Call 4 solidarity actions w/Belarusian anarchists 12-15.05 [Archive]

Sasha

25th April 2011, 13:14

Call 4 solidarity actions w/Belarusian anarchists 12-15.05
ABC-Belarus - 25.04.2011 11:19

It’s been 7 months now since the “case of arsons” was started in Belarus. All this time our friends and comrades have been held behind the bars. Having started with random detentions of activists of radially different political views in September last year, the case is finally coming to an end – it is being brought to trial.

http://www.indymedia.nl/img/2011/04/75591.jpg

At the moment 7 people targeted in the investigation of “the anarchists’ case” are staying under arrest.
Mikalai Dziadok is charged with *the organisation of an illegal anti-militarist
demonstration in September 2009 against a mutual Russian-Belarusian war exercise, when a Joint Staff was attacked with a smoke grenade; *the attack on a Minsk casino in December 2009 as a protest against growing social inequality; *an attack on the Headquarters of the Trade Union Federation on the 1st May with the statement that the state and this formal organisation uses workers in its interests, and doesn’t defend their rights, often preventing workers from cooperating with each other and organising strikes. Mikalai can face 10 years of imprisonment.

Ihar Alinevich is charged with *the attack on the Russian embassy in September 2010 as a solidarity action with Khimki arrestees; *the organisation of the illegal anti-militarist demonstration; *the attack on a Minsk casino; *the attack on a branch of Belarusbank on Mayday as a protest against the financial system of the world; *the attack on the detention centre in September 2010 with the demand to set free all the detainees. Ihar can be sentenced to a 12-year imprisonment.

Aliaksandr Frantskevich is incriminated with *the participation in the illegal
anti-militarist demonstration; *the attack on a police station in Soligorsk during the days of common action against the police; *the hacker attack on the Novopolotsk municipal web-page. Aliaksandr is threatened with 10 years of imprisonment.

Maxim Vetkin appears in *the the attack on the Russian embassy in September 2010 and *the attack on a branch of Belarusbank on Mayday. He can face 12 years of imprisonment.

As for the case of the attack on the KGB headquarters in Bobruisk in October 2010 as a solidarity action with the arrested in September, now Jauhen Vas’kovich, Artsiom Prakapenka and Pavel Syramolatau are targeted in the investigation. All of them can be sentenced to a 12-year imprisonment.

It should be pointed out that initially all the detained were charged with only one of the episodes according to the art. 339.2 (Hooliganism), contemplating up to 6 years of jail. In the course of investigation more episodes have been added for each of the accused and the article has been changed into 218.2(3) – intentional destruction of property with the sentence of 12 years of imprisonment. Moreover, all the evidence of the accusation is based on the testimonies of two “witnesses” who had actually taken part in the actions themselves but never got accused of the crime.

During the investigation more than 50 people were interrogated, 14 people spent 3 to 9 days in detention facilities. All these people claimed harsh psychological and in some cases even physical pressure in the course of the investigation.

At the moment most of the accused are on the final stage of familiarisation with materials of case. It is highly probable that the first court hearings is to start on 16th May, that’s why we call all concerned people to make protest actions against unfair accusations and solidarity actions with the Belarusian anarchists on May 12-15.
We welcome solidarity actions of ANY kind as well as other actions aimed at spreading information about the situation with political repression in Belarus and involving local human rights advocates in bringing up the problem about prosecutions in Belarus.

http://www.indymedia.nl/images/link_small.gif Website: http://www.autistici.org/abc-belarus

Spartacus.

25th April 2011, 14:01

Sasha

25th April 2011, 16:11

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

25th April 2011, 16:17

you're forgetting that lukashenko's regime is the 'last soviet state' and is thus lukashenko is a 'friend of the proletariat'.

in seriousness, thanks for posting. i was reading about it the other day and thought it should be posted when i saw the belarus thread and the apologists for repression in it.

Dimmu

25th April 2011, 16:18

Let's get this straight... You are claiming that Anarchists in Belarus are being politically repressed because they are tried for disturbance of public order, vandalism, attacking public buildings, throwing grenades and generally commiting acts that could be described as mild terrorism!!!??? How does that fit in the definition of political repression, defined as the punishment for having different views as opposed to the government? They are not tried for being anarchists, but for commiting violent acts against established order!

What would be the punishment that Anarchists would inflict upon persons doing similar things in their society? I suppose they would be ignored and left to peacefully throw grenades and bombs around with no legal sanctions whatsoever... :rolleyes:

Let get some things straight.. For of all most of the allegations of "grenade throwing" and "terrorism" is made up by the Belarussian KGB(yes they are still called that way).

Now, i like how you said that it fits the definition of such things like disturbing the public order and vandalism.. The problem is that of course its only called vandalism when the "lower classes" are doing something that hurts the people in power.. As soon as people in power repress the population its called "law".

Or are you pissed off because there is actually resistance against a oppressive government in Belarus, the country which you probably support because they are opposed to USA? This is the problem with all the people who claim to be "anti-imperialists" they are willing to support anyone as long as they are against the USA, even if it means supporting the "bigger devil".

Spartacus.

25th April 2011, 18:00

"Every person must submit to the authorities for the existing authorities are instituted by God, consequently anyone who rebels is resisting a divine institution and those who so resist have themselves to thank for the punishment they will receive - for Government has no terrors for good behaviour. You wish to have no fear of the authorities? Then contribute to do right and you will have their approval for they are God's agents working for your good." - Mathues

:rolleyes:

Interesting article about Anarchists and their condemnation of socialist states and their hipocrizy when it comes to standing up to imperialist and capitalist ones:

http://gowans.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/a-wrecking-ball-of-imperialism/

Spartacus.

25th April 2011, 18:01

in seriousness, thanks for posting. i was reading about it the other day and thought it should be posted when i saw the belarus thread and the apologists for repression in it.

Repression??? "Repression" is no worst than in any other eastern-european country, but I suppose that empty rhetoric is the best thing we are going to get from Anarchists unwilling to admit that vandalism and terrorism have nothing to do with making revolution or bringing positive social changes... :rolleyes:

Spartacus.

25th April 2011, 18:02

Let get some things straight.. For of all most of the allegations of "grenade throwing" and "terrorism" is made up by the Belarussian KGB

So why were they then arrested? I suppose that big, bad totalitarian, monstruos dictator Lukashenko has a special grudge against poor innocent anarchists and that anarchist movement in Belarus numbering some 50 people represents the most serious challenge to his ruthless and bloody rule! :lol:

(yes they are still called that way)

I wouldn't mind if they were even called NKVD... :rolleyes:

Now, i like how you said that it fits the definition of such things like disturbing the public order and vandalism.. The problem is that of course its only called vandalism when the "lower classes" are doing something that hurts the people in power.. As soon as people in power repress the population its called "law".

Since Lukashenko was elected President, poverty has been greatly reduced, privatized enterprizes have been brought back under public control and standard of life has significantly improved.
http://gowans.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/a-model-social-state/
I don't see why would anyone engage in throwing grenades against the government with such a record. Hell, I wouldn't even support people engaging in vandalism against government of Ethiopia's Meles Zelawi, and he is one of the worst leaders on the world. :D The problem with your idea of Belarus government suppressing "lower" classes is the fact that your anarchist comrades don't have any mass support, but are probably mainly a few dozens of disoriented, middle class idealists enjoying Belarus full employment, fantastic social welfare system, free education and healthcare, low housing rents, subsidized transportation and food prices, that want to be "unique" by engaging in toppling the "dictator" and creating a utopia. Now, if masses (meaning hundreds of thousands of people) were to be behind them, throwing grenades would be acceptible and I would support them, but considering the fact that they are nothing more than a bunch of kids with no idea what they are doing and about the consequences they might cause, I will call them vandals and terrorists and support their punishment. :)

Or are you pissed off because there is actually resistance against a oppressive government in Belarus, the country which you probably support because they are opposed to USA? This is the problem with all the people who claim to be "anti-imperialists" they are willing to support anyone as long as they are against the USA, even if it means supporting the "bigger devil".

1. There is no "resistance" against the "oppressive" government of Belarus that is worth mentioning, unless by "opposition" you mean US-funded, trained, advised and led fifth-columnists that are willing to open their country to imperialis plunder for the sake of US cash. You can read more about "resistance" in Belarus and how it came to be, hear:

http://gowans.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/west-takes-aim-at-belarus%e2%80%99-pro-social-policies/

2. Belarus is not opposed to US, but to US imperialism. Otherwise, I doubt that they have anything personally against them.

3. There is no biger devil than US imperialism. None. Comparing Belarus to US is an insult to sanity...

Dimmu

25th April 2011, 19:31

So why were they then arrested? I suppose that big, bad totalitarian, monstruos dictator Lukashenko has a special grudge against poor innocent anarchists and that anarchist movement in Belarus numbering some 50 people represents the most serious challenge to his ruthless and bloody rule! :lol:

Because a despot never tolerates ANY dissent. And anarchist groups tend to be quite active.

Since Lukashenko was elected President, poverty has been greatly reduced, privatized enterprizes have been brought back under public control and standard of life has significantly improved.
http://gowans.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/a-model-social-state/
I don't see why would anyone engage in throwing grenades against the government with such a record. Hell, I wouldn't even support people engaging in vandalism against government of Ethiopia's Meles Zelawi, and he is one of the worst leaders on the world. :D The problem with your idea of Belarus government suppressing "lower" classes is the fact that your anarchist comrades don't have any mass support, but are probably mainly a few dozens of disoriented, middle class idealists enjoying Belarus full employment, fantastic social welfare system, free education and healthcare, low housing rents, subsidized transportation and food prices, that want to be "unique" by engaging in toppling the "dictator" and creating a utopia. Now, if masses (meaning hundreds of thousands of people) were to be behind them, throwing grenades would be acceptible and I would support them, but considering the fact that they are nothing more than a bunch of kids with no idea what they are doing and about the consequences they might cause, I will call them vandals and terrorists and support their punishment. :)

Even if the living standards in Belarus are somewhat better then lets say Russia or other neighboring countries, Belarus is still not socialist since socialism means that workers have control over their workplace.

As for your link, please.. its a damn blog probably written by a person who does not even live in Belarus..

Also you make it sound like Belarus is a paradise on earth just because of Luka.. Thats not true, if he is gone tomorrow the people of Belarus would be just as good in organizing all the things you mentioned above, because the people of Belarus did not fall victim to the capitalism like it happened in other Soviet countries..

Luka is an authoritarian leader, he suppresses everyone who dares to criticize him and uses all means when it comes to dealing with dissidents. I bet the that if you would be given a choice to live in Belarus you would never accept that offer. I mean its nice to support "anti-imperialist" dictators while you are somewhere else.

1. There is no "resistance" against the "oppressive" government of Belarus that is worth mentioning, unless by "opposition" you mean US-funded, trained, advised and led fifth-columnists that are willing to open their country to imperialis plunder for the sake of US cash. You can read more about "resistance" in Belarus and how it came to be, hear:

Gaddafi, Assad and others all used the same rhetoric when people started to rise up.. Thats how they managed to control a big part of the population. I mean who does not like living under a demigod?

manic expression

25th April 2011, 20:20

Because a despot never tolerates ANY dissent. And anarchist groups tend to be quite active.
"Despot"..."dissent"...that's liberal talk. And anyway, what are these groups active in? In case anyone cares, no one's refuted the serious accusations of criminality.

Luka is an authoritarian leader, he suppresses everyone who dares to criticize him and uses all means when it comes to dealing with dissidents. I bet the that if you would be given a choice to live in Belarus you would never accept that offer. I mean its nice to support "anti-imperialist" dictators while you are somewhere else.
Everyone is authoritarian. The only question is what you're imposing.

I would be happy living in Belarus, definitely...especially in Minsk.

Gaddafi, Assad and others all used the same rhetoric when people started to rise up.. Thats how they managed to control a big part of the population. I mean who does not like living under a demigod?
:rolleyes:

Imposter Marxist

25th April 2011, 20:27

Why do anarchists oppose people's wars that the Naxalites carry out, calling them terrorist attacks, and then support anarchists who do stuff like this?

Dimmu

25th April 2011, 20:27

"Despot"..."dissent"...that's liberal talk. And anyway, what are these groups active in? In case anyone cares, no one's refuted the serious accusations of criminality.

What? So what do you call a person who keeps ruling a country for dozens of years while crushing the opposition?

Everyone is authoritarian. The only question is what you're imposing.

I agree.. But Lukashenko is a "president for life" just like Mubarak was.

I would be happy living in Belarus, definitely...especially in Minsk.
Why dont you move there?

:rolleyes:

Whats so strange? Everyone likes to create a "foreign" enemy to rally the population against the flag.. Just look at the USA.

Spartacus.

25th April 2011, 20:40

Why do anarchists oppose people's wars that the Naxalites carry out, calling them terrorist attacks, and then support anarchists who do stuff like this?

Because in India Naxalite movement has support of tens of millions of people, it is fighting for a real social change and they are having real success in that. As opposed to that, Anarchists in Belarus number 50 people, 99% of population doesn't even know of their existence and they don't have any coherent vision of how future, "free" Belarus should look like. In other words, they are nothing else but ego-centric idealists that put their illussions before the welfare of "their" people and are directly (and perhaps unconsciosly) helping imperialists in undermining and destroying the superb welfare system of Belarus in the interests of multinational corporations.

Dimmu

25th April 2011, 20:45

Because in India Naxalite movement has support of tens of millions of people, it is fighting for a real social change and they are having real success in that. As opposed to that, Anarchists in Belarus number 50 people, 99% of population doesn't even know of their existence and they don't have any coherent vision of how future, "free" Belarus should look like. In other words, they are nothing else but ego-centric idealists that put their illussions before the welfare of "their" people and are directly (and perhaps unconsciosly) helping imperialists in undermining and destroying the superb welfare system of Belarus in the interests of multinational corporations.

Nothing like a Marxist claiming that anarchists are helping the imperialists because they are opposed to a dictator..

Also like i wrote in the earlier post.. Lukashenko is not the one holding the "superb welfare system" intact and hes demise by a popular movement will not make it dissapear.. Real communism does not require any leaders especially Lukashenko-type onces..

manic expression

25th April 2011, 20:46

What? So what do you call a person who keeps ruling a country for dozens of years while crushing the opposition?
Depends. Depends on what they're doing, depends on what they're crushing.

I agree.. But Lukashenko is a "president for life" just like Mubarak was.Completely different leaders in entirely different situations. No serious comparison to be made here.

Why dont you move there?"If ya don't love America then git out!"... :D Probably because my Russian isn't that good, because I'd have to start my life from scratch, because changing school systems in the middle of studies isn't such a smart idea. Still though, I'd be fine living there. I can't think of one reason why it wouldn't be nice to live in Minsk...or Brest, for that matter.

Whats so strange? Everyone likes to create a "foreign" enemy to rally the population against the flag.. Just look at the USA.Again, no one's refuted the assertion that anarchists have carried out criminal acts. There's no need to "create" anything in that case. Do you deny their guilt? How? That's the important thing you haven't answered.

Sasha

25th April 2011, 20:47

Superb welfare system

Orly? :lol:

I'm sure Belarus isn't as bad as the economist would like it to present but superb welfare system is just plainly delusional...

Dimmu

25th April 2011, 20:52

Depends.

Depends on what? So what do you call Lukashenko?

Completely different leaders in entirely different situations. No serious comparison to be made here.

Does not change the fact that both of them have military background and both Lukashenko and Mubarak ruled like dictators and both of these leaders used their secret police to crack down on dissidents. The only difference is that Mubarak is gone.

"If ya don't love America then git out!"... :D Probably because my Russian isn't that good, because I'd have to start my life from scratch, because changing school systems in the middle of studies isn't such a smart idea. Still though, I'd be fine living there. I can't think of one reason why it wouldn't be nice to live in Minsk...or Brest, for that matter.

Nothing to do about that.. I just find it funny that anti-imperialists like to praise every single hellhole from aboard. Also on what do you base your desire to move to Belarus? Media?

Again, no one's refuted the assertion that anarchists have carried out criminal acts. There's no need to "create" anything in that case. Do you deny their guilt? How? That's the important thing you haven't answered.
How were these acts "criminal"? Just because they targeted the ruling power and their cronies? States brand every action that is opposed to their hegemony as criminal in nature.

Per Levy

25th April 2011, 20:57

Nothing like a Marxist claiming that anarchists are helping the imperialists because they are opposed to a dictator..

i think "spartacus." is much more a stalinist then a marxist.

Because in India Naxalite movement has support of tens of millions of people, it is fighting for a real social change and they are having real success in that. As opposed to that, Anarchists in Belarus number 50 people, 99% of population doesn't even know of their existence and they don't have any coherent vision of how future, "free" Belarus should look like. In other words, they are nothing else but ego-centric idealists that put their illussions before the welfare of "their" people and are directly (and perhaps unconsciosly) helping imperialists in undermining and destroying the superb welfare system of Belarus in the interests of multinational corporations.

so let me get this straight, what you're saying is that pretty much any (revolutionary) left organisation that does not have the support of millions, that does not have the opportunity to build "liberated zones" and that many people, in the countries they operate in, dont know are tools of imperialism/multinational corporations because they fight the government of their country?

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

25th April 2011, 21:04

Repression??? "Repression" is no worst than in any other eastern-european country, but I suppose that empty rhetoric is the best thing we are going to get from Anarchists unwilling to admit that vandalism and terrorism have nothing to do with making revolution or bringing positive social changes... :rolleyes:

repression is still repression. and anarchists are doing more than you are to combat repression, so shut the fuck up basically.

manic expression

25th April 2011, 21:08

Depends on what? So what do you call Lukashenko?
I'd call him the leader of the Belarusian state. I'd call him a leader who isn't beholden to imperialism, a leader who's resisted privatization to the benefit of the workers. I wouldn't call him the leader of a working-class movement or government, but I would call him otherwise progressive.

Does not change the fact that both of them have military background and both Lukashenko and Mubarak ruled like dictators and both of these leaders used their secret police to crack down on dissidents. The only difference is that Mubarak is gone.
You sure you're not overgeneralizing? Having both a military background and a "secret police" isn't exactly rare, and it encompasses a wide range of leaders who are greatly dissimilar.

Nothing to do about that.. I just find it funny that anti-imperialists like to praise every single hellhole from aboard. Also on what do you base your desire to move to Belarus? Media?
I base it on the one and a half weeks I was there. What do you base your impressions on?

How were these acts "criminal"? Just because they targeted the ruling power and their cronies? States brand every action that is opposed to their hegemony as criminal in nature.
Attacking an embassy, intelligence headquarters, a bank, a casino, a detention center? Do you deny that these criminal actions took place? You can speak against Luka in Belarus without punishment...but that's not what we're discussing.

Gorilla

25th April 2011, 21:24

At the moment 7 people targeted in the investigation of “the anarchists’ case” are staying under arrest.
Mikalai Dziadok is charged with

*the organisation of an illegal anti-militarist
demonstration in September 2009 against a mutual Russian-Belarusian war exercise, when a Joint Staff was attacked with a smoke grenade;
*the attack on a Minsk casino in December 2009 as a protest against growing social inequality;
*an attack on the Headquarters of the Trade Union Federation on the 1st May with the statement that the state and this formal organisation uses workers in its interests, and doesn’t defend their rights, often preventing workers from cooperating with each other and organising strikes.
Mikalai can face 10 years of imprisonment.

Ihar Alinevich is charged with

*the attack on the Russian embassy in September 2010 as a solidarity action with Khimki arrestees;
*the organisation of the illegal anti-militarist demonstration;
*the attack on a Minsk casino;
*the attack on a branch of Belarusbank on Mayday as a protest against the financial system of the world;
*the attack on the detention centre in September 2010 with the demand to set free all the detainees.
Ihar can be sentenced to a 12-year imprisonment.

Aliaksandr Frantskevich is incriminated with

*the participation in the illegal anti-militarist demonstration;
*the attack on a police station in Soligorsk during the days of common action against the police;
*the hacker attack on the Novopolotsk municipal web-page.
Aliaksandr is threatened with 10 years of imprisonment.

Maxim Vetkin appears in

*the the attack on the Russian embassy in September 2010 and
*the attack on a branch of Belarusbank on Mayday.
He can face 12 years of imprisonment.

As for the case of the attack on the KGB headquarters in Bobruisk in October 2010 as a solidarity action with the arrested in September, now Jauhen Vas’kovich, Artsiom Prakapenka and Pavel Syramolatau are targeted in the investigation. All of them can be sentenced to a 12-year imprisonment.

Besides the attack on the trade union - which would be wrong even if it is merely a yellow union, although possibly correct if it is actually a company-union - these are all useful actions with which we should show solidarity, including/especially those of us committed to defending Byelorussian social-democratic institutions against imperialism.

Pretty Flaco

25th April 2011, 21:44

I don't think it's very common to see frequent acts of terrorism in countries that are generally more prosperous. Typically increased violence is associated with various types of repression.

However, that statement is very general and I have no knowledge of Belarus. Is the situation more aligned to random acts of violence, specific targeted violence, or guerrilla warfare?

Spartacus.

25th April 2011, 22:26

Because a despot never tolerates ANY dissent.

Quite interesting. Could you explain me how, after 15 years of Lukashenko's tiranny, there are still dozens of active opposition parties left, majority of media is privately owned and extremely hostile to government and opposition activists are regularly receiving money and training from US in order to topple the government, and yet they are still left unharmed? I believe you are just using empthy rhetoric to cover your total lack of any serious arguments. The basic tactic for people like you is similar to US government and its propaganda outlets; when faced with facts just continue repeating: despot, tyrant, dictator, totalitarianism, authoritarian, un-democratic and so on. Someone naive enough may actually believe in that... :rolleyes:

And anarchist groups tend to be quite active.

Really? What is the size of Anarchist's groups in Belarus? Do they have even 50 members? Btw; Al-Qaida is also active, it doesn't mean it has any actual support anywhere. Remember that guy that burned himself in Tunisia and how entire people of that country went on the streets and toppled down Ben Ali's regime? What do you think, what is the reason no one cares about some Anarchists imprisoned by Lukashenko's regime? Is it possible that people are satisfied with their lives and they don't care about some terrorists that are throwing grenades and bombs and disturbing their peacefull and happy lives? :)

As for your link, please.. its a damn blog probably written by a person who does not even live in Belarus..

Read it. You may actually even learn something. :)

Even if the living standards in Belarus are somewhat better then lets say Russia or other neighboring countries, Belarus is still not socialist since socialism means that workers have control over their workplace.

Also you make it sound like Belarus is a paradise on earth just because of Luka.. Thats not true, if he is gone tomorrow the people of Belarus would be just as good in organizing all the things you mentioned above, because the people of Belarus did not fall victim to the capitalism like it happened in other Soviet countries..

As with all your posts, you are contradicting yourself. If Belarus is not socialist, as you claim in the first quote, how can it be that it has managed to avoid to fall to capitalism, as you claim in the second quote? Dude, are you on something? :D

Belarus is not socialist, it is state-capitalist system with a very strong welfare state that promotes the interests of the workers. My defence of it has nothing to do with Lukashenko, but with a system that could bring better life to people all over Eastern Europe if replicated.

