Things were better off under the reds

[Paul Cockshott]

Good review of decline in conditions for most people since capitalism was restored in the East 20 years ago (http://gowans.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/we-lived-better-then/)

I particularly like the intro about Havel who recently died:


Over two decades ago Vaclav Havel, the pampered scion of a wealthy Prague family, helped usher in a period of reaction, in which the holdings and estates of former landowners and captains of industry were restored to their previous owners, while unemployment, homelessness, and insecurity—abolished by the Reds– were put back on the agenda. Havel is eulogized by the usual suspects, but not by his numberless victims, who were pushed back into an abyss of exploitation by the Velvet revolution and other retrograde eruptions. With the fall of Communism allowing Havel and his brother to recover their family’s vast holdings, Havel’s life—he worked in a brewery under Communism—became much richer. The same can’t be said for countless others, whose better lives under the Reds were swept away by a swindle that will, in the coming days, be lionized in the mass media on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Soviet Union’s demolition. The anniversary is no time for celebration, except for the minority that has profited from it. For the bulk of us it ought to be an occasion to reflect on what the bottom 99 percent of humanity was able to achieve for ourselves outside the strictures, instabilities and unnecessary cruelties of capitalism
Another telling extract:



Ion Vancea, a Romanian who struggles to get by on a picayune $40 per month pension says, “It’s true there was not much to buy back then, but now prices are so high we can’t afford to buy food as well as pay for electricity.” Echoing the words of many Romanians, Vancea adds, “Life was 10 times better under (Romanian Communist Party leader Nicolae) Ceausescu.” [14] An opinion poll carried out last year found that Vancea isn’t in the minority. Conducted by the Romanian polling organisation CSOP, the survey found that almost one-half of Romanians thought life was better under Ceauşescu, compared to less than one-quarter who thought life is better today. And while Ceauşescu is remembered in the West as a Red devil with horns, only seven percent said they suffered under Communism. Why do half of Romanians think life was better under the Reds? They point to full employment, decent living conditions for all, and guaranteed housing – advantages that disappeared with the fall of Communism. [15]

Next door, in Bulgaria, 80 percent say they are worse off now that the country has transitioned to a market economy. Only five percent say their standard of living has improved. [16] Mimi Vitkova, briefly Bulgaria’s health minister for two years in the mid-90s, sums up life after the overthrow of socialism: “We were never a rich country, but when we had socialism our children were healthy and well-fed. They all got immunized. Retired people and the disabled were provided for and got free medicine. Our hospitals were free.” But things have changed, she says. “Today, if a person has no money, they have no right to be cured. And most people have no money. Our economy was ruined.” [17] A 2009 poll conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found that a paltry one in nine Bulgarians believe ordinary people are better off as a result of the transition to capitalism. And few regard the state as representing their interests. Only 16 percent say it is run for the benefit of all people. [18]

[SVeach94]

It appears the people of the Eastern Bloc were willing to trade a social safety net for political freedom.

[danyboy27]

It appears the people of the Eastern Bloc were willing to trade a social safety net for political freedom.

i doubt they knew they would be screwed like that, most people wanted to keep their social safety net but the new ''great leaders'' of the free market decided otherwise.

they traded one kind of opression for another, but all they really wanted is to remove all opression.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

propoganda can go extremely far to hurt other people:(

[RadioRaheem84]

I am sure the people of the East wanted a sort of democratic socialist state that went a bit further than the Scandanavian democracies of Western Europe. They were not looking for these free market paradises that people like Jeff Sachs wanted to instill on them.

Their nostalgia is no different than the baby boom generation that remembers that their household could get by on one parent working, no debt, and everything was relatively more affordable.

Only difference is that the people in the East know that state capitalism/socialism brought them that standard of living while the American baby boom generation refuses to admit that it was advanced class struggle by the workers in the 30s that gave them most of they remember.

[Arlekino]

Very truth we are nostalgic of the past. Majority wish to bring times back because we don't move on with better life seems we are more poorer than before. As for ordinary people when from wages need to pay for education, health care and utilities builds, they wish dig back Stalin. Many of older people wished Stalinist regime back.

[Black_Rose]

It appears the people of the Eastern Bloc were willing to trade a social safety net for political freedom.
No, they were hoodwinked and duped by the rhetoric of free-market capitalism bedecked in the raiment of human-rights, developmental economics, and political liberalism; it is not a "decision" they made rationally.

[Black_Rose]

BTW, what does the Left Communists think of Stephen Gowans?

[Impulse97]

BTW, what does the Left Communists think of Stephen Gowans?


Never heard of him.

[DinodudeEpic]

Free markets and political freedom don't lead to poverty....

Capitalism does, with it's corporations and such.

And, state-sanctioned economic oppression too. Life wasn't great in Stalinist dictators at all.

[Comrade Hill]

Free markets and political freedom don't lead to poverty....

Capitalism does, with it's corporations and such.

And, state-sanctioned economic oppression too. Life wasn't great in Stalinist dictators at all.

I'm not sure I understand this? What is the difference between a free market and capitalism?

Although in reality there's really no "free market."

[Veovis]

It appears the people of the Eastern Bloc were willing to trade a social safety net for political freedom.

Who gives a flying crap about the difference between Candidate A and Candidate B when you don't have a job and can't buy food?

[Comrade Samuel]

Who gives a flying crap about the difference between Candidate A and Candidate B when you don't have a job and can't buy food?

Especially when both candidates couldent care less about you haveing a job or food and only wish to see more money in their own pockets.

[Veovis]

I am sure the people of the East wanted a sort of democratic socialist state that went a bit further than the Scandanavian democracies of Western Europe. They were not looking for these free market paradises that people like Jeff Sachs wanted to instill on them.

A documentary I watched a while ago about the final days of East Germany (I forgot what it was called but I think it's on Netflix) interviewed one of the leaders of the student opposition as she looked back on the movement's activities during the fall of the Berlin Wall. She explained how they wanted to take the best of the East and the West and combine them into a new German constitution, but she and her movement ended up disappointed when the unification turned out to be less of a unification and more of an annexing of the East to the West.

[Omsk]

I wrote a lot about the problem of the two Germanies,basically,people in the East were bombarded with messages and propaganda,mostly about the life in the West,where they,according to the capitalists,would live the lives of lords.

Of course,in reality,the situation was much different.People that crossed to the West lost everything they had,many separated families and unfufilled dreams.

