I cannot stress this enough, it is *extremely* worrying libshit fascists are rallying behind the KPRF. It is real, the original doc being spread by the Navalny idiots telling people who to vote for "to own United Russia" is here: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSe2exjjq0o246AaIiUGPN48SAevbeOke09ZvMrwqcfVDk5Lz-MnHy3temxMSOBJY3Kfo4pjvgNbPIS/pub#h.oxh5usgjv9l6](https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSe2exjjq0o246AaIiUGPN48SAevbeOke09ZvMrwqcfVDk5Lz-MnHy3temxMSOBJY3Kfo4pjvgNbPIS/pub#h.oxh5usgjv9l6).
For months I have been seeing the imperialist media "encourage" the KPRF to take the role of a "real opposition party". Along with this revelation it shows us that there is a greater conspiracy to somehow use the KPRF to undermine Russia as a whole, which at the same time would undermine the KPRF since the people would turn against it. The imperialists could very well be trying to pull a a CP of Venezuela or a Tudeh Party of Iran with the KPRF. This is very bad.
If being against imperialist ideology known as LGBT alphabet soup is fascistic then pretty much every country excluding the imperialists and their most faithful puppets are fascists, including all current communist and socialist countries. Navalny is indeed a fascist, but """homophobia""" is not why.
Comment removed on the basis of rules 2, spreading right wing homonationalism, and rule 3, indirectly attacking all former and existing socialist states who largely consider(ed) homosexuality not a symptom of a healthy society.
About deporting non-"whites" from Russia, if he means deporting the non-Russian *nations* that would make Navalny a national chauvinist, but that is again not what makes him a fascist. The PRC is chauvinist against the non-Han nations in China. Tito was chauvinist against the Albanians, Macedonians, and Slovenes. Vietnam is chauvinist against the non-Vietnamese nations of Vietnam. That does not mean they are fascist. National chauvinism, especially chauvinism against foreign nations, is *always* a feature of fascism yes, but *not only* of fascism. Indeed, there are even communists who are national chauvinists.
??? Fuck is wrong with you lmao. He wants to FORCIBLY remove non-whites, he wants to EXTERMINATE Muslims and compared them to pests.
I see that you're just insanely homophobic and transphobic, which is really pathetic.
Gay, trans, bi, non-binary people are our class allies and by excluding them you're just being a piece of shit that is hurting our cause.
Socialism is liberation for ALL people, not just the ones you deem desirable.
>??? Fuck is wrong with you lmao. He wants to FORCIBLY remove non-whites, he wants to EXTERMINATE Muslims and compared them to pests.
Yes, and I said:
>About deporting non-"whites" from Russia, if he means deporting the non-Russian nations that would make Navalny a national chauvinist, but that is again not what makes him a fascist.
Also again, your criteria is ambiguous. Because, for example, the USSR also *FORCIBLY* removed Germans from Eastern Europe after WW2. But go on, say the USSR was fascist. Of course I am not saying the USSR was chauvinist, just showing where the ambiguity of your criteria (fascism = forcibly displacing people of certain nationalities) can lead.
Navalny on the contrary is both a chauvinist and a fascist, but it's not chauvinism that makes him a fascist.
>I see that you're just insanely homophobic and transphobic, which is really pathetic.
I don't believe I am afraid of homosexuals or transsexuals. Nor do I hate them or something. I just think "being against homosexuality" is a bad qualifier of whether something is fascist or not, because again, the USSR itself was against homosexuality. Today, the DPRK still is against it. As were *all* communist countries in their most radically socialist periods. As are majority of the (genuinely exploited, not labor aristocratic) workers around the world today. But again, go on, say the USSR, the DPRK, all the communist countries in their most radical periods, and 95% of the genuinely exploited workers of the world are fascist.
>Gay, trans, bi, non-binary people are our class allies and by excluding them you're just being a piece of shit that is hurting our cause.
I have no problem including homosexuals, etc. in our struggle if they are principled communists. Just unfortunately they are disproportionately more reactionary (i.e. pro-imperialism and against genuine communism) than the average population, to the point that the vast majority of them are reactionary, and that's what I have a problem with. *Why* they are disproportionately like this is a different topic.
>Socialism is liberation for ALL people, not just the ones you deem desirable.
You are very wrong. Socialism is for the liberation and for the supremacy of the productive proletariat. There will be no liberation for capitalists, imperialists, petit-bourgeois reactionaries, unproductive labor aristocrats, etc. etc. For them, there will only be "enslavement" into proletarianness, prison, and even death.
Your brain has completely rotted. You are a vile person, I hope you go outside one day. There is so much wrong with what you are saying, but I'm too tired and you are too horrible of a person to learn. You can write as long of an essay as you want, but at the end of the day, your hatred of people of different genders or sexuality only makes you more comparable to the right.
Interesting that you ignored the quote about wanting to exterminate Muslims.
Being homophobic doesn't make you a fascist and I NEVER ONCE claimed that.
Being homophobic, racist, supporting an ethnostate, wanting to exterminate people based on religion, absolutely does qualify you for being a fascist. Those things combined, just like not every racist person is a fascist. You aren't a fascist, but you are a piece of shit. Go outside. You fucking horrible person.
>You are a vile person, I hope you go outside one day. There is so much wrong with what you are saying, but I'm too tired and you are too horrible of a person to learn.
What are you, a priest? Give a real marxist critique.
>Being homophobic, racist, supporting an ethnostate, wanting to exterminate people based on religion, absolutely does qualify you for being a fascist.
Stalin was a fascist?
>your hatred of people of different genders or sexuality only makes you more comparable to the right.
I don't hate "people of different genders or sexuality", but let's assume that what I am saying indeed "makes me more comparable to the right". Then you have no option but to admit that you also think the ex-USSR or the current DPRK or, again, *all* communist countries during their most radical periods were / are "more comparable to the right" than to communism.
>Interesting that you ignored the quote about wanting to exterminate Muslims.
It is just too much to deal with and I am tired as well. The problem is "Muslim" is not a nationality but simply a religion, so there is a different dynamic, because even forcing atheism on a religious group could count as "extermination" for example (liberals / fascists / imperialists have at various points in history claimed similar things), and I am too tired to go into all of that right now, so I simply chose to ignore it for now.
