American Party of Labor [Archive]

Prairie Fire

16th October 2009, 08:01

I'm tight with many of the APL members, because the APL is a member of the HU.
For this reason, while I'm only a foriegn comrade of their organization, I'll answer for them a bit:

The American Party of Labour is a Marxist-Leninist organization started in the United States in 2007.

The founding congress was held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Dec. 5th-8th, 2008

The party operates across the United States, from New York to California, Wisconsin, Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania...

The largest party centres are in Atlanta,GA and Milwaukee,WI.

The current General Secretary is Comrade Alexander I. Serpov.

The Political line is Marxist-Leninist. The party draws inspiration from the socialist nation-building projects in the Soviet Union during the time period of 1917-1954, and the experience of the Peoples Socialist Republic of Albania, as well as various movements and parties around the world.

The party takes their theoretical guidance largely from the works of Comrades Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels,V.I. Lenin, J.V.Stalin and Enver Hoxha, but developes ongoing contemporary analysis based on the current situation in the United States of America.

The Party's politics are oriented towards the working class, and most of the party's membership is comprised from this class. The party represents several demographics, and both the central comittee and general membership feature people of varied ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation.

The official webpage of the party, while under construction, is here: http://www.americanpartyoflabor.org (http://www.americanpartyoflabor.org)

The party's mass press (this comprises much of their public literature) is located here, and I occasionally contribute to it as well: http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/

In terms of politics, it is arguably the most advanced party in the American left. It has my support behind it to this day.

Now to answer some of the comments posted here:

Which doctor:

I can't say I have any experience with them

okay, fair enough. If you would have stopped typing after this sentence, your contribution would be valid. Instead, you keep going.

but judging by their website, I don't think they do anything.

In Atlanta, for instance, the APL is very active in the anti-war movement, the un-employed peoples movement, and other actions of the working class.

I'll let you off the hook because you never conclusively stated that you believe that they "don't do anything", but you do imply it. No investigation, no right to speak.

Besides a guy who writes a blog,

By "blog", I assume that you mean the phoenix, because the other website isn't a blog.

A skimming of the first page of the Red Phoenix (never mind clicking on 'previous entries') reveals 5 different authors.

Alltogether, I count 9 seperate authors who have contributed to the phoenix since it was started (If you want to get technical, one of those, myself, is technically a foreign comrade not an APL member).

From my experience, they have many other members who don't contribute to their periodicals.

Somehow, despite reading the blog with articles written by different authors, you refer to the blog as though it is the work of one persyn.

I don't see any other signs of life for this supposed "American Party of Labor."

You could have contacted the website and asked for more info.

Even their online library only has one title, and it's by Stalin of all people.

I'll ignore the Stalin jab.

The website is under construction. APL members are workers, hence they have jobs where they work, hence projects sometimes take a long time ( we are still working on the statement on the anniversary of the war in Afghanistan, which will be a few days late.).

If you go to their Contact Us page, you'll notice they've already divided the US into 8 districts, but I bet all the email addresses go to the same lonely man sitting in his underwear in his mother's basement.

I like how you form opinions without any information what-so-ever.

The cliche "internet creep" stereotype was a nice touch. It really drove your point home.

Even an established radical left organization would be lucky to have such a regional presence across the country.

They simply divided the country into organizational zones to contend with their membership spread across the country.

Nutjobs like this

At least you are being objective :rolleyes: (to an organization that you admitedly know nothing about).

...start fringe political parties frequently

The term "fringe" is a bullshit term used to marginalize the majority of political parties in any country from the democratic process.

but within due time, they lost interests and stop paying their hosting fees and their sites go off line.I've seen it happen dozens of times.

Apparently you have somehow grouped the APL in with a whole trend that you refuse to elaborate on.

Again, it is great that you are coming to un-informed conclusions about an organization that you have no experience with.

Plus, this one's a Hoxhaist party of all things, like they're not even trying to pretend they're not a joke.

Gratutious.

The American Hohxaist phenomenon seems to be entirely restricted to the realm of the internets.

Wrong. It predates the proliferation of the internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist_Party,_USA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Marxist-Leninist_Organization

http://www.usmlo.org/

There is also the Alliance ML group run by Hari Kumar, Which has gravitated towards the HU quite a bit...

You are not going to find a whole bunch of such parties, because more than one party of the same orientation is largely un-necesary. As you will notice from the wikipedia articles, the only reason that there was a MLP-USA and a USMLO is because of a split in the organization. At one time, they were one.

I have pointed out a few areas where the APL is active, but if you don't want to use that as an example, consider the USMLO in New York state.

Communist USA:

There's a few APL members on RevLeft,

You would be surprised.

All of the American HU, even those who never posted on revleft or no longer do so, are now APL.

That includes prominent revlefters Andres Marcos, Comrade Crum, Ismail,Lenin II...All of the American Hoxhaists on revleft are APL.

Their website seems to be a work in progress at this point.

C'est la vie.

Kassad:

but they're a brand new party working from scratch. They're not a split of some other group that already has members and materials, so they're in the initial stages of founding their party

Kassad is mostly correct.

A lot of the APL were once members of either the CP-USA or the RCP-USA. That said, the organization was not a genuine split from either one of these groups, but rather was made by comrades who came together independently much later after leaving their respective organizations.

Stancel:

It appears like they've been just founded.

Actually, it is almost two years old by now, I think.

Still relatively new, but not that new.

Jacob Ritcher

Their Draft Program doesn't look good,

(Sigh). PM me and give me the full theoretical criticism.

but their platform does (no mentions of individuals http://www.revleft.com/vb/american-party-labor-t119934/revleft/smilies/wink.gif ).
Glad you like it.

Alastair:

All the shitty Red Alert fanboy Soviet imagery kinda puts me off

You, somehow, see parrallels to Red alert/Soviet Imagery? I thought it was pretty proffesionally done.

It appears they have the flag of Albania as the banner for their blog,

Erm, no.... That is a Phoenix. You know, the mythical fire bird?

The Albanian eagle has 2 heads (and looks like an eagle).

Since you were allready aware that they were Hoxhaist, perhaps you were biased from the beginning in your outlook.
Perhaps you were looking for overt references to Albania, and hence you found one.

and that weird thing next to their party's name at the top, Party logo I assume, looks like a demonic transformer, like the image of a stereotypically evil organisation in a dumb movie or something.

Perhaps something to do with the fact that communists are almost always portrayed as villains in films (and pseudo-marxist iconography is used in films for other more generic baddies?)?

It is wheat in a cog-wheel. Agriculture and industry. Ironically, we were trying to AVOID gratuitous socialist imagery like the hammer and sickle (as classic as it is), but get the same message across.

Now, the new symbol comes under fire. If you don't like it, we'll see you at the next congress.

It's funny and disturbing all at once.

How is it funny, and how is it disturbing?

You are reading a lot of context into it that isn't there (how you managed to get a Red Alert reference out of that site, I have no idea.).

I think, like Which doctor (who made a whole fictional character out of the site), you went onto the site with your mind made up, and with archetypes allready in your mind.

Stancel:

hmm....I liked the logo. I don't really see a lot of imagery on their site.

Thank you!

Of course, the problem I will always have is that they're Stalinists. But as Jacob said the platform is well done.

Hmmm.... well, at least the politics speak for themselves, and hold up under scrutiny. That is all that really matters, despite intial prejudices.

Jacob Ritcher:

but not only am I amazed by the APL's ability to cough up a very good platform,

I suppose that is a compliment. Good to hear.

I am puzzled by the WPNZ's inability to speed up discussions on a program (including immediate platform) beyond its current five-point platform.

Well, it is a hybrid group. You want to put Trots and Maoists together, and get a coherent political program?

So,yeah. The pickins' are slim in the US, so the APL has my vote. I highly recommend them to revleft.

Kayser_Soso

16th October 2009, 08:48

Hey Comrade Prarie Fire, don't forget Moscow!

Now down to business...

The detractor who tried to claim that the "Hoxhaist" phenomenon is internet based is also clearly unaware of the many pro-Albanian parties around the world, such as the Turkish Labour Party.

And to the detractor who claimed the website has Red Alert imagery- what version of the game were you playing? The APL's symbol is most similar aesthetically to that of the PDPA(People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan), though not intentionally so. It is also similar(again not intentionally) to the logo of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Russia and both the Turkish Labour Party and the Turkish Communist Party. Since you're obviously new to the movement, having just recently discovered the game Red Alert, you had better get used to seeing imagery associated with labor.

Revy

16th October 2009, 09:04

The logo is grain inside a gear with a star at the top.
Similar to the hammer and sickle it is a reference to industrial and agricultural workers.

At least that's how I interpret it.

Wanted Man

16th October 2009, 09:11

You would be surprised.

All of the American HU, even those who never posted on revleft or no longer do so, are now APL.

That includes prominent revlefters Andres Marcos, Comrade Crum, Ismail,Lenin II...All of the American Hoxhaists on revleft are APL.

Is that how the party came together in the first place? Where do they stand as compared to the hoxhaist ICMLPO, or groups like the CPC-ML in Canada? What do they think of groups like the PSL in the US?

Prairie Fire

16th October 2009, 09:27

Is that how the party came together in the first place?

Nope... The party was in foundation for a while, from a splinter from a previous attempt at a party that had collapsed, which was called the Communist Party of America (Bolsheviks).

Some of the folks who left that were trying to get something new going, I approached them, and we made mutually beneficial arrangements.

All of the Americans in the HU joined the American Party of labour.

In return, the American party of Labour became the practical arm of HU organizing in the United States.

Now, the relationship between the two is similar to the relationship between the RCP-USA and the RIM.

Where do they stand as compared to the hoxhaist ICMLPO,

They are applying for membership in the ICMLPO.

or groups like the CPC-ML in Canada?

They are not affiliated with the CPC-ML. They emphaisze the Albanian experience more than the contemporary CPC-ML does.

What do they think of groups like the PSL in the US?

They generally regard the PSL with contempt, and the same goes for the other revisionist parties in the United States.

The PSL is "pan-socialist", which strikes the APL as dangerous lack of direction and a source of internal contradiction.

There are some in the APL who are either ex-PSL, or still maintain some ties to that organization.

Kayser_Soso

16th October 2009, 09:29

The APL is currently in the process of contacting and establishing relations with the ICMLPO. I maintain the party's contact with Communists in Albania and other European countries, but for the moment mostly Turkey.

Dimentio

16th October 2009, 10:31

Good luck in the 2010 US Congress elections.

I am certain the American workers overwhelmingly will support a party upholding a dead Albanian dictator. :sleep:

Kayser_Soso

16th October 2009, 10:50

Good luck in the 2010 US Congress elections.

I am certain the American workers overwhelmingly will support a party upholding a dead Albanian dictator. :sleep:

Oh shit! That was precisely our plan, to run Enver Hoxha against Palin and Obama in 2012, but now thanks to your pithy comment, I think we all see the futility of it all! I am going to go convert to Mormonism now, thank you for showing me the way.

Crux

16th October 2009, 11:30

Congratulations on upholding the sino-albanian split.

Wanted Man

16th October 2009, 13:32

Good luck in the 2010 US Congress elections.

I am certain the American workers overwhelmingly will support a party upholding a dead Albanian dictator. :sleep:

Luckily, technocracy is alive and kicking in Europe. Nevermind the upcoming far-right, the increase of the pension age from 65 to 67, the freezing of student grants, and the fall of the DSB Bank; all workers here are concerned with establishing the technate.

Die Neue Zeit

16th October 2009, 15:17

The Party's politics are oriented towards the working class, and most of the party's membership is comprised from this class. The party represents several demographics, and both the central comittee and general membership feature people of varied ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation.

Actually, if you guys can get that minority of non-workers into becoming workers, that would be even better (making the APL a workers-only organization). :)

The website is under construction. APL members are workers, hence they have jobs where they work, hence projects sometimes take a long time ( we are still working on the statement on the anniversary of the war in Afghanistan, which will be a few days late.).

Indeed.

A lot of the APL were once members of either the CP-USA of the RCP-USA. That said, the organization was not a genuine split from either one of these groups, but rather was made by comrades who came together independently much later after leaving their respective organizations.

I wonder if the APL would consider a name change when the CP-USA collapses.

(Sigh). PM me and give me the full theoretical criticism.

I'll work on it indeed.

It is wheat in a cog-wheel. Agriculture and industry. Ironically, we were trying to AVOID gratuitous socialist imagery like the hammer and sickle (as classic as it is), but get the same message across.

Inside the cog-wheel, I was wondering if you guys would consider inserting either a tong (clerical workers) like the Communist League or a compass (professionally educated workers) like the DDR coat of arms, or even both to replace the sheath of grain. Farm workers are a small minority compared to clerical workers and professional workers, and peasants are non-existent in advanced capitalist countries.

Well, it is a hybrid group. You want to put Trots and Maoists together, and get a coherent political program?

I'll wait for Alastair and Arizona Bay to reply.

which doctor

16th October 2009, 16:51

Ismail

16th October 2009, 17:39

It all amounts to little more than historical apologism,The Hoxhaists in Ecuador and Mali participate in the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCMLE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malian_Party_of_Labour

The party's activity is pretty much focused on Atlanta, Georgia. Pamphlets are handed out, recruitment efforts made, etc. The rest of the districts are rather limited for now. Then again, the founder of the APL and its main members are in the south and do their best there.

You incorrectly assume that we just go around praising Enver Hoxha all day. In Ecuador and Mali for example (or for that matter, the EMEP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMEP) in Turkey or the various other Hoxhaist parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_of_Marxist-Leninist_Parties_and_Organizations_%28Unity_%26_St ruggle%29)), they pretty much never talk about Hoxha (or Stalin, or Lenin, or even Marx to an extent) unless asked. Then they discuss him (or them) and clear up misconceptions. Obviously they propagate Marxism-Leninism, but it's not "Hey man, have you heard about ENVER HOXHA?" It's "We must achieve socialism in X" and appealing to what workers actually want. Deep discussions about Hoxha, Stalin, etc. are generally confined to theoretical journals and party cadres.

I am certain the American workers overwhelmingly will support a party upholding a dead Albanian dictator.Not much worse than a dead Chinese "dictator" or a dead Georgian "dictator." Or for that matter, a dead Russian "dictator." Or two certain dead Germans whose deaths occurred over 100 years ago. Hoxha died in 1985 and his writings continued up until then. That's pretty good compared to the competition.

Crux

16th October 2009, 17:51

The Brazilian Communist Party who takes part in the "center-left" government of Lula in brazil are also Hoxhaists, in fact they were the only party outside of albania where a majority sided with Hoxha in the sino-soviet split.

Pogue

16th October 2009, 19:01

Crux

16th October 2009, 19:07

Prairie Fire

16th October 2009, 19:31

Pogue, your trolling isn't even clever.

Mayakovsky

Oh snap!

Really? Oh, c'mon!

Now I'm understanding how Pogues rep is so high, if people are giving him credit for clumsy reptition of tired cliches like this one.

Pirate turtle the 11th

16th October 2009, 19:46

Well I for one find the pougesters trolling to be worthy of respect and recognition.

Kayser_Soso

16th October 2009, 20:05

Do they have a policy on increasing funding to tanks? You never know when the working class will need the party to send tanks in against them. First thing a socialist party should consider in my opinion.

Why not just use the anarchist tactic of shooting people without any trial? That would probably be cheaper.

Kayser_Soso

16th October 2009, 20:14

I'll admit that my previous comments were purely conjecture on my part based on looking at their website, but I still remain steadfast in my belief that anyone who thinks a Hoxhaist political party in the US is a viable idea is at least mildly delusional. It all amounts to little more than historical apologism, which I can guarantee won't succeed in winning over the working-class.

Bullshit, we put together a campaign ad that combines all the key elements of an American political advertisement.

1. A tractor harvesting grain.

2. Children playing on a playground.

3. A young family moving into a house.

4. Old lovers on a park bench.

5. A waving American flag.

And check out our latest brochure, which compares the late Enver Hoxha(our candidate) to Barack Obama.

How do they stack up?

Betrayed his supporters' demand for healthcare? HOXHA- NO OBAMA- YES

Refuses to end American wars of Aggression? HOXHA- NO OBAMA-YES

Bails out banks and does nothing to help working people? HOXHA- NO, OBAMA- YES!

Is dead, and therefore physically incapable of doing any worse? HOXHA- YES! OBAMA- NO!

16th October 2009, 20:14

Verbal warning for both Pogue and Kayser_Soso for trolling.

Keep this above chit-chat.

Crux

16th October 2009, 20:15

Oh how could I forget Partido Bandera Roja (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flag_Party)in Venezuela. Their history speaks for itself I am afraid.

h9socialist

16th October 2009, 20:24

Kayser_Soso

16th October 2009, 20:32

Verbal warning for both Pogue and Kayser_Soso for trolling.

Keep this above chit-chat.

Detractors who come in here with stupid comments deserve trolling. Nothing less.

Kayser_Soso

16th October 2009, 20:35

I'm one who believes that every part of the Left eventually has some function in overcoming capitalism -- but I am nervous about the term "anti-revisionist" -- that seems like a synonym for "dogmatist."

The problem is that without the Albanian perspective, the whole left is basically playing in a historical framework erected by the bourgeoisie. This framework basically says that the Marxist socialist experiment was more or less one constant tendency, and that it was too radical on the side of central planning and thus failed. Actually though the opposite is true- revisionists began reforming toward the market, and there was actually no logical reason to begin doing so, other than the idea held by a few(like Malenkov) that it was time to start going over to consumer goods production.

The end result is that now we have these 21st century socialists who are basically nothing more than 20th century liberals, making the same mistakes that brought down nearly every socialist state. As long as the enemy is allowed to set the terms of the fight, socialists will lose.

Ismail

16th October 2009, 20:36

Oh how could I forget Partido Bandera Roja (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flag_Party)in Venezuela. Their history speaks for itself I am afraid.I prefer the genuine Venezuelan Hoxhaists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist_Communist_Party_of_Venezuela

Parties who got overtaken from the CIA and expelled from the ICMLPO (plus abandoned Hoxhaism for Maoism; their website had/has a portrait of Mao as soon as the page loads) don't seem very trustworthy to me, which describes the BR well.

Even then, the BR fought as Hoxhaist guerrillas in the 70's-90's and did a fairly good job, being listed as a terrorist organization by the US government. They gradually degenerated into Maoism and Social-Democracy after Albania fell.

Are you going to talk about the MAP-ML (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAP-ML) in Nicaragua and allude to them being horrendous because the Sandinistas didn't like them very much?

I'm one who believes that every part of the Left eventually has some function in overcoming capitalism -- but I am nervous about the term "anti-revisionist" -- that seems like a synonym for "dogmatist."Good job using Maoist sloganeering. The usage of the term "dogmatist" has become itself dogmatic. The RCPUSA uses the term quite liberally.

Leo

16th October 2009, 20:47

The Hoxhaists in Ecuador and Mali participate in the government.

The Brazilian Communist Party who takes part in the "center-left" government of Lula in brazil are also Hoxhaists

Yeah, congratulations to Hoxhaists, well done :rolleyes:

or for that matter, the EMEP (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMEP) in Turkey or the various other Hoxhaist parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_of_Marxist-Leninist_Parties_and_Organizations_%28Unity_%26_St ruggle%29)), they pretty much never talk about Hoxha

That is because EMEP (Labor Party of Turkey) is officially not Hoxhaist. I have talked with individual members who considered themselves to be Hoxhaists as well as those who did not consider themselves as such. It is a legalist party which is torn between the traditional Turkish nationalist "anti-American" rhetoric of the left (with a jargon constantly praising the national independence of Turkey) and the "unconditional support" (as it calls it) it gives to the Democratic Society Party (legal wing of the Kurdish nationalist PKK, social democratic in general policy). The illegal organization whose cadres formed EMEP to legalize, the Turkish Revolutionary Communist Party was pro-Albanian but it is basically defunct at the moment.

It is sort of funny that the Hoxhaists on Revleft seem to be unaware of the main active organizations that actually have an openly Hoxhaist line in Turkey.

Ismail

16th October 2009, 20:51

Yeah, congratulations to Hoxhaists, well doneThe comparison between upholding the Brazilian bourgeoisie (which is what the PCDoB does) and the Ecuadorians and Malians, who fought against the state (and in Mali's case participated in the overthrow of reactionary military rule) aside, I would say that the latter two examples are positive, yes.

That is because EMEP (Labor Party of Turkey) is officially not Hoxhaist.Neither are most Hoxhaist parties.

It is sort of funny that the Hoxhaists on Revleft seem to be unaware of the main active organizations that actually have an openly Hoxhaist line in Turkey.News to me. Jorge Miguel (who is banned, but is in Turkey and works with the EMEP there) has said constantly how the leadership is, in fact, Hoxhaist. Most activities are conducted through the EMEP and not the TDKP. The EMEP is quite restricted in its activities for reasons that, after a brief look, into should be obvious.

Kayser_Soso

16th October 2009, 20:54

Yeah, congratulations to Hoxhaists, well done :rolleyes:

That is because EMEP (Labor Party of Turkey) is officially not Hoxhaist. I have talked with individual members who considered themselves to be Hoxhaists as well as those who did not consider themselves as such. It is a legalist party which is torn between the traditional Turkish nationalist "anti-American" rhetoric of the left (with a jargon constantly praising the national independence of Turkey) and the "unconditional support" (as it calls it) it gives to the Democratic Society Party (legal wing of the Kurdish nationalist PKK, social democratic in general policy). The illegal organization whose cadres formed EMEP to legalize, the Turkish Revolutionary Communist Party was pro-Albanian but it is basically defunct at the moment.

It is sort of funny that the Hoxhaists on Revleft seem to be unaware of the main active organizations that actually have an openly Hoxhaist line in Turkey.

You would be hard pressed to find any party that describes itself as "Hoxhaist" because most "Hoxhaists" don't believe in "Hoxhaism" in the first place. Hoxha did not make major theoretical contributions to Marxism-Leninism. He did make a lot of practical contributions on the other hand. "Hoxhaist" is often a useful label for anti-revisionists who want to differentiate themselves from Maoists, who also sometimes sport the anti-revisionist label. Naturally we can and do get along with some Maoists, for the sake of healthy debate, but it is best when people put all their cards on the table.

And as for the national independence for Turkey, I believe you are confusing them with the TKP, which is more pro-republican. EMEP's anti-American rhetoric is simply anti-imperialism.

Leo

16th October 2009, 21:28

Neither are most Hoxhaist parties.I think this is because the "Hoxhaist parties" you are referring to were pro-Albanian when it was popular, and dropped it when it all went down just like it happened with most official CPs and the USSR.

News to me. Jorge Miguel (who is banned, but is in Turkey and works with the EMEP there) has said constantly how the leadership is, in fact, Hoxhaist.Maybe nostalgic about their Hoxhaist days, or closet-Hoxhaists at most. They did, after all, expel the most fanatical among their ranks, that is to say those who opposed the dissolution of the Turkish Revolutionary Communist Party and wanted to keep pushing forward an actually Hoxhaist line. I know some of these people are still active but haven't met them, they are very tiny compared to the other mentioned Hoxhaist groups.

The EMEP is quite restricted in its activities for reasons that, after a brief look, into should be obvious. EMEP is considered too restricted in its activities even by the Liberty and Solidarity Party (!) - they celebrated the last mayday in Istanbul and the one before that with the Turkish nationalist unions and the ultra-nationalist Workers' Party safely and soundly while the Turkish police was beating the hell out of workers and students at the other side of the Bosphorus.

And as for the national independence for Turkey, I believe you are confusing them with the TKP, which is more pro-republican. EMEP's anti-American rhetoric is simply anti-imperialism.Nope, the TKP is an openly chauvinist organization with an anti-Kurdish stance and a fanatical defence of the border of Turkey. While EMEP does not go nearly as far, EMEP's anti-American rhetoric is also nationalistic. I remember them organizing a national independence demo rival to the one organized by the TKP. This tends to be the case with all leftist anti-American rhetoric as opposed to the principled internationalist opposition to the entire world capitalism as well as America anyway though.

Also, it is hard to confuse anyone with the TKP.

Kayser_Soso

16th October 2009, 21:29

The EMEP is quite restricted in its activities for reasons that, after a brief look, into should be obvious.

To illustrate how restricted they are, the party was until a few years ago known as the Emeğin Partısı, or Party of Labour, but the government actually banned that name, hence the change(or IIRC what they told me, the original name) Emek Partısı. Apparently to the Turkish government, grammar makes a big difference. I joked with some of my EMEP comrades that if they should ever get around to banning the word "Party", everyone would be screwed.

Kayser_Soso

16th October 2009, 21:35

I think this is because the "Hoxhaist parties" you are referring to were pro-Albanian when it was popular, and dropped it when it all went down just like it happened with most official CPs and the USSR.

Or perhaps nobody every used the term Hoxhaist at all(except perhaps some detractors of Albania), including the Albanian Party of Labor itself- huh?

Nope, the TKP is an openly chauvinist organization with an anti-Kurdish stance and a fanatical defence of the border of Turkey. While EMEP does not go nearly as far, EMEP's anti-American rhetoric is also nationalistic. I remember them organizing a national independence demo rival to the one organized by the TKP. This tends to be the case with all leftist anti-American rhetoric as opposed to the principled internationalist opposition to the entire world capitalism as well as America anyway though.

Also, it is hard to confuse anyone with the TKP.

I think you should define nationalistic. I have not seen any aspect of EMEP's anti-NATO, anti-American stance that could be called nationalistic compared to the anti-NATO/American stance of other workers' parties, and I know of some organizations that do fit that bill quite nicely(like KPRF or KPU in Ukraine).

For a country that has been and still is under the thumb of an empire for decades, it is not nationalistic to protest against that empire and assert their self-determination. Self-determination is not incompatible with internationalism, particularly for countries which have been oppressed as Turkey has by the US and NATO.

A.R.Amistad

16th October 2009, 21:38

when the CP-USA collapses.-Jacob Richter

:D This quote makes me smile, I was a member for a very, very, very sad year. Glad thats all over.

Kayser_Soso

16th October 2009, 21:41

It is indeed possible that the CP-USA will collapse pretty soon. Rumor has it the leadership intends to turn it into a full-time Democracy ass-kissing organization called "People before Profits" or some other lame-ass name like that.

Pogue

16th October 2009, 21:56

Why not just use the anarchist tactic of shooting people without any trial? That would probably be cheaper.

Do you know how much bullets cost these days?

Die Neue Zeit

16th October 2009, 21:58

The Hoxhaists in Ecuador and Mali participate in the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCMLE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malian_Party_of_Labour

The Brazilian Communist Party who takes part in the "center-left" government of Lula in brazil are also Hoxhaists, in fact they were the only party outside of albania where a majority sided with Hoxha in the sino-soviet split.

Why the coalitionism? If worker parties take part in coalitions, they'll get dragged down by the bourgeoisie. Case in point: Die Linke's participation in the cuts-cuts-cuts coalition government in Berlin... and now Brandenburg!

Crux

16th October 2009, 22:03

Why the coalitionism? If worker parties take part in coalitions, they'll get dragged down by the bourgeoisie. Case in point: Die Linke's participation in the cuts-cuts-cuts coalition government in Berlin... and now Brandenburg!Exactly. I must add that I don't mean to make any blanket statement condemnation of course, but the road pursued by the PCdob should definatly be condemned.

Ismail

16th October 2009, 22:15

Exactly. I must add that I don't mean to make any blanket statement condemnation of course, but the road pursued by the PCdob should definatly be condemned.Well I know the PCDoB isn't in the ICMLPO, and in fact they have their own party in Brazil which is IIRC not fond of the PCDoB: http://www.averdade.org.br/

Andres Marcos

16th October 2009, 22:49

hmm a lot of misconceptions on us based on stereotypes people put in their heads. I will say that the EMEP did do an article on Hoxha on oct. 16, so although it says its not "Hoxhaist" neither do any of the ICMPLO parties. It seems to merely brush off EMEP for "nationalist" tendencies seems to be throwing the baby with the water. EMEP has a lot of positive aspects to its party, for one thing it enjoys a good amount of worker support and doesn't back down from its ideology, and its program is very good. As for the APL, yes we support Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha, do we include them in our strategy of recruiting? I would say no; we believe its best to support progressive reforms(initially) that better our brothers and sisters in the working class, but we maintain revolution is the only way to truly change society. Now, some hold the position that "we will not work with Stalinists whatsoever", is this the message we should adopt as workers? The APL admits yeah most workers are not ML or the majority will not be, is this a problem? No, we don't think so. We aren't out to "convert" people to "The Way", if you are a ML cool, if your not, fine, imo as long as you hold the belief of anti-imperialism(not libertopian Federal reserve conspiracy shit), anti-racism, democratic-republicanism and progressive view on workers if not full blown socialism I'm down with ya, you probably won't be allowed in the APL, but we will cooperate with you and work towards similar goals, I think most people find that reasonable; in my experience the only people to approach this philosophy were EXTREMELY left democrats(and I mean left...Cynthia McKinney when she was in the Party Left), one anarchist and Maoists(despite having the Hoxha-Mao thing, I find it much easier to work with Maoists...minus the Kasama types who always made me feel they were elitists). To the young person who said "fringe" I hope you include yourself.

Communism has always been on the "fringe" of politics. We don't intend to get worker support by bashing people over the head with nostalgia, but supporting causes that improve OUR lives, we don't think worker support is "expected" but rather earned. As for participation the APL has participated in demonstrations in support of the Honduran people, labor strikes and peace demonstrations and vigils, lastly, we have been heavily involved in the Atlanta peace movement, one of our members is president of the largest peace organization in Atlanta that connects us with groups like Veterans for Peace, United for Peace and Justice and World Cant Wait; as far as I know the APL is the only radical left party in Atlanta involved on the ground; PSL and FRSO don't exist here and RCP is really not involved in Atlanta. Being in the South is totally coincidence, the bulk of our membership reside in the Deep South and Midwest and The majority of the APL is working class with no college education; a few of our comrades do have it no offense to them, but I have seen students and petty-bourgeois hijack left groups too long and degenerate them to the point of ridicule. Number one thing is this Anarchist "Direct Action" adventurist mess. If you are a relatively peaceful guy like me, I will only see being violent as a last result; a lot of these anarchist guys are potty-mouthed jack asses who like to ridicule people who don't think like them(anti-authoritarian?) and simply act confrontational to regular people, not only that they like to set shit on fire and trash stuff(thinking this will make workers join em). I will give the young guys credit though as street medics, but their comrades are simply alienating to the rest of us. anyway, anyone have questions i would be glad to answer em

[email protected]

Leo

17th October 2009, 00:22

I will say that the EMEP did do an article on Hoxha on oct. 16, so although it says its not "Hoxhaist" neither do any of the ICMPLO parties.

So Hoxhaists say that they are not Hoxhaists?

The Turkish Revolutionary Communist Party did say it was Hoxhaist, which still, according to wiki, is still a part of the ICMPLO.

EMEP has a lot of positive aspects to its party, for one thing it enjoys a good amount of worker support

Not at all, really.

They merely control a few union shops, and I have heard from ex-members that they get violent when workers oppose them at the shops they control.

and doesn't back down from its ideology

EMEP backed down from its ideology a long, long time ago. Not that it was that good an ideology anyway.

and its program is very good

It is pretty much an unoriginal program considered in the framework Turkish leftism that doesn't even really say anything distinctive about the politics of EMEP. There is nothing "very good" about it in my opinion, it is a set of national-reformist demands, dressed in the rhetoric "of labor".

Die Neue Zeit

17th October 2009, 01:30

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the APL's program and platform, though.

Andres Marcos

17th October 2009, 02:36

So Hoxhaists say that they are not Hoxhaists?

The Turkish Revolutionary Communist Party did say it was Hoxhaist, which still, according to wiki, is still a part of the ICMPLO.

You have a quote? and yes the TDKP is apart of the ICMLPO, it is also an illegal party and works through EMEP. If the TDKP calls itself "Hoxhaist" that is one out of 20 parties in the ICMLPO.

Not at all, really.

They merely control a few union shops, and I have heard from ex-members that they get violent when workers oppose them at the shops they control.

EMEP voters number in the tens of thousands in the nation, that to me is good support, if you are imagining "millions" of workers supporting Communists then you are not being too enthusiastic. Hearsay is not proof...and if that is the case then I can see how you can blame the entire Emek Partisi for this...considering it has thousands of members.

EMEP backed down from its ideology a long, long time ago. Not that it was that good an ideology anyway.

EMEP have been unapologetic to their ideology which is pro-Stalin and pro-Hoxha, hands down and they have been consistent on that, not to mention their demos and congresses are always lively, like congresses should be. As for not being a "good" ideology, my success is marked on effectiveness and successful revolutions; that is how it should be, take for example "Left" Communism it is so fanatically puritanical it never gets beyond a club of people who all agree with each other and really has been about as successful as anarchism or Trotskyism in mobilizing people. Well anarchists have them beat on that. Despite having a supposedly "clean record" (i.e. not supporting "state capitalism" and being puritanical ideologues) they have gotten no where.

It is pretty much an unoriginal program considered in the framework Turkish leftism that doesn't even really say anything distinctive about the politics of EMEP. There is nothing "very good" about it in my opinion, it is a set of national-reformist demands, dressed in the rhetoric "of labor".
Care to elaborate?
No amount of yelling revolution is going to get worker support. Even IF you are speaking in their best interests, the name of the game is appeal and taking baby steps. If you are out here saying "ohh don't support the EMEP's nationalistic stance on expelling NATO fight for socialism instead!!!", well not only will people look at you crazy but you are putting the cart ahead of the cattle. You are confusing their initial demands for long term goals Calling people treacherous for supporting a reform in democracy in Turkey, expelling NATO, building a broad coalition of progressive forces and ending demonization of workers by the AKP is VERY BAD. If you are too set in your ideology to think this is bad, then I do not see why...it is the best most immediate interest of Turkish workers that these are implemented. If you think we will automatically accept radical socialism all of a sudden, you are mistaken. There is a reason why workers don't support the most radical of groups, its because these groups shove it down our throats without first explaining what they are talking about. Your ideology might not be bad, but do I see it appealing to workers? No, there is no concentrated effort for appeal(even though it might be good) and any reforms are smeared as "reformist" or "nationalistic".

Lenin II

17th October 2009, 03:56

As a side-note to the post about the EMEP not being Hoxhaist:

http://en.emep.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54:100th-anniversary-of-enver-hoxha&catid=36:articles

Kayser_Soso

17th October 2009, 08:17

So Hoxhaists say that they are not Hoxhaists?

The Turkish Revolutionary Communist Party did say it was Hoxhaist, which still, according to wiki, is still a part of the ICMPLO.

How many times do we have to point this out- People who support Hoxha don't believe in an ideology called "Hoxhaism". We are Marxist-Leninists, anto-revisionists, but we are not Maoists. Hoxha's contributions were more practical than theoretical.

Not at all, really.

They merely control a few union shops, and I have heard from ex-members that they get violent when workers oppose them at the shops they control.

Hearsay. Move to strike.

EMEP backed down from its ideology a long, long time ago. Not that it was that good an ideology anyway.

They seem to be doing pretty damn good from what I've seen. I don't know any other Communist parties that operate their own satellite TV network, and if they are so tame I don't see why they are still harassed by the government regularly.

It is pretty much an unoriginal program considered in the framework Turkish leftism that doesn't even really say anything distinctive about the politics of EMEP. There is nothing "very good" about it in my opinion, it is a set of national-reformist demands, dressed in the rhetoric "of labor".

Communists must always fight for reforms, while not losing the end goal of revolution. There is nothing "nationalistic" about their resistance to NATO or the US. If you compared them to the actions of the Russian and Ukrainian "Communists", many of whom are indeed nationalists and work directly even with very extreme nationalists, you would see this.

EDIT: Given the fact that Turkey has strict conscription laws and is a source of cheap soldiers, they have a very good reason to oppose NATO.

17th October 2009, 08:35

So, if Hoxhaists don't actually exist as such, what is the Hoxhaist Union then?

Kayser_Soso

17th October 2009, 08:45

So, if Hoxhaists don't actually exist as such, what is the Hoxhaist Union then?

Ok let's do this again....VEEEEEEEEEEEERY SLOOOOOOOOOOWLY.

Anti-revisionist Marxst-Leninists who support the Albanian Party of Labor's position on revisionism sometimes use the term "Hoxhaist" to differentiate themselves from Maoists, who often use similar arguments. A group with a name like "Hoxhaist Union" makes it clear to newcomers just what kind of anti-revisionist group it is, seeing as how there are many other strains of Marxism that sometimes call themselves anti-revisionists, not only the Maoists.

17th October 2009, 09:10

Ok let's do this again....VEEEEEEEEEEEERY SLOOOOOOOOOOWLY.
No need to feel attacked (or to neg-rep me, ey Socialist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=20114)?), it was a genuine question as I was confused.

Anti-revisionist Marxst-Leninists who support the Albanian Party of Labor's position on revisionism sometimes use the term "Hoxhaist" to differentiate themselves from Maoists, who often use similar arguments. A group with a name like "Hoxhaist Union" makes it clear to newcomers just what kind of anti-revisionist group it is, seeing as how there are many other strains of Marxism that sometimes call themselves anti-revisionists, not only the Maoists.
Ok, but is it an actual group or just some sort of banner for newbe's? Earlier on it was mentioned that the ALP is part of the HU, so is it some kind of international group and if so, how does that relate to the ICMPLO?

Devrim

17th October 2009, 10:30

I think you should define nationalistic. I have not seen any aspect of EMEP's anti-NATO, anti-American stance that could be called nationalistic compared to the anti-NATO/American stance of other workers' parties, and I know of some organizations that do fit that bill quite nicely(like KPRF or KPU in Ukraine).

For a country that has been and still is under the thumb of an empire for decades, it is not nationalistic to protest against that empire and assert their self-determination. Self-determination is not incompatible with internationalism, particularly for countries which have been oppressed as Turkey has by the US and NATO.

This is a very dangerous road to go down. EMEP and groups like it are constantly shouting about how they want an independent Turkey. Once one identifies ones own country as an 'oppressed nation' the road to collaberating with fascists is open.

The Turkish 'Workers' Party' has foolowed this road to its logical conclusion. They were formally a Maoist party, and pro Kurdish nationalism. However, when they changed their analysis to one in which Turkey was an oppressed nation, without changing their basic politics, they began the journey that has ended with them openly working with the fascist MHP. As they said in thei weekly, they believe that 'Today there is no left or right, only patriots'.

