Commie-nationalist

[Che06]

well im all for communism, but im also all for my country, is that a contridiction of terms or what?

[Che06]

well im all for communism, but im also all for my country, is that a contridiction of terms or what?

[Che06]

well im all for communism, but im also all for my country, is that a contridiction of terms or what?

[EusebioScrib]

Depends what you mean by "for my country." What do you mean by it?

[EusebioScrib]

Depends what you mean by "for my country." What do you mean by it?

[EusebioScrib]

Depends what you mean by "for my country." What do you mean by it?

[Che06]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 11:09 PM
Depends what you mean by "for my country." What do you mean by it?
as in if it were WWII and my country was going to go fight nazi scum i would be the first in line to go over there.

[Che06]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 11:09 PM
Depends what you mean by "for my country." What do you mean by it?
as in if it were WWII and my country was going to go fight nazi scum i would be the first in line to go over there.

[Che06]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 11:09 PM
Depends what you mean by "for my country." What do you mean by it?
as in if it were WWII and my country was going to go fight nazi scum i would be the first in line to go over there.

[EusebioScrib]

Fight for your country in an imperialist war? Not very communistic, eh?

Pick a side. Your class or them.

[EusebioScrib]

Fight for your country in an imperialist war? Not very communistic, eh?

Pick a side. Your class or them.

[EusebioScrib]

Fight for your country in an imperialist war? Not very communistic, eh?

Pick a side. Your class or them.

[Ian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 03:18 PM
Fight for your country in an imperialist war? Not very communistic, eh?

:rolleyes:

Sure it was a war between imperialist rivals, but you'd have to try pretty hard to find a greater success for the global proletariat than WW2 and the defeat of Nazism.

I'm not sure you "get it"

[Ian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 03:18 PM
Fight for your country in an imperialist war? Not very communistic, eh?

:rolleyes:

Sure it was a war between imperialist rivals, but you'd have to try pretty hard to find a greater success for the global proletariat than WW2 and the defeat of Nazism.

I'm not sure you "get it"

[Ian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 03:18 PM
Fight for your country in an imperialist war? Not very communistic, eh?

:rolleyes:

Sure it was a war between imperialist rivals, but you'd have to try pretty hard to find a greater success for the global proletariat than WW2 and the defeat of Nazism.

I'm not sure you "get it"

[EusebioScrib]

but you'd have to try pretty hard to find a greater success for the global proletariat than WW2 and the defeat of Nazism.

WW2 had nothing to do with the proletariat! It was an inter-bourgeois struggle to which we were merely spectaors and pawns. There were instances of proles rising up etc, but thats merely an effect.

[EusebioScrib]

but you'd have to try pretty hard to find a greater success for the global proletariat than WW2 and the defeat of Nazism.

WW2 had nothing to do with the proletariat! It was an inter-bourgeois struggle to which we were merely spectaors and pawns. There were instances of proles rising up etc, but thats merely an effect.

[EusebioScrib]

but you'd have to try pretty hard to find a greater success for the global proletariat than WW2 and the defeat of Nazism.

WW2 had nothing to do with the proletariat! It was an inter-bourgeois struggle to which we were merely spectaors and pawns. There were instances of proles rising up etc, but thats merely an effect.

[Ian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 03:55 PM
WW2 had nothing to do with the proletariat!
Proved yourself clueless about history right there.

The revolutionary elements of the Proletariat struggled against the fascist occupation all over Europe and Asia, without the efforts of armed Proletarians -the Chinese and Russian Red armies, the Partisans of Yugoslavia and occupied Russia, the French resistance, the Viet Minh, the communists of Malaya, Phillipines, Korea- the forces of reaction would have steamrolled across Europe and Asia and subjagated all working class movements. "Spectators and pawns" hah!

Oh! But your History teacher told you that USA beat Germany and Japan single handedly! Face it, without revolutionaries taking the fight to the fascists the war would have been lost.

[Ian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 03:55 PM
WW2 had nothing to do with the proletariat!
Proved yourself clueless about history right there.

The revolutionary elements of the Proletariat struggled against the fascist occupation all over Europe and Asia, without the efforts of armed Proletarians -the Chinese and Russian Red armies, the Partisans of Yugoslavia and occupied Russia, the French resistance, the Viet Minh, the communists of Malaya, Phillipines, Korea- the forces of reaction would have steamrolled across Europe and Asia and subjagated all working class movements. "Spectators and pawns" hah!

