Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

A Traitor

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 981
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 12 Jun 2016, 19:48
Koči Hođe was a traitor. I am convinced that "certain members" of this forum will back me up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ko%C3%A7i_Xoxe
Soviet cogitations: 674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 02 Jul 2016, 10:15
Yes. Even bourgeois historians acknowledge he was a Yugoslav agent. Khrushchev and the other Soviet revisionists tried to pressure Hoxha into rehabilitating him as part of the revisionist efforts to rehabilitate Tito, but Hoxha refused and this was one of the reasons the Soviet revisionists tried in every way to cripple and isolate Albania and to overthrow its leadership.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 981
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 02 Jul 2016, 13:08
Why was Albania so important that throughout its existence "someone" always tried to overthrow the government and we keep hearing about the (alleged, yet unsubstantiated) claims of conspiracy against it?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 02 Jul 2016, 19:51
Every state has agents in it from rival foreign powers. That's just the game of geopolitics.

Considering Yugoslavia and Albania were rival powers, it's not surprising or "conspiracy theory" to suggest that someone was working for the rival. Obviously these claims have been also trumped up in show trials to eliminate perceived threats to a regime with no foreign loyalty, not knowing much about this case I can't comment about it specifically.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 02 Jul 2016, 23:54
Albania is a tiny, strategic value-free pimple on the buttocks of Europe. Hoxha was a tinpot 3rd world strongman who may as well have been dictator of Antarctica. "Betraying" it to Yugoslavia would have meant an immeasurable increase in the standard of living. Champagne wishes and caviar dreams!

Instead, they got daily speeches and a network of medieval bunkers. That being said, there's still no reason to hate the Albanian people as such.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 03 Jul 2016, 09:42
EdvardK wrote:
Why was Albania so important that throughout its existence "someone" always tried to overthrow the government and we keep hearing about the (alleged, yet unsubstantiated) claims of conspiracy against it?
Albania was, after Stalin's death, the only country whose leadership did not betray Marxism-Leninism and, consequently, the only country to have been genuinely constructing socialism. Throughout Eastern Europe the revisionist chiefs of the GDR, Hungary, Poland, etc. followed the lead of the Soviet revisionists in restoring capitalism. Albania refused to follow the Soviet revisionists.

Again, just about any bourgeois work you pick up will admit that the Soviet revisionists tried to overthrow the Albanian government, as did the Yugoslav government. Jon Halliday for instance writes that, on the basis of evidence, "Xoxe probably did conspire with Belgrade to oust Hoxha." (The Artful Albanian, p. 9.) In conversations with Stalin the Yugoslavs tried to draw a fictitious distinction between the "proletarian" Xoxe and the "petty-bourgeois" Hoxha.

I've written a whole article on Soviet-Albanian relations in the 1950s and early 60s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2 ... nian_split

Comrade Gulper wrote:
Albania is a tiny, strategic value-free pimple on the buttocks of Europe.
"Quite apart from the symbolic implications of Hoxha's [split with the USSR], Khrushchev had always regarded Albania as a key member of the Warsaw Pact because of 'its superb strategic location on the Mediterranean Sea.' The rift with Yugoslavia in 1948 had eliminated the only other possible outlet for the Soviet navy in the region. To ensure that Albania could serve as a full-fledged 'military base on the Mediterranean Sea for all the socialist countries,' the Soviet Union had been providing extensive equipment and training to the Albanian army and navy. In particular, the Albanian navy had received a fleet of twelve modern attack submarines, which initially were under Soviet control but were gradually being transferred to Albanian jurisdiction. Khrushchev believed that the submarines would allow Albania to pose a 'serious threat to the operation of the NATO military bloc on the Mediterranean Sea,' and thus he was dismayed to find that Soviet efforts to establish a naval bulwark on the Mediterranean might all have been for naught.

As soon as the rift with Albania emerged, the Soviet Union imposed strict economic sanctions, withdrew all Soviet technicians and military advisers, took back eight of the twelve submarines, dismantled Soviet naval facilities at the Albanian port of Vlona, and engaged in bitter polemical exchanges with the Albanian leadership. Khrushchev also ordered Soviet warships to conduct maneuvers along the Albanian coast, and he secretly encouraged pro-Moscow rivals of Hoxha to carry out a coup. The coup attempt was rebuffed, and the other means of coercion proved insufficient to get rid of Hoxha or to bring about a change of policy. In December 1961, Khrushchev broke diplomatic relations with Albania and excluded it from both the Warsaw Pact and CMEA. However, he was unwilling to undertake a full-scale invasion to bring Albania back within the Soviet orbit, not least because of the logistical problems and the likelihood of confronting stiff armed resistance."
(Carole Fink, Philipp Gassert & Detlef Junker (ed). 1968: The World Transformed. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1998. pp. 117-119.)

