SYRIZA and the "United States of Europe."

[Fight Social-Fascism]

Lenin states that the slogan of the "United States of Europe," advanced by Trotsky, can only be reactionary under capitalism. It can only be an agreement on the partition of Europe's colonial possessions.



But while the slogan of a republican United States of Europe—if accompanied by the revolutionary overthrow of the three most reactionary monarchies in Europe, headed by the Russian—is quite invulnerable as a political slogan, there still remains the highly important question of its economic content and significance. From the standpoint of the economic conditions of imperialism—i.e., the export of capital arid the division of the world by the “advanced” and “civilised” colonial powers—a United States of Europe, under capitalism, is either impossible or reactionary.



A United States of Europe under capitalism is tantamount to an agreement on the partition of colonies. Under capitalism, however, no other basis and no other principle of division are possible except force.

Lenin, in his Imperialism and the Split in Socialism, further concludes that a united European nation would be nothing more than a monstrous menace to the people of Africa and Asia.



The prospect of partitioning China elicited from Hobson the following economic appraisal: “The greater part of Western Europe might then assume the appearance and character already exhibited by tracts of country in the South of England, in the Riviera, and in the tourist-ridden or residential parts of Italy and Switzerland, little clusters of wealthy aristocrats drawing dividends and pensions from the Far East, with a somewhat larger group of professional retainers and tradesmen and a larger body of personal servants and workers in the transport trade and in the final stages of production of the more perishable goods: all the main arterial industries would have disappeared, the staple foods and semi-manufactures flowing in as tribute from Asia and Africa.... We have foreshadowed the possibility of even a larger alliance of Western states, a European federation of Great Powers which, so far from forwarding the cause of world civilisation, might introduce the gigantic peril of a Western parasitism, a group of advanced industrial nations, whose upper classes drew vast tribute from Asia and Africa, with which they supported great tame masses of retainers, no longer engaged in the staple industries of agriculture and manufacture, but kept in the performance of personal or minor industrial services under the control of a new financial aristocracy. Let those who would scout such a theory [he should have said: prospect] as undeserving of consideration examine the economic and social condition of districts in Southern England today which are already reduced to this condition, and reflect upon the vast extension of such a system which might be rendered feasible by the subjection of China to the economic control of similar groups of financiers, investors [rentiers] and political and business officials, draining the greatest potential reservoir of profit the world has ever known, in order to consume it in Europe. The situation is far too complex, the play of world forces far too incalculable, to render this or any other single interpretation of the future very probable; but the influences which govern the imperialism of Western Europe today are moving in this direction, and, unless counteracted or diverted, make towards such a consummation.”

Hobson, the social-liberal, fails to see that this “counteraction” can be offered only by the revolutionary proletariat and only in the form of a social revolution. But then he is a social-liberal! Nevertheless, as early as 1902 he had an excellent insight into the meaning and significance of a “United States of Europe” (be it said for the benefit of Trotsky the Kautskyite!) and of all that is now being glossed over by the hypocritical Kautskyites of various countries, namely, that the opportunists (social-chauvinists) are working hand in glove with the imperialist bourgeoisie precisely towards creating an imperialist Europe on the backs of Asia and Africa, and that objectively the opportunists are a section of the petty bourgeoisie and of a certain strata of the working class who have been bribed out of imperialist superprofits and converted to watchdogs of capitalism and corruptors of the labour movement

The KKE has pointed out that SYRIZA has remained completely silent on Western imperialist barbarity toward Libya and Syria. This silence is no accident.

SYRIZA is not merely a Social-Fascist watchdog of capital, trying to forestall the revolution in Greece, while simultaneously paving the way for Golden Dawn, it is trying to help create the United States of Europe, precisely to rape the people of Asia and Africa of their wealth!

[cynicles]

Not that I have any faith that SYRIZA is actually a revoutionary party or plans to bring revolution to Greece but this sounds conspiratorial. Theyre just a stupid reformist party.

[Fight Social-Fascism]

Not that I have any faith that SYRIZA is actually a revoutionary party or plans to bring revolution to Greece but this sounds conspiratorial. Theyre just a stupid reformist party.

Of course the First-World so-called "Left" would see this basic Leninist understanding of imperialism as a conspiracy! The Western so-called "Left" has never once critically looked at itself in the mirror, has never once come to a honest conclusion about the nature of their own nations' histories of brutal conquest and exploitation of so-called "uncivilized" nations! They absolutely refuse to do so, and even have the audacity to call themselves Marxists on top of it all!

But this is clearly what the "European Union" is all about. It is about the union of the Europeans into a single colossal imperialist monster, in alliance with the Euro-Settler nation of America, to extract vast tribute from the rest of the world.

The attack on Libya was nothing more than the declaration of the new conquest of Africa. The threats against Syria are just another opening front for the domination of the Middle East.

This is the reality of our world today.

As the class-struggle heats up, there will be more and more Social-Fascist, pseudo-Left parties arising all over the imperialist West, in the same mold as SYRIZA.

The dividing line will always be these parties' relation to the parasitic nature of Western imperialism!

[Sasha]

Oh dear, somebody overheated the caricature generator again...

[cynicles]

Of course the First-World so-called "Left" would see this basic Leninist understanding of imperialism as a conspiracy! The Western so-called "Left" has never once critically looked at itself in the mirror, has never once come to a honest conclusion about the nature of their own nations' histories of brutal conquest and exploitation of so-called "uncivilized" nations! They absolutely refuse to do so, and even have the audacity to call themselves Marxists on top of it all!

But this is clearly what the "European Union" is all about. It is about the union of the Europeans into a single colossal imperialist monster, in alliance with the Euro-Settler nation of America, to extract vast tribute from the rest of the world.

The attack on Libya was nothing more than the declaration of the new conquest of Africa. The threats against Syria are just another opening front for the domination of the Middle East.

This is the reality of our world today.

As the class-struggle heats up, there will be more and more Social-Fascist, pseudo-Left parties arising all over the imperialist West, in the same mold as SYRIZA.

The dividing line will always be these parties' relation to the parasitic nature of Western imperialism!

I'm Ojibwe you dunce, don't try and talk down to me like I know nothing of euro-imperialism.

[Threetune]

Not that I have any faith that SYRIZA is actually a revoutionary party or plans to bring revolution to Greece but this sounds conspiratorial. Theyre just a stupid reformist party.

There is nothing ‘stupid’ as you say about reformist parties. They are, (together with their Trades Unions and ‘left’ apologists) the main prop for capitalism, especially in times of economic crisis and war. This is the ABC of Leninism.

[Threetune]

Oh dear, somebody overheated the caricature generator again...