Do you think the people who went from the East to the West really did find themselves in a paradise?
There were countless casses of students (Education in the DDR) who in the West became mere cleaners or minor buirocrats.
Do you think the people looked upon them as friends,with sympathy?Many were labeled as Reds or agents for their entire life.

And after the unification,the many soldiers,officers of the NVA suddenly faced a real problem,they were members of an army that ceased to exist,and the new army offered them little or nothing.

And plus,the promisses of a rich East under capitalism turned out to be fantasy,as the East of Germany still falls behind to the other parts of the country.

Another huge problem was the rise of nazism and fascism,ideologies unthinkable in the DDR.

[Rafiq]

Free markets and political freedom don't lead to poverty....


Take your free markets and political freedom and shove them up your ass

[Black_Rose]

BTW, has any left-communist read that article?

Yes, I have an intention of "baiting" the left-communists ("ultra-leftist") with this response as I do love Stephen Gowans' work since he seems to be an intellectual paladin for Marxism-Leninism. I am asking what do the "ultra-leftists" have to say about the best (to the best of my knowledge) intellectual content and contemporary analysis of history and current events that Marxism-Leninism has to offer? Is there any disagreement with the content of that article among the left-communists.

To clarify, I wanted to provoke an antagonistic (though civil and congruent with proper forum decorum) response among the left-communists to see what precisely do they find inadequate with Marxist-Leninist regimes or the written material of ML authors.

He's an M-L with good, dominating stuff.


To put a pitching metaphor (in the format of a scouting report) on Gowans' competence:


he's a hard-throwing lefty with a sinking fastball, with good tailing movement , that consistently reaches 97 mph (averaging 93.5 mph), a cutter that can reach 92 (averages 89), a big-breaking 12-6 curveball averging 77 mph, and an average change-up around 84-87 mph that is occasionally used. He possesses excellent command on all his offerings and can locate them at will on any quadrant of the strikezone, but prefers to locate the majority of his pitches low and away to induce weak ground balls and to keep the ball in the ballpark, but likes to exploit his power by going upstairs his fastball and cutter in two-strike counts to elicit swinging strikes. Intermittently uses his curve to disrupt opposing hitters timing and prevent hitters from sitting on his fastball. He pitches efficiently and frugally, keeping his pitch count low, allowing him to pitch deep into ball games, because he sparingly surrenders walks and consistently gets ahead in the count. He can depend on both the strikeout and ground ball to escape jams.K/9: 8.4; BB/9: 1.6; HR/9: 0.5


Reading Gowans' articles is a magnificent intellectual experience, like watching Clayton Kershaw pitch a complete-game shutout. Like Kershaw, he's got great stuff! So, left-communists, step up the plate. :)

[piet11111]

Freedom for the poor to buy a ferrari same as the rich
Legal equality where the rich as well as the poor are forbidden to sleep on park benches.

Wow what a great deal and all that for the low low price of job guarantee free education and healthcare and always a roof over your head.

[RadioRaheem84]

what was missing in their lives that they felt they needed western freedom?

I am sure they were tired of the State paranoia constantly watching over their every move.

But what is it about their day to day routine that was so mundane that they felt the need to sacrifice it for the freedom to one day own a Ferrari?

It's so odd the way humans work. I look at Socialist Albania and could only dream to have free education, living stipend and go to the farthest reaches one can go in higher education. Not to mention having the burden of rent lifted off one's shoulders and the notion that I do not have to worry about finding a job to pay all of my living expenses.

I am literally living to subsit in order to replentish myself daily to make someone else richer. Some right wing asshat will tell me that I have the choice to leave or move upward, but I just want to say that the choices shouldn't be so narrow like that.

Just what concepts of freedom did the people in the East believed they lacked (besides political ones)?

[Paul Cockshott]

BTW, has any left-communist read that article?



To clarify, I wanted to provoke an antagonistic (though civil and congruent with proper forum decorum) response among the left-communists to see what precisely do they find inadequate with Marxist-Leninist regimes or the written material of ML authors.



I was wondering the same thing myself.

[DinodudeEpic]

what was missing in their lives that they felt they needed western freedom?

I am sure they were tired of the State paranoia constantly watching over their every move.

But what is it about their day to day routine that was so mundane that they felt the need to sacrifice it for the freedom to one day own a Ferrari?

It's so odd the way humans work. I look at Socialist Albania and could only dream to have free education, living stipend and go to the farthest reaches one can go in higher education. Not to mention having the burden of rent lifted off one's shoulders and the notion that I do not have to worry about finding a job to pay all of my living expenses.

I am literally living to subsit in order to replentish myself daily to make someone else richer. Some right wing asshat will tell me that I have the choice to leave or move upward, but I just want to say that the choices shouldn't be so narrow like that.



Just what concepts of freedom did the people in the East believed they lacked (besides political ones)?

I guess that they wanted to have the freedom to run their own businesses, instead of the state doing it for them.

Of course, capitalism hasn't given that freedom, except for the 5% percent of the population. (Who ironically were often party members in the communist party or state bureaucrats.)

There is also the issue of nationalism, since people just simply didn't want to have their national governments be puppets to the Soviet Union. Then again, the current capitalist states in Eastern Europe are all US-friendly.

For Rafiq: Nice immature comment...so how exactly is personal freedom and free markets horrifying abominations? If you mean the lack of welfare, then let me say that free markets and welfare are not contradictory at all. Just let the government provide public goods and services without interfering into the market. But, we can always have a debate on the subject somewhere else. How about a debate?

(Sorry for the off-topic, but I want to avoid what happened in the 0.1% thread...)

[Rafiq]

I was wondering the same thing myself.

I think it's obvious those countries were failures in that they are no longer existing.

Obviously the 20th century "Marxist Leninist" model didn't provide itself a solution to the internal contradictions within capitalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

BTW, has any left-communist read that article?

Yes, I have an intention of "baiting" the left-communists ("ultra-leftist")

Many of them were banned recently for questionable board activity.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yes, I have an intention of "baiting" the left-communists ("ultra-leftist") with this response as I do love Stephen Gowans' work since he seems to be an intellectual paladin for Marxism-Leninism. I am asking what do the "ultra-leftists" have to say about the best (to the best of my knowledge) intellectual content and contemporary analysis of history and current events that Marxism-Leninism has to offer? Is there any disagreement with the content of that article among the left-communists.

