Putin: "World War I not imperialist, Bolsheviks - traitors."

[Dire Helix]

Putin accuses Bolsheviks of treason

President Vladimir Putin has put the blame for Russia’s defeat in the First World War on Bolsheviks’ policy that he called ‘national treason’.

Speaking in the Upper House of the Russian Parliament Putin said the Bolsheviks, especially the ruling elite of the party, betrayed Russia’s national interests and allowed Germany to win the war with Russia even though eventually Germany was defeated. The President added that Bolsheviks had been so reluctant to admit their mistakes that in the Soviet period the First World War was called “the Imperialist War” and the authorities deliberately ignored the heroism of Russian soldiers in art and propaganda. Putin added that in reality the First World War was not an imperialist one.

Source: http://rt.com/politics/putin-accuses-bolsheviks-treason-877/


Also, the article doesn`t mention it, but he said that they did for their party interests.

Putin has always sympathized with the White Guard movement and even went as far as to call Ivan Ilyin(a deeply reactionary thinker, a father of sorts of what some call "Russian national-socialism" and(later) a Hitler and Mussolini sympathizer who was expelled from Soviet Russia in 1921) his favorite philosopher, but it`s the first time ever he has publicly denounced the early Bolshevik leadership.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Of course they did it for party-interest, which accidently happened to be also the interest of the Russian people.

[Book O'Dead]

Wait a minute. Unless my memory of that history is flawed, I don't remember that Russia actually lost WW1.

They signed an armistice, didn't they?

[electrostal]

Russia lost the on the field of battle and its armies started to disintegrate. The peace treaty was very unfavourable for Russia.

[piet11111]

Wait a minute. Unless my memory of that history is flawed, I don't remember that Russia actually lost WW1.

They signed an armistice, didn't they?

They did and ceded a lot of territory in the process to the Germans.
It was recovered and then some during WW2.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Putin is, after all, a nationalist and not a socialist

[cynicles]

Way to be original Putin, the fascists said the same thing about Rosa and Germany. Yawn.

[TrotskistMarx]

Dear friend, I was a former Trotskist and anti-Stalin. But I am also an avid reader of Nietzsche, Machiavelli, history, psychology. And social psychology, the psychology of the masses. And I have jumped to the conclusion that the right way to overthrow capitalism in the world is not "Revolution from Below" way, but "Revolution from above", which is linked and related to the great men theory of changes of Nietzsche. The problem of Trotskists, Rosa-Luxemburg supporters, anarchists and ultra-leftists is that even though they are very correct in that revolutions from above might lead to oligarchic-cleptocracies just like the oligarchic-clepotracy of USA, Mexico, and most countries of the world. At the same time overthrowing capitalist armies, capitalist rich and powerful governments with puritanism, good-hearted perfect working class, without the helping hand of strong Stalinist Maoist powerful leaders is almost impossible. They are like heavy weight Mike Tyson fighters. And the world is about power, we need a powerful stalinist left in this world to destroy in a realist way capitalism.


.



Of course they did it for party-interest, which accidently happened to be also the interest of the Russian people.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Fuck you Putin. Fuck. You.

[rednordman]

pffft...he's just playing on national sentiment, that's all. It isn't the first time he has done that either. He has done it to defend the old Soviet Unions role in history too.

[Book O'Dead]

Dear friend, I was a former Trotskist and anti-Stalin. But I am also an avid reader of Nietzsche, Machiavelli, history, psychology. And social psychology, the psychology of the masses. And I have jumped to the conclusion that the right way to overthrow capitalism in the world is not "Revolution from Below" way, but "Revolution from above", which is linked and related to the great men theory of changes of Nietzsche. The problem of Trotskists, Rosa-Luxemburg supporters, anarchists and ultra-leftists is that even though they are very correct in that revolutions from above might lead to oligarchic-cleptocracies just like the oligarchic-clepotracy of USA, Mexico, and most countries of the world. At the same time overthrowing capitalist armies, capitalist rich and powerful governments with puritanism, good-hearted perfect working class, without the helping hand of strong Stalinist Maoist powerful leaders is almost impossible. They are like heavy weight Mike Tyson fighters. And the world is about power, we need a powerful stalinist left in this world to destroy in a realist way capitalism.
.

