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

“I don’t think there should be any doubt whatsoever that any kind of military intervention that would violate the sovereign territorial integrity of Ukraine would be a huge — a grave — mistake,” Kerry said in a roundtable interview with reporters.

Does Kerry really know what "a grave mistake" means? This is one "red line" warning that must be backed up by action or we are through as a superpower. Russia is now engaged in military training on the Ukraine border. We all know what that really means. Are we seeing the beginning of WW3?

 

A...NO.

The Ukraine for Russia is like Mexico for the U.S. except we get along with Mexico.

We cannot militarily intervene in the Ukraine as it is simply too close to Russia.

Just like Russia could not intervene in Mexico.

AboveAlpha

 

As I said before, the main distinguishing feature of the D of the P was that it was precisely "the proletariat organised as the ruling class." (Marx and Engels, 'Collected Works', vi 504).

For the first time in history the direct producers, the mass of ordinary working class 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 is only when you grasp this notion, will you understand what Marx meant by the dictatorship of the proletariat. In other words, the D of the P as conceptualized by Marx is the dictatorship of the majority over the minority - democracy in its purest form.

While Marx had already developed the main outlines of this conception of the D of the P after the revolution of 1848, it was still, in the form so far set out, rather abstract.It was not theoretical analysis which gave definite and concrete shape to Marx's conception of workers'power but the deds of the Parisian workers in 1871. Engels wrote 20 years later:

"Of late, the social democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the dictatorship of the proletariat" (Marx, 'The Civil War In France, 1966).

Shortly after the Commune's defeat, Marx wrote in The Civil War in France:

"It was a thoroughly expansive political form, while all previous forms government had been emphatically repressive. It's true secret was this. It was essentially a working class government, the product of the struggle of the producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economic emancipation of labour (p.72).

What were the main features of this 'political form'?

"The first decree of the Commune....was the suppression of the standing army, and substitution for it of the armed people. The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members wee naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.Instead of of continuing to be the agent of central government, the police was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible and at all times revocable agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service was to be done at workmen's wages....

The judicial functionaries were to be divested of that sham indepedence which had but served to mask their abject subserviency to all succeeding governments to which, in turn, they had taken, and broken, the oaths of allegiance. Like the rest of public servants, magistrates and judges were to be elective, responsible and revocable." (The Civil War in France, pp.67-6.

Marx and Engels believed that the state involved "the establishment of a public power which no longer directly coincides with the population organising itself as an armed force." Marx and Engels, 'Selected Works' iii, p. 327).

The whole thrust of the measures taken by the Commune was to break down this separation of the state from the mass of the population, and to make it subject to their control. In this sense, the D of the P is a higher form of democracy than that found in bourgeois society. "Freedom", Marx wrote, "consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed on society into one completely subordinate to it." (Selected Works, ii, p.25).

 

Everything good in Damascus. Terrorists wiped out like cockroaches everyday.

Yes I know about the Tatars. Not only Tatars but they deploying Chechen gangsters too. I heard yelling of Allahu Akbar and Free Ukraine in Crimea Protests.

 

So basically more hollow threats from this administration.

 

So how is the agreement to remove the regime's chemical stockpile coming along? The deadline for 100% removal is next month and I hear only about 11% has been removed so far? Will Bashar honor his agreement?

 

I am an Independent just to let you know.

It wouldn't matter who was in office including good ole RONNIE RAY GUN.....the United States will NEVER engage in any Military Force as far as the Ukraine is concerned.

Russia's Military maybe degraded a great deal but they still have Nukes and even though the United States has a very good multi-layered Antimissile System in place which will increase in capability 1000 Fold within 5 to 7 years....we are NOT going to send in Forces to the Ukraine a country on Russia's door step.

Think about it....if Russia were to send forces in to back some kind of Mexican Communist Revolution....HOW WOULD WE REACT?

I will tell you how we would react....WE WOULD FREAK!!!

And so would Russia if we went into the Ukraine.

AboveAlpha

 

HEY!!!

EVERYONE REMEMBER WHAT I POSTED WHEN THIS WHOLE DEAL STARTED!!!

I stated Assad would hand over a certain amount of his Chemical Weapons and then say he had handed them all in....and then we would say..."BULL S#!%!".....and then this would keep going on back and forth and we have already decided as long as we can get at the very least 95% of the Chemical Weapons and perhaps even 92%...we would call it a day.

BUT....I SAID....IF ASSAD PLAYS TOO MANY GAMES WE WOULD HAVE TO GO IN!!

Well...since we know EXACTLY how much Chemical Weapons Assad has.....these next few weeks should prove interesting.

REMEMBER....I CALLED THIS MANY WEEKS AGO!!!

AboveAlpha

 

President Reagan never issued hollow warnings. My concern is how easily this administration throws out hallow threats. Crying wolf worries our allies.

 

Mystic Alpha, you are going to find it tough going proving a negative.

 

We don't care about that. Its not a priority.

Priority is to destroy terrorists.

Obama can go F himself

 

So when are the state terrorist Baathist pigs going to kill themselves?