Luka is an authoritarian leader, he suppresses everyone who dares to criticize him and uses all means when it comes to dealing with dissidents.

Yeah, sure. Approximately 1649523 citizens of Belarus are interned in the secret gulags hidden deep in the forests and swamps of that country, working for 18 hours a day for the sake of the personal enrichment of a dictator that according to CIA data has a monthly pay of 1700 euros... :rolleyes:

I bet the that if you would be given a choice to live in Belarus you would never accept that offer. I mean its nice to support "anti-imperialist" dictators while you are somewhere else.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Kid, you are fucking jocking me, right??? :D I'm already living in one of the worst dictatorships in Europe. Our ruling "party" has been in power for more than two decades, our entire industry has been destroyed by neo-liberal shock-treatment, entire enterprizes have been privatized, official unemloyment is around 20%, poverty is 60%, Montenegro is listed below some African countries when it comes to journalist's freedom. I'm studying at national university (I'm paying, of course) and when I started, I was actually asked do I support the ruling party and if I'm not, it would be "advisable" to start doing so. Here's one interesting article about forgotten dictatorship in Europe, so perhaps in the future you and your anarchist friends might think about coming in Montenegro and tossing a few grenades.

Gun on journalists
By V. Koprivica

Podgorica - Podgorica Mayor Miomir Mugosa, his son and driver Miljan Dragan Radonjić physicaly on Wednesday attacked late at night, editors and photographers of list News Mihailo Jovovic and Boris Pejovic while they were on the job. "Mugošin son at one point and pointed a gun at Jovovic," published by the journal. Mayor's son is a Montenegrin diplomat in Washington.

http://www.danas.rs/vesti/svet/region/pistoljem_na_novinare.9.html?news_id=168621

Use google translate if you want to read the rest of the article.

http://www.uploadgeek.com/thumb-EFCF_4DB5D9F7.jpg (http://www.uploadgeek.com/share-EFCF_4DB5D9F7.html)

Two American-friendly dictators happily chatting together...

I suppose that you are young, naive and idealistic, and you haven't read anything serious about Belarus or studied the matter deeply. Also, considering the fact you are from Finland, I suppose you are not aware of the situation in the former socialist countries. I hope that you understand that stories about the "last European dictator" spread about Lukashenko are nothing more than vicious propaganda by the imperialist-controlled media, that distorts real representatives of people like Lukashenko, while it hides the crimes and vices of real dictators. In the future, try to read more and be critical toward capitalist news sources.

bcbm

26th April 2011, 03:44

Attacking an embassy, intelligence headquarters, a bank, a casino, a detention center? Do you deny that these criminal actions took place?

so now revolutionaries defend embassies, intelligence agencies, banks, casinos and prisons and uphold the rule of law? haha what a joke

Gorilla

26th April 2011, 03:54

so now revolutionaries defend embassies, intelligence agencies, banks, casinos and prisons and uphold the rule of law? haha what a joke

Seriously, comrades. It's one thing to defend Belarus against imperialist demonization etc. but there is a class line here.

On the other hand the terms of solidarity should be with the anarchists as revolutionaries and workers, not some liberal bullshit about totalitarianism vs. the droits du citoyen. But really that is a side issue at the moment.

Os Cangaceiros

26th April 2011, 04:27

Why do anarchists oppose people's wars that the Naxalites carry out, calling them terrorist attacks, and then support anarchists who do stuff like this?

yeah (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1793026&postcount=51)

Anyway, I refuse to condemn attacks on the institutions of state and capital (despite the fact that I hold no illusions as to their ultimate effectiveness in challenging the social relations of capital). If anything there should be more of this, not less. It's pretty amazing that some would defend the state prosecuting leftists on the basis of "criminality", LOL. Those poor embasies and casinos!

Dimmu

26th April 2011, 05:17

Quite interesting. Could you explain me how, after 15 years of Lukashenko's tiranny, there are still dozens of active opposition parties left, majority of media is privately owned and extremely hostile to government and opposition activists are regularly receiving money and training from US in order to topple the government, and yet they are still left unharmed? I believe you are just using empthy rhetoric to cover your total lack of any serious arguments. The basic tactic for people like you is similar to US government and its propaganda outlets; when faced with facts just continue repeating: despot, tyrant, dictator, totalitarianism, authoritarian, un-democratic and so on. Someone naive enough may actually believe in that... :rolleyes:

Umm.. Do you have any sources for these claims? And i dont talk about a blog post.. But real solid sources.. As for the "opposition" parties they are just puppets that are used by the Lukashenko to justify hes rule.. Just like in Russia where you have dozens of parties but no real opposition.

Really? What is the size of Anarchist's groups in Belarus? Do they have even 50 members? Btw; Al-Qaida is also active, it doesn't mean it has any actual support anywhere. Remember that guy that burned himself in Tunisia and how entire people of that country went on the streets and toppled down Ben Ali's regime? What do you think, what is the reason no one cares about some Anarchists imprisoned by Lukashenko's regime? Is it possible that people are satisfied with their lives and they don't care about some terrorists that are throwing grenades and bombs and disturbing their peacefull and happy lives? :)Yeah.. These "terrorists" are disturbing peoples lives because everyone loves living in a country where you cannot oppose the government without ending up in jail or be called a traitor.. Seriously, do you get paid to promote this crap here? Do you even know Russian?

Read it. You may actually even learn something. :)No thanks, i rather talk to the people living in Belarus rather then reading some blog written by a random person.

As with all your posts, you are contradicting yourself. If Belarus is not socialist, as you claim in the first quote, how can it be that it has managed to avoid to fall to capitalism, as you claim in the second quote? Dude, are you on something? :DIt is state-capitalist, just like you mentioned it yourself.

Belarus is not socialist, it is state-capitalist system with a very strong welfare state that promotes the interests of the workers. My defence of it has nothing to do with Lukashenko, but with a system that could bring better life to people all over Eastern Europe if replicated.Its not that good.. You make it sound like Belarus is a paradise on earth and people from eastern Europe are all trying to immigrate there..

Yeah, sure. Approximately 1649523 citizens of Belarus are interned in the secret gulags hidden deep in the forests and swamps of that country, working for 18 hours a day for the sake of the personal enrichment of a dictator that according to CIA data has a monthly pay of 1700 euros... :rolleyes:Enough with overblowing my arguments.. As for the wage, please.. Putin has a the same wage, but somehow he manages to get watches and houses that are worth more then hes yearly wage.. Do you really believe this yourself?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Kid, you are fucking jocking me, right??? :D I'm already living in one of the worst dictatorships in Europe. Our ruling "party" has been in power for more than two decades, our entire industry has been destroyed by neo-liberal shock-treatment, entire enterprizes have been privatized, official unemloyment is around 20%, poverty is 60%, Montenegro is listed below some African countries when it comes to journalist's freedom. I'm studying at national university (I'm paying, of course) and when I started, I was actually asked do I support the ruling party and if I'm not, it would be "advisable" to start doing so. Here's one interesting article about forgotten dictatorship in Europe, so perhaps in the future you and your anarchist friends might think about coming in Montenegro and tossing a few grenades.
Ha! Now you dont mind using the word dictator..

I suppose that you are young, naive and idealistic, and you haven't read anything serious about Belarus or studied the matter deeply. Also, considering the fact you are from Finland, I suppose you are not aware of the situation in the former socialist countries. I hope that you understand that stories about the "last European dictator" spread about Lukashenko are nothing more than vicious propaganda by the imperialist-controlled media, that distorts real representatives of people like Lukashenko, while it hides the crimes and vices of real dictators. In the future, try to read more and be critical toward capitalist news sources.Dude, i know more about Belarus then you can ever known since i speak fluent Russian and have a Belorussian father.. So you can continue reading your pathetic apologetic blogs written by people who loves to defend dictators.

I on the other hand will take a neutral stance will continue condemning every single dictator no matter where the are from, since i care about the people.

You on the other hand can continue supporting systems which has nothing to do with socialism just because the leaders of these countries are anti(something).

so now revolutionaries defend embassies, intelligence agencies, banks, casinos and prisons and uphold the rule of law? haha what a joke

People like Spartacus are not even socialist...

Imposter Marxist

26th April 2011, 05:43

yeah (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1793026&postcount=51)

Anyway, I refuse to condemn attacks on the institutions of state and capital (despite the fact that I hold no illusions as to their ultimate effectiveness in challenging the social relations of capital). If anything there should be more of this, not less. It's pretty amazing that some would defend the state prosecuting leftists on the basis of "criminality", LOL. Those poor embasies and casinos!

At least you accept your hypocracy.

No other Anarachist's want to awnser my question?

Os Cangaceiros

26th April 2011, 06:02

At least you accept your hypocracy.

No other Anarachist's want to awnser my question?

What do you mean "accept my hypocracy"? I linked to a post in which I praised the Naxalites killing a bunch of cops. :confused:

manic expression

26th April 2011, 10:45

so now revolutionaries defend embassies, intelligence agencies, banks, casinos and prisons and uphold the rule of law? haha what a joke
Uh, no. I don't think it's constructive to randomly attack buildings. It isolates one from the working class and does nothing for working-class progress. Prove to me that your anarchists are actually progressive forces and we'll talk. Until then...

REVOLUTI:rolleyes:N!

http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2009/01/rioters-starbucks-415x275.jpg

Sasha

26th April 2011, 11:15

Let's get this straight... You are claiming that Anarchists in Belarus are being politically repressed because they are tried for disturbance of public order, vandalism, attacking public buildings, throwing grenades and generally commiting acts that could be described as mild terrorism!!!??? How does that fit in the definition of political repression, defined as the punishment for having different views as opposed to the government? They are not tried for being anarchists, but for commiting violent acts against established order!

What would be the punishment that Anarchists would inflict upon persons doing similar things in their society? I suppose they would be ignored and left to peacefully throw grenades and bombs around with no legal sanctions whatsoever... :rolleyes:

wait what?

throwing grenades [....] throw grenades and bombs around

lets go back to the OP shall we?

*the organisation of an illegal anti-militarist
demonstration in September 2009 against a mutual Russian-Belarusian war exercise, when a Joint Staff was attacked with a smoke grenade

smoke grenade

smoke

that is something that does this:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ku0lA8wyASE/S-zoFs0vaQI/AAAAAAAAEa8/FSZZz_uOeKM/s640/purple+smoke+grenade.jpg

not this:

http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/08/20/2006-08-20__front01.jpg

nice fabrication, maybe you want an job at the KGB/Belarusian prosecuters office? you would fit right in.

Imposter Marxist

26th April 2011, 13:46

What do you mean "accept my hypocracy"? I linked to a post in which I praised the Naxalites killing a bunch of cops. :confused:

Sorry comrade, I wasn't in the right of mind when I posted that, lol. You're okay in my book.

Chambered Word

26th April 2011, 15:01

"Despot"..."dissent"...that's liberal talk.

Seems to sum up your political convictions, especially when it comes to governments that profess to be socialist.

repression is still repression. and anarchists are doing more than you are to combat repression, so shut the fuck up basically.

Not feeling inclined to defend anarchism as an ideology, but at least the anarchists want to smash the capitalist state, instead of promoting it as a tool against oppression (and becoming staunch apologists for those who preside over it) by the same 'Leninists' whom Vladimir Lenin himself probably would have denounced as philistines around a century ago.

manic expression

26th April 2011, 15:15

Seems to sum up your political convictions, especially when it comes to governments that profess to be socialist.
No, it sums up my views on liberal politics, which are out of touch and unprogressive. Anyway, you might want to double-check what the government of Belarus does and doesn't profess.

Sword and Shield

26th April 2011, 16:34

I hope these anarchists get a lengthy prison sentence. Giving a bad rep for real communists.

Dimmu

26th April 2011, 16:39

I hope these anarchists get a lengthy prison sentence. Giving a bad rep for real communists.

The only onces giving a bed rep for socialists are Stalinists like you..

Instead of focusing on class struggle and freedom, you focus your energy on supporting anti-imperialistic dictators who do nothing but abuse their own population in the name of socialism..

Right-wingers love to use the arguments of leftist support of wackos like Assad, Ahmadinejad etc to claim that communism is nothing more then a dictatorship and you do absolutely nothing to prove them wrong, instead you are pouring the gasoline onto the fire when you claim that Gaddafi is somehow a good leader and that Lukashenko is not a dictator.

Lord Testicles

26th April 2011, 17:00

I hope these anarchists get a lengthy prison sentence.

You're an idiot.

Sword and Shield

26th April 2011, 17:06

The only onces giving a bed rep for socialists are Stalinists like you..

Instead of focusing on class struggle and freedom, you focus your energy on supporting anti-imperialistic dictators who do nothing but abuse their own population in the name of socialism..

Right-wingers love to use the arguments of leftist support of wackos like Assad, Ahmadinejad etc to claim that communism is nothing more then a dictatorship and you do absolutely nothing to prove them wrong, instead you are pouring the gasoline onto the fire when you claim that Gaddafi is somehow a good leader and that Lukashenko is not a dictator.

I really don't give a crap what arguments right-wingers in the West use. The rest of the world knows who's oppressing them more. Here's a hint: it isn't Assad, Gaddafi, or Lukashenko. Here's another hint, it's the countries that drop bombs on them and back neoliberal puppet regimes.

Dimmu

26th April 2011, 17:11

I really don't give a crap what arguments right-wingers in the West use. The rest of the world knows who's oppressing them more. Here's a hint: it isn't Assad, Gaddafi, or Lukashenko. Here's another hint, it's the countries that drop bombs on them and back neoliberal puppet regimes.

Actually people like you "scare" the potential socialists from becoming active in politics because they dont want to be associated with people who support Stalin and other fkheads.

Instead these potential socialists/communists vote liberal.

Also, no one is dropping bombs on Lukashenko or Assad who at this very moment massacres civilians because they demanded hes resignation.

manic expression

26th April 2011, 17:17

Actually people like you "scare" the potential socialists from becoming active in politics because they dont want to be associated with people who support Stalin and other fkheads.

Instead these potential socialists/communists vote liberal.
Telling the truth about the history of our movement isn't scaring anyone away from becoming a socialist. Take it from someone who used to be very anti-Stalin.

Princess Luna

26th April 2011, 17:19

Uh, no. I don't think it's constructive to randomly attack buildings. It isolates one from the working class and does nothing for working-class progress. Prove to me that your anarchists are actually progressive forces and we'll talk. Until then...

REVOLUTI:rolleyes:N!

http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2009/01/rioters-starbucks-415x275.jpg

So attacking buildings used to make treaties with capitalist nations, buildings used to spy on the working class and suppress decent, buildings used to imprison the working class, and banks are bad?
now granted i can't see a ligitimate reason to attack a casino (unless you go with the whole, gambling destroys peoples lives) but i am not going to shed any tears for it.

btw don't forget Lenin (and Stalin) robbed banks.

Dimmu

26th April 2011, 17:24

Telling the truth about the history of our movement isn't scaring anyone away from becoming a socialist. Take it from someone who used to be very anti-Stalin.

There is history and then there is revisionism.. Stalin was not a communist, Gaddafi was not a communist and Lukashenko is no communists.. So why the fk do self-proclaimed Stalinists parade in support of these dictators?

Chimurenga.

26th April 2011, 17:28

Such a series of acts that Condoleezza Rice (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/20/rice.dougherty/index.html) would approve of.

Who the hell needs CIA when you can rely on Left-opportunists to do the job for you? All in the name of smashing the state and capital!

:blackA:!!!
Fuck the State!
Work is Terrorism!!!

Chimurenga.

26th April 2011, 17:30

btw don't forget Lenin (and Stalin) robbed banks.

Hardly applicable.

Dimmu

26th April 2011, 17:30

Such a series of acts that Condaleeza Rice (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/20/rice.dougherty/index.html) would approve of.

Who the hell needs CIA when you can rely on Left-opportunists to do the job for you? All in the name of smashing the state and capital!

:blackA:!!!
Fuck the State!
Work is Terrorism!!!

Actually these are the people that US and the rest of the capitalists are afraid off.. Just look at how US are trying to hijack popular uprising in the arab world...

USA does not really need to overthrow Lukashenko, Belarus has no natural resources that they can exploit.. USA actually profits from the Lukashenko by claiming that he is the "last dictator in Europe who also is a socialist".

manic expression

26th April 2011, 17:31

So attacking buildings used to make treaties with capitalist nation, buildings used to spy on the working class and suppress decent, buildings used to imprison the working class, and banks are bad?
now granted i can't see a ligitimate reason to attack a casino (unless you go with the whole, gambling destroys peoples lives) but i am not going to shed any tears for it.

btw don't forget Lenin (and Stalin) robbed banks.
Leaving aside the issue of Belarus for a minute, without any working-class organization behind it, such attacks are incredibly counterproductive and alienating. It's not like I care so much about the wellbeing of a casino either (other than the safety of the people in there), but what does attacking it do? What's the point? You said it yourself, we're left grasping at answers because there aren't any.

When it comes to the functioning of the Belarusian state, let's consider that the Belarusian government is the only thing standing in between the Belarusian workers and capitalist Shock Therapy. Further, that aspect of the Belarusian state should be applauded, because it's done more for the workers than these criminal (yes, I'm using that word because I don't see how they're legitimate) acts ever could. That's why there's no reason for any of us to support these anarchist attacks.

Lastly, yes you're right that the Bolsheviks robbed banks. But they were also illegalized as an organization before that point, and had to resort to robbery in order to finance their party. I don't think it's a strong comparison.

Chimurenga.

26th April 2011, 17:35

Actually these are the people that US and the rest of the capitalists are afraid off.. Just look at how US are trying to hijack popular uprising in the arab world...

USA does not really need to overthrow Lukashenko, Belarus has no natural resources that they can exploit.. USA actually profits from the Lukashenko by claiming that he is the "last dictator in Europe who also is a socialist".

Newsflash. The US hasn't been scared of Anarchists since the early twentieth century. They are smart enough to infiltrate your ranks and bring whatever organization you have down. It's been done countless times.

Anarchists scare No. One.*

*Besides grocery store owners who put locks on their dumpsters now

manic expression

26th April 2011, 17:38

Actually these are the people that US and the rest of the capitalists are afraid off.. Just look at how US are trying to hijack popular uprising in the arab world...
Anarchists = Egyptian working class? :confused:

USA does not really need to overthrow Lukashenko, Belarus has no natural resources that they can exploit.. USA actually profits from the Lukashenko by claiming that he is the "last dictator in Europe who also is a socialist".
Not to be rude, but look at a map. The oil pipelines through Belarus alone would be reason enough to overthrow its government. Add the geostrategic positioning that borders Russia, Ukraine (a country that teeters between pro-US and pro-Russia stances), Lithuania, Latvia and Poland...it explains itself.

There is history and then there is revisionism.. Stalin was not a communist, Gaddafi was not a communist and Lukashenko is no communists.. So why the fk do self-proclaimed Stalinists parade in support of these dictators?
Why do you insist on parroting capitalist rhetoric whenever it comes to a leader imperialism doesn't like?

Dimmu

26th April 2011, 17:40

Newsflash. The US hasn't been scared of Anarchists since the early twentieth century. They are smart enough to infiltrate your ranks and bring whatever organization you have down. It's been done countless times.

Anarchists scare No. One.*

*Besides grocery store owners who put locks on their dumpsters now

Actually its your organizations that are infiltrated to the bone and sometimes i wonder if many of the people walking with Stalin or Gaddafi portraits are members of police.

Anarchists are the only people from the left who fight a class-war against the oppressors. Look at UK protests, 500 000 people protested "peacefully" and nothing was achieved, but on the other hand you had dozens of anarchists who gained a lot of support and media attention.

You stalinists can continue getting hard-ons on dictators and leave the direct action to anarchists.

Omsk

26th April 2011, 17:42

Stalin was not a communist
Stalin was a communist.While the latter two you mentioned are not communists.

So why the fk do self-proclaimed Stalinists parade in support of these dictators?
Self proclaimed Stalinist's?I see no,self proclaimed Stalinist's,just one member who is defending one side,which is normal,since we are in a discussion.Please no tags or labels.He has a right for an opinion on a subject.

And he was not parading.He was simply in Lukashenkos defense.

You stalinists can continue getting hard-ons on dictators and leave the direct action to anarchists.

Nice work so far!!!

Dimmu

26th April 2011, 17:45

Anarchists = Egyptian working class? :confused:

I was talking about free-thinking young people..

Not to be rude, but look at a map. The oil pipelines through Belarus alone would be reason enough to overthrow its government. Add the geostrategic positioning that borders Russia, Ukraine (a country that teeters between pro-US and pro-Russia stances), Lithuania, Latvia and Poland...it explains itself.

USA cannot meddle into the Belorussian polices.. Its completely in the Russian sphere of influence.

Why do you insist on parroting capitalist rhetoric whenever it comes to a leader imperialism doesn't like?

I am saying that the left should stop focusing on this black and white rhetoric and instead focus on real issues like class warfare.

Dimmu

26th April 2011, 17:47

Stalin was a communist.While the latter two you mentioned are not communists.

Lol.. If Stalin's Soviet Union was even remotly communistic then i am no communist..

Self proclaimed Stalinist's?I see no,self proclaimed Stalinist's,just one member who is defending one side,which is normal,since we are in a discussion.Please no tags or labels.He has a right for an opinion on a subject.
What? There are several people here attacking anarchism..

And he was not parading.He was simply in Lukashenkos defense.
Just like they arrive to defend other dictators like Assad and Gaddafi.. It just gets stupid.

Chimurenga.

26th April 2011, 17:48

Actually its your organizations that are infiltrated to the bone and sometimes i wonder if many of the people walking with Stalin or Gaddafi portraits are members of police.

Very few people in the Western world walk around with portraits of either so I'm not sure where this is coming from.

Anarchists are the only people from the left who fight a class-war against the oppressors. Look at UK protests, 500 000 people protested "peacefully" and nothing was achieved, but on the other hand you had dozens of anarchists who gained a lot of support and media attention.

Once again, Newsflash. Nothing was achieved there either. So a few Anarchists smashed some windows and some articles were written. You know what this leads to? Mass arrests. Of those involved and of bystanders who were not involved. You can look at the Toronto G20 for a good example of that as well.

Bravo, Anarchists! At least the pigs can make their commissions when you are all out "fucking the system up".

You stalinists can continue getting hard-ons on dictators and leave the direct action to anarchists.

You really live in a dream world. Astonishing.

Dimmu

26th April 2011, 17:53

Very few people in the Western world walk around with portraits of either so I'm not sure where this is coming from.

And many more support them with words.. This topic is a good example of that.

Once again, Newsflash. Nothing was achieved there either. So a few Anarchists smashed some windows and some articles were written. You know what this leads to? Mass arrests. Of those involved and of bystanders who were not involved. You can look at the Toronto G20 for a good example of that as well.
What change do you expect? Resignation of the British goverment and Queen committing a suicide? What anarchist actions achieve is that people understand the issue of classes and start resisting.

