Country: What's your opinion about it?

[Philosophos]

Hello guys I had a conversation with some guys at my place and we started analyzing some political theories. They told me that if you are a communist then you don't believe in the concept of the nation.

In the begining I thought they were talking about the complete communism and when there is no need for a country, but I was wrong.
They were talking about the wars that your country is involved with.

I don't really think that there is a communist that wants to take part in an imperialistic war or a war for profit or any war that his country started.

My question is would you take part in a war where you would defend your country or would you stay back and do nothing because you are a pascifist or whatever.

Please don't start analyzing things that have nothing to do with the topic because I'm sick of reading things in my threads that merely have nothing to do with what I write. Just say your opinion and why you support it. Thanks in advance.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If Russian or American soldiers were on the streets of the UK, I would most certainly want them to GTFO.

[Blake's Baby]

Hello guys I had a conversation with some guys at my place and we started analyzing some political theories. They told me that if you are a communist then you don't believe in the concept of the nation.

In the begining I thought they were talking about the complete communism and when there is no need for a country, but I was wrong.
They were talking about the wars that your country is involved with.

I don't really think that there is a communist that wants to take part in an imperialistic war or a war for profit or any war that his country started.

My question is would you take part in a war where you would defend your country or would you stay back and do nothing because you are a pascifist or whatever.

Please don't start analyzing things that have nothing to do with the topic because I'm sick of reading things in my threads that merely have nothing to do with what I write. Just say your opinion and why you support it. Thanks in advance.

It's nothing to do with pacifism, it's to do with whether or not the working class has any interest in fighting in nationalist wars. Does it matter if your boss speaks the same language as you or wears the same kind of hat? Is a local cop better than a foreign cop? When it comes down to it, is it 'better' to be shot by someone born 10km away than by someone born 1000km away?

I think these things are totally unimportant. The problem is capitalism, not foreigners. The working class is the working class throughout the world, its interests are in opposing the capitalist class throughout the world, not allying with capitalists from one place against capitalists from another place, and killing other workers to prove it.

[Karabin]

Yes, definitely, because if a nation is being occupied by a foreign aggressor then a leftist resistance movement can arise from it, if it can be organised. Yugoslavia in World War Two is an example of this.

Besides, I think it would be a lot easier to implement radical social, political and economic change from a Marxist perspective if the society is recovering from war/occupation.

[Silvr]

If Russian or American soldiers were on the streets of the UK, I would most certainly want them to GTFO.

Moreso than British soldiers?

[Silvr]

But short answer is no, you cannot be a communist and defend your country in wars.

[Blake's Baby]

The working class has no country. Can't remember who said that.

[ВАЛТЕР]

The working class has no country. Can't remember who said that.

Some guy named Karx? Larx? Marx maybe? Idk, unimportant.

What is important is that a communist views a state as a tool of the bourgeoisie. The borders it has established as nothing but a division of the international working class, and its laws as nothing but laws to protect the ruling class.

Now, if some power invaded where I live of course I would fight, just as I would fight if the army of my nation was in the streets pointing guns at people. I don't want boots trampling me. Be they boots from 10km up the road, or 1000km away.

[Blake's Baby]

...
Now, if some power invaded where I live of course I would fight, just as I would fight if the army of my nation was in the streets pointing guns at people. I don't want boots trampling me. Be they boots from 10km up the road, or 1000km away.

How would you fight though Walter?

Surely the point is, turn the imperialist war into a civil war. Fraternise with the enemy, try to turn them against their own officers and government. Killing foreign workers-in-uniform for the benefit of 'your' local bourgeoisie is not bringing the revolution one iota closer.

[ВАЛТЕР]

How would you fight though Walter?

Surely the point is, turn the imperialist war into a civil war. Fraternise with the enemy, try to turn them against their own officers and government. Killing foreign workers-in-uniform for the benefit of 'your' local bourgeoisie is not bringing the revolution one iota closer.



No, the goal is to organize a resistance movement which fights both against the national army and against the foreign invader. In the event of an invasion I wouldn't join the army, I'd attempt to join a communist militia, or if one hasn't been formed yet then try to form one. The war can be turned into a revolution, especially since people will be motivated to fight if there is an occupation taking place.

Also, they aren't "workers in uniform" I despise that term. They are tools of imperialism and the ruling class and I have no sympathy for them so long as they fill that role. If they turn their guns against their officers and government, then great. If not, sucks to be them when shit hits the fan.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Moreso than British soldiers?

It's never good, but I would guess that defection among the British rank and file is more likely than from a foreign army. Also the British Army is tiny compared to the Armies of the US/Russia.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I agree with the majority of the people who have already posted in that nations are nothing but borders between our colleagues abroad. Call me a spastic idealist if you will, but I support proletarian revolution based on region and unity, not nations. I'm never going to favour national support over international support. If you're having yourself a revolution in, say, spain, why can't you simply abolish your ties with your state and coalesce with the enormous amount of similar-minded allies right next door, all of whom are separated through nothing more than claims to sovereignity?


I also find the idea of nationalism in itself rather silly. Sensation aside, it all eventually boils down to something like this:


A] "Awh sweeet! Check how damn hip my stretch of land is that was taken over by rich people some odd hundred years ago!"

B] "Pfft! Your stretch of land is rubbish and you yourself are rubbish! Nothing is better than this giant rock we live on! It's soooooooooooo much cooler, you losers!"

A] "How DARE you insult my heritage! I was born and raised on this strip of land and will gladly die for it, you rock-living, barbarous COWARD!"

B] "Pah! The humans on our democratic rock are ten times better than your stupid cavemen! Look, we have tomato icecream! Do YOU have tomato icecream!?"

A] "What!? Of course no-"

B] "THOUGHT SO. Go back to your stretch of land, weakling. We hate you all because you happened to be born upon a set of co-ordinates within a claim to private property! Scum!"

A] "Oh, NOW you've gone and done it, you dirty rockies!"
And so on and so forth. :lol:

[Thirsty Crow]

My question is would you take part in a war where you would defend your country or would you stay back and do nothing because you are a pascifist or whatever.

Transform the imperialist war into civil war (implying class war). That's always been the basic communist response to such issues, and I would uphold it both as a valid personal, ethical stance, and as a political stance.
There's no chance in hell they'd get me to bleed for their profit and power.

[Blake's Baby]

No, the goal is to organize a resistance movement which fights both against the national army and against the foreign invader. In the event of an invasion I wouldn't join the army, I'd attempt to join a communist militia, or if one hasn't been formed yet then try to form one. The war can be turned into a revolution, especially since people will be motivated to fight if there is an occupation taking place...

Oh dear.

So, even though your country isn't any kind of 'workers state' or anything, just a good old capitalist bourgeois republic or constitutional monarchy, you'd fight against another capitalist country who occupied it?

That makes you a nationalist, things like that get restricted round here.


Also, they aren't "workers in uniform" I despise that term...

I despise nationalists pretending to be socialists.

Can't remember Lenin arguing for defence of Tsarist Russia, can you? Please, tell me where you've found this great revelation that the workers of the world need to kill other workers. Oh, yeah, it was the social patriots of the 2nd International wasn't it? Traitor.


They are tools of imperialism and the ruling class and I have no sympathy for them so long as they fill that role...

No, you're a tool of imperialism and the ruling class and I have no sympathy with you as long as you fill that role.


If they turn their guns against their officers and government, then great...

If your momma turns her guns against her officers then great.


If not, sucks to be them when shit hits the fan.

In Soviet Union, fan being you is shit when hits, sucker.

[Positivist]

Oh dear.
So, even though your country isn't any kind of 'workers state' or anything, just a good old capitalist bourgeois republic or constitutional monarchy, you'd fight against another capitalist country who occupied it?
That makes you a nationalist, things like that get restricted round here.
I despise nationalists pretending to be socialists.
Can't remember Lenin arguing for defence of Tsarist Russia, can you? Please, tell me where you've found this great revelation that the workers of the world need to kill other workers. Oh, yeah, it was the social patriots of the 2nd International wasn't it? Traitor.
No, you're a tool of imperialism and the ruling class and I have no sympathy with you as long as you fill that role.
If your momma turns her guns against her officers then great.
In Soviet Union, fan being you is shit when hits, sucker.

Did you even read his post you idiot? He specifically said he'd join or form a communist militia and fight against the national and occupying forces.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Oh dear.

So, even though your country isn't any kind of 'workers state' or anything, just a good old capitalist bourgeois republic or constitutional monarchy, you'd fight against another capitalist country who occupied it?

That makes you a nationalist, things like that get restricted round here.

Seriously? Being occupied by a foreign army is a bunch of shit, just ask the people of Iraq.

[Raúl Duke]

Nation is a more abstract yet semi-inescapable concept since it also involves things such as culture, etc. Puerto Rico may not be a country but there does exist a nation of Puerto Ricans (i.e. Puerto Rican nation, unfortunately not sovereign) .

Nation-state however, they won't exist under communist...there are no states.

Nationalism or national chauvinism won't be particularly encouraged under communism; I say this meaning nationalist type thinking that is divisive, hateful, and 'dangerous.' People may still have a competitive sense of nationhood concerning things like the Olympics, etc but all in good spirit/no ill will or chauvinism against other nationalities.
If anything, internationalism will be encouraged. We may all come from different cultures, but we're all part of humanity and are in this together (referring to space exploration and sustainability efforts, among other things); I expect this to be the outlook of a future world communist society.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Oh dear.

So, even though your country isn't any kind of 'workers state' or anything, just a good old capitalist bourgeois republic or constitutional monarchy, you'd fight against another capitalist country who occupied it?

That makes you a nationalist, things like that get restricted round here.

Have you been sniffing glue? How does organizing communist militias to fight both nationalist and occupying forces to turn the war/occupation into a revolution equal out to nationalism?




I despise nationalists pretending to be socialists. I despise people who have no reading comprehension skills.






If your momma turns her guns against her officers then great. Are you in some snarky, shitty, cowardly way trying to imply something about my mother you piece of shit? Where I am from bringing a persons mother into a conversation is EXTREMELY looked down upon and is grounds for a serious altercation. This is very hurtful to me so please don't do it again.



Soldiers fulfill the role of killing and oppressing workers of both their own nation and other nations as well. They are not our friends until they desert. Which has happened in the past. I even spoke about Italian troops defecting to Yugoslav Partisans in WW2 on another thread.

Come the revolution, it won't be bankers and CEOs shooting at us, it will be your beloved "workers in uniform". The time for class politics is over the second someone points their weapon and starts shooting at us.

[#FF0000]

Nah I won't be defending the USA from any threats foreign or domestic

[Raúl Duke]

Nah I won't be defending the USA from any threats foreign or domestic

Me neither, I'll just go hide in the woods and perhaps wait it out or become a refugee...depending (domestically, I expect it would be a right-wing takeover and I'm surely leaving for good).

[Blake's Baby]

Have you been sniffing glue? How does organizing communist militias to fight both nationalist and occupying forces to turn the war/occupation into a revolution equal out to nationalism?

...

Did Lenin organise communist militias to resist the Germans and Austrians?

No he didn't. He declared that the Russian working class had no business in fighting in imperialist wars. Stupid Lenin, not as clever as Walter, should have known that he should have formewd communist militias, stupid Lenin with his stupid 'turn the imperialist war into a civil war' slogan.



I despise people who have no reading comprehension skills...

Which makes you an elitist prick, which isn't as bad as being a class traitor. But you're a class traitor as well.




Where I am from bringing a persons mother into a conversation is EXTREMELY looked down upon and is grounds for a serious altercation. This is very hurtful to me so please don't do it again...

Where I'm from, betraying your class and being a nationalist is looked down on, traitor. I'd ask you not to do it again, but I'd be wasting my typing finger because you will, traitor.


...
Soldiers fulfill the role of killing and oppressing workers of both their own nation and other nations as well. They are not our friends until they desert. Which has happened in the past. I even spoke about Italian troops defecting to Yugoslav Partisans in WW2 on another thread...

You must be very proud that some soldiers stopped fighting for an imperialist power and started fighting for another one. Yay hay! Let the killing continue!

Oh, did I mention you're a traitor?


Come the revolution, it won't be bankers and CEOs shooting at us, it will be your beloved "workers in uniform". The time for class politics is over the second someone points their weapon and starts shooting at us.

Now you're an idiot, a prick and a traitor. Class politics never stops, until there are no more classes. The bosses are always our enemy; doesn't matter who their enemies are, the working class has no interest in supporting one freaction of the bourgeoisie against another. It has no interest in murdering other workers.

Sure workers join up, workers also join churches and fascist parties. Class consciousness is not even and the working class is never free of bourgeois ideology. There isn't soem mythical socialist-realist uber-worker somewhere who is ideologically clean and free from capitalism's taint. Workers don't stop being workers just because they've been persuaded to work for the bourgeoisie.

It took the German working class 4 days to end World War One. They did it by lauching a revolution. That is class politics taken to a degree that we can only seek to emulate. Fuck the nation, fuck the resitance, fuck your 'communist militia'. If the country I live in gets invaded, I'm going to learn the invaders' language and distribute leaflets calling on the invading soldiers to fraternise and turn their guns on their officers. Just like Lenin would do.

[ВАЛТЕР]

did lenin organise communist militias to resist the germans and austrians?

No he didn't. He declared that the russian working class had no business in fighting in imperialist wars. Stupid lenin, not as clever as walter, should have known that he should have formewd communist militias, stupid lenin with his stupid 'turn the imperialist war into a civil war' slogan.



Which makes you an elitist prick, which isn't as bad as being a class traitor. But you're a class traitor as well.






Where i'm from, betraying your class and being a nationalist is looked down on, traitor. I'd ask you not to do it again, but i'd be wasting my typing finger because you will, traitor.



You must be very proud that some soldiers stopped fighting for an imperialist power and started fighting for another one. Yay hay! Let the killing continue!

Oh, did i mention you're a traitor?



Now you're an idiot, a prick and a traitor. Class politics never stops, until there are no more classes. The bosses are always our enemy; doesn't matter who their enemies are, the working class has no interest in supporting one freaction of the bourgeoisie against another. It has no interest in murdering other workers.

Sure workers join up, workers also join churches and fascist parties. Class consciousness is not even and the working class is never free of bourgeois ideology. There isn't soem mythical socialist-realist uber-worker somewhere who is ideologically clean and free from capitalism's taint. Workers don't stop being workers just because they've been persuaded to work for the bourgeoisie.

It took the german working class 4 days to end world war one. They did it by lauching a revolution. That is class politics taken to a degree that we can only seek to emulate. Fuck the nation, fuck the resitance, fuck your 'communist militia'. If the country i live in gets invaded, i'm going to learn the invaders' language and distribute leaflets calling on the invading soldiers to fraternise and turn their guns on their officers. Just like lenin would do.

Where the fuck did I suggest fighting for a nationalist cause you fucking idiot? Point it out. Please point it out for me, because I cannot see it anywhere. You fucking illiterate.



You must be very proud that some soldiers stopped fighting for an imperialist power and started fighting for another one. Yay hay! Let the killing continue!

How praytell were the Yugoslav partisans imperialist? You ignorant moron.

Pass out flyers? Great idea, until they shoot you in your fucking face.

[Blake's Baby]

Where the fuck did I suggest fighting for a nationalist cause you fucking idiot? Point it out. Please point it out for me, because I cannot see it anywhere. You fucking illiterate.

