why anti-revisionism?

[danyboy27]

it seem these day that there is a sharp rise in anti revisionist on the forum, and seriously i dont get it.

i dont see how praising dead dictators ideas is supposed to bring progress and change in the world.

the more the time flee, the more i understand anarchist.

[trivas7]

Nostalgia for the past exists among all political persuasions.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Pure-stubborn hard-headedness.

[Dust Bunnies]

Nostalgia for the past exists among all political persuasions.

This, people remember the "good times" of the Soviet Union and such and think it was the worker's paradise. They look at the ills and other faults of these societies and pin it on counter-revolutionaries just like the leaders of these places did, while ironically, leaders like Stalin were the counter-revolutionaries.

[Kassad]

Anti-revisionism acknowledges that the failure of all revolutionary struggles that have successfully claimed power have come from straying away from Marxist-Leninist theory. Subsequently to the death of anti-revisionist leaders, revisionist leaders embraced capitalist reforms that embraced bourgeois democracy, allowing social inequality to rise and revolutionary gains to be destroyed. We aren't praising dead "dictators", as you claim.

[trivas7]

Anti-revisionism acknowledges that the failure of all revolutionary struggles that have successfully claimed power have come from straying away from Marxist-Leninist theory. Subsequently to the death of anti-revisionist leaders, revisionist leaders embraced capitalist reforms that embraced bourgeois democracy, allowing social inequality to rise and revolutionary gains to be destroyed. We aren't praising dead "dictators", as you claim.
B/c there is no pure Marxism-Leninism enshrined somewhere all subsequent Marxisms will look different from each other. Marxists will always be "creative" in its application; even Lenin had his comradely detractors, e.g. Rosa Luxemburg. You point to the crisis in Marxist theory that is ineluctable on a theoretical level.

[danyboy27]

Anti-revisionism acknowledges that the failure of all revolutionary struggles that have successfully claimed power have come from straying away from Marxist-Leninist theory. Subsequently to the death of anti-revisionist leaders, revisionist leaders embraced capitalist reforms that embraced bourgeois democracy, allowing social inequality to rise and revolutionary gains to be destroyed. We aren't praising dead "dictators", as you claim.


but, isnt the whole stalinist/leninist/castrist system created a form of social inequality?

from one side, you have the small people, and from the other, you have the party people, who got advantages, priviledges and other goodies the rest of the population cant benefit.

i dont think that beside north korea there is really a true anti-revisionist society that made it to the 21th century.

to me, its just an exemple that anti-revisionism is really wrong.

[Bud Struggle]

Anti-revisionism acknowledges that the failure of all revolutionary struggles that have successfully claimed power have come from straying away from Marxist-Leninist theory. Nothing wrong with that! Beside for the little party in Spain in the 1930s and the Paris Commune (maybe in one or two places more--RGacky has the list) Communism has been a total failure in practice.



Subsequently to the death of anti-revisionist leaders, revisionist leaders embraced capitalist reforms that embraced bourgeois democracy, allowing social inequality to rise and revolutionary gains to be destroyed. Internal squabbling. Those guys are long dead. It's time to reinvent "revisionism."


We aren't praising dead "dictators", as you claim. OK.

Good question, Spet!

[Cumannach]

Nothing wrong with that! Beside for the little party in Spain in the 1930s and the Paris Commune (maybe in one or two places more--RGacky has the list) Communism has been a total failure in practice.


Tell that to Hitler.

And then do a google for 'first man in space.'

[Bud Struggle]

Tell that to Hitler.

And then do a google for 'first man in space.'

Google "Former Socialist Countries".

They are gone--they didn't work. That doesn't mean socialism or Communism is a bad idea. It's just that they way they were tried DIDN'T WORK.

Time to try something new.

[Pogue]

Tell that to Hitler.

And then do a google for 'first man in space.'

I don't see how 'Communism' put the first man in Space.

And Hitler was defeated by a number of different forces. The Allies included the USA and Britain too, as well as Partisans. Many communists were crucial in defeating Hitler, in the partisan units and the assorted communists in national armies, but communismwasn't around in WW2 to defeat Hitler. The Red Army wasn't communist, nor was the USSR. No one will claim that. Some say 'socialist'. I dispute that too.

For communism to defeat Hitler, would mean that somehow a classless, stateless society defeated Hitler. That wasn't the case. The heroic efforts of many proletarians defeated Hitler.

[Cumannach]

Just because something isn't around anymore doesn't mean it didn't work.