The TKP is on the same road. During the last war against the PKK in Iraq there slogan was 'We won't let the US divide our country'. This goes along with the general nationalist feeling present in Turkish society and the Turkish left.

To illustrate how restricted they are, the party was until a few years ago known as the Emeğin Partısı, or Party of Labour, but the government actually banned that name, hence the change(or IIRC what they told me, the original name) Emek Partısı. Apparently to the Turkish government, grammar makes a big difference. I joked with some of my EMEP comrades that if they should ever get around to banning the word "Party", everyone would be screwed.

Legal parties are often closed in Turkey. They are banned by the state (the constitutional court), not the government. In fact the current governing party has been banned three times and only escaped a ban by one vote last year while it was in office.

They seem to be doing pretty damn good from what I've seen. I don't know any other Communist parties that operate their own satellite TV network, and if they are so tame I don't see why they are still harassed by the government regularly.

The previously mentioned Workers' Party has one, as does the Worker Communist Party of Iran, to mention just two examples.

Devrim

Leo

17th October 2009, 10:33

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the APL's program and platform, though. I am utterly uninterested in the APL's program and platform.

You have a quote?Do you read Turkish?

EMEP voters number in the tens of thousands in the nationAnother proof that the electoral system does not represent anything. EMEP gained only one local municipality in the city of Dersim, and it was outvoted by all the other left parties.

if you are imagining "millions" of workers supporting Communists then you are not being too enthusiastic.The Freedom and Solidarity Party, the Turkish Communist Party and the ultra-nationalist/maoist Workers' Party all together got five times more than EMEP, aside from significantly outvoting EMEP individually as well.

I don't consider any parliamentarian organization to be communist anyway, and don't think the votes even express the real support these parties have, but still it does show that EMEP has considerably less support compared to the other local leftist parties.

Hearsay is not proof...I have no reason to doubt people who said they witnessed such events.

considering it has thousands of members.Not that many thousands.

I don't know any other Communist parties that operate their own satellite TV networkThe TV network is not really good, and apparently they are horribly exploiting their militants, making them work for days and not giving them enough to live by.

In any case, the Worker-Communist Party of Iran also has a TV channel, so what?

EMEP have been unapologetic to their ideology which is pro-Stalin and pro-Hoxha, hands down I have talked to members who were and who weren't.

not to mention their demos... are livelyThe only demo specifically organized by EMEP was that national independence demonstration. Obviously, I did not attend so I can't testify on how lively it was.

As for not being a "good" ideology, my success is marked on effectiveness and successful revolutionsEMEP made no "succesful revlution". Hoxha made no succesful revolution either, he staged a nationalist war, and took over the government.

Actual marxists know that it is classes, not organizations or ideologies that make revolutions.

take for example "Left" Communism it is so fanatically puritanical it never gets beyond a club of people who all agree with each otherYou have no idea about agreements or disagreements between left communists.

Historically, though, organizations of the communist left, which is the current that founded most of the Communist Parties of Europe, were massive and at one point left communists even had a majority within the Bolshevik Party.

well not only will people look at you crazy As touching as your concern, we are doing just fine, thank you.

Devrim

17th October 2009, 10:41

The Freedom and Liberty PartyThis is a mistranslation, Özgürlük ve Dayanışma Partisi is the Freedom and Solidarity party.

Devrim

Leo

17th October 2009, 11:09

Corrected.

Kayser_Soso

17th October 2009, 11:46

I am utterly uninterested in the APL's program and platform.

And yet you can't stop posting in this thread. The power the APL has over you is incredible!

Do you read Turkish?

Çalışacağım.

Another proof that the electoral system does not represent anything. EMEP gained only one local municipality in the city of Dersim, and it was outvoted by all the other left parties.

We all know the electoral system cannot bring what we need, but we must fight on all fronts.

I have no reason to doubt people who said they witnessed such events.

If I'm ever on trial I'll remember to phrase answers that way.

The TV network is not really good, and apparently they are horribly exploiting their militants, making them work for days and not giving them enough to live by.

Ah yes, I remember the emaciated youths I saw working in the Hayat studio. The smell of death was in the air and I distinctly remember hearing a whip crack ever few seconds. Charles Dickens came to mind.

In any case, the Worker-Communist Party of Iran also has a TV channel, so what?

With as much popularity as Hayat? I doubt it.

I have talked to members who were and who weren't.

Yes, every party should have every single member in ideological lock-step.

EMEP made no "succesful revlution". Hoxha made no succesful revolution either, he staged a nationalist war, and took over the government.

LOL WUT

A "nationalist war" huh? If that were the case they would have, just like the Balle Kombetar, accepted the bribes the Germans granted them(Kosova). The Albanians, depite attempts at sabotage even before the end of the war, coordinated their war with the Greek and Yugoslav partisans. This is hardly nationalist.

Actual marxists know that it is classes, not organizations or ideologies that make revolutions.

The classes make revolutions VIA those things. They do not just spontaneously arrise one day and change the system.

You have no idea about agreements or disagreements between left communists.

We solve this problem by properly viewing left communists as irrelevant, something akin to kids playing table-top wargames. The real world is a bit too complicated for such ideologies.

Historically, though, organizations of the communist left, which is the current that founded most of the Communist Parties of Europe, were massive and at one point left communists even had a majority within the Bolshevik Party.

At one time Ghengis Khan had created the largest contigous land empire ever seen- which promptly broke and fragmented after his death. What is your point?

Kayser_Soso

17th October 2009, 11:52

This is a very dangerous road to go down. EMEP and groups like it are constantly shouting about how they want an independent Turkey. Once one identifies ones own country as an 'oppressed nation' the road to collaberating with fascists is open.

The Turkish 'Workers' Party' has foolowed this road to its logical conclusion. They were formally a Maoist party, and pro Kurdish nationalism. However, when they changed their analysis to one in which Turkey was an oppressed nation, without changing their basic politics, they began the journey that has ended with them openly working with the fascist MHP. As they said in thei weekly, they believe that 'Today there is no left or right, only patriots'.

The TKP is on the same road. During the last war against the PKK in Iraq there slogan was 'We won't let the US divide our country'. This goes along with the general nationalist feeling present in Turkish society and the Turkish left.

Devrim

I find it difficult to believe that EMEP would take such issue over TKP's "nationalism" if they were so thoroughly nationalist themselves. Of course I have more than enough access to other EMEP and TKP members so we could discuss this at length while I am in Turkey in December and January. I won't speak for either party at the moment.

Turkey is to some extent an oppressed nation(and to a lesser extent an oppressor due to the Kurdish question); it has been under the thumb of the US for decades, and has spent decades under a US-backed military dictatorship. Why shouldn't the Turkish people resent that? Again, I have yet to see anything in EMEP's propaganda that smacks of nationalism. If you have some real evidence I'd like to see it.

By comparison, modern-day Russia is not an oppressed country, it is an oppressor, and whatever hardships it imposes on its people that simultaneously benefit the US or EU it does on its own, being one of the few countries in the world today that still has the means to resist such foreign pressure.

Leo

17th October 2009, 12:23

And yet you can't stop posting in this thread. The power the APL has over you is incredible!

I am trying to correct misconceptions and counter mystifications and exaggerations about various organizations in Turkey, I have not made a single comment about the completely uninteresting Hoxhaist organization in the US and am not planning on making one either. Being a mostly dead bourgeois ideology, Hoxhaism does not worry me at all, especially in places like the US where it had no real historical strength anyway.

Çalışacağım.

Kolay gelsin madem.

With as much popularity as Hayat?

Hayat has very little popularity. I would say most people haven't even heard of it, let alone following it.

Yes, every party should have every single member in ideological lock-step.

You are against centralism and having an organizational line then? Interesting.

If that were the case they would have, just like the Balle Kombetar, accepted the bribes the Germans granted them(Kosova).

They were accepting "bribes" from another imperialist power at the time, that is Russia.

A "nationalist war" huh? If that were the case they would have, just like the Balle Kombetar, accepted the bribes the Germans granted them(Kosova). The Albanians, depite attempts at sabotage even before the end of the war, coordinated their war with the Greek and Yugoslav partisans. This is hardly nationalist.

Nationalists being in solidarity with each other do not cease to be nationalists.

We solve this problem by properly viewing left communists as irrelevant

That remains to be seen.

Your obsession with attacking our ideology even in threads that are specifically about yours does give a hint that it isn't as easy even at the moment for you lot.

I find it difficult to believe that EMEP would take such issue over TKP's "nationalism" if they were so thoroughly nationalist themselves. Of course I have more than enough access to other EMEP and TKP members so we could discuss this at length while I am in Turkey in December and January.

Do try to learn of the names of the actual active Hoxhaist organizations while you are here in order to save your comrades on Revleft from further embarrasing themselves with their ignorance then.

Turkey is to some extent an oppressed nation

This is the logic which took the maoist Workers' Party into open collaboration with the fascist Gray Wolves.

Turkey is a brutal imperialist country, one that is no less brutal or imperialist than the Israeli state, and should be recognized as such.

Andres Marcos

17th October 2009, 13:41

Being a mostly dead bourgeois ideology

Yes a bourgeois ideology made up of absolutely 100% NO BOURGEOISIE. Of course be sure to twist this into your favor by baking up some BS on top of that. Like the leadership being a "new bourgeosie" and socialist states being "state capitalists"; not even the bourgeoisie with all their lies and such will believe that. Your BS about ML being a "bourgeois ideology" is based on trying to distance yourself to Stalin and the USSR by saying it was never "socialist" because if it was, then that pops socialism's cherry; no socialism, to a lot of detractors like yourself, has never been tried, and thus immune to failure, don't try to fool anyone otherwise. "the USSR betrayed socialism! That's our excuse for the complete and utter failure we have at convincing anyone to support Communism, so whatever the USSR did BLAME IT ON CAPITALISM, it failed because it was CAPITALIST!!!11!" Of course it isn't a failure for you, because The Socialist hymen has not been broken yet, by claiming the USSR was "state capitalism" absolves you of any mistakes it did and assures you in your mind that NO practice of socialism means there is 100% chance of NO FAILURE and not one person can call you out on mistakes, because you haven't even tried or found a worker's movement that succeeded or revolution to support in the first place. All your legitimate worker's movements had to fail/be repressed before they were implemented(thank goodness they failed! if it succeeded you would have to add another state-capitalist nation to the ranks) to be successful.

They were accepting "bribes" from another imperialist power at the time, that is Russia.

Such as? There was no land given by the USSR, nor did USSR troops land any troops in albania. You are ridiculous, please do tell us what "bribes" "imperialist" russia gave to Albanian communists? Exactly what was nationalistic about the Communists in Albania? Im interested to know what you define as such.

Nationalists being in solidarity with each other do not cease to be nationalists.

I don't even think this deserves merit. you ridicule anti-nazi resistance dismissing it as "nationalist" and have some puerile definition that "x and y" is communistic sentiment and if you support "such and such" you are a bourgeois tool!! Im interested to see what dogmatic cookie cutter theories you have to say what defines socialism and what isn't. Probably some obscure anti-communist supposedly "pro-worker"(by degrading every gain they made) shit about "state capitalism" and "new bourgeosie" or maybe the "degenerate workers state", but seeing as you have made your position clear, every worker's revolution after 1917 was really a bourgeois one, Communism is such a failure to you that very rarely has it been tried. you profit over defeatism, all your "legitimate" movements had to be crushed by the bourgeoisie in order to live up to your heavely puritanical standards, all the ones that succeeded magically became bourgeois(because they did not adjust to your dogmatic goggles) and state capitalist. The only way you view success is by failure of workers movement, when they succeed if they don't subscribe to workers councils and have Leninist parties then they are "state capitalist"(which includes EVERY worker victory there ever has been), when they don't succeed it is a blessing, because if they did then they would have crushed your notions of socialism, but then again every successful worker's movement was state-capitalist.

17th October 2009, 14:20

Yes a bourgeois ideology made up of absolutely 100% NO BOURGEOISIE.

Tbf, no matter what side of the fence you sit on, that's not really an argument. Being led by bourgeoisie forces doesn't necessarily make one bourgeois themselves.

Of course be sure to twist this into your favor by baking up some BS on top of that. Like the leadership being a "new bourgeosie" and socialist states being "state capitalists"; not even the bourgeoisie with all their lies and such will believe that. Your BS about ML being a "bourgeois ideology" is based on trying to distance yourself by Stalin and the USSR by saying it was never "socialist" because if it was, then that pops socialism's cherry

I'm pretty sure that most left-communists believe in the bolshevik revolution up until 1917, as you admit to knowing later on in the same post. :rolleyes:

no socialism to a lot of detractors like Left-commies has never been tried(and thus immune to failure)

Have you even bothered trying to research left-communist viewpoints beyond this thread? I didn't think so

don't try to fool anyone."Stalin betrayed socialism!" thats our excuse for the complete and utter failure we have at convincing anyone to our ideology, but one day the workers will establish councils randomly and "real" socialism, just you wait! Of course it isn't a failure for you, because The Socialist hymen has not been broken yet!

That didn't make much sense/was cringeworthy.

I don't even think this deserves merit. you ridicule national liberation movements, on top of that anti-nazi resistance dismissing it as "nationalist" and have some puerile definition that "x and y" is communistic sentiment and if you support "such and such" you are a bourgeois tool!! Im interested to see what dogmatic cookie cutter theories you have to say what defines socialism and what isn't. Probably some obscure anti-communist supposedly "pro-worker"(by degrading every gain they made) shit about "state capitalism" and "new bourgeosie" or maybe the good old trotskyist "degenerate workers state", but seeing as you are a left communist, ever worker's revolution after 1917 was really a bourgeois one, Communism is such a failure to Left-Communists that very rarely has it been tried. you profit over defeatism, all you "legitimate" movements had to be crushed by the bourgeoisie in order to live up to your heavely puritanical standards, all the ones that succeeded magically became bourgeois(because they did not adjust to your dogmatic goggles) and state capitalist. The only way Left-Commies view success is by failure of workers movement, when they succeed if they don't subscribe to "workers councils" and have Leninist parties then they are "state capitalist"(which includes EVERY worker victory there ever has been).

Tldr really.

I think Leo summed it up pretty perfectly myself in this tiny snippet of one of his other posts: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1571195&postcount=8
The internationalists of today, like the internationalists throughout history, are not blind to national oppression - but for us the only way to abolish national oppression is to abolish the general system which it is an ossified part of.

Whether or not you believe in national liberation, oppressed nations and other forms of multinational anti-imperialism, you cannot argue that revolution must spread beyond any one nation's borders, otherwise the nation will be too heavily blockaded.

Whether or not you believe the USSR, China and Albania were socialist, you must realise that the decline of all three was thanks to the revolution remaining a stagnant national one in all three countries and then degenerating; ironically leading to their breaking in solidarity with each other; contributing a large amount to their individual eventual downfall.

Andres Marcos

17th October 2009, 14:49

I'm pretty sure that most left-communists believe in the bolshevik revolution up until 1917, as you admit to knowing later on in the same post.

ONE revolution that is over 90 years old.... To Left-commies Communism is such a failure that it has never been implemented in history except once, 70-80 years before you were born and for a few months at that!!!

Have you even bothered trying to research left-communist viewpoints beyond this thread? I didn't think so

After Rosa Luxembourg Left-Communism has been nothing but irrelevant, with the exception of Italy, there has been no significant Left-Commie currents ANYWHERE. What is it now like 5-6 groups that have split from the "International" Communist Party? . Which viewpoint should I look for? Which one is "correct", besides all socialist revolutions being really "state-capitalist".

That didn't make much sense/was cringeworthy.

Let me elaborate. Detractors like to profit on defeatism, because it saves them from explaining socialist mistakes. By completely cutting off the USSR to the Socialist World, it saves types like the Left-Communists, Shachtmanites and Cliffites from criticism, by saying every successful revolution was really capitalist, you don't have to explain their mistakes you can simply dump them at capitalism's door. when people confront you about a successful view, they just state that it was always suppressed by capitalists; you will never find one of these 3 groups finding a movement to support that has succeeded since 1917, over 90 years ago or very rarely will you find them support one that is succeeding, no one is as puritanical as they are, they oppose the communist resistance in the Philippines, Nepal(I am really not liking Prachanda at the moment but its too early to call), and many other contemporary struggles going on, because neither one of these groups is as narrow as they are.

The internationalists of today, like the internationalists throughout history, are not blind to national oppression - but for us the only way to abolish national oppression is to abolish the general system which it is an ossified part of.

Putting the cart before the ox, it reminds me a lot of Rosa Luxembourgs position on Poland when it was resisting Russian monarchism(i.e. no support). Okay this is the goal, but what are the MEANS? There is no viable or massive anti-imperialist movement that can be successful without those being on the recieving end championing that movement. Why? because their immediate survival is at stake! Do I support the Iraqi resistance? Yes! But to the same fervor as someone in Iraq? I cannot imagine to think I do, because I am not there.

Whether or not you believe in national liberation, oppressed nations and other forms of multinational anti-imperialism, you cannot argue that revolution must spread beyond any one nation's borders, otherwise the nation will be too heavily blockaded.

EXACTLY! but imagine this nation implementing revolution beyond its borders WHILE being blockaded, as it has always been the case.

Whether or not you believe the USSR, China and Albania were socialist, you must realise that the decline of all three was thanks to the revolution remaining a stagnant national.

I agree, but its not exactly like people elsewhere were trying to implement worldwide revolution. You simply cannot expect the USSR, China or Albania to "export" revolution to other nations, because A. people will view it as foreign domination and go to their nationalistic prejudices B. The capitalist reaction will be unprecedented, you will essentially unite the capitalist forces so much that they will strangle the baby in the crib so to speak. The international revolution cannot rest on the shoulders of one nation, it needs worldwide support. There has rarely been a time in history besides after WWI where the world was close to Socialist revolution.

Kassad

17th October 2009, 15:27

I have a question for any supporters of the American Party of Labor/Hoxhaist Union. Do you guys plan on being a part of the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (ICMLPO) in the future? Have you had any dialogue with them, or do you disagree with their line on any points?

They generally regard the PSL with contempt, and the same goes for the other revisionist parties in the United States.

The PSL is "pan-socialist", which strikes the APL as dangerous lack of direction and a source of internal contradiction.

There are some in the APL who are either ex-PSL, or still maintain some ties to that organization.

Sorry, but blanket generalizations and unsupported assertions aren't going to convince people like me that our party is a failure. If by "pan-socialist" you mean that we don't stroke Uncle Joseph's moustache without criticism, we sincerely apologize. :rolleyes:

17th October 2009, 15:31

ONE revolution that is over 90 years old.... To Left-commies Communism is such a failure that it has never been implemented in history except once, 70-80 years before you were born and for a few months at that!!!

Paris Commune? Workers uprisings that have come so painfully close to achieving communism before? Do you think it's worth disregarding those too?

After Rosa Luxembourg Left-Communism has been nothing but irrelevant, with the exception of Italy, there has been no significant Left-Commie currents ANYWHERE. What is it now like 5-6 groups that have split from the "International" Communist Party? . Which viewpoint should I look for? Which one is "correct", besides all socialist revolutions being really "state-capitalist" :rolleyes:

Italy was not in explicit words "left-communism", left-communists walk a special line between being part of and supporting movements completely. It's not really the same as something like Hoxhaists and Maoists.

To name just a few more that I've read a supportive perspective about from the ICC:
Paris Commune
IWW struggle
Ulster dockworkers 1907
GB in the 70s/80s

They believe that revolution must come from the working-class themselves, it's not about dogmatic ideology, it can be under the guise of a lot of names, but still be a true workers' revolution.

Let me elaborate. Detractors like to profit on defeatism, because it saves them from explaining socialist mistakes. By completely cutting off the USSR to the Socialist World, it saves types like the Left-Communists, Shachtmanites and Cliffites from criticism, by saying every successful revolution was really capitalist, you don't have to explain their mistakes you can simply dump them at capitalism's door. when people confront you about a successful view, they just state that it was always suppressed by capitalists; you will never find one of these 3 groups finding a movement to support that has succeeded since 1917, over 90 years ago or very rarely will you find them support one that is succeeding, no one is as puritanical as they are.

Left-communists participated in the USSR themselves, this has even been said on the thread. Along with that there are detailed critiques of the Bolshevik revolution available on both the IBRP and the ICC's website. It's hardly 'defeatism'.

Putting the cart before the ox, it reminds me a lot of Rosa Luxembourgs position on Poland when it was resisting Russian monarchism(i.e. no support). Okay this is the goal, but what are the MEANS? There is no viable or massive anti-imperialist movement that can be successful without those being on the recieving end championing that movement. Why? because their immediate survival is at stake! Do I support the Iraqi resistance? Yes! But to the same fervor as someone in Iraq? I cannot imagine to think I do, because I am not there.

What makes you think it's believed that people's immediate survival has to be sacrificed? If you're in a life or death situation in a place such as Iraq, do what you must to survive doesn't mean "give your help to the local insurgency", because that's not going to help you survive.

Most workers in Iraq are oppressed by both the now out of power regime and the newly formed western puppet government.

I agree, but its not exactly like people elsewhere were trying to implement worldwide revolution. You simply cannot expect the USSR, China or Albania to "export" revolution to other nations, because A. people will view it as foreign domination and go to their nationalistic prejudices B. The capitalist reaction will be unprecedented, you will essentially unite the capitalist forces so much that they will strangle the baby in the crib so to speak. The international revolution cannot rest on the shoulders of one nation, it needs worldwide support. There has rarely been a time in history besides after WWI where the world was close to Socialist revolution.

Of course the international revolution can't exist from one or a few nations, it must come from all nations, but this isn't how the organisations running the nations we're talking about operated. They certainly did try to 'export' revolution and it backfired.

Ismail

17th October 2009, 15:39

Hoxhaism does not worry me at all, especially in places like the US where it had no real historical strength anyway.I do recall Intelligitimate telling me that one of the former leaders of the National Lawyers Guild was apparently a Hoxhaist in the 70's/80's.

Also:
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc207/MrdieII/enverhoxhausmlo.jpg

So Hoxhaism was existent in the US (it was existent in just about every place with a notable Maoist presence; there's apparently a Hoxhaist faction within ZANU-PF that broke from Maoism in the late 70's according to a friend of mine) and fairly notable among the anti-revisionist left of that time. There was also the Marxist-Leninist Party USA, which was related to the CPC-ML, etc.

So it wasn't strong, but then again neither was... any party at that time, really. 50's-80's were relatively silent when it came to the US left with the exception of the Democratic Workers Party (which was a lame cult) and to some extent the RCPUSA (less lame cult at the time), which AFAIK picked up strength in the late 80's (but lost it by 1995). Regionalism plays a pretty big part.

Andres Marcos

17th October 2009, 15:48

We agree with most of the ICMLPO's line and with their parties. We have established contact with various leading members of parties around the world and a representative in the US including the editor of Revolutionary Democracy, but that is all I should be able to say at the moment; since the Party has yet to officially declare a move to join the ICMLPO and themselves included. I will say though that the APL agrees with the ICMLPO's line with few exceptions, we do not think the opposition to Bland by the ICMLPO(and opposition to the ICMPLO by Bland) was really meant for. We have invited Bland supporting groups to the table such as the AML and the CIML, they have split on the ICMLPO due to the question of nationalities in the U.S. but it is our belief that this issue is not merit for such a split, no matter how small it is. I personally support Bill Bland's ideology(with the exception of his position on afro-americans and chicanos) and that of the ICMLPO and see no contradiction.

Kayser_Soso

17th October 2009, 16:07

Paris Commune? Workers uprisings that have come so painfully close to achieving communism before? Do you think it's worth disregarding those too?

"Painfully" is a good word to use here. No workers' uprisings have come anywhere close to establishing Communism.

17th October 2009, 16:13

"Painfully" is a good word to use here.

In your case, painfully as in painfully thick.

Andres Marcos

17th October 2009, 16:15

Paris Commune? Workers uprisings that have come so painfully close to achieving communism before? Do you think it's worth disregarding those too?

The Paris Commune came no where close to achieving communism, it was destined to fail, it never got the support of the majority of the population, which was made of peasantry. Despite the myth that France and Germany were "advanced" nations in the 1840s, a significant population was rural, in fact there were more peasants than workers at this time. There was no move to get them involved and thus it was a failure. Marx himself criticized the Communards for that mistake, there was no effort to get the majority peasant population on the side of the workers. Now it was a noble effort but far from succeeding.

Paris Commune
IWW struggle
Ulster dockworkers 1907
GB in the 70s/80s

Do you realize how old these are? Also I am unaware of the situation of GB in the 70s-80s so I won't comment on it, until I get more knowledge on it. For the most part much of their "support" goes to stuff that happened decades ago, you would be hard pressed to find anything they support at this moment.

They believe that revolution must come from the working-class themselves, it's not about dogmatic ideology, it can be under the guise of a lot of names, but still be a true workers' revolution.

The thing is, they say that, but have no concentrated effort to WORK with workers on doing this. They try to build independent systems from scratch saying it should come from the workers, yet don't participate in trade-unions, in fact they have always discouraged it. They also discourage working with anybody on the Left who isn't as narrow minded as they are(i.e. united fronts).

Left-communists participated in the USSR themselves, this has even been said on the thread. Along with that there are detailed critiques of the Bolshevik revolution available on both the IBRP and the ICC's website. It's hardly 'defeatism'.

The participation was brief and miniscule, they dissolved immediately after being defeated in debates and after Bukharin left them, they had little to say. They are defeatists in the sense that Communism is so weak that there are few movements they support, with only one being a success until 1918.

What makes you think it's believed that people's immediate survival has to be sacrificed? If you're in a life or death situation in a place such as Iraq, do what you must to survive doesn't mean "give your help to the local insurgency", because that's not going to help you survive.

Most workers in Iraq are oppressed by both the now out of power regime and the newly formed western puppet government.

No matter what you say, you will NEVER experience the same thoughts of someone residing in Iraq, therefore your commitment to their independence will not be as strong as theirs for the simple fact that they live there. You may say so, but until your home is invaded by foreign troops and tens of thousands of people killed around you, very few of us can say we know exactly how it is. That is why we don't see an end to it, people in the imperialist homeland might not like the war, but until they are the direct victims of it(i.e. through destruction of life on a mass scale) then they will simply give "moral support" that amounts to no concrete action.

Of course the international revolution can't exist from one or a few nations, it must come from all nations, but this isn't how the organisations running the nations we're talking about operated. They certainly did try to 'export' revolution and it backfired.

Exporting Revolution by force of arms is a recipe for disaster. In fact it is national suicide for a backwards nation like the SU to have exported revolution when it could barely feed its population after inheriting a war torn economy.

The govt's position on the Polish-Soviet war was thus and I view it entirely correct

"But our enemies and yours deceive you when they say that the Russian Soviet Government wishes to plant communism in Polish soil with the bayonets of Russian Red Army men. A communist order is possible only where the vast majority of the working people are penetrated with the idea of creating it by their own strength. Only then can it be solid; for only then can communist policy strike deep roots in a country. The communists of Russia are at present striving only to defend their own soil, their own constructive work; they are not striving, and cannot strive, to plant communism by force in other countries."

Kayser_Soso

17th October 2009, 16:20

I am trying to correct misconceptions and counter mystifications and exaggerations about various organizations in Turkey, I have not made a single comment about the completely uninteresting Hoxhaist organization in the US and am not planning on making one either. Being a mostly dead bourgeois ideology, Hoxhaism does not worry me at all, especially in places like the US where it had no real historical strength anyway.

So in other words you are basically derailing the thread? Nothin' wrong with that if you admit it; I hijack threads like it's the 1970s. But as for the political situation in Turkey I'll trust my contacts within the relevant parties thank you very much.

Hayat has very little popularity. I would say most people haven't even heard of it, let alone following it.

I suppose you expect us to take your word for it?

You are against centralism and having an organizational line then? Interesting.

Allow me to introduce you to a concept called "moderation". You see, there is a difference between having an organizational line and centralism, and having every member try to emulate the same brainwave pattern. I personally have met people who are generally pro-Hoxha yet at the same time can be extremely critical of him as well.

They were accepting "bribes" from another imperialist power at the time, that is Russia.

Do you have any clue what you were talking about here? Albania liberated itself without a single Red Army soldier crossing the border. Yugoslav partisans got most of their support from the Western Allies, not the Soviet Union- and the Albanians got nothing. So please explain these "bribes."

Nationalists being in solidarity with each other do not cease to be nationalists.

I need a laugh so please explain to me the proper "left communist" solution to being occupied by the Italian fascists and Nazis.

Your obsession with attacking our ideology even in threads that are specifically about yours does give a hint that it isn't as easy even at the moment for you lot.

Do try to learn of the names of the actual active Hoxhaist organizations while you are here in order to save your comrades on Revleft from further embarrasing themselves with their ignorance then.

We're the one's having to explain to you what "Hoxhaist" really means in the first place, and nothing you have said or attempted to say contradicts the remarks we have made about other parties. Everything you have provided today comes from you personally, some anonymous person on the internet; so far I have no reason to believe you over the EMEP members I know.

This is the logic which took the maoist Workers' Party into open collaboration with the fascist Gray Wolves.

Turkey is a brutal imperialist country, one that is no less brutal or imperialist than the Israeli state, and should be recognized as such.

Turkey has not been free to decide its own affairs. That is not to say that the generals don't deliberately want to keep the Kurdish region, but this is something they have been allowed to do for following the US line. How many US-sponsored coups have taken place in Israel?

BTW- Every EMEP member I know has stated that EMEP supports Kurdish seccession unconditionally- which I would say is hardly a nationalist position.

But please, I REALLY want to hear that left Communist solution to the occupation of the Balkans by the German and Italian fascists.

17th October 2009, 16:43

The Paris Commune came no where close to achieving communism, it was destined to fail, it never got the support of the majority of the population, which was made of peasantry. Despite the myth that France and Germany were "advanced" nations in the 1840s, a significant population was rural, in fact there were more peasants than workers at this time. There was no move to get them involved and thus it was a failure. Marx himself criticized the Communards for that mistake, there was no effort to get the majority peasant population on the side of the workers. Now it was a noble effort but far from succeeding.

No struggle has led to communism though, to not see that is very silly, there never has been communis; there has however been socialism achieved in cases. This is an important point.

Do you realize how old these are? Also I am unaware of the situation of GB in the 70s-80s so I won't comment on it, until I get more knowledge on it. For the most part much of their "support" goes to stuff that happened decades ago, you would be hard pressed to find anything they support at this moment.

As you pointed out yourself, there is the Italian movement as well, the French movement.

What would I be hard pressed to find? That they don't support the national postal strike scheduled to occur here next week?

What about the proletarians in Iran who were protesting? They supported them whilst pointing out the dangers of backing either Ahmadinejad or Mousavi, just like most decent leftists did.

We could even talk about Palestine, I'm pretty sure they support genuine worker-class movements like AATW and the village wall protests, of course they might even support the militancy expressed by good elements of the Israeli left like the ISL.

The thing is, they say that, but have no concentrated effort to WORK with workers on doing this.

I'm pretty sure they do, however I don't really think people should be obliged to say "I hand out leaflets and I start unemployed action groups", it doesn't mean very much. It's basically what people from the APL are doing, it counts for just as much as saying nothing.

They try to build independent systems from scratch saying it should come from the workers, yet don't participate in trade-unions, in fact they have always discouraged it. They also discourage working with anybody on the Left who isn't as narrow minded as they are(i.e. united fronts).

That's just great, you support trade unions too.

No they don't support trade unionism and any leftist with sense won't either. Other than radical syndicalism, trade unionism has little to offer the working-class, I've read about left-communists in Italy recently working with their comrades to block the entrances of their factory in Pomigliano against their own union sending in scabs to stop them.

The participation was brief and miniscule, they dissolved immediately after being defeated in debates and after Bukharin left them, they had little to say. They are defeatists in the sense that Communism is so weak that there are few movements they support, with only one being a success until 1918.

So you're arguing that they weren't persecuted?

No matter what you say, you will NEVER experience the same thoughts of someone residing in Iraq

And I'm pretty sure you won't either, so what gives you more right than me to comment on it in the way you just did, please?

Exporting Revolution by force of arms is a recipe for disaster. In fact it is national suicide for a backwards nation like the SU to have exported revolution when it could barely feed its population after inheriting a war torn economy.

The govt's position on the Polish-Soviet war was thus and I view it entirely correct

[quote]"But our enemies and yours deceive you when they say that the Russian Soviet Government wishes to plant communism in Polish soil with the bayonets of Russian Red Army men. A communist order is possible only where the vast majority of the working people are penetrated with the idea of creating it by their own strength. Only then can it be solid; for only then can communist policy strike deep roots in a country. The communists of Russia are at present striving only to defend their own soil, their own constructive work; they are not striving, and cannot strive, to plant communism by force in other countries."

Yep, a pretty class piece of USSR posturing, unfortunately it didn't really happen that way did it.

Kayser_Soso

17th October 2009, 16:48

No struggle has led to communism though, to not see that is very silly, there never has been communis; there has however been socialism achieved in cases. This is an important point.

Yes, socialism has been achieved by Marxist-Leninists, and anarchists never even came close to that. Hell, they couldn't even start their own revolutions. They could only gain control when someone else instigated a revolution against the established order.

What about the proletarians in Iran who were protesting? They supported them whilst pointing out the dangers of backing either Ahmadinejad or Mousavi, just like most decent leftists did.

Which leftists? American leftists almost nearly always backed Mousavi.

And I'm pretty sure you won't either, so what gives you more right than me to comment on it in the way you just did, please?

He rightly assumes that a person in Iraq has a better perspective on the issue of being occupied.

Yep, a pretty class piece of USSR posturing, unfortunately it didn't really happen that way did it.

If you plan to be in the workers' movement long I think I will warn you that things rarely go according to plan.

Die Neue Zeit

17th October 2009, 16:54

After Rosa Luxemburg Left-Communism has been nothing but irrelevant, with the exception of Italy, there has been no significant Left-Commie currents ANYWHERE. What is it now like 5-6 groups that have split from the "International" Communist Party? . Which viewpoint should I look for? Which one is "correct", besides all socialist revolutions being really "state-capitalist".

And this is the reason why:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2432

Luxemburg herself participated in a petit-bourgeois sect, the SDKPiL (Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania), which refused to liquidate into the RSDLP.

It's interesting that you bring up the Italian situation. The reason why it's the exception is because of the pro-party politics of Bordiga, whereas every other left-communist tendency was in practice anti-party (even the ICC and its stance against "voluntarism," despite its rhetoric of being pro-party). This is most obvious in the infantile tendencies of council communism.

Andres Marcos

17th October 2009, 18:04

No struggle has led to communism though, to not see that is very silly, there never has been communis; there has however been socialism achieved in cases. This is an important point.

Im surprised you think im that stupid to think that. Of course Communism(the classless society) has not been achieved, but in this context I was using interchangeably with socialism. Im surprised you couldn't catch that.

I'm pretty sure they do, however I don't really think people should be obliged to say "I hand out leaflets and I start unemployed action groups", it doesn't mean very much. It's basically what people from the APL are doing, it counts for just as much as saying nothing.

We do more than that. We participate in strikes as well. We are on the ground. In fact the Atlanta group saw striking workers in the city just yesterday and walked up and participated with them. The workers were genuinely surprised as no one really ever comes up from the street to protest with them. The Atlanta Cell marched with the workers for about an hour and then took on to the weekly peace vigil against the War, some workers saw and expressed their support. We just don't "hand out leaflets".

That's just great, you support trade unions too.

I think you are missing the point, I don't support trade-unionism or see it as a goal, but trade unions are a place where workers participate. They aren't as left as I like them to be but I don't go out of my way to undermine them and make scathing criticism that borders on right wing lunacy. A lot of workers develop "trade-union conciousness" that is they are merely satisfied with reforms, you should struggle with people to convince them to disband this thinking. Instead left-communists isolate them and work parallel thinking the workers will join them en masse after seeing the logic of their arguments.

I've read about left-communists in Italy recently working with their comrades to block the entrances of their factory in Pomigliano against their own union sending in scabs to stop them.

That is a good thing because it shows the workers are resisting the conservative tendencies of their union, I wish workers here would do so with their post-gomperist unions like the AFL-CIO, however not once did I say that trade-unions are perfect or that they are revolutionary. They are places though where workers have a standing chance against their bosses, it is certain that I critically support Unions in my nation, but I do not think they themselves are a vehicle for societal change.

So you're arguing that they weren't persecuted?

Leftists love playing the victim. The Left Communists weren't "persecuted" they LOST debates in the Party, Lenin convinced most of the Party against their thinking and their main advocate eventually sided with Lenin.

And I'm pretty sure you won't either, so what gives you more right than me to comment on it in the way you just did, please?

you just repeated what I was saying...

Emre

17th October 2009, 21:57

I find it difficult to believe that EMEP would take such issue over TKP's "nationalism" if they were so thoroughly nationalist themselves. Of course I have more than enough access to other EMEP and TKP members so we could discuss this at length while I am in Turkey in December and January. I won't speak for either party at the moment.

Turkey is to some extent an oppressed nation(and to a lesser extent an oppressor due to the Kurdish question); it has been under the thumb of the US for decades, and has spent decades under a US-backed military dictatorship. Why shouldn't the Turkish people resent that? Again, I have yet to see anything in EMEP's propaganda that smacks of nationalism. If you have some real evidence I'd like to see it.

This is a good post.

According to our party, EMEP, the Kurdish question is the litmus test for the Turkish left. Accordingly, in my opinion the TKP is a nationalist organisation.

I'd also like the see the evidence of EMEP's nationalism. EMEP have consistently taken a stand in defence of Kurdish national, political and cultural rights. Hayat TV was shut down as we remember. We are in the process of translating a recent polemic on the TKP's approach to the Kurdish question.

The Turkish left is not in a good position at the moment and EMEP is not a strong party. But there is a daily paper 'Evrensel', a publishing house whose titles include theoretical books (including a recent edition of Hoxha's 'Imperialism and the Revolution'), children's books, academic books, theoretical journals, cultural journals and of course, Hayat TV.

18th October 2009, 09:58

Im surprised you think im that stupid to think that. Of course Communism(the classless society) has not been achieved, but in this context I was using interchangeably with socialism. Im surprised you couldn't catch that.

I did catch that which is why I brought it up.

We do more than that. We participate in strikes as well. We are on the ground. In fact the Atlanta group saw striking workers in the city just yesterday and walked up and participated with them. The workers were genuinely surprised as no one really ever comes up from the street to protest with them. The Atlanta Cell marched with the workers for about an hour and then took on to the weekly peace vigil against the War, some workers saw and expressed their support. We just don't "hand out leaflets".