What's to disagree with? That the quality of life for many in eastern Europe has gone down? Well, yes, but I don't really see what the significance of that is. I live much better than someone who occupies a menial job in, say, Sudan, but we both live under the same basic system. Whether or not a country has an excellent package of social services to offer it's citizens doesn't really reflect how "socialist" it is. The glowing appraisals of the eastern bloc economies in the beginning is dishonest, as well...to name only one instance, the GDR commisioned a report to see how well it was actually coming along when compared to it's propaganda related to it's supposed pristine environmental record. The report came back and said, basically, that the record was a disaster, much worse than expected, after which the report's findings were pretty much swept under the rug.

I think one of the biggest contributing factors to the eventual stagnation of all those regimes was the leadership's seeming inability to actually look at their situation in any way even approaching objectivity. Everyone got too drunk on their own ideological booze, a problem that persists today. Not that I'm not sometimes guilty of it.


To clarify, I wanted to provoke an antagonistic (though civil and congruent with proper forum decorum) response among the left-communists to see what precisely do they find inadequate with Marxist-Leninist regimes or the written material of ML authors.

They find the regimes inadequate because (I'd imagine...I'm do consider myself to be a left communist) of multiple things...how they were conceived...their direction and what they placed emphasis on...their ultimate end...etc. Honestly how could anyone find Marxist-Leninist regimes "adequate" anymore, those regimes popped up at a specific time and that time's over, they failed (although they're not the only ones on the left who did). And please don't pull out the tired old "but liberal democracy failed before it was successful too!" routine...

[Paul Cockshott]

What's to disagree with? That the quality of life for many in eastern Europe has gone down? Well, yes, but I don't really see what the significance of that is.

It may not have much significance to you if you are not the one experiencing the decline in quality of life, but for the people experiencing it, it mattered a lot.

I live much better than someone who occupies a menial job in, say, Sudan, but we both live under the same basic system.

Well if you can not see the difference in social relations of production and conditions of life between the Sudan and North America or Europe, then your experience of the world is limited.


Whether or not a country has an excellent package of social services to offer it's citizens doesn't really reflect how "socialist" it is.


If socialism is not going to offer better living standards than capitalism to the majority nor an excellent package of free social services, why should people support it?







They find the regimes inadequate because (I'd imagine...I'm do consider myself to be a left communist) of multiple things...how they were conceived...their direction and what they placed emphasis on...their ultimate end...etc. Honestly how could anyone find Marxist-Leninist regimes "adequate" anymore, those regimes popped up at a specific time and that time's over, they failed (although they're not the only ones on the left who did). And please don't pull out the tired old "but liberal democracy failed before it was successful too!" routine...

Well we know that they were historically 'inadequate' because they were replaced by capitalism, but on that basis so was the Commune of Paris. But this does not justify retrospective hostility to, and general denigration of the achievements of either the USSR or the Commune.

What the article points out is that public opinion in Eastern Europe, looking back on the communist period, thinks that they lived better then. This undermines the views of groups like the SWP who used to argue that there was nothing to chose between capitalism and what they described as 'state capitalism'. The experience of working class people who lived under both was that things were better when the Reds were in charge.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It may not have much significance to you if you are not the one experiencing the decline in quality of life, but for the people experiencing it, it mattered a lot.

OK


Well if you can not see the difference in social relations of production and conditions of life between the Sudan and North America or Europe, then your experience of the world is limited.

Of course there's a big difference between culture, quality of life etc but capitalism is an international system, it exists in an affluent suburb just as it exists in an Indian slum.


If socialism is not going to offer better living standards than capitalism to the majority nor an excellent package of free social services, why should people support it?

Hmm? My point was that a good array of social services doesn't indicate that socialism existed in such-and-such country. I'm not against higher living standards.


Well we know that they were historically 'inadequate' because they were replaced by capitalism, but on that basis so was the Commune of Paris. But this does not justify retrospective hostility to, and general denigration of the achievements of either the USSR or the Commune.

Yes, the Paris Commune was a failure. It's important to recognize why things failed and move on. Crying softly over the corpse of the USSR and the eastern bloc countries is pointless. And yes, I say that as someone who never experienced post-USSR misery. Maybe if I had I would have a different opinion. But I didnt so there you have it.


What the article points out is that public opinion in Eastern Europe, looking back on the communist period, thinks that they lived better then. This undermines the views of groups like the SWP who used to argue that there was nothing to chose between capitalism and what they described as 'state capitalism'. The experience of working class people who lived under both was that things were better when the Reds were in charge.

But the fact that there is something deliniated as "state capitalism" implies that there IS something to choose between, right? Just because the approval rating of a specific regime is better than another regime doesn't mean that there's any real fundamental difference in terms of wage labor or value, etc. Coca Cola was involved in manufacturing in the GDR (as were other companies, primarily for export), Yugoslavia was a popular tourist destination for western visitors, for two examples; if the people who lived in those states prefered them to what they have now, would that mean that their nations didn't exist within and participate in the same economic system that persists to this day? In my opinion, no. People see what they want to in approval ratings.

I'm just so sick of the endless corpse worshipping on the left. Like I said, maybe if I were to go through shock therapy in the eastern bloc I'd appreciate it more, I'm priviliged and I'm the first to admit that. But that doesn't mean that the opinions of people in those countries aren't biased in their own right. They are and using opinion polls as a way of deciding whether you should support X regime as a leftist is highly problematic.

[GatesofLenin]

We can see around the world, the effects of a growing capitalist system that cares for one thing only: profits! I'm surprised how many people fall for the propaganda of a "just and fair system" the West represents. The oligarchs and corporatists are growing fat on having cheap labor available in the former Eastern bloc countries. Washing dishes for fat cats is the new "American dream".

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

There is also the issue of nationalism, since people just simply didn't want to have their national governments be puppets to the Soviet Union. Then again, the current capitalist states in
Eastern Europe are all US-friendly.

I would say that would be the primary reason for the collapse of the Eastern bloc. The decade before had seen the stark rise of Polish nationalism (most notably in the trade unions and religion) for example, which is good for a nation that has been dominated for centuries by Germany and Russia (add the turks for the balkan states, as well as greece obviously).

As to the revolutionaries who removed the soviets, I think it would be a mistake to suggest that the majority wished to create states that would abandon all public ownership.