That's why they air reruns of starsky and hutch.

[danyboy27]

Tell that to Hitler.

And then do a google for 'first man in space.'

russia won against the german DESPITE having Stalin in power. the fact is, stalin paranoia about anti-revionism and conspiracy made the war initially more difficult to win than it would have been supposed. most of the more emminents military generals where purged beccause of an imaginary plot against him. anti-revisionism did more bad than good to the russian.

[Bud Struggle]

Just because something isn't around anymore doesn't mean it didn't work.

That's why they air reruns of starsky and hutch.

John Lennon said it best:

If you go carrying picture of Chairman Mao
You ain't gunna make it with anyone anyhow.

Seriously, it's time for Communism to move on. RGacky and HLVS are good examples of what Communism CAN BE.

[Cumannach]

Hey don't buy into that John Lennon cult of personality.

Communism will come round again and you'll be glad when it does I promise.

[#FF0000]

John Lennon said it best:

If you go carrying picture of Chairman Mao
You ain't gunna make it with anyone anyhow.

Seriously, it's time for Communism to move on. RGacky and HLVS are good examples of what Communism CAN BE.

I just think people need to stop defining their politics with historical events and all that. One can be a Marxist-Leninist without getting weak in the knees thinking about the GLORIOUS SOVIET UNION and Stalin and Albania and Trotsky and Hoxha and the Cultural Revolution.

PROTIP: It's called "being a growed-up" or "not walking around in a state of self-parody".

[Hoxhaist]

Anti-Revisionism is learning from history! The states failed that adopted "revisions" to ideologies that had been proven successful. Stalin created an industrial and military superpower and a worldwide network of allies. Hoxha took a backwater, malaria-ridden, illiterate, feudal state and created an entirely self-sufficient modern nation with a literacy level equal to the US. Revisionism has only caused calamity in the states that it infects and social-imperialism in the targets of its nationalism

[Bud Struggle]

I just think people need to stop defining their politics with historical events and all that. One can be a Marxist-Leninist without getting weak in the knees thinking about the GLORIOUS SOVIET UNION and Stalin and Albania and Trotsky and Hoxha and the Cultural Revolution.

PROTIP: It's called "being a growed-up" or "not walking around in a state of self-parody".

Have you ever visited RevLeft.com? :)

[Bud Struggle]

Anti-Revisionism is learning from history! The states failed that adopted "revisions" to ideologies that had been proven successful. Something just the opposite, don't you think?


Stalin created an industrial and military superpower and a worldwide network of allies. He as also a mass murderer, a psychopath and a child rapist, to boot. But otherwise we like him! :)



Hoxha took a backwater, malaria-ridden, illiterate, feudal state and created an entirely self-sufficient modern nation with a literacy level equal to the US. And the main street of its capitol is now George Bush Blvd.


Revisionism has only caused calamity in the states that it infects and social-imperialism in the targets of its nationalism

And this is where the Communism of tommorrow falls apart. Really, truly, deeply: nobody wants another Stalin or Hoxha or Tito. Time for Communism to move on....the old show's over. If there is a future for Communism, you, me, we all have to invent it.

The past is done.

[manic expression]

John Lennon said it best:

If you go carrying picture of Chairman Mao
You ain't gunna make it with anyone anyhow.

Seriously, it's time for Communism to move on. RGacky and HLVS are good examples of what Communism CAN BE.

But wait, the Beatles obviously don't work...they broke up. I think it's time we stop praising dead musicians, don't you?

[Bud Struggle]

But wait, the Beatles obviously don't work...they broke up. I think it's time we stop praising dead musicians, don't you?

The Soviet Union broke up, too. It didn't work. Same with Eastern block Europe. Same with Yugoslavia. Time we stopping praising them, too.

Your metaphor is well taken, Comrade! :thumbup:

[Dimentio]

Anti-revisionism I guess owes its popularity to the rise of Red Alert 3...

[manic expression]

The Soviet Union broke up, too. It didn't work. Same with Eastern block Europe. Same with Yugoslavia. Time we stopping praising them, too.

Your metaphor is well taken! :thumbup:

I think you missed the sarcasm.... If you quote the Beatles, who broke up, don't get all hot and bothered if people support the Soviet Union, especially when they have valid reasons for doing so.

Basically, it's hypocritical for you to criticize people for quoting Lenin when you just quoted Lennon. (Oh, the irony here is endless)

[Dimentio]

I think you missed the sarcasm.... If you quote the Beatles, who broke up, don't get all hot and bothered if people support the Soviet Union, especially when they have valid reasons for doing so.

Basically, it's hypocritical for you to criticize people for quoting Lenin when you just quoted Lennon. (Oh, the irony here is endless)

I think the miss of sarcasm was mutual. ^^

[Post-Something]

Anti-Revisionism is such a joke.

EVEN if the stalinists managed to prove that all the errors of the soviet union were due to external forces.

EVEN if they manage to assert that "revisionism" is the reason for failure in the past.

EVEN if they manage to show that Stalin had a heart, or that he made all the right decisions.

It's still useless in the modern age. The fact of the matter is that they had their chance, and it didn't work. When they say something like, "yes, and we would have succeeded if it was wasn't for that meddlin' revisionism!", they don't take into consideration that their plan of action has to defend against these forces that will eventually tear the movement appart. The world we live in is even more well equiped for fighting revolutionary ideologies, and rehashing old worn out strategies really isn't going to do us any favours.

As for why people choose to adopt an ideology like this? I have no idea. Maybe they are caught in 1917. Maybe they still think that capitalism hasn't actually advanced since Marx had a look at it. I don't know. But whatever reason, I couldn't care less. traditional socialist strategy has to change radically.

[manic expression]

I think the miss of sarcasm was mutual. ^^

Yeah maybe, but I thought I might as well drive the point home, and the chance to hit that Lenin/Lennon line was just too tempting anyway. At the very least it pads my post count....

[Dimentio]

Anti-Revisionism is such a joke.

EVEN if the stalinists managed to prove that all the errors of the soviet union were due to external forces.

EVEN if they manage to assert that "revisionism" is the reason for failure in the past.

EVEN if they manage to show that Stalin had a heart, or that he made all the right decisions.

It's still useless in the modern age. The fact of the matter is that they had their chance, and it didn't work. When they say something like, "yes, and we would have succeeded if it was wasn't for that meddlin' revisionism!", they don't take into consideration that their plan of action has to defend against these forces that will eventually tear the movement appart. The world we live in is even more well equiped for fighting revolutionary ideologies, and rehashing old worn out strategies really isn't going to do us any favours.

As for why people choose to adopt an ideology like this? I have no idea. Maybe they are caught in 1917. Maybe they still think that capitalism hasn't actually advanced since Marx had a look at it. I don't know. But whatever reason, I couldn't care less. traditional socialist strategy has to change radically.

But Ali was the legitimate caliph!

[Bud Struggle]

I think you missed the sarcasm.... If you quote the Beatles, who broke up, don't get all hot and bothered if people support the Soviet Union, especially when they have valid reasons for doing so. No, I took your sarcasm and then turned it upside down. ;)


Basically, it's hypocritical for you to criticize people for quoting Lenin when you just quoted Lennon. (Oh, the irony here is endless) The irony there was my point.

[Dimentio]

I seriously think the vast majority of radical leftists in the western world really abhor the bureaucratic monsters created by marxist-leninist cu... vanguard parties.

I also think that marxism-leninism is popular in parts of eastern Europe and in the Third World due to the appalling conditions there. The tragic thing is that if we try it again, it will produce the same results.

The party should not rule the state.

[Bud Struggle]

The party should not rule the state.


Keep talking like that and you are going to be in OI before you know it. :D

[manic expression]

No, I took your sarcasm and then turned it upside down. ;)

The irony there was my point.

Even if you turned the sarcasm on its head, I killed it off completely by going all literal on everyone, so we're back to where we started. :thumbup1:

[Dimentio]

Keep talking like that and you are going to be in OI before you know it. :D

I must confess I am somewhat of an anarchist, and think the most important thing is to abolish the state and instead establish an entity which administrates resources, not people.

[Bud Struggle]

I must confess I am somewhat of an anarchist, and think the most important thing is to abolish the state and instead establish an entity which administrates resources, not people.

I'm somewhat of an anarchist, too. The clumsey bearucracies and
"Communist Party Bourgeoise" of the past are a failure. While personally Capitalism is good to me--I can understand Communism. And anarchism coupled with a decent technoracy is the only real way it could exist.

Dead Albanian dictators--just don't hold the keys to any real future for planet earth :( :D

[Bud Struggle]

Even if you turned the sarcasm on its head, I killed it off completely by going all literal on everyone, so we're back to where we started. :thumbup1:

Indeed! :thumbup::marx::che::trotski:

[Dimentio]

I'm somewhat of an anarchist, too. The clumsey bearucracies and
"Communist Party Bourgeoise" of the past are a failure. While personally Capitalism is good to me--I can understand Communism. And anarchism coupled with a decent technoracy is the only real way it could exist.

Dead Albanian dictators--just don't hold the keys to any real future for planet earth :( :D

I guess the charm of being an anti-revisionist is a little bit like being a member of an evangelical church. You don't have any ambiguities really.

[manic expression]

I guess the charm of being an anti-revisionist is a little bit like being a member of an evangelical church. You don't have any ambiguities really.

As someone who doesn't consider themselves an anti-revisionist, I don't think you're giving anti-revisionism nearly enough credit. First, most anti-revisionists, whether or not you agree with them, have a much more nuanced and informed view of the Soviet Union (and other states) than most. Second, not all anti-revisionists think alike. There are those who praise Stalin strongly, those who specify what they support and condemn about Stalin, and most importantly those who go beyond thinking of history as something defined by one man here or one leader there.

To be honest, those who condemn the Soviet Union and refuse to see anything progressive about it are the ones who truly reject all ambiguity and critical thought. Not surprisingly, you talk of anti-revisionists with a decidedly black-and-white mindset.

Oh, and TomK, enjoy the irony of your incorrect argument yet again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-2LQGigK-0

[#FF0000]

But wait, the Beatles obviously don't work...they broke up. I think it's time we stop praising dead musicians, don't you?

The Beatles weren't that great though.

[LeninBalls]

It's just that they way they were tried DIDN'T WORK.

Time to try something new.

Ridiculous, that's like telling a child who has failed to understand how to cycle a bike on their first try to NEVER TRY AGAIN BECAUSE IT DIDN'T WORK THE FIRST TIME.

[#FF0000]

Ridiculous, that's like telling a child who has failed to understand how to cycle a bike on their first try to NEVER TRY AGAIN BECAUSE IT DIDN'T WORK THE FIRST TIME.

I don't think he is saying that. I think he's saying communism needs a different angle.

[Dimentio]

I don't think he is saying that. I think he's saying communism needs a different angle.

Yes. Either the bicycle needs to be changed, or the user needs to be changed.

I am almost convinced that if a NET-style technocracy was implemented in Russia independently from any other country, it would within ten years degenerate into yet another autocracy.

Some has said that Russia spent the last 100 years to prove that socialism is not working, and will spend the next 100 years to prove that liberal democracy is not working.

[danyboy27]

its funny beccause you can see how anti-reviosionism failed russia so bad inside the way its military structure worked back then. countless of bad military decision or bad military project orientation where caused mainly beccause of that. a lot of verry avangardist idea where rejected from the table beccause of that, one of them being that rifle.

http://pookieweb.dyndns.org:61129/Groza/bullpups/Korobov-TKB-022PM.jpg

[#FF0000]

its funny beccause you can see how anti-reviosionism failed russia so bad inside the way its military structure worked back then. countless of bad military decision or bad military project orientation where caused mainly beccause of that. a lot of verry avangardist idea where rejected from the table beccause of that, one of them being that rifle.

http://pookieweb.dyndns.org:61129/Groza/bullpups/Korobov-TKB-022PM.jpg

Oh god I want that shit so badly

[danyboy27]

indeed rosarch!

basicly this is compact and it still retain the ak accuracy. using smaller projectile used in the ak-74 its accuracy approach the m16, but its compact, easy to use, powerful and accurate.

unfortunatly soviet leader and hardline generals didnt liked the weapon, so they decied to cancel the project. they didnt liked that someone had revisionist views on the holy ak, they really didnt liked it.

heavy soviet losses in afghanistan where also the direct result of heavy anti-revisionism on tactics used by old generals and member of the party.

it took them ages to realize that armored columns was not a viable strategy in a mountaineous terrain.

many improvement on military vehicules where only installed after the cold war, mainly beccause the crews had fear of showing a revisionist attitude toward their equipements.

test and performence results where often altered in order to hide potential flaws beccause it would show to the leadership that x or y person had a revisionist attitude.

that why i got big problems with anti-revisionism, at first, it goes in the leadership but after a while its poisonning the whole structures, and making progress a lot slower.

[Spooky]

it seem these day that there is a sharp rise in anti revisionist on the forum, and seriously i dont get it.

i dont see how praising dead dictators ideas is supposed to bring progress and change in the world.

the more the time flee, the more i understand anarchist.