Oh! But your History teacher told you that USA beat Germany and Japan single handedly! Face it, without revolutionaries taking the fight to the fascists the war would have been lost.

[Ian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 03:55 PM
WW2 had nothing to do with the proletariat!
Proved yourself clueless about history right there.

The revolutionary elements of the Proletariat struggled against the fascist occupation all over Europe and Asia, without the efforts of armed Proletarians -the Chinese and Russian Red armies, the Partisans of Yugoslavia and occupied Russia, the French resistance, the Viet Minh, the communists of Malaya, Phillipines, Korea- the forces of reaction would have steamrolled across Europe and Asia and subjagated all working class movements. "Spectators and pawns" hah!

Oh! But your History teacher told you that USA beat Germany and Japan single handedly! Face it, without revolutionaries taking the fight to the fascists the war would have been lost.

[EusebioScrib]

The revolutionary elements of the Proletariat struggled against the fascist occupation all over Europe and Asia, without the efforts of armed Proletarians -the Chinese and Russian Red armies, the Partisans of Yugoslavia and occupied Russia, the French resistance, the Viet Minh, the communists of Malaya, Phillipines, Korea- the forces of reaction would have steamrolled across Europe and Asia and subjagated all working class movements. "Spectators and pawns" hah!


Russian and Chinese armies were pawns of their respective rulers. The Partisans and resistance movements were all reactions to their own imperialists who ceised the opporutnity to depose of them.

I'm discussing the nature of WW2. WW2 wasn't started because of the working class. The nature of WW2 was entirely imperialist. That's merely all I'm saying.


Oh! But your History teacher told you that USA beat Germany and Japan single handedly!

Umm, no.

[EusebioScrib]

The revolutionary elements of the Proletariat struggled against the fascist occupation all over Europe and Asia, without the efforts of armed Proletarians -the Chinese and Russian Red armies, the Partisans of Yugoslavia and occupied Russia, the French resistance, the Viet Minh, the communists of Malaya, Phillipines, Korea- the forces of reaction would have steamrolled across Europe and Asia and subjagated all working class movements. "Spectators and pawns" hah!


Russian and Chinese armies were pawns of their respective rulers. The Partisans and resistance movements were all reactions to their own imperialists who ceised the opporutnity to depose of them.

I'm discussing the nature of WW2. WW2 wasn't started because of the working class. The nature of WW2 was entirely imperialist. That's merely all I'm saying.


Oh! But your History teacher told you that USA beat Germany and Japan single handedly!

Umm, no.

[EusebioScrib]

The revolutionary elements of the Proletariat struggled against the fascist occupation all over Europe and Asia, without the efforts of armed Proletarians -the Chinese and Russian Red armies, the Partisans of Yugoslavia and occupied Russia, the French resistance, the Viet Minh, the communists of Malaya, Phillipines, Korea- the forces of reaction would have steamrolled across Europe and Asia and subjagated all working class movements. "Spectators and pawns" hah!


Russian and Chinese armies were pawns of their respective rulers. The Partisans and resistance movements were all reactions to their own imperialists who ceised the opporutnity to depose of them.

I'm discussing the nature of WW2. WW2 wasn't started because of the working class. The nature of WW2 was entirely imperialist. That's merely all I'm saying.


Oh! But your History teacher told you that USA beat Germany and Japan single handedly!

Umm, no.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 02:53 PM
well im all for communism, but im also all for my country, is that a contridiction of terms or what?
It's a contradiction. Because "communism" is in theory (irrespective of the result in actuality) trying to have the state "wither away", ... eventually.

However, since a socialist believes in the continuation of the state, that is, afterall the downfall of the capitalist state, you can then be a socialist-nationalist - afterall, if you look at most "communistic" revoutions etc, they are more accurately described as socialist due to their nature of continueing the existance of the state, not even mentioning their strong nationalist sentiments... :P

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 02:53 PM
well im all for communism, but im also all for my country, is that a contridiction of terms or what?
It's a contradiction. Because "communism" is in theory (irrespective of the result in actuality) trying to have the state "wither away", ... eventually.

