How do you feel about events and situation in Moldova?
>>2426930According to the article, the electoral alliance didn't succeed in the elections..
But I wonder how's the things are going in Sri Lanka, where the most dominant party is the communist party
What I understand is that:
1. Moldavia, Moldova, Mold-whatever was set up after WW2 from a piece of Soviet Union with a Romanian speaking population, at the border between Ukraine and actual Romania. It's just that pesky Romania had joined the axis and couldn't be "rewarded" with territorial gains after the war - and rightly so - otherwise any other defeated country could have expected the same. So, the Soviets, with their bizarre policy of national delimitations, came up with the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. And was all fine and dandy until 1991 or thereabout.
2. A small historical detour: Moldavia/Moldova is one of the historical regions inhabited by Romance speakers in the Balkans/Eastern Europe. Across the 19th and 20th century they were unified in a country called - guess what? - Romania. In fact, the larger part of historical Moldavia has always been in Romanian possesion after 1945.
3. After shit hit the fan - 1991 - the newly independent country has been the focus of an aggressive and resurgent Romanian irredentist discourse, while the part of the MSSR east of the Dniester in fact broke away as Transnistria or Pridnestrovia, which turned in a kind of USSR-themed Dysneyland.
4. Just put an end to this circus, give Cisnistria to Romania - in fact, they are Romanian, so I don't see the problem - and Bucharest will be placated once and for all with their 19th century "romantic" nationalism. For all I care, if they come to blows with Hungary or Bulgaria, who gives? We are not talking of any country with any weight whatsoever.
5. As an aside, Transnistria is left alone, hopefully Cucktin doesn't cuck too much and takes Odessa and there's a direct border between Russia and Romania. Banderaites and Shukevichites retain a rump, landlocked state which can be left as a kind of Polish protectorate - so Warsaw can give itself some kind of importance while they keep living out of EU welfare for the next few decades. A new land pipeline runs directly from Russia to Romania, no underwater shenanigans, no more sanctions and stupid shit, Transnistria retains its guaranteed status as a cold war era, open air museum. And maybe the Gagauz could join Russia too, which is much better than Romania with linguistic and ethnic minorities, particularly of the Turkic branch.
>>2426891Again I'm going to put quotes from Marx and Engels to silence opportunists here on how communists should act during an election in a bourgeois democracy, so you can know how to act:
<Complete abstention from political action is impossible. The abstentionist press participates in politics every day. It is only a question of how one does it, and of what politics one engages in. For the rest, to us abstention is impossible. The working-class party functions as a political party in most countries by now, and it is not for us to ruin it by preaching abstention. Living experience, the political oppression of the existing governments compels the workers to occupy themselves with politics whether they like it or not, be it for political or for social goals. To preach abstention to them is to throw them into the embrace of bourgeois politics. The morning after the Paris Commune, which has made proletarian political action an order of the day, abstention is entirely out of the question.
<We want the abolition of classes. What is the means of achieving it? The only means is political domination of the proletariat. For all this, now that it is acknowledged by one and all, we are told not to meddle with politics. The abstentionists say they are revolutionaries, even revolutionaries par excellence. Yet revolution is a supreme political act and those who want revolution must also want the means of achieving it, that is, political action, which prepares the ground for revolution and provides the workers with the revolutionary training without which they are sure to become the dupes of the Favres and Pyats the morning after the battle. However, our politics must be working-class politics. The workers' party must never be the tagtail of any bourgeois party; it must be independent and have its goal and its own policy.
<The political freedoms, the right of assembly and association, and the freedom of the press — those are our weapons. Are we to sit back and abstain while somebody tries to rob us of them? It is said that a political act on our part implies that we accept the exiting state of affairs. On the contrary, so long as this state of affairs offers us the means of protesting against it, our use of these means does not signify that we recognise the prevailing order.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, "Apropos Of Working-Class Political Action".https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/21.htm
<Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels , "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League"https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm
<The first great step of importance for every country newly entering into the movement is always the organization of the workers as an independent political party, no matter how, so long as it is a distinct workers' party. And this step has been taken, far more quickly than we had a right to hope, and that is the main thing. That the first program of this party is still confused and highly deficient, that it has set up the banner of Henry George, these are inevitable evils but also only transient ones. The masses must have time and opportunity to develop and they can only have the opportunity when they have their own movement–no matter in what form so long as it is only their own movement–in which they are driven further by their own mistakes and learn wisdom by hurting themselves.
