I'm conflicted about the EU and Euro

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

On one hand I'm not nationalistic and totally support open borders for everyone and it makes sense to focus on unifying countries instead of dividing, since nations should become unnecessary in a global world. On the other hand I think joining the EU has benefited stronger economies over the weakest ones, and as a Portuguese and like most European citizens I don't feel like I have any decision power, not that I feel I do in Portugal, but still a bit more.

If someone asked me if I was pro or anti euro and EU I'd be in doubt, I was born already in the European Union, it makes sense, it seems progressive, so I think I'd say pro EU, but not very sure about it, even less about the Euro, complete loss of autonomy.

But it sure is nice to know I can study for 'free' in some countries like Finland if I wanted to without restrictions. (free tuition but the money for living expenses and travel is another story, they say 700-900€ per month :/ )

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, ask yourself: should socialists have extended any support to the United Arab Republic? Should socialists, today, support the so-called Union State or the Eurasian Economic Union? To me the answer is clear: no. These are all bourgeois formations. And the same goes for the European Union, which is in addition an imperialist compact between the French, German and British bourgeoisie.

But our opposition to the EU is not an opposition from the perspective of nationalism (although, to be fair, the EU is not without its own peculiar European chauvinism, particularly the notoriously racist security and border arrangements, "Fortress Europe") but from the perspective of a United Socialist States of Europe. But a socialist Europe requires the EU and Fortress Europe to fall.

[Comrade #138672]

If someone asked me if I was pro or anti euro and EU I'd be in doubtIn order to distinguish yourself from the nationalist opposition, while being honest about the EU as a capitalist project, you could say something like: "I am anti-capitalism, and therefore anti-EU and anti-nationalism."

[Futility Personified]

I used to find it hard to consider, but after the complete fuckery visited upon Greece, and the silence about TTIP, I don't think the EU is something that is worth redeeming.

[Црвена]

The EU is a capitalist bloc which sometimes remembers that it should be pretending to be progressive.

But that doesn't mean, as some people have taken it to mean, that national exits are a good idea.

[Alet]

The European Union and the euro area are indeed imperialist. This should not even be controversial - Germany and France, especially the former, have always been the leading powers in the Eurozone from its beginning, economically and politically. The Stability and Growth Pact, to take an example, was proposed by Germany and adjusted after France and Germany weren't able to conform to it. And what's happening in Greece (or Portugal, Spain, etc.) at the moment is nothing but imperialism par excellence. However, we communists do not oppose the EU by stressing national sovereignty because this is an inherently reactionary response. Our task is to oppose it on the level of socialist internationalism.

[Comrade Jacob]

The EU is an imperialist group controlled by the main 3 powers (Germany, UK and France) and they all crush the other members and imperialise as a stronger group.

[#FF0000]

Well, ask yourself: should socialists have extended any support to the United Arab Republic? Should socialists, today, support the so-called Union State or the Eurasian Economic Union? To me the answer is clear: no. These are all bourgeois formations. And the same goes for the European Union, which is in addition an imperialist compact between the French, German and British bourgeoisie.

But our opposition to the EU is not an opposition from the perspective of nationalism (although, to be fair, the EU is not without its own peculiar European chauvinism, particularly the notoriously racist security and border arrangements, "Fortress Europe") but from the perspective of a United Socialist States of Europe. But a socialist Europe requires the EU and Fortress Europe to fall.

I don't think it's this simple. Whether one likes it or not, the EU exists. To ignore that and insist that the only answer is what effectively boils down to a retreat into economic nationalism seems like a lazy, kneejerk, boilerplate response.

I don't have the answer, but I don't think anyone on the Left does -- I don't think many have done the due diligence that an answer to this question requires.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't think it's this simple. Whether one likes it or not, the EU exists. To ignore that and insist that the only answer is what effectively boils down to a retreat into economic nationalism seems like a lazy, kneejerk, boilerplate response.

I don't have the answer, but I don't think anyone on the Left does -- I don't think many have done the due diligence that an answer to this question requires.

