Bourgeois Marxism - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Discourse exclusively on the basis of historical materialist methodology.
Forum rules: No one line posts please. This forum is for discussion based on Marxism, Marxism-Leninism and similar revisions. Critique of topics not based on historical materialism belongs in the general Communism forum.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14635346
Engels wrote:It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

Lenin disagrees.

Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism: The Other Political Issues Raised and Distorted By P. Kievsky, October 1916 wrote:We recognise—and quite rightly—the predominance of the economic factor, but to interpret it a‘ la Kievsky is to make a caricature of Marxism. Even the trusts and banks of modern imperialism, though inevitable everywhere as part of developed capitalism, differ in their concrete aspects from country to country. There is a still greater difference, despite homogeneity in essentials, between political forms in the advanced imperialist countries—America, England, France, Germany. The same variety will manifest itself also in the path mankind will follow from the imperialism of today to the socialist revolution of tomorrow. All nations will arrive at socialism—this is inevitable, hut all will do so in not exactly the same way, each will contribute something of its own to some form of democracy, to some variety of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to the varying rate of socialist transformations in the different aspects of social life. There is nothing more primitive from the viewpoint of theory, or more ridiculous from that of practice, than to paint, “in the name of historical materialism”, this aspect of the future in a monotonous grey.

From the mouth of the man that demanded the Chinese communists subordinate themselves to Khang Khi Chek, who whisked them away to death camps; the man that opposed being too aggressive against the fascists in Germany to the point of the infamous Red Referendum; the man that made an alliance with the French bourgousie; the man that liquidated the revolutionaries in Spain in the name of stabilizing the Spanish bourgeoisie...

Typical Trotskyite shite.

Absolutely not. Which is why they were consistent in saying that Socialism in One Country is impossible

"State monopoly," claimed Lenin, "is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs".* In other words, the intervening variable between state capitalism and socialism is a political, not an economic, one.

* Lenin, The Impending Catastrophe and How To Combat It

Lenin, The Tax in Kind wrote:When the working class has learned how to defend the state system against the anarchy of small ownership, when it has learned to organise large-scale production on a national scale along state-capitalist lines, it will hold, if I may use the expression, all the trump cards, and the consolidation of socialism will be assured.

Lenin, The State and Revolution: The Marxist Theory of the State & the Tasks of the Proletariat in the Revolution wrote:A witty German Social­ Democrat of the seventies of the last century called the postal service an example of the socialist economic system. This is very true.

State and Revolution, written in August–September 1917, defines socialism as the first, lower stage of communism, to be sharply distinguished from the subsequent stage of ‘complete communism’. The socialist economy would resemble capitalism to a surprising degree, in being organised along the lines of existing state capitalist syndicates and being modelled on the ordinary post office. In essence, for Lenin, communism’s first stage, socialism, represented no more than a modern, rationally organised industrial economy, nationalised and taken in hand by a revolutionary workers’ state.

Marx and Engels:

Communist Manifesto wrote:The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.



#14635483
ingliz wrote:Lenin disagrees


Obviously he disagrees that the "advanced" countries had to be first, but this is perfectly consistent with what Engels is saying about why Socialism in one Country cannot exist. For Engels, it was because the world was an integrated capitalist system.

Lenin lived in a time when this was more perfected, so his conclusion was that Russia, as being part of the capitalist world market Engels described, can lead a rebellion against it.

Lenin is actually consistent with Engels here, not throwing him out as you seem to pretend. This detail in no way alters at all Engels' point regarding why there can be no Socialism in One Country. And Lenin certainly never throws Engels away to do so either.

Inglez wrote:Typical Trotskyite shite.