And the US is not liked everywhere, least of all serbia. But hopefully most places. I'm thinking of vacationing there, such a good deal compared to western europe (though I can't book now, as long as the euro's implosion might be around the corner).

[Paul Cockshott]

Of course there's a big difference between culture, quality of life etc but capitalism is an international system, it exists in an affluent suburb just as it exists in an Indian slum.


In large part though the Sudan is not a capitalist economy but combines elements of capitalism with feudalism, patriarchal herding economy, and in the south large parts of the economy are still involved in tribal horticulture and herding of a type that Engels characterised as barbarism.



Hmm? My point was that a good array of social services doesn't indicate that socialism existed in such-and-such country. I'm not against higher living standards.

I think that on the contrary the level of social services in a country is a good indicator of the power that the working class exercises over the political economy of that country. Since the political movement of the working classes has since the early 20th century been socialism, the provision of social services and the progress of the socialist movement have been connected.

Many of the things that were, perhaps temporarily, adopted in capitalist countries were borrowed from the socialist example:
http://indrus.in/articles/2011/12/22/five_things_we_never_thanked_the_soviet_union_for_ 14072.html



Yes, the Paris Commune was a failure. It's important to recognize why things failed and move on. Crying softly over the corpse of the USSR and the eastern bloc countries is pointless. And yes, I say that as someone who never experienced post-USSR misery. Maybe if I had I would have a different opinion. But I didnt so there you have it.

But the fact that there is something deliniated as "state capitalism" implies that there IS something to choose between, right? Just because the approval rating of a specific regime is better than another regime doesn't mean that there's any real fundamental difference in terms of wage labor or value, etc.

I can understand your aversion to sentimental retrospect, but my beef with people like the SWP who used the term State Capitalism, is that they were by this label unable to see the real problems that arise in a socialised economy and unable to propose economic policies that would do better.

In consequence such theorists have no theory of how to go forward to a new form of socialist economy that incorporates the positive as well as the negative lessons of past experience.

[RGacky3]

Take your free markets and political freedom and shove them up your ass

Ok, but if the Capitalist state censors you, or puts you in prison you better not let out a peep of complaint. Or say its "unjust" or whatever.


Just let the government provide public goods and services without interfering into the market. But, we can always have a debate on the subject somewhere else. How about a debate?


IT depends waht you mean by "free market" a market is'nt a singular thing, there are many different types of markets for many different types of things.

[Rafiq]

Ok, but if the Capitalist state censors you, or puts you in prison you better not let out a peep of complaint. Or say its "unjust" or whatever.


I won't, because I have no ethical standards for the bourgeois pigs. If I get caught I'll blame myself for not being cautious enough.

If a shark bites your leg off, do you blame the shark and morally criticize it?

[Cheung Mo]

East German women lost a litany of rights after reunification. Kind of funny that the ideology that was all about personal freedom didn't give two shits about the right of women to control their bodies and their lives. But we all knew that since the days of the Mujahideen. One literate woman is worth the blood of a million US-funded Islamists. :D

[RGacky3]

I won't, because I have no ethical standards for the bourgeois pigs. If I get caught I'll blame myself for not being cautious enough.

If a shark bites your leg off, do you blame the shark and morally criticize it?

No ... Because a shark is'nt a human ....

What if a proletarian state in prisons you and sends you to a gulag for your bourgoise past? You cool with that too? I take it you would be.

[Rafiq]

No ... Because a shark is'nt a human ....

You can't even articulate a simple analogy, then?

The point is that the proletariat should have the same attitude we have of Sharks toward the Bourgeoisie. They cannot be compromised with, they, like Sharks, will not give up their positions. This has been made clear. We have seen from not a century ago, what the Bourgeois class is willing to do to retain it's class power. The Bourgeois scum butchered 6 million Jews to stay in the position that they are in now, so what makes you think they are just going to give up now? I will say this with uttermost certainty: THe Bourgeoisie will assure the death of every individual on Planet Earth before they, within the constraints of their will, step down from class power. Like a fire that can only be communicated with in the language of water, the Bourgeois class can only be communicated with in the language of bullets, force and fire.

Okay, I'll break it down for baby gacky:

The Bourgeoisie serves capital. Their existence cannot be morally criticized, for their actions are merely a result of material and social conditoins, specifically feeding capital. Capitalism cannot survive without greed, therefore you shouldn't criticize the Bourgeois state because if you're fighting against it, it's war. When you are on the battlefield, you do not criticize your enemy for shooting you. Instead, you blame yourself for not being able to shoot them first.

We are for force and fire, not compromising with sharks. There is little difference in the moral expectations we should have between non humans and the Bourgeois pigs. It is clear, for us whose heads are out of our asses: They serve capital, they will do whatever they want, the only way to stop them is by force.



What if a proletarian state in prisons you and sends you to a gulag for your bourgoise past? You cool with that too? I take it you would be.


Never, in the history of any proletarian country, was a member of the Bourgeoisie, who joined the side of the workers imprisoned for having such a past. In fact, Marx specifically mentioned many members of the Bourgeoisie will join the side of the proletariat, come the revolution. Actually, to name a lot, Stalin had a petite bourgeois background, Lenin did as well, Felix Dzerzhinsky came from a family of nobles, etc. etc. etc.

Gacky, you're pathetic :laugh:

[Black_Rose]

No ... Because a shark is'nt a human ....

What if a proletarian state in prisons you and sends you to a gulag for your bourgoise past? You cool with that too? I take it you would be.

Although I regard mercy as a paramount virtue, I have to remind myself that a revolutionary has to be merciless on occasion, primarily out of the preservation and protection of the revolution from hostile elements. Also, why should one's humanity play an important role in this ethical judgment, especially when sharks also have the capacity to suffer? Unlike humans, sharks do not possess the mental faculties to grasp rudimentary morality, meaning that they are incapable of understanding the notion that other beings possess interests and preferences and that we ought to respect those interests. Instead, a shark primarily acts instinctively to maximize its Darwinian fitness in an attempt to propagate its genes to the next generation and ensure the survival of its offspring. Like a shark with its serrated teeth, some humans possess the capability to endanger the success of the revolution or disrupt the socialist order, and, since many of these people only regard their self-interest as their only objective (and often act at the expense of others to achieve their goals), it would be futile to morally reason with these incorrigible individuals. Thus, their amorality, ruthlessness, and predatory nature renders them dangerous, and should be dealt with expediently in order to ensure the success of the revolution.

