.

[Sasha]

Yeah, you and others like you can certainly turn a blind eye towards the fact that those "social-democracies" were built on the bones of poor people of the third world mainly and they don't have to fight and kind of imperialist intervention. By this standard of logic, Hitler's Germany was one of the best places to live in Europe, who cares whether it's built on bones of jews and other oppressed minority.
Just forget that most European countries (including USA and Canada and Australia and NewZeland, I consider them extension of Europe) are built on the exploitation of people of third world, by eating their flesh and by sucking their blood alive.

And that's just plain simplistic bollox confusing political rhetoric with economics. 1800's "golden age" capitalism was built on colonialism and exploiting the 3th world. After that for example the dutch went more or less bankrupt a couple of times. Dutch social-democracy is build on the natural gas and the harbour.
Dutch society gets most of its money actually the same way as russia (natural gas) and Belarus (transport, in their case of said gas).
Again, I'm still all for an actual communist revolution, I just believe that for that to happen the chances under a well educated, political free, assertive population are a lot better.
Time to pull your Marxist head out of your 1900 arse, the world changed, the economy changed, for revolutionary leftism to be of any significance we need to develop too.

[manic expression]

Yes, psycho, European social democracy has nothing to do with the exploitation of third world labor (H&M, anyone?). And as for Belarus...

http://tobelarus.com/images/stories/Minsk%20Oblast/Minsk_Sightseeing_Walking_Tour/Minsk_church_st_spirit.jpg

DULL AND DRAB! DULL AND DRAB! Compared to beautiful Social Democratic Stockholm:

http://www.byggvarlden.se/nyheter/byggprojekt/article97721.ece/BINARY/w468/miljonprogram_468.jpg

Which is curious...since apparently they have the same economy! :rolleyes: I'd like to hear more about your "developed" revolutionary leftism, actually.

[pranabjyoti]

And that's just plain simplistic bollox confusing political rhetoric with economics. 1800's "golden age" capitalism was built on colonialism and exploiting the 3th world. After that for example the dutch went more or less bankrupt a couple of times. Dutch social-democracy is build on the natural gas and the harbour.
Dutch society gets most of its money actually the same way as russia (natural gas) and Belarus (transport, in their case of said gas).
Again, I'm still all for an actual communist revolution, I just believe that for that to happen the chances under a well educated, political free, assertive population are a lot better.
Time to pull your Marxist head out of your 1900 arse, the world changed, the economy changed, for revolutionary leftism to be of any significance we need to develop too.
Isn't Netherlands a part of NATO? How much foreign intervention it has faced so far? During WWII, it was under Nazi Germany, but did it suffered so much loss as the Belarus? As far as I can remember, it retained its colonies in East Asia even during the WWII.
Colonialism on paper ended in and around the sixties, 1900 was the height of colonialism. All European colonial powers, including the dutch gathered enough resources by exploiting their colonies. They may be go bankrupt, but by European standard. I am sure that they never reached the level of third world.

[Sasha]

Isn't Netherlands a part of NATO? How much foreign intervention it has faced so far? During WWII, it was under Nazi Germany, but did it suffered so much loss as the Belarus? As far as I can remember, it retained its colonies in East Asia even during the WWII.
Colonialism on paper ended in and around the sixties, 1900 was the height of colonialism. All European colonial powers, including the dutch gathered enough resources by exploiting their colonies. They may be go bankrupt, but by European standard. I am sure that they never reached the level of third world.

after WW2 the netherland where more than bankrupt and whatever we had left of "our" colonies after that costed the dutch state a lot more than it provided.
indonesia declared its independence 2 days after the surrender of japan after wich the dutch launched an brutal and very costly 4 year war, surinam who became an independent part of the kingdom in 1954 admititly only became fully independent in 1975 but except for some bauxite mines there wasnt that much to extract wealth from. because of the fierce strugle by the maroons the fast majority of labor in surinam was already contract work done by imigrant asian workers long before the official end of slavery.
but this is going very much of topic.
i'm not denying that the dutch, or the whole western world for that matter, didnt became filthy rich by pluncering the 3th world. i'm stating that to say that the whole inticrate complex modern world economics can be simplified to the 1st world exploiting the 3th is just that, an gross simplification.
the US economy is just as dependent on china's as the other way around.