How praytell were the Yugoslav partisans imperialist? You ignorant moron.

Pass out flyers? Great idea, until they shoot you in your fucking face.

The nation is a bourgois construct. You wanna fight for it, that makes you a nationalist.

'The workers have no country'. It's from Marx, you fucking illiterate.

They were fighting for the Yugolslav state in alliance with the Soviet Union and the western democracies. Look at Yugoslav imperialism in the Trieste region. Look at Russian imperialism in the whole of Eastern Europe. Look at western imperialism... well, everywhere ever. They were footsoldiers in an imperialist war. I at least think they were workers in uniform, sadly deluded and following the real criminals; but you don't of course, as you've already made clear, you have 'no sympathy' with them and think they should be shot. Ignorant moron.

I can't help it if they shoot me in the face. It's still the task of the revolutionary minorities to oppose bourgeois war. That includes agitation among the occupying forces. I mean fair enough if that's too hard and scary for you. Boo-hoo-hoo, go and hide in the woods playing Robin Hood if you like, wanking over pictures of Che. Just don't try and pretend that has anything to do with revolution, the interests of the working class or class consciousness, you pathetic snivelling worm.

Oh, did I mention you're a traitor? Second International social-patriot scum.

[ВАЛТЕР]

The nation is a bourgois construct. You wanna fight for it, that makes you a nationalist.

'The workers have no country'. It's from Marx, you fucking illiterate.

Yup, I understand that. I never said fight for a nation, I said fight for a revolution during a time when you can radicalize a working class. An occupation being an excellent time, so long as class consciousness exists.


They were fighting for the Yugolslav state in alliance with the Soviet Union and the western democracies. Look at Yugoslav imperialism in the Trieste region. Look at Russian imperialism in the whole of Eastern Europe. Look at western imperialism... well, everywhere ever. They were footsoldiers in an imperialist war. I at least think they were workers in uniform, sadly deluded and following the real criminals; but you don't of course, as you've already made clear, you have 'no sympathy' with them and think they should be shot. Ignorant moron.The large amount of Yugoslavs living there wished to be a part of Yugoslavia. To deny them that would be against their right to self-determination.

I have no sympathy for Axis soldiers, they knew exactly what they were doing and what their goals were. For the partisans I do. They were communists and fought for what was at that point in time considered the future of the communist movement. Yugoslavia resisted Soviet imperialism, by rightly calling it that. Imperialism. Soviet troops never did trample Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia itself never acted in an imperialist manner. (not counting the civil war and all that nonsense in the 90s)


I can't help it if they shoot me in the face. It's still the task of the revolutionary minorities to oppose bourgeois war. That includes agitation among the occupying forces. I mean fair enough if that's too hard and scary for you. Boo-hoo-hoo, go and hide in the woods playing Robin Hood if you like, wanking over pictures of Che. Just don't try and pretend that has anything to do with revolution, the interests of the working class or class consciousness, you pathetic snivelling worm.Fighting is fighting and gets a hell of a lot more done than passing out brochures to soldiers who don't give a rats ass about you or the people they are occupying. As they see you as a lesser being. They view the world through nations. They are there to kill and maim and destroy the working class of that nation and even their own if the order comes down to do so. Spreading class consciousness through their ranks is inefficient and a waste of time considering they are paid to kill, not read what the "untermensch" has to say about them. If I'm going to get killed it will be on my feet with a weapon, not putting flowers into the barrels of rifles and singing "why can't we be friends" to people who are there to KILL YOU. that is their job KILL. KILL. KILL. That is all a soldier does. They are the bourgeoisie's most powerful tool, when all is lost, then the soldiers come.

It is not a bourgeois war if you are fighting a fight against a bourgeois enemy. Be they foreign or domestic. An occupation may very well be the best time to radicalize a working class that is visibly oppressed by a soldiers boot, and feels betrayed by their own bourgeois government.


Oh, did I mention you're a traitor? Second International social-patriot scum.Cool story bro.

[l'Enfermé]

Eh, the Serbian comrades had it right when they refused to vote for war credits in 1914. And Serbia was the only genuine country engaging in self-defense during the war(perhaps Belgium too, but it was an imperialist power, while Serbia was a semi-colony). The only Social-Democrats to oppose the war, of course, were the Bolsheviks.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Eh, the Serbian comrades had it right when they refused to vote for war credits in 1914. And Serbia was the only genuine country engaging in self-defense during the war(perhaps Belgium too, but it was an imperialist power, while Serbia was a semi-colony). The only Social-Democrats to oppose the war, of course, were the Bolsheviks.

Yes, voting against a war is always the best course of action. Refusing to participate is also correct. However, fighting an occupying army in a peoples liberation war, against both the nationalist factions and the occupiers with the goal of establishing a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a course of action I very much support. A hell of a lot better than sitting on your hands waiting for the occupiers and the nationalists to get class conscious after about 100 or so years.

[Blake's Baby]

Give up on your fake socialism and become a fascist Walter. You'll be a lot happier. It's a lot better at 'getting things done' (because those stupid proles just take so much time to be indoctrinated into TEH TRU COMMUNIZMZ, much easier to shot them into consciousness), and you can get a frisson from the miltary hardware too.

Traitor.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Give up on your fake socialism and become a fascist Walter. You'll be a lot happier. It's a lot better at 'getting things done' (because those stupid proles just take so much time to be indoctrinated into TEH TRU COMMUNIZMZ, much easier to shot them into consciousness), and you can get a frisson from the miltary hardware too.

Traitor.

Say this about the Jewish partisans. I dare you.

[khad]

Give up on your fake socialism and become a fascist Walter. You'll be a lot happier. It's a lot better at 'getting things done' (because those stupid proles just take so much time to be indoctrinated into TEH TRU COMMUNIZMZ, much easier to shot them into consciousness), and you can get a frisson from the miltary hardware too.

Traitor.
This kind of invective has no place in this discussion.

Do you have any idea how many people were murdered by Nazis and their allies in Yugoslavia? It was a war first and foremost for basic survival.

And now you are throwing around fascist and traitor labels?

Take this as a verbal warning.

[Hermes]

This is probably a stupid position, apologies in advance.

Were war to break out between my state and another, I would not join the military. If that meant deserting/fleeing the country, so be it. If my life was threatened, I would defend my life, but I wouldn't take up a gun and shoot those who are more like me than my commanders would be simply because I was told to.

[Comrade Samuel]

Hello guys I had a conversation with some guys at my place and we started analyzing some political theories. They told me that if you are a communist then you don't believe in the concept of the nation.

In the begining I thought they were talking about the complete communism and when there is no need for a country, but I was wrong.
They were talking about the wars that your country is involved with.

I don't really think that there is a communist that wants to take part in an imperialistic war or a war for profit or any war that his country started.

My question is would you take part in a war where you would defend your country or would you stay back and do nothing because you are a pascifist or whatever.

Please don't start analyzing things that have nothing to do with the topic because I'm sick of reading things in my threads that merely have nothing to do with what I write. Just say your opinion and why you support it. Thanks in advance.



I think it would depend on the circumstances, if life can continue relatively the same as it is or possibly even become better for the majority of the population if some foreign force where to invade and occupy America: no. That's definitely not to say the international fight against capitalism would stop, just that it would continue under different circumstances.

However if it ment harm to my loved ones or innocent American workers I honestly dont know why you wouldn't want to be "fighting for your country" (and by that I mean fighting for the well-being of people who live in it rather than nationalism or something like that ).

[Positivist]

:rolleyes:
Give up on your fake socialism and become a fascist Walter. You'll be a lot happier. It's a lot better at 'getting things done' (because those stupid proles just take so much time to be indoctrinated into TEH TRU COMMUNIZMZ, much easier to shot them into consciousness), and you can get a frisson from the miltary hardware too.

Traitor.

You really can't read can you?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The working class has no country. Can't remember who said that.

Everyone.

And yes, it doesn't really matter whether our rulers are a, b, c, d or whatever. They're still rulers and that is our issue.

[Philosophos]

Nation is a more abstract yet semi-inescapable concept since it also involves things such as culture, etc. Puerto Rico may not be a country but there does exist a nation of Puerto Ricans (i.e. Puerto Rican nation, unfortunately not sovereign) .

Nation-state however, they won't exist under communist...there are no states.

Nationalism or national chauvinism won't be particularly encouraged under communism; I say this meaning nationalist type thinking that is divisive, hateful, and 'dangerous.' People may still have a competitive sense of nationhood concerning things like the Olympics, etc but all in good spirit/no ill will or chauvinism against other nationalities.
If anything, internationalism will be encouraged. We may all come from different cultures, but we're all part of humanity and are in this together (referring to space exploration and sustainability efforts, among other things); I expect this to be the outlook of a future world communist society.

That's what I've been telling to anyone, keep the culture leave the boarders but people can't understand the world without these little lines on the maps I suppose...

[Blake's Baby]

This kind of invective has no place in this discussion.

Do you have any idea how many people were murdered by Nazis and their allies in Yugoslavia? It was a war first and foremost for basic survival.

And now you are throwing around fascist and traitor labels?

Take this as a verbal warning.

Not aware that I called Walter a fascist, I suggest that if he thinks that killing people is a more effective way of getting things done than trying to generalise class conscious, then socialism isn't for him, and he should think about a change of position.

But he's a traitor to the working class because he believes 'enemy' soldiers should be killed. I, however, support Lenin's position, because I'm a Marxist; turn the imperialist war into a civil war. If you want to claim that that's a position that needs a verbal warning, go ahead. I have been duly warned that I'm not to say that working to extend class consciousness is better than killing workers in uniform, that I'm not to equate the position that workers are too stupid for anything but being shot with fascism, and that calling a second-internationalist social-patriot traitor a second-internationalist social-patriot traitor is not comradely.



Say this about the Jewish partisans. I dare you.

Are you Jewish now Walter?

Strangely, I don't remember a Jewish state in Eastern Europe that had been invaded and they were fighting to reinstate. Perhaps you could tell me about it.

*Puts on sarcastic Gene-Wilder-as-Willie-Wonka-face*


:rolleyes:

You really can't read can you?

I dunno, was it the bit where Walter said he'd support the murder of conscripted workers that I couldn't read, or the bit where he said that it was alright murdering workers if you were on the right side that I couldn't read, or the bit where he ignored the fact that the 'national right of self determination' doesn't apply to Italians that I couldn't read, or the bit where he claimed that the Yugoslavs weren't imperialist because the Red Army never occupied Yugoslavia that I couldn't read, or the bit where he ignored the war-crimes of the Yugoslav partisans' allies that I couldn't read?

To be fair, I'd agree that there are certain things there that I couldn't read, because Walter ignored them and made no comment, because to do so would force him to admit that he was a social-patriot and traitor to the working class. At which point, him being a hypocrite is small fry.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Conscripts may be workers in uniform, but that doesn't change the fact that when whatever country one lives in is being occupied by a foreign army, you've got a load of possibly pissed off, maybe gung-ho and/or definitely easily scared people on one's streets who are heavily armed and may not speak the local language very well or fully understand local customs and etiquette.

By any measure that's a recipe for a potential clusterfuck, getting closer to definite depending on how little of a fuck the occupying army's top brass and/or political masters give about the place they're stomping around in and the people within it.

[Blake's Baby]

Conscripts may be workers in uniform, but that doesn't change the fact that when whatever country one lives in is being occupied by a foreign army, you've got a load of possibly pissed off, maybe gung-ho and/or definitely easily scared people on one's streets who are heavily armed and may not speak the local language very well or fully understand local customs and etiquette.

By any measure that's a recipe for a potential clusterfuck, getting closer to definite depending on how little of a fuck the occupying army's top brass and/or political masters give about the place they're stomping around in and the people within it.

And?

So it's hard and it's dangerous to attempt to spread class-consciousness among the invading soldiers.

Did I say it would be easy?

"Oh well, it may be necessary, but you know, it's too hard and dangerous so instead we're going to do something else that won't get the result we want, but, you know, we can't be bothered to do what's right."

Did Lenin think that opposing the war, refusing to take seats in the Provisional Government, and working to build majorities in the soviets was easier than just joining the chorus of national defencists and entering an administration of bourgois warmongerers? I bet he didin't.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Are you Jewish now Walter?

What I mean by this is that you spit on Yugoslav Partisans as if they should have just rolled over and let the fascists roam about the land freely? Maybe you forget that the Nazis were EXTERMINATING people. Killing large numbers of Slavs, Jews, Gypsies, etc. The ONLY option the Slavic people in E. Europe had was to fight. That was it. Either fight, or sit on their hands and wait for the soldiers to come knocking on their doors to kill them and their families. Would you dare to call Jewish partisans such names? No you wouldn't, but in your western, liberal, hippie, pacifist, cowardly world, it is perfectly okay to discriminate against Slavs. So, were Jewish partisans class traitors for killing those poor poor occupying "workers in uniform"? Oh those poor soldiers, oh they don't know what they were doing. :( Poor Soldiers, boo hoo. Fuck them. Fuck the soldiers in Iraq, fuck the soldiers in Afghanistan, fuck them all. Dogs of war, and imperialism.

THIS is what you passively allow to happen with your "hand out fliers, and lick the occupiers boot" mentality.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/images/lidice1.jpg


http://www.berengarten.com/assets/rbu01/img/04%20Massacre%20%203.jpg

Do you know what this is? This is an image of the Kragujevac massacre, where German "workers in uniform" (oh those poor souls) dragged out schools full of children and their teachers and killed them all. This was happening all over Yugoslavia at the time. Over 7,000 people were killed in this massacre by our dear "comrades in uniform".


Here, tell the relatives of these people to not go and fight. Tell them how the soldiers are "workers in uniform"

http://www.rts.rs/upload/storyBoxImageData/2011/07/18/8031814/Novosadska-racija527.jpg


http://www.blic.rs/data/images/2011-07-19/160221_04novisad_f.jpg?ver=1316077466


Do you know what this is? Oh of course you don't.

This is the scene from the Nazi raid in Novi Sad. Where Hungarian Nazi animals rounded up 2323 Jews, Serbs, Gypsies, and the likes, shot them and threw them into the frozen Danube river.

No, we shouldn't fight these people. Never. Hand them fliers and put a daisy into the barrel of their rifle, and while you are being led away to the banks of the frozen river you can go on and on to our dear "comrades in uniform" about class politics and the likes.






Fucking liberal hippie piece of shit. YOU are the class traitor, willing to sell one nations proletariat to the occupying pig-dogs you refer to as "workers in uniform" and not only a class traitor, but a coward as well.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And?

Therefore, the sooner they leave the better.


So it's hard and it's dangerous to attempt to spread class-consciousness among the invading soldiers.

Did I say it would be easy?

"Oh well, it may be necessary, but you know, it's too hard and dangerous so instead we're going to do something else that won't get the result we want, but, you know, we can't be bothered to do what's right."

With a sufficiently large occupying army relative to the population, it would be easy for the enemy commanders to continuously rotate units so as to minimise fraternisation with the locals.


Did Lenin think that opposing the war, refusing to take seats in the Provisional Government, and working to build majorities in the soviets was easier than just joining the chorus of national defencists and entering an administration of bourgois warmongerers? I bet he didin't.

If you mean WWI, then there were plenty of good reasons to be opposed to it. I'm sure Lenin didn't fancy colluding in inter-imperialist rivalry, and I don't blame him.

