have him institutionalized for slapping imaginary asses
>>958077>What do you do?
Tell him to hurry up finishing the revised edition of his book
What is it with certain leftypollers suggesting that Kautsky is worth resurrecting? Why do you believe this?
I know right. Big Mac's blurb on the Weekly Worker has had>He is the author of the book Revolutionary Strategy (2008) and is currently working on a second edition.
for as long as I can remember. I have no idea if the second edition is in development hell or if he heavily expanded its scope.>>958204
It's not so much resurrecting Kautsky as it is resurrecting the political strategy of Marx and Engels themselves (Orthodox Marxism). If you study the source documents from their political activism, you'll find that Kautsky's work summarizing their ideas is actually quite faithful. Of course Kautsky later reneged on these ideas (hence Lenin's label of "renegade") and he was wrong about many subjects even in his prime years (most notably imperialism), so the label of "neokaut" is problematic. It's impossible to deny however that he was an immensely influential figure in socialist thought that deserves study whether you agree with him or not.
Back to the original question regarding political strategy: orthodox Marxists reject the heavily centralized "vanguard", "iron military order", etc. party endorsed by the Comintern following the Russian civil war. The motivation then was to give party leadership the authority to lead massive insurrections in the immanent future after 1917. This strategy, defensible as it may have been at the time, ultimately failed, and now we have dozens of different "world parties of socialist revolution", which provide "revolutionary leadership" mostly to small groups on college campuses. Therefore it's high time to abandon the Comintern "party of a new type" and endorse the strategy that Marx and Engels supported, and which successfully led to victory in the October Revolution.
<Who are you? Are you me?
>Oxford academic "communist" from a party that opposed leaving the EU
Justify trying to achieve socialism in one tiny European country for me. How will we resist imperialism?
The goal is to achieve it worldwide but it's unlikely that the revolution will happen worldwide simultaneously. So basically spread it as wide as possible while remaining a fortress if it doesn't spread (i.e. what the USSR generally did). The DPRK has shown how a socialist state can resist imperialism.
>>958956>The DPRK has shown how a socialist state can resist imperialism.
Ah yes, glorious DPRK, real existing socialism spreading the revolution.
Tell me, how is leaving the EU and retreating behind tiny state borders going to benefit the fight for global socialism? Isn't it much more conductive to capture as much of the EU as possible at once? To accept the political and economic reality that we aren't a feudal country, but a giant interconnected economy and a quasi state that connects all of us? That what happens in Germany affects Greece both economically and politically and vice versa?
EU exit as a socialist in no way brings us closer to achieving socialism. If it would, why not fight to make your own province a separate socialist state? Your own city? Your own block? Your street?
Because that doesn't work. All actually succesfull revolutions were on the scale of the Russian empire, of China, and neither Lenin not Mao stopped at the border of whatever province or ethnic area they were from. They fought to capture as much as possible. So too must we fight on a European level, because the reality is that Europe is already integrated. Just like Americans don't fight for an independent Californian socialist Republic, but a socialist USA, we must fight for a socialist European Union.
Lmao, the EU was explicitly set up to to suppress communism, it isn't a country but a cartel and one which the British proletariat correctly voted to leave. Europe is not remotely integrated and even then, a "European Socialist Union" is just chauvinism and the mirror image of fascist rubbish about a "Fortress Europe". Destroying the EU weakens the unity of the bourgeoisie and actually improves the unity of the proletariat across Europe, as has long been pointed out by communists of all European countries. The Comintern and Cominform never needed the EU, and communists always opposed the EEC/EU.
Sorry Tarquin, you'll have to clean your own toilets and won't be able to hire Polish/Romanian slave labourers.
>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.
>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.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm
Every country is set up to suppress communism. Europe, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, the UK, they are all anti communist in nature. That's not an argument.
>Europe is not remotely integrated and even then, a "European Socialist Union" is just chauvinism and the mirror image of fascist rubbish about a "Fortress Europe".
Litterally retarded>Destroying the EU weakens the unity of the bourgeoisie and actually improves the unity of the proletariat across Europe, as has long been pointed out by communists of all European countries.
How? There is unity of the bourgoiesie between America and Europa. Between Switzerland and Norway, none of which are in the EU. I don't see how voluntarily allowing the capitalists to play small countries out against each other is a good thing. There is a reason imperialist powers persue balkanization of others. "Communists all over Europe" can point out whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they are right. Their track record isn't very good.>>958969>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.