However, since a socialist believes in the continuation of the state, that is, afterall the downfall of the capitalist state, you can then be a socialist-nationalist - afterall, if you look at most "communistic" revoutions etc, they are more accurately described as socialist due to their nature of continueing the existance of the state, not even mentioning their strong nationalist sentiments... :P

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 02:53 PM
well im all for communism, but im also all for my country, is that a contridiction of terms or what?
It's a contradiction. Because "communism" is in theory (irrespective of the result in actuality) trying to have the state "wither away", ... eventually.

However, since a socialist believes in the continuation of the state, that is, afterall the downfall of the capitalist state, you can then be a socialist-nationalist - afterall, if you look at most "communistic" revoutions etc, they are more accurately described as socialist due to their nature of continueing the existance of the state, not even mentioning their strong nationalist sentiments... :P

[Palmares]

And just to stop the annoying replies coming, there has thus far, not been one successful transitional state that has "withered away".

[Palmares]

And just to stop the annoying replies coming, there has thus far, not been one successful transitional state that has "withered away".

[Palmares]

And just to stop the annoying replies coming, there has thus far, not been one successful transitional state that has "withered away".

[Ian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:49 PM
I'm discussing the nature of WW2. WW2 wasn't started because of the working class. The nature of WW2 was entirely imperialist. That's merely all I'm saying.
Nah, you said "WW2 had nothing to do with the proletariat!" and now you are backpedalling pretty hard. But you still got a bit of pedalling to do before you arrive at the fact that the organised working classes around the world were instrumental in the defeat of fascism.

The shame of all this is you have managed to help the bourgeoisie further paint WW2 as 'their' war. Or maybe you just fell for the history that's been fed to you without thinking about all the history that has been stolen from you and this class.

[Ian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:49 PM
I'm discussing the nature of WW2. WW2 wasn't started because of the working class. The nature of WW2 was entirely imperialist. That's merely all I'm saying.
Nah, you said "WW2 had nothing to do with the proletariat!" and now you are backpedalling pretty hard. But you still got a bit of pedalling to do before you arrive at the fact that the organised working classes around the world were instrumental in the defeat of fascism.

The shame of all this is you have managed to help the bourgeoisie further paint WW2 as 'their' war. Or maybe you just fell for the history that's been fed to you without thinking about all the history that has been stolen from you and this class.

[Ian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:49 PM
I'm discussing the nature of WW2. WW2 wasn't started because of the working class. The nature of WW2 was entirely imperialist. That's merely all I'm saying.
Nah, you said "WW2 had nothing to do with the proletariat!" and now you are backpedalling pretty hard. But you still got a bit of pedalling to do before you arrive at the fact that the organised working classes around the world were instrumental in the defeat of fascism.

The shame of all this is you have managed to help the bourgeoisie further paint WW2 as 'their' war. Or maybe you just fell for the history that's been fed to you without thinking about all the history that has been stolen from you and this class.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:53 AM
well im all for communism, but im also all for my country, is that a contridiction of terms or what?
Yes.

Communism is an internationalist idea, not a nationalist one. Nations are arbitrary distinctions between cultures and land mass. Being "for your country" implies that you are not "for" any other country.

Communism is against nations and for the creation of an international world where nations no longer exist. Even your country.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:53 AM
well im all for communism, but im also all for my country, is that a contridiction of terms or what?
Yes.

Communism is an internationalist idea, not a nationalist one. Nations are arbitrary distinctions between cultures and land mass. Being "for your country" implies that you are not "for" any other country.

Communism is against nations and for the creation of an international world where nations no longer exist. Even your country.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:53 AM
well im all for communism, but im also all for my country, is that a contridiction of terms or what?
Yes.

Communism is an internationalist idea, not a nationalist one. Nations are arbitrary distinctions between cultures and land mass. Being "for your country" implies that you are not "for" any other country.

Communism is against nations and for the creation of an international world where nations no longer exist. Even your country.

[Guest1]

That being said, fighting the Nazis does not make you a nationalist.

[Guest1]

That being said, fighting the Nazis does not make you a nationalist.

[Guest1]

That being said, fighting the Nazis does not make you a nationalist.

[KC]

well im all for communism, but im also all for my country, is that a contridiction of terms or what?

