Combat liberalism?

[Luisrah]

I'm seeking info on this group: Combat Liberalism.

I hate groups that don't let people see the content without joining them, and even more when the membership has to be approved.
They make you have to join them and wait to know what they're about.

So instead, I posted here hoping that someone could tell me what it's about.

[bailey_187]

Only Liberal Combatters can know

[bailey_187]

We will asses you for Liberalism, if you have not shown yourself to be a Liberal, you may be admitted to the group

[Luisrah]

But I don't know what it is.

That's why I posted here.

The only time I heard about liberalism was in the History of my country, when the liberalists won the civil war against the absolutists and made a constitution for the kingdom.

[Muzk]

*facepalm* He's a marxist-leninist how can he be a liberal?

[bailey_187]

*facepalm* He's a marxist-leninist how can he be a liberal?

Indeed, it would be strange but precautions must be made.

[Muzk]

Be honest, you're checking if his mom is hot

[Luisrah]

Perhaps someone can explain me what's a liberal...

[ComradeRed22'91]

Combat Liberalism comes from an essay by Mao Zedong. i don't remember much of what it was about.

[Catbus]

Perhaps someone can explain me what's a liberal...

For the most part it's used as a pejorative against those who ignorantly attack Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, or other authoritarian leaders. I think it has something to do with taking a "revisionist" stance on the history of said leaders, instead of taking an "anti-revisionist" stance.

A typical conversation goes like this:

Person A: omg stalin and mao killed so many people

Person B: stop being a liberal

[LOLseph Stalin]

I find it almost insulting when Anti-Revisionists call others liberals. We don't like the American right calling Obama a communist. It's almost like a similar thing. I'm sure actual liberals don't like communists being called liberals.

[Olerud]

I find it almost insulting when Anti-Revisionists call others liberals. We don't like the American right calling Obama a communist. It's almost like a similar thing. I'm sure actual liberals don't like communists being called liberals.

liberal.

[Lyev]

I find it almost insulting when Anti-Revisionists call others liberals. We don't like the American right calling Obama a communist. It's almost like a similar thing. I'm sure actual liberals don't like communists being called liberals.

It's not only that, it's as if having a problem with unnecessary killing is a bad thing. I think I'm probably a dirty 'liberal'. Sorry chaps.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Technically, a liberal is someone who support bourgeois democracy, private property, and constitutionally limited government--in other words, an ideological supporter of capitalism as it exists in America. I don't think that's what the group name is referring to, though.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Technically, a liberal is someone who support bourgeois democracy, private property, and constitutionally limited government--in other words, an ideological supporter of capitalism as it exists in America. I don't think that's what the group name is referring to, though.

That's not what the group name is referring to. Actual liberals would probably be restricted here. It's just a term many AR's indiscriminately throw around towards people who disagree with their politics, Stalin and other leaders in particular.

[Luisrah]

And when does a Marxist-Leninist come here and defend the combat to liberalism?

[A.R.Amistad]

This just seems unnecessarily divisive and childish. If this were a group to combat economic liberalism, such as colonialist neoliberalism, that would be awesome. If it were aimed at being progressive as opposed to passive liberal, I'm all with you. But this criticism is coming from me, a so called "Orthodox Trotskyist." This is nothing but a little clique aimed at being a pseudo-religious dogma police. I don't know where you think the revolution is going to go if you insist on assuming the position of all supreme judge of who's a good leftist or not. Anti-revisionist? Marx, Engels, Lenin all the people you admire were constantly revising their predecessors work and even their own work. hen things needed to be reevaluated, they did. They didn't turn the Manifesto or State and Revolution into a Bible were you could just pull out a quote and apply it to everything. They laid foundations for which revolutionary ideas could grow off of. If Lenin had never revised himself, or hell, revised some of Marx and Engels' works, October '17 would never have happened. The same can be said today if we keep bullying each other about whether what they say is 100% what Marx would have said.

[Pogue]

its a tankie wankfest

[Spawn of Stalin]

Liberals of the anti-capitalist variety tend to think that the world is perfect and that we will be able to carry out the will of the working class without chopping off a few heads, they think that absolute freedom and democracy is far more important than establishing socialism, they generally hate heads of state regardless of how much they work for the proletariat in their respective countries. Anti-capitalist liberals also love imperialism, especially when it is being used against "Stalinist" states. They're basically just ignorant children.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Liberals of the anti-capitalist variety tend to think that the world is perfect and that we will be able to carry out the will of the working class without chopping off a few heads, they think that absolute freedom and democracy is far more important than establishing socialism, they generally hate heads of state regardless of how much they work for the proletariat in their respective countries. Anti-capitalist liberals also love imperialism, especially when it is being used against "Stalinist" states. They're basically just ignorant children.

Socialism can't be established without freedom and democracy. But you can go off dreaming about Stalin's state capitalist dictatorship. Me myself, I want socialism.

[gorillafuck]

Anti-capitalist liberals also love imperialism, especially when it is being used against "Stalinist" states. They're basically just ignorant children.
When you say "love imperialism" do you mean actually loves the practice of imperialism or do you mean "people who criticize Stalin or Hoxha"?

[A.R.Amistad]

This group is for Marxist-Leninist critics of the open liberalism that is displayed by some of the leftists on RevLeft. Keep in mind not all leftists are Marxists, some are liberal/social democrat/whatever.This group is called "RevLeft" as in Revolutionary Left so I doubt there are any Social Democrats on here. There shouldn't be, they are reformist. Yes you are right, not all are Marxist. Still, you haven't answered the question that all of us possible "liberals" want to know: what defines a dirty "liberal?":confused:

[Catbus]

Liberals of the anti-capitalist variety tend to think that the world is perfect and that we will be able to carry out the will of the working class without chopping off a few heads, they think that absolute freedom and democracy is far more important than establishing socialism, they generally hate heads of state regardless of how much they work for the proletariat in their respective countries. Anti-capitalist liberals also love imperialism, especially when it is being used against "Stalinist" states. They're basically just ignorant children.

You could at least try to answer the question in a relatively unbiased, mature manner.


its a tankie wankfest

What's a tankie?

[LOLseph Stalin]

What's a tankie?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tankie

[Spawn of Stalin]

Socialism can't be established without freedom and democracy. But you can go off dreaming about Stalin's state capitalist dictatorship. Me myself, I want socialism.
Marxist-Leninists are for freedom and democracy too, but we're also realistic, Marxism is a science, not a fairytale.

When you say "love imperialism" do you mean actually loves the practice of imperialism or do you mean "people who criticize Stalin or Hoxha"?
Neither, actually I am referring to "leftists" using imperialist propaganda against other leftists. Especially when it comes to the question of socialist states like North Korea and Cuba.

You could at least try to answer the question in a relatively unbiased, mature manner.
Why would I be unbiased? I am a Marxist-Leninist, this is a website for the exchange and discussion of opinions, not Wikipedia.

[Lyev]

Marxism is a science, not a fairytale.

Shit! I thought Marxism was a fairytale!

That's where I've been going wrong all this time!

[mosfeld]

Scarletghoul should purge liberals like insertnamehere from the group asap

Here's Mao's essay entitled Combat Liberalism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm)

[Luisrah]

Socialism can't be established without freedom and democracy. But you can go off dreaming about Stalin's state capitalist dictatorship. Me myself, I want socialism.

But if socialism is supposedly established through a revolution, and a revolution is the most authoritarian way of the proletariat to express their will, then how can someone establish socialism with freedom and democracy?

The proletariat or it's representatives must keep an open eye on counter-revolutionaires and reactionaires, or there won't be any socialism.

I guess there's no problem in putting a capitalist in jail if one thousand less people would die of hunger in the world because of that.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Scarletghoul should purge liberals like insertnamehere from the group asap

Funny... :rolleyes:

[A.R.Amistad]

Scarletghoul should purge liberals like insertnamehere from the group asap

Wow just when you thought the Great Terror was over.....Stalinists will be Stalinists and purge happy

[Spawn of Stalin]

Wow just when you thought the Great Terror was over.....Stalinists will be Stalinists and purge happy
Here's a nice example of a liberal comment for you, Luisrah.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Here's a nice example of a liberal comment for you, Luisrah.

:rolleyes:

It's a bloody witchhunt!

[Brother No. 1]

I find it almost insulting when Anti-Revisionists call others liberals. We don't like the American right calling Obama a communist. It's almost like a similar thing. I'm sure actual liberals don't like communists being called liberals.

So a comparision of a social-democrat, at best, to the usage of a word against those who act/have the qualities that are simular to a liberal? Great argument really.:rolleyes:

But then when someone else that isnt from Marxism-Leninism (Anti-Revisionism) says the word 'liberal' this wont insult you? Or do you just have the need to say when a ML says it this is the most horrible thing to come but when,lets say, a Trotskyist says it this isnt bad?

But to the point of the question... the 'combating liberalism' group is mainly to, as it says, combat liberalism on revleft. Liberalism, in my oppion, is when someone tries to have not only a rightist-un materialistic view on a situation and doesnt take this into an account but also when they have the qualities you'd find in a liberal such as blantly not accepting things or taking them into a concern of thought.




For the most part it's used as a pejorative against those who ignorantly attack Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, or other authoritarian leaders.