Lmao, I guess the world is a bit different since Lenin's time.
>>958976>Every country is set up to suppress communism. Europe, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, the UK
Those countries existed before communism ever arose. The EU on the other hand was a conscious response to the rise of communism.
It's honestly hilarious that "communists" think they can just vote in communist MEPs and that'll make the EU a magical socialist republic. Every MEP could be a communist and it would change nothing, parliamentary democracy would simply be abolished and open nazi terror implemented. The EU and its leaders (like slave owner descendant von der Leyen) is already spouting nazi slogans like "Slava Ukraini" so it's really not much of a leap.
The EU is itself subjugated to the USA/NATO which proves my point further. Remember all those fake Marxists prattling on about an EU-USA split? Clowns as ever.
Communists are always right, unlike pro-EU liberasts.
>>958981>The EU on the other hand was a conscious response to the rise of communism.
And the EU has existed for over 30 years after communism fell and has transformed into something completely different from the us puppet that it started as, just like the United States isn't a British colony anymore. The goal of socialists is to achieve socialism, not unify with or separate from other capitalist states. Leaving the EU doesn't contribute to achieving socialism. Throwing around quotes from Lenin, from the time Europe was litterally >the< colonial power, and comparing it to a at the time non colonial USA, and somehow delude yourself into thinking the material and political conditions are identical a full century later, just shows you're a fucking retard.
Do you even live in Europe?>It's honestly hilarious that "communists" think they can just vote in communist MEPs and that'll make the EU a magical socialist republic.
Nice strawman fuckboy>>958982>Oh yeah and you can ask the Greek proletariat whether the EU can be reformed.>Reformed
Confirmed that you don't know what the fuck people like macnair said>>958981>Communists are always right
Good thing I'm also a communist then
>>958966>"European Socialist Union" is just chauvinism
In contrast to nationalism
⸮>>958981>Those countries existed before communism ever arose. The EU on the other hand was a conscious response to the rise of communism.
That argument implicitly assumes that a nation is an unchanging thing.
>>958987>In contrast to nationalism⸮
>>958957>Tell me, how is leaving the EU and retreating behind tiny state borders going to benefit the fight for global socialism?
Smaller states are less capable of imperialism, such a world is much more conductive to world socialism.
Fuck the EU.
>>958987>In contrast to nationalism⸮
Socialist nationalism is good. All socialist projects hitherto have been extremely nationalist and most of them have also been internationalist on top as a consequence.
nothing says successful like trying socialism in one nation
>>959007>Socialist nationalism<socialism in one country
thats even more embarrassing then
Nah it's entirely still subjugated to the USA. The EU was a capitalist cartel 30 years ago, and it still is today. It's feasted on plunder of the Warsaw Pact republics for that time.
Destroying the EU weakens bourgeois power and their unity. Most importantly freedom of capital. That's why communists all supported Brexit and I'm from Britain so yeah. Never once regretted voting to Leave in 2016.
Macnair is no different to all the other Trotskyists (and his party are Trotskyists despite their denial) and Social-Democrats prattling on about a "social Europe" and to "Remain and Transform". Trying to reform the EU is like trying to reform nazi Germany or the Russian Empire.
And let's put it this way, communists don't limit our scope to Europe. The slogan of "workers of the world unite!" is what unites proletarians, not dreams of a "socialist Europe". The USSR spanned Europe and Asia, and the peoples of the USSR were far more backwards at the time. If workers from Belarus to Tajikistan could unite, then proletarians from Britain to Malaysia to Zimbabwe to Mexico can unite, never mind limiting it to Europe.>>958987
The EU doesn't contrast with nationalism but encourages it. That, and most of the extreme EU federalist types are fascists who talk about "European culture" and idealise a petit bourgeois world of craftsmen and small farmers. The nazis were big advocates of the "defending Europe against Bolshevism" line that still goes on today.
The main player in imperialism is the United States, EU doesn't even pull a quarter of this shit. If
the United States of Burger did not exist, it could make sense to dismantle the EU to fight imperialism. But as it is, balkanizing the EU would strengthen the US, and so strengthen imperialism.>>959064>I'm from Britain so yeah.
It shows.>most of the extreme EU federalist types are fascists
Source: This was revealed to me in a dream.
You are not becoming more independent (that was never an option), you just shifted to being a full-time whore for US interests.
>>959079>Shilling EU because muh borgers
You're a burgoid yourself, aint ya?
