Results 21 to 40 of 220
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.
pew pew pew
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.
Name is "stalinist speaker" calls himself "stalin 2" and supports Alexander Lukashenko?
Of fucking course.
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
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?
All i want is a Marxist Hunk.
It is true that labor produces for the rich wonderful things – but for the worker it produces privation. It produces palaces – but for the worker, hovels. It produces beauty – but for the worker, deformity. It replaces labor by machines, but it throws one section of the workers back into barbarous types of labor and it turns the other section into a machine. It produces intelligence – but for the worker, stupidity, cretinism.
Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten!
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?
well yes its complicated its easier to understand if you are an russian.
Not rreally. Both are social democrat bourgeois politicians.
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
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.
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.
"Socialist ideas become significant only to the extent that they become rooted in the working class."
"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. . .Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
SocialistWorker.org
International Socialist Review
Marxists Internet Archive
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.
All i want is a Marxist Hunk.
It is true that labor produces for the rich wonderful things – but for the worker it produces privation. It produces palaces – but for the worker, hovels. It produces beauty – but for the worker, deformity. It replaces labor by machines, but it throws one section of the workers back into barbarous types of labor and it turns the other section into a machine. It produces intelligence – but for the worker, stupidity, cretinism.
Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten!
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
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
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.
All i want is a Marxist Hunk.
It is true that labor produces for the rich wonderful things – but for the worker it produces privation. It produces palaces – but for the worker, hovels. It produces beauty – but for the worker, deformity. It replaces labor by machines, but it throws one section of the workers back into barbarous types of labor and it turns the other section into a machine. It produces intelligence – but for the worker, stupidity, cretinism.
Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten!
why do you not write an argument instead of an insult.
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.
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)
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.
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
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.
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).
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.cMy 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.