Alright, well that's good.

I think you are missing the point, I don't support trade-unionism or see it as a goal, but trade unions are a place where workers participate. They aren't as left as I like them to be but I don't go out of my way to undermine them and make scathing criticism that borders on right wing lunacy.

What kind of crap is this? "right-wing lunacy"?

So left-wing criticism of trade unionism is forbidden? :confused:

A lot of workers develop "trade-union conciousness" that is they are merely satisfied with reforms, you should struggle with people to convince them to disband this thinking. Instead left-communists isolate them and work parallel thinking the workers will join them en masse after seeing the logic of their arguments.

And you know this how? Do you have any practical experience with *any* on the ground?

That is a good thing because it shows the workers are resisting the conservative tendencies of their union, I wish workers here would do so with their post-gomperist unions like the AFL-CIO

Indeed, that is something the APL can think about doing.

however not once did I say that trade-unions are perfect or that they are revolutionary. They are places though where workers have a standing chance against their bosses, it is certain that I critically support Unions in my nation, but I do not think they themselves are a vehicle for societal change.

Critically supporting unions means nothing really, we all support the rank-and-file in unions, I thought that much was obvious? If we didn't, we wouldn't be supporting a massive amount of workers simply because they support reformism.

Leftists love playing the victim.

You can talk tbh, you're always talking about anti-imperialism this and that and you want most people to act like victims and the oppressed.

The Left Communists weren't "persecuted" they LOST debates in the Party

They only 'lost' debates in your mind, also what's the point in denying facts? They simply were persecuted, everyone knows it's true.

Lenin convinced most of the Party against their thinking and their main advocate eventually sided with Lenin.

And Lenin was on the left himself originally, that doesn't mean he was right to change his mind later on.

Lots of revolutionaries have changed their minds on the most crucial things, this can be seen in every single ideological current there is.

you just repeated what I was saying...

You don't really make much sense tbh.

According to our party, EMEP, the Kurdish question is the litmus test for the Turkish left. Accordingly, in my opinion the TKP is a nationalist organisation.

That's a terrible litmus test. What's this? http://en.emep.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78:thousands-of-people-say-qenoughq-to-60-years-of-nato&catid=34:news

And I read at the bottom that TKP attended that too..

Emre

18th October 2009, 11:07

That's a terrible litmus test. What's this?

And I read at the bottom that TKP attended that too.. I don't understand the point you're trying to make regarding the website.

There is routinely co-operation between the left parties here. For example, the anti-IMF protests were co-ordinated in part by EMEP, TKP and ÖDP with the posters and banners having all three organisation's logos. I see this as a good thing because while we have major differences there can still be co-operation amongst the left on single issues. Members of Unity against NATO didn't just include EMEP and the TKP, but all the other parties listed, including liberals and some ultra-left organisations. Happily we can work together on single issues.

18th October 2009, 12:27

I don't understand the point you're trying to make regarding the website.

It's quite clear.

There is routinely co-operation between the left parties here. For example, the anti-IMF protests were co-ordinated in part by EMEP, TKP and ÖDP with the posters and banners having all three organisation's logos. I see this as a good thing because while we have major differences there can still be co-operation amongst the left on single issues. Members of Unity against NATO didn't just include EMEP and the TKP, but all the other parties listed, including liberals and some ultra-left organisations. Happily we can work together on single issues.

I'm sure you are very happy, although you are protesting against American intervention and only being critical of the AKP, not of Turkish nationalism as a whole entity, it appears to be a running theme through much of the Turkish left.

Kayser_Soso

18th October 2009, 12:59

I'm sure you are very happy, although you are protesting against American intervention and only being critical of the AKP, not of Turkish nationalism as a whole entity, it appears to be a running theme through much of the Turkish left.

Hmm let's see- American and IMF intervention are still one of the primary threats in the world, and AKP is the ruling party in Turkey....have you heard of something called "priorities"? Every single protest or action cannot focus on every issue simultaneously. This is why so many American protests are clusterfucks- everyone brings their pet cause to the rally.

Andres Marcos

18th October 2009, 13:25

I did catch that which is why I brought it up.

apparently you ddnt catch yourself, before you come to me in a patronizing attitude make sure you define how the Paris Commune came "painfully close to establishing Communism".

What kind of crap is this? "right-wing lunacy"?

So left-wing criticism of trade unionism is forbidden?

No, but if you don't work with them and call them ad-hominem shit like reformists or collaborators you might as well.

nd you know this how? Do you have any practical experience with *any* on the ground?

Yeah, I ACTUALLY attend union meetings, I am apart of one and I challenge the leadership all the time; like the buckling to the managment and allowing our wages to be frozen for 2 years.

Critically supporting unions means nothing really, we all support the rank-and-file in unions, I thought that much was obvious? If we didn't, we wouldn't be supporting a massive amount of workers simply because they support reformism.

If you don't support trade unions, which are the largest organizations for workers. then what DO YOU support? Im not saying fall in lock step to them, but you arent even trying to bring them to our side.

You can talk tbh, you're always talking about anti-imperialism this and that and you want most people to act like victims and the oppressed.

Thats because imperialism DOES make victims out of people, now about the Left-Communists they ARENT victims they were defeated in party debates and you are calling them persecuted.

They only 'lost' debates in your mind, also what's the point in denying facts? They simply were persecuted, everyone knows it's true.

No from 1917 to when Lenin wrote Left Wing Communism an Infantile Disorder there was a big debate about their line in the Party, they lost it. Plain and simple.

And Lenin was on the left himself originally, that doesn't mean he was right to change his mind later on.

I don't believe he was, and if he did change his mind; he saw that it was getting the Party no where; just like today.

You don't really make much sense tbh.

I said an Iraqi has a better perspective than both of us...

That's a terrible litmus test. What's this? http://en.emep.org/index.php?option=...&catid=34:news

And I read at the bottom that TKP attended that too..

are you joking...this is why you will NEVER get beyond a few members, you are so sectarian and narrow minded that you won't even attend demos against imperialism attended by various lefties.

Devrim

18th October 2009, 13:35

A few points I would like to make on various things on this thread. Sorry if it seems a bit disjointed:

Hayat has very little popularity. I would say most people haven't even heard of it, let alone following it. I suppose you expect us to take your word for it?

Of course you don't have to take anybody's word for it, and you are very free to accusing people of lying.

Maybe you should bear in mind though that Hayat is a satellite TV station, and think about how many people have a satellite system in a country like Turkey. In Ankara, where I live, (where there is a good, cheap cable system, which costs $4.78 a month, which incidentally I don't personally have), I know one person (a foriegner) who has satalitte TV (in other cities it is more common). I have personally never seen this chanel and I asked a few people about it and none of them had seen it either though one person I asked did have two friends, members of EMEP, who worked there.

I would imagine it has very few viewers.

After Rosa Luxembourg Left-Communism has been nothing but irrelevant, with the exception of Italy, there has been no significant Left-Commie currents ANYWHERE.

I don't think that we can really describe Rosa as a left communist although left communists today do use much of her analysis. Also on the question of Germany, after her death the party did expel the majority of its membership for 'left-wing infantilism', who then went on to form a new party the KAPD. I think the weakness of the communist left though reflects the weakness of the class. In the foremost struggles of the class in the revolutionary wave, in Russia, Germany, and Italy, the left at the time made up the majority of all these parties. When the class is strong the left comes to the fore.

Do you realize how old these are? Also I am unaware of the situation of GB in the 70s-80s so I won't comment on it, until I get more knowledge on it. For the most part much of their "support" goes to stuff that happened decades ago, you would be hard pressed to find anything they support at this moment.

Left communists in fact support all workers struggles in defence of workers living standards and wages. An example that another comrade has used is the current struggles in the Post Office in the UK.

We do more than that. We participate in strikes as well. We are on the ground. In fact the Atlanta group saw striking workers in the city just yesterday and walked up and participated with them. The workers were genuinely surprised as no one really ever comes up from the street to protest with them. The Atlanta Cell marched with the workers for about an hour and then took on to the weekly peace vigil against the War, some workers saw and expressed their support. We just don't "hand out leaflets".

Surprise, surprise, left communists also participate in strikes, generally as strikers and not just people giving support, as our organisations are not predominatly student based. Our members who are postmen in the UK are currently intervening in mass meetings, and arguing with their fellow workers for communist tactics.

Leftists love playing the victim. The Left Communists weren't "persecuted" they LOST debates in the Party, Lenin convinced most of the Party against their thinking and their main advocate eventually sided with Lenin.

Actually, they were surpressed as a faction:

Lenin reacted very sharply. The usual vituperation followed. The views of the 'left' Communists were "a disgrace". "a complete renunciation of communism in practice", "a desertion to the camp of the petty bourgeoisie". (47) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1918#47) The left were being "provoked by the Isuvs (Mensheviks) and other Judases of capitalism". A campaign was whipped up in Leningrad which compelled Kommunist to transfer publication to Moscow, where the paper reappeared first under the auspices of the Moscow Regional Organisation of the Party, later as the 'unofficial' mouth - piece of a group of comrades. After the appearance of the first issue of the paper a hastily convened Leningrad Party Conference produced a majority for Lenin and "demanded that the adherents of Kommunist cease their separate organisational existence". (48) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1918#48) So much for alleged factional rights, in 1918! (i.e. long before the l0th Congress officially prohibited factions - in 1921)
During the following months the Leninists succeeded in extending their organisational control into areas which had originally backed the 'lefts'. By the end of May the predominantly proletarian Party organisation in the Ural region, led by Preobrazhensky, and the Moscow Regional Bureau of the Party had been won back by the supporters of the Party leadership. The fourth and final issue of Kommunist (May 1918) had to be published as a private factional paper. The settlement of these important issues, profoundly affecting the whole working class, had not been "by discussion, persuasion or compromise, but by a high pressure campaign in the Party organisations, backed by a barrage of violent invective in the Party press and in the pronouncements of the Party leaders. Lenin's polemics set the tone and his organisational lieutenants brought the membership into line". (49) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1918#49) Many in the traditional revolutionary movement will be thoroughly familiar with these methods!

The Turkish left is not in a good position at the moment and EMEP is not a strong party.

Emre, I have lived and worked abroad in various countries in Europe and the Middle East, and in my impression the Turkish left is numerically quite strong, and EMEP is a numerically a reasonably strong party in comparison with other left parties in Europe. I think though that the Turkish left in general is dominated by 'middle class' intellectuals, is extremely nationalistic (either Turkish or Kurdish nationalism), has very little connection to the working class, and in many cases looks down upon the working class as being 'uneducated'.

I think that the vast majority of the Turkish left have very little faith in the working class at all.

Devrim

Intelligitimate

18th October 2009, 20:45

I've spoken to the General Secretary on the phone. He was an interesting guy.

18th October 2009, 23:14

Hmm let's see- American and IMF intervention are still one of the primary threats in the world

Yes, so is the EU and its love affair with the IMF, so are many other components of the world capitalist hegemony.

As you are presumably based in Turkey, you have a duty to not bow to Turkish nationalism.

and AKP is the ruling party in Turkey....have you heard of something called "priorities"?

So attacking Turkish nationalism for denying the Armenian genocide and continuing the ongoing oppression of Kurds is simply not a priority? It's ok I understand.

Every single protest or action cannot focus on every issue simultaneously. This is why so many American protests are clusterfucks- everyone brings their pet cause to the rally.

Turkish left rallies do not look particularly more coherent than American ones.

apparently you ddnt catch yourself, before you come to me in a patronizing attitude make sure you define how the Paris Commune came "painfully close to establishing Communism".

I'm pretty sure you are misquoting me, if I did indicate that I think that with bad wording, then I apologise, but you cannot deny that the other struggles I've mentioned did. The paris commune did achieve a kind of socialism for a time however.

No, but if you don't work with them and call them ad-hominem shit like reformists or collaborators you might as well.

It depends on what you mean by 'work with them', your definition of that does not look very revolutionary.

Yeah, I ACTUALLY attend union meetings, I am apart of one and I challenge the leadership all the time; like the buckling to the managment and allowing our wages to be frozen for 2 years.

Union meetings are not the same as workers' mass meetings, but I'm sure you feel like you're making a difference, in any case I was talking about participation with left-communists, not really unions, please try and keep up.

If you don't support trade unions, which are the largest organizations for workers. then what DO YOU support? Im not saying fall in lock step to them, but you arent even trying to bring them to our side.

I don't understand, are you advocating that workers join reformist unions? While there may have been times where unions were less reformist, there may be some instances even now where some kind of syndicalism has a place, but I'm pretty sure you're part of a bureaucratic one.

Thats because imperialism DOES make victims out of people, now about the Left-Communists they ARENT victims they were defeated in party debates and you are calling them persecuted.

You can read Devrim's brinton piece if you wish.

No from 1917 to when Lenin wrote Left Wing Communism an Infantile Disorder there was a big debate about their line in the Party, they lost it. Plain and simple.

No, they didn't lose it, that's just your interpretation.

I don't believe he was, and if he did change his mind; he saw that it was getting the Party no where; just like today.

Well if you're going to be sectarian.. meanwhile, Hoxhaism is converting the masses? :rolleyes:

are you joking...this is why you will NEVER get beyond a few members, you are so sectarian and narrow minded that you won't even attend demos against imperialism attended by various lefties.

What makes you think that?

Broad demos against capitalist imperialism are fine, that was not a broad demo but a demo in the constituent country, playing to the country's tune of nationalism but not outrightly - under the guise of anti-americanism, that's just great.

There is nothing wrong with demos like that of Gaza solidarity, hands off the people of Iran, Tamil solidarity, broad anti-Kurdish ethnocide ones etc..

Kayser_Soso

19th October 2009, 06:04

Yes, so is the EU and its love affair with the IMF, so are many other components of the world capitalist hegemony.

And EMEP and even TKP are clearly opposed to these machinations as well, but it was the US, not the EU or anyone else, who has exercised the most direct control over Turkey.

As you are presumably based in Turkey, you have a duty to not bow to Turkish nationalism.

I hardly see it as nationalism. For the record, I am based in Moscow, and I work with Turkish Marxists as opposed to Russian ones because I can't stand nationalism(nearly every Russian "Communist" is a nationalist).

So attacking Turkish nationalism for denying the Armenian genocide and continuing the ongoing oppression of Kurds is simply not a priority? It's ok I understand.

Again, you are clearly misrepresenting the position of these groups. EMEP's position on Kurdistan has been clear, and we have even had an EMEP member come in here and confirm what I said. It is not honest to claim that EMEP is unconcerned with mistreatment of Kurds, and an outright lie to say they don't support Kurdish independence should the Kurds desire it.

As for the Armenian genocide- no, it is not a priority , and shouldn't be even for Armenians, who have enough problems(those of post-Soviet Eastern Europe) to deal with today. What happened to them is tragic but I don't see how it's going to help Armenians today if the Turkish Republic apologizes for the crimes of the Ottoman Empire, a non-existent state. This is a particular sticking point for me because I am half-Ukrainian and I remember how Yuschenko came to power on all sorts of promises of how Ukraine would be better(naturally I had no reason to believe him). Rather than deal with Ukraine's real problems, such as unemployment or the fact that women and girls end up in a global sex slave trade on a regular basis, the most active thing the guy does is run around asking the world to recognize the famine of 1931-32 as "genocide". That and try to get people to worship the anti-Semitic UPA thugs of WWII. That's why I always ask- if Turkey admits to the Ottomans' crimes, what then?

Turkish left rallies do not look particularly more coherent than American ones.

They look far more coherent.

I'm pretty sure you are misquoting me, if I did indicate that I think that with bad wording, then I apologise, but you cannot deny that the other struggles I've mentioned did. The paris commune did achieve a kind of socialism for a time however.

2 months, 40,000 executed. Beautiful.

Union meetings are not the same as workers' mass meetings, but I'm sure you feel like you're making a difference, in any case I was talking about participation with left-communists, not really unions, please try and keep up.

Nobody gives a shit about "left communists". In the west they barely even give a shit about communists or even socialists, so why do you think they will care about your ultra-dogmatic sect?

Well if you're going to be sectarian.. meanwhile, Hoxhaism is converting the masses? :rolleyes:

I am willing to bet that worldwide, "Hoxhaists" as you insist on calling them have a lot more influence than dogmatic, unrealistic "left communists".

Devrim

19th October 2009, 11:54

I hardly see it as nationalism. For the record, I am based in Moscow, and I work with Turkish Marxists as opposed to Russian ones because I can't stand nationalism(nearly every Russian "Communist" is a nationalist).

I would imagine if you lived in Turkey, you may well feel the same way about Turkish ones.

As for the Armenian genocide- no, it is not a priority , and shouldn't be even for Armenians, who have enough problems(those of post-Soviet Eastern Europe) to deal with today. What happened to them is tragic but I don't see how it's going to help Armenians today if the Turkish Republic apologizes for the crimes of the Ottoman Empire, a non-existent state.
...That's why I always ask- if Turkey admits to the Ottomans' crimes, what then?

I don't think it is about making the state admit the crimes of the Ottoman Empire. I do think that a critique of the nationalistic basis of the state is important. After all it is not as if the state doesn't try to imprison people for stating that there was an Armenian genocide (article 301 of the penal code) or that prominent Armenians don't get shot down in the street (Hrant Dink).

Nobody gives a shit about "left communists". In the west they barely even give a shit about communists or even socialists, so why do you think they will care about your ultra-dogmatic sect?

It is not his 'sect. He is an anarchist.

I am willing to bet that worldwide, "Hoxhaists" as you insist on calling them have a lot more influence than dogmatic, unrealistic "left communists".

I am a left communist though, and I would imagine that you are right. Then again ultra-nationalists or social democrats have more much more influence than both. We are really talking about the difference between 'insignificant' and virtually 'insignificant' here.

The point is though that it is not about 'our organisation being bigger than yours'. Firstly it is about the class nature of organisations.

More importantly though a real communist party can not be formed outside of periods of mass working class struggle.

As our current said in the 1930s, "We don't need the party so that we can build class struggle. We need class struggle so that we can build the party".

In the struggles to come the ideas of all socialist and pseudo-socialist groups will be put to the test.

Devrim

Kayser_Soso

19th October 2009, 12:35

I would imagine if you lived in Turkey, you may well feel the same way about Turkish ones.

Not at all. All Turkish Communists I have met have been friendly and you never get the idea that you are being judged solely for being American, which is what Russian Communists tend to do. Turks also don't have this idiotic "Nobody can understand our country but us" attitude that is common in Russia. The irony is that everyone else seems to understand the Russians but the Russians themselves.

I don't think it is about making the state admit the crimes of the Ottoman Empire. I do think that a critique of the nationalistic basis of the state is important. After all it is not as if the state doesn't try to imprison people for stating that there was an Armenian genocide (article 301 of the penal code) or that prominent Armenians don't get shot down in the street (Hrant Dink).

This is to some degree a separate issue. Obviously people shouldn't be arrested for talking about it publicly, and they certainly shouldn't be shot for it. In some ways the Turkish state is iflaming the problem by pursuing policies like this(plus their massive expenditure to spread denial to foreign academic institutions abroad). However I don't see how this applies to EMEP or TKP.

I am a left communist though, and I would imagine that you are right. Then again ultra-nationalists or social democrats have more much more influence than both. We are really talking about the difference between 'insignificant' and virtually 'insignificant' here.

Well we are not "virtually insignifcant" in the sense that our side had historical precedent, and practical experience. Our side made an impact on the world. Aside from that time, the deck has always been stacked against the worker, so I am not disturbed by that.

More importantly though a real communist party can not be formed outside of periods of mass working class struggle.

According to...? Working class struggle is always going on in some form or another. A party is formed to direct that class struggle, to organize it to fight for concrete goals, with the long term victory in mind.

As our current said in the 1930s, "We don't need the party so that we can build class struggle. We need class struggle so that we can build the party".

In other words relying on spontaneous uprising? Seeing as how the 30s was full of workers' struggle in most industrialized nations, and seeing as how many of those struggles were led by Communists, I don't see what they needed to wait for.

In the struggles to come the ideas of all socialist and pseudo-socialist groups will be put to the test.

Devrim

Indeed, and the Trots, Anarchists, and every other intellectual sect that has never withstood the opposition for any significant amount of time will fail, whereas theory backed up with practical know-how and foresight will prevail.

19th October 2009, 17:20

And EMEP and even TKP are clearly opposed to these machinations as well, but it was the US, not the EU or anyone else, who has exercised the most direct control over Turkey.

Is it really? Or are you just looking at it from a typical 'oppressed nations' perspective? It's almost like you forgive the government for their crimes.

I hardly see it as nationalism. For the record, I am based in Moscow, and I work with Turkish Marxists as opposed to Russian ones because I can't stand nationalism(nearly every Russian "Communist" is a nationalist).

You and your organisations are 'nationalist' too? You even admitted it.

Again, you are clearly misrepresenting the position of these groups. EMEP's position on Kurdistan has been clear, and we have even had an EMEP member come in here and confirm what I said. It is not honest to claim that EMEP is unconcerned with mistreatment of Kurds, and an outright lie to say they don't support Kurdish independence should the Kurds desire it.

I don't really know what you're trying to say. I've pointed out the fact that you attack America and NATO but not Turkey nor Turkish nationalism, 'kemalism' if you like, you simply skip that issue to score points with people so they join your movement. How can one 'critically support' the 'oppressed nation' of Turkey, then support any kind of rights for Kurdish people?

As for the Armenian genocide- no, it is not a priority , and shouldn't be even for Armenians, who have enough problems(those of post-Soviet Eastern Europe) to deal with today. What happened to them is tragic but I don't see how it's going to help Armenians today if the Turkish Republic apologizes for the crimes of the Ottoman Empire, a non-existent state. This is a particular sticking point for me because I am half-Ukrainian and I remember how Yuschenko came to power on all sorts of promises of how Ukraine would be better(naturally I had no reason to believe him). Rather than deal with Ukraine's real problems, such as unemployment or the fact that women and girls end up in a global sex slave trade on a regular basis, the most active thing the guy does is run around asking the world to recognize the famine of 1931-32 as "genocide". That and try to get people to worship the anti-Semitic UPA thugs of WWII. That's why I always ask- if Turkey admits to the Ottomans' crimes, what then?

That wasn't my point? The Turkish government are not going to admit to those crimes, you need to advocate destroying 'kemalism' and replacing it with socialism. Not essentially apologising for the Turkish state.

They look far more coherent.

How so? They look very messy and disjointed, they also look equally as colourfully propaganda-driven as in the US.

2 months, 40,000 executed. Beautiful.

Oh sorry, they should've just sat there and waited for the right time. :rolleyes: It wasn't one of the first and most important experiences of the proletariat, silly me.

I am willing to bet that worldwide, "Hoxhaists" as you insist on calling them have a lot more influence than dogmatic, unrealistic "left communists".

Actually, that's just hearsay. Left-communists may well have more influence as it stands now than Hoxhaists, there used to be a lot more Hoxhaists, sure, but there sure as hell isn't now. Also, more Hoxhaists doesn't mean they wage a better struggle than less leftcoms.

Not at all. All Turkish Communists I have met have been friendly and you never get the idea that you are being judged solely for being American which is what Russian Communists tend to do. Turks also don't have this idiotic "Nobody can understand our country but us" attitude that is common in Russia. The irony is that everyone else seems to understand the Russians but the Russians themselves.

:rolleyes:

Do you always generalise this much?

I'd be pretty wary of what you're saying, the last time someone stupidly made comments like 'Russians are very reactionary' (Dimentio) it was not taken lightly. You really should watch the stupid shit you're saying, it borders on xenophobia.

And yeah, there are Americans I have met who think that 'bears walk through the towns in Russia', in fact.. someone posted a thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-easterners-discriminated-t119594/index.html) on here recently saying Russian kids at school in America were being treated like shit by American kids too? It's not really surprising given the atmosphere against Russia and communism and the racist linking of the two by the American media and government.

Really you sound just as ignorant, moronic and pathetic as they are.

This is to some degree a separate issue. Obviously people shouldn't be arrested for talking about it publicly, and they certainly shouldn't be shot for it. In some ways the Turkish state is iflaming the problem by pursuing policies like this(plus their massive expenditure to spread denial to foreign academic institutions abroad). However I don't see how this applies to EMEP or TKP.

You are apologising for the Turkish state.

Well we are not "virtually insignifcant" in the sense that our side had historical precedent, and practical experience. Our side made an impact on the world. Aside from that time, the deck has always been stacked against the worker, so I am not disturbed by that.

So have left-communists? Please get to the point?

According to...? Working class struggle is always going on in some form or another. A party is formed to direct that class struggle, to organize it to fight for concrete goals, with the long term victory in mind.

Except you collaborate with classes that cannot enact a revolution alone.

In other words relying on spontaneous uprising? Seeing as how the 30s was full of workers' struggle in most industrialized nations, and seeing as how many of those struggles were led by Communists, I don't see what they needed to wait for.

Which is why you saw a lot more mass parties in times past. Building a hundred different branches of the same 'party of labor', 'socialist labor party' or whatever have you has never had the same effect as an organic, grassroots proletarian mass party not mired in dogmatism, with effective democratic worker-led leadership.

Indeed, and the Trots, Anarchists, and every other intellectual sect that has never withstood the opposition for any significant amount of time will fail, whereas theory backed up with practical know-how and foresight will prevail.

Marxism-Leninism is very varied and there is no 'theory backed up with practical know-how and foresight' that has led to communism yet, so I don't see your point. Additionally, it's MLs who have contributed the most to the destruction of other socialist and anarchist uprisings, I can't generally recall it being the other way around though- just something to think about.

Devrim

19th October 2009, 20:31

Not at all. All Turkish Communists I have met have been friendly and you never get the idea that you are being judged solely for being American, which is what Russian Communists tend to do. Turks also don't have this idiotic "Nobody can understand our country but us" attitude that is common in Russia. The irony is that everyone else seems to understand the Russians but the Russians themselves.

Then again, you are talking to Turks who live abroad and by definition don't have the very closed inward looking mentality that is all to common in Turkish society. If you came here I am sure you would here the "Nobody can understand our country but us" line.

Devrim

Kayser_Soso

19th October 2009, 20:45

Kayser_Soso

19th October 2009, 21:14

Is it really? Or are you just looking at it from a typical 'oppressed nations' perspective? It's almost like you forgive the government for their crimes.

Forgiving the government? It's more like forgiving the Turkish people for having to live under such a government. Like any imperialist relationship, the majority people sometimes benefit from the government's imperialist designs, in ways similar to how Americans benefit from the exploitation of its far bigger empire. True, suppression of the Kurds is an act of the generals and the nationalists themselves, but do you think for a minute that their actions would be tolerated were it not for their repeatedl willingness to please their masters in the US? Keep in mind which country for decades provided something like 80% of the weaponry needed to prosecute their war in Kurdistan.

You and your organisations are 'nationalist' too? You even admitted it.

None of our organizations are nationalist. And no, I admitted no such thing. In fact, an EMEP member was so kind as to show up here and remind you of EMEP's stance on the Kurdish question, which is identical to everything they had told me before.

I don't really know what you're trying to say. I've pointed out the fact that you attack America and NATO but not Turkey nor Turkish nationalism, 'kemalism' if you like, you simply skip that issue to score points with people so they join your movement. How can one 'critically support' the 'oppressed nation' of Turkey, then support any kind of rights for Kurdish people?

Where would the Kemalists be if it weren't for NATO and American empire? Have you not noticed how quickly the fortunes of governments can change when they displease the empires? There was a time when Milosevic was the darling of the West, including the US, and the Kosovar rebels were seen as Communist terrorists. Then one day Milosevic, responding to massive anger at the effects of privatizations, halted the privatization process- in the space of a few years he went from the hero who helped break down the "socialist" Yugoslav system to the "Butcher of Belgrade". Look at Saddam Hussein, a man who was directly helped into power in the 60s by the CIA. Look at the fact that Kurds in Iraq, after Saddam fell out of favor, became the poster boys for the US, living evidence of the Baathist regime's crimes. But for decades Kurds just across the border in Turkey were totally ignored.

If you need any more evidence of just how serious the US is with its imperial designs- back in either the 70s or 80s, either Fiji or Tahiti(the full story can be found in the book How to Start a Military Coup), the US government engineered the overthrow of the island government simply because the previous regime was CONSIDERING signing a non-nuclear pact with several nearby islands, declaring that no nuclear missile-carrying ships can sail within their waters..in the South Pacific of all places. Just that was enough to earn the attention of the empire.

But a lot of this is irrelevant since EMEP is clearly anti-Kemalist and I haven't seen a shred of evidence that shows otherwise.

That wasn't my point? The Turkish government are not going to admit to those crimes, you need to advocate destroying 'kemalism' and replacing it with socialism. Not essentially apologising for the Turkish state.

Apologizing for the Turkish state not apologizing for something the Ottoman Empire did? Are there no more pressing matters in Turkey? One would think that the reason for fighting kemalism and establishing socialism would have something to do with- you know, ending exploitation and what not.

How so? They look very messy and disjointed, they also look equally as colourfully propaganda-driven as in the US.

Three words: Paper mache puppets. I fucking hate 'em.

Oh sorry, they should've just sat there and waited for the right time. :rolleyes: It wasn't one of the first and most important experiences of the proletariat, silly me.

Funny because that's what our resident left Communist is practically advocating. Indeed, it was an important first experience. It was also a really terrible experience so it would probably be a good idea to assume they did a LOT of things incorrectly and try not to emulate that in the future. Experience is a good teacher but think about some of the important lessons you learned in life- were all the experiences really good? Sometimes they were humiliating and negative, and the only reason why they helped you is because you realize that you shouldn't have done that or been that way.

Actually, that's just hearsay. Left-communists may well have more influence as it stands now than Hoxhaists, there used to be a lot more Hoxhaists, sure, but there sure as hell isn't now. Also, more Hoxhaists doesn't mean they wage a better struggle than less leftcoms.

Uh, maybe on the internet they have more influence. Internet and universities perhaps.

:rolleyes:

Do you always generalise this much?

If I ever get the feeling that any Turk is treating me a certain way based solely on my nationality, I'll let you know.

I'd be pretty wary of what you're saying, the last time someone stupidly made comments like 'Russians are very reactionary' (Dimentio) it was not taken lightly. You really should watch the stupid shit you're saying, it borders on xenophobia.

I live in Russia, I've been here for over three years, and I have kept tabs on Russia and Russian culture for far longer. What I am saying is borne out by facts, statistics, and plenty of other observations, including those from Russians themselves.

And yeah, there are Americans I have met who think that 'bears walk through the towns in Russia', in fact.. someone posted a thread on here recently saying Russian kids at school in America were being treated like shit by American kids too? It's not really surprising given the atmosphere against Russia and communism and the racist linking of the two by the American media and government.

Well let's see- 23 years of my life spent in America, and I have never heard such an idea voiced by anyone, and I did travel a bit. And I don't doubt for a second that foreign kids(like foreigners of all nationalities) were treated poorly at American schools. American schools are very tough. Russian parents can also be very doting for their children- far too much. I work with people who teach children, and I taught teenagers here, and I can imagine what happens when these kids get into some of the meaner schools in the US.

Really you sound just as ignorant, moronic and pathetic as they are.

Let's see, spent over three years in Russia thus far- studied its history and culture on my own since childhood. My money says that you are the "ignorant" one. Stereotypes cannot be trusted, but when there is a people that prides itself on fitting into stereotypes, well, what can you do? I'm not going to say what is an obvious lie and say that Russians are just as varied and individualistic as British, Americans, Canadians, or whatever- because they aren't, and if you ask many of them, they will tell you just that. What can you possibly say when you meet hundreds of people in different cities over three years and they tell you and ask the SAME THINGS, ALMOST WORD FOR WORD? What can you say when you can meet someone at random, and nearly totally predict exactly what they are going to ask you, and how they are going to react to your answers? Is that my fault?

And being half-Ukrainian, seeing the Russians as related to me, I am just as much entitled to criticize them as you are the average Turkish person.

You are apologising for the Turkish state.

No, I am clearly not.

Which is why you saw a lot more mass parties in times past. Building a hundred different branches of the same 'party of labor', 'socialist labor party' or whatever have you has never had the same effect as an organic, grassroots proletarian mass party not mired in dogmatism, with effective democratic worker-led leadership.

Oh please give us an example of an "organic, grassroots proletatiran mass party not mired in dogmatism, with effective democratic worker-led leadership." Anarchists love throwing that word grassroots around.

Marxism-Leninism is very varied and there is no 'theory backed up with practical know-how and foresight' that has led to communism yet, so I don't see your point. Additionally, it's MLs who have contributed the most to the destruction of other socialist and anarchist uprisings, I can't generally recall it being the other way around though- just something to think about.

First of all, this is the typical anarchist logic that M-L didn't lead to Communism- ergo our theory must work...except that M-L always sabotaged us. No, you guys couldn't make a successful uprising, and every time you did you lost quickly because you couldn't secure what you gained(when someone else had revolted against the state, creating conditions in which anarchists could seize power). The planes of WWI weren't really great designs, but they flew. Anarchism is more like those crazy contraptions you see in stock footage that bounced around without ever taking flight.

19th October 2009, 22:47

Forgiving the government? It's more like forgiving the Turkish people for having to live under such a government.

I don't know what you're talking about, it sounds nice on paper though.

Like any imperialist relationship, the majority people sometimes benefit from the government's imperialist designs, in ways similar to how Americans benefit from the exploitation of its far bigger empire. True, suppression of the Kurds is an act of the generals and the nationalists themselves, but do you think for a minute that their actions would be tolerated were it not for their repeatedl willingness to please their masters in the US? Keep in mind which country for decades provided something like 80% of the weaponry needed to prosecute their war in Kurdistan.

So naturally, it's no one's fault but America- "we are all patriots".

None of our organizations are nationalist. And no, I admitted no such thing. In fact, an EMEP member was so kind as to show up here and remind you of EMEP's stance on the Kurdish question, which is identical to everything they had told me before.

You are just trying to smooth all this over really, you simply cannot call EMEP 'not nationalist', it's a complete false dichotomy. If you're going as far as to defend Turkey from NATO intervention and so on, then you cannot say they are not nationalist.

Where would the Kemalists be if it weren't for NATO and American empire?

An interesting question sure, not something that justifies playing down Turkish nationalism though.

Have you not noticed how quickly the fortunes of governments can change when they displease the empires?

Of course, but then this is common knowledge. It's not just 'anti-imperialists' that recognise the hypocrisy and changing hands of power that constantly happens, in fact quite the opposite, Devrim and others have talked about the PKK and its affiliation to multiple different governments that at certain points wished to suppress them.

..Look at the fact that Kurds in Iraq, after Saddam fell out of favor, became the poster boys for the US, living evidence of the Baathist regime's crimes. But for decades Kurds just across the border in Turkey were totally ignored.

Indeed, Kurdish people in all the states that are meant to form 'kurdistan' have been persecuted, Turkey is no worse than any of the other 'oppressed anti-imperialist' countries- Iran, Syria or Iraq either.

..But a lot of this is irrelevant since EMEP is clearly anti-Kemalist and I haven't seen a shred of evidence that shows otherwise.

EMEP plays down Turkish nationalism but quietly supports it.

Apologizing for the Turkish state not apologizing for something the Ottoman Empire did? Are there no more pressing matters in Turkey? One would think that the reason for fighting kemalism and establishing socialism would have something to do with- you know, ending exploitation and what not.

Yes, so we must look at who has been oppressed, Devrim pointed out that the Armenian genocide is almost celebrated in Turkey.

Funny because that's what our resident left Communist is practically advocating. Indeed, it was an important first experience. It was also a really terrible experience so it would probably be a good idea to assume they did a LOT of things incorrectly and try not to emulate that in the future. Experience is a good teacher but think about some of the important lessons you learned in life- were all the experiences really good? Sometimes they were humiliating and negative, and the only reason why they helped you is because you realize that you shouldn't have done that or been that way.

Yeah, but you are just dismissing it completely, at least that's what it looked like in your last post, but then almost all workers' struggles have been a 'really terrible experience', although I am not saying the paris commune does not stand out for the sheer brutality exercised against the communards.

Uh, maybe on the internet they have more influence. Internet and universities perhaps.

Not really, I have heard about participation in all the important workers' struggles for quite a while now.

If I ever get the feeling that any Turk is treating me a certain way based solely on my nationality, I'll let you know.

So you think Turkish people are 'nicer' than Russians.

Tell that to the two Turkish youths who smashed the window in one of my local post offices and called the Indian clerk a 'fucking paki' a couple of months ago, or we could talk about when there have been PKK-led pro-Kurdish independence protests and there are Turkish guys shouting racist abuse at them.

I live in Russia, I've been here for over three years, and I have kept tabs on Russia and Russian culture for far longer. What I am saying is borne out by facts, statistics, and plenty of other observations, including those from Russians themselves.

Excellent, I could make broad generalisations about all Turkish people based on observations made going to school with a large amount of them, or indeed by hearing constant abuse against Kurds.

Then again, I'm not nearly as moronic as you are.

Stereotypes cannot be trusted, but when there is a people that prides itself on fitting into stereotypes, well, what can you do?

A typical racist's argument, that could be a BNP member saying that, you really are a piece of crap.

And being half-Ukrainian, seeing the Russians as related to me, I am just as much entitled to criticize them as you are the average Turkish person.

I'm not Turkish, in fact I am mixed-race; part british, caribbean and indian.

Oh please give us an example of an "organic, grassroots proletatiran mass party not mired in dogmatism, with effective democratic worker-led leadership." Anarchists love throwing that word grassroots around.

The Bolshevik revolution up until 1917, for the record I'm just as much an anarchist as I am a socialist/communist, although I call it workerism.

No, you guys couldn't make a successful uprising, and every time you did you lost quickly because you couldn't secure what you gained(when someone else had revolted against the state, creating conditions in which anarchists could seize power).

:rolleyes: Oh yes and the there weren't preconditions for the Bolsheviks, that helped them establish power and weren't in their control, namely WWI. How quick some people are to forget.

The planes of WWI weren't really great designs, but they flew. Anarchism is more like those crazy contraptions you see in stock footage that bounced around without ever taking flight.

I think 'anarchism' as a whole has done extremely well given its incoherency relative to 'marxism' as a whole entity, the hard-put circumstances it faced everytime it surfaced and the amount of influence it had across the world.