As for your claim about an "immeasurable increase in the standard of living," Yugoslav sources admit that whereas blood feuds and illiteracy were eradicated in Albania, they persisted in Kosovo, the poorest part of Yugoslavia.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 03 Jul 2016, 09:51
Did you get something in your burek or icecream or what, Ed?
One shouldn't be that much agitated over Albania.
No one, even on the Balkans, cares about it.

Quote:
Albania is a tiny, strategic value-free pimple on the buttocks of Europe. Hoxha was a tinpot 3rd world strongman who may as well have been dictator of Antarctica. "Betraying" it to Yugoslavia would have meant an immeasurable increase in the standard of living. Champagne wishes and caviar dreams!

Haha, exactly. Soviets may have sent 12 submarines just to spite the Italians but that was it.
In a case of war closing up the sea routes to Yugoslavia or Trieste( only even remotely stategic goals there might have been ) wasn't exactly on the top of Soviet priorities. Especially since that wasn't really possible due to NATO Italy mainland being just a stone's throw away.

Hoxha may have built 600k bunkers ( at the expense of Albanian commieblocks not even having a facade but bare bricks or just plain concrete ) but no one actually had an interest in invading the place.
Soviet cogitations: 674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 03 Jul 2016, 12:49
It's worth noting that besides the threat posed by the USSR, the Greek government also threatened Albania by declaring that a "state of war" existed between the two countries since WWII. It was only in 1987 that Greece dropped this claim, and only in the early 70s that it stopped claiming southern Albania was "occupied territory" that belonged to Greece.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 981
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 03 Jul 2016, 20:35
You usually denounce bourgeouis writers, Ismlai, but when they serve your purpose you like using them to support your outlandish claims. As I gathered from your answer, Albania was THE main country in the world when it comes to building real socialism and that's why it was a pain in the ass of every other nation? That does not mkae sense to me at all.

To others - i have nothing against Albania, but I have A LOT against anyone who's overly glorifying a nation, be it Hitler, Trump, Obama or Ismail for that matter. Nobody gave a rat's ass about Albania but Ismail is making it seem as if the United Nations couldn't fart without asking the great Hoxha first.
Soviet cogitations: 674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 03 Jul 2016, 21:36
EdvardK wrote:
You usually denounce bourgeouis writers, Ismlai, but when they serve your purpose you like using them to support your outlandish claims.
On the subject of Koçi Xoxe I pointed out that even bourgeois authors admit his guilt. For example, Halliday still condemns Hoxha as a "dictator" and whatnot, but as far as Xoxe goes he has little to criticize Hoxha for in overseeing his execution.

And there are bourgeois authors who are objective versus bourgeois authors who are anti-communist hacks. For example, Frederick Schuman was a bourgeois author who wrote books on the USSR. He was a liberal who equated Marxism with religious dogma and thought capitalist and socialist societies would peacefully grow into some sort of "new" society combining "the best of both worlds." And yet despite his bourgeois views his Soviet Politics at Home and Abroad is much more objective than books by Robert Conquest or Daniel Pipes.

Quote:
Albania was THE main country in the world when it comes to building real socialism and that's why it was a pain in the ass of every other nation? That does not mkae sense to me at all.
Yes, a socialist country is naturally going to be despised by capitalist countries, which will try to overthrow it. That's a rather basic aspect of class struggle.

Albania did not militarily threaten other countries, but that did not stop the USA, UK, Greece, USSR, China and Yugoslavia from trying to overthrow its government. Soviet Russia didn't militarily threaten other countries either, in fact one of Lenin's first acts was to call for a just and democratic peace between the belligerents of World War I, and in response his country was invaded by numerous capitalist states who tried to crush the October Revolution. None of this makes sense until you realize that the bourgeoisie naturally fears any proletarian government.

Quote:
To others - i have nothing against Albania, but I have A LOT against anyone who's overly glorifying a nation, be it Hitler, Trump, Obama or Ismail for that matter. Nobody gave a rat's ass about Albania but Ismail is making it seem as if the United Nations couldn't fart without asking the great Hoxha first.
Except I'm not Albanian, and I don't pretend Albania is a country inhabited by a "master race" or that it has the right to invade and occupy other countries or is somehow exempt from the laws of class struggle (which is what "American exceptionalists" believe.)

