the CPUSA

[Revolutionary Youth]

Staring us in the face are some immediate challenges

First, we have to support the passage of the President's stimulus bill in the Senate.

Second, we have to block any Republican efforts to derail the nomination of Hilda Solis, the nominee for the Secretary of Labor. This is the first round in the battle to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which will dramatically expand the right to join a union in this country. Some may think this is a struggle of only the labor movement. But nothing could be further from the truth. A bigger labor movement in this country would strengthen the struggle on every front. No one expressed this point better than Martin Luther King toward the end of his life.

Third, we have to join others in resisting evictions and foreclosures—not to mention cutbacks and layoffs at the state and city level.

Fourth, the wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan have to be brought to a close. As former President Lyndon Johnson realized too late, wars of occupation (in his case, Vietnam) can quickly ruin a presidency that has great promise.
In any case, we have our work cut out for us. But I think we can confidently say that change is coming. And we will build a more perfect union.
Yes, we can.

You can find the full version of this article here (http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/1015/1/27/)

Just look at this shit of those CPUSA members. They don't support war because that can take lives of many people but because war "can quickly ruin a presidency that has great promise."? WTF!!!

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I'm sure that's not the only reason.

The CPUSA have been democrat suck ups for a while.

[Bud Struggle]

They are MY kind of Commie for sure. :D

[Revolutionary Youth]

They are MY kind of Commie for sure. :D
Very funny dude.:thumbdown:

[kiki75]

They don't support war because that can take lives of many people but because war "can quickly ruin a presidency that has great promise."? WTF!!!

I'm pretty sure that wasn't what they were trying to say.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Well in a way it was, and it makes sense. Obama means more govt spending on programs they like, so if Obama doesn't waste all his political capital fighting wars then he can get more done. They realize they're irrelevant.

[Bud Struggle]

Very funny dude.:thumbdown:

I'm a member of the CPUSA.

Cost me 60 bucks if I remember correctly.

[kiki75]

Well in a way it was, and it makes sense. Obama means more govt spending on programs they like, so if Obama doesn't waste all his political capital fighting wars then he can get more done.
I agree, but I don't think their point was that his reputation is more important than the lives being lost in the war. Which is what the OP seemed to be saying in the part I quoted.

[Bud Struggle]

CPUSA have been a joke for years.

They are by FAR the largest Communist organization in America. The others don't even count. One could make a good case that they ARE American Communism.

[hugsandmarxism]

They're a bunch of charlatan bourgeoisie socialists. Better than alot of the "left" in the USA, but still, no real comrades of ours.

[Bud Struggle]

They're a bunch of charlatan bourgeoisie socialists. Better than alot of the "left" in the USA, but still, no real comrades of ours.

I have a feeling the real fighting and killing is going to take place AFTER the Revolution.:rolleyes:

[hugsandmarxism]

:rolleyes: back at ya, "bourgeoisie anarchist"

[Bud Struggle]

:rolleyes: back at ya, "bourgeoisie anarchist"

The more I look into them the more I see Anarchist as being something really almost as much opposed to the Marxist way of thinking as they are to the Capitalists.

Anarchist are really thinking outside the box.

[IcarusAngel]

The more I look into them the more I see Anarchist as being something really almost as much opposed to the Marxist way of thinking as they are to the Capitalists.

Anarchist are really thinking outside the box.

While many Marxists ultimately claim the final goal of communism, it is true that they are fundamentally different. There are many anarchists who are sharply critical of Marxism, for example. Furthermore, their own criticisms of capitalism are unique, and not necessarily based on communist theory.

The problem is it takes a bit of effort to seek out the "good" anarchist critiques of property, but their influence and railings against the system have been used by many on the left side of the political spectrum, including liberals.

When Liberals say that you can't have too much power concentrated in too few hands, that's as anarchist as it is marxst.

[RGacky3]

They are by FAR the largest Communist organization in America. The others don't even count. One could make a good case that they ARE American Communism.

Not true, the CPUSA is on the same level as all the other "social-democratic" parties in the US, be it the SPUSA, of the Democratic Socialists or whatever.

The IWW have accomplished a lot more toward communist ideals than the CPUSA could ever have. Organizations like Food not Bombs are getting more done.

THe political party is'nt and should'nt be the main communist organization, the real communist organizations are the radical labor unions, the community organizations, the squatter organizations, the autonomy groups and so on.

[Kassad]

They're all advocates of the bourgeoisie state. When was the last time they attempted to educate anyone? Organize demonstrations? Promoted activism?

Communist Party USA is nothing but a revisionist, reformist group that advocates the bourgeoisie state. I wouldn't be surprised to see them merge with the Democratic Party some day soon.

[Charles Xavier]

The CPUSA is walking a revisionist line. I can only hope that the American Comrades will turn this party around before joining up with the class enemies.

[Revolutionary Youth]

I can not believe that, as the largest CP in USA, they turn out to be a bunch of "Obamanites"!

[Kassad]

Where's the source that states that they are the largest? I mean, is there a comparison somewhere comparing them with Workers World, Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Party USA and the like? I didn't know we had exact estimates.

[Revolutionary Youth]

Where's the source that states that they are the largest? I mean, is there a comparison somewhere comparing them with Workers World, Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Party USA and the like? I didn't know we had exact estimates.
You can find it on wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA
But to speak the truth, I only heard from those fellow American folks in my school say that it is the largest.

[Kassad]

It's quite a possibility, but if they're that incompetent and inactive with such large numbers, I'm quite stunned.

[danyboy27]

They're all advocates of the bourgeoisie state. When was the last time they attempted to educate anyone? Organize demonstrations? Promoted activism?


i dont think education is the problem, the problem is that they dont do shit for the everyday worker and beccause of that they completly lost the support of the people. People dont want to read marx, they want concrete solution, they want community services, they want to see and talk to people about their job and their job problem, they want to have pêople going where they work and rekon the current situation.

people will suport groups that will give them stuff like that, how do you think hezbollah is gaining support? partially beccause of their ideology and mainly beccause of the service they provide to the people.

[Rousedruminations]

agree CP in America yes it has the most amount of supporters, but are they active... or as Kassad put it Inactive.... they need to educate, inspire and energize the masses through strikes...

It is this energetic impetus that provides the activeness that is required to bring about momentum in the CP of America.. they are disillusioned and bemused followers. They need direct distinction from the Democrat party or any left-wing political group in the U.S.

Stagnation, Lethargy and no action.. hezbollah is a direct opposite of that ( the guns waving in the air, the enthusiastic and fired up followers, something of that sort minus the guns is needed)

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The CPUSA is larger than the SP-USA? Really?

[Die Neue Zeit]

According to Brian Moore, the SPUSA has three thousand members. Some "social-democrat" ex-member (no, not your type, but a Blairite) said only six hundred.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I rather like the SPUSA. If there is a Leftist party that has mainstream potential it's them (other than the Greens, of course).

Though, instead of a 3rd Party emerging what would be much more likely is a Democrat move to the left as sentiment changes.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

I hate to dig up such an old thread, but it's important to note that Webb lies about the membership numbers.

As I wrote elsewhere (do a search for some of the sentences to get the complete account of the CPUSA demise):

In a 2002 interview with Kerry Burke, Webb claimed that the CPUSA had 15,000 members.

[See http: // web . archive.org / web / 20070109180617 / http : // www . jrn . columbia . edu / academics / studentwork / cns / 2002-03-04 / syndication / kburke--communist.txt]

In a 2004 address to his dwindling flock he claims that

"Had we 10,000 members rather than 2,500, it would make a world of difference in what we could do. Had we 20,000 we could move and shake many of the battleground states." [See http : // www . cpusa . org / article / articleview / 587 /]

In 2005, Comrade Danny Rubin writes "For example, our small growth means we have reached, according to Comrade Webb excellent June 2004 NB report about 2500 members." [See http : // www . cpusa . org / article / view / 633/]

What happened from 2002 to 2004?