[Salyut]

Sorry, but that's complete crap. Almost everyone I met there weren't "depressed, drab [or] mundane". Quite the opposite, in fact. People by and large weren't poor by "western" standards (definitely not by US standards). Also, people did feel comfortable enough to criticize the government, even though most were at least mildly supportive since they know what life is like elsewhere in eastern Europe. Vilnius, though an enjoyable city in its own right, felt far more drab than Minsk or even Brest did IMO. Sure, once you get outside Minsk's (quite attractive) city center, there are a lot of concrete blocks, but that's essentially the same in every city hard-hit by WWII (hell, even Stockholm has its fair share). Judging the country on that alone is absurd, and your characterization of Belarus is essentially a 1950's stereotype that has absolutely no foundation in reality.

Do you have a trip report around somewhere? I'd love to read it.

[pranabjyoti]

after WW2 the netherland where more than bankrupt and whatever we had left of "our" colonies after that costed the dutch state a lot more than it provided.
indonesia declared its independence 2 days after the surrender of japan after wich the dutch launched an brutal and very costly 4 year war, surinam who became an independent part of the kingdom in 1954 admititly only became fully independent in 1975 but except for some bauxite mines there wasnt that much to extract wealth from. because of the fierce strugle by the maroons the fast majority of labor in surinam was already contract work done by imigrant asian workers long before the official end of slavery.
but this is going very much of topic.
i'm not denying that the dutch, or the whole western world for that matter, didnt became filthy rich by pluncering the 3th world. i'm stating that to say that the whole inticrate complex modern world economics can be simplified to the 1st world exploiting the 3th is just that, an gross simplification.
the US economy is just as dependent on china's as the other way around.
Being a part of NATO means sharing the fruits of US imperialism. You can't deny that. Kindly just tell me what was the standard condition of average dutch citizen when the whole country went "bankrupt". Worse than NK (as you know it)?:)
Actually, your whole argument is based on as there are no colonies in world, there isn't any kind of imperialism. China is now a grown up capitalist country, and by the same standard UK was dependent on India at the same level, when India was a colony of UK.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

pranab-on one hand, it is true that social democracy and liberal democracy in Europe both rely on Imperialism. But that doesn't have to do with free speech rights. In fact, go back as far as Marx and Lenin, and you see them living in places like London and not their home countries because London had a freer, more liberal society that allowed for them to do the economic research they needed to do to create Socialist theories.

Also, you're wrong to blame the US all by itself, there are multiple Imperialist powers such as France, the UK, Italy etc. France for instance has been worse than the USA in Africa.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

Being a part of NATO means sharing the fruits of US imperialism. You can't deny that. Kindly just tell me what was the standard condition of average dutch citizen when the whole country went "bankrupt". Worse than NK (as you know it)?:)
Actually, your whole argument is based on as there are no colonies in world, there isn't any kind of imperialism. China is now a grown up capitalist country, and by the same standard UK was dependent on India at the same level, when India was a colony of UK.

I swear, arguing with a Stalinist is like arguing with a Creationist. Everything in the world functions in exactly the same simplistic methods propagandized by the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union was NEVER imperialist because it was all cute and cuddly and TOTALLY socialist, and if anything deviates from that simplistic line of thought it is automatically BOURGEOISIE REACTIONARY BULLSHIT and WESTERN IMPERIALIST LIES. God forbid there was every any fucking nuance to the world.:rolleyes:

[Jose Gracchus]

Yeah, and heaven forbid you cite actual Marx on what "Marxism" is. Clearly their 20th C. "realists" who ordered the carrying around of his portraiture have a right to dismiss it as "liberal" and "utopian" crap. MLs do not want to admit they are revisionists. Maybe they can justify that revisionism on the basis of empirical fact. But that they do not even try is telling - they think they need Marx the way the average huckster American evangelist needs Christ. Some fake symbol you're not supposed to actually read, or who your local big-shot can just tell you to omit parts they don't like arbitrarily.

