Marxists and Anarchists are enemies

[abbielives!]

The two philosophies are diametrically opposed over the question of "What is the State?" lets all recognize this and move on.

[Charles Xavier]

I don't have a problem with Anarchists and I'm a marxist-leninist. Anarchism as an ideology had been defeated theoretically in the first internationale.

[Yehuda Stern]

A big "duh" and "what's your point" on my part.

[AvanteRedGarde]

The two philosophies are diametrically opposed over the question of "What is the State?" lets all recognize this and move on.

No, modern anarchists blow this issue out of proportion and would rather break out into sectarianism rather than actually doing something constructive. The title of this thread is evidence of this.

[JohnnyC]

The two philosophies are diametrically opposed over the question of "What is the State?" lets all recognize this and move on.
Marxists and anarchists may have different definition of what state is but that doesn't mean they are "enemies" (what ever that means) as you implied.That isn't a smart conclusion, in my opinion.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

The two philosophies are diametrically opposed over the question of "What is the State?" lets all recognize this and move on.

Neither Anarchism or Marxism are monolithic.

A lot of modern Anarchism has been greatly influenced by Council and Left Communism, particurly by Situationism.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

The two philosophies are diametrically opposed over the question of "What is the State?" lets all recognize this and move on.

We're enemies because we have different definitions of the state? Are you fucking kidding? This thread should be deleted.

[Blackscare]

You may have 500+ posts, but I still call troll.

[Q]

The OP is very contradictory. We can't move on by stating that we're enemies. This will only lead to more infighting among leftists (RAAN?) and thusly weakening our movement as a whole.

The question of the state is indeed important and needs discussion, ignoring things won't help. So let's instead discuss these matters and also discuss on matters as tactics and strategy, because there are differences on opinion there aswell. Only discussion can bring us forward.

[Enragé]

using a marxist definition, anarchists are actually pro-state post-revolution (since marxism defines the state as an armed group of people and as we can all see looking at the spanish revolution anarchists certainly do not oppose the forming of armed groups of people, i.e worker militias - as long as they are democratic etc., with which any sane marxist would agree)

[Charles Xavier]

The OP is very contradictory. We can't move on by stating that we're enemies. This will only lead to more infighting among leftists (RAAN?) and thusly weakening our movement as a whole.

The question of the state is indeed important and needs discussion, ignoring things won't help. So let's instead discuss these matters and also discuss on matters as tactics and strategy, because there are differences on opinion there aswell. Only discussion can bring us forward.


Well I would argue its not weakening the movement as a whole as there are no anarchists in the trade union movements nor do they participate in it here in Canada so either they are being quite secretive or they are irrelevant. They aren't an organized force, rather they are small groups which come and go.

What anarchists are for the most part are angry youth who want to fight back. Some either find the correct way to fight others after a period of radicalization then become dishearten and no longer participate in politics all together.

Anarchists really do not exist in a meaningful way that is really divisive. I find there are a lot more social democrats with anarchistic views. Then there are actual anarchists. In the non-labour mass movements such as peace and the environment there are a couple anarchists here and there, but then again they have no leadership roles in the peace movement. And the environmental movement maybe you can make your argument there but it is dominated by social democrats and liberals.

[bcbm]

Well I would argue its not weakening the movement as a whole as there are no anarchists in the trade union movements nor do they participate in it here in Canada so either they are being quite secretive or they are irrelevant. They aren't an organized force, rather they are small groups which come and go.

What anarchists are for the most part are angry youth who want to fight back. Some either find the correct way to fight others after a period of radicalization then become dishearten and no longer participate in politics all together.

Anarchists really do not exist in a meaningful way that is really divisive. I find there are a lot more social democrats with anarchistic views. Then there are actual anarchists. In the non-labour mass movements such as peace and the environment there are a couple anarchists here and there, but then again they have no leadership roles in the peace movement. And the environmental movement maybe you can make your argument there but it is dominated by social democrats and liberals.

:rolleyes: You could replace "anarchist" with "marxist" in your post and basically it would be true as well.

[Charles Xavier]

:rolleyes: You could replace "anarchist" with "marxist" in your post and basically it would be true as well.


There is quite a number of trade unionists in the communist party and there is communist trade union leaders here in Canada.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Well I would argue its not weakening the movement as a whole as there are no anarchists in the trade union movements nor do they participate in it here in Canada so either they are being quite secretive or they are irrelevant. They aren't an organized force, rather they are small groups which come and go.


A lot of Marxists consider participation in Trade Unions movements to be supporting capitalism, that Trade Unions exist to intergrate the working class into the capitalist system and that therefore all geniune proletarian struggle takes place outside and against them.

There are also Marxists would not support participation in the Trade Union movement in a country like Canada which benefits from the super exploitation of the third world because they see it as arguing over imperialist spoils.

Certainly global socialism is not in the economnic interest of the vast majiority of the Canadian working class so it would seem that focusing such issues in Canada could be seen as reactionary.

[Jack]

I don't have a problem with Anarchists and I'm a marxist-leninist. Anarchism as an ideology had been defeated theoretically in the first internationale.

Of course theoretically, nevermind that Marx went to the Hauge congress with a minority of the IWMA and voted to expel Bakunin and the anarchists. This, of course, was condemned by the Swiss, French, English, American, Spanish, and Dutch sections of the International. No wonder it fell apart just a few year later. That narcissist Marx couldn't handle people pointing out his totalitarian nature, so he decided to become that and expel those who disagreed with him.

[Charles Xavier]

A lot of Marxists consider participation in Trade Unions movements to be supporting capitalism, that Trade Unions exist to intergrate the working class into the capitalist system and that therefore all geniune proletarian struggle takes place outside and against them.

There are also Marxists would not support participation in the Trade Union movement in a country like Canada which benefits from the super exploitation of the third world because they see it as arguing over imperialist spoils.

Certainly global socialism is not in the economnic interest of the vast majiority of the Canadian working class so it would seem that focusing such issues in Canada could be seen as reactionary.


What marxists say that? The fake marxists who aren't actually marxists?

[Invincible Summer]

No, modern anarchists blow this issue out of proportion and would rather break out into sectarianism rather than actually doing something constructive. The title of this thread is evidence of this.
I find your post ironic.



Well I would argue its not weakening the movement as a whole as there are no anarchists in the trade union movements nor do they participate in it here in Canada so either they are being quite secretive or they are irrelevant. They aren't an organized force, rather they are small groups which come and go.

I'm not sure about "no anarchists in the trade union" as I don't know everyone in trade unions, but it is the sad truth that there seem to be no defined, active, organized anarchist groups in Canada that I know of.


What anarchists are for the most part are angry youth who want to fight back.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? We were all young once, or are still young, and the passion to destroy capitalism is a great motivator.


Some either find the correct way to fight others after a period of radicalization then become dishearten and no longer participate in politics all together.

1) By "the correct way," you mean Marxism-Leninism, right? :rolleyes:
2) It's not just anarchists who become disheartened. What a bunch of crap.

[bcbm]

There is quite a number of trade unionists in the communist party and there is communist trade union leaders here in Canada.

And many anarchists are involved in union struggles as well, though perhaps not as bosses of the union for obvious reasons. There's also the IWW which is organized on somewhat anarchist lines.

But in general neither movement is faring too well these days, so save the bullshit.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Of course theoretically, nevermind that Marx went to the Hauge congress with a minority of the IWMA and voted to expel Bakunin and the anarchists. This, of course, was condemned by the Swiss, French, English, American, Spanish, and Dutch sections of the International. No wonder it fell apart just a few year later. That narcissist Marx couldn't handle people pointing out his totalitarian nature, so he decided to become that and expel those who disagreed with him.


In these pamphlets, Nechaev and Bakunin advocate a new social order, to be erected "by concentrating all the means of social existence in the hands of Our Committee, and the proclamation of compulsory physical labour for everyone," compulsory residence in communal dormitories, rules for hours of work, feeding of children, and other minutae. As the "authoritarian" Marx put it: "What a beautiful model of barrack-room communism! Here you have it all: communal eating, communal sleeping, assessors and offices regulating education, production, consumption, in a word, all social activity, and to crown all, Our Committee, anonymous and unknown to anyone, as the supreme dictator. This indeed is the purest anti-authoritarianism..."
When one looks at Bakunin's views on authority and revolution in detail, it is hard to disagree with Marx's and Engels' assertion that Bakunin and his followers simply used the word "authoritarian" to mean something they didn't like. The label "authoritarian" was then, and remains today for many libertarians, a way of avoiding serious political questions.


Or consider Bakunin's Rules for his International Alliance, not a passing whim, but the organization to which he gave his primary allegiance while participating in the First International. Here is a sample, written in 1869: "it is necessary that in the midst of popular anarchy, which will make up the very life and all the energy of the revolution, the unity of revolutionary thought and action should be embodied in a certain organ. That organ must be the secret and world-wide association of the international brothers..."
"...the only thing a well-organized secret society can do it to assist the birth of revolution by spreading among the masses ideas that accord with the instinct of the masses, and to organise, not the army of the revolution - that army must always be the people, but a revolutionary General Staff composed of devoted, energetic and intelligent individuals who are above all sincere - not vain or ambitious - friends of the people, capable of serving as intermediaries between the revolutionary ideas and the popular instincts."
"The number of these individuals should not, therefore, be too large. For the international organisation throughout Europe one hundred serious and firmly united revolutionaries would be sufficient. Two or three hundred revolutionaries would be enough for the organisation of the largest country."
As the authoritarian Marx said of this libertarian idea: "To say that the hundred international brothers must 'serve as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the popular instincts,' is to create an unbridgeable gulf between the Alliance's revolutionary idea and the proletarian masses; it means proclaiming that these hundred guardsmen cannot be recruited anywhere but from among the privileged classes."
When one sees the views of Bakunin and Marx side by side, it is difficult to remember that it is Marx, not Bakunin, who is supposed to be the father of "Marxism-Leninism" and Bakunin, not Marx, who is supposed to be the father of "anarchism".


The accusation that led to Bakunin's expulsion from the International, that of heading a secret society which aimed to infiltrate and take over the International, was true. (Since this seems to be accepted by most historians, this point will not be pursued. See for example Woodcock's Anarchism, P. 168, or Aileen Kelly's article in the January 22, 1976 issues of the New York Review of Books.) The only point worth noting here is that the "authoritarian" federal structures of the International that Bakunin protested against so vehemently in 1871 and 1872 were introduced to the International shortly before, not on the initiative of the General council of which Marx was a member, but on the motion of Bakunin's supporters, with Bakunin's active participation and support. It was only after he failed to gain control over the structures of the International that Bakunin suddenly discovered their "authoritarianism".http://www.connexions.org/RedMenace/Docs/RM3-BakuninvsMarx.htm

:rolleyes:

[fabilius]

This isn´t very constructive way to think.

I think of myself as an anarchist (although I have yet to clearly define myself and maybe never will politically). Still I show up to protests and activities marxists organize, and the marxists show up to protests that anarchists and others organize.

If we hadn´t done it the icelandic conservative government wouldn´t have collapsed and the documents detailing all the corruption would still be secret. Marxists and anarchists may have different ideas but they still have incentives to cooperate. (I don´t want to hijack this thread into discussions about what´s going on in Iceland so just PM me or check out my introduction thread for that, I was just taking an example I could think of immediatly).

[PeaderO'Donnell]

What marxists say that? The fake marxists who aren't actually marxists?

The entire Council and Left Communist tradition?....Some people refer to themselves as Marxists the way Christians refer to themselves as Christian...As if because you can find something in Marx that makes it right whether it corresponds with reality or not...

The important thing is not being a fake or true Marxist but being in touch with reality

[Jack]

No, modern anarchists blow this issue out of proportion and would rather break out into sectarianism rather than actually doing something constructive. The title of this thread is evidence of this.

I'm sorry, but who expelled Bakunin from the First International again?

[PeaderO'Donnell]

The two philosophies are diametrically opposed over the question of "What is the State?" lets all recognize this and move on.

http://classagainstclass.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=115:marx-theoretician-of-anarchism-maximilien-rubel&catid=21:general-pamphlets-texts-and-articles&Itemid=15

[Charles Xavier]

The entire Council and Left Communist tradition?....Some people refer to themselves as Marxists the way Christians refer to themselves as Christian...As if because you can find something in Marx that makes it right whether it corresponds with reality or not...

The important thing is not being a fake or true Marxist but being in touch with reality


So fake marxists, fake marxists who think revolution isnt about class struggle.

[Blackscare]

I think too many Marxists remain hung up on Bakunin, as if anarchism ceased to evolve after the great leader had him expelled from the 1st international.

Anarchism isn't monolithic and it certainly doesn't begin and end with Bakunin. There's a reason it's not called Bakuninism, you know :p

[Jack]

Fine taken, but lets put it this way:

Who has killed more innocent people, more striking workers, and more dissenters, anarchists or Marxists?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I'm sorry, but who expelled Bakunin from the First International again?

If expelling the person who's probably had the most detrimental effect on the socialist movement as far as sectarianism goes is a sectarian move, then I don't think I'd mind being called sectarian. :)

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I am telling you now, there is a lot of stuff Nechaev said that is attributed to Bakunin. Bakunin was a Libertarian. Loads of people try to discredit him.

[JohnnyC]

Fine taken, but lets put it this way:

Who has killed more innocent people, more striking workers, and more dissenters, anarchists or Marxists?
That has nothing to do with theory of Marxism or anarchism.George Bush can call himself Marxist, does that mean Marxism is to blame for war in Iraq?

[Charles Xavier]

I find your post ironic.




I'm not sure about "no anarchists in the trade union" as I don't know everyone in trade unions, but it is the sad truth that there seem to be no defined, active, organized anarchist groups in Canada that I know of.


Is that necessarily a bad thing? We were all young once, or are still young, and the passion to destroy capitalism is a great motivator.


1) By "the correct way," you mean Marxism-Leninism, right? :rolleyes:
2) It's not just anarchists who become disheartened. What a bunch of crap.

No, I do not think anarchists are bad people. I was an anarchist when I was a teenager, I was an angry youth who saw a hard future ahead of him and participated in everything politicial i could find. From student groups, environmental groups, anti-racist groups,at a vegan protest against mcdonald(even though I liked meat), anywhere I could find politics. But the majority of these struggles were isolated from one another until I found the communist party and from there I found how to struggle for everything I believed in.

And maybe not marxist-leninists but struggling not in an isolated way. One person at a protest is not going to make a different, but when you are an organization with other organizations, you see the movement building up.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I am telling you now, there is a lot of stuff Nechaev said that is attributed to Bakunin. Bakunin was a Libertarian. Loads of people try to discredit him.


But the fact remains that Bakunin did enter into partnership with Nechaev, and under his influence wrote a number of tracts that displayed a despotic, Machiavellian approach to revolution that far surpassed anything he ever accused Marx of. The authorship of some of the pieces in question has been disputed, but the relevant point is that Bakunin allowed these pamphlets to be published bearing his name and actively worked to distribute them knowing they bore his name.Even if all of that stuff about him wanting his "invisible dictatorship" and whatnot was wrong, he was still a slanderous sectarian arse.


Fine taken, but lets put it this way:

Who has killed more innocent people, more striking workers, and more dissenters, anarchists or Marxists?

That's on the level of the "who's made more successful revolutions, Marxists or anarchists?" argument. Completely stupid.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

So fake marxists, fake marxists who think revolution isnt about class struggle.

Please they dont say they at all.

http://www.geocities.com/antagonism1/oatu/index.html

[Charles Xavier]

Please they dont say they at all.

http://www.geocities.com/antagonism1/oatu/index.html


Seems helpful to the boss class.

[Red_Storm]

I belive that we shouldnt be devided as such irrelevant subjects, as ,,what is the state?,, Even the National Socialists and the Fascist had some major distinctions in their perceptions on many subjects, and in the same time they worked on almost the same platform. I belive that today the conditions for the revolutionary combat dictate to us not ot be dogmatic, but on the contrary to fuse in one power, revolutionary machine that would be able to find consensus on the different perceptions on many subjects, and act instead of discussion. Marx thought that Proudon was ,,Childish,, , so what, is there a bigger rebel than a child? :) summa summarum, we must act UNITED, that is one of the main pillars of marxism. Salute comrades, I am new on the forum.

P.S. My english sucks:D

[Blackscare]

Even if all of that stuff about him wanting his "invisible dictatorship" and whatnot was wrong, he was still a slanderous sectarian arse.

Get over it man, Bakunin seems to be all I ever see you talking about. Who cares what he said to/about Marx at this point? All these people are dead, continuing grudges is not at all constructive, all it leads people to do is ignore any possible theoretical contributions that a particular person may have made.


Bakunin misrepresented Marx's views, BOOO-HOOO at this point.

Bakunin's work is valuable to modern leftists, as is Marx's, Kropotkin's, Lenin's, etc.

Each have points that are worth considering or incorporating into one's worldview, hating one for slighting another that happens to be your favorite is childish. Childish, unproductive historical grudges.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Get over it man, Bakunin seems to be all I ever see you talking about. Who cares what he said to/about Marx at this point? All these people are dead, continuing grudges is not at all constructive, all it leads people to do is ignore any possible theoretical contributions that a particular person may have made.

Bakunin is the source of most of the anarchist criticisms of Marxism. If you don't think it's important for Anarchists and Marxists to realize that their goals aren't as radically different as people like you try to make them out to be, then that's your problem.


Each have points that are worth considering or incorporating into one's worldview, hating one for slighting another that happens to be your favorite is childish. Childish, unproductive historical grudges.I don't dislike Bakunin just because he misrepresented "my favorites" views. I'd be just as upset at any Marxist that went around claiming that Anarchists wanted to establish a totalitarian dictatorship.

It's not childish or unproductive at all. Preserving sectarian and unsubstantiated arguments that you seem a little too attached to, on the other hand, is.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Well said Black Scare. It is important we learn from Bakunin, he had many valuable teachings that any leftist not just Anarchists should read about.

[JohnnyC]

Get over it man, Bakunin seems to be all I ever see you talking about. Who cares what he said to/about Marx at this point? All these people are dead, continuing grudges is not at all constructive, all it leads people to do is ignore any possible theoretical contributions that a particular person may have made.


Bakunin misrepresented Marx's views, BOOO-HOOO at this point.

Bakunin's work is valuable to modern leftists, as is Marx's, Kropotkin's, Lenin's, etc.

Each have points that are worth considering or incorporating into one's worldview, hating one for slighting another that happens to be your favorite is childish. Childish, unproductive historical grudges.
To be honest, I tried reading Bakunin and I don't think his views and "theoretical contributions" are at all valuable to modern leftists.Also, it must be explained that Bakunin misrepresented Marx unless we want people today to make the same mistake as Bakunin.

[Red_Storm]

To be honest, I tried reading Bakunin and I don't think his views and "theoretical contributions" are at all valuable to modern leftists.Also, it must be explained that Bakunin misrepresented Marx unless we want people today to make the same mistake as Bakunin.
D o u belive Bakkunins expulsion from the first international in 1872 had a positive impact on the movement ( workers) ?

[Blackscare]

It's one thing to watch out for Bakunin's mistakes, that makes sense, but to equate anarchism with Bakunin because Bakunin is easy to attack is unproductive. Too many Marxists never take their critiques of anarchism past mud-flinging about Bakunin.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Fine taken, but lets put it this way:

Who has killed more innocent people, more striking workers, and more dissenters, anarchists or Marxists?

Um, capitalists. This is what I was talking about when I said modern anarchists would rather break out into useless sectarianism than actually do something constructive.

[JohnnyC]

D o u belive Bakkunins expulsion from the first international in 1872 had a positive impact on the movement ( workers) ?
I don't know.Thinking about stuff like that is pointless speculation, in my opinion.



It's one thing to watch out for Bakunin's mistakes, that makes sense, but to equate anarchism with Bakunin because Bakunin is easy to attack is unproductive. Too many Marxists never take their critiques of anarchism past mud-flinging about Bakunin.
Why do you think that many of us (Marxists) equate Anarchism with Bakunin?I personally never criticize anarchism because of mistakes Bakunin made, and if there are Marxists that do so I certainly don't agree with them.

[Red_Storm]

I don't know.Thinking about stuff like that is pointless speculation, in my opinion.



Why do you think that many of us (Marxists) equate Anarchism with Bakunin?I personally never criticize anarchism because of mistakes Bakunin made, and if there are Marxists that do so I certainly don't agree with them.

It seems that u are an orthodox marxsist. I too am marxsist, but i belive that every theory has its universal values. We cant be dogmatic at this time.

[Jack]

Um, capitalists. This is what I was talking about when I said modern anarchists would rather break out into useless sectarianism than actually do something constructive.

Because you would kill us if you got the chance. I don't really care if you think I'm "sectarian" for opposing Stalin-worshiping pigs who would do me in if they came to power

Trots are no different.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Because you would kill us if you got the chance. I don't really care if you think I'm "sectarian" for opposing Stalin-worshiping pigs who would do me in if they came to power

Trots are no different.

That is my worry. I don't mind being called 'sectarian'. We disagree on the state. Of course I would happily fight side by side with some variants of Marxism but the Leninists, Trots, Maoists scare me very much.

[Red_Storm]

That is my worry. I don't mind being called 'sectarian'. We disagree on the state. Of course I would happily fight side by side with some variants of Marxism but the Leninists, Trots, Maoists scare me very much.
Just as u scare them :thumbup:

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Because you would kill us if you got the chance. I don't really care if you think I'm "sectarian" for opposing Stalin-worshiping pigs who would do me in if they came to power

Trots are no different.

Honestly, not all Marxists want to kill you, just most of us. ;)

Seriously, are you just here to troll? You're almost like an anarchist Glenn Beck.

[Wanted Man]

Because you would kill us if you got the chance. I don't really care if you think I'm "sectarian" for opposing Stalin-worshiping pigs who would do me in if they came to power

Trots are no different.
Okay. If that's how you feel. By all means, don't be bothered about it any further and move on. It's not as if anyone is desperate to have you around.

But I do like the idea that everyone is conspiring to kill you. Did the voices tell you that? :lol:

[An archist]

Okay. If that's how you feel. By all means, don't be bothered about it any further and move on. It's not as if anyone is desperate to have you around.

But I do like the idea that everyone is conspiring to kill you. Did the voices tell you that? :lol:

Actually, a guy from the PVDA Belgium (the Belgian Workers Party) told me literally that 'after the revolution, people like me would be shot.' He was in his forties and perfectly sober.

[StalinFanboy]

lololololol nice sectarianism.


Well I would argue its not weakening the movement as a whole as there are no anarchists in the trade union movements nor do they participate in it here in Canada so either they are being quite secretive or they are irrelevant. They aren't an organized force, rather they are small groups which come and go.
How can you make such a dumb assumption? You can't possibly know everyone in every trade union, nor their views (I'm sure there are tons of people who have anarchist views, but don't identify for whatever reason as anarchists).



What anarchists are for the most part are angry youth who want to fight back. Some either find the correct way to fight others after a period of radicalization then become dishearten and no longer participate in politics all together. Is there anything wrong with being young and angry? Or are you one of those people that skipped being young and went right into being an old piece of shit? My experience in the anarchist movement has been almost the opposite of yours. There are tons of young people in the anarchist movment, no one is going to deny that, but at the book fair in the Bay Area, the amount of people over the age of 30 was almost equal to the amount of people under the age of 30. In fact, the anarchists that first expelled the RCP from the fair were 45 at least.



Anarchists really do not exist in a meaningful way that is really divisive. I find there are a lot more social democrats with anarchistic views. Then there are actual anarchists. In the non-labour mass movements such as peace and the environment there are a couple anarchists here and there, but then again they have no leadership roles in the peace movement. And the environmental movement maybe you can make your argument there but it is dominated by social democrats and liberals.
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here, but I have this strange feeling that you're just talking out of your ass.

[Dr.Claw]

I truly think that a Marxism and communism is the beginning of Anarchy.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Actually, a guy from the PVDA Belgium (the Belgian Workers Party) told me literally that 'after the revolution, people like me would be shot.' He was in his forties and perfectly sober.

Exactly. This is the sort of sectarian, authoritarian stuff that makes me want to not associate with certain types of Marxists.

[Random Precision]

This thread has gone as it could be predicted by reading the OP. Since I'm getting weary of "successful revolutions"/"who killed more people"/biggest dick contests and persecution complexes, I'm going to close it.

[Bilan]

Edit: Didn't realize it was closed. Sorry, RP.