Do you support Belarus/Lukashenko?

[Stalinist Speaker]

Do you support Belarus today?

The Communist party of Belarus (marxist-leninist) support Alexander Lukashenko widely.

Belarus united left party "a just world" seem to criticize the government more.

but none of the communist parties seem to be advocating revolution against the government.

So the question is whats your stance?

i personally support the government of Lukashenko.


So if people misunderstand what i'm trying to say:

I don't claim that Lukashenko is a communist.

i don't completely support him either: i support him on basic ground and i believe that the conditions will improve every where in that country towards socialist goals in just a matter of time. thats why i mainly support him.

[reb]

Just because the Communist Party of Anywhere (Marxist-Leninist) supports some shitty party doesn't mean that you have to. The CPUSA for instance, supports the Democrats, the CPGB supports the Labor Party, and so on.

[Stalinist Speaker]

Just because the Communist Party of Anywhere (Marxist-Leninist) supports some shitty party doesn't mean that you have to. The CPUSA for instance, supports the Democrats, the CPGB supports the Labor Party, and so on.

they are the party that is coming from the CPSU after the USSR fell. they are not social democratic like CPUSA, and there is very good reasons to support Lukashenko compared to obama

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Lukashenko and Obama operate in the same capacity in their different nation states. They are memebrs of the bourgeoisie and work to stabilise capitalism within, and promote the national bourgeoisie of, their respective nations. Belarus is clearly a particularly oppressive country within the capitalist world market, its capitalist government should be opposed just as vehemently as the capitalist government of the USA.

[Stalinist Speaker]

Lukashenko and Obama operate in the same capacity in their different nation states. They are memebrs of the bourgeoisie and work to stabilise capitalism within, and promote the national bourgeoisie of, their respective nations. Belarus is clearly a particularly oppressive country within the capitalist world market, its capitalist government should be opposed just as vehemently as the capitalist government of the USA.

No actually not in Belarus workers get more rights then in other capitalist countries, and lukashenko have himself stated that he is against privatization and wants to remove it, also i think that he will join in an union if the KPRF start leading russia to rebuild the USSR.

[reb]

they are the party that is coming from the CPSU after the USSR fell. they are not social democratic like CPUSA, and there is very good reasons to support Lukashenko compared to obama

They are social-democratic, unless you want to provide a good reason as to why they are not.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

lukashenko have himself stated that he is against privatization and wants to remove it

http://www.belarus.by/en/invest/investment-climate/privatisation

course he does

[GiantMonkeyMan]

No actually not in Belarus workers get more rights then in other capitalist countries, and lukashenko have himself stated that he is against privatization and wants to remove it, also i think that he will join in an union if the KPRF start leading russia to rebuild the USSR.
In 2009, Belarus accepted a $2.5 billion dollar loan from the IMF to keep the economy afloat. Under the suggestion of the IMF, Lukashenko removed all state regulation of prices of products in 2010 which supported the privatisation programme but lead to huge increases in prices due to inflation. As a result of this inflation and unstable currency, Belarus has been turning to another capitalist nation, Russia, to help prop up its economy further. Talking of 'workers rights', opposition groups to Lukashenko have been wracked by arrests and some murders.

The USSR is never coming back and thank god. We should be fighting for something relevant to contemporary society and not something that was a failure twenty years ago.

[John Lennin]

It's a bourgeois Regime. Why should i support it?

For me beeing a socialist and supporting the working class means opposing basically every existing gouvernement.

[Tim Cornelis]

And again a Stalinist reveals himself to be a bourgeois-socialist opportunist -- one would almost start to think that Marxism-Leninism is a bourgeois-socialist ideology, hmmmm. The workers are separated from the objective conditions of labour (wage-labour), confront the means of production as alien property (private class property, even if the means of production are judicially state owned), and have surplus value extorted from them (exploitation) and this is used to produce more money (capital and capital accumulation). Combined we have the basis and existence of capital. Hence, Belarus is a capitalist country based on the rule of capital over labour. Anyone vocalising, professing, or acting upon support for these bourgeois governments is not a "comrade", and stands in the way of the emancipation of the working class -- hence, an enemy.

[Stalinist Speaker]

http://www.belarus.by/en/invest/investment-climate/privatisation

course he does

did he decide that?
but here he said that privatization should be stopped.
now he does speak russian (which i speak) if you don't believe me then ask someone to translate.

[Thirsty Crow]

Oh man, this brings back memories of ManicImpression or whatever, do you remember the guy from PSL? And our lovely discussions on whether Belarus represents a special kind of a deformed workers state :lol:

In short, no.

[Stalinist Speaker]

So all you think that you are right and almost every communist in Belarus is somehow wrong in their own country that they know more about? thats interesting.

[Tim Cornelis]

So all you think that you are right and almost every communist in Belarus is somehow wrong in their own country that they know more about? thats interesting.

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

Maybe a person supporting and upholding a bourgeois government and capitalist society isn't a communist, food for thought. Eurocommunism and Marxism-Leninism are bourgeois-socialist ideologies in my book. They advocate a classless society, or socialism, but do so through the prism of a bourgeois paradigm leading them toward a path uncertain it will lead to a socialist society at all, while likely reproducing class society.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Oh man, this brings back memories of ManicImpression or whatever, do you remember the guy from PSL? And our lovely discussions on whether Belarus represents a special kind of a deformed workers state :lol:

In short, no.

The one interaction I remember having with him over Belaruss was when he was defending the arrest of some Belarussian anarchists who had been arrested for a series of acts of "hooliganism" against, amongst other institutions, a bank, a police station and a casino lol

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

did he decide that?
but here he said that privatization should be stopped.
now he does speak russian (which i speak) if you don't believe me then ask someone to translate.

well, he is the President. If he missed that then he's a pretty shit President, so i'm guessing yes, he did decide that.

I also have a friend who is in the know in terms of Belarus and yeah, Lukashenko is a fucking nightmare.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So all you think that you are right and almost every communist in Belarus is somehow wrong in their own country that they know more about? thats interesting.

I didn't know communists had countries?

[Stalinist Speaker]

I didn't know communists had countries?

what ever every communist in Belarus you understand

[Stalinist Speaker]

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

Maybe a person supporting and upholding a bourgeois government and capitalist society isn't a communist, food for thought. Eurocommunism and Marxism-Leninism are bourgeois-socialist ideologies in my book. They advocate a classless society, or socialism, but do so through the prism of a bourgeois paradigm leading them toward a path uncertain it will lead to a socialist society at all, while likely reproducing class society.

So your saying that there isn't any communists in Belarus because they support a leader that wants to restore the USSR? (more or less)

[Per Levy]

So your saying that there isn't any communists in Belarus because they support a leader that wants to restore the USSR? (more or less)

no he is saying that belarus is a capitalist country, ruled by a bourgeois dictator and communists who support such a man and system arnt communists. there are probally genuine communists in belarus though.


also i think that he will join in an union if the KPRF start leading russia to rebuild the USSR.

did he say such a thing? besides the kprf is also not communist, they are a social conservative, nationalistic and very homophobic party who support putin, oh i see a patern here.

also @stalinist_speaker: actions speak louder than words.

[Tim Cornelis]

So your saying that there isn't any communists in Belarus because they support a leader that wants to restore the USSR? (more or less)

You're* (technically also 'aren't', but colloquially that is correct).

I'm saying that anyone supporting a capitalist system or government -- the parameters of which I've already posted -- in this day and age where bourgeois governments have ceased to be progressive, is indeed not a communist. A communist is someone advocating social revolution against bourgeois class rule (including Belorussian bourgeois class rule) for the immediate (not instantaneous) establishment of communist society. Of course, there are some instances when strategic or even political support for bourgeois governments can be justified. Political support in case of genocide; strategic support in case of a transition to liberal democracy (when communist revolution is not within the realm of possibility) which would enable the emergence of independent labour movements and class struggle to be waged more openly. However, extending political support to a bourgeois government such as that of Lukashenko is not warranted under these, currently prevailing, conditions.

[Stalinist Speaker]

no he is saying that belarus is a capitalist country, ruled by a bourgeois dictator and communists who support such a man and system arnt communists. there are probally genuine communists in belarus though.



did he say such a thing? besides the kprf is also not communist, they are a social conservative, nationalistic and very homophobic party who support putin, oh i see a patern here.

also @stalinist_speaker: actions speak louder than words.

oh and there are not any other parties calling themselves communist, so yea there are not many in that case.


oh the KPRF isn't communist but their goal is to restore the USSR to how it was before, i guess that makes the soviet union also social conservative, and they are not supporting Putin, i dont know where you got that from.

[Remus Bleys]

Name is "stalinist speaker" calls himself "stalin 2" and supports Alexander Lukashenko?

Of fucking course.

[Per Levy]

oh and there are not any other parties calling themselves communist, so yea there are not many in that case.

i dont know that much about the political system of belarus, are other communist parties even allowed to be formed?


oh the KPRF isn't communist but their goal is to restore the USSR to how it was before

shit? seriously that is so backwards, the ussr wont come back, and anyone who advocates that is an enemy of the working class.


i guess that makes the soviet union also social conservative

in praxis they surley were social conservative, but whatever, the soviet union was capitalist through and through.


and they are not supporting Putin, i dont know where you got that from.

the kprf is the loyal opposition to putin's united russia. what else is there to say?

[Stalinist Speaker]

i dont know that much about the political system of belarus, are other communist parties even allowed to be formed?



shit? seriously that is so backwards, the ussr wont come back, and anyone who advocates that is an enemy of the working class.



in praxis they surley were social conservative, but whatever, the soviet union was capitalist through and through.



the kprf is the loyal opposition to putin's united russia. what else is there to say?

They would be allowed, but if they wouldn't by some reason they could just have created a underground organization like some anarchist have, but that doesn't exist

well alright my fault not the USSR more the RSFSR.

They have never supported Putin and his party, they almost always criticizes him and accuse him for voting fraud, how is that supporting?

[Stalinist Speaker]

Name is "stalinist speaker" calls himself "stalin 2" and supports Alexander Lukashenko?

Of fucking course.

well yes its complicated its easier to understand if you are an russian.

[Remus Bleys]

well yes its complicated its easier to understand if you are an russian.

Not rreally. Both are social democrat bourgeois politicians.

[Stalinist Speaker]

Not rreally. Both are social democrat bourgeois politicians.

oh they are social democratic meanwhile their opposition is a social democratic party. makes a lot of sense, i'm also sure the term social democratic is not understood by people on this page,

i would call Lukashenko a mix between centrism and socialism.

[Le Socialiste]

The USSR/RSFSR arose out of a specific historical context that, at least in the contemporary sense, isn't as applicable to today's Russia. The country, then an empire, possessed key political, geographic and socioeconomic differences that set it apart from its modern counterpart. So when leaders of the Putin or Lukashenko variety bemoan the collapse of the USSR, they're doing so from a purely nationalist position. They also do so because they see the opportunity to turn a profit via trade agreements that favor their countries over their partners, like Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, etc.

[Per Levy]

oh they are social democratic meanwhile their opposition is a social democratic party. makes a lot of sense

if his actions and politcs are social-democratic than it would fair to say that he is a social democrat.


i'm also sure the term social democratic is not understood by people on this page,

well enlighten us then, tell us what you understand under that term.


i would call Lukashenko a mix between centrism and socialism.

so a social-democrat then? seriously lukashenko is the president of a capitalist state, there is nothing socialist about him. again, actions speak louder than words.

[Stalinist Speaker]

if his actions and politcs are social-democratic than it would fair to say that he is a social democrat.



well enlighten us then, tell us what you understand under that term.



so a social-democrat then? seriously lukashenko is the president of a capitalist state, there is nothing socialist about him. again, actions speak louder than words.

His actions are not social democratic, he gets criticized by social democratic parties around the world

So right to work, right to own a home, right to eat/drink, he is against the US imperialism, e.t.c, isn't that anything socialist about that? so yes i call him a centrist that has adopted many socialist principles.
Edit: Free basic education, free health care (in most ways)

[Remus Bleys]

His actions are not social democratic, he gets criticized by social democratic parties around the world

So right to work, right to own a home, right to eat/drink, he is against the US imperialism, e.t.c, isn't that anything socialist about that? so yes i call him a centrist that has adopted many socialist principles.
Edit: Free basic education, free health care (in most ways)

You are so fucking stupid.
"Anti revisionist" lol

[Per Levy]

His actions are not social democratic, he gets criticized by social democratic parties around the world

so?


So right to work, right to own a home, right to eat/drink, he is against the US imperialism, e.t.c, isn't that anything socialist about that?

no there isnt, right work, own a home, right to eat and drink is all social democratic and all in the sphere of bourgeois politics. also being against us-imperialism while sucking up to russian imperialism doesnt make you anti-imperialist.


so yes i call him a centrist that has adopted many socialist principles.

what socialist principles? that the working class should own the means of production? is he supportive of that? no he isnt it would be against his interests.

[Stalinist Speaker]

You are so fucking stupid.
"Anti revisionist" lol

why do you not write an argument instead of an insult.

[Art Vandelay]

You are so fucking stupid.
"Anti revisionist" lol

Not saying I agree with arguments the op is making, but this is totally unnecessary. There is no reason to be mean to someone, just cause you disagree with their politics. The only thing stalinistspeaker has said that I've agreed with, is that you should put forth a political argument, instead of an insult, or you probably just shouldn't post in the thread.