[Igor]

no you're the class traitor

[Blake's Baby]

...
Fucking liberal hippie piece of shit. YOU are the class traitor, willing to sell one nations proletariat to the occupying pig-dogs you refer to as "workers in uniform" and not only a class traitor, but a coward as well.

Fuck you and your nationalist horse, you social-patriot traitor. Fuck off and join some Second International social-democratic worker-murdering party where you belong.

[Philosophos]

Thanks for not ruining the thread and taking note of what I wrote in the end of my 1st message guys... really nice

[Igor]

Thanks for not ruining the thread and taking note of what I wrote in the end of my 1st message guys... really nice

Welcome to Revleft! If we can ruin it, we'll ruin it. If we can't, we'll die trying.

[Blake's Baby]

Thanks for not ruining the thread and taking note of what I wrote in the end of my 1st message guys... really nice

You mean this bit?


...
Please don't start analyzing things that have nothing to do with the topic because I'm sick of reading things in my threads that merely have nothing to do with what I write. Just say your opinion and why you support it. Thanks in advance.

It does have to do with the topic though. Walter's belief that it's OK to kill soldiers (some soldiers anyway, other soldiers are apparently OK for some reason) is based on his view of the nation as being somehow more important than class politics.

My belief that trying to increase class consciousness among the occupying forces is better than killing them is because I think class politics is more important than nationalism.

Both of those are positions that relate to what you asked about.

But; appologies for my part in turning it into a slanging match, at least.

[Positivist]

@Blake's Baby READ! BAπTEP said hr would kill foreign soldiers AND NATIONAL SOLDIERS. What is nationalist about that? Your the own who advocates fighting national soldiers while fucking petitioning the occupying army! Seriously just stop, you came into this looking for something to rage at and you pulled it out of thin air because NOWHERE HAS BAΠTEP SAID ANYTHING ABOUT ONLY FIGHTING THE OCCUPYING ARMY, AND COOPERATING WITH THE NATIONAL FORCES, NOWHERE AT ALL.

[Blake's Baby]

@Positivist THINK! I don't care whether the 'resistance' is split into 'red' resitance and a 'blue' resistance that also fight each other. The 'red' resistance is fighting for the 'nation' just as much as the 'blue' resistance is.

Meanwhile some of us will be opposing all the armies, blue, red, and whatever colour you want to assign to the invaders, and agitating among all troops and the population in general to resist all the warmongers.

Any kind of nationalism is poison to the working class. Pedalling mythologies of national liberation ties the working class to the notion that particular bits of land 'belong' to people that speak a particular language or wear a particular kind of hat. It would be ridiculous, if it weren't so foul.

[Positivist]

@Positivist THINK! I don't care whether the 'resistance' is split into 'red' resitance and a 'blue' resistance that also fight each other. The 'red' resistance is fighting for the 'nation' just as much as the 'blue' resistance is.

Meanwhile some of us will be opposing all the armies, blue, red, and whatever colour you want to assign to the invaders, and agitating among all troops and the population in general to resist all the warmongers.

Any kind of nationalism is poison to the working class. Pedalling mythologies of national liberation ties the working class to the notion that particular bits of land 'belong' to people that speak a particular language or wear a particular kind of hat. It would be ridiculous, if it weren't so foul.

Ok you oppose all the armies by spreading leaflets, we'll oppose all the armies by fighting them. Oh and btw, BAΠTEP didn't say he'd fight both armies for the sake of the nation, he said he'd fight both armies from a communist militia because a major war is a revolutionary situation.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Fuck you and your nationalist horse, you social-patriot traitor. Fuck off and join some Second International social-democratic worker-murdering party where you belong.

So, are you, like, a crazy person?

[Blake's Baby]

But a major war isn't a revolutionary situation. There are very few wars that produced a revolutionary situation. Offhand, I can only think of three - the Franco-Prussian, the Russo-Japanese and WWI. WWII didn't; the British-Boer Wars didn't; the America-Vietnam War didn't; the American Civil War didn't; the Korean War didn't; the Six-day War and Yom Kippur didn't; the recent war in Sierra leone/Liberia/Ivory Coast didn't; the Balkans Wars 1994-1999 didn't; Gulf War I (Iraq v Iran) and Gulf War II (Bush Snr's Coalition v Iraq) and Gulf War III (Bush Jr's Coalition v Iraq) didn't. Lots of wars don't produce revolutionary situations.

By its very nature, a war is a terrible time to begin a revolution. When loads of workers are already seperated from each other by being on opposite sides, travel restrictions, incarceration etc (think how difficult the Zimmerwald and Kienthal Conferences were to organise, or the first conferences of the Communist International); when loads of those workers who are materially on 'opposite sides' are also advocating killing each other... how good a situation is that to make a revolution? Not a good one.


So, are you, like, a crazy person?

Given that historically, to be called 'crazy' by a ML means 'so you're an oppositionist but since we don't have political prisoners we put them in psychiatric establishments instead', then yeah, sure I am.

[Ostrinski]

I did laugh at this thread.

I do think that we should use national liberation movements as a chance to talk about capitalism and imperialism in the context that it affects opressed peoples. Especially since these types of movements are often spearheaded by bourgeois forces.

Now, even national liberation movements that are led by socialist forces such as in Vietnam or Albania do not necessarily merit our "support" in the sense that we think that socialism can be established in that little region. Afterall, we know that it can't.

But these movements do exist for a reason, they exist as reaction to the exploitation process of global capitalism. Nationality might be a social construct, but it does exist and very strongly so, in areas that are the subject of national liberation especially so. I think we'd be naive to think that people are going to shed that identity as a result of gaining a socialist consciousness of their class position. Dogmatic opposition to national liberation sounds nice in theory, but prevailing social conditions in a large part of the world are not favorable to a policy like that.

[Blake's Baby]

So, are you saying that it's OK for countries that don't have national-liberation movements not to have them but it's too hard to try to counter them in countries where they exist?

Because if you are then you really aren't saying anything more than not swimming is really easy unless you're in water.

What I hope you're really not saying is that real class politics is too complex for some workers. Of course class consciousness involves rejecting nationalism. You can't be a socialist and a nationalist. Unless you're a national socialist, of course. Which isn't socialism at all.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

What I hope you're really not saying is that real class politics is too complex for some workers. Of course class consciousness involves rejecting nationalism. You can't be a socialist and a nationalist. Unless you're a national socialist, of course. Which isn't socialism at all.

That's quite the elitist attitude.

Nobody here is a nationalist, if someone has invaded your country, he becomes the new oppressor. If communist armies fight against an oppressor, they are, according to your disgusting ultra-left liberal mind, nationalists. Guess, that attitude going to get support from workers.

[Igor]

i love taylor swift is that what this thread is about

[Blake's Baby]

That's quite the elitist attitude.

Nobody here is a nationalist, if someone has invaded your country, he becomes the new oppressor...

Quite the elitist attitude, because I condemn someone for having an elitist attitude? I like your ability to fail to grasp the point, you'll go far in some stultifying bureaucracy somewhere.

I don't have a country. I'm a worker, the workers have no country.

If you want to go around calling some patch of ground 'yours' because your mother happened to be there when you were born, then that makes you part of the enemy.


...
If communist armies fight against an oppressor, they are, according to your disgusting ultra-left liberal mind, nationalists. Guess, that attitude going to get support from workers.

You do realise this isn't a real thing? How can one be an 'ultra-left liberal'? Get your Central-Committee-approved book of insults and have a look at what I'm supposed to be called. 'Ultra-Left sectarian dogmatist' I think is the favoured term. Honestly, you're not going to rise up the bureaucracy with terms like 'ultra-left liberal'. Pick one. am I ultra-left? Or am I a liberal? I really can't be both.

I'll give you a clue; liberals are well into national liberation wars. You should get along fine with them.

'Stalinism: like social democracy, with bayonets'.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Your coutry as in the country you live in.
Also, you are the last one to talk about insults.
You just called someone a nationalist for supporting struggle against oppressors.
You are an Ultra-Left and you agree woth revolution and class struggle in word but not support it in reality. That's why you are also a liberal. You can definitely be both.

[Blake's Baby]

You don't know what 'liberal' means. Shouldn't supprise me, you don't know what 'socialist' or 'nationalist' mean either.

So I'm crazy, liberal, elitist and ultra-left all at the same time? What a complex fellow I am to be sure. I wonder how I sleep at night.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Yes. Pyou are an Ultra-Left in word, Elitist because you said that workers don't understand it and a liberal because you say you do but don't actuallysupport oppressed people. Probably have a different understanding than you of the word liberal, because it means different things all over the world.

[#FF0000]

Surely the point is, turn the imperialist war into a civil war. Fraternise with the enemy, try to turn them against their own officers and government. Killing foreign workers-in-uniform for the benefit of 'your' local bourgeoisie is not bringing the revolution one iota closer.

This is pretty much the correct answer so.

[Positivist]

This is pretty much the correct answer so.

So just fight the local military then?

Asndor Blake's Baby a major war is always a revolutionary situation, and just because there wasn't a revolution or a revolutionary movement afterwords or during it doesn't mean there wasn't the potential for one.

[Kotze]

There's only one way to solve the dispute in this thread: the scientific way.

For our experiment we need:
-1 Blake's Baby
-1 monolingual German Neonazi with the order to kill him
-standard WWII gear for the German gentleman
-some rad punk clothes for Blake's Baby and flyers (in English only)

ВАЛТЕР is right if the Neonazi can shoot Blake's Baby in the face before Blake's Baby instills a communist outlook in him, otherwise Blake's Baby wins and then we should take to heart what he has said here in this thread.

[#FF0000]

There's only one way to solve the dispute in this thread: the scientific way.

For our experiment we need:
-1 Blake's Baby
-1 monolingual German Neonazi with the order to kill him
-standard WWII gear for the German gentleman
-some rad punk clothes for Blake's Baby and flyers (in English only)

ВАЛТЕР is right if the Neonazi can shoot Blake's Baby in the face before Blake's Baby instills a communist outlook in him, otherwise Blake's Baby wins and then we should take to heart what he has said here in this thread.

your methods are faulty because occupying forces aren't necessarily there to, you know, genocide the population.

So.

[#FF0000]

So just fight the local military then?

Nope.


Asndor Blake's Baby a major war is always a revolutionary situation, and just because there wasn't a revolution or a revolutionary movement afterwords or during it doesn't mean there wasn't the potential for one.I don't think this is necessarily true and certainly fraternizing with 'the enemy' rather than fighting for your own bosses would lend itself more to creating a 'revolutionary situation'.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is pretty much the correct answer so.

Why should anyone "fraternise" with workers who are pointing weapons at them and their neighbours? When one is part of a foreign army occupying a country, one's welfare is intrinsically tied to that of the foreign army's logistical system. In such a situation defection is fraught with problems; a soldier that defects in their home country will not have to deal with anywhere near the same kind of obstacles as one that does so elsewhere. Just where do you imagine the support networks necessary to successfully integrate defectors are going to come from?

Also as I pointed out, there are measures that invading armies can take to minimise fraternisation.

[Igor]

There's only one way to solve the dispute in this thread: the scientific way.

For our experiment we need:
-1 Blake's Baby
-1 monolingual German Neonazi with the order to kill him
-standard WWII gear for the German gentleman
-some rad punk clothes for Blake's Baby and flyers (in English only)

ВАЛТЕР is right if the Neonazi can shoot Blake's Baby in the face before Blake's Baby instills a communist outlook in him, otherwise Blake's Baby wins and then we should take to heart what he has said here in this thread.

i like how people in this thread have tried to spun resistance to foreign occupations in a way where full-on genocide comparable to Nazi occupation of certain parts of Europe is the average occupation situation

because it's not

[#FF0000]

Why should anyone "fraternise" with workers who are pointing weapons at them and their neighbours?

Because it is a better idea than killing them on your boss' behalf.

[ВАЛТЕР]

i like how people in this thread have tried to spun resistance to foreign occupations in a way where full-on genocide comparable to Nazi occupation of certain parts of Europe is the average occupation situation

because it's not


Yeah, because it's not like civilian massacres take place in Afghanistan at the hands of NATO troops, nor is it like there is a massive amount of civilians killed and imprisoned in Iraq by NATO forces. Nor are there civilians murdered in cold blood in occupied Palestine.

It's the 21st century, these things don't happen in wars anymore! :rolleyes:


It may not be on the same scale as Nazi atrocities, but it happens, and people have to deal with their family being murdered by occupying troops, and harassed daily by occupying troops.

[Igor]

Yeah, because it's not like civilian massacres take place in Afghanistan at the hands of NATO troops, nor is it like there is a massive amount of civilians killed and imprisoned in Iraq by NATO forces. Nor are there civilians murdered in cold blood in occupied Palestine.

It's the 21st century, these things don't happen in wars anymore! :rolleyes:


It may not be on the same scale as Nazi atrocities, but it happens, and people have to deal with their family being murdered by occupying troops, and harassed daily by occupying troops.

It's not an ethnic cleansing, was more like my point. If there is a war going on with two capitalist states over a territory, it's not helping the working class in any way to mobilize workers to kill other workers, when the point should be to try and mobilize everybody to, you know, stop killing workers.

Of course I'm going to defend myself when I'm directly threatened, but there's no way I'm going to take arms against other workers nor try and encourage people to do this, because it shits over what we're all about. Swift end to the conflict would be a victory, not successfully keeping our very own capitalists in their places instead of those sneaky foreign capitalists.

[ВАЛТЕР]

It's not an ethnic cleansing, was more like my point. If there is a war going on with two capitalist states over a territory, it's not helping the working class in any way to mobilize workers to kill other workers, when the point should be to try and mobilize everybody to, you know, stop killing workers.

Of course I'm going to defend myself when I'm directly threatened, but there's no way I'm going to take arms against other workers nor try and encourage people to do this, because it shits over what we're all about. Swift end to the conflict would be a victory, not successfully keeping our very own capitalists in their places instead of those sneaky foreign capitalists.

The reason I brought up WW2 is because Blakes Baby spit on the Partisans. Who were fighting for their survival and the survival of an entire people.

I'm not talking about participating in a war. I don't want you to go join the Iraqi army just because they are fighting an imperialist aggressor. I'm talking about an occupation. This is a great time to radicalize a people. The class enemy is exposed. His wrath is clearly visible in the streets everyday in the form of occupying troops, bombings, massacres, etc. As well as the collaboration with the local bourgeoisie which is always the case in times of occupation. This is a moment when the enemy is exposed and to take action with revolutionary forces is the best bet as people are pissed off, out of work, have had family members killed/imprisoned. The people are angry, it is simply a matter of directing that anger at the class enemy and his tools.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Even though the prospects of building a socialist/communist militia to fight a foreign occupier are not particularly good, and would almost certainly just lead into capitalism again, the idea of fraternizing with the enemy seems pretty utopian as well, in a great number of cases. What incentive did a Boer mercenary have to throw down his superior firepower and join the ANC? What incentive does an IDF soldier have to join civilians in Gaza? What incentive did a relatively-well off Sunni soldier from Saudi Arabia have to join the Bahrain revolt in 2011? Pretty much none that I can see.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because it is a better idea than killing them on your boss' behalf.