Yes. This is an excerpt taken from the Basic Principles of the Communist League:


Originally posted by Basic Principles+--> (Basic Principles)13. The rise of the world market and a relatively integrated world capitalist system has ruled out in advance the idea that the transition from capitalism to communism can be completed on a local or national scale. Even if a proletarian revolution in a given country succeeded in eliminating all aspects of the indigenous bourgeoisie, that section of the proletariat is still confronted with the combined power of the bourgeoisie of all countries. Thus, resolving decisively the contradictions associated with the transition to communism requires the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, and the abolition of private property, on a world scale.

Capitalism’s attempts at integrating the world capitalist market have resulted in the central contradiction of today’s society — the contradiction between the international character of the capitalist market and the national character of the bourgeoisie and capital itself — becoming more and more aggravated. In order for this contradiction to be resolved progressively, it is necessary for the character of capital to match the character of its market. One of the central tasks of a workers’ republic, as it moves ever closer to the abolition of classes, is the systematic integration of society on a world scale. National political structures must give way to the formation of a global body politic and a global political system; national cultures must integrate and evolve into a worldwide culture that takes the best elements of all societies and democratizes them.[/b]
-Source (http://www.communistleague.org/page.php?6)


Cthenthar
And just to stop the annoying replies coming, there has thus far, not been one successful transitional state that has "withered away".

Well, yeah. The state can wither away only when the class antagonisms have been eradicated worldwide. And so far, this hasn't happened.

[KC]

well im all for communism, but im also all for my country, is that a contridiction of terms or what?

Yes. This is an excerpt taken from the Basic Principles of the Communist League:


Originally posted by Basic Principles+--> (Basic Principles)13. The rise of the world market and a relatively integrated world capitalist system has ruled out in advance the idea that the transition from capitalism to communism can be completed on a local or national scale. Even if a proletarian revolution in a given country succeeded in eliminating all aspects of the indigenous bourgeoisie, that section of the proletariat is still confronted with the combined power of the bourgeoisie of all countries. Thus, resolving decisively the contradictions associated with the transition to communism requires the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, and the abolition of private property, on a world scale.

Capitalism’s attempts at integrating the world capitalist market have resulted in the central contradiction of today’s society — the contradiction between the international character of the capitalist market and the national character of the bourgeoisie and capital itself — becoming more and more aggravated. In order for this contradiction to be resolved progressively, it is necessary for the character of capital to match the character of its market. One of the central tasks of a workers’ republic, as it moves ever closer to the abolition of classes, is the systematic integration of society on a world scale. National political structures must give way to the formation of a global body politic and a global political system; national cultures must integrate and evolve into a worldwide culture that takes the best elements of all societies and democratizes them.[/b]
-Source (http://www.communistleague.org/page.php?6)


Cthenthar
And just to stop the annoying replies coming, there has thus far, not been one successful transitional state that has "withered away".

Well, yeah. The state can wither away only when the class antagonisms have been eradicated worldwide. And so far, this hasn't happened.

[KC]

well im all for communism, but im also all for my country, is that a contridiction of terms or what?

Yes. This is an excerpt taken from the Basic Principles of the Communist League:


Originally posted by Basic Principles+--> (Basic Principles)13. The rise of the world market and a relatively integrated world capitalist system has ruled out in advance the idea that the transition from capitalism to communism can be completed on a local or national scale. Even if a proletarian revolution in a given country succeeded in eliminating all aspects of the indigenous bourgeoisie, that section of the proletariat is still confronted with the combined power of the bourgeoisie of all countries. Thus, resolving decisively the contradictions associated with the transition to communism requires the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, and the abolition of private property, on a world scale.

Capitalism’s attempts at integrating the world capitalist market have resulted in the central contradiction of today’s society — the contradiction between the international character of the capitalist market and the national character of the bourgeoisie and capital itself — becoming more and more aggravated. In order for this contradiction to be resolved progressively, it is necessary for the character of capital to match the character of its market. One of the central tasks of a workers’ republic, as it moves ever closer to the abolition of classes, is the systematic integration of society on a world scale. National political structures must give way to the formation of a global body politic and a global political system; national cultures must integrate and evolve into a worldwide culture that takes the best elements of all societies and democratizes them.[/b]
-Source (http://www.communistleague.org/page.php?6)


Cthenthar
And just to stop the annoying replies coming, there has thus far, not been one successful transitional state that has "withered away".