I think it is that simple. Of course the EU exists. So does the Union State. So do the various member states of the EU - or the Union State. We're not "for" any of them - so the accusations of "economic nationalism" are odd. We don't need to tell the bourgeoisie how to run their state(s). In fact we shouldn't. The problem is that some people are convinced they can use the EU itself as some sort of revolutionary instrument (good luck), or that we need to find the optimum configuration of bourgeois forces that will allow the revolution to happen.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

To expand on this, since the edit function is being a bit of a diva: suppose that, tomorrow, there is a socialist revolution in Europe, limited to one geographic region. It doesn't have to correspond to one of the member states. Let's say the Rhineland, Belgium and Burgundy overthrow bourgeois rule. Should this Lotharingian Republic of Labour remain in the EU? No, obviously not: to remain in the EU would mean remaining complicit in the imperialist project of the EU. It would be the same as Russia remaining in the Entente - or soviet Bavaria remaining subordinate to the butcher SPD government in Berlin. But again, our perspective is not socialism in one region, an isolated "Red" Lotharingia or Soviet Bavaria, but a united Socialist Europe. But just as the construction of the USSR required the old Russian Empire (or Tsarist Empire, as people are wont to say, which always struck me as a bizarre expression) to fall, this would require EU and the racist Fortress Europe to fall.

[blake 3:17]

I don't see economic nationalism as an evil. And despite my deep respect for Trotsky, I'm not interested in holding my breath for a United Socialist States of Europe or the Americas.

The situation in North America in terms of borders under NAFTA -- it's freedom for commodities and policing control of peoples movement.

[Burzhuin]

I don't see economic nationalism as an evil. And despite my deep respect for Trotsky, I'm not interested in holding my breath for a United Socialist States of Europe or the Americas.

The situation in North America in terms of borders under NAFTA -- it's freedom for commodities and policing control of peoples movement.
One more logical step and you can understand that communists are right. I can believe in socialist revolution in one or more European countries. But in socialist revolution in EU as whole I do not believe. My countrymen after being EU members since 2002 started to realize that what is good for Germany, France, UK is bad for us. I recently visited Spain and spoke to Spaniards and they are the same opinion.

[Alet]

But in socialist revolution in EU as whole I do not believe. My countrymen after being EU members since 2002 started to realize that what is good for Germany, France, UK is bad for us.

But this is because of capitalist standards and imperialist policy. It has little to do with the possibility of an international revolution.

[Burzhuin]

But this is because of capitalist standards and imperialist policy. It has little to do with the possibility of an international revolution.
Any REALISTIC scenario of "international revolution" in EU?

[Alet]

Any REALISTIC scenario of "international revolution" in EU?

What do you even mean? If I have understood you correctly, you argue against the possibility of a Europe-wide revolution on the basis that "what's good for Germany, France, and the UK is bad for Southern Europe". Correct me, if I'm wrong. The point is simply that European imperialism is based solely on capitalist production. Considering this, I don't quite understand why a revolution throughout Europe should be less realistic, as capitalist relations vanish with socialism. There is no reason to believe that a socialist Germany will live off a socialist Southern Europe.

[Burzhuin]

What do you even mean? If I have understood you correctly, you argue against the possibility of a Europe-wide revolution on the basis that "what's good for Germany, France, and the UK is bad for Southern Europe". Correct me, if I'm wrong. The point is simply that European imperialism is based solely on capitalist production. Considering this, I don't quite understand why a revolution throughout Europe should be less realistic, as capitalist relations vanish with socialism. There is no reason to believe that a socialist Germany will live off a socialist Southern Europe.
I can see your point, but you refused to see mine. Germany, France, UK workers are not even thinking about socialist revolution. I used to had an unpleasant experience working for German company. Trust me, so called Conservative Republicans in the States are less racist and imperialistic than members of SDP of Germany.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Which is relevant how? The revolution won't be made by SPD members. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if many, many SPD members end up against a wall in the event of a socialist revolution in Germany. The workers aren't thinking about the socialist revolution anywhere, by the way. That's why communists have to fight to organise the most forward elements of the class politically, instead of hoping that history will hand them the revolution on a silver platter.