<Frederick Engels, “Letters: Marx-Engels Correspondence 1886,” Engels to Friedrich Adolph Sorge In Hoboken.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/letters/86_11_29.htmNow a quote to silence opportunists who don't see the European Union as an enemy of communists that must be destroyed:
<But while the slogan of a republican United States of Europe—if accompanied by the revolutionary overthrow of the three most reactionary monarchies in Europe, headed by the Russian—is quite invulnerable as a political slogan, there still remains the highly important question of its economic content and significance. From the standpoint of the economic conditions of imperialism—i.e., the export of capital and the division of the world by the “advanced” and “civilised” colonial powers—a United States of Europe, under capitalism, is either impossible or reactionary.[…]
<A United States of Europe under capitalism is tantamount to an agreement on the partition of colonies. Under capitalism, however, no other basis and no other principle of division are possible except force. A multi-millionaire cannot share the “national income” of a capitalist country with anyone otherwise than “in proportion to the capital invested” (with a bonus thrown in, so that the biggest capital may receive more than its share). Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, and anarchy in production. To advocate a “just” division of income on such a basis is sheer Proudhonism, stupid philistinism. No division can be effected otherwise than in “proportion to strength”, and strength changes with the course of economic development. Following 1871, the rate of Germany’s accession of strength was three or four times as rapid as that of Britain and France, and of Japan about ten times as rapid as Russia’s. There is and there can be no other way of testing the real might of a capitalist state than by war. War does not contradict the fundamentals of private property—on the contrary, it is a direct and inevitable outcome of those fundamentals. Under capitalism the smooth economic growth of individual enterprises or individual states is impossible. Under capitalism, there are no other means of restoring the periodically disturbed equilibrium than crises in industry and wars in politics.
<Of course, temporary agreements are possible between capitalists and between states. In this sense a United States of Europe is possible as an agreement between the European capitalists … but to what end? Only for the purpose of jointly suppressing socialism in Europe, of jointly protecting colonial booty against Japan and America, who have been badly done out of their share by the present partition of colonies, and the increase of whose might during the last fifty years has been immeasurably more rapid than that of backward and monarchist Europe, now turning senile. Compared with the United States of America, Europe as a whole denotes economic stagnation. On the present economic basis, i.e., under capitalism, a United States of Europe would signify an organisation of reaction to retard America’s more rapid development. The times when the cause of democracy and socialism was associated only with Europe alone have gone for ever.
<A United States of the World (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the unification and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism—about the total disappearance of the state, including the democratic. As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of a United States of the World would hardly be a correct one, first, because it merges with socialism; second, because it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others.
<V. I. Lenin, 1915, On the Slogan for a United States of Europehttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm >>2426891what 'events' what 'situation'? Form a coherent sentence you illiterate child.
Did the janny faggots remove the character limit again?
>>2427934I am from one of those countries, and when I checked the program of our local communist party, they talk in it about upholding market priciples, supporting middle and small businesses, fighting
against environmental activism and protecting national and family values.
>>2427907>>2427947>>2426891Following what I posted:
>>2427585let's go to the quotes from Marx and Engels against the liberal petty-bourgeois narrative of decentralization and of Marxists not being able to act together with the conservative bourgeoisie in a common interest:
<10. All private banks will be replaced by a state bank whose bonds will have the character of legal tender.
<This measure will make it possible to regulate credit in the interests of the whole people and will thus undermine the dominance of the large financiers. By gradually replacing gold and silver by paper money, it will cheapen the indispensable instrument of bourgeois trade, the universal means of exchange, and will allow the gold and silver to have an outward effect. Ultimately, this measure is necessary to link the interests of the conservative bourgeoisie to the revolution.
<Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels March 1848, Demands of the Communist Party in Germany.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htmAny party that wishes to take away a country's economic and financial sovereignty, using its own currency in a public national bank and handing it over to an organization uniting capitalist countries and imperialist finance capital, is serving as the greatest threat to communists assuming power to initiate expropriations, nationalizations, and socializations, and is therefore a priority enemy to oppose.
>>2428292>>2428297Both of you are wrong. It is the duty of communists to organize in solidarity with the workers of the world and to oppose any financing from imperialist finance capital and its lackeys, just as Marx staunchly opposed all liberals who sought to finance the "Russian despotism" in the Crimean War and always advocated in all his writings the nationalization of all banks and the suppression of private banks.