TIG wrote:From the mouth of the man that demanded the Chinese communists subordinate themselves to Khang Khi Chek, who whisked them away to death camps


Stalin wrote:That being the case, what would it mean to call for the immediate formation of Soviets of workers’, peasants’ and soldiers’ deputies in present-day South China, in the area, say, of the Wuhan government, where the revolutionary Kuomintang is now in power, and the movement is developing under the slogan ‘All power to the revolutionary Kuomintang’ ? To call now for the formation of Soviets of workers’ and peasants’ deputies in this area would mean calling for an uprising against the power of the revolutionary Kuomintang. Would that be expedient? Obviously not. Obviously, whoever at the present time calls for the immediate formation of Soviets of workers’ deputies in this area is trying to skip over the Kuomintang phase of the Chinese revolution, is running the risk of putting the revolution in China in a most difficult position.


Funny if nothing else that it also completely reverses the Lenin quote you posted earlier

The other accusations are all true. However, Stalin was willing to admit when he was wrong and change policy. Something that his latter-day followers seem completely unwilling to admit themselves.

In other words, the intervening variable between state capitalism and socialism is a political, not an economic, one.


Lenin in that same work describes this transition to socialism as international, conveniently clipped from the quote that you used:

Lenin wrote:But socialism is now gazing at us from all the windows of modern capitalism; socialism is outlined directly, practically, by every important measure that constitutes a forward step on the basis of this modern capitalism.

What is universal labour conscription?

It is a step forward on the basis of modern monopoly capitalism, a step towards the regulation of economic life as a whole, in accordance with a certain general plan, a step towards the economy of national labour and towards the prevention of its senseless wastage by capitalism.

In Germany it is the Junkers (landowners) and capitalists who are introducing universal labour conscription, and therefore it inevitably becomes war-time penal servitude for the workers.


Unless you are some how saying that Lenin maintains that German Junkers are revolutionary, this is again a quote that in context actively disproves the concept of Socialism in One Country.

None of the other quotes deny anything I've said at all. I fail to see their relevancy in the creation of Socialism in One Country.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14635503
To call now for the formation of Soviets of workers’ and peasants’ deputies in this area would mean calling for an uprising against the power of the revolutionary Kuomintang. Would that be expedient?

Obviously not. The Left Kuomintang militia provided the protection that allowed communists to agitate unmolested in rural areas.

socialism in one country

Even though Stalin expanded the scope of socialism in one country beyond Lenin’s original intentions, the fundamental fact remains that the latter accepted the possibility for isolated revolutionary states to organise their own socialist economies within national walls. Trotsky’s insistence that Lenin was only referring to socialist revolution, not to the construction of a socialist society or economy, was misleading and plainly wrong.

Lenin, Collected Works, Vol 26, Report on the Economic Condition of Petrograd Workers and the Tasks of the Working Class, Pravda No. 208, December 20, 1917 wrote:The Revolution of October 25 had shown the exceptional political maturity of the proletariat and its ability to stand firm in opposition to the bourgeoisie, said the speaker. The complete victory of socialism, however, would require a tremendous organisational effort filled with the knowledge that the proletariat must become the ruling class.
The proletariat was faced with the tasks of transforming the state system on socialist lines, for no matter how easy it would be to cite arguments in favour of a middle course such a course would be insignificant, the country’s economic situation having reached a state that would rule out any middle course. There was no place left for half-measures in the gigantic struggle against imperialism and capitalism.
The point at issue was—win or lose.
The workers should and did understand this; this was obvious because they had rejected half-way, compromise decisions. The more profound the revolution, the greater the number of active workers required to accomplish the replacement of capitalism by a socialist machinery.
#14635527
Obviously not. The Left Kuomintang militia provided the protection that allowed communists to agitate unmolested in rural areas.


Oh please, even pro-Stalin sources allude to the miserable failure this was. Which is why strategy was changed. It hardly aids your argument to insist that Stalinism was correct in every circumstance when Stalinism itself, rightly, admits that it is not.

Ingliz wrote:Even though Stalin expanded the scope of socialism in one country beyond Lenin's original intentions, the fundamental fact remains that the latter accepted the possibility for isolated revolutionary states to organize their own socialist economies within national walls.


