[TheRussianLord]

Please see the MTW thread. You really don't seem to have any clue what Marx actually wrote.

[Mabool]

Are you talking to me?

[TheRussianLord]

No. I'm talking to redkuze.

[Mabool]

Good, because I have read Marx.

[TheRussianLord]

I can tell.

[redkuze]

Mabool wrote:

Yeah, well, we do. We're going to take the bourgeoisie's property by force. This is stealing. This is morally bad. Oh, we're so despicable.

I sense sarcasm.

Are you going to redistribute the bourgeois' wealth to the 3rd world? Are you going to give up your own ill-gotten wealth for the 3rd world? All the wealth in amerika is stolen, right down to the ground amerikans walk on. It is stolen from the oppressed nations. It is stolen from the 3rd world.

If the 1st world workers seize the property of the imperialist bourgeoisie and keep it for themselves, they are simply moving from a labor aristocracy to a new, larger bourgeoisie. They are not creating socialism.

It is the 1st worldists who engage in "moral" argument. They claim that it is morally wrong to not support the parasitic 1st world working class. They have no science to back up the claims that they are the allies of the proletariat, they only have fears of hurt feelings.

Those few 1st worldists who admit that 1st worlders are not revolutionary, will make all sorts of apologies as to why. They will say that they don't know any better because they watch bourgeois propaganda on tv, even though no one put a gun to their head and made them watch it.

They will claim that Benjamin Franklin was a "national liberation" hero, despite the main reason the nation was "liberated" was for the stated purpose of oppressing others. Simply because he was a "good" settler, and didn't "hate" Indians. Despite his helping to "free" (I would more accurately say unleash) a nation that committed one of the largest genocides in human history. And continues to kill for profit to this day.

Others will use all sorts of made-up pseudo-marxist sophistry to claim that John Brown, who died for an oppressed people not of his own nation, was not a hero for national liberation.

This is because they fear John Brown. They fear the nation-traitor. The fear the person who says, "sorry amerika, but you need to be brought down a notch."

They fear John Brown and those who follow him because they fear losing their privileged lives, born on the backs of the oppressed masses of the 3rd world.

[TheRussianLord]

Nope. I have no fear of John Brown. He's dead. And as one character said "dead men don't bite."

In any event it's already been said, it doesn't matter which nation is oppressed because the struggle occurs along class lines.

[Kupredu]

Quote:

Please take Suvorov off.

I mistook Suvurov for Kutuzov.

[TheRussianLord]

Hehe. Yeah, no. Kutuzov was a different figure. For one he was a much weaker general. Second off he wasn't as well known for his conquests abroad, though he had his share too. Realistically at this time period I'd hesitate to call anyone in Russia a national liberation hero.

[Moris]

i think nevsky should be considered an all-slavic national liberation hero

[Kupredu]

Quote:

Realistically at this time period I'd hesitate to call anyone in Russia a national liberation hero.

Kutuzov commanded military operations in Prussia and Poland to complete the rout of the remnants of Napoleon’s army and to free the peoples of Europe from the Napoleonic yoke.

[TheRussianLord]

Don't forget: participated in imperial conquests against the Turks and iirc in suppressing insurrections in Poland. He was made prince for the conquest of Bessarabia from the Turks.

[Kupredu]

Quote:

He was made prince for the conquest of Bessarabia from the Turks

The unification of Bessarabia with Russia was a progressive development. It liberated the people of Bessarabia from the Turkish yoke and created the conditions favorable for the development of capitalism.

[TheRussianLord]

Except that Bessarabia is populated by Romanians. It's not a national liberation. It's an imperialist conquest. Just because it trades a more backward empire for a more progressive one doesn't make it nationally liberating. If anything Napoleon was nationally liberating given how nationalism was one of his major driving forces.

[Red Rebel]

redkuze wrote:

Not when it is the Settler/imperialist bourgeosie.