Bravo, Anarchists! At least the pigs can make their commissions when you are all out "fucking the system up".

Nothing like exposing police brutality..

Chimurenga.

26th April 2011, 18:04

And many more support them with words.. This topic is a good example of that.

Having an actual understanding of Stalin and Gaddafi doesn't hurt, you know. Jesus christ, for an anti-capitalist, you sure seem to swallow their bullshit without hesitation.

What change do you expect? Resignation of the British goverment and Queen committing a suicide? What anarchist actions achieve is that people understand the issue of classes and start resisting.

Once again, dream world. If the masses realized this, then why is Anarchism, throughout the overwhelming majority of the world, completely irrelevant?

Nothing like exposing police brutality..

Sure. You get to write about it in your publications and communiques that no one pays attention to. Meanwhile, the local precinct reaps all the benefits.

Dope.

Dimmu

26th April 2011, 18:11

Having an actual understanding of Stalin and Gaddafi doesn't hurt, you know. Jesus christ, for an anti-capitalist, you sure seem to swallow their bullshit without hesitation.

I have read a lot about Gaddafi and Stalin, i just dont want to discuss it with detail here..

The point i am making is that stalinists should spend less time justifying why Stalin's or Gaddafi's crimes and instead focus on the real issues like educating the people.

Once again, dream world. If the masses realized this, then why is Anarchism, throughout the overwhelming majority of the world, completely irrelevant?

Its irrelevant only in your world. Its an miracle that anarchism still actually manages to survive when you have both anti-anarchism propaganda coming out of capitalist and marxist circles.

Sure. You get to write about it in your publications and communiques that no one pays attention to. Meanwhile, the local precinct reaps all the benefits.
Again, you probably have no experience in dealing with anarchists. Anarchists in most countries practice direct action which gains them more followers and supporters.

Per Levy

26th April 2011, 18:50

Once again, dream world. If the masses realized this, then why is Anarchism, throughout the overwhelming majority of the world, completely irrelevant?

just as an info, for the overwhelming majority of the world communism is dead and irrelevant. and i as communist see it that way. i find it pretty arrogant to say that someones idiology is irrelevant when your own idiology isnt in much better shape.

manic expression

26th April 2011, 21:20

I was talking about free-thinking young people..
Oh, cool. So stoner college kids can take credit for the Egyptian Revolution...cause they're "free-thinking young people".

USA cannot meddle into the Belorussian polices.. Its completely in the Russian sphere of influence.
Maybe you could say that, but it's more in the Belarusian sphere of influence. Don't simplify things. The Belarusian government is close to Russia and takes its side on the international stage but Belarus is not dependent on Russia.

I am saying that the left should stop focusing on this black and white rhetoric and instead focus on real issues like class warfare.
Yes, that's a great idea. Too bad these anarchists can't do that.

Again, you probably have no experience in dealing with anarchists. Anarchists in most countries practice direct action which gains them more followers and supporters.
How many new anarchists do you get per broken Starbucks window?

Lol.. If Stalin's Soviet Union was even remotly communistic then i am no communist..
Well put.

just as an info, for the overwhelming majority of the world communism is dead and irrelevant. and i as communist see it that way. i find it pretty arrogant to say that someones idiology is irrelevant when your own idiology isnt in much better shape.
India, Nepal, Philippines, South Africa, Venezuela, Bolivia, El Salvador, Greece, Portugal...

GallowsBird

26th April 2011, 22:42

Lol.. If Stalin's Soviet Union was even remotly communistic then i am no communist..

Then you mustn't be one then if that is the case. Look at the government structure which was made up of "communes" (such as Kolkhozy et cetera) and the Soviet Union was collectivised using a Marxist model as its source, albeit, as is the case with most Socialists movements, not religiously following the movement as conditions in the country had to be met in a certain fashion... what is good for one country is not neccesarily 100% perfect at a certain time in another country.

You may not like Stalin or "Stalinism" and you may think they were bad but to claim they are not in anyway "communistic" even in a basic form does show a slight lack of knowledge of the structure of the USSR under Stalin.

bricolage

26th April 2011, 23:34

There is history and then there is revisionism.. Stalin was not a communist, Gaddafi was not a communist and Lukashenko is no communists.. So why the fk do self-proclaimed Stalinists parade in support of these dictators?

Why do you insist on parroting capitalist rhetoric whenever it comes to a leader imperialism doesn't like?
I don't think saying Stalin was not a communist is really capitalist rhetoric.
I also think it's pretty lazy to simply go 'you say what they say!' as opposed to actually addressing what is being said... the BNP were against war in Iraq y'know...

Gorilla

27th April 2011, 00:29

Uh, no. I don't think it's constructive to randomly attack buildings. It isolates one from the working class and does nothing for working-class progress. Prove to me that your anarchists are actually progressive forces and we'll talk.

The issue is not whether this was a great fucking idea, it clearly was not. Sacco and Vanzetti shooting that cop (and let's not play games for the liberals here, they did shoot him) was also a dumb idea. But we take the side of Sacco and Vanzetti against the state of Massachusetts anyway because we are communists. Just because Lukashenko is down with Mugabe and Chavez (which is genuinely awesome I will grant) doesn't make this case any different.

As I said before there is a class line here. On the one side there is a reasonably progressive non-working class regime, on the other side there are fellow socialists who are endeavoring, even if in the dumbest way possible, to build working-class revolution. There's no sense in making it complicated - you side with your class.

Stalin himself used to do totally adventurist non-constructive things like bank robberies etc. before 1917.

bcbm

27th April 2011, 04:53

Uh, no. I don't think it's constructive to randomly attack buildings. It isolates one from the working class and does nothing for working-class progress. Prove to me that your anarchists are actually progressive forces and we'll talk.

i didn't say it was constructive, i questioned revolutionaries defending these specific institutions and supporting the state to prosecute the alleged attackers.

Dimmu

27th April 2011, 05:16

Then you mustn't be one then if that is the case. Look at the government structure which was made up of "communes" (such as Kolkhozy et cetera) and the Soviet Union was collectivised using a Marxist model as its source, albeit, as is the case with most Socialists movements, not religiously following the movement as conditions in the country had to be met in a certain fashion... what is good for one country is not neccesarily 100% perfect at a certain time in another country.

You may not like Stalin or "Stalinism" and you may think they were bad but to claim they are not in anyway "communistic" even in a basic form does show a slight lack of knowledge of the structure of the USSR under Stalin.

Sorry but the workers owned nothing, had no rights to strike, no free speech and got payed nothing compared to the bureaucrats in power..

Lets not mention the obvious class divides.. Everything was owned by the state who used workers as their little pawns.. Thats not socialism and communist, but your typical state-capitalism and if your ideals are to get an other Stalin's Soviet Union then you need to get your head checked.

manic expression

27th April 2011, 10:26

The issue is not whether this was a great fucking idea, it clearly was not. Sacco and Vanzetti shooting that cop (and let's not play games for the liberals here, they did shoot him) was also a dumb idea. But we take the side of Sacco and Vanzetti against the state of Massachusetts anyway because we are communists. Just because Lukashenko is down with Mugabe and Chavez (which is genuinely awesome I will grant) doesn't make this case any different.

As I said before there is a class line here. On the one side there is a reasonably progressive non-working class regime, on the other side there are fellow socialists who are endeavoring, even if in the dumbest way possible, to build working-class revolution. There's no sense in making it complicated - you side with your class.

Stalin himself used to do totally adventurist non-constructive things like bank robberies etc. before 1917.
I would say it is very different from those two cases. I do not see a reasonable comparison between Belarus today and Massachusetts or the Russian Empire. Perhaps you do, but I would disagree.

Regardless, I don't see how these anarchists are promoting the interests of the working class. Many anarchists do, IMO, but these? I don't see it.

i didn't say it was constructive, i questioned revolutionaries defending these specific institutions and supporting the state to prosecute the alleged attackers.
The same institutions which have defended the Belarusian workers from the horrors of Shock Therapy?

I don't think saying Stalin was not a communist is really capitalist rhetoric.
I also think it's pretty lazy to simply go 'you say what they say!' as opposed to actually addressing what is being said... the BNP were against war in Iraq y'know...
You're right there, but if you review the rest of that poster's posts on this thread my point becomes more grounded.

GallowsBird

27th April 2011, 10:38

Sorry but the workers owned nothing, had no rights to strike, no free speech and got payed nothing compared to the bureaucrats in power..

Lets not mention the obvious class divides.. Everything was owned by the state who used workers as their little pawns.. Thats not socialism and communist, but your typical state-capitalism and if your ideals are to get an other Stalin's Soviet Union then you need to get your head checked.

You are veering off from your claim that the soviet union was not in anyway communistic... which is a ridiculous claim as even non-socialist... even non-communist ideologies have "communistic" aspects such as communalism (as the Soviet Union had).

Though saying that the Soviet Union was a socialist state as they based their ideology and economic policy on a socialist, and specifically Marxist model. You can of course argue that it wasn't succesful or that it was corrupted by those in power but it is a bit much to claim something isn't in anyway "socialist" or "communistic" just because you disagree with it.

This dictionary defintion sums it up (definitions three and six)

communism [ˈkɒmjʊˌnɪzəm]n1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) advocacy of a classless society in which private ownership has been abolished and the means of production and subsistence belong to the community
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any social, economic, or political movement or doctrine aimed at achieving such a society
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (usually capital) a political movement based upon the writings of Karl Marx, the German political philosopher (1818-83), that considers history in terms of class conflict and revolutionary struggle, resulting eventually in the victory of the proletariat and the establishment of a socialist order based on public ownership of the means of production See also Marxism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Marxism), Marxism-Leninism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Marxism-Leninism), socialism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism)
4. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (usually capital) a social order or system of government established by a ruling Communist Party, esp in the former Soviet Union
5. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (often capital) Chiefly US any leftist political activity or thought, esp when considered to be subversive
6. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) communal living; communalism[from French communisme, from commun common]

Omsk

27th April 2011, 10:41

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

27th April 2011, 11:39

• The Soviet Union achieved a greater success in the term of industrial and economic policies,in the times of the great deppression in the US and in the periods when Europe was full of un-employed people who suffered from starvation.

• Workers were much better off in Stalins Soviet Union than they were under the Tsar.

• The Soviet Red army gained much strenght with the grow of the industry and the industrial capacity.

• there was a stable,secure government under Stalin.

• People had a good health care system much before the people in GB got one.(NHS)

*
If anything all I can gather from these arguments is that Russia had a revolution that raised the standards of living, brought about infrastructure and all the rest of it, but did cost human lives (as revolutions do) and then lead to capitalism, as all revolutions pretty much have done thus far. What is different between that and the British industrial revolution, other than the classes which carried out the revolution? Point me towards a genuinely socialist society in which the working class manage their economy and I will eat my words.

If you're defending the Russian revolution from the point of view of working class liberation then you might as well do the same for the British industrial revolution. Bar a few differences here and there, advantages and disadvantages on both sides, these revolutions essentially created large working classes (keep in mind that Russia only had a very small one at the point of its revolution, but its industrial achievements gave birth to a bigger one, ripe and ready for the capitalist restoration), industries and infrastructures and led to the class in question being exploited under capitalism or some distorted economic system that called itself socialist but led to capitalism ultimately anyway. The fundamental differences between the two revolutions is that one had a planned economy (which managed to catch up with the west quickly, yes) and one didn't, and that one revolution was led by a middle class and the other by a small working class and the peasantry. Even with regards to economic differences, was there really much difference between the labour conditions in Russia and in the west? Did they not both work in environments that they did not essentially control, at the hands of bosses? Neither of them gave liberation to the working masses though, even though one tried to. The fact is that they both did the exact same thing; lead to capitalism and lead to the working class holding up a ruling class, just under different economic orders and varying levels of repression.

With that in mind and with pros and cons aside, those points are irrelevant until you tell me about a society in which the workers had control over the means of production. That is what socialism is. If you're going to defend the Soviet Union, don't defend it on the basis that it was socialist until you can prove that the working class had any real power. You can defend Stalin's 'stable government' all you want, but real communists want to see the working class govern themselves. They are not concerned with Uncle Joes or Uncle Sams, or the stable governments that they provide us while they essentially shaft us. I can defend the British government because it has a nationalized health service (but for how long?), but that wouldn't make me a communist. What makes me a communist is the fact I fight for working class liberation. What makes a good communist is his or her ability to look past red flags or hammers and sickles and truly determine the class character of a socio-economic order, and judge it accordingly.

Dimmu

27th April 2011, 16:16

You are veering off from your claim that the soviet union was not in anyway communistic... which is a ridiculous claim as even non-socialist... even non-communist ideologies have "communistic" aspects such as communalism (as the Soviet Union had).

Though saying that the Soviet Union was a socialist state as they based their ideology and economic policy on a socialist, and specifically Marxist model. You can of course argue that it wasn't succesful or that it was corrupted by those in power but it is a bit much to claim something isn't in anyway "socialist" or "communistic" just because you disagree with it.

This dictionary defintion sums it up (definitions three and six)

• The Soviet Union achieved a greater success in the term of industrial and economic policies,in the times of the great deppression in the US and in the periods when Europe was full of un-employed people who suffered from starvation.

• Workers were much better off in Stalins Soviet Union than they were under the Tsar.

• The Soviet Red army gained much strenght with the grow of the industry and the industrial capacity.

• there was a stable,secure government under Stalin.

• People had a good health care system much before the people in GB got one.(NHS)

*

What you two mentioned are achievements of Soviet Russia.. And i can agree with many of them.. But that does not prove my point that Soviet Union was not socialistic country.. I mean they called themselves as socialists and communists because it was good for "their image", thats the same reason why you still have a Communist Party of China and can you really call China a communistic or even a socialistic country?

Also "stable and secure" government is quite easy to achieve when you can use all the means necessary to reach that goal.

Omsk

27th April 2011, 16:56

What you two mentioned are achievements of Soviet Russia
Achievements that helped build and improve the state of the SU.The battle was on 3 fronts - against the fascists,the revisionists,and the battle for industrial power and economy.
All these achievements bring up to the cause of a socialist country,every-single on of them.

A number of them:
1. As Commissar of Nationalities, he played the major role in forming the USSR, which was a far more difficult job than forming the 13 American colonies into the United States, because the Soviet Union was composed of dozens of diverse and formerly hostile peoples with different languages, cultures, and religions.
2. He created a Russian heavy industry free from foreign control and independent of foreign technical personnel.
3. He took the 25 million small peasant holdings--they could hardly be called farms--that were the backward and wasteful agriculture of Russia, and reorganized them into a modern, mechanized system of collective farming.
4. He led his country to victory through the most devastating and disastrous of wars.

He [Stalin] achieved a lot: urbanization, military strength, education, and Soviet pride. His USSR could claim impressive achievements. It became a model for radical political movements,and not only communist ones,elsewhere in the world. And at a time before the Second World War when liberal-democratic government signally failed to stand up effectively to fascism, Stalin appeared to have established a plausible alternative . If this had not been the case, he would never have gained the support necessary for him to survive and flourish.
Service, Robert. Stalin. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, 2005, p. 602

ECONOMIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND INDUSTRIAL PROGRESS IN THE 30’S

The industrialization of a great community is by itself obviously not unique.... What is unique in the USSR is that a single decade saw developments which required half a century are more elsewhere. Industrialization was achieved, moreover, without private capital, without foreign investments (save in the form of engineering skills and technical advice), without private property as a spur to individual initiative, without private ownership of any of the means of production, and with no unearned increment or private fortunes accruing to entrepreneurs or lucky investors. Resources were developed, labour was recruited, trained and allocated, capital was saved and invested not through the price mechanism of a competitive market but through a consciously devised and deliberately executed national economic plan, drawn up by quinquennia, by years and by quarters for every segment of the economy, for every region, city, town, and village, for every factory, farm, mine and mill, for every store, bank and school, and even for every hospital, theater and sports club.
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 211

The adventure led from the illiteracy to literacy, from the NEP to socialism, from archaic agriculture to collective cultivation, from a rural society to a predominately urban community, from general ignorance of the machine to social mastery of modern technology.
Between the poverty stricken year of 1924, when Lenin died, and the relatively abundant year of 1940, the cultivated area of USSR expanded by 74 percent; grain crops increased 11 percent; coal production was multiplied by 10; steel output by 18; engineering and metal industries by 150; total national income by 10; industrial output by 24; annual capital investment by 57. During the First Five-year Plan, 51 billion rubles were invested; during the Second, 114; and during the Third, 192. Factory and office workers grew from 7,300,000 to 30,800,000 and school and college students from 7,900,000 to 36,600,000. Between 1913 and 1940, oil production increased from nine to 35 million tons; coal from 29 to 164; pig iron from 4 to 15; steel from 4 to 18; machine tools from 1000 to 48,000 units, tractors from 0 to over 500,000; harvestor combines from 0 to 153,500; electrical power output from two billion kWh to 50 billion; and the value of industrial output from 11 billion rubles to more than 100 billion by 1938. If the estimated volume of total industrial production in 1913 be taken as 100, the corresponding indices for 1938 are 93.2 for France; 113.3 for England, 120 United States; 131.6 for Germany, and 908.8 for the Soviet Union.

Massive industrialization:

INDUSTRIALIZATION HAD TO BE DONE AT THE RIGHT TIME NOT WHEN TROTSKY WANTED IT

Only after we had laid the foundation did we step up the pace of industrialization. Lenin directed our policy in the same way. He used to say that Trotsky held an absurd position--without a czar and under a workers' government. What kind of revolution was this? To overthrow Czarism and shift immediately to a proletarian revolution? To Lenin that was nonsense and sure to fail. Instead we had to pass through all the stages of the democratic path to arrive at socialist revolution. He proposed that we form a revolutionary democratic government with the participation of the peasantry and only when it no longer moved forward, had exhausted its revolutionary potential, would we move on to proletarian revolution.
Stalin proceeded in just that way. He believed that if you began instant industrialization without preparations, it would fail. Superindustrialization is just babbling. In fact you, the Trotskyist, are not for industrialization because you do not believe in the possibility of alliance with the peasantry. You believe only in the revolutionary potential of the Western worker; but he is in no hurry. You do not believe in the revolutionary potential of our people and so ruch us into risky adventurism, the pernicious policy of superindustrialization.
But when we prepared and got started, they found themselves overtaken by events: you're doing it the wrong way, making mistakes, you’re pushing too hard. Then right-wingers began to accuse us of following a policy of superindustrialization. Both Trotskyists and right-wingers were of course wrong.
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 170
AS A RESULT OF THE 5 YEAR PLANS CONDITIONS IMPROVED GREATLY BY THE MID-1930’S

Today, some of our writers claim that during that period only Moscow and two or three others big cities were well supplied. This is not true. In the summer of 1935, I took groups of foreign tourists to many places. I deliberately walked into stores to see what was on sale. Everywhere the shops offered a wide variety of foodstuffs and goods. But more importantly, there were no lines anywhere and no one was traveling to the big cities to buy food.
If I were to enumerate the foodstuffs, drinks, and goods that appeared in the stores in 1935 and 1947, my Soviet contemporaries probably wouldn't believe me. There was black and red caviar in wooden barrels at quite affordable prices. Huge whole salmon, lox, all kinds of meat, ham, piglets, sausages the names of which have long been forgotten, cheeses, fruits, and berries--all of which could be purchased in any amount and without standing in line. Even at subway stations stands offered sausage, ham, cheese, sandwiches, and snacks. Chops and steaks were laid out on large dripping pans. And when you traveled in the country, you could enter any house on a hot day, and its owners, just as during the NEP, would offer you a glass of milk or cold ryazhenka and wouldn't take money for it.
Berezhkov, Valentin. At Stalin's Side. Secaucus, New Jersey: Carol Pub. Group, c1994, p. 220

In the first months of 1935, life noticeably improved, and by the summer it was looking quite normal. Although it was not possible to regain the NEP level of abundance, the people began to breathe more easily. They were getting better food and Stalin's claim that "life's become better, life's become more fun to live" seemed to be getting some justification. The second part of that formula also seemed to be coming true: "... and when life is more fun to live, work gets done faster." Private initiative was still not encouraged, unlike in the 1920s, but the government trade and service sectors began functioning more efficiently, making life better.
...many of us began to feel that the terrible sacrifices of the early 1930s had not been in vain, and that in the final analysis Stalin was right when he radically changed the country's system, putting it on the track of industrialization and collectivization.
Berezhkov, Valentin. At Stalin's Side. Secaucus, New Jersey: Carol Pub. Group, c1994, p. 227

All that happened a little later, but in the summer months of 1935 we felt happy and hopeful. The hungry years were gone. Life held out a promise of many interesting things to come.
Berezhkov, Valentin. At Stalin's Side. Secaucus, New Jersey: Carol Pub. Group, c1994, p. 230

The last summer of my work at Intourist was especially interesting. There were even more tourists that year than in 1934, and I had to travel a lot around the country, accompanying them. The railway stations were once again bustling with activity;... A sense was in the air that the country was gradually coming back to life after the shock of collectivization. In Moscow, Leningrad, Kharkov, Odessa--all cities I visited--life had also returned to normal. It seemed that at long last the country was entering a favorable streak.
Berezhkov, Valentin. At Stalin's Side. Secaucus, New Jersey: Carol Pub. Group, c1994, p. 231

Stalin announced that the first Plan was 93.7% successful. He was referring to industrial results, and probably he exaggerated. Even so, it was a tremendous, unprecedented effort; the only thing in the world quite to be compared to it was the expansion of the United States in the frontier period. Industrial output quadrupled in four years, an "outstanding and unsurpassed achievement." The production of steel increased 40 percent in four years, of pig iron 84 percent. Tractor, automobile, engineering, aviation industries were created out of nothing. Entire new cities were built on the Siberian steppes, or in the Urals, like Magnitogorsk, an industrial colossus that will probably become the largest steel plant in Europe. Enough machinery was imported to enable the USSR to maintain succeeding five-year plans with diminishing amounts of foreign aid. Mines were developed--with the not unimportant result that the USSR now possesses the third-largest gold reserve in the world. Unemployment ceased. All this, too, at a time when the capitalist powers were ravaged by an economic crisis of unprecedented severity and scope.
The costs of the Plan were of course enormous.... In communist jargon, the first Five-Year Plan was a period of "postponed consumption." Sacrifice, in other words, had to precede sufficiency.
In the second plan, the tempo of activity was a good deal relaxed. The second plan was not so much publicized as the first. It aimed to complete the collectivization of agriculture by 1937, and to stress the production of consumers' goods, rather than heavy industrial products, in order to lessen the terrible need in Russia for such items as--to choose at random--nails, decent paper, rope, kitchenware, plumbing utensils, scientific and medical supplies, boots, metalware. It hoped to double the food supply in the cities and reduce retail prices something like 35 percent.
Gunther, John. Inside Europe. New York, London: Harper & Brothers, c1940, p. 564-565

STALIN SAYS THE SU WILL INDUSTRIALIZE BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS

Stalin tested his views not only in speeches to the Central Committee and in the press, but on very rare occasions also in front of workers. His assistant, Tovstukha, wrote down one such speech that he made in the Stalin workshops of the October Railway on March 1, 1927. Stalin, beating time with his hand, slowly expounded:
"We are completing the changeover from a peasant country to an industrial one without help from the outside world. How did other countries make this journey?
England created her industry by robbing her colonies for a period of fully 200 years. There can be no question of our taking the same path.
Germany took 5 billion [francs] from defeated France. But that way, too, the way of robbery through victorious wars, is not for us. Our cause is a policy of peace.
There is also a third way, that chosen by tsarist Russia. That was through foreign loans and secret deals at the expense of the workers and peasants. We cannot take that path.
We have our own way, and that is to accumulate our own. We will not get by without mistakes, there will be shortcomings. But the edifice we are building is so grand that these mistakes and shortcomings will not be important in the end."
Volkogonov, Dmitri. Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991, p. 110

He [Bukharin] went on to explain Stalin's new concept, which was the reason for their disagreements. "Stalin's line was that capitalism grows at the expense of its colonies. We have no colonies, and no one will make us loans. We must therefore rely on tribute from our own peasantry. Stalin knows that there will be resistance. Hence his theory that as Socialism grows so does resistance to it."
Radzinsky, Edvard. Stalin. New York: Doubleday, c1996, p. 235

Capitalist countries as a rule built up their heavy industries with funds obtained from abroad, whether by colonial plunder, or by exacting indemnities from vanquished nations, or else by foreign loans. The Soviet Union could not as a matter of principle resort to such infamous means of obtaining funds as the plunder of colonies or of vanquished nations. As for foreign loans, that avenue was closed to the USSR, as the capitalist countries refused to lend it anything. The funds had to be found inside the country.
Commission of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. (B.), Ed. History of the CPSU (Bolsheviks): Short Course. Moscow: FLPH, 1939, p. 281

bcbm

28th April 2011, 06:48

The same institutions which have defended the Belarusian workers from the horrors of Shock Therapy?

yes, casinos, banks, state run unions, the russian embassy, a prison, a police station, all known to be great friends of the workers. and of course we should certainly stand with capitalist states against people fighting increased militarism, growing social inequality, suppression of workers ability to organize and strike, freedom for prisoners, the world financial system, as long as they keep "protecting" workers from the worst horrors of capitalism.

manic expression

28th April 2011, 08:32

yes, casinos, banks, state run unions, the russian embassy, a prison, a police station, all known to be great friends of the workers. and of course we should certainly stand with capitalist states against people fighting increased militarism, growing social inequality, suppression of workers ability to organize and strike, freedom for prisoners, the world financial system, as long as they keep "protecting" workers from the worst horrors of capitalism.
Typical. A state not controlled by the capitalist class resists imperialism and does more for the wellbeing of workers than all of anarchism has in the last 60 years...and you think it's OK to attack it. If you actually gave a sh*t about the people of Belarus you wouldn't have such a patronizing and naive position.