It is often said that massacres and democide occur because the perpetrators dehumanize their victims, but by endorsing the exploitation and murder of other innocent human civilians (for instance the death squads in Columbia and Nicaragua, and Surharto's extermination of the communists and war against East Timor), these people have forfeited their humanity.

We should be merciless to the merciless!

-----

This is one reason why I am a Marxist-Leninist.

[Rafiq]

Morals are a mere reflection of material and social conditions. So if you have shit morals (like capitalists murdering, committing genocide) do not blame the morals themselves, instead attack the system in which such acts are necessary.

Greed, etc. Are not just "Personal" qualities in which capitalists have. They are literally necessary for the existence of capitalism to stay in tact. Even if a capitalist has "good" morals, capital does not.

If you end up in Jail, imprisoned by the Bourgeois state, and you complain, that would dignify the fact that you have high moral expectations from the Bourgeoisie, which means part of you is still soaked in bourgeois propaganda (Like your constant Idealism, etc.). Notice on the news, we get all this cheap moralism, about "X factory exploiting children in X place". This implies that they are actually shocked about it.

So, Gacky, now that we all know you have high ethical standards for the Bourgeois state, care to share anything else about your counterrevolutionary thought process?

[RGacky3]

You can't even articulate a simple analogy, then?


No I can, but its a shit analogy.

You don't morally judge animals for anything.


The point is that the proletariat should have the same attitude we have of Sharks toward the Bourgeoisie. They cannot be compromised with, they, like Sharks, will not give up their positions.

How do you account for yourself ... Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Lenin, a large bulk of all the revolutionaries ever.


it would be futile to morally reason with these incorrigible individuals. Thus, their amorality, ruthlessness, and predatory nature renders them dangerous, and should be dealt with expediently in order to ensure the success of the revolution.


No one is saying "reasoning" with capitalists is the way to go about things, your fighting against a strawman.

But your idea of class is totally unscientific and wrong.

Your idea of class basically brakes down to anyone that disagrees with you, its devoid of all real content, then once someone is of the "bourgeois" dispite their actual class position, off to the gulag.


It is often said that massacres and democide occur because the perpetrators dehumanize their victims, but by endorsing the exploitation and murder of other innocent human civilians (for instance the death squads in Columbia and Nicaragua, and Surharto's extermination of the communists and war against East Timor), these people have forfeited their humanity.

We should be merciless to the merciless!

-----

This is one reason why I am a Marxist-Leninist.

YOur morally judging the bourgeois as a class, as if its possible at all, you cannot, they work within a system.

If you can morally judge the bourgeois as a class, then don't complain when people to the same to Stalin.

People that do crimes go to trial and are sentanced accordingly, being born into a class is'nt a crime. Or disagreeing with the way YOU think a class should think is also not a crime.

Marxism-Leninism distorts what class is, it distorts marxism basically just to justify the totalitarian outcomes, and the mass murders of Marxist Leninist states.


Never, in the history of any proletarian country, was a member of the Bourgeoisie, who joined the side of the workers imprisoned for having such a past. In fact, Marx specifically mentioned many members of the Bourgeoisie will join the side of the proletariat, come the revolution. Actually, to name a lot, Stalin had a petite bourgeois background, Lenin did as well, Felix Dzerzhinsky came from a family of nobles, etc. etc. etc.


I beg to differ, there are plenty of examples of people in the party, with bourgeoisie backgrounds, who were charged with somehow being bourgeois operatives, if you want to I'll give you examples.

Your exmaples of Lenin, Stalin and so on, just shows your full of shit, thats my point exactly, they just used those arguments your defending to defend their system.

But lets say they DID, deem your ideas to be bourgeois, or treat you the way Pol Pot treated the upper middle class (I doubt he asked them what they thought of the reds).


Morals are a mere reflection of material and social conditions. So if you have shit morals (like capitalists murdering, committing genocide) do not blame the morals themselves, instead attack the system in which such acts are necessary.


Greed, etc. Are not just "Personal" qualities in which capitalists have. They are literally necessary for the existence of capitalism to stay in tact. Even if a capitalist has "good" morals, capital does not.


No shit. Your basically making my argument FOR me.


If you end up in Jail, imprisoned by the Bourgeois state, and you complain, that would dignify the fact that you have high moral expectations from the Bourgeoisie, which means part of you is still soaked in bourgeois propaganda (Like your constant Idealism, etc.). Notice on the news, we get all this cheap moralism, about "X factory exploiting children in X place". This implies that they are actually shocked about it.


No shit, I agree.

Seriously, o you guys have NO concept of understanding argument?

[Rafiq]

No I can, but its a shit analogy.

You don't morally judge animals for anything.

Then we don't morally Judge capitalists either, or their state. It is already pressupositioned that the interests of the proletariat are antithetical to the existence of capitalism.




How do you account for yourself ... Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Lenin, a large bulk of all the revolutionaries ever.


:confused: elaborate. I don't think it's possible to make out what you're trying to say here, in regards to the quoting post above.



No one is saying "reasoning" with capitalists is the way to go about things, your fighting against a strawman.

You just asked me if I would complain if the bourgeois state censors me and throws me in jail. So, if one is going to complain about that, that would imply he has to reason with the bourgeois state, let his complaint be heard.




If you can morally judge the bourgeois as a class, then don't complain when people to the same to Stalin.


Morally judging the bourgeois class is not forbidden, but it;s the weakest form of criticism. Also, it's difficult to distinguish a bourgeois moral criticism of stalin with a revolutionary one. A revolutionary could argue against Stalin that he betrayed communists by sending them to the Germans, etc.

But are you going to openly criticize the british for doing the same exact thing? No, because you already know that the Britain was a Bourgeois State.




Marxism-Leninism distorts what class is, it distorts marxism basically just to justify the totalitarian outcomes, and the mass murders of Marxist Leninist states.

The material conditions and the states preceded marxism leninism. Marxism Leninism was virtually different in almost all the states. You can't blame the failures on an ideology, that's absurd. Instead blame the material conditions in which such "ideologies" came into place. (hint: They don't involve evil individuals ruining everything).




I beg to differ, there are plenty of examples of people in the party, with bourgeoisie backgrounds, who were charged with somehow being bourgeois operatives, if you want to I'll give you examples.


please do.



