Conchúr

727 posts

Conchúr banner
Conchúr

Conchúr

@GaelDearg

Irish - Marxist-Leninist - Rock climber

Belfast Katılım Ocak 2013
755 Takip Edilen104 Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Conchúr
Conchúr@GaelDearg·
Sovereignty can't just be declared, it's grown in fields producing food for a country's people, built in factories making the goods those people need and defended with advanced, domesticly produced weapons wielded by volunteers from the most advanced sections of the population
Conchúr@GaelDearg

A successful Irish national liberation project will have to break out of its naval gazing and parochialism and engage seriously with modern manufacturing, agricultural science and military developments in Ukraine and Iran

English
0
1
0
108
Conchúr
Conchúr@GaelDearg·
Trotsky was an anti-peasant chauvanist. Had he won the leadership of the CPSU he would have carried out his 'permanent revolution'. I.e. civil war against the peasantry. This would have been far more destabilising than the terror
after history 👤@After__History

Had Trotsky won, his USSR would have been, ironically, far more bureaucratic than Stalin’s, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem with Stalinism is that it was not bureaucratic enough. A powerful bureaucracy means greater stability and less terror.

English
0
1
3
106
Conchúr
Conchúr@GaelDearg·
@After__History Had Trotsky won he would have carried out his 'permanent revolution'. I.e. civil war against the peasantry. This would have been far more destabilising than the terror
English
3
0
7
1K
after history 👤
after history 👤@After__History·
Had Trotsky won, his USSR would have been, ironically, far more bureaucratic than Stalin’s, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem with Stalinism is that it was not bureaucratic enough. A powerful bureaucracy means greater stability and less terror.
Picket line shield 🛡@BasedNeeble1917

@rappergamertag Because genuine marxists are for workers democracy, not stalinist bureaucracy. So instead of idolizing the ussr, it is critiqued and understood why it failed. Idk read revolution betrayed.

English
17
52
505
35.5K
Conchúr
Conchúr@GaelDearg·
For 150 years, the founding myth of western states was the 'civilising mission' of imperialism. When that was no longer viable after WW2, they appropriated the victory over the Reich and weaponised it against those who made the greatest sacrifices to defeat Hitlerite fascism
WW2 The Eastern Front@ShoahUkraine

The Grave and the Glory Part One: Some history you learn from books, and some history changes the way you stand at a grave. This is my attempt to explain to a Western audience what the Eastern Front actually was: who broke the back of Nazism, what it cost, and what was done with the credit afterward. Parts of it I wrote with tears in my eyes. Share it with someone who thinks they already know how the war was won. I. The Lie of the Single War There is a story the West tells about the Second World War, and it has a shape as clean as a cinema reel. In that story the war turns upon a beach in Normandy; a tide of American and British boys wades ashore under fire; and from that morning the liberation of Europe rolls inexorably toward Berlin and the fall of the Reich. It is a stirring story. It is also, in its essentials, a falsehood, and a convenient one. For the war that decided the fate of Nazism was not fought on that beach, nor in the hedgerows beyond it, nor in any theater the West most loves to remember. It was fought a thousand miles to the east, on a front beside which Normandy was a skirmish, by a people the Western story has laboured for eighty years to forget. The plain truth, familiar to every serious historian and withheld from every cinema audience, is that there were not one war against Hitler but two, and that they were not remotely equal. There was the war in the West, a real war and a hard one, but a latecomer's war, a smaller war, and, measured by what was done to the conquered, a comparatively merciful war. And there was the war in the East, which began in earnest in June of 1941 and did not end until the red flag flew over the ruins of Berlin: a war of a scale and a savagery without precedent in the history of the species, in which the German war machine was not merely defeated but ground to powder. The first war the West fought. The second war destroyed Nazism. They were not the same war, and those who pretend otherwise do so because the truth is intolerable to them. This review concerns that difference, and what the West made of it. It will show that the Soviet Union was the power that actually broke the Reich, paying a price in blood that dwarfs every Western sacrifice combined; that the Western powers, Britain and the United States foremost, came late to the fight, hedged while their ally bled, and contrived a strategy that spared their own and spent the Soviet dead; and that, the war once won by other hands, they stole the credit, rewrote the memory, and turned with indecent haste upon the very ally who had won it for them. The tale of the two fronts is not a story of gallant allies in a common cause. It is the story of one nation that fought Nazism to the death and several others that watched, waited, and then claimed the laurels. II. The War of Annihilation To grasp why the Eastern Front stands apart from every other theater of the war, one must grasp that Hitler did not regard it as a theater of the war at all. He regarded it as the war: the real war, the racial war, the war of extermination for which all else had been mere prelude. The campaign in the West was, to the Nazi mind, a quarrel among Europeans, to be settled and forgotten; Hitler hoped to the very end for an accommodation with Britain, and the war in the West was waged, with grim exceptions, within recognisable bounds. The war in the East was waged within no bounds whatever, because it was conceived from the first as a war to depopulate a continent. The documents leave no room for doubt, for the planners of the Reich wrote their intentions down. Under the design known as Generalplan Ost, the lands of the Soviet Union were to be emptied of their peoples to make room for German settlement, and tens of millions of Slavs were marked for expulsion, enslavement, or death.