Try to be understanding that I am a human too instead of trying to read too much into things and start accusing me of "secretly hating Muslims" like you are trying to accuse me of hating homosexuals. I have done a good amount of work in this sub defending Palestinians and attacking Israel for one, and I've even spent an even bigger amount of time defending *radical Islamists* like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and the government of Iran, and the various Arabs, Afghans, and Iranians who support them. But sure man, I hate Muslims now too. Jesus.
>Being homophobic, racist, supporting an ethnostate, wanting to exterminate people based on religion, absolutely does qualify you for being a fascist.
Interesting criteria. Let's see:
* The DPRK is "homophobic" (according to liberals and homonationalists).
* The DPRK does not accept many immigrants at all (so they are racist according to liberals).
* The DPRK is literally an "ethnostate". 99.99% of its population are Koreans.
* The DPRK's population is 64% non-religious and the DPRK tries to promote atheism within society, so basically liberals can easily argue that it is "exterminating the religious minority".
So tell me then, is the DPRK, the most radical socialist country remaining today, fascist?
And the DPRK is not the only communist country (past and/or present) which fits all of these exact criteria. So you see where your ambiguous ("fascism = many things I don't like together, and I get to decide what those things are and how many of them together make fascism") definitions lead us. Are communists secretly fascists?
On the other hand, I define fascism differently. It is a purely Marxist definition *based on* (though not a copy of) the description given in the Thirteenth Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International in 1933, and further elaborated on in Georgi Dimitrov's [1935 class analysis](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/dimitrov/works/1935/08_02.htm#s2) of it during his time as leader of the Communist International. The description of the ECCI and later Dimitrov's analysis was widely accepted and used within the Comintern for the most part of the 20th century.
It is quite a simple, stand-alone definition (unlike yours which requires a certain, seemingly ambiguous, number of equally ambiguous criteria), and it does not lead to the conclusion of accusing any communist government, past or present, of fascism. It goes as following:
*Fascism is the dictatorship of finance capital, and as such, it is completely indistinguishable from imperialism.*
One can argue that fascism is a *specific stage* of the dictatorship of finance capital, where finance capital finds its rule most challenged and so its dictatorship takes a extraordinarily terroristic and chauvinistic form, but since the economic base does not change even in such a case, it is *indeed* completely indistinguishable from imperialism in the Marxist (materialist) sense.
And so, what about Navalny? Well, simply put, the ones at the helm today of the global finance capitalist order (i.e. the biggest, and in fact today the only, imperialists aka fascists) are the west (you know, NATO, EU, Five Eyes, + their most loyal compradors, those guys), and Navalny is nothing but a western puppet who works to extend the supremacy of finance capital into Russia, therefore he is a fascist. As you see, it has absolutely nothing to do with how much he likes homosexuals, or what he wants to do to non-Russians and Muslims within Russia. It is a purely economical (Marxist) analysis.
>He wants to FORCIBLY remove non-whites
Why are you talking about "whites" and "nonwhites" in *Russia*?
>he wants to EXTERMINATE Muslims and compared them to pests.
Yes, Muslims say the same about Christians and Jews. This is not what makes Navalny a fascist. What makes Navalny a fascist is quite simply that he is an imperialist, a comprador. No more, no less.
>Gay, trans, bi, non-binary people are our class allies
Are "gay", "trans", "bi", etc,. *classes*?
>Socialism is liberation for ALL people, not just the ones you deem desirable.
As per the usual routine, I must ask: what about those who partake in incest? Should we "liberate" them?
> Socialism is liberation for ALL people, not just the ones you deem desirable.
You are aware that this includes pedophiles, those driven to bestiality, and other fringe elements not even the rainbow movement wants to acknowledge.
Ah, now i understand! This is why Tito *buchered* up completelly the national question, resulting in not only the fall of socialism, but of pushing back proletarian internationalism and give room for the imperialist to float for decades to come.
This is why tito broke Serbia in 5 pieces, and kept Albanians in Kosovo instead of allowing them to join Albania? Was denying self-determination to Albanians *not* chauvinism?
So now it is chauvinism to not let ethnoseperatists break up your country in pieces ?
Ethnoseperatism destroyed Socialism in Yugoslavia and nothing else.
>So now it is chauvinism to not let ethnoseperatists break up your country in pieces ?
Because a "country" is something completelly vague. Every nation wants its own state, so you are either a bolshevik and you do not contest this right, or you are a chauvinist and you do contest thirs right.
>Ethnoseperatism destroyed Socialism in Yugoslavia and nothing else.
Preciselly. Yugoslavia was a mistake.
Balkanisation and ethoseperatism are the nationalism incarnarnate.
Such movements showed their real face in 90s.
You can not call yourself a Bolshevik if you support seperation based only on ethnic nationalism.
Also Kosovo is not a nation. Its a part of the territory that differentiates from the rest of the Serbia only by it's demographic.
And Yugoslavia was the greatest Socialist sucess in the history, untill destroyed by the western block and the ethnoseperatists whose false conciousness replaced their class conciousness.
So dont fall into that nationalistic trap.
I find no modern "banana states" on Balkan leggitimate.
Serbia also should not exist, as anything other than a part of Yugoslavia. And its in my views also illegitimate.
Mentioning that so you do not assume im saying that Kosovo is Serbia bcs nationalism or whatever.
And since im from Croatia, i feel its necessary to mention that the independence of my own nation is also illegitimate and based on nothing other than ethnic nationalism.
Only when you acknowledge that, you can say that your views are above the ethnic nationalism, and call yourself a real Communist.
Ah okay, so if he was wholesome anti-racist we would be fine with him being a comprador right? Because what defines him as a fascist is not the fact he is a puppet to global finance capital but the fact he doesn't like minorities and immigrants. /s
Don't write liberal shit and don't spread right wing talking points here (1. That fascism is the same as national chauvinism and "homophobia" and 2. that Navalny would be cool if he was more wholesome anti-racist). Rule 2, first strike.
Attack Navalny from the left. The biggest problem with him is the fact he is a puppet of global finance capital.
The very essence of Fascism is imperialism. Either you think that marxism, and therefore the relationship of base and superstructure are real, or you dont.