Which means that you can’t speak to the issue in hand and answer the points raised?

[cynicles]

There is nothing ‘stupid’ as you say about reformist parties. They are, (together with their Trades Unions and ‘left’ apologists) the main prop for capitalism, especially in times of economic crisis and war. This is the ABC of Leninism.

Actually reformist parties are pretty stupid and I couldn't give a rats ass about the "ABCs of Leninism" as you put it.

[Threetune]

[QUOTE=Fight Social-Fascism;2491038]Of course the First-World so-called "Left" would see this basic Leninist understanding of imperialism as a conspiracy! The Western so-called "Left" has never once critically looked at itself in the mirror, has never once come to a honest conclusion about the nature of their own nations' histories of brutal conquest and exploitation of so-called "uncivilized" nations! They absolutely refuse to do so, and even have the audacity to call themselves Marxists on top of it all! QUOTE]

I think this is far too generous. The philosophical self appraisal by the ‘lefts’ has been taking place over many decades since 1917, and has reached the conclusion that they are against the dictatorship of the proletariat first and foremost, (the “touchstone on which the real understanding and recognition of Marxism is to be tested”-Lenin) All of which means they have come to an honest conclusion, they will side with reaction.

[Threetune]

Actually reformist parties are pretty stupid and I couldn't give a rats ass about the "ABCs of Leninism" as you put it.

“In Europe, reformism actually means abandoning Marxism and replacing it by bourgeois “social policy”. – Lenin.

Even you should recognise that this is a bit more than just “stupid” as you try to maintain.

Reformism is downright consciously reactionary and you know it but won’t admit it, you just seek to cover up the foul reactionary nature of reformist parties by blithely dismissing them as merely “stupid”. So what does that make you?

[Threetune]

Of course the First-World so-called "Left" would see this basic Leninist understanding of imperialism as a conspiracy! The Western so-called "Left" has never once critically looked at itself in the mirror, has never once come to a honest conclusion about the nature of their own nations' histories of brutal conquest and exploitation of so-called "uncivilized" nations! They absolutely refuse to do so, and even have the audacity to call themselves Marxists on top of it all!

But this is clearly what the "European Union" is all about. It is about the union of the Europeans into a single colossal imperialist monster, in alliance with the Euro-Settler nation of America, to extract vast tribute from the rest of the world.

The attack on Libya was nothing more than the declaration of the new conquest of Africa. The threats against Syria are just another opening front for the domination of the Middle East.

This is the reality of our world today.

As the class-struggle heats up, there will be more and more Social-Fascist, pseudo-Left parties arising all over the imperialist West, in the same mold as SYRIZA.

The dividing line will always be these parties' relation to the parasitic nature of Western imperialism!

But here is the best most accurate and concise argument so far, in a nutshell.

“The West's panicked subversion in Syria to provoke civil war and intimidate the genuine Arab Spring revolution in Egypt is increasingly obviously a set up job swallowed only by the fake "left" petty bourgeois gullibility of the Trots. But the Stalinist defencism uncritically "supporting" the bourgeois nationalist Ba'athist regime is little better than the anti-communism of the Trots, feeding just as many reformist illusions and ending up in the same "No to War" social pacifist dead end. None of the fake - "lefts" nor the anarchists and Pan-African conspiracy theorists begins to explain the real issues confronting the working class everywhere of the most gigantic world scale and historically unprecedented catastrophic failure of an entire epoch of class rule, which has reached the end of the road. Leninist revolutionary scientific understanding is now vital.” –EPSR No 1409 30th July 2012.

[pluckedflowers]

Social fascism: That awkward moment at a party when Stalin and the Tea Party finish each others' sentence.

[Per Levy]

I'm Ojibwe you dunce, don't try and talk down to me like I know nothing of euro-imperialism.

ah, "fight social-fascism" is a western radikkkal(a favourite word of fight socail-fascism), therefore he likes to talk down to people like you and everyone who doesnt share his views.

[agnixie]

Which means that you can’t speak to the issue in hand and answer the points raised?

Not considering your clone and you are turning it into a joke. To paraphrase Roger Ebert on Caligula: "It's not good polemic, it's not good debate, it's not even good trolling"

[Threetune]

Not considering your clone and you are turning it into a joke. To paraphrase Roger Ebert on Caligula: "It's not good polemic, it's not good debate, it's not even good trolling"

You see, nothing sensible or original from you and your moderator boss. Just the usual childish name calling and passing the baton when you get argued into a corner with superior Leninist revolutionary theory.

The capitalist economic crisis is driving all the pent up, covered up contradictions to the surface and the Leninist truth about ‘the left’ being the last ditch defence of imperialism is being demonstrated for all to see along with all the rest of the capitalist bullshit. And all you can do is wriggle about in your seat and cry “troll” in the hope of getting the commies thrown out of the meeting. Truly pathetic. When you mature a bit, we will help you formulate an argument that begins with the capitalist economic crisis and not your bruised ego.


You can start with this for now:
“The confusion and opportunism of the fake-"lefts" of all shades is increasingly exposed by the civil war destruction the West has deliberately provoked to try destroy the Assad bourgeois nationalist regime in Syria.”
“Sour Trotskyist capitulation to the West's Goebbels lies about a Syrian "Arab Spring revolt" – in reality an artificially triggered counter-revolutionary mayhem – is straightforward betrayal, helping bolster this next stage in the West's crisis driven warmongering "solution" to its cataclysmic economic and political Slump meltdown.” EPSR No 1409 30th July 2012.</SPAN>

[Sasha]

You see, nothing sensible or original from you and your moderator boss. Just the usual childish name calling and passing the baton when you get argued into a corner with superior Leninist revolutionary theory.

The capitalist economic crisis is driving all the pent up, covered up contradictions to the surface and the Leninist truth about ‘the left’ being the last ditch defence of imperialism is being demonstrated for all to see along with all the rest of the capitalist bullshit. And all you can do is wriggle about in your seat and cry “troll” in the hope of getting the commies thrown out of the meeting. Truly pathetic. When you mature a bit, we will help you formulate an argument that begins with the capitalist economic crisis and not your bruised ego.


You can start with this for now:
“The confusion and opportunism of the fake-"lefts" of all shades is increasingly exposed by the civil war destruction the West has deliberately provoked to try destroy the Assad bourgeois nationalist regime in Syria.”
“Sour Trotskyist capitulation to the West's Goebbels lies about a Syrian "Arab Spring revolt" – in reality an artificially triggered counter-revolutionary mayhem – is straightforward betrayal, helping bolster this next stage in the West's crisis driven warmongering "solution" to its cataclysmic economic and political Slump meltdown.” EPSR No 1409 30th July 2012.</SPAN>


thats not theory that are meaningless slogan turds wrapped in bullshit in an feeble attempt to confuse workers enough to not think for themselves.

i asked for this before but does anyone know anywhere where you can get an generator template, we could have massive lulz with it in chitchat.