Chambered Word

28th April 2011, 08:56

No, it sums up my views on liberal politics, which are out of touch and unprogressive. Anyway, you might want to double-check what the government of Belarus does and doesn't profess.

I wasn't necessarily talking about Belarus, but I almost forgot that you guys also support regimes that shamelessly kill/imprison Marxists as well. :)

Typical. A state not controlled by the capitalist class resists imperialism and does more for the wellbeing of workers than all of anarchism has in the last 60 years...and you think it's OK to attack it. If you actually gave a sh*t about the people of Belarus you wouldn't have such a patronizing and naive position.

As patronizing as telling Iranian socialists that they should support their own state? As patronizing as telling Libyan workers that they should line up behind the same dictator they've been risking their lives to protest against?

I'm no fan of anarchism, but I'm not so sure that the body holding class antagonisms in Belarus in check has done anything of note for the workers. It's not surprising at all to see you backing everyone who introduces reforms within the capitalist system though, an indicator of the complete impotence of Stalinism when it comes to revolutionary politics. No offense intended to the Hoxhaists in this case, because even that tendency has more sense than the Marcyites.

manic expression

28th April 2011, 09:06

I wasn't necessarily talking about Belarus, but I almost forgot that you guys also support regimes that shamelessly kill/imprison Marxists as well.
I never forgot that you don't make an effort to understand nuanced positions.

As patronizing as telling Iranian socialists that they should support their own state? As patronizing as telling Libyan workers that they should line up behind the same dictator they've been risking their lives to protest against?
I know you're itching to bring all that up, but it's still off-topic. So nice of you to support Obama on Libya, though.

I'm no fan of anarchism, but I'm not so sure that the body holding class antagonisms in Belarus in check has done anything of note for the workers. It's not surprising at all to see you backing everyone who introduces reforms within the capitalist system though, an indicator of the complete impotence of Stalinism when it comes to revolutionary politics. No offense intended to the Hoxhaists in this case, because even that tendency has more sense than the Marcyites.
Obviously you don't know much about the country. Compare living standards between Belarus and Russia...then come back and talk. Pointing out the very obvious fact that the government of Belarus is more progressive and better for the workers than the most likely alternative is hardly "backing" the state. But since when did you ever care about nuance or specifics?

Chambered Word

28th April 2011, 09:19

I never forgot that you don't make an effort to understand nuanced positions.

Like most actual Marxists, I'm able to realize when you're simply trying to mystify a topic.

I know you're itching to bring all that up, but it's still off-topic. So nice of you to support Obama on Libya, though.

:laugh: You're welcome to show me where I have done that, any time you like. I'm not itching to bring anything up, is there anything wrong with me stating your actual political position on Libya and pointing out your utter hipocrisy when you call others patronizing?

Obviously you don't know much about the country. Compare living standards between Belarus and Russia...then come back and talk. Pointing out the very obvious fact that the government of Belarus is more progressive and better for the workers than the most likely alternative is hardly "backing" the state. But since when did you ever care about nuance or specifics?

Nice backpedalling. I prefer class analysis to choosing the lesser evil in terms of living standards, nice to see that you base 'progressiveness' on a completely arbitrary factor.

Typical. A state not controlled by the capitalist class resists imperialism and does more for the wellbeing of workers than all of anarchism has in the last 60 years...and you think it's OK to attack it. If you actually gave a sh*t about the people of Belarus you wouldn't have such a patronizing and naive position.

No need to distort the issue any further. You are backing the state.

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

28th April 2011, 09:19

just because one bourgeois state is better than another doesn't mean you have to pick sides though. communists are concerned with the working-class, their liberation and their realisation of power over the means of production. if you're gonna side with the belarusian state over leftists there, regardless of whether you agree with their tactics, then frankly you aren't a communist.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

28th April 2011, 10:52

Because in India Naxalite movement has support of tens of millions of people, it is fighting for a real social change and they are having real success in that. As opposed to that, Anarchists in Belarus number 50 people, 99% of population doesn't even know of their existence and they don't have any coherent vision of how future, "free" Belarus should look like. In other words, they are nothing else but ego-centric idealists that put their illussions before the welfare of "their" people and are directly (and perhaps unconsciosly) helping imperialists in undermining and destroying the superb welfare system of Belarus in the interests of multinational corporations.

Ah, the famous M-L mental gymnastics. Absolutely correct, anarchists engaging in mild terror against the Capitalist state are clearly doing so in order to help imperialism and multinational Capitalist corporations and undermine the working class of Belarus, led by the great proletarian sun-shining-out-his-ass leader of the Socialist people of the world, comrade Lukashenko.:rolleyes:

Or does a welfare state, Soviet nostalgia and slightly less free-market orthodoxy mean that we shouldn't oppose the anti-Socialism of Lukashenko's regime? Dear me. Dear. Fucking. Me.:rolleyes:

Vladimir Innit Lenin

28th April 2011, 10:55

Omsk

28th April 2011, 11:03

See my post #69 in this thread.I wont repeat myself.

bcbm

29th April 2011, 04:59

Typical. A state not controlled by the capitalist class

uh, yes it is

resists imperialism

by aligning with russia and china

and does more for the wellbeing of workers than all of anarchism has in the last 60 years...and you think it's OK to attack it.

by that criteria so have most european welfare states, i suppose we should stand behind them to when they attack anarchists? and maybe communists too, they can be disruptive to public order and the maintenance of the state. oh and maybe striking workers, they can be a hassle to other workers and the state. and independent unions... and...

If you actually gave a sh*t about the people of Belarus you wouldn't have such a patronizing and naive position.

i do give a shit about them, including the ones who identify as anarchists and are being threatened with a lot of time in prison for allegedly being a bit of a nuisance.

manic expression

29th April 2011, 10:17

uh, yes it is
uh, no its not (lol)

by aligning with russia and china
Belarus isn't indebted to Russia. China isn't imperialist.

by that criteria so have most european welfare states, i suppose we should stand behind them to when they attack anarchists? and maybe communists too, they can be disruptive to public order and the maintenance of the state. oh and maybe striking workers, they can be a hassle to other workers and the state. and independent unions... and...
It's too bad you're not a Marxist, because then you could actually apply a scientific analysis. Instead you have to focus on public programs as if that was the measure of a society. You are oblivious to the fact that Belarus' resistance to privatization is not analogous to capitalist welfare states because welfare states serve an entirely different purpose. Capitalist welfare states keep the "rabble" at bay, whereas the Belarusian government has preserved socialist characteristics while a capitalist class has been re-legalized but kept out of state power.

In other words, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

i do give a shit about them, including the ones who identify as anarchists and are being threatened with a lot of time in prison for allegedly being a bit of a nuisance.
All 50 of them? Truly, you are a man of the people. :lol:

Like most actual Marxists, I'm able to realize when you're simply trying to mystify a topic.
What would be the use of that when you're already mystified?

You're welcome to show me where I have done that, any time you like. I'm not itching to bring anything up, is there anything wrong with me stating your actual political position on Libya and pointing out your utter hipocrisy when you call others patronizing?
Your last post would be a good example.

And you didn't state my position on Libya because you don't understand my position on Libya. Go back and read my posts on the subject with some care and attention, then we'll talk.

Nice backpedalling. I prefer class analysis to choosing the lesser evil in terms of living standards, nice to see that you base 'progressiveness' on a completely arbitrary factor.
If you prefer class analysis, then perhaps you can finally admit that the Belarusian government isn't controlled by the capitalist class. Then you'll see that progressiveness isn't arbitrary at all.

bcbm

29th April 2011, 10:25

uh, no its not (lol)

nothing i can see about the political or economic organization of belarus suggests the proletariat is in power, which doesn't leave many other options

Belarus isn't indebted to Russia. China isn't imperialist.

i didn't say anything about debt, i said it is aligning with russia, like in the joint military exercise some of these anarchists are accused of illegally protesting? and so china is not a capitalist country now? or do only some capitalist countries act imperialist? whats going on in africa?

It's too bad you're not a Marxist, because then you could actually apply a scientific analysis. Instead you have to focus on public programs as if that was the measure of a society. You are oblivious to the fact that Belarus' resistance to privatization is not analogous to capitalist welfare states because welfare states serve an entirely different purpose. Capitalist welfare states keep the "rabble" at bay, whereas the Belarusian government has preserved socialist characteristics while a capitalist class has been re-legalized but kept out of state power.

but when the rabble bust a few windows they get a decade in prison... and are criticized for not being kept at bay... by the welfare state...

In other words, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

sorry i forgot that some forms of capitalist welfare are above criticism by pro-revolutionaries

All 50 of them? Truly, you are a man of the people. :lol:

such a small number and yet you're the own crying over these "attacks against the state" and demanding punishment instead of standing with (however misguided) pro-revolutionary actors against a capitalist (sorry to hurt your feelings) state.

manic expression

29th April 2011, 10:58

nothing i can see about the political or economic organization of belarus suggests the proletariat is in power, which doesn't leave many other options
Again with the manichaeism. There have been plenty of states that preside over capitalist societies (to one degree or another) while not being themselves capitalist. Marx wrote about one in his 18 Brumaire.

i didn't say anything about debt, i said it is aligning with russia, like in the joint military exercise some of these anarchists are accused of illegally protesting? and so china is not a capitalist country now? or do only some capitalist countries act imperialist? whats going on in africa?
I meant politically "indebted", which Belarus isn't. Lukashenko doesn't owe Russia anything. They have close ties but it is a relationship of two sovereign powers, not one lording over the other.

No, the PRC is not a fully capitalist society at the moment, so it can't be imperialist. "Imperialism" doesn't mean you run stuff in other countries, that's a superficial and flawed understanding of the term.

but when the rabble bust a few windows they get a decade in prison... and are criticized for not being kept at bay... by the welfare state...
These anarchists are not the masses, first of all. Second, Belarus isn't a capitalist welfare state.

sorry i forgot that some forms of capitalist welfare are above criticism by pro-revolutionaries
There is no capitalist welfare to criticize here.

such a small number and yet you're the own crying over these "attacks against the state" and demanding punishment instead of standing with (however misguided) pro-revolutionary actors against a capitalist (sorry to hurt your feelings) state.
I've simply observed the fact that these are not legitimate acts and therefore can be labeled as criminal by all progressives. They're not "pro-revolutionary actors" unless they act that way, and from the looks of things, they aren't.

black magick hustla

29th April 2011, 11:06

the psl are funny because they do like minor PR work for all sorts of capitalist hells but they dont really get paid for it. i always wondered what was the plus side of writing wingnut essays about the greatness of aging despots in the middle east and now they are defending the belarusan kgb trollin from the left since the days of the new left you guys are a disgrace and scoundrel

bcbm

29th April 2011, 11:06

i'm going to bed

black magick hustla

29th April 2011, 11:08

"Imperialism" doesn't mean you run stuff in other countries, that's a superficial and flawed understanding of the term.
its only a "flawed" way of seeing things from people who have pissed on lenin and used marxist theory as a defense of states and murderious geopolitics

Sasha

29th April 2011, 11:08

Funny that anti-imperialist analysis always seem to end up as reformism, maybe we do need to start restricting the anti-imps after all. :rolleyes:

black magick hustla

29th April 2011, 11:11

defending tanks since 1956

Chambered Word

29th April 2011, 11:19

If you prefer class analysis, then perhaps you can finally admit that the Belarusian government isn't controlled by the capitalist class. Then you'll see that progressiveness isn't arbitrary at all.

Pissing on Lenin indeed. I like how you can't help but distort what I wrote either. I didn't say that progressiveness was arbitrary, I actually argued the exact opposite, and asserted that you were judging it by totally arbitrary factors. I'd write another diatribe against your anti-working class politics but I really need to take a piss and right now that's far more important.

Os Cangaceiros

29th April 2011, 11:34

This thread certainly does no favors to the notion in certain quarters that Marxist-Leninists are just social democrats with a violence fetish.

But I can't blame Leninists for the kind of views I've read on here, because clearly most of them don't drink the kool aid. I mean, the fact that anyone would challenge the notion that states like Belarus or the PRC exist and continue to exist only to serve capital...

Ravachol

29th April 2011, 14:08

This thread is amazing, what's next, defending the institutions of Swedish and Dutch Social-Democracy against the revolutionary milieu because they have been such great "protectors of the workers' interests" or whatever? Gotta love the left-wing of Capital.... :rolleyes:

manic expression

29th April 2011, 15:22

Looks like a three-ring ultra-left circus in here. How more unmaterialist can their analysis get? Stay tuned to find out.

the psl are funny because they do like minor PR work for all sorts of capitalist hells but they dont really get paid for it. i always wondered what was the plus side of writing wingnut essays about the greatness of aging despots in the middle east and now they are defending the belarusan kgb trollin from the left since the days of the new left you guys are a disgrace and scoundrel
You'd know something about "trollin", wouldn't you? When your profound take on the issue is: "KGB Trollin!", it's easy to see how much you have to contribute (nothing). :lol:

its only a "flawed" way of seeing things from people who have pissed on lenin and used marxist theory as a defense of states and murderious geopolitics Yeah, like Lenin had nothing to do with the defense of progressive states. As for "murderous geopolitics", I'm not sure you could sound more like a liberal if you tried. At any rate, you aren't confronting any of the realities of the issue (and would rather throw out vague, meaningless charges).

defending tanks since 1956 Read a history book.

Pissing on Lenin indeed. I like how you can't help but distort what I wrote either. I didn't say that progressiveness was arbitrary, I actually argued the exact opposite, and asserted that you were judging it by totally arbitrary factors. I'd write another diatribe against your anti-working class politics but I really need to take a piss and right now that's far more important.
Apparently you didn't notice that I was explaining precisely how my judgement of progressiveness is not arbitrary at all. That you're unwilling or unable to even vaguely confront my reasoning is proof enough.

Funny that anti-imperialist analysis always seem to end up as reformism, maybe we do need to start restricting the anti-imps after all. :rolleyes:
...Says Barack Obama's favorite RevLeft poster. It makes sense you'd be so antagonized to anti-imperialism seeing as you're the most pro-imperialist voice here. If Belarus allied itself with the US and was bombing Libya right now you'd be cheering and throwing confetti. :lol:

This thread is amazing, what's next, defending the institutions of Swedish and Dutch Social-Democracy against the revolutionary milieu because they have been such great "protectors of the workers' interests" or whatever? Gotta love the left-wing of Capital....
The fact that you think there's no significant difference between Belarus and Social-Democracy tells me you haven't reviewed the issue at all. I've explained this countless times, and coincidentally enough no one's refuted my arguments on this topic.

This thread certainly does no favors to the notion in certain quarters that Marxist-Leninists are just social democrats with a violence fetish.
That's hilarious. Which side is promoting random attacks on random buildings and which side is questioning those acts? The only fetish on display here is the ultra-left fetish for ignoring reality and dovetailing with imperialist rhetoric.

Sasha

29th April 2011, 16:15

...Says Barack Obama's favorite RevLeft poster. It makes sense you'd be so antagonized to anti-imperialism seeing as you're the most pro-imperialist voice here. If Belarus allied itself with the US and was bombing Libya right now you'd be cheering and throwing confetti. :lol:
.

yawn.... you do know no'one will take you serious if you keep on blatantly lying about other peoples positions right? one more time then: i dont support the bombing of libyan people neither by the NATO nor by the Gaddafi regime.

manic expression

29th April 2011, 16:37

yawn.... you do know no'one will take you serious if you keep on blatantly lying about other peoples positions right? one more time then: i dont support the bombing of libyan people neither by the NATO nor by the Gaddafi regime.
Right, whatever you say. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2055167&postcount=7)

Thirsty Crow

29th April 2011, 16:42

Yeah, like Lenin had nothing to do with the defense of progressive states.
Have you considered the tiny possibility that the bourgeoisie's "historical mission" is complete and fulfilled? In other words, have you considered the possibility that capitalism (and no, private property is not the only factor here), administered in one way of another, cannot function as a progressive force anymore?
Moreover, you failed to provide evidence for your thesis. How exactly is the state in question progressive, apart from stopping the privatization frenzy?

manic expression

29th April 2011, 16:47

Have you considered the tiny possibility that the bourgeoisie's "historical mission" is complete and fulfilled? In other words, have you considered the possibility that capitalism (and no, private property is not the only factor here), administered in one way of another, cannot function as a progressive force anymore?
Moreover, you failed to provide evidence for your thesis. How exactly is the state in question progressive, apart from stoping the privatization frenzy?
The assertion was that by not agreeing with random attacks on a complex yet progressive state, I was "pissing on Lenin". I only pointed out the most obvious contradiction of this assumption, that defending such a state is hardly against the principles shown by the Bolsheviks.

I would say that the capitalist elements of Belarus are clearly detrimental to the workers and reactionary. This we can say without a doubt. However, those aren't the only aspects present in the country, as the capitalist class is without state power and functions only so long as the state allows it to. This, which goes hand-in-hand with the limitation of privatization in the early 90's which has been sustained to a great degree today, is what makes Belarus a country without a fully capitalist state and comparatively progressive in the context of the politics of the region and the world. This, we must not forget, it is in spite of its capitalist elements.

Ravachol

29th April 2011, 16:49

Looks like a three-ring ultra-left circus in here. How more unmaterialist can their analysis get? Stay tuned to find out.

You prove you're just another pillar of the old world.

Read a history book.

Are you for real?

The fact that you think there's no significant difference between Belarus and Social-Democracy tells me you haven't reviewed the issue at all. I've explained this countless times, and coincidentally enough no one's refuted my arguments on this topic.

If you understood what I said, you'd have noticed I didn't describe Belarus as a social-democracy. I sarcastically asked whether you'd defend the institutions of Western social-democracy as well, given as how they 'look out for the workers' interests' so hard or whatever.

Which side is promoting random attacks on random buildings and which side is questioning those acts?

I know which side is defending the bourgeois state apparatus of thoroughly Capitalist state though. But go ahead and cheerlead irrelevant bourgeois states who antagonize the Euro-American axis. Obviously the consistent Communist position is to take sides with some faction of the bourgeoisie, preferably the least relevant one and defend it and it's institutions against elements from the pro-revolutionary milieu!

Thirsty Crow

29th April 2011, 16:54

I would say that the capitalist elements of Belarus are clearly detrimental to the workers and reactionary. This we can say without a doubt. However, those aren't the only aspects present in the country, as the capitalist class is without state power and functions only so long as the state allows it to. This, which goes hand-in-hand with the limitation of privatization in the early 90's which has been sustained to a great degree today, is what makes Belarus a country without a fully capitalist state and comparatively progressive in the context of the politics of the region and the world. This, we must not forget, it is in spite of its capitalist elements.
Oh. Comparative geopolitics.
Communism would be lost if it wasn't for your splendid "class analysis" and your "materialism".
I didn't see one, not a single goddamn one, reference to concrete benefits for class consciousness formation, for fostering workers' militancy and knowledge of vital skills, not one reference to state sanctioned forms of direct proletarian participation in the political procedure, not one. What I did see was vague references about workers "passively supporting the government".
So, in your view, workers' passivity is something we as communists should acknowledge as a way forward?
You're out of your mind. I'm expecting to hear from you in some 10, maybe fifteen years, but then as a member of the neo-conservative "camp".
So long.

manic expression

29th April 2011, 16:54

You prove you're just another pillar of the old world.
You should see my table manners.

Are you for real?
It was sound advice for a number of reasons. We can only hope that it is followed.

If you understood what I said, you'd have noticed I didn't describe Belarus as a social-democracy. I sarcastically asked whether you'd defend the institutions of Western social-democracy as well, given as how they 'look out for the workers' interests' so hard or whatever.
Well, I don't defend social-democracy. I feel there are fundamental, essential differences between the conditions in Belarus and those in Sweden/Netherlands/etc.