Yes, within the international communist movement the Soviet, Chinese, Yugoslav, Korean, Cuban and other revisionists were more influential than the Albanians. What's your point? Marxism isn't a popularity contest. The Soviet and other revisionists led "communist" parties to disaster. The Albanians, through their principled Marxist-Leninist line, which upheld the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, exposed revisionism and opportunism of all hues, as did the parties which followed that line in other countries.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 03 Jul 2016, 23:07
All well and good but, at the end of the day, no one cares about Albania. It was a tiny backwater in the empires of Rome, Byzantium, and the Ottomans. Today it's even less. No one disputes its right to be there, but that's as far as it goes.

Albania could have had the purest version of Marxist Socialism known to man. Without resources, territory, and a sufficient population, it was headed nowhere. Even the atomic bomb wouldn't have helped build a "Greater Socialist Albania." Centuries of Islam, provincial inwardness, and backwardness have isolated them to the point of complete insignificance.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 04 Jul 2016, 00:16
Comrade Gulper wrote:
All well and good but, at the end of the day, no one cares about Albania. It was a tiny backwater in the empires of Rome, Byzantium, and the Ottomans. Today it's even less. No one disputes its right to be there, but that's as far as it goes.

Albania could have had the purest version of Marxist Socialism known to man. Without resources, territory, and a sufficient population, it was headed nowhere. Even the atomic bomb wouldn't have helped build a "Greater Socialist Albania." Centuries of Islam, provincial inwardness, and backwardness have isolated them to the point of complete insignificance.
I don't see why it's relevant to Marxists how "significant" Albania was from a geopolitical angle. The Soviet Union was a powerful country; under Lenin and Stalin it was a base for the world communist movement, under the revisionists capitalism was restored there and it instead became a base for social-imperialist aggression against other countries (Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, etc.) China was certainly more "significant" than Albania as well, and yet it used its "significance" to invade Vietnam for having the audacity to oust Pol Pot.

So in essence, you're complaining that Albania was not a superpower that could pursue an imperialist policy abroad and oppress other countries. Instead Albania pursued an anti-imperialist foreign policy, unlike the Soviet, Chinese, Yugoslav and other revisionists who prettified imperialism.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 04 Jul 2016, 03:13
Ismail wrote:
I don't see why it's relevant to Marxists how "significant" Albania was from a geopolitical angle.

Because the idea of Socialism is supposed to be to enlighten the entire population of the Earth, not just sit majestically on a provincial throne.

You don't have to invade other countries to spread the influence of Socialism, but it helps to have an attractive version of it that is based on conditions people can understand. Enver Hoxha was a provincial peasant who didn't even share the common Christian background of the entire rest of Europe, and yet he presumed to dictate to the world what constituted genuine Socialism? His insignificance allowed him to reach a good old age.

Quote:
So in essence, you're complaining that Albania was not a superpower that could pursue an imperialist policy abroad and oppress other countries. Instead Albania pursued an anti-imperialist foreign policy, unlike the Soviet, Chinese, Yugoslav and other revisionists who prettified imperialism.


I'm not complaining about anything of the sort. I'm quite content to allow Albania to remain an insignificant pimple on the arse of Europe. So are the 99 percent of Albanians who are happy to live there and not cause trouble for anyone.

But let's not pretend Enver Hoxha, of all people, held the secret recipe of world historic progress in his hands.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 04 Jul 2016, 04:13
Comrade Gulper wrote:
Because the idea of Socialism is supposed to be to enlighten the entire population of the Earth, not just sit majestically on a provincial throne.
And this the Albanians did, not only by their own experience in building socialism but also be republishing the writings of Stalin in foreign languages and in defending the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin from attacks by revisionist and anti-communist authors.

Quote:
You don't have to invade other countries to spread the influence of Socialism, but it helps to have an attractive version of it that is based on conditions people can understand.
And Albania was quite "attractive" compared to the revisionist state-capitalism of the USSR and its vassals, and of other "socialist" governments. There was no equivalent of Poland's Solidarity in Albania, because Albanian workers were not subjected to price rises on essential goods. Albania did not accrue massive debts paid back to international capitalist institutions by imposing austerity measures on the people, as Yugoslavia and Romania did.

Quote:
Enver Hoxha was a provincial peasant who didn't even share the common Christian background of the entire rest of Europe, and yet he presumed to dictate to the world what constituted genuine Socialism?
Once again you are putting forth a stupid, anti-Marxist and chauvinist argument. What does Hoxha's family background have to do with anything? Calling on workers of the world to establish their own independent class parties, to seize the means of production and build socialism, has nothing to do with Christianity, Islam, or any other religion, nor what continent the workers in question happen to be on. Marxism-Leninism is a universal and scientific doctrine.