[Stalinist Speaker]

so?



no there isnt, right work, own a home, right to eat and drink is all social democratic and all in the sphere of bourgeois politics. also being against us-imperialism while sucking up to russian imperialism doesnt make you anti-imperialist.



what socialist principles? that the working class should own the means of production? is he supportive of that? no he isnt it would be against his interests.

how is he a social democrat if no other social democrat think he is a social democrat? that makes no sense!!

Right to work: almost every social democratic has a high unemployment rate, let me give you some examples, Sweden: over 5% Norway around 5% Denmark almost 5% France 9% none of these countries have right to work (employment for all people), Belarus have 0,6 and those who aren't working are mostly alcoholics and young people. not because they can't find a job because they don't accept it.

They don't have problems with amount of apartments and they are building many new and cheap for the new generation to move in, pretty much every person has money for an home, even most of the alcoholics that barely got any money since they don't work.

yes there is not full worker control, but its way better than in most places, if a worker gets abused on his work by his boss the stat can go in and stop that and maybe even close that private company, and also every private company is strictly watched by the state, they can't put what prices they want, they can't have to low salaries for the workers, they cant have a to long working time. almost everything is regulated by the state, (and in social democratic countries it isn't)

[Remus Bleys]

Not saying I agree with arguments the op is making, but this is totally unnecessary. There is no reason to be mean to someone, just cause you disagree with their politics. The only thing stalinistspeaker has said that I've agreed with, is that you should put forth a political argument, instead of an insult, or you probably just shouldn't post in the thread.

Lel. I've "argued" with stalinist speaker before. Made a lot of points about kprf.
No reply. Not a leftist.
To support this guy and claim to be antirevisionist signofoes all hope is lost and the only thing to do is have fun.

[kohctpyktop]

My fiancee is from Belarus, and we lived there for quite some time. With myself as more of an anarcho-collectivist and her as some kind of soc dem, neither of us saw anything we like about Lukashenko. :glare:

[Stalinist Speaker]

Lel. I've "argued" with stalinist speaker before. Made a lot of points about kprf.
No reply. Not a leftist.
To support this guy and claim to be antirevisionist signofoes all hope is lost and the only thing to do is have fun.

didn't i reply i did it for a long time, why i didn't continue is the reason why i wrote on my blog. and well i didn't claim that Lukashenko was a communist, sooooo yeaaa and i didnt claim that i was an complete supporter of Lukashenkos policies either, maybe pay more attention on what i write, or its just me that aren't clear enough.

and you still haven't made an argument yet (just pointing out).

[Stalinist Speaker]

My fiancee is from Belarus, and we lived there for quite some time. With myself as more of an anarcho-collectivist and her as some kind of soc dem, neither of us saw anything we like about Lukashenko. :glare:

so nothing about that you had 100% guarantied employment, or that your employers couldn't mess with your right how they wanted and the other things i listed above. like good and free basic health care. e.t.c

[Per Levy]

how is he a social democrat if no other social democrat think he is a social democrat? that makes no sense!!

why doesnt it makes sense? the national democratic party of egypt, the ruling party there for decades was part of the socialist international(a social democratic international) and was criticized by many of its brothers and sisters. its about politics and belarus is in the sphere of russia and not of the EU thats why belarus gets criticized by many socialdemocratic partys.


Right to work:

allright lets get to it then, the right to work translates into the right to be exploited, the right to be alienated from your work and the right to make profits for your boss.


almost every social democratic has a high unemployment rate, let me give you some examples, Sweden: over 5% Norway around 5% Denmark almost 5% France 9% none of these countries have right to work (employment for all people), Belarus have 0,6 and those who aren't working are mostly alcoholics and young people. not because they can't find a job because they don't accept it.

well, like any capitalist country the lovely unemployed statistics are of course whitewashed to look as good as possible and put more pressure on the official unemployed people. so yeah the belarus unemployed statistics are also whitewashed and is higher than what is told. also id like to know more about the young people who refuse the amazing jobs lukashenko has to offer.


yes there is not full worker control, but its way better than in most places, if a worker gets abused on his work by his boss the stat can go in and stop that and maybe even close that private company, and also every private company is strictly watched by the state, they can't put what prices they want, they can't have to low salaries for the workers, they cant have a to long working time. almost everything is regulated by the state, (and in social democratic countries it isn't)

that is wrong, in the second half of the 20th century most westeuropean states(and the east european states before the berlin wall feel too) acted just like that, high wages, strong unions, many regulations on companies a big wellfare state and much, much more.

[Stalinist Speaker]

So if people misunderstand what i'm trying to say:

I don't claim that Lukashenko is a communist.

i don't completely support him either: i support him on basic ground and i believe that the conditions will improve every where in that country towards socialist goals in just a matter of time. thats why i mainly support him.

[Stalinist Speaker]

why doesnt it makes sense? the national democratic party of egypt, the ruling party there for decades was part of the socialist international(a social democratic international) and was criticized by many of its brothers and sisters. its about politics and belarus is in the sphere of russia and not of the EU thats why belarus gets criticized by many socialdemocratic partys.



allright lets get to it then, the right to work translates into the right to be exploited, the right to be alienated from your work and the right to make profits for your boss.



well, like any capitalist country the lovely unemployed statistics are of course whitewashed to look as good as possible and put more pressure on the official unemployed people. so yeah the belarus unemployed statistics are also whitewashed and is higher than what is told. also id like to know more about the young people who refuse the amazing jobs lukashenko has to offer.



that is wrong, in the second half of the 20th century most westeuropean states(and the east european states before the berlin wall feel too) acted just like that, high wages, strong unions, many regulations on companies a big wellfare state and much, much more.

i meant with right to work as a guaranteed work for everyone that you can get a living of.

No these unemployment statistics are not false, 1 i don't know any one that is unemployed in Belarus, 2 when you walking down the street in Minsk you can see job applications hanging around pretty much anywhere you go, i remember last summer every buss in Minsk they were asking on for people to apply to work inside the buss, you can hear about available jobs in radio, and state TV to, the people doesn't look for work its the state looking for workers, and its also encourages people to work if your unemployed.
those young people aren't lazy they just turned 18 and still live with their mom and dad, did you go look for an work straight away when you turned 18?

[Per Levy]

So if people misunderstand what i'm trying to say:

I don't claim that Lukashenko is a communist.

i dont think that this is what we were arguing about, it was more your support of a capitalist state and its bourgeois dictator.


i don't completely support him either: i support him on basic ground and i believe that the conditions will improve every where in that country towards socialist goals in just a matter of time. thats why i mainly support him.

and what are these socialist goals? will the ruling class of belarus give the power away to the working class one day? will the means of production be owned by the working class? what you support is that belarus has, unlike many other former eastbloc states, still a relativly allrightish wellfare state and that lukanshenko talks like a bit "leftish" wich doesnt change a thing. the belarusian state will crack down on any worker unrest, any atempt of the working class to emancipate its self will be drowned in blood by the state and the class you support.

[Per Levy]

those young people aren't lazy they just turned 18 and still live with their mom and dad, did you go look for an work straight away when you turned 18?

i was working since i was 16, right after i left school i had to look for a job, with 18 i was unemployed. sorry i dont have the time for more replying, if i feel like it i'll jump right into this again tomorrow or whenever. enough time wasted on revleft for one night.

[Stalinist Speaker]

i dont think that this is what we were arguing about, it was more your support of a capitalist state and its bourgeois dictator.



and what are these socialist goals? will the ruling class of belarus give the power away to the working class one day? will the means of production be owned by the working class? what you support is that belarus has, unlike many other former eastbloc states, still a relativly allrightish wellfare state and that lukanshenko talks like a bit "leftish" wich doesnt change a thing. the belarusian state will crack down on any worker unrest, any atempt of the working class to emancipate its self will be drowned in blood by the state and the class you support.

now again, he clearly says (on russian) that he wants to remove all privatization = decrease the difference between the workers and the bourgeoisie, if you don't believe me then ask someone else to translate. i might do an complete translate later if people are interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENA2QnAJtw0&list=FLI9MKrRFJ8HaybcRih6JAmQ&index=10&noredirect=1

[Stalinist Speaker]

i was working since i was 16, right after i left school i had to look for a job, with 18 i was unemployed. sorry i dont have the time for more replying, if i feel like it i'll jump right into this again tomorrow or whenever. enough time wasted on revleft for one night.

no problem, well you don't need/can't to work when you are 16 in Belarus, they instead encourage you to study at collage or something like that, and if you need money for some good reason the government helps you out.

[Hrafn]

no problem, well you don't need/can't to work when you are 16 in Belarus, they instead encourage you to study at collage or something like that, and if you need money for some good reason the government helps you out.

College at 16?

Also, uh, that's exactly the situation in Sweden. Y'know, capitalist, right-wing Sweden.

[Stalinist Speaker]

College at 16?

Also, uh, that's exactly the situation in Sweden. Y'know, capitalist, right-wing Sweden.

so? you can get a lot better lines to go in Belarus where you learn more and you also get into them a lot easier then sweden. some educational lines in sweden are a complete joke like (Fordon och transport (vehicle and transport), Bygg (build, for work as a builder e.t.c)
, VVS (honestly i don't have an exact translation, but its like studting for a plumber,) och andra(and other), (yes i speak Swedish))

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

His opposition to the shock-therapy suggested by the IMF and the united states after the fall of the SU and the independance of Belarus among other nations is to be commended. Having said that, it IS a bourgeois, pro-capitalist regime like most social-democrat parties and while I welcome a progressive political stance, it can also be argued that they're creating illusions for the people. In doing this, they, like many social democrats would hamper the development toward a socialist society in stead of supporting it.

[Red_Banner]

Lukashenko may be better than the idiots who want to sell out the country to the EU and NATO who wave this crap flag
http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4937697421427411&pid=15.1
But he is still no commie or anarchist and he's still mediocre at best.

[kohctpyktop]

so nothing about that you had 100% guarantied employment, or that your employers couldn't mess with your right how they wanted and the other things i listed above. like good and free basic health care. e.t.c

Well firstly, I tried and she tried - for months - to find employment, but couldn't. So much for guaranteed employment. Both in Minsk and Polotsk (as well as her sister in Vitebsk). I'll chalk that up to my nationality, but she's native to belarus. "Free" healthcare was nice. I had to go to the hospital a couple of times and it helped out. ~15 USD per month and it's covered.

[Stalinist Speaker]

His opposition to the shock-therapy suggested by the IMF and the united states after the fall of the SU and the independance of Belarus among other nations is to be commended. Having said that, it IS a bourgeois, pro-capitalist regime like most social-democrat parties and while I welcome a progressive political stance, it can also be argued that they're creating illusions for the people. In doing this, they, like many social democrats would hamper the development toward a socialist society in stead of supporting it.

So every single communist that has years of experience as a former party official from the USSR are also caught in that magic illusion of Lukashenko?

i guess that explains my belief, Lukashenko the wizard has cast a spell on me to support his government just as every other communist in Belarus!!

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

So every single communist that has years of experience as a former party official from the USSR are also caught in that magic illusion of Lukashenko?

i guess that explains my belief, Lukashenko the wizard has cast a spell on me to support his government just as every other communist in Belarus!!

I don't think you understood the point he was making at all.


so? you can get a lot better lines to go in Belarus where you learn more and you also get into them a lot easier then sweden. some educational lines in sweden are a complete joke like (Fordon och transport (vehicle and transport), Bygg (build, for work as a builder e.t.c)
, VVS (honestly i don't have an exact translation, but its like studting for a plumber,) och andra(and other), (yes i speak Swedish))

Those are typical capitalist work-preparatory courses. It's the sort of things you get when you graduated from a technical secondary or tertiary school in the SSSR... They are intended to produce technically competent workers for these sectors of industry. How old are you?

[Stalinist Speaker]

I don't think you understood the point he was making at all.



Those are typical capitalist work-preparatory courses. It's the sort of things you get when you graduated from a technical secondary or tertiary school in the SSSR... They are intended to produce technically competent workers for these sectors of industry. How old are you?

Yes and those types of education does not exist in Belarus, there are similar but you have more theoretical classes.

[Hrafn]

so? you can get a lot better lines to go in Belarus where you learn more and you also get into them a lot easier then sweden. some educational lines in sweden are a complete joke like (Fordon och transport (vehicle and transport), Bygg (build, for work as a builder e.t.c)
, VVS (honestly i don't have an exact translation, but its like studting for a plumber,) och andra(and other), (yes i speak Swedish))

Don't bring the lines into this. It's unrelated to your argument. In Sweden, you don't need to work at 16. You can go to high school, and receive money from the state. Then, you can go to university, or a trade school, and receive money from the state. Exactly what you praised Belarus for.

But on the lines - I don't see why high school education geared towards getting you into a trade is a joke? Is there something disrespectable or inferior about being a mechanic, a carpenter, a plumber?

[Stalinist Speaker]

Don't bring the lines into this. It's unrelated to your argument. In Sweden, you don't need to work at 16. You can go to high school, and receive money from the state. Then, you can go to university, or a trade school, and receive money from the state. Exactly what you praised Belarus for.

But on the lines - I don't see why high school education geared towards getting you into a trade is a joke? Is there something disrespectable or inferior about being a mechanic, a carpenter, a plumber?

i am just saying that you get better education in Belarus then most western countries, and that they actually try to give a better education to people, and that its easier for an person to get in to collage in Belarus then Sweden, and you were the one bringing sweden up so don't blame me.

[Hrafn]

i am just saying that you get better education in Belarus then most western countries, and that they actually try to give a better education to people, and that its easier for an person to get in to collage in Belarus then Sweden, and you were the one bringing sweden up so don't blame me.

