First use of nuclear weapons by anybody could be the first step to
Armageddon.

That the extirpation of the human race would certainly
with the fight for socialism is hardly the *only* reason to oppose it,

Formally speaking, whereas a workers' representative in the Spanish
Cortes would oppose the budget, that would *not* mean he would vote
against accepting arms sent to Spain from for example the Soviet Union-
though he would want to put forward various amendments to the bill.
Whether he voted for the final package or abstained would depend on
the fine print IMHO.

Likewise for a socialist in the Majlis somehow, perhaps a sudden
convert to the revolutionary cause elected on an Islamic platform. So
he would vote *for* Iran acquiring nuclear capacity and *against* the
budget for it. And then they would drag him off and torture him to
death.

...
Let's take another data point. Great Britain, expecting a German
invasion (WW II), requests a military budget and authorization to
receive military aid from the United States. The socialist votes NO on
the budget; does he conditionally accept the U.S. aid? Sounds
preposterous to me. To place conditions on the use of ordnance would
be an extreme example of harboring the liberal illusions of potential
popular or workers' control of the capitalist state.

What makes Spain different? If anything its that the country was
experiencing a revolutionary war. Some of Lenin's earlier writings
(e.g. Two Tactics of Social Democracy) might suggest this makes the
difference, but I think this hope rested on the democratic
dictatorship of proletariat and peasantry.

Another related analogy: China in the 20s. Was Russian military aid to
Sun Yat sen correct? (Or was it the corollary of the erroneous line
sacrificing the independence of the working class?) That is a) should
Russia have armed Sun and b) if the Communists had kept their
independence, should they have also opposed Sun's acceptance of
Russian armaments?

srd

If the CCP had not joined the KMT, the point could well have been
moot, as you had a very powerful mobilization of the Chinese working
class behind the CCP, and Chiang was mostly a force *because* of all
the Soviet aid.

I don't think the idea of an anti-imperialist united front between the
CCP and the KMT was wrong in principle. The problem was that the CCP
subordinated itself to Chiang and the KMT.

I remember what I was doing on the 11th of September 2001...I remember
thinking "what goes round comes round", the American scum got what they
deserved. Who cares about 3000 shitty american lives. A direct result of
their foreign policy choices in the late 70's and 80's (i.e. "containment"
of the USSR, direct support of Israel, raping the resources and governments
of the middle east & south america etc). They funded and trained, via the
Central Intelligence Agency, the Muslim "Mujahadeen" of which their mate
Osama Bin Laden and THE COMPLETELY FICTITIOUS "Al Quaeda" (even Osama
himself stated that they "reverse engineered themselves" into the free
publicity and grandeur that the american lies ,contrivances and fabrications
offered to them) was actively involved at the time, primarily with
recruitment of jihadis to fight the Soviets.

The Soviet Generals upon pullout tried to warn the arrogant Americans that
without their presence in Afghanistan and the stability their support of the
Socialist government in Kabul at the time offered, that Islamic
fundamentalism would get out of control in the area and anything could
happen in the future. The US military didn't listen, in the typical
ignorant, indignant, arrogant yankee shitalking, bignoting, lying style that
they have become masters of...they just wanted the Soviets out, end of
story, and once again, they did what they repeated in Vietman and Iraq and
North Korea, they didn't think it through. In a typical move that they show
remarkable skill at, they showed NO foresight whatsoever, just like in
Vietnam and Iraq, the shittalking fucks where so FULL of themselves and
their own BULLSHIT they never even so much as hinted at any future
possibilities or ramifications. No wonder the filthy, lying, yankee scum is
so hated (and rightfully so) the world over and for good reason.

In retrospect they would have been a lot better off if they had of listened
to the dire warning the Soviet Generals offered to their old adversaries, as
the Soviet Union at the time had a population of 40 million Muslims in the
Kazakh, Kirghiz and Uzbek SSR's (Soviet Socialist Republics). The
government, KGB and military understood these problems and that was proven
when the Soviet Government in 1990 strongly opposed the UN resolution
sanctioning Bush's first invasion of Iraq. This was a good display of
Gorbachev's pragmatism towards his 40 million Islamic citizens, as he dared
not risk upsetting them further as they where already paying for the
miscalculation that former comrade Brezhnev made when he accepted the offer
to help the new Socialist Government in Kabul in the 1978-9 period.

The Soviet Union never used chemical weapons in Afghanistan like the US did
in Vietnam with "Agent Orange". This nasty chemical causes GROSS birth
deformities in Vietnamese children born to women there to this day. The
Soviet Union never used nuclear weapons on innocent civilians in 2 Japanese
cities, the US did. The KGB never helped to overthrow over 150 legitimate
governments all over the world, mostly in Africa and South America (and the
middle east - Iran 1953) since World War II, the filthy, lying scum in the
CIA did.