Keep jumping, maybe you'll land on better ideas.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Dear friend, I was a former Trotskist and anti-Stalin. But I am also an avid reader of Nietzsche, Machiavelli, history, psychology. And social psychology, the psychology of the masses. And I have jumped to the conclusion that the right way to overthrow capitalism in the world is not "Revolution from Below" way, but "Revolution from above", which is linked and related to the great men theory of changes of Nietzsche. The problem of Trotskists, Rosa-Luxemburg supporters, anarchists and ultra-leftists is that even though they are very correct in that revolutions from above might lead to oligarchic-cleptocracies just like the oligarchic-clepotracy of USA, Mexico, and most countries of the world. At the same time overthrowing capitalist armies, capitalist rich and powerful governments with puritanism, good-hearted perfect working class, without the helping hand of strong Stalinist Maoist powerful leaders is almost impossible. They are like heavy weight Mike Tyson fighters. And the world is about power, we need a powerful stalinist left in this world to destroy in a realist way capitalism.


.


Wait, what?

[A Marxist Historian]

Dear friend, I was a former Trotskist and anti-Stalin. But I am also an avid reader of Nietzsche, Machiavelli, history, psychology. And social psychology, the psychology of the masses. And I have jumped to the conclusion that the right way to overthrow capitalism in the world is not "Revolution from Below" way, but "Revolution from above", which is linked and related to the great men theory of changes of Nietzsche. The problem of Trotskists, Rosa-Luxemburg supporters, anarchists and ultra-leftists is that even though they are very correct in that revolutions from above might lead to oligarchic-cleptocracies just like the oligarchic-clepotracy of USA, Mexico, and most countries of the world. At the same time overthrowing capitalist armies, capitalist rich and powerful governments with puritanism, good-hearted perfect working class, without the helping hand of strong Stalinist Maoist powerful leaders is almost impossible. They are like heavy weight Mike Tyson fighters. And the world is about power, we need a powerful stalinist left in this world to destroy in a realist way capitalism.


.

Nietsche was a total reactionary, hated the masses, felt that the "Supermen," the ruling classes, should rule the lower classes with an iron fist, not worrying about Christian morality, which he rejected. His favorite country was Tsarist Russia.

His wife became a Nazi, and Nietsche was a big culture hero in the Third Reich. Ironical, as N was neither a German nationalist nor an anti-Semite. Mussolini's style of fascism would have been his preference.

Nietsche would have been all in favor of Auschwitz, except that he would have preferred to exterminate different people.

-M.H.-

[Hit The North]

So it's the material analysis of Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg, versus the *opinion* of Russia's latest autocratic dunderhead? I know which one I prefer.

[Dire Helix]

Putin is, after all, a nationalist and not a socialist

I think he is a bourgeois politician first and foremost and acts accordingly.

[TrotskistMarx]

I am a Stalinist and a Nietzschean. But since Stalin was evil, Nietzsche was evil, Nietzsche's sister was very evil and nazi, and since Machiavelli was evil, Mao was evil, Hugo Chavez is evil, Castro is evil, Rafael Correa is very evil and the anarchists are good, the working classes are "The correct way" to overthrow capitalism. And since you guys have to do what Trotsky wrote and what anarchists thinkers wrote, then go ahead and try to tell the Mcdonalds workers and all the workers of USA to overthrow the US capitalist government, without the help of a strong powerful leader.

How utopian, naive and inocent you guys are, I'll choose the realist way to smash capitalist governments, not the Trotskist, Rosa Luxemburg, Anarchists and ultra-leftists utopian way


.



Nietsche was a total reactionary, hated the masses, felt that the "Supermen," the ruling classes, should rule the lower classes with an iron fist, not worrying about Christian morality, which he rejected. His favorite country was Tsarist Russia.

His wife became a Nazi, and Nietsche was a big culture hero in the Third Reich. Ironical, as N was neither a German nationalist nor an anti-Semite. Mussolini's style of fascism would have been his preference.

Nietsche would have been all in favor of Auschwitz, except that he would have preferred to exterminate different people.