[Burzhuin]

Which is relevant how? The revolution won't be made by SPD members. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if many, many SPD members end up against a wall in the event of a socialist revolution in Germany. The workers aren't thinking about the socialist revolution anywhere, by the way. That's why communists have to fight to organise the most forward elements of the class politically, instead of hoping that history will hand them the revolution on a silver platter.
I am working in organizing workers. But, realistically, I do not see any signs of the revolution around the corner. What about you?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I am working in organizing workers. But, realistically, I do not see any signs of the revolution around the corner. What about you?

What "signs" would you like to see? In 1914, the Russian Empire was a rapidly developing capitalist power, despite its immense backwardness outside the large factory complexes and the few modern cities it had, indispensable to the then-existing global order, with all revolutionary opposition reduced to irrelevance, and the workers and peasants willfully throwing themselves into imperialist slaughter in the name of most disgusting chauvinism. It seemed to everyone the Empire would last for quite some time. Four years after that, it was gone. Barely a shred of it remained, not even in the ridiculous White governments that fought for its restoration.

But if you want to use the excuse of "realism" to give up on international revolution, then, well, you certainly wouldn't be the first, but then give up on national revolutions as well for consistency's sake. Do you see signs of a revolution in Spain? No, of course not.

[ckaihatsu]

The term here is 'paradigm shift', or 'sea change', which means that the 'before' does not have any bearing on the 'after' in the way of qualities or configuration / topology.

[Burzhuin]

But if you want to use the excuse of "realism" to give up on international revolution, then, well, you certainly wouldn't be the first, but then give up on national revolutions as well for consistency's sake. Do you see signs of a revolution in Spain? No, of course not.
Do you know three signs of revolution situation? Recently visited old country I saw at least one. About Spain I have no idea.

About "international revolution"... I am just trying to imagine what must feel some of the Red Army soldiers when Nazi Germany soldiers (many of whom were workers) started to kill them. Even those who still believe in "international revolution" were cured once and for all from it.

What make me angry, that pointing to "international revolution" so called "left communists" refused to do anything in their own countries, regions, towns, companies. Of course their son insignificant to compare with "international revolution".

[Comrade #138672]

Do you know three signs of revolution situation? Recently visited old country I saw at least one. About Spain I have no idea.

About "international revolution"... I am just trying to imagine what must feel some of the Red Army soldiers when Nazi Germany soldiers (many of whom were workers) started to kill them. Even those who still believe in "international revolution" were cured once and for all from it.

What make me angry, that pointing to "international revolution" so called "left communists" refused to do anything in their own countries, regions, towns, companies. Of course their son insignificant to compare with "international revolution".You are basically saying that the existence of war negates the possibility of (international) communism, which is entirely unjustified.

[Thirsty Crow]

About "international revolution"... I am just trying to imagine what must feel some of the Red Army soldiers when Nazi Germany soldiers (many of whom were workers) started to kill them. Even those who still believe in "international revolution" were cured once and for all from it.Sure, if it makes sense to think of proletarian internationalism as a virus which makes people into hippie-like mindless drones, go right ahead.

Or you could realize that the way people feel in a particular situation doesn't necessarily resolve arguments about matters of fact. If it did, surely there'd be no basis to engage a racist worker who's been mugged by black folks.


What make me angry, that pointing to "international revolution" so called "left communists" refused to do anything in their own countries, regions, towns, companies. Of course their son insignificant to compare with "international revolution".Now your feeling would make an intersting debating topic if you had actual instances of any such thing to back it all up.

[Blake's Baby]

...

What make me angry, that pointing to "international revolution" so called "left communists" refused to do anything in their own countries, regions, towns, companies. Of course their son insignificant to compare with "international revolution".

Of course, it would make you angry, that in WWII the Left Communists in France were helping people to escape from the Gestapo, while the NKVD were handing over names of people to be liquidated. It must make you very angry that both before and after 1941, the Left Communists were agitating for German soldiers and Allied soldiers to turn their guns on their officers, instead of supporting the German state (before June 1941) or the 'democratic' states (after June 1941).

Stalinism is poison to the working class. Like all forms of 'Leninism' in the current period, it calls on workers to support their oppressors against workers in other countries, instead of trying to get workers to see that their interests are the same, no matter what national divisions the bourgeoisie imposes on them.