Webb simply lied about the membership.

The other possibility (if we're not assuming both) is that he's presided over the biggest exodus of Party faithful since the witch-hunts of the McCarthy period. :-)

Even the 2,500 is likely to be outdated and significantly smaller now, especially as they have expelled the majority of the Minnesota and South Dakotas District in the course of building unity with the Obama campaign.

[Dejavu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxG98hNSDQI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideosearch%3 Fhl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial%26hs&feature=player_embedded

[Revulero]

OMFG how embarrassing. The sad thing is that this idiot is arguing under our ideology even though he's a closet democrat and making us look like a joke in general towards Americans.

[Bud Struggle]

I've been doing some reaearch into the CPUSA and plan on making a post on their history in Learning soon.

While not Cutting Edge Communists of the 21st Century--they certainly paid their dues for the struggle.

Webb is a stand up guy and has a decent agenda. Don't be so hard on him.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Decent guys don't lie to their members about their political party's strength.

Decent guys also don't expel members of their party for asking to have an election on whether it is worth publicly promoting Obama's candidacy.

Decent guys who are Communists also don't promote anti-Marxist editors like Joe Sims to head Political Affairs when they talk about outright repudiating (!) the bulk of Marxism and burying Lenin because we're in the 21st century.

Joe is the guy who compiles the PA Editors' best-and-worst lists of Marxism for the 21st century:

#7 worst in "Best and Worst of Marxism":

"'Marxism, Marxism-Leninism.' Very bad idea to name a scientific world-view after individuals. Way too subjective and besides too many bad stories and nightmares associated with it..." (http : // paeditorsblog . blogspot . com / 2008 / 08 / ten-worst-and-best-ideas-of-marxism . html)

"Ten Best and Worst of Marxism for 2008":

#5 Worst: "Failure to bury Lenin’s mummified remains. Let the man rest in peace! Come on comrades this is the 21st century! (and what’s up with all those vampire movies)?" [http : // paeditorsblog . blogspot.com / 2009 / 01 / ten-best-and-worst-of-marxism-for-2008 . html]

Decent guys also don't promote Sims' lackeys Dan Margolis and Joel Wendland to the National Board.

I hope your history project goes over well, Tim. Make sure you include this revisionism when you write up their history.

We're too exploited under capitalism to be exploited by Sam Webb.

[Bud Struggle]

But that's Communism. You have to take the "Stalin" with the "Marx." The Kim
Il Jong with the Proudhom, the Mao with the Luxemburg.

Webb's the best you have to offer. He's what Communism looks like in the REAL WORLD.

See the problem?

I supposed he could have talked about "Revolution" and the "Bourgeoise" and glazed over people's eyes for another 100 years.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

"But that's Communism. You have to take the "Stalin" with the "Marx." The Kim
Il Jong with the Proudhom, the Mao with the Luxemburg."

The "Trotsky" with the "Clinton." The Lenin with the Obama, the Kautsky with the Colin Powell.


"Webb's the best you have to offer."

It's your offering, Tim -- you're the one still peddling him on RevLeft. Most of us have left that train a long while ago.


"He's what Communism looks like in the REAL WORLD."

It looks like Sam Webb expelling members to build a progressive coalition to elect progressives.


"I supposed he could have talked about 'Revolution' and the 'Bourgeoise' and glazed over people's eyes for another 100 years."

I see. That's all just bullshit.

[Comrade Anarchist]

it could be that the leadership of the party kisses the democrats ass while the actual members are communists.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

"it could be that the leadership of the party kisses the democrats ass while the actual members are communists."


What are your grounds for supposing that?

[Comrade Anarchist]

"it could be that the leadership of the party kisses the democrats ass while the actual members are communists."


What are your grounds for supposing that?

Their leaders throughout the election supported Obama and other democrats.
they website will sometimes praise the democrats and what they are doing.
I think that the party is just trying to ride some of the democrats wave but at the cost of the parties values.

[Bud Struggle]

Look in the mirror boys and girls--Mr. Webb is you (and Communism) in another 40 years. :) Do you think he started out that way? Don't you think he once really understood what Communism was? He was worn away by the reality of it all. As you will be. You'll take his place.

And there will be others that take your place 40 years after that...and then 40 years after that. :)

Welcome to the reality of Communism. :) You need to rethink what you are doing. Forget Stalin. Forget obscure Albanian dictators. Forget Trotsky (OK, already done!) Forget Anarchy. Forget RevLeft and forget Labor.

Rethink Communism.

[PCommie]

Fuck CPUSA to hell. They're fucking worthless revisionist idiots, they believe in "revolution" in the most "peaceful way possible," and YCLUSA, for one, is DELUDED into beliving that Obama is beneficial to "socialism!!!" Support the Party for Socialism and Liberation!


Rethink Communism.

FUCK THAT. Revisionistic bullcrap.

(Revolutionary Youth's Chinese signature made me suddenly wish to HELL I could read Chinese. :()

H&S forever,
-PC

[khad]

(Revolutionary Youth's Chinese signature made me suddenly wish to HELL I could read Chinese. :()
It's Japanese, but you are welcome to try to read it as Chinese.

[Bud Struggle]

Fuck CPUSA to hell. They're fucking worthless revisionist idiots, they believe in "revolution" in the most "peaceful way possible," and YCLUSA, for one, is DELUDED into beliving that Obama is beneficial to "socialism!!!" Support the Party for Socialism and Liberation!



FUCK THAT. Revisionistic bullcrap.

(Revolutionary Youth's Chinese signature made me suddenly wish to HELL I could read Chinese. :()

H&S forever,
-PC

The future of Communism...I'm sure.

[Revulero]

Look in the mirror boys and girls--Mr. Webb is you (and Communism) in another 40 years. :) Do you think he started out that way? Don't you think he once really understood what Communism was? He was worn away by the reality of it all. As you will be. You'll take his place.

And there will be others that take your place 40 years after that...and then 40 years after that. :)

Welcome to the reality of Communism. :) You need to rethink what you are doing. Forget Stalin. Forget obscure Albanian dictators. Forget Trotsky (OK, already done!) Forget Anarchy. Forget RevLeft and forget Labor.

Rethink Communism.

Hell no he obviously doesn't know or has a slight idea what communism is, he was probably one of those people who felt unwanted who wanted a group to fit in and he happen to choose CPUSA to make him feel complete.

[RGacky3]

Webb's the best you have to offer. He's what Communism looks like in the REAL WORLD.

See the problem?

I supposed he could have talked about "Revolution" and the "Bourgeoise" and glazed over people's eyes for another 100 years.

What in hell are you talking about, you really have no idea do you! Just becuase you say that is what communism looks like in the real world does'nt make it true, you are just speaking out of your ass now.


Look in the mirror boys and girls--Mr. Webb is you (and Communism) in another 40 years. :) Do you think he started out that way? Don't you think he once really understood what Communism was? He was worn away by the reality of it all. As you will be. You'll take his place.

And there will be others that take your place 40 years after that...and then 40 years after that. :)

I personally doubt it, I think he was just the logical outcome of the USSR era politics. He has'nt done much, real communists left the CPUSA years ago, no one cares about the CPUSA, and just because you say so, does'nt make it relevent. You have no clue.



Welcome to the reality of Communism. :) You need to rethink what you are doing. Forget Stalin. Forget obscure Albanian dictators. Forget Trotsky (OK, already done!) Forget Anarchy. Forget RevLeft and forget Labor.

Rethink Communism.


Rethink Communism? Is CPUSA rethinking communism? The reality of communism has nothing to do with the CPUSA. How can you be so ignorant after so much time.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Look in the mirror boys and girls--Mr. Webb is you (and Communism) in another 40 years. Do you think he started out that way? Don't you think he once really understood what Communism was? He was worn away by the reality of it all. As you will be. You'll take his place.