I know which side is defending the bourgeois state apparatus of thoroughly Capitalist state though. But go ahead and cheerlead irrelevant bourgeois states who antagonize the Euro-American axis. Obviously the consistent Communist position is to take sides with some faction of the bourgeoisie, preferably the least relevant one and defend it and it's institutions against elements from the pro-revolutionary milieu!
Why is Belarus a "thoroughly Capitalist state"?

manic expression

29th April 2011, 17:02

Oh. Comparative geopolitics.
Communism would be lost if it wasn't for your splendid "class analysis" and your "materialism".
Is your tendency anything but lost? At any rate, "comparative geopolitics" (as you put it) isn't anything more than comparing the material conditions present in multiple countries. If you can tell us what's so horrifying about that, please do so.

I didn't see one, not a single goddamn one, reference to concrete benefits for class consciousness formation, for fostering workers' militancy and knowledge of vital skills, not one reference to state sanctioned forms of direct proletarian participation in the political procedure, not one. What I did see was vague references about workers "passively supporting the government".
So, in your view, workers' passivity is something we as communists should acknowledge as a way forward?
I only acknowledged the facts of Belarus. It's something communists should do every now and then, at least...something you show little interest in. But if you applied Marxism, you'd see that in just about every category that the workers are in a far better position than the most likely alternative. Hell, just look over the border. Are you willing to do that much?

You're out of your mind. I'm expecting to hear from you in some 10, maybe fifteen years, but then as a member of the neo-conservative "camp".
So long.
Yes, because neo-conservatives are the ones defending Belarus. Oh, wait. :laugh: Care to try again?

Sasha

29th April 2011, 17:09

Right, whatever you say. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2055167&postcount=7)

Accept is not the same as support. I thought you where the native speaker.
Not to mention that that post dates back to when the AU and Arableage still supported an no fly zone that still was just that, an no fly zone to protect the people in cities against, guess what, aerial bombardment.

manic expression

29th April 2011, 17:15

Accept is not the same as support. I thought you where the native speaker.
Not to mention that that post dates back to when the AU and Arableage still supported an no fly zone that still was just that, an no fly zone to protect the people in cities against, guess what, aerial bombardment.
Yes, you "accepted" the bombings. How enlightened and progressive of you to accept imperialist aerial bombardment of a sovereign country. That speaks for itself. And I honestly don't care if the Justice League and Super Best Friends supported the bombings, they were still as reactionary then as they are now.

Thirsty Crow

29th April 2011, 17:17

I only acknowledged the facts of Belarus. It's something communists should do every now and then, at least...something you show little interest in. But if you applied Marxism, you'd see that in just about every category that the workers are in a far better position than the most likely alternative. Hell, just look over the border. Are you willing to do that much?

What you did was to acknowledge the antagonism of the Belarus state towards the European Union and the US (and vice versa) based on the fact that this state does not allow privatization. You didn't acknowledge any facts regarding workers' independent organizations (y'know, communists should encourage this kind of organizations, in opposition to corporatist practices and ideologies) both economic and political. You didn't acknowledge any facts regarding the function and internal workings of existing unions in Belarus. You didn't address the fact of rising inflation and the rise in consumer prices in 2011 (maybe that fact would tell you something about the nature of the businessperformed by state officials): http://news.belta.by/en/main_news?id=627812
But I guess that price hikes are of no importance for the workers. Or better yet, this fact is irrelevant to your specific set of facts.

When will you get that for communists the most important fact to be examined is the potential for increased workers' militancy arising from the material conditions?

manic expression

29th April 2011, 17:25

What you did was to acknowledge the antagonism of the Belarus state towards the European Union and the US (and vice versa) based on the fact that this state does not allow privatization. You didn't acknowledge any facts regarding workers' independent organizations (y'know, communists should encourage this kind of organizations, in opposition to corporatist practices and ideologies) both economic and political. You didn't acknowledge any facts regarding the function and internal workings of existing unions in Belarus. You didn't address the fact of rising inflation and the rise in consumer prices in 2011 (maybe that fact would tell you something about the nature of the businessperformed by state officials): http://news.belta.by/en/main_news?id=627812
But I guess that price hikes are of no importance for the workers. Or better yet, this fact is irrelevant to your specific set of facts.
Trade unions (http://www.fpb.by/), left-wing organizations (http://www.comparty.by/) and others are all part of Belarus, sure, but you're again trying to sidestep the fundamental conditions of the country. Nothing you've produced here has at all contradicted my arguments on the subject. Price hikes are a good example of this...their existence doesn't disprove what I've been saying, and actually points toward that direction. Capitalist and deformed worker state elements are both present in the country, which leads to such situations.

When will you get that for communists the most important fact to be examined is the potential for increased workers' militancy arising from the material conditions?
I'm just trying to get people to recognize the material conditions. We haven't gotten to anything beyond that yet because people want to convince themselves that Belarus is just like Sweden or whatever other absurd comparison they've come up with.

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

29th April 2011, 17:25

manic expression

29th April 2011, 17:30

to be honest, supporting the 'no-fly zone' was as bad as supporting the belarusian state, given that it was never about humanitarian efforts and was clearly a war effort as is becoming clearer. communists don't side with the bourgeois - some may call that a dogma, but i understand it as a very elementary principle held by those who want the liberation of oppressed people from the hands of the ruling class, be they represented by nato or the belarusian state.
Except by opposing the Belarusian state outright, without any qualifications, one plays into the hands of the bourgeoisie. In Belarus, the state is an obstacle for the bourgeoisie as much as it is anything else. The capitalists within and without the country would gleefully toss aside the policies of Lukashenko's government in an instant if they could. So ruling class interests aren't represented by the Belarusian state.

Thirsty Crow

29th April 2011, 17:42

Trade unions (http://www.fpb.by/), left-wing organizations (http://www.comparty.by/) and others are all part of Belarus, sure, but you're again trying to sidestep the fundamental conditions of the country. Nothing you've produced here has at all contradicted my arguments on the subject. Price hikes are a good example of this...their existence doesn't disprove what I've been saying, and actually points toward that direction. Capitalist and deformed worker state elements are both present in the country, which leads to such situations.

Arrogant much in your presuppositions? I can't read cyrilic alphabet, thank you very much. But hell, a list does not pass as information regarding concrete state practices in relation to the labour movement.
And of course that nothing I produced contradicts your argument since your argument "works" despite your terrible lack of information. That's what that string of questions was meant to produce: asnwers. Well, luckily I didn't get any.

But to ask this, how are these "deformed workers' state elements" (that sounds kinda naughty!) supposed to turn into genuine workers' state elements (minus the capitalist elements) since you obviously oppose direct proletarian attack upon the state?

I'm just trying to get people to recognize the material conditions. We haven't gotten to anything beyond that yet because people want to convince themselves that Belarus is just like Sweden or whatever other absurd comparison they've come up with.
Well, both Sweden and Belarus are completely dependant upon the capitalist world market, so there are grounds for a valid comparison between the two. Now move on, get beyond the cheerleading part, c'mon.

manic expression

29th April 2011, 17:59

Arrogant much in your presuppositions? I can't read cyrilic alphabet, thank you very much. But hell, a list does not pass as information regarding concrete state practices in relation to the labour movement.
And of course that nothing I produced contradicts your argument since your argument "works" despite your terrible lack of information. That's what that string of questions was meant to produce: asnwers. Well, luckily I didn't get any.
I thought official websites would be better than wikipedia. I guess not.

But since you still refuse to say anything at all, there's not much for me to respond to.

But to ask this, how are these "deformed workers' state elements" (that sounds kinda naughty!) supposed to turn into genuine workers' state elements (minus the capitalist elements) since you obviously oppose direct proletarian attack upon the state?
:lol: Anarchists attacking a casino isn't "direct proletarian" anything. Pull your head out of your black flag and look at the situation with some sense of reason. Working-class organizations in Belarus aren't involved with such criminal actions, and they certainly don't endorse them.

Belarus is supposed to turn into a genuine workers' state through working-class activity, which is in a far better position because of the policies of the Belarusian state. Posters here want to ignore or else oppose those progressive aspects for really no real reason at all.

Well, both Sweden and Belarus are completely dependant upon the capitalist world market, so there are grounds for a valid comparison between the two. Now move on, get beyond the cheerleading part, c'mon.
Both are populated by humans who need oxygen to live, so there are even more grounds for a "valid" comparison. :rolleyes: That Belarus isn't completely independent from the world market means nothing here. And even if Belarus abolished capitalism and then tried to become self-reliant, you would be here denouncing them.

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

29th April 2011, 17:59

Except by opposing the Belarusian state outright, without any qualifications, one plays into the hands of the bourgeoisie. In Belarus, the state is an obstacle for the bourgeoisie as much as it is anything else. The capitalists within and without the country would gleefully toss aside the policies of Lukashenko's government in an instant if they could. So ruling class interests aren't represented by the Belarusian state.
Are you suggesting that the Belarusian regime isn't a repressive one? Also, what merit does this state (or any) have to the working class other than being anti-western and possibly having the odd societal advantage here and there in relation to other states?

Its really a joke that someone who calls his or herself a communist can at the same time advocate a state, which actually represents the ruling class. Forget about your geopolitical assertions for a second and think about the proletariat, they need international liberation and solidarity, not pseudo-commies supporting the same states that trample all over them.

manic expression

29th April 2011, 18:08

Are you suggesting that the Belarusian regime isn't a repressive one? Also, what merit does this state (or any) have to the working class other than being anti-western and possibly having the odd societal advantage here and there in relation to other states?
Every state is repressive one way or another. It's not as simple as some idealistic "repressive vs free" argument. Anyway, I don't think anyone would argue that Belarusian workers are in a worse position than workers in Russia or Poland.

Its really a joke that someone who calls his or herself a communist can at the same time advocate a state, which actually represents the ruling class. Forget about your geopolitical assertions for a second and think about the proletariat, they need international liberation and solidarity, not pseudo-commies supporting the same states that trample all over them.
I've explained to you why the Belarusian state doesn't represent the capitalist class.

Thirsty Crow

29th April 2011, 18:19

I thought official websites would be better than wikipedia. I guess not.Well I'm sorry I didn't find time to learn to read cyrilic alphabet and the time to learn the language. It seems that my ability to connect with the situation in Belarus is seriously compromised. Oh my.

But since you still refuse to say anything at all, there's not much for me to respond to.There are a lot of question left unanswered. Go back.

Anarchists attacking a casino isn't "direct proletarian" anything. Pull your head out of your black flag and look at the situation with some sense of reason. Working-class organizations in Belarus aren't involved with such criminal actions, and they certainly don't endorse them.OK, I misbehaved. I didn't pay any attention to the concrete incident at hand. In other words, I didn't refer to anarchists attacking a casino (and do please take your legalistic moralism elsewhere, by the way).
Oh yeah, I don't consider myself an anarchist. So stop embarassing yourself with preconceived notions.

Belarus is supposed to turn into a genuine workers' state through working-class activity, which is in a far better position because of the policies of the Belarusian state. Posters here want to ignore or else oppose those progressive aspects for really no real reason at all.Platitudes and vague, meaningless claims.
Do you know how English language speakers use the word "evidence"? I'm asking since all you seem to offer is an unproven assumption that Belarusian state policies automatically enhance the potential for militancy. There is no evidence here. Care to try again?

Both are populated by humans who need oxygen to live, so there are even more grounds for a "valid" comparison. :rolleyes: That Belarus isn't completely independent from the world market means nothing here. And even if Belarus abolished capitalism and then tried to become self-reliant, you would be here denouncing them.No, Belarus, like any other nation-state today, is totally dependant on the capitalist world market. Turning a blind eye to such a simple fact is probably not a good idea.

bcbm

29th April 2011, 18:33

Again with the manichaeism.

what?

There have been plenty of states that preside over capitalist societies (to one degree or another) while not being themselves capitalist. Marx wrote about one in his 18 Brumaire.

so what class is in power?

I meant politically "indebted", which Belarus isn't. Lukashenko doesn't owe Russia anything. They have close ties but it is a relationship of two sovereign powers, not one lording over the other.

yes, a sovereign state lining up with imperialism.

No, the PRC is not a fully capitalist society at the moment, so it can't be imperialist. "Imperialism" doesn't mean you run stuff in other countries, that's a superficial and flawed understanding of the term.

how is it not "fully capitalist?"

These anarchists are not the masses, first of all.

didn't say they were

Second, Belarus isn't a capitalist welfare state.

There is no capitalist welfare to criticize here.

the state controls the means of production (run for profit) through which it employees workers and offers them some benefits. not the same as other european welfare states, but a form of capitalist welfare state none the less.

I've simply observed the fact that these are not legitimate acts and therefore can be labeled as criminal by all progressives. They're not "pro-revolutionary actors" unless they act that way, and from the looks of things, they aren't.

they allegedly took actions that were clearly from a pro-revolutionary perspective, as in against capitalism and for communism and whatever disagreement with their specific tactics there is nothing "progressive" about supporting their imprisonment.

these are not legitimate acts and therefore can be labeled as criminal by all progressives

god what a disgusting bunch of ideas you have

Ravachol

29th April 2011, 18:34

I've explained to you why the Belarusian state doesn't represent the capitalist class.

I'm sure the workers selling their labour to the Bourgeoisie owning the means of production, safely protected by the state's violence guaranteeing the existence of private property, will be thrilled to hear how the PSL thinks the Belarusian state doesn't represent the capitalist class!

Proletarians, move along, there's nothing to see here, continue selling your labour and for the love of god don't attack great proletarian institutions like the Russian Embassy, the Casino and the Bank. All which represent the proletarian power of the non-capitalist state of Belarus! Get a grip for the love of god.

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

29th April 2011, 18:40

Every state is repressive one way or another. It's not as simple as some idealistic "repressive vs free" argument. Anyway, I don't think anyone would argue that Belarusian workers are in a worse position than workers in Russia or Poland.

I've explained to you why the Belarusian state doesn't represent the capitalist class.
It is actually, that's where you're wrong. Because what we are concerned with is the liberation of working people from wage-slavery, not your abstract, alienating views that apologize for repressive states. We want an end to repressive states, communism is about statelessness, not picking sides based on geopolitical bullshit that is the business of the ruling class.

Also, workers in Sweden are in a better position than they are in Belarusia, do you support the Swedish government?

manic expression

29th April 2011, 19:04

Well I'm sorry I didn't find time to learn to read cyrilic alphabet and the time to learn the language. It seems that my ability to connect with the situation in Belarus is seriously compromised. Oh my.
If you prefer wikipedia, that's fine, I'll remember that in the future.

There are a lot of question left unanswered. Go back.
Those questions were tangential to my points.

OK, I misbehaved. I didn't pay any attention to the concrete incident at hand. In other words, I didn't refer to anarchists attacking a casino (and do please take your legalistic moralism elsewhere, by the way).
Oh yeah, I don't consider myself an anarchist. So stop embarassing yourself with preconceived notions.
Then pay attention to the concrete incident at hand. What are you supporting if not these attacks?

Platitudes and vague, meaningless claims.
Do you know how English language speakers use the word "evidence"? I'm asking since all you seem to offer is an unproven assumption that Belarusian state policies automatically enhance the potential for militancy. There is no evidence here. Care to try again?
Belarusian state policies have put Belarusian workers in a far better position to organize and to live. As for your arguments: platitudes and vague, meaningless claims. Make a point and I'll respond to it.

No, Belarus, like any other nation-state today, is totally dependant on the capitalist world market. Turning a blind eye to such a simple fact is probably not a good idea.
I'm still waiting for you to make a point.

what?
A common word for mindsets that ignore nuance in favor of black-or-white mindsets.

so what class is in power?
Read 18th Brumaire.

yes, a sovereign state lining up with imperialism.
Close ties with Russia =/= lining up with imperialism

how is it not "fully capitalist?"
The capitalist class has not fully conquered state power.

the state controls the means of production (run for profit) through which it employees workers and offers them some benefits. not the same as other european welfare states, but a form of capitalist welfare state none the less.
Bureaucrats don't make profit. They don't buy labor power. How can they be capitalists in that case?

they allegedly took actions that were clearly from a pro-revolutionary perspective, as in against capitalism and for communism and whatever disagreement with their specific tactics there is nothing "progressive" about supporting their imprisonment.
I haven't commented on their imprisonment or potential imprisonment, I've only commented on the illegitimacy of their actions. Do you support anyone who does things from a "pro-revolutionary perspective"? Pol Pot, for instance?

god what a disgusting bunch of ideas you have
Yeah, throwing stuff at casinos is real progress.

I'm sure the workers selling their labour to the Bourgeoisie owning the means of production, safely protected by the state's violence guaranteeing the existence of private property, will be thrilled to hear how the PSL thinks the Belarusian state doesn't represent the capitalist class!
Private property makes up a minority of the economy IIRC. And at any rate, my whole position here is that I oppose the capitalist elements within Belarus and support working-class organization to fight those elements...so I have no idea what you're talking about. Keep making stuff up.

Proletarians, move along, there's nothing to see here, continue selling your labour and for the love of god don't attack great proletarian institutions like the Russian Embassy, the Casino and the Bank. All which represent the proletarian power of the non-capitalist state of Belarus! Get a grip for the love of god.
The love of god isn't going to make your arguments any less ridiculous.

manic expression

29th April 2011, 19:10

It is actually, that's where you're wrong. Because what we are concerned with is the liberation of working people from wage-slavery, not your abstract, alienating views that apologize for repressive states. We want an end to repressive states, communism is about statelessness, not picking sides based on geopolitical bullshit that is the business of the ruling class.
I don't oppose all states. Stateless society is the ultimate end, but in order to get there states are a necessity. In this case, the Belarusian state is oftentimes an obstacle to capitalist interests, so I don't see why opposing it without qualification is the way to working-class progress. It's more constructive to promote working-class organization while recognizing the progressive aspects of the Belarusian state.

Also, workers in Sweden are in a better position than they are in Belarusia, do you support the Swedish government?
I dispute that.

Sword and Shield

29th April 2011, 19:23

Belarus isn't indebted to Russia. China isn't imperialist.

Russia isn't imperialist either. Ironically, the recent falling-out with Belarus is one of the few instances of Russia's foreign policy deserving criticism.

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

29th April 2011, 19:23

I don't oppose all states. Stateless society is the ultimate end, but in order to get there states are a necessity. In this case, the Belarusian state is oftentimes an obstacle to capitalist interests, so I don't see why opposing it without qualification is the way to working-class progress. It's more constructive to promote working-class organization while recognizing the progressive aspects of the Belarusian state.

I dispute that.
No they aren't. There is no proof whatsoever that states are a necessity to achieving statelessness. Secondly, there is no proof whatsoever that the Belarusian state is any step towards, or is even concerned with statelessness. The principle behind opposing the Belarusian state is the fact that it is a repressive one, one that locks up communists and keeps the working-class a fair distance away from the means of production in the same vein as any given western state in fact. The actual progressive step is to promote working-class organization while recognizing that the Belarusion state is as repressive as the next one.

Dispute it all you want, I don't really care. Take Cuba then. Cuba may have many progressive attributes in relation to other states, but the fact is that a ruling class rules, thus leaving us the conclusion that the working-class needs to overthrow this ruling class in order to win its rightful control over the means of production.

black magick hustla

29th April 2011, 19:27

Looks like a three-ring ultra-left circus in here. How more unmaterialist can their analysis get? Stay tuned to find out.
you must be a riot among your friends such fine comedic qualities

You'd know something about "trollin", wouldn't you? When your profound take on the issue is: "KGB Trollin!", it's easy to see how much you have to contribute (nothing). :lol:

maybe but i dont troll on the corpses of workers and imprisoned militants

Yeah, like Lenin had nothing to do with the defense of progressive states. As for "murderous geopolitics", I'm not sure you could sound more like a liberal if you tried. At any rate, you aren't confronting any of the realities of the issue (and would rather throw out vague, meaningless charges).

stalinists and the right wing of trotskyism love to throw around the term liberal. liberalism is not having an outrage about murderous capitalist states tying workers to their defense. democratic illusions, defense of "progress", defense of the nation-state, etc have more to do with liberalism than whatever im saying. stalinism was the natural conclusion of liberalism.

Read a history book.

whatever tankie

Chimurenga.

29th April 2011, 19:28

Take Cuba then. Cuba may have many progressive attributes in relation to other states, but the fact is that a ruling class rules

Except that you have no way of proving this and you're openly hoping for the anti-Communist overthrow of Cuba.

Once again, who needs CIA agents..

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

29th April 2011, 19:34

Except that you have no way of proving this and you're openly hoping for the anti-Communist overthrow of Cuba.

Once again, who needs CIA agents..
No I'm not. I'm hoping for the working-class overthrow of Cuba. Ask me if I would rather see Cuba as it is now in comparison to a western overthrow then I will tell you that I would rather see Cuba as it is now. This is irrelevant in relation to the liberation of the working-class though.

You types always see things as black and white, where-as real communists are concerned with the working class - not their 'leaders' and especially not western armies. Don't get it twisted, I am no apologist for imperialism.

bcbm

29th April 2011, 19:36

A common word for mindsets that ignore nuance in favor of black-or-white mindsets.

belarus' capitalist arrangement is preferable to bulgaria's, but at the end of the day it is still a capitalist arrangement and i stand on the side of those who want to end capitalism, not make peace with it.

Read 18th Brumaire.

or you could just answer the question.

Close ties with Russia =/= lining up with imperialism

they're positioning themselves in russian sphere of interests

The capitalist class has not fully conquered state power.

how do you figure?

Bureaucrats don't make profit. They don't buy labor power. How can they be capitalists in that case?

the state makes a profit and invests it. it buys labor power.

I haven't commented on their imprisonment or potential imprisonment, I've only commented on the illegitimacy of their actions.

you've commented how many times about "criminality" labeling these acts "criminal," and so on which is not just a comment on legitimacy but a support for state policy. but hey, as long as we're here, why don't you comment on their imprisonment or potential imprisonment?

Do you support anyone who does things from a "pro-revolutionary perspective"?

no, but i have more sympathy for a couple anarchists facing a decade in jail for very little in the way of actual "crime" than the state prosecuting them.

Pol Pot, for instance?

i'm sure in 1970 you would have been supporting this brave anti-imperialist

Yeah, throwing stuff at casinos is real progress.

once again, never said it was.

Private property makes up a minority of the economy IIRC. And at any rate, my whole position here is that I oppose the capitalist elements within Belarus and support working-class organization to fight those elements...so I have no idea what you're talking about. Keep making stuff up.

while supporting the state elements that stand in the way of working class organization and people who attack those things, however ineffectively?

Thirsty Crow

29th April 2011, 19:37

If you prefer wikipedia, that's fine, I'll remember that in the future.Well, I prefer research. See what I did with that article on inflation? Try it sometimes, dickhead.

Belarusian state policies have put Belarusian workers in a far better position to organize and to live. As for your arguments: platitudes and vague, meaningless claims. Make a point and I'll respond to it.

I don't have a point. I want to see evidence which would validate your claim. The point of my intervention is not to allow you to be so intelectually lazy. But old habits die hard, don't they?
No, you don't seem to know what "evidence" means.
You keep paraphrasing your opinions and somehow that should count as evidence.
It'd be too hard for you to admit that you know jack shit about the concrete conditions in the country and recent developments regarding the labour movement - and I don't know much more either, but it is you that's making a claim which was not supported by evidence. The burden of proof. Show me how organized workers reacted favourably to such policies by expandeing their sphere influence (growing propaganda and growing membership in unions and other orgs) and/or succesfully fought for pay increase, for better control over the productive process, for better working conditions. Can you do it? If not, you failed to prove your point.