Oh I am blaming you. The better education/lines/whatever is unrelated, as it was neither part of your original statement or my counter-argument.

[Stalinist Speaker]

Oh I am blaming you. The better education/lines/whatever is unrelated, as it was neither part of your original statement or my counter-argument.

so then what question are you asking me?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Capitalism can provide healthcare, can provide housing and education. Belarus, although I'm certain you're looking at the nation with rose-tinted glasses, is obviously a place where these things are available. That's not the point. The means of production remains out of the hands of the majority, the working class, and in the hands of a minority, the capitalist class. Working people are exploited in order to maintain the privilege of a small minority of people, of which Lukashenko is one of them. Private property exists and, as communists, it is our goal to rectify that and not support its existance.

[Remus Bleys]

What does part-socialist mean? You either are or aren't.

[The Jay]

What does part-socialist mean? You either are or aren't.

I think it means . . . [deep breath] . . . nationalization.

[motion denied]

USSR will never come back, or so I hope for the sake of socialism. It's been tried and it has utterly failed. Get over it.

We should care more about re-building the working class movement than supporting any government, especially a bourgeois one.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

College at 16?

Also, uh, that's exactly the situation in Sweden. Y'know, capitalist, right-wing Sweden.

I don't know about whether it's the same in Belarus, but over here 'college' is more commonly used to refer to a high school, not a university(?) as it is in America. I think this may be the source of the mix up.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I don't know about whether it's the same in Belarus, but over here 'college' is more commonly used to refer to a high school, not a university(?) as it is in America. I think this may be the source of the mix up.

I assume it means secondary school which would be slightly above the level of a U.S. high school and slightly below a U.S. "college"- which is tertiary education.

[Stalinist Speaker]

Capitalism can provide healthcare, can provide housing and education. Belarus, although I'm certain you're looking at the nation with rose-tinted glasses, is obviously a place where these things are available. That's not the point. The means of production remains out of the hands of the majority, the working class, and in the hands of a minority, the capitalist class. Working people are exploited in order to maintain the privilege of a small minority of people, of which Lukashenko is one of them. Private property exists and, as communists, it is our goal to rectify that and not support its existance.

Yes, my point is that the capitalist class doesn't have as much power/freedom in their own company to exploit workers however they want, and as i already said many times Lukashenko has spoken out against privatization.

[Remus Bleys]

Yes, my point is that the capitalist class doesn't have as much power/freedom in their own company to exploit workers however they want, and as i already said many times Lukashenko has spoken out against privatization.
How doesn't the capitalist class have enough power to exploit workers? Do they not extract surplus value?
Also, nationalization, especially in a capitalist state is not socialism. It is simply managed differently. How can you claim to be a marxist and not know that?

[RevolucionarBG]

Do you support Belarus today?

The Communist party of Belarus (marxist-leninist) support Alexander Lukashenko widely.

Belarus united left party "a just world" seem to criticize the government more.

but none of the communist parties seem to be advocating revolution against the government.

So the question is whats your stance?

i personally support the government of Lukashenko.


So if people misunderstand what i'm trying to say:

I don't claim that Lukashenko is a communist.

i don't completely support him either: i support him on basic ground and i believe that the conditions will improve every where in that country towards socialist goals in just a matter of time. thats why i mainly support him.


I too support government of Lukashenko. Yes, he's not a communist, but in Belarus (and entire Europe) there is no better replacement than him. He's fair toward workers, education, healthcare and public transport (for this I only know for Minsk, but I'm sure it's for entire Belarus too) are free in Belarus...

So, when even a CP of Belarus is supporting him, and there isn't no worker's riots, I'm sure he's doing a great job.

For now, we have many more places and things to clean/do, before we start attacking Lukashenko...

[RevolucionarBG]

USSR will never come back, or so I hope for the sake of socialism. It's been tried and it has utterly failed. Get over it.

We should care more about re-building the working class movement than supporting any government, especially a bourgeois one.

There is a massive movement in ex-USSR's republics for re-establishing of something, as similar as Soviet Union, so don't put out that option too soon.

And failed??? USSR was THE BEST Socialist country that ever existed! If you don't like even that system, then you must be utopian Marxist, which won't do anything, if he thinks that states like USSR wasn't right...



How doesn't the capitalist class have enough power to exploit workers? Do they not extract surplus value?
Also, nationalization, especially in a capitalist state is not socialism. It is simply managed differently. How can you claim to be a marxist and not know that?

How do you think that Socialism was established in Eastern Europe after WW2??? They didn't just say: "Okay, everything is ours", but were doing step by step nationalization.

[Remus Bleys]

I too support government of Lukashenko. Yes, he's not a communist, but in Belarus (and entire Europe) there is no better replacement than him. :rolleyes:
Yeah, definitely not the working class. Why would a "revolutionary" "communist" think that?

He's fair toward workers, education, healthcare and public transport (for this I only know for Minsk, but I'm sure it's for entire Belarus too) are free in Belarus...What the fuck does "fair" mean? That's a serious question, define the word fair for everyone.


So, when even a CP of Belarus is supporting him, and there isn't no worker's riots, I'm sure he's doing a great job.
Do you blindly accept everything a CP says? The CPUSA supports Obama, I'm sure

SoFor now, we have many more places and things to clean/do, before we start attacking Lukashenko... Ah, yes. Let us focus on other problems.. fuck the working class of Belarus. Why? WE HAVE BIGGER FISH TO FRY!!1111
I mean, do you abandon all idea of a proletarian revolution happening in Belarus (for once?)?

[RevolucionarBG]

:rolleyes:
Yeah, definitely not the working class. Why would a "revolutionary" "communist" think that?
What the fuck does "fair" mean? That's a serious question, define the word fair for everyone.


Do you blindly accept everything a CP says? The CPUSA supports Obama, I'm sure
Ah, yes. Let us focus on other problems.. fuck the working class of Belarus. Why? WE HAVE BIGGER FISH TO FRY!!1111
I mean, do you abandon all idea of a proletarian revolution happening in Belarus (for once?)?


CP of Belarus is the vanguard party of Belarus proletariat. As a Marxist-Leninist I know that, and if CP of Belarus says that Lukashenko is currently okay, and that he should be supported (because Belarus is victim of EU and NATO agression, which stands over it's head as a sword, ready to cut it every moment, or because opposition would do worse than him, or because of some reason they think that way) I will support that stance.

"Fair"? Come to my country, see what Capitalism and "Democracy" did to proletariat here in ex-Yugoslavia, and then you'll understand that. But as a person from Western Europe or North America, I'm sure you can't understand that...

Syria, Libya, Korea, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Iraq... Those are all countries that are victims of NATO neo-fascist imperialism, and that are problems NUMBER 1! But again, I'm sure it will be hard for you to accuse your own country for fascist policy, wouldn't it be?

And for proletarian struggle, CP of Belarus is right adress to ask this question.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Vanguard party says it's cool, all workers are contractually obligated to agree. I think you'll have a hard time finding someone to defend NATO on this board, regardless of where they are from. Your posts read like parody.

[RevolucionarBG]

Vanguard party says it's cool, all workers are contractually obligated to agree. I think you'll have a hard time finding someone to defend NATO on this board, regardless of where they are from. Your posts read like parody.

As I said, go to ex-Yugoslavia or Poland, and then go to Belarus, speak to workers, and understand why Lukashenko is okay right now.

You here constantly give "political correct" answers, and try to be "Marxists-by-book", withouth understanding that people are actually living beings and that currently there is no chance of revolution in Belarus, that's why both me and CP of Belarus are supporting Lukashenko.

I never said I wouldn't support revolution in Belarus, because this topic isn't about that.

And let's say he didn't understand what I said by "bigger problems to do", that's only reason I could accept why he asked what bigger problems we have...

[Hrafn]

As I said, go to ex-Yugoslavia or Poland, and then go to Belarus, speak to workers, and understand why Lukashenko is okay right now.

You here constantly give "political correct" answers, and try to be "Marxists-by-book", withouth understanding that people are actually living beings and that currently there is no chance of revolution in Belarus, that's why both me and CP of Belarus are supporting Lukashenko.

I never said I wouldn't support revolution in Belarus, because this topic isn't about that.

And let's say he didn't understand what I said by "bigger problems to do", that's only reason I could accept why he asked what bigger problems we have...

There's "no chance" of revolution everywhere, you social democrat.

[Remus Bleys]

The next person to use fascism as a buzzword is going to get slapped.

CP of Belarus is the vanguard party of Belarus proletariat. As a Marxist-Leninist I know that, and if CP of Belarus says that Lukashenko is currently okay, and that he should be supported I think Ismail would like to have a word with you.
Is the CPUSA the vanguard of the masses as well?

(because Belarus is victim of EU and NATO agression, which stands over it's head as a sword, ready to cut it every moment, or because opposition would do worse than him, or because of some reason they think that way) I will support that stance.
What is "Belarus"? The people of Belarus? The "nation-state"? All the classes of Belarus? If so, fuck Belarus. We are fighting for the working class, who have no country, who are as oppressed by NATO as they are by Lukashenko.

"Fair"? Come to my country, see what Capitalism and "Democracy" did to proletariat here in ex-Yugoslavia, and then you'll understand that. But as a person from Western Europe or North America, I'm sure you can't understand that...In other words:
"I CANT SO ILL JUST SAY YOU ARE A WESTERN CHAUVINIST!!!111111" Try harder. Answer my questions. Enlighten me.


Syria, Libya, Korea, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Iraq... Those are all countries that are victims of NATO neo-fascist imperialism, and that are problems NUMBER 1! But again, I'm sure it will be hard for you to accuse your own country for fascist policy, wouldn't it be?
1. *slap*
2. They are victims of their own bourgeoisie.
3. Does that mean we support the ruling class? Does nationality trump class now?


And for proletarian struggle, CP of Belarus is right adress to ask this question. The petty-bourgeois party with a bourgeois tendency supporting a bourgeois politician.... yeah they are the True Marxist-Leninist Vanguard (tm).


As I said, go to ex-Yugoslavia or Poland, and then go to Belarus, speak to workers, and understand why Lukashenko is okay right now.

Many workers are "okay" with Obama. What is your point?


You here constantly give "political correct" answers, and try to be "Marxists-by-book",
1. You obviously don't know what "politically correct" means.
2. As opposed to not marxist?


withouth understanding that people are actually living beings and that currently there is no chance of revolution in Belarus, that's why both me and CP of Belarus are supporting Lukashenko.
As Bordiga noted (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1965/consider.htm):

It is a fundamental thesis of the Left, that our party must not abstain from resisting in such a situation; it must instead survive and hand down the flame, along the historical "thread of time". It will be a small party, not owing to our will or choice, but because of ineluctable necessity.

I never said I wouldn't support revolution in Belarus, because this topic isn't about that. No, but you do support the ruling class.

And let's say he didn't understand what I said by "bigger problems to do", that's only reason I could accept why he asked what bigger problems we have...
This is incoherent hogwash. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

[hashem]

So all you think that you are right and almost every communist in Belarus is somehow wrong in their own country that they know more about? thats interesting.

why cant your argument be used in other direction? is this only true about Belarus?

for example the government of Belarus supports the government of Iran and has military cooperation with it, while all of Iranian communists (not "almost every communist") opposes the islamic government.

if we judge people by what they are and not what they call themselves, its obvious that those people who like to call themselves "communist" while they support the reactionary regime of Belarus, are servants of bourgeoisie.

[Queen Mab]

Can the mods please restrict anyone who supports Lukaschenko? Even having this argument is utterly bizarre.

[LeftwingerIndia]

I dont support him but I really like the people who pisses off Western Capitalists and Imperialists:grin:

[Red_Banner]

I don't know about whether it's the same in Belarus, but over here 'college' is more commonly used to refer to a high school, not a university(?) as it is in America. I think this may be the source of the mix up.

The thing is here in the US, although university may be commonly refered to as "college", there are still actual colleges and some junior colleges.


Colleges are like universities, but are smaller, fewer courses.

[Durruti's friend]

I dont support him but I really like the people who pisses off Western Capitalists and Imperialists:grin:
Why? Because "Eastern/native" capitalists are any better for the working class?

[Hrafn]

Russian Imperialism, American Imperialism, Chinese Imperialism... all I see is blood on hands.

[hashem]

CP of Belarus is the vanguard party of Belarus proletariat. As a Marxist-Leninist I know that, and if CP of Belarus says that Lukashenko is currently okay, and that he should be supported (because Belarus is victim of EU and NATO agression, which stands over it's head as a sword, ready to cut it every moment, or because opposition would do worse than him, or because of some reason they think that way) I will support that stance.

why is CP of Belarus the vanguard party of Belarus proletariat? because it calls itself "communist"? in order to determine the class nature of a party, one should study and analyze its policy. does it represent the independent revolutionary policy of proletariat or its supporting the bourgeois system under the cover of leftist phrases?

there have been many reactionary "communist" parties in history. "communist" parties of Syria, Iraq, USA and India, Tudeh party of Iran, peoples democratic party of Afghanistan and others which many of them are from former Eastern bloc and were reactionary even during the cold war.


Syria, Libya, Korea, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Iraq... Those are all countries that are victims of NATO neo-fascist imperialism

correct, but who made way for imperialism? if Baathists, Taliban, bourgeois nationalists and fake "communist"s were able to stand against imperialism, those countries could repel imperialism. didnt Russian, Chinese and Vietnamese people managed to overcome strong imperialist armies and their local servants? why did they succeeded? because they were lead by a progressive and scientific ideology which united proletariat with masses of toilers against all forms of oppression. but your favorite leaders and political trends are only backward and petty exploiters and tyrants who compete with other imperialists but are unable to stand against powerful and modern imperialists.