And there will be others that take your place 40 years after that...and then 40 years after that.

Welcome to the reality of Communism. You need to rethink what you are doing. Forget Stalin. Forget obscure Albanian dictators. Forget Trotsky (OK, already done!) Forget Anarchy. Forget RevLeft and forget Labor.

Rethink Communism.

Holy Christ, if Sam Webb is me in another 40 years, the CPUSA will have failed in its program of moving towards socialism-by-Democratic-Party, won't it?

The reality of Communism is what? Barack Obama? Forgetting labor? Rethinking Marxism? Sam Webb?

Why don't you just go off and call yourself a Democrat? Why bother labelling yourself as Marxist-Leninists when your chief theoretists at the conspicuous little Political Affairs editors' blog write rants about burying Lenin?

And in the same breath openly dismiss Marx's contribution to the realization of progress in the course of working people's class struggle as "stupid" - this is the word of Joe Sims - in three-sentence little soundbites?

If you guys think that Marxism-Leninism puts people off - as Webb himself has claimed - why not just jettison the concept of calling yourselves Communists? Does that help any of the Democrats?

Being, as you've admitted to us, a business owner - and are you self-employed or do you make money from the workers? - how much do you like being a part of a latte-sippin' organization housed in glass cubicles in Chelsea whose head honcho claims 15,000 members in 2002 and 2,500 members in 2004?

How cool is it to use Marx to promote a sucky flavor of bourgeois pragmatism?

[Jack]

They see me troollin'
they hatin'

[Bud Struggle]

I hope your history project goes over well, Tim. Make sure you include this revisionism when you write up their history.


Interesting. Revisionism and anti-revisionism has been a constant see-saw in the CPUSA since it was founded. The long time leader of the CPUSA William Z. Foster was a staunch anti-revisionist. So was Gus Hall. And by anti-revisionist I mean they supported the Stalinist/USSR branch of Communism. It was both authoritarian and sectarian. On the other hand Earl Browder introduced an "Americanized" version of Communism--changing the "Party" into more of an "assiciation." He grew the party considerable.

The CPUSA though was devistated by Khrushchev secret speech and by the McCarthy hearings. They almost had to turn away from the SU at that point. A lot of people went to jail.

Now a days the CPUSA, like all Communist parties in the USA has no meal membership and no real clout.




If you guys think that Marxism-Leninism puts people off - as Webb himself has claimed - why not just jettison the concept of calling yourselves Communists? Does that help any of the Democrats? Well at this point the CPUSA isn't really Communsit any more--they are mildly Socialist and have a general proletarian focus--but they aren't Marxist anymore. I agree with that.


Being, as you've admitted to us, a business owner - and are you self-employed or do you make money from the workers? - how much do you like being a part of a latte-sippin' organization housed in glass cubicles in Chelsea whose head honcho claims 15,000 members in 2002 and 2,500 members in 2004? Oh, unfortunately I make money from my fellow workers. And I haven't seen the CPUSA headquarters--but from what I understand it's pretty glitzy. Glass and crome and the such. I may stop by the next time I'm in NYC. As far as the figures go--I haven't a clue what's right and what's not. It is pretty fishy, though.


How cool is it to use Marx to promote a sucky flavor of bourgeois pragmatism? I consider myself and Engleist. ;)

Seriously though, you might want to read Sam Webb's postion paper on Socialism. Lots of it (though not all of it) sounds very close to the general RevLeft position on things.

http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/644/1/8/

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Interesting. Revisionism and anti-revisionism has been a constant see-saw in the CPUSA since it was founded. The long time leader of the CPUSA William Z. Foster was a staunch anti-revisionist. So was Gus Hall. And by anti-revisionist I mean they supported the Stalinist/USSR branch of Communism. It was both authoritarian and sectarian. On the other hand Earl Browder introduced an "Americanized" version of Communism--changing the "Party" into more of an "assiciation." He grew the party considerable.

Earl Browder was a sucky opportunist who dissolved the CPUSA just as it was reaching its heigh of influence at the conclusion of World War II - ie, when expressing sympathy for the Soviet Union and Leftist ideas was actually OK. That was a pretty odd fellow. And if anyone ever qualified as a revisionist, Earl certainly did.


The CPUSA though was devistated by Khrushchev secret speech and by the McCarthy hearings. They almost had to turn away from the SU at that point. A lot of people went to jail.

Yeah. When the CPUSA was actually organizing the workers and winning elected office, things did go down hard. Gus Hall's jail term attests to that.


Now a days the CPUSA, like all Communist parties in the USA has no meal membership and no real clout.

They had far more membership in the late 1990s, with Gus Hall running things, than they do now, after selling out to the Democrats completely in order to entice confused working-class people to support Sam Webb's unenviable lifestyle. (Webb's only employment, of course, has been as a party organizer, save for a brief stint trying to create a hippie commune in the 1970s, so he doesn't have many options apart from leading the CPUSA, careerwise.)

Not that even this kind of crass opportunism hasn't completely backfired badly for him, as any of us could have predicted. The committed members -- save for the 90-year-old Communists for whom being in the "C"PUSA still harkens back to the nostalgia of resisting McCarthyism and getting blacklisted -- have all abandoned the Webbist trap. About the only other source of support (that anyone has heard about) seems to be the youth wing -- ie, the very people who would know least about Communist ideology, theory, and practice.

The real working-class membership, largely steelworkers and based in Minnesota, has just about completely defected from the "C"PUSA's ranks, and, since the party no longer does any real activism (except as registered Democrats, which the party leadership has actively encouraged), prospects for working with any blue-collar workers in the future are basically nil. I'm pretty sure that Webb has been paying his own rent with the one-time application fees from teenagers students who initially assume that a party that has the word "Communist" in its name actually stands for something communist.


Well at this point the CPUSA isn't really Communsit any more--they are mildly Socialist and have a general proletarian focus--but they aren't Marxist anymore. I agree with that.

Don't think anyone would disagree. They really should drop the classic name, though. Dozens of others parties would like to use it, and Webb's reformism only does a disservice to the Democrats when he embarks on ever-soaring bouts of praise for Obama as the party's chair.


Oh, unfortunately I make money from my fellow workers.

Priceless, really. Hope you won't try to recruit the workers under you. :rolleyes:


Seriously though, you might want to read Sam Webb's postion paper on Socialism. Lots of it (though not all of it) sounds very close to the general RevLeft position on things.

I have considered the CPUSA very well, including the particular paper you've highlighted. Sure, there Webb does seem to resemble somebody throwing socialist slogans -- but notice the generalities and carefully-crafted ambiguities that permeate what is, essentially, a prolonged exercise in evasion.

If you think that Webb's admission that past Communist governments have done a pretty shitty job of building socialism is something revolutionary, I should let you in on the idea that's nothing new to anybody. Nor would that be very reflective or intellectual.

Aside from that and suggestions of tinkering with market mechanisms - something akin to Deng Xiaoping's lunacy, given Webb's record of praise for PRC economics and appointment of Marquit to Political Affairs and the National Board - there's really nothing in that paper short of fashioning vague, reformist slogans of all sorts. In essence, Webb's paper contributes absolute null to the debate of how to go about building a Marxist, democratic system that is capable of doing anything for people of the working class, even in the broadest possible sense.

Webb's contribution here essentially falls short of anything aside from participating in bourgeois politics in order to help elect more Democrats - which is probably counterproductive, given the red-baiting tactics that are unfailingly thrown at them by mindless spewers of rightist senselessness.

[Pogue]

Look in the mirror boys and girls--Mr. Webb is you (and Communism) in another 40 years. :) Do you think he started out that way? Don't you think he once really understood what Communism was? He was worn away by the reality of it all. As you will be. You'll take his place.

And there will be others that take your place 40 years after that...and then 40 years after that. :)

Welcome to the reality of Communism. :) You need to rethink what you are doing. Forget Stalin. Forget obscure Albanian dictators. Forget Trotsky (OK, already done!) Forget Anarchy. Forget RevLeft and forget Labor.

