Europe Backdrop to the war in Ukraine

[Gethelred]

This is the thread for the geopolitics, history and framework around the Russia-Ukraine conflict. If you want to discuss the events of the war, head over to this thread:

Europe - War in Ukraine - Thread 4 - thread rules updated

This is the thread for discussing the War in Ukraine. Should you want to discuss the geopolitics, the history, or an interesting tangent, head over here: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/backdrop-to-the-war-in-ukraine.1302028/ If a post isn't directly concerning the events of the war or...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[CD Xbow]

It's hilarious that posters here are condemning (and rightly so) Putin for sending hundreds of thousands of young Russian men to their deaths for the defence of Russian oligarchs' wealth, while remaining silent about Zelensky, who is doing the very same thing -using hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men as cannon fodder in defence of the interests of Ukrainian oligarchs and their US/European capitalist backers.

You must agree it was disgusting that the Poles were sent out to protect the polish oligarchs in WW2 from the Nazi's special operation in Poland.
Honestly, you must be the stupidest poster on BF.

 

[IlovethePies]

The red terror was initiated by Lenin after an attempt on his life.

Dekulakization - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In November 1917, at a meeting of delegates of the committees of poor peasants, Vladimir Lenin announced a new policy to eliminate what were believed to be wealthy Soviet peasants, known as kulaks: "If the kulaks remain untouched, if we don't defeat the freeloaders, the czar and the capitalist will inevitably return.

What a joke, "wealthy peasants". Socialism at its best...kill the wealthy peasants. Lets put the dumb people who don't know how to farm in charge of farms.
Of course Stalin thought it was great fun and continued the legacy.

Again, you need to learn history. One of the key concepts in historical knowledge is "historical context". What was happening in 1917-21 after the working class seized power under the leadership of the Bolsheviks?

Counterrevolutionary miitary forces assembled in Siberia, the Baltic states and Southern Russia- the so called "White Armies" who soon unleashed a campaign of White terror in all the territory they seized within Russia.

Soon Western governments began sending troops to join the White armies: in 1918, Britain, France, the U.S., Canada, Italy, and Serbia landed 10,000 troops in Murmansk and Kandalaksha, while British, American, and Japanese forces landed in Vladivostok. ( I'm even using the same source as you, Wikipedia!!)

Starvation raged throughout Russia's cities, due to the devastation caused by Russia's participation in the First World War. To immediately prevent mass starvation, Lenin ordered the armed requisitioning of grain from the kulaks. This was an emergency measure amidst widespread chaos, famine and the threat of extreme right wing counterrevolution.

From your own source (Wikipedia): The requisitions disincentivised peasants from producing more grain than they could personally consume, and thus production slumped.[244] A booming black market supplemented the official state-sanctioned economy,[245] and Lenin called on speculators, black marketeers and looters to be shot" - it was these layers, the parasitic speculators, who were attempting to make money by taking advantage of mass starvation, that Lenin referred to as "blood suckers".

Lenin abolished the policy of forced grain requisition as soon as possible: he understood that it would create hostility to the Bolshevik regime, and only introduced it in the first place to defend the Revolution itself by feeding the starving workers in the cities.

Your arguments are drawn from the playbook of all the right wing, pro-US Cold War historians, who have been discredited in academia by genuine historical researchers who seek the truth. Typically, they condemn the violence that the Bolsheviks carried out without referring to the far greater violence of the White Armies, backed by imperialist troops, and all the counterrevolutionary elements within Russia itself who opposed the Russian Revolution and formed alliances with the Whites in an attempt to overthrow the Bolshevik goverment.

 

[Jamolad]

Why do you refer to 1917 Russia as a 'revolution' and not a 'coup'?

And why do you refer to Ukraine 2014 as a 'coup' and not a 'revolution'?

 

[IlovethePies]

You must agree it was disgusting that the Poles were sent out to protect the polish oligarchs in WW2 from the Nazi's special operation in Poland.
Honestly, you must be the stupidest poster on BF.

IF you are genuinely interested (which I doubt) I would refer you to the military policy of the socialist movement.

The working class is bombarded by nationalist prowar propaganda during any war, and is always initially convinced by the propaganda that killing the workers of the opposing army is in their interests.

While the working class believes it needs to fight the war, the socialists join the army as well. But while in the army, the socialists explain to the workers that they have been lied to by the capitalist oligarchs, and their interests do not lie in slaughtering their class brothers from the enemy country. Their real enemies are the capitalist oligarchs and the capitalist politicians in their own country who are sending them to the slaughter house for their profit interests.