Your exmaples of Lenin, Stalin and so on, just shows your full of shit, thats my point exactly, they just used those arguments your defending to defend their system.

This is pure nonsense. I take it as a form of desperation on your account.


But lets say they DID, deem your ideas to be bourgeois, or treat you the way Pol Pot treated the upper middle class (I doubt he asked them what they thought of the reds).


They wouldn't treat my Ideas to be bourgeois, because Bourgeois doesn't equate to everything they don't like. For example, Left communists weren't deemed Bourgeois by Lenin or Stalin, they were called "Ultra Leftists". A lot of orthodox marxists were called "Machanestic" "too materialist" and so on. These are not bourgeois.




No shit. Your basically making my argument FOR me.


:rolleyes: No, you said that I should be complaining if Jailed by the capitalist state.



No shit, I agree.


Obviously your posts say otherwise


Seriously, o you guys have NO concept of understanding argument?


You said:


Ok, but if the Capitalist state censors you, or puts you in prison you better not let out a peep of complaint. Or say its "unjust" or whatever.

[mykittyhasaboner]

You don't morally judge animals for anything.i think it was a pretty apt analogy. the point being, that the capitalist class acts according to the completely a-moral, impersonal laws of the capitalist economy. Just like a shark acts according to its own method of predatory survival.

One who judges the actions of the capitalist class on a moral basis already implies that they, as a class, are somehow legitimate and can be "moral".

[RGacky3]

We don't judge CAPITALISTS, we judge CAPITALISM, we also don't judge CAPITALISTS as capitalists outside their role as capitalists, i.e. being a capitalist is not an individual identity its a social relation.

So you can't say capitalists are amoral as individuals, no, as individuals some are moral, some are amoral, some are immoral, but in their role as capitalists, they MUST as amorally for the most part.

The shark analogy was terrible because sharks don't belong in the moral sphere at all, they arn't humans, you might as well have said rocks.

My point with Che Guevara and stalin and so on, were that they were individually from the capitalist class however they acted totally out of their own class interests.

If you want examples of people arbitrarily being called "bourgeois" or treated as such becuase of their background see the cultural revolution and Pol Pots regiem for one.

Or just look how the bolsheviks called anarchists "petty bourgeois," and stalin did the same to trots, it was totally arbitrary.

What makes you think that you would be special, there is no reason why under an authoritarian socialist regiem you should'nt be labelled as a "class enemy" arbitrarily.



Quote:
Seriously, o you guys have NO concept of understanding argument?
You said:


Quote:
Originally Posted by RGacky3 http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2326752#post2326752)
Ok, but if the Capitalist state censors you, or puts you in prison you better not let out a peep of complaint. Or say its "unjust" or whatever.

Exactly, I never said you SHOULD complain, or judge morally, I'm claiming that when push comes to shove you probably would.
Also you should'nt complain, but you should definately appeal to their own stated values, or appeal to something else.


Another thing, when you say "capitalists have different values because they think its not ok to attack cops, but we do."
Thats not because they have different values, its because they have different understandings on the role cops play in society.
Everyone thinks its ok to attack people who oppress people and uphold unjust power, its just some people see cops that way, other people do not.
Also everyone thinks its not ok to attack innocent people, its just some people see cops that way other people do not.

[Omsk]

stalin and so on, were that they were individually from the capitalist class


You are not well informed on this,Stalin was not completely from the capitalist class,as his father changed his jobs a number of times,and although he did,at one point of his life,own a workshop,he was also a serf and a normal worker at times.I am not sure if you could classify Stalin as a man with a capitalist backgound,as his life and younge years were marked with poverty,jail and many other hardships,and generally a few moments when he was not struggleing with poverty,hunger and other problems in backward Georgia.(Which was constantly falling behind on other parts of Imperial Russia) Stalin was also not the man who was obsessed with a rich life and a generally bourgeois way of living,he was not a comformist.

This also comes from various people who are not pro Stalin,so you cant call it a "stalinist" myth.


My father never cared about possessions. He led a puritanical life, and the things that belonged to him said very little about him. The ones he left behind--his house, his rooms, and his apartment--give no clue to what he was like.
Alliluyeva, Svetlana. Twenty Letters to a Friend. New York: Harper & Row, 1967, p. 15

My father lived on the ground floor. He lived in one room, in fact, and made it do for everything. He slept on the sofa, made up at night as a bed, and had telephones on the table beside it. The large dining table was piled high with documents, newspapers, and books.... The great, soft rug, and the fireplace were all the luxury my father wanted.
Alliluyeva, Svetlana. Twenty Letters to a Friend. New York: Harper & Row, 1967, p. 20





[Zhukov said] "He [Stalin] never tolerated any luxury in clothing, furniture, or his life in general."
Cameron, Kenneth Neill. Stalin, Man of Contradiction. Toronto: NC Press, c1987, p. 124




But his modest background does not mean that he was uneducated or that he lacked knowledge or interest in important elements of the soviet society.He was an expert in history,and knew a great deal about weapons and military material,(along with the knowledge of theory)



I can only repeat that Stalin devoted a good deal of attention to problems of armament and materiel. He frequently met with chief aircraft, artillery, and tank designers whom he would question in great detail about the progress achieved in designing the various types of equipment in our country and abroad. To give him his due, it must be said that he was fairly well versed in the characteristics of the basic types of armament.
Cameron, Kenneth Neill. Stalin, Man of Contradiction. Toronto: NC Press, c1987, APPENDIX 1
Portrait of Stalin by Zhukov, p. 142



He also had a great interest in geography, architecture, linguistics, genetics, and international relations,although they were secondary.
He was also a reader,much more than a writer.
He said: "If you want to know the people around you,find out what they read."

[RGacky3]

All right forget Stalin, include Lenin, Che, Trotsky and so on.

[Rafiq]

I didn't say all communists do it out of class interest, I say all proletarians are communists through class interest, that communism itself is a mere reflection of those interests. Members of the bourgeois classes, or their offspring, become communists for several reasons.

[RGacky3]

I didn't say all communists do it out of class interest, I say all proletarians are communists through class interest, that communism itself is a mere reflection of those interests. Members of the bourgeois classes, or their offspring, become communists for several reasons.


Some proletarians may view other interests above their own class interest, for example they might think they have a better chance of making it into the bourgeois class than they do at achieving revolution.