English
0
0
0
42
Conchúr retweetledi
Chris Morlock
Chris Morlock@CDMorlock·
The quotation commonly attributed to Mao from a May 11, 1964 briefing with the leadership group of the State Planning Commission should be rejected outright. Not only is the sourcing weak but the content itself is fundamentally at odds with the actual line advanced by the Chinese Communist Party during the Sino-Soviet split. According to the commonly circulated version Mao supposedly declared that "the Soviet Union today is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, a dictatorship of the big bourgeoisie, a fascist German dictatorship, a Hitlerite dictatorship, and people are afraid to fight against it." This is not a minor disagreement over wording. It is a claim that Mao had concluded by 1964 that the Soviet Union was essentially equivalent to Nazi Germany. If that had truly been the position of the CCP then it would have appeared throughout the major polemics of the period. It would have been a central theme of the Sino-Soviet split. Instead it is conspicuously absent from the documents that actually defined the dispute. The Chinese attacked Khrushchev for revisionism. They attacked peaceful coexistence. They attacked ideological concessions to imperialism. What they did not do was build their public case around the assertion that the Soviet Union had already become a fascist state. The quotation also collapses under theoretical scrutiny. The Soviet Union in 1964 still maintained state ownership of industry, central planning, collective agriculture, and the political monopoly of the Communist Party. One may criticize the Soviet leadership. One may criticize revisionism. One may even argue that capitalist tendencies were emerging. None of this amounts to a "Hitlerite dictatorship." Such language is not Marxist analysis. It is polemical excess. The more likely explanation is that this quotation achieved prominence not because it reflected the real content of the Sino-Soviet dispute but because it served a political purpose during the Cold War. Western intelligence agencies and anti-communist institutions spent decades exploiting divisions within the international communist movement. The Sino-Soviet split was one of the greatest strategic victories ever handed to the West. Any narrative that transformed ideological disagreements into permanent hostility between communist states objectively served that goal. It is therefore not accidental that some of the most extreme anti-Soviet formulations found fertile ground in sections of the New Communist Movement in the West. By the 1970s and 1980s entire organizations were defining themselves less by their commitment to socialism and more by their opposition to actually existing socialist states. Weakly sourced quotations became weapons. Historical nuance disappeared. The purpose was no longer to understand the split but to deepen it. In this sense the quotation functions as a wedge. Whether fabricated, embellished, mistranslated, or simply repeated without verification, its role has been the same. It encourages Marxist-Leninists to view the Soviet experience not as a complex historical question but as something equivalent to fascism itself. That framework was enormously useful to the enemies of socialism. It transformed disagreements within the communist movement into irreconcilable camps and helped reproduce decades of sectarian division. The fact that this quotation remains popular despite its weak documentary foundation is itself revealing. It survives because it serves a factional purpose. It provides a convenient slogan for anti-Soviet polemics. It reinforces narratives of Marxist-Leninist disunity that have circulated for generations. Nikita Khrushchev was an idiot but fantasizing and larping western org views of the Sino-Soviet split hyperbolically is for the usual blue hair crowd looking to turbo larp water under the bridge.
Chris Morlock tweet media
Red Redford📕🇵🇸@RedFrontTweeter

According to Chairman Mao this is what happened after Stalin died:

English
3
15
68
3.1K
Conchúr retweetledi
Irish Republican News
I am not seeing genuine, actual, public protests against immigrants or immigration. I am seeing loyalists doing what loyalists do, because they've been told to do it.
English
4
231
1.5K
25.4K
Conchúr
Conchúr@GaelDearg·
@irvine1798 @sevatarion333 Republicanism as an ideology, maybe, Republicanism as the real movement of the Irish nation towards sovereignty and independence can only be realised via Marxism-Leninism. The famous Connolly quote about raising the green flag pre-empts exactly this
English
0
0
0
299
Peter Irvine
Peter Irvine@irvine1798·
Indeed. Only the North Sentinelese have a more restrictive immigration policy than the DPRK. I have frequently cited China as the country whose immigration policy should be learned from the most. What I was clarifying is that Irish Republicanism in its strictest sense is incompatible with Marxism/diamat.
English
2
0
3
117
Conchúr
Conchúr@GaelDearg·
@irvine1798 @sevatarion333 There's nothing Marxist about open ended immigration. No actually existing socialist state has ever had open borders, not the Soviets, not the Chinese, not the DPRK. The East Germans literally built a fucking wall to stop movement across their border. Free movement is liberalism
English
1
0
1
90
Peter Irvine
Peter Irvine@irvine1798·
The Republican Movement strictly speaking is anti-Marxist. Unfortunately though, the term "Republican" has been hijacked by counterrevolutionary elements, namely in 1926, 1970 and 1986. People may say "but Fianna Fáil wrote a new constitution, the Stickies kept fighting and so did the Provos!". Even the most lenient interpretations of Republicanism would have to account for the fact that De Valera executed numerous Irish Republicans only years after coming to power, the Stickies threw down their weapons two years after the split (and exclusively fought Republicans from their 1972 ceasefire onwards) and the Provos now administer British rule in the Six Counties before "allegedly" murdering men such as Joe O'Connor of the Real IRA.
English
3
1
11
332
Conchúr retweetledi
ℝ𝕖𝕘𝕚𝕞𝕖 𝔼𝕤𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤
"To my mind, the so-called 'socialist society' is not anything immutable. Like all other social formations, it should be conceived in a state of constant flux and change. Its crucial difference from the present order consists naturally in production organized on the basis of common ownership by the nation of all means of production." —Friedrich Engels
ℝ𝕖𝕘𝕚𝕞𝕖 𝔼𝕤𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 tweet media
English
0
33
139
3.4K
Conchúr
Conchúr@GaelDearg·
@Reunify32 Peasants do valuable work growing food. These people are unproductive lumpens who contribute nothing to the society around them
English
0
0
1
34
Conchúr
Conchúr@GaelDearg·
@WadeTPaton @FORTRESSMAXXING Jeans are the most practical and versatile trousers in most situations, but ratty torn 'punk' jeans, or ones that hang so low the arse hangs out should absolutely be banned
English
1
0
4
108
Wade | E. Pluribus Regnum
Wade | E. Pluribus Regnum@WadeTPaton·
@FORTRESSMAXXING You lost me at jeans. I mean, I can make do with khaki cargoes but.., why would I have to give up jeans? My great grandfather built an orchard in his blue jean overalls.
English
1
0
9
409
Conchúr retweetledi
Conchúr
Conchúr@GaelDearg·
Sovereignty can't just be declared, it's grown in fields producing food for a country's people, built in factories making the goods those people need and defended with advanced, domesticly produced weapons wielded by volunteers from the most advanced sections of the population
Conchúr@GaelDearg

A successful Irish national liberation project will have to break out of its naval gazing and parochialism and engage seriously with modern manufacturing, agricultural science and military developments in Ukraine and Iran

English
0
1
0
108
Conchúr
Conchúr@GaelDearg·
A successful Irish national liberation project will have to break out of its naval gazing and parochialism and engage seriously with modern manufacturing, agricultural science and military developments in Ukraine and Iran
English
0
0
0
162
Conchúr
Conchúr@GaelDearg·
The Republican movement has reached a dead end because it is stuck in the past. Sinn Fein are wedded, via the GFA, to the defunct liberal managerialism of the 90s, while the dissidents have made a fetish of 'continuity'
English
1
0
0
56
Conchúr
Conchúr@GaelDearg·
@Sarahjdublin Ben Gvir is objectively representative of all Israelis
English
0
0
2
80