[cynicles]

“In Europe, reformism actually means abandoning Marxism and replacing it by bourgeois “social policy”. – Lenin.

Even you should recognise that this is a bit more than just “stupid” as you try to maintain.

Reformism is downright consciously reactionary and you know it but won’t admit it, you just seek to cover up the foul reactionary nature of reformist parties by blithely dismissing them as merely “stupid”. So what does that make you?

Yes, it's all a part of my conspiracy to hide the reactionary nature of reformist parties by calling them stupid. Now that you've found me out my plot is foiled again, and I would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling leninists.


In short, your comment is so ridiculous, so cartoonish and attempts to presume political positions of me that you have no proof of that it deserves a cartoonish reply. Troll on little guy.

[Crux]

Wait, you think Trotsky advocated a United Socialist Europe under capitalism? :laugh:

[cynicles]

Wait, you think Trotsky advocated a United Socialist Europe under capitalism? :laugh:

Anyone who doesn't endorse the dear leaders view is secretly fighting for capitalism didn't you know that ?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I don't think these Leninist fanatics understand how history changes. (1) Lenin was not omniscient, (2) Lenin died nearly 90 years ago. You cannot just assume Lenin's analysis is correct in a situation completely removed from Lenin's life and insult anybody who has even slightly different analysis.

[Crux]

I don't think these Leninist fanatics understand how history changes. (1) Lenin was not omniscient, (2) Lenin died nearly 90 years ago. You cannot just assume Lenin's analysis is correct in a situation completely removed from Lenin's life and insult anybody who has even slightly different analysis.
I tend to agree with Lenin yet I tend to disagree with these guys. Funny how that works.

[agnixie]

I tend to agree with Lenin yet I tend to disagree with these guys. Funny how that works.

I'm a platformist and disagree on quite a few points (although I do agree on a number of leninist points as well) and I can't quite shake the feeling he'd probably be creeped out by that sort of bootlicking sycophancy.

[Fight Social-Fascism]

Wait, you think Trotsky advocated a United Socialist Europe under capitalism? :laugh:

Trotsky is pretty clear that he advocates for the "United States of Europe," regardless of its economic character. He believed that a "United States of Europe" could not be reactionary, as Lenin describes it.

Here is Trotsky's thesis, in direction contradiction to Lenin:



If the German armies achieved the decisive victory reckoned upon in Germany during the first phase of the war, the German imperialism would have doubtless made the gigantic attempt of realizing a compulsory military-tariff union of European states, which would be constructed completely of exemptions, compromises, etc., which would reduce to a minimum the progressive meaning of the unification of the European market. Needless to say, under such circumstances no talk would be possible of an autonomy of the nations, thus forcibly joined together as the caricature of the European United States. Certain opponents of the program of the United States of Europe have used precisely this perspective as an argument that this idea can, under certain conditions, acquire a “reactionary” monarchist-imperialist content. Yet it is precisely this perspective that provides the most graphic testimony in favor of the revolutionary viability of the slogan of the United States of Europe. Let us for a moment grant that German militarism succeeds in actually carrying out the compulsory half-union of Europe, just as Prussian militarism once achieved the half-union of Germany, what would then be the central slogan of the European proletariat? Would it be the dissolution of the forced European coalition and the return of all peoples under the roof of isolated national states? Or the restoration of “autonomous” tariffs, “national” currencies, “national” social legislation, and so forth? Certainly not. The program of the European revolutionary movement would then be: The destruction of the compulsory antidemocratic form of the coalition, with the preservation and furtherance of its foundations, in the form of complete annihilation of tariff barriers, the unification of legislation, above all of labor laws, etc. In other words, the slogan of the United States of Europe – without monarchies and standing armies – would under the indicated circumstances become the unifying and guiding slogan of the European revolution.

In the exact same pamphlet where he advances this anti-Leninist thesis, Trotsky actually advocates that the USSR should not try to construct socialism, and instead, just develope capitalism and trade with the European powers, until the slogan of the "United States of Europe" brings about this "Revolution" with its "annihilation of tariff barriers."



The assertion, repeated several times in the Program of Peace, to the effect that the proletarian revolution cannot be victoriously consummated within a national framework may perhaps seem to some readers to have been refuted by the five years’ experience of our Soviet Republic. But such a conclusion would be unfounded. The fact that the workers’ state has maintained itself against the entire world in a single and, moreover, backward country testifies to the colossal power of the proletariat, a power which in other more advanced, more civilized countries, will truly be able to achieve miracles. But having defended ourselves as a state in the political and military sense, we have not arrived at, nor even approached socialist society. The struggle for revolutionary-state self-defense resulted in this interval in an extreme decline of productive forces, whereas socialism is conceivable only on the basis of their growth and blossoming. Trade negotiations with bourgeois states, concessions, the Geneva Conference and so on are far too graphic evidence of the impossibility of isolated socialist construction within a national-state framework. So long as the bourgeoisie remains in power in other European states we are compelled, in the struggle against economic isolation, to seek agreements with the capitalist world; at the same time it can be stated with certainty that these agreements, in the best case, will help us heal this or that economic wound, make this or that step forward, but the genuine rise of socialist economy in Russia will become possible only after the victory of the proletariat in the most important countries of Europe.

This is the pseudo-revolutionary Trotsky, advocating that the Bolsheviks abandon the construction of socialism, and seek agreement with the European capitalists powers, and wait for the slogan of the "United States of Europe" to magically bring about socialism.

Meanwhile, the actual Leninists in the power knew all along, because of the barbarity of the imperialist war and the utter treachery and evil of social-chauvinism and opportunism, that such a suggestion was tantamount to insanity. It is even more clear today, that as the "European Union" solidifies political control over Europe, they are doing exactly as Lenin predicted.

The Western so-called "Left" denies this, because, like the Social-Fascists Lenin so bitterly criticized, they are actually in alliance with their own imperialists. They seek the creation of a "Pan-European" nation, knowing full well what that means.

[Threetune]

Utterly incapable of countering with any recognisable polemical point our ‘left’ heroes resort to all the old tried and trusted anti-communist repertoire, coughing up one calumny after another with no more concern for the truth than any MP, cop or press baron. However, anti communism unites them and exposes them as follows.

“But museum-Stalinist revisionism's solidarity and unconditional support for the petty bourgeois nationalism of the Assad
Ba'athist regime, (and for Gaddafi's weird anti-Marxist loopiness, and even Saddam Hussein (!) before that) is just as damaging to working class understanding.”