Yeah well too often when guns get pointed at people they tend to go off, making those shot at ill-disposed towards the weapon bearers. Personally I'd find it a bit hard to fraternise with a bunch of folks I have few if any connections with, and who have the means and opportunity to hurt and kill me and my family, friends, comrades and neighbours.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Asndor Blake's Baby a major war is always a revolutionary situation, and just because there wasn't a revolution or a revolutionary movement afterwords or during it doesn't mean there wasn't the potential for one.

That means nothing at all. My living room is a major revolutionary situation, just because it doesn't have one doesn't mean there's no potential. No revolution = no revolution. Did you know that on the first day of the Commune, it rained? That must mean, every time it rains, there's going to be a revolution, even if there isn't.

Not really, you're talking out of your hat.



Yes. Pyou are an Ultra-Left in word, Elitist because you said that workers don't understand it and a liberal because you say you do but don't actuallysupport oppressed people. Probably have a different understanding than you of the word liberal, because it means different things all over the world.

No, it's Walter who's an elitist, as evidenced by this comment - that you thanked:


...
I despise people who have no reading comprehension skills...

... which makes you an elitist too, I'd think; and it was Lizard King who said
... Nationality might be a social construct, but it does exist and very strongly so, in areas that are the subject of national liberation especially so. I think we'd be naive to think that people are going to shed that identity as a result of gaining a socialist consciousness of their class position. Dogmatic opposition to national liberation sounds nice in theory, but prevailing social conditions in a large part of the world are not favorable to a policy like that. which I can only understand as 'in some places people are too uneducated to understand socialism' which I think is also an extremely elitist attitude; both of these I have criticised soundly, though you seem not to have understood.

I beleive that all workers, even those that are currently fighting the bourgeoisie's wars can acheive a depening of their understanding of the way the world works and their own best interests. I even believe that you and Walter are capable of acheiving this, though you'll have to shed a great many of your illusions to do so. So, no I'm not an elitist because I want to persuade people rather than kill them, precisely because I believe that people can change because they have the intelectual and emotional capacity to do so.




There's only one way to solve the dispute in this thread: the scientific way.

For our experiment we need:
-1 Blake's Baby
-1 monolingual German Neonazi with the order to kill him
-standard WWII gear for the German gentleman
-some rad punk clothes for Blake's Baby and flyers (in English only)

ВАЛТЕР is right if the Neonazi can shoot Blake's Baby in the face before Blake's Baby instills a communist outlook in him, otherwise Blake's Baby wins and then we should take to heart what he has said here in this thread.

Aber, ich spreche deutsch. Nur ein bischen, stimmt, aber es ist moglich, ich denke.

No umlauts on this board though.

Can't think how I'm going to be able to get works of communist literature in German otherwise however, I mean, who heard of any German communists?

Funny story (I think it's funny anyway). I was in a museum recently where this German mother and son were discussing the four faces in the big picture on the wall. 1, 3 and 4 they got but were stumped with number 2 - das is Marx, das ist Lenin, das ist Schtaaalin, aber wer ist..? so I introduced myself to them and them to Engels. I dunno, some people don't even know their own history.

You obviously didn't pay attention to the post (OK it was all the way back on p.2) where I said
If the country I live in gets invaded, I'm going to learn the invaders' language and distribute leaflets calling on the invading soldiers to fraternise and turn their guns on their officers...

Let's see if my method gets him to class consciousness before Walter's does, eh? Really though, for a scientific study, we need a control experiment. I suggest Walter and another neonazi in SS uniform have to play paintball in the woods with real AK47s (the Nazi is allowed a more culturally-appropraite weapon if he wishes), and if either of them develop their class consciousness before I've converted my nazi, Walter wins.


Even though the prospects of building a socialist/communist militia to fight a foreign occupier are not particularly good, and would almost certainly just lead into capitalism again, the idea of fraternizing with the enemy seems pretty utopian as well, in a great number of cases. What incentive did a Boer mercenary have to throw down his superior firepower and join the ANC? What incentive does an IDF soldier have to join civilians in Gaza? What incentive did a relatively-well off Sunni soldier from Saudi Arabia have to join the Bahrain revolt in 2011? Pretty much none that I can see.

And how exactly do you see the civilians in Gaza 'winning the war' if the IDF don't throw down their weapons and desert, or turn those weapons on their own officers? The Palestinians can't end the occupation. Only Palestinian and Israeli workers together can defeat the Israeli state (and the Palestinian failed state too).

[Positivist]

That means nothing at all. My living room is a major revolutionary situation, just because it doesn't have one doesn't mean there's no potential. No revolution = no revolution. Did you know that on the first day of the Commune, it rained? That must mean, every time it rains, there's going to be a revolution, even if there isn't one.

You assume that I view each major war as a revolutionary situation because they have been historically. I never said this. I view major wars as revolutionary situations because they involove the rapid immiseration of the warring populations (especially the occupied peoples.)

[Os Cangaceiros]

And how exactly do you see the civilians in Gaza 'winning the war' if the IDF don't throw down their weapons and desert, or turn those weapons on their own officers? The Palestinians can't end the occupation. Only Palestinian and Israeli workers together can defeat the Israeli state (and the Palestinian failed state too).

I actually don't see many possibilities for a happy ending there. People in Gaza won't be able to win on their own, but I think the notion that somehow the IDF will collectively start shooting their superiors is just as fantastical. The only hope would be for an insurrection within Israel by the Israeli working class, but that probably won't happen, seeing as the recent Israeli "tent protest" was hesitant about even using the word "occupation" to describe their action, lest it draw uncomfortable attention to, well, the occupation.

The other possible "solution" is a massive, bloody regional war.

[Blake's Baby]

...The only hope would be for an insurrection within Israel by the Israeli working class, but that probably won't happen, seeing as the recent Israeli "tent protest" was hesitant about even using the word "occupation" to describe their action, lest it draw uncomfortable attention to, well, the occupation.

The other possible "solution" is a massive, bloody regional war.

I agree. Which is why the Palestinian working class desperately needs to build alliances with the Israeli working class (of all ethnicities). Shooting Israeli conscripts makes it easy for the Israeli state to portray this as terroism versus civilisation, or a race war. It makes it hard for oppositionists in Israel to get the message across that this is a brutal occupation. But they have to do it anyway. How else will things ever be able to be solved? Only by the united revolutionary action of the working class.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, yeah, but my point was that it's highly unlikely at the present juncture. Partly because there isn't even much to link up with anyway, as the Palestinian working class is very small and beaten down (by Israel of course, but also by their own reactionary organizations like Fatah and Hamas), but also probably because the Israelis gain something from remaining an "ethnocracy". That's not to say that the Israelis haven't had to deal with their own struggles, as the last few years have shown, but there is probably too much hate and avarice, and not enough perceived common interest for the two to come together.

Plus I don't think that the actions of the Palestinians, violent or otherwise, will play a part in whether some kind of rebellion breaks out in Israel against the Zionist capitalist state.

[Rugged Collectivist]

This is probably a stupid position, apologies in advance.

Were war to break out between my state and another, I would not join the military. If that meant deserting/fleeing the country, so be it. If my life was threatened, I would defend my life, but I wouldn't take up a gun and shoot those who are more like me than my commanders would be simply because I was told to.

This isn't a stupid position, it's the only one that makes sense. I kind of like Walter's idea of opposing both sides. I feel like this would get us all killed though :unsure:

[Blake's Baby]

Well, yeah, but my point was that it's highly unlikely at the present juncture. Partly because there isn't even much to link up with anyway, as the Palestinian working class is very small and beaten down (by Israel of course, but also by their own reactionary organizations like Fatah and Hamas), but also probably because the Israelis gain something from remaining an "ethnocracy". That's not to say that the Israelis haven't had to deal with their own struggles, as the last few years have shown, but there is probably too much hate and avarice, and not enough perceived common interest for the two to come together.

Plus I don't think that the actions of the Palestinians, violent or otherwise, will play a part in whether some kind of rebellion breaks out in Israel against the Zionist capitalist state.

Which is precisely why we need to work for it. It won't happen on its own. 'The Israeli working class' and 'the Palestinian working class' aren't inert masses. Shooting people will not lead to 'a perceived common interest'. Supporting shooting people will not lead to 'a perceived common interest'. Revolutionaries working to show that there is a common interest might just change the (lack of) percesption.

Again, your argument seems to come down to 'but it's too hard'. So what? It's also necessary. We don't get to be all morally handwavey and say 'yeah, but I'm only a revolutionary when it's easy'.

[l'Enfermé]

There can be no common interest between Zionist colonists and Palestinian natives besieged and humiliated by the former for decades.

[Positivist]

I don't think this is necessarily true and certainly fraternizing with 'the enemy' rather than fighting for your own bosses would lend itself more to creating a 'revolutionary situation'.

You don't think that a major war leads to the immiseration of the involved countries? What? Furthermore, as was stated multiple times, no one here is advocating fighting for your bosses we're advocating fighting against your bosses AND the foreign bosses too.

[Positivist]

i like how people in this thread have tried to spun resistance to foreign occupations in a way where full-on genocide comparable to Nazi occupation of certain parts of Europe is the average occupation situation

because it's not

The average occupation is still pretty shitty for those being occupied.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Which is precisely why we need to work for it. It won't happen on its own. 'The Israeli working class' and 'the Palestinian working class' aren't inert masses. Shooting people will not lead to 'a perceived common interest'. Supporting shooting people will not lead to 'a perceived common interest'. Revolutionaries working to show that there is a common interest might just change the (lack of) percesption.

Again, your argument seems to come down to 'but it's too hard'. So what? It's also necessary. We don't get to be all morally handwavey and say 'yeah, but I'm only a revolutionary when it's easy'.

No, my argument is more along the lines of that there is about as much chance of the Israelis uniting with the Palestinians, communist fraternization/agitation or not, as there is the PFLP machine gunning the IDF out of existence. Maybe that will change, maybe not. And I'm also not sure that, if it does change, that the change will be directly attributed to Palestinians trying to befriend the soldiers in their neighborhoods.

[Blake's Baby]

No, my argument is more along the lines of that there is about as much chance of the Israelis uniting with the Palestinians, communist fraternization/agitation or not, as there is the PFLP machine gunning the IDF out of existence...

Obviously the latter is impossible, while the first is only very unlikely.


... Maybe that will change, maybe not...

It might change. It won't change unless people work to make it change.


... And I'm also not sure that, if it does change, that the change will be directly attributed to Palestinians trying to befriend the soldiers in their neighborhoods.

Will it change because Palestinians kill soldiers? No.

Will it change because Palestinian and Israeli workers realise their common interests against all the bosses and politicians, and begin to work together? Yes.

I'm not that you understand the concepty of fraternisation very well though. It's not about 'befriending' soldiers, it's about expanding the class consciousness of soldiers and encouraging them not to be soldiers.

If there is no answering echo in Israel it won't work. Class-conscious Palestinians on their own can't end the occupation any more than Palestinian fighters can drive out the IDF militarily. Only Palestinians and Israelis together can end this - and that won't happen in the present situation. Both the Palestinian and Israeli working class are, at present, too tied to their respective bourgeois gangs.

[Os Cangaceiros]

OK, well, since I don't really know what we're disagreeing about anymore:

--------------->FAIR ENOUGH.<-----------------

[Chris]

Most likely, for three reasons:

1) By the norwegian constitution, all males from the age of 16 to 45 are drafted in the case of invasion. So, wouldn't have a choice in the matter in the first place.

2) Foreign occupation would most likely mean a severe downturn in living standards for me, family and comrades. Norway, relatively speaking, is quite progressive compared to any likely invaders.

3) I'm fairly sure an army and puppet government not reliant on any kind of support from the native population would institute far more reactionary policies than one at least needing the people not to send them to madame guillotine would. Much easier to scare the ruling class when they are within shooting range, than on the other side of the world.


This would not apply if a socialist country was the ones invading, of course, but I find it unlikely that Cuba will invade us any time soon.

[dodger]

And?

So it's hard and it's dangerous to attempt to spread class-consciousness among the invading soldiers.

Did I say it would be easy?

"Oh well, it may be necessary, but you know, it's too hard and dangerous so instead we're going to do something else that won't get the result we want, but, you know, we can't be bothered to do what's right."

Did Lenin think that opposing the war, refusing to take seats in the Provisional Government, and working to build majorities in the soviets was easier than just joining the chorus of national defencists and entering an administration of bourgois warmongerers? I bet he didin't.

Blake I must say it is a bit rich to lecture others what they should be doing in connection with Imperialist troops. So far what are you doing? Are you or would you be prepared to risk imprisonment to stop the carnage. A bullet in the back of the head here for doing what you suggest. Your idea caused much merriment. Meanwhile the local partizans here are not joining up with the ruling class, on account of it was THEM wot invited the US and Australians in. Too silly. To ally with a venal ruling class would make no sense. The rulers here want to tear down borders. Globalization in full swing. Anyhow here is their statement. They are all over this area, like a rash. Small wonder. Raided a local army post walked off with enough high powered rifles to arm a platoon. Nobody got a scratch. Perhaps they fraternised with them?

Filipino people must renew nationalist fervor against Aquino puppetry

Communist Party of the Philippines
June 12, 2012

There is great urgency in the need to renew the Filipino people’s nationalist fervor in the face of the ruling Aquino regime’s all-out subservience to the policies and agenda of the US imperialist government. Since ascending to power, Benigno Aquino has virtually surrendered the country’s sovereignty and right to self-determination as he submits to all of the military and economic dictates of the US imperialists.

It is ironic that the Filipino people today mark the 114th anniversary of the June 12, 1898 Declaration of Independence just a few days after Aquino paid homage to his imperialist masters. In his meetings with imperialist chieftain Barrack Obma and key security and defense officials of the US as well as the heads of the biggest monopoly capitalist companies, Aquino expressed his government’s willingness and determination to serve their needs in the name of “enduring friendship”.
Emboldened by its recent consolidation of political power, the ruling Aquino regime is now working to further trample on Philippine national sovereignty by allowing the unimpeded buildup of the number of interventionist and hegemonist US military troops and in pushing ever more vigorously the breakdown of economic barriers against all-out foreign plunder and exploitation.
Andres Bonifacio and the Filipino people’s other revolutionary heroes are surely turning in their graves as the banner of national freedom which they waved high is now being desecrated by the Aquino regime and its coterie of Amboy officials. The so-called “new freedom” being touted by Benigno Aquino III is nothing but empty rhetoric to conceal the state of “unfreedom” which his government is pulling the country into.
Aquino’s subservience to US military dominance

For two years now, Benigno Aquino has served well the foreign policy direction of US imperialism to build an “American Pacific Century” where it seeks to establish itself as an unrivalled economic and military power in the Asia-Pacific region. US imperialist officials have outrightly declared its aims of pouring “unprecedented economic, diplomatic and military investment” in the Asia-Pacific region as its solution to its prolonged economic crisis.

Ever the puppet, Aquino has openly welcomed the arrival of more and more American ships to dock and unload its armed troops onto Philippine soil. Goaded by his American advisers, Aquino has gone the lengths of rousing diplomatic and military tensions with China and sacrificing friendly relations with the Chinese government in order to justify before the Filipino people increased American military presence in the guise of support for Philippine claims over certain South China Sea territories and land features.
Dockings of American warships and submarines have been increasingly frequent especially over the past year. There have been successive visits by high-ranking officials of the American defense and military establishment. Over the past several months, officials of the US and Philippine governments have been busy forging new agreements to provide the US military with facilities for US warships, fighters jets, military drones and soldiers on “rest and recreation.”

