Prague Spring 1968

Quote:

Unarmed students, trying to persuade Warsaw Pact troops to leave

Quote:

Warsaw pact tanks driving around Prague

Quote:

Bus set on fire

Quote:

People looking past the armoured columns of Warsaw pact troops. Disguisted at their "liberators"

Quote:

Soviet tanks enter Prague

Quote:

Czech's, crowded around Warsaw pact tanks, in order to stop them from further deployment

Quote:

Czech's marching in a peaceful manner, to protest the Warsaw pact invasion

Quote:

Czech greeting the Soviet troops with the Nazi salute, reminding them Hitler's occupation of Czechoslovakia, in March 1939.

Quote:

A patriotic Czech, tears his shirt in protest to show that Czech's will not surrender to the invasion

Quote:

The more rebellious group of students, that throw rock's at the T-54

Quote:

Column of Soviet made T-54's, awaiting to crush opposition

Quote:

Un-armed student, confronted by a Soviet soldier

Quote:

A student with a Czech flag, standing on a Soviet tank

Quote:

Demonstration's in Prague

Quote:

Czech's looking on from a cafe, onto the street

Quote:

It is rumoured that most soldiers, didn't even know where they were, and obviously did not know their orders

See? Communism only works out if the people want it, not when they need it.

I think Valdart's words are quite apt:

Valdart wrote:

I have no reason to even remotely defend the Soviet Union for these actions as I feel it is a by-product of its 1956-1991 revisionist/State Capitalist period. It’s just more proof of how the USSR degraded over the years as it became more Capitalist, Andrei Mazenov wrote a good essay on that.

I don't think I could say the same. I do agree with the spread of Communism, but I do not agree with how it was spread.

Yes well, if you think that State-Capitalism is a spread of communism, then you really do need to read some more. I think you should read some Enver Hoxha, he made some good valid criticisms of the revisionist USSR and of revisionist China.

The crushing of the Prague Spring is not something we should be proud of at all, not at all.

If i was a soviet soldier and i saw a czech civilian giving me a nazi salute, i'll give him a punch in the face and put a banner over his neck with a swartstika on it.

Crazy Ivan wrote:

If i was a soviet soldier and i saw a czech civilian giving me a nazi salute, i'll give him a punch in the face and put a banner over his neck with a swartstika on it.

are those actions becoming of a supreme soviet soldier fighting for the equality of all people, in the glorious revolution? i'm glad you weren't a soviet soldier, because in fact it seems that your views have little difference between that of a soldier of a fascist nation.

[SF edit: Deleted, see Forum Rules.]

Isn't it funny that Interrup_00h did not respond to this?

dktekno wrote:

Isn't it funny that Interrup_00h did not respond to this?

Check topic "Martial Law - December 13th 1981 to 22 July 1983"

if you like B. Schellers pics.

wheelchairman wrote:

Yes well, if you think that State-Capitalism is a spread of communism

Is state capitalism socialism that tries to use marked based economy policies?

Capitalism = capital goods are owned by non-state entities
Socialism = capital goods are owned by the state

In my opinion, there can be socialist planned economies and socialist market economiesa but no socialist capitalism because it is oxymoron.

I think that sate-capitalism is only a false term invented by socialists so they can blame capitalism for the problems in eastern block.

ah Turhapuro, you get confused so easily, you really are quite terrible at arguing, are all your arguments falsifications of what other people say, and then your reply to these falsifications?

State Capitalism, in short, is when the state becomes the capitalist class. For example, under Khruschev, the state stopped completely being a worker's state, and in the economy were introduced the laws of profit and demand. Thus, even though the bourgeois did not exist, the state became the new bourgeois.

wheelchairman wrote:

Thus, even though the bourgeois did not exist, the state became the new bourgeois.

Thas is pure propaganda bullshit. Bourgeois does not mean ruling class, it means wealthy private property owners.

You just redefine your terms so that everything bad or evil is always fascist (dictatorships are always fascist [like DPRK]), bourgeois (USSR communist party members) or capitalist (socialism that uses money).

