Eurocommunism / National Communsim and patriotoism - a fine thing!

63 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stalinski
Offline
Joined: 17-06-14
Jun 23 2014 04:41
Reddebrek wrote:
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.

Agreed on some of that - The SU should have stayed in Eastern Europe for around ten years after WW2, then let the people decide.

I support Yugo and Albania.

Stalinski
Offline
Joined: 17-06-14
Jun 23 2014 04:45
Reddebrek wrote:
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.

I actually said that the CPRF are NOT bastions of Karl Marx.

So, there is no blind love here - but as a mainstream opposition party they are not so bad. Of course, they are not to the left enough at the moment.

Stalinski
Offline
Joined: 17-06-14
Jun 23 2014 04:50
Reddebrek wrote:
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?

The French and Americans were colonists invading another country - that is not patriotism, no, it's imperialism.

Vietnam was artificially split in two by the capitalists - the patriots were trying to get their own country back together again. So a completely absurd claim you have made - very reactionary.

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Jun 23 2014 05:04

This has gone on long enough, can you either ban this fool or confine him to a single thread.

Stalinski
Offline
Joined: 17-06-14
Jun 23 2014 05:58

Nice to see that 'freedom of speech' is alive and well here......

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Jun 23 2014 08:20
Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jun 23 2014 08:52

CENSORSHIP!!!!!

Gepetto's picture
Gepetto
Offline
Joined: 28-10-12
Jun 23 2014 10:42
Stalinski wrote:
Nice to see that 'freedom of speech' is alive and well here......

"Communists have no codified constitutions to propose. They have a world of lies and constitutions - crystallised in the law and in the force of the dominant class - to crush. They know that only a revolutionary and totalitarian apparatus of force and power, which excludes no means, will be able to prevent the infamous relics of a barbarous epoch from rising again - only it will be able to prevent the monster of social privilege, craving for revenge and servitude, from raising its head again and hurling for the thousandth time its deceitful cry of Freedom!"
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/class-party.htm

Ablokeimet
Offline
Joined: 30-04-13
Jun 23 2014 13:35
Gepetto wrote:
Stalinski wrote:
Nice to see that 'freedom of speech' is alive and well here......

"Communists have no codified constitutions to propose. They have a world of lies and constitutions - crystallised in the law and in the force of the dominant class - to crush. They know that only a revolutionary and totalitarian apparatus of force and power, which excludes no means, will be able to prevent the infamous relics of a barbarous epoch from rising again - only it will be able to prevent the monster of social privilege, craving for revenge and servitude, from raising its head again and hurling for the thousandth time its deceitful cry of Freedom!"
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/class-party.htm

Methinks Gepetto was using the quote as a criticism of Stalinski, pointing out what somebody in his camp was saying. Since Bordiga is a primary figure in the genealogy of the Communist Left, however, I'm not sure Stalinksi would recognise him as being in his own camp.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jun 23 2014 16:07
RedEd's picture
RedEd
Offline
Joined: 27-11-10
Jun 23 2014 17:59

Freedom of association also means the freedom to disassociate...

(not that it hasn't been fun)

Soapy's picture
Soapy
Offline
Joined: 30-05-10
Jun 23 2014 18:12
RedEd wrote:
Freedom of association also means the freedom to disassociate...

(not that it hasn't been fun)

#breakuptexts

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 23 2014 20:37

In post #26 trollski wrote:

Quote:
National Socialism is a misnamed ideology, the correct term is of course Nazism or Fascism, quite clearly not the same at all, and NO, Stalinski does not support that.

Third personski..bit fucked-upski?..just thought I'd mentionski.

Yours,

~ Apreski

Reddebrek's picture
Reddebrek
Offline
Joined: 4-01-12
Jun 23 2014 20:39
Stalinski wrote:

Agreed on some of that - The SU should have stayed in Eastern Europe for around ten years after WW2, then let the people decide.

I support Yugo and Albania.