“Both flavours of pretend "revolutionism" end up in the same camp at the end, advancing a "No to War" line of "opposition" to any NATO invasion, just differing over how it is to be done, and which side should be backed locally.”

“But such social-pacifism is a total disaster for the working class, rightly detested by Lenin, and repeatedly battled with by the Bolsheviks throughout the years running up to the 1917 Revolution.” - EPSR.

[agnixie]

Bolding lines and excerpts for emphasis is little but a cheap ploy to distort the overall context. Which is what you're obviously doing.

Considering how trollish you are, I'm sure not even you is fooled by your sophomoric rhetorical tricks.

[Crux]

Trotsky is pretty clear that he advocates for the "United States of Europe," regardless of its economic character. He believed that a "United States of Europe" could not be reactionary, as Lenin describes it.

Here is Trotsky's thesis, in direction contradiction to Lenin:



In the exact same pamphlet where he advances this anti-Leninist thesis, Trotsky actually advocates that the USSR should not try to construct socialism, and instead, just develope capitalism and trade with the European powers, until the slogan of the "United States of Europe" brings about this "Revolution" with its "annihilation of tariff barriers."



This is the pseudo-revolutionary Trotsky, advocating that the Bolsheviks abandon the construction of socialism, and seek agreement with the European capitalists powers, and wait for the slogan of the "United States of Europe" to magically bring about socialism.

Meanwhile, the actual Leninists in the power knew all along, because of the barbarity of the imperialist war and the utter treachery and evil of social-chauvinism and opportunism, that such a suggestion was tantamount to insanity. It is even more clear today, that as the "European Union" solidifies political control over Europe, they are doing exactly as Lenin predicted.

The Western so-called "Left" denies this, because, like the Social-Fascists Lenin so bitterly criticized, they are actually in alliance with their own imperialists. They seek the creation of a "Pan-European" nation, knowing full well what that means.
Lenin never used the word social fascist as far as I know. meanwhile here is a quote from Trotsky you ought to read:

"If the German armies achieved the decisive victory reckoned upon in Germany during the first phase of the war, the German imperialism would have doubtless made the gigantic attempt of realizing a compulsory military-tariff union of European states, which would be constructed completely of exemptions, compromises, etc., which would reduce to a minimum the progressive meaning of the unification of the European market. Needless to say, under such circumstances no talk would be possible of an autonomy of the nations, thus forcibly joined together as the caricature of the European United States. Certain opponents of the program of the United States of Europe have used precisely this perspective as an argument that this idea can, under certain conditions, acquire a “reactionary” monarchist-imperialist content. Yet it is precisely this perspective that provides the most graphic testimony in favor of the revolutionary viability of the slogan of the United States of Europe. Let us for a moment grant that German militarism succeeds in actually carrying out the compulsory half-union of Europe, just as Prussian militarism once achieved the half-union of Germany, what would then be the central slogan of the European proletariat? Would it be the dissolution of the forced European coalition and the return of all peoples under the roof of isolated national states? Or the restoration of “autonomous” tariffs, “national” currencies, “national” social legislation, and so forth? Certainly not. The program of the European revolutionary movement would then be: The destruction of the compulsory antidemocratic form of the coalition, with the preservation and furtherance of its foundations, in the form of complete annihilation of tariff barriers, the unification of legislation, above all of labor laws, etc. In other words, the slogan of the United States of Europe – without monarchies and standing armies – would under the indicated circumstances become the unifying and guiding slogan of the European revolution."


As for your second part, for a supposed Leninist you seem terribly ignorant of Lenin. Perhaps you should start calling yourself something else?`I mean if you oppose international revolution and oppose the Bolshevik government of the 20's it seems maybe Lenin is just not for you.

[Threetune]

Here is a true working class hero of our ‘lefts’, a real proper reformist anti-communist and founding member of NATO and a united Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Bevin

[Positivist]

I mean the way this argument is presented does sound conspiratorial, and I don't really agree with "Fight Social-Fascism's" designation of the western left as ignorant to eurocentric imperialism, but I do agree that;
A.) International exploitation is generally a European phenomenon.
B.) The recent "Arab spring" was supported by western powers because it opened up the economies of the revolting nations to western investment.
C.) Reformist parties can be dangerous

With the last one it is important to recognize that these organizations do not intentionally subvert the working class, but their platforms result in misguidance and pacification of the workers.

[Per Levy]

Here is a true working class hero of our ‘lefts’, a real proper reformist anti-communist and founding member of NATO and a united Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Bevin


Utterly incapable of countering with any recognisable polemical point our ‘left’ heroes resort to all the old tried and trusted anti-communist repertoire, coughing up one calumny after another with no more concern for the truth than any MP, cop or press baron.

[agnixie]

A.) International exploitation is generally a European phenomenon.


Coming from an american that's very adorable in the degree of blinders involved.


B.) The recent "Arab spring" was supported by western powers because it opened up the economies of the revolting nations to western investment.


These countries were already open to european investments; Lybia and Tunisia were effectively active lynchpins of the EU's immigration policies, Egypt has been a pro-nato power since the 70s, Syria was, during most of the current administration, working with Turkey over Kurdistan and buying weaponry from various european powers, not just Russia. Europe is not merely France, Italy and the UK, it's also a lot of minor powers which an american calling them imperialist would not fail to make everyone smile.

[Positivist]

Coming from an american that's very adorable in the degree of blinders involved.

I was referring to of European descent. I am including the United States in this statement. I use "European" to distinguish between of European descent, and of native American (including Latin American) descent.

[agnixie]

I was referring to of European descent. I am including the United States in this statement. I use "European" to distinguish between of European descent, and of native American (including Latin American) descent.

Most latin americans are of european descent. That's why they're called latin. Also no, imperialism is not magically the purview of europeans, it's an accident of history. The current situation in Syria is an inter imperialist war between two reactionary power blocs.

[Positivist]

Most latin americans are of european descent. That's why they're called latin. Also no, imperialism is not magically the purview of europeans, it's an accident of history. The current situation in Syria is an inter imperialist war between two reactionary power blocs.

What is with the fetish for Europe? I'm not making a racial charge, I am just acknowledging the imperialism has mostly been performed by European dominated nations. Obviously this is historically founded, and corresponds to capitalism developing in Europe first. And can we get a source for the "majority" of Latin Americans (which in the United States is referring to those who live, or who have recent ancestry, in the south American continent) being mostly comprised of Europeans?

[agnixie]

What is with the fetish for Europe?

