Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I love it when people are condemned by their own defence: “The democratic aspects of the Constitution2 were inserted at Stalin’s insistence. Stalin and his closest supporters fought tenaciously to keep these provisions. He, and they, yielded only when confronted by their rejection by the Party’s Central Committee, and by the panic surrounding the discovery of serious conspiracies that collaborated with Japanese and German fascism to overthrow the Soviet government.”
“Senior Party leaders were usually veterans of the dangerous days of Tsarist times, the Revolution, the Civil War, and collectivization, when to be a communist was fraught with peril and difficulty. Many had little formal education. It appears that most of them were unwilling or unable to “remake themselves” through self-education.”
“Ezhov’s own confessions are evidence that Stalin and the central Soviet leadership were not responsible for his massive executions. Ezhov explicitly states many times that his repressions and executions were carried out in pursuit of his own private conspiratorial goals. In his confession of August 4, 1939 Ezhov admitted: “[W]e were deceiving the government in the most blatant manner.”11 There is no evidence that these confessions represent anything but what Ezhov chose to say—no evidence of torture, threats, or fabrication.”
So, Furr simply Mirror’s the Trotskyist line that it was dwn to bad men (Zinoviev, Yezhov, etc.) and their hero was bravely battling the bureaucracy.
This is all irrelevant, since it demonstrates that the system established in 1917 was weak and prone to conspiratorial collapse, and could only continue without democratic input. Furr is possibly one of the greatest anti-bolshevik writers anyone could read.
If we believe Furr, it was all those nasty Bolsheviks and not cuddly Mr. Stalin who was to blame.
BTW, we have copies of the transcripts of the Moscow trials in the party library, I’ve flicked through them, they were not free and fair trials.
Of course, for fans of trains, there is good news: Shangai-Hamburg freight line
“The “Shanghai Express,” loaded with 50 containers of goods including apparel, auto parts, and solar panels, will travel more than 10,000 km in two weeks before arriving in Hamburg, according to Shanghai Customs.”
I think that is rapidly scalable, and is good news at a human level.
But this is an interesting nugget:
http://www.news.cn/english/2021-09/30/c_1310220035.htm
“In a State Council executive meeting held last week, the country’s top policymakers stressed efforts in cross-cyclical adjustment, pledging to take more market-oriented measures to stabilize commodity prices and further promote consumption.” Whether the CCP is ideologically driven by the profit motive, it is clearly in the business of trying to manage profit driven entities and maintain the logic of markets.That is a long way from committing to full communism by 2121, it is merely committing to ‘socialism’ as a transitional society, in one country. Also, in the sense I read the surrounding text, that’s referring to the post-2035 phase, which is defined as:
“New heights are reached in every dimension of material, political, cultural and ethical, social, and ecological advancement. Modernization of China’s system and capacity for governance is achieved. China has become a global leader in terms of composite national strength and international influence. Common prosperity for everyone is basically achieved. The Chinese people enjoy happier, safer, and healthier lives. The Chinese nation will become a proud and active member of the community of nations.”
I think a claim has just died a horrible painful death at the hands of the internet…
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/download/Xi_Jinping’s_report_at_19th_CPC_National_Congress.pdf
Well I can find the stuff about 2035, but nothing about the next century, maybe you can have better luck (or maybe Xinhua are anti-socialist falsifiers?)
I’m curious about this full communism by the time we’re all dead that TS keeps quoting, does he have anything resembling an official source for that? I can’t find one.
Oh, isn’t he just adorable?
“The Government of the German Reich and the Government of the U.S.S.R. determine as the boundary of their respective national interests in the territory of the former Polish state the line marked on the attached map, which shall be described in more detail in a supplementary protocol.” (My emphasis added).
“The necessary reorganization of public administration will be effected in the areas west of the line specified in article I by the Government of the German Reich, in the areas east of this line by the Government of the U.S.S.R.”
“Both parties will tolerate in their territories no Polish agitation which affects the territories of the other party. They will suppress in their territories all beginnings of such agitation and inform each other concerning suitable measures for this purpose.”
“As soon as the Government of the U.S.S.R. shall take special measures on Lithuanian territory to protect its interests, the present German-Lithuanian border, for the purpose of a natural and simple boundary delineation, shall be rectified in such a way that the Lithuanian territory situated to the southwest of the line marked on the attached map should fall to Germany.
“Further it is declared that the economic agreements now in force between Germany and Lithuania shall not be affected by the measures of the Soviet Union referred to above.”
It’s there in the primary sources.
And this line: “This protocol shall be treated by both parties as strictly secret.”
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/addsepro.aspI dunno, I think that means the secret protocol must have actually been a secret.