Point is you can't apply interests of a social relation necessarily to individuals.

Proletarian/bourgeois are social-relations (pay attention to your buddy David Harvey), NOT individuals.

[Black_Rose]

YOur morally judging the bourgeois as a class, as if its possible at all, you cannot, they work within a system.

...

People that do crimes go to trial and are sentanced accordingly, being born into a class is'nt a crime. Or disagreeing with the way YOU think a class should think is also not a crime.
I would prefer something similar to the Nuremberg Trials, which didn't judge individuals for the atrocities of the Nazis, but for their individual actions that facilitated the atrocities of the Nazi Germany. Most people within the Nazi hierarchy are guilty (in the moral sense at least) as they assented to reactionary Nazi doctrine (although under the influence of imposed propaganda and pressure to conform with the population) and pursued career advancement within the Nazi Party; many of them were willing participants, not subordinate automatons, devoid of a conscience. Their actions were fundamentally not motivated by a sense of duty and responsibility, but from their desire to exploit their power for personal advancement at the expense of the livelihood of others. They were not punished for civil ideological differences, or policy disagreements on the means of achieving some economic, political, or social goal.

During the period of revolutionary catharsis, I prefer to delegate the judgment to the aggrieved masses to participate during the purges, as opposed to having the vanguard acting as an executive authorizing and demanding the deaths/punishment of certain individuals and groups. Instead, they will act as overseers, occasionally granting some condemned individuals clemency if they are deemed worthy of leniency.

The purpose is not to absolve the vanguard of the carnage, since they encouraged this through their agitation and propaganda, but as a means of empowering the aggrieved and encouraging their participation in the dispensation of justice. In other words, a struggle session. This justice is inherently more visceral and informal, not procedural.




Marxism-Leninism distorts what class is, it distorts marxism basically just to justify the totalitarian outcomes, and the mass murders of Marxist Leninist states.
I consider myself a benign M-L who frowns upon the religious oppression of Hoxha, most of the Stalinist purges, and senseless destruction of cultural artifacts and persecution of perceived authority figures during the Cultural Revolution.

As Mao said:


Secondly, a revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1927mao.html

East Germany is a good example of a M-L state. Where were the mass murders there?

[capitalism is good]

According to PEW global research the majority of people in east europe approve of the fall of communism.

[Krano]

According to PEW global research the majority of people in east europe approve of the fall of communism.
Link?

[Rodrigo]

Good thread.


East German women lost a litany of rights after reunification. Kind of funny that the ideology that was all about personal freedom didn't give two shits about the right of women to control their bodies and their lives. But we all knew that since the days of the Mujahideen. One literate woman is worth the blood of a million US-funded Islamists. :D

Just a correction: US-funded radical Islamists.

[manic expression]

I beg to differ, there are plenty of examples of people in the party, with bourgeoisie backgrounds, who were charged with somehow being bourgeois operatives, if you want to I'll give you examples.
You said it yourself. They were charged with being operatives of enemies of socialism...not with being a "former bourgeois". Two different things.

[RGacky3]

They were charged with BEING bourgeois, as if bourgeois could be anything more than a social relation.

[manic expression]

You can be bourgeois in a political or ideological sense...which extends to the activities of someone who shares a certain political or ideological stance.

Moreover, yes it was/is illegal to be bourgeois in socialist countries in the sense of social position. That's the whole point of socialism...no one exploits the labor of others.

[Per Levy]

East Germany is a good example of a M-L state. Where were the mass murders there?

is it now? i live in the former gdr and let me tell you that the gdr isnt all that liked even after 20 years of capitalism. i work with people who spend a long time of their lives in the gdr and they hated it and no one wants it back. and yes these people are all workers. to be fair though they hate capitalism too but they also hate the gdr wich they asscociate with socialism/communism thats why they are against the latter.

[Paul Cockshott]

I can believe that there are millions of people who think that the GDR was bad, but if the opinion poll survey in the original article is to be believed there are other millions who regret the passing of socialism in East Europe.

[capitalism is good]

Link?

Unfortunately, I have not reached 25 posts yet. So I cannot post a link. Please do a google search.

[PhoenixAsh]

Actually PEW proves pretty much the opposity of what you claim....http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/12/05/confidence-in-democracy-and-capitalism-wanes-in-former-soviet-union/

[RGacky3]

Moreover, yes it was/is illegal to be bourgeois in socialist countries in the sense of social position. That's the whole point of socialism...no one exploits the labor of others.

Except you CAN'T be bourgeois without capitalism, which requires a state supporting system.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Actually PEW proves pretty much the opposity of what you claim....http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/12/05/confidence-in-democracy-and-capitalism-wanes-in-former-soviet-union/

Very surprised at the results from Lithuania. I was under the impression that it was a veritable bastion of anti-communism.

[human strike]

Not sure which is which, but "bigger cages, longer chains."

[El Chuncho]

Honestly how could anyone find Marxist-Leninist regimes "adequate" anymore, those regimes popped up at a specific time and that time's over, they failed
.

Hmm.
http://www.cubadebate.cu/reflexiones-fidel/2008/11/13/la-paz-en-colombia/


The Communist Party of that sister country, like the other Communist parties in Latin America, large or small, were disciplined members of the International while it formally existed. They followed the line of the Communist Party of the USSR. During the Cold War they continued suffering repression on account of their ideas. The imperialist and oligarchic media unleashed its fury on them. The rise of the Cuban Revolution, with absolutely no ties to the USSR but based on the teachings of Marxism-Leninism, stirred up contradictory, although not antagonistic feelings. In our country we overcame these and forged a unity, although not without contradictions or sectarian feelings between the members and sympathizers of the old party with advanced political education, and sectors of the petty bourgeoisie who were radicalized but were permeated with the phantom of anticommunism. The victories of the Rebel Army, as the guerrilla forces were initially called, were the decisive factor in the subsequent phase of the revolution.




I am a Marxist-Leninist and shall be one until the end of my life...Marxism or scientific socialism has become the revolutionary movement of the working class...Tere cannot be three or four movements.


http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-declares-himself-a-marxist-leninist


Castro, however, never deviated from his declared principles, and went on to become one of the world's longest-ruling heads of state. In late July 2006, an unwell Fidel Castro temporarily ceded power to his younger brother Raul.