Let's take a few quotes to silence opportunists who want to use an excuse to vote for pro-LGBT, pro-EU liberals to co-opt workers as lackeys for imperialist-capitalist chauvinism, starting with the greatest mistake of the Paris Commune: failing to appropriate the Bank of Paris:
<It is therefore comprehensible that in the economic sphere much was left undone which, according to our view today, the Commune ought to have done. The hardest thing to understand is certainly the holy awe with which they remained standing respectfully outside the gates of the Bank of France. This was also a serious political mistake. The bank in the hands of the Commune – this would have been worth more than 10,000 hostages. It would have meant the pressure of the whole of the French bourgeoisie on the Versailles government in favor of peace with the Commune…[…]
<This shattering of the former state power and its replacement by a new and really democratic state is described in detail in the third section of The Civil War. But it was necessary to dwell briefly here once more on some of its features, because in Germany particularly the superstitious belief in the state has been carried over from philosophy into the general consciousness of the bourgeoisie and even to many workers. According to the philosophical notion, “the state is the realization of the idea” or the Kingdom of God on earth, translated into philosophical terms, the sphere in which eternal truth and justice is or should be realized. And from this follows a superstitious reverence for the state and everything connected with it, which takes roots the more readily as people from their childhood are accustomed to imagine that the affairs and interests common to the whole of society could not be looked after otherwise than as they have been looked after in the past, that is, through the state and its well-paid officials. And people think they have taken quite an extraordinary bold step forward when they have rid themselves of belief in hereditary monarchy and swear by the democratic republic. In reality, however, the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy; and at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy, whose worst sides the proletariat, just like the Commune, cannot avoid having to lop off at the earliest possible moment, until such time as a new generation, reared in new and free social conditions, will be able to throw the entire lumber of the state on the scrap-heap.
<1891 Introduction by Frederick Engels, On the 20th Anniversary of the Paris Commune, [PostScript]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htmLet's start with Marx and Engels' political programs again talking about banks:
<5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
<Karl Marx, 1848, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Chapter II. Proletarians and Communistshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
<(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.
<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
<11. Annulment of all the contracts that have alienated public property (banks, railways, mines, etc.), and the exploitation of all state-owned workshops to be entrusted to the workers who work there;
<Karl Marx and Jules Guesde 1880, The Programme of the Parti Ouvrierhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htmA communist revolution can occur in a single country or in several, and this means opposing any financial organization among capitalist countries that removes financial control from the population, prevents the nationalization of private property, prevents the government from having a monopoly on a state-owned company that could be used to bankrupt other private companies using market manipulation with state capitalism, and facilitate the socialization of the economy:
<A United States of the World (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the unification and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism—about the total disappearance of the state, including the democratic. As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of a United States of the World would hardly be a correct one, first, because it merges with socialism; second, because it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others.
<Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states.
<V. I. Lenin,1915, On the Slogan for a United States of Europehttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htmIf you continue with your ignorance, I will start posting quotes from Lenin explaining what capitalist imperialism is and the right of nations to self-determination, and why any party that supports the European Union must be destroyed without scruple. Remember that there is no reform of organizations created by the bourgeoisie to serve the bourgeoisie, and that is why the dictatorship of the proletariat is founded on the overthrow of the bourgeois state.
>>2428489This doesn't change the need for communists to organize as a force independent of the bourgeoisie, nor the need to use violence against any liberal who is pro-EU, pro-NATO, pro-independence of a national bank, or in favor of adopting the euro, to prevent the co-optation of the masses by capitalist imperialism. Therefore, I will post the texts that describe Lenin's anti-imperialist position, demonstrating why even a reformist or conservative social democrat is superior to any liberal who wishes to take away a country's economic sovereignty with the lie of "anti-corruption" and "freedom":
<But very brief definitions, although convenient, for they sum up the main points, are nevertheless inadequate, since we have to deduce from them some especially important features of the phenomenon that has to be defined. And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:
<(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.
<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, 1916, VII. Imperialism as a Special Stage of capitalismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm
<6. Three Types of Countries in Relation to Self-Determination of Nations<In this respect, countries must be divided into three main types:
<First, the advanced capitalist countries of Western Europe and the United States of America. In these countries the bourgeois, progressive, national movements came to an end long ago. Every one of these “great” nations oppresses other nations in the colonies and within its own country. The tasks of the proletariat of these ruling nations are the same as those of the proletariat in England in the nineteenth century in relation to Ireland.
<Secondly, Eastern Europe: Austria, the Balkans and particularly Russia. Here it was the twentieth century that particularly developed the bourgeois-democratic national movements and intensified the national struggle. The tasks of the proletariat in these countries—in regard to the consummation of their bourgeois-democratic reformation, as well as in regard to assisting the socialist revolution in other countries—cannot be achieved unless it champions the right of nations to self-determination. In this connection the most difficult but most important task is to merge the class struggle of the workers in the oppressing nations with the class struggle of the workers in the oppressed nations.
<Thirdly, the semi-colonial countries, like China, Persia, Turkey, and all the colonies, which have a combined population amounting to a billion. In these countries the bourgeois-democratic movements have either hardly begun, or are far from having been completed. Socialists must not only demand the unconditional and immediate liberation of the colonies without compensation—and this demand in its political expression signifies nothing more nor less than the recognition of the right to self-determination—but must render determined support to the more revolutionary elements in the bourgeois-democratic movements for national liberation in these countries and assist their rebellion—and if need be, their revolutionary war—against the imperialist powers that oppress them.
<V. I. Lenin, The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, 1916https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jan/x01.htm#fwV22P151F01 Unique IPs: 24