Emre

19th October 2009, 23:01

EMEP plays down Turkish nationalism but quietly supports it.
Can we have evidence of this allegation?

19th October 2009, 23:15

Can we have evidence of this allegation?

It's not just me who thinks so anyway, the ISJ agrees: http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=390

EMEP (the Labour Party, ex-pro-Albanian, stalinist and somewhat Kemalist)

http://english.sol.org.tr/news/turkey/tkp-odp-and-emep-were-taksim-protesting-imf-874

TKP, ÖDP and EMEP Istanbul Provincial Organizations gathered at Taksim tram station and marched to Galatasaray with the common banner “Go Home IMF, this country is ours”

Kayser_Soso

20th October 2009, 04:08

I don't know what you're talking about, it sounds nice on paper though.

So you're now saying that the US hasn't had influence over Turkish politics for decades then?

So naturally, it's no one's fault but America- "we are all patriots".

Have you ever managed to make an argument that wasn't a strawman?

You are just trying to smooth all this over really, you simply cannot call EMEP 'not nationalist', it's a complete false dichotomy. If you're going as far as to defend Turkey from NATO intervention and so on, then you cannot say they are not nationalist.

What you have said in this statement is by definition a false dichotomy. The rest of the world doesn't abide by your all-or-nothing dogma.

An interesting question sure, not something that justifies playing down Turkish nationalism though.

Again, your definition of "playing down Turkish nationalism" is a bit different than most other people's definitions.

EMEP plays down Turkish nationalism but quietly supports it.

Your "proof" on this allegation is extremely weak and partially based on your dogma as to what "nationalism" is.

Yes, so we must look at who has been oppressed, Devrim pointed out that the Armenian genocide is almost celebrated in Turkey.

Usually being locked up for mentioning something is far from "being celebrated."

Yeah, but you are just dismissing it completely, at least that's what it looked like in your last post, but then almost all workers' struggles have been a 'really terrible experience', although I am not saying the paris commune does not stand out for the sheer brutality exercised against the communards.

You are idolizing it, when it fact it was a collosal failure. The USSR and Albania may have failed ultimately, and we take into account the many mistakes that led to such failures- but both got a hell of a lot further than the Paris Commune. Hell, here's the proof- how many every day workers do you know, who have no connection to leftist politics, who actually have even HEARD of the Paris Commune?

Not really, I have heard about participation in all the important workers' struggles for quite a while now.

I am starting to notice that many of your claims were "heard about".

So you think Turkish people are 'nicer' than Russians.

You've never been to Moscow right?

Tell that to the two Turkish youths who smashed the window in one of my local post offices and called the Indian clerk a 'fucking paki' a couple of months ago, or we could talk about when there have been PKK-led pro-Kurdish independence protests and there are Turkish guys shouting racist abuse at them.

"Nicer" does not mean that assholes do not exist in that society. But if it interests you, Russian nationalism is often in the news these days- the last story I remember was a gang of ten nationalists who attacked two Tajiks, wounding both and killing one, beheading him.

Excellent, I could make broad generalisations about all Turkish people based on observations made going to school with a large amount of them, or indeed by hearing constant abuse against Kurds.

What I am doing is largely repeating what Russians have actually told me about themselves and "forwarding" it from an outside perspective.

Then again, I'm not nearly as moronic as you are.

Well you are an anarchist so unless I lose 50% of my brain in some kind of accident you'll always be far below me in intelligence. Afterall, you can rarely present an argument here that isn't either a strawman, or based on dubious "evidence" you "heard" from somewhere.

When you have spent as much time studying Russian culture and history as I have, and when you have put in the time living in Russia and trying to work in Russian politics, you'll be saying the same thing.

A typical racist's argument, that could be a BNP member saying that, you really are a piece of crap.

Like I said, you can't construct a coherent argument. Pay attention tard, a racist- hates other races and ethnicities. Since I see myself as inextricably linked to the Russians ethnically, it is hardly "racist". If someone came in here, even if they are not American, and wrote: There are too many idiots/rednecks/reactionaries, etc. in America- nobody would give a damn, and most people would support it.

I'm not Turkish, in fact I am mixed-race; part british, caribbean and indian.

I don't really believe in distinct "races" per se, but I too am of mixed ethnicities- what is your point in all this. I for one do not appreciate bizarrely constructed attempts to criticize me personally, in a thread that is already, thanks to you and a few others- WAAAY off topic. One of my primary concerns in politics is with what Marx called the "superstructure", which I am for the moment going to assume, perhaps naively, that you are familiar with. Modern day Russian culture, like before, is affected by certain aspects of the superstructure- ideas concocted by and disseminated by the ruling class which are designed to convince the Russian people that they are powerless over their fate. Discussion of this specific phenomenon would be extremely long an even more off topic, but this specific mechanism goes by the name of "the Russian mentality", and if you ask nearly anyone in Russia they will have some kind of opinion on this thing. It essentially amounts to an artificial national stereotype that the ruling class says(by indirect means) that they must inevitably conform to.

The Bolshevik revolution up until 1917, for the record I'm just as much an anarchist as I am a socialist/communist, although I call it workerism.

Great, that's what we need, another ideology.

:rolleyes: Oh yes and the there weren't preconditions for the Bolsheviks, that helped them establish power and weren't in their control, namely WWI. How quick some people are to forget.

There is a balance between pre-existing conditions, and conscious action on the behalf of organizations.

I think 'anarchism' as a whole has done extremely well given its incoherency relative to 'marxism' as a whole entity, the hard-put circumstances it faced everytime it surfaced and the amount of influence it had across the world.

Let's see- zero revolutions started. Zero stable, successful anarchist societies. End result- Zero success. If by influence you simply mean people being anarchists, then think of how much influence Fascism or even Neo-Nazism has had even post-WWII?

GracchusBabeuf

20th October 2009, 04:21

a thread that is already, thanks to you and a few others- WAAAY off topic.
That tends to happen here. Anyway, is there a chance we can get back on topic on the APL? Just because someone happened to mention EMEP, this topic totally got off course. Perhaps someone could split this thread?

Kayser_Soso

20th October 2009, 08:15

That tends to happen here. Anyway, is there a chance we can get back on topic on the APL? Just because someone happened to mention EMEP, this topic totally got off course. Perhaps someone could split this thread?

Indeed, I just wanted to add a bit of an apology to LS for getting a little personal in that last post. Although I see anarchism as being the political equivalent of table-top role-playing games, I feel a certain strange kinship to such a person if only because we are both foreigners, of mixed heritage, living in vastly different countries than our own. It's just the accusation that I am unfairly judging Russians or am somehow xenophobic toward Russians, a people I feel inextricably linked to, is absurd. Frankly I find it to be a bit of cultural imperialism to go into countries like Turkey and Russia, coming from historically cosmopolitan nations like America and England, and telling them precisely how they should view themselves. Besides, anarchists are always supporting various "autonomy movements", which are not far removed from nationalist movements in any way.

Very well, back to the APL.

Emre

20th October 2009, 08:18

It's not just me who thinks so anyway, the ISJ agrees:O
They present no evidence for their statement that EMEP is 'slightly Kemalist' which makes their argument redundant. You, ISJ and others cannot make claims without substantiating them in the hope that if you repeat them enough people will begin to believe them.

Link from Sol HaberInfact the slogan was - 'Get out of our country!' at the protest I was at. In my opinion this is not nationalist at all. Turkey belongs to the common workers and peasants. Is this not our country? I would like to know at what level this nationalism was expressed because at the Wednesday night protest in Taksim Sqaure, there were absolutely no Turkish national flags, symbols or any Kemalist posters. When Obama visited, the left had a similar slogan calling for Obama to get out and take Erdoğan with him.

Kayser_Soso

20th October 2009, 08:57

By that guy's definitions, the whole Palestinian struggle would be condemned as nationalism.

Devrim

20th October 2009, 18:50

Infact the slogan was - 'Get out of our country!' at the protest I was at. In my opinion this is not nationalist at all. Turkey belongs to the common workers and peasants. Is this not our country? I would like to know at what level this nationalism was expressed because at the Wednesday night protest in Taksim Sqaure, there were absolutely no Turkish national flags, symbols or any Kemalist posters. When Obama visited, the left had a similar slogan calling for Obama to get out and take Erdoğan with him.

Turkey is as you know an extremely nationalist country, and nationalism is prevalent in all walks of life.

I think that slogans like the one that you refer to above are nationalist, as is another slogan that EMEP use, "we want an independent Turkey'. I don't think that this is our country. It belongs to the big bourgeoisie, the Sabancis and the Koçes. As Marx said the working class has no country.

I think that the anti-Americanism is very typical of the Turkish left. I remember being on a demonstration in Ankara during the last major incursion into Northern Iraq. All of the official slogans were about getting America İmperialism out. Marchers who shouted slogans about Turkish imperialism were told to desist from doing so by the organisers.

Devrim

Devrim

20th October 2009, 18:51

By that guy's definitions, the whole Palestinian struggle would be condemned as nationalism.

I don't think the Palestinian national struggle has anything to offer the working class.

Devrim

Devrim

20th October 2009, 18:58

Then again, you are talking to Turks who live abroad and by definition don't have the very closed inward looking mentality that is all to common in Turkish society. If you came here I am sure you would here the "Nobody can understand our country but us" line.I...did...go...there.

So then you would be aware of what a nationalistic country it is. I am a European and Arab national, and I often get called a dirty foreigner in the streets. Even people who know that I am an Arab national, still feel that it is perfectly OK to express their feelings about Arabs to me. I have had people who called themselves socialists explaining to me how the Arabs are "dirty, dishonest, and thieving". The last time this happened was this Monday. Emre will confirm for you that these are very common stereotypes, and people have no hesitation about expressing them.

I suppose I am lucky that I am not black, and don't have the problems that a friend of mine has.

Devrim

20th October 2009, 20:08

So you're now saying that the US hasn't had influence over Turkish politics for decades then?

The US has had influence over the entire world for a very long time, what's your point?

What you have said in this statement is by definition a false dichotomy. The rest of the world doesn't abide by your all-or-nothing dogma.

My definition is in no way 'black and white', crudely put- that would be yours.. "American intervention in everything means Turkish nationalism is acceptable". Yeah great logic, nice.

Again, your definition of "playing down Turkish nationalism" is a bit different than most other people's definitions.

I disagree.

Your "proof" on this allegation is extremely weak and partially based on your dogma as to what "nationalism" is.

How is it extremely weak?

Usually being locked up for mentioning something is far from "being celebrated."

Definitely a very creative rebuttal, completely totally and utterly wrong in every respect, but a good turnaround.

You are idolizing it, when it fact it was a collosal failure. The USSR and Albania may have failed ultimately, and we take into account the many mistakes that led to such failures- but both got a hell of a lot further than the Paris Commune. Hell, here's the proof- how many every day workers do you know, who have no connection to leftist politics, who actually have even HEARD of the Paris Commune?

A completely pointless argument, I've met very few people who knew that Albania was ever socialist, probably as many that know about the paris commune being socialist.

I am starting to notice that many of your claims were "heard about".

Indeed, just like we've been hearing about claims as to what the APL are doing, somehow it's ok to disregard others' struggles when you're a dogmatic blind sectarian though.

You've never been to Moscow right?

Your point?

"Nicer" does not mean that assholes do not exist in that society. But if it interests you, Russian nationalism is often in the news these days- the last story I remember was a gang of ten nationalists who attacked two Tajiks, wounding both and killing one, beheading him.

Russian nationalism is militant yes, but then we have heard stories of Antifa in Russia attacking Nazis too, there was of course the recent story of the Tajik who stabbed two Nazis to death as well.

What I am doing is largely repeating what Russians have actually told me about themselves and "forwarding" it from an outside perspective.

You can certainly trust what "all Russians" tell you about themselves as being the complete truth.

Well you are an anarchist so unless I lose 50% of my brain in some kind of accident you'll always be far below me in intelligence.

If you lost 50% of your brain you'd probably be dead, not that you aren't already dead, at least where the grey matter is concerned.

Afterall, you can rarely present an argument here that isn't either a strawman, or based on dubious "evidence" you "heard" from somewhere.

And neither can you, you've just gone on about how all Russians say the same things, that's great evidence, really convincing.

Not that any 'evidence' you give me will mean you're right, the fact is that you can't generalise about any society that much.

When you have spent as much time studying Russian culture and history as I have, and when you have put in the time living in Russia and trying to work in Russian politics, you'll be saying the same thing.

Sure, I definitely intend on trying to setup a Hoxhaist party in Russia.

Like I said, you can't construct a coherent argument. Pay attention tard, a racist- hates other races and ethnicities. Since I see myself as inextricably linked to the Russians ethnically, it is hardly "racist". If someone came in here, even if they are not American, and wrote: There are too many idiots/rednecks/reactionaries, etc. in America- nobody would give a damn, and most people would support it.

Seeing as redneck is a classist slur for Americans in particular, yeah I think there would be some talk against that person.

[quote]I don't really believe in distinct "races" per se, but I too am of mixed ethnicities- what is your point in all this.

I was simply telling you my ethnic makeup, it doesn't matter to me at all. It was you who brought up the fact that you're Ukrainian for some bizarre reason. No, it doesn't really give you "more right" to comment on Russians in a generalising and moronic way.

Great, that's what we need, another ideology.

Workerism/autonomism have been 'ideologies' existing since at least the 70s, in any case it's not another ideology, it's just that I'm not a sectarian idiot like you.

There is a balance between pre-existing conditions, and conscious action on the behalf of organizations.

And?

Let's see- zero revolutions started. Zero stable, successful anarchist societies. End result- Zero success.

You certainly seem to know what you are talking about, gripping analysis there.

If by influence you simply mean people being anarchists, then think of how much influence Fascism or even Neo-Nazism has had even post-WWII?

Those damn anarkkkists.

Indeed, I just wanted to add a bit of an apology to LS for getting a little personal in that last post. Although I see anarchism as being the political equivalent of table-top role-playing games

I admit, that did make me chuckle.

I feel a certain strange kinship to such a person if only because we are both foreigners, of mixed heritage, living in vastly different countries than our own.

Workers have no country tbf, I was born here anyway so the point is slightly moot, also I really don't see myself as 'British' or whatever, I'm not really a multiculturalist with a compartmentalised mentality of what "national peoples" are like and how one is more reactionary than the others or anything like that either, so there seems to me little 'kinship' between us.

It's just the accusation that I am unfairly judging Russians or am somehow xenophobic toward Russians, a people I feel inextricably linked to, is absurd.

I don't know how being Ukrainian somehow excuses one from being able to be xenophobic against Russians, what an absurd argument, it's like saying I couldn't be xenophobic against people of my races, which would also be a totally absurd and baseless argument.

Frankly I find it to be a bit of cultural imperialism to go into countries like Turkey and Russia, coming from historically cosmopolitan nations like America and England, and telling them precisely how they should view themselves.

Did I specify 'how Russians should view themselves'?

Besides, anarchists are always supporting various "autonomy movements", which are not far removed from nationalist movements in any way.

While I am not as purist as some anarchists, you cannot say that anarchists are generally as bad in supporting nationalism as MLs, being 'not far removed' from nationalism- supporting the people around you and helping them when they are slightly xenophobic but challenging backwards consciousness is not really pandering to nationalism.

Very well, back to the APL.

I don't mind a moderator splitting this into a discussion about EMEP/Turkish left nationalism into another thread.

It would seem only fair to the original thread starters.

By that guy's definitions, the whole Palestinian struggle would be condemned as nationalism.

I support internationalist organisations like anarchists against the wall as well as the ISL. Try again.

They present no evidence for their statement that EMEP is 'slightly Kemalist' which makes their argument redundant. You, ISJ and others cannot make claims without substantiating them in the hope that if you repeat them enough people will begin to believe them.

And the slogans?

Infact the slogan was - 'Get out of our country!' at the protest I was at. In my opinion this is not nationalist at all. Turkey belongs to the common workers and peasants. Is this not our country? I would like to know at what level this nationalism was expressed because at the Wednesday night protest in Taksim Sqaure, there were absolutely no Turkish national flags, symbols or any Kemalist posters. When Obama visited, the left had a similar slogan calling for Obama to get out and take Erdoğan with him.

Oh yeah yeah 'workers and peasants'- it didn't even say that? It said what it says there and you know it because you are justifying it as a slogan. :rolleyes: Do you think I'm so stupid as to not see that?

Kayser_Soso

20th October 2009, 22:30

My definition is in no way 'black and white', crudely put- that would be yours.. "American intervention in everything means Turkish nationalism is acceptable". Yeah great logic, nice.

Don't talk about logic when you can't even construct an argument that isn't a strawman. Nobody is saying Turkish nationalism is acceptable.

How is it extremely weak?

Let's see- two websites, one of which only says that they had slogans saying get out of our country to the IMF. Yeah, that's real "nationalist". But if ELZN wants the Mexican government out of Chiapas- that's just fine.

A completely pointless argument, I've met very few people who knew that Albania was ever socialist, probably as many that know about the paris commune being socialist.

You purposely miss the point- the Paris Commune was a collosal, lethal failure. It is not to be idolized. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing again expecting a different result.

Indeed, just like we've been hearing about claims as to what the APL are doing, somehow it's ok to disregard others' struggles when you're a dogmatic blind sectarian though.

Yeah, you're the one putting words in everyone's mouth, insisting that the world revolves around your bizarre ideology- but were "dogmatic blind sectarians". Sure.

Your point?

Oh right I'm sorry- I forgot that life experience counts for nothing. Anything can be understood by Googling various subjects and searching for what you want to find.

Russian nationalism is militant yes, but then we have heard stories of Antifa in Russia attacking Nazis too, there was of course the recent story of the Tajik who stabbed two Nazis to death as well.

Oh shit! You've heard some stories, on the internet no less- so this TOTALLY contradicts the idea that Russian nationalism is extremely prevalent!

You can certainly trust what "all Russians" tell you about themselves as being the complete truth.

I am not saying what they claim is the truth- I am repeating what they believe.

And neither can you, you've just gone on about how all Russians say the same things, that's great evidence, really convincing.

Yes, eyewitness experience and years living amongst a people counts for nothing against the powers of GOOGLE!

Not that any 'evidence' you give me will mean you're right, the fact is that you can't generalise about any society that much.P

And when there is a society that is taught to believe that fitting a stereotype intentionally carries some sort of virtue? What then?

Sure, I definitely intend on trying to setup a Hoxhaist party in Russia

Oh, we're not going to have to explain the term "Hoxhaist" again, are we?

I was simply telling you my ethnic makeup, it doesn't matter to me at all. It was you who brought up the fact that you're Ukrainian for some bizarre reason. No, it doesn't really give you "more right" to comment on Russians in a generalising and moronic way.

For some bizarre reason? Are you trying to win a medal in the ignorance olympics or something? You can't figure out why Ukrainians and Russians have some common bond? Please, tell me you are that stupid. Do that and I'll leave you alone. Please tell me that you are dumb enough to not understand the relationship between Ukrainians and Muscovites Russians, and yet try to tell ME about Russian society when you may very well have never set foot on this soil.

Workerism/autonomism have been 'ideologies' existing since at least the 70s, in any case it's not another ideology, it's just that I'm not a sectarian idiot like you.

And yet where is our precious Communism you promise us? Nowhere.

And?

And, welcome to the real world moron. Life doesn't conform to your idealistic dogma.

You certainly seem to know what you are talking about, gripping analysis there.

Oh am I wrong? Please, write a list of all the successful anarchist societies and the permanant impact they left on the world. I'm still waiting for your buddy to explain what the Albanian Communists should have done under German/Italian occupation that wouldn't be considered "nationalist" by their terms.

Those damn anarkkki[sts.

No point too simple for you to miss.

I admit, that did make me chuckle.

Workers have no country tbf, I was born here anyway so the point is slightly moot, also I really don't see myself as 'British' or whatever, I'm not really a multiculturalist with a compartmentalised mentality of what "national peoples" are like and how one is more reactionary than the others or anything like that either, so there seems to me little 'kinship' between us.

Are you familiar with the term "materialism"? If so, you know that different peoples have different histories, and culture and ideas are the product of material conditions. This is one of the primary causes of "national cultures". You can deny this all you want, but they exist.

I don't know how being Ukrainian somehow excuses one from being able to be xenophobic against Russians, what an absurd argument, it's like saying I couldn't be xenophobic against people of my races, which would also be a totally absurd and baseless argument.

You don't know, because you are ignorant. And if I were "xenophobic" against Russians- just why the fuck would I permanently move to Moscow?

While I am not as purist as some anarchists, you cannot say that anarchists are generally as bad in supporting nationalism as MLs, being 'not far removed' from nationalism- supporting the people around you and helping them when they are slightly xenophobic but challenging backwards consciousness is not really pandering to nationalism.

Again, you're using your cocked-up definition of nationalism, so the point is moot. And yes, pandering to xenophobic people whose ideology is based on a unit of organization smaller than the nation-state is still just as bad as nationalism.

20th October 2009, 22:58

Don't talk about logic when you can't even construct an argument that isn't a strawman. Nobody is saying Turkish nationalism is acceptable.

This is going in circles now anyway, but you just keep smoothing over Turkish nationalism as if it's acceptable as the lesser evil to American imperialism.

It's so easy to see how this logic is wrong :rolleyes: your friend has talked about how terrible American imperialism is too, why can't you accept that Turkish imperialism is at least, almost as bad.

Let's see- two websites, one of which only says that they had slogans saying get out of our country to the IMF. Yeah, that's real "nationalist". But if ELZN wants the Mexican government out of Chiapas- that's just fine.

It's a whole lot better than pandering to Turkish nationalism.

You purposely miss the point- the Paris Commune was a collosal, lethal failure. It is not to be idolized. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing again expecting a different result.

You really are thick, I never said it should be repeated, so much for strawmans. :rolleyes:

Yeah, you're the one putting words in everyone's mouth, insisting that the world revolves around your bizarre ideology- but were "dogmatic blind sectarians". Sure.

You started bashing leftcoms when they levelled real criticisms, but whatever, that apparently isn't the case because Hoxha was right in every respect.

Oh right I'm sorry- I forgot that life experience counts for nothing. Anything can be understood by Googling various subjects and searching for what you want to find.

I haven't googled anything other than for this 'Russian mentality' you speak of, which seems to be a load of crap.

Oh shit! You've heard some stories, on the internet no less- so this TOTALLY contradicts the idea that Russian nationalism is extremely prevalent!

Russian nationalism is prevalent, reading the internet would make you think it's worse than it is. :rolleyes: It's people like you that would fall for that propaganda and you'd also fall for it in real life too most probably, but hey whatever.

I am not saying what they claim is the truth- I am repeating what they believe.

That's great, good work. Why not propagate a load of other bullshit too while you're at it?

Yes, eyewitness experience and years living amongst a people counts for nothing against the powers of GOOGLE!

No 'people' can be generalised in such a way, you have missed the point entirely.

And when there is a society that is taught to believe that fitting a stereotype intentionally carries some sort of virtue? What then?

Then there will be a massive amount of people who do not adhere to the stereotype and reject it, that's what.

For some bizarre reason? Are you trying to win a medal in the ignorance olympics or something? You can't figure out why Ukrainians and Russians have some common bond? Please, tell me you are that stupid. Do that and I'll leave you alone. Please tell me that you are dumb enough to not understand the relationship between Ukrainians and Muscovites Russians, and yet try to tell ME about Russian society when you may very well have never set foot on this soil.

Setting foot on 'this soil' doesn't make you less prone to having a nationalist and moronic idea of what 'peoples' are like, sorry but it doesn't work that way.

And yet where is our precious Communism you promise us? Nowhere.

It has existed practically everywhere, but never at the same time.

And, welcome to the real world moron. Life doesn't conform to your idealistic dogma.

That is very rich, you calling me dogmatic.

Oh am I wrong? Please, write a list of all the successful anarchist societies and the permanant impact they left on the world.

They have left more impact than Hoxha's Albanian government, I can tell you that much immediately, really who has heard of that?

If you're going to be dogmatic and sectarian, go ahead.

I'm still waiting for your buddy to explain what the Albanian Communists should have done under German/Italian occupation that wouldn't be considered "nationalist" by their terms.

For a start, built a struggle reaching beyond their borders, one of the reasons no one knows about Albania is because of how isolated it was.

No point too simple for you to miss.

It's easy because all your points are simple. And crap.

Are you familiar with the term "materialism"? If so, you know that different peoples have different histories, and culture and ideas are the product of material conditions. This is one of the primary causes of "national cultures". You can deny this all you want, but they exist.

It doesn't make a difference to your argument one way or another, you are attacking one 'people' as more reactionary than another which is distinctively anti-materialist.

You don't know, because you are ignorant. And if I were "xenophobic" against Russians- just why the fuck would I permanently move to Moscow?

How should I know?

I'm simply going on what you have said, maybe (and I hope) you don't actually believe half of the shit you have said.

Again, you're using your cocked-up definition of nationalism, so the point is moot. And yes, pandering to xenophobic people whose ideology is based on a unit of organization smaller than the nation-state is still just as bad as nationalism.

That wasn't what I was talking about, challenging workers' backwards consciousness without being 100% dismissive is important, attacking struggles for what is wrong with them is also important, you just go ahead and support a lot of them despite a lot of reactionary factors.

Emre

20th October 2009, 23:05

LS,

It is impossible to reach an analysis of EMEP based on slogans reported by Sol Haber. EMEP's ideology is openly expressed in publications such as Özgürlük Dünyası which you can get from our publishng house. We have issues with the TKP over their position on the national question. This is a much greater and more serious issue than abstract quotes.

I think that slogans like the one that you refer to above are nationalist, as is another slogan that EMEP use, "we want an independent Turkey'. I don't think that this is our country. It belongs to the big bourgeoisie, the Sabancis and the Koçes.But we do want an independent Turkey free of power-blocs. While what you say is correct, Turkey is indeed an imperialist country but it has acute contradictions and the prevalence of semi-fuedal relations in some places. The East / West divide in terms of income is up to 10 times. So do we want Turkey to be independent of power blocs or instead call for an immediate smashing of the state?

I think that the anti-Americanism is very typical of the Turkish left. I remember being on a demonstration in Ankara during the last major incursion into Northern Iraq. All of the official slogans were about getting America İmperialism out. Marchers who shouted slogans about Turkish imperialism were told to desist from doing so by the organisers.I could believe this. Such are the spectacles of the Workers Party and the Türk Solu people.

Kayser_Soso

21st October 2009, 11:13

This is going in circles now anyway, but you just keep smoothing over Turkish nationalism as if it's acceptable as the lesser evil to American imperialism.

In your bizarre logic, the failure of certain parties to explicitly call out Turkish nationalism in protests against NATO or the IMF constitute support for Turkish nationalism, which is simply bizarre. Furthermore, it is not nationalism for people to not want their destiny to be controlled by foreign power, especially something like the IMF. You're using an analysis that is too flimsy.

It's so easy to see how this logic is wrong :rolleyes: your friend has talked about how terrible American imperialism is too, why can't you accept that Turkish imperialism is at least, almost as bad.

Who said it wasn't? But your claims that EMEP is not doing enough to combat nationalism, or your claims that they are nationalist- are simply false. They are true only if we view nationalism as how you define it, and the majority of the world, academia, etc. would not define EMEP's resistance to NATO or IMF as inherently nationalist.

It's a whole lot better than pandering to Turkish nationalism.

But they don't so it's a moot point.

You started bashing leftcoms when they levelled real criticisms, but whatever, that apparently isn't the case because Hoxha was right in every respect.

Ah the strawman again- nobody here insists that Hoxha was right in every respect. Even Bill Bland was critical of some of Hoxha's major policies.

I haven't googled anything other than for this 'Russian mentality' you speak of, which seems to be a load of crap.

Yes, and I am speaking precisely of that. Your ability to Google up something does not give you expertise on it, or allow you to make a proper judgement on it. The article you provided does not describe the "mentality" as Russians describe it, and yes, it- that is the Russian mentality, IS a load of crap, spread by the leadership and the media(and Church) to control the people. But people believe it, so we must take that into consideration in politics here. If someone is told all their life that they cannot succeed, and they cannot change anything about their life, they will usually act accordingly.

Russian nationalism is prevalent, reading the internet would make you think it's worse than it is. :rolleyes: It's people like you that would fall for that propaganda and you'd also fall for it in real life too most probably, but hey whatever.

Actually this point I agree on- If one reads many internet publications, you would think that skinheads rule the streets here. I have seen skinheads, and some nationalists, but in three years I haven't witnessed any such violence, and have never had any problems despite having what is seen here as a Caucasian or "Muslim" appearance.

That's great, good work. Why not propagate a load of other bullshit too while you're at it?

So you are accusing me of lying then. Fine, please present contrary evidence- oh wait, that's right, you knew FOUR people who were Russian, and they didn't act like that. Great.

No 'people' can be generalised in such a way, you have missed the point entirely.

You are missing the point- I am not going to live a lie and pretend that hundreds of conversations over the past few years didn't happen, or happened differently.

Then there will be a massive amount of people who do not adhere to the stereotype and reject it, that's what.

Oh really? Please, tell us all about you travels through Russia and what evidence you found to support this claim!

Setting foot on 'this soil' doesn't make you less prone to having a nationalist and moronic idea of what 'peoples' are like, sorry but it doesn't work that way.

As usual you totally miss the easiest concept- namely that living in a place for a long term, along research, DOES in fact give one a general idea of what the culture of a particular culture is. It is not nationalistic nor xenophobic to live in some country for a year and then explain, in general of course, how society is in that country. To insist the opposite is true is moronic.

It has existed practically everywhere, but never at the same time.

Sure it has.

That is very rich, you calling me dogmatic.

No, it is fitting because you are indeed dogmatic. You insist that people see things through your personal definitions- you can't see the difference between workers fighting for self-determination and nationalism, as one example. You apparently believe that all cultures and peoples are somehow totally identical and thus whatever you think will work in one country will work just as well in another. You can't seem to tell the difference between making general statements(which may often be correct), and sweeping generalizations(which may or may not be correct depending on the situation).

They have left more impact than Hoxha's Albanian government, I can tell you that much immediately, really who has heard of that?

Oh really? Name the country that anarchists ran? Oh...right. And here's the kicker- Hoxha was merely applying the same line as Lenin and Stalin in his country, with minor changes(yes, evil nationalist Hoxha recognized that Albanian society was not identical to that of the USSR, what a nationalist!). So you can laugh about socialist Albania's impact, but look at a map of Central Asia/Eastern Europe some time. See nations like Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, etc.? Those didn't exist as nations for centuries- the Bolshevik Revolution gave these people their own nations, their own opportunity to govern themselves, their own alphabets and helped them to create rich bodies of national literature which could be enjoyed by all- thanks to literacy programs. And often times these programs were spearheaded by leaders from the specific peoples themselves. Tell me, what nations did the anarchists create? What people did they bring out of illiteracy and feudal existence? Where did anarchists provide universal healthcare? Where did you ever defeat Fascists, as opposed to providing their troops with target practice?

Apparently you confusing existence with impact.

For a start, built a struggle reaching beyond their borders, one of the reasons no one knows about Albania is because of how isolated it was.

This is precisely what they did do. Albanian partisans helped the Yugoslav partisans, even as far as Bosnia, and Yugoslav partisans worked with the Albanians as well. But your friend condemned this too, as "nationalists working with other nationalists." That's why I asked him to explain an alternative, and lo and behold- he vanished.

It's easy because all your points are simple. And crap.

It's easy for you to miss them? Yes I know. Actually most of this conversation shows you have an inability to think about abstract concepts and reconcile the fact that things often have contradictory natures. Hence your dogmatic condemnation of EMEP's work as nationalist, when they are in fact precisely the opposite of nationalist.

It doesn't make a difference to your argument one way or another, you are attacking one 'people' as more reactionary than another which is distinctively anti-materialist.

No, actually it isn't, because nationalism may be more or less prevalent in a particular country due to its concrete historical and present conditions. Also, the nature of that nationalist sentiment will also be different based on present conditions as well as the history of that nation in question, plus the history of its particular brand of nationalism. Some nationalists, for example, wish for minorities to stop identifying themselves as something else(this is kind of like the Gray Wolves ideology) and identify with the majority. Others are radically xenophobic and want explusion or separation.

The Croatian Ustasi were an example of the former strain. In practice they were extremely anti-Serb and later anti-Muslim as well. Officially however, and to some practical degree, they insisted that Muslims identify themselves as Croats(the Croat state, NDH, had control of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and thus the Muslim population). In a failed attempt to convince Croatian-dwelling Serbs to do the same, Ante Pavelic created the Croatian Orthodox Church, the purpose being to convince Orthodox Serbs to identify themselves as Croats. Also in this example we see another feature that is prevalent in the Balkans- identification by religion.

And example of the latter strain would be the German Nazis. Hitler was totally opposed to the idea of assimilation of other ethnic groups- particularly those deemed inferior. As usual, practice and theory did not always match, but the Nazis of course never considered insisting that Poles, Serbs, Jews, or Eastern Slavs just start calling themselves German. Many German Jews did identify themselves as Germans but the Nazis insisted that they were Jews first and foremost, and thus could not be Germans at all.

So in these two examples we see that not all nationalism is the same, nor is the prevalence of nationalism the same in all countries- all of these differences owing to present and historical material conditions.

I'm simply going on what you have said, maybe (and I hope) you don't actually believe half of the shit you have said.

I forgot- you're the expert on Russian society and you know much more about Russia than I do, so why should anything I say about it be taken seriously?

That wasn't what I was talking about, challenging workers' backwards consciousness without being 100% dismissive is important, attacking struggles for what is wrong with them is also important, you just go ahead and support a lot of them despite a lot of reactionary factors.

If this nonsense goes on I'm going to start applying your bizarre dogma to your posts. For example, if you continue to bring up abuse of Kurds, without explicitly bringing up xenophobia against Turkey's other immigrant groups or minorities in the same post, every time, this can be construed as pro-Kurdish nationalism. Also, your insistance that certain parties are nationalistic is a generalization- which must therefore inherently be wrong. You have obviously been in Turkey longer than I- but that counts for nothing now because living in a place and having life experience does not give any kind of advantage when speaking on that topic.

See how that is?

Kayser_Soso

21st October 2009, 12:43

This thread continues to get tied up with tit-for-tat nonsense. The problem LS, is that you are using the same kind of logic as that which Glenn Beck uses to conflate socialism and fascism- finding superficial common ground between two ideologies and insisting that this makes them the same. So if Turkish nationalists want an independent Turkey or consider it their country,(though obviously the nationalists who have ruled the country for decades don't mind) this must be somehow the same as Communists saying they want independence and freedom for their country.

This is indeed what you have been implying all the time, often dishonestly suggesting that EMEP is secretly pro-nationalist or nationalist apologist without "proof" that is laughable. You are not considering the profound differences between the independence that EMEP seeks, and their view of the nation, and the views of the nationalists.

It all comes down to Cows have four legs, tables have four legs, ergo cows are tables.

21st October 2009, 14:21

In your bizarre logic, the failure of certain parties to explicitly call out Turkish nationalism in protests against NATO or the IMF constitute support for Turkish nationalism, which is simply bizarre. Furthermore, it is not nationalism for people to not want their destiny to be controlled by foreign power, especially something like the IMF. You're using an analysis that is too flimsy.

Sorry, but it is nationalism.

Who said it wasn't? But your claims that EMEP is not doing enough to combat nationalism, or your claims that they are nationalist- are simply false. They are true only if we view nationalism as how you define it, and the majority of the world, academia, etc. would not define EMEP's resistance to NATO or IMF as inherently nationalist.

You've not even bothered to point out in which way the slogans are not nationalist.

..and yes, it- that is the Russian mentality, IS a load of crap, spread by the leadership and the media(and Church) to control the people.

And you think that everyone simply swallows it, which isn't really the case. More importantly, you said that people have swallowed it for a long time, which is also not the case as the Russian revolution itself proved.

But people believe it, so we must take that into consideration in politics here. If someone is told all their life that they cannot succeed, and they cannot change anything about their life, they will usually act accordingly.

You think that that kind of conditioning exists only in Russia? How many kids are slapped round the head and told they're worthless here is extraordinary. Really, most nationalists and far-right radicalists here tend to underneath it all, have a very, very low opinion of themselves. There used to be a massive amount of them here as most people on this site seem to know.

So you are accusing me of lying then. Fine, please present contrary evidence- oh wait, that's right, you knew FOUR people who were Russian, and they didn't act like that. Great.

I never said you made it up entirely, I just said there's you know can bet that most Russian people do not take it up.

As usual you totally miss the easiest concept- namely that living in a place for a long term, along research, DOES in fact give one a general idea of what the culture of a particular culture is. It is not nationalistic nor xenophobic to live in some country for a year and then explain, in general of course, how society is in that country. To insist the opposite is true is moronic.

Every society has similar reactionary elements to it, every culture does, you are just generalising Russian people thanks to what purely looks like a bourgeois myth propagated to them.

Sure it has.

It only existed in Russia and Albania, there are you happy? I hear that you are incredibly sectarian against others (no matter what ideology).

No, it is fitting because you are indeed dogmatic. You insist that people see things through your personal definitions- you can't see the difference between workers fighting for self-determination and nationalism, as one example.

Your definition of self-determination is completely subjective, of course workers' self-emancipation does not mean building a state nor does it mean building an isolated enclave of any kind.

You apparently believe that all cultures and peoples are somehow totally identical and thus whatever you think will work in one country will work just as well in another.

When did I say that? :rolleyes: Making things up hm?

You can't seem to tell the difference between making general statements(which may often be correct), and sweeping generalizations(which may or may not be correct depending on the situation).

Nah both of them are always correct 100% of the time.

Oh really? Name the country that anarchists ran? Oh...right.

I could name several 'countries' that anarchist and heavily anarchist-influenced people have ran backed up with evidence, unfortunately it seems completely not worth the hassle.

And here's the kicker- Hoxha was merely applying the same line as Lenin and Stalin in his country, with minor changes(yes, evil nationalist Hoxha recognized that Albanian society was not identical to that of the USSR, what a nationalist!). So you can laugh about socialist Albania's impact, but look at a map of Central Asia/Eastern Europe some time. See nations like Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, etc.? Those didn't exist as nations for centuries

Ah yes, they were all useless peasants that were brought into being by the great USSR, how could one forget.

Tell me, what nations did the anarchists create?

Creating a new nation is not generally something to be proud of.

What people did they bring out of illiteracy and feudal existence?

Many (and one could say it's ongoing).

