Finish bolshevik thread

Vídeo please? Becouse i actualy did some vids with him

I lurk Holla Forums quite frequently if that's what you mean.

I knew you did that, just dident expected you to come right at my thread m8.

He's ok, much better than the nazi Finns I see most of the time online

How wonderful your aesthetic choices have been on your channel.
…
NOT.
webcam hat nipshit poster and retarded music. your theme is shit.

I mean, you're right, but what does that have to do with finnishbol?

thinking man's jason unruhe

Bar the fact he's a tankie with a capital T he's a pretty cool guy

He needs to upload more often

Disgusting "Third Worldist", a Jason Unruhe knock off disguised as ML.
Fuck him.
He's a complete and utter failure as a communist. Probably not even organized but if so it's likely some self loathing sect of maoists.

Anyone smearing workers as "working class aristocracy" rather than reading up on strategied and applying it on the conditions found in ones struggle deserves a time out in gulag and some throughout re-education.

16th post best post

that's a good thing

Are you realy sayin this even tho he alredy has made a video criticizing him.

Yes.

He may criticize Unhure (good one) all he wants, if he's not coming forward with self criticism and abandoning his wrong positions against the "first world" working class, he can go fuck himself and he'll remain a knock off.

He is not a third worldist! My god are you stupid? Ive personaly talked with the guy multiple times and made several vídeo with him and he is not a third worldist.

Plus, why do you first world people have such a fetish of not admiting that the first world has no revolutionary potential?

I readily admit that. It's just that the third world doesn't have any either, or is too weak to make a difference even if they did have a revolution.

He can deny it a dozen times, calling "first world workers" a "working aristocracy", even just once, is Third Worldism in its most vulgar form. Unless he retreats from this position, and go ahead and ask your buddy to do so, he's a Third Worldists.

And i can repeat it once more to get it through your thick skull.
Calling "first world workers" an "aristocracy" is vulgar third worldism.

He has yet to apologize and correct his statement he made in his comments.

Its not class colaborationist of what you guys have for a vanguard are a bunch of ofended collegue students who think that Donald Trump is fascist.

Also nice to see that leninists are still assholes who dont read any theory.

Well personally I think the position that the first world has "no revolutionary potential" is wrong and goes against the Leninist classics even if the "just around the corner" and "just do something" folks are tragically stupid.

Unfortunately, all the "third world" revolutions that happened in places like Korea, China, Vietnam and Cuba were revisionist or badly tainted by revisionist ideas spread by folks like Tito and Khrushchev

So what does that mean? I think even if there were more revolutionary attempts in say Asia then there were in Europe after WWII that doesn't mean that the Third World is imminently revolutionary.

The proletariat can be and is set back there and since 1980 the number of serious revolutionary attempts at dismantling capitalism in the Third World has also declined.

Which mainly proves that the theory guiding the Left in both the global North and South is wrong. What shocks me is that the Third World is far more miserable and backwards and the ideological stew put out by the bourgeoisie for the moment seems to be strong enough to overcome the abject misery.

You realize Lenin came up with the concept, right? It has nothing do with third worldism.

Lenin didn't come up with it, it was mainly Engels and to a lesser-extent Marx. The concept, although arguably not the name, existed among some English social writers before M&E.

You're right though it really has nothing to do with the Third Worldism. None of the authors of the ML classics argued that all the workers were bought off. Even Lenin didn't think that the labor aristocracy wasn't exploited only that it retained pr1vlged position relative to the proletariat as a whole.

True but Lenin is the one who expanded and really fleshed out the idea in his analysis of imperialism (in Imperialism and the Split in Socialism). Engels really didn't develop it all that much.

Tell him to read Bookchin, filthy tankies stuck in their ideology arent worh jackshit to any leftist movement.

Realy…

Yes really, MLs, MLMs ect are worthless larpers with utterly restricted imaginations that dismiss any criticism with the leftis equivalent of "dege-neracy"

Stalinistit kuuluvat raatteen tielle mätänemään.

That's true when M&E talked about the labor aristocracy they were mainly talking about England which had the highest wages in Europe and a larger middle class then most nations. They attributed that to England's monopoly on the world market.

Lenin really described how all the world powers taken collectively held a monopoly over world finance and production against the (semi) colonial world. And, Lenin saw the proliferation of monopoly firms and cartelization as an important factor in the development of imperialism and a labor aristocracy. Marx and Engels only analyzed monopoly and the corporation form to a limited degree and Marx's writings on finance capitalism is fairly scattered and not as a systematic as his analysis of industrial capital, so it makes that Lenin was the one who attempted to combine all these things together into a unified theory. Because even if M&E had touched all these subjects they never got around to formulating them in a holistic way.

I don't know why I wrote all this now, prolly just for the lurkers

You also forgot that they have a habit of being right, whereas the New Left has a habit of being wrong.

You keep spamming that Bookchin shit people are going to eventually start reading Bob Black's critique of him and then you're going to feel really embarrassed :^)

...

Forgot the pic

If they only had more time…

What u buthurt couse he dosent praise the fascists colaborators goverment?

socdems get the fuck out

Cajander`s 3rd government or 22th government of Finland(chronologically) could hardly be considered collaborators for fascists, since winter war was started by Soviets and Finns were not supported by Germans during the conflict.

clearly

Yet finland tried multiple times before to invade the soviets to get more land, But the soviets are the "evul social imperialist" for going against a goverment who had German simpaties.

Voluntary military expeditions hardly count as invasions nor war. Just like volunteers in Spanish civil war were not sanctioned by their governments, neither were those separatist volunteers who intervened in Russian civil war and Estonian war of independence.

Oh yeah the germans invading in behalf of the Whites dosent count as "fascist simpaties"

based as fuck

an intellectual and really knows whats up comrade

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimosodat

Tankie but he makes decent videos.

That intervention might not have happened if Soviets had the guts to wage revolutionary war against Germany in 1918. Not to mention that if Trotsky had signed the original peace treaty 2 weeks prior to accepting it, German high command would have not seen intervention as necessity to secure Finland form Russian hands(at this point Imperial army of Russia still had nearly 100,000 Garrisoned in Finland) .

They were not sanctioned by government, and soon as state stabilized itself after the aftermath of civil war state heavily restricted those proto-fascist movements. Particularly after their failed coup attempt in 1932.

Só your hole argument is blaming Trotsky for going against the peace treaty wich every communist also admits being a bad decision. Also if the bolsheviks had declared war them the germans would have basicly crushed the bolsheviks togheter with the whites.

No, the peace was signed too late. If Trotsky had not stalled the peace for 2 weeks Germans would have not intervened.

Not officially no, but they were led by White Army officers and given logistical and material support by the government
Interwar conservative Finland was wildly reactionary and German-aligned even without outright fascists in government.

Your whole argument was saying that the bolsheviks should have got the treaty to them break it wich would basicly result in the germans invading.

Former white guard officers. After 1918 Finland had no white army(or rather guards) but conscription based army, that took no such actions.

Nope. Germans held no strategic intrest in attacking Soviets but in disarming the former czarist army that was still at that point residing in Finland. Red Finland would have disarmed them in similar fashion to whites thus there would have been no reason for German intervention.

Exept for the fact to keep a friendly goverment to the germans in both Rússia and finland.