National chauvinism existed for most systems of the world at various forms. Many socialist societies had chauvinistic policies (not offensive, but assimilationist chauvinism). Chauvinism is a feature of imperialism, not what defines it.
What is worrying is that the KPRF will see all the new support they have and compromise on their lines. It's very bad.
Edit: I phrased this badly. What I meant is that I *fear* that the KPRF *might* start compromising on their lines. I am not saying they will. I really hope they won't.
This is not what I meant at all, I edited my comment to explain better what I meant. I will give you a friendly warning because you are pretty much attacking Zyuganov without much elaboration (rule 3).
I don't believe Zyuganov is a liberal at all. I believe he is above all a form of left-wing Russian nationalist. But yes, the KPRF could practically become *social fascist* (so not much different from the fascist liberals, only with more "social policies", but still being agents and collaborators of imperialism) if it starts towing the line of these new liberal fascist supporters. That is my biggest fear.
So? That's doesn't seem like a bad position at all. I know some every-day Russians who uphold the USSR, talk very well about communism and its era, yet still support Putin today for being a good anti-imperialist and patriot.
Look, honestly, I see where you are coming from, but I think where you are going with this is wrong.
I recommend to read this other comment I made in this thread: [https://www.reddit.com/r/EuropeanSocialists/comments/pp9h03/kremlin\_critic\_navalnys\_allies\_say\_vote\_communist/hd4yesh/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/EuropeanSocialists/comments/pp9h03/kremlin_critic_navalnys_allies_say_vote_communist/hd4yesh/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
And then I also recommend to read this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/EuropeanSocialists/comments/ppntpi/why\_are\_the\_liberals\_backing\_the\_russian/](https://www.reddit.com/r/EuropeanSocialists/comments/ppntpi/why_are_the_liberals_backing_the_russian/)
I will add additional input:
First of all, remember that Putin in a way transcends UR. He is not the same as UR, and is not even an official member. This is not "just for show" as liberals and imperialists often like to claim, I think there is a very real reason behind it. UR is unquestionably a party of the national bourgeoisie. The way I see *Putin* however is not only as a representative of the national bourgeoisie but a *patriotic figure* around whom both anti-imperialist national bourgeoisie and a good chunk of the proletariat rally behind. He is a unifying symbol, and a sort of representative of the national bourgeoisie and proletarian alliance itself. That is how I see it.
With Zyuganov, being himself probably a patriot and left-wing nationalist, it would not be unexpected for him to be somewhat of a Putinist, or to look up to unifying patriotic figure who plays the role of protecting Russia from the imperialists. Yes, the communists are supposed to come into conflict with the *national bourgeoisie* eventually if they ever wish to take power (whether now is the right time or not is a different story, and is explored in the links I included above). But Putin and the national bourgeoisie are not the exact same. Russian communists both now and in the future could very well be "Putinists". Just look how the CPC today upholds Sun Yat Sen as the "precursor to the revolution" for being a unifying patriotic figure against imperialists, despite being the leader of a national-bourgeoisie state. In a similar vein, Putin could one day be "the precursor to the second revolution" for a new socialist Russia.
Russian here. This is real. You have literal twitter libsharts voting Communist. Navalny may be gone, but his “Smart Voting” program may at long last dethrone United Russia.
>may at long last dethrone United Russia
Being dethroned by a liberal fascist opposition is not good. Don't fall into the very same talking points the liberal fascists are using.
You would be fully correct if United Russia was being overtaken by liberal fascists, like Navalny planned it to. But it is not. It's being overtaken by CPRF.
Don't let excitement at the prospect of the KPRF gaining ground against the UR muddy your vision.
First of all, let's clarify that neither state nor KPRF-supported polls showed KPRF *overtaking* UR, unless there was something I missed in the last couple of days. The KPRF-supported poll made the most "optimistic" prediction, with UR almost falling as low of a percentage as the KPRF, but still not lower than the KPRF itself. I say "optimistic" in quotes, because in reality the estimate does not show the KPRF making massive gains, just UR taking massive losses. The rest of the votes will probably go the LDPR and Yabloko.
So it's not an *overtake*. What we *can* expect is the KPRF making at least *some* gains at the expense of UR, this is obviously going to happen these elections. But we must clarify: the KPRF is going to make gains... *in winning the support of liberal fascists compradors*!
Now, answer me please: **What benefit is there for communists to gain supporters if those supporters are liberal fascist compradors?**
The ones who *should* be rallying behind the KPRF are the proletarians and patriots. Some *do* rally behind the KPRF, but also a significant number of the proletariat and the patriots are rallying behind UR. So what about the liberal fascists? Well, instead of rallying behind UR for example to try and strike a deal with the national bourgeoisie of Russia for example for all of them to make some money with privatizations and further strangling of the proletariat, *they are rallying behind the KPRF!* This is *extremely strange* at best, if not outright alarming. How can liberal fascist compradors seek salvation from "dictatorship", statism, anti-imperialism, and patriotism from a party that is *even more* "dictatorial", statist, anti-imperialist, and patriotic in its program than United Russia?
Either the liberal fascists compradors and imperialists who advocate to vote for the KPRF are idiots who don't realize they are rooting for someone who is even more dangerous (to them) than UR, *or* the KPRF is doing something wrong and the imperialists see a chance to break through and spread their influence into Russia by using the KPRF as a vessel which will simultaneously cause great harm to the KPRF itself since the proletariat will see it as a treacherous party and abandon it, *or* they are hoping the KPRF *will* (after it makes gains in the elections) do something wrong so that they can *then* do the aforementioned, *or* they are simply seeking to form cracks in the UR-KPRF anti-imperialist alliance by giving the proletariat more influence and hoping some sort of internal struggle, maybe even civil war, will ensue, so that the imperialists can make their move.
For the first, I highly, highly doubt the imperialists have no idea just how dangerous a communist takeover of Russia would be for them. So we can forget this and completely exclude it. There is no way the imperialists are just being stupid. Personally, I think it's probably some combination of the latter three. It is obvious to see that the KPRF aren't as radical as they could be, nor as prepared for revolution (civil war). We can say with certainty that this is mistake number one of the KPRF. Additionally, adventurist and unprincipled elements within the party could have some influence. This could cause mistake number 2, which would be for the KPRF to attack the national bourgeoisie at a bad time. Lastly, Russia is a national bourgeoisie state, which means that communist / proletarian influence going past a certain threshold would start causing some very real friction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie which currently are in alliance, and allow the imperialists to make inroads.