As he pointed out, "we cannot and should not follow 'the European road'; on the contrary, it is Europe which should follow our road, because, from the political standpoint, it is far behind us, it is very far from that for which Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin fought, and for which our Party fights today." It is precisely the revisionists who try to divide Marxism into "national socialism" so that there's the "Italian road to socialism," "socialism with Chinese characteristics," the characterization of Leninism as a basically "Russian phenomenon," and so on.

Quote:
So are the 99 percent of Albanians who are happy to live there and not cause trouble for anyone.
Once again Albania did not threaten anyone. It never pursued territorial claims, it never threatened other countries with invasion. Its "threat" was class-based, in that it was a socialist state surrounded by capitalist states.

Your argument here is also an anti-communist one. In Lenin's day he was condemned by the bourgeoisie for supposedly going against the "peaceful Russian workers and peasants" who didn't want to "cause trouble for anyone" but who were said to have been manipulated by himin the interests of "exporting the revolution" abroad, which in fact Lenin never did, nor did Hoxha (or Stalin, or any other Marxist-Leninist leader.)

Quote:
But let's not pretend Enver Hoxha, of all people, held the secret recipe of world historic progress in his hands.
Hoxha claimed nothing of the sort. Unlike Tito's "workers' self-management," Kim Il Sung's "Juche idea," Mao's "thought," Castro's guerrilla theories, the Eurocommunism of the Italian, Spanish and French revisionists, etc., Hoxha had no need to revise Marxism. As he said at the 8th Congress of the PLA in 1981: "There is nothing unknown about what socialism is, what it represents and what it brings about, how it is achieved and how socialist society is built. A theory and practice of scientific socialism exists. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin teach us this theory. We find the practice of it in that rich experience of the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union in the time of Lenin and Stalin, and we find it today in Albania, where the new society is being built according to the teachings of Marxism-Leninism."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 981
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 06 Jul 2016, 18:16
Ismail wrote:
because Albanian workers were not subjected to price rises on essential goods. Albania did not accrue massive debts paid back to international capitalist institutions by imposing austerity measures on the people, as Yugoslavia and Romania did.

USSR imported wheat even during the "orthodox" Stalin years, are you aware of that? By spitting on countries that were accruing debt, you're spitting in your own (stalinist) bowl.

Quote:
Enver Hoxha was a provincial peasant who didn't even share the common Christian background of the entire rest of Europe, and yet he presumed to dictate to the world what constituted genuine Socialism?

Hear - hear


Quote:
As he pointed out, "we cannot and should not follow 'the European road'; on the contrary, it is Europe which should follow our road, because, from the political standpoint, it is far behind us

So far behind that the rest of Europe couldn't manage to build/erect a millionth of bunkers by 2016 that Albania built/erected during the Hoxhaist years alone.

Quote:
It is precisely the revisionists who try to divide Marxism into "national socialism" so that there's the "Italian road to socialism," "socialism with Chinese characteristics," the characterization of Leninism as a basically "Russian phenomenon," and so on.

Call me revisionist or not, but the way how the Eastern bloc was set up it was imposing one's will over everyone else's, ie have puppet governments everywhere. Therefore, we agree that Hoxha was the best puppet of all times because he was moving and shaking even after his master (Stalin) was long dead.

Quote:
But let's not pretend Enver Hoxha, of all people, held the secret recipe of world historic progress in his hands.

Quote:
Hoxha claimed nothing of the sort. Unlike Tito's "workers' self-management," Kim Il Sung's "Juche idea," Mao's "thought," Castro's guerrilla theories, the Eurocommunism

You seem to know a lot about workers' self-management. Please, tell me more how SFRY was marketing that concept as "historically inevitable step in the progress of socialism", as you claim they did.

Quote:
and we find it today in Albania, where the new society is being built according to the teachings of Marxism-Leninism."

Please, re-read this part of the sentence and compare it to religious "scholars". You're using the word TEACHINGS which has a connotation of "undeniable truth", ie (in religion) a "dogma". Dogmatics are the worst conservatives. In today's world, the most prominent ones gravitate around ISIS/DAESH.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 08 Jul 2016, 01:41
Edvard K wrote:
Please, re-read this part of the sentence and compare it to religious "scholars". You're using the word TEACHINGS which has a connotation of "undeniable truth", ie (in religion) a "dogma". Dogmatics are the worst conservatives. In today's world, the most prominent ones gravitate around ISIS/DAESH.

Which is exactly why many intellectuals in the West could never deal with the religious fervor of Soviet Socialism. They were fighting a rationalist battle (remember the Scopes Trial?) against fundamentalist Christianity and along comes a new ideology with a "for us or against us" message.