[Burzhuin]

Of course, it would make you angry, that in WWII the Left Communists in France were helping people to escape from the Gestapo, while the NKVD were handing over names of people to be liquidated. It must make you very angry that both before and after 1941, the Left Communists were agitating for German soldiers and Allied soldiers to turn their guns on their officers, instead of supporting the German state (before June 1941) or the 'democratic' states (after June 1941).

Stalinism is poison to the working class. Like all forms of 'Leninism' in the current period, it calls on workers to support their oppressors against workers in other countries, instead of trying to get workers to see that their interests are the same, no matter what national divisions the bourgeoisie imposes on them.
I am leaving aside your opinion about "Stalinism". But I never in CP USA documents found even once call to support American Imperialist Government or, for example, Donald Trump. I think you would not argue the point that Trump IS oppressor. But I do not even consider CP USA as a true Marxist-Leninist party. So if you have this materials please let us know. Otherwise as of now I am considering this statement as a lie.

[Burzhuin]

Or you could realize that the way people feel in a particular situation doesn't necessarily resolve arguments about matters of fact. If it did, surely there'd be no basis to engage a racist worker who's been mugged by black folks.

Now your feeling would make an interesting debating topic if you had actual instances of any such thing to back it all up.
Strange thing, I have no animosity towards African people, even many of them were trying to kill me. But it only to prove your points. The point I am trying to make that we have to be very selective to whom we, leftist, are offering our support. Because frankly speaking you do not have to swim in shit, all you have to do to step into it once and, trust me, it will stink long time after that.

I can refer to my experience having deal with Left Communists in Toronto, where I used to live. I would be nicely surprised to meet local Left Communists to find out what they are practically doing for Proletariat Revolution Victory. If you would like we can continue the conversation privately.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Stalinism is poison to the working class. Like all forms of 'Leninism' in the current period, it calls on workers to support their oppressors against workers in other countries, instead of trying to get workers to see that their interests are the same, no matter what national divisions the bourgeoisie imposes on them.

Does this apply to Trotskyism as well? And if so, how?

[Emmett Till]

The EU is a capitalist bloc which sometimes remembers that it should be pretending to be progressive.

But that doesn't mean, as some people have taken it to mean, that national exits are a good idea.

So Tsipras was right, and Greece should stay in the EU? Are you kidding?

[Emmett Till]

I don't think it's this simple. Whether one likes it or not, the EU exists. To ignore that and insist that the only answer is what effectively boils down to a retreat into economic nationalism seems like a lazy, kneejerk, boilerplate response.

I don't have the answer, but I don't think anyone on the Left does -- I don't think many have done the due diligence that an answer to this question requires.

The answer is well known and classic. Marxists want to see a United Socialist States of Europe. Which means the EU, a capitalist conspiracy against the working people of Europe and all competitors and foreign subjects of European capitalism, needs to be destroyed, root and branch.

As commitment to capitalism and a free market economy is right there in the EU constitution, for any country to exit from the EU is, in and of itself, progressive, the first necessary step preparatory towards creating a United Socialist States of Europe.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

The answer is well known and classic. Marxists want to see a United Socialist States of Europe. Which means the EU, a capitalist conspiracy against the working people of Europe and all competitors and foreign subjects of European capitalism, needs to be destroyed, root and branch.

As commitment to capitalism and a free market economy is right there in the EU constitution, for any country to exit from the EU is, in and of itself, progressive, the first necessary step preparatory towards creating a United Socialist States of Europe.
You mean this?

3. The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment
and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.


Interesting, can I make a case saying it's unconstitutional for Portugal then?

The Constituent Assembly affirms the Portuguese people’s decision to defend national independence, guarantee citizens’ fundamental rights, establish the basic principles of democracy, ensure the primacy of a democratic state based on the rule of law and open up a path towards a socialist society, with respect for the will of the Portuguese people and with a view to the construction of a country that is freer, more just
and more fraternal.
Tho socialism is so ill-defined, ask 100 people what socialism is and you get 100 different responses.

And that is part of preamble I don't know if it has legal value. And even if it had, road to socialism is even less defined than socialism itself so anyone could argue anything is road to socialist society. So I got no basis for a lawsuit to make me millionaire :(

[Emmett Till]

You mean this?



Interesting, can I make a case saying it's unconstitutional for Portugal then?