In order to make this expansion, as you call it, Stalin had to destroy the very foundation of what stopped Lenin from saying there was a possibility of socialism in one country. You also mischaracterize Lenin in a subtle but important way: for Lenin there was the possibility to, "Organize their own socialist economies," as you say, but that it was impossible to be socialist.

To wit, my previous post included the portion where Lenin says that the actions of the German Junkers is a result of an international movement that itself organized a socialist economy, but would never have said, "The Junkers want a socialist economy." There's a huge difference in this, and then what Stalin, "expanded," it to mean.

Ingliz wrote:Trotsky's insistence




Your obsession with bringing up Trotsky when I have never brought him up was funny at first, then annoying, and you keep doing it so much for no reason at all that it's funny again.

I have based everything I've said on Marx, Engels, and Lenin. You keep bringing up Trotsky as a Strawman that you seem to be very impressed with yourself for attacking.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14635535
Which is why strategy was changed

The protection of the nationalist armies in the south helped the CCP develop its influence among the peasantry. CCP membership rose from just under 1,000 in January 1925 to almost 58,000 by April 1927.

I have based everything I've said on [what Trotsky said on] Marx, Engels, and Lenin.

Last edited by ingliz on 24 Dec 2015 22:37, edited 1 time in total.
#14635547
If you want to bring up threads that have nothing to do with Socialism in One Country, you're perfectly free to go into those threads.

But really, I think you must ask yourself why you have been forced to rely on the threat to bring up irrelevant strawmen arguments that amount to an ad hom case against me instead of the argument.

And, incidentally, it was Connolly (as written above) that consolidated my analysis of Socialism in one Country. Trotsky, and others like CLR James, made impressive cases for certain dialectical arguments but failed to draw the international argument into a domestic argument, taking it on faith that the reader was familiar with Marx, Engels, and Lenin's condemnation of SIOC as a concept and stopping there.

Connolly demonstrated the fault of a philosophy that accepted a conclusion of socialism without having first bringing it into material reality. He further, in writing, made it clear that such an attempt to demonstrate a false strength of something that does not exist will inevitably cause it to collapse and divide the movement. In this, he predicted the fate of the Soviet experiment.
By Rich
#14635556
Lenin wrote:Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country
Well I think that clinches that debate! Note Lenin says of the whole country not the whole world. Apparently even Communism is possible in one country.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14635560
that amount to an ad hom case against me instead of the argument.

Why not give Trotsky his due? In every case, your arguments are Trotsky's arguments.


#14635567
My arguments are Marx, Engels, Lenin, and to a lesser extent Connolly.

But keep beating that straw man if you actually thinks that is the best argument you can make for SIOC.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14635576
calling for an uprising against the power of the revolutionary Kuomintang.

Calling for socialist revolution by decree is very silly.

Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky wrote: to "decree" a civil war or the "introduction of socialism" in the rural districts... without a temporary bloc with the peasants in general, without making a number of concessions to the middle peasants, etc., that would have been a Blanquist distortion of Marxism, an attempt by the minority to impose its will upon the majority; it would have been a theoretical absurdity, revealing a failure to understand that a general peasant revolution is still a bourgeois revolution, and that without a series of transitions, of transitional stages, it cannot be transformed into a socialist revolution in a backward country.

it was impossible

It is impossible to dispute (certainly in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism) that Lenin saw socialism as the progression of the tendency towards the centralisation of capital. Thus socialism was conceived as democratic state control of the centralised means of production. Thus conceived, it's easy to see why Lenin believed Soviet state capitalism differed essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments. The state is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat.

Lenin, To the Russian Colony in North America wrote:The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.

