Eurocommunism / National Communsim and patriotoism - a fine thing!

Stalinski, I generally agree with you but think you've failed to take a properly Hoxhaist perspective on this matter.

Do you even tank, bro?

Now I think you must be just trolling, because you don't even understand the Stalinist/Leninist politics you claim to hold!

Have you ever heard the phrase "workers of the world, unite!"?

you what? Hitler was a patriot, and Vietnam was invaded by French patriots and American patriots, and had a puppet government of Vietnamese patriots.

Many countries in Eastern Europe were occupied by German patriots, then by Russian patriots.

basically, what they have always done, which is encourage the working class to fight in its own interest

again, you what?

firstly, if you don't think that fascism has anything to do with nationalism, then you don't know anything about nationalism or fascism. And if you think you have to support your own nation then clearly you don't know anything about Lenin either. Do not know his theory of revolutionary defeatism? Where he specifically says you should support the other side against your own nation's army?

Both flipsides are equally stupid, and lead to idiotic Stalinists and Leninists tying themselves into knots. Because all claim to believe in international organisation of the working class. So then in the circumstances what do you do with your international organisations?

Should the German Communist Party have been "patriotic" and fought alongside Hitler, against their comrades in the Russian Communist Party? With "revolutionary defeatism" you get exactly the same problem, reversed, where Communists, to be consistent, have to call for Communists in their own organisation to fight against and kill each other!

Get a better opinion, then.

pretty much. And street sellers are not technically wage workers anyway, they are petty bourgeois/self-employed. So if you make a more valid comparison you could ask what a T-shirt seller on a British street and a T-shirt seller on an Asian street have in common.

In any case, what matters for communists is not what people have "in common" in an abstract sense but what is our shared economic interest. And as proletarians, those of us with nothing to sell but our labour power, we will have a shared economic interest in the abolition of capital, which exploits us.

This brings up an important point though. I think t-shirt sellers, and other self-employed people who don't employ others, should be included in revolutionary organizing. Especially poor as fuck street vendors. What do others think?

Street vendors are part of the urban poor, a massive and socially explosive sector in the Third World. With desperate economic positions but no social power, they can be won to revolutionary politics but can only be effective as allies of the working class.

Stalinski's hypothetical Asian street vendor is likely to be selling T-shirts made by factory workers in that very same town. Organising amongst the factory workers is therefore a precondition of effective organising amonst the T-shirt vendors.

Why are you here, Stalinski? Are you trying to persuade people here to change their views? Or do you just enjoy a good argument?

Ablokeimet - sounds good.

Mate, we're not leftists, we don't identify as leftists, and we certainly don't support the "left". Why, in God's name we'd think the entirety of the working class are leftists is basically preposterous.

Steven was making the fairly simple, very Marxist argument that that working class - often unconsciously and certainly not without contradiction - is compelled to act in its own interests and against the interests of capital by the very functioning of the capitalist system.

A further reading suggestion for you,. I'd start on page 12.

??? No they didn't, there vote was less then 200,000.

Yeah and how exactly do you know that all of their support is working class? I'd be rather surprised if that were the case given that most leaders of British right wing groups are quite wealthy and the BNP used to rely on a network of businesses and large donations to stay afloat.

Nationalism and Patriotism and Fascism are cross class ideologies they have members and supporters from all backgrounds. That's a big reason why socialism is incompatible with any of those things. Even Lenin for all his faults understood that.That's partly the reason he was so keen on his Revolutionary defeatism line as a way to break the power of Patriotism over workers.

Hell the Soviet Union was always keen to stamp out nationalist movements in its territories and after WWII frequently denounced such movements as Fascist conspiracies. They only keen to support Nationalism in the third world because they thought it was a good way to weaken their rivals.

Also a minor point you should probably look up what Eurocommunism is because it has buggar all to do with what you linked it to in the thread title.

Well for a start the one thing all the Fascist regimes had in common is that they arose at a time when those Nations had a very large and very active Labour movement that rejected all the usual methods of keeping them in line, appeals to religious morals and Patriotic spirit. So in response Fascists found powerful allies which allowed them to recruit and act with impunity. This is basic history all you'd have to do is look up the periods when a nation came under the control of Fascists to see this.

*Not according to Stalinism, Stalinists call Social Democrats "Social-Fascists" and there's still a few nations controlled by the Social Democratic parties.

I remember a leading member of the CPRF (Nikolai Bindiukov, who was back then responsible for "Marxist Education" in his party) giving a talk in my hometown in 1997, he stated e.g. on the question from the audience about foreign capital investment in Russia, that more than 50% of Russian capital is owned by Jews and on the question about the political influence of the Orthodox Church that the real name of Patriarch Alexy is Ridiger ... the talk was organized by the local CP branch who decided after, that they don't want any contact with the CPRF and Bindiukov in the future

Stalinski believes that National Communism is a good thing. Given that Socialism would precede Communism, does that mean Stalinski believes that National Socialism is a good thing?

For the record, I believe the former is impossible and the latter is an abomination.

Actually I think you really should check out the CPRF since nearly every part of that sentence is wrong. First of all the CPRF is not "red" their electoral policies when stripped of rhetoric about connections to the soil and the importance of the Orthodox church are stuff you'd find in a leaflet for a 60's Social Democratic Party.

Second they are very Nationalistic, so much so that they have absolutely no Communist ideas beyond dusting off old Soviet Era posters. Third they actually are Fascistic since they are part of the "Red-Brown alliance" and work hand in hand with Russian Fascist groups and have done so for years but first in the National Salvation Front in 1992-3 when it was called the Communist Workers Party, but this is a practice the CPRF has kept up over the years. In fact the CPRF has been part of so many Ultra right coalitions that its hard to keep track of them all.