What fetish for Europe, I'm saying the position of Europe in the 19th century is an accident of history based on how material conditions developed. Considering Japan did the same thing and with equal amounts of imperialism, there is nothing magically european about capitalism (or Imperialism). It's disingenuous to essentialize something that's pretty universal (imperialism) to a single loosely tied cultural grouping (which you probably redefine based on arbitrary and fluid limits; are turks more European for having ruled an empire than the formerly dominated serbs, albanians, norwegians, etc; does russian dominance over the caucasus count but not the same from Iran, etc).



Obviously this is historically founded, and corresponds to capitalism developing in Europe first. And can we get a source for the "majority" of Latin Americans (which in the United States is referring to those who live, or who have recent ancestry, in the south American continent) being mostly comprised of Europeans?

Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Brazil amount to about 2/3 of the south american population and are mostly european in descent (non european descent in Brazil is common but is mostly african, and almost always mixed). Colombia, Venezuela are less clear cut to a degree where you'd be delving in blood quantums and other such stuff, that said mestizo implies european descent in the vast majority of cases. The very history of the expression Latin America is an appeal to this shared european originted culture considering that it was coined by the second Empire as part of its politics of forming a Latin Sphere of power, also seen in the Latin Union in Europe, and Napoleon III's support for Italian nationalism.

Only Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay and Ecuador actually still have significant pluralities or majorities of native populations with native cultures. Because like central mexico they were less settlement colonies and more cash cows to exploit.

That said in your simplistic view you'd be somewhat right, Brazil, Colombia, Chile and Argentina spent much of the 19th century fighting colonial wars over their frontiers and conquering and dispossessing native populations. Like the US on a smaller scale (except for Brazil, which did it on the same grand scale).

LAST EDIT - This is ultimately all irrelevant, the thing is that you're ultimately stupidly blaming the Arab Spring on Europe for a stupid, ahistorical, counterfactual reason - middle eastern markets were already mostly open to european goods and investments to begin with. Your analysis of the situation is stuck all the way back in 19th century Africa. And you're completely ignoring the part where both the dominant parties are reactionary bourgeois supported abroad by reactionary bourgeois states.

[Fight Social-Fascism]

Lenin never used the word social fascist as far as I know.

He doesn't need to. Social-Fascism is nothing more than opportunism and social-chauvinism. That's all the term refers to.


meanwhile here is a quote from Trotsky you ought to readThis quote still indicates everything I said: it is a direct contradiction to Lenin, and Trotsky is advocating that this be the revolutionary slogan on European Social-Democracy. Trotsky's ridiculous qualifiers are just his usual phrase-mongering.

I only bold certain parts for people who refuse to read blocks of texts.


As for your second part, for a supposed Leninist you seem terribly ignorant of Lenin.For someone who calls themselves a Leninist, you seem like a White Nationalist. But that's typical of Western so-called radiKKKals.


I mean if you oppose international revolutionNote for the reader: nowhere does anything I said even hint at such an absurd reading. I doubt, if pressed, this individual could even come up with some convoluted logic on why I must take this position he has conjured out of thin-air.


and oppose the Bolshevik government of the 20'sAgain, more absolute absurdity. Nowhere is such a bizarre reading of anything I've said even possible. This individual has conjured up a fantasy in his own mind of what I must believe, for he can not deal with the actual stated positions, nor deal with Lenin's clear words.


it seems maybe Lenin is just not for you.It's obvious you don't want to believe Lenin's plain words. Most Western radiKKKals reject them. They can't handle them, because it forces them to deal with their own social-chauvinism and opportunism.

[Fight Social-Fascism]

What fetish for Europe, I'm saying the position of Europe in the 19th century is an accident of history based on how material conditions developed. Considering Japan did the same thing and with equal amounts of imperialism, there is nothing magically european about capitalism (or Imperialism). It's disingenuous to essentialize something that's pretty universal (imperialism) to a single loosely tied cultural grouping (which you probably redefine based on arbitrary and fluid limits; are turks more European for having ruled an empire than the formerly dominated serbs, albanians, norwegians, etc; does russian dominance over the caucasus count but not the same from Iran, etc).

This is a great example of how Western radiKKKals want to ignore European imperialism. I'm glad you could be honest enough to write something like this. More radiKKKals like you should write stuff like this, so the people of the world realize even faster that the Western so-called "Left" is utterly treacherous and reactionary.

Lenin, however, is quite clear. Lenin advocates that oppressed nations should wage war on the European nations.



The history of the 20th century, this century of “unbridled imperialism,” is replete with colonial wars. But what we Europeans, the imperialist oppressors of the majority of the world’s peoples, with our habitual, despicable European chauvinism, call “colonial wars” are often national wars, or national rebellions of these oppressed peoples. One of the main features of imperialism is that it accelerates capitalist development in the most backward countries, and thereby extends and intensifies the struggle against national oppression. That is a fact, and from it inevitably follows that imperialism must often give rise to national wars. Junius, who defends the above-quoted “theses” in her pamphlet, says that in the imperialist era every national war against an imperialist Great Power leads to intervention of a rival imperialist Great Power. Every national war is this turned into an imperialist war. But that argument is wrong, too. This can happen, but does not always happen. Many colonial wars between 1900 and 1914 did not follow that course. And it would be simply ridiculous to declare, for instance, that after the present war, if it ends in the utter exhaustion of all the belligerents, “there can be no” national, progress, revolutionary wars “of any kind”, wages, say, by China in alliance with India, Persia, Siam, etc., against the Great Powers.

To deny all possibility of national wars under imperialism is wrong in theory, obviously mistaken historically, and tantamount to European chauvinism in practice: we who belong to nations that oppress hundreds of millions in Europe, Africa, Asia, etc., are invited to tell the oppressed peoples that it is “impossible” for them to wage war against “our” nations!

It is clear what Lenin would think of your words, and what any real Leninist should think of your special-pleading for European imperialism.

[Positivist]

What fetish for Europe, I'm saying the position of Europe in the 19th century is an accident of history based on how material conditions developed. Considering Japan did the same thing and with equal amounts of imperialism, there is nothing magically european about capitalism (or Imperialism). It's disingenuous to essentialize something that's pretty universal (imperialism) to a single loosely tied cultural grouping (which you probably redefine based on arbitrary and fluid limits; are turks more European for having ruled an empire than the formerly dominated serbs, albanians, norwegians, etc; does russian dominance over the caucasus count but not the same from Iran, etc)

Did you actually read my post or did you just see Europe and imperialism in the same sentence and soil your pants? I wrote "Imperialism is GENERALLY a European phenomenon." Perhaps you aren't familiar with the definition of the word generally. Here, enlighten yourself; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/generally?s=t.
Oh and assuming you aren't to great with context clues either, I intended it as the second definition on that page. In the case that it isn't your vocabulary which is uninformed, and rather you are just ignorant of global events, I must ask, are European countries (and so we don't ruin another pair of shorts) the United States not the chief perpetrators of imperialism? Is it not the US and European corporations which import nearly all of their material commodities from the east Asian nations? Or is this Japan with their "equal amount" of imperialism (whatever the hell an "amount" of imperialism is?) But that doesn't mean that it couldn't be Japan, and I'd wager Japanese corporations do have a factory presence within this region, but the point is that GENERALLY (there's that word again) the sweatshops throughout the third world belong to US and European countries.