Tho socialism is so ill-defined, ask 100 people what socialism is and you get 100 different responses.

And that is part of preamble I don't know if it has legal value. And even if it had, road to socialism is even less defined than socialism itself so anyone could argue anything is road to socialist society. So I got no basis for a lawsuit to make me millionaire :(

A "highly competitive social market economy" means, just like Germany, the "social market economy," except maybe more so, i.e. highly competitive.

The definition of socialism is simple. Abolish private property in the means of production. i.e., not Germany. The opposite of any sort of market economy, "social" or otherwise.

In fact, as is becoming clear lately, whereas the EU stemmed from the EEC common market, imposed on somewhat reluctant Europeans in the 1950s as the best framework for US imperial hegemony over Western Europe, it has evolved over time into what it is now.

The new Fourth Reich, doing what Hitler failed to do, namely gaining German hegemony over not just western but damn near all Europe. Germany now has its economic lebensraum in East Europe, the German goal of WWI and WWII. All Eastern Europe is one big German neocolony, with Greece simply the most obvious case. With France as a junior partner instead of a victim this time. And all the "social" trappings simply watered down versions of the German model. And if you think that's socialism, you don't know much about Germany.

As for Portugal, the constitution was written by the Portuguese Socialist Party, which was created by German Social Democratic Party through the Ebert Foundation. And sure enough, in the spirit of Ebert, Socialist Party rule in Portugal began with mob assaults on Communist Party headquarters to end the Portuguese Revolution, after the manner of the Freikorps murder of Rosa Luxemburg and Liebknecht and other bloodbaths sponsored by Ebert and co.

So yeah, it's fine, that kind of "socialism" is completely compatible with capitalism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Do you know three signs of revolution situation? Recently visited old country I saw at least one. About Spain I have no idea.

Well, for a Stalinist you certainly seem to have absorbed the worst aspects of some ostensibly Trotskyist organisations, namely their rotten processism. Revolutions aren't some sort of weather phenomenon that simply happens regardless of the level of organisation and political consciousness of the working class. Today, there is no revolutionary party in any European (or non-European, for that matter) state. As such any movement of the masses will be resolved in a reactionary, pro-capitalist sense.


About "international revolution"... I am just trying to imagine what must feel some of the Red Army soldiers when Nazi Germany soldiers (many of whom were workers) started to kill them. Even those who still believe in "international revolution" were cured once and for all from it.

Yes, that's the problem. You're basing yourself on emotions, and not even real emotions but emotions you imagined. In fact there are numerous examples of communists agitating for German and Allied soldiers to turn their guns against their officers. It speaks volumes that you prefer a war, in alliance with imperialist powers, and the attendant nationalist ideology, to revolution.


What make me angry, that pointing to "international revolution" so called "left communists" refused to do anything in their own countries, regions, towns, companies. Of course their son insignificant to compare with "international revolution".

And to think, they could have been good town managers for capital like the various Stalinist mayors of Bologna, or even good managers of entire countries like the Italian Stalinists that did everything in their power to preserve bourgeois rule in Italy.

[Бай Ганьо]

Are there actually a lot of parties advocating withdrawal from the UE, the euro, NATO...? I mean not only in their discourse, but explicitly stated in black and white in their manifestos. I myself only know about the UPR in France.

[Burzhuin]

Today, there is no revolutionary party in any European (or non-European, for that matter) state.

Please list ALL Communist parties not even in Europe, but in Russia, and YOUR REASONS why those parties are not revolutionary. As of right now I consider this statement as pure LIE.


Yes, that's the problem. You're basing yourself on emotions, and not even real emotions but emotions you imagined. In fact there are numerous examples of communists agitating for German and Allied soldiers to turn their guns against their officers. It speaks volumes that you prefer a war, in alliance with imperialist powers, and the attendant nationalist ideology, to revolution.

Strange, but can you please give me some examples with NAMES. There were German communists who cross Soviet border to warn Red Army about the Invasion. There were German communists in underground fighting Nazi and providing very valuable information to GRU and NKVD. There were German communists as agitators in Red Army, usually they used machine with loud speakers. But, with all my respect to German communists, there were no suicidal tendencies in the Party.