Must be why Trotskyists are in the 'combating liberalism' group for Trotsky was authoriatarian too.:rolleyes:

But really if you dont like 'authoritarian' then why would you support a revolution? Its the most authoriatarian thing one can do. To quote Engles.




Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?







Wow just when you thought the Great Terror was over

Is it so much for people to grow up now days?

[Zanthorus]

Marxism is a science

Debatable


homsky is basically saying "A socialist who is a liberal is an anarchist".

FFS, he's talking about classical liberalism and civil liberties. He's also almost entirely wrong, anarchism is a movement started by workers in the international and written down by Bakunin.


A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means

Historically speaking most revolutions have sought to sieze the reigns of power which is no reason why revolutionaries couldn't seek to break those reigns (In fact they did in Spain and Ukraine).

[The Ungovernable Farce]

But if socialism is supposedly established through a revolution, and a revolution is the most authoritarian way of the proletariat to express their will, then how can someone establish socialism with freedom and democracy?

The proletariat or it's representatives must keep an open eye on counter-revolutionaires and reactionaires, or there won't be any socialism.

That "or its representatives" is a pretty big "or". No revolutionary anarchist will oppose "the proletariat keeping an eye on reactionaries"; it's when you get "representatives of the proletariat" that they start to overstep their bounds and start "keeping an eye" on the proletariat in general.

[scarletghoul]

Alright, there seems to be a lot of confusion, so as the creator of the Combat Liberalism group I'll explain why I made it.

Liberalism is an ideology of bourgeois rule, and as such it is the dominant thought and ideology in many capitalist countries. Now a lot of leftists/socialists unconciously obsorb parts of liberal moralism and sentiment into their own thought, which is a big problem in the left movement. Pacifism, to take a potent example, is a liberal moralism which when adopted by leftists, though they mean well, harms our movement and strengthens the capitalist rule. The same is true of 'death toll politics', judging a historical movement or figure by the death toll attributed to it by the bourgeois media. Supporting the Imperialism of our enlightened liberal democracies against countries run by barbaric a-rabs, evil stalinists, etc (completely buying into the bourgeois narrative). Things like this damage the leftist movement: they divide us, they suck parts of us into alliance with the bourgeoisie, and so on. I think it is of the upmost importance that we destroy liberal/bourgeois sentiment, or we will never be able to destroy bourgeois rule.

[Zanthorus]

I'd rather take Chomsky's word over yours, if you don't mind.

In that piece you quoted he even specifically mentions classical liberalism. And Noam Chomsky is not an authority on anarchism by any means. You see, funnily enough, anarchism and anarchists don't tend to follow the ideas of specific people and are generally free to cast off large portions of the works of anarchism. Although being a Marxist-Leninist this is probably a little too over your head since of course you are compelled to follow the words of your reactionary theorists to the letter :D

[scarletghoul]

Also please note, Mao's original article Combat Liberalism was generally referring to the personal liberalism of some CPC cadre (check it out to see what he means). The RevLeft group is more to do with ideological liberalism, ie, liberal political views, rather than liberal personal actions of people.

I will make the group open so you can see what it's all about.

[Luisrah]

That "or its representatives" is a pretty big "or". No revolutionary anarchist will oppose "the proletariat keeping an eye on reactionaries"; it's when you get "representatives of the proletariat" that they start to overstep their bounds and start "keeping an eye" on the proletariat in general.

The point is, I start to agree that without atleast some authoritarianism, we won't get anywhere anytime.

So we're supposed to wait (maybe help) for the masses to gain consciousness, make a revolution, and hope that no one will elect a leader amongst themselves? And actually hope that there will never be problems within the revolutionary group?

How do you propose a viable way to construct socialism that grants full freedom to everyone? I suppose all Marxist-Leninists would applaud.
It's not that we want to take power, or be dictators, or whatever. We (atleast I) wouldn't oppose a revolution that has no vanguard party, as long as it works.

[scarletghoul]

This thread serves as a nice introduction to the kind of things the group was set up to fight:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2387

[bailey_187]

Scarletghoul should purge liberals like insertnamehere from the group asap


I second this.

Scarlet, dont be a Liberal yourself, purge her.

[9]

Most hilarious usergroup ever. :lol:
My favorite part is the "practical programme" for the "political organization" that is the Combat Liberalism revleft usergroup. For every internet warrior extraordinaire, do not pass up this once in a lifetime opportunity to be part of a real struggle! That's right, take the class war from the streets to the trivial anonymous political discussion website. Because the Trotskyists and left communists aren't just "revisionists"; they're bonafide members of the e-bourgeoisie!
Seriously. Priceless.

[Искра]

Keep in mind not all leftists are Marxists, some are liberal/social democrat/whatever.
So Lenin was liberal since he was part of Russian social democrat labor party?

LENIN?! THAT LIBERAL?! OMFG LET's PURGE HIM!

[Luisrah]

So Lenin was liberal since he was part of Russian social democrat labor party...

LENIN?! THAT LIBERAL?! OMFG LET's PURGE HIM!

Uh, Lenin was a dictator. He wanted to rule the world and kill all who opposed him.

What were you thinking? :blink:

[Искра]

I was joking dude, because I find this group amusing... :rolleyes:
You Marxist-Leninists should nationalise some sense for humour you know.
When I came to this forum it looked like Sam B don't have sense of humour, I could say that Marxist-Leninist have less sense of humour that him.

[ZeroNowhere]

But if socialism is supposedly established through a revolution, and a revolution is the most authoritarian way of the proletariat to express their will, then how can someone establish socialism with freedom and democracy?
By a conscious decision by the masses to avoid silly word games and sophistry.


So Lenin was liberal since he was part of Russian social democrat labor party?

LENIN?! THAT LIBERAL?! OMFG LET's PURGE HIM!You are terribly amusing.

Anyways, the CL group is hopefully to combat the use of the word 'liberal' as an idiotic slur here on Revleft.

[bailey_187]

I was joking dude, because I find this group amusing... :rolleyes:
You Marxist-Leninists should nationalise some sense for humour you know.
When I came to this forum it looked like Sam B don't have sense of humour, I could say that Marxist-Leninist have less sense of humour that him.

Considering hes a Marxist-Leninst, i think he too is joking

Or were you joking?

[Luisrah]

Considering hes a Marxist-Leninst, i think he too is joking

Or were you joking?

There seems to be a misunderstanding.
I was joking too with my post.

Either he didn't get it, or we won't stop joking until next week :redstar2000:

[Pogue]

How odd, everyone in this group seems to be a Marxist-Leninist!

[scarletghoul]

That's not true at all. There are trots and a few anarchists, along with some misc

[Stranger Than Paradise]

How odd, everyone in this group seems to be a Marxist-Leninist!

I joined the group, think I'm gonna leave it now. This thread has convinced me that the group is, as you said earlier, a tankie wankfest.

[Wanted Man]

I think it's a bit of a dumb group. Whoo, let's have a picture of Pol Pot (LOL edgy!) and call people liberals when they aren't!

The only thing they're right about is that there are manifestations of liberalism from a lot of people, but that is for different reasons than they claim. It's not that they are necessarily liberals who have studied liberalism and exercise it (otherwise, they would be restricted), but it's that they sometimes argue from liberal assumptions that are the norm in most western societies (individual freedom being the most important political goal for all humanity, for instance). Hardly a fucking crime, is it! It should be pointed out, but a lot of people do this in a kind of dumb way.

I think most people in that group have good intentions, but the ones who make most of the posts in it are more interested in trolling. These people would probably scream bloody murder if someone started a "Combat Authoritarianism" group or gave them a negative rep point. That's why I didn't join the group.

[bcbm]

That's not true at all. There are trots and a few anarchists, along with some misc

odd that there are anarchists in a group that is consciously hostile to anarchists and considers them liberals, as evidenced by the group pictures and a number of the posts within said group. mayhaps they misunderstood the title?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

odd that there are anarchists in a group that is consciously hostile to anarchists and considers them liberals, as evidenced by the group pictures and a number of the posts within said group. mayhaps they misunderstood the title?

Yeah I've discovered that now, I'm waiting for them to purge me.....

[Jethro Tull]

Chomsky is basically saying "A socialist who is a liberal is an anarchist".

A lot of anarchists think Noam Chomsky is a laughing-stock, this is one of the reasons.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I think it's a bit of a dumb group. Whoo, let's have a picture of Pol Pot (LOL edgy!) and call people liberals when they aren't!

The only thing they're right about is that there are manifestations of liberalism from a lot of people, but that is for different reasons than they claim. It's not that they are necessarily liberals who have studied liberalism and exercise it (otherwise, they would be restricted), but it's that they sometimes argue from liberal assumptions that are the norm in most western societies (individual freedom being the most important political goal for all humanity, for instance). Hardly a fucking crime, is it! It should be pointed out, but a lot of people do this in a kind of dumb way.

I think most people in that group have good intentions, but the ones who make most of the posts in it are more interested in trolling. These people would probably scream bloody murder if someone started a "Combat Authoritarianism" group or gave them a negative rep point. That's why I didn't join the group.

It is a stupid group although I am a member. It's just like a fucking witchhunt. Somehow people are getting the idea that I should be purged because I'm a "liberal". Besides, that group seems to just be tearing revleft apart even more. It's since the creation of that group that the word "liberal" started being thrown around even more.