-M.H.-

[TrotskistMarx]

Well let me give you examples of succesful revolutions from above: The Bolivarian Revolution, Rafael Correa, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Fidel Castro

And let me give you examples of the pieces of human trash, stupid anti-scientific "Revolutions from below" and how they are crushed: The Paris Commune, The anarchists of Spain.

So keep supporting "Revolutions from below" done with sticks and rocks. I'll support stalinist revolutions from above

Thanks


Keep jumping, maybe you'll land on better ideas.

[Book O'Dead]

Well let me give you examples of succesful revolutions from above: The Bolivarian Revolution, Rafael Correa, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Fidel Castro

And let me give you examples of the pieces of human trash, stupid anti-scientific "Revolutions from below" and how they are crushed: The Paris Commune, The anarchists of Spain.

So keep supporting "Revolutions from below" done with sticks and rocks. I'll support stalinist revolutions from above

Thanks

Those are fighting words. You should be officially warned by a moderator, at the very least, for calling the heroes of Paris Commune "human trash".

Nothing good can come from that sentiment.

[Neoprime]

TrotskistMarx you sound like a fellow how could join my Natural Socialist ideas, I come to the same conclusions, we'll need an Uber/Super/Overhuman to pull things off, I also think they need to have an INTJ personality as well. But as usual the weak revolutionaries hate on successful movements because their stuff ain't working or do incredibly stupid thing(like not guarding banks, or blow up bridges, builidng and people with bombs and dynamite that'll spark a revolution). I think the slave moralic/last man thinking will do us in and should be fought and purged at all cost, they don't even use this type hate to capitalist at all, they way I see it we live in a world were workers are the only ones with a false state of concious, but would be revolutionaries as well.

It is a joy to hear someone who traveled a similar road as I(I was never a trot or anti-stalin), but it is music to my ears that somebody can look with a rational lens and see the world for what it is and not a propaganda induced theory by capitalist.

[Rafiq]

Trotskimarx: troll

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Ocean Seal]

National traitor == Good Communist

[Hit The North]

So keep supporting "Revolutions from below" done with sticks and rocks. I'll support stalinist revolutions from above

Thanks

So maybe it's time for a name change. Can I suggest Stalinistnobhead?

Am I the only one here who finds TrotskyistMarx's yearning for a big strong man quite sweet? I can imagine the small-ad:

"Inappropriately named jackass with NSOH
Wants butch partner for mutual purging.
Must bring own tank."

[Raúl Duke]

None of those "strong-men" "revolutions"/leadership lead to anything more than just some form of a dictatorship; what you're asking for would never end capitalism, class society, etc.

The fact that you demonstrate contempt for the working class makes me wonder why you're not restricted or banned already.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

All the talk about socialist strong men and revolution from above is off topic-Putin is not a socialist or a revolutionary. He is the President of a republic with a lot of arms industry capital which sells weapons to groups affiliated with "the left" so a few people seem to assume, therefore, that Putin's government must have some kind of left bent. On the contrary, he's just a President of a country with a lot of arms and petro capital, and is willing to sell to the highest bidder in favor of national interest.

[Martin Blank]

Putin accuses Bolsheviks of treason

I guess the Nazbols have a new recruit.


I have jumped to the conclusion that the right way to overthrow capitalism in the world is not "Revolution from Below" way, but "Revolution from above", which is linked and related to the great men theory of changes of Nietzsche.

OK, maybe two.

[Delenda Carthago]

Dont be confused. Putin doesnt give a mothafuck about WWI. He is talking about now.

[Robocommie]

Dont be confused. Putin doesnt give a mothafuck about WWI. He is talking about now.

Absolutely, the only time politicians ever use history is to manipulate it for their purposes in the present.

[electrostal]

I guess the Nazbols have a new recruit.
This doesn't make sense. NAZBOLs do not accuse the Bolsheviks of "treachery" and they are 100% anti-Putin, much more than the so called CPRF....

[hatzel]

All this proves to me is that I was wrong when I thought that RevLeft was the only place where dweebs sat around talking about totally unimportant historical Russian shit...

[Die Neue Zeit]

Dont be confused. Putin doesnt give a mothafuck about WWI. He is talking about now.


Absolutely, the only time politicians ever use history is to manipulate it for their purposes in the present.