[Blake's Baby]

All the Communists had been expelled from the ComIntern by that point. The ones that the Gestapo hadn't killed, after the NKVD handed over the lists of names.

Meanwhile, real communists were agitating in Nazi-occupied Europe as well as in the 'democracies' for soldiers to fraternise and turn their guns on their officers, while at the same time arranging passage to safer countries to escape both the Gestapo and the NKVD.

The fact that you're ignorant Burzhuin, and refuse to believe people because it's against your religion, does not make them liars, it makes you closed-minded.

[Emmett Till]

All the Communists had been expelled from the ComIntern by that point. The ones that the Gestapo hadn't killed, after the NKVD handed over the lists of names.

Meanwhile, real communists were agitating in Nazi-occupied Europe as well as in the 'democracies' for soldiers to fraternise and turn their guns on their officers, while at the same time arranging passage to safer countries to escape both the Gestapo and the NKVD.

The fact that you're ignorant Burzhuin, and refuse to believe people because it's against your religion, does not make them liars, it makes you closed-minded.

And sometimes with considerable success, especially in France.

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/944/archives.html

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Please list ALL Communist parties not even in Europe, but in Russia, and YOUR REASONS why those parties are not revolutionary. As of right now I consider this statement as pure LIE.

What "Communist parties"? First of all, the various groups that call themselves communist, revolutionary, etc. etc. mostly fail at being parties. I don't know how many two-member splits of the Russian Maoist Party exist, on paper, in Russia. Or how many zero-member parties Oleg Vernik is organising in the Ukraine to scam money out of gullible westerners. Of these organisations only the KPRF acts as a party - a bourgeois party, with private property enshrined in its programme, along with its national chauvinism, homophobia etc.


Strange, but can you please give me some examples with NAMES. There were German communists who cross Soviet border to warn Red Army about the Invasion. There were German communists in underground fighting Nazi and providing very valuable information to GRU and NKVD. There were German communists as agitators in Red Army, usually they used machine with loud speakers. But, with all my respect to German communists, there were no suicidal tendencies in the Party.

People have already answered this.

But I can provide some other names. Names of "socialists" and "communists" in France who pre-empted the Popular Front policy and threw themselves enthusiastically into a nationalist opposition to fascism based on demonising Germans, particularly German workers, and those that fought for international revolution. Names like Doriot, Deat, Maquet and so on. Do these names sound familiar to you? Of course, they were all the leaders of the far right in WWII.

See, clever lads that they were, they figured out that if you're going to collaborate with the bourgeoisie and crush all challenges to bourgeois rule in the name of national unity, a national unity predicated on military struggle between nations, you may as well start killing Jews and Roma.

[cyu]

http://i.imgur.com/UaiAnjg.jpg

[Gnat60]

In or out of the EU won't make any difference to workers both the EU as well as national governments are inflicting austerity on workers. The only response is to be involved in struggles while giving a clear Marxist analysis/perspective.

[cyu]

Abraham Lincoln always told me to trust Gnat60 ;)

[Guardia Rossa]

It is hard, to be between the anvil and the hammer.

People here in Brazil say that we should dump the Worker's Party to start an all-out class struggle against the nationalists, but I'm afraid that, there won't be a struggle, but a massacre and another 1964...

They outnumber us, and the communists themselves are fractured and influenced by reactionary or revisionist bourgeois ideologies.

Things look brighter in other nations, especially some parts of Europe, though.

[Burzhuin]

1.All the Communists had been expelled from the ComIntern by that point. The ones that the Gestapo hadn't killed, after the NKVD handed over the lists of names.

2.Meanwhile, real communists were agitating in Nazi-occupied Europe as well as in the 'democracies' for soldiers to fraternise and turn their guns on their officers, while at the same time arranging passage to safer countries to escape both the Gestapo and the NKVD.

3.The fact that you're ignorant Burzhuin, and refuse to believe people because it's against your religion, does not make them liars, it makes you closed-minded.
Let start by points.

1. I do not know how even react on this, I wanted to say bullshit, but for a sake of politeness I will call it crap. According to my knowledge Georgi Dimitrov, Joseph Bros Tito, Ernst Thalmann, and countless other communists were not expelled from Comintern (I mean III International). More than that Dimitrov was leader of Executive Counsel of Comintern.
I heard so much about lists NKVD handed to Gestapo. But I could not find any prove of it. My nephew is working on his PhD in History. His topic is similar to what we are discussing. I sent him email and his response was simple there is no any prove of those rumors.