Rethink Communism.

Why do you insist on making such stupid posts whilst implying you have some all knowing eye that we're all bound to end up like Sam Webb?

No, Mr Webb is not communism in 40 years. He is a social democrat. They have always existed and are a particular political phenomenon that has been disproved time and time again.

I don't care whether or not he once thought he knew what communism was. He sold out. Loads of people don't sell out, many people die revolutionaries. Many people don't become social democrats. This is fact.

Worn awya by the reality of it all? What does that even mean? The reality of what? What reality would tell me that working within a system created by capitalism, for capitalism, will somehow becoming neccesary? At what point will this amazing conversion happen, Tom? Will I be manning a barricade or so when it suddenly clicks? Do you have any science?

What about elderly comrades Tom? People like Chomsky? People who have been revolutionary for years? How comes, aftet 40 years, they didn't end up Social Democrats. Why is this Tom? Because your making rubbish up, thats why.

So for 40 years after that, we'll all keep being blown away by the 'reality of it all'? So at some point, I start ignoring the wars, the poverty, the decades of working class people being attacked, of reformism not working? All that will just disappear, and I'll join the CPUSA (or the CPB, their British equivalent)? Why would I do that? Why does age pre-suppose abandoning revolutionary thought?



Welcome to the reality of Communism. :) You need to rethink what you are doing. Forget Stalin. Forget obscure Albanian dictators. Forget Trotsky (OK, already done!) Forget Anarchy. Forget RevLeft and forget Labor.

Rethink Communism.


No Tom, because Webb is not a communist. He is a social democrat. He has made a political decision. I'd suggest his heart was never fully in it in the first place, really. Why should I rethink what I am doing? What am I doing wrong, Tom? You spend so long making such prophetic but essentially empty posts about how communism needs to be 're-thought'. You do it all the fucking time. How can you re-think class struggle? How can you rethink capitalism? In what way? Am I meant to magically conjure up 'Fourth Positionism' or something? Thats such meaningless rhetoric Tom.

Sure, forget Stalin. He was no use anyway. Forget Trotsky - whatever, one man. Don't see why we need to forget him, but I don't think we need to really get all high on him. I never really have thought about Hoxha enough to forget him.

But why would I forget anarchy? Its the name given to my political analysis. I believe in a worker run society ahceived by workers self organisation and revolution done by themselves. Thats anarchism. If i believe it, and think, from my experiences, its true, why on earth would I forget it? Because a bourgeoisie catholic forum poster told me too? Wow nice, its great to see he actually explained to me why excactly I should forget it. Oh wait no he didn't. You just told me to forget it. Er, no Tom. What use would that do? I see the world and interpret it in an anarchist way. I recognise class struggle, I recognise the brutality of the state. If I forgot anarhcy I'd just replace it naturally under a different name.

What does forget Revleft even mean? Its an internet forum I post on to discuss politics, get news and have fun. Why would I forget it? Alot of my politics comes from this, why would I forget it? What use would that do? What use would dropping our ideologies do?

Re-think communism. Right. I don't see how we could drop Trotsky, Stalin, everything on Revleft, all of anarchism, and still be able to 're-think' communism. What does that mean, Tom? I think and debate about it constantly. What am I meant to re-think? What do you mean? Am I meant to forget class struggle? How can I do that? Next time I get sacked again, am I meant to just ignore it? Next time I am asked to attend a picket, do I block it out? next time I am standing 10 metres from a man just as the police push him to the floor leading to his death, am I meant to ignore it because I have to drop 'anarchy?' Revolutionary socialism is my interpretation of a reality. Class struggle is a clear reality. Its not so much that I don't want to drop it, even though I don't, its that it'd be impossible to do because we all see the validity of our claims materialise in the world every day.

Stop making vague, empty, banile posts about 're-thinking' or dropping communism as if you actually have any answers. You quite simply don't know what you're talking about, its empty, baseless rhetoric, brought about by your complete and utter misunderstanding of what your talking about. You don't even know that much about communism, and your posts here are limited to stupid things about how everything we all believe and experience is wrong, but you never take that critique any further. What am I meant to do? Drop all revolutioonary socialist politics and become a liberal? :rolleyes: Sure, because liberalism is clearly an ideology I could never have any doubt or disullusionment with. You have this in set bourgeoisie ideology that everything that exists at the moment is the sum total pinnacle of human acheivment, that bourgeois democrayc is some sort of societal end point and any chance to the world can only come within the confines of bourgeois democracy and capitalism. People thought that about every class system that ever existed, look what happened. You have this arogant, ruling class ideology which is sad to see and frankly boring. In the meanwhie your thinking up another empty post to make, I'll be living the reality of class struggle and responding to it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

They see me troollin'
they hatin'

Patrolin' and tryin' to catch me posting dirtttayyyy
Trying to catch me posting dirty/trying to catch me posting dirttttyyyy

[Bud Struggle]

Why do you insist on making such stupid posts whilst implying you have some all knowing eye that we're all bound to end up like Sam Webb? Because Sam Webb endup like Sam Webb. Like a huhe and vibrant CUPSA ended up like the CPUSA you see today. Because infights and outfight and splits and betrayals have gone on the the American Communist Party since it's inception (I can't speak to the British CP.)


No, Mr Webb is not communism in 40 years. He is a social democrat. They have always existed and are a particular political phenomenon that has been disproved time and time again. He would definitely dispute your analysis. He think's he Communism. He's head of a national organization--you (like me) are just some "comrade."


I don't care whether or not he once thought he knew what communism was. He sold out. Loads of people don't sell out, many people die revolutionaries. Many people don't become social democrats. This is fact. They either sell out of die--there are no old Communists. Or at least very few.


Worn awya by the reality of it all? What does that even mean? The reality of what? What reality would tell me that working within a system created by capitalism, for capitalism, will somehow becoming neccesary? At what point will this amazing conversion happen, Tom? Will I be manning a barricade or so when it suddenly clicks? Do you have any science? No! The reality of Communism falling totalitarianism and state Capitalism each and every time--every time its tried. Nepal is the latest example of that. The same old thing. Where the Maoist at the baracade when they deserted Marxism? Who knows. Maybe you'll become a Glorious Leader some day HLVS. One can only hope.


What about elderly comrades Tom? People like Chomsky? People who have been revolutionary for years? How comes, aftet 40 years, they didn't end up Social Democrats. Why is this Tom? Because your making rubbish up, thats why. Is Chomsky a Communist? I don't think so. And after that--where are these "Old Bolsheviks"? The one's in the Soviet Union were killed by other Communists. Are they in any position of authority? I don't see them.


So for 40 years after that, we'll all keep being blown away by the 'reality of it all'? So at some point, I start ignoring the wars, the poverty, the decades of working class people being attacked, of reformism not working? All that will just disappear, and I'll join the CPUSA (or the CPB, their British equivalent)? Why would I do that? Why does age pre-suppose abandoning revolutionary thought? I have no idea why people without power abandon Communism--maybe it's because when people get power they abandon Communism.


No Tom, because Webb is not a communist. He is a social democrat. He has made a political decision. I'd suggest his heart was never fully in it in the first place, really. Why should I rethink what I am doing? What am I doing wrong, Tom? You spend so long making such prophetic but essentially empty posts about how communism needs to be 're-thought'. You do it all the fucking time. How can you re-think class struggle? How can you rethink capitalism? In what way? Am I meant to magically conjure up 'Fourth Positionism' or something? Thats such meaningless rhetoric Tom. Because Class struggle is over. It's been over for quite a while--because after 150 years of preaching--no one has heard of it. They heard of Brittany Spears and American Idol or Pop Idol. But not of class struggle. Ask a stranger on the street what it means and you get the answer that it's some 19th century conceop--and so it is.


Sure, forget Stalin. He was no use anyway. Forget Trotsky - whatever, one man. Don't see why we need to forget him, but I don't think we need to really get all high on him. I never really have thought about Hoxha enough to forget him. LOTS of people see Stalin, Lenin, Tito, Hohxa, Trotsky, Mao as the FUTURE of Communism...but far the most people. The river of Communism flows into the past and almost everyone that enters its waters flows back with it. Have you seen the avatars on RevLeft? Have you seen an avatar that represents someone or some organization that's NOT been dead 50 years?


But why would I forget anarchy? Its the name given to my political analysis. I believe in a worker run society ahceived by workers self organisation and revolution done by themselves. Thats anarchism. If i believe it, and think, from my experiences, its true, why on earth would I forget it? Because a bourgeoisie catholic forum poster told me too? Wow nice, its great to see he actually explained to me why excactly I should forget it. Oh wait no he didn't. You just told me to forget it. Er, no Tom. What use would that do? I see the world and interpret it in an anarchist way. I recognise class struggle, I recognise the brutality of the state. If I forgot anarhcy I'd just replace it naturally under a different name. You believe in Anarchy like I believe in heaven. We've each never seen our anarchy or heaven--but we believe. All right believe--I have no problem with that. It may even become real--so may heaven. Good luck with what you believe. But so far it hasn't really existed so far on this earth (I know a moment or two in Spain and the Paris Commune) but not really. Never even close on any real scale--you want to believe--fine, but you'll have to understand that something like Anarchy is closer to "religion" than to politics or economics.


What does forget Revleft even mean? Its an internet forum I post on to discuss politics, get news and have fun. Why would I forget it? Alot of my politics comes from this, why would I forget it? What use would that do? What use would dropping our ideologies do? Well you're right here--I was wrong. RevLeft is a good forum--I enjoy it and I've learned a lot, it's fun.


Re-think communism. Right. I don't see how we could drop Trotsky, Stalin, everything on Revleft, all of anarchism, and still be able to 're-think' communism. What does that mean, Tom? I think and debate about it constantly. What am I meant to re-think? I mean so far nothing's worked. I rather wish it did--but it dies. It starts out correct then itdecays into something qrotesque and then it dies with a wimper not a bang. Each and every time.


Am I meant to forget class struggle? How can I do that? Next time I get sacked again, am I meant to just ignore it? Next time I am asked to attend a picket, do I block it out? next time I am standing 10 metres from a man just as the police push him to the floor leading to his death, am I meant to ignore it because I have to drop 'anarchy?' Revolutionary socialism is my interpretation of a reality. Class struggle is a clear reality. Its not so much that I don't want to drop it, even though I don't, its that it'd be impossible to do because we all see the validity of our claims materialise in the world every day. I don't see "calss struggle" as antything revelent to the 21st century. Yea, you can argue against Rockefeller and the like, but he's dead. More people woulkd rather BE Bill gates than fight against him. People freakin' LOVE Donald Trump. There's your class struggle--the people want to move up to BE Paris Hilton, not to bring her down to the people's level.


What am I meant to do? Drop all revolutioonary socialist politics and become a liberal? :rolleyes: Sure, because liberalism is clearly an ideology I could never have any doubt or disullusionment with. You have this in set bourgeoisie ideology that everything that exists at the moment is the sum total pinnacle of human acheivment, that bourgeois democrayc is some sort of societal end point and any chance to the world can only come within the confines of bourgeois democracy and capitalism. People thought that about every class system that ever existed, look what happened. You have this arogant, ruling class ideology which is sad to see and frankly boring. In the meanwhie your thinking up another empty post to make, I'll be living the reality of class struggle and responding to it.

OK, you don't like my posts--but I've learned a lot here at RevLeft (and sorry again about that unkind remark about it) I'm a much better anage rthan I was before. I can now look and see to a much better extent what workers want and what can be done to fufill their needs. As a manager It's my job to meet the needs of the worker before they can even articulate them--they work better in a happy enviorment. Really, and I'm a firm believer that a happy worker is a good worker. The thing is I can actually connect with the needs of the worker. They don't want to be in charge--they don't want to own. they wnat to be reated with respect and friendship. They want to work WITH management to create a good and healthy and enjoyable workplace.

That's the future of the workplace HLVS.

You did write a good thought provoking post. Thanks

Tom

[Glenn Beck]

Because Sam Webb endup like Sam Webb. Like a huhe and vibrant CUPSA ended up like the CPUSA you see today. Because infights and outfight and splits and betrayals have gone on the the American Communist Party since it's inception (I can't speak to the British CP.)

He would definitely dispute your analysis. He think's he Communism. He's head of a national organization--you (like me) are just some "comrade."

They either sell out of die--there are no old Communists. Or at least very few.

No! The reality of Communism falling totalitarianism and state Capitalism each and every time--every time its tried. Nepal is the latest example of that. The same old thing. Where the Maoist at the baracade when they deserted Marxism? Who knows. Maybe you'll become a Glorious Leader some day HLVS. One can only hope.

Is Chomsky a Communist? I don't think so. And after that--where are these "Old Bolsheviks"? The one's in the Soviet Union were killed by other Communists. Are they in any position of authority? I don't see them.

I have no idea why people without power abandon Communism--maybe it's because when people get power they abandon Communism.

Because Class struggle is over. It's been over for quite a while--because after 150 years of preaching--no one has heard of it. They heard of Brittany Spears and American Idol or Pop Idol. But not of class struggle. Ask a stranger on the street what it means and you get the answer that it's some 19th century conceop--and so it is.

LOTS of people see Stalin, Lenin, Tito, Hohxa, Trotsky, Mao as the FUTURE of Communism...but far the most people. The river of Communism flows into the past and almost everyone that enters its waters flows back with it. Have you seen the avatars on RevLeft? Have you seen an avatar that represents someone or some organization that's NOT been dead 50 years?

You believe in Anarchy like I believe in heaven. We've each never seen our anarchy or heaven--but we believe. All right believe--I have no problem with that. It may even become real--so may heaven. Good luck with what you believe. But so far it hasn't really existed so far on this earth (I know a moment or two in Spain and the Paris Commune) but not really. Never even close on any real scale--you want to believe--fine, but you'll have to understand that something like Anarchy is closer to "religion" than to politics or economics.

Well you're right here--I was wrong. RevLeft is a good forum--I enjoy it and I've learned a lot, it's fun.

I mean so far nothing's worked. I rather wish it did--but it dies. It starts out correct then itdecays into something qrotesque and then it dies with a wimper not a bang. Each and every time.

I don't see "calss struggle" as antything revelent to the 21st century. Yea, you can argue against Rockefeller and the like, but he's dead. More people woulkd rather BE Bill gates than fight against him. People freakin' LOVE Donald Trump. There's your class struggle--the people want to move up to BE Paris Hilton, not to bring her down to the people's level.



OK, you don't like my posts--but I've learned a lot here at RevLeft (and sorry again about that unkind remark about it) I'm a much better anage rthan I was before. I can now look and see to a much better extent what workers want and what can be done to fufill their needs. As a manager It's my job to meet the needs of the worker before they can even articulate them--they work better in a happy enviorment. Really, and I'm a firm believer that a happy worker is a good worker. The thing is I can actually connect with the needs of the worker. They don't want to be in charge--they don't want to own. they wnat to be reated with respect and friendship. They want to work WITH management to create a good and healthy and enjoyable workplace.

That's the future of the workplace HLVS.

You did write a good thought provoking post. Thanks

Tom

You act as if these are shocking insights fresh from your brilliant mind but this is really just the oldest warmed over shit imaginable. It was tried for decades and it failed catastrophically. You have a basic understanding of the superficial trappings of socialism but when it comes to Marx's actual critique of capitalism (hint, it's not a moral one) you haven't the faintest clue. I'd suggest you look into it. Once you understand what class conflict actually is you'll understand why class compromise is always a temporary measure that lasts until the whole deal is shipwrecked on the rocks of recurring crisis.

I don't expect you to change your mind, the ideas you have are most certainly the most comfortable and suitable for someone in your position after all. Just putting this out there.

[PRC-UTE]

TomK, I'm curious why you think the CPUSA has a future. Because from what I've heard, the SPUSA, PSL and others are more visible. The CPUSA has probably squandered it's own future by lining up behind a party that will likely be seen as a disappointment as the economy continues to collapse and the wars don't end.

And then there's the other facts of the matter, like the CPUSA's social origins not being proletarian compared to the other socialists (more like union bureaucrats and petit bourgeois elements) which would surely limit their mass appeal and the fact that they probably have a much more aged membership and suffer from a generation gap compared to the other left parties. that's probably why the SWP is not very visible despite the fact that it's politics are fairly similiar to the PSL

[heiss93]

Where did you hear Sam Webb ran a hippie commune?

[Os Cangaceiros]

They either sell out of die--there are no old Communists.

What the hell are you talking about? Have you ever heard of, say, Emma Goldman?


Is Chomsky a Communist? I don't think so.

He has written much in sympathy/endorsement of anarchism.


Have you seen an avatar that represents someone or some organization that's NOT been dead 50 years?

Yeah, I have, actually.


You believe in Anarchy like I believe in heaven. We've each never seen our anarchy or heaven--but we believe. All right believe--I have no problem with that. It may even become real--so may heaven. Good luck with what you believe. But so far it hasn't really existed so far on this earth (I know a moment or two in Spain and the Paris Commune) but not really. Never even close on any real scale--you want to believe--fine, but you'll have to understand that something like Anarchy is closer to "religion" than to politics or economics.

Yes, believing in a political theory is the same thing as believing in Heaven. Glad we have a critical thinker on this board.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Where did you hear Sam Webb ran a hippie commune?

I'm reasonably sure he didn't try to run one all by himself, but it's what he did prior to progressing up the Communist Party ladder:


All the same, Webb did not immediately join the communist movement. His first venture into struggling for an alternative to capitalism was to help form a commune in the countryside. But eventually, he concluded that change required fighting the system and replacing it with socialism, rather than simply opting out. (politicalaffairs.net/index.php/article/view/6003/1/290/)

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Goddamn that interview with Glenn Beck was terrible.

I should be their spokesman. I would have owned.

And people shouldn't be so hard on Sam Webb. He comes off as a sensible, nice old dude. Sure, a little slow and not as sharp as I'd like him to be, but what else can an old fuck like himself do (no offense Tom)? And frankly, nice sensible old dudes are the best thing communism could possibly have right now.

Like his wardrobe choice. Maybe a nice cardigan next time.

Obviously he has embraced a certain reality that revolution is not coming anytime soon. You have to remember, this guy's been a communist for 40 years. That means he became a commie, at the latest, in 1969. A time in which...people were actually resisting. People were getting their heads smashed marching for civil rights, people were getting their heads smashed marching against the war.

Compared to today, it was a very revolutionary period. But no revolution. (Well, actually there was, in the fact that gay people don't fear for their lives in coming out of the closet in this country anymore. In the fact that there are hundreds of women/black/latino politicians, CEO's, etc etc in this country and that legalized segregation based on skin color no longer exists. In fact, anyone who claims we haven't made revolutionary social progress in this country is a punk). But no economic or political revolution, that is for sure.

I have no doubt that Sam Webb firmly believed in the Revolution when he became a commie, along with quite a bit of his generation. If he still believed in it (violent revolution) after 40 years I'd have to question his sanity.

On second thought, I think I'm gonna stump for the SP-USA when the time comes. And it is a comin'

[PRC-UTE]

On second thought, I think I'm gonna stump for the SP-USA when the time comes. And it is a comin'

you're going to join them?

I think that's a much better option than the CPUSA

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Goddamn that interview with Glenn Beck was terrible.

I should be their spokesman. I would have owned.

And people shouldn't be so hard on Sam Webb. He comes off as a sensible, nice old dude. Sure, a little slow and not as sharp as I'd like him to be, but what else can an old fuck like himself do (no offense Tom)? And frankly, nice sensible old dudes are the best thing communism could possibly have right now.

Reagan's charm would have put Webb to shame.

I do kind of agree with you on one thing: the fact that Webb is a person happens to be good for the Communist movement. After all, when people see him embarrassing us on national TV, they might snap out of the idea that we are blood-drinking totalitarians with plans to have them serve as our slave labor in the Arkansas GULAGs. And bullshit like that.

That kind of thing might win some bunch of ideologically-flexible Janes and Joes with center-left political tendencies over to the Communist brand, so they can pick up some Marxian book and educate themselves -- then realize the gaping contradictions within the anti-Marxist party line and proceed to move on to some real organization.

Although the same Janes and Joes are going to be mired in a hopeless cause, pursuing worthless campaigns to bring reformist politics to Washington through voting straight Democratic tickets, doing away with actual class struggle, and campaigning for the ruling class the entire time.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

you're going to join them?

I think that's a much better option than the CPUSA

Definitely.

After all, what the fuck is the pint of joining a party if all they're going to do is tell me to vote for one of the major parties?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

That kind of thing might win some bunch of ideologically-flexible Janes and Joes with center-left political tendencies over to the Communist brand, so they can pick up some Marxian book and educate themselves -- then realize the gaping contradictions within the anti-Marxist party line and proceed to move on to some real organization.

Although the same Janes and Joes are going to be mired in a hopeless cause, pursuing worthless campaigns to bring reformist politics to Washington through voting straight Democratic tickets, doing away with actual class struggle, and campaigning for the ruling class the entire time.

I do see your point about them joining a party that does nothing but tell them to vote democrat, but a lot more Janes and Joes are needed and some temperance, in the right places, wouldn't hurt.

Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan (and everywhere else), OK
Free Healthcare/Higher education/Childcare, OK
A revamped and robust social security system, OK
A nationalized banking system, OK
Lining up their Reverend against a wall and blowing his brains out, Not So Much

[RGacky3]

He would definitely dispute your analysis. He think's he Communism. He's head of a national organization--you (like me) are just some "comrade."

I doubt he think's he's communism.


Is Chomsky a Communist? I don't think so.

Chomsky is about a communist as you get, he's an anarchist, an anrcho-syndicalist.


Because Class struggle is over. It's been over for quite a while--because after 150 years of preaching--no one has heard of it. They heard of Brittany Spears and American Idol or Pop Idol. But not of class struggle. Ask a stranger on the street what it means and you get the answer that it's some 19th century conceop--and so it is.


You've got to be kidding me, where the hell do you live? Fairy land? Class struggle is more alive than it was 20 years ago, don't ask people what class struggle means, but ask them what they think of their boss, and their lack of control at work, and so on, workers know damn well what class struggle is.

Plus, the florida seaside is'nt the world TomK.


I can now look and see to a much better extent what workers want and what can be done to fufill their needs. As a manager It's my job to meet the needs of the worker before they can even articulate them--they work better in a happy enviorment. Really, and I'm a firm believer that a happy worker is a good worker. The thing is I can actually connect with the needs of the worker. They don't want to be in charge--they don't want to own. they wnat to be reated with respect and friendship. They want to work WITH management to create a good and healthy and enjoyable workplace.


That is th emost condesending elitist garbage I've read in a while. You speak EXACTLY as kings and dictators speak.

yeah, people WANT to be ruled over, as long as the ruler is nice to them.

[ComradeR]

I don't see "calss struggle" as antything revelent to the 21st century. Yea, you can argue against Rockefeller and the like, but he's dead. More people woulkd rather BE Bill gates than fight against him. People freakin' LOVE Donald Trump. There's your class struggle--the people want to move up to BE Paris Hilton, not to bring her down to the people's level.
You haven't been paying attention have you? From the g20 protests, to the outrage at the capitalists over this latest crisis in capitalism, to the situation in Japan, Greece, France, Latin America etc. The class struggle is alive and well my friend and workers are clashing with the ruling capitalists.

I can now look and see to a much better extent what workers want and what can be done to fufill their needs. As a manager It's my job to meet the needs of the worker before they can even articulate them--they work better in a happy enviorment. Really, and I'm a firm believer that a happy worker is a good worker. The thing is I can actually connect with the needs of the worker. They don't want to be in charge--they don't want to own. they wnat to be reated with respect and friendship. They want to work WITH management to create a good and healthy and enjoyable workplace.
I'm sorry but this is utter and complete elitist bull. It's the same thing we've heard to justify everything from slavery, to colonization, to absolute monarchy, to the oppression of women.

[Pogue]

Because Sam Webb endup like Sam Webb. Like a huhe and vibrant CUPSA ended up like the CPUSA you see today. Because infights and outfight and splits and betrayals have gone on the the American Communist Party since it's inception (I can't speak to the British CP.)

Same Webb is one person. As I said, he is a social democrat.


He would definitely dispute your analysis. He think's he Communism. He's head of a national organization--you (like me) are just some "comrade."


He is a social democrat or Eurocommunist. He believes in democratic reforms leading to communism, at best. Not only has thie historicaly been proven a fialure, its also not revolutionary or part of any revolutionary analysis, i.e. any Marxist or Anarchist analysis.


They either sell out of die--there are no old Communists. Or at least very few.

Sorry, but how would you know this? Your not even involved in revolutionary politics. I know a large number of old comrades. You are clearly talking rubbish - this is a baseless claim that does not reflect reality in the slightest.


No! The reality of Communism falling totalitarianism and state Capitalism each and every time--every time its tried. Nepal is the latest example of that. The same old thing. Where the Maoist at the baracade when they deserted Marxism? Who knows. Maybe you'll become a Glorious Leader some day HLVS. One can only hope.

Communism didn't turn to totalitarianism or state capitlaism in Spai or in Ukraine, nor in Zapatista territory. Look up Anarchism, perhaps. You're referrig to the failure of authoritarian communism or isolationist communism, or marxist-leninism. None of this degenerated regimes were ever communism and I don't believe they ever will become communist, which is why I am an anarchist, or libertarian communist.


Is Chomsky a Communist? I don't think so. And after that--where are these "Old Bolsheviks"? The one's in the Soviet Union were killed by other Communists. Are they in any position of authority? I don't see them.

Of course he's a communist. He is a self-avowed libertarian socialist, an anarcho-sydicalist and a member of the IWW. If you don't think he's a communist then clearly you don't know aything about him. This is the most blindingly ignorant statement I've ever read from you and hilights you simply don't know what your on about. I don't even understand the whole 'Old Bolshevik' bit.


I have no idea why people without power abandon Communism--maybe it's because when people get power they abandon Communism.


You have no idea because its a baseless slur thats been knocking around in white ring circles for decades, that everyone eventually abandons communism, as if capitalism is the acceptable end point of society we should, all eventually become cotent with. This is not the case. Also, look up anarchism, so you stop embarrassing yourself with this rubbish about all communists becoming corrupted by power.


Because Class struggle is over. It's been over for quite a while--because after 150 years of preaching--no one has heard of it. They heard of Brittany Spears and American Idol or Pop Idol. But not of class struggle. Ask a stranger on the street what it means and you get the answer that it's some 19th century conceop--and so it is.

Typical argument of the detached, priviliged types. Of course class struggle is not over. When strikers in Mexico are shot dead by the police, is class struggle over? When rickshaw drivers in Bangladesh go on strike because they are surviving on a dollar a day class struggle being dead? When people are evicted from their homes to build the site for the new Olympics, is class struggle over?

So if class struggle over, should we all quit our unions, because as a class, we no longer have to defend ourselves or fight for gains? Tell me Tom, when did class struggle end? If it is over, what has replaced it?

How can class struggle be over? Its an everyday reality, its evident throughout the world in every strike. Class struggle naturally an only ever end when class is abolished, i.e. when communism is acheived. This is such a ridiculous statement that tries to deny something that is evident throughout the world - class struggle is everywhere, you only like to convince yourself that it is not everywhere because you are part of the priviliged few who want to think everything is fine and over and static. Work on the minimum wage then get told by some big-whig that your being sacked at the last moment, then tell me class struggle is over.

Seriously Tom, just think about it. When did it end? How did it end? What replaced it? If its over, how do you explain strikes and sackings and repression?

If you ask a worker on the street what class struggle is, sure they wont know what ti is, in the majority. That doesnt mean it doesnt exist, it just means not everyone has class conciousness. Same as not everyone knows that osmosis exists - does that mean it doesn't ever happen? The point is, its a reality, but alot of people don't know what to call it because the media denies it and ideology of the present day dictates its non-existent. We need to make sure people become aware of what it is. But of course it exists. To deny it is absurd and shows how detached form reality you really are. I want you to respod to this because i'd like to see your absurd explanation for how the strikes in Bagladesh at the moment fit into the idea that class struggle suddenly no longer exists, even though we clearly see a working clas ssturggling against the wealthy boss class.


LOTS of people see Stalin, Lenin, Tito, Hohxa, Trotsky, Mao as the FUTURE of Communism...but far the most people. The river of Communism flows into the past and almost everyone that enters its waters flows back with it. Have you seen the avatars on RevLeft? Have you seen an avatar that represents someone or some organization that's NOT been dead 50 years?

Yes. I've seen avatars suporting the Palestinian Intifada, the IWW, the APPO and Oaxaca situatio in Mexico, I have seen SWP avatars and avatars of Subcommandnte Marcos and the EZLN, I have seen SPEW logos and logos for the COmmunist Youth of the Netherlands. I have seen Antifa logos and logos from London Coalition Against Poverty.

Are you blind, or do you just have a ridiculously selective memory when you make ramblings which completely, oncemore, contradict reality? You keep making points which actively go against the reality of what is around. And what does people's avatars on revleft mean anyway? Even if everyone of us (and this is not the case) has the logo of a group from decades ago as our avatar, loads of us are also active in present day campaigns in the real world. You talk such rubbish.


You believe in Anarchy like I believe in heaven. We've each never seen our anarchy or heaven--but we believe. All right believe--I have no problem with that. It may even become real--so may heaven. Good luck with what you believe. But so far it hasn't really existed so far on this earth (I know a moment or two in Spain and the Paris Commune) but not really. Never even close on any real scale--you want to believe--fine, but you'll have to understand that something like Anarchy is closer to "religion" than to politics or economics.

Christians believe heaven is a plac eor state of mind you go to after you die in which you are close to the creator God who created the whole world in 7 days some point which biblically should be a few thousand years ago. You believe that, because a book called the bible says so, you will go to this place after death if you telepathically say you believe in a great creator responsible for the world, and when you go there, it will be your soul, a meta-physical part of your 'body' that has never been proven to exist, that experiences all these wonderful things for eternity. You base your belive in the writings of one book and so to you its true.

I believe that the world is divided into classes, as evidenced by how there are a few very rich people in the world who extract surplus value from a majority of very few poor people in the world. I believe these class are opposed, evidenced by strikes in which the exploited, working class, is pitted against the ruling class. I see this in strikes everday, from Enfield to Bangladesh. I believe the state is the enforcer of this class, as seen by the countless wars which have pitted worker against worker, and the strikes and protestors attacked by the police who are employed by the state.

I believe the solution to such a cicumstance would be the abolition of class and the state in favour of a society in which people organise themselves directly and democratically in local assemblies which federate up if neccesary. I believe these society should be based on the collective means of production, distribution, everything.

As you have said this has been put into practice in Spain, Ukraine, Paris, Mexico, in fact, pretty much everywhere in the world at some point. So clearly it can be done. Physically, nothing is stopping it being done, it fits into the laws of physics, unlike a man being ressurected from the dead or walking on water, or the idea of a being being able to know everything and be in all places at once.

