Red_Scare [he/him]

NP! I liked it so I reverse searched for a high quality version.

Free high quality version on the artist page:

https://www.davidrevoy.com/article43/yin-and-yang-of-world-hunger/show

Isn’t it basically petty bourgeoisie + labour aristocracy?

There’s exactly the same sentiment expressed in one of the exhibits in the Berlin Stasi museum (predictably).

I think the term originated within CPGB (a Marxist-Leninist party in the UK) so Trots had nothing to do with this one.

By the way, Vijay Prashad explained it very well a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsqE9kEsDVY

https://lemmygrad.ml/post/7357419/6115188

Stalin had nothing to do with Hungary though, that was Khrushchev.

Eton Mouse

“Everyone should do as they please” is such entitled bullshit.

People were provided homes, jobs, education, healthcare, maternal leave, holidays for children in pioneer camps, and so on and forth, in a poor country that didn’t benefit from imperialism and didn’t exploit other nations.

To achieve that, able-bodied people were expected to contribute and parasitism was not tolerated.

(Edit) You probably grew up in a capitalist society so maybe you just have trouble imagining a different one.

Under capitalism, the most vulnerable people end up homeless and unemployed, but in the USSR nobody was left behind, vulnerable people were provided homes and given jobs they were able to perform. People with mental health issues were treated, as a matter of fact Western propaganda painted the high number of hospitalised people as an example of how repressive USSR is, instead of recognising that in the West many of those people would be homeless, freezing to death in winter and suffering all kinds of abuse.

Hospitalisation was not the first thing to do either - USSR had a huge “sanatorium” industry, with entire towns built in beautiful locations like seaside, mountain ranges, etc. Workers who were suffering from stress, anxiety etc would be sent there by their doctors to rest and rehabilitate from entire USSR in hundreds of thousands - someting only the rich could afford in the West at the time. Of course now those huge sanatorium complexes are mostly empty ruins, one of the most striking examples is Tskhaltubo in Georgia (https://wander-lush.org/visit-tskaltubo-travel-guide-tips/)

If people were unhappy with their housing situation they could apply to change it and enter a queue for a new accomodation, similarly those unhappy with their jobs had all kinds of free evening education courses available, re-training schemes, and so forth.

Laws against vagrancy and parasitism didn’t victimise the vulnerable, rather they existed to control the criminality. If you didn’t work legally, where were you getting money from? If you didn’t live under your registered address, how did you get an unregistered accomodation?

What do you mean “still”, of course that’s a good thing.

Unironically, being homeless or unemployed was illegal in the USSR, everyone was provided with a place to live and a job and if you instead chose vagrancy or parasitism you could serve time.

“Patriotic socialism” is simply a new coat of linguistic paint for the good old “national socialism”, same as “cultural Marxism” is just an updated name for “cultural Bolshevism”.

WPB was set up by Joti Brar of CPGB-ML and Galloway the rape apologist which should tell one everything they need to know.

I’m sorry but that passage from Foundations doesn’t apply to every war you support. Vietnam was not waging a war of national liberation against Cambodian colonisers and it had nothing to do with Vietnamese self determination. I don’t understand anymore why you say the things you’re saying so I think I’ll leave it here.

I don’t even know what you’re talking about anymore, are you equating Vietnam liberating Cambodia from Pol Pot with Russia invading Ukraine?

Russia is protecting it’s sovereignty when it e.g. puts Navalny behind bars. But it was simply protecting it’s security interests when it invaded Ukraine. Ukraine did not colonise Russia, this is not a war of national liberation. This invasion is not anti-imperialist, and it wasn’t necessary - Russia absolutely had enough power in Ukraine to meddle and pull strings, hell do some assassinations, sanctions, etc.

This war has accelerated the European descent into fascism, it made Europe dependent on the US energy, it triggered European countries to join NATO and to raise their defense budgets by billions. This is exactly what the US wanted, and Trump will likely push NATO countries to increase their defense budgets even further.

(Edit) If Russia starts an all out war with Georgia I won’t support that either.

The Foundations of Leninism was published in 1924 when India was under the British rule and China was in the Century of Humiliation, both would only end in the aftermath of WW2.

I lived through what happened during the 90s and I’ll always remember it, which is why I didn’t believe for a second Europe has anything in store for Ukraine (or Russia) but massacre, rape, plunder, and slavery. Bandera (and Vlasov) made this mistake, then Kravchuk (and Yeltsin) made the same mistake. Putin did too some time ago, and more recently pro-Western Ukrainian governments. We can all see the outcome for Ukrainians.

You are uninformed about the content of the self determination theory you’re attempting to quote. It simply doesn’t apply here, apples and oranges.

This is very uninformed. They were specifically talking about national liberation movements of oppressed peoples. Russia is not colonised and not fighting for independence.

Emphasis mine:

The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such “desperate” democrats and “Socialists,” “revolutionaries” and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British “Labour” Government is waging to preserve Egypt’s dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are “for” socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step.

Miscommunication, I fully agree with you.