Where did anarchists provide universal healthcare?

In all anarchist societies duh.

Where did you ever defeat Fascists, as opposed to providing their troops with target practice?

Very funny, anarchists have usually defeated Fascists up to the point where they have been betrayed by their supposed other-communist comrades.

Apparently you confusing existence with impact.

Apparently you know nothing about anarchist struggles yet keep commenting about them, drop it.

This is precisely what they did do. Albanian partisans helped the Yugoslav partisans, even as far as Bosnia, and Yugoslav partisans worked with the Albanians as well. But your friend condemned this too, as "nationalists working with other nationalists." That's why I asked him to explain an alternative, and lo and behold- he vanished.

Perhaps he has better things to do than to answer your pointless questions, I wouldn't blame him, but yeah it is nationalists working with other nationalists.

Actually it isn't, because nationalism may be more or less prevalent in a particular country due to its concrete historical and present conditions.

There are almost no countries in the world where nationalism is not very prevalent culturally.

The Croatian Ustasi were an example of the former strain. In practice they were extremely anti-Serb and later anti-Muslim as well. Officially however, and to some practical degree, they insisted that Muslims identify themselves as Croats(the Croat state, NDH, had control of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and thus the Muslim population). In a failed attempt to convince Croatian-dwelling Serbs to do the same, Ante Pavelic created the Croatian Orthodox Church, the purpose being to convince Orthodox Serbs to identify themselves as Croats. Also in this example we see another feature that is prevalent in the Balkans- identification by religion.

This is fantastic, you think identification by religion is not prevalent anywhere else? :rolleyes: You really are proving my point for me, you're just generalising when in fact, the same is true everywhere else.

And example of the latter strain would be the German Nazis. Hitler was totally opposed to the idea of assimilation of other ethnic groups- particularly those deemed inferior. As usual, practice and theory did not always match, but the Nazis of course never considered insisting that Poles, Serbs, Jews, or Eastern Slavs just start calling themselves German. Many German Jews did identify themselves as Germans but the Nazis insisted that they were Jews first and foremost, and thus could not be Germans at all.

This doesn't relate to your point about the Russians, in the slightest.

So in these two examples we see that not all nationalism is the same, nor is the prevalence of nationalism the same in all countries- all of these differences owing to present and historical material conditions.

I never said nationalism is the same everywhere, prevalence of nationalism is roughly the same in most countries though.

..so why should anything I say about it be taken seriously?

Because you are missing the point.

If this nonsense goes on I'm going to start applying your bizarre dogma to your posts. For example, if you continue to bring up abuse of Kurds, without explicitly bringing up xenophobia against Turkey's other immigrant groups or minorities in the same post, every time, this can be construed as pro-Kurdish nationalism. Also, your insistance that certain parties are nationalistic is a generalization- which must therefore inherently be wrong. You have obviously been in Turkey longer than I- but that counts for nothing now because living in a place and having life experience does not give any kind of advantage when speaking on that topic.

I don't live in Turkey. The way you talked about Russians as all or mostly having 'The Russian Mentality' is in no way similar to anything I've said thus far, oh and 'bizarre dogma' is more applicable to you.

See how that is?

Oh yes well done. :rolleyes: You've really convinced me.

This thread continues to get tied up with tit-for-tat nonsense. The problem LS, is that you are using the same kind of logic as that which Glenn Beck uses to conflate socialism and fascism- finding superficial common ground between two ideologies and insisting that this makes them the same. So if Turkish nationalists want an independent Turkey or consider it their country,(though obviously the nationalists who have ruled the country for decades don't mind) this must be somehow the same as Communists saying they want independence and freedom for their country.

This is indeed what you have been implying all the time, often dishonestly suggesting that EMEP is secretly pro-nationalist or nationalist apologist without "proof" that is laughable. You are not considering the profound differences between the independence that EMEP seeks, and their view of the nation, and the views of the nationalists.

It all comes down to Cows have four legs, tables have four legs, ergo cows are tables.
[/quote]

Alright, attacking organisations that're bowing to Turkish nationalism makes me Glenn Beck, congrats you've certainly got me.

Kayser_Soso

21st October 2009, 15:00

Sorry, but it is nationalism.

No, it is not nationalism. You are engaging in a gross oversimplification.

You've not even bothered to point out in which way the slogans are not nationalist.

Aside from the fact that the slogans are largely irrelevant, saying "We want an independent country" or telling a foreign controlling power to "Get out" is not "nationalist". Nationalist slogans would be something like:

(Country name) for the (nationality name)!

(Ethnic minority) out of (Country name)!

And so on.

And you think that everyone simply swallows it, which isn't really the case. More importantly, you said that people have swallowed it for a long time, which is also not the case as the Russian revolution itself proved.

No, I don't think that everybody swallows it. Again, you seem only capable of thinking in extremes. One can judge each person individually while still recognizing patterns and broad cultural trends.

You think that that kind of conditioning exists only in Russia? How many kids are slapped round the head and told they're worthless here is extraordinary. Really, most nationalists and far-right radicalists here tend to underneath it all, have a very, very low opinion of themselves. There used to be a massive amount of them here as most people on this site seem to know.

Conditioning exists everywhere but that does not make it equal to the specific conditioning of a certain country. Americans for example, are constantly told to be proud, they are told they are superior and that their country is the best. The effects of this on foreign countries has been tragic.

I never said you made it up entirely, I just said there's you know can bet that most Russian people do not take it up.

No shit there are some Russians who do not believe in it, at least not personally. But the fact is these general ideas that I am talking about are not just anecdotal. The media and various insitutions often do studies, surveys, and polls related to this subject matter. That's why I recommended Politkovskaya's Russian Diary, because she reports on some of these surveys.

Every society has similar reactionary elements to it, every culture does, you are just generalising Russian people thanks to what purely looks like a bourgeois myth propagated to them.

If you were familiar with conditions in Russia, and actually believed that this myth is not largely believed by a majority of Russians, then one would be hard pressed to explain why the political system and conditions are as they currently exist.

It only existed in Russia and Albania, there are you happy? I hear that you are incredibly sectarian against others (no matter what ideology).

You forgot Mongolia, and it was also being constructed in places like Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Bulgaria- though revisionists later spoiled these attempts. Either way, it puts anarchism's record to shame.

As for sectarian, I would say we are, compared to others, far less sectarian. For example, we will engage in constructive debate with Maoists, and acknowledge that politically they did make many valid points some times. There are disagreements between Hoxhaist parties, there was a major struggle between Bill Bland's ideas and that of other "Hoxhaists"(which as far as I know, didn't lead to some kind of split).

There are even some among the revisionists who occasionally make valid arguments and we may take them into consideration, bearing in mind the main contradictions between us and them.

Your definition of self-determination is completely subjective, of course workers' self-emancipation does not mean building a state nor does it mean building an isolated enclave of any kind.

Speaking of "subjective".... Humans are social beings that will always organize themselves into some kind of society. The nation state is a creation of capitalism, and it will eventually pass, but some form of, let us say, geographical organization will live on into the future, if for no other reason than logistics.

If you think nationalism is bad, did you ever consider what would happen if the world were divided into small, autonomous self-sustaining communities?

Nah both of them are always correct 100% of the time.

Sarcasm doesn't suit you.

I could name several 'countries' that anarchist and heavily anarchist-influenced people have ran backed up with evidence, unfortunately it seems completely not worth the hassle.

No please, name them. This will be fun. Especially judging by the qualifier "heavily anarchist-influenced people."

Ah yes, they were all useless peasants that were brought into being by the great USSR, how could one forget.

One would think you take pride in your ignorance of history.

Creating a new nation is not generally something to be proud of.

Yes, I suppose it's much more glorious to be an exploited and ignored confederation of loosely associated tribes.

Many (and one could say it's ongoing).

Try zero.

In all anarchist societies duh.

When, where? Why is this so hard to cite any?

Very funny, anarchists have usually defeated Fascists up to the point where they have been betrayed by their supposed other-communist comrades.

Yes, the standard excuse by anarchists to explain why they can't succeed. The fact is the Fascists rolled over your boys in Andalucia like they were speedbumps. Meanwhile the Soviets were providing the tanks and bombers that stopped the Fascists at Madrid. Your boys didn't want to join a national army that could have defeated the Fascists; they were too busy planning their ideal society while relatively safe in Barcelona. Oh, let's not forget taking over government buildings and basically stabbing the national government in the back.

Here's a tip- your "free" society isn't worth dick unless you win the war.

Apparently you know nothing about anarchist struggles yet keep commenting about them, drop it.

Well apparently there isn't much to know. I don't see why you don't want to provide any real life examples.

Perhaps he has better things to do than to answer your pointless questions, I wouldn't blame him, but yeah it is nationalists working with other nationalists.

Ok, then YOU can explain what the Albanians should have done under Italian and German occupation. I'd love to hear it.

There are almost no countries in the world where nationalism is not very prevalent culturally.

By your bizarre, extreme definition of nationalism I bet.

This is fantastic, you think identification by religion is not prevalent anywhere else? :rolleyes: You really are proving my point for me, you're just generalising when in fact, the same is true everywhere else.

Again, you only have the ability to think in black and white extremes. Yes, religion is an identifying factor in many parts of the world. But in some places it is an extreme factor. For example, in the Balkans, someone may be called a Turk simply because they are Muslim. In Albania, Muslims were called Turks, Catholics were called Romans, and Orthodox were called Greek- yet they were all Albanian. In Bosnian communities it is perfectly normal for someone to say "I'm half Muslim", when historically and realistically they are actually either Serb, Croat, or both(Muslim of course, is not a nationality).

Needless to say, people in America for example don't call you an Italian simply if you happen to be Catholic.

This doesn't relate to your point about the Russians, in the slightest.

Having trouble following an online conversation are you? It refers to the fact that nationalism has different forms, and the prevalance of nationalism varies depending on a country's history.

I never said nationalism is the same everywhere, prevalence of nationalism is roughly the same in most countries though.

Again, by your bizarre definition, whereby people simply not wanting to be ruled by a foreign power constitutes nationalism.

Because you are missing the point.

Pot, kettle...

I don't live in Turkey. The way you talked about Russians as all or mostly having 'The Russian Mentality' is in no way similar to anything I've said thus far, oh and 'bizarre dogma' is more applicable to you.

Whoa, hang on a sec. You don't even live in Turkey, and now you are lecturing me on Turkish society(making by your own definition, generalizations), AND Russians?

And I'm going to have to NO U you on the dogma because you are the one making bizarre claims about the definition of nationalism, among other things.

Alright, attacking organisations that're bowing to Turkish nationalism makes me Glenn Beck, congrats you've certainly got me.

They are not bowing to Turkish nationalism, end of story. Only from your bizarre perspective are they doing so, and even then your best proof is some slogans that you find "nationalist".

Let's face it- on Russian society you clearly know nothing. Now I am starting to doubt your competance to speak on Turkish society as well. I think I'll trust what I hear from EMEP members directly.

chegitz guevara

21st October 2009, 15:04

I am willing to bet that worldwide, "Hoxhaists" as you insist on calling them have a lot more influence than dogmatic, unrealistic "left communists".

I'm not so sure about that. In the U.S., at least, they are nearly non-existent.

Devrim

21st October 2009, 15:10

But we do want an independent Turkey free of power-blocs. While what you say is correct, Turkey is indeed an imperialist country but it has acute contradictions and the prevalence of semi-fuedal relations in some places. The East / West divide in terms of income is up to 10 times. So do we want Turkey to be independent of power blocs or instead call for an immediate smashing of the state?

I don't think that it is possible within the epoch of imperialism for smaller powers to be 'independent of power blocs', or put another way the dominant imperialist powers.

I think that calling for this can only be recuperated as part of the nationalist body politic. Real national independence is, in this period, an impossibility.

In any case even if Turkey were able to break out of the structures of imperialism, it could only do so by becoming itself a dominant imperial power.

Why should that have anything to offer the working class.

Devrim

Devrim

21st October 2009, 15:13

21st October 2009, 15:32

No, it is not nationalism. You are engaging in a gross oversimplification.

Yes it is nationalist, not a gross oversimplification.

Aside from the fact that the slogans are largely irrelevant, saying "We want an independent country" or telling a foreign controlling power to "Get out" is not "nationalist". Nationalist slogans would be something like:

(Country name) for the (nationality name)!

(Ethnic minority) out of (Country name)!

And so on.

That was pathetic even for you.

No, I don't think that everybody swallows it. Again, you seem only capable of thinking in extremes. One can judge each person individually while still recognizing patterns and broad cultural trends.

You can't.

No shit there are some Russians who do not believe in it, at least not personally. But the fact is these general ideas that I am talking about are not just anecdotal. The media and various insitutions often do studies, surveys, and polls related to this subject matter. That's why I recommended Politkovskaya's Russian Diary, because she reports on some of these surveys.

If you were familiar with conditions in Russia, and actually believed that this myth is not largely believed by a majority of Russians, then one would be hard pressed to explain why the political system and conditions are as they currently exist.

Largely because of revisionism starting in 1917.

You forgot Mongolia, and it was also being constructed in places like Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Bulgaria- though revisionists later spoiled these attempts. Either way, it puts anarchism's record to shame.

You don't think the fact they turned to revisionism in any way points to the failings of your ideology?

As for sectarian, I would say we are, compared to others, far less sectarian. For example, we will engage in constructive debate with Maoists, and acknowledge that politically they did make many valid points some times. There are disagreements between Hoxhaist parties, there was a major struggle between Bill Bland's ideas and that of other "Hoxhaists"(which as far as I know, didn't lead to some kind of split).

Hoxhaists are tiny and insignificant, fact.

Speaking of "subjective".... Humans are social beings that will always organize themselves into some kind of society. The nation state is a creation of capitalism, and it will eventually pass, but some form of, let us say, geographical organization will live on into the future, if for no other reason than logistics.

No duh

If you think nationalism is bad, did you ever consider what would happen if the world were divided into small, autonomous self-sustaining communities?

Of course, or you can try self-unsustaining. "areaism" is all too common here, you can be beaten up/stabbed or whatever relatively easily if you are not from the same area as someone else.

No please, name them. This will be fun. Especially judging by the qualifier "heavily anarchist-influenced people."

It's alright, you can name your failed hoxhaist experiments however.

One would think you take pride in your ignorance of history.

no u

Yes, I suppose it's much more glorious to be an exploited and ignored confederation of loosely associated tribes.

What is that supposed to mean?

When, where? Why is this so hard to cite any?

It would be very easy to cite many, I don't really care much for explaining to you why you are wrong on this sectarian point however.

Yes, the standard excuse by anarchists to explain why they can't succeed. The fact is the Fascists rolled over your boys in Andalucia like they were speedbumps. Meanwhile the Soviets were providing the tanks and bombers that stopped the Fascists at Madrid. Your boys didn't want to join a national army that could have defeated the Fascists; they were too busy planning their ideal society while relatively safe in Barcelona. Oh, let's not forget taking over government buildings and basically stabbing the national government in the back.

Oh yes of course, they were not patriotic enough, like the national government was even given support when it really needed it by the soviets, but that's a moot point as I don't support them. I can't believe you were telling me about ignorance of history.

Here's a tip- your "free" society isn't worth dick unless you win the war.

Yep it never existed, workers never rise up other than under Hoxhaism.

Well apparently there isn't much to know. I don't see why you don't want to provide any real life examples.

With a complete joke of an idea of the spanish civil war, I have even less reason to know.

Ok, then YOU can explain what the Albanians should have done under Italian and German occupation. I'd love to hear it.

Fought back in a workerist manner, not a nationalist one.

Again, you only have the ability to think in black and white extremes. Yes, religion is an identifying factor in many parts of the world. But in some places it is an extreme factor. For example, in the Balkans, someone may be called a Turk simply because they are Muslim. In Albania, Muslims were called Turks, Catholics were called Romans, and Orthodox were called Greek- yet they were all Albanian. In Bosnian communities it is perfectly normal for someone to say "I'm half Muslim", when historically and realistically they are actually either Serb, Croat, or both(Muslim of course, is not a nationality).

That isn't anymore an 'extreme' factor than anywhere else, that happens everywhere.

Needless to say, people in America for example don't call you an Italian simply if you happen to be Catholic.

No, but it can easily be assumed you're one of a set of nationalities if you're Muslim.

Again, by your bizarre definition, whereby people simply not wanting to be ruled by a foreign power constitutes nationalism.

This is so boring..

Whoa, hang on a sec. You don't even live in Turkey, and now you are lecturing me on Turkish society(making by your own definition, generalizations), AND Russians?

I'm lecturing you and Russians? No I'm making some simple observations about how you are wrong. I'm inclined to think you haven't been listening to a word I've said, if you continue making stupid comments like that (which perfectly clearly indicate you really haven't read any of my posts) then I will gladly unsubscribe and desist from posting here, this is getting tiresome.

And I'm going to have to NO U you on the dogma because you are the one making bizarre claims about the definition of nationalism, among other things.

No u.

They are not bowing to Turkish nationalism, end of story. Only from your bizarre perspective are they doing so, and even then your best proof is some slogans that you find "nationalist".

They are clearly nationalist slogans.

Let's face it- on Russian society you clearly know nothing. Now I am starting to doubt your competance to speak on Turkish society as well. I think I'll trust what I hear from EMEP members directly.

Ah yes, because someone is of the country in question and some kind of a revolutionary leftist, we can totally trust their perspective.

It is thinking like that which will lead to communism.

Kayser_Soso

21st October 2009, 19:34

Yes it is nationalist, not a gross oversimplification.

No, it is an oversimplification of the term nationalism.

I see you can't comprehend the problem with the slogans you brought up so will consider that issue resolved.

You can't.

Yes, actually you can. If you think otherwise, than you are basically challenging the whole premise of sociology and cultural studies.

Largely because of revisionism starting in 1917.

From the anarchists perspective- the guys who never had any success whatsoever, and couldn't even start their own revolutions.

You don't think the fact they turned to revisionism in any way points to the failings of your ideology?

Again, gross oversimplification. Remember, you are the one with the ideology of 100% failure every time, from the get go.

We use historical dialectical analysis to figure out where people went wrong in the practical application of M-L. None of us say: DO WHAT STALIN/HOXHA DID!! IT WILL WORK NEXT TIME!!!

Nor do we just blame all our failings on revisionists, the way anarchists do every time they are pressed to explain why they can't sustain a society bigger than a commune.

Hoxhaists are tiny and insignificant, fact.

Again, we are Marxist-Leninists, not Hoxhaists, and so we had a hell of a lot more impact than anarchists. But WHY even bother with that? If historical presense, popularity, and significance are what you seek- I recommend converting to Islam.

Of course, or you can try self-unsustaining. "areaism" is all too common here, you can be beaten up/stabbed or whatever relatively easily if you are not from the same area as someone else.

And you don't think that might occur when you start dividing people into relatively self-sustaining communities? Even if you try to make them interdependent(which would be necessary), who is going to regulate this to make sure that the exchange and relationship is fair and equitable?

It's alright, you can name your failed hoxhaist experiments however.

Damn, you are really starting to run out of arguments. Seriously, if anarchism has been so successful as you claim- why is it such a problem to name those successes? I already laid out plenty of Marxism-Leninism's accomplishments.

What is that supposed to mean?

This is how many people in the Russian empire lived before the Revolution. The Tsars were not concerned with sharing any wealth or the benefits of development with their Central Asian subjects- and they weren't much more benevolent with their own Russian and Slavic subjects.

It would be very easy to cite many, I don't really care much for explaining to you why you are wrong on this sectarian point however.

If it's so easy, why the hell is it taking so long? Success has nothing to do with sectarianism. Either you guys kicked off a successful revolution and managed to maintain a society against reactionaries for a significant amount of time, contributing something lasting to the population, or you didn't.

Oh yes of course, they were not patriotic enough, like the national government was even given support when it really needed it by the soviets, but that's a moot point as I don't support them. I can't believe you were telling me about ignorance of history.

Strawman argument. The problem is the anarchists were too concerned with their utopian dreams and revenge on people they didn't like to actually defeat the threat to everyone.

Yep it never existed, workers never rise up other than under Hoxhaism.

Strawman. Grasping at those straws eh?

With a complete joke of an idea of the spanish civil war, I have even less reason to know.

This is the reality of the Spanish Civil War, which is covered in plenty of books on the subject, such as the work of Hugh Thomas. Methinks your knowledge of the Spanish Civil War comes from historical revisionism in the form of anarchist essays and propaganda.

Fought back in a workerist manner, not a nationalist one.

Ha! And you call me dogmatic! Please, explain what a workerist manner would be? Perhaps in true anarchist style, they should have formed black blocs and set trashcans ablaze? I already pointed out that had the CPA been nationalist, they would not have split and turned on the Balle Kombetar, who took the German bait of an Albanian Kosova. The CPA considered principle to be far more important than Kosova.

That isn't anymore an 'extreme' factor than anywhere else, that happens everywhere.

Ok, so if something happens everywhere, it can't happen in various degrees, for different reasons, and in different forms. Gotcha.

No, but it can easily be assumed you're one of a set of nationalities if you're Muslim.

Uh oh...GENERALIZING!! You totally missed the point yet again.

I'm lecturing you and Russians? No I'm making some simple observations about how you are wrong.

Says the guy who's never been to Russia, and does all his research on the internet apparently.

I'm inclined to think you haven't been listening to a word I've said, if you continue making stupid comments like that (which perfectly clearly indicate you really haven't read any of my posts) then I will gladly unsubscribe and desist from posting here, this is getting tiresome.

No I have been following your posts far more closely than I should have. But by all means, duck out when your bluff about anarchist success has been called.

They are clearly nationalist slogans.

A person with a tenous grasp of the English langauge, or an inability to think in deep abstract concepts might think so.

Ah yes, because someone is of the country in question and some kind of a revolutionary leftist, we can totally trust their perspective.

Again, you simply do not have the ability to comprehend a single argument without taking it to an absurd extreme.

You have 0 experience in Russia, and it is clear you don't have academic study to compensate for that. You have Google. Ergo, your words on the subject are worthless.

All of this focus on me, the Russians, EMEP, and everything else is just to distract from the fact that you have been called out, just like the other guy, and you anarchists have NOTHING to offer the world anymore. You say your ideas have a lot of influence and history? Big fucking deal- so does Enlightenment-era liberalism, which could be seen as the origin of Marxism and anarchist thought as well. Hell, Islam has that beat too. Religion in general trumps it all.

Next time, try to get out of the house and get some real life experience before lecturing others, and maybe crack a book or two on the Spanish Civil War- ones not written by authors with anarchist sympathies.

Kayser_Soso

21st October 2009, 19:42

Calls for national freedom are by definition nationalist whether they dress themselves up in 'left wing' ideology or not. They have nothing to do with workers' interests.

Devrim

Nothing to do with the workers' interests? So being controlled by foreign powers or multinational corporations, who have absolutely no connection to and thus no concern for the common workers, IS in the workers' interest? Don't answer that, it's rhetorical.

A better question is- how can workers have a succesful revolution if their ruling class is propped up by foreign powers?

21st October 2009, 20:04

I see you can't comprehend the problem with the slogans you brought up so will consider that issue resolved.

If all else fails, simply say what I've been saying back to me, yeah of course the issue is resolved in your mind.

Yes, actually you can. If you think otherwise, than you are basically challenging the whole premise of sociology and cultural studies.

It all depends on your premise of sociology and cultural studies. Yours are very narrow and generalising.

From the anarchists perspective- the guys who never had any success whatsoever, and couldn't even start their own revolutions.

What does 'start their own revolutions' mean? Really? Do you think that had WWI not happened that the Bolsheviks would've taken power (at least like they did), you're talking absolute garbage, there are always conditions that make revolution possible and under that guise you can accuse any, any revolution of having been started by some other faction.

Again, gross oversimplification. Remember, you are the one with the ideology of 100% failure every time, from the get go.

Whereas your ideology has spread like fire around the world.

We use historical dialectical analysis to figure out where people went wrong in the practical application of M-L. None of us say: DO WHAT STALIN/HOXHA DID!! IT WILL WORK NEXT TIME!!!

Ha none of us? Like that RAF guy who just got restricted, you do not speak for all MLs, you don't even speak for all Hoxhaists in fact, I should probably stop calling you one and just call you what you are; a total moron.

Nor do we just blame all our failings on revisionists, the way anarchists do every time they are pressed to explain why they can't sustain a society bigger than a commune.

:lol: A society bigger than a commune, where do you pull this stuff out from?

Again, we are Marxist-Leninists, not Hoxhaists, and so we had a hell of a lot more impact than anarchists. But WHY even bother with that? If historical presense, popularity, and significance are what you seek- I recommend converting to Islam.

You were talking about popularity earlier as if you wanted it- when have I talked about popularity? It is purely you that has been talking about that. :rolleyes: I even said leftcoms may be smaller, but they have a bigger impact. They still do have a big impact right now in Italy and a fairly big one in France too (directly as organisations might I add, unlike Hoxhaists).

And you don't think that might occur when you start dividing people into relatively self-sustaining communities? Even if you try to make them interdependent(which would be necessary), who is going to regulate this to make sure that the exchange and relationship is fair and equitable?

The working-class itself, you should just go ahead and call me a terrible deviationist though, the working-class obviously needs management.

Damn, you are really starting to run out of arguments. Seriously, if anarchism has been so successful as you claim- why is it such a problem to name those successes?

Because your charming manner of debate makes it pointless, you'd just come out with a bunch of biased evidence against it, I would too and we'd both come to idiotic and sectarian conclusions, which is pointless really, mind you this is almost as bad.

If it's so easy, why the hell is it taking so long? Success has nothing to do with sectarianism. Either you guys kicked off a successful revolution and managed to maintain a society against reactionaries for a significant amount of time, contributing something lasting to the population, or you didn't.

"us guys" is a great way of putting it, yes anarchists and leftcoms have both contributed greatly to the class-struggle, it's simply ahistorical to ignore that.

Strawman argument.
Strawman. Grasping at those straws eh?

If you say so, no attempt at rebuttals..

This is the reality of the Spanish Civil War, which is covered in plenty of books on the subject, such as the work of Hugh Thomas. Methinks your knowledge of the Spanish Civil War comes from historical revisionism in the form of anarchist essays and propaganda.

So you deny that the USSR and Mexico took the wrong approaches to supporting factions in the spanish civil war? Not a very good perspective at all.

Ha! And you call me dogmatic! Please, explain what a workerist manner would be? Perhaps in true anarchist style, they should have formed black blocs and set trashcans ablaze? I already pointed out that had the CPA been nationalist, they would not have split and turned on the Balle Kombetar, who took the German bait of an Albanian Kosova. The CPA considered principle to be far more important than Kosova.

Ok, so if something happens everywhere, it can't happen in various degrees, for different reasons, and in different forms. Gotcha.

I specifically said it does vary before, you conveniently ignored that with a strawman, still whatever, it certainly doesn't exist in one country to the extent you make out it does.

Again, you simply do not have the ability to comprehend a single argument without taking it to an absurd extreme.

You have 0 experience in Russia, and it is clear you don't have academic study to compensate for that. You have Google. Ergo, your words on the subject are worthless.

And you have a moronic compartmentalised nationalist mindset, which you let taint any study or experience you have on most things to be honest.

All of this focus on me, the Russians, EMEP, and everything else is just to distract from the fact that you have been called out, just like the other guy, and you anarchists have NOTHING to offer the world anymore. You say your ideas have a lot of influence and history? Big fucking deal- so does Enlightenment-era liberalism, which could be seen as the origin of Marxism and anarchist thought as well. Hell, Islam has that beat too. Religion in general trumps it all.

So what is your point? Who is talking about populism? It's mostly you tbh.

Next time, try to get out of the house and get some real life experience before lecturing others, and maybe crack a book or two on the Spanish Civil War- ones not written by authors with anarchist sympathies.

Your perspective on the spanish civil war is 100% ahistorical and warped by your bias, still I shouldn't expect anything less from someone who flat out denies he's a nationalist without any kind of explanation. It's certainly convincing.

Kayser_Soso

21st October 2009, 20:26

It all depends on your premise of sociology and cultural studies. Yours are very narrow and generalising.

No, I am not generalizing, nor does this have anything to do with "my" view of sociology. Apparently you have become so subjective you no longer believe in the idea that objective reality disagrees with you.

What does 'start their own revolutions' mean? Really? Do you think that had WWI not happened that the Bolsheviks would've taken power (at least like they did), you're talking absolute garbage, there are always conditions that make revolution possible and under that guise you can accuse any, any revolution of having been started by some other faction.

Hmmm...WWI apparently wasn't enough to kick off anarchist revolution.

Whereas your ideology has spread like fire around the world.

That ideology is Marxism-Leninism so yes, it did. And it did far more than street raves or smash ups on starbucks.

Ha none of us? Like that RAF guy who just got restricted, you do not speak for all MLs, you don't even speak for all Hoxhaists in fact, I should probably stop calling you one and just call you what you are; a total moron.

Aw...does somebody need a nap? Next time try to address the argument, thank you.

:lol: A society bigger than a commune, where do you pull this stuff out from?

We're all still waiting for that list.

You were talking about popularity earlier as if you wanted it- when have I talked about popularity? It is purely you that has been talking about that. :rolleyes: I even said leftcoms may be smaller, but they have a bigger impact. They still do have a big impact right now in Italy and a fairly big one in France too (directly as organisations might I add, unlike Hoxhaists).

Sorry but it was the critics of the APL who immediately brought up the issue of popularity and influence, and you're welcome to go back to the first page and check. You also whine about it more and more as your arguments fail and you delay providing historical examples of anarchists' success.

"Big impact in Italy and France"? Define that please.

The working-class itself, you should just go ahead and call me a terrible deviationist though, the working-class obviously needs management.

And you call me dogmatic. Did it ever occur to you that the working class is not just one identical mass- and that human beings have differing interests- so the people from the commune that happens to have the valuable resources or infrastructure may not feel responsible for helping out unlucky communes who don't have such resources or access to goods? Nice to add another strawman argument too, kind of like a cherry on top.

Because your charming manner of debate makes it pointless, you'd just come out with a bunch of biased evidence against it, I would too and we'd both come to idiotic and sectarian conclusions, which is pointless really, mind you this is almost as bad.

Biased evidence against it- oh you mean like non-anarchist sources? Perhaps neutral academic sources? It's funny how you presuppose that the evidence against your hypothetical claims will be "biased".

"us guys" is a great way of putting it, yes anarchists and leftcoms have both contributed greatly to the class-struggle, it's simply ahistorical to ignore that.

All that and nothing to show for it huh?

If you say so, no attempt at rebuttals..

This would be a good start. Maybe you are having trouble with your mouse, so I will remind you that this was in response to your assertion that I claimed workers "only rise up under Hoxhaism"(which by the way, is not even an ideology). Obviously I never claimed anything of the sort. Workers rise up all the time- they rose up long before Marx even penned anything. The problem is, that without a view for the long term and the overall situation, their gains tend to be temporary, if even that.

The capitalists have the advantage in the sense that they are able to contact each other in person and at will on a global basis- whereas millions of workers have absolutely no opportunity to do the same.

So you deny that the USSR and Mexico took the wrong approaches to supporting factions in the spanish civil war? Not a very good perspective at all.

Wrong from your anarchist perspective, but it was your boys who fucked the republic and betrayed it.

I specifically said it does vary before, you conveniently ignored that with a strawman, still whatever, it certainly doesn't exist in one country to the extent you make out it does.

Excuse me but to what extent and in what country?

And you have a moronic compartmentalised nationalist mindset, which you let taint any study or experience you have on most things to be honest.

Wow, that was incredibly astute and rational. Should I explain the various flaws with that sentence or would it suffice to pre-empt your next insult and call you a "stupidhead"? Ok I'll indulge you. You wrote that in a fit of anger because you know that I am right, and you have no basis to challenge my experience on the matter. You're an internet scholar.

Your perspective on the spanish civil war is 100% ahistorical and warped by your bias, still I shouldn't expect anything less from someone who flat out denies he's a nationalist without any kind of explanation. It's certainly convincing.

Please cite your historical sources then. Or will they come with that list of anarchist successes- in other words, never?

Well I'm pretty satisfied now that you have been reduced to petty name calling after it's been shown that you are basically just an internet scholar and you have no clue what you're talking about.

Respond with the following items or don't respond at all:

1. List of anarchist sources.
2. List of scholarly sources promoting your claims about the Spanish Civil War or contradicting mine(e.g. Hugh Thomas, Anthony Beevor, Spanish Civil War, a Short Introduction, etc.)
3. An answer to how the Albanians could have defeated the Nazi/Fascist occupiers in a "workerist" way as opposed to a "nationalist" way.

Otherwise I'm going to have to kindly ask you to, as the Turks say, Sıktır git.

21st October 2009, 23:31

No, I am not generalizing, nor does this have anything to do with "my" view of sociology. Apparently you have become so subjective you no longer believe in the idea that objective reality disagrees with you.

What you're saying in no way represents 'objective reality'.

Hmmm...WWI apparently wasn't enough to kick off anarchist revolution.

Not worldwide, but then again what did it take to build the Ukrainian revolution? That was a fight from the off, a fight that the counter-revolution stemming from Russia and especially thanks to Trotskyist dogmatism got repressed.

That ideology is Marxism-Leninism so yes, it did. And it did far more than street raves or smash ups on starbucks.

Or socialist uprisings even in your precious Albania (1997 anyone).

Aw...does somebody need a nap? Next time try to address the argument, thank you.

Actually I do need a nap, your argument was still null though.

it was the critics of the APL who immediately brought up the issue of popularity and influence, and you're welcome to go back to the first page and check. You also whine about it more and more as your arguments fail and you delay providing historical examples of anarchists' success.

"Nah you just have difficulty reading."

"Big impact in Italy and France"? Define that please.

Look at the communist left in Italy as it stands, organisationally their numbers are fairly big, much bigger than moronic Hoxhaism, same in France really.

And you call me dogmatic. Did it ever occur to you that the working class is not just one identical mass- and that human beings have differing interests- so the people from the commune that happens to have the valuable resources or infrastructure may not feel responsible for helping out unlucky communes who don't have such resources or access to goods? Nice to add another strawman argument too, kind of like a cherry on top.

Your arguments are becoming increasingly lame.

Biased evidence against it- oh you mean like non-anarchist sources? Perhaps neutral academic sources? It's funny how you presuppose that the evidence against your hypothetical claims will be "biased".

'neutral academic sources' like those bashed for being 'bourgeois' in the Stalin thread?

Oh sure. :rolleyes:

Workers rise up all the time- they rose up long before Marx even penned anything. The problem is, that without a view for the long term and the overall situation, their gains tend to be temporary, if even that.

The capitalists have the advantage in the sense that they are able to contact each other in person and at will on a global basis- whereas millions of workers have absolutely no opportunity to do the same.

Good, so you do realise the most simple things.

Wrong from your anarchist perspective, but it was your boys who fucked the republic and betrayed it.

While your preferred party were the ones who set upon anarchists? You're a funny guy.

Wow, that was incredibly astute and rational. Should I explain the various flaws with that sentence or would it suffice to pre-empt your next insult and call you a "stupidhead"? Ok I'll indulge you. You wrote that in a fit of anger because you know that I am right, and you have no basis to challenge my experience on the matter. You're an internet scholar.

I'm not angry at all, just annoyed and pretty tired with the back-and-forth crap you're putting out.

Please cite your historical sources then. Or will they come with that list of anarchist successes- in other words, never?

Well I'm pretty satisfied now that you have been reduced to petty name calling after it's been shown that you are basically just an internet scholar and you have no clue what you're talking about.

You have continuously proven that you have a strange and contradictory idea of how socialism works, you've not even bothered explaining why you come up with nationalist slogans.

Respond with the following items or don't respond at all:

Nice, you can't choose the discourse of the thread however, not even the OP is allowed to choose that.

1. List of anarchist sources.

I can't be arsed about getting into your pseudo-intellectualist sectarian flaming, you can see all the anarchist successes with relative ease, type in the name of most countries + 'anarchist' (oh yes terrible google) and you'll probs find there was a big movement there sometime, giving you any kind of sources or not will not change that.

2. List of scholarly sources promoting your claims about the Spanish Civil War or contradicting mine(e.g. Hugh Thomas, Anthony Beevor, Spanish Civil War, a Short Introduction, etc.)

You've basically shown us all your completely inaccurate idea of what happened in the spanish civil war, you support the reactionary (by most people's standards whether ML or not) second republic and you think that the USSR should have backed the republic (even though Stalin himself was hesitant about it). I have nothing to prove to you, however you should think about attempting to make it look like you know something about it beyond 'terrible anarkkkists'. :rolleyes: Facts are the anarchists ran an extremely independent worker-run (http://libcom.org/library/workers-power-and-the-spanish-revolution-tom-wetzel) economy, fought (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/souchy_may.html) the Falangist and general counter-revolutionary currents until the end and whilst they did indeed end up collaborating with the republicans, it was not something that happened overnight- it was resisted by some (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/102_durruti.htm).

3. An answer to how the Albanians could have defeated the Nazi/Fascist occupiers in a "workerist" way as opposed to a "nationalist" way.

For one, not collaborating with the wrong classes and certainly not collaborating with everyone ignoring their ideological opposition to socialism under the guise of 'anti-fascism', that is just a start really. Collaboration with the revisionist Tito (by ML standards, remember) was simply a byproduct of all of that.

Otherwise I'm going to have to kindly ask you to, as the Turks say, Sıktır git.

People used 'siktir lan' at my primary school at the age of 10 thanks, that and yours are both completely devastating insults, you win the whole thread, btw it wasn't just 'the turks' we all used to say it to each other. :cool:

Andres Marcos

22nd October 2009, 02:44

Look at the communist left in Italy as it stands, organisationally their numbers are fairly big, much bigger than moronic Hoxhaism, same in France really.