[manic expression]

I swear, arguing with a Stalinist is like arguing with a Creationist. Everything in the world functions in exactly the same simplistic methods propagandized by the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union was NEVER imperialist because it was all cute and cuddly and TOTALLY socialist, and if anything deviates from that simplistic line of thought it is automatically BOURGEOISIE REACTIONARY BULLSHIT and WESTERN IMPERIALIST LIES. God forbid there was every any fucking nuance to the world.:rolleyes:
The Soviet Union wasn't imperialist because its economic and political construction made such a development impossible. It had nothing to do with "cute and cuddly", it had to do with the fact that there was a state monopoly on production and foreign trade, that the economy was developed through centralized economic planning, that there was an absence of a large-scale market for production or labor and that labor-power had ceased to be a commodity.


Also, you're wrong to blame the US all by itself, there are multiple Imperialist powers such as France, the UK, Italy etc. France for instance has been worse than the USA in Africa.
Fair enough, and Belgium was arguably worse than France was. However, I think the original point was that US imperialism poses the greatest threat to the interests of the workers today. Of course we must blame French imperialism when it sends the Foreign Legion to meddle in the affairs of Africa, but since the end of WWII (or, more precisely, since the Suez Crisis) the US has been calling the shots in the imperialist camp.

[Sasha]

I would seriously contest that American imperialism is the greatest thread to workers, for example China is one of the worst places to be an worker at the moment. You think there would be any chance the US would intervene if the Chinese started to allow independent unions and collective barganing? Nope, and they don't have to because they, the laise fair capitalists know its in the interest of the state capitalists to stay competitive. So sorry, its still capitalism that's enemy nr 1.

[Crux]

Yes, psycho, European social democracy has nothing to do with the exploitation of third world labor (H&M, anyone?). And as for Belarus...

http://tobelarus.com/images/stories/Minsk%20Oblast/Minsk_Sightseeing_Walking_Tour/Minsk_church_st_spirit.jpg

DULL AND DRAB! DULL AND DRAB! Compared to beautiful Social Democratic Stockholm:

http://www.byggvarlden.se/nyheter/byggprojekt/article97721.ece/BINARY/w468/miljonprogram_468.jpg

Which is curious...since apparently they have the same economy! :rolleyes: I'd like to hear more about your "developed" revolutionary leftism, actually.
Just out of curiousity what does Hennes & Mauritz have to do with social democracy?

[Crux]

Those who are advocating for a liberal "socialism" are living in their self-created idealistic world. What you have said can certainly be true IF THAT COUNTRY BELONGS TO ANOTHER PLANET AND IT'S THE ONLY COUNTRY THERE I.E. NO CHANCE OF ANY KIND OF FOREIGN INTERVENTION.
All such utter "liberal blabbering" shows nothing but total lack of sense of reality. It's the basic inability to understand that when bourgeoisie is defeated in a single country, imperialism still remains and it will try with every heart and soul to destroy the revolution. And remaining bourgeoisie and their allies remain hidden in that country will help imperialism in this goal with tooth and nail. So, we have to fight them with tooth and nail in return.
I am curious how many of those people arguing for "liberal socialism" is engaged in "real" class struggle in real world. I guess NIL.
Stop using caps-lock as if it would strengthen your argument.
Imperialism cannot be defeated by one country, that is one of the reasons why Socialism in One Country is a flawed strategy.

[manic expression]

I would seriously contest that American imperialism is the greatest thread to workers, for example China is one of the worst places to be an worker at the moment. You think there would be any chance the US would intervene if the Chinese started to allow independent unions and collective barganing? Nope, and they don't have to because they, the laise fair capitalists know its in the interest of the state capitalists to stay competitive. So sorry, its still capitalism that's enemy nr 1.
What was the last country the PRC invaded in order to make capitalist profit from its natural resources?


Just out of curiousity what does Hennes & Mauritz have to do with social democracy?
A major Swedish company that uses sweatshop labor in the so-called "third world".

[Sasha]

I think the way China uses its own fast population for labor would qualify as exploiting its natural recourses...
But beside that, thank you for proving my point that anti-imperialism has evolved to an simplified caricature. Capitalism has found so much more efficient ways of exploitation into wich hands the false analysis of the self labelled anti-imps plays right into.

[Crux]

A major Swedish company that uses sweatshop labor in the so-called "third world".
Yes. And what does that have to do with social democracy? I know one argument that could be made, but so far all you've got is "it's swedish".