[spiltteeth]

Well, I joined he group because I no doubt have liberal tendencies and wanted to ferret them out, it's about learning,

[Spawn of Stalin]

It is a stupid group although I am a member. It's just like a fucking witchhunt. Somehow people are getting the idea that I should be purged because I'm a "liberal". Besides, that group seems to just be tearing revleft apart even more. It's since the creation of that group that the word "liberal" started being thrown around even more.
Regardless of what you think of the group, it is undeniable that liberalism within the left is a very real threat which can not be ignored, it needs to be uprooted.

[Jethro Tull]

Regardless of what you think of the group, it is undeniable that liberalism within the left is a very real threat which can not be ignored, it needs to be uprooted.

The problem is that you're using "liberalism" as an indescriminate slur for anyone who happens to disagree with Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Now that just isn't true, anarchists, ultra-leftists, Trotskys, and Marxists all see the need to combat liberalism, it just happens that Marxism-Leninism, being the "authoritarian" wing of socialism, is about as far away from liberalism as you can possibly get. It doesn't matter if you're a Maoist, a Hoxhaist, or a bloody green anarchist, if you have liberal baggage which you just can't shake off, those of us with functioning brains are going to call you out on it.

[Jethro Tull]

anarchists, ultra-leftists, Trotskys, and Marxists all see the need to combat liberalism

As an anarchist I see the need to combat all bourgeois ideologies, including classical liberalism, and including social democracy. (Frequently and inaccurately referred to as "liberalism" in the colloqiualisms of US political rhetoric)

What you're doing is participating in duckspeak, which renders once-useful terminology unusable by bogging down its definition and intentionally sowing linguistic confusion for the sake of emotional manipulation. When you say "liberal", you could just as well be saying "fascist", "hipster", "emo kid", "commie", or "Jew".


it just happens that Marxism-Leninism, being the "authoritarian" wing of socialism, is about as far away from liberalism as you can possibly get.

In other words, eveyone who disagrees with you is a liberal.

On what traditional political spectrum are "authoritarianism" and "liberalism" polar opposites?

Also, I can't speak for all self-proclaimed "anarchists" and "left-communists", I am very authoritarian in the sense of supporting strict communist dictatorship. I just don't think a centralized, official party aparatus is the way to do that. Sorry for being such a liberal...


you have liberal baggage which you just can't shake off, those of us with functioning brains are going to call you out on it.

"Call us out on it" without ever definining or setting the perameters of what it actually means to be a "liberal", without adequitely explaining how exactly you are trying to use the word "liberal", which has multile, contradictory, accepted definitions, and so forth.

Just admit it, you're engaging in sophism.

[Brother No. 1]

The problem is that you're using "liberalism" as an indescriminate slur for anyone who happens to disagree with Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

Strange that Bob uses it too, does this mean he is also using it to anyone who disagrees with Marxism-Leninism-Maoism?

To say just MLMs or MLs is quite a stupid statement since many on the left use it to describe if a leftist has liberal qualities in their political line/political thought. For instance some say that if you support the Tibetan 'freedom movement' you are supporting a liberal cause or your turning liberal, its basicly like a "no,no" list for some leftists.



It is a stupid group although I am a member


Yep, we're all idiots except you.:rolleyes:



It's just like a fucking witchhunt.


"Grab your torches and Pitch Forks!" Yes, we say this every day in our crusades on tuseday through friday. 5 times on saturday.



Somehow people are getting the idea that I should be purged because I'm a "liberal".

Eh, to be honest you have some 'liberal' policies in your political thought but your still learning. I had alot of liberal/contradictory politics, some say I still have them, but the point is your still learning and so there will be some 'liberal' or 'bad' politics you might have.



Besides, that group seems to just be tearing revleft apart even more.

It's a site, I thought everyone knew this.



It's since the creation of that group that the word "liberal" started being thrown around even more.

So with the groups creation suddenly people use the word more now? It is because they see more stands of liberalism in a few policies or they just love to say the word. I personally think its the former.


EDIT:


So if I am reading all of these posts correctly, there are Marxists that accuse other Marxists of being "liberal"?

Partly correct. There are Communists that call other leftists 'liberal' for a various of reasons from their political line, to what they dis-like, to their like. Does everyone use one of the ways? No, sometimes they use the word for everything, which is the part to where your correct one.

[RadioRaheem84]

So if I am reading all of these posts correctly, there are Marxists that accuse other Marxists of being "liberal"? :closedeyes:

As in this time being market friendly as opposed to the brain dead conservatives that refer to liberals as being market opponents?

[Jethro Tull]

Strange that Bob uses it too, does this mean he is also using it to anyone who disagrees with Marxism-Leninism-Maoism?

Who is Bob? I just like to argue with random people, you want me to keep track of all of these silly internet personalities, you'll have to pay me.


To say just MLMs or MLs is quite a stupid statement since many on the left use it to describe if a leftist has liberal qualities in their political line/political thought. For instance some say that if you support the Tibetan 'freedom movement' you are supporting a liberal cause or your turning liberal, its basicly like a "no,no" list for some leftists.

So in otherwords, anyone who transgresses Stalinist dogma regarding any numer of relevant issues (such as by supporting Tibetan national liberation struggle against the social-imperialist PRC) is a "liberal". How is this any different than how the current political status quo in the US and elsewhere in the capitalist world uses the word "terrorist"?

[Искра]

Regardless of what you think of the group, it is undeniable that liberalism within the left is a very real threat which can not be ignored, it needs to be uprooted.
The biggest "threat of the left" are internet commies, intelectuall who do nothing but read and discuss dialectics and kids who wank on Stalin's and Mao's pictures while screaming "liberal" to every anarchist or left communist they meat, but they haven't actually read any of Marx's works.
The biggest "threat of the left" are stupid parties which haven't made anything in the last 100 years but pressing their useless papers full of intellectual crap.
The liberals inside "left"? I always consider people who collaborate with imperialists much more liberal than people who oppose authoritarian dictatorship of bunch Lenin nerds.

[Lyev]

Someone should create a group that's called something like 'Every Leftist Welcome' that excepts every single leftist; we need unity in our movement.

All of us, as thinking, at least half-intelligent people, are going to disagree on some issues. I think it's only when we put ourselves under specific banners or make a big point of adhering to a specific 'ism' or of liking a specific dead guy over another that debates like this start.

Call me a liberal, but can we all kiss and make up? :)

[bcbm]

Regardless of what you think of the group, it is undeniable that liberalism within the left is a very real threat which can not be ignored, it needs to be uprooted.

actually i think a bigger threat is that the left as a whole is an irrelevant political force in most of the countries users here represent, perhaps because we all spend more time blabbing at each other over the correct line on "socialist" states and fretting if there is liberalism/authoritarianism/sassmouth instead of engaging in struggles relevant to the lives of working people in our workplaces and schools and communities and turning our class into a fighting force capable of bringing down the ruling class. but maybe that's just me.



"Grab your torches and Pitch Forks!" Yes, we say this every day in our crusades on tuseday through friday. 5 times on saturday.

i haven't read through every usergroup, but i'm not familiar with any others trying to constitute themselves as a political organization with organizational discipline for the purpose of going to battle/waging heated class struggle against the bourgeois ideologues of revleft.

[Искра]

Call me a liberal, but can we all kiss and make up? :)
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01474/mao-stalin_1474720c.jpg

You would kiss them?!

[Brother No. 1]

Who is Bob?

BobKinddles.



I just like to argue with random people, you want me to keep track of all of these silly internet personalities, you'll have to pay me.

Nah, I'm sure your memory will hold up.



So in otherwords, anyone who transgresses Stalinist dogma

Your first flaw, oh and it has dogma and Stalinst how joyful, now the thing 'wrong' with this little statement is that you assume anyone who has the dreadul 'stalinist dogma' will use this. But if this is true then that must me all others who us the word are Stalinists. brilliant.:rolleyes:



regarding any numer of relevant issues (such as by supporting Tibetan national liberation struggle against the social-imperialist PRC) is a "liberal".

Another flaw, another debate, another stupid statement. Good show! Now if you were to read I said thusly


For instance some say that if you support the Tibetan 'freedom movement' you are supporting a liberal cause or your turning liberal

Meaning the supportion of these said movements is 'liberal' in sense for what do these movements fight for? a Fudeal Tibet, now you might like that but I certainly do not and the 'lesser evils' debate is too flawed in its own existence. But lets go futher into this. To compare, lets say, the Tibetan movement and the Hamas movement there are differences that must be made.

#1: Unlike Tibet which from liberated from British influence and Fudeal influence by the Maoists Palestine was destroyed after regaining freedom from its British occupiers.

But already with this statement it shows that A: the Tibet liberation movement fights for a fudeal tibet since headed by the Dalai lama. Being the king of the 'old tibet' he obvious wants it back as King Shianouk wanted his old Kingdom of Kampuchea back.