2. About real communists... I do not argue the point about agitation. But REAL COMMUNISTS were agitating by bullets, TNT and it was the most effective way to agitate. Yes those who did not fight helped other people to escape Nazi oppression. I heard that even some people did good amount of money on this business. But in my opinion it has as much ground as NKVD providing lists of communists to Gestapo.

3. I never claimed that I know everything. If you refer to my Marxist-Leninist believes so you can call it religion, but for me it is Science allowing me to analyze the current society, its history. That is why I am really grateful to those who provide me with new, unknown facts and documents.

[Burzhuin]

1. What "Communist parties"? First of all, the various groups that call themselves communist, revolutionary, etc. etc. mostly fail at being parties. I don't know how many two-member splits of the Russian Maoist Party exist, on paper, in Russia. Or how many zero-member parties Oleg Vernik is organising in the Ukraine to scam money out of gullible westerners. Of these organisations only the KPRF acts as a party - a bourgeois party, with private property enshrined in its programme, along with its national chauvinism, homophobia etc.



2. People have already answered this.

3. But I can provide some other names. Names of "socialists" and "communists" in France who pre-empted the Popular Front policy and threw themselves enthusiastically into a nationalist opposition to fascism based on demonising Germans, particularly German workers, and those that fought for international revolution. Names like Doriot, Deat, Maquet and so on. Do these names sound familiar to you? Of course, they were all the leaders of the far right in WWII.

4. See, clever lads that they were, they figured out that if you're going to collaborate with the bourgeoisie and crush all challenges to bourgeois rule in the name of national unity, a national unity predicated on military struggle between nations, you may as well start killing Jews and Roma.
1. I am Workers Party of Russia member. I KNOW that this party is really revolutionary one. If you can read Russian I can send you the link.

2. So far I have not heard names.

3. Thank you. I never heard those names. But I will check them out.

4. My opinion will be based on my research.

[Burzhuin]

It is hard, to be between the anvil and the hammer.

People here in Brazil say that we should dump the Worker's Party to start an all-out class struggle against the nationalists, but I'm afraid that, there won't be a struggle, but a massacre and another 1964...

They outnumber us, and the communists themselves are fractured and influenced by reactionary or revisionist bourgeois ideologies.

Things look brighter in other nations, especially some parts of Europe, though.
I hope you are wrong about "another 1964". But you live there and I can trust you know better.

But Europe... What parts (countries) of Europe did you mean?

[blake 3:17]

Really interesting piece. Check the Good, Bad and Ugly.

EU REFERENDUM: HOW SHOULD THE LEFT VOTE?

John Hilary, Executive Director, War on Want

On New Year’s Day 1973, the UK joined the European Union – or, as it then was, the European Economic Community (EEC). Two years later, in June 1975, a national referendum confirmed the UK’s membership. At some point before the end of 2017, the British people will again be given the chance to vote in a referendum on whether we wish to remain in the EU. So which way should the Left vote?

War on Want will not be running a campaign for the UK to leave or to remain in the EU. We hold to the principle of internationalism that unites social movements across borders, and we remain actively committed to the task of building a People’s Europe from below, whatever the institutions imposed from above.

At the same time, on the basis of our close engagement with EU policy over many years, we are keen to dispel some of the myths that have been put out concerning the true nature of the EU institutions, particularly by those campaigning for the UK to remain in the EU. To this end we present here a brief and balanced guide to the European Union: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.

http://www.waronwant.org/media/eu-referendum-how-should-left-vote

[PikSmeet]

In or out, does it matter? The workers will still be exploited. That is what we have to keep in mind.

[TheEmancipator]

Well, ask yourself: should socialists have extended any support to the United Arab Republic?

Yes, largely because its head was the leader of land ownership reforms in Egypt and a committed Socialist.

The EU is a liberal creation though.

[PikSmeet]

^^Oh no he wasn't! He was just a cruel dictator running his version of capitalism, there never has been any socialism in Egypt or any where else for that matter.