[manic expression]

I think the way China uses its own fast population for labor would qualify as exploiting its natural recourses...
But beside that, thank you for proving my point that anti-imperialism has evolved to an simplified caricature. Capitalism has found so much more efficient ways of exploitation into wich hands the false analysis of the self labelled anti-imps plays right into.
So I assume you're not going to answer the question because the obvious answer is: "Not Since 1949". That's precisely my point. I'm not saying the PRC is without capitalist aspects, I'm saying it's not imperialist and that this makes a very big difference.


Yes. And what does that have to do with social democracy? I know one argument that could be made, but so far all you've got is "it's swedish".
It provides capital and jobs for the Swedish economy (and state), it is allowed to use "third world" sweatshop labor by Swedish SD.

[Sasha]

Only if you give weight to the for communists irrelavant notion of national integerety. Capitalism is without borders, and so should be its opposition.
Again, while armed occupation being without doubt the most brutal weapon in capitalisms arsenal capitalism now knows it also one of the least profitable and sustainable options, in fact in general its an counter productive one.

[manic expression]

It's not solely about national sovereignty (which also matters), it's about the millions of Iraqi and Afghan men, women and children that US imperialism murdered in the last 10 years. In stark contrast, the PRC is not committing such atrocities, and if we want to talk about the well-being of workers that's a good place to start. If it doesn't act like an imperialist state then we cannot possibly categorize it as such. You say that capitalism is without borders, and that is a very valid point, but it does not affect all borders equally, and it is not established within all borders.

[Sasha]

What? You claim capitalism isn't everywhere established? What the hell is your definition of capitalism? And again you have an vastly simplistic worldview if you think the wars in iraq and afganistan are solely imperialist projects aimed at profit.
The mere fact that the US economy was on the brink of collapse partly thanks to those wars should be an clear hint.

I always thought that anti-imperialism as cultivated by anti-imps resembled religion a bit but more and more it reminds me of an conspiracy theory. Yes there is an core of truth in it but the idea its all an big plan is an simplification of the actual intricate workings where lots of small plans and plain coincidences influence each other.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

So I assume you're not going to answer the question because the obvious answer is: "Not Since 1949". That's precisely my point. I'm not saying the PRC is without capitalist aspects, I'm saying it's not imperialist and that this makes a very big difference.

Uhm...you obviously don't know SHIT about how foreign policy works. Just because the PRC hasn't gone on any imperialist war adventures(well, besides India, Tibet, and Vietnam, but forget that) doesn't mean that it does not have what amounts to an imperialist foreign policy. Their companies bribe African government officials to exploit their natural resources and have utilized the exploitation of the African continents resources to fuel its massive capitalist growth. There is such a thing as soft power, China just happens to use it instead of hard power to build up its imperialism instead of the American tendency towards hard power to maintain empire.

[manic expression]

What? You claim capitalism isn't everywhere established? What the hell is your definition of capitalism? And again you have an vastly simplistic worldview if you think the wars in iraq and afganistan are solely imperialist projects aimed at profit.
The mere fact that the US economy was on the brink of collapse partly thanks to those wars should be an clear hint.

I always thought that anti-imperialism as cultivated by anti-imps resembled religion a bit but more and more it reminds me of an conspiracy theory. Yes there is an core of truth in it but the idea its all an big plan is an simplification of the actual intricate workings where lots of small plans and plain coincidences influence each other.
Capitalism is, very briefly (and imperfectly), the private ownership of industrial means of production. I hold that Cuba is certainly not capitalist, and that countries like Vietnam and the PRC have capitalist aspects but are not fully capitalist societies owing to the lack of an empowered bourgeoisie.

Those wars were not solely for profit, although many capitalists made a great deal of money on their prosecution. Geopolitical strategy also played a part. At the same time, controlling the oil of Iraq and the pipelines of Afghanistan, as well as a border with Iran and Syria and Pakistan and China and Uzbekistan...served the interests of imperialist profit in the larger picture.

All capitalism undermines capitalism. The contradictions of the system mean that capitalism's necessity is also its fatal weakness.

But I should note that none of what you said contributes to an argument that the PRC is imperialist.