Perhaps Putin spoke within the context of the recent war with Georgia? :confused:

[Delenda Carthago]

Perhaps Putin spoke within the context of the recent war with Georgia? :confused:
World War III is coming to town...

[Psy]

Russia lost the on the field of battle and its armies started to disintegrate. The peace treaty was very unfavourable for Russia.
Right that makes the Bolsheviks pulling out the war moot. Russia was fighting to defend British and French imperialist dominance over central Europe, so I don't see Putin's stance as Russian nationalists mostly think Imperialist Russia should have fought on the side of Germany against Britain and France during WWI as Germany offered a better deal and the theory the Russian revolution wouldn't have happened as Russia's military contribution would have been much less as all Russia would be doing is helping Germany crush France where Germany would be doing the bulk of the fighting.

But it is clear the working class of Russia had nothing to gain from WWI regardless of who Russia fought for.

[Robocommie]

Perhaps Putin spoke within the context of the recent war with Georgia? :confused:

Well, not necessarily about war at all, but he's constructing a national myth about WWI that is unashamedly nationalist and completely cuts down any anti-war message that was taken away from it.

[Per Levy]

Fuck you Putin. Fuck. You.

why get angry at this? i wouldnt want a nationalistic, chauvinistic, conservative like putin to act or think any other way over the bolsheviks or any other communist. if putin would praise them, then i would feel insulted tbh.

besides he is right, the bolsheviks "betrayed" the bourgeosie class its society and its organs all wich putin is a part of. and thats something to look up to.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Aw, that's so cute. Putin is trying to revise history and engage in standup comedy at the same time. Should we give him an A for effort?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Right that makes the Bolsheviks pulling out the war moot. Russia was fighting to defend British and French imperialist dominance over central Europe, so I don't see Putin's stance as Russian nationalists mostly think Imperialist Russia should have fought on the side of Germany against Britain and France during WWI as Germany offered a better deal and the theory the Russian revolution wouldn't have happened as Russia's military contribution would have been much less as all Russia would be doing is helping Germany crush France where Germany would be doing the bulk of the fighting.

But it is clear the working class of Russia had nothing to gain from WWI regardless of who Russia fought for.

A British conservative historian lamented that Germany didn't win WWI.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Well let me give you examples of succesful revolutions from above: The Bolivarian Revolution, Rafael Correa, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Fidel Castro

And let me give you examples of the pieces of human trash, stupid anti-scientific "Revolutions from below" and how they are crushed: The Paris Commune, The anarchists of Spain.

So keep supporting "Revolutions from below" done with sticks and rocks. I'll support stalinist revolutions from above

Thanks
Bathsalts dude, lay off them.

to start, what would one say is the point of success of the bolivarian revolution and ALBA aligned nations? socialism does not exist because of the elections of MAS or PSUV (though the PSUV is arguably doing its best within the bourgeois state) none of the ALBA aligned parties are (besides the Communist Party of Cuba) actually marxist or leninist.

Second. Fidel Castro didnt make a 'revolution from above' the Cuban revolution was very much fought from below, from strikes and so on in the cities and ultimately culminating in a guerilla war that overthrew the Batista regime. Castro wasnt elected lol.

Third. The paris commune was both a success and failure. it was crushed so it failed, but it was a success because it was a very practical lesson in working class domination.

fourth. 'anarchists in spain' is too narrow, and im assuming you are misunderstanding what happened in spain. the initial and main fight-back was done by the trade-unions which were anarcho-syndicalist. communists also supported and joined the anarchist militias. (and later on other political militias and the popular front). What happened in spain was in response to a fascist mutiny. it was not some planned insurrection by the anarchists.


And stop calling yourself a 'stalinist'

[wsg1991]

Well let me give you examples of succesful revolutions from above: The Bolivarian Revolution, Rafael Correa, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Fidel Castro

And let me give you examples of the pieces of human trash, stupid anti-scientific "Revolutions from below" and how they are crushed: The Paris Commune, The anarchists of Spain.

