Results 21 to 40 of 86
Also, a Stalinist is going to cry about how Stalinists got stuck in a prison camp? However when anybody else gets stuck in one because dear leader Stalin sent them there it is justified. Stalinists have too much blood on their hands to even begin to point fingers at people for sticking others in camps.
No, movie is briliant. It's good critique of all you idiotic paranoid Stalinists and how funny you are. Also, it's black humor - something which is really distinctive when it comes to Serbian cinema. After all you should watch Croatian/Bosnian/Serbian movies about 90's war to see how you can make fun of everything and make anti-war message.
"People's" Poland didn't take Western loans? The Eastern Bloc was not dependent on any Soviet subsidy? Is that your claim?
What is your source for the valuation of the USSR economy, and for what year?
Tito betrayed proletarian internationalism? The origins of the Tito-Stalin split lie not in some sort of supposed revisionism on the party of the CPY and Tito but that Tito sought to help the Greek Democratic Army in the Greek Civil War. Stalin on the other hand decided to respect the percentages agreement he made with Churchill which stipulated Greece was to be in the UK's sphere of influence. So Stalin sold the Greeks out to British imperialism. Stalin also did not like Tito's initiative of a Balkan Federation with Bulgaria despite the fact that well you know socialism is supposed to bring nationalities together! Now under theories approved by Stalin, the PCI was allowed to have an Italian Road to Socialism and Stalin personally approved the CPGB's British Road to Socialism which is pretty fucking reformist (socialism will come to the UK through an elected coalition government of Labour and the CPGB!). Yet apparently Tito's Yugoslav Road to Socialism was somehow revisionist and in league with the imperialists... It was that supposed friend of imperialism Tito that almost brought the US to attack Yugoslavia over its role in the Greek Civil War. Or how about this: Stalin and Tito were both dictators whose interests clashed. Stalin was a chauvinist believing he had every right to lead the Communist Bloc and all Tito wanted to do was promote slavic unity and not slavishly follow Moscow. Though both were dictators at least Tito was behaving in an anti-imperialist fashion. Stalinists like to call Tito revisionist with his worker's self management system yet that system was not introduced until the 1950's! Yugoslavia initially used 5 year plans like the USSR! So what is it that fundamentally made Tito a revisionist at that point other than refusing Moscow's interference in Yugoslavia through USSR-SFRY joint-stock companies? Care to give us an in depth political economy of SFRY 1945-1950 to show how Tito was a revisionist? I don't consider either of them to be socialist, but at least Tito had a decent foreign policy instead of the opportunism coming out of Moscow which killed any chance of revolution in Western Europe.
And how do you distinguish between 'honest' and 'dishonest' Marxists? Would it be safe to say that the difference lies in the adherence to Stalin's line?
March at the head of the ideas of your century and those ideas will follow and sustain you. March behind them and they will drag you along. March against them and they will overthrow you.
Napoleon III
Sorry, but I don't like to be viewed as inferior just because of my political affiliation. Also, do you know me to say I am paranoid? Do you know a significant number of ''Stalinists'' to say that there is an epidemic of this mental condition inside this political group? Are there any scientific psicological studies that link ''Stalinism'' to paranoia? Just because in a recent historical period, the name Stalin became associated with paranoia, does that mean that all those who follow his political line must have this particular personality trait?
I can't really judge the movie, I have not seen it, neither I can say that I'm an expert on Former-Yugoslav cinema, for example, the movie that tir linked (W.R.: Mysteries of the Organism) seemed pretty interesting, it touched a wide variety of subjects and from the little youtube videos that I have watched the direction appeared to be of good quality, I highlight this particular clip that is able to catch the viewers attention http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HhTEoIA4P8 , despite being a rather disturbing and non-sensical scene, you simply can't look away. Again, I can't really drawn any definite conclusions, for I have not watched it either. I am just uncomfortable with the thought of mocking one's traumatic experience.
''...to keep in mind that socialism, since it has become a science, demands that it be pursued as a science, i.e., that it be studied.''
Would you call ''Stalinists'' honest Marxists?
''...to keep in mind that socialism, since it has become a science, demands that it be pursued as a science, i.e., that it be studied.''
FFS you idiots they were obviously all fascists and spies (and trotskyist traitors).
You know, as an apparently Stalin-loving Stalinist Tir, you seem to have quite a few hypocritical views. You are going to denounce Tito for sending his political enemies, who many very well might have been foreign agents (NKVD), plotters against the government, or saboteurs. The fact that they might have been Stalinists only feeds to this possibility, if a group's mission is to destabilise your nation, that makes them worthy of the title traitors, and should be dealt with as such, which Tito did. Now when Stalin did this exact same thing, mostly out of his own paranoia, you apparently find it perfectly fine, but Tito doing it is a total betrayal.