Engels

Alvin W. Gouldner, The Two Marxisms. Anomalies and the Evolution of Early Marxism wrote:Engels's synthesis embodied "a theoretical limit"... [The] difficulty centers on Engels's contention that the economy is determining in the "final instance" but that, nonetheless, the ideological superstructure reacts back on the economic infrastructure and cannot be reduced to it. The problem is not that Marx failed to specify "the precise structural mechanism connecting" economic base and ideological superstructure, but elsewhere. To acknowledge a role for the ideological, to recognise its reciprocal impact on the economic base, makes the latter, "objective" conditions, themselves conditioned, and that, to an unknown degree. This, therefore, makes problematic the important question of the extent to which "objective conditions" truly limit action. There is a gap here, and it was into this gap that Lenin would later plunge the vanguard initiatives of the Bolshevik Party.


There is a gap here

Engels to Schmidt, 5 August 1890. wrote:while the material mode of existence is the primum agens this does not preclude the ideological spheres from reacting upon it in their turn

Engels to Bloch, 22 September 1890 wrote:According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. More than that neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless abstract senseless phrase.

Engels to Schmidt, 27 October 1890. wrote:It is the interaction of two unequal forces: on one hand the economic movement, on the other the new political power, which strives for as much independence as possible, and which, having once been established, is also endowed with a movement of its own. On the whole, the economic movement gets its way, but it has also to suffer reactions from the political movement which it established and endowed with relative independence itself

Engels to Mehring, 14 July 1893. wrote:Hanging together with this is the fatuous notion of the ideologists that because we deny an independent historical development to the various ideological spheres which play a part in history we also deny them any effect upon history. The basis of this is the common undialectical conception of cause and effect as rigidly opposite poles, the total disregarding of interaction.

Engels to Starkenburg, 25 January 1894. wrote:Political, juridical, philosophical, religious, literary, artistic, etc. development is based on economic development. But these all react on one another and also upon the economic basis. It is not that the economic situation is cause, solely active, while everything else is only passive effect.


ps. I couldn't give a shit whose arguments you think you are making, but if you believe Trotsky's arguments (and to a lesser extent Connolly's) suit your purpose, you carry on using them.


#14635944
Ingliz wrote:Calling for socialist revolution by decree is very silly.


Yes. Of course, providing tactics is not. Nor does this have anything to do with Socialism in One Country.

Ingliz wrote:It is impossible to dispute (certainly in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism) that Lenin saw socialism as the progression of the tendency towards the centralisation of capital.


Yes.

Ingliz wrote:Thus socialism was conceived as democratic state control of the centralised means of production. The state is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat.


In part, perhaps, but Lenin never divorced this from the international march of socialism. He openly mentions that they can only move so far nationally and that the international struggle is what will allow them to continue progressing to socialism:

Lenin wrote:That is why we must continue our relentless struggle against these elements. Dictatorship is a state of intense war. That is just the state we are in. There is no military invasion at present; but we are isolated. On the other hand, however, we are not entirely isolated, since the whole international bourgeoisie is incapable of waging open war against us just now, because the whole working class, even though the majority is not yet communist, is sufficiently class-conscious to prevent intervention. The bourgeoisie is compelled to reckon with the temper of the masses even though they have not yet entirely sided with communism. That is why the bourgeoisie cannot now start an offensive against us, although one is never ruled out. Until the final issue is decided, this awful state of war will continue. And we say: “A la guerre comme à la guerre ; we do not promise any freedom, or any democracy.” We tell the peasants quite openly that they must choose between the rule of the bourgeoisie, and the rule of the Bolsheviks—in which case we shall make every possible concession within the limits of retaining power, and later we shall lead them to socialism. Everything else is deception and pure demagogy. Ruthless war must be declared against this deception and demagogy.


Further, Lenin was clear that the Soviet Union had not reached a democratic point in this:

Lenin wrote:In Russia, the big landowners and capitalists have not vanished, but they have been subjected to total expropriation and crushed politically as a class, whose remnants are hiding out among Soviet government employees.


Lenin wrote:Democracy is a category proper only to the political sphere. There can be no objection to the use of this word in speeches or articles. An article takes up and clearly expresses one relationship and no more. But it is quite strange to hear you trying to turn this into a thesis, and to see you wanting to coin it into a slogan, uniting the “ayes” and the “nays”; it is strange to hear you say, like Trotsky, that the Party will have “to choose between two trends”. I shall deal separately with whether the Party must do any “choosing” and who is to blame for putting the Party in this position of having to “choose”. Things being what they are, we say: “At any rate, see that you choose fewer slogans, like ’industrial democracy’, which contain nothing but confusion and are theoretically wrong.” Both Trotsky and Bukharin failed to think out this term theoretically and ended up in confusion. “Industrial democracy” suggests things well beyond the circle of ideas with which they were carried away. They wanted to lay greater emphasis and focus attention on industry. It is one thing to emphasise something in an article or speech; it is quite another to frame it into a thesis and ask the Party to choose, and so I say: cast your vote against it, because it is confusion. Industry is indispensable, democracy is not. Industrial democracy breeds some utterly false ideas. The idea of one-man management was advocated only a little while ago. We must not make a mess of things and confuse people: how do you expect them to know when you want democracy, when one-man management, and when dictatorship. But on no account must we renounce dictatorship either


Ingliz, quoting Gouldner, wrote:There is a gap here


Did someone say anything against vanguardism?

The Forum informing us of Ingliz's edits wrote:Last edited by ingliz on Thu Dec 24, 2015 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Ingliz wrote:ps. I couldn't give a shit whose arguments you think you are making, but if you believe Trotsky's arguments (and to a lesser extent Connolly's) suit your purpose, you carry on using them.


1. I have not invoked Trotsky in this thread. Nor do I think he's relevant to the discussion.

2. It was a petty, childish, and cheap move to bring up a theoretical topic, wait for me to respond, and then to edit your post so that it looked like I went on some kind of weird outburst that would prove your completely invented narrative.

3. It is a sign of your theoretical bankruptcy that you cannot create a coherent argument and are left to instead flail at strawmen.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14635952
It is a sign of your theoretical bankruptcy that you cannot create a coherent argument

My argument is perfectly coherent, and, unlike your utopia, it is not an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself.

and are left to instead flail at strawmen.

Is this better?

Even though Stalin expanded the scope of socialism in one country beyond Lenin’s original intentions, the fundamental fact remains that the latter accepted the possibility for isolated revolutionary states to organise their own socialist economies within national walls. TiG’s insistence that Lenin was only referring to socialist revolution, not to the construction of a socialist society or economy, is misleading and plainly wrong.

Lenin, Collected Works, Vol 26, Report on the Economic Condition of Petrograd Workers and the Tasks of the Working Class, Pravda No. 208, December 20, 1917. wrote:The Revolution of October 25 had shown the exceptional political maturity of the proletariat and its ability to stand firm in opposition to the bourgeoisie, said the speaker. The complete victory of socialism, however, would require a tremendous organisational effort filled with the knowledge that the proletariat must become the ruling class.
The proletariat was faced with the tasks of transforming the state system on socialist lines, for no matter how easy it would be to cite arguments in favour of a middle course such a course would be insignificant, the country’s economic situation having reached a state that would rule out any middle course. There was no place left for half-measures in the gigantic struggle against imperialism and capitalism.
The point at issue was—win or lose.
The workers should and did understand this; this was obvious because they had rejected half-way, compromise decisions. The more profound the revolution, the greater the number of active workers required to accomplish the replacement of capitalism by a socialist machinery.


Last edited by ingliz on 26 Dec 2015 21:15, edited 1 time in total.
#14635957
My argument is perfectly coherent...


Indeed. Like almost every part of your, "argument," that didn't rely upon a strawman, your last post was a portion of a quote to remove the context

and, unlike your utopia, it is not an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself.


Socialism in One Country worked? How's the Soviet Union doing today outside of my utopia?
User avatar
By ingliz
#14635964
Indeed. Like almost every part of your, "argument," your last post was a portion of a quote to remove the context

My arguments are Marx, Engels, Lenin, and to a lesser extent Stalin.

Trotsky

I only brought up Trotsky to point out that Lenin's uninterrupted revolution is not Trotsky's permanent revolution, that Marx's uneven development is not Trotsky's, and quoted a Trotskyite stating that Marx (for methodological reasons) admitted the "objective possiblity" of SIOC.

But keep beating that straw man if you actually think that is the best argument you can make.


Last edited by ingliz on 26 Dec 2015 22:03, edited 1 time in total.
#14635965
ingliz wrote:TiG’s insistence that Lenin was only referring to socialist revolution, not to the construction of a socialist society or economy, is misleading and plainly wrong.


Did I say this

Lenin was clear that he was speaking about an international creation of socialism. Pointing out that the Soviet Union was part of the international community hardly validates Socialism in One Country.

ingliz wrote:My arguments are Marx, Engels, Lenin, and to a lesser extent Stalin.


None of the arguments have withstood any kind of contextualization. In fact, you had to confess that socialism was redefined by Stalin, "beyond Lenin’s original intentions."

Which, if nothing else, rather invalidates your attempt to use Lenin.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14635971
Did I say this

Yes

TiG wrote:for Lenin there was the possibility to, "Organize their own socialist economies," as you say, but that it was impossible to be socialist.

How can a socialist society not be socialist?
#14636002
Yes


No. Organizing for a holiday is not the same thing as being on holiday.

how can a socialist society not be socialist?


The same way communists can exist without being in communism
User avatar
By ingliz
#14636079
Industrial democracy breeds some utterly false ideas.

Yes

A democratic state is not necessarily a libertarian state.

Lenin, as has been noted many times in this thread, specifically condemned everyone that tried to present the Soviet Union as socialist in form instead of ideology.

He would. When Lenin died on 21 January, 1924, Russia was not socialist in form.

But, by 1938 there are no classes as such. The proletariat (for all practical purposes) has liquidated itself.

By 1938, there is no anarchy in production and workers (for all practical purposes) are not competing with themselves.

By 1938, internal market relations (for all practical purposes) are divorced from the external capitalist market.

By 1938, there is a socialist ("political, juridical, philosophical, religious, literary, artistic, etc.") superstructure.

By 1938, the productive forces have developed to such an extent that a few years later Russia is able to smash an advanced state that Marx himself thought ripe for socialism.

I know you like to play in the abstract, but, for all practical purposes, how is this not socialism?
#14636220
For the same reason Lenin said so.

The idea that ten years later, they achieved socialism and so quickly that they were, "dizzy with success," and with a relatively unchanged governing apparatus is pretty much counter to anything Lenin wrote at the end.

But really, you're asking me to write about how something that isn't socialism by Marxist standards, is socialism. how am I supposed to answer that? Especially when you imply this should be done without any theoretical conditions? Why not ask me how a table isn't socialism?

Socialism is the result of a dialectic process that emerges as the antithesis to capitalism. Capitalism is inherently international, the result largely, of the Columbian Exchange and other events. To say that it no longer is, and that Marx, Engels, and Lenin were incorrect, and now socialism is an arbitrary measure of state control, is to fall into what Engels warned in the absurdity of declaring Napoleon a founder of socialism.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14636380
For the same reason Lenin said so.

Why would Lenin specifically call for a state apparatus worthy to be called socialist, if he thought building a socialist state was a pipe dream?


* Lenin, Better Fewer, But Better. March 2, 1923

socialism is an arbitrary measure of state control

Engels thought so.

Engels, The Principles of Communism, November 1847 wrote:Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole .

Engels, ibid wrote:Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country’s productive forces.

the absurdity of declaring Napoleon a founder of socialism.

Don't be silly.

Lenin wrote:Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Neither is an option too. Neither have your inte[…]

There are conditions that must be met for Ukraine[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls There is no ethnic cleansing going o[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]