The CPRF is considered so toxic that even over Communist parties don't want anything to do with them, the French Communist Party officially broke off all contact with them.

But its not just its friends that make the CPRF a toxic party, its more then capable of promoting its own brand of racism, homophobia and anti-semitism.

So what? We all know this, that's why Nationalism is a bad thing, it makes people go and try to kill others when they have no real quarrel with each other. Again that was why Lenin pushed the Revolutionary Defeatism line to force a break between Revolutionaries and Patriotism.

Sigh, no one is saying every flag waver is a Neo-Nazi, we're saying there's a connection between the two because there quite clearly is and all you'd have to do to confirm that is again look at the actual history of Fascism.

Yeah, but ask yourself a question: at what price?

So I tell you: the price was a pile of workers' corpses and lulling the working class for two decades.

You know, it's fine that prisoners of death and concentration camps were saved, but I don't see why we should be happy because of victory of the one imperialist camp over another, especially the one that consisted of the leading Western plutocracies, among them two biggest colonial empires of the time. But for Stalinist war-time propaganda they suddenly became bastions of civilisation, progress and democracy...

Dear Stalinski,

I can tell you're frustrated that most of the questions you've asked in this thread and others aren't being given proper answers by people here. Or maybe you aren't frustrated, but rather are gleeful than your suspicions that workers' democracy can't work seem to be confirmed based on how we avoid answering your questions.

Here's the thing though -- and I'm speaking for myself here but also likely the others on the Libcom forum -- I could give proper answers to every one of your questions, but I don't feel like bothering. It would take a lot of time to do it. And I don't come here to try to persuade non-anarchists to agree with anarchism. That's a chore, it's hard work, and it's not why I come to this forum. I come here mainly for two reasons -- because I'm bored and want a nice pleasant diversion, and because I want to learn from insights and knowledge of other anarchists.

Sometimes the latter purpose involves debate, and that means moving from 'pleasant diversion' mode to 'hard work' mode, but at least from that hard work I gain new understandings. The hard work of explaining anarchism to you doesn't give me any new insights. And given your condescending attitude, as if you're here only to criticize, I doubt you'll absorb any new insights, either. If I am going to take the time to explain anarchism to someone here, I'd prefer that it's someone who actually seems open minded and sincere, so I'm not wasting my time.

Explaining anarchist politics to those who have doubts is a crucial part of for moving the revolution forward. But I don't think the priority of my efforts to do this should be targeted at some random Stalinist on the internet. So right now, I'm going to take my precious time, end this conversation, and go watch Orange is the New Black.

Cheers.

Stalinski, I recall in another one of your threads that every other post by you had you complaining about dodging. So its a little sad though hardly a surprise to see you do the same here. You haven't at all responded to any of the things I and others have said and are instead trying to get out of it by ignoring it.

No it didn't, the Soviet Union after isolating itself actively wrecked a lot of independent Revolutionary movements around the world in America, Spain, Germany, and then expanded by conquering other territories. But poor historical knowledge aside your contradicting yourself, you argue that Communists should support their nation in times of war, so that would mean you'd support the nationalist resistance against Soviet Occupation too otherwise your talking a load of bollocks.

Its rather telling that the two nations with a large independent Communist movement Yugoslavia and Albania broke with the Soviet Union while all the rest had to use tanks and spies to prop them up against there own populations.

First of all Eurocommunism no longer exists it stopped being a term in the 1980's and the French Communist Party wasn't a Eurocommunist party, also you were in favour of Eurocommunism at the start of this thread so I don't see why you're contradicting yourself now.

Second if the FCP is bourgeois the CPRF must also be bourgeois since they are both parliamentary parties who have given up violence, revolution etc. and there policies are mostly concerned with pensions and social services.

Third did you not bother to read the link? You do know the blue text is hyperlinks right? Why are you completely silent on the well documented history of the CPRF's alliance with Fascist groups and there own personal anti-Semitism, homophobia and racism? Do you also support these things? I can only assume you must given your blind love of the CPRF and refusal to acknowledge or condemn there actions.

Not at all what I said you're dodging again. But for the record what's your point here? You say you support Patriotism so you must also support the French and American Patriots fighting to maintain there nations strength so you can't choose sides can you. Also you should also support the South Vietnamese Patriots in there struggle to free themselves from the control of Hanoi too or should Saigon have just let Ho Chi Minh roll over and shaft them too?

For the record, the Socialist alternative and one endorsed by Lenin (I guess you really don't know anything about him) was for the workers of the world to refuse to take part in any war between nations.

Here you go again, I already explained this to you and again you try to dodge it, but since you asked, Ukraine, both Ukraine and its pro Russian breakaways have Fascist groups as part of there new governments. I'm honestly surprised you didn't know this since all the old Stalinist splinters have been crying alarm about a Fascist coup in Kiev at the very least.

Yeah I literally said the exact opposite so there's no excuse here since you clearly can read.

The hell? Women can be Fascists too so you really must know absolutely nothing about it.

You know what's really said Stalinski, you're not even a Stalinist, you don't know anything about Lenin, you don't know anything about Stalin or the history of the Soviet Union. You believe in things that were not only not shared by your alleged idols, but were actively opposed and in some cases grounds for arrest.

WE NEED TO STAHP PRUSSIAN MILITARISM AND SAVE DEMOCRACY FROM THESE BARBAROUS HUNS!!!! GO ENTENTE!!!!- average social-chauvinist in 1914