>>959079>You are not becoming more independent (that was never an option), you just shifted to being a full-time whore for US interests.
Unlike EU countries like Germany under Scholz? LMAO get a grip man!
What is the phrase for this when Americans assume everything that happens in the world revolves around them and will not see it any other way?
>>959079>The main player in imperialism is the United States, EU doesn't even pull a quarter of this shit
West Africa would like to have a word…
lol and that means what?
Oswald Mosley was a strong supporter after WW2 of a "European Nation" to fight against the USSR.
Retarded Boomer commies be like:
>Oh yeah?!?! I'm gonna call you a Trot, how about that huh? Whatcha gonna do now huh? Huh? No I won't explain why that would be an issue, don't you know, all commies must hate trots, they are the big satan, despite me not explaining why someone who doesn't call themselves trots, critisices trots, is a Trot or why that's bad.
>No I won't elaborate or try to explain my position, calling you a Trot or socdem should be enough! If a supports something it must be bad! That's why I oppose trans rights!
How about you start coming up with arguments other than
>Lenin said imperial Italy was bad and the USA good in 1920 it must be exactly the same today
>You're a <basically a slur with no meaning>
>Well I voted for it so it must be good, no I won't explain the reasons why or address your different conclusion, because me and my cult already agreed upon it!
The road to revolution must be covered with the blood of communist boomercults.
They're litterally correct. The EU is forming its own economic block in a multipolar world while brittain had slipped back into depending completely on the USA for everything from energy to defence to trade and all. The Boris regime just sold their country out to American imperialist interests.
Clearly a Europe that would be capable of being able to carry out it's own imperialism after the decline of the american empire rather than just fall into a shattered mass of nation-states is good!
>>959109>The EU is forming its own economic block
and other jokes you can tell yourself.>britain is dependant on the US
same for the EU,all the EU defense plan HAVE to be attached to NATO by law.
Most "boomer" communists know more and are wiser than the shit-for-brains youngsters who operate on emotion.
With this logic you can advocate for the balkanization of China and Russia and Mexico and Brazil and the USA and Iran and every other country everywhere, except for Cuba. Every country can "do an imperialism" after the USA stops being top dog.
The point is, does a disunited Europe bring Europe and the world closer to socialism? Or does the status quo EU bring them closer?
In my opinion, using the existing political and economic reality of Europe to enact a socialist revolition in all of Europe is better.>Inb4 world revolution
For people claiming to hate trots you sure advocate a lot of what Trotsky advocated. Reality check for you, world revolution never happened. The only thing that works is capturing a large area at once and using it to slowly fund and turn smaller neighbouring countries, just like how capitalist imperialism does. Capturing England or Belgium or Austria isn't going to achieve shit except another defeat. You need many countries United from the start in a single communist party. Forming that communist party within the existing political boundaries of the EU, meaning that the party can function as a true party, is the best and easiest way.
Ah so that's why there's like only 80 of them left in my entire country.
Theyre so wise, the communist party is run entirely by youths because the boomers all died and failed to recruit anyone younger than 70 the past 50 years. They're so wise all their orgs collapsed out of sheer lack of members the past decades. They're so wise that communist youth groups eclipse their membership so massively they're basically irrelevant. So wise and smart they haven't achieved anything.
Germany torpedoed Nord Stream 2 under pressure of the USA, don't pretend the EU is any different. Britain was already in hock to the USA in the EU. At least now a split has been precipitated.
>>959119>The point is, does a disunited Europe bring Europe and the world closer to socialism?
Yes absolutely. If the EU collapses, then after the fall of the American empire there is no large united imperial block in Europe. That would unequivocally be a good thing.
The EU is hardly a united imperialist block
No United army, no United companies, no United foreign policy, every country has its own individual imperial ambitions. The EU is almost entirely focussed internally.
A communist youth group without a mother party is pointless. The komsomol (which is the basis for all communist youth organisations) sprung up out the main party, and frankly, I don't think it was ever that necessary (the Bolsheviks didn't have one before the revolution).
The communist youths you valourise haven't achieved revolution either if you want to be petty and sneer at old people. Most of those older communists had to be communists at the height of the cold war or when it was illegal (Portugal, Greece, today in many countries like Estonia and Romania).
>>959125>The EU is hardly a united imperialist block
Yes it is. It carries out economic imperialism against Greece and West Africa all the time, and military cooperation is increasing.
Hell there are EU military operations, mainly in West Africa.