How is this any different than how the current political status quo in the US and elsewhere in the capitalist world uses the word "terrorist"?

funny, to describe one who "commits terrible acts" and one who has,somewhat, of a incorrect political line/ supporting a "wrong" or "bad' movement is in total equvilence to you. Great logic.:rolleyes: The word 'terrorists' is abused alot,yes, but it is not on par with the word 'liberal' for these two words have not the same being but can not be used in the same person. "Your a Terrorists Liberal!" how does this work? Besides the difference is fairly obvious. the word 'terrorists' is merely to get the masses of the working class to 'rally' for the cause of the Imperialist gain and merely a rouse to gain more bodies for their military. 'liberal' would be in use as a incorrect policital line to a 'extreme' or such.

EDIT:

i haven't read through every usergroup, but i'm not familiar with any others trying to constitute themselves as a political organization with organizational discipline for the purpose of going to battle/waging heated class struggle against the bourgeois ideologues of revleft.

Mostly in that group its only one thing "report liberalism" and try to "combat" it with posts.

[Lyev]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01474/mao-stalin_1474720c.jpg

You would kiss them?!

Ooh yeahh... especially the cheeky lookin' one in the middle :drool:

[Spawn of Stalin]

On what traditional political spectrum are "authoritarianism" and "liberalism" polar opposites?
I don't know, one what traditional political spectrum are authoritarianism and liberalism polar opposites? Because I didn't say that they were.

Also, I can't speak for all self-proclaimed "anarchists" and "left-communists", I am very authoritarian in the sense of supporting strict communist dictatorship. I just don't think a centralized, official party aparatus is the way to do that. Sorry for being such a liberal...
This doesn't make you a liberal, although I think you are wrong, it has nothing at all to do with liberalism.

So in otherwords, anyone who transgresses Stalinist dogma regarding any numer of relevant issues (such as by supporting Tibetan national liberation struggle against the social-imperialist PRC) is a "liberal".
Again, no. Although I think that anyone who doesn't accept Marxism-Leninism as the truest form of socialism is an idiot, it doesn't make them liberal.

The biggest "threat of the left" are internet commies, intelectuall who do nothing but read and discuss dialectics and kids who wank on Stalin's and Mao's pictures while screaming "liberal" to every anarchist or left communist they meat, but they haven't actually read any of Marx's works.
Who are you referring to here? I haven't had a wank over Stalin's picture for a while now but I still take this as an insult.

The biggest "threat of the left" are stupid parties which haven't made anything in the last 100 years but pressing their useless papers full of intellectual crap.
I assume you mean the countless Marxist-Leninist parties who have successfully liberated nations from the grips of capitalism? Or maybe some other party/organisation/collective? Because I feel that anarchism is the only branch of socialism which meets your description of the biggest threat to the left. Haven't done anything in the last century? Check. Useless papers? Check. Intellectual crap? Check. Ironic huh?

The liberals inside "left"? I always consider people who collaborate with imperialists much more liberal than people who oppose authoritarian dictatorship of bunch Lenin nerds.
I appreciate your need to take every oppurtunity to throw some insult at the Leninists, but it really is uncalled for, why would you call us nerds when instead you could join your anarchist Comrades in pointing out the millions we have killed?

[Искра]

I assume you mean the countless Marxist-Leninist parties who have successfully liberated nations from the grips of capitalism?
Isn't Marxism about class not about nation?!
Or I have been reading wrong books about Marxism. I guess that this is the case. I should read Lenin, Stalin and Mao instead of Marx.

Also I see how successfully was that. I'm part of one happy liberated nation.

[bcbm]

glad to see this thread so quickly proving my point.

[scarletghoul]

I think it's a bit of a dumb group. Whoo, let's have a picture of Pol Pot (LOL edgy!) and call people liberals when they aren't!

The only thing they're right about is that there are manifestations of liberalism from a lot of people, but that is for different reasons than they claim. It's not that they are necessarily liberals who have studied liberalism and exercise it (otherwise, they would be restricted), but it's that they sometimes argue from liberal assumptions that are the norm in most western societies (individual freedom being the most important political goal for all humanity, for instance). Hardly a fucking crime, is it! It should be pointed out, but a lot of people do this in a kind of dumb way.

I think most people in that group have good intentions, but the ones who make most of the posts in it are more interested in trolling. These people would probably scream bloody murder if someone started a "Combat Authoritarianism" group or gave them a negative rep point. That's why I didn't join the group.
Yes, the point is to combat these manifestions of liberal ideology, not to label everyone Liberal and be hatin on them. That's why its combat Liberalism and not combat Liberals.

And I already get a ton of neg-rep >_>

As an aside I do personally think that individual freedom for everyone should be the final goal of human progess (higher stage of communism), it's just it has to be arrived at through collective emancipation and stuff.


odd that there are anarchists in a group that is consciously hostile to anarchists and considers them liberals, as evidenced by the group pictures and a number of the posts within said group. mayhaps they misunderstood the title?
We're not hostile to Anarchists, or Anarchism itself (well some may be but I'm not. I have a lot of sympathy with anarchism and the group was certainly not intended to be anti-Anarchist). What we reject is when Anarchists are essentially talking liberal lines and calling it Anarchist. Many Leninists, Left-commies, etc also have some liberal views.


It is a stupid group although I am a member. It's just like a fucking witchhunt. Somehow people are getting the idea that I should be purged because I'm a "liberal". Besides, that group seems to just be tearing revleft apart even more. It's since the creation of that group that the word "liberal" started being thrown around even more.
I know you're not a liberal INH. And I don't like people using that word as an insult, because it insults the whole person rather than whatever liberal positions they have, which doesn't help at all. The reason you're no longer a member of this group is because you don't seem to understand what it is about and you are openly saying that it is stupid.

So if I am reading all of these posts correctly, there are Marxists that accuse other Marxists of being "liberal"? :closedeyes:
Nonono. It's not about uncovering closet liberals who mask themselves as socialists lol, its about combating liberalism, that is, liberal ideology, within the socialist movement (well, on revleft...).


Someone should create a group that's called something like 'Every Leftist Welcome' that excepts every single leftist; we need unity in our movement.

All of us, as thinking, at least half-intelligent people, are going to disagree on some issues. I think it's only when we put ourselves under specific banners or make a big point of adhering to a specific 'ism' or of liking a specific dead guy over another that debates like this start.

Call me a liberal, but can we all kiss and make up?
Haha, yeah there's a little too much hostility around between people. Again, the point of the group is to fight liberal ideology, not to label people as liberals as an insult.

[bcbm]

We're not hostile to Anarchists, or Anarchism itself (well some may be but I'm not.

might wanna get rid of the "anarchism sounds cooler than liberalism" over a picture of clinton then.

[scarletghoul]

actually i think a bigger threat is that the left as a whole is an irrelevant political force in most of the countries users here represent, perhaps because we all spend more time blabbing at each other over the correct line on "socialist" states and fretting if there is liberalism/authoritarianism/sassmouth instead of engaging in struggles relevant to the lives of working people in our workplaces and schools and communities and turning our class into a fighting force capable of bringing down the ruling class. but maybe that's just me.
Oh definately the left needs to be more involved with real issues that people care about, and not having so much useless theoretical debate. I made a huge essay-like post on that a while ago, it's the most important thing. However liberal ideology actually plays a pretty big part in that. People hatin on eachother for their opinions on some historic individual, rather than their actual political line etc. Some self-criticism is necessary for the leftist movement to really find itself and become a good poilitical force. But I do agree our priority at this point should be to make our movement relevent to the working class and not to be squabbling over these differances. CL wasn't supposed to be the center of the world

[scarletghoul]

might wanna get rid of the "anarchism sounds cooler than liberalism" over a picture of clinton then.
No its a cool pic. It's aimed at those particular selfdescribed anarchists who spout liberal lines under the glorious red n black banner

[Nwoye]

I think the sentiment behind the CL group is a valid one, although the ways in which it was carried out was certainly immature and childish (and therefore ineffective). I mean, a picture of Pol Pot... really? But anyway, the existence of liberal influences on various socialist ideologies is certainly present, and is something all socialists should search out and eradicate.

Now when I say liberal I don't mean the conventional understanding of american social liberalism (welfare state). I mean a political programme based off of assumptions or fundamental beliefs which are a product of the socio-historical circumstances of the bourgeois epoch. Certain understandings of human nature, justice, equality, freedom, etc etc, which are proposed by certain members of the left to justify socialism or communism are in every way products of bourgeois society, and therefore shouldn't be put forth to describe a future society which will by definition overthrow this bourgeois order, and all of the ideological baggage that goes along with it. They're liberal in the sense that they base their beliefs on the same assumptions which liberals do (human nature, metaphysical abstractions concerning justice, universals, etc), although they may better be described as bourgeois.

So what I'm saying here is that when we seek to "combat liberalism" we should seek to combat all of the ways in which one would try to justify communism within the ideological or epistemological constrains of bourgeois society (liberalism). We can't justify communism based on the values of capitalism - the very nature of our fight is to transcend these values. For an analogy, take the debate over homosexuality. For centuries homosexuality was declared unacceptable behavior because it was "unnatural". In modern times people have made the argument that homosexuality is in fact natural, and that it is therefore acceptable. But that's misguided - their job in defending homosexuality shouldn't be to justify within the existing order of sexual discourse, it should be to point out why these existing discourses are not objectively true or absolute, and why they are a product of certain power relations within a given society. Hell the concept of "sexuality" in general is a product of our historical period, not a universal absolute.