Oh yeah, here's a point: labour market exists in Belarus, and productive enterprises which are owned by the state most certainly buy labour power and exploit the workers. How about that point? Or would you argue that labour power somehow magically ceases to be a commodity when it comes to particular workers who make a deal with a state owned company?

Chimurenga.

29th April 2011, 19:45

No I'm not. I'm hoping for the working-class overthrow of Cuba. Ask me if I would rather see Cuba as it is now in comparison to a western overthrow then I will tell you that I would rather see Cuba as it is now. This is irrelevant in relation to the liberation of the working-class though.

You types always see things as black and white, where-as real communists are concerned with the working class - not their 'leaders' and especially not western armies. Don't get it twisted, I am no apologist for imperialism.

So what you're telling me is that you're dumb enough to believe that the US would magically just stay out of said "working-class" overthrow? If you understand the US's campaigns to overthrow the Cuban state from within and outside Cuba and still call for the overthrow of the Cuban state, you are directly and simply taking the side of imperialism. There is no if, and's or but's about it.

If you are not aware of these campaigns, I would advise you to check out the documentaries found here: http://ratb.org.uk/videos. As well as the case of the Cuban Five and the Bay Of Pigs.

Also, I hate to burst your little fantasy but there is no way in hell the Cuban people will overthrow the Cuban Communist Party. The Cuban people still (by an overwhelming majority) support Fidel and Raul Castro and the prospects of socialism. They know that the problem lies not within the laughably non-existing political entity that you call "the ruling class" in Cuba but with US imperialism.

You can call yourself a "real communist" until the cows come home but the reality remains that your 'type', as exemplified by many Communists in the twentieth century, tend to gravitate towards supporting Western imperialism. This is a fact.

Ravachol

29th April 2011, 20:25

Private property makes up a minority of the economy IIRC.

Most of the Belarusian economy remains state-controlled, and has been described as "Soviet-style." Thus, 51.2% of Belarusians are employed by state-controlled companies, 47.4% are employed by private Belarusian companies (of which 5.7% are partially foreign-owned), and 1.4% are employed by foreign companies.

Even if you'd be so daft as to think the state-controlled companies are any less Capitalist than those governed by the 'traditional' market, still half of the economy doesn't subscribe to your twisted view of 'non-capitalism', hardly a minority. I'm also very interested in this idea of yours that when a government owns a corporation, it's somehow less Capitalist. By those standards a large part of the Third Reich or the Italian Social Republic of Salo would have been 'non-capitalist' :rolleyes:

And at any rate, my whole position here is that I oppose the capitalist elements within Belarus and support working-class organization to fight those elements...so I have no idea what you're talking about. Keep making stuff up.

You don't, that's what I'm saying. You're siding with the bourgeois state, c'est ca.

The love of god isn't going to make your arguments any less ridiculous.

If you'd actually address them, I wouldn't have to invoke his love.

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

29th April 2011, 20:41

So what you're telling me is that you're dumb enough to believe that the US would magically just stay out of said "working-class" overthrow? If you understand the US's campaigns to overthrow the Cuban state from within and outside Cuba and still call for the overthrow of the Cuban state, you are directly and simply taking the side of imperialism. There is no if, and's or but's about it.

If you are not aware of these campaigns, I would advise you to check out the documentaries found here: http://ratb.org.uk/videos. As well as the case of the Cuban Five and the Bay Of Pigs.

Also, I hate to burst your little fantasy but there is no way in hell the Cuban people will overthrow the Cuban Communist Party. The Cuban people still (by an overwhelming majority) support Fidel and Raul Castro and the prospects of socialism. They know that the problem lies not within the laughably non-existing political entity that you call "the ruling class" in Cuba but with US imperialism.

You can call yourself a "real communist" until the cows come home but the reality remains that your 'type', as exemplified by many Communists in the twentieth century, tend to gravitate towards supporting Western imperialism. This is a fact.
No I am not dumb enough to think that. Luckily some communists have faith in the working class and their ability to realize power without outside intervention. I do not apologize for imperialism, because if Cuban working-class people do not manage to overthrow their ruling class without the help of the US, then it is not a worker-led revolution, is it?

Funnily enough, the working-class in Britain today had massive rallies in support of the monarchy. Does that mean we should support it? Get real dude, the working class is at the hands of the ruling class and the false consciousness that the ruling class wishes to implement in the masses. This is the same anywhere. The workers here in Britain support the cappie government, and despise 'Islamic terrorism'. It is the exact same conditions as in Cuba, just different threats and different loyalties. Try another argument please, unless you deny that, socialism means that the WORKERS HAVE CONTROL OVER THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

There is no fact in your last douche statement. I am a libertarian communist, and I do not support any single bourgeois power, whether it be the Belarusian government, the US government, the Cuban government, the Chinese government, the British government or for example NATO, or the UN. So get your facts straight - the most damaging thing for this movement has been the morons who think that we have to side with one STATE over another STATE in the proletariat's fight against states and classes. The real apologist for imperialism here is you, considering that you support the nations that keep imperialism fighting rather than the classes that are repressed in these nations. We want statelessness, that is why we oppose states and the wars between states. We only support the working-class - they are oppressed and they need to liberate themselves. If you want to pick sides between states, go and play RTS games on your PC.

manic expression

29th April 2011, 20:43

No they aren't. There is no proof whatsoever that states are a necessity to achieving statelessness. Secondly, there is no proof whatsoever that the Belarusian state is any step towards, or is even concerned with statelessness. The principle behind opposing the Belarusian state is the fact that it is a repressive one, one that locks up communists and keeps the working-class a fair distance away from the means of production in the same vein as any given western state in fact. The actual progressive step is to promote working-class organization while recognizing that the Belarusion state is as repressive as the next one.
Yes, there is proof...the abject failure of every anarchist project ever attempted. Socialism is necessary.

Yes, there is proof that Belarus is a step forward. Compare living standards with surrounding countries and come talk.

All states are repressive. Take your idealism elsewhere. You're welcome to continue ignoring reality if you wish.

Dispute it all you want, I don't really care. Take Cuba then. Cuba may have many progressive attributes in relation to other states, but the fact is that a ruling class rules, thus leaving us the conclusion that the working-class needs to overthrow this ruling class in order to win its rightful control over the means of production.
:lol: Anti-socialist slander. Cuba is controlled by the working class. It is a socialist country. So nice of you to side with the imperialists on this.

No I'm not. I'm hoping for the working-class overthrow of Cuba. Ask me if I would rather see Cuba as it is now in comparison to a western overthrow then I will tell you that I would rather see Cuba as it is now. This is irrelevant in relation to the liberation of the working-class though.

You types always see things as black and white, where-as real communists are concerned with the working class - not their 'leaders' and especially not western armies. Don't get it twisted, I am no apologist for imperialism.
:laugh: That's hilarious. You're the one who thinks that all states, regardless of class interest, are EXACTLY THE SAME. Your entire mindset is black-and-white..."states bad, anarchists good". But take away those token references to radical politics and your position is precisely what the imperialists want: the overthrow of a socialist state.

maybe but i dont troll on the corpses of workers and imprisoned militants
OK, so a.) you're a troll and you admit it, and b.) you have no idea what you're talking about. Keep up the Starbucks-window-smashing "militancy".

stalinists and the right wing of trotskyism love to throw around the term liberal. liberalism is not having an outrage about murderous capitalist states tying workers to their defense. democratic illusions, defense of "progress", defense of the nation-state, etc have more to do with liberalism than whatever im saying. stalinism was the natural conclusion of liberalism.
No, liberal is feigning shock and horror when the world doesn't revolve around your idealistic fantasies, usually combined with a naive misunderstanding of politics. That's what you expressed when you said "murderous geopolitics". Just out of curiosity, what "murder" are you referring to?

whatever tankie
you must be a riot among your friends such fine comedic qualities

:laugh:

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

29th April 2011, 20:46

Chimurenga.

29th April 2011, 21:04

what the fuck was that? show me, firstly, how the working-class control Cuba. Secondly, explain adequately why it matters if one state is worse than another to the working class in the long run?

The mere fact that democracy in Cuba is not designed to maintain the rule of a few over the many. The fact that most Cuban labor is unionized (aside from foreign companies invested in Cuba in the tourism industry and the small private sector) and under workers control. The fact that no one running for any sort of office can spend money or receive money for their campaigns. The fact that up to half of the members of the National Assembly of People's Power are representatives of labor, farmers, women's and student organizations which have a direct say in everything that goes on in that country economically and internationally. The fact that up to one-third of that assembly aren't even affiliated with the Communist party and that is not required.

This is just off the top of my head.

Show me where there is a new bourgeoisie in Cuba. You are physically incapable of producing that evidence and it is testament to not just your own, but everyone who subscribes to that line's bankrupt politics.

Thirsty Crow

29th April 2011, 21:06

Imperialism much?

During the talks, Belarus pledged to the IMF that it would amend its monetary and fiscal policies. The IMF board has approved a 15-month programme for Belarus to slash public spending, cut wages and deepen the privatization drive in state industries. You can find out more about one of the "biggest" IMF loans (at 420% of the Belarus quota) here: http://wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/bela-j22.shtml

Meanwhile, let's see how the business of privatization goes:

Ambitious privatization campaign proclaimed in mid-2008 is being implemented at an increasingly fast pace, despite of the currently unfavorable economic cycle. The Government has undertaken to significantly deregulate the business environment, and both domestic and foreign companies have already appreciated improvements in the area of company foundation, licensing and certification, land allocation, taxation.
Second, privatization is getting into gear, beginning with smaller industrial enterprises. Targets are often picked not from the official privatization list. Privatization is more and more frequently initiated by the companies’ management or municipal authorities. Superior authorities – ministries, state committees, government concerns, - seem to be slow and reluctant to give up control over enterprises subordinated to them from the time of the Soviet era. On the other
hand, at the negotiation table every now and then we hear that privatization is seen as the only way to implement necessary
modernization program at a given enterprise. Quite often, a target’s long standing foreign trade partner is invited to invest equity.And yet further:

2006 – 2008 has seen a number of notable acquisitions and privatization deals in such areas as telecom, banking and insurance sector, construction industry.http://www.tse.fi/FI/yksikot/erillislaitokset/pei/Documents/bre2009/417%205-2009.pdf

Could it be...that filthy imperialists are intentionally spreading lies regarding progressive deformed workers' state (plus capitalists) of Belarus?

Fuck yeah anti-imperialism!

manic expression

29th April 2011, 21:08

belarus' capitalist arrangement is preferable to bulgaria's, but at the end of the day it is still a capitalist arrangement and i stand on the side of those who want to end capitalism, not make peace with it.
It's not a fully capitalist arrangement. The status of the state is enough to prove this. I don't know why you keep repeating falsities.

or you could just answer the question.
Neither the capitalist nor working classes are in full control of the state IMO. But you should read 18 Brumaire anyway.

they're positioning themselves in russian sphere of interests
They're also strengthening ties with the Baltic states, Poland and other countries. Foreign policy isn't the measure of material conditions.

how do you figure?
Lukashenko stopped privatization just as it started to kick into high gear. He's restricted the functioning of the capitalist class since that point. Do you really think that capitalists want to only have access to about half of the labor power and 20% of the industry (IIRC) of Belarus?

the state makes a profit and invests it. it buys labor power.
Does the state buy itself a big yacht for vacations? Are bureaucrats making money directly from the exploitation of workers? No and no. It's not capitalistic profit just because the state employs people.

you've commented how many times about "criminality" labeling these acts "criminal," and so on which is not just a comment on legitimacy but a support for state policy. but hey, as long as we're here, why don't you comment on their imprisonment or potential imprisonment?
Because it's neither my place nor my interest. I don't know the facts of the case.

no, but i have more sympathy for a couple anarchists facing a decade in jail for very little in the way of actual "crime" than the state prosecuting them.
I don't support or endorse what they supposedly did.

i'm sure in 1970 you would have been supporting this brave anti-imperialist
No, I'd support the Vietnamese socialists in stopping the madness.

once again, never said it was.
Then why defend those who supposedly did exactly that?

while supporting the state elements that stand in the way of working class organization and people who attack those things, however ineffectively?
I don't think these "attackers" were accomplishing that, and I feel they were attacking the Belarusian state itself. I don't agree with that for a number of reasons.

Well, I prefer research. See what I did with that article on inflation? Try it sometimes, dickhead.
I seem to have touched a nerve. :lol: But really, you can't research the fact that trade unions are prominent in Belarus and that communist groups operate within the country?

I don't have a point.
Cool.

Oh yeah, here's a point: labour market exists in Belarus, and productive enterprises which are owned by the state most certainly buy labour power and exploit the workers. How about that point? Or would you argue that labour power somehow magically ceases to be a commodity when it comes to particular workers who make a deal with a state owned company?
Yes, and that's precisely what I mean by capitalist elements. The labor market consists of half of the working population IIRC. The rest is part of the state-owned portion of the economy. So yes, there is commodity production in Belarus, but it is juxtaposed with nationalized production, which is not only uncapitalist but in many cases the result of the worker state of the USSR. This production does not fall under the realm of capitalist production because state bureaucrats are not capitalists, they do not profit directly from the exploitation of workers. Of course, the capitalist class would like to privatize more of the Belarusian economy, but they do not yet have the political means to do so. It is the task of communists to defend Belarus from further capitalist influence and privatization (which the government has done to an extent) while working to fight the capitalist class itself.

That comes from working-class organization and defending Belarus from imperialism. Not from randomly attacking casinos and embassies.

Even if you'd be so daft as to think the state-controlled companies are any less Capitalist than those governed by the 'traditional' market, still half of the economy doesn't subscribe to your twisted view of 'non-capitalism', hardly a minority. I'm also very interested in this idea of yours that when a government owns a corporation, it's somehow less Capitalist. By those standards a large part of the Third Reich or the Italian Social Republic of Salo would have been 'non-capitalist' :rolleyes:
That's what I've meant from capitalist and socialist elements both existing in Belarus today. I've been saying that since this thread started, if you care to look.

And as far as comparing Belarus to Nazi Germany...not worth my time.

You don't, that's what I'm saying. You're siding with the bourgeois state, c'est ca.
There is no bourgeois state to side with in Belarus. C'est la vie.

If you'd actually address them, I wouldn't have to invoke his love.
I have. If you continue to believe that Belarus is whatever you want it to be, then you should light some more candles in more churches.

RedSunRising

29th April 2011, 21:13

It's not a fully capitalist arrangement. The status of the state is enough to prove this. I don't know why you keep repeating falsities.

Please. I have actually been there. The disparity between rich and poor is terrifying, as is the arrogance of the rich. The so-called Communist Party are nothing more than Russian chauvanists who despise those of Romanian descent. There is no sense of social togetherness. Sex tourists are welcomed. There is nothing that there that speaks of a society working together for everyone's benefit.

The status of state proves nothing unless you consider Taiwan to have been socialist in its first years.

manic expression

29th April 2011, 21:14

Imperialism much?

You can find out more about one of the "biggest" IMF loans (at 420% of the Belarus quota) here: http://wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/bela-j22.shtml
Yugoslavia got IMF loans, too. Was Yugoslavia imperialist?

Meanwhile, let's see how the business of privatization goes:

And yet further:
Yes, and this is a reactionary trend. Communists should be defending the gains that are under attack...not trying to convince themselves that Belarus is 100% capitalist in complete contradiction of all facts. Instead of opposing privatization, ultra-lefts happily wave them around as proof that privatization is meaningless. In their minds, Belarus is already completely capitalist, so what's the point in defending progressive elements?

And then they support attacks on casinos and embassies and badmouth Cuba. What a gaggle of revolutionaries they are proving to be. :rolleyes:

Could it be...that filthy imperialists are intentionally spreading lies regarding progressive deformed workers' state (plus capitalists) of Belarus?
They always spread lies. Sometimes they have help from ultra-lefts, though.

RedSunRising

29th April 2011, 21:19

Yes, and this is a reactionary trend. Communists should be defending the gains that are under attack...not trying to convince themselves that Belarus is 100% capitalist in complete contradiction of all facts. Instead of opposing privatization, ultra-lefts happily wave them around as proof that privatization is meaningless. In their minds, Belarus is already completely capitalist, so what's the point in defending progressive elements?

The profits from state owned businesses go into the pockets of a wealthy that has tacky pseudo-American bars with prizes ranked up to keep the riff raff out while many people are actually starving.

The anarchists were protesting a joint military exercise with the Russian state which is waging a near genocidal war in Checneya. Seriously. Stop defending wannabe Russian Chauvinistic capitalists just because they dont like the west.

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

29th April 2011, 21:19

The mere fact that democracy in Cuba is not designed to maintain the rule of a few over the many. The fact that most Cuban labor is unionized (aside from foreign companies invested in Cuba in the tourism industry and the small private sector) and under workers control. The fact that no one running for any sort of office can spend money or receive money for their campaigns. The fact that up to half of the members of the National Assembly of People's Power are representatives of labor, farmers, women's and student organizations which have a direct say in everything that goes on in that country economically and internationally. The fact that up to one-third of that assembly aren't even affiliated with the Communist party and that is not required.

This is just off the top of my head.

Show me where there is a new bourgeoisie in Cuba. You are physically incapable of producing that evidence and it is testament to not just your own, but everyone who subscribes to that line's bankrupt politics.
Off the top of your head isn't good enough. I'm reading through crappy Trotskyist essays which, while boring as hell, do demonstrate why worker's democracy is not truly apparent in Cuba, and I will post the relevant words in due course. Labour is largely unionized in Britain, and workers in some companies contribute to the running of the company, but is this socialism? It is not. Also, you fail to address the opening up of Cuba to the free market, which, I would imagine, is not based on the consultation of workers there. Again, feel free to provide evidence for the contrary, and show me that rank and file workers in Cuba are involved with its opening up to free market capitalism.

In the mean time, you should back your 'off the top of your head' arguments and instead replace them with concrete evidence to suggest that the workers really control the economy in Cuba, as that is a very strong assertion to make without evidence. Also worth considering is the fact that Cuba was only used as an example in this thread - what you are actually supporting is the Belarusian state, which is still ruled by a ruling class, but is qualitatively different to Cuba. The point is that we support the working class, and none of you statists have provided concrete evidence to suggest that the working class in any country is in control of the means of production. The beauty of being anti-statist is that we do not have to make such ridiculous assertions. One day, though, the working class will truly realize its power, and your type will fade away into the obscurity of history. It'll be hilarious to see you then standing on your soap box and banging on about how Belarus has a government worth defending.

Thirsty Crow

29th April 2011, 21:20

So, labour power as commodity magically does not apply when it comes to state owned enterprises?
Interesting...not only is Lenin being pissed upon, but Marx as well.

Sword and Shield

29th April 2011, 21:22

The anarchists were protesting a joint military exercise with the Russian state which is waging a near genocidal war in Checneya.

Err what? There is no war in Chechnya. The security forces are busy rooting out some wahabi scumbags who will indiscriminately bomb civilian (wether ethnic Russian or Caucasian) targets.

RedSunRising

29th April 2011, 21:23

In the mean time, you should back your 'off the top of your head' arguments and instead replace them with concrete evidence to suggest that the workers really control the economy in Cuba, as that is a very strong assertion to make without evidence. Also worth considering is the fact that Cuba was only used as an example in this thread - what you are actually supporting is the Belarusian state, which is still ruled by a ruling class, but is qualitatively different to Cuba.

I also dont think Cuba is socialist but it has a lot of progressive features and from what I have heard from people who have been there in many it is a lot more democratic than Belarus. If people could only see the despair on people's faces there....I am very disappointed in the PSL.

manic expression

29th April 2011, 21:24

Please. I have actually been there. The disparity between rich and poor is terrifying, as is the arrogance of the rich. The so-called Communist Party are nothing more than Russian chauvanists who despise those of Romanian descent. There is no sense of social togetherness. Sex tourists are welcomed. There is nothing that there that speaks of a society working together for everyone's benefit.

The status of state proves nothing unless you consider Taiwan to have been socialist in its first years.
I've been there too. The disparity is significant and noticeable but not nearly as bad as it is in, say, Russia. The same goes for chauvinism, sex workers, etc. This is especially true with regard to housing, education, healthcare...those aspects largely don't operate in a capitalistic way and they weren't nationalized by the capitalist class in order to make concessions to workers (a la social democracy).

But nowhere and never did I say Belarus today is socialist. I hold that it is far more beneficial and progressive for the workers than the likely alternative, and that there are many elements that deserve our support. If the capitalist class there gets its way, sh*t hits the fan. The inertia of the state is the only thing standing in the way of that at this point. It's almost as if people here wanted Shock Therapy to go down. What's their alternative to increased capitalist influence and more privatization? The glorious and ever-so-popular anarchists who attack casinos? I doubt I'll get an answer on this.

RedSunRising

29th April 2011, 21:28

I've been there too. The disparity is significant and noticeable but not nearly as bad as it is in, say, Russia. The same goes for chauvinism, sex workers, etc. This is especially true with regard to housing, education, healthcare...those aspects largely don't operate in a capitalistic way and they weren't nationalized by the capitalist class in order to make concessions to workers (a la social democracy).

Which is why Belarusians desperately try and get into Russia to work?

Moldavan women are a running joke (sadly and I dont condone such jokes at all) across the region for prosituition. Maybe for housing you are right. I dont think so about the healthcare and education.

RedSunRising

29th April 2011, 21:30

It's almost as if people here wanted Shock Therapy to go down. What's their alternative to increased capitalist influence and more privatization? The glorious and ever-so-popular anarchists who attack casinos? I doubt I'll get an answer on this.

There is a relatively underground Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party there. The people I spoke to who supported it had a lot more time for the anarchists than they did for the "Communist Party". In reality the Communist Party is just like the Democrats in the USA or the Labour Party in Britain but with a whole bunch of nasty chauvinism mixed in. Would you vote the Democratic Party?

manic expression

29th April 2011, 21:36

The profits from state owned businesses go into the pockets of a wealthy that has tacky pseudo-American bars with prizes ranked up to keep the riff raff out while many people are actually starving.
As I've said, that's through corruption of state office which is not a capitalist mode of profit. And proceeds very much go into the state.

How many starving people did you see in Belarus? After a week and a half, I can count the number of homeless people I saw there on two hands (and maybe one more foot)...and that was almost all in Brest (and I stayed very far out of the city center of Minsk, so it's not like I only saw the nice part of the city). You?

In the mean time, you should back your 'off the top of your head' arguments and instead replace them with concrete evidence to suggest that the workers really control the economy in Cuba, as that is a very strong assertion to make without evidence.
Almost (http://www.escambray.cu/Eng/Special/cubaelection1003181008) too (http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/44131) easy (http://www.cubaminrex.cu/english/Focus_On/Cuban%20political%20and%20electoral%20system%20.ht m). The entire electoral process, from start to finish, is controlled by the working class.