Oh and about "my suggestion that the Arab spring was triggered by some European nations who came upon material conditions by chance etc." it appears that again your problem is a diminished capacity (or will) to actually read what I wrote. I said "the Arab spring was SUPPORTED by western powers because it opened up the economies of the revolting nations to investment." For the purposes of continuing our vocabulary lesson you can find the definition of support here; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/support?s=t
I was not subscribing to some conspiratorial notion that NATO independently fermented the uprisings to make a quick buck, I was merely acknowledging that the western ruling classes wouldn't haven offered any support to the ascendent masses whatsoever if it wasn't in their interests. Do you take issue with this too? Were the glorious European nations supporting the uprisings out of utter magnanimity? No. They served to gain by the fall of the preexisting regimes. This was the least of the case in Egypt, but then again there weren't any airstrikes in Cairo now were there. Whatever openings to western investment there already were in Libya and Syria will only grow now, and the governments of Europe and the US know this, hence why they support the revolts.


And as for your assertions about the south Americans being generally (yay our new word!) of European descent, your claims make sense but I'd appreciate a source. Not that it matters, considering that I wasn't saying all Europeans were imperialist wizards or whatever jargon you were spouting about magic and imperialism and Europe. I just am not delusional about which nations the most vivacious imperialism has come from.

[Threetune]

Utterly incapable of countering with any recognisable polemical point our ‘left’ heroes resort to all the old tried and trusted anti-communist repertoire, coughing up one calumny after another with no more concern for the truth than any MP, cop or press baron.

Now Levy;2491495 is desperate to prove my point about him having no originality with this new ‘left’ brain rot. She just child like plagiarises Leninist polemic to give the impression of being ironic or somehow humorous completely forgetting that we are talking about the lives and deaths of millions of workers. Our light minded ‘lefts’ should be embarrassed by this display of sallow wit, but they won’t be. After all, it is their stock in trade as Lenin said, an “infantile disorder.”

[Crux]

He doesn't need to. Social-Fascism is nothing more than opportunism and social-chauvinism. That's all the term refers to.

This quote still indicates everything I said: it is a direct contradiction to Lenin, and Trotsky is advocating that this be the revolutionary slogan on European Social-Democracy. Trotsky's ridiculous qualifiers are just his usual phrase-mongering.
No, it's not and your pathetic attempt at misrepresentation through bolding isn't fooling anyone.


I only bold certain parts for people who refuse to read blocks of texts. Such as yourself?


For someone who calls themselves a Leninists, you seem like a White Nationalist. But that's typical of Western so-called radiKKKals.
Again you're being pathetic and disgraceful.


Note for the reader: nowhere does anything I said even hint at such an absurd reading. I doubt, if pressed, this individual could even come up with some convoluted logic on why I must take this position he has conjured out of thin-air.

Again, more absolute absurdity. Nowhere is such a bizarre reading of anything I've said even possible. This individual has conjured up a fantasy in his own mind of what I must believe, for he can not deal with the actual stated positions, nor deal with Lenin's clear words.

It's obvious you don't want to believe Lenin's plain words. Most Western radiKKKals reject them. They can't handle them, because it forces them to deal with their own social-chauvinism and opportunism.
You're the one playing with absurdity. The quote from Trotsky you thought was so offensive was arguing for those very things. But perhaps you didn't actually read it but were just looking for words you could string together with your magic marker to make them appear to say what you want them to say? It's you who can't deal with clear words and I am becoming increasingly convinced you are just a troll. A white, western, radiKKKal troll.

[agnixie]

I wrote "Imperialism is GENERALLY a European phenomenon."


In a post about Greece and the EU. It's a complete out of context irrelevance, it especilly has fuck all to do with countries like Greece, or Romania, or really half of the EU. Imperialism is also not a linear thing, you can be on both ends of it at different points in time.

[cynicles]

Why is FIght Social Fascism so anti-Marxist?

[Threetune]

thats not theory that are meaningless slogan turds wrapped in bullshit in an feeble attempt to confuse workers enough to not think for themselves.


This is a great example of your clear thinking. You should publish without delay.

To continue:

“All of Lenin's years of struggle to insist that the fraud of reformism should be exposed at every step, and that only revolution can solve the gigantic crisis of capitalism, are jettisoned by the ‘lefts’.
Instead the illusion is fostered that war can be stopped by sufficiently firm "peace struggle", if only sufficiently widespread propaganda is done with enough "moral" conviction.

This notion was the crucial flaw in post-war Third International understanding generated by Stalin's 1952 revisions to Lenin's understanding of imperialism, which declared that monopoly capitalism was essentially defeated by the Second World War and could be contained by socialist countries' growth outpacing it, combined with a vigilant effort to "prevent it going to war".

Combined with the permanent peaceful coexistence policy for the workers states it led to the disastrous abandonment of a revolutionary perspective expressed in the numerous "parliamentary road" strategies of revisionist parties around the world, including the appalling "Peaceful road to socialism" of the British CP, and to the eventual 1989 Gorbachevite liquidation of the Soviet Union itself.” -EPSR

[Threetune]

Why is FIght Social Fascism so anti-Marxist?

How would you know?

[Fight Social-Fascism]

You're the one playing with absurdity. The quote from Trotsky you thought was so offensive was arguing for those very things.

Western radiKKKals say all sorts of things. They claim to oppose imperialism, but wholeheartedly support it. They claim to want socialism, but attack it mercilessly. They claim to oppose racism, but are the most ardent defenders of it in practice.

That Trotsky said anything about wanting "international revolution" means nothing at all. The piece I quoted is about justifying the slogan of the "United States of Europe," a slogan which Lenin specifically repudiates, in no uncertain terms.

Most Western radiKKKals are habitual liars, and I suppose I should not bother responding when the only rational conclusion to the things you are saying is willful distortion. However, watching the convoluted logic used by radiKKKals to justify the lies they spew is somewhat entertaining, and instructive to anyone who takes Lenin's words seriously.

