Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,161 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 3 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
We are a small group but we have not made any damage to socialism like the bolsheviks, Leninists, stalinists, Trotskyists and the left wingers
Our contributions have been to spread and disperse around the world the real concept of socialism instead of destroying it, we have continued the works of Marx and Engels
We have not made alliances with criminals, dictators, thieves, exploiters fascists, nazis, warmongers and massacres.
We have only supported the working class and we do not pretend to be a vanguard party and we do not intend to dominate and control the workings class
A much better curriculum vitae than the leftist, we don’t have working class blood in our hands and we have never been paid agents or mouthpiece or boot leaker or ass kissers of any capitalist power
ThomaS More asked “TS, why not Pol Pot? He had the full support of the CPC.”
so never mind appealing to the moderator, just answer the question, do you (did you) agree with the line to support Pol Pot taken by the Communist Party of China (the party you state you support). Simple yes or no, really.
Presumably, TS, as an “anti imperialist” you also supported the Taliban in their defeat of Western Imperialists?
‘Easy to say when your existence isn’t threatened.’
I’m not really following this thread so may have misunderstood, but if TS is apparently a Stalinist or state communist living in Japan, does he therefore support North Korea which sent a ballistic missile over Japan on 4 October?
_____________________________________________The same logic is applicable to the Cuban Stalinists who spent their whole life talking against the yankee imperialists and the two bombs dropped in Japan by the USA imperialists, but they made alliances and became lapdogs of the soviets imperialists,( The Chinese call them the Soviet Social Imperialists ) and Che Guevara asked the Soviets to install a base of atomics missiles in Cuba that were bigger and more dangerous than the ones dropped in Japan and placed mankind close to a world atomic disaster and a war between two imperialist capitalist powers, and the whole island and the whole population could have been completely wiped out by the USA military power
They also used the Cuban army ( also members of the working class ) trained by the soviets ( like the Yankees did ) as cannon folder in Africa to defend the interests of the Soviet unions and keep the membership with the COMECOM, under the banner of anti colonialism and anti imperialism, and the soviets took possession of the sugar cane production ( like the yankees ) and they purchased it at a lower price and a new form of workers exploitation continued until now under a different master,( the mono production continue ) and they are selling medical doctors like commodity to exchange them for another commodity known as petroleum.
The CIA was changed for the KBG agents and created the G2 which is an organization similar to the Gestapo that spy on the workers, and eliminate all kind of workers protests and class struggles, they implemented the same body of spies in Venezuela, in exchange for petroleum, the Stalinists are the same shit as the yankee imperialists, and the Trotskyists were expelled and prosecuted and now some groups of trotskyists are their ass kissers, and one of their theoreticians became a member of the Central committee of the Cuban Communist Party, and also all those criminals and workers exploiters are allies and friends of the Chinese and Russian capitalists, and in the old days the Chinese capitalist said that they were a colony of the Soviet Union, the leftists do not have any socialists principles, like political prostitutes they will sell themselves to the best bidder.
They blame the capitalist crisis and scarcity on the embargo only but they have commercial and trade deals with China, Russia, Latin America, Vietnam, and Europe, and they are always saying that China, Vietnam, North Korea, Venezuela, and Nicaragua are socialists and most true socialists know that they are just lying in order to continue milking the cow from those countries to avoid their whole economic collapse
This small group of socialists known as the SPGB has never supported those type of imperialists and capitalist maneuvers, therefore we have done better shit than the Leninist the Stalinists, Maoists and Trotskyists, we have always supported the working class of all those countries, we do not want them to be blown up, we do not call them enemies or traitors, we want all the workers of the whole world to become their class brothers, and sisters, and to eliminate from their consciousness all kind of nationalism and patriotism
Pol Pot and his friends from the West
BD, from 1979–1989 Russia, (I should say at the time, the USSR) fought the Mujahideen. Was Russia imperialist? Was the Mujahideen anti-imperialist despite being backed by not only the usual suspects, the US and the UK but also Iran, China, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, such an odd coalition of bed-fellows?
What about Indonesia? It does not remotely correspond to any pre-colonial entity, possessing an enormous variety of peoples, cultures, languages and religions. The people at one end have far more in common with their neighbours across the national frontier than with their fellow “Indonesians”. Its shape was determined by the last Dutch conquests. What did national liberation independence bring? The immediate invasion of its neighbours. The oppressed very quickly transform into the oppressor. And now it has friendly relations with Australia to share mutual self-interest.
Regimes that may now present themselves as anti-imperialist have a history of collaborating with imperialism.
The terms used are as slippery as eels. When discussing imperialism and anti-imperialism it is a rabbit-hole we go into and a warren of contradictions. The problem is that every war is justified by a massive propaganda effort which is based on demonizing the enemy. Countries decides whether or not to support wars according to their own assessment of their strategic, political and economic interests.