Well, yeah. The state can wither away only when the class antagonisms have been eradicated worldwide. And so far, this hasn't happened.

[Free Left]

well im all for communism, but im also all for my country, is that a contridiction of terms or what?

Yes, you cannot be a nationalist and a Communist. Just dosen't work, full stop.

[Free Left]

well im all for communism, but im also all for my country, is that a contridiction of terms or what?

Yes, you cannot be a nationalist and a Communist. Just dosen't work, full stop.

[Free Left]

well im all for communism, but im also all for my country, is that a contridiction of terms or what?

Yes, you cannot be a nationalist and a Communist. Just dosen't work, full stop.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 22 2006, 12:57 PM
Well, yeah. The state can wither away only when the class antagonisms have been eradicated worldwide. And so far, this hasn't happened.
And therein lays the fundamental flaw.

While we are waiting for this to happen the state invariably corrupts, creates a bureaucratic autocratic system/class which eventually leads to the restoration of capitalism. This is what happened in Russia and China and what is now happening in Cuba.

If you perpetuate the state the state will perpetuate itself and consolidates its control over society. By the time the world has overthrown the bourgeoisie the working class in these other countries will need a new revolution to overthrow their new rulers. Who, again, invariably become more and more neo-liberal as the generations go on.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 22 2006, 12:57 PM
Well, yeah. The state can wither away only when the class antagonisms have been eradicated worldwide. And so far, this hasn't happened.
And therein lays the fundamental flaw.

While we are waiting for this to happen the state invariably corrupts, creates a bureaucratic autocratic system/class which eventually leads to the restoration of capitalism. This is what happened in Russia and China and what is now happening in Cuba.

If you perpetuate the state the state will perpetuate itself and consolidates its control over society. By the time the world has overthrown the bourgeoisie the working class in these other countries will need a new revolution to overthrow their new rulers. Who, again, invariably become more and more neo-liberal as the generations go on.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 22 2006, 12:57 PM
Well, yeah. The state can wither away only when the class antagonisms have been eradicated worldwide. And so far, this hasn't happened.
And therein lays the fundamental flaw.

While we are waiting for this to happen the state invariably corrupts, creates a bureaucratic autocratic system/class which eventually leads to the restoration of capitalism. This is what happened in Russia and China and what is now happening in Cuba.

If you perpetuate the state the state will perpetuate itself and consolidates its control over society. By the time the world has overthrown the bourgeoisie the working class in these other countries will need a new revolution to overthrow their new rulers. Who, again, invariably become more and more neo-liberal as the generations go on.

[KC]

While we are waiting for this to happen the state invariably corrupts, creates a bureaucratic autocratic system/class which eventually leads to the restoration of capitalism. This is what happened in Russia and China and what is now happening in Cuba.


Yes, that is what happens when you have an isolated proletarian revolution. It is obviously going to fail. Hence why the transition must be implemented on an international scale.

[KC]

While we are waiting for this to happen the state invariably corrupts, creates a bureaucratic autocratic system/class which eventually leads to the restoration of capitalism. This is what happened in Russia and China and what is now happening in Cuba.


Yes, that is what happens when you have an isolated proletarian revolution. It is obviously going to fail. Hence why the transition must be implemented on an international scale.

[KC]

While we are waiting for this to happen the state invariably corrupts, creates a bureaucratic autocratic system/class which eventually leads to the restoration of capitalism. This is what happened in Russia and China and what is now happening in Cuba.


Yes, that is what happens when you have an isolated proletarian revolution. It is obviously going to fail. Hence why the transition must be implemented on an international scale.

[EusebioScrib]

Nah, you said "WW2 had nothing to do with the proletariat!" and now you are backpedalling pretty hard. But you still got a bit of pedalling to do before you arrive at the fact that the organised working classes around the world were instrumental in the defeat of fascism.

The shame of all this is you have managed to help the bourgeoisie further paint WW2 as 'their' war. Or maybe you just fell for the history that's been fed to you without thinking about all the history that has been stolen from you and this class.

Before I get *****ed at for derailing another thread, let me start another topic...see you in history bucko!