So clearly my ideas are a political analysis and the advocacy of a different social and economic structure for society that has been practised in the past. This is clearl ynot religion because religion pre-supposes a blief in a supernatural, some form of after life, blieve in a God, etc, usually based on something written in a book somewhere. This argument fails, and has been abandoned by intelligent political theorists because it is clear there are obvious differences betwee a religion and a political ideology.


Well you're right here--I was wrong. RevLeft is a good forum--I enjoy it and I've learned a lot, it's fun.

I don't think you've learned enough as you still have basic and clear misunderstandings of socialist theory and rpactice. You resort to saying 'Stalin is dead, re-think things, class struggle no longer exists!' whcih ignores reality and also lacks any elaboration, back up, substantiation, evidence, etc. Also, you ignore the whole line of revolutionary socialism known as libertarian socialism which is opposed to the previous 'communist' regimes.


I mean so far nothing's worked. I rather wish it did--but it dies. It starts out correct then itdecays into something qrotesque and then it dies with a wimper not a bang. Each and every time.

Capitalism has failed spectacularly. So has social democracy, and liberalism. Capitalism only works for the rich and powerful, the same way 'fascism' works for those who are on the side of the fascists.

Do you not see the trend in how that everytime true socialism has been implemented, its 'failed' because its been brutally crushed by the ruling class? Look at Spain, look at Ukraine, look at Hungrary and Czechoslovakia, look at the Paris Commune. In Spain, libertarian communist re-structuring of society clearly worked, as evidenced by the rise in production and living staandards and the new society that came to place. They were all attacke dby the ruling class, and due to being isolated and out-numbered, they were crushed. Attempts to end slavery failed, intially too. But eventually it was abolished. It being crushed once, like the slave rebellions that led to massacres of the rebels, did not mean that the ideolgoy of anti-slavery was doomed to fail, did it? We've analysed how why and where communism has been destoryed and theres clear reasons why - bourgeoise repression, or counter-revolution.


I don't see "calss struggle" as antything revelent to the 21st century. Yea, you can argue against Rockefeller and the like, but he's dead. More people woulkd rather BE Bill gates than fight against him. People freakin' LOVE Donald Trump. There's your class struggle--the people want to move up to BE Paris Hilton, not to bring her down to the people's level.


See, this is where you fundamentally misunderstand revolutionary politics. Do you think the opinions of the working class dictate the conditions they live in? We have answered this before, its called false conciousness, or just a lack of revolutionary class conciousness. Capitalist ideolgoy and culture hegemony means people accept ruling class values as normal, eve if these values are responsble for their misery. Its done through religion, through nationalism, etc.

Some people see rich people and think 'I wish my life was as easy at that.' This pre-supposes they think their current life could be better. We as communists recognise this is the case and so strive for this. Just because some people evy Bill gates doesn't mean class struggle doesn't exist. Even the most right-wing working class person will recognise when it comes down to them about being sacked, only class struggle in a union will protect them. Its not about what people believe, its about what the reality is. Following your line of logic, racism is OK because some people believe that white people are betetr than black people. But for the working class persn who believes this, when it comes down to it on a picket, it is clear tha they ar ein the same situation as their fellow black worker because they are of the same class. The reality is, its not race which unites people, but class. This is evidenced in how the white boss will sack the white worker, and the black worker. The reality of class position would thus serve to undermine racist attitudes, Tom, the same as how someone who thinks their boss is a great guy will soon realise this is not the case when their boss tells them they are going to be sacked. At this point, the class reality comes into play.


OK, you don't like my posts--but I've learned a lot here at RevLeft (and sorry again about that unkind remark about it) I'm a much better anage rthan I was before. I can now look and see to a much better extent what workers want and what can be done to fufill their needs. As a manager It's my job to meet the needs of the worker before they can even articulate them--they work better in a happy enviorment. Really, and I'm a firm believer that a happy worker is a good worker. The thing is I can actually connect with the needs of the worker. They don't want to be in charge--they don't want to own. they wnat to be reated with respect and friendship. They want to work WITH management to create a good and healthy and enjoyable workplace.

That's the future of the workplace HLVS.

You did write a good thought provoking post. Thanks

Tom

Mindless drivel. How is this the future of the workplace? Is it the future of the workplace at Visteon, where workers are camped outside their work because they lost their jobs at a moments notice? Is it the future of the workplace for me, when I got sacked having worked on the minimum wage because the company was making cuts to protect profit? Is it the future of the sweatshops in India and China, where children are paid pennies per day to scratch a miserable existance? Is it the reality when the police break strikes, when the miners were killed in 1985?

You look at things with such a warped perspective brought about by your privilige dperspective. Bosses are not nice people. Its impossible for them to be nice people when the shit hits the fan because they are there to make money and protect profit, not be nice to workers. Its not their role to be nice.

How would you know what the worldwide working class wants? Your a boss, you have a bias, you think what you want to think, not what the reality of the situation is. You ca also nly speak for one workplace. I think elsewhere most workers want to, and are struggling too, survive. You don't understand this because you are desperate to look at the world as if its a nice place where everything is fine. This is not the case and revolutionaries recognise this. Bosses don't want friendship and don't want to give respect, they want profit. They're only ever 'friendly' when it suits them, i.e. to pacify workers. You have a view of workplace relations that isn't even a liberal one, its simply cute fluffy ridiculous utopian out of touch garbage. In Indonesia, some female workers working for Coca Cola on the minimum wage were repeatedly raped by management and its cronies, especially when they tried to organise. Such things are by no means uncommon. You should also look at the number of people who die on the job each year, you'd be suprised. Is this management and workers living in respect and friendship?

[RGacky3]

TomK,

Every few posts you repeat the EXACT SAME baseless crap, no matter how many times we show you how baseless and rediculous your clearly ignorant 'observations' are, you still repeat them, not even backing them up, just simply saying, things like "I just don't see it happening" or "class struggle is over" without any facts except for his "gutt feeling" or what he sees from his buddies, or whatever, George Bush logic.

Seriously TomK you say you've learned a lot, but you keep ignoring basic fundemental things, that we keep on continously repeat to you, and its not like your arguing against them, you just ignore them and repeat your baseless statements. Start Paying attention.

[ls]

..I'm a much better manager than I was before. I can now look and see to a much better extent what workers want and what can be done to fufill their needs. As a manager It's my job to meet the needs of the worker before they can even articulate them--they work better in a happy enviorment. Really, and I'm a firm believer that a happy worker is a good worker. The thing is I can actually connect with the needs of the worker. They don't want to be in charge--they don't want to own. they wnat to be reated with respect and friendship. They want to work WITH management to create a good and healthy and enjoyable workplace.

This idea is much older than that of worker autonomy, it's actually pretty out of date I'm afraid. Even modern workplaces function much better with worker autonomy, you might find recent victories at places like the Visteon factory in Enfield, north London are testament to the fact that workers just naturally outdo management everytime, it almost always comes down to authoritarian tactics by management to "keep the workers in order" when interests conflict. When all the people pull together at the same level of a common cause, that's when the greatest things happen.



That's the future of the workplace HLVS.

You've picked a poor person to tell that to. HLVS actually has very brilliant ideas for workplace organising in particular, some of his ideas I've heard first-hand are pretty good. Not just workplace organising but also other areas where workers must work at getting what they need.


You did write a good thought provoking post. Thanks

Tom

Your post was half flamebait half kind of happily in a just-had-a-stroke way condescending cobblers.

[Raúl Duke]

Do you think he started out that way? Don't you think he once really understood what Communism was? He was worn away by the reality of it all. As you will be. You'll take his place.

I don't know...

If I were to "give up" I don't think I would do so by ending up to be some democrat ass kissing make-believe communist...

There's much more better things then that.