But, here you are equating the act of revolution as being one and the same as the content of revolution.

If you believe that incremental change cannot bring about the desired results, then you often believe that revolution is necessary. And, if a people is subjected and robbed in a system that cannot be incrementally adjusted, then revolutionary terror becomes divine terror and is justified. The act of revolution itself is justified due to there being no other option. But, that is a different debate than I want to go into here.

However, when you say that people fetishize dead dictators what you are doing is equating the actions done within revolutions with the act of revolution itself. Many of the things done in the revolutions in China and Russia I do not agree with as being in line with true emancipatory politics, and think that many of the actions and forms that were done were fundamentally flawed.

However, that does not mean that I think that what they originally attempted to do was unjustified. In fact, I think they all had genuine emancipatory goals. My problem with these past leaders is that they were not radical enough, they were not revolutionary enough, and instead resorted to distortions that ultimately lead to failure.

So, in short, because someone upholds revolution as a necessary action does not necessarily mean that they fetishize past dictators, or look back in nostalgia. I for one do not hold much nostalgia for these time periods, other than the fact that they had a large store of Utopic energy which they were trying to turn into something great, which I admire.

The act of revolution itself shouldn't be tossed out as an option simply because other people, in other times, with other ideas and situations did actions that are unsavory to us today.

Form =/= content.

[Cumannach]

Yes. Either the bicycle needs to be changed, or the user needs to be changed.



How come I fell on my ass the few first times, but then got the hang of it and cycled to school on the same bicycle for the next 5 years?

[Pogue]

I think the most tragic thing about anti-revisionism is that Stalin and Mao issued crackshit ideologicla justifications for what were essentially power struggles and attempts to gain personal influence. For example, the purges weren't because of anti-communism but because Stalin was paranoid. The Great Leap Forward wasn't about advancing socialism, it was a complete disaster and a crafty little way to justify the power struggle, which is why it lacked order and produced nothing. That thing when people were encouraged to criticise the party by writing on walls wasn't democracy, it was a way to identify who felt what so you could kill them, etc. I think anti-revisionists are out of touch and if they lived in the reality of Stalins ussr they probably would have been murdered or died from starvation from one of the famines. I think its a tragic position because rather ridiculously these people have bought into the myths these dictators produce.

[Bud Struggle]

I think the most tragic thing about anti-revisionism is that Stalin and Mao issued crackshit ideologicla justifications for what were essentially power struggles and attempts to gain personal influence. For example, the purges weren't because of anti-communism but because Stalin was paranoid. The Great Leap Forward wasn't about advancing socialism, it was a complete disaster and a crafty little way to justify the power struggle, which is why it lacked order and produced nothing. That thing when people were encouraged to criticise the party by writing on walls wasn't democracy, it was a way to identify who felt what so you could kill them, etc. I think anti-revisionists are out of touch and if they lived in the reality of Stalins ussr they probably would have been murdered or died from starvation from one of the famines. I think its a tragic position because rather ridiculously these people have bought into the myths these dictators produce.

I completely agree. And as a matter of fact nothing hurts the cause of Communism more than Stalinists and Maoist bring up their ideologies in polite discussion. It's like someone bring up Hitler--it gets you nowhere.

The question I have is: have Stalin and Mao (and the other 20th century dictators) poisoned Marxism to it's death or is it still viable? It seems to me that Anarchism is the only path that has a chance right now.

[hugsandmarxism]

Stalin was, like, the devil, and stuff.


You're SOOO right about that! You have such a perceptive grasp of history young man.

This.

[Bud Struggle]

This.

:D

[GracchusBabeuf]

This.

There needs to be bosses to tell the stupid workers what to do

Right on the ball there, my man
This.

[F9]

Ehmmm, lets not turn this into video games discussion, back on topic please!
Cleaned the topic from the video games offtopic discussions

Fuserg9:star:

[Bud Struggle]

Ehmmm, lets not turn this into video games discussion, back on topic please!
Cleaned the topic from the video games offtopic discussions

Fuserg9:star:

If you would so oblidge--take off your MOD hat and comment on the issue. I'd be interested in hearing your comments.

[Pogue]

its funny beccause you can see how anti-reviosionism failed russia so bad inside the way its military structure worked back then. countless of bad military decision or bad military project orientation where caused mainly beccause of that. a lot of verry avangardist idea where rejected from the table beccause of that, one of them being that rifle.

http://pookieweb.dyndns.org:61129/Groza/bullpups/Korobov-TKB-022PM.jpg

whats it called?