Social-chauvinism and opportunism take on many forms. The essence of Social-Fascism is European chauvinism. Social-Fascists can not handle the idea that the European powers (and their settler colonies, like Australia, America, Israel, etc), in alliance with their so-called "Left," are leading the world into an inevitable nuclear holocaust, as this "Left" refuses to actually lift a finger to do anything about it, due to their extreme racial-chauvinism.

[Fight Social-Fascism]

Why is FIght Social Fascism so anti-Marxist?

Nothing I have said is in the slightest anti-Marxist. Not in the slightest.

But it is hysterical, that pointing out the extreme social-chauvinism and opportunism of the Western so-called "Left" is equated in their minds with being "anti-Marxist." In the minds of Social-Fascists, pointing out their subservience to their imperialist masters is being "anti-Marxist."

Instructive.

[Rational Radical]

Western radiKKKals say all sorts of things. They claim to oppose imperialism, but wholeheartedly support it. They claim to want socialism, but attack it mercilessly. They claim to oppose racism, but are the most ardent defenders of it in practice.

That Trotsky said anything about wanting "international revolution" means nothing at all. The piece I quoted is about justifying the slogan of the "United States of Europe," a slogan which Lenin specifically repudiates, in no uncertain terms.

Most Western radiKKKals are habitual liars, and I suppose I should not bother responding when the only rational conclusion to the things you are saying is willful distortion. However, watching the convoluted logic used by radiKKKals to justify the lies they spew is somewhat entertaining, and instructive to anyone who takes Lenin's words seriously.

Social-chauvinism and opportunism take on many forms. The essence of Social-Fascism is European chauvinism. Social-Fascists can not handle the idea that the European powers (and their settler colonies, like Australia, America, Israel, etc), in alliance with their so-called "Left," are leading the world into an inevitable nuclear holocaust, as this "Left" refuses to actually lift a finger to do anything about it, due to their extreme racial-chauvinism. Please with the "KKK" being in place of the "C" and the accusations of eurocentrism, Assad was a corrupt DICTATOR who killed children and many other innocent people. The situation in syria is well deserved home grown frustration,this doesnt mean that it can't be co-opted by Western Elites who want to secure a monoploy of natural resources but cheering for Assad to "fight of imperialism" is ridiculous. I wish the syrian people well and it's up to them to keep it a people's revolution.

[Fight Social-Fascism]

Assad is a corrupt DICTATOR that killed CHILDREN and other innocent people

Even if you could substantiate any of this nonsense with actual evidence (which you undoubtedly can not, the very idea of "personal" dictatorships being anti-Marxist nonsense), Leninists emphasize the distinction between oppressor and oppressed nations. Leninists always defend the right of oppressed nations to defend themselves from oppressor nations.



“For example, if tomorrow Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be ‘just,’ ‘defensive’ wars, irrespective of who attacked first, and every socialist would sympathize with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slave-owning, predatory ‘great’ powers.”

Morocco, India, Persia and China were not "perfect" utopias run by people that appealed to the social-chauvinist and opportunist sensibilities of what Western radiKKKals think should be good leaders. Far from it (as there is no leader who some racial-chauvinist radiKKKal will not find fault with).

Yet Lenin still insists "every socialist" sympathize with their victory, regardless of who attacked first! This is the uncompromising position of revolutionary internationalists. Every real socialist should wish for the victory of Assad, as a matter of principle.


this is coming from an African-Americans who knows alot about colonialism/imperialism by the way.That you claim to be African-America means nothing. Anyone can claim anything they want on the Internet, and it doesn't matter. And even if you are, it doesn't mean anything. Imperialism has never had any troubles finding compradors amongst the oppressed nations.

[cynicles]

So you're supporting a bourgeios dictatorship then?

[agnixie]

You missed the part where Syria is currently under the aegis of Russia, China and Iran.

The equivalent to Morocco liberating itself from France is not Syria fighting the US, but Syria fighting the country that's building military bases on its soil.


So you're supporting a bourgeios dictatorship then?


a Leninist third worldist is an interesting proposition, basically someone bent on following one of Lenin's main errors (selling out the turkish communists to Ataturk) rather than everything else that mattered about him.

[Fight Social-Fascism]

You missed the part where Syria is currently under the aegis of Russia, China and Iran.

Lenin is clear, that the Right of Nations to Self-Determination can not be repudiated because of talk of some other "Great Power" interfering in the conflict, even assuming (incorrectly) that Russia, China or Iran have "imperialist" interests in Syria.



The fact that the struggle for national liberation against one imperialist power may, under certain circumstances, be utilized by another “Great” Power in its equally imperialist interests should have no more weight in inducing Social Democracy to renounce its recognition of the right of nations to self-determination than the numerous case of the bourgeoisie utilizing republican slogans for the purpose of political deception and financial robbery, for example, in the Latin countries, have had in inducing them to renounce republicanism.


The equivalent to Morocco liberating itself from France is not Syria fighting the US, but Syria fighting the country that's building military bases on its soil.

Western radiKKKals also have no memory. Libya was just destroyed and turned into a colony by the imperialist super-power of the US. The same fate awaits Syria, something Western radiKKKals openly salivate at the prospect at, as your post makes more than clear.

[Rational Radical]

Even if you could substantiate any of this nonsense with actual evidence (which you undoubtedly can not, the very idea of "personal" dictatorships being anti-Marxist nonsense), Leninists emphasize the distinction between oppressor and oppressed nations. Leninists always defend the right of oppressed nations to defend themselves from oppressor nations.



Morocco, India, Persia and China were not "perfect" utopias run by people that appealed to the social-chauvinist and opportunist sensibilities of what Western radiKKKals think should be good leaders. Far from it (as there is no leader who some racial-chauvinist radiKKKal will not find fault with).

Yet Lenin still insists "every socialist" sympathize with their victory, regardless of who attacked first! This is the uncompromising position of revolutionary internationalists. Every real socialist should wish for the victory of Assad, as a matter of principle.

That you claim to be African-America means nothing. Anyone can claim anything they want on the Internet, and it doesn't matter. And even if you are, it doesn't mean anything. Imperialism has never had any troubles finding compradors amongst the oppressed nations.
Please if i claim to be black i dont have to prove it,you sir are a fool for supporting a corrupt dictator who is oppressing his own people,like i said it's up for the people to keep it a people's revolution which is common sense that they do.

[agnixie]

L
Western radiKKKals also have no memory. Libya was just destroyed and turned into a colony by the imperialist super-power of the US. The same fate awaits Syria, something Western radiKKKals openly salivate at the prospect at, as your post makes more than clear.

Libya was already part of the US' network of allies in the war on terror, already a solid ally of Italy (to the point where Berlusconi threatened to quit his post over the original bombing) as well as working closely with the EU on immigration policies.

Honestly every post you make is garbage. Every word you utter.