On the International communist movement, Stalin disbanded the Third International during WW2, the Cominform was actually founded by Tito, but Stalin managed to take the leadership position and IIRC expelled Yugoslavia from it. Stalin's version of "internationalism" was anti-revolutionary and supported party building and, as previously stated, working with parties such as Labour in Britain to obtain Socialism through elections, which is entirely revisionist, so abandoning it is hardly abandoning international socialism in general, it's just refusing to be Stalin's *****.
On another note, I attended several years back a conference on leaders and freedom, which had many political speakers of different points of view, and from many different events (Bosnian war, Iranian Revolution, Vietnam War ect.) and the speaker from Bosnia, talking largely on the Siege of Sarajevo but also on Bosnia in general praised at how much better life was when Bosnia was apart of Yugoslavia, and how he wished Bosnia could return to those days of Slavic unity. So I find your argument against them to be quite ignorant at best.
Ah i remember this i was on vacation on this island
[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]It's a sad thing not to have friends, but it is even sadder not to have enemies.[/FONT]
Yes and i also disapprove of Nazis dealing with "enemies of the state".How could i possible be such a hypocrite,eh? Well,look,it's not the form but content that matters.Tito was specifically targeting Marxists Leninist.
I don't oppose the repression of enemies of the people in a proletarian state,however i oppose the opression of Marxists in a capitalist/revisionist state Tito's SFRY was.
I hope it's a bit clearer now.
No one's denying this,however it just shows how fucked up Bosnia is today.
A libertarian who complains about being hypocritical in that someones ideology is asscociated with bad things criticizes bad things of another? What has this world come to...A stalinist complaining about sending people who disagree to camps to die? what has this world come to?
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
*cough* "I don't oppose the repression of enemies of the people in a proletarian state"*cough*
Oh fuck off, what does that even mean?
And?
What about trotskyists, anarchists or even old bolsheviks?
No, it's not.
If you ask me,they should have been supressed but not killed.
What about your thread about Stalin not killing enough?
And why should old Bolsheviks and Trotskyists be suppressed? If you'd red your history correctly you'd note that the economic plan of Stalin was created by the Left Opposition (Trotsky), just implemented far too late after Kulaks had already became too powerful. And the old Bolsheviks were the very people who led and organised the very revolution in the first place, how are they a threat, eh? Stalin's paranoia automatically makes them traitors?
That was poetic language.
Besides,here i talked about things the way i'd prefer them now,however you can't change history...
Why not? Because they were obviously working against the Soviet state.
Trotsky admitted that there were plans to assasin Stalin and some other Party members...
Source.
Also, what about the rest of my post? Like the part about you being a hypocrite?
That sounds like bullshit Stalinist fabricated evidence to me, or perhaps your own? How about one source, not from a die hard Stalinist with a hard on for everything that Stalin did?
Thanks to Ismail...
"Shortly before they left for Russia, Trotsky's emissaries, Konon Berman-Yurin and Fritz David, were summoned to special conferences with Trotsky himself. The meetings took place in Copenhagen toward the end of November 1932. Konon Berman-Yurin later stated:
'I had two meetings with him [Trotsky]. First of all he began to sound me on my work in the past. Then Trotsky passed to Soviet affairs. Trotsky said: 'The principal question is the question of Stalin. Stalin must be physically destroyed.' He said that other methods of struggle were now ineffective. He said that for this purpose people were needed who would dare anything, who would agree to sacrifice themselves for this, as he expressed it, historic task. . . .
In the evening we continued our conversation. I asked him how individual terrorism could be reconciled with Marxism. To this Trotsky replied: problems cannot be treated in a dogmatic way. He said that a situation had arisen in the Soviet Union which Marx could not have foreseen. Trotsky also said that in addition to Stalin it was necessary to assassinate Kaganovich and Voroshilov. . . .
During the conversation he nervously paced up and down the room and spoke of Stalin with exceptional hatred. . . . He said that the terrorist act should, if possible, be timed to take place at a plenum or at the congress of the Comintern, so that the shot at Stalin would ring out in a large assembly.'"
The Great Conspiracy. The Secret War Against Soviet Russia by M. Sayers, A. E. Kahn
There's nothing hypocritical about what i wrote,think again.
Partija Rada (Party of Labour)