[Red_Banner]

why is CP of Belarus the vanguard party of Belarus proletariat? because it calls itself "communist"? in order to determine the class nature of a party, one should study and analyze its policy. does it represent the independent revolutionary policy of proletariat or its supporting the bourgeois system under the cover of leftist phrases?

there have been many reactionary "communist" parties in history. "communist" parties of Syria, Iraq, USA and India, Tudeh party of Iran, peoples democratic party of Afghanistan and others which many of them are from former Eastern bloc and were reactionary even during the cold war.



correct, but who made way for imperialism? if Baathists, Taliban, bourgeois nationalists and fake "communist"s were able to stand against imperialism, those countries could repel imperialism. didnt Russian, Chinese and Vietnamese people managed to overcome strong imperialist armies and their local servants? why did they succeeded? because they were lead by a progressive and scientific ideology which united proletariat with masses of toilers against all forms of oppression. but your favorite leaders and political trends are only backward and petty exploiters and tyrants who compete with other imperialists but are unable to stand against powerful and modern imperialists.

The PDPA wasn't entirely reactionary.
The Khalqs were ok, but the Parchams caved into reactionaries.

[hashem]

The PDPA wasn't entirely reactionary.
The Khalqs were ok, but the Parchams caved into reactionaries.

why were Khalqs OK? they were supporting monarchy and dictatorship before the coup and served social imperialists during its invasion. i have documents in Farsi about their reactionary rule. i have discussed this issue in other trends and this is not a place for it.

[Stalinist Speaker]

why cant your argument be used in other direction? is this only true about Belarus?

for example the government of Belarus supports the government of Iran and has military cooperation with it, while all of Iranian communists (not "almost every communist") opposes the islamic government.

if we judge people by what they are and not what they call themselves, its obvious that those people who like to call themselves "communist" while they support the reactionary regime of Belarus, are servants of bourgeoisie.

there is a difference between relations between 2 states and relations between the state and the people living in it, so that argument with Iran is completely irrelevant.

[Stalinist Speaker]

Oh now we start again how the comparing with the CPUSA, again the communist parties in Belarus are all pretty much at least tolerant to lukashenko, and the biggest one CPB supports him, and if not that is enough you have Communist parties all over the world supporting him (obviously not all) here is a pro-lukashenko text from UK

http://cpgbml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=338

[Remus Bleys]

Oh now we start again how the comparing with the CPUSA, again the communist parties in Belarus are all pretty much at least tolerant to lukashenko, and the biggest one CPB supports him, and if not that is enough you have Communist parties all over the world supporting him (obviously not all) here is a pro-lukashenko text from UK

http://cpgbml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=338
OOOHH The "revisionist" Stalinist parties support him - who the fuck cares?
And you hinted at comparison with the CPUSA - how is that invalid?

[Stalinist Speaker]

The next person to use fascism as a buzzword is going to get slapped.
I think Ismail would like to have a word with you.
Is the CPUSA the vanguard of the masses as well?
What is "Belarus"? The people of Belarus? The "nation-state"? All the classes of Belarus? If so, fuck Belarus. We are fighting for the working class, who have no country, who are as oppressed by NATO as they are by Lukashenko.
In other words:
"I CANT SO ILL JUST SAY YOU ARE A WESTERN CHAUVINIST!!!111111" Try harder. Answer my questions. Enlighten me.


1. *slap*
2. They are victims of their own bourgeoisie.
3. Does that mean we support the ruling class? Does nationality trump class now?

The petty-bourgeois party with a bourgeois tendency supporting a bourgeois politician.... yeah they are the True Marxist-Leninist Vanguard (tm).


Many workers are "okay" with Obama. What is your point?


1. You obviously don't know what "politically correct" means.
2. As opposed to not marxist?


As Bordiga noted (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1965/consider.htm):

No, but you do support the ruling class.

This is incoherent hogwash. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.


alright let me make this clear, Lukashenko is not obama they are completely different CPB is not CPUSA they are also completely different. there are many communist parties around the world supporting Lukashenko to some extent.

http://cpgbml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=338

2. Lukashenko has bee fighting the bourgeoisie since he became the president, he go read about Belarus before lukashenko, inflation massive amount of privatization, massive amounts of money taken out of the country e.t.c for bourgeoisie interests, and he has been fighting that. well if Lukashenko is so bad, what do you think of Maduro and Chavez in that case? should be pretty much the same thing i'm guessing.

the Bourgeoisie does not like Lukashenko at all, here lukashenko comes to a workplace that ahs been violating the workers rights and threatens to imprisson the manager that own the company if not conditions increase drastically. this is why (one reason? the communist parties support him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg695CBL7PI

[Remus Bleys]

alright let me make this clear, Lukashenko is not obama they are completely different CPB is not CPUSA they are also completely different. there are many communist parties around the world supporting Lukashenko to some extent. So fucking what?


http://cpgbml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=338
anti-immigrant

2. Lukashenko has bee fighting the bourgeoisie since he became the president, he go read about Belarus before lukashenko, inflation massive amount of privatization, massive amounts of money taken out of the country e.t.c for bourgeoisie interests, and he has been fighting that. well if Lukashenko is so bad, what do you think of Maduro and Chavez in that case? should be pretty much the same thing i'm guessing.

1. Then he would have smashed the bourgeois state. You cannot use a bourgeois tool to destroy the bourgeoisie.
2. Privatization is just as capitalist as nationalization.
3. Hugo Chavez and Maduro are likewise unsupportable for communists - they detract from class struggle and create populism and social democracy.


the Bourgeoisie does not like Lukashenko at all, here lukashenko comes to a workplace that ahs been violating the workers rights and threatens to imprisson the manager that own the company if not conditions increase drastically. this is why (one reason? the communist parties support him.
4. How is he still president
5. Worker rights are violated so long as capitalism exists - lukashenko, if he really cares at all (he doesn't) is fighting in capitalism - so no this is wrong.
6. "threatens" is the keyword
7. "Communists" Parties - but then again, these are not communists

WHY THE FUCK DONT WE SUPPORT OBAMA OR OTHER CAPITALIST POLITICIANS?
Can we get stalinist speaker banned for social democracy? I mean seriously, upholding lukashenko as some fighter of the bourgeoisie - this reaks of belarusian nationalism.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg695CBL7PI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg695CBL7PI)
Why would I be able to understand this?

[Stalinist Speaker]

OOOHH The "revisionist" Stalinist parties support him - who the fuck cares?
And you hinted at comparison with the CPUSA - how is that invalid?

well if they are revisionists then i might just consider you a revisionist and also every one else that doesn't agree with what i say, that is what happens when you throw that word around like that, and also did you read that text?

and explain to me how are so many communists wrong and so stupid that they support Lukashenko, and especially in Belarus, how is there no communist party that opposes Lukashenko on a big scale if communists should oppose him, has every belarusian communist absolutely no idea what they are talking about? still no one has answered that.

(please note that there can be very small communists organizations that are against him on a big scale, but that doesn't matter because they are such an minority, there are only the 2 parties that i listed in the beginning of the thread that actually have an somewhat fair amount of support.)

[Remus Bleys]

well if they are revisionists then i might just consider you a revisionist and also every one else that doesn't agree with what i say, that is what happens when you throw that word around like that, and also did you read that text? Yes I did. Your writing style gives me a headache


and explain to me how are so many communists wrong and so stupid that they support Lukashenko, and especially in Belarus, how is there no communist party that opposes Lukashenko on a big scale if communists should oppose him, has every belarusian communist absolutely no idea what they are talking about? still no one has answered that.
Shut the fuck up. Never talk again. Those aren't real communist, what the fucking hell do I need to do to explain this to you you ignorant piece of worthless pig shit? This argument is on par with your stupidity.


(please note that there can be very small communists organizations that are against him on a big scale, but that doesn't matter because they are such an minority, there are only the 2 parties that i listed in the beginning of the thread that actually have an somewhat fair amount of support.)
this is good news. Even though it is a minority party, communists may actually exist in belarus.

[Stalinist Speaker]

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg695CBL7PI"]
Why would I be able to understand this?

if you don't have anyone that can translate what it is about just run the title on google translate.

the title says "ill give you the last chance, if you don't then ill put you in jail"

(last chance is to stop the violation of workers rights,)

[John Lennin]

(last chance is to stop the violation of workers rights,)

Nothing a social democrat wouldn't say.

[Stalinist Speaker]

Shut the fuck up. Never talk again. Those aren't real communist, what the fucking hell do I need to do to explain this to you you ignorant piece of worthless pig shit? This argument is on par with your stupidity.


this is good news. Even though it is a minority party, communists may actually exist in belarus.

well ones again you don't know why, and i see that same argument popping up as pro-capitalists use, "thats not real capitalism" seems very similar to me, and yes if they are not communists explain what they are, and don't come with social -democratic since a social-democratic party would never promote a revolution and many other things they stand for.

Some one is getting mad, maybe its time to switch profile picture to lukashenko for a while to piss you of even more, maybe you will feel as i did before, (as i expressed in my blog):laugh: don't worry just breath.

well when i mean a minority i mean as an organization of less then 50 people, and no they are not a party they are to small and usually consists of teenagers only.

[Stalinist Speaker]

Nothing a social democrat wouldn't say.

well a social democrat would not restrict the private companies as much as Lukashenko does, because thats just to authoritarian for them.

[Stalinist Speaker]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/lukashenko-kind-east-t140159/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/belarus-and-alexander-t78565/index.html

[Remus Bleys]

Restrict this fool. He openly supports lukashenko. That's blatant class collaboration, is it not?
Its not even "justifiable" like the maoists.

[Stalinist Speaker]

Restrict this fool. He openly supports lukashenko. That's blatant class collaboration, is it not?
Its not even "justifiable" like the maoists.

oh and don't forget to restrict every one that supports Venezuela and the DPRK to. and maybe make this forum completely off limits to every russian. great idea!!!

[Remus Bleys]

All russians support the dprk. Lool

[Stalinist Speaker]

All russians support the dprk. Lool

did i say that? nope

[RevolucionarBG]

There's "no chance" of revolution everywhere, you social democrat.

I don't often use these "modern" (in my country) thing call "smiley", but I have to use it now...

:laugh:





The next person to use fascism as a buzzword is going to get slapped.
I think Ismail would like to have a word with you.
Is the CPUSA the vanguard of the masses as well?

I do not mix Western so called "communist" (social-fascist) parties with third world CPs. Why? Because "communists" in western europe (in USA they don't exist) denounced Socialism in USSR, North Korea, Cuba... as a "barbaric version of estern capitalism, made by lunatic dictators and pseudo-left fascists", and started behaving retarded, no they were retarded from begining my mistake. The right examples are CP of France, Die Linke, KPD (CP of Germany), Switzerland "communists"... USA is even worse.



What is "Belarus"? The people of Belarus? The "nation-state"? All the classes of Belarus? If so, fuck Belarus. We are fighting for the working class, who have no country, who are as oppressed by NATO as they are by Lukashenko.
In other words:
"I CANT SO ILL JUST SAY YOU ARE A WESTERN CHAUVINIST!!!111111" Try harder. Answer my questions. Enlighten me.

How dogmatic or brainwashed you have to be, not to understand that Lukashenko is the best president that actually exists in Eastern Europe, and that entire working class from Eastern Europe actually looks at him, considering him something between Soviet Stalin-like leader and a bit more "democratic" president? That everyone (or, at least HUGE MAJORITY, if we count out middle class petite bourgeoisie and big corporate bourgeoise) of people likes him, so every normal left-wing party would try to explain why Lukashenko is party communist, and what's different in his regime with western neo-liberal corporate-police states. And after all, before revolution starts, people need to eat something (you see, in my country average pay is 250 euros, so we would consider Lukashenko "revolutionary communist" toward today's rulers here), and that's why it's normal for people and communists to support him, until situation for revolution arrise.



1. *slap*
2. They are victims of their own bourgeoisie.
3. Does that mean we support the ruling class? Does nationality trump class now?

The petty-bourgeois party with a bourgeois tendency supporting a bourgeois politician.... yeah they are the True Marxist-Leninist Vanguard (tm).

No. We're victims of CIA backed coup in 2000. (here in my country) and something called "predator capitalism" that was used by USA and EEC (today EU) since 70s, and this what's happening to us is just epilogue of that (Iraq, Libya, Sirya... are currently states that are most radical example of that).

Marxist-Leninist doctine teach us: "When there isn't a revolutionary communist movement in states that is in danger from imperialism, you support national option, because nationalists became anti-imperialists".



Many workers are "okay" with Obama. What is your point?

So? It's Belarus, not USA...



1. You obviously don't know what "politically correct" means.
2. As opposed to not marxist?

It's your own conclusion. You can explain my sentences as you wish, but I do not want to get involved in unproductive discussions.



As Bordiga noted (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1965/consider.htm):

No, but you do support the ruling class.

This is incoherent hogwash. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

So you're trying to put your own political line as "only good idea"? Haha, why should I care?

No, I don't. I just want to use it to get rid of EU-USA influence in my country. When that happens we'll easly annihilate our national bourgeoisie. You see people here is not afraid of it's own "democratic" dictators, but from NATO intervention, so we first fight western influence, then we hang our own bourgeoisie.