The collapse of the EU would be an absolute net benefit for world socialism.
>>959127>A communist youth group without a mother party is pointless.
Maybe they should have thought of that before they persued such shitty sectarian bullshit politics that they all but died out
>>959128>The collapse of the EU would be an absolute net benefit for world socialism.
Which world socialism? Cuba and the DPRK?
You have a lot of assumptions there bucko. You assume us empire is going to collapse as a precondition for why EU balkanization would be good. There is no world socialism anymore. And I'm not going to dedicate my effort as a communist to sabotaging the way to achieve socialism in Europe just to please some retarded third worldist fantasies.
>>959132>You assume us empire is going to collapse as a precondition for why EU balkanization would be good.
Yes, I am. The US empire is already shitting itself and multipolarity is already dawning. It's not a far-fetched guess to venture that the US won't be able to project much power anymore, even internally.
>>959139<No a russian imperialist pole is good and they don't need to be balkanized because eeeeeh
Quote me saying this
So you like multi polarity, yet you advocate for the breaking down of one of the main upcomming poles, so that it becomes less multipolar, and that this is somehow more conductive to socialism?
>>959144>So you like multi polarity, yet you advocate for the breaking down of one of the main upcomming poles, so that it becomes less multipolar
No, that's more multipolarity silly. That more independent nationstates working on their own.
European states on their own aren't poles but slaves to larger imperial powers. That's why the USA and Russia fund euroskeptircs you fucking inbicile. A divided Europe is no longer a geopolitical player but just another country to add to your own sphere of influence.
>>959147>European states on their own aren't poles but slaves to larger imperial powers.
That's a lot better than being an imperial power
Europe shouldn't be a geopolitical player. It should stay home.
So you admit a dissolved European Union would lead to less multipolarity.
Good. Now shut the fuck up, third worldist, and start using your brain.
>>959152>So you admit a dissolved European Union would lead to less multipolarity.
Did Vietnam kicking out the Americans and not establishing their own colonial empire afterwards lead to less multipolarity?
Sure, but that was good.
To establish an empire that will imperialize the third world is not good. This is the kind of campism that socialists should not engage in. Counter-imperialism is only good for breaking absolute hegemony. We should invite foreign empires to come fight us in our homelands, not to imperialize others.
You seek to imperialize the world? Why, because you in turn would not accept having to carry out an anti-imperial struggle?
Anyone that dedicated to finding truth can be my permanent mistress
>>959123>Germany torpedoed Nord Stream 2 under pressure of the USA
How is that an argument for making Europe even weaker relative to USA.>>959112 >>959124
You seem to live in an alternative timeline. USA = still the dominant world power, so balkanizing now = stronger USA.
>>959208>You seem to live in an alternative timeline. USA = still the dominant world power
>so balkanizing now = stronger USA.
How do you figure???
>>959217>???????>How do you figure???
A multipolar world isnt growing just because "the usa is disintegrating on its own", its caused by competition from china, from europe, and in lesser degrees from smaller imperialist powers like iran and russia. Balkanizing europe now just keeps pax america in place by giving europe in its entirety to the usa.
But you live in the delusion that europe is already "in the pocket of the usa", despite, you know, the entire US state department and the past president openly saying they are engaged in competition with europe.
>>959064>Macnair is no different to all the other Trotskyists (and his party are Trotskyists despite their denial)
Give me your best theoretical analysis why you think the CPGB are somehow secretly Trots, I really want to see it.
If anything, the CPGB is the spiritual successor of the Right Opposition.
Finding out CPGB-PCC and the Macnair cult support the EU really did a dent in my perception of this tendency.>>958363>It's not so much resurrecting Kautsky as it is resurrecting the political strategy of Marx and Engels themselves (Orthodox Marxism).
They're just Kaut and this is a dangerous development for the workers movement. This history is not to be fucking repeated.
>>960366>Finding out CPGB-PCC and the Macnair cult support the EU really did a dent in my perception of this tendency.
Why>They're just Kaut and this is a dangerous development for the workers movement. This history is not to be fucking repeated.
Explain how we are kautskyists when we don't support all the retarded shit he did, but only the shit he did I'm the SPD that Marx and Engels (or Lenin for that matter) thought was cool. Its just a return to a political strategy of how a party should work, it's not "lmao we support imperialism now". The Leni IST party of new type has shown it does not function, it has never functioned, it did not exist until after it had already attained power.
Excuse my phone's retarded autocorrect
They probably found out just how much JP-8 it takes to keep modern military equipment functioning.