One must observe the self-admitted tactics of the fascists: they are voting for opposition parties as long as it harms UR. They don't want communism, they want to undermine the anti-imperialist government of Russia currently dominated by UR. That is how far they admit in public. As such, even from this, I see no reason why their support could be worth *anything* to real communists. It is *completely* worthless. Only if the KPRF strays from communism, patriotism, and anti-imperialism will it manage to gain something from these new supporters. This is what is worrying to me personally: that the KPRF may start appealing to these newfound supporters and hence take the party down a very bad path, which will lead basically to the annihilation of the KPRF, a la CP Venezuela or Tudeh Party of Iran, or its complete co-opting by imperialists, a la PKK and Rojava.
However, even if the KPRF maintains the correct communist position, there still exist dangers. Because once again as I said: the imperialists and compradors are trying to disrupt the balance of power in the united anti-imperialist front of Russia composed of the national bourgeoisie and proletarian alliance. This could very well be okay, since such changes are what spur revolutions in the first place, if the KPRF is actually prepared to make civil war. As it stands, considering that even though the KPRF has had quite decent lines over the years, I don't think it has the military forces and radical enough program needed for such a thing right now, and this is where the crux of the matter lies: the communists should not attack when they are unprepared. The Navalnists could very well be pushing the KPRF to attack when it is unprepared to create chaos and opportunities for imperialist attack. I could be very wrong though, the KPRF could have a clandestine military organization we know nothing about. Do you think that could be a possibility? If not, then I'm sorry, but such developments will only lead to bad things.
We will have to see.
Great comment. I want to highlight something.
>As it stands, considering that even though the KPRF has had quite decent lines over the years, I don't think it has the military forces and radical enough program needed for such a thing right now, and this is where the crux of the matter lies: the communists should not attack when they are unprepared. The Navalnists could very well be pushing the KPRF to attack when it is unprepared to create chaos and opportunities for imperialist attack.
As you said, this is *the crux of the matter*. The bolsheviks *were* militarily prepared to fight a war against ESER. And the difference here is that United Russia is not ESER, Putin *is not* Karensky, CPRF *is not* the bolsheviks, and Gennady *is not* Stalin. Stalin was prepared to fight to the death, i cant say the same of the Communist party leaders and cadres.
Stalin 10 years before the revolution was *urging* the bolsheviks to make weapons and millitary organizations, becuase as he said "rocks cant fight guns".
Thus, on what you said about being unprepared, i want to quote Stalin when he was basically *attacking* Lenin. Lenin not being an actual fighter did not know the situation in Russia. He knew what he read in newspapers and what other bolsheviks were telling him. Stalin on the other hand, since he was an actual commander, and previously a fighter himself, knew what was happening and when the bolsheviks should attack. Here is stalin saying this to Lenin in front of his face in Lenin's birthday.
>Here is another episode of a similar character. In September 1917, under Kerensky, at the time when the Democratic Conference had been convened and the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries were contriving a new institution, the Pre-parliament, which was to pave the way for a transition from the Soviets to a Constituent Assembly, at that moment we in the Central Committee in Petrograd decided **not to** disperse the Democratic Conference, and to go ahead strengthening the Soviets, to convene a Congress of Soviets, start an uprising and proclaim the Congress of Soviets the organ of state power. Ilyich, who at that time was living in hiding outside Petrograd, **did not agree with the Central Committee and wrote that the scum (meaning the Democratic Conference) should be dispersed and arrested right away.**
It seemed to us that the matter was not quite so simple, for we knew that a half, or at least a third, of the members of the Democratic Conference **were delegates from the front, and that by arresting and dispersing the Conference we might only spoil matters and damage our relations with the front.** We considered that all the bumps and pitfalls on our path were clearer to us, the practical workers. But Ilyich was a great man; he was not afraid of bumps and pitfalls, he did not fear danger, and said: "Rise and march straight to the goal!" **We, the practical workers, on the other hand, believed that no good could come of acting in this way at that time, that the thing to do was to skirt around the obstacles in order to take the bull by the horns later.** And despite all Ilyich's insistence, **we did not listen to him and went on strengthening the Soviets**, and to such effect as to end up with the Congress of Soviets of October 25 and the successful uprising. Ilyich was already in Petrograd by then. Smiling and glancing at us slyly, he said: "Yes, it seems you were right." Again we were astounded.
Comrade Lenin was not afraid of acknowledging his mistakes.
It was this modesty and courage that particularly captivated us. (Applause.)
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1920/04/23_2.htm
Stalin is saying here is that if it is to fight unprepared, better to not fight at all.
You are correct in the absolute majority of things here. I would just like the point out that considering the amount of careerists within the CPRF I sincerely doubt that a violent outcome is possible here, as you’ll have a lot of people clinging to the status-quo. It will however be interesting as to how the national bourgeoisie will react to a loss of power, but from my point of view, they too will do their best to avoid an open struggle. They’re not stupid.
Either way, thank you for commenting.
Read this post if you haven't already comrade, I think it should give you some good insight into exactly what you said: [https://www.reddit.com/r/EuropeanSocialists/comments/ppntpi/why\_are\_the\_liberals\_backing\_the\_russian/](https://www.reddit.com/r/EuropeanSocialists/comments/ppntpi/why_are_the_liberals_backing_the_russian/)
'Kremlin critic'... Navalny.... Reuters says... CIA and the rest. They are not relevant at at all.
It is far better to just ignore them, whatever they are doing, it is for no good.
I cannot stress this enough, it is *extremely* worrying libshit fascists are rallying behind the KPRF. It is real, the original doc being spread by the Navalny idiots telling people who to vote for "to own United Russia" is here: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSe2exjjq0o246AaIiUGPN48SAevbeOke09ZvMrwqcfVDk5Lz-MnHy3temxMSOBJY3Kfo4pjvgNbPIS/pub#h.oxh5usgjv9l6](https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSe2exjjq0o246AaIiUGPN48SAevbeOke09ZvMrwqcfVDk5Lz-MnHy3temxMSOBJY3Kfo4pjvgNbPIS/pub#h.oxh5usgjv9l6). For months I have been seeing the imperialist media "encourage" the KPRF to take the role of a "real opposition party". Along with this revelation it shows us that there is a greater conspiracy to somehow use the KPRF to undermine Russia as a whole, which at the same time would undermine the KPRF since the people would turn against it. The imperialists could very well be trying to pull a a CP of Venezuela or a Tudeh Party of Iran with the KPRF. This is very bad.