So keep supporting "Revolutions from below" done with sticks and rocks. I'll support stalinist revolutions from above

Thanks

it's plain naivety to think that Evo morales , chavez or Correa would have done something without popular support or even getting anywhere , as they would just bend to capitalist pressure

in Fact i think Chavez would be dead long time ago , without something similar to 'revolution from below' as you call it , and we won't be hearing you talking about Bolivarian revolution


and how parachuting a guy on the top of some system then going back home some soccer game would bring any meaningful reform , not to mention a revolution ?

before commenting such 'courageous comments' ,think

[seventeethdecember2016]

Putin is an annoying figure. It seems his devout Nationalist pride forces contradictions. He hails Soviet history, yet at the same time he denounces it.

[electrostal]

Putin "hails" Soviet history for cheap nationalist points, because he knows the people know that todays Russia has nothing for Russians to feel proud about.

[Tim Finnegan]

Nietsche was a total reactionary, hated the masses, felt that the "Supermen," the ruling classes, should rule the lower classes with an iron fist, not worrying about Christian morality, which he rejected. His favorite country was Tsarist Russia.

His wife became a Nazi, and Nietsche was a big culture hero in the Third Reich. Ironical, as N was neither a German nationalist nor an anti-Semite. Mussolini's style of fascism would have been his preference.

Nietsche would have been all in favor of Auschwitz, except that he would have preferred to exterminate different people.

-M.H.-
Not everybody is as two-dimensional as you.

[Delenda Carthago]

RIZOSPASTIS: The slander of “national betrayal” does not “stick” to the Bolsheviks!



http://inter.kke.gr/mail_icon.gif (http://inter.kke.gr/News/news2012/2012-06-29-putin/sendto_form)
http://inter.kke.gr/print_icon.gif



http://www1.rizospastis.gr/getImage.do?size=medium&id=132947&format=.jpg
On the 29th of June 2012 the newspaper Rizospastis, Organ of the CC of the KKE, reported and commented on the following statements of Vladimir Putin regarding the “national betrayal of the Bolshevik government”:

“The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, answering questions in the Council of the Russian Federation (The Upper House of Parliament) last Wednesday (27/6) carried out an unprecedented anti-communist attack and in reference to the 1st World War stated that it cannot be characterized as “imperialist” and that Russia was defeated by the “national betrayal of the Bolsheviks” who signed the Brest-Litovsk Treaty separately with the Germans. As he said “In essence our country was defeated by the losing side. It was an act of national betrayal on the part of the new Bolshevik government, which was afraid of admitting it due to party interests.” He stated that the time has come for the Russian state to “fulfil its duty to those killed fighting for Russia in the 1st World War.” For this reason a committee will be created which will table proposals “for the perpetuation of the memory of the soldiers in the 1st World War”.

The Russian President in addressing the dirty slanders against the Bolsheviks regarding “national betrayal” forgets that Russia was entangled in this war together with a group of capitalist states against another, not for the interests of the workers and the numerous farmers, but in the service of the ruling classes of the Tsar’s Empire!

He even forgets that the Tsarist empire, through its participation in this imperialist war, caused the Russian people a massive loss of life- Russia had the largest number of victims in this war, over 2 million people!

He also forgets that a short while before the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, the Russian Army of the ancien regime was in a state of constant retreat due to the defeats it had suffered, while the Revolution did not have enough time to create the appropriate military machine which could undertake the war and there was the danger that the revolution would be strangled at birth by the German bourgeois army. Maybe this is what Vladimir Putin as a representative of the Russian bourgeois class and an apologist for Tsarism would have liked?

He forgets that the Soviet delegation, which signed the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty refused to discuss its conditions. It stated that the peace which was signed was not based on the free agreement of the peoples, but was dictated to Soviet Russia by the well-armed German imperialism, which exploited the temporary weakness of the young Soviet Republic, and for this reason it was pointless to discuss the treaty.

He forgets that a few years later after the Soviet Power had repelled the foreign military intervention of 14 capitalist states against it, it started the counter-offensive and gradually up until the beginning of the 2nd World War liberated an important part of the territories which it had been forced to cede on 3rd of March 1918.
http://inter.kke.gr/News/news2012/2012-06-29-putin/

[Tim Finnegan]

Y'know, it seems to me that any communist who takes "national betrayal" as an insulting is a pretty crap communist.