The Americans are filthy, disgusting, hypocritical scum and they got what
they deserved on 9/11. I don't feel sorry for them. How do 3000 shitty
American lives stack up to the 100,000 (some wild estimates place the value
at 500,000) people who have died during the "War on Terror" ? Why do they
consider their lives more special than any other nation ? I'm sorry
Khrushchev never nuked the filthy fucking capitalist scum off the face of
the Earth back in October 1962 when he had the chance. Should have nuked the
motherf'ing scum off the face of the earth forever. I would have, they all
deserve to die, the world would be better off without them. Having close
ties to the US is a liability not an asset. Our governments (i.e U.K.,
U.S.A. & piddling little fucking Australia - the mongrel country run by
racist, mono-lingual, anglo-saxon scum, stole everything from the
Aborigines) have exacerbated the problem and anyone who believes that they
are "protecting" us with their actions is a fool. But then again, democracy
relies on fools to vote doesn't it ? I know who the real "evil empire" is..
Definitely not the former Soviet Union. Anyway, the Americans better watch
out as the sleeping dragon is awakening, and the world will have balance
once again...

...
Let's take another data point. Great Britain, expecting a German
invasion (WW II), requests a military budget and authorization to
receive military aid from the United States. The socialist votes NO on
the budget; does he conditionally accept the U.S. aid? Sounds
preposterous to me. To place conditions on the use of ordnance would
be an extreme example of harboring the liberal illusions of potential
popular or workers' control of the capitalist state.

What makes Spain different? If anything its that the country was
experiencing a revolutionary war. Some of Lenin's earlier writings
(e.g. Two Tactics of Social Democracy) might suggest this makes the
difference, but I think this hope rested on the democratic
dictatorship of proletariat and peasantry.

Another related analogy: China in the 20s. Was Russian military aid to
Sun Yat sen correct? (Or was it the corollary of the erroneous line
sacrificing the independence of the working class?) That is a) should
Russia have armed Sun and b) if the Communists had kept their
independence, should they have also opposed Sun's acceptance of
Russian armaments?

srd

You think the intensity of your feeling vouchsafes your correctness,
your irrationality notwithstanding. (Thus you are encouraged that you
go further than I by actually supporting, not just defending,
jihadists even though you admit that *objectively* jihadist attacks
inhibit socialism's advance. (Actually *read* the article about
Grynzspan you posted here. [And don't redefine terrorism to include
expropriations.])

You should take pause that your irrationalism has already led you to
some very reactionary positions. Your obsession with child abuse and
your willingness to encourage the police state in the name of
"defending the children" is as reactionary as racism.

srd

Mrs Buckley said she was prompted to become an active member of MAKO from
disgust at the meagre sentences pedophiles in particular received. She said:
"Usually the penalties are disgustingly low. It makes me sick - I thought I
could make a difference with sentencing and make it a safer place for kids.."

If the CCP had not joined the KMT, the point could well have been
moot, as you had a very powerful mobilization of the Chinese working
class behind the CCP, and Chiang was mostly a force *because* of all
the Soviet aid.
I don't think the idea of an anti-imperialist united front between the
CCP and the KMT was wrong in principle. The problem was that the CCP
subordinated itself to Chiang and the KMT.

You think the intensity of your feeling vouchsafes your correctness,
your irrationality notwithstanding. (Thus you are encouraged that you
go further than I by actually supporting, not just defending,
jihadists even though you admit that *objectively* jihadist attacks
inhibit socialism's advance. (Actually *read* the article about
Grynzspan you posted here. [And don't redefine terrorism to include
expropriations.])

For Grynszpan

Against Fascist Pogrom Gangs and Stalinist Scoundrels

(1939)

Source: Socialist Appeal [New York], 14 February, 1939. Translated: Socialist
Appeal. Transcription/HTML Markup: David Walters. Public Domain: Leon
Trotsky Internet Archive 2005. This work is completely free to copy and
distribute.

t is clear to anyone even slightly acquainted with political history that the
policy of the fascist gangsters directly and sometimes deliberately provokes
terrorist acts. What is most astonishing is that so far there has been only
one Grynszpan. Undoubtedly the number of such acts will increase.

We Marxists consider the tactic of individual terror inexpedient in the tasks
of the liberating struggle of the proletariat as well as oppressed
nationalities. A single isolated hero cannot replace the masses. But we
understand only too clearly the inevitability of such convulsive acts of
despair and vengeance. All our emotions, all our sympathies are with the
self-sacrificing avengers even though they have been unable to discover the
correct road. Our sympathy becomes intensified because Grynszpan is not a
political militant but an inexperienced youth, almost a boy, whose only
counselor was a feeling of indignation. To tear Grynszpan out of the hands
of capitalist justice, which is capable of chopping off his head to further
serve capitalist diplomacy, is the elementary, immediate task of the
international working class!