That last sentence is again your own conclusion, I do not care about your opinion.

[Tim Cornelis]

These god damned Tankies live in the 1930s, "social-fascists." Beyond redemption.

[Le Socialiste]

I do not mix Western so called "communist" (social-fascist) parties with third world CPs. Why? Because "communists" in western europe (in USA they don't exist) denounced Socialism in USSR, North Korea, Cuba... as a "barbaric version of estern capitalism, made by lunatic dictators and pseudo-left fascists", and started behaving retarded, no they were retarded from begining my mistake.

RevolucionarBG, we don't tolerate ableist comments like these here. I'm going to have to issue you a verbal warning for that. Don't let me or anyone else catch you doing it again.

[LiamChe]

I do not see Lukashenko as Socialist or Communist, but I do see him as Progressive and his opposition to western imperialism is indeed commendable. However, I see Lukashenko as one of those Post-Soviet uber-revisionists. With this said, I do believe that as communists we should critically support any progressive anti-imperialist country.

[RO17]

It is just another country ran by bourgeoisie that benefits the bourgeoisie. There is nothing in the 'interest' of the workers, it is just state capitalism and the continual exploitation of workers.

[Remus Bleys]

I dont support him but I really like the people who pisses off Western Capitalists and Imperialists:grin:
As opposed to Eastern Capitalists and Imperialists?
Why is there this notion that Western capitalism is somehow worse than Eastern capitalism - they are the same goddamn thing.


there is a difference between relations between 2 states and relations between the state and the people living in it, so that argument with Iran is completely irrelevant. I don't think you got the analogy. If Lukashenko is such a friend to the working class, why is he buddy buddy with Iran?

well ones again you don't know why, and i see that same argument popping up as pro-capitalists use, "thats not real capitalism" seems very similar to me, and yes if they are not communists explain what they are, and don't come with social -democratic since a social-democratic party would never promote a revolution and many other things they stand for.So Lukashenko is real socialism? That is what your argument is implying.

Some one is getting mad, maybe its time to switch profile picture to lukashenko for a while to piss you of even more, maybe you will feel as i did before, (as i expressed in my blog):laugh: don't worry just breath.Implying I give a single iota of thought about your existence.

well when i mean a minority i mean as an organization of less then 50 people, and no they are not a party they are to small and usually consists of teenagers only. Well thats a pity. And most likely false.

well a social democrat would not restrict the private companies as much as Lukashenko does, because thats just to authoritarian for them. Didn't labor nationalize a bunch of shit at some point?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/lukashenko-kind-east-t140159/index.html El chavista is a chavista (social democrat) and an anti-semite.

Oh and don't forget to restrict every one that supports Venezuela and the DPRK to. and maybe make this forum completely off limits to every russian. great idea!!! 1. Chavez is a different beast, but yeah, restrict chavistas
2. Restrict Juche-ists.
3. Are you implying I am anti-russian? How?

did i say that? nope I didn't assume you thought I was anti-russian so i gave you the benefit of the doubt. Wow. you really are dumb.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/lukashenko...159/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lukashenko-kind-east-t140159/index.html)this thread does not help you.

I do not mix Western so called "communist"Why is the West always so much more capitalist than the east? I sense nationalism.

(social-fascist) Isn't this a term for social-democrats that was used in the 30s? I don't see how its applicable to me.

parties with third world CPs. I smell Third-Wordlism.

Why? Because "communists" in western europe (in USA they don't exist) denounced Socialism in USSR, North Korea, Cuba... lol. They don't exist in America? More nationalism. And trust me we have these idiots here. Wait- didn't hoxha (balkans) claim that too? And, guess what fool - that was progressive capitalism.

as a "barbaric version of estern capitalism, made by lunatic dictators and pseudo-left fascists", No it was progressive and admirable... but still capitalism.

and started behaving retarded, no they were retarded from begining my mistake. I could comment, but Im not a reactionary piece of pig shit.

. The right examples are CP of France, Die Linke, KPD (CP of Germany), Switzerland "communists"... USA is even worse. How are there policies different than Lukashenko?

How dogmatic or brainwashed you have to be ironically followed by

not to understand that Lukashenko is the best president that actually exists in Eastern Europe, :laugh::laugh::laugh:

and that entire working class from Eastern Europe actually looks at him, considering him something between Soviet Stalin-like leader and a bit more "democratic" president? 1. Looks at him - what the fuck do you mean
2. Fuck Stalin
3. Fuck Democracy as a principle to congratulate

That everyone ... of people likes him1. Argumentum ad populum
2. What are the "people"?

or, at least HUGE MAJORITY, if we count out middle class petite bourgeoisie and big corporate bourgeoiseWhy the fuck would we count those?

of people likes him, so every normal left-wing party would try to explain why Lukashenko is party communistSo you are claiming he is part communist? Seriously? Did he smash the bourgeois state at least?

what's different in his regime with western neo-liberal corporate-police statesNationalization is as capitalist as privatization you dolt.

And after all, before revolution starts, people need to eat something So you beg for scraps instead of set up alternatives? Such activism.

you see, in my country average pay is 250 euros, so we would consider Lukashenko "revolutionary communist" toward today's rulers hereLukashenko is revolutionary communist. Am I on the fucking Sean Hannity forum?

nd that's why it's normal for people and communists to support him, until situation for revolution arrise.No, its normal because he is a populist.

o. We're victims of CIA backed coup in 2000. (here in my country) and something called "predator capitalism" that was used by USA and EEC (today EU) since 70s, and this what's happening to us is just epilogue of that (Iraq, Libya, Sirya... are currently states that are most radical example of that).And this contradicts what I said how? Are you not oppressed by the capitlaism of your own local bourgeoisie?

So? It's Belarus, not USA...So? Workers are workers.... Did you not read the manifesto even?

It's your own conclusion. You can explain my sentences as you wish, but I do not want to get involved in unproductive discussions. The part i understood gave me a big chuckle.

So you're trying to put your own political line as "only good idea"? What? No! Youre the one doing this. I don't know how I was.

Haha, why should I care? I don't know. You aren't a leftists so I don't know why leftist arguments would work on you.

No, I don't. I just want to use it to get rid of EU-USA influence in my country. and you see the way of doing this as supporting the bourgeois in your country.

When that happens we'll easly annihilate our national bourgeoisie. But capitalism is a global system dolt. National Liberation is a dream.

You see people here is not afraid of it's own "democratic" dictators, but from NATO intervention, so we first fight western influence, then we hang our own bourgeoisie. nationalist bullshit about how your local bourgeois is so weak to the west because the east had COMMUNISM111 apparently.


That last sentence is again your own conclusion, I do not care about your opinion. This feeling is mutual.

These god damned Tankies live in the 1930s, "social-fascists." Beyond redemption I know right, this is ridiculous.

RevolucionarBG, we don't tolerate ableist comments like these here. I'm going to have to issue you a verbal warning for that. Don't let me or anyone else catch you doing it again. Or ban him for nationalism/trolling/not being a leftist.

I do not see Lukashenko as Socialist or Communist, but I do see him as Progressive and his opposition to western imperialism is indeed commendable
1. How is he progressive?
2. So Russian imperialism is great?

However, I see Lukashenko as one of those Post-Soviet uber-revisionists. This is analogous to the deformed workers state theory lol.

With this said, I do believe that as communists we should critically support any progressive anti-imperialist country. Or, you know, just criticize.

It is just another country ran by bourgeoisie that benefits the bourgeoisie. There is nothing in the 'interest' of the workers, it is just state capitalism and the continual exploitation of workers. Well, not quite. To quote Bordiga:

In order to account for Russia and the encumbrance of the Marxist edifice, and for the fact that over there, whilst the means of production are no longer private, there nevertheless exists a capitalism not different by one Jot from those in the west! See, state capitalism is a misnomer. And in Belarus, most of the means of production aren't even nationalized, so state capitalism is a bigger misnomer than it usually is.

[Stalinist Speaker]

It is just another country ran by bourgeoisie that benefits the bourgeoisie. There is nothing in the 'interest' of the workers, it is just state capitalism and the continual exploitation of workers.

just that the point that it doesn't benefit the capitalists, i've already gone through read previous posts,

[Tim Cornelis]

just that the point that it doesn't benefit the capitalists, i've already gone through read previous posts,

Raising the minimum wage, imposing an eight hour work day, etc. is not (necessarily) to the benefit of capitalists, yet do you support Sweden? Norway? The Netherlands? No, just the anti-Western dictator even though the social policies in these countries are qualitatively better. The crux of your politics is that you propose a social and state management of capital and are supportive of (anti-Western) governments that do so -- this is bourgeois-socialism, not communism.

It seems that you Tankies just dislike Western society and express this by adopting an ideology that runs counter to the political culture of Western society (Marxism-Leninism), but this also leads you to harbour sympathies for all kinds of dictators, strongmen, and Bonapartists as long as they are anti-Western.

You are not a Marxist.

[Rafiq]

Why are modern communists so viciously against 'The West' today, so much to the point where they will support some of the most backward and reactionary states of the East? Don't you get that the fact that Communism resided exclusively in Eastern Europe, a place reviled by Marx and Engels alike, is nothing short of a comedic tragedy, a prime demonstration of historical irony? Lenins thesis on Imperialism was decent and useful, but it has since been taken too far.

[Red_Banner]

why were Khalqs OK? they were supporting monarchy and dictatorship before the coup and served social imperialists during its invasion. i have documents in Farsi about their reactionary rule. i have discussed this issue in other trends and this is not a place for it.

I wouldn't be too surprised.

Can you provide any links?

[hashem]

Marxist-Leninist doctine teach us: "When there isn't a revolutionary communist movement in states that is in danger from imperialism, you support national option, because nationalists became anti-imperialists".

you are slandering Marxism-Leninism. who has said such thing? if socialists had wanted to follow your ideas during the first world war, they would have supported their own "national option"s. if communists had wanted to follow your line in late 1930s (when their party was crushed by Nazis), they should have supported their own "national option" which was Nazi regime.

what is imperialism? can our "national option" (some people are ashamed to admit they are serving bourgeoisie!) be non imperialist or even anti imperialist? or is national bourgeoisie of backward capitalist countries able (if willing) to stand against foreign imperialists?

followers of scientific socialism might support a faction of bourgeoisie under certain circumstances. but they do so without forgetting the importance of a proletarian organization and policy. they do so only as much as bourgeoisie is willing or able to meet some minimum demands of people. they do so without praising "national" exploiters and becoming their lackeys because they know that this is a temporary tactic for both sides. "national" exploiters will try to hereby destroy or corrupt the independent party and political line of proletariat and provoke permanent class collaboration. communists will try to use this tactic for meeting the immediate demands of oppressed people and showing them that they cannot count on any type of bourgeoisie to fully meet their demands. but you are not talking about Lukashenko in the same way which Mao talked about Chian kai shek. you are not seeing likes of him as temporary allies which will inevitably turn into enemies one day (if they can be a temporary ally in the first place!). you have reduced yourself to their servant and adorer. you distorted the history and Marxism-Leninism by saying that nationalists can become anti imperialist!


I just want to use it to get rid of EU-USA influence in my country. When that happens we'll easily annihilate our national bourgeoisie.

how easy would that be? as easy as Communist party of Germany could annihilate Hitler after Nazis got rid of foreign imperialists or as easy as Iranian communists can get rid of islamists today?

if you put an end to independent proletarian organization and polity, restoring them will be very hard and sometimes needs decades of hard struggle. besides, what makes you think that your national bourgeoisie which is very weak, backward (in both economical and cultural meanings) and tied to foreign capital (both EU-USA and Russia-China) is able to get rid of EU-USA influence at all?! they are more afraid of their own people than foreign imperialists and prefer to serve foreign masters instead of forming an alliance with proletariat against them.

[hashem]

I wouldn't be too surprised.

Can you provide any links?


as i said my documents are in Farsi. if somehow you can get help for translation, this (http://www.k-en.com/ken200/ken93/Afghanestan.pdf) is a good document titled "USSR's social imperialism and its influence in Afghanistan" by Union of Afghan teachers and student abroad. in this book, the policy of USSR and its local servants is exposed by true communists.

[Communist(stalinist)]

I support him. He is not a communist, but he is a socialist. So there are many reasons for us,communists to support lukashenko. После развала союза, в Беларуси по сравнению с другими бывшими советскими республиками, правительство ну просто прекрасное.

[hashem]

he is a socialist.

Hitler and Mussolini were also "socialist".

[Tim Cornelis]

I support him. He is not a communist, but he is a socialist. So there are many reasons for us,communists to support lukashenko. После развала союза, в Беларуси по сравнению с другими бывшими советскими республиками, правительство ну просто прекрасное.

Oh great, another chauvinist Tankie.

[Remus Bleys]

Are these all new at the same time? Or are they socks of eachother?

[Brotto Rühle]

I don't support any bourgeois state or politician.

[Czy]

The privatization objective in Belarus is to create conditions for attracting investment and developing an efficient socially oriented market economy.

[...]

The privatization process is conducted through open and transparent international tenders with the participation of widely known Financial Advisors (investment banks or consulting companies) to increase trust of the international community to privatization processes in Belarus.

[...]

The aim of the privatization program is to implement a small scale case-by-case privatization program in accordance with international best practices.


Belarus was named as the world’s fourth best business reformer in the World Bank’s 2010 Doing Business Report.

[...]

The country made significant progress and was ranked 58th overall, a meaningful leap from 85th position in 2009.

[...]