This is precisely what happened in Russia in 1917. After the overthrow of the Tsar in February 1917, there was an initial spike in patriotism and pro war sentiment as the Kerensky government spread its prowar nationalist propaganda after the jubilation caused by the overthrow of the Tsar.

But after a few months of war, the misery and ongoing massacres, the influence of the Bolsheviks prevailed within the army over the propaganda and lies of the so called liberals in the Kerensky government.

So socialists in Poland would have gone to war with the Polish army, and fought to convince the Polish workers that their enemy was the Polish oligarchs themselves, who at the turn of a hat would do a deal with the Nazis if by doing so they could preserve their wealth.

The task was to overthrow the Polish capitalists and to inspire the German and European workers to join them.

What I am saying is not "stupid" - it simply challenges the historical lies that we have all been indoctrinated with in our youth. Some people mistake the challenge for "stupidity" because they struggle to leave the constrictions of a childhood framework.

 

[Jamolad]

Why did you delete your original response? Yes, I saw it.

You replied "Because it was a popular uprising" or something similar.

Where did that go?

Did you delete it because you realised how stupid you looked, and were revealing your bias for all to see? Answering only why you call 1917 a revolution (which it was), but not answering why you refer to 2014 as a coup? Particularly given your justification for why 1917 was a revolution means that 2014 was also a revolution and not a coup?

I get that 2014 was not popular with you, but it was a popular uprising, it was not a small group of conspirators. So why the difference in language that you use?

 

[IlovethePies]

Why do you refer to 1917 Russia as a 'revolution' and not a 'coup'?

And why do you refer to Ukraine 2014 as a 'coup' and not a 'revolution'?

Great questions.

I call the events in Maidan 2014 a coup because they represented the culmination of long standing efforts by the US to install a puppet regime in Ukraine.

The socalled "Orange Revolution", of 2004 widely heralded in the Western media as a "democratic revolution", was a total fraud. In the 2006 Ukrainian revolution, Victor Yushchenko of the Our Ukraine party, the darling of Washington, ended in third place with only 15% of the vote.

The Orange "Revolution " was never a genuine mass movement. It lacked any democratic principles, the and was was a highly unstable coalition of rival interests whose united by their willingness to become pawns in Washington’s power struggle with Moscow.

The winner of the election was Yanukovich,(with 30% of the vote). Yanukovich was the very man that the pro-US Orange Revolution was supposed to remove.

Yanukovich was a corrupt representative of the Eastern Ukrainian industrial oligarchs, who opposed the pro-market policies of the "Orange Revolution" because they viewed these as a threat to their lucrative business arrangements with the Russian capitalists.

In the meantime, Washington was opposed to the Yanukovich regime, because it represented a barrier to the unchallenged looting of the Ukrainian economy by US and European corporations.

In November 2013, Yanukovich refused to sign an Association Agreement with the EU. This refusal was unacceptable to the US and Germany.

The US and Germany had been systematically supporting the pro-EU opposition to Yanukovich, which contained the same poltical forces who had been involved in the "Orange Revolution", along with fascist neo-nazis in Tyanhybok's Svoboda party.

The initial opposition demonstration failed to force Yanukovych to resign. At this point, paramilitary fascist militias were mobilized to intensify the conflict and propel the country to the brink of civil war. The leading role was played by the so-called Right Sector, whose masked militants, equipped with helmets, batons, fire bombs and firearms soon dominated the center of Kiev, carrying out fierce attacks on the security forces. News reports estimate their number in Kiev alone to be between 2,000 and 3,000.

I hope this summary explains why I call the regime change operation in Maidan 2014 as a coup. It was not based on any genuine popularly supported movement within Ukraine. It was the product of US and German imperialism's intervention into Ukrainian politics through their support of corrupt wealthy proWestern capitalist politicians like Timoshcenko along with outright Ukrainian fascists.

This strengthening of the fascists would not be possible without the systematic support of the media and the main political parties in Europe and the US. Liberal newspapers such as the New York Times and the Süddeutsche Zeitung produced a deluge of propaganda portraying events in Ukraine as a “democratic revolution”, glossing over the role of fascists and glorifying the coup.