How many states have Hipster Communism as an official ideology? :cool:

[capitalism is good]

Actually PEW proves pretty much the opposity of what you claim....

I will post a link from PEW as soon as I hit 25 posts.

[Per Levy]

I will post a link from PEW as soon as I hit 25 posts.

you can post links you just need to divide the url so that it doesnt show up as a link like: pewglobal .org/2011/12/05/confidence-in-democracy-and-capitalism-wanes-in-former-soviet-union/

i think that should work so you can pot your link just divide the url.


How many states have Hipster Communism as an official ideology? :cool: non because hipster communism is fake/parody tendency, wich you should know by now, shouldnt you?

[El Chuncho]

non because hipster communism is fake/parody tendency, wich you should know by now, shouldnt you?

Yeah, it is a fake tendency for supposed communists who do, indeed, seem more like hipsters and ''jokers'', hence they add it as a tendency rather than choosing a real one. Ironic, isn't it?

Fake tendencies are also very immature and counterproductive. You should know that by now, shouldn't you?

[manic expression]

Except you CAN'T be bourgeois without capitalism, which requires a state supporting system.
Can you be a monarchist without living in a monarchical society?

[capitalism is good]

you can post links you just need to divide the url so that it doesnt show up as a link like: pewglobal .org/2011/12/05/confidence-in-democracy-and-capitalism-wanes-in-former-soviet-union/

i think that should work so you can pot your link just divide the url.



Thanks for the tip. Here is my link showing that most people in former Soviet bloc countries approve the change to democracy and capitalism:

pewglobal.org/2009/11/02/end-of-communism-cheered-but-now-with-more-reservations/

[Platonic Sword]

I can imagine if I was a Russian I might look back with nostalgia at the glory days of the Soviet Union. Sure life was horrible for most people, but the USSR had global respect. Now what does it have? A reputation for losing the Cold War. Another indicator that economics is not the prime mover of history, I guess ;)

[#FF0000]

Another indicator that economics is not the prime mover of history, I guess ;)

lol

[RGacky3]

Can you be a monarchist without living in a monarchical society?

yes but you can't be a king.

[manic expression]

yes but you can't be a king.
Exactly.

[Tim Cornelis]

I can imagine if I was a Russian I might look back with nostalgia at the glory days of the Soviet Union. Sure life was horrible for most people, but the USSR had global respect. Now what does it have? A reputation for losing the Cold War. Another indicator that economics is not the prime mover of history, I guess ;)

So, what you're saying is that you embrace palingenetic ultra-nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palingenetic_ultranationalism).

palingenetic ultranationalism is the idea of staging a national rebirth. It is the core value of fascist ideology.

"The Communist Party of the Russian federation derive the Marxism-Leninism not from a conviction to Marxist doctrine but from what is called palingenetic nationalism.

This type of ultra-nationalism looks back at the national history of a country for a golden age when the nation was strong, powerful, and seemingly propsperous, and base their nationalism on the "revival" of this Empire. This type of nationalism is the "fascist minimum" according to Roger Griffin, and I agree.

Thus, German ultra-nationalists/fascists look at the Prussia and the German Reich when Germany was bigger, stronger, etc. for inspiration and therefore advocate the return to former borders, for example. Turkish fascists would look at the Ottoman empire. Arabs would look at a unified Arabic world. Dutch fascists look at the Dutch empire, and want to unite Flemish Belgium, and the Netherlands and have ties with far-right movements in South Africa. They all want to revive a former national Empire in a new form. Palingenetic nationalism strives to re-create this national myth, and therefore fascism will always fail, because they it is a myth.

Incidentally, this also explains the appeal of fascism in times of crises: it implicitly promises to re-create a national Empire as it once was, an Empire that was perceived as prosperous, and such.

Russian fascists look at the Soviet Union under Stalin because the Russian empire was a superpower feared all over the world, it was mighty, glorious, and perceived as prosperous. It makes perfect sense for palingenetic nationalists in Russia to look at the Soviet Union under Stalin and desire a new USSR-empire. The seemingly paradox admiration by the Russian far-right of both Stalin and Hitler is explained in this way. The Communist Party in Russia is a typical palingenetic ultranationalist organisation, and hence can be considered fascist. Its support for the war against Chechenya is thus the consequence of aspiring to re-create the national myth of a unified and strong Russia/USSR."

What is the point or virtue of global respect and global hegemony?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Particularly in the former Soviet Union, the general quality of life for the majority has plummeted. This is also true for most of Eastern Europe. I remember reading some figures indicating that life expectancy dropped by approx. TEN YEARS in the former USSR by the late 90s. That is a calamity. While I disagree about many things with ML comrades (e.g., the virtues of Stalin, nationalism, two-stage revolutions, popular fronts), they have it much closer to the truth about the empty bullshit the bringing of "democracy" to Eastern Europe. The rest of you that somehow defended counterrevolution in the East Bloc have drunk deeply from the cup of bourgeois propaganda. That the switch could have happened with the minimal fight that it did speaks to decades of Stalinist misrule and the depoliticizing of the populations in those countries.

Today China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and Laos must be defended against imperialism. As flawed as these countries are, they have had revolutions to overturn capitalist property relations and replace them with socialist property forms. No they are far from actually being socialist. To argue that the Chinese people would be better off with a democratic capitalist regime indicates a sorry lack of knowledge of the history of that country. Compare it to India -- they were in a similar condition in 1949. No difference in their social structure? Than how come the average person in China is vastly better off than in India?

Oh and agreed that capitalism is amoral. Partly why groups like the ISO get the dander of revolutionaries up. It's like criticizing the weather. What you need to do is educate people about the inherent problems of capitalism -- not just particular bad aspects.

[RGacky3]

Exactly.

Bourgeois (in marxism) is a social relationship, like being a king is, not some ideology, like monarchy is.

[Platonic Sword]

So, what you're saying is that you embrace
.

This type of ultra-nationalism looks back at the national history of a country for a golden age when the nation was strong, powerful, and seemingly propsperous, and base their nationalism on the "revival" of this Empire. This type of nationalism is the "fascist minimum" according to Roger Griffin, and I agree.


What is the point or virtue of global respect and global hegemony?

Interesting reading. There's no point in it for me personally, and I don't really support anything in Russia, that's up to Russians. But yeah my observation is that most people who look back positively to the USSR do so out of a sense of nostalgia for when Russia was a superpower.