Russian Flags Raised In Ukraine's South- How Far Will This Go?

Absolute balderdash.

 

Its just to show the new Temp gov is "washing their hands" from his leadership

 

Is this your rebuttal to the direct quotes I literally just provided from Marx and Engels in which they promoted racism, anti-Semitism, authoritarianism, and the democide of the rival classes through state terror? I mean the only logical conclusion is that you didn't even bother to read what was presented.

As the non-democidal and much funnier and intelligent Marx once said: "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

 

Historical reality says that there was and that you literally have no idea what you are talking about.

Ah the Rothschilds rather than the stagnant state planning system which has failed everywhere it has been tried caused the mass shortages, stagflation, and hyperinflation. Please tell me exactly how they were sabotaged by those sneaky Rothschilds? We have gone well beyond the realm of simple denial of undeniable well documented historical reality and into the realm of delusional conspiratorial nonsense.

 

Your selectively and cherry-picked quotes taken out of their historical context do not represent an accurate philosophical reflection of Marxism. This is yet another oversimplified and polarized perspective on your part. You are not alone. Even many of those sympathetic to Marx who claim to self-identify with his writings and theoretical perspectives, misunderstand Marxism. This was equally true for many followers of Marx during the period when he was writing in the mid-19th century. This prompted him to exclaim, "God save me from my friends, I can protect myself from my enemies." Similarly, it is clear, that your mis-reading of Marx implies the real, flesh and blood Marx was not a Marxist.

 

What historical context can justify calling for an abolition of democracy in favor of authoritarian state terror?

Why because Engels once mentioned in passing the "withering away of the state" without explaining how or why that would come to pass following the erection of his dictatorship of the proletariat when he in fact describes many times and in detail his dictatorship of the proletariat and the state terror upon which his permanent revolution will be based?

 

Contrary to myth, Marx was not a determinist.

 

`

So then there is no argument to be made that the state would actually wither away or that the state terror based dictatorship of the proletariat would not be a permanent feature of a Marxist society.

 

The term ' dictatorship of the proletariat' is something else that is misunderstood by critics of Marx. If you want, I'll explain why.

 

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a tyranny of the masses under which the rights of the minority are non-existent and cooperation is coerced through state terror. And in reality when applied the dictatorship of the proletariat inevitably becomes a tyranny of the Vanguard IE the red Bourgeois without exception.

 

I never said anything about when the Crimea became Russian, I made a comment about it being "Russified". This was a tactic used by the Soviets to change the demographics of problem areas to make them more amenable to Soviet leadership. They would move out large population segments of the problem children (often to either prisons or they just plain "disappeared") and moving in loyal Soviet citizens to take their place. Along with the Tartars and Greeks that were moved out of the Crimea was a large population of Jews (many of whom were Greeks) that were moved out.

My point is that the Crimea is a key military location for the Russians and it holds a lot of very pro-Russian folks, including a lot of people who have Russia citizenship. If things get too unstable in the Ukraine, it's highly likely that the Russians will take full control of the Crimea using the safety of the Russian citizens there as a justification.

 

That's an amazing analysis, Jeanette! Apparently the Russian Revolution had nothing to do with real Russians!. Who knew!!!

 

This is rubbish based on a mis-reading of the term. Marx believed that the struggle of the working class would increasingly transform itself into a political movement whose objective would be the conquest of state power. The state, he believed, was a product of class antagonisms and an instrument of class domination. The working class could, therefore, triumph only by overthrowing the capitalist state.

The famous phrase, 'dictatorship of the proletariat' naturally makes some people feel uneasy. In a century that has seen Stalin's bloody despotism, it is easy to believe that the term would be a dictatorship over the working class by a small minority. And that is, indeed, how Blanqui, who coined the phrase, saw it.

We should, however, remember that in the 19th century the term 'dictatorship' was no so strongly associated with images of secret police and concentration camps. Educated people would have been aware that the dictator was originally an official of the ancient Roman republic, appointed to rule for a limited period of 6 months in times of emergency.

Marx indeed saw the dictatorship of the proletariat as TEMPORARY, the 'necessary transit point' between capitalism and a classless communist society. Moreover, Marx and Engels believed that the state was first and foremost an instrument of coercion, 'special bodies of armed men, as Lenin succinctly put it.