In a recent meeting with the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, Aquino gave assurances to the US military that its forces will be given access to facilities in its former military bases in Subic, Zambales and Clark, Pampanga. The US has long sought to make use of its former naval and air base to accomodate the increasing number of “rotational” American troops that will have similar access arrangements in Australia, Singapore and other countries in the region. Such arrangements with the Philippines will serve well the recently declared intention of the US to redirect as much as 60% of its foreign naval troops in the Asia-Pacific region.

At the same time, at least 700 interventionist troops belonging to the Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines (JSOTFP) continue to be permanently stationed in its headquarters inside an exclusive zone of Camp Navarro in Zamboanga City. Soldiers belonging to the JSOTFP carry out interventionist armed operations, participating directly in counter-guerrilla operations or providing logistical, intelligence and other technical support to operating troops of the AFP.

Through its officials attached to the JSOTFP, the US military can direct the “counter-insurgency” operations of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) both at the strategic planning level as well as in tactical operations. The Aquino regime has adapted almost to the letter the 2009 Counterinsurgency Guide issued by the US Department of State which gives premium to psywar and political gimmickry to cover up the brutality of the war of suppression directed against the people and their revolutionary forces.
In the guise of so-called “joint military exercises,” the US military can direct the AFP’s tactical operations. The US military has long been conducting aerial, satellite and electronic intelligence work in the Philippines from which it gathers information to direct the AFP at the tactical level. Earlier this year, American-supplied “smart bombs” were dropped by AFP pilots in Basilan while being directed by US soldiers.

US interventionism is set to further heighten with the plan to set up a satellite office of the New York Police Department (NYPD) inside Camp Crame in the guise of “coordination against terrorism.” In doing so, the US security and defense establishment can more actively carry out intelligence operations within the Philippines and direct as well the operations of the Philippine National Police. Recently, the US government also declared it will work with the Philippine government in setting up the National Coast Watch Center (NCWC) in order to allow the US to conduct maritime surveillance.

Completely lacking a sense of national integrity, the Aquino government does not see anything wrong in allowing a foreign government to conduct combat, intelligence and training operations within the Philippines. Aquino himself declared that he supports the US air force in its conduct of drone-intelligence operations over Philippines airspace, without any qualms that such operations violate the Philippine territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Aquino’s subservience to US economic policy
The US military’s power-projection activities in the Asia-Pacific region helps fortify its hegemonism and seeks to prevent or contain the growth of China as a military power. At the core of such a military strategy is the objective of influencing economic policy in China and the rest of the Asia-Pacific and pave the way for US companies to carry out heightened exploitation of cheap labor in the region.

By flexing its military muscle in the region, the US seeks to further push the discredited neoliberal policies. It seeks to make China further break up its state enterprises, a measure which the US considers crucial in allowing US companies to more effectively penetrate China. In the name of “freedom of navigation,” the US is building up its military presence as a counterfoil to the military cooperation between China and Russia and prevent the Shanghai Cooperation Organization from effectively drawing the rest of the Asia-Pacific away from US influence.

There is a growing trend of economic cooperation outside the ambit and actively against US influence characterized by multilateral and bilateral economic agreements among Asia-Pacific countries. Despite US efforts in the past years, the US initiative to build “free trade” agreements under the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has failed to gather a significant number of adherents.

Less powerful imperialist and capitalist countries and even some semicolonial countries see the need to broaden their economic horizons beyond the US, which has been sliding on the path of economic and industrial decline for the past several decades. Yet, the Aquino regime has chosen to put all its efforts in support of the US by agreeing to comply with the all-out liberalization requirements of joining the TPP.

The ruling Aquino clique intends to use its newly consolidated political power to push for such liberalization policies mainly by amending the reactionary 1987 Philippine to remove the provisions that set limits to foreign ownership of land and those that prohibit foreigners from owning a majority of locally-operating enterprises. In an interview a few days ago, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, one of the US’ most reliable allies and baton wielders for the reactionary ruling class revealed that congressional leaders are discussing efforts to convene a constitutional convention to undertake “cha-cha” in order to remove what he referred to derisively as “nationalist provisions” as if these were unwanted remnants of the past.
In line with economic policy dictates of the US, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, the Aquino regime stubbornly sticks to the neoliberal policies of the past three decades, even if these have clearly caused great harm against the economy. It has been pursuing the same anti-industrial and anti-land reform thrusts and continues to rely on foreign debt, foreign investments and export of labor as solutions to the perennial and critical problem of unemployment.

The anti-nationalist economic policies of the Aquino regime further consist of increasing the tax burden on the people while slashing budgetary appropriations on social spending, keeping wages low while refusing to regulate oil prices and other key industries and services and promoting education for cheap labor for both the domestic and foreign employment markets. With World Bank sponsorship and financing, the Aquino regime has engaged in a myopic doleout scheme that is both a cheap publicity stunt and counterinsurgency psywar tack that purportedly addresses poverty without actually addressing the people’s oppression and exploitation which are at the root of their abject socio-economic conditions.

Raise high the banner of nationalism

Philippine sovereignty since the granting of nominal independence in 1946 is a sham. For more than six and a half decades, the Philippines has been under a neo-colonial state ruled over by American-educated and colonial-minded politicians, bureaucrats and technocrats. Aquino’s puppetry to US imperialist dictates and military dominance underscore the absence of genuine national freedom and sovereignty.

The prolonged economic depression of the US compels it to more vigorously push its weight around in an attempt to override the crisis. It wants to fortify its hegemony in order to seek and expand areas of trade and investment. US efforts to intensify the exploitation of labor and tighten control of trade routes in order to ride over its economic depression are resulting in ever worsening socio-economic conditions in semicolonial and semifeudal countries such as the Philippines.

Aquino’s claims of “freedom from poverty” as the supposed fruit of his so-called “righteous path” is full of air and completely baseless. Afer two years under Aquino’s US-imposed neoliberal policies, the Filipino people are suffering more than ever from unemployment, hunger and massive poverty.

In the face of the US-Aquino regime’s extreme contempt for Philippine sovereignty, there is urgent need for the Filipino people to reaffirm and reassert their nationalist aspirations and struggle for national liberation and self-determination.

There must be a renewed vigor in upholding nationalism or anti-imperialism. The people must oppose the imperialist-sponsored notion that under a “globalized world,” nationalism and the need to build a dynamic, self-reliant and industrialized economy is an antiquated idea. Apologists of imperialism ignore the fact that the imperialist countries and other secondary capitalist countries are among the most zealous ultra-nationalists in terms of economic protectionism. American officials have openly asserted that its drive to build an “American Pacific Century” is in line with its national interests.

The Filipino people are in a crucial historic juncture where upholding nationalism in the field of economic policy and foreign relations is of utmost importance. US imperialism and their puppets seek to extinguish the fire of Filipino nationalism. They depreciate the meaning of nationalism to a narrow concept of pride for national heritage or individual accomplishments by Filipinos.

Nationalism or anti-imperialism should be brought to the core of the people’s mass struggles against oil price increases by exposing foreign monopoly control of the oil industry; in struggling for wage increases by exposing the policy of cheap labor as a way of attracting foreing investments; in demanding greater social subsidies by exposing the IMF-WB policies of deregulation and privatization; in fighting the demolition of urban poor communities by exposing the big foreign interests behind the Private-Public Partnership program of the US-Aquino regime; and in demanding the abrogation of the Mutual Defense Treaty and the Visiting Forces Agreement by exposing US military interventionism and the master-client relations between the US imperialists and its puppet state.

The Filipino people, especially the young generation, must look back to the Filipino people’s history of revolutionary resistance and struggle for national freedom. They must recall the all-out brutalities unleashed by the US against the Filipino people in their attempt to suppress their revolutionary resistance. They must give serious effort and time to nationalist studies in order to gain knowledge which has been stricken off the World Bank-designed curriculum of Philippine education. They must study, promote and seek inspiration from the heroic revolutionary resistance of the Filipino people in launching people’s wars against Spanish and American colonialism, as well as in the struggle to achieve national and social liberation in the past four decades.

They must look back to the works of Jose Rizal and Andres Bonifacio of the late 19th century, the nationalist ideals of the heroes of the working class movement in the early 20th century, the nationalist assertions of Lorenzo Tañada, Claro Mayo Recto and Renato Constantino from the 1950s as well as the more recent expressions of Filipino nationalism set forth by Jose Ma. Sison and the national democratic movement from the late 1960s to the present.

As before, the Filipino youth will play a crucial role in making the nationalist studies movement take root and impact on the Filipino national consciousness. In so doing, the Filipino people can further raise the banner of national freedom to unprecedented heights.

The revolutionary movement led by the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) has been waging a war of national and social liberation which is a continuation of the Filipino people’s unfinished revolution. They have achieved great victories in the past and are poised to achieve bigger victories in the next few years.

The nationalist movement is an intrinsic aspect of the national democratic revolutionary movement, with the revolutionary forces as among the most determined nationalists of the Filipino people. As the national democratic revolution advances, so does the cause of nationalism. At the same time, a broad nationalist movement enables the national democratic revolution to reach out to the people in their numbers. The cause of Filipino nationalism and the national democratic revolution advance hand in hand.

[Blake's Baby]

Where I live isn't under any occupation than the local one.

what I can do is promote the notion that dividing the working class into opposed national groups is actually a really bad idea.

There are Left Communists in the Philipines too.

[Karabin]

It does have to do with the topic though. Walter's belief that it's OK to kill soldiers (some soldiers anyway, other soldiers are apparently OK for some reason) is based on his view of the nation as being somehow more important than class politics.

Whereas, from what I gather from your posts, it is your belief that the extermination of one nations working class by another is not something that should be prevented because violently resisting the aggressor is wrong.

Your logic confuses me.

EDIT: Also, good luck trying to convince an occupying force to change their views with pamphlets, particularly if they are a fascist force.

[Igor]

Most likely, for three reasons:

1) By the norwegian constitution, all males from the age of 16 to 45 are drafted in the case of invasion. So, wouldn't have a choice in the matter in the first place.

Okay yeah, this is a fair point. I'm drafted too and even though it's legally not really an option, during the last war Finland had people were executed for refusing to participate in the war effort. Even I don't believe that much in not engaging in national liberation struggles. Here's to hoping I won't be around in this bloody country if shit ever hits the fan


2) Foreign occupation would most likely mean a severe downturn in living standards for me, family and comrades. Norway, relatively speaking, is quite progressive compared to any likely invaders.

3) I'm fairly sure an army and puppet government not reliant on any kind of support from the native population would institute far more reactionary policies than one at least needing the people not to send them to madame guillotine would. Much easier to scare the ruling class when they are within shooting range, than on the other side of the world.


This would not apply if a socialist country was the ones invading, of course, but I find it unlikely that Cuba will invade us any time soon.

How do ya think prolonged guerrilla conflict will influence that living standard and your daily safety? It probably won't result in less reactionary policies, relaxed control and violence over civilian population, for one.

You can have all your nice reasons about how you'd do it to defend your family or your standard of living but unless you're looking at a conflict of ethnic destruction, you're in the end still putting your ass in the line to protect the Norwegian ruling class. That's what you're ultimately sacrificing yourself for and you'll be a pawn of their class rule when you take the arms for independent Norway. That's really the bottom line, and if you're ok with that then fine I guess, but I sure as hell would not be.

[citizen of industry]

I hate country. Can't think of a music I hate more. Slide guitar? What's up with that?

[Veovis]

If Russian or American soldiers were on the streets of the UK, I would most certainly want them to GTFO.

I'd certainly hope you'd feel the same about British soldiers patrolling your streets.

[Igor]

I'd certainly hope you'd feel the same about British soldiers patrolling your streets.

He already pretty much established that's not the case. Because apparently, everything's better if they speak your language. You know the "people's stick" quote by Bakunin? The fatherland's stick really isn't any better either.

[Blake's Baby]

Whereas, from what I gather from your posts, it is your belief that the extermination of one nations working class by another is not something that should be prevented because violently resisting the aggressor is wrong...

'Aggressor'? Who said anything about aggressor? We're talking about 'invaders'. Why do you think they're the same thing?

In the Franco-Prussian War, France was the aggressor. And the invaded. Were the Prussians justified in their war because the French attacked them? Must have been because the 'aggressors' deserve what's coming to them, by your reasoning.

Who was the 'aggressor' in WWI? Serbia, maybe, or Russia, or Austria, or Britain... tell me who everyone should have been supporting because someone else was the 'aggressor'!

In WWII Britain and France declared war on Germany. So should we all have supported the Nazis from Franco-British 'aggression'?


Your logic confuses me...

I'm not surprised, 'logic' obviously isn't your strong point.


EDIT: Also, good luck trying to convince an occupying force to change their views with pamphlets, particularly if they are a fascist force.

Good luck trying to bring about class consciousness with guns.

[citizen of industry]

Say country Green invades country Yellow. Country Green is a highly developed, imperialist power, country Yellow is not. Communists in country Green are vehemiantly against the invasion, publish it in their press and try to organize strikes in transportation and war industries. Country Green drafts, so communist Greens have the choice of avoiding the draft or being drafted and going along with most of the workers. So they allow themselves to be drafted and agitate in the army. Their press supports country Yellow, so they point their rifles low or high under fire, risking their life and the people they are trying to win over, and hoping they aren't noticed. That's a rough position to be in as an organizer.

Country Yellow is nationalist. Communists in country Yellow have formed a militia outside the army and decide to fight the domestic and invading enemy. Country Yellow also has a draft. What if Yellow's army is in a pinch, and Yellow communists can pull them out? Do they watch Yellow's army get crushed and see the invader in, or do they intervene and stop the invader? Yellow communist puts a bullet in green communist. Nobody notices, because it is chaos. It's a catch-22. individual communists get fucked no matter what.

[dodger]

Let's look at who is the nation . Straight away we can see 90-99% are the working class. As to how a country might prosper within secure borders, sovereignty established, little scope in seeking help from ruling classes here or afar. Clearly without capital can breeze in and out causing mayhem. Assets human as well as material can like a three card trick vanish before ones eyes. Globalization is not bringing people together, quite the reverse. It is leading to greater inequality. The partizans here are not for a moment looking to the rulers who squander, stack 'em high and sell'em cheap. Even labour, exported, a 21st century disease. Few rulers around the world might sit on a secure throne but for Washington or the City, Brussels NATO. Now Australia is playing Monkey to the US organ grinder. Complete with brand new navy. WE NEED DEVELOPMENT. I must give credit to Australian workers who have awoken to the dangers and campaign against this build up. Blake tells us there is nothing he can do, his country is not occupied. Somehow it seems a shirking of responsibility, a cavalier attitude to see troops and capital fly across borders to enrich a few. I propose we get down to settling accounts with our own rulers, take charge and leave others to do likewise.

[dodger]

This just down the road from me, my daughter in law has 'parked her 3 kids with her Ma and off for a few years to work as domestic. Quatar, wherever the hell that is. Wifey's little helper has buggered off on his 18yr birthday. He left a note saying he would pray for me, as he was an excellent singer in the choir. a hymn would not go amiss. My 'baby' Armalite has gone missing too. Wifey who knows everything and says nothing, flicks her eyes to the hills and makes hand gesture to say ..do not speak any more on the matter. His angelic face blinded me. Coming home to find the gun completely in bits, he sheepishly reassembled it in seconds. That was a big hint. Oh well, I will have to find another soldier to buy another. Here is what is going on down the road a bit.