Belarus’ Investment Code, updated in 2008, provides a transparent legal framework for investors in Belarus and provides guarantees for investors including:

foreign ownership of property
full equality of rights to foreign investors
protection against discrimination about types of ownership
freedom to repatriate profits outside of Belarus


In the next four years, the World Bank Group’s assistance to Belarus[...]:

Increasing competitiveness of the economy by supporting structural reforms, including reducing the role of the state, transforming the state-owned enterprises sector, and promoting private and financial sector development and integration into the global economy.

Sources: http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/belarus/overview
http://www.belarus.by/en/invest/investment-climate/privatisation
http://www.indexmundi.com/belarus/economy_profile.html

Yeah . . . I don't support Lukashenko.

[adipocere]

http://www.belarus.by/en/invest/investment-climate/privatisation


This (and the post directly above) is the only useful post in this entire thread, insofar as criticism of Lukashenko's government is concerned. All I am seeing here is slobbering vitriol in absence of facts, by what appears to be mainly all-or-nothing (western) contrarians.
Back to the point:
I would be interested to see how actively this privatization is being pursued because regardless of how this plan materializes - incrementally or full blown Yeltsin looting, the result will ultimately be the same which would be to fully reduce another country to foreign economic slavery. For instance, how much of this is lip service to foreign capitol/imps and is Lukashenko obstructing or actively trying to reverse this?

Stalinist Speaker (or any knowledgeable pro-Lukashenko), any comments?

edit: Regardless of the western/foreign hyperbole trying to paint Lukashenko as a dictator and communist and so on - a western propaganda tactic that is wholly without meaning (ir can be a useful thermometer but you have to go deeper than that) - if the country is being privatized so completely, then all the left-wing, populist rhetoric and sentiment just becomes a means to an end for capitol. It is not as if imps wont take advantage of every tool in it's arsenal - including subterfuge to trick, cajole and coerce people into acting/voting against their own interests. So my question is, what is some concrete evidence that Lukashenko is not just creating a diversion for capitol? And access to education, healthcare etc is not evidence of anything - capitalism can provide that more or less. What are some things that Lukashenko is doing to fight literally against the World Bank, private investment and business?

[Czy]

I would also like to hear Stalinist Speaker's response to my assortment of quotes. It's pretty clear Belarus, from the evidence given by its own government website and the World Bank, is heading towards a period of reform and essentially opening the economy to the world. There's an undeniable process of privatization starting, and it is truly beyond me how someone could stand by Lukashenko knowing this.

[Communist(stalinist)]

Hitler and mussoloni just called themselfs "socialists". A socialist can't be nationalist. Nationalism is a burgeouse invention.

[Remus Bleys]

so Stalin and Lukashenko aren't socialist either.

[Tim Cornelis]

I was googling whether Lukasheno could be called a nationalist (although it suffices saying t hat he heads a nation-state, a bourgeois conception in and of itself), turns out he is revered by white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and such political degenerates.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko

I suppose it would be an association fallacy to draw a parallel between the pro-Lukashenko "socialists" on these forums and white nationalism, but it should signify that these bourgeois-socialists ought to reconsider and re-evaluate their political position.

[Hrafn]

"If someone is a lesbian, it's man's fault." - A. Lukashenko, 2011.

[Skyhilist]

The fact that people who are communists actually support this guy is an embarrassment to the far left and deducts credibility that in the public's eye we never even had to begin with.

[juljd]

I don't see how Lukashenko's authoritarian state has anything to do with the working class controlling the means of production. Also he seems like a homophobic, sexist jerk. His regime should be viewed as any other capitalist state and should be opposed and overthrown, not supported.

[Communist(stalinist)]

Do you know that most of the communist countries of the 20th century were homophobic?

[Remus Bleys]

@juljd, do not use authoritarian as a bbuzzword. Its called the dictatorship of the proletariat for a reason.
@communist-stalinist what communists?

[juljd]

@juljd, do not use authoritarian as a bbuzzword. Its called the dictatorship of the proletariat for a reason.


Yes, I understand your point, but to me there's a difference between authoritarian and authoritarian. I don't see Belarus as a post-revolution society in need of suppressing remains of capitalist society to prevent counterrevolution. It's a capitalist state and in that case I think authoritarian can be used as a buzzword. Being authoritarian is often necessary but it shouldn't be what we aim to be.


Do you know that most of the communist countries of the 20th century were homophobic?

Is this supposed to be some kind of excuse?

[Communist(stalinist)]

I mean in ussr. Gays were not liked there. I am russian, lived there and I know.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I mean in ussr. Gays were not liked there. I am russian, lived there and I know.

But what is your point in bringing that up? Are Russians just naturally reactionary?

[Sasha]

he is trying to say he doesnt like gays either (or maybe even that homophobia is an important pillar of "SOCIALISM!!!") but he is afraid to come out of the closet and say so...

[Remus Bleys]

he is trying to say he doesnt like gays either (or maybe even that homophobia is an important pillar of "SOCIALISM!!!") but he is afraid to come out of the closet and say so...
But seriously, can we restrict the people who support Lukashenko, for supporting a homophobic, sexist, reactionary, anti-working class, bourgeois, quasi-reformist, social democrat, politician?

[hashem]

Do you know that most of the communist countries of the 20th century were homophobic?

do you know that those countries turned capitalist? there were reasons which lead to failure. those reasons should be analyzed.

what conclusion are you trying to reach? since mistakes were made in 20th century, its OK to repeat them? if you repeat them, they would no longer be mistakes. they would be natural results of a reactionary policy.

[Czy]

I would also like to hear Stalinist Speaker's response to my assortment of quotes. It's pretty clear Belarus[...]is heading towards a period of reform and essentially opening the economy to the world. There's an undeniable process of privatization starting, and it is truly beyond me how someone could stand by Lukashenko knowing this.

Please can you reply to the bolded section, Stalinist Speaker. This statement is supported by the quotes I posted earlier, from the World Bank and Belarus's own foreign investment website.

Judging by other evidence posted in this thread, Lukashenko is not only a repressive bourgeois dictator, but an antithetical force for social progressivism.

What do you say to the following?
“Whoever was shouting about dictatorship there … when I heard that, I thought: it’s better to be a dictator than gay.” -Lukashenko
"If someone is a lesbian, it's man's fault." -Lukashenko
"[...]the history of Germany is a copy of the history of Belarus. Germany was raised from ruins thanks to firm authority and not everything connected with that well-known figure Hitler was bad. German order evolved over the centuries and attained its peak under Hitler." -Lukashenko


Lukashenko is prototypical of a bourgeois dictator, and his social stance is repulsive. Absolutely shameful that any leftists here support him. An embarrassment to the movement.

[Communist(stalinist)]

What do you mean by those countries? Without Gorbachev Soviet Union would never collapse. And usa payed money to Gorbachev to do this. People of the Soviet Union (80-90%) didn't want it to collapse.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

What do you mean by those countries? Without Gorbachev Soviet Union would never collapse. And usa payed money to Gorbachev to do this. People of the Soviet Union (80-90%) didn't want it to collapse.

The Soviet Union was capitalist; but, for argument, if you accept that it was socialist under Stalin, it was so changed by the 1980's that it was no longer socialist even so.

That said, what the popular opinion of the people in the SSSR was at the time of its dissolution was did not factor into the demise. It was an inevitable consequence of the leaderships struggles on economic, social and cultural fronts, and the ruling classes realisation that it was better to just drop all the pretences of equality and all that, and not down to Gorbachev personally, even if he later would claim he wanted it to fall, he attempt to preserve it at first, in a more liberal manner, even going so far as to going in militarily in the Armenian SSR in 1989.

But, you have not answered, is there something inherent in the Russian that makes them homophobic? Are you homophobic? Judging by past visitors, Russian 'communists' tend to be nationalist, homophobic and deeply socially conservative and quickly start raving about the gay agenda and then excuse mistaken policies of the past (and while I agree we need to understand why they followed those policies, the association of homosexuality with bourgeois culture as was common with many socialists during the early 1900's and so on,) it is no reason to think these policies are acceptable).

[Communist(stalinist)]

There are some Russians that are homophobes and some who are not. And we are not nationalists. For example I am Russian and hate nationalism, I am an internationalist. Many russians are proud that they are russians, but does this mean that we are nationalists?

Ussr only became capitalist after perestroika.

[sosolo]

Do you know that most of the communist countries of the 20th century were homophobic?

Do you know that most of the capitalist countries of the 20th century were homophobic? This doesn't excuse it, but there were few if any gay-friendly places on earth until at least the last two decades of the century.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Sea]

Has Lukashenko produced any theoretical works that we can make a judgement on?

[Die Neue Zeit]

To focus on substance and not individuals: Executive power not unlike Lukashenko's can be useful for genuine progress in countries where the working class is clearly a demographic minority (http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-histories-blocs-t142332/index.html) in relation to the rest of the (non-prepubescent) population.

[hashem]

What do you mean by those countries? Without Gorbachev Soviet Union would never collapse. And usa payed money to Gorbachev to do this. People of the Soviet Union (80-90%) didn't want it to collapse.

so, the fate of a superpower was dependent on decisions of a single person? what kind of people place their lives on the hands of a self seller?

poor, poor Gorbachev! despite being the highest official of the country, his salary must have been very low because he accepted Americans money and destroyed the country which he was ruling for them!

[Per Levy]

To focus on substance and not individuals: Executive power not unlike Lukashenko's can be useful for genuine progress in countries where the working class is clearly a demographic minority (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1008) in relation to the rest of the (non-prepubescent) population.

oh stop posting your madeup bs of third wordlist cesarism socialism, seriously get over it.

back on topic its sad to see that there are so many lukasheno supporters on this forum. they arnt even restricted and can go on and on how lukashenko is "socialist" and that the workers in belarus have it so good. fuck that.

[Communist(stalinist)]

Ussr was a one party state. And the leader of the party was the leader of all country, a country that took 1/6 part of the ground. So he collapsed Soviet Union not alone. He made people remember that their nation is not soviet, and he&his people made everyone a nationalist. Nationalism collapsed Soviet Union. Gorbachev made people be nationalists. Usa made Gorbachev do so. We, communists really won the Cold War not usa. We never lost.

[hashem]

is that your analysis? Gorbachev made people nationalist and USA made Gorbachev do so and as a result USSR collapsed?!

look, i dont want to insult you but you should have at least studied a little before coming here. you are making yourself look ridiculous. instead of wasting your time with these arguments, try to study works of Marx, Engels and Lenin and take part in worker movement and other progressive movements of your country. if you do so, you will automatically receive your answer.

if you insist on continuing your current path, you will fall victim to populists and opportunists and become a tool in their hand.

[Communist(stalinist)]

I think it's wrong that we argue, because leftists mustn't do so. It's only good to Capitalists. I just want to say that Soviet Union would never crush without usa and Gorbachev. In the 21 century soviet people could have build communism. And I read 80% of the works of lenin and 50% of marx&engels.

[hashem]

I think it's wrong that we argue, because leftists mustn't do so. It's only good to Capitalists. I just want to say that Soviet Union would never crush without usa and Gorbachev. In the 21 century soviet people could have build communism. And I read 80% of the works of lenin and 50% of marx&engels.

if you had read that much, then you would knew that Marx, Engels and Lenin spent a lot of time and energy for arguing with other leftists. their arguments cleared the way for progress of proletarian scientific socialism and exposed bourgeois and petty bourgeois socialism.

if you have read that much and still believe that USSR was destroyed by conspiracy, you only prove that you haven't learned anything from those books and you need to reread them.

[Communist(stalinist)]

Then how was ussr destroyed? It is interesting to know your opinion.

[hashem]

Then how was ussr destroyed? It is interesting to know your opinion.

this thread is not a place for this topic. but to give a quick answer: class essence of the ruling party and the government of USSR changed over time. by 1956 it had officially abandoned a proletarian line. in late 1980s, the ruling class didn't need the old type bureaucracy of USSR and had no interest in the unity of different "republic"s. each regional party leader went his way and created a kingdom for himself. its wasn't surprising that new leaders of "republic"s were more like kings and pharaohs than communists (or even ex-communists who have become bourgeois democrats).

if USSR was a worker state and people could have determined state policies, no conspiracy could have destroyed the country. corrupt officials could have been easily removed.

[Communist(stalinist)]

I agree that ussr wasn't workers state only after stalin's death. But during stalin's rule it was a workers state. Stalin made ussr that powerful, without stalin ussr won't win the ww2. I also like brezhnev but he made a lot of mistakes.

[Dodo]

I agree that ussr wasn't workers state only after stalin's death. But during stalin's rule it was a workers state. Stalin made ussr that powerful, without stalin ussr won't win the ww2. I also like brezhnev but he made a lot of mistakes.

In a materialist understanding, for a state to be a "worker's" one, its means of production should be owned and managed by the proleteriat. The social relations, the super-structure should be built upon that. We are talking of a society where people are largely free of most forms of social oppression.

USSR has never revolutionized the relations of production, it changed how it was managed and by whom. It tried to achieve this, but the relations it worked through to get this created almost an anti-force.
This empty Stalin fanboyism does not really have Marxist stance. Its more about his charisma and "heroism". It can be clearly seen by the fact that most Stalin fanboys deal with populist concepts like "oh he saved the world from fascism" kind of shit.