So the concept of combating liberalism is a valid one. However, another major problem for me is the (gargantuan) step people seem to take from rejecting liberalism --> thinking stalin and mao were cool guys. that's what i really don't get about this group.

i mean pol pot. wtf

[scarletghoul]

Yeah that's what the group is all about, good to have you on board. There is now a discussion about our approach in there, and there is an old discussion too about the image if you're interested.

[Jethro Tull]

But if this is true then that must me all others who us the word are Stalinists.

I was not arguing that anyone who used the word "liberal" was a Stalinist. I was arguing that the small cadre of Stalinists who frequently troll RevLeft enjoy mindlessly slandering all other inhabitants of the nebulous political umbrella that is the "radical left" as "liberals" over any ideological difference, and are thus particiating in immature ad hominem ducktalk which cheapens the meaning of the word "liberal", which actually has legitimate uses.


Meaning the supportion of these said movements is 'liberal' in sense for what do these movements fight for? a Fudeal Tibet

A) The fuedal reactionaries in Tibet (the Gelug-pa, Dorje Shugden, et. al) overwhelmingly support the PRC.
B) As an anarchist, what I fight for is an anarchist Tibet, free from the colonialism of Han imperialist capitalism, and from any hypothetical neo-colonial capitalist regimes in Tibet supported or propped up by the western imperialist bloc. I'm sure many Tibetan anarchists would agree with me.
C) Calling someone who you percieve as supporting fuedalism a "liberal" makes no sense, since it was the liberals who helped vanquish fuedalism. Hence my point, you're not using the word "liberal" correctly.


the 'lesser evils' debate is too flawed in its own existence.

Agreed. Hence why I support neither fuedal reactionism nor technocratic socialist imperialism.


the Tibetan movement and the Hamas movement there are differences that must be made.

There is no unversal, homogenous "Tibetan movement" - if there was, comparing it to Hamas, a single specific organization, would be moronic.


Unlike Tibet which from liberated from British influence and Fudeal influence by the Maoists

I believe only a third of Tibet was controlled by fuedal lords at the time of Chinese invasion, the rest was primitive communist.

Arguably the Japanese imperialists were also trying to "liberate" India from "British influence", or Indochina from French influence, etc. However, this is irrelevant since they were equally as genocidal and colonialist.


the Tibet liberation movement fights for a fudeal tibet since headed by the Dalai lama.

If you actually researched the subject you would learn that the Dalai Lama was originally a Marxist-Leninist bureaucrat who supported the imperialist "Communist" party pigs. He still drones on about the wonderful technological advances made by Chinese colonial occupation in Tibet. Hardly an advocate of "fuedalism"...


Being the king of the 'old tibet'

That's not how Tibetan fuedalism works. It's fun to do research before you spout off your mouth.

[black magick hustla]

stalinists are liberals actually. they all get absorbed in the talk of liberal parliamentarism, "the struggle of democracy vs totalitarianism" like anti-fascism, use enlightment language and engage in vulgar scientism. for more about this see:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm

stalinists think that macho posturing and filling the streets of hungary with blood makes you "anti-liberal". on the contrary, liberals are very good at that

[bailey_187]

It is a stupid group although I am a member. It's just like a fucking witchhunt. Somehow people are getting the idea that I should be purged because I'm a "liberal". Besides, that group seems to just be tearing revleft apart even more. It's since the creation of that group that the word "liberal" started being thrown around even more.


We have uncovered the head of a Trotskyist-Rightist Bloc. A number of other members are under investigation and will be contacted in due course.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Yeah that's what the group is all about, good to have you on board. There is now a discussion about our approach in there, and there is an old discussion too about the image if you're interested.

Yes I agree with the idea, that is why I joined, but it seems in practice it has become a Leninist dominated group to ridicule Anarchists and our ideology.

[Luisrah]

Yes I agree with the idea, that is why I joined, but it seems in practice it has become a Leninist dominated group to ridicule Anarchists and our ideology.

Then let us discuss it in the group.
Let's put limits before hitting stupidity.

[LOLseph Stalin]

We have uncovered the head of a Trotskyist-Rightist Bloc. A number of other members are under investigation and will be contacted in due course.

I'm not Trotskyist though so...fail? :p

[Labor Shall Rule]

No, you are all wrong, Combat Liberalism was an attempt to understand liberal political behavior and politics, and it's role that it played in the line struggle within Mao's party. It's not a treatise about what "authoritarians" think about all ideological disobedience to directives from the top, but on a real social and political question of what liberalism was and how it would manifest itself in personified forms.

But in a way, it has contemporary relevance in that liberals and liberalism still exist, and that it refers to anyone that might ideologically associate themselves with progressive policies and values, but that lack an analysis of capitalism, gender, national, and race oppression, of imperialism, and whatnot. It gives them a subjective, superficial method at looking at society, and it makes them appease oppressors at times when the masses need revolutionary leadership.

If anything, this forum is full of liberalism. It's not hard to notice that most people here are new to revolutionary theory. You shouldn't be "purged" for simply having those ideas, but you should be struggled with and encouraged to take the right path. And I know a lot of anarchists and Trotskyists won't believe it, but Mao emphasized those non-violent methods of criticism within the party.


...people’s heads are not like leeks. When you cut them off, they will not grow again. If you cut off a head wrongly, there is no way of rectifying the mistake even if you want to.

[Spawn of Stalin]

When I cut the head off a leek, I intend to eat it.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I assume you mean the countless Marxist-Leninist parties who have successfully liberated nations from the grips of capitalism?
Show me a "nation" where there's no capitalism, and I'll accept your claim. (Hint: there isn't one).

I appreciate your need to take every oppurtunity to throw some insult at the Leninists, but it really is uncalled for, why would you call us nerds when instead you could join your anarchist Comrades in pointing out the millions we have killed?
Because you haven't killed anyone. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the rest of the reactionary goons you idolise killed millions, sure, but I don't think any of them post on here. No matter what you may aspire to be, you and your "anti-liberal" buddies are essentially impotent and barely able to repress a fly, so calling you nerds is a much more accurate characterisation.

[Spawn of Stalin]

That's good to know, we nerds have no desire to oppress people, but recently I've been very confused, am I a potential killer? You don't think I've got what it takes, so thanks for reassuring me. One question though, why the quotes around the word nation? I understand you're an anarchist and likely a fool, but are you really denying the existence of nations? I assure you there are a few.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I understand you're an anarchist and likely a fool, but are you really denying the existence of nations? I assure you there are a few.
Sorry, it would've been more appropriate for the quote marks to go around "a nation where there's no capitalism". I'm aware that the bourgeoisie finds nation-states to be a convenient administrative unit, but I don't think that a socialist nation can exist, since I subscribe to a notion called "internationalism" that suggests that "the working class has no country". This dead German guy with a beard came up with it, you should try finding out about it sometime.

[Luisrah]

Sorry, it would've been more appropriate for the quote marks to go around "a nation where there's no capitalism". I'm aware that the bourgeoisie finds nation-states to be a convenient administrative unit, but I don't think that a socialist nation can exist, since I subscribe to a notion called "internationalism" that suggests that "the working class has no country". This dead German guy with a beard came up with it, you should try finding out about it sometime.

So what do you suggest as a turn of events?

Should we wait for a global revolution?
Should we hope that the reactionaires and counter-revolutionaires simply say ''oh well, eventhough we have the technology and weapons, we're going to let our biggest enemies rule the world'' and stand down, accepting socialism?

If so, how long should we wait?
No wonder how all the capitalists say that communism is utopian and that it's impossible to reach it.

[A.R.Amistad]

Must be why Trotskyists are in the 'combating liberalism' group for Trotsky was authoriatarian too.http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

Just because you recognize the importance of the State as a proletarian tool to lead to communism doesn't make you "authoritarian" unless you are an ultraleftist.

[Искра]

This thread should be trashed :rolleyes:

[Sam_b]

I'm not Trotskyist though so...fail

I still assumed you were a supporter of the IMT.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I still assumed you were a supporter of the IMT.

No.

[ls]

Occasionally it's used properly, most of the time it's just an insult. This thread oughta be trashed.

[Andropov]

Combating Liberalism from my interpretation is directed at the trendys on this forum.
By that I mean those sympathising with Liberal sentimentality.
The likes of "free speech", "free drugs" etc etc.
The reason why I abhore trendy left liberalism is because it is just pure fantacism that refuses to analyse the material context with a material marxist persective.
It neglects to analyse the whole context and applys blanket liberal hogwash romantacism to a material context where such sensibilities must be put aside for the greater good of the people, ie for the improvement of the material context.

Also one must also understand the very basics of Marxism.
Marx recognised what defines man, is mans relation to man, how social relations define the human.
And thus since man is a social creature then in certain circumstances individual libertys (liberalisms golden calf), must be set aside for the improvement of the material context of man.
Hence why under Joseph Stalin there was the greatest cultural and technological leap of any people in history. Yes at the expense of certain "individaul libertys", but for the advancement of the material context of the Soviet Citizen.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/personoftheyear/archive/photohistory/images/stalin.jpg

[black magick hustla]

i am silly


blah blah blah blah i am a big fant grump blah blah blah. why don't you and your liberal skullowag friends actually reply to my criticism, which was p. legit.

[Andropov]

blah blah blah blah i am a big fant grump blah blah blah. why don't you and your liberal skullowag friends actually reply to my criticism, which was p. legit.
http://filipinometal.com/fuckyou/middle-finger.jpg

[RHIZOMES]

Technically, a liberal is someone who support bourgeois democracy, private property, and constitutionally limited government--in other words, an ideological supporter of capitalism as it exists in America. I don't think that's what the group name is referring to, though.

That's the definition I had as a basis of joining the group. Even though that's an actual well-thought out liberal, there are a lot of people who take liberal as opposed to revolutionary opinions on things while confusingly labelling themselves communists and this isn't so much being against "authoritarian" leaders but just a general liberal outlook which may or may not include that.

[Nwoye]

blah blah blah nonsense blah blah blah
thank you for demonstrating exactly what the CL needs to avoid.

[ZeroNowhere]

No wonder how all the capitalists say that communism is utopian and that it's impossible to reach it.
I'm fairly sure that when they do that, they're generally pointing to the USSR, and aren't even aware of viewpoints such as the one you responded to.

[Luisrah]

I'm fairly sure that when they do that, they're generally pointing to the USSR, and aren't even aware of viewpoints such as the one you responded to.

I knew you'd say that.
But I also know you know that if all of us had our minds on Earth there'd be a few millions less of people saying that.

[Durruti's Ghost]

I'm fairly sure that when they do that, they're generally pointing to the USSR, and aren't even aware of viewpoints such as the one you responded to.

To be fair, I think that most people are vaguely aware that there are at least two distinct forms of communism. The charge of "utopian" is typically brought against our form (if I may place DeLeonism within the broad category of libertarian socialism, along with left-communism and anarchism). When people criticize the USSR, it's for being authoritarian, not utopian.


Even though that's an actual well-thought out liberal, there are a lot of people who take liberal as opposed to revolutionary opinions on things while confusingly labelling themselves communists and this isn't so much being against "authoritarian" leaders but just a general liberal outlook which may or may not include that.

Case in point: the CPUSA. :lol:

[Lyev]

Combating Liberalism from my interpretation is directed at the trendys on this forum.
By that I mean those sympathising with Liberal sentimentality.
The likes of "free speech", "free drugs" etc etc.
The reason why I abhore trendy left liberalism is because it is just pure fantacism that refuses to analyse the material context with a material marxist persective.
It neglects to analyse the whole context and applys blanket liberal hogwash romantacism to a material context where such sensibilities must be put aside for the greater good of the people, ie for the improvement of the material context.

Also one must also understand the very basics of Marxism.
Marx recognised what defines man, is mans relation to man, how social relations define the human.
And thus since man is a social creature then in certain circumstances individual libertys (liberalisms golden calf), must be set aside for the improvement of the material context of man.
Hence why under Joseph Stalin there was the greatest cultural and technological leap of any people in history. Yes at the expense of certain "individaul libertys", but for the advancement of the material context of the Soviet Citizen.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/personoftheyear/archive/photohistory/images/stalin.jpg

Could a Marxist-Leninist please explain to me, especially the part in bold, what's the point of 'improvement of the material context of man' and 'advancement of the material context of the Soviet Union' if not for the people living inside the the Soviet Union? What's the point in furthering the development of the Soviet Union if it's 'at the expense individaul libertys (sic)'? Surely the only reason for improving the standard of living in a country is for the people living in the country itself, so surely there's a blatant contradiction there when improvement for the people means compromising the people, right?

[Luisrah]

Could a Marxist-Leninist please explain to me, especially the part in bold, what's the point of 'improvement of the material context of man' and 'advancement of the material context of the Soviet Union' if not for the people living inside the the Soviet Union? What's the point in furthering the development of the Soviet Union if it's 'at the expense individaul libertys (sic)'? Surely the only reason for improving the standard of living in a country is for the people living in the country itself, so surely there's a blatant contradiction there when improvement for the people means compromising the people, right?

What do you mean?
One thing is the people, another thing is a few individuals that are reactionaires and counter-revolutionaires.

I don't know if the people killed under Stalin were guilty of treason, plotting and whatever.
But it's fact that the killing of those prestiged people, or reactionaires or whatever, those people in suits, stopped the hunger and horrible living conditions of millions of people.
I'm not defending that people need or needed to be killed, but if killing a thousand conscient capitalists (those that are greedy, and know they could end poverty) (that are trying to remove a communist/socialist party from power), would stop the 10 million deaths of hunger every year, would you stand idle and leave it that way?

From what I heard and read, there were no peasants or workers being killed. There were men in ''suit and tie'' that had luxuries and whatsoever.
The people, what constitutes the mass of the world population, were getting much better and humane living conditions.

[Lyev]

What do you mean?
One thing is the people, another thing is a few individuals that are reactionaires and counter-revolutionaires.

I don't know if the people killed under Stalin were guilty of treason, plotting and whatever.
But it's fact that the killing of those prestiged people, or reactionaires or whatever, those people in suits, stopped the hunger and horrible living conditions of millions of people.
I'm not defending that people need or needed to be killed, but if killing a thousand conscient capitalists (those that are greedy, and know they could end poverty) (that are trying to remove a communist/socialist party from power), would stop the 10 million deaths of hunger every year, would you stand idle and leave it that way?

From what I heard and read, there were no peasants or workers being killed. There were men in ''suit and tie'' that had luxuries and whatsoever.
The people, what constitutes the mass of the world population, were getting much better and humane living conditions.

Well for one thing 'individuals' make up 'the people' and the second thing is, because Stalin scrawled the hammer and sickle and pictures of Marx-Engels-Lenin everywhere then he can easily justify accusations of 'reactionaires and counter-revolutionaires (sic)' because he's already told everyone, and seemingly convinced them, that he's the 'Great Architect of Communism'. So it's irrelevant whether these people are true counter-revolutionaries or not because Stalin (who's already put himself in the position of an absolute true communist) has accused them, so they must be. Anyway, one of the most famous victims of Stalin was Trotsky, who was obviously not a reactionary or counter-revolutionary.

[Luisrah]

Well for one thing 'individuals' make up 'the people' and the second thing is, because Stalin scrawled the hammer and sickle and pictures of Marx-Engels-Lenin everywhere then he can easily justify accusations of 'reactionaires and counter-revolutionaires (sic)' because he's already told everyone, and seemingly convinced them, that he's the 'Great Architect of Communism'. So it's irrelevant whether these people are true counter-revolutionaries or not because Stalin (who's already put himself in the position of an absolute true communist) has accused them, so they must be. Anyway, one of the most famous victims of Stalin was Trotsky, who was obviously not a reactionary or counter-revolutionary.

I mentioned a few individuals. A few individuals certainly don't make up the people. And most certainly not a few individuals that belong to the smallest classes that represent a tiny percentage of the whole population.

And since you skipped answering my hypothesis, I'll skip responding to the rest of your arguments since frankly, it is arguable if Stalin did or did not like the personality cult built around him, it's arguable if it wasn't other members in the party who ''found out and executed'' these reactionaires and counter revolutionaires and Stalin actually didn't believe that they were all what they were accused to be. Such as it is arguable that Stalin killed 40 million people in gulags, it is arguable that Trotsky didn't also want to kill Stalin to get all the power to himself.

[Catbus]

it is arguable that Trotsky didn't also want to kill Stalin to get all the power to himself.

Source?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

What do you mean?
One thing is the people, another thing is a few individuals that are reactionaires and counter-revolutionaires.

I don't know if the people killed under Stalin were guilty of treason, plotting and whatever.
But it's fact that the killing of those prestiged people, or reactionaires or whatever, those people in suits, stopped the hunger and horrible living conditions of millions of people.
I'm not defending that people need or needed to be killed, but if killing a thousand conscient capitalists (those that are greedy, and know they could end poverty) (that are trying to remove a communist/socialist party from power), would stop the 10 million deaths of hunger every year, would you stand idle and leave it that way?

From what I heard and read, there were no peasants or workers being killed. There were men in ''suit and tie'' that had luxuries and whatsoever.
The people, what constitutes the mass of the world population, were getting much better and humane living conditions.

If the Soviet Union was actually trying to move towards a communist society then what was the need to kill rich people?

[Glenn Beck]

http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm

Just read the fucking thing, it's short.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm

Just read the fucking thing, it's short.

I would agree with most of that. My problem lies with a certain tendency of a small group of Leninists here on Revleft to just go about labelling Anarchists as liberals due to organisational differences. Therefore I feel the need to defend my ideology against stupid attacks. There is nothing in the Anarchist tradition or ideology of Anarchism which constitutes Liberalism and it really annoys me.

[Glenn Beck]

I would agree with most of that. My problem lies with a certain tendency of a small group of Leninists here on Revleft to just go about labelling Anarchists as liberals due to organisational differences. Therefore I feel the need to defend my ideology against stupid attacks. There is nothing in the Anarchist tradition or ideology of Anarchism which constitutes Liberalism and it really annoys me.

I'm not impressed by your crocodile tears. I doubt you feel any hesitation to call Marxism-Leninism a reactionary, violent and oppressive anti-worker deviation. Take as well as you give.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I'm not impressed by your crocodile tears. I doubt you feel any hesitation to call Marxism-Leninism a reactionary, violent and oppressive anti-worker deviation. Take as well as you give.