When Theodore Dreiser sent copies of his pro-Soviet literature to fellow writers, critics, etc., many of them replied that they hadn't just liberated themselves from one all-inclusive ideology only to get bound up in another. You can call this "bourgeois apathy", but it illustrates the fact that acceptance of ideas comes in stages.

Simply put, America is only now beginning to be anywhere near accepting the rationality of socialist ideas. The religious zeal with which it used to be delivered was part of the very reason most Westerners (especially Americans) wanted nothing to do with it. If a message can't be delivered in a sober tone of voice, people tune out. We've had our fill of fanatics.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 13 Jul 2016, 05:45
EdvardK wrote:
USSR imported wheat even during the "orthodox" Stalin years, are you aware of that? By spitting on countries that were accruing debt, you're spitting in your own (stalinist) bowl.
Your reply is irrelevant. The USSR of Lenin and Stalin imported plenty of things to build socialism. That's qualitatively different from accruing billions of dollars in debts and imposing austerity measures on the backs of workers on behalf of the International Monetary Fund and Western banks.

Likewise when Yugoslavia imported massive amounts of Western grain in the 1950s, this was not done for the benefit of socialist construction in that country, but was part of the Yugoslav revisionists serving the interests of US imperialism.

Quote:
Call me revisionist or not, but the way how the Eastern bloc was set up it was imposing one's will over everyone else's, ie have puppet governments everywhere. Therefore, we agree that Hoxha was the best puppet of all times because he was moving and shaking even after his master (Stalin) was long dead.
Class struggle is all about "imposing one's will over everyone else's," and that includes combating bourgeois nationalism. Talk about "puppet governments" in Eastern Europe in Stalin's day is asinine. It was after Stalin's death that the USSR proclaimed the need for a so-called "international socialist division of labor" that established a neo-colonial relationship between the USSR (where capitalism was restored after 1953) and Eastern Europe (where socialist construction was abandoned in the 1950s.)

Quote:
You seem to know a lot about workers' self-management. Please, tell me more how SFRY was marketing that concept as "historically inevitable step in the progress of socialism", as you claim they did.
I never claimed that. In fact, the Yugoslav revisionists seem to have disregarded the laws of socialism altogether. They were full of praise for "African," "Arab," "Indian" and other avowedly non-Marxist "socialisms." Tito himself claimed that the New Deal in the USA was a step towards "evolutionary socialism." Any bourgeois nationalist "socialist" of the Nasser or Nehru type could be showered with praise by the Yugoslavs, so long as they shared the anti-Marxist positions of the Titoites. "Socialism" in the hands of such "socialism" was deprived of all meaning and class content.

It seems the only claim to socialism the Yugoslavs viciously attacked was that set forth by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, i.e. Marxism-Leninism. When Stalin was alive the Yugoslav revisionists claimed that the USSR pursued an aggressive foreign policy and Tito himself claimed Stalin's activities would have made Hitler "envious."

Comrade Gulper wrote:
Which is exactly why many intellectuals in the West could never deal with the religious fervor of Soviet Socialism. They were fighting a rationalist battle (remember the Scopes Trial?) against fundamentalist Christianity and along comes a new ideology with a "for us or against us" message.
In other words, they were skeptical of the idea that society is divided into classes with antagonistic interests.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 13 Jul 2016, 13:00
Quote:
In other words, they were skeptical of the idea that society is divided into classes with antagonistic interests.

No, they were wary of any idea that has to be preached with gospel fervor instead of clear and reasoned argumentation. I don't pretend to have been in anyone's shoes in the 1920's, but I can definitely say that I prefer to be talked to and reasoned with rather than preached at or threatened.

You, on the other hand, seem to be much more amenable to it. Perhaps it's the culture you grew up with. I enjoy being able to take the time to think things through and question as much of it as I can wrap my mind around.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 981
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 15 Jul 2016, 21:15
Comrade Gulper wrote:
You, on the other hand, seem to be much more amenable to it. Perhaps it's the culture you grew up with. I enjoy being able to take the time to think things through and question as much of it as I can wrap my mind around.

Comrade Gulper, you are a rational person. Kudos to you!
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 16 Jul 2016, 05:26
Some of it is just middle aged caution kicking in.

I don't want to insult the USSR, Yugo, or Shqparia. But I also don't want to blindly give credence to doctrine that is now a century old. The whole point of Marxism is that it is supposed to evolve as well as endure. Is it true that there is no revolution without evolution? I won't guarantee it, but it does seem to be proving the case as humanity ages.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.