Uhm...you obviously don't know SHIT about how foreign policy works. Just because the PRC hasn't gone on any imperialist war adventures(well, besides India, Tibet, and Vietnam, but forget that) doesn't mean that it does not have what amounts to an imperialist foreign policy. Their companies bribe African government officials to exploit their natural resources and have utilized the exploitation of the African continents resources to fuel its massive capitalist growth. There is such a thing as soft power, China just happens to use it instead of hard power to build up its imperialism instead of the American tendency towards hard power to maintain empire.
This is a curious proposition, because you're essentially saying that "Chinese imperialism" is different from just about every other imperialist power history has ever recorded. We're expected to believe that the "Chinese way of doing things" is vastly different from every inch of known imperialism, and yet it's still imperialism because the PRC is extending influence abroad. The definition of imperialism, though, is not that a country bribes officials to get at their natural resources; it is about monopoly capital, it is about "gigantic usury". Just because the PRC has capitalist aspects and is expanding its influence doesn't mean it's imperialist. Your argument would be akin to calling Switzerland colonialist because they have troops stationed in Rome.

[manic expression]

Do you have a trip report around somewhere? I'd love to read it.
Unfortunately no, I never did get around to writing a report, but if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them.

[Sasha]

Capitalism is, very briefly (and imperfectly), the private ownership of industrial means of production. I hold that Cuba is certainly not capitalist, and that countries like Vietnam and the PRC have capitalist aspects but are not fully capitalist societies owing to the lack of an empowered bourgeoisie.

Those wars were not solely for profit, although many capitalists made a great deal of money on their prosecution. Geopolitical strategy also played a part. At the same time, controlling the oil of Iraq and the pipelines of Afghanistan, as well as a border with Iran and Syria and Pakistan and China and Uzbekistan...served the interests of imperialist profit in the larger picture.

All capitalism undermines capitalism. The contradictions of the system mean that capitalism's necessity is also its fatal weakness.

But I should note that none of what you said contributes to an argument that the PRC is imperialist.


This is a curious proposition, because you're essentially saying that "Chinese imperialism" is different from just about every other imperialist power history has ever recorded. We're expected to believe that the "Chinese way of doing things" is vastly different from every inch of known imperialism, and yet it's still imperialism because the PRC is extending influence abroad. The definition of imperialism, though, is not that a country bribes officials to get at their natural resources; it is about monopoly capital, it is about "gigantic usury". Just because the PRC has capitalist aspects and is expanding its influence doesn't mean it's imperialist. Your argument would be akin to calling Switzerland colonialist because they have troops stationed in Rome.

Fair enough, seems you have far more orthodox view than I, shouldn't be much of an suprise in an debate between an ML and an autonomist. Let's agree to disagree. While I will not force Debord on you have you ever read some Negri? "Empire" helped me a lot to reconcile Marxism with an modern society that seemed less and less explainable by the dogmas proclaimed by orthodox ML groups.

[bailey_187]

wait so to be be imperialist a country HAS to invade another country? :scared::scared:

[Crux]

It provides capital and jobs for the Swedish economy (and state), it is allowed to use "third world" sweatshop labor by Swedish SD.
Not that I disagree, but that's an interesting argument coming from someone defending China.

[manic expression]

Fair enough, seems you have far more orthodox view than I, shouldn't be much of an suprise in an debate between an ML and an autonomist. Let's agree to disagree. While I will not force Debord on you have you ever read some Negri? "Empire" helped me a lot to reconcile Marxism with an modern society that seemed less and less explainable by the dogmas proclaimed by orthodox ML groups.
OK, agree to disagree. :) I've read very little Debord and never Negri...maybe I'll get into it sometime.


wait so to be be imperialist a country HAS to invade another country? :scared::scared:
I see it like this: to be a mosquito, something doesn't HAVE to sting others...but they almost always do.