[Comrade Trollface]

Of course they did it for party-interest, which accidently happened to be also the interest of the Russian people.accidently is right:(

[electrostal]

Y'know, it seems to me that any communist who takes "national betrayal" as an insulting is a pretty crap communist.
Yes, when the bourgeoisie starts completely selling out the country to imperialism communists should absolutely not fight against this.

[Comrade Trollface]

His wife became a NaziI can excuse your simpleminded Nazi interpretation of his philosophy. After all, your handle isn't "A Marxist Philosopher." But where do you get this 'wife' shit? I don't think that he was even married :laugh:

Being a hero to a bunch of assholes who didn't understand his work any more than you do and who, judging from his actual writings he'd have nothing but for disdain for, does not exactly discredit him. Sure his Nazi sister (who he never even fucking liked) used his celebrity and infirmity to make him into a mute prophet for the fuckers. But as with a great deal of fascist iconography/ideology, there was no substance to it. It was all aesthetic.

And if I recall correctly, nowhere in his work did he call for the mass extermination of anyone :rolleyes:
So save your "all in favor of Auschwitz, except that he would have preferred to exterminate different people" jive for all the Stalin-lovers here.

[ed miliband]

what's wrong with "national betrayal" and being a traitor?

[Tim Finnegan]

Yes, when the bourgeoisie starts completely selling out the country to imperialism communists should absolutely not fight against this.
How do you "sell out the country to imperialism", exactly?


what's wrong with "national betrayal" and being a traitor?
I'm just waiting for the Stalinoids to put out a press-release denying that they committed race-treason by supporting the Civil Rights Movement.

[Conscript]

How do you "sell out the country to imperialism", exactly?Just compare chiang kai-shek to mao to see who was better for national capital and ending reliance on imperialism.

I suppose this has something to do with the modern bourgeoisie no longer being revolutionary or progressive at all for the reactionary nations.

Not that communists should 'save' them, just that the bourgeoisie can be useless or antagonistic to the nation.

[Tim Finnegan]

So a good communist is one who fights on behalf of national capital against international capital?

[Conscript]

So a good communist is one who fights on behalf of national capital against international capital?

I don't see how this is relevant, nobody said this. Read..



Not that communists should 'save' them, just that the bourgeoisie can be useless or antagonistic to the nation

But if you're asking me, maybe if it's part of some divide and conquer strategy. Who wouldn't want to use the national bourgeoisie's money through nationalized banks to fight the imperialists, then turn around and completely expropriate them and/or abolish capitalism depending on the status of the international revolution? Seems like two birds with one stone to me, but maybe you can prove otherwise.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Nietsche was a total reactionary, hated the masses, felt that the "Supermen," the ruling classes, should rule the lower classes with an iron fist, not worrying about Christian morality, which he rejected. His favorite country was Tsarist Russia.

His wife became a Nazi, and Nietsche was a big culture hero in the Third Reich. Ironical, as N was neither a German nationalist nor an anti-Semite. Mussolini's style of fascism would have been his preference.

Nietsche would have been all in favor of Auschwitz, except that he would have preferred to exterminate different people.

-M.H.-

Your understanding of Nietzsche, as well as his personal story, is about as accurate as the worldview of Flat Earth folks. His sister was a proto-Nazi and Nietzsche himself was never married. The only reason she became so relevant was that she was the only person able to care for her increasingly famous brother as his health seriously declined. She abused that fact to misuse his work to support their absurd ideology, despite the fact that Nietzsche himself did not endorse their views. Since his mental and physical health was deteriorated however, there wasn't much he could do about it and maybe wasn't even really aware of it.

The "overman" was not the "ruling class", and his ideas of morality, aristocracy and the "slave class" are much more complicated than you make it out to be. Nietzsche can be read as supporting authoritarianism or dictatorship, but that is a very one-sided and limited reading of his work. Nietzsche poses us with an irony-he likes strong-willed autonomous people, implying that people like dictators and the like have a certain nobility, but he also mocks and derides those weak-willed enough to follow such a figure and see them as necessary. His notion of "overman" was not necessarily political either, but is a more artistic idea of a willingness to create something truly new. The overman certainly wasn't the same as the aristocrat or dictator.