[EusebioScrib]

Nah, you said "WW2 had nothing to do with the proletariat!" and now you are backpedalling pretty hard. But you still got a bit of pedalling to do before you arrive at the fact that the organised working classes around the world were instrumental in the defeat of fascism.

The shame of all this is you have managed to help the bourgeoisie further paint WW2 as 'their' war. Or maybe you just fell for the history that's been fed to you without thinking about all the history that has been stolen from you and this class.

Before I get *****ed at for derailing another thread, let me start another topic...see you in history bucko!

[EusebioScrib]

Nah, you said "WW2 had nothing to do with the proletariat!" and now you are backpedalling pretty hard. But you still got a bit of pedalling to do before you arrive at the fact that the organised working classes around the world were instrumental in the defeat of fascism.

The shame of all this is you have managed to help the bourgeoisie further paint WW2 as 'their' war. Or maybe you just fell for the history that's been fed to you without thinking about all the history that has been stolen from you and this class.

Before I get *****ed at for derailing another thread, let me start another topic...see you in history bucko!

[Rawthentic]

You dont have to start another thread for everything Eusebio, but whatever. Anyway, I completely disagree with nationalism as well. It divides people, especially the proletariat, into two different people, who should actually be united as one, fighting capitalism. One should be "for all countries" in the sense that they support the oppressed in all the world, forcing aside national divisions.

[Rawthentic]

You dont have to start another thread for everything Eusebio, but whatever. Anyway, I completely disagree with nationalism as well. It divides people, especially the proletariat, into two different people, who should actually be united as one, fighting capitalism. One should be "for all countries" in the sense that they support the oppressed in all the world, forcing aside national divisions.

[Rawthentic]

You dont have to start another thread for everything Eusebio, but whatever. Anyway, I completely disagree with nationalism as well. It divides people, especially the proletariat, into two different people, who should actually be united as one, fighting capitalism. One should be "for all countries" in the sense that they support the oppressed in all the world, forcing aside national divisions.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Nationalism does suck as it divides people however in the WW2 analogy I'd probably side with Che06 on this one.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Nationalism does suck as it divides people however in the WW2 analogy I'd probably side with Che06 on this one.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Nationalism does suck as it divides people however in the WW2 analogy I'd probably side with Che06 on this one.

[Rawthentic]

Well, I would fight the "Nazi scum", but not under any national banner or for nationalist sentiments, simply for fighting fascism

[Rawthentic]

Well, I would fight the "Nazi scum", but not under any national banner or for nationalist sentiments, simply for fighting fascism

[Rawthentic]

Well, I would fight the "Nazi scum", but not under any national banner or for nationalist sentiments, simply for fighting fascism

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 22 2006, 05:31 PM

While we are waiting for this to happen the state invariably corrupts, creates a bureaucratic autocratic system/class which eventually leads to the restoration of capitalism. This is what happened in Russia and China and what is now happening in Cuba.


Yes, that is what happens when you have an isolated proletarian revolution. It is obviously going to fail. Hence why the transition must be implemented on an international scale.
And what happens if it isn't? That's quite likely thing to happen.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 22 2006, 05:31 PM

While we are waiting for this to happen the state invariably corrupts, creates a bureaucratic autocratic system/class which eventually leads to the restoration of capitalism. This is what happened in Russia and China and what is now happening in Cuba.


Yes, that is what happens when you have an isolated proletarian revolution. It is obviously going to fail. Hence why the transition must be implemented on an international scale.
And what happens if it isn't? That's quite likely thing to happen.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 22 2006, 05:31 PM

While we are waiting for this to happen the state invariably corrupts, creates a bureaucratic autocratic system/class which eventually leads to the restoration of capitalism. This is what happened in Russia and China and what is now happening in Cuba.


Yes, that is what happens when you have an isolated proletarian revolution. It is obviously going to fail. Hence why the transition must be implemented on an international scale.
And what happens if it isn't? That's quite likely thing to happen.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 07:49 PM

Nah, you said "WW2 had nothing to do with the proletariat!" and now you are backpedalling pretty hard. But you still got a bit of pedalling to do before you arrive at the fact that the organised working classes around the world were instrumental in the defeat of fascism.

The shame of all this is you have managed to help the bourgeoisie further paint WW2 as 'their' war. Or maybe you just fell for the history that's been fed to you without thinking about all the history that has been stolen from you and this class.