In contrast to this, research by the most principled historians who genuinely seek the truth (and not pro US propagandists masquerading as genuine historians) have proven beyond doubt that the Russian Revolution of October 1917 and the overthrow of the capitalist Kerensky government was the product of a genuine mass movement attracted to the policies of the Bolsheviks.

I would refer you to one such historian of intellectual integrity: Alexander Rabinowitch, who published in 2007: The Bolsheviks in Power: The First Year of Bolshevik Rule in Petrograd,
Rabinowitch has also written other works on the Bolshevik revolution which are also based on his principled method of research. However, the one I mention above is particularly notable because he wrote it after he had had access to archival material previously kept secret by Soviet authorities but made available to him after the liquidation of the Soviet Union.

If you are interested in finding more evidence of Washington's ties with Ukrainian fascists in the current Ukrainian government, here is an interesting blog:

Bandera Lobby Blog | Moss Robeson | Substack

Unearthing the present-day OUN-B. Click to read Bandera Lobby Blog, by Moss Robeson, a Substack publication with thousands of subscribers.

banderalobby.substack.com

Here is an interview with an author of this blog:

On the history of Washington’s ties to the Ukrainian Banderites and their role in the war against Russia

Moss Robeson is a young, independent researcher in New York City who has run a prominent blog “Bandera Lobby,” about the history and contemporary political role of the movement associated with the Ukrainian Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera.

www.wsws.org

 

[IlovethePies]

Why did you delete your original response? Yes, I saw it.

You replied "Because it was a popular uprising" or something similar.

Where did that go?

Did you delete it because you realised how stupid you looked, and were revealing your bias for all to see? Answering only why you call 1917 a revolution (which it was), but not answering why you refer to 2014 as a coup? Particularly given your justification for why 1917 was a revolution means that 2014 was also a revolution and not a coup?

I get that 2014 was not popular with you, but it was a popular uprising, it was not a small group of conspirators. So why the difference in language that you use?

I deleted it because it wasnt the finished product. The finished product is now there, above.
I took the time to reflect and write a thorough response to your questions.

 

[Jamolad]

By "finished product" and "took time to reflect and write a thorough response", you mean another copy-pasta from your favourite website...this article

Behind the collapse of Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution”

Ukraine’s March 25 parliamentary elections and the subsequent back-room deals between the main political actors have exposed the fraudulent nature of the so-called “Orange Revolution” of November and December 2004.

www.wsws.org

With a bit taken from this article too

Coup in Ukraine: A warning to the international working class

What has seemed unthinkable since 1945 has come to pass: while the US and Germany ruthlessly destabilized Ukraine, fascists have become the decisive force on the ground.

www.wsws.org

And you try to tell us to think for ourselves. Unbelievable.

It's the same lack of self-awareness that has you telling us to learn about history, so soon after your "Dunkirk D-Day Invasion" gaff.

 

[IlovethePies]

By "finished product", you mean another copy-pasta from your favourite website...this article

Behind the collapse of Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution”

Ukraine’s March 25 parliamentary elections and the subsequent back-room deals between the main political actors have exposed the fraudulent nature of the so-called “Orange Revolution” of November and December 2004.

www.wsws.org

It isn't a copy and paste. It is a summary of its contents in relation to your questions, plus material I know from elsewhere. ( I have read Rabinowich's history of the Bolsheviks).

I use the wsws as my primary source because it is the only website in the world which is fighting for historical truth.

 

[IlovethePies]

By "finished product" and "took time to reflect and write a thorough response", you mean another copy-pasta from your favourite website...this article

Behind the collapse of Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution”

Ukraine’s March 25 parliamentary elections and the subsequent back-room deals between the main political actors have exposed the fraudulent nature of the so-called “Orange Revolution” of November and December 2004.

www.wsws.org

With a bit taken from this article too

Coup in Ukraine: A warning to the international working class

What has seemed unthinkable since 1945 has come to pass: while the US and Germany ruthlessly destabilized Ukraine, fascists have become the decisive force on the ground.

www.wsws.org

And you try to tell us to think for ourselves. Unbelievable.

It's the same lack of self-awareness that has you telling us to learn about history, so soon after your "Dunkirk D-Day Invasion" gaff.

Posters here like you regurgitate US propaganda and the contents of msm and claim that they "think for themselves"

No one "thinks for themselves" because we are all being constantly bombarded by propaganda.

There is the dominant propaganda of the capitalist class, which owns the corporate media and social media.

Then there is the propaganda of the working class, embodied in the wsws.