So you were lying then when you started this thread, you don't actually think Patriotism is a good thing unless its in opposition to a nation you dislike. So much for principle. Also you really aren't a Stalinist if you support Tito's "Workers Self Managed" Yugoslavia.

Quote:
I actually said that the CPRF are NOT bastions of Karl Marx.

I KNOW you have said that, I'm asking you why you remain silent about its working with Fascists, Homophobia and racism and conspiracy theories about Jews. Again dodging the question.

Quote:
So, there is no blind love here - but as a mainstream opposition party they are not so bad. Of course, they are not to the left enough at the moment.

If you think the CPRF is an opposition party then you really know nothing of current Russian politics, the CPRF usually supports what United Russia proposes. And if that's all you've got to justify cheerleading them how on earth do you call anyone else Bourgeois? You've just expressed a textbook liberal justification for the electoral process.

Quote:
The French and Americans were colonists invading another country - that is not patriotism, no, it's imperialism.

1: And the Soviet Union occupying Eastern Europe is patriotism and not imperialism because?

2:That's funny because earlier you said this

Quote:
Only traitors do not support their nation,

You're also clearly wrong if you think those who volunteered to fight and a percentage of those who answered when drafted did not do so out of a sense of Patriotism.

Quote:
Vietnam was artificially split in two by the capitalists

Communism 101: All nations are artificial. If you haven't grasped that Liberalski then you really aren't a Stalinist or a Communist of any stripe and probably wouldn't pass for a Social Democrat.

Quote:
the patriots were trying to get their own country back together again. So a completely absurd claim you have made - very reactionary.

Nope just another case of you commenting on things you really don't understand. For starters the South Vietnamese regime were also Patriotic Nationalists many of the new leaders in Saigon had also opposed French Colonialism they were also very anti Communist so America and the French and the Australians and the Thai's supported there regime to keep independent of an ally of the Soviet Union.

Ho Chi Minh's first Guerrilla army the Viet Minh also attacked rival nationalist movements including other Communist groups. In fact he had a record of collaborating with foreign governments in order to secure its place as the main Nationalist movement and de facto government. (thats a link, click it)

Again actually bother to look up the things you bring up to justify your arguments Liberalski you are just embarrassing yourself.

Gepetto's picture
Gepetto
Offline
Joined: 28-10-12
Jun 24 2014 00:02
Ablokeimet wrote:
Gepetto wrote:
Stalinski wrote:
Nice to see that 'freedom of speech' is alive and well here......

"Communists have no codified constitutions to propose. They have a world of lies and constitutions - crystallised in the law and in the force of the dominant class - to crush. They know that only a revolutionary and totalitarian apparatus of force and power, which excludes no means, will be able to prevent the infamous relics of a barbarous epoch from rising again - only it will be able to prevent the monster of social privilege, craving for revenge and servitude, from raising its head again and hurling for the thousandth time its deceitful cry of Freedom!"
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/class-party.htm

Methinks Gepetto was using the quote as a criticism of Stalinski, pointing out what somebody in his camp was saying. Since Bordiga is a primary figure in the genealogy of the Communist Left, however, I'm not sure Stalinksi would recognise him as being in his own camp.

I like Bordiga and I wouldn't profane him by comparing him to Stalinists.

Stalinski
Offline
Joined: 17-06-14
Jun 24 2014 04:04
Ablokeimet wrote:
Methinks Gepetto was using the quote as a criticism of Stalinski, pointing out what somebody in his camp was saying. Since Bordiga is a primary figure in the genealogy of the Communist Left, however, I'm not sure Stalinksi would recognise him as being in his own camp.

Correct, he wouldn't - those Trotksyite fools are usually just liberals in disguise

Stalinski
Offline
Joined: 17-06-14
Jun 24 2014 04:10
Reddebrek wrote:
I KNOW you have said that, I'm asking you why you remain silent about its working with Fascists, Homophobia and racism and conspiracy theories about Jews. Again dodging the question.