Before I get *****ed at for derailing another thread, let me start another topic...see you in history bucko!
You're allowed to follow a debate if it progresses off topic. You're just not allowed to have personal political slanging matches in threads.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 07:49 PM

Nah, you said "WW2 had nothing to do with the proletariat!" and now you are backpedalling pretty hard. But you still got a bit of pedalling to do before you arrive at the fact that the organised working classes around the world were instrumental in the defeat of fascism.

The shame of all this is you have managed to help the bourgeoisie further paint WW2 as 'their' war. Or maybe you just fell for the history that's been fed to you without thinking about all the history that has been stolen from you and this class.

Before I get *****ed at for derailing another thread, let me start another topic...see you in history bucko!
You're allowed to follow a debate if it progresses off topic. You're just not allowed to have personal political slanging matches in threads.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 07:49 PM

Nah, you said "WW2 had nothing to do with the proletariat!" and now you are backpedalling pretty hard. But you still got a bit of pedalling to do before you arrive at the fact that the organised working classes around the world were instrumental in the defeat of fascism.

The shame of all this is you have managed to help the bourgeoisie further paint WW2 as 'their' war. Or maybe you just fell for the history that's been fed to you without thinking about all the history that has been stolen from you and this class.

Before I get *****ed at for derailing another thread, let me start another topic...see you in history bucko!
You're allowed to follow a debate if it progresses off topic. You're just not allowed to have personal political slanging matches in threads.

[KC]

And what happens if it isn't? That's quite likely thing to happen.

Huh?

[KC]

And what happens if it isn't? That's quite likely thing to happen.

Huh?

[KC]

And what happens if it isn't? That's quite likely thing to happen.

Huh?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 23 2006, 06:21 PM

And what happens if it isn't? That's quite likely thing to happen.

Huh?
Sorry. What I meant is, what happens if the revolution isn't international. I think it's highly unlikely that this will ever be the case.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 26 2006, 12:19 PM
Sorry. What I meant is, what happens if the revolution isn't international. I think it's highly unlikely that this will ever be the case.
Then it will fail, and will cease to be a revolution the second it stops behind ANY boundary, be it physical or political.

The problem is that you end up 'digging in' behind the very thing your trying to destroy, i.e. national boundaries.

The USSR and Cuba are both perfect examples of this.

The only possible exception to this is if the Revolution happened in the USA first, but even then you would still have to have continued Revolution throughout the capitalist nations. i.e. The British ruling class would fight with everything they had to stop Britain becoming communist, whether the US was communist or not.
------------

With regards the question at the start of this thread, you can call yourself anything you want, but Communism and Nationalism (even at times of war) are opposites.

Defending what you believe in against the Fascist hordes is fine and perfectly legitimate, but you would have to decide what you were fighting for, and if it was to protect your national borders from invasion then that has nothing to do with communism.

[Sasha Suvorov]

Originally posted by Cthenthar+Jun 22 2006, 07:52 AM--> (Cthenthar @ Jun 22 2006, 07:52 AM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 02:53 PM
well im all for communism, but im also all for my country, is that a contridiction of terms or what?
It's a contradiction. Because "communism" is in theory (irrespective of the result in actuality) trying to have the state "wither away", ... eventually.

However, since a socialist believes in the continuation of the state, that is, afterall the downfall of the capitalist state, you can then be a socialist-nationalist - afterall, if you look at most "communistic" revoutions etc, they are more accurately described as socialist due to their nature of continueing the existance of the state, not even mentioning their strong nationalist sentiments... :P [/b]
Perhaps a stupid question, but what of groups like the National Bolsheviks? I don't know much about them, but I'm led to believe they are pretty much the 'white power communist' answer to the various other 'white power' groups out there. I know they hate the US for it's repeated highhandeness in its international dealings!

Aren't the NBP pretty much looking for a return to some semblance of communism, with a touch of racist elitism thrown in the mix?

[Guest1]

No, the NBP are just the Nazi party repackaged. Same flag, same play on socialist solgans and symbols, only the communist symbols and slogans are the ones that fly in russia. So obviously they're the ones they would take.

[Raj Radical]

Im nationalist when it comes to the World Cup. :lol:


USA! USA! USA!

You can kiss my nationalist ass also, soccer rules. :wub: