/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>1841933
they want to emulate Stalin

>>1841933
Weakness and careerism

It's quintessential Eastern European cope. The eternal Eastern European is perpetually humiliated by the wealth of the West European imperial core. With 400 years of West European dominance of the colonized periphery strongest in the NATO era lead to immense surplus for proletariat of West Europe. The Warsaw pact countries not having that surplus nor understanding that I was that surplus not just capitalism "being better" with no analysis lead to this. The Eastern European believed that in the fall of communism they would become brothers to the conquest and sharing of the imperial plunder. It's now been 30+ years and just like before 1945 they are still summiting to the West of Europe as the always will under capitalism.

Reading a little about his life, I see that both his father and brother were arrested by the Ustashe and taken to a concentration camp, his other brother was killed by the Gestapo, however years later he ended up being very pro-ustashe. Tf was wrong with him?

>>1841933
Oh dude, just wait until you learn about the many "communists" that turned full Western libs when the USSR fell.

>>1842197
I mean its not surprising that a bunch of careerists jumped at the first opportunity to get rich/become a vassal. What is surprising is that you had WW2 Partisans becoming full on nationalists

>>1842258
its not weird. i blame postmodernism. look at daniel ortega
you wouldnt believe how functional for succdems were former guerrilla fighters here during the pink wave

>>1841933
It's still just as insane if you disregard WW2 and national traumas. In my country most members of the current ruling party were dirt poor peasants who were only able to get a university degree because of communism, later joining the party. They or their parents saw their social status skyrocket and today they are all hysterical anti-communists.
>>1842167
Very true.

On this thing about bureaucratism, on this day in 1968, there was a wildcat strike by a group of black radical auto workers in Detroit called DRUM (Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement). What's notable about the story is how at odds they were with the UAW, which had a leadership comprised of people who participated in serious and violent labor battles in the 1930s.

That doesn't mean those foreman and "labor aristocrats" had been communists, but it's possible some of them were at one point because of the role communists played in all of that, but by this point they had comfy jobs and were already reaching retirement age, or were retiring with nice pensions, so they just weren’t very responsive by 1968. There were also a lot of issues on the factory floors which were enraging these workers (and the workforce had also become increasingly younger, and black), and so conflict was inevitable – and it was also violent. Workers and foremen beat each other up. There were UAW guys who started paying off the Detroit police to beat the DRUM guys up.

One DRUM worker was fired, and as he was escorted out of the factory, he stabbed a UAW guy three times (who was also black) then fled Detroit. I don't think he was ever caught. But it was ugly.

>>1842266
>you wouldnt believe how functional for succdems were former guerrilla fighters here during the pink wave
But at least those remained leftist, like Garcia Linera who is still contributing to latin american marxist theory.

>>1842277
i always hated the term "labour aristocracy"
main ideologues were actually well off people, one thing has nothing to do with it
it was just typical trade union bureaucracy collaborating with the bourgeois. anyone can be a class traitor

>>1841933
Rosa was right

>>1842277
Stamping out radicalism is a structural necessity for labor unions under capitalism. Unions only get recognition and contracts if they are able to discipline their own workforces and 'play ball' with the factory owners. If a union encourages sabotage, revolution, wildcats, etc. the capitalist will tell them to fuck off and have them all arrested.

A lot of them were always nationalists first. Yugoslavia was a pan-national state so all of these guys remained loyal to their individual republics.

>>1841933
I think Mobo Gao provides a useful framework for thinking about this. Though he's talking about the Chinese context it could just as easily apply to Party bureaucrats of 1980s/90s Europe:
>Deng Xiaoping and many like him were not really Marxists but basically revolutionary nationalists who wanted to see China standing on equal terms with the great global powers. They were primarily nationalists and they participated in the Communist revolution because that was the only viable route they could find to Chinese nationalism. The two themes of nationalism and class struggle worked together well before 1949 (Dong 2006). But after 1949, the two themes could not fit together so well. For Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping class struggle was more a means to an end of achieving national unity and dignity. Once that goal had been accomplished the class struggle theme of the Marxist paradigm became irrelevant and the class struggle of the Maoist paradigm was seen as disastrously erroneous. The theme of national unity meant that political control had to remain tight, or democratic reform would lead to national disintegration. The theme of national dignity meant that China’s economy needed to catch up with that of the West. Therefore, to embrace market capitalism was a natural course of action for them.
These people didn't become nationalists after the destruction of their respective states and parties. They already were, and their membership in the party was tolerated to a point thanks to a limited alignment of interests and (particularly in Europe) the continuing right-opportunist degeneration of Marxist-Leninist parties. This degeneration promoted a mentality towards economic construction which easily aligned with nationalist politics and mindless "pragmatism" over internationalism. This trend continued to advance until it reached a breaking point in the Soviets, where the mindless "pragmatists" and opportunists like Gorbachev (who despite their revisionism had some degree of attachment to the Party) could no longer find unity with nationalists like Yeltsin. In that moment the liquidation of the Communist Party was inevitable, with the nationalists having no need for it and the opportunists no longer having any kind of real organizing basis within the masses that could maintain their grip on power. And so the Party was not only liquidated, its liquidation along with the Soviet state only faced spontaneous and disorganized opposition from the masses which the opportunists had themselves de-politicized.

>>1842267
> In my country most members of the current ruling party were dirt poor peasants who were only able to get a university degree because of communism, later joining the party. They or their parents saw their social status skyrocket and today they are all hysterical anti-communists.
>>1842267
> In my country most members of the current ruling party were dirt poor peasants who were only able to get a university degree because of communism, later joining the party. They or their parents saw their social status skyrocket and today they are all hysterical anti-communists.
Kicking the ladder. There needs to be an analyses on these types and a consensus on how to deal with them (preferably with intense violence in our roblox servers)

stalinoids started doing united frontism in the 30s amd 40s. lots of post-ww2 marxist-leninist governments were formed of bourgeois nationalists who had gone with the flow after soviet occupation. as for yugoslavia, many nationalists joined communist partisans because of the whole being occupied by german nazis thing, then dropped the act once the old partisan leader tito died

>>1841933
Tito was the professional tard wrangler, once he died it was over.

If I can be a bit controversial, they got to watch the National Impulse defeat the Proletarian one innumerable times, with few examples of the inverse on a large scale. Nationalism brought down the USSR; no matter how hard it tried to shake it out of the people.

That aside, plenty of “communist” movements in the periphery were earnest nationalist ones that both wanted Soviet funding and understood that if your goal was national sovereignty, then the Capitalists won’t tolerate you being anything more than a well they can tap. Fidel started, first and foremost, as a nationalist. The nation forms the basis for what we’d conceive of, in our limited capacities, as reality. Within the nation is a germ of universal humanity. When a movement in the periphery fights for communism, it contains a heavy national element because that’s how they conceive the class struggle.

Sincere and naïve question: were these people actually communists, or merely antifascists joining the groups fighting fascism?
I'm in a trot org but I'm not a trot. I'm not the only one. It's purely pragmatic.

>>1841933
Their faith was weak and they tried to find meaning in low autism score ideology.

>>1844206
>Sincere and naïve question: were these people actually communists,
No. These would be corporate middle management in a capitalist country.

Like degenerates in 1914, they abandoned socialism at a time of crisis.