In this respect, the D of the P would be no different from any previous form state, since all were based on coercion, and would not necessarily be any more arbitary or repressive than its predecessors. The main distinguishing feature of the D of the P was that it was precisely "the proletariat organized as the ruling class. For the first time in history the direct producers, the mass of ordinary working people, would control the state. Indeed, they would be the state.

The state would have ceased to be the means through which an exploiting minority dominated the exploited majority. It would be the dictatorship of the majority over the minority.

 

Oh I didn't realize these black hooded gun toting thugs were voted in by the majority of the Ukrainian people. My mistake!

 

The Soviet takeover of Russia was no different than the Soviet takeover of Ukraine, Poland, etc. It culminated in one of the largest movements of people to ever leave a country. It is assumed that more than two million Russians left after the Bolshevik takeover. Five thousand Christian Churches and monasteries were destroyed and twenty thousand bishops, priests and monks were martyred, which was more than all the Christian martyrs killed in Rome.

 

Yes overthrowing it through violence regardless if the state was a liberal democracy or not, and once it was overthrown the Authoritarian dictatorship of the proletariat was to be established and it was to coerce the populace through state terror and it didn't rely on a majority of the working class supported it or not, even if they did not they would be coerced through violence as would all other class enemies.

You are simply ignorant of Marxist teachings, he explicitly called for an authoritarian system of governance and coercion through state terror.

Pure unmitigated rubbish, Marx was writing at a time when he himself admitted democracy was in fashion, it was after the democratic revolutions in the United States and France.and Constitutional monarchy in much of Europe, people at that time would have understood dictatorship to mean overt despotism which Marx and Engels specifically called for!

He was writing post Locke and Jefferson, your historical revisionism is sheer nonsense.
"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means. And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority?"[/i]
- Friedrich Engels: "Controversy with the Anarchists", 1873



"The workers... must try as much as ever possible to counteract all bourgeois attempts at appeasement, and compel the democrats to carry out their present terrorist phrases. They must act in such a manner that the revolutionary excitement does not collapse immediately after the victory. On the contrary, they must maintain it as long as possible. Far from opposing so-called excesses, such as sacrificing to popular revenge of hated individuals or public buildings to which hateful memories are attached, such deeds must not only be tolerated, but their direction must be taken in hand, for examples' sake. ...from the first moment of victory we must no longer direct our distrust against the beaten reactionary enemy, but against our former allies [the democratic forces], against the party who are now about to exploit the common victory for their own ends only. ... The arming of the whole proletariat with rifles, guns, and ammunition should be carried out at once [and] the workers must ... organize themselves into an independent guard, with their own chiefs and general staff, to put themselves under the order, not of the [new] Government, but of the revolutionary authorities set up by the workers. ... Destruction of the influence of bourgeois democracy over the workers ...[is a main point] which the proletariat, and therefore also the League, has to keep in eye during and after the coming upheaval. ...to be able effectively to oppose the petty bourgeois democracy. In order that [the democratic party] whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the first hour of victory, should be frustrated in its nefarious work, it is necessary to organize and arm the proletariat."
- Karl Marx "Address to the Communist League" March 1850, cited in E. Burns (ed): A Handbook of Marxism 1935, p.66-68.


"It would perhaps be as well if things were to remain quiet for a few years yet, so that all this 1848 democracy has time to rot away."
- Karl Marx to Joseph Weydemayer (Letter, 27 Juni 1851)

Exactly the state was to be used as an instrument of terror to coerce the masses through a dictatorship composed of what Lenin would call the vanguard. The assertion that this vanguard would relinquish this power once it had achieved it is laughable on its face especially considering that through the authoritarian regime based on state terror which was erected would deprive the masses of any conceivable way to fight back.

Abject nonsense, Marx went well beyond calling for simple state coercion, he called for coercion state terror!

Yes because the vanguard didn't simply replace one minority exploiter with another IE the Red bourgeoisie; furthermore, for Marx it didn't matter whether or not the majority supported the dictatorship of the proletariat or not, they would be made to comply by force, and the assertion that the rights of the majority are not respected within a liberal democracy which Marx sought to destroy is simply asinine, once again the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is nothing but a tyranny of the masses based on coercion through state terror, that is what was meant by Marx and Engels as proven by their own words.