>>958077>>958468>Mike Macnair is a member of the Provisional Central Committee of the CPGB and, “being an old-fashioned ex-Trot political hack”, writes on a wide range of …
Dude who would have gotten purged argues against purges.
I guess the Maoists in China were wrong since they got purged then
This thread reeks of reaction and opportunism, therefore I demand that the mods purge OP and all who agree with him from /leftypol/ at once
The "Maoists in China" were wrong for a plethora of reasons, but not because they were purged. In fact you are mixing up cause and effect here: they were wrong and thus were purged; they weren't right because they got purged.
It takes a typical anglo "anti-Dengist" to defend ex-Trots, lmao.
>>960442>Dude who would have gotten purged argues against purges.
Yes, it's true that if Macnair joined an ML, Maoist or Trot party he would get purged. Likewise, an ML that joined a Trot party would get purged, a Trot that joined a Maoist party would get purged and so on. They key difference here is that if an ML, Trot or Maoist joined an Orthodox Marxist party they would not
get purged. So long as they agree to fight for the party's program of political demands, they would have full freedom to publicly argue for transitional demands, a mass line, giant Stalin portraits, etc.
The point is to unite the left around a program of common action
rather than a theoretical orthodoxy. All the dozens of ML and Trot sects believe that one day their "correct line" will cause the working class to flock in droves to their specific group, but it's been over half a century and this hasn't come true for a single one of them. If you want to build a mass, politically relevant communist movement, you have to start by uniting all (most) of the leftist activists into a democratic communist party that allows dissent.
This is the story behind the Gotha unification congress, best known for Karl Marx's withering critique of its program. It marked the fusion of two relatively small revleft groups: the followers of Ferdinand Lasalle and the followers of Wilhelm Liebknecht (a fan of Marx but far from an unquestioning sycophant). The unification marked a compromise between the two groups. The theoretical foundations were granted to the Lasalleans, which outraged Marx as you may know. The political organization and strategy, on the other hand, was granted to Liebknecht's supporters (quickly dubbed "the Marx cult" and the like by opponents). The Lasallean practice of "Labor Monarchism", wherein the leadership could contravene or purge whomever they didn't like, was abandoned in favor of a more open and autonomous structure. The result was a snowball effect in party membership. This fusion of two small groups quickly grew into a party of hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, this surge in membership led to a surge of theoretical debate, and the Marxists quickly gained the upper hand. Any traces of the Lasallean dogma that Marx inveighed against was formally expunged only 16 years later when the party adopted the Erfurt program.
You see the same pattern in other countries across Europe near the end of the 19th century: a fusion of several revleft sects creates a mass party much greater than the sum of its parts. Over the course of the 19th century socialism progressed from being a bookclub for political nerds to a mass movement with real potential for revolution. Over the course of the 20th century the exact opposite happened. The root cause of this comes from the decision of the Comintern to "create an iron military order in its own ranks" - the "vanguard", "cadres", all the military analogies were introduced after
1917, during the Russian Civil War. That's a topic for another day, but the point is that it is radically different from the model that built a mass, politically relevant socialist movement for the first time in history, and which successfully led to victory in the Russian revolution. With today's left looking very similar to the disparate sects of the mid 19th century, I think this strategy deserves a second look.
>>960788>It takes a typical anglo "anti-Dengist" to defend ex-Trots
im not anglo you stupid fuck
Holy based, what a good description of the concept of programmatic unity by orthodox marxism.
Bend him over and assfuck him to assert my dominance
What do you do about the glowies though?
Taking the correct Marxist-Leninist line isn't sectarian. It's simply the correct thing to do.
>bbbut they're small
The Bolsheviks only had a few thousand members in 1916. If you don't have correct organisation, theory, and tactics, all three are needed, then a revolution will not happen, and all revolutions have been done by Leninist parties. And also a revolutionary situation is needed. Thankfully the current NATO-Russia war has done much to bring that about. The reason for the struggles of communists over the last 30 years was because of material factors, that being the destruction of the USSR which like the Paris Commune was a huge setback, not because of theoretical reasons. A revolutionary situation hasn't come about, but since the 2008 financial crisis there has been a resurgence of communist ideas.
Alongside the support for the EU shared by horrendous Trotskyist types like the Alliance for Workers Liberty, their whining about Stalin is evidence enough.https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/categories/stalinism/https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/760/dead-russians/
If I wanted to hear a bunch of Oxbridge educated "Marxists" whine about Stalin I'd rather just hear it straight from MI5 or the British Labour Party, rather than freaks claiming the mantle of the CPGB.