The 27th IB's Continuing Military Operation ensures the Unimpeded Landgrab of Agri-Corporations and Large-Scale Mining in Allah Valley


You Efren
NDFP-Mindanao Region FarSouth
August 25, 2012

For almost eight months now, or since the rapid expansion of plantations and large-scale mining in Allah Valley, South Cotabato, the 27th IB-AFP has conducted a relentless military campaign designed to pave the way for the encroachment of giant multinational agribusiness and large -scale mining. As a faithful Mercenary, the 27th IB has made Certain nobody stands in the way for the land acquisition of these Imperialist companies.

Dubbed as "peace and development teams," the 27th IB and its paramilitary forces have occupied Easily the most fertile plains of Surallah, Lake Sebu, Tboli, Bagumbayan and Banga, and the remote areas of Daguma Range so it will be easy for the multinational companies and large-scale mining to obtain land. The Dole-Stanfilco and Sumifru Acquire plantation areas usually through rent or growership. Those who refuse to give up Their lands are marked as mass or rebels and activists are continually harassed, intimidated and threatened. A total of 12,000 hectares for Dole-Stanfilco alone have already been taken and about 10,000 hectares for Sumifru. Dole-Stanfilco is the biggest multinational company in the world and is owned by Sumitomo Sumifru Which also operates a large-scale, ecologically destructive nickel mine in Surigao.

In a climate of fear and coercion, most of the farmers, especially the small farmers have no other choice but to give way (this is what they call "peace"), so the multinationals can rule (this is what they call "development" ). The farmers are lured to give up some cash for Their lands Which almost always happens to be Spent before all the debts are paid. ThuS, the farmers Become part of the landless poor who must sell Their labor power, for very low wages, in order to live.

The 27th IB's presence in the coal-rich communities of Daguma Range imposes foreign and defense of large-scale mining companies Their insistent on continuing operations despite strong resistance from the indigenous and peasant residents. These are the San Miguel Energy Corporation (SMEC), the DM Consunji - Construction Equipment Resources, Incorporated (DMC-Ceri), and the Canadian owned gold and copper mine of Tribal Mining Corporation.

The SMEC and DMC-Ceri have coal mining operations covering thousands of hectares of T'boli ancestral lands and settler communities in the border areas of South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Sarangani Province is. SMEC is the energy division of San Miguel Corporation owned by Eduardo Cojuangco, Aquino's uncle. It holds a mining contract comprising 17,000 hectares, Which encompasses indigenous communities and Forestal areas of the Tasaday Reservation.

The DMC-Ceri is a sister-company of the Semirara Mining Corporation, the largest coal mining firm in the country notorious for grave environmental devastation. It owns about 3,000 hectares within the 10,900-hectare concession of the Silvicultural IFMA Industries Incorporated (SII) also owned by DM Consunji. The SII, IFMA whose contract is set to expire in December 2016, operates a vast coffee, fruit tree and pine tree plantations within its concession area. With the current expansion of the plantation and the thriving coal operation, the Consunjis, one of the most powerful and richest families in the country since the Marcos dictatorship, enjoy government backing and is unrestrained in getting full control of this T'boli, Manobo ancestral land beyond 2016.

These two coal mining projects of SMEC in Ned, Lake Sebu and DMC-Ceri in Santo Nino, Bagumbayan, watershed reserves and are the most important source of Allah Valley's water and agricultural irrigation systems. Aside from the coal mining's potently destructive effects on health, environment, and food security, large-scale operation Their pose the threat of dislocation to thousands of indigenous and farmer families, and would soon bring the Tasaday Reservation environs to Extinction.

By employing the 27th IB, the Cojuangco-Consunji Clique Continues to suppress the indigenous and farmers' broad and firm resistance. Consunji's company-sized private army supplements the 27th IB's Fascist undertakings in harassing and intimidating civilians known to be strong opponents of its plantation and mining projects. Anti-mining groups and farmers' associations are branded as NPA supporters and elements or are relentlessly hounded by patrolling guards and soldiers in Their communities; Their leaders are repetitively summoned and grilled. The "peace and development team" forcibly put up a military detachment adjacent the civilian neighborhood in Tasaday blit. They also imposed restrictive policies in purchasing food supplies and holding of meetings and assemblies, and regulated hunting, a conventional economic activity of the locals. These are clear acts of atrocities against the people's rights and civil liberties.

Furthermore, the recruitment of Civilian Auxiliary Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGUs) has been Extensively used to divide the people's unity against large-scale mining and agribusiness and consequently augment security forces for the giant multinationals and large-scale mining.

The 27th IB is a shameless Mercenary who facilitates the dispossession of Filipino peasants and drive them deeper into poverty and landlessness in favor of the Imperialist multinational companies and large-scale mining. Recently, the 27th IB Forged an elite Fascist group to perform specialized jobs in protecting large-scale mining in the Guise of pursuing the revolutionary movement. Named "Task Force 73", the unit's mission is to launch intensive attacks against anti-mining advocates and subsequently smash the people's resistance. Capt.. Wayagwag, a former intelligence officer and a psy-war specialist, was named its commanding officer, with Lake Sebu and T'boli, the areas where large-scale mining companies are, as Their main areas of responsibility. The task force consists of 27th IB elements from Davao del Sur where They have been securing the mining company Xtrata-SMI. How much the 27th IB Commanding Officer Lt.. Col. Alexis Noel Bravo, Capt.. Wayagwag, and the 10th ID officials are paid for this we can only guess.? It is public knowledge that the more Vicious Their attack, the higher They are paid.

The New People's Army for its part, firmly affirms its unceasing fight against multinational agribusiness and large-scale mining companies who, for so long, have been extracting our nation's resources, siphoning huge profits and destroying the environment. Moreover, the NPA is resolutely committed to frustrate and punish the mercenaries, especially the high-ranking officials of the 27th IB and the 10th ID who continue to protected these companies and enrich themselves at the expense of the people.


For the NDF-FSMR,

YOU Efren
Spokesperson

[Blake's Baby]

Let's look at who is the nation . Straight away we can see 90-99% are the working class...

No, 'the nation' is a myth pedalled by the bourgeoisise to bind the workers to it and against each other.

Sure 90-95% of people in any given territory are working class. Do any of them have to be born in the place they live? What about the Turkish workers who work in Germany? Part of 'the nation' or not part of 'the nation'? Polish workers in the UK? Palestinian and Pakistani workers in the Gulf States?



... Blake tells us there is nothing he can do, his country is not occupied. Somehow it seems a shirking of responsibility, a cavalier attitude to see troops and capital fly across borders to enrich a few...

No, that's not what I said. I said I wasn't out flyering the invaders of my country because there is no army here but the local one.

I have tried to participate in anti-war activities here. Not pro-war-but-on-the-other-side activities, but anti-war activites.


... I propose we get down to settling accounts with our own rulers, take charge and leave others to do likewise.

Fine as far as it goes. 'Turn the imperialist war into a civil war', I like. 'Kill foreigners', I don't like. I don't think it's helpful.

[MaximMK]

If my country invaded another country because of nationalism i wouldn't support it of course. It all depends on the situation. The only reason that would make me fight is if there are people that care nothing about nationalism and territory and shit like that get killed. The soldiers can fight but if the people suffer i dont care which army does that they are to be fought.

[Karabin]

'Aggressor'? Who said anything about aggressor? We're talking about 'invaders'. Why do you think they're the same thing?

In the Franco-Prussian War, France was the aggressor. And the invaded. Were the Prussians justified in their war because the French attacked them? Must have been because the 'aggressors' deserve what's coming to them, by your reasoning.

Who was the 'aggressor' in WWI? Serbia, maybe, or Russia, or Austria, or Britain... tell me who everyone should have been supporting because someone else was the 'aggressor'!

In WWII Britain and France declared war on Germany. So should we all have supported the Nazis from Franco-British 'aggression'?

Good luck trying to bring about class consciousness with guns.

And yet again you miss the point, which you have done many times before in this thread. If the term aggressor offends you so, then just replace it with invader then. It does not make any difference in the context of my post.

Also, it should be clear that nobody here in this thread views the issue as black-white as you do. Just because somebody disagrees with your idea that the only way to fight an invading (is that better?) force is to use pamphlets, doesn't mean they believe that the only way to defeat them is with brute force. Both are fundamental to a revolution; you cant just use one.

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions" - Marx

Good luck convincing either an occupying army or the ruling classes to let go by only using pamphlets & other forms of propaganda.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

My question is would you take part in a war where you would defend your country or would you stay back and do nothing because you are a pascifist or whatever.

I'm by no means a pacifist but I don't "have a country," nor do I hold any nationalist/patriotic feelings towards any state, whatsoever.

The only war I support is class war. Why on Earth would I engage in some conflict in which the proletariat of one nation is slaughtering the other nation's working class when both should be focusing their attention on the fat slobs behind the war plans? If another capitalist country invaded the country I currently reside in. I would probably fight both sides, meaning, I would target and kill both countries leadership and sabotage both war efforts, to the best of my or my comrades abilities.

[Radikal]

Here's my take on it. Apologies if it seems awkward:

If my country was invaded by another imperialistic\fascist nation, my ass would defend people. If I was able to be part of some hypothetical leftist militia, I'd be defending a hospital (or somewhere else that people need), trying to save people from wounds. If the invaders come to attack, I'd shoot them. If the home forces try to take my hypothetical militia's control of the hypothetical hospital, I'd shoot them too. I might (hypothetically) would try and pull a Lenin and try to turn it into a civil war, you never know when you'd have another good chance of national liberation. Flyers ain't gonna fix shit.

[dodger]

All who work or live in Britain we use the designation class, an inclusive term ie British Working Class. I adopted that as it fitted where my interests lay. Working on the tube, hotels and rag trade, suicide to think otherwise.

Never had a single doubt you were anti war or like many in Britain unwilling to die for ones capitalist class. I merely wished to highlight the practical problems inherant in preventing war by mere persuasion. In London I met many who were refugee either as fighters or flighters from countries where British 'meddling' had created disaster. Cannot recall but a few who bore grudge against British People or indeed American. They all had insight that rulers 'money' interests were the authors of their misfortune. I accept they might not be representative as those on the ground as it were. I am often mistaken for American, "Hi Joe!" is the immediate response, here.

Here is where I part company-- the capitalist class looking fro the bottom of my well here has no interests other than profit it is clearly on a course to sell the countryto the highest bidder. They all use the term crocodile here, whether Barangay Captain or government minister draping themselves with flags just makes them look like imbeciles. Liars. A live crocodile looks like he is grinning, the one I came across probably was, retraced my steps pronto. I cannot think of any who might relish war with America, or especially American people. A disaster. Misery. To hear American or Australian politicians refer to Vietnam as a tragedy or horrendous mistake is rather like Goebbels saying WW2 was such. Unfortunately it takes a monumental blunder to make some see sense. In the meantime countries wealth means of subsistence have to be defended or we shall perish. I wont be holding my breath long, waiting for global capital coming to our assisance.Or local ones. A myth. Lets not perpetuate it.

[Blake's Baby]

And yet again you miss the point, which you have done many times before in this thread. If the term aggressor offends you so, then just replace it with invader then. It does not make any difference in the context of my post...

The term 'aggressor' doesn't offend me, much as the word 'pancake' wouldn't offend me in a discussion about dinosaurs. It just doesn't make much sense is all, because it's not what we're talking about.

If you think 'invaders' and 'aggressors' are the same thing and should all be resisted, you would have supported German resistance to the Red Army invaders, yes?


Also, it should be clear that nobody here in this thread views the issue as black-white as you do...

Actually several people do. Not a majority certainly. But some. Doesn't mean we're not right though.


... Just because somebody disagrees with your idea that the only way to fight an invading (is that better?) force is to use pamphlets, doesn't mean they believe that the only way to defeat them is with brute force. Both are fundamental to a revolution; you cant just use one...

The fundamental weapons in the revolution are the working class's role in production and its ability to organise society for the benefit of all. Of course force will sometimes be necessary, but starting a guerilla band doesn't bring about a revolution. Otherwise Lenin would have been a bandit living in the Ukrainian marshes, not a middle-class university-educated theoretician in exile in Switzerland. One 'State and Revolution' is worth a thousand rifles, I'd say.


..."The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions" - Marx

Good luck convincing either an occupying army or the ruling classes to let go by only using pamphlets & other forms of propaganda.

To quote someone: "And yet again you miss the point, which you have done many times before in this thread."

Why are you talking about 'convincing the ruling classes'? I'm talking about fomenting resistance inside the occupying army, as the Bolsheviks tried to do in the German armies occupying Russia. I'm talking about spreading class consciousness among the enemy soldiers, so that they desert or revolt. That's got to be a better idea than killing them.

How is 'the forceible overthrow of all existing social conditions' to be brought about? By the working class seizing the state and economy, collectivising property and administering it for the benefit of all, which means that the working class must have some idea of what it is doing and why. How does killing people help bring about that consciousness?

Good luck convincing the occupying army of the relevance of communism and the working class's historic mission with guns and bombs.

[Philosophos]

No, 'the nation' is a myth pedalled by the bourgeoisise to bind the workers to it and against each other.



I want to believe that you are not talking about nationality when you refer to the nation. If you mean that nationality is a myth then we have a problem.

[Thirsty Crow]

I want to believe that you are not talking about nationality when you refer to the nation. If you mean that nationality is a myth then we have a problem.
Why? Do you think that "nationality" has some basis that should be considered both as real and legitimate by communists?

[Philosophos]

@Menocchio Nationality is not making wars because the others have a different nationality. Nationality means different language, different religion, different traditions. How is that a myth? Don't we all have it?

At the same time if we refuse our history and generally our culture we will have nowhere to "step to" so we can move forward as humanity.

[Thirsty Crow]

@Menocchio Nationality is not making wars because the others have a different nationality. Nationality means different language, different religion, different traditions. How is that a myth? Don't we all have it?

The wording is confusing, that's true.
But the underlying point is very much correct - that these phenomena, especially language, have been historically produced as important constituent parts of both bourgeois ideology and the development of the consolidated internal market - that is, national capital, for the purpose of international competition.

Language, the standard that is, is an excellent example of that. Without going into much detail here, I'll just offer some anecdotal "evidence" - I can't understand, I can't really communicate with certain people with whom I supposedly share both the language, culture and traditions (and I'm not referring to ethnic minorities here).


At the same time if we refuse our history and generally our culture we will have nowhere to "step to" so we can move forward as humanity."Nowhere to step to"?
So you think that people such as myself, if we successfully disseminated our attitude of the irrelevance of tradition and so called national culture, would hamper the development of humanity?

[Philosophos]

The wording is confusing, that's true.
But the underlying point is very much correct - that these phenomena, especially language, have been historically produced as important constituent parts of both bourgeois ideology and the development of the consolidated internal market - that is, national capital, for the purpose of international competition.

Language, the standard that is, is an excellent example of that. Without going into much detail here, I'll just offer some anecdotal "evidence" - I can't understand, I can't really communicate with certain people with whom I supposedly share both the language, culture and traditions (and I'm not referring to ethnic minorities here).