All the more revolting in its police stupidity and inexpressible violence is
the campaign now being conducted against Grynszpan by command of the Kremlin
in the international Stalinist press. They attempt to depict him as an agent
of the Nazis or an agent of Trotskyists in alliance with the Nazis. Lumping
into one heap the provocateur and his victim, the Stalinists ascribe to
Grynszpan the intention of creating a favorable pretext for Hitler’s pogrom
measures. What can one say of these venal “journalists” who no longer have
any vestiges of shame? Since the beginning of the socialist movement the
bourgeoisie has at all times attributed all violent demonstrations of
indignation, particularly terrorist acts, to the degenerating influence of
Marxism. The Stalinists have inherited, here as elsewhere, the filthiest
tradition of reaction. The Fourth International may, justifiably, be proud
that the reactionary scum, including the Stalinists, now automatically links
with the Fourth International every bold action and protest, every indignant
outburst, every blow at the executioners.

It was so, similarly, with the International of Marx in its time. We are
bound, naturally, by ties of open moral solidarity to Grynszpan and not to
his “democratic” jailers, or the Stalinist slanderers, who need Grynszpan’s
corpse to prop up, even if only partially and indirectly, the verdicts of
Moscow justice. Kremlin diplomacy, degenerated to its marrow, attempts at
the same time to utilize this “happy” incident to renew their machinations
for an international agreement among various governments, including that of
Hitler and Mussolini, for a mutual extradition of terrorists. Beware,
masters of fraud! The application of such a law will necessitate the
immediate deliverance of Stalin to at least a dozen foreign governments.

The Stalinists shriek in the ears of the police that Grynszpan attended
“meetings of Trotskyites.” That, unfortunately, is not true. For had he
walked into the milieu of the Fourth International he would have discovered
a different and more effective outlet for his revolutionary energy. People
come cheap who are capable only of fulminating against injustice and
bestiality. But those who, like Grynszpan, are able to act as well as
conceive, sacrificing their own lives if need be, are the precious leaven of
mankind.

In the moral sense, although not for his mode of action, Grynszpan may serve
as an example for every young revolutionist. Our open moral solidarity with
Grynszpan gives us an added right to say to all the other would-be
Grynszpans, to all those capable of self-sacrifice in the struggle against
despotism and bestiality: Seek another road! Not the lone avenger but only a
great revolutionary mass movement can free the oppressed, a movement that
will leave no remnant of the entire structure of class exploitation,
national oppression, and racial persecution. The unprecedented crimes of
fascism create a yearning for vengeance that is wholly justifiable. But so
monstrous is the scope of their crimes, that this yearning cannot be
satisfied by the assassination of isolated fascist bureaucrats. For that it
is necessary to set in motion millions, tens and hundreds of millions of the
oppressed throughout the whole world and lead them in the assault upon the
strongholds of the old society. Only the overthrow of all forms of slavery,
only the complete destruction of fascism, only the people sitting in
merciless judgment over the contemporary bandits and gangsters can provide
real satisfaction to the indignation of the people. This is precisely the
task that the Fourth International has set itself. It will cleanse the labor
movement of the plague of Stalinism. It will rally in its ranks the heroic
generation of the youth. It will cut a path to a worthier and a more humane
future.

(Repost for title change)

Sherlock:

If the CCP had not joined the KMT, the point could well have been
moot, as you had a very powerful mobilization of the Chinese working
class behind the CCP, and Chiang was mostly a force *because* of all
the Soviet aid.
I don't think the idea of an anti-imperialist united front between the
CCP and the KMT was wrong in principle. The problem was that the CCP
subordinated itself to Chiang and the KMT.

I don't question the united front, only the interpretation that it's
_ever_ a workers state's role to *arm* the CP's bourgeois (temporary)
ally. Socialists prefer a KMT victory to a Japanese victory, a strong
KMT relative to Japan. But that isn't to say they favor a strong KMT
simpliciter. Algebraically, the strength of the KMT relative to
_Japan_ is a plus; but its strength relative to the _CCP_ is a
*larger* minus.

Let's say the CCP stayed independent but was weak relative to the
KMT.
How does even that relation of forces warrant aiding the KMT
*materially* when it is always The CP's *rival* more fundamentally
than its ally, even when they both for the moment turn their guns
against the Japanese?
srd

On Nov 7, 9:55 am, srd <srdiam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

I don't question the united front, only the interpretation that it's
_ever_ a workers state's role to *arm* the CP's bourgeois (temporary)
ally. Socialists prefer a KMT victory to a Japanese victory, a strong
KMT relative to Japan. But that isn't to say they favor a strong KMT
simpliciter. Algebraically, the strength of the KMT relative to
_Japan_ is a plus; but its strength relative to the _CCP_ is a
*larger* minus.

If you militarily support one side in a war, that is meaningless if
you are not willing to provide arms or fighters or both. Otherwise it
is just words.