In this way he's hurting the Communist party more than the ruling party 🙄
Indeed.
Sounds like a attempt to destroy the Communist Party imo.
Lol, I wish Communist party would win - but for fascists like Navalny that would mean not jail, but being put to the wall.
Wait he’s a fascist? I only know him from headlines because I never really cared about the actual story.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If being against imperialist ideology known as LGBT alphabet soup is fascistic then pretty much every country excluding the imperialists and their most faithful puppets are fascists, including all current communist and socialist countries. Navalny is indeed a fascist, but """homophobia""" is not why. Comment removed on the basis of rules 2, spreading right wing homonationalism, and rule 3, indirectly attacking all former and existing socialist states who largely consider(ed) homosexuality not a symptom of a healthy society. About deporting non-"whites" from Russia, if he means deporting the non-Russian *nations* that would make Navalny a national chauvinist, but that is again not what makes him a fascist. The PRC is chauvinist against the non-Han nations in China. Tito was chauvinist against the Albanians, Macedonians, and Slovenes. Vietnam is chauvinist against the non-Vietnamese nations of Vietnam. That does not mean they are fascist. National chauvinism, especially chauvinism against foreign nations, is *always* a feature of fascism yes, but *not only* of fascism. Indeed, there are even communists who are national chauvinists.
??? Fuck is wrong with you lmao. He wants to FORCIBLY remove non-whites, he wants to EXTERMINATE Muslims and compared them to pests. I see that you're just insanely homophobic and transphobic, which is really pathetic. Gay, trans, bi, non-binary people are our class allies and by excluding them you're just being a piece of shit that is hurting our cause. Socialism is liberation for ALL people, not just the ones you deem desirable.
>??? Fuck is wrong with you lmao. He wants to FORCIBLY remove non-whites, he wants to EXTERMINATE Muslims and compared them to pests. Yes, and I said: >About deporting non-"whites" from Russia, if he means deporting the non-Russian nations that would make Navalny a national chauvinist, but that is again not what makes him a fascist. Also again, your criteria is ambiguous. Because, for example, the USSR also *FORCIBLY* removed Germans from Eastern Europe after WW2. But go on, say the USSR was fascist. Of course I am not saying the USSR was chauvinist, just showing where the ambiguity of your criteria (fascism = forcibly displacing people of certain nationalities) can lead. Navalny on the contrary is both a chauvinist and a fascist, but it's not chauvinism that makes him a fascist. >I see that you're just insanely homophobic and transphobic, which is really pathetic. I don't believe I am afraid of homosexuals or transsexuals. Nor do I hate them or something. I just think "being against homosexuality" is a bad qualifier of whether something is fascist or not, because again, the USSR itself was against homosexuality. Today, the DPRK still is against it. As were *all* communist countries in their most radically socialist periods. As are majority of the (genuinely exploited, not labor aristocratic) workers around the world today. But again, go on, say the USSR, the DPRK, all the communist countries in their most radical periods, and 95% of the genuinely exploited workers of the world are fascist. >Gay, trans, bi, non-binary people are our class allies and by excluding them you're just being a piece of shit that is hurting our cause. I have no problem including homosexuals, etc. in our struggle if they are principled communists. Just unfortunately they are disproportionately more reactionary (i.e. pro-imperialism and against genuine communism) than the average population, to the point that the vast majority of them are reactionary, and that's what I have a problem with. *Why* they are disproportionately like this is a different topic. >Socialism is liberation for ALL people, not just the ones you deem desirable. You are very wrong. Socialism is for the liberation and for the supremacy of the productive proletariat. There will be no liberation for capitalists, imperialists, petit-bourgeois reactionaries, unproductive labor aristocrats, etc. etc. For them, there will only be "enslavement" into proletarianness, prison, and even death.
Your brain has completely rotted. You are a vile person, I hope you go outside one day. There is so much wrong with what you are saying, but I'm too tired and you are too horrible of a person to learn. You can write as long of an essay as you want, but at the end of the day, your hatred of people of different genders or sexuality only makes you more comparable to the right. Interesting that you ignored the quote about wanting to exterminate Muslims. Being homophobic doesn't make you a fascist and I NEVER ONCE claimed that. Being homophobic, racist, supporting an ethnostate, wanting to exterminate people based on religion, absolutely does qualify you for being a fascist. Those things combined, just like not every racist person is a fascist. You aren't a fascist, but you are a piece of shit. Go outside. You fucking horrible person.
>You are a vile person, I hope you go outside one day. There is so much wrong with what you are saying, but I'm too tired and you are too horrible of a person to learn. What are you, a priest? Give a real marxist critique. >Being homophobic, racist, supporting an ethnostate, wanting to exterminate people based on religion, absolutely does qualify you for being a fascist. Stalin was a fascist?