You now have a choice. You can continue to parrot the capitalist propaganda, without realising it, and claiming to "think for yourself".

Or you can consider the propaganda of the working class, from the wsws, and then make an informed decision over who you wish to believe. That is what I have done.

The propaganda of the working class is the truth, because only the working class has a class interest in establishing the truth. The capitalist class, which has plunged the world into everlasting covid infections, which is threatening now to provoke Russia into a nuclear response by giving the Ukrainian government authority to hit Moscow and other Russian citites with US/NATO missiles, and which is arming Israel's genocide in Gaza, has an interest in suppressing the truth.

Your choice whether to keep parrotting capitalist lies and propaganda, or subject your own framework to critical scrutiny.

 

[Jamolad]

Guess I will take your word for it and not see for myself how wsws rates for bias and accuracy, and whether they promote conspiracy theories.

Oh wait, you also told me to educate myself. [Jamolad checks credibility of wsws]

Oh dear. Won't share my results, DYOR

 

[IlovethePies]

Guess I will take your word for it and not see for myself how wsws rates for bias and accuracy, and whether they promote conspiracy theories.

Oh wait, you also told me to educate myself. [Jamolad checks credibility of wsws]

Oh dear. Won't share my results, DYOR

See my post above.
You have a choice.
Only you can decide.

 

[Jamolad]

I'd call you a "useful idiot", only I don't think you are useful to the masters you unknowingly serve.

Which just leaves "idiot".

 

[IlovethePies]

I'd call you a "useful idiot", only I don't think you are useful to the masters you unknowingly serve.

Which just leaves "idiot".

Call me what you like.
It makes not one iota of difference to anything.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Posters here like you regurgitate US propaganda and the contents of msm and claim that they "think for themselves"

No one "thinks for themselves" because we are all being constantly bombarded by propaganda.

There is the dominant propaganda of the capitalist class, which owns the corporate media and social media.

Then there is the propaganda of the working class, embodied in the wsws.

You now have a choice. You can continue to parrot the capitalist propaganda, without realising it, and claiming to "think for yourself".

Or you can consider the propaganda of the working class, from the wsws, and then make an informed decision over who you wish to believe. That is what I have done.

The propaganda of the working class is the truth, because only the working class has a class interest in establishing the truth. The capitalist class, which has plunged the world into everlasting covid infections, which is threatening now to provoke Russia into a nuclear response by giving the Ukrainian government authority to hit Moscow and other Russian citites with US/NATO missiles, and which is arming Israel's genocide in Gaza, has an interest in suppressing the truth.

Your choice whether to keep parrotting capitalist lies and propaganda, or subject your own framework to critical scrutiny.

See that's where it all falls down.
Its not a truth.
Your working class is just as full of corruption and stupidity , and dishonesty as any other class.
Your old Russian theories all seem to involve some group of altruistic angels who will sacrifice themselves for the greater good.

 

[IlovethePies]

See that's where it all falls down.
Its not a truth.
Your working class is just as full of corruption and stupidity , and dishonesty as any other class.
Your old Russian theories all seem to involve some group of altruistic angels who will sacrifice themselves for the greater good.

Marxism is not a "Russian theory". Marx was born in present day Germany. Marxism was subsequently developed by many socialist intellectuals...the Russian Marxists were among the most outstanding but there were several other outstanding intellectuals (Friedrich Engels of course, who was also born in Germany, Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Kautsky for example) who were not Russian. The Marxist movement was international in character.

Finally, it is not a question of corrupt, stupid individuals belonging to whatever class. It is a question of class interests. Whatever individual workers might think, the class as a whole will turn to Marxism for answers. It will be compelled to do so for its own survival, because more and more capitalism is threatening to make life impossible for the working class.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Marxism is not a "Russian theory". Marx was born in present day Germany. Marxism was subsequently developed by many socialist intellectuals...the Russian Marxists were among the most outstanding but there were several other outstanding intellectuals (Friedrich Engels of course, who was also born in Germany, Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Kautsky for example) who were not Russian. The Marxist movement was international in character.

Finally, it is not a question of corrupt, stupid individuals belonging to whatever class. It is a question of class interests. Whatever individual workers might think, the class as a whole will turn to Marxism for answers. It will be compelled to do so for its own survival, because more and more capitalism is threatening to make life impossible for the working class.