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

29th April 2011, 21:44

the first link just crashed my computer. i'll try it again tomorrow.

however, is it right to assume that these are general elections, similar to those in other states, as I gathered from the second link at a glimpse? elections do not really mean worker democracy do they?

RedSunRising

29th April 2011, 21:45

How many starving people did you see in Belarus? After a week and a half, I can count the number of homeless people I saw there on two hands (and maybe one more foot)...and that was almost all in Brest (and I stayed very far out of the city center of Minsk, so it's not like I only saw the nice part of the city). You?
.

Oh crap....I got confused and thought people talking about Moldava. I got Belarus and Moldava mixed up in my mind. Stupid me.

Ouch. :blushing:

manic expression

29th April 2011, 21:46

Oh crap....I got confused and thought people talking about Moldava. I got Belarus and Moldava mixed up in my mind. Stupid me.

Ouch. :blushing:
That's alright...no worries!

PS don't be surprised if I ask you about Moldova sometime...I was thinking of heading there and it has a very "interesting" political climate from what I've read (including your impressions).

RedSunRising

29th April 2011, 21:48

Interesting. A growing revolutionary left would be a very important development.

Expect its in Moldava. I dont know how I got have gotten to the two mixed.

Sorry PSL. :blushing:

I but I do think the anarchists are punished severely and are in the right over collaboration with the Russian military.

I was thinking about this thread...Thats why... http://www.revleft.com/vb/moldova-leftover-ussr-t153781/index.html

Edit; Yes people arent starving in Belarus and it has some good things to say about it compared to the rest of the region.

Sword and Shield

29th April 2011, 21:53

I but I do think the anarchists are punished severely and are in the right over collaboration with the Russian military.

I still don't see what's wrong with collaboration with the Russian military. It helps Belarus stay prepared against an (admittedly unlikely but still something you should be ready for) imperialist invasion. Besides, a strong Russian military is also a good deterrent against Western interventions in Eastern Europe.

RedSunRising

29th April 2011, 21:59

I still don't see what's wrong with collaboration with the Russian military. It helps Belarus stay prepared against an (admittedly unlikely but still something you should be ready for) imperialist invasion. Besides, a strong Russian military is also a good deterrent against Western interventions in Eastern Europe.

You are forgetting that despite condoning some "Soviet nostalgia" the Putin regime is incredibly repressive towards the left, and has its own Imperialist ambitions, with its flat tax and one for the law as long as they dont cross Putin it is far from socialist at all. The racism in Russia now allowed to flower unchecked by the government is terrifying. A strong Russian military is a capitalist tool of repression and plunder. Lets not forget that.

bcbm

29th April 2011, 22:09

It's not a fully capitalist arrangement. The status of the state is enough to prove this. I don't know why you keep repeating falsities.

Neither the capitalist nor working classes are in full control of the state IMO. But you should read 18 Brumaire anyway.

capitalism is the global mode of production on or planet there is more or less nothing outside of it what exists in belarus is one style of management. the us, sweden and russia have very different states but they are ultimately still capitalist states because their arrangements exist to manage capital in a particular way... just like belarus.

They're also strengthening ties with the Baltic states, Poland and other countries. Foreign policy isn't the measure of material conditions.

you missed the point, they're resisting one imperialist power while joining up with another.

Lukashenko stopped privatization just as it started to kick into high gear. He's restricted the functioning of the capitalist class since that point. Do you really think that capitalists want to only have access to about half of the labor power and 20% of the industry (IIRC) of Belarus?

was asking about china in the bit you quoted...

Does the state buy itself a big yacht for vacations? Are bureaucrats making money directly from the exploitation of workers? No and no. It's not capitalistic profit just because the state employs people.

capitalism is not based on how many yachts or bonuses its managers get, but the relationship they and the workers have to the means of production.

Because it's neither my place nor my interest. I don't know the facts of the case.

you seem to know enough to presume the anarchists guilty and call them criminals

I don't support or endorse what they supposedly did.

did i ever say i did?

No, I'd support the Vietnamese socialists in stopping the madness.

in 1970 the khmer rouge were guerrillas supported by the vietnamese socialists

Then why defend those who supposedly did exactly that?

the same reason i defend the frso from the fbi even though i think they are clowns, because i am a communist

I don't think these "attackers" were accomplishing that, and I feel they were attacking the Belarusian state itself. I don't agree with that for a number of reasons.

the belarussian state that is increasing privatization, which you claim to oppose, which was one of reasons (growing social inequality, suppression of workers and strikes) these attacks happened?

RedSunRising

29th April 2011, 22:13

in 1970 the khmer rouge were guerrillas supported by the vietnamese socialists

I thanked your post because I believe that Belarus is a capitalist state and I agree with the anarchists on what they were protesting about BUT I dont think that this is historically correct. There was a de facto schism between the Vietnamese and the "Khmer Rouge" before that date. Just saying.

bcbm

29th April 2011, 22:15

they were as late as 68 anyway, my point was that it is a stupid example

Sword and Shield

29th April 2011, 22:23

You are forgetting that despite condoning some "Soviet nostalgia" the Putin regime is incredibly repressive towards the left, and has its own Imperialist ambitions, with its flat tax and one for the law as long as they dont cross Putin it is far from socialist at all. The racism in Russia now allowed to flower unchecked by the government is terrifying. A strong Russian military is a capitalist tool of repression and plunder. Lets not forget that.

The Putin regime is not socialist in any way. And it certainly is repressive towards the left, though I wouldn't say "incredibly". And certainly, there is terrifying racism in Russia, though the government has started cracking down on it.

However, I don't see how the Russian military is a capitalist tool of repression and plunder. Sure the police or FSB are tools of repression and plunder. But the military? All it's done recently is liberate South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The rest of the world would be much worse off if Russia didn't exist. Simply put, Russia's foreign policy is a moderating force against Western imperialism.

RedSunRising

29th April 2011, 22:24

they were as late as 68 anyway, my point was that it is a stupid example

Thats debatable because before than the Vietnamese wanted the CPK to come under them and they refused. Anyway this mad off topic so I will stop particularly as I have made such an idiot of myself on this thread.

One serious point though is that nostalgia for the "Soviet Era" in Eastern Europe is often tied in with very ugly national chauvinism, racism (the so-called Communist Party in the Russian Federation telling its supporters not to let their kids play with immigrant kids would be an example of that) and exaltation of the military for its own sake, as "power". Of course Anti-Revisionists reject the reactionaries pretense to having anything to do with Communism but people in the west should do to.

RedSunRising

29th April 2011, 22:27

The rest of the world would be much worse off if Russia didn't exist. Simply put, Russia's foreign policy is a moderating force against Western imperialism.

Tell that the Russian leftists in prison or those increasingly forced to operate underground.

You are seeing things from western eyes where the main evil infront is NATO and blinding your eyes to the fact that there are other capitalist factions which are just as ruthless and would be just as bad if only they had the power. The Russian state needs to be overthrown.

Sword and Shield

29th April 2011, 22:34

Tell that the Russian leftists in prison or those increasingly forced to operate underground.

I was talking about its foreign policy, which has nothing to do with Russian leftists in prison and everything to do with its military.

You are seeing things from western eyes where the main evil infront is NATO and blinding your eyes to the fact that there are other capitalist factions which are just as ruthless and would be just as bad if only they had the power. The Russian state needs to be overthrown.

I'm seeing things from "third world" eyes where the main sources of evil really are America and its allies. Sure the Russian state needs to be overthrown. But it's good if it has a strong military in the meantime so that the imperialists don't get to rape the world.

RedSunRising

29th April 2011, 22:39

I'm seeing things from "third world" eyes where the main sources of evil really are America and its allies. Sure the Russian state needs to be overthrown. But it's good if it has a strong military in the meantime so that the imperialists don't get to rape the world.

The Russian working class who live under horrible conditions while a decadent and utterly degenerate elite also come into this, and they are quite large in numbers. Also you should really take into consideration that the war in Chechneya waged by the Russian has seen whole cities flattened by the Russian military.

And pity the poor third world students in modern day Russia who cant go out of doors barely for fear of racist attacks which the police pay no notice too.

Os Cangaceiros

30th April 2011, 00:10

That's hilarious. Which side is promoting random attacks on random buildings and which side is questioning those acts? The only fetish on display here is the ultra-left fetish for ignoring reality and dovetailing with imperialist rhetoric.

Property damage & sabotage by a few anarchists doesn't really compare to the untold number of working class people and militants slain by regimes that anti-imperialists support.

I'm seeing things from "third world" eyes where the main sources of evil really are America and its allies.

The main sources of "evil"?

Anyway, what a bizarre tactical stance. Capitalism can survive just fine without America and allied nations. It's the same logic that led drug enforcement agencies to believe that the Colombian drug trade would collapse just so long as Escobar and the Medellin cartel were destroyed. Cutting off the head of the snake may work in a standard political war, but it does nothing in a war waged on a social terrain.

RedSunRising

30th April 2011, 00:33

Property damage & sabotage by a few anarchists doesn't really compare to the untold number of working class people and militants slain by regimes that anti-imperialists support.

Expand, what regimes do anti-Imperialists support?

Os Cangaceiros

30th April 2011, 00:37

The PRC, for one?

Os Cangaceiros

30th April 2011, 00:48

And of course that's meant only in the specific sense of the word "support", i.e. support for the PRC as some bulwark of "worker's power" (however deformed) against creeping neoliberalism. Not even the most vulgar breed of anti-imperialism can quite bring itself to actually defend China's policies outright (although we did have one loon a while back who did defend China's "market socialism", and was promptly restricted). But that support is still support for a state institution that exists and continues to exist to serve capital and capitalist social relations.

Sword and Shield

30th April 2011, 01:53

The Russian working class who live under horrible conditions while a decadent and utterly degenerate elite also come into this, and they are quite large in numbers.

That's irrelevant when it comes to military exercises.

Also you should really take into consideration that the war in Chechneya waged by the Russian has seen whole cities flattened by the Russian military.

The First Chechen War under Yeltsin was strongly imperialist (what do you expect from an American puppet). But during the Second Chechen War under Putin, the Chechens supported the Russians over the foreign wahabi fighters.

And pity the poor third world students in modern day Russia who cant go out of doors barely for fear of racist attacks which the police pay no notice too.

Also irrelevant when discussing the military.

gorillafuck

30th April 2011, 02:25

so now revolutionaries defend embassies, intelligence agencies, banks, casinos and prisons and uphold the rule of law? haha what a jokeAnyone who defends attacks against casinos needs to get slapped. Hard.

The rest I agree with though.

RedSunRising

30th April 2011, 02:30

The First Chechen War under Yeltsin was strongly imperialist (what do you expect from an American puppet). But during the Second Chechen War under Putin, the Chechens supported the Russians over the foreign wahabi fighters.

Also irrelevant when discussing the military.

The military is the back bone of any state, in the final count the state depends on it to survive, which is why in most countries the army is a lot more idealogical than the police. In the Russian Federation the army is a lot more idealogical than the police so these issues are not irrelevant when the discussing the Russian Army at all.

Do you have any links showing that there was a sea change in Russian repression in Chechneya under the Putin or that the Chechneyians actually supported Putin's campaign? Certainly the idealogy of the regime changed radically under Putin, it became much more anti-west for one which isnt a bad thing, but there were also severe changes for the worst, extreme racism towards the peoples of the Caucaus for one...And in terms of its anti-working class character within Russia not much changed at all.

Thirsty Crow

30th April 2011, 11:29

Yes, and this is a reactionary trend. Spearheaded by the modified deformed workers' state elements. Or do you think that workers' of the enterprises in question have a say in this process?

They always spread lies. Sometimes they have help from ultra-lefts, though.Who needs help from ultra-lefts when you have people arguing that Belarussian state is a "modified deformed workers' state" who in fact opposes capitalist interests. That's some sweet honey for those who'd like to believe that some states inherently work in favour of workers. You might as well start citing fairy tales.

Oh yeah, I wonder if PSL is full of legalistic moralists like yourself. Not that I think attacking a casino is a particularly good idea, but your attitude speaks volumes.

manic expression

30th April 2011, 11:38

capitalism is the global mode of production on or planet there is more or less nothing outside of it what exists in belarus is one style of management. the us, sweden and russia have very different states but they are ultimately still capitalist states because their arrangements exist to manage capital in a particular way... just like belarus.
So I take it you'll claim the Spanish communes in Catalonia were "one style of management" of capitalism?

you missed the point, they're resisting one imperialist power while joining up with another.They aren't "joining up" with Russia, they're establishing close ties. Call it what you want but Belarus isn't a Russian puppet state.

was asking about china in the bit you quoted...The CPC is in power in the PRC, not the capitalist class. Any and all reactionary "reforms" over the past 30 odd years could be rolled back in a week because of the socialist construction of the PRC. That's why it's important to defend the PRC while opposing capitalist influence there.

capitalism is not based on how many yachts or bonuses its managers get, but the relationship they and the workers have to the means of production.Yes, which is what I was saying. Bureaucrats don't fulfill a capitalist position, they aren't capitalists who employ labor through the ownership of private property.

you seem to know enough to presume the anarchists guilty and call them criminalsI was talking about the acts...I've pretty consistently added "supposedly" in relation to the charges throughout the thread because we can't know for sure what happened. But I didn't see anyone seriously denying their guilt, anyway.

did i ever say i did?
So just to be clear...you neither support nor endorse their supposed acts?

in 1970 the khmer rouge were guerrillas supported by the vietnamese socialistsSee RedSunRising's post.

And it's not a stupid comparison because you said that we should support anyone who does anything from a "pro-revolution standpoint". The Khmer Rouge had a "pro-revolutionary standpoint" and you don't support them. Therefore your original assertion is wrong and there is no principle that demands I support any anarchist who wants to break windows in a casino.

the same reason i defend the frso from the fbi even though i think they are clowns, because i am a communistFalse comparison. Belarus isn't the US for a wide variety of reasons and the FRSO has never engaged in such behavior.

the belarussian state that is increasing privatization, which you claim to oppose, which was one of reasons (growing social inequality, suppression of workers and strikes) these attacks happened?BS. Were the anarchists saying "yes the government is allowing more privatization in a gradual manner, but we oppose this and want to roll back privatization while defending the already-existing socialist elements of Belarus"? No, they weren't. They, apparently, oppose the state writ large.

I oppose privatization while calling for a defense of the already-existing progressive aspects of Belarus. Again, if the government is weakened, you get Shock Therapy (the Remix)...that's what all progressives need to oppose by first recognizing what is progressive in Belarusian society today.

manic expression

30th April 2011, 11:45

Spearheaded by the modified deformed workers' state elements. Or do you think that workers' of the enterprises in question have a say in this process?
However you cut it, the Belarusian state is still an obstacle to the capitalist class of the country. It's nice to know that you haven't yet tried to seriously refute this...probably because you can't.

Who needs help from ultra-lefts when you have people arguing that Belarussian state is a "modified deformed workers' state" who in fact opposes capitalist interests. That's some sweet honey for those who'd like to believe that some states inherently work in favour of workers. You might as well start citing fairy tales.
:lol: Your tendency, if you even have one, is a fairy tale. Once again you would rather display your belief that Belarus must be 100% capitalist because you said so...even when the links you provided tell us otherwise.

Oh yeah, I wonder if PSL is full of legalistic moralists like yourself. Not that I think attacking a casino is a particularly good idea, but your attitude speaks volumes.
So you're not going to defend what I'm refusing to defend, but you'll criticize me for it anyway. :laugh:

Triple A

30th April 2011, 11:52

However you cut it, the Belarusian state is still an obstacle to the capitalist class of the country. It's nice to know that you haven't yet tried to seriously refute this...probably because you can't.

:lol: Your tendency, if you even have one, is a fairy tale. Once again you would rather display your belief that Belarus must be 100% capitalist because you said so...even when the links you provided tell us otherwise.

So you're not going to defend what I'm refusing to defend, but you'll criticize me for it anyway. :laugh:

The point is: would you rather live in the US or Belarus?

Ravachol

30th April 2011, 12:06

So I take it you'll claim the Spanish communes in Catalonia were "one style of management" of capitalism?

You're honestly comparing Belarus to the Communes of Catalonia? :blink:
You're a clown.

Chambered Word

30th April 2011, 12:11

The point is: would you rather live in the US or Belarus?

That's not the point at all.

Anyway, I'm going to make myself some food and keep watching this thread. Should be an entertaining night. :cool:

manic expression

30th April 2011, 14:15

The point is: would you rather live in the US or Belarus?
Uh, yeah...that's conservative-speak. Anyway, subtracting personal reasons I'd much rather be poor in Belarus than poor in the US, if that's what you mean.

You're honestly comparing Belarus to the Communes of Catalonia? :blink:
You're a clown.
Well, since some people can't apply basic logic, now we're going back to school.

The assertion made was that capitalism is a global system, and so any country or system that exists within that global system is part of capitalism one way or the other. In order to test this hypothesis, I brought up an example that, while unrelated to Belarus, illustrates the futility of the original reasoning.

IF one says that the anarchist communes of Catalonia WEREN'T simply another "style" of capitalism, THEN they cannot argue that any country is capitalist simply by virtue of existing in a world that is mostly capitalist.

Get it?

Anyway, I'm going to make myself some food and keep watching this thread. Should be an entertaining night. :cool:
I aim to please. :thumbup1:

Thirsty Crow

30th April 2011, 15:27

However you cut it, the Belarusian state is still an obstacle to the capitalist class of the country. It's nice to know that you haven't yet tried to seriously refute this...probably because you can't.So, let's see if we're in sync here: the Belarussian state is an obstacle for the national bourgeoisie (what about foreign bourgeoisie?) even if we saw clearly that there is "a reactionary trend" of furthering the drive towards privatization...spearheaded by the very same state officials which were supposed to act in workers' favour in stead?
With a mindset like yours, no wonder that you're the only one bringing "evidence" to the table.
Would you like to try and refute what I contend: that Belarussian state has two functions:

1) effective capitalist (so called "subsumed capitalist class(es)"; you may want to google this out): the state manages accumulation of capital and engages in labour control (like every capitalist management does), as well as exploitation (you are familiar with Marx's concept of exploitation, are you?).

Do note that this says nothing of labour policies and social policies (how could one neglect to admit that job security, as well as certain social security - I won't question those although you didn't provide any concrete evidence - are favourable in comparison with full blown neo-liberalism). But the function of the state does not magically change when safety nets and workers' benefits are implemented.

2) the state furthers the process of privatization (would you like to change your mind and refute my conclusion based on the citations from those two sources?), but that process is peculiar to Belarus (in comparison with the Russian disaster). Once again, certain barriers to private investment are appropriate and they protect the workers from a disaster (if we conclude that the current satte of affairs is not a disaster). But that does not in any way contradict facts: the tendecny towards privatization hasn't been reversed or stopped. It's just managed.

:lol: Your tendency, if you even have one, is a fairy tale. Once again you would rather display your belief that Belarus must be 100% capitalist because you said so...even when the links you provided tell us otherwise.Two things:

1) Man, what's up with your tendency anxiety? Do you feel so insecure when you can't locate someone within your system of preconceived political folders? You better get that checked out.

2) What's up with "yo momma" attitude? It seems like teen angst is getting the best of your political convictions and analytical power. Maybe you should wait until maturity comes (on the wings of a fairy, of course) and then engage in this kind of activity?

So you're not going to defend what I'm refusing to defend, but you'll criticize me for it anyway. :laugh:
Wow, and I thought you are a staunch opponent of manichaeism. I though it isn't about black vs. white, condemn vs. defend.
To clarify, your refusal to defend this act stems from your legalistic moralism ("criminal activity"). To condemn "criminal violence" perpetrated against property of a fucking casino is to engage in exactly that - legalistic moralism bordering on liberalism.

EDIT: oh yeah, would you like to defend your original intervention into Marxist theory which contends (your intervention, that is) that labour power appears as a commodity only in some instances in capitalist society?

bcbm

30th April 2011, 22:40

So I take it you'll claim the Spanish communes in Catalonia were "one style of management" of capitalism?

what exists in belarus is not in anyway comparable to what existed in catalonia and the economic situation is a lot different in 2011 than it was in 1936, especially in spain which was one of the least industrialized nations and catalonia especially had a large agrarian community. finally i don't think they existed long enough or in a climate where anything certain can be deduced. but to address the topic, i think the communes were a real attempt to build something outside capitalism and some aspects came closer than others- abolishing money in some areas for instance, or free distribution of goods, but many areas probably operated more or less as worker managed capitalism, which is obviously preferable but still not the goal we're pushing for.

They aren't "joining up" with Russia, they're establishing close ties. Call it what you want but Belarus isn't a Russian puppet state.i've never said they were a puppet, i've said that they are aligning themselves with a different imperialist interest, not resisting imperialism.

The CPC is in power in the PRC, not the capitalist class. Any and all reactionary "reforms" over the past 30 odd years could be rolled back in a week because of the socialist construction of the PRC. That's why it's important to defend the PRC while opposing capitalist influence there.the cpc is the capitalist class.

Yes, which is what I was saying. Bureaucrats don't fulfill a capitalist position, they aren't capitalists who employ labor through the ownership of private property.the state fulfills the capitalist position.

I was talking about the acts...I've pretty consistently added "supposedly" in relation to the charges throughout the thread because we can't know for sure what happened. But I didn't see anyone seriously denying their guilt, anyway.presumably they deny their guilt as they are taking it to trial.

So just to be clear...you neither support nor endorse their supposed acts?i don't think they're effective, but i don't really care that people do them. certainly i am more concerned with joint military exercises and unions that suppress strikes than people acting against these things.

See RedSunRising's post.

And it's not a stupid comparison because you said that we should support anyone who does anything from a "pro-revolution standpoint". The Khmer Rouge had a "pro-revolutionary standpoint" and you don't support them. Therefore your original assertion is wrong and there is no principle that demands I support any anarchist who wants to break windows in a casino.i don't think seizing state power is pro-revolutionary and would oppose them from the point on, certainly, and probably sooner since i feel the same about guerrilla war. but if their members were being threatened with prison by the dictatorship of the time, yes i would take their side over the dictatorship and say they should not be persecuted.

False comparison. Belarus isn't the US for a wide variety of reasons and the FRSO has never engaged in such behavior.it doesn't matter that belarus is not the us (i said as much in the same post), its the basic principle of standing with comrades however much we disagree with them when they are faced with imprisonment and persecution.

BS. Were the anarchists saying "yes the government is allowing more privatization in a gradual manner, but we oppose this and want to roll back privatization while defending the already-existing socialist elements of Belarus"? No, they weren't. They, apparently, oppose the state writ large.well yes, presumably they want to fight for an anarchist society, not nicer capitalism but lacking the social force to do that i don't see how it matters and if they achieved the social force for it, that would probably be a positive sign.