And how Stalins regime was "workers state" if USSR after him was not? It was totalitarian dictatorship and there was no civil rights whatsoever.

Turhapuro wrote:

Thas is pure propaganda bullshit. Bourgeois does not mean ruling class, it means wealthy private property owners.

You just redefine your terms so that everything bad or evil is always fascist (dictatorships are always fascist [like DPRK]), bourgeois (USSR communist party members) or capitalist (socialism that uses money).

And how Stalins regime was "workers state" if USSR after him was not? It was totalitarian dictatorship and there was no civil rights whatsoever.

Where did I say Bourgeois was ruling class? You should pay attention, you must make a rather miserable economic student.

Your second paragraph is null void since I've redefined nothing. I believe you are upset because your arguments are worthless.

As for Stalin, there are many things I disagree with the way he ran the USSR, but economically speaking, it was running under socialist lines.

wheelchairman wrote:

[
Where did I say Bourgeois was ruling class?

Ok so state itself is one big bourgeois? Sounds very stupid. So another externity must be that state itself is a worker and people are bourgeois?

There is no substance in this term, it is nothing more than term twisting for purpose of propaganda. For nazis, everything is jewish, for american, everythin unpleasant is unamerican or communist, for a communist everything is bourgeois and for romans every bad thing is barbaric. It is simple and very old tactic, just blame your opponent for everything.

Quote:

As for Stalin, there are many things I disagree with the way he ran the USSR, but economically speaking, it was running under socialist lines.

And if it was not running badly, why did K made those reforms? Was that guy just evil capitalist? No I don't think so, he really believed to soviet economy and communim. He made those reforms because he thought they were necessity. Just like NEP and Lenin. Communist policy had crashed so even the allmighty Lenin had to roll back and go NEP. Same with Gorba. Socialism was still lagging and he wanted to give little boost to it, unforunately he broke whole empire.

You are a failure at economics already. If you bothered to actually read and understand Marxism, you wouldn't make these mistakes, it is a bit complicated, but some reading can go a long way. If you wish I can offer you a few books.

The term bourgeois, is used as a term for a relationship, a person who is in a dominant and exploitative relationship over the works, is bourgeois, for example. When the state is dominant and exploitative over the workers, it becomes bourgeois. If you are too stupid to understand that simple concept, then you should no longer use the internet, and stay away from sharp things.

There is a difference between Lenin, Khruschev and Gorbachev (again, you show yourself to be a failure at any analysis of historical conditions, but I forgive your ignorance.)

Lenin, created the NEP as a temporary to create stability when the nation was under civil war and foreign attack. When you're surrounded by enemies, you have to compromise so that you won't die.

Khruschev did his reforms for different reasons. The Soviet Economy had grown to the second most powerful in the world, so why reform it? Personally I think he did it at wanting to separate himself from the Stalin-line and the old-guard line (Kaganovich, Molotov et al.) He couldn't have beat them if he had been exactly the same. His entire existence is based on the premise of being a contradiction to Stalin.

Gorbachev made his reforms, when everyone saw that the state economy needed reforming, since Khruschev's state capitalism would obviously implode (research some historical economics why don't you, you'll see why it had to implode, based on almost the exact same reasons that the Feudalist economy would implode after the dawn of industrialization.) There were two lines at this time, one line wanted a more socialist state-centered economy, Gorbachev was a different line, he wanted to create a more "free"-enterprise type economy, it buckled because capital cannot be restrained by the state in such a manner. The bourgeois needed to break free to reap maximum profit.

dktekno wrote:

Isn't it funny that Interrup_00h did not respond to this?

Indeed, he doesnt pay atention to real posts that contain real information Oh well. This post reminds me of Tiananmen Square:

[SF edit: Deleted, see Forum Rules.]

Not to quick on subtle social commentary, are you Crazy Ivan?

The Czech giving the Nazi salute was trying to make a comparison between the Red Army and the Wehrmacht.