 

Which comes to power not through democratic means but force, and it maintains that power not through the popular sovereignty of the citizenry but through state terror, so like I said, the dictatorship of the proletariat is nothing but an authoritarian tyranny of the masses based on state terror, but let us not take my word for it let us ask Marx and Engels themselves:

"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?"
- Friedrich Engels: "Controversy with the Anarchists", 187


"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)

Pure unmitigated nonsense, Marx NEVER claimed the necessity of the majority to support his dictatorship of the proletariat, in fact he openly advocated the overthrow of democracy and authoritarian state terror in order to coerce the populace through violence and even if it was a majority it still would be nothing but a tyranny of the majority which is not democracy in the liberal sense of the term (the only democracy worth having) but just another form of tyranny where the will of the majority maybe followed but the rights of the minority are non-existent. Furthermore; under Communist rule the Vanguard not the majority rule in ever case without exception!

Yes we may look at it, roving bands of armed radicalized thugs terrorizing the citizenry into submission based on sham "elections" where the overwhelming majority of the citizenry abstained.

Like Hitler and the SA and the SS takeover of the Ordnungspolizei.

Abject nonsense, the overwhelming majority of the people of Paris abstained from the sham elections, they overthrew the elected Republican mayors through force.

No separation of powers, touche, sounds like such a liberal and free societal structure.

And by the commune you mean the armed national guard radical thugs who were absolutely no different in kind from the SA. The overwhelming majority of French citizens voted for republicans and constitutional monarchists not the radicals.

Superimposed on society? Well that sounds exactly like what happened with the armed takeover, the breakdown of democratic order, and state terror inflicted during the Paris Commune by the armed revolutionary thugs, which not once, not for a millisecond had majority support from the French population as a whole or even that of the residents of Paris!

There was fine spring weather on Election Day. When the voting was finished, 233,000 Parisians had voted, out of 485,000 registered voters, or forty-eight percent. In the upper-class 7th and 8th arrondissements, 77 percent of voters had abstained; 68 percent in the 15th, 66 percent in the 16th, 62 percent in the 6th and 9th. But in the working-class neighborhoods, turnout was high: 76 percent in the 20th, 65 percent in the 19th, 55 to 60 percent in the 10th, 11th, and 12th.[30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune#The_Commune_Elections_.28March_26.29

 

Most Americans knew that already. And since Assad has made enemies of so many you will be spending a lifetime trying to destroy them. Your country will never be safe again.

 

You haven't got the faintest idea about Marxism, absolutely zilch, nada.

 

If you ask me WHY Russian flag raised.

Firstly, it's beautiful.
Secondly, be sure to raise the Russian flag in any country of the world. And more than once at the next Olympic Games and the World Championships
Lastly, 2014 declared the Year of the Russian flag in Ukraine.

 

I don't know and I don't care. It's up to the Ukrainians and Russians. It's not up to me, it's not up to Western Europe, it's not up to the U.S.

 

As an internationalist, identifying with flags is not my thing personally. But each to their own, I suppose.

 

Why must Russia be contained? Because it might become a formidable competitor to our greatness and our superior values? Wouldn't this going back to the 19th century attitudes in which the British supported the Ottomans in the Crimean war out of fear that Russia might take Constantinople and did it with a total indifference towards the people living there... which by the way were predominantly Christian, and which were all ethnically cleansed and massacred by those same Ottomans? Isn't this also the cultural and racist supremacist attitude which slowly gave rise to Nazi Germany and which also culminated in the deaths of million of people? So much for our superior values.

As for current events, you see nothing wrong with the bad publicity we gave the Olympic games so they wouldn't be successful and thereby hurt Russia's economy? If it wasn't for the athletes and how disappointed they would have been, the U.S. would have destroyed the games completely. Aren't we lovely now?

 

Strongly agree. But the citizen of the World can also be a patriot of Motherland.

Heat of the debate is very high. Friday and I want a little to defuse the situation.

 

According to a CIA report, if an election were held in Syria Assad would win. But then again democracy to us means minority and terrorist rule as long as they are with us and not with Russia... our historical enemy, or rather Germany and Poland's historical enemy. Well who said we are not controlled by others, (and to think we were made to believe it was communism). The party the U.S. decided to put in charge of Ukraine received seven percent of the votes in the last election.

 

These terrorists would never have gained ground if they weren't supported and encouraged by the U.S. and Western Europe. Isn't it lovely how we love to destroy other nations and the lives of millions, but you know something, it will come back to haunt us some day. We have ceased to be the moral and decent nation we once were, and I'm afraid we will be getting our just rewards.

 

Ukraine is out of control. This is what happens when an arrogant, but stupid, Assistant Secretary of State (Victoria "(*)(*)(*)(*) the EU" Nuland) plots with an equally arrogant and stupid US ambassador (Pyatt) to put their candidates in power once their coup against the elected president succeeds. The ignorant and deluded who deny any such plotting occurred can listen to the conversation between Nuland and Pyatt here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIvRljAaNgg

 

The US didn't intervene until after Assad used illegal WMD on his own people. No country should stand by and allow regimes to gas their own people.

 

There is no evidence that Assad used WMD. Gosh, some people are sooooooo naive and gullible. It's as though the Iraq debacle never happened.