Plenty of parties do that, so not sure why I would have to defend the CPRF in particular - let them do as they wish, Russia is a fairly traditional country anyhow, and homophobia - some skinheads perhaps but doubt they are the main core party followers, who knows, whatever

Stalinski
Offline
Joined: 17-06-14
Jun 24 2014 04:15
Reddebrek wrote:
Communism 101: All nations are artificial. If you haven't grasped that Liberalski then you really aren't a Stalinist or a Communist of any stripe and probably wouldn't pass for a Social Democrat

In the final Utopia perhaps, but in reality we have to deal with Socialism first, you know, the pit stop on the way to Communism.

Stalinski
Offline
Joined: 17-06-14
Jun 24 2014 04:18
Reddebrek wrote:

Nope just another case of you commenting on things you really don't understand. For starters the South Vietnamese regime were also Patriotic Nationalists many of the new leaders in Saigon had also opposed French Colonialism they were also very anti Communist so America and the French and the Australians and the Thai's supported there regime to keep independent of an ally of the Soviet Union.

Again actually bother to look up the things you bring up to justify your arguments Liberalski you are just embarrassing yourself.

So the carpet-bagger South Viet govt., ie: a lackey of the imperialists, were 'true' nationalists - do me a favor, this is the kind of stuff that the Republican whackjobs come out with!

from wiki:

Two states formed after the partition – Ho Chi Minh's Democratic Republic of Vietnam in the north and Emperor Bảo Đại's State of Vietnam in the south. A 300-day period of free movement was permitted, during which almost a million northerners, mainly Catholics, moved south, fearing persecution by the communists.[48]

The partition of Vietnam was not intended to be permanent by the Geneva Accords, which stipulated that Vietnam would be reunited after elections in 1956.[49] However, in 1955, the State of Vietnam's Prime Minister, Ngô Đình Diệm, toppled Bảo Đại in a fraudulent referendum organised by his brother Ngô Đình Nhu, and proclaimed himself president of the Republic of Vietnam.[50]

boomerang
Offline
Joined: 20-01-14
Jun 24 2014 04:55

I think nationalism is kind of like "black magic" (if that were a real thing). It can be used to give a boost in achieving some worthwhile goals, goals which likely would have been harder to achieve without the black magic. (Like kicking out the imperialists.) But you can't use black magic without casting a curse on yourself. (The downsides of nationalism that people have mentioned here, from creating unnecessary barriers between people all the way to genocide.) And for achieving your ultimate goals, black magic cannot help you, it will actually sabotage you. (From having a world where we cooperate as equals in a spirit of solidarity.)

Basically, don't fuck with black magic, do the hard work of getting shit done without it, or you'll be sorry later.

Stalinski
Offline
Joined: 17-06-14
Jun 24 2014 05:32

didn't realise this was a religious forum..........

boomerang
Offline
Joined: 20-01-14
Jun 24 2014 07:35

I'm using "black magic" as a metaphor, not because I believe in religious superstition, silly.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 24 2014 08:04

Leonid Trolsky wrote:

Quote:
didn't realise this was a religious forum..........

Maybe Leonid will feel more comfortable having had this epiphany since, like Nazism, Stalinism is a form of state religion. Libera me avunculus Josephus!! Ave Civitas!! E pluribus Unum!! mumble mumble

Stalinski
Offline
Joined: 17-06-14
Jun 24 2014 08:18

Same could be said for Anarchism though. God simply being the void, the Stateless void.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 24 2014 08:48

Trolsky wrote:

Quote:
the Stateless void.

Mmm, I like your void of reason but

Reddebrek's picture
Reddebrek
Offline
Joined: 4-01-12
Jun 24 2014 13:43
Stalinski wrote:
Plenty of parties do that, so not sure why I would have to defend the CPRF in particular - let them do as they wish, Russia is a fairly traditional country anyhow, and homophobia

And we have another dodge, you brought up the CPRF as an example of what you believe in, so yes you do have to defend or admit you made a very stupid mistake. I know Liberals flip-flop all the time but come on.