Aren't almost all national/local bourgeois settlers/imperialists?

redkuze wrote:

Why did the First Nations favor the British. Because they knew the settlers (who Franklin was trying to "liberate") where going to unleash a wave of imperialist violence against them that the world had never seen. You know what, they were right.

The British would have done the same thing the Americans did just not as quickly. The world has also seen such acts before with the Spanish in Latin America.

redkuze wrote:

But Franklin was a settler.

So it was Bennies fault for being born a settler in the United States? That because his faimly immigrated to the United States he is at fault because of who he was born to? That he had any control over this?

redkuze wrote:

Because ultimately, the 1st worldist "marxist" aids the exploitation of the 3rd world by claiming that 1st world workers are oppressed and deserve more.

We want more? The AFL-CIO just wanted "more." I'd much rather prefer what James Connolly said, "Our demands most moderate are - We only want the earth!"

redkuze wrote:

He is still a settler, and he is still fighting for the settler state. That settler state is and was the enemy of the First Nations and the Black Nation, which it held as slaves. Franklin sides with the oppressor over the oppressed.

Marx 101: more developed societies overthow underdeveloped societies.

Slave societies overthrow communal societies-
Feudal societies overthrow slave ones-
Capitalists overthrew feudal societies-
Socialists overthrow capitalists-

It sucks sometimes, its bloody, it might be genocidal but that what happens.

[Greg A. Young]

Quote:

Aren't almost all national/local bourgeois settlers/imperialists?

Not even close.

In the U.S., you have the Black bourgeoisie. In the third world countries you have the patriotic bourgeoisie that want to develop their own industries to compete with the imperialist countries. Also you have the local comprador bourgeoisie who get a slice of the imperialist profits in exchange for acting as agents of industrialized nations capitalists, etc.

[TheRussianLord]

And MTW happens to like some bourgeousie more then others.

[redkuze]

Red Rebel wrote:

Aren't almost all national/local bourgeois settlers/imperialists?

Greg A. Young answered this one better than I could.

TheRussianLord wrote:

And MTW happens to like some bourgeousie more then others.

When under imperialist attack yes. I would rather temporarily side with the anti-imperialist patriotic bourgeoisie when amerika attacks the 3rd world than fight them and amerika at the same time.

Red Rebel wrote:

The British would have done the same thing the Americans did just not as quickly.

True enough, but hindsight is 20/20. And sometimes your stuck between a rock and a hard place, but you gotta take a side.

Red Rebel wrote:

So it was Bennies fault for being born a settler in the United States? That because his faimly immigrated to the United States he is at fault because of who he was born to? That he had any control over this?

It wasn't his fault he was born a settler, but he chose to fight for the settlers.

This is why John Brown is a hero of National Liberation and Benjamin Franklin is not. It was not John Brown's fault he was born to an oppressor/settler nation (the same nation Benjamin Franklin belonged to), but he chose to fight for the oppressed. Franklin chose to fight for the oppressor.

Red Rebel wrote:

We want more? The AFL-CIO just wanted "more." I'd much rather prefer what James Connolly said, "Our demands most moderate are - We only want the earth!"

And materially, more for the 1st world means more super-exploitation of the 3rd world.

Red Rebel wrote:

Marx 101: more developed societies overthow underdeveloped societies.

Slave societies overthrow communal societies-
Feudal societies overthrow slave ones-
Capitalists overthrew feudal societies-
Socialists overthrow capitalists-

And Maoist-Third Worldists overthrow settler societies. It sucks sometimes, it's bloody, it may require deportation, but that's what happens.

[Kirov]

Hey redkuze, is Osama bin Laden a national liberation hero?

[Greg A. Young]

Quote:

And MTW happens to like some bourgeousie more then others.

Is this supposed to be scandalous? This is an orthodox Leninist position. Orthodox Leninist strategy calls for supporting those bourgeois movements that are in the crosshairs of imperialism. This is why Marxist-Leninists find the treachery of the I"C"P so repulsive.