There is no reason why socialists should allow themselves to be used as tools of some capitalist state.
We reject any nationalism as anti-worker because it always ties them to their class enemy. A key feature of capitalism is that the world is organised into a system of states in which a few – the imperialist powers – are arranged in a pecking order to dominate others economically, politically, and militarily. The question is what stance Marxists should take when states fight one another. Our answer is class solidarity needs to take precedence over any national allegiance.
Presumably, TS, as an “anti imperialist” you also supported the Taliban in their defeat of Western Imperialists?
———————————————
The Stalinists and the Trotskyists supported Saddam Hussein because he was an anti yankee and an anti imperialist, but before that they were supporting the Iranian rulers against Iraq because they were fighting an anti imperialist war, they are like a pendulum, they oscillate from one inter-class conflict into another inter class conflict
The Italian fascists, and the German Nazis and the Japanese rulers called themselves anti imperialists because they opposed the capitalist expansion of England, France and the USA
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2001/09/rads-s22.html
Anti Americanism the anti imperialism of the fools
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2020/2020s/no-1394-october-2020/anti-imperialism-is-not-anti-capitalism/. Anti Imperialism is not anti capitalism
ANTI-IMPERIALISM IS NOT ANTI-CAPITALISM
In his 1920 Preface to Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism Lenin comments:
‘Capitalism has grown into a world system of colonial oppression and of the financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the population of the world by a handful of “advanced” countries’.
Colonialism is not quite the same thing as imperialism. It entails the annexation of, and direct political control over, other territories by a state which is not necessarily true of imperialism. For Lenin, political independence was indeed achievable ‘within the bounds of world imperialist relationships (A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, 1916).The classical Marxist diffusionist view held that, with capitalism’s development and the increasing internationalisation of capital, nationalism would decline as a social force. Unfortunately that hasn’t yet happened. However, here we are focussing on what ought to be the attitude of socialists towards nationalism.
Early twentieth century Marxists, like Rosa Luxemburg, were already arguing that nationalism had become reactionary. Capitalism had outlived its usefulness to progress, having prepared the ground for socialism by raising society’s productive potential to an unparalleled degree. While that potential continues to expand with technological innovation it is increasingly being squandered in all sorts of ways.
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1998/no-1128-august-1998/anti-imperialist-delusion/. The anti imperialist
delusion
In the course of the 20th century socialism, as a word, came to be transformed from a doctrine and aim associated with the emancipation of the working class into a doctrine and aim associated with the coming to power of nationalist, anti—imperialist elites in the economically less developed parts of the world.
The starting point was the coming to power in Russia in 1917 of an elite which had inherited its ideology from the workers movement but which in practice used the state to develop Russia economically and turn it into a power that challenged the domination of the world by America, Britain and France. As such it provided an attractive model for modernizing elites in other countries suffering from economic backwardness and domination by the advanced industrial capitalist states of the West.
The trouble was that this elite continued to use the language and terminology of the workers movement with which it had once been associated. Thus they described their seizure of power as a “workers’ revolution” arid their regime as a “workers’ state”, the first breakthrough by the international workers movement which workers everywhere had a duty to support. And they described the accumulation of capital under the auspices of the state which they were carrying out, not as the state capitalism it was, but as “socialism”.
Marx, who had pointed out that when studying history you should not analyze social and political movements by what they said they were doing but by the material results of what they did, would have been the first to understand (if not to appreciate) how socialism, indeed how his own theories, had become the banner under which a quite different struggle was fought out.
The English Revolution of the 1640s was carried out under an ideology derived from the Old Testament. The French Revolution of the 1790s was carried out under one derived from Roman times. The Russian Revolution, which was the equivalent in Russia of these anti—feudal revolutions, was carried out under an ideology derived from the workers movement but it was no more an attempt to establish socialism than the English Revolution had been to establish the New Jerusalem or the French to revive the Roman Republic.
Although it was Mao who replaced the slogan “Workers of the World, Unite” by “Oppressed Peoples of the World, Unite”, the roots of this change of perspective go hack to Lenin.
TM : That’s true about the Japanese militarists. They said the war was a fight for the freedom of Asians.
—————————————————————————————–
The same statement have been made by others imperialist powers. The Soviets made secretive agreements ( as they did with the Nazis ) with the USA and they went ahead and defeat the Japanese in Manchuria to free the Asian from the oppression of the Japanese capitalists and they declared war against Japan without any provocations.PS The German pilots knew the locations of all Soviets airfield during the war because they trained the soviet pilots after the Hitler Stalin pact was signed
From RT
Blame it all on Lenin“So you’d support North Korea killing you?
Get out of that one.”
I don’t see the military utility of killing me so I wouldn’t support that. Far better to aim the missiles at the countless US bases here. Which, I suspect, is precisely what the DPRK would do.
Looks like the Brits were responsible for the Nord Stream pipeline attacks.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.