Quote:
- some skinheads perhaps but doubt they are the main core party followers, who knows, whatever

Of course you doubt it since you're clearly ignoring all the evidence I and others have given you. Plenty of senior CPRF members have given homophobic, racist and antisemitic speeches in the Duma, in their papers and even when they've been invited to international conferences. You were given proof of this. You were also given proof of the Communist Workers Party the group that went on to found the CPRF as early as 93 had worked hand in hand with Fascist groups in the Salvation Front. I don't know why you're trying so had to dodge this Liberalski, but your not fooling anyone.

Quote:
In the final Utopia perhaps, but in reality we have to deal with Socialism first, you know, the pit stop on the way to Communism.

No, all nations are artificial from the moment of their creation. And I guess we can add Socialism to the growing list of words you don't understand.

Quote:
So the carpet-bagger South Viet govt., ie: a lackey of the imperialists, were 'true' nationalists - do me a favor, this is the kind of stuff that the Republican whackjobs come out with!

Yes, a Nationalist wants to create a nation state, they wanted an independent Vietnam, ergo they were Vietnamese Nationalists. Also North Vietnam was heavily dependent on the PRC and USSR, and both made decisions for the North Vietnamese. And there's also the history of collaboration between Ho Chi Minh and western powers, which again I showed you. So we have two options here, either both Vietnam regimes were Nationalists or the influence of foreign powers means neither were.

Actually look Vietnamese history.

Quote:
from wiki:

Two states formed after the partition – Ho Chi Minh's Democratic Republic of Vietnam in the north and Emperor Bảo Đại's State of Vietnam in the south. A 300-day period of free movement was permitted, during which almost a million northerners, mainly Catholics, moved south, fearing persecution by the communists.[48]

The partition of Vietnam was not intended to be permanent by the Geneva Accords, which stipulated that Vietnam would be reunited after elections in 1956.[49] However, in 1955, the State of Vietnam's Prime Minister, Ngô Đình Diệm, toppled Bảo Đại in a fraudulent referendum organised by his brother Ngô Đình Nhu, and proclaimed himself president of the Republic of Vietnam.[50]

You might want to have read that instead of copy and pasting because it has fuck all to do with the point your trying to make. The fact Diem declared an independent Republic and didn't invite France back in means he wanted to rule an independent nation. If he didn't he would have a let the French or whoever re colonise it.

Also if you're using Wikipedia then all it tells me that you really didn't know anything about the period and are now desperately trying to cram.

Stalinski
Offline
Joined: 17-06-14
Jun 25 2014 02:03

So you back the capitalist South over the communist North - nuff said.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jun 25 2014 07:02

Wakey wakey you lot! Beats me why you're all still giving this berk the time of day. Stalinsky, well done, you have surpassed all others in your supreme trolling skills.

That's enough now, yer mam's calling.

Reddebrek's picture
Reddebrek
Offline
Joined: 4-01-12
Jun 25 2014 14:12
Stalinski wrote:
So you back the capitalist South over the communist North - nuff said.

Nope, you see unlike you I'm an actual Communist so I don't support any war but the class war. I'm just pointing out how little you know about the words you use.

Serge Forward wrote:
Wakey wakey you lot! Beats me why you're all still giving this berk the time of day. Stalinsky, well done, you have surpassed all others in your supreme trolling skills.

That's enough now, yer mam's calling.

You know a lot of users have said that but I personally don't think Liberalski is a troll, I could be wrong of course but they post exactly like a teenager who just discovered politicks. Many keyboard Stalinists are fourteen year old Liberals who've latched onto the Soviet Union and its most well known leader who totally beat the Nazi's as a crutch for there discontent.

Liberalski clearly isn't a proper Stalinist or a Communist nor even a Fabian despite all the slogans they trot out. It would also explain why Liberalski is just terrible at defending there own ideas they simply aren't used to debate.

Stalinski
Offline
Joined: 17-06-14
Jun 27 2014 06:12
Reddebrek wrote:
Nope, you see unlike you I'm an actual Communist so I don't support any war but the class war. I'm just pointing out how little you know about the words you use.

How are you going to stop the Red Bourgeoisie from taking over your factories then?