No I have respect for many of the Leninists on here despite our clear differences of opinion on the Soviet Union and organisation in general but I consider them revolutionaries. However there is a minority of intolerable anti-working class, stalin apologists who will denounce anyone who has said a bad word against the Soviet Union as Anarchist liberals, these people make me react in such a manner, but I never go out to attack Leninists, I act in reaction to their outrageous comments.

[RHIZOMES]

What do you mean?
One thing is the people, another thing is a few individuals that are reactionaires and counter-revolutionaires.

I don't know if the people killed under Stalin were guilty of treason, plotting and whatever.
But it's fact that the killing of those prestiged people, or reactionaires or whatever, those people in suits, stopped the hunger and horrible living conditions of millions of people.
I'm not defending that people need or needed to be killed, but if killing a thousand conscient capitalists (those that are greedy, and know they could end poverty) (that are trying to remove a communist/socialist party from power), would stop the 10 million deaths of hunger every year, would you stand idle and leave it that way?

From what I heard and read, there were no peasants or workers being killed. There were men in ''suit and tie'' that had luxuries and whatsoever.
The people, what constitutes the mass of the world population, were getting much better and humane living conditions.

I don't really disagree with any of that in principle, but I still don't get the whole killing off such a huge percentage of the old Bolsheviks. I find it hard to believe THAT MANY old Bolsheviks were guilty of all those treasons that the Soviet state claimed.

[Luisrah]

I don't really disagree with any of that in principle, but I still don't get the whole killing off such a huge percentage of the old Bolsheviks. I find it hard to believe THAT MANY old Bolsheviks were guilty of all those treasons that the Soviet state claimed.

Well, I'm not too experienced in remembering where there was source to my claims, but I remember an article or something in which Stalin recieved a report of party members that were executed, accused of treason and whatsoever, and he said ''This can't all be reactionaires and counter-revolutionaires''.

Obviously there were bad things going on. Obviously there was corruption or personal interests involved, but I'm trying to make people stop saying ''Stalin was a dictator that killed even his own, that wanted absolute power and bla bla''. This isn't any better than ignorants out there that claim he was equal/worse than the Nazis and Hitler, and that Communism and Fascism are cousins.

There's nothing I appreciate more than truth and justice. We have to be able to tell the bad and the good things. I know that there were bad things. Though you can't blame it all on Stalin, since he was one man that didn't concentrate power, you can blame the party at that moment for those things.

But it's your turn (read: you that call him a demon, and that his rule was of terror) to accept that in between all his ''terror'', the common man wasn't being pursued nor killed, he was coming out of poverty and starvation to a life with humane conditions, and this, in around 10 years.

[RHIZOMES]

Well, I'm not too experienced in remembering where there was source to my claims, but I remember an article or something in which Stalin recieved a report of party members that were executed, accused of treason and whatsoever, and he said ''This can't all be reactionaires and counter-revolutionaires''.

Obviously there were bad things going on. Obviously there was corruption or personal interests involved, but I'm trying to make people stop saying ''Stalin was a dictator that killed even his own, that wanted absolute power and bla bla''. This isn't any better than ignorants out there that claim he was equal/worse than the Nazis and Hitler, and that Communism and Fascism are cousins.

There's nothing I appreciate more than truth and justice. We have to be able to tell the bad and the good things. I know that there were bad things. Though you can't blame it all on Stalin, since he was one man that didn't concentrate power, you can blame the party at that moment for those things.

But it's your turn (read: you that call him a demon, and that his rule was of terror) to accept that in between all his ''terror'', the common man wasn't being pursued nor killed, he was coming out of poverty and starvation to a life with humane conditions, and this, in around 10 years.

Cheers for that. And no I'm not about to call him a demonic evil dictator, I like a bit more subtlety in historical analysis. The Trotsky vs. Stalin is probably one of the most difficult lines I've had in developing. While I consider myself a Marxist-Leninist, I'm not really a Trot or an anti-revisionist specifically. I think the majority of the practitioners for both are too extreme, in the Trotskyist case this is an extreme opposition (RARA STALIN WAS EVIL NOT A WORKERS STATE AT ALL RARARA) and in anti-revisionists case it's blind support (All praise to the USSR a perfect worker's paradise Stalin was the most perfect being to ever live check out my cool Red Alert 2 avatar).

Both seem to rely way to on this "Great Man" conception of history and are way too insular in terms of the source texts they use to justify their position, again with a lot of Trotskyists it's this reliance way too much on Trotsky's analysis alone (when there is the possibility of self-interest, since he was after all exiled from the fucking country) and subsequently interpreting all facts/figures through his rose-tinted glasses without looking at alternative points of view. With many anti-revisionists it tends to be the same application but to a different source, i.e. believing whatever the official state sources say about their country, when again there is the possibility of self-interest.

It annoys me that to some comrades (Such as the HU, who have denounced me as a "Trot") think that you must EITHER be in one of these two camps. A third position needs to be taken, stripping away all this bullshit allegiance to specific symbolic leaders, and neutrally (and in neutral I mean from a Leninist POV) look at all the sources available and methodologically sort out the various contradictions between the various sources. Because really all I see in the various Trotsky vs. Stalin arguments is people mainly using opposing sources that don't really seem to disprove each other as much as negate each other, confusing the shit out of everyone.

[Andropov]

Well for one thing 'individuals' make up 'the people'.
Case and point ladies and gents.
This is Liberalism, this is even a Liberal arguement from the Capitalist Neo-Liberal perspective.
Shows a complete lack of Marxist thought.
What Marx defines humanity as is our social aspect, as in our social relations is what defines us as humans.
We are not merely individuals comprising a society.

[Lyev]

Case and point ladies and gents.
This is Liberalism, this is even a Liberal arguement from the Capitalist Neo-Liberal perspective.
Shows a complete lack of Marxist thought.
What Marx defines humanity as is our social aspect, as in our social relations is what defines us as humans.
We are not merely individuals comprising a society.

I want to understand, when we talk about individuals in the same context as 'the masses' are they 2 separate things? 'We are not merely individuals comprising a society.' But how can you have society without individuals?

Edit: I think I understand now, but there was no need to call me a capitalist and announce me to the 'ladies and gents'. Individual counter-revolutionaries are not 'the people' and do not make up 'the people'. 0.001% of the population is practically non-existent next to the other 9.99%. And obviously, Marxism is a movement for the masses, not the 0.001%: 'The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority.' However, I will say that think that some people under Mao's and Stalin's regimes were wrongly accused of revisionism and of being counter-revolutionaries and sometimes people were unnecessarily killed. It's quite dangerous for people in certain professions because all that needs happen is they get a finger pointed at them and they're dead.

[Andropov]

I want to understand, when we talk about individuals in the same context as 'the masses' are they 2 separate things? 'We are not merely individuals comprising a society.' But how can you have society without individuals?
I dont understand your question.
I see no problem with a society existing without the shackles of "individuality".
Such Liberalism rots at the core of a society and has no place in Communism.

[Pogue]

Combat Liberalism has been locked in eternal conflict with Combat State Capitalism since the beginning of time.

[Zanthorus]

I dont understand your question.
I see no problem with a society existing without the shackles of "individuality".
Such Liberalism rots at the core of a society and has no place in Communism.

The point is that the core of society is individuals. When we examine 'society' we examine the interaction of individuals and the effects that that has on those particular individuals. Not to mention talk of rotting at the core of society reeks of moralism (Which is a key aspect of 'liberalism' as vulgar marxists define it).

[Andropov]

The point is that the core of society is individuals. When we examine 'society' we examine the interaction of individuals and the effects that that has on those particular individuals.
In your perspective.
In Marx's perspective humanity is defined by our interactions within society.
An individual does not exist per se, it is that we are all conncected, humans are not islands.

Not to mention talk of rotting at the core of society reeks of moralism (Which is a key aspect of 'liberalism' as vulgar marxists define it).
Please do detail how rotting at the core of society reeks moralism.
I am intrigued.

[Andropov]

Edit: I think I understand now, but there was no need to call me a capitalist and announce me to the 'ladies and gents'. Individual counter-revolutionaries are not 'the people' and do not make up 'the people'. 0.001% of the population is practically non-existent next to the other 9.99%. And obviously, Marxism is a movement for the masses, not the 0.001%: 'The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority.' However, I will say that think that some people under Mao's and Stalin's regimes were wrongly accused of revisionism and of being counter-revolutionaries and sometimes people were unnecessarily killed. It's quite dangerous for people in certain professions because all that needs happen is they get a finger pointed at them and they're dead.
Now we are talking comrade.
BTW my condescending style to arguements I object to is not merely refined to you, its a daily reality on revleft, so dont take any heed of it.
And yes of course it would be ludacrious to suggest that NO innocents were killed in the purges.
But unfortunately the dawning of a new epoch will not be a tea party, and it will be unforgiving if it is to survive the inevitable onslaught of reactionarys.

[RHIZOMES]

Combat Liberalism has been locked in eternal conflict with Combat State Capitalism since the beginning of time.

Once again Pogue makes a shining contribution.