[Bright Banana Beard]

We all like him because he is our glorious leader who will reincarnate very soon. He will lead us to world revolution, killing all petty-bourgeois anarchist and cryptic-trotskyist.
I have become Apeman Soldier for our glorious leader's cause. He is a certainly a good man.
[/sacrasm]
I just done ranting. Thank you for wasting your time reading this. Seriously, we have Stalin avatar just to tick you off into defensive position.

[Bud Struggle]

Listen here's MY point. (From a Capitalist.) If you want EQUALITY for everyone in the world. I'm for it. I can loose my stuff very easily if everyone is the same, everyone equal. But if you want a Vanguard, Big Hats, a Bureaucracy, Dachas, a Communist Party, Stalinistic Meglomaniacs--why should I bother? I rose to the top of the Capitalist scheme--I can do the same in the Communist. I'll get ahead, trust me on this.

If you want real fairness? I'm interested--All men are brothers in Christ. If you want some Union of Soviet Socialist "Equalities" --I'll get to the top again--a bit of effort, but the Communist bureauocrats in USSR turned into Bourgeois company owners in a freakin' heartbeat. You think there's not some connection?

Anti-revisionists: Meet the new boss--same as the old boss.

[RGacky3]

Seriously, it's time for Communism to move on. RGacky and HLVS are good examples of what Communism CAN BE.

I appreciate the kudos, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Libertarian Communism and all about genuine sensible free Socialism was around before Lenin came, its not a new idea, its a set of principles that have been around and are relevent no matter what really because they have to do with simple power structure.

As HLVS said, anti-revisionism, like Capitalism, Like monarchism, are essencially crackpot ideological justifications for the power structure and status quo in the societies.


How come I fell on my ass the few first times, but then got the hang of it and cycled to school on the same bicycle for the next 5 years?

Thats a very interesting way to look at society ... like a science class experiment or something. Lenins Socialism failed before it even started, there never was real communism, and the socialism was a fake socialism, the end of the USSR in the 1990s was'nt a failure of Communism, it was a collapse of Lenins psudo socialism. If you try it again, it will be the same result, because essencually, its the same power structure. You can't make Capitalism better by just changing the Capitalists, the same goes for Leninis SOcialism.


However, that does not mean that I think that what they originally attempted to do was unjustified. In fact, I think they all had genuine emancipatory goals. My problem with these past leaders is that they were not radical enough, they were not revolutionary enough, and instead resorted to distortions that ultimately lead to failure.

So, in short, because someone upholds revolution as a necessary action does not necessarily mean that they fetishize past dictators, or look back in nostalgia. I for one do not hold much nostalgia for these time periods, other than the fact that they had a large store of Utopic energy which they were trying to turn into something great, which I admire.


Its was NOT because they wern't radical enough, it was because they were the ... leaders, the had the power, power corrupts, they became the new ruling class thus destroying socialism.

Revolution is great, we all want revolutoin, but we don't want a Maos revolutoin, or a Leninis revolution, we want a peoples revolutoin, lead, by the people. Not by a couple dudes who claim to represent the people.

The fact is those revolutions were genuine, for the most part, the people wanted freedom and equality, but the way it went about, with a strict hiarchy, nessesarily leads to what it lead to, thats always been the case. You can't set up a strict hiarchy and give a few people vast amounts of power and expect a communist society.


To be honest, those who condemn the Soviet Union and refuse to see anything progressive about it are the ones who truly reject all ambiguity and critical thought. Not surprisingly, you talk of anti-revisionists with a decidedly black-and-white mindset.


Yeah, therea are many positive things about the United States as well. Whats your point? My point is thats what Lenin brought about was'nt socialism.

[Bud Struggle]

( To the tune of the Rainbow Connection.)

Why are there so many threads about Anarchists?
What do they really believe?
Anarchist are Commies, but not really Marxists,
And Anarchists have nothing to hide.
So we've been told and some choose to believe it
Maybe they're wrong, just wait and see.
Someday we'll find it, the Anarchist connection,
RGacky, H-L-V-S and me.

;) :D

[Edit] Neither RGacky or HLVS have anything to do with this lyric--or me. :)

[Blackscare]

I just don't understand how vesting the future of a revolution in one person is at all a good idea (that's assuming stalin or mao had good ideas for forwarding revolution in the first place).


When will people who lament the deaths of "great leaders" and the "revisionism" that comes later realize that the strategy of placing your future in one personality is a weakness in itself?