Apparently you never heard of the PCMLE or other Latin American Parties affiliated with the ICMLPO like in Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Mexico etc....they got 200,000 votes in the 1998 elections I believe, the most recent ones gained them 76,000, which is due to the popularity of Rafael Correa. Within 26 years of its founding, the MPD(the electoral wing of the PCMLE) reached 29 national and provincial deputies, a prefect, 33 provincial councilors, 21 mayors and council chairmen, 285 councilors, and 313 parish council members. Your position is moot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c49CZkzLOmk

Facts are the anarchists ran an extremely independent worker-run economy,

LOL, the anarchist "independent" economy was subsidized by the Spanish Republic. J.P. Frabregas, an anarchist leader, said, "If we do not recieve help from the state, I do not know if we can be saved" The anarchists also supported Right-wing Catalan nationalists with their votes(but wait aren't anarchists not supposed to vote in bourgeois elections??); they supported nearly every opposition leader to the PSOE prior to the Spanish Civil War with very little exception. For example

"Workers! Don’t Vote!... Destroy the ballot boxes...crack the heads of the ballot supervisors as well as the candidates." When elections were called...the right won an overwhelming victory, ushering in what became known as El Bienio Negro, the two black years. (Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years, 1868—1936 p. 239),

1. The F.A.I. leadership intended on using the gold reserves of the Spanish govt. to fund their "libertarian revolution"(while a damn Civil War was going on!) by sending Abad de Santillan to transfer the gold to Barcelona. which was obviously resisted by the Republican govt.

2. The Generalitat supported the rightist-separatist group headed by Catalan president Juan Casanovas and his government[sic] and meddled in the affars of the Bank of Spain in Catalonia. When the govt. resisted, Federica Montseny, a Faista, penned an article that threatened a total breakdown between the Popular Front, which the FAI was apart of; even after the Popular Front was making a lot of concessions to the anarchists.(The poumists should also be mentioned on "starting a revolution" despite having little support in doing so.

3. Abad Santillan actually confessed on a prepared assault on the Bank of Spain in Madrid by the anarchists, with 3,000 units to be sent on the way not to defend the city but to loot its banks. The only reason it was stopped at the last minute was from the intervention from the CNT Executive.

I'll be fair not all anarchists were extremists like these, the CNT(technically they were syndicalists) actually never wanted to leave the Popular Front, like J.P. Frabregas, who said, "If we do not recieve help from the state, I do not know if we can be saved", he was talking of the bleak situation of the economy in Catalonia and btw the CNT never lost its representation in the Republican govt. even on the last days of the Democratic govt.

For one, not collaborating with the wrong classes and certainly not collaborating with everyone ignoring their ideological opposition to socialism under the guise of 'anti-fascism', that is just a start really. Collaboration with the revisionist Tito (by ML standards, remember) was simply a byproduct of all of that.

The anarchists in Spain collaborated with EVERYONE from Catalan nationalists, "Stalinists" to the spanish republic, even taking some funds to prop up their "independent" social experiments under the guise of "anti-fascism", they even had anarchist ministers in government yet they are your heroes. Funny, neither one of these is a "betrayal" but when the Albanian Communists did it, it was treason!!! FYI Tito was not known to be pro-west until 1948 then until his death, by this time he was an anti-fascist fighter and helped coordinate with the Albanian, Greek and Yugoslav Communists, we don't have powers of foresight...at this point no one would state Tito would later try to swallow up albania as another Yugoslav Republic, Assasinate Hoxha(according to various sources) and be super friendly with the imperialists in europe and washington.

Kayser_Soso

22nd October 2009, 09:47

As usual, Comrade Marcos delivers the coup de grace, so I'll defer to his reply and only answer a few things here.

.

What you're saying in no way represents 'objective reality'.

Indeed it does, and you would see that if you didn't limit your research to Google and anarchist sites.

Not worldwide, but then again what did it take to build the Ukrainian revolution? That was a fight from the off, a fight that the counter-revolution stemming from Russia and especially thanks to Trotskyist dogmatism got repressed.

Ukrainian revolution? No, an anarchist revolution in part of Ukraine(take a look at a map some time). And the funny thing is that Makhno's men engaged in all the things they condemned the Bolsheviks for, such as conscription and grain requisitions. Makhno also continually switched sides, and worked not only with the Bolsheviks but also the Ukrainian Directory government. Apparently class collaboration or working with a national government is fine when anarchists do it.

That reminds me. Since you can't provide any examples of lasting anarchist successes for some reason, I guess I'll provide one- Makhno's troops invented the Tachanka, which proved very useful to cavalry even in WWII. That's it.

Or socialist uprisings even in your precious Albania (1997 anyone).

This was mostly in reaction to the fact that Sali Berisha had fucked a lot of people out of their retirement.

Actually I do need a nap, your argument was still null though.

Feel free to explain why.

"Nah you just have difficulty reading."

Do I? Post #2 http://www.revleft.com/vb/american-party-labor-t119934/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/american-party-labor-t119934/index.html)

Look at the communist left in Italy as it stands, organisationally their numbers are fairly big, much bigger than moronic Hoxhaism, same in France really.

Since we don't see us as being part of some mythical faction known as Hoxhaism- if you are indeed referring to Communists we are in one way or another linked to that movement, regardless of our internal disagreements.

Your arguments are becoming increasingly lame.

No, they are becoming increasingly difficult for you to answer. I notice anarchists always have trouble arguing outside of their constructed framework of history and society.

'neutral academic sources' like those bashed for being 'bourgeois' in the Stalin thread?

I frequently cite "bourgeois" sources in defense of Stalin. I don't really believe in labeling all non-Communist scholars as "bourgeois", and non-Communist does not mean "can't be trusted worth a damn". It is anti-Communist authors who are suspect.

Good, so you do realise the most simple things.

And unlike you- complex subjects as well!! I'm very multi-faceted!

While your preferred party were the ones who set upon anarchists? You're a funny guy.

Who created the problem in the first place? The anarchists. I refer you to Marcos' post.

You have continuously proven that you have a strange and contradictory idea of how socialism works, you've not even bothered explaining why you come up with nationalist slogans.

To answer the first comment, I have a very consistent view of how socialism works- and my theory worked a hell of a lot better in practice than yours.

You call my views "contradictory", but that is because you are unable to understand the world outside of simple black-and-white concepts. LIFE is contradictory. This is part of the fundamentals of dialectical materialism- that things have internal contradictions and understanding those contradictions helps us understand their essence. This is the path to creating a new society- not ultra-radical slogans like SMASH THE STATE!

Next- why "I" come up with nationalist slogans? No, I am giving you examples of slogans that are nationalist.

I can't be arsed about getting into your pseudo-intellectualist sectarian flaming, you can see all the anarchist successes with relative ease, type in the name of most countries + 'anarchist' (oh yes terrible google) and you'll probs find there was a big movement there sometime, giving you any kind of sources or not will not change that.

Come on dude- If, when challenged by you and others on this thread, gave the same response in requests for the relevance of "Hoxhaism", how would you probably respond? That's why we just provided the examples(of succesful M-L, not "Hoxhaism) ourselves.

You've basically shown us all your completely inaccurate idea of what happened in the spanish civil war, you support the reactionary (by most people's standards whether ML or not) second republic and you think that the USSR should have backed the republic (even though Stalin himself was hesitant about it).

That's funny because all the books I have read on the subject, by a variety of authors, none being Communists of any stripe- seem to support my view. And yes, the USSR should have backed the republic because it was clear the Germans, Americans, British, and Italians were backing the Francoists. Do you have any idea how quickly that war would have been over had it NOT been for Soviet support? The fact that you seemingly don't speaks VOLUMES about who doesn't know anything about the history of the SCW.

Facts are the anarchists ran an extremely independent worker-run (http://libcom.org/library/workers-power-and-the-spanish-revolution-tom-wetzel) economy, fought (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/souchy_may.html) the Falangist and general counter-revolutionary currents until the end and whilst they did indeed end up collaborating with the republicans, it was not something that happened overnight- it was resisted by some (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/102_durruti.htm).

Marcos already set you straight on these hilarious claims.

For one, not collaborating with the wrong classes and certainly not collaborating with everyone ignoring their ideological opposition to socialism under the guise of 'anti-fascism', that is just a start really. Collaboration with the revisionist Tito (by ML standards, remember) was simply a byproduct of all of that.

Collaborating with the wrong classes? You mean doing the same thing your two groups of anarchists heroes did frequently?

One more little fun fact for ya. Your hero Makhno, believed that the success of his movement required "Ukrainianization" of the whole country, culturally and linguistically. HMMMMMMMMMMMM....what does THAT sound like?

Devrim

22nd October 2009, 10:24

Nothing to do with the workers' interests? So being controlled by foreign powers or multinational corporations, who have absolutely no connection to and thus no concern for the common workers, IS in the workers' interest? Don't answer that, it's rhetorical.

I think that this rhetorical question does need some comment if not an answer. What it implies is that the local capitalists do have some 'concern for the common workers', as if being born in the same country as their workers somehow manages to obscure the profit motive.

A better question is- how can workers have a succesful revolution if their ruling class is propped up by foreign powers?[/QUOTE]

The world system is global nowadays. In the case of a revolution in any country foreign powers will intervene.

Devrim

Kayser_Soso

22nd October 2009, 11:08

I think that this rhetorical question does need some comment if not an answer. What it implies is that the local capitalists do have some 'concern for the common workers', as if being born in the same country as their workers somehow manages to obscure the profit motive.

This would be an incorrect assumption of inferrence. Yes, in many political ideologies this may be implicit or explicit, but Turkish comrades I know, even from the TKP, bring this up all the time.

There also is a very good reason why the foreign capitalist or leaders of foreign blocs are slightly worse than local capitalists. Local capitalists must deal with dissent, unrest, etc. They must pursue policies that keep dissent down and as a result the struggle between them and the state comes out into the open. International capitalists on the other hand, often influence governments to impose laws favorable to corporations without any concern for the consequences(the government assumes responsbility for those). As a result the policies pushed down from the IMF or World Bank are far more detrimental to a people than those dreamed up by the local government, which has to worry about its own safety.

Not to mention the fact that the local government may have socialist influence or at least a left wing, giving the people some voice. How many socialists run the IMF or World bank?

Another major issue is that workers don't just spontaneously adopt a socialist worldview. In order to dialogue with people, you have to deal with the most obvious concerns. In many ways the local capitalist is better than the international one if only because it's possible to...let us say...reach them much easier.

The world system is global nowadays. In the case of a revolution in any country foreign powers will intervene.

Devrim

Right, and this is another reason why anarchism fails because it cannot possibly withstand such intervention. Anarchists failed even when the primary weapons of war were the bolt-action rifle, the machine gun, and field artillery. In modern times, the anarchist ideology prevents the ability to wage modern partisan war.

Prairie Fire

22nd October 2009, 22:17

Okay. We have been talking a lot about the Turkish M-L's. I suppose that this is relevant in a distant way (They are Hoxhaist, and so is the APL), but generally when I criticize an organization I usually criticize their politics in particular, and only bring their direct ideological predecessors into the equation, not other groups with similar politics.

As people have pointed out ad nauseum over the last 3 years, Bandera Roja in Venezuela was a "Hoxhaist" party that supported Rosales and attacked the supporters of Chavez.

Myself, for example, when I criticized the Canadian Trotskyist organization Fightback, I criticized the politics of that organization. I didn't drag the Spartacus league into the picture, even though they are technically both Trot organizations (I actually prefer the sparts to the red social-democrats). I criticized the politics of Fightback, and didn't bring similar parties into the equation.

Now, while the APL certainly has some kinship with the Turkish Marxist-Leninist movement, they are hardly identical.

I guess what I am trying to say is, lets get back to the issue at hand.

So, I'll address some other comments that I missed:

Jacob Ritcher:

Actually, if you guys can get that minority of non-workers into becoming workers, that would be even better (making the APL a workers-only organization). http://www.revleft.com/vb/american-party-labor-t119934/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

Well, "Workerism" has its limitations...

Certainly the working class is the leading class for change, and still is the only class capable of bringing about transformation of property relations in the United States.

Still, there are others that need to be included into this struggle.

Should we reject inner-city lumpenproletariat, and become cheerleaders for the pigs when they crack heads in the various post-industrial cities of the United States? (although, granted, the APL has taken a pretty tough stance on Lumpen up to this point). A career criminal is born of chronic poverty and disadvantage.

Should we reject the petty-bourgeoisie who are becoming increasingly squeezed out by economic pressures and the competition of the monopoly capitalists?

Should we reject students, who study full time?

What about agricultural petty-bourgeoisie, who are being more and more squeezed out by by agri-buisness?

Non-proletarian Womyn and ethnic peoples, who suffer from ingrained social prejudices (Proffesor Gates, the Black man who was arrested by police in his own home, was not working class.)?

In no way are we marginalizing the role of the working class in socialist tranformation; surely they should be at the forefront of every struggle.

On the other hand, a cursory glance at every succesful revolution reveals non-proletarian forces in the revolutionary ranks. Various classes have elements that get radicalized in revolutionary periods, and should be included in the general struggle. Granted, after the triumphant revolution they become less useful to the struggle and sometimes an open liability, but they should be included none the less.

Our politics are firlmy oriented towards the working class for the most part, but sometimes other oppressed peoples.

Of course, one could argue that in order to play a revolutionary role, all of the agricultural petty-bourgeoisie, small buisness petty- bourgeoisie, lumpenproletariat, students, intelligentsia and poor peasantry would have to become working class in the process, so maybe the point is moot.

Just consider, if the Communist movement had always limited itself to only working class membership, Marx,Engels and Lenin would have never been allowed in. ;)

I'll forward this suggestion to the APL. Chances are the circumstances will force their non-working class membership into this class anyways.

I wonder if the APL would consider a name change when the CP-USA collapses.

If they can snag the name "Communist party of the USA" when the CP-USA collapses, they probable will, but I think that there might be competition for that.

A lot of organizations would like to be the first organization to come up in a search engine when a new comrade types in "communism" and "America".

It might get ugly. :lol:

Besides, the APL doesn't want to ride on the reputation of the CP-USA, neither the negative nor positive aspects.

Inside the cog-wheel, I was wondering if you guys would consider inserting either a tong (clerical workers) like the Communist League or a compass (professionally educated workers) like the DDR coat of arms, or even both to replace the sheath of grain. Farm workers are a small minority compared to clerical workers and professional workers, and peasants are non-existent in advanced capitalist countries.

The Compass is too Masonic.

I never liked the Tongs, persynally. That may be an aesthetic choice, but it really doesn't get the point across.

The circle is aesthetically pleasing, and much better than a square or other shape with hard edges and corners.

Also, generally the people who work with machinery involving gears are working harder and producing more than people who work with tongs and compasses(no offense). A construction worker works harder and is payed less than an architecht.

Over all though, Clerical workers and Yuppies, as long as they don't exploit labour and sustain themselves through selling their wage labour, are covered under the working class policies of the APL.

Mayakovsky:

Oh how could I forget Partido Bandera Roja (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flag_Party)in Venezuela. Their history speaks for itself I am afraid.

Grouping the APL in with Bandera Roja is like characterizing Maoists with MonkeySmashHeaven, characterizing Trots with Fightback or the Spartacus league, characterizing Anarchists with Food not Bombs...

Let the politics of the APL speak for themselves.

Also, may I remind you, that the intelligence forces of various bourgeois states often formed front organizations to infiltrate and disorient the revolutionary left, and this was most often done under the guise of Marxism-Leninism because of the large following that the M-L parties had at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_CHAOS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist_Party_of_the_Netherlands

Q:

So, if Hoxhaists don't actually exist as such, what is the Hoxhaist Union then?

As Kayser Soso has said, we only use the word to distinguish ourselves from Maoists and Brezhnevites who also claim the mantle of Marxism-Leninism.

Otherwise, Marxism-Leninism would suffice.

Ok, but is it an actual group or just some sort of banner for newbe's? Earlier on it was mentioned that the ALP is part of the HU, so is it some kind of international group and if so, how does that relate to the ICMPLO?

I allready covered that in previous posts.

The HU is to the APL what the RIM is to the RCP-USA.

Leo

22nd October 2009, 22:38

Now, while the APL certainly has some kinship with the Turkish Marxist-Leninist movementI would suggest your comrades in this organization to maybe make a better research about the "Turkish Marxist-Leninist movement" without having some kinship with an organization in it. It is quite funny that the Hoxhaists in this thread are trying to portray an organization which officially is not Hoxhaist as Hoxhaist, while showing no sign of any awareness of organizations that actually are as such.

Prairie Fire

23rd October 2009, 01:56

Leo,

You keep assuming that we are learning about parties from reading about them on Wikipedia, or something.

As we have said, the APL has envoys who have met with the Turkish comrades. We know what they are about.

Kassad

23rd October 2009, 02:08

Prairie Fire, could I ask what the Hoxhaist Union's position is on the recent demonstrations in Iran and the national liberation struggle in Palestine, specifically in regards to anti-imperialist Islamic forces?

Prairie Fire

23rd October 2009, 02:31

The HU position on Iran is actually quite similar to the PSL.
http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/on-the-iranian-uprising-rebellion-against-a-system-of-oppression/
( forgive this post if it is slightly unreadable).

We also support the struggle of the Palestinian people for liberation:

http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/update-on-gaza-final-body-count/

http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/israels-new-holocaust/

Kayser_Soso

23rd October 2009, 10:19

I would suggest your comrades in this organization to maybe make a better research about the "Turkish Marxist-Leninist movement" without having some kinship with an organization in it. It is quite funny that the Hoxhaists in this thread are trying to portray an organization which officially is not Hoxhaist as Hoxhaist, while showing no sign of any awareness of organizations that actually are as such.

I already explained the use of this term "Hoxhaist" pages ago. There are many Maoist organizations that don't specifically use the term Maoist. As far as I know, no Troskyite organization uses that term. Hoxhaist is a sort of "badge" that distinguishes us as anti-revisionists but not Maoists. EMEP's line can reasonably be called "pro-Hoxha"(in relation to the USSR, China, etc), as its members readily admit.

25th October 2009, 21:48

Apparently you never heard of the PCMLE or other Latin American Parties affiliated with the ICMLPO like in Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Mexico etc....they got 200,000 votes in the 1998 elections I believe, the most recent ones gained them 76,000, which is due to the popularity of Rafael Correa. Within 26 years of its founding, the MPD(the electoral wing of the PCMLE) reached 29 national and provincial deputies, a prefect, 33 provincial councilors, 21 mayors and council chairmen, 285 councilors, and 313 parish council members. Your position is moot.

Bunch of reformist sellout parties. Being associated with the ICMLPO does nto guarantee a party's "authentic proletarian character" or some shit.

LOL, the anarchist "independent" economy was subsidized by the Spanish Republic. J.P. Frabregas, an anarchist leader, said, "If we do not recieve help from the state, I do not know if we can be saved"

You like that quote huh? Oh yeah it's applicable to all anarchists in Catalonia, they all wanted part of the popular front and the republicans could do no wrong.

The anarchists also supported Right-wing Catalan nationalists with their votes(but wait aren't anarchists not supposed to vote in bourgeois elections??)

It's obvious that mistakes were made during the spanish civil war by the CNT-FAI, you are just trying to act like it was all the anarchists fault and no problems came from the popular front, which is a moot position at best.

they supported nearly every opposition leader to the PSOE prior to the Spanish Civil War with very little exception.

Please don't tell me you support the positions of the PSOE, really isn't that like supporting the Mensheviks?

1. The F.A.I. leadership intended on using the gold reserves of the Spanish govt. to fund their "libertarian revolution"(while a damn Civil War was going on!) by sending Abad de Santillan to transfer the gold to Barcelona. which was obviously resisted by the Republican govt.

Isn't that good? Why should they collaborate with the republic? That was their primary mistake.

2. The Generalitat supported the rightist-separatist group headed by Catalan president Juan Casanovas and his government[sic] and meddled in the affars of the Bank of Spain in Catalonia. When the govt. resisted, Federica Montseny, a Faista, penned an article that threatened a total breakdown between the Popular Front, which the FAI was apart of; even after the Popular Front was making a lot of concessions to the anarchists.(The poumists should also be mentioned on "starting a revolution" despite having little support in doing so.

The POUM were not nearly as bad as the other forces in the civil war, indeed the anarchists supported them at first, as they should have, of course it gave way to degeneration thanks to the republican forces and the pressure exerted on them by the front.

3. Abad Santillan actually confessed on a prepared assault on the Bank of Spain in Madrid by the anarchists, with 3,000 units to be sent on the way not to defend the city but to loot its banks. The only reason it was stopped at the last minute was from the intervention from the CNT Executive.

What do you want me to say? That I condemn attacks against the republic?

Strengthening the the republic is not what should be done, neither is supporting the PSOE (a liberal reformist party by any measure).

I'll be fair not all anarchists were extremists like these, the CNT(technically they were syndicalists) actually never wanted to leave the Popular Front, like J.P. Frabregas, who said, "If we do not recieve help from the state, I do not know if we can be saved", he was talking of the bleak situation of the economy in Catalonia and btw the CNT never lost its representation in the Republican govt. even on the last days of the Democratic govt.

Well done, you can point to the CNT's failure, but you are condemning their "extremism"?

So do you condemn all anarchist extremism, even if it's against a common enemy? Why not condemn their attacks against fascist forces too while you're at it.

The anarchists in Spain collaborated with EVERYONE from Catalan nationalists, "Stalinists" to the spanish republic, even taking some funds to prop up their "independent" social experiments under the guise of "anti-fascism", they even had anarchist ministers in government yet they are your heroes.

You can stop conflating definitions now. I never said they were ultimately successful nor did I say I support their entering the government, at least I'm aware that this was a massive mistake, unlike you.

I've also learnt from syndicalism from the past, that it is certainly not an ideal revolutionary tactic.

Funny, neither one of these is a "betrayal" but when the Albanian Communists did it, it was treason!!! FYI Tito was not known to be pro-west until 1948 then until his death, by this time he was an anti-fascist fighter and helped coordinate with the Albanian, Greek and Yugoslav Communists, we don't have powers of foresight...at this point no one would state Tito would later try to swallow up albania as another Yugoslav Republic, Assasinate Hoxha(according to various sources) and be super friendly with the imperialists in europe and washington.

Just :rolleyes: "we don't have the power of foresight", yep you align with dodgy forces and it comes on top, that goes for everyone whether 'anarchist' or 'marxist-leninist'.

Ukrainian revolution? No, an anarchist revolution in part of Ukraine(take a look at a map some time).

With a massive fascist force, that the Black Army successfully fought and then the Soviet attempts at forceful integration, it's no surprise it wasn't a successful revolution ultimately. Of course you think that Makhno should've followed Trotsky's awesomely over the top dogma in his "do this at once!" approach, but that proved just great for the Ukrainians. :rolleyes:

And the funny thing is that Makhno's men engaged in all the things they condemned the Bolsheviks for, such as conscription and grain requisitions.

Proof please?

Makhno also continually switched sides, and worked not only with the Bolsheviks but also the Ukrainian Directory government. Apparently class collaboration or working with a national government is fine when anarchists do it.

So? We all had strange positions at some point. He ultimately believed in the organisation of a free territory.

That reminds me. Since you can't provide any examples of lasting anarchist successes for some reason, I guess I'll provide one- Makhno's troops invented the Tachanka, which proved very useful to cavalry even in WWII. That's it.

And what are 'lasting ML successes'? Are you going to talk about everything invented under Stalin (by workers obviously) as being a 'marxist-leninist success'? I don't see the Tachanka as an 'anarchist' success because that's a really stupid way of thinking, perhaps you should instead look at where they materially led to conquest of the working-class and how well that went rather than "what they invented" "how long it lasted" etc.

This was mostly in reaction to the fact that Sali Berisha had fucked a lot of people out of their retirement.

[quote]Do I? Post #2 http://www.revleft.com/vb/american-party-labor-t119934/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/american-party-labor-t119934/index.html)

[quote]Since we don't see us as being part of some mythical faction known as Hoxhaism- if you are indeed referring to Communists we are in one way or another linked to that movement, regardless of our internal disagreements.

That is just a strawman, even EMEP has a page talking dogmatically about Hoxhaism vs Maoism. http://en.emep.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54:100th-anniversary-of-enver-hoxha&catid=36:articles

The Titoists and Maoists attacked the fundamentals of proletarian revolution and socialist construction, and announced that “ they had entered the path of a self styled socialism”. They put aside socialist construction, the struggle for revolution against imperialism, and all the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism. They betrayed the international working class and the peoples of the world, taking refuge in bright and sharp rhetoric.

No, they are becoming increasingly difficult for you to answer. I notice anarchists always have trouble arguing outside of their constructed framework of history and society.

I notice you talk crap about claiming lineage to every success but no failures.

I'm very multi-faced!

Fixed for you. ;)

Who created the problem in the first place? The anarchists. I refer you to Marcos' post.

No, the anarchists created no problems, their 'betrayal' of the republic was warranted and good.

You call my views "contradictory", but that is because you are unable to understand the world outside of simple black-and-white concepts. LIFE is contradictory. This is part of the fundamentals of dialectical materialism- that things have internal contradictions and understanding those contradictions helps us understand their essence. This is the path to creating a new society- not ultra-radical slogans like SMASH THE STATE!

A slogan I almost never use, I don't claim lineage to everything 'anarchist' nor do I agree with every single anarchist principle.

Come on dude- If, when challenged by you and others on this thread, gave the same response in requests for the relevance of "Hoxhaism", how would you probably respond? That's why we just provided the examples(of succesful M-L, not "Hoxhaism) ourselves.

Oh yeah successful ML, because Hoxhaists are never sectarian. :rolleyes: In any case, you've attempted to smear Catalonia and Ukraine as being complete bourgeois revolutions from the start, of course even Marxism VS Anarchism takes sides against the popular front. But who cares about that when it's more convenient to smear over the truth?

That's funny because all the books I have read on the subject, by a variety of authors, none being Communists of any stripe- seem to support my view. And yes, the USSR should have backed the republic because it was clear the Germans, Americans, British, and Italians were backing the Francoists. Do you have any idea how quickly that war would have been over had it NOT been for Soviet support? The fact that you seemingly don't speaks VOLUMES about who doesn't know anything about the history of the SCW.

No, the USSR should've backed the anarchists, something which didn't happen because the bourgeois republic was more convenient to back. Of course it's going to lead to an 'easier' revolution.

Collaborating with the wrong classes? You mean doing the same thing your two groups of anarchists heroes did frequently?

We've already gone over this, fun time.

One more little fun fact for ya. Your hero Makhno, believed that the success of his movement required "Ukrainianization" of the whole country, culturally and linguistically. HMMMMMMMMMMMM....what does THAT sound like?

Only in response to a vehement 'Great Russia' attack on Ukraine, why should Ukraine become fully Russian in character? I am against nationalism and of course, many anarchists do take on certain nationalist characteristics.

They do not do it to the same extent as people like you however.

There also is a very good reason why the foreign capitalist or leaders of foreign blocs are slightly worse than local capitalists. Local capitalists must deal with dissent, unrest, etc. They must pursue policies that keep dissent down and as a result the struggle between them and the state comes out into the open. International capitalists on the other hand, often influence governments to impose laws favorable to corporations without any concern for the consequences(the government assumes responsbility for those). As a result the policies pushed down from the IMF or World Bank are far more detrimental to a people than those dreamed up by the local government, which has to worry about its own safety.

Not to mention the fact that the local government may have socialist influence or at least a left wing, giving the people some voice. How many socialists run the IMF or World bank?

This is obviously a joke, I hope so at least.

Another major issue is that workers don't just spontaneously adopt a socialist worldview. In order to dialogue with people, you have to deal with the most obvious concerns. In many ways the local capitalist is better than the international one if only because it's possible to...let us say...reach them much easier.

Because "if a country can't have capitalism, how can it have socialism".

Right, and this is another reason why anarchism fails because it cannot possibly withstand such intervention. Anarchists failed even when the primary weapons of war were the bolt-action rifle, the machine gun, and field artillery. In modern times, the anarchist ideology prevents the ability to wage modern partisan war.

Devrim is not even an anarchist, you have no idea what you are talking about at all.

Certainly the working class is the leading class for change, and still is the only class capable of bringing about transformation of property relations in the United States.

Still, there are others that need to be included into this struggle.

Should we reject inner-city lumpenproletariat, and become cheerleaders for the pigs when they crack heads in the various post-industrial cities of the United States? (although, granted, the APL has taken a pretty tough stance on Lumpen up to this point). A career criminal is born of chronic poverty and disadvantage.

Should we reject the petty-bourgeoisie who are becoming increasingly squeezed out by economic pressures and the competition of the monopoly capitalists?

Should we reject students, who study full time?

What about agricultural petty-bourgeoisie, who are being more and more squeezed out by by agri-buisness?

Non-proletarian Womyn and ethnic peoples, who suffer from ingrained social prejudices (Proffesor Gates, the Black man who was arrested by police in his own home, was not working class.)?

In no way are we marginalizing the role of the working class in socialist tranformation; surely they should be at the forefront of every struggle.

On the other hand, a cursory glance at every succesful revolution reveals non-proletarian forces in the revolutionary ranks. Various classes have elements that get radicalized in revolutionary periods, and should be included in the general struggle. Granted, after the triumphant revolution they become less useful to the struggle and sometimes an open liability, but they should be included none the less.

It all depends on what you mean by 'rejected' and 'included' in and by the stuggle, if you can link specific pieces on these points by the APL/Red Phoenix it would be useful.

Over all though, Clerical workers and Yuppies, as long as they don't exploit labour and sustain themselves through selling their wage labour, are covered under the working class policies of the APL.

Would the APL support managers?

Andres Marcos

25th October 2009, 23:03

Bunch of reformist sellout parties. Being associated with the ICMLPO does nto guarantee a party's "authentic proletarian character" or some shit.

You are totally ignorant of any positions of the PCMLE and the ICMLPO, it is far from "reformist" and nothing but proletarian, it has a much more authentic proletarian nature than any anarchist "collective" today.

You like that quote huh? Oh yeah it's applicable to all anarchists in Catalonia, they all wanted part of the popular front and the republicans could do no wrong.

Funny, you could not disprove what I said so you resorted to some sarcasm. This was one of the anarchist leaders not just some random guy, besides the quote is showing how your anarchist economies were nothing but capitalist funded projects and far from being independent, it reflects anarchist in Catalonia because ALL of them took the funds including your hero Durruti including Emma Goldman who said ""With Franco at the gate of Madrid, I could hardly blame the CNT-FAI for choosing a lesser evil: participation in government rather than dictatorship, the most deadly evil."

Please don't tell me you support the positions of the PSOE, really isn't that like supporting the Mensheviks?

The PSOE in the late 1800s early 1900s were a genuine socialist party, they were nothing like they are today. Their line was certainly tinged with reformism, but unlike you I admit people can be disillusioned into believing something that will cause them harm and still be genuine, for example the pacifist Salvador Allende. The PSOE were no treacherous organization, they did not sell out workers to anyone, unlike anarchists who collaborated with right wing politicians in Catalonia.

Isn't that good? Why should they collaborate with the republic? That was their primary mistake.

At least you are admiting the Anarchists bit the hand that fed it, as well as stabbing them in the back. Funny anarchists can say that but on the other hand vote for Catalan right wingers in elections. Also a MISTAKE!!!! you saying the Albanian communists combating the Nazis on a national-liberation war was tantamount to treason yet anarchists making a concious mockery of their ideology is simply a "mistake". I should have you know that if this were the case, why put the facade of the govt. being friends of the anarchists?

we don't have the power of foresight", yep you align with dodgy forces and it comes on top

You have the benefit of hindsight, still hindsight cannot be applied to the betrayal of principles like the anarchists did. FAI Ministers of government...wow, REAL anarchist qualities right there!

So do you condemn all anarchist extremism, even if it's against a common enemy? Why not condemn their attacks against fascist forces too while you're at it.

Funny, it seems the anarchists were more concerned in provoking their friends than enemies. You just said you had no problems with the anarchists looting banks of their allies instead of fighting fascists in Madrid. That is the definition of treason. Don't even act like the anarchists were "expropriating" this money becuase they had no problem manipulating the Bank of Catalonia. Don't act like the anarchists were anything "signifricant" in Spain, in an homage to Catalonia Orwell actually states they went 10 months without even fighting. I see nothing absurd at the sentiment of the Spanish Communists for calling anarchists traitors when they were consciously working to sabotage the anti-fascist war effort.

Well done, you can point to the CNT's failure, but you are condemning their "extremism"?

So do you condemn all anarchist extremism

I am condemning the extremism of the FAI, which was beyond idiotic.

Proof please?

When local railway and telegraph workers who had not been paid for months asked for help, Makhno told them, “We are not like the Bolsheviks to feed you, we don’t need the railways; if you need money, take the bread from those who need your railways and telegraphs.”53 In reality, the Makhnovists did need the railways. But Makhno declared his army exempt from rail charges. In the context of civil war and mass famine, his was less a call for workers’ power and more a prescription for starvation.

54 Malet reproduces Makhno’s order, 123. Skirda reproduces a related article from the Makhnovinist paper, 156.

No, the anarchists created no problems, their 'betrayal' of the republic was warranted and good.

Yes! do everything to sabotage a war effort against fascists! Rob from the banks that feed your social expirements! Focus more on fighting your allies than fascists!

In any case, you've attempted to smear Catalonia and Ukraine as being complete bourgeois revolutions from the start

ughh no he did not.

No, the USSR should've backed the anarchists,

Yes fund the same group of people who stabbed you in the back from Day one.

something which didn't happen because the bourgeois republic was more convenient to back.

Or maybe because they were more reliable and could actually fight, since the government had an actual army and actually did fight, instead of you know going 10 months without fighting.

Only in response to a vehement 'Great Russia' attack on Ukraine, why should Ukraine become fully Russian in character? I am against nationalism and of course, many anarchists do take on certain nationalist characteristics.

They do not do it to the same extent as people like you however.

You...have...got to be joking, you made a big deal about nationalism and are no apologizing for it. Your basically saying "we don't do it as bad as you do", ALL anarchist movements have been nationalist including Spanish anarchists(just guess who the "moros" were), Mexican EZLN and Ukranians, but you will never say it is betrayal because it will explode your argument.

Would the APL support managers?

Not in the current context, we believe that workers should have a say in either running industry through councils or through elected managers.

25th October 2009, 23:30

You are totally ignorant of any positions of the PCMLE and the ICMLPO, it is far from "reformist" and nothing but proletarian, it has a much more authentic proletarian nature than any anarchist "collective" today.

:rolleyes: I never said the ICMLPO was reformist idiot, I said that being part of the ICMLPO does not necessarily make the party a proletarian one, there probably are some alright parties in the ICMLPO however.

Funny, you could not disprove what I said so you resorted to some sarcasm. This was one of the anarchist leaders not just some random guy, besides the quote is showing how your anarchist economies were nothing but capitalist funded projects and far from being independent, it reflects anarchist in Catalonia because ALL of them took the funds including your hero Durruti including Emma Goldman who said ""With Franco at the gate of Madrid, I could hardly blame the CNT-FAI for choosing a lesser evil: participation in government rather than dictatorship, the most deadly evil."

The anarchist economy a capitalist funded project? They took the resources despite atttempts at thwarting that.

So you support the capitalist state? No surprises there.

The PSOE in the late 1800s early 1900s were a genuine socialist party, they were nothing like they are today. Their line was certainly tinged with reformism, but unlike you I admit people can be disillusioned into believing something that will cause them harm and still be genuine, for example the pacifist Salvador Allende. The PSOE were no treacherous organization, they did not sell out workers to anyone, unlike anarchists who collaborated with right wing politicians in Catalonia.

Of course the PSOE were treacherous, what are you talking about? Did they not make membership in the UGT the condition for membership?

Once again, no surprises to see you supporting the UGT too.

At least you are admiting the Anarchists bit the hand that fed it, as well as stabbing them in the back.

A neat way of characterising it, I think the anarchists sold out, yeah of course. Unfortunately, building a true uprising means stealing wealth from bourgeois govnerments/fronts and redistributing it.

Funny anarchists can say that but on the other hand vote for Catalan right wingers in elections. Also a MISTAKE!!!!

Some sources?

you saying the Albanian communists combating the Nazis on a national-liberation war was tantamount to treason

:lol: Overly dramatic words I'd never use.

yet anarchists making a concious mockery of their ideology is simply a "mistake". I should have you know that if this were the case, why put the facade of the govt. being friends of the anarchists?

Why not just always support the local bourgeois? They can always grant you a win against fascists, but never one for the people.

Funny, it seems the anarchists were more concerned in provoking their friends than enemies. You just said you had no problems with the anarchists looting banks of their allies instead of fighting fascists in Madrid. That is the definition of treason. Don't even act like the anarchists were "expropriating" this money becuase they had no problem manipulating the Bank of Catalonia. Don't act like the anarchists were anything "signifricant" in Spain, in an homage to Catalonia Orwell actually states they went 10 months without even fighting.

This is just a load of blurby crap, I've stated my positions, you're just saying "no you're wrong".

Yes! do everything to sabotage a war effort against fascists! Rob from the banks that feed your social expirements! Focus more on fighting your allies than fascists!

Who started the fighting against the anarchists? Please help us clear this up.

Do you think that the government repression of anarchists in the years before the civil war was good then? Do you support police suppression of anarchist strikes? :rolleyes: Now that wouldn't surprise me at all.

Or maybe because they were more reliable and could actually fight, since the government had an actual army and actually did fight, instead of you know going 10 months without fighting.

Yeah so let's back the government because they have an army and fight all the time, doesn't matter who they are fighting or what forces are collaborating. Nope doesn't matter at all.

You...have...got to be joking, you made a big deal about nationalism and are no apologizing for it.

Not really. There are a lot of anarchists who support forms of nationalism, I also realise that a lot of anarchist movements were wrong for it. I don't support some of the slogans thrown around by Makhno's movement but then there are just gross mischaracterisations of it, such as those that have been poured out on this thread.

Unlike you, I realise that not all "anarchism" is right, whereas you and your friend are just talking about how "all marxism-leninism is right".

Not in the current context, we believe that workers should have a say in either running industry through councils or through elected managers.

Are there any specific examples of this being pushed? Like from an article?

Glenn Beck

25th October 2009, 23:55

Do we even have mods anymore? This thread desperately needs a split or three.

Andres Marcos

26th October 2009, 00:23

I never said the ICMLPO was reformist idiot, I said that being part of the ICMLPO does not necessarily make the party a proletarian one, there probably are some alright parties in the ICMLPO however

Then what was reformist about the PCMLE? simply participating in government? Tactics mean nothing to you, so the only idiot here is you.

The anarchist economy a capitalist funded project?

The anarchists used funds from the government to fund their "independent" worker run economies.

Of course the PSOE were treacherous, what are you talking about? Did they not make membership in the UGT the condition for membership?