Nietzsche never once wrote a political manifesto, so making his work out to be some kind of political ideology is a huge mistake. One thing Nietzsche consistently avoided was being pigeonholed into a particular political or religious category. There are legitimate critiques of his view of morality and the way political power is exercised, but you aren't offering it.

[Omsk]

Putin is a reactionary and you should stop wasting your time on political junk.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't see how this is relevant, nobody said this. Read..


But if you're asking me, maybe if it's part of some divide and conquer strategy. Who wouldn't want to use the national bourgeoisie's money through nationalized banks to fight the imperialists, then turn around and completely expropriate them and/or abolish capitalism depending on the status of the international revolution? Seems like two birds with one stone to me, but maybe you can prove otherwise.
Because that's bourgeois as all fuck? I don't really know how I can put it any more straightforwardly.

[A Marxist Historian]

I can excuse your simpleminded Nazi interpretation of his philosophy. After all, your handle isn't "A Marxist Philosopher." But where do you get this 'wife' shit? I don't think that he was even married :laugh:

Being a hero to a bunch of assholes who didn't understand his work any more than you do and who, judging from his actual writings he'd have nothing but for disdain for, does not exactly discredit him. Sure his Nazi sister (who he never even fucking liked) used his celebrity and infirmity to make him into a mute prophet for the fuckers. But as with a great deal of fascist iconography/ideology, there was no substance to it. It was all aesthetic.

And if I recall correctly, nowhere in his work did he call for the mass extermination of anyone :rolleyes:
So save your "all in favor of Auschwitz, except that he would have preferred to exterminate different people" jive for all the Stalin-lovers here.

Typo, sister not wife.

He did call for exterminating leftists, socialists and anarchists, but in private letters not published works. He saved his murderous spleen for private correspondence.

This is well described in Arno Mayer's fine book, "The Persistence of the Old Regime," which you should read before making ignorant defenses of that scumbag Nietsche. Everything I wrote is taken from there. He's a well-respected historian, and not even a leftist.

He quotes Nietsche as saying that genuine aristocrats were ever ready to be cruel and "to sacrifice, with a clear conscience, vast numbers of human beings who, for the benefit of noble men, had to be pressed down and reduced to be lesser humans, slaves, or mere instruments." Page 289.

-M.H.-

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Well let me give you examples of succesful revolutions from above: The Bolivarian Revolution, Rafael Correa, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Fidel Castro

And let me give you examples of the pieces of human trash, stupid anti-scientific "Revolutions from below" and how they are crushed: The Paris Commune, The anarchists of Spain.

So keep supporting "Revolutions from below" done with sticks and rocks. I'll support stalinist revolutions from above

Thanks
The revolutions you mention, except for Cuba, were nationalist pro-capitalist. Evo Morales in Bolivia has not made a revolution to date, nor will he ever.

Cuba depended on the USSR to follow through with an anti-capitalist revolution that overthrew the bourgeoisie. The Russian Revolution was a revolution from below, based on the way you seem to use the term.

[Omsk]

He is banned now, Lev, so i guess you should stop bothering with him.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The too many left-nationalists in Russia should have a field day harping about how the late czars lost the Crimean war and the 1905 war against Japan before going on to being in a losing situation in WWI. The only "national traitors" I see here are the czars and the liberals.

[A Marxist Historian]

He is banned now, Lev, so i guess you should stop bothering with him.

And about time!

-M.H.-

[Crux]

And I hadn't even seen this thread when I banned him. Man...what a confused confused individual. Speaking of which:

The too many left-nationalists in Russia should have a field day harping about how the late czars lost the Crimean war and the 1905 war against Japan before going on to being in a losing situation in WWI. The only "national traitors" I see here are the czars and the liberals.
Uh what are you saying exactly? Are you supporting or merely "giving advice to" Russian "left" nationalists (of which there is indeed too many)?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Uh what are you saying exactly? Are you supporting or merely "giving advice to" Russian "left" nationalists (of which there is indeed too many)?

I'm only stating facts about who lost how many wars. Only Soviet Russia could beat back even Japanese imperialism, for example, and even "Bolshevist Russia" (i.e., under Lenin) was able to do so.

[International_Solidarity]

Would you expect anything different from that Bourgeois leader?