Marxists DO NOT DEAL with individuals, history is not made by INDIVIDUALS, history is made by CLASS. Stalin, as an individual, is a product of the world he was in. I do not blame Stalin, I do not hate him either and I believe he genuinley worked for establishing socialism.
But as a product of his time, he was doomed to failure, the methods he adapted and instituionlized in USSR are a clear proof of this. He created an oppressive class stratified state where means of production were owned by an instituion that was created by again, class stratified society. Its social engineering, despite being progressive in some areas failed. IT FAILED. Socialism is not meant to fail, its meant to be the society of the future. Failure is what happens to things of the past.

[Communist(stalinist)]

We all know that stalin wasn't a real leader of ussr until 1934. Officially he was, but not really, again until 1934. After lenin's death everyone wanted to rule ussr, including Trotsky and his idiots. Lenin chose stalin to be the leader of ussr. But Trotsky disagreed with lenin, that means he wasn't a real marxist. I mean he received that country with nothing and left with an atomic bomb. So when stalin came to power in 1934 industrialization was the only way to make ussr one of the most powerful countries. If ussr wasn't that powerful, I think that countries in east Europe wouldn't be communist. After stalins death stupid people like khrushev started lying about stalin. And one of the biggest lies about stalin is that he killed 10-60 million people. He really killed less than million and 99% of them were enemies of communism. And some people say that stalin once said "death of one man is a tragedy, death of millions is a strategy" it's also a lie. I want to say that stalin didn't have enough time to do what he had to do. Also, I think that stalin didn't die himself, someone killed him with poison.

[Per Levy]

After lenin's death everyone wanted to rule ussr, including Trotsky and his idiots.

apperantly workers werent allowed to rule in their suposed "workers state"


Lenin chose stalin to be the leader of ussr.

first of all, lenin didnt choose who would be the next king of the SU, that was decided by others and how many cronies these others had. stalin had more buddys than trotsky in the end.


But Trotsky disagreed with lenin, that means he wasn't a real marxist.

marx and engels would've disagreed with lenin on many things, i guess they werent marxists either. actually looking at it most marxists didnt agree on everything lenin said or did and yet are still considered marxists. strange isnt it.


I mean he received that country with nothing and left with an atomic bomb.

yeah the good king stalin really made russia strong, or should i call it zsar? workers really didnt exist, stalin did everything himself.


So when stalin came to power in 1934 industrialization was the only way to make ussr one of the most powerful countries.

russia was for centuries a world power and one of the most powerful countries in the world, russia would've industrialized after the civil war, stalin or no stalin.


If ussr wasn't that powerful, I think that countries in east Europe wouldn't be communist.

hate to bring it to you, the east european satalite states were a lot but they werent communist. otherwise they couldnt have existed. since, you kow, communism is stateless and all.


After stalins death stupid people like khrushev started lying about stalin.

ah ja, the great man theory of history, not classes make history but great men. everything was fine and well under stalin but than judas, ahem, krushev came and ruined everything.


And one of the biggest lies about stalin is that he killed 10-60 million people. He really killed less than million and 99% of them were enemies of communism.

that borders on historical revisionism, most people who died in the purges were actually commies, yet they were enemies of communism, great logic there.


And some people say that stalin once said "death of one man is a tragedy, death of millions is a strategy" it's also a lie. I want to say that stalin didn't have enough time to do what he had to do. Also, I think that stalin didn't die himself, someone killed him with poison.

if only dear leader would've lived longer, everything would be better today, and its good to know that stalin did everything, he was a good king unlike the pretender trotsky and stalins heir krushev.

but some facts for you: in the great "workers state" you adore so much workers had no power, no say, were exploited, were alienated from their work. those things matter to communists, not the intrigues of the upper bureaucracy, who by the way, lived quite well from the hard work the workers had to do.

[reb]

We all know that stalin wasn't a real leader of ussr until 1934. Officially he was, but not really, again until 1934. After lenin's death everyone wanted to rule ussr, including Trotsky and his idiots. Lenin chose stalin to be the leader of ussr. But Trotsky disagreed with lenin, that means he wasn't a real marxist. I mean he received that country with nothing and left with an atomic bomb. So when stalin came to power in 1934 industrialization was the only way to make ussr one of the most powerful countries. If ussr wasn't that powerful, I think that countries in east Europe wouldn't be communist. After stalins death stupid people like khrushev started lying about stalin. And one of the biggest lies about stalin is that he killed 10-60 million people. He really killed less than million and 99% of them were enemies of communism. And some people say that stalin once said "death of one man is a tragedy, death of millions is a strategy" it's also a lie. I want to say that stalin didn't have enough time to do what he had to do. Also, I think that stalin didn't die himself, someone killed him with poison.

I actually do not know where to begin with this mess. Trotsky and his idiots provided the theoretical economic basis which Stalin, and stalinism, built upon. It is also hilarious that you call anyone who disagrees with Stalin not a marxist then complain that we shouldn't be arguing with each other in the left. I guess we should just all be stalinists then! But to be fair, there is very little ideological difference between you, social-democrats and market socialists. None of you actually appear to have read Marx. Then we have the Great Man Theory of History thing going on.

[Communist(stalinist)]

Any marxist must read marx. I read communist manifesto and das Kapital.

[reb]

Any marxist must read marx. I read communist manifesto and das Kapital.

And yet you're telling us to get along, proclaiming Stalin's greatness, all of his enemies were non-marxists because they disagreed with him, spouting the Great Man of History theory and that we should support Lukashenko.

[Communist(stalinist)]

My logic is like this - if usa hates someone, then he is good. Usa is calling lukashenko a dictator. Usa always calls good people dictators. And I am not telling you to support lukashenko. I just said that I personally support him, in something.

[Dodo]

My logic is like this - if usa hates someone, then he is good. Usa is calling lukashenko a dictator. Usa always calls good people dictators. And I am not telling you to support lukashenko. I just said that I personally support him, in something.

Your logic is not only not-dialectical it has nothing to do with any sophisticated reasoning. In fact, you sound like a 10 year old. I am not going to declare myself the god of Marxism here but you have no idea what even Marxism is.
There is so much wrong in the way you think and it definetly has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Marxism. The fact that you are dealing with names is the clear representation of this.
If you want to be taken seriously, try to understand how Marxism works first.

[Czy]

My logic is like this - if usa hates someone, then he is good. Usa is calling lukashenko a dictator. Usa always calls good people dictators.

Faulty logic - in fact, you're affirming the consequent.

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

P1: ("If usa hates someone, then he is good.")
P2: "lukashenko is good"
C: "Therefore the usa hates him"

Unsound reasoning.

[#FF0000]

Usa always calls good people dictators.

Hitler.

[reb]

My logic is like this - if usa hates someone, then he is good. Usa is calling lukashenko a dictator. Usa always calls good people dictators. And I am not telling you to support lukashenko. I just said that I personally support him, in something.

Marvelous marxist analytical skills you have there.

[Brutus]

Usa always calls good people dictators.
Hussein and Hitler were good people?

[Sea]

Hussein and Hitler were good people?A square is a rectangle but not all rectangles are squares. Yes I'm being cryptic, figure out the analogy yourself.

(That said I'm not trying to say I like Lukashenko. I think he's a horrible rectangle.)
he is trying to say he doesnt like gays either (or maybe even that homophobia is an important pillar of "SOCIALISM!!!") but he is afraid to come out of the closet and say so...Based on the fact that you didn't restrict or ban him for this, I conclude that you don't even believe your own post and are just trying to be insulting. If what you're saying is true and you're not just being a dick, don't hesitate to ban the bigot!
But seriously, can we restrict the people who support Lukashenko, for supporting a homophobic, sexist, reactionary, anti-working class, bourgeois, quasi-reformist, social democrat, politician?On a totally unrelated note, can we restrict Christians, Muslims, Jews (not to pick on you Abrahamophiles or anything) and most religious people for upholding a sexist, homophobic, reactionary text? Both the religiously inclined and Lukashenko supporters should be restricted for many of the same reasons. (no offense or anything Remus but the irony was just too much for me to pass up)

[Communist(stalinist)]

Sure hitler wasn't a good person. I hate him. He was a dictator. but was usa fighting all countries in Middle East just to get oil during ww2? No. They always fight to get oil. They fought in Afghanistan, irAq just for oil, and they call the people that they are fighting with dictators. And also they always loose the real war. Capitalists never win in real war.

[Slavic]

Sure hitler wasn't a good person. I hate him. He was a dictator. but was usa fighting all countries in Middle East just to get oil during ww2? No. They always fight to get oil. They fought in Afghanistan, irAq just for oil, and they call the people that they are fighting with dictators. And also they always loose the real war. Capitalists never win in real war.

Capitalist win in every war. War is very demanding of commodities, and when there is a demand for commodities there is a profit to be made for capitalists.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Sure hitler wasn't a good person. I hate him. He was a dictator. but was usa fighting all countries in Middle East just to get oil during ww2? No. They always fight to get oil. They fought in Afghanistan, irAq just for oil, and they call the people that they are fighting with dictators. And also they always loose the real war. Capitalists never win in real war.

It's not just about oil you cretinous conspiracy theorist.

Seriously, people like you make the rest of us all look like extremist nuts.

[hashem]

My logic is like this - if usa hates someone, then he is good. Usa is calling lukashenko a dictator. Usa always calls good people dictators. And I am not telling you to support lukashenko. I just said that I personally support him, in something.

result: if USA hates Hitler, then he is good.

you have mocked yourself enough already. go study a little before entering any kind of argument.

[Communist(stalinist)]

The main reason I hate the usa state is this - without usa state the world socialist revolution would happen. And usa before the ww2 and after is different. Before the war they wanted to become a superpower, after they started calling other leaders dictators to fight them and take their oil. When I am saying that if usa hates someone, he is good, I mean after the ww2.

[Hrafn]

The main reason I hate the usa state is this - without usa state the world socialist revolution would happen. And usa before the ww2 and after is different. Before the war they wanted to become a superpower, after they started calling other leaders dictators to fight them and take their oil. When I am saying that if usa hates someone, he is good, I mean after the ww2.

What

[Remus Bleys]

The main reason I hate the usa state is this - without usa state the world socialist revolution would happen. And usa before the ww2 and after is different. Before the war they wanted to become a superpower, after they started calling other leaders dictators to fight them and take their oil. When I am saying that if usa hates someone, he is good, I mean after the ww2.
Osama Bin-Laden

[reb]

The main reason I hate the usa state is this - without usa state the world socialist revolution would happen. And usa before the ww2 and after is different. Before the war they wanted to become a superpower, after they started calling other leaders dictators to fight them and take their oil. When I am saying that if usa hates someone, he is good, I mean after the ww2.

How did you come to the decision that Stalinism was the correct thing without reading, or at the very least understanding, Marx? I could probably direct this to every Stalinist but they're all generic anyway.

[reb]

On a totally unrelated note, can we restrict Christians, Muslims, Jews (not to pick on you Abrahamophiles or anything) and most religious people for upholding a sexist, homophobic, reactionary text? Both the religiously inclined and Lukashenko supporters should be restricted for many of the same reasons. (no offense or anything Remus but the irony was just too much for me to pass up)

If they're new and are actually willing to learn what communism is then no, but if they've been here a while, or are long the tooth already, then yes we should ban/restrict these apologists the same way we should restrict Stalinists, market socialists and pimitivists. It's one thing to shake of a fear of eternal damnation, quite another to blatantly support gulags, mass repression and capitalist relations on a supposedly revolutionary forum.

[Per Levy]

Osama Bin-Laden

bin-laden was a great anti-imperialists and therefore a good man. at least by someones logic.

@Communist(stalinist):


The main reason I hate the usa state is this - without usa state the world socialist revolution would happen.

would it now, what makes you so sure about that? and even if the usa ceased to be the superpower, china, india, russia the european union and others bigger and smaller are ready to jump in and claim that title. and all of them would drown worker uprising in blood.


And usa before the ww2 and after is different.

oh really? wasnt the usa before ww2 allready a imperialist superpower? the only difference ww2 brought was that france and the uk were very weakend and the usa took their place.


Before the war they wanted to become a superpower, after they started calling other leaders dictators to fight them and take their oil. When I am saying that if usa hates someone, he is good, I mean after the ww2.

well iran after the ajatollahs came to power killed around 30000 leftists, many of whom were members of a commie party. workers have also pretty shitty status there as well. i think that strikes and unions are banned. but i might be wrong. and those are the good guys? you might want to stop thinking in bourgeois politics and start with class struggle, the latter is the important thing.

[Comrade Chernov]

The "If the USA hates someone, they're automatically an amazing individual" rhetoric is tiring and reminiscent of early-1980s Soviet doctrine. Believe it or not, sometimes Capitalists call people out for actual humane reasons.

Unless, hey, you know, Gadaffi and Hussein and bin Laden are angels. I prefer my ideal Socialist figures not having the blood of innocents on their hands.

[Communist(stalinist)]

No, I hate osama bin laden, as well as any terrorist and religious fanatic. But what was wrong with Gaddafi? At least he was defending his country from aggressor till the end.

[Remus Bleys]

No, I hate osama bin laden, as well as any terrorist and religious fanatic. But what was wrong with Gaddafi? At least he was defending his country from aggressor till the end.

But the usa hates osama.
Gadaffi was bourgeois.

[Communist(stalinist)]

Any country hates him, again, he was a terrorist. And wasn't gaddafi socialist?

[Remus Bleys]

Any country hates him, again, he was a terrorist.
You explicitly stated that you liked someone if the US hates them.

And wasn't gaddafi socialist?
:laugh:

[Logical seal]

For some reason, Beralus, der, However you spell it, Is in a mixed ecomony stage.