"Nowhere to step to"?
So you think that people such as myself, if we successfully disseminated our attitude of the irrelevance of tradition and so called national culture, would hamper the development of humanity?

Look I don't really know if language have helped the bourgeois or whoever get a grasp of power but what I do know is that language gives humanity more ways of thinking.

Also what's the point of mentioning you can't understand some people that speak the same language as you do? You obviously don't want to communicate. I can communicate with whoever I want... Do you prefer a teacher that speaks like a man who has a degree? Do you prefer a priest that talks with more religious dictionary? Do you prefer my father or my grandfather that speak more folklor or do you prefer a "gangsta" with slang?
I don't really see the point of this arguement anyway.

And yes tradition is important for people. Because you are one of the guys that are actually looking for something else (that's why you became a communist I suppose otherwise you would be a capitalist) that doesn't mean that all people are smart or want to change or start thinking critically. That means that if they don't learn history they will do the same shit again again (look neo-nazis). But how are they going to be interested in history? TRADITION! That keeps you close to your nationality, you have an identity.

Greek people have gone through bankruptcy about 5 times once they became once again an indipendant country. Now is the 6th time and people actually believe that we will be saved if we stick to the plan that IMF, Troika and the rest, even though the same things happened (the exact same things with only different names) as the previous times. That happened because people don't know history. That started to happen because people started to don't care about their nationality (not country nationality it's different).

Sorry for the long post but that's what I believe.

[Thirsty Crow]

Look I don't really know if language have helped the bourgeois or whoever get a grasp of power but what I do know is that language gives humanity more ways of thinking.
Maybe you should think about it then.

And what you state about languages "giving humanity more ways of thinking" is false. Basically, you're echoing the Sappir-Whorf hypothesis which rests on false assumptions (such as the, ontological, logical, and even chronological primacy of speech in relation to modes of cognition. in terms of causality).

But don't get me wrong - I'm a philologist and personally adore learning about all sorts of languages.


Also what's the point of mentioning you can't understand some people that speak the same language as you do? You obviously don't want to communicate.
No. Please stop with this hostile and unwarranted assumptions.
The point is that I cannot talk with them in standard Croatian.
What this illustrates is that the standard is a political invention of sorts and that it didn't exist historically up to a certain point in time, differing of course from country to country.


I can communicate with whoever I want... Do you prefer a teacher that speaks like a man who has a degree? Do you prefer a priest that talks with more religious dictionary? Do you prefer my father or my grandfather that speak more folklor or do you prefer a "gangsta" with slang?
I don't really see the point of this arguement anyway.Really? Go then and communicate with a person with whom you share no knowledge of any language which could enable you to communicate effectively.
As for the rest of this part, what the hell are you rambling about?? You're not making any sense. I'm not talking about register or sociolect, but about communicative dificulties in a situation where two people nominally share nationality and (standard) language.


And yes tradition is important for people. Because you are one of the guys that are actually looking for something else (that's why you became a communist I suppose otherwise you would be a capitalist) that doesn't mean that all people are smart or want to change or start thinking critically.You're framing it the wrong way.
Communists usually don't position themselves as pedagogues and teachers, in a quas-formalist way. We do intend to fostwer critical thinking and ultimately class action, but not upholding nationalist myths (tradition).


That means that if they don't learn history they will do the same shit again again (look neo-nazis). But how are they going to be interested in history? TRADITION! That keeps you close to your nationality, you have an identity.
If this "tradition" and a sense of identity through nationality is all there is, then it needs to be torn down. You are, unwittingly or not, supporting nationalist myth-making, something that is politically very useful for the ruling class and cannot function as a viable toll in the hands of the proletariat.


That started to happen because people started to don't care about their nationality (not country nationality it's different).

Sorry for the long post but that's what I believe.What can I say? To state that the cause of the severe crisis of the Greek society is peopkle forgetting about their nationality is effectively to reveal yourself as a nationalist. I fundamentally disagree with you and think you are sorely mistaken.

[Tjis]

Ok so I've only skimmed this thread so I'm not sure if this has already been brought up.. But in case of a foreign invasion, there's a lot of things one could be doing besides
a. shooting the invaders
b. shooting the national army, or
c. shooting both.

Let's step back and think about what war means in practice for the average worker. Basically, one group of thugs fights another group of thugs over resources and in the process a lot of the things the proletariat depends on for their survival, such as their housing, infrastructure and food supply are destroyed. The result is mass hunger, illness and death amongst the proletariat, many of which are non-combatants. Now, should the response of any communist be to add more combatants to this? I think not. How does that solve anything? It'll only drive the proletariat further into suffering and helplessness, and deligitimize the communist cause.

The first objective of any communist in this situation is not to fight, it is to ensure the wellbeing of the working class. When a housing block is destroyed, communists should find alternative housing and build refugee camps. When there's food shortage, communists should organize communities to pool the scarce resources to communal kitchens, ensuring that food is distributed to those most in need for it, and that none goes to waste. In all those activities, communists should rely on people within these communities, encouraging self-reliance as much as possible, while using the national and international network available to them to organize this efficiently.
In this way, the nation's proletariat is unified in a common war relief effort. Their forms of organization that regulate their well-being will be far more legitimate in the eyes of the proletariat than the bourgeois state. From here, it is a small step to legitimately seizing the means of production by the proletariat, for the well-being of the proletariat, a step made far more easy by the fact that the nation is already weakened because of the war effort.

Now, this is a game changer. When the organizations of the working class have legitimacy, the invading nation can no longer simply seize the means of production from the national bourgeoisie and return to normalcy, with proletarians working as they did before. Instead, a continued full-on occupation would be required, with soldiers in every factory, every community, to get people to work. This places a continued drain on the resources of the invader and ensures that the invader never wins the support of the locals, never wins legitimacy. Even when the invader has a massive army, this places them at a serious disadvantage. It is only a matter of time before such a war ends through pressure from the proletariat (through strikes, guerilla actions attacking supply lines, etc), pressure from dissatisfied soldiers (encouraged by a propaganda effort) pressure at home and international pressure to stop the war (both of which communists of every country should be encouraging throughout any war).

This is the strategy I think communists should follow in case of an invasion. Prioritize the well-being of the working class, and make the fight for this well-being the strategy that ensures the defeat of all parties involved in a conflict, while simultaneously building the organizational base for communism.

All the best,
Tjis

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

He already pretty much established that's not the case. Because apparently, everything's better if they speak your language. You know the "people's stick" quote by Bakunin? The fatherland's stick really isn't any better either.

What part of "it's never good" do you not understand? I also specified there would be more involved than speaking the same language, otherwise I would not have mentioned American troops.

[Karabin]

If you think 'invaders' and 'aggressors' are the same thing and should all be resisted, you would have supported German resistance to the Red Army invaders, yes?

Just so we can move on from this minor error that you insistently cling onto: No, I don't think they are the same thing. Yes, I know that "aggressor" doesn't properly apply to what I said.


The fundamental weapons in the revolution are the working class's role in production and its ability to organise society for the benefit of all. Of course force will sometimes be necessary, but starting a guerilla band doesn't bring about a revolution. Otherwise Lenin would have been a bandit living in the Ukrainian marshes, not a middle-class university-educated theoretician in exile in Switzerland.

The Revolution was won by force and the spread of the ideology by propaganda, not just by the latter. If it wasn't for the former, then we'd probably still have a Tsar in Russia today.


One 'State and Revolution' is worth a thousand rifles, I'd say.

Yet one 'State & Revolution' and a thousand rifles is worth more than either of them alone. That's the point.


Why are you talking about 'convincing the ruling classes'? I'm talking about fomenting resistance inside the occupying army, as the Bolsheviks tried to do in the German armies occupying Russia. I'm talking about spreading class consciousness among the enemy soldiers, so that they desert or revolt. That's got to be a better idea than killing them.

Because ruling classes still play a part if a country has been occupied, and you still need to fight against them. In Yugoslavia for example, there were the Communist Partisans and then the Chetniks, which were led by generals, clergymen & other prominent figures in society that were still loyal to the countries monarch. Though not necessarily ruling classes, they want to re-establish the ruling class and must be dealt accordingly.

Desertion isn't a widespread & common occurrence. Soldiers desert because of many factors, but most of them are things that are of an immediate concern to them (e.g. They were conscripted, poor conditions, fear of going into battle, homesickness etc). If desertion occurred because of the spread of class consciousness & Communist propaganda, then those that desert would be a relatively small number. Particularly nowadays when most army soldiers are payed quite well and have many benefits (Particularly here in Australia).

How is 'the forceible overthrow of all existing social conditions' to be brought about? By the working class seizing the state and economy, collectivising property and administering it for the benefit of all, which means that the working class must have some idea of what it is doing and why. How does killing people help bring about that consciousness?

[Blake's Baby]

Just so we can move on from this minor error that you insistently cling onto: No, I don't think they are the same thing. Yes, I know that "aggressor" doesn't properly apply to what I said...

OK, let's stick with 'invaders' then.

After the Red Army invaded Germany, you'd argue that the Germans were right to resist them, yes?




The Revolution was won by force and the spread of the ideology by propaganda, not just by the latter. If it wasn't for the former, then we'd probably still have a Tsar in Russia today.
...

Actually, the abdication of the Tsar had more to with the disintergration of the army than any organised resistance. Exactly what I'm advocating. Make the occupiers (or your army at home if you can manage it) disintergrate through mass desertion.





Yet one 'State & Revolution' and a thousand rifles is worth more than either of them alone. That's the point...

No, it isn't. No one who is advocating armed struggle is also advocating propaganda work among the 'enemy'. The point is, killing people doesn't increase their class consciousness.




Because ruling classes still play a part if a country has been occupied, and you still need to fight against them. In Yugoslavia for example, there were the Communist Partisans and then the Chetniks, which were led by generals, clergymen & other prominent figures in society that were still loyal to the countries monarch. Though not necessarily ruling classes, they want to re-establish the ruling class and must be dealt accordingly...

And the Communist Partisans were fighting as auxilliaries of the Allies (imperialist powers with war-crimes aplenty) so their own leaders could become the new rulers of the Yugoslav state. Your point is?




Desertion isn't a widespread & common occurrence. Soldiers desert because of many factors, but most of them are things that are of an immediate concern to them (e.g. They were conscripted, poor conditions, fear of going into battle, homesickness etc). If desertion occurred because of the spread of class consciousness & Communist propaganda, then those that desert would be a relatively small number. Particularly nowadays when most army soldiers are payed quite well and have many benefits (Particularly here in Australia)...

You know why? Becuase not enough attention is paid to preparing the ground for it. Soldiers being shot at by the locals are much more likely to accept what their officers are telling them, much more likely to believe the official reasons for the war...

How is 'the forceible overthrow of all existing social conditions' to be brought about? By the working class seizing the state and economy, collectivising property and administering it for the benefit of all, which means that the working class must have some idea of what it is doing and why. How does killing people help bring about that consciousness?

Is a question asked earlier that you quoted but didn't answer.

[Thirsty Crow]

What I think is lacking in this discussion is an account of the changes in the structure of the military apparatus, namely, the shift from national draft to a professionalized standing army (with complementary development of the destructive powers of warfare technology). I think this has a bearing upon the debate abour revolutionary defensism and defeatism.

I actually wouldn't know where to start here...so I'm just pointing towards a possible sub-topic.

[The Jay]

If nationalism is defined as only supporting the maintenance of culture in a non-authoritarian way then is it a bad thing? It would seem fairly benign if it is defined that way.

[ind_com]

Hello guys I had a conversation with some guys at my place and we started analyzing some political theories. They told me that if you are a communist then you don't believe in the concept of the nation.

In the begining I thought they were talking about the complete communism and when there is no need for a country, but I was wrong.
They were talking about the wars that your country is involved with.

I don't really think that there is a communist that wants to take part in an imperialistic war or a war for profit or any war that his country started.

My question is would you take part in a war where you would defend your country or would you stay back and do nothing because you are a pascifist or whatever.

Please don't start analyzing things that have nothing to do with the topic because I'm sick of reading things in my threads that merely have nothing to do with what I write. Just say your opinion and why you support it. Thanks in advance.

It depends on which class in power in my country and the invading country, and where the war is taking place. If my country is capitalist and the invading country is socialist, then the strategy for all communists of my country will be defeatism. If it is the opposite, then we will have to fight for the victory of my country, which will spread socialism. If both the countries are capitalist, then as long as the war remains on foreign soil, the strategy will be defeatism to stop the damage on foreign populations and attack the weakening ruling classes in my country. If the war comes to our soil, the strategy will be principally opposing the invading capitalist country, and fighting alongside the native ruling classes, or fighting both sides independently, depending on the strength of the communist movement.

[smellincoffee]

We're tribal creatures, and we will inevitably look for our clan and see it as distinct and opposed to other clans. This is not ideology, and no amount of socialization or indoctrinating will destroy or even erode it. Biology is not some meek force we can overcome. I think country is an expression of this, although obviously love of country can become something aritifical, something contrived, through ideology. I identify with the idea of America more than I do with the idea of Germany, or Azerbaijan. This culture I grew in has shaped me, influenced me in a myriad of ways, many of which I don't know. I can't possibly disassociate myself from it in total, because I'm not even aware of all the inroads it has made into my mind. At the same time, this tend toward country is only a tendency, and we can make connections with other people and see them as part of "us", if only temporarily.

This is the big problem with class consciousness, I think. We all have various connections, attachments to different groups, and I don't know how many our brain can truly Believe in at one time. So people fluctuate in their loyalties.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, of course.

So those of us who reject the notion of 'tribe' are, what, not human?

[smellincoffee]

Yeah, of course.

So those of us who reject the notion of 'tribe' are, what, not human?

People can reject the notion of tribe on an intellectual basis, even strive to see all of humanity as one big happy family -- but group-bonding instincts will still manifest themselves regardless of our opinions. That those instincts are natural doesn't make them an authority over us.

[Solidarity]

The PLO is defending their country from the Zionists. No there is nothing wrong with defending your country from an imperialist invasion.

[Blake's Baby]

So those of us that don't have them ('reject' them, don't believe they exist) are 'unnatural'?

Just trying to get to the bottom of your biological essentialism here.

[GoddessCleoLover]

"Group-bonding instincts" must be weak amongst the bourgeoisie since they are happy to locate their plants in China and other countries where wages are low and Unions weak or non-existent.

[smellincoffee]

"Group-bonding instincts" must be weak amongst the bourgeoisie since they are happy to locate their plants in China and other countries where wages are low and Unions weak or non-existent.


So those of us that don't have them ('reject' them, don't believe they exist) are 'unnatural'?

Just trying to get to the bottom of your biological essentialism here.

I think group bonding and nationalism are being conflated here. Sentiment for country can be an expression of bonding, but it's only one. The corporate managers' strongest bond could be with their golf buddies or a frat bro.

The point that I'm trying to make is that biologically, we are social creatures, who until the advent of cities would have lived in clans or tribes, living and hunting together. We thus have a deep-seated instinct to work with some people and view others as different from us. This us-and-them instinct manifests itself all the time -- through feelings of nationality, or in sports, or even as class consciousness. It's why class conflict makes perfect sense to me in the light of evolution and the constant struggle for existence.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

If some hostile invading force came, I would fight in defense of my family and friends, and myself of course, but never out of a spirit of defense for my country of birth or residence...I just don't feel that way about my 'homeland' or whatever.