I think a government fleeing into exile does not extinguish the existence of a country, in anyplace other than the most convoluted of apologetics. The Sovs imposed a government on a people by hostile means and carved up a hegemonic interested, irrespective of the wishes or preferences of the people in those lands. Some might call that imperialism.
The stuff about the difference between nationalism and patriotism is pure humpty-dumpty. He just wants to be a patriot while still being able to attack the SNP, there is no intellectual weight at all in the whole document, it’s come out of a random soundbite generator.
International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-)
Vol. 87, No. 3 (May 2011), pp. 709-715 (7 pages)“In 1989 the Soviet authorities officially denounced the Molotov—Ribbentrop pact of August 1939 as illegal and void and for the first time admitted the existence of a secret protocol providing for a division on territorial spheres of influence.”
“the full text of the German-Soviet Friendship Treaty of 28 September, demarcating the final frontier between the two invading powers [and the] entirely separate joint declaration of the same date which
referred to the ‘dissolution of the Polish State’ and called on Britain and France to conduct peace talks with Germany. Should they fail to do so, the statement went on, then this would prove that Britain and France ‘bore the responsibility for the continuation of the war”But, blame where blame is due:
“it may be mentioned that in August 1941, Britain and the Soviet Union jointly invaded and occupied Iran, partly in order to pre-empt a possible Nazi seizure of its strategically vital oil fields (a fact more widely remembered in Iran than in the West.)”Stalin was a gangster, he played a gangster’s game.
Of course, this being the 21st Century, we can read the German-Soviet Friendship pact:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/gsbound.asp(True Scotsman doesn’t trust Wikisources, but I hope he’ll forgive this source for the map annexed to the pact:
)“In recent years, China has introduced a raft of measures to accelerate opening-up and foster a market-oriented, law-based and internationalized business environment, in a bid to better accommodate overseas investors.”
“In the first eight months of this year, Chinese exports to the United States, rather than falling, expanded 22.7 percent year on year, according to official data.”
“With a large market, complete industrial chain and favorable business environment, China has become a “strong magnetic field” for foreign investment.”
“”If American companies are prevented from operating in China, our competitors will be able to take advantage of China’s economies of scale and rapid adoption of technology to outcompete U.S. companies everywhere else, including in our home market,” said Craig Allen, president of the U.S.-China Business Council.”
I’ve mislaid the source, but I’m sure I can find it. But the picture painted is of a country fully integrated into the world capitalist order, seeking investment by and from capitalists. I’m sure, though, these must just be pro-capitalist lies, right?
Nothing from Chomsky yet, but here’s what he said in May
“Department of Defense clarified that 2,500 troops would leave Afghanistan by September 11. In a March 14 article, meanwhile, the New York Times had noted that the U.S. has 3,500 troops in Afghanistan even though “[p]ublicly, 2,500 U.S. troops are said to be in the country.” The undercount by the Pentagon is obscurantism. A report by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, furthermore, noted that the United States has about 16,000 contractors on the ground in Afghanistan. They provide a variety of services, which most likely include military support. None of these contractors—or the additional undisclosed 1,000 U.S. troops—are slated for withdrawal, nor will aerial bombardment—including drone strikes—end, and there will be no end to special forces missions either.”
Looks like he’s wrong on this: but maybe that was the plan. But still, i think this is suggestive: “No lessons have been learned from this history. The U.S. will “withdraw,” but will also leave behind its assets to checkmate China and Russia. These geopolitical considerations eclipse any concern for the Afghan people.”
In simple terms, continued instability is the US interest. I doubt China will go into Kabul, but I think they will secure their border and maybe try to prevent any aid to the Uighurs.
The real British attitude to Afghan refugees
A good article, and worth a read. Something that we’ve not heard much about is the Brereton report “The report found evidence of 39 murders of civilians and prisoners by (or at the instruction of) members of the Australian special forces, which were subsequently covered up by ADF personnel.[5][6][7] The report stated 25 ADF personnel were involved in the killings, including those who were “accessories” to the incident. Some of those believed to be involved were still serving with the ADF.[8] The unlawful killings discussed by the report began in 2009, with most occurring in 2012 and 2013.[9]”
The law has been changed here to prevent a similar report happening, or the guilty being held to account. 39 murdered people is the minimum of crimes committed by the Nato forces.
I believe the Taleban control the passes into Afghanistan, so they’ll be able to collect duty on all imports/exports (especially if they continue the opium trade, which is a bargaining chip they retain).
Just imagine if instead of the war, the Nato allies had spent $2.2 Trillion buying wheat from Afghanistan over 20 years.: for all those emoting in the House of Commons about how much they care for Afghans, that would truly have changed the society there.