 

Crimea is Russia, not Ukraine!

Russia fought and suffered to capture Crimea from Ottoman Empire. Ukraine had nothing to do with it.

Crimea was transfered as "symbol of friendship" from Russian Soviet Republic to Ukrainian Soviet Republic in 1954. Back then it was meaningless and symbolic. Nobody could predict the USSR would fall apart. Crimea shares nothing with Ukraine. They should be allowed to vote to separate from Ukraine and join their true motherland, Russia.

Down with Ukrainian far right nazi scum!

 

I'm glad to see you are back. I was getting a little worried, what with the problems in Damascus. Are you okay? How about giving us some information on what's going on there?

You know the MIT Turkish Intelligence had sent Tatar jihadists from Syria into Kiev when the riots started. They were seen boarding a plane in Turkey on Nov. 22. I don't doubt they were the ones provoking the police.

 

No the Ukrainian Parliament voted him out of office:

Ukraine’s parliament votes to oust president; former prime minister is freed from prison

View Photo Gallery — Crisis in Kiev: Thousands of protesters descend on the presidential palace after parliament voted to dismiss President Viktor Yanukovych from office.
By William Booth, E-mail the writer

KIEV, Ukraine — In a single climactic day, the political order of Ukraine was overturned, more or less peacefully, when the Ukrainian parliament voted Saturday evening to dismiss President Viktor Yanukovych from office and to free jailed opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko, who went directly from a prison hospital bed to a stage at Independence Square to address an audience of tens of thousands.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...2f7c6c-9bd2-11e3-ad71-e03637a299c0_story.html

 

The above rubbish, is indicative of the fact that you haven't got the faintest clue about Marxism.

 

I've given you their own words, the dictatorship of the proletariat called for by Marx and Engels was nothing more than a tyranny of the masses founded on state terror in order to coerce the masses through force and violence, it is no coincidence that every single solitary society which has adopted Marxism has devolved into a totalitarian state led by a Red Bourgeoisie, the assertion that this is a temporary situation which will give way to a "withering away of the state" is nonsensical gibberish based on nothing, which is why Marx nor Engels ever elaborated as to how or why this would happen, because it makes absolutely no sense.

 

You fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of the phrase within the context they used it. I've explained this to you already. I take as my guide leading Marxist scholar, Professor Alex Callinicos who was my lecturer at university. You don't know what the f**k you are talking about.

 

I have misunderstood nothing, I have posted their own words proving conclusively that the dictatorship of the proletariat was to be a stick with which to beat the masses into submission through state terror. And of course an unrepentant Trotskyist and Marxist like Comrade Callinicos is going to deny that Marx supported authoritarianism and state terror, I would expect nothing less from a totalitarian and Red Fascist, but unfortunately for him and you I have Marx's own (*)(*)(*)(*)ing words to back me up.

 

I can tell you what this is all about.

This is all about Putin having to wait at least 2 weeks after the end of the Olympics for all out covert assaults upon the Ukraine.

Putin no longer pretend that Russia is a threat to the United States as Russia's Military has degraded to pitiful capabilities and very soon even Russia's Nuclear capability will no longer remain a threat to the United States as the U.S. Military and especially Navy is installing Direct Energy Weapons...the FEL or Free Electron Laser System on all Carriers and Ticonderoga Class Aegis Cruisers so very soon the threat of Nuclear Attack will be reduced to dramatic levels.

BUT....Putin can still be a major threat to Russia's neighbors and such former Soviet States Putin feels must never be allowed to become aligned with the United States as Putin feels Russia is already encircled by the U.S. Military...and basically Putin is right...Russia has been contained.....but it doesn't have to be a BAD THING.

The United States and Russia could get back on course and work together to keep Europe and Asia secure from possible Terrorist Attacks and Rouge Nuclear States....as Russia is much more exposed to Radical Islamist Groups than the U.S. is.

Putin seems to forget that it was the UNITED STATES that came to Russia's aid when Russia requested the U.S. pay for the thousands of Nuclear Weapons located all over Asia in former Soviet States and destroy them and that is what we did as it was in our interest and Russia's.

AboveAlpha

 

Absolute crap.