[Fight Social-Fascism]

Libya was already part of the US' network of allies in the war on terror, already a solid ally of Italy (to the point where Berlusconi threatened to quit his post over the original bombing) as well as working closely with the EU on immigration policies.

Honestly every post you make is garbage. Every word you utter.

Everything you say is a defense of Western imperialism, and by implication, the most extreme form of racism imaginable.

That the US government briefly considered Libya a friend in the "War on Terror," because the Afghanistan Mujahideen become instant enemies of Gaddafi after leaving that conflict against the government of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan means nothing. That racist European powers forced their anti-African immigration policies on Libya means nothing.

If Gaddafi was even half as bad as the Western radiKKKal "Left" pretends he was, he was still better than the Western so-called "Left!" That's because the duty of any revolutionary internationalist is to actively utilize reactionary wars to ferment civil war in their own nations.



War is no chance happening, no “sin” as is thought by Christian priests (who are no whit behind the opportunists in preaching patriotism, humanity and peace), but an inevitable stage of capitalism, just as legitimate a form of the capitalist way of life as peace is. Present-day war is a people’s war. What follows from this truth is not that we must swim with the “popular” current of chauvinism, but that the class contradictions dividing the nations continue to exist in wartime and manifest themselves in conditions of war. Refusal to serve with the forces, anti-war strikes, etc., are sheer nonsense, the miserable and cowardly dream of an unarmed struggle against the armed bourgeoisie, vain yearning for the destruction of capitalism without a desperate civil war or a series of wars. It is the duty of every socialist to conduct propaganda of the class struggle, in the army as well; work directed towards turning a war of the nations into civil war is the only socialist activity in the era of an imperialist armed conflict of the bourgeoisie of all nations. Down with mawkishly sanctimonious and fatuous appeals for “peace at any price"! Let us raise high the banner of civil war! Imperialism sets at hazard the fate of European culture: this war will soon be followed by others, unless there are a series of successful revolutions. The story about this being the “last war” is a hollow and dangerous fabrication, a piece of philistine “mythology”(as Golos aptly puts it). The proletarian banner of civil war will rally together, not only hundreds of thousands of class-conscious workers but millions of semi-proletarians and petty bourgeois, now deceived by chauvinism, but whom the horrors of war will not only intimidate and depress, but also enlighten, teach, arouse, organise, steel and prepare for the war against the bourgeoisie of their “own” country and “foreign” countries. And this will take place, if not today, then tomorrow, if not during the war, then after it, if not in this war then in the next one.

The Second International is dead, overcome by opportunism. Down with opportunism, and long live the Third International, purged not only of “turncoats”(as Golos wishes), but of opportunism as well

Instead of raising high the banner of civil war, and actively conducting propaganda in that direct, the Social-Fascists are busy spreading the lies of the imperialist press. The Western radiKKKal "Left" conducts propaganda on behalf of their imperialists masters, to the most radicalized section of the working class, no less!

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

radiKKKals ... radiKKKals ... radiKKKals

I don't know whether to laugh or cry ...

[A Marxist Historian]

Western radiKKKals say all sorts of things. They claim to oppose imperialism, but wholeheartedly support it. They claim to want socialism, but attack it mercilessly. They claim to oppose racism, but are the most ardent defenders of it in practice.

That Trotsky said anything about wanting "international revolution" means nothing at all. The piece I quoted is about justifying the slogan of the "United States of Europe," a slogan which Lenin specifically repudiates, in no uncertain terms.

Most Western radiKKKals are habitual liars, and I suppose I should not bother responding when the only rational conclusion to the things you are saying is willful distortion. However, watching the convoluted logic used by radiKKKals to justify the lies they spew is somewhat entertaining, and instructive to anyone who takes Lenin's words seriously.

Social-chauvinism and opportunism take on many forms. The essence of Social-Fascism is European chauvinism. Social-Fascists can not handle the idea that the European powers (and their settler colonies, like Australia, America, Israel, etc), in alliance with their so-called "Left," are leading the world into an inevitable nuclear holocaust, as this "Left" refuses to actually lift a finger to do anything about it, due to their extreme racial-chauvinism.

Is social-fascism the same thing as social-chauvinism and opportunism? Then, fascism is the same thing as chauvinism, and indeed close on to being the same thing to opportunist.

That is just stupid and illiterate. If you're not clear on that, check in with your Soviet mentors and role models. Some 26 million Soviet citizens died in the war against fascism, murdered by Hitler. And the problem with Hitler wasn't that Hitler was an "opportunist."

Did Lenin specifically repudiate the United States of Europe slogan in the year 1916, in the middle of World War I? Sure he did, and he was basically right to in that context, with German troops trying to conquer all Europe. At the time Trotsky issued his famous pamphlet, "The War and the International," during the Great War, he hadn't come 100% of the way over to Bolshevism yet, and though it's in many ways a great pamphlet, it isn't perfect. And Lenin's criticisms of some of its formulations have validity.

But by the time Trotsky wrote the pamphlet you're quoting from, five years later, Trotsky and Lenin had converged in their ideas, Trotsky had become a Bolshevik and Lenin had more or less accepted many of Trotsky's theoretical ideas such as "permanent revolution," and had, as Lenin put it while arguing against people like Kamenev and at first Stalin in 1917, put "old Bolshevik" concepts like the "dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" into the museum.

When Trotsky wrote the pamphlet you criticize, he was writing as one of the main central leaders of the Soviet Communist Party, and simply expressing the official Communist International political position, which he was after all one of the main formulators for at the time.

The Communist International officially adopted the slogan of the "United Socialist States of Europe" while Lenin was still alive, and maintained this as a central slogan throughout the 1920s.

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Communist International officially adopted the slogan of the "United Socialist States of Europe" while Lenin was still alive, and maintained this as a central slogan throughout the 1920s.

Guess what? The KKE is against this. SYRIZA is for it.

[A Marxist Historian]

Guess what? The KKE is against this. SYRIZA is for it.

That the KKE is against it is no news. My support to the KKE in these two elections was critical support. And not an indefinite blank check for the future either...

SYRIZA is for a United Socialist States of Europe? If so, only on paper, which, as Stalin put it so well, can taker whateve is written on it.

The Tsipras election campaign was strictly an "anti-austerity" affair. Not only did Tsipras not talk about a united socialist states of Europe in his speeches, neither did he talk about bringing socialism to Greece!

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think these timely, comradely podcasts have a much more informed position on the EU than the KKE's nationalism:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/podcasts/marxism-fringe-the-left-in-europe
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/podcasts/marxism-fringe-the-left-in-europe-debate
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/podcasts/marxism-fringe-the-left-in-europe-summing-up