WOW im shaking in my boots. You really are ridiculous, that is your definition of treachery?? I would like to see what you say about the SPD, who are real snakes. Again you are ignorant of the UGT, see you are so closed-minded to not realize that the PSOE had two factions a Left and a Right, in the years of WWI the UGT and CNT actually worked with one another quite closely, when the dictatorship of Primo De Rivera came they took a reformist stance, some would say a collaborationist stance; it was only when the emergence of the Left-Wing headed by Francisco Caballero(who had changed his views 180 degrees) that the UGT and PSOE turned really radical. If the UGT was so treacherous, why has most of its history been intimate with the CNT?

A neat way of characterising it, I think the anarchists sold out, yeah of course. Unfortunately, building a true uprising means stealing wealth from bourgeois govnerments/fronts and redistributing it.

A neat way to characterize it, first off there was no anarchist "uprising" except in your imagination, all the "grass roots" stuff was subsidized by the Spanish government. So being the genuises they are, instead of using that money to fight fascists they deliberately sabotage the anti-fascist war effort! Brilliant.

Some sources?

Look up the Catalan government of Juan Casanova and the Anarchist involvement in the Catalan Bank. The anarchists were just as much nationalists as the Communists, but in this case they were Catalan seperatists. If that doesn't suit you pick up the book Spain! The Unfinished Revolution by Arthur Landis.

Why not just always support the local bourgeois? They can always grant you a win against fascists, but never one for the people.

How about alienate every friend you have and then getting your ass kicked. That fairly describes the actions taken against anarchists in Spain.

Yeah so let's back the government because they have an army and fight all the time, doesn't matter who they are fighting or what forces are collaborating. Nope doesn't matter at all.

Except Jackass the government was fighting the fascist Army and was comprised of a progressive coalition of left-republicans, socialists, communists and anarchists(surprise!), The New republic army was built from scratch and had a Communist and Socialist membership, it fought fascists until the anarchists started stabbing them in the back. Yeah they supressed the anarchists damn right! Who wouldn't stomp a bunch of snakes who act like your friends only to sabotage your war effort?

Who started the fighting against the anarchists? Please help us clear this up.

Do you think that the government repression of anarchists in the years before the civil war was good then? Do you support police suppression of anarchist strikes?

If the anarchists were so hell bent on destroying the government why participate in it later on? Also your an idiot the government prior to the Spanish Popular Front Government was a monarchy, dictatorship and a CEDA right wing one in that order. The govt. of the Popular Front was a coalition of left-republicans, socialists, communists AND anarchists. you are comparing apples to oranges. Also way to take credit for the strikes in Asturias :rolleyes: The strikes were a joint anarchist and socialist effort, you know by the "treacherous" PSOE.

There are a lot of anarchists who support forms of nationalism

Yet you don't call them "nationalists" you call them "anarchists"; you have refused to call the Albanian communists Communists, but "nationalists" and collaborating with the wrong classes and thus lump them in with the Nazi collaborators Balli Kombetar. Do give an example of ANY anarchist movement not using nationalism as a slogan...you can't because there isn't one.

I don't support some of the slogans thrown around by Makhno's movement but then there are just gross mischaracterisations of it, such as those that have been poured out on this thread.

No they are fairly accurate, they all came from the mouth of Makhno and Makhnovites.

Are there any specific examples of this being pushed? Like from an article?

It is in the Platform.

26th October 2009, 02:24

Then what was reformist about the PCMLE? simply participating in government? Tactics mean nothing to you, so the only idiot here is you.

Are you denying that there are social-democratic elements in the PCMLE?

The anarchists used funds from the government to fund their "independent" worker run economies.

Which they stole and expropriated.

WOW im shaking in my boots.

:confused: What?

You really are ridiculous, that is your definition of treachery?? I would like to see what you say about the SPD, who are real snakes. Again you are ignorant of the UGT, see you are so closed-minded to not realize that the PSOE had two factions a Left and a Right, in the years of WWI the UGT and CNT actually worked with one another quite closely, when the dictatorship of Primo De Rivera came they took a reformist stance, some would say a collaborationist stance; it was only when the emergence of the Left-Wing headed by Francisco Caballero(who had changed his views 180 degrees) that the UGT and PSOE turned really radical. If the UGT was so treacherous, why has most of its history been intimate with the CNT?

Because they are snakes, of course there were left elements in it just as there are left elements in any reformist party.

A neat way to characterize it, first off there was no anarchist "uprising" except in your imagination, all the "grass roots" stuff was subsidized by the Spanish government. So being the genuises they are, instead of using that money to fight fascists they deliberately sabotage the anti-fascist war effort! Brilliant.

Keep mischaracterising. And yeah sabotaging a republican anti-worker government is a good thing.

Look up the Catalan government of Juan Casanova and the Anarchist involvement in the Catalan Bank. The anarchists were just as much nationalists as the Communists, but in this case they were Catalan seperatists. If that doesn't suit you pick up the book Spain! The Unfinished Revolution by Arthur Landis.

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol07/no04/wilson.htm

See, I don't mind criticism of the failure of the CNT-FAI, as long as it criticises the popular front too, you seem incapable of doing this thinking they can do no wrong. Just look at that, the anarchists being denied resources from the bank of spain, great.

the government was fighting the fascist Army and was comprised of a progressive coalition of left-republicans, socialists, communists and anarchists(surprise!)

It was not progressive, a lot of marxist-leninists realise this too, you are talking crap.

The New republic army was built from scratch and had a Communist and Socialist membership, it fought fascists until the anarchists started stabbing them in the back.

This is just a blatant lie really.

Yeah they supressed the anarchists damn right! Who wouldn't stomp a bunch of snakes who act like your friends only to sabotage your war effort?

Oh of course, the republican did no wrong as we've all established. :rolleyes:

If the anarchists were so hell bent on destroying the government why participate in it later on? Also your an idiot the government prior to the Spanish Popular Front Government was a monarchy, dictatorship and a CEDA right wing one in that order.

And I'm sure you support them in their suppression of anarchists, which is quite typical.

The govt. of the Popular Front was a coalition of left-republicans, socialists, communists AND anarchists. you are comparing apples to oranges. Also way to take credit for the strikes in Asturias :rolleyes: The strikes were a joint anarchist and socialist effort, you know by the "treacherous" PSOE.

I never said there weren't left workers in PSOE, as an organisation they were treacherous though.

Yet you don't call them "nationalists" you call them "anarchists"; you have refused to call the Albanian communists Communists, but "nationalists" and collaborating with the wrong classes and thus lump them in with the Nazi collaborators Balli Kombetar. Do give an example of ANY anarchist movement not using nationalism as a slogan...you can't because there isn't one.

They were all significantly less nationalist than any others, except for left-communist movements.

GracchusBabeuf

26th October 2009, 02:26

ls, why don't you read what your friends, the left-communists, have to say about "anarchist" Spain (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/102_durruti.htm) and stop making a bigger fool of yourself?
In the history books the events in Spain from 1936 are described as a "civil war". The Trotskyists and the Anarchists see them as the "Spanish Revolution". For the ICC they were neither a "civil war" nor a "revolution" but an imperialist war. It was a war between two fractions of the Spanish bourgeoisie: on the one hand, Franco backed by German and Italian imperialism; and on the other, the Republic of the Popular Front

26th October 2009, 02:29

ls, why don't you read what your friends, the left-communists have to say about "anarchist" Spain (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/102_durruti.htm) and stop making a bigger fool of yourself?

Are you a fucking idiot or what?

I have condemned anarchist participation in the government, that position they articulate is completely correct and I agree 100%. I have also read that article a before.

This is why some libertarians today prefer to look back to the currents that emerged within anarchism, and which tried to oppose the criminal policies of the CNT: currents like the Friends of Durruti, which in 1937 fought the CNT's official line, to the point where the Spanish CNT denounced them as traitors and excluded them

Which is spot-on.

Why don't you stop making a bigger fool of yourself as the trotskyist who switched to being a left-communist who switched to being a marxist-leninist in less than two weeks. :rolleyes:

GracchusBabeuf

26th October 2009, 02:39

I have condemned anarchist participation in the government, that position they articulate is completely correct and I agree 100%. I have also read that article a before.Are you thick not to see they condemn anarchism, not "anarchist participation in the government"?

the trotskyist I was never a Trot. At least verify your facts before making your personal attacks to divert from the topic.

Kayser_Soso

26th October 2009, 02:41

Ls, there is simply too much of your clowning here to handle at once. But first of all let me point out that it is evident you know very little about the Spanish and Russian Civil Wars, save for what you have read in pro-anarchist publications.

First of all, you conveniently excused Makhno's nationalism of Ukrainianization as being "in response to a Great Russian attack"(lol wut), and then stupidly ask "why should Ukraine become Russified" instead? That's really funny because apparently the Albanian and Yugoslav Communists were "nationalist" for waging an anti-imperialist war against the Italians, Germans, Bulgarians, etc., but when an anarchist does something blatantly nationalist, it's just fine. Plus, who the hell was going to Russify Ukraine at the time? Ukraine consisted of Ukrainians, Belorussians, Great Russians, Germans, and Crimean Tatars, among other groups.

Now on the subject of the Spanish Civil War, you say you condemn the anarchist collaboration with the state, but yet you still insist that they were basically the "good guys" and the republic was the problem. The fact is your anarchists wouldn't have got anywhere without the help they did receive, and even then they got their ass kicked by the Army of Africa every time they found themselves in the path of Franco's forces. They only survived so long in Catalonia because the nationalists were focused on taking Madrid most of all. Again, we have all cited plenty of sources regarding the military history of the Spanish Civil War, so don't think you can just claim that this is "ahistorical" and get away with it.

Andres Marcos

26th October 2009, 03:03

Are you denying that there are social-democratic elements in the PCMLE?

There is NOTHING social-democratic about the PCMLE, I have translated numerous articles from the PCMLE to my comrades NONE of them is remotely social-democratic. If you are going to say that crap, then back it up. What representatives in the govt? wow, so i think that means the anarchists in spain were social-democrats :rolleyes:

Which they stole and expropriated.

More like given by the government.

Keep mischaracterising. And yeah sabotaging a republican anti-worker government is a good thing.

LOL the Republican govt. HAD workers in it! So sabotaging the ONLY viable anti-fascist group is a good thing? No wonder the FP repressed the FAI; they had to deal with people directly sabotaging their war against Franco, for no other reason than some disillusionment or some sinister motives...I doubt that though, anarchists are too stupid to deliberately hand fascists victory.

See, I don't mind criticism of the failure of the CNT-FAI, as long as it criticises the popular front too, you seem incapable of doing this thinking they can do no wrong. Just look at that, the anarchists being denied resources from the bank of spain, great.

The Frente Popular was the largest and most successful anti-fascist coalition in the nation, made up of ALL anti-fascist forces, there is little to be critical about except a repression from a bunch of lunatics in the FAI that deliberately went out of their way to sabotage the war effort; btw I don't criticize the CNT just the largely idiotic FAI. I see you are also quoting the Anarchist leader Santillan, please keep in mind he acknowledged the govt. WAS funding the anarchist communes in Aragon and Catalonia and never wanted to leave the FP.

It was not progressive, a lot of marxist-leninists realise this too, you are talking crap.

"A lot of Marxist-Leninists"? Like WHO, all the ML I have talked to recognized the progressive coalition of the Popular Front, EVEN with the Left-Republicans in it, who were a minority; the government was dominated by Left-Socialists and Communists to the point where the left faction of the PSOE and PCE were going to merge into a united socialist party, the youth organization itself united into the communist youth...despite being smaller, thus showing the influence of Spanish Communism.

And I'm sure you support them in their suppression of anarchists, which is quite typical.

You know what is typical? your complete idiocy on this thread. I have given to you an example that the suppression of the strikes in Asturias weren't even and can't even be BLAMED on the popular front since it did not even exist at that time, in fact it was CEDA who was in control and you claim I support the repression of that strike. Very stupid of you. As for the Popular Front's repression of the FAI, yes I support it, the anarchists proved themselves to be treacherous snakes who were doing a better job at ensuring fascist victory than the fascists could ever imagine.

This is just a blatant lie really.

No it isn't the Republican Army was comprised of all progressive elements in the nation including the PCE and PSOE who built it, the logos of many of the battalions had hammer and sickles for crying out loud(and no im not talking about the International Brigades). The simple fact is the Army of Spain almost exclusively was fascist so a new army was constructed from scratch on the initiative of the PCE.

I never said there weren't left workers in PSOE, as an organisation they were treacherous though.

wow...just wow. Care to elaborate how they were "traitors". The PSOE wasn't a SPD it did not suppress revolution, in fact it was suppressed and had to take a moderate stance to survive the purges of Primo de Rivera after which it radicalized like no other. It was one of the few socialist parties that were socialist in words and deeds.

They were all significantly less nationalist than any others

Sure re-calling the Moorish invasion of Spain when Franco used Muslim troops is "significantly" less nationalistic :rolleyes:.

26th October 2009, 03:21

Are you thick not to see they condemn anarchism, not "anarchist participation in the government"?

They also condemn fake Marxism, they are condemning 'official' anarchists as is their line, did you bother actually reading about left-communist positions when you were one? It seems not so.

I was never a Trot. At least verify your facts before making your personal attacks to divert from the topic.

I don't care enough to verify much anything you, you're redundant.

Ls, there is simply too much of your clowning here to handle at once.

I was getting tired of the repetitive line-by-line posts anyways, so thank you for not subjecting me to yet another.

But first of all let me point out that it is evident you know very little about the Spanish and Russian Civil Wars, save for what you have read in pro-anarchist publications.

I would say the same for you about marxist-leninist publications, of course left-communist publications are not necessarily pro-anarchist at all, those that I support certainly aren't, you can see their bashing of anarchist positions left right and centre.

What about the piece I linked from marxists.org? That certainly isn't pro-anarchist either.

First of all, you conveniently excused Makhno's nationalism of Ukrainianization as being "in response to a Great Russian attack"(lol wut), and then stupidly ask "why should Ukraine become Russified" instead?

I don't really defend his position on that, I don't think it's as extremely nationalist as you are making out is all. Indeed, he didn't push anti-nationalism enough as he should have and I don't think he was right for talking about "Ukrainian Anarchists" at all.

That's really funny because apparently the Albanian and Yugoslav Communists were "nationalist" for waging an anti-imperialist war against the Italians, Germans, Bulgarians, etc., but when an anarchist does something blatantly nationalist, it's just fine. Plus, who the hell was going to Russify Ukraine at the time? Ukraine consisted of Ukrainians, Belorussians, Great Russians, Germans, and Crimean Tatars, among other groups.

Makhno thus proposed Ukrainianization of the anarchist movement. The importance of this stand is obvious in view of the hostility and the lack of attention given by anarchism to the problems of nationality. Not even in the 1917-1921 period did the very active anarchist movements in the Ukraine begin to "Ukrainianize." The Nabat group chose the Ukraine as its field of action not because it had strong local roots, but simply because it saw greater potential for real revolution there. Anarchist newspapers, manifestoes, and pamphlets were predominantly in the Russian language and at times reflected pre-Revolutionary Russian views toward the existence of a Ukrainian nation.

http://www.ditext.com/sysyn/makhno.html

Now on the subject of the Spanish Civil War, you say you condemn the anarchist collaboration with the state, but yet you still insist that they were basically the "good guys" and the republic was the problem. The fact is your anarchists wouldn't have got anywhere without the help they did receive, and even then they got their ass kicked by the Army of Africa every time they found themselves in the path of Franco's forces. They only survived so long in Catalonia because the nationalists were focused on taking Madrid most of all. Again, we have all cited plenty of sources regarding the military history of the Spanish Civil War, so don't think you can just claim that this is "ahistorical" and get away with it.

Your sources don't really say "they got crushed by the fascist" forces because you know that's simply not true, but hey twist and turn the facts. There keeps coming up, the theme that they 'stole' from the republic and basically still failed, which is ahistorical at best to be fair. Do you think that the bourgeois of today defends the republicans or the anarchists? I think the answer is clear, pretty bad historical revisionism has occurred on the part of the Durruti column in its fighting in Madrid for example: http://books.google.com/books?id=4AKtpqZDw3wC&lpg=PA154&ots=XSeBX9D_nX&dq=durruti%20column&pg=PA152#v=onepage&q=durruti%20column&f=false.

There is NOTHING social-democratic about the PCMLE, I have translated numerous articles from the PCMLE to my comrades NONE of them is remotely social-democratic. If you are going to say that crap, then back it up. What representatives in the govt? wow, so i think that means the anarchists in spain were social-democrats :rolleyes:

I wouldn't blame you for attacking them for entering the government though, of course your perspective isn't like that at all.

LOL the Republican govt. HAD workers in it! So sabotaging the ONLY viable anti-fascist group is a good thing? wow no wonder the Spanish repressed the FAI.

Yeah yeah, typical shit from you.

The Frente Popular was the largest and most successful anti-fascist coalition in the nation, made up of ALL anti-fascist forces, there is little to be critical about except a repression from a bunch of lunatics in the FAI that deliberately went out of their way to sabotage the war effort; btw I don't criticize the CNT just the largely idiotic FAI. I see you are also quoting the Anarchist leader Santillan, please keep in mind he acknowledged the govt. WAS funding the anarchist communes in Aragon and Catalonia and never wanted to leave the FP.

And obviously I criticise Santillan for his stupid ideas, but that doesn't mean everything he said was wrong, of course that's not very convenient for you. :rolleyes: Anyway, the FAI fought degeneration of their own movement bravely and I applaud them for it, the CNT would've become reformist were it not for their influence, as it was people like Santillan tried to silence true revolutionaries like Durruti and co.

"A lot of Marxist-Leninists"? Like WHO, all the ML I have talked to recognized the progressive coalition of the Popular Front, EVEN with the Left-Republicans in it, who were a minority; the government was dominated by Left-Socialists and Communists to the point where the left faction of the PSOE and PCE were going to merge into a united socialist party, the youth organization itself united into the communist youth...despite being smaller, thus showing the influence of Spanish Communism.

A lot of accounts say both sides made mistakes and that both sides were far from perfect, also that the USSR's involvement was pretty crappy and not at a good time. These are criticisms I have heard from everyone from MLs to anarchists to left-communists, simply supporting the popular front is quite a reactionary position.

You know what is typical? your complete idiocy on this thread. I have given to you an example that the suppression of the strikes in Asturias weren't even and can't even be BLAMED on the popular front since it did not even exist at that time, in fact it was CEDA who was in control and you claim I support the repression of that strike. Very stupid of you. As for the Popular Front's repression of the FAI, yes I support it, the anarchists proved themselves to be treacherous snakes who were doing a better job at ensuring fascist victory than the fascists could ever imagine.

Actually, I said I wouldn't be surprised if you supported it. What terrible treacherous anarchists.

No it isn't the Republican Army was comprised of all progressive elements in the nation including the PCE and PSOE who built it, the logos of many of the battalions had hammer and sickles for crying out loud(and no im not talking about the International Brigades). The simple fact is the Army of Spain almost exclusively was fascist so a new army was constructed from scratch on the initiative of the PCE.

:lol: Having a hammer and sickle makes an organisation revolutionary? That is the funniest thing ever, so were the Nazis revolutionary for having hammers and sickles on their coins. I don't think I could ever match your awesomely convincing arguments, well done you win.

wow...just wow. Care to elaborate how they were "traitors". The PSOE wasn't a SPD it did not suppress revolution, in fact it was suppressed and had to take a moderate stance to survive the purges of Primo de Rivera after which it radicalized like no other.

Sure re-calling the Moorish invasion of Spain when Franco used Muslim troops is "significantly" less nationalistic :rolleyes:.

I don't even think you know what you're talking about here to be honest.

GracchusBabeuf

26th October 2009, 03:33

They also condemn fake Marxism, they are condemning 'official' anarchists as is their line, did you bother actually reading about left-communist positions when you were one? It seems not so.Of course they're condemning 'official' anarchists, but just try talking to any of them and they'll happily disabuse you of your notion that they support any anarchism except that of the AFed, UK. There's a reason why ICC is not "anarchist", but left-communist and Marxist.

I don't care enough to verify much anything you, you're redundant.
What's that mean? I'm a redundant worker? You're firing me?:laugh:

Kayser_Soso

26th October 2009, 03:38

I would say the same for you about marxist-leninist publications, of course left-communist publications are not necessarily pro-anarchist at all, those that I support certainly aren't, you can see their bashing of anarchist positions left right and centre.

What about the piece I linked from marxists.org? That certainly isn't pro-anarchist either.

You would say the same, for lack of a better answer- but you would be wrong. At least my sources weren't just on the internet.

I don't really defend his position on that, I don't think it's as extremely nationalist as you are making out is all. Indeed, he didn't push anti-nationalism enough as he should have and I don't think he was right for talking about "Ukrainian Anarchists" at all.

Ok here's the problem with that. Ignoring his attacks against defenseless German Mennonite communities for a second- you condemn Marxist-Leninists for what you see as "nationalism" by an extremely broad definition of the term. And this supposedly invalidates Marxism-Leninism as a real path to socialism from an anarchist perspective. But seeing as how anarchists historically have been involved in virtually every activity Marxists have involved themselves in- why does this not lead you to question anarchism's validity?

In other words- Marxists may have made compromises, many of them bad compromises in hindsight, but unlike anarchists they actually got something out of those compromises.

[/URL]

Your sources don't really say "they got crushed by the fascist" forces because you know that's simply not true, but hey twist and turn the facts.

It is precisely true. In one town anarchists were aware that the nationalists were attacking, but refused to build trenches on the argument that they inspired cowardice. The results were predictable. The primary problem of the Republic in the war was the fact that the nationalists had a huge, disciplined professional army, whereas the Republic basically had the Navy, and the Assault Guards. Of course the Republic tried to create a large national army but the anarchists would have none of that.

There keeps coming up, the theme that they 'stole' from the republic and basically still failed, which is ahistorical at best to be fair.

Oh ok, so the anarchists DIDN'T fail, which is why part of Spain is run by anarchists today. Jesus Christ.

Do you think that the bourgeois of today defends the republicans or the anarchists? I think the answer is clear, pretty bad historical revisionism has occurred on the part of the Durruti column in its fighting in Madrid for example: [URL]http://books.google.com/books?id=4AKtpqZDw3wC&lpg=PA154&ots=XSeBX9D_nX&dq=durruti%20column&pg=PA152#v=onepage&q=durruti%20column&f=false (http://www.ditext.com/sysyn/makhno.html).

Given your ignorance about Russian history and that of WWII, I am a bit suspect of your ability to critique historical sources for revisionism. And the fact is that "bourgeois" sources(I told you I don't like using that term) today DO defend anarchists in Spain, when juxtaposed with Communists, who of course have historically been a much bigger threat. That is why many of their sources often side with Trotsky as well, even though they see Trotsky as more radical. Even Anthony Beevor, who is extremely right wing, gives anarchists the benefit of the doubt when contrasting them with Communists in a ideological sense- though being a military historian he reveals their many failures.

Anarchy's ideals prevent it from creating a military insitution capable of defending its own revolution- period.

Andres Marcos

26th October 2009, 04:15

I wouldn't blame you for attacking them for entering the government though, of course your perspective isn't like that at all.

Exactly what is wrong with entering the govt. in Ecuador? the PCMLE is not stating this is the end goal(which is a Socialist Ecuador) but it is fighting for reforms to better the lives of working people, something anarchists only talk about doing.

I think the answer is clear, pretty bad historical revisionism has occurred on the part of the Durruti column in its fighting in Madrid for example

Don't try to act like the Durruti column was reflective of all anarchist forces, it was the only aactive anarchist militia in all of spain; really even George Orwell acknowledges anarchists went 10 months without even fighting on their relatively peaceful "front".

as it was people like Santillan tried to silence true revolutionaries like Durruti and co.

Durruti was barely alive for one year while the Spanish Civil War started and had a bigger impact then than the years of anarchist resistance, that says something about Anarchism. "The [Spanish Civil] war developed with minimal participation from the anarchists in its fundamental operations. One exception was Durruti..." (Memorias de Dolores Ibarruri, p. 382). Santillan made his statements after the fact that the anarchists in Spain started deliberately sabotaging the war effort, he also made it clear that he never wanted the FAI to leave the FP. Yeah the Republican bank won't give the anarchists money! After doing it for quite a while the snakes bit the hand that fed it, and planned to send 3,000 troops to Spain to rob a bank taking advantage of Madrid's seige by the fascists, the odd thing is that the fascists did not even have to tell them to do their work for them. Why are you an anarchist again?

Actually, I said I wouldn't be surprised if you supported it.

No, you were referring to the strike at Asturias's mines not the FP repression, I do not support the "butcher of Asturias" which was Francisco Franco. I supported the legitimate FP repression of anarcho-scum for the simple fact as you said they were "terrible treacherous anarchists", as they showed themselves to be conciously sabotaging the anti-fascist war effort, no one can be that stupid to let morons like that get away scot-free.

simply supporting the popular front is quite a reactionary position.

Coming from you I take that with a grain of salt. Seeing as how you see nothing bad with anarchists sabotaging the war effort from the largest anti-fascist coalition in the nation knowing full well that without it the fascists would steamroll anarchists just like they did after the fall of the govt.

Having a hammer and sickle makes an organisation revolutionary?

As the spaniards say you are a pendejo, having a hammer and sickle does not make you revolutionary(the 1960s USSR proved that) but as for the classes and forces involved in making the army was concerned. The New Republican Army was comprised of workers and revolutionaries, there pride in who they were made it so they constructed communist symbols into their battalions.

I don't even think you know what you're talking about here to be honest.

On the contrary it is YOU who does not know what you are talking about. I was asking exactly HOW was the PSOE treacherous, you have yet to show anything stating such. I was also referring to the clearly nationalistic statements the anarchists used when the Army of Africa(comprised of Muslim Moroccans) invaded Spain, they recalled the Moorish conquests and hinted to the Reconquista to appeal to spanish nationalism. It was to mock your statement about them not being as nationalists as other groups; because certainly when Greece was moving against Albania during the Cold War Hoxha had to make nationalist hints to the about the Byzantine Empire :rolleyes:, even when Yugoslavia was moving against Albania not once did Hoxha stoop down to dehumanizing the Yugoslav people for scoring cheap nationalist points.

26th October 2009, 12:04

Of course they're condemning 'official' anarchists, but just try talking to any of them and they'll happily disabuse you of your notion that they support any anarchism except that of the AFed, UK. There's a reason why ICC is not "anarchist", but left-communist and Marxist.
What's that mean? I'm a redundant worker? You're firing me?:laugh:

As in you're intellectually bankrupt idiot.

You would say the same, for lack of a better answer- but you would be wrong. At least my sources weren't just on the internet.

My sources aren't just from the internet either, in case you didn't notice most of them are from books and articles, that have been published and were quite prominent too, just conveniently ignore that as it suits your argument of course. :rolleyes:

Ok here's the problem with that. Ignoring his attacks against defenseless German Mennonite communities for a second

Funny story that, never seems to be backed up with substantial evidence, ever. Wonder why. In any case, let's be clear on this - Makhno during his time in Paris spent time in a Jewish club, so I guess he must just be an anti-semite because the propaganda said so!

you condemn Marxist-Leninists for what you see as "nationalism" by an extremely broad definition of the term. And this supposedly invalidates Marxism-Leninism as a real path to socialism from an anarchist perspective.

No not really, there are several factors, also I don't think all marxist-leninists are 'invalid'.

But seeing as how anarchists historically have been involved in virtually every activity Marxists have involved themselves in- why does this not lead you to question anarchism's validity?

I've never said anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-communism were perfect, indeed I prefer anarcho-communism over syndicalism, then again I'm not a sectarian that attacks fellow libertarian socialist tendencies such as left-communists or autonomous marxists either.

In other words- Marxists may have made compromises, many of them bad compromises in hindsight, but unlike anarchists they actually got something out of those compromises.

Just because you say so, makes it true.

It is precisely true. In one town anarchists were aware that the nationalists were attacking, but refused to build trenches on the argument that they inspired cowardice. The results were predictable. The primary problem of the Republic in the war was the fact that the nationalists had a huge, disciplined professional army, whereas the Republic basically had the Navy, and the Assault Guards. Of course the Republic tried to create a large national army but the anarchists would have none of that.

Yeah all the anarchists fault, cool recount of history.

Given your ignorance about Russian history and that of WWII

Disagreeing with your perspective somehow = ignorance of history.

I am a bit suspect of your ability to critique historical sources for revisionism. And the fact is that "bourgeois" sources(I told you I don't like using that term) today DO defend anarchists in Spain, when juxtaposed with Communists, who of course have historically been a much bigger threat.

How do you reckon that? Most of them defend the popular front and attack anarchists to some extent, even if they just play down their attacks on fascists. You don't have to look far to see how deep resentment against anarchists by the bourgeois goes, do you think that bourgeois recounters of history today do not have the same line of "the anarchists betrayed the republic".

That is why many of their sources often side with Trotsky as well, even though they see Trotsky as more radical. Even Anthony Beevor, who is extremely right wing, gives anarchists the benefit of the doubt when contrasting them with Communists in a ideological sense- though being a military historian he reveals their many failures.

Indeed that is a source many anarchists mention, I don't see what's wrong with it of course, it's a pretty good one. Like I said, I don't mind balanced critiques of the spanish civil war effort from the anarchist side.

Anarchy's ideals prevent it from creating a military insitution capable of defending its own revolution- period.

Just cause you say so. Yep right.

Don't try to act like the Durruti column was reflective of all anarchist forces, it was the only aactive anarchist militia in all of spain; really even George Orwell acknowledges anarchists went 10 months without even fighting on their relatively peaceful "front".

May I ask what page that is in from homage to catalonia?

Durruti was barely alive for one year while the Spanish Civil War started and had a bigger impact then than the years of anarchist resistance, that says something about Anarchism.

Not really, it says that individuals get to express their full potential, unlike in 'war communism'.

"The [Spanish Civil] war developed with minimal participation from the anarchists in its fundamental operations. One exception was Durruti..." (Memorias de Dolores Ibarruri, p. 382).

Dolores was notably anti-anarchist in her perspective, but even she saw his ferocity, I suppose that must say something about the anarchists if there is praise even from hostile sources (as you and kayser acknowledge exists yourselves).

Santillan made his statements after the fact that the anarchists in Spain started deliberately sabotaging the war effort, he also made it clear that he never wanted the FAI to leave the FP.

Santillan was an arsehole in many respects, he tried to get Durruti and his 'current' within the FAI expelled remember.

http://libcom.org/library/we-the-anarchists-review
Christie now argues that the FAI had done its job but was taken over by "rootless intellectuals" like Diego Abad de Santillan. It is certain that most of its militants went back to their day to day activity as members of the CNT. Many others were taken out of activity after the abortive uprising which led to the massacre at Casas Viejas and a wave of arrests and repression. De Santillan had joined the FAI in 1933. He had an obsession with economic planning and saw the FAI as providing anarchism with the discipline and organisation to fulfil its historic mission. Groups around De Santillan argued for "greater democracy" within the FAI and moves were made to expel the Nosotros group (which included Durruti, Ascaso etc) though nothing came of the latter. Quite definitely the culture changed and many of the working class militants no longer felt at home in the FAI, to quote Progreso Fernández, "Lots of people dropped out then, but we remained anarchists, because anarchism is an attitude to life".

Yeah the Republican bank won't give the anarchists money! After doing it for quite a while the snakes bit the hand that fed it, and planned to send 3,000 troops to Spain to rob a bank taking advantage of Madrid's seige by the fascists, the odd thing is that the fascists did not even have to tell them to do their work for them. Why are you an anarchist again?

Taking money off the republic is something you should support as a communist, why are you a communist again?

No, you were referring to the strike at Asturias's mines not the FP repression, I do not support the "butcher of Asturias" which was Francisco Franco. I supported the legitimate FP repression of anarcho-scum for the simple fact as you said they were "terrible treacherous anarchists", as they showed themselves to be conciously sabotaging the anti-fascist war effort, no one can be that stupid to let morons like that get away scot-free.

So we must support the bourgeois republic instead?

Coming from you I take that with a grain of salt. Seeing as how you see nothing bad with anarchists sabotaging the war effort from the largest anti-fascist coalition in the nation knowing full well that without it the fascists would steamroll anarchists just like they did after the fall of the govt.

Had the POUM and the CNT-FAI collaborated with each other, I believe they could have successfully repelled all the forces of reaction.

As the spaniards say you are a pendejo

Nice interjection there, helps your case. Just give up and admit that your argument about hammers and sickles was nothing short of a joke and it made you look stupid.

On the contrary it is YOU who does not know what you are talking about. I was asking exactly HOW was the PSOE treacherous, you have yet to show anything stating such.

Let's take a look at its founder (and the founder of the UGT of course - although the UGT having more militant rank-and-file workers eventually even striked against PSOE's reformism!) http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/282271/Pablo-Iglesias

An effective organizer, Iglesias guided the slowly expanding PSOE on a disciplined, austere, and evolutionary course. Although for many years he scorned alliance with non–working-class parties, he believed in parliamentary and municipal political action. He was one of the first socialists elected to the Madrid Municipal Council (1905) and to the Cortes, the Spanish parliament (1910). In 1921 he helped prevent the PSOE from joining the Third Internation

I was also referring to the clearly nationalistic statements the anarchists used when the Army of Africa(comprised of Muslim Moroccans) invaded Spain

Some sources here please.

even when Yugoslavia was moving against Albania not once did Hoxha stoop down to dehumanizing the Yugoslav people for scoring cheap nationalist points.

Nah, he was a true anti-worker internationalist.

Kayser_Soso

26th October 2009, 12:18

My sources aren't just from the internet either, in case you didn't notice most of them are from books and articles, that have been published and were quite prominent too, just conveniently ignore that as it suits your argument of course. :rolleyes:

I must have missed them. Care to tell me how far back I should search?

Funny story that, never seems to be backed up with substantial evidence, ever. Wonder why. In any case, let's be clear on this - Makhno during his time in Paris spent time in a Jewish club, so I guess he must just be an anti-semite because the propaganda said so!

Much of Makhno's own biography cannot be substantiated. You are confusing the attacks on Germans with pogroms against Jews. Makhno himself was not anti-semitic. That his troops may have commited crimes against Jews is indeed possible, as many troops during that war switched sides frequently and committed pogroms. What is undeniable is that Makhnoists issued currency with the words "Feel free to Forge This" on it, and made it a capital crime not to accept their currency.

No not really, there are several factors, also I don't think all marxist-leninists are 'invalid'.

It seems you only are concerned about details when anarchists betray their principles.

I've never said anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-communism were perfect, indeed I prefer anarcho-communism over syndicalism, then again I'm not a sectarian that attacks fellow libertarian socialist tendencies such as left-communists or autonomous marxists either.

We are not necessarily sectarian either. We deal cordially with Maoists and there are a great deal of revisionists who we attempt to reason with.

Just because you say so, makes it true.

Yeah all the anarchists fault, cool recount of history.

Disagreeing with your perspective somehow = ignorance of history.

How do you reckon that? Most of them defend the popular front and attack anarchists to some extent, even if they just play down their attacks on fascists. You don't have to look far to see how deep resentment against anarchists by the bourgeois goes, do you think that bourgeois recounters of history today do not have the same line of "the anarchists betrayed the republic".

Just cause you say so. Yep right.

I've cited my sources; look through this thread.

26th October 2009, 12:29

I must have missed them. Care to tell me how far back I should search?

To the beginning of the thread, I don't care about your claim here as it's just bs, you can look at all of them, they are not just internet-based by any means whatsoever.

Much of Makhno's own biography cannot be substantiated. You are confusing the attacks on Germans with pogroms against Jews.

Alright, point taken and that was written in a rush. Still, the attacks on 'defenceless mennonites' are not clearly detailed anywhere.

It seems you only are concerned about details when anarchists betray their principles.

If you want to go into detail about Albania (and this is the thread to do so, if there are any) and show me what went wrong and how it could've been corrected, you are more than welcome to do so.

I've cited my sources; look through this thread.

As have I. Not every source you/Andres have posted is terrible nor have I said that, but I at least don't agree with the perspective of many of them, then again I don't agree with every part of the perspective of some of the ones I posted myself, what I quoted/said about from it however tends to hold true.

Kayser_Soso

26th October 2009, 12:40

Alright, point taken and that was written in a rush. Still, the attacks on 'defenceless mennonites' are not clearly detailed anywhere.

Actually the Mennonites were forced to take up arms to defend themselves.

If you want to go into detail about Albania (and this is the thread to do so, if there are any) and show me what went wrong and how it could've been corrected, you are more than welcome to do so.

When you say what went wrong- as in why Albania did not remain socialist, that is a rather easy question to answer. But first, I'm still waiting for an explanation of the "workerist" method the Albanians should have used according to anarchists. If it is anything like the tactics of modern day anarchists, I would assume it means smashing some shop windows, dancing in the street, putting on "guerrilla theatre" that nobody understands, and then exagerrating the events of the rally after the fact. Of course the Italians or Germans would have little tolerance for that.

As have I. Not every source you/Andres have posted is terrible nor have I said that, but I at least don't agree with the perspective of many of them, then again I don't agree with every part of the perspective of some of the ones I posted myself, what I quoted/said about from it however tends to hold true.

I should point out that none of the sources I have posted "agree with my perspective", in the sense that most of them are at least anti-Communist. I did not choose to become a "Hoxhaist" and then find sources that supported that position. History is my passion and years of study led me to this position.

Devrim

26th October 2009, 21:47

Kayser_Soso

26th October 2009, 22:10

Andres Marcos

26th October 2009, 22:40

May I ask what page that is in from homage to catalonia?

Can't remember the page as an Homage to Catalonia is not a book I keep in my library(checked it out instead) but it is mentioned and sourced in Arthur Landis's intro on Spain! The Unfinished Revolution and mentioned in his chapter on "Anarchists" both of which can be found online, if not I have the book in e-form for you to scout on.

Not really, it says that individuals get to express their full potential, unlike in 'war communism'.

Here is some good ol anarchist "liberation" for you

And if this sound inspiring to “Women's Liberation,” know this: equality stopped with the differentiation between the sexes. The F.A.I. maintained the principle that the wages of woman workers would continue to be inferior to those of men, though they did the same work.10

Their aberrations led even to the syndicalizing of the houses of prostitution in Barcelona. And these were then exploited for the benefit of the F.A.I. Committees.

I suppose that must say something about the anarchists if there is praise even from hostile sources (as you and kayser acknowledge exists yourselves).

No, not anarchists, but an anarchist. It really does say something that an individual anarchist commander who was only alive for 7 months of the war made a bigger impact on the anti-fascist front than years of fighting by his comrades. Here is the "significance" of anarchist troops in battle.