>>959147<the evil scheming Muscovite Asiatics are destroying out sacred Evropean bulwark against Bolshevism
Scratch a Remainer and a nazi bleeds.
>>963499>full freedom to publicly argue for transitional demands, a mass line, giant Stalin portraits, etc.
Do like how your conception of Marxism-Leninism is that we just want to carry big pictures of Stalin. Very telling and it's why I have to laugh at Kautskyists sneering and acting like they're going to carry out a revolution.
Sorry, but reality just confirms that mls are mostly insular larpers in the west
You didn't make a single argument in this thread, you just said the word "trot trot trot" again and again, said "I am right you are wrong" or heavily strawman people by saying "well uuh you're a racist, what about that?"
I provided arguments for why Marxist-Leninists oppose the EU and for why the British proletariat of which I am a part voted to leave.
You didn't convince anyone by quoting Lenin in 1917 sayin the USA is a rising power. Then you proceeded to try and refute "Europe as tiny countries isn't a pole in a multipolar world but subject to actual geopootical powers" with "you're just afraid of the Asiatic horde racist"
I quoted Lenin by pointing out that a United States of Europe under capitalism would be reactionary and would simply enable imperialism. It would also be dominated by France and Germany as the EU already is. There's no equality of nations in the EU. A united Europe would simply enable easier US control if anything. The USA played a large part in promoting European integration for easier market access and to rejuvenate the European economies after WW2. Even the arch reactionary Churchill did.
As communists we don't care for "multipolarity", we stand for proletarian hegemony and proletarian internationalism.
>Every time that bourgeois politicians have championed the idea of Europeanism, of the union of European States, it has been with an open or concealed point directed against the “yellow peril,” the “dark continent,” against the “inferior races,” in short, it has always been an imperialist abortion.
Rosa Luxemburg in 1911. The same is still largely true today. When Guy Verhofstadt calls China an empire and calls for EU expansion to Africa, he's making the same claim. Death to the EU and all its hangers on.
>>969770>newfag responding to leninhat
>>969711>>969757<Do like how your conception of Marxism-Leninism is that we just want to carry big pictures of Stalin.>Posts pic of the CPGB-ML>The org which is best known for carrying big pictures of Stalin
Can't make this shit up. Also here's a quote from Stalin that might melt your brain:
<The Menshevik N. H. knows that audacity wins the day and . . . has the audacity to accuse the Bolsheviks once again of being Blanquists.
<There is nothing surprising in this, of course. Bernstein and Vollmar, the German opportunists, have for a long time been saying that Kautsky and Bebel are Blanquists. Jaures and Millerand, the French opportunists, have been for a long time accusing Guesde and Lafargue of being Blanquists and Jacobins. Nevertheless, everyone knows that Bernstein, Millerand, Jaures and the others, are opportunists, that they are betraying Marxism, whereas Kautsky, Bebel, Guesde, Lafargue and the others are revolutionary Marxists. What is there surprising in the fact that the Russian opportunists, and their follower N. H., copy the European opportunists and call us Blanquists? It shows only that the Bolsheviks, like Kautsky and Guesde, are revolutionary Marxists.
J.V. Stalin, Marx and Engels on Insurrection
So the group you tried to counter the arg. about "big stalin picture", is, in fact a big stalin picture org, and you think it's perfectly fine. It's very courageous to if you admit you are a part of the problem *tips Lenin's hat*
There are several orgs irl that are larger than their ml counterpart of their country.
Orthomarxism is growing rapidly.
Its only been 20 years. MLs have a much worse track record. If we're going by whatever electoral succes than post marxist opportunist left populism is the way forward. But I hope you're smarter than that.
>You're in the club
As if I'd be able to fucking hear a word.
<yep, yeah right, cool. uhuh, yeah
EU itself is imperialism for the benefit of core EU countries. And neither is EU the only or even a good starting point for socialist internationalism given its political and economic foundations.
Not a single Stalin image in the picture I posted, is there? Always makes me laugh when anti-communists whine about Stalin and just makes me more firm in my Marxist-Leninist convictions.
It's very funny seeing the supposed Based Anti-Stalinist Internationalists' internationalism is limited to the territory of the EU. As if communists ever needed or wanted a capitalist European cartel.
Unique IPs: 37