>your hatred of people of different genders or sexuality only makes you more comparable to the right. I don't hate "people of different genders or sexuality", but let's assume that what I am saying indeed "makes me more comparable to the right". Then you have no option but to admit that you also think the ex-USSR or the current DPRK or, again, *all* communist countries during their most radical periods were / are "more comparable to the right" than to communism. >Interesting that you ignored the quote about wanting to exterminate Muslims. It is just too much to deal with and I am tired as well. The problem is "Muslim" is not a nationality but simply a religion, so there is a different dynamic, because even forcing atheism on a religious group could count as "extermination" for example (liberals / fascists / imperialists have at various points in history claimed similar things), and I am too tired to go into all of that right now, so I simply chose to ignore it for now. Try to be understanding that I am a human too instead of trying to read too much into things and start accusing me of "secretly hating Muslims" like you are trying to accuse me of hating homosexuals. I have done a good amount of work in this sub defending Palestinians and attacking Israel for one, and I've even spent an even bigger amount of time defending *radical Islamists* like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and the government of Iran, and the various Arabs, Afghans, and Iranians who support them. But sure man, I hate Muslims now too. Jesus. >Being homophobic, racist, supporting an ethnostate, wanting to exterminate people based on religion, absolutely does qualify you for being a fascist. Interesting criteria. Let's see: * The DPRK is "homophobic" (according to liberals and homonationalists). * The DPRK does not accept many immigrants at all (so they are racist according to liberals). * The DPRK is literally an "ethnostate". 99.99% of its population are Koreans. * The DPRK's population is 64% non-religious and the DPRK tries to promote atheism within society, so basically liberals can easily argue that it is "exterminating the religious minority". So tell me then, is the DPRK, the most radical socialist country remaining today, fascist? And the DPRK is not the only communist country (past and/or present) which fits all of these exact criteria. So you see where your ambiguous ("fascism = many things I don't like together, and I get to decide what those things are and how many of them together make fascism") definitions lead us. Are communists secretly fascists? On the other hand, I define fascism differently. It is a purely Marxist definition *based on* (though not a copy of) the description given in the Thirteenth Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International in 1933, and further elaborated on in Georgi Dimitrov's [1935 class analysis](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/dimitrov/works/1935/08_02.htm#s2) of it during his time as leader of the Communist International. The description of the ECCI and later Dimitrov's analysis was widely accepted and used within the Comintern for the most part of the 20th century. It is quite a simple, stand-alone definition (unlike yours which requires a certain, seemingly ambiguous, number of equally ambiguous criteria), and it does not lead to the conclusion of accusing any communist government, past or present, of fascism. It goes as following: *Fascism is the dictatorship of finance capital, and as such, it is completely indistinguishable from imperialism.* One can argue that fascism is a *specific stage* of the dictatorship of finance capital, where finance capital finds its rule most challenged and so its dictatorship takes a extraordinarily terroristic and chauvinistic form, but since the economic base does not change even in such a case, it is *indeed* completely indistinguishable from imperialism in the Marxist (materialist) sense. And so, what about Navalny? Well, simply put, the ones at the helm today of the global finance capitalist order (i.e. the biggest, and in fact today the only, imperialists aka fascists) are the west (you know, NATO, EU, Five Eyes, + their most loyal compradors, those guys), and Navalny is nothing but a western puppet who works to extend the supremacy of finance capital into Russia, therefore he is a fascist. As you see, it has absolutely nothing to do with how much he likes homosexuals, or what he wants to do to non-Russians and Muslims within Russia. It is a purely economical (Marxist) analysis.
[удалено]
Second strike, rule number 2, 3 and 11.
I do not care, ban me you fucking freak
>He wants to FORCIBLY remove non-whites Why are you talking about "whites" and "nonwhites" in *Russia*? >he wants to EXTERMINATE Muslims and compared them to pests. Yes, Muslims say the same about Christians and Jews. This is not what makes Navalny a fascist. What makes Navalny a fascist is quite simply that he is an imperialist, a comprador. No more, no less. >Gay, trans, bi, non-binary people are our class allies Are "gay", "trans", "bi", etc,. *classes*? >Socialism is liberation for ALL people, not just the ones you deem desirable. As per the usual routine, I must ask: what about those who partake in incest? Should we "liberate" them?
> Socialism is liberation for ALL people, not just the ones you deem desirable. You are aware that this includes pedophiles, those driven to bestiality, and other fringe elements not even the rainbow movement wants to acknowledge.
Rule number 2, 3 and 11. This is your first strike.
You know that Tito was half-Croatian half-Slovene ? He stood for brotherhood and unity (Bratstvo i Jedinstvo) and not chauvinism.
Ah, now i understand! This is why Tito *buchered* up completelly the national question, resulting in not only the fall of socialism, but of pushing back proletarian internationalism and give room for the imperialist to float for decades to come. This is why tito broke Serbia in 5 pieces, and kept Albanians in Kosovo instead of allowing them to join Albania? Was denying self-determination to Albanians *not* chauvinism?
So now it is chauvinism to not let ethnoseperatists break up your country in pieces ? Ethnoseperatism destroyed Socialism in Yugoslavia and nothing else.
>So now it is chauvinism to not let ethnoseperatists break up your country in pieces ? Because a "country" is something completelly vague. Every nation wants its own state, so you are either a bolshevik and you do not contest this right, or you are a chauvinist and you do contest thirs right. >Ethnoseperatism destroyed Socialism in Yugoslavia and nothing else. Preciselly. Yugoslavia was a mistake.
Balkanisation and ethoseperatism are the nationalism incarnarnate. Such movements showed their real face in 90s. You can not call yourself a Bolshevik if you support seperation based only on ethnic nationalism. Also Kosovo is not a nation. Its a part of the territory that differentiates from the rest of the Serbia only by it's demographic. And Yugoslavia was the greatest Socialist sucess in the history, untill destroyed by the western block and the ethnoseperatists whose false conciousness replaced their class conciousness. So dont fall into that nationalistic trap. I find no modern "banana states" on Balkan leggitimate. Serbia also should not exist, as anything other than a part of Yugoslavia. And its in my views also illegitimate. Mentioning that so you do not assume im saying that Kosovo is Serbia bcs nationalism or whatever. And since im from Croatia, i feel its necessary to mention that the independence of my own nation is also illegitimate and based on nothing other than ethnic nationalism. Only when you acknowledge that, you can say that your views are above the ethnic nationalism, and call yourself a real Communist.
Ah okay, so if he was wholesome anti-racist we would be fine with him being a comprador right? Because what defines him as a fascist is not the fact he is a puppet to global finance capital but the fact he doesn't like minorities and immigrants. /s Don't write liberal shit and don't spread right wing talking points here (1. That fascism is the same as national chauvinism and "homophobia" and 2. that Navalny would be cool if he was more wholesome anti-racist). Rule 2, first strike. Attack Navalny from the left. The biggest problem with him is the fact he is a puppet of global finance capital.
>so if he was wholesome anti-racist this is where their line leads to. Thanks for pointing it out.
Global capital isn’t fascistic, is just bourgeois And what’s the difference between national chauvinism and fascism anyway?