[Blake's Baby]

I think group bonding and nationalism are being conflated here. Sentiment for country can be an expression of bonding, but it's only one. The corporate managers' strongest bond could be with their golf buddies or a frat bro...

So are you now claiming ethnic/national tribalism is merely a false community that is manipulated by the bourgeoisie, on the basis that it's easier to manipulate the proles if they're tied to the nation?

Or are you claiming that those who can transfer their ethnic/tribal loyalties to other groups are cleverer than the nationalist oafs who haven't thrown off the incestuous loyalty to their own ethnos?

I don't really get where you're going with this.


The point that I'm trying to make is that biologically, we are social creatures, who until the advent of cities would have lived in clans or tribes, living and hunting together. We thus have a deep-seated instinct to work with some people and view others as different from us. This us-and-them instinct manifests itself all the time -- through feelings of nationality, or in sports, or even as class consciousness. It's why class conflict makes perfect sense to me in the light of evolution and the constant struggle for existence.

You do know this is rubbish, don't you? What you're basically saying here is 'people make friends' which is undeniable, then saying 'and then define others as 'not-friends'' which is certainly challengeable, at least in the sense that you seem to mean, and then 'and you can look at any group and explain it this way'.

Something that explains everything explains nothing. So what if the kernel of your revelation is 'humans make groups'? That doesn't tell us anything. It's nations we're discussing here; do you think that nations are natural groups, or do you think that they're 'unnatural' groups? If they are 'natural' groups, what about those people who reject or don't believe in them?

[smellincoffee]

So are you now claiming ethnic/national tribalism is merely a false community that is manipulated by the bourgeoisie, on the basis that it's easier to manipulate the proles if they're tied to the nation?

Or are you claiming that those who can transfer their ethnic/tribal loyalties to other groups are cleverer than the nationalist oafs who haven't thrown off the incestuous loyalty to their own ethnos?

[...]

Something that explains everything explains nothing. So what if the kernel of your revelation is 'humans make groups'? That doesn't tell us anything. It's nations we're discussing here; do you think that nations are natural groups, or do you think that they're 'unnatural' groups? If they are 'natural' groups, what about those people who reject or don't believe in them?

Nations are a product of ideology which succeed based on our innate tendency toward tribalism. They aren't natural. Religions and brand-name loyalty succeed in part on the same basis.

My only claim is that it is perfectly natural for people to feel an affinity for the people they live in community with. One might think of a certain city as "my" city, "my" home, etc. Modern humans tend to think of all of whole countries as "theirs", too, but I think those feelings are fairly superficial. How can someone in New York regard the Grand Canyon or Fairbanks, Alaska as "home" when he lives no where near them and experiences almost nothing of them?

[Philosophos]

Nations are a product of ideology which succeed based on our innate tendency toward tribalism. They aren't natural. Religions and brand-name loyalty succeed in part on the same basis.

My only claim is that it is perfectly natural for people to feel an affinity for the people they live in community with. One might think of a certain city as "my" city, "my" home, etc. Modern humans tend to think of all of whole countries as "theirs", too, but I think those feelings are fairly superficial. How can someone in New York regard the Grand Canyon or Fairbanks, Alaska as "home" when he lives no where near them and experiences almost nothing of them?

You can't really take the USA as an example because this country or however they call it is enormous. If you take smaller countries as an example you will understand that if you take the bus you will be able to go in 5 different cities in 18 hours back and forth...

I suppose that's why people fail to understand when I say that the nation isn't something to erase. I've travelled all over Greece and I've talked to the people that lived there and I've made friends how can someone tell me that this whole thing is a capitalist trick?

[Blake's Baby]

If believe you couldn't make friends with people in Turkey or Macedonia or Albania or Italy or Bulgaria or anywhere else that is close to Greece, then I'm afraid that proves nothing other than that you're a chauvinist. If you can make friends with people in those places, it proves that the notion of 'Greece' is not necessary.

[The Jay]

If believe you couldn't make friends with people in Turkey or Macedonia or Albania or Italy or Bulgaria or anywhere else that is close to Greece, then I'm afraid that proves nothing other than that you're a chauvinist. If you can make friends with people in those places, it proves that the notion of 'Greece' is not necessary.

No it doesn't and that wasn't what he/she was saying. Or the remark could be acknowledging that come cultures mesh better than others, which isn't all that farfetched.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think group bonding and nationalism are being conflated here. Sentiment for country can be an expression of bonding, but it's only one. The corporate managers' strongest bond could be with their golf buddies or a frat bro.

The point that I'm trying to make is that biologically, we are social creatures, who until the advent of cities would have lived in clans or tribes, living and hunting together. We thus have a deep-seated instinct to work with some people and view others as different from us. This us-and-them instinct manifests itself all the time -- through feelings of nationality, or in sports, or even as class consciousness. It's why class conflict makes perfect sense to me in the light of evolution and the constant struggle for existence.

I think when first contact between two cultures - particularly between Europeans and people in the Americas - are looked at, there are a range of responses from open and unquestioning welcome/fascination to suspicion/hostility, so I don't think that there is an inherent sort of evolutionary tribalism or xenophobia in people. It seems to be more conditional and based on other factors. I'd agree that we are biologically social creatures though and need to be with other people.

In some ways I think biology might actually favor pro-xeno interactions - especially when it comes to sexual pairing - but I don't have any real data or evidence of that so take it with a grain of salt. It just seems like it would make biological sense from a gene-pool standpoint as well as from anecdotal stories of frequent cross-cultural pairing even in cultures where it is officially socially taboo.

[Thirsty Crow]

I suppose that's why people fail to understand when I say that the nation isn't something to erase. I've travelled all over Greece and I've talked to the people that lived there and I've made friends how can someone tell me that this whole thing is a capitalist trick?
Nobody is saying that nationhood is merely a capitalist trick.
But the fact is that the notion and practice of nationhood (implying the particular organization of force and decision making called the state) is a historical product of the bourgeois epoch.

Besides that, I can't see how making friends and travelling accounts for anything, really. I travelled and made friends (or good acquaintances in some cases) here where I live and in other countries, and what does that entail?

[The Jay]

I think when first contact between two cultures - particularly between Europeans and people in the Americas - are looked at, there are a range of responses from open and unquestioning welcome/fascination to suspicion/hostility, so I don't think that there is an inherent sort of evolutionary tribalism or xenophobia in people. It seems to be more conditional and based on other factors. I'd agree that we are biologically social creatures though and need to be with other people.

In some ways I think biology might actually favor pro-xeno interactions - especially when it comes to sexual pairing - but I don't have any real data or evidence of that so take it with a grain of salt. It just seems like it would make biological sense from a gene-pool standpoint as well as from anecdotal stories of frequent cross-cultural pairing even in cultures where it is officially socially taboo.


That is not the right way to look at evolution. You are making the mistake it seems of viewing evolution as a phenomenon that is done by a group as opposed to a passive change within a group - this is ignoring human eugenics. It does not matter if a certain genetic match would "produce better offspring" since there is no possible way to know either: 1 - whether that individual sperm or egg is 'good' and 2 - whether or not there is even a mechanism for detecting something like that at all.

For #2 I would require a lot of evidence to believe and it would have to be more than differing pheromones released by different levels of health.

Much love yo

[Blake's Baby]

No it doesn't and that wasn't what he/she was saying...

Really? In which case, I can't see that they were saying anything at all.


...Or the remark could be acknowledging that come cultures mesh better than others, which isn't all that farfetched.

Really? which cultures do you think are bad at 'meshing' then, and what does 'meshing' mean in this circumstance?

vMK's position, that because s/he has made friends with other Greeks, the Greek nation should be preserved, makes no sense. What does making friends with other Greeks have to do with it? Is VMK incapable of making friends with non-Greeks? If so, that's a problem for VMK, not the workers' movement. If not, the fact that VMK can make friends with Greeks, among others, is completely irrelevant.

[The Jay]

Really? which cultures do you think are bad at 'meshing' then, and what does 'meshing' mean in this circumstance?

I just meant getting along easily. Take the pakistanis and the indians for instance. They don't get along all that well.


vMK's position, that because s/he has made friends with other Greeks, the Greek nation should be preserved, makes no sense. What does making friends with other Greeks have to do with it? Is VMK incapable of making friends with non-Greeks? If so, that's a problem for VMK, not the workers' movement. If not, the fact that VMK can make friends with Greeks, among others, is completely irrelevant.

That would indeed be silly. Perhaps VMK should re-phrase and elaborate on the point.

[Thirsty Crow]

I just meant getting along easily. Take the pakistanis and the indians for instance. They don't get along all that well.

This is misleading as, it seems to me, it disregards the aspect of peaceful co-existence of Muslim Indian and Hindi Indian cultures.

Now, I think that you would search in vain for intra-cultural traits that are inherently opposed to each other, other than those of a religious kind, but they depend greatly on institutional mediation which itself is concerned also with concrete material conditions, if that makes sense.

In other words, yes, it is obvious that in an antagonistic, class society different cultures would show signs of at least uneasy co-existence (if not outright conflict), but the point is how we account for this - by withdrawing into some kind of cultural essentialism or by the critique of and action against the bases of social antagonism.

[Philosophos]

Really? In which case, I can't see that they were saying anything at all.



Really? which cultures do you think are bad at 'meshing' then, and what does 'meshing' mean in this circumstance?

vMK's position, that because s/he has made friends with other Greeks, the Greek nation should be preserved, makes no sense. What does making friends with other Greeks have to do with it? Is VMK incapable of making friends with non-Greeks? If so, that's a problem for VMK, not the workers' movement. If not, the fact that VMK can make friends with Greeks, among others, is completely irrelevant.


Oh for crying out loud you surely don't put your mind on thinking and you just say the first thing that comes in your mind...

Let's see... When I say I made friends around Greece it doesn't mean that I can't have other friends in other countries. I have friends in Turkey and Bulgaria where I travelled too. And someone said (i don't want to read back all the answers) that I want to preserve the country. NO! I'm saying that you can't erase the differences between people. I can't make friends as easily in Germany as I can in Greece or Bulgaria (Balkan Countries that have almost the same way of thinking).

You can't make all people the same like they're robots. If someone tries this then he's worse than a capitalist. I'm saying that these things are something you can't erase and you and some other guys tell me that I can't have friends or the nation is just a capitalist trick or that I'm a nationalist.

Last but not least you ask what has to do with making friends with other Greeks. I pitty those people who never experienced the way their countrie's people can act. When Greek people were protesting in Syntagma they didn't care if the one next to you is left or right or nationalist or whateverthehellhewantstobeist. We stand united because we have things in common. If the left makes a revolution do you really think it's going to succeed with all these differences that the tendencies have? We have MLs, anarchists and god knows what else. You must have other things in common. Not all people around are ready to go to a full-left way of thinking. You must take it slowly.

Be realistic and see what is going on around you not just saying what it should have been done. If the world was like that everyone would be on the left and not the right

[ComradeOm]

Nobody is saying that nationhood is merely a capitalist trick.
But the fact is that the notion and practice of nationhood (implying the particular organization of force and decision making called the state) is a historical product of the bourgeois epochSo what? The computer is also an "historical product of the bourgeois epoch"

The reality is that nations exist. Regardless of their origins*, they are here with us now and are unlikely to go anywhere soon. I am Irish. A simple statement - and one that doesn't invalidate the fact that I'm also European and male and a wage slave, etc - but a profound one. It means that I am the product of a pretty specific set of conditions and cultural background. Somebody who grew up in Paris or Florida or London will not have the same manner of speech as myself, they will not get the same cultural references, they will quite possibly not view the world in the same way

That's life and that's culture. It's not going to change any time soon. Nor should it

*The artificial nature of which can be much overstated. National identities rarely sprung into existence in the 19th. Instead they were typically the extension of much older regional identities. In some cases, such as Germany, this was merely formalising what had long existed: references to the 'German nation' go back centuries. The building of 'France', for example, was largely the imposition of the practices, speech and habits of the Ile de France to the more outlying provinces. The regional identities of the latter didn't disappear (although their dialects often did) but a new, higher, point of reference was provided

[Thirsty Crow]

So what? The computer is also an "historical product of the bourgeois epoch"Yes, it surely is, though the analogy rests on shaky grounds due to the fact that we're talking about a way of social, political and economic organization.
I thought the point was clear. OP seemed to pose the problem of nationhood in ahistorical terms, and I don't think it is useful to do so. Furthermore, s/he seemed to misrepresent the Marxist view of the nation as merely a capitalist trick, and this merits response I think. So why so jumpy?

Oh yes, and add to this the fact that nationhood is inextricably bound to nationalism, a class collaborationist project in itself.
Though, that doesn't mean that nation and nationhood can be "abolished" as a measure of administrative command. But I still think there is value to the, speculative admittedly, notion of the gradual transformation of the nation under conditions of world socialism, at least in the sense of a different cultural formation due to different social-political organization.


The reality is that nations exist.
Nobody denies that nations exist.
The point is what are the political and social consequences of its existence.


Regardless of their origins*, they are here with us now and are unlikely to go anywhere soon.
Indeed, it would be absurd to expect a gradual dissolution of the nation-state in capitalism.


I am Irish. A simple statement - and one that doesn't invalidate the fact that I'm also European and male and a wage slave, etc - but a profound one. It means that I am the product of a pretty specific set of conditions and cultural background. Somebody who grew up in Paris or Florida or London will not have the same manner of speech as myself, they will not get the same cultural references, they will quite possibly not view the world in the same way

Yes that is life and culture, though I'm a bit wary of the thought that cultural background decisively produces significant differences in worldview, though of course it would be foolish to deny that our views are influenced by our immediate cultural context.



*The artificial nature of which can be much overstated. National identities rarely sprung into existence in the 19th. Instead they were typically the extension of much older regional identities. In some cases, such as Germany, this was merely formalising what had long existed: references to the 'German nation' go back centuries. The building of 'France', for example, was largely the imposition of the practices, speech and habits of the Ile de France to the more outlying provinces. The regional identities of the latter didn't disappear (although their dialects often did) but a new, higher, point of reference was provided
Well yes, I suppose this can be much overstated.
Though, an interesting counter-example would be the South Slavic national project in the 19th century I assume.

[Philosophos]

So what? The computer is also an "historical product of the bourgeois epoch"

The reality is that nations exist. Regardless of their origins*, they are here with us now and are unlikely to go anywhere soon. I am Irish. A simple statement - and one that doesn't invalidate the fact that I'm also European and male and a wage slave, etc - but a profound one. It means that I am the product of a pretty specific set of conditions and cultural background. Somebody who grew up in Paris or Florida or London will not have the same manner of speech as myself, they will not get the same cultural references, they will quite possibly not view the world in the same way

That's life and that's culture. It's not going to change any time soon. Nor should it

*The artificial nature of which can be much overstated. National identities rarely sprung into existence in the 19th. Instead they were typically the extension of much older regional identities. In some cases, such as Germany, this was merely formalising what had long existed: references to the 'German nation' go back centuries. The building of 'France', for example, was largely the imposition of the practices, speech and habits of the Ile de France to the more outlying provinces. The regional identities of the latter didn't disappear (although their dialects often did) but a new, higher, point of reference was provided

That's what I've been trying to tell all these people thank you

[brigadista]

country is big in some places in the carribbean

[Blake's Baby]

Edited, because there is little point in arguing with nationalists.