[Comrade Gwydion]

That's good to know, we nerds have no desire to oppress people, but recently I've been very confused, am I a potential killer? You don't think I've got what it takes, so thanks for reassuring me. One question though, why the quotes around the word nation? I understand you're an anarchist and likely a fool, but are you really denying the existence of nations? I assure you there are a few.

Actually, I do deny the existence of nations. A nation is not the same as a state: A nation is community of people who are bound by culture, language, religion or blood, and thus are the correct community to form a state. Simply the fact that these 'nations' can be created (Norway, Germany) and destroyed (Ottoman nation) seems to me a sign of the ridicule of such a concept. States are political boundries, often (at least in Europe) designed to fit along lines of 'nation' or 'ethnecity'.
States, obviously, do excist. Their legitimicy is debatable.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Actually it's a rather subjective issue, and not really one which is worth debating. Perhaps read The National Question and Social-Democracy by Otto Bauer, there is also Marxism and the National Question by Stalin, and Austro-Marxism and the National Question by Andrés Nin.

[scarletghoul]

The existence of nations is a pretty interesting debate IMO, as it has huge significance on how we see (and implement) the world revolution. I personally think that nations don't seem to exist anymore, at least not in the same form they used to have. With globalisation and Capitalist/American imperialism covering the whole world, there's been huge integration of economies ("the global village"), as well as some cultural integration and to a lesser extent language. In other words nations can not be easily distinguished by the characteristics that traditionally define nations (including Stalin's definition in Marxism and the National Question.. It's more like a set of communities.

[Andropov]

Simply the fact that these 'nations' can be created (Norway, Germany) and destroyed (Ottoman nation) seems to me a sign of the ridicule of such a concept.
I think you will find that the Ottoman Empire would not be defined as a nation in the traditional perspective.
Ill give you a hint, the clue is in its name, ie The Ottoman Empire.

[Andropov]

The existence of nations is a pretty interesting debate IMO, as it has huge significance on how we see (and implement) the world revolution. I personally think that nations don't seem to exist anymore, at least not in the same form they used to have. With globalisation and Capitalist/American imperialism covering the whole world, there's been huge integration of economies ("the global village"), as well as some cultural integration and to a lesser extent language. In other words nations can not be easily distinguished by the characteristics that traditionally define nations (including Stalin's definition in Marxism and the National Question.. It's more like a set of communities.
Very true an interesting debate indeed.
But I think you misjudge the power that national consciousness has on the working class.
Even Stalin concluded that eliminating petty-bourgeois mentality within the USSR was not nearly as difficult as eliminating the many forms of Nationalism of its vast population.
Nationalism is one of the most enduring elements of peoples consciousness hence why it is constantly drawed upon by the bourgeois to the benefit of Capitalism.
Obviously certain aspects of the traditional outlook on Nationalism has mutated along with the development of Capitalism but in reality Nationalism is still a potent force within the consciousness of people.

[Pogue]

Once again Pogue makes a shining contribution.

Once again an internet actvist gets upset about something that happens over the internet.

[Zanthorus]

In your perspective.
In Marx's perspective humanity is defined by our interactions within society.
An individual does not exist per se, it is that we are all conncected, humans are not islands.

So? You've missed the point, yes society is a composite of interactions between individuals. We are influenced by our interactions with others in society however that doesn't make us part of some borg collective.


Please do detail how rotting at the core of society reeks moralism.
I am intrigued.

It's the same sort of thing you tend to hear from christians about 'Oh noez teh sexorz is teh evilz rotting away at christian society'. Only substitute sex for individualism and christian for Marxist-Leninist.

[Nwoye]

I've always hated sectarianism but I'm starting to get why people don't like anarchists.

[Andropov]

So? You've missed the point, yes society is a composite of interactions between individuals. We are influenced by our interactions with others in society however that doesn't make us part of some borg collective.
Not at all.
You dont seem to know of Marx's early humanist works from which the core point that man is defined by his interactions with man, not by his "individuality".
I suggest you read these early works because your not grasping the crux of the arguement.

It's the same sort of thing you tend to hear from christians about 'Oh noez teh sexorz is teh evilz rotting away at christian society'. Only substitute sex for individualism and christian for Marxist-Leninist.
Irrelevant subjective interpretation of my post in a rational debate.

[RHIZOMES]

Once again an internet actvist gets upset about something that happens over the internet.

Once again Pogue sets out some delicious trollbait.

Also, I find it just slightly condescending that I'm now an "internet activist" (despite the fact you know fuck-all about me IRL) because I object to your constant trollish and increasingly irrelevant one-liners, especially since I've pretty much busted my ass all year attempting to set up a leftist campus society at my University, making posters, organizing meetings, talking to people at stalls, collecting signatures for a rather significant union campaign, pretty much tripling the amount stress I get from being a Uni student. So yeah you can fuck off.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I've always hated sectarianism but I'm starting to get why people don't like anarchists.

But you must understand the antagonism has not been started by Anarchists, this whole thread is based on the notion that Anarchism is a liberal ideology and trying to tarnish our ideology. And that is particularly upsetting.

[Искра]

This threat is beyond idiotic.

[Luisrah]

This threat is beyond idiotic.

Then why post in it? Specially when it's something that doesn't contribute in any way to it.

[Искра]

Then why post in it? Specially when it's something that doesn't contribute in any way to it.
There's nothing good here to contribute. This is just another tendency war which purpose is endless discussion who's right.
We are concluded that Combat Liberalism is funny, childish group, so why further discuss who's more right and who's more liberal when you can't have any decent conclusion or make good discussion which could be useful to somebody.

[RHIZOMES]

We are concluded that Combat Liberalism is funny, childish group,

By "we" I think you mean "you".


so why further discuss who's more right and who's more liberal when you can't have any decent conclusion or make good discussion which could be useful to somebody.

Have you actually read this thread at all?

[Luisrah]

There's nothing good here to contribute. This is just another tendency war which purpose is endless discussion who's right.
We are concluded that Combat Liberalism is funny, childish group, so why further discuss who's more right and who's more liberal when you can't have any decent conclusion or make good discussion which could be useful to somebody.

That's your opinion.

Why? Because people like doing it.
If you don't, then don't click the quote nor the reply buttons.

Because in the middle of all discussion, when people prove arguments and bring up sources, and recomend reading things, people learn.
And this is the learning forum isn't it? Let me check it again.
Hm, yes it is.

[Andropov]

By "we" I think you mean "you".



Have you actually read this thread at all?
Arizona Bay WTF are you at?
Take that logic and leave.
This is a debate with Anarchists, your kind arent welcome here.

[bcbm]

But you must understand the antagonism has not been started by Anarchists, this whole thread is based on the notion that Anarchism is a liberal ideology and trying to tarnish our ideology. And that is particularly upsetting.

why? one group of dipshits slagging off another group of dipshits is pretty bread and butter for the left, especially when its over things nobody working for a wage and seeking to improve their condition actually gives a shit about.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

why? one group of dipshits slagging off another group of dipshits is pretty bread and butter for the left, especially when its over things nobody working for a wage and seeking to improve their condition actually gives a shit about.

Yes you're right. I really don't have a problem discussing with Leninists on organisation and looking to work with them as long as they respect me (as an Anarchist) as a person committed to class struggle.

[bcbm]

personally i think disrespect from a leninist would be the highest compliment an anarchist could hope to receive.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Combating Liberalism from my interpretation is directed at the trendys on this forum.
By that I mean those sympathising with Liberal sentimentality.
The likes of "free speech", "free drugs" etc etc.
How exactly does legalisation of drugs contradict Communist principles?


Also one must also understand the very basics of Marxism.
Marx recognised what defines man, is mans relation to man, how social relations define the human.
And thus since man is a social creature then in certain circumstances individual libertys (liberalisms golden calf), must be set aside for the improvement of the material context of man.
Hence why under Joseph Stalin there was the greatest cultural and technological leap of any people in history. Yes at the expense of certain "individaul libertys", but for the advancement of the material context of the Soviet Citizen.
As the famous liberal Brecht put it:

After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writer's Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

In your perspective.
In Marx's perspective humanity is defined by our interactions within society.
An individual does not exist per se, it is that we are all conncected, humans are not islands.
Surely a truly dialectical (not to mention, um, sane) approach would be to recognise that humans are defined by the interaction between individuals and society? From this standpoint, denying the importance of individuals is every bit as as deluded as denying the importance of society.

I've always hated sectarianism but I'm starting to get why people don't like anarchists.
It's pretty understandable. Back when I was a Leninist, having the contradictions in my ideology pointed out to me used to bother me a lot as well.

[Andropov]

How exactly does legalisation of drugs contradict Communist principles?
Remember when Marx wrote about Religion being the opium of the people?
I dont think Marx was exactly drawing a favourable comparison of Religion with a drug which neutralises and enslaves the working class.
The same goes for the likes of Heroin, Christal Meth etc etc.

As the famous liberal Brecht put it:
Could you expand on this point?


Surely a truly dialectical (not to mention, um, sane) approach would be to recognise that humans are defined by the interaction between individuals and society? From this standpoint, denying the importance of individuals is every bit as as deluded as denying the importance of society.
Not at all.
Individualism corrupts a society of its intinsic humanity.