Not that I disagree, but that's an interesting argument coming from someone defending China.
There is a point of similarity, but only under very different circumstances. I've argued that the PRC does contain capitalist relations, production, etc. but that these capitalist aspects lack state power. Thus, exploitative production is, to one degree or another, part of the PRC economy, but it is not at the center of it, and it does not define Chinese society. That is why I firmly support the political structure of the PRC (which puts power into the hands of the vanguard party) and its socialist aspects so that the capitalist aspects can be abolished.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Manic-the level of corruption of the state mechanisms in China are very worrying, as is the behavior of Chinese state and private firms all over the world.

http://cambodiatonight.blogspot.com/2010/05/even-communist-china-is-involved-in.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/world/americas/15chinaperu.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/KF02Ae01.html

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-04/world/zambia.mine.shooting_1_three-chinese-employees-zambian-mining-mining-industry?_s=PM:WORLD

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/03/africa-land-grab

China may not be as bad as France or America, but it's seeming to develop Imperialistic tendencies. It certainly uses its socialist nature to argue that its development is somehow different from the development of Western countries, but this isn't always the case, and increasingly it seems like the Chinese political class condones a lot of this. On one hand, we hear stories like in Angola or Venezuela (nations with strong nominally socialist states) where Chinese investment has done some good so far. On the other hand, we've seen investments in other parts of the world where corruption of government officials, exploitation of the locals, and enrichment of segregated Chinese workers is rampant, all the while there are members of the Chinese neo bourgeois who are profiting.

[pranabjyoti]

Fair enough, seems you have far more orthodox view than I, shouldn't be much of an suprise in an debate between an ML and an autonomist. Let's agree to disagree. While I will not force Debord on you have you ever read some Negri? "Empire" helped me a lot to reconcile Marxism with an modern society that seemed less and less explainable by the dogmas proclaimed by orthodox ML groups.
What you are calling as "orthodox view of Marxism" is actually lack of in-depth understanding of Marxism. The present scenario of the world can be well described by Marxian theory for those who have in-depth understanding of Marxism.

[Brother No. 1]

But would any of you would like to live in the same conditions like the people of Belarus or Zimbabwe?

And this is coming from someone who obviously knows of living in an sanctioned nation or a nation that isn't with the E.U.?

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

This is a curious proposition, because you're essentially saying that "Chinese imperialism" is different from just about every other imperialist power history has ever recorded. We're expected to believe that the "Chinese way of doing things" is vastly different from every inch of known imperialism, and yet it's still imperialism because the PRC is extending influence abroad. The definition of imperialism, though, is not that a country bribes officials to get at their natural resources; it is about monopoly capital, it is about "gigantic usury". Just because the PRC has capitalist aspects and is expanding its influence doesn't mean it's imperialist. Your argument would be akin to calling Switzerland colonialist because they have troops stationed in Rome.

It's useless to debate a person who doesn't understand that soft power and hard power are similarly imperialistic due to their limiting effects on national independence and the ability of national regimes to develop any policies which might support the lives of the working class in positions with safety regulations and minimum wages, but nevermind that. Also, don't talk about first-world countries exploiting workers in third-wrodl countries without acknowledging that China exploits third-world, specifically Middle Eastern and African, workers for its own global power development and the creation of a new imperialist sphere.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The Soviet Union wasn't imperialist because its economic and political construction made such a development impossible. It had nothing to do with "cute and cuddly", it had to do with the fact that there was a state monopoly on production and foreign trade, that the economy was developed through centralized economic planning, that there was an absence of a large-scale market for production or labor and that labor-power had ceased to be a commodity.


Um, excuse me?!

State monopoly on production =/= Socialism.

It is only an improvement on free market Capitalism when it is accompanied by real Socialist democracy, which was patently not the case in the USSR.

[Rooster]

So China is not imperialistic because it does not seek monopoly? Or because it is state capitalist? Doesn't bribing officials count as trying to create a monopoly?

Anyway...

China surges to 5th largest global investor (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-09/06/content_11258388.htm)

[manic expression]

Um, excuse me?!

State monopoly on production =/= Socialism.

It is only an improvement on free market Capitalism when it is accompanied by real Socialist democracy, which was patently not the case in the USSR.
"Real socialist democracy" isn't the point of contention. It's about the material conditions of a given society, the relationship of classes to the means of production. When we look at this, the USSR was certainly not capitalist or imperialist because of the qualities previously mentioned.

[Jose Gracchus]

Nope, it only just obliged the working classes and peasantry of Hungary in their "people's democracy" to fork over 20-24% of their productivity per annum to pay for fascists' reparations.