I say they weren't outstanding intellectuals , because they were wrong. Like you are. "class as a whole for its own survival"? Are you talking the survival of actual people, because who gives a rats about the survival of a "class".
Classes aren't like a nest of insects. There is a spectrum.
What about the politicians who always end up running the show? The ones who tell the "workers" what they should be thinking?
What class are they?

 

[IlovethePies]

I say they weren't outstanding intellectuals , because they were wrong. Like you are. "class as a whole for its own survival"? Are you talking the survival of actual people, because who gives a rats about the survival of a "class".
Classes aren't like a nest of insects. There is a spectrum.
What about the politicians who always end up running the show? The ones who tell the "workers" what they should be thinking?
What class are they?

Not sure that you are in a position to judge whether they were right or wrong without even knowing what they were explaining, or what they meant by the class nature of society.


Politicians represent class interests. They run the show for this reason. The capitalist class controls the media and the wealth of society, and therefore only politicians that represent its interests "run the show". All the governments in the world are populated by politicians who in one way or another represent the class interests of the capitalist class.

Lenin explained that the capitalist government is like a committee which balances overall the competing interests of all factions of the bourgeoisie and creates an overall "optimal average ". Their policies reflect the overall interests of the capitalist class.

As competing sections of the capitalist class fight with each other to influence this "overall average" in their favour, you see a conflict in policies between capitalist parties. That is what we are witnessing in the US right now. Trump represents the most dictatorial and authoritarian sections of the capitalist class who believe that the most pressing issue is to eliminate democratic rights in the US in order to prevent opposition to austerity and war. Harris on the other hand represents those sections who place the priority (at the moment) on war as the means to reassert US economic hegemony.

Politicians of the working class are those who fight to build a revolutionary party...like Lenin and Trotsky, and the Bolshevik party. They will never be able to get elected and rule through Parliament, because Parliament is a facade for the dictatorship of the capitalist class. Should revolutionary socialist politicians begin to have mass influence, the capitalist class will close down Parliament and attempt to impose a fascist dictatorship.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Not sure that you are in a position to judge whether they were right or wrong without even knowing what they were explaining, or what they meant by the class nature of society.


Politicians represent class interests. They run the show for this reason. The capitalist class controls the media and the wealth of society, and therefore only politicians that represent its interests "run the show". All the governments in the world are populated by politicians who in one way or another represent the class interests of the capitalist class.

Lenin explained that the capitalist government is like a committee which balances overall the competing interests of all factions of the bourgeoisie and creates an overall "optimal average ". Their policies reflect the overall interests of the capitalist class.

As competing sections of the capitalist class fight with each other to influence this "overall average" in their favour, you see a conflict in policies between capitalist parties. That is what we are witnessing in the US right now. Trump represents the most dictatorial and authoritarian sections of the capitalist class who believe that the most pressing issue is to eliminate democratic rights in the US in order to prevent opposition to austerity and war. Harris on the other hand represents those sections who place the priority (at the moment) on war as the means to reassert US economic hegemony.

Politicians of the working class are those who fight to build a revolutionary party...like Lenin and Trotsky, and the Bolshevik party. They will never be able to get elected and rule through Parliament, because Parliament is a facade for the dictatorship of the capitalist class. Should revolutionary socialist politicians begin to have mass influence, the capitalist class will close down Parliament and attempt to impose a fascist dictatorship.

But those politicians weren't of the working class .
They were representing their own views.
If the working class disapproved of them , the only way to make them stand down was through violence. Not easy when they commanded armies.
Communist governments exploited workers to their own ends no less than any of your "bourgeoise" did. ( Stupid word which is nothing more than an old fashioned insult ).
Has there even been a semi-stable approximation of a socialist government? Cuba maybe?

Single party states evolve into dictatorships because they actually "don't" represent the workers. The workers can't dismiss them.

If you are a middle manager for a company, are you "Worker" or "Bourgeoise"? What if you are highly educated and an expert in your field? Is your opinion for management purposes replaced by that of someone who is good at picking things up and putting them over there? If you've been working 60 hour weeks to meet your job commitments , should you do that when you've been placed on the same pay as everyone else?
Whole thing is pretty stupid, and its a travesty that its been responsible for so much death and suffering.

Why is China tending "away" from socialism if its an inevitable end?

 

[Andre]

Spot on.
Reminds me of Israel/Hamas war.
One side could end it,but they don't.
Play on,no WW3 incoming.