Which is better then a full on market ecomony


But the fact of the matter is, The rich fucks in there who claim to be *socialist* are begining a massive rich fuck loveing program.


And all the shit that comes with capital-scum-ism is takeing on its place at berlaus, berulus, That country in eastern europe.

[Communist(stalinist)]

I was talking about the leaders of the countries, not about terrorists.

[Remus Bleys]

I was talking about the leaders of the countries, not about terrorists.
So... do you uphold Saddam Hussein? The Taliban?

[Communist(stalinist)]

Talibans are terrorists and religious fanatics. How can I uphold them? I hate them.
Saddam was really a bourgeoise. He hated the communist party of iraq, I don't uphold him. But didn't usa atack his country just to take it's oil? Why do you defend the usa state? They always hated us, leftists.

[Remus Bleys]

Talibans are terrorists and religious fanatics. How can I uphold them? I hate them.
Saddam was really a bourgeoise. He hated the communist party of iraq, I don't uphold him. But didn't usa atack his country just to take it's oil? Why do you defend the usa state? They always hated us, leftists.
I don't defend either of them.
Im not with you.
You said post ww2 govs that the us hates are worth upholding, so you uphold saddam and the taliban.

[Communist(stalinist)]

Ok I will tell the truth, now I know that I was wrong. Again, I hate religious fanatics and terrorists like talibans and anticommunists like saddam. But sometimes what I said is true. Usa can hate someone just because he doesn't want to be depended from them. But not always. Usa made Soviet Union, the most powerful socialist country collapse, made Yugoslavia collapse, gdr, and other socialist countries. Communist can't support usa state, especially american republicans.

[Comrade Chernov]

The United States didn't make the USSR, Yugoslavia, or East Germany collapse.

All of them were basically doomed to collapse. Yugoslavia especially, since it was Tito who kept the damn place together. Milosevic ruined everything by siding with Serb nationalists over Communists who weren't Serbs.

East Germany was a puppet of the Social Imperialist USSR. And the USSR was a social democratic authoritarian shithole by the time Gorbachev unrolled Perestroika, Glasnost, etc. There was no way that East Germany was going to survive, especially when they were told to hold the front against NATO with inferior weaponry, training, and equipment.

The real question is why you insist on defending some of the worst examples of Socialism, in my opinion.


EDIT: By the way, Gadaffi wasn't a Socialist both because he was Bourgeois and because he didn't adhere to the will of the people. The people demanded he go - because whether they were incensed by Americans or not, millions of protestors don't just come out of nowhere - and he selfishly refused to leave power. Therefore, he deserved to be overthrown.

[Sea]

millions of protestors don't just come out of nowhereYes they do, dammit, haven't you heard of the Tea Party?

[Communist(stalinist)]

How can you say that ussr was imperialist? The great vladimir lenin said that ussr will fight all imperialist countries, and that imperialism = capitalism. Ussr only needed 20 more years and we would have already build communism. But Gorbachev came, made his shitty perestroika and ussr collapsed. And also usa created the nationalism in socialist countries to make them collapse, With money.

[Remus Bleys]

How can you say that ussr was imperialist?
This is from a stalinist source on that matter. (http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.secondwave/cfb-su.htm)

The great vladimir lenin said that ussr will fight all imperialist countries, The GREAT VLADIMIR LENIN died.

and that imperialism = capitalism. The soviet union was capitalist.

Ussr only needed 20 more years and we would have already build communism. loooooooool yes yes. communism in one country!

But Gorbachev came, made his shitty perestroika and ussr collapsed.
Great Man of History theory?

And also usa created the nationalism in socialist countries to make them collapse, With money.
This is the biggest conpsiracy theory ever. What a fucking marxist analysis, huh?

[Communist(stalinist)]

Prove that ussr was capitalist.

[Remus Bleys]

Prove that ussr was capitalist.
the law of value operated?
this was freely admitted.
There were still classes?
this was freely admitted.
It had been deeply embedded in the world market?
this was freely admitted.

[Communist(stalinist)]

The law of value operated?
What the government had to do? Give everyone everything for free?
There were still classes?
Yes there were, after stalin's death. During stalin's rule - never.
It had Been deeply embedded in the world market ?
It never was.

[Remus Bleys]

The law of value operated?
What the government had to do? Give everyone everything for free?
There were still classes?
Yes there were, after stalin's death. During stalin's rule - never.
It had Been deeply embedded in the world market ?
It never was.I am going to let this stand on its own.

[Stalinist Speaker]

Ohh i see that a lot of new posts on this thread. don't worry i haven't abandoned this tread yet its just that i haven't had any time to deal with it. I Will Return

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm somehow skeptical that 'communist(stalinist)' read 50% of all of Marx' and Engels' works.

[Stalinist Speaker]

This is from a stalinist source on that matter. (http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.secondwave/cfb-su.htm)


Just to point this out really quick, i think he asked you to prove that USSR was imperialist under stalin. and the link you provided was written 20 years after stalin died so yeaa.

[Stalinist Speaker]

Are you implying I am anti-russian? How?


No i'm saying you might as well make it off limits for russians since almost every (about 80%+) russian Communist have almost the same views as me. (in most cases)

[reb]

Just to point this out really quick, i think he asked you to prove that USSR was imperialist under stalin. and the link you provided was written 20 years after stalin died so yeaa.

So for you, it doesn't matter if a country is capitalist and suppresses it's own proletariat, just as long as it isn't "imperialist"?

[reb]

No i'm saying you might as well make it off limits for russians since almost every (about 80%+) russian Communist have almost the same views as me. (in most cases)

If we are to judge this from the banners they have when they are marching then good, ban them. I don't really want to associate with homophobes and nationalists.

[Niccolo]

I oppose Lukashenko just as I oppose other capitalist leaders. Not only has he ditched any socialist ideals, but he's shown himself to be a homophobic, intolerant leader, who has Belarus on a path to increased privatization.

I really cannot see a justification for supporting him.

[Communist(stalinist)]

Why many of you hate lukashenko just because he might be a homophobe ? I am a marxist myself and read many of the works of marx-engels-lenin. And found out that marx never talked about homosexuality. And you are talking like fighting homophobia is part of marxism.

[Niccolo]

So you admit that you're homophobic? I assume that you are now as your response to my comment about Lukashenko's homophobia was simply brushed aside by you saying that Marx never spoke about the topic.

Answer the question: are you homophobic or not, and if not, why do you support Lukashenko, an oppressive capitalist?

[Per Levy]

Why many of you hate lukashenko just because he might be a homophobe ?

we despise lukashenko for being a bourgeois dictator of a capitalist country, that he is also a homophobe is another reason that adds why we despise him.


I am a marxist myself and read many of the works of marx-engels-lenin.

and what have you gotten out of it? that capitalist countries are socialist, that communism in one country is possible, that the great man theory of the world is actualy a thing and that the conspiracy theories about the end of the SU are all true? i havnt read "50% of marxs works" but what i did read lead me to very different view than what you hold.


And found out that marx never talked about homosexuality.

yes it wasnt an issue for marx/engels therefore they hardly talked about it, and when they did, in private letters, it was mostly negative. that said it isnt the 19th century anymore, we live in 2013 and anyone who is a homophobe nowadays is a reactionary.


And you are talking like fighting homophobia is part of marxism.

in a way, sure. because the majority of people who are homosexual, bi and trans are workers afterall.

[Communist(stalinist)]

I am just neutral about homosexuality. And I support lukashenko for this - ussr collapsed in 1991, but most people that loved there didn't want it to collapse. And today most of them want it to be back. And lukashenko is one of the leaders who also wants it to be back.

[sosolo]

Why many of you hate lukashenko just because he might be a homophobe ? I am a marxist myself and read many of the works of marx-engels-lenin. And found out that marx never talked about homosexuality. And you are talking like fighting homophobia is part of marxism.

It is. Absolutely. Just like fighting racism, patriarchy, nationalism, and any other oppression that serves to divide the working class.

Marx is not Moses, his writings are neither divinely inspired nor completely exhaustive. He was a fallible human being after all.

Lenin added, through experience and a scientific study of socialism and revolution, to the basis laid out by Marx.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Comrade Chernov]

No i'm saying you might as well make it off limits for russians since almost every (about 80%+) russian "Communist" have almost the same views as me. (in most cases)

fixed


I am just neutral about homosexuality. And I support lukashenko for this - ussr collapsed in 1991, but most people that loved there didn't want it to collapse. And today most of them want it to be back. And lukashenko is one of the leaders who also wants it to be back.

Most of the Russians want the USSR to be back for Nationalist rather than Socialist reasons. The USSR was stronger than today's Russia is, the USSR was actually a threat to the USA. Russia...well, they have nukes, and that's about their only trump card. Their military is both smaller than, and poorly-equipped compared to, the American armed forces. The USSR was a larger country, too. Nobody likes to see their country downgraded in size and world stature, it's the same thing that happened to Germany in the aftermath of the First World War. And, like in Germany, it's Nationalists who are on the rise in Russia right now. That's why Putin's conservative-nationalist party is so strong.

Not to mention, yes, the opposition of LGBT rights is reactionary in nature. Some of my, personally, most radical comrades are trans/genderfluid/not within the gender binary, or are otherwise gay. I'm pansexual myself. So, yeah, I like to think that LGBT rights are a part of the revolution, and I'm not too keen on supporting Lukashenko if he'd have me and my comrades thrown in prison for existing.

[Communist(stalinist)]

So you, the one who lives in usa knows more than me, the one who leaves in russia and is russian? First of all, putin hates nationalism and nationalists.in ussr nationalism was hated. Because there was only one - soviet nation. And russia today is much weaker than ussr but much stronger than usa and NATO.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

If Putin truly hated nationalism then his principles wouldn't let him be a leader of a nation.

[Brutus]

We should fight discrimination because how can a person work "to their ability" in socialism if they are being victimised and harassed?

[Communist-USSR]

Any country hates him, again, he was a terrorist. And wasn't gaddafi socialist?
Al-Qaeda is created by the US and they gave money to Osama because they were going to fight against the pro-Soviet Afghan regime.

[karlbrosky]

I don't support any bourgeois state or politician.

That's just the thing - as communists, we can't lend political support to a capitalist government without surrendering our position as communists. It may be that you personally like Lukashenko, or think he's a nice guy, or recognize that his government has done good things, which I'm sure it has. But to all those that view him as a "progressive" anti-imperialist bulwark, remember that the national bourgeoisie is always unstable, vacillating, ever-searching for the best deal whether it's under Russian or American influence or a "nationalist" regime.

Capitalism's logic itself will bring Lukashenko into conflict with the Belorussian working class, and when it does, Marxists who chose the national bourgeoisie over international working class solidarity will find themselves discredited and tainted.

[Communist(stalinist)]

@communist-ussr
I agree with you, but usa in public has to tell that they hated him. Yes but really they created him just to remove our soviet Afghanistan.

@karlbrosky
Why do you think that lukashenko is a bourgeoise? He always says that he wants ussr to be back, ussr was a socialist state, that means lukashenko is a socialist.

[Comrade Chernov]

He might be socialist, but he'd be a bourgeois socialist, because the state is a bourgeois construction.

Also, no, Putin doesn't hate Nationalism. Soviet Russia was HIGHLY Nationalist. They call the Eastern Front "the Great Patriotic War", for crying out loud. Patriotism is the highest and purest form of Nationalism. Whenever someone says "Motherland" in reference to the Soviet Union, they're being Nationalist, because "Motherland" and "Fatherland" refer to countries and therefore Nationalist rhetoric. The USSR might have started out as an anti-Nationalist state, but by the 1980s and 1990s it was thoroughly Nationalist. The USSR, the PRC, North Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia (especially Yugoslavia), Cuba, Venezuela - they're all Socialist States and all of them use(d) high amounts of Nationalism to keep their populations happy.

[Remus Bleys]

Al-Qaeda is created by the US and they gave money to Osama because they were going to fight against the pro-Soviet Afghan regime.And then 9/11 happened. Don't give me this conspiracy theory bullshit where the US was friendly with al quaeda after 9/11

Why do you think that lukashenko is a bourgeoise? He always says that he wants ussr to be back, ussr was a socialist state, that means lukashenko is a socialist. What makes you think the ussr was socialist

[Remus Bleys]

How can you say that ussr was imperialist?
Like this

our soviet Afghanistan.
emphasis added.

[Communist(stalinist)]

Who made this? I Mean who wrote "this fuck whos name i forget i think its something with stalinist in it"

[Hrafn]

Who made this? I Mean who wrote "this fuck whos name i forget i think its something with stalinist in it"

Are you high? Because if you are, there's a whole thread for incoherent rambling

[Sea]

This is the biggest conpsiracy theory ever. What a fucking marxist analysis, huh?No, the biggest conspiracy ever was the bald-hairy-bald-hairy-bald-hairy thing.
Ussr only needed 20 more years and we would have already build communism.Isn't that what Khrushchev said? :laugh:

[Communist-USSR]

And then 9/11 happened. Don't give me this conspiracy theory bullshit where the US was friendly with al quaeda after 9/11
What makes you think the ussr was socialist


Yes, so what?? I didn't say that the US supported them after 9/11. At least until recently, now they are supporting al quaeda terrorists in Syria and Libya...

[Communist(stalinist)]

No, khrushev said that communism will be built in 1980, but I said that possibly, in 21 century.

[Sea]

No, khrushev said that communism will be built in 1980, but I said that possibly, in 21 century.So? Even the Great Vladimir Lenin wondered at one point if he'd even see the revolution in his lifetime.