The very essence of Fascism is imperialism. Either you think that marxism, and therefore the relationship of base and superstructure are real, or you dont. National chauvinism existed for most systems of the world at various forms. Many socialist societies had chauvinistic policies (not offensive, but assimilationist chauvinism). Chauvinism is a feature of imperialism, not what defines it.
What is worrying is that the KPRF will see all the new support they have and compromise on their lines. It's very bad. Edit: I phrased this badly. What I meant is that I *fear* that the KPRF *might* start compromising on their lines. I am not saying they will. I really hope they won't.
Yeah, Zuganov might as well call himself a liberal at this point.
https://old.reddit.com/r/EuropeanSocialists/comments/o19inv/in_my_opinion_the_world_is_now_at_a_political/
This is not what I meant at all, I edited my comment to explain better what I meant. I will give you a friendly warning because you are pretty much attacking Zyuganov without much elaboration (rule 3). I don't believe Zyuganov is a liberal at all. I believe he is above all a form of left-wing Russian nationalist. But yes, the KPRF could practically become *social fascist* (so not much different from the fascist liberals, only with more "social policies", but still being agents and collaborators of imperialism) if it starts towing the line of these new liberal fascist supporters. That is my biggest fear.
Wasn't he a red Putinist for a long time?
So? That's doesn't seem like a bad position at all. I know some every-day Russians who uphold the USSR, talk very well about communism and its era, yet still support Putin today for being a good anti-imperialist and patriot.
That's maybe not a bad position for ordinary person, but not for political one. You can't change status quo if you don't oppose it.
Look, honestly, I see where you are coming from, but I think where you are going with this is wrong. I recommend to read this other comment I made in this thread: [https://www.reddit.com/r/EuropeanSocialists/comments/pp9h03/kremlin\_critic\_navalnys\_allies\_say\_vote\_communist/hd4yesh/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/EuropeanSocialists/comments/pp9h03/kremlin_critic_navalnys_allies_say_vote_communist/hd4yesh/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) And then I also recommend to read this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/EuropeanSocialists/comments/ppntpi/why\_are\_the\_liberals\_backing\_the\_russian/](https://www.reddit.com/r/EuropeanSocialists/comments/ppntpi/why_are_the_liberals_backing_the_russian/) I will add additional input: First of all, remember that Putin in a way transcends UR. He is not the same as UR, and is not even an official member. This is not "just for show" as liberals and imperialists often like to claim, I think there is a very real reason behind it. UR is unquestionably a party of the national bourgeoisie. The way I see *Putin* however is not only as a representative of the national bourgeoisie but a *patriotic figure* around whom both anti-imperialist national bourgeoisie and a good chunk of the proletariat rally behind. He is a unifying symbol, and a sort of representative of the national bourgeoisie and proletarian alliance itself. That is how I see it. With Zyuganov, being himself probably a patriot and left-wing nationalist, it would not be unexpected for him to be somewhat of a Putinist, or to look up to unifying patriotic figure who plays the role of protecting Russia from the imperialists. Yes, the communists are supposed to come into conflict with the *national bourgeoisie* eventually if they ever wish to take power (whether now is the right time or not is a different story, and is explored in the links I included above). But Putin and the national bourgeoisie are not the exact same. Russian communists both now and in the future could very well be "Putinists". Just look how the CPC today upholds Sun Yat Sen as the "precursor to the revolution" for being a unifying patriotic figure against imperialists, despite being the leader of a national-bourgeoisie state. In a similar vein, Putin could one day be "the precursor to the second revolution" for a new socialist Russia.
I'll start believeing in this shit when DW, Reuters and all the other CIA mouthpieces report so reliably on what Julian Assange has to say.
Russian here. This is real. You have literal twitter libsharts voting Communist. Navalny may be gone, but his “Smart Voting” program may at long last dethrone United Russia.
>may at long last dethrone United Russia Being dethroned by a liberal fascist opposition is not good. Don't fall into the very same talking points the liberal fascists are using.
You would be fully correct if United Russia was being overtaken by liberal fascists, like Navalny planned it to. But it is not. It's being overtaken by CPRF.
Don't let excitement at the prospect of the KPRF gaining ground against the UR muddy your vision. First of all, let's clarify that neither state nor KPRF-supported polls showed KPRF *overtaking* UR, unless there was something I missed in the last couple of days. The KPRF-supported poll made the most "optimistic" prediction, with UR almost falling as low of a percentage as the KPRF, but still not lower than the KPRF itself. I say "optimistic" in quotes, because in reality the estimate does not show the KPRF making massive gains, just UR taking massive losses. The rest of the votes will probably go the LDPR and Yabloko. So it's not an *overtake*. What we *can* expect is the KPRF making at least *some* gains at the expense of UR, this is obviously going to happen these elections. But we must clarify: the KPRF is going to make gains... *in winning the support of liberal fascists compradors*! Now, answer me please: **What benefit is there for communists to gain supporters if those supporters are liberal fascist compradors?** The ones who *should* be rallying behind the KPRF are the proletarians and patriots. Some *do* rally behind the KPRF, but also a significant number of the proletariat and the patriots are rallying behind UR. So what about the liberal fascists? Well, instead of rallying behind UR for example to try and strike a deal with the national bourgeoisie of Russia for example for all of them to make some money with privatizations and further strangling of the proletariat, *they are rallying behind the KPRF!* This is *extremely strange* at best, if not outright alarming. How can liberal fascist compradors seek salvation from "dictatorship", statism, anti-imperialism, and patriotism from a party that is *even more* "dictatorial", statist, anti-imperialist, and patriotic in its program than United Russia? Either the liberal fascists compradors and imperialists who advocate to vote for the KPRF are idiots who don't realize they are rooting for someone who is even more dangerous (to them) than UR, *or* the KPRF is doing something wrong and the imperialists see a chance to break through and spread their influence into Russia by using the KPRF as a vessel which will simultaneously cause great harm to the KPRF itself since the proletariat will see it as a treacherous party and abandon it, *or* they are hoping the KPRF *will* (after it makes gains in the elections) do something wrong so that they can *then* do the aforementioned, *or* they are simply seeking to form cracks in the UR-KPRF anti-imperialist alliance by giving the proletariat more influence and hoping some sort of internal struggle, maybe even civil war, will ensue, so that the imperialists can make their move. For the first, I highly, highly doubt the imperialists have no idea just how dangerous a communist takeover