I oppose privatization while calling for a defense of the already-existing progressive aspects of Belarus. Again, if the government is weakened, you get Shock Therapy (the Remix)...that's what all progressives need to oppose by first recognizing what is progressive in Belarusian society today.so on the one hand anarchists are a pathetic ineffective minority, but on the other they are going to "weaken the state?" if they got to the point where they could threaten the state i think it would be well within their power to also threaten anyone trying to give shock therapy.

Os Cangaceiros

1st May 2011, 00:25

So I take it you'll claim the Spanish communes in Catalonia were "one style of management" of capitalism?

What happened in Spain was an interesting experiment, but ultimately what was increasingly becoming a vertically integrated system of managment by the CNT wouldn't have been condusive to a socialist system, no. The fact that they supported the capitalist republican state showed that they would sell out the class for a little political expediency, just like every other failed attempt at communism/socialism to ever exist on a large scale.

manic expression

1st May 2011, 07:30

So, let's see if we're in sync here: the Belarussian state is an obstacle for the national bourgeoisie (what about foreign bourgeoisie?) even if we saw clearly that there is "a reactionary trend" of furthering the drive towards privatization...spearheaded by the very same state officials which were supposed to act in workers' favour in stead?
Not at nearly the pace nor the range that the capitalist class wants.

1) effective capitalist (so called "subsumed capitalist class(es)"; you may want to google this out): the state manages accumulation of capital and engages in labour control (like every capitalist management does), as well as exploitation (you are familiar with Marx's concept of exploitation, are you?).Except this is an anti-materialist analysis. "The state" doesn't function in a capitalistic manner because its members do not fall into a capitalist role. They don't personally own the means of production or employ labor or turn a profit from exploiting workers.

2) the state furthers the process of privatization (would you like to change your mind and refute my conclusion based on the citations from those two sources?), but that process is peculiar to Belarus (in comparison with the Russian disaster). Once again, certain barriers to private investment are appropriate and they protect the workers from a disaster (if we conclude that the current satte of affairs is not a disaster). But that does not in any way contradict facts: the tendecny towards privatization hasn't been reversed or stopped. It's just managed.The state has been the single largest obstacle to privatization in the entire region. While every other government in the area has gone to town with privatization, Belarus has not, and still sees around 50% of workers employed by the state and around 80% of industry outside of private hands. The existence of the capitalist class, too, is dependent not on its own state power (because it has none) but on the Belarusian state allowing it to. But anyway, until you show us that the state is controlled fully by the capitalist class, you're arguing with your own shadow.

1) Man, what's up with your tendency anxiety? Do you feel so insecure when you can't locate someone within your system of preconceived political folders? You better get that checked out.

2) What's up with "yo momma" attitude? It seems like teen angst is getting the best of your political convictions and analytical power. Maybe you should wait until maturity comes (on the wings of a fairy, of course) and then engage in this kind of activity?1.) An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory. Not willing to walk the walk? I'll point it out, even if it hurts your feelings.

2.) :lol: And I quote from one of your more sophisticated passages: Try it sometimes, dickhead. Hypocrisy much?

Wow, and I thought you are a staunch opponent of manichaeism. I though it isn't about black vs. white, condemn vs. defend.
To clarify, your refusal to defend this act stems from your legalistic moralism ("criminal activity"). To condemn "criminal violence" perpetrated against property of a fucking casino is to engage in exactly that - legalistic moralism bordering on liberalism.Yeah, too bad you're talking nonsense. It's not moralism, it's pointing out the silly and unprogressive nature of attacking casinos and embassies in the context of Belarus. You can't bring yourself to see the basic realities of the issue, and so you resort to some jab about "moralism" that you can neither quantify nor explain. But just to reiterate the absurdity of your position: you don't even defend what I'm refusing to defend, and then you want to condemn me for that.

But then again, you already admitted that you "don't have a point", so your little spiel about "moralism" is just more aimless ramblings from an aimless mindset.

EDIT: oh yeah, would you like to defend your original intervention into Marxist theory which contends (your intervention, that is) that labour power appears as a commodity only in some instances in capitalist society?We've already been over this. Let me know when you want to address what I write, ok?

What happened in Spain was an interesting experiment, but ultimately what was increasingly becoming a vertically integrated system of managment by the CNT wouldn't have been condusive to a socialist system, no. The fact that they supported the capitalist republican state showed that they would sell out the class for a little political expediency, just like every other failed attempt at communism/socialism to ever exist on a large scale.
That may be so. But are you saying it was a form of capitalism?

manic expression

1st May 2011, 07:39

what exists in belarus is not in anyway comparable to what existed in catalonia and the economic situation is a lot different in 2011 than it was in 1936, especially in spain which was one of the least industrialized nations and catalonia especially had a large agrarian community. finally i don't think they existed long enough or in a climate where anything certain can be deduced. but to address the topic, i think the communes were a real attempt to build something outside capitalism and some aspects came closer than others- abolishing money in some areas for instance, or free distribution of goods, but many areas probably operated more or less as worker managed capitalism, which is obviously preferable but still not the goal we're pushing for.
Wait, hold on one second. If workers control the means of production, it's capitalism? But anyway...the point is that countries aren't capitalist just because they exist in a mostly capitalist world.

i've never said they were a puppet, i've said that they are aligning themselves with a different imperialist interest, not resisting imperialism.
Belarus has been at odds with Russian interests as well as NATO/US interests.

the cpc is the capitalist class.
No, it isn't. Capitalist classes don't lead working-class revolutions and such.

the state fulfills the capitalist position.
No, it doesn't, and it can't under the circumstances we're discussing. Unless individual bureaucrats are owning the means of production, buying labor power, making direct profit from exploitation, then there's no capitalist relationship.

presumably they deny their guilt as they are taking it to trial.
That's fine...but is anyone here arguing that they're definitely innocent?

i don't think seizing state power is pro-revolutionary and would oppose them from the point on, certainly, and probably sooner since i feel the same about guerrilla war. but if their members were being threatened with prison by the dictatorship of the time, yes i would take their side over the dictatorship and say they should not be persecuted.
OK, so you don't support everything done from a "pro-revolutionary perspective"...which I guess makes us even.

it doesn't matter that belarus is not the us (i said as much in the same post), its the basic principle of standing with comrades however much we disagree with them when they are faced with imprisonment and persecution.
I don't think they were doing anything progressive in the reported actions.

well yes, presumably they want to fight for an anarchist society, not nicer capitalism but lacking the social force to do that i don't see how it matters and if they achieved the social force for it, that would probably be a positive sign.
That doesn't have much bearing on the present situation, however.

so on the one hand anarchists are a pathetic ineffective minority, but on the other they are going to "weaken the state?" if they got to the point where they could threaten the state i think it would be well within their power to also threaten anyone trying to give shock therapy.
If they had their way they would weaken the state, which would play into the hands of the Shock Therapists.

Thirsty Crow

1st May 2011, 10:05

Not at nearly the pace nor the range that the capitalist class wants.Irrelevant.

Except this is an anti-materialist analysis. "The state" doesn't function in a capitalistic manner because its members do not fall into a capitalist role. They don't personally own the means of production or employ labor or turn a profit from exploiting workers.Anti-materialist?
Isn't it "anti-materialist" to suggest that state enterprises in Belarus do not function as capitalist enterprises? Even if they were enabled to work with net loss, exploitation would still occur in one form or another (income taxes may be viewed, in this situation, as a mechanism of exploitation, since enterprise revenue is probably supplanted with tax revenue, and this would only happen in the case of firms operating at a loss). And how do managers of state firms not employ workers?
I again invite you to examine Marx's comments on Proudhon and workers' cooperatives (where you have a "collective" capitalist). You failed to comment on this point. Next.

The state has been the single largest obstacle to privatization in the entire region. While every other government in the area has gone to town with privatization, Belarus has not, and still sees around 50% of workers employed by the state and around 80% of industry outside of private hands. The existence of the capitalist class, too, is dependent not on its own state power (because it has none) but on the Belarusian state allowing it to. But anyway, until you show us that the state is controlled fully by the capitalist class, you're arguing with your own shadow.My contention is not that individual capitalists outside the state apparatus control this very sam state apparatus. I explained clearly what I wish to communicate and you failed to refute it.
But to emphasize again - yes, I understand that the Belarussian state has had a positive role in slowing down the process of privatization. We agree on that. However, what ypu are suggesting as the conclusion stemming from this fact, does not follow at all.
For example, the crooked govbernment of the center-right in the contry where I live has also stopped the drive towards privatization (waters, electric company, railways), although it cannot be compared to the Belarussian state. So, should I conclude that they are still progressive, but not so much as the Belarussian state?

1.) An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory. Not willing to walk the walk? I'll point it out, even if it hurts your feelings.OK. It seems that your preferable mode of communication is throwing up quotes or paraphrases which are hardly relevant. And are you a mage or something, since it seems that you know all about my committment or the lack of it:blink::blink:

2.) :lol: And I quote from one of your more sophisticated passages: Try it sometimes, dickhead. Hypocrisy much?Okay, sorry. But y'know, elitist arrogance can sometimes get the best of me.

Yeah, too bad you're talking nonsense. It's not moralism, it's pointing out the silly and unprogressive nature of attacking casinos and embassies in the context of Belarus. You can't bring yourself to see the basic realities of the issue, and so you resort to some jab about "moralism" that you can neither quantify nor explain. But just to reiterate the absurdity of your position: you don't even defend what I'm refusing to defend, and then you want to condemn me for that.Boy you don't understand, do you?

There is an act of condemnation and there is a position from which one condemns something. I am critiquing the position you took.
Legalism: emphasis on "criminal activity"
Moralism: "unprogressive nature of attacking casinos in the context of Belarus"

We've already been over this. Let me know when you want to address what I write, ok?No, we have not. I'm still waiting for an expose on fairy's magic which somehow makes labour powe, employed in producing commodities, something other than a commodity (the implication of your claim is that labour power is emancipated, no longer alienated labour, when it comes to state firms). You didn't provide any evidence for this claim which goes against the very tenets of Marxist class analysis and economic thought.

Care to try again?

black magick hustla

1st May 2011, 12:36

OK, so a.) you're a troll and you admit it, and b.) you have no idea what you're talking about. Keep up the Starbucks-window-smashing "militancy".
everybody in this forum is a fucking troll except people who are too old to troll

No, liberal is feigning shock and horror when the world doesn't revolve around your idealistic fantasies, usually combined with a naive misunderstanding of politics. That's what you expressed when you said "murderous geopolitics". Just out of curiosity, what "murder" are you referring to?

really, i thought liberalism was a current that developed out of the enlightement not some sort of mood. i guess wikipedia lied to me

about "murderious geopolitics" i dont feel like wrting a whole paper about something that is evident, namely that the psl is a fossil of cold war mentality and sees everything in terms of states and geopolitics rather than classes.

you must be a riot among your friends such fine comedic qualities

:laugh:

im p. funny irl ask bcbm or il medico theyve met me

RedSunRising

1st May 2011, 17:05

Anyone who defends attacks against casinos needs to get slapped. Hard.

You dont understand though that it eastern Europe casinos are very much a symbol of the arrogance of the "new rich". Hence the attack on them.

bcbm

1st May 2011, 17:31

Wait, hold on one second. If workers control the means of production, it's capitalism?

there are several co-ops in my town. they are nice places to work but i would not describe them as anti-capitalist, or existing in any way outside of commodity relations.

But anyway...the point is that countries aren't capitalist just because they exist in a mostly capitalist world.

the only people not integrated into capital are some uncontacted tribes in south america and asia. belarus exists firmly within a capitalist world and acts as a capitalist power. the relations in belarus are capitalist. the function of the state is capitalist.

Belarus has been at odds with Russian interests as well as NATO/US interests.

their interests are clearly more aligned with russia. they want cheap gas and protection.

No, it isn't. Capitalist classes don't lead working-class revolutions and such.

the cpc is not leading a working class revolution, indeed the working class in china is organizing and acting against them.

No, it doesn't, and it can't under the circumstances we're discussing. Unless individual bureaucrats are owning the means of production, buying labor power, making direct profit from exploitation, then there's no capitalist relationship.

the state is the boss, the worker is the worker. the state makes profit and invests it in other projects to make more profit. things are bought and sold. this is capitalism.

That's fine...but is anyone here arguing that they're definitely innocent?

what does "definitely" mean here? they deny it and are taking it to trial. that's enough.

OK, so you don't support everything done from a "pro-revolutionary perspective"...which I guess makes us even.

no but i am principled enough to support comrades against capitalist states

I don't think they were doing anything progressive in the reported actions.

well for one, if we assume they are innocent then it doesn't matter what actions they are accused of, we should support them regardless of what the state claims they did. and even if they did, this does not have any bearing on supporting them or not.

That doesn't have much bearing on the present situation, however.

If they had their way they would weaken the state, which would play into the hands of the Shock Therapists.

belarus seems to be playing into their hands on its own well enough, but if they had their way it seems they would probably prefer an anarchist revolution which i doubt would play into shock therapists hands, or they would want the state to stop performing joint military exercises with russia, stop suppressing strikes and workers organizing, stop the increased privatization and growth in social inequality...

manic expression

1st May 2011, 18:28

Irrelevant.
Not irrelevant for the workers who would stand to lose a great deal otherwise. Not irrelevant to Belarusian capitalists who would privatize most of that in an instant if they could. Not irrelevant to the average life expectancy of the country.

Anti-materialist?
Isn't it "anti-materialist" to suggest that state enterprises in Belarus do not function as capitalist enterprises? Even if they were enabled to work with net loss, exploitation would still occur in one form or another (income taxes may be viewed, in this situation, as a mechanism of exploitation, since enterprise revenue is probably supplanted with tax revenue, and this would only happen in the case of firms operating at a loss). And how do managers of state firms not employ workers?
Again, you're trying to imagine that because you argue something, it's true. You haven't shown us that Belarusian bureaucrats function as capitalists, you haven't shown us that you can employ workers directly as a bureaucrat and extract profit from buying their labor and owning the means of production.

I again invite you to examine Marx's comments on Proudhon and workers' cooperatives (where you have a "collective" capitalist). You failed to comment on this point. Next.
I didn't comment on it because you didn't demonstrate its validity in regard to the issue at hand. How would you specifically compare the example in Marx's comments with the large-scale economy of Belarus that is basically split between nationalized and privatized production?

My contention is not that individual capitalists outside the state apparatus control this very sam state apparatus. I explained clearly what I wish to communicate and you failed to refute it.
But to emphasize again - yes, I understand that the Belarussian state has had a positive role in slowing down the process of privatization. We agree on that. However, what ypu are suggesting as the conclusion stemming from this fact, does not follow at all.
The conclusion follows from the recognition of these. We agree that capitalists outside of the state don't control the state, and we agree that the Belarusian state has slowed privatization in a region that has done the precise opposite at the bidding of the bourgeoisie. It is my contention that the capitalist class, following from the former and from my argument that state bureaucrats do not fulfill a capitalist role, does not hold state power. It is also my contention, following from the latter, that the Belarusian state has many progressive elements that are far more beneficial to the workers than the most likely alternative.

For example, the crooked govbernment of the center-right in the contry where I live has also stopped the drive towards privatization (waters, electric company, railways), although it cannot be compared to the Belarussian state. So, should I conclude that they are still progressive, but not so much as the Belarussian state?
I think the nationalization of those industries is common to bourgeois regimes who find it beneficial ("natural monopolies" and all that silliness)...and anyway it is clear for many reasons that Croatia (I'm assuming that's where you live) has been under the control of the capitalists for years, which I argue is not the case in Belarus. Further, IIRC Belarus has around 80% or so of its industry outside of private hands...so it's a much different picture as you noted, so much so that it's not a serious comparison.

OK. It seems that your preferable mode of communication is throwing up quotes or paraphrases which are hardly relevant. And are you a mage or something, since it seems that you know all about my committment or the lack of it:blink::blink:
I wasn't trying to say that, it wasn't a personal charge. I was saying that in addition to analyzing the world leftist tendencies should be politically active.

Boy you don't understand, do you?

There is an act of condemnation and there is a position from which one condemns something. I am critiquing the position you took.
Legalism: emphasis on "criminal activity"
Moralism: "unprogressive nature of attacking casinos in the context of Belarus"
Do you deny that it's unprogressive? How would you argue that it is progressive? My problem isn't that it's illegal, my problem is that it doesn't accomplish anything and further is part of a condemnation of a state that leftists shouldn't condemn without reservation.

No, we have not. I'm still waiting for an expose on fairy's magic which somehow makes labour powe, employed in producing commodities, something other than a commodity (the implication of your claim is that labour power is emancipated, no longer alienated labour, when it comes to state firms). You didn't provide any evidence for this claim which goes against the very tenets of Marxist class analysis and economic thought.
Workers employed in the nationalized sectors don't see their labor controlled within a market. The market in Belarus is denied access to their labor power. This is my contention, that the considerable number of workers who are not employed by private industry are not employed by the capitalist class.

manic expression

1st May 2011, 18:55

everybody in this forum is a fucking troll except people who are too old to troll
You mean people over the age of 12?

really, i thought liberalism was a current that developed out of the enlightement not some sort of mood. i guess wikipedia lied to meThat's classical liberalism...the term has evolved over time. And Pro Tip: leftists have a different understanding of some terms than capitalists do.

about "murderious geopolitics" i dont feel like wrting a whole paper about something that is evident, namely that the psl is a fossil of cold war mentality and sees everything in terms of states and geopolitics rather than classes.Yeah, a fossil of the Cold War...founded in 2003. :rolleyes:

im p. funny irl ask bcbm or il medico theyve met meSo you keep saying... :lol:

there are several co-ops in my town. they are nice places to work but i would not describe them as anti-capitalist, or existing in any way outside of commodity relations.
Would you compare that to what happened in Catalonia? The capitalist class was being expropriated, a much different thing than having several co-ops in a town.

the only people not integrated into capital are some uncontacted tribes in south america and asia. belarus exists firmly within a capitalist world and acts as a capitalist power. the relations in belarus are capitalist. the function of the state is capitalist.All of these statements are untrue. See my previous answers.

their interests are clearly more aligned with russia. they want cheap gas and protection."More aligned", OK, but that doesn't make them Robin to Russia's Batman.

the cpc is not leading a working class revolution, indeed the working class in china is organizing and acting against them.The CPC did and continues to defend some of the legacies of that revolution. The working class revolts against corruption and capitalist influence, which all progressives oppose.

the state is the boss, the worker is the worker. the state makes profit and invests it in other projects to make more profit. things are bought and sold. this is capitalism.The state isn't The Blob, it isn't a carbon-based life-form, it's made up of individual members. Those members aren't "the boss" in the capitalist sense because they don't own private property, they don't directly employ workers and they don't make money directly from exploitation. Calling the state "the boss" ignores what bosses actually do in favor of a coarse and vastly oversimplified understanding of class dynamics.

what does "definitely" mean here? they deny it and are taking it to trial. that's enough.Yes, we know they deny their guilt. Do you? Does anyone here?

no but i am principled enough to support comrades against capitalist statesI'm asking that you honestly analyze what it is that they're "against". The state you oppose is among the strongest obstacles to that region's capitalist class right now.

well for one, if we assume they are innocent then it doesn't matter what actions they are accused of, we should support them regardless of what the state claims they did. and even if they did, this does not have any bearing on supporting them or not.Is there any reason to assume that? I don't see one. But I'm not going to endorse actions and support them "just cause"...I find that unprincipled. It seems you're trying to find a way to apologize for them just because they call themselves anarchists.

belarus seems to be playing into their hands on its own well enough, but if they had their way it seems they would probably prefer an anarchist revolution which i doubt would play into shock therapists hands, or they would want the state to stop performing joint military exercises with russia, stop suppressing strikes and workers organizing, stop the increased privatization and growth in social inequality...This is exactly what I mean. "Their hands"...whose hands are those? You refer to the whole of Belarus as if it were one big top-hat wearing capitalist, which it isn't. To the contrary, the Belarusian state is an obstacle to Belarusian capitalists, which is greatly beneficial to Belarusian workers. You aren't trying to distinguish between these.

Further, they can "prefer an anarchist revolution" all day long...it doesn't change the fact that weakening the state hurts workers in the present circumstances. When your alternative to the progressive aspects of the Belarusian state is "anarchist revolution", you don't have a workable alternative.

RedSunRising

1st May 2011, 19:34

Lets say for the moment that Belarus IS actually Socialist (which I dont believe) still than Alexander Lukashenko would be a revisionist and a capitalist roader, still the anarchists would have attacked symbols of the capitalist road being took and protested rightly against co-operation with a regime that is verging on fascism according to the Russian Maoist Party. So even if it was Socialist my views on this subject wouldnt change substanially.

bcbm

1st May 2011, 20:20

Would you compare that to what happened in Catalonia?

i thought we were doing an inane comparisons contest?

The capitalist class was being expropriated, a much different thing than having several co-ops in a town.

i agree

All of these statements are untrue. See my previous answers.

"yes it is" "no its not" "yes" "no"

agree to disagree this isn't going anywhere

"More aligned", OK, but that doesn't make them Robin to Russia's Batman.

i don't think i ever said it did?

The CPC did and continues to defend some of the legacies of that revolution. The working class revolts against corruption and capitalist influence, which all progressives oppose.

"some"

The state isn't The Blob, it isn't a carbon-based life-form, it's made up of individual members. Those members aren't "the boss" in the capitalist sense because they don't own private property, they don't directly employ workers and they don't make money directly from exploitation. Calling the state "the boss" ignores what bosses actually do in favor of a coarse and vastly oversimplified understanding of class dynamics.

capitalism is dynamic, but again this isn't ever going to go anywhere so w/e

Yes, we know they deny their guilt. Do you? Does anyone here?

presumably since people are "in solidarity" with them and supporting them against the state, yes.

I'm asking that you honestly analyze what it is that they're "against".

militarism, suppression of worker organization, growing social inequality, the global financial system

The state you oppose is among the strongest obstacles to that region's capitalist class right now.

by increasing privatization, cooperating with them, etc

Is there any reason to assume that? I don't see one. But I'm not going to endorse actions and support them "just cause"...I find that unprincipled. It seems you're trying to find a way to apologize for them just because they call themselves anarchists.

it is supporting people who are comrades against state persecution, not endorsing actions. there is no need to make apologies, they claim innocence.

This is exactly what I mean. "Their hands"...whose hands are those? You refer to the whole of Belarus as if it were one big top-hat wearing capitalist, which it isn't. To the contrary, the Belarusian state is an obstacle to Belarusian capitalists, which is greatly beneficial to Belarusian workers. You aren't trying to distinguish between these.

it seems to operate more as a partner or competitor than an obstacle. yes it is better for the workers than shock therapy. no, it shouldn't be persecuting these anarchists.

Further, they can "prefer an anarchist revolution" all day long...it doesn't change the fact that weakening the state hurts workers in the present circumstances. When your alternative to the progressive aspects of the Belarusian state is "anarchist revolution", you don't have a workable alternative.

how does breaking a few windows "weaken the state?" you seem to have more faith in the abilities of anarchist tactics than most anarchists.