It'd be the same if Ukraine had invaded Russia killing civilians, then Russia wasn't stopping in their disproportionate response. Israel should stop and don't take enough care in whether they hit civilians whilst trying to target Hamas, but to be like Russia (besides attacked first), they'd have to be not just not caring, but deliberately targeting civilians instead of Hamas, when given the chance. Outside being wars, they have few similarities.

 

[RonSon]

Not sure that you are in a position to judge whether they were right or wrong without even knowing what they were explaining, or what they meant by the class nature of society.


Politicians represent class interests. They run the show for this reason. The capitalist class controls the media and the wealth of society, and therefore only politicians that represent its interests "run the show". All the governments in the world are populated by politicians who in one way or another represent the class interests of the capitalist class.

Lenin explained that the capitalist government is like a committee which balances overall the competing interests of all factions of the bourgeoisie and creates an overall "optimal average ". Their policies reflect the overall interests of the capitalist class.

As competing sections of the capitalist class fight with each other to influence this "overall average" in their favour, you see a conflict in policies between capitalist parties. That is what we are witnessing in the US right now. Trump represents the most dictatorial and authoritarian sections of the capitalist class who believe that the most pressing issue is to eliminate democratic rights in the US in order to prevent opposition to austerity and war. Harris on the other hand represents those sections who place the priority (at the moment) on war as the means to reassert US economic hegemony.

Politicians of the working class are those who fight to build a revolutionary party...like Lenin and Trotsky, and the Bolshevik party. They will never be able to get elected and rule through Parliament, because Parliament is a facade for the dictatorship of the capitalist class. Should revolutionary socialist politicians begin to have mass influence, the capitalist class will close down Parliament and attempt to impose a fascist dictatorship.

 

[RonSon]

Can we please take all this shit to the "Real Socialism Thread".

 

[IlovethePies]

But those politicians weren't of the working class .
They were representing their own views.
If the working class disapproved of them , the only way to make them stand down was through violence. Not easy when they commanded armies.
Communist governments exploited workers to their own ends no less than any of your "bourgeoise" did. ( Stupid word which is nothing more than an old fashioned insult ).
Has there even been a semi-stable approximation of a socialist government? Cuba maybe?

Single party states evolve into dictatorships because they actually "don't" represent the workers. The workers can't dismiss them.

If you are a middle manager for a company, are you "Worker" or "Bourgeoise"? What if you are highly educated and an expert in your field? Is your opinion for management purposes replaced by that of someone who is good at picking things up and putting them over there? If you've been working 60 hour weeks to meet your job commitments , should you do that when you've been placed on the same pay as everyone else?
Whole thing is pretty stupid, and its a travesty that its been responsible for so much death and suffering.

Why is China tending "away" from socialism if its an inevitable end?

And this is where you are wrong. If you read the book by Rabinowitch, you will see that the Bolsheviks retained a totally democratic structure throughout the months leading up to October 1917.

The reason why the Stalinists in the end overthrew the genuine international socialists was because socialist revolution did not extend beyond the borders of Russia.

Nowhere else in the world had there developed a party of the same quality as the Bolsheviks. The capitalist class was able to suppress revolution in Germany because the revolutionary party had not developed the same levels of political clarity and leadership as had the Bolsheviks.

Once the Soviet union was isolated, the immense pressures placed upon it - devastated by world war and then the rampage of the counterrevolutionary White Army - meant that the forces of pessimism and demoralisation could gain a sway. Stalin represented the layers of a privileged bureaucracy who more and more came to believe that their future lay in the status quo.

Yes, single states will always develop into dictatorships. That is why only a party based on internationalism represents the future.

I repeat, there is no national way forward. This is proven by the shipwreck of the Soviet Union. It is proven also by the fact that the Chinese regime has brought back capitalism. The Tianamen square massacre in 1989 was a signal to US/Eurpoean imperialism that the Chinese government was willing to invite their corporations into China to exploit the cheap labour of the Chinesw working class.

China, like the Soviet Union, was never socialist. It is impossible for socialism to exist in a single nation state. Socialism is a higher form of social organisation than capitalism. Therefore, socialism means a world planned economy in which the anarchy of the capitalist market is superseded by the rational planning of production for the needs of society, and not for the profit interests of a parasitic billionaire layer.

 

[IlovethePies]

Can we please take all this shit to the "Real Socialism Thread".

YOu can take it there if you like. Democracy is also, supposedly, a value under capitalism.

 

[IlovethePies]

View attachment 2111317

OK, try thinking for once. You might benefit from a fresh experience.