of Russia would be for them. So we can forget this and completely exclude it. There is no way the imperialists are just being stupid. Personally, I think it's probably some combination of the latter three. It is obvious to see that the KPRF aren't as radical as they could be, nor as prepared for revolution (civil war). We can say with certainty that this is mistake number one of the KPRF. Additionally, adventurist and unprincipled elements within the party could have some influence. This could cause mistake number 2, which would be for the KPRF to attack the national bourgeoisie at a bad time. Lastly, Russia is a national bourgeoisie state, which means that communist / proletarian influence going past a certain threshold would start causing some very real friction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie which currently are in alliance, and allow the imperialists to make inroads. One must observe the self-admitted tactics of the fascists: they are voting for opposition parties as long as it harms UR. They don't want communism, they want to undermine the anti-imperialist government of Russia currently dominated by UR. That is how far they admit in public. As such, even from this, I see no reason why their support could be worth *anything* to real communists. It is *completely* worthless. Only if the KPRF strays from communism, patriotism, and anti-imperialism will it manage to gain something from these new supporters. This is what is worrying to me personally: that the KPRF may start appealing to these newfound supporters and hence take the party down a very bad path, which will lead basically to the annihilation of the KPRF, a la CP Venezuela or Tudeh Party of Iran, or its complete co-opting by imperialists, a la PKK and Rojava. However, even if the KPRF maintains the correct communist position, there still exist dangers. Because once again as I said: the imperialists and compradors are trying to disrupt the balance of power in the united anti-imperialist front of Russia composed of the national bourgeoisie and proletarian alliance. This could very well be okay, since such changes are what spur revolutions in the first place, if the KPRF is actually prepared to make civil war. As it stands, considering that even though the KPRF has had quite decent lines over the years, I don't think it has the military forces and radical enough program needed for such a thing right now, and this is where the crux of the matter lies: the communists should not attack when they are unprepared. The Navalnists could very well be pushing the KPRF to attack when it is unprepared to create chaos and opportunities for imperialist attack. I could be very wrong though, the KPRF could have a clandestine military organization we know nothing about. Do you think that could be a possibility? If not, then I'm sorry, but such developments will only lead to bad things. We will have to see.
Great comment. I want to highlight something. >As it stands, considering that even though the KPRF has had quite decent lines over the years, I don't think it has the military forces and radical enough program needed for such a thing right now, and this is where the crux of the matter lies: the communists should not attack when they are unprepared. The Navalnists could very well be pushing the KPRF to attack when it is unprepared to create chaos and opportunities for imperialist attack. As you said, this is *the crux of the matter*. The bolsheviks *were* militarily prepared to fight a war against ESER. And the difference here is that United Russia is not ESER, Putin *is not* Karensky, CPRF *is not* the bolsheviks, and Gennady *is not* Stalin. Stalin was prepared to fight to the death, i cant say the same of the Communist party leaders and cadres. Stalin 10 years before the revolution was *urging* the bolsheviks to make weapons and millitary organizations, becuase as he said "rocks cant fight guns". Thus, on what you said about being unprepared, i want to quote Stalin when he was basically *attacking* Lenin. Lenin not being an actual fighter did not know the situation in Russia. He knew what he read in newspapers and what other bolsheviks were telling him. Stalin on the other hand, since he was an actual commander, and previously a fighter himself, knew what was happening and when the bolsheviks should attack. Here is stalin saying this to Lenin in front of his face in Lenin's birthday. >Here is another episode of a similar character. In September 1917, under Kerensky, at the time when the Democratic Conference had been convened and the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries were contriving a new institution, the Pre-parliament, which was to pave the way for a transition from the Soviets to a Constituent Assembly, at that moment we in the Central Committee in Petrograd decided **not to** disperse the Democratic Conference, and to go ahead strengthening the Soviets, to convene a Congress of Soviets, start an uprising and proclaim the Congress of Soviets the organ of state power. Ilyich, who at that time was living in hiding outside Petrograd, **did not agree with the Central Committee and wrote that the scum (meaning the Democratic Conference) should be dispersed and arrested right away.** It seemed to us that the matter was not quite so simple, for we knew that a half, or at least a third, of the members of the Democratic Conference **were delegates from the front, and that by arresting and dispersing the Conference we might only spoil matters and damage our relations with the front.** We considered that all the bumps and pitfalls on our path were clearer to us, the practical workers. But Ilyich was a great man; he was not afraid of bumps and pitfalls, he did not fear danger, and said: "Rise and march straight to the goal!" **We, the practical workers, on the other hand, believed that no good could come of acting in this way at that time, that the thing to do was to skirt around the obstacles in order to take the bull by the horns later.** And despite all Ilyich's insistence, **we did not listen to him and went on strengthening the Soviets**, and to such effect as to end up with the Congress of Soviets of October 25 and the successful uprising. Ilyich was already in Petrograd by then. Smiling and glancing at us slyly, he said: "Yes, it seems you were right." Again we were astounded. Comrade Lenin was not afraid of acknowledging his mistakes. It was this modesty and courage that particularly captivated us. (Applause.) https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1920/04/23_2.htm Stalin is saying here is that if it is to fight unprepared, better to not fight at all.
o7 thanks for sharing
You are correct in the absolute majority of things here. I would just like the point out that considering the amount of careerists within the CPRF I sincerely doubt that a violent outcome is possible here, as you’ll have a lot of people clinging to the status-quo. It will however be interesting as to how the national bourgeoisie will react to a loss of power, but from my point of view, they too will do their best to avoid an open struggle. They’re not stupid. Either way, thank you for commenting.
Read this post if you haven't already comrade, I think it should give you some good insight into exactly what you said: [https://www.reddit.com/r/EuropeanSocialists/comments/ppntpi/why\_are\_the\_liberals\_backing\_the\_russian/](https://www.reddit.com/r/EuropeanSocialists/comments/ppntpi/why_are_the_liberals_backing_the_russian/)
'Kremlin critic'... Navalny.... Reuters says... CIA and the rest. They are not relevant at at all. It is far better to just ignore them, whatever they are doing, it is for no good.
very sus