Where their leadership was in absolute control—such as Toledo—the results, as we have seen, were disastrous. Colodny recalls that before Carabanchel in the last week of November, 1936, an “Anarchist unit mutinied, killed its officers and fled.”2

Franz Borkenau describes incidents in which the appearance of a single plane on a bombing run was sufficient to cause a general retreat from certain villages occupied by C.N.T. troops.3 This was unfortunately true of other units too, however. To a Spanish peasant volunteer who in some cases had never been more than ten kilometers from his own village in his lifetime, who had never seen a truck, let alone a three-motored Caproni bomber, this was understandable. But here, again, it was but a question of training and leadership.... Time after time in the “second round” in Aragón, in the days of the great retreats of March 10, 1938, full battalions of Anarchist troops would retreat without orders, leaving the Lincolns and other Internationals of the 35th Division to face alone the oncoming masses of the Italian Army, the Tercio and the Regulares of Morocco. Time after time, when a line had been established at a cost of terrible losses, Anarchist troops on either flank would melt away, giving as their reason that their officers had left them—that they had been ordered to retreat in the direction of such and such a town. If this way principally, because of this desertion7 of elements of the Anarchist leadership, remnants of the Anarchist 6th Brigade and the 153rd Brigade attached themselves to the 15th International (Lincoln) Brigade until such a time as they were reorganized under new leadership of the Peoples Army.

If there had been, on the highest levels, an understanding of the need for absolute unity in the struggle against the Fascist-Military, the differences and suspicions between the opposing factors on the Left may well have reconciled. But this was not to be. And, as stated, the principal blame for this disunity lay squarely in the lap of the F.A.I.

Santillan was an arsehole in many respects

So were the anarchists here is what happened when they "collectivized voluntarily"

With the aid of the armed centurias in Aragón, the Anarchist leaders moved into all villages and towns. They closed and proscribed many of the local headquarters of other worker and republican parties under the pretext that these “had already completed their historic mission.” They then took into their own hands the leadership of the political and economic life of the areas.

In each village thereafter Anarchist power was incorporated into a committee of the above organization. These “committees” took over the lands, the goods and animals of the peasantry—even from the poor. The peasants were then forced to work for a salary—“equal for everybody,” and all submitted to the vigilance of the armed groups of the F.A.I.

In most cases money was done away with. The committees issued vouchers to be used only in the villages where issued. In this way the interlocking economy of town and village was destroyed—a forced return to a primitive economy, in which each village was thrust back upon its own resources. All silver and hard money was given over to the F.A.I. committee in exchange. Little of this “loot,” for it can only be defined as that, was ever seen again.

Juan Peró, one of the outstanding leaders of the C.N.T., and F.A.I., refers to the disillusion and resultant apathy of the peasantry as a result of these acts. “Does anyone believe,” he writes, “that through acts of violence an interest in or a desire for socialization can be awakened in the minds of our peasantry? Or perhaps by terrorizing it in this fashion it can be won over to the revolutionary spirit prevailing in our cities?”

Historically, forced collectivization has always been detrimental to the goals of the revolutionary regime that tried it. And the tragedy of Spain was that the Anarchist forced collectivization, whole provinces were driven from support of the Republic to either total despair and passivity, or to out and out support of the Franco victory.

So much for being "voluntary". Need I go on completely smashing your romantization of the FAI?

Taking money off the republic is something you should support as a communist

Do you realize how stupid this is? So now not only would I have fascists shooting me, but the Republican government. A communist insurgence would have been crushed. Not only that, but anarchists were simply given money already, and accepted it freely from a seperatist right wing government, talk about guilt by association. Not only that, but anarchists had absolutely no qualms with the Casanova's govt. which they controlled.

So we must support the bourgeois republic instead?

Anarchists in Spain did not have any problems working with bourgeois AT ALL.

Implacable with small and middle factory owners the Anarchists demonstrated an extraordinary flexibility with certain representatives of big monopoly capital. The F.A.I/C.N.T., in accord with the British Consulate in Barcelona, published a list of 87 important enterprises, that were not to be disturbed. Similar accommodations were made with other foreign-owned factories.18 In a whole series of cases agents of big capitalists obtained the right to remain in quasi-control of factories (in the directorate) at the side of the Anarchist Committees. The role of these agents was simply to place obstacles in the way of a full utilization of the plant's facilities; create further disorder and chaos, while waiting the return of the “rightful owners.”

In the Compañía de Tranvías de Barcelona, the Faistas placed at liberty the former chief councilor of the enterprise. This was the lawyer, Creisler, who had previously been detained for his Fascist activities. He then became councilor to the F.A.I.—prior to his escape to Franco territory. One well known and quite reactionary aristocracy, Lt. Colonel Rojo, cousin of the Marqués de Forondo, was, throughout the war, the “right arm” of Sánchez, who directed the Compañía de Tranvías in the name of the F.A.I.19

New “captains of industry” were created within this new Anarchist economy. Committees in the leadership of enterprises were almost instantly surrounded by a bureaucracy of fantastic size. The apparatus of leadership and administration were inflated beyond measure.

At the very least the FP had a socialist DOMINATED government

Had the POUM and the CNT-FAI collaborated with each other, I believe they could have successfully repelled all the forces of reaction.

LOL the POUM barely numbered 10,000 and the anarchists with the exception of Durruti were not involved in a single major battle and were "active" on a relatively peaceful part of Spain. This not even an educated guess you can make since the total fascist volunteers numbered to 2 million troops, not to mention they were completely outgunned. Similarly, as I mentioned, they frequently broke rank and their officers fled when the fascist troops approached leaving the Brigadiers to face the onslaught alone.

One is reminded of Orwell's complaint—that the Poumist and Anarchist troops had but one machine gun to fifty men,15 and that there were but a half a dozen artillery pieces in his area. To those who accept this as proof of some sort of dastardly discrimination against the Anarchists et-al by the Communists and the Socialists, know this: The 35th Division, composed of three International Brigades of some 12,000 men, crossed the Ebro River in the great Republican offensive of July 24, 1938, with but 6,000 rifles, 162 light machine guns and 69 heavy machine guns16—the same fifty to one ratio about which Orwell complained. They did this with no artillery support and no air support for the first four days. And they penetrated to a depth of twenty-five kilometers, sized the towns of Fatarella, Corbera, Asco, Villalba de los Arcos and a number of others, plus upwards of 2,500 prisoners.17

One is compelled to suggest that if the F.A.I. and the Poumists had only fought while they talked instead of sitting on their hands and lending themselves to divisive treason, their complaints would be given more credence. . . .

Just give up and admit that your argument about hammers and sickles was nothing short of a joke and it made you look stupid.

Your right, its not a revolutionary symbol, how do I know this? Its on your avatar. Look at WHO formed the army dum dum, Communists and Socialists.

although the UGT having more militant rank-and-file workers eventually even striked against PSOE's reformism!

Earlier you said the UGT should not have been supported! Besides, don't talk about PSOE not giving "free association" to trade unions, neither did anarchists. All officers had to be in the FAI or CNT.

Once again, no surprises to see you supporting the UGT too

An effective organizer, Iglesias guided the slowly expanding PSOE on a disciplined, austere, and evolutionary course. Although for many years he scorned alliance with non–working-class parties, he believed in parliamentary and municipal political action. He was one of the first socialists elected to the Madrid Municipal Council (1905) and to the Cortes, the Spanish parliament (1910). In 1921 he helped prevent the PSOE from joining the Third Internation

Nothing in there states the PSOE was not made up of sincere socialists. Yeah the members wanted a peaceful transition to socialism, could they be naive like today's Democratic Socialists? Yeah, it does not mean they aren't honest socialists or are deliberately trying to hurt workers movements like say the German "Socialist" Party, matter of fact the PSOE was on the recieving end of the Asturias miner strikes.

Some sources here please.

Here is one "nationalist" quote from your anarchist comrades, even going as far as "understanding" the falangists. Don't try to distance yourself or the anarchists from Santillan; they did plenty of fucked up shit already; including capitalist enterprise.

“Despite the differences that separated us,” writes Santillán, “we can understand this 'spiritual kinship' with José Antonio, who after all was a fighter and a patriot in search of solutions for his country . . . . Spaniards of his stature, patriots such as he are not dangerous. They are not our enemy. As for changing the destiny of Spain, there had been before July, 1936, diverse attempts to align with us. If an accord had been tactically feasible, it would have been according to the desires of his father, Primo de Rivera.”

he was a true anti-worker internationalist.

Great observation sherlock! of course as an anarchist you would know a thing or two about being "anti-worker" since anarchists are good at that, not to mention completely selling out that they actually had to do capitalist enterprise in France to keep failing factories afloat. For example:

Within a very short time the monetary reserves of these confiscated enterprises, as well as the reserves of raw material were exhausted. Production declined, and in some factories simply ceased altogether.23

In an effort to save the situation, the Casanovas Government granted credits to the C.N.T. through a newly created “Office for the regulation of payment of wages.”24 In this way the Committees could receive funds with which to pay the workers.

The Faistas moved to extend their economic activities to the foreign market, and opened commercial offices in Marseilles, Paris and other cities. A whole series of Committees then presented products for export such as oil, wine, almonds, saffron, etc. The circumstances continued to be so chaotic, however, that they even entered into competition with each other; the sole result being a falling off in prices.25

In the middle of August, 1936, and again at the demands of the C.N.T., the Casanovas Government created the Economic Council, “Consejo de Economía” of Catalonia as the leading organ of the economic life of the State; a preponderant control of the Council was given the F.A.I., specifically to the Señors' J.P. Fábregas and Diego Abad de Santillán. This act was the equivalent of the legalization of Anarchist control of the economy of Catalonia.26

Real Working Class Heroes :rolleyes:

Why do you support these phonies again?

those who side with different states in imperialist wars

There was nothing imperialist about the anti-fascist forces in the Spanish Civil War, it was a massive popular uprising of the Spanish people against fascism and foreign intervention in their nation.

27th October 2009, 07:06

Can't remember the page as an Homage to Catalonia is not a book I keep in my library(checked it out instead) but it is mentioned and sourced in Arthur Landis's intro on Spain! The Unfinished Revolution and mentioned in his chapter on "Anarchists" both of which can be found online, if not I have the book in e-form for you to scout on.

Homage to Catalonia is online too (here (http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_Catalonia/index.html)), can you please tell me the page now?

If you can link me to that Spain! the unfinished revolution page on google books too with the snippet displaying, I will not ask anymore of you on this point.

Here is some good ol anarchist "liberation" for you

Dunno what that's from, but the FAI have a pretty good record on women, of course you are welcome to use bourgeois sources to discredit anything good the anarchists did (unsurprising as the bourgeois are obv. gonna back the popular front instead of the anarchist versions of events, then again you are part of the bourgeois). http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/talks/mujeres.html

Of course, feel free to distort and twist facts as you see fit, at least kayser has not done it to such a massive extent as you have. Let's just ridicule any claim that anarchists were progressive in any such way and make out that the 'anti-revisionist' socialisms did so much better on the issue of women's liberation and so forth.

I note there is a pretty harsh attack of that on the 'what about hoxha' thread in learning.

No, not anarchists, but an anarchist. It really does say something that an individual anarchist commander who was only alive for 7 months of the war made a bigger impact on the anti-fascist front than years of fighting by his comrades. Here is the "significance" of anarchist troops in battle.

Franz Borkenau has a clear pro-leninist perspective (not a correct one either) after all he did support http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neu_Beginnen.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/scRevSpain/c2_aug36.html

The surrealist writer Benjamin Peret was among the first volunteers to fight in Spain. His letters to André Breton provide us with a lucid and moving insight into the flowering and decline of the Spanish revolution. His first letter, simple and sincere, was sent from Barcelona on 11 August:

"My very dear André, if you were to see Barcelona today, filled with barricades, decorated with churches gutted except for their empty walls, you, like me, would exult. The anarchists are virtually the masters of Cataluñya [sic] and the only force beside them is the POUM. The ratio between us is three to one which isn't excessive and in the present circumstances can easily change. We have 15,000 armed men and they have 40,000&endash;50,000. The Communists, who have fused with three or four small parties, are a negligible force. In their newspaper on Friday they declared that what is necessary isn't a proletarian revolution but a defence of the Republic, and whoever tries to make a revolution will find themselves opposed by the militias."6
Because of its total commitment to anarchist principles, and its refusal to compromise or form alliances with bourgeois or political parties, however, the Iron Column became the immediate target of a campaign of vilification and disinformation from the political parties, libels that have been picked up and repeated by subsequent generations of commentators on the Spanish Civil War. In response to these, we can quote the testimony of Mika Etchebere, a captain in the Republican army and a member of the POUM, who had some liberated prisoners under his command: "We, too, have had three or four such cases in our column, and they fought splendidly. At first we were stand-offish; later, being together, they came to subscribe to our ideas and now it could not be said that they stole or anything of that sort." 3

So were the anarchists here is what happened when they "collectivized voluntarily"

From the traitorous Juan Peiro, one of the collaborators directly with the 2nd republic government. Great source.

So much for being "voluntary". Need I go on completely smashing your romantization of the FAI?

:rolleyes: You're just echoing the bourgeois line of propaganda and the anti-anarchist view.

Do you realize how stupid this is? So now not only would I have fascists shooting me, but the Republican government. A communist insurgence would have been crushed.

It was crushed ffs..

Not only that, but anarchists were simply given money already, and accepted it freely from a seperatist right wing government, talk about guilt by association. Not only that, but anarchists had absolutely no qualms with the Casanova's govt. which they controlled.

And what do you think, it was just something simple that happened overnight? http://struggle.ws/berneri/danger_corner.html

5. It is not possible to find a solution to the problem of the needs of the war until after we have resolved the question of Spanish politics.

Fabregas, councillor for economics of Catalonia could declare;

"We sent to Madrid a commission to ask the Government for credit of 300 million pesetas and also for the purchase of equipment for the war and 150 million francs for the purchase of raw materials. We offered as security 1000 million pesetas in government bonds belonging to our savings banks and deposited with the Bank of Spain. All that has been, refused us."
(Solidaridad Obrera, 29th September).

Madrid is not content just to reign, it wants to govern as well. As a whole the Spanish Government is just as hostile to the Social Revolution as to Monarchist and clerical fascism. Madrid desires a 'return to legality' and nothing else. Arming Catalonia, financing Catalonia, that signifies to Madrid arming the columns which carry the revolution on the points of their bayonets and supplying the new egalitarian economic order.

We must therefore, addressing ourselves to the Government in Madrid, give it the choice between defeat in the war and the revolution and victory.

6. Given that it is clear that the Government in Madrid is developing a 'policy of war' capable of ensuring its political hegemony and blocking the development of the Social Revolution; that the Communist Party (following directives laid down by Moscow) is tending to become the Foreign Legion of Democracy and Spanish Liberalism and that Spanish Social democracy at the very least, its controlling ranks is revolutionary . . . in the manner of Caballero; it is therefore necessary that our press (without even raising the threat of war, of a 'march on Madrid' without even unleashing a polemic against the Communists and the Socialists, without even threatening the stability of the alliance between the CNT and the UGT) is at the very least cured of its intoxication with the unfortunate spins of 'holy union' which has ended up by reducing political criticism to an imperceptible minimum. 'Solidaridad Obrera' by exalting the Bolshevik government of the USSR, albeit in parentheses, achieved the summit of political naiveté.

Anarchists in Spain did not have any problems working with bourgeois AT ALL.

I've already disproven this shitty unfounded claim.

At the very least the FP had a socialist DOMINATED government

Absolute cobblers. Fake left reformist reactionaries are not 'socialists'.

LOL the POUM barely numbered 10,000 and the anarchists with the exception of Durruti were not involved in a single major battle and were "active" on a relatively peaceful part of Spain.

The last claim is total and utter rubbish, you've made the up completely. If it wasn't for the anarchists at the beginning - in the face of the dismantlement of the bourgeois monarchist state, Franco would've overrun Spain and made it his own, it was only thanks to rank-and-file UGT and CNT militants that the Spanish working-class held its own, also a better figure (linked in my first source above) says that the POUM had 15,000..

This not even an educated guess you can make since the total fascist volunteers numbered to 2 million troops, not to mention they were completely outgunned. Similarly, as I mentioned, they frequently broke rank and their officers fled when the fascist troops approached leaving the Brigadiers to face the onslaught alone.

eah but this is rubbish, your biased-towards-bourgeois-collaborationist sources have been refuted before on other claims of such calibre (such as the Durruti column supposedly fleeing, check this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1579384&postcount=144).

Your right, its not a revolutionary symbol, how do I know this? Its on your avatar. Look at WHO formed the army dum dum, Communists and Socialists.

This is so ridiculous, honestly, do you think that because I have that avatar that makes me revolutionary then? You're a tit.

Earlier you said the UGT should not have been supported!

Alright, to be fair I meant the UGT bureaucracy and not the rank-and-file, the rank-and-file of the UGT were very militant and worthy workers, an integral part of the Spanish working-class resistance.

Nothing in there states the PSOE was not made up of sincere socialists. Yeah the members wanted a peaceful transition to socialism, could they be naive like today's Democratic Socialists? Yeah, it does not mean they aren't honest socialists or are deliberately trying to hurt workers movements like say the German "Socialist" Party, matter of fact the PSOE was on the recieving end of the Asturias miner strikes.

I just don't see how you can support the PSOE myself, what slogans do you take from them as being truly revolutionary?

Here is one "nationalist" quote from your anarchist comrades, even going as far as "understanding" the falangists. Don't try to distance yourself or the anarchists from Santillan; they did plenty of fucked up shit already; including capitalist enterprise.

Not all the anarchists are represented by Santillan and Peiron, sorry but that's not how it works. Also, it funnily enough does not talk about pro-Moroccan nationalism which was the original claim.

Great observation sherlock! of course as an anarchist you would know a thing or two about being "anti-worker" since anarchists are good at that, not to mention completely selling out that they actually had to do capitalist enterprise in France to keep failing factories afloat. For example:

So you think that revolution can keep going in one place? You think that economic isolation can work, even though it never, ever has without massive problems caused for the proletariat in whichever sized region?
http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/bookchin/sp001642/fifty.html

The wave of collectivizations that swept over Spain in the summer and autumn of 1936 has been described in a recent BBC-Granada documentary as "the greatest experiment in workers' self-management Western Europe has ever seen," a revolution more far-reaching than any which occurred in Russia during 1917-21 and the years before and after it.1 In anarchist industrial areas like Catalonia, an estimated three-quarters of the economy was placed under workers' control, as it was in anarchist rural areas like Aragon. The figure tapers downward where the UGT shared power with the CNT or else predominated: 50 percent in anarchist and socialist Valencia, and 30 percent in socialist and liberal Madrid. In the more thoroughly anarchist areas, particularly among the agrarian collectives, money was eliminated and the material means of life were allocated strictly according to need rather than work, following the traditional precepts of a libertarian communist society. As the BBC-Granada television documentary puts it: "The ancient dream of a collective society without profit or property was made reality in the villages of Aragon. . . . All forms of production were owned by the community, run by their workers."

Real Working Class Heroes :rolleyes:

Just like the 'popular front' led by the super-caring USSR intervention http://libcom.org/library/self-management-spanish-revolution-point-blank.

Why do you support these phonies again?

Come on now, have we even brought the issue of how the USSR cheated the republic out of gold that you support so much either? No.

There was nothing imperialist about the anti-fascist forces in the Spanish Civil War, it was a massive popular uprising of the Spanish people against fascism and foreign intervention in their nation.

Song remains the same.. :cool:

Sabotage by dangerous forces of reaction played out nicely, I believe this has been brought up before in fact, David Cattell's 'communism and the spanish war'

In response to Russian aid to Catalonia and the Aragon front there is more evidence of political control. Catalonia was dominated largely by the Anarchists and, unlike Largo Caballero and the Socialists, the Anarchists were not willing to follow the Communist lead and forget the revolution until the war had been won, even though they had agreed to participate in the government and to organize a centralized command. They resisted particularly efforts to turn their private army into a regular army. Consequently, the Communists decided to use the force of their equipment to bring them around. Walter Krivitksy reports that at the very beginning:

...I received strict instructions from Moscow not to permit the boat to deliver the cargo in Barcelona. Under no circumstances were those planes to pass through Catalonia, which had its own government, very much like that of a sovereign state. This Catalonian government was dominated by revolutionists of anti-Stalinist persuasion. They were not trusted by Moscow, although they were then desperately holding one of the most vital sectors of the Loyalist front against fierce attacks from Franco's army.
[...]

Soviet aid was used to discriminate against the revolutionaries in Catalonia in several ways. There is good circumstantial evidence that the Soviet Union set these conditions for aiding Catalonia: that the dissident Communist POUM should not be allowed to participate any longer in the Catalonia Generalitat, and that the Catalonian government must submit to the over-all program set down by the central government. Aid to Catalonia began in December, and immediately the POUM representatives were dropped from the Council, the Catalonian militias submitted to the long process of being organized into a regular army, and the central government began gradually to assume authority over industry in Catalonia...Evidence in respect to the Communist refusal of material for the Aragon front is much more clear. When the Madrid front had ben secured by Soviet material aid against the first assaults, nothing was done to help the important Aragon front which was manned primarily by the militias of the POUM and the CNT. Failure to support this front is impossible to explain. It clearly shows the political motive for the distribution of supplies. Katia Landau states the case:

No sacrifice, they say, must be held back for the saving of Madrid. It is not only in Madrid, but also in the Aragon front that arms are needed. At the Aragon front there are the militias of the C.N.T.-F.A.I. and the P.O.U.M. who wait. With the modern Russian arms, they would go on in the conquest of Saragossa, which would thus contribute in the most effective and definite way to forestall the encirclement of Madrid [and hinder Franco's offensive against Bilbao.] And the arms, at this time, are not a far-off dream; they are there in the port of Cartagena. But at the Aragon front the Anarchist militia and that of the P.O.U.M wait in vain; and slowly they realize the cruel truth; the Russian arms are political arms, directed against the revolutionary elements of the C.N.T., of the F.A.I. and the P.O.U.M.
[...]

There is no doubt from the evidence that strategically this refusal of aid for an Aragon offensive was a mistake of serious consequences...it can be stated from the evidence reviewed above that the Communists made extensive political use of their aid in order to undermine their political opponents, the POUM and the Anarchists.

Actually the Mennonites were forced to take up arms to defend themselves.

I do think that atrocities were committed against mennonites, there are some accounts of it, but they are not extremely coherent, I don't think Makhno's movement as a whole was completely right in every respect.

When you say what went wrong- as in why Albania did not remain socialist, that is a rather easy question to answer.

Then please do, also what experiences do you believe all the 'party of labours' have drawn from it?

But first, I'm still waiting for an explanation of the "workerist" method the Albanians should have used according to anarchists.

I have detailed some of it already, but I'll try and say more about it later. Apologies for taking so long to come up with a response to this question.

We haven't really commented that much on the AF. I don't know why you singled them out. I think they are internationalists though.

Devrim

Because when he was a 'left-communist' for maybe a week he read one ICC article, then basically read 'another view of stalin' and that apparently converted him. :rolleyes:

Devrim

27th October 2009, 10:11

I don't think the term 'official anarchists' has much meaning today. It comes from about forty years ago when we formed RI, and it referred to the IAF groups, who had sided with the allies in WWII.

Of course we criticise anarchism, but we feel that it is necessary to draw a line between anarchists who are internationalist revolutionaries, and those who side with different states in imperialist wars.

We haven't really commented that much on the AF. I don't know why you singled them out. I think they are internationalists though.
Please tell me you wouldn't consider the plight of the Spanish Republic to be an imperialist war.

There was nothing imperialist about the anti-fascist forces in the Spanish Civil War, it was a massive popular uprising of the Spanish people against fascism and foreign intervention in their nation.

Actually, I was referring to their support for allied imperialism in the Second World war, a war that Stalinists don't think was an inter-imperialist was either.

The Spanish question is much more complex. Certainly there was a worker's uprising in July 1936, and another during May 1937. The working class never seized power though and after May 1937, the war certainly takes the characteristics of a proxy conflict between German/Italian and Soviet imperialism. I think that the struggle for revolutionaries was against the Spanish republic and not being mobilised into bourgeois armies.

If anyone is interested in what ur current had to say about it a the time, they can find a collection of our articles from the 30s here:

http://en.internationalism.org/search/google?cx=009455890578220893626%3Avxdlkydjmac&cof=FORID%3A11&query=bilan&op=Search&form_id=google_cse_searchbox_form

Please feel free to comment on it. I am only replying though because I was asked a direct question in order to clarify our positions, and feel no obligation to make more posts in a thread trading one line insults with Stalinists which is what this has become.

Seriously I doubt if any one is reading it, but the antagonists. I only skimmed through it, and I have been posting in it.

If there is an attempt to turn it back into a discussion, I may respond. If not I doubt it.

Devrim

Kayser_Soso

27th October 2009, 11:00

Actually, I was referring to their support for allied imperialism in the Second World war, a war that Stalinists don't think was an inter-imperialist was either.

Actually "Stalinists" did see it as an inter-imperialist war, and Stalin even remarked to Dmitrov that there was essentially no significant difference between the Fascist powers and those of Britain and France(and at that time, this was largely true). This was part of the reason why they were willing to tolerate the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, which of course anarchists and Trots still condemn them for, never considering the view at the time that one imperialist faction was pretty much as same as the other, and it was best to let them duke it out while the USSR prepared itself.

The Spanish question is much more complex. Certainly there was a worker's uprising in July 1936, and another during May 1937. The working class never seized power though and after May 1937, the war certainly takes the characteristics of a proxy conflict between German/Italian and Soviet imperialism.

First of all, the "uprising" was by the military. Anarchists aren't good at starting their own revolutions. They need someone else to destabilize the situation as history shows.

So you are now alleging, as the Fascists and other right-wingers do, that the USSR was trying to take over Spain? Mexico was also supporting the Spanish Republic. Are you sure it wasn't Mexican imperialism?

I think that the struggle for revolutionaries was against the Spanish republic and not being mobilised into bourgeois armies.

Yes that's it, struggle against the one entity that has the physical capability to defeat the fascists- then when Communists react to this attitude in a perfectly justified way(i.e. with bullets), blame the Communists for betraying the country to the fascists. Yes, lofty dogmatic ideals are FAR more important than actually winning a war against an aggressor.

Defending a revolution requires a military institution of some sort. Anarchism's lofty ideals and dogmatic rigidity prevent them from forming an effective fighting force. Rigid adherence to an idealistic view of individual freedom, placed on such a high pedastal, is simply incompatible with the kind of discipline needed to be an effective fighting organization. Nowadays they would be in an even more dire situation, as modern warfare, including insurgency, requires much more in terms of logistics, signal, OPSEC, intelligence, etc.

Again, what good are all the ideas that anarchism promises the workers, essentially the end goal of Communism near-instantaneously, when your side can't even implement any of them?

Radical

27th October 2009, 14:18

when will YOU people ever learn. There is no such thing as Stalinism!

Sugar Hill Kevis

27th October 2009, 14:25

when will YOU people ever learn. There is no such thing as Stalinism!

Go rap about it kid.

Moving on - It really speaks volumes about some members here that the second most popular thread on the front page of Politics is about an insignificant party which is on the fringe of the fringes, based upon a redundant Albanian cult of personality. Seriously guys, c'mon.

Kayser_Soso

27th October 2009, 23:24

Go rap about it kid.

Moving on - It really speaks volumes about some members here that the second most popular thread on the front page of Politics is about an insignificant party which is on the fringe of the fringes, based upon a redundant Albanian cult of personality. Seriously guys, c'mon.

There's that argument to popularity again... I already know where this is going:

Prima: Provide names of "Hoxhaist parties."
Secunda: HEY!! I checked those websites and they don't say anything about being "Hoxhaist"!!! Dumbasses!!!
Prima: (EXPLAINS USE OF THE TERM "HOXHAISM" FOR THE 83rd TIME IN ONE THREAD)
Secunda: Oh yeah!! I just did some Googling and I found a website for an organization that may or may not exist in the real world which DOES use the term Hoxhaist!! Ergo you don't know what you're talking about!!

Andres Marcos

28th October 2009, 02:20

If you can link me to that Spain! the unfinished revolution page on google books too with the snippet displaying, I will not ask anymore of you on this point.

Every single block quote I quoted was from Spain! the Unfinished Revolution.

(unsurprising as the bourgeois are obv. gonna back the popular front instead of the anarchist versions of events, then again you are part of the bourgeois).

LOL you are obviously the most dim-witted person I have come across, this book was by a Brigadier who actually was in the war, not some white petty-bourgeois kids from libcom on internet-land. For your information, I am actually a member of the proletariat, thats PROLETARIAT not people pretending to be one like 99.99% of anarkids "revolting" at home with mama and papa in suburban paradise, most like yourself.

Of course, feel free to distort and twist facts as you see fit, at least kayser has not done it to such a massive extent as you have. Let's just ridicule any claim that anarchists were progressive in any such way and make out that the 'anti-revisionist' socialisms did so much better on the issue of women's liberation and so forth.

Everything I have said was quoted word from word from a published book not some anarcho-crap from the internet.

Franz Borkenau has a clear pro-leninist perspective

SO WHAT? care to refute what the guy said in his opinion than merely stating he was pro-lenin?

From the traitorous Juan Peiro, one of the collaborators directly with the 2nd republic government. Great source.

Care to say none of this is true?

You're just echoing the bourgeois line of propaganda and the anti-anarchist view.

The same way you are with Stalin, doesn't feel so good being rolled on now does it? the only correct thing you said was anti-anarchist view, since I proudly state I am against such a degenerate and corrupt "ideology".

If it wasn't for the anarchists at the beginning - in the face of the dismantlement of the bourgeois monarchist state, Franco would've overrun Spain and made it his own

REALLY??!?! how could Franco run over Spain in "the beginning" when he was stuck in Africa? The Navy was controlled by the Republic, I am calling you out on total bullshit. The anarchists did no "turning the tides" except in your heads, think about it, 50 machine guns to one guy, and a history of retreating in battle. FYI the war would have been won by the Republic in merely 2 weeks had there been no aid from Italy and Germany, in fact it was won in that time until that came.

your biased-towards-bourgeois-collaborationist sources have been refuted before on other claims of such calibre (such as the Durruti column supposedly fleeing

First off I never said the Durruti column fled, it was probably the most heroic anarchist force in the whole war. As for "bourgeois collaborationist" you are just mad because everything I have cited from this book has made your anarchist heroes look like the phonies they really were. You have little to debunk of what I said because any published book that isn't pro-anarchist will tell you, the anarchists were outgunned, had shitty discipline and ran under fire.

Not all the anarchists are represented by Santillan and Peiron

Actually they were worse as I have just demonstrated through my sources.

So you think that revolution can keep going in one place? You think that economic isolation can work, even though it never, ever has without massive problems caused for the proletariat in whichever sized region?

LOL so in essence anarchists being involved in capitalist enterprise, exploiting the peasentry and workingclass for profits is okay? Not only that allowing fascist-affiliated managers to oversee them? and you have the nerve to say I support the anti-fascist Republican govt.? You have essentially lost this debate, because there is no way you are going to convince me its okay to act like capitalists and on the same token criticize it :rolleyes:

Seeing as how I have exposed the phonies for what they really were and your only response was that the ones I cited were "unreliable" because they worked with the Republic and were "pro-leninist" is about as pathetic as saying everything you said is false because you are an anarchist. Its true because you had no problem accepting the anti-anarchist Ibarruri as a source when she talked well about Durruti, but as soon as someone talks shit about anarchism its false, based on no other proof but your self-inflating ego. You have thus far been unable to debunk these little facts.

1. Anarchists promoted unequal pay for women and syndicalized prostitution for their pleasure.

2. Their communes were far from being "independent" and "worker controlled", essentially stealing any gold or silver given to them by the peasantry in exchange for food and clothing(which supposedly was supposed to be theirs) and using violence to intimidate them as recalled not only by fellow anarchists but everyone outside their movement.

2. Anarchist troops had a solid history of retreating under fire(EVERYONE from Left to Right recalls that, except anarchists...funny) and were undisciplined.

3. Engaged in capitalist enterprise in France and Great Britain, hiring capitalists to oversee their work and essentially acted just like capitalists.

4. Collaborated with the Right-Wing seperatist Casanovas govt. which was tied to international crypto-fascists prior to the war.

Seeing as how nothing you say will be relevant as you cannot dispute these concrete FACTS(just try to bullshit your way out of them as is evident in this thread), I retire knowing everyone that isn't susceptible to propaganda put out by anarcho-idiocy can see that the romanticism about anarchism in Spain isn't as pretty as the anarchists paint it to look like.

28th October 2009, 03:26

Every single block quote I quoted was from Spain! the Unfinished Revolution.

We have to remember that the writer of that book fought in the international brigades, in fact he was Canadian no?

LOL you are obviously the most dim-witted person I have come across, this book was by a Brigadier who actually was in the war, not some white petty-bourgeois kids from libcom on internet-land.

Did you even bother checking the sources? Most of them are from people who were in the spanish civil war too, just because they are from libcom it doesn't make them suddenly biased :rolleyes: also they aren't just from one side of the perspective, like yours (from a bourgeoisie supporting brigadier).

For your information, I am actually a member of the proletariat, thats PROLETARIAT not people pretending to be one like 99.99% of anarkids "revolting" at home with mama and papa in suburban paradise, most like yourself.

You know nothing about me thanks, you are just using sectarian attacks here for no reason at all, you're really just a joker if you think you can quote from a hilariously biased source (one book) whereas I have linked multiple sources from multiple authors (no people from libcom wrote those articles or books themselves you fucking idiot).

Everything I have said was quoted word from word from a published book not some anarcho-crap from the internet.

Yeah, published books can't possibly be wrong.

SO WHAT? care to refute what the guy said in his opinion than merely stating he was pro-lenin?

I have pointed out his opinion is biased you stupid fuck, it fucking obviously is biased as he fought in the international brigades from the Canadian side, of course he's going to back the popular front, IDIOT.

Care to say none of this is true?

Keep living in fantasy land.

The same way you are with Stalin

Have I even mentioned Stalin in this thread as a word? Do you care to point out to me one place in this thread where I even said that name?

Nah didn't think so.

doesn't feel so good being rolled on now does it? the only correct thing you said was anti-anarchist view, since I proudly state I am against such a degenerate and corrupt "ideology".

I think you are a proudly ignorant tit.

REALLY??!?! how could Franco run over Spain in "the beginning" when he was stuck in Africa? The Navy was controlled by the Republic, I am calling you out on total bullshit. The anarchists did no "turning the tides" except in your heads, think about it, 50 machine guns to one guy, and a history of retreating in battle. FYI the war would have been won by the Republic in merely 2 weeks had there been no aid from Italy and Germany, in fact it was won in that time until that came.[/quote]

In fantasy land no aid ever comes from other nations, especially not during a war, the republicans actually won didn't they in fact, the communists won (whether they were pro-ussr or not) that's why spain was communist up until the 70s. :rolleyes:

First off I never said the Durruti column fled, it was probably the most heroic anarchist force in the whole war.

The Iron Column is also noted for its prowess and bravery, the Rosal Column and Tierra y Libertad also have disgusting attacks made against them, which are without merit.

I do not back the 'anarchists' in any war, I hope you understand this, I back the workers of all the sides against reaction, that is why I back the POUM, the CNT-FAI and the rank-and-file of the UGT.

They all collaborated against the shift to reaction in the spanish civil war and all are worthy of mention.

As for "bourgeois collaborationist" you are just mad because everything I have cited from this book has made your anarchist heroes look like the phonies they really were. You have little to debunk of what I said because any published book that isn't pro-anarchist will tell you, the anarchists were outgunned, had shitty discipline and ran under fire.

You're right, I have little to debunk of what you said because it was from one bourgeoisie source, you've utterly failed to impose anything on me other than the opinion of a Canadian man fighting in the popular front.

Actually they were worse as I have just demonstrated through my sources.

Which I've refuted.

LOL so in essence anarchists being involved in capitalist enterprise, exploiting the peasentry and workingclass for profits is okay? Not only that allowing fascist-affiliated managers to oversee them? and you have the nerve to say I support the anti-fascist Republican govt.? You have essentially lost this debate, because there is no way you are going to convince me its okay to act like capitalists and on the same token criticize it :rolleyes:

Anarchists only got involved in Capitalist enterprise thanks to degeneration and the attack on their movement by the Republicans.

If you want yet more evidence, check out land & freedom (tierra y libertad), a young pro-republican CPGB member's experiences are detailed where he witnesses first-hand the repression of the CNT-FAI and POUM.

There you go. A popular, unbiased detailing sabotage of the true counterreactionary forces.

Seeing as how I have exposed the phonies for what they really were and your only response was that the ones I cited were "unreliable" because they worked with the Republic and were "pro-leninist" is about as pathetic as saying everything you said is false because you are an anarchist.

I've refuted every, every single one of your claims.

Its true because you had no problem accepting the anti-anarchist Ibarruri as a source when she talked well about Durruti

Is it really though? Of course I have no problem with that, why would someone praise the anarchists if they are anti-anarchist at all unless it was true?

but as soon as someone talks shit about anarchism its false, based on no other proof but your self-inflating ego. You have thus far been unable to debunk these little facts.

:lol: Your logic is hilarious, nothing short of it.

1. Anarchists promoted unequal pay for women and syndicalized prostitution for their pleasure.

Sources plox

2. Their communes were far from being "independent" and "worker controlled", essentially stealing any gold or silver given to them by the peasantry in exchange for food and clothing(which supposedly was supposed to be theirs) and using violence to intimidate them as recalled not only by fellow anarchists but everyone outside their movement.

[citation needed]

2. Anarchist troops had a solid history of retreating under fire(EVERYONE from Left to Right recalls that, except anarchists...funny) and were undisciplined.

I've already refuted the claims against the durruti and iron columns, disgusting claims too, what more need to be refuted I wonder?

3. Engaged in capitalist enterprise in France and Great Britain, hiring capitalists to oversee their work and essentially acted just like capitalists.

After degeneration, after which point they ceased to really be anarchist o workerist, although there were elements in the movement that fought this, which were completely suppressed.

4. Collaborated with the Right-Wing seperatist Casanovas govt. which was tied to international crypto-fascists prior to the war.

Source, or link to a previously cited source.

Seeing as how nothing you say will be relevant as you cannot dispute these concrete FACTS(just try to bullshit your way out of them as is evident in this thread), I retire.

I would like to praise you for a well held debate, but really that was lame.